Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Michael BG »

When we discuss when a particular book in the New Testament was written we don’t have evidence we have to present an argument and each person can be persuaded or not persuaded by the argument and their conclusion is a belief but not a fact.

If we look for facts we might conclude that when a particular book is mentioned by name it must exist. Then we have the problem of determining when the item referring to the book is written and if that part was written at that time.

Carbon dating should give us a starting date but even here we only get a range. From looking at the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls it appears that a range of 40 years is the minimum and when applying a 95% confidence level this is expanded to a 50 year spread.

According to Wikipedia the Rylands Library papyrus P52 is generally accepted as the earliest part of a canonical New Testament test. Based on paleographic evidence it can be dated from about 100 to 200 CE. It was part of a codex and therefore is unlikely to be earlier than 90 CE when codex are first mentioned.

There is some scholarly consensus about the dates of the books of the New Testament:

Seven letters of Paul 50-60 CE;
Mark 65-80 CE;
Matthew 80-100 CE;
Luke 80-120 CE;
John 90-120 CE;
Acts 80-130 CE.

The dating of these books are opinions not facts.

It seems that our strongest “evidence” is that by about 160 CE these books were in general circulation and by about 180 CE Irenaeus is quoting from and referring to most of them.

Is there any fact that any book of the New Testament was written before 130 CE?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Giuseppe »

What moves me to assume a late date is the fact that our earliest Gospel assumes so much about what has to be allegorized (among rival sects, matters of dispute, persecutions, prophecies post eventum, apology, etc) that it makes to think that a lot of things were in whiletime happened before our earliest Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Stuart »

Michael,

I think you are correct on opinion, but I would add a few caveats on the upper terminus of Irenaeus and Justin - in fact all the Church fathers. The very same bias which goes into the early NT dating exists: assumptions of compositional unity; acceptance of opening pseudo autobiographical material; deference to Eusubian history (which also has the same issues of compositional non-unity).

While I have not done a full study of Irenaeus, my strong impression is that the works in his name are in fact a compendium of material from a minimum of 3 or 4 writers from very different time periods, quite possibly none from the 2nd century (personally I rate the earliest layers as somewhere in the first half of the 3rd century, but other layers post-Decian, some layers 4th/5th century, and possibly a collectors layer well into the middle ages). Similarly Justin's Dialogue has long been noted to be an artificial creation, and with multiple layers. Dating it to the 2nd century is problematic, and requires the same assumptions noted above.

The entire dating process is a series of intertwined assumptions. While many scholars are open to evaluating the books of the New Testament with a critical eye, the same scholars seem reluctant to apply the critical inspection to the Church Father writings. To me this failing is the biggest problem with scholarship (after the "faith based scholarship" fraud - which promotes the assumptions mentioned above). We really should not accept the rickety structure of Church Father dating without far more vigorous challenge.

Anyway, all I am saying is the terminus for when most of the books of the NT (not yet final forms) were in circulation is more likely the last quarter of the 2nd century, but even then some books and passages are unknown until the 3rd century, when you recognize the problems with Church Father dating.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by arnoldo »

I'm currently reading a fascinating book that doesn't per se deal with the dates of the "books" of the NT but deals with the production of these writings. Here is a short summary of the book.
Christianity and the Transformation of the Book by Anthony Grafton, Megan Williams

Christianity and the Transformation of the Book combines broad-gauged synthesis and close textual analysis to reconstruct the kinds of books and the ways of organizing scholarly inquiry and collaboration among the Christians of Caesarea, on the coast of Roman Palestine. The book explores the dialectical relationship between intellectual history and the history of the book, even as it expands our understanding of early Christian scholarship. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book attends to the social, religious, intellectual, and institutional contexts within which Origen and Eusebius worked, as well as the details of their scholarly practices—practices that, the authors argue, continued to define major sectors of Christian learning for almost two millennia and are, in many ways, still with us today.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php? ... 0674030480

Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Michael BG »

Stuart,

I would be interested in reading a criterial assessment of Irenaeus’ use of the books of the New Testament with regard to dating his work. I am not aware of people questioning the dating of Irenaeus works, but I don’t know how it is dated and if it relies on other people and their dates which are also open to question. I hope we don’t depend on Eusebius.

I am also not aware that anyone seriously disputes that sometime before 160 CE the “Marcionite church” had some of these books, even if we can’t determine with any degree of accuracy what the text was.
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Michael BG :)
Michael BG wrote: Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:49 am When we discuss when a particular book in the New Testament was written we don’t have evidence we have to present an argument and each person can be persuaded or not persuaded by the argument and their conclusion is a belief but not a fact.
Well, that seems a little strong - we DO have evidence, but it is weak and inconclusive - various differing arguments are then based on that poor, and often contradictory, evidence.

But yes, it is not at all certain that the NT was written before about 130CE. It still seems possible that Marcion the Mysterious sparked off the Gospels.


Kapyong
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Joseph D. L. »

If I may add my own speculative dates:

Neo-Targum, 80-100 ad
Ur-Evangelium, 120-130 ad
Ur-John, 125-140 ad
Ur-Paul, 125-140 ad
Gospel of James, 125-135
Gospel of the Hebrews, 130-140 ad
Secret Mark, 130-145 ad

These, and a few more text, make up the bulk of "stage one" of the textual development of the New Testament. At roughly 165 ad, with the figure of Hegesippus, we begin to see our canon emerge into history:

Gospel of Matthew, 160-170 ad
Gospel of Mark, 160-175 ad
Gospel of John, 160-175 (maybe earlier)
Ur-Acts of the Apostles, 170-180 ad
pseudo-Gospel of Marcion, 170-190 ad
Gospel of Luke, 190-210 ad
Acts of the Apostles, 200-220

While not as fanatic as Stuart Waugh, I too see the texts headed by "Justin" and "Ireaneus" as more so compilations of various other works. Specifically, the Dialouge of Trypo being an extended version of Dialough of Jason and Papiscus; and Ireaneus's talk of Marcus the Magician to be Justin's original work on Marcion/Marcus.

Who Justin was I can't answer. Athenagoras is a good primer. Irenaeus, I strongly believe, was Zephyrinus. That should give you the dates for when these texts emerged.
Steven Avery
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

most excellent Theophilus

Post by Steven Avery »

The strongest evidence is right in the first verses of Luke.

Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest in 40-41 AD.
Giving us a rather precise dating.

Steven
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Secret Alias »

There is no explicit confirmation for the identity of Theophilus and even if there was such an explicit claim the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John etc demonstrate that Christians were perfectly capable of making up histories, facts whatever.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dating the books of the New Testament belief not evidence

Post by Secret Alias »

Dionysius of Halicarnassus directed one of his work to κράτιστε Ἀμμαῖε - stupid argument once again. Josephus dedicates both his autobiography and his apology to “most excellent Epaphroditus." Can someone shut this idiot up?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply