The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

I will be using the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible for all my Bible quotes. I personally will be advocating for a date within the second half of the second century, ~170-180 AD. FrameworkMuch of my affirmation will be an attack on the Gospel of Luke, which is authored prior to Acts, and by the same author. This round will concentrate mostly on external evidence, I will address internal evidence next round where I am sure Con will focus most of her affirmative. Premise: Common Authorship of Luke & ActsBoth Luke and Acts share explicit parallels in both their opening chapters, the introduction and address, but also Acts explicitly references a pre-ceding work about Jesus:“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. ” (Luke 1:1-3)Clearly the introduction paragraph is in reference to something very much like the Gospel itself, moreover there is a shared addressee “Theophilus” which none of the other apocrypha or canonical books & Gospels of the New Testament share. The linguistic & theological agreements between the two are also best explained by shared authorship. [1]Given this is also the traditional view, I do not expect Con to disagree, I will expand if needed in later rounds. It follows that Acts has historical priority (comes before) over Luke. Argument From SilenceOur earliest reliable mentions of the Gospel of Luke or Acts are from Irenaeus and Tertullian writing ~180AD, and ~ 208AD respectively. No reliable Luke-exclusive or Acts mentions predate this, which I expect Con will challenge later. Moreover, absolutely no manuscript, parchment or fragment of the Gospel of Luke *or* acts conclusively predates 200AD, with the earliest fragment of Luke we have could possibly date is 175AD, with upper range of 225 AD. [2] Fragments of Acts dating even later still. A picture is added for aesthetic appeal:While Justin Martyr (writing around ~150AD) and Papias (possibly writing 95-120 AD) both clearly cite the synoptic of Matthew and Mark in their “A dialogue with trypho”And “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord” respectively, no Luke exclusive or Acts quotes exist in either. We essentially would expect citations and references to Luke to be included throughout these works given they cite Matthew and Mark, but none are to be found, whereas the other synoptic are cited. The combined physical and textual absences make for a cumulative argument from silence. If Tiger Woods scored a hold in one last week and one of the golfing magazines (which we would expect to report it given it’s genre) failed to report it, then we have a weak argument from silence, if every single one of the numerous magazines failed to report it then we have a much more compelling case, which is what I am presenting here. Internal Evidence Theophilus Both Gospels are addressed to “Theophilus”: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,” – Acts 1:1 “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. ” – Luke 1:3-4 “most excellent Theophilus” is most naturally referring to someone of power, not an insignificant individual. This is unsurprising given that composing a work like Acts or Luke is a large undertaking, requiring significant time investment, and specific skillset (reading & writing skills were not freely available during 1st-2nd centuries) etc. Thus it would have been an expensive undertaking, too. The simplest candidate is Theophilus of Antioch (died 181-183 AD), the seventh Bishop of Antioch 169-~183 AD), and thus in an obvious position for the Gospel to be addressed to. [3] Looking at Luke’s two other uses of the “most excellent” title, clearly in both cases these refer to both actual people, and also people of power (Roman officials): “And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: “Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation,…. ” Acts 24:2-3 “But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words” Acts 26:25 Marcion Priority Overview The Gospel of Marcion is attributed to Marcion, thus is highly unlikely to have been a first century work. IF it can be shown that The Gospel of Marcion has historical priority (came ‘prior’) over Luke then of course Acts (which follows Luke) must also be a second century work. He Gospel of Luke is essentially the same as the Gospel of Marcion verbatim, thus one most certainly used the other in their construction, the unusual lack of variation indicates that other hypothesis such as a common source, are unlikely. Priority via. Accretion The Gospel of Luke contains virtually everything within Marcion, with additional material of its own. The Gospel of Luke most importantly contains the prologue, infancy narrative, John the Baptist material (Luke 1:1-4:15) and an extra five verses onto ending of Marcion (“Witness & The Ascension”) (Luke 24:48-53) and Jesus’ Geneology (3:23-3:38). Only one verse in 1-4:15 in Luke is attested in Marcion, which is 3:1. To show the order of the below: GOSPEL OF MARCION GOSPEL OF LUKE Dedication to Theophilus (1:1-4) John the Baptist Foreshadow (1:5-25) Jesus Birth Foreshadow (1:26-38) Mary (1:39-56) The Birth of John the Baptist (1:57-68) Zechariah's Prophecy (1:67-80) Jesus Infancy Narrative & Baptism (2:1-52) Gospel of Marcion begins here: Marcion (3:1): “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum…” Luke (3:1) “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee…” … Bapsism of Jesus (3:1-22) … Jesus’ Geneology (3:23-3:38) … Temptation of Jesus (4:1-13) … Jesus Opens Minitry (4:14-15) …Jesus descended into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days. Luke (4:31) And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath Thus, we have two hypothesis, either Marcion removed all these narratives, which necessarily included the geneology, baptism and temptation narratives since he would have been aware of the third chapter. Moreover Marcion would have had to have completely arbitrarily chosen Luke 3:1 to start his Gospel. Alternatively, Luke would have just padded out Marcion with infancy narratives found in the Protevangelium and a geneology. [4] The Geneology is also not found in the other Gospels, indicating it is a Luke-exclusive addition, demonstrating an invention on Luke’s part. There is no reason for Marcion to remove these narratives, especially given that they would have provided additional evidence for his anti-semetic theology. Moreover Marcion is completely ignorant of Acts and any other material. It also makes no sense for Marcion to arbitrarily remove the five verses at the end of Luke, and is much more cleanly explained by Luke wanting to add his own flavour at the end, including his affirmation to God and witness to Jesus. [5] Longer Verses In addition to the missing verses, Luke also contains numbers lengthened verses, many more instances than the reverse (36 lengthened, 6 shortened), and the lengthening are both in content and length are more severe than the “shortenings” – 18.85 words per lengthening instance, 7 words per “shortening instance”. It follows by law of accretion that Luke more likely edited Marcion than vice versa, especially given the required “shortenings” of Luke would have cut material irrelevant to his theology, e. g. Marcion 3:19 removes the Jesus healing miracle, although Marcion funny accepts Jesus’ miracles in his theology and in the rest of the text. Luke also has a much more detailed and vivid account of the healing of Jarius’ daughter, with no theological reason for removal (Luke 8:43-45, Marcion 5:41). [5] Terminus Post Quem Olivert Discourse The earliest possible date for the Book of Acts is 70-71 AD. This is due to the references to the Olivert Discourse in Luke 21, from which some of the events (such as the temple destruction) historically date to 70 AD or later. [6] Thus Luke must follow these events, thus IF the Gospel of Luke was composed in the first century, then there is only a 30 year window for it to be so. Note that we have to account for time between the composition of the Gospel of Luke, then Acts. The Gospel of Luke & Acts are known to possess strong parallels in Josephus’s works “Jewish War” and “Jewish Antiquities”, written 79 & 94 A. D. respectively. Thus, if these parallels are correct, then one used the other as a source, and if Luke used Josephus in “Jewish Antiquities” then that yields a limit of 94 AD. [7] “This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus”[7] "More than any other Gospel writer, Luke includes references to the non-Christian world of affairs. Almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus' narratives. "[7] Conclusion 1. Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://www.marcionite-scripture.info... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://infidels.org...