Dating of the gospels

Rated 3.94/5 based on 601 customer reviews

As a matter of fact for most of Christian history the line of thought has been for a pre-AD 70 authorship of all 4 gospels.

I believe that this stance is the most plausible and is starting to make a comeback among Christian scholars.

While I do not necessarily disagree with the order (although I’ve wrestled with it in the past), I am in 100% disagreement with such a late dating of all 4 gospels.By these dates they argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, contain mythology.The writers created the events contained, rather than reported them.Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts; and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after A. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before A. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. If Q actually existed, then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

Leave a Reply