(21 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...New Testament scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the Gospels of the New Testament began to appear after 70 CE. The major exceptions are conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier. One can understand why: they typically maintain that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus and it seems implausible that they would still be alive toward the end of the first century (especially given live expectancies in antiquity).
There are good reasons, nonetheless, for the scholarly consensus outside evangelical circles. I’ve talked about the matter on the blog before but just now I reread my discussion in my New Testament textbook and thought it might be useful to give it here. In particular I like the final point I make (in the second to last paragraph), which, now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve stressed enough over the years.
Here is what I say there:
******************************
Critical scholars are widely agreed that the earliest Gospel was Mark, written around 70 c.e.; that Matthew and Luke were written some years later, say, around 80–85 c.e.; and that John was the last Gospel, written around 90–95 c.e. But how do scholars establish those dates?
It is actually a highly complicated matter, but I can give some sense of why these particular dates are so widely preferred. To begin with, none of the Gospels appears to have been
Members of the blog get five posts a week like this. Joining is easy, and the small membership fee goes entirely to charities helping those in need. So why not join? Click here for membership options
Isn’t is possible that Jesus really did “predict” the destruction of Jerusalem not by the Romans, but as part of his apocalyptic worldview? In Mark 12:9 he says it is the Lord of the vineyard (God?) that destroys, not the Romans. In Mark 13:26 he concludes by saying it is the Son of Man who comes, not the Romans. I can see after-the-fact that the early Christians would have interpreted his teachings to be referring to the destruction by the Romans in 70CE, but maybe it was originally just part of his apocalyptical beliefs?
Yes, that’s what I think, that he predicted it as coming from God. It’s normally thought that the specificity of Mark 13 suggests the passage was written after the desctruction; and the fact that the account emphasizes it so much suggests that mark knows it happened (more likely after it did happen!)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Three quick questions:
1. I take your point in the second-last paragraph, but it seems there’s a problem. In Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus seems to predict his Second Coming right after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., but it didn’t happen. If Matthew’s Gospel was written c. 80-85 C.E., then wouldn’t the author have either deleted or drastically modified this prophecy?
2. David Seccombe, in his online essay, “Dating Luke-Acts: Further Arguments for an Early Date” (Tyndale Bulletin 71.2, 2020), puts forward several arguments purporting to show that Luke-Acts must have been written before 70 C.E. and that anyone writing these books after 70 C.E would have gotten into trouble with Rome. How would you respond to that?
3. What do you think of Steve Mason’s arguments for a Lukan reliance on Josephus, which would place Luke’s Gospel after 95 C.E., making his the last Gospel to be written?
Thanks very much.
1. Matthew appears to have picked up the passage from Mark and not changed it much, despite the passage of time. As to why, who knows? He didn’t change lots of things one would have expected. 2. THat kind of argument always makes me scratch my head. Is he imagining that Roman authorities are keeping their eyes on Christian writings to make sure they weren’t offensive? Good grief…. 3. It’s becoming a more widely held view; Acts (the second volume) is often being dated to 120 CE or so. I’ve never been fully persuagded, but I”m open to being. For me there’s a pretty high bar for deciding that one writing was the source for another.
matthew does not need to change it, i will quote the reasons:
Is it unrealistic or remarkable if the author of Mark writing in 70 AD thought that some of Jesus’ contemporaries could live to see the parousia?
What about Matthew, if he wrote in 80 AD? Or in 90 AD?
Note: In neither of the two verses is it specified, that Jesus specifically has the twelve in mind in some sense or another.
Mark 9:1 [And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, …] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.
Matt 16:28 [Then Jesus told his disciples …] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Response
A man in his 20s at the time Jesus was crucified would have been in his 60s when Mark was written, in his 70s when Matthew was probably published, and in his 80s when John of Patmos completed Revelation. All are still in the range of plausibility. Karen Cokayne in Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome (Routledge, 2013) has a good discussion of life expectancy and the place of the elderly in Roman society. She mentions among other things how Juvenal depicts Domitian’s consilium as containing at least two members in their 80s. Later Christian tradition would claim that the oldest living disciples of Jesus (John and Simeon son of Clopas) would pass away later during Trajan’s reign (98-117 CE). It is beyond this range when it would have been quite implausible. An infant born during the crucifixion would have been in his or her 80s by the reign of Hadrian.
Dr, what do you think of the quote? there would still be a high chance of “some” from “some standing here” even in 80 c.e or even when matthew made his first draft which could have been 79 ce?
So what would be the reason to alter marks text ?
Sure ,some people lived long, into their 80s. But the reason to alter it is that the early fervent expectation to return right away hadn’t happened and these authors were probably not simply calculating whether it was humanly possible any more.
Hi Bart , what about / what do you think of James Crossley’s much earlier dating of Mark?
I don’t remember his arguments closely, just that I didn’t find them persuasive. Off hand I can’t think of how many people he’s convinced, but I know a lot of Synoptics scholars and none of them were.
I’ve encountered several apologists who basically say that the only reason that we believe that the Gospels were written later is because we cannot allow Jesus to be predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. According to our preconceptions, they say, we do not have the freedom to allow the Gospels to have been composed earlier—given our supernatural bias against the supernatural and against the whole idea of inspired prophecy.
I appreciate the explanation that you’ve given, but I still feel that it would get us nowhere closer to having an argument that Conservatives would take seriously.
Maybe so. But I learned the dating of Mark to 70 in seminary, when both my professors and I believed in miracles. So what’s the evidence that the dating is based on anti-supernatural bias?
How plausible is the conservative claim that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life & doings and/or that they interviewed eyewitnesses?
I think it’s completely implausible. None of them says so; often Luke is *misread* as saying so but when you read Luke 1:1-4 closely you’ll see that he precisely does not say so. The others show no signs of knowing Aramaic (the language of the eyewitnesses) or of even knowing about the geography of Israel at the time. And sometimes not even understanding Jewish customs and traditions. So I’d say it’s pretty unlikely.
The argument for the conspicuous absence of any apparent knowledge of the gospels in Paul’s writings strikes me as persuasive. But I’m less sold on the argument that the gospel authors wouldn’t have published a prediction of Jesus before its truth was confirmed. If they *truly believed* that Jesus was the Messiah and son of God, couldn’t they have been confident that his prediction would come true? After all, we know the author of Matthew was confident enough in Jesus’ claim that the Son of Man would come in his own generation to print that prediction (16:28), which turned out to be dead-wrong. I’m interested in what other arguments scholars make for the dating of Mark, in particular, since it’s generally agreed to be the first.
My view is that if Mark was written before 70 CE and the prediction came true that Christianity would have spread much faster than it did based on that amazing prediction by Jesus. If I was an apostle at the time I would have been talking about that non-stop to convert people. That the prediction came true would have been a major selling point for Christianity and we would have later church leaders making a big point about it in their writings.
I’m wondering what value a prophet had. The seeing of future events demands that those events are predestined, we just haven’t gotten there yet – like looking ahead in the book you’re reading. So if events are predestined what is the value of seeing the future – to impress your friends? Simply being able to see what lies ahead may imply supernatural ability but, other than curiosity, who cares? If the idea is to take action to prevent a future event (meaning the future can be changed) then predestination is false and prophesy is impossible. What value did first century man place on prophesying?
Most thought that if someone prophecied events accurately that would show they had divine insight given by God. Of course, they too realized that some people could just see the writing on the wall.
Would you say that the main reason or one of the main reasons the proto-orthodox Christians ended up to be the ones who came out on the top in the late 4th century at latest was that their theology was the most cohesive one socially? That is to say, it fit the imperial religion mold the best, ideologically?
I’d say the proto-orthodox had won the debates before there were massive conversions in empire at the end of the third and into the fourth centuries. (I talk about that in my book The Triumph of Christianity.) Why they succeeded is a very interesting question and not easy to answeer. On the whole they were better organized as a movement and appealed to certain kinds of authority that made their case persuasive, especially insisting on certain “authoritative books” as backing their view, and authorized clergy to interpret them. I deal with that particular quesiton in my book Lost Christianities.
Doctor Ehrman, thank you for the succint and on point answers. I’ve got your books, so pointing in the right direction is sometimes all I need. 🙂 My next question is actually related to this one, so I’m going to ask it here: In your lecture course for the Great Courses “The Triumph of Christianity”, are there any new insights compared to the book, or is it just basically a retelling of the book in a different format?
Nothing new. Just a retelling of it in a very different way.
This might be a good place to mention that The Great Courses is currently having a sale and that The Triumph of Christianity is currently selling for $35, marked down from $269.95. Many other courses are available for the same price. The sale lasts until April 7th.
Even their sales representatives will say: NEVER buy one of these courses at full price!
Paul’s doctrine of gentile conversion was one that was bound to prevail in the end–just on demographics–so Pauline theology generally would tend to be riding those coattails. Of course, there are different ways to interpret Paul, but some theologies mesh more easily with it than others.
Dr Ehrman, I have recently heard of the idea of 400 years of silence in the Bible. From my understanding, the 400 years is measured from when the book of Malachi was written to the birth of John the Baptist. My questions are: do you have any idea who came up with this concept of 400 years of silence and why it might be important?
I don’t know who came up with it, no. I heard it when I was an evangelical, but not since. The reality is that Malachi was not the final book of the Hebrew Bible to be written. It was instead the book of Daniel, around 164 BCE.
This would have to be an evangelical view due to the ignoring of intertestamental writing as well, which is considered to be scripture to at least a certain extent by all major traditions of Christianity except the fundamentalist strains starting in the mid-19th century. Those books, often labeled “the Apocrypha”, are Jewish texts written in Greek and are in most Orthodox, Catholic, and mainline Bibles.
I heard the “400 years” when I was an evangelical too. Evidence points against it.
If Jesus emphatically predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and it was widely known that he did so, could that be one of the reasons Christianity maintained so much traction early on?
Possibly, though we don’t hear of anyone (say among early Christian authors) using that argument or claiming it had any effect. They were far more interested in showing that Jesus himself fulfilled the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible.
If we only have copies of copies of copies etc how do the scholars determine that the synoptic gospels were written around 60 -70 ce and John aprox 90ce? Also would the stories about Yeshua been an oral tradition until the first books were written?
FYI I bought all avaible copies (11) of your books on AbesBooks and bought a NASB to get a better idea of the context of Xian scriptures you are quoting.
We assume that most of the text as we have it is close or identical to what the authors wrote, for a large variety of reasons. The point of saying that we have only copies of copies of copies is to stress that those who insist we know down to the very word what each author wrote in every place is just wrong. There are many places where the wording is up for grabs. BUT, the differences are rarely earth-shattering. Just sometimes.
Whilst I agree this is the majority line, and the “major” exception is conservative evangelicals, there is a significant minority of critical scholars who opt for earlier dates. J A T Robinson and Maurice Casey are some of the best examples. Robinson and Dan Wallace have provided lists of over 37 critical scholars who date John’s gospel prior to 70, and there is a small, but I sense growing list of critical scholars who opt for an earlier date for Mark.
Whilst it’s true that Paul doesn’t cite any written gospel, echoes of Q have been detected (Dale Allison, proposes 11 examples in ‘The Jesus tradition in Q’ (1997)), and I have found the occasional signal that shows Paul may know Mark. In Mk14:58 the Greek word ἀχειροποίητον is used – which is completely unknown outside the NT. Paul also uses this extremely rare word in 2Cor5:1 in a similar context (discussing resurrected bodies). I suppose those like Joel Marcus who date Mark late would argue Mark borrowed from Paul, but I would argue it’s the other way round.
On the matter of the temple – we have the book of Daniel (9:26) predicting its fall over 200 years before it did.
Right — a show of hands is not *evidence*. The point is that if the vast majority of scholars (think of how many thousands those 37 come from!) think something after spending years thinking about the evidence, it’s not that they are necessarily *right*; it’s that we ought to think seriously about why they think they’re right. I.e., not be quick to disiss the evidence. And if you argue that Paul borrowed something from Mark, I’d say you have a steep hill to climb!
I’m not arguing a show of hands is evidence, but instead contesting your presentation that may lead people to think it’s only conservative evangelicals who disagree. There are a significant minority of critical scholars who courageously risk their academic reputations to disagree with the majority view and argue from evidence for an earlier date. I think their voices should be heard – just as yours should be.
On the matter of evidence – I would argue that the evidence for a c70 date for Mark is extremely thin. What, for instance, is the evidence to back up this theory:
“But when is a Christian author likely to record a prediction of Jesus in order to show that he predicted something accurately? Obviously, in order to show that Jesus knew what he was talking about, an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled.”
Did the author of Daniel wait until the temple came down to compose his work? The DSS manuscripts prove they didn’t. There are many apocalyptic prophecies unfulfilled, but that didn’t stop authors from recording them. As you agree Jesus made this prediction, how can you prove Christians waited until 70 before recording it?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to with Daniel. Destructon of the temple? But yes, I’m open to any evidence. I don’t have much of a horse in the race of the dating of Mark. But offhand I don’t know of anyone who dates it before Paul. So the best thing you can do is mount an argument and see if it flies.
With Daniel – there was someone c165BC who predicted that the temple would be destroyed, and the composer of the book of Daniel decided to write that prediction down (perhaps it was the same person?) My point is that the composer didn’t wait until the prophecy had been fulfilled before they composed their work, so why does it necessarily follow that Mark did?
Within British scholarship, J A T Robinson, Maurice Casey, and James Crossley are the best-known critical scholars who have dated Mark prior to Paul. A lesser-known Canadian scholar, Jonathan Bernier, has a book coming out in a couple of months entitled ‘Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament’. I understand he follows Casey in his date of Mark. He serves on the editorial board of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, so his views may be worth a look when published.
I’m currently deep into the weeds of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but when I get to Mark, I may ask for your views on what I discover to see if any of them have credibility. I’d be grateful for any critical feedback.
Sorry, I’m trying to remember where in Daniel there is a prediction about the destruction of the temple. Probably just slipping my mind.
I referenced the verse in my opening post, but I get the sense your software only allows you to see the immediate post you’re responding to.
It’s Daniel9:26 “After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
Ah, right. Do you have Collins commentary on Daniel? I’ts the best place to turn for this kind of thing. The passage is usually taken in reference to what was happening in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with the anointed one being the high priest Onias III, and teh sacrileges done to the temple then.
I’m afraid I don’t have Collins commentary. It’s an interesting theory as ch 9 is a bit all over the place and a desecration does seem to happen later (v27) after the temple is said to have been destroyed. Perhaps the ruins are desecrated?
Do you recall how Collins overturns the usual translation of יַ֠שְׁחִית of destroy to mean sacrilege/desecrate? יַ֠שְׁחִית is rendered ‘destroy’ in Psalm 78:38, Proverbs 11:9, earlier in Daniel 8:24-25, and Malachi 3:11. Also, I can understand how one would desecrate a temple, but how would one desecrate a city?
I’m not sure how Aramaic speaking Jews interpreted this in antiquity, do you have access to a Targum to see if they understood this to mean desecrate rather than destroy?
I see the LXX uses φθερεῖ, which can mean destroy or defile. When Paul uses it in 1Cor3:17 the NRSV renders it as ” If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”
It seems most are pointing towards destruction, rather than desecration, but I’m open-minded to what Collins says.
Nope, sorry — I don’t remember all the details. But if you’re interested in apocalyptic literature, Daniel, and relateds, it’s a vade mecum.
Ah, I managed to find an online copy through my library. Collins translates the passage as:
“After the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off with no one to help him. The host of a ruler who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
So Collins agrees the verse should be translated that the temple will be destroyed, rather than defiled.
As you say, in the commentary Collins notes that the anointed one is probably Onias III, but he barely discusses the destruction of the city, simply noting that the Syrians didn’t destroy it “but they made it desolate by the corruption of the cult.” (p.357)
So this means the predicted destruction of Jerusalem and her temple is outside the historical narrative. The author isn’t talking about something that has already occurred but making a prediction before the event, rather than after it – much in the same way Jesus did. My contention is that Mark did the same as Daniel, and recorded this prediction before it was fulfilled.
I will grab myself a copy from the shelves tomorrow – it looks like a valuable commentary.
Yes, that’s right. Daniel is famous for making predictions that didn’t happen, which demonstrates almost precisely when he was writing — when the predictions stop being fufilled. He predicts Antiochus will be killed, e.g. Didn’t happen as predicted….
Yes, well that’s really my point.
You date GMark on the notion that the composer waited until the predicted destruction of the temple took place.
But this reasoning is flawed as we can show that the author of Daniel preserved in writing a prediction that the temple would be destroyed before it occurred.
It does not follow that Mark *must* have waited when we can show others did not.
This is why I believe the dating of GMark to c70 is so weak. The supporting evidence just isn’t there.
But Daniel’s prediction was NOT fulfilled. That’s what I’m saying. He was talking about events in the 160s BCE. I”m open to any dating of Mark. Anyone who wnats to propose one simply needs to present the evidence. If you want to see more about the consensus view, I’d suggest you read a bunch of the critical commentaries, starting maybe with Joel Marcus and Adele Yarbro Collins.
I don’t understand, Daniel’s prediction: “and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” did occur in 70AD when Titus’ troops stormed Jerusalem, burned down the Temple, and destroyed a large part of the city. I’m not sure how you can say this wasn’t fulfilled – what am I missing?
I’ve read Joel Marcus’ commentary on Mark and he outlines why some claim GMark should be dated in 60s to mid-70s due to Mark13 describing the persecution of Christians (p.28-30). He then rebuts this saying Christians were persecuted from very early on across the Empire, so can be describing any time during the 1st C (32) and even argues against Mark13 being used to describe the Neronian persecution (33).
He seems to place greater weight on the temple destruction (38-39) being the time that Mark wrote, presumably because he rejects Sander’s view that the historical Jesus predicted the temple’s destruction. It’s not a particularly strong argument, as I think Sanders has done enough to show Jesus probably did predict the fall of the temple. I’ll have a look at Adele Collins.
What you’re missing is an understanding of Daniel’s context. If someone predicts that NYC will be bombed by the Venezualians very soon, and it happens 500 years later, then probalby that’s not what he was predicting. Saanders too, btw, dated Mark after 70.
No need for you to be convinced though. If you want to propose a better date that takes account of all the data (the language, the possible influence from Paul, the presupposed historical situation, the time needed for stories about Jesus to be circulated in Greek in sufficient quantity and styling to allow for a full Gospel account, the fact that Paul doesn’t appear to know about the Gospel, the nature of oral traditions, the assumptions of the text about what has already happened, the theological views presented, and so on and on) then most any date, prior to the composition of Matthew and Luke, would probably be open to critical evaluation.
Ah, I see now. So the prediction is only valid and said to be fulfilled if it occurs within the context it is presented in. If that is true, then we are in the absurd situation of concluding that Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction has yet to be fulfilled.
The disciples ask Jesus about the signs that would occur before the temple is to fall and among those listed are the sun and moon darkened, stars falling away, the Son of Man appearing in powerful glory in the clouds with a host of angels and the elect meeting him in the air. None of this happened, so using your logic, Jesus’ prediction over the destruction of the temple has yet to be fulfilled because, with Daniel, the corresponding context did not occur.
Whilst you cannot have your cake and eat it, in this case, I would say you cannot Daniel your temple and Mark it.
If Mark wrote his gospel in 70CE and he travelled around with Paul, how likely is it that Mark met the disciple Cephas (Peter) who was with Paul in Antioch about 15 years previously, as Paul mentions in Galatians 2:11 ?
There’s nothing to suggest that Mark travelled with Paul. Are you thinking of Luke?
In Colossians 4:10, there is mention of Mark as the cousin of Barnabas and one of only three Jewish Christians who are working with Paul. Mark is also mentioned, along with Luke, as a fellow worker in Philemon 24.
It seems uncertain if Mark’s gospel is attributed to this person or even if there was a single author, so the question could be re-stated as follows:-
If the Mark gospel was written in 70CE and if a substantial part of the information in it came from someone who travelled around with Paul, how likely is it that this person met the disciple Cephas (Peter) who was with Paul in Antioch in about 50CE?
Is it impossible/very unlikely/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely/certain?
My view is that Paul did not write Colossians. (Do a word search on the blog and you’ll see my reasons). Philemon, yes. Unfortunately, we don’t know what his actually association was with Paul (e.g., how much he travelled with him, how well he know him). We certainly don’t know if he had ever met Cephas. Paul didn’t spend much time with Cephas, at least according to his accounts, and he never mentions his companions with him when he does (let alone this one). For me a big issue is that there’s nothing in the Gospel of Mark to make one think it was written by someone named Mar.
Nevermind I was looking for the most recent post to ask my question without reading the title or article. my bad LOL!
Do you think that any of the gospels other than the four canonical gospels had independent first century source material about Jesus that the four canonical gospels did not have?
Possibly the Gospel of Thomas. The others, I doubt it.
Is there any article highlighting the parts of Thomas that have the most change of being from historical Jesus
Lots of them. I dont know any written for layfolk off hand, but most any of the commentaries on the Gospel of Thomas will deal with this kind of thing.
Good piece. Just share a thought here – Paul did not seem concerned about what Jesus did before the crucifixion. So while there might be some proto-Mark gospels (Q?) floating around, Paul might well disregard it. After all, his claim to apostleship was direct revelation from Jesus. He even tried to emphasis he learnt nothing from the original apostles about Jesus.
That said, your point about trying to promote the issue of destruction only after it has taken place is compelling. It would be too risky to put it out there and then hope something will happen. Even on the issue of the apocalypse, they were careful to leave it all vague.
As far as I can tell, that era really is too early for a theology like Marks to develop-i get the feel hes basically badmouthing the disciples though I can’t be sure
Everyone everywhere in the ancient Holy Land was apocalyptic. Hence, Jesus predicting the sack of Jerusalem would have been entirely consistent with things he might actually have said. And one can easily imagine that the Romans might have fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy if only to further undermine the local leadership, who forced Pilate to execute him.
Whatever the case, it is an astonishing indicator of transparency and responsibility for early Christians to have titled their gospels “according to” instead of “authored by,” particularly because pseudographical authorship was the standard of the day. Likewise, they included four different versions of the gospel, not just one account allegedly authored by Jesus himself. It’s a remarkable feat of empowering readers to reach their own conclusions on topics of great importance to their faith. (Of course, it wasn’t until Tyndale in the 16th century that the Bible was translated from Latin into the vulgate and people could actually read it. But that’s not the fault of the early Christians.)
Does the fact that the gospels were composed in Greek tell us anything about the dating of these texts?
Not necessarily in itself — Greek was the lingua franca of the empire well before Jesus was born. It does suggest very strongly, though, that the Gsopels were not written by authors from Israel, since we do not have any indication of education in Greek composition there at all.
Hi Dr Ehrmann, thanks again for another excellent post. The concept that these stories were not written by an eye witness at the time of the events they claim to narrate was not allowed to be contemplated when I was being raised in the Baptist church. Curiously it wasn’t ever stated that this was how they came to be written, it was just presented as self evident. To have even said as much would have legitimised the question of their veracity, and that would have been very subversive for Sunday School…
On an unrelated issue, i do have a question. I recently read a claim that the name of Joseph of Arimathea is actually a fabricated play on words in Aramaic that could be translated as Joseph from ‘good discipleville’. In your scholarly opinion is there any truth to this claim? It was in a mythicist book so I’m skeptical, but I have no skill in ancient Aramaic.
Many thanks, Paul
The play on words would be based on Greek, not Aramaic. I myself thought of that a few years ago without seeing it before (I was working on the historicity of the burial), but since then I’ve heard it claimed. I decided not to use the idea in my book Jesus Before the Gospels becuase I just wasn’t sure the theory had enought to support it.
Many thanks for the follow up. My apologies for the incorrect assertion about the language (that’s the difference between entusiastic amateurs and scholars).
Since it’s a bit ambiguous, do you think there is any likelihood that Arimathea was actually a real place? or perhaps a nickname for a real place?
We don’t really know. There have been conjectures, but unfortuantely we don’t have any solid information….
I have never heard of Arimathea outside the New Testament.
The temple destruction in Matthew and Mark talk about the “abomination causing desolation” being set up in the temple.
Doesn’t that description fit better with Caligula’s threat to send an army to Jerusalem to set up a statue to himself in the temple, rather than the destruction in 70 which didn’t involve anything being set up in the temple?
Philo, at the time in Italy, tells of traveler from Judea who said “our temple is destroyed” because of the threat.
Matthew and Mark say there will be wars and rumors/talk of war. Luke amends it and says it won’t be until an actual army surrounds Jerusalem that its destruction will come. Perhaps a response to the threat being called off.
Yes it’s often thought that the tradition stemmed from the incident with Caligula; but that doesn’t mean it was written in the days of Caligula of course. (Since if it was it wouldn’t make sense: the temple was not destroyed then)
Luke starts his gospel by saying:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1)
1) Do you think he speaks about written accounts?
2) Mark could obviously be one of these accounts, what about the others? Matthew? ¿Gospels outside the NT? Other oral accounts now lost?
3) Do you see any evidence about Luke knowing Matthew?
1. Yes, he is talking about written predecessors 2. He definitely knows Mark. And it’s interesting that he suggests his predecessors did not do a satisfactory job! 3. I don’t think he did. Some scholars argue he did (so they don’t have to appeal to Q); but most don’t think so.
It’s reasonable that the “many” Luke speaks of included Mark and Q. But what else? Surely “many” would have to include more than two writings. Were there other whole gospels that vanished without a trace?
That seems to be the assumption. Very interesting! We sure wish we had them.
I believe I have read that it was fashionable in the 1980s to try to pin each Gospel to a particular geography but that later scholarship suggests that this is not knowable with our current understanding of the facts. Are there any recent studies on this issue? It would be useful to understand a geographical context for the traditions in order to understand what local social and cultural issues may have influenced the stories being told.
I don’t know if there are recent studies, but there are none that I know about making any waves! It was a valiant and long-term effort to say where each account was written, but when you look at the arguments they end up being extremely weak. (Matthew was from Antioch because it came from an urban setting that had both Jewish and Christian communties. Uh….)
looks like the entire post is not displayed !
That tyically happens when someone’s membership hasn’t been renewed. Click on Help and write the support team a note, and they’ll give you what you need.
It also happens when you’ve been logged out for some unknown reason. If that happens, just go log back in and the post will be thereby resurrected.
Even though most ctitical scholars tend to date the four NT gospels between the year 70 and the end of the first century, can any weight be given to a speculation that they may have instead been written nearly halfway through the second century? This idea is possibly supported by an understanding that no early Christian writer mentions or quotes from these gospels until the time of Justin Martyr or thereafter.
It depends on whether the quotations of Jesus in writers like Polycarp go back to written texts. It seems so, in any event.
Besides its miraculous/supernatural character, are there other reasons for thinking that the transfiguration is non-historical, eg, that it’s a theological insert made by the gospel writer? Is it based on incidents in the Hebrew Bible or does it speak to difficulties that a gospel writer’s community was facing? Do respected NT scholars with a more “permissive” approach to the historicity of miracles think it shows clear signs of being more or less fully created by the gospel writer?
It is usually thought that its placement (right in the middle of Jesus’ ministry, right after Jesus has been asking his disciples who he is — and now three of them see that he is a divine being!), and obvious theological coloring — with Moses and Elija (the Law and the Prophets), the voice from heaven replicating what was said at the baptism, and so on — show that it is a tale meant to make a point about Jesus, not a historical event. This view is not based on anti-supernaturalist bias: it’s what I learned from Christian professors in seminary training for ministry! Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, of course, will simply say it happened.
Although I don’t know specifically what he meant, it’s my understanding that Augustine of Hippo thought that the Bible should be interpreted through the lens (though lens’s may not have been invented yet) of charity or love. I assume he meant something like not taking always taking the Bible literally. Instead, one should try to find some lesson about divine love even if it seems inconsistent with the understanding of the writer of the passage. Examples might include some of the wars of annihilation that the Hebrews carried out when entering the Promised Land. Maybe the writers, primarily of some portions of the Hebrew Bible, misunderstood God?
Did Augustine or has anyone else or any book carried out this program with a fairly long and detailed (though not an impossibly exhaustive) treatment?
Augustine was a very careful exegete of the Bible and very prolific author (we have about five million words of his still). But he understood that the events desribed in the Bible actually did happen, even though they usually have deeper meanings as well.
I heard Dale Martin on YouTube recently, and he said that he follows the Augustinian principle of interpretation – i.e an interpretation that does not promote a love of God and love of neighbor cannot be a Christian interpretation. This is going off topic somewhat, but it’s a very worthwhile interview IMO :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppK4XG3urKo
Despite what the fundies want to believe, the Bible is not a rule book. It’s not a sellout to want to live as a 21st century Christian – it’s wisdom. And with some things in the Bible, you just have to let them go through to the keeper (Bart, ask Sarah what that last phrase means – either she or her male family members will know).
I can assure you– it would be her brothers and nephews.
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of guess-work when it comes to these kinds of matters; it’s amazing how many people speak about the Gospels with an air of certainty.
1. Is it very certain that canonical Mark is not a post-70 revision of an earlier work?
2. Is there a very clear early reference to a late canonical gospel , which also can be safely dated so that we can be relatively sure they all are late first century works?
1. I’d say there’s not much good evidence either way, if by that you mean a completed Gospel that someone else edited wholesale into our Mark. But it is clear that Mark is based on earlier traditoins and one of our finest commentaries (Joel Marcus’s) goes verse by verse to consider how Mark may have changed his earlier sources 2. Are you asking if there are clear quotations of our surviving Gospels in an early source (showing that it must have existed before)? There appear to be quotations of our Gospels in church fathers dated to the early second century, and certainly in Justin around 150.
Do you think that it is clear that Didache is quoting Matthew? And that Didache is early second century?
I usually date the form that we have now to around 100 CE, based on somewhat earlier sources (that’s the typical view). I don’t think we can tell if he is depending on earlier written sources such as Matthew or oral traditions.
Hi Bart,
I have a suggestion related to this topic and I want to see if it can withstand logical scrutiny. I am going to deal with this suggestion as almost like a logical puzzle that starts with inputs, conclusions then suggestions.
###Inputs:
1# Chronological order: Paul, Mark, Luke/Matt, John.
2# Luke and Matt knew about Mark Gospel and used it.
3# Paul, Mark, and John didn’t know about the Virgin Birth (VB) account. If they knew about it then it is highly likely they would have used it in their narratives.
4# The VB is only mentioned in Luke and Matt. Therefore it has a common source (ML) for them only.
5# The Palestinian Talmud was compiled in Galilee. It has three accounts related to Jesus that originated in about 100AD. In these accounts, Jesus has only been regarded as heretic, and there is no mention or mocking about the VB account (credit to “James Tabor” for highlighting this info). The Babylonian Talmud is the book that mocked Jesus about the VB, but it was compiled much later after the Palestinian Talmud.
—>
Fascinating use of the Palestinian Talmud. Can you recall in which work James Tabor makes this point?
You may be interested to know that the Odes of Solomon (Ode 19) and Ascension of Isaiah (ch.11) are two Jewish-Christian texts that promote the virgin birth account, and recent scholarship places them sometime in the late 1st C and early-2nd C (Odes, no later than 100 (Charlesworth2007:114), Asc. Of Isa. 80-120 (Bauckham1998:381-2)).
I agree that the VB is a late addition to the gospels, and propose they were later added to Matthew and Luke in the 2nd C. The Odes and Ascension of Isaiah references to the VB may be the first written accounts of it, before they were added to Matthew and Luke.
I don’t think there’s any way the Ascension of Isaiah can be first century; Bauckham, I believe, is being to enthusiastic there. The whole notion of passwords to cross through the various layers of the heavens cannot be found anywhere that early.
If I recall correctly, I believe Bauckham was swimming in the same waters that were flowing in the mid-to-late 90s when a shift in thinking occurred over Ascension of Isaiah, placing it much earlier than it had been. A literature review of AoI is on my to-do list, so I should have a better idea of why that shift occurred when it’s done. I’ll keep an eye out for any discussion on passwords.
I say just a brief word or two on it in Forgery and Counterforgery.
I’ve just read your excellent summation of AoI – many thanks for the tip. I now have my reading list for the lit review!
Something struck me about the anti-Jewish argument. As the Jewish scriptures are sometimes (often?) highly critical of themselves, especially those who are considered false prophets, apostates, or simply unfaithful, is it not possible that AoI was composed by Jewish-Christians, rather than Gentile-Christians with an anti-Jewish ax to grind? The Nazareans accepted the virgin birth account, so perhaps this is them?
There is some veyr serious scholarsion on AoI, including redactional analyses that insist on different theological perspectives by a later redactor vis-a-vis an earlier source. THat would be worth looking at. I cite it in my book, as does Bauckham in his various writings.
Dear Bart,
I’m currently deep into the weeds on Ascension of Isaiah and I was wondering if you could tell me when we see other examples of the use of passwords to cross different levels of heaven?
I believe you date the text to 100-150 CE as we don’t see the use of passwords before then, so I’m trying to locate the texts that appear in the early 2nd C where they do occur.
Many thanks!
Yup, you’re onto the big problem. We don’t start finding passwords till later. That’s why I DON’T think it can be that early (contrary Bauckham and others who put a very early date on it). It presupposed later ideas of the heavens, picked up from Gnostic texts or at least from mid-platonic thinking, as happened in the later second century. YOu’ll find my discussion of it in Forgery and Counterforgery. disabledupes{7edd357c82ab76284072a86cec6c3bd0}disabledupes
Many thanks. I’ve read your discussion of Ascension of Isaiah in Forgery and Counterforgery, but couldn’t find citations of the Gnostic texts that do mention passwords – do you cite them elsewhere in the book?
Also, do they appear in the latter part of the 2nd C, or the first half? I ask as you place Ascension of Isaiah in the first half of the 2nd C.
Ah, right — I see that I didn’t go into the details there. Off hand I don’t have a set of references handy, but you could probably dig them out if you look around. Seems like I remember the 2nd Book of Jeu ch. 52?
I’ve done some digging!
Looks like we have (estimated dates in brackets):
Gospel of Mary (120-180)
Ireneaus AH (180)
1st Apocalypse of James (late 2nd C)
Origen – Contra Celsum; discussing the Ophite Diagrams (248)
Plotinus – The Enneads; discussing the Gnostics (270)
Books of Jeu (3rd C)
Pistis Sophia (3rd-4th C)
Apocalypse of Paul (late 4th C)
This list is from an excellent article by Simon Gathercole in Paradise in Antiquity.
Gathercole proposes a relationship with these texts and saying 50 of the Gospel of Thomas; “In terms of form, however, it is clear that Gos. Thom. belongs in this group of interrogations on the way to paradise.” (p.98)
I’ve also learned that passwords in the afterlife were believed to be useful amongst the Egyptians from waaaay back, long before Christ. Perhaps there was some theological influence from them?
Gathercole also suggests that the Ascension of Isaiah is the least complex and immature example of this heavenly account, and “is certainly not nearly so developed” (ibid) as other texts such as 2 Jeu, that stand at the other end of the spectrum.
Given what Gathercole argues and the uncertainty on when the Gospel of Mary was composed, perhaps Ascension of Isaiah is the first Christian text to make use of heavenly passwords?
Great! But of course Gospel of Mary isn’t “passwords” but discourse.
Gathercole’s idea is that the cosmic guards (across a variety of texts) ask a scripted question, usually “Where are you going?” or “Where have you come from?” And if the soul gives the correct answer, then they are allowed to proceed – so their answers function as passwords, even though they are set within a dialogue. This is also how he cleverly associates this practice with saying 50 of Gospel of Thomas (herein: GThom).
I understand you date GThom to the early 2nd C, presumably somewhere in Syria? Given that Ascension of Isaiah is also thought to have been composed in the same region around the same time, perhaps there is some theological influence from one community to the other?
I suppose there are some interesting similarities, but I don’t see enough to make me think they were related in any way.
I heard James Tabor talking about it in an interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCGpKVI4ao
It is about 1.15 hour interview and you can find the subject at 20:30. He was discussing his conclusion (model) that the roman soldier Pantera was the possible father of Jesus. I definitely don’t accept this conclusion (neither historically nor metaphysically) but it is a valuable conclusion: he opened a new field to explore and presented information of really high quality.
James in this interview mentioned a story in the P.Talmud that contain a saying of Jesus, which was very very nice (though I really don’t think Jesus would have said it, but it is still really nice), I searched for the references in the P.Talmud and I found it here:
https://www.liquisearch.com/yeshu/the_talmudic_accounts_in_detail/yeshu_ben_pandera/tosefta_and_talmud_references
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_the_Heretic
Just for clarification: I truly belief in the VB, it is part of my Islamic metaphysical beliefs. But I am truly interested in finding scientific models for the issues in question. These models have a very strict rule, which is not to include any metaphysical inputs. Then, analyzing the gap between the metaphysics and scientific would provide very useful insights for solving some of the metaphysical puzzles.
In this case it is very clear historically that the VB is an invented story that might have been originated around 80AD. This produce an interesting gap to my metaphysics. A possible reconciliation (for me at least, until finding a better one) is that the VB was a strict secret that was only known to the members of Jesus family, who one of them in 80AD leaked it out. This conclusion does raise some very interesting questions: what happened to Jesus family? Jesus had 4 brothers, 3 sisters, were did they go? I assume James the Just was married, I expect he had children, what happened to them? They definitely went somewhere.
So, although this reconciliation might not have been fully satisfactory, but it did raise some interesting questions.
It’s possible that the idea of a virgin birth was created most *any* time after Jesus’ birth up to its incorporation in Matthew and Luke. We have no way of knowing when it originated, except that it was between those two events. It could well have been around, but rarely heard or believed, until decades after it first made its appearance.
Many thanks for the links, Omar. It was super helpful to hear Tabor explain his views.
—->
6# John was highly influenced with the concept of the Logos (the Word): the first born son of God according to Philo (20BC – 40AD) who was a Jewish Philosopher in Egypt.
7# Luke and Matt were not aware of the Logos of Philo, otherwise they would have mentioned it [this could be contested as they might not have accepted it].
###Conclusions:
8# The VB account was circulated after Mark.
9# The VB was not known in the area of Palestine before 100AD, otherwise it would have likely been mentioned in the three accounts in the Palestinian Talmud [this could be contested as the Rabbis might not have taken the VB account seriously at that time].
10# The VB account was not known where John lived.
11# Mark, ML (the source for VB), Luke and Matt lived within geographic proximity, far from Palestine and far from John.
###Suggestions:
12# John was a Greek Egyptian. This could explain the influence of Philo’s philosophy on him.
13# Mark, ML, Luke and Matt lived in Anatolia.
14# Mark, Luke, and Matt Gospels were first circulated privately within local areas in Anatolia until probably the start of the second century, then it became public.
This is too much for me to comment on, but I would say that the VB story in Matthew and Luke does not show signs of them taking it from a common source; and I don’t think one has to live far from Palestine or John to have a different story; and that there’s nothing in John to tie it to Egypt per se (the Philonic connection is difficult, and even if it could be shown it wouldn’t show they lived int eh same place); and we really can’t say where the others lives. Anatolia is a good guess. So is Antioch. And Rome. And lots of other options.
Thank you Bart,
Yes, when you have mentioned it I realized it was too much for a comment or question. I am sorry for that.
Just a quick comment here (really quick 😊). Luke narrative for VB is little different than Matt, so I agree that they didn’t have a common source. But this isn’t what I meant: The VB started to circulate after Mark. Therefore, there is a source of account that started this circulation after Mark. This account has been modified and developed into two paths, one reached Luke and the other reached Matt. Therefore, I was speaking about the source of VB itself and not about the VB narrative variations.
As Luke and Matt know about Mark’s work (and John doesn’t), and Luke and Matt know about VB (and John doesn’t), the assumption was that Mark, ML, Luke and Matt were in close proximity and far from John.
I’m happy to think it began to circulate after Mark. But I’m also happy to think it was in circulation earlier and Mark simply had never heard of it. It’s hard for us today to imagine the ancient world where most things said and written in one city were completely unknwon in another, either for a while, or for decades, or forever.
I think I have read in one of the posts here, that (and I am rephrasing) Christian communities especially in the first centuries were not isolated pockets, but they formed active networks.
This is really logic, especially when Christians were the minority in the empire. If they really formed active networks then they definitely passed information and rumors between them. Of course I would not expect the rumors in Carthage to reach Greece quickly, but within Carthage the information and rumors would pass quickly, same in Greece.
The VB narrative is not simple, not easy, very alarming. Therefore, I would assume that it should have passed quickly, especially for people who believed that Jesus is divine.
I think this post is incomplete as it ends with, “To begin with, none of the….” Is there a way I can read all of it?
Usually that happens when a reader’s membership hasn’t been renewed. Click on Help and zap a note to Support, and someone there will figure it out for you.
When I studied this some forty years ago, I remember seeing that the accepted scholarly dates (much of it German scholars) were 70 for Mark, end of first century for Matthew and Luke, and maybe 180 for John. That’s a much later date for John than seems to be accepted scholarship today. I can’t find sources – I went back to check Albert Schweitzer’s book, but it certainly isn’t in there. Am I misremembering what accepted scholarship was back then?
I think you must be misremembering the 180 business. We’ve known of a manuscript of John that has long been dated to around 125!
Does Luke-Acts give us any clues as to where it was written or where the community of Luke-Acts might be located?
Unfortunately not, other than it was in a Greek speaking part of the Empire that had a strong Christian presence, and therefore probably an urban setting.
Thank you. This quote from Moody Smith fits in with this: “For a time, particularly in the early part of the twentieth century, the possibility that John was not written, or at least not published, until [the] mid-second century was a viable one. At that time Justin Martyr espoused a logos Christology, without citing the Fourth Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation. Then the discovery and publication in the1930s of two papyrus fragments made such a late dating difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. ”
The later dates are consistent with scholarship in the era of Schweitzer’s book but not after P52 in 1937.
Hi Bart,
Kweetal raised an interesting point that I want to ask about.
Justin aligned Philo with Plato by adding the Spirit. So, he combined three known separate entities into one team/structure, and this is the Trinity of Justin, which was later developed into the Trinity of Nicaea.
But this contribution is seriously disturbed by the Trinity of Matt 28:19! Most Scholars, including You (I presume), think that this verse is “original”!
Kweetal (via Smith) has highlighted a thought about John’s Gospel that I want to use for Matt: Is it possible that Matt’s Gospel was not published (circulated) but kept in a church until probably after Justin. But before its publication, the Minister of the church added the lines 28:18-20? His intention was probably to protect the Gospel, otherwise it will definitely be rejected due to Matt 10:6 & 15:24 (i.e. Jesus was sent only to Jews).
If this Gospel was known before Justin then this argument will be scrapped. But in this case, how Scholars link the Trinity of Justin with the Trinity of Matt?
Matthew 28:19-20 does not delineate the doctrine of the Trinity. It only mentions the bapism in the names of the Father, Son and Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is about how the three relate to each other as each fully God, distinct from each other, and yet there is one God. Matthew doesn’t say anything about that.
Yes, this distinction is noted: Matt didn’t compose a creed. So, it is probably better if I refer to it as the “Triad of Matt”. But could Justin compose his Trinity without referring to Matt 28:19!
My sense (feeling, concerns but without concrete evidence) here that Matt 28:19 is something out of the ordinary for the first century. It is the first verse to explicitly put the Three into one group. It is also the only verse in the first century that request doing things in the Name of the Three combined (it specified baptism, but it created a norm). I am aware that Paul used the Three in his greeting and preaching, but not to the level of Matt 28:19.
Thank you Bart. I am aware that most Scholars concluded (based on their studies on the available manuscripts) that Matt 28:19 is authentic. I just wanted to have more insight about it.
Bart:
This question is probably better related to some earlier posts that you had about salvation, but, it’s loosely related to the questions about the Gospels themselves, so I’m asking it here.
Does Jesus’ teaching about salvation in the gospel of John differ from what is presented in the other canonical gospels or from what Paul taught? If so, how?
I’m thinking about the reference in John 3 about being born again, the famous quote in 3:16 about having faith and the possible contradiction in John 3:36 which seems to require ‘obedience’ (works?) as well as faith.
It seriously conflicts with both. The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as teaching that a person must repent and return to the ways of God by loving him above all elsee and loving their neighbor as themselves, as explained in the Law. Paul teaches that a person was made right with God by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection to avoide being destroyed when he returned in glory. John teaches that eternal life is not future with Jesus’ return in glory but is NOW for anyone who believs that he is sent from God to deliver the truth.
Mathew seems to end his gospel similar to the way that Mark ends with the Great Commission to teach all nations. Yet, I think I recall your saying that the ending we now have for Mark was probably added after 300 AD. How is it also in Mathew? Perhaps also a later addition.
In Mathew Jesus is said to have ordered his adherents to “Take up your cross and follow me” twice.
This would have made no sense to someone who did not know that Jesus was crucified since he was alive when he said this.
Matthew has a lot of passages not already in Mark, taken either from another source or (in theory?) something he added himself. The reason there would be this similarity (its not exactly thesame, of course) is that the scribe who added the ending to Mark knew the ending already in Matthew.
And yes, that saying is in Mark as well, and yes, it was almost certainly put on Jesus’ lips by a storyteller after he had been crucified.
How would you respond to the argument that Acts does not mention the death of Peter or Paul who we know died prior to 70ad?
Acts is committed to showing that NOTHING could stop the Christian movement. No matter how hard Christ’s enemies tried, they could not silence his apostles. It would have run counter to Luke’s agenda to narrate the executions of the two greatest apostles.