Were the 4 gospel really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Were they written early, or as some say, in the late first century (if so, not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John b/c they died before 70 AD. Here is the liberal view on all that.

According to Bart Ehrman, the four gospels were written in the following order:

• Mark: Written around 70 CE
• Matthew and Luke: Written around 80–85 CE
• John: Written around 90–95 CE 

Bart Ehrman has said that the Gospels were written and circulated anonymously, and that Christian leaders later attributed them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: 

I believe all 4 gospels were written before 70 AD. First, let’s look at the 3 synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There is one main proof for me. All 3 predict in detail the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem to happen in the future after writing the gospels. A whole chapter in each gospel predicts that: Mt 24, Mk 13, and Lk 21. There are many other such predictions in the gospels, like the parable of the wheat and tears in Mt 13, but we will

focus on those 3 chapters. For example, Mt 24 predicts several events to be fulfilled within that generation (24:³⁴ Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.). Mk 13 and Lk 21 do the same thing. The word genea in the NT always refers to a 40 year period or the people living in a 40 year period. For example, Mt 1 lists 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, which is about 2,000 years. Mt 23:³⁶ Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. The word genea there obviously is referring to the generation of Jews that Jesus is speaking to.

Now, if Matthew was written after AD 70, don’t you think that he (or whoever wrote the gospel) would have said that prediction of 70 AD was already fulfilled, proving Jesus to be a true prophet? Matthew often quotes prophecies, like the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt 2), showing the fulfillment of that prophecy. Surely he would have done that with the Mt 24 prediction if it had already been fulfilled when he wrote the gospel. That means that the predictions in Mt 24 had not been fulfilled at the time of writing of the gospel. That means that the gospel was written before 70 AD.

For example, suppose we found an old, old book about the persecution of Jews in history, but we don’t know when it was written. Suppose that it tells about AD 70, about the killing of Jews in the Crusades, the killing of Jews during the Black Plagues (some blamed the Jews for the plague), etc. But suppose that it did not discuss the Holocaust. To me, that means that the book was written before the Holocaust happened. That means the book was written before 1945 AD. Do you see the point?

The gospel of John is a different case, but I believe that it was written before 70 AD (in spite of tradition saying that he wrote Revelation in 96 AD. Why do I believe that? The main reason is that I believe that he died before 70 AD. The church father Papias (60-130 AD) said that John died a martyr’s death as the hands of the Jews (he did not give a date). He supported that saying the John died a martyr just like Jesus had predicted that the brothers James and John would die. Jesus predicted that James and John would be martyred in the Bible, in Mark 10:35–45. In this passage, Jesus tells the brothers that they will “drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with”. We know James the apostle was martyred by Herod in Acts 12. The only time John could have been killed by the Jews would have to be before 70 AD. A million Jews died in the siege of Jerusalem and 200,000 were carried away captive (according to Josephus who was present during the siege). Most say John lived to the year 100 AD and died a natural death, but that would contradict what Jesus predicted. Also, if he died as a martyr around 100 AD, surely there would be church father testimony to that fact, but there is none. The Jews did not have the ability to kill Christians around 100 AD. There is just the speculation that he wrote Revelation in 96 AD based on the statement of one church father (Irenaeus, 130-202 AD). That statement is not even clear as to what he is saying. But the internal evidence of the book of Revelation says that it was written during the reign of Emperor Nero (54-68 AD). Rev 17:⁹ This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; ¹⁰ they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. Refer to my Revelation articles for a more thorough discussion but the seven kings here are the first 7 emperors of Rome starting with Julius Caesar. I know many historians say that the first emperor was Augustus, but Josephus at least twice says that Augustus was the 2nd king, not the 1st, and Josephus lived at that time and would know who was considered to be the first king of Rome, i.e. Julius. Also Seutonius, (a Roman biographer, 69-122 AD) wrote The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, beginning with Julius, not Augustus. So, at the time of writing Revelation, 5 kings were dead, “fallen” (Julius through Claudius), the 6th, “one is”, is reigning when the book is written, i.e. Nero (54-68 AD). So the book had to be written before Nero died in 68 AD. That certainly fits the Papias statement that John died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Jews. If John died before 70 AD, then obviously he wrote his gospel of John, and his letters (1,2,3 John and Revelation) before he died in 70 AD. There is some internal evidence also that John wrote his gospel before 70 AD. John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ² Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic^[a] called Bethesda,^[b] which has five roofed colonnades. He says there “was” a feast that Jesus went to (past tense) but then he says there “is” a pool in Jerusalem (present tense). The pool was Bethesday was still there when he wrote the gospel. After 70 AD, there would no longer be a pool there since the Romans destroyed everything. Like wise with Rev 11: 1Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there. The temple was still standing and Jews worshipping there when he wrote Revelation. It was destroyed in 70 AD, so the letter had to be written before 70 AD.

I hope this establishes that the 4 gospels were written before 70 AD. That means they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, since the early church would have rejected a forgery gospel while the 4 men were still living. The church fathers of the 2nd century all accepted the 4 gospels as being written by the 4 men. That’s why they were put in the NT canon later. In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons argued that there should be four Gospels because of the four zones of the world, the four winds…Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: ‘it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four‘ he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (1.11. 8). The early church fathers quoted or cited the 4 gospels thousands of times as Scripture. Would they have done that if the 4 gospels were written by anonymous authors? If they accepted the 4 gospels as authentic and rejected many other gospels (like the gospel of Mary Magdelene, etc), then would they not have also rejected the 4 gospels unless they were very confident that they were genu

Why is it so important to establish the early date of writing of the 4 gospels? If they were written before 70 AD, then those who read the gospels would have been able to refute their authenticity, authorship, the stories and miracles they recorded. If they claimed a resurrection of Jesus within 40 years of his resurrection in 30 AD, then people living before 70 AD would have had the opportunity to refute that resurrection. If I claiimed that a certain man was raised from the Maple Hill Cemetry 10 years ago, then people could research that and either refute it or verify it. If I said a that man was raised 50 years ago, there would be very few living that could verify that or refute it. If the miracles of Jesus were mere legend, as well as his resurrection, as many claim them to be, then 20 or 30 years would not be enough time for a legend to be established. If the gospels were written anonimously by whoever in the late first century, how would they get their facts about Jesus ministry and miracles. Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ² just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke could interview witnesses if he wrote his gospel before 70 AD while many witnesses were still alive. If he wrote it the late 1st century, many would be dead.

I’m sure some of the Christian apologists could make more arguments for the early date of writing of the gospels, but this article has my reasons. BTW the same logic used here could be used to say that the entire NT was written before 70 AD. Paul was beheaded by Nero around 66 AD, so all of his letters had to be written before he died and thus before 70 AD. Many of Paul’s letters also predict the coming of Jesus in 70 AD also (like 2 Thess 2), so they had to be written before that event.Hebrews was not written by Paul, but it has internal evidence that it was written before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Heb 9:⁸ By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places “is” (present tense) not yet opened as long as the first section “is” (present tense) still standing ⁹ (which is symbolic for the present age). That present tense “is” shows that the temple was still standing when the letter was written. Heb 10: ³⁷ For, “Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay”. The only “coming of Jesus” here can be is the coming in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD, the “2nd coming”. No other coming would fit this verse if the book was written after 70 AD. This prediction came true in 70 AD, proving that the author, whoever it might be, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. James 5:⁸ You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Thus James predicts the coming of Jesus to be “at hand” (i.e. soon, shortly) and this can only refer to the coming of Jesus in 70 AD. That proves that the book is written before 70 AD. Peter was an apostle and was killed by Nero, so he died about 66 AD and obviously 1,2 Peter were written before he died, before 70 AD. Jude was a brother of Jesus. Jude mentioned the coming of the Lord and the judgment of the great day, which I believe is 70 AD, so Jude was written before 70 AD.

In summary, from the internet (AI), “The primary evidence suggesting the Gospels were written before 70 AD is that they describe Jerusalem and its Temple as still standing, despite the fact that both were destroyed by the Romans in that year; this indicates the authors were writing before the destruction event, as they would have mentioned it if they were writing afterwards.”

Thanks for reading. You can trust your 4 gospels!!!!!!