"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. Lastly, John ..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. E., 5.8) Pantaenus, c.180s, an early church missionary and Bible scholar, travelled to India to preach the gospel but found that the apostle Bartholomew had gone there before and left behind Matthew's gospel, "the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth.
After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language.
They had delegated imperial authority in Vespasian's absence.
Hegesippus could simplebe mistaken about the dates, confusing events that happen in 69 or 70 with similar events in 95 or 96.
Warner Wallace in making the case for an early dating of both the Gospels and the epistles.
The following is William Lane Craig’s analysis and refutation of the assumptions which have been, and continue to be, assumed by many New Testament critics to support a late (post-AD 70) dating of the Gospels. 70 because he probably used Mark’s gospel as one of his sources and Jesus’ “predictions” of Jerusalem’s destruction look back on that event.
The other Gospels are generally dated Luke 80-85, Matthew 85-90, and John 90-100.
The time when this Gospel was written is said by some (Vid.
This implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish, of an early date, and probably writing before the major influx of gentiles into the church after Acts 11/15.
He first begins by outlining the assumptions on which the post-A. 70 dating hinges: Most critics date the writing of Mark around A. 70 because the Christian theology in it is quite developed and Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13) show that the event was at hand. The value of those arguments, however, hinges on certain assumptions: (1) With regard to Mark, the first argument assumes that “the Christian theology” was not in fact Jesus’ own.
To say it is “developed” assumes that it was once “primitive.” Actually the argument cuts both ways: one could argue that because Mark was written early, the theology is not” developed,” but truly characteristic of what Jesus taught.