jakejonesiv

The latter. Marcion had an earlier version, but it was not attributed to Luke.

I see your point. But never mentioning what you are trying to prove is odd... But my argument remains. There were Christians in the second half of the second century who, based details lacking in what they wrote, could benefit from Luke's history.


That is a good point, but Matthew 16:17-19 contains text is third century at least. See The Primacy of St. Peter.

I take it you agree that Acts is a second century work, but early as opposed to late 2c. That is a notable finding, because any second century date it takes Acts out of the sphere of the alleged eye witness.

Best,
Jake

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Are you talking about mentions within Acts ? And this is significant how ? Do you have the other list of those who Luke does mention further in Acts ? Why not go to Acts 20, you could probably add a lot of additional names. Why not Acts 25.

Huh ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Vinnie

The only convincing argument to me to push Acts into the 2d century is possible dependence upon Josephus. I have not yet made up my mind on that point. In fact, I have not made up my mind that dependence upon Josephus requires a later dating either. I will post a new thread with some collected evidences for an early Acts later and some comments on this. Some are the normal ones (e.g. Paul and Jerusalem but there are a few others).

I am not saying Acts is a first century text either. I am trying to assess the evidence. The possibility of a proto-Luke opens the door for a much earlier Acts. And yes, if Acts dates to ca. 110 the author being in the "we passages" is ruled out. I think anything later than 90 C.E. generally rules this out and 110 definitely. Thus, the possible dependence upon Josephus is crucial. But weighty to me also is the failure to mention Pauline letters or quote them. Therefore, I would caution against going too far into the second century when the collection was becoming very well known (so I set ca 110 as my maximum possible dating). I think Paul's letters were probably the most widely disseminated Christian works in the first century and perhaps early in the first half of the second century at least. In addition, a number of sources use Luke in the mid second century so a dating of the tandem earlier in that period is also more consistent with this use. I find 110 plausible with all the evidence mentioned for a maximum dating. Luke's dependence on Mark and mention of events 70 C.E. usually makes 80-110 the range but I am curious as to the proto-Luke possibility and wanted to find out if there were any other examples of a late dating.

Also, a problem with dating Acts early, this could be evidence for a later dating I should add to the list, is the apparent incongruity between Paul's own writings and Luke portrait of him. Thus, a period post-Paul but before his letters were too widespread to not be mentioned or used by Luke, and possibly after Josephus. This leaves 80-110 and if the latter is accepted, 100-110 IMO. There is also the question of "what strength is there to a non-Markan proto-Luke"? If it is minimal Luke also pushes Acts to this later period.

Vinnie

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Interesting that you (snipped) my introduction.

"Lets start at the ending and work our way up."

And if there was not a perceived "incorrect sequence" -- why would you give that any weight at all ?.. would it even be noticed by anyone ?

Two seemingly common words, both totally part of the 'action' agree .. out of whole sections. Without any type of analysis of word differences to go with those two incredible similarities !

You "impress" easily. (oops to being skeptical)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

aa5874

The author of Acts was not really interested in history, it would appear he was only interested in propaganda.

Certainly if any historian of antiquity, especially in the 1st century, did read Acts, it would immediately be known that the author of Acts was a fiction writer and that he had done no historical research at all but just merely copied words from books.

Josephus was very clear about the time of the sons of Judas and that it was around the time of Cyrenius, yet the author of Acts just simply wrote that Theudas preceeded the sons of Judas, without ever reading the chapter.

Now, who read Acts of the Apostles?

All the historians who read the passage in Acts, about Theudas and the sons of Judas, would have known that the author of Acts was a fake historian and would have been able to show people all over the Roman Empire that the author of Acts was bogus.

Acts of the Apostles appears that it was not known to any historian or any one outside the Church until around the 4th century when Chrysostom, a late 4th century writer, declared in his homily on Acts.


See John Chrysostom Homilies 1 on Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles appears to be an internal fabricated document of the Roman Church written and backdated precisely for the compilation of Church History and then stashed away as an official record of antiquity after being designated sacred scripture.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Putting aside some of the silly stuff, with abounds in this thread, and waiting for a more seasoned response from John (the only one brave enough to comment on the Carrier vocabulary 'evidence') let us first point out that the Hebrews in Israel often had two names.

First consider how it appears very sensible, in one excellent set of books with 1st century Israel information, that :

Judas == Thaddaeus == Theudas

Matthew 10:3
Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;
James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus,
whose surname was Thaddaeus;

John Gill
The latter of this pair of apostles (Thaddaeus) is the same person with Jude, the writer of the epistle, which bears that name, and was the brother of James, with whom he is coupled: he was called Lebbaeus, either from the town of Lebba, a sea coast town of Galilee, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks; or from the Hebrew word (ybl) , "my heart", as others, either for his prudence, or through the affections of his parents to him; as the Latins call one they love, "meum corculum", "my little heart"; or from (aybl) , "a lion", that being the motto of the tribe of Judah. His surname Thaddaeus, is thought by some to be a deflexion of Jude; or Judas, and as coming from the same root, (hdy) , which signifies "to praise", or "give thanks"; or from the Syriac word, (dt) , "a breast", and may be so called for the same reason as he was Lebbaeus. Frequent mention is made of this name, (aydt) , "Thaddai", or "Thaddaeus", among the Talmudic doctors. The Jews themselves speak of one (hdwt) , "Thodah", as a disciple of Jesus, by whom no doubt they mean this same disciple.

Luke 6:16
And Judas the brother of James,
and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

John 14:22
Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot,
Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us,
and not unto the world?

Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ,
and brother of James,
to them that are sanctified by God the Father,
and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

Have you considered that Acts contains contra Marcion material? Please see The Real Paul

Acts 16:6 and 20:29 were formulated to undercut Marcion's authority by attempting to separate Marcion from Paul.

Here are a few additional indications.

Marcion called Peter and the others false apostles. But in Acts, Peter even supplants Paul with the first conversion of a Gentile, Acts 10:1-11:8. The Paul of the epistles (and Marcion!) proclaimed the Grace of God and the end of the Torah (law). But Acts portrays Paul as a Torah observant Jew, and Paul went along with some elements of Torah were required even of Gentile converts, Acts 15:19-21.

The Paul of Acts writes no letters. This seems inexplicable; a Paul with no letters is no Paul at all. This has led some scholars to the erroneous conclusion that the author of Acts did not know of any Pauline epistles. But Richard Pervo and William O. Walker Jr have demonstrated the likelyhood that the author of Acts did know the epistles. He did not mention them because he meant to undercut their authority.

The author of "Acts of the Apostles" was out to neutralize the power of Pauline preaching.

Here is an example regarding circumcision. "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Gal. 5:2 NIV.

The author of Acts directly contradicts that.
"Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:3 NIV. IMHO, the Acts portrayal is simply not believable.

Ireneaeus, AH 1.27.2 is the very first time that a gospel was ever attibuted to Luke, and then it is used to attack Marcion! "Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke." cf AH 3.11.7.

A gospel attibuted to Luke is undocumented before Irenaeus, but is mentioned 30 times in Book 3 of "Against Heresies." This indicates the possibility we are seeing the debut of the catholic redaction of Marcion's Evangelium. It seems very much to me like a marketing campaign to roll out a "new and improved" product.

There are indications that not just GLuke, but all four canonical gospels are dependant on the works of Josephus.

Key parts of the passion narrative in Mark are similar to Josephus’ writings; the three crucified men, one of which “survives.”

Compare this with Mark 15:27. “With him they crucified two revolutionaries, one on his right and one on his left.” NAB, cf Luke 23:32-33, Matt. 27:38.

But please notice even more possible dependency. In the gospels, it is Joseph of Arimathea who asks Pilate to take the body down (Mark 15:43, Matt. 27:Luke 23:50-52), In Life of Josephus it is Josephus himself who begs Titus that the bodies be taken down. We read in Life of Josephus 2 that Josephus was the son of Matthias.

It has been suggested that the name Joseph of Arimathea is derived from Josephus bar Matthias. By no means is this certain, but if this is true, all of the gospels are necessarily second century works. “Life” was written ca. 99 CE.

We are pressing deeper into the second century with the composition of Luke/Acts. It is a mistake to assume that the author of Acts wrote the gospel of Luke from scratch. GLuke is obviously the redaction of earlier gospel material that ultimately originated from an early version of Mark. That Luke and Acts were produced as a unit is apparent from the fact that several passages were omitted from the gospel and moved into Acts. The author of Acts was the ecclesastical redactor of Luke.

Any theory of gospel origns must address the synoptic problem. The "Q" hypothesis certainly has its problems. The Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis is a better alternative to "Q", but also faces problems. Indeed, proponents of both mainstream solutions are very good at pointing out the weaknesses in their opponents' arguments. If this were a wrestling match, the result would be a double disqualification.

Most theories concerning the Synoptic gospels are too simple, and that is why they fail. The unstated assumption is that all three synoptic gospels were composed in very nearly their canonical state sometime up to the late first century. There is no firm evidence to require this. Indeed, the testimony of the church fathers appears to make the traditional dates for the canonical versions about a century too early. It appears that the gospels were redacted, scrubbed through and harmonized numerous times by groups with different interests before the catholics appropriated them and began to standardized them in the 180’s CE.

Let's seee if we can make sense of the synoptic problem in a second century milieu.
Joseph B. Tyson has mad a strong case that Luke/Acts were composed in response to Marcion, with canonical Luke being a redaction of Marcion's gospel. See Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle. Tyson dates Luke/Acts to 120-125 CE. This is not as late as the radical dating, but is a move in the right direction.

Dr. Matthias Klinghardt has expounded the solution that Luke and Matthew both used Marcion's gospel as a source. "Markion vs. Lukas," NTS 52 [2006]: 484-513; and
The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion, 2008. Thus there is no need for the hypothetical "Q" document; Marcion's Evangelium supplies the bridge of the "Q" material to Luke and Matthew.

To summarize:
The first gospel was urMarkus. urLucas was simply urMark plus most of the "Quelle" material. There is no need to suggest that "Quelle" was a document or that a community is implied. Marcion's Envagelium would be derived from urLucas, a minor redaction. Canonical Matthew and Canonical Luke would then be derived from Marcion's Gospel and the respective Sondergut (and Mark). Somewhere between 150 and 180 CE. Practically all the Lukan "Sondergut" (i.e only found in Luke) material was added in this redaction. This is an important point, because if material (such as Luke's birth narrative in chapters 1& 2, Luke 24, etc.) was not found in either Marcion's gospel, or the the other synoptic gospels (Matthew and Mark), it is evidence that it was added by proto-orthodox redactors after Marcion. This is confirmed by the anti-Marcionite result; the Sondergut
material makes Jesus appear to be more Jewish: circumcised, prophecied by the Hebrew prophets, etc.

No doubt, this solution is also too simplified. Even Tertullian couldn't keep straight what was suppposed to be in GMatthew and GLuke.

Also, I have left out the heretical gospels (such as GPeter, Gospel to the Hebrews) that deserve consideration to early orgin as the catholic gospels. During the second century the gospels were much too fluid and even in the process of creation. I suspect that the transmission, redaction, and corruption of gospels before we reach the extant texts is much more complex than any simplified source theory can explain.

Additionally, there was a tendency to harmonize that would, after the fact, seem to indicate common origin of originally dissimilar material. Even after we reach the extant manuscripts, we can discern a harmonization tendency in gospel transmission. How much of this went on before the extant record? Quite a bit if Justin Martyr is any indication.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

bacht

Yes it's interesting that Acts doesn't refer to other Christian writings. If the author wrote in the 1st C you would think he would mention the letters of Paul or John/Peter/Jude or others like Clement or Barnabbas. Either the author was unaware of such material or he didn't want to talk about them. If the latter is true then there's no dating help from this. If the author didn't know about any other writings one has to wonder about how thorough his research was.

Steven Carr

Obviously the author did know about other works. See Luke 1

He just didn't think they were as good as his work.

bacht

Sure, assuming Luke was the original author of both the gospel and Acts.