Refuting 2 Common arguments Pagan Christians attempt to use for their "early dating" of the Gospels.

By: Anonymous-Muslim

First let us remember, the estimated dates of the Gospels (all dates are in C.E.)

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

The book of Mark is said to be dated between years 65-80

The book of Matthew is said to be dated years 80-100

The book of Luke is said to be dated years 80-100

The book of John is said to be dated years 90-120

(From: https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/why_different_gospels.htm)

Quicly let us refute 2 other commons lies is 7Q5 which Pagan Christians claim is Mark and the Magdalen Papyrus. These have both been disproven!

7Q5- From the Qumran Cave #7 of the "Dead Sea Scrolls"

Let us read:

Putting all this in perspective, we conclude this review by addressing two concerns: evidence and attitudes. First, what is the hard evidence on which O’Callaghan’s identification is based? A scrap of papyrus smaller than a man’s thumb with only one unambiguous word—kai. Only six other letters are undisputed: tw (line 2), t (line 3, immediately after the kai), nh (line 4), h (line 5). To build a case on such slender evidence would seem almost impossible even if all other conditions were favorable to it. But to identify this as Mark 6:52-53 requires (1) two significant textual emendations (tau for delta in a manner which is unparalleled; and the dropping of ejpiV thVn gh'n even though no other MSS omit this phrase); and (2) unlikely reconstructions of several other letters.

(From: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1196)

Now on with more information refuting Pagan Christian claims on 7Q5:

Christian scholar Graham Stanton who served as "President-Elect" of the international society of New Testament scholars, Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, writes in his book Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus & the Gospels

"7Q5 contains only ten Greek letters on four lines which can be read with certainty. I used to tell my students that after only one Greek lesson they could already read an important Greek fragment from Qumran, for it contains only one full word, kai (and). However, as Thiede himself has shown, the tiny size of the fragment and the small number of certain letters do not rule out the possibility of identification, for papyrus fragments of comparable size have been identified successfully. If 7Q5 = Mark 6:52-53, then this text did not contain the Greek phrase epi ten gen (to land), otherwise line 4 would be nine letters too long. The phrase is found in all Greek manuscripts of Mark and all the early translations into other languages. This is an embarrassment for the theory, but it is not fatal: individual New Testament manuscripts occasionally contain readings not attested in any other manuscript. (page 27)

continuing on with Graham's writing:

Two letters are clear in line two, tau and omega. For some time now the next letter has been central to the debate. If 7Q5 is a fragment of Mark, this damaged letter must be a nu, otherwise the theory collapses. Thiede claims that the difference between what he takes to be partial nu in line 2 and the clear nu in line 4 is not significant, for the scribe of 7Q5 did vary his letters slightly. He cites as an example the differences between the eta in line four, and the eta in line 5. But a simple test shows that this claim is fallacious. By using tracing paper on an enlarged clear photograph of 7Q5 one can compare the two etas: the difference is insignificant. If one traces the clear nu in line 4 and tries to place it over the disputed damaged letter in line 2, it is immediately obvious that a nu simply will not fit there. Very properly, Thiede insists that careful examination of the original is always preferable to photographs, even if they are infrared, or enlargements. He concludes that the nu in line 2 is 'highly possible'. Other experienced scholars have looked at the original recently and have concluded that a nu is impossible. One such scholar is R.G. Jenkins of the University of Melbourne. He has carried out a much more sophisticated version of my tracing paper test. The results are shown in the diagram in Plate 8 of this book.

At this point in the debate, Carsten Thiede will want to produce his trump card, the result of an investigation carried out on 12 April 1992 by the Division of Identification and Forensic Science of the Israel National Police. With German television cameras rolling, a stereo-microscope was used to look closely at the disputed letter in line 2. A photograph is included in the published version of the papers given at a symposium held in Eichstatt, Germany in 1991. In the photography there are faint traces of what Thiede thinks is the top of the diagonal of a nu (the Greek letter shaped like the English letter N). These traces are not visible to the naked eye. In May 1995 I showed the new enlarged photograph to T.C. Skeat, a very experienced papyrologist. He was certain there simply wasn't enough room for a nu in this line. He also confirmed the judgment of S.R. Pickering and R.R.E. Cook that the next damaged letter looks very much like a damaged alpha- a further nail in the coffin of the theory that 7Q5 is a part of Mark. R.G. Jenkins, who has been working on all the fragments from Cave 7 for some time, has looked carefully at the original and the new photograph. He has reached the same conclusion: he thinks the faint traces which the stereo-microscope has found may be no more than a shadow.

Several other experienced specialists have concluded that nu in line 2 is either very unlikely or quite impossible. Pickering and Cook read an iota at this point; they stress the similarity of this damaged letter to the certain iota in line 3. This seems to me to be the most likely reading.

One last argument used to support the O'Callaghan/Thiede theory needs to be examined. Computer searchers have been mentioned several times in the debate. In particular, appeal has been made to search at Tyndale House, Cambridge, using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) CD-ROM, a massive database of almost all the Greek writings of antiquity. The search failed to yield any text other than Mark 6:52-53 for the letters identified by O'Callaghan. This seems to provide impressive support for the O'Callaghan theory until one learns that the Cambridge search did not take account of all the possible ways of reading the damaged letters in 7Q5.

There is an even more serious limitation with computer searches. Although computers can search rapidly databases with incorporate selected editions of texts, not even the TLG CD-ROM is complete. It does not include all possible readings of the damaged letters, let alone textual variations in manuscripts. Above all, neither the TLG CD-ROM nor any other database can possibly include lost writings or missing sections of texts! Many Jewish writings in Greek have survived either only in part, or in translations into other languages, or not at all. 7Q5 is almost certainly a fragment of one such writing. (Graham Stanton, Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus & the Gospels, pages 28-29; Copyright date 1995)

Also quickly let us refute the Pagan Christian claims regarding the Magdalen Papyrus (a.k.a. "The Huleatt Manuscript", the "Jesus Papyrus", and Papyrus 64)

The Pagan Cartsen Peter Thiede's lunatic false argument is rebutted by Sigrid Peterson, Ph.D.

His redating on paleographical grounds is seriously flawed in

four ways. First, he does not indicate how four great

paleographers could all concur on a lowered redating of the

Matthew fragments to a date ca. 200 and still be in error.

Second, he compares letters in these fragments from Egypt

[Luxor is purchase place, hand compares with {P}4, from Philo

codex binding] with material from Herculaneum in Italy (that

may be from ca. 40 b.c.e. on provenance grounds, with a

terminus ad quem of 79 c.e.) and from Qumran in The Land, and

from elsewhere in the wilderness of the Dead Sea (Naxal Xever).

Third, he compares individual letters without an appreciation

of the characteristics of their formation or the hands of which

they are a part. Fourth, his assembly of mss for comparisons is

not a coherent set, and was apparently chosen primarily as a

group of mss which COULD be dated in the first century c.e.,

regardless of their other features.

Thiede does not recognize that a two-column codex such as {P}

64 --Magdalen Gr. 17 -- has no similarly-constructed examples

with which to be compared. He also does not recognize the need

to provide some explanation for the appearance of a two-column

codex at least a century  earlier than all other examples of

two-column codices. See Turner, op. cit.

Finally, Thiede (1995) and Roberts (1953) both transcribed the

fragments as though they contained <italics>nomina sacra

</italics>, and as though the use of nomina sacra was not

restricted to KURIOS, KURIE, or QEOS, QEOU, but rather extended

to abbreviations of IHSOUS. However, and I must state this

emphatically, there is <italics>NO VISIBLE SUPPORT</italics>

for reconstructing <italics>nomina sacra</italics> of IS or IH.

That is to say, almost no ink-papyrus combination exists for

the areas where these have been indicated. In working out the

stichometry, using the available text of Matthew 26 in the

relevant verses, I was able to supply alternative lines in

every case where Thiede proposed abbreviation or suspension

(use of first and last letters), except for the proposed use of

letters instead of a word to signify the number 12. There, I

agree, the stichometry (line length) is such that IB (Greek

letters standing for 12) must be read. This was also Roberts's

(1953) transcription.

Specifically, in the case of Fr. 2, verso (Mt 26.10), Thiede

reconstructs a first line as <Greek> [oISeipenau]t[o]i[sti]

</Greek>  -- which gives a 16-letter stich.

There are at least two problems with this reconstruction.

First, the column is missing both beginning letters and ending

letters. Second, there are no letters on papyrus for this line.

At most, there are two dots, which might be the bottoms of

letters, and if they are the bottoms of letters, those letters

just might be the indicated t and i of Thiede's line 1.

In the case of Fr. 3, recto (Mt 26.22-23) both Thiede and

Roberts reconstruct a line with KE, for KURIE of "Is it I,

Lord." Thiede shows <Greek>[imei]KEod[eapokri]</Greek> for a

15-letter stich.

That there is a line of text here in the papyrus is apparent.

What it might contain is not at all clear. The only clear line

follows, with both beginning and end of the stich missing. The

possibilities for reconstruction are numerous; Thiede's line is

not supported by the miscellaneous ink in various spots on the

line.

In the case of Fr. 1, recto (Mt 26.31) many might argue that

the name IHSOUS *must* be suspended, using IH, or abbreviated,

using IS, in order for the line lengths to come out right. I

would point out that we have a line clearly beginning <Greek>

autoiso </Greek>. . . . and a following line that is 16 letters

long, (Thiede counted 17) consisting of one word, <Greek>

skandalisqhsesqe </Greek>, with the words following in the text

appearing on the line below. The text we now have suggests that

the first line would read <Greek> autoisoiesouspanteshumeis

</Greek> for an impossible 25 letters.

Thiede suggested <Greek> autoiso[ISpantes] </Greek> at 15

letters. I suggest that <Greek> autoiso[iesouspantes </Greek>

at 19 letters is possible. This possibility exists because the

word <Greek> autois </Greek> extends into the margin by one

letter, and the next five letters occupy the space taken by

only four in the following line. This would mean that a line of

19 letters would come out no longer than a line of 16 or 17

letters, yet could still contain the name IHSOUS written out.

Something has to be done to fit the first line into the column.

That it has to be done using an abbreviation or suspension of

IHSOUS is not automatically the case. It is a plausible

solution, however, for a manuscript considered in relationship

with other two-column codices and other manuscripts containing

<italics> nomina sacra </italics>, which Thiede does not do.

(From: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt)

Now let us move to heart of this article and refute 2 more common propagandist claims Pagan Christians assert in their crusade against reality, as they attempt to date the Gospels decades earlier than they were truly written. Again let us recall the true date ranges of the Corrupted Gospels authorships.

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

The book of Mark is said to be dated between years 65-80

The book of Matthew is said to be dated years 80-100

The book of Luke is said to be dated years 80-100

The book of John is said to be dated years 90-120

(From: https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/why_different_gospels.htm)

The first Pagan Christian claim comes from alleged "unfulfilled prophecies" in the Gospels. These are fully disproven, let us read some lengthy excerpts from the article: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/earlygospeldate.html

Unfulfilled Prophecies

One of the examples given by Robinson involves a prophecy made by Jesus about the end of the world:

Mark 13:24-27 (Matthew 24:29-31; Luke 21:25-28)
"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Jesus supposedly ended this discourse with the statement below:

Mark 13:30 (Matthew 24:34-36; Luke 21:32-33)
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

The above, Robinson argues, is a mistaken prophecy. For the world obviously did not end. The evangelists would have left this out had the time between Jesus death and the composition of the gospels were a long time. Thus he argues for an early date of composition for the gospels, before the Jewish revolt of 66-70 CE. [2]

This argument is flawed. While I do not disagree that the above is an example of a failed prophecy of Jesus, I do disagree with the use of that passage to date the gospel as pre-70 CE documents. To bring more clarification on the matter, we see that Jesus actually uttered a similar statement in another passage:

Mark 9:1 (Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27)
And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

Note the statement about some of the people being alive when Jesus' returns. We would expect some of the people in Jesus' generation to be alive after 70 CE. We would also expect some of them (though very few) to be alive around the end of the first century. Thus this argument in no way favours a pre-70 CE date of composition for the gospels. [3]

Back to the top

Brevity of Prophecies on Destruction of the Temple

One example Robinson gives for this argument is found in Matthew:

Matthew 22:1-10
And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, `Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests."

Here Robinson argues that the description italicized is very brief and that Matthew would certainly have added more details had this been written after 70 CE. However this argument is flawed. For Matthew did not make up the whole paragraph above from whole cloth. In fact he copied it from Q. We know this for a fact because Luke has a similar parable (Luke 14:15-24) which does not have the italicized portion above. What does this tells us? It tells us that Matthew inserted one line into an already pre-existing story in Q. It had the effect of "updating" the parable to include the destruction of Jerusalem and thus fulfils its task. [4]

Thus Robinson's arguments for a pre-70CE date of compositions for the gospels are far from convincing and we are not surprised that his views are not accepted by any consensus of scholars. [5]

References

1.	John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, London 1976
2.	Wilson, Jesus:The Evidence: p43-44
3.	Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus: p113
4.	Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus: p123
5.	Wilson, Jesus:The Evidence: p44

(From: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/earlygospeldate.html)

Next Christians use a claim for the end of the "Book of Acts" let us read:

The Argument from the Ending of Acts

Another favourite argument among fundamentalists for early dates of the composition of the gospels is taken from the ending of the Acts of the Apostles. This is how it ends (with Paul in Rome):

Acts 28:30-31
And he [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

The argument is actually quite straight forward and deceptively attractive. The tradition is that Paul died in the persecution of Christians by Nero circa 64 CE. Thus, so they argue, had the author of Acts know about Paul's death he would have written about it. That he did not, means that he was writing at a time before it happened. Now it is generally agreed that Paul reached Rome around 60CE. Since Acts mentioned "two whole years" after that, this makes the date of composition circa 62 CE. Now it is generally accepted that the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts are the same person. And in Acts 1:1, the author referred to his "first book about Jesus", thus making the gospel earlier than this. Which makes the date of composition of Luke around CE 60. Now as it is well known that Luke incorporated large portions of Mark into his gospel, Mark must have been written much earlier, perhaps as early as the late fifties.[16]

Like all fundamentalist arguments, this assertion is not a new. Although when one reads books like Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (Zondervan 1998), one is given the impression that these are explosive new evidence that main stream scholars have not considered. Actually this dating is the traditional date given by Christian apologists. For instance, in 1913, The Papal Biblical Commission decreed that, due to this passage, the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke circa CE 62.[17]

There are many reasons why scholars no longer consider this date credible. A pre-70CE composition of Luke-Acts is a thoroughly discredited concept. Let us now examine the reasons:

(From: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/earlygospeldate.html)

I (Anonymous-Muslim) will now provide these reasons to reject this Pagan Christian claim, Insha Allah (God willing)

1) The first part of this Pagan Christian claim is that the author of the "Book of Acts" must have been writing before 64 C.E. because he does not mention Paul's death. This is alleged proof is not strong and is actually demonstrably false. Paul's coming death is hinted out throughout the "Acts of the Apostles" meaning "Acts" author must have know of Paul's death and was writing of Paul allegedly predicting his death during his live. Let us read the hints in Acts for Paul's death.

Paul allegedly says in Acts 20:25: "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. (NIV Bible)

How did Paul know they would never see him again. Christians could argue Paul never planned on returning to this specific community, but this drawn out claim about never seeing them again certainty is meant to be Paul claiming his death is near that is why they will NEVER see him again.

Let us continue with this in:

Acts 20:36-38

36When he had said this, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. 37They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. 38What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship. (NIV Bible)

The peoples actions clearly show mourning of their "leaders" coming death. If he was just going to be leaving to preach his false Anti-christ sinful "gospel" to more deceived followers why would these cultists of Paul be in tears and mourning?! Clearly they realize his physical demise is to be soon at hand.

The author of the "Acts of the Apostles" also has Paul "predicting" and talking of a dream that tells him (Paul) of his coming trial and death by Caesar (Nero) of Rome. Clearly the author of "Acts" was attempting to show a brave Paul having predicted his death and going to face it like "a man", this infers that the real author of "Acts" was writing after Paul's death and was making a fanciful fictional heroic version of past events.

We read Paul allegedly saying in Acts 27:21-24: 21After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 22But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me 24and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.' (NIV Bible)

2) The way the author of "Acts of the Apostles" writes the ending of his book makes it clear that he was writing the book after Paul's death and CLEARLY had knowledge of Paul's death. We will see that the author was careful not to stay straight-out "Paul was killed and is dead" because that would go against the grain of the "Acts of the Apostles". The author of "Acts" was in fact very skilled in the "compromise" way he end his book, "Acts of the Apostles".

We read early in "Acts" the main theme of the whole book:

God allegedly tells the then "disciples" in

Acts 1:8- 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (NIV Bible)

So clearly "Acts of the Apostles" is supposed to be about the alleged success of the "disciples" of Jesus spreading the "good news". We see clearly that the author of "Acts" was a later Pauline Trinitarian Christian who writes the character Anti-Christ liar Paul as allegedly the most important "disciple" of Jesus(PBUH). As anyone who has read the information on this great website will realize is that Paul was a Anti-christ liar who NEVER met Jesus, was an enemy of the Jewish Christians led by some of Jesus(PBUH)'s real disciples Peter and James, and claimed to have seen Jesus(PBUH) in visions which are themselves contradictory in their details throughout the "Acts of the Apostles"!!!!

But again the author of "Acts" takes falsely claims and takes Paul as an alleged "disciple", and best disciple, at that of Jesus. So the author of "Acts" was attaching the "witness" to the "end of the earth" claim in Acts 1:8 to Paul who would allegedly later "convert" to Christianity after having long been a vicious opponent of the real Jewish Christians who met, knew, were taught by, lived with, ate with, and loved Jesus(PBUH).

Now let us proceed to the very end of Acts. That is Acts 28:30-31 we read about Paul

Acts 28:30-31: 30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV Bible)

Read closely again Acts 28:30 were it says Paul taught "for two whole years". The way in which this is written by "Acts" author or authors CLEALRY indicates that something happened to Paul after those "two whole years"! Let us read an excerpt on this topic:

As Werner Kummel explained in his classic Introduction to the New Testament (1975):

[I]n Lk 24:46f already the risen Lord proclaims as the meaning of both writings, not only the suffering and resurrection of Christ, but also the preaching "to all people, beginning from Jerusalem". And the same risen Lord (Acts 1:8) conveys to the disciples more precisely the charge "You will be my witness in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and in Samaria and to the ends of the earth." The theme of 1:8 is carried through in Acts and the declaration in 28:31 that Paul in Rome "preaches the kingdom of God and teaches about the Lord Jesus" to all who come to him ...strikes a "triumphal note" ..., which corresponds precisely to the author's aim in Acts and proves to be the intended end of the book.[22]

(From: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/earlygospeldate.html)

So clearly the author of "Acts of the Apostles" knew he couldn't end his book "Acts" by saying "and then Paul was killed"!!! Christians didn't and don't believe the Anti-Christ liar Paul will rise from the dead so clearly his fraudulent "mission" was in this world. To have Paul die or be killed at the end of "Acts of the Apostles" would go against the MAIN THEME of "Acts" that the author or author's intended throughtout the book again let us remember Acts 1:8- 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (NIV Bible)

Thus, the author or author's of "Acts of the Apostles" was very ingenious in the method that he or them ended "Acts". As per Acts 1:8 the author of "Acts of the Apostles" decided to end "Acts" with Paul "bravely and without any fear" preaching his Trinitarian Christian garbage to the Roman masses. This ending indicates the author or author's of "Acts" knew of Paul's death but choice only to slightly hint at his (Paul's) demise and to end the book with Paul allegedly triumphantly preaching his "gospel" for 2 whole years in Rome.

Let us read an excerpt to recap:

Let us recap why the argument from the ending of Acts does not work.

The basic assertion that the author of Acts did not know about Paul's subsequent fate is wrong. There are allusions to Paul's death and his "meeting" with Nero in Acts.
The fact that Acts said Paul preached without hindrance for "two whole years" implied that something happened after that. In this case the arrest and trial under Nero.
We know from an independent line of evidence that Mark is a post 70 CE document. Since Luke copied Mark, it must be a later work than Mark.
Furthermore the gospel of Luke added many details to the basic "prophecy" of Jerusalem's fall in Mark that it is ludicrous to assume that it was written before the event.
The ending in Acts is actually a very reasonable compromise ending, given that the ultimate end the parousia was not yet available and ending his work with Paul's death would have been anti-climactic. Thus even with Luke knowing Paul's subsequent fate, the way Acts ended is understandable.

These then are the reasons why the majority of critical historical scholars do not accept the dating of Acts as 62 CE. That fundamentalist "scholars" continue to use Acts 28:30-31 as an argument for early dates for the composition of the gospels shows the bankrupt state of their "scholarship."

(From: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/earlygospeldate.html)

All Praise is to Almighty Allah who will continue to make his true religion of Islam shine brighter and brighter Insha Allah (God willing), no matter how much the pagans, atheists, infidels, polytheists, idolaters, evildoers, and kuffar (concealers of truth) hate it. Almighty Allah is certainly All-Powerful, All-Wise, All-Merciful, and Just, Alhamdulillah!!!! (Praise to Almighty Allah!!!!)