Earliest Christian History: Dating the Synoptic Gospels
James Crossley offers an interesting glimpse into his scheme for dating the Gospels.
While I like his radically early dating of Mark (late 30s CE!), I feel that that’s a bit too early. I do think, however, that the predictions in Mark 9:1 and 13:30 place this document before 70 CE and the destruction of the Temple.
Dating these things is always a bit of a mind puzzle—evidence X jives with theory Y, but evidence Z does not. What to do? Do your best, I guess.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Danny Zacharias over at deinde.org has an interesting reply:
Expecting the End in Mark.
Grest post. Praises to God!
30CE is way too early. Also if it was that early you would have to date Acts that early as well. Which doesn’t seem to be probable. I think an easier way to digest the notable period of time it took to write the Gospel is in the Gospel account itself. An unbeliever might use the delay as a proof Christianity is a fraud. However, for example was using women as the first witnesses the best they could come up with 40 years later? I mean women for example weren’t even allowed to be used as a witness in a court during that period of time. If they were busy making it up – there would be far better ways to prove the validity of scripture had they been writing to “create” something rather then “recount” the events.
Christian\’s last [type]: \"Devotional: In death heaven’s morning breaks, earth’s vain shadows flee.\"
@Christian —
I agree re: the women as a nice little piece of evidence. I also agree that sometime in the 30s CE is too early for Mark. I don’t quite understand why you think Acts would have to be that early: (1) Acts is written by Luke not Mark, and (2) Acts recounts events that are much later, e.g., the ministry of Paul in the 50s.