atheist

[Joel S. Berson]

James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword" discusses the dates of and
differences among the 4 writers.

Joel

At 12/30/2009 10:12 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:

>quote from a Bible historian, which unfortunately I cannot source: There are
>more differences between Bible manuscripts than there are words in the
>Bible.
>
>m a m
>
>On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Robin Hamilton <
>robin.hamilton2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Gospel ...
> >
> > >>The word is primarily used
> > >>to refer to the four canonical gospels: the Gospel of St.Matthew,
> > >>Gospel of St. Mark, Gospel of St.Luke and Gospel of St.John, probably
> > >>written between AD 65 and 80."
> > >
> > > Of course -- but they differ.
> >
> > As do the dates of the original composition.  I was a little taken aback by
> > the range AD 65 and 80 given above -- essentially, this is the earliest
> > possible dating of the earliest written Gospel, Mark, which has to have
> > been
> > composed after 65 CE at the absolute earliest, and virtually certainly some
> > greater or lesser time after 70 CE.  A more plausible terminus ad quem for
> > the latest of the four canonical gospels might be 170 CE, perhaps even
> > later, for John.
> >
> > A fraught area, admittedly, but giving an unqualified dating of "AD 65 and
> > 80," implicitly applied to the dating of all four canonical gospels,
> > doesn't
> > really help anyone.  Is there a properly qualified Biblical scholar in the
> > house?  I'm one only to the extent of recognising that the original
> > assertion with regard to the date is somewhat ... loaded.
> >
> > (As to why it matters ...  Even the earliest dating of the canonical
> > gospels
> > would place their initial composition after the conclusion of a power
> > struggle in the early Christian church between Saul of Tarsus and James.
> >  As
> > such, they reflect to a greater or lesser degree an ideological
> > confrontation, with the history presented from the point of view of the
> > successful faction.  The later one places the composition of the gospels
> > [and that leaves aside possible revisions after they are first written
> > down], the more this is likely to be true.  To the extent that one should
> > perhaps refer to the Pauline Gospels rather than the Canonical Gospels.
> >  <g>
> >
> > And that's *before we come to the question of the origins of the doctrine
> > of
> > the Trinity ...
> >
> > 'Nuff said.)
> >
> > Robin Hamilton
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org