It is impossible to definitively date any of the Gospels before c. 150 CE (he suggests 60-150 CE as a possible range).
It is impossible to give precedence to canonical Gospels (such as Mark and Luke) over non-Canonical ones (such as Secret Mark or Marcion).
It is only possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle of the second century, one non-canonical gospel and John.
The second Century Christian Ignatius, often quoted as knowing the Gospels, may well have been referring to a source of Matthew rather than the Gospel itself.
It is not certain that the second century Christian Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark where is he is quoted in the excerpts of Eusebius.
In short, the Gospels provide no reasonable way of knowing what is and is not accurate about the "life of Christ".
These problems are compounded by the way the Gospels were used to form the New Testament over the first several centuries of Christianity.
One thing that is clear, however, is that there were arguments over the "true" interpretation of Christianity from its very beginnings. "Gnosticism" existed in the first century [fc]; and the New Testament letters attributed to Paul are clear evidence of disagreement in doctrine amongst early Christianity [bs].
The first to name the "four Gospels" was Irenaeus in c. 185 CE [fc]. (He is also notable for claiming from apostolistic tradition that Jesus Christ was fifty when he died [ir].) Irenaeus makes some interesting claims about the authorship and number of the Gospels:
"Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple - the one who lay on his lap - also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor..."
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are, since there are four directions of the world in which we are, and four principal winds...the four living creatures [of Revelation 4.9] symbolize the four Gospels...and there were four principal covenants made with humanity, through Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Christ" [ir]
It is clear, therefore, that claims from current "Biblical literalists" regarding the authenticity of the Gospels as "eye-witness accounts" are unsupportable.
Moreover, two of the most important Christian writers of the age, Origen and Tertullian, were associated with heresies (Arianism and Montanistism respectively). In short, less than two hundred years after the supposed death of Christ, there was wide disagreement about the foundations of Christian thought. These would not be resolved, and then only temporarily, for another two hundred years [fc].
In case that there are any doubts as to the acceptance of the Gospels as, well, Gospel, one need only turn to the pagan Porphyry, who wrote c. 280:
"the evangelists were inventors... not historians". [ir]
Porphyry's Against the Christians was banned by the Church in 311 CE. The only surviving fragments of his works are contained in the writings of Christian apologists.
Roger Pearse's of Tertullian.org has made a study of all early Christian documents relating to the Council of Nicaea and concludes:
"...there appears no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards..." [tn]
In fact, the composition of the Bible seems to have been a thoroughly undemocratic affair, based on a firm line of "literal" Christianity which seems to have arisen at the end of the first century CE - still well after the supposed time of Christ. [fc].
The First Council of Nicaea was held to condemn the heresy of Arianism (which taught that Christ was not divine) and to issue what is now regarded as the central affirmation of Christianity - the Nicean Creed [ce].
One bizarre account of the Council is commonly quoted by the Theophosists:
"By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says:
"Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly."
"When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands." [hy]
The fourth century Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote:
"Sabinus, however, the chief of the heresy of the Macedonians, willfully rejects these authorities, and calls those who were convened there ignorant and illiterate persons; nay, he almost accuses Eusebius of Caesarea himself of ignorance: nor does he reflect, that even if those who constituted that synod had been laymen, yet as being illuminated by God, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, they were utterly unable to err from the truth. Nevertheless, hear farther what the emperor decreed in another circular both against Arius and those who held his opinions, sending it in all directions to the bishops and people." [ss]
The identification of "Pappus" is uncertain. The Theophosists claim he was an "eye-witness" - and there was certainly a fourth century mathematician called Pappus. However, it seems likely that the "Pappus" referred to was actually a sixteenth century Lutheran "divine", speculating on the fourth century Council of Laodicea . It seems likely therefore that the Theophosist claims are simply wrong [ds].
(There is one further mystery, in that the Council of Laodicea is reported in some accounts to have provided in its "sixtieth canon" an exclusive list of the New Testament books not including the book of Revelation. This list does not appear in all accounts of the Council and is disputed by Christian authorities such as Lightfoot. [ll])
The criteria which Athanasius used to select his canonical list is not known. It appears, however, that there was no generally accepted complete "New Testament" before this time [ba]. The task of officially compiling a "Bible" for the Roman (or western) church eventually fell to Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia (340-420 C.E.) [sb].
St Jerome was remarkably candid - in his writings to other Church fathers - about the importance of language:
"...to confute the opposer... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another... Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry... Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful... I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder... you will see how skilful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view. His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person - one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. To teach a disciple is one thing; to vanquish an opponent, another..." [jp]
This makes it clear that the "purity" of the language of the Bible was secondary to its power of persuasion for Jerome and the other Church fathers.
In fact, even by the fourth century, the Gospels were not in the same form as we know them today. Many modern Bibles warn the reader that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain the verses Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 [fc].
It is interesting to note, however, that as late as the sixteenth century, Marin Luther questioned the canonicity or doctrinal validity of Jude, Hebrews, James and Revelation [ba].
