Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
The speaker defends very early Gospel dates using manuscript marginal notes (e.g., Matthew AD 41, Mark AD 43, Luke AD 48, John AD 65) and argues John 5:2 (“there is in Jerusalem…Bethesda”) sounds pre-AD 70; which part of this argument do you find strongest or weakest, and what kinds of evidence do you instinctively trust more than early Christian testimony?
Another way to ask: Which part of the argument for very early Gospel dates seems strongest to you, and which seems weakest? What kinds of evidence do you trust more than early Christian reports?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript presents two main supports: manuscript marginal dates and internal textual clues like John 5:2 using present tense about a Jerusalem feature destroyed in AD 70. The speaker seems to treat the John 5:2 argument as especially suggestive, while admitting people will be skeptical of the marginal notes; the transcript does not rank them formally, but it implies both deserve more weight than modern late-dating assumptions.
- He reports many manuscripts include marginal notes dating publication: Matthew “eight years after the ascension” (AD 41), Mark “10 years” (AD 43), Luke “15 years” (AD 48), John “32 years” (AD 65).
- He anticipates skepticism: “many people would think this is too early” and would be “very skeptical of those dates.”
- For Luke, he offers supporting reasoning: Luke appears by AD 49, is “left…in charge of the church,” and claims “a perfect understanding…from the very first,” plus Chrysostom’s comment about Luke’s gospel being widely praised.
- For John, he argues John 5:2 says “there is in Jerusalem…Bethesda,” which “was not true after the year AD 70,” suggesting pre-destruction composition.
- He warns that academic pressure to date late can “influence us,” and says he sees “no reason why those dates could not be accurate.”