All the NT Gospels are reportedly based on eyewitness testimony and written within living memory of Jesus’ life.1 Challenging this claim by attempting to date the Gospels as late as possible has its limitations.
John’s Gospel was the last of the four to have been published, near the end of the first century in Asia Minor.2 There is documentary evidence of a copy of John's Gospel all the way down in Egypt by the early second century.3 Even farther across the Mediterranean Sea in Rome, Justin Martyr in the mid-second century made frequent references in his writings to τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων (“the memoirs of the apostles”),4 alluding to written sources based on the apostles’ testimony (Dial. 106.1).5 His many quotations and allusions include narrative material corresponding to Gospel narratives (e.g., Jesus’ virgin birth, ministry, death, words about giving up his spirit, resurrection). In Apology 66.3 he writes, “For the apostles, in the memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν] composed by them, which are called Gospels [εὐαγγέλια] …”6 Justin’s pupil Tatian of Syria not only had access to all four canonical Gospels but knew them well enough to write by hand and publish in Syriac translation the Diatessaron, a harmony of the massive volume of material.
The Plausibility of Eyewitnesses
Theologian Robert M. Price, who questions whether Jesus even existed, favors a second-century date for all the canonical Gospels.7 This radical assertion, however, is not based on facts but is indicative of an underlying anti-conservative agenda attempting to undermine the integrity of the evidence.8 If copies of all four Gospels were circulating together as a unified corpus by the early decades of the second century,9 permeating and impacting all sides of the Mediterranean, the later dating of each original autograph is far less plausible and frankly unrealistic. Nevertheless, even if Price’s extreme proposition were conceded, it still overlaps the conceivable lifespan of eyewitnesses and certainly those who knew eyewitnesses, historically verified by Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140),10 Clement of Rome (ca. 35-99),11 Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 69-155),12 Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 108),13 and Quadratus of Athens (d. ca. 129).14
The Probability of Eyewitnesses
Although evidence-based scholarship typically rejects the speculative extremes of skeptics like Dr. Price, the further left along the theological spectrum NT scholars are positioned, eager attempts are still made to date the Synoptic Gospels as late as the evidence might allow: Mark (post-70),15 Matthew (80-90),16 Luke (80-90),17 and of course John even later. Their conclusions are essentially built on little more than subjective guesses as compared to the rigorous investigative efforts and documentation reflected among more conservative scholars.18
The contention for late-dating the Synoptics is primarily centered on the prophetic descriptions of Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt. 24:1-34; Mark 13:14-23; Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:20-24, which, if recorded prior to the catastrophic event, would require the divine element of predictive prophecy. If dated after the fact, supernatural intervention is not required. Moreover, the popular assumption of Markan priority necessitates an even later dating for Matthew and Luke. Anti-supernaturalism aside, surely the details of these prophetic records would have been more explicit and less cryptic or enigmatic if created after the fact. And any reports of fulfillment, as would naturally be expected, are conspicuously absent.
The Synoptics place a great deal of emphasis on prophetic fulfillment, particularly Matthew’s twelve fulfillment citations (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9, 35). In addition to the intensified form ἀναπληρόω (Matt. 13:14), the verbal πληρόω (to “fulfill”) in this sense occurs fifteen times in Matthew,19 three times in Mark (1:15; 14:49; 15:28), and six times in Luke,20 along with Luke’s synonymous expressions πληροφορέω (1:1), τελείωσις (1:45), and συμπληρόω (9:51). Debates concerning the ending of Mark notwithstanding, rather than leaving his readers in suspense Mark was careful to affirm the fulfillment of divine promises (14:18-21, 42-45; 14:27, 50; 14:30, 66-72; cf. also 8:31, 9:31, 10:32-34, 14:43–16:6). How does one reasonably account for Jesus’ reported predictions unfulfilled in the Synoptics unless the events foretold had not yet occurred at the time of writing?
The combination of internal, intertextual, and external evidence makes a much stronger and defensible case for the pre-70 dating of Matthew,21 Mark,22 and Luke,23 bringing their records much closer to the actual events than many critics seem willing to concede. C. L. Blomberg comments:
That we have four biographies of Jesus within thirty to sixty years of his death is nothing short of astonishing by ancient standards. No other examples from antiquity have been preserved of this abundance of information from multiple authors in writings so close to the people and events being described. To reject a priori the New Testament Gospels as potential sources of excellent historical information about Jesus of Nazareth is to impose a bias on the study of history, if consistently applied elsewhere, would leave us completely agnostic about anything or anyone in the ancient world!24
The Significance of Eyewitness Testimony
It is important to view the Gospels in their original historical-sociocultural environments. Memory and oral transmission of information cannot realistically be judged according to a twenty-first-century westernized context. Modern psychological research “is not necessarily directly transferable to first-century Palestine, because the different cultural contexts and levels of literacy will have significant effects on memory processes.”25 From an ancient-oral-culture perspective, as opposed to a contemporary-literary-technological perspective, people were much more capable of accurately remembering and transmitting large amounts of information.26
The function of collective memory was particularly significant. Social memory (remembering together) strengthens memory and recall. Each person would presumably have his or her own unique perceptions and recollections, and when compared there would naturally be variations yet combined without distortion. Both the similarities and the differences among the Gospel accounts, without compromising the integrity of the collective whole, are exactly what one would expect. “Through the witness of those who saw and heard Jesus, subsequent generations also see and hear.”27
Long before the Gospels were published, knowledge about the key figures and events of which they speak had been conveyed orally and in writing for many years. Less than three decades after the death of Jesus and reported resurrection, Paul wrote a letter, regarded by mainstream NT scholars as an “undisputed” Pauline document, to the Christian community at Corinth. He himself was a self-professed eyewitness and acquainted with other eyewitnesses,28 and he makes a case for the historical death and resurrection of Jesus by appealing to eyewitness corroboration (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Paul’s record is based on testimony that predates the written account.
About five years earlier he had verbally communicated this information to the Corinthians, which he acknowledged having “received” [παρέλαβον] (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If his reception was by way of supernatural revelation, this confirms for believers divine authorization of the account. Yet earlier in the letter Paul referred to what he had “received from the Lord” (11:23), a qualifier omitted in the present text. If he is claiming to have acquired these details by way of oral reports, the evidence he cites takes us even closer to the events in question. Long before Paul put this in writing, he and many others had been broadcasting this message confirmed by living guarantors of the accounts.
The Gospel records are based on literally hundreds of analogous reports from those willing to suffer and die for their convictions. “But people do not die for a lie they invented if that lie brings them no benefit but instead brings suffering and loss. The apostles died for the testimony to Jesus, and this shows that they believed their report to be true.”29 We can all agree that “bad history never makes for good faith,”30 while “all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony.”31
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Cf. Luke 1:1-4; 24:48; Acts 1:1-3; John 19:35; 21:24; also Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:20; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4.
2 The apostle John reportedly lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117) and was the last of the NT writers to compose a Gospel, according to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.1.1; 3.3.4 (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3); and Eusebius himself (Eccl. Hist. 2.24.7). Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) reports that John’s Gospel was the last of the four to have been written and indicates that John was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7). Jerome marks the apostle’s death at the year 98 (De vir. ill. 9).
3 The John Rylands fragment or P52 or P.Ryl. 3.475 preserves a portion of John 18, acquired by Bernard P. Grenfell in 1920 and published by Colin H. Roberts in 1935; housed in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. See C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1938): 3:1-3. Estimated dates of the fragment have ranged from 100-125 (P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett, eds., The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts 355) to as late as the third century (B. Nongbri, “Paleography, Precision, and Publicity,” NTS 66:4 [Oct. 2020]: 471-499).
4 I Apology 66.3; 67.3-4; Dialogue 100.4; 101.3; 102.5; 103.6, 8; 104.1; 105.1, 5, 6; 106.1, 3, 4; 107.1.
5 See Wally V. Cirafesi and Gregory Peter Fewster, “Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα and Ancient Greco-Roman Memoirs,” Early Christianity 7.2 (2016): 186-212.
6 On the likelihood that Justin knew all four canonical Gospels, see Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” and C. E. Hiss, “Was John’s Gospel Among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. S. Parvis and P. Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007): 53-76, 88-94.
7 Price argues, “Irenaeus is the first to mention Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So they too must have been written before 180 CE. But how much before? There are no clear quotations from them in earlier writers, much less citations by name. Personally, I favor a second-century date for all four canonical gospels” (“Judas Gets his Say,” Theological Publications [2009], <Web>).
8 “The historical critic is conscience bound to explore the very real possibility that the Christian Jesus has been shaped by the dogmatic agenda of the religion that claims him as a warrant for everything it does. The critic must wonder if the ‘official biographies’ of Jesus, the canonical gospels, are actually faithful reflections of what a historical Jesus of Nazareth, if there was one, did and said” (R. M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man 25).
9 See G. N. Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel,” NTS 43 (1997): 317-46.
10 Irenaeus, Haer. 5.33.4; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.3-4.
11 Clement’s only undisputed work that survives is his correspondence to the first-century Corinth church, known as First Epistle of Clement or simply I Clement.
12 Polycarp’s only surviving work is his letter to the saints at Philippi, quoting and alluding to several NT documents. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.4) affirms that Polycarp interacted with a number of eyewitnesses and was instructed by the apostles (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.3-8).
13 Jerome, Chronicon (221st Olympiad) 10.
14 Early in the second century Quadratus “addressed a discourse” to the emperor Hadrian, claiming that in his own lifetime there had been people living who had experienced miracles performed by Jesus: “They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our own times” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.3.2).
15 W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark 117; P. Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels137; N. Perrin, The NT: An Introduction 149; G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context 258.
16 R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT 216-27; W. Dicharry, Human Authors of the NT122, 127 n. 28; D. J. Scholz, Jesus in the Gospels and Acts 77-79; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 198-200; L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 239-40, 244.
17 S. Davies, Jesus the Healer 174; Francois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9; S. Brown, The Origins of Christianity 24-29.
18 Having cited works by both conservative and liberal academicians, concerning the late-date proponents C. L. Blomberg observes, “Notice how few actual arguments rather than mere affirmations appear for these dates compared to the discussions in the [conservative] sources noted …” (The Historical Reliability of the NT 13).
19 Employed twice more in a different sense (Matt. 13:48; 23:32).
20 Employed three other times in a different sense (Luke 2:40; 3:5; 7:1).
21 Numerous references to the antagonistic Sadducees (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12; 22:23, 34), who dwindled to the point of insignificance after mid-70, as well as Sabbath-keeping in Jerusalem (24:20), temple tax and rituals (5:23-24; 17:24-27; 23:16-21). The parenthetical comment, “let the one reading understand” (24:15), seems to point to the near fulfilment of the temple’s destruction. See K. L. Moore, “Let the One Reading Understand,” Moore Perspective (27 Oct. 2021), <Link>. Note also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1 (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2); Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16); Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.2; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.5-6; Origin (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3-6); Jerome (De vir. ill. 3).
22 The parenthetical comment, “let the one reading understand” (13:14), seems to point to the near fulfilment of the temple’s destruction. See K. L. Moore, “Let the One Reading Understand,” Moore Perspective (27 Oct. 2021), <Link>. Note also 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13; Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15-16); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 106.3; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1-2; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5; Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis(Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7); Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.5; Jerome, Ad Hedibiam 120.
23 The abrupt ending of Acts—the sequel to Luke’s Gospel—at Spring 62; the quotation of Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim. 5:18; Luke’s writings betray no knowledge of Paul’s letters and death or the destruction of Jerusalem or the Neronian persecution. Note also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.3.1.1; 3.14.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.4.1-7; 3.24.14-15; 5.8.3; 6.25.6. See K. L. Moore, “The Dating of Luke-Acts and Why it Matters,” Moore Perspective (4 March 2012), <Link>.
24 The Historical Reliability of the NT 17-19.
25 Judith C. S. Redman, “How Accurate are Eyewitnesses?” JBL 129:1 (2010) 179.
26 See K. L. Moore, “Oral Transmission of the Biblical Records,” Moore Perspective (18 Jan. 2012), <Link>.
27 K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter 103.
28 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:18-20; 2:9. In addition to Paul’s writings, the book of Acts is replete with recorded testimonies (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39-40). Luke’s Gospel and the Hebrews epistle explicitly claim eyewitness corroboration (Luke 1:1-4; Heb. 2:3-4), while there are first-hand statements in the writings of John (John 19:33-35; 1 John 1:1-3) and the Petrine documents (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16).
29 D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in ESV Expository Commentary 8:26.
30 L. Hurtado, “What Do the Earliest Christian Manuscripts Tell Us?” in C. A. Evans, ed., The World of Jesus and the Early Church 209.
31 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses 5.
Image credit: https://www.theforerunner.org/calendar/2020/6/3/a-new-bible-study
No comments:
Post a Comment