(22 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...I occasionally get asked how we know when the Gospels were written. Why do scholars date them when they do? I answered that question here on the blog over four years ago now. Most of you weren’t on the blog then. And if you were, and you’re like me, you’ll have no recollection at all about what was said four years ago! So here is the post I made back in May 2012.
****************************************************************************
QUESTION:
How are the dates that the Gospels were composed determined? I’ve read that Mark is usually dated to 70 or later because of the reference to the destruction of the temple. Is this the only factor that leads scholars to conclude that it was composed in 70 CE or later or are there other factors?
I’ve heard that Luke and Matthew are likewise dated aroun 80-85 CE to give time for Mark to have been in circulation enough to be a source for them. Is this accurate?
How is John usually dated to around 95 CE (or whatever the correct period is) since it is usually described as independent of the other Gospels?
RESPONSE:
This is a great question, and one that I get asked a lot. How do we actually know when the Gospels were written? It is actually a difficult question to answer, but the things you’ve already read and heard cover some of the important territory.
So let’s start on some basics that I think everyone can agree on. (Well, OK, there is *nothing* that absolutely everyone agrees on, as I’ve learned with some chagrin with the publication of my most recent book….). First…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! You’ll get answers to lots of your questions, it won’t cost you much, and every penny goes to help those in need. So JOIN already!!!!
What about the possible Q source? When do you think it might have been composed?
My guess is the 50s or so, but who knows? Before Matthew and Luke, in any event.
Do you post any of your upcoming lectures or debates on this blog? I live in Indiana but if you have any lectures or debates scheduled for here or in our surrounding states, I have some friends who would make a road trip with me. You’re a rockstar in your field.
If there not posted on here, where is the best place to find out about them?
I post them on my website, http://www.bartdehrman.com
Cool .. bookmarked (didn’t know you had one)
Thank you professor Ehrman.
When was the doctrine of Jesus virgin birth introduced (as a guestimate) and was it because Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek, Roman and other fertility religions/cults (Adonesis, Dionysus, Tamuz)?
Thank you
Some time before Matthew and Luke, so prior to the 80s CE. It’s not clear if it was based on pagan influence (none of the pagan figures had a mother who was a virgin, btw; in every case a God had sex with her) or because of a reading of Isaiah 7:14, or both.
So Livy’s version of Romulus and Remus describes their mother, Rhea Silvia, as a virgin priestess. But the tale goes on and has her claim that she became pregnant by being raped by the god Mars. But how different would this really have seemed in the minds of Hellenistic/Roman people of the day vs. the story of Mary being a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit of the Jewish god, Yahweh?
We make a big distinction today, it would seem, because of the emphasis of Christianity for 1900 years insisting that it is altogether different from Pagan stories. I just find it hard to think that folks 1900 years ago would have shared our same nuanced distinctions about such things.
I think the *Christians* at least wanted to stress the different between being raped by a god and being miraculously impregnated without having sex. Whether pagans would have seen much of a difference is an interesting question (worth looking into!).
What dates do Fundamentalists give to the gospels and why?
They tend to date them prior to 70 CE, and because that gives them even more credibility as being near the time of the events they narrate.
That’s what I thought. I guess they don’t have much substantiation on those dates. Thank you for the response.
Most fundamentalists think the New testament was written by the named authors while they were alive. For example Matthew would be the first book written by the disciple Matthew
The issue is never discussed by the pastor. When children go off to college and learn the truth many lose their faith.
Christian Parents need to be much more honest in teaching the Bible to their children don’t you agree?
Honest, absolutely. But also while considering what, at the particualar age, they are able to handle.
Also better for their theology to prophesy things like the destruction of the temple than to record them after they occurred.
Very interesting Dr. Ehrman. So even though Christ taught in Aramaic, absolutely nothing was written down in Aramaic? Is there much of a language translation problem going from Aramaic to Greek? (Again, it’s mind boggling to consider how many opportunities for error to creep in by accident or design)
No, there are no accounts of Jesus to survive in Aramaic. And yes, there can be problems in translation. I think I’ll add the question to the Mailbag and answer it at greater length there.
Have you spoken about the Aramaic accounts? Do they differ much from the Greek? Are they then older than the Greek? I look forward to your mailbag post. Thank you.
That’s part of the problem: we don’t have any Aramaic accounts!
Greetings Dr. Ehrman, here is a question about the gospel writers
If the gospels were written after the Roman-Jewish war. Is it possible that they were written by survivors/refugees from the war or were the writers most likely living outside the troubled lands from the beginning?
It’s possible but unlikely. They don’t seem to know much about Palestinian geography or even, in places, the Jewish religion.
If Paul did not mention any of the Gospels, would that not also imply that Q was written after 60?
Possibly. Or that it wasn’t circulated widely. Or … lots of options. (My point about Paul is that he doesn’t seem to know *any* of the Gospels, not just any one of them)
Dr. Ehrman,
Would you say that the primary reason why ‘fundamentalists and a few others’ would date the gospels earlier is their supernaturalist presuppositions? That is to say, are they unconvinced of a later date simply because they believe that references to the destruction of the temple are actually prophetic, and, therefore, they see no good reason to push the date(s) into the 70s or later?
Are there more important reasons that scholars push the date into the 70s or later aside from the rejection of prophecy as a sufficient explanation for the references to the destruction of the temple?
Thanks!
Yes, that’s one reason. But they want to date thenm early because that seems to make them more reliable. Other reasons for dating them later are that Paul seems not to know of any of them (even though he is well traveled) and that the oral traditions they presuppose must have taken a while to develop. And in places — e.g., John 9:22 — they seem to presuppose situations known from later times.
I have two questions:
1. I remember reading that the letters of Ignatius are now dated to sometime between 97 and 100. Have you seen those dates given for those letters as well?
2. Do you think the author of the 1 Clement letter had read any of the Gospels?
Side note, my copy of your book “Lost Scriptures” leaves out chapters 15-18 in the 1 Clement letter. I’ve seen translations of chapter 16 with an interesting quote that would have been useful for your book “Did Jesus Exist”: “for his life is taken from the earth” (1 Clement 16:8).
1. No, Ignatius’s letters are almost certainly later, around 110 CE 2. Yes, he appears to have.
One thing that strikes me when reading scholars on the dating of the gospels is that they on the one hand point to the very developed christology of John,so it must be very late. On the other hand, Luke and Matthew could well have been written only a couple of years before John given the probability range asserted for these gospels. This gospel, given its obvious literary seams, must have had a literary history extending back for quite some years. Wouldn’t that point to a rather theologically divergent, Johannine community, rather than a very much younger gospel?
Yup, that’s how John is usually understood.
Dr. Ehrman, the tenative working hypothesis that I’ve been working with in my reconstruction of an UrGospel is the following timeline:
— 30 CE: Jesus is executed during Passover; his disciples flee back to Galilee, where they begin seeing “visions” of a resurrected Jesus; they return to Jerusalem during the Shavuot festival (Pentecost) expecting Jesus to return in full Messianic glory; he doesn’t, so they essentially set up shop in anticipation.
— 30-40 CE: an early Jewish Christian — possibly a disciple frustrated by Jesus’ failure to “return” — creates a document that consists of a list of memorable prophetic utterances of Jesus (via the Holy Spirit) in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, that the Jerusalem church “interprets” — along with their own prophetic visions through the Holy Spirit — as a guide for what to do in the mean time. This is also when the early church develops the Great Commission doctrine, that they should become “apostles” of the “good news,” spread at first throughout “Israel” (i.e. the Jewish community), and later throughout “The Nations” (i.e. the Gentiles). It’s at this point that Diaspora Jews such a Paul get caught up in the movement.
— 40-50 CE: The mission to the Gentiles begins to supercede the mission to the Jews — the Gentiles apparently being more receptive to the “good news” than the Jews. Moreover, the diaspora Jews appear more receptive than the Palestinian Jews. As the original Hebrew/Aramaic list of Jesus’ words, along with their various “interpretations” and appended anecdotes find their way into majority Greek-speaking communities, it begins to be translated into Greek. It’s at this point that elements, normally attributed to Jesus, but actually the product of interpretations and anecdotes (such as the parables and dispute stories) by later followers, start to be attached to Jesus’ original words. Around the end of this decade, the Jerusalem Church is thrown in to disarray; many flee, and the original Jewish Christians remain in exile until eventually dying out.
— 50-60 CE: An incipient or proto-Mark, in which the disparate Greek translations of the original Hebrew/Aramaic Words of Jesus with Commentary (H/AWJWC), are compiled into a chronological order and published (or disseminated) throughout the Christian communities of the western Mediterranean. The document is meant to fill in the narrative gap between Jesus’ calling via the Holy Spirit and his exaltation after death as the “first-fruits of the Resurrection”. This First Edition (FE) Mark becomes the basis for Matthew and Luke.
— 60-70: First Edition (FE) Matthew is made using FE Mark as a source, along with one or more other Greek translations of the H/AWJWC (the so-called Q source — both FE Mark and “Q” are ultimately derived from H/AWJWC — probably by the Antioch church?) Luke and Acts are written ca. 65-70 CE, as news of the war inspires a rush to document the history leading up to it. Again, Luke uses FE Mark and one or more Q sources, but it does not become widely copied and disseminated until the next decade.
— 70-80: A Second Edition (SE) of Mark is created, with various gaps filled by glosses meant to interpret or clarify parts of the FE Mark to bring it in line with other Gospels, such as Matthew and Luke, which now start to become known to communities that, until that point, were only familiar with FE Mark.
— 80-90: Second Edition (SE) Matthew is created, polishing FE Matthew into the epic masterpiece we have today. Additions to SE Matthew include a Birth Narrative and Genealogy (more familiar to SE Matthew’s community than Luke’s — hence why they’re so massively different), along with a plethora of new parables generated by the SE Matthew community, including many yet unpublished parables. This is when the texts of the “Synoptics,” Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts, as we have them today, are more-or-less set in stone; they are copied and disseminated like never before.
— 90-100: The author of John’s Gospel attempts to fill in the “gaps” of the now familiar synoptic accounts. His goal appears two-fold: 1) To fill in the period of Jesus’ ministry and trial with greater detail, extending his ministry to up to three years, for instance, filling in details of Jesus’ sojourn in Betheny, etc. Essentially, John is meant to be a supplement to the Synoptics by, for example, giving greater detail to Jesus’ “disputes” with the Pharisees; 2) As an addendum to the synoptic narratives that satisfies the Christological developments, especially of John’s community, that have developed since the FE Mark, similar, for example, to how later Gospels such as the Gospels of Peter and Thomas fill in the Christological ambiguities of the previous Gospels.
Interesting.
There’s an argument made that Acts doesn’t mention certain significant events, such as the destruction of the temple, or the deaths of Paul and James, the latter in 62 I believe. That would mean Acts was written earlier than 62, and since Luke was earlier than Acts, it would be earlier still, and because Mark was written before Luke, it would be even earlier! Eventually they get Mark writing in the early 50s. Would we expect Acts to mention those events? If so, can we therefore go back as late as some Christians assume?
It is widely thought (for good reason) that Acts does not want to narrative up to and including and beyond the death of Paul precisely because for Luke, Paul is the apostle who can *not* be stopped. Nothing can hinder him. So Luke could not very well narrate his execution. The current move among scholars is not to date Acts earlier, but much later, into the 120s, because (in the view of these scholars) the author appears to have been dependent for some of his information on the writings of Josephus from the 90s.
I thought the death of James *was* known from Acts?
That’s James the son of Zebedee, who was martyred early in the history of the movement.
Yes, he’s the one I was thinking of! It only occurred to me later that the original poster may have meant James, the brother of Jesus.
Wow! that is new and interesting to me (the Josephus dependency). Are you saying “some scholars” or are you leaning that way, too?
I’ve never been completely convinced about this myself.
As a follow up question, who named the Gospels? And where were they written? My understanding is the Gospels were not written in Palestine, but maybe Antioch, Alexandria, Damascus, etc.
We don’t know and we don’t know! They are first named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the church father Irenaeus in 180 CE. But we don’t know who first came up with the names.
Sometime in the past few weeks you gave the name of a woman author who did some research on the number of literate people in the day of Jesus. I have searched through your past posts but cannot find that reference. I have a friend in my church school class who disputes that 98% of the population in the time Jesus lived were illiterate. I wanted to refer to her work but could not find that reference. Can you give it again? Another person in the class said she believes all boys in that day attended school. I said I believed that was much later. My belief is that in Jesus day, peasant men and boys were too preoccupied with just making enough money to feed their families to be able to send their boys to school. Is this true?
It’s CAtherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She thinks literacy was in the ballpark of 3% or a bit more. And she shows that the idea that every Jewish boy went to school is just a later legend.
Again, I believe it’s necessary to qualify the meaning of “literate” as those who could both read and write well. Three percent sounds like a reasonable estimate of those in the ancient world who were educated to both read and write well, but this doesn’t mean that the remaining 97% couldn’t read or write a word to save their lives. In all likelihood, literacy fell along a spectrum, where less than 10% could be said to have been properly educated to read and write well. Maybe another 10 to 20% could read and write crudely, like what we might call a 3rd grade level. Another 20% might be able to recognize certain words, such as on signs. Another 20% could at least tell Hebrew/Aramaic apart from Greek and Latin. And the remaining might be totally and utterly illiterate. The point is, there couldn’t have been a sudden, precipitous drop off in literacy. (When I studied education in grad school, there were studies showing how literacy in every society tends to taper off rather than go from completely literate to totally ignorant. As with most skills, it tends to gradually decrease within the population.)
Either way, even if we were to make the conservative estimate that the Jewish population of the Levant was 2 million, and the literacy percentage was only 3%, that’s still 60,000 highly literate people in, at most, 20,000 square miles. That’s an average of 3 highly literate people per square mile. The average walk to find someone who could read and write well would have been maybe 20 to 30 minutes.
I’d be interested in your response to Hezser’s book. I don’t think she’s referring just to people who “write well.” I think she means something more like “someone who can copy out a text by hand.”
Me too. I’m in the middle reading five books right now (not to mention the time I’ll have to devote finding a copy that’s not $130), so I’ll have to add it to the bottom of the list.
However, I have to say that many scholars appear fixated on grand examples of literacy, such as steles and multi-volume masterworks. But we have to remember that every advanced civilization with a properly functioning bureaucracy needs documents — even mundane records such as epistles, receipts, signs, etc. (One of the surprising features of unearthed ancient documents — such as, for example, those found in the Cave of Letters — is their utter banality, some being the ancient equivalent of interagency memos and bills of lading).
Even the average servant needs to be able to tell the difference between an amphora with יין written on it from an amphora with שמן written on it. If that servant fills his master’s wine glass with olive oil, I can’t imagine that servant is going to stay around long. (Not to mention that there were slaves in ancient times who were highly literate, e.g. Epictetus) That’s why literacy always falls along a spectrum, with the Virgils and Jeromes at one end, and the ditch diggers who cannot tell an Aleph from an Alpha on the other. And in the middle of the bell curve is the remaining mass of civilized society, with a skewed mean, some times more in the direction of universal literacy, such as in the modern West, or more towards the direction of a small group of literate elites and professional scribes, as existed for most of recorded history. But the fact remains that the fall off in the curve is gradual, not precipitous.
Very insightful talmoore. Your assessment of literacy in Judaism seems to be fairly equivalent to what Sanders wrote in his book.
I haven’t read Hezser’s book yet, (it is a bit expensive) and it’s clear that she believes the literacy rate in Palestine was extremely low. Maybe she’s right. At the same time, in the synopsis of her book, it says she evaluated literacy using a social-anthropological approach, ancient writings, education, etc… That’s not the same as being a literacy expert and understanding how the brain works when it reads.
For myself, I am particularly interested in knowing whether or not Jesus could read. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke seemed to think Jesus could read. It wasn’t portrayed as some great feat or a miraculous event or even out of the ordinary. I can’t help but think that’s because reading is a very ordinary thing to do. I have more difficulty believing that Jesus memorized scripture orally because that would require someone continually, verbally repeating massive amounts of scripture, and if that’s the case, then someone had to be reading it in order for it to be memorized. Reading can be picked up by the simple motivation to do so. That’s how basic of a skill it is, and Jesus does not strike me as lazy or unmotivated. The only thing that I would find convincing of Jesus not being able to read is if he was not exposed to written words…like ever.
As it turns out, there is only one passage in the NT that indicates Jesus could read, Luke 4:17-19. (Not found in any other Gospel!)
Luke has Jesus reading explicitly. Matthew and Mark imply it. That’s how I take it.
I don’t see how we could ever know whether Jesus could read and write from the evidence we have. Someone who can write a gospel is hardly going to think reading is some great feat. It *is* a very ordinary thing for an author to do. So they don’t even think about whether the son of God could do it. But what if you didn’t even know anyone who could read or write? Noone who could teach you? And you didn’t have anything to read anyway? And you’re too busy trying to make a living?
You’re right. We can’t know for sure whether Jesus could read or write. Still, I think there were several things that were in his favor. He was single, so he didn’t have the distraction and responsibility of a family. But he did feel a major burden and responsibility to the Jews as their messiah and was completely engrossed in being a part of God’s new kingdom. As the messiah, he recruited disciples and became their leader, master, teacher, etc… I’ve been reading a book that Bart recommended by E.P. Sanders called Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE. According to him, there were vast amounts of scribes during that time period, especially for the temple.
For me, there are two compelling reasons to believe that Jesus was literate. First, his challenging and verbal exchanges in the Gospels: Luke 4, where he read the Isaiah scroll; then in Matthew, Mark, and Luke he’s quoted as saying, “Haven’t you read what David did…Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning….Haven’t you read this scripture…But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read; have you not read this scripture; the stone which the builders…. In John 7, people can’t understand how Jesus is so wise and full of knowledge without ever studying. His knowledge also seems to be a source of friction and contention with people. Why should *he* act and behave as one who has been schooled? Where did that come from? His reply is that it came from God. He could have just been one of those people who was gifted with higher intelligence and learned very easily. I think he had a lot more time on his hands than we give him credit for even though he was poor and needed to make a living. He had time to become a rabbi, find himself twelve disciples, make up some parables, be convinced he was the messiah, etc…
And last but not least, in John 19:19-22 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign…and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.” Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
The sign was made to prove a point, and they wanted it to be read by everyone. It’s kind of dumb to make a sign that nobody could read.
A side note. If only one person out of twenty could read, then all twenty could “read” the sign because the one would read it aloud to them.
On that last part, it’s not so much about Jesus reading, (although I’d think he knew what a sign about himself said) but that people were literate enough to read a scathing sign about him.
Fair enough 🙂
I don’t think any of the gospel writers would have thought Jesus was illiterate. This was the son of God who could drive out demons, walk on water, raise the dead, but he couldn’t read? Unfortunately this doesn’t get us any closer to historical data. If we had an account where Jesus was explicitly illiterate, that would tell us something, but we don’t have that. If we had lots of accounts of Jesus reading that weren’t just to show he was amazingly wise, that might be helpful, but we don’t have that either. We can say that generally someone in Jesus situation would be illiterate, but that doesn’t tell us about him in particular. I don’t think he would have learnt as an adult. If he could read and write he would have learnt earlier. The end of this age was a bit close to be thinking about learning new skills. What else can we say?
Very interesting. I’m wondering what influence the temple’s destruction had on the gospels and Christian belief in general and specifically on expectations about Jesus’s return. Was the temple’s destruction seen as a premonition of Jesus’s return? Did the temple’s destruction with no prompt return of Jesus affect both expectations and theology? It seems like it must have had a major affect on Christian beliefs since it could have been seen as a close to complete destruction of Judaism (though not as close to complete as what happened in about 130).
It’s often thought that Christians believed the destruction of Jersualem/temple was the heralding of the End. But of course, that expectation was frustrated.
I should point out that one of the reasons that Messianic Jews at the time of Jesus (and this includes both the Pharisees and the Essenses) assumed the Second Temple would be destroyed at the turning of the new age was that the Temple described in Ezekiel’s prophecy (chapters 40-42) was not at all like the Temple that actually existed. So they believed that Ezekiel was really describing a third Temple, which would take the place of the Second after the Second’s destruction in the great eschatological conflict. Indeed, up to the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, 70 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, many Jews just assumed that they were living at the end of the old age and that the Third Temple, as described by Ezekiel was going to be built within their lifetimes. It was only after the defeat of Bar Kokhba, and the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva (one of the biggest Rabbinical advocates for a Third Temple), that many Jews suddenly realized that things were not working out exactly how they thought they would. That’s when hopes for a Third Temple were put on the backburner, and Rabbis, instead, focused on Torah study and the compilation of what was to become first the Mishna, and, ultimately, the Talmud.
Your book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” gives a very good picture of the historical Jesus. But I still don’t have a good sense of what the historical Jesus was like as a person, eg, his personality, what made him a charismatic figure (though if, historically, he had few followers, maybe he wasn’t so charismatic?), what impression he made on people, etc. Can scholars in general or you in particular say much about that? Can he be compared to recent historical figures, eg, Ghandi or Martin Luther King?
Since he predicted the imminent end of the world, Jesus might strike us as a kind of crazy fanatic. But in Jesus’s time this was nowhere near as outlandish a message as it would be to most of us. I’m trying to think of something in our own time that might function in the same way as apocalypticism did in Jesus’s time–maybe Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society or some other expectation of a utopian world. Or, closer to Jesus’s apocalypticism, predictions of disaster from global warming with a call to live more “naturally”?
Yes, how desperately we wish we *knew* something about Jesus’ personality. We simply don’t have the kinds of sources to help us (despite what some people claim!)
Are there any movies or television programs that do a good job of dramatizing the life of Jesus as he was in actual history? Or any that aren’t dramatizations but that narrate it in an educational way but with a certain amount of reenactment and archaeology and shots of Palestine?
Not in my opinion. I teach a class that covers the Hollywood portrayals of Jesus and none of them is close to accurate in my view. But for my money Jesus of Nazareth has by far the best Jesus (Robert Powell, British actor with fantastic eyes)
What is your opinion of Bruce Chilton’s book Rabbi Jesus?
It reads more like a novel than an academic account of the historical Jesus.
Well, the next best thing (though a distant second) might be a movie based on a single gospel–to avoid conflation. What’s your opinion of a movie made in the late 60’s by an Italian communist–I think it’s simply called the “Gospel of Matthew”? (I think I read somewhere that that movie at least gives a good picture of what Italy was like during the Middle Ages.)
If we don’t have (and it’s unlikely that we’ll get) a movie about the historical Jesus maybe we have or could get one that takes as its starting point that this is how the community that produced the gospel “remembered” Jesus, eg, that the gospel is an “expression” of their Christian faith. And I would hope that it could be based on enough scholarly work so that the story seemed more coherent and made more sense than the stories often do without any background information, eg, what it “meant” to the community that produced the gospel, how “they” understood it..
It’s by Passolini, and it’s fantastic.
Excellent review. Very, very helpful and very clear and easy to understand.
Luke’s notion of the atonement(Luke 22:19B-20) the fact that Last Supper is taking place at Jewish Passover ,doesn’t this entail the atonement in the blood of Lambs shed and put on the doors as per Exodus?Lamb’s blood as payment for the lives of their firstborn sons?So also in the transfiguration account in Luke 9:31 where Jesus speaks of his ‘exodus’, or departure as some translations have it. The word in Greek is ‘exodus’.There Jesus is in context referring to his death.The exodus was very much about shedding the lamb’s blood as payment for life,and aren’t those associations there? While these aren’t upfront references to atonement &death,can they be ignored as part of Luke’s theological context? This in addition to there references also back to the atonement in Isaiah 53;22 . Bart are you not ignoring all the above and making a poor theological argument on Luke’s atonement?
The Passover lamb was not an atoning sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible or in Judaism.
Bart, while you speak of a date of composition for each Gospel, you also teach in effect that the Gospels were composed over a period of time. The Gospels are based on earlier oral (and perhaps, written) traditions, and later scribes made changes to the written Gospels they received that were passed on to us. Yet we persist in the notion that there was some moment where an ancient author compiled the traditions known to him, and produced a Gospel in a singular literary action significant enough that we can fairly date the Gospel to the time of this action. Built into this notion are certain assumptions or conclusions about the composition of each Gospel … for example, that they are not essentially the product of multiple authors working over an extended period. I find a different approach in Joseph Tyson’s “Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle,” which suggests that Luke-Acts might have originally been written during the time frame you describe, but was substantially revised in the early second century in response to Marcion, and should thus be dated to that later date of revision. Obviously, we don’t know and can’t prove a precise history of composition of any Gospel. But I worry that when we “date” a Gospel, we are unconsciously buying into certain largely anachronistic notions about authorship and publication that may interfere with our ability to understand the underlying works. I don’t really have a question for you here, but I’d appreciate your reaction if anything here strikes you.
Yes, my sense is that at some point *someone* wrote a kind of first edition of Mark, or Luke; and that later someone else may have come along (at least in the case of Luke) and produced a kind of second edition (adding chs. 1-2, for example, which were originally not there). And scribes, of course, in a sense produced later editions (for example by adding the last twelve verses of Mark). So when I am giving a date for the Gospels, I am talking about the publication of a first edition.
I’m partial to the dating of Luke-Acts by Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyson. They see Acts dating from ca. 120-125, with one of the purposes of Acts being a tool in the fight against emergent Marcionism.
That would suggest a date for Luke’s Gospel as about 115 CE. Consequently, it sure seems to me that the current dating of the Gospels maybe far too early.
Yes, it would, if, on this hypothesis, Luke and Acts were written by the same person (that too is debated, e.g., by Pervo)
What? I thought Luke and acts being written by the same author was one of the few things we were pretty sure about! Can we be sure of anything?
Yeah, I know. What *isn’t* up for grabs?!?
Dr. Ehrman:
Randall Helms, in his book “Who Wrote the Gospels” argues that Luke-Acts may have very well been written by a woman. He cites quite a few reasons for this argument, including:
– Luke uses the Greek words for “women” and “womb” far more than the other evangellists
– Luke gives us the famous pregnancy “Magnificat”
– Only author to mention fetal quickening (1:41)
– Only Luke implies that Jesus’ female intimates outnumber the males (8:2)
– First person to call Jesus “Lord” is a woman
– Only author to cite a “prophetess, Anna”
– Only author interested in female osteoporosis (13:10-13)
and quite a few other instances. My question is, given the paucity of literate individuals of either sex, and the general societal subjugation of women then (as now), is this even a remote possibility? And if not (I tend to strongly doubt it), what is your feeling as to why Luke emphasizes the female in his/her storytelling?
Thanks in advance!
Sure, it’s possible. But I think it’s a mistake to interpret an interest in women (and Jesus relation’ to them) as evidence that the text was *written* by a woman. Men too are interested in women. ANd sometimes they use “women to think with” (that is, the trope of women allows an author to emphasize some key points)
What are the reasons to think that Paul would have mentioned the gospels if he knew about them?
He wouldn’t have to mention the Gospels by name, only cite traditions about Jesus as found in them as an indication he knoew they exixsted.
Have you ever heard the claim that there was a possibility the gospel of John was written by an ex Marcionite named Apelles?
Yup. That would put the composition of the Gospel to the middle of the second century. But we have a fragment of a manuscript of the Gospel that appears to date to the early second century.
I read so much from and about Paul, I find it hard to believe that he was aware of the gospels and never mentioned them. He warns from other apostles when they preach something that he understood to be against his gospel. I cannot imagine that Paul would not comment on let’s say Matthews view of the Jewish Law (if not outrightly refute it). Not each and every sentence in the gospels is in line with his views.
Also he uses the Old Testament to argue his point. Why wouldn’t he use a line or two from Jesus (as related in a gospel)?
Bart, there’s something I’m not getting when you write, “…. the issues that [John] is dealing with (Jewish rejection of the Christian message) can be easily located then….” [in the90’s]. Wasn’t there Jewish rejection of the Christian message from the outset? If we assume that Jesus actually uttered the high Christology later placed on Jesus’ lips, then probably most Jews would have rejected him and his message during his lifetime. If he didn’t utter the higher stuff, then certainly most Jews would have rejected him as messiah when he was crucified. If Paul was developing the Christian message in the years before he began writing (he says the synagogues did not accept his teaching, right?)–say, in the 40’s, Jews would have been rejecting his Christian message in that period too. So why do you say we can locate “Jewish rejection of the Christian message…. [in the90’s]….”?
I was referring to specific issues, not general ones. Specifically 9:22 sees to presuppose the exclusion of followers of JEsus who claim he was the messiah from the synagogues, which many scholars date to the end of the second century.
Where should Gnosticism be placed in this timeline? 50 CET?
Would you agree that the earliest reference to Gnosticism is in Paul’s “2 Timothy 2:18”
“They say that the resurrection has already taken place”
This idea is similar to the one presented in “The Treatise on the Resurrection”, right?
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/res.html
“This is the spiritual resurrection”…
“Therefore, do not think in part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection. For if he who will die knows about himself that he will die – even if he spends many years in this life, he is brought to this – why not consider yourself as risen and (already) brought to this?”
What we today know of as gnosticism cannot be traced earlier than the second century CE, though certainly there were earlier people who held views that were later embraced, as well, by Gnostics. You want to look at one of the most recent studies, David Brakke, The Gnostics.
Thanks for the good book recommendation!
Based on the book’s first chapters its message seems to be that we should not mix for example Gnostics and Valentinian sects. As the doctrine about resurrection belongs to Valentinian school, Paul was apparently opposing in 2 Timothy 2:18 some forerunners of the Valentinian school. That is a bit contradicting as Valentinians consider Paul as their “founder”.
Valentinians are usually understood to be *one* form of Gnostics.
Yes, in your books and others but not in this book that you recommended. There David Brakke redefines Gnostics to refer mainly Sethians and dispute views that give Gnosticism too broad definition.
Yup! It’s his distinctive view. I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s a terrific book anyway.
Yes, I agree. It was a terrific book.
Brakke seemed to be disagree with you about the other side as well:
“If the construction of a “Gnosticism” obscured the characters of the persons and groups assigned to it, likewise the category “proto-orthodox” can homogenize and so distort the diversity of pre-Constantinian Christianity.”
I like Brakke’s end conclusion that…
“medieval and modern Christians have been neither Gnostics nor Valentinians nor Marcionites. But neither, we must recognize, have they really been Irenaeans or Justinians or Origenists. No forms of Christianity that existed in the second and third centuries have survived intact today; rather, they have all contributed, in greater and lesser ways, to the ongoing development of Christianities.”
I too like that conclusion, and completely agree with it.
DR Ehrman:
I think you’ll agree with me that to correctly interpret a passage of scripture one must do so within the context in which the passage is written.
I was listening to your book, ‘Did Jesus Exist?’, ( I’m a Trucker, so I bought the audible version) in it you state, that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel and not to an individual.
I have read Isaiah 53 over and over and I don’t understand how anyone, especially you DR Ehrman, could arrive at this conclusion:
I have the following questions for you DR Ehrman:
1)-V:3-He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows…
a)-Isn’t Isaiah speaking of a MAN here?
b)-Is the nation of Israel a MAN?
———————————————————————
2)-V4-Surely our griefs HE HIMSELF bore…
a)-What does Isaiah mean by, ‘our griefs’?,
b)-Whose griefs is he talking about?
c)-Who bore whose griefs?
c)-Who is, ‘He Himself’?
d)-Is ‘He Himself’ the nation of Israel?
————————————————————————
3)-V:6-All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him….
a)-Isn’t ‘ALL OF US’ in v:6 referring to the nation of Israel?
b)-And what is Isaiah talking about when he says: But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him?
c)-Whose iniquity has fallen on whom?
I understand If one does not want believe that ‘HIM’ alludes to Jesus, however I think it’s quite the stretch to conclude that ‘HIM’ IN V:6 is referring to the nation of Israel.
————————————————————————————-
4)-V:7-HE was oppressed and HE was afflicted…
a)-Isn’t it obvious that Isaiah is writing about an individual here?
b)-How can one conclude from V:7 that Isaiah is talking about Israel here?
—————————————————————————-
5)-V:8-By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
a)-Is it not crystal clear that in V:8 this individual, not the nation of Israel, is put to death, or as Isaiah puts it, (‘cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due’)
b)-It’s also clear to me, that this individual is cut off for the transgression of ‘MY PEOPLE.’
c)-When Isaiah says, ‘My People’, What people is he referring to?
————————————————————————-
6)-V9-His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
a)-So am I to interpret Isaiah V:9 as saying that, ‘ISRAEL’ was assigned to a grave with wicked men?
b)-That there was no deceit in ‘ISRAEL’S’ mouth?
——————————————————————————-
Just one more verse Dr Ehrman:
7)-V:11-As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.
a)-Am I to believe that Isaiah is stating here in V:11, that God is calling ISRAEL, ‘My Servant’, ‘The Righteous One’.?
b)-Since when is Israel the RIGHTEOUS ONE?
c)-And how can ISRAEL who failed God justify the many.?
Even if one doesn’t believe that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Jesus, one must see that Isaiah is plainly NOT speaking about ISRAEL either.
To say that Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel is to distort its context, and to misinterpret its message.
To see whom Isaiah is referring to when he speaks of “the Servant,” see Isaiah 49:3, where it is unambiguous. (It’s not unusual to portray a collective as an individual: consider Hosea 11:1, where all Israel is called “my son”)
So I’m to believe that the nation of Israel is God’s Servant, The righteous One. as stated in Isaiah 53:11?
b)-Since when is Israel the RIGHTEOUS ONE?
c)-And how can ISRAEL who failed God justify the many?
The question is not so much what might make sense to *us* than what is it that the author is actually saying (whether it makes sense to us or not)
Paul said, ‘What you read is what you understand’. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Isaiah 53. As for Isaiah 49:3, when looking at Isaiah 43:5 v:3 doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps Jeremiah was right when he said, ‘what word of the lord, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.
I meant Isaiah 49:5 not 43:5…
When looking at Isaiah 49:5 49:3 doesn’t make any sense.
49:3-And He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel,
In Whom I will show My glory.”
v:3 is speaking about an individual named Israel, not about the nation of Israel, ‘And He said TO ME’, “you are my servant Israel.
In V:5 this individual whom God formed from the womb to be His servant, and whom He names, ‘Israel’, is the one who will bring Jacob back to Him in order that Israel might be gathered to Him. That is what it’s saying. God formed ‘Israel His servant to bring back Jacob to him and gather Israel…
49:5-And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him
These verses above were most likely changed by some scribe, as they are they don’t make any sense. That’s why I quoted Jeremiah 8:8.
V:8“How can you say, ‘We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.
Cheito, this is in response to your March 4 post in which you say that you just cannot agree with Dr. Ehrman’s interpretation of Isaiah 53. You are apparently starting with a belief that Christianity superseded Judaism and so you are prone to believe that how early Christians and Christians ever since have interpreted Isaiah 53 must be the correct way. I can’t tell you what the correct way is. But I feel I owe it to the people who gave us the Hebrew Scriptures to try to understand how they understood their own scriptures. For me to tell them that they are wrong because I just don’t see how they could interpret it the way they so or because my faith tradition interprets it differently than they do is, to me, insulting. If I were to write a poem and you came along and told me it didn’t mean what I thought it meant when I wrote it but that your interpretation of it is the correct one. I know that, theoretically, the entire Christian take on the first covenant is possibly true, but I’ve never heard anything that convinces me that it is. Until then, I am guided by Jews and non-fundamentalist scholars to help me understand what the Hebrews/Jews understood by what they wrote.
Dr Ehrman wrote the following on His post, “Why I’m not a Christian”
“What would lead someone to read a book in a *non*literal way? We don’t read other books like that, unless (like Pilgrim’s Progress) they give indications that they are not meant to be literal. But I’d hate it if someone read *my* books non-literally!”
That is exactly my point about Isaiah 53. If you interpret Isaiah 53 literally, (I believe it is meant to be interpreted literally) then It’s clearly speaking about an individual and not about the nation of Israel.
Also neither you nor DR Ehrman responded to my questions on my post, dated February 26th. The post is above, on this page. I think my questions are valid, well founded and reasonable.
As one Great Rabbi said, ‘What you read is what you understand.’
The problem is that Isaiah 53 is about the Servant of the Lord, and Isaiah directly tells you who that is. I don’t think it’s right to assume something different.
Yes Isaiah 53 is speaking about an individual person whom God calls,
” The Righteous One, My servant’, He’s clearly not speaking about the nation of Israel.
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Furthermore in Isaiah 52:13-15 the author of Isaiah differentiates between, My Servant, which is about a man, and My People, which refers to the nation of Israel.
Note what Isaiah says in V;13:
‘My servant will prosper. He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. (This is the man!)
In V;14 he mentions Israel:
Just as many were astonished at you, My people, (This is the nation of Israel) So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men.
Again it’s crystal clear that Isaiah 53 is not about the nation of Israel but about an individual man.
13-Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted.
14-Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
So His appearance was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men.
15-Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
For what had not been told them they will see,
And what they had not heard they will understand.
in “normative” Rabbinic Judaism, Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel, not an individual.
But, one must understand: in Rabbinic Judaism, the specific meanings of scriptures can change over time. For example, there is a scripture in the Torah in which God declares that He’ll be at war with Amalek forever (I think it says “from generation to generation”, if I remember correctly). But, historically, the Amalekites eventually just sort of “disappeared”, being absorbed into other people groups, tribes, whatever.
So, did that render the scripture about God being at war with them “forever” to somehow be a mistake?
No, the scripture just took on a different meaning – something that was more “symbolic”, more “internalized”.
“Amalek” has (for example) been the name used for the Islamic State.
Here’s a quote by Rabbi Jack Reimer (a Clinton advisor): “I am becoming convinced that Islamic Fundamentalism, or, as some people prefer to call it, ‘Islamo-fascism,’ is the most dangerous force that we have ever faced and that it is worthy of the name: Amalek. We must recognize who Amalek is in our generation, and we must prepare to fight it in every way we can. And may God help us in this task.”
So – as we see, “Amalek” has taken on a new meaning, a reference to a most “dangerous force”. (NOTE: I’m just using this as an example of what I mean when I say that even for the Jews, the understanding of scriptures can change over time).
Now, back to Isaiah: Yes, Rabbinic interpretation of Isa 53 has to do with Israel. Could that change over time? Is it possible that it could – in a retrospect vision – refer to Jesus? A lot of Christians certainly think so. And why not? After all, it is common practice in Judaism to regard Torah (for example) as a “living document”. There are many scriptures in Judaism that have had their meanings change over time – many, especially, after the destruction of the Temple.
So – no – Isaiah 53 is not “fixed” such that it cannot *possibly* mean anything but what Rabbinic Judaism currently says it means. But – I’m offering no advice on any other interpretation of it, or whether any other such interpretation is appropriate, or applicable, or correct, or whatever…
Since you said that neither Bart nor I had responded to your Feb 26 post, I re-read it. There isn’t much to say about it because, while you begin and end with an emphasis on context, your analysis ignores context. You’ve read it “over and over” but have you read preceding verses and what Jewish and other non-fundamentalist scholars and historians say about its context? It also sounds like you buy the conservative Christian line that Israel failed God. And when you write, “Since when is Israel the RIGHTEOUS ONE?” Few things are consistent in the Bible. You can’t just remember the verses in which it says Israel sinned and angered God and forget the ones when he spoke lovingly about Israel. But I’ll give you this: Israel is no more righteous than any other group.
SBrudney:
Your comment:
You’ve read it “over and over” but have you read preceding verses and what Jewish and other non-fundamentalist scholars and historians say about its context?
My comment on preceding verses:
in Isaiah 52:13-15 the author of Isaiah differentiates between, My Servant, which is about a man, and My People, which refers to the nation of Israel.
Note what Isaiah says in V:13:
‘My servant will prosper. He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. (This is a man!)
In V:14 Isaiah mentions Israel and a man:
Just as many were astonished at you, My people, (This is the nation of Israel) So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men. ( again, here Isaiah speaks of a man)
Again it’s crystal clear SBrudney, that Isaiah 52:13-15 is not about the nation of Israel but about an individual man.
How do you interpret Isaiah 52:13-15?
Read the verses and honestly tell me that Isaiah is speaking of the nation of Israel here.
Here are the verses:
13-Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted.
14-Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
So His appearance was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men.
15-Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
For what had not been told them they will see,
And what they had not heard they will understand.
To me personally it doesn’t matter whether it is a single man or Israel. The view I was putting forward was on behalf of the Jews that believe in the Tanakh but I can’t recall the verses sighted in their arguments and don’t care to take the time to. But, IF one wants to figure it out, one has to do more than look at the internal logic of the words and the apparent singularity of words like “his.”. Even if your interpretation of it is reasonable in some way, it is only one interpretation and it is not the interpretation that the people who wrote it embrace. So the point is, it seems to me, study it and interpret it as well as you can, giving your reasons, and then go find out and talk with Jews educated in Torah and other scholars who disagree with you and ask them what their reasons are for interpreting it the way they do. I think Bart has already given the citations and rationale in the blog which, it seems, you ignore. So their wouldn’t be much point in your going to Jews and asking.
Dr Ehrman –
Can you point me to info on how historians date old texts? Is there perhaps one or two definitive works that I could read on the methodologies? I am tremendously interested in knowing more about this.
For example, the gospel of Mark has a “prophecy” by Jesus, apparently regarding the destruction of the Temple (or Jerusalem), as you note.
Some (many?) scholars seem to immediately conclude, therefore, that Mark’s gospel MUST have been written AFTER the destruction of the Temple. I guess (?) this is because, in the view of many, that –
(a) “prophesies cannot be ‘real’, because either there is no God that gives such ‘powers’, or if there is a ‘god’ at all, he/she/it is not in the business of interacting with people, and
(b) therefore, the writer must have written the story in retrospect, because nobody would write such an outlandish story BEFORE it happened, knowing full well it might not come true.
This, then, immediately places the date of writing AFTER 70 AD (in the estimation of many scholars). And, I’d say “fair enough”.
Question (and, this is purely hypothetical – but my only concern is “methodology”): IF the gospel of Mark (or, any others) did not contain that “prophecy”, such that a date of post-70 AD would not “automatically” be fixed for the writing, then what other criteria would be used in order to determine their dates of composition?
In other words – if not for that “prophecy” – then would there still be hardcore support for dating the writings after 70 AD? Or do you think estimates would sort of be “all over the board”? (I sincerely *do* want to learn more about how dating is done!)
I can’t think of a handy place discussing exactly what you need. If you want a fairly heavy duty approach, you might like at Margaret Davies and E. P. Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (first chapter or two), which discuss the dating of the Synoptics and the bases for it. The post 70 dating is not based on what is *possible* or *impossible* (prophecies) but on what is “more probable* or “less probable*. We know that later Gospel writers refer back to the destruction of the temple after it was made; so is there a reason for thinking Mark did not do likewise. There are, however, other reasons for dating Mark toward the end of the first century, one of them being that Paul, who was exceptionally well-traveled and knowledgeable, shows no evidence of knowing anything like a written Gospel, and Mark’s Gospel in fact appears to reflect some of the teachings of Paul’s own letters.
Dr. Ehrman –
What scholarly works or otherwise would you recommend on the topic of dating the books of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Pauline epistles? I’d like to find something calorically dense that addresses the major arguments for the generally accepted date ranges, and debate around those ranges would be a bonus.
Many thanks in advance!
I”ve never read it, but Marcus Borg wrote a book trying to assess the chronological sequence of all the books of the NT. If you want to get a rough sense of when each book was written, you’ll find it in most any “Introduction” to the New Testament that deals with each book in turn: who wrote it, when, in what context, for what purpose, etc. I provide basic dates, e.g., in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Sonme of the books (especially the general epistles) are very difficult to date.
Many thanks!
Dr. Ehrman,
I wrote you and you said to join the blog so here I am. 🙂
If the synoptics (and the Revelation for that matter) were written post 70 AD, why would the Christian gospel writers record teachings on an imminent parousia of Christ/end of the age concomitant with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem? Wouldn’t that immediately invalidate Jesus’ prophecy as well as Revelation in their minds? They would essentially have to be writing it, knowing that Jesus’s teachings were blatantly wrong, (at least regarding the time of the end of the age and his coming). Also, Jesus’s description of the tribulation was essentially, “the worst tribulation ever known to mankind” followed by panic and fear from the entire world, due to weird cosmic events in the oceans. Don’t think that happened either.
Hence, for this reason, could the synoptics be writing pre 70 AD? On the same lines, Revelation speaks about the temple and Jerusalem being trampled on for 3.5 years in chapter 11. How could John of Patmos write this when the temple was completely gone. Can’t be talking about about a new future temple, because the events were soon to transpire. It would make sense, since there was so much stuff happening in the 60’s regarding Israel and Rome.
Mark’s Gospel is first, around 70 CE, and it may be that the destruction of Jerusalem/temple were a sign to him that the end of all things was near, and so he included Jesus’ statements that it will be “soon.” Matthew took it over from Mark. Luke changed it just for the reason yoiu’re saying: Jesus no longer indicates it will be soon. In John it’s not even a topic of conversation. So gradually the Gospels edit away the sayings. INterestingly, throughout history, Christians latch on to the sayings because they think it *still* is oging to be soon — so rarely is it seen to be a problem. Revelation appears to be imagining a rebuilding of the Temple, which was a common longing among some groups after the destruction of 70, and still is for some groups today. THere are good reasons for thinking he was writing at the end of the first century. I’ll probably get into a bit of that on the blog soon.
But even in Mark’s language in Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse sounds very pre-70 AD. It doesn’t match the events happening around 70 AD. One would think he would alter it a little to fit the narrative better, no?
-+”Nation rises against Nation. ..” Sounds like an apocalyptic World War.
-Apocalyptic devastation–Earthquakes, famines. Maybe this was happening?
— “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation, and never will be.’.. So much so that if God didn’t “cut the days short’ no human would survive. Maybe hyperbolic, but still, if I’m writing this in 70 AD, I’m really hesitating. Did Christians view that period as the “greatest tribulation known to mankind” with the human population seemingly being extinguished at record pace?
–Cosmic signs (ie stars falling from heaven etc). I know its OT Hebrew imagery, but in context it sounds very literal.
I could certainly see a mid 60s dating because there were likely rumors of wars and apostles were facing persecution. But it’s hard to imagine Mark was such an amazingly unbiased journalist so as to not soften or ammend the narrative to fit more closely the current historical events of the time.
—
Yes, it is usually understood that he has Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple (which had happened before Mark’s time) as a prelude to what was soon to happen after (the cosmic collapses, which Mark thought would happen very soon after his writing). That’s how a lot of apocalylpses work — e.g., Daniel, who in ch. 7 predicts four kingdoms that came before his time and then a particular ruler (Antiochus) who was at his time, but soon, according to his prediction (which was never fulfilled) to be wiped out.
Can you provide me an online resource that goes into the topic of dating the gospels in more depth
I”m afraid I’ve never looked around for one. Maybe someone else has a favorite they can suggest?
Ok can you recommend any books that are the most comprehensive on the topic of dating the gospels?
Off hand, I don’t know of any full-length books written to defend the widespread critical view (mark around 70; Matthew and Luke 80-85; John 90-95). The topic is treated in lots of books that deal with other issues as well, though. Apart from my discussions in various books, there are some learned reflections in E.P. Sanders/Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (for the first three). Any critical commentary on a Gospel by a historical scholar would contain discussion and evidence; as well as standard reference books like the Anchor Bible Dictionary (under the discussoin of each individual Gospel).
Hypothetically, if scholars determined that the comment in Mark 13 about the temple’s destruction was a scribal addition, would the scholarly consensus be that Mark was written earlier (like 60 CE)? Or is there additional evidence that you didn’t mention that Mark’s Gospel was written after 70 CE?
Is there any evidence that the prophecy of the temple’s destruction was a scribal addition?
I’d say no, that wouldn’t show Mark was necessarily prior to 70 CE. And no, the predictions of destructoin appear to be original (in all the Gsopels)disabledupes{dc7a7c8da88c6ab5e73db8c5d32f0439}disabledupes