eheffa

(I apologize if this is already clearly written somewhere but I have searched to no avail...)

I feel like the proverbial apologist but for a non-christian position (i.e. atheism) as word leaks out that I am no longer in the fold & my family rouses its defenses for the "faith". I am told that I am an infidel & in real danger of going to hell to be with my deceiver, the father of lies. So I am motivated to make sense of my understandings and to look for evidence for my position rather than just accept what I am told...(Thankfully, I am also now free to modify my position based on evidence & data rather than the demands of orthodox dogma.)

Actually, I am quite intrigued to find that so much of what has been given out as well established & indisputable history appears to be little more than wishful thinking - completely dependent on the NT Canon's authority. It is quite apparent that the orthodox Christian understanding of the history of the First Century Church is totally dependent on the Book of Acts. Apart from this "history" and the Pauline epistles and possibly the book of Mark (~CE 90), there is essentially very little to nothing outside the Canonical books that we can look to to even document the existence of the "Church" in the First century let alone derive much real history. In discussions with Christians, I find that they are incredulous that anyone would question the historicity of Jesus or the "clearly documented" history of the early Church.

Thus, the question of the authenticity of the Book of Acts is quite germane and important in understanding how the Early Church evolved. How did it come out of the historically opaque obscurity of the First Century to become the raucously public and divisive institution of the mid to late second Century?

I have read here & in a number of articles and essays that the Canonical book of Acts is a mid-second century fabrication, written ostensibly to harmonize the competing schools of the Pauline /Platonic / Logos school of Christianity (read Marcion) with that of the more Judaic / Gospel / Peter school of Christianity (read Catholic). The church needed a history & this was provided by Acts and the Gospels but it would seem that there are no references to these essential documents until ~140-150 CE at the earliest & only definitively by ~180CE. It does seem quite incredible that early church apologists of the second century did not seem aware of these vital resources/documents if they actually dated back to the latter half of the First Century as we have been told to believe by conservative scholars & evangelists.


Could someone please outline in a short concise summary, what the evidence or support for this argument would be? In other words: On what grounds can one make a case for a second century fabrication for the book of Acts?

(If this is already articulated somewhere, a link or reference would be most appreciated.)

Thank you in advance.

-evan
:wave:

Toto

It's hard to be short and concise. Earl Doherty has a good summary of the arguments in his book, the Jesus Puzzle, parts of which are on jesuspuzzle.humanists.net.

The standard "mainstream" dating of Acts is around the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century. At this date, it would not qualify as a good historical witness to the early Church, so some Christians try to push the dating earlier, by arguing that since Acts does not relate Paul's death, it must have been written before he died. But Acts was clearly written after gLuke, which relies on Mark, which refers to the destruction of the Temple, so those dates don't add up.

John Knox Marcion and the New Testament is usually cited for the idea that Acts was written in the mid 2nd century, as a reaction to Marcion.

His student Tyson in Marcion and Luke-acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) expands on the thesis. There are some comments on that book here.

Richard Pervo has published Dating Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk), which goes into considerable detail.

Ben C Smith

I do not wish to blunt any positive arguments for a century II date for Acts; indeed, I would like to see them at their strongest, since I myself am torn on the date of Acts.

But I do wonder at some of the arguments put forward for a late date. For example, under the Tyson heading on that Vridar page you link to, we find the following:

Despite interpretations that appear to lessen the divide between the Paul of the letters and Acts, it is difficult to reconcile:

• Paul’s views in Galatians with the Paul in Acts 16 who would circumcise Timothy
• Paul’s rejection of his past in Phil 3:1-11 with his maintenance of it in Acts 23:6
• Paul’s vehement defining of himself as an apostle in Gal 1:1, Rom 1:1; 1:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1, 2; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; 12:12 with the almost total denial of the title to him in Acts

The first item on this list I agree is a sticky point; it certainly belongs to any list of tensions between Acts and the Pauline epistles. But what about the second two? Sure, Paul rhetorically sets aside his past in Philippians; but he also emphasizes it, at his convenience, in other passages, such as in 2 Corinthians 11.21-23. I submit that anyone who cannot see the rhetorical advantages in both of these passages, and also Acts 23.6, is not looking hard enough. And that third point... Acts calls Paul and Barnabas apostles in Acts 14.4 and in 14.14. This is an agreement between Acts and the epistles; and, if the author of Acts personally prefers to reserve that title for the Jerusalem set, this agreement is all the more striking.

Ben.

Toto

Paul is a slippery character who both embraces and denigrates his putative Jewish background, so I can see your problem with the second point. But the single reference to Paul as an apostle in 14:14 (and the indirect reference in 14:4) are, I believe why the word "almost" precedes "total denial."

Ben C Smith

It is the word denial that is most problematic, be it qualified or not. That word carries two slightly yet significantly different meanings that could be applied here:

1. The author of Acts denies that Paul is an apostle.
2. The author of Acts (almost) does not use the title apostle of Paul (that is, the author denies him that title in practice, while not actually coming out and saying that he is not an apostle).

The first meaning might be something of a problem for traditional authorship (or, at least, something to be explained); yet it is not true.

The second meaning does not seem to be a problem at all, since that almost is an admission that the author does call Paul an apostle.

Ben.

Gamera

I would take an early second century date for Acts anyday. That would be quite close in time and certainly within the lifetime of witnesses, or the offspring of witnesses. For antiquity, that's quite good.

I also don't even have much of a problem with Knox and the "rationale" for writing Acts. Authors have all kinds of agendas. Indeed, they always have an agenda or they wouldn't write. That isn't an argument, per se, that the narrative lacks historicity.

Toto

I took the word "denial" to mean that the author of Acts denied the honor to Paul of giving him the title of apostle.

ETA: Tyson's book is searchable on Amazon. There is a more extended discussion of his point at page 68.

Ben C Smith

That is the way of taking denial that is simply not problematic, especially given Acts 14.

I find no more on page 68 about denying Paul the apostleship than what was quoted on Vridar, which amounts to a single sentence, a rhetorical question at that. Are you seeing something I am not?

Ben.

eheffa

Thanks Toto.

I have Doherty's Book & have read it but had forgotten that he discussed this issue. I will attempt to retrieve the book from the person I lent it to...

I guess I will need to order more books from amazon.ca but of the two, Pervo vs Tyson, which would you recommend if you had to pick one?

I again struck by how little information / attestation / documentation we have around these issues. Surely, the early Church would have expressed more interest in these canonical works (& specifically Acts) and written about them prior to the mid 2nd century if they were in existence & available to the church leadership?

It seems that the anti-Marcion themes of Acts gives some traction to the idea of this book dating from 120+ CE, but this seems to be nothing more than just another bit of literary criticism based hypothesis with no other supportive data or evidence? When do other authors first refer to the book of Acts as an entity?

Sorry to be a pest. I am attempting to do my homework but do appreciate a little direction as to where I should go looking.

-evan

Toto

I read the "denying" in the context of the previous paragraph which discusses the differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Epistles. I suspect if Tyson read this exchange, he might have picked a less ambiguous word.