Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I'm doubtful whether chapters 11-12 can come from the 1st century CE.
Passages like 11:6:

Whereupon the fear of the law is sung, and the
grace of the prophets is recognised, and the faith of
the gospels is established, and the tradition of the
apostles is preserved, and the joy of the Church
exults.

seem to be a reference to church worship/liturgy and imply a time when there is a reading from the Law of Moses, then from the prophets, then from a gospel text and then from an apostle (probably Paul).
This seems second century or later.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:I'm doubtful whether chapters 11-12 can come from the 1st century CE.
Passages like 11:6:

Whereupon the fear of the law is sung, and the
grace of the prophets is recognised, and the faith of
the gospels is established, and the tradition of the
apostles is preserved, and the joy of the Church
exults.

seem to be a reference to church worship/liturgy and imply a time when there is a reading from the Law of Moses, then from the prophets, then from a gospel text and then from an apostle (probably Paul).
This seems second century or later.

Andrew Criddle

If you check the Greek, the translation of "ευαγγελιων" as "the Gospels" in translation is down to interpretation. The whole phrase can be rendered: "and [the] gospel faith is established". The gospel of Jesus Christ, of course, was preached from the beginning (Mk.1:1; 16:15). True, some order of service would have been introduced, probably along the lines of the synagogue to some extent, but it would be a mistake if we assume that such development could not have occurred in the early life of the Church.

However, even if we accept the translation "Gospels", this does not of itself preclude an early date for the composition. It is reasonable to believe that written forms of the synoptic Gospels were in circulation prior to AD 60. (Quite probably this topic has already enjoyed much discussion on this forum! )

andrewcriddle wrote:I'm doubtful whether chapters 11-12 can come from the 1st century CE.
Passages like 11:6:

Whereupon the fear of the law is sung, and the
grace of the prophets is recognised, and the faith of
the gospels is established, and the tradition of the
apostles is preserved, and the joy of the Church
exults.

seem to be a reference to church worship/liturgy and imply a time when there is a reading from the Law of Moses, then from the prophets, then from a gospel text and then from an apostle (probably Paul).
This seems second century or later.

Good point. I was more wondering about the date of chapters 1-10 and how firm that is.

Many believe that Acts was written 2nd century, post-temple, and that it intentionally stops where it does to make it seem near contemporaneous with the events it portrays. I don't see why this epistle couldn't be doing the same.

perseusomega9 wrote:Many believe that Acts was written 2nd century, post-temple, and that it intentionally stops where it does to make it seem near contemporaneous with the events it portrays. I don't see why this epistle couldn't be doing the same.

(Because of disbelief re the Gospel's prophecy of the Temple's destruction, perhaps?)

Why would the author do that? What is to gain?

To rewrite a nebulous and contentious early christian period, align Petrine and Pauline factions, and gain credibility for a late source.

If the author was seeking credibility for a written work by spurious means, he could have claimed in the writing of it to 'be' an apostle, not just a mere disciple. So, the question remains, what could a writer have hoped to gain by composing this work in the post Temple period of the first century or later? Such an effort would not have resulted in personal credibility, for if he had admitted to authorship then he would have admitted to a fraud. So, what of the doctrinal points that it contains? Is there anything innovative that might suggest a desire to promote new doctrine? I do not see anything of the kind. It is simply a delightfully worded expression of early faith.

Well, the standard apologetic tripe is that all those Gospels and Acts of various Apostles are spurious for the fact that they do indeed claim to be the writing of an apostle so gratz on having your cake and eating it too I guess.