Dating the books of the new testament
The later dates are based also on this timeframe, but the difference is that they account for the mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which occurred in 70 .According to this scholarship, the gospels must have been written after the devastation because they refer to it.It is possible that this particular verse was not added until that time, which means that it is not original to the gospel and that Matthew certainly is not its author.Also, Luke's gospel discusses an apparent myriad of preceding gospels written "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…" The phrase "from the beginning" likewise implies a passage of time, as does the fact that there were "many" who preceded Luke in writing gospels.In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 200/203 , Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament…The remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together.In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them. In other words, we do not even know who this person is whom Eusebius is allegedly quoting regarding these purported earlier texts.Christian apologetics for the early gospel dates rely on the slimmest of evidence, including a very late third-hand testimony of a late second-hand testimony that "Mark" had written a narrative, supposedly based on the experiences of Peter as related by the apostle himself. According to Eusebius—in disagreement with Irenaeus, who suggested Papias had known the apostle John—Papias had no direct acquaintance with any of the apostles: …Papias himself in the preface to his work makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, and tells us that he learnt the essentials of the faith from their former pupils.
As proof of the existence of the gospels prior to the end of the second century, it is claimed that Church father Justin Martyr (c. 165 ) that we can point to as real evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels, which is why Justin Martyr heads the chart in Mc Dowell's book.
In actuality, there were gospels composed in the name of every apostle, including Thomas, Bartholomew and Phillip, but these texts are considered "spurious" and unauthorized.
Although it would be logical for all those directly involved with Jesus to have recorded their own memoirs, is it not odd that there are so many bogus manuscripts? If Peter didn't write the Gospel of Peter, then who did? Is not the practice of pseudepigraphy—the false attribution of a work by one author to another—an admission that there were many people within Christianity engaging in forgery?
Indeed, renowned biblical scholar Tischendorf only managed to find two pertinent quotations in Justin Martyr's works that could possibly come from the gospel of Matthew, for example.
Again, these miniscule passages could very well come from a shared source text.
However, conservative believers maintain the early dates and assert that the destruction of the temple and Judea mentioned in the gospels constitutes "prophecy," demonstrating Jesus's divine powers.