The reliability of these earliest complete copies of books is indicated by the fact that they closely correspond to earlier portions of books. We do not have the original manuscripts, but the earlier manuscripts from which our complete texts are descended have not perished without a trace. They correspond closely to our texts listed above, and it is a fair inference that the missing portions would show the same correspondence. From the 3rd century: two leaves of a codex with some of the text of chapters 1, 16 and 20 of John. In essence, he demonstrates that the Synoptic Gospels can only have taken shape in the Jewish culture of the first half of the 1st century A. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, Mohr, Tübingen 1988 The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1987, p.61 The Hebrew Christ. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights from a Hebraic Perspective, Rev.
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. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written very early and not long after Jesus' ascension into heaven. 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.
Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. 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 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Traditionally, therefore, they are referred to as the synoptic gospels Most of the content of 606 out of the 661 verses (approximately 90%) of Mark appears in Matthew.
That means that out of the 1068 verses in Matthew, about 500 (close to half) contain information also found in Mark.
The historical literary evidence demonstrates that Matthew most likely issued his gospel originally in the Hebrew dialect in the 50’s A. for the Jewish Christians in Israel while Peter was in Rome ministering and then later sometime in the late 50’s or early 60’s he wrote his Greek version while Peter and Paul were ministering there. Peter and Paul preached together in Rome, but probably only for a short time in the early 60’s.
Then Mark published the private edition of his gospel for the church at Rome after Matthew’s. Mark then published a public edition of his gospel for the churches at large which was published after Peter and Paul subsequently left Rome or had been martyred. They often travelled to and from Rome on missionary journeys at different times during the 60’s. This similarity between the two has led to the popular theory that Luke and Matthew shared a common source which was available to both.However, it is significant to note that both Matthew and Luke in the verses shared with Mark and/or Q use their own style.by Matt Slick12/08/08 Dating the gospels is very important.If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A. 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 prophesied -- would surely have been included. "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. Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's.