Timeline of the New Testament?

[donadams]

Does anyone have a timeline in when each book of the New Testament was written?

Thks

 

[Josheb]

Google is our friend (mostly). Search "chronology of the new testament books," or "chronology of the pauline epistles" and multiple sites will provide a list. There will be some minor variation because the exact dates are not known. The chief division occurs between the late-daters and the early daters of Revelation and those who think 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic (not written by Peter). I'm an early-dater, believing everything was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of Matthew but even here I am of the mind Matthew was written early. There's some debate about Matthew because of its language. The majority view is that Mark was first and Matthew and Luke written to reconcile with Mark but I think Matthew was first and it was written in Aramaic, not Greek, and then later translated into Greek at a time sometime after Mark had been written, and that's why its language is unusual (noted textual critic Bruce Metzger, for example, is of this pov). Metzger's written several books on the New Testament that include a loose chronology. Blue Letter Bible has a timeline of Acts' events and the epistolary.

For a forensic analysis of the early/late-date debate I recommend "Before Jerusalem Fell," by Kenneth Gentry. It's not absolute, but it is very convincing, imo. One evaluates Irenaeus' comment about Revelation being written during Domitian and details how the later ECFs assumed he was correct when there is plenty of evidence drawing Irenaeus' report into question. Even if you're unpersuaded, it is a fascinating and informative read (although a little dry in a few places).

The early Church tended to be early daters (and more preterist) than today. With the rise of the liberals and the Dispensationalists in the 19th and 20th centuries late dating increased. Schweitzer, for one was instrumental in this. He argued Jesus was mistaken thinking the events he described were going to happen in the lifetime of the apostles and his gospel audiences. This drew the authenticity and veracity of scripture into question and a plethora of explanations and dating models ensued (as well as the treating of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic material as equal to scripture, or at least as equally valid reflections of religious writing). Blessedly, a lot of partial manuscripts have been discovered since those days providing evidence sufficient to identify original text, later additions to the manuscripts, and the veracity of pseudoepigraphic material. Bart Ehrman's lectures on the "proto-gospels" and other writings is worth a listen. Some of that can be found on YouTube and many public libraries will have a copy of his Great Courses lectures. Keep in mind he is a former conservative fundamentalist turned moderate agnostic.

Hope this helps

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Anyone that tells you the New Testament documents were written after 70 AD is not stating facts and has the agenda to remove the deity of Jesus the Messiah (whether they know it or not). Their assumption is that Jesus could not possibly have known that the temple would be destroyed in 70 AD so the Gospels (and everything else) must have been written afterwards.

 

[donadams]

Google is our friend (mostly). Search "chronology of the new testament books," or "chronology of the pauline epistles" and multiple sites will provide a list. There will be some minor variation because the exact dates are not known. The chief division occurs between the late-daters and the early daters of Revelation and those who think 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic (not written by Peter). I'm an early-dater, believing everything was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of Matthew but even here I am of the mind Matthew was written early. There's some debate about Matthew because of its language. The majority view is that Mark was first and Matthew and Luke written to reconcile with Mark but I think Matthew was first and it was written in Aramaic, not Greek, and then later translated into Greek at a time sometime after Mark had been written, and that's why its language is unusual (noted textual critic Bruce Metzger, for example, is of this pov). Metzger's written several books on the New Testament that include a loose chronology. Blue Letter Bible has a timeline of Acts' events and the epistolary.

For a forensic analysis of the early/late-date debate I recommend "Before Jerusalem Fell," by Kenneth Gentry. It's not absolute, but it is very convincing, imo. One evaluates Irenaeus' comment about Revelation being written during Domitian and details how the later ECFs assumed he was correct when there is plenty of evidence drawing Irenaeus' report into question. Even if you're unpersuaded, it is a fascinating and informative read (although a little dry in a few places).

The early Church tended to be early daters (and more preterist) than today. With the rise of the liberals and the Dispensationalists in the 19th and 20th centuries late dating increased. Schweitzer, for one was instrumental in this. He argued Jesus was mistaken thinking the events he described were going to happen in the lifetime of the apostles and his gospel audiences. This drew the authenticity and veracity of scripture into question and a plethora of explanations and dating models ensued (as well as the treating of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic material as equal to scripture, or at least as equally valid reflections of religious writing). Blessedly, a lot of partial manuscripts have been discovered since those days providing evidence sufficient to identify original text, later additions to the manuscripts, and the veracity of pseudoepigraphic material. Bart Ehrman's lectures on the "proto-gospels" and other writings is worth a listen. Some of that can be found on YouTube and many public libraries will have a copy of his Great Courses lectures. Keep in mind he is a former conservative fundamentalist turned moderate agnostic.

Hope this helps

Thanks

 

[Keiw1]

Anyone that tells you the New Testament documents were written after 70 AD is not stating facts and has the agenda to remove the deity of Jesus the Messiah (whether they know it or not). Their assumption is that Jesus could not possibly have known that the temple would be destroyed in 70 AD so the Gospels (and everything else) must have been written afterwards.

It was Gods will 70 ad occurred. Jesus is Gods son, he knew for sure prior to the event. Gods will cannot be stopped.

 

[donadams]

What is the timeline of genesis?

It must be over 900 years cos includes the lifespan of adam

Thks