I would like to discuss the chronological order in which the the books and chapters and so forth of the New Testament were written. What order were the gospels written in for example? I think I know that at least some of the epistles came before the gospels. Which ones? What are the best guesses of the actual authorship of everything in the New Testament? I would ask in general questions but I understand that this is the right forum because there will probably be disagreement. Also I am not sure how much I will be able to add to the thread myself but I want to read what people have to say anyway. Thank you.
You can find the text of a lot of early Christian writing, along with the suspected dates here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Basically, the earliest books of the New Testament are the Pauline epistles, which were written between 50-60 CE. At around the same time, the Gospel of Mark and Hebrews were written. Then, between 80-100 CE, most of the rest of the epistles, and Matthew. Luke and Acts were written between 80-130 CE , and Revelation around 90 CE. Then between 90-120CE, the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John and Jude. Then, from 100-160, the pseudo-Pauline Epistles of Titus and Timothy, as well as 2nd Peter.
See John A. T. Robinson’s REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT for an interesting alternate view- the entire NT basically written prior to A.D. 70.
I don’t understand this. The gospel of John was written 60-90 years after the events described in it happened? When did John die? I’m sure he was a grown man when he saw the events in his gospel, but he lived another 60-90 years more?
So they are saying that the Gospels were not actually written by the apostles or even people who knew them personally?
Exactly.
Yep, & that seems pretty widely accepted, even acknowledged among some evangelicals. The new line on the left (or properly the irreverent side) is that Jesus was originally a fictional character created for a novel, which we now know as the Gospel of Mark. Some readers mistook it for history & the whole thing ballooned into a serious religion.
Sound farfetched that such a thing could happen? Well, how many people think the Necronomicon is legit? That said, such an analysis seems problematic to me.
Depends. There’s very little reason to doubt the attribution of Mark or Luke to their traditional authors – but Luke never knew Jesus in the flesh, and Mark was very young if in fact he did meet him. (Some claim the young man of Mark 14:51-52 is autobiographical.) The other two Gospels probably were not written by the Apostles they are attributed to. John was probably the work of one “John the Elder”
– a figure carefully distinguished from John bar Zebedee the Apostle, but about whom little else is known. The three epistles attributed to John are the work of the same man as the Fourth Gospel. It’s possible for John bar Zebedee to have written it – he was a Galilean fisherman, without the skill in Greek the books show, but there’s no reason he could not have learned Greek well, and he is traditionally attributed to have lived until approx. 100 AD (he was the youngest of the Twelve Apostles, and the only one not martyred, dying of old age.) Matthew is alleged to have collected the oracles of Jesus in Aramaic; the gospel attributed to him was composed in Greek and is not a sayings-collection like Thomas and the collection Mathew is alleged to have made. However, if what Matthew collected is “Q” – the hypothetical posited sayings source drawn on by the writers of both Matthew and Luke – and the First Gospel was produced by using Mark (which it uses over 95% of, almost verbatim) as a frame story for the teachings collected by Matthew, it would make sense to attribute the product to him as the apostolic source of the contents. It’s certain, though, that Matthew Levi of the Twelve did not write the document which begins the New Testament in the form we have it.
Paul wrote most but not all of the Epistles attributed to him, with I and II Thessalonians and Galatians being among his earliest works. Romans, I and II Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Colossians, are almost certainly his. There’s strong evidence for I and II Timothy and Titus to be second-century expansions on a possibly-Pauline base. Ephesians is also probably pseudopigraphical, being someone’s retake on Colossians, or else the copy sent to Ephesus of the otherwise non-extant letter to the Laodiceans referred to in it. The attribution of Hebrews to Paul has been considered doubtful for most of Christian history. I Peter is probably a rescension into letter form of a sermon of Peter’s. James and Jude are probably the work of the attributed authors, both brothers of Jesus. II Peter is another second century pastiche.
You might be interested in reading the comprehensive 5-part Straight Dope Staff Report “Who wrote the Bible?” Part 4 deals with the books of the New Testament, with some discussion of their chronology.
Thank you very much for these informative replies. I was already under the impression that the gospels were not written by the alleged apostles, and it seems I am not alone in that impression, although even in this short thread it was made clear that there is disagreement on the question.
Surprisingly, the disagreeing parties are very much in the minority among serious, nonaligned* Biblical scholars. They may disagree about the specifics (where would academia be if everyone agreed?) but as near as I can tell the statement that the names don’t actually line up with with the attributed is generally agreed upon, contrary to what my dear friends FriarTed and Polycarp state.
-
- The ones whose jobs don’t depend on they following the denominational line.
In two hundred years, say the name “Hitler” or “Stalin” to somebody, and they’ll probably check their Google implant. Say Jesus, Buddha or Muhammed, odds are, they’ll know the name. Probably doesn’t mean anything. Just sayin’, is all.
Saaay what now? Seriously, talk to me about this.
And isn’t about half of Paul the Corinthians writing back? Well, not half, but portions of the ‘authentically Paul’ stuff.
There are Biblical accounts of Jesus having brothers and sisters. Mark 6:3 says in part, “Is this not the carpenter, the son of (the carpenter and of)* Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters with us?”
There are other examples, but that one was recently called to my attention.
- Some ancient sources simply read “the son of Mary”
So I didn’t answer your question about who James was:
James the brother of Jesus had an important role in early Christianity after Jesus’ death: he is also mentioned in Galatians 1:19 as ‘James the Lord’s brother.’ He was a leader of the Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 15 and 21.
Jude was also an important leader in early Christianity, though references to him like 1 Corinthians 9:5 are not as clear.
I am aware of who James and Jude are. I was, however, unaware as to any scholarly decisions that the works attributed to them were, in fact, from those two men.
Authorship of the books are controversial. James was traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus, but there’s a lot of modern scholarship that says it was written later by somebody else. The Epistle of Jude was clearly written by Paul McCartney.
Cite this comprehensively and authoritatively please.