Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 17,330
- 3,571
- 165
Prove it then because your word is not the final word on it!
" Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[32]) view as follows:
Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
- Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
- Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
- John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. "
So Mark Book was around 68 to 73 AD which make it a Bard story.
Matthew and Luke were at least around 80 AD, so another Bard story
John is most likely around 90 AD, so another Bard story.
This information has been known for decades, published in places before Wiki was even thought of. Scholars look for material that was known within two generations of the occurrence--and the Gospels fit that criteria. Legendary material takes on its life after about two centuries--which is also what happened with the "Lost Gospels." In order for material to become legendary after two hundred years, there has to be some primary material gathered within those first two generations.
In addition to the Gospels that appear within a generation, there are also the Letters from Paul, one which traces back further back in that first generation than the Gospels.
Therefor, calling something a "Bard Story" to make it seem historically unlikely doesn't fly in scholarly circles.
Just because one religion has something in common with another is about as meaningful as comparing presidencies. Of course, similarities can be found. Doesn't mean there weren't two very different administrations.
I am always mystified by why non-believers feel they must excuse their non-belief. Not only do some feel they must excuse it, some seem to also feel they must prove a religion wrong. The efforts to prove a religion wrong come across to believers who have their histories straight as a desperate histrionics to reassure themselves that their non-belief is justified.