Dating of the Gospels

[_SoaringEagle]

Here are some dates given for Revelation.

David E. Aune, Ph.D. AD 95 or 64 to 70
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 90-96
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Generally fixed at AD 96
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 95
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 90's
Richard C.H. Lenski, D.D. between AD 93 and 96
John MacArthur, AD 95 to 96
J. Ramsey Michaels, Ph.D. AD 70 to 100
M.S. Mills, AD 95
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Late AD 68 or early 70

This comes from [http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm][blue][here]

[Guest]

Here are some dates given for Revelation.

David E. Aune, Ph.D. AD 95 or 64 to 70
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 90-96
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Generally fixed at AD 96
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 95
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 90's
Richard C.H. Lenski, D.D. between AD 93 and 96
John MacArthur, AD 95 to 96
J. Ramsey Michaels, Ph.D. AD 70 to 100
M.S. Mills, AD 95
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Late AD 68 or early 70

This comes from here

Nice one.

You might want to close those "b", "url" and "color" tags, BTW. I've done it for you in my post, but I can't change the original.

[Guest]

Evangelion, According to a writing by Clement called "Who is the Rich Man who will be saved?" Section 42 he writes "When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus ,he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops ,in others to regulate whole churches ,in others to set among the clergy some one man ,it may be ,of those indicated by the Spirit."
Clement then adds to this account a story in which John disturbed by a young church leader's forsaking of the faith , chased him on horseback "with all his might."
So the question is, did John engage in these kind of activities in his 90s or in his 60s?

[Guest]

Evangelion, According to a writing by Clement called "Who is the Rich Man who will be saved?" Section 42 he writes "When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus ,he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops ,in others to regulate whole churches ,in others to set among the clergy some one man ,it may be ,of those indicated by the Spirit."

Clement then adds to this account a story in which John disturbed by a young church leader's forsaking of the faith, chased him on horseback "with all his might."

So the question is, did John engage in these kind of activities in his 90s or in his 60s?

Need we believe that he engaged in them at all? I can certainly accept the idea of an aged apostle visiting local churches in his declining years, but I would reject any suggestion that he engaged in energetic pursuits like chasing young churchmen on horseback. I think we need to excercise considerable discretion when reading apocryphal stories about New Testament Christians by post-1st Century churchmen.

In any case, your source supports my position entirely!

Clement of Alexandria (from whom you have cited this excerpt) states that John returned from Patmos "after the death of the tyrant", and the early church fathers are unanimous in their belief that this tyrant was Domitian. Men such as Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Sulpicius, Severus (and others) all confirm this in their writings.

Since Domitian reigned from AD 81-96, John would have returned from Patmos at some point in the 90s. This means that Clement's account is in harmony with my view that John wrote the Apocalypse towards the end of his life - possibly while he was on Patmos.

It is equally possible that John's epistles (though perhaps not his Gospel, which could have been composed before his exile) were written from Ephesus, following the death of Domitian. This idea gains support from the almost universal view amongst the church fathers that John busied himself with pastoral care in his declining years, after he returned from exile.

Victorinus, writing in his commentary on the Apocalypse in AD 280, says:

• When John said these things [in Revelation], he was on the island of Patmos, condemned by Caesar Domitian to labour in the mines. Therefore, it was there that he saw the Apocalypse.
  
  When he had grown old, he thought that he would eventually meet his end through suffering. However, Domitian was killed and all his judgements were thrown out. John later delivered [to the churches] this same Apocalypse that he had received from God...
  
  He later wrote the Gospel of the compete faith for the sake of our salvation.

Eusebius, writing in his Ecclesiastical History agrees:

• But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva succeeded to the government, the Roman Senate decreed, that the honours of Domitian should be revoked, and that those who had been unjustly expelled, should return to their homes, and have their goods restored. This is the statement of the historians of the day.
  
  It was then also, that the apostle John returned from the banishment in Patmos, and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient tradition.
  

These witnesses seem very clear to me. They confirm my view that John received his revelation whilst on Patmos, and wrote his epistles during the last days of his life. 8)

[Guest]

Victorinus, writing in his commentary on the Apocalypse in AD 280, says:



When John said these things [in Revelation], he was on the island of Patmos, condemned by Caesar Domitian to labour in the mines. Therefore, it was there that he saw the Apocalypse.

When he had grown old, he thought that he would eventually meet his end through suffering. However, Domitian was killed and all his judgements were thrown out. John later delivered [to the churches] this same Apocalypse that he had received from God...

He later wrote the Gospel of the compete faith for the sake of our salvation.

So John was working in the salt mines on Patmos in his 90s and wrote Revelation and then traveled to Ephesus and other churchs to minister in his 90s and then wrote his gospel after that in his late 90s or over the age of 100, back around 100AD?
That's very close to being physically an impossibility and John never claimed that God gave him any divine physical strength.
The Syriac church is said to be the oldest Christian church and they have several books regarding John. In their book called "History of John ,the Son of Zebedee", it states "after these these things ,when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles ,Nero laid hold of John and drove him into exile"
And in two Syriac versions of Revelation the titles state "Written in Patmos ,whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." These two versions were written 500AD-600AD but come out of the Syriac oral tradition which is important if it is in fact the oldest church.

[Guest]

So John was working in the salt mines on Patmos in his 90s and wrote Revelation and then traveled to Ephesus and other churchs to minister in his 90s and then wrote his gospel after that in his late 90s or over the age of 100, back around 100AD?

That's very close to being physically an impossibility and John never claimed that God gave him any divine physical strength.

Who says he was working at all? He could have simply been a prisoner.

And who said that he actually travelled to other churches on his return to Ephesus? I make no such claim; I merely argue that he wrote epistles to them during his final years.

We don't know precisely when he was born; it's entirely possible that he was in his early 20s when he became a disciple of Jesus. This would put him in his 70s during his time on Patmos, which is perfectly reasonable.

The Syriac church is said to be the oldest Christian church and they have several books regarding John. In their book called "History of John ,the Son of Zebedee", it states "after these these things ,when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles ,Nero laid hold of John and drove him into exile"

And in two Syriac versions of Revelation the titles state "Written in Patmos ,whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." These two versions were written 500AD-600AD but come out of the Syriac oral tradition which is important if it is in fact the oldest church.

That's interesting, but unfortunately it is contradicted by the sheer weight of evidence from 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century witnesses - all of whom are in agreement concerning the latter days of John's life. So I am more inclined to accept these consistent witnesses (who lived closer to John's era) than an account nearly twice as old as the oldest of them.

And for what it's worth, I don't believe that the Syrian church was the oldest church; that title would have belonged to the church at Jerusalem or Antioch.

[_SoaringEagle]

Interesting discussion so for. Where's the pop-corn?? Anyways, what can we know about the Peter's epistles, especially 2nd Peter. I have some dates for them, but don't know why there are dated this way. Also, there is some debate over these questions. I plan to look into them, but does anyone have any thoughts?

1st Peter
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 63-64
Allen Black, Ph.D. no later than AD 68
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 65
J. Ramsey Michaels, Ph.D. AD 64
M.S. Mills, circa. AD 62 AD 54–64, with a later date being more likely
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring AD 65

2nd Peter
Richard J. Bauckham, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 65-66
Mark C. Black, Ph.D. mid AD 60's
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 64 or more likely 65
M.S. Mills, AD 67
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. AD 61 to 62

Again, this is from the link I gave above.

[Guest]

These two versions were written 500AD-600AD but come out of the Syriac oral tradition which is important if it is in fact the oldest church.

You must have missed my response the last time you made this point. The syriac churches have always held that Revelation was noncanonical, and has not appeared in any syriac edition of the bible until modern editions. Those manuscripts in the 6th and 7th century were translations from greek manuscripts, and not the result of any long tradition in the syriac church.

[Guest]

You must have missed my response the last time you made this point. The syriac churches have always held that Revelation was noncanonical, and has not appeared in any syriac edition of the bible until modern editions. Those manuscripts in the 6th and 7th century were translations from greek manuscripts, and not the result of any long tradition in the syriac church. - Jackel

I did miss your response previously. According to Kenneth Gentry from "Before Jerusalem Fell" the earlier version of the Syriac Vulgate did'nt contain Revelation but the two i referred to did in 508AD and 616AD. All NTs are from greek manuscripts ,that does'nt prove or disprove anything and the reference to Nero is from the titles which may or may not be part of any manuscript.

[Guest]

Interesting discussion so for. Where's the pop-corn?? Anyways, what can we know about the Peter's epistles, especially 2nd Peter. I have some dates for them, but don't know why there are dated this way. Also, there is some debate over these questions. I plan to look into them, but does anyone have any thoughts?

1st Peter
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 63-64
Allen Black, Ph.D. no later than AD 68
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 65
J. Ramsey Michaels, Ph.D. AD 64
M.S. Mills, circa. AD 62 AD 54–64, with a later date being more likely
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring AD 65

2nd Peter
Richard J. Bauckham, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90
Believer's Study Bible, A.D. 65-66
Mark C. Black, Ph.D. mid AD 60's
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 64 or more likely 65
M.S. Mills, AD 67
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. AD 61 to 62

Again, this is from the link I gave above.

• Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient.
  
  Not only is there very good evidence that this epistle was utilized in the late first and early second century by a variety of writers (as Picirilli has recently pointed out), but the occasion for the letter fits the lifetime of Peter better than later.
  
  Further, once some kind of amanuensis hypothesis is seriously taken into consideration (in our view, an amanuensis was used for 1 Peter but probably not for 2 Peter63), then many of the objections against Petrine authorship are found wanting.
  
  Taken together, these external and internal arguments strongly suggest the traditional view, viz., that Peter was indeed the author of the second epistle which bears his name.64

Source.

This is the conclusion of a long and detailed essay in which Daniel Wallace examines the authenticity of II Peter.