Dating of the canonical gospels
Despite these facts, it is perceived that to go against the crowd is to commit scholarly heresy! Mead, for one, writing after the Markan-priority thesis was proposed, was insistent that the other synoptists, Matthew and Luke, did not use the canonical Mark as one of their source texts: "It is very evident that Mt. do not use our Mk., though they use most of the material contained in our Mk." This conclusion was also reached by Helmut Koester and others in the modern era.
In actuality, critics of the Mark-priority thesis must come afterwards, obviously, which makes their theories more "modern." G. Indeed, scholars have hit upon an "Ur-Markus" or source of Mark from which all three synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke ) drew.
Over the centuries, because of increasingly scientific scholarship, the date of the canonical gospels has been continually pushed to later decades, as it has long been accepted that there is absolutely no evidence, internal or external, for such an early date.
The early dating is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who truly believe that Jesus Christ existed and that his words, deed and life were faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, i.e., his disciples.
That such texts contained verses paralleling those found in the canonical gospels is known from the writings of Justin Martyr, for example, who quotes from a number of them.
In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2 century,between 170 and 180 CE, and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades.
At the end of the 19 century, Hernle attempted to prove that Ur-Markus was the canonical Mark, and the debate was supposedly settled in the 1920s.
Besides these principal orders, others (Mark, Luke, Matthew; Luke, Matthew, Mark; Luke, Mark, Matthew) have been proposed, and more recent combinations (such as those advocated by Calmel, Zahn, Belser, and Bonaccorsi) have also been suggested. John Never in Asia Minor, George Reber evinces that the order the gospels were composed is the same as their placement in the canon: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as each one appears to correct the previous texts' mistakes, likely pointed out by critics along the way.
When scrutinized, the Pauline epistles do not reveal any historical Jesus; nor do they demonstrate any knowledge of the existence of the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 4, 594-595), who states: The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts alone.
As has been proved repeatedly, the gospels themselves cannot be viewed as "history" written by "eyewitnesses." Besides the fact that they date to much later than is supposed, the gospels frequently contradict each other, and, based on the numerous manuscripts composed over the centuries, have been determined (by German theologian Johann Griesbach, for one) to be a mass of some 150,000 "variant readings." In this regard, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a Christian book, contains an article written by M. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from the other one It has been estimated that these manuscripts and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscripts' tradition is wholly uniform.
Says Reber, "The blunders and mistakes of the first Gospel [Matthew] made it necessary that there should be a second." Reber further states, "Mark copies Matthew, and Luke uses the words of both." Concerning the gospel of Matthew, Reber also remarks that the book"the source of all"was "not written in Judea, or by one who knew anything of geography of the country, or the history of the Jews." "Whoever the writer may have been," he continues, "it is evident that he received his education at the college at Alexandria, where Medicine and Divinity were taught, and regarded as inseparable." Despite claims to the contrary, little in New Testament scholarship is set in stone, including not only the priority of the gospels but also the dating.
In reality, the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c.