How much should Christians Agree with Mainstream Academia on the Origins of The New Testament?

There are a lot of Christian scholars trying to not break with mainstream Secular Academia on when particularly The Gospels were written as much as possible, Brad Jersak, Inspiring Philosophy, the Casual Historian, ect.  Part of it is to avoid hypocrisy, since we appeal to the general consensus of mainstream Secular Academia when refuting the Christ Myth Hypothesis and other pseudo-historical conspiracy theories of the New Atheist movement.

Well in a way I'm not going to be as radical as those being the opposite on this would be either.

I think Greek Matthew and Greek Mark were possibly written when they are currently dated, between 60 and 80 AD.  But Matthew I think was originally in Hebrew and that Hebrew Matthew could be Q, and Mark I think was originally written in Syriac Aramaic in Mesopotamia, where Peter was.  Both I think were written before 42 AD, maybe even before 37 AD.

Luke is the only Gospel where I need to place the Greek Text sooner then mainstream scholars do, which I then place Acts at about the same time.  And I'm doing so out of Faith right now and not claiming to have a solid argument to do so.

When it comes to Revelation, the disagreement is chiefly about who wrote it not when since I place it's authorship when most Futurists do.  The disagreement about who is primarily about if it could have the same author as John's Gospel and Epistles, since textual scholars can't really claim to know whether either was ever a Galilean fisherman or not.

I'm actually very open to suggesting Revelation had a different author from the other books attributed to John.  The difference is when most open the door to this distinction it's The Gospel who's given first dibs on being written by John brother of James son of Zebedee who was one of the Twelve.  However it's only Revelation who's actual text identifies it's author as bearing the name of John.  The Gospel says at the end the "Disciple whom Jesus Loved" wrote it, and using that Gospel to interpret itself, three disciples are associated with that description in chapter 11, none were among the twelve, they are the three siblings, Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany.  The first Epistle doesn't identify it's author in any way which is why I'm not sure it truly qualifies as an Epistle, frankly I have come to view it as an appendix to Gospel of the Beloved Disciple.  The authors' of 2nd and 3rd John simply refer to themselves as the Elder.

When it comes to the arguments against the writings of Paul or Peter having the same author, I find myself wondering if the diverse literary careers of many modern writers would seem like they're the same to these scholars looking at them without already knowing.  Particularly when they say "stylistic and linguistic grounds".  Sometimes a writer's style changes over time, or they'll deliberately write in different styles.  And as far as linguistics go, the traditional authors of these books where not native to the language we have them in anyway.

We know Paul's letters were at least sometimes dictated because of how Tertius inserts himself into Romans 16, which is one of the Paulian Epistles considered pretty universally to be authentic, if it wasn't written by who we think of Paul as being then there was no Paul at all.  I think they were all dictated, and I think both Paul and Peter were actually reciting in Hebrew and the recorder was translating it, so the linguistic style could very often be the product of different recorders.  And Hebrews I think was originally written in Hebrew and what we have is a Greek translation that came later.

There is not quite universal agreement on which Paulian Epistles are authentic, Romans and Galatians are pretty agreed on, which is convenient for me since they include passages vital to my core ideologies.  There are 5 or 7 that are pretty commonly excluded by secular scholars, Hebrews which even believers will debate since it doesn't identify itself as Paul's at the start, the pastorals, and the sequel to Thessalonians. Disputing II Corinthians is actually more rare then I originally thought it was.

The arguments against the two sequels is mostly them allegedly contradicting their predecessor.  Again, how many modern sequels would fail the same test?  These are not like poorly planned fictional narratives however, the reason for these apparent contradictions is that in the 1st letters to these churches Paul was addressing specific issues they were dealing with.  The second letters were needed partly because some of what he said in the first was being misunderstood.  II Thessalonians 2 was written specifically to correct the the Imminence interpretation of I Thessalonians 4. 

The letters written to individuals rather then congregations could in many ways be different because of that difference in audience.  Just as Hebrews is different because it's written to a Jewish rather then Greek audience.  It's still consistent with Paul's faith over works message as shown by Chapter 11.  And you really can't complete Paul's 'we're not under the Law anymore' doctrine without bringing up Hebrews discussion of Jeremiah's prophecy of the Law being written on our Hearts.

For The Pastoral Epistles, most of the argument against their authenticity comes from the reasons to believe they came later.  They are dated later then most Paulian Epistles, but still not later then 100 AD, they're still in the first century.  Irenaeus quoted all three of them, writing around 180 AD, so they must have been around for awhile already.

It's relevant even to the "linguistic and stylistic grounds".

The problem is we are traditionally conditioned to assume Peter and Paul died in 64 or 67 AD, but The Bible never says that, and I have for reasons irrelevant to this issue rejected the traditions of either dying in Rome, and Peter I believe was never in Rome at all.  I think Paul's conversion happened in 37 or 38 AD, and I think he was in his 20s when that happened, pre-conversion Paul has a zealousness typical of a 20 something.  So if he was born between 10 and 17 AD, he could easily have lived into the 90s.  2 Timothy does seem to be written by an old man expecting to pass away soon.

Take for example this argument.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

Maybe this difference is because he mellowed with age.  And also that the concerns the Church is facing have changed with the times.

The argument about "The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism" is also related to this time-frame issue.  But I should note that I reject that these Epistles support the monarchical Church structure they are often presumed to support.  What "emergent Catholicism" means to secular scholars is different from Protestants debating how early what we object to about the Roman Church emerged, it's mostly about the development of Ignatius' organized church structure.

There are some who attempt to extend the late dating of the Pastorals into the second century, but I've already talked about evidence to view them as contemporary with Marital.

Colossians is apparently considered inauthentic by 60% of Scholars, and  Ephessians is now considered inauthentic partly because of presumed dependence on Colossians.  Again these arguments overlaps with reasons the Pastorals are dated later.  I think Paul might have been composing these two letters at the same time in a way where much of Colossians was written first yet it was finished last.  You see I agree with the argument that there is no Epistle to the Laodiceans, it was from Laodicea, and that the Epistle Paul alluded to there was Ephesians, which would have likely traveled through Laodicea if it went to Colossae.  And maybe these two were also post 70 AD.

Traditional timelines of the Epistles by people who question none of them already mostly tend to make the Agreed upon ones the earliest, with the rest being after he came to Rome in 62 AD at the soonest. Needless to say a lot of things changed for Paul then. He may well have had access to none of the recorders he had before, and the dialect of Greek in the western empire was likely different.  The outlier is 2nd Thessalonians which some seem to think was written right after the first, but I find that unlikely regardless of this dispute, I think it took time for Paul to realize that Church developed all new problems he needed to address.

There is also a lot of overlap between arguments against the Pastorals being authentic Paul and arguments against 2 Peter being the same author as 1 Peter.  But again a difference in what the author is concerned with talking about can be explained by when without doubting who wrote it.  But I also think Peter's two Epistles were written to different audiences, the first to Hellenistic Jewish communities in Asia Minor, and the second probably to a more Aramaic community.

I do not believe James and Jude were written by the half brothers of Jesus with those names, but rather by the James and Jude who were bothers among the 12.

Frankly a lot of the arguments about the authenticity of Letters attributed to the 12 reminds me of Anti-Stradfordian arguments, the massive incredulity that simple Galilean fisherman could have ever become capable of writing in such sophisticated Greek.  But this time it's those of us opposing that elitist argument who are viewed as fringe.  And Shakespeare doesn't have the excuse of being believed to have been Supernaturally assisted by The Holy Spirit.

And then there is the issue of referring to the Temple's Destruction being itself proof a book must have been written later cause we won't even entertain the notion of a real Prophecy.

So I guess The Wreck of the Titan: or, Futility must have been written after The Titanic sank.  And the Lone Gunman Pilot must have been written after September 11th 2001.  And that Simpsons episode where Donald Trump becomes President can't have been written any sooner then 2015.

"Wait, aren't you making Jesus prediction not even supernatural by comparing to things like that?"  Well I'm a Continuationsit who points out how sometimes The Holy Spirit even uses unbelievers like Balaam. In my opinion those predictions were supernatural whether to not the writer claimed to be a Prophet (with the Lone Gunman either it's supernatural or the Conspiracy Theorists are right).  But the fact still remains, if you think those things just happened because they were naturally predictable, well Jerusalem inevitably revolting against Rome and getting crushed it can be argued was predictable even in 30 AD.

The fact is Jerusalem falling and being lead away into Captivity again was already in Old Testament Prophecy, Daniel 9 and Zechariah 14 were prophecies made when Judea was returning from the Babylonian Captivity predicting another would be inevitable, in Daniel it's arguably even specifically said that The Temple will be destroyed again.  It was already in the Torah that this was a cycle that's going to keep playing itself out as long as Israel keeps backsliding.  So frankly it would have been weird for a 1st Century Jewish Prophet to not be saying all this is going to happen again.  And the Olivte Discourse does specifically cite Daniel, while Luke 21 uses terminology from Jeremiah "Desolation of Jerusalem".

What Jesus said is vague enough that both Atheist and Christian scholars will sometimes disagree on if Mark 13's account is about the 70 AD fall or the Bar-Kochba revolt.  Everything that seems really specific in what Jesus said arguably comes from echoing the fall to Babylon and/or drawing on what Daniel and Zechariah said.  Because the fact is the Roman Captivity was that history repeating itself on many levels.

In some cases it's not about "Prophecy after the fact" but just saying some things about the present scenario implied in a text must be post 70 AD.  Frankly however I feel that the author of Hebrews would have explicitly refereed to The Temple being destroyed to make his point if it had been.

Still some New Testament authors could have lived past 70 AD, Paul as I argued above, John who I think could have been a Nephew of Jesus, as well the Beloved Disciple Candidates, even Peter since I reject the tradition of him being in Rome at all.  And again since I don't view James and Jude as brothers of Jesus they could have.  Jude could have even if he was, Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was a brother of Jesus who tradition says lived into the reign of Trajan.