Quick Question

[Dhampir]

And I guess the Pauline epistles too. It's been bugging me for a while, but no extant version of the original texts exist, and the ones we have are from at least decades later than what we surmise is the earliest they could have come about. That said, how do we know that say, the book of Mark is from around 65- 70 a.d. if the earliest copy we have is from much later? Same goes for the other gospels and Paul's works.

 

No one yet has thought to ask me how we know when the gospels etc. were authored, but I'd like to have a good answer for when someone does.

[Ouroboros]

My understanding is that the dating is done through the text itself, like style, grammar, choice of words and so on. It's like if you read a text on internet today and it say things like "dude", "hang loose" and such, or if it says "noob", "haxor" or "lol", you can figure out in which century it most likely were written. Or take the word "gay", and how it's used in the 50's movies compared to today. Language evolves, and the words and grammar are like the mDNA mutations.

 

-edit-

 

I would find it rather amusing if they used any dating method that's used in regular science, since if all of them are wrong and dates everything "too old", that would mean the date for the fragments probably would place them just a few years back. What I mean is that if Carbon dating places some things 50,000 years ago, and Creationists claim it's only 5,000 years old, then a 2,000 years old carbon dated artifact would be only... 200 years?

[1oddmanout]

Hello, Dhampir! Some studies have dated the Gospels by internal evidence and references to the temple, which we know fell around 70CE. If the stories seem to be in the past tense, then written after.

 

The Epistles are another matter. I had the opportunity to devote significant "time" writing out and dating things, and developed a chronological reading of the Scriptures. Some theologians have done so, notably Reeses Chronoligical Bible and I found a rare copy of an 1880 comparison of the Kings/Chronicles story (wonderful), but if you'd care to try this out yourself:

Read Luke, then Acts 13.1, then read James.

Then, Acts 13.2-15.3, then Jude.

Acts 15.4-18.11, then 1, 2 Thess and Hebrews

Acts 18.12, then 19.10 (or 13), then 1, 2, 3, John

Continue to Acts 19.21, then 1 Cor

on to Acts 20.1, then 2 Cor (ignore the pre-1 Cor and 3 Cor that were running around)

to 20.17, then Gal

to 21.1, then Romans

a long read to Acts 25.1, then 1, 2 Peter

then finish Acts.

Then read Phillippians, Colossians, Eph, Philemon

(I consider MArk and Matt were compiled around this time)

1 Tim, Titus, 2 Tim

then John and Rev.

 

I hope this is complete; I lost the original printed sheets I had, but kept a Bible that I had penciled in the points in the margins. Readig this reveals Paul developing from a heartfelt devotee to the new cult and becoming a self-absorbed martinet.

 

If you'd care, I have a lovely chronological compilation of David's Psalms inserted in the timeline of 1, 2 Sam and 1 Chr and 1 Kings. I'd have to fax the complete Bible schedule I wrote.

Enjoy!

[Dhampir]

My understanding is that the dating is done through the text itself, like style, grammar, choice of words and so on. It's like if you read a text on internet today and it say things like "dude", "hang loose" and such, or if it says "noob", "haxor" or "lol", you can figure out in which century it most likely were written. Or take the word "gay", and how it's used in the 50's movies compared to today. Language evolves, and the words and grammar are like the mDNA mutations.

I have no idea how I changed your smiley to that Monroe one Anyway, that's actually what I thought happened; I was prepared to give that as an answer if I was ever asked. Just now, it won't feel like I'm bullshitting. Go figure.

 

1oddmanout: That looks like a whole lot of studying. I'm going to look into it, but I'll have to wait for that research bug to get me again before I fully explore it. Thanks for the info!

[Grandpa Harley]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

This gives a pretty good over view of current scholarship on the matter...

[Mythra]

Scholars have two terms they like to use: Terminus post quem and Terminus ante quem. (they like to use latin, cause it makes them sound smart)

 

These terms mean, basically "earliest possible date" and "latest possible date", or something like that.

 

Of course, it's almost universal that the more conservative the scholar, the earlier their guesses on the dating. Except when it comes to GThomas or some of the other gnostic writings. Then of course, they are ALL second or third century.

 

JBL (Journal of Biblical Studies) has a decent, short article on the subject that's well worth the read:

 

http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Is...ian_gospels.htm