Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

One biggest issues I have with accepting the NT as a reliable basis for belief is that any system that I can think of that accepts the accounts within as true would also have me accept other claims as true, such as the Koran. This would have me believing contradictory things. If I start out with the goals of believing true things, and using consistent methods of determining whether claims are true or not, is it possible to accept the NT as true, and not other religious texts?

[jimwalton]

I'm trying to understand your question. Are you asking that if you believe in the reliability of the NT, must you also believe in the reliability of the Koran, even though the two contradict each other?

If that's your question, I would say the answer is an obvious "no". To except the NT as true does not necessitate that you accept the Koran as true. To me there's no sense in that connection.

For me, the pursuit of truth is always the ultimate goal. I am not trying to substantiate a belief system by forcing truths, I'm trying to subscribe to a belief system that has truth as its foundation. Truth is always the end. We start with truth, and follow it wherever it leads us.

In the case of the NT, it's for sure a "cold case." It sits on the shelf from 2000 years ago. So what constitutes legitimate evidence to lead to a conclusion of reliability? The events are in the far-distant past, there are no living eye-witnesses, and there is little or no material (forensic) evidence. What I have to examine is the circumstantial evidence to determine its persuasiveness. It's impossible to "prove" the thing; the question has to lead me to what's both possible and reasonable.

1. There is good reason to believe the authors were actually there. The written records, when examined, were believably written within 20 years of Christ's death. It's both possible and reasonable to believe they were eye-witness accounts.

2. The corroborative evidence (archaeology, history, contemporary extra-biblical writers) shows that the stories and details have both credibility and accuracy.

3. There is a chain of custody (look up in wikipedia) for the NT documents that substantiate the accuracy of the text and that it didn't change over time.

4. The writers of the NT show no motive to have written with bias. (There are only 3 motives for true bias—money, sexual lust, and power—and none of the apply to the NT writers.)

So are they reliable? The evidence leads me to believe that the accounts are reliable, and I can have confidence in them beyond a reasonable doubt.

This does not mean, however, that I must unthinkingly accept other religious texts. One of the fundamental principles of logic is the law of contradiction: A does not equal non-A. If the NT and the Koran contradict each other, according to a definition of truth and the laws of logic, they can't both be true.

[Thompson]

> If that's your question, I would say the answer is an obvious "no". To except the NT as true does not necessitate that you accept the Koran as true. To me there's no sense in that connection.

I wasn't implying a connection between Christianity and Islam, I apologize if my question was unclear. I was implying that if we lowered our bar of evidence needed for belief enough to allow the NT, other claims would have to be allowed in, some of which would contradict each other. This, in my mind, invalidates lowering standards enough to allow the NT credibility.

> For me, the pursuit of truth is always the ultimate goal. I am not trying to substantiate a belief system by forcing truths, I'm trying to subscribe to a belief system that has truth as its foundation. Truth is always the end. We start with truth, and follow it wherever it leads us.

I hope this means that if you are willing to change your mind if find out new information.

> There is good reason to believe the authors were actually there. The written records, when examined, were believably written within 20 years of Christ's death. It's both possible and reasonable to believe they were eye-witness accounts.

This not supported by my studies into biblical history. Even the Christian scholars I have read place Mark as the earliest gospel and most agree it was probably written 70 A.D or after, which would be about forty years after the death of Jesus. Also the formatting of the other Gospels indicate they copied from Mark, which means they are not independent accounts.

> The corroborative evidence (archaeology, history, contemporary extra-biblical writers) shows that the stories and details have both credibility and accuracy.

I have not encountered or heard of such corroborative evidence, would you mind giving some examples?

> There is a chain of custody (look up in wikipedia) for the NT documents that substantiate the accuracy of the text and that it didn't change over time.

I have some serious questions about this statement. To my knowledge we do not have original copies of the text, nor do we know the authors. If we don't who wrote the text, how can we have a chain of evidence. The fact that the texts changed over time is well established and is admitted to even by Christian scholars.

> The writers of the NT show no motive to have written with bias.

This is a very doubtful reason to believe a text. First of all the authors clearly have an agenda: they are trying to convert others, to convince others of their beliefs. Secondly, everyone writes with a bias, this is human nature. The writers wrote with a bias, this is clearly shown by the different tones of the text. Finally, there is no motive needed for deceit needed in order for them to be wrong. They could sincerely believe what they wrote, and still be wrong.

If you could provide some sources and examples for your statements, it would be very helpful.

> If the NT and the Koran contradict each other, according to a definition of truth and the laws of logic, they can't both be true.

This is correct, however if the evidence for the NT is enough for belief, and the Koran has similar evidence, how can we decide which is true?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, and for good questions. I don't want this to get unreasonably long, so I'll try to be concise with my answers (at the expense of not saying some things I'd like to say).

> if we lowered our bar of evidence needed for belief enough to allow the NT...

Obviously, I'm of the opinion that we don't need to lower the bar of evidence for the NT, but can maintain the highest standards of truth-seeking.

> I hope this means that if you are willing to change your mind if find out new information.

Absolutely. Anyone who is not willing to do this is cutting off free inquiry and the pursuit of truth and reality. They are just closing themselves in a box of their own making.

> ...not supported by my studies. ... Mark as the earliest gospel...probably written 70 A.D. or after...

A fairly solid case can be made that the book of Acts was written in the early 60s. It doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdom of James (61), or Peter (65), the Jewish war against Rome (66-70), etc. Many of the expressions in Acts are early and before Christianity became more institutionalized. And Acts deals with things that were especially important to the Christian community before Jerusalem's fall.

But if Acts was written in the early 60s, that means the gospel of Luke was written some time in the 50s. 1 Timothy quotes Luke 10, and 1 Corinthians 11 quotes Luke 22, so both of those are circulating possibly as early as 50. Many scholars believe Luke got some of his material from Mark, which may have been written in the early 50s, then, or the late 40s. Luke says he got his information from eye-witnesses, and that it's an "orderly account". Papias (about AD 100) says that Mark got his information from Peter, and Luke quotes from Mark, so Mark is pretty early, possible within 15 years of Jesus' death.

1 Cor. 15.3-4, by all appearances and scholarly assessment, is a creed that has been dated by scholars to within 2-8 years of Jesus' resurrection. It is likely that Paul received this material 3 years after his conversion (when he took his trip to Jerusalem) from Peter and James themselves. A number of the accounts in Acts 105, 10 and 13 also includes some creeds that report very early data about Jesus' death and resurrection. The earliest evidence we have have for the resurrection goes back to almost immediately after the event allegedly happened.

There is evidence that Mark got his information from an earlier source (speculated, and called "Q" by the scholars) that may have been written as early as the late 30s. In other words, we are VERY close to the event itself.

> I have not encountered or heard of such corroborative evidence, would you mind giving some examples?

There's so much here I hardly know where to start. Just from the beginning of Luke 2, for instance:

- Augustus was this kind of personality and character, with repeated, known action along this line.
- These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel—a situation that was common in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.
- Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, such as Egypt, in roughly the same time period (10-9 BC)
- Quirinius’s participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.
- We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.

That's just a few verses in Luke 2.1-7. There are HUNDREDS of these in the four gospels.

Besides that, characters mentioned in the Bible are corroborated outside the Bible: Lysantias, Iconium in Phrygia, Politarch (Acts 17.6), Sergius Paulus (Acts 13). Thallus (AD 52) mentions the darkness and earthquake at the crucifixion. This shows how early the story emerges. Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56-120) mentions Pilate, Jesus, Judea, a mysterious superstition (the resurrection?). Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 70) mentions a wise king of the Jews who was murdered. On and on it goes.

> To my knowledge we do not have original copies of the text

You're right, we don't. The first century was a rhetorical culture, where oral and written speech interacted closely with each other. Oral composition was still the rule, and a premium was put on the spoken word. Written words were still, at the time, considered inferior and not as trustworthy. Memory skills were well-developed, but tended to be thematic rather than word for word.

The Gospels followed in form. They were oral renditions of the oral pronouncements of Jesus and the things he did. At the same time, however, we must understand that the Synoptics gospels fall into the category of what we would call "informal controlled oral tradition: villagers gathering for the narration of stories. Certain elements could be changed at will by the storyteller without reducing the authority of the story (casual news, parables, details of the story), but other ingredients were not allowed any flexibility (poems, proverbs, and particular portions of the parables, stories, and historical facets.

In that cultural environment, works such as those that are eventually written down were identified as coming from individual sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While those four never wrote what is contained in the gospels, as far as we know, they were considered to the authority from which the book derived as the story was told and retold. Variants were not only common, but permissible, but only within certain restraints. Exact wording wasn't necessary to preserve and transmit reliable representations of inspired truth.

Eventually (within anywhere from 20-50 years) the oral texts were written down, and church history is unanimous that the authoritative sources of these records is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is no variation and no disagreement that these four were the ones whose records these were.

As to the particulars, each of the gospels is filled with evidences to substantiate the designations. The author of Matthew was a conservative-minded Jew, not inclined to sectarian views, interested in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, and burdened about customs. Mark seems to have been a friend of Peter's, and his book speaks of Pete a lot. He doesn't speak so much as a Jew as a disciple. His gospel doesn't have as much eye-witness accounts in it, but the ones it does have seem to be from Peter's eyes. Luke clearly speaks as a historian. one can almost hear all the interviews in his style of writing. John, on the other hand, is replete with eye-witness details that could never have been known (or would have been bothered with) if one had not been there.

All of the church fathers, without exception, attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew. The superscription "According to Matthew" appears on the earliest editions we have and is found on all known manuscripts of the gospel. There is no disagreement in the early church that John Mark wrote Mark, and that Luke wrote Luke. There are DOZENS of reasons (long lists) affirming John as the "author" (source) of John. The bottom line is that there is NO evidence from the 1st century that the authorship of any of the four gospels was ever in doubt. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the unanimous claims to the authorship (original authority) of the oral reports that were eventually transcribed as coming from the names attached to them.

> What about a chain of custody, or a chain of evidence?

So, supposing the Apostle John is "at the scene." But how do I know John's testimony hasn't changed over time? Ignatius of Antioch (AD 40ish - 100ish), Papias of Hierapolis, and Polycarp were all students of John. Ignatius writes letters to churches mentioning what John taught, as well as quoting from other gospels. Polycarp quoted from various Gospels, and from Paul's letters.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. He wrote so much that we get from a him a list of 24 NT books, showing us that the NT is already recognized, somewhat assembled, and used. Irenaeus had a student named Hippolytus of Rome; Paul had students: his chain of custody goes through Clement of Rome all the way to Origen.

Peter taught Mark, who taught the first five African bishops, all the way to Eusebius.

In other words, we have a SUBSTANTIAL chain of custody. From very early on (even from Ignatius and Polycarp) Jesus is claimed to have been a born of a virgin, a worker of miracles, claimed to be God, and raised from the dead.

> Bias

Having an agenda is different from bias. You're right that we all write from our own perspective, but to me the point here is whether their bias preceded their belief, or whether the evidence gave them their perspective (their "bias," so to speak). Since we read in through the gospels that they were all pretty slow on the uptake, didn't understand much of what Jesus was trying to tell them, didn't understand the whole thing about death and resurrection, were not expecting a resurrection, and didn't even believe it when they were told, to me it's reasonable to conclude they didn't enter the circumstance already biased, but on the basis of evidence determined their agenda.

The accusation is made, "You can't trust the gospels. They were written by Christians!" If a man walked into the bank to rob it, should we interview the witnesses, some of which might even have known the perpetrator? Of course.

> if the evidence for the NT is enough for belief, and the Koran has similar evidence, how can we decide which is true?

It all comes down to weighing the evidence to determine the most reasonable conclusion. Anything less than that is closed-minded blindness.

[Thompson]

> But if Acts was written in the early 60s, that means the gospel of Luke was written some time in the 50s. 1 Timothy quotes Luke 10, and 1 Corinthians 11 quotes Luke 22, so both of those are circulating possibly as early as 50. Many scholars believe Luke got some of his material from Mark, which may have been written in the early 50s, then, or the late 40s. Luke says he got his information from eye-witnesses, and that it's an "orderly account". Papias (about AD 100) says that Mark got his information from Peter, and Luke quotes from Mark, so Mark is pretty early, possible within 15 years of Jesus' death.

I have some issues with this argument. You mentioned a solid argument for dating Acts, but the only examples were of things it didn't contain. The case for dating Acts would have to be more compelling than the current consensus on the date of Mark, based on what it does contain. The case of the relationship of the chronology of the books that you laid out seems solid, but the evidence seems to support starting with Mark at or around 70 and working out. Again this is based on what is actually contained in the work. Dating Acts based on the lack of a mention of something that it shouldn't mention based on setting of the narrative seems questionable. I can't help but think about dating a historical fiction novel in the past because it doesn't mention computers.

> That's just a few verses in Luke 2.1-7. There are HUNDREDS of these in the four gospels.

Of course there are some things mentioned in the NT that are correct, that doesn't prove the supernatural claims. If the authors of Spiderman accurately describe NYC, that doesn't make Spiderman real. Speaking about the census, how does that compare with the story given by Matthew, which has Jesus born during the reign of Herod, who died almost a decade before the census?

> Besides that, characters mentioned in the Bible are corroborated outside the Bible: Lysantias, Iconium in Phrygia, Politarch (Acts 17.6), Sergius Paulus (Acts 13). Thallus (AD 52) mentions the darkness and earthquake at the crucifixion. This shows how early the story emerges. Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56-120) mentions Pilate, Jesus, Judea, a mysterious superstition (the resurrection?). Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 70) mentions a wise king of the Jews who was murdered. On and on it goes.

> Yes, many of these were written by Christian authors after the fact. This confirms that the story was being told at this time, which isn't in doubt. We have no contemporary sources that confirm the claims in the Bible. We have thousands of different supernatural claims throughout history made with people agreeing with it after the fact. Should we believe these as well? If we use "the highest standards of truth-seeking." then of course we should not. This is why historical study does not necessarily lead one to believe in supernatural events.

> Written words were still, at the time, considered inferior and not as trustworthy.

I have a very hard time accepting this. The superiority of the written word has been obvious since its inception. Many stories were not written down due to the extraordinary expense and difficulty of producing the works, as well as the extremely high rate of illiteracy.

> There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the unanimous claims to the authorship (original authority) of the oral reports that were eventually transcribed as coming from the names attached to them.

Is this really in line with "the highest standards of truth-seeking"? Modern scholarship has reached the opposite conclusion for a reason. Simply accepting the account of those with a vested interest in promoting a sound and concrete origin for their holy book in spite of evidence to the contrary is not a reliable pathway to truth.

> In other words, we have a SUBSTANTIAL chain of custody. From very early on (even from Ignatius and Polycarp) Jesus is claimed to have been a born of a virgin, a worker of miracles, claimed to be God, and raised from the dead.

But do we have any evidence to back up these claims? We know the story was told, and we know it was believed. But the only corroboration comes decades after the fact, by believers.

> and didn't even believe it when they were told, to me it's reasonable to conclude they didn't enter the circumstance already biased, but on the basis of evidence determined their agenda.

This is the same claim of justified basis as every claim ever made.

> The accusation is made, "You can't trust the gospels. They were written by Christians!" If a man walked into the bank to rob it, should we interview the witnesses, some of which might even have known the perpetrator? Of course.

You can't be serious with this analogy. If you are buying a car, will you only listen to the salesman, even when he claims are extraordinary? Of course not. The source of the material doesn't invalidate it, but it must be taken into account. If the claims are made by Christians, passed on by Christians, are about Christians, and seem to go against our understanding of the world, then asking for evidence seems hardly out of place. Especially when we would demand evidence from anyone else making similar claims.

> It all comes down to weighing the evidence to determine the most reasonable conclusion. Anything less than that is closed-minded blindness.

Yes, but what evidence do we have to weigh? We can argue all day as to who wrote the gospels, but in the end is there enough evidence to support their claim? The authorship if the Koran is much better known than the NT, does that make it more believable? Or do we need more than known authors, which again the majority of scholarship would agree the NT doesn't have, or is that enough? If so, there are far more claims you much accept as true.

[jimwalton]

> but the only examples were of things it didn't contain.

Yeah, I was trying to keep it brief, fearing the letter was going to be too long, which it was. As far as some of the positive evidences for an early date for Acts:

1. The attitudes towards Rome makes it difficult to believe the persecutions and martyrdoms of Nero (AD 64 and following) had begun. The authorities treat Paul with impartial justice. Paul actually expects a favorable hearing and perhaps acquittal. If Luke were writing after 64, one would expect far less optimism.
2. Luke, even though he is an occasional traveller with Paul, seems to have little acquaintance with Pauline epistles, evidence that they had not yet begun to circulate.
3. Many of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive in the historic timeline:
- Christian theology was not well developed, so it seems
- "Christ" very quickly became a proper name. In Acts it is still used as a title.
- Jesus is referred to by other, "Gospel-era" titles: Son of Man, Son of God.
- Christians are still known as "disciples," a name that quickly fell out of general use. That identifier doesn't appear ANYWHERE in Paul's writings.
- The word *laos* still refers to the Jewish nation. That change happened quickly and soon, and in NT times referred to the Church (Rom. 9.25ff;. Titus 2.14; 1 Pet. 2.9ff.)
- Sunday is still called "the first day of the week" rather than the Lord's Day, another change that came to the Christian community early on.

The evidence puts Acts in the early 60s, the Gospel of Luke in the 50s, etc.

> Of course there are some things mentioned in the NT that are correct, that doesn't prove the supernatural claims.

I wasn't claiming that it proved supernatural origins. I was only answering a previous accusation that the person had not encountered or even heard of any corroborative evidence that the stories of the NT had any credibility or accuracy. So I was listing some of the corroborative evidence, not claiming that gave it supernatural credibility—only historical corroboration.

> We have no contemporary sources that confirm the claims in the Bible.

Do you mean the claims of supernatural events? If so, you're absolutely right. We have no such contemporary sources, except Josephus, which was obviously a second-hand report (at best), and we all know that some of Josephus' material is accurate and some isn't.

> I have a very hard time accepting this. The superiority of the written word has been obvious since its inception.

A few quotes from Socrates:

"Words put in writing are incapable of being clear, and are only useful to remind someone of what they have heard."

"Written words cannot be defended by argument and cannot teach truth effectively."

"If an author thinks that what he has written has certainty and clarity, it is to his disgrace."

"Written words are of little value unless an author is able to back them up by explanation."

Plato, in Phaedrus, tells an account of a god in Egypt inventing letters. When the god presents his invention to the king, the king says, "for those who learn to use this invention it will result in forgetfulness, for they will no longer need to use their memory. ... You have discovered a medication not to increase memory but to increase dependence on being reminded. Thus you offer to your students only the appearance of wisdom not true wisdom. For they will read much, but not be taught; they will appear to be knowledgeable, but on the whole they will be ignorant."

> Is this really in line with "the highest standards of truth-seeking"

I believe it is. The authorship of the four Gospels was never question, doubted, or refuted in ancient history. Their authorship was authenticated by the nearest historical and geographical sources. Modern skeptical scholarship has reached an opposite conclusion, but many modern scholars still admit that evidence is very good for the attributed authorship.

> But do we have any evidence to back up these claims?

Yes. The chain of custody is written.

> If the claims are made by Christians, passed on by Christians, are about Christians

Please don't forget that many of those "Christians" BECAME Christians because of the weight of evidence. They were persuaded, and they were much closer to the event than we are.

> If the claims are made by Christians, passed on by Christians, are about Christians

This is an odd question. It's what we've been talking about all along. I've given evidence after evidence. We haven't gone into the specific evidences for each of the four gospels individually, but we can. There is plenty of evidence, but it only leads us to what is sensible beyond a reasonable doubt, not what is proven.

> The authorship if the Koran is much better known than the NT, does that make it more believable?

No. Knowing the author doesn't guarantee accuracy. But the question I was answering was about evidences of veracity, certainly not about, "If we know the authors, it will prove it's true." That isn't what the discussion has been about.

> Or do we need more than known authors, which again the majority of scholarship would agree the NT doesn't have

It seems by this statement that you are reading only a portion of the perspectives. There are many many who have studied deeply and accept the authors of the NT as who they claim to be, writing in the mid first century. There are extremely credible evidences for what I'm saying (as my condensed writing on Acts at the beginning of this post hints).

Glad to talk about this further with you.

[Thompson]

In order to keep the discussion concise and not miles of text here are some highlights I would like to address:

> but many modern scholars still admit that evidence is very good for the attributed authorship.

Which?

> Yes. The chain of custody is written.

This in response to a question of evidence. The point of my post is that many other claims have this very bit of evidence for them as well. Is it enough to believe them?

> This is an odd question. It's what we've been talking about all along. I've given evidence after evidence.

I'm not sure we agree on what qualifies as evidence. There is a difference between facts consistent with and evidence for. All the evidence you have given can be given equally well for other faiths. What evidence is there for the supernatural claims?

> There are many many who have studied deeply and accept the authors of the NT as who they claim to be, writing in the mid-first century. There are extremely credible evidences for what I'm saying (as my condensed writing on Acts at the beginning of this post hints).

If your "evidence" about Acts is extremely credible, I don't have much hope for what else you can offer. For example, the attitude toward Romans is also given as evidence for later writings, as the Romans were the rules at the time, and offending them was not encouraged. What you are presenting are good indicators of age, but they are not enough to trump the compelling clues in the Gospels. Mark writing about the destruction of the temple is extremely credible evidence. Ignoring that is not seeking the truth. Which scholars have written supporting this idea of early authorship? Most scholars I have read, many of them Christian, do not contest the dating of Mark, and the other gospels.

[jimwalton]

> Which authors attribute traditional authorship to the gospels?

My study on Matthew has taken me to to Albright and Mann (The Anchor Bible commentaries), Vern Poythress, Richard Hays, Barclay, Argyle, Geisler, Liefeld, and Keener.

My study on Mark has taken me to some of the same as well as Lane, Mann, Marcus, and Gould.

For Luke, add Luck and Blaiklock.

For John, add Tenney, Morris, Barnhouse, and Hovey.

> The point of my post is that many other claims have this very bit of evidence for them as well. Is it enough to believe them?

Then I would say that it's our academic responsibility to assess the contrary evidence to discern which carries the most weight and makes the most sense, given the information available to us.

> What evidence is there for the supernatural claims?

As far as I know the only evidence is the resurrection. There is obviously no enduring evidence for Jesus walking on the water or healing a blind guy. But the resurrection as a historical event sits in a different category.

> If your "evidence" about Acts is extremely credible, I don't have much hope for what else you can offer.

OK, if that's fair, I'd be pleased to read your evidence for a later date for Acts. Then we can compare and contrast and infer the most reasonable conclusion. After all, that's what research is all about.

> Which scholars have written supporting this idea of early authorship

Our oldest complete manuscript of Mark dates from about 250, but we do have a small papyrus fragment containing only a few verses, and it's from somewhere between 100-150. Early in the 2nd century, Bishop Papias reports the existence of Mark's gospel, but he just mentions it, doesn't quote from it. It is, of course, well established and agreed by scholars that the gospel was written before 100.

There is widespread disagreement among scholars about the dating of Mark. Estimates range from AD 50-70. There are little, if any, indications in the gospel itself, except that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in Mk. 13.2 leads all to believe it was written in 70 at the latest. There are theories about Q, the Ur-Gospel, and the Logia, all unconfirmable. Here are the evidences for early authorship:
* Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew and Luke don't
* Mark seems to be writing in atmosphere where the theological understanding of the ministry and message of Jesus are still in primitive and elemental forms
* Some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles, clearly a concern during the 40s and 50s, and in much of Paul's writings in the 50s.
* Clement of Alexandria asserts that mark was written while Peter was still alive (it is believed that Peter was martyred in 64).
* It is widely believed that Mark wrote from Rome. Papias wrote that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement, and Hippolytus indicate that Peter was in Rome from about 55-60, suggesting that Mark's writing could easily have been in the 50s.
* Papyrologist José O’Callaghan has identified 7Q5 as a fragment of Mk. 6.52-53; 7Q6, 1 as 4.28; 7Q7 as 12.17, and 7Q15 as possibly 6.48, and says that they date to AD 50. The claim is based on a study of infra-red and normal photographs of fragments of papyrus from Cave 7 at Qumran. It has yet to be substantiated by peer review, and seems tenuous, but the claim deserves careful consideration.

I'll conclude with a quote from Ezra Gould (International Critical Commentary Series, St. Mark, p. xliii): “What we may call the newer criticism of the Gospels accepts the historical character of those writings as being substantially contemporaneous history. It receives our present Gospel of Mark, and the Logia of Matthew, both of them coming from inner circle of the disciples, as the basis of our Synoptical Gospels. Criticism thus confines itself at present—and this may be taken as an ultimate position—to the details of these documents, and has ceased to attack, or even to minimize, the historicity of the documents themselves.”