When
Was The New Testament Completed?
Was
the New Testament written down 100 years after Jesus’ death as some critics have
suggested?
By Charlie H. Campbell
Open with me to Mark,
chapter 13.
In a previous session I brought to the witness stand
numerous witnesses that all testified to the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Witnesses like...
--Fulfilled prophecy,
--Archaeological verification
--Manuscript evidence
--The Bible’s internal consistency
--The Bible’s forthrightness about it’s author’s &
hero’s failures.
--etc., etc.
But we didn’t stop there.
We also went on to further establish our case for the
trustworthiness of the Bible by examining one of the critic’s strongest objections and biggest problems with
the Bible: The Problem of Contradictions.
After an examination of seven popular examples of supposed contradictions, we concluded
that it’s not the Bible
that errs, but the critic,
who makes numerous different mistakes in his interpretation of the Bible.
Mistakes like...
--Failing
to understand the context
--Assuming
that a partial report is a false report
--Not being familiar
with the geographical setting
--Etc.
In our time together today I want to respond to another
challenge that critics of the Bible make.
The Supposed Late Completion
Date of the New Testament
There have been those who have suggested that the New Testament, including the Gospels, were not
written down until 130 – 150 A.D. a full 100-120 years after Jesus was
crucified.
Story of my wife at employee
dinner:
My
wife was at a nice restaurant a while back enjoying dinner with some of the
people she used to work with. The conversation around the diner table gradually
turned to the issue of spiritual beliefs. When the conversation evolved into a
discussion about Christianity, one of her coworkers blurted out that the
gospels could not be trusted because “They were written down three hundred years after Jesus lived!!!” This statement was
followed by an accepting silence.
This rumor of a late completion date has obviously
made inroads into our society. And some are so emboldened to suggest that if the gospels were written down this long after Jesus lived then surely they cannot be reliable.
If
someone challenges you regarding the supposed late completion date of the New
Testament, and asserts this to be the case, I would suggest that you ask them
this question:
“What evidence
do you have to support that
idea?”
The response you’re likely to get is a silent, blank
stare.
Why? There is no evidence!
Not only is there no good evidence to support this
idea (that the Bible was written so late), but there is good evidence to support the fact that much of the New Testament
was written down in the early part of
the first century A.D.
That’s what we want to discuss in our study today.
There are 6 REASONS why many Biblical scholars
believe that most of New Testament was written down before A.D. 70.
1. The
Scriptures are silent regarding the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70
If you’re not there already,
please turn with me to Mark 13.
Mark 13:1-2
1:1 Then as He [speaking of Jesus] went out of
the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of
stones and what buildings are here!” 2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do
you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that
shall not be thrown down.” NKJV
Jesus prophesied here and in
other places in the New Testament that the
temple, as well as the city
of
In Matthew 23:36, and v. 38
Jesus said that that judgment would even come upon the generation that was alive
at that time.
And it is a well-established historical fact that these things did happen in A.D. 70.[1]
In fact, it was the most significant judgment God
had ever brought upon
God’s people, after that event, were scattered from
their homeland for 1,900 centuries.
The huge Jewish temple, with the massive stones that
Jesus’ disciples were so impressed with (Matt.24:1ff) was utterly destroyed by
the Romans, and literally burned to the ground!
And although the authors of gospels and the other
New Testament epistles consistently hi-lighted fulfilled prophecy to establish
the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, NONE of the New Testament writings
mention the fact that this prophecy was fulfilled.
That’s interesting.
And not only are the Scriptures silent regarding the
temple’s destruction but the New Testament refers to a temple that was still
standing.
The Book of Hebrews, as well as 2 Thessalonians [2:4], speak of the Jewish temple and the
activities associated with it as though
it were still standing. [See: Heb. 5:1-3; 7:23,27; 8:3-5; 9:25; 10:1,3-4, 11; 13:10-11; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 11:1-2]
As you may remember, the book of Hebrews is an exhortation to discouraged Hebrews, Jews, who had received Christ but were
tempted to go back to…
--Judaism
--it’s sacrificial system
--and worship in the temple.
That clearly
implies that the temple was
still standing, for you can’t go back to the sacrificial system and
worship in the temple if there
is no temple.
So, this silence regarding the destruction
of the temple, as well as the references that imply that the temple was still standing, are best explained by the fact that the New Testament was largely
finished by A.D.70.
There is one book that we believe was written after A.D. 70, and that is the Book of Revelation. Eusebius and others tell us that it was written near the end of
Domitian’s reign, probably in A.D. 95 or 96.[2]
The second
reason we believe in an early completion date of the New Testament is…
2. The
silence of the Scriptures regarding the great persecution of A.D. 64.
History tells us that…
On that night, in the heart of the city of
This was
Soon the entire city was engulfed in flames.
The fire burned for six days until it was finally over for
lack of fuel.[3]
--Many had died.
--Hundreds of public
buildings were burned to the ground.
--Their great temples
and shrines, ruined.
--Acres of land, scorched.
--Thousands of homes destroyed, leaving many of the
city’s inhabitants homeless & hopeless.
When the facts came in, sometime later, the Roman
historian Tacitus [in his book Annals,
We’re told that Nero hired professional arsonists to
burn the city to the ground so that he could erect marble palaces, and other
monuments that would forever establish his name in history. (It would be a new, and grander
Now,
needless to say, this didn’t go over so well with the people of
In
fact, they were outraged. Their businesses, homes and history, all up in smoke.
All
eyes were turning to Nero, the emperor.
Who was to blame? What would
he do?
In order to divert suspicion from himself Nero
quickly looked for a scapegoat to blame the fire on.
Well,
he didn’t have to look very far
for a group that would work out
quite nicely.
There
were already crazy rumors circulating about a group of religious cannibals who
were meeting in each other’s homes and eating the body of their leader and
drinking his blood.
They would work perfectly!
They were already considered narrow-minded about the
truth, saying there was only one God.
And
so out went the Emperor’s proclamation.
The Christians are the ones
who burned down
And an order was given to arrest them for
punishment.
This
unleashed one of the most
gruesome, horrific times of persecution and suffering the church has ever seen!
All
throughout the city of
Eusebius and others tell us about the great
suffering they endured. These brothers
and sisters were…
--tortured on the rack
--crucified
--sewn up in animal skins and fed to wild dogs in
the arena for the entertainment of the people
--thrown
to the lions
--tied to bulls and dragged down to death
--tied to stakes, after
which they had pitch and tar
poured over their bodies, that they might be turned into human candles, left to burn as night time torches in Nero’s gardens
--etc.
And yet the
New Testament writers, who on numerous occasions mention the names of
rulers like Herod, Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, are completely silent regarding Nero and this incredibly difficult
time.
The Scriptures do talk about persecution, but nothing like what happened in the
days following
We believe, with good reason, that this is because the gospels, as well as the book of Acts, and even all of Paul’s epistles, were probably all done before A.D. 64.
Now,
let me build even a stronger case
for you if I may.
You’ll
recall that when Luke wraps up the book
of Acts there in Chapter 28, the apostle Paul was still living.
Right? He was under house arrest in
Now, an early church father by the name of Clement of Rome, who wrote in the latter part of the first century tells us that Paul was martyred
in the early 60’s[4] A.D.
in
If that is the case, and
there is good reason to believe that it is, then it is safe to say that the book of Acts was probably done in the late 50’s or very early sixties, while Paul was
still alive.
Well turn over to Acts Chapter 1.
Acts 1:1-2
1:1 The former
account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began
both to do and teach, 2 until the day in
which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments
to the apostles whom He had chosen…”
We see here that Luke originally wrote the book of Acts to a man by the name of “Theophilus.”
Well, here’s what’s
amazing. Luke refers Theophilus (there in v.1) back to his “former account” of
all that Jesus began to do and teach.
That former account was the gospel of Luke [In Luke
1:1-4 we read that that gospel was also written for Theophilus].
Here’s a question I have
for you.
If the book of Acts was completed while Paul was
still alive in the late fifties
or early sixties and Acts was Luke’s second account, what
does that tell us about the dating of the Gospel
of Luke?
It tells us that it was written even earlier than Acts!
This
is a third reason why we believe in an early authorship…
3. Paul was
martyred in the early sixties; but he was still alive at the end of the book of
Acts, Luke’s second writing.
It is safe to date the authorship of Luke’s gospel
to some time within the first 25 years
of Jesus’ life.
And what’s amazing about this is that most scholars
(conservative and liberal) believe that Luke referred to Matthew and Mark’s Gospel as reliable sources to help build his gospel. And there are
some good reasons why they think that.[5]
If that was the case, that
would mean that
Matthew and Mark’s gospels were written prior to Luke’s, even earlier than the late 50’s/early 60’s date we’ve demonstrated.
Any questions?
The
fourth reason we believe in an early completion date of the New Testament is…
4. Paul
quotes Luke’s Gospel and refers to it as Scripture
in 1 Timothy 5:18.
Turn
with me to 1 Timothy, chapter 5.
Notice
it says there in verse eighteen…
1 Timothy 5:18
When Paul quotes the scripture that
says, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” we know Paul was quoting the gospel of Luke.
Why?
Because this passage is something that only
Luke records for us. This statement is found nowhere else in the Bible, Old
Testament or New.
Q. Why is this significant in establishing that the
New Testament was completed early
in the first century?
Q. When did Paul die?
A. Approximately A.D. 64.
This means that Luke’s gospel must have been done
and in wide enough circulation for both Paul and Timothy to know its
contents and regard it as
scripture prior to Paul’s death!
We also see Peter, in 2 Peter 3:16, referring to Paul’s letters, as scripture.
Peter died around A.D. 65.
That means that Paul’s
letters were completed within 31 or 32 years after Jesus’ death.
A fifth reason we believe in an early
completion date of the New Testament is…
5. The internal evidence within the gospels
themselves.
There
are many seemingly insignificant details within
the gospels themselves that point to an early
rather than late authorship.
One
of my favorite examples is found in John 5. Turn there.
John
writes…
John 5:1-3
5:1 After
this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to
Jesus,
there at the Pool of Bethesda,
as you probably recall, came along and healed a man that had been sick for 38 years.
But I want you to read back through this again with
me and notice something you probably didn’t notice the first time.
John 5:1-3
1:1 After
this there was [Notice that John is
speaking in the past tense] a
feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to
The Pool of Bethesda that John refers to here (see
photo) was present at the time that he was writing this gospel.
Why is this significant?
This pool, the pool of
This is just one example of what appears to be an
insignificant detail within the gospel text itself that points to an early
completion date.
By
the way, archaeologists discovered the pool of
6. The
discovery of a manuscript copy of Mark’s gospel amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.[7]
A paleographer by the name of Jose O’Callaghan
made headlines around the world on
Based on...
--the containers that the
manuscripts were found in
--the location of the caves
--and other archaeological and historical evidence
...many
scholars have concluded that that this copy of Mark must have been
completed before A.D. 50!!
That’s within seventeen to
twenty years after Jesus was crucified.[8]
The New York Times and Time both did a story on this. The
New York Times said…
“If Father O’Callaghan’s theory is accepted it would prove that at
least one of the gospels—that of St. Mark—was written only a few years after the death of Jesus.”
F.F.
Bruce, that well known professor at the
“The
amount of evidence available to establish a first century date for the
completion of the New Testament is so great that it cannot be reasonably
denied.”[9]
William F. Albright, who was
formerly a liberal critic of the New Testament said this in his book, Recent Discoveries in the Bible Lands…
“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis
for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full
generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New
Testament critics of today”[10]
John A. T. Robinson, known for his role in launching
the “Death of God” movement, wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament.
In this book he suggests dates for the New Testament
books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held.
Robinson places…
--Matthew’s completion date at 40 to after 60
--Mark’s completion at about 45 to 60
--Luke’s
completion at before 57 to after 60
--and
John’s at from before 40 to after 65.
This would mean that one or two of the gospels could
have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion.
At the latest the gospels were all composed within
the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events.
Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy
of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testament documents
beyond reasonable doubt.[11]
Now, I’ll close by answering a couple of questions that some students have asked.
A. Why weren’t the gospels
written down within a year after Jesus’ death?
1. We don’t know that they weren’t. Maybe they were.
2. There’s no
need to write down gospels for a future generation if you believe there
will not be a future generation who would need them. The disciples, as
you can see in the New Testament, were hoping that Jesus was coming back in
their lifetime.
It may be that as Jesus tarried and the disciples
were advancing in years that they saw the need to write down His words that you
and I might benefit.
B. How could the gospel
writers have accurately remembered all that Jesus said and did?
1. The supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit.
On the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion Jesus told His
disciples…
John 14:25-26
25 “These
things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But
the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance [what?] all things that I said to you.” NKJV
So even if
the Gospels had been written very late
in the first century there would be no problem with the time span because of
the ability, not of the disciples, but the Holy Spirit who would help them.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would help them by bringing to their remembrance all
the things that He told them!
2. It’s reasonable to assume
that the disciples may have taken detailed
notes. (Matthew being a tax collector would have even been skilled in shorthand.)
3. Jewish students in the first
century were amazingly committed to memorizing
lengthy portions of scripture. Rabbis
were famous for having the entire Old
Testament committed to memory.[12]
4. One don’t easily forget miracles nor the words of One he is convinced is God in human flesh.
ABOUT CHARLIE CAMPBELL
Charlie Campbell has been on
staff as a pastor at Calvary Chapel Vista in
BOOKING
If you would like to have Charlie Campbell speak at your church, conference, Christian school, or retreat please call 760-726-4224 or email him at CharlieCampbell@CalvaryChapel.com. References available.
For additional resources,
audio messages, notes, DVDs, that will help you always be ready to defend the
faith (1 Peter