I believe there must have been an original Oracles Gospel originally written by the disciples (Matthew being a strong candidate since due to his profession, we know he was one of the few who were actually able to read and write), which had been used as source for Luke and Mark (either that or both of them actually got their Parables and Miracles by interviewing some of the original disciples?). Also, there is not really any strong evidence that the canonical gospels couldn’t have been written before 45 A.D., is there? I’m not really sure what criteria they use to date these Gospels but it seems to me that dating the Gospels after 60 A.D. is more of a “liberal scholarship” conclusion…
To be honest, personally I hold to the
Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (which holds that Mark is written first out of the synoptics but does not hold to the existence of the so-called
Logienquelle or Q document), albeit I do hold the possibility that an earlier writing - which may very well have been the elusive
Logia or the “gospel of the Hebrews” attributed to Matthew - may have existed in some form before the Greek gospels were penned, as per the Fathers.
Now as for the reason why the gospels are commonly dated to after AD 60. According to St. Irenaeus (
Against Heresies 3.1.1):
For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
As mentioned earlier, he is writing here under the authority of Papias, who wrote in the earlier half of the century (quoted in Eusebius,
Church History, 3.39.15-16):
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
If we accept Irenaeus’ testimony, this would put Matthew’s writing of the Hebrew gospel around the 50s-60s, when both Peter and Paul were in Rome according to the standard reckoning. Irenaeus’ mention of their “departure” - or if we go by the Greek, their ‘
exodus’ - is traditionally interpreted to be their deaths (although just what the word means in this context is highly debated) which is usually reckoned to be during the persecutions of Nero in the mid-to-late 60s.
Another problem with this theory is that it would make the synoptics contradict directly John’s Gospel…
Depends on your perspective.
I know a number of people will disagree with me here, but I’m now more the type that does not care much about the little details but looks at the larger picture at this point. So it really no longer matters much whether Jesus’ final words were “Why have you forsaken me” or “Into thy hands I commend my spirit” or “It is finished” (or all of the above), or whether Luke’s genealogy or Matthew’s version is correct (or both), or just how many women went at Jesus’ tomb, or whether Jesus was visited by
magoi or by shepherds (or both), or whether there were two demoniacs or one in Gadara (or was it Gerasa?), or whether it was a centurion or a royal official who came to Jesus, or whether the tax-gatherer’s name was Levi or Matthew (or both), or whether Jesus preached to people on a mountain or on a plain. We can quibble all we want about the details, what is more important IMHO is the overall picture which all the evangelists agree upon despite the differences in detail: Christ was born, walked and lived among us, died, and raised again. Sure, there are ways we can harmonize the texts with one another - of varying effectiveness - but that is no longer of prime importance (to me at least): what matters is the truth behind the words and the pericopes, which is the core of our faith. (Besides, the evangelists themselves all agree at the very core, even if the details are oftentimes difficult to reconcile.) For me, it isn’t too important whether the public ministry of Jesus lasted one, two, three, or even ten years: the correct duration after all ultimately does not play any major part in our salvation.
Let’s just say that I’ve gotten somewhat tired of attempts to harmonize the tiny details found in different gospels. I think that part of the beauty of it is that we have four
different accounts of Jesus, each giving us a different perspective of Him. Sure, harmonization may have its merits, but looking at each account by themselves on their own terms is also quite an experience. IMHO attempting to stifle the polyvocality of Scripture kind of robs it of its beauty and its ‘soul’, so to speak. I mean, what’s the point of having four gospels if they turn out to be exact carbon copies of one another? Why not just have one? Yeah, I know, the synoptics are highly similar (and even in some parts
exactly similar!) to one another in wording and structure, but each of the writers emphasize a different theme and perspective from the other, so the point still stand.
Sorry for my ranting.
Now I laud Wiki’s objective to present all the possible opinions on a given subject (or at least, the major ones) as unbiased as possible, but yeah, it does seem that some parts fall short of this goal and could use some work. This is not just true of Abrahamic religions, but also for others as well (I should know; one of my interests is studying different religions - related with my love of looking at different cultures and history in general, and let’s just say that I tend to stop by Wiki at times).