Luke and the Wise Men

[seanD]

No, I was simply stating that the majority of scholars who hold to a pre-70 date are evangelicals. That's fine, evangelicals make real contributions in NT. Craig Keener and Craig Evans, in particular, have produced some absolutely fantastic work. However, some evangelical scholarship tends to be incredibly apologetic (see Archer's work on the DH and Isaiah or Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament). And I do have proof, just read through the vast majority of commentaries.

Your rebuttal doesn't prove anything. We don't have any Christian literature outside of Paul's epistles, the pastoral epistles, and probably Mark (I think Luke likely pre-dates Matthew) prior to roughly AD 80. Again, Acts is not "history" in the strict, modernist sense of the word. Luke is showing a unified, catholic and apostolic church, when we know that it was a little more complex than Acts shows. Most Christian literature concerning martyrdom (with the exception of 1 Clement, likely from the 90s) is from the 2nd century.

"We don't have any Christian literature prior to 80 CE" is not evidence, it's just a statement on your part. "The gospels date pre-70 CE" is a statement on my part. See how pointless that is? I don't know what you mean by Acts is not history in a modernist sense of the word, and that's just another statement on your part whatever it means.

We do have Christian martyrdom literature of the first century. Martyrdom aggrandizement is just as evident in the earlier works as the later works. Acts shows the martyrdom of Stephen and James. Luke's dramatic martyrdom of Stephen falls into the typical martyrdom genre I'm talking about that we see illustrated in other works of his time. Of course we also have the drama of Christ's own martyrdom expressed in the gospels, more so in Matthew. The second century Christian expressions of martyrdom are clearly following a consistent pattern we see expressed from the first century writings about Christian martyrdom (examples: Matthew 5:11-12; Luke 21:16-19; Acts 5:40-41, 9:15-17, 14:21-22, 21:13; Romans 5:3-4; 1 Peter 4:12-16; Hebrews 11:35-38; Revelation 2:10, 20:4). Nothing magically happened in the second century that didn't happen in the first century. The genre never changed. The only thing that inexplicably changes is Luke's handling of the apostle Paul, unless Luke wrote the work before Paul's martyrdom which I feel best explains this inconsistency. Luke also doesn't mention the martyrdom of James (described in Josephus), another key figure in Acts, which I believe adds to this date explanation.

[theophilus]

You lost me on that last part. Paul's accusers never showed up in Rome, and this was roughly 70 years after Herod the Great dropped dead.

When Luke wrote his gospel didn't know they would not show up. Herod was the ruler appointed by Rome so his hostility to Jesus would have had an influence on the judges regardless of how much time had passed since his death.

[psstein]

"We don't have any Christian literature prior to 80 CE" is not evidence, it's just a statement on your part. "The gospels date pre-70 CE" is a statement on my part. See how pointless that is? I don't know what you mean by Acts is not history in a modernist sense of the word, and that's just another statement on your part whatever it means.

We do have Christian martyrdom literature of the first century. Martyrdom aggrandizement is just as evident in the earlier works as the later works. Acts shows the martyrdom of Stephen and James. Luke's dramatic martyrdom of Stephen falls into the typical martyrdom genre I'm talking about that we see illustrated in other works of his time. Of course we also have the drama of Christ's own martyrdom expressed in the gospels, more so in Matthew. The second century Christian expressions of martyrdom are clearly following a consistent pattern we see expressed from the first century writings about Christian martyrdom (examples: Matthew 5:11-12; Luke 21:16-19; Acts 5:40-41, 9:15-17, 14:21-22, 21:13; Romans 5:3-4; 1 Peter 4:12-16; Hebrews 11:35-38; Revelation 2:10, 20:4). Nothing magically happened in the second century that didn't happen in the first century. The genre never changed. The only thing that inexplicably changes is Luke's handling of the apostle Paul, unless Luke wrote the work before Paul's martyrdom which I feel best explains this inconsistency. Luke also doesn't mention the martyrdom of James (described in Josephus), another key figure in Acts, which I believe adds to this date explanation.

Ah, I see. I misconstrued your point. I thought you were referring to documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

What I mean by "Acts is not history in the modernist sense" is that Acts is not a blow by blow account of what happened in the early church. Luke is using history in a theological sense. He wants to show a unified church. It fits quite well into what Greeks would consider historiography, but it's not quite history.

[Faber]

When Luke wrote his gospel didn't know they would not show up. Herod was the ruler appointed by Rome so his hostility to Jesus would have had an influence on the judges regardless of how much time had passed since his death.

Okay, I could see maybe Luke omitting them because it would place the Parthians and Zoroastrians in a positive light, which would be objectionable to Nero. But I see Nero as the sole judge. Paul was appealing to Caesar, not to a council.

But I would also assume that either Luke was unaware of the account (although He apparently was in contact with Mary) or had too much material to include everything in one scroll.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, I could see maybe Luke omitting them because it would place the Parthians and Zoroastrians in a positive light, which would be objectionable to Nero. But I see Nero as the sole judge. Paul was appealing to Caesar, not to a council.

But I would also assume that either Luke was unaware of the account (although He apparently was in contact with Mary) or had too much material to include everything in one scroll.

It's not that it would place the Parthians and Zoroastrians in a positive light, it would emphasize that Jesus was considered by rival powers as a rightful king. Parthian support for Jesus would not go down well at Caesar's court.

[seanD]

Ah, I see. I misconstrued your point. I thought you were referring to documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

What I mean by "Acts is not history in the modernist sense" is that Acts is not a blow by blow account of what happened in the early church. Luke is using history in a theological sense. He wants to show a unified church. It fits quite well into what Greeks would consider historiography, but it's not quite history.

Yes, I meant that Christian martyrdom is aggrandized from the first century writings, which is the same genre pattern that carries into the second century (second century apostolic narratives, church father martyrdom accolades, etc.). Even Luke follows this genre with Stephen (who was a very minor character in Acts). The odd man out is Paul, the most famous apostle of Luke's time. Martyrdom was in fact Christian triumphant in Luke's mind. One has to conclude that Luke totally broke away from this genre just to institute a supposed agenda that is based purely on speculation. It's less speculatory to assume Luke's work didn't follow this typical genre because Paul's Christian martyrdom hadn't occurred yet. Luke's work didn't in fact end in triumphant because Paul hadn't received his glorious entrance into the kingdom yet and was locked up. Since we know Nero was none too friendly to the Christian movement, Luke likely embellished the "unhindered" part as a way to make it sound as triumphal as the unfortunate circumstance allowed.

[psstein]

Yes, I meant that Christian martyrdom is aggrandized from the first century writings, which is the same genre pattern that carries into the second century (second century apostolic narratives, church father martyrdom accolades, etc.). Even Luke follows this genre with Stephen (who was a very minor character in Acts). The odd man out is Paul, the most famous apostle of Luke's time. Martyrdom was in fact Christian triumphant in Luke's mind. One has to conclude that Luke totally broke away from this genre just to institute a supposed agenda that is based purely on speculation. It's less speculatory to assume Luke's work didn't follow this typical genre because Paul's Christian martyrdom hadn't occurred yet. Luke's work didn't in fact end in triumphant because Paul hadn't received his glorious entrance into the kingdom yet and was locked up. Since we know Nero was none too friendly to the Christian movement, Luke likely embellished the "unhindered" part as a way to make it sound as triumphal as the unfortunate circumstance allowed.

Ah, I see. The primary issue, I think, with such an early date for Acts, is that Luke-Acts is a unified work. Luke uses a significant portion of Mark (I can't remember whether or not it's 65 or 70%, though it's not really relevant), and therefore has to be dated later than Mark. Now, Mark is likely from 65-75, so Luke-Acts has to be later (likely in the 80s). Luke also seems to know far more than Mark about the destruction of Jerusalem, and is reasonably dated to sometime after 70.

I don't buy the "Luke used Josephus" argument, and Luke-Acts is referred to in 1 Clement, so it's definitely no later than 95.

I think the biggest difficulties for that date, however, come from a) Luke seems to give a fairly general depiction of Jerusalem's destruction and b) Luke tends to know quite a bit about the Ancient Near East in the 50s and 60s. Yet, Luke admits that he's using other sources. These sources could be lost to us, or Luke could be recounting his travels with Paul (yes, I do think Luke wrote Luke).

[seanD]

Ah, I see. The primary issue, I think, with such an early date for Acts, is that Luke-Acts is a unified work. Luke uses a significant portion of Mark (I can't remember whether or not it's 65 or 70%, though it's not really relevant), and therefore has to be dated later than Mark. Now, Mark is likely from 65-75, so Luke-Acts has to be later (likely in the 80s). Luke also seems to know far more than Mark about the destruction of Jerusalem, and is reasonably dated to sometime after 70.

I don't buy the "Luke used Josephus" argument, and Luke-Acts is referred to in 1 Clement, so it's definitely no later than 95.

I think the biggest difficulties for that date, however, come from a) Luke seems to give a fairly general depiction of Jerusalem's destruction and b) Luke tends to know quite a bit about the Ancient Near East in the 50s and 60s. Yet, Luke admits that he's using other sources. These sources could be lost to us, or Luke could be recounting his travels with Paul (yes, I do think Luke wrote Luke).

You're presupposing that Mark dates after 70 CE, therefore, since Luke used Mark, Luke must also date later is essentially your argument. So, your premise for refuting the missing martyrdom problem is based on the presupposition that Mark dates post-70? There's no reason for me to assume that Mark dates that late either especially considering he's more pro-Mosaic law than the other gospels (i.e. Mark 1:44, 7:7-13, 10:17-22), something that would have been in contention with the teachings of Paul. It's logical for me to assume Mark catered to a more primitive Christian crowd that was still in favor of Judaic law practices and that postdates Paul's anti-Judaic law rhetoric and the conflict we see in Acts and his letters about this issue.

I don't believe Luke used Josephus either (this is easily refuted), but surely Luke would known when and how James had been killed since it happened before Paul's capture and happened in the same location described in Acts essentially by the same opponents of the faith.

Luke's description in the OD is indeed unique relevant to Mark and Matthew, but I don't believe it's extraordinarily unique to Luke. Luke's description of armies surrounding Jerusalem echoes similar apocalyptic language found in much older texts like the Septuagint (examples: Jeremiah 52:4; Ezekiel 4:1-2; Daniel 9:16-17; Zechariah 14:2), a source we know Luke was privy to and even quoted from in his own work (of course, we're assuming Jesus never said this and that Luke redacted it this way himself). Moreover, Luke is not as accurate about the event as you claim he is. For example, there was no need in Luke 21:36 (a passage not found in Mark btw) for Jesus to warn them to pray that they might escape this terrible event if the event had already come and gone years prior. Why does Jesus in Luke 21:21 warn them to flee "the city" (a reference to Jerusalem) once they see it surrounded with armies when we know from Josephus it was much too late to flee by this time? Luke doesn't change the "this generation will not pass away" problem in 21:32. If his work dates some two or three decades later, the the generation around to hear Jesus would have been fading away rather alarmingly. This presents a problem to you assuming he was readily redacting his work to fit current circumstances after the fact, unless his work predates these circumstances which, once again, solves this obvious problem.

See, the evidence you use as a premise for a post-70 date of Luke/Acts (and I've studied this subject pretty extensively and have heard most of the arguments for and against) is extremely flimsy, which I don't believe counters the problem of Paul's missing martyrdom I raised earlier.

[seanD]

Luke's description in the OD is indeed unique relevant to Mark and Matthew, but I don't believe it's extraordinarily unique to Luke.

I meant relative not relevant.

[psstein]

You're presupposing that Mark dates after 70 CE, therefore, since Luke used Mark, Luke must also date later is essentially your argument. So, your premise for refuting the missing martyrdom problem is based on the presupposition that Mark dates post-70? There's no reason for me to assume that Mark dates that late either especially considering he's more pro-Mosaic law than the other gospels (i.e. Mark 1:44, 7:7-13, 10:17-22), something that would have been in contention with the teachings of Paul. It's logical for me to assume Mark catered to a more primitive Christian crowd that was still in favor of Judaic law practices and that postdates Paul's anti-Judaic law rhetoric and the conflict we see in Acts and his letters about this issue.

No, I actually think Mark is pre-70, as it shows little knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction. I don't think Mark writes before 62-3 or after 75, largely because of the patristic tradition. Mark is an interesting combination of what appear to be pre-existing written sources and oral tradition. I would actually disagree about Mark as the "primitive Christian" crowd. I think Matthew the most pro-Mosaic law (Matthew 5:18, for example). In Matthew, Jesus portrays himself as the new Moses. On an unrelated note, that's why I think the order more likely Mark ---> Luke ---> Matthew.

I don't believe Luke used Josephus either (this is easily refuted), but surely Luke would known when and how James had been killed since it happened before Paul's capture and happened in the same location described in Acts essentially by the same opponents of the faith.

I don't agree. As I've said repeatedly, Acts is focused on Peter and Paul's mission. It ignores other early Christian missions (to Egypt, for example). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Luke ignores material that isn't focused on the narrative he wants to convey. Historians regularly ignore irrelevant material, and I don't see this as being any different.

Luke's description in the OD is indeed unique relevant to Mark and Matthew, but I don't believe it's extraordinarily unique to Luke. Luke's description of armies surrounding Jerusalem echoes similar apocalyptic language found in much older texts like the Septuagint (examples: Jeremiah 52:4; Ezekiel 4:1-2; Daniel 9:16-17; Zechariah 14:2), a source we know Luke was privy to and even quoted from in his own work (of course, we're assuming Jesus never said this and that Luke redacted it this way himself). Moreover, Luke is not as accurate about the event as you claim he is. For example, there was no need in Luke 21:36 (a passage not found in Mark btw) for Jesus to warn them to pray that they might escape this terrible event if the event had already come and gone years prior. Why does Jesus in Luke 21:21 warn them to flee "the city" (a reference to Jerusalem) once they see it surrounded with armies when we know from Josephus it was much too late to flee by this time? Luke doesn't change the "this generation will not pass away" problem in 21:32. If his work dates some two or three decades later, the the generation around to hear Jesus would have been fading away rather alarmingly. This presents a problem to you assuming he was readily redacting his work to fit current circumstances after the fact, unless his work predates these circumstances which, once again, solves this obvious problem.

Right, and as I said above, that does pose some difficulty for a post-70 date. Luke's description is far vaguer than Matthew's, and it seems odd that the Temple's destruction isn't explicitly mentioned. However, this is a "high-context" society, which is why things like Paul not explicitly talking about Jesus' ministry make sense. I think Jesus made some reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but I don't pretend to know precisely what it was. I don't think the "this generation won't pass away" in Luke 21:32 is really an issue. Jesus is referring to persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. The apostles likely begin dying around that time, hence the creation of the gospels. There's also the fact that, at least in Second Temple Judaism, if a prophecy isn't fulfilled, the expectations are adjusted.

I think the biggest issue with an early (pre-60s) date for the gospels is the eschatological expectations of the early Christians. Why would you write anything down when you believe the end is near and the disciples are (largely) still alive?

You are making an important point, however. The dating of the gospels is fairly arbitrary. Any date between 40 and roughly 100 can be supported, albeit not always well. I think John A.T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament problematic, but he does point out that the dating is highly arbitrary and dependent on things we can't always assume.

[seanD]

No, I actually think Mark is pre-70, as it shows little knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction. I don't think Mark writes before 62-3 or after 75, largely because of the patristic tradition. Mark is an interesting combination of what appear to be pre-existing written sources and oral tradition. I would actually disagree about Mark as the "primitive Christian" crowd. I think Matthew the most pro-Mosaic law (Matthew 5:18, for example). In Matthew, Jesus portrays himself as the new Moses. On an unrelated note, that's why I think the order more likely Mark ---> Luke ---> Matthew.



I don't agree. As I've said repeatedly, Acts is focused on Peter and Paul's mission. It ignores other early Christian missions (to Egypt, for example). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Luke ignores material that isn't focused on the narrative he wants to convey. Historians regularly ignore irrelevant material, and I don't see this as being any different.



Right, and as I said above, that does pose some difficulty for a post-70 date. Luke's description is far vaguer than Matthew's, and it seems odd that the Temple's destruction isn't explicitly mentioned. However, this is a "high-context" society, which is why things like Paul not explicitly talking about Jesus' ministry make sense. I think Jesus made some reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but I don't pretend to know precisely what it was. I don't think the "this generation won't pass away" in Luke 21:32 is really an issue. Jesus is referring to persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. The apostles likely begin dying around that time, hence the creation of the gospels. There's also the fact that, at least in Second Temple Judaism, if a prophecy isn't fulfilled, the expectations are adjusted.

I think the biggest issue with an early (pre-60s) date for the gospels is the eschatological expectations of the early Christians. Why would you write anything down when you believe the end is near and the disciples are (largely) still alive?

You are making an important point, however. The dating of the gospels is fairly arbitrary. Any date between 40 and roughly 100 can be supported, albeit not always well. I think John A.T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament problematic, but he does point out that the dating is highly arbitrary and dependent on things we can't always assume.

Matthew's gospel is catering to a highly educated Jewish crowd, not necessarily a primitive crowd, though undoubtedly pre-70 since Jesus gives instructions on how to present a Temple gift (5:23-24), warns about swearing in the name of the Temple and its altar (23:16-22), and mentions the Sadducees in the present tense multiple times.

Mark, on the other hand, is scribing to a crowd that is less educated, hence the reason Mark has to wean them through the Aramaic. If we are to believe Papias and Clement 2, Mark transcribed Peter's teaching at Rome to the church at Rome. This would have been a primitive church being that Rome would have been one of the first ideal places to take the gospel once the Gentile ice was broken. We know it was established before Paul's rise since he had yet to visit the Christians at Rome before he was captured and taken there (Acts 19:21). The church at Rome was undoubtedly a mixture of Jews and proselytes since Paul goes to great pains to explain the significance of the Mosaic law to them.

As far as James' martyrdom goes, k, I'll give you that. But there's no good excuse for Paul's missing martyrdom as I've explained in previous posts.

I never said Jesus not mentioning the Temple in Luke's OD as having any significance. I specifically noted that Luke wrote a warning (assuming he's revising it himself) not found in Mark that was unnecessary post-70 CE. I also argued that Luke's description was flat out wrong. When the city was surrounded it was too late to flee. The Christians never fled to the mountains, they fled to Pella according to Eusebius. So, if we assume Luke is revising this from Mark in hindsight to make the details more accurate, his revision is strangely inaccurate. Also note that Jesus making such the prediction doesn't necessarily have to have a supernatural element to it outside of Jesus just being wise and cognizant of the growing sociopolitical tensions between Roman and Jews at time.

As far as the need to write down material so early in spite of their eschatology, here's a quote from my article addressing just that issue…

The early Christians didn't think it necessary to preserve any written material until much later since they at first thought Jesus' return was imminent -- or the parousia (second coming). In other words, why bother putting it into writing when the blessed event was expected to be revealed to the world within our generation? Yes, we can reasonably argue that at least some of the early Christians may have been expecting Jesus' imminent return (though this has been up for debate), however, we could just as easily and quite logically argue the necessity of written sources for several reasons despite this:

1. Since the church experienced opposition from the get-go, and since the new believers were such a diverse minority within a newly founded creed with no ancient background or record other than the Old Testament, they needed edification and a sense of scriptural identity and relevance.
2. Since they existed in a world without telecommunications, may have believed the time was short, and since Christianity was purely an evangelistic movement (as ordered directly by their founder to "take his message to all nations"), circulating textual sources would have been a practical and efficient method of reaching broader audiences over extended periods of time, as the documents could have just been copied and redistributed over and over to communities that weren't as proficient in oral tradition.
3. Just out of popular demand. Clement indicates that the Christians in Rome requested Mark to compile Peter's teachings into a written record,[2] and we could certainly imagine this was not unique only to Christians in Rome.
4. Most of the oral traditions taught by the apostles were undoubtedly in Aramaic, and being that the movement was rapidly spreading outside Aramaic speaking communities, more demands and requests would have been made to have the teachings translated into written Greek.
5. The apostles were the authoritative figures in the early Judaic movement, which was undoubtedly growing rapidly in the inner and outer Judean territories in the first few decades, thus textual sources would have kept the flow of tradition consistent over extended periods where apostles (who were also traveling evangelists) were absent, and especially since not every church in Judea and along the Mediterranean could have had its very own apostle to keep the traditions grounded.
6. First century ancients had a habit of preserving written records regardless of the situation -- i.e. the residents of Qumran who stored numerous written records as a result of the Jewish-Roman war, which would become the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the fact they themselves may have been anticipating an apocalyptic end as a result of the war.

Aside from these reasons, the problem with assuming when written material circulated for a specific reason is an argument that not only makes the silly assumption that all four gospel authors would think exactly alike, but all at the same time. Such an argument cannot be reasonably made because there is no way to determine that this was a decision made after 70 CE as opposed to maybe five, ten, fifteen, twenty-five years after the event (40-60 CE). There was no organized committee deciding when these works should have been written, thus no definitive time-line when this should have occurred -- "Uh oh, doesn't look like Jesus is coming any time soon, fellows, so Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, get to work!" Even if this was what influenced written material, it's obviously doubtful it happened as one big-bang decision at a specific time after 70 CE, as opposed to a possible gradual development much earlier on.

That can't possibly be the biggest issue against a pre-70 date. To me, one of the biggest issues is Paul's silence about the written gospels and the contents therein (which can also be explained however).