When were the gospels written?

[Silvertusk]

So
When in your opinion was the Gospels written? And who by?

Silvertusk

[Jac3510]

Matthew wrote an Aramaic gospel we no longer have, probably in the late 40s to early 50s. Mark wrote Gospel, which he primarily got from Peter, in the mid 50s. Matthew rewrote his Gospel in the late 50s and clearly relied heavily on Mark, although there is no way to tell how or to what extent his revision included any of the Aramaic original. That is, sadly, completely lost to us. Luke also wrote his Gospel in the late 50s and the Acts the very early 60s--probably 62. John clearly wrote his Gospel last, but the date is much more difficult to say with certainty. It seems to me he would have had to have either written in the late 60s (67-69) or long enough after the Temple was destroyed that it didn't seem like "news" worth pointing out in his commentaries that he spread all throughout his Gospel, suggesting a date of the late 80s or early 90s. He probably wrote his epistles before then, and the Revelation last of all.

As to why? That's a VERY long discussion. There are a few points worth noting:

1. All four Gospels who unmistakable signs of having been written by first person witnesses to the accounts (or taken directly from first person accounts); they definitely were not written generations later;
2. That external evidence is extremely powerful as to the traditional authorship of each Gospel;
3. Whatever your take on the Synoptic Problem, it is absolutely clear that Matthew and Luke were aware of and almost certainly dependent on Mark's Gospel (although some have argued that Mark was dependent on Matthew);
4. It is equally clear that John's readers were well acquainted with the Synoptics;
5. The fact that Luke finishes Acts with Paul in prison in Rome either suggests that he had no theological reason to tell what happened to him while there (i.e., that he was released and went elsewhere) or, more likely, that he penned the work while Paul was in prison there. If so, that fixes Acts in the early 60s, and the rest of the Synoptics can be back-dated from there;
6. John does not mention the destruction of the Temple, either meaning it was written shortly before 70 AD or well enough after it that it didn't need explicit mention for his readers to see the connections;
7. There is a very strong tradition (often sadly overlooked by NT scholars) of an Aramaic Matthew. That, I think, is something we need to take seriously, and while we should resist the temptation to date Matthew (the Greek text) very early on account of that tradition, it should inform our overall approach in recognizing (with Luke) the broadly early attempts to write gospels of Jesus Christ.

There's a lot more, but I think that's more than enough to get anyone started. Beyond that, I'd strongly recommend you go to www.soniclight.org or www.bible.org and read the articles published there on the origins of each of the Gospels, as they do a great job getting into the details of the debates.

[Silvertusk]

Thanks Jac - Excellent post.

That is what I thought. Although I never that about Matthew - fascinating.

The reason I asked is because I started reading a book on Christian history and straight away the author said that the Gospels were obviously written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, yet gave no evidence or explanation why they thought this was the case. It ticked me off a bit. Why is it that a lot of secular historians state that the Gospels were written a lot later and very rarely attribute the author to what the titles suggest? Is it simply because they have an agenda?

Silvertusk

[Silvertusk]

And I will definately check out those links - thanks.

[PeteSinCA]

Thanks Jac - Excellent post.

That is what I thought. Although I never that about Matthew - fascinating.

The reason I asked is because I started reading a book on Christian history and straight away the author said that the Gospels were obviously written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, yet gave no evidence or explanation why they thought this was the case. It ticked me off a bit. Why is it that a lot of secular historians state that the Gospels were written a lot later and very rarely attribute the author to what the titles suggest? Is it simply because they have an agenda?

Silvertusk

There are a couple of possible agenda: 1.) acknowledging a pre-70AD authorship, for Matthew and Luke especially would entail acceptance that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple some 3 decades before the event; 2.) acknowledging a pre-70AD authorship undermines the theory that the Gospels were evolved from "Jesus stories" that had substantial, though fragmentary, truth to them into a narrative that was largely mythic (with minimal and coincidental historically true content). Re the latter, early authorship would mean that made up stories would have been promulgated at a time when eye witnesses were about who could/would have exposed and corrected falsehoods.

These agenda are not mutually exclusive, of course. I've seen both in J. S. Spong's Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. The syncretism he advocates cannot tolerate a Jesus who was unique (by doing miraculous things such as prophesying future events), and needs a Jesus about whom little certain is known so that Jesus can be remolded into whatever is needed.

[PaulSacramento]

There are two issues here:
When were the original gospels written and when were the copies circulated.
IMO, when the apostles were still alive ( and most of those that were eyewitness to Jesus), there was no need for the gospels to have had any circulation per say, especially in a culture that valued eyewitness and personal testimony above the written word.
Paul's letters were different of course.
When the apostles got older and started to die ( or travel less) that is when it makes sense that their words were put on "paper" and circulated.
So, the period of 50-90 AD makes lots of sense.
Who wrote them?
Tradition gives us some info but not as explicit as we would like.
Mark was Peter's companion and "translator/secretary" it seems.
Matthew may or may not have been the Tax collector.
Luke is probably the most unanimous of the authours.
John is a little bit more tricky as it could have been:
John the apostle ( John son of Zebedee)
John the disciple
John, who was Lazarus ( that changes his name to John because he was being hunted down).

That the gospels were accepted by the 1st generation students of the apostles tells us that they were legit.

[Silvertusk]

Matthew wrote an Aramaic gospel we no longer have, probably in the late 40s to early 50s. Mark wrote Gospel, which he primarily got from Peter, in the mid 50s. Matthew rewrote his Gospel in the late 50s and clearly relied heavily on Mark, although there is no way to tell how or to what extent his revision included any of the Aramaic original. That is, sadly, completely lost to us. Luke also wrote his Gospel in the late 50s and the Acts the very early 60s--probably 62. John clearly wrote his Gospel last, but the date is much more difficult to say with certainty. It seems to me he would have had to have either written in the late 60s (67-69) or long enough after the Temple was destroyed that it didn't seem like "news" worth pointing out in his commentaries that he spread all throughout his Gospel, suggesting a date of the late 80s or early 90s. He probably wrote his epistles before then, and the Revelation last of all.

As to why? That's a VERY long discussion. There are a few points worth noting:

1. All four Gospels who unmistakable signs of having been written by first person witnesses to the accounts (or taken directly from first person accounts); they definitely were not written generations later;
2. That external evidence is extremely powerful as to the traditional authorship of each Gospel;
3. Whatever your take on the Synoptic Problem, it is absolutely clear that Matthew and Luke were aware of and almost certainly dependent on Mark's Gospel (although some have argued that Mark was dependent on Matthew);
4. It is equally clear that John's readers were well acquainted with the Synoptics;
5. The fact that Luke finishes Acts with Paul in prison in Rome either suggests that he had no theological reason to tell what happened to him while there (i.e., that he was released and went elsewhere) or, more likely, that he penned the work while Paul was in prison there. If so, that fixes Acts in the early 60s, and the rest of the Synoptics can be back-dated from there;
6. John does not mention the destruction of the Temple, either meaning it was written shortly before 70 AD or well enough after it that it didn't need explicit mention for his readers to see the connections;
7. There is a very strong tradition (often sadly overlooked by NT scholars) of an Aramaic Matthew. That, I think, is something we need to take seriously, and while we should resist the temptation to date Matthew (the Greek text) very early on account of that tradition, it should inform our overall approach in recognizing (with Luke) the broadly early attempts to write gospels of Jesus Christ.

There's a lot more, but I think that's more than enough to get anyone started. Beyond that, I'd strongly recommend you go to http://www.soniclight.org or http://www.bible.org and read the articles published there on the origins of each of the Gospels, as they do a great job getting into the details of the debates.

That sonic light one is incredible - I will definatley be downloading those bible notes. That guy has done a lot of work - thank you for that link.

[vanquish29]

The Bible comes from two main sources - Old and New Testaments - written in different languages. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, with some books written in Aramaic. The following are brief snap shots of the beginning and ending of the Old Testament and the reasons for the first two translations of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Aramaic and Greek

1875 B.C. Abraham was called by God to the land of Canaan.
1450 B.C. The exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.

Autographs

There are no known autographs of any books of the Old Testament. Below is a list of the languages in which the Old Testament books were written.

1450-1400 B.C. The traditional date for Moses' writing of Genesis-Deuteronomy written in Hebrew.
586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon. They remained in Babylon under the Medo-Persian Empire and there began to speak Aramaic.
555-545 B.C. The Book of Daniel Chapters. 2:4 to 7:28 were written in Aramaic.
425 B.C. Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew.
400 B.C. Ezra Chapters. 4:8 to 6:18; and 7:12-26 were written in Aramaic.

Manuscripts

The following is a list of the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that are still in existence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D. The following are examples of the Hebrew Masoretic text-type.
Aleppo Codex: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947.
Codex Leningradensis: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.

Translations

The Old Testament was translated very early into Aramaic and Greek.

400 B.C. The Old Testament began to be translated into Aramaic. This translation is called the Aramaic Targums. This translation helped the Jewish people, who began to speak Aramaic from the time of their captivity in Babylon, to understand the Old Testament in the language that they commonly spoke. In the first century Palestine of Jesus' day, Aramaic was still the commonly spoken language. For example maranatha: "Our Lord has come," 1 Corinthians 16:22 is an example of an Aramaic word that is used in the New Testament.
250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. It is sometimes designated "LXX" (which is Roman numeral for "70") because it was believed that 70 to 72 translators worked to translate the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint was often used by New Testament writers when they quoted from the Old Testament. The LXX was translation of the Old Testament that was used by the early Church.

1. The following is a list of the oldest Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament that are still in existence.
Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains nine Old Testament Books in the Greek Septuagint and dates between 100-400 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus each contain almost the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint and they both date around 350 A.D.

The New Testament
Autographs

45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.
Manuscripts

There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.

125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.

Translations

Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated.

180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D.
195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology.
300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac.
300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects.
380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It continues to be the authoritative translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The Protestant Reformation saw an increase in translations of the Bible into the common languages of the people.
Other early translations of the Bible were in Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic, Slavic, and Gothic.
1380 A.D. The first English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe. He translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was a translation from a translation and not a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate because he did not know Hebrew or Greek.

[PaulSacramento]

The writings of Bruce Metzger are a great place to start ( and end) on this matter by the way.