FunkyRes

Luke was writing the history of the church in Acts.
The temple destruction would have had a very big impact on the church history.

Also, if it is fiction- why did he leave the fate of one of the main characters (Paul) completely unanswered?

John Mark wrote of the temple destruction as prophecy of Jesus (look did as well, btw, in the Gospel of Luke- and so did Mathew)

The temple destruction would also then likely have been mentioned in Acts if it had happened as a demonstrated prophecy.

There is very good reason for Luke to write about both the temple destruction and the fate of Paul had either of those two been known when Acts was written.

He write about neither, but rather abruptly ends the book of Acts with Paul in prison.

This is a strong indication of a Pre 70 A.D. authorship for Acts, which then also places the gospel of Luke before 70 A.D.

Skeptical

"Luke" was writing about the _Christian_ movement, not the Jewish religion. It is the acts of the "apostles" after all. Besides, there is evidence that "Luke" alludes to the destruction. (see the link below)

Mythology does not equal fiction. Mythology simply means that mythical elements have been added to what could be a historical core. There may be many layers of mythology layered on others, making it difficult to determine what is "real". Writers in the first few centuries often did not distinguish between mythology and fact the way a modern writer does. None of this means its "fiction" in the modern sense of the term, that's an anachronistic conception. It also doesn't mean its "fact" either.

As I recall, Acts is focused on the acts of the "apostles", not on prophecy. One could just as easily argue that due to the focus of acts, the temple destruction was not a core element. One could also argue that if the temple had been destroyed for 30-50 years, why mention it? In either case it's just an argument from silence, which is usually pretty weak unless you have a cumulative case. i.e If Acts mentioned lots and lots of things about Jesus and fulfilled prophecy, but fails to mention this one particular prophecy coming true, you might have an argument

There are equally strong arguments as to why these events aren't mentioned. Here is a brief snippet from <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html:" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html:</a>

"It is sometimes put forward by conservative authors that Acts may be as early as 62 CE because it does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. However, it is to be noted that Acts 20:25, 36-38 hints that the author knew of Paul's death. Moreover, the notes in the Catholic NAB state: "Although the ending of Acts may seem to be abrupt, Luke has now completed his story with the establishment of Paul and the proclamation of Christianity in Rome. Paul's confident and unhindered proclamation of the gospel in Rome forms the climax to the story whose outline was provided in Acts 1, 8: 'You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. . . and to the ends of the earth.'" Furthermore, the dependence of Luke upon the Gospel of Mark rules out such an early dating for Luke-Acts. Finally, the author seems to be aware of the events of the Jewish revolt c. 70 CE. In Luke, Jesus warns, "the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will case up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side" (Lk 19:43). Because Josephus says that Jerusalem was completely surrounded and that earthworks were erected in order to lay siege to the city, this clearly refers to the siege of 70 CE."

There are more arguments from both sides at the link posted. The bottom line is that current opinion places acts around 80-130 CE and there are good reasons for doing so.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Toto

It has been speculated that there is a lost third book by the author of Luke-Acts that continued Paul's saga.

How do you reconcile the dating of Mark and Luke-Acts?

FunkyRes

Speculation is just that.
Until we have evidence of a third book (none exists that I am aware of) it would be folly to base scholarship upon its existance, nor do we know that it would contain data to date it after the temple destruction.

I personally believe Q existed.
I think John Mark wrote the gospel of Mark based upon what was in Q (which may have been oral) with notes from Peter.

I think Mark was the first of the 3 synoptic.

Luke drew on Q and possibly somewhat on Mark, but did his own research as well- and tells more than Mark does, going to the birth of Jesus.

After Luke was finished, he sent his gospel off the Theophilus and wrote Acts.

This would have been near the end of Paul's ministry because Paul in Prison is the last thing mentioned in Acts regarding Paul.

Matthew wrote the Jewish perspective, which somewhat agrees with a later date for Matthew since is was the Gentiles that were initially more responsive.

OTOH Matthew is in greek, so if Mathew was written for the Jews- then what we likely have now is a translation into greek, as Aramaic is what the Jews largely spoke- although Matthew could have been writing to the hellenized Jews in greece and egypt.

Mathew could be post temple destruction in my opinion.

CX

Looking at the Greek text it is inconcievable that it is a translation. The Greek used is not translational in nature. I doubt you can find a single current scholar of Koine who would accept that position.

Michael Ledo

Luke works in the destruction of Jerusalem in chapter 21:20ff

FunkyRes

This does not mean it was written after 70 AD, as it is reported to be a prophecy of Jesus.

Sure, you can argue history written as prophecy, but then you need to explain why Acts stops before the events, leaving a main character in prison with no conclusion or finallity with regards to what happened to him.

You can speculate a third book covered that, but there is zero evidence that a third book ever existed.

FunkyRes

Actually- there are some.
I'm not sure that I would agree with them- Matthew could have been writing to the hellenized Jews that were in the areas Paul had reached.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This does not mean it was written after 70 AD, as it is reported to be a prophecy of Jesus.

Funk, it is a commonplace of scholarly method that any fulfilled divine prophecy indicates a date of composition after the event in question.

Sure, you can argue history written as prophecy, but then you need to explain why Acts stops before the events,

There is absolutely no logical connection between these two concepts. What is under discussion here is the date of Acts. To properly date Acts, we do not need to explain its literary structure. We need only use such internal and external references as can help us assign a date, or a range of dates, for the writer of Acts. We may reference the break in 62 as a possible indicator of a date, but if other things indicate a later date we do not have to explain it.

Acts may be dated by several different indications (in no order).

(1) the apparent correspondences between Luke-Acts and Josephus.

(2) The possible mention of the centurion from the Italica legion (Acts 10:1), which was apparently raised in 66 by Nero and dispatched to Jerusalem in 69. There's no way on god's green earth that Luke could have known of that in 62. Additionally, Italica was a town in Spain that was home to Hadrian and Trajan, so Luke may have been nodding to a later Emperor, and thus writing later. Of course, the language is not all that precise....

(3) Luke used Mark, who definitely wrote after 70.

(4) Acts refers to the term "Christians" which Ellegaard and others have argued a term for the faith that apparently evolved late in the first century.

There is no need to explain Luke's decision to end Acts where he did, because other indications enable us to date the work AFTER 62, and probably long after it. Whatever the reasons are for ending it with Paul under arrest, they died with Luke.

Vorkosigan

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

CX

Scholars who conclude that the text of GMt is translational in nature? If so I would very much like references so I can evaluate the arguments for that position. I am by no means an expert on Koine Greek, but with my admittedly limited lexical skills I would conclude that the text was originally written in Greek. In addition I posed the same question to my Greek instructor and he was of the same opinion.

Which is a fine explanation for why a Jew like the Apostle Matthew would write in Greek. That really isn't what's at issue here (the question of Matthean authorship is an entirely different issue and fails on different counts). The current issue is whether GMt was originally composed in a semitic tongue. An argument against that which I find compelling is why, if GMt was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the Old Testament references are in the language of the LXX.