Dating the Gospels



Introduction
    Before saying anything about the possible date of the composition of the four canonical gospels, it is necessary to comment on some of the issues that invariably arise when the transmission of the New Testament (NT) text is discussed.
    Christians frequently refer to the many thousands of MSS in existence as if this demonstrates the weight of evidence for Christianity. What they overlook is that even if there were many millions of such MSS, this would make absolutely no difference whatsoever: a lie repeated many millions of times remains a lie. The amount of times that a fictional story is repeated does not transform it into an actual event.
    Secondly, Christians will often compare the number of NT MSS with the texts available for other characters in history. This once again is wholly irrelevant. It makes no difference how many texts there are as the fact remains that we do not have any first century MSS, and in the case of the second century, what MSS exist are dated (at the earliest) after 125 CE, and most are after 150-175 CE, and these are primarily only fragments. The fact that early Christians were able to copy documents obviously proves nothing. Moreover, those extant writings from the second century are, as stated, usually little more than fragments: full copies do not appear until the fourth century, e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and by this time the documents of the NT had been clearly subjected to a lengthy period of alterations, editing, and supposed 'corrections'. In the case of Sinaticus, this document was 'corrected' many thousands of times (Parker believes it has some 23,000 corrections - David C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus. The Story of the World's Oldest Bible, p. 3), and Vaticanus also reveals numerous variations in the text. As noted by Burgon, 'Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history...it bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence' (John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p73).
    The full absurdity is shown not only by the variants within the texts but between different texts. For example, the disagreements between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (as outlined by H. C. Hoskier in Codex B and Its Allies, a Study and an Indictment, p1):
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

 656
 567
 791
1022

    Therefore the claims made by Christians on this issue are without merit.
    Furthermore, there is the very significant point that Christian copyists made not only errors that were not picked up by basic checking, but they also made deliberate changes to the text to suit their own theological viewpoint (e.g., Matt 24:36, Luke 16:18). This is a very clear indication that the Christians of the early period did not regard these writings to be divinely inspired or infallible.



    The following deals with only the most basic facts. The reader is encouraged to consult a suitable reference book. W. G. Kummel's Introduction to the NT (SCM, 1977) is recommended.

Mark
    There are a number of problems with determining the date when Mark was written. Firstly, Mark is supposed to have been written by the 'John Mark' of Acts 12:12 and based on the recollections of Peter. Eusebius stated that Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis, had written (ca..110-135 CE):
"[John] the Elder also said this, 'Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord's logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.'
Ecclesiastical History (3.39.15)
    The idea that Mark was based on Peter's memories is also stated by Irenaeus: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”. Against Heresies (3:1).
     However, this clearly is not so in view of the chronological, historical, geographical and theological errors in Mark, relating to 1st. cent Palestine.
     Secondly, we have no idea of how many different editions of Mark may have appeared as the original writing was amended by Christian copyists on numerous occasions. For example, Mark 16 has four different endings arising from an early date (16:8, 16:9-14, 16:14-15 (Freer Logion), 16:15-20), and there is no valid reason to believe other changes were not made to Mark in the decades after composition and publication.
    The original Mark may have only been a record of sayings attributed to Jesus and the story of his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. At one stage, Mark may have concluded at 13:37 (as suggested by Etienne Trocme, in The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark) with an account of the trial, death and resurrection (chapters 14-16) written elsewhere (possibly Rome), and added on at a later date.
    Manuscript evidence does not assist as the earliest extant MS of Mark is P45, and is dated ca. 250 CE. However, these factors are not directly relevant to the issue to be considered here which is the date, or the earliest date that Mark was composed, and I will deal with this issue alone. All we need to do is consider (a)the first external witness to Mark where the date of composition is known, and (b)the internal evidence, and also review the manuscript (MS) evidence.
    Those who date Mark's composition before 60CE will no doubt be surprised that both Ignatius, writing 110 CE, and Polycarp, writing in the third or fourth decade of the second century, show no indication of knowing Mark. Nonetheless, as Ignatius follows Matthew and the author of Matthew used Mark (although possibly this was an earlier version to the one we have now), it would seem logical to assume that Mark was written before 110 CE.
    Therefore the earliest external witness to the existence of Mark's Gospel is Ignatius, ca. 110 CE, but (a)even this is indirect (i.e, it is based on Ignatius' knowledge of Matthew) and (b)the Mark in existence at this time may have been an earlier version of the Gospel that we now have.
    Mark has Jesus referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (that occurred in 70CE), and this in itself suggests a post-70 date (although is is suggested the destriction to which Mark refers may in fact be the second century destruction and rebuilding of the city under Hadrian as 'Aelia Capitolina'.)
    Christians in the first century living in Roman-occupied lands were naturally reluctant to go into any great detail about Roman barbarism and they adopted cryptic terminology, e.g., Revelation referring to Rome as the 'harlot' and Mark apparently referring to the desolation of Jerusalem as 'the desolating sacrilege' (adding 'let the reader understand') - 13:14. It has been suggested there is evidence in Mark 13 shows the author believed the end of the world would follow the destruction of the Temple. and he would not have written this if he was composing the gospel decades after Jerusalem's destruction. This does not necessarily follow: Revelation, written in the closing years of the first century, still shows a clear belief in an imminent return of Jesus, so a date in the closing years of the first century or even a very early second century date for Mark's composition is more than possible (95-105CE).

Matthew
    In the case of Matthew, Eusebius reports that Papias had said, "But about Matthew`s this was said: 'For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able'." (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16)
    The problems here are that Matthew (a)is a narrative and not just a 'sayings source', and it is therefore unclear whether the Matthew to which Papias referred was the same as the canonical Matthew that we now have. (b)There is no indication that the Matthew we now have was ever written in Hebrew or 'in Hebrew style'. (c)Papias is not known for his reliability, e.g., Eusebius the fourth century church historian, refers to him as 'a man of exceedingly small intelligence' (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13).
    As stated above in respect of Mark, Ignatius, ca.110, knew of Matthew although whether this was the edition that we have now remains an open question.
    As far as the internal testimony is concerned, it is evident that the author of Matthew was looking back to 70 CE as a time in the past. When the author records the speech by Jesus in Matthew 24, he attempts to distinguish the Fall of Jerusalem from the end time, something that Mark does not do. He also puts into Jesus' mouth a warning that there will be an interval between the time of speaking and the end (23:38-39). Therefore the most likely date will be after Mark and before 110CE.

Luke
    As Wells comments, 'Luke's gospel is decidedly later [than Matt] and he [the author] himself admits that he was redacting previous ones' (G.A. Wells, Jesus of the Early Christians, p.117).
    As with the other three gospels, Luke is anonymous: the titles of the Gospels are nothing more than 'second century guesses'.
    The author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles in which he portrays himself as a companion of the apostle Paul by using the first person plural in certain passages (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28). However, as the author knows nothing of Pauline theology, makes no mention of his letters and is certainly ignorant of Paul's fiery relationship with the community at Corinth that necessitated several visits there, it is suggested that the usage of 'we' in Acts is no more than a literary device.
    It is also suggested the inclusion of 'we' is the work of a redactor while Ehrman proposes it is the result of forgery (Bart D. Ehrman Forged, pp.206-208). As in the case of the Gospels, because there is no extant early copy of Acts, it cannot be known what the original Acts said.
    Acts has clearly been subject to a considerable amount of editing: there are three different families of texts, the Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. The MSS from the second group has about ten per cent more content than the third group.
    The earliest extant MS of Acts is uncial 0189, a single vellum leaf, from the late second-early third centuries with just 8 verses from Acts 5:3-21. The third century MSS are only fragments: P29 Acts 26:7-8 and 26:20. P38 Acts 18:27-19:6,12-16. P45 Acts 4-17. P48 Acts 23:11-29. P53 Acts 9:33-10:1, and P91 2:30-37; 2:46-3:2. Even the Acts in Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century is not complete, lacking 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29. Comfort comments: 'Acts and the general epistles suffered a rocky road on their way into the NT canon. Many Christians in the first three for four centuries did not know of these writings and/or did not use them. Thus, their textual history is spotty, and their transmission is somewhat erratic' (Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts, p.39).
    In Luke 21:24, there is a time interval between Jerusalem's Fall and 'the times of the Gentiles' being fulfilled, when there will be signs in the sky that signal the coming parousia which in Mark is said to follow the Fall (Mark 13:24-29). Therefore Luke must have been written when the Christian community was seeking an explanation and creating excuses for the failure of Jesus to return in 'this generation': this factor pushes the time of writing to the very end of the first century and probably into the early second.
    The fact that Acts makes no mention of Paul's letters indicates that the author did not know of them but as they were known to Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp of Smyrna, this suggests that Luke-Acts were not written after 100-110 CE. However, the author may have chosen not to mention Paul's letters and this would allow a post-100-110 CE date of composition ending at 140 CE when Marcion included Luke in his canon. The factor often overlooked is that the communication between different Christian communities would sometimes be poor: imagine how much (or little) the Johannine community would have communicated with the Pauline or Markan communities. It is possible that a writing or writings that became important to one group were ignored or unknown to other groups of believers and this may have been the situation with the community in which Luke-Acts were composed.
    The Paul of Acts certainly bears no resemblance to the Paul of 1 and 2 Cor, Galatians and 1 Thess, and the Luke-Acts community may have preferred to believe in the Paul portrayed in Acts, and this may be the reason why none of his letters are mentioned in Acts. Consequently, the fact that the letters were known to Clement, etc., is not relevant when trying to determine a likely date for Luke and Acts.
    Therefore, a date between 100 and 140 CE is most likely for Luke' composition.

John
    John, the Fourth Gospel is independent of the synoptics and it is likely that the author knew did not know of them, and if he did, it was only in their initial compositions. It is possible that he may have known of some of the stories used by them, receiving these through his own community.
    In John, presents Jesus as the divine Logos in an almost Gnostic-form who is very different from the character portrayed by the Synoptics. His ministry is not one year as the Synoptics depict it, but at least three years; the Logos makes no secret of his identity and makes no request to his disciples for this to be kept hidden (unlike Mark). The author also locates the last supper and crucifixion one day earlier than the Synoptics to suit his own theological motive. Editing is clear by the 7:59ff story and that John 21 appears to be an appendix as there is a concluding summary of the Gospel at 20:30-31 (A fourth century Sahidic papyrus manuscript came to light in 2006 that appeared to have ended at 20:31).
    Even in the case of P52, one of the early MSS, being dated between 125 and 150CE and containing John 18:31-33 and 18:37-38, a variation is evident:, i.e., there is no room for second instance of , the words 'for this' which is present in other manuscripts, thus indicating that even this early and very small fragment includes either a deliberate alteration and/or error (Bultmann suggested the writing which we now have is not in the order it was written, and in his translation, Moffatt makes a number of major changes to the order of the text in the Fourth Gospel.)
    The eschatology of John is virtually all realized as the author has given up an expectation of the parousia as predicted in say, Mark 13. This suggests a date of composition well into the second century with Rylands P52 representing the earliest possible date. If P52 is dated ca. 140 CE, and allowing for John to be copied and circulated, then 110-120 CE is a reasonable date for composition. It is of course possible that P52 was part of an MS that did not resemble the current Fourth Gospel and may have only been from a small collection of Johannnine-Jesus sayings: indeed it may have been compiled and/or used by a group with very little, if anything in common with the mainstream church at the time. As sayings found in the Synoptics are found in Gnostic writings, P52 may not have even had any relationship with the mainstream church.
    It should be noted that while the Fourth Gospel existed in the first part of the second century, Christian writers who were active in the second century such as Polycarp did not quote it, and it is not until Tatian composed his harmony of the four Gospels in ca. 170 CE that there is evidence that this Gospel was accepted as legitimate reading by Christians. It was some ten years later that Ireaneus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote and insisted that Christians should accept four and only four Gospels, one of which was John (Against Heresies, 3.11.8).
* In one text Justin Martyr says he hem. Furthermore, Justin may quote John 3:3 when he says "For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" (1 Apol. 61.4), but this may have been a loose saying circulating among the Christian congregations. However, Justin Martyr wrote in the mid-second century and there is no dispute that the Fourth Gospel existed by the mid-second century CE.