The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text.
We know this text, albeit imperfectly, through a large number of ancient manuscripts.
There is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes.
A science called textual criticism deals systematically with these mistakes to eliminate as many of them as possible.
Why should it be difficult to find Paul’s letters arranged in some sort of chronological order? This sort of resource is the work of good historians, and that’s what I appreciate about it. I'd have loved to take a New Testament class that gave me a couple attempts like this and asked me to compare the portraits of Paul that emerged.
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Duke University, in the Religious Studies Department.If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year A. 70, then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus himself. 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, 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. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events.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.Events listed are either of particular importance to early Christian history or of empire-wide importance. by Matt Slick Dating the gospels is very important. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early. 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)."8Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A. This fragment was found in Egypt, and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt.