mountainman

At last Roger and I agree upon something.

andrewcriddle

I don't think the speeches are evidence for a late date. They seem similar in purpose to the speeches in Thucydides, who was contemporary with the events he describes.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

On the other hand I do think the familiarity of the author of Acts with circumstances in the early Empire makes a date after the death of Trajan implausible. The Empire under Hadrian and his successors is a somewhat different place.

Steven Carr

At http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/20...-is-right.html Tim McGrew is still maintaining that when 'Luke' wrote in Acts 19:38 that there were proconsuls, he meant that two people were acting as proconsul.

Of course, Tim McGrew has abandoned attempts to back up claims that Tacitus and Dio Cassius say two men were exercising authority at that time. I wonder if Victor Reppert is bothered by that....

It seems that Luke passed his 'civics exam', because Tim McGrew is rewriting the answers in the exam.

I think Roger Pearse had something to say about that kind of thing....

Conclusion.

Acts 19:38 says 'proconsuls' in the plural. There was not more than one proconsul.

DCHindley

The accuracy and purpose of Thucydides' speeches have always been debated, as well as the question whether the various books were composed in steps following the events or all at once after 404 BCE.

The book covers events that span 433 to 411 BCE (ending in fact in mid sentence), with the war actually ending 404 BCE, meaning it was incomplete. This also leaves open the question whether it was edited by someone else (i.e., the final publisher) after composition.

As far as I am aware, there are not varying versions of the earlier books, meaning they were probably published together and not in series, but that is just my take.

What is not disputed is that Thucydides wrote with the intention of describing the events in an epic style that heavily favored his home of Athens over Sparta, even though he spent the entire war in exile supposedly traveling the states of the Peloponnesis (or so he says). Epic is usually associated with legend, despite his expressed intention to tell the tale "truthfully", yes?

I believe that the story of Acts did not have the benefit of a stressful 27 year war to develop its legendary elements. Acts, I would think, required a little longer to develop its legendary figures. I am not saying it was written in late 2nd century, but early 2nd century, so 50-70 yrs after the events described. Thucydides speeches are warts and all, characteristic of history told while the story was fresh, while Act's speeches are harmonious and happy (my "flowery"), suggesting a story that is more developed.

DCH

aa5874

There is really no logical link or relevance to speeches in Acts and those made by some other person at a different time in history and about matters unrelated to Acts.

DCHindley

I think an argument can be made that speeches serve a rhetorical function in ancient literature. Like any rhetorical tool, it is used a little differently by each author to serve his or her purpose and fit within the conventions of the age. The speeches in Thucydides' story reflect generals making important decisions, whether for good or bad, many times drastic decisions, many times disastrous in result. Same with the speeches Josephus gives to his characters. They may reflect noble ideas and nationalistic pride, etc, but they are made good or bad in the heat of a struggle.

In Acts, everyone is happy, happy, happy. No struggle here, just reasoned dialogue and minor compromise. No one's fleet sank or army was slaughtered. The speeches in Acts, though, are generally pleasant and show no hint at conflict, as if the rough edges have been filed off the characters. The exception is the end of Stephen's speech. My contention is that a polished position takes longer to craft than a rough one.


DCH

PS: I wish I had a large estate with a gold mine like Thucidydes had, so I could gallyvant about and write history. Unfortunately, I gotta pay for this $170,000 estate (without the gold mine) ... and humming pipes.

show_no_mercy

I think it's interesting that Marcion is described as being a shipbuilder, so he might have had the type of life that affords this luxury.

Preaching everywhere around the Roman Empire? Not Paul, but Marcion.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the link. There is some hilarious backpedaling going on there.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Artemus

At the risk of wasting time with a very naive question, if it is accepted that the author of Luke/Acts copied much of Mark and probably used "Q" in writing his gospel, why would it be considered radical to look for documents that he may have used in writing Acts as well? The naming of the same three rebel leaders in Acts and the inclusion of a census in the gospel in particular would seem to make the proposition that "Luke" had access to Josephus reasonable. Perhaps not proven, but at least on the surface not a manufactured argument either. Is there something I'm missing?

Deus Ex

The conservative Christians that I keep chatting with refuse to date Acts any later than ~62 CE simply because it does not mention the destruction of the Temple or the execution of Paul. For them every other theory is considered fringe.