Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

If we then examine the book of Acts, it shows Paul going to trial. It does NOT talk about Paul's death even though Paul died sometime in the 60's. Why would the book of Acts speak of Paul going to trial and completely ignore his death if Acts and Luke were written around the years 80-100? if Luke and Acts were written very late as scholars say, there';s a HUGE MYSTERY why talk of Paul's death is left out.

Originally Posted by Paul Tobin

Another favourite argument among fundamentalists for early dates of the composition of the gospels is taken from the ending of the Acts of the Apostles. This is how it ends (with Paul in Rome):

Acts 28:30-31
And he [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

The argument is actually quite straight forward and deceptively attractive. The tradition is that Paul died in the persecution of Christians by Nero circa 64 CE. Thus, so they argue, had the author of Acts know about Paul's death he would have written about it. That he did not, means that he was writing at a time before it happened. Now it is generally agreed that Paul reached Rome around 60CE. Since Acts mentioned "two whole years" after that, this makes the date of composition circa 62 CE. Now it is generally accepted that the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts are the same person. And in Acts 1:1, the author referred to his "first book about Jesus", thus making the gospel earlier than this. Which makes the date of composition of Luke around CE 60. Now as it is well known that Luke incorporated large portions of Mark into his gospel, Mark must have been written much earlier, perhaps as early as the late fifties.[16]

Like all fundamentalist arguments, this assertion is not a new. Although when one reads books like Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (Zondervan 1998), one is given the impression that these are explosive new evidence that main stream scholars have not considered. Actually this dating is the traditional date given by Christian apologists. For instance, in 1913, The Papal Biblical Commission decreed that, due to this passage, the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke circa CE 62.[17]

There are many reasons why scholars no longer consider this date credible. A pre-70CE composition of Luke-Acts is a thoroughly discredited concept. Let us now examine the reasons:

Firstly, the claim that the author of Acts did not know that Paul died in Rome (probably during the Neronian persecution) is demonstrably false. We are given this information obliquely in the book of Acts. We see in Acts 20:25, Paul is supposed to have told the people of Ephesus that they "will never see my face again". That this was taken to mean that Paul will die soon is made obvious a few verses later: [18]

Acts 20:29, 36-38
[Paul speaking] "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; "...And when he had spoken thus, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And they all wept and embraced Paul and kissed him, sorrowing most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they should see his face no more.

That Paul will meet the emperor Nero himself is also alluded to in Acts. This is what Luke had Paul say to his fellow seafarers:

Acts 27:21-24
As they had been long without food, Paul then came forward among them and said, "Men, you should have listened to me, and should not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss. I now bid you take heart; for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. For this very night there stood by me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, `Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has granted you all those who sail with you.'

As A.N Wilson pointed out in his book Paul: The Mind of the Apostle (Norton 1997):

The interesting thing about this speech, from the narrative point of view, is that, in Luke's terms, it is clearly true, or meant to be taken as true. Angels often appear in Luke's works-to announce the incarnation of Christ to the virgin, to proclaim his birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, to proclaim his resurrection, to release Peter from prison. They do not lie, for they are messengers of God. So we can assume that the author of Acts believes, and wants us to believe, that Paul is indeed destined, not merely to reach Rome and to be tried, but that he will come face to face with Nero himself. [19]

Secondly, note that the last verses of Acts actually mentioned that Paul lived freely "for two whole years". There is actually no other way to interpret that (especially in the light of the verses alluding to Paul's death at the hands of Nero above) statement except that after two years a change happened and that this was Paul's condemnation and subsequent execution.[20]

Thirdly, we know that Luke used Mark as one of his sources. And Mark is a post 70 CE document. Since Luke copied Mark, the gospel of Luke must therefore be later than 70 CE. Furthermore, as we saw earlier, the gospel of Luke had very detailed allusions to the siege and fall of Jerusalem that the only viable explanation is that it was written after the event. Since Acts was written after Luke, it too must be a post 70 CE document.

Finally we look at why Luke ended Acts the way it did. Actually even a cursory thought should suffice to show that Luke could not have ended Acts with Paul's death. For, unlike Jesus, who was believed to have risen from the dead, Paul did not. Ending it with Paul's death would go against the whole grain of his work which was primarily a summary of the triumph of the apostles. The fitting end, of course, would have been the parousia itself. However since that had yet to happen at the time of writing, Paul's triumphal preaching was a satisfactory intermediate end. [21] As Werner Kummel explained in his classic Introduction to the New Testament (1975):

[I]n Lk 24:46f already the risen Lord proclaims as the meaning of both writings, not only the suffering and resurrection of Christ, but also the preaching "to all people, beginning from Jerusalem". And the same risen Lord (Acts 1:8) conveys to the disciples more precisely the charge "You will be my witness in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and in Samaria and to the ends of the earth." The theme of 1:8 is carried through in Acts and the declaration in 28:31 that Paul in Rome "preaches the kingdom of God and teaches about the Lord Jesus" to all who come to him ...strikes a "triumphal note" ..., which corresponds precisely to the author's aim in Acts and proves to be the intended end of the book.[22]

Let us recap why the argument from the ending of Acts does not work.

• The basic assertion that the author of Acts did not know about Paul's subsequent fate is wrong. There are allusions to Paul's death and his "meeting" with Nero in Acts.
  
• The fact that Acts said Paul preached without hindrance for "two whole years" implied that something happened after that. In this case the arrest and trial under Nero.
  
• We know from an independent line of evidence that Mark is a post 70 CE document. Since Luke copied Mark, it must be a later work than Mark.
  Furthermore the gospel of Luke added many details to the basic "prophecy" of Jerusalem's fall in Mark that it is ludicrous to assume that it was written before the event.
  
• The ending in Acts is actually a very reasonable compromise ending, given that the ultimate end the parousia was not yet available and ending his work with Paul's death would have been anti-climactic. Thus even with Luke knowing Paul's subsequent fate, the way Acts ended is understandable.

These then are the reasons why the majority of critical historical scholars do not accept the dating of Acts as 62 CE. That fundamentalist "scholars" continue to use Acts 28:30-31 as an argument for early dates for the composition of the gospels shows the bankrupt state of their "scholarship."

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Who else but Europe would offer a Jew claiming his own nation's demise

Originally Posted by Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.3

An incident more alarming still had occurred four years before the war at a time of exceptional peace and prosperity for the City. One Jeshua son of Ananias, a very ordinary yokel, came to the feast at which every Jew is expected to set up a tabernacle for God. As he stood in the Temple he suddenly began to shout: 'A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against the bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people.' Day and night he uttered this cry as he went through all the streets. Some of the more prominent citizens, very annoyed at these ominous words, laid hold of the fellow and beat him savagely. Without saying a word in his own defence or for the private information of his persecutors, he persisted in shouting the same warning as before. The Jewish authorities, rightly concluding that some supernatural force was responsible for the man's behaviour, took him before the Roman procurator.

There, though scourged till his flesh hung in ribbons, he neither begged for mercy nor shed a tear, but lowering his voice to the most mournful of tones answered every blow with 'Woe to Jerusalem!' When Albinus -- for that was the procurator's name -- demanded to know who he was, where he came from and why he uttered such cries, he made no reply whatever to the questions but endlessly repeated his lament over the City, till Albinus decided he was a madman and released him. All the time till the war broke out he never approached another citizen or was seen in conversation, but daily as if he had learnt a prayer by heart he recited his lament: 'Woe to Jerusalem!' Those who daily cursed him he never cursed; those who gave him food he never thanked: his only response to anyone was that dismal foreboding. His voice was heard most of all at the feasts.

For seven years and five months he went on ceaselessly, his voice as strong as ever and his vigour unabated, till during the siege after seeing the fulfilment of his foreboding he was silenced. He was going round on the wall uttering his piercing cry: 'Woe again to the City, the people, and the Sanctuary!' and as he added a last word: 'Woe to me also!' a stone shot from an engine struck him, killing him instantly. Thus he uttered those same forebodings to the very end.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Wasn't the temple still there when Hadrian put the statue in it? Surely not one stone on top of another refers to post 135 when Hadrian cleared away the ruins?

This does all look like a series of attempts to explain the horrendous events of this time and to build something from the ashes.

Xianity as the result of the destruction of Judea, as is rabbinical judaism?

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I guess Josephus is a European now?

Originally Posted by PaulK

But it isn't. At this point in the "prophecy" the Temple still stands, so your reason for not mentioning it doesn't stand up.

Originally Posted by PaulK

And "let the reader understand" indicates that there is some small puzzle here - I believe that the reader is meant to look to the Book of Daniel for more information, and will there discover that the Temple is the place.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I know of this passage, and it does not say any good of Europe. The 'woe unto Jerusalem' means she is being done bad by Rome.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Sure it does...if it's an anachronism.

Jesus didn't come back, gather the Elect or destroy the Temple - although the prophecy states or implies all three.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Wasn't the temple still there when Hadrian put the statue in it?