Jon Curry has been hawking the views of Bobby Price on the dating of various NT books. Now, even liberal NT scholars feel the need to present a concrete alternative to the traditional attributions. Indeed, a major reason they reject the traditional attribution is because they imagine that the various NT books don’t fit the milieu to which they’ve been traditionally assigned, but, instead, fit with some later milieu.
Hence, before we can properly evaluate the evidence for his position, Jon needs to get far more specific about what his own position actually amounts to.
So, let’s ask him a few basic questions of the sort that liberal and conservative scholars alike try to answer in order to argue for their own position.
1.What are the “real” dates that you assign to each of the 27 books of the NT, and what’s your evidence?
2.Who actually composed the various books of the NT? What individual, circle, religious movement, or school of thought? And what’s your evidence?
3.Where were the various books of the NT actually composed, and what’s your evidence?
4.What concrete circumstance occasioned the composition of each NT book, and what’s your evidence?
5.What was the target audience or implied readership for each NT book, and what’s your evidence?
6.In addition to treating some or all of the NT writings as forgeries, you are also prepared to treat some of the patristic writings a forgeries. Which patristic writings do you regard as spurious?
7.Please repeat steps (1)-(5) for each patristic writing you regard as spurious.
8.When you deny the authenticity of a writing, do you also deny the historicity of the person to whom the writing is ascribed? In other words, do you deny the writer as well as the writing?
I ask because you’re apparently prepared to deny the historicity of Jesus. If so, do you extend your scepticism to the historicity of the apostles or church fathers? If so, which ones, and why?