Is it really necessary to date the NT that late?

[minichibi]

I see an increasing tendency to date the Canonical Gospels as late as possible, and the “Heretical” Gospls as early as possible, as an attempt to even them up…

But, I wonder, is it really THAT necessary to date the NT that late? Is there no possibility at all for the Gospels to be written before 70 A.D.?

 

[JerryZ]

I see an increasing tendency to date the Canonical Gospels as late as possible, and the “Heretical” Gospls as early as possible, as an attempt to even them up…

But, I wonder, is it really THAT necessary to date the NT that late? Is there no possibility at all for the Gospels to be written before 70 A.D.?

Remember the NT was written all at once, the Apostles spread out all over preaching the Gospel, that was their mandate and foremost in their head, I would surmise that as they got older they then were preoccupied with transmitting the knowledge to the future Christians. It is entirely possible and this is the current understanding that they were written according to the teachings of the particular apostle mentioned in the beginning of each book.
Hence “The Gospel According to Matthew” title is used.
Also it is interesting to note that in Church of our fathers “the Gospel” singular comprised all the Books that were considered inspired, (Mark, Matthew, Luke, etc.)
Justin Martir was the one that started the “modern” trend to call each individual book Gopsel.
Also we could be accused of intellectual dishonesty if we don’t stay close to what is historically accurate.
It is not like the detractors of the Church don’t try to discredit Her any way!

 

[Wandile]

Its the worlds secular agenda. Discredit the truth and exalt the false. EVEN when there is more evidence for this truth.

Church tradition has it that Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written withing the first 20 years after Christ left the earth while John being written to the close of the 1st century AD.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

I see an increasing tendency to date the Canonical Gospels as late as possible, and the “Heretical” Gospls as early as possible, as an attempt to even them up…

But, I wonder, is it really THAT necessary to date the NT that late? Is there no possibility at all for the Gospels to be written before 70 A.D.?

In my limited understanding, the Gospels (except for Luke) were oral tradition before they were in writing. The Church gave us the Bible, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, so whether the writing of some of the NT is dated before or after 70 A.D. is not really necessary IMO. As far as the heretical gospels are concerned: they’re heretical, so I don’t care what they contain or what date they are given. To me, all that was settled long ago when the Church decided the canon of the Bible.

 

[JK8619]

I’ve noticed this quite a bit as well. Many scholars like to use the latest date believable to try to discredit the authorship of the gospels.

As far as the non-canonical gospels go, any scholar trying to say they were written at the same time or earlier than the canonical gospels is just plain dishonest. The Gospel of Thomas is the only non-canonical gospel I know of that maybe was written in the first century.

The evidence is pretty clear. The canonical gospels were written in the first century, while nearly all the others were written later (2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries). At this point, I know enough to ignore so called “scholars” who intentionally try to mislead the public to believe their lies. It is upsetting because so many people see these alleged experts on TV or read one of their books and believe the lies they spread. All we can do is try to spread the truth.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I see an increasing tendency to date the Canonical Gospels as late as possible, and the “Heretical” Gospls as early as possible, as an attempt to even them up…

But, I wonder, is it really THAT necessary to date the NT that late? Is there no possibility at all for the Gospels to be written before 70 A.D.?

There’s a difference between the Gospels and the material in the Gospels. Much of what is contained in the Canonical Gospels was surely written during or just after Jesus’ Incarnation. The Gospels in their final form, would not have been completed until later.

What we know for sure, is that the oldest fragment of a Gospel we have is dated to about 125 A.D. This doesn’t mean it was an original document, of course. It’s highly unlikely it was, but that it was copied from an older document.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

 

[jimdi3]

There’s a difference between the Gospels and the material in the Gospels. Much of what is contained in the Canonical Gospels was surely written during or just after Jesus’ Incarnation. The Gospels in their final form, would not have been completed until later.

What we know for sure, is that the oldest fragment of a Gospel we have is dated to about 125 A.D. This doesn’t mean it was an original document, of course. It’s highly unlikely it was, but that it was copied from an older document.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Yes that must be so. The newly established Basic Christian Communities would have had access to the material you speak of.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yes that must be so. The newly established Basic Christian Communities would have had access to the material you speak of.

I don’t know how anything “newly established” would have access to anything but the Canon of Scripture as defined and retained by the Holy Catholic Church, so I have no idea what you mean.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Remember the NT was written all at once, the Apostles spread out all over preaching the Gospel, that was their mandate and foremost in their head, I would surmise that as they got older they then were preoccupied with transmitting the knowledge to the future Christians. It is entirely possible and this is the current understanding that they were written according to the teachings of the particular apostle mentioned in the beginning of each book.
Hence “The Gospel According to Matthew” title is used.
Also it is interesting to note that in Church of our fathers “the Gospel” singular comprised all the Books that were considered inspired, (Mark, Matthew, Luke, etc.)
Justin Martir was the one that started the “modern” trend to call each individual book Gopsel.
Also we could be accused of intellectual dishonesty if we don’t stay close to what is historically accurate.
It is not like the detractors of the Church don’t try to discredit Her any way!

Actually Jews were fine if things were passed on by word of mouth. The Greeks are the ones who wanted to have writings, as it is more in-line with their culture and also being better educated. Another factor is that many Churches were established by then and the Apostles can no longer make frequent visits (aside from the fact that a number of them were already martyred by then). The writings weren’t really meant to preserve their teachings, but to give guidance from a distance. If you sync up Acts with the Epistles of St. Paul, you will see some of the Epistles he writes because he was on his way somewhere and had no time to stop by one of the cities. But he wanted to stop by, so instead he writes to them. Sometimes also because he receives a report of problems, so he writes back to help them sort out the problem.

 

[patrick457]

As far as the non-canonical gospels go, any scholar trying to say they were written at the same time or earlier than the canonical gospels is just plain dishonest. The Gospel of Thomas is the only non-canonical gospel I know of that maybe was written in the first century.

And even that is something that is not unchallenged. The idea that Thomas already existed in the 1st century in the form(s) that we have it today is, in reality, in the very small minority. At best, what people - even many of those in the so-called ‘early’ camp - think that the ‘core’ material (a portion out of the 114 sayings attributed to Jesus recorded in there) of that gospel may have already been in circulation during this time or before, but many think that Thomas as a literary work did not come into existence until much later.

All in all, we only know of at least nine gospels which were composed before AD 175, and one of these (the Protoevangelium of James) does not, strictly speaking belong to the ‘gospel’ genre at all. Excepting the Protoevangelium of James, these other eight gospels are (based on William Petersen’s list):

Gospel of the Ebionites (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Egyptians (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Hebrews (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Nazoraeans (c. 125?)
Gospel of Thomas (c. 140?)
Gospel of Peter (c. 150?)
The ‘Egerton Gospel’ (c. 150?)
Gospel of Judas (c. 170?)

And even then, the dates Petersen gives for the canonical gospels (which are fairly standard in academia today, although some competent people would push for earlier dates) acknowledge them to the earliest known gospels, an idea which is shared by the vast majority.

Mark (c. 70?)
Matthew (c. 85?)
Luke (c. 90?)
John (c. 100?)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I know I am of the minority opinion but I believe that Matthew was written first–then Luke–but that Luke wasn’t accepted until Mark was written before Peter was martyred.

In other words Luke was for the gentiles and supported by Paul and was accepted once Mark wrote his gospel relaying the thoughts of Peter.

In other words Mark was the bridge gospel between Matthew and Luke and Peter more or less vouched for the canonicity of Luke.

I also believe that the gospel of John was in fact written before John died in the year 100–probably sometime in the 90s.

These are the views of Dom Orchard–I know they are the minority view–but for centuries there was a traditional view that Matthew indeed was written first–others believe that Mark was written next and Luke after.

I don’t know when the non canonical gospels were written but I DO believe that the four canonical gospels were all written before the year 100 by the ACTUAL people–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission believed this was true in the days of Pope Pius X in the early 1900s.

Sad to say if you have such views today the so call “scripture scholars” think you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Their views are taught in many seminaries. That is sad in my opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

Remember the NT was written all at once, the Apostles spread out all over preaching the Gospel, that was their mandate and foremost in their head

Hmm…no?

Luke explicitly mentions that he reviews the pre-existing accounts and does his research before setting his Gospel into writing. How do we understand Luke’s assertion if the accounts are being written all at the same time?

Moreover, if we want to place Mark & Matthew, with respect to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, then we need to have a response to the question of why Mark makes no mention of the tensions between Jews & Christians like Matthew does. Placing Mark before 70, and Matthew near (or immediately following) it, seems to make more sense.

In addition, placing John too early makes it difficult to explain the rather advanced theological concepts we find there. It makes more sense to perceive John as having been developed later than the Synoptic Gospels…

 

[Erich]

I know I am of the minority opinion but I believe that Matthew was written first–then Luke–but that Luke wasn’t accepted until Mark was written before Peter was martyred.

In other words Luke was for the gentiles and supported by Paul and was accepted once Mark wrote his gospel relaying the thoughts of Peter.

In other words Mark was the bridge gospel between Matthew and Luke and Peter more or less vouched for the canonicity of Luke.

I also believe that the gospel of John was in fact written before John died in the year 100–probably sometime in the 90s.

These are the views of Dom Orchard–I know they are the minority view–but for centuries there was a traditional view that Matthew indeed was written first–others believe that Mark was written next and Luke after.

I don’t know when the non canonical gospels were written but I DO believe that the four canonical gospels were all written before the year 100 by the ACTUAL people–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission believed this was true in the days of Pope Pius X in the early 1900s.

Sad to say if you have such views today the so call “scripture scholars” think you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Their views are taught in many seminaries. That is sad in my opinion.

An excellent read is Dennis Barton’s The Authors of the Gospels It used to be available as one giant pdf, but it appears to have been broken up into “bite-size chunks” recently.

 

[patrick457]

I know I am of the minority opinion but I believe that Matthew was written first–then Luke–but that Luke wasn’t accepted until Mark was written before Peter was martyred.

In other words Luke was for the gentiles and supported by Paul and was accepted once Mark wrote his gospel relaying the thoughts of Peter.

In other words Mark was the bridge gospel between Matthew and Luke and Peter more or less vouched for the canonicity of Luke.

I also believe that the gospel of John was in fact written before John died in the year 100–probably sometime in the 90s.

These are the views of Dom Orchard–I know they are the minority view–but for centuries there was a traditional view that Matthew indeed was written first–others believe that Mark was written next and Luke after.

I don’t know when the non canonical gospels were written but I DO believe that the four canonical gospels were all written before the year 100 by the ACTUAL people–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission believed this was true in the days of Pope Pius X in the early 1900s.

Sad to say if you have such views today the so call “scripture scholars” think you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Their views are taught in many seminaries. That is sad in my opinion.

My opinion is probably more ‘in the minority’ than yours is, but my personal idea of things is that Matthew’s Hebrew/Aramaic Logia (as per Papias) is the first ‘gospel’ ever written, while Mark’s is the first Greek gospel. And no, Q is not involved in Greek Matthew and Luke. I’m thinking that it’s likely that Mark was used as a source in the making of the Greek gospels (canonical Matthew and Luke), but I am aware of Maurice Casey proposing that substantial parts of Mark, at least, may have been translated from Aramaic.

 

[patrick457]

And even that is something that is not unchallenged. The idea that Thomas already existed in the 1st century in the form(s) that we have it today is, in reality, in the very small minority. At best, what people - even many of those in the so-called ‘early’ camp - think that the ‘core’ material (a portion out of the 114 sayings attributed to Jesus recorded in there) of that gospel may have already been in circulation during this time or before, but many think that Thomas as a literary work did not come into existence until much later.

All in all, we only know of at least nine gospels which were composed before AD 175, and one of these (the Protoevangelium of James) does not, strictly speaking belong to the ‘gospel’ genre at all. Excepting the Protoevangelium of James, these other eight gospels are (based on William Petersen’s list):

Gospel of the Ebionites (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Egyptians (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Hebrews (c. 125?)
Gospel of the Nazoraeans (c. 125?)
Gospel of Thomas (c. 140?)
Gospel of Peter (c. 150?)
The ‘Egerton Gospel’ (c. 150?)
Gospel of Judas (c. 170?)

And even then, the dates Petersen gives for the canonical gospels (which are fairly standard in academia today, although some competent people would push for earlier dates) acknowledge them to the earliest known gospels, an idea which is shared by the vast majority.

Mark (c. 70?)
Matthew (c. 85?)
Luke (c. 90?)
John (c. 100?)

A little addition. I’d just like to add that Petersen in another publication proposes (contra to the opinion held by many) that the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel of the Ebionites, and possibly the Gospel of the Hebrews as well, are all different names for the same work, which would bring the number of ‘rival’ gospels down to eight or seven.

And if you folks are wondering about gnostic literature like the Gospel of Mary (2nd century?) or the Gospel of Philip (3rd century?), or even orthodox literature like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (2nd/3rd century) or the Gospel of Nicodemus (4th/5th century), they’re too late to be taken seriously. The only people who take the gnostic gospels as having any valid material about the historical Jesus are really in the fringes, so to speak.

And oh, about the so-called ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ that hit the press lately: it must be the latest gospel ever composed. Heck, it must be the only one composed in the 21st century.

 

[farpinho]

And oh, about the so-called ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ that hit the press lately: it must be the latest gospel ever composed. Heck, it must be the only one composed in the 21st century.

I love it how Stephen Goranson’s chronology in the comments includes the “Da Vinci Code”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t think that the gospel writers copied other gospels–but I’m sure they were aware of them.

I believe that Matthew really was the apostle Matthew–he really was an eye witness.

Mark really was an associate of Peter and got most of the information for the gospel of Mark from the REAL apostle Peter who was an eyewitness.

Luke really was an associate of the REAL apostle Paul–I believe that Luke got alot of his information from Paul who got his information from Peter as well–not to mention that Luke could have gotten his information from Peter directly.

The important thing to remember is that most of the information for the gospels comes from Matthew–Peter, and John who were all eyewitnesses and were of the ACTUAL 12 disciples.

What I reject the most is modern “scripture scholars” who deny the fact of Matthew and Peter and John being the ACTUAL 12 who had a hand in the content of much of the gospels–you know, the kind who think the gospels were cut and pasted from 2d hand people who were not even ASSOCIATES of the original 12–Luke and Mark weren’t the original 12 but they had DIRECT contact with both Peter and Paul–they might have even come into contact with other members of the original 12.

The real point is despite what quote “modern scripture scholars say”–the gospels came from RELIABLE witnesses.

And the most important thing is that 1)the original 12 and Mark and Luke weren’t retards–they had the intellectual capacity to write the gospels!

and 2) what the “modern scripture shcolars” really miss is that the Holy Spirit INSPIRED them!

The Catholic Church has never said that the authors of the bible were dictation machines–they were REAL AUTHORS–but don’t think for a moment that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Holy Spirit to convey to those authors–by whatever means the Holy Spirit wanted to employ–INFORMATION that those authors might not have been personally privy to only on a human first person basis.

Look at it this way–say the Holy Spirit leads someone to a conversation with one of the gospel writers. Say that person was really present at a time when Jesus said something and the gospel writer did in fact remember them being there.

Say for any number of reasons–for that matter the gospel writer might have been distracted from whatever Jesus was saying–say the person that the Holy Spirit lead them to have a conversation with the gospel writer told them what Jesus had said and another witness backed that up and maybe another disciple of the 12 backed it up–the gospel writer prayed to the Holy Spirit–and the gospel writer felt MOVED by the Holy Spirit to include the saying in his gospel.

Now that’s what I would call a saying of Jesus coming into the gospel backed up by others BUT being included because of the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit! and yes I do think that the Holy Spirit could POWERFULLY do such a thing with the gospel writers.

What I sense from many “modern scripture scholars” is a non belief that such a thing COULD happen.

“Modern Scripture Scholars” have no problem with “cut and paste”–they do have a problem with the Holy Spirit INSPIRING the gospel writers and confirming such inspirations–the gospel writers would still be TRUE authors and not dictation machines–yet the Holy Spirit would inspire and confirm their authorship without dictating it.

What “modern scripture scholars” also do wrong in my opinion is saying that a particular style of writing could not belong to a particular disciple. The gospel writers questioned many of Jesus’ followers and there might have been many people who in the first dozen or so drafts of each gospel would have lent their (name removed by moderator)ut and might have made subsequent copies of the original drafts.

This could have caused language and phraseology that would sound different than a gospel writer’s phraseology at another point in the same gospel.

That doesn’t mean that a bunch of people wrote the gospel–it does mean that a lot of people might have contributed to the gospel writer’s thoughts and that the final product might have included their phraseology in some points but not in many others.

What you wind up with is a gospel AUTHORED by ONE gospel writer–not a bunch of writers and not a cut and paste job that the devil would like people to believe happened because if it did happen that way than the devil can make better his case that the gospel is unreliable which is UNTRUE!

If such a thing WERE true the people who were enemies of the church would have made great hay with that fact!–but they didn’t and the reason they didn’t is because the “modern scripture scholars” are wrong–they have extended historico-criticism BEYOND where its reach should go–that approach isn’t altogether wrong–it is wrong when it is extended too far and that’s what we get with a lot of quote “modern scripture scholars”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t think that the gospel writers copied other gospels–but I’m sure they were aware of them.

I believe that Matthew really was the apostle Matthew–he really was an eye witness.

Mark really was an associate of Peter and got most of the information for the gospel of Mark from the REAL apostle Peter who was an eyewitness.

Luke really was an associate of the REAL apostle Paul–I believe that Luke got alot of his information from Paul who got his information from Peter as well–not to mention that Luke could have gotten his information from Paul directly.

The important thing to remember is that mosat of the information for the gospels comes from Matthew–Peter, and John who were all eyewitnesses and were of the ACTUAL 12 disciples.

What I reject the most is modern “scripture scholars” who deny the fact of Matthew and Peter and John being the ACTUAL 12 who had a hand in the content of much of the disciples–you know the kind who think the gospels were cut and pasted from 2d hand people who were not even ASSOCIATES of the original 12–Luke and Mark weren’t the original 12 but they had DIRECT contact with both Peter and Paul–they might have even come into contact with other members of the original 12.

The real point is despite what quote “modern scripture scholars say”–the gospels came from RELIABLE witnesses.

And the most important thing is that 1)the original 12 abd Mark and Luke weren’t retards–they had the intellectual capacity to write the gospels!

and 2) what the “modern scripture shcolars” really miss is that the Holy Spirit INSPIRED them!

The Catholic Church has never said that the authors of the bible were dictation machines–they were REAL AUTHORS–but don’t think for a moment that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Holy Spirit to convey to those authors–by whatever means the Holy Spirit wanted to employ–INFORMATION that those authors might not have been personally privy to only on a human first person basis.

Look at it this way–say the holy spirit leads someone to a conversation with one of the gospel writers. Say that person was really present at a time when Jesus said something and the gospel writer did in fact remember them being there.

Say for any number of reasons–for that matter the gospel writer might have been distracted from whatever Jesus was saying–say the person that the holy spirit lead to have a conversation with the gospel writer told them what Jesus had said and another witness backed that up and maybe another disciple of the 12 backed it up–the gospel writer prayed to the Holy Spirit–and the gospel writer felt MOVED by the holy Spirit to include the saying in his gospel.

Now that’s what I would call a saying of Jesus coming into the gospel backed up by others BUT being included because of the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit! and yes I do think that the holy Spirit could POWERFULLY do such a thing with the gospel writers.

What I sense from many gospel writers is a non belief that such a thing COULD happen.

“Modern Scripture Scholars” have no problem with “cut and paste”–they do have a problem with the Holy spirit INSPIRING the gospel writers and confirming such inspirations–the gospel writers would still be TRUE authors and not dictation machines–yet the holy Spirit would inspire and confirm their authorship without dictating it.

What “modern scripture scholars” also do wrong in my opinion is saying that a particular style of writing could not belong to a particular disciple. The gospel writers questioned many of Jesus’ followers and there might have been many people who in the first dozen or so drafts of each gospel would have lent their (name removed by moderator)ut and might have made subsequent copies of the original drafts.

This could have caused language and phraseology that would sound different than a gospel writer’s phraseology at another point in the same gospel.

That doesn’t mean that a bunch of people wrote the gospel–it does mean that a lot of people might have contributed to the gospel writer’s thoughts and that the final product might have included their phraseology in some points but not in many others.

What you wind up with is a gospel AUTHORED by ONE gospel writers–not a bunch of writers and not a cut and paste job that the devil would like people to believe happened because if it did happen that way than the devil can make better his case that the gospel is unreliable which is UNTRUE!

If such a thing WERE true the people who were enemies of the church would have made great hay with that fact!–but they didn’t and the reason they didn’t is because the “modern scripture scholars” are wrong–they have extended historico-criticism BEYOND where its reach should go–that approach isn’t altogether wrong–it is wrong when it is extended too far and that’s what we get with a lot of quote “modern scripture scholars”.

 

[farpinho]

For a strong case FOR and early redaction / authorship, I would recommend richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf, Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson. Too bad the book is out of print

 

[patrick457]

For a strong case FOR and early redaction / authorship, I would recommend richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf, Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson. Too bad the book is out of print

Richard Bauckham is another good author who gives emphasis on the gospels being the testimony of the eyewitnesses.