Thread by @EricRSammons

THREAD: When were the Gospels written, and in what order?

1) There’s been much debate over the past two centuries as to when the four canonical Gospels were written, and in what order. I’d like to give the view that has been most commonly held throughout the centuries.

2) It was only in the past few centuries that the order and dates of the Gospels came into serious dispute. Three problematic assumptions became popular that led to the re-ordering and re-dating.

3) The first assumption is that “simple precedes complex”. This might be true in biology, but it’s not necessarily true in writings or religious ideas. For example, St. Paul is far more complex than St. Clement, yet Paul came first.

4) The “simple precedes complex” (false) assumption led scholars to assume Mark was the first Gospel written, because it was considered the most simple. This led to a whole host of other theories to support that view, including the infamous “Q Source”.

5) The second assumption is that written testimonies come *much* later than the events themselves. Frankly, this was just an attempt to discredit their reliability. So scholars were even saying things like John’s Gospel was written in the middle/late 2nd century.

6) But there was no real evidence to back these claims, and in fact a lot to dispute them. But scholars have their biases, and so many stuck with these absurd theories.

7) The final assumption was the rejection of the supernatural, which impacts how modern scholars handle Christ’s predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. It’s assumed they were written after it happened, for no one supposedly could supernaturally predict it.

8) Modern scholarship also rejects the testimony of the early Christians. Even though they are the best witnesses to the origin of the Gospels, modern scholars reject their testimony as unreliable, favoring instead their new theories that support their underlying ideologies.

9) So when were the Gospels written? Let’s go backwards, from the latest to the earliest. It’s agreed by most that John was written last of the four Gospels, and likely between 90 and 100 A.D. He wrote his Gospel when the other three were already well-known in Christian circles.

10) The second-latest was Luke’s Gospel. He likely had access to both Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels (or at least parts of those Gospels). When was Luke written?

11) We know that Luke’s other work, Acts, was written before 62 A.D., when he cuts off his story with Paul in Rome. He would not have left out Paul’s martrydom if it had happened. (The amount of time he spends on Stephen’s martyrdom shows how important martyrdom is to Luke.)

12) Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts, so his Gospel was probably written around 60 A.D. And since Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, this means that they were written before 60 A.D. But which was first?

13) Most modern scholars say Mark, but that’s not the traditional view, and Markan priority has much less evidence than commonly thought, and depends on many questionable assumptions. Traditionally, it’s been a near-unanimous view over the centuries that Matthew came before Mark.

14) Mark was likely written sometime in the 50’s. It’s hard to pinpoint the time frame down more than that. We know Mark based his Gospel on Peter’s preaching in Rome, but we don’t really know exactly when Peter was there, but it would have been before the late 50’s.

15) So if Mark is written in the 50’s, then Matthew must be at least as early as the mid-50’s. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Early Christian testimony is overwhelming that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and the Greek we have is a translation of that.

16) When was the Aramaic version written, and when was the Greek version translated? It’s hard to say. It’s possible (although not likely) that the Aramaic was before Mark and Luke, but the Greek was later. That might solve some of the relationship issues between the three.

17) In fact, it’s possible that the Aramaic Matthew is the “Q Source” that scholars have tried to create. I don’t think that’s likely, but it’s a better explanation than most modern theories which invent documents out of thin air.

18) Regardless, the Aramaic version of Matthew was probably written sometime in the late 40’s or early 50’s, within 20 years after the events it depicts, and by an eyewitness.

19) So, to review:

(Aramaic) Matthew: late 40’s-early 50’s
Mark: 50’s
Luke: c. 60
John: 90-100

20) This order and dating is consistent with the views of the early Church, the best witnesses we have for these writings, and fits best with the data we have. /fin