CHARACTERISTICS
OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS, AND
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE DATING OF THE GOSPELS
With time progressing downwards, below is a timeline on the dating of early
Christian writings that:
(a) show no definite awareness of any of the Gospels, in particular of
Matthew; or
(b) show an awareness of Matthew, as by quoting from it, but do not
mention the name of it or any other gospel; or
(c) show definite awareness of both Matthean text and its attributed
name.
Rough estimates of
the varying error bars are supplied. The primary reference used is the
comprehensive study by Arthur J. Bellinzoni, “The
Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century,” The Second Century (Journal), Winter, 1992, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 197-258. We start with
Paul, and find no further Christian writings until about 95 CE.
Watch for (a)
changing to (b), and (b) changing to (c). Shortly before (a) changes to (b) is logically when the first
Gospel appeared. Shortly after (b)
changes to (c) denotes the time
period when it became feasible to assert, with theological conviction, that the
Gospels were written by the names attributed to them..
55+/- 5 (a) Paul’s Epistles
95+/- 5 (a) 1 Clement (contains some oral tradition and a couple
of later insertions from Matthew)
114+/- 3 (a) Ignatius (contains oral tradition and a later insertion
from Matthew; also, Matthew may contain several quotes from Ignatius)
117+/-17 (a?b?) Epistle of Barnabas
125+/-25 (a) Letter from Mathetes to Diognetus
125+/- 5 (b) Aristides
130+/- 5 (b,c*) Papias: as relayed mainly by
Eusebius, by which time it had long been heretical to believe that a Gospel was
written by anyone other than the name attached to it.
130+/-10 (b) Gospel of Peter
130+/-30 (b) Didache
130+/-30 (b) Gospel of Thomas
135+/- 3 (b) Polycarp (Letter to Philippians)
140+/-10 (a?b?) The Shepherd of Hermas
140+/-10 (b) Gospel of the Nazoreans
143+/- 3 (b) Marcion (Antitheses)
145+/- 5 (b) Epistle of the Apostles
150+/-10 (b)
2 Clement
150+/-25 (b) Gospel of the Ebionites
150+/-20 (b) Gospel of Truth, Valentinus?
155+/- 5 (b) Justin
163+/-12 (b) Ptolemy (Letter to Flora)
170+/- 2 (b) Tatian (Diatesseron)
170+/-20 (b) Protevangelium of James
172+/- 2 (c) Apollinaris of Hierapolis
177+/- 1 (b) Athenagoras of Athens (Plea on
Behalf of Christians)
182+/- 2 (b) Theophilus of Antioch
183+/- 5 (c) Irenaeus
185+/-15 (c) Muratorian Canon
Special discussion is needed on the entries of 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Papias.
In my opinion there were two later insertions into 1 Clement: at 13:2
and 46:8. These quote quite closely from Matthew while in all other places the
similarities between the two are not close enough to be deemed due to anything
but oral tradition. Bellinzoni references Koester and
Hagner to conclude that the writer of 1 Clement
did not use any of the synoptic gospels.
Regarding Ignatius, it is at Smyrn. 1:1
// Mt 3:15 that the quotation from Matthew seems too close to be ascribable to
oral tradition, and looks like a later addition (Bellinzoni
suggested that it may represent “an Antiochian”
revision – penned in Antioch where Ignatius had served as bishop). Furthermore,
the late dating of the Gospels indicated here allows that the writer of Matthew
had borrowed some from Ignatius's epistles; we infer that Mt 3.15 was later
inserted into Smyrm. 1.1.
In addressing Papias, I would first draw attention to the lack of any other
mention of a Gospel by name until about 172 CE (by Apollinaris
of Hierapolis), some 40 or 45 years after writings appeared that quoted from,
or were aware of, the Gospel of Matthew. Nearly two generations! How could this
happen, if circa 130 CE Papias had written and spoken of Matthew and Mark as
being the authors of the respective writings attributed to them? And if Papias had been very influential, as stated by Eusebius?
I have not come across any NT scholars who’ve addressed this question. The most
obvious solution, however, is that in his writings Papias had included
statements to the effect that the Gospels had not been written by the names
ascribed to them. For several decades subsequent writers would already know
this, and/or would believe Papias. Yet they would recognize great value in the
Gospels and would wish to quote from them. So they utilized the Gospels but
omitted their attributed names. However, by the time of Irenaeus, or the
changeover from (b) to (c) above, it could be assumed that the
Gospels first appeared so many decades earlier that it could be stated as
Christian dogma that their authors had indeed been their namesakes of the first
century. By this reasoning, Eusebius circa 300 CE was forced to extract
sparingly and carefully from Papias’s voluminous
writings, and edit them as heavily as necessary to preserve third century
theological commitment.
It’s well known that Eusebius considered Papias to be a man of little
intelligence, and apparently quoted from him that “things from books did not
benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice” (Hist.
Eccles. 3.39.4). Both considerations together are consistent with the
present hypothesis of Papias having been a “whistle blower” against those who
might claim the Gospels were written by their namesakes. Whistle-blowers are
often downgraded by those who maintain a cover-up of the truth.
In the above chronology, the changeover from (a) to (b) occurs around 120 CE. This strongly indicates that the first
Gospel appeared around that time. And from the Apology of Aristides one infers
it was Matthew. Although this date may seem late, it is the obvious conclusion,
especially in view of the fact that, since the late 2nd century, theological
commitment has continually tugged NT scholars towards belief in the earliest
conceivable date for the first appearance of the Gospels.
A 120 date is consistent with the time expected of it judging from Eduard
Meier’s “Epilogue and Explanation” section of the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ).
It was circa 115 CE before the TJ (and a transcription of it) were delivered
from the Kashmir area to the Mideast, after which it formed the basis for the
first Gospel. But that is another story.