A few weeks ago, a friend of mine posted on Facebook that after reading John A.T. Robinson’s book, Redating the New Testament, he was now convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were all written before AD 70. When I mentioned I hadn’t read that book, he recommended Jonathan Bernier’s more recent Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament. It just so happened, that I had, in fact, read that book a few years ago. In fact, I bought it with the intention of writing a blog post or two about it. I ended up not doing it, though, for two simple reasons: (1) personally, I didn’t think it was written that well, and being a literary guy, that annoyed me; and (2) although I thought Bernier made some interesting points, ultimately, I felt his redating was inconclusive and, quite frankly, kind of irrelevant.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a decent case to be made for the Synoptics being written before the Jewish War of AD 66-70. I just don’t think that if the consensus opinion stands (Mark = late 60s; Matthew and Luke = 70s-80s), it really damages the credibility of the Synoptics anyway. But more on that later. What I’ve decided to do here is what will probably amount to a two-part series on Bernier’s book, in which I will briefly lay out his arguments for the dating of the New Testament books and then briefly comment on them. If you have ever wondered about this sort of thing, hopefully these two posts will help clarify the issue.
Dating the Synoptics and Acts: Mark, Matthew, Luke…and Acts
As I said before, the general earlier dates of the Synoptics among scholars (there’s always a range) tends to be that Mark was probably written in the mid-to-late 60s, with Matthew and Luke being written sometime in the 70s or 80s. Bernier argues, though, that Mark was written between AD 42-45, Matthew was written somewhere between AD 45-59, Luke was written about AD 59, and Acts was written around AD 62.
Let’s start with the dating of Acts. The reason why Bernier argues it was written no later that AD 62 is because it ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome but does not record his death. Since Luke records the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7) and James (Acts 12), it is extremely odd that he wouldn’t have recorded Paul’s martyrdom, given the fact that Paul takes up the majority of Acts. We know that Paul was sent to Rome in AD 62 and was under house arrest at the time, and we know that he was eventually beheaded sometime after AD 64. Therefore, the reasoning goes, Acts would have been written before that time. That line of reasoning makes perfect sense and is probably the best argument for a pre-AD 64 date for Acts.
With that, it is quite easy then to conclude that the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts. And with that, then that would mean the Gospel of Matthew probably was written before Acts. And since virtually all scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Gospel, it would obviously have been written before Matthew and Luke. I am okay with that reasoning, but at the same time question whether one can go any further in detail than that.
Nevertheless, here is what Bernier says about the dating of the Gospel of Mark. Bullet points will help:
- Eusebius of Caesarea said Mark the Evangelist was the first missionary to Alexandria (circa AD 43), and that Annianus succeeded Mark as bishop of Alexandria in Nero’s 8th year—that would have been AD 62. That means, Mark would have been in Alexandria during that time.
- Papias of Heriopolis said Mark was Peter’s interpreter in Rome.
- Eusebius said Peter had come to Rome during the reign of Claudius and disputed with Simon Magnus.
- Jerome placed Peter’s dispute with Simon Magnus in Rome in the second year of Claudius, which would have been AD 42.
- Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter and Paul’s “departure.”
Now, many scholars zero in on Irenaeus’ comments and conclude that Mark must have written his Gospel, therefore, sometime in the late 60s, after Peter and Paul had been killed in Rome around AD 64. Bernier, though, suggests that “departure” could have simply meant Irenaeus was talking about their departure from Rome, and not from this life.
If that is the case, we have attestation that Peter was in Rome in the early 40s, but then later left (i.e. he was in Antioch in AD 48). But what about Paul? By the time he wrote Romans (AD 56), he clearly had never been there before. He finally got to Rome in AD 62 under house arrest, was later released, and then still later was beheaded back in Rome after AD 64. The only time we know he “departed” from Rome still alive would have been when he was initially released somewhere between AD 62-64.
That seemingly destroys Bernier’s proposed date Mark being written between AD 42-45. Well, this is how Bernier accounts for that: “…one can envision a scenario in which Mark composed his Gospel, Peter approved it, Peter and Paul departed (from Rome or this life), and then Mark passed on his Gospel.” And regarding Irenaeus’ comment: “It is difficult to imagine Irenaeus had such detailed information regarding the transmission of Mark’s Gospel. Irenaeus likely is mistaken regarding Paul’s ‘departure’” (76-77).
So, basically, Mark wrote his Gospel between AD 42-45, when Peter was in Rome, then essentially just held onto it until after Peter and Paul either left Rome…or “this life…” and then circulated it? And Irenaeus just got “Paul’s departure” wrong? I’m sorry, but that is not really convincing. Is it possible? I guess. But is it likely? I don’t know. On top of that, Bernier still ends up concluding that Mark didn’t “pass on” his Gospel until after Peter and Paul’s death anyway, which would essentially put it in the hands of a wider audience in the mid-to-late sixties—the date most scholars give Mark’s Gospel.
Conclusion About the Synoptics (and Acts)
All that said, Luke’s not including Paul’s martyrdom in Acts really is a good argument that Acts was written pre-AD 62 (or at least pre-AD mid-sixties). So, what can we conclude? If you ask me, not very much definitively. Like I said earlier, though, I don’t think it matters that much when we look at all this in the big picture. The way I see it, even if we stick with the more traditional dating of Mark being late 60s, Matthew and Luke being 70s-80s, and thus Acts being late 70s-80s as well, we need to be clear that that doesn’t mean the material in Mark, Matthew, and Luke was “made up” at the time of the 60s-80s. Even if the Synoptics weren’t written down until the 60s-80s, I firmly believe that the material in them is the material and teachings that was being proclaimed and taught about Christ from the very beginning. Simply put: what we find in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is the collection of the original “source material” that comprises the early proclamation and Gospel in the early, first generation Church. So…
Even if Mark wasn’t written until the mid-to-late 60s, if we are to believe Church Tradition that tells us Mark got his information from Peter in Rome, then sure, the stuff in Mark probably can go back to possibly Mark being with Peter in Rome in the 40s…but we don’t have to make up a speculative argument that Mark “wrote it down” in the 40s, got it “okayed” by Peter in the 40s, but didn’t start circulating it until the late 60s. Why? Because so what? It is equally possible Mark was with Peter when Peter was in Rome in the 60s too. It doesn’t matter when—the material in Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) was the material proclaimed by the first-generation Church since the beginning.
There’s no need to “nail down” a specific date for the composition of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Acts. Whether they were composed in the 40s-50s, or 60s-80s, or anywhere in between, as Christians, we believe the material goes back to the first-generation’s Gospel regarding Jesus anyway.
For me, the key thing to realize with the Synoptic Gospels is not only their accounts of Jesus’ teaching, ministry, death, and resurrection—that’s all obvious—but the importance of Jesus’ prophecy against the Temple and its destruction within a generation. When you look at all three Synoptics, from the time Jesus enters Jerusalem up through his arrest, trial, and crucifixion—and I can’t stress this enough—everything during that Passion week is focused on two things: (1) Jesus as the Messiah-King, and (2) Jesus’ prophetic judgment of the Temple.
The reason why that is important gets to the reason why Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written down and produced so shortly before the Jewish War of AD 66-70 and the subsequent destruction of the Temple in AD 70. All three are testimony to what Jesus prophesied about during the final Passion Week, right before he was arrested and crucified. The message of the coming destruction of the Temple was proclaimed from the beginning of the Church—they were bearing witness to what Jesus had prophesied. And so, when the dawn of the Jewish War was clear to everyone, the Synoptic Gospels essentially proclaimed, “What Jesus prophesied about is now happening!” The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 marked the “Coming of the Son of Man” and his authority over all creation. He was indeed ruling, and God’s wrath had been poured out on Jerusalem and the Temple.
From that point on, the Gentile mission that had begun with Paul was now going to go full throttle until the end of the age. And that “end”—that telos—as Jesus himself told the disciples in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24) wouldn’t happen yet. In the meantime, Jesus’ followers were to go out into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth. We are still doing that today.
Alright, in my next post, I’ll take us through what Bernier says about John, Revelation, and the General Epistles. I might say something briefly about Paul’s letters, but Bernier’s conclusions about Paul’s letters is effectively no different than the consensus.
I’m a Christian struggling with my faith and I read something that bothered me could I talk to you about it by email or do you do online calls so I can go more into debt than just a comment
Sure…email me: joelando11@yahoo.com
In the email I sent you I asked you I read something by Jesus missed assistant bothered me they’re too long comments and they were a bit long for an email so I asked you first do you want to respond to them before I send them to you do you mind responding to them I asked you first before I sent you anything
Could you speak Greek at all
Can I speak Greek? Well, I can read and translate New Testament Koine Greek.
Could I send you something the second thing I wanted to respond to by Richard carrier do you mind doing that it’s a short comment that bothered me do you mind responding to it
I sent you another comment could I ask you to respond to it could you go further in the Greek and explain why carrier is wrong with the Greek he tries to claim it only means spiritual brother but I think it means biological brother could you refute his argument on linguistic grounds cuz I’m not an expert in Greek could you please help me with this I’m struggling I sent you an email about it I want you to go a little more in depth in that
What difference does the dating of the New Testament books really make? Does it matter if the first Gospel was written within five minutes of Jesus’ death or in 65 CE? No. What would be more important than accurate dating would be undisputed evidence that the Gospels are four independent, corroborating sources. But the problem for believers is, there is plenty of evidence they are not.
Conservative Christians believe that Mark faithfully and accurately recorded Peter’s eyewitness testimony in his Gospel. Conservative Christians also believe that Luke faithfully and accurately recorded the eyewitness testimony of unnamed eyewitnesses in his Gospel. Their evidence for these claims? Scant to non-existent! If one reads the Empty Tomb discovery story in both Gospels, one (or both) of these authors recorded false, historically inaccurate information. Why? Was it because…
…he incorrectly recorded it.
…he deliberately altered some of the details.
…the original eyewitness (or eyewitnesses) provided false information for whatever reason.
…Mark invented the entire tale and Luke simply changed/added more fictional details.
And we are asked to believe that the four Gospels are historically reliable sources.
People have been looking at the “differences” before you and I were even born, so it’s not even the detraction you make it out to be.
Who does the Word of God tell us first discovered and confirmed with a visual inspection that Jesus’ body was missing from the tomb?
A group of women associated with Jesus. Also, JESUS is the Word of God.
I’m not going to bother trying to respond to all the inaccuracies in your statements, other than to say the way you are characterizing the Synoptics is wildly wrong, and, as always, you are injecting a host of wilder speculations that have absolutely no evidentiary support anywhere. You are criticizing the reliability of the Synoptics based on your inner, ill-informed fantasy world regarding what you believe the Synoptics are and do.
In Mark the women are told that the tomb is empty by a “young man” inside the tomb. In Matthew the women are told that the tomb is empty outside the tomb. In Luke the women find out for themselves that the tomb is empty. In John two male disciples are the first to examine and verify that the tomb was empty… with no angel involvement whatsoever! The Church didn’t remember who the first Christian was to look inside the tomb of God and see that it was empty.
Odd, but I guess no big deal…
Ok, how about this: If Luke believed that John Mark’s Gospel was an historically accurate account of Peter’s eyewitness testimony regarding the most important day in human history, the day of the alleged Resurrection of God, why did Luke make MAJOR changes to Peter’s testimony??
Like I said, the very way you are characterizing the Gospels is wildly wrong.
I’m not asking your readers to take my word. Get out your Bibles and read the Empty Tomb Story in the Gospel of Mark and then in the Gospel of Luke. After comparing both versions, ask yourself this question: Why would a non-eyewitness (Luke) make significant changes to the existing, written, eyewitness statement of Jesus’ chief apostle, Peter, as recorded by Peter’s assistant, John Mark, in the Gospel of Mark? We know Luke had access to a copy of John Mark’s Gospel. He incorporated circa 75% of the Gospel of Mark into his gospel! Why did Luke alter Peter’s testimony if he was confident John Mark had accurately recorded Peter’s words???
“It doesn’t matter when—the material in Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) was the material proclaimed by the first-generation Church since the beginning.”
You put a lot of faith in this argument that we can trust the Gospels because they recorded the same material the first-generation Church had been proclaiming since the beginning. But what if all that first generation Christians were proclaiming from the beginning is that Jesus had been crucified, buried, and three days later he began “appearing” to some of his followers. A list of alleged eyewitnesses to these appearances soon developed, but the list (which became part of a creed) never detailed what anyone saw, where they saw it, or when they saw it. “Jesus is risen!” THAT was the message proclaimed by the earliest Christians. The stories in the Gospels are simply theological/literary embellishments of that core story. The authors weren’t concerned with historical accuracy. They were concerned about spreading the Gospel of eternal life though faith in the risen Christ. First century peoples expected biographies to include embellishments. So the fictional material in the Gospels was expected and did not bother anyone. The core story was intact in all four Gospels.
“The reason why that is important gets to the reason why Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written down and produced so shortly before the Jewish War of AD 66-70 and the subsequent destruction of the Temple in AD 70.”
If the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 66 CE, as you seem to suggest, that would mean it is possible that Luke’s Gospel was in circulation among the churches while Simon Peter was still alive! (Tradition says he was executed in the mid 60s.) Did Peter read the Gospel of Luke? If so, I wonder what Peter thought of “Luke” altering his eyewitness testimony about the events at the Empty Tomb (as recorded in Mark).
My guess: Peter didn’t care. The goal of the Church was: converts…anyway, anyhow…even with tall tales of empty rock tombs and ghosts.
Predicting the destruction of the Temple in 68 CE is about as impressive as predicting the destruction of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in April of 1943.
Jesus prophesied the Temple’s destruction in AD 30.
🙂
You can’t prove that and you know it.
Yes, when you reject the testimony of first century documents that are historically reliable, there’s not much you can prove. The way I see it, there are basically two conclusions here: (1) You conclude that when the Synoptic Gospel writers composed their respective works, they were passing along the first generation’s proclamation about Jesus and crafting that message to their particular audiences, or (2) You conclude that they all basically made things up after AD 70 and plagiarized each other because, you know…whatever…that’s what they did!
Most clear-thinking people will opt for option #1, and find option #2 to be quite sophomoric and childish.
The author of Luke altered the testimony of the most important eyewitness. For you to assume that the other three authors did not engage in such unethical behavior is incredibly naive.
Gary, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. See my previous comment.
So you don’t believe that the Gospel of Mark is Simon Peter’s eyewitness testimony, recorded by his traveling companion, John Mark? Wow. You are more liberal than I thought.
No, I’m saying the way you are even characterizing what the Synoptic Gospels are is wildly ridiculous. Let’s take, for argument’s sake, that Mark did get his information from Peter. That doesn’t mean Peter was trying to give a journalistic documentary to Mark. Nobody believes that. Mark wasn’t a news reporter. They weren’t obsessing over the minutiae: “Okay, WHO EXACTLY were the women?” The Gospel writers were focusing on the major things Jesus taught and did, and they particularly focused on the significance of his crucifixion/resurrection and his prophecy against the Temple. As you said in an earlier comment–all the Gospels agree on those MAJOR things. Where they differ is on the more minor, ultimately insignificant details. Since they were “painting portraits” of Jesus and not giving newspaper reports, they used artistic license in the crafting of their Gospels. Mark has a “young man” at the tomb to draw attention (and a contrast to) the “young man” who fled naked at Jesus’ arrest–it is an artistic/literary decision to highlight certain themes.
Only a fool would look at things like that and conclude, “Plagiarism! Unethical!” …blah blah blah
Excellent. We agree! The authors of the Gospels were not writing documentaries or history textbooks. They were painting artistic theological and literary portraits of Jesus. Jesus as seen through their creative minds: They used artistic license to “enhance”, to embellish, the historical core of the Jesus Story. This was perfectly acceptable and expected by first century audiences.
So, Jesus had the reputation of a miracle worker and healer. The four “painters” used artistic license to create fantastical miracles and wonders, greater than all the miracles of the Hebrew prophets combined, in their portrait of Jesus. Jesus was arrested, tried, brutally killed, and then buried…somewhere. But these facts are very harsh, ugly, cut, and dry! What audience wants to read or hear that? So, the original author, the author of the Gospel of Mark, embellished these bare bones facts with marvelous tales of crowing roosters, heart breaking betrayals, touching last words on the cross, three hours of darkness in the middle of the day, tearing of the Temple veil, burial in a rock tomb, and an empty tomb three days later. A masterful work that became the world’s best seller of all time! The other three authors simply added their own artistic flair to this already gorgeous work of art.
So let’s stop pretending that the Gospels are “historically accurate”, ok, Joel? Let’s agree that these four books are masterful works of ancient prose with a bare bones historical core; a bare bones historical core that we dare not try to too rigidly to specify.
…a bare bones historical core that we dare not try too rigidly to specify.
Bare Bones Core of historicity:
-Jesus existed in the first half of the first century in Palestine.
-Jesus had a reputation as a healer, miracle worker, Messiah claimant, and apocalyptic preacher.
-Jesus came into conflict with the Jewish authorities.
-The Romans arrested and executed Jesus.
-Jesus was buried, somewhere and at some point in time.
-Shortly after his death, some of his followers believed Jesus appeared to them, in some fashion.
Fact or Artistic Flourish?:
-specific, detailed miracles
-specific, detailed healings
-prophecies of his imminent death and resurrection
-prophecy of the destruction of the Temple
-the detailed arrest of Jesus by night
-the detailed trial of Jesus by Pilate himself
-the four different detailed accounts of his crucifixion and Jesus’ final last words
-the Empty Tomb Story
-the three, contradictory, detailed, post-death resurrection appearance stories
This is the consensus of most historians and educated people in the world. Only fundamentalist, conservative, and some moderate Christians believe the tales in the second category to be historical FACTS.
Your self-delusion and duplicity is staggering. The “bare bones” of historicity–where do we get that information? The New Testament. What is the rubric and standards that lead you to pick SOME of the New Testament as historical, yet SOME of the New Testament as 100% made up “artistic flourish”? The reality is that you have nothing other than “what I personally feel.”
To tease out the portrait analogy. I may paint various portraits of Churchill or FDR–each one has the men in different attire, standing in certain historical scenarios–and my choice of brushstrokes bring out and highlight different aspect of who they were as leaders. But you can still tell it is Churchill and FDR. You can still tell one portrait is them at Yalta, others are of other events. Just because one uses paint and artistic creativity in the portraits DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS MAKING UP HISOTRICAL FACTS.
What you do, Gary, is (A) admit Jesus had a reputation of being a healer, but then (B) reject those stories in which he is shown to be a healer and say there is no evidence of that. You (A) admit that Jesus’ followers claimed he was resurrected, but then (B) reject those stories in which he is resurrected–and then you come up with this absurd claim that they REALLY said he “appeared” to them, and only LATER where stories of his physical resurrection made up. Ultimately, you are simply dismissing certain stories and claims within the very texts that you admit are about the historical Jesus–and you have no rhyme or reason for what you accept or reject. You can’t bring yourself to admit that these texts that give us that “historical core” can be trusted as reliable–EVEN THOUGH you are trusting them as reliable on those points! You are a completely schizophrenic skeptic who has no grasp of reality or basic literary competency of the biblical texts.
My position comports with the position of the overwhelming majority of historians, all over the world. Your view is limited to fundamentalist and moderate Christians. That should tell you who is using good critical thinking skills and who is not.
Bye for now, my friend.
Yes, yes…”My position is the overwhelming position of historians (NOT BIBLICAL SCHOLARS) who aren’t Christians…because they aren’t biased!” hahahaha…
You have finally convinced me, Joel. Debating Christians regarding historical evidence involving their supernatural beliefs is a waste of everyone’s time. It is futile.
It is interesting to me that most people (online at least) who currently identify as non-supernaturalists/atheists were once believers in some god or gods and most of them studied the evidence extensively related to their god before giving up their supernatural beliefs. I don’t find that too often with Christians, in particular, evangelical Christians. Most evangelical Christians first believed in Jesus the resurrected Christ as their Lord and Savior as young children. A large percentage of evangelicals were born again when they were 8-12 years old! I hope you will agree that 8-12 year olds are not capable of thoroughly evaluating evidence. If you have believed in the existence of the resurrected Jesus, living inside your body, since you were 8 years old, no amount of dry, historical evidence is going to convince you Jesus is dead. How can he be dead if you talk to him each and every day???
So I do not intend to debate historical evidence with evangelical Christians (or former evangelical Christians turned catholic/orthodox) any more. What we should focus on in our discussions is the reality of perceiving the presence of a spirit/ghost, the Holy Ghost, living inside you. How would you recommend that we evaluate this belief rationally, Joel, to arrive at a mature conclusion as to its veracity?
The reason why you should debate the evidence is because your stance is nonsensical. You say the Gospels are not historically reliable, and yet the historical points you accept come from…THE GOSPELS.
Also, the way you mischaracterize basic Christian beliefs also doesn’t reflect well on you. No one thinks that “the resurrected Jesus is living inside your body.” When you insist on basing your conclusions on such childish caricatures, you can’t be taken seriously.
Finally, when it comes down to it, the fundamental question is about whether or not reality extends beyond the mere natural, biological world. Your pre-conceived bias that there is no reality beyond basic biological life leads you to dismiss claims of the supernatural working within the natural world. You dismiss claims out of hand–and cling to childish caricatures to shield you from having to actually take those claims seriously.
“You say the Gospels are not historically reliable, and yet the historical points you accept come from…THE GOSPELS.”
Wow. And you are a Bible scholar.
We can obtain the basic historical outline I listed from Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus. No need for the Gospels. I accept the core facts about the historical Jesus for one reason and one reason only: It is the consensus of the world’s historians. If that expert consensus changes, I will change my position also.
No one thinks that “the resurrected Jesus is living inside your body.”
If I replace that with “the spirit of the resurrected Jesus is living inside your body” does that make you happy? If you don’t believe that the spirit of Jesus dwells within you, you are not a Christian. Period.
“To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
“That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love.”
“To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Joel: “Your pre-conceived bias that there is no reality beyond basic biological life leads you to dismiss claims of the supernatural working within the natural world. You dismiss claims out of hand–and cling to childish caricatures to shield you from having to actually take those claims seriously.”
I dismiss the existence of resurrected corpses for the same reason that YOU dismiss the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and ghosts. Bad evidence. What is funny is that you reject the supernatural claims of other world religions and thousands of nativist supernatural beliefs “out of hand”, without investigating the overwhelming majority of them, yet I am being closed minded and you are not. Bottom line: We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do, Joel.
Open your eyes, Joel. Holding a degree in Bible studies no more makes you intellectually superior to me than does a degree in the Book of Mormon. An expert in supernatural tall tales, is exactly that. An expert in tall tales.
“I dismiss the existence of resurrected corpses for the same reason that YOU dismiss the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and ghosts. Bad evidence.”
No, you do not think for yourself at all. All you do is throw out snappy little quotes from other atheist celebrities. You constantly make nonsensical claims that no one in their right mind accepts. Comparing the Gospels with leprechauns and unicorns and the Book of Mormon is so incredibly asinine it is beyond belief. You are not a serious person. You insist on childish caricatures and THAT is what you base your lack of belief. You do not make your decisions based on evidence at all. You are a self-deluded and rabidly angry person.