Bart ehrman dating of the gospels
Especially when we know that at the time Paul’s letters do appear they are simultaneously embroiled in controversies over forgeries and interpolations.
Here we have in a convenient nutshell the basic reasons behind the widely accepted dates for the Gospels.Skeptics, therefore, date the gospel accounts very late, arguing that eyewitnesses to these events were already dead and unavailable to deny the claims.It turns out that the presupposition of philosophical naturalism is at work in the minds of those who would deny the early dating of the gospels.One of the primary reasons why skeptics date the gospels later than 70AD is the fact that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in the gospel accounts (i.e. Secular history records that the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, fulfilling this alleged prediction by Jesus.
In order to avoid the accurate prophesy from Jesus, skeptics argue that the gospel must have been written after the temple was destroyed.Not long ago, Daniel Wallace (no relationship to me, except that all us Wallace’s claim to descend from William) posted some great news about an early fragment of the Book of Romans that was recently discovered.This fragment dates to the early third century which puts it in rare company.We asked Wallace if there was some specific manuscript evidence that inclined people to deny the early dating of the Gospel accounts. We then asked why people continued to deny the early dating if, in fact, we were continuing to find early fragments and there was no contrary manuscript evidence.