Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I wouldn't say I have no idea. Justin wrote in ~155 CE. Mark is widely held to be a first-century text, and widely held to be the textual and structural basis for much of Matthew and Luke, with Matthew's gospel also widely held to be a first-century text. Assuming that's the case, I find it hard to...

Justin Martyr directly equated his "memoirs of the apostles" with the Gospels, however some critics believe that clause to be an interpolation. I assume most would accept that the gospel of Mark existed in its final form by the time Justin wrote, and Justin certainly quotes Mark's gospel ...

Justin Martyr directly equated his "memoirs of the apostles" with the Gospels, however some critics believe that clause to be an interpolation. I assume most would accept that the gospel of Mark existed in its final form by the time Justin wrote, and Justin certainly quotes Mark's gospel i...

So taking one perspective, the attribution of the gospels to the four evangelists was a (relatively) late development, essentially to give them apostolic authority after-the-fact. What are the theories then about how those "attributed authors" came to include Mark and Luke, as non-apostles...

Scholarship tends to assign the dates of when the gospels were written on internal evidence, as there is no external one. What is used is basically a date that is closest to when the events that are reported happened, pushed later by the allusion to events that happened later (like the fall of the ...

So your view is that all four Gospels were written in the 15-20 years between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (160-180 CE)? Or really, in the ten years between Justin Martyr and the Muratorian canon? Brilliant. I'll just go and cross reference that with all the NT scholarship of the last two centuries, w...

Well 180 CE isn't "shortly before the year 200"... it's clearly 2nd century, which is indeed "very early" from a Christian historical perspective. You should listen to yourself. How can 150 years after the alleged time that the stories happened be considered "early"? I...

The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong . No it Is not. Most scholars finds that position laughable if it was just not so sad that bias wins over reason and logic. That opinion is demonstrably false. I think you're confused as to what I'm...

The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong. No, it is not. As you mention all 4, you can only refer to Irenaeus, shortly before the year 200. Regarding earlier mentions of some of these, basically all depend on specific interpretations of so...

The patristic testimony isn't as helpful as it could be, however it does paint a picture (even if it is vague) -- there are 2nd century assertions to the effect that "Matthew wrote first in the Hebrew dialect", and there are 2nd century quotations from our Greek Matthew. Doesn't it make se...