Dating the disciples & the NT

[melD]

Hi there

I hope there are people out there who can help me with this.

To the best of my knowledge, Jesus lived from approximately 5BC to 29/30AD. The New Testament contains the earliest writings about His life in the form of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest disciple wrote from about the year 50AD as far as I can tell (I willingly stand to be corrected).

If this is true, why the two decade gap before anyone writes about Him? Why didn't anyone write about His life while He was alive? Even His disciple, John, wrote about 100AD or 30 years after the books of Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written, but that means he would have had to have been ridiculously old to have walked with Jesus and have written about it. Why did it take him so long to write about it? Did all four of these men walk with Him?

Sorry for the attack of questions. I've wanted to ask them for such a long time and no one at my Church has been able to give me a decent response yet. Any advice you guys can give me will be awesome. There's only so much that Google can tell me.

 

[Snagglefritz]

Dates for various books vary a great deal. Some scholars will say that all of the gospels were written in the second century AD, while others say that all of them were written before 80AD.

The commonly accepted dates are these:

* Jesus died in 33AD
* Paul wrote from 50 AD to 60 AD
* Mark 70 AD
* Matthew 80 AD
* Luke 90 AD
* John 100 AD
* Most of the other books in the second century AD

You ask: Did all four of these men walk with Him?

Probably none of them did! For a start, Mark and Luke were not disciples (or apostles) of Jesus.

And secondly, the original authors are unknown. Of the four gospels, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

 

[Korah]

I refer you to my thread here in this sub-forum, last post June. 24th, "Jesus Christ vs. G." There I take extracts from the first of four articles I posted in June 2006 here:

http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
Briefly I show that two disciples may have written Jesus's words during his life-time.
Nicodemus took notes on Jesus's discourses that were included in our Gospel of John. Matthew also wrote down sayings of Jesus, probably during His ministry. His Q is included in both Matthew and Luke by definition, but probably also by my argument in Mark. The earliest draft of Mark was written in 44 A. D. Luke was certainly finished by 63 A. D., and all the gospels were completed by 70 A. D.
Dale

 

[Snagglefritz]

I have a link to a site that shows all dates attributed to all gospels, by dozens of different scholars, bible publishers, and religious leaders, but I haven't been on this forum long enough to post links - sorry.

Maybe Google "Dating the New Testament" will get you there.



These are the earliest and the latest dates I have found for the four gospels. Other scholars have dated the gospels somewhere between these extremes.

Matthew
J A T Robinson 40-60
W D Davies DD 80-100

Mark
J Wenham PhD 45
Raymond E Brown PhD 60-75

Luke
MS Mills PhD 53
Joseph B Tyson PhD 120-125

John
Leon Morris PhD before 70
Richard C H Lenski PhD 75-100

In the crowd I run with, the commonly accepted dates are those mentioned in my earlier post (I accept them too).


@ Korah
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out shortly. Sounds interesting

 

[Wolvrin704]

Keep in mind that back at that time society was very oral in nature. Most people were illiterate and as a rule were much better than we are now at remembering orally and reciting. As I recall Mark's gospel while written by Mark is actually as told him by Peter.
In Jewish learning I read of one teacher who recited a lesson 400 times to his students and then if they could not recite back verbatim he would do it 400 more times.

People make a big deal about how long after Jesus lived the gospels were written but the fact is from the writings of Paul we know that the facts of the gospels were already well known to believers despite not being in written form. Also, it was not unusual for books to be written about subjects long after their death. Today we accept what is known about Alexander as fact despite the issue that it was centuries after his death before anything was written that we have now. Most ancients texts also have very few copies left from ancient days. There are more ancient copies of books and passages of the Bible than all other ancient manuscripts combined.

 

[Snagglefritz]

Today we accept what is known about Alexander as fact despite the issue that it was centuries after his death before anything was written that we have now. Most ancients texts also have very few copies left from ancient days. There are more ancient copies of books and passages of the Bible than all other ancient manuscripts combined.

Remember that Alexander was just a man who did nothing more spectacular than lead an army. It is easy to accept the stories about him because they are the stories of a normal (albeit powerful) man doing normal things.

In the bible on the other hand, we have at least 40 miracles attributed to Jesus - virgin birth, walking on water, raising Lazarus, people rising out of the grave and walking around Jerusalem. Those stories are not so easy to accept (and may even be false).

Comparing stories from the bible with stories about Alexander is to compare apples with oranges.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Alexander, for example, had buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. There are treaties and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E.[/FONT].

Not so, Jesus. Apart from the bible, there is no evidence for his existence.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Apart from the bible, there is no evidence for his existence.

While true, it must not be taken for granted that "the bible" is a sole source. It would be more accurate to say that there is no evidence for Jesus apart from the multiple sources now collected together in the bible. And this still disregards looking at Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and even possibly some removed Jewish sources (b. Sanh. 43a).

Take Josephus for example. Jesus is mentioned two very clear times in Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64 and Ant. 20.200). The disputed reference that is so often pointed out is 18.63-64 where it certainly appears some additions have been given to Josephus. The other reference, however, is not disputed and it talks about the death of "James the brother of Jesus". It's odd that Josephus would refer to James, who he devoted quite a large amount of space to, in this manner. Why not refer to him as "son of ___" as would be more customary? And why does James even merit Josephus' attention at all? Obviously because James was popular because of and known for his relation to Jesus, not his father. This is certainly evidence that Jesus not only existed but was the reason why James was known and popular.

 

[Snagglefritz]

Thanks for your reply. As it happens, I am merely an interested layman, so I can't really say much about the reference to James by Josephus. I read one article on the subject and think "Wow, that proves he was talking about Jesus" and then I read another article and think "Wow, the whole thing was a forgery!" My opinion flip-flops, but I never lose interest.

 

[callmeMurph]

If this is true, why the two decade gap before anyone writes about Him? Why didn't anyone write about His life while He was alive?

I'm not sure if we can know why or if we do I don't know.

I looked around and I found this:

Most scholars, whether liberal or conservative, date Paul's epistles before the Gospels were put into written form.56 Just as the teachings of the Jewish Rabbis had originally been passed on orally, it appears that the Gospel was first spread in the form of oral creeds and hymns.57 J. P. Moreland states that Paul's epistles contain many of these pre-Pauline creeds and hymns, that they were originally spoken in the Aramaic tongue (the Hebrew language of Christ's day), and that most scholars date these creeds and hymns between 33AD and 48AD.58 Since Paul's writings are dated in the 50's AD or 60's AD by most scholars, the creeds he recorded in his letters point to an oral tradition which predates his writings. Most scholars will at least admit that these ancient creeds originated before 50AD.59
​

- http://www.british-israel.ca/Newtes2.htm

Even His disciple, John, wrote about 100AD or 30 years after the books of Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written, but that means he would have had to have been ridiculously old to have walked with Jesus and have written about it. Why did it take him so long to write about it?

According to early tradition, this book was composed near the end of Domitian's reign, around the year 95 AD. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69 AD, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[32] The majority of modern scholars accept one of these two dates, with most accepting the later one.[6]
Those who favour the later date appeal to the earliest external testimony, that of the Christian father Irenaeus (c. 150-202),[33] who wrote that he received his information from people who knew John personally. Domitian, according to Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339), started the persecution referred to in the book. While some recent scholars have questioned the existence of a large-scale Domitian persecution,[34] others believe that Domitian's insistence on being treated as a god may have been a source of friction between the Church and Rome.[35]
The earlier date, first proposed in modern times by John Robinson in a closely argued chapter of "Redating the New Testament" (1976), relies on the book's internal evidence, given that no external testimony exists earlier than that of Irenaeus, noted above, and the earliest extant manuscript evidence of Revelation (P98) is likewise dated no earlier than the late second century. This early dating is centered around the preterist interpretation of chapter 17, where the seven heads of the "beast" are regarded as the succession of Roman emperors up to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.[36]
John W. Marshall dates the book to 69 or early 70 AD, saying it predates any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism,[37] and that it is a thoroughly Jewish text.[38]
Some interpreters attempt to reconcile the two dates by placing the visions themselves at the earlier date (during the 60s) and the publication of Revelation under Domitian, who reigned in the 90s when Irenaeus says the book was written.[39] At this point, however, there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove this hypothesis.

- Wikipedia
​

Did all four of these men walk with Him?

John and Matthew were apostles.
Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles.

(see wikipedia: John the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Mark the Evangelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Saint Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[ebia]

Not so, Jesus. Apart from the bible, there is no evidence for his existence.

That's not quite true. There isn't a mass of early evidence outside of the bible, but there is some. That alone would be remarkable if he didn't exist or wasn't significant. And then you have the data that is the bible and the group of people that produced it. It's pretty much impossible to find an historian who doesn't think Jesus existed and died in pretty much the bible tells it. Even Richard Dawkins couldn't find one - he cites Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London to support his case that Jesus never lived at all. It turns out Professor Wells is an emeritus professor of German. And has since changed his mind.

One needs to decide what exactly one is trying to establish historically. The N.T. and the church that produced are historial data without necessarly believing all the stories they tell. So pretty much everyone who professionally deals in historical data of the period agrees Jesus existed and was crucified. Most agree that he must have said and been widely percieved as doing the sorts of things the gospels say he said and did. And nobody has managed to explain satisfactorally how the church, the resurrection stories and the theology that grows out of them came to be so quickly in the form we find them if the resurrection did not happen. Bear in mind that crucifixion is the ultimate proof that someone is not the Messiah - that was the whole point of crucifying them. We know from all the other crucified "messiahs" what crucifixion meant - it meant your guy was not the messiah so either you snuck off home quitely and hope they didn't decide to nail you up too, or you picked someone else - a son or brother, and said "this is the actual messiah - let's follow him". You find that beginning to happen in the gospel stories - they all start hiding away in rooms with locked doors. They should then have snuck back to Galilee, just as Cleopas and his wife track back to Emmaus, or declared James Messiah. But no - for some otherwise incomprehensible reason they change their entire theology around the idea that Jesus is bodily risen from the dead! Nobody expected resurrection to follow - nobody thought resurrection in that way was possible - so why did this group of people think that it had?

 

[Snagglefritz]

I wasn't saying that Jesus did not exist. I was saying that there is no evidence for his existence outside the gospels.

There are about half a dozen references to Jesus outside the New Testament and while many scholars regard them as authentic, many more regard them as forgeries. If that latter group are correct, then my claim stands.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There are about half a dozen references to Jesus outside the New Testament and while many scholars regard them as authentic, many more regard them as forgeries.

What half dozen are you talking about? The only one I'm aware of that scholars regard as dubious is one of the Josephus references to Jesus. Keep in mind that even in Josephus, the dubious quote isn't regarded as a total forgery, but a reference that has been expanded and added to by Christians. And there are 2 references to Jesus in Josephus, only one of which has additions.

I'm not sure what "half a dozen" references scholars regard as forgeries though. That's a new one to me.

 

[TheGMan]

Only Josephus makes a direct claim about Jesus. Tacitus only reports what Christians believe about him. It's essentially hearsay. The same is true of Pliny. It is highly doubtful that Suetonius refers to Jesus at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why did it take him so long to write about it? Did all four of these men walk with Him?

This has been an interesting discussion, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the matter. Since melD hasn't been back to say anything, I wonder if he was only trolling, too intimidated to say more, or gave up on having the question answered as the conversation spun away.

I always have fun with the subtext of these conversations - granted that I have to assume much about it. First, I think one reason conversations like this drift is because there is so much we don't know that each participant gravitates toward what they do know. Second, I think the underlying issue both in the question and the responses is the veracity of the gospels. But, the answers to the two questions I quoted don't necessarily answer that underlying issue.

So, to the first point: we don't know why time elapsed between the events of Jesus' life and the recording of them in the gospels. But, there has been speculation about it aside from the polemic claims that the gospels are myths. First of all, people aren't given to writing down what is considered common knowledge. The early church was a small, tightly knit group that didn't need to write down the stories. Everyone had been participants. The writing started as an answer to the first controversies - namely, the gnostics. We know that is the reason for some of the early writings, because the writings themselves give that as the reason. But, we don't know that is the reason for all the gospels. Second, paper, writing, etc. was very expensive at the time, and that limited the ability to do it. Third, illiteracy was high, and that also limited the spread of written accounts. With that said, there is also speculation that Pontius Pilate logged the cruxifiction. In fact, there was a controversy about someone who faked his records. Regardless, it appears the Romans didn't initially think the events were very important. Shrug. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Passing over the second point (arguing about an incomplete set of details that will never answer the question), there is a third point to raise. The lapse of time is not unique, so one must ask if religious skeptics are applying a set of rules that they don't apply to other ancient history.

The example I like to use is Hannibal. His journey across the Alps in the Second Punic War occurred 2 years before the historian Polybius was born. Polybius' account (the oldest known) came from interviewing soldiers of the campaign decades later. So do we discredit Polybius? Ancient history is full of such examples, and so one should realize that the lapse of time in writing the gospels is nothing unusual. It is not a special reason to supect their veracity any more than other ancient histories. If that were to become our criteria, we must conclude that we know little to nothing about history ... and some extreme skeptics (called the "presentists" do claim that).

On the other side are those who claim that history should not be trusted unless it is written at least a generation after it occurred to give time for the dust to settle and the opposing opinions to be fully debated. For example, many historians are just now beginning to give a look to the Vietnam War, and the text I used in my class on American history was written in 2002 ... (gasp) a SHOCKING 27 years after the formal end of hostilities.

 

[OzSpen]

GMan,

Only Josephus makes a direct claim about Jesus. Tacitus only reports what Christians believe about him. It's essentially hearsay. The same is true of Pliny. It is highly doubtful that Suetonius refers to Jesus at all.

In Tacitus’ Annals (15.44), he wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Don’t overlook the other early witnesses. I'm thinking of the writing of Papias (ca AD 70-155), bishop of Hierapolis, in the Lycus valley in the Roman province of Asia (located in the vicinity of Laodicea and Colossae). We have fragments of his work in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (3.39.3-4):

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.
​

Papias heard the truth from the elders who knew Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew and other disciples of the Lord. He did not glean this information from books but from “the living and abiding voice”.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[OzSpen]

yay!jesus,

I would beg to differ that most or even half of historians believe that Jesus was non-exisistant.

Would you please tell me where I can find a list of ALL the historians in the world in October 2010 and what they believe about the existence of Jesus Christ?

Thanks,
Spencer

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

I wasn't saying that Jesus did not exist. I was saying that there is no evidence for his existence outside the gospels.

There are about half a dozen references to Jesus outside the New Testament and while many scholars regard them as authentic, many more regard them as forgeries. If that latter group are correct, then my claim stands.

Um, you are actually telling taddle tales here my friend.

There are only a small handful of "web scholars" who deny the existance of Christ and that references outside the Bible are forgeries, there are also a relatively plentiful amount of references concerning Christ outside the Bible and if you believe that these are forgeries, please provide some proof.

I say relatively because when you look at Jesus and what he did and how we went about preaching, you will come to the conclusion that there is possibly too much written about a man who was viewed as a common trouble maker. To put it into a context that you will understand do you hear about every story regarding every person who has made some sort of social impact? And I am asking this in today's information age! The answer would obviously be no.

I would also suggest reading some pro christian material to balance out your atheistic world view and you may then actually realise who tells the truth in regards to the existance of Christ.

The Bible contains real places, real people and historic events, this is not the way myths are written, also show me any sort of evidence from the first century or the second century from the Jews or the Romans arguing the non existance of Y'Shua, the silence is deafening.

 

[marktheblake]

If this is true, why the two decade gap before anyone writes about Him?

Why not. It is perfectly normally in that day and age for that to occur. If people are asking you this question, ask them back, why does that cast any doubt>

Why didn't anyone write about His life while He was alive?

it really is only a modern phenomenon for famous people to have bibliographies written about them while they are alive- I see many write two or three!

There are 4 independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, written over a period of anywhere between 20 and 60 years depending on which end of the estimates you take. They are no contradictions that cannot be attributed to scribal errors. Paul's writings predate the gospels. The writings of the early christian fathers from 100ad quote the gospels extensively. The circulation of the gospels was widespread, and within the lifetime of people that existed during Jesus life, there are no documents attributed to people saying "hey, I saw him, and it didnt happen like that" - if it wasn't true, we would expect to find such documents proliferating.

There are many documents of antiquity that people generally accept as accurate yet none of these have as anywhere near as much reliable manuscript evidence as the gospels.

The difference is, that accepting the Gospels as truth ultimately means we have to answer to someone else, and some people cannot accept that, so conjure up all sorts of reasons to discredit it.

 

[OzSpen]

Mark,

Why not. It is perfectly normally in that day and age for that to occur. If people are asking you this question, ask them back, why does that cast any doubt>

it really is only a modern phenomenon for famous people to have bibliographies written about them while they are alive- I see many write two or three!

There are 4 independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, written over a period of anywhere between 20 and 60 years depending on which end of the estimates you take. They are no contradictions that cannot be attributed to scribal errors. Paul's writings predate the gospels. The writings of the early christian fathers from 100ad quote the gospels extensively. The circulation of the gospels was widespread, and within the lifetime of people that existed during Jesus life, there are no documents attributed to people saying "hey, I saw him, and it didnt happen like that" - if it wasn't true, we would expect to find such documents proliferating.

There are many documents of antiquity that people generally accept as accurate yet none of these have as anywhere near as much reliable manuscript evidence as the gospels.

The difference is, that accepting the Gospels as truth ultimately means we have to answer to someone else, and some people cannot accept that, so conjure up all sorts of reasons to discredit it.

What an excellent response to MelD! For further evidence, I would urge MelD to read Richard Bauckham 2006, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company). If anyone is serious about understanding oral tradition before the writing of the four Gospels, the eyewitness evidence in the Gospels, and about the evidence for Jesus after the death of the apostles, this is a seminal book to help understanding.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[lesliedellow]

Hi there

I hope there are people out there who can help me with this.

To the best of my knowledge, Jesus lived from approximately 5BC to 29/30AD. The New Testament contains the earliest writings about His life in the form of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest disciple wrote from about the year 50AD as far as I can tell (I willingly stand to be corrected).

If this is true, why the two decade gap before anyone writes about Him? Why didn't anyone write about His life while He was alive? Even His disciple, John, wrote about 100AD or 30 years after the books of Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written, but that means he would have had to have been ridiculously old to have walked with Jesus and have written about it. Why did it take him so long to write about it? Did all four of these men walk with Him?

Sorry for the attack of questions. I've wanted to ask them for such a long time and no one at my Church has been able to give me a decent response yet. Any advice you guys can give me will be awesome. There's only so much that Google can tell me.

The gospels were written when it began to dawn on people that the second coming wouldn't be any time soon, and they thought they had better get something down on papyrus for the benefit of the next generation of Christians.