Tue 10 Jul 2007
This post seeks to answer two questions regarding the documents that comprise the New Testament:
- When were the New Testament documents written?
- Who wrote the documents? Were they really eyewitnesses?
1. When were the New Testament documents written?
Although we cannot pinpoint exact dates for the New Testament books, we can use both internal evidence and external evidence to determine their approximate dating. (Most of the information in this section is adapted from Dr Paul Barnett's excellent book Is the New Testament Reliable?)
First, the external evidence. In the early church fathers we find many quotations of the New Testament. Three authors who wrote at the turn of the century (Clement in about 96AD, Ignatius in about 108AD, and Polycarp in about 110AD) all quote heavily from the New Testament. In summary, the only two books not quoted by these writers is 2 John and Jude. This of course does not mean that these two books were definitely not written by 100AD, but only that they were not specifically quoted by these three early writers. So on this basis, we can conclude that all (or nearly all) of the New Testament books were written before the end of the first century.
However, we can in many cases be more exact. In the case of Paul's letters, I'll quote Dr Barnett rather than try to reinterpret his already concise prose:
When Paul arrived in Corinth, he met Aquila and Priscilla who had recently "come from Italy … because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome" (Acts 18:2) This dovetails with the Roman historian Suetonius, who wrote that Claudius banished from Rome all Jews because they were continually making disturbances about Christ and Christianity (Claudius 25). Scholars of Roman history date this expulsion to c. AD 49. We conclude that Paul arrived in Corinth some time during AD 50. An inscription that fixes the beginning of Gallio's one-year appointment as proconsul in Achaia at July AD 51 confirms this, a detail that corresponds with the reference in Acts that "when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack upon Paul and brought him before the tribunal" (Acts 18:12) Since 1 Thessalonians, by common consent, was written from Corinth soon after Paul's arrival there (1 Thes 3:6 and Acts 18:5), we conclude that this letter was written in AD 50. This represents the earliest generally accepted extremity of the time frame. Few scholars dispute this date, although some may place Paul's letter to the Galatians earlier, about AD 48. (Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 37-38)
So the earliest of Paul's letters was written approximately 20 years after Jesus' death. This fact is not generally disputed among scholars (Christian or not). The earliest of Paul's letters are in fact the earliest books of the New Testament. Barnett goes on to explain that the latest of Paul's letters would have been written at the end of the sixties (before AD 68 when Nero died).
While 20 years may seem like a long time, this is much, much sooner than other historical documents we have that are considered reliable by all historians. However, we have even earlier material than this. In 1 Corinthians (written by Paul in about 54AD) chapter 15, verses 3-8 comprise an early church creed which is much earlier than 1 Corinthians itself. There are many reasons why scholars conclude this is an early creed (See Gary Habermas in Lee Strobel's book Case for Christ, 229):
- Paul introduces it by using the words received and passed on. The original Greek words were rabbinic terms for passing on tradition.
- The stylized structure of the passage indicates it's a creed. (It is similar to other known creeds.)
- The creed uses words and phrases that Paul rarely or never uses himself.
- It uses certain words that are similar to Hebrew ways of narration.
- There is no copy of 1 Corinthians that lacks the creed.
The creed itself has been dated to within only a few years after Jesus' death! For comparison, this creed is at least 100 years earlier than the so-called "Gospel of Judas" which was recently made famous. This is the equivalent of a newsflash in ancient times. Here is what the creed, the earliest Christian testimony we have, affirms: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles …"
This of course does not prove the claim is true, merely that the Christian gospel claim was not made up many years later, but was in fact preached from the very beginning. For an analysis of this passage and the significance of its contents, see The Significance Of 1 Corinthians 15.
2. Who wrote the documents? Were they really eyewitnesses?
Given that the New Testament documents were written within the timeframe that the eyewitnesses to Jesus were still alive (as per above) it is certainly possible that the documents were indeed written by eyewitnesses, as the authors themselves claim to be (ex. Luke 1:2, John 21:24, 1 John 1:3, 2 Peter 1:16). I have already written a brief post on Dr Richard Bauckham's excellent book (published just this year) Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which argues persuasively from (again) both internal and external evidence that the New Testament was indeed written by eyewitnesses.
If you are interested in this topic, here's a link to Bauckham's brief interview with Christianity Today magazine: They Really Saw Him: Richard Bauckham argues that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, not "anonymous community traditions." The key, he says, is in the names.
So in summary, we do have very good reasons to believe that the New Testament documents were both written extremely early (especially compared to all other ancient historical documents) and also were written by eyewitnesses as claimed by the authors themselves.
11 Responses to “The New Testament: When and Who?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Hello. I had a few comments on your post, if I may. You wrote,
First of all, a minor quibble. The New Testament didn't exist until the fourth century, so quite obviously, they couldn't have been quoting from it. In any case, I would be very interested to know which gospels and/or epistles Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp quoted, and, specifically, the quotes themselves.
Also, quotes can indicate existence, but that doesn't mean the entire corpus from which the quote came is the one we currently have. We know, for example, that many of the gospels were redacted over time. So, saying that such-and-such gospel was written before 96 CE doesn't necessarily mean that it was the one we currently possess.
It is interesting that Paul writes "…according to the Scriptures". Since he obviously could not have meant any of the NT scriptures, what scriptures could Paul have been referring to? And why would Paul write that, if he were describing a historical event?
August 10th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Hi Robert! Thank you for your comments!
You're right, it would have been more accurate to say "all quote heavily from the documents that would be included in the New Testament."
Although the New Testament wasn't formally and definitively decided until the 4th century, there's remarkable agreement from the second century onward as to which books are included. In fact David Trobisch's recent book on the development of the canon argues against the common notion that there was a long period of canon development:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Trobisch2001rev.html
But you're right, the quotes themselves do not prove that the documents are the same as the ones we have now; they are only one piece of the cumulative case for the NT's reliability. My intent with this post was to attempt to demonstrate the original writings were early and eyewitness testimony, not to argue a comprehensive case for their accuracy.
I have not and cannot verify this for myself (due to the obscene time it'd take) however it is often claimed that were all of the New Testament writings from the first few centuries lost, we could still reproduce almost the entire NT text from only using quotations in the the early church fathers.
In terms of which books are quoted by which early church authors, here's Paul Barnett's lists …
Whew! Again, I don't have the time or resources to verify this, but Barnett (who taught/teaches ancient history at Macquarie University in Sydney) is a known expert in this area.
Regarding Paul, he was referring to the Old Testament. There are prophecies regarding the Jewish Messiah specifically or a savior more generally in the Old Testament, and so Paul (a Jew) would have been referring to these prophecies to essentially say "See, he did exactly what was prophesied."
That said, Paul wasn't martyred until 63-68AD, so it's at least possible he was familiar with some of the NT writings. In fact Paul's writings themselves are referred to as Scripture by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16) and there is a possible reference to Luke's gospel by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 (though this last reference is rather debatable IMHO).
Long reply … I'm drained … hope this at least partially answers your questions!
August 13th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Hello again. Thank you for your reply and for correcting my poor HTML
I have often heard it claimed that the early Christian apologists quoted from what was to be the New Testament (and some other documents as well); however, from what I've seen, the quotes are very fragmentary, and never refer to a document by name. For example, it is claimed that when Polycarp wrote the words "steadfast and immovable", he was "quoting" from I Corinthians 15:58, which reads
There are many more examples of this, which casts doubt on the assertion that "Three authors who wrote at the turn of the century …all quote heavily from the New Testament."
Agreed that Paul was referring to the Old Testament when speaking of "the Scriptures", but the words "according to" seem rather incongruous if referring to a historical event. Why not "in fulfillment of", like Matthew uses?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Hi Robert!
Hmmm I haven't personally investigated the type of quotations that are claimed. Unfortunately Barnett doesn't give details as to which NT books are (supposedly) quoted by the various authors. Something for further research when I have time; of course there are other reasons to date the NT within the first century in addition to the church fathers … a quick search brought me to CARM's article here:
http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm
Note that I don't think CARM is always the best (and there seems to be at least one typo, 79AD should be 70AD I think) but these articles seem decent. (Um at least when I skimmed them just now heh.)
Regarding Paul's "according to", I'm not sure why he uses different wording, but how does using "according to" imply it was not a historical event? The ESV translates this section "in accordance with the Scriptures" which seems like the most natural way to interpret it. Matthew was writing to a primarily Jewish audience whereas Paul's audience would have been mostly Gentile, so I that might account for the different wording. I don't know Greek, but another possibility is that using that word worked better here (in terms of meter, style) to make the creed easier to say/remember.
December 17th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Many thanks
[…]Would you be interested in swapping hyperlinks?[…]
December 20th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Thanks
[…]Very sweet article, I completely love this site, keep on it[…]
December 20th, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Ciao a tutti, Ashley qui come facciamo tutti?
December 22nd, 2013 at 7:21 am
Thank you
[…]That's so cool! I don't suppose I've read anything such as this before. So sweet to find somebody with a few original thoughts on this matter. Really say thanks a ton for beginning this up. This site is something that is required in the web, so…
December 23rd, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Bless you
[…]This is suitable blog for everyone who would like to discover the truth about this topic. You understand a whole lot it's virtually hard to argue with you (not that I actually would like to … HaHa). You definitely place a new angle on a topic tha…
December 24th, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Thank you
[…]I'm impressed, I must say. Really, I seldom encounter a blog that's both educative and enjoyable, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail regarding the head. Your move is outstanding; the problem is something that not enough people are speaki…
December 24th, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Ich würde mit Ihren Öffnung Aussage zustimmen, aber ich bin nicht mit allem einverstanden. Wir sind alle verschieden und haben verschiedene Ansichten zu diesem Thema und ich denke, dass jeder ein Recht auf seine oder ihre Meinung zu äußern hat