Editing Gospel (section)

===Composition===
[[File:Relationship between synoptic gospels-en.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|The Synoptic sources: the Gospel of Mark (the triple tradition), [[Q source|Q]] (the double tradition), and material unique to Matthew (the [[M&nbsp;source]]), Luke (the [[L&nbsp;source]]), and Mark{{sfn|Honoré|1986|pp=95–147}}]]

Like the rest of the [[New Testament]], the four gospels were written in Greek.{{sfn|Porter|2006|p=185}} The Gospel of Mark probably dates from around AD 70,{{sfn|Perkins|1998|p=241}} Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=108, 144}} and John AD 90–110.,{{sfn|Lincoln|2005|p=18}} which puts their composition likely within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses, including Jesus's own family.<ref name="van Os 2011 57, 83"/><ref name="Sanders 1996 5"/>  Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses to the [[Historical Jesus]], though most scholars view the author of [[Luke-Acts]] as an eyewitness to [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]].<ref>{{cite book |last= Keener |first= Craig |author-link=Craig Keener |year=2015 |title=Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Volume 1) |publisher= Baker Academic |page=402 |isbn=978-0801039898}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Dunn |first= James |author-link= James Dunn (theologian) |year= 2016 |title= The Acts of the Apostles |publisher=  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. |page= x |isbn= 978-0802874023}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Fitzmyer |first= Joseph |author-link= Joseph Fitzmyer |year= 1998 |title= The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) |publisher= Yale University Press |page= 50 |isbn= 978-0300139822}}</ref> However, Paul never met Jesus. Before the gospels were written, he claimed to have had a vision of Jesus after his death and later met his brother James.<ref>{{bibleverse|1 Corinthians|15:3-8}}</ref><ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|1:11-19}}</ref> All are the end-products of long [[oral tradition|oral]] and written transmission (which did involve claiming consulting eyewitnesses).{{sfn|Reddish|2011|pp=13, 42}}<ref name="Byrskog 2000 18–28, 69"/><ref name="Rodriguez 57"/><ref name="Becker 2017 39–40, 59"/> A few scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons, the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.{{sfn|Lindars|Edwards|Court|2000|p=41}}<ref name="Gathercole">{{Cite journal |last=Gathercole |first=Simon |date=1 October 2018 |title=The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels |url=https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/69/2/447/5101372 |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |language=en |volume=69 |issue=2 |pages=447–476 |doi=10.1093/jts/fly113}}</ref>

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death, his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations, but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.{{sfn|Reddish|2011|p=17}} The stages of this process can be summarized as follows:{{sfn|Burkett|2002|pp=124–125}}
* Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
* Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
* Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels – the dedicatory preface of Luke, for example, testifies to the existence of previous accounts of the life of Jesus.{{sfn|Martens|2004|p=100}}
* Gospels formed by combining proto-gospels, written collections, and still-current oral tradition.

Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel;{{sfn|Goodacre|2001|p=56}} it uses a variety of sources, including conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), [[apocalyptic literature|apocalyptic]] discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings, although not the sayings gospel known as the [[Gospel of Thomas]], and probably not the hypothesized [[Q&nbsp;source]] used by Matthew and Luke.{{sfn|Boring|2006|pp=13–14}} Most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus' career, supplementing it with the hypothesized collection of sayings called the Q&nbsp;source and additional material unique to each called the [[M&nbsp;source]] (Matthew) and the [[L&nbsp;source]] (Luke), though alternative hypotheses that posit the direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Runesson |first=Anders |title=Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins |date=2021 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=9780802868923}}</ref><ref name="TSP20222">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344}}</ref>.{{sfn|Levine|2009|p=6}}{{refn|group=note|name="Markan priority"|The priority of Mark is accepted by most scholars, but there are important dissenting opinions: see the article [[Synoptic problem]].}} The Gospels represent a Jesus tradition and were enveloped by oral storytelling and performances during the early years of Christianity, rather than being redactions or literary responses to each other.<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |title= Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text |year= 2010 |publisher= T&T Clark |page= 5 |isbn= 978-0567264206}}</ref> Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the [[synoptic gospels]] because of their close similarities of content, arrangement, and language.{{sfn|Goodacre|2001|p=1}} Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly theologically or historically different dubious.<ref>{{cite book |last= Kirk |first= Alan |year= 2019 |title= Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 298–306 |isbn=  978-0567686541}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2017 |title= Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe |journal= Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume= 15 |issue= 2–3 |page= 203 |doi= 10.1163/17455197-01502003}}</ref> The authors and editors of John may have known the synoptics, but did not use them in the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.{{sfn|Perkins|2012|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}} There is a near-consensus that this gospel had its origins as a "signs" source (or gospel) that circulated within the [[Johannine]] community (which produced John and the three epistles associated with the name) and later expanded with a Passion narrative as well as a series of discourses.{{sfn|Burge|2014|p=309}}{{refn|group=note |name="John"|The debate over the composition of John is too complex to be treated adequately in a single paragraph; for a more nuanced view see {{harvp|Aune|1987|loc="Gospel of John"}}.{{sfn|Aune|1987|pp=243–245}}}}

All four also use the Jewish scriptures, by quoting or referencing passages, interpreting texts, or alluding to or echoing biblical themes.{{sfn|Allen|2013|pp=43–44}} Such use can be extensive: Mark's description of the [[Parousia]] (second coming) is made up almost entirely of quotations from scripture.{{sfn|Edwards|2002|p=403}} Matthew is full of quotations and [[allusion]]s,{{sfn|Beaton|2005|p=122}} and although John uses scripture in a far less explicit manner, its influence is still pervasive.{{sfn|Lieu|2005|p=175}} According to Wesley Allen, their source was the Greek version of the scriptures, called the [[Septuagint]] and they do not seem familiar with the original Hebrew.,{{sfn|Allen|2013|p=45}} though other scholars point out that Matthew in particular has quotations closer to the [[Masoretic]] and could understand [[Hebrew]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barber |first=Michael Patrick |year=2023 |title=The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page= 243 |isbn=978-1-009-21085-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last= Ferda |first= Tucker |year= 2020 |title= Doubling Down: Zechariah's Oracle, Judah's Blessing, and the Triumphal Entry in Matthew |journal= The Journal of Theological Studies |series=New Series |volume= 71 |issue= 2 |pages= 466–512 |doi= 10.1093/jts/flaa088}}</ref>{{refn|group=note|Ferda: "I have no doubt that the First Evangelist could read Hebrew, and here I stand with a host of other interpreters."}}