Robert said

2009 ** you do not have permission to see this link **, who argues for a late date (c. 115) and dependence upon Josephus as well as access to Pauline letters. Other recent scholars who favor this late dating are Joseph Tyson and Steve Mason, the latter being a major scholar of Josephus.

Still worth reading is the ** you do not have permission to see this link **, who dates Acts to 80-100 CE. As the first of the redaction-critics to work on Luke, Conzelmann has had an enormous impact on the interpretation of Luke-Acts.  

Robert, do you know how Pervo accounts for a line from Luke ending up in 1 Timothy and being referred to as “scripture,” if Luke-Acts was written in the First Century? Even if 1 Timothy is dated as late 130 CE — a remarkably late date considering that Polycarp’s epistle of to the Philippians evinces clear knowledge of the pastoral epistles — it’s hard to imagine that a document would have achieved the status of “scripture” within such a short time period.

Robert said
It doesn’t look like Pervo mentions this verse from 1 Timothy in his commentary on Acts. However, Dibelius & Conzelmann, in their commentary on 1 Timothy, say (p 79):

The saying in question could also be of earlier origin, stemming from a “holy” apocryphon (ie, of the OT). Lk 10,7 almost gives the impression that Jesus is appealing to a recognized saying from Scripture, ie, that such a saying is [subsequently] ascribed to him. Finally, “Holy Scripture” could simply refer to the first saying, with which the second is only loosely connected. In light of this possibility, it is unnecessary to exclude the verse as a gloss, even though it designates a saying of Jesus as a portion of Scripture.²¹

21. Michaelis, Echtheitsfrage, 62, would exclude the saying as a gloss.

I have to admit that this too was my own first instinct in looking up the logion you referred to earlier. The verbal similarities are indeed exact, but such a general aphorism doesn’t seem like a saying that would have necessarily been exclusive to Jesus or Luke. I would not try to base too much on such a single aphorism. Sorry. For those who are wondering what vergari is referring to:

Lk 10,7 ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ
1 Tm 5,18 ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ

ET: (For [γὰρ]) The worker is worthy of his wage

   

I can certainly buy into the worker being worth his wages being an older aphorism, pre-dating Luke; and Luke included this aphorism in his writing. 

But positing a now-lost OT apocryphon demonstrably runs afoul of our friend Occam by multiplying entities. 

Indeed, even accepting the tougher read of 1 Timothy — that the laborer being worth his wages was not meant to be encompassed within the reference to scripture … positing an unknown (and now lost) Jewish aphorism (found nowhere else in ancient literature) that 1 Timothy just coincidentally happened to quote, right after the reference to scripture, likewise multiplies entities.  This problem is only magnified by the universal tradition of associating the (likely) pseudonymous author of 1 Timothy with traditional author of Luke.

So, again:

1. There is the association between the traditional authors of the two works.

2. There are unique (near verbatim) references to the same aphorism, found nowhere else in the ancient literature.

3. There is the apparent reference to the aphorism (using the easiest reading) as scripture.

By far, the simplest explanation — and that one I believe the overwhelming majority of professional historians (outside of biblical scholarship) would apply to this question — is that 1 Timothy is quoting from Luke.

If an argument as to the date of Luke-Acts requires such an unnecessary violation of Occam’s razor, I would suggest a re-examination of the argument.

Robert said
I still would not try to base too much on such a general aphorism.   

I certainly disagree with the adjective “general.”  It’s an aphorism, but one without any trace of ancient pedigree beyond two documents which have a well-known traditional connection.  It’s a clue as to dating of these documents; and a clue which should not be discarded simply because it doesn’t fit within a theory of textual criticism.  The best, and simplest, explanation for this clue is that one document is quoting from the other.

Stephen said

The  problem  is  not that “Luke” has views different than Paul.    The  problem  is  that  “Luke”  ascribes  views  to Paul  that  contradict  the views Paul exhibits in his own letters.  If  “Luke” was a companion of Paul wouldn’t  he  know  what  Paul’s  actual  views  were?     

What view ascribed to Paul by “Luke,” at variance with Paul’s own writings, is not best explained by the simple convention of “Luke” attributing his own views to the authority of Paul? 

Rather than presupposing that “Luke” was ignorant of Paul’s views on certain matters due to the fact he never met him, a far simpler explanation is that “Luke” was espousing his own views, but attributing them to Paul.  No one is suggesting that Paul has some type of authorship to “Luke.”  Clearly, it was a work of a different person, with his own views on matters.

One more global thought at to the dating of Luke-Acts.

“Luke” is the only evangelist to relocate the Twelve disciples back to Jerusalem following the resurrection of Jesus. He does this both in his Gospel and in Acts. And, indeed, the presumed theme of Acts, stated in Acts 1:8, “ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” begins at Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is mentioned in Acts more than twice as much as Rome, Antioch, Damascus and Samaria, combined.  The main characters of Acts spend more time in Jerusalem than anywhere else.

And yet, the story in Acts ends just a few years before destruction of Jerusalem.

If acts was written after 80 C.E., how does one explain the absence of even the slightest direct reference to the fall of Jerusalem — a city which we are positing has been completely destroyed not long before Acts was written?

Instead, we have the vague references in the Olivet discourse, of the temple “not be[ing] left [with] one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down,” of “Nation ris[ing] against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,” of “great earthquakes,” “famines,” and “pestilences,” of “terrors and great signs from heaven,” of the disciples being “deliver[ed] up to the synagogues and prisons” and “br[ought] before kings and governors for [Jesus’s] name’s sake,” of disciples being “put to death,” and “Jerusalem compassed with armies” (with the admonition: “let those who are inside [Jerusalem] depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter [Jerusalem].”

Now most of these bits are a redaction from Mark (and actually have their genesis with OT prophecy in Daniel 9); but a few things aren’t Markan: the express mention of disciples being put to death (also in Matthew), Jerusalem encompassed by armies, and the admonition not to enter Jerusalem.  This passage clearly sounds like the writings of someone who knows the turbulent events surrounding the First Jewish-Roman War.  But it does not sound like someone writing in the 80s CE; it sounds like someone writing at the end of 60s CE.

Suppose the authors of Matthew and Luke both knew of the Nerorian persecution (CE 64-68) with the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul, the language from “Luke” here sounds like someone writing in anticipation of the fall of Jerusalem.  Riots began in Jerusalem in 66 CE, and by the end of the year a Roman legion had arrived in Judea; by CE April 67, Roman legions reinforced the military build up; by the end of the year, Jewish rebels had taken control of Jerusalem; by CE 68, it was clearly that a direct assault on Jerusalem by Roman soldiers was in the making.

Concurrent with those events are the persecutions in Rome under Nero.

Placing Luke-Acts into this time period CE 67-69 makes good sense.

I’ll add one more note, though I don’t know which way it cuts: “Luke” also removes Jesus’s “prayer” that the fall of the Temple “not happen in winter,” present in both Mark and Matthew.  The siege of Roman began in CE April 70.  Did Luke know, what Mark and Matthew didn’t, that Jerusalem was sieged in the spring and fell in the summer?  Did he know to anticipate as much?  Did he abandon the prophetic notion of “not happen[ing] in winter,” because he knew the fall of Jerusalem was likely, irrespective of whether it happened in winter or not?

All of these elements from the Olivet discourse in “Luke,” as well as the absence of the fate of Jerusalem in Acts, if “Luke” is writing at the end of the 60s CE.  The further one pushes the writing of “Luke” back, the less sense they make. 

Robert said

vergari said

I can certainly buy into the worker being worth his wages being an older aphorism, pre-dating Luke; and Luke included this aphorism in his writing. 

But positing a now-lost OT apocryphon demonstrably runs afoul of our friend Occam by multiplying entities. … positing an unknown (and now lost) Jewish aphorism (found nowhere else in ancient literature) that 1 Timothy just coincidentally happened to quote, right after the reference to scripture  … unique (near verbatim) references to the same aphorism, found nowhere else in the ancient literature. …

If an argument as to the date of Luke-Acts requires such an unnecessary violation of Occam’s razor, I would suggest a re-examination of the argument.  …

I certainly disagree with the adjective “general.” It’s an aphorism, but one without any trace of ancient pedigree beyond two documents which have a well-known traditional connection.

There are indeed traces and more than traces of an ancient pedigree.

Philo of Alexandria (Agr 5) may betray knowledge of such a general aphorism:

ὁ μὲν γῆς ἐργάτης πρὸς ἓν τέλος, τὸν μισθόν

the worker of the earth (works) to one end, the wage

And Lk 10,7 is thought to be the more original version of a Q-logion (Fitzmyer, Davies & Allison, Luz, IQP) being found also in Matthew 10,10 with one variation (‘food’/’keep’ instead of ‘wage’), in the same context:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.

The Didache (13,2) understandably uses the Matthean form:

ὡσαύτως διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός ἐστιν ἄξιος καὶ αὐτός, ὥσπερ ὁ ἐργάτης, τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.

… likewise a true teacher is himself worthy, as the worker, of his food

Ulrich Luz notes the catchwords ἐργάζομαι (1 Cor 9,6.13), μισθός (9,17–18), and ἐργάται (2 Cor 11,17) to suggest the possibility that Paul knew the saying in its Q form. Davies & Allison think that Paul definitely knew the Lukan form.

And especially the Lukan version of this logion may be understood as based on scripture. The letter of James (5,4) decries the rich who have withheld ‘the wages of the workers’ with the same words (ὁ μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν) when he is no doubt thinking of Deuteronomy 24,14-15:

You shall not withhold the wages (μισθόν) of poor (πένητος) and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. You shall pay them their wages (ὁ μισθός) daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt.

Leviticus 19,13 also alludes to this same principle:

… the wages of a day laborer (ὁ μισθὸς* τοῦ μισθωτοῦ) shall not rest overnight with you until morning.

This same principle can be seen also in Tobit 4,14 (μισθὸς παντὸς ἀνθρώπου, ὃς ἐὰν ἐργάσηται) and Job 7,2 (μισθωτὸς ἀναμένων τὸν μισθὸν αὐτοῦ). A combination of Deuteronomy and Leviticus may be seen in the aphorisms of Jewish Pseudo-Phocylides: μισθὸν μοχθήσαντι δίδου; μὴ θλῖβε πένητα.

*I cannot resist noting that the Hebrew original here (פְּעֻלָּה peulah) is the origin (through Yiddish) of our slang term payola.  

Wonderful response. I’ll give some thoughts in a moment’s time.