Steven Avery

Hi Roger,

We largely agree on that a late date doesn't make sense.
Some thoughts and questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Historical texts that do not contain mention of significant events that happen after they are written (significant to their theme) is another dating issue.

And I would encourage you not to be shy on the historicity issue despite the flak you might get on this forum from some who refuse to properly consider and weigh. I do not know if you saw the post that shows Luke placing Roman office-holders not only in the right land but even getting the titles right during small windows of time (20-40year periods of the early first century). There are 3 possibilities to explain this.

1) Accident/coincidence .. however the probability is too difficult.

2) Super-meticulous post-facto researching 50-100 years later. Possible but again, difficult all around, especially with multiple positions involved. At least one should have been mismatched.

3) Excellent research near to the time, mid-1st century. This one is the bingo.

And there are probably other elements of the gospel historicity (emphasis on Luke throughout this post) that is time-conducive, such as the knowledge of Roman law, perhaps some geographical names (an interesting research project).

However the Roman titles is the one that really stands out as compelling evidence, totally complementary and supportive to the other strongest evidences that you mention here such as the Temple being only under the rubble. The historicity would in the realm of clinching supporting evidence. Luke-Acts was early, before the destruction of the Temple. (I would place Luke much earlier, but that is secondary to this thread.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Considering the importance of Peter and Paul to Acts, not mentioning their execution seems like such an omission. The absence of ny mention of Roman persecution is also telling

Do we have a date where Roman persecution would be a clear factor calling out for notice ? Early second century ? Or somewhat earlier ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse considering the way in which the writer of Revelation refers to Rome as the "whore of Babylon"

Ahh I see your point, however there are a few overwraps here. We can have Revelation either 65 AD or 95 AD or so. And it is prophetic in nature, so it does not require much overt persecution and bloodshed at the time of writing. It could more be a realization that the pagan practices and idolatry and love of mammon inherent in the Roman system that will be bringing forth the later persecutions. This is all assuming that Rome is the focus. In summary, this point is complementary to an early Luke-Acts but not necessarily without counterpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse and the absolute change in the legal status of Christians that seems to follow AD 64 (even if we don't actually know how this happened or that it did happen in 64). The little matter of the Jewish state and its temple being chopped into hamburger, in fulfilment of the prophecies."

By itself virtual proof of pre-70AD for those who put down various glasses and simply use common sense.

Another factor that can be added is the interplay between the epistles and the Gospels, such as Paul quoting Luke as scripture while they also were laborers together. Many such items involving the Gospel personages call for an early date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse I know that some people will simply shout "argument from silence"; but this is a special case of that argument."

Many arguments from silence are very strong, some are close to conclusive just by themselves.
This one is the latter.

Shalom,
Steven

spamandham

It's one of many measures, that's all. In no way does that imply the work must be a contemporary of the work in which it is first referenced...but it sure does make bounding dates easier if it's referenced elsewhere!

...so, this sets a "no later than" date of ca. 140. That doesn't imply it couldn't be a first century work of course.

Historians do not classify the Gospels as histories. They have invented a new category for them that is unique to the Gospels alone, as a subcatgory of biographies. You already know this I'm sure considering your extensive knowledge. Historians recognize the unique nature of the Gospels, so we can not rely much on contemporary history or biography styles to say much.

I have no idea why the author of Acts wouldn't mention these either. Here are some possible reasons:

- Peter and Paul were not executed
- The writer of Acts/Luke was from a different competing sect and didn't care/know about the execution of Peter and Paul
- Acts is a work of 'fan fiction' from an author who knew the Jesus story wasn't real, and so he only wanted to write about fictional characters rather than real ones.

...I'm sure there are many other plausible reasons why we might not find mention of them. Until we can really understand the genre of the Gospels, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to presume they are contemporary histories or biographies. As long as they remain unique, ...it remains difficult to conclude much from such an argument.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Revelation have to do with Luke/Acts? Isn't there virtual concensus that the writer of Revelation is not the writer of Luke/Acts?

Chris Weimer

Yes, it sets a terminus ad quem.

They did? Where? When? By whom?

spamandham

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

...I'm sure there are others, but this seems enough to satisfy.

neilgodfrey

Plus the miraculous prison escapes, the regular court hearings, the extended storm and shipwreck, the grand council of elders making the momentous decision, the adventure after adventure and miracle after miracle, the regular prophecies propelling the plot along -- all these and more make me wonder how anyone familiar with Hellenistic novels could take Acts as serious history.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Roger Pearse

Only if we think apostles were alive in 140! And if we think that the texts instantly became scripture all over the world. And that Marcion was responding to a text written recently, rather than one that had grown up having authority (otherwise why not just write your own?). And if we believe that Irenaeus could attribute them to the apostles, despite knowing John's disciple personally, who would quite certainly know if they had been written in 140.

I don't think that you know this, you know. But while I agree with being cautious about genre issues -- the gospels are not Greek histories like Josephus -- it seems to me that any description of Acts that treats it as other than a record of events has many more questions to answer than just this one.

But as far as I can see, all these are contradicted by the data, of course, and none of which arise naturally from it. Anyway, surely we can't go around just inventing meta-narratives, in my humble opinion, and expect them to tell us much about the text (which doesn't stop scholars doing it, of course) -- I think that they tend to tell us more about the era in which the meta-narrative is written.

Obviously I was not as clear as I might have been: sorry about that.

Once the Roman state becomes an enemy, and its representatives cease to be possible protectors and instead become people extorting blackmail under threat of delation, the attitude of Christians to it becomes much less positive, and positively hostile in some cases. This happens rather early; we can see just such an attitude in Revelation.

But we don't see any trace of it in Luke or Acts. On the contrary, the attitude of the authorities -- that Christianity is a sect within a religio licita, and as such all these are merely squabbles within that group -- renders their refusal to take notice of Jewish complaints a positive help to the early church. But once Christianity was illegal, it was a very different matter. (Tertullian tells us that the Jewish leadership were among the most frequent sources of attacks on the church, and indeed Acts shows the same).

The change in tone is therefore a guide to the date, was my idea.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I have no hesitations on historicity whatever.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Good to hear !

In writing that I was thinking of a comment about how it would be ok if
they got together in old age, around 80 AD, and wrote the Gospels.
The accurate historicity I mentioned above argues for an earlier date,
although the Temple destruction by itself is a single powerful argument
for the terminus ad quem being 70 AD, as you well indicated.

Here is a note that I put in another discussion about the accuracy
of the name Bethesda being confirmed by archaeology.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...67#post4334767
Role of archeological evidence in present Bible translation
archaeological discoveries confirm historic NT, NIV plays catchup

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ibleorigin.php
History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us By Wesley Ringer

The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.

And this fits perfectly with the present tense usage by John,
demonstrating not only his accurate knowledge of the pool,
but also strongly indicating that John actually wrote before
70 AD when the pool was in good shape.

John 5:2
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda,
having five porches.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

At http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html, Merle Hertzler argues for later dates for the writing of the Gospels. Among other things, he discusses the issue of the destruction of the temple.

Steven Avery

Ahh, Roger was likely primarily referencing the Neronian persecutions after the fire of 64 AD. Good point.