These folks are generally liberals who question the inspiration of the Bible, so I tend to discount their arguments as coming from those who do not believe in miracles. They assume that the prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem are fake—that they are put in the mouth of Jesus after the destruction.
This sort of ad hoc hypothesis should be rejected. The arguments for the date of writing of the three synoptic gospels is based on the question of who borrowed from whom. Nearly all of the material found in Mark is also found in either Matthew or Luke or both. This has been used to argue that Mark came first. This is a fairly strong argument, in my opinion. However, others argue that, although Mark and Matthew have much material in common, there is some evidence that Mark is adapting Matthew, and not vice versa.
They propose that this document was written in the late 40s or early 50s. This theory is speculative, with no direct evidence, but it is possible. The reason the experts are not in full agreement is that it simply is not clear.
We will have to settle for some doubt here. Of course, the order of writing is really not important to the Christian faith, and we should bear this in mind. I am being a bit vague here. You can read any good commentary on Matthew or Mark to see the arguments in more detail. I am copying and pasting below a short article which summarizes the arguments fairly well. None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.
This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims — such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied — would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before 70 A.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A. Remember, Acts is a book of the history of the early Christian church. The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.
For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name Matt. Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. Help Quick Nav Advanced Options. Cite Share Print. Search Results in Other Versions. BLB Searches. Search the Bible. LexiConc [? Advanced Options Exact Match. Theological FAQs [? Multi-Verse Retrieval x. En dash not Hyphen.
Let's Connect x. Subscribe to our Newsletter. Daily Devotionals x. Daily Bible Reading Plans x. Recently Popular Pages x. Recently Popular Media x. When Were the Four Gospels Written? The Amazing Historical Accuracy of the Bible — Question 10 The evidence shows that the four Gospels were written in a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The evidence is as follows: 1. It says: And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
He welcomed all who visited him, proclaiming the Kingdom of God with all boldness and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ. And no one tried to stop him. Acts NLT The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing that his death is not recorded. Paul wrote of a brother who was well-known among the churches for the gospel: And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.
John Was an Eyewitness to the Events The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been the last of the four gospels composed. He said: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.
John NLT John also wrote: This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. We read the following description of Jerusalem in the fifth chapter of John: Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethesda in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways.
John NET John describes the sheep gate as still standing at the time he wrote. Conclusion: There Is Evidence for an Early Date for the Four Gospels When all the historical and textual evidence is amassed, it becomes clear that the four gospels were composed at a very early date either by eyewitnesses, or those who recorded eyewitness testimony.
Donate Contact. Blue Letter Bible is a c 3 nonprofit organization. APA Format. Chicago Format. SBL Format. Share This Page. Follow Blue Letter Bible.
Blue Letter Bible. Login To Your Account. Check your email for password retrieval Enter Your Email or Username. Login [? Did you forget your password? Register a new BLB account. Complete the form below to register [? First Name. Password Must be at least 6 characters. Re-type Password. Thank you for registering. A verification email has been sent to the address you provided. Or did Mark draw from Matthew, condensing his material?
None of the hypotheses proposed to sort out the relationships between these Gospels is fully satisfactory. Each one fails to account for some feature of the four texts.
Those who claim Mark is the first Gospel written may offer various kinds of textual evidence, but usually there is also an anti-Catholic bias involved, noted by Catholic scholars and by some non-Catholic scholars as well. Peter and the Petrine primacy are not part of the earliest tradition, but were added later.
0コメント