If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. "lover of God") "may have been Luke's patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls; and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events, then anything to bolster the Messianic claims--such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said--would surely have been included. Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke and by Luke himself. For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A. Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.The discovery of the fragmentary manuscript known as As a late work John’s Gospel was thus regarded as secondary and derivative, and where John’s version of events differed from that of the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was assumed that John had altered the traditions to suit his own theological ends. Robinson gave a paper to an Oxford Conference on the Gospels, entitled “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel.” In it he suggested that if a new look on John existed, it could be distinguuished from an ‘old look.’ He therefore set out what he regarded as the five presuppositions belonging to critical orthodoxy in the first half of the twentieth century so far as the interpretation of John’s Gospel was concerned, and tried to demonstrate that each was in need of and in the process of re-examination.This state of affairs held sway until only about two decades ago. The five presuppostions listed by Robinson are as follows: (I) That the fourth evangelist is dependent on sources, including at least one of the Synoptic Gospels.
Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.
How has such a drastic shift in opinion regarding the Fourth Gospel come about?
In large part it has happened because of a shift in scholarly opinion about the interrelationship of the four gospels which placed John’s Gospel late in the first century (actually, it would have been pushed well into the second century, as F. Baur and the “Tbingen School” had proposed around 1835.
Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A. As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.
The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A. The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5 This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.
By these dates they argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, contain mythology.