Dating the synoptic gospels of the New Testament

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

I fell like I'm playing an old chess game where my opponent and I have already played out the moves in early games, so we both know the next move coming up. My next move is to quote John 21:20-24.

Some would not die until the Apocalypse/Second coming/kingdom of God/Whatever because Jesus would keep them alive, as suggested by John 21:

20Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

I am beginning to think that these lines using phrases like "this generation" and "some standing here... will not taste death" were little rhetorical traps placed in the text so that when the average person heard them and interpreted them in a common fashion, the initiate or Priest could respond with something like this:

"You idiot, you're doing what the damn Jews did. You're interpreting Jesus in the Earthly sense, not in the heavenly sense. By "this generation," he doesn't mean just the people living now, but the people born since Adam. By "some people standing here will live to see the apocalypse," he isn't talking about people living naturally till 80 or 90 years old, he means some of his followers embued with the life-giveing eternal holy spirit like John who is still alive and writing in the time of Hadrian. (118-137) and still preaching and dancing at 120 and more"

Robert Grant talks about 2nd century Christians who thought that people were still alive in their time from the time of Jesus http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html:

Robert M. Grant writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5):

The context of his argument [concerning the healed who remained alive in the time of Quadratus], regrettably not reported by Eusebius, could have lain in philosophical debates over men treated as gods beause of fictitious miracles, or in debates over Christ's miracles, or in both at once. About half a century later, Irenaeus may have relied on Quadratus for his own discussions of miracles (Haer. 2.31.2 and 2.32.4), later copied by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5.7). Irenaeus claimed that in Christian churches there were those who "cure the sick by laying hands on them, and...the dead have been raised and remained with us for many years." It is not absolutely certain what time frames either Quadratus or Irenaeus had in view, for the latter spoke of the reign of Domitian, nearly a century earlier, as "not long ago but practically in our own generation" (Haer. 5.30.1; a passage known to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.8.6).

Hi Jay,

It might mean that or it could mean 40 years, 70 years, 120 years, 900 years or an unspecified amount of time. Because of the ambiguity of the meaning, it cannot be used to date the gospels.

In Matthew 24, we have Jesus talking about "this generation" in answering the questions of this verse: "3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

The term αἰῶνος is used for age.

The meaning of "generation" (Greek 'genea' which is NOT 'αἰῶνος') as in
Mk 13:30 "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done [including Jerusalem destruction & second coming]."
(repeated in Lk 21:32 & Mt 24:34)
is explained in
Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
(repeated in Lk 9:27 & Mt 16:28).

So some Christians were still hoping the Kingdom will come as soon as predicted up to the beginning of the 2nd century.

Note: according to Tertullian, Marcion would have in his gospel for Lk 21:32:
gMarcion: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."
The passing of heaven & earth has replaced the passing of the whole Jesus' generation!
Which makes a lot of sense in a gospel written around 130 CE.

Cordially, Bernard

[steve43]

Hi Steve43.

It might mean that or it could mean 40 years, 70 years, 120 years, 900 years or an unspecified amount of time. Because of the ambiguity of the meaning, it cannot be used to date the gospels.

In Matthew 24, we have Jesus talking about "this generation" in answering the questions of this verse: "3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

The term αἰῶνος is used for age.

Online dictionary definition of aeon:

— n
1. an immeasurably long period of time; age
2. a period of one thousand million years
3. ( often capital ) gnosticism one of the powers emanating from the supreme being and culminating in the demiurge

[C17: from Greek aiōn an infinitely long time]

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Generation usually means 20 years- which is the generally accepted age where a man can reproduce.

Where is your source for saying people in ancient Rome did not keep track of the age at death?

Seems a very basic human metric and for the emperors they certainly did.

Generation presumably comes from "generate" which refers to biological reproduction.

It think 20 is the common sense definition to the term.

Can't see getting 40 or 70 out of the term at all. Especially if you are using biblical passages that can be interpreted several ways.

[MrMacSon]

20-25 (-35) yrs per generation. Possibly a lifetime; 45-80 yrs,

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,
The ending of gJohn shows how much concerned Christians were about the death of the last (alleged) disciple of Jesus because he was not expected to die before the second coming.

I am beginning to think that these lines using phrases like "this generation" and "some standing here... will not taste death" were little rhetorical traps placed in the text so that when the average person heard them and interpreted them in a common fashion, the initiate or Priest could respond with something like this:

True, in the early 2nd century, there were some reinterpretations:
2 Peter 3:4 “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
Some of these "fathers" were expected to be alive at the second coming.
And, of course, the author was pretending that Peter is still alive after the "fathers" were already dead. That would indicate the letter was meant to be understood written around 100 CE at the latest.

The authors of the pseudo-Pauline Pastorals had given up on that Kingdom coming soon and contrary to Paul, with the second coming reduced as a hope only:
1 Tim 6:14b-15a "... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time ..."
2 Tim 4:1-2
Tit 2:12b-13 "... we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ..."

However before that, the Kingdom was supposed to arrive soon:
Paul in 1 Cor 4:20 "For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power."
Paul in 1 Cor 15:51-52 "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We
[Paul and the recipients of the letter, his contemporaries]
` shall not all sleep [be dead], but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
Paul in Ro 13:11-12a "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand ..."
Heb 10:25 "... exhorting one another, and so much the more as you [the recipients of the letter] see the Day approaching."
Heb 10:36-37 "For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: "For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.""
Jas 5:8-9 "... for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!"
Mk 9:1 "And He [Jesus] said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.""
1 Pe 4:7a "But the end of all things is at hand ..."
1 Pe 4:17 "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first ..."
1 Jn 2:18 "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."
Rev 22:20 "He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"

That shows a transition between Christians still hoping the Kingdom will come before the last persons of Jesus' generation died (around 100-110 CE) to the time when most, if not all, lost all hope of that ever happening (100 to 130 CE).
And Marcion's gospel (see quote in my previous post) is a good example for that transition.

As for Quadratus (120-130 CE), I think it is all wishful thinking from his part. He probably theorized that the persons that Jesus resurrected according to the gospels (such as Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, and the son of the widow from Jain) could not die again. Or some old persons would claim in his days to have been resurrected by Jesus and be much older than they were.
BTW, Quadratus did not invoke here those who were not resurrected by Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

Among the supposed false predictions, by Jesus, of the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers is the interesting prediction (Matthew 21 paralleled in Mark 12 and Luke 20) that "the husbandmen" of the vineyard would be "miserably destroyed" for their wickedness and then "will be let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

This is a parable of Israel and the temple, not the end of the world.

The husbandman in the parable is obviously God, and the hired hands are the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and finally the son. That parallel alone should be enough to read the parable correctly.

[theterminator]

One thing that always bothers me is these synoptic don't give any trace of the temple being recently destroyed.

Really?

Cordially, Bernard

i read somewhere that The Protevangelim of James mentions the temple in jerusalem many times but it does not mention the temple destruction.

[Metacrock]

Dating it around the temple is very inaccurate. how it's understood is a function of ideology. If you are not a believe it can't possibly have been written before the destruction becuase that would make it fulfilled prophesy. If you are a believer it must be that. It really doesn't seem to be written by people in the post destruction world because doesn't betray emergency conditions.

trying to use phrases like "this generation" is strictly conjecture. That can't be reliable either. Notice Craig's use of phrases like "on the third day" is not used to establish a date but a general period like "early."


Trying to figure the dating from the life setting is going to be one of the best approaches.

[Metacrock]

Among the supposed false predictions, by Jesus, of the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers is the interesting prediction (Matthew 21 paralleled in Mark 12 and Luke 20) that "the husbandmen" of the vineyard would be "miserably destroyed" for their wickedness and then "will be let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

Jesus made no false predictions. there are no false predictions only false interpreters.

How could such cryptic language, obviously plays off of idiomatic expression probably rooted in Essene movement, be used for dating?

This would seem to acknowledge that after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the work of producing fruit for the "householder" would continue in new hands and the fruits would be turned over to him in due season.

that's a good guess. besides that would be fulfillment.

The account in Matthew 22 of the marriage feast gives similar information but with a more explicit reference to the destruction of the city. With a subsequent command to those who are favored by the king to continue inviting and gathering guests to the marriage feast. When all are collected to the marriage feast then the guests are examined and the unworthy thrown out into the darkness. This would have given direction to those 1st century Christians who would have been confounded by the destruction of Jerusalem and "delay" in the coming of the kingdom of God. So it seems to me that to focus on the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by Jesus and the attendant expectation of the coming of the kingdom without taking into account the prediction of continued life and activity in the king's service after Jerusalem's destruction is shortsighted.

It has to be post destruction. no trick there. It can't possibly be pre becasue that would mean it's fulfilled prophesy we cant' have that.

Matthew 21:33-43
33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. 34 And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. 37 But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. 39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I need to see the original Greek on that. does it really say "nation?" It is ethnos. People, nation. If that means the Gentiles then one could date it after the destruction in 135. The Jewish Christians flourished in Jerusalem and were still hanging around until then. So it would make more sense for it to have been written way up in the second century. No modern scholar goes along with that now.


One possible alternative would be that it means Samaritans. It's shaming Jewish Christians into action.

Matthew 22:1-13
22 And Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying, 2The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, 3 and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. 4 Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise; 6 and the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast. 10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests. 11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment:12 and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

that is not connected to a national. I dont' see any way to connect the people in the highways with gentiles.

We don't know the social break down within Judaism. It could have referred to "Heterodox factions" rather than Pharisees.

[Metacrock]

My website estimates that they date between 70 and 130...

Do you have a break down of what you would consider to be the genuine sayings of Jesus? Would you include Matthew 21-25 as genuine sayings?[/quote]
I'm Lost,n tym, 8:
Why do you pick such a difficult slab of chapters from the most disparate of all the gospels?

That selection includes lots of purely Matthean (M) sayings, most notably the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, beloved of Pelagian (and some Arminian) theologians to prove that virtue pays and evil in punished; Mt 25:31-46. Same applies to both preceding parables in Matthew 25. It's as if (and may well be) that the final editor fitted this late material in just before launching in to the Passion Narrative chapters 26 and 27. (But did he also insert Mt 21:28-31, 45-46 and 23:1-12, 14-24, 26-32?) Contrast this with Mt 20:1-16 with its anti-Pelagian "death-bed conversion" motif--is it from a different editor's "Matthean" additions?

At the other extreme is Mt 21:1-17, 23-27; 22:15-46; 24:1-25, 29-36. It is all shared Synoptic material, the Triple-Tradition (though by my view supported MacDonald's Q+, it is what I say is from the Grundschrift). By a broader view of "Matthean" there is also Mt 21:17-22 that is later material added conjointly to Mark (Mk 11:12-14, 20-24) and Matthew.
That still leaves the large hunk usually called simply Q that is shared with Luke only. However, it comprises at least two layers. I used to follow Boismard (and Benoit) in seeing Matthew as copying in Mt 23:33-24:51 from wherever comparable verses were scattered in at least five locations in the near-final edition of Luke (Lk 3:7; 11:49-51; 13:34-35; 21:5-33; 12:42-46; and17:26-27, 34-35, 37) . I now see these as the final Q stratum identifiable by such exact Greek correspondence between Matthew and Luke.
To further complicate matters, there is some of the original Q independently translated from Aramaic scattered in these chapters as well. See Mt 21:31b-43; 22:1-14; 23:13,25 and perhaps some of the elements of the first two parables in Matthew 25 that are not attributable to independent oral or written Aramaic tradition (though in the latter case would be yet another strand in what Maurice Casey calls "Chaotic Q ".
Edited to add:
As for dating, the earliest of Q layers could have been written in Aramaic taken (by Matthew himself, like as not) down while Jesus was preaching. I strongly contend for a written Aramaic Q for most of the looser parallels among the three Synoptics, but if these were late insertions (in these Mt chapters 21 to 25) on the line of Casey's Chaotic Q I would not rule out oral tradition. The bulk of "Q" passages here are quite exact, so that they came into Matthew and Luke from Greek allows (or demands?) a later date, maybe the '50's. The Triple Tradition passages in Matthew 26 and 27 include much from the Passion Diary I contend that John Mark wrote immediately, but the specifics are better seen in the S and G that Howard Teeple extracted from John 18 to 19. The Triple Tradition I list above is from later date, but I am sympathetic to the arguments of Casey and James Crossley that the Little Apocalypse gelled around the Caligula Crisis sometime during his reign as Caesar from 37 to 41 A. D. In Matthew 24 we find a particular propensity to intensify whatever Jesus said in this regard to apply end-time prophecy to immediate liberation from the Roman yoke. Though it is obvious Jesus spoke on this subject, he was not an apocalyptic prophet. Even his hot-head disciples don't quote Jesus as speaking on the matter to the crowds nor even in secret until immediately before he was crucified.

The second (or third, depending on whether we follow Kloppenborg's dubious separation or Casey's chaotic version) layer o Q material that comes to us from a Greek translation does not necessarily have to be late. These portions could have been written up in Greek originally or could have been translated from Aramaic to Greek with only this latter document known to the evangelists. Using style instead of presupposed ideological contrasts (as per Kloppenborg and the whole Jesus Seminar crowd), I don't find that much difference between Q1 and Q2 (or Q3, etc.) Yet I'm willing to concede that the more purely obviously early "Q" sayings do tend to support a Historical Jesus who is more like a Cynic philosopher (and Franciscan monk) than like any Caesaropapist (or certainly not Byzantine Orthodox) state religion.
M and its perhaps identical secondary Marcan layer could well be later, from the '60's, let's say, with the Gospel of Matthew written in that decade.[/quote]

Excellent analysis. I'm out of the loop in terms of Hebrewisms and Aramaic originals in Matthew. I don't know what they are saying about that know. I think back when i studied Greek (they hadn't had the Trojan war yet) they were saying there weren't any.

[spin]

One thing that always bothers me is these synoptic don't give any trace of the temple being recently destroyed.

There are indications. Remember the temple curtain being rent in two, exposing the holy of holies, thus marking the overthrow of the temple. Then there's the parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-12), in which the vineyard with its tower was given over to others, ie Jerusalem was captured (and the loss of the temple), literally by the Romans, but spiritually the christians took over. The vaticinium ex eventu in Mk 13:2 is a reflection on the loss of the temple. So it is there. You just won't like the fact that prophecies are more likely than not to be post hoc. Feel free to explain these away. I just thought if you really wanted to know, I'd help.