Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[panairjdde]

---

Many think that John's Gospel was written prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 i.e. during Nero's reign circa 65. Since he was the youngest disciple and the "one Jesus loved" he could and almost certainly did write his Gospel as an eye witness.

---

The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that Matthew the apostle and Matthew the author of the Gospel of that name are one and the same. "Q" is a theoretical invention of liberal 19th century German philosophers out to disprove the veracity of the Bible at all costs (Karl Marx was among them).

1) contemporary consensus among New Testament scholars (historians, not theologians) is that the so-called Gospel of John was written very late (end of the I century), by someone who had had the time to develop a "high Christology", who knew the "Gospel of Mark", and who had not been an eyewitness. The composition of this text inside a community that traced back its roots to John is possible but not sure.

2) contemporary consensus among New Testament scholars (historians, not theologians) is that the so-called Gospel of Matthew was not written by an eyewitness of the events, not by Matthew, and surely by someone who had a knowledge of the Old Testament only in its Greek version. While it's very possible that the Q source never existed, the Gospel of Matthew was written by someone who knew the Gospel of Mark and copied it profusely, changing only the parts that did not fit his theology.

3) Incidentally, all the Gospels in the New Testament are anonymous, meaning their authors do not state their names; the traditional attributions to Matthew, John, Mark and Luke are later.