Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
When did Luke write his Gospel
#1
September 3, 2013

A Religion Professor at Yale has claimed that Luke wrote his Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).

What evidence is there to disprove this claim?

Otto
Reply
#2
It's a messy issue and dating it is quite tricky. Due to a number of factors, it is quite likely that Luke -- as we have it today -- was compiled after the fall of the Temple, but certainly incorporated earlier sources (so then there are layers to contend with). I'm not very familiar with arguments for an earlier date.
Reply
#3
Acts 1:1 continues and refers to the first letter, which is the Gospel of Luke.

Acts certainly is before 70 AD. It does not refer to it at all, and it ends suddenly at the last journey of Paul, which was in +/- 63 AD.

I'm not surprised that proferssors claim such things. Most 'modern' critics say that the NT was written after 70AD.
This is purely because of 'scientific evidence' of the oldest fragment of manuscripts.

Tradition however and what the letters themselves reveal, tells us something else.
Reply
#4
ograabe Wrote:September 3, 2013

A Religion Professor at Yale has claimed that Luke wrote his Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).

What evidence is there to disprove this claim?

Otto
<!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: --> All of Shaul?s[Paul] fourteen epistles were written before his death during the latter part of the reign of Nero, who had died in 68 A.D.. Keph [Peter] died with Shaul[1], therefore his two books (a.k.a - 1st and 2nd Peter) were also composed before that date (68 A.D. that is). Shaul is recorded as ofttimes quoting the book of Loukanus[Luke][2], indicating that Loukanus was written before Shaul?s death. This also must be true of the book of Acts, also written by Loukanus, for in it Loukanus makes no mention of Shaul?s death but does discuss Shaul living at Rome. This optimistic note on which Acts ends, showing Shaul proclaiming The Good News in Rome without hindrance, suggests a date before the outbreak of persecution there in 64 A.D. (As some what noted above by distazo being that Shaul's last journey was in +/- 63).

footnotes:
[1] Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2:25:5?7.
[2] Ibid, 3:4:7.


For a more complete dating of the ReNewed Covenant see: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://yahweh.org/publications/articles/dates/dates_for_the_nt.pdf">http://yahweh.org/publications/articles ... the_nt.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
It is not surprising that a professional scholar has not attributed to the gospel of Luke a date earlier than 70AD, since it plainly speaks of events that occurred during and leading up to that year. See Luke 21:5ff. Cf. Josephus.

The trend in modern scholarship is to automatically doubt the supernatural inspiration of Scripture. If Luke was written before AD70, it would mean that the author had knowledge of future events, which is compatible with the belief that the Holy Spirit inspired the author, or even with the belief that Yeshua of Nazareth was truly a prophet.

I discussed the matter with an acquaintance of mine before, and it comes down to this: I am a presuppositionalist; I presuppose that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God supernaturally preserved for our edification. Since the gospel of Luke claims to be speaking of events that occurred in the first half of the first century CE, it could have been written in 1984 for all I know. If I believe it to be a trustworthy account of the life and teachings of Yeshua, then it is true that Yeshua himself knew of Jerusalem's destruction before it occurred, whether or not Luke did.
Reply
#6
Reply to bknight:

Very nice statement. Thanks.

P.S. You obviously intended to write: "...has NOT attributed...."
Reply
#7
ograabe Wrote:September 3, 2013

A Religion Professor at Yale has claimed that Luke wrote his Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).

What evidence is there to disprove this claim?

Otto
,

Professors can claim whatever suits them ... I have a question : Did this academic provide ANY evidence for the claim (= unfounded belief, if no proof or argument) ?

Jerzy

P.S. "Professor at Yale" may mean something to the world but means nothing to me, as I have seen "Professors at Oxford" being plainly wrong.
Reply
#8
Another point worth mentioning:

Since Luke wrote a short Gospel based on Mathew for evangelizing Aramaic speaking gentiles
in the northern part of Asia Minor, his Gospel in Aramaic was the first to reach Greece.

Since Mark's Gospel was the first to reach Greece, it was the first to be translated into Greek,
apparently sometime after 70 A.D.

Hence, the Greek bible "scholars" have concluded incorrectly that Mark was the first written
Gospel and all of the four Gospels were written after 70 A.D.

It seems obvious to me that Matthew was taking notes throughout Jesus' ministry,
and his was the first Gospel that was written.

Otto
Reply
#9
ograabe Wrote:Another point worth mentioning:

Since Luke wrote a short Gospel based on Mathew for evangelizing Aramaic speaking gentiles
in the northern part of Asia Minor, his Gospel in Aramaic was the first to reach Greece.

Since Mark's Gospel was the first to reach Greece, it was the first to be translated into Greek,
apparently sometime after 70 A.D.

Probably, but from Mark we have a short fragment among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is dated at 52AD. I doubt it can be said so exact, but it is anyway from before 70.

[Image: 7Q5DSSA.jpg]
Reply
#10
distazo Wrote:Probably, but from Mark we have a short fragment among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is dated at 52AD. I doubt it can be said so exact, but it is anyway from before 70.

[Image: 7Q5DSSA.jpg]
Is this fragment written in Aramaic, or _____ ? And how can it be said that such a small piece is of this or that?
Reply
#11
CORRECTION!!

Since Mark (NOT LUKE) wrote a short Gospel based on Mathew for evangelizing Aramaic speaking gentiles
in the northern part of Asia Minor, his Gospel in Aramaic was the first to reach Greece.

Since Mark's Gospel was the first to reach Greece, it was the first to be translated into Greek,
apparently sometime after 70 A.D.
Reply
#12
The Texas RAT Wrote:Is this fragment written in Aramaic, or _____ ? And how can it be said that such a small piece is of this or that?

Com'on Texas! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> It is Greek, but you knew, right?

This piece does not contradict Aramaic primacy and it statistically very unlikely to match 3 or 4 these words.
Just wonder; were Essenes excluded from hearing the gospel? And another thing, nobody exactly knows when the Aramaic gospels were translated.
They might have been translated and attached directly to the original work. This piece shows that this assumption might be correct.

Pro's and Con's you decide
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/7Q5_mark.html">http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleSt ... _mark.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#13
ograabe Wrote:Reply to bknight:

Very nice statement. Thanks.

P.S. You obviously intended to write: "...has NOT attributed...."
You're right, Akhi. That was a clear oversight and has been corrected.
Reply
#14
We know that the Greek translations of the Gospels all occurred after 70 AD
because that is why the Greek "scholars" all claim that all of the New Testament
was written after 70 AD.

Otto
Reply
#15
We don't really know that for a fact. The claim for a late date of any piece of literature is the lack of any extant manuscripts from an earlier date, which is an argument from silence. Nobody on any side of the argument believe the autographs still exist, so everything we have is a copy of an earlier original. The debate is over how much earlier, and modern scholars tend to take a skeptical approach and just say "it certainly could not have been any later than this date" but don't try and guess beyond that.

The same people making this argument, that "Yeshua could not have predicted events 40 years in his future, thus the books were written post-AD70" are the same people who believe that Yeshua didn't really walk on water, or heal the blind, or rise from the dead. These are the "religious" scholars of today, they automatically doubt the authenticity of any recorded miracle.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)