Corpus-Paul

["Stevan Davies" <miser17 AT epix.net>]

Errol Smith & Colleen Loo wrote:

> The dating of Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles is a crucial issue.

I think this is true. I get the impression that Acts is often dated
to the end of the first century, but it's rarely clear why this should
be.

> Firstly one must determine if Luke is the author of both works, and which
> was written first. I take it that "In my former book O Theolophilus" (Acts
> 1:1 cf Luke 1:1-4) is adequate reason to state that the Gospel was written
> first and by the same person,

There is an alternative view. Rather than thinking of Luke/Acts as a
work produced ab novo specifically for Theophilus, one might (indeed, 
I'd say, should) think of our Luke/Acts as having been a copy
produced for the use of Theophilus. If so, then the order of the
segments in Theophilus' copy will not be adequate reason to state
that the Gospel was written first. It would be an open possibility
that Acts was written first, the Gospel 3:1 ff. second, and Chapters
1-2 third. 

> Secondly one must determine why Acts ch.28 ends as it does. It seems to me
> that the story stops because the writer has brought the reader up to the
> date of 'publication'.

In addition, it does seem reasonable to think that the lengthy
account of Paul's trials was written before his death than after.

I find it very difficult to believe that an account of a Jewish
Roman Citizen under attack by Jerusalem authorities for specific
alleged crimes was written in order to provide a generic defense 
for Christians under attack by Rome, especially when the 
expected "verdict: not guilty" is not forthcoming. Yet as far as I
know this is the prevailing view over against the view that the
defense of Paul was written as a defense of Paul (and so written
around 61). 

> The main objection to this dating of Acts to circa 62 AD relates to the
> date of Luke's first volume, his gospel, which uses Mark ( according to
> the two source, "Q" hypothesis), or Matthew (according to the Greisbach
> hypthesis).

There is no substantial reason known to me that would rule out
a Luke priority hypothesis for one who is sympathetic to the lines of
thought that give rise to the Griesbach and Farrer hypotheses.

> (The theory of Luke being written first, as advocated by
> Robert Lindsay et al, has major problems which I will not discuss now.) In
> other words, dating Luke/Acts in the early 60's requires either Mark or
> Matthew being written earlier, the late 50's or even earlier.

Yes... but the theory of Luke being written first seems to 
depend on the theory that Luke/Acts was not a copy provided to
Theophilus but a production designed from the start for the use
of Theophilus and that is by no means as certain as you appear
to think it is.
 
Stevan Davies
College Misericordia