Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years...

[Chad]

Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?


Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.

In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.

The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.

Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.

Paul's Writings: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.

Hebrews

It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.

James

This epistles claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:18-19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61. 1

1 and 2 Peter

Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 1:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name.

Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time.

1, 2, and 3 John

The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name,1 John 2:18... Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John's larger Epistle.'"2"In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue."3

Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc. It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts. Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4

Jude

Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).5 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done.
The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.6

Revelation

The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139 - 161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle's work."6 Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.

Conclusion

Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be settled absolutely, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.

• 1.The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.
• 2.Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.
• 3.Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.
• 4.Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
• 5.This is not Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus - "Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?" (John 14:22). Also, Clement of Alexandria [Adumbrations, in Epistle of Jude, p. 1007] says, "Jude, through reverential awe, did not call himself brother, but servant, of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Jamieson, Robert;Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.
• 6.a. b. Jamieson, Robert; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible.

​Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[PrayerWarr1or]

something amazing about the New Testament that I always find is how it is so often referenced in the Old Testament. Truly the word of God comes full circle.

Job 19:25 for example

 

[DHC]

Paul's Writings: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.

Hello Chad.

I was reading your post above and noticed an erroneous paragraph. You stated the following information.

Furthermore, in 1 Cor 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen.
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor 15:3-4). Notice that
he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction
with them.

Normally Chad the topics and discussions in your threads are very good and I usually look forward to reading them. Not so with this post, it
does appear that you presented a flawed post. Here is what you claimed;

Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them.

Paul did receive the Gospel but not from a human source. Paul's testimony to the Galatians was that Jesus Christ Himself delivered the Gospel to Paul.
As the following passage asserts.

Galatians 1
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Further Chad, you mentioned that Paul had a lot of interaction with the apostles. This also is not true, once again
Paul's letter to the Galatians makes it clear that Paul's interaction with the apostles was minimal.

Galatians 1
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
20 Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.
21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;

So Paul only saw Peter and James on this first visit to Jerusalem. Paul's next visit to the apostles was not for another 14 years.

Galatians 2
2 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Then you attempted to conclude that Paul received the Gospel from eyewitnesses. As you stated the below;

This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses.

Paul was himself an eyewitness of the risen Christ, please read the following text Chad.

1 Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Everyone makes mistakes Chad so please do not take this in a personal way.

 

[Chad]

Thanks for your input @DHC. I think it's best to share your thoughts with carm.org writer Matt himself and you can respond back here with his reply. I find his writings profound and truthful over the years I've read the articles.

Be blessed.

 

[DHC]

Thanks for your input @DHC. I think it's best to share your thoughts with carm.org writer Matt himself and you can respond back here with his reply. I find his writings profound and truthful over the years I've read the articles.

Be blessed.

Hello Chad.

Will follow through and request an explanation from CARM.

I have utilized their site a number of times over the years, surprised
they have made such simple errors. Will get back to you with their reply
Chad.

 

[New Legacy]

Most scholars would say the NT was written between 50-110. I have never heard anyone seriously claim it went beyond that. John indicates that it was written after the first generation of Christians had died off.

 

[farout]

Where do we find that Paul was killed in 64 AD?

 

[james1523]

What assurances do we have that the Scripture is accurate even up to 100 years after Christ. 50 to 100 years is still a long time to remember anything.

Is memory lapse the reason for minor discrepancies between the gospels? I believe that minor discrepancies in accounts is proof of the authenticity of the events and experiences.

 

[farout]

What assurances do we have that the Scripture is accurate even up to 100 years after Christ. 50 to 100 years is still a long time to remember anything.

Is memory lapse the reason for minor discrepancies between the gospels? I believe that minor discrepancies in accounts is proof of the authenticity of the events and experiences.

What discrepancies do you say are in the Gospels? I don't know of any off hand. Thanks or your help.

 

[Last Things]

What assurances do we have that the Scripture is accurate even up to 100 years after Christ. 50 to 100 years is still a long time to remember anything.

Is memory lapse the reason for minor discrepancies between the gospels? I believe that minor discrepancies in accounts is proof of the authenticity of the events and experiences.

What do you believe by accurate?

The Gospels have slightly different accounts based on what they are trying to convey. Details can be changed in order to suit the meaning of the story. Today we think factual differences suggest lack of accuracy. We use our standard on them, and then people get upset whenever you suggest that the bible does not measure up to our standards.

 

[james1523]

What discrepancies do you say are in the Gospels? I don't know of any off hand. Thanks or your help.

In Matt 28:8, the women did not report the resurrection.
In Mark 16:8, it says the women did report the resurrection.

Luke 18:35 and Matt 20:30, one says one blind man, the other says two blind men.

To me these discrepancies seem to be memory lapse. Or two different accounts circulating by word of mouth or written account.

 

[james1523]

What do you believe by accurate?

The Gospels have slightly different accounts based on what they are trying to convey. Details can be changed in order to suit the meaning of the story. Today we think factual differences suggest lack of accuracy. We use our standard on them, and then people get upset whenever you suggest that the bible does not measure up to our standards.

I mean accuracy as referring to how accurate the Bible portrays the words and events. Minor differences between the gospels indicates authenticity, but not accuracy.

 

[Last Things]

In Matt 28:8, the women did not report the resurrection.
In Mark 16:8, it says the women did report the resurrection.

Luke 18:35 and Matt 20:30, one says one blind man, the other says two blind men.

To me these discrepancies seem to be memory lapse. Or two different accounts circulating by word of mouth or written account.

Matthew's Gospels focuses on two and often has twos where the others have one. It is part of the Jewish concept of witnesses to an event, you need two.

 

[RJ]

I think it is best to allow the Holy Spirit to guide you through the scriptures as intended! Doing and professing this will allow you to fully grasp the understanding that the entire Bible ( Begining, Middle and End) has always been about and led us toward Jesus Christ and, it is the inspired word of God; it' purpose is with out error.

 

[Asanima]

Matthew's Gospels focuses on two and often has twos where the others have one. It is part of the Jewish concept of witnesses to an event, you need two.

I think he got it backwards, Mark states that the women did not report it, while Matthew reports that the women did.

But what im puzzled with, is if Matthews gospel focuses on the jewish concept of eye witness accounts, then women would not have been apart of it, since by jewish law, women could not be counted as eyewitnesses, atleast as far as my understanding goes.

Not to mention, this still doesnt demonstrate how its accurate or not. If youre saying that Matthews gospel is concentrating on two where others have only one, then either account is mistaken, for whatever reason.

 

[james1523]

Matthew's Gospels focuses on two and often has twos where the others have one. It is part of the Jewish concept of witnesses to an event, you need two.

So they falsified the account by adding a second person to the event who wasn't there, to satisfy a concept of witnesses?

 

[farout]

A good Study Bible is a worthy investment and then this does not become a matter of personal opinion. Any Study Bible worth reading has the correct answers to this debate. here are no contradictions in the Bible. If there then the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made a mistake? If the Bible is even the slightest untrue than how can you trust it in very critical areas of you salvation? Or did we evolve from slime? I suppose those who have died for their trust in what the Bible says were totally convinced the Bible is 100% trustworthy and true, or they died n vain. I know there are no contradictions and many who have been studying at the PHD level would confirm there is nothing but complete truth from beginning to the end. That's my position too.

 

[Asanima]

A good Study Bible is a worthy investment and then this does not become a matter of personal opinion. Any Study Bible worth reading has the correct answers to this debate. here are no contradictions in the Bible. If there then the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made a mistake? If the Bible is even the slightest untrue than how can you trust it in very critical areas of you salvation? Or did we evolve from slime? I suppose those who have died for their trust in what the Bible says were totally convinced the Bible is 100% trustworthy and true, or they died n vain. I know there are no contradictions and many who have been studying at the PHD level would confirm there is nothing but complete truth from beginning to the end. That's my position too.

Well, the bible was written by human beings, and the common argument made even by christian scholars regarding some of the contradictions, is that they were written by different authors, and that this would necessarily guarantee discrepancies.

I find it a bit short sighted to simply state "The bible is perfect, there are no contradictions". Youre ignoring about a millenniums worth of biblical scholars and discussions and debates regarding this. I mean, does the inspiration from the holy spirit necessarily make you a perfect being, without sin, without bias, without the flaws that normal humans incur? If that were true, id say there would be a lot fewer, for example, Catholics, atleast from a protestant point of view.

 

[Fenn]

Well, the bible was written by human beings, and the common argument made even by christian scholars regarding some of the contradictions, is that they were written by different authors, and that this would necessarily guarantee discrepancies.

I find it a bit short sighted to simply state "The bible is perfect, there are no contradictions". Youre ignoring about a millenniums worth of biblical scholars and discussions and debates regarding this. I mean, does the inspiration from the holy spirit necessarily make you a perfect being, without sin, without bias, without the flaws that normal humans incur? If that were true, id say there would be a lot fewer, for example, Catholics, atleast from a protestant point of view.

Do you then believe there is no divine protection over the authenticity of the word?
If you believe there is divine protection, then does it stop at a certain level of detail?
If you believe there is no divine protection, then how can you trust any portion of it?

 

[Last Things]

So they falsified the account by adding a second person to the event who wasn't there, to satisfy a concept of witnesses?

For them, that is not falsifying. Changing details or the order of events was not important to them. What was important was what it conveyed.

The bible is the word of God spoken through the words of men. It relies on words as they understood it and concepts they had. The bible does not need to conform to our concepts. For us, the exact number is required.