It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We know that Acts was written around 62 AD because it's a history of the early church, yet mentions no events that occurred after around 62 AD or so. It says nothing about the death of Paul or the fall of Jerusalem, both of which occurred in the late 60's. Had they taken place before the writing of Acts, Luke surely would have mentioned them. And since we know that the Gospel of Luke preceded the book of Acts, and that Luke borrowed from Mark's Gospel, there's little doubt that at least those two Gospels were written in the first century.
And on top of that, Papias tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and wrote his Gospel based on what Peter told him. Thus Mark couldn't have been writing in the late 2nd century, since he couldn't have known Peter had he not lived in the 1st. Papias also tells us that Matthew wrote the Hebrew version of his Gospel, which translated to Greek and combined with Mark's Gospel, became the Gospel of Matthew that we know, and there is strong suggestion from early church fathers that Matthew did the translating himself. Irenaeus commented that Paul used the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the OT) when writing his Gospel (when referencing OT prophecies, of course). He couldn't have been talking about the Hebrew version, since you wouldn't be using a Greek OT translation when writing in Hebrew.
John's Gospel was certainly the last written, but even anti-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman agree that it was written in the 1st century, and we even have a fragment, the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to about 125 AD, proving that even the latest of the Gospels couldn't have been written in the late 2nd century
Originally posted by openeyeswideshut
reply to post by autowrench
That sentence was supposed to have an if lol. Thanks for pointing that out.
And yeah i know what your saying. There's no way to prove what was really said and what is a faux. Do you think the Vatican has records of when and what was changed in the bible?
Justin Martyr does not cite any NT writing by name, but he designates his several NT citations with “it is recorded,” or the “memoirs of the apostles.” He refers to the “Gospels” saying, For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me..." First Apology 66
Did Justin Martyr Cite the Gospel of Peter? Some have contended that Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, mentions the Gospel of Peter (GP). If true, this would push the latest possible date for this gospel a few decades earlier. Let’s look closely at the reference in question… Justin frequently discusses material from texts that he identifies as “memoirs of the apostles” (apomnhmoneumata twn apostolwn). At one point he clearly identifies these memoirs as gospels: “The Apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do” (1 Apol. 66).