How mainstream is the claim that the 4 Canonical Gospels were Written during the 2nd Century CE?

[schillingklaus]

Paul and the apostles only exist in the blooming fantasy of right-wing fundamentalist apologists like Ehrman. Critical observers know that they are all late midrash of Judaizers and euhemerists.

[ABuddhist]

Paul and the apostles only exist in the blooming fantasy of right-wing fundamentalist apologists like Ehrman. Critical observers know that they are all late midrash of Judaizers and euhemerists.

You are wrong to dismiss Ehrman as a right-wing fundamentalist apologist. Also, critical observers have a variety of understandings of those figures.

[neilgodfrey]

I think Mark and Matthew are first century, but Luke-Acts and John I think are second century.

That seems reasonable to me, honestly.

I don't know if this time-line is a "mainstream" view (the most recent published statement I could find by a "scholar in the know" says most scholars in the business date the gospels to the first century) ... but I am interested in knowing the grounds by which Chris, you, others, arrive at this schedule: Mk and Mt first century, Luke-Acts and John second.

[ABuddhist]

I think Mark and Matthew are first century, but Luke-Acts and John I think are second century.

That seems reasonable to me, honestly.

I don't know if this time-line is a "mainstream" view (the most recent published statement I could find by a "scholar in the know" says most scholars in the business date the gospels to the first century) ... but I am interested in knowing the grounds by which Chris, you, others, arrive at this schedule: Mk and Mt first century, Luke-Acts and John second.

Writing only as an amateur whom others may judge to be intelligent and thoughtful, my reasoning is not systematic nor well-reasoned, but is based upon the following points.

Mark as 1st century document:

Its apocalyptic "prophecies" can be understood as reactions to the Jewish Revolt in 66-73 CE. I am aware that such things have also been said about Bar Kokhba's revolt, but such later dating would, I think, place too little time during which a strong tradition of a Jesus as preacher/miracleworker before his death on Earth could have developed and been accepted by Justin and other undeniable 2nd century Christian writers. I also note that this 1st century date is accepted by fundamentalist Christians, anti-religious mythicists, and even more moderate mainstream and allegedly secular scholarship, so it must have a lot going for it.

Matthew as a 1st century Document:

It seems to have been written as a reaction to the bizarre, frightening, enigmatic Jesus in Mark, portraying him as having had a miraculous birth, a career as preaching publicly and coherently, and as being reconciled to his disciples. This suggests that it post-dates Mark. I date it to the 1st century still because of the fact that Justin cited traditions from it during the second century (and we need to take into account time for transmitting and accepting such texts), and even assuming (as I suspect) that he was working from some type of single document, I assume that it would have incorporated Matthew's tales. Furthermore, the Acts Seminar has dated Acts to the 2nd century, and Luke-Acts (understood as a united whole) are thus understandable as 2nd century reactions to Matthew.

Luke as a 2nd century Document:

The Acts Seminar has dated Acts to the 2nd century, and Luke-Acts (understood as a united whole) are thus understandable as 2nd century reactions to Matthew. Furthermore, Luke's strong association with Marcion, active during the 2nd century CE, suggests that Luke originated during that time in two mutually exclusive ways. If Marcion truly used a Marcionized version of Luke for his gospel, as tradition says, then such could be explained as a good faith effort by him to use the most recent and most perfected gospel. On a personal level, I am inclined to take Marcion as a fundamentally honest and sincere person struggling to make sense from a nonsensical religion made even stranger by other people's dishonesty and forgeries. As a further development of the preceding remark, if one conclude, as some have, that Luke was instead a reaction to Marcion's Gospel falsely claimed to predate Marcion's Gospel, then that would definitely place it in the 2nd century.

John as a 2nd century Document:

I base this upon traditions that the author was very old (clearly an excuse to justify its late appearance), and upon the writings by Roger Parvus, which to me show conclusively that John was written as a reaction to Marcionitism during the 2nd century CE.

[davidmartin]

I don't know AB, I think Matthew is around the same time as the reworked EV into Luke or a bit later. No way 1st century, early 2nd
John can be earlier than Matthew and this Luke. I think there's a difference between being useful against Marcionism and written against it but it has had an orthodox airbrushing maybe that's what Parvus is seeing.

[ABuddhist]

I don't know AB, I think Matthew is around the same time as the reworked EV into Luke or a bit later. No way 1st century, early 2nd
John can be earlier than Matthew and this Luke. I think there's a difference between being useful against Marcionism and written against it but it has had an orthodox airbrushing maybe that's what Parvus is seeing.

Parvus certainly agrees that GJohn was severely edited by the proto-Orthodox during the 2nd century, but he claims that its original form was a 2nd century composition by a non-Marcionite sect for, among other purposes, countering Marcionite claims.

[neilgodfrey]

Mark as 1st century document:

Its apocalyptic "prophecies" can be understood as reactions to the Jewish Revolt in 66-73 CE. I am aware that such things have also been said about Bar Kokhba's revolt, but such later dating would, I think, place too little time during which a strong tradition of a Jesus as preacher/miracleworker before his death on Earth could have developed and been accepted by Justin and other undeniable 2nd century Christian writers. I also note that this 1st century date is accepted by fundamentalist Christians, anti-religious mythicists, and even more moderate mainstream and allegedly secular scholarship, so it must have a lot going for it.

Is it necessary to assume that ideas about deeds and words of Jesus only began from the time the Gospel of Mark was written? Justin's references to sayings of Jesus and events in his life rarely contain any apparent allusion to anything we read in the Gospel of Mark. When Matthew and Luke engaged with Mark's gospel they had at hand other deeds and sayings of Jesus to draw upon to add to what was in Mark's gospel.

Markus Vinzent points out another non-mainstream criticism, though one that finds support in Richard Bauckham's studies: that is, that the many problems and disputes over the "synoptic problem" that are still unresolved could hardly have arisen if, as mainstream has long supposed, the gospels were written in different geographical areas for different local communities. If that were the case one would expect to see less ambiguous evidence of how each of the gospels was written in response to others over several years. Rather, the canonical gospels have the marks of being written in dialogue with one another within the same time-frame and common location. All of them, but especially the synoptic gospels, also appear to be rejoinders to the first gospel composed, the one by Marcion.

[ABuddhist]

Markus Vinzent points out another non-mainstream criticism, though one that finds support in Richard Bauckham's studies: that is, that the many problems and disputes over the "synoptic problem" that are still unresolved could hardly have arisen if, as mainstream has long supposed, the gospels were written in different geographical areas for different local communities. If that were the case one would expect to see less ambiguous evidence of how each of the gospels was written in response to others over several years. Rather, the canonical gospels have the marks of being written in dialogue with one another within the same time-frame and common location.

Same timeframe is to me (and others) decades rather than years, although we agree that they were written in response to each other.

[neilgodfrey]

Mark as 1st century document:

Its apocalyptic "prophecies" can be understood as reactions to the Jewish Revolt in 66-73 CE. I am aware that such things have also been said about Bar Kokhba's revolt, but such later dating would, I think, place too little time during which a strong tradition of a Jesus as preacher/miracleworker before his death on Earth could have developed and been accepted by Justin and other undeniable 2nd century Christian writers. I also note that this 1st century date is accepted by fundamentalist Christians, anti-religious mythicists, and even more moderate mainstream and allegedly secular scholarship, so it must have a lot going for it.

Matthew as a 1st century Document:

It seems to have been written as a reaction to the bizarre, frightening, enigmatic Jesus in Mark, portraying him as having had a miraculous birth, a career as preaching publicly and coherently, and as being reconciled to his disciples. This suggests that it post-dates Mark. I date it to the 1st century still because of the fact that Justin cited traditions from it during the second century (and we need to take into account time for transmitting and accepting such texts), and even assuming (as I suspect) that he was working from some type of single document, I assume that it would have incorporated Matthew's tales. Furthermore, the Acts Seminar has dated Acts to the 2nd century, and Luke-Acts (understood as a united whole) are thus understandable as 2nd century reactions to Matthew.

These are indeed some of the mainstream arguments for the mainstream dating of Mark and Matthew.

There is a logical drawback to them, however. The justifications for the first century dating are actually additional hypotheses that are not required for a later dating.

One additional hypothesis is that Justin was reliant directly or indirectly on Mark and Matthew for his knowledge of details about Jesus. This hypothesis essentially begs the question that is being asked: it assumes the existence of the M and M as available sources prior to Justin.

It also assumes that M & M were not known as gospels in Justin's time even though "gospel" is the opening description of Mark, and our earliest independent attestation of these gospels shows that they were known by the names "according to Mark and Matthew".

Is not the simpler hypothesis, the one with the need for fewer supporting hypotheses, that M & M were written not too long before we discover independent knowledge of their existence in the writings of Irenaeus?

Does not a first century dating rely upon multiple hypotheses to justify the lack of clear evidence for their existence until the mid to late second century?

[rgprice]

I am quite positive that Matthew, Luke and John are all 2nd century. Mark I'm not sure about, but am open to either possibility... well when I say "Mark" I mean "proto-Mark". Canonical Mark is also definitely post-Marcion, but I believe that there was a proto-Mark that was very similar to canonical Mark, and JM may have read proto-Mark.

JM appears to know a crucifixion scene that is identical to the one in Mark, which is different from Marcion. But clearly JM focuses on the fact that the narrative he knows contains many scenes that correspond to the Jewish scriptures, indicating that Jesus fulfilled scripture. For this reason I think he has to be reading something very similar to Mark and not similar to Marcion.

And there is testimony about the Gospel story that apparently pre-dates JM as well. The apology of Aristides seems to rely on a Gospel account similar to the canonical ones. How reliable is the dating of this testimony?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/aristides.html

According to Eusebius, both Quadratus and Aristides presented Christian apologies to the Emperor Hadrian at Athens, probably in 124 C.E. Aristides was unknown to scholars for many years, though his work survived in at least two 4th-century papyri (POxy. 15: 1778).

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

What stock can be put in this and its dating?