Questions About The Bible

[Protestant101]

Please allow me now to clarify something. It appears from posters in this thread that individuals are free to choose which version of dates they believe. There are a number of opinions as to what date the various parts of the Bible were written. For eg’ Jehovah’s Witnesses have different dates that most Biblical scholars, so do others. Are you telling me that the Catholic Church has no official position or recommendations about the date that the various books of the Bible were written?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Please allow me now to clarify something. It appears from posters in this thread that individuals are free to choose which version of dates they believe. There are a number of opinions as to what date the various parts of the Bible were written. For eg’ Jehovah’s Witnesses have different dates that most Biblical scholars, so do others. Are you telling me that the Catholic Church has no official position or recommendations about the date that the various books of the Bible were written?

BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

BOOK PROBABLE DATE BOOK DATE

Genesis c.1250-1200 B.C. Matthew c.40-60
Exodus c.1250-1200 B.C. Mark c.45-60
Leviticus c.1250-1200 B.C. Luke 57-60
Numbers c.1250-1200 B.C. John c.40-65
Deuteronomy c.1250-1200 B.C. Acts 57-62
Joshua c.1200 B.C. Romans 57
Judges c.1200 B.C. 1 Corinthians 55
Ruth c.1000 B.C. 2 Corinthians 56
1st Samuel c.700 B.C. Galatians 56
2nd Samuel c.700 B.C. Ephesians 58
1st Kings c.600 B.C. Philippians 58
2nd Kings c.600 B.C. Colossians 58
1st Chronicles c.350 B.C. 1 Thessalonians early 50
2nd Chronicles c.350 B.C. 2 Thessalonians 50-51
Ezra c.400 B.C. 1 Timothy 55
Nehemiah c.400 B.C. 2 Timothy 58
Tobit c.200 B.C. Titus 57
Judith c.150 B.C. Philemon 58
Esther c.300 B.C. Hebrews c.67
1st Maccabees c.100 B.C. James 40’s
2nd Maccabees c.125 B.C. 1 Peter 65
Job c.500 B.C. 2 Peter 61-62
Psalms c.500 B.C. 1 John 57-62
Proverbs c.450 B.C. 2 John 57-62
Ecclesiastes c.300 B.C. 3 John 57-62
Song of Songs c.450 B.C. Jude 61-62
Wisdom c.100 B.C. Revelation 68-70
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) c.180 B.C.
Isaiah c.700 B.C.

 

[Verisimilitude]

To my knowledge, the Church has never issued anything official on the dates of authorship of the Bible. Each of us is allowed to use any sources that we see fit and decide for ourselves. I use all kinds of sources for my understanding of the matter, and all are common and on-line. For the record, i hold that the Gospels, acts, and Revelation were all finished prior to 70 A.D.

I think Revelations is accepted to have been begun and finished after 70 AD but before the end of the 1st century, and in their final form the other Gospels maybe after but I do not doubt they accurately reflect the oral tradition begun at Pentecost.

here is the one I use I do not know if it Cathloic are not
The following dates are not always exact, but are very good estimates.

Old Testament

Books attributed to Moses could not predate Moses who is believed to have lived around 1250 B.C. Rameses II ruled Egypt from 1290-1224 B.C. and he was whom Moses was dealing with. Oral traditions of the Flood were known before Moses wrote them down.

Other books can be similarly date referenced such as Judges & Samuel to 1200-1000 B.C. which were known before Solomon who reigned from 970-931 B.C and built the first Temple as noted in Kings (1K 6:1). The date for Job I use is the beginning of the 5th century B.C.

New Testament

It seems clear that the Apostles were more oral traditionalists and doer of deeds, while not being as learned as others like St. Paul, writting the Gospels likely was done by followers such as Luke who accompanied their ministries. In the 35+ years from the Resurrection to the fall of Jerusalem the need for writing the events down or giving clarifications is shown mostly by St. Paul as means to instruct early Church communities far from Jerusalem which was the center for a time.

I tend to think the Gospels and most of the New Testament were in existance before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD maybe in the form we have today because of how important the Jewish scrolls of the Old Testament were regarded before Christ I think the early Church would have done the same, but after its destruction most of the living eyewitnesses were no longer living the practicality of writting down the Scripture were finalized with whatever editing they may have received before 80AD.

 

[ralphinal]

I think Revelations is accepted to have been begun and finished after 70 AD but before the end of the 1st century, and in their final form the other Gospels maybe after but I do not doubt they accurately reflect the oral tradition begun at Pentecost.

That is the current accepted dating. It is not the only one allowed. I find it difficult to accept that it was done after the fall of Jerusalem with no mention of it in the work at all.

 

[Verisimilitude]

That is the current accepted dating. It is not the only one allowed. I find it difficult to accept that it was done after the fall of Jerusalem with no mention of it in the work at all.

Agreed, the lack of a explicit mention of the fall of Jerusalem is a reasonable justification but the whole work is rich in symbolism. I guess the reason I think it after is, if it was written before, the destruction of Jerusalem would seem a fulfillment of it already and it seems to speak of a more permanent ending of time as understood. Christ predicted the Temple would be destroyed, but John writes of something more it seems to me.

 

[ralphinal]

Agreed, the lack of a explicit mention of the fall of Jerusalem is a reasonable justification but the whole work is rich in symbolism. I guess the reason I think it after is, if it was written before, the destruction of Jerusalem would seem a fulfillment of it already and it seems to speak of a more permanent ending of time as understood. Christ predicted the Temple would be destroyed, but John writes of something more it seems to me.

Fair enough. However, what if the book is sort of out of order? The Church was bord, Christ died, ending the need for temple sacrifices, then that Temple was destroyed, forcing man to worship God in Spirit and Truth. The Church is the New Temple. Does that make sense?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a number of questions I would like to ask Catholics about the Bible.

The first one is what sources do you use to determine the dates that each chapter of the Bible was written? Where could I view your source? Is it an official, Catholic source?

No such source exists. (wonders what this leading to…)​

 

[Protestant101]

No such source exists. (wonders what this leading to…)​

You mean Catholics have no sources to tell them the dates that each book of the Bible was written?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Fair enough. However, what if the book is sort of out of order? The Church was bord, Christ died, ending the need for temple sacrifices, then that Temple was destroyed, forcing man to worship God in Spirit and Truth. The Church is the New Temple. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does but the Apostles were teaching that from the beginning. Acts 3 begins with Peter and John going to the Temple soon after Pentecost which means for the next 35+ years the Temple existed so their preaching was without regard to it just as you have said. If Revelations was published before the Temples destruction it would only confirm what was being preached by the Apostles but might also give a false impression to the early Church followers that things described in Revelations were going to happen much quicker and cause a illogical confusion. Illogical because I don’t think God would cause an unneccessary confusion. If published after it seems to confirm what had been taught all along before its destruction but after the fact, is now more a comfort that Gods plan is a longer one than what we might hope for. To me, this is similar to the mystery of Johns Gospel 21:20-23 in that I don’t fully understand what was meant. I will have to think on this some more.

 

[ralphinal]

You mean Catholics have no sources to tell them the dates that each book of the Bible was written?

We have no official Church document that says that these are the dates that we are required to accept. We can use our own intellect and choose for ourselves

 

[Verisimilitude]

You mean Catholics have no sources to tell them the dates that each book of the Bible was written?

We have history and scholarly inquiry. Do you know the year Plato published the Republic, or when Pliney the Younger first wrote about Mt. Vesuivus? Since neither of those original transcripts are on hand how and why do you trust the dates attributed to them? What authority do you use to date the Bible?

 

[PJM]

=Protestant101;5020748]You mean Catholics have no sources to tell them the dates that each book of the Bible was written?

Dear friend! In Christ?

Your fishing in a hole that has no fish

There is an abundance of historical evidence on when the various books of the bible were written and compiled. This information is easy to obtain and very on the net.

You know this and we know this, so what is the point your trying to make:shrug:

If you REALLY have questions on the bible please ask them, because this does not warrant a reply.

Love and prayers,

 

[Bill_Pick]

You mean Catholics have no sources to tell them the dates that each book of the Bible was written?

Cathloics are the ones that wrote the Bible so the dates make no diff. i have dates from a Cathloic that will tell me the dates and that is good for me.

 

[Protestant101]

Cathloics are the ones that wrote the Bible so the dates make no diff. i have dates from a Cathloic that will tell me the dates and that is good for me.

Are you sure the dates would make no difference? Is this what your Church officially teaches?

 

[Protestant101]

We have history and scholarly inquiry. Do you know the year Plato published the Republic, or when Pliney the Younger first wrote about Mt. Vesuivus? Since neither of those original transcripts are on hand how and why do you trust the dates attributed to them? What authority do you use to date the Bible?

What I am asking here is what authority do Catholics use for determining the date that a given Bible passage was written? Apparently, by some of the posts, any source is OK, and individuals are free to choose what they like - even Protestant publications listing the dates. I honestly thought that Catholics would have some sort of official recommendations here, and would be very interested to learn more about it.

 

[jmcrae]

What I am asking here is what authority do Catholics use for determining the date that a given Bible passage was written? Apparently, by some of the posts, any source is OK, and individuals are free to choose what they like - even Protestant publications listing the dates. I honestly thought that Catholics would have some sort of official recommendations here, and would be very interested to learn more about it.

There is a lot of cross-over in the scholarship. I think the important point to remember is to make sure to listen to qualified scholars, on this issue. (For example if someone is telling you that Adam and Eve were keeping a diary, you should not believe them, since writing itself was not even invented until some time around 2000 BC. The Book of Genesis was not written any earlier than the time of Moses - and it is possible that people were still editing it as late as the Babylonian Captivity.)

The Catholic Church doesn’t have anything dogmatic on this issue that we are “required” to believe, but at the same time, we need to make use of our own common sense, as well. We know that at least most of the books of the New Testament were available to St. Ignatius of Antioch to quote from in his letters, and we also know that he died no later than 110 AD. So, anyone who tells you that the books of the New Testament were written any later than that is not using good scholarship.

 

[sambos671]

CARM is definitely not Catholic, and also not likely to be accurate about anything. Why are you using it?

I think the premise that because something is not catholic that its not accurate about anything is wrong and a bit arogant. I find a lot of things that are accurate that aren’t Catholic.

Now as far as the bible there is no real definative dating system. The Old Testiment and the New. Some sources will believe ealier or later dates for the Torah Some believe a lot of the OT was writen during the Babylonian Capitivity. As far as the NT we have a better idea. But nothing definiative. We have a starting point and can point to writings around the books giving evidence to when it was writen. Some are still up for much debate like the book of Hebrews or the book of Jude. The fact is the Catholic Church can point to councils and see what was included and of course we have Jeromes notes on what he thought.

 

[sambos671]

What I am asking here is what authority do Catholics use for determining the date that a given Bible passage was written? Apparently, by some of the posts, any source is OK, and individuals are free to choose what they like - even Protestant publications listing the dates. I honestly thought that Catholics would have some sort of official recommendations here, and would be very interested to learn more about it.

I think a better question is what authority do the SDA base their determination on when a bible passage was writen.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Are you sure the dates would make no difference? Is this what your Church officially teaches?

No, it is NOT what My Church officially teaches is it what your church offically teaches.

 

[djrakowski]

Are you sure the dates would make no difference? Is this what your Church officially teaches?

As far as I know, the Church doesn’t teach that it makes a difference… and it doesn’t teach that it makes no difference, either. It appears that it just hasn’t been an issue that impacts our understanding of the Bible, and thus the Church has left such matters to scripture scholars

There’s plenty of scholarship offering good reasons for dating specific books of the Bible, but nothing dogmatic. It just doesn’t seem to matter all that much.

Does your church have an official teaching on this matter? Why/why not?