Message #288

[AndyHB]

There HAS been stuff that doesn't comply with, or that challenges the 'orthodox', and the church has simply chosen to bury or ignore it.

Boudi, take a book like Ehrman's 'Lost Christianities': very early on it gives a timeline of the various documents it refers to.  Of the 16 'gospels' he refers to only 1 has a probable date earlier than 100 AD - and even that is questionable, with 3 dates being given - 58 AD, 1758 and 1958!!  Of the 6 'Acts' referred to, none is earlier than the middle of the 2nd century (around 150 AD).  Of the 13 'epistles and related literature' three have probable dates earlier than mid-2nd century - circa 96, circa 100 and circa 135.  Like the 'Acts', the earliest of the 9 'apocalypses and related literature' is mid-2nd century.

The latest of the 44 documents Ehrman refers to dates from the 5th century.

As I am sure you are aware, of the 27 canonical New Testament books, the only one that is possibly post 100AD is the final book - John's Book of Revelation.  There are parts of the book that indicate that it was written soon after the reign of the Emperor Nero (54 - 68AD), whilst there are other parts that suggests it was written after the time of the Emperor Domitian (81 - 96AD).

In large part, the reason such challenges were ignored or dismissed is because they were based on documentation that is far later in date than the already existing books.

At the same time, there are one or two bits of documentation that effectively pre-date Christ - much Gnostic teaching, for instance, dates from the mid-1st century BC.