Gospel Dates

[RCA]

Hey everyone

Can anyone provide information or links, on the most recent research into when the Gospels were written, especially Luke’s Gospel. Information on the synoptic problem would also be welcome.

Thanks in advance,
RCA

 

[Fidelis]

Try these, from elsewhere on this site:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207ntg.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411ntg.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ntg.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp

When in doubt, go to the CA main page and use the “Search” feature. More than likely, they’ll have what you need!

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
The earliest Christian historians
Modern literary analysis
The doctrine of the church
Recent Church statements
The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.

 

[lak611]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
The earliest Christian historians
Modern literary analysis
The doctrine of the church
Recent Church statements
The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.

This is an excellent post! I have always been a believer in the Gospels as history as well as theology. I’ve always believed that the order that they are placed in the New Testament is due to the order that they were actually written (which is what my Douay-Rheims Bible says in the commentary notes; my KJV Bible says the same thing.). Matthew had to be written prior to 70 A.D. anyway, because he mentions the Temple still standing. Mark had to be written prior to 70 A.D. because he was basicallly a secretary copying down the report given by Peter, who was martryed prior to 70 A.D. Luke also predates the destruction of the temple, and the martyrdom of Paul, because Luke is the first in a series, followed by Acts, and in the book of Acts, Paul is still under house arrest (he would be freed, then arrested again, and finally martyred). John is definitely the latest of the Gospels, and shortly afterwards, John the Apostle wrote his Epistles and the book of Revelation. John was the only Apostle to live to be an old man, and after he wrote Revelation, this was the end of the New Testament, and also he was the last living eyewitness of Jesus.

 

[patg]

This is an excellent post!..

Yes, as long as you realize that no one really knows. The referenced theories are only “excellent” if you agree with them and the reasoning behind them - there are many scholars, with much greater credentials, who do not. If you are seriously interested in this subject, try to get a balanced perspective from recognized scholars as opposed to only statements from a relatively unknown group and author.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, as long as you realize that no one really knows. The referenced theories are only “excellent” if you agree with them and the reasoning behind them - there are many scholars, with much greater credentials, who do not. If you are seriously interested in this subject, try to get a balanced perspective from recognized scholars as opposed to only statements from a relatively unknown group and author.

Who? Protestant Scholars and speculators?

This is indeed one of the best I have seen.

 

[patg]

Who? Protestant Scholars and speculators?

This is indeed one of the best I have seen.

But who are these people? - there is not a single reference as to what the website is based on, who it represents, where it gets its information, what its agenda is - nothing! The same for Dennis Barton, whoever he is - there is nothing. Most scholars (protestant and catholic) at least have some credentials which we can discuss - there is nothing for this guy. Let’s at least consider Raymond Brown, John Meier, Margaret Ralph, Geza Vermes, etc. before buying into what appears to me to be ultra-conservative rejection of any recent research.

 

[buffalo]

But who are these people? - there is not a single reference as to what the website is based on, who it represents, where it gets its information, what its agenda is - nothing! The same for Dennis Barton, whoever he is - there is nothing. Most scholars (protestant and catholic) at least have some credentials which we can discuss - there is nothing for this guy. Let’s at least consider Raymond Brown, John Meier, Margaret Ralph, Geza Vermes, etc. before buying into what appears to me to be ultra-conservative rejection of any recent research.

Have you read it all? Have you checked the footnoted references? Who cares who the guy is. If I am a schmuck who wrote it from historical references that I pieced together, does it make it less true? If Jesus thought this had to be so darned hard, he should have only picked geniuses as the Apostle’s.

Does recent research invalidate Tradition? You are espousing syncretism.

 

[buffalo]

Here is one endorsement:

A COTTAGE INDUSTRY IN DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH IN HISTORY

						Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

** Work that needs to get done often is done not by the influential, wealthy, or well-known (who so often seem preoccupied with themselves rather than with the task at hand) but by little-known people who take what had been an avocation and turn it into a public benefit.**

Case in point: Dennis Barton, age 76, resident of Birkenhead, England, which is across the Mersey River from Liverpool. For years he has run a tiny apostolate called The Church in History Information Centre.

I have on my shelves several of his privately-printed monographs. They obviously come from a home workshop. The typesetting seems to have been done on a home computer or a typewriter. The pages, “printed” on a photocopier, are bound together with staples. The covers are plain text. In some of the books are loose errata sheets.

Before me as I write is Barton’s 120-page treatment of “The Authors of the Gospels.” His argument is that the Gospels are historical, were written by the men to whom they traditionally have been attributed, and were written early. While there is little here that is new to me, I delighted when I first saw the book–not just because I found a like-minded soul but because the book presents the evidence and discusses the competing theories in a clear, simple, and convincing way.

more…

 

[patg]

Have you read it all? Have you checked the footnoted references? Who cares who the guy is. If I am a schmuck who wrote it from historical references that I pieced together, does it make it less true? If Jesus thought this had to be so darned hard, he should have only picked geniuses as the Apostle’s.

Does recent research invalidate Tradition? You are espousing syncretism.

Well, I care. And yes, recent research can very well invalidate tradition. Even the fact that there are multiple gospels attests to the importance of considering multiple sources and points of view.

 

[rtconstant]

Well, I care. And yes, recent research can very well invalidate tradition. Even the fact that there are multiple gospels attests to the importance of considering multiple sources and points of view.

I don’t really see where a new gospel or recent find of ancient text really changes anything. It certainly doesn’t affect Tradition. Christ left a verbal Tradition to us. If the truth of the Faith has been hiding for 2000 years in some hidden text in a cave then obviously it’s not something that God must be very concerned about.

 

[patg]

I don’t really see where a new gospel or recent find of ancient text really changes anything. It certainly doesn’t affect Tradition. Christ left a verbal Tradition to us. If the truth of the Faith has been hiding for 2000 years in some hidden text in a cave then obviously it’s not something that God must be very concerned about.

I agree - and if every word of the new testament were of crucial importance, maybe God should have inspired someone to save an original copy for us. As it is, we have nothing even close to an original.

I also don’t think the order in which the gospels were written or the names of the authors are issues of extreme importance.

I do, however, think that reading the words of a member of the pontifical biblical commission (such as Raymond Brown) is at least as significant as reading those of someone on a relatively obscure website.

 

[buffalo]

I agree - and if every word of the new testament were of crucial importance, maybe God should have inspired someone to save an original copy for us. As it is, we have nothing even close to an original.

I also don’t think the order in which the gospels were written or the names of the authors are issues of extreme importance.

I do, however, think that reading the words of a member of the pontifical biblical commission (such as Raymond Brown) is at least as significant as reading those of someone on a relatively obscure website.

Not true - there are fragments from Matthews Gospel in Hebrew.

 

[patg]

Not true - there are fragments from Matthews Gospel in Hebrew.

True, but I was talking about a full copy of an original gospel - there are thousands of fragments.

 

[buffalo]

I also don’t think the order in which the gospels were written or the names of the authors are issues of extreme importance.

I do, however, think that reading the words of a member of the pontifical biblical commission (such as Raymond Brown) is at least as significant as reading those of someone on a relatively obscure website.

You are kidding, right. Dating of the Gospels and order is important.

Gee, Patg you sound a lot like this:

… Fr. Brown was quite adept at claiming that only he and his “historical critical” colleagues had the right understanding of Scripture, and he wasted no verbiage castigating traditionally-minded exegetes as “fundamentalists,” “right wing vigilantes” or “ultra-conservatives,” while his cohort John Meier called them "Neanderthal know-nothing types."3

Fr. Raymond Brown and the Demise of Catholic Scripture Scholarship

and this Raymond Brown who potulated:

The stories of Christ’s birth are dubious history.
• Early Christians understood themselves as a renewed Israel, not immediately as a new Israel.

• We must nuance any statement which would have the historical Jesus institute the Church or the priesthood at the Last Supper.

• In the New Testament we are never told that the Eucharistic power was passed from the Twelve to missionary apostles to presbyter-bishops.

• Only in the third and fourth century can one take for granted that when “priests” are mentioned, ministers of the Eucharist are meant.

• The Twelve were neither missionaries or bishops.

• Sacramental powers were given to the Christian Community in the persons of the Twelve.

• Presbyter-bishops described in the New Testament are not traceable “in any way” to the successors of the Twelve.
• The episcopate gradually emerged, but can be defended “as divinely established by Christ” only if one says it emerged under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

• Peter cannot be looked upon as the Bishop of the early Roman Church community. Succession to his Church fell to the Bishop of Rome, the city where Peter died. However, that concentration of authority produces, says Brown, “difficulties such as those we are now encountering within Catholicism.”

• Vatican II was “biblically naive” when it called Catholic bishops successors of the Apostles.

• It is dangerous to assume that second century structures existed in the first century.

 

[Maranatha]

True, but I was talking about a full copy of an original gospel - there are thousands of fragments.

If you find an original laminated copy, nicely bound, in good type setting. I’d like a copy too please.

 

[patg]

Gee, Patg you sound a lot like this:
…

I hope and pray I do - you do me great honor and I thank you. I work hard at studying and teaching this every day.

 

[patg]

If you find an original laminated copy, nicely bound, in good type setting. I’d like a copy too please.

I’d just like one in one piece less than several hundred years removed from the original writing.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

I’d just like one in one piece less than several hundred years removed from the original writing.

Like the Rylands fragment?

Or you mean an intire Gospel completely unscathed by the passage of time? What are you inferring, exactly?

 

[Maranatha]

Like the Rylands fragment?

Or you mean an intire Gospel completely unscathed by the passage of time? What are you inferring, exactly?

Perhaps an official copy from Roman Imperial Library. - Oh wait Christianity was illegal back then.