In dating Acts one must consider no mention of: the fall of
William F. Albright wrote, 'We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.' (Recent discoveries in Bible Lands, 136)
The 7Q5 Fragment and the question of Q, used by apologists to early-date Mark, is not safe to use and won't be invoked here.
Paul N. Tobin, the eminent sceptic, stated the sceptics' case thus: "We know that the
Thus, he assumes because Mark couldn't have had Jesus prophesy the fall of the temple on the grounds that Jesus could not have predicted that, therefore Mark must be dated after
Doctor Bo Reicke put it more forthrightly: "it is nothing short of jingoistic and uncritical dogma to claim in New Testament criticism that the gospels must have been written after the Jewish revolt [AD 66-70], simply because they contain prophecies of the destruction of the second
It's the shoddy scholarship of the rationalists which is so upsetting, in any other field eminent but in the matter of Jesus, corner cutting in the worst way. An example is Wikipedia's assertion 'Gospel of Mark [anonymous]'. No, it's not anonymous at all. There is ample evidence of its authorship.
Regarding Jesus from non-biblical sources
It depends how one wishes to use Josephus. To prove divinity, it's shaky indeed because of the supposed insertion but enough is consistent with both his style, source material and purpose [his referring to the stoning of James]to establish the historicity of Jesus.
Tacitus is more unequivocal and establishes Jesus beyond doubt but refers to superstitions and to believers believing, which of course does not establish divinity.
Suetonius is more flawed but is useful as viewed as additional material.
Pliny the Younger, around
The point of this
The divinity of Jesus depends not only on his prophecy in Mark but on the empty tomb and that's another field in itself. This article confines itself to the dating of Mark because as every atheistic, humanistic and rationalist 'scholar' infesting institutions of higher learning knows, to accept a pre-