Reena

I was listening to a debate and the pro-Christian side argued that Acts must have been written before 62AD because it fails to mention the Jewish revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem (which he said was such a huge thing that writing a history and failing to mention it is unthinkable). He also says that since Acts doesn't mention Paul's death it must have been written before he died.

If I am not mistaken the pre-Jewish-revolt argument was also made for Luke, and in my opinion could be made for the other gospels because as far as I remember none of them mention the complete destruction of Jerusalem.


But traditionally everything seems to be dated after the Jewish revolt. How can this be justified?

Thanks!

Amaleq13

Good summary:

Kirby on Luke/Acts

jjramsey

S.C. Carlson reviews Crossley's book on the dating of the Gospel of Mark, on which the Gospel of Luke depends:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...ks-gospel.html

Crossley himself argues for an early date, but Carlson sees signs that push Mark back to around the 60s. All three Synoptic gospels mention Jesus predicting of the destruction of Jerusalem, but on the other hand, given the tensions between the Jews and the Romans, that is easily a prediction that an ordinary man could have made by extrapolating from the present.

Toto

James G. Crossley: The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity

eta: Amazon.uk link

Reena

Hmm, but what about the Jewish revolt? Isn't it pretty strange that the writings don't mention it?

Steven Carr

Is this an argument from silence?

Isn't it pretty strange that Paul never mentions any miracles of Jesus, although they were awe-inspiring?

Toto

Not necessarily. You can infer from the gospel of Luke that the Temple has fallen. From the prologue, you could infer that the events described happened so long ago that there are various accounts floating around, and the writer is at least a generation removed from what he or she writes about.

Acts might not mention Paul's death because the author doesn't actually know how Paul died, or who Paul was (other than the author of some popular letters), or perhaps the Paul depicted in Acts is so far removed from any real person that he might as well be Luke Skywalker.

Reena

Yes, and sure. I am not arguing that Jesus existed/performed miracles etc.

Reena

Do you happen to know the verses? What about Mark, does he mention any of these events?

Didymus

The scholarly consensus is that Acts and the Lukan gospel were written by the same person.

Most scholars think the author didn't want to end Acts with Paul's death, but on an "onward and upward" note, in Rome, of course, because the story of Christian triumph began with Jews in Jerusalem and achieved its victory with Gentiles in the capital. (I guess he could have killed him off and staged a Pauline Resurrection, but that would have confused matters, as does the Catholic belief in the Assumption of the Virgin.)

I don't recall that Luke ever mentions Paul's letters. In Acts, Paul is more missionary hero than scolding theologian.

Didymus