tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post7115147238491233056..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Gospel Authorship I: Questioning AssumptionsKeith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-19524723612024117252016-02-20T16:18:22.416-06:002016-02-20T16:18:22.416-06:00You may be correct, that if the date of Mark does ...You may be correct, that if the date of Mark does not hold around 70 C.E., much might need to be rethought. Yet, this is not merely an assumption. It is an argument. Sure, Mark's gospel does not carry a date. But, through argumentation, New Testament scholars have settled on a date around 70 C.E. The destruction of the temple is a big part of this argument, but it is not the only part of the argument. Subsequent attempts to argue for a much earlier or much later date have not convinced many in the field. Thus, until compelling arguments for an earlier or later date present themselves, that working date of ~70 C.E. serves as a starting point for other arguments about dating the gospels. Thanks for the good point. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-39397446580837585222016-02-20T11:09:16.334-06:002016-02-20T11:09:16.334-06:00I always think about the assumption that since Mar...I always think about the assumption that since Mark references the temple being destroyed that must mean Mark wrote after 70 A.D. If this is wrong then we may be messing up on all the others.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733799499239986035noreply@blogger.com