(November 13, 2010 at 6:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Well Luke was written in the first century,
Before we go any further the evidence for that is, what?
Scholars generally date "Mark" to the late first century because of the burning of the temple and "Luke" comes after "Mark." Even this is dubious. "Jesus" in Mark 13 is alleged to say: "And Jesus answering said to him, See you these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone on another, that shall not be thrown down."
Yes. The temple was burned in 70 and much of the city destroyed. But the so-called "prophecy" did not come true until 135 when Hadrian actually leveled the site to build Aelia Capitolina. So we have the "prophecy" coming true 65 years later.... in the second century. The oldest fragment we have of any gospel is P52 and that is dated, by paleography alone, to Hadrianic times. Which brings us back to c 135.
I'm not aware of any recent scholarship dating the Gospel of Luke as late as 135 CE, since we have works dated earlier than that which cite the Gospel. In particular we have the Polycarp and Pseudo-Barnabas that both cite Luke fairly early in the second century (Pseudo-Barnabas is c.70-130, but almost no one dates it later than 110). We also have Luke quoted in the Didache, which is definitely written before the middle of the second century. Most scholars tend to agree that the Gospel can't be dated later than works that cite it and quote from it. In terms of modern scholarship I'm not aware of anyone that dates Luke in the second century, I just haven't seen a good case for it. Then again maybe there is a good case that has escaped my reading, where are you getting your dating of the Gospel from? I'd like to read it.
A pleasure as always!
