When were the Gospels Written? ("Historical Criticism" of the Gospels)

The Methodology and Ideology of “Liberal” Historical Criticism

No matter who you are, efforts to assign dates to biblical books involves presuppositions.  Most of the so-called “historical criticism” approach to the biblical text brings the assumption that the text is only a man-inspired and man-made composition.  Much of this study stems back to Germany (the Tubingen School) in the 1800s. This might be an over-generalization, but the assumption is that God, if he exists, does not communicate to man through a written “inspired” text.  The Bible is a literary-theological construction of man, not the revelation of the Creator to man.

 Main theory:  Source or Document Hypothesis:  the Synoptic Gospels are interdependent, one to the other

In connection to the Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, the main hypothesis of liberal scholarship is sometimes called the Two-Document, or Two-Source Hypothesis. Two main written texts are postulated to be the sources for Matthew and Luke: 

1.      Gospel of Mark – usually claimed by followers of this theory to be the earliest Gospel written.

2.      “Q” – from German word quelle, “source”.  All material that is common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. A "Q" text does not literally exist. It exists only in the minds of those who would like it to.

This hypothesis maintains that the historical situation that brought about the earliest composition of a gospel was the persecution of Christians by Nero in AD 64. Supposedly the severe persecution of the fledgling Christian community brought about the need for a written text to encourage people in this time of difficulty, and the text that was produced was the Gospel of Mark. “Markan priority” often goes hand in hand with these theories, dating all gospels to after the AD 64 Nero persecution.

 In other words, scholars looked for a historical backdrop they believed generated or necessitated the writing of the first Gospel, and they landed on the middle of the AD 60s.  But what if they are wrong? What if their presuppositions misdirected them? Could there be other historical situations that produced the Gospels? In a sense, anyone can play the game, and one guess could be as good, even better, than another.

 Their motivation: remove the events as far as they can from the written record so that they can cast doubt on the truthfulness of the events.

 A Problem with the Secular, Historical Criticism Hypothesis

 The historical reconstruction posited by modern critics is illogical. It makes no sense to believe that 30 or 40 years after Jesus lived a persecuted religious group decided to claim that Jesus was able to perform the multitude of miracles recorded in the Gospels.

 To compare: I’m writing this in 2024. There is an orthodox Jewish religious group called Habad who believes that their religious leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah. But he died in 1994, 30 years ago. What would be the likelihood of a group from Habad getting together today and writing biographies about Rabbi Schneerson, but now claimed that in fact for three years between 1991-94 he publicly gave sight to the blind, healed the lame, the deaf, dumb, lepers, demon possessed, a multitude of others from various diseases. On three occasions he raised the dead and the after being put to death himself, he was raised from the dead a few days later, he met with some of his followers over a period of 40 days, and then was bodily taken to heaven?

 The story wouldn’t “take”. Many people who are alive today were around in 1991-94 would easily show the new claims to be bogus. Even many people within the Habad movement would know that the stories were just made up.

 The more logical explanation concerning the Gospels about Jesus, indeed, the better historical reconstruction of what actually did happen concerning Jesus is that the fantastic claims about him were factual, were known both during his lifetime and after, and as much as those who didn’t believe the claims tried to debunk them, they were not able to. In fact, Jesus’s followers, including James the Apostle in AD 41 (less than 10 years after Jesus’s resurrection) and James the brother of Jesus (AD 62, 30 years after Jesus’s resurrection) were put to death insisting that all these things that happened were true.

 Conservative Position – A Better Suggestion

 The similarities and differences in the Gospels are best understood as eyewitness reports, or are based on eyewitness reports.  Since four different witnesses are recording events that actually happened, we should expect both similarities (yes, one report could have access to an earlier report) and differences of perspective.  The differences and similarities in parallel passages are contrasts of perspective that would be expected when eyewitnesses are involved.  

 Other Historical Backdrops for the Narrative of Jesus Becoming a Written Text: Much earlier than liberals theorize.

 1.      While the culture of 1^st century Israel involved much oral learning and repetition, Peter, Matthew, Mark and the other disciples were literate. Israelites – and not just the upper class - were expected to be able to read and be familiar with Torah. Knowing Torah was a matter of life and death. As “people of the book” they learned letters and language as children because they believed that God had supernaturally communicated with them via written text. Historical writings like the those of Flavius Josephus show great literary ability stemming from 1^st century Israel. Archaeological finds at a place like Qumran testify to an ability and abundance of literary activity in the 1^st century.

It is not impossible that some followers of Jesus made written records soon after events occurred. The events happening in association with the man Jesus were so unique – “nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel” (Matt. 9:33) that the events themselves could have stirred some written record.

2.      Immediately after Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead, as Acts 2:42 states, the believers in Jerusalem “devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”  This commitment to the apostles’ teaching undoubtedly involved oral telling, retelling and memorization, but could well have involved a commissioning of someone, say Matthew, to produce a written record of the events and teachings of Jesus.  A written text would meet the needs of the growing body of Israelite believers in the Land of Israel. 

 In other words, here is a historical situation, soon after Jesus was on earth, which could have been an impetus for a written record of the life of Jesus.

 This suggestion is not just a shot in the dark. The earliest church fathers’ tradition concerning the Gospels is from Papias (60-130 AD, Hierapolis), quoted by Eusebius (History of the Church 3.39.16): “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew language and everyone interpreted as he was able.” Later, in the 2^nd century. Irenaeus states (c. AD 130-200): “Matthew brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own language” (Against Heresies 3.1.1-2).  The earliest tradition we have for the writing of a Gospel is that Matthew wrote for Israelites in the land of Israel.

 3.      Acts 11:19-26, in the late AD 30s, early AD 40s.  There was a dispersion of disciples following the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1, 11:19).  Disciples arrived at, for example, Antioch of Syria.  Diaspora Jews and eventually even Gentiles were coming to the faith. Such evangelistic activity would have been greatly enhanced, perhaps even produced and accompanied by a written narrative of the life of Jesus. In other words, less than ten years after the resurrection, the declaration of the Gospel about Jesus the Christ outside the Land of Israel is another historical backdrop that may have generated a written record.

 4.      Acts 12. AD 44.  Only about 10 years after Jesus ministered. One of the “inner three” apostles, James the brother of John was murdered by Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa also put the Apostle Peter in prison, intending to execute Peter, too!  Although Peter was miraculously released from prison, the disciples would have realized -if they had not by that time - that these eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life could die or be killed. All the eye-witness testimony of the Apostle James – gone. Could the same happen to the Apostle Peter and the other apostles? Such a realization would have been a huge motivator to interview and record what the apostles like Peter had seen and heard while they were with Jesus. Liberal, critical scholars seem to miss such possibilities. 

 The statement in Acts 12:24 that in spite of the circumstances, perhaps even because of the circumstances, “the word of the Lord continued to grow and multiply” may once again imply written text.  Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the next verse, Acts 12:25, mentions John Mark going with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.  Did they take John Mark because he wrote the Gospel of Mark at that time as Peter's recorder?  Peter’s testimony would add weight to Paul’s and Barnabas’s efforts in foreign lands.

As Eusebius quoted Papias stating that Matthew first composed his Gospel in Hebrew, he also says that Papias stated that Mark wrote a record of Jesus life and sayings at the dictation of Peter (History of the Church 3.39.15).

 5.      Acts 13.  AD 45 still only some 12 years after Jesus’ ministry, Paul started on his first missionary journey.   Again, this may be the reason why Paul and Barnabas took John Mark with them – because Mark had been instrumental in recording Peter’s testimony of Jesus’ life. Even after a falling out, Paul eventually changed his mind about Mark, writing toward the end of his life, “Get Mark and bring him with you…he is very useful in serving me” (2 Tim. 4:11).

The proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, believed, “for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (Acts 13:12). Was the teaching of the Lord Jesus that Sergius Paulus heard from the Apostle Paul and Barnabas only oral, or was there also a written record, brought along by John Mark. 

Reading through Paul’s first epistles (1 Thess. 4:15; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10, 1; also 1 Tim 5:18 – Lk. 10:7), it is apparent that Paul was familiar with sayings from the Gospels.  Is this evidence that Paul had, or at least had previous access to a written Gospel record?  One could at least say Matthew.  One could easily say Matthew and Mark. Late in his life Paul expressed the value of written documents (2 Tim. 4:13). It would not be a stretch to think these included a Gospel record.

 6.      Luke wrote Acts in the early AD 60s, before Nero’s persecutions in 64-65 AD.  The Gospel of Luke would have been written before that. The Gospel of John, which many date as the latest Gospel and put somewhere in AD 90s, has indications that it was written much earlier.

 The guesses about when the Gospels were written are just that – guesses. We really don’t know for sure. But current theories that the Gospels weren’t written until the AD 60s and later are based on presuppositions that doubt the veracity of the Gospel records, particularly the miraculous. The attempt is to move the written records of the events to decades after the events happened in an effort to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the record.

They’ve looked for a historical setting decades after Jesus was on earth for evidence of a time that could have produced the Gospel narratives. But more than one person can play this game. Many prior historical events at and for which the Gospels may have been written are ignored. Perhaps the best example is AD 41 when James the brother of John was put to death and the life of Peter threatened by the government in control in Israel at the time.

The liberal critical theories have creeped into all levels of Christianity. One doesn’t have to look far to find even among conservative Bible believers’ proclamations like “the Synoptic Gospels were written in the mid AD 60s and later”. Really?  That claim doesn’t make much sense and there are lots of other reasons to believe that the Gospels were written much earlier. Anyone can play the historical guessing game. My guess may actually be better than yours.

The writing of the Gospels was not just a response to (e.g., to Nero’s persecution) but was a taking of the initiative to make the message about God’s work through Jesus known to many. That happened much earlier than AD 64.

May “the word of God continue to grow and multiply” Acts 12:24 

Resource:

JAT Robinson, Redating the New Testament.