Where does the link indicate “nearly 40 years,” and what is the basis for that claim?
There are other theories of a “Q” source.
By the ways, there are not four synoptic gospels, only 3.
4 SOURCES counting Q, The dating of Mark is 66-70, Jesus was crucified in 31. 35-39 is 40 rounded up.
Of course not to both.
Ok, but those dates were not in the link that you wrote they were in.
And church history lists Matthew as first.
So there is uncertainty on which came first.
When did you read Eusebius Church History?
I recently enjoyed this interview of NT Wright on this topic.
5 Likes
Google is your friend. Wikipedia too. ‘Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel.’, which is rational.
I have no need to read such accounts as they can’t possibly prove anything at all.
Which written accounts can prove things?
Because the destruction of the Temple would have been evidence that the Messiah was no longer to be expected, because the prophets had said he would cleanse the Temple and that could no longer happen.The Apostles at first thought the Lord would return during their lifetimes. As they grew older they changed their minds and so put their their message in writing. Because the NT precedes 70 AD it could all have easily been written by people instructed by Jesus (Apostles), and there is no good reason to regard it as historically suspect.
Klax, here is a sample for your benefit, Bishop Eusebius quoting the writings of Clement, a first century bishop of Rome. The original document is lost, but Eusebius recorded this from Clement:
“Chapter 24. The Order of the Gospels.
-
This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.”
-
And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. That it has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way.
-
Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.
-
And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.
-
And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.
-
For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.
-
And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.
-
And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.
-
For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee. Matthew 4:12
-
Mark likewise says: Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee. Mark 1:14 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison. Luke 3:20
-
They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: This beginning of miracles did Jesus; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; John 3:23 where he states the matter clearly in the words: For John was not yet cast into prison.
-
John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
-
One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy…”
Excerpt From
The History of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea
This material may be protected by copyright.
As I said Cobra, it makes no difference at all. He wrote this 300 years after the events.
He cleansed the Temple twice.
Both times were well before 70 AD.
I have never found any argument against John’s authorship remotely convincing. Everything from the first person perspective with the “unnamed” apostle, the descriptions of dialogues, the incidental details (“I outran Peter to get to the tomb”)l etc.
And as has been mentioned, Luke goes out of his way to emphasize that he had received his information from eyewitnesses.
1 Like
No, he wrote around 300 AD, and he had access to documents such as the writings of Clement that we do not have today.
So we have something written less than 300 years after the events as a source, and we have things written 1900 years after the events.
1 Like
Daniel, see verse 24 of John 21:
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
That’s right. About a thousand days apart.
?
Just to be clear, you did notice I said I have never found any argument against John’s authorship convincing?
My mistake, Daniel, thanks for sharing.
No it’s about 300 years as he wrote ‘at the end of 323 or in 324’.
If you want to split hairs, this source places it between 313 and 326.
Still less than 300 years, and still with access to documents no longer extant.