Dates for early Christian writings

I always assumed that the order of the books in the New Testament echoed the order in which they were written. But that’s not true. The Epistles came first, then the biography of Jesus.

It’s notable that the epistles of don’t tell of Jesus as a person who, on a certain occasion, said a particular thing that would settle the current argument. Instead he speaks to the apostles in their hearts. The biographical details came a century later.

  1. The letters of the apostles come first, but they are fifty or more years after Christ.
  2. Then there’s the Gospel of Mark, 65 - 80 years after Christ. Mark is described by early writers as an apostle of Peter who never met the Lord (and he is clearly unfamiliar with Palestine).
  3. The book of Matthew (80 - 100 C.E.) was copied from, and elaborated on, the book of Mark.
  4. The author of Acts of the Apostles also wrote the Gospel of Luke some time between 80 and 130 C.E. This Luke was not an apostle of Jesus; as describe in “Luke” itself, he is someone who knew Paul and travelled with him.
  5. John is a later author (90 - 100 C.E.), who is also not an eyewitness, as we can tell from the dates of the controversies and events that he mentions.

So what we have in the New Testament is a tradition of Christianity not by eye-witnesses, but by writers who believe in Christ and speak of him largely as evangelists do today when listening to the “voice of God.” Then we have later writings that spoke of Jesus as a person and were ascribed, based on tradition rather than scholarhsip, to his disciples.

On the cultural side we have the Hellenistic ideals that were sweeping Judea at the time, Greek ideals of the philosphical school called Cynicism, and a very standard hero myth.

This story was built up in a way that reminds me of Santa Claus. The story of Father Christmas, a generous ideal who would reward children who were good all year, came first. Only later was he transformed into Santa Claus with eye-witness accounts. His packsack became miraculous (magical), larger outside than in and able to supply multitudes. He acquired flying reindeer that carried him into the sky. Other writers added Mrs. Claus, elves, Rudolph, and a taste for cookies & milk. If Santa made all the toys in the world, he must have a factory staffed by elves and we began to hear about his labour troubles.

Similarly, in the American legend, Paul Bunyan the giant logger came first, then was given Babe the Blue Ox and miracles (called “tall tales”) such as creating the Grand Canyon by dragging his ax-head on the ground. Babe acquired verismilitude through detail such as the fact that she measured 42 ax-handles and a plug of tobacco between the horns.

So Jesus came first, then the iconic events of his life such as miracles, persecution, and death, and finally Joseph & Mary and a childhood. Instead of having details of his life fade away in later writings, they are added when he is outside the scope of human memory.

See also “Biblical scholarship” (previous) or “Did Christ Exist?” (next).

Biblical alterations: Christ’s ascent into Heaven

Again, careful comparisons of manuscripts shows that many familiar parts of the New Testament, including much of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, was added later. The tale of Philip running to the tomb and finding the grave cloths, is a later addition. So is the whole extended tale in Mark 16, 9-20, of the apostles meeting Jesus after the Crucifixion, speaking with him, and watching him ascend into Heaven.


Source: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
See also “Women should keep silent” or “Biblical scholarship

Biblical alterations: women should be silent

Textual analysis and other evidence of Paul’s attitude towards indicate that the whole “women should learn in silence and subjection” snippet was added later, possibly as part of a successful attempt to minimize the influence of women in the early Christian church:

Source: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
See also “Divinity of Christ” or “Christ’s ascent into heaven“.

Biblical alterations: divinity of Christ

As the controversies of the second and third centuries raged on, scribes altered the texts that they copied to support their positions or to deny arguing points to their opponents. In many, many places a reference to Christ was changed to refer to God. That was done to support the position that Christ was an embodiment of God and not just a good person, a prophet, or an inspired teacher — or even just the son of God but a different person. Here’s an example, where the text was modified in the Codex Alexandrinus (and onward by common descent of manuscript alterations):


Source: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
See also “Women should keep silent” or “Christ’s passion“.

Biblical alterations: Christ’s passion in the garden

The very calm Christ of Luke was altered to insert a tale of suffering and passion to emphasize his human nature:


Source: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
See also “Divinity of Christ“.

Book: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman


The historicity of Jesus is a sacred cow in the West. Consequently, the facts of texual criticism of the bible are under-reported. It should be common knowledge that 30,000 textual variations on the bible were identified 250 years ago and that certain common biblical quotations were made up or added later — everything from “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” to unambigious statements of Mary’s virginity, the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, and Jesus appearing to the disciples after the crucifixion and ascending into Heaven. They just aren’t in the oldest manuscripts.

Interestingly, Ehrman describes as “brilliant” the realization that common phrasing, arrangement, errors, additions, spelling mistakes and so on in manuscripts are a product of descent with modification by the copyists and indicate a common source manuscript.

See also Christ’s passion or The Science Notes Book Review.

The Science Notes book review: Misquoting Jesus

Professor Ehrman has written an astonishingly breezy book on a very stolid subject, textual criticism of the New Testament. Professor Ehrman characterizes himself as an agnostic, and is still hopeful that the “original text” can be found, or at least reliabily inferred through the noise of 1500 years of mistranscriptions.

I, on the other hand, read his clearly written and well organized “Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” and come away more convinced than ever that it’s a delusion at best and a hoax at worst.

Having said that, one of his indirectly stated aims is clearly to have those who, like he used to, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to see how it’s a misplaced concept.

One of the most affecting sections of the book, to me, was his description of how he became a born-again Christian as a teenager, as a kind of preface to the serious business of textual criticism:

There was a kind of loneliness associated with being a young teenager; but, of course, I didn’t realize that it was part of being a teenager—I thought there was something missing.