Acts not written in 41 CE

[Michael BG]

Steven Avery wrote this yesterday:

Since we know that Luke completed Acts in 41 AD, ...

I thought he should be put right.

In Acts 12:23 King Herod Agrippa dies and this happened in 44 CE.

Acts has King Agrippa II and Bernice (Acts 25).

Paul is arrested when Felix is governor of Judea (Acts 23:26) whose wife is Drusilla sister of King Agrippa II (Acts 24:24) and he kept Paul a prisoner for two years (Acts 24:27), which can be dated to c. 57-60 CE because Acts 24:27 tells us that Porcius Festus succeeds Felix which happened in c. 59-60 CE.

Acts has Paul living for two years (28:30) at Rome (28:11) which brings the date to at least 61 CE and most likely 62 CE.

Therefore Acts could not have been written any earlier than 61 CE and most likely it was written after 63 CE.

[MrMacSon]

The Westar Institute ran an 'Acts Seminar' which met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

[Ulan]

My question would be who the "we" in "we know that Luke completed Acts in 41 AD" would be.

Standard introductions to the NT put Acts in the late first century (Schnelle 90-100, Theissen >96, Roloff 85-90, Pilhofer ~90). Of course, there's also people like Jaroš who dates it <62 because the text doesn't show any knowledge of the deaths of Paul and James. However, he is one of these very conservative OT scholars who wants to show the NT scholars what they, from his point of view, do wrong. He still doesn't propose anything like 41.

[John T]

Acts was written sometime between 63-70 C.E.

[spin]

The Westar Institute ran an 'Acts Seminar' which met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

Given Westar's widespread view that both the Lucan recension of the gospel and Acts were a reaction to Marcionism, why do you think they then date Acts so early in the second century? (I haven't read the write-up they published on their review of Acts, so I'm hoping you might have some idea....)

[Steven Avery]

Thanks. My fingerfehler.

Luke 41 AD, when Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest.

Acts after 60, Theophilus is simply ... Theophilus.

[MrMacSon]

Given Westar's widespread view that both the Lucan recension of the gospel and Acts were a reaction to Marcionism, why do you think they then date Acts so early in the second century? (I haven't read the write-up they published on their review of Acts, so I'm hoping you might have some idea....)

I haven't read all the write-up either. The Acts Seminar report is edited by Dennis Smith and Joseph B Tyson with 'contributors' including: Rubén Dupertuis, Perry V. Kea, Nina E. Livesey, Dennis R. MacDonald, Shelly Matthews, Milton Moreland, Richard I. Pervo, Thomas E. Phillips, Christine R. Shea, and William O. Walker Jr.
https://progressivechristianity.org/res ... ar-report/

The Acts Seminar ran from 2001 to 2011. While Tyson wrote his quite-well-known Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle in 2006 in the middle of that period (in which he made a case for not only Luke but also Acts being a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke), it has only been since the Acts Seminar finished that other scholars have published on Luke being related to Marcion: BeDuhn (2013), Vinzent (2014), and Klinghardt (2015; in German). As the Acts Seminar was a collaborative effort it would seem its report reflects that collaboration, rather than Tyson's views per se. It would seem a wider discussion about the relationship of Luke to Marcion will need to be had [or continue(?)] before the timing of Acts is visited or revisited. Apparently these views about Luke have already been discussed at some seminars and conferences, but I have not yet seen written accounts about those discussions or reflecting formal presentations. The very recent collective publication of papers by BeDuhn, Vinzent Judith Lieu, and Klinghardt in the April 2017 issue of New Testament Studies [Volume 63, Issue 2] would seem likely to facilitate such wider discussion.

It is likely others will look at this and other views will be expressed and published -

• eg. Acts is a response to Marcion theology, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus by David W. Pao; Wipf & Stock Publishers, 6 Jun. 2016 -

or argued via conference presentations accordingly.

[spin]

Given Westar's widespread view that both the Lucan recension of the gospel and Acts were a reaction to Marcionism, why do you think they then date Acts so early in the second century? (I haven't read the write-up they published on their review of Acts, so I'm hoping you might have some idea....)

I haven't read all the write-up either. The Acts Seminar report is edited by Dennis Smith and Joseph B Tyson with 'contributors' including: Rubén Dupertuis, Perry V. Kea, Nina E. Livesey, Dennis R. MacDonald, Shelly Matthews, Milton Moreland, Richard I. Pervo, Thomas E. Phillips, Christine R. Shea, and William O. Walker Jr.
https://progressivechristianity.org/res ... ar-report/

The Acts Seminar ran from 2001 to 2011. While Tyson wrote his quite-well-known Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle in 2006 in the middle of that period (in which he made a case for not only Luke but also Acts being a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke), it has only been since the Acts Seminar finished that other scholars have published on Luke being related to Marcion: BeDuhn (2013), Vinzent (2014), and Klinghardt (2015; in German). As the Acts Seminar was a collaborative effort it would seem its report reflects that collaboration, rather than Tyson's views per se. It would seem a wider discussion about the relationship of Luke to Marcion will need to be had [or continue(?)] before the timing of Acts is visited or revisited. Apparently these views about Luke have already been discussed at some seminars and conferences, but I have not yet seen written accounts about those discussions or reflecting formal presentations. The very recent collective publication of papers by BeDuhn, Vinzent, and Klinghardt in the April 2017 issue of New Testament Studies [Volume 63, Issue 2] would seem likely to facilitate such wider discussion.

It is likely others will look at this and other views will be expressed and published -

• eg. Acts is a response to Marcion theology, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus by David W. Pao; Wipf & Stock Publishers, 6 Jun. 2016 -

or argued via conference presentations accordingly.

Thanks, those pointers are quite helpful. I find that my preoccupations sometimes keep me from being up with what I should know about. A nice report by Klinghardt from the Cambridge link you supplied:

The result of the search for a coherent editorial concept is even more compelling: the Marcionite Gospel reveals no such concept. Critics from Tertullian to Harnack and beyond have in fact noted (with a greater or lesser degree of astonishment) that Marcion’s alleged changes to Luke do not exhibit the theological intentions attributed to Marcion. NT Stud., 63, 319

So (rhetorically), in what sense can one seriously call the gospel attributed to his efforts specifically his? If he has merely used what he found as could easily be the case with the Pauline letters Tertullian analyses in C.A. 5, we should dissociate his name from the gospel and deal with its content for itself and what it indicates within the synoptic tradition.

[MrMacSon]

Thanks, those pointers are quite helpful.

You're welcome.

A nice report by Klinghardt from the Cambridge link you supplied:

The result of the search for a coherent editorial concept is even more compelling: the Marcionite Gospel reveals no such concept. Critics from Tertullian to Harnack and beyond have in fact noted (with a greater or lesser degree of astonishment) that Marcion’s alleged changes to Luke do not exhibit the theological intentions attributed to Marcion. NT Stud., 63, 319

So (rhetorically), in what sense can one seriously call the gospel attributed to [Marcion's] efforts specifically his? If he has merely used what he found, as could easily be the case with the Pauline letters Tertullian analyses in C.A. 5, we should dissociate his name from the gospel and deal with its content for itself and what it indicates within the synoptic tradition.

Yes, but it seems there is still a need to determine (i) whether Marcion used a pre-existing gospel (as per Beduhn and Klinghardt), or (ii) whether Marcion wrote The Gospel, as per Markus Vinzent; as outlined at http://sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com.a ... ament.html and repeated here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 722#p67722

[spin]

Not able to digest all this material yet, I'll just add to the overload with Roth on Vincent and Marcion posted by Larry Hurtado: here, here and here. (Gotta get a handle on Vinzent.)