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.
Islamic scholars believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632AD and that he founded Islam after 610AD.
But the key point to notice is that Ehrman uses this relative date of Mark (relative to the other gospels) to assert that Ehrman is presenting the standard dating method found in most basic texts that treat the subject.Here we have in a convenient nutshell the basic reasons behind the widely accepted dates for the Gospels.Bart Ehrman explains he is not going into details here, and one can find in the literature more nuanced arguments for relative and other dates assigned to the gospels.The only problem is that there is no external attestation for Paul’s letters till the second century. It is unknown until Irenaeus cites it in the latter half of the second century. How certain can we be about a date that relies solely on the self-witness of the documents themselves?Especially when we know that at the time Paul’s letters do appear they are simultaneously embroiled in controversies over forgeries and interpolations.