Critics often date the Gospels late (post-70 AD or later) based on several key arguments. ### **Top Five Reasons Critics Date the Gospels Late** 1. **Prediction of the Temple's Destruction** Critics argue Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of the Temple ([Matthew 24:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.24.2), [Mark 13:2](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MRK.13.2)) suggests it was written after the event in 70 AD, assuming accurate prediction is improbable ([[@Nolland2005-hn]]). This claim is bolstered by the Gospels’ lack of direct references to events like Nero’s persecution (64 AD) or the fall of Jerusalem, which critics interpret as selective silence reflecting hindsight rather than contemporaneity ([The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge Companions to Religion)])). >[!quote] [[@BDEhrman2022-ap|Ehrman, B]] > It is frequently noted that the earliest Gospels seem to presuppose the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and of the Jewish temple as happened in 70 c.e. For example, in Mark's gospel Jesus indicates that the nation of Israel will be (12:9) and that the Temple will not be left standing (13:1-2). Matthew is even more explicit: here Jesus tells a parable in which God is portrayed as burning the city and killing its inhabitants (22:8). Luke has similar passages (e.g., 21:24). All these passages seem to presuppose that by the time the books were written, the destruction had happened. 2. **Markan Priority and the Synoptic Relationship** Markan Priority—the widely-held belief that Mark was the first Gospel—plays a central role in dating. Critics date Mark around 70 AD based on its brevity, simpler theology, and references like the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13). They argue Matthew and Luke, which rely on Mark, must have been written later, in the 80s-90s AD. Furthermore, Luke’s prologue ([Luke 1:1-4](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/LUK.1.1-4)) acknowledges reliance on earlier accounts, implying time for oral and written traditions to develop. 3. **Development of Christology and Greek Influence** Critics see an evolution in the portrayal of Jesus’ divinity across the Gospels. Mark’s implicit claims (e.g., Mark 10:18) are contrasted with John’s explicit theology (e.g., John 8:58). They argue this theological progression reflects decades of reflection. The use of Greek philosophical concepts, particularly in John’s prologue (*logos* in John 1:1-3), suggests a Hellenized context and composition late in the first century. 4. **Church Structure and Theological Disputes** Critics point to references in the Gospels that suggest a developed church structure and debates over Gentile inclusion. For instance, [Matthew 18:17](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.18.17) references church discipline, while [Luke 4:24-27](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/LUK.4.24-27) highlights Gentiles receiving God’s blessings. These are interpreted as reflective of later community concerns, particularly after 70 AD, when the early church expanded to include Gentiles more prominently. 5. **Anonymity and Distance from Paul’s Theology** Critics argue the Gospels’ supposed anonymity—where no original manuscripts name their authors—indicates they were written by later communities rather than eyewitnesses. Additionally, the Gospels’ lack of emphasis on Pauline theology, such as justification by faith ([Romans 3:28](https://www.bible.com/bible/100/ROM.3.28)), suggests they were either independent of Paul’s writings or composed in a context where his influence was not yet dominant.