hatsoff

I'm not entirely sure; I more or less trust the experts until I have a chance to investigate, myself. As I understand it, the primary reason would be due to Markan priority and the temple reference which suggests the Gospel was written after 70. Its undeveloped theology seems to place it before the Johannine stuff and pseudepigraphical Paulines. I'd say it comes from c. 75-85, and probably closer to 75.

But I'm no scholar, so I wouldn't take my word for it.

Ben C Smith

I am sure everybody here was very tempted just to take your word for it until you issued this disclaimer.

Ben.

hatsoff

Hey, you never know...

--also Ben

hatsoff

Well, I just finished re-reading R Carrier's Luke-Josephus article, and I must say I'm curious but unconvinced. Peter makes a good point on his blog that historical resources from the first century are scant, and it is precarious at best to come to a conclusion based on coincidence of overlapping historical factoids between the two authors. I'm further unconvinced that it would be so improbable for Josephus to have used Luke as a source than the other way around.

And I have never found an explanation why Luke, if he really did borrow from Josephus, did not use the same near-verbatim plagarism that he did with Mark and (presumably) Q.

Peter Kirby

If I may summarize the arguments of this thread.

1. Acts mentions Bernice in a way that suggests it was written after Juvenal's Satires.

2. Acts is by the author of Luke, which uses the Gospel of Mark, and is thus post-70.

3. Acts uses Wars of the Jews and is thus post-70; or, Acts uses Antiquities of the Jews, and is thus post-90.

4. Acts is a response to Marcion, and is thus post-130.

Is there anything else?

I like the first argument simply for its shallowness. It requires little of the reader in terms of additional hypotheses. The other arguments are "richer" and involve multiple additional hypotheses to pull off the trick, or (as in the third) involve a contentious premise (Luke-Acts used Josephus).

Are there any other arguments? The more hypothesis-poor, the better, to my mind. Something to do with a turn of phrase, custom, or geopolitical reference that puts it after 70 would be most desirable.

--
Peter Kirby

jakejonesiv

Hi Peter,

I think so. Lets take a look at the SynApoc. Luke explictly mentions "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20), a detail not mentioned by Mark or Matthew.
Wouldn't this require a post 70 CE date for Luke, and thus for Acts?

If it is argued that Jesus (or Luke) were remarkably clever, and could deduce the future prior to the event, but without supernatural assistance, where does the percipience come from that was not shared by Mark and Matthew?

Jake Jones IV

hatsoff

It does hint in that direction, but I don't think it's necessary. It is reasonable for a Christian living in the 60s--especially if the Jewish War had already begun--to talk about the fall of Jerusalem, so long as he doesn't give any unpredictable details. Most all nations rise and fall, you know.

Here's a quick question, though: I was reading Carrier's Luke-Josephus article, and I wanted to look up the passages he cited. But he seems to use a different notation than the internet translations. Specifically, I need the following:

JW 1.282-5
JW 2.117-8
JW 2.215
JW 2.247
JW 2.258-264

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

I can't seem to reconcile the two notations.

jakejonesiv

Hi hatsoff,

For the sake of argument, let's say all that is true.
But how did Luke know, and Matthew and Mark (apparently) didn't? (Luke 21:20; cf Mark 13:14; Matthew 24:15-16). Whatever the explanation, she had no idea what the Abomination of Desolation was, and Matthew and Mark had something pretty definite in mind. These discrepncies indicate that something more than lucky before-the-fact guessing was going on.

IMHO, the muddle indicates that the events of 70 CE are in the evangelist's distant pasts. But that is for another thread.

Jake Jones IV

hatsoff

I'm not sure what you mean. Everyone who took the time to think about it should have known Jerusalem wouldn't last forever. Anyone living in 66-67 would have had reason to believe that time might be approaching. All three evangelists would be in the same position to understand this.

John Kesler

Notice, though, the care that Luke takes to make explicit that a certain period of time must elapse between the destrution of Jerusalem and the Parousia. In 21:8, Luke says that the claim that "[t]he time is near" is part of the false teaching--a detail lacking in Mark 13:6 and Matthew 24:5--and in 21:9, Luke states that after the "wars and rumors of wars" (Mark/Matthew) or "wars and insurrections" (Luke), "the end will not follow immediately." Luke also claims that before Jesus' appearance, "the times of the Gentiles" (v:24) must be fullfilled, contra Mark and Matthew's contention that the days have been "shortened" (Mark 13:20; Matthew 24:22).