Dating Acts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John2 »

John T wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:02 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:32 pm ...I imagine it would have been fairly easy for Timothy to say (presumably after Paul's death), "Hey everyone, check out these letters Paul sent me."
I take it then you do not believe Paul wrote any pastoral letters? 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, all were fake letters written by a church leader who wanted to impress his congregation that he was a big shot in Paul's eye. Is that it?

I would consider Timothy to be a very big shot in Paul's eye whether he wrote 1 and 2 Timothy or not. He was close to Paul and co-wrote some of his letters and traveled with him. And as Paul says in Php. 2:20-22:

I have nobody else like him who will genuinely care for your needs. For all the others look after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know Timothy’s proven worth, that as a child with his father he has served with me to advance the gospel.

Or could it be simply that a pastoral letter was a personal letter and not intended to be considered scripture?


I suppose it could, but it doesn't strike me as being the case here,
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John T »

With that out of the way, let's go back to Tiberius Claudius Epaphroditus.
Once again, I can provide sources if you need them but I don't think you would dispute the following.

According to the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 CE) Epaphroditus was not just a scribe for Nero but a "a libellis" meaning, one who replies to petitions to the emperor.

Now in Acts 25-26, Paul was falsely accused of serious crimes by the Jewish community to Agrippa. They wanted to take Paul back to Jerusalem where the chief priests where planning an ambush to kill him along the way. Paul knowing this, points out to King Agrippa that he is a Roman citizen and asserted his right to appeal to the emperor.

To the emperor you go!

Now who would receive that petition to Nero other than Epaphroditus? You could argue that Epaphroditus went to visit Paul under house arrest and reviewed the petition.

However, neither Tacitus, Josephus, or Acts supports the idea that Epaphroditus of Philippians or Epaphras of Philemon is the one and the same as the a libellis to Nero. Just the opposite.

Never the less, you can chose to include or exclude as you see fit.

Now I will try explain why Acts was written in the early 60's CE.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:03 pm Now I will try explain why Acts was written in the early 60's CE.
I hope that your argument involves more than appealing to the fact that Paul is still alive at the end.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John2 »

John T wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:03 pm
Now who would receive that petition to Nero other than Epaphroditus? You could argue that Epaphroditus went to visit Paul under house arrest and reviewed the petition.

Maybe so.

However, neither Tacitus, Josephus, or Acts supports the idea that Epaphroditus of Philippians or Epaphras of Philemon is the one and the same as the a libellis to Nero. Just the opposite.

I don't see how Tacitus doesn't support this idea. His account is in keeping with the Epaphroditus in Philippians being mentioned in the context of "those from the household of Caesar." And Josephus says that his patron Epaphroditus was above all a lover of history (like, say, Acts), had many turns of fortune, was an honorable man and ardent supporter of people "such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable," like the way Paul's Epaphroditus had supported him by "minister[ing] to my needs ... honor men like him, because he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for your deficit of service to me."
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John T »

The more I look, the more possible candidates I have to add to the list for Epaphroditus scribe of Josephus.

"The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions an Epaphroditus as his patron in the Jewish Antiquities, his Autobiography, and Against the Greeks. But which one? Although the identification of the protector of Josephus may seem a triviality, it is in fact a very important question, because Against the Greeks was a highly polemical defense of Judaism in a decade that is marked by anti-Semitic measures. The emperor Domitian wanted the Jews to pay more taxes (the fiscus Judaicus) and executed his relative Flavius Clemens, who had sympathized with the Jews.

Now if Josephus collaborated with the first Epaphroditus, Against the Greeks must have been published before Epaphroditus was executed, in other words before 95 and during the reign of Domitian. If this is correct, Against the Greeks must be read as a brave attempt to contradict the emperor himself. It is possible that the execution of Tiberius Claudius Epaphroditus was related to the publication of Josephus' treatise. On the other hand, if Josephus' patron was the Chaeronean Epaphroditus, Against the Greeks was published during the reign of the benign emperor Nerva, and no great risks were involved.

Of course it cannot be excluded that the Epaphroditus mentioned by Josephus is a completely different man; the name itself is not uncommon."


https://www.livius.org/articles/person/epaphroditus/

I also will likely need to correct comments incorrectly ascribed from Tacitus on Epaphroditus. Fact checking ancient reports recopied hundreds of years later can be difficult and laborious.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John T »

Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars.

"And he [Domitian] made an example of Epaphroditus, his confidential secretary, in order to make it plain to his household that killing a master was never justified, condemning the freedman to death on the grounds that he had helped Nero kill himself when the rest had deserted him."...Book Eight: L (XIV)

https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PIT ... onius8.php

Domitian was told by astrologers well in advance when his death would be, to the exact year, day, and hour: September 18, 96CE. He knew not who would kill him and in his paranoia he started killing those who he was suspicious of.

Domitian's confidential secretary Epaphroditus was the one and the same as Nero's secretary. Meaning, Epaphroditus lived in Rome. The Epaphroditus of Paul lived in Philippi, Macedonia (Greece).

We are now looking at least three different Epaphroditus' who could read and write but they are not one and the same.

That pretty much settles it for me. :cheers:
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by Steven Avery »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:03 pm If that be so, then why does mainstream biblical scholarship date GLuke to decades later than 41-43 CE?
They get trapped in a paradigmic box involving late dating and supposed forgeries. They learn to disregard how the internal connections and archaeology and Lukan historicity all call for an early date. They also get stuck in the "Luke is a Gentile" error, despite all the Hebraic and Temple connections. Also they can get blind-sided with the physician reference, which is almost surely a different Luke, and being a physician helped in identifying him as not the Luke of Paul's travels. The Gospel-Acts Luke was likely a priest in the Temple, there is a book called Luke the Priest that touches that angle. When he referred to the great company of priests who came to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7), there was an ironic tone for Theophilus, since Luke was one of that company.

And I have not seen any arguments of substance against the Theophilus proposal.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John T »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:19 am The Gospel-Acts Luke was likely a priest in the Temple, there is a book called Luke the Priest that touches that angle. When he referred to the great company of priests who came to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7), there was an ironic tone for Theophilus, since Luke was one of that company.

And I have not seen any arguments of substance against the Theophilus proposal.
Interesting and plausible.

Here is another theory that frankly seems too far fetched for me to take the time and run to ground. However, John2 might want to pursue it.

"One author argues that Mattathias ben Theophilus was the father of Josephus." ..Herodian Messiah by Joseph Raymond (Tower Grove Publishing 2010) at pages 214-17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattathias_ben_Theophilus
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Dating Acts

Post by ABuddhist »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:19 am
ABuddhist wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:03 pm If that be so, then why does mainstream biblical scholarship date GLuke to decades later than 41-43 CE?
They get trapped in a paradigmic box involving late dating and supposed forgeries. They learn to disregard how the internal connections and archaeology and Lukan historicity all call for an early date. They also get stuck in the "Luke is a Gentile" error, despite all the Hebraic and Temple connections. Also they can get blind-sided with the physician reference, which is almost surely a different Luke, and being a physician helped in identifying him as not the Luke of Paul's travels. The Gospel-Acts Luke was likely a priest in the Temple, there is a book called Luke the Priest that touches that angle. When he referred to the great company of priests who came to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7), there was an ironic tone for Theophilus, since Luke was one of that company.

And I have not seen any arguments of substance against the Theophilus proposal.
1. What is wrong with a paradigm of late dating and forgeries? After all, at least 6 of the 13 letters attributed to Paul are recognized by mainstream Biblical scholarship as forgeries (half from the 2nd century CE), and writing from memory alone, mainstream biblical Scholarship has concluded that at least one of the letters attributed to Peter is in fact a 2nd century CE forgery (and perhaps one of the last books in the Bible to be written).

2. Who wrote the book "Luke in the Temple", when was it written, which scholars (of what time period and religious affiliation) did the author(s) cite, what was the author's religious affiliation, who published the book, and what religious affiliation (if any) was the publisher ? I have found that knowing such things is useful for assessing how credible a book about the Christians' scriptures is. Too often, I have found that scholarship advocating for early dating, known authors, and general textual integrity of the Christians' scriptures is associated with Christian-based apologetics - and therefore dismissible as faith-based biased arguing rather than sound argument.

3. Why should I trust what Acts says about events in such blatantly pro-Christian context rather than dismissing such claims as pro-Christian propaganda? This can be done, I note, even without accepting, as I do, that the Acts Seminar correctly dated Acts to the 2nd century CE and dismissed it as having little use in reconstructing early Christian history.

4. What would you define as an argument of substance against the proposal about Theophilus? I would count dating Acts to at least later in the 1st century CE (80-90) as a substantial argument, and others may regard my point about how the name Theophilus, meaning "Lover of God", should be understood as referring to an idealized inquiring reader rather than to a specific person, as at least an argument to which you should reply.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Dating Acts

Post by John2 »

John T wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:14 am
Domitian's confidential secretary Epaphroditus was the one and the same as Nero's secretary. Meaning, Epaphroditus lived in Rome. The Epaphroditus of Paul lived in Philippi, Macedonia (Greece).

I don't know where Epaphroditus lived, but in any event, I think an imperial freedman like him would be in a good position to be a go-between for Philippi and Rome. As Wikipedia notes, Philippi "was a 'miniature Rome,' under the municipal law of Rome, and governed by two military officers, the duumviri, who were appointed directly from Rome, similar to Roman colonies." And as Tran writes in "The Work Statuses of Slaves and Freedmen in the Great Ports of the Roman World (First Century BCE-Second Century CE)":

... factors specific to port economies — particularly those of a spatial nature — also played a role. The modes of exchange and trade led slaves to maintain long-distance relations with their masters or their representatives, for sometimes each resided in separate places and sometimes traveling formed part of the slave’s work. Freedmen could maintain even more distant relations with their patrons, but their multiple work statuses cannot be simply reduced to this configuration.


https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_AN ... eedmen.htm


And the life of Nero and Domitian's Epaphroditus seems applicable to Josephus' description of his Epaphroditus ("having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune") and Paul's mention of his Epaphroditus in the context of "those from the household of Caesar."
Post Reply