Dating of the Gospels

[Guest]

I've read a number of books/articles lately on this issue and nearly all date the writing of the gospels to a time after Titus' conquest of Jerusalem in 70AD. They then date all of Paul's epistles to between 50-65 and the majority of scholars tend to agree with this. The common assumption is that the gospel message was an oral tradition that was first written down by Mark and then copied by Matthew and Luke near the tail end of the first century. After pondering this assumption I have several problems with it.

First, the person that wrote Luke also wrote Acts. The book of Acts is the chronicled genesis of the church and yet it ends with Paul in prison, awaiting trial. If Paul's last epistle (probably Timothy) was written in 65-66, then it means Luke was written before this because Acts was the follow-up letter to Theophilus. In the gospel of Luke, the author states that he collected his data from eyewitnesses and trusted sources. This points to previous gospel writings being available at the time. Why then, are Luke and the other gospels dated to 85AD?

[_SoaringEagle]

In Acts 13, we read of Paul going to Pisidian Antioch, where Paul gives a speech similar to that of Steven's. Then Paul continues, and mentions of John the baptist and mentions how John had said he was not the messiah, but there was one coming after him whose sandals he was unworthy to loosen. Then Paul goes on and mentions Pilate, Jesus death, the empty tomb, and the resurrection followed by the exaltation of God putting Jesus to His right hand. This tells us a few things.

One, it shows how Jesus was indeed a real person according to Paul's understanding (a man and not just a spirit being) because it talks of John and how he claimed to be unworthy to untie Jesus sandals.

Two, it shows that Paul understood Jesus to be a person living during the time of John the Baptist, and having died during the reign of Pilate. This places Jesus to be alive and living in the first three decades A.D. So this clearly shows that Paul did not believe Jesus existed centuries before his life.

Third, since the event of John the baptist' encounter with Jesus and him not being worthy to untie the sandals of Jesus' is recorded in all of the gospels, then this mean the gospel had been spreading by then whether by letter or oral tradition. So the gospels had already been established by this time that Paul was in Pisidian Antioch. (47 to 48 AD) So Paul either had gathered the details of Jesus life (we know this by his familiarty of John the baptist and Jesus baptism) by letter which would place the date of one or more gospels before 48 AD, or Paul had gathered this information through his stay with Peter James and John, if not Barnabas. These are things to think on. Regardless of the actual date of each of the four gospels, we can know that the gospel message was spreading no later than 48 AD so the gospels could not have been "made up" in the late 1st century.

Also, there may be extra biblical evidence to Jesus crucifixion. There was a second century satarist, who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." -

-The Passing Peregrinus

Hope this helps us.

[_jackal]

First, the person that wrote Luke also wrote Acts. The book of Acts is the chronicled genesis of the church and yet it ends with Paul in prison, awaiting trial. If Paul's last epistle (probably Timothy) was written in 65-66, then it means Luke was written before this because Acts was the follow-up letter to Theophilus. In the gospel of Luke, the author states that he collected his data from eyewitnesses and trusted sources. This points to previous gospel writings being available at the time. Why then, are Luke and the other gospels dated to 85AD?

Simply because the story about Paul in Acts ends before his death, does not mean it had to have been written before his death. The story of Paul there is not his life's biography. It starts with his first contact with Christians. Luke's intent could be to only cover Paul's relationship with the christian church, thus his life between his last epistles and his death may have not been considered any more germane than his life from his birth up through his first contact with the christian church.

The author of the gospel of Luke does say he relied on other sources. One of which was likely a copy of the Gospel of Mark. Another was a copy of possibly the Gospel of Matthew, or some sayings gospel shared in common with Matthew (Q?)

Note that Luke doesn't say he collected his information directly from eyewitnesses and other sources. He says he gathered it from their narratives. In Luke 1:1-2, he says,

"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, "

the ministers and eyewitnesses "handed them down to us." The "them", grammatically, refers likewise to compiled narratives. This would be consistent with having Mark and either Matthew or a proto-Matthew before him. But it points to those materials being available when he wrote the gospel, not necessarily when Paul was still alive. This would put the Lukan gospel after Mark, and after either Matthew or the proto-Matthew, as the case may be. Acts followed after that.

[_SoaringEagle]

J.P. Moreland gives six reasons why Acts should be dated around 62. This is from an article of his called "the Historicity of the New Testament":

Six arguments, taken together, provide a powerful case for dating Acts at 62 to 64. First, Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70, and this is quite odd since much of the activity recorded in Luke-Acts centers around Jerusalem. A large section unique to Luke focuses on Jesus' last movement to the Holy city the resurrection appearances occur around Jerusalem (see Luke 24:13), and Jerusalem plays a key role in the structure of Acts. The omission of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem makes sense if Luke-Acts was written prior to the event itself.

Second, no mention is made of Nero's persecutions in the mid-60s and the general tone of Acts toward the Roman government is irenic. This fits the pre-65 situation well. Neither the tone of Acts nor the omission of an account of Nero's persecutions can be adequately explained by saying it was an attempt to appease the Roman government. It was not the nature of the early church to appease anyone-witness conflicts with Judaism and the Pharisees which are recorded in Luke's writings.

Third, the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), and Peter (65) are not mentioned in Acts. This is also surprising since Acts is quick to record the deaths of Stephen and James the brother of John, leaders in the early church. These omissions are even more surprising when one realizes that James, Peter, and Paul are the three key figures in Acts. The silence in Acts about these deaths makes most sense if, again, we assume that Acts was written before they occurred.

Fourth, the subject matter of Acts deals with issues of importance prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70. The falling of the Holy Spirit on different people groups (Jewish, Samaritan, Gentile), the divisions between Palestinian Jews and Hellenistic Jews, Jewish-Gentile relations centering on circumcision and the law of Moses, and other themes make sense prior to 70. At that time Jewish Christianity was wiped out and the importance of a record of how Gentile pagan converts are to relate to Jews in the church would be much lower than the importance of such a record prior to 70.

Fifth, several of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. More will be said about this later. But the phrases the Son of man, the Servant of God (applied to Jesus), the first day of the week (the resurrection), and the people (the Jews) are all phrases that readers would understand without explanation prior to 70. After 70, they would need to be explained. These phrases, therefore, indicate that Acts was intended for an audience which would remember these terms and their usage.

Sixth, the Jewish war against the Romans (from 66 onward) is not mentioned in Acts. As Hugo Staudinger argues, "The Jewish war is an important part of the history of the early Church. The original followers in Jerusalem lose their significance through the war. With the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus' prophecy is moreover fulfilled. If Luke had been writing after 70, it would be incomprehensible that he should break off his narrative shortly before the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and not indicate the fate of the followers in Jerusalem."

So a strong case can be made for dating Acts at 62 to 64. But this means that Luke should be dated just prior to that. Further, Matthew and Mark should be dated even earlier, perhaps from the mid-40s to mid-50s. The picture of Jesus presented in the Synoptics is one that is only twelve to twenty-nine years removed from the events themselves. And they incorporate sources which are even earlier.

[Guest]

I realize that you (Jackal) will not accept the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles. However, for the benefit of those more open-minded, and less agenda-driven, I would point out that Paul cited a passage in Luke's Gospel as "scripture" in 1 Timothy 5:18. There, "The laborer is worthy of his wages" is the same saying of Jesus recorded in Luke 10:7. Paul refers to it, along with Deuteronomy 25:4, as scripture.

Only by denying the Pauline authorship of First Timothy (a common liberal expedient) can one eliminate this evidence that Paul either knew the book of Luke, or else the tradition that came to be written in Luke.

The denial of the Pauline authorship of this epistle has a long history, but stands upon a foundation of sand. It is claimed, primarily, upon the basis of vocabulary differences between the pastorals and Paul's other writings. However, studies have been published showing an even greater difference in vocabulary between the various writings of individual modern writers.

It is also claimed that the description of bishops, deacons, and an order of widows (mentioned in 1 Timothy) reflects a later development in the church's structure after Paul's time. However, Paul appointed elder/overseers in many churches, very early in his ministry (Acts 14:23), and directed greetings or comments to deacons and widows in his other epistles (Phil.1:1/ 1 Cor.7:39-40). There is no characteristic of the churches mentioned in the pastoral epistles that is known to have arisen later than Paul's time.

As with the liberal positions on other books of scripture, their rejection of traditional authorship is largely a product of prejudice, not compelling evidence.

The author of these books claims to be Paul, mentions the personal, incidental circumstances of himself and of several of Paul's known (and, more tellingly, some otherwise unknown) associates (e.g., 2 Tim.4:9-14, 19-21), and was obviously believed to be Paul by those who first preserved the epistles (who must have been the people who first received them from their author). There is no excellent reason to claim that these books are forgeries—except, of course, for Jackal's default position: "If Christians wrote it, it must be lies.".

[_Evangelion]

Peter Kirby's excellent site (earlychristianwritings.com) contains a comprehensive list of dates for the authorship of most early Christian works - all of them well-supported by articles from standard authorities.

His dates for the New Testament books are as follows:

• 50-60 1 Thessalonians
• 50-60 Philippians
• 50-60 Galatians
• 50-60 1 Corinthians
• 50-60 2 Corinthians
• 50-60 Romans
• 50-60 Philemon
• 50-80 Colossians
• 50-95 Book of Hebrews
• 65-80 Gospel of Mark
• 70-100 Epistle of James
• 80-100 2 Thessalonians
• 80-100 Ephesians
• 80-100 Gospel of Matthew
• 80-110 1 Peter
• 80-130 Gospel of Luke
• 80-130 Acts of the Apostles
• 90-95 Apocalypse of John
• 90-120 Gospel of John
• 90-120 1 John
• 90-120 2 John
• 90-120 3 John
• 90-120 Epistle of Jude
• 100-150 1 Timothy
• 100-150 2 Timothy
• 100-150 Titus
• 100-160 2 Peter

Those dates look pretty good to me; I'd agree with around 90% of them.

For the record, I should point out that I am not one of those people who believes that the Gospels must have been written by the men whose names they bear.

Speaking personally, I have no idea if they did write them or not; I remain somewhat ambivalent to the issue. And if at some stage it is proved that they didn't write the Gospels which are named after them, it wouldn't concern me in the slightest. 8)

[Guest]

Evangelion, the website you listed only quotes liberal scholars and better arguments (I feel) are given by more conservative scholars. Many of those dates look way off to me (I agree with 10 of the 27). The arguments for a later dating seem like extreme guesswork but the earlier dates simply make more sense. If you think I'm biased against liberal scholars let me explain why I find them less reliable.

Liberal scholars operate from an assumtion that supernatural events don't take place. Conservative scholars say "maybe they do, maybe they don't." One group defines their analysis of the data more narrowly than the other. Common sense tells me that the more open minded group will provide a better analysis in most cases. If you automatically assume supernatural events don't occur then every time you read about them taking place within an ancient document you must immediately write it off without further consideration.

With regard to authorship of a given document, I fail to see why a stylistic difference automatically means it's pseudo-epigraphal. I've looked at documents I've written myself over time and see massive changes in style and grammar. How much more if I'm orating to a scribe like was common in those days? I sometimes feel that scholars study themselves into idiocy if they aren't careful. When basic common sense is tossed aside for the sake of getting published, I start to wonder.

Now I don't mean to cast aspersions on those involved in textual criticism because the field obviously has validity. But textual critics must not write off the obvious for the sole purpose of discovering some new thing. The most overt prediction Jesus made was the conquering of Jerusalem in the lifetime of his hearers. The fact that no one, in any of the 27 books of the New Testament, mention this fulfilled prophecy speaks volumes. I know skeptics say, "They just wrote this after the fact to make it appear like a fulfilled prophecy." I don't buy this explaination because it appears from the same writings that the early Christians believed they were living in the last days. They were, in fact, living in the last days of the old sacrificial system but they had no idea their personal letters would be collected into a book in 393 and called The Bible. Sheesh.

[Guest]

I agree with the analysis given above by JC, which he was apparently posting while I was writing the following:


The dates of all the books dated between 50 and 60 are reasonable enough, but most of the dates strike me as wildly speculative, as well as unlikely.

To say that they are supported by "standard authorities" means nothing, since all it takes to be a "standard authority" is to have a PhD and an opinion, and to either be a professor or author on some aspect of New Testament studies. The opinions among "standard authorities" vary so widely from one another that a seeker after truth would do better, in many cases, to rely upon common sense.

Suffice it to say, conservative scholars would almost all disagree with more than half of those dates given, as would some leading liberal scholars, including John A. T. Robinson, who dated every New Testament book before AD70.

That so many epistles of Paul could have been written more than a decade after his death, without the early Christians realizing it seems to stretch the credulity. The placing of 2 Thessalonians twenty or more years after 1 Thessalonians is bizarre in the extreme, given the close connection between the two epistles, which has led historic scholars to consider the interval to be only a few months. Of course, every suggested date later than 100 carries with it the accusation that the author was a forger—a typical assumption among liberal scholars, but absolutely unwarranted.

[_jackal]

I realize that you (Jackal) will not accept the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles. However, for the benefit of those more open-minded, and less agenda-driven, I would point out that Paul cited a passage in Luke's Gospel as "scripture" in 1 Timothy 5:18. There, "The laborer is worthy of his wages" is the same saying of Jesus recorded in Luke 10:7. Paul refers to it, along with Deuteronomy 25:4, as scripture.

Once again, steve, you display your arrogance by thinking you know me so well, not to mention again relying on fallacious ad homenem atttacks of close-mindedness. (now there's the pot calling the kettle black) And, once again there is no need to attack the authorship of 1 Timothy (not necessarily denying it is, in fact, pseudepigraphical). Paul's reference at 1 Tim 5:18 to a laborer and his wages certainly looks like a very close paraphrase of Leviticus 19:13, which is scripture. Paul's words then could subsequently been used by the author of GLuke, not necessarily the other way around. It is also unlikely that Paul would refer to such a writing by Luke as "scripture". There was no thought of canonizing any christian writings during the 1st century. During that period, any tradition about Jesus was referred to simply as part of the Gospel.

for Jackal's default position:"If Christians wrote it, it must be lies.".

Since you definitively placed that within quotation marks, please show me where I said that. I thought bearing false witness was a sin.

[_Evangelion]

Evangelion, the website you listed only quotes liberal scholars and better arguments (I feel) are given by more conservative scholars. Many of those dates look way off to me (I agree with 10 of the 27). The arguments for a later dating seem like extreme guesswork but the earlier dates simply make more sense. If you think I'm biased against liberal scholars let me explain why I find them less reliable.

Liberal scholars operate from an assumtion that supernatural events don't take place. Conservative scholars say "maybe they do, maybe they don't." One group defines their analysis of the data more narrowly than the other. Common sense tells me that the more open minded group will provide a better analysis in most cases. If you automatically assume supernatural events don't occur then every time you read about them taking place within an ancient document you must immediately write it off without further consideration.

With regard to authorship of a given document, I fail to see why a stylistic difference automatically means it's pseudo-epigraphal. I've looked at documents I've written myself over time and see massive changes in style and grammar. How much more if I'm orating to a scribe like was common in those days? I sometimes feel that scholars study themselves into idiocy if they aren't careful. When basic common sense is tossed aside for the sake of getting published, I start to wonder.

Now I don't mean to cast aspersions on those involved in textual criticism because the field obviously has validity. But textual critics must not write off the obvious for the sole purpose of discovering some new thing. The most overt prediction Jesus made was the conquering of Jerusalem in the lifetime of his hearers. The fact that no one, in any of the 27 books of the New Testament, mention this fulfilled prophecy speaks volumes. I know skeptics say, "They just wrote this after the fact to make it appear like a fulfilled prophecy." I don't buy this explaination because it appears from the same writings that the early Christians believed they were living in the last days. They were, in fact, living in the last days of the old sacrificial system but they had no idea their personal letters would be collected into a book in 393 and called The Bible. Sheesh.

You make many good points here, and I agree with most of them.

I'm not sure how you're defining "liberal scholars"; perhaps you could give me an example? For the sake of this post, I will use the term as I understand it, which includes believers and unbelievers alike.

I can assure you that Kirby's site does not only quote "liberal" scholars; if you look closer, you will find plenty of "conservative" scholars, such as Hoole, Lightfoot, Goodspeed, Lake, Wallace, and others.

But yes, most of the scholars listed on that site are "liberal" scholars - which is hardly surprising, since Kirby himself is agnostic.

Despite this, it still an excellent site because it presents us with arguments and evidences that a Christian may safely employ without being accused of bias by unbelievers.

Not all "liberal" scholars begin with an assumption that supernatural events do not take place (many are Bible-believing Christians themselves) and in any case, this rarely has any relevance to the issue of dating.

Daniel B. Wallace is cited as a standard authority by www.earlychristianwritings.com - do you consider him a "liberal" scholar? Because I certainly don't.

You would be surprised at the number of datings on that site which are not argued on the basis of "stylistic differences"; textual, historical and geographical evidence is also cited, and employed with surprising candour in some cases.

Remember also that "liberal" scholars are less inclined to accept an earlier date just because Christian tradition says that a book was written at such-and-such a time. This is not an issue of theology, but an issue of empirical evidence; if there is no hard evidence to support an earlier claim, then a scholar (whether "liberal" or "conservative" is under no obligation to accept it. And we must surely agree that in many cases, empirical evidence is rather thin on the ground.

I am not a fan of the "stylistic differences" argument myself, and personally reject it 9 times out of 10 unless I have a rock-solid reason to accept it.

Nevertheless, the issue of "style" can work to the Christian's advantage; just look at the Gospel of John, for example. Plenty of conservative scholars support its authenticity on the grounds of style and content. Consider also the Synotpics; how many times have you read a conservative scholar who argues that the Gospel of Luke was clearly written by a physician on the grounds of vocabulary and style? I've certainly read a few in my time.

We should not dismiss certain arguments out of hand; nor must we accept them unconditionally. Instead, we must test them thoroughly, and accept them only if they prove themselves within a given context.

Even if this is achieved, we are not compelled to accept them in ever case; we must always exercise our discretion. 8)