Authorship and Dating of the Gospels, Intro by Islam CritiquedThis simple criteria is part of a four part reliability template I describe in Cold-Case Christianity , and reflects the California jury instructions for jurors who are asked to assess the reliability of eyewitnesses on the stand. As a skeptic, I examined this issue related to the claims of the Gospel authors. Matthew and John were allegedly eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Mark according to the first century bishop, Papias chronicled the eyewitness account of the Apostle Peter, and Luke recorded his own investigation of the eyewitnesses. But how early are these accounts? Could they have been written by people who were actually present during the life and ministry of Jesus?
The case for the early dating of the Gospels-countering scholarly laziness & blindness. William Lane Craig states, “Although most New Testament critics claim that the gospels were written after A.D. 70, that assertion, states Cambridge University’s John A. T. Luke must have been. Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts). The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former. Acts shows Mark can be dated in the 50s, and the undisputed early dating of other books confirms that the Jesus of the Gospels was not the result of a myth evolving over time. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark.
If he wrote afterwards, he could not have portrayed the Romans only as friends. In any case, it is very apparent that the arguments for a post date of the gospels hang together on certain unproved assumptions.
If one goes, they all go. No wonder Robinson can compare the current arguments for the dating of the gospels to a line of drunks reeling arm in arm down the street.
Now we move on to Dr. Luke centers much attention on the events that took place in Jerusalem, but he mentions nowhere in Acts the destruction of the city in A.
What are the dates when the four gospels were first written? How do we know?
That is quite significant, considering what a catastrophe the destruction of the holy city was for both Jews and Christians at that time. From the Roman historian Tacitus we learn that Nero covered the Christians with tar, crucified them, and used them as torches to light up Rome at night. Others were clothed in skins of wild animals and thrown to starving dogs.
It is unbelievable that Luke could gloss over that horrible persecution in silence. Since Luke records the martyrdom of Stephen and the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee, it is unlikely that he would fail to relate the death of James, the brother of Jesus, who was much more prominent.
Paul was executed in Rome about A. The most plausible reason that Acts ends where it does, leaving us hanging, is that it was written before Paul finally came to trial and was executed.
Early dating of the gospels
For example, one of the burning issues in Acts is the relationship between Christians who had been converted from Judaism and Christians who had been converted from paganism. The problem was whether the pagan converts should be required to submit themselves to all the Jewish laws and customs in order to be Christians.
That was a great difficulty for early Christianity. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A. The subject matter of the book suggests that Acts was written when that issue was still current.
Historical reliability of the Gospels
The most natural explanation for the occurrence of those expressions is that Acts was written early enough to be in touch with the climate of the early days of the Christian Way. The Romans never appear as enemies in Luke-Acts; they are at best friendly or at worst indifferent.
These six lines of evidence combine to present a powerful case that Acts was written before A. This evidence is both compelling and authoritative, and as far as I know, has not been refuted convincingly by any reputable scholar.
Since Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts Acts is a continuation of the gospelthe gospel of Luke must have been written around A. Luke therefore ought to be regarded just as historically reliable as Paul.Authorship and Dating of the Gospels, Intro by Islam Critiqued
Robinson suggests a date of A. When we remember that Jesus died in A. According to Professor Sherwin-White, generations are required for legends to prevail over historical facts. But we are talking about less than fifteen to thirty years.
Remember, we are not talking about deliberate lies; we are talking about legends.
It is unreasonable to charge Luke or his sources with being liars. Warner Wallace  concurs with Dr. In 1 Corinthians 15 written from AD 53 to 57Paul summarized the gospel message and reinforced the fact that the apostles described the eyewitness accounts to him:.
In his letter to the Galatians also written in the midsPaul described his interaction with these apostles Peter and James and said that their meeting occurred at least fourteen years prior to the writing of his letter:.
Read question Dating the Gospels here. It is incredible that the early church would have waited for decades before committing the Jesus. The earlier existing copy of Plato's dialogues dates The following table lists the earliest extant Gospel manuscripts. One is the earliest dates these books are quoted from. All four gospels are quoted in patristic writings (a technical term which means writings by.
As a result he either referred to or quoted directly from over five hundred verses that are found in either the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Matthew. There appears to be a sense of urgency in the gospel, similar to the crime broadcasts that are made by responding officers, and Mark appears to be protecting key players in the account as if they were still alive at the time of his writing. While skeptics would like to claim that the Gospels were written well after the alleged life of the apostles and much closer to the councils that affirmed them, the evidence indicates something quite different.
The circumstantial evidence supports an early dating for the Gospels. The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time.
In the 6th edition of his textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Ehrman has a text box entitled. In this episode of the Cold-Case Christianity Broadcast, J. Warner Wallace describes the evidence for the early dating of the Gospels. Why is this issue important. Gospel originally meant the Christian message itself, but in the 2nd century it came to be used The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. . Epiphanius, Jerome and other early church fathers preserve in their writings citations from.
To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves. For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still.
The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.