Dating of the Gospels

[Guest]

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.

Not to mention that the Catholic church agrees with, or at least acknowledges the possibility of, most of those dates at Peter Kirby's site.

[_Evangelion]

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.

Can you give some examples? And have you read the articles which explain why they are dated so late?

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.

Actually, it takes a lot more than thnat. I certainly think that Dr James White (to name just one leading academic) would take great exception to the suggestion that anyone can become a "standard authority."

Yes, there is plenty of disagreement among scholars; even those who are recognised as standard authorities. This is true of "conservatives" and "liberals" alike, and extends far beyond mere academia. Plenty of well-respected Christian theologians disagree with each other on crucial issues of salvic significance, but would we reject the Christian message simply because Christians cannot agree on it? Surely not.

You mention "common sense"; and what a great thing it is! But alas, "common sense" is not so common as we might prefer it to be, and experience has shown that one man's "common sense" is another man's lunacy.

"Common sense" didn't give us electricity, put men on the moon, cure smallpox, invent computers, translate the Rosetta Stone, or preserve God's Word over thousands of years, through at least four ancient langauges.

"Common sense" won't explain the Trinity, defend Christianity from skepticism, disprove evolution or convince an Armenian that he should become a Calvinist.

For all of these things - and more! - specialised knowledge and specialist skills were and are required.

Academia is not the be-all and end-all; even Solomon himself was moved to write:

• Ecclesiastes 12:12
  And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

But academic knowledge and/or Scriptural expertise has its place in the Christian armoury, and we would do well to remember this:

• II Peter 3:15-16
  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Suffice it to say, conservative scholars would almost all disagree with more than half of those dates given

Yes, they would. But that's not necessarily a good enough reason to reject these dates.

as would some leading liberal scholars, including John A. T. Robinson, who dated every New Testament book before AD70.

Good old Robinson! I have a lot of time for this work, though some of it is just too liberal for my liking.

And yet,

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.

Agreed.

For the record, I personally believe that all of the NT books were written within the 1st Century AD. For this reason, I accept the earliest of Kirby's suggested dates in each case - with the exception of the last few epistles on his list, which I believe to have been written much earlier than the dates ascribed to them.

I think we have to remember that Christ's immediate disciples were contemporary with him, and perhaps even around the same age. This means that they could have been writing well into the 70s or 80s (though obviously not into the 2nd Century AD!) So a few of these dates aren't as wild as they might first appear.

For example, church tradition (with a nod towards some historical evidence) teaches that John lived into his 90s, and wrote Revelation while in exile on the Isle of Patmos; this would easily accommodate a dating of AD 90-97 for his final works.

Textual evidence for the dating of NT manuscripts is scant, but there is (IMHO) enough of it to show that the earliest extant fragments of the NT were copies of copies. When combined with the evidence of the Rylands Fragment, this lends strong support to the view that the NT was complete before the closing years of the 1st Century AD. 8)

[_Evangelion]

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.

Not to mention that the Catholic church agrees with, or at least acknowledges the possibility of, most of those dates at Peter Kirby's site.

Yes, that's another good point to bear in mind.

[Guest]

For example, church tradition (with a nod towards some historical evidence) teaches that John lived into his 90s, and wrote Revelation while in exile on the Isle of Patmos; this would easily accommodate a dating of AD 90-97 for his final works.

No i don't think so, for it was'nt just that John would have had to write Revelation in his 90s which in itself would be remarkable since the average life expectancy back then was probably in the 40s but then he traveled to three churches and ministered to them as an elder all while he was in his 90s with primitive transportation. Much more logical that he wrote Rev while he was in his 60s and in the 60s as the internal evidence in Rev points to, just as the internal evidence in Mark points to a very early writing.

[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.

If they could date the gospels after 70AD then they would'nt be believable because of the Olivet Discourse prophecy. So because of the Olivet discourse and it's importance it seems unlikely to me that if any of the NT were written after 70AD the destruction of Jerusalem would'nt be mentioned. It was to important to leave out or at least not refer to IMO. Therefore i think the entire NT was written before 70AD.

I think Mark was written comtemporaneously with Jesus's ministry because of so many minor but vivid details included but not emphasized.
1. And THE WHOLE CITY was gathered AT(his) THE DOOR 1.33
2.Now IN THE MORNING having risen a long while nefore daylight,he went out. 1.35
3. And Simon and those who were with him went out and searched for him
1.36

One would not know about the skepticism in Nazareth unless you were an eyewitness.
When he came back the people of Nazareth were so skeptical 6.2
His family 3.21 that is his mother and brothers set out to SEIZE HIM 3.21
they believed he was out of his mind 3.21
On arrival they stood OUTSIDE 3.31

How about the boat trip?
And the waves beat into the boat so that the boat was already filling . But he was in the stern ASLEEP ON THE CUSHION 4.38

How about the man who lived among the tombs?
Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains HE WAS ALWAYS CRYING OUT ,and bruising himself with stones 5.2-5

The healing of the child.
The child is not dead but sleeping. AND THEY LAUGHED AT HIM. Taking her by the hand he said to her "Talitha cumi" 5.38-41

A listing of Jesus's reactions
moved with pity 1.40-43
with anger greived 3.1
he had compassion 6.30
compelled his disciples 6.45
he was indignant 10.13
loved him 10.21
distressed and troubled 14.33

On five occassions Mark mentioned Jesus looked around
3.5, 3.34 , 5.32, 10.23 , 11.11 usually at moments of high drama.

There are many details of times,places and people that could only be known by an eyewitness and in chap 14 Mark mentions the phrase "the high priest" 5 times without naming Caiaphas which implies he wrote it live therefore not needing to name him which he would have needed to if he wrote the account decades later.

So i think the internal evidence of Mark indicates it was written before the end of Caiaphas's reign in 37AD.

[_Evangelion]

For example, church tradition (with a nod towards some historical evidence) teaches that John lived into his 90s, and wrote Revelation while in exile on the Isle of Patmos; this would easily accommodate a dating of AD 90-97 for his final works.

No i don't think so, for it was'nt just that John would have had to write Revelation in his 90s which in itself would be remarkable since the average life expectancy back then was probably in the 40s but then he traveled to three churches and ministered to them as an elder all while he was in his 90s with primitive transportation. Much more logical that he wrote Rev while he was in his 60s and in the 60s as the internal evidence in Rev points to, just as the internal evidence in Mark points to a very early writing.

I'm not sure where you're getting that figure of 40 years from. Do you have a source for it? Even considering the conditions under which people lived during the 1st Century AD, it seems unrealistically low. Jesus' adversaries once told him that he was "not yet 50 years of age"; this implies that it was common for people to live beyond 50.

In any case, there were many ancients who defied the average lifespan and lived to a ripe old age.

For example:

• Josephus - 62
• Tacitus: - 64
• Philo: - 70
• Plutarch: - 70
• Xenophon: - 75
• Plato: - 80

So it would come as no great surprise to me that John the Evangelist lived to 90.

Plenty of "conservative" Christian scholars (such as Jimmy Williams of Leadership University) readily accept that John lived for 90 years, and actually cite this figure in their defence of the NT documents. Williams, for example, uses a ballpark figure of AD 90-110 for the writing of John's gospel, epistles and revelation.

You talk about John visiting and ministering to three different churches; could you elaborate on this, please? Is there any reason why this could not have been done before his incarceration, leaving him with plenty of time to pen his works before dying near the end of the 1st Century AD?

And what evidence do you have from Revelation which suggests that it was written in the 60s?

[_Evangelion]

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.

If they could date the gospels after 70AD then they would'nt be believable because of the Olivet Discourse prophecy. So because of the Olivet discourse and it's importance it seems unlikely to me that if any of the NT were written after 70AD the destruction of Jerusalem would'nt be mentioned. It was to important to leave out or at least not refer to IMO. Therefore i think the entire NT was written before 70AD.

I think Mark was written comtemporaneously with Jesus's ministry because of so many minor but vivid details included but not emphasized.
1. And THE WHOLE CITY was gathered AT(his) THE DOOR 1.33
2.Now IN THE MORNING having risen a long while nefore daylight,he went out. 1.35
3. And Simon and those who were with him went out and searched for him
1.36

One would not know about the skepticism in Nazareth unless you were an eyewitness.
When he came back the people of Nazareth were so skeptical 6.2
His family 3.21 that is his mother and brothers set out to SEIZE HIM 3.21
they believed he was out of his mind 3.21
On arrival they stood OUTSIDE 3.31

How about the boat trip?
And the waves beat into the boat so that the boat was already filling . But he was in the stern ASLEEP ON THE CUSHION 4.38

How about the man who lived among the tombs?
Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains HE WAS ALWAYS CRYING OUT ,and bruising himself with stones 5.2-5

The healing of the child.
The child is not dead but sleeping. AND THEY LAUGHED AT HIM. Taking her by the hand he said to her "Talitha cumi" 5.38-41

A listing of Jesus's reactions
moved with pity 1.40-43
with anger greived 3.1
he had compassion 6.30
compelled his disciples 6.45
he was indignant 10.13
loved him 10.21
distressed and troubled 14.33

On five occassions Mark mentioned Jesus looked around
3.5, 3.34 , 5.32, 10.23 , 11.11 usually at moments of high drama.

There are many details of times,places and people that could only be known by an eyewitness and in chap 14 Mark mentions the phrase "the high priest" 5 times without naming Caiaphas which implies he wrote it live therefore not needing to name him which he would have needed to if he wrote the account decades later.

So i think the internal evidence of Mark indicates it was written before the end of Caiaphas's reign in 37AD.

Interesting that your argument for the dating of Mark rests almost entirely upon stylistic issues.

[Guest]

Jackal,

First, I would like to make any appropriate apologies to you, if I have misrepresented you. I maintain that I have no reason to believe that I have done so, but you seem to object to my inferences that you are less honest and open-minded than you should be.

It would appear that your objection is to my words, "for the benefit of those more open-minded, and less agenda-driven [than is Jackal]..." If you wish to declare that you are open-minded and NOT agenda-driven, I will have to let your declarations stand, and I should not claim to know otherwise. All that I can objectively and justly say is that I perceive no evidence of open-mindedness or lack of agendas in your posts.

If you think this is the pot calling the kettle black, then you must think I am not open-minded and that I am agenda-driven. I would like for you to identify, if you can, what my agenda might be, and where I am not open to evidence. I believe you have accused me in earlier threads of being determined to prove the inspiration and infallibility of scripture. In this accusation, you simply assume that I hold to positions which I have never asserted, and concerning which I know myself to have no preference (and hence, no agenda).

I have, over the last 35 years, been so open to evidence, and so willing to change, that I have altered my positions on dozens of important theological matters—so much so, that I am now viewed as a liberal by some, and as a heretic by others...all of whom I would prefer to be respected by, and have an interest in not alienating. However, I have never had any agenda other than to know the truth, insofar as it may be ascertained by the best evidences.

I also apologize for placing quotation marks (wrongly implying that it was an actual quote) around the characterization of your attitude toward Christian sources ("If Christians wrote it, it must be lies"). I have no doubt, from what you have written, that the presumed untrustworthiness of Christian sources is the actual starting point of your reasoning (without this assumption, almost none of your arguments have any cogency), but one should not use quotation marks when paraphrasing or summarizing, as I was doing. It was an editorial mistake.

Yes, I have read several of the articles for a number of the New Testament books' dates at Kirby's site, and have no time or inclination to read more. Nothing was said there in favor of late dates which has not crossed my path in much earlier reading, and nothing that has not been very sensibly answered by conservative scholars. The difference between the two types of scholars (liberal and conservative) is not at the level of scholarly credentials, but that of presuppositions.

The conservative scholar considers that ancient traditions from the earliest generations of Christians are the most likely ones to preserve the historical facts about the founding of their faith system. After all, these early Christians were convinced that their beliefs were historically grounded, and we know of no con-men among their founders, who could be said to have had anything to gain by deception in the matter.

That the apostles were (in the second and third generation of Christianity) believed to have died as martyrs, renders the claim intrinsically probable, in the absence of conflicting traditions. Their martyrdom was not a necessary element to the credibility of their teaching (as witnessed by the lack of a tradition of John's martyrdom), and is no more improbable that the apostles died as martyrs than that hundreds, if not thousands, of other Christians died similarly in the following two centuries.

Thus, belief in the traditions of the apostles' martyrdom stand upon relatively early witnesses, and are, in no particular implausible, nor impropable. Any denial of the historicity of the tradition arises merely from the speculation of men centuries removed from the circumstances. "Common sense" would tell us, in a case like this, that the traditions had a stronger claim upon our confidence than the speculations of modern scholars. The likelihood that Christianity's earliest heroes would have died, and the true circumstances of their deaths would have been forgotten by the third generation of their admirers, as I said elsewhere, seems as unlikely as the suggestion that my children's generation would forget that JFK had been shot in Dallas.

I believe the case is not much different for the traditional authorship and dates of writing of the New Testament books. It is readily acknowledged by conservatives that a few books, like Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation, etc., were "disputed" for several centuries before finally being accepted as scripture. This fact neither tells for or against the ultimate decision of the church, after much consideration, eventually to recognize them as authentic.

For most of the New Testament books, however, there was no serious dispute about their authorship until fairly modern times. If it were the case that the modern speculative criticisms had very impressive and barely-answerable evidences on their side, an open-minded observer would be reasonably compelled to lay aside the traditional views in favor of the newly "discovered" information. However, this is hardly the case.

The arguments for late dates arise, for the most part, not from the discovery of new facts, but by new interpretations of the data that has been available from earliest times. Since arguments every bit as reasonable (and often quite superior) exist in support of the earlier tradition, "common sense," I believe, inclines the honest student to accept the long-established views as the default position, until better evidence can be found to overturn them.

The difference between the pot and the kettle, in this case, is that the kettle seems to take skepticism about Christianity as a starting point, whereas the pot thinks arguments should be assessed by their relative merits, apart from prejudices for or against an preferred religious position. Thus, I think that the pot and the kettle, in this case, are not the same color.


As for the invoking of the position of the Catholic Church about the dates of the New Testament writings, such considerations may impress some. I, for one, in studying the history of the Roman Church, and the development of its belief system, have gained no particular respect for that institution's objectivity or discernment.

[Guest]

I'm not sure where you're getting that figure of 40 years from. Do you have a source for it? Even considering the conditions under which people lived during the 1st Century AD, it seems unrealistically low. Jesus' adversaries once told him that he was "not yet 50 years of age"; this implies that it was common for people to live beyond 50.

In any case, there were many ancients who defied the average lifespan and lived to a ripe old age.

I just went in google and typed in life expectancy and i printed out a table. In the year 1900 (the earliest yr on the table) the average life expectancy was 47.3
However i'm not denying that John lived into his 90s , i'm saying it's likely he would have been feeble and to write Revelation and then travel to 3 churches to minister when he was in his 90s is very unlikely. As to the evidence he traveled to the three churches i'll get back to you on that.

[_Evangelion]

I just went in google and typed in life expectancy and i printed out a table. In the year 1900 (the earliest yr on the table) the average life expectancy was 47.3

OK, fair enough. I personally believe that there is plenty of evidence to show that people in the 1st Century AD lived longer than 50 years on average.

However i'm not denying that John lived into his 90s , i'm saying it's likely he would have been feeble and to write Revelation and then travel to 3 churches to minister when he was in his 90s is very unlikely.

I would agree with this - provided that it can be proved from Scriptural and historical evidence.

As to the evidence he traveled to the three churches i'll get back to you on that.

Thanks, that would be very helpful.