When Was The New Testament Written?

Conversation Side Conversation
21

The links were posted in the context of a discussion about dating the books of the New Testament and they are book length treatments of the subject. The first book I linked to argues that all (iirc) the books of the New Testament were written prior to AD 70. It is of particular relevance because it takes the opposite view to that which appears in a couple of the comments, in that it argues that the NT books are conspicuous in their lack of mention of the events of AD 70 and thus must have been written before those events took place.

The second book concentrates specifically on the last book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation. It is a book length treatment of just one of te books of the New Testament and argues that it too was written before AD 70.

Hope that helps.

1 Like
22

Thanks. It does help.

23

Depends on what you mean by “the Jesus that we know and love”. Do you think every single story in the bible is true? How many and which ones are true? I think most of them may be false.

Perhaps he was unusually charismatic. Who knows? But resurrection isn’t necessary. Siddhartha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. weren’t resurrected. Yet their religions showed “incredible growth”.

Yes, but it isn’t just oral traditions. Written stories were frequently embellished too.

The analogy is not entirely bad. But I don’t see why stories would become different species. And I’m not sure that you are clear on what biological species are and what speciation is, so the analogy becomes problematic there.

24

It’s often called that, and one can use scientific methods in history. Of course it isn’t always science.

1 Like
25

I agree. My use of biological terms are dangerous, at best. So, it seems clear that the oral traditions and written stories were frequently embellished. As the religion grew, the participants would have been spread out, geographically.

So, eventually, written copies of the books would have made their way out into these disparate areas, right? I would imagine that, given this freedom to embellish, the stories would have taken on a life of their own, so to speak, right? There was no internet, no annual conference of scripture writers, no means by which or expectation that the documents would be compared to each other and reconciled, right?

So, in that sense, they would become like separate species. They would all have been based upon a basic body plan, some would have deviated considerably, and others would have only slightly, but they would certainly be different, right? We wouldn’t expect that there would be, for instance, ten copies, all equally “embellished” by five certain people, and all containing the same text, right?

1 Like
26

Isn’t that what the Council of Nicaea had to deal with?

2 Likes
27

I don’t know. But what do you suppose were the state of the texts before they assembled? Like what I described? Or something different?

28

Yes, the oral tradition can maintain a narrative. But the narrative that is maintained is subject to natural selection and random drift.

2 Likes
29

The “canonical” texts certainly vary a lot. The non-canonical texts vary much more. Are you sure you aren’t familiar with that?

2 Likes
30

Sorry, I’m not trying to be coy with you. I am familiar with the Council at Nicaea, and that they developed creeds, debated theological issues, and canonized certain books. That said, I’m still trying to picture, according to what you believe, what the disparate books and letters spread throughout many nations would have looked like in comparison to one another.

It seems as though, given a fairly unreliable oral tradition, a great degree of embellishment in the written text, the lack of an organizational structure by which the texts could be reconciled, and a significant geographic distribution, the texts themselves would have varied wildly in terms of content. It seems like the potential for the Telephone Game wherein one starts by whispering a message to one person and ends, ten people later, with nothing at all similar.

Before we even get to Nicaea, I’m trying to determine what you think about the state of these texts. If the oral tradition is weak and scribes were not kept mostly-accountable for maintaining the narrative, I can’t imagine the state that the texts must have been in by, say, 300 AD. On the other hand, if the oral tradition were closely managed, and the written narrative was delicately managed, the texts may have maintained their integrity.

At the council of Nicaea, there were 1800 bishops from the Christian church, so there was a well-developed structure. I guess that I would have expected there to be a much greater emphasis on reconciling the texts. But it seems that the text was not so much of an issue.

It seems to me much more likely that the integrity of the original stories may very likely have been maintained to a much greater degree than you believe.

1 Like
31

That’s really the whole point. More below

The Gospels were written down by 100 AD, and outside of occasional transcriptional errors and interpolations wouldn’t likely have changed substantially afterward.

Their problem was choosing which books would become canonical, not altering text. A number of other gospels and writings were known; you can see on that website I linked above. FWIW by the way, church councils of the time often had more in common with a free-for-all then anything well developed!

But there is a good deal of variation even in the texts which were chosen. Bart Ehrman gives a short rundown here, and the implications for using them in a historical case. He notes that the evidence suggests the oral tradition was not carefully managed.

32

I think that’s another place where your speciation analogy breaks down. You assume no communication between locations, story-tellers, and writers. Clearly that isn’t true. Speciation doesn’t usually happen without geographic isolation of populations. That’s not what happened in the Roman Empire.

What integrity? The synoptic gospels share a bit, and they share a bit less with John. But have you ever thought that might be the reason they were accepted as canon? They were picked from among a mass of other proposed gospels because they fit the needs of the council. Thus some amount of agreement was manufactured.

2 Likes
33

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

1 Like
34

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
35

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
More Evidence: The Resurrection or Alexander the Great?
36

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
37

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.

38

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
More Evidence: The Resurrection or Alexander the Great?
39

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:

40

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.