Reliability of the NT/ Dating the NT books

[Josh]

11/23/06:

Taken from an email dialogue with a friend, here are some thoughts on the reliability of the New Testament and dating the books of the NT.

Before we talk about whether the claims of the New Testament hold any water, we must talk about the New Testament itself. We must determine how reliable of a document it is. You seem to have this in your mind based on some of your comments, questions, and doubts. For instance, you asked, “What do we really know about the gospel writers?” “Did any of them really see the things they wrote about with their own eyes?” “Couldn’t this all just be legendary material written quite a bit after the facts?” Etc… All very important questions that were on the top of my list as well when I first seriously investigated Christianity.

One hundred years ago it was a dark time for New Testament studies. Higher Criticism had thrown the whole New Testament in doubt. The prevailing idea was that the books of the New Testament were written at least a hundred years after the events, thereby making them highly legendary and almost useless when it comes to expecting historical fact from them. This was mostly due to the lack of archaeological discoveries, linguistic studies, etc..

In the last 100 years the scene has utterly changed. Today, all serious Jesus scholars recognize genuine historical material in all the NT books. Of course, the argument now is more about to what degree the books of the NT are historically trustworthy.

Tied up into this is the dating of the books of the NT. Obviously, the further a historical account is written from the time period it purports to cover, the more historical suspicion we usually accord to it. A great degree of suspicion can be leveled at accounts that were written after the lifetime of potential eyewitnesses of the events described.

I will now give a range of dates, from the most conservative to the most skeptical, for the most pertinent historical books of the New Testament, just to illustrate the range of feasible dates we’re looking at here. My sources are many; books by critical and conservative scholars alike. I doubt you’ll find many sources making claims outside these ranges.

Galatians: 48 AD- 58 AD
1 Thessalonians: 51 AD
1 Corinthians: 55 AD
2 Corinthians: 56 AD
Romans: 56 AD- 58 AD
Matthew: 66 AD- 95 AD
Mark: 60 AD- 70 AD
Luke and Acts: 62 AD- 85 AD
John: 55 AD- 95 AD
1 and 2 Peter: Early 60’s AD- 100 AD
1,2,3 John: 80 AD- 95 AD

As you can see, the entire New Testament can and is usually argued to have been completed within 70 years of Jesus’ death.

Almost all of Paul’s epistles are accepted to be written by him (with 3 or 4 in debate), all finished before his death in 65 AD. Thus, all the Pauline epistles were written within 35 years of Christ’s death.

All of the Gospels were written within 65 years of his death. I could proceed from here to argue why Mark is best dated some time before 62 AD and why Luke and Acts should be dated at exactly 62.AD.

If you would like the reasons why the limits are as they are, please ask.

A few thoughts to chew on: It is difficult for legendary material to grow up during the lifetime of eyewitnesses for the simple fact that false claims could have easily been refuted. Because some eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life could have lived well into the 90’s, that means that all (or almost all) of the NT was written during the era of eyewitness refutability.

Paul’s epistles make all the basic claims of Christianity: the resurrection, deity of Christ, etc… in the 50’s… only 20 years after the Crucifixion, well within the time period of popular memory. Yet a hundred years ago these ideas were considered too legendary to have been written that close to the events.

A homework assignment: read 1 Corinthians 15: 1-20, dated by all scholars to 55 AD. Note the convincing nature of his argument and how everything hinges of whether or not Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Note too that he is not fearful of a skeptical challenge by eyewitnesses of those events, who certainly could have been in his audience. All someone had to do who read Corinthians would be go and check his sources. Liars don’t usually invite investigation, yet Paul is virtually inviting his hearers to check his sources.

Keep in mind that this same Paul was willing to go to his death at the hands of the emperor for these claims not too many years later.

[hume]

"It is difficult for legendary material to grow up during the lifetime of eyewitnesses for the simple fact that false claims could have easily been refuted."

Counter-examples from the 20th century:

- the Roswell "alien landing" legend, based on an event that occurred in 1947, was almost instantaneously accepted by some folks, and kept gaining wacky adherents decade by decade.

- myths about the Bermuda Triangle as a kind of black hole for ships and planes, derived from events that supposedly took place during WW2, were in full force by the 1970s.

One thing these legends seem to have in common: outsiders to the small community of "true believers" did not take much notice of them until the myths had gained significant traction, decades after the events on which they were based. By that time it was more difficult to refute the beliefs on rational grounds -- ideas have a way of gaining legitimacy over time and repetition, regardless of how poorly founded they were initially.

[hume]

"Liars don’t usually invite investigation, yet Paul is virtually inviting his hearers to check his sources."

If you've ever listened to a really dedicated liar (to some of us, Dick Cheney comes across this way ...), you'll notice just the reverse: one of their favorite tactics is to "invite investigation" in dramatic terms. This often works, because it forces the audience into an unpleasant position -- "Are you calling me a liar? Huh?" People generally aren't comfortable following out this process; our usual reaction is to back down ("Ok, ok, take it easy, I believe you").

However, I don't think the passage invites us to pick from just two options: is Paul telling the truth, or is he lying? There's a third option: Paul's a true believer, preaching the substance of his belief. He could still be mistaken, without intending to deceive.

[hume]

(Interesting profanity filter you've got here. Vice President Cheney's first name becomes "Thingy.")

[hume]

"Keep in mind that this same Paul was willing to go to his death at the hands of the emperor for these claims not too many years later."

True enough -- but people have often been willing to sacrifice for something without fully understanding it.

Others -- I do not include Paul in this group! -- have even been willing to sacrifice themselves for things they know, or should have known, to be false. For an extreme example, consider Joseph Smith, or a dangerous nut case like Jim Jones. These guys demonstrate a strange aspect of human psychology that tends to undermine attempts to argue for any belief based on the fact that its founders put on dramatic public displays of their commitment.

[Josh]

Definitely great points, Hume. Now, argue with me a bit about my attempts to bolster them ;D. Be back soon....

Interesting... I was not aware that a filter was activated.

[Josh]

Congratulations! You have the prestigious distinction of being the first person to trip the profanity filter, Hume.

I undid the word Dick, but don't take advantage of my Christian liberties

(You should see the rest of the list... sheesh)

[Josh]

[glow=red,2,300]One thing these legends seem to have in common: outsiders to the small community of "true believers" did not take much notice of them until the myths had gained significant traction, decades after the events on which they were based. By that time it was more difficult to refute the beliefs on rational grounds -- ideas have a way of gaining legitimacy over time and repetition, regardless of how poorly founded they were initially.[Hume][/glow]

Does "these legends" include Roswell, Bermuda, and Christianity? How are you measuring the degree to which "outsiders" took notice?

Does the Jewish authorities rounding up Jesus' followers and imprisoning them within 3 years of his death count as "taking notice"? What about the counter-story attempt by the Jewish authorities to refute the resurrection from the get-go ("the disciples stole the body")? As Paul says in Acts, these things were not "done in a corner" (Acts 26:22-28). The governmental powers of Jerusalem (especially the Jewish ones at first) had great impetus to smash this belief early, before legendary accrual.
That is, this was a 'watched case' from the beginning. Paul, himself, was a 'refuter' of the Christian claims within 3 years of the resurrection.

Yes, good liars might use that tactic (though it could backfire on them, still)

A good question we might want to ask is indeed whether we think Paul is lying. Personally, I think for a host of reasons we could look at later, that that is extremely unlikely. In my mind it's much more likely that he was deceived that that he was a deceiver. But, then again, I think it's highly unlikely that he was deceived. (All this might be a good new thread topic)

hume said:

However, I don't think the passage invites us to pick from just two options: is Paul telling the truth, or is he lying? There's a third option: Paul's a true believer, preaching the substance of his belief. He could still be mistaken, without intending to deceive.

Again, I agree that it's a valid option to consider that Paul could be merely mistaken. And, unless I'm not reading my post correctly, I don't think I said there were but two choices in that text (1 Cor. 15). But what I think you can tell from the text is that Paul firmly believes that the question of whether the event occurred or not is crucial and he thinks he's got good evidence for it actually occurring. In other words, he doesn't think the "idea" that it happened is enough- he thinks it needs to have really happened in "actuality". It's up to us then to see if he does have good evidence or not.

Another way of putting it: Paul isn't saying, "either I'm lying or I'm telling the truth", he's saying... "either Jesus did rise or he didn't, and these are the consequences that follow in each case". He is saying that if Jesus didn't rise, then all his preaching is useless- his life's purpose is in vain. He's saying that the question of whether it's true or not is of the utmost importance. It's in other passages that he gives reasons to believe it happened. However, he is still here giving an 'argument by lifestyle' so to speak- basically a 'I wouldn't be living this way (and risking my life) if I thought this was a lie'.

[Josh]

As to Joseph Smith, I'm convinced he didn't believe his own story, making him one of the most brazen liars of human history. And I'm pretty sure if someone had said "we'll let you off if you renounce this whole thing, or we're going to kill you" he would have probably renounced it. As it is, he was killed by a lynch mob seeking his death (and making no offers) and did the only thing a man like him could do, grab a gun and go down in a blaze of glory.

Now, Jim Jones, I think makes a great example of somehow who did perhaps deceive himself into believing something (or try the Heaven's Gate founder, Applewhite, for instance). But definitely both those guys demonstrated a severe loss of touch with reality not seen in the example of Paul.

But with Paul, one can make a great case that he wasn't a liar (like Smith) and he wasn't crazy (like Jones). Now, of course, that still leaves 'mildly confused'. Can a good case be made that Paul was somewhere between these two poles, in your opinion?

[hume]

Does 'these legends' include Roswell, Bermuda, and Christianity?

In that post I was discussing Roswell & Bermuda. The point there was that unlikely-sounding stories can form very quickly, and they have remarkable staying power once they get going. So it's hard to argue that the 3 or 4 decades separating the Gospels from the events they describe is too little time for such a remarkable narrative to develop. The presence of eye witnesses in itself doesn't seem to be a strong check against the development of versions of events that contradict the memory of those witnesses (basically, the true believers dismiss them). And cases like Joseph Smith / Jim Jones suggest that even eye witnesses themselves can come to believe, or convince themselves after the fact, that things happened in a way that contradicts their own memories.

None of this is evidence against Christianity; it just undermines somewhat the attempt to "prove" Christianity through arguments involving the dating of the N.T. books.

However, you make good points about the ways in which the authorities would have been actively interested in countering something like the Resurrection story -- very different from a case like Roswell, which hardly anyone cared much about (indeed the whole thing is generally viewed as humorous, which would probably not have been the case with the early Christian movement).

A good question we might want to ask is indeed whether we think Paul is lying ... one can make a great case that he wasn't a liar (like Smith) and he wasn't crazy (like Jones).

Regardless of your prior assumptions, it's tough to be anything but respectful towards the author of something as magnificent as 1 Cor 13. Paul's certainly not crazy, and it's hard to see how you could read him as fundamentally deceitful. So if you were trying to "explain" Christianity in secular terms, I think you'd have to view Paul as sincerely mistaken. In other words, C.S. Lewis's "lunatic, liar, or the real deal" apologetic may apply to Jesus, but probably doesn't fit Paul.

As for Joseph Smith, I wonder if he was actually "not all there"? Maybe he had some kind of hallucinatory experience that he interpreted in a weird way.

[Josh]

Again, great points and considerations.

Ok, so if we scaled back the argument a bit, could we say that at least compared to the former idea (popular at the turn of the last century) that perhaps as much as 100 years elapsed from the life of Christ to the writings of NT documents, a 20-35 year span between events and the writing of the NT books is much more modest and does limit the development of mythology to some degree?

There's another thread somewhere on the disciples dying for their beliefs, etc.. that I might resurrect and get further thoughts from you regarding. I'm ready to psychoanalyze a few dead people, how about you?

And, I guess I would also like to point out again how within 20 years time (and demonstrably, within virtually no time at all*) all the fundamental aspects of Christian theology seem to have been firmly in place and not the result of a long process of evolution (not that any evolution didn't take place on more subtler points, btw). The "high Christology" of John is apparent in the earlier books of Paul, etc.. That resurrection was being claimed immediately after Christ's death doesn't preclude someone arguing that it was just a 'visionary experience' but it does mitigate against the central pillar of the Christian faith being merely the result of the "telephone game" being played out over the course of several decades.

Certainly, he wasn't all there, but I personally don't think Joseph Smith even had a 'hallucinatory' experience in the case of the Mormon visions, but I suppose that's for another thread. I'd highly recommend the book "One Nation Under Gods", though, by Richard Abanes (an editor of Skeptic Magazine, btw.) Great reading. (Ask Michelle)

Oh, and that's so true of passages like 1 Cor. 13 or Romans or Ephesians/ Colossians, etc.. It's just sublime literature.

* Many skeptics see the "Creed" in 1 Cor. 15 as already old by the time Paul copies it down in AD 50 or so. Also, even if one doubts much of the history of the book of Acts, it seems clear that Acts and Galatians piece together the first 20 years of Christianity quite adequately.

[Josh]

"In other words, C.S. Lewis's "lunatic, liar, or the real deal" apologetic may apply to Jesus, but probably doesn't fit Paul."

Yes, also considering that Paul's experience of the risen Christ was of a different calibre than the disciples'.

So, here's a question for another thread: does the 'trilemma' apply to Peter, then?

[yeshuafreak]

i think that the trilemma is overuseed and therefore has lost its effect. drop that.

as for historical reliability, we must remember that no new testement book is ever considered much older than 120 AD. most scholars beleive 2 Peter was written then. apart from that, most were written in the 60's and 70's. Johns letteres and such were proobably not all written by the same person and are ussually dated from 70-110 AD. now, we have to realize that this is really reliable histoical evidnce. most events are recorded 120+ years after the event.

here, the latest date accepted by mainstream scholars by an outlier in the NT is only 90 years after the death of Jesus, maybe 92. And the earliest gospel was probably written around 65 AD, mark, which was only 35 years after the death of yeshua. this is really good.


so the problem is not whether they COULD HAVE recorded the evidence correctly, but whether they let their religious views get in the way of historical evidence or whether they wrote it as a biography.

i think that Mark may have written the gospel of mark as (1) preaching material of peter during the feasts or (2) a biography or (3) a liturgical document.

either one of these interpretations can be seen as written with historical accuraccy.

i think that matthew was written for the jews and is the 2nd closest to a biography though not written chronilogically as mark wasnt either. the most matthew would have intentionally tweaked his gospel for Jesus would have been to try to make him more appealing to the jews.

Luke is the closest to a chronological biography as we can get. he was an investigative reporter using texts and eye witnessess and such to form the paper he did. he may have let a few things slip through concerning falsehood on the documents, and he may have gotten a few things out of order, but he is probably the most historically reliable apart from Mark.

John i think was written not for biographical purposes but for theological purposes. i think that he basically made a midrash on the story of yeshua (a story that teaches lessons but is not necessarily true, although the story line is worked off of a true narrative). there are plenty of reasons i believe this but the main two reasons are : (1) the contraditions and apparent difference (even in english) of John cp. to the synoptic gospels. and (2) the likeness btwn the gospel of John and 1 john. this tells me that John was not trying to historically record the words of Jesus, but just get the gist of the teachings of Jesus through Johns own preaching pattern using things like "light" and "darkness" and evil and good and such. this does not mean we need to un canonize the gospel, but regard it as something not for historical reasons. we must also remember that John seems to have become a Jewish theologian. they are very often darshanim, people who write midrashimm. so it is not unlikely that he wrote his gospel as a midrash.


anyway, so i think for the most part, our idea of Jesus is historically accurate, and almost eerything else in the NT is historically accurate.


shalom - john

[Josh]

We might quibble about particular details, yeshuafreak, but in general I agree with you.

I will repeat what I said elsewhere, about your take on the gospel of John:

While I agree that John (Yochanon) didn't stick to a strictly sequential narrative (as you or I might not do either if we were trying to convey the point of a story as opposed to the brute details), I would add that John, nevertheless, is replete with historically accurate detail, in fact, in many cases, even more so that the synoptics. It does, imo, bear the mark of an eyewitness. I also don't think I would characterize anything in John as "fiction". Taking certain liberties with a historical event like shortening dialogue, or putting dialogue into your own words to further explain it, or mentioning events out of sequence doesn't equal "fiction".

Perhaps the best book on this subject I have ever read is "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel" by Craig Blomberg. It is super thorough and comments verse by verse throughout the gospel of John, pointing out how it comports with historical accuracy and the synoptics.

Your post brings another point to my mind- the skeptic need not be convinced that there are absolutely no errors in the gospel records. The skeptic only needs to know if there is enough evidence to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.