Time when the Gospels are written


#1

Hi, I was wondering when the four Gospels were written since there have been atheists on Facebook claiming that the four Gospels were written when the Gnostic Gospels and books were written.


#2

[quote="Capuchinfan1337, post:1, topic:334808"]
Hi, I was wondering when the four Gospels were written since there have been atheists on Facebook claiming that the four Gospels were written when the Gnostic Gospels and books were written.

[/quote]

There are many different opinions on this, many modern scholars (which tend to date the Gospels latter than more traditional sources, date Mark 65-70 AD, Matthew and Luke 70-80's, and John 90-95 AD.


#3

[quote="CalCatholic, post:2, topic:334808"]
There are many different opinions on this, many modern scholars (which tend to date the Gospels latter than more traditional sources, date Mark 65-70 AD, Matthew and Luke 70-80's, and John 90-95 AD.

[/quote]

This is pretty typical of modern scholars, though I personally tend to side with the minority view that all three synoptic gospels were written before AD 70 (probably all by the mid-60s), and John around the 90s.


#4

[quote="Aelred_Minor, post:3, topic:334808"]
This is pretty typical of modern scholars, though I personally tend to side with the minority view that all three synoptic gospels were written before AD 70 (probably all by the mid-60s), and John around the 90s.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:

Does it matter when the gospels were written? Yes and no.


#5

Doesn't matter since the bible was compiled at a later date and if one was say, John was written at the same time say as a Gnostic Gospel wouldn't it discredit the Church fathers who compiled them?


#6

John was probably written in 90, the other Gospels prior to 70.

It's important where we put Luke because Mark came before Luke and yet Luke came before the Acts which says nothing about the temples destruction, nor Paul's death. It records James's death though: Acts 12:1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

It is rather interesting that Paul quotes Luke's Gospel as well: 1 Tim 5:18For Scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

Contrast with:

Luke 10:7Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you,** for the worker deserves his wages. **Do not move around from house to house.

Such a phrase is found no where else in Scripture. Remember, Luke spent a lot of time with Paul. 2 Tim 4:11*Only Luke is with me.* Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

And last of all, Luke would often insert, "we" when speaking of his travels with Paul. Acts 20 After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. 5 These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas, 6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where** we stayed **for seven days.

Notice the abrupt change from explaining what Paul was going through, to what Paul and Luke were going through together? I could go on...


#7

[quote="Capuchinfan1337, post:1, topic:334808"]
Hi, I was wondering when the four Gospels were written since there have been atheists on Facebook claiming that the four Gospels were written when the Gnostic Gospels and books were written.

[/quote]

I don't think any serious scholar would say that the canonical gospels were written at the same time or even later than many of the non-canonical gospels we know of (many of them were written during the 2nd-3rd centuries; a few were even later than that). The only serious contender here is the Gospel of Thomas, the origins of which some like to date at roughly the same time as the canonical gospels (which is now conventionally pinned at the 70s-90s). But even then, the idea that Thomas already existed in the late 1st century in the form(s) that we have it today is, in reality, in the very small minority. At best, what people - even many of those in the so-called 'early' camp - think that the 'core' material of that gospel (a portion out of the 114 sayings attributed to Jesus recorded in Thomas) may have already been in circulation during this time or before, but many think that Thomas as a literary work did not come into existence until much later.


#8

[quote="dronald, post:6, topic:334808"]
It's important where we put Luke because Mark came before Luke and yet Luke came before the Acts

[/quote]

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) states a tradition of the earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it has this form. He used to say that the earlier-written of the gospels were those having the genealogies (i.e. Matthew and Luke) and “John, last of all.” It is worth noting he uses the plural: the earliest presbyters.

We know from Origen (185-253) that "… Matthew published first in Hebrew … Mark [published] second, composed as Peter guided, then that [published] of Luke …"

When Jerome wrote his Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum, he records that the Gospels were published in the Matthew, Mark, Luke order. But, when writing his history Of Illustrious Men, Jerome places them in the Matthew, Luke, Mark order (i.e. in order of writing[size=2]). It should also be remembered that in Jerome's covering letter to the Pope, regarding his vulgate version, he had to explain why he had placed the Gospels in an unfamiliar order.
[/size]


#9

Listen then if you have ears! :D

utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm

Many, many synoptic parallels in The Gospel of Thomas. If you check out the link, you can see that they come from all three of the synoptics, including some phrases and ideas that are unique to only Matthew or Luke.

This would mean one of two things to me.

  1. The writer of Thomas had access to the Canonical Gospels in a form close to how we know them today.

  2. The writer of Thomas had access to Mark (or a proto-Mark) and Q, the hypothesized "2nd source" that both Matthew and Luke used, and used the material in a way that sometimes resembles Luke, sometimes resembles Matthew, sometimes both.

(there are also parallels to John in the 5 way synopsis, but they seem weaker to me. I haven't checked them all in detail though.)


#10

[quote="Christ_is_Risen, post:9, topic:334808"]
Q, the hypothesized "2nd source" that both Matthew and Luke used, and used the material in a way that sometimes resembles Luke, sometimes resembles Matthew, sometimes both.

[/quote]

As I stated in another thread, there is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that 'Q' or its author ever existed. If 'Q' had existed, it would have been the most treasured, copied, precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. If 'Q' had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been passed from hand to hand and read at Services. "Modern scholarship" would have us believe we owe the preservation of 'The Our Father' and 'The Beatitudes' to 'Q' since Mark did not bother to record them.

"Modern scholarship" would also have us believe that the community that produced 'Q' made such few copies that none have been found or have been mentioned by historians. Yet the anonymous authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, found two rare copies and made them the basis of their writings. Then the communities of both Matthew and Luke lost 'Q'. If 'Q' was so important, multiple copies would have been made for many communities. "Modern scholarship" has not explained how all copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did all knowledge of 'Q' disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

There are other problems, as well.[size=2] According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until Luke ceases when Matthew takes over. This continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another.[/size] This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markans.

This difficulty also applies to other phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter’s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, Matthew and Luke chose the same phrase without having been in contact with each another


#11

[quote="Erich, post:10, topic:334808"]
As I stated in another thread, there is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that 'Q' or its author ever existed. If 'Q' had existed, it would have been the most treasured, copied, precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. If 'Q' had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been passed from hand to hand and read at Services. "Modern scholarship" would have us believe we owe the preservation of 'The Our Father' and 'The Beatitudes' to 'Q' since Mark did not bother to record them.

"Modern scholarship" would also have us believe that the community that produced 'Q' made such few copies that none have been found or have been mentioned by historians. Yet the anonymous authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, found two rare copies and made them the basis of their writings. Then the communities of both Matthew and Luke lost 'Q'. If 'Q' was so important, multiple copies would have been made for many communities. "Modern scholarship" has not explained how all copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did all knowledge of 'Q' disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

There are other problems, as well.[size=2] [/size]According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until Luke ceases when Matthew takes over. This continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another. This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markans.

This difficulty also applies to other phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter’s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, Matthew and Luke chose the same phrase without having been in contact with each another

[/quote]

Q is merely a hypothetical construct. It could have been written, or oral. It could have been one document, or many. It could have been a collection of sayings and teachings like:

"You know it when you see it."

or

"Jesus gave us this prayer: Our Father.........."

As you say, if it existed, we haven't found it, so we don't know. All we know is that Matthew and Luke use common material not found in Mark........and use it a way that is similar enough to indicate common origin, but not close enough to prove a single written source document. (see the difference in the Our Father prayer and Sermon on the Mount, among others.)

I can't quite follow what you are trying to say in the bolded portion. Can you explain it again and give an example?


#12

From 1907 to 1933 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emphatically stated:
1) ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2) Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”).’
[The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 34].

Thus there is no basis whatsoever for Catholics to flirt with the “Q” fantasy.*


#13

[quote="Abu, post:12, topic:334808"]
From 1907 to 1933 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emphatically stated:
1) ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2) Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”).’
[The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 34].

Thus there is no basis whatsoever for Catholics to flirt with the “Q” fantasy.*

Were such statements by the Pontifical Biblical Commission Magisterial in nature at that time. If I'm not mistaken the status of this Commission has fluctuated through its history.

[/quote]


#14

Aelred Minor #13
Were such statements by the Pontifical Biblical Commission Magisterial in nature at that time. If I'm not mistaken the status of this Commission has fluctuated through its history.

Very much Magisterial.

Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars ..." (5) Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority.
Note
5. Preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html


#15

The Gospels are Historical

Year AD ** Event** The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthews gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **44** **King Herod Agrippa dies.** **49** **Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots.** ** ** Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthews gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. A copy of Matthew's Gospel taken to India. 54 Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter. John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel. 64 July Rome devastated by fire. 65 Spring Nero commences persecution of Christians. Peter martyred. Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome. Mark issues second edition of Peter's talks. 66 Jewish rebellion in Palestine. Paul goes to Spain. 68 early Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans. 68 June Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem being withdrawn. Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete. Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella. Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred. 69 Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors. 69 Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine. 69 Romans surround Jerusalem for second time. Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus. 70 Aug Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed. Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome. ** 91** Domitian starts persecution. Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome. Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia. Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea. John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel. John the Apostle dies. 98 Trojan becomes emperor. About 101 Clement dies and Evaristus becomes bishop of Rome. About 130 Papias records that Mark wrote down Peter`s words. About 180 Ireneaus familiar with the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence. About 200 First Latin translations (prologues). Matthew-John-Luke-Mark sequence. About 200 Clement of Alexandria says gospels of Matthew and Luke written first. About 212 Tertullian uses Luke prior to Mark sequence.


#16

What is the evidence that Paul actually went to Spain and survived the persecutions of Nero?


#17

[quote="steve53, post:16, topic:334808"]
What is the evidence that Paul actually went to Spain and survived the persecutions of Nero?

[/quote]

Last years

This period is wrapped in deep obscurity for, lacking the account of the Acts, we have no guide save an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the Pastoral epistles. Paul had long cherished the desire to go to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28) and there is no evidence that he was led to change his plan. When towards the end of his captivity he announces his coming to Philemon (22) and to the Philippians (2:23-24), he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate since he promises the Philippians to send them a messenger as soon as he learns the issue of his trial; he therefore plans another journey before his return to the East. Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the witness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain. In any case he can not have remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit his Churches in the East. He may have returned from Spain through southern Gaul if it was thither, as some Fathers have thought, and not to Galatia, that Crescens was sent later (2 Timothy 4:10). We may readily believe that he afterwards kept the promise made to his friend Philemon and that on this occasion he visited the churches of the valley of Lycus, Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.


#18

The reputable historian M. Diaz y Diaz says "The evangelizing
presence of Saint Paul in Hispania (Spain) seems to be beyond all reasonable
doubt; the testimony, both contemporary and later, is conserved almost in its
entirety in authors and texts unrelated to the Peninsula, and are therefore free
of a biased interpretation, giving sufficient proof."(2) - 2 M. Dias y Diaz; San Pab/o enEspafla, Historia 16, ExtmXN, June 1980, p. 124.


#19

Buffalo,

I have seen this claim that Peter "authenticated" the Gospel of Luke during his speeches in Rome a few times now.

I know Clement said that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's speeches, but do any Church Fathers claim he ever had a copy of another Gospel in his hands when he was doing this?

Thanks


#20

Why would Mark have a copy of another Gospel in his hands while he was recording Peter's speeches?

Think of a modern-day stenographer in a court of law for example... they don't have copies of *anything *in their hands, they're just writing down everything they hear.

Here's the likely scenario of how Mark's Gospel came to be.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.