| ▲ | boredhedgehog 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> Well the Bible was written some 300 years after all of this happened. Are you perhaps confusing writing with the process of canonization? Common estimates would place the writing of the youngest book of the Bible at 95-120 AD. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Amezarak 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Yeah, usual dates for the new Testament are all first century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New... I think it's important to note the primary argument for even that "later" dating of the end of the first/beginning of the second century is that the gospels predict the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no "hard" argument on the lower bound, only the upper bound (earliest known physical evidence.) I don't think it's particularly wild to suggest, even for a secular historiographer, that the vague, flowery language taken to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem could have been written without any supernatural influence. It had happened before, and tensions were high. Luke-Acts claims to be written by an eyewitness (the latter part of the narrative of Acts shifts to first person as he describes events he allegedly participated in versus just heard and read about) and John also claims to have been written by an eyewitness. I don't think there's any particularly strong argument against that, but the scholarly consensus goes back and forth over time. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | petesergeant 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I think it’s worth pointing out you’re both talking about the Gospel rather than the Bible, a chunk of which predates Jesus | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||