The completion of the book of Acts just rather fades away, with Paul still alive. Such a conclusion might be expected if the author had simply brought his readers up-to-date with all that was currently known to him, then obviously nothing further could be reported. It is my understanding that there are some scholars today that accept this to be the case, and suggest that Acts was written before 70 BCE. However, other scholars place it’s authorship much later, into the 2nd century. The question then arises (at least for me ): If the book was written at that later date, and given that it purports to be a history of sorts, why does it say nothing further beyond Paul’s first years in Rome? Certainly there were events of significant church history in the ensuing years. Why stop reporting where it did, if so much that followed could have been said…even if it perhaps required a ‘2 Acts’, or more?
Great question! But, I don’t know the answer. By coincidence I was reading the latest post from Larry Hurtado’s blog today and he mentioned that the final volume (of 4 volumes covering the entire book of Acts) in Craig Keener’s commentary of Acts was released this month. I have the first volume and this commentary is amazing in its detail. The first volume covering only the first couple of chapters is over 1,000 pages. The final volume is 1,132 pages (per Amazon) and covers the final 4 chapters. I don’t know if this book will answer your question, but given the detail Keener gives to all topics and the intro in the first volume I can’t help but think he probably contemplates the ending of Acts. Here’s the link if you want to check it out: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The price for a large work, in my opinion, is extremely reasonable.
Thanx for reference…Keener must have an army of researchers working for him…prodigious effort. Out of my budgetary means however.
One of the ‘late-date’ scholars I have read is Marcus Borg. In his Evolution of the Word he develops a timeline for the authorship of the NT books. He places Acts (and Luke of course) in the early 2nd century with this commentary:
From his Introduction to Luke:
“…The growing movement to date Luke and Acts in the early second century has more than one foundation. Some scholars argue that the author knew passages from the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in the 90s, thus making Luke-Acts later than that. Though the evidence that the author did know the writings of Josephus is not completely persuasive, there is another reason for a date a decade or two later than Matthew, namely, both Luke and Acts emphasize the consistent rejection of Jesus by “the Jews.” “
And from his Introduction to Acts:
“…Yet Paul was executed in Rome by Roman authority. As already mentioned, the author of Acts does not report this. It would have undermined his portrait of early Christianity as posing no challenge or threat to the imperial way of ordering the world. Acts, even though it contains the memory of Jesus’s followers “turning the world upside down,” is also an early second-century Christian accommodation to life within the empire. It belongs with other New Testament documents accommodating the early Christian movement to life in “this world.” “
Just offering all this to present one existing argument for the late-date authorship position. I wonder what Keener would say about these statements.
jimlefferts said
Thanx for reference…Keener must have an army of researchers working for him…prodigious effort. Out of my budgetary means however.One of the ‘late-date’ scholars I have read is Marcus Borg. In his Evolution of the Word he develops a timeline for the authorship of the NT books. He places Acts (and Luke of course) in the early 2nd century with this commentary:
From his Introduction to Luke:
“…The growing movement to date Luke and Acts in the early second century has more than one foundation. Some scholars argue that the author knew passages from the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in the 90s, thus making Luke-Acts later than that. Though the evidence that the author did know the writings of Josephus is not completely persuasive, there is another reason for a date a decade or two later than Matthew, namely, both Luke and Acts emphasize the consistent rejection of Jesus by “the Jews.” “
I’ve not read this book, but as you probably know most scholars date Luke-Acts to the 1st century. Regarding his comment in the last sentence of your quote I would point out that the rejection of Jesus and, more specifically, of Christians was happening within 2-4 years of the death of Jesus. If we’re to accept that Paul’s conversion happened 2-4 years after the Crucifixion then that places the stoning of Stephen within that same window (assuming Acts is to be believed in that Paul had a hand in that). If we can therefore situate persecution of Christians so close to the death of Jesus why would we need to postpone the writing of Luke-Acts to 70+ years later if one of the supposed pieces of evidence for the dating is said persecution (or ‘rejection of Jesus’ as he calls it)?
jimlefferts said
And from his Introduction to Acts:
“…Yet Paul was executed in Rome by Roman authority. As already mentioned, the author of Acts does not report this. It would have undermined his portrait of early Christianity as posing no challenge or threat to the imperial way of ordering the world. Acts, even though it contains the memory of Jesus’s followers “turning the world upside down,” is also an early second-century Christian accommodation to life within the empire. It belongs with other New Testament documents accommodating the early Christian movement to life in “this world.” “
Just offering all this to present one existing argument for the late-date authorship position. I wonder what Keener would say about these statements.
Have you seen Prof. Ehrman’s posts on Luke-Paul and whether or not “Luke” actually knew Paul? Luke gets a lot of things wrong about Paul’s chronology (when compared against Paul’s non-pseudopigraphical letters) so some question whether or not the author of Acts really did know Paul after all. If he didn’t know Paul maybe he didn’t know what happened to him by the time he wrote Acts. No surviving 1st century writing claims to know definitively what happened to Paul. The earliest mention of his death is Ignatius writing in the early 2nd century who says that Paul was martyred.
G:
It’s quite an interesting issue. My suspicion is you can make the ending fit any scenario you want. I find Ehrman’s argument compelling here, but I don’t think knowing Paul is essential to learning his fate. I think you’re spot on with the dating. An intriguing yet baseless idea is that Luke’s Theophilus was Paul’s lawyer. One has to admit that if Luke is writing a brief for Paul’s trial, this nicely explains why Paul’s fate remains unknown.
I personally find New Testament scholar Dr. Craig L. Blomberg’s (2006, p. 13) reconstruction somewhat convincing when he, outlining the conservative dating of book of Acts in his book From Pentecost to Patmos: Acts to Revelation, states that
‘most conservatives still date Acts to the period between approximately A.D. 62 and 64. The abrupt end of the book, with Paul awaiting the results of his appeal to Caesar in Rome, has suggested to many that Luke wrote almost immediately after these last events occurred. Given that Acts 21-28 has been narrating Paul’s arrest, his various hearings, and his imprisonments in considerable detail, all building toward his appeal to the emperor, it is hard to understand why Luke would not have recorded the outcome of that appeal if he had written at a late enough date to have known it. The two-year period of his house arrest in Rome, with which the book of Acts ends, should probably be dated to 60-62 since Festus acceded to power in 59 and Paul was shipped to Rome that fall. If we allow some time for Luke to pen his gospel, then we arrive at the date suggested above.’
I would personally tentatively conclude that it was written before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (not as early as 62-64 but plausibly at that early date). In response to my own tweet on Twitter ‘How plausible is it that Lk doesn’t mention final verdict of the Caesar re Paul’s appeal because it hadn’t been delivered?’ (that would be a very early writing of Acts), the Australian ancient historian ** you do not have permission to see this link **, an Australian secular university, states that my suggestion is ‘plausible but not probative’ as opposed to words like impossible, highly implausible, or very implausible. See:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** Plausible but not probative.
— John Dickson (@johnpauldickson) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Reference
Blomberg, CL 2006, From Pentecost to Patmos: Acts to Revelation – New Testament Introduction and Survey Volume 2, Apollos, Nottingham.
I find the dating Luke in the 80’s the best option when taking all of the data into consideration. I find that most scholars that want to date the book early are fundamentalist and conservative Christians . The closer they can date the book to Jesus’s lifetime the better. While trying to push the date earlier you also have to shuffle the dating of other books around also like the book of Mark specifically.
Jimmy said
I find the dating Luke in the 80’s the best option when taking all of the data into consideration. I find that most scholars that want to date the book early are fundamentalist and conservative Christians . The closer they can date the book to Jesus’s lifetime the better. While trying to push the date earlier you also have to shuffle the dating of other books around also like the book of Mark specifically.
Jimmy
you may find Keener’s work out of your price range ( I find it out of my IQ range) but he has numerous articles on his wst. Also I’m with you on the whole dating imbroglio. Efforts to reach earlier dates can be quite wooly! If I recall correctly, one site I read stated that you couldn’t date a given book without dating the others; a nice way to ignore textual and internal evidence and force dating to whatever year makes you comfy
Luke/Acts can’t possibly be pre-70s for the simple fact that he knew Mark and there are very good reasons to date Mark around 70. And even if Luke knew Matthew, Matthew knew Mark too and that would push Luke back even further. The best explanation I’ve heard for why Acts neglects Paul’s death is because it is the story of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to the center of the empire in an unfettered expansion. Ending the book with Paul getting whacked by the Romans would be a huge buzz kill.
Of course it’s only a tradition that Paul died a martyr in Rome. Acts is extremely suspect historically. Maybe Paul just grew old and died in his bed.
Stephen said
Luke/Acts can’t possibly be pre-70s for the simple fact that he knew Mark and there are very good reasons to date Mark around 70. And even if Luke knew Matthew, Matthew knew Mark too and that would push Luke back even further. The best explanation I’ve heard for why Acts neglects Paul’s death is because it is the story of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to the center of the empire in an unfettered expansion. Ending the book with Paul getting whacked by the Romans would be a huge buzz kill.Of course it’s only a tradition that Paul died a martyr in Rome. Acts is extremely suspect historically. Maybe Paul just grew old and died in his bed.
Better to burn out than fade away
col8lok8 said
‘most conservatives still date Acts to the period between approximately A.D. 62 and 64.
Why?
The abrupt end of the book, with Paul awaiting the results of his appeal to Caesar in Rome, has suggested to many that Luke wrote almost immediately after these last events occurred. Given that Acts 21-28 has been narrating Paul’s arrest, his various hearings, and his imprisonments in considerable detail, all building toward his appeal to the emperor, it is hard to understand why Luke would not have recorded the outcome of that appeal if he had written at a late enough date to have known.
This is what’s known as The Castle of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh fallacy. But it doesn’t explain why he wouldn’t wait for a victorious verdict. Certainly that would have to be the most important part of the story. After all, the author is “building toward his appeal” “in considerable detail”. And then what? Did the author have a heart attack while writing that final scene? Here’s what for Christians was probably the trial of the century. The last time there was such a trial, it ended in ignominious defeat. Here is a chance for vindication. An appeal to Caesar, himself! but Christians aren’t real interested in the outcome.
If Paul were sentenced to death, as has been suggested, this goes against the idea very theme of the book. After all, if Paul was victorious, why would you not want to write about it? This Is to say, why not wait to find out and tell everyone?
Why do you find Blomberg SOMEWHAT convincing?
Stephen said
Luke/Acts can’t possibly be pre-70s for the simple fact that he knew Mark and there are very good reasons to date Mark around 70. And even if Luke knew Matthew, Matthew knew Mark too and that would push Luke back even further. The best explanation I’ve heard for why Acts neglects Paul’s death is because it is the story of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to the center of the empire in an unfettered expansion. Ending the book with Paul getting whacked by the Romans would be a huge buzz kill.Of course it’s only a tradition that Paul died a martyr in Rome. Acts is extremely suspect historically. Maybe Paul just grew old and died in his bed.
Would you include the information from Acts about the Achaean proconsul Gallio and the date of Paul’s stay at Corinth with that claim of Acts being extremely suspect historically?
The theme of good that comes out from evil is Luke-Acts in a nutshell.
The good that came out from the evil done to Jesus is the ultimate good.
That Paul was ‘whacked by the Romans’ could be followed by a story about some good that came of it, or a story about how Paul in being whacked got what he wanted in the end. Paul thought suffering means one shares more with Christ. If Luke wrote that Paul was executed by crucifixion (even if he wasn’t) then Luke could have said Paul died like the Lord Jesus.
Luke could have told a theological point by saying the Lord appeared to Paul a second time at the time of his death similar to the Lord’s appearance with Paul’s conversion but this time with a voice from heaven heard by many witnesses declaring that the very words of Acts chapter 9 verses 15 to 16 had been fulfilled by the time of Paul’s death. For example: ‘ As Paul breathed his last breath, a voice from heaven declared “Look at this man whom I love so dearly! He was the agent I chose in order to bring my name before Gentiles, kings, and Jews. Although he caused much suffering to the church, he has since suffered much for the sake of my name. Continue his work, and know that I will always be with you!” ‘ (this is made up of course).
Paul’s death would not necessarily be a buzzkill. To the contrary, it could be used to inestimably strengthen the church.
Would you include the information from Acts about the Achaean proconsul Gallio and the date of Paul’s stay at Corinth with that claim of Acts being extremely suspect historically?
All I can say is that when we can check Acts against Paul’s letters we definitely see wide divergences. The fact that Acts (or the gospels for that matter) mention known historical characters is neither here nor there. Would you be tempted to convert to Buddhism simply because their scriptures mentioned real people from the past?
Stephen said
All I can say is that when we can check Acts against Paul’s letters we definitely see wide divergences. The fact that Acts (or the gospels for that matter) mention known historical characters is neither here nor there. Would you be tempted to convert to Buddhism simply because their scriptures mentioned real people from the past?
According to prof Ehrman,
The New Testament book of Acts is not historically reliable. Before showing that to be the case, I want to make two preliminary remarks, both of them related to the question of what it means for an ostensibly historical account (a narrative of what allegedly happened in the past) to be reliable.
First, when readers today want to know whether the book of Acts is reliable, they mean that they want to know whether the events that it narrates actually happened in the way it describes. Or not. Readers are not primarily interested in knowing if he wrote his account the way other authors in his day would have done. They are mainly interested in knowing whether his narrative happened the way he says it did.
Second, it is indeed important to know whether the author of the account had a solid and accurate knowledge of the laws, customs, and institutions of his day. If he did not, then obviously cannot be historically reliable. But even if he does, that in itself has no bearing on whether the stories he tells actually happened. An author may well know that in the city of Lystra there was a temple of Zeus outside the city walls; but that has no bearing on whether what he says *happened* in that temple is historically true or not. The affirmative side wants to argue that the fact that Luke was knowledgeable about the first century and that can easily be conceded. Of course he did. He lived in the first century. Naturally he knows about it. But that has no relevance to the question of whether the narratives he sets in the first century happened the way he says they did.
There are two major ways to check to see if Luke is historically accurate. The first is to see if
he is internally consistent in his telling of his stories. If not, then that would show that he is not particularly concerned to get the facts straight. The second is to compare him with other reliable sources of the time to see if they coincide or not. As it turns out, a number of things that Luke says about Paul are things that Paul himself talks about, so we can compare the two. Whenever they talk about the same thing, they are at odds with one another. Luke does not appear to be historically accurate.
First, internal consistency. Luke sometimes tells the same story two or even three times. When he does so, there are striking contradictions, which show, among other things, that Luke is more interested in spinning a good yarn than he is in preserving a historically accurate narrative. Let me cite two examples. First, Jesus’ ascension. In Luke 24 (you can read it for yourself and see) Jesus rises from the dead, on that day meets with his disciples, and then, again that day, he ascends to heaven from the town of Bethany. But when you read Acts 1, written by the same author, you find that Jesus did not ascend on that day or at that place. Jesus instead spends forty days with his disciples proving to them that he had been raised from the dead (it’s not clear why he would have to prove it! Let alone do so for forty days!); and only then — forty days afterthe resurrection– does he ascend. And here he ascends not from Bethany but from Jerusalem. Luke tells the same story twice, and in two radically different ways. Historical accuracy does not appear to be his major concern.
Second example. On three occasions Acts narrates the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, chapters 9, 22, and 26. Compare them closely to one another, and you find very odd contradictions. In chapter 9 Paul’s companions hear the voice of Jesus talking to Paul, but they don’t see anyone; in chapter 22 they see the light but don’t hear anything. Which is it? In Chapter 9 the companions are left standing while Paul falls to the ground; in chapter 26 they are all knocked to the ground. Which is it? In chapters 9 and 22 Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias about what to do next. In chapter 26 Paul is not told to go be instructed by Ananias, instead Jesus himself instructs him. Well, which is it?
All these examples simply show that Luke was far more interested in telling a gripping story than he was in being consistent. His artistic license has seriously undercut his historical accuracy.
But even more noteworthy are the external contradictions with a reliable source: Paul himself. Whenever Acts relates an incident from Paul’s life that Paul himself discusses, there are striking and irreconcilable differences. Sometimes these involve small details. For example, Acts 17 is clear and unambiguous: when Paul traveled to bring the gospel
Sometimes the differences really matter. When Paul himself talks about his conversion in Galatians 1 he insists that after he had his vision of Jesus he did not – he absolutely and positively did not (he swears to it!) – go to confer with the other apostles in Jerusalem. Not for years. And what happens when Paul converts according to Acts 9? What is the first thing he does after he leaves Damascus? He makes a bee-line to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles. In Acts he does precisely what he himself swears he didn’t do.
Even more striking than the contradictions in the itinerary and travels of Paul are the discrepancies in his preaching. Here I give just one example. In Acts 17 when Paul is preaching to the pagans of Athens, he tells them that they worship idols out of ignorance. They simply don’t know any better. And because of that, God overlooks their mistake; but he now gives them a chance to recognize the truth and worship him alone. That stands in sharp contrast with the views that Paul himself lays out in his letter to the Romans. In chapter one Paul states his views of pagan idolatry and false worship, and they are completely contrary to what he allegedly said in Acts 17. In Romans Paul tells us that pagans worship idols precisely because they did know that there was only one God who was to be worshiped, and they rejected that knowledge in full consciousness of what they were doing. And because of that God has cast his wrath down upon them. Well which is it? Do they commit idolatry out of pure ignorance so God overlooks their mistake? Or are they fully aware of what they’re doing so God judges them? Assuming Paul himself knew what his own views were, you would have to say that Acts has misrepresented the very core of his preaching message.
Every time you compare what Acts has to say about Paul with what Paul has to say about himself, you find discrepancies. Just as you find discrepancies internally, whenever Acts recounts the same event more than once. As valuable as Acts may be as an interesting story about the first years and decades of the early Christian movement, the reality is that the book of Acts is not historically reliable.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)