When do you think the New Testament was writen?

[larryo]

The most recent Catholic scholarship indicates that all of the books of the New Testament were completed before 95 A.D. Scholarly consensus is that the earliest books are 1 & 2 Thessalonians, written circa 50-52 A.D. There is good reason to date Matthew’s Gospel in Aramaic to circa 50 A.D. However, the Aramaic version has not survived. The Greek version that currently exists was translated sometime after 70 A.D. The latest books were the epistles of John and Revelation which were composed before the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian in 95 A.D. For more information, I recommend *A Guide to the Bible *by Antonio Fuentes.

 

[Charliemac]

I beleive the last of the New Testament was completed before 100 AD.

I took a catechist training course recently, and there were several points being taught that I said, “I respectfully reserve the right to disagree.” The issue of the Quelle or “Q Source” was one of them. The whole Q business makes no sense at all. It seems to be to be an argument without a proof that is used to prove an argument, i.e. it was constructed to prove a theory. It must be true if the theory is true. Since the theory is true therefore it is true.

It starts by saying that there must have been a source used by authors other than the Evangelsits. A source that no one has ever seen, by an unknown author, that is not mentioned in any of the texts that we accept as a matter of Faith are the inspired works of GOD. The logical end to the Q theory is that the works may not be inspired because it is too hard to believe that the unknown Q, and the unknown authors who used Q were all inspired.

The Class room thing went like this.
*The argument is too loose. *

• We don’t know these men, their location, or their knowledge of one another, yet we speculate that they must have used the same document as each independly prepared the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke.
• *There is no physical evidence of “Q”, nor is there any reference to it in the writings from the Apostles, their contemporaries or the Fathers of the second and third century. *
• *There is no reason to believe that the Gospels were not penned by the Evangelists for whop they were named. *

*Further it seems to me that the source “Q” is an illogical conclusion. It seems to be derived by induction to support the argument that the Gospels were written later by others rather than earlier by Matthew, eyewitness and Apostle, and by Luke close contemporary of Paul. It is what you need if the Gospels were written later. If they weren’t it is unnecessary. *

I believe that all this is a long range attack on the authenticity of the Gospels. Those same people who believe that the miracle of the Loves & Fishes was about getting the people to share. Implying off course that the Lord was not the Master of all. If the Gospels are authentic and inspired, then we are all fools.

I have tried to attach an article from This Rock, Combating Bible Scepticism, Fredrick Marks. It is a good read.

Charliemac

 

[CARose]

I believe, as many of you here have stated, that the NT was completed before 70 AD, for if it were later, how could the destruction of the Temple not be mentioned! It was the equivalent of the End of the Jewish world as known at that time. Not something you simply fail to mention and put into some kind of context.

I also happen to believe that that they were written in the order presented through tradition, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. I don’t know why we suddenly 2000 years later are so much smarter than all our predecessors. (seems presumptous to me) And this document “Q”, sorry, I don’t buy it. I know it was all the rage, but I think it’s more Pride and Presumption.

But, I am NOT any high end bible scholar, just a person who loves His word. So, I could be altogether wrong.

Oh, and as for “scholars concur”, I do know enough, I’ve read several of the books sited here, that scholars do NOT concur on this subject, although there are many who will state as much when presenting their arguments.

I had learned it one way and was surprised to learn that my cousin (actually she’s my cousins wife) who recently underwent an adult confirmation prep course at a liberal parish in So. Cal. that lasted only 2 Saturdays talked all about how the Bible wasn’t really written by the people to whom the books are attributed. This was the one interesting fact she shared when I asked what she’d learned. I was so sad to hear that their limited time for sharing the faith was spent on stuff that isn’t infallible and she didn’t even know there is a book called the Catechism.

Oh well. She got the sacrament. I can pray that the Holy Spirit continue to guide her in her catechesis.

CARose

 

[Charliemac]

CARose:

I
I had learned it one way and was surprised to learn that my cousin (actually she’s my cousins wife) who recently underwent an adult confirmation prep course at a liberal parish in So. Cal. that lasted only 2 Saturdays talked all about how the Bible wasn’t really written by the people to whom the books are attributed. This was the one interesting fact she shared when I asked what she’d learned. I was so sad to hear that their limited time for sharing the faith was spent on stuff that isn’t infallible and she didn’t even know there is a book called the Catechism.

Oh well. She got the sacrament. I can pray that the Holy Spirit continue to guide her in her catechesis.

CARose

It is a sorry and sorroful thing. I participate in both the RCIA program and CCD program (where adult confirmation candidates spend 9 months along with the catecumens and candidates).I sometimes think we spend too much time on matters of less substance. We have so little time, and have so much to share, so anything that is essential is a dilution. Oh well, for the most part we stick very close to the basics. These people are well formed when they are confirmed. Pray for your cousin and all those who are subjected to such poor catechesis. It seem as though there is a New Protestant Reformation going on from within the Church. Pray too for our Bishops we need them to put a stop to it.

On the original topic I erred at one point. I meant to say If the Gospels are** NOT ** authentic we are all fools.

Charliemac