Who wrote the 4 gospels of the New Testament and when?
- Thread starter GrahamDennis
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not to suit my preferences at all,common sence says you write it down so you can give it to people to read who will pass it on to others! That would still be doing what Jesus said wouldn't it ? " spread the word " can also mean the writen word as well as the spoken word surley. Please read #57, a very good answer,a believable explanation,scripture don't have to be so hard to understand,I'm sure God didn't want to confuse US
Much of which considers itself to be modern scholarship agrees with your late dating; however an open-minded reading of the four Gospels strongly indicates that none of the Gospel writers had any knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple beyond what Jesus predicted. This strongly suggests that the entire NT( except possibly Revelation) was written before 70 A.D. Clement of Rome, in his only extant epistle (Definitely written before 67 A.D.) mentions in Chapter 5 the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul thereby dating all their epistles far earlier than modern scholarship (so called) suggests.
I read it,it means nothing to me,to me that's just another verse made up by men who want to have power over other men to show how clever they are ,that they alone can disiphor scripture and give it any meaning they like and be revered by other men,like I've said,I don't think God would make scripture hard and confusing to understand ,man would,God loves us all,He wouldn't exclude me from His love just because I don't understand a parable or don't understand how one verse of scripture supposedly relates to many different events in different times.
A
Actually, it's supposed to be the year Jesus was born. But, here's the kicker -- Jesus was born anywhere from 7 BC to 10 AD. They didn't exactly have birth records back then. Many seem to lean toward 4-7 AD. (Something about when shepherds are keeping sheep around Bethlehem, and something about that astronomical event that got the magi coming.)
And given that means Jesus could have died as late as 43 AD, you're missing the concept that the gospels were written a mere 20-50 years later. I really do remember 1995 easily. I remember RFK and MLK being assassinated too. AND, the last one written was by John who was quite young when he followed Jesus and died in his 90's. If memory serves me, (and it often doesn't, so don't count on this as real fact, more something you can check into), John wrote his gospel last. (After Revelation and his three letters.) So, sure -- 20-50 years after Jesus died. If you knew someone who became this important, how long after you knew him would it dawn on you it might be a good thing to write an article about the person you knew?
If you're into the big picture, (how the whole Bible came to be), I recommend "The Books ad the Parchments" by F.F. Bruce. (It might get dry in places, unless you like semantics and linguistics, like I do, but it's okay to skip the "boring" parts just to check out the history.) I think the very creation of what we call the Bible is downright miraculous.
And given that means Jesus could have died as late as 43 AD, you're missing the concept that the gospels were written a mere 20-50 years later. I really do remember 1995 easily. I remember RFK and MLK being assassinated too. AND, the last one written was by John who was quite young when he followed Jesus and died in his 90's. If memory serves me, (and it often doesn't, so don't count on this as real fact, more something you can check into), John wrote his gospel last. (After Revelation and his three letters.) So, sure -- 20-50 years after Jesus died. If you knew someone who became this important, how long after you knew him would it dawn on you it might be a good thing to write an article about the person you knew?
If you're into the big picture, (how the whole Bible came to be), I recommend "The Books ad the Parchments" by F.F. Bruce. (It might get dry in places, unless you like semantics and linguistics, like I do, but it's okay to skip the "boring" parts just to check out the history.) I think the very creation of what we call the Bible is downright miraculous.
By the First Century A.D. Greek was the language of commerce from Spain to India. At least 50% of the men of Israel, and at least 70% of the population of Europe, West Asia, and North Africa were conversant in it.
In light of the Great Commission of Mat Chapter 28, any thing written would have been written in Greek to reach the largest number of people. Was written beginning about 265B.C.and widely available before the end of the second century B.C. but was not known by the Latin name Septuigent until so called by Philo after 240 A.D.
In light of the Great Commission of Mat Chapter 28, any thing written would have been written in Greek to reach the largest number of people. Was written beginning about 265B.C.and widely available before the end of the second century B.C. but was not known by the Latin name Septuigent until so called by Philo after 240 A.D.
A
Targums were/are commentaries, not translations. Translators do merely that -- swap text from one language to another -- no additions, no tweaks.
As for Bible translators, you have to remember parchment doesn't last 2000 years, and until the Internet came along, translators had to actually go with the earliest MSS they had for the words. Yet, the earliest MSS were copies of earlier MSS, and, on a very rare occasion, the scribes goofed. Of course, scribing is much like medical transcription services today -- not to be done by non-experts -- so even the goofs were rare and usually related to transcribing page 55, losing your place, and inserting a fragment of a sentence from page 54 without catching it. If they goofed often, they were kicked out.
The Bible often includes the questionable add-ons, but that's the stuff in parentheses, which denotes "this isn't in all of the earliest MSS."
As for Bible translators, you have to remember parchment doesn't last 2000 years, and until the Internet came along, translators had to actually go with the earliest MSS they had for the words. Yet, the earliest MSS were copies of earlier MSS, and, on a very rare occasion, the scribes goofed. Of course, scribing is much like medical transcription services today -- not to be done by non-experts -- so even the goofs were rare and usually related to transcribing page 55, losing your place, and inserting a fragment of a sentence from page 54 without catching it. If they goofed often, they were kicked out.
The Bible often includes the questionable add-ons, but that's the stuff in parentheses, which denotes "this isn't in all of the earliest MSS."
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:3–6)
A
They were written with historical bias too. (And that word really is "historical," not "historic.")
It's what most of us would be inclined to do if we were to write something about the Gettysburg Address. We'd include the actual words, but our bias is most likely given to us from where we lived when we learned about the Civil War.
I had the strange circumstances of getting stuck with the Civil War history in three different high schools, because I moved every summer. But, I got it from three different biases -- The Yankee bias, the Southern bias, and the Western bias (in a state that wasn't all that involved in the war.)
It's what most of us would be inclined to do if we were to write something about the Gettysburg Address. We'd include the actual words, but our bias is most likely given to us from where we lived when we learned about the Civil War.
I had the strange circumstances of getting stuck with the Civil War history in three different high schools, because I moved every summer. But, I got it from three different biases -- The Yankee bias, the Southern bias, and the Western bias (in a state that wasn't all that involved in the war.)
A
My Dead Guys (commentators) are Adam Clarke, John Gill, Jamieson, Fasset and Brown, Albert Barnes, and Matthew Henry. None of them are gospel, but all of them studied the scripture more than I have, so I read what they think and decide for myself what I won't and will accept.
A small example. I was just reading the story of the "quail" coming into camp when the Israelites were in the wilderness.
First -- not quails. Quails was the translation of a word that the translators didn't understand. They knew it was a bird of some kind, but what kind? Since they ate quail, they used that word. (Same thing happened with the word "rabbit." There were no rabbits in the Middle East back then, so God's not going to tell them not to eat an animal they never heard of or saw. But, rabbits were in Europe when translators translated into English.)
Second -- "about two cubits high." Well, we really do know a cubit is somewhere between a third to half meter. But what was two cubits high? The birds. Huh? Did they all hang out on branches if they were only quail, because quails aren't that tall. Did they die and pile that high? That's what some of my Dead Guys gave as a possibility. But, it's unclean to eat animals that died first, so that would waste a lot of birds. Some thought it was the height the birds were flying, so they were easy to catch. One thought birds were locust. All of it is really a verse in Numbers (11:31), and they all had an opinion from there much longer study than I would give it, but one landed on something I'd buy. The most recent Dead Guys read about someone's journey in that area, and sure enough, a type of crane migrates through that area and it's a meter tall. I'll buy that one, but it's not the same as accepting it as gospel.
That's how commentaries help us... and confuse us more. lol
A small example. I was just reading the story of the "quail" coming into camp when the Israelites were in the wilderness.
First -- not quails. Quails was the translation of a word that the translators didn't understand. They knew it was a bird of some kind, but what kind? Since they ate quail, they used that word. (Same thing happened with the word "rabbit." There were no rabbits in the Middle East back then, so God's not going to tell them not to eat an animal they never heard of or saw. But, rabbits were in Europe when translators translated into English.)
Second -- "about two cubits high." Well, we really do know a cubit is somewhere between a third to half meter. But what was two cubits high? The birds. Huh? Did they all hang out on branches if they were only quail, because quails aren't that tall. Did they die and pile that high? That's what some of my Dead Guys gave as a possibility. But, it's unclean to eat animals that died first, so that would waste a lot of birds. Some thought it was the height the birds were flying, so they were easy to catch. One thought birds were locust. All of it is really a verse in Numbers (11:31), and they all had an opinion from there much longer study than I would give it, but one landed on something I'd buy. The most recent Dead Guys read about someone's journey in that area, and sure enough, a type of crane migrates through that area and it's a meter tall. I'll buy that one, but it's not the same as accepting it as gospel.
That's how commentaries help us... and confuse us more. lol
It is evident from the salutations to Theophilus that Luke and Acts were written by the same person; and from the alternation from first person to third person, in Acts, it is evident that person was indeed Luke; as deduced from the corresponding themes in Paul's epistles.
That Matthew, Mark, and John did, in fact, write their respective Gospels is affirmed by both Church and secular writers of the first and second centuries A.D. The fact is, that of the historians of the period: Josephus. Herodotus, Eusebius, and Socrates Scholasticus; none dispute the fact.
That Matthew, Mark, and John did, in fact, write their respective Gospels is affirmed by both Church and secular writers of the first and second centuries A.D. The fact is, that of the historians of the period: Josephus. Herodotus, Eusebius, and Socrates Scholasticus; none dispute the fact.
The apostles undoubtedly spoke and read both Hebrew and Aramaic. The likelihood is that most or all of them also read and wrote Greek. The fact that most of the apostolic writings in Scripture were written in rather clumsy Greek argues strongly against translation from Hebrew. If you go to the trouble of hiring a translator, why not find someone competent?
I believe that from the time of the Babylonian captivity, every Jewish boy between 4 and 13 was taught Hebrew and memorized multiple entire books of Scripture including all of the Torah. Hebrew was unused in daily conversation, not because it was unknown; but, because it was reserved for prayer and worship.
When the disciples were referred to as unschooled; it did not mean that they were illiterate. It meant that they had not studied under a recognized rabbi.
When the disciples were referred to as unschooled; it did not mean that they were illiterate. It meant that they had not studied under a recognized rabbi.
You show a massive ignorance of lower textual criticism, history and the canon.
FIRST - the earliest manuscripts are used to translate the Bible. If you buy a UBS Greek New Testament, you will see the notations for every minor difference in those manuscripts. None which affect doctrine. Although it is true that the KJV translators used Erasmus' translations, who was forced by the RCC to use the Latin Vulgate in places, making KJV a translation of a translation of a translation, Bible translators do not do that anymore.
Lower criticism or textual criticism is the science of sorting, comparing the existing manuscripts of ancient documents with a view to reconstructing the text or the original as accurately as possible. For example, the Rylands papryus contains portions of John 8:31-33, 37-38 from 130 AD - barely 40 years after the original was first composed. Another two dozen papryri containing part or all of one or more of the Gospels date from the second, third and fourth centuries and are housed in various museums and libraries throughout the world. The five oldest, most reliable and most complete New Testaments date from the fourth and fifth centuries and all contain the gospels quite well preserved. Nothing to do with translating a translation! Or, become corrupted over the centuries. Instead, going back to the earliest texts, which considering the completeness of them, means there had to be many early manscripts for some to be preserved in such excellent condition, you are parroting internet nonsense about the historical text!
The Bible is the most thoroughly scrutinized book in the history of the world. Every single copyist error is known and recorded. That is why understanding how the text has been preserved is so important.
SECOND - To those who are sadly misinformed as the language of New Testament Israel, it was mostly Aramaic. Mark's gospel uses loan words from the Aramaic within the Greek. When Alexander the Great (from 331-323 BC) conquered the known world, one of his goals was to "Hellenize" the world. That means to not only make Greek the main language, but to spread the Greek culture. And it worked! Everyone adopted Greek as the main language of trade and commerce. The Hebrews lost their language so badly, that a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (LXX) had to be translated soon after that. A simplified form of Attic (Athenian) Greek developed into what is now called "Hellenistic Greek." By New Testament times, the lingua franca, or common language was koine Greek - or common Greek. Greek became the language of business, commerce and relations with the military and political authorities.
THIRD - As for your firm dating, you have obviously been reading some websites which are spewing out lies to discredit the Bible. Traditional dating for Matthew is the late 50's or early 60's, as indicated in the writings of Irenaeus (c 175) who wrote that Peter and Paul were still alive when this gospel was written. The fact that Matthew uses terms like "field of blood," showed connection with conditions in Palestine, and that this is prior to the devastation in Jerusalem in 70 AD. If it had been written after 70 AD, Matthew certainly wouild have note the prophesy about the destruction of Jerusalem had been fulfilled. That he did not, points strongly towards it being written before that point!
Mark was likely written probably before the Jewish war. It is a pastoral response to stressful times, as Christians were facing the death of eye witnesses which created a need to preserve and stablilize the knowledge of Jesus. Mark compiled a written record of the preaching of Peter and perhaps others to edify the church, and aid it in the task of proclaiming the gospel in the Greco-Roman world.
Luke was likely written around 62 AD. Since Luke and Acts are so closely related, they would have been released about the same time. This date is suggested because Paul's death is not noted in Acts, which is mostly the story of Paul. Luke also notes in both Luke 1 and Acts 1, that he is compiling the stories of the eye witnesses to Jesus, life, miracles, ministry and his death and resurrection.
John, written by the Beloved disciple was the last of the gospels written. He does not rely on materials from the other three synoptic gospels as much, but sets an account of both the events and the incarnational theology of Jesus which he witnessed in his gospel. Early church fathers all agree John wrote his gospel. Dating for this gospel is difficult, with dates ranging from 80 AD and upwards. However, internal evidence points to earlier, as John writes his gospel from a presupposition of Judaism before the war which destroyed Jerusalem. Jesus' conflicts with the Jewish leaders, and his critical dispostion toward the temple suggest that the temple was still operational, or John would have mentioned it as a logical result of the Pharisees and scribes wandering far from God's plan and purpose.
A good book to read on this topic is "Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey" by Craig L. Blomberg.
A good link to start with is:
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
Finally, I find it strange that only a few days ago I addressed this whole issue, although not in as great of depth! It was a different person trying to tear apart the gospels, using some of the same words used by the OP. So an alter? Or random chance? I certainly hope the latter, but it is indeed strange that this topic is being forced down our throats again.