Some time ago, I had a conversation with a skeptic who claimed that \u201call the Gospels were written after 70 AD.\u201d<\/p>\n
Personally, I believe this statement is false given the evidence we have. These are the main arguments why I believe, rather, that the four Gospels were written before 70 AD:<\/p>\n
This was a monumental event in Jewish and Christian history\u2014especially since Jesus explicitly predicted it<\/em> (Matthew 24:1\u20133). Both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome around 64\u201365 AD, events of immense importance to the early Church. From 67 to 70 AD, Titus led a massive military operation culminating in Jerusalem\u2019s destruction. James, a major leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15), was martyred in 62 AD (reported by Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 20.9.1). This is uncontested. Luke explicitly states:<\/p>\n \u201cIn my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.\u201d (Acts 1:1)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Since Acts was likely completed before 62\u201364 AD, Luke\u2019s Gospel must have been written earlier\u2014probably in the 50s or very early 60s.<\/p>\n In 1 Timothy 5:18 (written c. 63\u201364 AD), Paul quotes two passages:<\/p>\n \u201cYou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain\u201d (Deut. 25:4) The latter quotation matches Luke 10:7<\/em> verbatim. Paul\u2019s letters (48\u201360 AD) contain concise summaries of the Gospel story, such as 1 Corinthians 15:3\u20137, describing Jesus\u2019 death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances. In 1 Corinthians 11:23\u201325 (c. 55 AD), Paul recounts Jesus\u2019 words at the Last Supper in language that closely parallels Luke 22:19\u201320. In Luke 1:1\u20134, he acknowledges using prior written accounts. From these data points we can propose an approximate sequence:<\/p>\n This timeline fits naturally with the internal evidence and the silence on later events. With this information, we can conclude:<\/p>\n Mark<\/strong> was written in 45-50 AD, Luke in 50-53 AD, Paul quotes Luke in 63-64 AD<\/strong>, Luke writes Acts in 57-60 AD<\/strong>, James, Peter, and Paul die in 62-65,<\/strong> Siege of Jerusalem in 67-70,<\/strong> Temple destroyed in 70<\/strong>. Therefore, the Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Scholars such as William Foxwell Albright, Nelson Gleuck, A.T. Robinson, and John Wenham agree with the proposed dates.<\/p>\n James D. G. Dunn proposes that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 comes from an oral creed formulated within 18 months after the crucifixion. Bart Herman dates it to 1-2 years after Jesus’ death.<\/p>\n Archaeologist Nelson Gleuck wrote:<\/p>\n \u201cWe can emphatically conclude that no book of the New Testament was written after the year 80.\u201d<\/p>\n Paleographer William F. Albright asserts that all the books of the New Testament were written between 40-80 AD.<\/p>\n It is interesting that two conservatives (e.g., F. F. Bruce, John Wenham) and one liberal (John A. T. Robinson) have defended positions of early dates for the Gospels that coincide with the dates proposed in this article.<\/p>\n John Wenham, in his book \u201cRedating Matthew, Mark, and Luke,\u201d presents evidence similar to that proposed in the previous points and uses the following dates:<\/p>\n 40 AD Matthew<\/p>\n 45 AD Mark<\/p>\n 48 AD Galatians<\/p>\n 49 AD Council of Jerusalem<\/p>\n 50 AD 1 and 2 Thessalonians<\/p>\n 54 AD Luke<\/p>\n 55 AD 1 Corinthians<\/p>\n 56 AD 2 Corinthians<\/p>\n 57 AD Romans<\/p>\n 57-59 AD 1 Timothy, Titus<\/p>\n 60-61 AD Philippians, 2 Timothy<\/p>\n 62 AD Acts<\/p>\n The eminent scholar A.T. Robertson stated that the New Testament we have is 99.9% complete and dates ALL the books of the New Testament between 40-65 AD.<\/p>\n Reference to support the dates of what I believe to be the best argument: John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976]).<\/p>\n A. Harnack, C. E. Raven, and a large number of modern scholars also date the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament before 70 AD.<\/p>\n Despite this, many skeptics also claim that we do NOT KNOW who wrote the Gospels because the writers did not explicitly \u201csign\u201d them. However, since the first century, there has been no doubt<\/em> <\/strong>about who wrote the Gospels. The way we can deduce the authors of the New Testament is through a historical method called \u201cmanuscript tradition.\u201d For example, the eminent Greco-Roman writer, historian, and biographer Plutarch (46-120 AD) left behind a grand total of ZERO<\/em><\/strong> documents signed with his name! But no modern historian doubts his authorship because:<\/p>\n 1.- Tradition attributes the writings to his own handwriting, and<\/p>\n 2.- The Lamprias Catalog cites him as the author of many of his works.<\/p>\n Similarly, the authority (who wrote them) of the Gospels was established by<\/p>\n We have ELEVEN<\/strong> confirmations of the authors of the Gospels compared to TWO<\/strong> for Plutarch! This method is used for any ancient writing in which the author is not explicitly identified. If the skeptic doubts the authorship of the Gospels, he would rightly have to be much more skeptical of the authorship of Plutarch’s writings. However, no modern (serious) historian doubts the authorship of Plutarch’s writings. The same sauce for enchiladas serves as sauce for chalupas!<\/p>\n It is interesting to note that the biographies closest to the facts that we have of Alexander the Great’s life come to us more than 400 years after his death in 323 BC, and yet historians generally consider them reliable.<\/p>\n The silence of the New Testament about Jerusalem\u2019s destruction, the deaths of its key figures, and the strong internal and external evidence all point toward a pre-70 AD<\/strong> date for the Gospels. If we judge the Gospels by the same historical standards applied to other ancient works, the evidence supports the conclusion that the vast majority\u2014if not all\u2014of the New Testament was written before 70 AD<\/strong>, while eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Some time ago, I had a conversation with a skeptic who claimed that \u201call the Gospels were written after 70 AD.\u201d Personally, I believe this statement is false given the evidence we have. These are the main arguments why I believe, rather, that the four Gospels were written before 70 AD: 1. The New Testament […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3717,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2405,269,268,928,276],"tags":[293,303,2417,942,291,290,546,2416,2415],"class_list":["post-4650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-escepticismo-en","category-historicity","category-new-testament","category-skepticism","category-textual-criticism","tag-apologetics-en","tag-christianity","tag-dating-the-gospels","tag-gospel-sources","tag-historicity","tag-historiography","tag-jesus-evidence","tag-when-were-the-gospels-written","tag-who-wrote-the-gospels"],"views":80,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4650"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4650\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4663,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4650\/revisions\/4663"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
If the Gospels or Acts were written after<\/em> 70 AD, it is striking that none of the authors describe the fulfillment of Jesus\u2019 prophecy. The total silence suggests the destruction had not yet occurred when these books were written.
Writers who want to validate prophecy typically point to its fulfillment; the absence of such reference implies the event was still future.<\/p>\n2. Luke does not record the deaths of Peter or Paul.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Yet Acts\u2014written by Luke\u2014ends with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome, freely preaching the gospel (Acts 28:30\u201331).
The simplest explanation is that Acts was completed before these deaths occurred.<\/p>\n3. The New Testament never mentions the Roman campaign against Jerusalem.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
No New Testament text\u2014Gospels, Acts, or Epistles\u2014refers to this campaign.
Given how central Jerusalem was to early Christianity, this omission strongly suggests the writings predate these events.<\/p>\n4. The death of James, the brother of Jesus (62 AD), is not mentioned.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Luke records the death of Stephen (Acts 7) but not James\u2019s, which he certainly would have noted if it had already occurred.
This again suggests Acts was written before 62 AD.<\/p>\n5. Luke wrote Acts after<\/em> his Gospel.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
6. Paul cites Luke\u2019s Gospel as Scripture.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
and \u201cThe laborer deserves his wages.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Paul introduces both with the phrase \u201cFor the Scripture says\u2026\u201d<\/em>, indicating Luke\u2019s Gospel was already circulating<\/em><\/strong> and recognized as authoritative Scripture by the early 60s.<\/p>\n7. Paul transmits early Gospel tradition.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
This material aligns closely with the Gospel narratives and shows that written or oral forms of the Gospel accounts were already well established within two decades of the events.<\/p>\n8. Paul\u2019s account of the Last Supper matches Luke\u2019s narrative.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
This suggests that both Paul and Luke drew from a shared early tradition about Jesus\u2019 final meal\u2014one already widely known and transmitted within the Church.<\/p>\n9. Luke used Mark and earlier source materials.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Modern analysis confirms that about 350 verses in Luke correspond to material in Mark, indicating Mark\u2019s Gospel was already circulating before Luke wrote his own.
Luke also likely drew on additional early written or oral sources (sometimes referred to as \u201cQ\u201d).
This implies Mark must predate Luke\u2014likely placing Mark in the 40s or early 50s.<\/p>\n10. Summary and chronological reasoning<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n \nEvent \/ Writing<\/th>\n Approx. Date<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Mark<\/td>\n 45\u201350 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Luke<\/td>\n 50\u201353 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Paul quotes Luke (1 Tim)<\/td>\n 63\u201364 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Acts<\/td>\n 57\u201362 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Deaths of James, Peter, Paul<\/td>\n 62\u201365 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Siege of Jerusalem<\/td>\n 67\u201370 AD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
It also aligns with numerous scholars\u2014William F. Albright<\/strong>, Nelson Glueck<\/strong>, A.T. Robinson<\/strong>, and John Wenham<\/strong>\u2014who argued for pre-70 authorship of the Gospels.<\/p>\n\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Early authorship also aligns with the historical testimony of the early Church and the consistency of the manuscript tradition.<\/p>\n