When were the four Gospels and Acts written?

Answer 1

Most biblical scholars accept that the Gospel According to St Mark was the first written of the four canonical Gospels. Mark's Gospel was written in Greek, and there is ample evidence that Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel were based on Mark's Gospel. St John's Gospel appears to have been based on Luke's Gospel, but the author clearly also knew Mark's Gospel and copied some material from it. Mark">Mark">Mark">Mark

Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.

One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. Matthew

Matthew's Gospel was written after Mark's, but before Luke's Gospel. It is generally considered to have been written in the 80s CE.

It is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Matthew's Gospel contains less of the emerging hostility towards the Jews than does Luke's Gospel, so for this and other reasons it is considered to have been written earlier Luke">Luke">Luke">Luke

Luke's Gospel was written after both Mark's and Matthew's Gospels. It is generally considered to have been written in the 90s CE, but could well be from early in the second century.

It is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Also, the Missing Block convincingly shows that Luke was relying on Mark's Gospel for everything he knew about the life of Jesus.

There is good evidence that Luke also relied on the writings of the Jewish military leader and historian, Josephus. This reliance probably includes extracts from Antiquities of the Jews, published in 93 CE, making a date much before 100 CE fairly improbable for Luke's Gospel. John">John">John">John

John's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in the late 90s CE, but a date early in the second century is more probable.

Many passages in John's Gospel have unique parallels in Luke's Gospel, and the parallels are derivative rather than the other way around. Also, the text differs throughout from Mark's Gospel, precluding it from being the source for Luke. It must therefore post-date Luke. Thomas">Thomas">Thomas">Thomas Of the gospels that are not included in the New Testament, Thomas' Gospel may have been the earliest. Some say it is almost as old as Mark's Gospel, or even older, while others say it dated from the beginning of the second century. This sayings gospel was one of those seriously considered for inclusion in the New Testament canon.

Another Answer

I believe the Gospels were written much earlier than the 60's-80's. I would posit that logically it makes sense that the earliest Gospels are written within a decade of Christ's death. The earliest traditions were a series of sayings later called "Q" or Quelle which is a German word for source. It makes sense that these sayings were repeated immediately after Christ's death and formed the foundation of the philosophy of Christianity. If you review the time-line of Christianity commencing with Christ's death during the Pax Romana around 30-33 AD and Paul's conversion which is generally agreed to be about 33-36 AD and the Pauline letters commencing in the 50's you see a migration towards the documentation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Some of the purported early "creeds" of the church include Paul's first Corinthian Chapter 15 reference to resurrection doctrine. This creed was clearly being utilized right at the time of Christ's death and references a harmonized version of the Church's resurrection doctrine. It is not so hard to believe that the early traditions migrated from teachings to formalized remembrances. Two of the four Gospel writers were actually eyewitnesses and would not have waited to put their thoughts down on paper especially after their inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The other two were intimates of the eyewitnesses who were, according to all experts, writing under the eyewitnesses own supervision. As teachers of the faith, it is unlikely these men used as memory as 'texts." I have read a lot on the subject and I have two thoughts that wont go away: first, just because archaeologists have not found a Gospel from the period does not mean it does not exist. Second, just because these men lived in antiquity and did not have modern technology does not mean they were stupid. So, in my mind, that clearly argues on behalf of early datings of the Gospels (maybe late 30's early 40's for Mark).

Another Answer

There are different views on exactly when the gospels were written. A traditional Christian view is that they were written quite early, probably in the fifties of the first century CE. Many Christian theologians now accept a later date.

Many scholars sat that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70CE. Matthew's Gospel was written in the eighties, although Raymond E. Brown suggests an allowance of up to ten years either way. Luke's Gospel was written at the end of the first century or early in the second century CE. John's Gospel was written early in the second century.

The term "Gospel" meaning "good news" was coined to describe the works of the four evangelists whose books were written in the 1st Christian century. These books were quoted extensively by the early Christian Fathers - Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolitus etc. The apostolic community excepted without question only the four Gospels which are now in the New Testament canon. In short, there were only four authoritative Gospels and these were accepted as such by the first Christian community which included the close family, friends, disciples and other eyewitnesses of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ. Other 'gospels' so-called are later pseudiographs and forgeries, written during the 2nd to 13th C and designed as vehicles for various heresies. The so-called Gospel of Thomas, which dates from around the middle of the C2nd AD is not a narrative document but a collection of 114 sayings many of dubious authenticity. The most laughable of the many fake gospels is the Gospel of Barnabas which was written by a Muslim no earlier than C13th.

Yet another thought:

Many people feel that

Matthew (written in Hebrew(in Palestine)) was completed around 41C.E. and covers the years of 3 B.C.E. to 33 C.E.

Mark (written in Greek(in Rome)) was completed around 60-65.C.E. and covers the years 29-33.C.E.

Luke (written in Greek(in Caesarea)) was completed around 56-58 C.E. and covers the years 3 B.C.E. to 33 C.E.

John (written in Greek(in or near Ephesus)) was completed around 98 C.E. and covers the years (after prologue) 29 - 33 C.E.

The gospels were written in the first century A.D.

According to the Zondervan Life Application Study Bible the Gospel of Matthew was written between 60 and 65 A.D., the Gospel of Mark was written between 55 and 65 A.D., the Gospel of Luke was written about 60 A.D., and the Gospel of John between 85 and 90 A.D.

ANSWER

In some cases, the sequence of authorship is well established, because it is recognised that Matthew and Luke are now known to have been based largely on Mark's Gospel, and because John is regarded as having been inspired by Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark.

This question will get you much debate but suffice it to say, the biblical writers contributing to the New King James Version of the Bible would put the writing of the four Gospels sometime between late 50s to 95 A.D. with either Matthew or Mark being first circa 60s A.D. and before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. John on the other hand has conservative historians dating it between 85-95 A.D..

ANSWER

Various broad ranges of dates have been put for the Gospels:for example:-

Matthew: 37 to 180ad/ce

Mark: 40 to 175 ad/ce

Luke: 50 to 170 ad/ce

John: 65 to 178 ad/ce

They could not have been written earlier than the date Christ died which was April 10th, 32AD [see Sir Robert Anderson in "The Coming Prince"]. That is straightforward, so the question really is to determine the latest the Gospels could have been written.

Although the exact dates are unknown, this range can be narrowed down much much furthur.

(1) the latest date can be narrowed down to BEFORE 70AD:-

All the synoptic Gospels specifically mention the prophesied destruction and obliteration of Jerusalem and the Temple.:-

Matthew 24

2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mark 13

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 21

43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

In particular, because Matthew wrote his Gospel to the jews he often referred them back to prophecies in the Old Testament, but in this case he did not say "As prophesied by the prophet Micah...." : Luke prophesies how the Romans used their seigeworks and the results of it.

This destruction was prophesied by Jeremiah over 600 years before in 587BC :-

Jeremiah 26:18

18 "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus says the LORDof hosts: " Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple Like the bare hills of the forest." '

Although that prophesied destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587BC by the Babylonians, it was only partially-fulfilled. This particular prophecy of Jeremiah 26:18 was fulfilled in 70AD when the Romans:

• destroyed the Temple,

• completely levelled the city,

• ploughed it up [this didn't occur until 70AD],

• killed over a million people,

• strewed it with salt to make it uninhabitable, and

• renamed Judea 'Palestina' after their enemies.

Allthe synoptic Gospel writers refer to this destruction as yet future and not past,and although John does not specifically refer to it, the destruction of Judaism's Holy City of Jerusalem's and resultant death toll was sohorrificall the gospels would have referred back to it if they had been written post-70AD. They don't, so they were all written before 70AD.

(2) the latest date can be furthur narrowed down to no later than 44AD:-

The Gospels put comments to explain furthur particular events, customs, and people. For example, because Matthew's Gospel was written to the jews and they would know what he was referring to, his Gospel quotes many prophecies from the Old Testament.

Matthew 13

14And in them the prophecyof Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ' Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

In contrast, Luke didn't stress Judaic prophecies because he wrote his Gospel to the Gentiles, and they wouldn't know what he was talking about and couldn't care less.

Matthew added a comment to explain why John the Baptist was killed:-

Matthew 14:

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,

2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; ...

3 [For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.

4 For John saidunto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.]

10 And he [Herod] sent, and beheaded John in the prison.

Herod killed James, but despite his status it is not mentioned in any of the Gospels.

This means all the Gospels must have been written before James was killed. It has been confirmed by secular historians that James was executed by King Herod Agrippa 1 (the grandson of Herod the Great) shortly before Passover possibly in 42AD. The exactyear is unknown but as Agrippa 1 died in 44AD it definitely cannot have been later than that. [It also means 'Acts' could not have been written earlier than 42AD.]

In summary, all the Gospels were written no later than 44AD.
The answer depends on who you are referring to. Please edit your question to include more information.

Answer 2

Though there is much disagreement with the dating of these writings, many biblical scholars concur that the Gospels were written shortly after Jesus' ascension and the fall of Jerusalem - circa 35-65 AD.

Answer 3

Modern New Testament scholars are in substantial agreement that:

• Mark's Gospel was written between 68 and 73 CE.
• Matthew's Gospel was written in the 80s of the first century, although Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) suggests that several years should be allowed either side of that decade.
• Luke's Gospel was written at the end of the first century or quite early in the second century.
• John's Gospel was written early in the second century.

Answer 4

Papyrologists have a fairly recent discovery called Magdalen GR 17 which is changing the ways some scholars view the New Testament. One German, Carsten Peter Thiede wrote a book called, "The Jesus Papyrus (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996) , coauthored by Matthew d'Ancona, deputy editor for the comment section of the Sunday Telegraph, which is restoring public confidence in the authority of The Bible.

In summary then, there are strong indications that there were two actually witnessed Gospels - Matthew and John, and two written during the period when witnesses were still alive to supplement or refute the two other Gospels of Mark and Luke. A codex copy of Matthew - Levi Matthew - to have been written in the late 50s. John based upon John 5:1 with the healing of the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda which he writes in the past tense but seems to be telling the readers, 'go and see it for yourselves as it is still there.' History tells us that the Pool was destroyed when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. How does one write of a physical location that is no longer there?

Now the Book of Acts has dating that is pure straightforward historical logic. A 'thread' in Acts is the Martyrdom of Jesus and Stephen but leaves out His brother James in 62 AD, Paul & Peter in circa 64-65 (upper limit of 67) AD. Just doesn't fit unless of course Acts was written before 62 AD as most historians accept. This in turn means the Gospel of Luke was written earlier than 62 AD. As Mark is considered by most historians to be the first of the Gospels written which Matthew used to expand his shorthanded notes into more lengthy and details writings for his Gospel, Mark had to be written shortly after the death of Jesus in 31 AD - probably in the 40s when the Apostles began going out from Jerusalem preaching the Kingdom of God.

Answer 5

Recent discoveries and other historic evidence points to the four gospels being completed between circa 40-98 AD.