By Dr. William R. Bragstad
At college we were taught a theory on the formulation of the writings of the New Testament. It may be summed up as follows: St. Paul's writings were without doubt the earliest of Christian documents, as he does not mention the gospels or even hint of their existence. He must have learned of the life and ministry of Christ from the preaching of Jesus' followers, and not from the written word. The gospels were compiled like any folk tradition, having been crystallized in the Christian community over a number of decades into pre-gospel and gospel form.
The reason for this lengthy period of oral story-telling would have been twofold: (1) Since theendof the age was expected to come soon, there seemed little point in making permanent records of the words andactions of Jesus. (2) In those times, few people could read or write. Thus "word of mouth" would be the most effective means of preserving the recollection of Christ in the early church.
Questions
In recent years, however, the author has come to question this theory. First, it seems unlikely that the tradition surrounding the life, ministry, andperson of Jesus could have "crystallized like any folk tradition." If something really happened outside the normal flow of human events, that is, if God did make here a unique revelation in history, then the gospels would not have arisen in so leisurely a manner. Only imagine the profound excitement at what had occurred!
Secondly, while the end of the age was expected to come soon, the ancient church would have been compelled to greater evangelical activity rather than less (Matt. 24: 14; Col. 1: 23). Such an enormous undertaking as evangelizing the whole known world would have had to rely on the written word, as did the Jewish synagogue.
Thirdly, the notion that few people could read or write in this period of the history of the church is doubtful. Given recent archeological finds, such as the one at Oxyrhynchus, writing had been a normal part of daily business, much as it is today. In addition, biblical evidence indicates that writing is mentioned from the time of Moses, pen and ink from the time of Jeremiah.
So, when were the four gospels written? Many scholars cite references in the gospels to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They say the gospels must have followed this event of 70 A.D., for as many times as the temple had been plundered and destroyed in the past, Jesus would not have predicted such a thing happening again. Thus, references to such an event could only be included in the gospel document after the fact.
And Other Answers
Yet if Christianity is based on the "Christ-event," the unique revelation of God in history, is it plausible that the disciples merely sat around the campfire and reminisced for thirty years or more before someone had the idea of writing things down?
Rather, it should be argued that the gospels were among the earliest documents in the New Testament, for evangelism was their very reason for being. As the word spread, converts added, and new churches established, the manuscripts would have been copied and copies left with the new churches to insure an on-going believing community and consistently sound doctrine. Thus was the teaching of Jesus in the early church both collected and taught (I Tim. 6:3).
In I Corinthians 4:5, Paul addresses the "wise" and judgmental Corinthians by saying: "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." The Jerusalem Bible cross-references these three teachings respectively with Matthew 7:1-2 (where Jesus commands us not to judge), Luke 12: 2-3 (where Jesus states that what is concealed will be disclosed), and John 5:44 (where Jesus speaks of the true praise that comes from God). In the very next verse (I Cor.. 4:6) Paul states: "Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.'"
What is Written
What is written ordinarily refers to Scripture, certainly to written documents. Could not "What is written" refer in this verse to the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John? If not, it would at least be a reference to Christian scriptures in existence at the time of the writing of First Corinthians (i.e., mid-50s A.D.), since it is the teaching of Jesus that is being discussed.
Significant also is the passage from I Corinthians 9 where Paul states: "It is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.' ...In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" (verses 9,14). Later in I Timothy 5: 18, he refers to these sayings again with these words, 'The scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,' and 'The laborer deserves his wages.'"
The first "scripture" is, of course, a passage from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 25: 4). Significantly, the second passage to which Paul refers in a matter-of-fact way as "scripture" is apparently quoted directly from Luke 10:7. Here Paul calls "scripture" – in the same breath as a reference to the Old Testament – a verse which, according to certain scholars today, could not have had such authority at this early date in the history of the church. I Timothy 5, however, and already, indeed, I Corinthians 4, provide evidence to the contrary.
The implication is that the earliest form of an official body of Christian writings, or canon of the New Testament, may have emerged by the time of the writing of I Corinthians and definitely by the time of I Timothy – that is, precisely between the mid-50s and early 60s of the first century A.D. Paul's quotation would also suggest that Luke's gospel must have been written some time prior to this date when it is given equal footing with the Old Testament.
Luke himself, it may be argued further, suggests an early date for his gospel, since he refers to "those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word," as forming his data base (Luke 1: 1). Eyewitnesses, after all, in any kind of research, are a diminishing resource for a number of reasons. Thus in all likelihood, Luke's gospel was written much earlier than the 80s of the first century, a date many critics currently suggest for its origin.
New Testament as "Scriptures"
Other passages in Paul's letter to Timothy refer to "scripture." In 11 Timothy 3: 14-15 Paul states, "as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
The Oxford Annotated Bible interprets this verse as referring to the Old Testament. The text, however, speaks of "the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Now the Old Testament does instruct us in many things, but it nowhere speaks of Christ as ' 'Jesus". While the coming of the Messiah is certainly foretold in the Old Testament, He is never specifically given the name of "Jesus."
This would imply that II Tim.3:14-15 embraces "scriptures" of the New Testament. If so, we should place the date of some of these writings back to the early 40s or late 30s of the first century A.D., by virtue of Timothy's knowledge of them "from childhood."
Thus there is a body of evidence in the primary documents themselves to suggest that prior to St. Paul's writing, at least some gospels – perhaps all – were already in existence.
Apparently Paul's own writings had also achieved such a status, given Peter's statement allying them with the "other scriptures" (IIPeter3:16). These "other scriptures" may be another reference to the scriptures of the New Testament, since Peter deals here with the "twisting" of the Christian message by false teachers.
Conclusions
Given the above discussion then, it is quite in order to conclude that certain gospels were, at the very least, written early in the life and ministry of the church, perhaps in the earliest forms only a few years following the resurrection. They were followed some years later by the missionary journeys and epistles of St. Paul. A case can be made for this conclusion based on the witness of the New Testament alone. An early date for the writing of the gospels would correspond also to the practical development of other historical movements in which documentation precedes implementation.
Indeed, it would appear that a designated group of books, a primary canon of the New Testament, had emerged in the church by the early 60s of the first century. When "scripture" is mentioned as of this date, the term may well refer to the Old Testament, or material now contained in the New Testament, or to both.
* Dr. Bragslad is a member of the ministerium of the Sierra Pacific Synod, ELCA. He was a founding member of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans. A more, extended and academic discussion of this topic is found in, Bragstad, Wm.. R.: "The Origin of the Gospels," in the Concordia Theological Quarterly, Oct. 1994.