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.
But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but from others in the area. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33, 37-38.
He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A. 63) is gaining support constantly."9 The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
, I argued for a very early date for Mark’s gospel (late 30s) largely based on issues of law observance.
This thinking places at least some of the gospels well before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
Brayden is also a key part of our production team, and handles a camera like a pro.None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require 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. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate. 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. Clearly, John 21 and 2 Peter 3 clearly show serious problems with the second coming not happening.John also gets rid of virtually all the kingdom sayings and when he keeps them (John 3) they have nothing to do with predictions of the imminent coming of the kingdom. There are predictions of an imminent kingdom within the lifetime of some of Jesus’ audience (Mark 9:1) and a prediction that the second coming of Jesus will occur within a generation (Mark ).Less time for oral history means less time for legends to develop, and this points to a more reliable gospel message.