When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence.

[Deesse23]

Btw, do you Atheists ....

he.just.wont.get.it

[Angrboda]

@Nishant:

I've got to run, so I'll give your post more attention another time, but I do have an immediate thought. I'm listening to an audiobook about the science of mindfulness and one of the points he makes is that, ordinarily, we seem to always be needing that "next thing." The example he gives is of when he and his peers got their psychology degrees. At the time, they were ecstatic and they celebrated their accomplishment. Yet years later, they do not get up each day and think, "Hot damn, I've got my degree" and celebrate getting their degree all over again. Once achieved, anything begins to fade in value such that we need something else to replace it. I experience this myself as I'm a compulsive shopper and am always buying things in the vain hope that the improvement I net in doing so will bring satisfaction, but instead it simply creates a treadmill in which I'm ceaselessly setting my eyes on some new acquisition in spite of what I've already acquired. There is a Latin idiom that says that "glory is fleeting." I think, ultimately, happiness, too, is fleeting. It's our human nature. And thus, the only way to bring about eternal happiness would be to change my human nature in some way to make it possible, but then I would no longer be me in a very real sense. Is being eternally happy worth giving up the things that make me who I am, essentially giving up being me and being turned into someone else solely for the experience of a feeling?

I don't doubt that whoever thought up the idea of eternal happiness was intelligent, but I think the idea and that it would satisfy are the thoughts of children. I'm not saying these men were unintelligent or lacking in insight, but rather that their world wisdom is a product of their time and culture and of the limits of what they knew about the world and human nature. But we're not similarly limited. We can see a little farther. And in doing so, we can see that their conception of what would making living, striving, and dying worthwhile doesn't hold up in the fullness of time. Their views about what the ultimate would be have not aged well.
/

[no one]

Truth of the matter is, Mark was written by a harelipped dog.

[Nishant Xavier]

Angrboda: there is wisdom in your post; but I would see it like this: indeed, temporal things can give us some happiness, but cannot make us Perfectly Happy - they were never intended to. Thus, having some, we naturally want more. There is a Natural Desire for Ultimate Happiness in the human being, just as natural as a desire for food; but material things are not the ultimate means to attain that happiness. I saw your post about Xbox, PS etc, and sure I've played them too, who hasn't; and on Computers, we used to play RA2, Warcraft III/Dota, CS, and so much more in College; but those things can never give Perfect Happiness. Temporal Blessings can be given by God, the Generous Giver of Life and All Happiness, as a means to lead us to that Supreme Happiness, but that Perfect Happiness can ultimately be found only in Him, in His Sacraments, in a relationship with Him and Mary our Mother, in this life and the next. If God credibly promises to give us Perfect Happiness in the Next Life, and raises Himself from the dead in order to demonstrate the promise is credible and reasonable and ought to be believed, and testifies to this Truth, by Apostolic Eyewitnesses who chose Death and Martyrdom rather than deny this Truth - which they preached in the Whole World, and about which they were unanimous - that Jesus Christ was God and had Risen from the dead, why should we doubt?

And that brings us back to the Gospel: as for who first taught, clearly and explicitly, about Eternal Life, and the Joy of the Lord that the Saints there share, it was Jesus Christ Himself, as He does in many passages, including the famous Jn 3:16, Mat 25:23 etc. But He not only taught it, as He taught to love our enemies, and forgive them; He did the same on the Cross Himself, and then He rose from the dead, as He had given His Promise to do, to show His Promise of Eternal Happiness was credible; and if He had not Risen, He would not have had One Apostle Left come Easter Sunday Morn, let alone at Pentecost or later; what, do you think men who denied Him and ran away when He was alive, somehow gained, of themselves, and without the Holy Spirit, the moral courage and spiritual strength, to testify to this fact, that He was Risen, and had appeared to them alive, with "Many Infallible Proofs" (Acts 1:3, KJV)? Lol. Impossible. Another criterion, which scholars sometimes call "the criterion of embarasment", was Jewish male disciples would never have said, Jesus Christ appeared to women first, and women were the First Eye-witnesses of His Resurrection, unless in fact it had happened that way; and why? Because, the contemporary Jewish law of the day, like the Islamic law later on, said that the testimony of women witnesses was not credible. 

As Sue Bohlin put it: "In a culture where a woman’s testimony was [considered] worthless because she was [considered] worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen."

As for why Early Dates matter, it's because they show, (1) the traditional authorship is correct (2) The Gospels are credible biographies of Jesus Christ written by His 12 Apostles and 72 Disciples, or intermittent Companions of Apostles; (3) The Gospel record is thoroughly confirmed by Archaeology, as Sir William Ramsay discovered, and which was part of what led him to become Christian; and (4) The Gospel gets early First Century dates and events, including such things as when Pontius Pilate was Roman Governor, Emperor Tiberius was Roman Emperor, etc, too correct to be the product of alleged 2nd or late 1st century writers.

Dr. Craig, among other speakers/writers, generally makes for the Argument for the Resurrection like this: (1) there are about 4 or 5 facts about Christ's Life, Ministry, Death and Burial generally admitted by secular historians, like (i) His Crucifixion under Pilate, (ii) His Death and Burial (iii) His Tomb being found Empty (iv) the Apostles preaching, first in Jerusalem, and then, on Multiple Continents, that He was Risen, and (v) their being Martyred for this Testimony, and (2) the best Rational Explanation for those Historical Facts is, that Jesus Christ indeed Rose from the Dead, just like the Apostolic Eyewitnesses said.

As Anthony Flew said: “the evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”

Thus, in numerous ways, just as God shows us in Nature herself that, through Reason, we can deduce a First Cause of the Universe, as many even Non-Christian Philosophers have done, then, in History, He shows us, that the effects we know to have happened (and which even Atheists generally admit) in the Apostles' Lives, could only have come about if the Resurrection really happened. "That is why, as a Historian", says New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright, "I cannot explain the Rise of Early Christianity, unless Jesus Christ rose from the Dead, leaving an Empty Tomb behind Him".

Let me give an example of why, imo, it is rational/reasonable to believe in Christ's Promise of Eternal Happiness: it may sound financial/mathematical, but it applies to this also. In probability, there's something called expectations. Let's say, if you roll a dice, and get 1 to 3, someone gives you 10 dollars; but 4 to 6, you have to pay 10. Of course, you would be indifferent/neutral, since those are equiprobable events. Now, let's say, for the same 1 to 3, you were promised 10 million dollars; whereas you would lose only 10 for 4-6. Would you play? Of course you would; at least, I think so. Virtually anyone would imo; and that would be a rational decision. The reason is because, the Reward on offer greatly outweighs the Risk. While not exactly analogous, Christ's Promise is like that. Even if one were 50-50 between Christianity and Atheism based on other arguments/principles, because Atheism can ultimately promise us only that we end up in a dead grave, as even Dawkins said once - you'll die, you'll stink, and that'll be the end of that; lol, poor atheism - whereas Christianity can promise us Eternal Happiness, in God's Palace in Heaven, with Jesus and Mary, with Angels and Saints, with singing and dancing, with rejoicing and love, then it's perfectly rational and reasonable to choose Christ's Promise and Christ's Happiness. Not that I personally believe it's only 50-50 of course, but just saying; and imo, anyone who does a serious study of the Gospels, and prays to God or seeks the Truth sincerely, will see it's far more credible Christ was telling the Truth than lying, given that He has confirmed the Truth of His Promise by its known effects in the Lives of His Apostles, as Martyred Eyewitnesses.

God Bless,
Xavier.

[Bucky Ball]

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." ~ 2nd Century Bishop, Saint Irenaeus.

Now, this St. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in France, but also spent a significant time in Asia. He was thus well acquainted with the Tradition of both the East and West and he affirms without the slightest hesitation that the Eastern and Western Church, in the 2nd Century, believed the above. Had there been another opinion about Gospel Authorship common among some early Christians, St. Irenaeus would without doubt have mentioned it out of respect to them. But he does not because the above was Universally Accepted among all who read and received the Gospels from the Apostles or their Companions.

1. Now, let's define External and Internal Evidence as it applies to historical documents, for e.g. the writings of Josephus, Tacitus or the Gospels: (1) Internal Evidence is what the writing says about itself, for e.g. Josephus, Tacitus, or Luke or John, may sign their work or strongly imply they wrote it. (2) External Evidence is what other contemporary writers say about the work, or what ancient manuscripts (that contain "according to Matthew" etc) show about it. Above, we saw the Tradition of two whole continents, Europe and Asia, hands down that the Gospels were writtenby the traditional authors and in the traditional order. We have Tertullian in Africa who says pretty much the same thing. Therefore, it is the Tradition of Three Continents. These Church Fathers had little direct contact with each other. They could hardly have arrived at the same conclusion independently unless they had received this knowledge from the Apostles themselves.

Even some secular scholars acknowledge: "Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, and Papias—all from the first part of the second century—show knowledge of Matthew, which accordingly must have been composed before 100 CE." That's right, but it goes further. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a companion/disciple of St. John the Apostle and Bishop of Antioch. He died in A.D. 107. As for the Didache, it was probably composed by some of the Apostles and predates 80 A.D. It was used for Gentile converts before Baptism. As for Papias, he was almost a contemporary of some the Apostles, born in 60 A.D. Papias too states matter-of-factly, that St. Matthew the Apostle, and St. Mark the companion of St. Peter the Apostle, wrote the Gospels: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." And about Mark: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

2. Now, a strong case from Internal Evidence for the Early Authorship of the Gospels, well known to the Church Fathers, has often been overlooked by some secular scholars today. First, they themselves acknowledge that 2 Corinthians was written by St.Paul around 55 A.D.

So that's Premise 1. Premise 2 is the reference in 2 Cor to a Gospel written by a companion of Paul. Hmm, which Gospel could that be?

Premise I: St. Paul the Apostle wrote II Corinthians by 55 A.D.

For e.g. the Secular Encyclopedia Brittanica says: "The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (II Corinthians in the New Testament) was written from Macedonia in about 55 CE [A.D]". Correct, and we agree.

Premise II: 2 Corinthians contains a reference to the Gospel of Luke as already having been written.

2 Cor 8:18 "And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;"

Now, anyone who knows even the slightest thing about Church History, whether he himself is Christian or Atheist, knows that only one companion of Paul, namely St. Luke, wrote a Gospel. This is also evident from the Book of Acts, written like Luke to Theophilus, and which contains the First Person Plural in various places, where the Author and Paul travelled together. It therefore is clear Paul is referring to Luke's Gospel in this place.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Gospel of Saint Luke was written and distributed by 55 A.D.

This conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. It is also logical for other reasons. Acts was written by a friend of Paul who happily would have written anything good that Paul did in the service of Christ. Paul's Martyrdom took place, together with St. Peter's, under Nero, around A.D. 67. If therefore St. Paul had already been martyred by the time Luke wrote Acts, why on Earth would Luke omit St. Paul's Glorious Martyrdom from his Narrative? Pretty much the only plausible explanation for the abrupt ending of Acts, around the time of St. Paul's Roman Imprisonment, in A.D. 61, is that it was written shortly after that time well before A.D. 67. And likewise, since Luke was clearly written before Acts, as the Intros to both show, and probably predated it by 5-10 years, we can arrive at pre-55 date for Luke in a 2nd Independent way as well. For a third evidence of early authorship of Luke, it should be noted St. Paul quotes from Luke and refers to it as Scripture in one of his Last Epistles, penned shortly before his Martyrdom for Christ: "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim 5:18) This is a reference to Luke 10:7: "For the worker is worthy of his wages." While not perhaps directly showing a pre-55 date, it is, at the least, compatible with an Early Date for Luke. Incidentally, like St. Peter says the writings of St. Paul constitute Scripture, it also shows that St. Paul, and by extension the Early Church already in Apostolic Times, considered Luke etc to be part of Scripture along with the OT.

3. Thirdly, since even those who place Mark before Matthew generally agree that both Mark and Matthew were written before Luke, it remains, from the above, that both Mark and Matthew pre-date 55 A.D. The Gospels were not written late, that is a modern unhistorical sophism that follows from no ancient historical document, and is mainly upheld for ideological reasons, not historical ones, e.g. by those like Bart Ehrman who have an ideological grudge against Apostolic and Biblical Christianity. This is also confirmed by the 7Q5 Papyrus recently discovered.

(1) Mark and Matthew were written before Luke. (2) But Luke was written by 55 A.D. (3) Hence, Matthew and Mark were written by 55 A.D.
(2) Again, the 7Q5 Papyrus dates from before 50 A.D. (2) But this contains Fragments of Mark. (3) Hence, the Gospel of Mark predates 50 A.D.

Unsurprisingly, some sophists will try to assail either the reference in 7Q5 to Mark 6:52-53, or the pre-50 dating. Yet, both of these were attested independently, and well documented, before frightened liberals realized it would be problematic for some of their other pet theories. Hence, etc.

Finally, we will quote from Wiki about A.T. Robinson's Re-dating the New Testament. Keep in mind Robinson is generally considered a Liberal Scholar: "Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".[29] Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and the 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later.[30][31]" Please note said range was nearly Universally Accepted before around 1800 whether by Catholics, Protestants or Secularists. Shortly thereafter, some liberal sophists invented all sorts of theories. Now, many are going back to the traditional dates.

Thoughts?
Let's Debate.
God Bless.

We don't need your childish sermons.
Lets not bother to debate with a Fundy ignorant Catholic.
Why would anyone waste their time with such crap ?

All totally and completely false. 
Even a first year Bible student knows the original gospel's authors were not named. 
It was NOT Matthew, Mark Luke and John. 
How is it you can be SOOOO ignorant of that which you PRETEND to know about ? 

I still have access to the very best of the plagiarism tools at the academic center I got one of my degrees at. 
I plan to run everything you have written here through it, and each and every instance of your writing that is not attributed to 
to the real original source will be exposed. 

[brewer]

I'll take the Silmarillion over the Bible any day, and twice on sunday.

[Astreja]

...the Gospel can give you Eternal Happiness, which nothing else can....

Unsupported assertion. All the credible evidence indicates that death is the end of us, and I believe this with near-absolute certainty. From my POV, the Gospel is just a collection of archaic stories that make false promises.

As for "eternal happiness," the idea of being stuck in any emotional state for eternity is also not something that interests me. At all. The richness of the human experience is strongly informed by our ability to feel many different emotions.

[Astreja]

I'll take the Silmarillion over the Bible any day, and twice on sunday.

Heck, I'll gladly take Dragonlance Legends over the Bible.  Much, much better story arc and better-developed characters.

[Angrboda]

Xavier, I will get back to you in a day or so. For now I will simply remark that I see the germ of additional threads in what you have just posted.

It's a funny thing. In coming to atheists to evangelize, the adversity of having one's ideas challenged makes one a better evangelist. But likewise, it sharpens the skills of the adversary as well.

[no one]

Creatures like nish are so frightened of reality they've invented a blissful wonderland, a delightful utopia where everyone lives happily ever after. Including murder victims, and their "saved" murderers.

They are also cowards. Yellow-bellied, gutless, spineless, chicken-hearted cowards.