Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
The speaker claims skepticism about Gospel authorship/dating is driven largely by an “anti-supernatural bias,” especially the refusal to accept predictive prophecy about Jerusalem’s fall; how does your view of prophecy function as a “starting assumption” that affects what you’re willing to believe about the New Testament, and what would be at stake if predictive prophecy is real?
Another way to ask: How does what you already believe about prophecy shape what you think about who wrote the Gospels and when? If predictive prophecy is real, what would that change or challenge?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s teaching, your view of prophecy acts like a filter: if you reject predictive prophecy, you will naturally push Gospel dating later and question traditional authorship; if you accept prophecy, earlier dating becomes plausible. If predictive prophecy is real, it supports the New Testament’s claims of divine involvement and undermines purely naturalistic explanations for Christianity’s development.
- He says many scholars date the Gospels late because of an “anti-supernatural bias” and a need for “myths and legends” to develop over time.
- He identifies a key driver: if you “don’t believe in divine prophecy,” you assume the Synoptics were written after Jerusalem’s fall because they describe it “as a predictive prophecy.”
- He contrasts this with conservative scholars who “accept the claims of the New Testament as true and inspired” and thus accept earlier dates.
- He emphasizes “diverging starting points” and that “assumptions…determine how we interpret” limited evidence.
- He frames liberal reconstructions as needing to explain how Jesus moves from “wise teacher” to miracle-working Messiah through time and legend.