The Gospels

For some time now there has been scholarly debate on the authenticity of the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Just to catch up those who may live in the "bubble", I will offer a brief breakdown of the debate.

Most scholars accept that Matthew was written at the latest in the 80s A.D. following the death of Christ. However, most Christian scholars believe it is more accurately written in the 60s A.D. the debate over that time is routed in Matthew 24:2 where Christ prophecies of the destruciton of Jerusalem, an event that occured in 70 A.D. Obviously Christian scholars point that the statement was in forsite while nonbelievers contend it had to have been added later. Most accept that Matthew was the tax collector that become a close disciple of Christ.

Mark was written first by most people's accounts since Matthew and Luke appear to borrow from Mark in their writings. This places Mark slightly before Matthew in the timeline; however, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. He was a traveling cohort of the disciple Peter and most likely transcribed the accounts of Peter.

A similar situation is found in Luke. Luke, who is known as a "physician", was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke is also credited with writing Acts, which I will come back to later. But remember, Luke seems to have borrowed from Mark.

The last gospel, John, is one of the most controversial since many historians see it arise in the early 100s A.D. John makes claims that no other gospel does, particularly the blatant references to the divinity of Christ. Which "John" wrote this gospel is also debateable.

Now there is a concept of a Gospel "Q". Since two of the gospels use sayings of Christ almost verbatim, it is suggested that another gospel of mere sayings may have been recorded. A book of sayings would not have been out of place for such a period, adn though many Christians find the idea offensive, in no way does the potential existance of the book devalue the divinity of Christ or contradict any traditionally accepted theology.

Now for the big debate. Were the gospels written so far removed from Christ that their accuracy in is in question? I have heard so many Christians scholars accept the following timeline :
Mark- 70 A.D. ish
Matthew- 71 A.D.ish
Luke- 76 A.D.ish
John- 117 A.D.ish
and then they proceed with defending the success of Jewish oral traditions. I agree the oral traditions in the Jewish people were emaculate but may I take a step back.

Let's consider the previously mentioned book of Acts, the second work of Luke. It appears to have abruptly ended with Paul's imprisonment prior to his death in 67 A.D. This suggests that Luke never finished it after Paul's death thus dating the Gospel Luke to before 67 A.D. , which means Matthew was written around or before the same time, and Mark even before that. Keep in mind that Paul, in his travels prior to death and imprisonment refers to the circulating gospels which suggests it could be even sooner. The point is, the Gospels have strong evidence to suggest that they were written well with in the lifetime of thier first hand accounters. But that forces scholars to embrace Christs prediction of Jerusalems destruction as prophecy and that often hurts the intellectuals.

But what of the Gospel John? Well, if the timeline above is possible, John would make since and here's how. John the Son of Zebedee could have written the gospel, or at least had it transcibed. Most literary people note that compared to the others, it is poorly written and direct. Such would be if written by a FISHERMAN! John does mention new ideas not found in the others and fails to mention other instances. But accepting the John would have been written after the others, John may, in the spirit of knowing his contemporaries, simply added or filled in holes. Lastly, I understand no copies of these can be dated that early but it only makes sicne that likely discoveries would come from periods of mass replication, which could have taken 30 to 50 years.

I hope that now you can see how important the Gospel timeline can be.