yalla

The back of my old RSV published 1952 by Collins in the USA has an appendix which describes the various books of the NT briefly.
In conventional orthodox terms based largely on patristic legends.
It describes the 4 canonical gospels thus [in this order] and I have summarised:

Matthew: - "apostle, Hebrew tax collector, written in Judea c.60 CE, pious Jew."

Mark: - "associate of Paul, may be based on material from Peter, aimed at the Romans."

Luke: -" 'the beloved physician', close friend and travelling companion of Paul, c.63 CE, probably written in Caesarea."

John: - ""apostle of Christ", also wrote Rev. and 3 epistles, written in Ephesus c 98 CE"


Hmmm.
OK, we may wish to question some of that.

If you, dear FRDB commenter, were to write a similar synopsis of the above based on your understanding, what would you write?
Care to justify same?

avi

Thanks yalla for the invitation to write our own synopsis of the likely dates of authorship of the various gospels, and letters of Paul, with a rationale for the dates of each....

I would like someone to justify the dates you have furnished, which correspond, in my opinion, to the dates accepted by the vast majority of practicing Christians.....

If one poses this question of dates of authorship to a practicing Christian, the near universally contemptuous response would be:
In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence to pinpoint a precise date of origin, for any of the various books of the new testament. There are conflicting sources, and well established forgeries among the handful of extant papyrus copies of documents--we possess no original Magna Charta.

So, while it is well and good of you, to inquire about our faith or, our belief, or, in my case, our prejudice, about the actual dates of composition, it would be more useful, in my opinion, to ask forum members for evidence to support the dates which your venerable bible lists....

I am unable even to resolve the question outstanding for the past year, regarding a single passage in Mark, 7:31, because the (supposedly) oldest manuscript in our possession, Chester Beatty, P45, dated (by handwriting analysis!!) to Third Century, contradicts my long cherished belief, that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent the most authoritative versions, not the later, Byzantine texts. P45 has the same reading as the later, Byzantine bibles, so what does that mean, vis a vis the most reliable copy of the original text of Mark?

With respect to your query, re: our evidence for alternative dates of authorship of the gospels and letters of Paul, how can one even begin to address that question, when we are unsure which extant ancient text to rely upon, in furnishing an answer to that question? Someone, somewhere, changed the text of Mark 7:31. Who, when, why? We don't know.

Did they rewrite the text, because Mark was written before the other gospels, and, accordingly, contained a conflict with the same account in Matthew and Luke, a significant discrepancy, which demanded revision of Mark? Or, alternatively, did someone, perhaps malevolently, change Mark from its original version (if one believes that the Byzantine/P45 text represents the ink flowing off Mark's pen), inserting a deliberate error, (dia sidwnos) so as to render the text imperfect, i.e. obviously not divinely inspired? (We know that it is an error, not only because the phrase is absent in Matthew and Luke, but also because it is not found in P45.) But, if that error was deliberately inserted, then, which other errors have been introduced?

avi

yalla

" .....to ask forum members for evidence to support the dates which your venerable bible lists...."

That was my intention actually. It may have been unclear.
Not just the dates but the identities of the authors and locale of writing.

To question the orthodox views presented in my RSV.

Cos I reckon scholarship/academia has, AFAICS, moved on from the descriptions I copied.

Hasn't it?

bacht

My copy of the NRSV doesn't have an appendix like this, though I have an old paperback RSV that does include it. It may have been supplied by the publisher rather than the translators.

My Jerusalem bible has lots of "irreligious" notes, I haven't looked much at the NT books. The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert Price contains all the canonical texts in his own translations, with excellent notes. A lot of the info he presents would be alien to ordinary pew-sitters (eg. gnosticism).

Mass produced bibles are probably the last place to find cutting-edge scholarship. These items are for the average church member, so they can't be too controversial.

Huon

yalla, you could have a look at this (catholic, jesuit) link :
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Evangelists.htm

You will get this info :
Compare the dates with those of your book...

The newadvent catholic site says this :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

... and this, in the same page :
Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are not the authors of the gospels. Most scholars hold to the view that the disciples wrote nothing and that the names were attached to the gospels in the second century and that they were not written by eyewitnesses.

yalla

Ta, Huon
It seems a slow progression doesn't it?

Your link acknowledges "Markan" priority whereas my RSV conspicuously avoids putting a date to g"Mark",
However your link [I hope you don't mind me referring to it as such] still manages to put "Mark" pre Roman Jewish War and the rest of the gospels well within the first century.

I would agree with your final sentence above and the incongruity of that as contrasted to the 'appendix of my old RSV' was what prompted the OP.

yalla

Huon

Looking at your site I saw this:
"Initial Texts were Anonymous (the authors are not named in the texts):
possible self-references: Mark 14:51-52; Matt 13:52; Luke 1:1-4; John 21:20, 24; 19:35 ? "

So the author of the site is [tentatively] associating the gospels with the authors favoured by patristic convention.

-"Mark" 14.51
This is actually probably straight plagiarism from the Jewish Bible.
I refer to 'the young man' as Amos cos thats probably the origin of the story in "Mark".
Amos 2.16
"and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day"
There is no reason to consider it a self reference by the author of the gospel.

-"Matthew" 13.52
Mentions a scribe, that's all. Extremely thin 'evidence' on which to hang purported authorship.

-"John" Chapter 21 is widely interpreted as a later interpolation. As such has no relevance to alleged authorship of Chs 1-20.

19.35 only refers specifically to an alleged single episode [the spearing of JC] and gives no specific clue as to was supposed to be the witness [such is only 'named' as "He who saw it..."] and the account of such appears to be from someone else other than the alleged witness and I have a note that these lines are missing from some old mss [that might require checking].

-"Luke" 1.1-4 does not mean that that the author him[?]self was an eyewitness and it is not explained what "the word" actually entails.
Kerygma?
The same as Paul attests to despite not witnessing any event as outlined in "Luke's" gospel?

As indicators of the authors of the gospels its pretty thin stuff isn't it?

Huon

The oldest known manuscripts of the NT are :
fourth century : Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus.
fifth century : Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Syriacus (in Old Syriac).

Nobody knows exactly what happened to the original texts of the gospels between, say the late 60s (to be generous) and the beginning of the fourth century.

The dating of the gospels should also take into account the history of the orthodoxy (as we know it after Nicea 325) and the history of the various christian sects, qualified heretics by the Fathers of the catholic Church.

It would be very surprising (a miracle ?) that the official gospels were orthodox as soon as the end of the first century, and needed no updating at all during the episode of Marcion. Marcion used some sort of a short version of Luke, minus the name "Luke". He wasn't necessarily considered a heretic at first, and for a time he even hoped to be elected as the Christian bishop of Rome.

Huon

Question : who was the eyewitness, apart the Magi, for this ?
Mt 2: 1-12 Magi Visit (Special Matthew)
Mt 2:13-23 Flight into Egypt and Return (Special Matthew)

Did the Magi inform Levi-Matthew, before 60 CE, of an event which took place at the birth of JC ?
Why did Mark, Luke, and John ignore this important event ?
Possibly Mt 2 is a late addition ?

Doug Shaver

Those are the oldest manuscripts that contain all the canonical books of the New Testament. There are lots of earlier incomplete manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, some of which are from the early third century or, barely possibly, late second.