Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 03-05-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reena

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

That depends entirely on the author's purpose. The author of Acts wanted his story to end while Paul was still alive, and so any reference to the fall of Jerusalem would have been anachronistic. (Not that the NT authors never committed any anachronisms, but we needn't suppose that they would have done so consistently.)

There are plenty of plausible reasons for why the author of Acts would have ended his story at such an early stage. So far as I know, they're all speculative. Of course speculation can never be evidence for anything, in that it is never valid to infer "must have been" from "could have been." It is valid, however, to offer it in rebuttal to any unsupported "could not have been" argument. It is not a demonstrable fact that any Christian writing during the late first century about the movement's early days would almost certainly have mentioned the fall of Jerusalem.

yalla · 03-05-2006, 08:04 PM

The prologue of Acts ["in the first part of my work....."] seems strong evidence that the author wrote Acts after s/he wrote "The Gospel of Luke".
If one accepts "Markan" priority then that puts the sequence thusly:
3.Acts written.
2.Gospel of "Luke" written some time previously to that.
1.Gospel of "Mark" written some time previously to g"Luke".
So when was "Mark" written?
At the extreme earliest 71 ce.
Probably considerably later.

Which makes Acts lots later.

Dargo · 03-05-2006, 08:06 PM

Perhaps Luke (or whatever his name was) died before Acts could be finished.

RUmike · 03-05-2006, 08:13 PM

From Stephen Harris' The New Testament, a Student's Introduction:

Quote:

Some critics suggest that Luke, deeply concerned with Christianity's legal status in the Roman Empire, deliberately omits any mention that Paul and Peter, like Jesus, were tried and executed for treason against Rome. This unfortunate outcome for the religion's two loading proponents runs counter to the author's insistence that Christianity is a lawful faith innocent of any sedition against the state.

Many scholars contend that Acts ends abruptly, not because Luke wants to avoid political facts that do not fit his theme, but because he regards Paul's evangelizing in Rome as the fulfillment of his purpose in writing. Luke's conclusion well illustrates his principal historical-theological interest: Paul resolves to focus his message on receptive Gentiles, shifting his primary attention from Jews to a Greco-Roman audience. Luke sees the church's future in the teeming millions of Gentiles throughout Rome's vast empire, a vision confirmed by later history.

As a believer who infers religious meaning from historical events, Luke completes his picture of primitive Christianity with a sketch of Paul -- representing the church's mission to all nations -- vigorously proclaiming his vision of God ruling through Jesus. To Luke, Paul's activity symbolizes the divinely commanded business of the church that must continue into the distant future. Rather than end his account with a reaffirmation of Jesus' eschatological return (the Parousia), Luke looks to a future in which the "kingdom" can be preached "openly and without hindrance," attaining a recognized legal position in the world. Perhaps the least eschatologically oriented writer in the New Testament, Luke sees the world, not as a wicked place to be destroyed, but as the arena in which God effects humanity's salvation.

Act's ending thus echoes Jesus' departing words to the disciples recorded at the book's beginning. Believers are not "to know about dates or times" (eschatological speculations about the world's End) because suck knowledge belongs exclusively to "the Father" and has been "set within his own control." Instead, Christians are to carry the "good news" of Jesus "to the ends of the earth" (1:7-8). With Paul's arrival in Rome, the work is well begun. Its completion Luke entrusts to his readers.

Vorkosigan · 03-06-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reena

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

That depends. Does their non-mention of it imply that it hadn't happened yet, or that it is so far behind them it is no longer a seminal event?

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2006, 08:04 PM	#12
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	The prologue of Acts ["in the first part of my work....."] seems strong evidence that the author wrote Acts after s/he wrote "The Gospel of Luke". If one accepts "Markan" priority then that puts the sequence thusly: 3.Acts written. 2.Gospel of "Luke" written some time previously to that. 1.Gospel of "Mark" written some time previously to g"Luke". So when was "Mark" written? At the extreme earliest 71 ce. Probably considerably later. Which makes Acts lots later.

03-05-2006, 08:06 PM	#13
Dargo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 713	Perhaps Luke (or whatever his name was) died before Acts could be finished.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.