(?)
Quotes are added by the Goodreads community and are not verified by Goodreads. (Learn more)
Richard C. Carrier

“Mark was certainly written after 70 (the year the Jerusalem temple was destroyed), but how long after is an open question We really have no evidence that Mark was written any earlier than 100, in fact, so it's simply presumption really that puts his Gospel in the first century. [...] Nothing is known of the author. Late tradition claims he was Peter's secretary, but there is no reason to trust that information, and it seems most unlikely. Mark is advocating against Torah-observant Christianity (see Chapter 10, §5) and thus would have been Peter's opponent, not representative. There is no evidence really that Matthew was written in the 80s. Nothing is known of the author. We know 'Matthew' was not an eyewitness, because he copies Mark verbatim and just modifies and adds to him [...], which is not the behavior of a witness, but of a late literary redactor. [...] John wrote after Luke-as almost everyone agrees [...] It could have been written as late as the 140s (some argue even later) or as early as the 100s (provided Luke was written in the 90s). [...] John was redacted multiple times and thus had multiple authors. 32 Nothing is known of them.”

Richard C. Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
Read more quotes from Richard C. Carrier


Share this quote:
Share on Twitter

Friends Who Liked This Quote

To see what your friends thought of this quote, please sign up!

0 likes
All Members Who Liked This Quote

None yet!


This Quote Is From

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard C. Carrier
590 ratings, average rating, 86 reviews
Open Preview

Browse By Tag