At robertson redating the new testament

Internal considerations of the work give us no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this tradition.

at robertson redating the new testament-57

At robertson redating the new testament

His detailed knowledge of Paul’s life, corroborated by Paul’s own letters but evidencing no dependence on them (see below), already points in this direction.

But the most impressive indication of his companionship with Paul is the incidental way the author switches from the usual first person singular to the first person plural at certain junctures in his narrative (–17; 20:5–; 27:1–).

Both works, for example, share a distinctive universal scope, a sympathetic treatment of women, a concern for Gentiles, a similar apologetic tendency, and an identical christology.

A host of other more incidental considerations also indicate that one author wrote the two works as a two volume set.

We have, I contend, remarkably good grounds for accepting the portrait of the early Church in Acts as being quite reliable.

And these same grounds constitute further proof that the liberal view of the historical Jesus as originally non-supernatural is fundamentally flawed.(11) Nor is there a shred of literary evidence to support such a view.(12) The frequent attempts to override this evidence by appealing to supposed discrepancies between Paul and Luke’s theology are not convincing.For Acts depicts the history of the early Church as being from the start a largely unified and dynamic force, centered on an exalted view of Christ.Indeed, the differences between the portrait of the early Church provided in the book of Acts and the revisionist understanding of liberal scholars could hardly be greater.(9) Such switches are too subtle and too infrequent to constitute a fictitious apologetic ploy or to be seen as mere literary convention.

Tags: , ,