UM's Series: Gospel Origins

[UMSonOfMan7]

With this phase in my series, I have moved into a more faith-questioning area regarding how we got the Bible that we have today, and so I have moved this thread directly to Hot Debates. If you are not interested in having your faith challenged, perhaps even significantly, then you are welcome to skip this thread.

****************
This thread marks the beginning of phase four in my series of threads.
Phase One was How Does God Act in the World?
Phase Two was Apocrypha, Canon, Scripture: What makes up the Bible?—also see PF’s similar thread I believe in the Bible!--and Apocrypha, Canon, Scripture: How was the Bible formed?,
Phase Three was UM’s Series: Biblical Translation (Part 1) and UM’s Seres: Early Transmission of the [acronym="New Testament"]NT[/acronym], what do we know? (Part 2)
This series of threads is aimed at addressing some of the underlying issues that surround the differences between conservative, moderate, and liberal Christians.

These issues repeatedly come up throughout our discussions, and understanding them is integral to understanding our Tradition, each other, and where we are coming from in our interpretations. Specifically, this entire series of threads is a direct response to questions posed by a number of site members regarding how myself and others understand scripture and how what I do is not the same as simply picking and choosing that which I like in the scriptures. The series of threads is my response to demonstrate that there is a method for how I understand scripture that does not result in me merely remaking God into whatever image I want him to fit.

Throughout these threads, I will be providing pieces and information as well as at times giving a glimpse into how I understand that information (hopefully, I will be able to generally keep the two separate to facilitate each of you in being able to also analyze the information and come up with your own understandings of it.

Please keep the discussion civil and respectable at all times.
***************


This thread will be an evolving thread. The issues surrounding the authorship and date of writing of the Gospels is especially complex, and I have many pages of research on this issue and the many aspects of it, as well as books that I have barely even begun to get into and draw out the information from for presentation. To be honest, I do not know yet if this will be a multi-part phase or if this will be a very lengthy thread that I will continue to add pieces of information to over time (the bulk of it coming this weekend). So in any event, please bare with me (and be patient with me) as I try to present this information in the clearest and most concise manner that I am able to.


And with that, I will get on with the discussion. First, I will be presenting the information that Church Tradition has passed on to us, then I will move on from there.
(see below)

[UMSonOfMan7]

Our traditional understanding of the origins of the Gospels goes back to Papias who was bishop of Hierapolis. According to what Eusebius wrote about Papias (which may have come from Irenaeus), Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books” (Early Christian Writings). Papias’ works were called The Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (logion kyriakon exegesis) (Catholic Encyclopedia) and they were written sometime in the first half of the second century, perhaps around 125 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Early Christian Writings). Soon I will add some information on Papias evaluating the value of his testimony. For now, as shared by Eusebius, here is what Papias had to say.

14 And in his own writing he also hands down other accounts of the aforementioned Aristion of the words of the Lord and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those truly interested. Of necessity, we will now add to his reports set forth above a tradition about Mark who wrote the gospel, which he set forth as follows:
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
16 Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could.
17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth.

From Papias by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.14-17; Papias allegedly wrote this around 125 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] and it was quoted by Eusbieus around the beginning of the fourth century. (Early Christian Writings)

So, according to Papias, Mark was Peter’s interpreter and he wrote a gospel based on Peter’s recollections and the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew.


Several decades later, in about 170 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], Irenaeus also relayed a tradition regarding the gospels. From Heresies 3.1.1:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure [traditionally in 67 CE], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

(Irenaeus Against Heresies – Book III)

So now, in addition to Papias’ tradition regarding Matthew and Mark, we have Irenaeus affirming the same thing and adding that a man named Luke was a companion of Paul, and he also wrote a gospel, plus, the apostle John wrote a gospel.

So essentially, this is where our tradition comes from.


Any questions before I move on to some analysis of this?

[crossandflame]

No, carry on, Jeeves.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Okay, the first thing to keep in mind is that when the gospels were written, they were written essentially anonymously. They didn’t have a by-line or an autographed signature or any such thing. It was not until later that the authorship became important. Enter Papias and Irenaeus.

Unfortunately, Papias’ writings no longer exist and we only have pieces of them as quoted by other writers. Apparently, his writings did still exist in the early fourth century, though, which is where we get the previously mentioned quote from, when Eusebius laid out what Papias had written on this matter. Naturally, this leads to the question, “How good was Papias’ information?”

As I stated before, Eusebius wrote that Papias was “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp.” Eusebius got that information from Irenaeus who wrote (as quoted by Eusebius) that Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (Early Christian Writings).


So which John was that? Well, in later centuries it was clearly believed that Papias had been a companion of John the Apostle. In Codex Vaticanus, mentioned in my Biblical Transmission thread listed above (from the fifth century), a prologue to the Gospel of John attributed the actual writing to Papias, who wrote what John the Apostle had dictated.

“The Gospel of John was made public and given to the churches by John when he was still alive; as Papias by name, of Hierapolis, dear disciple of John, recalled in the "exoteric", that is the outside, five books; he in fact wrote down the gospel correctly as John was dictating.”

(External Evidence: Papias

This same belief was still being perpetuated in the 17th century and was recorded in Cantena of the Greek Fathers on John:

For the last of them was John who was renamed a son of thunder, when he was very old, as passed down to us by both Irenaeus and Eusebius and other believers who became historians in succession, at that time the terrible heresies were re-emerging dictated the gospel to his own respectable disciple Papias of Hierapolis for the satisfaction of those who preached the word before him to the nations throughout the whole world.

(External Evidence: Papias

Being a disciple of the Apostle John would certainly give Papias quite a bit of credibility, but not everything we hear is always true. In Illustrious Lives 18, Jerome, speaking of Papias and the source of the information contained in Papias’ writings, Exposition of the Lord’s Reports wrote this about Papias, using Papias’ own writings for much of the information:

In which, when he asserted that he does not follow various opinions but holds the apostles as authorities, he said: I would look at what Andrew, what Peter had said, what Philip, what Thomas, what James, what John, what Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, as well as what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For books to be collected are not so useful to me as a voice that is living and resounding in its masters until this day.

(External Evidence: Papias

So, what we have here is a quote from Papias, relayed by Jerome, saying that he (Papias) does not find books to be of much value (instead preferring oral traditions) and there are two Johns—John the elder and John the Apostle. According to Peter Kirby (of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com):

Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13).

(Early Christian Writings: Papias)

Thus Eusebius, the source of our most important information on Papias and conveyor of Papias’ testimony on the authorship of Matthew and Mark, did not trust Papias and did not think he was very intelligent, nor did he find any reason to believe that the John that Papias had contact with was John the Apostle but instead was John the presbyter.

Eusebius further had this to say about Papias:

I guess he got these ideas from a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. For he did not understand what they said mystically & in figurative language. For he obviously was a man of very little intelligence, as one can tell judging from his sayings. Nevertheless, it was due to him that so many churchmen after him adopted a similar opinion, basing their position on the fact that he was a man of the earliest era.

(Eccles. Hist. 3.39.12-13). (Papias)

For some further analysis of this issue:

Papias mentioned hearing a John. Irenaeus, who countered gnostic speculations by claiming an unbroken chain of tradition from the apostles to the bishops, took this to mean that this bishop (Papias) was personally familiar with one of the most prominent apostles (John, son of Zebedee):
And Papias, who was John's auditor & Polycarp's companion, a man of the earliest era, also attests these things in writing the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him (Against Heresies 5.33.4).
Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.2), however, corrected this impression by pointing out that
 Papias mentions two Johns: one an apostle, the other an elder (presbyter); and
 Papias claimed his traditions were derived from the elders (not apostles).
Papias was by his own admission an avid collector of oral opinions who did not put much value on book learning:

But I won't hesitate to put down for your benefit too all that I carefully learned and carefully recalled from the elders, guaranteeing its truth... And if anyone happened to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the sayings of the elders. What did Andrew or Peter say? What about Philip or Thomas or James? What about John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord? And the things that Aristion and John the elder say, who were also disciples of the Lord? For I thought that things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice

(Hist. Eccles. 3.39.3-4).
Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels.

((Papias)

So in any event, Papias’ testimony was not exactly of the most reliable (being hearsay at least a couple people removed from the source), he was not an associate of the apostle John, he did not write the Gospel of John, and he may not have been very smart (but that is debatable).


So, before I move on and talk about what it is that we do really know, any questions?

[Mr. Curious]

Not from me...

Interesting so far.

[radical]

If you are not interested in having your faith challenged, perhaps even significantly, then you are welcome to skip this thread.

I am just wondering why you would start out with such a statement. It almost seems as though you are baiting the community to see that you will find a different conclusion than the vast majority of scholars before you. And if that's the case it would indicate (to me) that your view is the end you seek rather than the truth. I am not saying however, that your research would be invalid or untrue.

But why would your research and efforts in finding the answers to these questions be better, more relevant or even more correct/true than those who have gone before you and come up with different conclusions?

I do not mean to belittle your efforts or your research. I am sure you have spent a great deal of time and place great importance on what you are doing.

It's just the way you started this thread struck a cord within me.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Radical, you are reading way too much into that statement. It was simply a disclaimer, not baiting anyone. And my conclusions--the few that I share--are not necessarily out of line with the vast majority of scholars before me. This information is quite in line with current scholarship.

But why would your research and efforts in finding the answers to these questions be better, more relevant or even more correct/true than those who have gone before you and come up with different conclusions?

I have not made any such claims, in fact, I am simply collecting the available research and presenting it for others to see.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Okay, let’s take a look at this from a different angle now. The gospels of Matthew and Mark say nothing about who wrote them. The gospel of Luke says nothing about who wrote it, but it does say a little about why it was written.

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

(Bible Gateway: Luke 1 NIV)

The Gospel of John is the only one that has any statements regarding the author, but they contradict the Tradition passed down by Irenaeus.

John 21
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

(emphasis mine) (Bible Gateway: John 21, NIV)

Traditionally, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is believed to have referred to John. This passage, then, since it is written in the third person clearly suggests that John is the source of the information in this gospel (perhaps even some of his own writings have been consulted), but he is not the author of the gospel itself. The community that the gospel comes out of however, speaks in first person, and offers us some validation that the testimony is true. Further, verse 23 is also more significant if the disciple (presumably John) is dead at the time of the writing. (Dating the Gospels)


So, we have Papias who tells us that the gospel of Mark was written by an associate of Peter, but we also know that Papias' testimony is not entirely reliable, and is is between a few and several decades after the fact (depending on whether a later or an earlier dating is accepted; since most scholars accept a dating after 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], that would make Papias' testimony over 50 years old; if a more conservative estimate is accepted, then Papias' testimony is 70 or more years after the fact, and let's not forget that it is based on hearsay, not anything he knows from personal knowledge). Irenaeus is the one who wrote that Luke was an associate of Peter; his testimony is at least 100 or more years after the fact--significantly longer if a conservative estimate of the date of writings is accepted; so he would have no personal knowledge of that fact. In a later post, I will address another aspect of what this would mean if the testimony is accepted. Irenaeus' testimony about John is contradicted by the text itself. As for Papias' testimony for Matthew writing a gospel in Hebrew, see this post of mine in the "Gospels: Hebrew of Greek?" thread for a thorough analysis of that testimony.

[UMSonOfMan7]

So, Matthew may have written a gospel in Hebrew, but if he did, most likely that is not the gospel by his name that we have today. John did not write the gospel bearing his name. Now let's talk about Luke for a moment. According to the early tradition (Irenaeus, as I mentioned earlier), Luke was a companion of Paul and he wrote the gospel carrying his name. Being a companion of Paul, however, does absolutely nothing (for a modern historian) to lend credibility to Luke's testimony. The reason for this is because not once in any of Paul's writings does he ever display any sort of knowledge of Jesus' life beyond that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Paul had no knowledge of anything Jesus did. He never appealed to anything Jesus said in any of his writings. If he ever did talk to any of the apostles about any of the things Jesus did, apparently he never found it important enough to mention in his writings. In short, if Paul is the source of the information in the gospel of Luke, he is a lousy source indeed (not to mention Luke would at that point be several steps removed from the actual events when you consider that Jesus would be a primary source, the apostles (and other eye-witnesses) would be secondary sources, Paul would be the next step removed, and Luke would be a whole additional step removed beyond that). However, I will present additional evidence later that will show Paul was not Luke's primary source after all.

The point of all this, however, is that not only is there absolutely nothing to substantiate the testimony given by the early Church Fathers regarding this issue, there is much that devalues their testimony in the first place. Questions regarding the reliability of Papias' testimony have already been addressed. That he is wrong about both Matthew and John has also been covered. Irenaeus' testimony is well over a century after the fact and is thus nothing but hearsay. I just addressed the reliability of his testimony on Luke, which is nothing to write home about. The only one left is Mark.

Unlike the others, there is no additional information about the author of Mark or the tradition of who wrote it, but the already provided information is enough to cast this tradition into a cloud of doubt regardless. Yes, it is possible that Mark, an associate of Peter, wrote this gospel. But other than someone, 100-130 or so years later saying that is what happened, we have nothing solid indicating that is the case.


One question that often arises for people today is why didn't the gospels (or other historical books as well) originally come with the name of the author attached? Perhaps this will help shed some light on that:

Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Although we don't know for certain, it is may be that the gospels remained anonymous until they began to be listed together by Clement, Irenaeus and the Canon of Muratori in the late second century(Catholic Encyclopedia).

[grant]

On John not writing his gospel: When writing news copy, I will on occasion use the phrase, "told this reporter." Meaning "told me," of course, but stated in such a way as to avoid first person -- because, the standards say, first person narratives get in the way of the facts. Better to stand aside and let the facts (appear to) speak for themselves.

That's typically how I read John up there, with the writer referring to "his favorite disciple" as a coy way of identifying himself without using first person.

[UMSonOfMan7]

On John not writing his gospel: When writing news copy, I will on occasion use the phrase, "told this reporter." Meaning "told me," of course, but stated in such a way as to avoid first person -- because, the standards say, first person narratives get in the way of the facts. Better to stand aside and let the facts (appear to) speak for themselves.

That's typically how I read John up there, with the writer referring to "his favorite disciple" as a coy way of identifying himself without using first person.

That's always a possibility; however, I think it is unlikely to be the case in this instance. For one, there were no standards for reporting back then that would have the given the author (if it was John) a reason to write in third person). For two, there would have been ample opportunity for a later person to edit it to be in first person once the authorship of the gospel began to be questioned. For three, Papias' testimony is nothing but hearsay as he had no apparent direct contact with John and Papias' testimony and reliability have generally been called into question, so there is no reason to trust his testimony in the first place in this instance anyway.

Like I said, it's possible, but the current evidence (which I will be presenting more of later) definitely leads me towards the conclusion that this gospel was not written by the apostle John and thus the third person perspective there was not a coy reference to John himself.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I am curious why you haven't mentioned textual seams other signs of multiple sources as evidence against the traditional authors. The Apostles John and Matthew wouldn't need to rely on the accounts of others.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I am curious why you haven't mentioned textual seams other signs of multiple sources as evidence against the traditional authors. The Apostles John and Matthew wouldn't need to rely on the accounts of others.

FOD, I'm not following you, particularly "textual seams other signs of multiple sources." I don't know if you are using a term I'm not familiar with (textual seams) or if you've made a grammar mistake. If you can clarify, then I can address your question. In any event, I haven't presented all my research yet, so it might simply be that you are asking about something I haven't gotten to yet.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I am curious why you haven't mentioned textual seams other signs of multiple sources as evidence against the traditional authors. The Apostles John and Matthew wouldn't need to rely on the accounts of others.

FOD, I'm not following you, particularly "textual seams other signs of multiple sources." I don't know if you are using a term I'm not familiar with (textual seams) or if you've made a grammar mistake. If you can clarify, then I can address your question. In any event, I haven't presented all my research yet, so it might simply be that you are asking about something I haven't gotten to yet.

Textual seams are disruptions that result from an author combining or modifying sources.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Textual seams are disruptions that result from an author combining or modifying sources.

I do plan on eventually discussing some of the other signs of multiple sources, but that will predominantly be covered in my next thread (which is put off until perhaps December or January now that I've started classes again and I'm pretty bogged down with them for the next three months); I'll only be touching on that in this thread. Textual seams I might touch on in the next thread, but I hadn't planned on going into much detail on it. I'd be interested in you starting a thread on it if you'd like though.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Okay, after a long delay due to my semester work, I’m coming back to this thread now to present some more pieces of this discussion for people to think about. So far, most of the information I have presented has centered on the unreliability of what Tradition has told us about the origins of the Gospels; now I am going to focus on some of the things that we do know.

First of all, as I have covered in a previous thread, the earliest fragment of a gospel is dated to around 125 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]; that is a fragment of John (The Oldest New Testament). The earliest fragment of Matthew is from sometime around the mid/late 2nd century
(The New Testament Manuscripts and Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts). The earliest fragment of Luke is from sometime around the mid/late 2nd century
(The New Testament Manuscripts and Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts). The earliest fragment of Mark is from around the turn of the 2nd/3rd century (or perhaps as late as the middle of the 3rd century) (The New Testament Manuscripts and Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts). So, based solely on this, we can know that John, at the latest, is from at least the middle or end of the first third of the second century, Matthew and Luke, at the latest, are from the middle or latter part of the second century, and Mark, at the latest, is from around the turn of the 2nd/3rd century. These, however, are not the only pieces of information that we have.

In addition to those fragments, we also have the Canon of Muratori, a letter from Clement of Alexandria, and the writings of Irenaeus, all from the latter part of the second century, that list the four gospels together. Although Irenaeus’ testimony is not a reliable witness to the facts regarding the origins of these writings, that all three of these sources list them together suggests that they were not newly written at this time. This particularly shows that Mark is significantly older than its current earliest fragment.

Although the earliest mention of the four Gospels by name is from the already mentioned writings of Irenaeus, there a couple other possible references to take into consideration. One of those is a possible reference in the early second century to a passage in the gospel of Luke.

There is a passage in Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 3:2, which alludes to Lk 24:39, written by Luke as polemic against Docetists who said the Christ wasn't resurrected in the flesh. On his way to Rome for execution (c. 107 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] according to the 'Martyrdom of Ignatius'), Ignatius wrote: "and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.'" If we accept that this is a creation of Luke, it is most probable that Ignatius knew about Luke's gospel, either by owning a copy or (more probably) by hearing it orally performed in church.

(Dating the Gospels and The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans)

We don’t actually know if Ignatius is referring there to the passage in Luke, but the similarity makes it possible, and if he is, that indicates that Luke at least was written by the early second century. However, this is a very thin piece of evidence.

A number of Christian Apologetics sites (such as Another Look: Writer Shines New Light on Matthew’s Gospel) also reference a supposed parody of the Gospel of Matthew written by a Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel, in or before 73 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]. Israel J. Yuval wrote an essay for Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (published in 2000) in which he relayed the story of this parody as contained within the Talmud. Although quite fascinating, the parody is of a text written in Hebrew, and as I have already covered above, the bulk of current evidence strongly indicates that the current gospel of Matthew was an original Greek work—not Hebrew, meaning that whatever Gamaliel parodied, it was a different work.


So, that will be enough for now, but I will come back to this again when I have time and talk more specifically about how scholars have come up with potential dates of post 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Mark), 75-90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Matthew and Luke), and post 90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (John) for the writings of the gospels.

Let me know if there are any questions so far.

[grant]

I will come back to this again when I have time and talk more specifically about how scholars have come up with potential dates of post 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Mark), 75-90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Matthew and Luke), and post 90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (John) for the writings of the gospels.

So... where's the rest of this thread, man?

[UMSonOfMan7]

I will come back to this again when I have time and talk more specifically about how scholars have come up with potential dates of post 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Mark), 75-90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Matthew and Luke), and post 90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (John) for the writings of the gospels.

So... where's the rest of this thread, man?

In a couple files on my computer; if you (and anyone else) are actually interested, I'll try to get on putting that together and posting it soon.

[UMSonOfMan7]

I will come back to this again when I have time and talk more specifically about how scholars have come up with potential dates of post 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Mark), 75-90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (Matthew and Luke), and post 90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] (John) for the writings of the gospels.

So... where's the rest of this thread, man?

In a couple files on my computer; if you (and anyone else) are actually interested, I'll try to get on putting that together and posting it soon.

Okay, it's months after I started this thread, but here's the information I promised.

(Note that I have primarily relied on Peter Kirby's (of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) summaries of the various points).

Evidence for Mark being written first

About 90% of Mark's verses are also found in Matthew. The concensus today is that first came Mark, which the authors of Matthew and Luke used.
Source, and I also discuss this in detail in my thread: Did Matthew and Luke copy Mark?


Evidence for all four of the gospels being written after 67 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]

67 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] is when Paul is believed to have died in Rome; he displays absolutely no knowledge of any of these writings, nor of anything about Jesus’ life other than that he died on the cross and was believed to have been resurrected. It would be extremely unusual to completely ignore the gospel writings if they had been in existence during his life-time, and his wide travels would surely have brought him into contact with them if they were. Citing Jesus' words in the gospels was a very common occurence in the early Christian writings (beginning in the early second century) as a tactic for supporting a position. Given that Paul was frequently challenged over the authority of his teachings, it just wouldn't make sense to not cite the words of Jesus if they had been available to him in the form of the gospels throughout his life-time as conservative Christians claim that they would have been. Why would Paul not use the same source of (corroborating) authority as the Patristic writers did?


Speculative Evidence for Mark being written shortly after 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]

Mark's "Little Apocalypse" in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]. The events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple left a deep impression on the Jews of the time. Jerusalem and the Temple were the center of religious life for Palestinian Jews, and the war with the Romans had ravaged the countryside and left thousands dead. Thus, it is understandable that some would associate these horrible events with the end times. Let us do an exegesis of Mark 13 to see how the author's description corresponds with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt.

The destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], is mentioned in v. 1-4. Leaving the temple area, a disciple said: "Teacher, look at the huge blocks of stone and the enormous buildings!" Facing the temple, Jesus responds: "You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another - all will be torn down." Peter and some others then question Jesus about the signs of the apocalypse privately, a tell-tale sign of Mark's redactional hand (instead of earlier well-known tradition).
In v. 5-8, the author speaks of "wars and rumours of wars," but "this is not yet the end." If ch 13 is speaking of the First Jewish Revolt, this indicates that some had predicted earlier that the end would come during the war, a view which the author must deny (or perhaps slightly modify, cf v. 24) after the fighting has ended. The author speaks of "famine" during this time when nation is rising against nation, and Josephus reports the horrors of pestilence and famine during the First Jewish Revolt.
Concerning v. 9-13, Robert Funk writes in _The Five Gospels_:
"The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place - or ideas that were current - after Jesus' death: trials and persecutions of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The note about children betraying their parents may be an allusion to the terrible calamities that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.)"

Verse 14 says: "When you see the 'Abomination of Desecration' standing where it should not be - let the reader take note! - those in Judea must flee to the mountains." The parenthetical comment to "let the reader take note" underscores the fact that this speech was written for the Christians of Mark's time. The contemporary audience of Mark would understand very well what he was talking about, although the 'Abomination of Desecration' is a cryptic reference to us. The phrase is borrowed from Dn 9:27, where it refers to Antiochus profaning the Temple of Jerusalem c. 165 [acronym="Before Common Era (BC)"]BCE[/acronym] (probably with an image of Zeus), although it has been adapted to the evangelist's times. In the context of the First Jewish Revolt, this probably refers to the profanation of the Temple by the Romans. Josephus tells us that the victorious soldiers raised their imperial standards and worshiped them in the holy place (_Wars of the Jews_ 6.6.1).

A few claim that this instead refers to a statue that Caligula tried to set in the Temple c. 40 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] without much success. However, this doesn't explain anything else in the "Little Apocalypse": The Temple is destroyed (v. 2), there are wars and threats of wars (c. 7), nation rises against nation and there is famine (v. , many are brought into custody (v. 11), one should flee from Judea (v. 14), there are false prophets (v. 22), and all this is "more distressful than any time between the work of creation and now, and for all time to come."
Possibly the inspiration for v. 15-18, Christians abandoned Jerusalem before the siege began and fled to the city of Pella according to Eusebius (Church History 3.5.3).

Josephus refers to false prophets during the final phase of the Roman assault on the Temple as it was engulfed in flame: "A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes." (_Wars of the Jews_ 6.5.2)
The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym].

Jesus "said, according to Mark 13:24, that there would be a clear but not prolonged interval between the Temple's destruction and his own return. Mark's community was living in that interval, having rejected those false but Christian prophets who, in 13:5-8 and 21-23, had proclaimed Jesus' return at...the destruction of the Temple in the First Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 C.E. Mark, in other words, clearly and deliberately separates all that led up to the parousia of Jesus in 13:24-37. And all is placed on the prophetic lips of Jesus himself. That, says Mark, was what he actually said." (John Dominic Crossan, _The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant_)

Some critics object to seeing an after the fact prophecy of the First Jewish Revolt here. The description, they say, is vague and based on the Old Testament. But, as v. 14 emphasizes, the description was written for the Christians of Mark's day, who would know very well what he was talking about. Obviously imagery and phrases are borrowed from the Old Testament, as in the rest of the gospel, adapted to refer to a new situation. Such vague, [acronym="Old Testament"]OT[/acronym]-based descriptions of contemporary times are found in other works such as the Habbakuk Commentary or Revelations. As for fundamentalists who believe Mark 13 to be a perfect transcription of the words of the historical Jesus, why don't you accept Sibyllines 4.125-7 also as genuine prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]?

Source

(Parousia is a Greek word used in the [acronym="New Testament"]NT[/acronym] to mean roughly "coming"--as in, "the second coming"--and "presence.")

Many scholars see another historical allusion in Mk 5:8-13 to a 'Legion' which had a pig as its emblem and which Josephus tells us remained in Jerusalem in the war's aftermath (_Wars of the Jews_ 7.1.3).
"Since the fall of the city a few months earlier [in 70 C.E.], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates." (William Harwood, _Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus_)

Although the author of Mark is suffering through tribulations and his traditions betray resentment of Roman power, he wants to distance himself from the Jews who are at the cause of the revolt. At the same time he wants to present Christianity as something that is politically innocuous to the Roman authorities. For this reason there is a tendency to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews in Mark (cf 15:9-15), a tendency that becomes even more exaggerated in the later times. In reality the anti-semitic prefect would probably not have given Jesus the time of day, especially if he represented a threat to order during the Passover festival. There is no other tradition of a custom to release prisoners during a festival, and such open amnesty goes against administrative wisdom. J.D. Crossan sees in the story of Barabbas a condemnation of the Jews who chose insurrection:
"In Greek the technical term for such a rebel bandit is lestes, and that is exactly what Barabbas is called. He was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter - depending always, of course, on your point of view. But Mark was written soon after the terrible consummation of the First Roman-Jewish War in 70 C.E., when Jerusalem and its Temple were totally destroyed. We already saw how the Zealots, a loose coalition of bandit groups and peasant rebels forced into Jerusalem by the tightening Roman encirclement, fought within the city for overall control of the rebellion in 68 C.E. There, says Mark, was Jerusalem's choice: it chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. His narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem's fate, as he saw it." (_Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography_, p. 143)

Link

So, that is one explanation for why many New Testament scholars, based largely on Mark 13, date Mark to shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]. As I pointed out when I introduced this section however, the evidence is speculative; I'm not arguing that it is conclusive, though I personally believe that it is likely to be accurate.


Further speculative evidence for Matthew being written after 70 and after Mark

In Matthew 22:1-14, the parable of the wedding banquet is recounted, found also in Luke 14:16-24 and Thomas 64. The Gospel of Matthew adds this detail: "But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Surely this is inappropriate for merely turning down a dinner invitation! But this is understandable if it refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus, who later suffered the fall of Jerusalem. Josephus tells us that fire swept the city and eventually destroyed the Temple (_Wars of the Jews_ 6.4.6).

Source


Speculative evidence for Matthew being written before the early 2nd century

The so-called Epistle of Barnabus, written in the early second century, quotes Matthew 22:14 as scripture (Barnabus 4:14): "as the scripture saith, many called but few chosen." The reference to 'scripture' shows that the quote is from a written work, and the Gospel of Matthew is the only identifiable source with this quote. The Gospel of Matthew must have been around a long time before to gain acceptance as 'scripture' along with the law and the prophets.

Source
Epistle of Barnabas
Link regarding "as the scripture saith..."
Additional relevant links: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-hoole.html http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lake.html, and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-roberts.html (as it is written...)]

The Teaching of the Twelve (or Didache), which many scholars believe reached its final form around 100 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], quotes the Gospel of Matthew. Didache 8 tells of what "the Lord commanded in His Gospel" and quotes word-for-word the Lord's Prayer as found in the Gospel of Matthew.

Source
Didache

The pastorals (1Tm, 2Tm, Ti) are widely regarded as being written in the early second century. First Timothy 5:18 may quote Matthew 10:10 as 'scripture’.

Source
Also see my thread, The Pastoral Letters--are they really Pauline? for detailed commentary on the date and authorship of the Pastoral Letters.


Speculative evidence for Luke also being written after 70 and after Mark

In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus weeps for Jerusalem: "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Josephus tells us how, during the war 66-70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], the Romans constructed a palisade and surrounded Jerusalem, seiging the city for months. Here, Luke blames the fate of Jerusalem on their rejection of Jesus.

Acts 25:13 mentions Berenice without any explanation of who she was. Berenice only became famous after 69 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] when she had an affair with Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian. This is all in Juvenal's Satires. We can assume that Luke-Acts must have been written after 69 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] for Luke to mention Agrippa and Berenice with no explanation of who they were.

Although as usual Matthew copies Mark almost verbatim, Luke gives indications of being a little more remote in time from the war, while still in anticipation of the apocalypse. In Lk 21:9, the author says not just that the end isn't during the war (as in Mark) but moreso that it won't follow immediately after it either. In Lk 21:25, the author drops the phrase saying that the apocalypse will come during the period of tribulation. Rather, for Luke, the end won't come "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." But there is still expectation of an apocalypse that is 'near' (Lk 21:31-32).

Source


Speculative evidence for Luke being prior to the early 2nd century

There is a passage in Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 3:2, which alludes to Lk 24:39, written by Luke as polemic against Docetists who said the Christ wasn't resurrected in the flesh. On his way to Rome for execution (c. 107 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym] according to the 'Martyrdom of Ignatius'), Ignatius wrote: "and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.'" If we accept that this is a creation of Luke, it is most probable that Ignatius knew about Luke's gospel, either by owning a copy or (more probably) by hearing it orally performed in church.

Source
Smyrnaeans

The pastorals (1Tm, 2Tm, Ti) are widely regarded as being written in the early second century. First Timothy 5:18 may quote Luke 10:17 as 'scripture', which would confirm our dating of Luke. [or Matthew 10:10]

Source


Evidence for John being a late writing

The impression of remoteness from the historical events is immediately given by the highly developed literary style and christology. Some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (ch 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (chs 5 and 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament. Unlike the synoptics, the Jesus of John can't stop talking about Himself. "I am the bread of life" (6:35) "I am the light of the world" (6:35), "I am the good shepherd" (10:11), "I am resurrection and life" (11:25), "I am the way, and I am truth, and I am life" (14:6), "I am the true vine" (15:1). To a much greater extent than the synoptics, the fourth gospel indicates a long period of theological reflection on the meaning of Christ and His identity for later Christians.

There are other reasons for thinking that John is later than the synoptics. For example, the synoptics include several statements to the effect that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of the apostles (Mt 16:28, Mk 9:1, Lk 21:32, etc.). The Gospel of John doesn't emphasize the Parousia and indeed corrects this earlier teaching (Jn 21:20-23).

Source


Speculative/Circumstancial evidence for a post-80’s John

Bishop John Shelby Spong writes: "The final fracture [between traditional Jews and Jewish Christians] occurred in the late 80s, when these orthodox Jewish leaders revised their regular worship traditions to include 'anathemas' against all who deviated from strict orthodox standards and all who relativized the ultimate truth of the Torah. This was the last straw in the rising tension, and it resulted in the excommunication of the Jewish Christians from synagogue life and ultimately from Judaism." Concerning the Gospel of John: "Its blatant negativity toward orthodox Jews (John 8:44) and its descriptions of being put out of the synagogues reflect that final fracture in the relationship between Jews and Jewish Christians (John 9:22, 12:42)." (_Liberating the Gospels_, p. 53) …the expulsion from the synagogues is fresh in the consciousness of the Jewish Christians, while this would not be a concern as we get into the second century.

Source


Other evidence for the dating of John

Finally, a fragment of John called the John Rylands fragment has been found in Egypt dated to c. 125 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]. Not only is it the earliest extant manuscript of a [acronym="New Testament"]NT[/acronym] text, but many take note of the fact that it was discovered in Egypt, far from the traditional location for the composition of the fourth gospel in Ephesus of Asia Minor. This suggests that John had spread throughout the churches of that time and was written much earlier.

Source




As you can see, none of this proves conclusively that the gospels were written at the times that have been suggested. Nevertheless, I have attempted here to cover the basic points influencing current majority scholarly opinion on this issue. While there is no consensus on when the gospels were written, outside of those who argue out of a faith position for dating the gospels shortly after the life of Jesus, the large majority of New Testament scholars who have examined the actual evidence to the best of their abilities have generally come to agreement roughly that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]; Matthew and Luke were written next, probably with Luke coming within 10-20 years later and Matthew probably 15-20 years after Mark (both most likely having been written at least by 90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]); and John was written last, sometime around the turn of the cenury. A few scholars (including my New Testament professor from last spring) argue for somewhat later dates, into the second century. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any reputable scholars who argue for a dating early after Jesus' life, but Luke Timothy Johnson is a widely respected conservative scholar, and he might be someone who takes that position and outlines some evidence for it.

[crossandflame]

Nice post UM I also agree with your speculative dating of the Gospels, mostly due to their understanding of post-temple Judaism that was written backwards into Jesus's time. One of your articles delved into that, so I won't repeat my assertations, but historically (not only textually) I agree with the dating.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Okay, so one thing that you will notice here is that New Testament scholars are not really offering up the idea that God may have divinely authored these scriptures through human hands and controlled what was written down to perfectly record future events prophetically. That would be because it's impossible to prove that and there is no evidence that really supports it (not that it couldn't have happened), and biblical scholars (at least the serious academic ones with decades of study and rigorous degrees under their belts, not the ones tossing out their personal theologies and calling it proof) usually deal more with what can be evidenced than with faith (not that they don't have faith, but that is somewhat seperate from their academic pursuits).

Anyway, documented alterations to the text have led biblical scholars to pretty much universally conclude that God did not perfectly preserve the text. Inconsistencies/incongruities amongst the gospels and the big pile of evidence strongly indicating that Matthew and Luke copied Mark lead scholars to conclude that God also did not divinely inspire the gospels in a word for word manner. So, divine intervention aside, what scholars look at is what we can actually evidence.

Prior to the early second century, there is no concrete evidence (proof) that the gospels existed at all. Early in this thread I talked about the earliest fragments that have been found (a fragment of John from around the middle of the first half of the second century being the earliest fragment) and the earliest possible references to the gospels in early Christian writings. Thus, using manuscript evidence and outside references, we can't actually pin down the gospels to any time at all prior to the second century. Thus, to try to pin down the dates more precisely, scholars look at the important issues in the texts and try to match those up with events that may have prompted those concerns. The promimence of the apocryphal material in Mark 13 and skattered references in other portions of the text (such as the aforementioned "Legion" in Mark 5) strongly indicate the writing took place during or very shortly after the turmoil and upheaval surrounding the Jewish revolt (late '60s, first century) and fall of Jerusalem (70 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym]). The very strong evidence for Matthew and Luke using Mark as a primary source would mean that they had to come later. The same principles are at work in the quote from John Shelby Spong explaining why John is often dated to after the 80's; furthermore, the highly developed theological language offers additional evidence that it arose out of a later time period than the earlier writings.


So, that's just a basic rundown of how/why biblical scholars are coming to these conclusions. As working theories, I find these to be pretty good ones, but new evidence can come along at any time to cause scholars to have to revise their conlusions.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Okay, there was one other point I wanted to make, and then I am probably done with this thread unless anyone has some questions they'd like to ask or points/issues they'd like to discuss further.


There is one favorite piece of evidence that conservative groups like to hold up and proudly proclaim serves as proof that the whole scenario I've laid out above is incorrect. Below is an article about it that I found last fall on Christian News Digest, a site that proudly proclaims itself as, "The believer's source for news and perspective" (not exactly an unbiased source, but certainly a good place for finding some conservative analysis on this issue). The article is no longer hosted on their site (I saved a copy of it last fall), but the same argument can be found in other places (I first heard of it sometime last summer when m0dified mentioned it, and I made a note to research it further later, which I had begun to do when I found this article, but then got busy with other things until now).

The article:

In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.
Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."
The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about A.D. 73 or earlier.
The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late date of A.D. 85-90 or later," said Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.
"That is very significant and very important," said Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in Georgia, because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did."
Blomberg said a close study of the parody's wording indicates it was based on an existing text. If that text was Matthew, the Gospel existed much earlier than some scholars believe.
Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.
"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it," Blomberg said.

My first beef with their article is that it represents lazy, crap scholarship. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's the kind of thing that I would get ripped apart for if I did the same thing but going with opposite conclusions. The reason why I say this is because when I looked up the book they mentioned and checked it out so I could examine the evidence, here is what I found:

After talking a bit about some completely unrelated to this matter issues in which Rabbi Gamaliel had been an important person in the discussion, the author of this article in the book, Israel J. Yuval, concluded his references to Gamaliel with the remark, "Rabban Gamaliel is also considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew." Aside from a footnote referencing another book, that is all it says. So, what these conservative Christians have done is taken a completely unsubstantiated and essentially stand-alone statement from a book and drawn the conclusion:

The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late date of A.D. 85-90 or later

That is very significant and very important because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did

Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.
"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it,"

That's lousy research folks and as a result, the conclusions are worthless. It's like if I wrote a book about religious founders and in the section about Jesus made the off-hand comment that a third-century monk had found a box that is said to have contained Jesus' bones, and then some liberal folks came along and quoted me all over the place to say that it proved Jesus wasn't resurrected.

The reason why it's crap is because none of these folks actually followed through on the comment and looked into the actual evidence, and when I did that, I found out, if they had followed up on it, why they hadn't mentioned it. As I mentioned, Yuvall did include a footnote regarding his statement. Footnote 39 mentions a book, Fathers of the World, and cites pages 75-84. So, I decided to keep digging, and I was lucky enough to find that my university's library happens to have Fathers of the World, which is written by Burton L. Visotzky. I had to read for a while before I finally found the relevant portion, but on pages 81-83, there it was.

In the Babylonian Talmud are a couple stories about Rabbi Eliezer and R. Joshua. Rabbi Eliezer's wife was the sister of Rabbi Gamaliel and this story about him is recounted in the Babylonian Talmud:

Imma Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamaliel [II of Yavneh]. There was a certain [Christian?=] 'philospher' in the neighbourhood who had the reputation of not taking bribes [when he sat as a magistrate]. They [Gamaliel and Imma Sholam] sought to fool him. She brought a gold lap to him when she came before him. She said, 'I wish to divide my father's estate [so that I might claim a share for myself].' He said to them, 'Divide.' He [Gamaliel] responded, 'It is written in the Torah, "Where there is a son, a daughter may not inhereit."' The 'philosopher' answered, 'From the day that you were exiled from your land, the Torah of Moses was taken away, and the Evangelium [Hebrew: 'awon gilayon'] given in its place. There it is written, "Son and daughter as one shall inhereit."'

The next day Rabban Gamaliel came back and brought him a Lybian donkey. The 'philosopher' then said, 'Let us turn to the end of the Evangelium, for there it is written, "I come not to take away from the Torah of Moses, I come but [other texts read: And I come not] to add." And there it is written, "Where there is a son, a daughter may not inherit."' She reminded him, 'May your light shine forth like a lamp.' But Rabban Gamaliel noted, 'The bushel-carrier has come and overturned the lamp.'

This is what Yuvall in the first book and then Bloomberg in the article above are saying is a parody of the gospel of Matthew. The passage they are talking about is [bible]Matthew 5:14-17[/bible].

"You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

So, the reason why the Christian News source and others wouldn't just mention Yuvall's source here rather than conspicuously avoiding mention of it? It's because of the explanatory note that the author adds about this passage:

The pun on Mt. 5:15 and the pardody on the broader context was recognized over a century ago and has been commented upon ever since, cf. Wallach and Urbach above. I am little interested here in whether the phrases originate in a pre-Matthean [before Matthew] Sitz-im-Leben [life situation; context]; it is most likely they do, given the redactional history of the Sermon on the Mount. Nor am I interested in locating the logion in the Gospel to the Hebrews or among the Ebionites (see the not very successful attempts documented in Wallach). Most probably by the 90s of the first century the verses were known in more or less the same form as we have them today. I take the attributions to Gamaliel and Imma Shalom to be reasonable, given the other rabbinic material (cited above) which sets its stories in the same era. The Patristic material is somewhat later but, since my concern is not over who borrowed from whom, I would be equally satisfied accepting a later date for the redaction of the Talmudic story.

In other words, Yuval's source (Visotzky) here is saying that the parody, if authentic, is probably a parody of a form of the story that was extant before being included in the gospel of Matthew. That actually lines up amiably with current scholarly theory that many of the stories included in the gospels (and not just the four canonical ones) existed in oral and possibly even other written forms prior being written down in gospel form. So, while it's possible that this parody is a parody of the gospel of Matthew and I would concede that it serves as a piece of evidence that the gospel of Matthew was around prior to 85-90 [acronym="Common Era (AD)"]CE[/acronym], it is more likely that the scenario described above is what actually happened.

In any case, it's not conclusive evidence either way, and Visotzky has also offered some other possible explanations that add more gray to the picture and highlight the point that we learn nothing conclusive from this passage. He suggests that the parody could actually have been written much later and been retroactively attributed to Gamaliel; alternatively, if from a later time it could also be a parody of a passage in the Gospel to the Hebrews or the Ebionites Gospel.

So, while serving as a fascinating research project, my quest to learn more about this parody ultimately proved not to bear the significance that "Bob Newman, professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania" and "Tim Skinner, associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in Georgia" and "Blomberg" (whoever that is) and "Christian News Digest" have asserted.

I hope you all found the research and analysis interesting though.

[grant]

Two and half questions:
1. What do you, personally, make of the idea of Q, the semi-legendary source of (some of) the gospels?

2. What was the state of Judaism at 70 A.D.? I mean, the Temple had just been crushed -- what was their theology like? What was going on in their worldview in reaction to that? How far-flung were the Jewish people outside of Judea, and how well did they communicate with each other?

2.5. What's the best guess at the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what relation might they have to early gospel fragments? Could the Qumran enclave be early Christians? (I could look this one up on my own, but I'm lazy and I'd like someone else's opinion on this too.)

[grant]

By the way (feel free to delete this post after it's been answered), why exactly is this in Hot Debates and not up in Bible Study? I mean, there's not exactly any hot debating going on in here, and it's got a big fat warning/disclaimer up top, as well as plenty of "cushioning" in most of the posts.

[UMSonOfMan7]

By the way (feel free to delete this post after it's been answered), why exactly is this in Hot Debates and not up in Bible Study? I mean, there's not exactly any hot debating going on in here, and it's got a big fat warning/disclaimer up top, as well as plenty of "cushioning" in most of the posts.

Because I used to (back around the time I wrote this) get complaints about starting threads like this in Bible Study, when we had a couple members who thought that forum should be limited to devotional type things and stuff like this should be in Hot Debates where people could avoid it if they didn't want to read this kind of discussion.