When was first Gospel written and what was it?
I am reading Many Infallible Proofs by Pierson and he states:
The exact year of the production of each of the four gospels cannot be
fixed. But the most careful and scholarly modern criticism puts the date
of St. Matthew’s record at about 38 A. D., and his record of this
prophecy is the fullest, as well as the first. Mark wrote A. D., 67 to
69. Luke A. D. 63. John A. D. 95.
I thought I had always read that Mark was considered to be the first gospel written and its date to be around 50AD. Yet Pierson states that modern scholarship (1885) identifies Matthew to be the first gospel written and in 38AD.
Anyone know of any Logos resources that can address when Biblical scholars change opinions and for what reason?
Thanks.
Comments
Ronald, you can STILL find 'careful and scholarly modern criticism' today that applies those dates (the Luke one is curious). I assume you're wanting a broad discussion on the plus's and minus's supporting the various views. Almost inevitably you have to read each gospel's commentaries (plural).
Regarding Mark, from a mathematical case (syntax pattern sequencing), the early chapters appear to precede Matthew, but the later chapters appear to come from Matthew (i.e. an update to or by 'Mark').
In the last few days my own interest in the question has perked up having run into several clear reference to 'writings' and being referenced as 'the Gospel' and 'the Gospel of the Lord' in the apostolic fathers. Unfortunately some of what's associated with that 'Gospel' isn't found in 'our' gospels.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
I am reading Many Infallible Proofs by Pierson and he states:
The exact year of the production of each of the four gospels cannot be
fixed. But the most careful and scholarly modern criticism puts the date
of St. Matthew’s record at about 38 A. D., and his record of this
prophecy is the fullest, as well as the first. Mark wrote A. D., 67 to
69. Luke A. D. 63. John A. D. 95.I thought I had always read that Mark was considered to be the first gospel written and its date to be around 50AD. Yet Pierson states that modern scholarship (1885) identifies Matthew to be the first gospel written and in 38AD.
Anyone know of any Logos resources that can address when Biblical scholars change opinions and for what reason?
Thanks.
I suppose Streeter's The Four Gospel had a large impact in convincing scholarship (quite rightly in my opinion) that Luke and Matthew are have used Mark and are consequently posterior to Mark. The older view was based upon Papias' statements, but these only concerned a Hebrew or Aramaic version which must have preceded our much fuller Greek Matthew.
I don't recall coming across the 50 AD date, even among Evangelicals, for Mark--the standard view places it around 69/70. There is recent monograph by Crossley (available in Logos) that puts forward a good case for a date in the early 40s (and Crossley is an agnostic, and not a Christian).
Anyone know of any Logos resources that can address when Biblical scholars change opinions and for what reason?
Almost any NT Bible introduction book has information on this topic. For an example, I know Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1: Gospel and Acts (http://www.logos.com/product/28227/new-testament-studies-bundle), talks about dating the gospels.
It all gets down to this (IMHO) - while we have several theories, we truly do not know.
It all gets down to this (IMHO) - while we have several theories, we truly do not know.
That truly is the bottom line. It is always a matter of interpretation and speculation.
You are really talking about a miniscule amount of time from the actual events to the writing of the Gospels, historically speaking. It was no more than 40 to 50 years at most, and that is pretty current for ancient events. There was little time for the elaborate theories long oral tradition or evolving and synthesized texts to develop. There were eye witnesses still around when the Gospels were written.
What is significant to me in dating the New Testament documents is the apparent lack of any knowledge of the destruction of the temple, and the assumption that readers are familiar with temple activities. The destruction of the temple would have been a heck of an argument to be used in a book like Hebrews, for example. Makes me lean toward early dating.
But Tom is 100% correct that we truly do not know.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley
We inevitably bring a lot of our own expectations, assumptions and culture to the question and often forget about or fail to sufficiently understand the original context in which the Gospel was spread. Probably none of us can expect to fully grasp the context and circumstances surrounding the development of the written Gospel.
Following Pentecost the apostles went out in different directions to spread the Gospel "to the ends of the earth". No one waited for anyone else to assemble a written copy of the whole Story. By the time the churches got around to assembling a written Gospel they were doing so in different local contexts having received the stories from their different sources and there was likely limited comparison except between churches in reasonably proximity.
John in his old age even reminds us that there were more stories than anyone has ever written down. It is entirely possible that individual stories and groups of stories were written down well before what we now consider to be an entire Gospel book was assembled as such. John's Gospel looks like it is a (relatively late) attempt to write down many of the stories that others had not included. The passage in John's Gospel about the woman caught in the act of adultery is an interesting clue that there may have been individual stories written seperately that eventually no one knew who had written them (it being not part of the earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel). It is entirely possible that we are missing many of the stories that were originally spread verbally. The bottom line I think is that what we have received as the Gospel stories is sufficient and we do not need to worry that we may be missing something absolutely critical.
I totally agree with Michael that one key clue to dating is the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans saw this Jewish revolt as key to keeping their Empire under control and could not afford to let anyone think they would get away with what the Jews were doing in their rebellion. It was a key piece of Roman propaganda that was certainly well spread throughout the Empire and beyond about the fate of Jerusalem and its Temple and hence a pointer to anyone else who might have rebellion on their agenda. Not mentioning or alluding to it is a good clue that it had not happened at the time of writing as it represented an apocalypse and the end of an era for the Jews and the system of Temple worship. The Romans made sure everyone everywhere knew about it.
I would also point out how careful the New Testament Church was in accepting books as authentic scripture, and how carefully Jews guarded their sacred texts. It was hard for a book to become accepted by the Church, as evidenced by the many spurious books that were rejected.
As for the idea that various manuscripts were synthesized, that is hard for me to believe without some real manuscript evidence. When you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls pushed back the oldest manuscript of Isaiah about 1,000 years from what we had, yet there was practically no change in the book's content, you see how careful the Jews were with their sacred literature. Apparently the church was equally careful. And again, the time frame is historically miniscule. Certainly not long enough for the original copies to be rejected and replaced in every day use. Just think how resistant people today are to new translations of the Scripture. Many people will never move beyond versions that are four centuries old!
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley
It all gets down to this (IMHO) - while we have several theories, we truly do not know.That truly is the bottom line. It is always a matter of interpretation and speculation.
What do you mean "we don't know"? I was there. Remember that I'm almost 39. [6]
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
The exact year of the production of each of the four gospels cannot be
fixed. But the most careful and scholarly modern criticism puts the date
of St. Matthew’s record at about 38 A. D., and his record of this
prophecy is the fullest, as well as the first. Mark wrote A. D., 67 to
69. Luke A. D. 63. John A. D. 95.
One significant problem with dealing with the "date" of a particular gospel is the definition of what is meant by "date" and which early version one discusses. It is probable (certain??) that each gospel circulated in oral form(s) well before the initial version(s) were committed to writing. As oral tradition it was subject to change, of which we have no tangible evidence. Then again, even early written manuscripts were subject to editing. Certainly if an apostle were to read one and assert that "it didn't happen that way" the manuscript would have been changed.
The only evidence we have (mostly) are documents that date to 250-350 AD (BCE) there are a few fragments that might be older. Those are the only "dates" that we can take as fixed, but they have nothing to do with the date of origin for the text. It is possible that there was at least some cross over of text from document to document giving rise to problems deciding which came "first".
Bob - 17" MBP quad 2.3GHz 4GB and iMAC
The Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries included several documents that could be dated no later than 68 AD which include (you will have to weigh the argument/counter argument for yourself) portions of the Gospel of Mark. It's all fragments but if it is reliable, it would put Mark at a vary early date. The unfortunate part about dating text is the amount of bias. If any scientist or researcher tell you they are free of bias, run the other direction. We simply do not have iron clade guaranteed proof one way or another as to the exact dating. I personally find early dates the most compelling but again, some of that is bias.
Thanks for all the replies.
By the way, earlier this year Daniel Wallace reported that a first century manuscript of Mark has been found. http://www.csntm.org/
Robert ... sure you don't want to edit that last paragraph?
Not really. As I said we have some fragments that may be older. I was thinking of the AD68 fragments of John. I was unaware of the Qumran fragment, which is older. The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark. It may have been a cross-over into Mark. We cannot say since we lack evidence. If the complete 7Q document (or even a large fragment of the document) which included 7Q5 appears I will immediately consider how I need to revise my conclusion, as will we all.
Bob - 17" MBP quad 2.3GHz 4GB and iMAC
The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark.
Why would we assume that with no manuscript evidence to back it up? Why would we not assume a fragment of Mark came from Mark, which we know exists?
You have more faith in documentary theory than me, brother. Faith is "the assurance of things not seen", especially in documentary theory. I am praying for more faith, but it just won't come.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley
Robert ... sure you don't want to edit that last paragraph?
Not really. As I said we have some fragments that may be older. I was thinking of the AD68 fragments of John. I was unaware of the Qumran fragment, which is older. The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark. It may have been a cross-over into Mark. We cannot say since we lack evidence. If the complete 7Q document (or even a large fragment of the document) which included 7Q5 appears I will immediately consider how I need to revise my conclusion, as will we all.
68AD? what is that? Most (myself included) are of the opinion that John was written in 95 or 96 AD.
There aren't Q readings that match Mark, so if it's Mark, it must be Mar--unless it's the Ur Markus of the hyper critical school.
It is probable (certain??) that each gospel circulated in oral form(s) well before the initial version(s) were committed to writing.
I am not at all convinced that is probable, much less certain.
If you mean that the Gospel events were told and preached, well of course. If you mean the Gospel of Mark was memorized and passed around for years before it was written, well, why? Did Mark, or whoever wrote it, have to learn to write before putting it down? And for how long? The time frame is historically miniscule, and the first Christians already had sacred writings from the OT. Why would they not write down the Gospels? The early church was writing letters, etc.
Also, the assumption that oral tradition is routinely subject to change does not reflect the care given to sacred oral tradition by many cultures, where such things are memorized with great care to the last syllable, and to change a syllable is taboo.
Even more so than modern Masonic rituals.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley
I've always wondered what 'oral' meant.
The 'apostolic fathers' appear to be recognized 'leaders' of the church in the late 1st century and early 2nd century, but really have trouble even remembering that 'the Lord' (their words, so they indeed know about him!) had quite a few statements specific to the issues they were trying to solve. They're far quicker to reach into the LXX, and local traditions for their points. It's only decades later that people finally remember something Jesus said. (Not implying a late date to the gospels).
Which .... for the curious, can we recommend https://www.logos.com/product/3047/the-new-testament-in-the-apostolic-fathers . A very good (though dated) resource.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
It is probable (certain??) that each gospel circulated in oral form(s) well before the initial version(s) were committed to writing.I am not at all convinced that is probable, much less certain.
It an assumption based upon Bultmann and others, as it allows for a period of creative reinterpretation (aka 'invention') in light of supposed community needs. This is the basis on which Goodacre tries to dismiss Q.
Papias states that the Gospel of Mark originated in the preaching of Peter--but there's no need to posit (as much of NT scholarship does) that anecdotes were invented for the occasion.
Bauckham still makes a strong argument, in my opinion, that the Gospels reflect eyewitness testimony.
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70.
I've read it. Excellent book.
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
Robinson's work is almost indispensable in my opinion ... hint hint Logos.
Hi Ronald
Do you have the Timeline tool - that could provide a good jumping off point.
Alternatively, New Testament introductions or Encyclopedia should provide some insights
Or scan the Logos website with http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=gospel&Resource+Type=Monographs
Hope this helps
Graham