Loading...How do we know when the Gospels were written? I have recently received two questions about this matter on the blog (from two different people, within minutes of each other!); I answered the questions as usual in the Comment section, but thought the issues were important enough to present as a post as well, both the questions/comments and my responses (which I’ve expanded a bit here).
******************************
QUESTION: With all this discussion of the early non-canonical gospels, I need some clarification. By reading multiple scholars, I think I am confused. As far as the canonical gospels, I had thought that the earliest copies were from the late second and early third century. By copies I mean those that are recognizable as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I thought that scholars had dated them by indirect means to the last quarter of the first century.
How are the canonical gospels dated in this manner as most scholars claim? Do they have fragments with carbon dates from first century CE? Are there references by independent sources from the first century to the canonical gospels? If they are fragmentary as is one of Paul’s letters with only four verses from one of the books of Corinthians, how do we know that that fragment would have contained the rest of what came to be the accepted version of Corinthians?
RESPONSE:
Ah, good question. There is a very important difference between deciding when a manuscript was produced and deciding when the writing found *in* the manuscript was composed (I *think* that’s what you’re asking). Ancient manuscripts are *sometimes* dated by carbon 14, but rarely (since you have to destroy the specimen you date!). They are normally dated by paleography, the analysis of ancient handwriting styles.
Based on that we can usually date a manuscript to
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!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Paul says in 1 Cor 3:16-17 “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”
Why not read John’s “the Romans will come and take away both this temple and our nation” in the same vein?
That thoughts or worries about the possible coming destruction of the temple were in the air in the 40/50/60s and John is reflecting this and not referring to the actual events of 70?
I’m not sure which vein you’r thinking John is referring to. He’s clearly talkig about Jesus beiing killed, that Jesus is the new temple (where God meets people and where people find reconciliatoin with God), since Jesus speaks of it being raised up again ijn three days….
I meant John 11:8 when the chief priests and pharisees say “then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation”
But if its John 2:19 “destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” that’s being talked about why think that’s post 70 if Paul is using a similar metaphor in the 50s?
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person.”
2:19 seems to presuppose the later Christian view that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and that he knew he would be. THat doesn’t require a date after 70; but the idea that the destruction of Jerualsem was somehow connected with Jesus is a post-70 development.
The abrupt ending of Acts and its dating
—————————————————–
Why does anybody say Acts ends abruptly?
Because Paul is not beheaded in times of Nero’s persecution?
Luke never would write something like that, he (as Paul himself) was pro Roman.
When a mob of Jews were “seeking to kill [Paul], the tribune of the cohort… took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul”
(Acts 21:31-32)
Later the Roman tribune dispatched:
2 centurions
200 soldiers
70 horsemen
and
200 spearmen
for what?
for protecting Paul that was lurked by
“more than 40 [evil Jews that had ] made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul”
(Acts 23:12-25) (btw -remember that Acts is historically reliable!)
In Acts the Jews are the bad guys and christians have nothing to fear from the Romans, on the contrary , while Jesus was finally crucified in Jerusalem the Roman citizen Paul will end ” teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and WITHOUT HINDRANCE” in Rome.
There is no “abrupt” end, it is the perfect end for Luke’s agenda.
Yup!
Dear Bart,
Where in John do you see the reference to the destruction of the temple?
John 2:19
I understand that you agree with Sanders and others who think that the historical Jesus probably did predict the fall of the temple. If this is so, then how can we use a prediction of the fall of the temple in John2:19 to mean it already has taken place?
Well, that particular saying doesn’t make sense (to me) in the life of Jesus since it presupposes a belief in his resurrection three days later. But I have no trouble believing Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. I don’t think the detailed descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem (e.g., in Luke) are as likely until after 70.
John 2:19 has an affinity with Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
John 2:21-22 has the interpretation that the temple meant Jesus’ body, which aligns with Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33-34 where Jesus predicts he will be executed and be raised after three days.
Mark 4:33-34 explains that Jesus “did not speak to [the public] except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples” and that his disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ predicted death and resurrection. John 2:21-22 explains they only understood after he was raised from the dead.
Mark preserves the public and parabolic prediction of his death and resurrection (temple, hands, three days) disconnected from his private explanation that he will be executed and raised three days later. Only in John does he connect the two together, with an explanation that his disciples didn’t understand at the time.
On this basis, I don’t think we can use John2:19-22 to secure his gospel post-70, as John is bringing together the Markan passages where Jesus uses the public temple metaphor for his body with his private explanation.
Bart..
You infer in the 2nd question that 1 Timothy was written after Luke as a reason for your early dating of Luke. Then either you don’t think 1 Timothy was written by Paul, or think that Luke was written near Pauls time. How do you deal with 1 Timothy 1:10 “ἀρσενοκοίταις (arsenokoitais)” with 1 Corinthians 6:9 “ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) if you don’t think Paul wrote 1 Timothy? 1 Timothy 1:10 adds another unique word “ἀνδραποδισταῖς (andrapodistais)” referring to enslavers. It would make a lot of sense that Paul may have added it to his list, if he wrote 1Timothy after writing to Philemon.
It seems that much debate can be made regarding which text is the Chicken and which is the Egg when comparing extant texts for dating. Both the Didache and Marcions gospel make a Chicken or Egg arguement to Luke and Mathew. Ignatius claims disciples believed, and Luke says they did not, taking away Ignatius was quoting our version of Luke.
What do you think the impact on current thinking would be if our 4 current gospels were redated from shortly after the destruction of the temple, till being written after the Barkova Revolt?
I definitely don’t think Paul wrote 1 Timonthy. I give the basic argument in my book Forged (and on the blog; do a word search for Pastorals) and the extended argument in Forgery and Counterforgery. This is the widely held view among nearly all critical scholars (for a long time). It was written by a later follower of Paul, who knew some of Paul’s teachings (hence the agreements) but had very different views in many ways. Ignatius too could know Luke very well and still say things that contradict it. Matthew and LUke both knew Mark very well and contradict it all over the map.
Mr. Ehrman, if Acts were written in the second century, as the new trend in the field suggests, then does this automatically mean that the Gospel according to Luke was also written in the second century? And *if* that’s the case, does that mean that John’s Gospel is definitely written in the second century, maybe after 120 CE or so? And if that was somehow eventually established, how would it affect our understanding of the Gospels?
A lot of questions, but it’s a chain, you understand!
One other option is that they were not written by the same author as two volumes, but that Acts is later. But if Luke was written in say 120 it would certainly change our view of *that* Gospel, but not, necessarily, of Mark or Matthew. For those who think John *used* Luke it might create some problems, since then John would even later still….
Burton Mack in his “Gospel of Q” dates “…Luke-Acts sometime in the early second century.” Speaking of Q, when do you think the “Original” (Q1) was written?
I don’t think there’s any solid evidence for a Q1 (or Q2, Q3); all we have is evidence for a Q of some kind, a written text, in Greek, mainly of Jesus’ sayings, some time before Matthew and Luke. So it had to be arund by 80 CE or so, and I have no trouble with thinking it could have been around a couple of decades before that. But regretably we just don’t know.
Assuming that the Q hypothesis is true, what do you think is the maximum year range between Luke and Matthew that is not threatening the basic assumption of Q, that neither of them knew the other?
Related to this, what do we know about the speed of propagation of documents between geographically separated early Christian communities?
Matthew and LUke could have been written years apart without one knowing about the other. It’s so hard for us to get our minds around a world where communities are far apart and not frequently in touch with each other, where literature is not widely shared. In any event, I’d suppose Matthew was written a bit before Luke — sometime in the mid 80s? — and that Q was around at least by 80; but I have no reason for thinking Q could not have been composed two or three decades earlier.
Thank you very much for your answer about Luke. Can you explain why some scholars now believe Luke and Acts were written in the early second century? Could it be that Luke was written between 85 and 90 CE as you suggest and the second volume of Acts was written in the second century? Or could have Luke been written in stages?
It’s because (some) scholars have become convinced that the author of Acts both knew and used the writings of Josephus, from the end of the second century. I’ve never been convinced, though Im open to the idea.
What about the other way around? That is, do you think it likely that Josephus was aware of some of the gospels (and perhaps Acts)? It would help explain the Testamonium.
I don’t thin kit’s at all likely. These books were not in wide circulation, but were being used in random and isolate Christian communities, and give his approach to scholarship, it seems entirely unlikely (to me at least) that Josephus would have used any of them as sources. What he says in the testimonium is simply the kind of general common knowledge that was in circulation about Jesus.
I believe I read that the counter argument is that the author of Acts and Josephus used the same source for the material common to both. Sound plausible?
Sure. Hard to say. But I’m not sure that literary dependence is required (lacking extensive verbatim agreements)
Speaking of paleography, Dan Wallace once called Dirk Obbink the “best papyrologist on the planet”. Now that Obbink is being indicted for allegedly selling ancient biblical manuscripts – that he did not own – to high bidders like the Bible Museum, is all of the papyrus dating he has done for years (such as those for the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus Project) now under suspicion? Couldn’t all of his dating now be seen as biased by his desire for personal gain?
The only way he would gain personally by his work was through underhanded dealings. His published work is still regarded as superb, and I think Dan is right, that he really was/is one of the best papyrologists on the planet. You don’t become the head of the Oxyrhnchus project on any other grounds.
Hi, Dr. Ehrman. Do you think 1 Timothy 2:15 (“Yet she shall be saved through childbearing”) reflects a tradition of touting safe(r) childbirth to women as one of the benefits of becoming a believer in Christ? If so, are there any other hints of this idea in early Christian writings?
Seems like this wouldn’t be a smart way to promote Christianity, as surely it would be obvious then (and now) that Christian women are subject to the same rate of difficulties in childbirth as any other group!
Thanks!
I”ve never heard it interpreted that way. Normally it is thought to mean that the woman will acquire salvation by fulfilling her function as a woman, rather than one as a man. (“through” childbearing would mean something like — “by having children” rather than “when having children”).
Bart:
Unfortunately, I will be traveling on July 23rd and won’t be able to see your webinar on that date. Will your webinar be recorded and if it is recorded when will it be available for viewing?
Thanks, Ray Scupin
Yup!
Some allied questions re this post :
1. What answers from the same process when applied to the OT books?
2. Further re OT, when was the canon of 39 books settled on & as decreed by whom? (I have in mind your oft stated NT parallel re Irenaeus in 376CE?)
These are very big questions and more than I can answer here in a response. Maybe I’ll post on them. Shortly 1. Same problems, much longer dates between events nd wrigings; 2. As with NT, there was no decree but general consensus, with thye issues being undecided by Jews until after the NT period.
Sorry re my poor recollection re Irenaeus – it should have been Athenasius! And his Easter letter in 367CE?
I picked up on that! No problem.
Since we don’t have the “originals” of the gospels (or other NT books), how do we know for sure they were written in Greek?
There are linguistic features of the books that clearly show they are Greek compositions, not translatioons from Semitic originals. Even though we don’t have the originals,, the many changes we find in our various manuscrxipts (most of the changes are completely insignificant) don’t, after examination, have any bearing on the question, as it turns out.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve heard that it was common for people to not write about other people or events during the lifetime of the person. Thus, this is why nobody wrote about Jesus while he was actually living.
Is this true? Was it a common practice for people to wait until after people died to start writing about them or do we have writings in the ancient world where people wrote about other figures while they were still living?
Not sure who would have told you that? People were written about all the time while they were living, just like today.