When were the gospels written?

[Asyncritus]

If you believe the theologians - and I again warn you to stay away from them - they were written at a minimum of 30 years AFTER the resurrection.

A more stupid idea is hard to imagine.

Let me put it like this:

The Second World War ended in 1945. It was the greatest conflagration if history, certainly one of the most important events in history, with the profoundest consequences.

Now suppose someone suggested that the first account of the war was written 40 years later - say 1985.

Wouldn't you say they were mad? I'm positive you would.

Yet, this is exactly what these people are saying.

Here are the most stupendous events in the history of mankind happening, culminating in the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and His ascension into heaven to the right hand of God.

And say they, the first gospel was written in AD 70:

wiki: However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels [1] (c 70),[2] a position known as Markan priority.

How's that for stupidity?

Are these jokers seriously trying to tell me (and you), that the gospel writers didn't write anything down as things were going along?

Mark could write. Matthew was a tax collector, and certainly could. John was a business man, a fisherman, and could certainly write for the taxman. Luke was a doctor - an illiterate doctor?

Wouldn't anyone with half a brain write things down as they happened? A diary of some sort, a notebook of some kind? Of course they would.

But in their haste to denigrate the whole thing, and make the records look second/third/nth hand, the critics have got to resort to this kind of nonsense. And they take a lot of people with them: down the plughole.

So when did they actually write the finished gospels?

The Asyncritus Theory (wahey!) says they (Luke is probably the exception) wrote them during the forty days while Jesus was still with them.What else would He have been doing all that time?

In that way, Jesus oversaw what they put down, and that would explain why there is so much in common between the first 3 gospels. He made them include what He wanted them to include.

John and Mark with their emphasis on 'the beginning' are probably the very first, Matthew third, and Luke last, in order of completion.

The genealogies must have been obtained from the temple records - the Jews would have been most reluctant to make these available to the disciples - and this fact corroborates the statement:

Ac 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

These were men who had access to the temple records, and whose conversion had started much earlier than Acts 6.

They had heard the Lord teaching and confounding the priestly hierarchy. They has seen, and hated the behaviour of the chief priests in their haste to get Him executed to serve their plans. Many of them, I feel certain, had had relatives and friends who had been healed by Jesus.

And when the soldiers of the guard came rushing in with their story that Jesus has risen from the dead, some of them had heard.

11 ¶ Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported

To crown it all, they knew that the vail of the temple had been rent in two. The statement that it was rent in two from top to bottom:

Mt 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

must have been made by someone who had physically seen it happen, and spread the word among his priestly brethren. Then there was the simultaneous earthquake.

The whole lot of priests must have been quaking in their boots, and couldn't wait to become disciples: hence 'a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.'

 

[Asyncritus]

Luke

Luke was clearly the last to write his gospel. Theophilus had been converted, and other accounts (Matthew, Mark and John) of the life of Christ were circulating already.

Let's look at the prologue carefully:

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,

Here are the other writers who had already written. Who were they? A bunch of nonentities unworthy of his attention? Certainly not. Those writers were very senior men: Matthew, Mark and John.

'fulfilled among us' is very revealing. Luke is asserting that he was there when many of these things happened.

2 even as they delivered them unto us,which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

It's difficult (though the Greek construction may be clear on the matter) to decide

whether: those who were eyewitnesses did the delivering

or: 'us' who were eyewitnesses and ministers...

In either case, this is very very soon after the resurrection and ascension. Luke, it seems to me, is making the claim that he was there when many of these thinge were happening.

Here are 2 very suggestive points.

1 He knows some very intimate details of what the angel had told Mary. As a doctor, this would have been of the utmost importance to him with his training.

It's difficult to imagine Mary trumpeting these details abroad - but to her doctor, that was a different matter. He spoke to her personally about it, and was sufficiently trusted to be told about the details.

2 I think that Luke was a Samaritan doctor.

The other writers put in a signature somewhere: Matthew calls himself 'the publican'. Mark is possibly the young man who fled naked from the tomb (or not, as the case may be). John is the 'disciple who Jesus loved'.

Those are signatures.

Where is Luke's?

Apart from the Lord, the good Samaritan is the only other doctor we meet in the gospels. That parable ONLY appears in Luke's gospel.

So here is a Samaritan doctor, who has a lot to say about Samaritans in the gospel. It may well be that the parable is Luke's signature, He would have taken a lot of pleasure in recording that one!

But if he was there while a lot of this was happening, given the extremely careful and detailed way he writes, then he was an eyewitness too.

But he wasn't there from the beginning: and has to say in the interests of factualness, that he had 'traced the course of all things accurately from the first'.

If he was a Samaritan, then he heard from the Samaritan woman at the well, or he was in the village of the Samaritans when Jesus stayed there for 3 days, or he was the Samaritan leper who came back after he was healed.

At all events, he was there in the thick of things.

Given all that, it would be extraordinary if his gospel was written very much later than during the year after the resurrection.

 

[Asyncritus]

John

With his emphasis on the 'beginning' meaning, I believe, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in the same vein as Mark begins his gospel, I think that John was one of the first 2 writers of the gospels.

That the gospel was written, and then shown to some of the senior brethren is clear from the statement:

Jn 21.24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

They are affixing their affidavit to the gospel.

But who is 'we'? Answer: the other 10 disciples. They were the only ones who could give such a testimony.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The Temple

One thing really stands out in the gospel records: the TEMPLE HAD NOT YET FALLEN - or there MUST have been some mention of it's doing so. It was too great an event not to have crept in somehow.

Instead, we have the Olivet Prophecy, and other words of the Lord (as in Lk 23, and Mt 23), prophesying of the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

THEREFORE, and it is a big THEREFORE, ALL OF THE GOSPELS MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN LONG BEFORE AD 70.

Summary

When were the gospels written?

VERY early on. A big probability is in the 40-day period between Jesus' resurrection and ascension.

It was written entirely by eyewitnesses, and/or by people who were present when many of the miracles were taking place.

Mary was still alive - so Luke could get the facts from her.

So the AD 70 date, quoted at the start of the first article, is hopelessly wrong, going as it does against every bit of common sense available.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Uh... no. Before you call people stupid it would probably be wise to spend (a lot) more time studying and maturing. The truth is far more complex and deep than you imagine at the moment.

 

[Asyncritus]

Uh... no. Before you call people stupid it would probably be wise to spend (a lot) more time studying and maturing. The truth is far more complex and deep than you imagine at the moment.

Oh yeah? How would you know?

Let's hear some facts then.

 

[Danus]

Uh... no. Before you call people stupid it would probably be wise to spend (a lot) more time studying and maturing. The truth is far more complex and deep than you imagine at the moment.

I tend to agree.

Oh yeah? How would you know?

Let's hear some facts then.

Why does it matter? What's the value in the truth of the gospels if they where written at the time or a few years later?

If a belief in the validity of the gospels hinges on when they where written why not also question what was written? Once you solve one, you still have to reconcile the other.

 

[Asyncritus]

Do you think it would make a difference if you think they were written last year? How much would you be able to depend on the accounts?

If a belief in the validity of the gospels hinges on when they where written why not also question what was written? Once you solve one, you still have to reconcile the other.

I don't understand the question. Can you elucidate?

BTW I haven't called anybody stupid. I've called the idea stupid. There's a difference.

 

[reba]

We will drop the calls of stupid now. We will start the New Year with respect. This is a thread to have Bible study discussions not arguments. reba

 

[reba]

We as Christians believe the Bible to be God's Word. God had it penned in His timing.Can this be discussed pleasantly?

 

[Danus]

Do you think it would make a difference if you think they were written last year? How much would you be able to depend on the accounts?



I don't understand the question. Can you elucidate?

The question is; why does it matter?

I read your post. It's safe to say that this is an important issue to you, and that you'er willing to denounce some several hundred years of scholarly study in trade for your own hypothesis. Lest it seems that way.

So, I'm guessing that the validity, the truth, the correctness of the gospels hinges for you, on exactly when they where written. "IF" that's true for you, I also wonder how you reconcile what's actually written, or if the substance of the gospels are in question for you? Otherwise why so fixed on these dates?

 

[Sparkey]

I'm with Asyncritus here and would like to know more about how "several hundred years of scholarly study" came to the conclusion. I'll Google it after submitting this post but I don't hold much expectation of anything conclusive.


_________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT (by Sparrow)
"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book - Festus's appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59. (Mays 1988)

Because none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., it is reasonable to conclude that they were written prior to this event.


Sources:
*Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper's Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.

 

[Asyncritus]

The question is; why does it matter?

I read your post. It's safe to say that this is an important issue to you, and that you'er willing to denounce some several hundred years of scholarly study in trade for your own hypothesis. Lest it seems that way.

Several hundred years of scholarly study? Not a chance.

But appeals to authority don't wash. The facts are what matter.

So, I'm guessing that the validity, the truth, the correctness of the gospels hinges for you, on exactly when they where written. "IF" that's true for you, I also wonder how you reconcile what's actually written, or if the substance of the gospels are in question for you? Otherwise why so fixed on these dates?

If the gospels were written 40 years after the events, then their validity has got to be questionable.

That is the whole object of this 'higher critical' attitude - to denigrate them. If they were written that long after the events, then legend, myth and folklore are all charges that can be levelled at them. And that is the higher critical objective.

If myth, legend, folklore are all that the gospels are, then as a basis for salvation and deliverance from death, they are badly lacking.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or is that myth, legend and folklore? How can anyone pin any faith and their greatest hopes on myth, folklore and legend?

That is the purpose of these articles - to combat that horrendous concept.

Now can we play nicely, and can you address the points I raised if you have any objection to them?

 

[Asyncritus]

As you don't seem to understand why I have written these articles/posts (and I should really have stated the reasons, and for that I apologise to you Danus), I am posting some remarks from the Catholic Encyclopaedia about the 'higher criticism' of the NT. The OT has been subjected to even more ferocious attacks, but that is another story.

Before the eighteenth century N. T. criticism did not go beyond that of the Latin and Greek texts, if we except the ancient remarks on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse already noticed.

When the German Rationalism of the eighteenth century, in imitation of the English Deism of the seventeenth, had discarded the supernatural, the New Testament became the first object of a systematic attack.

Reimarus (1094-1768) assailed the motives of its writers and cast aspersions on the honesty of Jesus Himself.

J.S. Semler (1725-91) used the greatest latitude in discussing the origin and credibility of the sacred Scriptures, arguing that these subjects should be dealt with without regard to any Divine content.

Semler was the first to question the authenticity of N. T. books from a critical standpoint. His exegetical principles, if admitted, would largely destroy the authority of the Gospels.

Paulus (1761-1851), professor at Jena and Heidelberg, granted the genuineness of the Gospels, and their authors' honesty of purpose, but taught that in narrating the miraculous and supernatural the Apostles and Evangelists recorded their delusions, and that all the alleged superhuman occurrences are to be explained by merely natural causes.

I hope that the above explains the severity of these attacks on the Gospels, and why I take such serious exception to their ideas.

 

[Sparkey]

The opponents of the truth want to say that Jesus was just a man, that he performed no miracles, and there was no resurrection. The way they try to go about it is to say that the gospels were written much later than they were and that the events described (especially the resurrection) are "legendary" and therefor untrue.

As for the suggestion that the gospels were written during the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus -- it is mere supposition, but then, so are the other suggestions regarding actual dates (as far as I can tell). Most scholars now believe that the gospels were written a short time after the events by eyewitnesses.


The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:

• Mark was written around 70 AD
• Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD
• John was written around 90 AD

The general consensus is that the Epistles were written prior to the Gospels, that the Gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts (by the same author) and that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written down.

 

[Danus]

Several hundred years of scholarly study? Not a chance.

But appeals to authority don't wash. The facts are what matter.



If the gospels were written 40 years after the events, then their validity has got to be questionable.

That is the whole object of this 'higher critical' attitude - to denigrate them. If they were written that long after the events, then legend, myth and folklore are all charges that can be levelled at them. And that is the higher critical objective.

If myth, legend, folklore are all that the gospels are, then as a basis for salvation and deliverance from death, they are badly lacking.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Or is that myth, legend and folklore? How can anyone pin any faith and their greatest hopes on myth, folklore and legend?

That is the purpose of these articles - to combat that horrendous concept.

Now can we play nicely, and can you address the points I raised if you have any objection to them?

I'm indifferent to your points. My goal is to point out something bigger here.

I don't care if the gospels where recorded in digital at the time of the event's or written in invisible ink 70 years later. My only concern is that it is an issue for anyone claiming to be Christian. We have them, and they are worth far more than just words on paper needing to be validated in any more way than they already are in the hearts and minds of those who love God.

We can surmise all we want, and juxtapose what we know as truth, to that we know not to be true, as in your comparison to the gospels and folk lore, but it is to no value as to what is true, especially when what is held true requires such a minimal requirement to first be considered truth.

In other words, the truth of the gospels dose not require that they be written so closely to the events when we have what we have, and what we have is plenty valid enough. If it's not, then those that hold it is not, must also question the content itself. Because after all, the content is far more crazy than the time in which it was written.

Even if there was ample evidence that the gospels where written at the time of the events so what? Does that prove them any more to the doubting heart? No, it does not. But, let's suppose your right and they are written at, or closer to the events, who requires that, and if you require that, then what's the value of the gospels to you anyway? Do you want the value of the gospels to be that for you? Do you really want that to be your corner stone for holding them up as true?

I don't.

 

[Danus]

As you don't seem to understand why I have written these articles/posts (and I should really have stated the reasons, and for that I apologise to you Danus), I am posting some remarks from the Catholic Encyclopaedia about the 'higher criticism' of the NT. The OT has been subjected to even more ferocious attacks, but that is another story.

Before the eighteenth century N. T. criticism did not go beyond that of the Latin and Greek texts, if we except the ancient remarks on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse already noticed.

When the German Rationalism of the eighteenth century, in imitation of the English Deism of the seventeenth, had discarded the supernatural, the New Testament became the first object of a systematic attack.

Reimarus (1094-1768) assailed the motives of its writers and cast aspersions on the honesty of Jesus Himself.

J.S. Semler (1725-91) used the greatest latitude in discussing the origin and credibility of the sacred Scriptures, arguing that these subjects should be dealt with without regard to any Divine content.

Semler was the first to question the authenticity of N. T. books from a critical standpoint. His exegetical principles, if admitted, would largely destroy the authority of the Gospels.

Paulus (1761-1851), professor at Jena and Heidelberg, granted the genuineness of the Gospels, and their authors' honesty of purpose, but taught that in narrating the miraculous and supernatural the Apostles and Evangelists recorded their delusions, and that all the alleged superhuman occurrences are to be explained by merely natural causes.

I hope that the above explains the severity of these attacks on the Gospels, and why I take such serious exception to their ideas.

I understand the attacks and the passion you have about that. I used to hold tight on that same line.

There is a documentary you might like called "Eyewitness to Jesus". It sheds some good light I think on your argument, but never the less, take comfort in the spirit of truth we find in the gospels first and do not let the attacks move you to doubt.

Often the anti-Christ in this world take us too willingly down their little roads. I've gone there too many times only to see the folly in their "evidence" and find that they care none for mine anyway.

 

[Mike]

Since this is not a study on what scripture says, I'm redirecting this to the A&T. Just because it is about the Bible, doesn't make it a "Bible study".

 

[Free]

But appeals to authority don't wash. The facts are what matter.

And of course you know the facts and thousands of scholars are all wrong. This is by far not the first time you have made such statements against scholars

When the four canonical gospels were written is, for the most part, irrelevant. What is relevant to their timeline is that all four were accepted as Scripture in the early church and that they were written well before any of the so-called Gnostic gospels.

That's all I will say as nothing good can come from this discussion.

 

[Asyncritus]

Sorry if I've touched one of your sore spots with my comment about scholars, Free.

But too bad.

You have seen what the 'scholars' say in those quotes above. If you can still spring to their defence in the face of that lot, then that's too bad as well.

Danus

Reading the higher critical stuff in my early days nearly caused me to let go of the whole lot. I put the stuff down, very thankfully, and only now can I look at their material with a critical eye and see their assumptions, premises and prejudices clearly displayed.

I would like any readers of these posts to come to an understanding of the seriousness of the damage the 'scholars' can do. They are in high positions in the universities, and doubtless the seminaries and theological colleges.

They have bred and will breed generations of people who will become pastors and leaders, and who doubt the inspiration and dependability of the NT, and the OT as well.

I have mentioned before that NT Wright stated that in order to progress in the 'church' - presumably the anglican church in his case, one had to subscribe to the 'Enlightenment Philosophy' which has as one of its cardinal precepts the idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Those concepts and ideas are like a corroding cancer, which spreads.

That is my fear, and is why I wrote these things.

 

[Webb]

Furthermore, some seem to take what scholars write over what the NT clearly reads.