Dating of the New Testement Books
RSGyasi
discussion going on regarding the dating of the New Testament books. I
wanted to include this research as food for thought to those involved in
that discussion.
When were the gospels written and by whom?
(See the bottom of this account for the dating of the rest of the New
Testament)
Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the
gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have
good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus
Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability,
authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were
written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time
for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to
Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the
time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we
have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as
well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.
Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70
A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple
when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will
come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not
be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy
was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the
temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the
Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an
obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded
as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of
prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were
fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic
claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would
surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the
gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of
the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself.
Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension.
Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D.
which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and
garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.
Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews.
The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is
very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to
this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution
of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D.
64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written
early
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed,
Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when
He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the
apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by
Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke's patron
who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of
Luke was written before Acts.
a.. "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest
firm chronological marker recorded in the book-Festus's appointment as
procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to
have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
b.. "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early,
before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was
still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of
Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining
support constantly."4
For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both
Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that
would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further
lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity
and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this
would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before
55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This
means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the
first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt.
10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come
under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written
gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally
in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5
a.. "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and
Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a
book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved
Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of
Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that
he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he
remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around
115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on
the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of
the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and
he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died.
Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D.
70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a
disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life
of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias
claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the
interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he
remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the
earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion
of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had
ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts
not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this
damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a
gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He
obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as
well as Acts.
a.. "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus
began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by
the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these
He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing
proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the
things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).
Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters
with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples.
Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no
contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke
was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian,
we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of
Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D.
64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8
Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's
Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in
dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9
John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the
events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been
there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good
knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year
125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was
found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been
written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early
90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John
and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the
Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not
focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological
aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that
affirmed Christ's deity.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were
written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first
century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.
____________
1. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville,
Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
2. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
(Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
3. Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper's Bible Commentary, (New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.
4. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950.
pp. 255-256.
5. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who
in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.;
1992.
6. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985
7. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who
in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.;
1992.
8. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville,
Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
9. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950.
pp. 255-256
Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?
Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after
Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first
century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or
were under the direction of those who were His disciples.
In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I
demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D.
Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention
the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of
James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a
historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such
important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since
Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of
Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of
the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at,
the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another
which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1).
Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction
of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy
in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were
written before 70 A.D.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the
apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events
of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel
dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This
fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for
the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of
the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the
Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not
mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not
focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological
aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that
affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of
the previously written gospels.
Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the
gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been
written in the late 80's or early 90's.
Paul's Writings
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1
7 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts
speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D.
and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D.,
the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1
Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions
that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first
importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he
received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the
apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul
received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course
contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century.
Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles
of Jesus.
Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has
been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc.
The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest
possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been
written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by
the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly
signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not
yet happened.
James
This epistles claims to have been written by James, "James, a
bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who
are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which
James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of
Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the
brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother
called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And
His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context
of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother,
brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:19 which says "Then three years
later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed
with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except
James, the Lord's brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in
Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as
is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the
apostles."
James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the
death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)."
Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.1
1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an
eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there
has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the
clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author.
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered
throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and
apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind
as ours..." (2 Pet. 2:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is
indeed the author of the letters that bear his name.
Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD
so the epistles were obviously written before that time.
1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The
writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John
1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to
be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the
perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also,
"Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John,
and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of
John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often
quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes
from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66,
p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John's larger Epistle.'"2 "In the
earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John
already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop
Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the
second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no
second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it
deals with a specific, local issue."3 Furthermore, the style of the three
epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions
the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc.
It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John
since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts.
Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4
Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most
likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate
himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems
to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His
mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
(Matt. 13:55).5 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as
James has also done.
The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early
90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born around
after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was
Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have
been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions
judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12).
Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18
says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken
beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying
to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own
ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that
in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their
own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the
writing of 2 Peter.6
Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which
must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His
bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p.
308) (A.D.. 139-161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle's
work."7
Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life.
Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.
Conclusion
Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support
the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the
dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and
archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament
continues to be validated.
______________
1. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers,
Inc.) 1962.
2. Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical
and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems,
Inc.) 1998.
3. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.
4. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
(Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
5. This is not Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus - "Judas (not Iscariot)
*said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose
Yourself to us, and not to the world?" (John 14:22). Also, Clement of
Alexandria [Adumbrations, in Epistle of Jude, p. 1007] says, "Jude, through
reverential awe, did not call himself brother, but servant, of Jesus Christ,
and brother of James." Jamieson, Robert; Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible.
6. Jamieson, Robert; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.
7. ibid.
RSGyasi
Written and Researched by: Ellen Myers
During her childhood in Nazi Germany this writer's father told her that
Nazism was in part the result of Germany's already long standing apostasy
from Christ. Only after her own much later conversion to Christ did she
realize that the root of that apostasy was German Protestant "higher
criticism" of the Bible which flourished in the nineteenth century. Through
this movement, joined to Darwinist evolutionism after 1859, the error of
"modernism," man's arrogant transvaluation of the Bible in the light of his
own supposedly infallible "scientific" understanding and scholarship,
infiltrated and eventually dominated theological instruction in Western
Christendom (the Eastern Orthodox Church remained far less affected). Not
unnaturally Protestantism fell victim to this trend first, but the Catholic
church was next. Catholic author Rev. Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn sadly comments:
Apologetics used to be a defense of Church doctrine against the Protestants
who used historical-critical exegesis as a weapon against the Church.... The
new apologetics is the defense of Catholic historical-critical exegetes, who
learn their methodology from Protestants, against attacks by Catholics.4
Today even many mainline Protestant and Catholic laypeople are also
modernist agnostics about the origin and divine, infallible inspiration of
the Bible and thus deny its claim to be God's authoritative, faultless
revelation of Himself, His will and His acts. Only a remnant of Protestant
and Catholic Christians still wholly accept the Bible.
However, there are more and more deep cracks in the historical - critical,
modernist facade. Protestant author Robert J. Clinkert has reported that one
of its chief supports, the so-called "documentary hypothesis" which purports
to show the evolution of religious thought in early Israel and attributes
the first five books of the Bible not to Moses but a series of other
writers, is now in trouble even among modernist-liberal Bible scholars:
According to Professor Blenkinsopp, of Notre Dame University, scholars now
merely "pay lip service" to the documentary hypothesis, but no longer use it
as an analytical tool. Some prominent liberal scholars such as Rolf
Rengtorff and Brevard Childs (Yale Divinity School) have openly abandoned it
2
Jesus Christ, of course, attributed the Pentateuch to Moses and told His
unbelieving hearers that if they believed Moses they would believe Him (John
5:45-47). Moses also published God the Creator's record of creation which
the higher critics had to reject if they were to reconcile themselves to
"modern science" in the form of Darwinist evolution.
It is less well known even among Bible-believing Christians today that the
modernist scholars not only denied and falsified the Bible's own testimony
regarding its Author but also its internal evidence about when it was
written. This is true for both the Old and the New Testaments. The tendency
is to date the writing of certain foundational books of the Bible later than
their own internal evidence makes most probable. We saw this tendency with
the Pentateuch. It applies, for example, to Daniel, whose remarkable
prophecies could not be admitted as given in advance but were assigned to
hypothetical later author' writing after the fact. It also applies to the
Gospels of Christ, especially the Gospel of John. Halley's Bible Handbook,
beloved and widely used by Bible believing Christians, states the common
consensus of Bible scholars today that "The Date of [John's] Gospel is
usually assigned to about A.D. 90." Halley does add that
Some think that John originally wrote this Gospel much earlier, while he was
still in Jerusalem, soon after the Resurrection, in Hebrew, and in later
years issued, in Greek, the Ephesian edition, which was the parent of all
extant manuscripis.3
In general the accepted opinion among Bible scholars, passed down to pastors
and laypeople alike, is that the Gospels were written after the Epistles, at
the end of the first century A.D., as were the book of Acts and Revelation.
We now hear more and more criticism of this opinion. It is time for
Bible-believing Christians everywhere to become informed about this latest
development in scholarship placing the original Gospels (and Acts and
Revelation) definitely before A.D.70 and even within the very decade of our
Lord's death and resurrection.
Already in 1976 none other than the late Anglican bishop John A. T. Robinson
published a scholarly book, Redating the New Testament. It did not receive
anything like the world-wide publicity accorded Robinson's earlier,
modernist Honest to God, for it took the New Testament at its own face value
with regard to the dating of its books. Up to then, Robinson had "believed
everything which he had been taught in the field of historical-critical
exegesis, everything which the German school propounded," but then one day
he asked himself what scientific foundation really existed for the critical
school's dating of the Gospels, and found no answer.4 (One is reminded of
the awakening of British taxonomist Dr. Colin Patterson to the wholly
non-scientific nature of evolutionism.)5 Robinson realized that the entire
New Testament is silent about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in
A.D. 70. This is especially remarkable with regard to the prophecies of
Jesus Christ Himself about the destruction of the city and Temple in the
synoptic Gospels. Would not the Gospel of Matthew, generally so concerned
with pointing out the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, have pointed out
how our Lord's prophecy about Jerusalem and the Temple had been fulfilled,
if indeed it had been written "after the fact"? Robinson arrived at the
conclusion, contrary to modern scholarly consensus, that the Fourth Gospel
was written between A.D.40-60, and Revelation before A.D.70. David Chilton
in a thorough study of the original date of Revelation cites not only
Robinson but also other, more orthodox authorities including Alfred
Edersheim, H. B. Swate, Moses Stuart, and Ernest L. Martin, as well as
archeological support for an early (pre-A.D. 70) New Testament.6
A similar argument for the early dating of the New Testament comes from
Claude Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne. In John 5 2 the
pool of Bethesda, where Christ healed the lame man, is described as existing
at the very same time John was writing ("there is [Greek, estin] at
Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate, a pool ... called Bethesda"). If the Gospel
of John had been written, as most modern scholars assume, around A.D. 90,
the pool would have been buried under the rubble of destroyed Jerusalem
already for some twenty years. Tresmontant, whose arguments were presented
in The Hebrew Christ recently published in France and soon to appear in
English, placed the writing of the original Gospels, which he believed to be
in Hebrew, even earlier than Robinson. He
proposes reasons for believing that in its present form, in Greek, the
Gospel of Matthew had been composed before the end of the 40's. But the
original Hebrew or Aramaic is of course before this time.... the Gospels as
we have them are really translations ... of much earlier original
compositions in Hebrew or Aramaic and therefore much closer to the
'ipsissima verda Christi' [the very words of Christ].7
Another French scholar, the noted authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls Father
Jean Carmignac of Paris (d.1986), has also re-evaluated the dating of the
Gospels. As an expert in biblical Hebrew and faithful Christian, he
understood the disastrous effect ~ of the modernist belief that the Gospels
were not eyewitness, accounts of the life of our Lord but "later
compositions, simply witnesses of the growing faith of the earliest
Christian communities," and that "if the Jesus of History is practically
unattainable, it is the Christ of Faith who very quickly is rejected!"8
Father Carmignac undertook to translate the Gospel of Mark into Hebrew. He
became convinced that the "rather inelegant and eargrating Greek" of this
Gospel "could not have been redacted [originally written] directly in Greek
and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original
Hebrew.... The Hebrew-Greek translation had transposed word for word ... "
He pointed to a number of examples of typically Hebrew play on words in the
text of this and other Gospels. One of these is Luke 1:68-79, the priest
Zachariah's praise to the God of Israel after the birth of his son John (the
Baptist). Here the very names "John," "Zachariah," and "Elizabeth" have as
their root meanings "Jehovah shows mercy," "Jehovah remembers," and "the
oath of God" respectively. In the same sequence Luke 1:68-79 refers to God's
showing mercy to His people, in accordance with His remembrance of His
people and of the oath He swore to Abraham. Of course these allusions and
deep similarities exist only in Hebrew and are lost in Greek or English. But
in Hebrew the connections between the names and God's acts are deliberate.
We might add that with God the very names "Zachariah" and "Elizabeth" were
given these aged parents by His eternal purpose, not by "accident" or
"chance," even as He expressly commanded them to name their miracle baby
"John." Father Carmignac found that since the fifteenth century some 80
retranslations into Hebrew had been made by other scholars, and he believed
that
by the year 2000 scriptural scholarship will start with the Hebrew or
Aramaic rather than the Greek. "Sooner or later, specialists will be hit
right between the eyes and see themselves like me staring directly at the
very backdrop of the Gospels."9
Once you begin to think about it apart from the fog of modernistic teaching,
it seems obvious that the original autographs of the Gospels were not
written in Greek but in Hebrew, for the authors were Christians from Judaic
circles who could express the message of Jesus Christ in Aramaic or Hebrew
only (and not in Greek) prior to about A.D. 50. Wrenn refers to further
substantiation of the early date of the Gospel of Mark from the history of
the church by Eusebius, who in turn cites Papias.10 Halley's Bible Handbook
comments as follows on "What Papias Said about Mark":
Papias, A.D. 70-155, a pupil of the Apostle John ..., wrote, in his
"Explanation of the Lord's Discourses," that he had made it his business to
inquire of the Elders and followers of the Elders, and "The Elder said this
also: Mark, having become the Interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately
all that he remembered-not, however, in order-of the Words and Deeds of
Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor was he a follower of his, but
later on, as I said, he attached himself to Peter, who would adapt his
instruction to the need of the occasion, but not teach as though he were
composing a connected account of the Lord's Oracles; so that Mark made no
mistake in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For one
object was in his thoughts-to omit nothing that he had heard, and to make no
false statements. ~ ~
Now Peter, according to Eusebius, was martyred during the persecution of
Nero which followed shortly after the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., and Peter
had himself authorized the reading of the book of Mark in the Christian
assemblies. Thus the Gospel of I Mark was written some time before 64 A.D.
Wrenn adds that even if the Gospels were handed down by oral tradition until
after A.D. 66 or 70 and written down only then, which is scientifically
totally unproven and even improbable as shown, the Gospel tradition preceded
their writing; in fact, "In 1957 at the Oxford Congress on the Four Gospels,
the eminent Swedish specialist in the New I Testament, H. Riesenfeld,
maintained that ... the gospel tradition I [was] prior to the Easter
event-therefore going back to Jesus, Himself...12
In conclusion, we may rejoice that the historical-critical, modernist school
of Bible study which has done so much harm to I Western Christendom is now
at the end of its tether. As with the, tenets of Darwinian evolutionism, so
it is with the pillars of "higher criticism," the "documentary hypothesis"
and also the dating ~ (really post-dating) of the Gospels: they are
collapsing and being ! replaced by sound re-evaluation of evidences both
from within and without Scripture itself. The original Gospels were written
shortly after the death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, based on
His very words and deeds by authors who had witnessed them or passed them on
faithfully. As the Apostle Peter says, "We did not follow cleverly invented
stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Notes
1 Rev. Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn, "Commentary," Fidelity. November 1987, p. 12.
2 Robert J. Clinkert, "Moses vs. Evolution," Creation Social Science and
Humanities Quarterly, X:1 (Fall 1987), p. 3ū.
3 Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan.
Twenty-Fourth Edition 1965), p. 528.
4 Wrenn, Fidelity, November 1987, p. 8.
5 Reported in Acts and Facts (a publication of the Institute for Creation
Research. El Cajon, CA) in June 1982.
6 David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press,
1987), pp.3 -4.
7 Wrenn, Fidelity, November 1987, p. 9.
8 Ibid
9 Ibid., p. 10.
10 Ibid., p. 11.
11 Halley, Halleys Bible Handbook p. 458.
12 Cited in Wrenn, Fidelity, November 1987, p. 11.
Victor Schnapt_
news:38jRa.4217$eP6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> When Were the Original Gospels Written?
Hi, Sue. You're free to publish whatever you please on UseNet, but it's much
more considerate to publish long essays elsewhere, like on the web, and link to
them. This is for a couple of reasons:
1) Many people pay for access by the minute, or by the byte (really).
Downloading long files literally costs them more than downloading links.
2) UseNet is primarily a forum for discussion. The most interesting posts are
the ongoing conversations, not the near-book-length expositions. You can see
this for yourself by seeing how many of the former there are, and how many of
the latter.
For instance, I have no clue who David Chariot is, or whether he's doctrinally
sound, but he's in my killfile because he posts incredibly long "bible studies"
that take anywhere up to a minute to load on my dialup connection. You can be
any way you want to be, but don't be like him. Please think about it.
Incidentally, to be in someon's "killfile," if you aren't familiar with the
term, means that that person will not see any message that you post.
RSGyasi
on chats before but never on newsgroups. I just got hispeed internet and
the software configured the email so these newsgroups showed up; of course I
picked Pentecostal.
Anyhow, thanks for the heads up, I do appreciate it.
Sue :-)
"Victor Schnapt_" <sch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf66sr$beaoq$1...@ID-175339.news.uni-berlin.de...