hum

Just been through listening to a whole series of sermons on Acts... (I am attending to keep domestic peace) ...just wondering what the general consensus is on dating and historicity etc.
The preacher is treating every word as "gospel".

Toto

There is no accepted consensus. Conservative Christians try to treat Acts as history, and point out many details that are correct. More liberal Christians and secular scholars hold that Acts was written as a propaganda piece, on the model of a Hellenistic novel or adventure story, borrowing many themes from Hellenistic culture or Greco-Roman plays, and constructing an essentially fictional tale about how Peter and Paul came to agreement on the basic doctrines of the church and the mission to the gentiles, and all was sweetness and harmony among Christians (when we know that there was a lot of contention in the early church.)

Most scholars assume that the letters of Paul are more likely to be accurate than Acts, and there are numerous discrepancies between them.

hum

Thanks Toto for the concise overview.
With regard to Acts being an attempt at harmonising early christian disunity and practice.....how do we place passages like the ones that demonstrate dissension between Paul & Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41)?

Toto

Acts' primary purpose is to reconcile the Pauline and Petrine factions, and to demonstrate that gentiles can become Christians without following the Jewish law. So Acts 15 includes the Jerusalem council's edict that circumcision is not required.

We don't actually know much about the conflict with Barnabas - it appears to be a personal disagreement, not one based on theological points or the nature of Christ or the role of the Jewish law.

It is possible that Barnabas represented a faction that the writer of Acts wanted to write out at that point, or that the author wanted to slander John Mark. Or it is possible that the author just needed a dramatic point to push Paul off in a new direction. From here

andrewcriddle

One possible argument for a reasonably early date for Acts, is that Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) appears unaware of the content of Paul's letters or even that Paul wrote important letters to churches with which he was involved.

Since Clement to the Corinthians (1 Clement) the letters of Ignatius and the leter of Polycarp to the Philippians (dates uncertain but probably 100-120) all seem familiar with at least some of Paul's letters this may cause difficulties for a date for Acts after 100 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

How do you tell the difference between "unaware" and "deliberately ignoring because they disagree with the version of history the author is presenting"?

andrewcriddle

If Acts was written to people who knew of Paul mainly as a letter writer (which is probably true by say 110 CE) then simply ignoring his letters would seem bad strategy.

2 Peter which faced the same problem of reconciling Peter and Paul but is almost certainly later than Acts says This attempts to deal with the problem rasther than simply ignoring it.

Andrew Criddle

hum

This may be way too elementary... but are we certain that "Luke" wrote both Acts and Luke? I am aware that Acts is prefaced with the reference to his "former" book on Jesus. It is just that I have always assumed a post 70 pre 100 date for Luke and wonder if those who propose a late...say 120 date for Acts need to seperate the two books with different authors or same author and just a later composition?

hum

Andrew.... Is it vaid to compare Acts with 2 Peter ? They would seem to be a different genre in that Acts is purporting to be a historical account and perhaps would be unlikely to mention the letters Paul may have written and concentrate on his deeds.

Toto

We are as certain that the same person wrote gLuke and Acts as we can be about anything, although both might be the product of a later editor working over earlier documents.

Those who prefer a later date for Acts think that gLuke was written later than 100. There is no real reason to think that gLuke was written a generation earlier than its first known reference by Marcion around 140 CE. There is no internal or hard external evidence to date gLuke to 70-100.