Peter died in 64 or 65; dates earlier than that for the composition of the fourth Gospel seem unlikely.
Those who hold to a date before 70 point to details of Palestine presented as if Jerusalem and its temple complex were still standing; for example, the evangelist writes: (John 5:2).
If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. "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. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
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. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls; and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. 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 said--would surely have been included. Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke and by Luke himself. For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A. Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.
The argument would be conclusive except that John frequently uses the Greek present tense to refer to something in the past.
The silence of the fourth Gospel on the destruction of the temple is considered powerful evidence for a pre-70 date by some authors.
Thus the internal evidence points to the Gospels’ being written before many of the Church’s problems arose.
Introduction to the New Testament, by New Testament scholars Don Carson and Douglas Moo, says: “During the past 150 years, suggestions as to the date of the fourth Gospel have varied from before AD 70 to the final quarter of the second century.Arguments from silence, however, are tricky things. If he wrote in, say, 80, he may have taken the destruction of the temple as a given and let this fact make its own contribution to his theological argument.” The Gospels are usually dated to several decades after the Ascension of Christ, and some will use this as a way to attack the accounts.But four different written accounts of a fairly obscure individual (by the standards of that day) within several decades of His life that agree in the major details (and allegedly conflicting accounts are never mutually exclusive) regarding His life and teachings is astounding evidence that lends credibility to what they wrote.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. 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. Their testimony is not infallible (especially when, as in the case of the tradition about Mark, the tradition is recorded over a century after the Gospel was written), but it serves as a valuable starting point when we are looking for information about the Gospels’ authors and dates, and shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.There are also clues hidden in the text itself that can be used to date it.MH from Taiwan writes about Lita Cosner’s article over this year’s Resurrection Weekend, The Resurrection and Genesis, asking about how we know the dates of the New Testament books. I want to start by saying I agree with most of what has been said in this article, (that’s not important overall, as whether I agree or not is not that relevant to scripture’s truth), though I would like to know how one could say, with absolute certainty (read, “Were you there?”), that the gospels were written decades after the resurrection? There are debates as to when the Gospels were written; some would like to date them earlier, and some a bit (or much! The dates I cited in my article are somewhat mainstream / conservative estimates for the authorship of the Gospels (and from major in-depth commentaries), but one can find people who date Mark in the late 50’s When we see a prediction in Matthew that the Temple will be destroyed (Matthew 24:1–2), with no mention of that prophecy’s fulfilment, this can be taken as evidence that the document was written before the Temple was destroyed. there—even knowing the Apostles themselves, and passing on a lot of reliable accounts for early Church history.John suggests it was probably nearer to the end of that period than the beginning.“Some dates seems implausibly early.Probably the inference to be drawn from is that Peter had by his death glorified God when chapter 21 was composed.For instance, when we see a prediction in Matthew that the Temple will be destroyed (Matthew 24:1– 2), with no mention of that prophecy’s fulfilment, this can be taken as evidence that the document was written before the Temple was destroyed.Note that this is not an argument from silence, but one of .If we saw the text of a novel set in New York, and it straightforwardly mentioned the Twin Towers dominating the skyline, with no hint of their destruction by terrorists, it would be good evidence that it was written before 11 September 2001.