Fundamentalist Muslim Paul Bilal Williams – Thanks for posting that video! (no longer available, as Paul Williams changed his blog url.)
Barron not only refuted Reza Aslan, but he refuted Islam as well. Most scholars, even ones who don’t believe in God or miracles or the supernatural (like John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, and Marcus Borg) admit that the real historical Jesus was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish leadership, under Annas and Caiaphas and the scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Sanhedrin council. The historical fact of Jesus’ crucifixion refutes Islam, since the Qur’an denies that Jesus was crucified and killed. (Qur’an Surah 4:157)
Al Masih ( المسیح ) died on the cross, was the fulfillment of the prophesy – “God Himself will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:8) and John the Baptizer ( یحیی – John 1:29 – “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”) – the substitutionary ransom (فدیه – Qur’an 37:107; Mark 10:45 – the Greek word for “ransom” translated into Arabic and Farsi is the same root word in the Qur’an at 37:107, speaking of when Allah substituted a ram in the place of Abraham’s son. “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”)
“For the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
and Jesus Al Masih rose from the dead (Mark 16:1-8; Matthew 28; Luke 24; John 20; 1 Corinthians 15) and proved He was the Messiah, Son of God, the Word of God from all eternity (کلمه الله – John 1:1-5; 1:14).
All the scholars that Fr. Barron names believe that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and killed by the Romans. (E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham) Though Paul Bilal Williams likes to use certain cherry-picked quotes from Sanders and Dunn, and sometimes Bauckham in order to create doubt in the minds of Christians, his whole argument and apologetic is defeated by all the positive points that these scholars make for Jesus of Nazareth being crucified and other facts that go against Islam.
There is no really good reason to date Mark as late as 70 AD. The only real reason that many scholars believe that is because they cannot believe in supernatural prophesy, that Jesus actually predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. (Matthew 23:36-39; 24:1-15; Mark chapter 13) Muslims are inconsistent to follow those kinds of scholars, since Muslims actually believe that God can speak supernaturally and can inspire prophets to predict the future. So Muslims should stop using those anti-supernaturalistic arguments against the Bible, since the same arguments can be used against the Qur’an and Hadith and Islamic sources.
So, Mark was probably written between 45 – 60 AD, as Luke was written around 61 AD – the evidence for that is clear by the way Acts ends in Acts 28, at the end of the 2 year house arrest of Paul. That means Acts was written in 62 AD and Luke in 61 AD. This means that Matthew and Mark were written before then probably in the 50s.
Two books (one by a liberal scholar and one by a believing scholar) that argue cogently for early dating of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are: