Tristan Scott

What is MSS?

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of that statement. You "cannot see how a reasonable defense" for the assertion that Acts could have been written prior to Luke? All you have stated to support your claim of certainty is "that Acts explicitly refers back to GLk.", which could easily have been a later addition.

As I stated, Acts never hints at the events in Rome that took place in the 60s. Luke on the other hand not only mentions events of the first rebellion in the late 60s, but also gives a hint of being written quite some time after the war. Unlike Mark, who Matthew and Luke have probably copied, Luke asserts that the End will not be during the war, or not even directly after the war, but at some later date.

CX

Manuscripts.


I didn't present a full argument for the mainstream concensus that Acts represents the 2nd volume of a 2 volume work by the same author because I presume that is common knowledge. It seems to me that since you are making the unusual claim that Acts was written first it is up to you not only to offer positive evidence, but also to refute the current view. To do so requires the following:

If the author of Acts is also the author of GLk why would he refer to GLk as his "first account" if in fact he wrote Acts first?

Given that the events depicted in GLk chronologically precede the events in Acts and lay the foundational history which establishes the context for Acts, what sense would it make for the author to compose Acts first?

If the author of Acts is not the same as the author of GLk how might we explain the strinking "linguistical similarities" between the two. In addition how do we explain the very clear "theological agreements" and numerous "cross-references"? (See History and Theology of the New Testament Writings by Udo schnelle p. 259)

Lastly since it is apparent that Acts reflects the concerns of the 3rd Xian generation (Ibid.) does that not cast serious doubt on even the possibility of Acts being written pre 60 C.E.?
It seems to me that Acts is concerned largely with the missionary work of the early church especially Paul. Why should it give any account of the Jewish revolt at all?

Finally it seems like the pseudepigraphal 2 Timothy takes up where Acts leaves off opening the possibility that this deuteropauline epistle is the work of the same author or someone from the same tradition.

Basically by asserting that Acts was written first you are under the cumbersome obligation of refuting the significant body of work on the Luke-Acts complex which establishes pretty definitively that both works are by the same author and that GLk was the first volume and Acts the second.

FunkyRes

Luke mentions the prophecy that the Temple will be destroyed.

This does NOT mean a post 70 AD dating.

Even if you reject the possibility of prophecy, the destruction of the temple wouldn't be too hard to predict given the nasty Romans who had power and the defiant Jews under them.

The assasination of one of the Kennedy's was predicted by Dixon.

Before the fact.

You don't need to accept Luke as describing prophecy in order to accept a pre 70 AD date.

I, of course, accept that Jesus did prophecy the destruction of the temple.

But a pre 70 dating of luke does not demand that it wasn't chance (educated guess)

What REAL evidence do you have that Luke was written after Acts?

Tristan Scott

I disagree that there is any consensus on this matter, and mainstream means nothing to me in these matters.

I can think of many reasons. If it is true that Matthew and Luke were independent attempts of consolidating the Gospel of Mark and some book of Jesus sayings into one Gospel, then I suppose the author could have wanted to tie it in with his other work, which for literary sake would have compelled him to predate the second work.

Or perhaps you are correct and they were written in the order that you say. Either way it does not solve the problem of the unfinished business of Acts. If Acts was written after Luke, which was clearly written after 70, maybe even after 80, then why are none of the events that were taking place in Rome at a time of Acts reported. Why wasn't Paul's death reported?

Possibly, had I asserted that, I may have felt such an obligation, but I probably would not have, but since I only floated the possibility, I certainly feel no such obligation at all.

As far as manuscripts go, I am not sure you are aware of the fact that there are no such manuscripts that date to the first century.

Tristan Scott

I would say that it is either a prophecy or it was written after the fact when you consider the accuracy and detail of the prophesy that Luke has Jesus make. He even see's the embankment that the Romans construct around Jerusalem as reported by Josephus.

FunkyRes

Maybe- but isn't surrounding a city with armies the way that such a destruction is normally done?

At any rate- it can't be reffering to the war as history because-

Um, if it was written as history, what was that verse referring to?

If it was written as history than the author of Luke clearly would have known that no such event took place.

At least not that I am aware of

Tristan Scott

FunkyRes

I'm sure it was intended to be a Gospel, not a history.

Sure, but read Luke. He has Jesus say:

Josephus tells us that the Romans built a palisade around the city of Jerusalem. This is, as I said, either a very accurate prophecy, or it was written after the fact.

FunkyRes

I certainly vote for the former

As had been stated- Acts stops rather abruptly with Paul in Prison.

You can argue that Acts 1:1 was added, but no mss exist w/o it AND it makes more sense to write about Jesus first, and then the events coming from that Jesus person.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

lcb

interesting

CX

Not only am I aware, I have written several lengthy posts detailing the state of that evidence. Interested parties who didn't see them the first time can certainly find them buried somewhere here. But so what? We can only work with the evidence we have. That evidence clearly points to Acts and GLk being written by the same author, GLk being written first, and both falling into the period near the end of the first Xian century. Finally to say that there is no consensus on the issue is a bold statement indeed. Please provide references to peer reviewed journal articles, monographs or books not for a lay audience that defend the notion that Acts was written prior to GLk or that Acts and GLk are not by the same author.