[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto:
[b]Since this issue appears to be a major point of contention, I will lay out here some arguments for a post-150 C.E. date for Acts. I have taken most of this from Doherty’s web site and book, and from a few other sources. I have not talked to Doherty about this and cannot represent his views, and this may not be complete.

Internal evidence from Luke
It seems to be universally held that the same person made the final redaction of Luke and wrote Acts. Doherty holds (along with others) that there was an earlier version of Luke, which was substantially rewritten or redacted in the second century by the same person who wrote Acts.

The Gospel of Luke starts by saying that "many writers have undertaken to draw up an account of the events that have happened among us, following the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Gospel." Luke demonstrably uses only Mark and Q as major sources. But Luke seems to be aware of a mass of material, and his (or her, according to Randal Helms) comment about "traditions handed down" implies the passage of time needed to produce that amount of oral and written tradition. This description best fits the second century, when many Gospels were in circulation.

In addition, Luke evidences a view of the church that is typical of the mid second century more than the first.

I think Alfred Loisy agrees with Doherty:
"We have already mentioned the Acts of the Apostles, a book which, like the third Gospel, presents conditions somewhat peculiar. Alone among New Testament writings these two carry a dedication, of a well-known type in Greco-Roman antiquity. Luke was not the author of the dedication to Theophilus, the general prologue (Luke i, 1-4) forbidding us to include the author of it in the first Christian generation. Furthermore, the part of the prologue to Acts which has been preserved implies that the former book to Theophilus did not contain the birth stories and related only the ministry of the Christ up to the time of his death. Finally all the evidence shows that the second part of the original prologue to Acts, in which the proper object of the book was stated by the original author, has been mutilated by a writer who understood that object in a different manner from the author to Theophilus and who, in consequence, had to reconstruct his book from the beginning to end as, in fact, he has done. All this latter writer has conserved of Luke's work is certain fragments of his memoirs of which the original author to Theolphilus had made a fuller use. It follows that Luke wrote neither the third Gospel nor Acts. He wrote only certain passages in the latter book, and we are compelled to recognize at least two stages in the composition of both books." The Origins of the New Testament, pp. 13-14.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 03, 2001).]

Meta =>Two major scholars, Streeter and Taylor held that Luke began his Gosple, than got hold of Mark, and re-wrote it. What is the evidence for an earlier version?


Meta => There's also the L source, and there is evidence of multiple sources all over Luke but most of them slight, the use of some other source on just one or two verses. His main sources are Mark, Q, Matt, and L, but he doesn't say he's using the sources, from this vast body of material, only that many have tried to make an account.


Meta =>No really. If you compare Luke to Ignatious or Polycarp, there far less development. He never metiones the "Bishop and the Presbyters" which is a major formulation in Ignatious. and he never metions virgins or widows or even Decans, thus avoiding the major heirarchical stucture which formed up by 150 and is all prevacive in Ignatious.

Competing Silences


Meta =>That doesn't prove anything. It's also possible that it had not been seperated from Luke's Gosple by that time. So mentions of "Luke" might also be mentions of Acts if they are early enough.

From his website:


MEta => Hu?


MEta =>That's just the typical Atheist inability to read a text. If Luke asserts some fine detail though assumption that Paul doesn't spell out that' s a major contradiction! Paul says he had lunch with Peter but doesn't say what they ate, Acts says they ate beans and rice and so that's a major contradiction!

From Graham Lester, above:


Meta =>That's nothing. It's not even true, just another case of Paul doesn't say what they had for lunch but Luke does so they contradict.

Meta => But this is a major contradiction for Doherty. Whenever we argue that evidence for the Pagan saviorgods isn't found before the end of the first century he arued that it is absurd to think that they sprang into existence just at the same time that sources writing about them show up. He also makes the same contradiction with Jesus' historicity, arguing that it was with Ignatious in 110 that Jesus is first given concete history, as though the fits time it is metioned in a wiritting we have is the first time anyone ever knew about it. But when that assumption is against him he backpeddales and says it is absurd to think the tradition would not have been going befroe the time that texts about it show up.

So the same thing applies here, make him be consistent.

Toto

Meta:

Doherty is talking about evidence for the written document "Acts", not evidence for the belief that Jesus was a real person. That is what we are discussing on this thread, not the historical Jesus and not the savior gods.

As to your other points:

We all agree that the author or final editor of Luke claims to have known about many sources, but only used a few. That is part of Doherty's argument - there is no evidence of "many" sources in the first century, but there were many floating around in the mid second century.

In my first post I mistakenly mentioned a primitive view of the church, instead of a primitive view of theology. I corrected this in the second post.

There are no earlier mentions of Luke than there are of Acts, as far as I know. The earliest mention of anything that might be the Gospels is still in the second century.

I don't know what your comment "Hu" means. Is is "Who"? Layman is your fellow apologist, with whom I had started this conversation on two other threads.

Please do not bring up irrelevant things like lunch menus. The contradictions between Paul's epistles and Acts relate to Paul's theology, his relation to the Apostles, the mission to the gentiles, etc.

Paul admitted he persecuted Christians, but did he persecute the church in Jerusalem? If so, why didn't they know who he was by sight?

Paul claims to have received his message from God (or Christ) directly and to have not bothered to visit the Apostles for several years, but Acts has him going to visit the Apostles almost immediately and receiving their blessing. That sounds like a big contradiction, and one that an anti-Marcionite would have written.

Saying "that's nothing" is not a very effective argument.

I have cited a lot of secondary sources - I haven't read them all, but I am trying to present what appears to be within the range of scholarly material on the subject, in case the apologists try to claim that "all experts agree. . ." If you disagree with the claim that there is a big discrepancy between Paul's letters and Acts, please address the details above directly. I have cited chapter and verse to make it easy for you.

Part 1.

It seems to me that Toto's argument breaks down into four points:

1. The internal evidence indicates a later date.

In fact, the internal evidence indicates a second-generation Christian writing as a participant in some of the events articulated.

2. Early Silence about Acts.

The early "silence" turns out to be the failure of the very few fragments of one writer, Papias, to mention Acts. Of course, the fragments of Papias seem to focus on the "Sayings of the Lord" and show no interest in Pauline Christianity (not once referring to Paul, or alluding to his epistles). Moreover, several early Christian writings do allude to Acts.

3. Luke makes mistakes and contradicts Paul;

Meta has already express much of my reaction to this claim. Where are the specifics? Most of what Toto gives us are broad, conclusory characterizations of Paul and Acts. Moreover, this is more of a problem for his late dating theory because it fails to explain why Acts' author would not have used Paul's letters as a source.

4. A late second-century date is necessary to fit into Doherty's thesis (derived from the late John Knox).

Knox's theory has been rejected by modern New Testament scholarship, and rightly so. I'll explain why

Let's get on with it.

The So-Called Internal Evidence

What is not "universally" held is Doherty's notion that there was an earlier version of Luke that was later substantially rewritten by the same person who wrote Acts from whole clothe in the mid second-century. In fact, precious few New Testament scholars depart from the broadly accepted view that both Acts and Luke were originally authored by the same person. See, e.g., John Drane, Introducing the New Testament; N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul, Between Damascus and Antioch; John P. Meier, Jesus, A Marginal Jew; F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Ben Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Acts; Graham Stanton, The Four Gospels and Jesus.

Doherty's view apparently relies on the old, and outdated, "Tubingen" school. In fact, most of Toto's argument rests on assuming, without proving, the old Tubingen school, as well as the late John Knox, is correct. However, "[t]he Tubingen approach to the book of Acts did not survive the criticisms of scholars such as J.B. Lightfoot and Albrecht Ritschl. The assumption that the late-first-century and early-second-century church was torn by factions was shown to be unfounded..... We therefore have no grounds on which to accuse the author of Acts of creating an unhistorical and tendentious scenario...." D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, at 196 .

In fact, two leading New Testament scholars from the Tubingen school have completely rejected the "old school's" thoughts and actually have accepted Lukan, and first-century, authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. "I regard Acts as a work that was composed soon after the Third Gospel by Luke 'the beloved physician.' (Col. 4:14), who accompanied Paul on his travels from the journey with the collection to Jerusalem onwards." Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul, Between Damascus and Antioch, at 7. .

The style, language, purpose, and even the way Luke and Acts fit onto two equal sized scrolls, indicate a unity of authorship:

John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, at 185.

Additionally:

Merril C. Tenney, New Testament Survey, at 231-32.

Furthermore, the notion that Luke and Acts had different authors, or that Luke was substantially redacted by a mid-second century author of Acts, has no textual support whatsoever. There are two distinct textual traditions of Acts. The first is the one found in most Bibles and is thought to be the closest to the original text. The second, known as the "Western" text, is substantially longer (about 10%) and includes more details and identifies Luke with more precision. Neither textual tradition provides any support to Toto's theory and, in fact, indicates no substantial redaction of the kind that Toto presumes to have taken place. Indeed, it seems like the only basis to conclude that such redacting existed is to presume a mid-second century date, and then try and explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Because Luke so obviously existed in the first-century, the only way to explain the second-century date is to manufacture alleged textual manipulation based on the theory you chose to begin with.

I have to admit to being somewhat confused by Toto's argument, if he is following Doherty. In the debate, Doherty admits that he accepted a first-century date for Luke. But this argument is based on the introduction to the Gospel of Luke, not Acts. Of course, despite the fact that all extant textual traditions contain this introduction, perhaps Toto is saying that this is the work of the phantom redactor of Luke/author of Acts?

That being said, Luke's prologue in no way supports Toto's rather imprecise argument that Acts (and Luke?) should be dated to the mid-second century.

First, the phrase "many writers" does not support Toto's arbitrary assertion that this must include a "mass of material." At the time most scholars believe Luke wrote Luke/Acts (75-85 CE), there already existed "many writers" of the gospel: Mark, Q, L, John's Signs Source, Matthew, M, and the Aramaic-Matthew. And these are just the one's we have information about. It is likely that there were other writings existing which have been lost to time.

Second, I agree that the phrase "traditions handed down" indicates the passage of time, but it in no way indicates the passage of over 120 years! That is fantastic leap and ignores Luke's clear statement that these are things which "happened among us," indicating that the "Apostolic Age" was not closed, or had only recently closed. Additionally, Luke is clear that he, and the recipient of his writings, were second-generation Christians. He states that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us." Acts 1:2. This also indicates a proximity to the "Apostolic Age" and that he knew and relied on eyewitnesses. Far from indicating a mid-second century date, these passages demand a first-century date. Indeed, a first-century date close-enough in time to have been written by a second-generation Christian.

This is nothing but a conclusory assertion with no substantive content or references. What is the second-century church's view of the church? What was the first-century church's view? What does Luke say or not say about it? Meta has specified many of the problems with this view.

Contrary to Toto's unsupported assertion, it is commonly believed that Luke evidences a view of the church that correlates with the first-century church rather than the second-century church. Whereas even early second-century authors such as Ignatius and Polycarp refer to a rather authoritarian church with a fixed hierarchy, including Bishops and Presbyters, Luke presents a much more primitive church--similar to the first-century church. As Ben Witherington states, "even more telling, his primitive ecclessiology, which bears no resemblance to what we find in Ignatius or other Christian writers of the later era." Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, at 61.

Before getting into the "arguments from silence" I want to at least briefly examine what is the most important "internal evidence" which Toto has completely ignored. The famous "we" passages of Acts indicates that its author participated in some of Paul's journeys, requiring a first-century date. Indeed, the fact that the author participated as an adult in the events of Paul's life, which ended around 62-64 CE, requires a first-century date close-enough in time to the early 60's CE to allow for Acts authorship within the lives of Paul's associates. The "we" sections fit snuggly into the rest of the text and appear to have been written by the same author. No hint of interpolation or the incorporation of another source. Nor does this appear to be a mere literary device. It is what is appears to be: the attestation of the author that he participated in the described events.

Arguments from Silence

While I know that arguments from silence are Doherty's favorite tactic, this one really holds no water. The only specific "silence" that Doherty offers is that alleged regarding Papias.

First, it is impossible to determine what Papias was "silent" about or "ignorant" of because, of his five books, the "Exegis of the Sayings of the Lord", only fragments have been preserved for us. And even those are not from his text, but from later Christian authors who referred to him. While I have no doubt, and no reason to doubt, that later Christian authors correctly quoted Papias correctly, it is abundantly clear that the few snippets later recorded are only a fraction of what Papias wrote. Accordingly, there is no way to know all that Papias wrote or referred to.

Second, because Papias book was an "Exegis of the Sayings of the Lord," it would not be surprising if Papias had left out a work that did not focus on the Sayings of the Lord, but rather on some of early Church history. Acts contains few "sayings" of the Lord and instead focuses on the Peter and then Paul's founding of the early Church.

Third, Doherty's assertion that Papias "stressed his connections with and knowledge of the apostolic age and its figures" is extraordinarily misleading. Papias's Exegis was NOT a commentary on the Gospels because Papias clearly preferred oral traditions about Jesus. Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, at 65. Papias expressly stated that he thought could learn more by listening to the students of the original disciples of Jesus than we could from reading other books.

Fourth, it seems clear that Papias was a member of the Johannine community. That is, he was not from a church that was founded by Paul or one of Paul's disciples. His information seems to be strongest about John's Epistles and Revelation, as well as at least one of Peter's letters. Because Acts seems to be a product of Pauline Christianity, it is not at all unusual that the fragments of Papias do not mention a treatise that focuses to a large extent on Paul, if he even had a copy. Importantly, and strongly highlighting this is the fact that none of our fragments of Papias mentions or alludes to Paul, Paul's epistles, or Luke. This despite the fact that Paul's letters were in general circulation among Christian churches by the end of the first-century as authoritative literature.

Fifth, the few fragments of Papias that we have are "silent" about a number of first-century writings or early second-century writings that we are confident existed: all of Paul's epistles, Q, Greek Matthew (the only version the fragments reference is the Aramaic version), Luke, Acts, Hebrews, 1 Clement, James, and the seven authentic letters of Ignatius. Other early Christian documents that the fragments of Papias do not mention are the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepard of Hermas.

Is Toto willing to suggest that Paul's letters did not exist because Papias fails to reference them? Or that Greek Matthew did not exist? Or that Paul himself did not exist? Or that Luke (or proto-Luke?) did not exist? Or that Q did not exist? How about 1 Clement? No? Then there is even less reason to think that Acts did not exist because a reference or allusion to it does not exist in the surviving fragments of Papias that we have today. Accordingly, the "silence" that Doherty thinks is "inconceiveable" is actually to be expected and in no way indicates that Acts had not been written before Papias wrote is Exegis.

Toto's arguments also overlooks the many allusions to Acts found in other early Christian writings. An examination of the early Christian literature reveals that many of them used phrases and terms unique to the Acts of the Apostles.

Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaens (110 CE): Acts 10:41.

You can review the letter at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/ignatius.html

1 Clement (95 CE): Acts 26:18; Acts 20:35, 4:27.

You can review the letter at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/1clement.html

2 Clement (130-150 CE): Acts 10:42.

You can review the letter/writing at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/2clement.html

Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians (110-130 CE): Acts 10:42; Acts 16:12.

You can review the letter at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/polycarp.html

Martyrdom of Polycarp (150-160 CE): Acts 10:42; 16:12.

You can review the letter at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/wri...mpolycarp.html

And as you noted: Justin Martyr (150 CE): Acts 1.

Other possible allusions: Didache (60-120 CE)-Acts 4:32; Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 CE)-Acts 14:22.

Another very significant early attestation to the Acts of the Apostles can be found in the Gospel of Truth, produced by Valentinias to support his gnostic brand of Christianity.

Milton Fisher, The Canon of the New Testament, in The Origin of the Bible, Philip Comfort, Ed., at 71. See also W.C. van Unnik, "The Gospel of Truth and the New Testament," at 123.

Accordingly, from Christian, and even Gnostic, early literature there are several allusions to Acts. Far from being "silent" about Acts, the early Christian leaders were using it as a source for their own thoughts and letters.

I have not argued for a date of 62 CE.

Regardless, because Toto discusses the details on this later, I'll respond in detail later. For now I would point out that the fact that the author of Acts does get a lot write about Paul. Furthermore, even if Luke knew Paul that would not ensure 100% agreement between the letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Paul did not leave behind a narrative of his missionary journeys or an exhaustive articulation of his theology. Additionally, the Acts of the Apostles is not a biography of Paul, but is a history of the early Church history. Their agendas and audiences were very different.

I would only add at this point that any difficulties between Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles poses an even more difficult problem for Toto's notions than it does for a date of 75-85 CE. If Acts was written in the mid-second century he would have been able to ensure an exact correlation between Paul's letters and his own text. If the author of Acts had partial access to Paul himself, and no access to his letters, then we might expect some level of apparent tension between Paul's occasional letters and the Acts of the Apostles.

John's Knox's Theory that Acts was Written in Response to Marcion

It seems that Toto is arguing that Marcion's Pauline epistles and his version of Luke were actually the original version, and that the church altered Luke, the Pauline epistles, and wrote Acts out of whole clothe in response. This is far, far, far, far, far from the accepted view of the Marcion controversy.

As a quick review of history reveals, Marcion was advocating a novel theology and began to "butcher" the generally accepted Holy Books of the Church in order to advance it.

Marcion was actually a part of the orthodox Roman church prior to engaging in "heresy." He had, in fact, donated a large sum of money to them. After he began expressing his novel theology, he then left the orthodox Roman church and founded a separate church around 144 CE. His money was refunded to him because of his "heresy."

The articulation of his developing theology was "Antithesis." Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament and the Jews was the "antithesis" of the god of the New Testament. His urge to eradicate all vestiges of Old Testament influence from Christianity caused him to completely reject the Old Testament, reject the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pastorals, and parts of Luke. He even edited some of the Pauline epistles that he coopted. See E. Glenn Hinson, The Early Church, at 91-92 All of Marcion's editing appears to have been motivated by one factor: expunge inappropriate references to the Old Testament or indicating continuity between Christianity and Judaism.

Early Christianity's response to Marcion was to reiterate its continuity with the Old Testament and Judaism. This continuity was not a reaction to Marcion, but in the tradition of the earlier New Testament books Marcion rejected (Acts, Mark, Matthew, Hebrews, John, etc.), as well as the views held by the early-second century church (as demonstrated by 1 Clement to the Corinthians, and Ignatius Seven letters to various other churches and Polycarp). Additionally, the emphasis on continuity was not done by editing Paul's letters, editing Luke, or creating a new piece such as Acts. Rather, it was done by rejecting Marcion's editing of these books and accepting those works that he rejected.

Toto's argument that Marcion would not have adopted Luke if Acts existed at this time is without merit. Luke was the gospel most closely associated with Paul and the only one not written by a Jew. Mark was associated with Peter and Matthew's gospel is overwhelmingly Jewish. The Gospel of John was completely unrelated to Paul and was not widely used in Rome. The only choice for him was Luke. Of course, Luke itself has many Jewish elements, so Marcion expunged those elements from Luke. In other words, although he accepted the Gospel of Luke, even it did not escape his editing. A man willing to reject all gospels tied to Judaism and/or the Old Testament, and edit out positive references to Judaism and/or the Old Testament in Luke would simply reject the Acts of the Apostles as well.

As for the notion that Marcion's Pauline Epistles and his version of Luke were the more original, and that the church altered those to fit their needs, this idea has almost no living proponents and even less supporting evidence. It is widely recognized that Marcion butchered his documents to fit his theological agenda to remove positive portrayals of the Old Testament or Judaism. Let's look at some of the specifics:

Marcion edited out references to John the Baptist's ministry and the Baptism of Jesus. Both of these were not special Lukan material, but were in fact important parts of the sources we know Luke used: Mark and Q. The same goes to Luke's references to the Tempting of Jesus. And, Marcion's Luke altered the Lord's Prayer to make it less "Old Testamentish." All of these deletions and edits were made to sources that preceded the Gospel of Luke, but that we all agree Luke relied on.

It is unreasonable to suppose that the allegedly earlier proto-Luke had originally relied so heavily on Mark and Q, left out all references to John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, and the Tempting of Jesus which were so important to those sources, and that the Church only reached back to Mark and Q (which was most likely unavailable at that time) one hundred years later and inserted them for the first time into Luke's Gospel! Indeed, if the early Church was to do such a thing it would most likely have used the Gospel of Matthew, because it had reached primacy and was the gospel which most specifically indicated continuity with the Old Testament. Mark's importance had dwindled to that of Matthew and there is no evidence that Q had made it out of the first-century as an independent source.

Marcion also eliminated Luke's references to Jesus' birth. "The birth of Jesus himself was omitted: Jesus entered the world not by birth but by a descent as supernatural as was his later ascension. (Marcion found the whole idea of a conception and childbirth disgusting.)" F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 137 It is inconceivable that Marcion accurately represents an earlier tradition based on Luke which lacked a Birth Narrative. The idea of Jesus' human birth was commonly accepted throughout the early Church prior to Marcion. The Gospel of Matthew is famous for its Birth Narrative. Indeed, the Roman church itself expressed this view in 1 Clement (95 CE), as did Ignatius in his seven letters to six different churches (one of them Rome) and Polycarp. And, as discussed above, it is unreasonable to think that the Church of the mid-second century would have invented an entirely new birth narrative when the Gospel of Matthew had achieved such prominence. Surely if they were going to invent a new Birth Narrative for Luke they would have used the Gospel of Matthew as a template. But again, there is no literary dependence of Luke on Matthew. In fact, many on this board have argued that the two Birth Narratives conflict with each other.

The same goes for Marcion's editing of Paul's letters. "Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an aliend hand and was removed." F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 139. In the case of Paul's letters, however, Marcion drastically edited only two of them: Romans and Galatians. He largely left alone the rest although he combined 1 & 2 Corinthians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians (which the early church correctly recognized as separate). The most notable edits were to remove all references in Galatians to Paul, Peter, and James in Jerusalem and the account of Abraham's faithfulness. These redactions were obviously motivated by Marcion's attempt to separate Paul from Judaism and the Old Testament.

This theory also falls because of the relatively recent discovery of the Gospel of Truth (which was found among the Nag Hammadi documents). Valentinus was a gnostic contemporary of Marcion who, as discussed above, refers authoritatively to Acts around 140 CE. Not only does this establish the existence of Acts by 140 CE, it pushes the date of its authorship back much further. Valentinus, a gnostic, would not have been relying on a book newly authored by orthodox Christianity that was intended to combat heresy and establish the continuity of Christianity with Judaism and the Old Testament.

Finally, John Knox's theory fails to explain Acts' silence as to Paul's epistles. Or, more accurately put, it fails to explain why those letters are not alluded to by the author of Acts. Non-gnostic church leaders such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the authors of the Didache clearly relied on Paul's epistles. Indeed, it is from such letters and writings that we know that the Pauline' corpus of letters was circulated among the early church and considered to be authoritative. This is not something that occurred after or in response to Marcion, but was a part of the pre-Marcion church. It is clear, therefore, that they were not considered "unsafe" or in need of "cleaning" by the early Church. The aforementioned authors not only referred to Paul's epistles, but they also referred to the Gospel of Matthew, and, more importantly, the Old Testament. They reflected what was the common belief of the pre-Marcion early Church: continuity from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

So when Marcion rises up, redacts Paul's letters and alters the Gospel of Luke, it is unreasonable to believe that the early Church would react by conceding that Paul's letters support Marcion's cause or where somehow "unsafe." They certainly had not thought before. The author of the Acts of the Apostles, as focused as he was in the latter half of his work with Paul, surely could not have ignored the many references in Paul's letters to the Old Testament. Or the explicit statements that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament laws and prophets. Especially if the purpose of his writing was to put down the Marcion heresy. In short, far from explaining the problem of Acts' silence regarding Paul's letters, Knox's theory exacerbates the problem by creating a powerful motive for the author of Acts to use Paul's letters against Marcion.

CONTINUED.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 03, 2001).]

PART 2.

The Alleged Discrepancies

Meta actually took care of much of this in his post (especially the lack of specificity). However, I'll provide some further commentary and look forward to specific discussions.

This section of alleged discrepancies, as admitted by Toto, are derived from the rejected Tubingen school. Additionally, Toto gives few specifics or scripture references for many of the alleged discrepancies. Indeed, many of them appear to be highly subjective and responding to them will be incomplete unless Toto can come forth with specifics. Nevertheless, I'll comment on the ones that contain sufficient information to allow a response.

As a preliminary note, however, mistakes or discrepancies Paul and Luke/Acts do not disprove the theory that Luke/Acts was written by an associate of Paul, or that it was necessarily written more than 100 years after the events described. Paul and Luke wrote for different reasons to different audiences at different times. As highly featured as Paul is in Luke, he is not a Paul clone, but writes with his own agenda, theology, and audience. And, as discussed above, any alleged discrepancies are even more problematic for Toto's theory because such difficulties demonstrates Luke's ignorance of the contents of Paul's letters. Such a situation is very unlikely after 100 CE.

1. several passages in Acts that described Saul persecuting the church in Jerusalem seemed to contradict Paul's own assertion in Galatians (Gal. 1.22)

Toto failed to prove relevant scriptures from Acts, but I suppose that he is thinking of Acts 8:3.

"Now Saul was consenting to his death [the death of the hellenist Stephen]. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles.... As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word." Acts 8:1-4. Luke then records how Phillip, another hellenist Jew, preached in Samaria.

Galatians 1:13, 15, 18-23.

"For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.... But when it pleased God ... to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood....Then after three years, I sent up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained 15 days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother ... Afterward I sent into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and I was unknown by face to the churches in Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy."

I must first point out that Toto is being very inconsistent here. According to him, the original version of Galatians did not contain these verses. According to him, Marcion's Galatians is the original version and Galatians does not include 1:18-24! Thus, according to Toto, Galatians did not originally contain the reference to the churches in Judea not knowing Paul's face. I leave it for Toto to decide if he now wishes to change his mind and accept the integrity of this passage.

It is clear from both Acts and Paul's epistles that Paul persecuted the Church, was converted, and that he eventually arrived in Jerusalem after his conversion. It is also clear that Paul nowhere denies having been in Jerusalem prior to his conversion. Moreover, it is unclear if Paul's persecution targeted the hellenists (since the Apostles were not forced to leave and the only Christians specifically mentioned are hellenists), and not the more conservative Jewish Christians. I don't think it is clear that Acts meant that Paul persecuted churches in Judea other than the Jerusalem church. Regardless, Paul merely states that the churches of Judea (possibly not including Jerusalem) did not know him by face somewhere around 3 years after the persecution "drove" all but the Apostles out of Jerusalem. Whether this is because he persecuted other churches, only the Jerusalem church, or because, as Acts notes, he had "driven" them out, is not clear to me.

2. Acts portrayed Paul as being more respectful of the ritual law than readers of his letters would suppose

Subjective and conclusory. Even if true, it is not entirely clear that Paul's views on the ritual law were exhausted by his occasional letters. Nor does this in any way indicate a dating of acts to the mid-second century. In fact, it militates against it if Acts' author had the letters to use as a source.

3. Acts disagreed with Romans about the success of the new faith's outreach to Jews

You'll have to be more specific. Even if true, it is not entirely clear that Paul's views on the Jewish outreach were exhausted by the letter to the Romans. It should also be pointed out that Romans was written relatively late in Paul's ministry, when it perhaps had become more apparent that the Jewish outreach was not succeeding as the Gentile outreach. Moreover, if Acts was written to a Roman audience to convince them that Christianity should be legally protected like Judaism, then it would be important to its author to note that there were Jewish Christians. Regardless, some tension on this issue in no way indicates a mid-second century date (when it was even more clear, despite the existence of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, that the Gentile mission has far outpaced the Jewish mission).

4. Luke had Paul receive the holy spirit through the laying on of hands, but the apostle himself simply claimed to be ordained by God

Again, please be specific. I'm not sure that Paul or Luke thought the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit was the same as ordination by God to be an Apostle. In fact, I'm not sure that either would think that the laying on of hands would preclude an ordination by God. Specifics? And again, even some tension between the two doesn't indicate a mid-second century date. In fact, it militates against it if Acts' author had the letters to use as a source.

5. Paul's preaching in Acts was essentially in line with that of the other apostles, but he actually claimed in the epistles to be preaching a unique gospel

Specifics? Actually, I thought Paul was pretty clear that the gospel was the same, but his mission with that gospel was to the Gentiles, while Peter, John, and James' mission with that gospel was to the Jews. Same gospel, different missions. And again, even some tension between the two doesn't indicate a mid-second century date. In fact, it militates against it if Acts' author had the letters to use as a source.

6. There were "glaring discrepancies" between the accounts in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 regarding the responsibility for the mission to the gentiles.

Specifics? And again, even some tension between the two doesn't indicate a mid-second century date. In fact, it militates against it if Acts' author had the letters to use as a source.

7. The description of Paul's visit to Thessalonica given in Acts (Acts 17.6-7, 10) contradicted
the apostle's own statements in 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess. 1.9; 2.9).

How are the descriptions conflicting? Please be specific.

8. Paul told the Corinthians that he had made a dramatic escape from the Nabatean Arab forces of King Aretas IV (2 Cor. 11.32-33), but Luke claimed that he had been fleeing from the Jews instead (Acts 9.23-25).

I'm actually surprised to find this among a list of so-called discrepancies. We have here an incredible overlap between Acts and one of Paul's occasional letters. Made all the more fantastic by our agreement that Luke was not relying on Paul's letters when he wrote his account. He have agreement that:

1. Paul's life was threatened;
2. The city's gates were guarded;
3. Paule escaped by being let down through a window in a large basket.

And, I might add, Paul does not say that King Aretas was after him, but rather that the governor of the City.

The notion that this proves that Acts was written late is pretty far-fetched. To the contrary, this actually supports Lukan authorship and/or a first-century date for authorship:

Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, at 320-21.

If you want to get specific on these issues I am willing to do so. But you should also explain why the specified "discrepancy" supports a mid-second century date.

In Sum:

None of the reasons offered by Toto for a second-century date are persuasive and his attempt to explain Acts' failure to use the Pauline letters as a source fail.

<clapping> Fantastic pair of posts, Layman, well worth the effort you put into them. I really enjoyed reading them.

Michael

Toto

Thanks for your substantive posts, Layman. I think that this will advance the discussion.

It will take me some time to go through your material, and anyone else reading this is welcome to jump in with more information. But here are some preliminary points and questions:

You say that there is clear evidence of Luke existing in the first century. Exactly what clear evidence is there, as opposed to inferences and probabilities? Is there any hard basis for the "scholarly consensus" of the dating of the Gospels? The problem here seems to be a general lack of evidence one way or the other.

I have never mentioned Galatians. Are you thinking of someone else? I am not Doherty's surrogate and can't speak for him or anyone else.

I brought up an argument regarding the date 62 C.E. because Doherty says that that date would destroy the Jesus myth hypothesis. In his book, Doherty cites a range of dates for Acts from other scholars, from Burton Mack's 120 C.E., to Knox's later dating. I think all of those dates are compatible with the mythicist case.

I do not recall Doherty dating Luke to the first century. He dates Mark to about 80-90 C.E., but his reasoning there is that, while there is internal evidence indicating Mark wrote shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., Doherty thinks it unlikely that there would be no other historical sources referring to Mark until the mid 2nd century. His date of 80-90 for Mark is a compromise between the more usual date of 70 C.E. and a more radical date of about 130 C.E., shortly before they were referred to by Justin. If Mark was written in 90 C.E., that would push Matthew to about 100 C.E., and Luke or proto-Luke even later.

This seems pretty speculative to me, although it is an interesting speculation. My own inclination would be to give more credance to the internal literary evidence.

I hope to have more later.

We've just scratched the surface of Acts, so I don't have a post ready on Luke. I was under the impression that you were accepting Luke's first century dating. Are you now claiming that Luke too should be dated to the mid-second century? We can take that on as well, but I suppose we'll both need to do additional research. That being said, since I accept the combined authorship of Luke/Acts, all arguments I have made to date re: dating Acts to the first-century apply equally, and even more so, to Luke.

You adopted John Knox's account of the Marcion controversy. His theory seems to hold that Marcion's "Luke" and Pauline epistles were original, whereas the early Church's response was to edit the Pauline epistles, edit Luke, and invent Acts. If you reject this theory fine, but you relied heavily on it by linking, cutting, and pasting, to various articulations of Knox's perspective.

The date of Acts by itself may not be determinative of the mythicist case, but the earlier the more likely that Acts was written by a companion of Paul and the more likely that its author had access to accurate sources regarding the earliest Church, including Peter, James, John, and Peter and their belief in the human Jesus.

In the debate Doherty said he would date all of the gospels from 70-100 CE. Why would a date of Matthew to 100 CE push back Luke even farther?

If you value internal literary evidence so much why does most of your argument rely on the argument from Papias silence?

I hope so too.

Layman and Toto-

I have found this discussion extremely interesting so far.

I could use more explanation of the discrediting of the Tubingen school of criticism. I think I understand their basic scholarly assumptions, but am not clear on why or how their scholarship was discredited, or what the implications are of that issue.

I find the argument that there is too little correspondence between the Epistles and Acts for Acts to be given a much later date very significant. It seems to me to turn the arguments from silence on their head, to force an early date on Acts, if true.

Along the same lines, if Acts has a contemporary date to Paul, Paul might have chose not to write a redundant history, but instead used Luke's Gospel in his ministry. As far as I know, that conforms to early church tradition that Luke wrote Paul's gospel. My details are sketchy at this point. Do you two know if there is a reference to the book of Luke in an Epistle? I am looking for the source.

Keep up the good work. This is extremely informative.

Thanks,
Dan