The Most Accurate Dating of The New Testament in the World (to date)

After much careful and meticulous research, this is my dating of the New Testament writings to the times of their authorship. The Bible is a bedrock for reliability in historical and preternatural trustworthiness.

In what order written / Letter or Book that was written / When Written / From where it was written

1) Jude / A.D. 47 / Jerusalem, Israel
2) James / A.D. 47, Pentecost / Jerusalem, Israel
3) Galatians / A.D. 48 / Philippi, Greece
4) Gospel of Luke / A.D. 50 / Corinth, Achaia

5) I Thessalonians / February - July, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
6) I Corinthians / July - November, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
7) Revelation / Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 / Patmos, Aegean

8) Romans / October - November, A.D. 53 / Corinth, Achaia
9) Titus / February, A.D. 54 / Troas, Aegean Sea
10) Colossians / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel
11) I Timothy / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel

12) II Thessalonians / August - December, A.D. 54 / Ephesus, Asia
13) Gospel of Matthew / May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 / Jerusalem, Israel
14) Philemon / A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy

15) II Timothy / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
16) Ephesians / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
17) Philippians / February - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
18) I Peter / March - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

19) Gospel of Mark / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
20) II Peter / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
21) Acts of the Apostles / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

22) Hebrews / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
23) I John (severed intro) / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia
24) Gospel of John / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia

25) 2 John /A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia
26) 3 John / A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia

Redating the New Testament (Revised), part 3

History from Nicene Era Thyatira tells of a 53-54 A.D. Apocalypse

The post-Nicene 4th century apologist, Epiphanius (ca. 310-402 A.D.), in Against Heresies / Panarion, declares that John wrote his Apocalypse during the (end of the) reign of Claudius Caesar. The following is my reconstruction of the passages, in order to encapsulate what is being declared.

“Even the people of Thyatira testify this is to be true … [that]… (The Holy Spirit) did foretell (the Apocalypse) through the mouth of John (the Apostle)… who indeed did prophesy… during the reign of Claudius Caesar…when he was upon the isle of Patmos.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.33.8

“…after his (John’s) return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar…the Holy Spirit [not much later] compelled John to publish forth his Gospel…several years into his residing in [Ephesus of] Asia.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.12.1

Although this tradition was given through Thyatira of Asia to Epiphanius in the post-Nicene era; it was something that could be verified in the manuscripts of more than one Presbyter of Thyatira’s possession at that time. Epiphanius also tells us in these same two passages (excised here for clarity), that John died above the age of 90. If John was recruited by Jesus in late 26 A.D., and died in ca. 96-98 A.D.; then, according to recruitment requirements among Torah lawyers, John would have had to have been a minimum of 25 years of age for religious service under his Semikah rabbi.

That is, John the Apostle's birth can now be calculated to the first 7 months of the Julian year of 1 A .D. or within two years before that date. Hence, a death above 90, but not yet 100, and a fulfilling of what Epiphanius tells us, is that John was 95-97 at the time of his death. Not, as some translators of Epiphanius have misrepresented in translating Epiphanius’ passage here, that John was above 90 when first coming to or from Patmos, or above 90 in the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.).

Clement of Alexandria, in saving the historically based tale of “A Rich Man who finds Salvation”, appears to support an early dating of the Apocalypse, saying:

“…This is not a myth, but a Word [logos], handed down and
committed carefully to memory, regarding the Apostle John.
When the tyrant died,

[tou turannou teleuthesantos – “the tyrant came to a lesser End” …perhaps implying natural causes like a heart attack in his sleep]

he [John] returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus,
and (then) being invited, went away to the neighboring
Districts of the nations:
appointing bishops here, setting Churches in order there,
and ordaining such as were (made known to him) by the Spirit.”

{Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”, .42)

So how old and lacking of vitality is John, when he indeed returned to Asia? At the first entering of Asia from his banishment by the tyrant (which is lingo for Procurator), John does not go about like an old man at the end of his life. John vigorously runs a circuit tour, and visits and reorganizes and appoints beyond Asia, like a ‘man on a mission’, ‘full speed ahead’.

The word “tyrant” speaks clearly that John’s persecutor was a local Procurator, and NOT a distant Caesar who would have banished to Pontia, off the Italian Coast.
In Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.18; we see that the isle of Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of banishment. Caesar would not have allotted John to some obscure island, living almost comfortably in a fishing village, (which is what Patmos was and is still today), somewhere in the Aegean. So, we ask, is there more to point to a local Provincial Official as tyrant, and a local Ephesian or Asian persecution than that of an Emperor?

In the example of the grandsons of Judas, half-brother of Messiah, these were brought to ROME by the EVOCATUS in Domitian’s reign, but then were despised by the Emperor as “ignorant” and set free. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.20)

We do not have John preserved in any Early Church historical tradition as being known to have come to Rome and be tried before Caesar as were the grandsons of Judas. Since John was eminently more important in status to the Early Church, and one of Christ’s three closest disciples, had the event occurred, it WOULD have been clearly and historically referenced in the Patristic record. Instead, Tertullian tells us that before being banished from Asia,
“…The Apostle John [in Ephesus] was first plunged, unhurt,
into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”
(Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, .36)
and thereby indicates, along with the abovementioned quote of Clement of Alexandria, the extreme likelihood of this specific persecution as being the action taken by a local or provincial ruler.



A matter of history being taken literally

The word “history” comes from the Greek “historia” -- which means, “To investigate” and “to diligently seek out.” Simple referencing to commentaries, for example, is not a reasonable attempt to research. The failure to “thoroughly search out” would not have preserved us a Herodotus from Antiquity. Like with the students and teachers of the Talmud, those who accept commentaries appear to -- more often than not -- put the opinions of men ABOVE the Words of GOD. That is the danger we must avoid. We are all accountable to attempt the greatest accuracy on important issues, and this requires both time and laborious effort. Time and effort, which is often relegated to students and others, with the “scholar” behaving more like an editor than a researcher on his own merits.

Most scholars and laity are deficient in the proper and full reading of Irenaeus. They oft cite him as the authority for dating John's Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings. Why? Perhaps they are too busy copying the endnotes of their colleagues...perhaps they are too busy...perhaps philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise, and academic truths are as intangible as a good dinner conversation.

Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus, and a second generation witness from John the Apostle. When discussing Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.

Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the Empire in 178-181 A.D., Christianity clearly was an organized, developed, and communicating religious system. Germany communicates with Egypt and Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy. Gaul communicates with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces communicate one with another, and testify faithfully that history - tradition - faith that has been passed down to them from the Apostles.

And what NT documents are communicated them? If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations in Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

In the dating of Revelation to 95 A.D., using Irenaeus as the primary source, name one commentary which cites all three of Irenaeus’ relevant quotes concerning the dating of John's Revelation to justify its date. Do they even at least expose any serious reader to a possibility of an early New Testament completely written before A.D. 70?

The noted author, and Christian Lecturer-Evangelist, Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and “He Walked Among Us” (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers © 1972, 1988, respectively) points even the casual lay person to 3 points of interest in considering the N.T. Dating.

1) Over 40 years ago, William Foxwell Albright dared to tell the world, in 1963, that all the books of the New Testament were written no later than the 80’s A.D. Albright declared that every N.T. book was written by a baptized Jew in the First Century A.D. {18} “Every N.T. book”, means even the Apocalypse of John as being pre-90 A.D.

2) 13 years later, a scholar from Cambridge, John A.T. Robinson, released his work showing the New Testament was written entirely prior to 70 A.D. {19}

3) This same N.T. Scholar, Robinson, was interviewed by Time Magazine the following year, where he reiterated his claim, and challenged the academic world to prove him wrong. {20}

Most Academic scholars will lazily use only one quote from Irenaeus to “prove” 95 A.D. as an earliest possible date for Revelation. Therefore, I will use this same author and other early witnesses to show that they easily fail to invest a proper amount of time and effort on even just this one particular and most important topic -- in the dating of the New Testament.

Because the early dating of the New Testament clearly points to the power and effect of the Cross, and demonstrates down through the ages the veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Caius speaks from the past

Caius was a contemporary to Irenaeus, who along with Hippolytus, and others, probably was exposed to -- and learned directly from -- Irenaeus.{21} Caius, a ca. 190 A.D. Church Leader in Rome, {22} was what we consider a Third generation hearsay witness. John transmitted his teaching to Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, who taught Caius. {23}

What is Caius’s historical or chain-of-custody witness? That Paul wrote to only 7 Churches out of respect and acceptance of Revelation. That is, Revelation was written before the deaths of Peter and Paul!

“…The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than 7 Churches by name, in this order:
1) to the Corinthians, 2) to the Ephesians, 3) to the Philippians,
4) to the Colossians, 5) to the Galatians, 6) to the Thessalonians,
7) to the Romans.
Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for
their Correction, it is yet shown – that is, by this Sevenfold Writing -- that there is One Church spread abroad through the whole world.” {24}

Now, while we can debate the order which Caius presents {25} – what is irrefutable is the repetitive declaration that John’s book of Revelation was the reason why Paul limited himself to only 7 Churches, both having read and having approved the Apocalypse prior to his own death in Rome.

The question then becomes, if we accept the witness that Revelation was written PRIOR to the death of Paul, could we accurately pinpoint the year Paul died as an early year?

The academic culture believes we need a post 85 A.D. Revelation, because Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60. They reason that until its full restoration in A.D. 85, Revelation could not have been written. That is, if Revelation was written, it was penned before A.D. 60, {26} or after A.D. 85; with no room in between. So then, what is the historical witness?

Testimony from Irenaeus
In ca. 181 A.D., Irenaeus, a second-generation hearsay witness from John, writes:

“We have learned from none others than from those whom the GOSPEL –
the Plan of our Salvation -- has come down to us, which they at one time,
did proclaim in public; and at a later period, by the will of GOD,
handed down to us, in the Scriptures – to be the ground and pillar of our
Faith. Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their Own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching in
ROME, {27} and laying the FOUNDATIONS of the CHURCH. {28}

After their departure, {29} Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us {30} in writing, what had been preached by Peter - – and Luke as well, that companion of Paul,
Who had recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. {31}

Afterwards, John, the Disciple of the LORD – who also leaned upon His breast, -- did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus of Asia.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)


How soon did John arrive in Ephesus? Was it before or after Paul’s death? In Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3., we read:
“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles”

Latin: Sed et quae Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora testis est verus Apostobrum traditionis.

Loosely translated and reiterated by me, for more impact:
“Indeed, what is more, those Ephesus called out ones --
of Paul, certainly founded --
John however /moreover permanently in the presence / house of
advanced all the way up to the times of Trajan
as one who gives credible evidence as a true witness,
testifying of the true Apostolic Tradition.”

The purpose of the loose translation with reiteration is to see where the drive of the testimony is. Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Father translation and in the Latin, is claiming veracity and soundness based on a continued, unbroken, permanent presence of John...pushing an island exile back to a pre-Neroian era, and to a matter of months of separation between Paul and the Church of Ephesus. Certainly less than one year.

Further, we find from Irenaeus that he also had access to and learned from other unnamed elders and presbyters (beside Polycarp) who had conversed with John for many years. In Against Heresies 5.30.3., (e.g, compare http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah5p052.jpg )

"...it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Reading from the Greek text "Oude gar" - "Not for", we see that there is a continuum of the expressing John's presence to be asked about the Revelation "alla schedon epi tas hameteras geneus" / "up alongside against but opposite to, almost nearly upon our own daylight / time of life".

The which is reiterated and qualified as until "pros to telei tas Domitianou archas" / "up alongside the end/completion of Domitian's reign."

This is interpretation is verified by looking at context in the preceding sentence's "di ekeinou an errathe tou kai tan Apolkaluphin eorakotos," which continues into the oft misquoted Irenaeus, to force-fit a late date to Revelation. We are clearly talking about "that one there" or a "he"...not an "it". The Revelation wasn't some cloud or floating-floaty that haunted Patmos...it was a proclamation by he who was at Ephesus until his spirit was no more in his head, as it were -- cf. Gen. 2:7 -- (or body).

Notice the text in the Greek directs us to view "the announcement" in regards one who was he who "announced" the Apocalyptic Vision in the sense of being one who was "stimulated into action to proclaim forth or feel the need to tell the truth."

For John, the Apocalypse wasn't simply a vision; it was as if part of the Gospel proclamation and ministry of testifying of and about Jesus Christ.

If this is indeed the intent of the wording, then, according to the Asiatic view, we must accept that the Asiatic elders who knew and succeeded John felt that Revelation was part of the package that included the later Gospel of John (written post Peter and Paul's departure from this life day: June 29, 57 A.D.).

We, like our predecessors, may take such a view to task (at the first)...but the concept does deserve some consideration. It may also tie in to a later doctrinal conflict between Asia and Rome less than 100 years after John's demise.

It appears that we may liken the differences from the Roman and Asiatics, not only in regard to whether or not they observed the Passover --(Ephesus/Smyrna did, Rome did not except for the Passover Communion accepted from Polycarp in the 150s) -- but also in principal as to whether we were looking for a kingdom of G-D on Earth physically now, or one like Revelation and Paul in Colossians 3:1ff. and I Corinthians 15:51 (et al.) in which "the Church" (the body of all Christian believers as a whole) is "raptured" or "snatched away" in a deliverance to the Heavenlies until Judgment and the Day of HASHEM purges the Earth.

This theological difference is foundational to understand why the Roman branch evolved into what it did, and why they felt a need to artificially create a Papal Office that was non-existent to the time of Against Heresies' first publication.

================================

18 Christianity Today, magazine, January 18, 1963 “Toward a More Conservative View.”

19 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976.

20 Time, March 21, 1977.

21 The importance of Irenaeus is that he probably has two direct links to John in his Instruction. The first is obviously Polycarp, who John declares he saw and learned from in Smyrna (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.).
The second link to John was through Papias. Irenaeus had probably met and learned from Papias, and if he did not, he had access to those who had; and Irenaeus had possession or regular access to the complete works of Papias’ 5 books and those sayings and teachings of the Apostles and Jesus that did not make it into the New Testament, but should have (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4).

22 There may be debate as to Tertullian being a Fourth Generation witness, having learned from Proculus who learned from Irenaeus, etc. However, the insight granted us by Tertullian in his work “Against the Valentinians” 3.5. perhaps can be taken either way. Either that Tertullian met Irenaeus the man, and despised his abrasiveness; thus, elevating Proculus as a better role model. Or that it was Proculus that had met the meticulous Irenaeus, and transmitted his teachings to Tertullian. What is important to note, is that by 190 A.D., there was an agreement in ROME (and perhaps other major Churches) as to the completion of the New Testament canonization.
Caius and other Church Leaders were involved in the Canonization of the New Testament by the close of the Second Century. Such was his position in ROME among the Christians. For he writes in the Muratorian Canon, how that no more books may be added to the prophets or the Apostles to the end of time, as the number is made complete for those works which ought to be read in public among the Churches. The one point that shouldn't be missed in all of this is that when Caius and his contemporaries speak of Christianity being proclaimed in ROME, they speak of doing so in private meeting places, and not in public streets or squares in ROME. The fact that Peter and Paul at one time spoke publicly in the streets or wherever, freely, appears to just blow their minds that such a day ever was.

23 We also have the probability of a secondary transmission of Polycarp to Pius, bishop of Rome, who also passed along the teaching and book of the Apocalypse in the 150’s A.D, verifying the veracity of Irenaeus’ teachings. When Polycarp came to Rome, he would have been a very healthy and well above 110 years old, when he made the trip by ship and donkey drawn carts.

24 Caius, Fragments 3.3. Clearly the “rule” is established by a manuscript of John’s Patmos Apocalypse. This is only possible if it preceded John’s 44 year unbroken stay in Asia, as defined by Irenaeus, whose teacher Polycarp, was one of John’s bishops. (Re: Irenaeus 3.3.4. Cf., Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man who finds Salvation, .42).

25 My general evaluation on these Church letter dates correspond as:
1) Corinthians 1 & 2 in 52 –53 A.D. from Asia.
2) Ephesians in October 56 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
3) Philippians in 57 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
4) Colossians in 54 A.D. from captivity in Israel.
5) Galatians in 48 A.D. (unknown location at this time).
6) Thessalonians in 54 A.D. from Asia.
7) Romans in 53 A.D. Unknown. Possible locales include from either Macedonia or the isle of Troas in the beginning of the year to as late as Israeli imprisonment before being shipped out to his Caesarian trial from Israel in the Fall. The Communication is heavily to past Corinthian Church members, to those who co-evangelized Asia with Paul, now in Rome.
Therefore, the phrase, “in this order”, may actually appear to mean: “received among the Churches as part of the Canon in this order.” If that is the case, and the intent, then we see that by 190 A.D., many of the epistles of the New Testament were already well tested and established in both its makeup and distribution. We therefore see a 190 A.D. Roman Church, when examined through Irenaeus, as being familiar with the entire New Testament, with the exceptions of Philemon and 3 John. Philemon is familiar to Ignatius out of Antioch of Syria, and 3 John probably only among the Asiatic Churches at the time of Caius’ above evaluation.

26 This thesis was written by me, and as my work product (i.e., my primary manuscript was copyrighted 03-31-2006). So far, in the contacting of “evangelical” or “apologetic” “Christians”, I found myself fulfilling Isaiah 53:1’s “Whom shall believe our report? And to whom is the ARM [YHVeH Messiah] of the LORD revealed?”

27 Matthew is traditionally said to have died on November 16 of an unknown year in Macedonia according to the Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle. If the date of death were correct, then Matthew would most likely have died in A.D. 56 on that date of November 16.
28 That is, laying the ground and pillars of the Scriptures. This will have occurred, as we shall see, between 55-57 A.D.

29 Their deaths -- in ROME. Another indicator to the early dating of Revelation: In A.D. 62 or 63, Clement, bishop of ROME, tells the Corinthians that Paul had already preached the West (by inference, ROME, I Clement 5:6-7), and that the purpose of evangelizing was toward achieving the set number of “elect” {or Israelites}, which would indicate the knowledge of Revelation’s 144,000 quota (I Clement 2:4).

30 Generically “to us in Asia;” Specifically, “to John in Ephesus of Asia.” John is called the disciple of the LORD, an Apostle, an elder, and is identified as the evangelist by Anatolius as being the “evangelist John, who leaned on the LORD’s Breast” in Anatolius, Paschal Writings, .10.

31 The Book of Hebrews. Contrary to later speculation that Paul claimed Luke’s Gospel as his own.

Redating the New Testament (revised), part 2

Eusebius tells us that prior to 67 A.D. -
“The whole body, however, of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a Divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the War, removed from the city, and dwelt in a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem as if holy men, had entirely abandoned the Royal City itself, and the whole land of Judea….” >(Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5).

This quote also isolates the writing of I Clement to a time frame of not just before 70 A.D., but certainly before 67 A.D.

Indirectly, then, it may be understood that the “presbyter” of Corinth was de facto a neo-Sanhedrin office, an ambassador to Jerusalem, in behalf of the Churches at Corinth. But why was Clement contacted by Fortunatus of Corinth?

Philippians 4:3 appears to infer Clement was a fellow-laborer with Paul since at least the founding days of the Churches of Philippi, and his mention is prominent in that capacity. Since Clement was likely continuing with Paul in the ensuing years since Philippi, through Corinth and Asia and Rome, being also present with Paul and Peter at Corinth’s Christian founding, perhaps there was some sort of unwritten Charter that was specifically relevant to the Churches at Corinth? This would explain why Clement in Rome (if the sole known survivor, means Luke and Timothy would have been deceased by this time) was tapped by Fortunatus (but not necessarily). But alas, this is speculative.

The expression by Clement that "one or two" had overthrown the Corinthian Presbyter {13} might then suggest perhaps Stephanus and/or Achaicus (I Corinthians 15:17) had seized the office and household, cast out the existing representative presbyter, and installed their own man.

Therefore, in regard to pre-70 A.D. Jerusalem, we need to adapt our minds to grasp that pre-67 A.D. Christianity still observed Temple Sacrifice and had their own Sanhedrin, as if a parallel Judaism within Judaism.

The idea, then, of a papacy in Rome or anywhere else, was simply an alien Gentile concept reserved for much later generations. But like the redating of the New Testament, it appears that even a contemporary work like First Clement is also a lock...datable from within a few months following the fires to Rome in 64, to no later than 66 A.D.

From this background of understanding, we can clearly defend the position of dating Clement to a period when the Temple in Jerusalem yet stood and sacrificed, unthreatened; and was also that period after the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.



Further Dismantling a Modern Late Dating "Spin"
When the Church history and the roll of the bishops of Ephesus were read in circa 207 A.D., (in the same Third Century A.D. in which some New Testament’s Progressive / Communist / Atheistic critics contend the NT was "created"), it clearly showed that at its very origin: that is, along with Ephesus’ first bishop (Timothy), John and his Apocalypse were recorded as being present at Ephesus’ origin or beginning (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).

But is this possible?

Timothy, a companion of Silas (bishop of Corinth), whom we know to have been Paul’s disciple, served as bishop in Ephesus, under Paul, from ca. A.D. 52 - ca. August 53 (the approximate de facto date of the Ephesian uproar, which some reckon as in the spring months of March to April).{14}

Timothy then, would have had to continue serving to a certain year as bishop, even after the uproar had passed, without the guidance of an apostolic overseer, for a period of months. As we shall see later, I say "months" because this is the testimony of John through Polycarp through Irenaeus in one of the essential quotes liberal scholarship fears to let you know about. And, as we shall see in the chronology of Luke's Book of Acts, John (by inference) returned from his exile and came back to Ephesus, by April of 54 A.D.

As Hebrews 13:23 testifies,{15} we do know that Timothy at some point left the bishopric of Ephesus in order to have been arrested elsewhere and set free.

In examining the life of Paul through Acts, I place this as likely being late fall or early winter the year before Paul died; hence, A.D. 56 (if we accept 2 Timothy 4:6-21 at face value).

Certain years that I believe are definitive years of the book of Acts:

44 A.D. -- The death of a Herod in 44 A.D. listed in Acts 12:21.

47 A.D. -- The Jerusalem Conference, Pentecost 47 A.D. in Acts 15:7.

Paul gives testimony of his conversion in Galatians 1:13-17, explaining that after his conversion, he did not go up to Jerusalem, but went to Arabia for a period of time and then returned to Damascus.

Galatians 1:18:
“Then after years, three, I went up to Jerusalem to learn from Peter; and stayed upon up alongside him days, fifteen.”

Galatians 2:1:
“Then through 14 years, again, I went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas; taking with me also, Titus.”


Galatians 2:1 identifies that the Jerusalem conference was 14 years after Paul’s conversion (i.e., through the use of “dia”/”through” ff.. “meta”/”after” in 1:18).

That means that the calculation isn’t PLUS Galatians 1:18’s “meta”/”after 3 years, as though to be 17 years…but rather it keeps the 14 as a “total” tally.

Being 14 years prior to 47 A.D., means a conversion of Saul to Paul in 33 A.D. This allows Saul (who would become “Paul”) about 2 to 3 years (depending on when he saw the martyr's death of Stephen) to persecute Christians viciously in Judea, the coastal regions, and perhaps Galilee, before setting out for Syria with Sanhedrin letters of authority to do the same there also.

49 A.D.-- The Claudine expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18:1-2.) {16}

49 – 51 A.D. -- For the next 18 months (Acts 18:11), until the spring of 51 A.D. Paul is in Corinth. Paul then sails to Syria (Acts 18:18), and then goes to Ephesus of Asia.

51-53 A.D. -- Paul still travels, but his time from this point at Ephesus is reckoned for 2 years (Acts 19:10). This brings us to the summer months of 53 A.D.

Late April to the first days of May 54 A.D., but likely late April -- Paul calls for the elders of the Church of Ephesus by messenger from Miletus (Acts 20:17) and officially announces his departing (Acts 20:29,32).

A.D. 54 - Paul is imprisoned many days in Israel, but not years (dietia)

That is the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

June 1, 54 A.D. - According to the Roman transfer of proconsuls / governors and Caesars, the years of service were reckoned from June 1 of a given year. If the year for a Caesar precedes June 1, that is often calculated as Year 1, and then at June 1, even if that falls but 2 or 4 months later, that is Year 2 of the reign. It is as if limited by "fiscal" as well as "political" calendars, and perhaps set by Augustus' reconstruction and laws guiding Roman governance.

Διετιας δε πληρωθεισης ελαβεν διαδοχον ο Φηλιξ

"Years then being completed/fulfilled [in the sense of duty being accomplished (Acts 12:25) ] received a successor Felix"...etc. is the literal translation.

Often the changing of the order in varying translations to "(Two) years then being completed, Porcius Festus came into Felix's room" (Acts 24:27) confuses those who have not looked to the Greek manuscripts, because in the Greek, this verse clearly speaks to Felix serving a second term, not of Paul's imprisonment.

Twice the article "ho" in the sentence first rests on Felix, and this drives the highlight and theme of what Luke is conveying. The sentence is about Felix in the Greek, even as in John 1:1c, the absence of the article on Theos and the use with Logos (kai theos een ho Logos...and G-D was the Word) tells us that the theme is on the Logos being G-D, but not the complete expression or totality of G-D (since we have the Father and the Holy Spirit as part of the expression of what and who G-D is, more than just the Son, the Word or Logos).

To skip the articles of the Greek in which the years are driving the point home on "Felix", and to jump to Paul (who is the second to the last word -- some 13 words later after two mentions of Felix -- in the entire somewhat lengthy sentence), is a bad reading of the Greek, and sloppy scholarship in that regard.


In a careful reading and redating of Josephus' Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, we will find:

Pilate served from [June 1,] 24 A.D. - 34 A.D. (Antiquities 18.4.2,6) Two Legion tours of duty [being 5 years each].

Later, Cumanus served from [June 1,] 42 A.D. - [May 31,] 47 A.D. One legion's term of 5 years.

Felix served from [June 1,] 47 A.D. - [May 31,] 52 A.D. and again from [June 1,] 52 A.D. - [May 31,] 54 A.D. before being relieved by Festus. One legion's term of 5 years plus 2 years into a second term.

Festus lasted only from [June 1,] 54 A.D. - ca. pre-Passover 55 A.D.

That chronology which places Paul in the hands of Festus in or about 54/55 A.D., is virtually the same as the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

The question of filling in the blanks of Paul’s length of imprisonment will be answered later, because as we shall see, the 2 years Paul will stay in Rome (Acts 28:30) is a FINAL stay. It is my contention, after having examined all of the evidence, that this year is almost certainly 57 A.D. Critics are given only one other year as a remote possibility: 58 A.D.

Therefore, we are given a timeline of 53-55/56 A.D. in which John the Apostle must be banished, write the Apocalypse / Revelation, and come to Ephesus with the book in order for there to be an unbroken succession at Ephesus between Paul the Apostle, and John the Apostle, as we shall see Irenaeus testify. If Timothy is indeed a Semikah rabbi (disciple) of Rav Paul, then as long as he remains in Ephesus for up to a year after Paul leaves, it is as if Paul’s rule yet remains unbroken (though he be temporarily absent), and Irenaeus is vindicated.

But Timothy, indeed, at some point traveled to Rome. There, he was imprisoned for an unknown offense (Hebrews 13:23), most probably in relation to Paul’s execution on June 29 of that year. And curiously enough, it was Trophimus, and not Timothy, who was martyred along with Paul the Apostle.{17}

============================================
13 ANF - I Clement .47, and addressed as if men/persons of means in .57

14 F.F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 14th Reprint March 1980, p. 84, citing Duncan, G.S., St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (1929) p. 140.

15 “Know (then that) the brother Timothy, having been freed, with whom if I come sooner, I will see you.” (Literal Greek to English)

16 cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.2-6.

17 Hippolytus, On the 70 Apostles,.70 “Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul”. Although not de facto scholarly considered as written by Hippolytus, the data appears to retain pertinent and clearly factual data on where many earliest church bishops and relevant figures ended up., and how some died.

Redating of the New Testament (revised), Part 1

Preface: An early dating of the New Testament is grounded in the historical
anamnesis and witness of those of the generation, which saw, heard, and physically touched Jesus Christ. In contrast, it is those who choose to do what the scribes and Pharisees did to the masses while Jesus taught or performed miracles -- to commit apodokimazo (Gr. "to actively keep from proving"){1} -- to illegitimately and deceptively proclaim disbelief, which will potentially turn thousands upon thousands AWAY from Christ.

Beginning with Clement (bishop at Rome 57 -100/101 A.D.)

By looking first at Clement, I wish to bring you into the First Century from a more proper perspective, so that you may see without the purple haze that "Q" and other theories have placed upon the minds of those looking at the New Testament era.

The bishop of Rome in the first centuries of Christianity was never a pontifex maximus (the top “high priest”) over Christianity, as Roman Catholicism has re-envisioned history to be. But the fact of the matter is that 1 Clement was written by Clement, who was THE HEAD of the Churches at Rome, who confessed more than once, that there was NO PAPACY present.

I Clement was written prior to A.D. 70 by the THIRD bishop of the Christian Churches at Rome. Roman Catholicism incredulously calls him the third pope. If so, by his own words and closeness to the apostles, Clement’s own words should have the greater weight in our considerations of debating about the man. In I Clement, .34, ( by my reckoning dating to weeks or months just after the fire of Rome under Nero) we have the citation that could just as easily be attributed to Revelation 22:12 as to Isaiah 40:10, or 62:11. When the proper dating is accomplished, possibilities like these must dealt with in the context of the most accurate timeline, and properly addressed.

I Clement was most likely in the months following the persecutions by Nero Caesar following his burning of Rome. There is some debate as to whether that July 18-19 burning of Rome was in A.D. 64. I Clement was most likely written between September and November following the Great Fire of Rome, and the following persecutions and torching of the Christians.{2}

Sometime in the two months prior to the letter of I Clement, there was a tumult created by some one or two affluent persons who sought to engage in sedition against the Presbyters at Corinth.

I Clement, .47 reads thus:
– It is disgraceful…and unworthy of your Christian profession that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and the*very* first* Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its Presbyters. And this rumor has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected (or differ) with us….”

One or two members had raised a sedition against the holy and blameless bishop over the Corinthian Churches, for no other reason perhaps, than just because they could. The point did not matter in regards as to whether these men were pretenders of Judaism, Greek philosophy, or worshippers of Roman or Greek deities. What did matter is that the leaders had to have been men of great influence within the Church; and at Corinth, and that meant wealth. Whoever these two men were, they had great wealth and were either great benefactors only, or both benefactors and Presbyters over their own large congregations. If Presbyters, then as we read that word, we should translate it as Chief Reverend or Rabbi, so that we might get the modern concept or understanding of this position. But in context, we come to find that earlier in the Epistle, Clement confesses of not being over all churches:

"Let us cleave, therefore, to those who cultivate peace with godliness, and not those who hypocritically profess to desire it…For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock." {3}

…let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us
Honor the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of G-D….” {4}

The above quoted words were written and stated when John the Apostle was yet alive. It is also highly likely that Phillip the Apostle was also alive, but that the social and religious nature was that the Corinthians wanted a familiar authority, but less than that of an apostle to more meekly judge their conflict; especially if that someone was familiar with all the players involved in the conflict; someone like Clement.
It would have followed a more logical order on seeking independent authority outside the regional nearby major Church cities that the Church having an issue seeking doctrinal clarity normally would have contacted Jerusalem, now headed by Simeon, son of Cleopas. However, Eusebius tells us that the Churches of Christ removed themselves to Pella (a city east of the Jordan River) {5} after heeding prophetical utterance of Jerusalem’s coming destruction utterances by the same man who is mentioned in Josephus, whose ministry began 7 years before the taking of Jerusalem, or AD. 63. {6}

And the next quote verifies that as of the writing of I Clement, Jerusalem was still actively sacrificing daily and unmolested; hence, clearly dating not only pre-70, but pre-67 A.D. as well.

“Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to G-D in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming Gravity, and not going beyond the rule of ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem only." {7}

The Christian denomination of the Hebrew Faith was only 34 years old when Clement dictated this epistle as one bishop writing to another bishop's province. Clement himself is identified by the New Testament as being a former missionary and evangelist under Paul, who helped establish the Churches while at Corinth.{8} So, in the year 64 A.D. when I Clement was written -- following the fires and persecutions at Rome -- the Church at Corinth would have been only about 15 years in existence, and writing for advice from Clement as someone who helped to establish what the Church Doctrine as given them from Peter and Paul (their founders) was.

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians some 11 years previously, Paul criticized those whose congregations were claiming pre-eminence over others in the city. At the time, those factions divided themselves as followers of the Apostle Paul, followers of the Apostle Peter, and followers of the Evangelist Apollos. According to Hippolytus, Silas was the appointed bishop of Corinth of Achaia,{9} and as we can see in this retrospect, it was probably the Presbyters of the factions of "Apollos” and of “Peter" from 53 A.D., who were (probably) the ones who then had successfully removed Silas (more the follower of Paul’s way of thinking) in early 64 A.D. without any just cause or excuse.{10}

Let me reiterate the point that directly dates Clement pre-70 A.D.:
“Let each of you/us brothers, in his proper order give thanks to G-D, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. (2) Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, BUT ONLY IN JERUSALEM.
And even there the offering is not made in every place, but IN FRONT OF THE SANCTUARY at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes.”{11}

Clement speaks in the present tenses of the Greek regarding the Temple. It stands…it exists…it is not in danger…the sacrifices are occurring…the inspections of sacrifices are on-going. There is no hint of even a siege, or a shutting up of the city so as to choke the process that he lays out in 41.2. Clement speaks of the ministries as having reverence to Jerusalem, and speaks of subservience to those higher than themselves.

In I Clement 21.6 (Lightfoot), Clement speaks of “our leaders” / “those who have the rule over us”.{12} The word of interest there, for our understanding the proper context of the translation, is Proegoumenous. Proegeomai appears just once in the New Testament in Romans 12:10. There, Paul uses the same word (Proegoumenoi) to speak of a way of not only out-doing the righteousness of the Pharisee; but of trying to emulate and outdo the kindness and godly actions of those (within the Church or Faith) “officials who take the lead by example, as better, presiding over us; having gone on before us.”

Proegeomai therefore is an idea that is lost in translation from Greek into English; it is of duplicating works and reverencing those in authority over us by outdoing them, as if they had become a past twin reflection of us…a mirror image, if you will…and we are simply carrying on by their illustrious examples. How you treat 'that one' will not only enhance or worsen the one you project 'love' or 'enmity' to... but that projection of 'love' or 'enmity' will also 'mold and shape' you (personally, for good or evil) as well.

As we will see momentarily, Clement was in fact referring that he had officials of the Church higher than he, and one of them was his own presbyter ambassador (when empowered by the Christian neo-Sanhedrin of Jerusalem). Lost in translation is the fact that the Gospels themselves (as it were) label the traditional Jewish Sanhedrin of 70 as not just “elders”, but “presbyters”. Some of these are clearly found in the Greek texts of Matthew 16:21, 26:3; Mark 8:31, 11:27; Luke 9:22, 20:1.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria,in his Epistle to the Church at Tralles,.3
viewed “Presbyters as [those who made up the membership of] the Sanhedrin of GOD.”

The view, which was almost certainly penned or dictated by Ignatius while in Smyrna in the presence of Polycarp. Hence, we have an “organized” structure of the Christians, based in and out of Jerusalem until the death of James on Passover 55 A.D. And afterwards, there would form multiple Sanhedrins, or congresses of 70. These would first evolve out of Antioch of Syria, Ephesus of Asia, and Corinth of Achaia…each having a 3 day travel radii to participant Christian synagogues or assemblies, and 70 church leaders to represent their districts and region.

The NT references most clearly used in First Clement, besides the Gospels of Luke and Mark, are: Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephesians, and I Peter. These testify of a relationship of some correspondance with Corinth and Ephesus.

Therefore, with regard to Luke and Mark, the understanding of whether or not we are to define a presbyter / elder as a member of the Sanhedrin in the earliest apostolic Churches, is clearly relevant to the need of having a better comprehension of First Clement. We know that the Christians started their denomination of Judaism as Jewish-Israeli, and took the position that Judaism’s leaders were leading Jews and Israel away from the Almighty; and hence, from the Faith of the Forefathers of them. It also appears that the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was, in effect, a neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity‘s own 70, with their own scribes and priests, etc..
Eventually, by the third century A.D., it appears that there evolved multiple systems, where there were multiple Sanhedrins in Christianity based out of chief churches such as Corinth, Alexandria, and Rome…having suburbicary distances of influence of 3 days or less journey (generally 100 miles in any one direction beyond city limits). But in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, it appears that there was only one central neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity, and that was in Jerusalem.

================================

1 e.g., Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31 & 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25, 20:17

2 cf. Tacitus, Histories, Annals 15. Christians were falsely accused for the fires of Rome. Some crucified, some placed in animal skins and dogs set on them, others were turned into human torches (probably an oil grease) and set on fire like candles to illuminate Nero’s vast gardens; etc.

3 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches - .15, .16

4 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .21

5 Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5

6 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3 at the feast of Tabernacles, A.D. 62, Jesus ben Ananus began his prophesying night and day without ceasing until killed by a Roman catapulted boulder, lasting 7 years and 5 months without growing hoarse, even to the moment he died.

7 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .41

8 Philippians 4:3 tells us that when the call came from Paul, Clement was in Philippi. The identification was also made by Origen in his commentary on John 1:29. Of note: Origen says Clement even spoke of those people who are on the other side of the impassable ocean, which were called “antichthones” by the Greeks (Origen de principiis, 3.3.6), but as kosmos (peoples / world) in I Clement, .20. Instead of Paul preaching to Britain, as some few contend…according to Origen, it was Clement who founded Christianity in Rome by making a trip there at some unknown time in the 50s or 60s A.D.

9 Hippolytus, on the 70 disciples,.16; lists Silas as that bishop who succeeded Peter and Paul.

10 In 1 Corinthians 1:12, there were three factions in Corinth: those who claimed Paul, those who claimed Peter, and those who claimed Apollos. Each called their apostle “greater” in order to net some kind of apparent material gain or ability to place themselves as first in line(and such nonsense), and were all rebuked by the Apostle Paul for such childish behavior.

11 I Clement 41.1-2 (Lightfoot translation, emphasis mine)

12 Cf. http://www.textexcavation.com/greekclement17-32.html