Babs, calm down. Nobody knows for sure, but the majority of scholars believe you're wrong.
Ok - good point Roundy. - calm, calm
I suppose I could spot some leniency on whether the book of Mark was written first among the gospels or not, (for there is alot of controversy on that one). BUT I am not incorrect on the dates of all the temples and when their destruction came, or the fact that Mark did not mention the destruction of any temples in his writings. I gave a thorough anaylsis, with dates, places, and who did it, and cited scripture as well -all in a previous post. Mark never talked about the destruction of the temple of 70A.D., or that he saw it, or heard about it. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on Mark as first, and "Q" but will still state my opinion, which I'm sure no one will take as valid. See below.
Mark was written first, because Matthew and Luke were based in large part on the gospel of Mark as well as what is now believed to be a lost narrative of Christ known among scholars as "Q".
The dates themselves are difficult to place, but the order they were written in is a bit more obvious. However, all were written in the decades after Christ's death and resurrection.
EDIT: This is only one theory but it is the one I've heard most often.
Babs didn't respond to this.
Response:The books of Matthew and Luke were supposedly compiled from the Book of Mark and another supplementary source, some scholars call "Q" from the German
Quelle or "source."
#1) Although numerous copies were made of the so-called "Q" NONE exist today, and no one can prove it existed ever.
#2) The document "Q" was never mentioned by any of the church fathers of the day, and church leaders today rarely quote it in hardly any religion, except maybe a handful, and I don't think they even do that anymore. This is based on scholars view of it.
#3) There was no mention of this "Q" or the reliability of the Gospels in the 1st 17 centuries of this NEW milleniums (not meaning B.C.), and has only been questioned since the 19th century forward.
#4) If Matthew and Luke copied in part from the book of Mark, then why is Mark so short? Wouldn't he have more info than the others?
#5) Mark did not see the accounts firsthand - he wasn't even an apostle. He was a publican and later a follower, and assisted Paul in his travels for missionary work, but Mark was never an apostle. For that matter neither was Luke, he was a physician.
#6) The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were both from apostles - see Matthew 10:2-4 for list of the 12 apostles and note that Mark and Luke are not mentioned. Also see Acts 1:12 & 13 where it lists the 11 remaining apostles after Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.
Note: the Judas listed here as part of the 11 is Judas the son of James, not Judas Iscariot the son of Simon. There were many Judes and Judasas in the bible - I can count oh at least 6 maybe 7 of them. They were assembled to choose one to replace Iscariot, and 2 were put up for consideration, but in the end Matthias was picked. If you continue reading to the end of Chapter 1 of Acts, you will see this, and also see that Mark is still not listed as an apostle in any part of Chapter 1 of Acts.
#7) However to say that the Gospel of Mark is not important would be incorrect. To say that Mark was written first, because Luke and Matthew added very little to the account would also be incorrect. The latter two are larger works. To say that Luke and Matthew, and even John were just compilers and plagiarists of Mark's work would also be incorrect, for there are 180 passages and details that are found in Mark's work that are not copied over into the other three.
#8) The above just uses reasoning AND history, AND some scriptures, but I can find other scriptures, as well as other references (non-secular), and other historians much older than the 19th century ones, and they would also disagree. This is from my learned knowledge but I do not expect you to agree, and that's OK. You guys can just chalk it up to my "opinion".