Who is credited for writing the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?

Question

I think no one actually knows. Do we have a time frame on when the first gospel (Mark) was written. There is so much conflicting data on the internet.

Yes, I am an atheist taking a Bible ministries class in college.

George, dont proselytize! Jesus philosophies were mediocre at best.

Answer 1

Good for you man. I'm well versed in scripture, and I'm all the more nontheist for it. Everyone probably knows that the first written records of Jesus’ life appear several decades after he would have died. Not everyone seems to understand what the implications of this are. Given such a long time span during which nothing more than oral transmission would have existed, just how reliable can we count on the gospels being? In any other context, people wouldn’t trust them much.

No one knows for certain when Jesus died, but everyone agrees that it was sometime around 30 CE. In addition... most historians think that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, sometime between the mid-60s to early 70s. Matthew and Luke were probably produced some ten or fifteen years later, perhaps around 80 or 85.

John was written perhaps ten years after that, 90 or 95. These are necessarily rough estimates, but almost all scholars agree within a few years. These are early to mid dates for these events. A few evangelical and fundamentalist theologians may try to place them a little earlier, but there are many who try to place them even later — I’ve seen dates for John going as far as 100 or 120 CE. My point is that we should regard these dates, and therefore the time span between when Jesus would have lived and when the gospel were written, as relatively optimistic:

Perhaps the most striking thing about these dates for the historian is the long interval between Jesus’ death and the earliest accounts of his life. Our first written narratives of Jesus appear to date from thirty-five to sixty-five years after the fact. Thirty-five to sixty-five years. This perhaps does not seem like a long time; after all, these books and Jesus all come from the first century.

But think about it in modern terms. For the shortest interval, this would be like having the first written record of John F. Kennedy’s presidency appear today, thirty-five years after the fact (the gap between Jesus and Mark). Imagine having no other written records — for example, no newspaper or magazine articles to go on, but simply oral traditions! For the longest interval, between Jesus and John, it would be like having stories of a famous preacher from the height of the Great Depression, say 1935, show in print for the first time this week. I don’t think that many people would put much stock in written accounts of an event 30 or 60 years ago when those accounts have until now have only been passed along through oral stories. People would insist on having some independent, corroborating evidence — and they would be right to be skeptical. Many of these same people don’t think twice about accepting stories about Jesus that were transmitted and then appeared in basically the same sorts of circumstances.

People are thus willing to apply far lower standards of evidence and belief to religious stories than they are to other stories — yet these same people will also often insist that these religious stories and beliefs are incredibly important to them. Maybe I’m just strange, but speaking for myself I would be inclined to use higher and stricter standards when it comes to more important beliefs. I would, for example, insist on better evidence before believing that a relative committed murder than before believing that they ran a red light.

Our actions say a lot about what we really believe. When we don’t demand a lot of support for a claim before believing it, then we are saying either that we don’t really care very much about whether the claim is true or not or we are saying that we don’t care very much about basing our beliefs on solid evidence.

Answer 2

Well the general thought is that Matthew either dictated or wrote his Gospel, but it was like 60 years after the death of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Same thing for MARK, and JOHN.
LUKE was a physician and a historian, he was not an apostle, but what he wrote was gathered from interviews with people who were at least there with JESUS.
Most of the gospels were written 60 to 80 yrs after the events happened.
The only way to really tell if they are all true and what is said in the new testament really happened is to give yourself to JESUS AND ASK HIM TO COME INTO YOUR HEART AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
Be careful ......... this is a non revocable commitment that will change your life forever. I did it just to see what would happen and I have never been the same since. Once you are filled with the power of the HOLY SPIRIT and give yourself to his leading, nothing will ever be the same again.
I am glad I did it now, but at first it was like a whirl wind with things changing so fast for me. I didn't really think anything would happen, but I WAS WRONG ......... EVERYTHING HAPPENED AND I HAVE BEEN CHANGED EVER SINCE.
I KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE PURPOSE FOR MY LIFE NOW, SO I AM VERY GLAD I DID IT.
Hope this helps you
GT

Answer 3

The traditional explanation is that the gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. They may have been dictated and written by scribes.

Luke was probably the best-educated of these, being a physician. He is also credited with being the author of Acts.

John was a fisherman by trade, but was probably the apostle who lived longest and was the most prolific of the original 12 apostles, having written a gospel, two epistles and the Book of the Revelation. He could very well have learned Greek well enough to write these various New Testament books in Greek, but more likely dictated them to scribes who may have translated as they wrote.

Paul is credited with a greater number of epistles, but many are short letters and most were probably dictated. Paul was most likely a well-educated man but it was a common practice in that day to dictate letters or other accounts to scribes or skilled writers.

And you are probably correct when you say no one actually knows. My own personal belief is that Mark probably wrote his gospel 20 years or more after the death of Christ, around 50 A.D.

Up until that time Christians would have relied on word of mouth and there would have been a reluctance to put scriptures on paper for fear they would be found by Romans who were persecuting Christians, thus incriminating them. By AD 50 there would be concerns that the stories would be lost if not committed to paper as those who had witnessed the actual ministry of Christ would not live forever.

Paul may have begun writing his epistles before the first gospels were written.

Answer 4

They are "credited" to their authors, three men about whom nothing else is know but what is guessed from their gospels. Current scholarship believes that Mark's sparse, rough gospel was likely the first. Its theology is a little more sophisticated than Paul's, as is its fleshing out of the story of Jesus, so it had to have been composed after Paul, who is reputed to have been executed under Nero around the year 64. There are stronger references to the destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.) in Matthew and Luke than in Mark, so some place it in the late 60s., but that's about all the evidence dating has to go on. It could be a little later as well.

Matthew is assumed to be an apostle, and the omission of his name from his apostle list a sign of humility. Because his gospel is so concerned with matters of church governance, he has been considered Peter's assistant and his has been called the "gospel of Peter". But more likely the fact indicates a more developed church with a developing need for ecclesial rules. mid 70s or later.

Luke's gospel can't reliable be dated before or after Matthew's. His omission of "Hebrew" (Aramaic) words and idioms and his transformation of Jesus from Jewish "Messiach" to world "savior" indicate his audience was exclusively Gentile. His Greek is the most polished of the lot.

John's gospel has an very sophisticated Christology, demonstrating a maturing doctrine and a considerably later date of composition. Pious tradition identifies the gospel with John Zebedee and assume he was very old at its writing and very young during his discipleship. But the writing itself shows evidence of debate and consolidation, the fruit of a community's work rather than a single voice. 90 to 120 C.E. is commonly considered the composition date, although some put it later. By mid-2nd Century, though, other theologians were beginning to comment on the Gospels, so it couldn't be too much later.

Answer 5

It's funny listening to people argue about which scriptures are more correct than others while out of the other side of their mouths they call it infallible.

No one knows who wrote the current Gospels. The dates can only go back as far as the oldest found text which justifies the Gnostic Gospels being excluded from the Canon, even though most Christians were Gnostic for a long time.

I'll bet someone will soon say Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote them because it's in the Bible.
Wanta Bet?



Blessed Be!

Answer 6

Uncle, Warren and Conundrum gave you the best answers so far. As far as I can tell, their answers are probably based on reading the books themselves plus historical tradition -- and that is probably based on sources other than the Bible -- and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is important to remember here that the four men you have named here were "writers" and well-educated. Mark himself was a scribe.
When any religion decides to write down its story or belief system, highly educated men (and women) are often chosen to do so. These authors are not necessarily the "preacher" types who are right out there interacting with the people. Far more often, they are in the background, almost appearing as the "helpers" of the movement. For the most part, the great writers and editors of most religios works were not the "big wheels." Think of someone in the background, a helper. And think of the writers of the New Testament as letter writers, specifically.

Answer 7

Written documents were not as common back then as now. If someone wrote something there wasn't a whole lot of disputing it. The original autographs probably circulated without official (in the manuscript) attribution. The churches that received them would have known who wrote them though because of oral testimony that so and so wrote an account and its running the circuit. As false accounts also began to circulate, the churches would have reason to annotate who wrote what so that successive generations would know. The churches had criteria for recognizing what was scripture and what was not. One of five was apostolic affiliation...so why did they receive Mark's and Luke's accounts (clearly Gentile names so they could not have been apostles) but recognized that the accounts attributed to Thomas and Peter, of all people, were falsely attributed? We should never assume that people who lived before were somehow inferior in intelligence. They could verify information with the same accuracy we can, they could spot a lie with the same precision we can, they could authenticate material as easily as we can.

Answer 8

The book of Matthew was written by Matthew, The book of Mark was written by Mark, the book of Luke was written by Luke, and the book of John was written by John. If you open a Bible, you will see the title of each book indicated as "The Gospel according to Matthew(or Mark, Luke, or John). And the first Gospel is not Mark, it is Matthew. The Gospels were probably written from the time that Jesus called his disciples until his death, but I am not sure on that.

Answer 9

Mark wrote his about 64 A.D. He was relating Peter's version of what happened .He puts himself in at the end,in the Garden as the lad who flees with just a sheet around him and the guards pullit off when he runs away.He wrote to the Roman man,a man of action.That's why there are more "ands" than anyother gospel.Jesus did this and he did that he went here and he went there.
Matthew was the only one written in Hebrew(the rest were in Greek,the common language of the day)Papias ,a student of John the Apostle tells us that.There's no doubt about it.
Luke was a gentile who converted to Judaism then to Christianity by Paul. He traveled with Paul and was a doctor.He interviewed people like a newspaper reporter.The first 4 chapters of Luke are the accounts as told by Mary to Luke.
John was absolutely there at the time as were all the others except Luke.But Luke was around all those guys.I John 1 says ,Jesus whom we knew,we saw ,we handled (there were gnostics that said Jesus was a phantom and not tangible).College is going to teach you the German Liberal view started in the 18th century but it is a joke.

Answer 10

Mark, to the best of my knowledge, was written 40 years after the Christ's death, in *Rome* (what?). It was also written in ancient Greek. All the other gospels were subsequently derived from Mark.

LMAO @ dreamer!