Dating the Gospels: The New Trend Toward Early Dates.

John Rylands Fragment

In that debate with Doug Shaver on TWeb (I published here two different speeches of mine--the debate is now over if anyone wishes to imbibe the wisdom), Doug argued for dates of the Gospels way up in the second century. It always strikes me as hilarious when I debate Jesus mythers and they are so anti-academic and so opposed to the progress of modern scientific method of Bible study because they methods have produced some results that have not disappointed believers. It's ludicrous becuase the fundamentalist inerrency position is in shambles, at least for the Old Testament, but the out look for New Testament is not so bad. It's funny becuase the mythers have reached back into the nineteenth century while the new trend even among liberals is toward earlier dates not latter ones.

No disparagement intended against Doug, who I view as a friend, but it occurred to me that he really doesn't know how scholars arrive at their views on dating so he thinks they are just spouting dogma and he said as much (if one cares to look for it). When I say a trend to earlier dating I mean it's big. Here's an example of just the early dating on Matthew:
from a site called "Dating the New Testament"

BOOK			EARLY	LATE	AVERAGE
Matthew	Peter Ainsile, D.D. A.D. 48 to 69		48	69	58.5
Matthew	The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Post 70 AD		70	70	70.0
Matthew	An Introduction to the New Testament, D.A. Carson Ph.D. & Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D. shortly prior 70 A.D.		69	69	69.0
Matthew	Apologetics Study Bible, A.D. 60's is not unreasonable		60	69	64.5
Matthew	Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, A.D. 60's1		60	69	64.5
Matthew	Believer's Study Bible, W.A.Criswell, Ph.D., Editor, prior 70 A.D.		69	69	69.0
Matthew	Biblical Illustrator, N.T. Archbishop Thomson A.D. 58 to 60		58	60	59.0
Matthew	Craig L. Blomberg, Ph..D. A.D. 58to 65		58	65	61.5
Matthew	Blue Letter Bible, AD 55 to 60		55	60	57.5
Matthew	Raymond Brown, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90, give or take a decade		80	90	85.0
Matthew	F.F. Bruce, Ph.D. shortly after 70 AD		71	71	71.0
Matthew	D.A. Carson, R.T. France, and G.J. Wenham, eds. New Bible Commentary: 21 Century Edition, 80 CE		80	80	80.0
Matthew	Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70		71	71	71.0
Matthew	W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100		80	100	90.0
Matthew	M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65		60	65	62.5
Matthew	James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 ,Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University		70	80	75.0
Matthew	English Standard Version Bible AD 50s or 60s		50	60	55.0
Matthew	David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.		40	60	50.0
Matthew	Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America, Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic Studies Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament Origins		75	80	77.5
Matthew	Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55 Author of over 60 books and hundreds of articles. Founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary. In 2009 he co-founded Veritas Evangelical Seminary.		50	55	52.5
Matthew	Robert H. Gundry, Ph.D. A.D. 65 to 70		65	70	67.5
Matthew	Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. New Testament Introduction prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable. President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament, The London Bible College		50	64	57.0
Matthew	Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D. A.D. 60		60	60	60.0
Matthew	Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre AD 70		69	69	69.0
Matthew	William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66		63	66	64.5
Matthew	A.E. Hill, Ph.D. AD 70 to 85 Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, author Guide to Bible Data		70	85	77.5
Matthew	Nelsen'sStudy Bible H.Wayne House, Th.D. J.D. Editor, A.D. 50 to 60		50	60	55.0
Matthew	R. Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and D. Brown, eds. AD 37 to 60, Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible (JFB)		37	60	48.5
Matthew	Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85 Professor of New Testament at Drew University		75	85	80.0
Matthew	Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 70's , although this date is not certain.		70	80	75.0
Matthew	Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 80 to 100 Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany		80	100	90.0
Matthew	John MacArthur, Ph.D .A.D. 50 to 70		50	70	60.0
Matthew	G. Maier, Ph.D. pre AD 70		69	69	69.0
Matthew	K.E. Malberg, AD 49 to 51 Bible Overview Chart		49	51	50.0
Matthew	Bruce Metzger, Ph.D AD 75 to 85 Professor of New Testament at Princeton University, Chair of the Editorial Board for the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New Testament of the NRSV Translation Team. (Considered THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])		75	85	80.0
Matthew	J.P.Moreland, Ph.D. A.D. mid 40's to mid 50's		45	55	50.0
Matthew	Leon Morris, Ph.D. perhaps the late 50s or early 60s.		58	62	60.0
Matthew	S.L. Peterson, AD 75 Timeline Charts of the Western Church		75	75	75.0
Matthew	John Nolland, Ph.D. Matthew is to be dated before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish war. Buildup started AD 66		65	65	65.0
Matthew	The Pulpit Commentary, A.D. 60 to 75		60	75	67.5
Matthew	B. Reicke, Ph.D. pre A.D. 70		69	69	69.0
Matthew	J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. AD 40 to 60		40	60	50.0
Matthew	T. Robinson, AD 85 The Bible Timeline		85	85	85.0
Matthew	Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D., Ph.D., Ryrie Study Bible AD 50s or 60s		60	60	60.0
Matthew	Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University (Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the events following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)		70	80	75.0
Matthew	William Smith, Ph.D. Smith's Bible Dictionary. A.D. 60 to 66		60	66	63.0
Matthew	H.D.M. Spenes, D.D. A.D. 60 to 75		60	75	67.5
Matthew	Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany		60	63	61.5
Matthew	Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University		63	63	63.0
Matthew	David L. Turner, Ph.D. prior to A.D. 70		69	69	69.0
Matthew	Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80 Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist University (Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the Luke-Acts Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)		80	80	80.0
Matthew	Merrill F. Unger, Ph.D., Th.D., Aramaic A.D.40 to 45, Greek A.D. 50		40	45	42.5
Matthew	Robert Utley, D.Min. Possibly A.D. 60 or at least before A.D. 70, Retired Professor of Hermeneutics		60	69	64.5
Matthew	J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40		40	40	40.0
Matthew	Edwin Yamauchi, Ph.D. shortly after A.D. 70		71	71	71.0
Matthew	David Young, Ph.D. 70's		70	79	74.5
Matthew	Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary		70	80	75.0
Matthew	J. Walvoord and R. Zuck AD 50 to c50 The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures		50	50	50.0
Matthew	Rev. A. Lukyn Williams, M.A. A.D. 60 to 75		60	75	67.5
	Date 8/30/2010 this is copyrighted material and it used by permission

All Four Gospels have a huge long line of Scholars pushing early dates. New Evidence has come out for Matthew in the form of Talmudic passage that seems to quote Matthew. The thing is scholar had previously judged when the dates were for the writing of that page and that Rabbi so that is not unknown to scholarship. Thus they can be fairly certain how far back it pushes Matthew. It pushes him back to about AD 72. Not much of cousre, the traditional view is 80. Of course there's all that pre Mark reduction that I've talked bout so we are only talking about redacting the final redaction, the versions we have now as we know the texts today. The pre Mark redacation pushes it back all the way to mid century.

For story on the Talmudic passage here is Southcoasttoday.com

An ancient Jewish parody that quotes the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew may refute a major argument by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Bible.

For more than a century, liberal scholars have contended that the Christian gospels are unreliable, secondhand accounts of Jesus' ministry that weren't put on paper until 70 to 135 AD or later -- generations after those who witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry were dead.

Today's more liberal scholars say the Gospel of Matthew may have been aimed at Jews, but it was written in Greek, not Hebrew. They also believe that the Book of Mark, written in Greek, was the original gospel, despite the traditional order of the gospels in the Bible, putting Matthew first.

But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 AD or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. In his 1999 book, "Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times," Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University states that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 AD, is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew." The Talmud, a text not often touched by New Testament scholars, also contains a number of obvious references to Jesus and his family.

Jesus is called a Nazarene as one of the names given him. Another dubs him Yeshua Ben Pandira, which means Jesus born-of-a-virgin in a combination of Hebrew and Greek. His father was a carpenter, his mother was a hairdresser and Jesus, the Talmud says, was a magician who "led astray Israel." And, it says, he was "hung" on the eve of Passover.

Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew's gospel, though longer than Mark's, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.

When Matthew's gospel to the Hebrews was written is important to biblical conservatives because an early Matthew would strengthen its credibility by making it possible, if not probable, that the tax collector whom Jesus recruited was the first to write and distribute his account of Jesus' birth, ministry and death. Most liberal scholars would say Matthew's gospel didn't come along until 90 AD or later and was in Greek, separating the apostle from the Jews as well as book that bears his name.
But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary.
In Rabbi Gamaliel's story, a daughter whose father had died offers a golden lamp as a bribe to a Christian judge known for his honesty, seeking a decision that would allow her to share her father's estate with her brother. When the judge suggests that dividing the estate would be proper on the basis of a new law that had superseded the ancient Law of Moses, Gamaliel argues that the judge is wrong and loosely quotes a statement attributed to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew.
"Look further in the book, and it is written in it, 'I have not come to take away from the Law of Moses nor add to the Law of Moses ... .' " Gamaliel replies, and wins the case on the basis of that argument or the bribe he gave the judge -- a "Libyan ass."
The Libyan ass itself is a reference to Jesus and the mount he rode into Jerusalem.
The late English scholar, R. Travers Herford, called Gamaliel's story a "brutal parody of Christian belief." In his book, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," he points to a second reference to Matthew, in the reaction of the woman who lost the case, despite the golden lamp she gave as a bribe. "Let your light shine as a lamp!" she says, throwing a sarcastic barb at the judge. At Matthew 5:16, just before Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he tells his followers that the lamp of their belief should not be hidden but "let your light shine before men."

Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has done graduate work at Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Conwell School of Theology, and Temple University. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School in Wheaton, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern College. David Crowder is an investigative reporter for the El Paso Times in Texas.

This story appeared on Page A6 of The Standard-Times on April 19, 2003.

Dating the Gospels is a scientific project. It's not just old guy preacher men spouting their views. They use basic guides just like archaeologists use pot shards for dating. They use the paper, the ink, the material in the text, the phraseology, the sentence structure. The events are among the major giveaways. One of the major principles for dating Gospels is the proximity to the fall of the temple (determined by it's mention in the text). Here are some issues that have grounded Roman Historian Colin Hemer to push for an earlier date for Luke/Acts. This is from an rticle by super conservative Norman Geisler:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.

He lists 15 points in his article. He points out that the discoveries at Qumran helped to demonstrate the first century nature of John. One expects a conservative to support an earlier date. On the other hand liberals are not holding back. John A.T. Robinson who was one of the leaders of the God is Dead movement in the 60s wrote a whole book dating the Gospels earlier.

Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one of who Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.(from the Geisler article)