Who wrote the 4 gospels of the New Testament and when?

[valiant]

fair point,I agree it's possible they could speak more than 1 language,infact it's probable,ok how about this one,why didn't they write down the actual dates that they witnessed jesus perform miricals as in the relevant Hebrew or Greek date? It would seem like a logical thing to do to me when recording miraculous events when you know your in the company of Jesus the son of a God as they knew they were?

It was not common practise in those days to date things meticulously and indeed questionable whether they had any means of doing so except in the way that Matthew and Luke clearly did. Dating would be in terms of some significant event. Thus Matthew dates in terms of 'the days of Herod the king', the reigning of Archelaus, and 'when John the Baptist went out preaching', and 'when John the Baptist was delivered up'. In terms of those days those were well known events. We must not expect modern practises in ancient days.

Incidentally all Galileans would speak both Aramaic and Greek for they continually had to resort to both.

 

[GrahamDennis]

I have mentioned that multiple times, and provided Scriptures to show it... and it occurs to me that they were to rely fully on God to supply all their needs, just as we are

That's not what it says friend,if that's what it means it would of said when I sent you out with no purse,no bag,no spare sandles no spare tunic,to emphasise the point they went out only in what they stood up in

 

[Magenta]

I didn't say they went naked,and Jesus didn't tell them to go naked,I get he told them to take the bear essentials not to carry sandals,not to take two tunics,that obviously means take only one tunic and 1 pair of sandals so of course they're not naked ,you said that not me,he DID however say " when I sent you out with no purse,no bag,NO SANDALS, did you lack anything? " nothing " the replied. The point I'm making is Jesus explicitly told them to take and wear sandals but then contradicts himself by asking if they lacked anything when he sent them out without a purse( no money) a bag ( nothing to carry ) and NO SANDALS ( so they were bear footed,)so,again,I'll respectfully ask without being condescending to you and calling you silly,is this a typo or a mistake in the inspired writings of the gospels?

I did not say you said they went naked, can you please look at what was said and see that I asked a question as to what you may have been suggesting? Clearly what is clear to anyone with any common sense is not clear to you, since Jesus plainly tells them not to carry anything extra, at no point did He tell them not to wear sandals. Silly silly silly!

 

[valiant]

That's not what it says friend,if that's what it means it would of said when I sent you out with no purse,no bag,no spare sandles no spare tunic,to emphasise the point they went out only in what they stood up in

Jesus was not speaking with critical people like you in mind. He spoke to His disciples who would understand exactly what He meant, TAKE NOTHNG EXTRA. GO AS YOU ARE. Trust wholly in God for money and extras.'

If you can't see that it is because you don't want to.

 

[GrahamDennis]

It was not common practise in those days to date things meticulously and indeed questionable whether they had any means of doing so except in the way that Matthew and Luke clearly did. Dating would be in terms of some significant event. Thus Matthew dates in terms of 'the days of Herod the king', the reigning of Archelaus, and 'when John the Baptist went out preaching', and 'when John the Baptist was delivered up'. In terms of those days those were well known events. We must not expect modern practises in ancient days.

I'm sorry I don't agree,they were perfectly able to use dates,they were jews and the Jews have had a callender since Moses times if not befor,it's beyond me why they wouldn't date such massive events even given that they wrote the gospels many years later,I think they would of made every effort to put dates in to authenticate thier story,even more so because they were writing a history of oast events so would of wanted people of thier own time to be able to relate to events in the relatively close past?

 

[Magenta]

I think they would of made every effort to put dates in to authenticate thier story...

It seems common sense to me that you would know better than to continually say should of, could of, and would of, when saying should have, could have, and would have, is proper, or even should've, could've, and would've. See how our ideas of common sense differ? What seems sensible to you is senseless to others, especially given the fact that you have been corrected but refuse to apply the corrections.

 

[valiant]

I'm sorry I don't agree,they were perfectly able to use dates,they were jews and the Jews have had a callender since Moses times if not befor,it's beyond me why they wouldn't date such massive events even given that they wrote the gospels many years later,I think they would of made every effort to put dates in to authenticate thier story,even more so because they were writing a history of oast events so would of wanted people of thier own time to be able to relate to events in the relatively close past?

The truth is that you are simply looking for problems. Give me any examples of Jewish works of around that time which were meticulously dated. YOU CANNOT. Why should they be different?

To them the dating was unimportant except in a general way. What was important was the message and the truth about Jesus. No one who received their works would be worrying about dates. They were more concerned with the message.

WE know the dates almost exactly. Do you know of anyone who has been converted because he knew the dates? Those who read the Gospels knew that it happened 'within the recent past'. That was all that interested them.

Once the truth about Jesus has dawned on you, you will stop worrying about dates!!!!!

 

[Angela53510]

Yes,very good,once again knowone seems to be able say EXACTLY when Jesus was born or died,all using different callenders,didn't the Jewish use dates from there history to record the exact year things happend? What I'm saying is in the lifetime of Jesus the Jew,wernt the jews recording the date of certain events,like the concensus that was being carried out where the Jewish had to register in their place of birth? Can't these recorded dates be aligned with the Roman dates recorded in thier records? I don't expect you yo be able to answer this in less your a date expert but it seems to me the society Jesus was born into was quite well advanced in terms of speaking and reading different languages so I would of thought the dating of important documents or even notes was happening then in everyday life just like today,from leaving a note to the milkman on your doorstep to depositing money at the bank we tend to date these things so the recipient of such a note or letter knows who sent it and when?

You are committing a grave exegetical mistake! You are reading back into history from our time. You are insisting that ancient cultures all had reliable time and calendar systems whch all the people knew and used. In fact, except for the Babylonians, none really had calendars which we can accurately correlate to today's dates! The Jews adopted their calendar, but the majority of the common people did not use or refer exclusively it.

The Romans were constantly revising their calendar as new astolonomical data became available. Basically, keeping the feasts, for the Jews, honouring Caesar and the gods for the Greeks and Romans, were the main motives for keeping calendars. So those changes alone made for confusion in dating events.

To expect total accuracy from a people without watches or calendars, who kept feasts and holidays because the priests and scribes reminded them, let alone accurately dating events by year simply shows ignorance of how all ancient cultures worked.

More than that, I think you are focusing on this trivial side issues, rather than facing up to the real issue of the claims of Jesus Christ on your life. On Judgement Day, do you plan to stand before the throne of God, and say "But I didn't understand why they didn't date Jesus life better!" Because you will hear Jesus say, "Begone, I never knew you!"

Instead, consider that Jesus came to die for your sins on the cross. And he rose again from the dead! Repent and believe, is my take home for you!

 

[GrahamDennis]

It seems common sense to me that you would know better than to continually say should of, could of, and would of, when saying should have, could have, and would have, is proper, or even should've, could've, and would've. See how our ideas of common sense differ? What seems sensible to you is senseless to others, especially given the fact that you have been corrected but refuse to apply the corrections.

Very funny,should've,could've,would've,should have,could have,would have and should of,could of and would of all read the same way and convey the same thing,nothing to do with common sence,and when have I failed to apply any corrections made by you? Your just trying to deflect from the problemof the apostles not including any specific dates because it alludes to the fact they didn't write them and they were written by others who DIDNOT witness the life of Jesus

 

[GrahamDennis]

You are committing a grave exegetical mistake! You are reading back into history from our time. You are insisting that ancient cultures all had reliable time and calendar systems whch all the people knew and used. In fact, except for the Babylonians, none really had calendars which we can accurately correlate to today's dates! The Jews adopted their calendar, but the majority of the common people did not use or refer exclusively it.

The Romans were constantly revising their calendar as new astolonomical data became available. Basically, keeping the feasts, for the Jews, honouring Caesar and the gods for the Greeks and Romans, were the main motives for keeping calendars. So those changes alone made for confusion in dating events.

To expect total accuracy from a people without watches or calendars, who kept feasts and holidays because the priests and scribes reminded them, let alone accurately dating events by year simply shows ignorance of how all ancient cultures worked.

More than that, I think you are focusing on this trivial side issues, rather than facing up to the real issue of the claims of Jesus Christ on your life. On Judgement Day, do you plan to stand before the throne of God, and say "But I didn't understand why they didn't date Jesus life better!" Because you will hear Jesus say, "Begone, I never knew you!"

Instead, consider that Jesus came to die for your sins on the cross. And he rose again from the dead! Repent and believe, is my take home for you!

the Jews always knew what day of the week it was because they religiously ( lol ) kept the sabbath! Thank you for your answer,I'll keep probing to try to find out more,I'm not yet convinced about who wrote the gospels but have been directed to a few books that I'll read and see if they can shed anymore light on this interesting subject.God bless you

 

[MarcR]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you,Jesus told the apostles to spread the word,surley part of that word spreading is the Gospels? And even if they belived they were only addressing their contemporaries surely by including dates and being specific about when things actually happend would enhance the believability of such miraculous events,especially when two or more Appostles talk about the same event?

If we believe that the Gospel writers were inspired then we must believe that they wrote what they were told to write.

If you feel inclined to critique God's inspiration; you may do so without my involvement.

 

[GrahamDennis]

The truth is that you are simply looking for problems. Give me any examples of Jewish works of around that time which were meticulously dated. YOU CANNOT. Why should they be different?

To them the dating was unimportant except in a general way. What was important was the message and the truth about Jesus. No one who received their works would be worrying about dates. They were more concerned with the message.

WE know the dates almost exactly. Do you know of anyone who has been converted because he knew the dates? Those who read the Gospels knew that it happened 'within the recent past'. That was all that interested them.

Once the truth about Jesus has dawned on you, you will stop worrying about dates!!!!!

Sorry but I disagree,if the four apostles had dated thier work and the events they tell about,there would be no doubting the authenticity of thier work and,more importantly,future generations would be easily able to verify what they were saying,and please don't say they wernt writing for future generations,why write about Jesus or any famous figure if not for future generations to read and know about thier lives? As far as I'm concerned,the lack of dating is a very important issue which I will continue to research,god bless you

 

[GrahamDennis]

If we believe that the Gospel writers were inspired then we must believe that they wrote what they were told to write.

If you feel inclined to critique God's inspiration; you may do so without my involvement.

fair enough MarcR,if you don't want to debate then don't god bless you

 

[MarcR]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you,Jesus told the apostles to spread the word,surley part of that word spreading is the Gospels? And even if they belived they were only addressing their contemporaries surely by including dates and being specific about when things actually happend would enhance the believability of such miraculous events,especially when two or more Appostles talk about the same event?

Luke 2:1-2
2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
KJV


Quirinus held a census in Judaea after the banishment of Archelaus (Joseph. Ant. 18:1, 1), which took place B.C. 6.
(from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This would date the Birth of Jesus at 5 B.C. Dionysius Exiguus dates it at 1 A.D.


If Jesus earthly ministry began at age 30, that would have been about 25 A.D. if His ministry spanned 3 years, his Death would have been about 28 A.D.

That is pretty specific dating!

 

[GuessWho]

I disagree,John was written at least 93years after the death of Christ so was not written by John the disciple

This is a fallacious conclusion. Only because it was written late does not mean it wasn't written by John.

 

[GuessWho]

Sorry but I disagree,if the four apostles had dated thier work and the events they tell about,there would be no doubting the authenticity of thier work and,more importantly,future generations would be easily able to verify what they were saying,and please don't say they wernt writing for future generations,why write about Jesus or any famous figure if not for future generations to read and know about thier lives? As far as I'm concerned,the lack of dating is a very important issue which I will continue to research,god bless you

How do you know they wrote them for future generations and not for the Christian churches that already existed?

 

[Magenta]

Very funny,should've,could've,would've,should have,could have,would have and should of,could of and would of all read the same way and convey the same thing,nothing to do with common sence,and when have I failed to apply any corrections made by you? Your just trying to deflect from the problemof the apostles not including any specific dates because it alludes to the fact they didn't write them and they were written by others who DIDNOT witness the life of Jesus

You miss the point entirely. Despite your ignorant assertions to the contrary, it makes no grammatical sense to say could of, or should of, or would of, yet when you were corrected, you made no effort to apply the corrections... You say the apostles made no effort to date the events surrounding the life of Jesus, when in actual fact they did, which has been pointed out to you. Your mistakes in many areas have been repeatedly pointed out to you. However, you deny the obvious, for such sensible things make no sense to you!

 

[GrahamDennis]

You miss the point entirely. Despite your ignorant assertions to the contrary, it makes no grammatical sense to say could of, or should of, or would of, yet when you were corrected, you made no effort to apply the corrections... You say the apostles made no effort to date the events surrounding the life of Jesus, when in actual fact they did, which has been pointed out to you. Your mistakes in many areas have been repeatedly pointed out to you. However, you deny the obvious, for such sensible things make no sense to you!

i said the apostles didn't date the miracles that jesus performed,these were major events. I know they somtimes mention "in the time of " but this doesn't even specify the year! A king could reign for 30 or 40yrs,it's very vague,show me in scripture where an actual date is put on an appearance or miracle carried out by Jesus!?

 

[GrahamDennis]

Jesus was not speaking with critical people like you in mind. He spoke to His disciples who would understand exactly what He meant, TAKE NOTHNG EXTRA. GO AS YOU ARE. Trust wholly in God for money and extras.'

If you can't see that it is because you don't want to.

I understand exactly what he ment,what I'm saying is in the scripture it contradicts itself and I've repeatedly been told to refer to scripture when I've raised a question befor on this site,just like I've been told all scripture is inspired so can't be wrong or contradict itself,when I then point this out I get told rubbish like jesus wasn't speaking with critical people like me in mind!!!!!!! You can't have it always it's either correct or not no grey areas

 

[valiant]

Very funny,should've,could've,would've,should have,could have,would have and should of,could of and would of all read the same way and convey the same thing,nothing to do with common sence,and when have I failed to apply any corrections made by you? Your just trying to deflect from the problemof the apostles not including any specific dates because it alludes to the fact they didn't write them and they were written by others who DIDNOT witness the life of Jesus

As all the evidence point to them having been written by men who DID SO on the basis of eyewitness testimony your opinion does not really count for much at all.

If dates had been seen as so important any forger would have ensured that he put in dates. So your argument is nullified.