0
Almost all scholars agree that the New Testament , almost word-for-word as we know it today, can be traced at least as far back in history as 400 AD, to the work of St. Jerome. His work was not lost to history. It can be found in many libraries and bookstores, and perhaps even on-line. Jerome's version came to be called the "Vulgate" because it was a translation into Latin, then the "vulgar" (common) tongue of the Christian World. Jerome's translation was from Greek.
Before the time of St. Jerome, however, the history of the Gospels is a topic upon which even angels need fear to tread. Most scholars agree that the matter is heatedly controvertial and has been the basis of arguments which have divided Christians since the early generations of the church. Almost any answer to question posed is likely to offend or even infuriate somebody. For this reason, I offer my answer only as a single scholar's viewpoint, based on readings and prayer, without footnotes to make it seem authoritative, which it is not. I pray that the Lord--and ya'll--may forgive me my errors, and also for unnecessary offense I give where I am right.
Most scholars agree that the New Testament "canon" (list of books) was established at or by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, at which representatives of all Christian Churches in the world who endorsed the Trinity participated. However, many scholars doubt that the contents of the books was standardized. Before Nicea, every diocese, sometimes every congregation or even every individual had a favored version of the New Testament, and most of them both included whole books which are now mostly forgotten and versions of the books we know today which often differed in exact wording. Even after the time of St. Jerome, there was some controversy over whether the Saint had done the best job of selecting from available versions. The biggest controversy is over the Revelation of St. John. Some scholars claim that Nicea's approval of that one book was qualified, and that various common versions of The Bible in 325 AD had entirely different books called "Revelation." Even if that's true, however, St. Jerome is likely to have chosen as typical an example as he could find.
I believe that the Saint was guided both by prayer and by skill. There is an Islamic tradition that the Prophet himself was illiterate, but that the Lord directly guided his hand to write the Koran. Some Christians append a parallel tradition to St Jerome or to others who labored on the Bible, but I've seen no evidence for such a view in Chrisianity from before the time of the Crusades, when Christians picked up a great deal from Islam--for better or for worse.
Before Nicea, the matter is even murkier. Very few copies of the Bible that old have survived, and those that do survive are often contradictory or mere scraps. Tradition holds that each of the four gospels (and the epistles) were written during the First Century AD by the authors whose names we know today, but literary experts tend to reckon that the language used couldn't be that old and that the alleged authors didn't have the level of scholarship needed to write them. These views aren't necessarily in conflict if we recall that books were rarely written in ancient times by a single author alone with a quill and a parchment. They were written, as bible translations are today, by whole committees led by presitigious individuals who often dictated the text. Long after such single individuals passed on, such committees could have continued to work. Books first jotted down in the First Century might not have completed until the time of Nicea or even later. What would be the authentic text, even if we had them all to choose from? The first draft, or the final product made by people not yet born when the process began but possessed of skills and insights that earlier workers did not have? I have sufficient humility to confess that I do not. I also have sufficient audacity to doubt that anybody else knows better.
Before anaylsing the history of the Gospels, it is important to realise that much of the belief surrounding the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth - as God the Son, crucified, resurrected and ascended - was well established long before the Gospels appeared in their complete forms. Most Biblical scholars strongly believe that Paul's letters were written during a period of a couple of decades starting with 1 Thessalonians written around 55-58 AD, less than 25 years after the events surrounding the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. As the church at Thessalonika, Greece was already well established by then, this gives a measure of the speed in which the gospel spread across the Roman Empire, gospels or not.
As to the first gospel written, as the answer states above this was probably Mark, written possibly around 70 AD. Mark is the only gospel that records two strange, (and irrelevant), events - one at Jesus' arrest - a young naked man flees (14: 51-52) and allso, unique to Mark's gospel, another irrelevant event of a young man in a robe also appearing (16:5-7) suggests to scholars that this young man was Mark himself, adding a line here and there to say 'I was there' when these events happened, that are irrelevant to the story but of great importance to Mark himself
As for Matthew and Luke, Matthew was almost certainly written either by Matthew himself (the tax-collector disciple) or (less likely) one of his own followers. Matthew contains most of what appear to be the verbatim sayings of Jesus, and a great deal of rhetoric (including prophesies) to persuade the readers (mainly Jews) that Jesus is the Messiah. This is in accordance with Matthew's Jewishness, and his porbable ability to use a form of shorthand taught by the Roman Empire to all tax collectors.
Luke, on the other hand, was a Gentile and a doctor and was also a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys in the late 30s and 40s AD. He makes it clear that he never met Jesus, but instead was commissioned by his sponsor Theophilus to write a full, accurate systematic account of what happened by interview and by gathering and assessing the evidence. Scholars believe that he knew Peter (through Paul) and Mary, Jesus' mother (through Peter, and then through John) plus other disciples. Luke's account includes many healings (in accordance with his interest in medicine) and in the doctrine of forgiveness. Both Luke and Matthew use a great deal of Mark's gospel, plus other extracts from a lost document called 'Q', but their additions show clearly their individual interests. Luke's gospel probably dates from around 85AD but some scholars believe, again, that it could be much earlier, as certain historical events that would have almost certainly been included either in Luke's gospel, or in his second book - the Acts of the Apostles - (such as the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD) are not even mentioned suggesting that the books were written before they occurred. The dating of Matthew's gospel is again possibly around 80 AD, but there are many scholars who disagree, again for historical reasons. For instance, Matthew records the prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem (22:7) but does not record, surprisingly, the fulfilment of that prophesy (especially as he seems obsessed with prophesy fulfilments in the rest of the document). This suggests that the gospel predates the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.
John's gospel, however, is unique. Some bible scholars refute a theory by a very few that John is somehow based on Luke's account, as, in John's gospel hardly any of Luke's material can be seen. In John we have no birth stories, few miracles, little theological discourse on forgiveness - in fact little resemblance to Luke at all. Instead, John launches into his account with a parallel of Genesis 1 placing Jesus firmly as God incarnate. He regards Jesus' miracles as 'signs' of just who Jesus is, and he devotes more pages to the last, and most important week of Jesus' life, than any other gospel writer. John's gospel probably dates from 90AD - 110 AD and is almost certainly written by John the apostle. Fragments of this gospel have been discovered that go back to the early first century. The author takes great pain to insist that he was an eyewitness to events. Also, he refers to himnself throughout, modestly as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. Cross-checking with the other gospels in the same events, confirms this 'special' disciple as being John. John also makes it very clear why he wrote the gospel - 'so that you too may believe'.
Finally, the gospels are the few historic documents to have been subjected to more anaylsis, more scrutiny, more textual criticism and more study than any other. They exist in more copies (some 24,000 predating 200 AD) than any other ancient document, and are regarded as the most reliable ancient documents that exist today.
Answer/
The Gospel according to Matthew was written first, originally in the Hebrew language and was published in Judea for the converts of Judaism.
The Gospel according to Mark was published second in Italy.
The Gospel according to Luke was published third in Achaia.
The Gospel according to John was published last, written in Ephesus late in the first century.
Historical Primary Sources:
1. Origen:
His words relating to canon Scriptures: 'The Gospel of Matthew which he wrote in Hebrew on a roll, when he was at Caesarea... then the Gospel of Mark...Gospel of Luke...Gospel of John.'
Ref: History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church at Alexandria, of Demetrius the Twelfth Patriarch.
2. Hillel III:
Hillel writes that the Gospel according to Matthew was written first, 'by one of those who were with him from the beginning', followed by Mark and Luke's memoirs,' who were the constant companions of the Apostles', and then the testimony of John, 'who saw the transfiguration'.
Ref:The Archko Volume, Hillel Letters.
3. Irenaeus:
' Matthew issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.' Irenaeus then cites the other gospels in the order of Mark, Luke and John.
Ref: Against Heresies Book 3 Ch. 1.
4. Mahboub:
'Matthew wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews', where follows in listed order, Mark, Luke and John.
Ref: Agapius, Universal History; the Second part of the History of Mahboub.
5. Matthew:
Cites the gospels to be read to the congregation as 'both those which I Matthew and John have delivered you, and those which the fellow workers of Paul received and left to you, Luke and Mark.
Ref :Apostolic Constitutions book 2 Section 7.
6.Eusebius:
Writes that Origen in his accounts records that 'the first book was Matthew's gospel prepared for the converts from Judaism and was published in Hebrew, second was Mark', leaving Luke's and then John's memoirs.
Ref :Eusebius Church History, Book 6.
What else can I help you with?
What has the author Althea Romeo-Mark written?
Althea Romeo-Mark has written: 'Two faces, two phases'
When was Law with Two Phases created?
Law with Two Phases was created in 1984.
Which two gospels have the greatest amount of discourse teaching material?
The two gospels with the greatest amount of discourse are Matthew and John.
Which two Gospels in the Bible had eye-witnesses write all they heard and saw?
All four New Testament gospels were originally anonymous, until attributed by the second-century Church Fathers to those whom they thought likely to have written them. As far as possible, it was best to attribute the gospels to eye-witnesses, but the Church Fathers realised there was a literary dependency among the three gospels now known as the Synoptic Gospels. They decided that the first of these was written by an eyewitness, whom they called Matthew, and that the other synoptic gospels were written by companions of Paul - Mark and Luke. However, we now know that the first synoptic gospel was the one the Church Fathers attributed to Mark, and that Matthew and Luke were substantially based on it.The dependence of the fourth gospel on Mark was more subtle and not apparent to the Church Fathers, so this was attributed to the apostle John.So, although modern scholars say that none of the gospels could have been written by an eye-witness to the events portrayed, Christian tradition is that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses.
What are two names of the two phases of the heartbeat?
The two phases of the heartbeat are systole (contraction phase) and diastole (relaxation phase).
Metabolism can be categorized in what phases?
Catabolism and Anabolism are the two phases or Metabolism.
What phases can metabolism be categorized?
Catabolism and Anabolism are the two phases or Metabolism.
What is two main phases of the cell cycle?
The two main phases of a cell cycle are interphase and mitosis.
Two major phases in the amendment process?
There are two major phases that must take place for an amendment to be processed. These phases include ratification and formal proposal.
Two phases of swallowing?
There are actually three phases of swallowing and not two as the question asks. The three phases of swallowing includes: the oral phase, the Pharyngeal Phase, and the Esophageal Phase.
Did the gospel authors witness the events in the gospels?
The second century Church Fathers attributed the four New Testament gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, two of whom would have witnessed the events described in the gospels. Before the second century, the gospels were anonymous. New Testament scholars now say there is no good reason to accept the traditional attributions, and that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. We have no witness accounts of the life and mission of Jesus.
How can you distinguish a colloidal from a solution?
A colloid is a form of suspension in a liquid or gas, the two phases are distinct.
