How mainstream is the claim that the 4 Canonical Gospels were Written during the 2nd Century CE?

[ABuddhist]

I ask because I am curious.

I am aware, furthermore, that even if an idea is not mainstream, it can be accorded varying levels of respect - as with mythicism versus, for example, theories about the canonical gospels rejecting Q.

I am also aware that even ideas dismissed as fringe have differing degrees of credibility. So, mythicism, itself a fringe idea, has the extremely fringe claim that Christianity was invented around 325 CE, and the less fringe ideas of Dr. Carrier and Doherty (which at least accept standard chronology).

So, where does a 2nd century CE dating for the Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?

[Giuseppe]

So, where does a 2nd century CE dating for the Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?

it seems, but I would like to be wrong, that you are assuming that one who accepts Carrier/Doherty paradigm is obliged to have the first gospel before the 100 CE.

I hope that it is not so, since Doherty's recognized precursor, Paul Louis-Couchoud, had the first gospel written by Marcion, and even if he didn't mention more Marcion in his late work, he however placed Mark in full second century.

[ABuddhist]

So, where does a 2nd century CE dating for the Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?

it seems, but I would like to be wrong, that you are assuming that one who accepts Carrier/Doherty paradigm is obliged to have the first gospel before the 100 CE.

I hope that it is not so, since Doherty's recognized precursor, Paul Louis-Couchoud, had the first gospel written by Marcion, and even if he didn't mention more Marcion in his late work, he however placed Mark in full second century.

I would not make such an assumption myself, but was only noting that Doherty and Dr. Carrier accept a 1st century CE date for the gospels. But thanks for the information about Couchoud.

[Secret Alias]

I think the set was edited in the LATE second century FWIW. That means nothing when you ask about/for respected opinions on the matter. To me asking a scholar who specializes in early Christianity this question is like PUBLICLY asking all the husbands to comment on how attractive their wife is. You have to at least pretend.

[lclapshaw]

I ask because I am curious.

I am aware, furthermore, that even if an idea is not mainstream, it can be accorded varying levels of respect - as with mythicism versus, for example, theories about the canonical gospels rejecting Q.

I am also aware that even ideas dismissed as fringe have differing degrees of credibility. So, mythicism, itself a fringe idea, has the extremely fringe claim that Christianity was invented around 325 CE, and the less fringe ideas of Dr. Carrier and Doherty (which at least accept standard chronology).

So, where does a 2nd century CE dating for the Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?

I think many (most?) of us feel a second century, or at least very late 1st century, origin of at least Luke and Matthew, and probably John, Mark, and Marcion to be the most likely scenario.

My own reasoning for this goes along the lines of the inclusion of John the Baptist in the Gospel stories. Unless the Gospel writers knew independently of this JtB, which I feel unlikely, they then would be reliant on the account (if not a later interpolation) of him in Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus published in the 90's of the 1st century. No other source, that we know of, outside of the Gospel stories, exists for this character.

[mlinssen]

Given the fact that mainstream biblical academic is much more biblical than academic, you have your answer already.
With a slight nuance: the US part largely is really religious, whereas Europeans tend to be more liberal

Yeah I know, nuance - sorry for that

[billd89]

I thought the question was clear.

Dismissing "the fringe claim that Christianity was invented around 325" and those who believe all Gospels came from the Apostolic Age, "where does a 2nd century CE dating for [all] Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?"

[ABuddhist]

I thought the question was clear.

Dismissing "the fringe claim that Christianity was invented around 325" and those who believe all Gospels came from the Apostolic Age, "where does a 2nd century CE dating for [all] Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?"

I would entirely agree with your statement, if we define "Apostolic Age" as ending at 69 CE.

[neilgodfrey]

I ask because I am curious.

I am aware, furthermore, that even if an idea is not mainstream, it can be accorded varying levels of respect - as with mythicism versus, for example, theories about the canonical gospels rejecting Q.

I am also aware that even ideas dismissed as fringe have differing degrees of credibility. So, mythicism, itself a fringe idea, has the extremely fringe claim that Christianity was invented around 325 CE, and the less fringe ideas of Dr. Carrier and Doherty (which at least accept standard chronology).

So, where does a 2nd century CE dating for the Canonical gospels fit into this continuum?

According to Markus Vinzent's introduction to Christi Thora: Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments im 2. Jahrhundert (2022)

According to the majority of New Testament scholars today, the collection is placed in the 2nd century, but most of its 27 books and especially the four Gospels were written in the 1st century.3

3 J.K. Elliott writes that "they were composed and originally written down ['published' if you wish] in the first century", according to J.K. Elliott, New Testament textual criticism: the application of thoroughgoing principles (2011), 13. Cf. already the position in the 19th century: H.W.J. Thiersch, Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts für die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften (1845), 75. The dating is based almost exclusively on internal reasons, as well as the Epistles of Ignatius, which are repeatedly dated as authentic writings to the time around 110, and more often the so-called Didache, a catechetical writing, which is also placed in the first century, and an early dating of the Epistle of Polycarp around the year 120, cf. for example I. Broer, H.-U. Weidemann, Einleitung der Polykarpbriefs um das Jahr 120. U. Weidemann, Introduction to the New Testament (2016). However, it must be admitted that all these datings are now highly controversial and are rejected with good reasons.

From page 7, Introduction, translated by DeepL

[Chrissy Hansen]

I think Mark and Matthew are first century, but Luke-Acts and John I think are second century.