When was the new testament of the bible written?

This sounds like a job for… Wikipedia!

It was written over hundreds of years by many people.

thanks, but I don’t trust wiki I apreciate you suggesting it though.

But you trust the bible? weird. But hey i don’t trust wiki either.

lol I don’t really trust the bible either I am not actually religious but my school is and if I fail religion this year I fail my whole year!! DX

Grumpyfish asks: asking random strangers on the internet is more trustworthy than the random strangers who edit wikipedia? :-)

good luck

No probably not, but all the answers I found on google were different to the last one so, I wanted to try this.

thankyou very much darbio16

You could just say “1st c AD”
I always thought it was a bit earlier, like 43–67AD, but wikipedia is probably right (70–100AD). In any case, it was a few decades later.

thanyou that’s very helpful jack79. I really apreciate it.

John was the only one that was probably actually written by one of the apostles.
Mark was probably the first Gospel written and Matthew, mark, and Luke probably had that as a reference. Luke was probably writen by someone who was associated with Mary.
The books were written at different times throughout the first few centuries and not in the order they appear in the Bible. Acts was probably written last.
Next time DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Oops, John wrote Revelation too.

@FujiokaHaruhi192
Why do you distrust Wikipedia? It’s by far the most reliable source of information on the web I know. Far more reliable than hearsay on a Q&A website.

I know many people are wary of the “anyone can edit it” aspect, but I know from experience that there are very critical peer reviewers watching over every major article who can be relied upon to debate ad nauseam every statement, implication or impression made in the article that is not uncontroversially true.
Someone once summed up Wikipedia thus: “There are five fingers on the human hand [citation needed]”
As for trolls sneaking falsehoods in there, the vandal hunters far outnumber the actual vandals on Wikipedia, and they stay longer.

@Judi no, that’s a different John. The three Johns (four with the Baptist) always confused me. In any case, John of Patmos is not John the Apostle, nor did he ever meet Jesus.

ps I just noticed wikipedia offers both views about this. I thought it was already resolved that the name was just a coincidence, but it’s good that they mention both opinions.

Having read both the Gospel and the Apocalypse in the original, I can assure you it’s a completely different person writing them. As far as we know, John the Evangelist (possible the Apostle) never went to Patmos, though he did visit Kos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1). And John of Patmos probably never left the island (or in any case had never been to Galilee).

John the baptist was killed by Herod before any of these were written.
You’re right about the letters though. I shouldn’t answer these linds of questions off the cuff.
It may be disputed, but I’m fairly sure John of Patmos is the apostle John, but I’m on my iPhone and can’t research real easy to be sure. (just 90% sure.

Wikipedia has both views: ie that earlier scholars always assumed they were one person, but than newer ones believe they were at least two (one for the Apocalypse and another for everything else) and that there might even possibly be more (what you said about the letters). And even that none of them was the Apostle, which to me seems quite reasonable. John was simply a very common name. But regardless of what official scholars believe, I’m pretty sure John of Patmos had nothing to do with any of the other Johns. His writing is completely different, it has nothing to do with any of the others, and it’s pretty obvious it’s an entirely different person, not just the same writer in a different period of his life (different dialect, different syntax, different tone, doesn’t resemble the Gospel in any way).

I have to admit that although I have spent my life studying the Bible, I have never dedicated a lot of time to Revelation. I have read it but not studied it.
The Gospel and letters of John all seem to have a similar, LOVE theme. I feel pretty sure they were written by the same guy, but it really only matters for this poor kids unstudied test.

Yeah but all he needed was the date the New Testament was written, and he’ll probably get full marks, even for something like “late 1st c AD” :)

If he didn’t know that, I’m sure there will be plenty more he doesn’t know!

It’s sometimes a good idea to use multiple sources, especially if you have doubts about one like Wikipedia. If it’s urgent and you can’t wait for the answers in a forum, check out multiple links in result lists of Google (or other search engines). You can use a phrase search:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="when+was+the+new+testament+written"

which will give you fewer results (in this case 1000) or a normal search

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=when+was+the+new+testament+written

with more results (in this case more than 19 million). You will partly get answers from other Q&A sites as well.

By the way, there’s no need to completely distrust Wikipedia as long as you never switch off critical thinking.

@mattbrowne
As if the majority of the google hits is less liable to be wrong. I don’t think it’s very uncommon for one website to get it wrong and for five other website to copy it wrong from them.
If there’s a complete consensus, it’s probably true. If there’s any disagreement, ditch the google hits and look it up in a source you trust.

Like Wikipedia.

So… @FujiokaHaruhi192 How’d you do?

VERY well thankyou grumpyfish 98% thankyou guys. I really apreciate it. Oh and I distrust wikipedia because I once had to do a task and I already knew alot about it, and when I looked it up on wiki it said a whole lot of crap that wasn’t true because some person edited with purposefully incorrect information. And also Judi I did do my homework, I just didn’t know that one question because it wasn’t in my notes. Must’ve been away. No biggy. And you were wrong, no offense. But anyway thankyou all I really apreciate it, and you are right, prbably not the best place to look for such important answers to questions thankyou for making that dawn on me thosw of you who pointed it out. I am quite satisfyed by 98%. XDD

What were we wrong about? The date? What date did the test expect?

@FujiokaHaruhi192
“Oh and I distrust wikipedia because I once had to do a task and I already knew alot about it, and when I looked it up on wiki it said a whole lot of crap that wasn’t true because some person edited with purposefully incorrect information.”
Well, that happens occasionally. Bad luck.
I think you should give it another chance, though. The more noteworthy articles never stay wrong for long. And like Matt said, if you use your common sense, you should be able to tell when they’ve been trolled.

It’s up to you, of course. I’m just sad about Wikipedia’s undeserved reputation of unreliability.

wikipedia is probably more reliable than most offline encyclopaedias (which would still list Pluto as a planet, for example…or Michael Jackson as a black “boy wonder”). It has up-to-date information about everything, and, even though some of the newer articles might contain inaccuracies, so do the same articles in any other source of information.

If you care enough about something, you can keep reading until you discover all possible discussions and views about the subject (like the question of the “four Johns” above, which, after some more research, I found a lot about on wikipedia itself).

But the best thing about it is that, like any encyclopaedia, you can get a general idea of what it’s all about (eg if you’ve never heard of Nubia, just type it and read several pages about it. Now if you’re interested enough you might want to take a course at university and write a PhD on it, but until then, wikipedia will have at least helped you figure out it’s a country and not a mineral).

Yes I understand, I probably judged it very harshly considering it only happened once. I might give wikipedia another chance. Thankyou all for your help. And Jack79 I was not talking about you your answer was not incorrect so it doesn’t matter. But anyway thankyou all.

Thank you. :)

@Fyrius – The better the websites the more valuable links they get. It’s unlikely that the top ten sites out of thousands or millions get it all wrong.

there are a lot of ideas, but AD 40–100 is a fair range.