I understand that Mark is the oldest of the 4 Gospels, and that it was written slightly before or just after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
According to non-literalist scholarly opinion:
Q1: What is the oldest Christian writing in the Bible? I’m guessing Galatians, but I’m not sure. One internet site estimates that it was written in 48-57? CE.
Q2: What is the oldest Christian text, outside of the Bible? For example, when was the Gospel of Thomas written?
Q3: What is the oldest reference to Jesus or Christianity or the followers of Jesus? When was it written? What did it say?
Q4 (a,b,c): Same as before, which writing is the 2nd oldest? Third?
I am mostly concerned with known artifacts; I am only tangentially interested in lost writings. I understand that all dates will be estimates, so I am asking for ranges given by mainstream non-literalist Biblical scholars.
Regarding the Didache, this site notes that, “It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event…”
At the same time, “…the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church’s order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church’s life.”
Draper claims that 100CE would be a good estimate.
You get a wide range of answers, depending on the particular scholarly perspective of the Bible scholars providing the informed speculation. “Conservatives” tend to date the Gospels quite early, as a rule; “liberals” fairly late, with an undocumented tradition of source documents preceding them.
Using Catholic scholarship as the closest thing to a happy medium between these tendencies, the best answer to Q1 is that First Thessalonians (followed closely by Second Thessalonians) was the first New Testament book to be written in the form we have it, Paul having apparently written this from Corinth while there in the period 50-52 AD. Galatians, Philippians, and First Corinthians apparently date to 54-57 AD, being written from Ephesus, Galatians after a quick trip to Corinth and return.
Mark probably dates from 64 AD or shortly thereafter, traditionally being Mark’s reduction of Peter’s memories of Jesus to documentary form after Peter’s death, which is reliably during the brief Neronian persecution of 64 AD. The other gospels as we have them are almost certainly later, though tradition has Matthew writing first – but the version of Matthew we have is clearly related to Mark.
Q2. The Didache, as Rodrigo notes, is considered a late-First-Century document. Diogenes reports that present Biblical scholarship dates the Thomas document as approximately contemporary with Mark. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians dates from 100 AD, and is the earliest non-canonical Christian writing that I know of which can be reliably dated (as opposed to informed speculation used for guesstimating the date of composition of the other documents). I have no clue what the date for the “Shepherd of Hermas” might be, but I do know that it’s relatively early (and was briefly accepted by some early authorities as part of the canon).
Q3 – Christian writings occur throughout the second half of the First Century, with questions on dating as noted above. The first non-Christian reference I know of is Pliny’s letter to Trajan asking how as proconsul he should deal with the Christians, for which I have not been able quickly to turn up an exact date, but must be very early in the Second Century, since Trajan reigned 98-117 AD.
That is a minority opinion among the mainstream scholars. The majority opinion is that Mark was written first c. 55 AD.
But Paul’s first surviving letter preceded Mark by maybe up to ten years. (I’m embarrassed I don’t know which one off hand, and my usual resource book is not at hand at the moment.)
And, as mentioned, the Didache is the oldest extra-biblical Christian document. The Shepherd of Hermas (Hermes?) is the next oldest, I think.
Early dating of non-canonical Gospels (like Thomas) is a minority opinion, often put out by those claiming conspiracy theories of secret history that those in power don’t want you to know!
In response to Q3, there’s also the reference to Jesus in Josephus’s work Jewish Antiquities, dated to the last decade of the 1st century: Testimonium Flavianum. It’s been criticised by some scholars as a late interpolation, but according to the linked site, other scholars now defend it as being original to Josephus, at least in part.
Back in high school (I went to a catholic high school), the religion teacher mentioned that there are at least two more epistles which we know were written, but were lost to history.
I’d be really curious as to which scholars (if any) who would date Mark earlier than 64, much less before 60. (I know that there are a tiny number of people who loudly proclaim the 7Q5 Qumran fragment to be taken from Mark, but their evidence requires massive guesswork and odd speculation about the fragment itself and about the text onto which they are projecting their “reading.” However, the overwhelming majority of the Catholic, Anglican, Evangelische/Lutheran scholars of whom I am aware date Mark to 64 - 70.)
I agree with Polycarp and his is the answer I would write on my Uni History final. However I could make a tenuous canse for another candidate – & it is fun to do so (mainly because as it is shot down I learn stuff0 Again I agree the strongest case is Polycarp’s. However:
Q-2 I think there is a small chance that the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemous (c150-200) may include fragments of a version of the Acts of Pilate [a report from Pilate to Rome about crucifying Jesus] that was around as long as the youngest of the Gospels.
Justin Martyr (c150) said there was such a thing. Tertullian (c197) references a report. Before they are dismissed as totally biased recall the fact that these two don’t mention Josephus’s references to the crufiction, are the main reason that scholars assume the Josephus references to be later BS.
So we can say w/o hesitation that Justin and Tertullian believed their version of the Acts of a Pilate genuine and that some version, presumably favorable to Christ, pre-dates c150.
Either Nicademous’ version is based on this early material or it is a later invention. Eusebius (c311)notes that there is a forged pagan copy of Pilate’s report circulating in his day – the Emperor Maxim II has school children memorize this pagan version – which showed Jesus and the Crucifixction in a bad light. It is possible (likely) that the Gospel of Nicodemous was a counter blast to this (BTW the pagan version of Acts of Pilate was suppressed after Constantine’s time and no longer is extant). It is also probable that Nicodemous is based on earlier source material and possible that it is partially based on the Acts of Pilate that Justin and Tertullian refer to.
If the later is the case this fragment would be almost as old as the latest of the gospels and fits the GQ Q2. Possible is all I am saying here guys.
There is a very controversial papyrus called 7Q5 (7th Qumran cave, 5th fragment). If it is what it is supposed to be, it shows a fragment of Mark’s Gospel (Mk 6:52-53) that can be dated at the lastest at AD 50.
Actually, if 7Q5 is from the Gospel of Mark, it does not really change the biblical timeline, at all. (Although it may change views of the development of early Christianity.)
Mark is already considered to have been the first Gospel written (of which we have a copy) and there is very little apparent crossover thought between Paul’s ideas and those of Mark. Pushing back Mark’s Gospel does not change Pauline expressions and it does not change the order of any other Christian writings.
Great work gang, on a rather difficult subject. Thanks to all.
Polycarp:
---- The Didache, as Rodrigo notes, is considered a late-First-Century document.
I just read the Didache last night: fascinating stuff. One Ben W. Swett (expertise unknown) claims that the Didache contains material from Matthew and Luke but not from Mark. Since Matthew and Luke both contain a lot of Markian sourcing, this is a surprise. I can think of 3 explanations:
Coincidence.
The writer of the Didache had access to Matthew and Luke’s source material (Q) but not any of the 4 gospels. This would place the text rather early in the game (c.50CE?). Further evidence of this is the recommended Eurcharist blessing in 9:1, “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever”. At some point, this would be considered a faux pas, as the church fathers concluded that the Lord had only one Son.
Hey, they didn’t have access to the internet in 100CE: books are expensive and a writer may very well have not had access to the gospels. OR: There were factional reasons for not using Markian sourcing.
moriah
— Early dating of non-canonical Gospels (like Thomas) is a minority opinion
Recall that Thomas is different from many other of the non-canonical Gospels, in that it is a collection of sayings and not biographical. It certainly seems “cruder” than the other 4 canonical gospels.