Question about the New Testament

[hedrick]

[removed]

 

[ToBeLoved]

Someone listed a set of dates before 70, with no sources. I said the dates were earlier than I think is plausible. I was asked for a reference. I gave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply a summary, not an argument. However it does give references for each date. If you'd like to discuss one I'd be happy to look up a commentary and give you the major arguments.

I suspect, however, this won't be all that useful, since we almost certainly accept a different set of scholarly work, operating under different principles.

I listed those dates and those come from Biblehub. I included the URL where I got the information in the post. It's a reliable site.

What more were you expecting?

 

[hedrick]

So, recently, I read that the gospels were not written until over 70 years after the reported death of Jesus. There are some questions I have.

The average life expectancy of a man at 0 BCE/CE was 30 years. According to my timeline, an eyewitness (which are proven to be unreliable) of at least 108 years would have to remember, by heart, exactly, all the events of Jesus' life four times.

I don’t know where your 108 years comes from. The events in the Gospels were around 30 AD.

The last Gospel was probably written around 90. Mark was probably written around 64.

Even critical scholars take seriously the early Christian tradition that Mark was associated with Peter, and wrote about the time when he died. While the average lifetime might have been 30 years, remember that many people died young, and the average includes that. So Peter being alive around 64 is quite plausible. I have no idea whether Peter was the only source for Mark. Many think there were others. But Mark had surely heard witnesses, probably quite recently.

The later Gospels might still have had access to living witnesses. The prolog to Luke gives that impression, but it’s hard to know how literally to take his language. Luke could also have talked to people for some time before he wrote the Gospel.

Most think that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and also had their own information. It’s common to conjecture a document or perhaps a fixed oral tradition called “Q.” Q and any special sources used by Matthew and Luke could easily have been based directly upon witnesses, even if Matthew and Luke were one level removed.

Some recent work suggests that sacred traditions can be transmitted pretty accurately in the Mid-east, even today. But still, we are depending upon memories, and I agree that they are far from perfect. I’m afraid most ancient history is that way. We haven’t found many video tapes of the TV coverage from that time period.

I will say that most historians, even skeptical ones, accept the Jesus lived and was crucified, and at least some of his recorded teachings. For a minimum credible view, you might want to look at Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist. He’s a well-known NT scholar, who is now an atheist. He got tired of people assuming he thought Jesus didn’t exist, so he wrote that book. I think he’s too skeptical. His view of Jesus is one that was more common in the early 20th Cent. But at least it gives you a sense of the skeptical end of the range of scholarship.

 

[hedrick]

[removed]

 

[ToBeLoved]

[deleted]

 

[hedrick]

[removed]

 

[hedrick]

[removed]

 

[hedrick]

I just realized that this is Exploring Christianity, which is not a discussion forum. So if we want to talk about this, it should be done elsewhere. The focus is supposed to be answering the OP's question. Discussion among us isn't permitted. From that perspective, I shouldn't have gone beyond observing that your dates were only one view, and pointing to Wikipedia for another view. I apologize for getting sucked into a more extensive discussion. I'm editing my responses to remove anything other than what I should have said.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at 30 yo and began His ministry after baptism, in 30 AD

Jesus was 33 yo when He was crucified in 33 AD.

This is true. Thank you.

 

[stevenfrancis]

...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

So, recently, I read that the gospels were not written until over 70 years after the reported death of Jesus.

A few points of clarification, most scholars suggest that the Gospel of Mark was written 70CE not 70 years after Jesus' death, so that is in fact 40 years after Jesus' death, (if he died around 30CE). This is typical of the scholarly consensus which locates Mark during the destruction of Jerusalem, however, it's not altogether necessary to place Mark in this time slot, James Crossley has argued that the text can be dated much earlier than this, even to a decade after Jesus' death. John AT Robinson has argued for an earlier dating for the entire NT corpus, believing it can all be dated prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The average life expectancy of a man at 0 BCE/CE was 30 years.

Life expectancies were dependent upon specific thresholds. When one is born one's life expectancy is 30 precisely because the mortality rate between 0 and 5 was so high. If one lived into adulthood one's life expectancy was particularly higher.

The main historian that some people cite actually lived during and recorded the Trojan War, which, according to the Iliad, ended in 75 BCE.

What's this? The Iliad is dated to between 1260 and 1180 BCE... This is bad history...

So how can we prove through literature that Jesus really did die on a cross in Golgatha? I do not aim to debunk Christianity. It is an honest question.

We can't prove more than the data we have. We have the stories of the gospels as well as other early Christian testimonies in Paul, etc., and we can be reasonably sure that a person named Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Gospel of Mark can be as early as AD64 when Peter was thought to be in Rome. It is also possible that gospel of Mark was written not after Peter's martyrdom in AD66. That's why some scholars think that the gospel of Mark is not yet completed.

It's important to remember that the Acts of Peter is an apocryphal document composed in the late second century under the influence of Greek romance novels. We don't know how any of the apostles died much less whether they were martyred. See Jan Bremmer The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism, 1998.

 

[BukiRob]

So, recently, I read that the gospels were not written until over 70 years after the reported death of Jesus. There are some questions I have.

The average life expectancy of a man at 0 BCE/CE was 30 years. According to my timeline, an eyewitness (which are proven to be unreliable) of at least 108 years would have to remember, by heart, exactly, all the events of Jesus' life four times. The main historian that some people cite actually lived during and recorded the Trojan War, which, according to the Iliad, ended in 75 BCE. He would have been 138 years old at Jesus' death, when a man's average life expectancy was 28. So how can we prove through literature that Jesus really did die on a cross in Golgatha? I do not aim to debunk Christianity. It is an honest question.

This dates are highly suspicious. Yes, there are liberal theologians who cites these dates but it is not in keeping with the broader body of theologians who cite much earlier dates.

One of the single biggest problems with a post 70 AD date is there is no mention in ANY of the gospels or epistles regarding the destruction of the temple. This is particularly important when dating the gospels since Yeshua prophesied regarding the destruction of the temple. Clearly if the gospels were written after 70 AD the writers would have DEFINITELY made mention of the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the temple.

Second, your date of the average life span is pure bunk. While we don't know the exact age of John when he died he was well into old age and most theologians place his age at death in his 90's.

Peter and Paul died between 65-68 AD. Both men were well into their late 50-60's when they were executed.

We know from secular historical sources that Yeshua (Jesus) was in fact a real historical person. He is mention by Josephus, Tacitus who was considered the greatest historian of Rome, CLEMENT OF ROME(100 AD), IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: (50-107 A.D.), TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.)

These early Christians were faced with HORRIFIC persecution often to the point of death... to attempt to argue that a movement was based on a false idea where its followers are routinely hunted down and put to death in some of the most horrible imaginable ways is simply illogical

 

[ewq1938]

So, recently, I read that the gospels were not written until over 70 years after the reported death of Jesus. There are some questions I have.

The average life expectancy of a man at 0 BCE/CE was 30 years. According to my timeline, an eyewitness (which are proven to be unreliable) of at least 108 years would have to remember, by heart, exactly, all the events of Jesus' life four times. The main historian that some people cite actually lived during and recorded the Trojan War, which, according to the Iliad, ended in 75 BCE. He would have been 138 years old at Jesus' death, when a man's average life expectancy was 28. So how can we prove through literature that Jesus really did die on a cross in Golgatha? I do not aim to debunk Christianity. It is an honest question.

No one can possibly know when the gospels were written. What we have are guesses. But, it would be fairly impossible IMO to just create someone out of thin air then claim he lived decades in the past and did all the things written of him and get people to believe it. It's far more likely someone named Jesus did live, preach and was executed. Whether he did the things the gospels claimed is a matter of faith but denying Jesus was a real person is a weak position IMO.

 

[BukiRob]

No one can possibly know when the gospels were written. What we have are guesses. But, it would be fairly impossible IMO to just create someone out of thin air then claim he lived decades in the past and did all the things written of him and get people to believe it. It's far more likely someone named Jesus did live, preach and was executed. Whether he did the things the gospels claimed is a matter of faith but denying Jesus was a real person is a weak position IMO.

Jesus was crucified between 30 - 33 AD (At approximately 30 yo). His apostles were likely peers, and possibly younger. Two of the Gospel writers, (Mark and Luke), were disciples of apostles. John Mark, a young disciple of Peter, and Luke, a disciple of St. Paul of Tarsus, and Our Lady. John didn't write his Gospel, until he had read the other three, and likely while imprisoned at Patmos. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, and none of the Gospels, (not even the last one, written by John) mention it, (other than predicting it). So it is likely that all Gospels were written and being circulated before 69 AD. Mark's and Matthew's Gospels could be as early as the 40's. In any event, none were 70 years after his death. The Gospels were setting in writing the oral traditions already well known and practiced by the Christian communities in 1st century Judea and Rome.

I think the single biggest problem with a post 70AD date for the writings of any of the books of the NT (perhaps outside of the revelation) is the lack of citing the destruction of the Temple. Since Yeshua prophesied of its destruction the idea that the gospel writers would not comment on it is patently absurd.

Dr Peter Williams video does a marvelous job of explaining why the gospel accounts are convincingly accurate and has done some amazing work in establishing why the gospels account is probably accurate eyewitness testimony (with the exception of luke who is interviewing eyewitnesses)

 

[Hawkins]

It's important to remember that the Acts of Peter is an apocryphal document composed in the late second century under the influence of Greek romance novels. We don't know how any of the apostles died much less whether they were martyred. See Jan Bremmer The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism, 1998.

That's rather your belief without evidence. It's hearsay of a kind.

The nature of history is that, we rely on our faith to believe what happened one way or another. Nothing can be concretely evidenced. However, "relying on faith to get to a truth" could possibly the only way for humans to get to a truth.

 

[BukiRob]

It's important to remember that the Acts of Peter is an apocryphal document composed in the late second century under the influence of Greek romance novels. We don't know how any of the apostles died much less whether they were martyred. See Jan Bremmer The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles, and Gnosticism, 1998.

We know how Paul died an apostle.

Beyond that, the liberal theology standard for what constitutes as knowing is ridiculous. We have early church accounts of how they died. Those accounts are largely as accurate as much of the history we know about that era.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

That's rather your belief without evidence. It's hearsay of a kind.

The nature of history is that, we rely on our faith to believe what happened one way or another. Nothing can be concretely evidenced. However, "relying on faith to get to a truth" could possibly the only way for humans to get to a truth.

The nature of history is that we have historically analysable data (archaeology, textual, etc) and the historian must piece these at times messy pieces together in order to reconstruct and interpret the past.

We know how Paul died an apostle.

Beyond that, the liberal theology standard for what constitutes as knowing is ridiculous. We have early church accounts of how they died. Those accounts are largely as accurate as much of the history we know about that era.

You should google the Acts of Peter, the text is really very imaginative but it isn't altogether factual.

 

[Hawkins]

The nature of history is that we have historically analysable data (archaeology, textual, etc) and the historian must piece these at times messy pieces together in order to reconstruct and interpret the past.

What records do we have to draw the conclusion that Acts of Peter is the only document we get to know what Peter did?

It is the nature of history which makes us to rely on one or at most several books to set our faith in what Peter actually did 2000 years ago.

Moreover, how do you know what books/texts Christians in 2nd or 3rd centuries used to identify what Peter did? You assumed here that Acts of Peter is the only document all mankind used from 1AD to 2015 AD to identify what Peter did.

Show us the archaeology about what Peter did 2000 year ago please. You CAN NEVER.

That's what history is. archaeology is only applicable with limitations to war scenes or buildings or cities (provided that they are well preserved, say, buried by an earthquake), but not what someone did or said 2000 years ago.

In a nutshell, it's history which limits us that today's humans (not human 1800 years ago) to have to rely on a book (or the copies of copies of this book, you don't even know if the Acts of Peter we see today is the same Acts of Peter some 1700 years ago) to get to know what could possibly happened some 2000 years ago.

As a result, to use Acts of Peter to deny Peter's martyrdom is nothing more than a belief of faith.

An analogy is that , we have a movie about the deeds of President Obama today. Some 2000 years later, this movie somehow becomes the only document available to humans at that time. So they can thus draw the conclusion with faith that Obama is just a movie figure. How accurate can this conclusion be, especially when this is used to be against that Obama is a president.

 

[Hawkins]

You should google the Acts of Peter, the text is really very imaginative but it isn't altogether factual.

Wikipedia:
The majority of the text has survived only in the Latin translation of the Vercelli manuscript.

The Acts of Peter was originally composed in Greek during the second half of the 2nd century, probably in Asia Minor. Consensus among academics points to its being based on the Acts of John, and traditionally both works were said to be written by Leucius Charinus, whom Epiphanius identifies as the companion of John.

The consensus is based on what we are having. We are having the texts mostly in Latin, yet we somehow believe with faith that the original should be in Greek.

See? We can't even have a look at the Greek version of the book. It's all guess works. Due to the lack of evidence history can provide (as the nature of what history itself is), we make guesses by faith basing on the limited sources we can acquire, to try to reach a consensus on what could possibly happened.

So your statement that,

It's important to remember that the Acts of Peter is an apocryphal document composed in the late second century under the influence of Greek romance novels


is purely your own speculation, and with faith.

In a nutshell, history may shed some light on what could possibly happened. It is used in a wrong way if you try to base on the limited information history can provide to deny something. It's more or less like the fallacious conclusion that the absence of evidence being the evidence of absence.