D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself.
If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated.
Negative critical scholars strengthen their own views as they separate the actual events from the writings by as much time as possible.
For this reason radical scholars argue for late first century, and if possible second century, dates for the autographs [original manuscripts].
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. 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. John does not mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A. Some say this is because John was not focusing on historical events.
Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and naturally would have garnered 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. 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. Instead, John focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient.
First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21).
The Elder said this also: Mark, who became Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord.
Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts (cf. If so, the book must have appeared before those events. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period.
Harnack points to use of always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy.
James Tabor’s popular Tabor Blog, a site that discusses and reports on “‘All things biblical’ from the Hebrew Bible to Early Christianity in the Roman World and Beyond.” Bible History Daily first republished the article with consent of the author in April 2013.
Visit Tabor Blog today, or scroll down to read a brief bio of James Tabor below.