Been through this before. Please read the material I have Posted. It's not simply about "Historical Literature" (Josephus, Tacitus, Polybius and all). See comments on coins, Settlements in Galilee and the Mishmarot Priesthood, especially. Don't go there, JDL. You have something that appears incorrect then tell me about it. I'm very OK with incorrect reasoning and facts. Just don't make a blanket statement such as above. Unseemly.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:42 pmIt maybe consistent with itself, but not with external evidence.
Yes. I can agree with that. Always have. Mark is post 110-ish, at the earliest (Speaking of 110-ish, do you know why I choose this date?). John comes in with a fragment dated to around 125-ish. So John is earlier than that. That fits for John-answering-Mark. It *appears* that the Source material was still around (See Raskin here).Everything points to an early second century origin for Paul, and a late second century origin for Acts.
Whatever dates you have for Acts in the second century pretty much OK with me. I know the Source material for this and that's fine for what I see. Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio and all.
Noooo....Seriously?!?? Wait...I think I have a "Sarc" switch here somewhere.Acta and Epistolae simply mean Acts and Epistles respectively, common literary genres at the time, next to romance, or novels
/s.
So, what are you doing here? Why bother?Everything involving Vespessian, Titus, and Mucianus is simply circumstantial and boarders on Atwillian.
CW
