[Dialogue] Spong--More than I really needed to know.

[KroegerD at aol.com]

July 12, 2006 
On Dating the New Testament  
A letter from one of my Internet readers, Max Rippeto, asked how New  
Testament scholars went about the task of dating the books of the New Testament.  It 
was such a good question and touched so many issues that others among my  
readers raise, that I decided to base my entire column this week on Max's  letter. 
The Bible did not drop from heaven fully written. It was created over a  
period of about a thousand years. It was not originally divided into chapters  and 
verses. Those were imposed on it relatively late in Christian history. It  
was not written in King James English. The Hebrew Scriptures were written in  
Hebrew; the Christian Scriptures in Greek. Yet in public discourse today, one  
hears a literal, dropped from heaven view of the Bible from a number of people, 
 including television evangelists and other fundamentalists, all of whom seem 
 blissfully unaware of the critical biblical scholarship that is now almost 
200  years old. We need to recognize that the repetition of ignorance does not 
turn  it into truth.  
I recall, years ago while on a book tour, I made a guest appearance on a late 
 night talk show hosted by Tom Snyder in Burbank, California. In this 
interview  the dating of the books of the New Testament came up. In response to Tom's 
 question I stated that all of Paul's works were written between 50 and 64 
C.E.  and that the gospels were written between 70 and 100 C. E. Tom had no 
problem  with the dating of Paul, but about the dating of the gospels he was 
incredulous  and said: "Wait a minute, Bishop. I just got out my short pencil and 
began to  figure. The disciples of Jesus would have been too old to write these 
gospels at  those dates." I responded, "That's right Tom, not a single one of 
the gospels  was written by eyewitnesses." Astonished, he went on to explain 
that in  parochial school, the nuns had taught him that the disciples followed 
Jesus  around, writing down everything he said. That was how, they said, we 
got the  gospels. It had never occurred to him before to question this 
"authoritative"  conclusion. "Tom," I said, "did the nuns also tell you that the 
disciples used  ball point pens and spiral notebooks!" He had never thought of that 
either. It  is hard for modern people to realize that in the first century 
very few could  either read or write. Parchment was very expensive and ink was a 
dye into which  a quill pen had to be dipped. Individual people studied long 
to become scribes,  available for hire, whenever a writing need came up. We 
meet these 'scribes' in  the gospels.  
For Tom Snyder and many others, the first step in breaking out of a literal  
biblical mindset is to understand the dating of the New Testament. Here is  
substantially what Max Rippeto wrote. "I was in the conservative, evangelical  
"Bible Church" movement for 25 years. When I came out of it about seven years  
ago, needless to say, my spiritual security and my black and white answers to  
life's questions left with me. I've been piecing my spirituality back 
together  since. Your writing has been a major positive force on this journey.  
"It makes so much sense that the Gospel of Mark was written first, then  
Matthew and Luke copied and edited it for their versions of the gospels, and  that 
all of Paul's Epistles were written before the gospels. Many of your  
assertions, however, hinge on the order in which the letters were written. A  
Scofield Reference Bible states dates different from the dates I've seen in your  
writings. Can you comment on why your dates and their dates are not the same?"  
To his letter Max appended the list of dates that the Scofield Bible had  
assigned to the books of the New Testament. They were way off target especially  
on the gospels and the book of Acts. Beside the Scofield list I have placed 
the  consensus advocated by most creditable New Testament scholars for your 
immediate  comparison. The range represents the continuing debate.  
Scofield List and dates Contemporary Scholar's List and dates  Matthew 50  
Matthew 82-85  Mark 68  Mark 70-75  Luke 60  Luke 88-93  John 85-90  John 95-100 
 Acts 60  Acts 95-100  Romans 57-58  Romans 56-58  I Corinthians 56  I 
Corinthians 54-57  II Corinthians 57  II Corinthians 54-57  Galatians 49 or 52  
Galatians 50-52  Ephesians 60  Ephesians 65-70  Philippians 60  Philippians 62  
Colossians 60  Colossians 64-68  I Thessalonians 51  I Thessalonians 51-52  II 
Thessalonians 51  II Thessalonians 53-54  1 Timothy 64  I Timothy 90-100  II 
Timothy 67  II Timothy 90-100  Titus 65  Titus 90-110  Philemon 60  Philemon 
60-62  Hebrews 68  Hebrews 75-85  James 45-50  James 80-90  1 Peter 65  I Peter 
60-70  II Peter 66  II Peter 100-135  I John 90-95  I John 95-110  II John 
90-95  II John 95-110  III John 90-95  III John 100-110  Jude 68  Jude 90-100  
Revelations 95  Revelation 94-98Scholarship is a never-ending  process. Medical 
knowledge today is quite different from what it was in 1910  when the Scofield 
Bible was first published. So is the knowledge of such things  as the 
Internet, computers, telecommunications and a host of other things.  Similarly 
biblical knowledge is mushrooming.  
I read the Scofield Bible when I was a child. It was popular in my  
evangelical church. Its commentaries are oriented toward a fundamentalist and  literal 
interpretation of the scriptures. In the service of that agenda there is  
always a predisposition to prove that those scriptures you think are literal,  had 
to be written by eyewitnesses. So the tendency was to date them as early as  
possible. The Scofield dates for the gospels assume the primacy of Matthew. In 
 the days before critical biblical scholarship came of age, that theory was  
assumed solely on the fact that it was first in the New Testament. Mark was  
thought of as a kind of "Readers Digest" version of Matthew. No reputable  
scholar today thinks that Matthew was written prior to Mark. Matthew used Mark  
extensively in the composition of his gospel, sometimes copying it verbatim.  
Luke also copied Mark, but much more loosely. Some scholars also believe that  
Luke knew of Matthew's work, but that is a still debated minority opinion. The  
dating of Luke well after Matthew, however, is generally agreed. 
Occasionally,  you will get a person who tries to assert an early date for John. My great  
mentor, John A. T. Robinson, did that in a book entitled: The Primacy of 
John,  published just prior to his death in 1983. No one in the academic world of 
New  Testament scholars, however, saluted Robinson's thesis and it won few 
disciples.  I am amused when evangelicals and fundamentalists, who disagreed with 
everything  John Robinson ever wrote other than this, cite him as their 
authority for the  early dating of John.  
There are some datable events that scholars can and do use to locate the  
books of the New Testament in history. First, the city of Jerusalem was  
destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. For the Jews, this was a searing moment that  
changed Jewish consciousness in a way that 9/11 changed the consciousness of  
Americans. Wherever, therefore, we find a reference that seems to assume that  
event, we have to date that book after 70. There are references in all four  
gospels that appear to give evidence of that catastrophe, and most scholars  today 
put Mark after 70. Since Matthew and Luke are both dependent on Mark, the  
dates for the second and third gospels must be even later, Matthew in the  
mid-eighties and Luke in the late eighties or early nineties.  
Second, scholars know a great deal about the debates that raged in the early  
years of Christian history and the time at which they were solved. They also  
know how and when complex ecclesiastical structures were formed. So when a 
book  of the Bible reveals a calmness where once there was a raging debate or 
when  scholars see structures that were not present in early church history, 
these  things become factors in the dating process.  
The death of Paul is another datable event that we can set with confidence  
around the year 64 C.E, since he appears to have been executed by Nero in that  
year. The fact that Paul's death is not mentioned in Acts, is the primary 
reason  that fundamentalists cling to an early date for this book, an idea 
dismissed  today in scholarly circles as profoundly wrong. Everything about the book 
of  Acts, including its assumption that the early debates are settled and its 
highly  organized church life, points to a date near the end of the first 
century. It  also parallels the careers of Stephen, Peter and Paul with the 
gospel portrait  of Jesus, again revealing that Acts was written well after at 
least the synoptic  gospels. Professor Burton Mack of the Claremont Theological 
Seminary faculty  actually proposed a date for Acts in the mid-second century.  
Paul's death is also a factor in defining which of the letters attributed to  
Paul, were actually written by him. The genuine letters have to have been  
composed between the years 50-64. I Thessalonians and Galatians are thought to  
be first and second in the Pauline corpus, along with I and II Corinthians 
which  seem to be a compilation of at least four letters to the Corinthian 
church.  Romans, dated in the late 50's, is Paul's most systematic letter, but even 
here  there is a debate about the authenticity of Chapter 16. II 
Thessalonians,  Philemon and Philippians also appear to be Pauline.  
Scholars debate whether Paul wrote Colossians, but the majority now says no.  
Almost all scholars dismiss Ephesians as well as I and II Timothy and Titus 
as  Pauline. It would probably be easier to prove that you or I wrote Hebrews 
than  to prove that Paul wrote it. The Epistles attributed to Peter, John, 
James and  Jude were not written by disciples. II Peter is dated as late as 135 
C.E. The  same person, or at least the same community, that wrote John's gospel 
wrote the  three Epistles of John and Revelation, which was written during a 
persecution in  the mid 90's.  
Dating the New Testament is an exciting process. The Christian story grew  
dramatically from Paul in the fifties to the end of the century when the New  
Testament was substantially complete. I hope this sweeping survey helps Max and  
others to read the Bible more intelligently.  
_Note from  the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores everywhere  and by clicking here!_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060762055/agoramedia-20)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Jan Tait from Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, writes:  
I receive your weekly newsletter and look forward to it very much. I have  
read several of your books also and agree with most of your insights and  
concepts. I also watched your interview with Geraldine Doogue on the Australian  
Broadcasting Corporation Television Station when you were out several years ago.  
 
The question is this: You say that you still spend a lot of time praying but  
to whom do you pray? "The Ground of Being" as you refer to God seems very  
impersonal and I find it difficult to let go of the "father" image I was raised  
with in an evangelical church in the 60's. How does a "Ground of Being" 
actually  care about me and my family? Intellectually I know that God really 
couldn't care  less about insignificant me here on planet Earth (example Tsunami 
victims,  hurricane victims, famines, fires, etc.) yet I WANT to believe that 
SOMETHING or  SOMEONE does - or else what is the point of being born, struggling 
through a  crappy life and then dying and going to nothing? I find I struggle 
with "what is  the point of it all" on a daily basis. I know that you say 
living life to the  fullest is what it's all about - but if there's no point to it 
all then why  bother caring about anything and living life to the fullest 
when it is all for  nothing in the end? I know life is for living in the now - 
but I can't enjoy it  if I know there's nothing at the end of it and all my 
relatives that I love so  much are going nowhere and I will never see them again. 
It is all too sad. The  childish part of me still wants "someone" in authority 
to care about me and my  family. I guess that I really do still want my God 
to care about me and "watch  out" for me but I know wanting God to care is 
childish rubbish and all the  concepts that go along with traditional 
Christianity.  
Can you help me with some of these questions - especially to whom do you pray 
 and do you ask for help and love from him/it?  
Dear Jan,  
I suppose that it is almost universal for human beings, who have the ability  
to embrace the vastness of the universe and to ask questions about life's  
meaning, to yearn for a protective, supernatural heavenly parent figure, who  
watches over us and is the source of that meaning. That sense probably comes  
from our childhoods when parents seemed invincible and able to fix anything or  
to manage any crisis.  
The problem with that yearning for God to play that role as you point out is  
twofold. First, it does not work. Tsunamis do roll over the world with no 
sense  of the trauma it inflicts on its victims and with no one protecting even 
little  children. People die in warfare despite the fervent prayers of both the 
military  personnel and their parents. Second, this yearning keeps us in a 
delusional  state of perpetual childhood where we can pretend that we do not 
have to take  care of ourselves. Delusions can be pleasant but they are not life 
giving.  
The interesting issue you raise is that you assume that if there is no  
supernatural parent figure deity in the sky then there is no reason to pray and  no 
purpose in life. If there is no life after death, the purpose for God  
disappears. In these ideas you are suggesting that if your definition of God is  not 
true, there is no God!  
Let me seek to unravel some of that by quoting a Greek philosopher,  
Xenophanes, who said, "If horses had gods, they would look like horses." Have  you 
taken time to examine how much your image of God looks like a very big, all  
powerful human being? I doubt if it will ever be otherwise for human beings  
cannot think outside their human experience. A horse cannot ever know what it  
means to be human. A human being cannot ever know what it means to be God. Yet  
human beings constantly tell other human beings who God is and how God acts.  
Therefore, step number one is to admit that you do not know.  
That does not mean that horses cannot experience human beings in their lives  
or that human beings cannot experience that which we call God in our lives. 
It  does mean that the desire to be deluded does give rise to delusion. But is 
the  human brain the ultimate reality? Or is there a sense of otherness? Of  
transcendence? Of the fullness of life? Of the power of love? Of the Ground of  
Being? Can consciousness be expanded? Boundaries broken? Humanity know  
transformation? Is this a God moment? Are these the imprints of the holy 'other'  
coming into our limited understanding?  
We have no God language so words become terribly inept in making sense out of 
 this experience. That is why almost every religious pilgrimage winds up in  
mysticism. Prayer is the conscious attempt to enter the transcendent moment. 
It  is not an adult letter addressed to a divine Santa Claus.  
That is what I mean by prayer. Does it work? That is not for me to say. Does  
love surround those for whom you are concerned? Does love assist healing? 
Expand  life? Is love the presence of God within us loosed by one to surround 
another?  Do plants grow better if we talk to them? Is the universe a living, 
throbbing,  mystical God-infused place? Is God a being among many or the ground 
of all that  is? Was Jesus perceived as an incarnation of an external 
supernatural God or was  he so whole, so at one, that people saw the source of life and 
love and,  therefore, God flowing through him?  
Those are the questions I would raise. God is real to me but not definable,  
only "experiencible." However, that is what gives every moment of life both 
its  depth and its ultimate meaning. Life is a tremendous and wonderful 
adventure  that touches eternity time after time. The idea that something you call  
meaningless now would become meaningful by being extended beyond death is a  
strange idea to me. I believe in life after death because I touch eternity and  
meaning now. That is enough for me.  
John Shelby Spong 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060712/7102f560/attachment-0001.html