The “standard” dates given for NT writings, as given by Jon Garvey, match what I was taught as an undergrad:
Paul (at least the 7 letters agreed on by everyone to be almost certainly his) early, from the late 40s through the 50s;
The Gospels all later, with only Mark (perhaps written in the 60s) antedating the fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke in the 70s or 80s, and John quite late, possibly as late as 90 or 95.
I would add:
Some of the Pauline writings that according to many scholars are only dubiously Paul’s (Ephesians, for example) are dated considerably later than the verified Pauline letters;
The epistles attributed to people other than Paul (e.g., 1st John) are often dated quite late (possibly 80s or 90s);
The book of Revelation is usually dated quite late, with figures varying from about 90 to about 120, though I think most scholars make it before 100.
But, as Jon says, there are dissident scholars who question this chronology. I have seen (but not investigated) claims for a very early Mark (maybe as early as the 30s).
I am inclined to agree with those who make the Gospel of John late – late in the first century. I also think that Revelation bears indicators of similar lateness. Beyond that, I have no strong opinions regarding the dating. Further, I’m not sure why the dating is important. Does any important truth in the New Testament depend on when the books were written? I mean, Genesis 1 was supposedly written down in final form about the time of the Babylonian Captivity, but the events it discusses (Creation) occurred more than 3,000 years before that, even following the Biblical chronology. Does that make the teaching of Genesis 1 on Creation invalid? So if the Gospels were written 50 years after the time of Jesus, is their teaching about Jesus invalid? I don’t get it.
I guess that depends on what someone considers to be an important truth.
In the New Testament Jesus is portrayed as being a prophet. If the books of the New Testament were written after AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem was projected back onto the words of Jesus in order to make him appear prophetic, that would be an important truth.
Think of the problems posed if the books were in fact written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
This extends to our own days, where books like the book of Revelation are claimed to be describing current events. IF the book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70 and is in fact about the coming “judgment” then an entire genre of Christian writing is nonsense.
So that’s at least two reasons it’s important to me.
Good points, Mung, but it seems to me that Jesus’s accurate prediction of the future of Jerusalem is among the least of his accomplishments. I mean, the Gospels depict a man healing people instantly, in many cases of things we can’t heal now with the best modern medical techniques; they depict a man who controls the weather; they depict a man who can curse a fig tree and make it wither; they depict a man who changes water into wine, feeds five thousand people with the amount of food in seven Happy Meals, and rises from the dead. Even if the prophecies of Jesus “didn’t count” because the Gospels were written after the events, wouldn’t there be enough to go on, that doesn’t depend on any fulfilled predictions?
The kind of person that makes the argument, “The Gospel narrators put these prophecies in the mouth of Jesus after the events”, is the kind of person who is not going to believe any of the miracle stories in the Gospel anyway. In other words, such a person uses the later dating of the Gospels for polemical purposes, in support of a conclusion he has already arrived at for other reasons.
And anyhow, even if the Gospels were written after the events, why couldn’t they record prophecies that Jesus really made before the events? They weren’t writing for a modern skeptical audience that would demand to see dated copies of Jesus’ prophecies; they would assume their readers would take them at their word. They might even be assuming an audience, the older members of which, in their younger days, had actually heard Jesus making the prophecies; for such an audience, the Gospel writers wouldn’t feel the need to provide documentation. So I don’t see that a later date of composition would undermine the reality of the prophecies.
I agree. The KJV was a fairly cautious translation, and fairly literal. Changes in English since then make some sentences confusing or even misleading, but that’s not the fault of the translators. A book which lists the relevant changes in English, and discusses them in interesting ways, is The King James Bible Word Book, by Bridges and Weigle.
Two versions which don’t depart too much from the King James caution are the American Standard Version of 1901 and the Revised Standard version of 1910/1952 (NT/OT). For those who find the King James translation too archaic to read comfortably, I often recommend the old RSV. (The New RSV was done later, by different people, and I haven’t used it enough to comment on it.)
I predict another 100 years of strife in and around Jerusalem as Islam, Judaism, and Christianity clash in the area. As easy a prediction as more hurricanes as temperatures rise.
Joshua, can this reply of Patrick be moved back to the “When Was the New Testament Written” column? It is a reply to a comment of mine there, and doesn’t pertain to sports, etc.
You cover a point that hasn’t really been discussed in the thread - that virtually all the decent translations do the same job, with any disagreements over word choices etc being fine print stuff for preachers to swank about!
I started life with the KJV because, essentially, that’s all there was then. When I became a Christian I borrowed a New English Bible, then bought an RSV because real theologians used that. When that wore out I changed to NIV because everyone else had, and having got 30 years use out of that, and being unable to find the same edition, I now use mainly the NASB - but have also made use of Good News, Living Bible, Amplified, Knox, Wuest, J B Phillips and others (simply because I had them to hand) and the original languages.
I’m prejudiced against sheer paraphrases like The Message, but given their different purposes - ranging from reflecting the literal word order as much as possible to being as easy to follow as possible - the translations all end up at the same place. Except when they’ve been deliberately doctored, like the JW New World translation - and even in that case, my Methodist granny inadvertantly used one for years without noticing the difference.