[dating of the gospels] part 4 some of the comments

Part 3 showed some of Robinson's arguments.

Mark Goodacre

An example of a flawed answer to this is in the argument of post-dater Mark Goodacre (2008), who writes:

The claim is unimpressive, though, given that most of the documents in question are either written in the pre-70 period (Paul’s letters) or set in the pre-70 period (Gospels-Acts).

But they’re not! They’re not set in the post-70 period at all, as Robinson points out. So Goodacre uses the presumption that something which was argued is not and therefore that is his argument that it is not.

He then invokes Jesus ben Ananias and claims that:

That Jesus could have predicted the doom of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is no more inherently improbable than that another Jesus, the son of Ananias, should have done so in the autumn of 62.

This is pseudo-historicism of the worst kind. It’s like the CIA predicting 911 pre 911 and then negating that by saying that Nostrodamus also predicted the end of the world and look how that turned out. Therefore, the CIA could never have predicted that. The two are mutually exclusive.

Anne Rice

"This and his book, The Priority of John, are of great importance to anyone undertaking serious study of the gospels or study of "the historical Jesus." He left me pretty well convinced by his ideas about the early date of the gospels, and I've read much since -- published after his death -- that supports his view.

The case for the early date of the gospels is growing. Check out the work of Richard Bauckham. Look at the arguments of Bernard Orchid. The old Enlightenment cliches about the gospels being "late date" and "inauthentic" are now truly being swept aside by new investigation by fine scholars.

It's too bad an entire generation of clergy was brought up with these old fashioned ideas that the gospels were fabricated by later communities. Increasingly scholars are studying the physical manuscript evidence for new clues to date, and this field is one of the most promising." (Amazon.com Review)

Greg Koukl

The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves.

For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.

It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).

The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed.

There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’ life and deeds.

Established Christology

This point about an already established Christology [above] is most important and is ignored by the anti-early daters. Arguments centre on whether the stone was moved, whether the body was stolen and so on but not on why Christology should not only have got a grip on contemporaries of the time but have withstood the pressure exerted to expunge the very notion.

Paul Tobin

He comes in as an admitted sceptic of early dating and his argument proceeds from there:

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

The above, Robinson argues, is a mistaken prophecy. For the world obviously did not end. The evangelists would have left this out had the time between Jesus death and the composition of the gospels were a long time.

Thus he argues for an early date of composition for the gospels, before the Jewish revolt of 66-70 CE.

This is so mired in mistruths. Between “long time” and “Thus he argues” are virtually the whole of Robinson’s arguments leading to his conclusion and yet Tobin conveniently leave these out, then concludes that Robinson is wrong.

Tobin goes on, having failed to establish anything, yet thinking that leaving out 90% of the book of the man he’s debunking means that he has estabilished his point:

This argument is flawed. While I do not disagree that the above is an example of a failed prophecy of Jesus, I do disagree with the use of that passage to date the gospel as pre-70 CE documents.

So he uses his conclusion to reinforce his argument. Again, this is the sort of shoddy scholarship which passes for intellectual debate.

Matthew J. Slick [2008]

"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book - Festus's appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."

"It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

For those interested, some other sources include:

1. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
2. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
3. Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper's Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.
4. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
5. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985).

Part 5 concerns the Rev. Duggan's contention.