When Were the Jesus Narratives Written?
The four narratives of Jesus in the New Testament were not called “gospels” by their authors. It is not known for certain who wrote Matthew or Mark, but it is certain that John the “sent one” is the author of John; “the one who Jesus loved” according to the book itself, was the author of John but someone else, possibly a converted scribe, wrote the words down. It is also certain that Luke the physician is the author of Luke and its follow-up book Acts.
Most scholars believe that the four narratives of Jesus were written after 70 A.D. This convoluted view is based solely on human bias, assuming that Jesus could not have predicted the future event of the temple’s destruction by Rome. Any honest self-respecting real scholar would conclude that both Luke and John and probably Matthew and Mark were written before 64 A.D., for reasons discussed further below.
Many scholars claim there was an original source they call “Q” and that Mark was written first because it is shorter than the others. This view is not only purely an invention, it is plainly wrong. Luke in the prologue mentions many sources, not just one. And many modern biographies of famous people have shorter versions written after longer versions about the same subject. Thus, whether Mark was written first or not remains entirely unknown.
The history of science and the history of history clearly teaches us that the majority of scholars are often very wrong. One hundred years ago, most scholars believed that the biblical stories of Joseph, King David, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba were myths. Today there is evidence they were all real people who lived when the Bible says they lived.
Some historians continue to claim that Moses didn’t exist, even though Moses is central to the entire Old and New Testaments. Consider that many of these same ‘scholars’ say there is no God, leaving us with no legitimate explanation for how any of us exist.
The purpose of the four narratives of Jesus is to convince people that Jesus is the Messiah; that he lived and died for our sins and rose from the dead, so that we might have eternal life. Acts mentions the martyrdom of Stephen and James and the stoning, beating and great trials of Paul and it says that Herod Agrippa stretched out his hand to persecute the early followers of Jesus.
But why does Acts fail to mention the deaths of Peter, Paul, the destruction of the temple by Rome in 70 AD and the much greater persecution of Nero? The only logical conclusion is that Acts was finished around 64 AD and none of this had yet occurred. Why would Acts leave out the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which would have proved to readers of Luke that Jesus predicted the temple’s future destruction?
Again, the rational conclusion is that Acts was finished prior to the temple’s destruction. And if Acts was written around 64 AD, then Luke was written prior to then and the prediction of Jesus in Luke of the temple’s destruction is proof Jesus predicted the future. And if Acts was written before 70 AD, it is historically rational to conclude that both Matthew and Mark were also written prior to this date.
Finally we come to the narrative of Jesus by John, which was not necessarily written last as scholars assume. John casually mentions the healing pool of Bethesda, as though everyone knows it is still in use, even though it is well documented that this pool was destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome and not used again for centuries and possibly never. If John was written after 70 AD as the majority of scholars claim, why doesn’t John say “the former” pool of Bethesda. After 70 AD, his readers would have known it was destroyed along with the temple.
And finally, if the four narratives of Jesus were written after 70 AD, why would the authors mention the prediction by Jesus of the temple’s destruction at all. Wouldn’t they have been held up to ridicule by all who knew of the destruction after 70 AD? They could have easily left it out, as they say within the narratives that Jesus did many things besides what they did recorded.
It is wise to read the Bible for ourselves and do our own research. While it is every unwise to trust the opinions of either secular or religious scholars, who are often very, very wrong and which often change with the historical winds, as more evidence is discovered.
Contact author: www.FreedomTracks.com
