Vinnie

I don't think this is much of an issue, though I don't any one or extremely few on this forum have the linguistic competency to challenge or disprove it.

Vinnie

bacht

Right, I don't read Greek. I don't know the technical arguments re vocabulary, syntax, proper names etc.

The gospel prologue suggests the opposite to what Acts is arguing: that Christianity was a unified belief system, one big happy family with Peter and Paul as fellow "harvesters". Luke implies in his gospel that the other writers (Mark? Matthew?) were factually or doctrinally incorrect. Between the lines we can deduce evolution of beliefs rather than a fixed revelation OR regional variations glossed over in the Acts version.

Vinnie

He works in sales. The used-car saleman doesn't say "well a few times I heard a funny noise and it stalled", but instead he say "it runs great, its a steal, I was going to let my daughter have it if it doesn't sell this week". The author is definitely selling a product in Acts, there is no doubt about that. A little paint, a little wax, a nice cleaning.....

Vinnie

Julio

I agree with you. Coarsely, Luke rejects the other synoptic in his three-verse Introduction, when he [disguisedly] says MANY have already attempted to put these stories in the right fashion but failed! I have the right information, he said!
Well, he also cheated his readers, for sure, for he does not name anyone of his eye witnesses. Which is a STRONG point in favour of a later composition and production.
That is, his eyewitnesses were not anyone in the "Apostolic College", from the Twelve. Had he had firsthand information from, say, Peter, he would no doubt mention his name!
As I said before, Matthew 16:17-19 is very clear "proof" to me that NONE of the synoptic is original.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

With Luke writing as the earliest Gospel, 40 AD to the high priest Theophilus, the earlier incomplete writings he referred to would not now be extant.

It is very difficult to date Mark and Matthew much earlier than 40 AD and also have Luke upset with their writing. Especially Mark writing to a reading audience based in Rome (whether he wrote to them in Greek or Latin or both).


Shalom,
Steven Avery

bacht

Luke was written in 40 ce?

Toto

Only in Steven Avery's alternative universe.

bacht

Yeah, it's a new one to me, even from the apologist camp.

spamandham

Fundies say the darndest things. :banghead:

Julio

Any good scholars will call that date [40CE] preposterous claptrap. The term "MANY" in the Introduction is a strong clue to push the date further into the second century, if nothing else. Luke had read some of those "many" and was flabbergasted with the DISORDER, meaning folklore and exaggeration. That term also means that he never read any of the other two synoptic ones [much less John], otherwise he would have mentioned them.