On the other hand, a considerable number of years must have elapsed after the resurrection.
This is indicated by the fact that several imperfect attempts at a gospel history had previously been
made (Luke 1:1), and by such a phrase as: "until this day" (Matt. 27:8; 28:15).
But it is quite impossible to fix the precise year of composition. The silence of the Epistles
is no conclusive argument that the Synoptists wrote after the death of James, Peter, and Paul; for
there is the same silence in the Acts concerning the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistles concerning
the Acts. The apostles did not quote each other’s writings. the only exception is the reference of
Peter to the Epistles of Paul. In the multiplicity of their labors the Evangelists may have been
engaged for several years in preparing their works until they assumed their present shape. The
composition of a life of Christ now may well employ many years of the profoundest study.
The Hebrew Matthew was probably composed first; then Mark; the Greek Matthew and
Luke cannot be far apart. If the Acts, which suddenly break off with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome
(61–63), were written before the death of the apostle, the third Gospel, which is referred to as "the
first treatise" (Acts 1:1), must have been composed before a.d. 65 or 64, perhaps, in Caesarea,
where Luke had the best opportunity to gather his material during Paul’s imprisonment between
58 and 60; but it was probably not published till a few years afterwards. Whether the later Synoptists
knew and used the earlier will be discussed in the next section.
John, according to the universal testimony of antiquity, which is confirmed by internal
evidence, wrote his Gospel last, after the fall of Jerusalem and after the final separation of the
Christians from the Jews. He evidently presupposes the Synoptic Gospels (although he never refers
to them), and omits the eschatological and many other discourses and miracles, even the institution
of the sacraments, because they were already sufficiently known throughout the church. But in this
case too it is impossible to fix the year of composition. John carried his Gospel in his heart and
memory for many years and gradually reduced it to writing in his old age, between a.d. 80 and 100;
for he lived to the close of the first century and, perhaps, saw the dawn of the second.
Credibility.
The Gospels make upon every unsophisticated reader the impression of absolute honesty.
They tell the story without rhetorical embellishment, without any exclamation of surprise or
admiration, without note and comment. They frankly record the weaknesses and failings of the
disciples, including themselves, the rebukes which their Master administered to them for their
carnal misunderstandings and want of faith, their cowardice and desertion in the most trying hour,
their utter despondency after the crucifixion, the ambitious request of John and James, the denial
of Peter, the treason of Judas. They dwell even with circumstantial minuteness upon the great sin
of the leader of the Twelve, especially the Gospel of Mark, who derived his details no doubt from
Peter’s own lips. They conceal nothing, they apologize for nothing, they exaggerate nothing. Their
authors are utterly unconcerned about their own fame, and withhold their own name; their sole
object is to tell the story of Jesus, which carries its own irresistible force and charm to the heart of
every truth-loving reader. The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude
the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that
circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement. There
is no historical work of ancient times which carries on its very face such a seal of truthfulness as
these Gospels.
The credibility of the canonical Gospels receives also negative confirmation from the
numerous apocryphal Gospels which by their immeasurable inferiority and childishness prove theA.D. 1-100.