Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?

[chimney55]

Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "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. 24:2; Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.


Read the rest of the article here: Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Southern Gent]

Luke 21 does speak of the destruction of Jerusalem in great detail. Detail that could only be known in hind sight because it was not revealed previously. There is a wide span of time that Luke could fall. Anywhere from 75-100 and nobody really knows. Luke never finished Acts that we know of. Luke ends Acts with Paul's first imprisonment at which Luke himself was about to be brought up on charges and possibly put to death. Luke was clearly with Paul when he was put to death (2 Timothy 4). It is evident that Luke was well aware of such an event. Why didn't he record it? We don't know but it does not prove the date for the writing of the gospel nor Acts.

Edit: 100-115 maybe but not the 300 years or so that some say. Remember that there was mass persecutions and many of the writings would have been put away. Some may have resurfaced much later but that does not mean they were written much later.

If we ever find "Q" we will really be in business

 

[chimney55]

Luke 21 does speak of the destruction of Jerusalem in great detail. Detail that could only be known in hind sight because it was not revealed previously.

Those words (in Luke 21) were spoken by Jesus. They were also recorded in Matthew 24. This is what some of us call "prophecy". (Jesus was good at that.)

 

[eHuman]

Other sources place revelation as the last book wriiten between 90-95AD.

 

[Southern Gent]

Those words (in Luke 21) were spoken by Jesus. They were also recorded in Matthew 24. This is what some of us call "prophecy". (Jesus was good at that.)

Indeed it was prophecy when Jesus spoke the words but Luke didn't hear those words. Kinda back to square one. Either someone told him of the prophecy or the prophecy had already taken place. The Jewish war started in 66 and there is no mention by any writers concerning that event either. We would think that such a tremendous event would have been recorded by some of the writers especially those of later date but it was not. My point concerning the article is that just because something is not mentioned in a manuscript, does not mean the manuscript was written before the event. I don't personally think any of the Gospels are later than 100 and certainly not 300. Most scholars place Luke @ 100 because of the writing style but that is another whole can of worms.

 

[Southern Gent]

Other sources place revelation as the last book wriiten between 90-95AD.

Most do. If John wrote Revelation from the island and the rest of his epistles from Ephesus? Paul had warned of the "coming" of the Gnostics and Gnosticism was infantile up until the end of the first century. 1st John and the Gospel is a direct response to the herecy. John says "they were some of you". They falling away had occurred and Domician was dead by 96. There is really only two options.
1. John wrote of the persecutions (81-96) from hind sight
2. The date for Revelation was earlier

 

[chimney55]

This is the time line that I tend to find more credible than second or third generation hearsay.

WHEN was the New Testament Written?

 

[Southern Gent]

This is the time line that I tend to find more credible than second or third generation hearsay.

WHEN was the New Testament Written?

Not hard to find a website that would agree with most anything. What one believes to be hearsay or otherwise.

 

[chimney55]

Not hard to find a website that would agree with most anything. What one believes to be hearsay or otherwise.

The gospel of Luke was based on divine inspiration and hearsay. Three generations (or a hundred years) does not make hearsay more accurate.

 

[Southern Gent]

The gospel of Luke was based on divine inspiration and hearsay. Three generations (or a hundred years) does not make hearsay more accurate.

What was Luke's inspiration? Jesus died in 27.....if Luke wrote in 75 what generation? The testimony of Christians is not exactly hearsay. That word is being used rather loosely. You are 2000 years removed from the time of Christ, is your testimony merely hearsay? I'd beg to differ. It's not hearsay..it is truth as best as you can recall it. Luke says in the beginning that there are many accounts coming out. Gnostic? Probably. This gives a very definitive time line. What was his inspiration? To give an accurate account. Did he succeed? He wrote the truth as well as those who were eyewitnesses could recall it. Luke contains inaccuracies. Does that mean that it is not inspired? No, Luke's inspiration remained the same. Luke knew nothing about what he was writing. As far as Luke was concerned it was a letter to someone to save/confirm their salvation. This the beauty of Luke. The preservation and remembrance of those who were witness to the Christ. The letter would circulate to the gentiles in a way and format that they could relate. This is where God comes in again. A letter written to a Gentile, that became to all Gentiles, specifically written for the Gentile mind.