When Was The New Testament Written?

@deuteroKJ you are the closest we have to a NT textual critict here. Can you comment?

1 Like

I would love to hear what others have to say. But to me, it seems that the deck is being stacked. You have a position that assumes, a priori, that the resurrection and miracles did not occur. You have suggested that there was a “Jesus” or “Yeshua” whom people followed, who was a charismatic individual. You have a oral narrative which is assumed to have changed dramatically over time (resurrections and miracles were added to the stories) and a written narrative that was distributed broadly throughout the Roman empire, and then, presumably changed over time. I disagree with you that there is not a similar geographic isolation. The house church movement would have been widely distributed and without a formal management structure to lead it, would have allowed the text to be subject to many changes over time, for each disparate copy, if there was not a focus to maintain the integrity of the story.

Herein, is my point exactly. The council seems to have selected from certain books as cannon. How in the world, would 1800 disparate bishops be able to come and agree which books were cannon if the books themselves had not maintained a great degree of integrity? In the events you describe, there is no possible way that the disparate books of John (for instance) distributed throughout the Roman empire would have contained, substantially, the same information unless those books we considered to be sacred and the narrative protected and maintained. The individual titles themselves would have varied so radically that I cannot imagine a process by which 1800 people from around the known world would ever have gotten down to the business of the council.

The story that seems to be favored by critics includes an original narrative that was absent of any real substance, which supposedly garnered a significant following. Over time, in order to increase growth of the movement (to what end, I don’t know) stories of miracles and resurrections were added. Certainly, this is an indictment on the integrity and intellect of the followers, who are presumed to believe anything they are told, and not speak up when otherwise-unbelievable stories are added to the text.

The Bart Ehrman video was not convincing at all. In fact, I found it to be confirming. Ehrman said:

Stories about Jesus had been in circulation year after year… from the time that his disciples knew that he got killed and believed that he had been raised from the dead.

Ehrman himself says that the disciples believed that Jesus had been killed and was resurrected, and the stories were “in circulation” thereafter. He goes on to say:

They told stories to convert people. They improved the stories sometimes. They changed the stories sometimes. The stories got modified in the process in the process of transmission over the course of decades before anybody wrote the stories down. These stories are based upon oral reports that have been in circulation for decades. What happens to oral reports that have been in circulation year after year, decade after decade, they get changed.

As I have suggested throughout this dialog, the disparate stories themselves would have been so different from one another that they would not have been recognizable as the original stories (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.) Yet, this is not at all what we see in the historical evidence. We learn of named books, with which tens of thousands of followers throughout the Roman Empire were familiar, that were quite substantially the same to one another, such that nearly 300 years laters, 1800 church leader could assemble and discuss which of them were to be included in the canon. The discussion was not over how to reconcile the potentially thousands of different copies of each book, nearly all of which must have varied dramatically from one another, assuming this kind of evolution of the stories of Jesus. It was over which books were to be included in the canon, to establish creedal statements of faith, and to decide how to deal with theological controversies (such as Arianism) would be addressed.

2 Likes

I haven’t kept up with this thread and don’t have time to catch up this weekend. Is there any specific issue that needs to be addressed? These issues are hard to work out in a discussion forum. It’s best to avoid too much speculative would’ve, could’ve, should’ve. The majority of scholars (not just evangelicals) would agree on several things: The NT text as we have it is very sound. 18 of the 27 NT books were universally accepted from the beginning, and most of the others had early and widespread support. We shouldn’t let the few books in dispute muddy the waters too much. Only 1 or 2 books that didn’t make it into the canon had some measure of widespread support (e.g., Shepherd of Hermes).

4 Likes

Ehrman is talking about oral transmission before the gospels were written, while you seem to be talking about variation in those texts after they were written. That’s two totally different questions.

1 Like

Hi John: I am certain that I’ve oversimplified the issue. That said, if the stories were maintained orally first, and written second, one form led to the other. If the oral tradition were not maintained, it only makes the situation more difficult in terms of the written text. The more the oral tradition varies, the more disparate the written versions would be. Again, we don’t see this. We see the written copies containing substantially similar information from copy to copy. Agreed, there are variances between different books, but the individual books themselves seem to have maintained a very high degree of integrity, however they were transmitted.

That is how I understand it too.

Among the most important evidence against the Resurrection being a late add on myth is: The Pre-Pauline Creed (30-35 AD). It is very difficult to explain away the Resurrection as a late addition. It is very difficult to explain away Paul’s conversion, and the apostles acceptance of him as an equal.

Also, the claim that Jesus is a composite of other figures does not hold water. We know who the other Messiah figures were at this time. There is no indication that Jesus is a composite of them.

If we are as scrupulous with the evidence here as we are with biology, we would reject many of these theories as obviously false. Something happened early on to form a new religion in 1st century Palestine, even though we do not expect such a thing to happen. There are no examples of messiah movements lasting beyond the death of their leader at this time, while still maintaining their executed leader was in fact the messiah. There are no other examples of messiah movements at this time claiming the messiah bodily rose from the dead, and then altering the traditions so radically, after he was dead.

Something happened back then. I, of course, think it was the Resurrection. You can disagree, fine. Disagreement is certainly rational because we know that people do not rise from the dead, right?

I’ve yet to see a more parsimonious explanation for all this data. There is no good explanation of why or how this Resurrection story arises in 30-35 AD in this cultural context. It clearly, however, did arise almost immediately after Jesus died, and is the core believe around which Christianity is founded and grows. There would not be the four Gospels if not for the Pre-Pauline Creed.

I’ll point out too that Jesus makes a very similar claim about his Resurrection in totally different language (Sign of Jonah).

39 But he replied to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, 40 because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights,[b] so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment and condemn the people living today,[c] because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. But look—something greater than Jonah is here! 42 The queen of the south will stand up and condemn the people living today,[d] because she came from so far away[e] to hear the wisdom of Solomon. But look! Something greater than Solomon is here!”

If this is a late addition, it does not fit expectations. Rather than using language consistent with the now well developed creeds in a Gentile church, we see Jesus speaking inseparable from his Jewish context. The contrast between Paul’s and Jesus’ language is very important here. At the time Matthew and Luke are written, Paul does have a very large influence on the Church. Here, however, we are seeing a minor story preserved in the oral tradition, in a time frame consistent with people who first heard it reporting it to the authors of Luke and Matthew.

Jesus uses the term “Son of Man” all the time and speaks of the “Kingdom of God”, but Paul does ever mention these terms. He calls Jesus “Christ” and "Son of God’, and emphasizes His salvific role. If a Jesus myth was being constructed at a late date, it would have supported Paul’s language and doctrine more directly, using his language. Once again, this sharp contrast in language adds strong textual support for these being more than fabricated stories. Remember, the Gospels are likely written long after Paul has made his mark on the Church, and also while people who were eye witnesses of Jesus’s ministry were alive and all over the place. What we see is two different voices arising that are unmistakably distinct, but also in harmony. The Gospels speak in a different voice than Paul, because Jesus had a different voice, and the oral tradition preserved that difference even as Paul was becoming very influential.

Once again, this strongly undercuts the notion that these were late additions, or part of a “Jesus Myth”. We have good reason to think think that Jesus actually taught something like this, in language approximating this. Which aligns very closely with the Pre-Pauline Creed.

Whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead, it appears everyone in the early Church really believed He did. This appears to be a “myth” without precedent.

4 Likes

I agree!

If the oral tradition were not maintained, it only makes the situation more difficult in terms of the written text. The more the oral tradition varies, the more disparate the written versions would be. Again, we don’t see this. We see the written copies containing substantially similar information from copy to copy.

I don’t understand this. The books were written down presumably with the form of the oral version each author received (with differences as Ehrman pointed out) or some of their own embellishments, ? Once they were written down changes would be limited to transcription errors or occasional interpolations. @deuteroKJ has noted that the Gospels were considered important books from an early date. Copying texts at that time required considerable effort and wasn’t something that was done willy-nilly for just any book. Written copies are far more efficient at accurately transmitting information than oral transmission.

Which you seem to recognize here, so I’m pretty confused. I still have to say you’re conflating the two questions of the accuracy of oral transmission before the gospels were written, and written copying afterward.

I don’t think anyone would assert that the oral transmission was totally accurate–there are differences between all four Gospels and accounts in non-canonical works. Certain common points stand out certainly. Does that give you ample reason to believe the Resurrection actually occurred? That’s a decision you have to make IMO. I’m admittedly not inclined to believe in miracles, but the written accounts don’t give me pause to reconsider that position personally.

Why? We see people convert to new religions all the time, and people being accepted into high places within their hierarchy even though they were not foundational members.

New religions start all the time. Sometimes they even take hold and become major religions.

It certainly doesn’t seem to happen, but it might have if God did it. I think the disagreement is deeper than that.

This reminds me of your argument against Alter’s point about blood drinking. I would note that it did happen, and it has proven to be a remarkably effective account for propagating a religion.

That’s debatable. A quick look shows that Luke did not include the “3 days” language, with the basic material coming from the Q source if you’re inclined to accept that.

I’m not debating that resurrection accounts date to the earliest days of the church, FWIW! Whether Jesus taught it or had any idea about it is another question :slight_smile:

What is hard to make sense of it that he was accepted as an equal with the 12 disciples even though he was not with Jesus. This is not just a “high place”, but higher even that Jesus’s family become. He was not just a non disruptive force either. He ends up laying down key theology that rationalizes why and how they will include Gentiles. There does not appear to be precedence for this beore.

Yes, but the point is that they usually do not form in circumstances like this.

In what way do you think communion contributed to the propagation of Christianity? That is an interesting theory. Haven’t heard that one before.

Why are differences in two recollected accounts a problem? With or without the 3 days, it ends up making the same point. Whether they were drawing from a prior document, or from oral tradition, the point seems to still stand. It was written down while people who would have heard it directly were still alive. They use different language than Paul (and the Pre-Pauline Creed) to make the same point. This is important, as a if it was fabricated, we should expect they would smooth over these differences in language, much in the same way you are pointing to the 3 days here.

That makes sense. For me, the correspondence (with different language in all three cases) between Luke/Matthew, Isaiah 53, and Paul in 1 Corinthian 15 is important. It shows strong continuity expressed by different voices. It seems to be what Jesus taught in a way that the disciples did not appreciate till after he died. Of note, also, the prediction of the Resurrection in Isaiah 53 predates Jesus, and we know this by several independent lines of evidence.

No one seems to have answered this, so I will.

The earliest Christian documents are almost certainly the undisputed letters of Paul, which few find any reason to place later than between 50-60, and with some (eg Galatians) dated possibly in the 40s.

The only reasons for dating any later are claims to pseudo-epigraphy on, say, the pastoral epistles - dates which would be be based simply on when Paul would be well-known enough to imitate. However, note that a significant body of scholarship thinks these letters to be Paul’s.

In the case of the gospels, the tendency even amongst conservative scholars is to take the consensus view for the sake of argument - the reason being that it’s plausible and actually close to events, as historical records go. That consenus tends to place Mark around 60-65, Matthew and Luke/Acts (because they seem to use Mark as a source) maybe late 60s-early70s (some saying as late as the 80s), and John in the 80s-90s.

The older views that the gospels were late and legendary, from the 2nd century or later, are now very much outliers: all seem to have been composed within living memory of the ministry of Jesus.

However, Bishop John Robinson’s book (as linked by Mung) was a refreshing look by a liberal theologian at the suppositions underlying those dates. He found them extraordinarily weak, and came to the conclusion that nothing in any of the gospels demanded a date later than 69AD (the Fall of Jerusalem).

Robisnosn was deliberately provocative, but dated Matthew to 42, Mark to 45, Luke before 56 (with Acts a sequel a few years later) and John to 65 in its complete form. Other scholars, such as John Wenham (who must be OK because I knew his brother!), have also argued for similar early dating overall, and leading NT scholars doing more detailed work have made strong cases for eye-witness testimony even in John (eg Richard Bauckham, (who must be equally good because he lent me his typewriter at uni!). Bauckham employs fascinating evidence such as the frequency of first names in the gospels, which matches the pattern of graves dating to Jesus’s time, but not of those later - much as in England, “George” or “Millie” are now common, but were disliked in my generation.

The reasons for later dating (the weakness of which surprised Robinson, a non-NT specialist) are interesting, and often circular. For example, one key date is the Fall of Jerusalem, prophesied by Jesus in all four gospels. Since future prophecy “doesn’t happen”, Jesus and the evangelsists could not have known the details, and therefore the gospels were written after that date.

However, supernatural insight aside, closer examination shows that in all the synoptics, the apparent details match the Old Testament parallels used by Jesus (eg Daniel) and not the actual seige described by Josephus.

In fact, it’s remarkable that such a cataclysmic event (equivalent even in numerical terms to the Holocaust), cited in the gospels as a vindication of Jesus’s Messiahship, does not have a single mention in any of the New Testment books apart from, in the future, in the gospels. Even in Revelation it is only hinted as imminent. That would indicate a complete NT corpus before 69-70AD.

Other, circular, arguments are based on the assumption that, since the gospels are legendary, they must be late in order for the legends to arise. However, comparison with other ancient legends suggest they’d need to be written two or three centuries after the events for such legends to arise, and nobody even attempts to claim that with the earliest bit of gospel manuscript, from maybe 120AD, being found in Egypt.

8 Likes

Thank you, this was very helpful.

3 Likes

What circumstances?

No, I meant the Resurrection.

Is it the same point? It’s not really clear what Luke meant, it takes some interpretation. Repenting at Jonah’s preaching is mentioned, which confuses things. Matthew’s “3 days” language makes a clearer point. So if Jesus said that, why wouldn’t Luke include it?

This is important, as a if it was fabricated, we should expect they would smooth over these differences in language, much in the same way you are pointing to the 3 days here.

I don’t get this. It’s not as if they were working together on their accounts. Presumably neither knew the other was writing theirs.

Another thing I like about this site is it often gives me a good reason to read the Bible :slight_smile: It’s an interesting passage, but the writers of the Gospels knew about it certainly, as did others. Paul is explicit of course, if lacking detail, and the Gospel writers do make it clear that a resurrection occurred. So plenty of voices do attest to the Resurrection. That’s not the problem. Did you watch the Ehrman video I posted? It’s short. I think he was debating Mike Licona. I watched about half of that NT Wright video, up to four main points he delineated. I wasn’t impressed but I want to try to track down his book on the subject.

2 Likes

Was there a cohesive Christian community post AD 70 and where was it located? What might the Gospel accounts look like had they in fact independently arisen after AD 70?

If we look just at the texts themselves can we tell anything about whether they arose from diverse and spread out groups of people or do they appear to have arisen from a community that was closer in location and time? Was there a Matthean community, a Markan community, a Lukan community and why on earth would early Christian groups have come together along those three lines?

You don’t have to answer these questions. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

John: Yes, I have continued to argue for integrity of both the written and oral text, while continuing to argue against either the written or oral traditions having been substantially embellished. Remember, Dibelius and Bultmann convinced generations that the text was content strung together using verbiage from many different authors. More recently, the focus has been on the oral tradition being the culprit (in terms of embellishments entering in to the narrative.) Why? Because the evidence shows that the written narrative did not substantially change. Yet, even above, you have the original authors of the written material using the oral tradition with “differences as Ehrman pointed out” (oral tradition) or “some of their own embellishments” (written tradition).

I firmly believe that the oral tradition was sacred and, while minor details (i.e. times of day for events) may have been lost in transcription, the major details remain and are seen today in the texts that we read. I had “conflated the two issues” (written and oral traditions) because I want to juxtapose what I believe what would have happened if there was, as has been suggested by Ehman and countless others, an attitude of willingness to change the text in order to gain converts. I believe that what we would see if this attitude truly existed, is that the texts, geographically disseminated throughout the known world, would continue to be embellished.

I agree that this did not happen, because it is what we see in the evidence. The written scriptures remained substantially unchanged. There has been a very high degree of integrity in the handling of them. So, the goalposts move back, and the oral tradition must be where the myths made their way into the narrative. This is the new version of the theory, because we know that the written tradition has not been compromised. There is simply no evidence (as you have noted above) that errors in the written forms extended beyond transcriptions errors or occasional interpolations.

I believe that the NT books that we have now are exactly what we would expect from a church that cared deeply about and carefully maintained an attitude of integrity around the stories of Jesus, in both orally and written form. Absent an a priori assumption that the resurrection did not happen, I do not agree that one should conclude that the early church was not in 100% agreement that Jesus Christ was not resurrected.

I am curious, though. If you will assume that the miracles happened and that Jesus Christ was resurrected, how would you imagine that the text would vary from what we see today, 2000 years later?

3 Likes

That’s an interesting one, because as far as I can make out the Jerusalem Church, which escaped to Pella before the destruction both in response to Jesus’s prophecy and a later prophetic word, returned soon afterwards and seem to have been almost the only organised religious group left in Jerusalem.

The Sadducees had been wiped out (not before time), the Zealots had been destroyed, and the Pharisees were in disarray until they eventually regrouped and began to formulate Rabbinic Judaism a good while later. Christians had been taught by Jesus that rebellion aginst the Romans was not the way to go, of course.

The first leader, James, having been executed by the Jewish leaders in the 50s (during a lapse in Roman authority), tradition has it that his brother Jude became the leader. Jewish leadership of the Jeruslem church continued until the revolt of 130, after which Jews were prohibited from Jerusalem, and the church there became predominantly gentile.

The Judaean Christians appear to have fragmented into sects at that time (Ebionites etc), but I suspect many became diaspora Jews and strengthened the Gentile churches with their knowledge of the Scriptures and so on.

Life would probably have been hard for diaspora Jews around 70AD as well, but the churches of Paul and the other apostles, which were interconnected but autonomous, likely continued without interruption - Antioch remained an important centre, Alexandria a second, and Rome increasingly so. With other strong churches where you might expect - Corinth, Ephesus etc. Clement of Rome was writing brotherly advice to Corinth probably near the end of the first century, so there’s no evidence that there was a “Pope in Jerusalem” organising everything.

However, there is evidence of early Judean Jewish influence in all four gospels, to a varying degree (John, for example, having more obvious local knowledge than Luke, who always claimed to rely on other sources). The degree of interdependence constitutes the perennial “Synoptic Problem”, but by the same token shows that all four originate from around a single “tradition”, rather than springing up across the world in response to ancient legends.

There is actually no evidence whatsoever for the “communities” elaborating a particular guru’s teaching - it appears to be more twentieth century scholarly imagination that conjures these up for convenience. In fact, Richard Bauckham did a great little essay showing up the nonsense of this.

5 Likes

Is this a story about Peaceful Science? :wink:

2 Likes

Of course! The story of Piglet and the balloon teaches us so much about inflation theory.

3 Likes

It doesn’t have to have been written to Paul to be as old as his stuff… and if it’s by James, who was murdered in 62, then it can’t be that much newer anyway.

3 Likes

No - the idea that the Council of Nicea discussed the biblical canon has no evidence whatsoever (and proceedings are available, so it’s not about absence of evidence.) Motto - Dan Brown bad source for church history!

The main source of the idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this “fictitious anecdote” is the Synodicon Vetus ,[80] a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:

3 Likes

@Alice_Linsley Any insights from anthropology from this time period?

That’s very hard to say. It might not differ at all. No one ever claimed that very many people witnessed it, and they may not have been able to get it down into writing. Then again, who knows?

1 Like