Dating and authorship of the gospels
So, for the benefit of my readers I would like to give a quick response to these claims.Pitre was attempting to respond to the general academic consensus that all four NT Gospels were written following 70CE, by arguing that there is no explicit mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple anywhere in the Gospels.Much will be uncertain; but this we will know; and this is what we need in order to continue our investigation of scripture and Christian history.Much of the information we have about the authors of the New Testament comes from the church fathers, the leaders of the church in the post-apostolic age.I always felt I should have a go at the other canonical gospels so here’s what brief attempt might look like…One of the basic boundaries for chronology is eschatological predictions.
Furthermore, Kennelly claimed that Pitre showed that “many of the elements of the standard critical take on the Canonical Gospels are products of scholarly bias as opposed to good scholarship”.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 ).Taking into account the not particularly long life span and the standard definition of a generation this gives us an outline of about 30-40 years when these things should have taken place and support the fairly obvious, namely that John and 2 Peter were finished sometime after the 70s.Before we can talk about what the New Testament says, we have to justify that what it says can be trusted.We must understand as much as we can about the authors of the New Testament and when they wrote it.
Pitre is not the first Christian apologist to attempt to make this case.