When was first Gospel written and what was it?

Ronald, you can STILL find 'careful and scholarly modern criticism' today that applies those dates (the Luke one is curious).  I assume you're wanting a broad discussion on the plus's and minus's supporting the various views.  Almost inevitably you have to read each gospel's commentaries (plural).

Regarding Mark, from a mathematical case (syntax pattern sequencing), the early chapters appear to precede Matthew, but the later chapters appear to come from Matthew (i.e. an update to or by 'Mark').

In the last few days my own interest in the question has perked up having run into several clear reference to 'writings' and being referenced as 'the Gospel' and 'the Gospel of the Lord' in the apostolic fathers.  Unfortunately some of what's associated with that 'Gospel' isn't found in 'our' gospels.

Anyone know of any Logos resources that can address when Biblical scholars change opinions and for what reason?

Almost any NT Bible introduction book has information on this topic.  For an example, I know Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1: Gospel and Acts (http://www.logos.com/product/28227/new-testament-studies-bundle), talks about dating the gospels.

It all gets down to this (IMHO) - while we have several theories, we truly do not know.

We inevitably bring a lot of our own expectations, assumptions and culture to the question and often forget about or fail to sufficiently understand the original context in which the Gospel was spread. Probably none of us can expect to fully grasp the context and circumstances surrounding the development of the written Gospel. 

Following Pentecost the apostles went out in different directions to spread the Gospel "to the ends of the earth". No one waited for anyone else to assemble a written copy of the whole Story. By the time the churches got around to assembling a written Gospel they were doing so in different local contexts having received the stories from their different sources and there was likely limited comparison except between churches in reasonably proximity.    

John in his old age even reminds us that there were more stories than anyone has ever written down.  It is entirely possible that individual stories and groups of stories were written down well before what we now consider to be an entire Gospel book was assembled as such.  John's Gospel looks like it is a (relatively late) attempt to write down many of the stories that others had not included. The passage in John's Gospel about the woman caught in the act of adultery is an interesting clue that there may have been individual stories written seperately that eventually no one knew who had written them (it being not part of the earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel).  It is entirely possible that we are missing many of the stories that were originally spread verbally.  The bottom line I think is that what we have received as the Gospel stories is sufficient and we do not need to worry that we may be missing something absolutely critical.

I totally agree with Michael that one key clue to dating is the destruction of Jerusalem.  The Romans saw this Jewish revolt as key to keeping their Empire under control and could not afford to let anyone think they would get away with what the Jews were doing in their rebellion.  It was a key piece of Roman propaganda that was certainly well spread throughout the Empire and beyond about the fate of Jerusalem and its Temple and hence a pointer to anyone else who might have rebellion on their agenda.  Not mentioning or alluding to it is a good clue that it had not happened at the time of writing as it represented an apocalypse and the end of an era for the Jews and the system of Temple worship.  The Romans made sure everyone everywhere knew about it.

Totally agree that there was a lot of care taken about accepting books as scripture - this seems to have applied to what the church as a whole took to be includable in what was understood to be scripture, which focussed primarily on what was written by or on behalf of those who had been eye witnesses.

We do know that there was other material in circulation and accepted as genuine but not as scripture, examples being letters from the church fathers etc.  We also se from the Dead Sea scolls that the Qumran community likely accepted as scripture things that were either lost to or not considered important by the early church.  (Psalm 151 might be an example of such).

It is unlikely that individual stories written down by individual church communities would have preserved and become available as real manuscript evidence as they would have had the priority of local sermon notes rather than scripture and would be relatively unimportant once a more complete book of them had been assembled and not likely to have been individually copied beyond their first edition. 

Not sure what type of evidence it would take to prove or disprove that manuscripts might have been synthesized from components at any point.
John 7:53-8:11 might be an interesting case to bring out some ideas on that point.

The exact year of the production of each of the four gospels cannot be
fixed. But the most careful and scholarly modern criticism puts the date
of St. Matthew’s record at about 38 A. D., and his record of this
prophecy is the fullest, as well as the first. Mark wrote A. D., 67 to
69. Luke A. D. 63. John A. D. 95.

One significant problem with dealing with the "date" of a particular gospel is the definition of what is meant by "date" and which early version one discusses.  It is probable (certain??) that each gospel circulated in oral form(s) well before the initial version(s) were committed to writing.   As oral tradition it was subject to change, of which we have no tangible evidence.  Then again, even early written manuscripts were subject to editing. Certainly if an apostle were to read one and assert that "it didn't happen that way" the manuscript would have been changed.

The only evidence we have (mostly) are documents that date to 250-350 AD (BCE) there are a few fragments that might be older. Those are the only "dates" that we can take as fixed, but they have nothing to do with the date of origin for the text. It is possible  that there was at least some cross over of text from document to document giving rise to problems deciding which came "first".

The Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries included several documents that could be dated no later than 68 AD which include (you will have to weigh the argument/counter argument for yourself) portions of the Gospel of Mark. It's all fragments but if it is reliable, it would put Mark at a vary early date. The unfortunate part about dating text is the amount of bias. If any scientist or researcher tell you they are free of bias, run the other direction. We simply do not have iron clade guaranteed proof one way or another as to the exact dating. I personally find early dates the most compelling but again, some of that is bias. 

It is probable (certain??) that each gospel circulated in oral form(s) well before the initial version(s) were committed to writing.

I am not at all convinced that is probable, much less certain. 

If you mean that the Gospel events were told and preached, well of course.  If you mean the Gospel of Mark was memorized and passed around for years before it was written, well, why?  Did Mark, or whoever wrote it, have to learn to write before putting it down?  And for how long?  The time frame is historically miniscule, and the first Christians already had sacred writings from the OT.  Why would they not write down the Gospels?  The early church was writing letters, etc.

Also, the assumption that oral tradition is routinely subject to change does not reflect the care given to sacred oral tradition by many cultures, where such things are memorized with great care to the last syllable, and to change a syllable is taboo. 

Even more so than modern Masonic rituals.

Robert ... sure you don't want to edit that last paragraph?

Not really.  As I  said we have some fragments that may be older. I was thinking of the AD68 fragments of John. I was unaware of the Qumran fragment, which is older. The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document  (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark.  It may have been a cross-over into Mark. We cannot say since we lack evidence. If the complete 7Q document (or even a large fragment of the document) which included 7Q5 appears I will immediately  consider how I need to revise my conclusion, as will we all.

It all gets down to this (IMHO) - while we have several theories, we truly do not know.

That truly is the bottom line.  It is always a matter of interpretation and speculation.

What do you mean "we don't know"?  I was there.  Remember that I'm almost 39.  [6]

The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document  (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark.

Why would we assume that with no manuscript evidence to back it up?  Why would we not assume a fragment of Mark came from Mark, which we know exists?

You have more faith in documentary theory than me, brother.  Faith is "the assurance of things not seen", especially in documentary theory.  I am praying for more faith, but it just won't come.

What do you mean "we don't know"?  I was there.  Remember that I'm almost 39. 

Oh, Ancient of Days, my error.  I should have known.    Will not happen again - at least not today. 

I must admit, I get a bit annoyed when I hear that we 'can't know'

It seems to reflect a modern lack of faith in the historical process. I like to think that historical problems probably are resolvable--after all, something did actually happen in a real place at a real time--we just haven't quite figured out what yet. Or perhaps someone somewhere has figured it out and we just haven't heard from them yet.

Not really.  As I  said we have some fragments that may be older. I was thinking of the AD68 fragments of John. I was unaware of the Qumran fragment, which is older. The 7Q5 fragment is evidence that two verses of Mark existed no later than 60AD. The fragment may have come from the supposed Q document  (assuming it existed) rather than a complete (or essentially complete) manuscript of Mark.  It may have been a cross-over into Mark. We cannot say since we lack evidence. If the complete 7Q document (or even a large fragment of the document) which included 7Q5 appears I will immediately  consider how I need to revise my conclusion, as will we all.

The equation of 7Q5 with a fragment of Mark is extremely dubious and not generally accepted. 

When and if Q turns up, perhaps then my opinion will change.

Exactly. The fictitious Q theory along with markan priority is .... well .... a load of garbage.

Let me clear this up for everyone if I may. Amazingly difficult as it might be for certain unbelieving "SCHOLARS" to believe, Matthew really was written by Matthew. It is first in the canon because it was written first. There is plenty of evidence to support these facts. Such evidence must be entirely and willfully ignored in order to place mark first, or to give credibility to any other version of oral tradition theories.

Matthew was the work of all the apostles during the time period in acts 2-3.

 Why four gospels by David Allen Black is a good place to start.

 

I take the view that Q is Papias' Aramaic Matthew. Judging from the tone of your post, I have my doubts that you have carefully weighed up all sides. I thought Black's book was inconsistent and implausible.

I take the view that Q is Papias' Aramaic Matthew. Judging from the tone of your post, I have my doubts that you have carefully weighed up all sides. I thought Black's book was inconsistent and implausible.

The interesting thing about Blacks  view is that it is really just a restating of what the early church said. To reject Black is to reject the entire body of church Fathers. Faithless "scholars" of course have no problem with that.

Maybe you should write a review of Blacks book, as all the existing reviews contradict your thoughts.

 

 

Yes, the reviews have been positive, but I don't share their enthusiasm.

And no, he doesn't follow the fathers--he picks and chooses the parts he agrees with. For example (one example), the church fathers--citing Papias--state that Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter left Rome, not while Peter was lecturing (with two large scrolls of Matthew and Mark to stop and check every few minutes if you please--hardly likely!). So perhaps you should read what the fathers said about how the Gospels were composed, instead of assuming that Black has accurately reflected their teaching, and accusing others of the neglect you yourself are guilty of. You need to give a fair hearing to all sides. I'll happily discuss Black's book with you point by point, but not unless you tone down the accusatory and self-congratulatory style of your posts.