Jehanne

One argument that Christian apologists like to use is that because the author of the Acts of the Apostles did not record the Apostle Paul’s death, then the Gospel of Mark must have been written in the 50s; therefore, it could not be the result of legends, myths, etc. Since Luke did not record Paul’s death (around 70 AD), Acts must have been written in the late 60s. Since the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, it must have been written in the mid to early 60s, and since Luke is dependent upon Mark, the latter must have been written even earlier!

Your thoughts?

Julian

Acts ends in triumph, just like the author intended. He did not intend an all-encompassing history. Acts is mostly a propaganda piece, reporting Paul's death would not end the piece in the manner necessary.

It is a weak argument, anyways. Maybe the author did not know how Paul died. Maybe he didn't care. There are many reasons why he might not mention Paul's death, mostly, I think, because it would have been incongruent with the style of document.

Julian

Jehanne

Perhaps he wanted to give the impression that he knew Paul and not the impression that he was some “2nd century� forger...

Julian

The presence of the 'we' passages have been discussed at great length but seems inconclusive. Also, Luke, in his prologue to his gospel, clearly states that he was not an eyewitness, so if that can be construed to also include Acts then I don't think that we can term Luke as a 'forger' but rather as a historian with an agenda. That he made things up is certainly true. I think that makes him a liar rather than a forger, but that may just be me arguing semantics.

Julian

fta

Hey, I have a book about World War 2. It ends with the surrender of Japan in 1945. Therefore the book must have been written in the late 1940s.

A more likely explanation is that "Luke" was anxious to portray Christianity as posing no threat to Rome, so he deliberately avoided mentioning the awkward fact (or tradition) that Peter and Paul were executed by the Roman authorities. Acts ends by specifying that Paul lived in Rome for "two years ... no man forbidding him". The author must have been aware that there had been a change in Paul's circumstances after those two years (i.e. his execution).