Dating of the Gospels

[Zimon]

Hello,
Theres probably a thread on this topic but when I searched for "Dating" I didn't found what I was searching for...
In school we were told that the Gospel of Mark was written about 60-70, Luke and Matthew about 70-90, John about 100 and Acts about 65.
I never thought about this but when I reread Acts I got aware of the reference to the Gospel of Luke, so I thought that Luke must have been written before Acts. Because Acts is not mentioning the death of Paul in 65 nor the destruction of the Temple in 70 or the persecution of Christians around 64, it must have been written around 63 or earlier. Therefore, Luke must be have been written before 63 as well... I found out this was called Early dating and did a little research on that. I understood the dating of Acts and Luke but how do they explain the dating of Matthew around 58 (before Mark)? I did not find any proof on that. In school they taught be Matthew and Luke were using Mark as source and therefore were written after Mark.
Any thoughts on this?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John Wenham's 1992 book, "Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke," argues for Matthean and Lukan priority to Mark (a strong reversal of prevailing academic opinon).

The point is, there's all sorts of opinions out there on which gospel was penned first, which might have depended on one or another, was there a "Q", etc.

Richard Bauckham's 2007 award-winning book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," accepts a number of modern critical-scholar positions, while marshaling a prodigious body of evidence in order to demonstrate the Gospels present us with serious history, written by contemporaneous authors, with access to living witnesses of the events.

Amazon.com: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (9780802831620): Richard Bauckham: Books

 

[Wannabee]

You're witnessing the modern "experts'" imposition on the Gospels. Early church fathers submitted that Matthew was written first, Mark and Luke sometime later (late 50s - early 60s), followed by Acts (60s) and then John (80s-90s). The idea that one copied from another is actually rather silly in light of the fact that all 3 synoptics have material that is distinctive to that gospel. They each simply approached the life of Christ from different perspectives and with differing experiences and even varied sources. Matthew wrote down what he saw and experienced from the perspective of a Jew. Luke wrote as a Greek historian. Mark wrote as a close witness to the teaching of the Apostles, likely while in Italy if the early fathers are to be believed. And I think your assessment of Acts being after Luke is clearly accurate. I recently set aside Nolland's commentary on Luke for these very reasons - he commented more on how Luke handled Mark than on what Luke actually said. It was most discouraging. Such writing is more interested in presenting their scholarship/expertise than helping the reader to see Christ more clearly.

 

[Kevin]

According to Craig Evans all of the NT books are pre-70 AD, and the Gospels are among the earliest. The tendancy among contemporary conservative scholars is to move the date of composition earlier, in keeping up with the latest advances in the field.

 

[LeeJUk]

I think that by reading the gospels it is clear that both Matthew and Luke seem to be copying chunks from Mark. As for the Q hypothesis it doesn't at all seem unreasonable....(Q being the shared material between Luke and Matthew thats not included in Mark such as the sermon on the mount sayings.).

In terms of dating I think its reasonable to say that the synoptics were written pre-70 a.d. and that Mark was the first.
Really the only reason scholars are putting mark post-70 a.d. is due to the fact that in it Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple and jerusalem and they cannot allow for supernatural things like prophecy and therefore Mark must be written later and the writer has put the prediction in Jesus mouth to give him some credability.

Even A.T. Robertson who was liberal, when he flung aside what he had been taught and embarked on a scholarly investigation as to when the gospels had been written, he came out and wrote a book basically saying the synoptics are written pre-70 a.d.

To be honest I don't think we will ever actually know their proper dating and I'm not convinced it matters so much give or take 10-20 years. If it was into the second century then perhaps I'd be worried but its no where close to that. So we have accounts that were written when witnesses and apostles would have still been alive and before any mythology could be created and therefore the gospels are reliable including John.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The whole canon was completed prior to A.D. 70.

As far as the "borrowing" suggestions, they make as much sense as JEDP.

 

[LeeJUk]

The whole canon was completed prior to A.D. 70.

As far as the "borrowing" suggestions, they make as much sense as JEDP.

Well no the document hypothesis(JEDP) is vastly different from the now widely accepted scholarly view (on both evangelical and liberal sides) that the gospels in some way use material from each other.

Firstly the idea of "borrowing" as you put it still allows for there being one author to each gospel instead of 4 authors that contradict one another in the same book like it is suggested in the document hypothesis.
Secondly we don't have a problem when the N.T. quotes the O.T. so why should be have an issue when one part of the N.T. quotes another part of the N.T. like has occured in the gospels?
Lastly to reject this is to remove the element of the human authorship that went into the gospels and replace it with a sort of view that the gospels fell out of the heavens without human means. Why couldn't God in inspiring Matthew, have had him copy Mark? It makes it no less inspired. God did supernaturally inspire the gospels but through human and normal means.

 

[Wannabee]

Lee, it's not so much a problem as an imposition. It may be the "scholarly" view in some circles, but it's these kinds of "scholars" who generally make a name for themselves and come up with all sorts of vain jangling and philosophizing. However, the historical and exegetical view does not see them relying on one another in any way. None of the church fathers thought Mark wrote first. In fact, I don't think anyone did until some "scholars" came up with the idea. Rich Barcellos recently shared this.

France has a good statement on Q --

"And as for a unitary document 'Q,' I am among the growing number of scholars who find it an improbably [sic] simple hypothesis; I am happy to talk about 'Q tradition' (which may have been oral or written, and not necessarily all gathered into a single source), but not about Matthew 'editing Q' if by that is meant making alterations to a supposedly fixed text (which is in any case not available to us). And I am afraid that the even more esoteric and hypothetical debates about 'the Q community' or 'recensions of Q' leave me cold." (21-22, NICTC commentary on Matthew)

Some folks take the whole Markan priority way too far. I don't subscribe to it anyway, perceiving it as a bunch of swill. But even if someone buys into it, how could they possibly think it responsible to initiate comment about every verse in their LUKE commentary with how Luke changed, omitted or added to Mark? There's plenty to say about what Luke actually states without all this nonsense. Think I'm exaggerating?

Just some snippets from chapter 4

38 As he frequently does (Neirynck, Minor Agreements, 203–6), Luke replaces Mark’s καί, “and,” by δέ, “but/and.”
39 Luke replaces προσελθών (“having come”) with ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς,
40 Luke abbreviates Mark’s double time reference and uses a present participle in place of Mark’s aorists, thereby obscuring Mark’s attention to the sabbath observance of these people (Schürmann, 253 n. 242).
41 The exorcising is not, as in Mark, a separate activity: as many of the sick were healed, demons came out of them.
42 As in v 40 Luke simplifies Mark’s time reference.
43 But the messenger of the kingdom may not settle down: his call is always to be moving on (cf. 9:58; 13:33). Luke changes Mark’s historic present to an aorist
44 Luke’s ἦν, “was,” is better than Mark’s ἦλθεν, “came,” since the verse serves no prospective function.

• [NOTE: I was encouraged when I reached chapter 5 and saw that verse 1 had no mention of Mark. Then I read verse 2.]

2 εἶδεν, “he saw,” is perhaps from Mark 1:16, as is ἀλιεῖς, “fishermen.” δύο, “two,” prepares for v 7.



John Nolland, vol. 35A, Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 1:1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

Scripture in Luke is better than Scripture in Mark? Are they not equally breathed by God almighty?

I'm certainly glad it's not my only Luke commentary.

 

[SolaSaint]

Great post Wannabee, I'm in agreement here with you. Mostly when we hear of this borrowing or copying in the gospels and the "Q" as well, it's usually accompanied with liberal theology that reduces Scripture to something easier to believe. I tend to grimmace when the Jesus Seminar Fellows push these types of ideas.

 

[Prufrock]

The whole canon was completed prior to A.D. 70.

As far as the "borrowing" suggestions, they make as much sense as JEDP.

Well no the document hypothesis(JEDP) is vastly different from the now widely accepted scholarly view (on both evangelical and liberal sides) that the gospels in some way use material from each other.

Firstly the idea of "borrowing" as you put it still allows for there being one author to each gospel instead of 4 authors that contradict one another in the same book like it is suggested in the document hypothesis.
Secondly we don't have a problem when the N.T. quotes the O.T. so why should be have an issue when one part of the N.T. quotes another part of the N.T. like has occured in the gospels?
Lastly to reject this is to remove the element of the human authorship that went into the gospels and replace it with a sort of view that the gospels fell out of the heavens without human means. Why couldn't God in inspiring Matthew, have had him copy Mark? It makes it no less inspired. God did supernaturally inspire the gospels but through human and normal means.

In the spirit of honestly distinguishing things that differ, citing an OT scripture to show how it has been fulfilled is a different animal than literary dependence of one author upon another. The idea itself of literary sources and redaction is certainly not new, and there are forerunners in different forms of such ideas amongst respected reformed expositors (see for example Matthew Henry's introduction to his commentary on Joshua). Nevertheless, to *deny* the use of sources or literary dependence is not at all to ignore the human element of scripture. The classical doctrine of immediate inspiration allows that the penmen could be given words which were in perfect harmony with their own linguistic styles and thought patterns, and that the immediately inspired words can yet reflect the penman's own concerns and thoughts.

Originally Posted by LeeJUK
I think that by reading the gospels it is clear that both Matthew and Luke seem to be copying chunks from Mark.

Respectfully, I think it may only be clear because we're *told* it's clear. If we weren't told it was clear, I think many issues (e.g., certain narrative details in Mark conspicuously absent from both Matthew and Luke, for example the "greenness" of the grass in 6:39, or the detail of how/where Jesus was sleeping in the boat in 4:38) would have stood in the way of us ever realizing it was apparently so clear. However, I realize that to discuss such is not in keeping with the intention of this thread, so if you would like to open a new thread and discuss the clarity of this position, please do so.