Apologetics - Defending our Faith

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Tsaphah, Jul 18, 2016.

  1. 2,475
    796
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The following is information from an article that I found while looking for the authors of the book of Acts. For me, it was evident that the so called “scholars” have their heads in the wrong place.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    *Some experts (J. Dickson) think that the Epistle of James, which contains the most allusions to Jesus’ thoughts in the New Testament corpus (except for the Gospels), derives from Jesus’ brother *(cf. P. H. Davids) and should be recognized as a source for Jesus. All these documents antedate the Gospels. They probably took shape between 30 and 60 C.E.

    The first written gospel seems to be the Gospel of Mark, which was composed in the late sixties or early seventies. The Gospel of John evolved through numerous editions. The first one may conceivably antedate 70 C.E. Matthew was composed around 85. The “final” edition of John is dated about 95. The composition of Luke-Acts is usually dated around 80-90, though some experts now suggest perhaps between 90 and 100.

    Key question. A key question is now central in the study of all gospels and in Jesus Research. Scholars are sharply divided as they seek to answer this question: How much tradition and how much addition shape the Jesus traditions in the gospels? The minimalists claim that the Evangelists have given us only their own unreliable editing of Jesus traditions. The maximalists contend that the Evangelists have preserved accurately the accounts of Jesus’ birth, his life, and his words. Clearly, the intracanonical Gospels are edited accounts of what Jesus said and did, but editing is possible only because of some tradition to shape. Edition clarifies tradition. Does that mean that the Synoptics Matt.; Mark; Luke) present somewhat accurately Jesus’ fundamental message? The answer, as we shall see (chap. 8), is probably yes.

    * The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, By James H. Charlesworth
    _____________________________________________________________________

    What is missing in these “educated guesses” of dates, given above? It is an important event that proves these dates to be wrong. Especially when the term “antedate” is used.
    Definition of antedate.
    1 a: to date as of a time prior to that of execution
    b : to assign to a date prior to that of actual occurrence

    It appears to me that these so called “scholars” are looking for ways to prove that the information, given in the Bible, is written by uninspired individuals. What is written can be altered or rewritten at any time, by anyone.

     
    Regent Lessard and Joshuastone7 like this.

Share This Page