About the book of Acts of the Apostles.

[Eloi]

Let's talk about that here.

Since the book of Acts had the same writter than the gospel of Luke, it is evident that the gospel was written some time before Acts.

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Acts 1:1 The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus started to do and to teach 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given instructions through holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After he had suffered, he showed himself alive to them by many convincing proofs. He was seen by them throughout 40 days, and he was speaking about the Kingdom of God.

To what year do the scholars date the book of Acts, and what are the reasons why they do it?

[Eloi]

It is important to know that the chapters from 13 to the last of the book of Acts narrate events related to the apostle Paul. Despite this, the book does not say anything about his death.

Paul, who (...) was freed after two years of imprisonment in Rome (c. 59-61 C.E.), [then] experienced his second imprisonment (c. 65 C.E.). It is generally held that he thereafter was put to death at Nero’s order.

2 Tim. 1:16 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of On·e·siphʹo·rus, for he often refreshed me, and he did not become ashamed of my prison chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he diligently looked for me and found me.
... 4:6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my releasing is imminent. 7 I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith. 8 From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation.

The Jewish revolt began in 66 C.E., two years before Nero’s death, but was not suppressed until 70 C.E. in the reign of Vespasian (69-79 C.E.). (it-1 Caesar).

If the author of the book of Acts does not mention Paul's death which occurred during Nero's rule that lasted from 54-68 CE, is it not logical to conclude that the book of Acts was written before Paul's death?

YES: According to this simple reasoning, the book of Acts must have been written before the death of the apostle Paul, that is, before Nero died in the year 68.

What do scholars say about this reasoning? Anyone knows?

[Eloi]

From the above reasoning, it is evident that the book of Acts was written before the year 68 CE. And for obvious reasons, the gospel of Luke was written even before the book of Acts, meaning that the book of Luke was written by far before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

There are other reasons why we can reasonably conclude that the book of Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. I will talk about some of them in the following comments.

In the meantime, I'll be on the lookout for those who think that dating the book of Acts before Nero's death in 68 is a mistake.

[Eloi]

It is known and confirmed that Christians fled Jerusalem when the Roman troops abandoned the attack to the Jews under Gessius Florus by 66 EC and later the same year by Cestius Gallus. While the Jews celebrated believing they had defeated the Romans, the Christians followed Jesus' warning more than 35 years ago and fled the city. You can read something about "the flight to Pella" on the internet. That means that some time before the Romans returned under Titus and besieged the city again until it was destroyed in 70, there were no Christians there anymore.

However, throughout the book of Acts the city of Jerusalem is still standing, and Jewish priests who exercised in the temple and had authority to persecute Christians and cause them harm with the Roman authorities are still mentioned. This indicates that the book of Acts was written before the year 66, which was when the Roman troops withdrew, only to return several years later and lay waste to the city. Actually, under the same criteria, all books in the NT but John's, were finished before the 66 EC.

PS: You can see an illustrative video about the situation in Jerusalem by the 66 EC here https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#e ... 00_1_VIDEO
from the minute 43.20.

[Shem Yoshi]

It is known and confirmed that Christians fled Jerusalem when the Roman troops abandoned the attack to the Jews under Gessius Florus by 66 EC and later the same year by Cestius Gallus. While the Jews celebrated believing they had defeated the Romans, the Christians followed Jesus' warning more than 35 years ago and fled the city. You can read something about "the flight to Pella" on the internet. That means that some time before the Romans returned under Titus and besieged the city again until it was destroyed in 70, there were no Christians there anymore.

However, throughout the book of Acts the city of Jerusalem is still standing, and Jewish priests who exercised in the temple and had authority to persecute Christians and cause them harm with the Roman authorities are still mentioned. This indicates that the book of Acts was written before the year 66, which was when the Roman troops withdrew, only to return several years later and lay waste to the city. Actually, under the same criteria, all books in the NT but John's, were finished before the 66 EC.

PS: You can see an illustrative video about the situation in Jerusalem by the 66 EC here https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#e ... 00_1_VIDEO
from the minute 43.20.

That is a really good point, i havent really thought much of the dates of the books, but you always see a lot of people assert claims that the Gospels were written very late, but you're right the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Certainly Luke would have wrote about Pauls death and the destruction of the Temple had it happened.

And like you pointed out for Acts being written before 66AD which seems like the most reasonable thing to conclude at this point, and Luke being written before Acts as Luke 1:1-4 would suggest, it reasonable that many of the Gospels were written before 66 AD as Luke is noted saying "Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us"

[Eloi]

It is known and confirmed that Christians fled Jerusalem when the Roman troops abandoned the attack to the Jews under Gessius Florus by 66 EC and later the same year by Cestius Gallus. While the Jews celebrated believing they had defeated the Romans, the Christians followed Jesus' warning more than 35 years ago and fled the city. You can read something about "the flight to Pella" on the internet. That means that some time before the Romans returned under Titus and besieged the city again until it was destroyed in 70, there were no Christians there anymore.

However, throughout the book of Acts the city of Jerusalem is still standing, and Jewish priests who exercised in the temple and had authority to persecute Christians and cause them harm with the Roman authorities are still mentioned. This indicates that the book of Acts was written before the year 66, which was when the Roman troops withdrew, only to return several years later and lay waste to the city. Actually, under the same criteria, all books in the NT but John's, were finished before the 66 EC.

PS: You can see an illustrative video about the situation in Jerusalem by the 66 EC here https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#e ... 00_1_VIDEO
from the minute 43.20.

That is a really good point, i havent really thought much of the dates of the books, but you always see a lot of people assert claims that the Gospels were written very late, but you're right the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Certainly Luke would have wrote about Pauls death and the destruction of the Temple had it happened.

And like you pointed out for Acts being written before 66AD which seems like the most reasonable thing to conclude at this point, and Luke being written before Acts as Luke 1:1-4 would suggest, it reasonable that many of the Gospels were written before 66 AD as Luke is noted saying "Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us"

Thanks Yoshi, you got the point very well.

As you said, Luke confirmed that other gospels were written before his own. Actually, when Christians fled Jerusalem they must have taken very seriously the words of Luke and the other gospels about the armies that would surround the city. That was the sign they saw, just as Luke had recorded it, and so they fled.

Luke 19:41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”

... 21:20 However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

[TRANSPONDER]

I've half a mind to leave this one one as discussion between believers. Indeed Acts, like the gospels, are depressingly widely accepted as a reliable account by one who talked to eyewitnesses.

I don't. i see Acts as a biographical novel by the writer of Luke (whoever he was) loosely based on Paul's letters and using some Josephus, as he does in his gospel. Generally speaking, i do not trust it as a reliable report of what happened. So when I see Scholars and believers solemnly discussion what actually happened on the road to Damascus, I roll my eyes, as I do when I seeexperts who out to know better, discussion the Facts about the Star, the wise men and the need to register in Bethlehem. They are Fantasies, invention and tall stories.

So having said as much I'll leave you to swap Bible verses and good luck to you.

[1213]

...The first account, O Theophilus, I composed ...

Was that first account he composed not the Gospel of Luke? How do you know?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #1

To what year do the scholars date the book of Acts, and what are the reasons why they do it?

Here's a contribution of mine from another thread:

"From overall clues in the texts and information about locations and cities in the 1st century CE, scholars have put together a probable schematic:

Mark 69/70

Matthew 85

Luke/Acts 95

John 100:

https://www.worldhistory.org/The_Gospels/

If the author of the book of Acts does not mention Paul's death which occurred during Nero's rule that lasted from 54-68 CE, is it not logical to conclude that the book of Acts was written before Paul's death?

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke. He begins the gospel account claiming to have "traced all things from the start with accuracy" and then makes no mention in his nativity narrative of the flight to Egypt found in the Matthew account. If he could see fit to omit such a significant detail of that story [assuming that it actually happened], the death of Paul would have been even easier for him to overlook.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Eloi in post #1

To what year do the scholars date the book of Acts, and what are the reasons why they do it?

Here's a contribution of mine from another thread:

"From overall clues in the texts and information about locations and cities in the 1st century CE, scholars have put together a probable schematic:

Mark 69/70

Matthew 85

Luke/Acts 95

John 100:

https://www.worldhistory.org/The_Gospels/

If the author of the book of Acts does not mention Paul's death which occurred during Nero's rule that lasted from 54-68 CE, is it not logical to conclude that the book of Acts was written before Paul's death?

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke. He begins the gospel account claiming to have "traced all things from the start with accuracy" and then makes no mention in his nativity narrative of the flight to Egypt found in the Matthew account. If he could see fit to omit such a significant detail of that story [assuming that it actually happened], the death of Paul would have been even easier for him to overlook.

It isn't. Just as a hypothesis, suppose the author of Luke decided to follow up with Acts. All the previous accounts he had included various Gospel material. The Synoptic original, "Q" and a copy of Josephus and Paul's letters, or some of them.

First off, he knows that the disciples did not go off to Galilee as instructed by the angel at the tomb. Jesus did not tell them them to prach to all nations, as Paul's letters made it clear that the job fell to Paul

So 'Luke' altered the message to the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem and Acts was written (loosely based on Paul's letters, bulked out with a bit of mangled Josephus) to show how Paul, with the rubber - stamp blessing of James, founded the Gentile - friendly church. It is not surprising that Luke's story ends with Paul in Rome pretty much preaching to everyone who came to visit him. That doesn't date Luke or Acts, but where the story so far as Paul's letters go, comes to an end.