|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2007 21:54:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 28, 2007 22:28:56 GMT -8
Thanks, Josh!
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 6, 2009 18:39:47 GMT -8
Here's my provisional dating:
Matthew - 41 (Aramaic, in Jerusalem), 64 (Greek expansion, Rome)
Mark - 43 (Rome)
Luke - 53 (Greece)
John - 69? (Ephesus)
Acts - 59 (Rome? Greece?)
Romans - 55 (Greece)
1 Cor - 55 (Ephesus)
2 Cor - 55 (Macedonia)
Gal - 55 (Ephesus)
Eph - c.66 (Rome)
Phil - 54/55 (Ephesus)
Col - 54/55 (Ephesus)
1 Thes - 51? (Greece)
2 Thes - 51? (Greece)
1 Tim - c. 61 (Macedonia)
2 Tim - c. 62 (Rome)
Titus - c. 61 (Corinth?)
Phm - 54/55 (Ephesus)
Heb - 54 Ephesus? 69 Rome?
James - c65? Jerusalem
1 Peter - c. 60 (Alexandria, Egypt)
2 Peter - c. 64 (Rome)
1-3 John - 70s? (Ephesus)
Revelation - c. 63 (Patmos)
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 6, 2009 19:02:22 GMT -8
Curious why you date James so late when most info I've read places it very early.
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 6, 2009 19:54:02 GMT -8
Yes, if Josephus was referring to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus, then his letter must have been written before 62. I have heard it suggested that Josephus' original reference was to James the brother of Jesus the high priest (perhaps referred to as an anointed one), and Hegesippus seems to place James' death 'immediately' before the siege of Jerusalem, 66 (though I concede that 'immediately' might be longer in his mind than we would tend to think). Also his replacement wasn't chosen (Symeon) until after the siege, which I think would be unusual had be died as early as 62. Basically for me it comes down to the apparent allusions to Revelation - especially to the reference to the crown of life, which it says was promised by the Lord to those who overcome. The only place I see such a promise is in Revelation. If, like me, one places Revelation very early, then James would need to go later than this, if this is indeed a direct allusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 8, 2009 19:00:13 GMT -8
Interesting.
I wonder too if some place James earlier simply because it doesn't contain a "high christology" (dubious logic for a variety of reasons, of course)
I like your placement of Matthew in the Aramaic early. Papias said it was written in Hebrew, though, didn't he? Do you think he was just mistaken?
So, what's your preferred theory on the relationship between the synoptics?
A couple other things:
Do you see Hebrews reference to the sacrificial system as if it was current as an indicator of a pre-70 date?
Lastly, the only reason I put alternate dates for Revelation (60's or 90s) was for fairness sake. I'm strongly in favor of pre-70 authorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 8, 2009 19:20:22 GMT -8
I wonder too if some place James earlier simply because it doesn't contain a "high christology" (dubious logic for a variety of reasons, of course) Yes, good point, that's probably why they do it. I could be way off on James, but it does seem to allude to Revelation as far as I can see it. No, I based this on Papias - scholars are agreed that writers then used 'Hebrew' to include Aramaic. How long do you have?  I think Luke used Mark and Q/Aramaic Matthew, and that expanded Greek Matthew used Luke and Mark and Q. I think that is really the only option for a Bible believer. Critical scholars place Luke last because they say he 'expands' (i.e. invents) things like the John the Baptist sermon. But if he really had access to a source, then I think it more likely that Matthew abbreviated Luke. pretty much. i realize it isn't 'proof', but it's very suggestive i think. Yeah, I've very convinced of the early date! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 15, 2009 20:51:08 GMT -8
Somehow I never saw that you responded to this thread.
OK. Good to know.
Are you saying that Q= Aramaic Matthew in your mind, or are they separate?
Fortunately for the gospel of Luke, the internal clues for a pre-AD 70 date are so strong, that there's no good reason to place it as late as critical scholars do for merely "evolutionary theology" reasons.
Any theories on why the author of Hebrews would make so many references to the "tabernacle" as opposed to the "temple", if indeed it was written prior to AD 70? My thought is simply that much of his dialogue is rooted in the pentateuch and so he uses wilderness wandering terms, expecting his readers to transfer the ideas to the current temple cultus. Or perhaps he was making an anti-second temple statement by giving the Tabernalce precedence?
I digress....
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 16, 2009 13:59:05 GMT -8
Are you saying that Q= Aramaic Matthew in your mind, or are they separate? I'm thinking that they are the same, but I haven't reached conclusions on the exact nature of it all. The biggest problem with Matthew as we have it are the sections that don't translate back into Aramaic (e.g. the rock petros/petra distinction). The expanded portions seem to rely upon Peter, and for this reason I suspect he was involved somehow. I think when he was at Rome in the early 60s. I think John the Disciple was at Rome also, in the early 60s (for various reasons), and was banished from there. I therefore think the tradition preserved by the 11th-century bishop Theophylact is quite credible: The scholia on the manuscripts seems divided between this view, and the view that James translated it. The original Matthew appears to have used James as a source (e.g. the Joseph narratives). I'd like to find something that deals with this - especially any evidence from the church fathers. I've never thought of that. I've put Hebrews on the backburner for now - too busy with all the other books! Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 17, 2009 19:32:11 GMT -8
Here's my provisional dating: Matthew - 41 (Aramaic, in Jerusalem), 64 (Greek expansion, Rome) Mark - 43 (Rome) Luke - 53 (Greece) John - 69? (Ephesus) Acts - 59 (Rome? Greece?) Romans - 55 (Greece) 1 Cor - 55 (Ephesus) 2 Cor - 55 (Macedonia) Gal - 55 (Ephesus) Eph - c.66 (Rome) Phil - 54/55 (Ephesus) Col - 54/55 (Ephesus) 1 Thes - 51? (Greece) 2 Thes - 51? (Greece) 1 Tim - c. 61 (Macedonia) 2 Tim - c. 62 (Rome) Titus - c. 61 (Corinth?) Phm - 54/55 (Ephesus) Heb - 54 Ephesus? 69 Rome? James - c65? Jerusalem 1 Peter - c. 60 (Alexandria, Egypt) 2 Peter - c. 64 (Rome) 1-3 John - 70s? (Ephesus) Revelation - c. 63 (Patmos) Correction - I think I put 1 Timothy c. 54 now - written from Corinth. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 17, 2009 20:57:52 GMT -8
Wow. Shockingly early- especially considering the usual hullabaloo about it reflecting too advanced a system of ecclesiological hierarchy, right?
What reasons for dating it so early?
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 18, 2009 8:34:25 GMT -8
Wow. Shockingly early- especially considering the usual hullabaloo about it reflecting too advanced a system of ecclesiological hierarchy, right? Do you know much about that? I'm trying to work out what they mean by 'advanced hierarchy'. Are they saying that having elders and deacons is advanced? Or do they see some kind of episcopacy somehow? It's the only place I think it can fit chronologically. I think Paul went on a short trip to Corinth and Macedonia during his residence in Ephesus. Also, there are parallels between 1 Cor. and 1 Tim (1 Cor. 16:11; 1 Tim. 4:12). |
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 18, 2009 8:35:06 GMT -8
Correction - I think I put 1 Timothy c. 54 now - written from Corinth. Correction - written from Macedonia. c. 54. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 18, 2009 11:35:37 GMT -8
Some do think that within the lifetime of the first disciples/ apostles the church was still too primitive for such distinctive formalized roles. They would say that in Paul's universally accepted epistles he speaks very primitively of the church, as a family, or as body with Christ as it's head, but that in the debated epistles all the sudden he's concerned about a definite hierarchy.
This, put together with the supposed "higher christology" of the disptued Pauline books, seems to be the only substantial evidence offered for non-Pauline authorship.
I don't buy it.
It's always made more sense to me that towards the end of their lives the discipline became concerned with making sure that structures and safegurads were put in place that would help the Jesus movement survive and flourish*
*another sidenote to this is that one can actually see some borrowing from Jewish synagogue life in some of the heirarchical structures in the early church- which seems quite natural, and could therefor be expected pretty early on once churches got to be a bit larger.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 18, 2009 11:38:07 GMT -8
i would date the epistles of Yochanon as being in the 90's. and i would date 2 Kefa no later than 120, but no earlier than 90. those are the latest gospels in my opinion.
other gospels, like Shauls i would say would all be in about the 50-60's
i would date mark as the earliest gospel.
as for Q... i dont think that is was written at all. i think it was an oral account of the teachings of Yeshua.
also, i dont think that shaul had the gospels in the time that he wrote his letters, o he didnt have access to them. he only quotes Yeshua in corinthians. i think this comes from the oral "Q" gospel. so this means that i would either date the gospels REALLY late, or the epistles REALLY early, unless i believed that shaul just didnt use them. i havent decided yet.
and personally, dating doesnt mean much to me. i read the bible more for theology, not for many other reasons (except of course for living a godly life and such.).
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 18, 2009 11:47:24 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak,
The reason why I find dating interested and a worthwhile pursuit is because of the apologetic value. Many scholarly attacks against the credibility of the New Testament are predicated on the assumption that certain NT books were written late- underminding their eyewitness value, implying a radical evolution of theological constructs between the life of Jesus and the writing of the NT, and denying the predictive power of New Testament prophecies.
These are worthy things to investigate in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by apollos on May 18, 2009 15:42:21 GMT -8
Some do think that within the lifetime of the first disciples/ apostles the church was still too primitive for such distinctive formalized roles. They would say that in Paul's universally accepted epistles he speaks very primitively of the church, as a family, or as body with Christ as it's head, but that in the debated epistles all the sudden he's concerned about a definite hierarchy. I can't see it either. It would be strange if they didn't have some kind of leadership - every human group has and needs leaders, including early churches. The Acts says they ordained elders in every church, and as you point out, the synagogue had them. |
|
I think Luke used Mark and Q/Aramaic Matthew, and that expanded Greek Matthew used Luke and Mark and Q. I think that is really the only option for a Bible believer. Critical scholars place Luke last because they say he 'expands' (i.e. invents) things like the John the Baptist sermon. But if he really had access to a source, then I think it more likely that Matthew abbreviated Luke.