Roger Pearse

Speculation about the sources of ancient writers isn't evidence, tho.

I'm afraid that I don't agree.

If so -- and again I think this is speculation -- the events of 64-70 AD must have been one hell of a shock.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

In view of when it stops, there seems no pressing reason to date it to any other point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Brooke

I think it fair to say that most professional Historical Jesus scholars active today would reject this theory, at least as articulated here. The inverse proportionality is really between credibility and access to eyewitness testimony. Let us say (for the sake of argument) that Mark wrote in 50 and John in 90, but John was an eyewitness and Mark not. We would do better to favour John after Mark, if that were the case.

Of course, as time passes, there will be less--and eventually no--direct access to eyewitness testimony, for the simple reason that eyewitnesses do not have an unlimited shelf live. However, a late first-hand account is still preferable to an early second-hand account.

Brooke

If, and only if, Acts fails to narrative later events because the author did not know of them. Personally, I think that the most probable solution. However, it must be recognized that c. 64-65 is not an absolute terminus; there is no compelling reason that Acts could not have been written later in the century (someone here said that most scholars would date Acts to c. 110. I doubt it: I think most would hold that Luke and Acts were written close together, probably in the mid-80s. Personally, I think that the reasons for doing so are weak indeed, and that is one of the reasons I date both to the early 60s).

Johnny Skeptic

Microsoft Encarta Encycylopedia Deluxe 2004

Excerpt

The article says "Marten, J. Louis, M.A. Ph.D. Edward Robinson Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary. Author of History and Geology in the Fourth Gospel and The Gospel of John in Christian History."

aa5874

You have completely mis-understood my point.

I am dealing specifically with ANONYMOUS writings or writings where the authors cannot be confirmed by external sources, when the unknown writers either claimed they witnessed specific events or received information from witnesses about these events.

Again, for the sake of clarity, if it was found that the authors of the Pauline epistles actually lived in the late 2nd century or later, then the credibilty of the authors would be destroyed.

The author of an Epistle claimed he was hiding in a basket in Damascus during the reign of Aretas around 41 CE and Eusebius claimed this author died at around 64 CE, if it can be found that this author lived no earlier than the time of Irenaeus, late 2nd century, then the credibilty of the author would be virtually zero.

Roger Pearse

Relatively few of my posts contain material written after my death :-)

I suppose I'm used to ancient chronicles, which generally are completed immediately after the last entry. For instance Jerome's revision of Eusebius' Chronicle ends in 374, just after the destruction of the Roman army at Adrianople, and everything is in a mess. The same tends to apply to histories; people tend write them down to their own times, or at least, to the start of the reign of the current ruler (to avoid the risks inherent in making remarks about a despot in power).

Would anyone write a history of the first century church without mentioning the arrest and execution of Peter and Paul, large scale massacres of Christians in Rome, and the religion becoming a criminal offence? These are the key events of the period, after all. The attitude to Rome in Revelation -- the whore of Babylon -- is quite different to that in Acts. Likewise Acts is still centred on the synagogue, still competing with the massive reality of temple worship. So not mentioning the destruction of Israel, the temple of the Lord, the mass deportations of Jews, etc, feels very curious.

To me, the work smells of the period before all of these events had taken place, when attitudes on all sides were really rather different to what we find thereafter. The church was still part of the synagogue, both in reality and legally.

Now I don't think that it would have the slightest theological consequence if Luke wrote ca. 80 AD; John did write his gospel ca. 90, after all. But I can't think of any reason to date it later than 61, other than the evidence that Mark was completed ca. 70 AD, and I don't think that necessarily forces the issue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

vid

Roger Pearse: So, what is your proposed overall solution? Mark written before 70 AD, or Luke not dependent on Mark, or something else?

aa5874

You have failed to take into consideration that the author of Acts knew he was writing fiction. You cannot ignore that possibility.

The author wrote that the ascension of Jesus through the clouds was witnessed by disciples, this event is not only implausible but fiction.

The author of Acts wrote that upon receiving the Holy Ghost, there appeared to be something like fire on the heads of the disciple, again implausible and fiction.

In Acts of ther Apostles, Peter healed a man born lame by just talking to him and even Peter's shadow had the ability to heal.

The author wrote that Peter talked to people and they just died and even an angel helped to remove chains from the hands and feet of Peter so he could escape from jail.

The conversion of Saul, as written by the author, is also not credible.

These anecdotes show that the author very likey knew he was writing fiction and the author never even identified himself and stipulated exactly when he wrote Acts.

If Acts was written at around 61 CE, while Peter and Paul were alive, it would have been immediately realized that the author was writing fiction.

It seems, more likely to me, that for those implausible and incredible fables to be believed to be true, that they were all written very long after the supposed events.

Roger Pearse

Any 'solution' would only be theory. I don't feel any strong urge to invent a harmonisation, where the data diverges. The actual facts are lost.

The data about the completion of Mark is itself inconsistent, iirc. However I think of St.Adomnan's Life of St. Columba. Adomnan collected anecdotes of Columba all his life, and people could take copies of his work along the way. At least one ms. of such a copy is extant.

What Mark was doing -- writing down extracts from Peter's sermons -- seems to me to be of the same kind. Collecting material from sermons must have happened over a period of time. Therefore I tend to imagine that the same happened; Luke obtained an early version and made use of it.

But we have no data; merely a problem. My idea above could be complete rubbish.

All the best,

Roger Pearse