Knowing when a given early Christian writing was composed can notably impact one’s study of the text. Which events and teachings precipitated others? What does comparison of relatively contemporary writings tell us about the Church at that period, and how might this contrast with subsequent generations? Etc. This shall be the first of several blogs in which I share what I’ve found on this subject in my reading of patristic scholarship. I shall begin with the sub-Apostolic generation (most frequently referred to as the “Apostolic Fathers”), but before reviewing the earliest extra-biblical writings I’ll first review the chronology of the New Testament itself. This I compiled some time ago when I became interested in seeing if my next reading of the New Testament might be given added perspective by reading it in the chronological order of the events relayed, and indeed has become my favorite way to read the Apostolic witnesses. This was largely derived from the dates given in The Orthodox Study Bible, which are as follows:
Matthew: "could have been written as early as AD 50, but is more likely that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 125)
Mark: "the exact date of the writing is uncertain. . . . may be dated before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (pg. 1328)
Luke: "probably wrote his gospel either from Greece or from Asia Minor in AD 70-80." (pg. 1359)
John: "written about AD 96." (pg. 1418)
Acts: "was written about AD 75-85, some time after the composition of Luke." (pg. 1468)
Romans: "was probably written in AD 55-57" (pg. 1519)
1 Corinthians: "was probably written from Ephesus around AD 55" (pg. 1550)
2 Corinthians: "written the same year as 1 Corinthians (c. AD 55)" (pg. 1573)
Ephesians: "Paul probably wrote Ephesians from Rome during his imprisonment in AD 61-63" (pg. 1597)
Philippians: “Paul probably wrote Philippians while he was under house arrest in Rome in about AD 61-63” (pg. 1611)
Colossians: "was written at the same time as Ephesians and Philemon." (pg. 1617)
1 Thessalonians: "was written in Corinth in AD 50-51" (pg. 1623)
2 Thessalonians: "was written in AD 51" (pg. 1629)
1 Timothy: "Probably AD 64-65." (pg. 1632)
2 Timothy: "AD 65-67." (pg. 1640)
Titus: "AD 63-65." (pg. 1645)
Philemon: "AD 61-63." (pg. 1650)
Hebrews: "The content of the epistle and the witness of the early Church argue for some time near AD 70." (pg. 1652)
James: "AD 55-60." (pg. 1673)
1 Peter: "sometime in AD 50-67." (pg. 1682)
2 Peter: "the date is likely AD 63-67" (pg. 1690)
1 John: "a time late in John's life, about the same time as he wrote his gospel (AD 90-95)." (pg. 1696)
2 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1704)
3 John: "AD 90-95" (pg. 1706)
Jude: "sometime in the period of AD 60-80" (pg. 1708)
Revelation: "AD 81-96" (pg. 1711)
And from thence the following reading schedule (note that the order of the Gospels, given that the events attested to parallel one another, is instead given in the order of my personal preference in which to read them):
Circa 1-33: Mark, Matthew, John, Luke.
Circa 33-50: Acts 1:1–15:35, James.
Circa 50-51: Acts 15:36–18:11, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians.
Circa 51-55: Acts 18:12–19:20, 1 Corinthians.
Circa 55-57: Acts 19:21–20:3, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans.
Circa 57-61: Acts 20:4–Acts 28:31.
Circa 61-63: Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Hebrews.
Circa 63-67: Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.
Circa 67-96: Jude, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation.
The sub-Apostolic writings
The Didache
“The question of date is difficult to answer. Besides reckoning with possible later modifications in transmission, one must consider the evidences of compilation in the Didache. What is the date of the components? When were these compiled into a document? What is the date of later revisions or insertions? Dates from before A.D. 70 to a century later or some time between the late first or early second century have been proposed for the compilation.”1
“Since the Didache is a compilation from various sources, the question of its date in fact becomes the question of the age of the traditions of which it is composed and the question of the terminus ante quem of the final redaction of the work. For the latter, we align ourselves with A. Adam and J.-P. Audet, who maintain that the whole of the work goes back to the 1st c. With this, we rule out the late dating of the work to the 2nd c. or later, on account of a supposed use by the Didache of the NT writings and, eventually, of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; it also seems to us difficult to maintain the thesis that would spread the history of the redaction of the Didache over the first two centuries.”2
Those are the most current scholarly sources which I have at my disposal, 1999 and 2013, respectively. If we go back to 1947, we have the following:
“The earlier studies tended to place it between A.D. 70 and 90”3
Glimm goes on to advocate a later dating, and thus we see that Rordorf advocates a return to the conclusions of the earlier studies. But it should be noted that the earlier views never really went out of vogue. Only a year after the publication of Glimm's work, in 1948, we read the following:
“since the Didache offers a somewhat modified form of the Apostolic decree (see 6.2 and 3), some time must have elapsed between the year 50 and the date of composition. If we allow the space of a whole decade to have intervened between the two events, we reach the year 60, and it is impossible to disprove the statement of some scholars that the Didache was written, if not in whole, at least in part, between 60 and 70. Others prefer the period between 70 and 80, while still others cling to the following decade, 80-90. It should, therefore, be admitted that we have a thoroughly conservative, and altogether reliable, estimate in the statement of many leading scholars that the Didache was written ‘before the end of the first century.’”4
When I cite The Didache, I give the full range of Kleist's references, i.e., circa 60-90, in accordance with Rordorf's example of the most current, peer-reviewed, patristic scholarship.
The Shepherd of Hermas
In short: “The Shepherd of Hermas is a complex Christian apocalypse written in Greek in stages from ca. A.D. 90 to 150.”5
To expound on this: “As it appears today, this book contains three great parts: the Visions, the Mandates and the Similitudes (or Parables): it is the work of a compiler who brought together and retouched two pre-2nd-c. books, of which one (corresponding to Visions I-IV) was the work of a certain Hermas and the other (Vision V, Mandates and Similitudes) anonymous. Both works seem to have had Hebrew sources.”6
This hearkens back to an old scholarly theory which I have long found intriguing despite being unverifiable and outmoded:
“It would not be a very bold conjecture, that Hermas and his brother were elderly grandchildren of the original Hermas, the friend of St. Paul. The Shepherd, then, might be based upon personal recollections, and upon the traditions of a family which the spirit of prophecy had reproved, and who were monuments of its power.”7
This notion favoring an emphasis on earlier material aside, I tentatively appeal to the broader scholarly spectrum of circa 90-150.
Clement of Rome’s epistle To the Corinthians
“If the incidents mentioned in 1 Clement 1.1 refer to a persecution, then the most likely date for composition would be at Rome during the time of Domitian and the leadership of Clement (ca. 96).”8
And again:
“Composed probably ca. AD 96-98, just after Domitian’s persecution”9
I therefore use the date among the majority of scholars of circa 96 for Clement of Rome’s letter To the Corinthians. It's worth noting that some scholars have attempted to make a case for an earlier dating, and perhaps I'll revisit the subject in the future should this view gain more traction.
The Epistle of Barnabas
In short: “The Epistle of Barnabas is usually dated 132-135, although an earlier date in the late 70s has had its champions, and 96-98 is a possibility. The internal evidence is inconclusive.”10
To expound on this: “Chronology rules out the traditional attribution to the Barnabas of Acts: the epistle postdates the destruction of the temple in 70 (see Barn. 16,3-4). If the foreseen reconstruction of the temple is that of the temple of Capitoline Jove, built by Hadrian on the ruins of the temple of Jerusalem in 131, the epistle must postdate this; the interpretation of the passage is controversial, however, and could refer to either an eventual rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem or to the building of the temple in the hearts of the faithful. The epistle is ordinarily dated in the first three decades of the 2nd c.; Carleton Paget, however, indicates a probable date of composition between 96-98, under Nerva, hinted at in the obscure reference of Barn. 4,4-5 to the succession of kingdoms symbolized by the horn of the beast of Dan 7:7-8, 19-24.”11
When I cite The Epistle of Barnabas I give the midrange, at circa 97.
Ignatius’ various letters
The conventional dating: “Toward the end of the reign of Trajan (98-117), Ignatius was arrested and, like Paul (Acts 25:11), taken to Rome for judgement. . . . En route to Rome, Ignatius wrote seven letters.”12
Doubts regarding such dating: “The Chronicle of Eusebius mentions both the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch and the letter of Pliny to Trajan around the tenth year of his reign (AD 107), but one can see in HE (3,33,36) that Eusebius did not have precise chronological information either for Ignatius of Antioch or Pliny. Eusebius merely wished to situate the two events approximately: he placed the letter of Pliny under Trajan and hypothesized that Ignatius of Antioch had been arrested during the persecution which the letter of Pliny speaks of. Therefore, we cannot take this date as certain.”13
An alternative: “Conventionally Ignatius has been dated, following Eusebius, to the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan. This dating has often been disputed, and there are numerous attempts to assign his work to a later period in the second century, and to claim that the work of Ignatius is a forgery from that period, as well as numerous defenses of the conventional date. However, there is something of a false dichotomy between an authentic Trajanic Ignatius and the later creation of a pseudepigrapher. On this basis, and on the basis of a web of other evidence, I have argued elsewhere that Ignatius is writing in the summer of 134, and that he is travelling in the entourage of the emperor Hadrian, who at the time was returning from Syria to Rome overland, having been engaged in fighting in the Bar Kosiba revolt in Palestine. As such, I suggest, the letters are indeed authentic, but that they date from a later period in the second century than is generally reckoned, though not as late as some modern critics would suggest.”14
Pending additional peer review of Stewart’s theory, I tentatively date Ignatius’ letters to the conventional circa 107.
Polycarp’s letter To the Philipians
The modern patristic scholarship which I have at my disposal does not venture to date Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. For this I have to refer back to the scholarship of the 1940s:
“A recent study has made it appear probable that what the manuscripts have handed down as the single letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians is really composed of two letters to the same persons. The letter earlier in time would comprise chapters 13 and 14 of the traditional text. This would have been a short note to the Philippians, written while St. Ignatius was still on his way to Rome for trial or, at least, before St. Polycarp had received any news of his death (ca. 110). . . .
“Chapters 1 to 12 form the second letter supposed by the recent analysis of our text. This letter would be surely of later date since, in chapter 9, St. Ignatius is now considered as dead. . . . a date around 135 could be fairly conjectured.”15
“This two-letter theory separates Ch. 13 (with, or without, the postscript in 14)—’the Covering Note’ which accompanied the batch of Ignatian letters sent by Polycarp to the Philippians—from the rest of the letter, ‘the Crisis Letter,’ that is, Chapters 1-12, which were written at some later time in answer to a wish of the Philippians for an exhortation on Christian life in general and, no doubt, a word of counsel in a crisis that had come upon their community. . . .
“Since Ignatius visited Smyrna late in August, it follows that Polycarp’s note probably was penned some time in September of the same year.
“Twenty years or so later (about A.D. 135), the Philippians informed Polycarp of the joy they had experienced in welcoming Ignatius and his fellow prisoners during their stay in the city. Polycarp seizes upon this expression of joy as a fitting starting point for his admonitions.”16
As for the Martyrdom of Polycarp, these older sources gave various theories as to its dating, which persisted into late 20th century patristic scholarship:
“The date of Polycarp’s martyrdom is much controverted: between 155 and 159, in 166/7, or in 177.”17
My most current scholarly source, however, gives the following:
“Polycarp died a martyr’s death on 23 February 167. . . .
“Composed shortly after the death of the bishop of Smyrna in the form of a letter sent to the church of Philomelium, the Martyrdom of Polycarp was the first work entirely dedicated to describing the suffering of a martyr and, moreover, the first to use the title ‘martyr’ to refer to a Christian who had died for the faith.”18
Thus I date the epistle to circa 135, save for the last couple chapters at circa 107, and the account of his martyrdom to circa 167.
Second Clement
“difficult to date later than the mid-2nd c.”19
Footnotes
1 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 328
2 W. Rordorf, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 1:709
3 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:168
4 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:5-6
5 David E. Aune, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 521
6 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:220
7 Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:4
8 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 264
9 Pier Franco Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:549
10 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 168
11 Francesco Scorza Barcellona, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:333
12 Graydon F. Snyder, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 559
13 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:317
14 Alistair Stewart, Popular Patristics 49:15-16
15 Francis X. Glimm, Fathers of the Church 1:131-132
16 James A. Kleist, Ancient Christian Writers 6:71-72
17 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 729
18 Pierre Nautin, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:248
19 Pier F. Beatrice, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:550
