Dating the Four Gospels of the New Testament

This is a question which comes up from time to time, and I would be interested to hear views on it. I have not to date been able to find a book that comprehensively analyses the question. To set the ball rolling I set out below a sketch of the info I am aware of. This is not suggested by me to be complete or authoritative.

All four gospels are frequently given a range of dates for authorship from an earliest (lower) to a latest (upper) limit. One thing that stands out (to me at any rate) is the rather vague nature of a lot of the dating arguments.

The starting point is usually Mark.

There is external evidence. Based on Papias (c 100 CE), Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 175-185 CE): "After their [Peter and Paul] departure [ie death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Thus, if the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus indicates that Mark was written after the death of Peter, traditionally set in Rome c. 65 CE. Some argue that if the tradition is not accepted, the lower limit cannot be much earlier, time must be allowed for an oral tradition to have developed. The upper limit is usually set by the incorporation of Mark into the gospels of Matthew and Luke. If Matthew was written in the last two decades of the first century, the most probable range of dating for the gospel of Mark is from 65 to 80 CE.

Then there is internal evidence. Mark's chapter 13 (the "Little Apocalypse") is often considered to be an account of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE. For example, in 13:14 Mark draws upon a prophecy in Daniel 9:27 to refer to the desecration of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Other references in Mark 13 also suggest it was written after this event.

Consequently, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is often advanced as the most plausible dating for Mark, within a broader possible timeframe of 65 to 80 CE.

Next Matthew.

It has been said that the "near-universal" position of scholarship is that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This is the case under the majority "two source hypothesis" view that Matthew relied on Mark and another source (referred to as Q). Others who object to the idea of Q still maintain that Matthew is dependent on Mark (eg the Farrer hypothesis).

So the lower limit for Matthew is some time after Mark, a period of a decade or more later is often suggested as reasonable. I have seen it said that several indications in the text of Matthew suggest that Matthew was written c. 80 CE or later, although actual examples of this of which I am aware are few. One is the observation that Matthew contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do "as the hypocrites do" in Matt 6, to the Woes on the "scribes and Pharisees" in Matt 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues.

The upper limit for Matthew is given by the fact that Ignatius of Antioch (writing in c 110 CE) and other early writers show dependence on Matthew, leading to a suggested latest date of 100 CE.

A range of 80 to 100 CE is commonly given for Matthew.

On to Luke.

The two source hypothesis places Luke's lower limit about 10 years after Mark. Luke and Acts are considered to be by the same author, and it is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. But (a) it does not follow from the absence of an account of Paul's death that Luke/Acts was written before that event, and (b) unless Luke is to be credited as a prophet his gospel does in fact refer to Paul's death (eg Luke's awareness of Paul's death is indicated in Paul's farewell speech at Miletus: "But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. . . . When he had finished speaking he knelt down and prayed with them all. They were all weeping loudly as they threw their arms around Paul and kissed him, for they were deeply distressed that he had said that they would never see his face again. Then they escorted him to the ship." - Acts 20:25-38). At the start of his gospel, Luke himself says (to his patron, Theophilus) that "many" had already written accounts, which Luke would like to set in order, after further careful investigation - these many accounts almost certainly included Mark, and could well have included Matthew and Q.

FF Bruce wrote that "It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), possibly about the middle of the period. The arguments by which Sir William Ramsay, late in the nineteenth century, concluded that it was composed about A.D. 80 are precarious [Pendragon does not know what these arguments comprise], but nothing that has been discovered since then has pointed to a more probable dating."

As for an upper limit, this also is difficult. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. But most seem to think this far too late (eg because Acts makes no reference to Paul's letters).

The usual range quoted for Luke is c 80-100 CE, but on what I know at present the basis for both these limits seems rather tenuous.

Lastly John.

John seems even more difficult. If John knew Mark's gospel, that would set a lower limit, but I am far from clear that it is definite that John DID know Mark. There seem to be good arguments that the text demonstrates knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

I have read that "most scholars today" see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue. They link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia in 90 CE, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. This approach would date John after 90 CE.

As for an upper limit, the oldest fragment of the New Testament, the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically to c. 120-130 CE. Apparently the earliest textual reliance on John is, curiously, in gnostic texts dating from c 120 CE. Irenaeus states that the purpose of John was to rebut the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century. I have mentioned elsewhere that Elaine Pagele argues that John was a response to the Gospel of Thomas, a gnostic text that is often dated to the end of the first century.

John is often suggested as c 95-110 CE.

As long as this doesn't get into which day of the week they were written on... ;-)

Interesting post. But I'm not sure what it proves apart from the gospels prove nothing relevant.

Excellent posting.

Pretty much sums up my way of thinking, though I guess I would tend to be more conservative.

One interesting article I read a few years ago which I aluded to elsewhere suggested that the references to the abomination in Mark relates attempts by Caligula to have a statue of himself erected in the Temple in Jerusalem. I recall it was an interesting article and the reasoning was pretty good, but the references themselves are quite vague (as you suggest), so the argument is clearly not definitive.

Another consideration is Thiedes who suggests that one of a fragment of Matthew's gospel can be dated to around 65AD (if memory serves), but nobody else seems to support his arguments and I have not seen anybody else refer to such an early date for Matthew.

The Q-Theory is fraught with problems and those that support it usually end up referring to three documents, M (for items peculiar to Matthew) and L (for items only in Luke). This then ends up with three documents for which we have no actual evidence as a source for two documents that we do have evidence for. It seems to me to complicate matters too much. Mark as a source for Matthew & Luke is a reasonable assumption, though some older scholars (19th century?) tried to make a case for Mark being a cut-down Matthew/Luke. I don't think this is generally accepted, primarily because Mark has cruder language than the other two.

Pagel's views on Thomas are difficult to sustain as there is no evidence for the existence of such a gospel until a century later (Against Heresies?). There are references to a few other gospels fairly early during the second century, but they bear no relation to anything we currently have (normal or gnostic): The Gospel to the Hebrews is the only one I can think of off of the top of my head and it seems to have disappeared (or become Hebrews) by the time of the development of the canon.

Probably wasn't a Saturday

Thanks for the interesting post Pendragon.

Were the gospels actually written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John? Or are they written by unknown authors 'based' on writings or word of mouth. I was always under the impression that the accounts were eye-witness statements but your datings seem to suggest not.

the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

The Early church fathers penned the names for the gospels. They are not authored in the texts.

Plus 2 of the gospels are not written by eye witnesses (by declaration).
"Mark" is writing an account of Peter's testimony of Jesus.
"Luke", the Greek physician, is writing an account of Paul's teachings (Paul never met Jesus).

Of course, since the earliest we can carbon date the text too, is the late 1st century, we cannot be entirely sure that any of it is eye witness accounts. They could have been written by anyone, at any time. This is also further backed up by the Q-document theory, whereby, the authors of Matthew and Luke, copied vast swathes of Mark's original account, and filled in the gaps with document "Q".

i think what you've written pretty much sums up most of what i've read in various books although i think i've come across later dating suggested in at least one. i feel that there has been attempts to give the earliest possible dates by some to suggest greater authority for the gospel contents which i find disappointing and also ultimately self defeating. i read (E P Saunders, i think) the suggestion that the basic 'building blocks' for the gospels probably existed, for some time, as short oral or written separate stories maybe just a particular incident such as a healing or an encounter that Jesus had. these stories may have been told at meetings as part of the groups apocalyptic and scripture discussions. i don't think that any of the gospels has that 'first-hand' account feel about them although they do try to present themselves to the reader as if they are 'fly on the wall' at times.
i think by the time the gospels are being written Jesus has gone from teacher/prophet to something more and the various gospel writers are trying to weave their 'Jesus beliefs' into the stories. i think those that see an advantage to earlier dates will keep promoting them and that there's enough vagueness there to be able to keep arguing the case. but i also think the more one pushes the dates forward the more one has to explain why first hand accounts give us the gospels as we find them.

Richard

I must admit I get quite a kick out of all of these fascinating stories about how all twelve apostles, and hundred of disciples all invent a big lie after they are dispersed at the exectution of Jesus and come back proclaiming their extraordinary message including embarassing details of their faithlessness.

They then proceed to initiate the sacraments and meet under the authority of the apostles and devote their entire lives to the point of being murdered for this big fat ridiculous lie or case of mistaken identity.

Along the way they just all lie and lie and lie. Paul comes along , presents himself to the apostles and they lie and lie and lie.

Such accounts strike me as such an utterly implausible and trite consideration of the most significant movement in world history that has literally shaped and formed most of the precepts of the current world order.

Beyond this of course there is the actual lived experience of people in His church which is also just summarily dismissed.

The church experienced the resurrection of Christ in the culminating self revelation of God to mankind for anybody who is interested.

Try this website (and Butler's book) for an illuminating insight into how the gospels were written and what their original function was - not at all what you might think. Butler is retired Anglican clergyman, by the way. http://www.fourgospels.co.uk/

Tom M,

Which is more probable?

That people lie?
That people sincerely believe something and even though they are incorrect they profess that belief?
That the laws that we observe in the universe can be violated upon a whim by some magical and unevident entity?

'Early church fathers'

Harry Heretic.

The very fact that Tom's dinosaur religion is obviously false, yet claims to be authentic Christianity, is highly significant witness that those who most wanted to exterminate Christians and their belief could not do so. The very fact that modern people have so often to use the pejorative word 'magical', among several others like it, portends belief of the same sort.

Trick question! This is clearly a false tricotomy, the answer is as always: Dawkins is such a dufus, he doesn't even recognize the arguments for theism. You've been duped by Hume. Twin studies. Illiteracy. Kant. Russel. Dust swirls. Bigots. Aristotle.

Jim, I'm not a Catholic but what do you want me to call them?

"those lying idiots"? something to that affect?

I'm over the age of 15 now, I consider it relevant to my points to call people by their proper titles, so we all know whom I'm referring to. If you have an issue, then indeed it is your issue alone. One I would advise you taking up with the Catholic Church.

I'm not a Catholic'

In all but name, you are.

'but what do you want me to call them?'

Catholics. Ergo, fuel.

[In all but name, you are.]

Bold Claims.

Not a quark of evidence to back this up.

Name two 'Early Fathers' who did not have a vested interest.

Name one 'Early Father' who did not contradict the Bible.

i think the plausibility argument cuts both ways although you seem to be trying to paint an extreme position by suggesting outright lies from the beginning on every front. then again i suppose the proposal that Jesus was the son of god and was resurrected is pretty extreme at the other end! maybe the truth lies in between somewhere.

"plausability"; The term used by atheists. empiricists and materialists to defend their argument...A term introduced as meaning "fact"...

Some further thoughts I had this morning:

Apart from minor errors in copying and a few deliberate additions in the third/fourth centuries (at the time of the ascetics), the texts of the gospels are remarkably unchanged. However there are a couple of obvious changes.

The original ending of Mark's gospel has disappeared. It probably disappeared early on, since neither Matthew nor Luke seem to follow a single source as they do elsewhere in following Mark. Either that or Mark actually ended it abruptly - however this is unlikey as even by the first century people knew that it didn't make sense (it seems to stop in the middle of an explanation). Two endings were devised for the gospel. The earlier, shorter one (one long verse I recall) never quite got accepted. The later longer verse is clearly written by someone familar with Acts and is generally thought to be early first century, but unlikely to have been written by Mark.

John's gospel also has additions. Chapter 20 (I think it is that one) looks as though it may have been added at a slightly later date and if I recall correctly the general consensus is that it was written by the Johannine community (i.e. the church/community that sprang up around John). It is an early edit, possibly shortly after the death of John because all of the full copies we have of the gospel include it.

Another passage is a much later addition - the story of the woman caught in adultery is absent from many earlier copies, but has no other source anywhere. It is a delighful story and it is not unreasonable to attribute it directly to Jesus - perhaps a verbal story floating around that none of the previous authors felt fit into their gospels or maybe it was part of a now defunct gospel (Q?). Either way it has ended up as canon.

'It is a delighful story'

Good heavens, a bit of the Bible that Wayney likes! Now why is that? Let me see.... Oh yes, it shows Jesus disobeying his own law! :)

Which is one reason why this story, the Pericope Adulterae, is not actually part of the Bible, even if it's printed in your copy at home by publishers whose concern is not always with such minor concerns as truth.

Either Burchell is hopelessly uninformed about that, the end of Mark and doubtless much else; or, he is a bare-faced liar putting his inventions around in a forum where there is little expertise to shut him up. Because he has to try to discredit and make it known that he refuses to deal with the only regular expert poster, a tell-tale resort of the crooked, and because he pompously tries to present himself as an expert to the gullible here, one may very reasonably suppose the latter.

Trust not one word that he writes, anyway.

Jim,

"make it known that he refuses to deal with the only regular expert poster"

No you have got it all wrong. I don't refuse to deal with the only regular expert poster, just you.