Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Butters · 12-04-2002, 01:42 PM

In the Judas thread, BOKTFT posted the dates he feels Luke and Acts were written. This got me to thinking about how everyone seems to come up with their own dates that these books were written, and by whom. I'm wondering if anyone would like to make claims about the dates and authors, and show evidence of their theory.

Biff the unclean · 12-04-2002, 02:48 PM

The oldest copy of the NT whose dates are verifiable is from 325 CE.
As is the oldest copy of the writings of the early church fathers, the oldest paintings of Jesus in the catacombs, and the oldest discovered church building.

The only verifable answer you can give to when Luke & Acts were written is ' sometime between 70 and 325 CE.'
You'll get a lot of Xian yadda-yadda-yadda that they were written on an exact and very early date---you just won't get a way to check their assumptions.

Butters · 12-04-2002, 03:16 PM

Yea Biff, this is the kind of thing I'd like to learn more about. Things like the oldest manuscript. What is it? Christians say it is John, dated to 80ad.(?) I've heard that was a 1/2" piece. Things like internal clues to dating.
I've read some on the subject, but a good point-counter-point discussion always helps me put things in perspective, and there's a lot of knowledgeable people around here.

Sojourner553 · 12-04-2002, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
<strong>The oldest copy of the NT whose dates are verifiable is from 325 CE.
As is the oldest copy of the writings of the early church fathers, the oldest paintings of Jesus in the catacombs, and the oldest discovered church building.

The only verifable answer you can give to when Luke & Acts were written is ' sometime between 70 and 325 CE.'
You'll get a lot of Xian yadda-yadda-yadda that they were written on an exact and very early date---you just won't get a way to check their assumptions.</strong>

I do not agree that the New Testament was written after 132 CE. I pointed out the reason why in your 325 post on page 1:

Quote:

there is NO prophecy in the gospels that predict that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed a SECOND time. This occurred
during the Roman-Jewish war of 132-5, after a second major revolt by the Jews was quashed by the Roman Empire.

As a result, most scholars today believe that the gospel of Mark was composed sometime AFTER 69 C.E. (before the first Jewish-Roman war), but BEFORE 132 C.E. (the second Jewish-Roman war).

Also--
If, as you are suggesting, Christians had written the NT AFTER 325 CE, we would not see doctrines in the New Testament that were unflattering to Church dogma 325 CE and afterwards. Examples:

* caring about the poor and prostitutes.
* making embarassing statements such as it would be easier for a rich man to go through an eye of a needle than go to heaven.
* conversing with women as equals, possibly even having women apostles.
* referring to tax collectors as among the greatest sinners.

Why do you have to assume all Christians were devious? I think superstition explains it all.

Sojourner

Biff the unclean · 12-04-2002, 04:00 PM

They date these 1/2" flakes of NT by looking at the style of the script and then comparing it to scrolls of known date but done by other scribes.
Now, although you can't write in a calligraphic style before it was created there is nothing to stop you from doing so long after. You'll find many biblical pieces of copy that are written in "fonts" that date from the middle ages whose ink is still wet because they were actually written since lunch today. This is not done to trick anyone into thinking the pieces are old. It is done because the copy is venerated and the scrib wants their work to reflect this veneration of the text.
So this comparing handwriting styles amounts to a guess. An educated guess only in that it can tell you the earliest possible date. It cannot tell you the actual date a piece was written. It amounts to "Gee, it looks really old to me!"

Biff the unclean · 12-04-2002, 04:25 PM

there is NO prophecy in the gospels that predict that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed a SECOND time. This occurred
during the Roman-Jewish war of 132-5

This speaks equally well for a 325 CE authorship. After two hundred years no distinction would be made. Do you know how many times the English invaded New York City during the revolution? Did they do it in 1776? Then what happened in 1779?
I'm expecting you not to know because I grew up in NYC and I don't know. Why expect an audience in 325 CE to be better educated in history than you or I are? And I was talking about New York--there was no Israel in 325 CE, it was some exotic place from the past, where magic things happened. The mystic east.

If, as you are suggesting, Christians had written the NT AFTER 325 CE, we would not see doctrines in the New Testament that were unflattering to Church dogma 325 CE and afterwards. Examples:

� caring about the poor and prostitutes.
It says "The poor will be with us always." It tells the people to take care of the poor not the church or the government.
�making embarassing statements such as it would be easier for a rich man to go through an eye of a needle than go to heaven.
Thus glorifying poverty and telling people to stay within their station, exactly what Imperial Roman demanded. They called it status quo
�conversing with women as equals, possibly even having women apostles.
You must be confusing Greece and Rome. Women were equals in Rome. They were not in Israel of Jesus' day.
� referring to tax collectors as among the greatest sinners.
And telling you to "give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's." In other words God himself is telling you to pay your taxes. Nobody ever expects you to like tax collectors...even though Jesus picked one to be part of his posse.

12-04-2002, 10:20 PM

Greetings Biff et al,

It's true that before 325CE there survives no entire copies of the NT.

But,
I don't think a case can really be made that the NT was not even actually written till Niceaen times - too much would have had to have been faked too well.

Firstly,
there are a few early external references which suggest some of the NT existed before 325 - its unlikely the Christians would have forged these writers.

c.176-
Galen wrote: "...just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables..."

External evidence that Christian parables were known of, (albeit only possibly in written form), in late 2nd century.

c.178
Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth..."

Evidence that Celsus was aware of the Gospels (and their mythical origins) in late 2nd century (hard to imagine that Christians later forged Celsus as denying the truth of the Gospels).

c.280
Porphyry wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors � not historians "

External evidence that in late 3rd century, the Gospels were clearly known and disparaged by pagans.

Secondly,
the many Epistles and Fathers and Apocrypha all cite and refer to each other in a web of relationships which help to place them in rough sequence - if all these writings had been produced en masse in 325, I think the results would be far different.

I have tried to sort all these documents into chronological order on my Timeline page (not based on Christian dogma, may I hasten to add, but on my summation of the most up to date scholarly research) :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html" target="_blank">Chronology</a>

Thirdly,
the manuscripts - its hard to really know how accurate the manuscript datings are - Yuri argues that P52 cannot be dated any more accurately than a few centuries or so, yet most authorities now say 100-150 or 100-125, and Christians often just say 130AD. The opinions on its dating have varied much over the years as theories wax and wane.

Note also that many Christians champion the crackpot theories of Kirsten Thiede who dates the tiny Magdalen fragment about 66CE - a thoroughly discreditted view.

Here is a summary straight from NA27 of the manuscripts (if any authority is worth quoting its gotta be the NA

) of NT documents from before 325 :

2nd century :
P52 - a few WORDS of G.John
P90 - a few WORDS of G.John

c.200CE :
P64,67 - several VERSES of G.Matthew
P66 - most CHAPTERS of G.John
P46 - most of the major Pauline letters

The weight of evidence suggests the the Gospels were created early 2nd century (and about 20 Christian documents were probably written before then as they show no knowledge of the Gospels)

QuentinJ

Tercel · 12-04-2002, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:
In the Judas thread, BOKTFT posted the dates he feels Luke and Acts were written. This got me to thinking about how everyone seems to come up with their own dates that these books were written, and by whom. I'm wondering if anyone would like to make claims about the dates and authors, and show evidence of their theory.

I suggest for an unbiased summary of what scholars in general think, you check out Bede's page on this - it includes authors, dates and reasons:
<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers3b.html" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers3b.html</a>

Biff the unclean · 12-05-2002, 07:51 AM

Iasion I don't think a case can really be made that the NT was not even actually written till Niceaen times - too much would have had to have been faked too well.
I'm not sure "faked" is the right word. These people would have been part of the Imperial government at Byzantium. For their doings to be byzantaine should be expected.
And how much is too much? Every piece that we have dates from after 325CE so we know that they had time enough to write it. And what do you mean by "too well"? It isn't that good. Justin Martyr's (there's a name for you�like a James Bond character) "Dialogue" is such a poor work of fiction that the Catholic Encyclopedia warns you that it's a mixture of poetry and fact. They would have been more accurate calling it a fairy tale.
As for the history in the "early" church fathers being correct; what does one have to check it against?

there are a few early external references which suggest some of the NT existed before 325 - its unlikely the Christians would have forged these writers.
Well, we know that they forged Josephus�who do you suggest.

c.176-Galen wrote: "...just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables..."
We know that there were people then who called themselves Christians (or some such spelling) They were followers of Apollonius of Tyana and his god Christna (spelled Krishna since only the mid 1800's)

Evidence that Celsus was aware of the Gospels (and their mythical origins) in late 2nd century (hard to imagine that Christians later forged Celsus as denying the truth of the Gospels).
True. However his works on Christians don't show up until late also. You have to keep in mind 170 CE the Christians, by their own admission, were insignificant. However, we know that after 325 CE they earned the hatred of all of Hellenism. They wouldn't be the only ones who put words in the mouths of their respected authors.

the many Epistles and Fathers and Apocrypha all cite and refer to each other in a web of relationships which help to place them in rough sequence - if all these writings had been produced en masse in 325, I think the results would be far different.
I don't see why you would think that these were produced en masse instead of sequentially. The Roman Catholic Church is reputed to have "corrected" history for hundreds of years. These things didn't all appear in 325. That's just the oldest date that any Christian artifact can be verifiably dated to.

I have tried to sort all these documents into chronological order on my Timeline page (not based on Christian dogma, may I hasten to add,
I'm quite familiar with this timeline.
But if it is not based on Christian dogma (like the dates--and the existence--of Paul) then what is it based on? Not the physical evidence, there is no verifiable physical evidence. Internal literary evidence could only give you the earliest possible date and not the actual date of authorship.
I should imagine that the experts always point this out and that the collectors and the religiously infatuated are the ones who neglect to mention it.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Biff the unclean · 12-05-2002, 07:53 AM

sorry, wrong button

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

12-04-2002, 01:42 PM	#1
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Authors and dates of the NT In the Judas thread, BOKTFT posted the dates he feels Luke and Acts were written. This got me to thinking about how everyone seems to come up with their own dates that these books were written, and by whom. I'm wondering if anyone would like to make claims about the dates and authors, and show evidence of their theory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2002, 02:48 PM	#2
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	The oldest copy of the NT whose dates are verifiable is from 325 CE. As is the oldest copy of the writings of the early church fathers, the oldest paintings of Jesus in the catacombs, and the oldest discovered church building. The only verifable answer you can give to when Luke & Acts were written is ' sometime between 70 and 325 CE.' You'll get a lot of Xian yadda-yadda-yadda that they were written on an exact and very early date---you just won't get a way to check their assumptions.

12-04-2002, 03:16 PM	#3
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	Yea Biff, this is the kind of thing I'd like to learn more about. Things like the oldest manuscript. What is it? Christians say it is John, dated to 80ad.(?) I've heard that was a 1/2" piece. Things like internal clues to dating. I've read some on the subject, but a good point-counter-point discussion always helps me put things in perspective, and there's a lot of knowledgeable people around here.

12-04-2002, 04:00 PM	#5
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	They date these 1/2" flakes of NT by looking at the style of the script and then comparing it to scrolls of known date but done by other scribes. Now, although you can't write in a calligraphic style before it was created there is nothing to stop you from doing so long after. You'll find many biblical pieces of copy that are written in "fonts" that date from the middle ages whose ink is still wet because they were actually written since lunch today. This is not done to trick anyone into thinking the pieces are old. It is done because the copy is venerated and the scrib wants their work to reflect this veneration of the text. So this comparing handwriting styles amounts to a guess. An educated guess only in that it can tell you the earliest possible date. It cannot tell you the actual date a piece was written. It amounts to "Gee, it looks really old to me!"

12-04-2002, 04:25 PM	#6
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	there is NO prophecy in the gospels that predict that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed a SECOND time. This occurred during the Roman-Jewish war of 132-5 This speaks equally well for a 325 CE authorship. After two hundred years no distinction would be made. Do you know how many times the English invaded New York City during the revolution? Did they do it in 1776? Then what happened in 1779? I'm expecting you not to know because I grew up in NYC and I don't know. Why expect an audience in 325 CE to be better educated in history than you or I are? And I was talking about New York--there was no Israel in 325 CE, it was some exotic place from the past, where magic things happened. The mystic east. If, as you are suggesting, Christians had written the NT AFTER 325 CE, we would not see doctrines in the New Testament that were unflattering to Church dogma 325 CE and afterwards. Examples: � caring about the poor and prostitutes. It says "The poor will be with us always." It tells the people to take care of the poor not the church or the government. �making embarassing statements such as it would be easier for a rich man to go through an eye of a needle than go to heaven. Thus glorifying poverty and telling people to stay within their station, exactly what Imperial Roman demanded. They called it status quo �conversing with women as equals, possibly even having women apostles. You must be confusing Greece and Rome. Women were equals in Rome. They were not in Israel of Jesus' day. � referring to tax collectors as among the greatest sinners. And telling you to "give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's." In other words God himself is telling you to pay your taxes. Nobody ever expects you to like tax collectors...even though Jesus picked one to be part of his posse.

12-04-2002, 10:20 PM	#7
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Greetings Biff et al, It's true that before 325CE there survives no entire copies of the NT. But, I don't think a case can really be made that the NT was not even actually written till Niceaen times - too much would have had to have been faked too well. Firstly, there are a few early external references which suggest some of the NT existed before 325 - its unlikely the Christians would have forged these writers. c.176- Galen wrote: "...just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables..." External evidence that Christian parables were known of, (albeit only possibly in written form), in late 2nd century. c.178 Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth..." Evidence that Celsus was aware of the Gospels (and their mythical origins) in late 2nd century (hard to imagine that Christians later forged Celsus as denying the truth of the Gospels). c.280 Porphyry wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors � not historians " External evidence that in late 3rd century, the Gospels were clearly known and disparaged by pagans. Secondly, the many Epistles and Fathers and Apocrypha all cite and refer to each other in a web of relationships which help to place them in rough sequence - if all these writings had been produced en masse in 325, I think the results would be far different. I have tried to sort all these documents into chronological order on my Timeline page (not based on Christian dogma, may I hasten to add, but on my summation of the most up to date scholarly research) : <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html" target="_blank">Chronology</a> Thirdly, the manuscripts - its hard to really know how accurate the manuscript datings are - Yuri argues that P52 cannot be dated any more accurately than a few centuries or so, yet most authorities now say 100-150 or 100-125, and Christians often just say 130AD. The opinions on its dating have varied much over the years as theories wax and wane. Note also that many Christians champion the crackpot theories of Kirsten Thiede who dates the tiny Magdalen fragment about 66CE - a thoroughly discreditted view. Here is a summary straight from NA27 of the manuscripts (if any authority is worth quoting its gotta be the NA ) of NT documents from before 325 : 2nd century : P52 - a few WORDS of G.John P90 - a few WORDS of G.John c.200CE : P64,67 - several VERSES of G.Matthew P66 - most CHAPTERS of G.John P46 - most of the major Pauline letters The weight of evidence suggests the the Gospels were created early 2nd century (and about 20 Christian documents were probably written before then as they show no knowledge of the Gospels) QuentinJ

12-05-2002, 07:51 AM	#9
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Iasion I don't think a case can really be made that the NT was not even actually written till Niceaen times - too much would have had to have been faked too well. I'm not sure "faked" is the right word. These people would have been part of the Imperial government at Byzantium. For their doings to be byzantaine should be expected. And how much is too much? Every piece that we have dates from after 325CE so we know that they had time enough to write it. And what do you mean by "too well"? It isn't that good. Justin Martyr's (there's a name for you�like a James Bond character) "Dialogue" is such a poor work of fiction that the Catholic Encyclopedia warns you that it's a mixture of poetry and fact. They would have been more accurate calling it a fairy tale. As for the history in the "early" church fathers being correct; what does one have to check it against? there are a few early external references which suggest some of the NT existed before 325 - its unlikely the Christians would have forged these writers. Well, we know that they forged Josephus�who do you suggest. c.176-Galen wrote: "...just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables..." We know that there were people then who called themselves Christians (or some such spelling) They were followers of Apollonius of Tyana and his god Christna (spelled Krishna since only the mid 1800's) Evidence that Celsus was aware of the Gospels (and their mythical origins) in late 2nd century (hard to imagine that Christians later forged Celsus as denying the truth of the Gospels). True. However his works on Christians don't show up until late also. You have to keep in mind 170 CE the Christians, by their own admission, were insignificant. However, we know that after 325 CE they earned the hatred of all of Hellenism. They wouldn't be the only ones who put words in the mouths of their respected authors. the many Epistles and Fathers and Apocrypha all cite and refer to each other in a web of relationships which help to place them in rough sequence - if all these writings had been produced en masse in 325, I think the results would be far different. I don't see why you would think that these were produced en masse instead of sequentially. The Roman Catholic Church is reputed to have "corrected" history for hundreds of years. These things didn't all appear in 325. That's just the oldest date that any Christian artifact can be verifiably dated to. I have tried to sort all these documents into chronological order on my Timeline page (not based on Christian dogma, may I hasten to add, I'm quite familiar with this timeline. But if it is not based on Christian dogma (like the dates--and the existence--of Paul) then what is it based on? Not the physical evidence, there is no verifiable physical evidence. Internal literary evidence could only give you the earliest possible date and not the actual date of authorship. I should imagine that the experts always point this out and that the collectors and the religiously infatuated are the ones who neglect to mention it. [ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

12-05-2002, 07:53 AM	#10
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	sorry, wrong button [ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.