Dating the Bible

[JackRT]

I am not really sure that this is the correct forum for this, but here goes. On a forum to which I have no posting privileges I just came across a statement to the effect that "almost all of the New Testament was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70". This certainly goes against modern biblical scholarship. John Dominic Crossan is one of the foremost bible scholars of our time. He offers the following dating for early Christian sources. These sources include non-canonical scripture as well:

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

 

[Fizzywig]

Good luck with this. I would just point out that which is often omitted from discussions of dating. i.e. That WHEN the various books were originally written and WHAT was originally written are two totally different questions.

 

[JackRT]

Good luck with this. I would just point out that which is often omitted from discussions of dating. i.e. That WHEN the various books were originally written and WHAT was originally written are two totally different questions.

A very valid point as well. In his list Crossan addresses this a bit with several scriptures that appear to have been added to at a later date.

 

[Arthra]

I don't have any issues with the scholarship and presumed dating... .

As with many sacred literatures there was an oral period that preceded them that was called the "Logia" and generally most believe this would have been in Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek. Translation from a language like Aramaic to Greek is I believe fraught with some difficulties. We can't be sure what was taken as an expression for something and maybe later taken literally in Greek. Some years ago I was impressed with some of the work of George Lamsa who based his translations on an Aramaic model. I still feel this has merit.

Doctrinal themes later adopted by the church as interpretations have also had influences on earlier translations ...

 

[Fizzywig]

I don't have any issues with the scholarship and presumed dating... .

As with many sacred literatures there was an oral period that preceded them that was called the "Logia" and generally most believe this would have been in Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek. Translation from a language like Aramaic to Greek is I believe fraught with some difficulties. We can't be sure what was taken as an expression for something and maybe later taken literally in Greek. Some years ago I was impressed with some of the work of George Lamsa who based his translations on an Aramaic model. I still feel this has merit.

Doctrinal themes later adopted by the church as interpretations have also had influences on earlier translations ...

The idea of an oral period ( Logia ) prior to the actual writing of the texts.......good.

Again, you touch upon the "treacherous sea of language".

Thanks

Maybe you could expand upon your entire post if you find the time.

 

[JackRT]

I don't have any issues with the scholarship and presumed dating... .

As with many sacred literatures there was an oral period that preceded them that was called the "Logia" and generally most believe this would have been in Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek. Translation from a language like Aramaic to Greek is I believe fraught with some difficulties. We can't be sure what was taken as an expression for something and maybe later taken literally in Greek. Some years ago I was impressed with some of the work of George Lamsa who based his translations on an Aramaic model. I still feel this has merit.

Doctrinal themes later adopted by the church as interpretations have also had influences on earlier translations ...

Oral transmission in New Testament scripture was only a matter of decades but I suspect that some books of the Old Testament (like Job, Genesis and Exodus) were several centuries in oral transmission. In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. It seems that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

 

[Fizzywig]

Oral transmission in New Testament scripture was only a matter of decades but I suspect that some books of the Old Testament (like Job, Genesis and Exodus) were several centuries in oral transmission. In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. It seems that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Bart Erhman gives an interesting take on this in his discussion of the seven words from the cross. i.e the words recorded in the four gospels that Jesus spoke from the cross. Erhman makes a very good case that to actually make an amalgamation of all seven verses/sayings as that which "happened in history" is to create a "confusion of tongues". Rather, to take each gospel entirely seperately and to discern just what each evangelist was seeking to say, the picture of Jesus being presented by each, is the far better approach. At least, as far as a contemplative reading is concerned.

 

[fatboys]

I am not really sure that this is the correct forum for this, but here goes. On a forum to which I have no posting privileges I just came across a statement to the effect that "almost all of the New Testament was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70". This certainly goes against modern biblical scholarship. John Dominic Crossan is one of the foremost bible scholars of our time. He offers the following dating for early Christian sources. These sources include non-canonical scripture as well:

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

What is the reason you have to present this information? Are you questioning the validity of the bible?

 

[JackRT]

What is the reason you have to present this information? Are you questioning the validity of the bible?

If you read my preamble to Crossan's list you would see claim that the New Testament was written almost entirely prior to AD 70. There is quite a difference of opinion here and I was interested in the opinions of people on this forum.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Modern scholarship tends to favour dates of 70-110 AD for the gospels. This is largely on stylistic grounds and content, supported by referencing thereof in other sources.
The problem is that a big part of the reasoning is that Jesus references the destruction of the Temple and therefore it has to have been written after the First Jewish Revolt. If you ascribe to prophecy, then this falls away and then dates from 50-90 AD becomes plausible. I think this is what was meant by that post you came accross?

 

[ProDeo]

If you read my preamble to Crossan's list you would see claim that the New Testament was written almost entirely prior to AD 70. There is quite a difference of opinion here and I was interested in the opinions of people on this forum.

It's plausible the entire NT was written before AD 70 because the NT never mentions the great tribulation (my current view) that took place in AD 66-70 during the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and (according to Josephus) 1.1 million deaths, a bloodbath. If the NT was written after AD 70 why is such a significent event (and fulfilled prophecy) never mentioned?

Also that Acts speaks of the martyr death of Stephen but doesn't mention the martyr death of other disciples such as Peter and Paul.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I agree with ProDeo that the dating of Acts in the OPs list makes little sense based on its content. Besides, Acts and Luke were probably written by the same author based on its writing style, so to date one at 90 AD and the next after 120 AD is quite unlikely for that reason as well.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Theology and confirmation bias go really well together.

 

[Fizzywig]

Maybe slightly off topic ( yet I could perhaps claim not to have understood the question...... ) but current Biblical Scholarship has reached the point, even among relatively conservative Christian scholars, of acknowledging that the ORIGINAL text is beyond recovery.

I have heard it said, by Fundamentalist/Literalists compelled to acknowledge this by the sheer weight of evidence, that while the original text was indeed "inerrant", what we have now is not, but then add that such errors that have crept in are "of no consequence".

For me, this is a rather strange argument, for a number of reasons. But there you go......

 

[smaneck]

The problem is that a big part of the reasoning is that Jesus references the destruction of the Temple and therefore it has to have been written after the First Jewish Revolt. I

Sometimes that assumption is made, at other times a prophecy is used as evidence that it was written before the event in question. An example is Deutero-Isaiah which predicts that Cyrus will march into Babylon and destroy their temple, just as the first Jewish Temple had been destroyed. What actually happens is that the priests of Babylon open the gates for Cyrus and Cyrus, far from destroying their temple, claims to act on behalf of Marduk, their high god. We know by this that the prophecy was written before Cyrus' conquest of the Babylonian Empire.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Oral transmission in New Testament scripture was only a matter of decades but I suspect that some books of the Old Testament (like Job, Genesis and Exodus) were several centuries in oral transmission. In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. It seems that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

How long is an oral tradition sustainable?

 

[smaneck]

How long is an oral tradition sustainable?

Well, Islamic ahadith were transmitted for centuries but that is one of the reasons I'm dubious as to the extent to which they reflect Muhammad's words and deeds.

 

[JackRT]

How long is an oral tradition sustainable?

Excellent question. Without a "master copy" errors will certainly accumulate in transmission particularly because, as my post pointed out, the story teller tailors his story to suit the audience.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with Quid... a lot of Crossan's dating assumptions fall away if our presuppositions allow for actual prophecy to occur. Then a much earlier dating is plausible.

Bart Erhman's critique of a lack of original text is overstated, he's making an assumption that if we can't know it all for certain, then we can't know anything important. Again, his previous Fundamentalist approach colors his skepticism. No mainline Protestant church uses such a theological approach to the Bible anymore (starting with Barth, many conservative mainline Protestants have a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the Bible and revelation), and this argument is of no consequence for Roman Catholics.

 

[Erik Nelson]