Was Jesus a Buddhist?

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf wrote:

[But the crucial point to note is that Constantine made changes in the 300s AD, while we can date the gospels back to 100-150 AD. We can date the Pauline Epistles back to the 50s AD! So we know a Christian church was well established in that time without the influence of the Roman Empire. The Jesus story was thus already in circulation looooong before Constantine got his hands on it.

Here is an interesting website that gives some history as to the writing of the NT http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm and some parallels with paganism. I think that at least some of the points are valid. It does appear that there are conflicting stories about Christ’s geneology, birth stories, etc. even within the different gospels, as well as a lack of historical corroboration with concurrent non-biblical texts (such as the star appearing, fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, etc.). It also appears that there was an attempt to integrate biblical narratives into the Jesus story.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

He chronicles many Christian “churches” in the first few centuries after Jesus’ life. But there definitely was not “one Christian church.” There was the range from Gnostic Christians to Pauline Christians. And yes, quite a few Pagans.

There was one dominant “Christian church” (and I use the term loosely) seemingly based on the early testimony of the apostles and supported by Paul. We can prove this because we can actually date Paul’s epistles back to the 50s AD. Gnostic beliefs did arise, possibly even early on, but the fact is that the Gnostic gospels were written from 200-400 AD. Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

Rix wrote:

There was a fusion of Pagan traditions and rituals…Ehrlman talks of how the culture at the time really liked their holidays, so they were incorporated into the Christian story. Of course this was the beginning of the crusades where those that would not conform were imprisoned and murdered. “Heretical” books that were found were burned.

I’m not disputing Constantine’s hijacking of Christianity in the 300s AD. But the fact is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels (that outline the Jesus story that we’re familiar with) are dated back to before pagan Rome could influence them. If you can point to a pre-Christian source that indicates the Christian story was a rip-off, I would be more convinced. But the non-pagan non-gnostic version was well-established before Constantine got ahold of it. As bad as Constantine was, we can’t credit him for inventing Jesus or the traditional beliefs about Jesus – he just took over the Jesus movement.

What we specifically CAN blame Constantine for doing were, as you said, beginning the brutal suppression of “heretics” (whereas previously church leaders just warned followers about them, see Paul’s letters), bringing pagan practices into Christianity, and other such things. But the fact is that all of these things are NOT consistent with the widely held beliefs recorded in the gospels and Pauline epistles.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But the fact is that all of these things are NOT consistent with the widely held beliefs recorded in the gospels and Pauline epistles.

Yes, I admit they are “widely held beliefs.” That doesn’t mean much to me, considering how they became “widely held.”

MapleLeaf…my studies indicate to me a very different (Christian) history than what you say. I’m really not saying mine is “true,” it’s just what I’ve been led to and studied. Once again, I’d be interested in a reputable source that says otherwise, but my readings, such as Ehrman ( http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195322592/ref=pd_sim_b_1) paint a very different history. Please lead me to your sources…I would be interested in looking at the other side.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Yes, I admit they are “widely held beliefs.” That doesn’t mean much to me, considering how they became “widely held.”

The point I was trying to convey was that they were wideley held before Constantine.

Rix wrote:

I’d be interested in a reputable source that says otherwise

I was first introduced to these ideas in “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. While not a NT scholar himself, Strobel compiles the work of several scholars in a clear and concise way. Dr Craig Blomberg, Dr Bruce Metzger, Dr Edwin Yamaguchi, Dr John McRay, and others, each with their own area of expertise, are interviewed concerning how their studies relate to the questions about Jesus’ existence, the validity of the gospels, etc.

If you need a source for the dating of the gospels and the Pauline epistles, here’s one: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm. A google search will no doubt fetch more.

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf, I don’t mean this comment to be snarky or argumentative in any way, but, in all fairness and full disclosure, isn’t relying on evangelical scholars to discuss Biblical historicity a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy? If someone here cited Mormon authors as the foundation of their claims, others would be justified in questioning the conclusions drawn – since there is an inherent bias built into analyses that come from one particular area of belief.

Dr. Blomberg is a great example of this. I have read some of his works, and they are interesting and thought-provoking, but the Denver Seminary’s doctrinal statement affirms the Bible as the final authority on ALL issues addressed therein and as the infallible word of God. Of course, he would assert what you are asserting.

Dr. McRay said the following, “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.” That description fits Nibley and Bushman generally, but I don’t think anyone can conclude therefrom that what they write must be accurate. By those criteria, any erudite, eloquent, educated person who is fluent in Greek and knows the basic geography of an area would be an accurate historian – and basing DOCTRINAL and MIRACULOUS assertions on archaeological discoveries . . . The point is that Dr. McRay overlooks entirely the possibility that Luke had a personal bias in his writing, since that fits his evangelical world-view.

Please understand, I’m not using this to say the people you list and what you claim are wrong; I just think we need to be fair and even-handed in these discussions. If we can’t rely on Mormon apologists exclusively to ascertain Truth, we can’t rely on evangelical apologists exclusively, either.

[Anonymous]

What Ray said…

I think it’s easy for many of us raised LDS/Christian to accept carte blanche the historicity/validity of the Bible. After all, we’ve often also had what we considered a spiritual witness that “the scriptures” were true! That’s why for me when I wanted to really look at the possibility of history being different than what was generally accepted, I tried as hard as I could to look for sources that were objective and without an agenda. That is hard enough to do when studying Mormon history…you can imagine how hard it is with “Christianity!” When you add the fact that we are dealing with events 2000 years ago, rather than less than 200…then consider that we know about the effort to destroy the books that gave a different picture than what the “Church” prescribed…well, it certainly is easy to see why there are so many contrasting stories out there. Ehrman does well to explain many angles, without an agenda.

I googled “The Case for Christ,” (upfront, the name concerns me …doesn’t seem very objective), and read a few reviews. One said, “Strobel presents a list of experts that are very well qualified, BUT they are all very strong Christians.” I’d probably try to find another source.

ML, I really have no agenda to disprove Christianity. My studies, albeit insufficient for sure, lead me to believe today that the life and teachings of Jesus were different than what parts of the NT tell us. I do LOVE the brilliant, consistent words of encouragement and hope that many say he taught, and try to follow what resonates in my life. But I think there is movement in the educated world to be skeptical of the historicity of much of the Bible. For some, that is a “testimony killer.” To me, it opens the door to creative metaphor that brings all sorts of brilliance and color into my spiritual life.

Again, thanks for the discussion!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

isn’t relying on evangelical scholars to discuss Biblical historicity a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy? If someone here cited Mormon authors as the foundation of their claims, others would be justified in questioning the conclusions drawn – since there is an inherent bias built into analyses that come from one particular area of belief.

I absolutely agree that we must always be aware of any given writer’s biases, and I certainly do not claim to stand by everything these scholars have said. But, as we previously discussed, “it’s either truly historical or it’s not”, regardless of who the messenger is.

Old-Timer wrote:

The point is that Dr. McRay overlooks entirely the possibility that Luke had a personal bias in his writing, since that fits his evangelical world-view.

I’m not sure if he’s overlooking that possibility at all. I certainly acknowledge that Luke had opinions and biases as we all do. However, can you acknowledge that several non-Christian sources confirm the dating of Paul’s writings, Luke’s writings, and the gospels themselves and thus affirm that the “Jesus Story” (regardless of whether you believe it’s true or not) existed prior to pagan influence.

Old-Timer wrote:

Please understand, I’m not using this to say the people you list and what you claim are wrong; I just think we need to be fair and even-handed in these discussions. If we can’t rely on Mormon apologists exclusively to ascertain Truth, we can’t rely on evangelical apologists exclusively, either.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I have relied “exclusively” on evangelical apologists. In the course of our discussion I have also point out primary pagan sources as well as secular scholars which confirm the points I’m trying to convey. Check it out!

If a Mormon scholar could point to verifiable historical evidence, then it wouldn’t matter what their faith commitment was. I would suggest that the same goes for New Age, Evangelical, or secular scholars. The bias comes in when we read their interpretation of the evidence – which can still be useful in discerning truth, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

Rix wrote:

Again, thanks for the discussion!

Anytime! Now that we have discussed my evidence, I hope we can discuss yours! My previous request still stands, if interested:

MapleLeaf wrote:

I’m fairly confident that there isn’t convincing pre-Christian evidence to suggest that the Jesus story was ripped off of pagan ones. If you have any other examples [that the Jesus story was a pagan rip-off] though, I’d love to hear them!

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf, you are setting up a straw man argument. Nobody here is claiming “the Jesus story” is ripped off of pagan stories. All that has been claimed is that important elements of the record we have concerning Jesus (especially those that go beyond the historical into the theological) also exist in other mythologies – and, frankly, that isn’t disputable. Perhaps the story of Jesus we have now was broadened to make it more mythologically similar to what existed within Paganism; perhaps Paganism had its own prophets who taught of someone to come, and perhaps those things were turned into mythologies minus the prophetic core. We can’t know, really, but the similarities certainly exist.

Also, please cite a contemporary, non-Christian source that gives us clear evidence that the details of the Gospels and Pauline epistles are historical and accurate. I’m not saying they aren’t; I’ve never said they aren’t reasonably accurate. I’m just asking you to provide the type of evidence you are asking of us. What non-Christian sources of that time give us collaboration of what the Bible claims – and what Christian sources of that time give us a different account than what we have in the Bible?

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf wrote:

I’m fairly confident that there isn’t convincing pre-Christian evidence to suggest that the Jesus story was ripped off of pagan ones. If you have any other examples [that the Jesus story was a pagan rip-off] though, I’d love to hear them!

One review of “The Jesus Mysteries,” says: (starts by quoting the authors’ intro…)

“During the centuries leading up to the birth of Christianity various cults known as `Mystery Religions’ had spread throughout the Pagan world. At the centre of these Mystery cults was a story about a dying and resurrecting godman who was known by many different names in many different cultures. In Egypt, where the Mysteries originated, he was known as Osiris, in Greece as Dionysus, in Asia Minor as Attis, in Syria as Adonis, in Italy as Bacchus, in Persia as Mithras. The more we discovered about this figure, the more his story began to sound uncannily familiar. “Here are just a few of the stories that were told about the godman of the Mysteries. His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. He is born in a cave or humble cow shed on the 25th of December before three shepherds. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism. He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honour him. He dies at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. After his death he descends to Hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days. His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood. “On the basis of this and much other evidence we now believe that the story of Jesus is not the biography of an historical Messiah, but a myth derived from the Pagan Mysteries. The original Christians, the Gnostics, were Jewish mystics who synthesized the Jewish myth of the Messiah with the myth of the Pagan godman in order to make Pagan mysticism easily accessible to Jews. The origin of Christianity is not to be found in Judaism, as previously supposed, but in Paganism. Ironic don’t you think? “Ironic indeed, but as a longtime student of mythology, philosophy and religion, their premise intrigued me immediately. I had long known of similarities between pagan religions and Christianity, but until The Jesus Mysteries I had not found a comprehensive source that tried to pull all these threads together and make a synthesis of them. Freke and Gandy take us on a wide ranging and well documented journey through numerous sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library and Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy in an effort to show the mythical and philosophical antecedents of the Christian religion. Along the way they also survey the violent and contentious history of the early Christian church as it made its way from an outlawed sect to the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire. Not everyone will agree with their conclusions, but the authors thoughtfully provide hundreds of bibliographical references and footnotes so most anyone can review their research and make up their own minds. The book is provocative but compelling, and I rank it as one of the most important books I have read in the last 30 years.”

This book lays it out there…and I followed the sources and read about 10 more books that came to a similar conclusion as here. There are differences in opinions about some specifics about Osiris and Dionysis…but the parallels are hard to ignore. Most of the specifics mythologies were documented about 500 BCE.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

MapleLeaf, you are setting up a straw man argument. Nobody here is claiming “the Jesus story” is ripped off of pagan stories.

It’s not a straw man, Ray, it’s what has been argued in this thread repeatedly. Here are two examples:

Swimordie, on 24 Nov 2009, said, “And, NT writers (not Paul) of the four gospels gave Jesus many known mythological attributes like virgin birth, star in the east, wise men bringing gifts, feeding the multitudes, 3 temptations, 40 days of fasting, etc, etc. All of these concepts pre-date Christ. So, obviously the gospel writers were influenced by external mythologies and several of these happen to parallel some buddhist mythology while not paralleling OT, greek, roman mythology.”

Rix, on 25 Nov 2009, said, “[Ehrlman] illuminates the agenda of the Constantinians in establishing a consistent mythology for the people of the time. He talks much about how the Pagans were more accepting of “Christianity” if their God-man had a similar “story” to what they had been accustomed to believing.”

Old-Timer wrote:

All that has been claimed is that important elements of the record we have concerning Jesus (especially those that go beyond the historical into the theological) also exist in other mythologies – and, frankly, that isn’t disputable. Perhaps the story of Jesus we have now was broadened to make it more mythologically similar to what existed within Paganism; perhaps Paganism had its own prophets who taught of someone to come, and perhaps those things were turned into mythologies minus the prophetic core. We can’t know, really, but the similarities certainly exist.

This is an assertion that you have yet to back up, Ray. This thread began by pointing out similarities between Jesus and the Buddha, and I have pointed out why I feel they are unfounded claims. Until I see further evidence, I will assume that similarities between pagan traditions and “the Jesus story” are likewise unfounded – humans trying to find patterns in unrelated material.

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, please cite a contemporary, non-Christian source that gives us clear evidence that the details of the Gospels and Pauline epistles are historical and accurate. I’m not saying they aren’t; I’ve never said they aren’t reasonably accurate. I’m just asking you to provide the type of evidence you are asking of us.

Here is the contemporary, non-Christian source that I cited earlier today: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm. It says that even the most liberal scholars date the Pauline epistles from 55-150 AD. I don’t have any more sources readily available, but if that won’t suffice I can certainly look.

About the source: “We are a multi-faith group. As of 2009-NOV, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.”

I am NOT saying that we have to believe the Jesus story based on the fact that the documents existed. I only brought up the documents’ existence in response to Rix’s suggestion that Constantine put the virgin birth and death/resurrection into the Jesus story in order to make it more acceptable to his pagan citizens. The fact that Christians believed these things early on (as can be understood by a reading of Paul’s epistles) seems to disprove the idea of a pagan-influenced Jesus story.

[Anonymous]

“[In Egypt] he was known as Osiris, in Greece as Dionysus, in Asia Minor as Attis, in Syria as Adonis, in Italy as Bacchus, in Persia as Mithras.”

It would take a while, but we could go through each of the above deities, describe the stories told about them, and compare them with the Jesus story to clarify whether the theory is correct or not.

Let’s take Osiris as an example… point by point.

-“His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin”? … Not at all. Osiris’ mother was Nut, the sky goddess (not a mortal). And there was no indication that she was a virgin, or that the birth was miraculous.

-“He is born in a cave or humble cow shed on the 25th of December before three shepherds”? … I could find nothing of the sort associated with Osiris. Perhaps you can?

-“He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism”? … From what I’ve read, Osiris taught his followers agriculture, proper diet, proper worship of the gods, laws, arts and sciences, and civilized behaviour, but I have found nothing about instructing baptism or “born again” teachings.

“He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honour him”? … I found nothing about this. Please do point out a version of the story that has this in it.

“He dies at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world”? … Osiris was killed by his brother Set who locked him into a box, poured molten led over it, and threw it into the Nile. No indication that he died for anyone’s “sins”.

After his death he descends to Hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory”? … After his death, Osiris’ body was found by Isis and others, however, Set came back and tore Osiris’ body up into 14 pieces, scattering them throughout Egypt. Osiris did descend into “hell”, but there is no indication of a resurrection the third day. In one version, Isis collects all the pieces of Osiris’ body in order to resurrect him long enough to impregnate her. Otherwise, Osiris stayed in “hell” and became the god of the underworld.

“His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days. His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood”? … I found no indication of any of this. My assumption is that it is a complete fabrication. If there is some truth to it, I would be happy to hear it!

I used three randomly selected websites about Osiris for this information: http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/osiris.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/osiris.htm, http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm, http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/osiris.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/osiris.html.

I encourage you to do the same with the other gods that supposedly have so much in common with Jesus! Trust me, this idea is not new to me. When I first heard it, I was intrigued at the possibility! But when I tried to prove it I simply couldn’t find any data to support it – and worse, I found plenty that contradicted the theory. Maybe Freke and Gandy have access to information that is not readily available to the rest of us?

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf…I encourage you to read the sources we’ve mentioned. Maybe they are all wrong, but the evidence is compelling. As I said before, I don’t see an agenda with these scholars…I do with the Christian sources. Yes, there are various takes on each of the God-men stories, but in sum, they are very similar to the Jesus mythology. I think if you read each source, you begin to see the big picture.

But maybe it’s just me….

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf wrote:

Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

So are you a Pauline then?

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

MapleLeaf wrote:

Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

So are you a Pauline then?

I’m not sure all the details that the label implies. I do accept the notion that Paul of Tarsus existed and was active in the early Christian movement not long after Jesus’ death. Also, accepting his writings as reliable primary sources (consistently dated by scholars as early as the 50’s AD, see the link I provided earlier in this thread), we have interesting first-hand accounts of what the Christian movement was like at the time, including major beliefs about who Jesus was. Since they were written so early on, I accept these as a more reliable view about “original” Christianity than say the gnostic gospels, which were written centuries later.

Once you understand that Paul’s writings are reliable as a primary source from the time, it is fascinating to read Paul’s epistles to see what Christians believed about Jesus so soon after his ministry. Take a look at Corinthians, Romans, etc, and see what they believed about the virgin birth, death and resurrection, and so forth. Although alternative views were held by the end of the first century, this was clearly the dominant group in which first-hand witnesses such as Peter were claimed to have been actively involved. Whether you believe what they believed is a different matter, but the fact is that this is what they believed. I’m quite convinced of that much at least.

Would you say that makes me a Pauline? Better than a Deborah or a Suzie, perhaps? 😆

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf wrote:

Tom Haws wrote:

MapleLeaf wrote:

Based on chronology, the Pauline “version” of Christianity seems to have history on its side as the “correct” or more original view of Jesus.

So are you a Pauline then?

I’m not sure all the details that the label implies.

Many believe that at the Council of Nicea, the letters of Paul (authenticity questionable) had teachings that the powers that be wanted in the “Christian” church. And there are many scholars that believe that it was Paul’s followers that actually wrote/dictated (John indirectly) the canonical gospels. Ehrman has much evidence of that, and I just googled a link that summarizes this a bit:

“The Gospels Were Written in the 1st Century ?”

CHURCH POSITION

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… ” (Luke 1:1-2)

SCHOLARS

“There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus’ two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100.” (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

“We now know that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the early second century (Mack, 1995, p. 45).”

“No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of these gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century.” (Waite, 1992 p. 346)

“My own impression…was that the arguments for placing the Gospels as early as the end of the first century were rather weak. I found that the respected theological scholar Helmut Koester, editor of the Harvard Theological Review, made a good case for a later date, early second century, for most of the Gospels.” (Ellegard, 1999, p. 3)

The first [factor] was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades…” (Johnson, 1976, p. 54)

“What, then, are my reasons for putting Mark as 90 instead of, with most theologians, at about 70? (Wells, 1988, p. 107)

“140-150 AD is the most likely time for the writing of Mark’s Gospel – by Cerinthius.” (Humphreys, 2005, p. 188)

“The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians… dates to about 200 C.E.” (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)

“…the Gnostics began to write gospels at about the same time John composed his – around 110 – 140 AD.” (Dimont, 1991, p. 159)

“…by the time the Gospels came to be written in the form that we know them, the finer details of the administration in Judea [ ie., the difference between a Procurator and a Prefect] had been forgotten.” (Marsh, 1975, p. 72)

“By the time of Claudius, around 46, the title…had been changed to ‘procurator’ and Tacitus made the mistake, in about 115, of attaching this title to Pilate.” (Wroe, 1999, p. 65)

“The Epistle of Barnabas…was probably composed…between 96 and 98 CE. It shows no knowledge whatsoever of any New Testament texts…”(Crossan, 1995, p. 122)

“It is very significant, for the date of the authorship of Luke, to note that the only Theophilius known to early Christian history…became Bishop of Antioch about 169-177 AD…” (Wheless, 2005)

“The so-called Gospel of John is something special and reflects…the highly evolved theology of a Christian writer who lived three generations after Jesus.” (Vermes, 2000, p. 6)

“Essentially it [the Gospel of John] is a mid-second century theology written to combat rival ‘heretical’ theologies.” (Humphreys, 2005, p. 238)

THE REALITY

There is so much evidence that the Gospels were written in the Second Century that it’s hard to believe that the vast majority of scholars still stick stubbornly to the belief that they are a First Century production. The earliest known Christian writings are the letters of the Apostle Paul, dated sometime between 48 and 58 A.D.; but there are no copies of these original documents [1], and there are many questions about their authenticity [2]. Some people believe that the earliest versions of the four Gospels were written between 60 A.D. (Mark) and 100 A.D. (John), but there is no proof of these early dates, and some scholars believe that all the Gospels were written after 100 A.D. (e.g., Acharya, 1999; Ellegard, 1999; Keeler, 1965; Koester, 1980; Wheless, 1990). Here is some evidence to support this theory:

The first epistle of Clement of Rome (c 64-96 A.D.), which is reasonably dated to 95 A.D., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.

The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus’ (37–100 A.D.) later works [3], especially Life and Against Apion, implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 A.D., since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 A.D.

None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 A.D.

Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 AD (Funk & Hoover, 1993, p. 9).

To save bandwidth here, here’s the link: http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=19

As I studied this over a few years, I did find scholars that had very conflicting conclusions on most of these issues, but most leaned this way…and again, I found that most of the “Christian agenda” sources used Christian scholars.

But, I’m the first to admit that I could be wrong…just has been my experience so far…

[Author]

Posts