When do you think the New Testament was writen?

[ralphinal]

Ok, we’ve all seen or heard different hypothosies about this. What do you think and why? I feel that the entire set of books was finished before AD 70. What about you?

 

[Annunciata]

I beleive St. John Wrote his Gospel and the book of Revelations in 90AD or later.

 

[JimG]

I don’t know, but I believe that it was probably written very early, probably before AD 70; because after that time the church became more dispersed. And I distrust modern scholars who argue for later dates and for gospels being written by schools of followers rather than eyewitnesses. If Jesus is found to be foretelling some future event, for example, they take that very fact as evidence that the account must have been written after the event had already occurred, and thus at a later date.

And who has ever seen a single page of Q?

JimG

 

[Rae]

Well, I have a book entitled, “Where We Got the Bible”, by Henry G. Graham. It explains that the New Testament was not written at one time, or all by one man, but that at least forty years passed away between the writing of the first and the writing of the last of its books. We have a collection of books by at least eight different writers, and from the year that earliersy book was composed (probably the Gospel of Matthew) to the year that John composed his Gospel about half a century had elapsed. The first of the New Testament books was not written until about A.D. 45 (Christ was crucified in A.D.33). When were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume and added to the Old Testament to make up what we now call the Bible? Well, they were not collected for the best part of three hundred years. And it wasn’t until the Council of Carthage, which was held in A.D. 397, that settled the canon or collection of New Testament Scriptures as Catholics have them now and decreed that its decision should be sent on to Rome for confirmation. No council (that is, no gathering of the bishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was ever considered to be authoritative or binding until it was approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, while the decisions of every general council that has received the approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council of Carthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputed catalogure of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

I have heard alot of arguments about the dates of the various N.T. books, but the ones for dating all of them before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. seem the most convincing to me. Many critical scholars can take a line from one of the pauline epistles or from 2nd Peter and say,“oh hoh, there’s a warning about false teachers, or the church or it’s theology is too developed, or Paul didn’t use that word before. It must therefore be written in the reign of Domitian. Or later.”
On a closer look alot of these little noogies can be rather weak.
I don’t know how early the gospels and Acts could have been composed, but I don’t feel they could be any earlier than about 65-66. I understand the Markan priority concept, but I side over to an oral tradition explanation. Mark is much more complicated than it would seem if delved into a bit. In addition, I surmize that the Didache was written around the time and place Matthew was. Clement around 70. Yah, n’stuff. I think it’s too bad that there aren’t more Catholic scholars dealing with these issues. It seems to me mostly Protestants and anglicans, which I guess are protons. Alot of the Cathy apple sites are mostly defenses against protons. I think. Cowabunga. I’ve been lurking since day one, unsuspected. Who want suma debo?

 

[copland]

As most people should know that there were different authors who wrote the NT. That being said then that means that the differnt books in the NT have differnt dates.

It is believed that John wrote the apocalypse around 100AD.

As far as the dates of the writings, one way is by experts in paleography determining by the way the Greek manuscripts are written. Languages evolve over time, even within a couple of decades. As in English we can tell the difference from the way the Brady Bunch talked compared to how they talk on some sit com today. Even so experts can determine the styles of writings and the dates they were written. But I am not expert in paleography so I have to rely on the pro’s.

So my answer is this, I believe what the Catholic scholars and the Vatican teaches about what was written when.

 

[Fidelis]

Revelation is generally accepted as being the last NT book written. Since I tend to agree with the hypothesis that John wrote it before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, I would say that is when the NT was closed.

 

[mr_bozo]

I don’t know about John & Rev, but the synoptics are quite early. I read a book by some French Qumran text scholar who believed that Acts was finished by 62 or so. His reason was that it was in 62 that the narrative breaks off. Why would Luke end his work at that point but for the fact that it brought Theophilus up to the present in his history? Why so much detail about the boat trip to Rome, and yet so little about his actual time there? And what about the martyrdoms of Ss. Peter and Paul? Why didn’t Luke include them? If they had taken place at the time of Acts’ completion, then one can safely assume that he would have mentioned them.

This reason was even enough to get the liberal (of liberals) German scholar Adolf Harnack to revise his hypothesized date to 62.

The synoptics are full of Semitisms, which suggest comosition in a semitic language. If this is so, then it would argue strongly for a date before the Church went predomiately Gentile. A.D. 50 at the latest.

Some differences in synoptic narratives can be explained by textual variants in Hebrew or Aramaic originals. The fact of there being variations of manuscripts having arisen before being translated into Greek, means that at least 5 or 6 years must have passed. So if Luke was composed in 59, then the source for Luke must have been composed by 53-4 at the absolute latest.

 

[Bernard_Jones]

I think that Mr Bozo is refering to Père Carmingac; he was a passionate advocate of the Hebrew origins of the gospel texts-Synoptic and Johanine.

 

[RobbyS]

JimG:

I don’t know, but I believe that it was probably written very early, probably before AD 70; because after that time the church became more dispersed. And I distrust modern scholars who argue for later dates and for gospels being written by schools of followers rather than eyewitnesses. If Jesus is found to be foretelling some future event, for example, they take that very fact as evidence that the account must have been written after the event had already occurred, and thus at a later date.

And who has ever seen a single page of Q?

JimG

I also do not trust modern scholars about dating. What was so exceptional about a prediction of the fall of the Temple? The Essenes thought it was illegitimate, it had been destroyed before, and --somewhere I recall reading that someone else also called Jesus was executed in the early 60s for predicting it would happen again.

 

[hawkeye]

tldm.org/News4/WarningsFromBeyond.1of3.htm

 

[cmom]

Seems to me the Bayside stuff was totally condemned by the Church, so why are you putting it here?

 

[hawkeye]

I know when it was written and to whom had a hand in it, but I’m not allowed to say sorry, forum rules (obedience) sorry.

 

[hawkeye]

cmom:

Seems to me the Bayside stuff was totally condemned by the Church, so why are you putting it here?

Yes I agree wih you , but I never seen this kind of thing before, as I said in previous posts, where did this come from ???
I mean that I have read Bayside and that is what makes me wonder, don’t worry, I’m well versed in this message stuff, plus I’m sick of messages.
The only message I know and want to love Is Jesus in the taberrnacle.

 

[Buckeyejoe]

I think the entire list was probably completed sometime shortly after 100 AD. Some of the early church writings list every New Testament book we currently have by the year 175AD or so. But remember the Church did not define the cannon until about the year 400 AD.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

–somewhere I recall reading that someone else also called Jesus was executed in the early 60s for predicting it would happen again.

I tried to paste the story but my post was too long. But it’s at wesley.nnu.edu/josephus/war-6.htm Ch. 5 part 3.

It’s actually a pretty comical episode. Jesus bar Ananus is all “woe unto Jerusalem, Woe unto me” and a rock hits him in the head. It’s kinda like Mel Brooks movies.
The big D(estruction) of the big T(emple) was like the end of the world. It’s notable that none of the New Testament books speak of this in the past tense, unlike many other books of that period, like Baruch and Josephus’ works. Indeed the N.T. fits in best during the 50’s and 60’s. Since about half of Paul’s letters can be dated approximately, they can be used to compare and contrast theology and language with the other books, especially Paul’s other letters that some are still saying, “at least I can show THIS is psuedononymous.” It’s fun to pit Paul up against the gospels and James, and realize how similar they actually are. The argument from high theology is shaky. Who want suma Debo?

 

[Apolonio]

And who has ever seen a single page of Q?

Response:
The Q is probably not a written document, but oral Tradition.

 

[Fr.Frank]

Apolonio:

And who has ever seen a single page of Q?

Response:
The Q is probably not a written document, but oral Tradition.

Another possibility has been resented by a book co-authored by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D-Ancona titled: Eyewitness to Jesus (Doubleday Publishing, 1996).

Their conclusions are based on fragments of text found in Egypt and deposited in England. The conclusion drawn is that there was an Aramaic Matthew WRITTEN possibly as early as 60 A.D.

If this theory is true, it paints a new picture on New Testament timelines. When I was in seminary, it was an “accepted fact” that the Gospels were post-100 dated.

I never did like that theory when it was first presented. I am much more comfortable with this earlier dating of the Gospels. As for the Letters and the Apocalypse: I agree with some of the other comments - why is there no mention in them of the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

So, I would side with the idea that ALL New Testament writings were prior to the sack of Jerusalem. (IMHO)

 

[ralphinal]

Buckeyejoe:

I think the entire list was probably completed sometime shortly after 100 AD. Some of the early church writings list every New Testament book we currently have by the year 175AD or so. But remember the Church did not define the cannon until about the year 400 AD.

I think you are the only one to state ater 100 ad. Why? Most feel that it was before that. Tell me more…

 

[Melchior]

ralphinal:

Ok, we’ve all seen or heard different hypothosies about this. What do you think and why? I feel that the entire set of books was finished before AD 70. What about you?

I agree with you.

Mel