It is widely accepted that the gospel of John was written
after that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (and Acts). So let’s begin there and see
how close we can get with the message of the written texts to the actual events
of Jesus’ life.
An article from the well-respected, skeptical, German
theologian F.C. Baur was published in 1844, which stated that the gospel of John was first composed
in 170 A.D. This article was so influential that, for the next 90 years,
virtually all scholarship across Europe accepted Baur’s word as fact. Then in
1934, while studying ancient manuscripts in the basement of the John Rylands
Library in Manchester, England, a doctoral student named C.H. Roberts made a shocking
discovery. Among a group of works, having gone unnoticed since being purchased
from Egypt in the 1920s, was a manuscript of the gospel of John. After leading
papyrologists of the day observed the manuscript, they independently concluded
that it was dated between 90 and 150 A.D. Let’s be giving and not just quickly
take to the earliest date. In fact, let’s use this latest date of 150 A.D. and
go from there.
Clearly Baur’s article was incorrect, and we can safely
knock off at least twenty years from its given date. Further, the manuscript is
a gospel of John copy. Therefore, if the copy is at least twenty years earlier,
obviously the original has an even
earlier date.
We have surviving works from an early church father named Clement
of Rome that dates 96 A.D. In these writings there are direct quotes from not
only the gospel of John, but from all of
the gospel accounts and the book of Acts. Now, the absolute latest date that these books from the New Testament could
have been written is 96 A.D. -- roughly 75 years earlier than that of Baur’s
article. Again, these quotes were copied. Therefore, the original texts have an
even earlier date.
Speaking of all of
these books, something that they – and the entire New Testament – each have
in common that supports an earlier dating is that a specific event is not
mentioned. Before we identify this event, let’s first ask ourselves a question
in order to setup the scene. Let’s say, with the anniversary upon us, you were
to read a book about New York City that discussed the economic production of the
World Trade Center’s Twin Towers. If this book were to conclude without
mentioning the destruction of these towers and 3,000 innocent lives taken by
terrorists, wouldn’t you say that it was written prior to the attacks of
September 11, 2001? This is a similar situation for the event not mentioned in
the New Testament.
As recorded by the ancient historian Josephus, the Romans
were in route to conquer the Jewish homelands. After killing over 100,000 in
the province of Galilee, they would then move on to the province of Judea. It
was there in 70 A.D. that the Romans would take the lives of over one million, killing any one, of any age
from stopping them. Those still alive would be brought to Rome, either to be a
slave or to be humiliated and slaughtered for public entertainment. As a final
deathblow, the holy Temple in Jerusalem was robbed of its sacred treasures,
caught on fire and completely destroyed.
For the Jewish people and the early Church alike, the
country was lost, the central city to Christianity had fallen, and the Temple,
for a thousand years being their center of economic, political and religious
lives – the very dwelling place on earth for the God whose name is so holy you
dare to utter it – was no more. We say this is a “similar” situation to 9/11
because, in magnitude of lives taken and property destroyed, this event was
many, many times worse. And yet, no New Testament book mentions anything from
the event. In fact, when mentioning Jerusalem, the surrounding cities and the
Temple, they are still intact as usual. This is precisely why so many scholars
say that the Gospel accounts, including Acts, and the entire New Testament was
written prior to 70 A.D.
We continue to use the
book of Acts when speaking of the Gospel accounts, due to it being the
second of two works – the first being the gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-3; Acts
1:1). Just as no book of the New Testament mentions the events of 70 A.D., Acts
does not mention yet a few more important events. Again, let’s first give some
background.
As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek state, “You [Luke] are a
first-century medical doctor who has embarked on a research project to record
the events of the early church. This research will require you to interview
eyewitnesses of the early church and to travel with the apostle Paul as he
visits new churches across the ancient world. You record prominent events in
the life of the church such as the early work of John and Peter, as well as the
martyrdoms of Stephen and James (the brother of John). In Paul’s life you
record everything from sermons, beatings, and trials to shipwrecks and
imprisonments. You also record his theological summit with Peter and James [the
brother of Jesus]. . . . Question: Since you obviously find it important to
record all of these . . . details, if your main subject – the apostle Paul –
was executed at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero, do you think you would
record it? Or, if Jesus’ brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was
killed at the hands of the Sanhedrin, the same Jewish body that sentenced Jesus
to die, do you think you would record it?” And then there’s the severe persecution
of Christians by Emperor Nero. Nero found as many Christians as possible and
had them put to death. While they, too, were killed in a fashion for public
entertainment, the methods used were so gruesome that even Roman bystanders
felt a need for restraint and compassion – we can only imagine the same goes
for those killed in 70 A.D. Do you think you would record this?
But these events are exactly what we don’t find in the book
of Acts. Luke ends his writing abruptly, with Paul in prison awaiting his trial
and James still leading the church in Jerusalem. This is precisely why so many
scholars say that the book of Acts was written prior to these events. We know from the writings of Clement of Rome
and other early church fathers that the Apostle Paul was martyred during the
reign of Nero, which ended in 68 A.D. We know from the historian Tacitus that
Nero’s persecution of Christians was in 64. And we know from Josephus that
James was martyred in 62. Therefore we can safely conclude that the book of
Acts was written prior to 62. Having established this date, we can then move further
back in time.
With Acts being the second of two works, we know that the
gospel of Luke was written even earlier.
Giving each book a reasonable year to be composed, let’s place Luke at 59 A.D.
Further, Luke incorporates sections from the
gospel of Mark into his gospel account. Therefore Mark, at the latest, was written in the late
50s. But manuscripts that we have in our possession today can help us go even further back in time in dating this
gospel account.
In 1972, a paleographer named José O’Callahan (not to be
mistaken with ‘Callahan Auto Parts’ from the movie Tommy Boy) became a famous
scholar overnight when he identified a group of manuscripts discovered from
Cave 7 in Qumran – an ancient landmarked town on the north shore of the Dead
Sea, in what now is referred to as the West Bank. O’Callahan used his
professional methods and determined nine of them to be from the books of 2
Peter, James, 1 Timothy, Romans, Acts, and the gospel of Mark. While they all
were dated to no later than 70 A.D., it was the manuscripts from Mark’s gospel
account that made the headlines. These, which dated to 50 A.D., were the
earliest manuscripts ever discovered for the New Testament. And on top of that
was the fact that all of the manuscripts – including those from other books of
the New Testament -- were not the original writings; they were copies. In fact,
they could be copies that had been made by scribes far down the line.
Therefore, the gospel of Mark can safely be dated to the 40s and potentially
even into the 30s. To get an even better grasp of this dating, let’s take a
look at the examples of ancient authors we used in part 1, but this time to
compare the number of years between when their works were first written and the
earliest known manuscripts we have in our possession today:
500 – Homer
750 – Pliny the Younger
1,000 – Julius Caesar
1,000 – Tacitus
1,200 – Plato
1,400 – Herodotus
1,450 – Aristotle
Jesus “died” in 33 A.D., so that would make the gap for the
gospel of Mark a measly 17 years! In comparison to these other ancient works,
17 years is pretty darn impressive. And not only are we finding more and more
New Testament manuscripts, we are also finding those that are earlier and
earlier. Yet we constantly see a double standard when it comes to non-believing
scholars. While they will accept these examples, and many other works that are
even later, as fact without-question, they still hold the New Testament books
to the highest scrutiny. Knowing they’re now on strike two, with the New
Testament having the most and the
earliest manuscripts of any ancient writing in the world, these scholars are
probably saying to themselves the famous line from Tommy Boy: “Holy Schnikes!”
But even earlier than
this dating is the gospel of Matthew. This was the very first gospel account, and
the only one originally written in the ancient language of Aramaic. We know these
facts because of, for instance, the early church fathers Papias, bishop of
Hieropolis in Asia Minor, Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum in Gual, the Christian
theologian and scholar Origen, and the Roman historian Eusebius. Since the
gospel of Mathew was written prior to that of the gospel of Mark, and we know
Mark can be dated to the 40s or 30s A.D., Matthew then, too, can be dated this
early.
As a recap, we can safely conclude that the gospel accounts
– and Acts – can be dated:
Acts –
at the latest 61 A.D.
John – at the
latest 69 A.D.
Luke – at the
latest 59 A.D.
Mark –
between the 30s and 40s A.D.
Matthew –
between the 30s and 40s A.D.
But our investigation is not over just yet. Remember that,
to answer the assertion given in our introduction, we are looking for how early
we can trace back the gospel message,
and not just the accounts, of Jesus’ life, teachings, and resurrection. However
many years makes up the gap between when the gospel of Matthew was first composed
and the “death” of Jesus in 33 A.D., we can shorten this span even further with the testimony from
those who were eyewitnesses to these very events.
It’s one thing for us to give dates, but it’s another to claim
that the message in the gospel accounts was preserved reliably until it first
took written form. Do we have any evidence to support that legendary content
did not make its way into these accounts and, like the assertion states, turned
Jesus from a mere teacher into an embellished “Son of God”?
The New Testament writers were living in a culture where the
vast majority of the population was illiterate. Education, learning, worship,
teaching – all of this was done by word of mouth. Therefore it was necessary to
instill and develop the skill of very strong memories. In fact, some gained a
reputation for being able to memorize the entire Old Testament! Also, many locals
and those in the surrounding cities were eyewitnesses themselves. While
publically speaking of the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus, it was
well within the ability for those listening to interrupt if the speaker misspoke.
Until the time came when the spread of Christianity forced the gospel message
to take written form, it was by this instilled oral tradition that the populace
reliably kept the message pure.
One way that this skill was developed to memorize the
message of the New Testament accounts is by the fact that upwards of ninety
percent of Jesus’ words were originally in poetic form. Not in means of His
words rhyming but, as Craig Blomberg states, they had “meter, balanced lines,
parallelism, and so forth – and this would have created a great memory help.” In
this fashion, church creeds, hymns, etc., were formed by the early church. And
the most important of these creeds, in terms of describing the historically
accurate Jesus, is found in a New Testament book by the Apostle Paul. In 1
Corinthians (vv 15:3-4), Paul writes: “I passed on to you what was most
important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins,
just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on
the third day, just as the Scriptures said.”
So, what year do scholars say that Paul first received his
message of the resurrection that he presented to the people of Corinth? 38 A.D.
What year do scholars say that Paul was converted, after stating that he himself
saw the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus? 35 A.D. And what did Paul do
directly after his conversion? In another book that Paul wrote, Galatians (vv 1:16-20)
states: “I did not immediately consult with anyone, nor did I go up to
Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia,
and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
to visit Peter (and James, Jesus’ brother) and remained with them fifteen
days.” These three years would place Paul at the given date of 38 A.D. Scholars
agree that this meeting took place. In fact, Bart Ehrman (who we discussed extensively
in part 1) has stated in regard to these verses: “Paul spent fifteen days with
Peter and James the brother of the Lord. I would like to spend fifteen days
with Peter and James. Where can you get closer to eyewitness testimony than
this?” The information given to Paul by Peter and James is the creed that is reported
in 1 Corinthians. If Paul received this creed in 38 A.D., this would mean that
Peter and James had possession of it from an even earlier date.
In regard to this creed, four of the most influential and
critical New Testament scholars: Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckman, and
James D.G. Dunn all agree that it was formed in the same year as the crucifixion,
burial and resurrection of Jesus. Dunn states that the absolute latest it took to form the creed was six months after the resurrection! Even the harshest of critics
unanimously agree that the Apostle Paul is the most trustworthy source in the
whole New Testament for recording the facts of the historical Jesus. And by using
their data, we can trace the
footsteps of the best source for Christianity back to six months or less of the resurrection event itself.
This creed is a first-hand report of how this oral tradition worked. Here we can clearly see eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, teachings, and resurrection in the process of spreading their memorized knowledge. And critics are admitting all of this -- that
Jesus was not a legendary figure, embellished into the writings of the New
Testament books, but that He was, and is to this very day, known as the Son of God.
