I have been reading Q: The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack, and he states quite categorically that the book of Luke was written in the early 2nd Century. I am unable to find any other reference to confirm this, and my understanding was that Mark was written first (c. 70 CE), then Matthew and Luke about the same time (c. 80-90 CE) and finally John around the year 100. Has there been a recent radical realignment of Gospel scholarship which I'm simply not up to date with, or is Mack just claiming a late Luke to fit his own theories about Q?
Mack is reporting on what Q discovered. Q shows a carefully researched chronology. In contrast the bible was designed as an instrument of propaganda where historical accuracy, facts, and ordered chronology were not a concern. Perhaps a more appropriate question is to ask what support is there for the chronology presented by the bible.
Remember that the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts were originally the same book and were only later artificially divided into two separate books. The original outline of the Book could not have been too late, since the Auther speaks of himself in the first person as a contemporary of Paul's. Yet, we can see some developments in Luke that we do not find in the other Gospels. For instance, Luke is the only Gospel writer to recognize and elaborate on the History of the Blessed Virgin. This would indicate that the Congregations of Paul were no longer exercising a total influence when the Gospel of Luke/Acts was put into publication. We can also discern that the book of Acts was by no means entirely flattering to Paul -- though no actual accusations are leveled against Paul, we can recognize that any intelligent author or editor could see that paul was not always represented in the best and most flattering light. This would also indicate that at least one generation had receded from when Paul must have been an almost absolute influence upon the Congregations. But the Book of John could have come much later. There is no first person presence at all. It is obviously written by a Greek, not a Hebrew. Chronology is thrown away, and the Book is structured around presenting justifications and rationales for the Sacraments. The Book of John is artistically polished... nothing like the clumsy letters written by the Apostle John. And the Book of John is also presented from the viewpoint of a separate and Non-Jewish Gentile Church which has already grown somewhat insular and defensive, claiming the Name of Jesus as a kind of exclusive patent property. This demonstrates a Institutionalization which has already become sophisticated in the pursuit of its own self-interest -- that kind of almost innocent cynicism comes only in a third generation.
I think your order is right (I'm not sure where John fits) but the idea that the gospels were written after 70AD has been soundly disproven. There are mid-first century documents quoting much of the NT. You can't quote something which hasn't been written yet.
Don't be silly. The Gospels were more or less an amalgation of existing rumors/anecodotes (whatever you want to call it) circulating among the faithful about Jesus. Such a statement assumes no one knew the contents of the Synoptics until they were written, which is just plain - . Not that I'm trying to insult you, but your own words damn you. If we are to accept your logic, then we must conclude that the writers of the synoptics made up something which was not previously known.
sorry but if you could just come out with it, i dont want to read something that long when I don't know what I'm looking for
The whole arguement about the gospels being written later has to do with substance. There is no direct evidence. Some semantic expert thinks people didn't talk the way the gospels are written or the form is not right for one of Jesus' disciples. There is no substantive evidence at all. The oldest church writings, early second century, presuppose the authority of the Gospels and their authors. When they are referred to and quoted in uncontested documents dating to 110AD, then it is pretty hard to prove a date later. The authorship was well established and universally accepted even then. The problem is that church fathers writing in 110AD would have been witnesses to even earlier times and would have known witnesses which were alive during the time of the Apostles, maybe even have known some of the Apostles. There is no way the gospels could have been ghost written and foisted upon the Christian community in the 90AD time frame. There were already tens/hundreds of thousands of Christians and many of them would have been old and known the truth or falsehood of these documents. The only explaination is that the gospels were written just when they proport to be and by the authors so assigned. This is a case of Form Critics ignoring the obvious truth of history.
David F.: I think your order is right (I'm not sure where John fits) but the idea that the gospels were written after 70AD has been soundly disproven. There are mid-first century documents quoting much of the NT. You can't quote something which hasn't been written yet. ************* M*W: David, I'd really like to know who refutes the gospels were written after 70 AD. Paul wrote the Epistles mid-century, and the gospel writers were influenced by Paul's Epistles. Paul wasn't around during the writing of the gospels, but his Epistles were. Before his beheading, Paul gave up promoting Jesus as the Messiah and admitted that his 30 years or more of preaching christianity was for naught. Paul died circa 67-68 AD, but before he died, he alienated Peter and Luke. The Gospel of John and Revelations have been determined to have been written by MM toward the end of the first century 95-100 AD. The beast MM refers to is Paul and the Pauline church. I'd really appreciate your replying with a reference to the gospel dates.
It is hard for me to believe MM wrote gospel of John. She was recorded to die around age 65. That would be around 60-70 the latest. She shouldn't be that much younger than Jesus. It was their custom for girls to get married around age 13-14 and boys around 15-16. The marriage is arranged by parents. Also all 4 gospels has been proven to have been not only written by different people but edited, re-edited, arranged, and re-arrange for variety of different reasons throughout the first few centuries. Some people think gospel of John and gospel of MM are written by the same person because they make similar grammar errors and have similar style, but gospel of MM is dated early second century. It could not have been written by her.
Well I was never disputing any chronology only commenting on your statement. Is there anything in specific you want to impress me with or talk about?
Joeman: It is hard for me to believe MM wrote gospel of John. She was recorded to die around age 65. ************* M*W: Yes, I agree, it's an unusual thought, but researchers have concluded this but not all agree. I'm aware of the other writings that MM did that were suppressed. Stay tuned.
Firstly, who even believes that the Gospel of John and Revelation were written by the same author? The Gospel of John was a polished literary work written in polished Greek by what must have been a polished Greek. MM was not Greek. The Book of Revelation was a nasty jumble... probably a first draft done without even the help of an outline, by somebody whose mind was only organized enough to reel out Apocalyptic Symbols remembered from the Book of Daniel... in the spirit of plagarism. The only truly pithy thing is Revelation is the section in the 2nd Chapter which doesn't mention Paul by name but indicates that the Angel of the Lord had congratulated the town of Ephesus for rejecting a False Apostle... and then we have Paul writing to Timothy complaining that the people of Ephesus had tossed him out on his ear.
I knew I'd be stirring up a hornets nest. I did not want to start an argument about the origins of the New Testament, I wanted to know what the current scholarly consensus is. The consensus used to be Mark (70), Matthew & Luke (80-90), John (100). Mack just drops in almost casually that the order is Mark (70), Matthew (80), John (90) and Luke (>100), and presumably to hell with the "we" in Acts. I am not interested in the Christian traditional view. I am not interested in whether two Johns wrote John and Revelation or whether they were written by a woman. I am not interested if there is proof that indicates the order and ages of the Gospels or if there is none. I only wanted to know if what the scholars broadly agree on (whether it's true or false) has changed in recent years or not.
You know, threads often take on a life of their own. You may also someday learn that what you want means very little to other people. But for now it seems that you think your own personal concerns are so much more important than everybody else's. And this is you while you are still warm with the Christmas Season. We can just wonder what a selfish bastard you must be ordinarily.
Joeman: Some people think gospel of John and gospel of MM are written by the same person because they make similar grammar errors and have similar style, but gospel of MM is dated early second century. It could not have been written by her. ************* M*W: There is a very close alliance with the grammatical style of MM and John. All I can say is that biblical and non-biblical versions seem to match what MM and John wrote. I believe that MM and the "Beloved Disciple" were one and the same. The true NT is based on the beliefs and experience of MM. Jesus was her predominant follower. They taught that salvation would occur from within, and not by the method Paul predicted.
If Mary Magdalene had not been mentioned in the Book of John, but only your "Beloved Disciple" then you would have had something of an argument -- that "Beloved Disciple" was the appellation that was being applied to Mary Magdalene. However, the name "Mary Magdalene" is used three times in the Book of John. The most telling reference is in John 19:25 and 26 in which Mary Magdalene is mentioned the first verse and "The Disciple Jesus Loved" in the next, so, obviously they cannot be one and the same. Each is mentioned separately in the same list. How is it that you never noticed this, or noticing it, were too stupid to understand its significance?
Yes, indeed. Reasonably put. It's been the story of my life so far, so in fact I don't need to learn that, thank you. Not really, I asked a question and had started up several different debates. Whatever else had happened, my question had not been answered and I wanted to get the thread back on track by clarifying my question. What the fuck prompted this??
