Are there known dates that each book in the bible was written?
SoaringEagle
Dates for each book in the bible written
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Dates for each book in the bible written
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Hi, There's a lot of speculation but as Hank Hannagraff pointed out none of the NT mentions the destruction of Jerusalem so it's likely that all of the NT was written before 70AD. IMHO Mark was written before 37AD since in chap 14 he mentions "the high priest" 5 times without mentioning Caiaphas's name which he probably would have had to have done if the gospel was written after Caiaphas's term ended in 37AD. Also in the 30s Mark stayed at Peter's house as mentioned in Acts 12 and apparently Peter contributed much to Marks gospel and Peter himself may have filled in the ending after 16.9 since i think it's his writing style.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Most "experts" indicate that the book of Revelation was written after 90 A.D. because of the statements of Eusebius (probably about 95 A.D.) Although there is only one witness to this, the rest of the books if the New Testament have no clear witnesses as to when they were written.
In my opinion, the reason Revelation does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem is that it was not considered by the early Christians to be a fulfillment of prophecy. Irenaeus, for example, describes the coming of the antichrist as a future event from his time, and he lived well after 70 A.D.
The events of Matthew 24 cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem.
They speak of the coming of Christ, which is yet a future event. The revelation of the Father to Jesus, who sent His angel to make these things known to the apostle John, also deals with future events ---- none of which was fulfilled in 70 A.D.
In my opinion, the reason Revelation does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem is that it was not considered by the early Christians to be a fulfillment of prophecy. Irenaeus, for example, describes the coming of the antichrist as a future event from his time, and he lived well after 70 A.D.
The events of Matthew 24 cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem.
They speak of the coming of Christ, which is yet a future event. The revelation of the Father to Jesus, who sent His angel to make these things known to the apostle John, also deals with future events ---- none of which was fulfilled in 70 A.D.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hmm.
From the following web site, I found the suggestion that Revelation might have been written from two distinct sets of visions, one of which was given well prior to 70 AD. Part of the reasoning is as follows. One of the seven churches was in a city called Laodicea. This city was apparently a wealthy and prosperous city when this letter was originally written, and when this part of the vision was originally given. But the city of Laodicea was struck by a devastating earthquake in 60/61 AD. Afterwards, it was never quite what it was before. Also, prior to 70 AD it was culturally fashionable to call oneself a Jew and yet not be Jewish by birth. Afterwards, however, the Jews were shunned and ostracized. Compare this with the statement in Rev. 2:9 about "those who say they are Jews and are not." People certainly wouldn't have been claiming to be Jews after the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD. So, this is another indicator that this part of Revelation must have been written prior to 70 AD.
Also, according to what I've proven in this thread, Daniel's 70 weeks' prophecy culminated in 70 AD. Thus, it made perfect sense that Christians prior to 70 AD might have thought that the return of Christ would happen then, and that the Book of Revelation (or at least, the part of it which had thus far been revealed) pertained to that time.
Damon
From the following web site, I found the suggestion that Revelation might have been written from two distinct sets of visions, one of which was given well prior to 70 AD. Part of the reasoning is as follows. One of the seven churches was in a city called Laodicea. This city was apparently a wealthy and prosperous city when this letter was originally written, and when this part of the vision was originally given. But the city of Laodicea was struck by a devastating earthquake in 60/61 AD. Afterwards, it was never quite what it was before. Also, prior to 70 AD it was culturally fashionable to call oneself a Jew and yet not be Jewish by birth. Afterwards, however, the Jews were shunned and ostracized. Compare this with the statement in Rev. 2:9 about "those who say they are Jews and are not." People certainly wouldn't have been claiming to be Jews after the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD. So, this is another indicator that this part of Revelation must have been written prior to 70 AD.
Also, according to what I've proven in this thread, Daniel's 70 weeks' prophecy culminated in 70 AD. Thus, it made perfect sense that Christians prior to 70 AD might have thought that the return of Christ would happen then, and that the Book of Revelation (or at least, the part of it which had thus far been revealed) pertained to that time.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: