When Was The New Testament Written?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

The Synoptic Problem by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

...The implications of this affect authorship, date, and purpose of the first three gospels. In particular, these areas are impacted once a fairly firm date for Acts can be established. If Acts was written toward the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (c. 61-2 CE), then Luke must have preceded it. And if Luke preceded it, Mark must have preceded Luke (mid to late 50s seems most probable). Further, if both Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, it is difficult to conceive of Matthew having been written much later than 62, even if he were cut off as it were from the literary fruits of the nascent Church. Mid-60s would seem to be the latest date for Matthew. Once such a date is assigned for each of these books, then their traditional authorship becomes virtually unassailable. And the purpose for each book would need to be found within the framework of such a date. There is one more implication which can be made from all this, in regard to date: if neither Matthew nor Luke knew of each other’s work, but both knew and used Mark, how long would it take before someone such as John would become aware of any of these books? Since Gardner-Smith demonstrated long ago John’s independence of the Synoptic Gospels, such independence becomes increasingly incredible with every passing year. There is the very distinct possibility that John, too, was written in the mid-60s.

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm

Hey Taoist,

The above I copied from my post I added to the thread Romans or the Jews?

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

B)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 19 2004, 02:57 PM

If Acts was written toward the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (c. 61-2 CE), then Luke must have preceded it.

What is the evidence that Acts was written toward the end of Paul's imprisonment, and not later?

Is there something written in Acts that implies that its author is a contemporary of Paul?

Taoist,

I'm answering you again with Dr. Daniel Wallace:

Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

<span style='color:blue'>A number of factors and presuppositions affect the date of this book. Among the most important are: (1) authorship; (2) the solution to the synoptic problem; (3) whether the Olivet Discourse was truly prophetic or a vaticinium ex eventu; and especially (4) evidence internal to the book of Acts (i.e., not related to the gospel per se). Though most scholars date the book c. 80-90, our conclusion is that it should be dated substantially earlier.

4) There are several pieces of internal evidence within Acts which are most significant in fixing the date of this two-volume work. Guthrie lists six, of which the last is the most significant.

a. The absence of reference to important events which happened between AD 60 and 70. The fall of Jerusalem (66-70), the persecution of Christians by Nero (64), and the death of James by the Sanhedrin (62) are not mentioned. On this last point, it is a significant silence, for “no incident could have served Luke’s apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel.â€

b. The primitive character of the subject-matter. In particular, “the Jewish-Gentile controversy is dominant and all other evidence apart from Acts suggests that this was a vital issue only in the period before the fall of Jerusalem.â€

c. The primitive nature of the theology. Terms such as “the Christ,†“disciples,†“the Way,†and the reference to the first day of the week for the time when Christian met together to break bread, all imply primitiveness.

d. The attitude of the state towards the church. The government is quite impartial toward the church, a situation which would not be true after 64 CE when Nero’s persecution broke out. It is significant that Luke ends this book by saying that the gospel was able to spread “unhindered†(ajkwluvtw").

e. The relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles. Luke shows no awareness of Paul’s literary endeavors. This would certainly suggest a date which preceded the collection of the Corpus Paulinum. Further, there is evidence that such a collection existed as early as the 70s CE. In the least, this suggests that the purpose of Acts was not to reinstate Paul’s letters, as some have suggested.

f. The absence of reference to the death of Paul. The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct impression that Paul’s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE. Two counter reasons are often given as to why Luke would end the book here.

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/actsotl.htm

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]