Loading...In my posts on Barnabas I indicated that it was probably written sometime in the 130s CE; I often get asked how scholars come up with dates like that?
The first thing to stress is that it’s is very difficult to date ancient writings. But scholars who have worked on such matters (for nearly 300 years now, in some instances) have marshaled pretty good evidence in case after case, although in many instances there continue to be substantial debates.
There are several ways to establish parameters, which are fairly commonsensical. If a writing is quoted by an author whose dates are relatively certain (his dates too need to be established on independent grounds! But in lots of cases there is almost no doubt), then obviously the writing is earlier than that. So that’s a beginning. Second,
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
You referred to Matthew being dated mid 80’es. Why? Is it because it is the mid point in the most possible range 70-100? Or can it be demonstrated that at least 10 years must have passed from its source, Mark?
It’s pretty much an educated mid-point guess, based on the need for Mark’s Gospel to have been circulated and influential and for other traditoins to have been circulated and become influential, for Pauline Christianity to have become prominent and possibly misrepresented at times, etc. No precise dating can be proved, but 80-85 is usually seen as a reasonable hypothesis.
Hi! I would love to Hear about an example where a critical method reconstructed a source or earlier revision of a text, or estimated a date, and significant corroborating evidence came to light for the reconstruction or dating. For example: we found an early version of X and it reads pretty much like how we guessed it would! I’m fascinated by such cases.
It happens in manuscript studies sometimes, where a scholar in the 19th century will hypothesize that a text has been altered and propose an emendation, and then later a manuscript is discovered that is earlier than all the others and has exactly that “original” text. I don’t have examples off the top of my head, but I remember that Mike Holmes fond instances of this in the work of J. B. Lightfoot on the Apostolic Fathers.
Ask it out for coffee in 1st or 2nd Century Greek?
In this case, hold the sugar.
Bart: What do you think of Dick Hartfield’s argument that Pontius Pilate was not the one who ordered the crucifixion of Christ? He states that Valerius Gratus was the magistrate at the time of the crucifixion, and that the dates based on Paul’s conversion and other events don’t coincide with Pilate’s position. Have you seen this argument before? Hartfield is a big fan of your work and cites you in many of his articles. Just curious about this. Thanks, Ray
In that case esus would have had to be crucified sometime before 26 CE (when Gratus was replaced by Pilate), and that seems too early for Jesus’s death (when you look at the overall chronology of events that can be established, such as the conversion of Paul etc.). Plus Pilate is named in every one of our sources, some of them independent of each other at those points, and Gratus is never mentoined (anywhwere). So it seems unlikely to me.
I’ve wondered why Clement didn’t notice historical clues about rebuilding in Ch16. I think he heard it symbolically (they’re still clinging to hopes of restoration) not commenting on Hadrian’s construction project. But is that correct?
Early Christians describe Jews as “hoping-in”/“rebuilding” the old-covenant metaphorically. JMartyr says Jews “build up their hopes” on the old-law; Epistle to Diognetus(Ch3) mocks ongoing sacrifices as if God needed them (moral/theological critique, not reportage).
Barnabas is entirely homiletical/allegorical; no references on Roman politics. If he wanted to comment on Aelia, he’d say “Romans are rebuilding the city.” Instead he says “they’re rebuilding”(they=Jews). “Jews” weren’t rebuilding in 130s!
The allegorical method, LXX-based-exegesis, anti-Jewish polemic, circulation there fit Alexandria.. But Jews vacated Alexandria after Diaspora Revolt(115–117) making such a polemic irrelevant if later.
There would’ve been motive to distance from Judaism shortly after 70: Fiscus Judaicus and Christians needed to explain Israel’s survival after fall…
“Two-Ways” tradition/pre-gnostic content align with early date.
Would’ve been tempting to associate with Barnabas to counter Marcion, but the way early Fathers cite the text doesn’t support that.
Obsession with sacrifices/purity laws/priestly-symbolism point to Levitical/Hellenistic-Jewish background.
Given Barnabas’s background (Levite active among Gentile converts in Antioch)-fits the profile. An early post-70 composition makes Barnabas plausible candidate.
Dr. Ehrman,
Steefen:
The Bacchae – (at the end, the mother says) Here is the head of the lion
Steefen:
The Lion of Judah
The Bacchae:
That is not the head of the lion, that is your son, the death of your son
Gospel of John:
Woman, behold your son
Steefen:
Jesus presents John, not James;
but his words also tells her to “behold your son” and his tragic death.
CONCLUSION
What is being canonized in the Gospel of John is not Jewish messianism but a Greek tragic-theological template—one that mirrors Euripides far more closely than it mirrors the Synoptic tradition or Oral Tradition.
QUESTION: Dr. Ehrman, please comment on the extent to which you agree.
QUESTION 2: Is the following correct: Jesus presents John, not James simply because Jesus presenting James is inconvenient to the later Pauline church in doctrinal conflicts which it eventually “won” against the Jamesian church in Jerusalem.
Thank you.
I don’t agree. The Bacchae is an absolutely stunning play, but I do not think it influence the author of ht fourth Gospel.
Bart Ehrman:
Is it not disturbing that, in the end, the unstoppable justice of God triumphs over his mercy?” The author then goes on to examine how the Christ of Revelation differs markedly from the Christ of the Gospels.
“In my view, the God of Revelation cannot be the true God.”
– BartEhrman.com, Kirkus review of Armageddon by Bart D. Ehrman
Steefen:
Bart, To what extent would you agree with the following?
Revelation is a first-century anti-imperial prophecy aimed at Rome and Judea, not a program for Western or American destiny.
Once Western Civilization evolved from Rome rather than standing against it, the symbolic architecture of Revelation ceased to apply.
Its modern use in Western churches serves liturgical, psychological, and political functions, but not prophetic ones.
Thank you.
I’d agree with a lot of that. I think the target is almost entirely Rome, though, not so much Jude’s (which had been wiped out by this stage)
To what extent do you agree?
Sorry, you’ll need to say what you’re asking about.
Thank you.