SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS ON THE DATING OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS

It is important to remember what is presented below. These are NOT quotations of scholars with their OWN
opinions as to the dating of the gospels these are mainly quotations by scholars REPORTING on the scholarly
consensus for the dating of the gospels. In those cases where scholars are stating their own opinion which
deviates from the consensus, I will highlight the quotes in blue.
The quotes are taken from eight undergraduate textbooks and twenty two monographs, articles, reference
materials or books written by different scholars. I have also included two more popular books my non-scholars
reporting the scholarly consensus from the outside.
I have also include the dates of publications of the works. So you can tell how recent these works are. I have
also another file attached which shows the results at a glance. I want to point you to the broad spectrum from
which these quotes came from.
1. Broad Spectrum of Accredited Institutions
First we have scholars from prestigious institutions, Harvard (H. Koester), Princeton (B. Metzger, E. Pagels),
Oxford (G.Vermes), Cambridge (D. Cupitt, MD Hooker), Duke University (EP Sanders), and University of
Gottingen in Germany (G. Ludemann). We have scholars from major theological seminaries, including one
evangelical one Union Theological Seminary (RE. Brown), Trinity Lutheran ( MA Powell) and Fuller (AG
Patzia, R. Martin).
The scholars cited all have relevant credentials, with academics positions either in New Testament studies,
Biblical Studies, Biblical Literature or Religious History. [NB: A couple of the scholars have retired from their
academic posts I have given their latest academic post before their retirement].
2. From both Europe and North America
We have scholars from both sides of the Atlantic, e.g. Canada (e.g. H. Akenson, B. Ehrman), US (R. Funk, RE
Brown, C. Hedrick, R.M. Price, M. Borg, JD Crossan, B. Metzger, R. Martin etc), Germany (U. Schnelle, G.
Ludemann, U.Ranke-Heinemann, H. Koester, W. Kummel) and the UK (G. Vermes, M. Goodacre, M. Goulder,
MD Hooker, SS Smalley, D. Cuppitt)
3. Spans the Conservative-Liberal Spectrum of Theological Research
We have scholars who are generally regarded as pretty conservative (R. Martin, AG Patzia, RE Brown, EP
Sanders, MA Powell and, to some extent, Bruce Metzger) and those who would be classified as liberals (R.
Funk, JD Crossan, BL. Mack).
4. Spans Across Religious Affiliations
This information on religious affilication is not found in the quotes given below but are given in the attached
table. Most of it can be verified by merely checking with Google.
We have among the scholars cited 21 mainline protestants (i.e. Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Lutherans, Baptists etc some of whom are so conservative that they would be classified as evangelicalleaning: e.g. MA Powell), 4 Roman Catholics, 4 (probably 5) Atheists, 4 fundamentalist/evangelicals and 2
Jews.
This spanning across religions is important because it shows that the consensus did not come out of a
monolithic group with some theological axe to grind.

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

To Summarize:
The scholarly consensus as evidenced from the quotes below is as follows:

Mark: written between 65-75 CE

Matthew: written between 80-90 CE
Luke-Acts: written between 80-100 CE
John: written between 85 -100 CE

If there is any discernable recent trends among these dating, it is these:

a) There is a tendency to date Mark post 70CE, although normally qualified with just after or around 70 CE,
i.e. after the fall of the Temple
b) There is a tendency to push Luke-Acts towards later and later dates, i.e. towards 100 CE (and in a couple of
cases even beyond that)
Matthew and John has tended to be stable around 85 CE for the former and 90-100CE for the latter.
Thus the only trend that can be detectable is a movement further away from earlier dates, not towards it.

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

A. UNDERGRADUATE TEXTBOOKS
A1.
Introduction to the New Testament: Volume II History and Literature of Early Christianity (2 nd
Edition), Walter de Gruyter 2000
by Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament, Harvard University
on Mark: p. 171 Mark must have been written no later than in the years immediately following the Jewish war,
that is between 70 and 80CE
On Matthew: p177 Evidence for a controversy with early Rabbinnic Judaism as it began to be constituted after
the catastrophe of the Jewish War requires a location not too far away from Palestine as well as a date before
the end of the first century
On Luke-Acts: p314: The Lukan work must therefore have been composed no later than the beginning of the
2d, but certainly not earlier than the very end of the first century
on John: p190 The author of the gospel of John tries to reconcilethetraditions present in Marks and
Matthews gospels. This attempt must have been accomplished before the end of the 1 st century
[In another work he mentioned the dating of Matthew and Luke again:
Ancient Christian Gospels: The History and Development, Trinity Press, 1990
by Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament, Harvard University, Protestant
On Mark, Luke and Matthew: p.275 There are, however, two earlier witnesses to the text of Mark: according to
the two-source hypothesis both Matthew and Luke, written just before or after the year 100 CE, have used
Marks gospel ]
A2.
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (2 nd edition,
Oxford University Press, 2000
by Bart Ehrman. Prof. Of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
On Mark: p74 Many scholars believe that the Gospel was written during the early stages of the Jewish War
against Rome (66-70 CE)
On Matthew: p84 Most scholars are content to date the book sometime during the later part of the first century,
possibly, as a rough guess, around 80 or 85 CE.
On Luke-Acts: [Prof. Ehrman did not specifically mention dating for Luke-Acts in ch.8 and 9 but he did mention,
in p.77 that scholars have generally found to be persuasive of Markan priority this shows that he take LukeActs to be written after Mark, i.e. after 70 CE]
On John p158 some Jewish synagogues evidently did begin to exclude members who believe in Jesus
messiahship towards the end of the first century. So the story of Jesus healing the blind man [John 9:22] reflects
the experience of the later community that stood behind the Fourth Gospel [Hence towards the end of first
century, c 90 CE-Tobin]
[NB: In his more popular book on the Gospels Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium Oxford
University Press, 1999, Prof Ehrman wrote this (p45): So the gospel writers were relatively highly educated,
Greek-speaking Christians writing between 65 and 95 CE. ]
A3.
The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, Fortress Press 1998
by Udo Schnelle, Prof. Of New Testament in the University of Wittenberg, Germany
On Mark: p201 The Gospel of Mark was written shortly before or after 70 CE

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

On Matthew: p222 The Gospel of Matthew was therefore probably written around 90CE
On Luke: p243 From this data we may date the Gospel of Luke in the period around 90CE
On Acts: p260 If Luke is placed around 90CE, then Acts is probably a little later, between 90 and 100 CE
On John: p477 both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the Gospel of John suggest it originated
between 100-110 CE
A4.
An Introduction to the New Testament , Doubleday 1996
by Raymond E. Brown, Prof. Of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York
On Mark: P.164 There is a wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70.
On Matthew: P.217 All this makes AD80-90 the most plausible dating
On Luke-Acts: P273 A date earlier than 80 for Luke is unlikelyHow long after 80 was Luke-Acts written? A
date no later than 100 is indicated on P274 within the range of 80-100, in order to preserve the possibility that
there is truth in the tradition that the author was a companion of Paul, the best date would seem to be 85, give
or take five or ten years.
On John: p374 [Brown suggested that the Gospel was complete in different phases] A phase preceeding the
written gospel but shaping its thought (up to the 70s and 80s) p376 The phase during which the redactor
added chap. 21 (AD100-110?) [NB: The question mark is in the textbook-Tobin] [Note: This means that John
was written between 80-110]
A5.
An Introduction to the New Testament Story, (2nd edition), Wadsworth 1995
by David Barr, Professor of Religion at Wright State University
on Mark: p239-240 [I]n the year 70 CE, the Romans did destroy the Temple, and scholars suspect that Mark
found Jesus words significant because that either the event had just happened or was on the verge of
happening. Thus most would date the writing of this gospel sometime in the decade between 65 and 75.
On Matthew: p285 Therefore it is reasonable to date the writing of Matthews gospel to around the year 85 CE
On Luke: p329 Luke was probably written sometime in the late eighties or early nineties [NB: Barr discussed
Luke and Acts together so these dating applies to Acts as well]
On John: p371-372 Thus the most likely date for the final edition of the Gospel of John would be the late
nineties
A6.
Studying the Synoptic Gospels, SCM Press 1992
by E.P. Sanders , Prof. of Religion, Duke University
& Margaret Davies, Lecturer in New Testament, University of Bristol
On the synoptic Gospels: p5-6 Scholars disagree a bit about when each gospel was written, but most would
propose no earlier than CE 65 for the earliest usually thought to be the Gospel of Mark and no later than CE
100 for the latest probably Luke. The other synoptic, Matthew, is from approximately 80-85.
A7.
Introduction to the New Testament (17th edition), Abingdon Press, 1975
by Werner Kmmel, Prof. Of New Testament in the University of Marburg
on Mark: p98 Since no overwhelming argument for the years before or after 70 CE can be adduced, we must
content ourselves with saying that Mark was written ca. 70
On Matthew: p120 [A] date of writing shortly after Mk seems unlikely than a time between 80 and 100.
On Luke: p151 Probably the date of Lks writing is between 70 and 90.

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

On Acts: p186 The most likely assumption, therefore, is a date for Acts between 80 and 90, but a date between
90 and 100 is not excluded.
On John: p246 Jns knowledge of Luke is extremely probable, so it could not have been written before ca. 8090. The assumption that John was written in the last decade of the first century is today almost universally
accepted.

B. OTHER WORKS BY SCHOLARS COMPETENT IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT AND
EARLY CHRISTIANITY (MONOGRAPHS, ARTICLES AND POPULARIZATIONS)
B1. From Jesus to Christianity, HarperCollins, 2004
by Michael White, Director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the
University of Texas at Austin
On Mark: p233 The Gospel of Mark, Date: ca. 70-75 CE
On Matthew p.244 The Gospel of Matthew, Date: ca.80-90 CE
On Luke-Acts: p.252 The Book of Luke-Acts, Date: ca,90-100/110
On John: p310 The Gospel of John, Date: 95-120
B2.
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition, Prometheus 2003
by Robert M. Price, Prof. of New Testament, Drew University, and Prof. of Biblical Criticism, Center for
Inquiry Institute
(Dr. Price has two PhDs one in Systematic Theology and one in New Testament Studies)
On Mark: p32 Thus, unless we have good reasons for treating the Markan apocalypse differently from all othe
members of the genre we must make 70 CE (or shortly thereafter) the earliest possible date of writing.
On Matthew: p33 Most date Matthew about 80 CE
On Luke-Acts: p33 Indeed a second century date for Luke-Acts is increasingly common among scholars today
On John: p34 As to date, even conservatives have allowed a date of about 100 CE
[Note that the above dates are what Prof Price REPORTS to be the scholarly consensus. His own dating is
even later than these.]
B3
The Case Against Q, Trinity Press, 2003
by Mark Goodacre, Lecturer in New Testament, University of Birmingham
on Mark, Matthew and Luke: p23 For while it is difficult to pinpoint the dates for any Gospels precisely, what
evidence we do have points generally in the direction of a date no later than 70 for Mark and clearly post-70 for
both Matthew and Luke
B4.
Jesus After 2000 Years, Prometheus Books 2001
by Gerd Ludemann, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Gottingen
On Mark, Matthew and Luke: p3 This means that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest extant Gospel and dates
from around 70 CE. Around twenty years later and independently of each other, Matthew and Luke used both
the Gospel of Mark and a Sayings Source (=Q)
On John: p3 The Gospel of John comes from the beginning of the second century

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

B5.
Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way, Oxford University Press 2001
by Philip Jenkins, Prof. of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University
On all four gospels: p91 A scholarly consensus indicates that the four canonical gospels should be dated
roughly as follows:Mark was the first gospel, written sometime in the early 70s, not too long after the
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple; Matthew and Luke followed between about 85 and 95. Establishing a date
for John is more difficultthe final recension might have been completed around 100, perhaps a little earlier.
B6.
The Changing Face of Jesus, Penguin Books, 2000
by Geza Vermes, Professor of Jewish Studies, Oxford University
On Mark, Luke and Matthew: p150 I will start from the assumption that the general scholarly dating of the
Synoptic Gospels is acceptable. Mark will be taken as originating shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD
70; Matthew and Luke follows somewhat later, say between AD 80 and 100.
On John: p9 I subscribe therefore to the opinion held by mainstream New Testament scholarship that the work
was published in the early second century, probably between the years 100 and 110.
B7.
Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, McGill-Queens University Press, 2000
by Donald Akenson, Prof. of History, Queens University
On Mark: p77 [F]or Mark: that Gospel, too, shows knowledge of the wasting of Jerusalem, and it too is
structured so as to invent a Temple religion for a world without the Jerusalem Temple [i.e. Mark is written
AFTER the fall of Jerusalem 70 CE : Tobin]
On Matthew, Luke and John: p76 If one cannot accept what is one of the most historically documentable points
about the invention of the New Testament that the gospels of Matthew, of Luke and of John in their present
forms were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE then one might as well stop reading at this point.
[NB: Akenson also wrote an earlier book Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and Talmuds,
University of Chicago Press 1998 who has a very critical view of the some of historical methods used in Biblical
research- where he wrote the following:
on the Synoptics: p 558 [T]he synoptics are usually dated 70-85 CE
on John: p557 After examining roughly three dozen studies of John by Biblical historians, I find rough
consensusthat the composition was affected between approximately 85 and 110 CE (Akensons own
preference is for the dates spanning 70-130 but here, I remind you, we are looking at reports of scholarly
consensus.)
I might add that to Akenson, the important issue is that ALL the Gospels are post 70 CE, their exact dating after
that is not relevant. You should read both his books if you have the time make for a refreshing view on things.]
B8.
When History and Faith Collide: Studying Jesus, Hendrickson Publishers 1999
by Charles Hedrick, Prof. of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University
On all four gospels: p23 Modern critical scholarship generally dates all four canonical gospels between 70 and
90 CE, forty to sixty years after Jesus death. Mark is generally regarded as the earliest, and John the latest.
There is disagreement, of course, as to their sequence, but the earliest date given for any of them is generally
65-70 CE.
B9.
The Historical Study of Jesus and Christian Origins, Article Published in the book, Jesus at
2000, Westview Press 1998
by Marcus Borg, Prof. Of Religion at Oregon State University
on Mark: p133 Mark is next. Written around the year 70, it is the earliest surviving gospel

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

on Matthew and Luke: p. 134 Matthew and Luke followed within a decade or two (probably by the year 90)
On John: p134 John is probably (but not certainly) written a few years after Matthew and Luke and most likely
before the year 100.
B10. The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus & The Search for Meaning, Trinity Press 1998
by Stephen J. Patterson, Assoc. Prof. of New Testament, Eden Theological Seminary St. Louis
on Mark: p21 Mark was written a short time later, near the end of the Jewish War for independence from Rome,
in about 70 CE.
On Matthew: p22 Matthew seems to be in dialogue with Jews involved in the reorientation of Judaism that was
taking place in the 80s CE. The year 85 CE is commonly assigned to it.
On Luke: p22 Lukes generally positive attitude toward Roman officials may be an indication that it was written
after the reign of the Roman Emperor Domition (81-96 CE), under whom Christian suffered persecution. This
would suggest a date in the last few years of the first century or even a bit later.
B11.
The Jesus Debate: Modern Historians Investigate the Life of Christ, Lion Book 1998
by Mark Allan Powell, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio
On Mark: p44: Mark is usually thought to be written sometime around AD 70
On Matthew and Luke: p45-46 Most scholars think that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were completed
around AD 85.
On John: p48 The fourth gospel is almost universally regarded as the latest of the New Testament witness to
Jesus. [i.e. after 85 CE-Tobin]
B12. Who Wrote the Gospels?, Millennium Press 1997
by Randal Helms, Prof. at Arizona State University in Tempe (Lectures in Biblical Literature),
On Mark: p.8 Mark was written during that interval, sometime in 71-73
On Matthew: p56 But from his perspective, perhaps around 90 CE, Matthew has grapsed that the time of
destruction must extend for some period after the destruction of Jerusalem
On Luke: p99 Lukestime (around 100 CE)
On John: p164 [S]omeone in Ephesus around 100 CE produced what we know call the fourth gospel.
B13. The Bible Through the Ages Readers Digest 1996
by Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton University,
& et. al (17 other scholars)
On Mark: p166 The Gospel of Mark was most likely written about AD 70, the year the Romans destroyed the
Temple.
On Matthew: p168 Many scholars believe that the Gospel according to Matthew was written in or near Antioch,
Syria, about AD 85.
On Luke-Acts: p170 Scholars are divided on the date of writing of Luke-Acts, hypothesizing from anywhere
after AD 70 to about AD 90
On John: p175 The Gospel is generally dated about AD 90 to 95.

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

B14. Judaism and the New Testament, Routledge 1995

by
Jacob Neusner, Professor of Religious Studies, University of South Florida, Jew
& Bruce Chilton, Professor of Religion at Bard College New York
On Mark: p117 Mark, the first of the Gospels to be written (c. 71 CE)
On Matthew: p118 Matthew produced c. 80 CE
On Luke: p118 The last of the synoptics to be written (c. 90 CE)
On John: p119 Johns Gospels, written in Ephesus around 100 CE
B15. Who Wrote the New Testament, Harper Collins, 1995
by Burton L. Mack, Prof. of New Testament, Claremont University
On Mark: p.152 Marks fiction could not have been conceived before the [Jewish] war. It would not have made
any sense before the war had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known [NB: This means Mark
wrote around or after 70CE]
On Matthew: p.161 Matthews gospel appeared in the late 80s
On Luke-Acts: p. 167 Somewhere in the Aegean, around the year 120 CE,a great two-volume work appeared
that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called The Acts of the Apostles.
On John: p176 Scholars date the Gospel of John in the 90s
B16. Putting Away Childish Things, Harper Books 1995
by Uta Ranke-Heinamann, Prof of History of Religion, University of Essen
On Mark: p219 Mark must have been composed around the year 70
On Matthew: p218 The time of composition is generally accepted as from AD 80 to 90
On Luke: p220 The only thing we can definitely say about the author of Luke is that he was a Gentile Christian
who wrote cultivated Greek. The time of composition would have been around AD 80-90
B17. The Origin of Satan, Vintage Books 1995
by Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion, Princeton University
On all four gospels: p8 [T]he gospel we call Markwas written either during the war itself, perhaps during a
temporary lull in the siege of Jerusalem, or immediately after the defeat, in 70 CE. Matthew and Luke wrote
some ten to twenty years laterMost scholars believe that John wrote his gospel, perhaps in Alexandria, about
a generation after the war, c. 90-95 CE
B18. Who Killed Jesus?, HarperCollins 1995
by John Dominic Crossan, Prof. of Biblical Studies at DePaul University
On Mark: p17 Marks gospel was composed soon after the first Roman War of 66 to 73-74 CE.
On Matthew: p16 The gospel attributed to Matthew was probably written around 85 to 90 CE
On Luke-Acts: p18 It probably dates to the same period as did Matthew, say 85-90 CE.
On John: p20 It is attributed to Johndated to around 90 CE
B20.

The Five Gospels Macmillan Books, 1993

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

by Robert W. Funk, Chairman, Vanderbilt University

& Roy W. Hoover, Prof. of Biblical Literature, Whitman College
On Mark, p.26 The Gospel of Mark was not composed until about 70 CE.
On Luke, Matthew and John: p 18 (Shown in figure 7): The figure shows Matthew and Luke c 90 CE and John
after 90CE
B21. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press 1993
edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan [NB: These two are scholars but since the individual
contributions in this reference is by a different scholar I will give their credentials next to the dates
below.]
on Mark: p493 The Gospel of Mark was probably written, therefore, either immediately before or immediately
after the destrucion of Jerusalem in 70 CE. [Contributor: Morna D. Hooker, Prof of Divinity, University of
Cambridge]
on Matthew: p502 It is commonly held that Matthew was written about 85 or 90 CE by an unknown Christian
who was at home in a church lacated in Antioch of Syria [Contributor: Jack Dean Kingsbury, Prof of Biblical
Theology, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond Virginia]
On Luke: p472 [I]t is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80-85 CE, even though one cannot
maintain this dating with certainty. [Contributor-Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Prof of Biblical Studies, Catholic University
of America]
On John: p376 [A] date in this period (ca. 85 CE) may be assigned to this gospel. [Contributor: Stephen S.
Smalley, Snr. Lecturer in New Testament Studies, University of Machester, England]
B22. Luke: A New Paradigm, Sheffield Academic Press 1989
By Michael Goulder, Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Birmingham
On Mark: p.3 (also p22)The first collection to be written down and to survive was made by Mark around 70
On Matthew: p3 (also p 22) Matthew wrote his Gospel about 80
On Luke: p3 (also p 22) Luke wrote his Gospel for a more Gentile church about 90
On John: p3 (also p 22) John wrote about 100
[Note: Goulder presented the dates in page 3 as part of the prevailing scholarly paradigm which he wanted to
demolish in his work. However his new paradigm given in page 23 very radical by scholarly standards left the
date of composition which is what we are interested in at the moment unchanged.]
B23. Who Was Jesus, BBC 1977
By Don Cupitt, Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University
On all four gospels: p31 The upshot of all this is that for many decades scholars have accepted this sort of
timetable: c65 Mark, 80-90 Matthew [&] Luke, 90-100 John
C. QUOTES FROM FUNDAMENTALISTS / EVANGELICALS
Many fundamentalist and evangelicals of course prefer an early dating for the gospels. But even they are
unable to claim that the consensus favors early dates for the gospels. Below are some quotes from
fundamentalists/evangelicals with PhDs in the relevant field on this issue:
C1. The Case for Christ, Zondervan 1998
By Lee Strobel, quoting Craig Blomberg Prof of NT, Denver Theological Seminary

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

pp. 40-41 The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70's, Matthew and Luke in
the 80's, John in the 90's.
Blomberg argues for a pre-70 dates for the gospels but his statement above is important for it shows that the
scholarly consensus is at what other scholars say it is at.
C2. The Jesus Papyrus, Phoenix 1997
By Carsten Thiede, Theides credentials are in comparative literature and although I have found
claims that he has a PhD, I have enver been able to verify this. In his two books I have The Jesus
Papyrus and Jesus: Life or Legend He describes himself as a historian and papyrologist.
pp. 49 It has been assumed that St. Matthew's Gospel must have been written in the eighties of the first
century, accepting an approximate date pf AD 70 for Mark.
Thiede, of course was critical of the scholarly consensus and indeed his whole life it seems to me is dedicated to
proving earlier dates for the gospel. But his witness here is important since he is stating that there IS a
consensus and it is not where he is at.
C3. The Making of the New Testament, Intervarsity Press 1995
By Arthur G. Patzia, Assoc. Professor of New Testament and Director of Fuller Theological Seminary
On the Gospels: p41 First, the Gospels as we have them today in our New Testament were not written until
thirty to fifty years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the founding of the church at the Pentecost.
New Testament scholars are fairly unanimous in dating Mark at around 65-70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85
and John around AD95.
C4.
New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students: Volume I, The Four Gospels ,
Eerdmans Publishing 1975
Ralph P. Martin, Prof. Of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary (a VERY conservative evangelical
university),
On Mark: p214 All in all, a date in the decade 60-70 seems certain
On Matthew: p235 A date in the period 84-90 seemed safest
On Luke-Acts: p261, 269 [NB: As far as I can tell, Martin did not provide his own position on this but quotes two
scholars S.G. Wilson and F. Denker both of whom give the dates c.75-85 see pp: 261 and 269]
On John: p.282 The date of publication would be around the turn of the century (AD100)
D. BOOKS BY GENERALISTS (MAINLY REPORTERS) REPORTING THE SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS
D1.
Gospel Truth, Riverhead Books 1997
by Russell Shorto (Journalist)
Reporting on the scholarly consensus
On Mark and John : p171 Mark was written probably around 70 CE, or nearly forty years after the crucifixion,
and John, even if independent was nevertheless written nearly seventy years after the crucifixion.
On Matthew: p28 Matthew possibly written in Antioch, around 90 CE,
On Luke: p32 Lukes Gospel, which is generally dated to somewhere between 80 CE and 100 CE.
D2.
Jesus: The Evidence Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1984
By Ian Wilson (author)

10

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005

On the four gospels: p43 Among many other considerations, one of the factors has influenced that dating
proposed by Werner Kummel is the inclusion in the gospels of the apparent prophecies by Jesus of the fall of
Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple (Matt 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-4, Luke 21:5-7) and the parable of the
wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-24)these are interpreted as prophecies after the event, a
substantial body of present day theologians have accepted this viewpoint. [NB in the diagram below on the
same page, the dates for the gospels are given as Mark 65-75, Luke 70-90, Matthew 80-100, John 80-100]

11

Prepared by Paul Tobin, 2005