Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnnyboy · 12-20-2006, 10:22 AM

Hey Guys.
I know it is very common to date the gospel of Luke around 70-90 AC and I also thought that the Acts of Luke have to be written in that time, but there are some arguments of some "early-daters" which aren't that bad really.

The Acts of Luke do not mention:
1. The persecution of chrstians under nero.
2. The matyrs death of Peter and Paul

What do you think?

Greetings from Heidelberg.

Ben C Smith · 12-20-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnnyboy

Hey Guys.
I know it is very common to date the gospel of Luke around 70-90 AC and I also thought that the Acts of Luke have to be written in that time, but there are some arguments of some "early-daters" which aren't that bad really.

The Acts of Luke do not mention:
1. The persecution of chrstians under nero.
2. The matyrs death of Peter and Paul

A standard response (and one to be reckoned with, in my opinion) is that Luke was interested in showing that Christianity was not a threat to the Roman commonwealth. Presenting the gory details of a temporary Roman persecution of Christians would not be a very good way of showing that.

Ben.

hatsoff · 12-20-2006, 10:33 AM

The arguments from silence do not stand up to the counter-arguments based on hard evidence.

Peter Kirby · 12-20-2006, 10:38 AM

I thought arguments from silence were A-OK?

And I didn't find 'hard evidence' when I opened the thread here before.

No, I'm not saying Acts was written in 63 AD. I'm just saying.

--
Peter Kirby

Johnnyboy · 12-20-2006, 10:40 AM

Here are another arguments I found, not for Acts of Luke, but for the gospel of Luke himself being written around 60 AC.

1. The destruction of Jerusalem isn't as clearly described as it should be if the author wrote it after 70 AC.

2. There are Passages that point out that the gospel ( and acts of luke aswell) were written in the time of pauls "jailtime" in caesarea.

Fo acts again:

Acts describe the death of stephanus very detailed, but do not mention the death of more important martyrs like Jakobus.

Thank you for your answers so far.

Of course, I don't share any fundamentalistic view, but I don't know very much about the history of the gospels and I am pretty helpless.

Johnnyboy · 12-20-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

The arguments from silence do not stand up to the counter-arguments based on hard evidence.

Can you offer me some basic ones?

hatsoff · 12-20-2006, 10:50 AM

I didn't say it was impossible. I just think the arguments for a late date are stronger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnnyboy

Can you offer me some basic ones?

Sure. Mark mentions the destruction of the temple (70 AD), and was written before Luke/Acts. Also, there's the Bernice passage, which implies a late date. Finally, we have the Josephus parallels, which suggest it may have been written after 93 or so.

Peter Kirby · 12-20-2006, 11:01 AM

How do we measure the comparative strength of the arguments?

--
Peter Kirby

hatsoff · 12-20-2006, 11:14 AM

We make judgment calls based on precedent, common sense and imagination.

Johnnyboy · 12-20-2006, 11:16 AM

I don't know. I am sad and somehow terrified. I don't understand why there are people out there who actually wish that the Bible might be true.

12-20-2006, 10:22 AM	#1
Johnnyboy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 117	Question About Acts of Luke Hey Guys. I know it is very common to date the gospel of Luke around 70-90 AC and I also thought that the Acts of Luke have to be written in that time, but there are some arguments of some "early-daters" which aren't that bad really. The Acts of Luke do not mention: 1. The persecution of chrstians under nero. 2. The matyrs death of Peter and Paul What do you think? Greetings from Heidelberg.

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

12-20-2006, 10:33 AM	#3
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	The arguments from silence do not stand up to the counter-arguments based on hard evidence.

12-20-2006, 10:38 AM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I thought arguments from silence were A-OK? And I didn't find 'hard evidence' when I opened the thread here before. No, I'm not saying Acts was written in 63 AD. I'm just saying. -- Peter Kirby

12-20-2006, 10:40 AM	#5
Johnnyboy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 117	Here are another arguments I found, not for Acts of Luke, but for the gospel of Luke himself being written around 60 AC. 1. The destruction of Jerusalem isn't as clearly described as it should be if the author wrote it after 70 AC. 2. There are Passages that point out that the gospel ( and acts of luke aswell) were written in the time of pauls "jailtime" in caesarea. Fo acts again: Acts describe the death of stephanus very detailed, but do not mention the death of more important martyrs like Jakobus. Thank you for your answers so far. Of course, I don't share any fundamentalistic view, but I don't know very much about the history of the gospels and I am pretty helpless.

12-20-2006, 11:01 AM	#8
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	How do we measure the comparative strength of the arguments? -- Peter Kirby

12-20-2006, 11:14 AM	#9
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	We make judgment calls based on precedent, common sense and imagination.

12-20-2006, 11:16 AM	#10
Johnnyboy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 117	I don't know. I am sad and somehow terrified. I don't understand why there are people out there who actually wish that the Bible might be true.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.