Historical accuracy of the gospels

[Aragon]

Are there any good arguments for the historical accuracy of the gospels and that Matthew, Mark and John were written by the apostles themselves or the apostle's secretary (in the case of Mark)? This is something I've been looking into but opinion seems varied and dates most of the gospels to at least 70AD or later.

[Resurrexi]

Are there any good arguments for the historical accuracy of the gospels and that Matthew, Mark and John were written by the apostles themselves or the apostle's secretary (in the case of Mark)? This is something I've been looking into but opinion seems varied and dates most of the gospels to at least 70AD or later.

I would say that the apostles or their secretaries were the human authors of the gospels, but I don't know if this is something that can be backed up with data that would meet the criteria of most historians employing critical methods.

[Nic]

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it is evident that only ONE of the Gospels is dated after 70 AD, and that is St. John.  One major reason is because each of the Synoptic Gospels contain the "Olivet Discourse" that explains the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic event yet to happen.  St. John's Gospel does not contain this discourse.  As far as St. John and his scriptures go, myself and many modern scholars believe the proper order is that he wrote Revelation first, probably around 66 - 68 AD, due to the fact that Revelation obviously deals with the destruction of Biblical Judaism, often speaking of the Temple of Solomon still standing, which was destroyed in the late Summer  of 70 AD (the entire scope of the book is the destruction of the Old Jerusalem which is being replaced with the New Jerusalem, which denotes the Church).  This on top of countless other internal evidences basically proves that Revelation was written pre- AD 70.  Then it is evident that St. John wrote his Gospel - then his epistles.  His usage of the Greek language can be seen as evolving through this sequence of books - for in Revelation the Greek grammar employed was quite defective - in his Gospel improved, written probably a couple of decades after he wrote the Apocalyspe - and by the time he wrote his Epistles he had become quite adept with Greek grammar and usage.  Scholars proficient  in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable concerning the sequence of authorship of the Biblical works of St. John.

[Aragon]

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it is evident that only ONE of the Gospels is dated after 70 AD, and that is St. John.  One major reason is because each of the Synoptic Gospels contain the "Olivet Discourse" that explains the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic event yet to happen.  St. John's Gospel does not contain this discourse.  As far as St. John and his scriptures go, myself and many modern scholars believe the proper order is that he wrote Revelation first, probably around 66 - 68 AD, due to the fact that Revelation obviously deals with the destruction of Biblical Judaism, often speaking of the Temple of Solomon still standing, which was destroyed in the late Summer  of 70 AD (the entire scope of the book is the destruction of the Old Jerusalem which is being replaced with the New Jerusalem, which denotes the Church).  This on top of countless other internal evidences basically proves that Revelation was written pre- AD 70.  Then it is evident that St. John wrote his Gospel - then his epistles.  His usage of the Greek language can be seen as evolving through this sequence of books - for in Revelation the Greek grammar employed was quite defective - in his Gospel improved, written probably a couple of decades after he wrote the Apocalyspe - and by the time he wrote his Epistles he had become quite adept with Greek grammar and usage.  Scholars proficient  in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable concerning the sequence of authorship of the Biblical works of St. John.

Hey,

I'm reading about the Olivet discourse which, you're right, would indicate that the texts were written before 70AD because if they were written after the authors would surely point out that Christ correctly foretold the temple's destruction.

What about this though:

 32"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near,(BJ) at the very gates. 34(BK) Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35(BL) Heaven and earth will pass away, but(BM) my words will not pass away.

Jesus is talking about the signs leading to the end of the world and seems to say that it will all happen in the lifetime of the apostles...

[Nic]

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it is evident that only ONE of the Gospels is dated after 70 AD, and that is St. John.  One major reason is because each of the Synoptic Gospels contain the "Olivet Discourse" that explains the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic event yet to happen.  St. John's Gospel does not contain this discourse.  As far as St. John and his scriptures go, myself and many modern scholars believe the proper order is that he wrote Revelation first, probably around 66 - 68 AD, due to the fact that Revelation obviously deals with the destruction of Biblical Judaism, often speaking of the Temple of Solomon still standing, which was destroyed in the late Summer  of 70 AD (the entire scope of the book is the destruction of the Old Jerusalem which is being replaced with the New Jerusalem, which denotes the Church).  This on top of countless other internal evidences basically proves that Revelation was written pre- AD 70.  Then it is evident that St. John wrote his Gospel - then his epistles.  His usage of the Greek language can be seen as evolving through this sequence of books - for in Revelation the Greek grammar employed was quite defective - in his Gospel improved, written probably a couple of decades after he wrote the Apocalyspe - and by the time he wrote his Epistles he had become quite adept with Greek grammar and usage.  Scholars proficient  in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable concerning the sequence of authorship of the Biblical works of St. John.

Hey,

I'm reading about the Olivet discourse which, you're right, would indicate that the texts were written before 70AD because if they were written after the authors would surely point out that Christ correctly foretold the temple's destruction.

What about this though:

 32"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near,(BJ) at the very gates. 34(BK) Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35(BL) Heaven and earth will pass away, but(BM) my words will not pass away.

Jesus is talking about the signs leading to the end of the world and seems to say that it will all happen in the lifetime of the apostles...

That's because Jesus is not speaking about the signs leading to the end of the world - but signs leading to the end of the Jewish age.  Each sign Jesus prescribed came to be BEFORE 70 AD.

[Aragon]

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it is evident that only ONE of the Gospels is dated after 70 AD, and that is St. John.  One major reason is because each of the Synoptic Gospels contain the "Olivet Discourse" that explains the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic event yet to happen.  St. John's Gospel does not contain this discourse.  As far as St. John and his scriptures go, myself and many modern scholars believe the proper order is that he wrote Revelation first, probably around 66 - 68 AD, due to the fact that Revelation obviously deals with the destruction of Biblical Judaism, often speaking of the Temple of Solomon still standing, which was destroyed in the late Summer  of 70 AD (the entire scope of the book is the destruction of the Old Jerusalem which is being replaced with the New Jerusalem, which denotes the Church).  This on top of countless other internal evidences basically proves that Revelation was written pre- AD 70.  Then it is evident that St. John wrote his Gospel - then his epistles.  His usage of the Greek language can be seen as evolving through this sequence of books - for in Revelation the Greek grammar employed was quite defective - in his Gospel improved, written probably a couple of decades after he wrote the Apocalyspe - and by the time he wrote his Epistles he had become quite adept with Greek grammar and usage.  Scholars proficient  in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable concerning the sequence of authorship of the Biblical works of St. John.

Hey,

I'm reading about the Olivet discourse which, you're right, would indicate that the texts were written before 70AD because if they were written after the authors would surely point out that Christ correctly foretold the temple's destruction.

What about this though:

 32"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near,(BJ) at the very gates. 34(BK) Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35(BL) Heaven and earth will pass away, but(BM) my words will not pass away.

Jesus is talking about the signs leading to the end of the world and seems to say that it will all happen in the lifetime of the apostles...

That's because Jesus is not speaking about the signs leading to the end of the world - but signs leading to the end of the Jewish age.  Each sign Jesus prescribed came to be BEFORE 70 AD.

Are you sure? From what I'm reading it sounds like Christ is talking about the second coming

for example:

But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom(Z) will be proclaimed throughout the whole world(AA) as a testimony(AB) to all nations, and(AC) then the end will come.

 29"Immediately after(AV) the tribulation of those days(AW) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and(AX) the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then(AY) will appear in heaven(AZ) the sign of the Son of Man, and then(BA) all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and(BB) they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven(BC) with power and great glory. 31And(BD) he will send out his angels with a loud(BE) trumpet call, and they will(BF) gather(BG) his elect from(BH) the four winds,(BI) from one end of heaven to the other.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. Both are mixed into those discourses and you have to know how to separate them. Dual prophecy happens a lot in scripture. The prophets spoke of both the Coming of Christ (his first coming) and the end of the world.

[jovan66102]

It is so obvious to the unbiased mind that the Gospels are early testimonies that even J.A.T. Robinson a very liberal Anglican 'Bishop' dated them as follows:

In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.[9] Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Robinson also opined that due to his investigations, a rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament was in order.

...

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially John, have not carried widespread conviction among modern-critical scholars, although most conservative and traditionalist scholars concur with his dating of the synoptics.

[Nic]

Concerning the dating of the Gospels, it is evident that only ONE of the Gospels is dated after 70 AD, and that is St. John.  One major reason is because each of the Synoptic Gospels contain the "Olivet Discourse" that explains the destruction of Jerusalem as a prophetic event yet to happen.  St. John's Gospel does not contain this discourse.  As far as St. John and his scriptures go, myself and many modern scholars believe the proper order is that he wrote Revelation first, probably around 66 - 68 AD, due to the fact that Revelation obviously deals with the destruction of Biblical Judaism, often speaking of the Temple of Solomon still standing, which was destroyed in the late Summer  of 70 AD (the entire scope of the book is the destruction of the Old Jerusalem which is being replaced with the New Jerusalem, which denotes the Church).  This on top of countless other internal evidences basically proves that Revelation was written pre- AD 70.  Then it is evident that St. John wrote his Gospel - then his epistles.  His usage of the Greek language can be seen as evolving through this sequence of books - for in Revelation the Greek grammar employed was quite defective - in his Gospel improved, written probably a couple of decades after he wrote the Apocalyspe - and by the time he wrote his Epistles he had become quite adept with Greek grammar and usage.  Scholars proficient  in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable concerning the sequence of authorship of the Biblical works of St. John.

Hey,

I'm reading about the Olivet discourse which, you're right, would indicate that the texts were written before 70AD because if they were written after the authors would surely point out that Christ correctly foretold the temple's destruction.

What about this though:

 32"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near,(BJ) at the very gates. 34(BK) Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35(BL) Heaven and earth will pass away, but(BM) my words will not pass away.

Jesus is talking about the signs leading to the end of the world and seems to say that it will all happen in the lifetime of the apostles...

That's because Jesus is not speaking about the signs leading to the end of the world - but signs leading to the end of the Jewish age.  Each sign Jesus prescribed came to be BEFORE 70 AD.

Are you sure? From what I'm reading it sounds like Christ is talking about the second coming

for example:

But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom(Z) will be proclaimed throughout the whole world(AA) as a testimony(AB) to all nations, and(AC) then the end will come.

 29"Immediately after(AV) the tribulation of those days(AW) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and(AX) the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then(AY) will appear in heaven(AZ) the sign of the Son of Man, and then(BA) all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and(BB) they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven(BC) with power and great glory. 31And(BD) he will send out his angels with a loud(BE) trumpet call, and they will(BF) gather(BG) his elect from(BH) the four winds,(BI) from one end of heaven to the other.

Actually, all of that is referring to the last days of Biblical Judaism - it is only that Christ is employing esoteric Jewish symbolism, which was done by nearly every Jewish prophet and is highly misinterpreted.  The "darkening of the sun and moon" and "stars falling from heaven to the earth" are all symbols of a religious or political dynasty coming to a close.  "Coming upon the clouds of heaven" is a symbol of God coming in judgment, which was employed numerous times in the Old Testament - this is most evident referring to the "tribes of the earth" mourning, which is better translated as "tribes of the land," which denotes the Holy Land.  The "four winds" are spoken of in Daniel as four gentile powers that would come to threaten the Holy Land, with the fourth "wind" or "beast" as the most terrible - the one that would end Biblical Judaism and the Old Jerusalem and usher in the New Jerusalem -- ROME.  Even Revelation speaks of this fourth beast and that it what is prescribed as happening in Revelation as having to do with the actions of this fourth beast.  It is a historical fact that not one Christian passed away during the gruesome 5 month long Roman siege of Jerusalem, which ended the lives of some 1.1 million Jews.  This is what is meant as being safe from the "four winds," because the "four winds" are the powers of evil that are being used to judge Israel.  Numerous times in the O.T. God used enemy armies to judge Israel for disobedience and unrighteousness.

Thus the "four winds" were held back to allow the Jewish Christians within Jerusalem to flee before the final "wind" or "beast" came upon them.  We see this portrayed in Apocalyptic symbolism in the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 7:1-4  And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

The "144,000" spoken of in Revelation are the firstfruits of Christ - the remnant of Jews that God placed within the Church.

Indeed, Christ did come in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70, and most of the "eschatalogical" references in Scripture refer to this event and not to the physical Second Coming that will end all of history.  The "judgment coming" of Christ may be a foreshadowing of this future event, and it may not.  But one thing is for certain, Jesus taught that He was coming back within a generation, and the Scriptures prove this beyond all doubt.  He was going to come back to judge those who had "pierced him."

Matthew 23:29-38 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

When Jesus was being tried in front of the Jewish Sanhedrin, He told Caiaphas and the priests that THEY would see him return: 

Matthew 26:64 "...But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

THEY would see him "coming upon the clouds of heaven."  This doesn't mean what our modern minds reckon it to mean - this falls in line, again, with Jewish symbolism, because "coming on the clouds" denotes a divine coming in judgment.  This is why Caiaphas became angry and rent his garments, thinking "who is this man to say that he shall come to judge us!"

And what does the very first verse of Revelation state:

THE revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place

Shortly following this in verse 7 we read:  Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.

All of the "tribes of Israel" who condemned Him to death would come to see his judgment upon them.  Therefore, the book of Revelation is about the end of the Jewish Age - not about the end of all of the ages (again, the first may foreshadow the latter, but that is merely conjecture).

The reason I have gone into so much depth concerning Revelation is because the Olivet Discourse is a shared prophesy with Revelation - both are speaking of the exact same event - the destruction of Biblical Judaism and the judgment coming of Jesus Christ upon unbelieving Israel.

[Nic]

It is so obvious to the unbiased mind that the Gospels are early testimonies that even J.A.T. Robinson a very liberal Anglican 'Bishop' dated them as follows:

In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.[9] Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Robinson also opined that due to his investigations, a rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament was in order.

...

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially John, have not carried widespread conviction among modern-critical scholars, although most conservative and traditionalist scholars concur with his dating of the synoptics.

I believe that those dates concerning the Synoptics are probably quite accurate - but definitely not the date prescribed to John.  It is quite evident that John wrote his Gospel AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and AFTER he wrote his Apocalypse.  His usage of the Greek language basically proves this, for his Greek in the Apocalypse is quite defective, which improves as you pass from his Gospel into his Epistles.  Therefore, it would be the most logical conclusion to state that, according to all of the internal evidences given in the Apocalypse alluding to the timeframe of authorship, that St. John wrote his Apocalypse between 64 - 69 AD, his Gospel probably in the late 70's, early 80's AD and his Epistles just some time after that.