Comments on: Earliest Christian History: Dating the Synoptic Gospels

By: Stephen Hebert

Stephen Hebert — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:03:09 +0000

@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.

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:58 +0000

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.\"

By: Norma Long

Norma Long — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:59:27 +0000

Grest post. Praises to God!

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:44:19 +0000

Danny Zacharias over at deinde.org has an interesting reply: Expecting the End in Mark.