 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the only gospel I think may have been written by eyewitnesses is John
the rest most assuredly were not (and not even tradition suggests that Luke was)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Curious, Jon M, since the gospel of John is typically given the latest creation date. In fact the beginning chapter of John is a rewriting of the creation story that attempts to be an answer to the gnostic interpretation. Clearly this part, at least, was an add on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Mark, John, Luke and Matthew were among the 12 disciples that followed Jesus. They would have seen what Jesus said and did. |
Luke being one of the 12 is not in any Bible I have ever read
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The diplomat: On what are your assumptions based? I have a table, where John's evangelium is dated around 100AD |
First, there is the discovery in Egypt of the Rylands papyrus fragment containing some verses of John 18. The fragments were dated to about 135 AD. So, John was definitely not written after 135 AD. Furthermore, it would have taken several decades for the gospel to be copied and circulated as fart as Egypt. So, the Gospel must have been written several decades before 135 AD.
Furthermore, John's Gospel was circulated among the Early Churches circa 90 AD. Again, it would take time to copy and circulate the gospel among the various churches. Obviously, we don't have an exact date, but I think it makes sense that it was written before 100 AD.
Acts was probably written before 70 AD, since it does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem nor the burning or Rome, nor Paul's martyrdom.
We know from Acts 1:1, that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were both written by the same person and that Acts was written after Luke. Therefore, if Acts was written circa 70 AD, and Luke was written before Acts, then Luke must have been written before 70 AD.
From Acts, we know that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, therefore he lived at the same time as Paul did. This would place the Gospel of Luke and Acts, at the same time period as Paul's ministry. So mid 1st century makes sense.
Lastly, Luke 1:1-4 explains that the Gospel is not an eye witness account but a reconstruction based on testimony and previous writtings. Therefore, the other Gospels were undoubtly written before Luke, or he would have had nothing to base his Gospel on. If Luke was written at the time of Paul's ministry, and Luke was based on the other Gospels, then the other Gospels were probably written mid 1st century AD.
The bottom line is that we can't ever know exact dates. But I think it makes sense that the Gospels were written around 60-70 AD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
Luke being one of the 12 is not in any Bible I have ever read
Jon Miller |
Sorry. I checked my Bible. Luke 1:1-4 says that he was not an eye witness. It's been awhile since I read Luke, everybody can make mistakes.
Last edited by The diplomat on 21-08-2003 at 00:52
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2003 22:30
"Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate only when they assimilate themselves to men."
|