Casing me doubt: the date of the writing of the gospels?

[Bible Truth 53]

This has been eating away at me so much lately:

Most everyone has come to the conclusion that the gospels were written about 50 years after Jesus death.. doesn't this mean that the writers were not eye witnesses of Jesus at all? Can't this have caused many false teachings based on illegitimate information written?

Were the writings possibly even a huge hoax?

I am a Christian but this has been causing me much doubt lately. Any replies are greatly appreciated. Thanks, God bless..

Who says that they were written 50 years later? Scholars suggest all different dates, some early, some late. Those who place the Gospels fifty years later do so on the presupposition that Jesus couldn't have predicted the destruction of the temple, so that it must have been written later. Papias knew John, and the dates from him and other sources are as follows:

Matthew, Aramaic version, c. 39
Mark, c. 44
Luke, c. 55
John, c.95 (but he had been a young eyewitness and this was at the end of his life)

 

[Bible Truth 53]

What aspect do you not find convincing?

Do you agree with his view that John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John?

 

[ebia]

Do you agree with his view that John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John?

He makes a good case

 

[Bible Truth 53]

He makes a good case

Agreed--a better case than can be made for John the son of Zebedee, methinks.

 

[John 1720]

I hate to make it worse, but the best biblical scholars place the authorship of the four Gospels even later than you think.

Mark: c70 CE
Matthew: c80 CE
Luke: c90 CE
John: c100 CE

But don't worry that they weren't eye witnesses of the things they wrote about. The eye witnesses didn't feel the need to write things down because they expected Jesus to come back just any day now, you see. It's only in the 2nd generation that there became a need to write things down. M, M, L & J drew upon the stories told by the people who knew Jesus.

No need to worry about the best Biblical scholars. The ones from the early to mid 20th century mostly all agreed they were all written in the 2nd century till evidence upended then and their hypothesis went up in smoke. I believe all except John's were written pre AD 70.

 

[Johnnz]

No need to worry about the best Biblical scholars. The ones from the early to mid 20th century mostly all agreed they were all written in the 2nd century till evidence upended then and their hypothesis went up in smoke. I believe all except John's were written pre AD 70.

That's my view. The earlier views were those of sceptics with a disbelief in the supernatural. They required a later date to fit in with their 'evolutionary' view of the supernatural being a development (mythologizing) of a simpler story of Jesus as a mere man with some moral concepts into some 'divine' being'.

John
NZ

 

[ebia]

That's my view. The earlier views were those of sceptics with a disbelief in the supernatural. They required a later date to fit in with their 'evolutionary' view of the supernatural being a development (mythologizing) of a simpler story of Jesus as a mere man with some moral concepts into some 'divine' being'.

John
NZ

There are many reasons for dating Matthew and Luke later than ad 70. Implying that the only people who do are motivated by disbelief in the supernatural etc is straightforwardly factually wrong. The best date for Mark is mid to late 60s and that pushes Matthew and Luke later than that if one accepts Markan priority. There is little or no evidence to put either of them earlier than that.

 

[Bible Truth 53]

There are many reasons for dating Matthew and Luke later than ad 70. Implying that the only people who do are motivated by disbelief in the supernatural etc is straightforwardly factually wrong. The best date for Mark is mid to late 60s and that pushes Matthew and Luke later than that if one accepts Markan priority. There is little or no evidence to put either of them earlier than that.

Crossley (an agnostic) at Nottingham has written a book arguing that Mark was written in the early 40s, which is the date given to it by all ancient writers, Irenaeus excepted. It's well worth reading his arguments.

Now Luke brings Acts up until the second year of the imprisonment of Paul at Rome--good grounds for believing that he completed it then. Since he had already written Luke when he wrote Acts, that pushes the Gospel of Luke into the 50s. If one accepts Markan priority (and I do), that pushes Mark further back too, and the universal date (again, Irenaeus excepted) for Mark was c. 44.

Clement seems to know some of the Synoptics, and good arguments can be adduced for placing his work c.69.

 

[ebia]

Crossley (an agnostic) at Nottingham has written a book arguing that Mark was written in the early 40s, which is the date given to it by all ancient writers, Irenaeus excepted. It's well worth reading his arguments.

This is highly misleading - most ancient writers don't put a date on it.

Now Luke brings Acts up until the second year of the imprisonment of Paul at Rome--good grounds for believing that he completed it then. Since he had already written Luke when he wrote Acts, that pushes the Gospel of Luke into the 50s. If one accepts Markan priority (and I do), that pushes Mark further back too, and the universal date (again, Irenaeus excepted) for Mark was c. 44.

There are very good literary reasons why Luke would end Acts where he does. That argument would only work if there were no such other possible reason.

Clement seems to know some of the Synoptics, and good arguments can be adduced for placing his work c.69.

Both rather shaky points.

 

[John 1720]

There are many reasons for dating Matthew and Luke later than ad 70. Implying that the only people who do are motivated by disbelief in the supernatural etc is straightforwardly factually wrong. The best date for Mark is mid to late 60s and that pushes Matthew and Luke later than that if one accepts Markan priority. There is little or no evidence to put either of them earlier than that.

Markan priority is based on the existance of Q, which is pretty much a fiction of literary analysis. This of course flies in the face of historical analysis and early witness who claim Matthew indeed came first. I have never seen a good reason to doubt that nor date any gospel, except John's to post AD 70. Sure literary analysis is a tool of some use for micro analysis but it is way too feeble for the macro level to impeach historical witness - certainly it is quite foolish to bank everything on it. What appears to goes on in Seminaries these days is more of the fad of desire to find something new or shocking than any real discernment of fact, designed to holistically weigh of all the evidence and not just one aspect of it. Biblical Scholars have a pretty poor track record when it comes to dating if you don't believe me research it for yourself as the dates liberal scholarship made have consistently had to move forward over the decades.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[ebia]

Markan priority is based on the existance of Q, which is pretty much a fiction of literary analysis.

No it is not.

The puzzle is undeniable: the Synoptics contain a lot of identical material to each other - often word for word identical. That puzzle needs to be explained.

Markan priority is an explanation for part of that puzzle. 'Q' is a hypothetical explanation for another part of the puzzle, that Markan priority doesn't explain. 'Q' assumes Markan priority, not the other way around.

This of course flies in the face of historical analysis and early witness who claim Matthew indeed came first.

There is some early-ish witness that Matthew came first, but its not tremendously early and its not clear that it is not necessarily the case that every reference to Matthew is talking about the text we have under that name.

I have never seen a good reason to doubt that nor date any gospel, except John's to post AD 70. Sure literary analysis is a tool of some use for micro analysis but it is way too feeble for the macro level to impeach historical witness - certainly it is quite foolish to bank everything on it. What appears to goes on in Seminaries these days is more of the fad of desire to find something new or shocking than any real discernment of fact, designed to holistically weigh of all the evidence and not just one aspect of it. Biblical Scholars have a pretty poor track record when it comes to dating if you don't believe me research it for yourself as the dates liberal scholarship made have consistently had to move forward over the decades.
In Christ, John 1720

The puzzle of synoptic similarity demands explanation one way or another, and the historical witness is simply not as strong as you imply. The firmest bit to data we have is the text themselves.

 

[Bible Truth 53]

This is highly misleading - most ancient writers don't put a date on it.

Most ancient writers don't discuss the question, but of those who do say anything, it tends toward the earlier dating, Irenaeus excepted.

Eusebius and Jerome place his death in c. 62, which would argue against your mid to late 60s.

Clement tells us that Mark wrote in the reign of Claudius, and that Peter only later learned of it and approved it. The same account is found in Papias, according to Eusebius.

Origen held that Luke had been written by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.

Are there good reasons to dispose of all of these witnesses?

I think not. I suspect you will disagree. That is the nature of the beast--I have a high view of early Christian source evidence.

There are very good literary reasons why Luke would end Acts where he does. That argument would only work if there were no such other possible reason.

Yes, the most obvious being that he stopped writing at that point. I suppose other reasons could be found, though I cannot think of any persuasive ones. If you know of any, you are welcome to state them.

You are of course free to draw whatever conclusions you wish from the way the narrative cuts off at the end. However, I still find Harnack's argument unassailable:

Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them—they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with His delivery to Pilate

To this we might add that Luke records nothing of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
.

Both rather shaky points.

I disagree, but a discussion of these points would be far afield at this point.

 

[ebia]

Most ancient writers don't discuss the question, but of those who do say anything, it tends toward the earlier dating, Irenaeus excepted.

Eusebius and Jerome place his death in c. 62, which would argue against your mid to late 60s.

Who's?
You seem to be building a lot on two fourth century writers.

Clement tells us that Mark wrote in the reign of Claudius, and that Peter only later learned of it and approved it. The same account is found in Papias, according to Eusebius.

I posted what Eusebius quotes papias as saying, and its not what you just said.

Origen held that Luke had been written by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.

Are there good reasons to dispose of all of these witnesses?

I don't think you can call someone writing centuries after the event a witness. Papias is at least close to the event - but (apart from the fact we only have fragmented quotes provided by someone who didnt hold him in high regard) he doesn't say what you want him to say.

I think not. I suspect you will disagree. That is the nature of the beast--I have a high view of early Christian source evidence.

Yes, the most obvious being that he stopped writing at that point. I suppose other reasons could be found, though I cannot think of any persuasive ones. If you know of any, you are welcome to state them.

The structure of acts mirrors the structure of Luke, with the Malta shipwreck and survival mirroring Jesus death and resurrection. All of Luke's structure goes out the window if its extended into Paul's death - instead of a finely crafted theology of the Holy Spirit it becomes a grade 10s account "of what happened" to St. Paul.

It doesn't really matter whether you think any other suggested reason is pursausive or not. All that matters is that other reasons are possible; your argument only holds water if no other reasons are possible.

 

[Bible Truth 53]

Who's?
You seem to be building a lot on two fourth century writers.

Where is your evidence? I have two well-informed fourth-century writers with access to huge libraries. I have Papias and Clement. Origen presupposes it. Justin makes Peter to have preached in the reign of Claudius in agreement with the other sources. The evidence we have--Irenaeus excepted--points in one direction, and that is to the earlier dating.

What is your evidence to the contrary? What evidence do you have that it wasn't written early?

I posted what Eusebius quotes papias as saying, and its not what you just said.

I have just gone through the thread and you make no mention of Papias until now.

If you believe there is a quote from Papias which disagrees with what I have claimed (there isn't one), then please quote it.

Also, it is not what I said that Papias said--it is what Eusebius said. In fact, if you go to Book 2, chapters 14-15 of his HE (smack in the middle of Eusebius' section dealing with the reign of Claudius) you will note that he places Peter's preaching in Rome at that time, as well as Mark's writing of what Peter said in his preaching. You will also note that according to Eusebius (not I), Papias related the same thing.

The structure of acts mirrors the structure of Luke, with the Malta shipwreck and survival mirroring Jesus death and resurrection. All of Luke's structure goes out the window if its extended into Paul's death - instead of a finely crafted theology of the Holy Spirit it becomes a grade 10s account "of what happened" to St. Paul.

This seems to be scraping the barrel to me; if this is what it takes for you to deny the early dating, then go for it.

But even if this supposed parallelism had entered into the head of Luke, it still would not favor a later dating, for the simple reason that his molding of the narrative was not done in a vacuum. It was done in light of his knowledge of events at the time of writing. Had he known the death of Paul, it would have been a pretty pointless parallel.

Harnack answers you again, imo:

we note that nowhere in the Acts is either St Peter or St Paul so treated as if his death was presupposed; we indeed rather receive the contrary impression. Neither is the slightest reference made to the martyrdom of St Paul! St Luke allows Agabus to foretell a famine, to foretell St Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem; he suffers St Paul himself (on the voyage) to foretell, like a fortune-teller, the fate of the ship and all its passengers; he in many chapters of the book deals in all kinds of “spiritual” utterances and prophecies—but not one word is said concerning the final destiny of St Paul (and of St Peter)! Is this natural? There are prophecies concerning events of minor importance, while there is nothing about the great event of all!

Luke knows nothing of the martyrdom of Paul, and if your parallel were persuasive, it would only drive that point home.

It doesn't really matter whether you think any other suggested reason is pursausive or not.

Just as well really.

All that matters is that other reasons are possible; your argument only holds water if no other reasons are possible.

If not other plausible, reasonable explanations are possible. I have yet to hear one.

 

[John 1720]

No it is not.

The puzzle is undeniable: the Synoptics contain a lot of identical material to each other - often word for word identical. That puzzle needs to be explained.

Markan priority is an explanation for part of that puzzle. 'Q' is a hypothetical explanation for another part of the puzzle, that Markan priority doesn't explain. 'Q' assumes Markan priority, not the other way around.

There is some early-ish witness that Matthew came first, but its not tremendously early and its not clear that it is not necessarily the case that every reference to Matthew is talking about the text we have under that name.

The puzzle of synoptic similarity demands explanation one way or another, and the historical witness is simply not as strong as you imply. The firmest bit to data we have is the text themselves.

Hi Ebia,
Yes, I would agree that textual criticism does indeed play a role in looking at similarities and differences and can be very helpful. But just a Q is not needed to explain the formation of the Gospels, neither is literary critique merely enough to impugn historical witness, nor can it tell us from a macro level the development of the New Testament canon and/or the Gospels. I agree it is a very "useful" tool it is a question of knowing when its usefulnness has run out. I'm just saying it's an over-reach to put too much dependance on it alone.
As far as the historical record goes suffice to say that the most viable witnesses to the Gospels were those who heard testimony from the inner circle of the Lord’s apostles and disciples. They had firsthand knowledge of how, when and why they were written, as well as inside knowledge of the author’s construction of their own Gospels. Much of this information has been lost to time but some has not been. It is a most probable assertion that the three synoptic Gospels were completed and were in circulation by the time of Nero’s death in AD68. That assertion can be made based on the external evidence, which I will discuss next, starting with the Synoptics.
GOSPEL OF MARK
There is early Testimony that Mark left his episcopate in Alexandria appointing Anianus to take his place in the 8th year of Nero, AD 62. Where did he go? We only have to look in Peter’s first letter to find out. Mark was called to come aside Peter in the ministry. He was with him "in Babylon", Rome. (See 1rst Peter 5:13). An educated guess is he wrote his Gospel between AD62-AD66 and he is likely to have died there with Peter or perhaps escaped but at any rate his work was done. I'm pretty sure we hear no more of Mark in Eusebius about his whereabouts after Peter’s death. Although some traditions may say otherwise I'm not aware of any Church father that has him alive post fall of Jerusalem.
The earliest evidence of Markan authorship is set forth by Papias AD60-130, the Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, in the vicinity of the New Testament churches of Colossae and Laodicea. We find this testimony in a primitive fragment preserved by Eusebius who say: “But now we must add to the words of Papias by which we have already quoted the tradition which he gave in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words:

This also John the Presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him, but afterward, as I said, he was in the company of Peter, who used to offer teaching as necessary demanded, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses. So Mark committed no error in thus writing single points as he remembered them. For upon one thing he fixed his attention: to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statement in them.”

The earliest Phrygian tradition attests to five key points of ancient tradition regarding Mark’s authorship.
1. Mark interpreted Peter accurately
2. Peter was Mark’s chief access to the recollections of Jesus’ story and sayings
3. Mark did “not” record the tradition in order
4. Peter presented the Lord’s teachings as the situation demanded, with no intention of giving a chronological discourse
5. Nothing crucial was distorted or omitted.
Within decades after the death of Papias, Clement of Alexandria (c. AD150-215) is an entirely different locale, Alexandria, Egypt, reconfirms the tradition of Papias.

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
It is further stated by our earliest witnesses that Matthew wrote his Gospel prior to all the others but not necessarily in chronological order. Matthew was either the last or one of the last to be called to follow Jesus, so he might not have been an eyewitness to all the events. Matthew spent a great deal of time on Jesus’ parables. We gain a certain perspective from Matthew than the others and really that is the key. Each author gives us a different perspective on Jesus and the events that transpired just as four witnesses in a courtroom would also do. The first explicit mention of Matthew’s Gospel is also made by Papias. It is curious that he states it was originally in Hebrew so we don't know when it would have been converted to Greek, nor by whose hand.

Matthew gathered the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and each person translated them as he was able.

GOSPEL OF LUKE
We are then left with Doctor Luke, Paul’s companion. Now we know Paul was executed by Nero in AD66 and we also know that he was with Paul near the end. The book of Acts also abruptly ends before recording the execution of Peter and Paul. Why would Luke, a firsthand historian and chronicler omit such important events? There has to be a reason for not reporting such catastrophic events. Luke a first class historian especially for that age would not have been remiss to document those events. Either he himself was caught up in the cataclysmic events himself or left never to reunite with Paul prior to his demise at the hand of Nero. Come up with whatever theory you like; he left town, the final chapters were lost, etc. Whatever theory one comes up with we have to say that Luke appeared to have stopped writing somewhere between AD62 – AD64. Of Lukes Gospel the early church father Ambrose states:

Luke kept a certain historical order and revealed to us more miracles of the Lord, yet so that the history of his Gospel embraced the virtue of all wisdom. For what more excellent truth did he reveal concerning natural wisdom than that the Holy Spirit also gave us rise to the divine incarnation. So the Gospel was written to Theophilus; that is to him who God loves. However, if you love God then it was written to you. Discharge the duty of an evangelist and diligently preserve your pledge to a friend in the secrets of the Spirit.

The only Gospel left then would be John’s.

GOSPEL OF JOHN
Wide open is a dating range anywhere between the 60’s to the 90’s. Of course the last two decades of the first century appears to be correct. Did he write before or after his banishmenebt to Patmos? He was purported by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to have written a spiritual Gospel after the Synoptic Gospels had been written. The Muratorian canon describes the process by which the Gospel of John came to into being. It states that:

"The fourth gospel is that of John, one of the disciples....When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him, he said, 'Fast with me for three days from today, and then let us relate to one another whatever may be revealed to each of us.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew one of the apostles that John should narrate all things in his own name as they remembered them...."

This little tidbit of information would seem to support the framework of how every Gospel was created. The disciples remaining decided there was a need, they talked about it and they prayed about it and each one became it's own unique witness of the Lord and His ministry. Note that John includes very little of the Synoptics, there was no need to. But he does record the prior two years the Synoptics don't when Jesus was baptizing in Judea before the arrest of John the Baptist, as well as Him traveling up to the feasts He normally attended in Jerusalem.

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison. 25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” 27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’ 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

In Christ, John 1720

 

[ebia]

Hi Ebia,
Yes, I would agree that textual criticism does indeed play a role in looking at similarities and differences and can be very helpful. But just a Q is not needed to explain the formation of the Gospels, neither is literary critique merely enough to impugn historical witness, nor can it tell us from a macro level the development of the New Testament canon and/or the Gospels. I agree it is a very "useful" tool it is a question of knowing when its usefulnness has run out. I'm just saying it's an over-reach to put too much dependance on it alone.

I haven't commented on Q except to point out that its a red-herring. The question that does matter is Markan priority. The puzzle of the similarities is real and unavoidable; its far more solid data than any historical claims (not witness - statements from centuries later are not witnesses). An dating that fails to deal with those similarities is unviable.

As far as the historical record goes suffice to say that the most viable witnesses to the Gospels were those who heard testimony from the inner circle of the Lord’s apostles and disciples. They had firsthand knowledge of how, when and why they were written, as well as inside knowledge of the author’s construction of their own Gospels. Much of this information has been lost to time but some has not been. It is a most probable assertion that the three synoptic Gospels were completed and were in circulation by the time of Nero’s death in AD68. That assertion can be made based on the external evidence, which I will discuss next, starting with the Synoptics.
GOSPEL OF MARK
There is early Testimony that Mark left his episcopate in Alexandria appointing Anianus to take his place in the 8th year of Nero, AD 62. Where did he go? We only have to look in Peter’s first letter to find out. Mark was called to come aside Peter in the ministry. He was with him "in Babylon", Rome. (See 1rst Peter 5:13). An educated guess is he wrote his Gospel between AD62-AD66 and he is likely to have died there with Peter or perhaps escaped but at any rate his work was done. I'm pretty sure we hear no more of Mark in Eusebius about his whereabouts after Peter’s death. Although some traditions may say otherwise I'm not aware of any Church father that has him alive post fall of Jerusalem.
The earliest evidence of Markan authorship is set forth by Papias AD60-130, the Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, in the vicinity of the New Testament churches of Colossae and Laodicea. We find this testimony in a primitive fragment preserved by Eusebius who say: “But now we must add to the words of Papias by which we have already quoted the tradition which he gave in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words:

The earliest Phrygian tradition attests to five key points of ancient tradition regarding Mark’s authorship.
1. Mark interpreted Peter accurately
2. Peter was Mark’s chief access to the recollections of Jesus’ story and sayings
3. Mark did “not” record the tradition in order
4. Peter presented the Lord’s teachings as the situation demanded, with no intention of giving a chronological discourse
5. Nothing crucial was distorted or omitted.
Within decades after the death of Papias, Clement of Alexandria (c. AD150-215) is an entirely different locale, Alexandria, Egypt, reconfirms the tradition of Papias.

So we pretty much agree on dating Mark to Rome in the mid 60s, which is far and away the most solidly attested and where all the evidence converges.

Next you need to detail the other gospels in a way that accounts for the synoptic problem.

 

[John 1720]

I haven't commented on Q except to point out that its a red-herring. The question that does matter is Markan priority. The puzzle of the similarities is real and unavoidable; its far more solid data than any historical claims (not witness - statements from centuries later are not witnesses). An dating that fails to deal with those similarities is unviable.

Hello Again Ebia,
Well I'm definitely leaning Matthew. John the Presbyter, a 1rst generation Christian and disciple taught young Papias that Matthew came first and that it was a collection of sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language. Until someone shows me a convincing proof otherwise I have no need to reject his claim. It appears there is a real bias against early Christian testimony. That to me does a dis-service to the study of early Christianity with regard to the study of the formation of the Gospels, theological thought, and the growth of the early Church. There's absolutely no reason why Papias would lie about what he learned and was told. He also stated that the early disciples and apostles did the best they could to translate Matthew's Hebrew into the Greek. Now when that translation actually happened is speculative but I vote for the same timeframe as Mark and Luke. More on this later.

So we pretty much agree on dating Mark to Rome in the mid 60s, which is far and away the most solidly attested and where all the evidence converges.

Yes, that is good we are at least in agreement here. The historical information seems to converge at that point in time as well. As long as we're in agreement here wouldn't you also agree that Luke, who wrote Acts after he wrote his Gospel, finished or left unfinished his Acts of the Apostles in AD 62? Seeing how this date is in such close proximity to Mark, both with respect to locale and time, it makes sense they would have shared notes - does it not? There is a curious note in 2nd Timothy (AD 62) that grabs my attention.

Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come--and the books, especially the parchments. - 2Timothy 4:11,13

You can see the confluence of ministry here and we know both Mark and Luke were both occupied in a ministry to engrave both the knowledge of Christ via Paul and of Peter upon the age of mercy for all generations to come. Paul here is awaiting sentence but he would be freed for a short season to preach the Gospel in Spain, this according to Clement. It would be easy to understand how important it was for Paul to complete his Gospel, given his circumstances and he almost speaks of parchments and ministry in the same breath. Likewise Mark, having been summoned by Peter to Rome, we already agree was caught up in the same enterprise. We can infer that Luke would not be alongside Paul in his missionary journey to Spain but why? Was it that he wanted Luke to carry out what was already documented for distribution while there was still opportunity? We're left to speculate of course but certainly ant dating of Luke and Acts has to take into account the glaring problem of the ending being cut short and only recording events up to AD 62 instead of AD 66. Likewise the ending of Mark's Gospel also comes to an abrupt end - in my mind, given the upcoming calumities, which would rock Rome, and the already embittered hatred of many towards Christians, we have solid motive for getting the Word of God out to the masses. Tacitus witness alone shows us that even before the fire and Nero shifting the blame to them as scapegoats they were already hated, probably for pointing out sin and judgment as well as giving them the Gospel of Grace but also because of the false witness against them by those who hated them, such as inferring the Eucharist was cannibalism, etc.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

So that would be my point in the convergence of Luke's and Mark's Gospel and how they would have filled in the blanks. There was plenty of material Luke would have collected from other eye witnesses, as well as Paul's account from what he had been told of the events. Mark of course would have remained true to Peter's accounting, to whom he was dependant for the most part, except for some small additions, such as in the arrest of Jesus in Mark 14:51-52.

Next you need to detail the other gospels in a way that accounts for the synoptic problem.

Well I believe I just did give you a very plausible lead and motive into how Luke winds up with much of Mark's material. As to Matthew there is not much to go on, except of course for Papias stating it was written first and written in Hebrew. I know it's speculative, since to my knowledge the Hebrew version has not been recovered (perhaps one day) but it is curious how Papias stated he wrote down the "sayings of the Lord". If this is true it may not have been in its present format as we read in the Greek. And in the translation to Greek, by apostolic authority, Markan constructs could have been added in order to add event chronology into when these sayings took place. Of course it is purely speculative that the Greek version of Matthew was redone to allow for chronological format in the Greek. There is no proof for the hypothesis unless the Hebrew version somehow turns up.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[ebia]

Hello Again Ebia,
Well I'm definitely leaning Matthew. John the Presbyter, a 1rst generation Christian and disciple taught young Papias that Matthew came first and that it was a collection of sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language.

And what we have looks neither like it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic nor to be a collection of sayings.
.

Yes, that is good we are at least in agreement here. The historical information seems to converge at that point in time as well. As long as we're in agreement here wouldn't you also agree that Luke, who wrote Acts after he wrote his Gospel, finished or left unfinished his Acts of the Apostles in AD 62? Seeing how this date is in such close proximity to Mark, both with respect to locale and time, it makes sense they would have shared notes - does it not? There is a curious note in 2nd Timothy (AD 62) that grabs my attention.

They need more than shared notes - Mark has to not be doing what Papias says ("interpreting" Peter) but copying wholesale from a translation of Matthew.

You can see the confluence of ministry here and we know both Mark and Luke were both occupied in a ministry to engrave both the knowledge of Christ via Paul and of Peter upon the age of mercy for all generations to come. Paul here is awaiting sentence but he would be freed for a short season to preach the Gospel in Spain, this according to Clement. It would be easy to understand how important it was for Paul to complete his Gospel, given his circumstances and he almost speaks of parchments and ministry in the same breath. Likewise Mark, having been summoned by Peter to Rome, we already agree was caught up in the same enterprise. We can infer that Luke would not be alongside Paul in his missionary journey to Spain but why? Was it that he wanted Luke to carry out what was already documented for distribution while there was still opportunity? We're left to speculate of course but certainly ant dating of Luke and Acts has to take into account the glaring problem of the ending being cut short and only recording events up to AD 62 instead of AD 66.

As I've said, there are perfectly good literary explanations for that.

Likewise the ending of Mark's Gospel also comes to an abrupt end - in my mind, given the upcoming calumities, which would rock Rome, and the already embittered hatred of many towards Christians, we have solid motive for getting the Word of God out to the masses. Tacitus witness alone shows us that even before the fire and Nero shifting the blame to them as scapegoats they were already hated, probably for pointing out sin and judgment as well as giving them the Gospel of Grace but also because of the false witness against them by those who hated them, such as inferring the Eucharist was cannibalism, etc.

So that would be my point in the convergence of Luke's and Mark's Gospel and how they would have filled in the blanks. There was plenty of material Luke would have collected from other eye witnesses, as well as Paul's account from what he had been told of the events. Mark of course would have remained true to Peter's accounting, to whom he was dependant for the most part, except for some small additions, such as in the arrest of Jesus in Mark 14:51-52.

Well I believe I just did give you a very plausible lead and motive into how Luke winds up with much of Mark's material. As to Matthew there is not much to go on, except of course for Papias stating it was written first and written in Hebrew. I know it's speculative, since to my knowledge the Hebrew version has not been recovered (perhaps one day) but it is curious how Papias stated he wrote down the "sayings of the Lord". If this is true it may not have been in its present format as we read in the Greek. And in the translation to Greek, by apostolic authority, Markan constructs could have been added in order to add event chronology into when these sayings took place. Of course it is purely speculative that the Greek version of Matthew was redone to allow for chronological format in the Greek. There is no proof for the hypothesis unless the Hebrew version somehow turns up.
In Christ, John 1720

What it's looking like is that your "Matthew" is not the Matthew we have at all, but something like 'Q' in Aramaic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd like to reemphasize a point I made earlier:

When the Gospels were written, and even who wrote them doesn't really matter all that much.

What does matter is that these four gospels have been well received, and just about universally so from about as early as we can get in patristic sources; and have continued to be the authoritative witness to the Gospel Story itself as received, accepted, and confessed by the Christian community from the beginning. It really doesn't matter whether Matthew was written 40 AD or 90 AD, or if even St. Matthew the Apostle wrote it or not; what matters is that it preserves the ancient, historic, and accepted witness which Christians have maintained since the beginning.

That seems far more important than pinpointing the date, or even the author--that it is a reliable witness to the received confession of the Christian Church from the earliest stratum of Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[John 1720]

And what we have looks neither like it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic nor to be a collection of sayings.

Hi Ebia,
Sure we do, they've been there all along. If we just count the parables, teaching, and debates that Matthew has, add his unique verses it accounts for 75% of his Gospel. Matthew is a sayings Gospel - I was only stating we probably don't have the original and I do believe it was much earlier than Mark & Luke.

They need more than shared notes - Mark has to not be doing what Papias says ("interpreting" Peter) but copying wholesale from a translation of Matthew.

Conspiracy theories seem to propagate out there in our day and it seems some modern scholarship tends to be cynical about the truthfulness of the early Church fathers but I say 'innocent until proven a liar'. There's really no need not to believe Papias. We sometimes can forget the point here was to get that last year of Jesus' ministry correct so there's nothing wrong with going over the events as outlined by another Apostle. Of course Peter being an eyewitness where Matthew had not been with respect to some of these timeframes was exactly what he could give Mark, since Matthew came to the Lord late. So both some give and take were most likely happening here. Mark had much from the mouth of Peter, Paul had much from the apostles he was co ministering with, Matthew provided at minimum all the parables, teachings, debates that Jesus had taught in public, inside the group, as well as debates with the Pharisees and whatever else Matthew had in there - possibly the Hebrew or recently translated to Greek version was the complete version we also have. It does not matter! They all were trying to get the record correct as they all knew so they could hand it down to the generations. The point was there is a Biblical precedent of a ministry Paul was engaged in while awaiting sentencing in AD62 and he Timothy to bring both the Parchments as well as Mark along to engage with himself and Luke in what? It's really not a stretch when the timeframe for both Gospels fit and the evidences we have seem to pint in that general direction. Yes the Parchments could have been Matthew's Gospel and why not, if he and Luke were constructing a timeline of events around his Logia.

As I've said, there are perfectly good literary explanations for that.

Like what? The simplest explanation is usually the best.

What it's looking like is that your "Matthew" is not the Matthew we have at all, but something like 'Q' in Aramaic.

Not Q, V, W, or X, Y, Z as I said before 3/4 of Matthew is Jesus' sayings, teachings, debates, as well as what is unique to Matthew like his geneology and record of his birth that differes from the other Gospel. If I'm speculating about the translation from Hebrew to Greek than I'm seeing more of a framework that describe the narrative explaining where Jesus was when these events took place in order to read as the other two. But we don't have proof of this it may have been entirely the same Gospel we have today in the Greek as it was in the Hebrew and perhaps Papias was commenting on how heavily it was weighted with regard to the sayings of the Lord. We only move from supposition to a hypothesis that may be probable when we have enough data to support it, so right now I'm just being speculative as to how some of the wording winds up the same in Matthew. I cannot prove it wasn't the other way around either, as maybe its the same wording of Matthew winds up in Mark and Luke as well via parchments. It would not matter either way as my tendency is to believe Papias and Ireneaus, and Tertullian, etc, ect, ect and believe something was there that at minimum at least held the sayings of the Lord and probably at least all the unique references Matthew makes in his Gospel. How much construct was there? Maybe all of it, maybe not but the point is it preceded the other three Gospels. My guess is it was composed pre AD 60.
Regards, in Christ, John 1720