Dates of the Gospels

[motoeric]

Hi,

Can someone suggest a good resource for dating when each of the Gospels were written?

Thanks,

Eric

 

[juliamajor]

Try catholic-resources.org/bible. Excellent source of Biblical knowledge run by Felix just S.J.

 

[motoeric]

Thank you. I’m checking it now and it’s an excellent site.

Eric

 

[thistle]

Try catholic-resources.org/bible. Excellent source of Biblical knowledge run by Felix just S.J.

I typed in the address but it didn’t work. Could you post the link so I can click on it. thanks.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Try catholic-resources.org/bible. Excellent source of Biblical knowledge run by Felix just S.J.

As you would expect for a Jesuit priest, he presents all the full-on historical-critical pet theories of Marcan Priority, and dates for all the gospels of after 70 AD.

This is counter to the Catholic Church’s sacred traditions.

 

[juliamajor]

proof for Marcan Priority is pretty strong- have you read the gospels parallel to each other- it’s really interesting. As far as Felix Just goes - the info on his site is great and it’s alright to disagree with it.I believed it might be “t” tradition and not"T" tradition that made Matthew primary. Besides what real difference does it make spiritually or theologically if Mark was first! Now if your talking about “Q”- that’s another ball of string

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

proof for Marcan Priority is pretty strong…

It’s complete speculation. There is no “proof” for it.

…have you read the gospels parallel to each other?

Yes, and they make perfect sense the way the church ordered them. There’s a reason Mark is not first.

Besides what real difference does it make spiritually or theologically if Mark was first?

Our religion is not a philosophy - it’s based on actual historical events - the incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Modernism has done everything it can think of to dismantle our faith in the veracity of those events - and Marcan Priority is one avenue of that attack. Liberal theology says, the historicity of the gospel is irrelevant - what’s important are the ideas, and specifically how they relate to social action.

Also, “Q” is necessary for Marcan Priority. You cannot have one without the other - which is the biggest indication that it’s a flawed theory.

 

[juliamajor]

It’s complete speculation. There is no “proof” for it.

Yes, and they make perfect sense the way the church ordered them. There’s a reason Mark is not first.

Our religion is not a philosophy - it’s based on actual historical events - the incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Modernism has done everything it can think of to dismantle our faith in the veracity of those events - and Marcan Priority is one avenue of that attack. Liberal theology says, the historicity of the gospel is irrelevant - what’s important are the ideas, and specifically how they relate to social action.

Also, “Q” is necessary for Marcan Priority. You cannot have one without the other - which is the biggest indication that it’s a flawed theory.

Actually there is the"Farrer theory" which maintains Marcan Priority while dispensing with Q as Matthew and Luke’s source.

 

[rwoehmke]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

An excellent reference! Good work Buffalo!

 

[scottm]

proof for Marcan Priority is pretty strong- have you read the gospels parallel to each other- it’s really interesting.

I took a seminary class on the gospels, and naturally this was a topic. I chose to write my final paper on this very question. I argued that Matthew was first. The prof strongly believed in Marcan priority, just so you know. Every single “proof” of Marcan priority can be turned around as a proof for Mark coming after Matthew. That doesn’t mean that the conclusion is factually wrong. God is the only living person who knows the truth anymore. For the rest of us, it’s 100% entirely a matter of subjective preference, through and through, which way we go. If you don’t trust your Catholic forefathers on this matter, great. That’s your call. I happen to trust them, but that’s just me.

Here’s a thought: the gospel writers were quick to point out fulfillments of prophesy. “This happened to fulfill the words of _____” kind of stuff occurs frequently in the gospels. Jesus flat out predicted the utter annihilation of the Temple. His prediction was fulfilled in 70 AD. You’d think that right after the Olivet Discourse, when the disciples are going off on how gorgeous the Temple was, that the gospel writers would have made note of the fulfillment of prophesy if in fact the Temple had been destroyed already.

It’s like someone writing a history of terrorism today, and not mentioning the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01. It’s like someone writing a history of Jews in Europe today, and not mentioning the WWII holocaust. Unthinkable.

Ergo, the gospels were all written before 70 AD.
Hank Hannegraaf argues in his book “The Apocalypse Code” that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Emporer Nero. He makes a lot of sense, and I believe that his interpretation of Revelation is entirely consistent with Catholic doctrine. Nero died in 68. If indeed Revelation was the last book written, then all of the gospels were written before then.

 

[motoeric]

Scott,

Thank you. That was an excellent post.

Eric