When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

[Zzyzx]

.
When were the gospels written? Does it matter?

We can say with a great deal of confidence that all four books were in existence by about AD 90 given the distribution of the books in all the churches. Almost all scholars will give a significantly earlier date to the four books, although some put the book of John as late as the 80s AD. A general consensus of conservative scholars puts Mark at about AD 60-65. Some even put Mark in the 50s AD. Matthew and Luke are usually given a date of writing of about AD 60-70 and John AD 70-90. These are obviously rough approximations. Such dates are based on guesses about which authors relied on the others. For instance, it is not unreasonable (though not proven) to think that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke relate prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem (which happened in AD 70) which seems to support these books being published before AD 70. John shows evidence of response to gnostic ideas, likely implying a later date of writing. It is also believed that John lived significantly longer than the other gospel writers. The arguments for the date of writing of these books can get rather obtuse. If you want to get a feeling for these arguments, you should pick up a detailed commentary on each of the gospels and consider carefully the arguments of the authors. A good commentary will present more than one theory and the evidence for the different dates of authorship.

I wish I could give exact dates, but to be honest, we simply do not know the dates these books were written.

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what ... o-we-know/

Bold added

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after.

Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic.

I could, however, write stories that made it sound as though I knew about or witnessed things (that I did not) from thirty or sixty years ago – and write detailed accounts of conversations. I might even hear about such things from folklore or oral tradition (“Uncle Joe did such and such and Aunt Mary said so and so�).

If Christian scholars and theologians do not know when gospels were written, do not know by whom they were written, do not know their sources of information HOW can anyone rationally claim that the stories are true and accurate accounts of events and conversations that really happened?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic.

Same here. I know where I was when I first heard of 9/11. I was in class, and one teacher, Brother Fred, came in crying and spoke to my teacher. When I got home, the news was on the TV and there I saw the reports of the planes crashing into the towers.

However, I cannot for the life of me remember a single word spoken that day. I can't remember WHAT class I had that Brother Fred walked into or who the teacher was he spoke to. I can't remember if that teacher was male or female. I can't remember what I said to my friends or my family. The details escape me.
So I am fully aware that when it comes to memories of decades past, they do tend to fade.
When it comes to the Gospels, I learn of roughly when they were first written and/or published. About three decades after the 'fact'. And I'm supposed to believe that the authors got Jesus's words right? I'm being asked to trust that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John asked people who we know nothing about and that
1) These anonymous people remembered word for word what Jesus said
2) That the Gospel authors wrote what they were told down accurately.

I have no reason to believe either 1 or 2.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Well, brother Zzyzx, of the mind-expanding topics, it depends.
It matters if they were not divinely inspired.

It matters, if, they were a continuation of Roman policy to subjugate conquered territories, or had another motive.

[JehovahsWitness]

When were the gospels written?

Dating the Christian Greek scriptures is an extremely complex matter and not something that can be stated definitively - The evidence for the dating of the GOSPELS is presented below. Any dates presented are not authoritative but based on the following approximations can be made.


================>

MATTHEW Regarding the dating (and chronological placing) of Matthew: Jerome 4th Century (de viris inlustribus III) refers to Matthews gospel as the "first of all composed" and Origen is quoted by Eusebius as saying "the first was written according to Matthew"

A Subscription at the end of some of the later manuscripts refer to the Matthews gospels as being as early as 41CE. -- see The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6




Further reading
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htm



=======================================...

LUKE: Polycarp quotes Acts (as well as several other New Testament books) in a letter dated to about A.D. 110 so we know the book of Acts was completed (and in circulation) by that time. The preface of Acts, suggests the Gospel of Luke had been written previously ¤.

The events in Acts end with Paul's two year imprisonment in Rome following his appealing to Ceasar. Pauls appeal was heard by Porcius Festus when he began his procuratorship and historians generally agree this to be in 58. So the book of Acts closes in the early part of 60/61. It also seems reasonable to conclude that, had it been written later the author would have given us further information regarding Paul's imprisonment. If Acts was completed around 61 and the gospel of Luke was written PREVIOUS to the Account of The Acts, this would place Luke's gospel as the earliest after Matthew.


Further reading...
http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/quelle.htm



=======================================...

MARK Contextually it is clear Mark wrote for the Romans. Mark is specifically mentioned of being in Rome on the request of Paul, during both his imprisonments. Since earlier than this Paul's missionary journeys did not take in Rome it is likely that Mark wrote sometime during his time there (between 61 - 65) Which would place his gospel after that of Luke (Acts being completed by about 61 by which time the Gospel had already been written).


While the testimony of the early church overseers indicates Matthew was the first to put his Gospel into writing, there exists absolutely no external evidence that Mark wrote his gospels first or that his was the source document for the other gospels. The ‘source document’ theory, is solely based on a subjective interpretation of content and remains unsupported by historical documentation.




=======================================...

JOHNThe epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 C.E.) contain clear traces of his use of John’s Gospel, thus we can establish not only that John wrote his gospel but that it was completed and in circulation before 110.

The papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel (cataloged as Rylands Papyrus 457 - John Rylands Library, Manchester, England) P52 to date the oldest extant manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures and dates from the first half of the second century, possibly as early as 125 C.E.

“Small therefore as it is, it suffices to prove that a manuscript of this Gospel was circulating, presumably in provincial Egypt where it was found, about the period A.D. 130-150. Allowing even a minimum time for the circulation of the work from its place of origin, this would throw back the date of composition so near to the traditional date in the last decade of the first century that there is no longer any reason to question the validity of the tradition.�

-- Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship, 1949, p. 21

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Not for nothing, but WHY would dating them be a complex matter, unless there was deliberate obfuscation?

Every other book in the world has its date PROUDLY displayed.

Literary arts were well developed then, the pen knife, well established, and important and not-so-important people well documented.

So, why, is the "most important book in history," shrouded in un-necessary mystery? Unless it is some kind of deception or propaganda?

V/R

[JLB32168]

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after. Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

The Vedas are memorized and they are voluminous.

As a person of seventy-six I am quite aware that I cannot describe in accurate detail events from thirty or sixty years ago and darn sure cannot recite word-for-word extended conversations. But then, I don't claim to be magic. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat has detailed the remarkable accuracy of the transmission of the Vedic texts in his Ancient Sanskrit Mathematics: An Oral Tradition and a Written Literature. Modern societies have lost this ability since literacy has increased so much among the population. Noah Webster (you know - the geek who made the 1st American dictionary) memorized the entire bible w/100% precision and accuracy. In India the Mahabharata (an epic poem of 100,000 unrhymed couplets) has been learned by heart for centuries. Of course, the entire account need not be memorized by one person but broken up into portions. Certainly Greek shorthand was used to record the sermons of John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD/CE.

It seems your entire argument is founded on the presupposition that one couldn’t possibly remember this stuff w/any degree of accuracy after three decades and that simply doesn’t jibe with reality.

Since it is quite possible to memorize things as short as the Gospels then it is perfectly okay to accept that one could memorize each and every word of Christ’s dialogue – especially if one is writing down what others said he said.

[Strider324]

Notice that 60s CE would be three decades after Jesus is said to have died – and 90 CE would be sixty years after. Yet, some attempt to claim that writers personally witnessed events and had perfect word-for-word memory of conversations.

Since it is quite possible to memorize things as short as the Gospels then it is perfectly okay to accept that one could memorize each and every word of Christ’s dialogue – especially if one is writing down what others said he said.

Thanx for exploding the myth that the gospel authors were eyewitnesses. I hope other Christians are paying attention.

[Strider324]

Matthew and Luke relate prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem (which happened in AD 70) which seems to support these books being published before AD 70.

Um, no. This is much better evidence that they were published AFTER AD 70. These authors claiming to have the ability to prophesize is much less likely than their ability to pretend to be prophets by faking prophesy after the fact.

[Zzyzx]

.

It seems your entire argument is founded on the presupposition that one couldn’t possibly remember this stuff w/any degree of accuracy after three decades and that simply doesn’t jibe with reality.

Correction: My position is that it is unlikely that common people would have precise memory of detail and word-for-word memory of conversations that occurred thirty to sixty years earlier. This is not to mention that most people of the era did not live to age sixty or ninety.

Since it is quite possible to memorize things as short as the Gospels then it is perfectly okay to accept that one could memorize each and every word of Christ’s dialogue –

Yes, the tiny percentage of people who have phenomenal memory ability might. If someone wishes to claim that four out of four gospel writers were so gifted (and lived long enough -- AND were actual witnesses) they are welcome to make that case.

especially if one is writing down what others said he said.

Exactly "writing what others said he said" -- that blows the "writers were witnesses" claim, doesn't it?

That supports the position that the gospels were written from folklore, oral tradition, rumor, tall tales, gossip, etc -- rather than being witness accounts.

What assures that the people telling stories to gospel writers had the story accurate in detail and to the word -- and hadn't exaggerated or invented parts (deliberately or inadvertently)

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

If God had any brains he would have manifested himself in human flesh when real time digital recording existed in human history then he could have validated and spread his good news in a consistent and effective manner to the lost as compared to the complete CF his good news message is today from centuries of guess work ........

As it is he decided to manifest in the flesh when mass communication didn't exist and literacy wasn't ubiquitous to society. As a result, all the claims are interpreted today to the point where Christians debate in heretical claims of each other's doctrine.........its a complete mess.

Of course if there is no God (at least a personal one that is) then this all makes sense but if there is a personal God then this God is a clueless twit...