0
The Date(s) of Authorship for the New Testament Gospels
Timothy H.
Over the last two centuries, there has been considerable debate over the dates of authorship for the canonical Gospels. Liberal scholars have tried to argue for the latest possible date of authorship (70-170 A.D.) while conservative scholars have tried to argue for the earliest possible date of authorship (50-90 A.D.). What is at stake here is the accuracy of the picture that the canonical Gospels give us about Jesus. We'll get more into that and oral tradition in the next essay. For now, let's stick to the issue of Gospel authorship.
Introduction to Liberal Dating
Traditionally liberal scholars argue for a late date of authorship for the canonical Gospels. These dates have ranged from 70 to 170 A.D. Today the large majority of liberal scholars view the Gospels as have being written from around the years of 70 to 100 A.D. There are however, some scholars who place the date of composition way beyond these dates, into the mid-second century A.D.
Part of what sets liberal dating apart from traditional, conservative dating is its antisupernatural presupposition. Antisupernaturalism (or naturalism) is a philosophical view which holds that nature is all that exists and the supernatural is impossible. It is because of this bias that liberal scholars believe all of the supernatural events that are reported in the Gospels are impossible. It is also because of this presupposition that has caused liberal scholars to argue that the synoptic Gospels couldn't have been written before the fall of Jerusalem because the prophecy in which the fall of Jerusalem is mentioned had to postdate the actual event.
Finally when it comes to the fourth Gospel (the Gospel of John), 19th and 20th century liberal German scholars used to argue that it was written nearing the end of the second century A.D. This is around one entire century after the synoptics were written. Because of this alleged date of late authorship many liberal scholars rejected the traditional apostolic authorship which was associated with John. However this hypothesis has since been largely abandoned and liberal scholars have opted for a late 90-early 100s A.D. date of authorship. The reason why this theory was abandoned will be discussed later on in this essay.
Introduction to Conservative Dating
In contrast to liberal scholars, conservative scholars argue for a relatively early date of authorship for the canonical Gospels. Most conservative scholars today view the Gospels as have being written between the years of 50 to 90 A.D. In recent years however a Spanish Jesuit paleographer named Jose O'Callahan has found and identified manuscript fragments that may push the dates of authorship for the Gospel of Mark to around 50 A.D and perhaps earlier. [1] I however neither endorse or critique O'Callahan's hypothesis, so I won't be discussing it any further than this brief mention.
Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservative scholars do not have an antisupernatural presupposition. Rather conservative scholars view the matter through a supernaturalistic presupposition, which allows for the supernatural. Thus conservative scholars opt for a date of authorship that predates the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) because the prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem could very well be valid. Thus conservative scholars use this and other points to argue for a date of authorship that predates the fall of Jerusalem.
Conservatives view the fourth Gospel as have being written from around 60-90 A.D. Evidence found within the Gospel and outside of the Gospel, especially P52 help argue for this. More concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John will be discussed later on in this essay.
How We Date the Gospels
The dating of the canonical Gospels can be a very tricky matter. Scholars usually focus on two types of evidence. They are refereed to as internal evidence and external evidence. Internal evidence refers to the evidence that can be gathered by examine the text itself. External evidence refers to the evidence that can be gathered by looking outside of the text. Mark D. Roberts writes:
First, there is external evidence. This includes the early manuscripts of the Gospels as well as references to them or citations from them in other words of ancient literature.
Second, there is internal evidence. This has to do with what can be discovered about the time of writing from the content of each Gospel. Consider this obvious example. All of the
Gospels identify Pontius Pilate as the Roman governor of Judea during the time of Jesus. Since we know that Pilate governed from about 26 to 37 A.D., the Gospels couldn't have
been written before this time. [2]
External Evidence
We can set limit to the latest date to which the Gospels could be written by taking a look at some writings outside of the Bible. Around 180 A.D., Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons wrote a work called Against Heresies. In it he mentions all four Gospels and their authors. [3] This passage is alleged to have come from Polycarp, which if true, could argue for an even earlier date of authorship. However the authenticity of this passage is disputed, so I'll stray away from this. From this initial look we can set the latest date to which the Gospels could have been authored to 180 A.D.
Now let's look at some more sources and narrow the latest date down. In 140 A.D., the heretic Marcion compiled his own list of the canon. Contained in his list was the Gospel of Luke (although Marcion edited it to fit his gnostic theology). Thus we can say that the Gospels of Mark and Luke could have been written no later than 140 A.D.
How does the Gospel of Mark tie into this however? Well since Mark was the first Gospel that was written, most scholars, whether they be liberal or conservative, believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their Gospels because of the close similarity of the first three Gospels. That's why they are called the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means similarity). Matthew and Luke show an enormous dependence on Mark's Gospel, at times having word-for-word parallels. This means Mark was written before Luke, and since we have set the latest possible date of authorship for Luke, Mark must have been written earlier.
Back to what I was saying. We can narrow down this latest possible date of authorship for the three synoptic Gospels even more by examining the church father Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. It is estimated to have been written around 110-140 A.D. [4] Although it does not contain the names any of the Gospels, the letter does contain quotations which are very similar to verses from the three synoptic Gospels. [5]
Another source from around the same time aside from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians are fragments of the writings of Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis. [6] Fragments of his writings date to 110-140 A.D., which is around the same time period to which Polycarp's writings were dated. [7] Unlike Polycarp's writings, Papias actually names two Gospels, these being Matthew and Mark. [8]
With the evidence we have cited, we can argue that the synoptic Gospels were authored around the late first century A.D. We can say this because we have to factor in the time it took for the Gospels to be copied and the time it took for it to spread around the ancient world.
Textual Evidence
But what of the Gospel of John? You may have noticed that external sources which I mentioned, aside from Irenaeus, did not contain any reference to the Gospel of John. So as far as we know, the earliest mention of the Gospel of John dates to around 180 A.D. So what of the Gospel of John? Did it have a very late date of authorship compared to the other canonical Gospels? You have read earlier that liberal scholars used to believe that the Gospel of John was written in the later half of the second century A.D. They believed that for this very reason, there are no mention of the Gospel of John from any early church figure before Irenaeus. Notice however that I used the words “used to believeâ€. Why don't they believe in John's late authorship anymore? Well let's find out.
You probably have noticed now that until now, I have been citing the letters of figures from the early Christian church. But now let's turn to a new type of external evidence. This being the textual evidence. During the 19th and into the early 20th century, liberal German theology dominated the playing field of most European seminaries. It was widely believed that the Gospel of John wasn't written until the latter parts of the second century because it lacked any mention from early church figures prior to that. However over one hundred years in liberal scholarship came crashing down when P52 was discovered at Oxford University in the 1930s.
P52, also known as the John Rylands Papyrus 457, is a fragment of papyrus that contains John 18:31-33, and 37-38. [9] It is dated from around 100-150 A.D. Some scholars have even suggested that it should be dated to around the late 90's A.D. P52 is our oldest dated fragment of the New Testament. Its discovery revolutionized the way scholars viewed the Gospel of John. When scholars compared P52 to other manuscripts, they found that its handwriting style resembled that of Papyrus Fayyum 110, which is a papyri that originated in Middle Egypt. [10] Thus the Gospel of John had already spread to Egypt no later than 150 A.D. Timothy Paul Jones writes:
So, in the early years of the second century A.D. - perhaps even earlier – the Gospel according to John was already in circulation throughout the Roman Empire. What's more, if
the Gospel according to John was already circulating in central Egypt in the late first or early second century, this account of Jesus's life must have been compiled at some point in the
latter half of the first century. [11]
Aside from P52, we have a plethora of textual evidence for the Gospels. Such textual evidence include a wealth of papyri. This includes: P90, P66, P4, P64, P67, P75, P103, P104, P87, P77, P45, P48, P45, and P104. [12] [13] [14] All of these papyri were written before the third century A.D.
We have now established thanks to external evidence that the Gospels could have been written no later than 100 A.D. Unfortunately, external evidence has its limits and this is the earliest to which we can date the Gospels by using external evidence. To date the Gospels even earlier, we must examine the internal evidence found within the Gospels. We now turn our attention toward the internal evidence.
Internal Evidence
The internal evidence which is found in the Gospels helps to argue for a more precise date of authorship, something that external evidence has a hard time doing in this case. I have already argued in the above segment that the Gospels were written no later than 100 A.D., so let's work on from there.
Our key focus will be Jesus's prediction of the fall of Jerusalem that can be found in all of the synoptic Gospels. Liberal scholars take one look at the prophecy made of the fall and immediately slap on a post-fall date of authorship. However this is an uncalled for antisupernatural bias. Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy write:
The absolute rejection of miracles isn't really a conclusion that is based on evidence or on reason – for neither evidence nor reason could warrant such an absolute conclusion. It is,
rather, an assumption – a presupposition of the naturalistic worldview – pure and simple. [15]
They then go on to state:
....A more open-minded, scholarly approach would be to hold that, if all natural explanations become implausible, we should consider explanations that go beyond the natural laws that
describe how the world generally operates.[16]
They then conclude by pointing out this this antisupernatural bias is nothing but circular reasoning:
....This is a clear case of circular reasoning.... These scholars assume that supernatural occurrence don't happen.... But notice, they only conclude this because they presupposed it
at the start.[17]
So then without further ado, let's present the case for the pre-fall authorship of the Gospels. We can argue for a relatively close date of authorship for the synoptic Gospels by looking at the date of authorship for the Acts of the Apostles. Indeed if you find when Acts if written, then it's pretty safe to assume that you can derive a relatively close date for the authorship of the synoptic Gospels. But how exactly does Acts, which is a book detailing early church history, tie into the dating of the synoptic Gospels? J. P. Moreland writes:
According to the four-source theory, Q and Mark predate Matthew and Luke. It should also be kept in mind that Luke and Acts are two parts of the same document; Luke
precedes Acts slightly. This means that if one can date Acts, then Luke would have been written prior to Acts. And since Luke used Matthew and Mark, then Matthew and Mark
are to be dated even earlier. So a key to dating the Gospels is the date assigned to Acts. [18]
Basically, scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing their Gospel. However Luke used both Matthew and Mark's Gospel when he wrote his Gospel. Finally Luke wrote two books, these being his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke wrote his Gospel first and Acts second, so Acts is the later of the two. Thus if we find the date of authorship for acts, we can also find the date of authorship for Luke, seeing it was written slightly before Acts. Then we can also find a date of authorship for both Matthew and Mark because Luke used Matthew and Mark as sources in writing his Gospel. Thus it all ties into the date of authorship for Acts.
Although there are many ways to date the synoptic Gospels, perhaps the most common way that is used to date them concerns the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Mark D. Roberts writes:
The most common arguments for dating the Gospels based on internal evidence refer to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. This was, no doubt, a
cataclysmic event for many early Christians, especially those who continued to think of themselves as Jews. Scholars examine the Gospels for evidence of knowledge – or lack of
knowledge – of the events of A.D. 70. [19]
Aside from the prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem, there are several other points that argue a strong case for a date of authorship predating 70 A.D. Remember that Acts is the central point in dating the synoptics. The following list presents a few points that are used to date Acts and assign a pre-70 date of authorship to the synoptics: [20]
*Acts does not mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., this is odd considering that both Luke and Acts revolve around Jerusalem. [21] [22][/li]
*Nero's persecution of the Jews in the middle part of A.D. 60 isn't mentioned. [23] Moreland writes:
Neither the tone of Acts nor the omission of an account of Nero's persecutions can be adequately explained by saying it was an attempt to appease the Roman government. It
was not in the nature of the early church to appease anyone – witness conflicts with Judaism and the Pharisees which are recorded in Luke's writings.[24]
*The Jewish war which broke out in 66 A.D. is not mentioned. If Luke were writing from a post-70 A.D. date, then it's odd as to why he didn't record this, especially since it fulfilled a prophecy made by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. (the destruction of the temple). [25][/li]
*The deaths of Peter, Paul, and James are not mentioned. [26] [27] Again Moreland writes:
This is also surprising since Acts is quick to record the deaths of Stephen and James the brother of John, leaders in the early church. These omissions are even more surprising when
one realizes that James, Peter, and Paul are the three key figures in Acts. [28]
In relation to the above point, Acts is in the middle of telling us about Paul's trial when the book abruptly ends. A likely explanation for this abrupt ending is that Paul's trial had not yet been concluded and was still underway. Daniel B. Wallace, a renowned New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary writes:[/li]
The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct
impression that Paul’s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE.[29]
We have thus argued a strong case for a pre-70 A.D. date of authorship for the synoptic Gospels. Once again however, we have left out the Gospel of John. For the most part we are left with external evidence (especially P52) to date John's Gospel. Both the internal and external evidence indicate that the apostle John wrote his Gospel using eyewitness testimony, thus the latest date that John could have written his Gospel is in the late 90's A.D. The most probable date of authorship would be before this date. Somewhere around the 80s and perhaps even the 70s A.D.
However Wallace has compiled seven points which offer a very strong argument for a date of authorship in the 60s A.D using internal evidence. Although I won't get into details, such points include a lack of mention of the fall of Jerusalem and an intricate knowledge of the topography of a pre-70 Jerusalem. His work should not be ignored as they present a very strong case for a early authorship of John. [30]
Conclusion
Throughout this essay, I have been arguing for a date of composition for the canonical Gospels. According to both the external and internal evidence, a particularly strong case can be made for a pre-70 date of authorship for all of the Gospels. The following table [not available in this version, see the PDF version for a detailed table] outlines the most probable date of authorship for each of the Gospels:
Matthew - 60-65 A.D. [31]
Mark - 50-60 A.D.
Luke - 61-62 A.D.
John - 65-90 A.D. [32]
____________________
Endnotes:
[1]. Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 1999) PP: 532-533
[2]. Mark D. Roberts. Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books. 2007) PP: 55
[3]. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 3.1. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...us/advhaer3.txt
[4]. http://www.earlychri...m/polycarp.html
[5]. http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml
[6]. E. A. Livingston. Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2006) PP: 435
[7]. http://www.earlychri...com/papias.html
[8]. Fragments of Papias. http://www.ccel.org/....vii.ii.vi.html
[9]. Timothy Paul Jones. Conspiracies and the Cross: How to Intelligently Counter the Ten Most Popular Theories That Attack the Gospel of Jesus. (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine. 2008) PP: 18 Bold emphasis added.
[10]. Ibid.
[11]. Ibid., 19
[12]. Ibid., 20-21
[13]. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture.(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications. 2006) PP: 116
[14]. Philip Comfort, et al. The Origin of The Bible (Tyndale House Publishers. 2003) PP: 200
[15]. Gregory A. Boyd, Paul Rhodes Eddy. Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 2007) PP: 22-23
[16]. Ibid., 23
[17]. Ibid., 26
[18]. J. P. Moreland. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1987) PP: 152
[19]. Roberts. 57-58
[20]. I list only five of these points. For a larger list considering of fifteen points, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics . Also see J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Daniel B. Wallace presents a more detailed and scholarly argument than Geisler and Moreland at http://www.bible.org...hp?page_id=1329
[21]. Geisler. 528
[22]. Moreland. 152-153
[23]. Geisler. 528
[24]. Moreland. 153
[25]. Ibid., 153
[26]. Ibid
[27]. Geisler. 528
[28]. Moreland. 153
[29]. Daniel B. Wallace. Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument. http://www.bible.org...hp?page_id=1329
[30]. See Daniel B. Wallace. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline. http://www.bible.org...hp?page_id=1328 for more
information and for his detailed argument for a pre-70 date of authorship for John.
[31]. I hesitate to date Matthew around 60-65 .A.D (I affirm a Markan priority), although I do this because Wallace seems to reject the idea that Luke used Matthew in his
Gospel. See http://www.bible.org...php?page_id=969 fd
[32]. Wallace presents seven points for a pre-70 A.D. date of authorship for John. See http://www.bible.org...hp?page_id=1329
