Dating of the new testament norman geisler
For example, Jesus is called “the Son of Man” and “the Servant of God,” titles that soon faded into obscurity.
Also Christians are still referred to as “disciples” and the Jewish nation as “the people.” Sunday is called “the first day of the week,” another early expression.
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.
That was a great difficulty for early Christianity. The subject matter of the book suggests that Acts was written when that issue was still current.
d) Acts uses expressions that faded from use early in the history of Christianity.
It is unbelievable that Luke could gloss over that horrible persecution in silence.
In any case, it is very apparent that the arguments for a post-70 date of the gospels hang together on certain unproved assumptions. No wonder Robinson can compare the current arguments for the dating of the gospels to a line of drunks reeling arm in arm down the street. Luke centers much attention on the events that took place in Jerusalem, but he mentions nowhere in Acts the destruction of the city in A. A second event noticeably absent is the Roman Emperor Nero’s terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome.