Username: 
Password: 
   
 Forgot Password
 
     

Go to fullsize image

The Gospels Were Written in the 1st Century

CHURCH POSITION

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word... " (Luke 1:1-2)
SCHOLARS

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

"We now know that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the early second century (Mack, 1995, p. 45)."

“No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of these gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century.” (Waite, 1992 p. 346)

"My own impression...was that the arguments for placing the Gospels as early as the end of the first century were rather weak. I found that the respected theological scholar Helmut Koester, editor of the Harvard Theological Review, made a good case for a later date, early second century, for most of the Gospels." (Ellegard, 1999, p. 3)

The first [factor] was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades..." (Johnson, 1976, p. 54)

"What, then, are my reasons for putting Mark as 90 instead of, with most theologians, at about 70? (Wells, 1988, p. 107)

"140-150 AD is the most likely time for the writing of Mark's Gospel - by Cerinthius." (Humphreys, 2005, p. 188)

"The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians... dates to about 200 C.E." (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)

"...the Gnostics began to write gospels at about the same time John composed his - around 110 - 140 AD." (Dimont, 1991, p. 159)

"...by the time the Gospels came to be written in the form that we know them, the finer details of the administration in Judea [ ie., the difference between a Procurator and a Prefect] had been forgotten." (Marsh, 1975, p. 72)

"By the time of Claudius, around 46, the title...had been changed to 'procurator' and Tacitus made the mistake, in about 115, of attaching this title to Pilate." (Wroe, 1999, p. 65)

"The Epistle of Barnabas...was probably composed...between 96 and 98 CE. It shows no knowledge whatsoever of any New Testament texts..."(Crossan, 1995, p. 122)

"It is very significant, for the date of the authorship of Luke, to note that the only Theophilius known to early Christian history...became Bishop of Antioch about 169-177 AD..." (Wheless, 2005)

"The so-called Gospel of John is something special and reflects...the highly evolved theology of a Christian writer who lived three generations after Jesus." (Vermes, 2000, p. 6)

"Essentially it [the Gospel of John] is a mid-second century theology written to combat rival 'heretical' theologies." (Humphreys, 2005, p. 238)
THE REALITY

There is so much evidence that the Gospels were written in the Second Century that it’s hard to believe that the vast majority of scholars still stick stubbornly to the belief that they are a First Century production. The earliest known Christian writings are the letters of the Apostle Paul, dated sometime between 48 and 58 A.D.; but there are no copies of these original documents [1], and there are many questions about their authenticity [2]. Some people believe that the earliest versions of the four Gospels were written between 60 A.D. (Mark) and 100 A.D. (John), but there is no proof of these early dates, and some scholars believe that all the Gospels were written after 100 A.D. (e.g., Acharya, 1999; Ellegard, 1999; Keeler, 1965; Koester, 1980; Wheless, 1990). Here is some evidence to support this theory:

 

  • The first epistle of Clement of Rome (c 64-96 A.D.), which is reasonably dated to 95 A.D., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
  • The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus’ (37–100 A.D.) later works [3], especially Life and Against Apion, implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 A.D., since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 A.D.
  • None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 A.D.
  • Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 AD (Funk & Hoover, 1993, p. 9).

 

The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130 A.D. in the works of Bishop Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book whose author is said to be the disciple Matthew [4]. This book of sayings may refer to the lost document Q, but it obviously does not refer to the Gospel of Matthew, as we know it. Papias also mentions recollections of the disciple Peter, recorded by his secretary Mark. Though neither of these references is to what we now know as the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, they begin to suggest that some things resembling these Gospels were in circulation after 130 A.D. Yet they were certainly not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (e.g., Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, The Book of Hermas).

 

The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140 A.D. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writing”. Yet we can’t be certain that these are the same Gospels. Shortly thereafter, a Christian reformer named Marcion (110–160 A.D.) broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150 A.D. Justin Martyr (c 100-163 A.D.) of Rome composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs” (in the tradition of Papias 20 years earlier), but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them (Waite, 1992). About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian (c 110-185 A.D.), brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 A.D. Irenaeus (c 130-202 A.D.) wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…” (3.11.7-8).

 

Another indication that the gospels were written in the Second Century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumors that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumors about Mary are a Second Century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175 AD. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumors must also have been from the Second Century.

 

Continuing with the Gospel of Matthew, those writers attempted damage control again in the passage about the resurrection, in which they claimed "this story [stealing the body of Jesus from the tomb] is still told among the Jews to this day (28:15).” In fact, there are no references to this story in the literature of the First Century and only in the Second Century is it mentioned by writers such as Tertullian [c. 155 - 230] and Justin Martyr [c. 100 - 165]. So, if the writers of Matthew are writing when these rumors are “still being told”, they must be writing in the Second Century, not the First.

 

Or consider the Gospel of Luke. Luke goes to great lengths to tone down the apocalyptic emphasis clearly present in Mark [5]. Ehrman (1999) notes: “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died… (p. 130).” Now consider what the “lifetime of Jesus’ companions” involved. Assuming Jesus died in 36 AD and assuming that some of his followers were 12 to 15 years old at the time (a reasonable assumption, particularly considering that “boy” is often mentioned), and assuming that it wasn’t unusual for a person to live to be 60 years old in those days (some people are said to live to be 100, but that’s probably an exaggeration), it means that the boys who attended Jesus would have lived until the end of the First Century. So if the writers of the Gospel of Luke were writing after the followers of Jesus were all dead, ipso facto, they were writing at the very end of the First Century, or more likely, in the Second Century. If you narrow the definition of "followers" to refer only to the disciples, we have to consider John, son of Zedebee, who was said to have lived to be 100. If John was 30 when Jesus died, and lived another 70 years, it still places the writing of Luke into the Second Century.

 

A further indication that the gospels are Second Century inventions comes from a careful study of the non-Christian writings (Van Voorst, 2000). The earliest works by Thallos (55 AD), Mara bar Serapion (73 AD), Pliny the Younger (100 AD), Tacitus (116 AD), and Suetonius (120 AD) contain virtually no historical information about Jesus, despite mentions of Christ, Chrestus, etc. But starting with Lucian of Samosata (165 AD), Jesus is mentioned as a "crucified sophist" and then with Celsus (175 AD) there is a plethora of historical information. Something happened between 120 AD and 170 AD that the non-historical Jesus suddenly assumed his historical mantle. Our assumption is that the appearance of the gospels, in the early to mid Second Century, accounts for this phenomenon. Had the Gospels been circulating in the First Century, historical material about Jesus would have appeared in the works of these writers early non-Christian writers such as Thallos, Pliny, and Tacitus.

 

We get still another indication that the Gospels were written in the Second Century from Pilate's title, Prefect. The office of Prefect was abolished around 46 AD, 10 years after Pilate had been removed from office. In 115 AD, Tacitus made the error of referring to Pilate as a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, probably because by that time the distinction had disappeared (Wroe, 1999, p. 65). Yet the Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator. Had they been written shortly after Jesus' death, the writers would have known about the difference between the Prefect and Procurator, and surely would have remembered the title of the longest serving Prefect in Judea. Instead, they use the term Procurator, implying that they are using the Tacitus error or, if not, they are writing at a similar time in which they and Tacitus make the same error. This places the gospel writings into the Second Century.

 

Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.

 

Finally, our survey of the early Christian art indicates that prior to the Third Century there are almost no portraits of Jesus in any medium. Had Jesus’ life been celebrated by the gospels as early as the First Century, one would have expected any explosion of artwork in the Second Century. Instead, it is only in the Third Century that we find such an explosion, suggesting that the gospels and the celebration of Jesus’ life is a Second Century phenomenon.

 

To summarize – Evidence from carbon dating, language analysis (e.g., use of Pilate, rabid anti-Semitism, the allusion to rumors about Mary, etc.) and citation as well as First Century non-Christian sources, show that the Gospels were written in the Second Century. Moreover, inferences from the artwork confirm this conclusion. By 160 A.D. we know, without question, that all four gospels were in circulation, and by 180 A.D. they were considered authoritative. Yet this is more than 100 years after Jesus’ death [6].

 

Updated 10/03/2006


 [1]The oldest copy of a letter from Paul (Galatians) is dated at approximately 200 A.D. (Ehrman, 2005, p. 60)

 [2] “Of the 13 letters of Paul in the New Testament, seven are accepted as largely authentic. (Freke & Gandy, 2001, p. 233).”

 [3] Schonfield (1974), p. 36-43. See also Perkins (1988), p. 229

 [4] “Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could (Quoted in Wilson, 1984, p. 44).” Schonfield (1965) translates the word “sayings” as “oracles”. If we accept Schonfield’s translation, the oracles would more clearly represent an early version of the later Gospel.

[5] For example, in Mark 9:1 the Kingdom is God is described as coming “in power”, but when Luke (9:27) copies the section he deletes this phrase.

 [6] Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st  Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.

 

 

 

 
EXPRESS YOURSELF
 
REVIEW SECTION

   Books

   Films

   TV

   Other
 
MOST COMMON ERRORS
     
READER'S FORUM    
Date:     2006-05-23 Username:   drj Helpful:   8 of 9
Exactly. The Gospels were not written by his disciples. In fact, they never say who they are written by. Convention gave them the names of the disciples, but no scholar believes that they were actually written by them. In most cases, the disciples were illiterate, so how could they write.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-05-28 Username:   william Helpful:   2 of 3
I believe that the disciples had scribes that travelled with them. So even though they couldn't write themselves, they talked and the scribes wrote. I also believe that Matthew was a tax collector, therefore he could probably write.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-05-29 Username:   drj Helpful:   1 of 2
This may or may not be the case, since the historical account of the disciples is very very limited. Certainly Paul had his letters written by others. In any event, there is nothing in any of the gospels which indicates who wrote them. It was only Christian tradition that ascribed them to the disciples.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-06-09 Username:   ProfWilliams Helpful:   4 of 4
While I agree that the gospels weren't written by the disciples, the content of the gospels clearly indicate that the war is on the writers' minds. That suggests they were written in the 60s and/or 70s.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-06-09 Username:   drj Helpful:   8 of 8
The gospels may represent concern with "war" issues, but you have to remember that the Jews were at war several times. Not only in the 66 - 73 period but also in 113-116 (Jewish revolt in Cyrenaica, 115-117 (Jerusalem), and 131-135 (Bar Kochbah). Thus, the many wars in the 2nd Century are just as likely to be reflected in the gospels, if not more so.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-07-27 Username:   drj Helpful:   4 of 4
Hi Ti. You make excellent points, and the plain fact is that my opinion here is in the minority. Yet some of what you say supports my claim. If the earliest comment about Mark is from Papias about 120-130 AD, how can you assert that it was around for 60 years without being mentioned by anyone else? Doesn't seem likely. And the fact that Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple only proves that Mark was written after 70 AD, not around 70 AD. Indeed, for the destruction of the temple to have been a fait accompli, many years must have passed after its destruction to conclude that it was gone. Otherwise, immediately after, it might have only been a temporary problem, and then rebuilt. But in my scenario, it is written so long after the fact that its desctruction is now considered final, rather than transitory. You dated Luke from Acts, which is the conventional wisdom, however, I don't believe they are the same author. Indeed, I don't think Acts was a single work, but regardless of Acts, the copying done in Luke from late 1st and early 2nd Century sources clearly shows me that Luke is a 2nd Century creation. As to your comment that my quotes are "out of context", if you indicate which quotes you are referring to I can comment. As far as some of the quotes referring to "mauscripts", this is only true of Ehrman's quote about Galatians, yet this proves a point - there are no 1st century copies of the Gospels because they weren't written then. We have 1st century and earlier copies of many biblical sources (e.g, Dead Sea Scrolls) but not the gospels. Doesn't that suggest something?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-08-09 Username:   drj Helpful:   7 of 7
Hi Ti. I'm not sure if Ignatius was familiar with Matthew or the reality is that Matthew copied Ignatius, thus putting Matthew after Ignatius and into the 2nd Century. The reason I believe that Matthew copied Ignatius is that in Ignatius the words come from him (e.g., Ephesus (14:2) “You know the tree from its fruits” that appears in Matthew 12:33; Polycarp (2:2) “be in all things wise like the serpent, and always harmless like the dove.” that appears in Matthew 10:16. etc.) whereas in Matthew the words come from Jesus. If Ignatius had copied Matthew, he would be a very poor Christian indeed to take Jesus' words and put them into his own mortal mouth. But if Matthew copied Ignatius, it is more likely he would take the words of a stout Christian father and make them Jesus' own words. Of course, this is only speculation, but that's my belief. If you have any hard evidence that Matthew preceded Ignatius, I'd love to hear about it. As far as Luke goes, I'm more inclined to accept that the material he copied (e.g., Josephus) was dated very late 1st Century, and hence his writing must be 2nd Century. Using the information you cite, I would agree with you. But I think the dated copied material is more potent evidence than the theological style. Theological styles can be copied or imitated and hence it's difficult to know what time period it truly represents. You're correct about the manuscript evidence. It is a relatively minor point. It confirms what I'm saying but there's good reasons, as you indicate, why we lack them.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-06-04 Username:   jimfoxy Helpful:   0 of 1
I would place the gospels earlier than most. Probably the synoptics all date from before A.D. 60. But for now, I am puzzled by the implication that First Clement (I agree with you that 95 is a reasonable date) knows nothing of the gospels. This is hardly the case, though Clement makes much more use of the Old Testament and the Letters of Paul. Still, in Clement 2, we find the same thought as in Acts 20:35, and Acts was certainly written after Luke. In Clement 24 we find the sower in a context that shows Clement was familiar with Luke 8:5. Clement 46 mentions the millstone around the neck, a clear reference to Matthew 18:6;26:24, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2. Clement 49 says that those who love Christ should keep the commandments of Christ -- a clear reference to John 14:15. I would say that Clement is saturated with thoughts from the Gospels, Epistles, and the Old Testament. If so, this is proof of a first century date for the gospels. Blessings.......
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-09-03 Username:   TOTO Helpful:   3 of 4
Please let's go to the roots instead of playing around on the surface. What are the gospels? They are imaginary biographies of a person, written 70 to 130 years after his supposed death,copying the lives of mythological persons like Osiris.Zoroaster,Krishna,Dionysos,Adonis,Mithra and many others,all born on 25 December from a virgin mother,all performing miracles(Dionysus transformed water to wine in a wedding)(450 BC) all crucified and resurected 3 days later (Krishna was crucified between 2 thieves)(3228 BC) On the top there isn't the slightest historical evidence that such a person(Jesus) ever lived. These biographies were called (gospels) because the word (biography) doesn' sound holly enough. So what are we talking about ?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-09-13 Username:   rambux Helpful:   1 of 3
Re TOTO's comments: I have no authority to comment the list of persons that TOTO lists. But to assert that there is no historical evidence that jesus existed is completely untrue. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus that for that of Julius Caeser. Any psychologist reading the gospels would be inclined to agree with HG Wells, an athiest, who neverhteless wrote a most perceptive article about Jesus' teaching. He says: "This one must have actually lived. He could not have been invented." And as far as calling the gospel biographies, TOTO reveals his complete ignorance. Their whole purpose was as faith documents. The greek word euangelion, translated as gospels, means 'proclamation'. I am not suggesting that Christianity is better than any other faith, or indeed that Jesus was the person the Church has made him out to be. But to say that he did not exist at is absurd
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-10-30 Username:   TOTO Helpful:   5 of 5
Re:rambox' comments Dear Rambox For the persons I list,please read the book by Kersey Graves entitiled THE WORLD'S 16 CRUCIFIED SAVIORS(amazon books) As you know the Nicea Council in 323AD decided to keep only 4 out of more than 40 biographies of Jesuha and named them (euangelion = good announcment ) at this date.Not before. This was the period of Emperor Constantin who carved the eyes of his own son.The church didnt miss such an occasion and proclamed him SAINT although he was not christian As for the existance of Jeshua I advise you to read the book (JESUS WHO?) by Dr.James Gardner editor of Jesus Police(pages 41 to 56) But I am sure you will read the whole book The only point I completely agree with you is my ignorance.In fact in my 74th year I do feel ignorant and ı read as much as I can hoping to become less ignorant As for your last sentance I would advise you to think twice befor using the word (absurd) for this subject. It was nice talking to you even through internet
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-12-23 Username:   tall Helpful:   7 of 7
I do not believe you have proved that all the gospels were all written in the second century AD. I feel that each one must be looked at on their own merits. However I can accepted that Papias has the first allusion to the Gospels, however he seems to be a great champion of oral tradition over what has been written down. Some of Papias’ work is known to us only in the work of Irenaeus (late 2nd century). Irenaeus states that Mark’s gospel was written after the deaths of Peter and Paul. Their deaths are normally dated about 64-65 AD. It would seem justified to state that the earliest date for Mark is 64 AD. I am not sure how much can be inferred from silence. You state that the earliest dated portion of any gospel is 125AD. It is generally believed that the earliest texts were written on papyrus and this explains the lack of evidence. It was not until the fourth century that the texts were written on vellum which keeps better. Therefore all that can be said with confidence is that by about 185 AD four Gospels were known and generally accepted by all Christians. It was not until 367 that the whole of the New Testament was agreed. Therefore I would suggest that once a text is written and used in a particular church it could take more than 200 years for it to be accepted. Therefore the gospels could have been written 200 years before they were generally accepted in 185. As the events in the gospels must have taken place first century AD this does not add much to dating the gospels. I personally do not think that the lack of portraits of Jesus until the third century adds anything to the debate. I would need to know what Christian art survived from before this time. I would expect Christian art to be more basic, and fragile before Christianity became the state religion. Some Christian art forms only developed once it was the state religion and came from the Roman civil society. I am not sure how much can be deducted from the absence of details of Jesus’ life from non-Christian writings. No one can know how long a document has to exist before it comes to the attention of people outside of the cult that produced it. I suggest it would take longer to do this than to reach other churches. Also I think that with few members of the church it would be less likely that all the details would be know to historians. Once there were more Christians and more gospels it is likely than historians would know more details of the founder. It should also be remembered that for some time Christianity was seen as a sect of Judaism. You state that Pilate’s title in the gospels is procurator. However I can’t see Mark or John using any title for Pilate. Matthew (27:2) has pilato to egemoni - pilate the ruler. Luke in 3:1 has egemoneuontos pontiou pilatou - leader, ruler, commander of a province, governor of a province, proconsul, procurator Pontius Pilate and also in 3.1 uses “egemonias” for Tiberius Caesar. Therefore a couple of questions need answering – does Luke use the correct title for all people in his gospel except Pilate? What is the correct Greek for Prefect? As the office of Prefect was abolished in 46 AD is it reasonable to expect a writer over 34 years later to use the correct title or is a general term reasonable? Now this would lead me to believe that the gospels were written between 64 AD and 160 AD (to use your date). Turning to Mark, I believe that chapter 13 is used to date it. It has been argued that a comparison of Mk13:14 with Lk 21:20 suggests that Mark was written before 70 AD. Luke has Jerusalem surrounded by armies has happened in 70 AD, but Mark only has when the desolating sacrilege set up. However Mark does have the prediction of the destruction of the Temple (Mk 13:2). I have seen the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk 20:9-19) used to suggest that the destroying of the tenants and giving of the vineyard to others means that Jerusalem was destroyed. It was also argued that the Jewish mob forcing Pilate to execute Jesus (Mk 15:6-15) explains why most Jewish people in Jerusalem were executed by the Romans. It has also been argued that for Mark the Parousia would be soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. Mk 13:13b “But he who endures to the end will be saved.” Mk 13:24-27 “But in those days, after that tribulation … And then they will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” Mk 13:30 “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.” It has been suggested that Mark thought the Parousia would be within about 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This must still be a future event when Mark was written so Mark must have been written before 93 AD. For me the date of Mark is between 70 and 93 AD. You wrote, “But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups.” The Pharisees started to become rabbis following the destruction of Jerusalem. In Josephus' Antiquities (written about 93), XVIII, I, 3: describes the Pharisees as teachers and leaders appealing to Jews. However in Wars written about 78 the Pharisees are not described like this. It has been suggested that Luke knew of Josephus’ Wars but not his Antiquities. Therefore it was written before 93 AD. Both Matthew (24:34) and Luke (21:32) have “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place.” Luke is likely to be later than Matthew because Luke has added “Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” I agree with Ehrman (1999) “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died”. John is also thought to be later because the Parousia will not happen until most of Jesus’ generation are dead. There are three references in the gospel about Jesus' followers/Christians booted out of synagogues – Jn 9:22,12:42 and 16:1-2a. This might be a reference to the efforts of Gamaliel II around 90 AD to keep Jewish Christians out of the synagogue. It has been suggested that John used Mark and Luke. It has been suggested that Q used Mark and therefore must have been written after 70 AD. It has been suggested that Q can be subdivided into three subdivisions of sayings, called Q1, Q2 and Q3. This must have taken time. It has been suggested that this process took about 35 years starting in about 50 AD. Therefore I feel that to state that all the gospels were written in the second century is pushing the evidence too far. My conclusions are: Mark was written soon after 70AD; Matthew and Luke were written after 80AD and before 93 AD; John was written after 90 AD and before 130 AD; Q was written after 50AD and before 80 AD.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-20 Username:   rambux Helpful:   3 of 5
First: to TOTO: you refer to the gospels as'biographies'. They are nothing of the sort. General remark: Again, the writer of the head article is very selective in his list of scholars - I've never heard of any of them, and again he makes no mention of scholars such as the ones I've listed in my comments on the resurrection. As for the actual existence of Jesus, to suggest that he did not exist is absurd. I won't go into any arguments over that, except to say that HG Wells, an athiest, said about Jesus: "This one must have really lived. He could not have been invented." I'm not sure why people are making such an issue of this - the existence of an historical Jesus is neither here nor there - the real issues revolve around whether he is the real 'Christ of faith', or whether that 'Christ of faith' is an invention.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-26 Username:   rayman Helpful:   2 of 6
For TOTO: I am siding with rambux. If Jesus did not exist, then my question to you is, what year is it? Nearly everyone, including nations accept the fact that it is 2008 (when my comment will be posted). More accurately, it is probably 2014. Point being, the acronyms of B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (anno Domini) should assist you in explaining the existence of your "imaginary person". If you are implying that you and your one and only Amazon book (probably written in the 20th century) are correct and the history of mankind's calender dating, records, literature, etc. are inaccurate, then may I suggest to you in researching the subject of "common sense"? At your age of 74 (or possiby 75 now), I would be hesitant about challenging Jesus' existence. Even most atheists would agree with me and rambux on this. It's okay, I forgive you. I can't speak for Jesus though, he may not have the same compassion as I do for your ignorance. By the way, you're not the guy who keeps submitting stories to "The National Enquirer" and they keep begging you to stop, are you? Get on your knees before it's to late!
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-26 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   4 of 4
Although the writings of most early critics of Christianity were burned by orthodox church authorities during the second and third centuries, some were preserved because they were extensively quoted by later apologists. Such is the case with Celsus, who wrote a criticism of Christian beliefs around 178 CE. In "Celsus: On The True Doctrine" (trans. R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), the writer reports that as early as the late second century, Christian copyists "...alter the original writings three, four, and several more times in order to be able to deny the contradictions..." (p.64). Even if it were true that the gospels were transcribed in the first century, within Christianity's first 100 years they had been so heavily edited, redacted and rewritten as to be all but unrecognizable to Jesus or his companions. Oddly, most of what we are discussing as "eye-witness" accounts was written by Saul, an avowed enemy of the movement, who was busy inventing his own "Christian" religion.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-27 Username:   rambux Helpful:   0 of 3
For QUESTIONING: What a delight it was to read something by someone who had some genuine understanding of Biblical scholarship!
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-04-27 Username:   Pantera Helpful:   4 of 4
rayman - you wrote, "At your age of 74... I would be hesitant about challenging Jesus' existence." This is called Pascal's Wager. It goes something like this: If when you die you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end). If you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss in heaven). But if at death you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all). If you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation). Thus, according to Pascal's Wager, it is better to believe in God. But there are problems with this argument. A person cannot simply will himself to believe in something that his conscience tells him does not exist. Pascal's Wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong god(s) as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic. Perhaps god would not reward your belief in him based solely on an attempt to hedge your bets (and so on). BTW, ray, don't be so ethnocentric - it is not 2008 CE to everyone in the world. The Jewish calendar is based on the date that the universe was created: 3761 BCE. The abbreviation "AM" for Anno Mundi is used. To more than 13 million Jews, it's the year 5768–5769. The Islamic calendar begins in the year 622 CE, the year of the Hegira, when the Prophet Muhammad traveled from Mecca to Medina. The abbreviation "H" or "AH" is used after the date; it stands for "Hegira" or "Anno Hejira". To more than two billion Muslims, it's the year 1429 A.H. The Catholic Church gave us the BC and AD date suffix. Anno Domini, or A.D., did not become widespread in Europe until the late fifteenth century when in 1422 CE Portugal became the last nation of western Europe to adopt Anno Domini. Most atheists do not agree with you.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-05-04 Username:   Mark Helpful:   4 of 4
FOR RAYMAN: You are not in a position to speak for "most atheists," and, if I understand your comment correctly, you imply that once atheists reach an age where death is nearer they suddenly start worrying about the after life. In this case, you are the one showing ignorance of a particular group of people as there ARE atheists in foxholes and the moment of death does not suddenly convert atheists to believe in an imaginary friend. The terms BC and AD do not prove the existence of Jesus, only a a belief in him - are you aware of their origins? For a history of it go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Christ. Actually, if you really want to research Christ, then you should look toward scholars who student primary documents. A good source to start is here: http://www.jesus-project.com/ and here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/. I think you'll find it's not just two people who doubt Jesus' existence (though many believe he existed, but was just another of the many prophets wandering the countryside at the period of time - others believe he is a compilation of several prophets just as King Author was a compilaton of several kings). If you need Jesus I recommend you don't follow those links, because the more you study religion the less you believe in the supernatural and the more you'll believe in the fallible, superstitious nature of people.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-08-07 Username:   toto Helpful:   2 of 2
To RAYMAN You wrote that you are siding with Rambux and I have a few things to tell you 1) Citing (AD) as a proof of Jesus existance is laughable,please check wikipedia.org to learn that it was devised in the 6th century 2) Saying that there is more proof of existence of Jesus than Julious Cesar shows a misunderstanding of basic HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 3) Trying to use one's age to scare him not to question Jesus existence is just plain mean and shows the class of the oponent As for Rambux I was not surprised that he used the assumption of an atheist as the only life jacket he could find.(who else could he use?) In fact Rambux pretends that H:G:Wells said for Jesus : (THIS ONE MUST HAVE REALLY LIVED HE COULDNT BE INVENTED) Why did he fell like saying this for Jesus and not for e.g. John Kennedy or Julius Cesar or Sokrates or Archimedes or anybody else ? Does this ring any bell ? (Idoubt it does) All the best to both of you
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2008-12-16 Username:   ecco Helpful:   0 of 0
Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (Mark 6:52–53); thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the letters to be correct, only Mark matches these twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts. (taken from Wikipedia). I know I hate to pull stuff from Wikipedia but it was the only thing I could find about this fragment on short notice. To be fair it is only a small fragment and no one is 100% certain that this is from the Gospel of Mark.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-01-12 Username:   mistermacky Helpful:   1 of 1
Of course Jesus did exist. In fact, lots of Jesus's existed. One man in 25 was a Jesus, in Jerusalem at the time. The question is, did Christianity and the gospels follow on directly, without embellishment, from the life of one of these men named Jesus, or did a well established Christ movement pick on a little known Jesus, and declare that this long dead man must have been the Messiah? The truth is that even if there was a man called Jesus somehow linked to these gospel stories, there is no way of knowing if the stories are true. So while plenty of men called Jesus did exist, it's highly doubtful that the one as described in the gospels existed. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. The Hitler we would now know would certainly not be anything like the real Hitler. Even though history is based on a living person, it doesn't mean you get to know the real person. In History, a living person and a real person are very different things.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-03-13 Username:   dipylon Helpful:   1 of 1
At the end of Chapter Four of the Epistle of Barnabas it states: …as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen." This is an exact quotation from Matt. xx. 16 or xxii. 14. It is worthy of notice that this is the first example in the writings of the Fathers of a citation from any book of the New Testament, preceded by the authoritative formula, "it is written." Therefore, your beginning source stated by Crossan, 1995, p.122, is incorrect. Could you please comment.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-05-16 Username:   LD Helpful:   1 of 1
Jimfoxy made a good point about Clement quoting from the Gospels, which indicates that there were pre-Gospel writings from which our later established 4 Gospels were taken, so that Clement was quoting from these early source documents rather than from Matthew and Mark per se. These 4 Gospels may not have existed as we know them until 180 AD or so. But material in them may have been circulating for many generations, and some of it even as early as 70 or 80 AD. So the contents of the Gospels may be partly or mostly of 1st-century origin, though also containing material composed much later. And we can assume there are at least a few items or threads that go back even to a time when contemporaries of Jesus were still alive. And what about the epistles? Presumably Paul did exist and travel during 50-60 AD or so. So can we assume most of those epistles were written somewhere near that time? Presumably these letters were not subject to the same editing and manipulating that the Gospel accounts (or sources for them) underwent before becoming finalized. And if so, then these epistles give some attestation to Jesus' crucifixion and other events giving rise to the new Jewish Christian cult and the gospel accounts not yet published but probably taking shape in their early stage.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-07-16 Username:   DavidGibbs Helpful:   2 of 2
DSG: What I think is significant on the question of when the Gospels were written, is the fact that no one ever quotes in writings anything from the four Gospels until just before the year 183 of the second century. It is absurd to believe that these Gospels were lying around for over a hundred years, and yet the Church Fathers continued to quote only from the Old Testament.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-08-10 Username:   drj Helpful:   0 of 0
Hi dipylon. The Epistle of Barnabas is thought to have been written in the late 1st century or the early 2nd century, possibly as late as 131 AD. Therefore, even if the Epistle did contain large amounts of text from one of the canonical gospels (which it doesn't), this doesn't mean that the canonical gospels were written in the 1st century. More telling, the epistle contains no direct referenecs to the canonical gospels, which one should have suspected. Finally, the contents of the epistle, IMHO, reflect 2nd century controversies between Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2009-11-05 Username:   drcsanyi Helpful:   1 of 1
The Bible's Gospels were produced in the second century, and they are based on an original proto-gospel story produced by a group of judaizing gentile gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt. This issue was fairly well explored by Bolland way back in 1907 (Gerardus Bolland's "De Evangelische Jozua", available on http://www.radikalkritik.de/Bolland_jozua.pdf. In his English translation by Klaus Schilling, he concludes: “I agree with a variety of observations made by Bolland, such as the origin of the Gospels in the Alexandrian Hellenic-philosophical exegesis of Scripture, in Philonic and/or proto-Gnostic circles, and with the Roman origin of the Synoptics as an adaptation of the Alexandrian writings for the sociopolitical agenda of what became Roman Catholicism, and that a similar reasoning is valid for much of the deuterocanonical literature.” (FROM: G.J.P.J. Bolland: The Gospel Jesus, Klaus Schilling's summary and translation of Gerardus Bolland's "De Evangelische Jozua" from 1907 http://www.egodeath.com/BollandGospelJesus.htm The "Gospels" were later combined by the Church with certain "letters" attributed to "Paul", who was promoting another gnostic mystery cult in Asia Minor.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
 
Sort This Forum By

o Date    o Username    o Helpfulness
Refer This Page to a Friend
POST YOUR COMMENT - You must sign in to post comment    
     
 
Home           Links Page            Feed Back            Dateline            News            References