Synoptic gospels dating
However, the initial intuition of the students has strong merit and should not be set aside so quickly. D., where the Christian faith was born, had a nearly 100% rate of literacy among its men.Furthermore, the Jewish faith was heavily rooted in the written word.Of the 661 verses in Mark, Matthew reproduces 606 of them and Luke reproduces 320 of them.Of the 55 verses in Mark but not Matthew, 31 are present in Luke.[William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, pp.This means the gospel of Mark was written at a point in time when Mark was in Rome, and when the church there was undergoing persecution.This would be after the ending of the book of Acts, during the persecution of Nero, around 64-68 A. I believe that the solution to this dilemma lies in our understanding of the development of the Gospel of Mark.
A resident of Jerusalem, he would not have been an eyewitness to much of the story, although he may be the youth of Mark -52 who ran away naked from the arrest scene.There are three fundamental observations about the synoptic gospels that all seem true, but on the surface, they are not consistent and at least one of them must be false. The reasons why are described in our article on Luke and Acts.These observations are: Of the three observations, Observation #1, dating Luke before 63 A. It would probably be accepted with little dissent, were it not for the belief that it seems logically impossible to believe all three of our fundamental observations, and the other two have very strong evidence indeed.Matthew softens the statement, making it "And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief" (Matt ), and Luke leaves it out completely.Third, the Greek language used in the book of Luke is very advanced, as would be expected from a well-educated native Greek speaker (Luke, the doctor), while the Greek of Mark is much simpler and shows many marks of Semitic influence, as would be expected from a native Aramaic/Hebrew speaker (Mark) who used Greek as a second language.