The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they share many of the same narratives, often arranged similarly and sometimes using identical wording, which distinguishes them from the largely unique content of the Gospel of John. The term *synoptic* comes from the Greek σύνοψις (*synopsis*), meaning "a viewing together," and refers to how these Gospels present a unified and similar perspective on Jesus’ life and ministry. This strong parallelism among the three Gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence, though the role of orality and memorization of sources has also been explored by scholars ([[@Goodacre2001-fa]], [[@Derico2017-hs]]). Scholars have long debated the *synoptic problem*, which explores their literary connections and common sources. > [!NOTE] Coming Soon: [[The Synoptic Problem]] # The Traditional View The dating of the Gospels is a crucial aspect of understanding their historical reliability and authenticity. A common claim is that the Gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus, making them unreliable as historical accounts. Skeptics argue that the this large length of time from Jesus actual live allowed for distortions, legendary development, and theological embellishment. However, this assertion overlooks compelling evidence suggesting the Gospels were written much earlier, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. This view, widely accepted in the past ([The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge Companions to Religion)]), suggests Mark was written first (around *6-70 A.D*), followed by Matthew (around *80-85 A.D.*) and then Luke (around *85-90 A.D.*). >[!FAQ]- Why Do Some Date The Gospels Late? ![[Why Do Scholars Date The Gospels Late]] # Evidence Based Dating Of The Gospels: Evidence-based dating examines textual clues, historical references, and early manuscript traditions to determine when the Gospels were written. Contrary to claims of late authorship, a growing body of evidence points to their origins within the first century, during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Internal and external evidence build a compelling case for the early dating of the Gospels, including references to historical events, linguistic patterns, and citations by early church fathers. This approach provides a solid foundation for evaluating their credibility as historical documents. ## The Gospels Were Composed Early, Before 70 AD ### The Absence of Temple Destruction Commentary The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD is a critical event conspicuously absent from the Gospels' narratives. Given the significance of this event to Jewish and early Christian communities, its omission is striking. For example, Jesus predicts the temple’s destruction ([Mark 13:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MRK.13.2), [Matthew 24:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.24.2), [Luke 21:6](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.21.6)), but these predictions are presented without commentary or fulfillment. >[!quote] [[@Blomberg2014-tq]]|Craig Blomberg]] "The lack of references to the destruction of the temple suggests that the Gospels were written prior to 70 AD." Unlike other fulfilled prophecies (e.g., Judas’ betrayal), the Temple's destruction is not discussed as past tense in the Gospels, a notable omission if written post-70 AD. The Gospels present the prophecy as unfulfilled, a warning rather than a retrospective account. Though the gospels they always mention if an Old Testament Prophecy was fulfilled ([Matthew 21:4-5](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.21.4-5), [Mark 14:78-79](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MRK.14.78-79), [Luke 4:21](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.4.21), [Acts 11:28](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/ACT.11.28)). In any of the passages with Judas, they always went out of their way to show that he would later betray Jesus ([Matthew 10:2-4](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.10.2-4), [Matthew 26:25](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.26.25), [Mark 3:16-19](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MRK.3.16-19), [Luke 6:16](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.6.16))it would be strange to not mention the Temple destruction in this forward looking language as well. If the Gospels were written after 70 AD, one would expect the authors to highlight the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy as evidence of His authority. >[!quote] [[@Bernier2022-xz|Jonathan Bernier]] >"An urgent question nonetheless presents itself to those who argue that these passages were written post-70, with the destruction of the temple in view: Why warn people of an event that has already happened?" The early dating of the Gospels strengthens the argument that Jesus accurately predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple. If the Gospels were written before 70 AD, it would indicate that Jesus' prophecy was recorded prior to the event, making His foreknowledge of the destruction even more remarkable. The lack of post-70 AD commentary on the fulfillment of the prophecy suggests that the authors were more concerned with preserving the authenticity of Jesus' words as spoken, rather than retroactively aligning them with historical events. This early record further affirms the credibility of Jesus as a prophet whose predictions came true, supporting the idea that His authority was divinely inspired. ![[The Gospels are Reliable Accounts#Predictive Accuracy in the Gospels]] ### The Evidence Support The 1st Century Authorship Of The Gospels #### The Gospels Align With Trends Of The 1st Century ![[The Gospels are Reliable Accounts#The Gospels Match Naming Patterns Of The Time]] #### The Gospels Were Written By There Named Authors ![[The Gospels are Reliable Accounts#Internal Evidence For Authorship]] #### A Living Witness >[!tip] Eyewitness Testimony: > > The Gospels themselves claim to be based on eyewitness accounts (e.g., [Matthew 9:9-13](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.9.9-13); [John 21:24](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/JHN.21.24)). Early Christian tradition strongly emphasizes the apostles as primary sources for information about Jesus. The Early Church would have needed written records quickly. The first generation of disciples began to age and pass away by the 60s AD. To preserve the teachings of Jesus, it was natural for the church to document his life and ministry during this period. > > - The Gospels claim direct or indirect eyewitness connections. For example, the Gospel of Mark is traditionally linked to Peter's testimony. > - Early church tradition attests to the authors' identities (e.g., Matthew as an Apostle, Luke as Paul’s companion), emphasizing their proximity to events. > - The Gospels frequently reference living witnesses to Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection (e.g., [Luke 1:1-4](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.1.1-4); [John 19:35](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/JHN.19.35)). > - Paul’s letters, some of which date to the early 50s, confirm the preservation of these traditions. In [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/1CO.15.3-8), Paul mentions over 500 witnesses of the resurrected Christ, many of whom were still alive. > > >[!quote] [[@Bauckham2008-gw]] >>"The existence of living eyewitnesses encouraged an early recording of the Gospels to preserve accurate accounts." #### Subtle Agreements Supporting Gospel Reliability > [!question] Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels > > In Christian apologetics, *Undesigned Coincidences* refer to subtle, incidental agreements between different accounts in the Gospels and other historical records, providing additional evidence for their authenticity. These coincidences occur when one Gospel describes a detail that another Gospel indirectly corroborates, showing a deeper narrative coherence across the texts. Examples include how Mark recounts Herod’s feast and the descriptions by Josephus align, suggesting common traditions within Herod’s family that are based in history. > > Additional examples, like matching place names, local customs, and tax records, further reveal these unplanned harmonies between Gospel accounts and historical sources. These subtle interconnections imply that Gospel authors drew from authentic events and oral traditions, rather than fabrication. > >> [!info] See More: [[Undesigned Coincidences Between The Gospels]] #### Manuscript Evidence and Early Citations Fragments of Gospel manuscripts, such as [[The Earliest Manuscript P52]], a fragment of John’s Gospel dated to approximately 125 AD, demonstrate that the Gospels were widely circulated by the early second century. Additionally, early church fathers like [[Ignatius#On The Gospels|Ignatius]] (c. 108 AD) and [[Clement of Rome#On The Gospels|Clement of Rome]] (c. 96 AD) quote or allude to Gospel material, implying their composition decades earlier. >[!quote] [F.F. Bruce](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802836653 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?') "The textual evidence points to a period of rapid dissemination, indicating the Gospels were written significantly earlier than some critics propose." #### Roman Relations in the Gospels Unlike later texts such as Revelation, Acts and the Gospels portray Roman officials, such as Pontius Pilate and centurions, in a neutral or even positive light ([Matthew 8:10](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.8.10), [Luke 23:4](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.23.4), [Acts 21:32](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/ACT.21.32), [Acts 27:3](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/ACT.27.3), [Mark 15:39](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MRK.15.39)) This attitude aligns with a pre-64 AD context, prior to Nero's persecution of Christians ([[Christian Persecution Under Nero]]). The Gospel of John, which was written after 70 A.D. also lacks this positive tone with Romans. #### Detailed Jewish Practices and Laws > [!success] 1st Century Jewish Practices > The Gospels describe Jewish practices, such as offering sacrifices at the Temple ([Matthew 5:23-24](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/MAT.5.23-24)), which became irrelevant after the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. Matthew also includes accounts of the suicide of Judas and the account of the guard at the tomb that would only matter to Jews that are in Jerusalem. Their inclusion implies these texts were written while such practices remained meaningful. Furthermore, the Gospels display precise knowledge of first-century Judaism and Palestine, including customs, geography, and social norms. In contrast, later works, such as Gnostic texts, lack this cultural and historical accuracy, reflecting their distance from the events. This coherence with the first-century context suggests the Gospels were shaped by eyewitnesses or their immediate contemporaries. >>[!quote] [Colin Hemer](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802842847 "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History") >> "The vivid portrayal of first-century life is best explained by early authorship by those familiar with the events or their immediate aftermath." > >>[!info] See More >> - [[Jews Considered Corpses Unclean]] >> - [[Jewish Names In 1st Century Palestine Match The New Testament Records]] >> - [[Crucifixion And Jewish Law]] >> - [[The Author Of Matthew A Jewish Palestine]] >> - [[The Author Of John Was A Jewish Palestine]] >> - [[The Relationship Of Roman And Jewish Law]] ### The Unfinished Story of Acts >[!quote] [[@Bock2002-tn|Darrell Bock]] "The timeline for Acts necessitates a first-century dating for the Gospels, particularly Luke and its precursor, Mark." ![[Dating The Books Of Luke And Acts]] ## Dating The Gospels In Light Of Evidence ### Matthew >[!faq] Matthew Was Written Around 50-60 A.D. >The Gospel of Matthew is often dated earlier than 70 A.D. due to its focus on Jewish customs and its lack of reference to the destruction of the Temple. > >- [[Dating The Gospel Of Matthew]] > Matthew's detailed emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy aligns with an audience of Jewish Christians still connected to Temple practices. > - [[[The Internal Evidence For The Gospels#Internal Evidence For Matthew|Evidence Shows Matthew's Authorship]] ### Mark >[!faq] Mark Was Written Around 50-60 A.D. >The Gospel of Mark is considered the earliest Gospel due to its brevity and lack of theological development seen in later texts. > >- [[Dating The Gospel Of Mark]] Mark’s association with Peter as a key source lends credibility to its early composition, capturing eyewitness accounts shortly after the events. >- [[The Internal Evidence For The Gospels#Internal Evidence For Mark|Evidence Shows Mark's Authorship]] ### Luke and Acts Several factors suggest earlier authorship For the 3rd Gospel: >[!faq] Luke/Acts Was Written Around **61-62 A.D.** >The biggest factor for dating Luke early is the dating of the Book of Acts: >- [[Dating The Books Of Luke And Acts]] > >With Acts Show To be Early, The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts show us that Luke is to most probable author >- [[The Internal Evidence For The Gospels#Internal Evidence For Luke| Evidence Shows Luke Wrote His Gospel]] ### John > [!faq] John Was Written Around **85-95 A.D.** > The Gospel of John’s later date reflects its distinct theological focus and its audience of a broader, Hellenistic world. > - [[Dating The Gospel Of John]] > Despite its later date, internal evidence supports John's authorship, likely reflecting an older eyewitness reflecting on events decades after they occurred. > - [[The Internal Evidence For The Gospels#Internal Evidence For John|Evidence Shows John's Authorship]] ### Table Of Gospel Dates ![[Bible Book Index#Gospels/Acts]] ![[Pasted image 20241120075537.png]]