Dating the Gospels

[_Jersey Girl]

As I noted in a previous post, even using the liberal datings for the Gospels found on this list from Wikipedia:

Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)


still puts the Gospels within the parameters of contemporary writings to the events they describe. We know from archaelogical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed and was indeed who the Gospels stated he was. The same can be said for Caiphais. If the events in the Gospels are not accurate, who here doesn't think a future writer wouldn't have discredited them outright?

Do you know of any who did?

Shades mentioned a method of dating the Gospels based on their mention by others. Do you (assuming anyone is reading this) not think that if the events and portrayal of known historical persons were inaccurate (and not accepted as historical fact) that some writer closer to the events as I stated above, would have publicly discredited the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament and subsequently all historical writers into the future would have done exactly the same thing?

Is that what we see in the historical record?

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

Jersey Girl:

Forgive me, but I think you're going about this the entirely wrong way.

First, you posted a picture of the Twin Towers still standing, then asked what that says about the LATEST date the picture could've been taken. But on the other hand, you're trying to tell us when the EARLIEST date the Gospels could've been written--a completely, wholly, and totally different proposition.

Plus, you're completely leaving out an extremely critical consideration: Just because I write about something doesn't mean I'm a CONTEMPORARY writer. For example, just because I write a biography of George Washington doesn't automatically mean that I must be living in the 1700s. Likewise, just because I write an article about Pear Harbor doesn't automatically mean I'm writing it in 1941.

Let's take those examples a little farther. If I write a biography of George Washington tomorrow, just because I fail to mention any details about Teddy Roosevelt does NOT mean I'm writing BEFORE Teddy Roosevelt's time. Likewise, if I write an article about Pearl Harbor tomorrow, just because I fail to mention anything about Watergate doesn't mean I'm writing BEFORE Watergate. The reason I left out these future-to-them,-past-to-me occurrences is because they don't have anything to do with the subject I'm writing about.

Similarly, the authors of the Gospels didn't need to include details that took place after their subject's death and resurrection, e.g. details about the destruction of Jerusalem (or anything else). Heck, someone could write his/her own gospel today if he/she really feels like it. But just because he/she writes about Jesus doesn't mean he/she actually wrote it in the same timeframe as Jesus.

Do you (assuming anyone is reading this) not think that if the events and portrayal of known historical persons were inaccurate (and not accepted as historical fact) that some writer closer to the events as I stated above, would have publicly discredited the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament and subsequently all historical writers into the future would have done exactly the same thing?

Think of it this way: If everyone in America suddenly became Mormon, would any negative information about Joseph Smith survive for another two thousand years? I highly doubt it. Likewise, I'm sure there probably were a number of debunkings of Christianity back in the day. But if the Christians at the time of Constantine were anything like the apologists today, all such debunkings were immediately fed to the flames.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

Let me take time to think about what you have written before I respond. Please do not begin a post like this by saying "Forgive me". You are doing just exactly what I want you to do. Challenge my thinking!

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay Dr. Shades,

Let me try to get back on track here. If you don't mind, I will simply intersperse my comments in bold within the text of your reply. Hope that doesn't make it too confusing for anyone who might be reading this.

Jersey Girl:

Forgive me, but I think you're going about this the entirely wrong way.

First, you posted a picture of the Twin Towers still standing, then asked what that says about the LATEST date the picture could've been taken. But on the other hand, you're trying to tell us when the EARLIEST date the Gospels could've been written--a completely, wholly, and totally different proposition.

Jersey Girl: I disagree that I was trying to tell folks what the earliest date of the Gospels could have been. I posted the photo of the WTC in and effort to compare it to the presence of the Temple in the Gospels. The WTC are pictured in a photo. The photo could not have been made past Sept 11th. Likewise (or so I think) the Temple is represented in the Gospels. If the Temple had been destroyed during the time in which the Gospels were given (notice I didn't say written) I feel certain that it would have been mentioned. As it turns out, in terms of the Gospels...the Temple is still standing.

Plus, you're completely leaving out an extremely critical consideration: Just because I write about something doesn't mean I'm a CONTEMPORARY writer. For example, just because I write a biography of George Washington doesn't automatically mean that I must be living in the 1700s. Likewise, just because I write an article about Pear Harbor doesn't automatically mean I'm writing it in 1941.

Jersey Girl: What you say above is true however, what I stated was that even using the liberal (or later) dating of the Gospels, would have put the mention of said Gospels by others within a contemporary time frame...and also asked if folks thought if the Gospels were not factual...wouldn't a contemporary writer not have discredited them? Does that make sense? If not, I will try to find another way to express what I'm thinking.

Let's take those examples a little farther. If I write a biography of George Washington tomorrow, just because I fail to mention any details about Teddy Roosevelt does NOT mean I'm writing BEFORE Teddy Roosevelt's time. Likewise, if I write an article about Pearl Harbor tomorrow, just because I fail to mention anything about Watergate doesn't mean I'm writing BEFORE Watergate. The reason I left out these future-to-them,-past-to-me occurrences is because they don't have anything to do with the subject I'm writing about.

Jersey Girl: Likewise Shades, I would respond to what you've said by stating if you wrote a biography of George Washington, wouldn't it follow that George Washington existed prior to your writing? (Boy did that sound dumb!) Likewise, the Gospels make mention of a standing Temple. The Gospel of John, as I pointed out, also mentions geographical features that were destroyed AFTER the Temple was destroyed. Infact, people came to believe that these structures (Pools of Bethsaida, Pool of Siloam, the Pavement) never existed until they were unearthed in contemporary times. Show me where I am going wrong here. I claim no expertise.

Similarly, the authors of the Gospels didn't need to include details that took place after their subject's death and resurrection, e.g. details about the destruction of Jerusalem (or anything else). Heck, someone could write his/her own gospel today if he/she really feels like it. But just because he/she writes about Jesus doesn't mean he/she actually wrote it in the same timeframe as Jesus.

Jersey Girl:You are right that the Gospels didn't "need" to include details that took place after their subjects death, but I have to ask myself if in Matthew 24 ( and elsewhere) Jesus Christ himself is predicting the fall of the Temple, why wouldn't the writers include said fulfilled prophecy to validate their Savior's prophecy? The writings of Paul leave off when he is imprisoned in Rome. They leave off because we know that he was martyred around 60-68 AD. There was nothing else to report. The Gospels mention a standing Temple. Why wouldn't they have included the destruction of the Temple if it had already fallen? The Gospel's leave off after the Acts (or there abouts) which were written by "Luke" and in which Luke gives us historical/cultural/political/detail that has been confirmed as putting those writings directly in the early 1st century. I ask you again, why is the Temple still standing in the New Testament?


Quote:
Do you (assuming anyone is reading this) not think that if the events and portrayal of known historical persons were inaccurate (and not accepted as historical fact) that some writer closer to the events as I stated above, would have publicly discredited the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament and subsequently all historical writers into the future would have done exactly the same thing?


Think of it this way: If everyone in America suddenly became Mormon, would any negative information about Joseph Smith survive for another two thousand years? I highly doubt it. Likewise, I'm sure there probably were a number of debunkings of Christianity back in the day. But if the Christians at the time of Constantine were anything like the apologists today, all such debunkings were immediately fed to the flames.

Jersey Girl: No offense, Doc, but your analogy with Mormonism and 2000 years doesn't hold water. The Gospels and what the Gospels represent has been quoted and also dug up by contemporary archaeologists. Did Pontius Pilate exist? Did he hold the title he was described as having in the Gospels? Yes on both counts. Did Caiphais exist and hold the title he was described as having in the Gospels? Yes on both counts. Did the pools described by John exist? The Pavement? Yes. Did Luke accurately describe the conditions of society in The Acts? Yes. Here you are talking about Constantine...the Gospels themselves date themselve internally to the early 1st century. If the material in the Gospels is not accurate...where are the writings discrediting them? Are you telling me that you think it plausible that the writings discrediting the Gospels existed until 300 AD or there abouts?

What are your thoughts regarding references by Tacitus? Josephus? Seutonious?

[_Jason Bourne]

Let's look again at these Wikipedia dates:

Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)

Now, let's take the liberal dating of the Gospel of John with the farthest date of 110 AD.
that would put us at or around 75 years post-crucifixion and 40 years post-Temple destruction, yet the Temple destruction is not mentioned once in John's writings. These liberal dates still place the events described in the Gospels in contemporary times.

It is nearly 43 years since the assassination of JFK. Would any historian writing about US History in 30 years fail to mention the assassination of JFK?

Does that make sense?

Jersey Girl

While I never really though if it this way I would say yes, it would seemt that the destruction of the temple ought to have been mentioned in all the gospels if they were written after that date.

Jason

[_Dr. Shades]

Jersey Girl: I disagree that I was trying to tell folks what the earliest date of the Gospels could have been. I posted the photo of the WTC in and effort to compare it to the presence of the Temple in the Gospels. The WTC are pictured in a photo. The photo could not have been made past Sept 11th.

True, but the gospels aren't a photograph, they're stories. I can write a story about the Twin Towers at any time after 9/11.

Likewise (or so I think) the Temple is represented in the Gospels. If the Temple had been destroyed during the time in which the Gospels were given (notice I didn't say written) I feel certain that it would have been mentioned. As it turns out, in terms of the Gospels...the Temple is still standing.

I really don't see the connection. Why mention the destruction of the Temple, or the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or fall of the Byzantine Empire, or the Blitz of London, or Abu Ghraib if your topic of discussion is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ?

Jersey Girl: What you say above is true however, what I stated was that even using the liberal (or later) dating of the Gospels, would have put the mention of said Gospels by others within a contemporary time frame...and also asked if folks thought if the Gospels were not factual...wouldn't a contemporary writer not have discredited them?

Not necessarily. Perhaps the lack of debunking of Jesus stories is akin to the lack of debunking of Elvis sightings: Nobody bothered to write out lengthy debunkings because they weren't worth taking seriously to begin with.

Jersey Girl: Likewise Shades, I would respond to what you've said by stating if you wrote a biography of George Washington, wouldn't it follow that George Washington existed prior to your writing?

Of course. Which brings us full circle: If I write a biography of George Washington 250 years after his death, perhaps the writers of the Gospels wrote their stuff 250 years after Jesus's death.

Likewise, the Gospels make mention of a standing Temple. The Gospel of John, as I pointed out, also mentions geographical features that were destroyed AFTER the Temple was destroyed.

The Mayflower is long since destroyed, but that doesn't mean I can't write a story about it as though it was still sailing.

Jersey Girl:You are right that the Gospels didn't "need" to include details that took place after their subjects death, but I have to ask myself if in Matthew 24 ( and elsewhere) Jesus Christ himself is predicting the fall of the Temple, why wouldn't the writers include said fulfilled prophecy to validate their Savior's prophecy?

They did, in a roundabout way. They probably inserted the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple after it already happened so that future readers will read it and say, "Hey! Jesus was right!" even though Jesus Himself never uttered any such prophecy. You know, sort of like how Joseph Smith inserted prophecies about himself into the Book of Mormon.

The writings of Paul leave off when he is imprisoned in Rome. They leave off because we know that he was martyred around 60-68 AD. There was nothing else to report. The Gospels mention a standing Temple. Why wouldn't they have included the destruction of the Temple if it had already fallen?

For the same reason I wouldn't mention cold fusion if I was writing about the Norman Invasion of Britain.

The Gospel's leave off after the Acts (or there abouts) which were written by "Luke" and in which Luke gives us historical/cultural/political/detail that has been confirmed as putting those writings directly in the early 1st century. I ask you again, why is the Temple still standing in the New Testament?

Because the New Testament writers were writing about things which transpired before the Temple was destroyed. Sort of like how, if I wrote a story today about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would still be standing.

Jersey Girl: No offense, Doc, but your analogy with Mormonism and 2000 years doesn't hold water. The Gospels and what the Gospels represent has been quoted and also dug up by contemporary archaeologists. Did Pontius Pilate exist? Did he hold the title he was described as having in the Gospels? Yes on both counts. Did Caiphais exist and hold the title he was described as having in the Gospels? Yes on both counts. Did the pools described by John exist? The Pavement? Yes. Did Luke accurately describe the conditions of society in The Acts? Yes.

Rameses II also existed. But that doesn't mean he's still alive if I write a story about him tomorrow.

Here you are talking about Constantine...the Gospels themselves date themselve internally to the early 1st century.

I disagree. They date themselves to no earlier than the early 1st Century, but could've been written, say, two centuries later. Just like the story I'll write about Rameses II tomorrow dates itself to no earlier than the birth of Rameses II, though I'm writing it about 3,000 years later.

Think of it this way: The day after the destruction of the Temple, the survivors probably remembered the Pool of Siloam, the reign of Pilate, etc. They probably remembered it a year later. Heck, assuming many or most of them lived that long, they probably remembered those things 10 years later, too.

So, what's the cut-off time at which all memory of Caiaphas and the pavement ceased to exist? When you pin that down, then you'll get the latest time at which the Gospels could've been written. But it gets worse: If there were any written records which described all those topographical details, then the latest Gospel composition date extends to the life of those documents--as much as centuries later.

If the material in the Gospels is not accurate...where are the writings discrediting them?

If the sightings of Elvis are not accurate, where are the writings discrediting them?

Are you telling me that you think it plausible that the writings discrediting the Gospels existed until 300 AD or there abouts?

I'm not saying it's plausible. I'm saying it's merely possible.

What are your thoughts regarding references by Tacitus? Josephus? Seutonious?

It depends on the quote.

EDIT TO ADD-ON:

Let's look at your arguments this way:

We know there was a Titanic. We know it sunk in 1912. We know it sunk thanks to striking an iceberg. We know it sunk during its maiden voyage. So does this mean that on that voyage there was a street tramp named Jack who fell in love with a rich seventeen-year old girl named Rose?

[_Gazelam]

Faith comes by hearing the word of God through the testimony of the servants of God. Take that testimony and witness of the spirit, and work upon it through prayer and obedience to gospel principles.

A testimony should be based upon the witness of the Holy Ghost. Arceheology, scripture, and commentary can be used to help support a testimony, but they are never intended to be the basis of a testimony.

[_JAK]

Let's look again at these Wikipedia dates:

Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)

Now, let's take the liberal dating of the Gospel of John with the farthest date of 110 AD.
that would put us at or around 75 years post-crucifixion and 40 years post-Temple destruction, yet the Temple destruction is not mentioned once in John's writings. These liberal dates still place the events described in the Gospels in contemporary times.

It is nearly 43 years since the assassination of JFK. Would any historian writing about US History in 30 years fail to mention the assassination of JFK?

Does that make sense?

Jersey Girl

---------------------------
Excellent points Jersey Girl. We can draw some conclusions about establishing dates as we recognize the complexity in merely the past 100 years. We can also draw some conclusions about the validity of conclusions the farther back we go in human history.

The fact that biblical stories are so far removed from the present is of great importance as we recognize the probability of error. Generally, the farther we are removed at this point from speculations or efforts to establish valid evidence, the greater the likelihood there are mistakes and errors deliberately or accidentally a part of flawed historical record.

JAK

[_Mary]

I missed this thread the first time through.

What are your thoughts on accepted dates for the Gospels?

I have Carsten Thiede's book - The Matthew Papyrus, in my possession which puts forward a date earlier than Mark, I think.
His theory has been refuted quite well here http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt. The refutation is long winded but
deals with the way codex and papyrus fragments (specifically, the Matthew one) are dated. (Interesting stuff)

Here's another one... (refutation)

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/st ... /P64TB.htm

Which concludes (It's a long article)

We agree with Thiede when he wrote ‘Caution is always the best approach in the dating of manuscripts’.[97] In this article an attempt has been made both to hear and to critically investigate his claims regarding the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64. Although we recognise the service that he has performed in facilitating a reexamination of methodological presuppositions, our verdict on his claims is a negative one. The very early manuscripts to which Thiede appealed for close parallels to P64 turned out to be not as close as the somewhat later ones which he had overlooked. Although there is no absolutely definite evidence by which P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 can be dated with certainty, the available evidence points to a date around AD 200. To be on the safe side I would suggest plus or minus fifty years as the possible range.

On dating Mark

In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.

Matthew's dating (using secondary sources)

There are scholars who believe that Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those that hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe that he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is the fact that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as 40-45 A.D. and as late as 55 A.D.

On problems of dating: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

All of the original copies of the four gospels in the Christian Scriptures have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of about 50 lines from the Egerton gospel -- one of the 40 or so gospels that never made it into the official canon, and whose author is unknown. Another portion of an ancient manuscript, containing part of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. The remaining manuscripts date to the second half of the second century CE or later.

Using lack of mention of the fall of Jerusalem in Acts as Evidence of early dating: from http://www.introducingjesus.org/injfaq014.htm

The key to dating the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is dating the book of Acts. The Acts of the Apostles (the fifth book in the New Testament) was written (most scholars agree) after the Gospels. In fact it continues the account of Luke. Therefore the date of Acts sets an upper limit on the date of the Gospels.

The book of Acts does not mention the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD nor of the Jewish-Roman war of 66 AD. Yet, the gospels all record Jesus prophesying the fall of Jerusalem and it is reasonable to expect the writer of Acts to record the fulfillment of that prophesy if Acts had been written after that event.

Neither does Acts mention the persecution of Christians by the emporer Nero in the mid 60's AD, or the killing of Paul (64 AD) or of Peter (65 AD) though both of these men figure prominently in Acts and the martyrdom of others is mentioned.

The writer of Acts has also been shown to be a careful historian with an excellent knowledge of the first century. This has been confirmed by archeaeology again and again. His use of the early title for Jesus of 'Son of Man' rather than the later title 'Son of God' supports that Acts was written early.

All of this sets a latest limit on the date of Acts in the early to mid 60's AD.

This site is great

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[_JAK]

Why would "scholars" ignore the possibility that Paul and others wrote simultaneously? When, for example, President John Kennedy was assasinated, a flurry of writings were produced by various authors reviewing the event. Why is that same possiblity completely discarded in the case of Bible scripts?

You tell me.

Jersey Girl

--------------

What makes you consider that “scholars ignore”? Scholars from the Roman Catholic Church have quite different views (scholarship) than scholars from the United Methodist Church. And scholars who are not committed to any religious doctrine/dogma have yet a different view of how things are in the world of religious doctrine.

Generally, the older the source is which is regarded as “original,” the less credibility it has. So a source hundreds or thousands of years in the past has less credibility than a video tape of an event which occurred yesterday such as the great winter storm of January 2007. That documentation has great credibility. It has peer review. It has multiple observers -- thousands of observers and photographers and commentators. The biblical writers have no such credibility regardless of claims made.

JAK