Loading...One of the questions I often get asked on the blog is how we know when the Gospels were written. I’ve answer the question at some length before, and thought it might be useful to answer it again. Here’s what I said years ago, and looking at it, I’d say the same thing again. In fact, I will. Here:
****************************************************************************
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 is actually difficult to answer. I’ll start on some basics that I think everyone can agree on. (Well, OK, there is *nothing* that absolutely everyone agrees on, as I continually re-learn with some chagrin). 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.
I understand that you are trying to raise money for important charitable purposes, but a broad perspective post on a central topic of interest (like this one) might better be open to the public. Don’t you think?
In any case, please accept my gratitude for your scholarly endeavors. They have enriched all of our lives.
Yup, I know: I debate the matter with every post! But my sense is that if non-members see what seem to be really important posts that are not available to them, they will be more motivated to join…. It’s always a judgment call.
I don’t know if the scholarly input from my Zondervan NASB Study Bible editors are considered to be more fundamental rather than objective or not, (I suspect fundamentalists) but they do supply multiple suggested dates of authorship for the reader to consider. For example for Matthew it indicates that based on the “Jewish characteristics” some have argued that it was written in “early A.D. 50.” They also cover how “those who concluded” that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark date it later. With regard to Mark the editors state that it may have been written shortly before the “destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” For the Gospel of John the editors report that some scholars have suggested that John was written as early as the 50’s and no later than 70 because “he wrote independently of the other Gospels.” But for me the most important learning experience I have gained from your books is the progression of the Gospel dates from earlier to later and how they, to put it simply, changed who Jesus was.
I’d say it’s not so much a matter of “objectivity” (since as subjective beings, it is probably impossible for us to know what is objective or not, since by nature we aer subjective) as of having an attitude toward the evidence that doesn’t slant it in light of one’s own personal beliefs about what they want to be true (I suppose that is what you mean by “objective”?). Yes, there is “evidence” of earlier dates for the Gospels, but htat evidence is almost universally seen to be very thin adn insubstantial — except among those of a particular religious persuasion.
One of your recent guest bloggers holds that the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony of Jesus. I have a few issues with that. Why would the Gospel writers not cite their eyewitness sources if they are trying to convince people of what they wrote? Even Paul, although he mentions Peter, James and John, doesn’t quote anything said by them (or at least he doesn’t give them any credit!). You would think a wise god would anticipate all the scrutiny these writings would undergo, and give a little more substance to them, like names and dates (not calendar dates, but allusions to current events that would allow accurate dates). I guess I expect too much from our supreme being. Perhaps he enjoys watching us wrestle with these issues! And that’s OK with me, as long as he doesn’t condemn us for coming up with a sincerely wrong answer!
It doesn’t seem impossible to me that Jesus and others foresaw the possibility of the second temple being destroyed by a foreign power, since after all, the first one had been. So you look for specifics, and Mark doesn’t have any. And as we’ve discussed before, there are still stones standing on other stones, or there wouldn’t be a Wailing Wall. The gospel writers might not have been aware of that. And anyway it reads better to say not one stone left standing on another.
I have no problem with Mark being written around the time of the rebellion, but that alone isn’t sufficient proof of it. And his sources, whatever they were, certainly dated from before that time.
I am an atheist but have to this point believed in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Mythicists point out that Justin Martyr only mentions the Gospels as his sources of information about Jesus. We now know that two of these gospels borrowed heavily from the first gospel and at least 50% of scholars now believe that the author of the fourth gospel, John, was aware of the Synoptics and may have used them as a source for his gospel, in particular regarding the Passion Narrative.
Scholars also suspect a Q source for sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
Josephus writing in the 90’s (?) mentions Jesus as a miracle worker and healer, but not much else.
Christians point to other references from later Roman sources about a “Christ who was crucified by Pilate”.
Maybe there was an obscure Galilean in the first century who preached an apocalyptic message and had a reputation as a minor miracle worker. No contemporary author, Christian, Jew, or Roman, mentioned a messiah pretender who stood Palestine on its head as the Gospels assert, So maybe the detailed stories and sayings we find in our Bible today were never told about this man during his lifetime. These stories and sayings were invented out of whole cloth by two authors: the author of Mark and Q for the purpose of evangelism. Isn’t that possible?
Were all later references to Jesus based solely on stories told in the Gospels?
No, we have numerous discussions of Jesus not based on the NT Gospels. For a collection of other narratives and collections of sayings, see the book I co-produced with Zlatko Plese: The Other Gospels.
Are you saying that we have FIRST century accounts of alleged deeds or sayings of Jesus of Nazareth other than the four canonical gospels, Q, and Josephus? Please list one.
No, no other *first century* Gospels.
Interesting. I’ll buy your book and check that out. Thank you.
I misread your response. You agree with me that there are NO other first century accounts of Jesus other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Q, and possibly Josephus, correct?
The reason I ask is that I purchased your book, “The Other Gospels” and noticed the first apocraphyl gospel presented, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which I assume you are listing as the oldest of the non-canonical Gospels, is assumed to have been written sometime between the first and sixth century. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the story of Jesus in Egypt and Jesus in the Temple at age 12, found in this “gospel”, were borrowed from the stories in the canonical Gospels.
If this is true, my original hypothesis is still possible: the original Jesus story came from one source: Mark. All subsequent authors simply added more fictional material to Mark’s core story, which itself could be fictional. Do you see my point? Q, Matthew, Luke, and John used Mark’s original story to create their own stories or collection of sayings, adding new details and new stories, just as the author of the Infancy Narrative of Thomas seems to have done.
Well there are some “accounts” of Jesus in Paul (who mentions a few things) and obviously didn’t get them from Mark, since he was writing earlier. And Q isn’t dependent on Mark. And in my view John didn’t know any of them. So no, I don’t tihnk it all goes back to Mark.
I am not suggesting that there is zero evidence for an historical Jesus. Certainly Paul believed that one had existed. I am simply suggesting that the Jesus of the Gospels may not have existed. Isn’t this scenario possible:
–Sometime in the early first century CE, an apocalyptic Galilean messiah-claimant named Jesus got into trouble with Jewish and Roman authorities for a disturbance of some sort and was crucified. Shortly after his death, his grave was found empty. His small band of followers came to believe that the explanation for the empty grave was that God had raised this Jesus from the dead and that he had appeared to them in some fashion imploring them to prepare for the End of the Age. The belief that he had been “raised” morphed into a “resurrection” belief.
–In circa 70 CE, a Christian author in Rome (or Antioch) who had never met Jesus, his disciples, or any other eyewitness to the life of Jesus, decided to write a Greco-Roman biography about this Jesus, the same Jesus whom Paul of Tarus had preached about, but about whom Paul had given few details. This author “fleshed-out” the Jesus Story and gave us what we now call, “The Gospel of Mark”, a much more interesting story, and a much better tool of evangelism.
–this biography about Jesus was very popular among Christians. Within a few decades, other books were written about him, but all based on the Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, with each new author adding his own new (invented) material, giving us first “Q”, then the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and finally, John.
–Josphesus knew about the historical Jesus, but since this Jesus was in actuality a no-body during his lifetime, Josephesus barely mentions this man in his historical writings about the Jews.
Result: There WAS an historical Jesus, but we know very little about that historical Jesus, maybe only the few details recorded by Paul. So the stories of the birth of Jesus’ , his visit to the Temple at age 12, the marriage feast of Cana, the story of healing the blind, the story of the arrest and trial, the details of the crucifixion, the burial, and the alleged post-death appearances are ALL literary fiction—no different than the stories in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas—which even most modern Christians would admit are most probably invented tall tales.
I’m surprised that Bart didn’t mention the “Gospel of Thomas” which consists of about 130 or so quotes in the form of “Jesus said:” It’s contained in the complete collection of “The Lost Gospels” which Dr, Ehrman edited and in my viewk, is the most fascinating and revelatory of all.
It’s 114 sayings of Jesus and probably dates to the early second century.
Great and clear post. Thanks
A lot could happen in terms of legend growth in those (at least) 40 years. Just look at Herodotos’ tales of the Persian Invasion.
Bart,
There seem to be a big chasm between Jesus’ disciples who were illiterate, unilingual Aramaic-speaking peasants and the educated, Greek-speaking people from urban elites who eventually wrote the Gospels.
I wonder how do you think all the oral traditions that ended up in the Gospels (and that’s a pretty large amount of information) and even the Christianity in general managed to spread from the former to the latter?
Thanks a lot—love your work!
No, I think a lot of traditions were invented outside of Palestine but before the Gospel writers wrote. I discuss this at length in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
You said that the lack of Paul’s awareness of the Gospel is not the strongest piece of evidence for a date post-60. What would an example of a stronger piece of evidence be? Were you referring to the awareness (in Matthew & Luke, at least) of the Temple destruction?
Yes, that’s a stronger piece of evidence.
In a couple of places in your post, near the middle and the end, you say most scholars agree except for fundamentalist and very, very conservative evangelists. A couple of questions, 1) These scholars you mention that agree, are they more liberal than conservative Christians in their thinking? 2) Considering all the scholars presumably have access to the same information, then how is it they come to different conclusions in the interpretations? Does it come down to just personal preference as to what the probability may be. Whenever I hear scholars giving a lecture or debating, ( your friend Dr. Licona being one), the most common statement is made by them, as you have made here, ” that most scholars agree” to whatever is being presented. Maybe, I suggest, a public list of worthy and notable scholars, liberal, conservatives, believers/non believers that most deem noteworthy would help.
Sometimes it’s personal preference, based on what they think is “common sense” or on what they think *has* to be given their religious veiws. But more often it’s a matter of weighing evidence differently. That’s true for every field of intellectual inquiry, though, from economic history, to military history, to the study of Shakespeare, to philosophy, and of course even into the sciences!
Since the disciples believed the Kingdom of God would come soon after Jesus died, there was no reason to write the Gospels early on. But then the date drifted… and drifted… and… better start writing some of those things down.
Dr Bart erhman, thanks for your wonderful posts. My question is are there no record or report of people claiming to be messiah before Jesus himself?.if there are aany please mention
Oh yes. In the Old Testament, the Persian king Cyrus is called the “messiah.” the kings of Israel were “messiahs” Other Jews in Jesus’ day and after were called “messiah.” the term just means “anointed one” and refers, most commonly, to a king god has chosen to rule his people.
Dr Bart erhman, what i meant is that do we have anyone before Jesus claiming to be the saviour of the jews(like jesus)
“Savior” of the Jews almost always meant “leader who is going to get them out of their political, military, economic, and social crisis” i.e., a future king who would establish Israel as a sovereign state. Yes, there were people like that.
look up the meaning of the name Joseph.
Hello, Dr. Ehrman,
I’m looking at the New 5th Edition of the Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version and for the introduction to John, it depicts the argument over dates as ranging from late 1st century (90 C.E.) to early 2nd century. The 2nd century seems to be tied to when a later version of the gospel was completed.
Would the later version be the suspected addition of chapter 21 at the end of John?
Also, do you think it likely – or see any evidence – for the possibility that the gospel writers knew of Paul’s letters? (Prior to Luke writing Acts).
I’m not sure what they have in mind, but that’s a good guess.
it’s much debated whether any of the Gospel writers (including, oddly, Luke) knew Paul’s letters. My view is that there is no good evidence they did.
Dr. Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on 1 Timoty 5:17-18 supposedly quoting from Luke 10:7? As a former fundamentalist, I often heard several of my professors in seminary school use this as alleged proof that the gospel of Luke had already been written, was considered scripture, and was in circulation by the time 1 Timothy was written.
I’m pretty open to the idea. BUt unlike your professors, I do not think 1 Timothy was written by Paul, but was produced by someon claiming to be Paul in the mid 90s. I explain why in my book Forged.
Dr. Ehrman,
Yeah, if anything, it would seem the quotation from the gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy would prove Paul didn’t write it; at least not in the 60s. Putting 1 Timothy in the 90s would seem to make more sense.
I’ll have to check out Forged. Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals aside, is it generally understood by most other scholars as well that Paul did not write 1 Timothy?
Yup, it’s rare to find a historical scholar who thinks otherwise.
Great post Bart, it helps to have clear reasons for what the perceived timeline is . It’s interesting that some people are really trying to bring the dates as early as possible but they never seem to be clear in their reasoning so it appears a bit arbitary.
Would Gospel passages claiming the imminent “End of the World” be suggestive of an earlier or later writing? They seem problematic for either a very early or very late dating.
Usually it’s thought that as time went on, Gospel writers stopped quoting *Jesus* as saying the end was imminent, even if they thought it was imminent in their own day. Mark has Jesus say it; Luke does not (but thinks it is imminent in his own time); John has a different view altogether (imminence has virtually disappeared); Thomas has Jesus come out *against* the idea.
Paul seems to have a chip on his shoulder about being compared unfavorably to the ‘super apostles’ who met Jesus.
Although he spent 15 days with peter he claims he’s not reliant on the 12 for information – that he has also received a message direct from christ.
He’ll let the 12 tell the biography of jesus but his job is to create the theology around the crucifixion and resurrection.
I think that would explain why he never mentions or quotes the gospels, if they had been written early, in his letters.
He talks about meeting Peter. Who didn’t write a gospel. Neither did any of the other disciples. I know you believe Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew (in the third person, giving himself no dialogue, mentioning himself only twice), so I can see why you’d need an explanation for Paul’s silence, but the real explanation is Paul never read any gospels.
Paul describes himself as the wise builder, talks about the day of the lord coming like a thief in the night, links five of ten commandments (no murder, no adultery, no stealing, no false witness, honor your parents) with the command to love your neighbor, and talks about “fulfillment” of the law.
All indicators of having read Matthew – this is unique to Matthew. They should, at the least, suggest Matthew being closer chronologically to Paul.
Hi there, this may not have anything to do with the above but, Bart could you please settle the following debate for me.
Concerning Jesus’ brother James.
The Mythicists and others argue; “ brother simply means fellow colleague in the faith NOT sibling”
Can you give me a solid answer to this?
Robert Price and others seem so damn convincing in their arguments but, I remember you having a great argument too!
Yeah, I’ve talked about it at length on teh blog: just search for “brother of Jesus” and you’ll see the posts. I’m afraid their arguments are bogus, even though you’re right, they might seem convincing until someone points out their flaws.
In my reading, I noticed 2 patterns. 1st pattern – books like Isaiah, Daniel,Synoptics and Revelations all occurred shortly after major conflict. 2nd pattern – Prophecies like Daniel were written after the fact(falsified).
Applying these patterns lead me to conclude that the Synoptics were created circa 70 AD.(Pattern #1)
Using both Patterns , the Book of revelations was created after 136 AD following the third Jewish /Roman conflict (woe)known as the Bar Kokhba revolt (Pattern#1). The following quote comes from the book of revelations followed by a quote from the Jewish Talmud. Both relate to a third woe or War. (Pattern #2)
Revelations 14:20 – The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 miles long and as high as a horse’s bridle.
The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the number of dead in Betar was enormous, that the Romans “went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils.”[52]
Dr. Ehrman,
I recently watched three prominent evangelical scholars ( Craig Bloomberg, Ben Witherington, and Darrell Bock) discussing the dating of Paul’s letters. Craig and Ben are in agreement that Galatians was written first, and Darrell would not commit. I have never heard Galatians being thrusted to the forefront of Paul’s letters. Is this a new development among scholars to your knowledge, or has this conclusion been around for a while? Any idea why they would think this?
Thanks and happy Thanksgiving
Before 1 Thessalonians? Interesting. The dating of the letters is very complicated and usually depends on a whole host of assumptions. My view is that 1 Thess was first, Romans last; Galatians was before Romans; 1 Corinthians was before 2 Corinthians. 2 Cor 10-13 was from a letter written before 2 Cor. 1-9. And apart from that, I really don’t know. And suspect no one else does iether.
Dr. Bloomberg is 100% convinced that Galatians is first. His dating is between 49 and 55. It must be a very minimalist view if you are not familiar with it, but it is his opinion. Thanks
It’s possible. I’m rarely confident of these dating schemes. But if it were, say, 54 CE, it surely is after 1 Thessalonians.
An excellent, honest and very informative summary that even I could comprehend. Thanks
Interesting Dr Ehrman.
I have two questions.
1. What bases do we have to affirm that Jesus died in the 30s.? I believe the main ones are the gospels themselves by referencing Pontius Pilate and Josephus and Tacitus who seem to mention Jesus and Pilate. Am I right?.
2. Although the gospels were written after Paul, the sources for them were already circulating when Paul was traveling. I mean, the oral traditions and probably Q or M or L if they existed. What intrigues me is: how it is possible that Paul ignored them too?. And more intriguing is why is that the gospels which were written in a Christian environment that was already dominated by Paul’s teachings also ignored Paul?. I mean the gospels and Paul’s letter doesn’t seem to fit very well.
1. Yes, he certainly died during the time of Pontius Pilate, 26-36 CE. Other chronological issues are involved, including the timing of Paul’s conversion in light of what he says about what he did and when (e.g., in Galatians 1-2) 2. Probably Paul was not in any of the places where these earlier written Gospel sources were produced or circulated; I assume he heard stories about Jesus, but tehse were mainly circulating among established Chrsitain communities and most of the time (not all of it) Paul was off in non-Xn parts converting people, wehre there would not have been other stories. I don’t know if teh Gospels were written in places where Paul’s teachings were known (though Luke must have been to some extent, even if the author doesn’t seem to know Pual’s views in detail very well.)
very good. What about this: If we know more or less where and when Paul was teaching that could help to reduce to some places where or when the gospel or their sources were written probably by knowing where Paul’s teachings were not present. I don’t know if that could work to at least reduce the alternatives or in combination with other arguments find the place or date. Hasn’t it been done yet?.
Oh yes, people have thought about that for a very long time. One very big problem is that we don’t know wehre the Gospels were written or circulated.
The question of what Luke knew about Paul’s letters is an interesting one. Could you post on that?
Maybe I’d better! I’ll add it to the list.
“I assume he heard stories about Jesus, but these were mainly circulating among established Christian communities”
Do we have any idea how, when, and by whom these pre-Pauline Christian communities were founded? Were they founded directly by the actual apostles and the Jamesian community?
They weren’t necessarily founded before Paul; they could have been contemporaneous. We don’t know if they were founded by apostles or, more likely, simply travelers who had run into and converted to become followers of Jesus. But the spread of Xty suggests that there were various Christians spreading the faith, by word of mouth.
It’s commonly believed that the author of Luke also wrote Acts, correct? If so, that would show that a Gospel writer was aware of Paul and his ( at least alleged) missionary activities. What am I missing?
Yes, the author of Luke is the same as the author of Acts. And he therefore knew stories about Paul. Whether he knew his *letters* is an open question. And he certainly does not get a lot of his details about Paul right (even some of the big issues)
Hi Dr Ehrman just wanted to let you know If you don’t already know Larry Hurtado died today
Yes, I heard. Very sad.
Thanks for this. All these dates in this post range between 50 and 150. Which of those is the most “nailed down?” Which date do we have the most definite evidence for it being fairly definitely THAT date? Martyr at 150? Didache at 100?
The Didache is an educated guess but could be off by decades in theory. Justin was almost certainly in Rome around 150.
What do fundamentalists say for these dates? Do they just think the Gospels were written earlier, or do they have specific views of exact dates and the sequential order?
I suppose different ones have different views, but usually they date the Gospels to a time before 70 CE, when lots of eyewitnesses (including the alleged authors) would have been around.
Bart, in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians there are some quotes that sound similar to some Gospel passages. Do you think Polycarp knew the gospels or were his quotes derived from oral tradition?
I think it’s virtually impossible to prove either way.
I don’t know if there is an existing acronym for conservative evangelical Christian scholars, but CECS would be handy – then you could say the majority of non cecs scholars believe this or that, or all scholarship except cecs hold this or that view.
I think the arguments that the author of Acts knew both Josephus and Paul’s letters to be fairly strong, if indirect, so that would constrain the dating of Luke as well.
Except for those few scholars who argue that Luke and Acts were not necessarily written by the same author!
Does the book of Acts, with its historical details, give us any indication when it was written, and from there we can tell when Luke might have written his gospel? Is there any way to know how much time had passed between when he wrote the two books? Do you think there is any mutual awareness between Josephus and the gospel writers?
It’s much debated. Luke had to be written after Mark, so sometime after 70. It appears to be known around 110 or so. Acts was written after Luke. Usually Acts is dated 85-90; lots of scholars are now arguing for 120 (since they claim its author knew Josephus). We don’t know how long after Luke Acts was written.
“I have tended to think that Mark’s description of the destruction is so vague that it’s not clear that he knows about it as a past event. ”
It’s not like “Mark’s” Jesus said the Temple would just suffer a Papal Cut:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_13
“13:1 And as he went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Teacher, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!
2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple,”
“Against the Temple”. You have to love this author.
Also:
“14 But when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:”
Let the Blog Reader understand.
And:
“14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.”
The historical destruction of the Temple was a major selling point for the Christians. After the destruction of the Temple. There is no writing by anyone before the Temple was destroyed that predicted its destruction. These are multiple explicit statements from “Mark” that the Temple would be destroyed. So the before/after question is not a good question. I know it, you know it, Bob Dole knows it and the American public knows it. The good question is how long after? I’ve listed GMark’s multiple anachronisms here before and you did not address. So my one allotted question is if I list them again will you address them?
Sorry — I’m having trouble following your point. There were indeed Jewish prophets who predicted teh destruction of the temple and Jerusalem itself before Jesus and soon after. And yes, there are discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus’ predictions, both between themselves and with what actually happened. But I’m not sure what you’re getting at?
It’s interesting that while the ancient world was filled with pseudepigraphs, those who penned the gospels showed the restraint and integrity of making no claim on who wrote them. How much more sensational and authoritative they would have been if authored by the disciples to whom they are credited, but the writers stopped short of that.
Dr. Ehrman
Do you think it was implausible for someone to predict the destruction of Jerusalem a few decades before it happened? It appears to me that Jesus successfully predicting the Jewish War doesn’t sound really outlandish, perhaps intelligent people could see the tensions between Romans and Jews and conclude it would happen?
At least, it’s probably less difficult than Foch predicting WWII and getting *the time* right.
Did I completely misunderstand the argument for a post 70-dating of Mark?
Not at all. I know of people who are predicting an major earthquake in California and, well, the fall of Western Democracy! May happen….
Hey, Dr. Ehrman!
I was wondering if, as a part of this series, would you be including why the 4 gospels are considered Greco-Roman biographies?
I certainly can talk about that! Yup, I should post on it.
Dr Ehrman –
If Jesus didn’t really predict the destruction of the Temple (as recorded in Mark), then that would imply:
(a) if Mark was writing before the TD (temple destruction), then he made a good guess, and put those words in Jesus’ mouth. Feasible – especially if Mark could see how the war was progressing, and even more especially, if the Romans had made clear their intentions of destroying both Jerusalem and the Temple.
(b) if Mark was writing after the TD, then, either he invented Jesus’ prediction, or, just recorded a “folk tale” of Jesus’ prediction that was floating around, and put the words in Jesus’ mouth (which was, of course, quite safe to do, seeing that the TD had already happened).
But, the TD was not all that was predicted, or “prophesied”. There is a great deal of verbage, attributed to Jesus, about a massive tribulation, and the sun and moon going dark, stars falling from the skies, earthquakes and famines, and the abomination of desolation, and so on…
Where did Mark get all *that* verbage from?
If he was writing before the TD, then prediction the TD itself is one thing – but – he really seems to be going way out on a limb putting all these other words into the mouth of his “Jesus” character. Was Mark just that audacious?
If he was writing after the TD, then why would he bother inventing all this other verbage? Wasn’t the TD more than sufficient to impress a reader? Or, if he didn’t invent it, then (again) – where did it come from?
I think the prediction itself almost certainly goes back to Jesus, not Mark. It’s multiply attested in all sorts of sources and make ssense of why Jesus got into such hot water in Jerusalem during his trip there.
Towards the middle of the post you mention fundamentalists and evangelicals. I didn’t know those are different people. Can you explain the difference between them as you understand it, please?
The rough and ready I’m defining it in this particular context: fundamentalists believe that every single word in the Bible is absolutely true in every way; evangelicals are a bit more forgiving of the human character of the Bible: it’s the inspired word of God, and whatever it is trying to teach is true, to the point that it’s *teachings* are inerrant, but it there can be hard do solve coomplications….
What about the earliest manuscript evidence? The references from Justin Martyr might just as easily be references to logia that were later collected into the Gospels themselves. Thanks for any guidance you can give here.
Sorry — I”m not sure what you’re asking, I think because I don’t have the context of yoru question. And so I don’t know what you’re referring to. (MS evidence of what? And which references? It sounds like you’re responding to something I said, but I don’t know what!)
Dr. Ehrman,
In your most recent debate with Licona, you (rightly so in my opinion) speculated that the gospel accounts were not written closer to the life of Jesus because the disciples (and followers) believed the end was near and there would be no need for written biographies if everything was coming to an end anyway (wouldn’t be needed for posterity’s sake! lol).
No doubt, Jesus claimed the son of man would return within their generation (30-40 years?), and virtually all NT writers/writings believed this/expected this/assumed this–including John and the Revelation (Mk. 13:26, 29-30; 1 Cor. 7:29; 1 Pet. 4:7; Ja. 5:8; Heb. 10:37; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20).
However, this seems to beg the question: Why would the authors of the gospels (whoever they were) have written them at all if they thought the end was near?
If the gospel accounts were written after the ’70s, wouldn’t this mean Jesus was a failed prophet (why would disciples write that after it failed to come true)?
If they wrote it before, then why?
There’s a lot of discussion about that, as you might expect. Some scholars have suggested that Mark — the first — thought that the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 may have shown that the end has started. He and the others would have written not for distant posterity but for people of their own time, to repent while they still had the chance.
Dr. Ehrman,
That makes sense. Perhaps the same is true with the Revelation. It appears that the author sees the end happening very, very soon with the whole repetitive “I am coming soon” language ( Rev. 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20). Is it possible the gospels (especially Mark) and the Revelation may have been (indirectly) addressing doubts since the son of man had yet to come and the time was passing on (especially those addressed in Revelation undergoing persecution or the threat of such)?
Also, I have several friends who are preterists and believe the return of the son of man did happen within their generation. They see this taking place in the culmination of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. They view these statements as prophetic judgments against Israel (that were fulfilled and did come to pass); not literal statements about the end in general. Have you written any on this idea?
My next book is on Revelation, due out on March 21. I don’t deal directly much with this interpretation, jsut a bit. The book is almost certainly to be dated toward the end of the first century, after the destruction, and the predictions are a tually not about Jerusalem per se. So it’s not a widely held view among scholars.
I would love to see you take a deeper dive on the dating of Mark. I’ve looked at a few sources of this issue but haven’t found anything satisfying yet. I know scholars date it to around 70, based on stuff from the prophecies in chapter 13, but like you, I also found them too vague to stick a flag in a timeline. Add to that the fact that scribes altered the manuscripts they copied, and it gets messier. The lack of mention in Paul’s letters is interesting, but seems inconclusive; perhaps Mark was just not in wide circulation yet.
I don’t think scribal changes of the text would have any bearing on the question: there are no recorded changes that throw any doubt onto the predictions of the temple’s demise. one very strong reason for thinking the temple is destroyed is precisely that it’s emphasized on several occasions in Mark. Mark Goodacre has convincingly pointed out that when authors or speakers emphasize that someone they know has made a “prediction” it is almost always when they know that it came true — it shows that the person had superior insight into the future. That’s a common trait of ancient apoclypatic writings (e.g., Daniel, which “accurately predicts” the Babylonieans, Medes Persians, Greeks — on up to Antiochus Epiphanes in particular). That suggests Mark is emphasizing the coming destruction (instead of some other prediction) because he knows what the readers will think of it.