Dating the Gospels & Daniel

[PureDose]

I keep running across people who date Daniel shortly before the time of Christ, and who date the Gospels as post-'destruction of the temple' without showing any evidence for their dating.

Daniel accurately predicts the world kingdoms following Nebuchadnezzar, and the struggles of Israel with Greece shortly before the birth of Christ. So, it is no surprise to me to find critical atheists claiming it is impossible for Daniel to have been written when it is claimed to be.

It is also no surprise to me to see critical atheists dating the Gospels after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple -- because Jesus accurately predicted these things. (Though Moses gave a blow by blow account of the fall of Jerusalem, but that is much harder to disclaim.)

But, I have been surprised to find that many believers are also doing the same sort of dating. I was angered by watching a recent believer based documentary on the Gospels which insisted on dating the Gospels so late without giving references whatsoever. They did not even bother to give alternate opinions and cited the same theologians who all agreed with each other.

It may even be that these theologians are unaware of how this dating is performed.

They just cite dates without thinking about it.

While I can see how we may be able to say "these documents came from the first century", I can not see how there is a scientific way to specifically date such documents "only after the destruction of the temple" without assuming that prophecy is impossible.

Daniel, is far more difficult. The Jews were very well written, and I would be deeply surprised if there is not strong evidence Daniel did not just magically appear so many years after it was claimed to have been written (at the literal time of Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar.)

Is this not just 'group think' and the problem of people being unable to accept that accurately predicting the future is possible?

Or am I missing some level of objective reasoning used here?

 

[MennoII]

Yea in MHO, you are right, people who don't believe in Jesus prophecying of the Fall of Jerusalem, just can't accept the earlier dates.

 

[pshun2404]

The basis of their unfounded accusations comes from two pre-conceived assumptions. First they deny the word of God is the word of God. And second cannot accept anything supernatural (yet claim to be Christian Scholars). So for them all prophecy MUST HAVE BEEN written collusionally after the historical fulfillment. Sad really, they are so deceived.

For example, the earliest Hebrew sample of Daniel (from Daniel 9) comes from Qumran and dates to around 175 A.D. but it is obviously a copy of an earlier accepted work, therefore even if we discount the historical tradition of the Rabbis and the Jewish people and its presence in the Septuagint, the prophecy in Daniel 9 which speaks of a Messiah who would be "cut off" (a clear reference to Isaiah 58 who uses this very term) just before the destruction of the Holy City when all sacrifices would cease, makes this book prescient (prophetic to the nth degree). Since Jesus was called the Messiah (Christ) was cut off preceding the destruction (in 70 A.D.) and all sacrifices have indeed ceased, how can they not make the connection?

Because the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who will not believe...and as Romans 1 tells us, Because they knew God and glorified Him not as God He has given them over to their already reprobate minds.

Love in Christ

Paul

 

[ebia]

I keep running across people who date Daniel shortly before the time of Christ, and who date the Gospels as post-'destruction of the temple' without showing any evidence for their dating.

Daniel accurately predicts the world kingdoms following Nebuchadnezzar, and the struggles of Israel with Greece shortly before the birth of Christ. So, it is no surprise to me to find critical atheists claiming it is impossible for Daniel to have been written when it is claimed to be.

It is also no surprise to me to see critical atheists dating the Gospels after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple -- because Jesus accurately predicted these things. (Though Moses gave a blow by blow account of the fall of Jerusalem, but that is much harder to disclaim.)

But, I have been surprised to find that many believers are also doing the same sort of dating. I was angered by watching a recent believer based documentary on the Gospels which insisted on dating the Gospels so late without giving references whatsoever. They did not even bother to give alternate opinions and cited the same theologians who all agreed with each other.

It may even be that these theologians are unaware of how this dating is performed.

They just cite dates without thinking about it.

While I can see how we may be able to say "these documents came from the first century", I can not see how there is a scientific way to specifically date such documents "only after the destruction of the temple" without assuming that prophecy is impossible.

Daniel, is far more difficult. The Jews were very well written, and I would be deeply surprised if there is not strong evidence Daniel did not just magically appear so many years after it was claimed to have been written (at the literal time of Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar.)

Is this not just 'group think' and the problem of people being unable to accept that accurately predicting the future is possible?

Or am I missing some level of objective reasoning used here?

Dating the gospels depends significantly on the order one thinks they were written in. To summarise, it makes a lot more sense for Matthew & Luke to have used Mark as one source among several than for Mark to be a copy of bits of Matthew.

We can date Mark reasonably precisely because there is more to go on, and all of that points to mid 60s AD. Given that, Matthew & Luke would be early 70s at the earliest.

Some presume that Jesus could not have predicted the events of AD70, but that's not the main reason for dating Matthew & Luke later than that. Even a skeptic should not presume that as there is nothing in Jesus' predictions of those events that is beyond what an insightful person might deduce would be likely.

With Daniel it's not a case of thinking God could not predict the future but looking at how predictive prophesy in scripture works and realising how Daniel works as a piece of literature. Given that, the most coherent date for its final redaction is around 167bc. The purpose of Daniel is not to give people in the 6th century some useless information about the distant future but to give the people in the second century a resource to cope with oppression.

 

[ebia]

For example, the earliest Hebrew sample of Daniel (from Daniel 9) comes from Qumran and dates to around 175 A.D.

4Qdan is usually dated to 125BC, not "175 A.D." (I presume you meant BC)

 

[John 1720]

Dating the gospels depends significantly on the order one thinks they were written in. To summarise, it makes a lot more sense for Matthew & Luke to have used Mark as one source among several than for Mark to be a copy of bits of Matthew.

We can date Mark reasonably precisely because there is more to go on, and all of that points to mid 60s AD. Given that, Matthew & Luke would be early 70s at the earliest.

Some presume that Jesus could not have predicted the events of AD70, but that's not the main reason for dating Matthew & Luke later than that. Even a skeptic should not presume that as there is nothing in Jesus' predictions of those events that is beyond what an insightful person might deduce would be likely.

With Daniel it's not a case of thinking God could not predict the future but looking at how predictive prophesy in scripture works and realising how Daniel works as a piece of literature. Given that, the most coherent date for its final redaction is around 167bc. The purpose of Daniel is not to give people in the 6th century some useless information about the distant future but to give the people in the second century a resource to cope with oppression.

Hi Ebia,
Irenaeus of course would disagree with the modern critique of Markan priority or primacy. I believe myself that Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written before the fall of Jerusalem. Clement of Rome, whose letter has been relegated to AD100 for whatever reason, clearly references an ongoing temple sacrifice in Jerusalem paraphrases 3 Gospels obviously wrote before the AD70 destruction of the temple. I think the below verse solidifies that position.

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been inspected for blemishes.

Since he is speaking in the present tense, as well as speaking of both the apostles Peter and Paul in the past tense, we can place the timeframe to within a few years.

1Clem 5:4-6
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith,having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

Given the fact that both Peter and Paul were executed somewhere between AD66 to AD67 we can date Clement' letter as AD67-AD70. Having established our timeline all that is needed to prove our hypothesis that the Synoptic Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem and the temple are quotations or paraphrases of the 3 Gospels in Clement's letter. The best are from Jesus' sermon on the mount, which are not in Mark's Gospel.


Clement quotations are

for thus He (Jesus) spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy

Mat 5:7 Blessed [are] the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.

Clement cont’d] “ forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. “

Mat 6:14 "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. :15 "But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

”As ye do, so shall it be done to you. “ As ye give, so shall it be given unto you.

Mat 7:12 "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Luk 6:31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
Luk 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

: [/color]“As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.”

Mat 7:1-2 "Judge not, that you be not judged. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
Luk 6:37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Clement cont’d:] As ye show kindness, so shall kind

Follows the teaching subscribed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 "Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Kind= chrēstos as in “easy or virtuous”
Matthew 11:30 "For My yoke is EASY and My burden is light." Can also mean “My Yoke is Kind”
Mark 4:24 And He (Jesus) said “Take heed what you hear and with what measure you mete with for it shall be measured unto you and to you that hear more shall be given.

This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me,

Mat 15:8 Jesus quoting Isaiah 29:13 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with [their] lips, But their heart is far from Me.

Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

Mat 18:6 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mar 9:42 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
Luk 17:2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

There are other verses that also reflect a knowledge of Jesus Words in these 3 recorded Gospels but this should suffice to counter claims for these three Gospels being written in the post temple period (a.k.a post AD70). So, in conclusion I believe there is support for all 3 Synoptic Gospels prior to the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

In Christ, John 1720

SUBJECT: CLEMENT OF ROME QUOTES THE SYNOPTIC GOSPEL

 

[lesliedellow]

Daniel is dated to around 150BC, because it contains purported prophecies which are pretty accurate up until 150BC, but which start going awry after that date.

It is possible to make out a respectable case for both a later and an earlier dating of the gospels.

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that the same people who think Daniel is late often accept that the major prophets spoke before the events they were announcing. The dating of Daniel isn't based on some general prejudice against prophecy, but upon (1) an understanding that Daniel is apocalyptic rather than prophecy (2) there's a marked change in the predictions up to 150 and after 150. There are rational arguments the other way, so feel free to reject the critical view. Just don't believe attacks on the motivations of people who date it late.

 

[ebia]

It's worth noting that the same people who think Daniel is late often accept that the major prophets spoke before the events they were announcing. The dating of Daniel isn't based on some general prejudice against prophecy, but upon (1) an understanding that Daniel is apocalyptic rather than prophecy (2) there's a marked change in the predictions up to 150 and after 150. There are rational arguments the other way, so feel free to reject the critical view. Just don't believe attacks on the motivations of people who date it late.

Just as there are many who date some (or even all) of the gospels after AD70 but don't rule out Jesus predicting the events of that time.

 

[All Souls]

I'd date Daniel to the second century BCE. With regards to the Gospels; Mark should be dated to 70 CE, Matthew and Luke to between 80-90 CE, and the Gospel of John to around 90 CE. All of this is the scholarly consensus and I see no reason to kick up a fuss about it.

 

[All Souls]

we can date Clement' letter as AD67-AD70

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the First Epistle of Clement is dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century CE which is perfectly consistent with the standard scholarly consensus on the dating of the Gospels.

 

[John 1720]

I'd date Daniel to the second century BCE. With regards to the Gospels; Mark should be dated to 70 CE, Matthew and Luke to between 80-90 CE, and the Gospel of John to around 90 CE. All of this is the scholarly consensus and I see no reason to kick up a fuss about it.

I do see a reason to "kick up a fuss about it"

It would appear unlikely to me that Jesus would attribute authorship to Daniel and designate him as a true prophet if it was a fictious story, which it would have to be if it was written in 200 B.C. when the supposed events actually occurred in the 6th century BC.

Matthew 24:15-16 "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains
Mark 13:14 "So when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

I think modern Biblical scholarship thinks more of itself than relying on ancient witness - and even the Lord Himself. One might not only consider that to be somewhat pompous but intellectually arrogant as well. I'm not inferring that you are doing that, many go by what they hear from these "so called scholars" instead of researching it for themselves. I do wish, however, that we all could be more careful before we impeach ancient witnesses and disregard not only them but the Lord as well. In this case saying Daniel was A.D. 200 implies the Lord either didn't know what He was talking about not knowing or implies He was lying. I'm sure there aren't many here who would be willing to make that claim based on the ramifications.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

It would appear unlikely to me that Jesus would attribute authorship to Daniel and designate him as a true prophet if it was a fictious story, which it would have to be if it was written in 200 B.C. when the supposed events actually occurred in the 6th century BC.

Jesus did not discuss authorship, he was simply reflecting the beliefs of Second Temple Judaism.

I think modern Biblical scholarship thinks more of itself than relying on ancient witness

We should not rely blindly on ancient witnesses, we need to engage with them critically.

In this case saying Daniel was A.D. 200 implies the Lord either didn't know what He was talking about not knowing or implies He was lying.

As I said, Jesus was simply reflecting the beliefs of Second Temple Judaism and referring to the book of Daniel...he was not giving a lesson on authorship.

 

[John 1720]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the First Epistle of Clement is dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century CE which is perfectly consistent with the standard scholarly consensus on the dating of the Gospels.

Hi All Souls,
That's quite alright because it doesn't burst my bubble (didn't have one in the first place & never believed my house was worth that ridiculous price in 2007) I really don't give a rip about "scholarly consensus" either especially from scholars with an obviously biased agenda. Just the facts are good enough for me. Either these "so called scholars" have dialog and debate about the facts of Clement's letter or they don't. Just saying "scholars say this" doesn't really mean squat to me without consideration as to why and it certainly doesn't validate their claims or their reasoning for pontificating their opinions.

Fact:
The Temple sacrifice ended in A.D. 70 when the Roman's destroyed the Templed and sacked Jerusalem. These so called "scholars" don't address Clement's statement within his letter to provide an adequate explanation why he states the "active" Temple sacrifice was ongoing if they claim he wrote 25 years later. No matter what scholars say I maintain the dating is rightfully open for debate and should be.

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been inspected for blemishes.

Since he is speaking in the present tense, as well as speaking of both the apostles Peter and Paul in the past tense, it is not out of context to place the timeframe of the letter within a few years after the demise of Paul and Peter at Nero's hand and shortly before the destruction of the Jewish Temple and its sacrifice.
In Christ, John 1720.

 

[John 1720]

Jesus did not discuss authorship, he was simply reflecting the beliefs of Second Temple Judaism.

Does Jesus not say SPOKEN by the prophet Daniel? That doesn't seem like He was just 'reflecting" the beliefs of 2nd Temple Judiasm.
Jesus: "when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet. Jesus, as I stated before, also calls Daniel a prophet. Either he was a prophet or was not. If written in 200 BC as you maintain - he was not and we make Jesus out to be a liar or sadly mistaken about His own idenity as well as Daniel's.

We should not rely blindly on ancient witnesses, we need to engage with them critically.

Ah, I see but we should rely blindly on scholars who are 2 thousand years removed from the evidence because they say they are right. Why exactly is that? Should we throw out Tacitus history of ancient Rome while we're at it as well?

In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

h, I see but we should rely blindly on scholars who are 2 thousand years removed from the evidence because they say they are right. Why exactly is that? Should we throw out Tacitus history of ancient Rome while we're at it as well?

Of course we must engage critically, that's the point of critical thinking and, dare I say it, critical scholarship.

On the dating of First Clement, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE, (cf. book of Hebrews). Even if he were, that does not prove the Synoptics were pre-70 CE since they themselves were written using pre-existing sources (Q) and oral traditions which Clement would have had access to.

Tbh, my concern is to show that one can be a Christian and accept the findings of biblical scholarship, I am not too concerned about what was written when, although I find it interesting...I am a fan of J A T Robinson, even if I don't share his datings

 

[John 1720]

Of course we must engage critically, that's the point of critical thinking and, dare I say it, critical scholarship.

On the dating of First Clement, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE, (cf. book of Hebrews). Even if he were, that does not prove the Synoptics were pre-70 CE since they themselves were written using pre-existing sources (Q) and oral traditions which Clement would have had access to.

Hi Again Iosaias, I'm not understanding your reference to tyhe Book of Hebrews and what this has to do with anything. I don't see any point in flat out rejecting that piece of information either - if you can't believe the author who can you believe and why waste any time on scholarship in the first place? I could also say the same thing as you as to some of the speculative reasons for dating Clement to The Year of our Lord - A.D. 100 or to the politically correct 100 C.E. (take your pick - latent scholars stealthly have sought to institute this as the new form of dating after almost 2 millennia of Christendom, which even the constitution of the United States refers to). Anyway, ignoring the fact that Clement speaks of the temple sacrifice in the present tense and inferring it as ungoing is ignoring a critical point - the letter itself. If Clement is the same Clement as Philippians 4:3 ....

And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names [are] in the Book of Life.

... then even more reason to consider an earlier date, as A.D. 100 would have been 4 decades later. That the Philippians corresponded with Rome is attested by Paul's sending of Epaphroditus so there's a tie in with that church to Rome. Just as Polycarp of Smyrna wrote letters to the church at Philippi I see no reason why a disciple and missionary worker with Paul would not be one and the same to write the letter. He also speaks of the recent calamities at Rome. Now if that the late 60's there was plent of calamity to be had but what exactly was happening at Rome in A.D. 100 that we can shake our finger and say by George we've got the smoking gun? It's not a stretch to conceive this Clement writing from Rome is one and the same as the Clement who labored with Paul in the Gospel there in A.D. 57. We also have the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus from A.D 325 or perhaps earlier, including Clement's letter. By this time Christians were scrutinizing texts and only accepting letters that took place during the apostolic age, which ended with the death of John and the close of the first century - this also lend credence to the Clement of Philippians being the Clement of this letter to the Church at Corinth which Paul also founded along with Phillipi. It cerainly is no reason to reject the earlier dating of the letter. Why would you believe A.D. 100 or later is the more compelling date other than telling me scholars say so? Let us be reminded that great scholars have said some incredibly stupid things in the past and do not get a free pass on this one.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

I'm not understanding your reference to the Book of Hebrews and what this has to do with anything...ignoring the fact that Clement speaks of the temple sacrifice in the present tense and inferring it as ungoing is ignoring a critical point - the letter itself.

The dating of the book of Hebrews has been placed to pre-70 CE owing to its not referring to the destruction of the temple, and it refers to the cult in the present tense (Heb. 8:3; 9:7; 13:11), but, as Raymond Brown has noted, this does not prove that sacrifices are continuing in the Temple since Josephus' Antiquities, also uses the present tense and that was written some twenty years after the destruction of the Temple. This serves to establish the critical point that the use of the present tense by Clement, in no way proves beyond reasonable doubt that the letter was composed prior to 70 CE.

If Clement is the same Clement as Philippians 4:3

If...the only 'evidence' is a similarity of names! I am sure there were more Clements than just one.

Why would you believe A.D. 100 or later is the more compelling date other than telling me scholars say so?

The messengers who bore the epistle are described as 'men whose lives have been irreproachable from youth to old age', that is Christians of the second generation which brings us towards the end of the first century. The allusions in the opening chapters to the Roman churchs' 'recent misfortunes' is likely a reference to persecution during the reign of Domitian's reign of terror in the early nineties, which fits well with the references to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, which seem rather more distant.

The reference in 41 to 'daily sacrifices' and so on is likely a quoting Jewish regulations as they existed while they were still in force. Moreover, the rhetorical point of paras 40-44 is that the church's liturgy and hierarchy are of divine institution and so must be respected, that is, Clement's point does not necessitate the existence of the Temple.

 

[John 1720]

The dating of the book of Hebrews has been placed to pre-70 CE owing to its not referring to the destruction of the temple, and it refers to the cult in the present tense (Heb. 8:3; 9:7; 13:11), but, as Raymond Brown has noted, this does not prove that sacrifices are continuing in the Temple since Josephus' Antiquities, also uses the present tense and that was written some twenty years after the destruction of the Temple. This serves to establish the critical point that the use of the present tense by Clement, in no way proves beyond reasonable doubt that the letter was composed prior to 70 CE.

Well this sounds more conjectural than what I've postulated from his letter. I didn't say it was 70 C.E. either but prior to A.D. 70. And I don't believe the sacrifices that God put in place to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice are a cult either. You seem to be saying because Ray Brown said so that proves it. Not in my book!

If...the only 'evidence' is a similarity of names! I am sure there were more Clements than just one.

True, many Clement's but not that had ministered with the apostles and was clearly a man who could rise to the position of leadership within the Church as he did.

The messengers who bore the epistle are described as 'men whose lives have been irreproachable from youth to old age', that is Christians of the second generation which brings us towards the end of the first century. The allusions in the opening chapters to the Roman churchs' 'recent misfortunes' is likely a reference to persecution during the reign of Domitian's reign of terror in the early nineties, which fits well with the references to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, which seem rather more distant.

I believe this logic is wanting. If it was near 70 AD almost 40 years removed from the ministry of Jesus then the disciples who were 20 were now 60 and the ones who were 30 were now 70. In either case that would have been considered old age.

The reference in 41 to 'daily sacrifices' and so on is likely a quoting Jewish regulations as they existed while they were still in force. Moreover, the rhetorical point of paras 40-44 is that the church's liturgy and hierarchy are of divine institution and so must be respected, that is, Clement's point does not necessitate the existence of the Temple.

That is sheer conjecture and goes against the grain since there is not a shred of evidence to support that.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

Well this sounds more conjectural than what I've postulated from his letter. I didn't say it was 70 C.E. either but prior to A.D. 70. And I don't believe the sacrifices that God put in place to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice are a cult either. You seem to be saying because Ray Brown said so that proves it. Not in my book!

No, your 'evidence' that 1 Clem was composed pre-70 CE is that the cult is referred to in the present tense, I have provided evidence of a book composed post-70 CE that also refers to the cult in the present tense. Therefore, the existence of referrences to the cult in the present tense cannot be used to establish a pre-70 CE date.