Why does it say next to nothing about the 12 disciples with the obvious exceptions Peter, John, Phillip etc. And why does it pay so much attention to Phillip? If the author of Acts was using Mark as his source for this story, it seems odd that he would decide to adjust the details. In this account, Jesus tells ppl to flee once this happens and to stay away. That could have helped sell that prediction as being in the process of coming to fruition in a pre-temple destruction setting.

In any case, it is also striking to me at least that the author of Acts not only inserts details deviant from his source directly prophetic quotes from Jesus citing the OT language, no less! If I recall, the temple fell in summer. Or is it typically just the one issue of the temple destruction story that pushes most scholars to the post CE era? My sense is that it is not odd that he would change his source, but that it makes sense he would do so — otherwise there would be no reason for him to write a different account.

He would simply copy the other one as a scribe. But yes, he certainly changed the details that he wanted to alter given his own understanding and context. The assumed fall of Jerusalem is certainly a good reason for dating Mark after Another is that Paul, an earlier author who was well-traveled and connected, does not appear to know that any such account exists. It seems strange to me that the author would comment about winter in the way he did if it was written post-destruction. Usually it is the specificity of the predictions that are taken to indicate that an author is living after the fact see how Luke describes the destruction in Luke 21 e.

Balleine, Arthur Stapylton Barnes, Adolf Von Harnack, and myself, an evolutionist who both respects Darwin and at the same time ascribes, as did Eusebius, the date of Aramaic Matthew to BTW, my views are not based upon his; I found him by looking for others who held my same suspicions. I also want to know more of your thoughts on the dating of Acts. I admit to being flabbergasted that even those with opposing views to yours, such as Craig Evans, N.

Must one be a textual critic to have a primary-sourced research based opinion worthy of consideration? As far as someone living, John W. Mauck is a lawyer. He sees Acts as having been written very much in the way that a lawyer would today. Mauck sees, as do I, Acts as a legal brief, written for the purpose of defending Paul, Aristarchus etc..

Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)

The only possible dates were AD. Peter is otherwise obscured with a striking amount of intention in the NT. Some write out of leisure, self fulfillment, or for the sake a benefactor. But oftentimes writing is done for a compelling reason. And the purpose which Acts seems to embody is rendered moot after 65 AD.

If you were accused of starting riots all over the Empire, and your life, and that of others was on the line?

And you had secured the resources to support your efforts? If Acts were a history of the early church, you might think it would contain 12 sections, each devoted to a disciple, their eventual location, the people, places, the churches they started. It introduces important characters and then shuffles them off the stage without anyone noticing… Silas…. And mine are still developing, changing, needing to be challenged…..

Strongly held in some areas, unsure in others, with strong ones being occasionally unearthed and replanted.

It is supported by theirs. Every important building he burned down.

Dating the Gospels: Harder than You Might Think | Bob Seidensticker

Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Antiochus Epiphanes had worse things happen without temple destruction. So he gave his warning to the disciples. Now, I personally do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he did resurrect bodily on the third day— and I say that as a skeptic who has a hard time believing in anything paranormal. Dating the gospels is somewhere between an art and a bad joke. I do not know that it is anything close to a science. Dr Ehrman concedes in the original msg that he has no idea when Mark was actually written.

Before the destruction of the Temple? The point being this: If Mark was indeed the first to be written, it matters a bunch. If it was written in 40 AD, then, that would seem to change the whole picture. Based on Mark being written around 65 or 70 AD? Or, maybe a tad earlier, say, 50 AD? How about 40 AD? But, none of us, including Dr Ehrman, knows that date of composition.

• top ten best dating apps;
• skriv den perfekte dating profil;
• dating as a young christian woman;

So, is it really true that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction of the Temple? Churchill made no bones about predicting eventual British involvement in the war against the Nazis. Nouriel Roubini correctly predicted the housing crash of Nikola Tesla predicted hand-held wireless communications devices in In, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the Cold War. For all we know, Jesus just made a good guess. For that matter, maybe he was the son of God and had some type of foreknowledge. Thus, Luke had to have been written post 70 AD.

Mark 13 appears to presuppose the destruction of the Temple. That was in 70 CE. Hence the common view that it was written after that event. And, you seem to think that Paul should for example have been quoting Matthew when writing to the Galatians again, for example , yet the Galatians may never have even seen a copy of Matthew to begin with. Why do you hold that view? They simply would have been sources of information for knowing what Jesus said and did. And, as I pointed out, there were apparently?

So, yeh — it would have been information. You say that there may be allusions to them Matthew, Luke and Mark — though not actual quotations — in such works as the Didache written around CE and the letters of Ignatius around All of that is disputed and the arguments are complex and detailed. In the 6th edition of his textbook The New Testament: These estimates are very popular, and not just among skeptical scholars. Many conservative scholars accept them as well.

My own view is that they are too late by a couple of decades, but Ehrman correctly reports their popularity in the scholarly community. Before trying to assign dates to particular Gospels, it can be helpful to try to identify a broader range of years in which they were composed. To begin with, none of the Gospels appears to have been known to the apostle Paul, writing in the 50s. This point is largely fair. He does echo a lot of things we find in the Gospels, but that could be due—and likely is due—to his use of oral tradition about Jesus.

First, in 1 Corinthians Luke was a travelling companion of Paul Acts When it came time to write his Gospel, he likely used the Pauline version of the words of institution that he was familiar with. Second, Paul makes a mysterious reference in 2 Corinthians 8: In fact, the passage is normally taken as a reference to a brother Christian who was famous for preaching the gospel—not for having written a Gospel some Bible versions even translate the verse that way. But others—myself included—believe Paul wrote it and would place it near the end of his life, perhaps around A.

This would suggest that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation in the A.

Dating the Gospels: Harder than You Might Think

What about the other end of the general timeframe in which the Gospels were written? By what time do we know they were in circulation? On the other hand, early non-canonical authors such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna see chapter 28 do seem to know some of the Gospels. And so some or all of the Gospels were written before these authors produced their letters, around CE.