Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stuart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:11 pmYou deviate by placing the gospel composition before the letters. Even traditionalist accept the destruction of the temple references place the gospels after 66 CE.

There is a long list of New Testament scholars, many traditionalists, some not, who place the Gospels in the 40-60AD range.

Afaik, the late dating really began in the 1800s, so the traditionalist view was early.
Yet even today, many hold to early NT dating.

And have the Gospels ahead of Acts and the Epistles and Revelation.

So your arguments are circular, in error and GIGO.

If you are going to make pedantic, condescending, one-sided arguments,
please at least have your basic facts right.

Thanks!

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm There is a long list of New Testament scholars, many traditionalists, some not, who place the Gospels in the 40-60AD range.

Perhaps you could list them and their reasons for doing so.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm Yet even today, many hold to early NT dating.
And have the Gospels ahead of Acts and the Epistles and Revelation.

Perhaps you could name them and their reasons for doing so.

You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?

I've improved my page on this a bit tonight, more planned!

Pure Bible Forum
modern and current scholars who accept the pre-70 AD dating for the Gospels and often the full New Testament
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... ment.1267/

If you want an essay discussing and comparing the reasoning behind each one, you are welcome to write the essay.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:46 pm

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm There is a long list of New Testament scholars, many traditionalists, some not, who place the Gospels in the 40-60AD range.

Perhaps you could list them and their reasons for doing so.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm Yet even today, many hold to early NT dating.
And have the Gospels ahead of Acts and the Epistles and Revelation.

Perhaps you could name them and their reasons for doing so.

No, he really can't.

This guy is one of the biggest phonies you'll ever come across as far as his "research." His "research" consists of entering a few words into Google Books or Google Scholar and then reading a sentence or two and quoting it as favoring his position. Even his "list" - which he erroneously calls "long" - is a promise of a list from OTHER PEOPLE making assertions.

In point of fact there aren't very many people - certainly not today (even tradionalists) - who place all four Gospels pre-60 AD.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:40 pm You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?

YOU are the one who made the claim about so many people.


Now that you're caught between a rock and your big mouth, you want to point fingers.


Why not just give us a list of, say, FIFTY scholars who say the entire NT is pre-60 AD?

If there are as many as you pretend, this shouldn't be very difficult.


(As a reminder, I've taken two courses in between the testaments and concerning redaction criticism/source/form criticism - and you haven't, so I'm well aware of your probable arguments).

... (was a duplicate post, please delete)

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:40 pm You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?

Yes, when you make a claim you are responsible to back it up.

Which was done by me (although you tried to move the goalposts ) but you abandoned your claim.

Stuart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:11 pm
You deviate by placing the gospel composition before the letters. Even traditionalist accept the destruction of the temple references place the gospels after 66 CE.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm There is a long list of New Testament scholars, many traditionalists, some not, who place the Gospels in the 40-60AD range.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:10 pm I've improved my page on this a bit tonight, more planned!

Pure Bible Forum
modern and current scholars who accept the pre-70 AD dating for the Gospels and often the full New Testament
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... ment.1267/

If you want an essay discussing and comparing the reasoning behind each one, you are welcome to write the essay.

Your posts are a confused mess.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:49 am Which was done by me (although you tried to move the goalposts ) but you abandoned your claim.

Stuart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:11 pm
You deviate by placing the gospel composition before the letters. Even traditionalist accept the destruction of the temple references place the gospels after 66 CE.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:50 pm There is a long list of New Testament scholars, many traditionalists, some not, who place the Gospels in the 40-60AD range.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:10 pm I've improved my page on this a bit tonight, more planned!

Pure Bible Forum
modern and current scholars who accept the pre-70 AD dating for the Gospels and often the full New Testament
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... ment.1267/

If you want an essay discussing and comparing the reasoning behind each one, you are welcome to write the essay.

Your posts are a confused mess.

No, you're caught red-handed and like the narcissist you are, you're trying to fake your way through it.

You didn't give a long list. You gave a LINK to YOUR self-owned board that proved absolutely nothing and didn't even have anything resembling a list or an investigation, just a few claims of what other people said.


You've literally not even attempted to prove your claim AT ALL.


(I would note most traditionalists reject YOUR asinine "Lukan priority" idea to say nothing of your notion that John wrote 1 John around 40 AD).