Early dating of the gospels
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.
It's ludicrous becuase the fundamentalist inerrency position is in shambles, at least for the Old Testament, but the out look for New Testament is not so bad.
It's funny becuase the mythers have reached back into the nineteenth century while the new trend even among liberals is toward earlier dates not latter ones.
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.
There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.
There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy.
For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A. On the other hand, there are many scholars who look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books.
John Rylands Fragment In that debate with Doug Shaver on TWeb (I published here two different speeches of mine--the debate is now over if anyone wishes to imbibe the wisdom), Doug argued for dates of the Gospels way up in the second century.
It always strikes me as hilarious when I debate Jesus mythers and they are so anti-academic and so opposed to the progress of modern scientific method of Bible study because they methods have produced some results that have not disappointed believers.
William Lane Craig states, “Although most New Testament critics claim that the gospels were written after A. 70, that assertion, states Cambridge University’s John A. Robinson, is largely the result of scholarly laziness, the tyranny of unexamined presuppositions, and almost willful blindness on the part of the critics.”  It would seem that the unexamined presuppositions and assumptions are in need of examining, which is the goal of this article.
I will be highlighting the robust, factual and thorough work of both William Lane Craig, and that of J.