Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies!

[coffeeveritas]

I'm not aware of any recent scholarship dating the Gospel of Luke as late as 135 CE,

Don't confuse my musings with Ehrman. I'm well aware of the pious pronouncements but as I said above "Luke" is dated to 70 because of the sacking/burning of the temple. Scholars had a choice. They could look like fools and insist on "prophecy" OR they could look for a fall back position and cite the sack of Jerusalem for a convenient date.

All I am saying is this.

"Jesus" did not say the temple would be sacked and burned. He said ( allegedly ) that not one stone would be left standing on another. What is curious to me ( and perhaps not to you ) is that such a condition did happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the ruins and built a Roman ( i.e. pagan ) city on the rubble.

Now, as to the references,

The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71]

I realize the "traditionalist" crowd insists on the earliest possible date but Marcion ( again ) was c 140 and Marcion refered to it as "The Gospel of the Lord" not "Luke." That seems to have been a later invention. That mid-second century date seems to keep recurring and coincidences make me suspicious.

BTW, the quote above is from Wiki and refers to a 1990 book by Donald Guthrie called New Testament Introduction. Wiki is lousy but at least they give their sources.

Well I understand you're suggesting that the earlier manuscript we have is late 2nd century, and some scholars leave the latest possible date open to about the mid second century, and since the date is left open that late you would argue that it's possible the destruction of the temple referenced is its literal demolition in 135 CE. My point was that while that certainly is an interesting theory, I haven't seen it in a scholarly work, and it seems to be that you are claiming that idea as your own, which would explain it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. While your date is not impossible, since it is within the absolute limits imposed by some scholars, I believe one could argue the absolute latest date for Luke is about 110 CE, based on the fact that the Gospel is referenced in a document dated c. 110 CE (as early as c. 80 possible), which I already mentioned. Also keep in mind that the dates we are talking about are the absolute limits for the Gospel and there is every reason to believe the date isn't at that extreme of a margin. Dating the Gospel that late would also mean that you're putting Luke after John since we have a fragment of John dated c. 125. I don't want to entirely dismiss your idea, but I would point out that a first century dating seems drastically more likely based on the evidence. But who knows, maybe after some good thorough research, you'll be the one to put forth a mid third century dating of Luke theory. A pleasure as always my friend.