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.
The good news (gospel) have been given orally first. God incarnated in the man Jesus Christ to bring salvation to the world, to re-establish the communion God had with men before the fall and to help men grow into His likeness, to bring men to holiness and to perfection: a process that never ends. And this is being done through church (community of people united by the Holy Spirit).
Jesus Christ never asked His Apostles and disciples to go an write down about Him. He asked them to go and spread the good news to the entire world, to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To make people members of His Body (the Church).
The gospels are writings which reflect the beliefs of the Christian churches that already exist. They are not historical manuals. Historical events are being told from the prism of faith. That's why the writers didn't care about the historical accuracy of the detail, but they cared about the accuracy of the message. The message is not being hindered in any way by the imperfection of historical details. The gospels are written by the church for the church, not for future modern historians and academics.
Jesus Christ never asked His Apostles and disciples to go an write down about Him. He asked them to go and spread the good news to the entire world, to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To make people members of His Body (the Church).
The gospels are writings which reflect the beliefs of the Christian churches that already exist. They are not historical manuals. Historical events are being told from the prism of faith. That's why the writers didn't care about the historical accuracy of the detail, but they cared about the accuracy of the message. The message is not being hindered in any way by the imperfection of historical details. The gospels are written by the church for the church, not for future modern historians and academics.
It is believed that Judas was a zealot because of his surname "the Iscariot" and saw in Jesus Christ the kind of Messiah that would "bring down the government". When he realized he was mistaken about his teacher, he probably felt anger and that's why he betrayed him.
Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?
Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?
so now your presuming to know the mind of a man 2000 yrs ago! Let's just stop this friend,I'm trying to find out who wrote the gospels,when they wrote them,as close as I can get anyway,mostly from non biblical sources as they may be able to be a bit more open minded about it,not being rude but many born again Christians won't have a open conversation for fear of saying somthing against Jesus,I'm just a non church attending Christian looking for answers,mabey I can find references to Jesus and the apostles from non biblical history sources
It is not known (with the exception of Luke) with certainty who wrote the gospels and if they were not written under pseudonym (a frequent method used at the time through which the one who wrote wanted to give to his writing the vision of an emblematic personality).
These writings have not been written immediately after Christ' ascension. The earliest ones (1 Thessalonians and Mark) were probably written 35-40 years after the events. Before this, the narrations circulated orally, in various versions until Mark (?) decided to make a synthesis of them; he might have used the famous Q source which no one found, but this is just a hypothesis. Luke and Matthew wrote using the text of Mark as source, but independently and with a lot of developments. John is a late writing (like you said) which was written in another context than the first three synoptic gospels.
These writings have not been written immediately after Christ' ascension. The earliest ones (1 Thessalonians and Mark) were probably written 35-40 years after the events. Before this, the narrations circulated orally, in various versions until Mark (?) decided to make a synthesis of them; he might have used the famous Q source which no one found, but this is just a hypothesis. Luke and Matthew wrote using the text of Mark as source, but independently and with a lot of developments. John is a late writing (like you said) which was written in another context than the first three synoptic gospels.
how can an anonymous Gospel be written under a pseudonym? It was not in fact a frequent method in 1st century AD and in later centuries was rather the practice of heretics who wanted to bolster up their own teachings with a name.
Why should you think it more likely that Luke wrote Luke than that Mark wrote Mark? Both were unlikely names to add to a Gospel and supported by early tradition. Thus both are almost certainly correct.
There are a number of evidences within John's Gospel that it was written by John. For example he is never referred to by name in the Gospel (an almost inconceivable thing for any other writer to do), and he refers to John the Baptist simply as John, not feeling it necessary to identify him. The writer also had the favoured place (as Jesus' cousin?) at the Last Supper.
It is generally recognised by most scholars that 1 Thessalonians was written around 41 AD.
The stories of Jesus' life, taught in the churches by the Apostles, would take on a fixed form and some of these were probably put into writing very early on to be passed on to other churches. In the early days the churches preferred to hear the accounts of eye-witnesses rather than trust writings which could have come from any source, unless the source was well known. Those accounts would then be passed on in a fixed form which was constantly checked as Apostles visited the churches.
But Papias (who was in a better position to know than us) claimed that Mark went around with Peter and thus wrote down the eyewitness evidence of Peter. 'Oral tradition' is a dangerous idea. Whose oral tradition? The oral tradition of Peter, no doubt coming under the scrutiny of other Apostles, was no doubt of first importance. And that was Mark's source.
.
And is now very much questioned.
This is no longer so confidently asserted. There are good grounds for thinking otherwise. Both Matthew and Luke have much independent material and comparison of Matthean speeches with Luke's throws grave doubts on whether they came from the same written source. As a trained recorder it must be seen as extremely likely that Matthew wrote down Jesus' sermons, thus their Aramaic flavour. Luke would have derived his from eyewitnesses during his long periods in Palestine..
There are actually no real grounds for suggesting this. The assumption is usually made because it is seen as 'more spiritual'. But are we really to suggest that anyone was 'more spiritual' than John? Later writers give the impression of being less spiritual. It was clearly written by someone who was in on the disputes with the Pharisees by a man of spiritual bent. There is no justification for making it especially late.
What should be noted is that the Gospels appear to have had their titles from almost the beginning. We must not assume that the early church lived in the dark. THEY KNEW WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS, The titles were probably added by them attached to the papyri and manuscripts so as to show what was written in each document. And the universality of the titles indicates an early date. Thus we have good reason to think they were written by those named. The early church were not gullible.
Why should you think it more likely that Luke wrote Luke than that Mark wrote Mark? Both were unlikely names to add to a Gospel and supported by early tradition. Thus both are almost certainly correct.
There are a number of evidences within John's Gospel that it was written by John. For example he is never referred to by name in the Gospel (an almost inconceivable thing for any other writer to do), and he refers to John the Baptist simply as John, not feeling it necessary to identify him. The writer also had the favoured place (as Jesus' cousin?) at the Last Supper.
It is generally recognised by most scholars that 1 Thessalonians was written around 41 AD.
The stories of Jesus' life, taught in the churches by the Apostles, would take on a fixed form and some of these were probably put into writing very early on to be passed on to other churches. In the early days the churches preferred to hear the accounts of eye-witnesses rather than trust writings which could have come from any source, unless the source was well known. Those accounts would then be passed on in a fixed form which was constantly checked as Apostles visited the churches.
But Papias (who was in a better position to know than us) claimed that Mark went around with Peter and thus wrote down the eyewitness evidence of Peter. 'Oral tradition' is a dangerous idea. Whose oral tradition? The oral tradition of Peter, no doubt coming under the scrutiny of other Apostles, was no doubt of first importance. And that was Mark's source.
.
And is now very much questioned.
This is no longer so confidently asserted. There are good grounds for thinking otherwise. Both Matthew and Luke have much independent material and comparison of Matthean speeches with Luke's throws grave doubts on whether they came from the same written source. As a trained recorder it must be seen as extremely likely that Matthew wrote down Jesus' sermons, thus their Aramaic flavour. Luke would have derived his from eyewitnesses during his long periods in Palestine..
There are actually no real grounds for suggesting this. The assumption is usually made because it is seen as 'more spiritual'. But are we really to suggest that anyone was 'more spiritual' than John? Later writers give the impression of being less spiritual. It was clearly written by someone who was in on the disputes with the Pharisees by a man of spiritual bent. There is no justification for making it especially late.
What should be noted is that the Gospels appear to have had their titles from almost the beginning. We must not assume that the early church lived in the dark. THEY KNEW WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS, The titles were probably added by them attached to the papyri and manuscripts so as to show what was written in each document. And the universality of the titles indicates an early date. Thus we have good reason to think they were written by those named. The early church were not gullible.
