I’ve been reading up on the various views for dating Luke and Acts. If forced to give an opinion, I’d guess that Luke was comprised sometime between CE 72 and CE 88, with Acts no later than CE 95. But I have found the arguments for earlier and later dating interesting.
On a later date for Luke, the best argument I’ve read (and, admittedly, I am no expert) is Luke had access to the works of Josephus. There are some interesting arguments here, but it has to be said that, if Luke did have access to Josephus, he certainly didn’t use it in a manner anywhere near the way he used Mark, Q (if it existed) or even Matthew (if Luke had Matthew).* Also, it’s tough to imagine that Acts would contain its disagreements with Paul if Luke had full access to the Pauline corpus, as he surely would have had by the Second Century (if he was composing then).
On an earlier date for Luke: first, it’s hard to imagine Luke using language about a Gentile Army surrounding Jerusalem before laying it bare, without prior knowledge of the siege and destruction of the Temple (plus, I personally think Luke had access to Matthew, which contains similar language); and there seem to be a strong implication at the end of Acts that Paul is dead as of the time of composition.
ON THE OTHER HAND …. it seems to me that Acts, in particular, contains express references to a whole bunch of verifiable historical events taking place through approximately CE 62. But, for events after that date …. there is a possible (and certainly disputed and not express) reference to the destruction of the Temple and … then … really nothing. Nothing from from the CE 60s (death of James/Peter/Paul, expressly discussed by Josephus; persecution under Nero; no discussion of the Jewish War in Acts); nothing from the latter part of the First Century (church moves to Antioch; rise of Alexandria; nothing from the Didiache; nothing on Clement or the other apostolic Fathers; nothing on the Flavian emperors); nothing from the early Second Century (Ignatius fed to lions; nothing on the controversies involving Tarfon, Justin Martyr, Marcion).
So here is my question ….
Putting aside the possible allusions to the Jewish War, what do you think the strongest evidence is for a later date for Luke-Acts, and why don’t we get historical references to post- CE 62 events in Acts?
* There is a strong argument to be made that Luke contains Matthean redactions.
These are excellent questions, and I have pondered some of them myself. In my view, the simplest explanation of why Luke-Acts does not reference the Roman siege or the destruction of the temple is that it is not related to the subject matter of the books. Luke, like the other gospels is about the life of Jesus, and how he is to be venerated by his followers. Acts is about Paul; firstly about his acceptance by the living disciples and also about his mission to the non-Jewish world.
Luke-Acts is not history, and therefore makes no attempt to document historical events of the times or prove any points based on contextualizing historical events.
Hmm, this is a bit like saying that Plato’s dialogues aren’t history because they don’t mention much of what’s going on in the Greek city states at the time. They definitely contain a lot of made-up dialogue, and can’t be taken as literally true (Socrates was not calmly discussing philosophy when dying of hemlock poisoning, which is a very painful way to go, and Plato wasn’t anywhere near Athens at the time), but they do tell us things about history. For that matter, not everything Thucydides says happened really did either. Or Plutarch, or Tacitus, or Livy. Historians have to be deeply skeptical of all ancient chronicles. There’s not a single one you can rely upon implicitly.
Luke isn’t trying to write a history text, that’s absolutely true. If the facts get in the way of the points he’s making, the facts go out the window, assuming he even knows what they are in the first place. But there is actual historical data in there, and we don’t have so much of it about this era that we can afford to discount what early Christians had to say. Historians primarily interested in the Roman world, and not early Christianity, still use the New Testament as a primary source. It’s useful to them. But you have to know how to evaluate its claims.
Luke 1, 3-4. “3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” NIV Bible.
In the author’s own words, it was not written to be a history of the region or even to document current events. I was written so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.“
From this perspective, events like the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple were out of context with the author’s purpose. It is no surprise that theses things do not appear here.
In the unlikely event somebody in that time period had set out to write a serious history of Jesus’ life and the subsequent activities of his followers over the next decade or two, why would they be talking about events that occurred later on? They’d assume any person literate enough to read and understand the book would know about all that, and it’s off-topic. Yes, some historians do mention later events than the ones they’re focused on (or earlier ones), as a way of putting things in context, but quite often you can leave a scholarly work of history without very much context at all–they assume that either you already know, or if you don’t and want to, you’ll read something else.
It’s irritating for us, because we are reading it so much later, and more context would definitely be good for the purpose of dating and evaluating Luke’s work. But it’s not the least bit surprising. And it’s not the least bit unusual for that era. Hardly anyone was writing history, and those who were did not come close to present-day standards of accuracy or objectivity. We’re lucky we have any records at all. And interesting, isn’t it, that it was in the western Christianized world that the modern study of history was born. With many contributions from elsewhere, to be sure, and the pagan Greeks really began the project in earnest. But there is something of a historian’s zeal in the New Testament, inherited from the Old Testament–we must know our past to find our future. That led, over time, to more reliable methods of both documenting and studying our shared history.
godspell and dgorden,
I think you have done a good job of arguing why we don’t get historical references to post-CE 62 events in Acts. Still, there’s a bit of circularity to this line of argument: Luke did not include it because that was not the subject matter about which he wrote. It does rather beg the question of what was Luke’s subject matter.
For example, there are historical references in Acts that are hard to shoehorn within a set Lukan “subject matter.” Examples of these would include the famine in Acts 11:28, the revolt of the Egyptian dagger man in Acts 21:37-38, and the Jewish expulsion from Rome in Acts 18:2.
In other words, there are nuggets of historical events that don’t really tie neatly into the actual subject matter of Acts. Luke just kind of mentions them offhand. And all of these are pre-CE 63 events.
But what about the primary question I posed, to wit: What do you think the strongest evidence is for a later date for Luke-Acts? I think this is a tougher question.
Well, the famine is referenced because there’s a story that Agabus, described to us as one of 70 disciples, predicted it would happen, therefore substantiating the overall theme that faith in God (and Jesus) could allow one to work wonders. Luke mentions it was in the reign of Claudius (was it?), to give it a bit more substance. If the famine had not been prophesied by a devout Christian, it wouldn’t have been in there.
The Jewish expulsion from Rome is obviously of interest to Christians (many of whom are still converted Jews, though in decreasing percentage), but it’s mentioned because Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who become followers of Paul, meet him because they were among the Jews expelled. Relevant to the story being told. Not just in there because it happened around the same time, but because it impacted Paul’s ministry.
The story about Paul being mistaken for an Egyptian insurrectionist is weird, but still about Paul, and for all we know that happened, but it demonstrates that Paul is not seeking violent overthrow of Rome, but peaceful propagation of the gospel message.
I don’t see how any of these examples undermine what I said, because they are all directly related to the story being told. Luke may be right or wrong about the facts (like any writer of this period), but these events are mentioned because they are part of the story of how Christianity came to spread outside Palestine.
He’s not mentioning the famine or the expulsion to tell people those things happened, but to provide background for stories about miracles and conversions and Paul’s intrepid evangelizing. It’s like reading T.E. Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom and wondering why he doesn’t mention the sinking of the Titanic, several years earlier, a subject he was actually fascinated by, but it wasn’t germane to desert warfare in WWI.
I am not inclined to opine on whether Luke’s writing has been accurately dated or not. Other than to say it definitely came after Mark’s, and probably around the same time as Matthew’s, maybe a bit later. And nobody should take my word for that. 🙂
godspell said
Well, the famine is referenced because there’s a story that Agabus, described to us as one of 70 disciples, predicted it would happen, therefore substantiating the overall theme that faith in God (and Jesus) could allow one to work wonders. Luke mentions it was in the reign of Claudius (was it?), to give it a bit more substance. If the famine had not been prophesied by a devout Christian, it wouldn’t have been in there.The Jewish expulsion from Rome is obviously of interest to Christians (many of whom are still converted Jews, though in decreasing percentage), but it’s mentioned because Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who become followers of Paul, meet him because they were among the Jews expelled. Relevant to the story being told. Not just in there because it happened around the same time, but because it impacted Paul’s ministry.
The story about Paul being mistaken for an Egyptian insurrectionist is weird, but still about Paul, and for all we know that happened, but it demonstrates that Paul is not seeking violent overthrow of Rome, but peaceful propagation of the gospel message.
I don’t see how any of these examples undermine what I said, because they are all directly related to the story being told. Luke may be right or wrong about the facts (like any writer of this period), but these events are mentioned because they are part of the story of how Christianity came to spread outside Palestine.
He’s not mentioning the famine or the expulsion to tell people those things happened, but to provide background for stories about miracles and conversions and Paul’s intrepid evangelizing. It’s like reading T.E. Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom and wondering why he doesn’t mention the sinking of the Titanic, several years earlier, a subject he was actually fascinated by, but it wasn’t germane to desert warfare in WWI.
I am not inclined to opine on whether Luke’s writing has been accurately dated or not. Other than to say it definitely came after Mark’s, and probably around the same time as Matthew’s, maybe a bit later. And nobody should take my word for that. 🙂
I think we are making slightly different arguments here.
I am not intending to suggest that Luke was writing history outside of what he perceived to be the scope of his work. I agree with you on that.
However, that argument, on its own, does not explain why Luke did not use any historical events past CE 62 for this purpose.
So, let’s just stipulate: the famine was used to demonstrate a fulfilled prediction based on Christian faith; the Jewish expulsion had a connection to Paul’s ministry; the Egyptian insurrectionist was mentioned to draw a contrast with Paul’s mission.
Let’s stipulate that all of that is more or less accurate.
That still does not explain why Luke only chose events which were pre-CE 62.
For example, assuming the famine prediction was an anachronism, it’s interesting that Paul chose a predicted event that was fulfilled prior to CE 62. Nor does Luke use any post-CE 62 events to demonstrate a Christian prediction fulfilled.
Is this definite proof? Absolutely not. But it’s something that is not easily explainable if Luke was written at a later date.
I see your point, but I’m not sure it proves anything. Luke was writing about the very early history of Christianity–about the first generation. Which was mainly gone, not long after CE 62. Peter and Paul only lived a few years after that.
Luke may not have had enough information to write about what came later. Or he may have felt he had told the story that mattered to him. Maybe he meant to write a sequel, but events we can’t guess at precluded this.
As to the dating, I’ll leave that to the experts.
brenmcg said
If you read a biography of lincoln which fails to mention the ending of the war and his subsequent assassination, the assumption should be that the book was written before April 1865.
This is an interesting argument.
I suppose the counter would be that, if the book was not strictly a biography of Lincoln, but a (let’s say) a history of the destruction of the South during the Civil War, then maybe events like Lincoln’s assassination could be excluded — even if that event predated the publishing of the book.
The usual explanation for Acts not mentioning events like the deaths of Paul and Peter is that the author’s theme is the unbridled spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Mentioning the fact that Pete and Paul got whacked by the authorities might be a bit of a buzz kill. Certainly it plays against the optimism shown about the spread of the gospel in the book.
Of course we shouldn’t completely discount the idea that the author may not have known what happened to them. All we have are vague traditions about their fate. For all we really know both Peter and Paul may have died of old age in their beds.
godspell said
Maybe [Luke] meant to write a sequel, but events we can’t guess at precluded this.
I think this is a possibility not given enough seriousness. I’ve seen it argued before. I’d love to see it more developed.
I personally think it makes more sense as an explanation for the odd ending of Acts for those argued for a later date of composition.
Stephen said
Of course we shouldn’t completely discount the idea that the author may not have known what happened to them. All we have are vague traditions about their fate. For all we really know both Peter and Paul may have died of old age in their beds.
How does one reconcile the author giving a fairly detailed history of Paul’s later adult life, spanning 1500+ words and approximately 15 years of his life, abruptly ending in CE 62, only for the author “not to have known what happened to him”?
Do we have any example of something like this ever happening?
Stephen said
The usual explanation for Acts not mentioning events like the deaths of Paul and Peter is that the author’s theme is the unbridled spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Mentioning the fact that Pete and Paul got whacked by the authorities might be a bit of a buzz kill. Certainly it plays against the optimism shown about the spread of the gospel in the book.Of course we shouldn’t completely discount the idea that the author may not have known what happened to them. All we have are vague traditions about their fate. For all we really know both Peter and Paul may have died of old age in their beds.
How many people actually die peacefully of old age in their own beds, in your experience?
Let alone two devoted evangelists, traveling around, coming into conflict with the authorities almost everywhere they go?
I think if that’s how they’d died, that would have been seen as God’s blessing for faithful service, and it would have been reported as such (maybe with some supernatural details sketched in).
Accounts of what happened to them certainly would have been garbled and conflicting, but everybody seems to have agreed they didn’t die peacefully in their beds. And I doubt either of them did.
vergari said
This is an interesting argument.
I suppose the counter would be that, if the book was not strictly a biography of Lincoln, but a (let’s say) a history of the destruction of the South during the Civil War, then maybe events like Lincoln’s assassination could be excluded — even if that event predated the publishing of the book.
Yes but I guess the point of a book gets summed up in its ending.
Acts “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ – with all boldness and without hindrance!”
Acts of lincoln “For two whole days Lincoln celebrated is re-election in the white house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the coming of the end of the war and taught about his next 4 year manifesto – with all boldness and without hindrance! THE END” – Jan 1865
Well, John Ford made a movie about young Lincoln, and never once mentioned the assassination, because everybody knew.
There are endless books about Lincoln, and many are so focused on a given point in his life, or on certain aspects of his thought, they don’t discuss his death at all.
Acts is not a biography of Paul, even if it has biographical material about him (legit or otherwise). He kind of steals the book, I suppose because he’s more of an action hero (you see what I did there), but it is not all about him.
We’re pretty sure Paul died before Acts was written, so we can’t say Luke leaving it out proves anything other than he left it out.
Mark originally left out Jesus manifesting himself to his followers after the crucifixion. All Christians believed that had happened, and if they hadn’t come to believe this, there wouldn’t be any Christians. But Mark may have felt it was more powerful to leave that out, let people think about it–emphasize the fear and uncertainty they felt after he was gone, the better to counterpose that with the fact that a lifetime later, there were so many more followers, enough to justify entire books about him. But also there may still have been some disagreement about exactly what had happened, who he’d appeared to and when Mark may have preferred to stay out of that debate.
Luke may have preferred to stay out of the debate over what happened to Peter and Paul. I’m not saying they disappeared, like Judge Crater, Ambrose Bierce, or Jimmy Hoffa (though that’s a very incomplete list of famous people from modern times whose deaths remain a mystery), but if they were far from home, accounts would have been conflicting. The by-then widespread community would want a good death story for both, but wouldn’t agree on the details.
Paul reveals very few details about Jesus’ death and resurrection in his epistles, I think for the same reason–he says Jesus appeared to hundreds after his death. No gospel agrees with this. The stories proliferated, then got pared down a bit. Paul doesn’t want to alienate people who believe in certain stories and not others. So he stays vague. Luke decided to be even vaguer. Leave it out entirely. Every reader will fill in the blanks his or her own way.
vergari said
How does one reconcile the author giving a fairly detailed history of Paul’s later adult life, spanning 1500+ words and approximately 15 years of his life, abruptly ending in CE 62, only for the author “not to have known what happened to him”?
Do we have any example of something like this ever happening?
I’m not sure of the relevance of other examples. In this case we know the writer of Luke/Acts had some stories about Paul. Perhaps he just didn’t have any stories about Paul’s ultimate fate. We can tell he didn’t know Paul’s own correspondence because when we can compare events between Paul and Acts there are contradictions. There are also contradictions between the depiction of the leaders of the early church and Paul’s own actual message in both sources.
But Acts apparent intention to depict Paul “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” would mitigate against ending with a martyr story.
Stephen said
But Acts apparent intention to depict Paul “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” would mitigate against ending with a martyr story.
but isn’t the consensus that Paul actually was freed (not guilty if there was any kind of trial) , which would be a great story
or is there not a consensus ?
another thing
Stephen said
. . . In this case we know the writer of Luke/Acts had some stories about Paul. Perhaps he just didn’t have any stories about Paul’s ultimate fate. We can tell he didn’t know Paul’s own correspondence because when we can compare events between Paul and Acts there are contradictions. There are also contradictions between the depiction of the leaders of the early church and Paul’s own actual message in both sources.
doesn’t that indicate Luke is NOT hesitant to write stuff he is not sure of
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)