3 New Testament Dating

We saw in the first two chapters that we have the right words and that genres are also helpful indicators for reliability. We must now consider the date of these writings. Were they written shortly after the events themselves or centuries later? In other words, do we have writings from the right time? The conclusion of this chapter is summed up by well-known agnostic/atheist Bart Ehrman: “Virtually the only Christian writings that can be reliably dated to the first century are found in the New Testament itself, although we know other Christian books were produced at this time.” In other words, the New Testament was written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses.

In this chapter we will limit our discussion to introducing some generally accepted dates for the Gospels and Paul’s writings. I will not be arguing for or against any specific dates for these writings, only presenting some common date ranges from scholars from differing theological backgrounds. For those interested in the details of such debates, they can be found in New Testament introductions or commentaries as well as specialized books on the subject. It is also helpful to consider at least two or three different introductions or commentaries as one begins looking into the dynamics involved in dating the various New Testament writings. Our discussion, however, will conclude with findings from the most recent scholarly research, which argues for an even earlier dating of the Gospels than is generally presented.

Before getting into the dates, it is beneficial to note three points regarding the importance of the dates. First, having an early date is something that generally only adds to the reliability of a text. It is not a guarantee of all aspects of that text. Nevertheless, historians do not wish for or desire later sources. Recall our map analogy for a moment. Having a text dated relatively soon after an event is like zooming in more on the map. It helps give more confidence to our understanding of the landscape than later texts would.

Second, I will typically be using round numbers unless otherwise noted. This is because this chapter is a general introduction to dating, and some flexibility or estimation is appropriate. Third, while there is some discussion about when Jesus was crucified—AD 30 or 33—I will be using the date of AD 30 as our baseline. Not only does it give us a nice round number to begin with, but it is also the date typically preferred by scholars. By using this date as our fixed starting point, we will better understand the length of time between the writings and the events themselves.

GOSPELS

Before discussing the dates for the Gospels, it is important to note that the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) reflect a relationship with one another. In some instances these three Gospels have very similar wording and/or structure (e.g., Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17- 26). This has led scholars to consider how the Gospel writers used their sources (see Luke 1:1-4), and this discussion is referred to as the Synoptic problem.

While Matthew used to be thought of as the first Gospel written, the dominant view today is that the first Gospel author was Mark (a theory known as Markan priority). Some of the reasons for this are Mark’s brevity, the similarities of Matthew and Luke with Mark, and Mark’s more primitive style. Thus, although Matthew is first in the New Testament, Mark is considered by most today to have been the first Gospel written.

Popular dates for the writing of the Gospels generally fall anywhere between the 50s and 90s AD. Craig Blomberg points out that evangelicals generally, though not universally, date Matthew, Mark, and Luke to the late 50s AD and into the 60s, while more theologically liberal scholars often prefer later dates. These later dates are reflected in the following estimations:

Mark: around AD 65 (or thirty-five years after Jesus’ death)

Matthew and Luke: around AD 80–85 (or fifty to fifty-five years after Jesus’ death)

John: around AD 95 (or sixty-five years after Jesus’ death)

Note that although I have listed the “later” dates, this should not be understood as my endorsement of these dates or as an indication that later here means “unreliable.” Providing specific dates for each of the Gospels with the accompanying arguments for and against is beyond the scope of the present work. Rather, I use the later dates here to show that even with these “later” dates, the Gospels were still written within the realm of reliable texts and within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (as I will show below).

Figure 3.1. Common dates for when the Gospels were written

While earlier dates certainly add historical weight, the difference between the earlier dates and later dates seen in figure 3.1 is not worrisome. First, the differences between the two are minimal. Both sets of dates place the writing of the Gospels during the lifetimes of witnesses (both friend and foe) of the reported events. As Blomberg similarly highlights, “Whether written thirty, forty, or fifty years after Jesus’s death, the Gospels were produced well within the lifetimes of some who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry.” Second, as we will see below, dates even earlier than what evangelicals typically put forward have recently been proposed. Third, those who use a minimal facts approach when possible and appropriate (see

) can use the later dates for the sake of the argument anyway. Last, by ancient standards, the dates of the Gospels—regardless of whether one accepts the early or the late dates—are comparatively quite early.

COMPARING SOME DATES

It may be helpful at this point to compare, evidentially, the time gap between the Gospels and other non-Christian writings. For example, what is the time gap between Buddha’s life and when his teachings were recorded? In The Heart of Buddha’s Teachings, well-known Buddhist scholar Thich Naht Hanh writes,

For four hundred years during and after the Buddha’s lifetime, his teachings were transmitted only orally. . . . [By the time they came to be written] it is said that there was only one monk who had memorized the whole canon and that he was somewhat arrogant. The other monks had to persuade him to recite the discourses so they could write them down. When we hear this, we feel a little uneasy knowing that an arrogant monk may not have been the best vehicle to transmit the teachings of the Buddha.

We can reasonably ask, What happened during these centuries? Hanh understands and anticipates such a concern and writes, “Some of the monks who memorized the sutras over the centuries did not understand their deepest meaning, or at the very least, they forgot or changed some words. As a result, some of the Buddha’s teachings were distorted even before they were written down.” These evidential concerns raise significant issues regarding the reliability of Buddha’s teachings, and similar issues affect the writings of other religious worldviews as well.

Such concerns also arise in some, though not all, ancient writings of major political figures. One of the most noted examples is Alexander the Great, who died in 326 BC. The earliest biography we currently have for him is from about two hundred years after his death, by Diodorus. However, the biographies by Arrian and Plutarch are written about another two centuries later and are often considered more reliable.

One important difference between Buddha and Alexander is that Alexander’s biographers refer to earlier sources that they used in their research but which have since been lost. Nevertheless, the gap between Alexander and the biographies we have for him is quite substantial. While not all ancient biographies are this extreme, other examples could similarly be provided here.

We can see, then, by comparing the time gaps between Jesus and the Gospels with the religious teachings of Buddha or biographies of Alexander, that the Gospels are significantly earlier. It should be noted that I am not arguing that here are two bad examples, and therefore the Gospels are “good” by comparison only. Rather, there are a number of other ancient sources that give biographical information that is accepted despite having a far greater gap between the events and the writing of them. The Gospels—along with the rest of the New Testament—were written within the lifetimes of those who were witnesses to various events of Jesus and the early church.

PAUL’S WRITINGS

If we find that the Gospel dates are reasonable, then Paul’s letters are even better, since they are generally dated earlier than the Gospels. Indeed, as the NT scholar Paul Barnett argues, “The letters of the New Testament, in particular the letters of Paul, are the preferred point of historical entry to enquiry into Jesus and the apostolic age,” and one reason for this is that “Paul’s letters are the earliest written sources of information about Christianity.” In other words, the apostle Paul’s writings are very important given the closeness of these writings to the events themselves.

We know from Paul’s life that his writings could not have been earlier than his conversion, which is dated in the early 30s AD, and could not be any later than his martyrdom, in the mid-60s AD. After Paul’s conversion occurred, he traveled and went on various mission trips, according to Acts. Acts thus helps us identify a number of locations and events while also providing various markers that indicate when Paul was in those locations.

For example, we know that Paul was in Corinth for about eighteen months, according to Acts 18:11. In the very next verses (Acts 18:12-17), we learn that Paul was in Corinth while Gallio was the proconsul (or governor). Gallio’s position is known to have been a one-year term and scholars happen to have archaeological evidence that indicates Gallio was the proconsul from AD 51–52. This helps us establish that Paul was making his first trip to Corinth sometime around AD 50, and it lasted into the reign of Gallio. Of course, the precise date will vary depending on when Paul’s period of eighteen months overlapped with Gallio’s period of one year.

Scholars recognize that Paul’s letters to the Corinthians obviously cannot predate his trip to Corinth. Helpfully, Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 16:8 that he was in Ephesus when writing to them (see Acts 19). As a result, 1 Corinthians is usually dated around AD 53–57.

Similar methods are applied to Paul’s other writings. Scholars utilize Paul’s writings and the book of Acts along with other external indicators to help identify the different possible dates for Paul’s letters. Though I cannot discuss the dates of all of Paul’s letters here, I can nevertheless provide a broad time frame for his writings. The general range for Paul’s writings is the late 40s AD through the 60s AD.

Figure 3.2. Common dates for the Gospels and Paul’s letters

Accordingly, Paul’s writings are even older than the Gospels, though there could be some overlap if the earlier dates for the writing of the Gospels are used. In either case, Paul’s writings provide some of the earliest literary data for Jesus and early Christianity from someone who was heavily involved with the movement, as a persecutor then as a preacher; someone who knew the eyewitnesses (see

); and someone who was eventually martyred. Such evidence has key markers of reliability.

EVEN EARLIER GOSPEL DATES?

Jonathan Bernier recently argues against both sets of dates for the Gospels mentioned above in his work Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament. He argues it’s possible that all four Gospels were written even earlier than Paul’s letters. Though I cannot get into the details of his arguments here, the dates he suggests for the Gospels and Paul’s letters can be found in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Bernier’s suggestions for dates of the New Testament writings

New Testament Writing

Date

Matthew

45–59

Mark

42–45

Luke

John

60–70

Acts

Romans

winter of 56/57

1 Corinthians

early 56

2 Corinthians

later 56

Galatians

47–52

Ephesians

57–59

Philippians

57–59

Colossians

57–59

1 Thessalonians

50–52

2 Thessalonians

50–52

1 Timothy (Pauline)

63 or 64

2 Timothy (Pauline)

64–68

Titus (Pauline)

63–64

Philemon

57–59

Source: Dates are pulled from a chart (modified here) in Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 277-78. I am using the Pauline authorship dates for the writings listed, though Bernier also includes a list of dates for works that some have argued are pseudo-Pauline.

Bernier’s work follows and advances an earlier work from 1976 by John A. T. Robinson. Robinson’s arguments were likely even more challenging to the scholars of his day because that time period had a greater skeptical atmosphere than today. Nevertheless, according to Bernier, the significance of these two works is that they are the only two monograph-length studies

published since the turn of the twentieth century by professional biblical scholars who defend lower chronologies for the composition dates of the New Testament corpus, while there have been zero similar studies defending middle or higher chronologies. This puts lower chronologies in an intellectually privileged position. The best way to offset this privilege is for professional New Testament scholars to produce comparable defenses of middle or higher chronologies.

While Bernier’s book remains to be more thoroughly analyzed by scholars, it highlights that there are significant and serious arguments being presented for dates that are earlier than often thought. If the dates are as early as Bernier and Robinson suggest, then the reliability of these writings would increase slightly more. If not, the Gospels were still written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. Either way, the Gospels were written within a reliable time frame.

CONCLUSION

This chapter ends similar to how it started, by highlighting that the New Testament, among other Christian writings, were written prior to the close of the first century. We have seen specifically that the Gospels and Paul’s letters were written within the lifetimes of various witnesses. This holds whether one uses the early or later dates for the Gospels. Moreover, if Bernier is correct, then the Gospels were written considerably earlier than is often thought. As I close this chapter, it is important to note that having reasonable dating for these materials does not automatically guarantee accuracy, though it certainly adds credibility. After all, we do not hear historians saying that they wished they had later sources for an event, let alone desire sources as late as those for Buddha or Alexander.

KEY TAKEAWAYS: NEW TESTAMENT DATING

■ All of the Gospels were written well within the lifetimes of those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and ministry. It is widely accepted that the Gospels were written within decades of Jesus’ life.

■ Paul’s letters were written even earlier than the Gospels. He was writing around twenty years after Jesus’ death.

3 New Testament Dating