Posted: Oct 08, 2015 5:05 am
Mike S wrote:
What are my thoughts as to why so many scholars accept the early dates? A question that’s repeatedly crossed my mind for some years now!
I’d love to put the question directly to Doherty, Erhman or Carrier: “Without a shred of supporting evidence - in fact with all of the available evidence pointing to a much later date, and with no mention by any writer whatsoever, friendly or foe, prior to say 175 AD - why do you still assert that the canonical gospels were produced some time in the first century, or shortly thereafter? On what exactly do you base such a conclusion?”
In fact, there’s scarcely any doubt that the four gospels were introduced into general circulation through the agency of Irenaeus in Gaul, Clement in Alexandria, and Tertullian in Northern Africa, and who concurrently laid the foundations for eventual Roman Catholic Supremacy.
The same questions can be asked of the Pauline Corpus. The supposed first writing to identify letters to seven Churches under the name of and Pastorals is the same "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
Who claimed there were FOUR Canonised Gospels before "Against Heresies"?
Who claimed a single person wrote ALL Epistles before "Against Heresies"?
How in the world could Irenaeus introduced the Gospels into circulation when he argued that Jesus was crucified as an old man about 20 years after the 15th of Tiberius.
The Gospels claim Jesus was crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE--NOT 49 CE.
Mike S wrote:In his third book against Heresies, written around 190 AD or so, Irenaeus already saw fit to express the opinion that every church ought to agree with the Church of Rome; Tertullian was in full agreement therewith, those of Clement were somewhat less explicit.
The writings of Tertullian were NOT in full agreement with those of Irenaeus.
Tertullian writings do not agree that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old.
Mike S wrote:I think that most of the mainstream authors do not wish to be seen as too extreme, too far out of step with either their colleagues or the work of the majority of preceding scholars, other than perhaps having already committed themselves to the orthodox dates/pattern previously.
That is precisely the problem. Evidence is no longer a requirement---one must become mainstream and commit WITHOUT evidence.
Mike S wrote:Imagine yourself as one of the mentioned writers: you’ve published various books and given a number of lectures, both predicated on the generally-accepted gospel dates (and you may even have a website narrating Christianity’s development along the same lines). I doubt you’d be too impressed if someone then came along and turned the whole apple-cart upside down!
Who'd be impressed if someone was to argue that the Pauline Corpus are all late writings based on the evidence from antiquity?
People want to be associated with the crowd.