eBook - ePub
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament
The Evidence for Early Composition
Bernier, Jonathan
This is a test
- 336 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament
The Evidence for Early Composition
Bernier, Jonathan
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
2023 Word Guild Award Winner (Biblical Studies) This paradigm-shifting study is the first book-length investigation into the compositional dates of the New Testament to be published in over forty years. It argues that, with the notable exception of the undisputed Pauline Epistles, most New Testament texts were composed twenty to thirty years earlier than is typically supposed by contemporary biblical scholars. What emerges is a revised view of how quickly early Christians produced what became the seminal texts for their new movement.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament par Bernier, Jonathan en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Theology & Religion et Biblical Studies. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Sujet
Theology & ReligionSous-sujet
Biblical StudiesPart 1: The Synoptic Gospels and Acts
1
Synchronization
The aim of part 1 is to establish the probable dates for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles.1 Due to the densely interconnected nature of these texts, they will be treated together. We begin in chapter 1 by considering matters of synchronization in relation to all four of these texts, then continue in chapter 2 with matters of contextualization and authorial biography. Although most scholars date Markâs Gospel to ca. 70, Matthewâs Gospel to ca. 80, and Luke-Acts to ca. 85 through 90, this chapter argues that Acts was written ca. 62 and the Synoptic Gospels before that date, with Matthewâs Gospel likely written prior to Lukeâs Gospel, and Markâs Gospel prior to Matthewâs Gospel.
Synchronization
This chapter will consider (1) external attestation of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, (2) the Synoptic problem, (3) the Synoptic Gospelsâ respective relationships to the events of the Jewish War and especially the destruction of the temple in 70, and (4) chronological concerns specific to Luke and Acts, such as the unity of Luke-Acts, the relationship of Luke-Acts to the writings of Josephus, Marcion, and Paul, and the end of Acts. Through the work of synchronization, we conclude it is probable that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, were in each case composed no later than ca. 62.
External Attestation
It is likely that Papias was aware of Markâs Gospel and with less probability also Matthewâs Gospel.2 It is also likely that Ignatius of Antioch was aware of Matthewâs Gospel.3 Given that these writers were most likely active during the reign of Trajan (r. 98â117), we should be wary of dating either of these Gospels much later than 120. In his definitive and careful study of the relevant material, Andrew Gregory concludes that there is no certain evidence that Lukeâs Gospel and Acts were being read before, respectively, ca. 150 and ca. 170.4 On the basis of attestation, we thus cannot exclude a date for Luke-Acts as late as the mid-second century.
The Synoptic Problem
Few questions have vexed modern New Testament scholarship more fully than that of the interrelationships among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.5 That these three texts are related is beyond any reasonable doubt, and a definitive account of their interrelationship would greatly advance the cause of Synoptic chronology. Here is a concrete example: one of the earliest proposals to explain the interrelatedness of the Synoptic Gospels was the so-called Augustinian Hypothesis, which in its modern form argues that Matthew wrote first, then Mark used Matthewâs Gospel as a source, and then Luke used both.6 If this were to be affirmed, then we would have established a relative chronology for the Synoptic Gospels: Matthewâs Gospel would predate both Markâs and Lukeâs; Markâs Gospel would postdate Matthewâs and predate Lukeâs; and Lukeâs Gospel would postdate both Matthewâs and Markâs. This would not itself establish absolute dates, but if we were to build upon this relative chronology by dating any one Synoptic Gospel absolutely, then we would have also identified at least some temporal limits for the other two.
Unfortunately, Synoptic source criticism has not yet reached a place of consensus. In Redating the New Testament, John Robinson makes too much of the disagreements among Synoptic source critics. He ultimately opts for a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to the Synoptic problem, which focuses too much on the development of the Synoptic Gospels and consequently becomes mired in tangentially relevant considerations.7 In reality, Synoptic source criticism is not as divided as a casual glance might suggest. Among Synoptic source critics working today we find a strong preference for Markan priorityâthat is, the supposition that Mark wrote first, with Matthew and Luke utilizing his Gospel as a source text. Contemporary proponents of Markan priority are further divided between those who affirm the Two Document Hypothesis and those who affirm the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis.8 This division has to do with the so-called double traditionâthat is, the material that Matthew and Luke have in common but that is not in Mark. Proponents of the Two Document Hypothesis (Markan priority with Q) argue that, for the double tradition, Matthew and Luke each independently used a third, nonextant source dubbed âQâ; and proponents of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (Markan priority without Q) argue that Lukeâs source for this double-tradition material was simply Matthewâs Gospel.
From the above, it is evident that both solutions to the Synoptic problem preferred by specialists affirm that, among the Synoptic Gospels, Markâs Gospel was written first; they either do not exclude (in the case of the Two Document Hypothesis) or affirm (in the case of the Farrer-Goulder view) the hypothesis that Luke was written last. Thus we can reasonably operate on the working supposition that the chronologies placing Markâs Gospel first and Lukeâs last are those least likely to run into source-critical difficulties. Yet it must be emphasized that our preferences for Markan priority and even more so for Lukan posteriority are not immune to revision. If there is compelling reason on other grounds to date Lukeâs Gospel earlier than either Matthewâs or Markâs, then we must consider the possibility.9 Still, the data appear to be such that we can reasonably and provisionally operate on a preference for chronologies in which the date of Lukeâs Gospel is later than the date of Matthewâs, which is in turn later than the date of Markâs.
The Matter of 70
Many New Testament scholars consider it a given that the Synoptic Gospelsâor at least Matthewâs and Lukeâs Gospelsâbetray knowledge of the events of the Jewish War (66â73), and more specifically the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70.10 Speaking specifically regarding the Gospel of Matthew, Donald Hagner refers to âthe dogmatism of critical orthodoxy concerning a post-70 date.â11 This is unfair. Scholars who hold that one or more of the Synoptic Gospels are post-70 compositions do so because they believe that the evidence best supports this position. Indeed, it goes without saying that any text betraying knowledge of the second templeâs destruction as a past event must postdate 70. Nonetheless, whether the Synoptic Gospels do betray such knowledge is not as self-evident as often supposed. For his part, Robinson rightly observes that the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed the entirety of the New Testament, never refer to the destruction of the temple as a past event; this observation is indeed foundational for his development of a lower chronology.12 As discussed in the introduction to this study, however, Robinson so emphasizes this point that he risks lapsing into a fallacious argument from silence. Fortunately for proponents of the lower chronology, arguments from silence are not required. Rather, attentive readings of the relevant material in the Synoptic Gospels are such that Lukeâs Gospel might reasonably be thought to predate 70, while Matthewâs and Markâs Gospels almost certainly do. In what follows in this section, we first consider relevant passages that are least probative for purposes of establishing the compositional dates of the Synoptic Gospels and then move toward those which are most probative.
The Torn Curtain (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45)
Perhaps the weakest argument for post-70 dates for any of the Synoptic Gospels involve the traditions of the torn curtain. They read as follows.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. (Matt. 27:51)
And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Mark 15:38)
And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. (Luke 23:45b)
Robinson fails to discuss these verses, probably because none of them reports the templeâs destruction. Indeed, the fact that these verses do not report the templeâs destruction does somewhat vitiate the hypothesis that these verses suppose the templeâs destruction. Nonetheless, a scholarly tradition holds that these passagesâespecially the Matthean and Lukan variantsâsuppose the destruction of the temple as background.13 Frequently they are read as portents of the destruction, written after it had occurred. This is hardly impossible. Josephus, a...