how 'bout an early date for Luke/acts?

[geebob]

This occured to me just this morning. I'm wondering if anyone has already suggested it.

I would think that if Luke was written after the death of paul, he would've recorded the death of paul instead of ending his book with the first visit to rome. (when did Paul die?). I find it hard to believe that the author of Luke would not record the subsequent journeys of Paul and the martyrdom of such an important apostle if the book is to be dated after the death of Paul (was he martyred?)

I'm just a neophyte here and am just bouncing this off peoples heads. I'm just getting feet wet with the issue of the early church and related cannonical/theological issues and the establishment of orthodoxy.

[technomage]

This occured to me just this morning. I'm wondering if anyone has already suggested it.

I would think that if Luke was written after the death of paul, he would've recorded the death of paul instead of ending his book with the first visit to rome.
It's tempting to assume so, but if we are to take the book of Acts as literal history, then Luke was busier than a one-armed paper-hanger at the time of Pauls death ... and probably for more than a few years afterward.

But instead of thinking it's incomplete, I've always considered the end of Acts to have been the end of the story that Luke was interested in telling. Remember, the Gospel of Luke does not end with the Passion narrative, but with the blessing on the road to Bethany, and with the apostles returning to the temple and rejoicing--in a like manner, the book of Acts ends not with Paul's death, but with him in the peak of his ministry, "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

These letters do not end with sorrow, but with joy, and triumph.

(when did Paul die?). I find it hard to believe that the author of Luke would not record the subsequent journeys of Paul and the martyrdom of such an important apostle (was he martyred?)
According to one tradition, Paul was released from captivity and had at least one more missionary trip, this time to Spain; he was later martyred, but this specific tradition does not explain how (see 1 Clement). According to another, he was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero after several years of imprisonment (probaly somewhere in Eusebius's Church History, but I don't remember exactly--however, do be aware that a lot of Eusebius's history has come under doubt in the scholastic community). Dates fro his death range from 64 to 67 CE, but that's based on tradition, not firm documentation.

Justin

[geebob]

It's tempting to assume so, but if we are to take the book of Acts as literal history, then Luke was busier than a one-armed paper-hanger at the time of Pauls death ... and probably for more than a few years afterward.

because he knows so much of what's going on? Not at all. Luke is known as the investigater and interviewer. Read the beginning of his gospel.

Remember, the Gospel of Luke does not end with the Passion narrative, but with the blessing on the road to Bethany, and with the apostles returning to the temple and rejoicing--in a like manner, the book of Acts ends not with Paul's death, but with him in the peak of his ministry, "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

I believe the end of the gospel of luke is not the end of the book at all. The end of acts is the end of the book. Luke and acts were once one book split apart.

These letters do not end with sorrow, but with joy, and triumph.

good point, but martyrdom was not necessarily a sorrowful thing. It was also a sign of true orthodoxy (though that was probably more important when orthodoxy had to compete with other christiainities).




thanks for the input.

[Etcetera]

Geebob:

Greetings in the name.

I myself am as yet undecided as to the date of Acts (and therefore of Luke). Your proposal about the death of Paul was championed by Harnack nearly a century ago, and somewhat more recently by J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. If you are at all interested in the early dating of New Testament books, you will want to read that book.

A good online introduction to the question may be found at the ECW Acts page (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html). Kirby quotes quite a few scholars on the subject.

I believe the end of the gospel of Luke is not the end of the book at all. The end of Acts is the end of the book. Luke and Acts were once one book split apart.

No, they are two separate books. The beginning of Acts makes that clear. Luke almost certainly planned to write two books (some even think three) from the start, but that is not the same thing as saying that those two books are the same book. Luke does not end with a to be continued notice.

If it were not so, the early church would have been making a mistake in separating the two books in the canonical order. Rather, they recognized that each book was able to stand on its own.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Amazing Rando]

I'd have to agree with you, geebob- if Luke had no qualms about reporting the "blemishes" on the church's history like the execution of James the apostle and Stephen, then I'd tend to think that perhaps Luke could have been written during or just before the Neroian persecution.

Of course, a big part of this argument hinges on whether or not you think that Luke made use of Mark's gospel in composing his own (the Two-Source Hypothesis). Do you?

[porter]

I would think that if Luke was written after the death of paul, he would've recorded the death of paul instead of ending his book with the first visit to rome. (when did Paul die?). I find it hard to believe that the author of Luke would not record the subsequent journeys of Paul and the martyrdom of such an important apostle if the book is to be dated after the death of Paul (was he martyred?)

Many people, myself included, agree with you.

But it is an argument from silence.
And arguments from silence are not usually considered strong arguments.

We simply do not know why the latter years of Paul's life were not recorded.

Porter

[Amazing Rando]

Many people, myself included, agree with you.

But it is an argument from silence.
And arguments from silence are not usually considered strong arguments.

We simply do not know why the latter years of Paul's life were not recorded.

Porter

:yes: John's gospel was definitely written after Luke had completed Acts (if we're taking the early view of Acts' composition), because of its allusion to Peter's martyrdom in John 21.

[Jaltus]

Acts ends where it does because the mission is accomplished. Think in terms of narrative and literary structure rather than history. The main character (the gospel) got to where it was going (the ends of the earth). Acts is about 1:8 being accomplished. When Paul hits Rome, then the apostles have gone through Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, to the ends of the earth. Everything comes to Rome, and Rome goes to everywhere. Thus, Rome was the end of the narrative and literary story. It was just not the end of the history of Paul.

[geebob]

Thanks Jaltus. That's what I was looking for.

as a reward, when the apocolypse comes, my tribe of road warriors will spare your life, and perhaps we shall use you in negotiations should we ever need them if we have a rival tribe that prefers to speak in biblical greek.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Geebob,
Uppsala scholars Harald Riesenfeld and Birger Gerhardsson championed the position you take in the early sixties, and their opinion is still respectably held among conservative biblical scholars today. Moreover, if one takes Luke at his word---that he researched his own gospel account and drew from prior sources---one might well assume that, since Luke/Acts was written before Paul's death, then the sources Luke drew from would have been earlier still. So, if one takes the common position that Mark and Matthew (and perhaps Q, if such a document exists) predated Luke, then we might suppose these sources to be very early indeed.

It's also possible that Jaltus may be right, but I continue to find it difficult to believe that Luke merely left out Paul's death and Titus' activities in Jerusalem for thematic reasons. In addition, Luke seems to truncate the olivet discourse in chapter 21 of his gospel. Some say that this little bit of apocalyptic which parallels Mark 13 and Matthew 24 is a classic example of ex eventu prophecy (of Jerusalem's fall) and actually points to a later date (post AD 70) for all the gospels. I remain sceptical of such claims and prefer the opposite conclusion---that the discourse itself is real prophecy and that if it had been fulfilled, Luke would not have failed to make mention of the fact. So much depends upon one's assumptions and one's eschatology here, and those holding to opposing views will no doubt continue to fail to convince one another. Nevertheless, I think your view is plausible, and I for one share it....

[geebob]

Thanks for the further info.

as for this:

Moreover, if one takes Luke at his word---that he researched his own gospel account and drew from prior sources---one might well assume that, since Luke/Acts was written before Paul's death, then the sources Luke drew from would have been earlier still. So, if one takes the common position that Mark and Matthew (and perhaps Q, if such a document exists) predated Luke, then we might suppose these sources to be very early indeed.

I could've sworn that I heard that there was a minority of scholars who put the gospel of luke as the earliest and that Luke didn't really draw from Mark but rather, Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.

thanks again, and I also extend the same curtesy I did to Jaltus. After the apocolypse, you too shall be spared by my tribe of Road Warriors.

[porter]

>>>I could've sworn that I heard that there was a minority of scholars who put the gospel of luke as the earliest and that Luke didn't really draw from Mark but rather, Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.>>>
-------------------
I am one who believes that Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.

And I believe that Luke did not draw from Mark but rather Mark was written later and drew from Luke.
Both Mark and Luke were written after Matthew.

The scheme I like goes like this:

Matthew was written early about 48 AD.
It was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
It was written to the Jews, who were the predominant Christians at the time.

Luke was written next about 58 AD.
It was written in Greek to the Hellenistic Jews and to the Gentiles.

Mark was written about 65 AD.
It was written in Latin to the Romans and those in the western part of the Roman empire.
Mark copied from Matthew and Luke and put in some additional input from Peter for whom he was an interpreter (Peter didn't speak Latin).

Porter

[technomage]

>>>I could've sworn that I heard that there was a minority of scholars who put the gospel of luke as the earliest and that Luke didn't really draw from Mark but rather, Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.>>>
-------------------
I am one who believes that Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.

And I believe that Luke did not draw from Mark but rather Mark was written later and drew from Luke.
Both Mark and Luke were written after Matthew.

The scheme I like goes like this:

Matthew was written early about 48 AD.
It was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
It was written to the Jews, who were the predominant Christians at the time.

Luke was written next about 58 AD.
It was written in Greek to the Hellenistic Jews and to the Gentiles.

Mark was written about 65 AD.
It was written in Latin to the Romans and those in the western part of the Roman empire.
Mark copied from Matthew and Luke and put in some additional input from Peter for whom he was an interpreter (Peter didn't speak Latin).

Porter
OK, I can respect that these are your beliefs, but "belief" usually has no place in an academic endeavor. Are you referring to "this is the best analysis I have seen, based on the evidence," or are you saying "This is what I have faith in?" Note: if it's the second, I have no problem with that: it does take your statement out of the context of an academic study, but it also gives me a better idea of the beliefs of the people I am dealing with.

Justin

[Jaltus]

There is no way Mark was written in Latin, AFAICS. THe syntax, while not being good Greek, would be horrible Latin. It is more likely that it was written in Greek by someone who natively spoke Hebrew (note all the "kai"s and "euthus"s).

[geebob]

Just a note, it wouldn't have to be latin to be written to the romans. Romans after all was not written in Latin (or could it have been?) greek was the english of their day.

[Etcetera]

Geebob:

I could've sworn that I heard that there was a minority of scholars who put the gospel of Luke as the earliest and that Luke didn't really draw from Mark but rather, Mark was intentionally written as an abbreviated Gospel.

The first half of your statement is the hypothesis of the Jerusalem School hypothesis. The second half of your statement also fits the Jerusalem School, as well as the Greisbach hypothesis if you add that Mark abbreviated Matthew also. What Porter described above is basically Greisbach, if he adds that Luke copied from Matthew.

Etcetera.

[porter]

>>>>OK, I can respect that these are your beliefs, but "belief" usually has no place in an academic endeavor. Are you referring to "this is the best analysis I have seen, based on the evidence," or are you saying "This is what I have faith in?" Note: if it's the second, I have no problem with that: it does take your statement out of the context of an academic study, but it also gives me a better idea of the beliefs of the people I am dealing with>>>>

It is more along the lines of the latter.
I have faith in the work of Mark Dumdei, who has done extensive research in this area.
I am not enough of an expert to have faith from real knowledge.
I have faith in relativity and quantum mechanics also.
I have a smattering of knowledge in those areas but not enough to make me expert.

Porter

[technomage]

>>>>OK, I can respect that these are your beliefs, but "belief" usually has no place in an academic endeavor. Are you referring to "this is the best analysis I have seen, based on the evidence," or are you saying "This is what I have faith in?" Note: if it's the second, I have no problem with that: it does take your statement out of the context of an academic study, but it also gives me a better idea of the beliefs of the people I am dealing with>>>>

It is more along the lines of the latter.
I have faith in the work of Mark Dumdei, who has done extensive research in this area.
I am not enough of an expert to have faith from real knowledge.
I have faith in relativity and quantum mechanics also.
I have a smattering of knowledge in those areas but not enough to make me expert.

Porter
:nod: OK, I can respect that, even if I disagree. However, I have never heard of Mark Dumdei: do you have any more information available on his work?

Justin

[porter]

>>>>OK, I can respect that, even if I disagree. However, I have never heard of Mark Dumdei: do you have any more information available on his work?>>>>
-------------------
He has an unpublished manuscript called "Against Modern Heresies: the Restoration of Authority".
It has not been published yet; that is why you have not heard of him.

I am sorry that I don't have the competency to take his argument and run with it.
All I can do until the book comes out is to alert you to the idea.

Porter

[technomage]

>>>>OK, I can respect that, even if I disagree. However, I have never heard of Mark Dumdei: do you have any more information available on his work?>>>>
-------------------
He has an unpublished manuscript called "Against Modern Heresies: the Restoration of Authority".
It has not been published yet; that is why you have not heard of him.

I am sorry that I don't have the competency to take his argument and run with it.
All I can do until the book comes out is to alert you to the idea.

Porter
I look forward to it.

Justin

[geebob]

He has an unpublished manuscript called "Against Modern Heresies: the Restoration of Authority".
It has not been published yet; that is why you have not heard of him.


What are his credentials?

[porter]

What are his credentials?

He has no academic credentials.
He is just someone who has spent many years researching the extant copies of the early New Testament Gospels. I believe he has researched the Old Latin manuscripts more thoroughly than the vast majority of scholars.
He has thorough studied the Syriac Palimpsest and the Curetonian manuscripts.

Here is another of his conclusions:

"The Syriac text is a reliable foundation upon which to reconstruct the original version of Matthew."

"Given the great antiquity of both the Palimpsest and Bobbiensis, agreements between these two manuscripts most likely reflect the evangelist's original words."

He may well be dismissed by the scholarly community.
But his manuscript is well researched (765 footnotes), and I believe it deserves a reading when it comes out.

Porter

[technomage]

"The Syriac text is a reliable foundation upon which to reconstruct the original version of Matthew."The Syriac?!?!?! :twitch:

Well, I guess it's not too bad a start ... between the two, they've got everything but the last 17 or so verses of Matthew. I personally think he'd do better by also considering the Harklean Syriac, but it's his nickle.

However, please tell me he's using images of the text, and not an English translation or edition. Please?

Justin

[porter]

However, please tell me he's using images of the text, and not an English translation or edition. Please?

He says he has gone over the images with a fine tooth comb.

Porter