Luke – 120 CE?

Paul does not speak of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as writers with a book in them.

Apostle Paul: I’m going to write some letters. Am I the only one writing here-uh?

= = =

Paul Williams of Blogging Theology
You say Gospel of John is dated late because it reflects “the most theologically developed gospel,” but Paul also has a highly developed theology and he’s really early, so how is highly developed theology a dating indicator?

Bart
It is not a decisive indicator.

Apostle Paul: Pre-existing divine being who incarnates and then ascends to heaven more exalted than before, after resurrection
but
John: Pre-existing being and then returns to what he was before

= = =

pick-up at 5:40

Bart
For Paul, everything is subject to Jesus, then he subjects everything to God.

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Yes, everything in human worship is subject to the Personification of Human Salvation which ends with communion with God.

p/u at 8:03 / 1:29:33

Paul Williams
Jesus: Why did you call me good? Only God is good.

Bart
Dale says Jesus is denying he is God.

Jesus is either denying that and/or denying he is good.

Steefen
Coming up with eating my body and drinking my blood is not good, given verses in the Hebrew Bible.

Bart
In the Ancient world, humans can be made divine–made immortal, for example, Enoch.

23:24 When Jesus died, he went to heaven. and 24:10 When Jesus was resurrected, he went straight up to Heaven.

Steefen
He didn’t go to the realm of the dead and save souls?
He didn’t do what the apostles Creed says(?): descended into Hell, the third day rose from the dead (not rose in Heaven).

Bart, what is your source that Jesus went straight up to heaven when he died?

p/u at 24:15

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy and cKeeney
Luke was written later in the 120s?

Bart D.E.
Yes, it’s an increasingly popular view.

The basic reason scholars are moving that direction is that they’re becoming convinced that when Acts mentions events also discussed by Josephus, it appears (or might appear) that Luke is *dependent* on Josephus’s account.

I don’t buy it, but frankly I haven’t dug deeply enough into the issue, and need to do so.

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
In my 2015 YouTube video “New Conclusions and Perspectives on Christianity (2016 Forward), my findings then were that Luke and Matthew were written 80-85 C.E. and Acts (with its original and Hellenist apostles part and its Paul part) was written 80-150 C.E.

Two Problems:

1a) possibly Luke was written in 80 and Acts was not written until 125 to 150 CE,
1b) author/s of Luke have more time to be familiar with Mark and Matthew as opposed to writing independently, but no evidence of being familiar with John
1c) the author/s of Luke did not need 45 years to write the sequel of Acts which strengthens the argument for same author/s for Luke and Acts 

2a) the Synoptic Gospels are all no longer composed before 90 C.E.
2b) Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s is not written about by the author/s of Luke until 90 years later

Steefen said
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy and cKeeney

Luke was written later in the 120s?

Bart D.E.

Yes, it’s an increasingly popular view.

The basic reason scholars are moving that direction is that they’re becoming convinced that when Acts mentions events also discussed by Josephus, it appears (or might appear) that Luke is *dependent* on Josephus’s account.

I don’t buy it, but frankly I haven’t dug deeply enough into the issue, and need to do so.

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

In my 2015 YouTube video “New Conclusions and Perspectives on Christianity (2016 Forward), my findings then were that Luke and Matthew were written 80-85 C.E. and Acts (with its original and Hellenist apostles part and its Paul part) was written 80-150 C.E.

Two Problems:

1a) possibly Luke was written in 80 and Acts was not written until 125 to 150 CE,

1b) author/s of Luke have more time to be familiar with Mark and Matthew as opposed to writing independently, but no evidence of being familiar with John

1c) the author/s of Luke did not need 45 years to write the sequel of Acts which strengthens the argument for same author/s for Luke and Acts 

2a) the Synoptic Gospels are all no longer composed before 90 C.E.

2b) Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s is not written about by the author/s of Luke until 90 years later

  

2c) Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark.
Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s is not written about by the author/s of Luke until 90 years later and Matthew can use Q and finish that gospel 80-85 CE but Luke has to stew with Q for 40-45 more years ? ? ? !

Steve Mason, a Josephus expert who favors the later date for Luke.
Works of Josephus overlap with Luke-Acts, both mention

 – Judas

 – Theudas

 – The Egyptian prophet

 – sicarii

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
This evidence for the later date for Luke looks like 25% Luke with the mention of Judas
and 75% Acts with the mention of Theudas, Egyptian Prophet, and sicarii.

A test of four questions with one answer correct is a failing grade of 25.

Mason did not even say Judas Iscariot to bring in the sicarii element.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, regarding Acts 21:38, states the four thousand men that were murders were sicarii, the dagger-bearers.
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Wait, Josephus does not mention Judas the disciple of the biblical Jesus, Josephus mentions Judas the Galilean, leader of a tax revolt in 6 C.E.
THAT’S WHY Mason did not say Judas Iscariot to bring in the sicarii element.

Regrading the evidence, there is not even one correct answer: score is zero out of four.

Bart D.E.
Incarnation comes from the gospel of John. There is no virgin birth in this gospel.
Incarnation is not in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There is a virgin birth in Matthew and Luke.

With the Annunciation, there is no incarnation, there is a coming into being as the Son of God.

p/u at 31.34 / 1.29.33

Let’s look at some comments under the video.

Robert said

Steefen said

 

… A test of four questions with one answer correct is a failing grade of 25. …

… Regrading the evidence, there is not even one correct answer: score is zero out of four.

Hi, Steefen. Have you let Professor Mason know of his failing grade? I’m sure he would appreciate constructive criticism from other experts in the field.

  

Hi Robert,

Professor Mason did not recommend the video as a contribution to this discussion about the dating of Luke as opposed to Acts.

Please follow the discussion and watch the video before erroneously disagreeing with my conclusions going forward.

Robert said
Steefen, I did not disagree with your conclusions; I merely asked if you’ve let Professor Mason know of his failing grade and advised that he would surely appreciate constructive criticism from another expert in the field.

  

Robert,

Your replies are a major disappointment. You used to be reliable in providing scholarly references. The Robert of old would know to what extent Prof. Steve Mason or others have argued for a later dating of the gospel of Mark. The Robert of today is relying on Stephen’s suggestion that the YouTube video has that argument. It does not and an explanation was given why it does not.

I sincerely hope your job performance returns to what it once was.

= = =

Google,

When was the Gospel of Luke written?

Result:

Columbia College / Columbia University in the City of New York
85 C.E. +/- five to ten years

Wikipedia
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[7] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[16] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

Footnote 16: James H. Charlesworth (2008) The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide

Footnote 9: Pheme Perkins (2009) Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Remember, we are looking for the claim Gospel of Luke should be dated to the 120s C.E., so, Pheme Perkins is probably making that case–“Luke-Acts (not just Acts) was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

= = =

Jesus Tweezers: Picking away at issues related to Judeo-Christian Origins / John T. Townsend, “The Dating of Luke-Acts” … in Charles Talbert (ed.), “Luke-Acts: new Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar” p. 56-58

** you do not have permission to see this link **

“[Luke-Acts] can be seen in part as responding to both the [second century] difficulties of Jewish-Christians and the challenge of Marcion.

Regarding Jewish-Christians, Acts suggests that Gentile Christians welcome them into their fellowship by respecting their sensibilities in dietary and sexual practices. The work also espouses many views that [second century Jewish-Christian] pseudo-Clementine-like Christians would find appealing. In particular, Acts has treated Paul in a way that would make him acceptable to Jewish-Christians without alienating Gentile Christians.

As for Marcion, the author of Luke-Acts has a response to him as well. The author would accept [Marcion’s hero] Paul without the theology of his epistles. To do so the author replaced Marcion’s canon with a two-volume work of his own. He merely expanded Marcion’s gospel [a shorter version of the gospel of Luke which probably cannot be dated to the 120s C.E. because the embellished gospel of Luke comes after that] with added traditions, but he rejected entirely the Pauline epistles as theologically unacceptable. In their place the author of Luke-Acts wrote a separate volume affirming the importance of all the apostles. In particular he singled out Peter, the Jewish-Christian hero of the pseudo-Clementine literature, and Paul, the hero of Marcion. […]

In summary, the date when Luke-Acts was written cannot be determined conclusively because of a lack of evidence; however, whatever evidence exists is compatible with a date that approaches the middle of the second century. In such a situation the work can be understood in part as responding to situations faced in the church of that period.”

John Townsend

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
So, there isn’t at least three decades between the writing of the gospel of Luke and Acts?

= = =

So, where is Robert with his list of scholarly commentaries? Where is his suggestion to consult this, that, or the other commentary at a theological seminary library?

Better yet, Stephen started this with a suggestion to look at a 4-hour video that does not contain the answer to the question: Not when Luke-Acts was written but When was the gospel of Luke written?