Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: New Testament early dating, synoptics, Wenham, Theophilus and much more

  1. Default New Testament early dating, synoptics, Wenham, Theophilus and much more

    The modern pseudo-consensus theories of late dating of the NT are a disaster.
    From now on, any threads that really delve into such dating will include Wenhan or Theophilus, so they show up easily on a search.

    The current thread comes out of a solid discussion at:

    Patristics for Proetstants
    The Priority of Matthew

    Johann David Michaelis is one of the few early top-notch scholars on NT dating issues. Yet, he is not even mentinoed in some of the historical books, maybe because he did not come up with a rigorous dubious NT dating scenario.

    Markan Priority Sideshow
    Some believe that John Cesaer Hawkins made strong arguments for Markan priority, the first one is thought to be

    Gottlob Christian Storr (1746-1805)

    in 1788 (title given by Michaelis).

    Johann David Michaelis

    History of New Testament Research -(2002)
    William Baird

  2. Default

    Facebook thread above

    Johann David Michaelis mentions many good points that are usually missed in discussions today of dating, since they are largely atomistic.

    I will try to get a few of his quotes out and place them together. Plus, in his later edition he accepted the Theophilus proposal (Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus) although I will have to check if he realized that it really impels a c. 41 AD date. Since Michaelis uses dates in the 40s, he is close at hand. He even gives the name of the Storr work and comments on the Markan priority theory (not particularly impressed.). He makes an interesting point that the Lukan Prologue pretty much stops Matthew from being circulating in Greek, although a Hebrew version could have been around town.

    So I will try to put some urls and quotes together tomorrow.

    One point that I noticed is that there are places where Mark seems to have blanks best explained by the fact that Luke was circulating and the reader could work with the two Gospels together.

    Mark 14:28 and Mark 16:7 are rather major examples of this phenomenon, since the Mark ending alone would be puzzling. Add Luke, and the situation is harmonious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts