Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Right Wing Professor
clearly contradicts what you wrote

Not in the way you're claiming.

While it is true that people who have done intensive work on the NT some time in the past (Bultmann, etc.) have disputed these dates - serious contemporary scholarship no longer accepts that late-dating system.

Additionally, the contemporary scholars who gravitate toward the today's later date ranges (which are substantially earlier than the later dates assigned a generation ago) generally admit that the core document dates from the 1st century and that they are only arguing that the present text was later emended, not that it was composed from scratch in the 2nd century.

For example, someone who dates the Gospel of Luke to 130 will concede that 90% of Luke or more dates to the 1st century and that they are only arguing that certain short passages date to 130.

No contemporary scholar of any reputation claims that more than 3-5% of the canonical NT text dates from after 100 AD.

65 posted on 04/07/2006 7:49:52 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: wideawake
No contemporary scholar of any reputation claims that more than 3-5% of the canonical NT text dates from after 100 AD.

Do you claim the pastoral epistles date to the first century?

74 posted on 04/07/2006 8:00:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson