Until this stage we have deliberately refrained from assigning dates to the Gospels. The only things we have assumed are the priority of Mk. and the practically contemporaneous origin of Mt. and Lk. Our justification for this course lies in the great variety of opinion which exists on the question of date, and hence the desirability of keeping clear, as long as we can, from considerations which must vitally affect the results secured. Unfortunately, as we have said, no sort of unanimity exists upon the question of the date of the Gospels. A glance at the extremely useful table which Dr. Moffatt prints on page 213 of his Introduction makes this clear. At first sight the position would appear chaotic, and we might well shrink from attempting to connect our results with specific dates. It is impossible, moreover, in a work like the present, to discuss the question in detail. Such a problem ought to be considered independently, and with regard to all the facts of the case. It would seem best therefore to ask what the consequences are, if we incline to any one of certain representative dates. We are at liberty, of course, to indicate our personal preferences, but, for the reasons stated, we shall have to agree to a measure of uncertainty. This is disappointing, but the responsibility must lie at the right door, and that door is the present failure of Biblical Scholarship to arrive at a consensus of opinion on the question of the date of the Gospels. Perfect agreement there will never be, but until there is substantial agreement every historical investigation into questions of New Testament origins must prove incomplete. The problem of the date of the Gospels is not, however, so chaotic as might at first sight appear. There is a strongly marked disposition to recede from the extremes on both sides, and there is a very considerable agreement that the period from 60 to 100 A.D. covers the time during which the Synoptic Gospels were written. There is also a consensus of opinion that the Second Gospel cannot have been written later than about 70 A.D. Every decade, and almost every year, however, between 60 and 100 A.D. finds advocates for the composition of Mt. and Lk. There are, nevertheless, three periods which find special favour. These may be briefly mentioned. (1) The first period we may note is the closing years of the first century. For this view the main arguments are (i) the supposed dependence of St. Luke upon Josephus, and (ii) the ecclesiastical tone of certain passages in the First Gospel. (2) A second view brings both Mk. and Lk. within St. Paul’s lifetime, and dates Mt. shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. This is the opinion of Harnack (_Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels_). It has not won a large following, either in Germany or in this country, but it is probably nearer the truth than the previous view.