Historically, the early Church held a unanimous view that the Gospels were authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that traditional order, and were directly linked to eyewitness sources. This consensus remained largely unchallenged in the English-speaking world until the mid-to-late 19th century. Critical scholarship, particularly the Tübingen School led by Ferdinand Christian Baur, emerged, proposing that the New Testament evolved from conflicts between early Christian sects, necessitating a much later dating for the Gospels (late 2nd century for some). Rudolf Bultmann's Form Criticism further posited that Gospel stories developed through oral tradition, being embellished over time to account for miracles. Adolph Harnack, while rejecting some radical aspects of the Tübingen approach, still influenced the prevailing view that while the Synoptic Gospels began in the AD 60s and 70s, they were "developed/added to over time," with elements like birth narratives and major miracles being later theological additions. This "overly-critical approach" remains "roughly the default position today," despite significant critiques of its underlying assumptions.

The current scholarly consensus typically dates the Gospels as follows: Mark (65-70 AD), Matthew (80s AD), Luke (80s AD), and John (90s AD). These dates are considered "skewed late for one reason only": to accommodate scholars who do not believe Jesus could have accurately predicted the fall of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70 AD) and who require substantial time for miracle stories to develop and gain acceptance within the Church. This later dating provides a framework that allows for the theological and narrative evolution assumed by critical scholarship.

Several scholars have challenged the late dating and critical assumptions. John A. T. Robinson (1976) concluded that no New Testament book could be definitively dated after 70 AD, as none reference the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, unlike later Christian writings. He argued that previous scholarship was based on "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and "almost wilful blindness." Jean Carmignac (1980s), through his study of Hebrew and Aramaic markers in the Synoptic Gospels (similar to Qumran scrolls), was compelled to date them much earlier, with Mark's first draft as early as 42 AD and Matthew around 50 AD. John Wenham (1992) supported these early datings for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, aligning more closely with Early Church fathers. Specific textual clues also suggest early dating: Mark's mention of Peter paying the Temple Tax (ceased after 70 AD), the "abomination that makes desolate" in Matthew and Mark's context (likely referencing Caligula's actions in 40 AD), Luke's lack of a specific Caesar in Acts after 68 AD (year of five Caesars), and the cryptic power of 666 (Nero Caesar) in Revelation, which would have diminished if written much later.

The traditional view of the Gospels' order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was largely dismissed by 20th-century scholarship in favour of the "Two-Document Solution." This theory posited Mark as the earliest Gospel, arguing its "rough and ready" language and Aramaic terms suggested closeness to events, and that Matthew and Luke copied from it, particularly where they disagreed, Mark was seen as "neutral ground." However, this theory faces challenges. The "Lachman Fallacy" demonstrates that similar patterns of agreement and difference between Gospels can occur regardless of which copied which. Furthermore, examples show Matthew being shorter in some accounts while Mark expands on details, or Matthew including more parables than Mark, with Mark often "nod[ding] towards his readers possibly knowing that there is more that could be said." These observations lead to the conclusion that "The Traditional view of order is looking pretty good!"

Early Church traditions consistently attribute authorship:

• Matthew: Identified as Levi, one of the 12 apostles. Papias and Irenaeus state he compiled his Gospel in a Hebrew dialect. Pantaenus found it in "Hebrew letters" in India, left by Bartholomew. Jean Carmignac's work confirms numerous Aramaic and Hebrew markers, such as the explanation of Jesus' name and frequent use of "Kingdom of Heavens" (plural in Aramaic/Hebrew).
• Mark: Identified as John Mark, Peter's interpreter. Papias and Clement of Alexandria state he accurately recorded Peter's preaching in Rome. Irenaeus notes he "handed on his preaching to us in written form." Universal early tradition places Mark as the first leader of the church in Alexandria. Archaeological evidence, including fragments from an Egyptian death mask dated pre-90 AD and a Qumran cave scrap from 68 AD, also aligns with Mark's text.
• Luke: Described as a well-educated physician, close companion of Paul, and author of more of the NT than anyone else. Origen and Paul's own writings (2 Corinthians 8:18, 1 Timothy 5:18) are interpreted as referring to Luke's Gospel. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Muratorian Canon describe him as a Syrian of Antioch, a physician, and a follower of Paul. Evidence suggests he was likely a "Hellenized Jew rather than a Gentile."
• John: The Gospel itself (John 21:24-25) identifies the author as "the disciple who testifies about these things." The Muratorian Canon states John wrote it at the urging of disciples and bishops after a revelation. Polycrates refers to "John too, he who leant back on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest," suggesting John the Apostle and John the Elder may be the same person.

All four Gospels fit the pattern of Greco-Roman Biography, a genre that typically requires the author to be part of the events and to name verifiable witnesses. John and Luke explicitly present themselves as "historic eye-witness biography," providing detailed accounts and often naming specific individuals who could confirm the events. Matthew and Mark also exhibit "eye-witness features." Matthew reads more like "teaching notes/manual for a rabbi or philosopher," while Mark resembles "a series of witness statements." Despite these stylistic differences, they all function as ancient biographies. Furthermore, the frequency and style of names mentioned in the Gospels show a "striking correlation" with 1st-century Jewish names in Palestine, unlikely unless they were contemporary eyewitness accounts.

A "Modern-Traditional Developmental Model" proposes that most New Testament books, including the Gospels, were written between 33 AD and 70 AD.

• Decade 1 (30-40 AD): Following Pentecost, the Apostles consolidated Jesus' stories and teachings into "communicatable blocks." Matthew likely took shorthand notes, leading to early "loose leaf format" written accounts in "Greek styled Aramaic." Persecution following Stephen's martyrdom (34 AD) spurred the need for written records. By 40 AD, Matthew completed a first draft, particularly from chapter 3 onwards, with some sensitive characters anonymous due to unease.
• Decade 2 (42-57 AD): After Peter's escape from Jerusalem (42 AD), he likely went to Rome with John Mark and a scroll of Matthew. Around 44 AD, the Roman Church requested Mark to record Peter's preaching for Greek speakers, resulting in Mark's Gospel (ending at 16:8). Mark likely used Matthew's order unless Peter's involvement suggested a different sequence. Luke, one of the 72 disciples, acquired Mark's Gospel and Matthew's version and began writing a "cross-over Gospel" for the Greek-speaking world, drawing on classical historical biography, starting around chapter 3. By 54-57 AD, Luke's first draft was circulated by Paul.
• Decade 3 (57-69 AD): During Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea (57-59 AD), Luke gathered additional eyewitness accounts, including details of Jesus' childhood and early years. Matthew's Gospel or the Jerusalem eldership likely added Joseph's perspective on Jesus' birth. Luke then compiled Acts, making final editorial changes to his Gospel to link the two as a single work. By 65-67 AD, with Peter and Paul facing martyrdom, John was prompted by elders in Jerusalem (or Ephesus) to write his "new-view Gospel," which they endorsed.

The available evidence increasingly supports a return to a more traditional understanding of the Gospels' authorship, dating, and development, aligning largely with the views held by the Early Church. There is a "increasing but almost begrudging acceptance that something like the view of the Early Church is the best fit for the evidence we have." This suggests that academic "scholarly prejudice," as noted by C.H. Dodd, might have contributed to the "overly-critical approach" and late dating, rather than an objective evaluation of the evidence, which points to an earlier, more traditional understanding of Gospel composition.