When were the Gospels written?

1 • A somewhat obvious, but not too obvious, premise

Before delving into answering the question of when the Gospels were written, I must make a small premise.

When a particular event occurs and witnesses are present, if someone immediately documents what they saw:

• they will provide a more reliable description of what transpired;
• if they document something inaccurate (or untrue), there will be other witnesses still alive to refute or correct what has been written.

Conversely, if a significant amount of time passes before someone puts it all into writing:

• the writer is likely to recall the events much less accurately;
• the more time passes, the fewer witnesses will still be alive to counterargue if the written account is false (whether mistakenly or maliciously).

2 • Dating the Gospels – Tug of War

In light of the premise I have outlined above, you will understand that the question of dating the Gospels is crucial, as:

• Proving that the Gospel was written many years after the events would mean establishing that the testimonies contained within it are quite weak (thus not credible), for various reasons: the text being written only after an initial oral tradition, forgetfulness, inaccurate word of mouth, lack of witnesses to counterargue if something false is written in the text, etc.
• On the contrary, proving that the Gospel was written close to the events makes the text more credible, as: the account of the events was immediately put down in writing, probably by eyewitnesses; there was no “telephone game”; it was more difficult to manipulate in the text what happened, since if false things had been written, many other witnesses would still have been alive, who could have said: “That’s not what happened at all!”

Unfortunately, when I began to ponder this question, I discovered that on the issue of dating the Gospels, many (too many?) people have expressed their opinions…

2.1 • False Testimonies

Furthermore, it has very often happened that:

• individuals lacking expertise on the subject but enjoying media celebrity…

and…

• culturally knowledgeable people (complicit in their sacred aura as ‘experts in the field’) but ideologically aligned,

…have been complicit in spreading false claims about when the Gospels were written.

2.2 • When were the Gospels written? Late dating

I have encountered very late dating for the Gospels more than once.

Dates that, alas, sometimes overshadow textual criticism, philology, archaeological findings, and a host of other information that should be taken into account for a scientific analysis of the problem at hand.

In short, in these cases, the “demythologizing” intent prevailed over intellectual honesty.

One example out of all: according to Ferdinand Christian Baur (German theologian) and the Tübingen exegetical school, the dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) should be placed between 130 and 150 and that of John around 170.

3 • When were the Gospels written? Answer

Let’s address the matter directly. According to the prevailing and widely accepted hypotheses within the academic community, the following are the proposed dates for the composition of the Gospels:

• Mark: 65-70 (presumably in Rome)
• Matthew: 70-80 (in Antioch, Syria)
• Luke: 80-90 (potentially in Rome, though not definitively established)
• John: 90-100 (likely in Ephesus)

(For those interested in the apocryphal gospels, I have dedicated a specific page to them, providing a more comprehensive discussion, as they warrant additional attention)

4 • Bugs in my ear

Okay, theoretically, the article would end here, so those who are satisfied with that can go home… (“No refunds after the first two minutes!,” quote).

For those who wish, however, I have three more curiosities to share…

Let’s be clear: I reiterate once again that this is an ‘amateur’ blog, written by someone who read these things out of personal interest in his spare time…

…and did not have to sweat blood studying history books at university, waiting for my turn at the pillory of finals.

However, should anyone wish to delve deeper, here are a few names of criticism and counter criticism that I have noted down along the way: Vittorio Messori, Rudolf Bultman, Jean Carmignac, Xavier Léon-Dufour, Jean Guitton, François Varillon…

…Exactly, these are:

1. A philologically significant revelation (apologies for the less-than-pleasant term).
2. An archaeological breakthrough.
3. A revelation unearthed within high school textbooks.

(It goes without saying, in any case, that Pascal‘s words remain ever relevant…)

4.1 • Original language of the Gospels (philological discovery)

As everyone knows, the Gospels have come down to us in Greek.

However, specialist research in recent decades has suggested that the Greek texts of the Gospels that have come down to us may be translations of originals written in Semitic languages (it is debated whether the original language of the Gospels was Hebrew or Aramaic).

In fact, St Jerome (in the 4th century) already used ancient Hebrew to clarify some unclear passages in the Greek text of the Gospels.

Of the same opinion were Origen before him (in the 2nd century) and later Erasmus of Rotterdam (who in the 16th century traced some Semitisms in the text of the Gospels).

Some scholars today speculate that the evangelists may even have been taking notes in Aramaic while Jesus was speaking. Which doesn’t seem too surreal either, given that many of the rabbis of the time were followed by a large number of scribes.

Well. I was there pondering bits and pieces about what I just told you, when suddenly…

Jean Carmignac

Jean Carmignac (1914-1986) woke up one day (*) and:

(*) (In truth, it was likely an extensive and demanding undertaking).

• Upon back-translating all the Gospels from Greek to Hebrew, he discerned that the poetic sections (the Benedictus, the Magnificat, the Lord’s Prayer, the Prologue of John, and others) did not adhere to the laws of Greek poetry. Instead, they followed the structure of Hebrew poetry;
• He unearthed puns, inherently untranslatable into Greek, which were emblematic of the Hebrew tradition’s reliance on assonance. For instance:
  • In Matthew, when the angel informs Mary, “You shall call him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins,” that “because” makes sense only in Hebrew, as “yoshia’ (he will save) echoes the root and the sound of yeshua’ (Jesus)” (quote).
  • The assertion that “God can turn even stones into sons of Abraham” gains clarity when recognizing that stones in Hebrew are called ‘abanim and sons banim.
• Carmignac expounded on these findings and more across 104 pages in his book (the title of which is provided in the bibliography at the end of this page). This extensive exploration aims to elucidate how obscure phrases, anomalies, and discrepancies in Greek are resolved by retranslating the text into the Semitic language.

If this were the case, if indeed the Gospels had been written in Semitic, and only later in Greek, the writing of these first “notes” would necessarily have taken place before 70 AD…

…for the simple reason that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, and after that date, there would have been little point in writing the Gospels in Hebrew, and only later translating them into Greek.

(End of Part 1)

If your curiosity remains unsated, the second part of the answer to the question regarding the dating of the Gospels awaits you here.

sale

(Winter 2016)