Historical dating for the gospels
70-110 CE, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels' existence until a century later, as evinced by such notables as Bronson Keeler, author of A Short History of the Bible; the Christian Judge Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred; and Walter Cassels in Supernatural Religion.
Cassels's knowledge on the subject was so startlingly profound that, when his book was first released anonymously, other scholars—including Christian detractors—believed him to be a bishop.
Furthermore, no other writer subsequent to Martyr shows any awareness of the existence of the gospels until around the year 180.Therefore, Mark, considered by most mainstream authorities to be the earliest of the gospels, could not have been written anyearlier than 70 CE.The others followed, with John appearing perhaps as late as 110 CE. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the gospels are conspicuously absent from the writings of the Church fathers and apologists until the end of the second century.As the Catholic Encyclopedia relates ("Synoptics"): The order: Matthew, Luke, Mark, was advanced by Griesbach and has been adopted by De Wette, Bleek, Maier, Langen, Grimm, Pasquier.The arrangement: Mark, Matthew, Luke, with various modifications as to their interdependence, is admitted by Ritschl, Reuss, Meyer, Wilke, Simons, Holtzmann, Weiss, Batiffol, Weizscker, etc.
Despite these facts, it is perceived that to go against the crowd is to commit scholarly heresy! Mead, for one, writing after the Markan-priority thesis was proposed, was insistent that the other synoptists, Matthew and Luke, did not use the canonical Mark as one of their source texts: "It is very evident that Mt. do not use our Mk., though they use most of the material contained in our Mk." This conclusion was also reached by Helmut Koester and others in the modern era.