Dating Paradox
In earlier centuries, skeptics have tried to tie very late dates to the writings of the New Testament, in particularly the Gospel narratives, for even the skeptics would grant that the epistles of Paul (most of the New Testament) was written between 48 AD and 64 AD (twenty to thirty years after the death of Christ, well within the time of living witnesses). While Matthew, Mark, Luke and John they attempted to confine to the second or even third century, (one hundred to two hundred years after the death of Christ). Archaeology has thoroughly refuted these claims. One manuscript fragment has been dated as 114 AD. That is fifty years from when we know believe it to have been written, in ancient writings, to have evidence of a manuscript so close to when it was originally written is truly phenomenal. As such, we know that it must have been written before that year. Today, the dates that are agreed upon by even the most secular scholar is
Matthew - 85 AD
Mark - 60-65 AD
Luke - 80-85 AD
John - 90-95 AD
Those are, I would say, the latest dates they could be, for there is evidence that suggests earlier dates. First off, there is the extra-biblical history passed down that as Paul was taken to Rome and martyred by Nero in the first great persecution by the Roman state in 63 AD, and likewise at the same time, John, was persecuted and sent to exile on the isle of Patmos where he wrote Revelations and thus is likely that John was written, not after thirty whole years of exile, but closer to 65-70 AD. Plus with the epistle of John, there is a second book that is seen as a second installment of the first book and that book is Acts. Acts ends it’s history of the early church with Paul reaching Rome (63 AD), is it is the second book of the two and does not describe the death of Paul or anything related afterwards it can be concluded that John was written before Acts (before 63 AD). Nearly all scholars agree that John was the last to write his epistle, if that is true, then John being the latest, the rest of the gospel writers would have an even earlier dating than 63 AD.
Then there is a prophesy of Jesus that is stated in the gospel narrative. The prophecy that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, not one stone left on another. This came true in the year 70 AD, after which the nation of Israel was scattered to the wind. Here is the true paradox, or the true hypocrisy; do you assume prophecy is not possible and therefore the dating of the prophecy MUST be after 70 AD, or do you take it at face value and therefore date the book prior to 70 AD? Here is another question, if it was after the fact, written after 70 AD, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the narrative? The great persecution, the great travesty and migration, or for that matter why didn’t they revel in the prophecy coming true as a testament to it being true? To say that it was not mentioned for it needed not be is debunk for every fiber of Acts and many other books speak directly to the needs of the people of whom the book was written and would have included so important a note. Acts records how the church supported Israel during a famine, would it not have also recorded such a tragedy as the sack, burning, and destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the destruction of Israel as a nation-state?
Regardless of this discrepancy between dating systems, even if we take the older dates of 60-95 for the gospel narratives, that is still well within the first generation and within the age of living witnesses who can attest (or detract) to it’s accuracy. The short time span does not leave room for ambiguity or ambition. There can be no great fabrication or fable created in a short time frame that would honestly survive critique and persecution as the Church did more than perhaps any other example in all of history.
Jared Williams
Matthew - 85 AD
Mark - 60-65 AD
Luke - 80-85 AD
John - 90-95 AD
Those are, I would say, the latest dates they could be, for there is evidence that suggests earlier dates. First off, there is the extra-biblical history passed down that as Paul was taken to Rome and martyred by Nero in the first great persecution by the Roman state in 63 AD, and likewise at the same time, John, was persecuted and sent to exile on the isle of Patmos where he wrote Revelations and thus is likely that John was written, not after thirty whole years of exile, but closer to 65-70 AD. Plus with the epistle of John, there is a second book that is seen as a second installment of the first book and that book is Acts. Acts ends it’s history of the early church with Paul reaching Rome (63 AD), is it is the second book of the two and does not describe the death of Paul or anything related afterwards it can be concluded that John was written before Acts (before 63 AD). Nearly all scholars agree that John was the last to write his epistle, if that is true, then John being the latest, the rest of the gospel writers would have an even earlier dating than 63 AD.
Then there is a prophesy of Jesus that is stated in the gospel narrative. The prophecy that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, not one stone left on another. This came true in the year 70 AD, after which the nation of Israel was scattered to the wind. Here is the true paradox, or the true hypocrisy; do you assume prophecy is not possible and therefore the dating of the prophecy MUST be after 70 AD, or do you take it at face value and therefore date the book prior to 70 AD? Here is another question, if it was after the fact, written after 70 AD, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the narrative? The great persecution, the great travesty and migration, or for that matter why didn’t they revel in the prophecy coming true as a testament to it being true? To say that it was not mentioned for it needed not be is debunk for every fiber of Acts and many other books speak directly to the needs of the people of whom the book was written and would have included so important a note. Acts records how the church supported Israel during a famine, would it not have also recorded such a tragedy as the sack, burning, and destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the destruction of Israel as a nation-state?
Regardless of this discrepancy between dating systems, even if we take the older dates of 60-95 for the gospel narratives, that is still well within the first generation and within the age of living witnesses who can attest (or detract) to it’s accuracy. The short time span does not leave room for ambiguity or ambition. There can be no great fabrication or fable created in a short time frame that would honestly survive critique and persecution as the Church did more than perhaps any other example in all of history.
Jared Williams
