Imagine one day at your local used book store that you picked up a book telling the story on the World Trade Center. The book describes the towers’ architect, backstory, and construction. It also describes the history of important people and events that took place in the towers. At the end of the book, the towers are still proudly standing as a symbol of freedom. As you close the back cover, what would you conclude about when the book was written? You would assume that the author wrote the book prior to September 11, 2001. Why? Because the terrorist attack on the building was too significant of a detail to leave out of the story.

ACTS IGNORES MARTYRDOMS

When we turn your attention to the book of Acts, we notice that it doesn’t mention several key events. Luke, the traditional author, chronicles the ministry of Peter during the first portion of the book, and then Paul during the latter half. One would think he would describe both Peter and Paul’s martyrdom, yet he does no such thing. In fact, Luke ends Acts rather abruptly with Paul in prison somewhere around the year AD 62.

It’s not as if Luke was afraid to document martyrdom. He described the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 and the beheading of James, the brother of John, in Acts 12 — people less prominent than Peter or Paul. So why not mention Peter’s crucifixion and Paul’s beheading? History tells us that these apostles suffered death under the ruthless reign of Nero sometime in the mid 60’s. In fact, the Great Fire of Rome took place in AD 64. This event ultimately led to extreme persecution for Christians because Nero blamed them for the fire. It’s odd that Luke left out these important events.

In addition to Peter and Paul, James — the brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church — was martyred in AD 62 in Jerusalem. Josephus, the Jewish historian tells us that Ananus, the temporary high priest, had James stoned to death.

These are perhaps the three most prominent leaders in the early church, yet Luke is silent on their deaths. This silence is highly unusual unless Luke wrote Acts prior to their deaths.

THE TEMPLE DESTRUCTION

Perhaps the greatest oversight in the Gospels or Acts is the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70. The temple stood at the center of Jewish society, and played a central role in both the Gospels and Acts. It was so important to that society, that one of the complaints the Jews leveled at Jesus during his arrest was that he spoke of the temple’s destruction. Ironically, this is why liberal scholars date the Gospels after AD 70 because they deny Jesus could have prophesied this cataclysmic event. Yet, if he’s the Son of God — as he claimed to be — then predicting this event wasn’t difficult for him.

Fast forward to Acts 7, and we read that the Jewish leaders stoned Stephen because he also spoke against the temple. Stoned to death! For speaking against the temple! Clearly the temple was paramount for the Jewish culture. So why do none of the Gospel writers — most of whom are Jewish — document the temple’s destruction? Why doesn’t Acts — which describes the major events of the first decades of the Christian church — note it’s destruction? Why do the Gospels and Acts give the impression that the temple is still standing? Perhaps it’s because it was still standing during the time of their writings.

HOW TO DATE THE GOSPELS?

Because Paul is still in prison at the end of Acts, it seems reasonable to date Acts to AD 62-64 — the years Paul was confined to the Roman prison. If Luke wrote Acts later, he most certainly would have documented Paul’s death since he spent the majority of Acts describing Paul’s ministry.

We also know that Acts is the second part of a two-part volume Luke composed for Theophilus (Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). We can assume that Luke was written prior to Acts which would date it conservatively around AD 60. Not only do we know that Luke wrote his Gospel around AD 60, most scholars agree that Luke borrowed from Mark’s Gospel. In fact, Luke states in his prologue that he used other sources to compile his account for Theophilus (Lk 1:1-4). Therefore, if Luke borrowed from Mark, that means Mark dates no later than the mid 50’s.

WOULD THEY HAVE ACCURATE MEMORIES?

Jesus died by crucifixion in AD 30 or 33. That means we’re talking about a twenty-five year gap between the writing of the gospels and the events they describe. Liberal scholars suggest that the Gospel writers would misremember much of what Jesus did and taught by this point. Therefore, the argument goes, we can’t trust the Gospels. But I think this is a false assumption for a few reasons.

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

First, people tend to remember significant events quite well. For example, most of you can probably remember where you were when the planes hit the World Trade Center. You probably don’t remember what you ate for breakfast that morning, but you remember watching the tower collapse. Jesus’ miracles would fall under this category. If you watched Jesus give a blind man sight or heal a paralytic man dropped through the roof, you would be able to remember those details well.

PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT

Second, people tend to remember significant events in which they are personally involved — like their wedding day. For example, I remember that I wore a gray suite, but my groomsmen wore black. I recall our wedding was outside with a beautiful view of the mountains in the background. I remember that there was a goldfish pond off to the side, and that I shoved cake in my wife’s face even though I promised I wouldn’t. Nobody else would remember these details — except my wife — which demonstrates that we remember events better in which we were personally involved. Turn to the Gospels, and you see that most of Jesus’ teachings and miracles takes place when the disciples were present. It makes sense that they would remember them.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Third, that culture relied heavily on memory much more than we do today. They didn’t have the luxury of googling important facts anytime they needed them. Rather, they had to commit them to memory. For example, it wasn’t uncommon for a Jewish rabbi to have the Pentateuch or even the entire Old Testament memorized. The information contained in the Gospels would be easy to memorize by comparison.

REPETITION IN COMMUNITY

Fourth, the disciples told the stories of Jesus’ miracles and his teachings hundreds of times. It’s not like they tried to recall the events in a vacuum. They told these stories over and over for twenty-five years before writing them down. More than that, multiple eyewitnesses told the same stories. If anyone ever told the story wrong, others who knew the truth would have corrected them. Think about going to church and singing “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a punk like me.” After hearing everyone else sing “wretch” when you thought it was “punk” would immediately correct your faulty memory. The same would have happened with those telling the Gospel stories. If they ever got a detail wrong, others would have been there to correct them.

HOW DO THEY STACK UP?

Lots of ancient biographies were written hundreds of years after the fact. Take Alexander the Great for example. His best biography comes four hundred years after his life, and yet historians believe it’s a reliable account of his life. If four hundred years is acceptable for Alexander the Great, twenty-five years is like a news flash for Jesus comparatively. For skeptics who cast doubt on the Gospels, they must cast doubt on all other history in order to be consistent.

THE GOSPELS ARE RELIABLE HISTORY

Since the Gospels and Acts don’t report major events like the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, and James, the destruction of the temple, or Nero’s persecution of the early church, it’s reasonable to date them no later than AD 62. Since the authors write the Gospels within 2-3 decades of the events, they would have accurately remembered all the miracles and teachings of Jesus. Therefore, we can be confident that the Gospels are reliable accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry.