There is much discussion (almost exclusively in the realm of the skeptic, not the believer) about the dating of the books of the Bible. Okay, to be fair, it's only the New Testament that anyone really cares about. You see, if they can demonstrate (or at least strongly suggest) that the Bible wasn't written until much later, they can cast doubt on its authenticity.
So they argue, for instance, that the Gospel of Mark (viewed by most as the earliest Gospel) was written after 70 AD. Do you know why? "Well," they argue, "Mark gives details about the destruction of the Temple. He couldn't know that if it hadn't happened. Therefore, he had to write it after it happened." Do you hear that? Mark quotes Jesus in Mark 13:2 as saying, "There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." The assumption, then, is that Mark is ... lying. There it is -- proof that Mark wasn't written before 70 AD.
There are valid reasons to ask the questions about dating the New Testament. 1) Is it reliable? All those epistles, for instance, with Paul's name on them ... if they were written after Paul was dead, that would be a problem for the question of reliability, wouldn't it? 2) What conclusions do we draw? John's The Revelation of Jesus Christ, for instance, has been dated by many in the area of 90-100 AD. The entire pre-millenial eschatology is premised on this date. You see, if the Temple was already destroyed (70 AD) and John is measuring the Temple, it must be a Temple that didn't exist when he wrote the book but would exist in the end times. Of course, if The Revelation was written before 70 AD, then the Temple he was referencing would be the existing Temple (in his day) and the fulfillment of much of that prophecy would have already occurred. So the questions about dating are reasonable to ask.
Unfortunately, most people don't worry about coming to a rational conclusion. Generally speaking, they want to come to a conclusion that will support their view. "The Bible isn't reliable. Therefore, the dates are likely in the 3rd or 4th century." Of course, the premise drives the conclusion rather than the other way around. "No, no, I'm a Preterist, so the Bible was written before 70 AD." Again, the premise drives the conclusion. Finding actual reasons to conclude one way or another without the intent getting in the way is a lot harder than it appears.
There are those who have argued, from the evidence, that the New Testament was completed before 70 AD. One of the key reasons that they conclude this, apart from preference, is that no one in the New Testament mentions the catastrophic destruction of the Temple ... except, of course, those quoting the prediction of that destruction. Irenaeus of Lyons (185 AD) said that the Gospels were written when Paul was preaching in Rome, placing them before 65 AD. Luke, it appears, wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts, and he was with Paul. (This, of course, would push Mark's gospel farther back if Luke got some of his information from Mark.) Norman Geisler quotes William F. Albright (a former liberal scholar) as saying, "We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80." You see, the outcome of this dating gives us one more important point. It puts the entire New Testament in the Eyewitness period. That is, these books were circulating when people were still alive who could say, "Wait a minute! I was there! That didn't happen." In fact, isn't that what Paul suggests (1 Cor. 15:6)?
14 comments:
Biblical dating. I thought this was going to be about sex before marriage or not....
The gospels didn't debut 40 years after the events. They were circulated among the early church as Paul infers in 1 Cor 15.
One exception is Revelation which refers to churches and one in particular, Smyrna, that would put it in the 90s. The "angel of Smyrna" is believed to be Polycarp (74-160 AD), a disciple John taught himself.
Consensus is the gospels were circulated from Day One (J.P. Holding of Tektonics argues that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic) and Revelation was written later, in the 90s. That strikes down Preterism but I think that to be an obviously flawed interpretation.
I'm curious what it is about Smyrna that would date Revelation in the 90's. It is believed that the church in Smyrna was established in Paul's third missionary journey (Acts 19:10).
My problem is that if John was, say, late teens/early 20's as a disciple during Jesus's ministry, he would be in the area of 80 years old when he wrote Revelation. However, after the Isle of Patmos, John later returned from exile and was believed to have died in Ephesus. That makes for a very old John -- difficult to imagine in the 1st century.
The primary reason for a late date (95-96 A.D.) is a comment from Iraneus quoted by Eusebius which is ambiguous itself. An interesting article on the early dating of the Revelation is here. (Note also that it appears that www.tektonics.org disagrees with you that Preterism is "an obviously flawed interpretation" and that Revelation must be dated later.)
Stan,
If you are interested, there is quite a bit of discussion regarding the dating of the books of the Tanakh. If you are interested, you can look Here or
Here or
Here
Then there is the difference between the authors of the books of Samuel and Chronicles. Or the theories regarding the authorship of Isaiah. Not to mention the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls regarding the Septuagint as compared to the Masoretic Texts.
And go into any scholarship forum and mention the dating of Daniel to watch the feathers fly! Oh, there is quite a bit of discussion regarding the dating of books in the Bible other than just the New Testament.
Now, as to that, I strongly recommend you get
History and Theology of the New Testament Writings by Udo Schelle. I cannot recommend this any higher.
As a Christian author, he discusses the various positions regarding authorship, dating, place of composition, and unity of every book in the New Testament. He provides an awing bibliography for further study on the issue from just about any position.
It is not just in the skeptic realm the dating of these books is discussed. In fact, since the scholars who study the Bible comprise mostly of Christians, by simple default there are more Christians than non-Christians who debate the issue!
Here is why the apocalypse of Mark places the date after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. What if I told you we have a book, published in 2064 in which the author wrote “In 2000 the great Swami predicted Hurricane Katrina of 2005.” We are suspicious, due to the dating, that perhaps it was an “after-the-fact” prophecy.
And no, this most absolutely does NOT make Mark a “liar.” Only the most simplistic interpretation of the Gospel of Mark was that of recorded history. The Gospel of Mark is rich with irony, chiasm (Greek method of story-telling), midrashic reference to the Tanakh, Elijah/Elisha cycle, as well as rich and deep subtlety going far, FAR beyond the dry record of “Jesus went to City X, with Person Y, saying statement Z.”
To understand requires some study regarding literature of the time, historagraphy, chiasms, midrash, the Tanakh, and the apocalyptic nature of first century Judea.
There are the additional problems of Mark knowing Paul’s Jesus, but Paul not knowing Mark’s Jesus. (Consequently Paul not knowing Matthew, Luke or John’s Jesus, either.)
Stan: Unfortunately, most people don't worry about coming to a rational conclusion. Generally speaking, they want to come to a conclusion that will support their view. "The Bible isn't reliable. Therefore, the dates are likely in the 3rd or 4th century."
There may be some skeptic who states this. It is as un-informed as claiming Mark was writing straight history.
Frankly, while the dating of Mark is an interesting study, whether it was written in the 30’s or the 130’s makes little difference as to its reliability. There is no indication whatsoever it was written by an eyewitness, nor would it need to be. That wasn’t its point.
Only a Christian apologist would worry about placing it in the time of an eyewitness.
"... dating of the books of the Tanakh."
Since that is much further out (in time) and much, much more difficult to actually conclude, I suppose I'll leave that to the experts.
"It is not just in the skeptic realm the dating of these books is discussed."
I'm with you there. The first question asked is "Are these reliable?" (generally from the perspective "they are not"). As an example, your question regarding Mark.
"What if I told you we have a book, published in 2064 in which the author wrote 'In 2000 the great Swami predicted Hurricane Katrina of 2005.' We are suspicious, due to the dating, that perhaps it was an 'after-the-fact' prophecy."
First, one's conclusions of an "after-the-fact" prophecy would first rely on a presumption that prophecy doesn't exist or, at best, that the great Swami isn't a reliable prophet. Second, it's exactly my point regarding the dating of Mark. The presumption is that Mark wrote it after the fact because it is a "prophecy" that obviously resolved in 70 A.D. This is not good reasoning. "There can be no prophecies. Mark writes a prophecy that actually occurred. Therefore, Mark must have written it after the fact." On the other hand, what would you think if it could be verified that Mark wrote that text before 70 A.D.? (Don't worry ... that's purely a rhetorical question.)
Christians are more concerned about 1) apologetics and 2) the conclusions we can draw. If, for instance, Revelation was written after 70 A.D., then these are future prophecies. Written before, and they'd be looking for fulfillment in 70 A.D. (Amillenialism versus Premillenialism largely hinges on that dating.)
"Only a Christian apologist would worry about placing it in the time of an eyewitness."
Well ... yeah! I mean, if I'm a person who believes in Christianity and I want to defend it, that would be my concern, wouldn't it? And, of course, I am one of those. :)
(Interestingly, there is strong consensus that Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote the book of Acts. That would seem to require that Paul knew Luke's Jesus and Luke knew Jesus from Mark's Gospel.)
Stan,
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway. It wouldn’t make any difference at all if the Gospel of Mark was written before 70 CE. Was the section added? Was it in the original? (In fact, it would be exciting to see it proven prior to 70 CE, since this would require an actual writing of Mark, and we would ALL be anxious to see what an earlier copy had.)
Further, my previous point may not have been clear. Apocryphal writing often included predictions of doom and woe. Josephus also wrote about signs and wonders predicting the downfall of Jerusalem, including a Jesus who went day and night declaring “Woe to Jerusalem” without stopping. (Until the first time he said, “Woe is me,” and was promptly killed by a catapulted rock.)
The author of Mark was writing in typical apocryphal style about saying “No stone will be left on another.” If you keep reading Mark 13, you will see further apocryphal predictions (“wars, rumors of wars. Famine, earthquakes.”) that some Christians are signs prior to the Second Coming. Things that haven’t happened yet.
In much the same way, if this was written in the 30’s—the author was writing in a style about how something bad was going to happen. And it did.
To most scholars—the first question is not “Is it reliable?” Again—that is Christian apologetics. (The problem being Christian apologetics has no objectivity. It does exactly what you state in your blog. Has a conclusion—“Mark records history”—and attempts to find any evidence to reach the conclusion.) Depending on the scholar, the first question could be a variety of things. “When was it written?” “Has it been modified?” (Textual Criticism) “What are its sources?” (Higher Criticism; Synoptic Problem) “Who was the author?” “Who was the audience?” “What was the author attempting to portray?” “How would this be viewed by society?”
When I say “Mark’s Jesus”—I am referring to the Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Mark. As compared to the Jesus as recorded in Paul’s epistles, or the Johannine books, or the Jesus recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Paul does not provide a record of a Jesus like the one in the Gospel of Luke. If Paul DID have the Gospel of Luke—he certainly had a curious way of not utilizing much from it.
"It wouldn’t make any difference at all if the Gospel of Mark was written before 70 CE."
It wouldn't as long as 1) we can suggest that the section was added or 2) recommend that it not be taken as actual prophecy somehow. If, on the other hand, it was written before the event, was part of the original, is an accurate representation of Jesus's words, and actually happened as Jesus said it would, well, then there's a problem (for you), isn't there? (See folks like Gentry and DeMar for books on "wars, rumors of wars, famine, earthquakes" and how they did occur.)
I understood what you meant by "Mark's Jesus". I don't really know what you mean when you say that Paul didn't utilize Mark's Jesus, but, more importantly, I don't understand why you would find it curious that he didn't. Let's say that you are married. Let's say further that you know your wife. (That was intended as mild humor.) And you tell people about your wife. Then you find a book about your wife. Is your explanation about your wife going to be the book you read or your own relationship with her? Paul claims a personal relationship with Christ. Why would he utilize "Mark's Jesus" when he knows Him himself? (Wow, that can be confusing, eh? Follow the capital letters.)
This isn't a subject I am overly-familiar with, but for anyone wanting to know more about this subject, may I recommend Archbishop James' Usher's, "annals of the World." He is the guy who officially put dates to the Bible books, I believe, in or around the time of the Reformation. Annals of the world.
Stan: If, on the other hand, it was written before the event, was part of the original, is an accurate representation of Jesus's words, and actually happened as Jesus said it would, well, then there's a problem (for you), isn't there?
Well—those are pretty big “if’s” aren’t they? *grin.*
If written before the event… Obviously we don’t have the one thing to verify this—an actual writing dated to prior 70 C.E. Or (just as helpful) another dated writing referring to the Gospel of Mark written prior to 70 C.E. The problem is that ALL of our documents are so long past, by a magnitude of centuries, as to what is contained we have no way of verifying it by the documents themselves.
Therefore, we are stuck, utilizing higher criticism, to attempt to glean when it was written from the document itself. By way of example, if we came across a writing about Germany’s military strategy in WW2—just by the writing could we tell if it was written in 1950 or 1960 or 1970? Maybe not—only if it contained some other information that (for further example) was not discovered until 1960. This would help limit the time.
Obviously scholars debate heavily, just by using the writing itself, as to the dating.
If it was part of the original… Again, not easy to verify. There has been some textual changes over the years in Mark 13:1-2. Nothing where the entire verses were omitted. But due to the length of time between the original writing and the eventual copies—could someone have added this section in after 70 C.E.? I, personally, believe it was in the original. But others disagree.
Is an actual representation of Jesus’ words… Extremely doubtful. Historigraphy was not intended to be an actual representation. It was intended to be what the person would likely say—not what they “actually” would say. Further, this section follows the Elijah/Elisha cycle of 2 Kings 10:26-28 Here Malina indicates in the First Century Mediterranean, the dying person saw what was going to happen to his/her associates. (Like we have the saying you see your own life “flash before your eyes”—they believed one would see what would happen to their friends post-mortem.)
This would be a story about Jesus having such an experience.
We must remember to not imply our 21st century penchant for accuracy in historical accounts. In the First Century, the audience would not expect these to be the actual words, the writer would not expect to write (or even necessarily know) the actual words—so it would only be sheer blazing coincidence if they were the actual words!
and it actually happened as Jesus said it would… Well…er…did it? Was there not a single stone on top of another stone? Again, no one would expect it to happen exactly as Jesus claimed, no one would write it in such a fashion.
I find this area fascinating to study. I can’t make others, of course, have the same interest, but I am stunned at how different the culture was, and what was expected. I, personally, think it makes the stories more vibrant. But that is me.
Still not sure how this would be a “problem” for me. I presume you mean as in some type of miraculous prophecy. Not sure why. Were there others making similar predictions of doom and gloom? Of course! Judas the Galilean was causing an uprising against the Romans, the Jewish people, as a whole, were rebellious since 6 CE, and Josephus states the Census taken in 6 CE was the “beginning of the end” in that it was still the impetus for the Jewish wars.
If Jesus actually said it, and it was actually recorded prior to 70 CE—it is not as if this was a time of peace, and every one was getting along, and who could see war brewing?
Can I tighten up your analogy about my wife a bit? It was good—I know what you were getting at, but let’s look at what we have.
Let’s assume you believe Jesus Christ is God and authoritative on all things regarding morality, church and spirituality. (While I would not say Paul necessarily believed that, we will keep to it in our analogy.) Let’s assume you are writing to a group who also believes Jesus Christ is God and authoritative on all things regarding morality, church and spirituality.
Don’t you think once…maybe…you just might quote Jesus on some such topic? Why is Paul arguing what Paul’s view is on marriage, without ever referring to Jesus’ statement on the subject. Why is Paul arguing the law can be summed up with “love your neighbor” (Rom. 13:9 and Gal. 5:14) and not happening to mention Jesus’ commands on the subject? Romans 9 – Paul is looking for an example of a vessel for wrath and can’t come up with….I don’t know….Judas?
Paul has to argue with the Corinthians about resurrection, and never uses Lazarus? Either one? Not a single parable, not the sermon? Christ’s great words on faith and Paul, in his epiphanical work on faith in Romans, doesn’t bother? When attempting to write convincingly to other Christians?
Stan, this is a bit like you agreeing Random House Dictionary is THE absolute source for definitions, and while its first definition for marriage is “the union of any two people, regardless of gender,” and in our entire debate regarding homosexual marriage, I never mention it. To later claim, “Oh, Stan and DagoodS already knew the definition, so that’s why DagoodS never bothered to mention it, even though it would resolve the debate in a sentence” is pretty far-fetched.
Paul didn’t mention any of the parables of Jesus, any of the sermons of Jesus, any of the confrontations of Jesus, any of the miracles of Jesus, and only the most cursory over-view of Jesus, because he (and his audience of the time) didn’t know any such Jesus.
I understand, dagoods, that your primary position is "I don't believe any of this hogwash" and so we will not agree on a conclusion. To be expected. I hope that you understand that a sentence like "Paul didn’t mention any of the parables of Jesus, any of the sermons of Jesus, any of the confrontations of Jesus, any of the miracles of Jesus, and only the most cursory over-view of Jesus, because he (and his audience of the time) didn’t know any such Jesus" can only be read as "anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot". I am offended by "Christians" who argue "biblically-minded Christians think ..." because there is no other conclusion but "If you disagree with me, you're obviously not biblically-minded." Your statement can also be taken no other way. A modifier phrase like "as I see it" or "in my view" is helpful here because it admits that the speaker recognizes he/she may be wrong.
I have answers in my head for your objections. I understand that my answers are likely irrelevant to you, so I won't bother. (Seriously, this kind of discussion is FAR better face to face. It's just way too hard in this cold world of "blog comment".) So, knowing simply that I disagree with your conclusions and recognizing that you'll have to consider me stupid for doing so, I'll leave it at that.
Crazy Calvinist,
I've read Ussher. Interesting stuff. I'm not sure I'd allow the phrase "officially put dates to the Bible books" because, well, there's a good chance that he's off ... too many times. Fortunately, while you and I have an inerrant Bible, we don't have to rely on an inerrant Ussher, eh? :)
Stan,
I apologize. I had absolutely no intention of coming across as offensive. This happens to be an area I have read and studied extensively, and my enthusiasm bubbles over to over-exuberance on the issue.
I have a problem with going over-the-top.
In the field of biblical studies, for every position a person has, there are fifty different alternatives, and 10 different scholars pointing in twenty different directions. Sometimes I think a person could say just about anything, and find support for it somewhere.
Yes, I write “as I see it.” I have read numerous sides of the issue, and have not come to my conclusions because I “wanted” to (quite the opposite, in fact) nor out of any claim “this is all hogwash.” (To be honest, I don’t even know what you mean by that.)
I do not think you stupid.
My impression, after reading this blog entry, was that you were claiming dating the Biblical books was almost exclusively in the realm of the skeptic and it was only the New Testament anyone really cares about.
I thought you, and perhaps your readers, would like to hear from a skeptic on the subject.
Again, I am sorry I was offensive.
"I don't believe any of this hogwash" is shorthand for "I've thought it all through and decided it's not true."
And if you read the post carefully, I think I said (offhandedly and, perhaps, not very kindly) that the valid reasons for asking about dating are for 1) reliability and 2) conclusions. Those are believers questions. (I say perhaps not too kindly because I suggested that other reasons -- like skepticism -- are not valid much like you suggested that the only conclusion is your conclusion. See? None of us us perfect.)
I understand where you're coming from. I'm a hard person to offend. Actually, it generally takes a person who calls himself a Christian to do that. :) No offense taken.
Yes, I didn't phrase that well, apologies. I meant it was recognized as one of the standards on that subject. Wasn't suggesting inerrancy. :-)
I figured that's what you had in mind. I just get a little wary when someone dates the day of Creation as October 23, 4004 BC. There are too many problems (such as using extra-biblical, even highly questionable sources) for me to take it too seriously. Interesting, sure, and impressive work, yes, but I'll still keep it as "interesting" versus "absolute truth".
Post a Comment