The Gospels were written too late to be considered reliable. They were written hundreds of years AFTER the actual events.
How would you answer this objection to manuscript reliability??
Good point, there is reliable evidence that John was the last Gospel written. So stands to reason if it was written last the other 3 had to have been written before that date pushing them closer to 30-33AD. The closer to the actual events the more reliable sources become.
I personally have a difficult time dating John at 100AD. Some scholars date it to 90AD, and I still have a difficult time with that date too.
There is one huge event that we know from history that took place in 70AD that none of the Gospels even mention in passing. The destruction of the Jewish Temple is the event.
Wouldn’t it stand to reason that this event should have at least been mentioned? You have Jewish authors who fail to even mention the destruction of the most significant building/place of the Jewish community.
I believe that all 4 Gospels were written before 70 AD which puts all 4 within 30-35 years of the actual events! The next closet historical manuscripts are Homers Iliad which date 300 years from the actual events.
The Gospels are without a doubt the most reliable manuscripts in all of history!
I'm assuming they date them according to the earliest known manuscript we have? I feelike I've read that somewhere but not 100% sure. My assumption is that the original documents that were written were passed around and went through so many hands they probably got destroyed and the ones we have and are able to date are copies of the original.
Exactly! We don’t have the originals but we do have over 6000 copies of the earliest manuscripts!
The earliest manuscripts we have do play into the dating but there are also other internal evidence that aid in the dating.
One example of an internal piece of evidence is the way that multiple Gospels describe the same events but with different details. This shows the reliability of them because this is exactly how it is with eyewitness testimony. You and I witness the same event but when we describe it we give different details.
An example of this is the arrest of Jesus in the garden. In Mark, it is stated that “an apostle” cut off the high servants ear. Mark does not mention which apostle. In John, same event is described but in John the apostle is named. It was Peter. By the time John wrote his Gospel, Peter had been killed. At the time Mark was written, Peter was still alive. Mark was protecting Peter’s identity and John did not feel the need to do the same since Peter was dead.
History books are being written today on events that happened years and centuries before. The Bible should not be considered faulty, because they were not written in the 30's AD.
As per your discussion, I would like to add some points.
Conservatively speaking, most scholars will give an early date for the Gospels, John being the only exception. Most commentators and theologians put John’s Gospel in the late 80’s AD. The synoptic Gospels are much earlier. For example the Gospel of Mark is considered the earliest of the three, about 60-65 AD, depending on the idea of Mark’s Gospel being the “template” for Matthew and Luke’s Gospels at about 50’s AD. Matthew and Luke are considered being written in AD 60-70.
However, since we do not have the original’s, these are vague estimates. Such dates are based on Mark being the source for both Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke contain prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, supporting the idea that they were written before 70 AD. John is believed to have lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers.
The latest gospel written was John an it is dated ~100ad. Most scholars believe that the 4 gospels were eyewitness accounts.
Good point, there is reliable evidence that John was the last Gospel written. So stands to reason if it was written last the other 3 had to have been written before that date pushing them closer to 30-33AD. The closer to the actual events the more reliable sources become.
I personally have a difficult time dating John at 100AD. Some scholars date it to 90AD, and I still have a difficult time with that date too. There is one huge event that we know from history that took place in 70AD that none of the Gospels even mention in passing. The destruction of the Jewish Temple is the event. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that this event should have at least been mentioned? You have Jewish authors who fail to even mention the destruction of the most significant building/place of the Jewish community. I believe that all 4 Gospels were written before 70 AD which puts all 4 within 30-35 years of the actual events! The next closet historical manuscripts are Homers Iliad which date 300 years from the actual events. The Gospels are without a doubt the most reliable manuscripts in all of history!
I'm assuming they date them according to the earliest known manuscript we have? I feelike I've read that somewhere but not 100% sure. My assumption is that the original documents that were written were passed around and went through so many hands they probably got destroyed and the ones we have and are able to date are copies of the original.
Exactly! We don’t have the originals but we do have over 6000 copies of the earliest manuscripts! The earliest manuscripts we have do play into the dating but there are also other internal evidence that aid in the dating. One example of an internal piece of evidence is the way that multiple Gospels describe the same events but with different details. This shows the reliability of them because this is exactly how it is with eyewitness testimony. You and I witness the same event but when we describe it we give different details. An example of this is the arrest of Jesus in the garden. In Mark, it is stated that “an apostle” cut off the high servants ear. Mark does not mention which apostle. In John, same event is described but in John the apostle is named. It was Peter. By the time John wrote his Gospel, Peter had been killed. At the time Mark was written, Peter was still alive. Mark was protecting Peter’s identity and John did not feel the need to do the same since Peter was dead.
History books are being written today on events that happened years and centuries before. The Bible should not be considered faulty, because they were not written in the 30's AD.
As per your discussion, I would like to add some points.
Conservatively speaking, most scholars will give an early date for the Gospels, John being the only exception. Most commentators and theologians put John’s Gospel in the late 80’s AD. The synoptic Gospels are much earlier. For example the Gospel of Mark is considered the earliest of the three, about 60-65 AD, depending on the idea of Mark’s Gospel being the “template” for Matthew and Luke’s Gospels at about 50’s AD. Matthew and Luke are considered being written in AD 60-70.
However, since we do not have the original’s, these are vague estimates. Such dates are based on Mark being the source for both Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke contain prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, supporting the idea that they were written before 70 AD. John is believed to have lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers.