Late-date advocates for the gospels?

[bskeptic]

Anyone know late-date advocates for the gospels?

[Blood]

Robert M. Price. In his Pre-Nicene New Testament, he dates all of the gospels in the second century, and John (IIRC) in the second half of the second century.

[bskeptic]

Robert M. Price. In his Pre-Nicene New Testament, he dates all of the gospels in the second century, and John (IIRC) in the second half of the second century.

Thanks.

[yalla]

"Late" as a term relative to orthodoxy.
Price, in "The Incredible Shrinking son of Man" asks, on p.31 "When were the gospels written?" and in the next few pages gives a brief summary of the usual datings and then more or less plumps for:
-"Mark' -"...in the early second century - at the earliest! And we might have to push the gospel even later in view of Hermann Detering's forceful argument that Mark 13 ....at the close of the Bar Kochba revolt in 132CE"
-"Matthew must at the earliest have appeared in the mid-second century
-Luke :"Indeed a second century date for Luke-Acts is increasingly common among scholars today"
-John - much discussion about P52 - as price wrote this 10 years ago I understand the recent case for P52 being much later than previously espoused has led to a weakening of the traditional date for 'John" as around the turn of the century.

Basically it seems that Price opts for early to mid, maybe mid plus, second century as the range of probable dates for the 4.

[yalla]

http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-B ... pd_sim_b_8

Further to the dating of P52, this recent book by Egyptian papyrologist Roger Bagnall
is relevant.
Below is a review of Bagnall's book [an extended excerpt of which is online somewhere] with section 6 thereof being particularly interesting

[outhouse]

Anyone know late-date advocates for the gospels?

There are a few. None with credibility though.

You start opening up a can of worms when dating late, to many credible scholarships are just thrown out the window for these very small pet projects.

Most of what I see are those with personal agendas that start attacking Pauls historicity with no real merit.

[Doug Shaver]

Anyone know late-date advocates for the gospels?

There are a few. None with credibility though.

You start opening up a can of worms when dating late, to many credible scholarships are just thrown out the window

What, in your judgment, makes all those many scholarships so credible?

for these very small pet projects.

Do you think it possible that if someone's pet project is just to find the truth, they could nevertheless disagree with a scholarly consensus?

[yalla]

I suggest there is an affinity between this thread and the one below "an example of the kind of thing to avoid'.
In both vested orthodox authorities play a key role in maintaining the conservative status quo.

I use the RSV my wife was given when she was confirmed back in 1964 and it has a section at the back called "Simple Helps and Visual aids to the understanding of the Bible"
Included in this section are 'facts' such as [a random selection]:
-the first 5 books of the OT -author -'generally credited to Moses'"
-a time chart which has such elements as "Exodus", "Conquest of Canaan", "Saul", "David", "Solomon" etc
-"gMatthew" - a Hebrew, called Levi, the tax collector written in Judea c 60AD
-"gMark" -associate of Paul, may have used material from Pete no date given]
-"gLuke' -close fried of Paul, physician, probably written in Caesarea c 63AD.
-The Pastorals -authored by Paul probably written in Rome c.60AD.

This text was published by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA in 1952, with "32 scholars serving on the Committee".

We have come a long way since my wife was confirmed.

[outhouse]

What, in your judgment, makes all those many scholarships so credible?

Because many have withstood criticism over many many decades.

While those who claim Paul as myth have not.

Do you think it possible that if someone's pet project is just to find the truth, they could nevertheless disagree with a scholarly consensus

I do think responsible research despite scholarly concensus is mandatory.

Take Candida Moss as a example in her work on early Christian Martyrdom. It was not well known but it is well recieved.


It is not what we see on the other hand.

[yalla]

Sorry. In the comment above I thought I included a review of Bagnall's book, but somehow I failed [*sigh*].
Here it is.
http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Bagnall2011rev.pdf