Why are mainstream Bible scholars so biased with regard to the date of writing of Mark and the other gospels, assuming a date after AD 70?
Question:
Dear doctor. I wanted to ask you about the bias in mainstream Bible scholarship. You say that almost all scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50’s-60’s AD, but when I look it up the first thing I see is that mainstream scholars all put Mark around after 70 AD. Of course they provide really no good proof for this claim. Also I read that mainstream scholars all believe that Jesus being the son of God evolved from Hellenism over time. How did the mainstream scholars of the Bible become so corrupt with bias? Or does mainstream not mean majority? Do you know of any serious biblical scholar who believes the Bible is inspired by God?
Answer:
A significant portion of biblical scholars, believe it or not, do not believe in God. Even more believe in God, but not in the inspiration of the Bible. In fact, they begin their analysis of things such as authorship and date of writing with the presupposition that the gospels are NOT inspired by God. This is a very big problem. Beginning with a false presupposition almost always leads to a false conclusion. It is a sad fact, that believing scholars are cowed by those who do not believe into finding some sort of compromise, allowing them to stay in communication.
Add to this the fact that the synoptic gospels contain very clear prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This REQUIRES the unbelieving scholars to assume that the three synoptic gospels are all written after AD 70! Such circular reasoning is the basic cause of the incorrect consensus of scholars. By the way, I never said that “almost all scholars agree that Mark was written in the 50’s or 60’s AD. I certainly never said this, as it is not true! What I have said is that I am convinced that Mark was written, either in the late 50’s or the early 60’s AD. I say this because the evidence leads to this conclusion. Luke almost certainly wrote his gospel while Paul was alive, which means it was written by AD 66 at the latest, or more like AD 63 or 64.. The majority of scholars, rightly, believe Mark was written before. That and other evidence leads me to my conclusion regarding the date of writing of Mark. You cannot trust the conclusions of people who assume the answer (that Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem) before they consider the evidence.
It is NOT true that “mainstream scholars all believe that Jesus being the son of God evolved from Hellenism over time.” There are some, actually quite a few, who make this claim, but they are the minority. No conservative Christian scholar would take this view. There is fantastically strong evidence that the church always believed, from the very beginning, that Jesus was raised from the dead, that he was the prophesied Messiah, and that he was the Son of God. Those who say differently do so without evidence.
How did so many scholars become, as you say, “corrupt?” I would not use such a loaded word. I would prefer to simply call these scholars are wrong. Why are they wrong? I already answered this question. Those who presuppose that God does not exist, or that the gospels are the product of human wisdom, not of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are forced to their conclusions, not by the evidence, but by their presupposition.
I know a lot of serious Bible scholars who believe that the Bible is inspired by God. A LOT! I would include myself among them, but also C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, N. T. Wright and many hundreds of the top scholars of our age. It is true that there are many anti-Bible scholars, but it is not even clear that they are in the majority. Unfortunately, they are some of the loudest speaking up on the internet, but do not be intimidated by these biased unbelievers.
John Oakes
