Subject: dating the gospels

From: [email-masked] (KULIKOVSKY, Andrew)
Date: 12 Dec 96 18:11:01 EST

Friends,

How do we know (ie. what archaelogical, textual, historical evidence is
there?) when the gospels were written? Redaction and Source criticism
show Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke, but this only gives
order not date. Mark is generally accepted as being written around
AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this?

Any ideas?

cheers,
Andrew

+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS                   
|                                              
| Software Engineer             
| British Aerospace Australia
| Technology Park, Adelaide
| ph: +618 8290 8268      
| fax: +618 8290 8800
| email: [email-masked]
|                                                            
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has  
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?          
|                                                          
|                                   ...Look to Jesus Christ
|                                                           
|                           hO IESOUS KURIOS!                  
+------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 04:52:11 -0800

Dear Andrew:

Thanks for the email question re the date of the Gospels..I will reply
shortly to this question...I have a question for you Andrew.  Did you
send this question to me as an individual or did it go into the large
hopper of a discussion group that you are a part of..I get a lot of mail
from two of the latter groups and I was wondering what discussion group
you were on.  I will get back to you shortly regarding your question.

All the best.

John Cameron

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:21:27 -0500 (EST)

> AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this?

Hi Andrew

Most of the standard "Introductions" to the NT cover this topic
extensively.  A very good source here (with lots of pointers into the
literature) is the Intro by Purlin & Dulling, which was recently published
in a enlarged 3rd edition. 

Another excellent source for this material is Helmut Koester's _Ancient 
Christian Gospels_.

Hope this helps
Nichael

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:30:07 -0600

> AD 50-55 - but what evidence is there for this?

	Without autograph copies, there is no positive way to know
the exact dating of the Gospels.  All we can do is look at various
internal and external indices to make assumptions.  The consensus of
scholarly opinion is that Mark was written first sice Matthew uses
Mark but even this is still disputed by some.  My opinion is that
Matthew (Matthai Levi ben Alfai), a disciple and cousin of Jesus,
wrote "sayings" during the ministry of Jesus.  Something of a maverick,
I believe an original primitive "proto-John" narrative was written
by Yohanon bar Zebediya very early (40's).  I agree with Powell that
Mark was a response (mid-40's).  This is my view:

Oracles of the Lord  27-29 by Levi Mattai ben Alfai** (later to be
incorporated in "Matthew" and Luke)

Sayings Gospel compiled by Jerusalem Assembly under James 40-42

The first "burst" of Gospel writing begins just prior to the second half
of the first century.  I believe this Gospel Writing period was
stimulated by an initial animosity and rivalry between the disciples and
followers of Jesus.  First, an animosity to Peter by John, who believed
Peter a traitor, and perhaps some hard feelings by Peter to James,
Jesus’ brother.  The assumption of authority over the Kingdom Movement
by James could have been a blow to Peter.  James’ absence from the
movement prior to the crucifixion and his position of authority
immediately afterwards has been an enigma to New Testament scholars. 
James’ sudden rise to leadership can only be explained by it having been
ordered by Jesus himself. Evidence of this may be preserved in Logion 12
of the Gospel of Thomas:

John I "Proto-John" 44-45 Hostile to Peter.  Shaken by Jesus’
crucifixion, his cousin John bears animosity to Peter whom he believed a
traitor.  John was Jesus’ closest relative who was a follower from the
very beginning.  He may have felt that he, as the surviving cousin
(James the Greater now dead) should have assumed leadership of the
movement. That James and John felt some "special position" in the coming
"Kingdom of God," and was chastised by Jesus for it, may be reflected in
Mark 10:35-45.  The polemic against Peter in the first edition of John
would later be softened and edited by redactors.

Letter from James 45  The Epistle of James is written in good literary
Greek but contains Aramaisms that suggest the letter was dictated by
James to a secretary writing in Greek.  Whether or not there was an
Aramaic original of the Letter is not known.  Some scholars place James
at a later date and dependent on Q source material or the Synoptics for
Jesus’ sayings. More likely is James himself as a source of much of the
Q material. It is very likely that the Epistle was indeed composed by
Jesus brother. Jesus sayings are plays on words, alliterations and
rhymes reminiscent of typical Yeshuine style.

Signs Gospel. Earliest and most rudimentary gospel. A continuous and
connected account of the deeds of Jesus beginning with John the Baptist.
Composed by the Jerusalem Assembly to demonstrate that Jesus was the
Messiah. 45

Letter from Jude 45

The Cross Gospel, an account of the passion and resurrection by
Jerusalem Assemby. 45
May have been composed by James and Peter and would be preserved in the
"Gospel of Peter."
I believe it reflects the "suffering Righteous One" link to the Essenes
and may also have been written to alleviate the John-Peter controversy.
Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13-14) 45
	
I Thessalonians 48

Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11-16) late 48

Mark I  43-49 counters "proto-John’s" hostility to Peter.
Expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius

"Apostolic" Council 49 in Jerusalem

Paul’s second Missionary Journey (Acts 15:36 to 18:23) late 49

II Thess 50 If authentic, may have originally been addressed to Philippi
Galatians late 49, early 50.

Paul’s 3rd missionary journey (Ephesus) 52-56

I & II Corinthians compiled from 4 letters written in 54 from Ephesus to
Corinth

Philippians 54

Hebrews 55-56 by Apollos in Corinth

Romans..from Corinth Dec 56-Feb 57

Paul’s trial before Agrippa (acts 26) 59
Voyage to Rome 59-60

Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:30) 60-62

Colossians 60

Philemon 60

Q material.  A sayings gospel from a Greek source for Greek speaking
"pre-Christian" Jews.  O.T. references are from Septuagint.

James the Righteous executed 62

Protoluke 65  uses MarkI, "sayings" and Q

Mark II "secret Mark" 65 7Q5

I & II Timothy, Titus 66-67  May be by Polycarp.

Jewish War 66

Destruction of Temple 70 (Sept 2)

Luke 80
Gospel of Thomas I. Compiled from "Sayings source"

Acts II 85
Ephesians 85  A revised Colossians used as a cover letter for the
collected letters of Paul.

Matthew 85 Stimulated by the excommunication of the "minim" from the
synagogues

John II 85 ... The excommunication may have been the stimulus in 85 to
write and compile, edit. This editor incorporates the Signs Gospel
verbatim without rewriting or paraphrase, leaving rough connections
between the text of Signs and the text of JohnI.
Egerton Gospel. Written independently of Canonicals using same earlier
"sayings" source closer to Q than Gospel of Thomas.  Egerton lacks the
editorial language of Synoptics reflecting earlier traditions.  I
believe it was used by Jews of Palestine and Syria who were experiencing
the strong opposition to "Jesus Jews" by the excommunication.

1 Clement 92 ??

Revelations 94

John III
 
I Peter 95 probably by Sylvanus to soften Revelation (time of Domitian)

1 Clement 96
Domitian dies, Nerva Emperor 96
Trajan 98

1 Epistle John c. 110 by editor of Gospel of John
2 John
3 John

II Peter c. 140 Uses I Peter and Jude.

	This is only MY view of the chronology of NT writings and as a model
is subject to change.  The responses that will arise from
this..demonstrating
disagreement, agreement, even outrage, will be a microcosm of the
general
scholarly forum on the issue of dating.  In short...it's all a matter of
assumption.

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]