From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: Luke-Acts and further ramblings (The Historical Jesus IV:  Luke)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 04:40:24 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Summary: lots of typing
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of Luke

My thanks to Mr. Adams for his response to my post.

Before I proceed to answer his objections, let me preface my remarks with
why I am bothering to do this.  I am not attacking Christianity by
demonstrating the non-historical nature of much of what was once perceived
to be factual and written by eyewitnesses; rather I am placing emphasis
on the *reality* of the *situation* with these documents.  The non-historical,
anonymous nature of these documents is contained internally within *the*
*documents* *themselves*.  Modern biblical research uses data derived from
the Bible itself and cogent logical arguments to demonstrate these findings.
These findings will not go away, and Christians will have to deal with them.
Christians who do not want to deal with this kind of information are
(IMHO) engaging in *ostrichism*.

Secondly, I have been questioned by a correspondent as to my claim
concerning the *authority* of the NT.  Well, I *do* think these arguments
affect the *authority* of the NT.
	Firstly, consider the great effort 
of the early Church Fathers to attribute authorship of the various books
in the Bible to the twelve apostles.  Why did they *do* this?  To enhance
the authority of the writings, of course!  By definition modern
research has reduced the authority of the NT.  The actual documents passed
through numerous anonymous hands over decades before being finally compiled
into their final forms by yet other anonymous hands, with lots of changes
and additions along the way.
	Secondly, consider the great effort that has gone into attempts
to "harmonize" the four gospels with one another (I am especially thinking
of St. Augustine in this context).  As Gabel and Wheeler say in _The Bible
as Literature_, 1986, p185:
	...Even today, the existence of gospel "harmonies," ... shows
	the deeply felt need to bring the four gospels within a single
	overall structure.  The result is paradoxical, because what 
	gospel harmonies unintentionally demonstrate is gospel disharmony.
	The four works are fundamentally different in content, arrangement,
	emphasis, and purpose;...
With the advent of the various source theories, this effort at harmonization
that has been going on for 1500 years has been dealt a mortal wound that it
can never recover from.

There is no way to reconcile the differences between Paul's teaching
in Acts and his own statements in the Epistles.

There is no way to construct a 'Life of Jesus' or even be sure of what
statements are really his, and which are the author's.  The more we try to
discover who the real Jesus was, the farther he recedes into the past behind
the mist of legend.

There will always be contradictions and inconsistencies between the various
NT books.  There is no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  
Since the fundamental basis of Christianity lies in the historicity of the
Christ event, IMHO modern Biblical research has real (albeit minor)
implications for the authority of the NT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, none of this is fatal to Christianity.  Nietzche, in
the quote I gave in part VI, declares the death of God, but in his
letters he tells his friends that he didn't really expect his teachings
to have that much effect on Christianity (He also says (Beyond Good and Evil?)
that some of his best friends are Christians. :) ).  The effect of modern
research will be equally subtle.  It requires a mind shift that regards
the books with a little less awe and a little more critical attitude,
a little more cross-checking before you use a quote in a debate, a little
more consideration of the Book as a collection of individual writings, and
a little less as a monolithic structure, and *hopefully*, just a little
less as an authority, and, just *maybe*, with a little more toleration
of differing views, even that of (God forbid)  -- Atheists.


Now, let us get on with the subject at hand, which is a detailed examination
of the authorship and date of composition of Luke-Acts.


Mr. Adams argues that
	1) Luke himself states that he is not an eyewitness to the
life of Jesus, so why did I have to *prove* it?
	2) That Luke/Acts was written much earlier than any of my sources
indicate (they agree on about A.D. 90).  Mr. Adams postulates ~67 A.D.
	3) That Luke/Acts is probably written by a travel companion of Paul.

Mr. Adams is perfectly correct about 1); I included him of course for 
completeness - after all, he is one of the Big Four.  Clearly my post needs
to emphasize this more; I think I will just replace IV with an edited version
of this letter if it meets with his approval.

2 and 3 are allied, and I will argue against them here.

Mr. Adams's arguments for an early date for Luke/Acts are primarily from
omission, namely that
	a) Paul's death is not mentioned (AD 62).
	b) The destruction of the temple is not mentioned (AD 70).
	c) Burning of Rome is not mentioned (AD 64).
	d) Persecution of Christians in not mentioned.
and also that Luke states that he has spoken (1:1-4) with eyewitnesses.

My arguments against Luke/Acts being written at an early period or by
someone who was a companion to Paul are as follows:
	1) Luke/Acts *does* in fact refer to the events Mr. Adams cites.
	2) Luke has only the vaguest notion of the teachings of Paul, and
	   is much more in line with early Church theology.
	3) Paul's itinerary in Acts has major errors when compared with Paul's
	   own writings.
	4) The statement of Luke that he spoke to eyewitnesses is ambiguous,
	   and his use of the pronoun 'we' in Acts was a common technique
	   in Hellenistic writings.
	5) (This is really the most important one) The language and style
	   of Luke/Acts as well as the theology contained therein clearly
	   indicate that it was written around the turn of the century.
	6) Luke/Acts has a definite apologetic character, deemphasizing its
	   differences with the Roman government.  This indicates an audience
	   in the reign of Domitian (80-91).
	7) Luke does not quote Matthew, therefore it is most probable that it
	   was composed contemporaneously with Matthew, around A.D. 90.


1)  First let us examine references to historical events, as listed above.

a) appears to be incorrect: 
[4](204) says:
	Although it has been proposed that Acts ends inconclusively because
	it was written before Paul's trial was over, it is more likely that
	it ends as it does because the Gospel has by Acts 28 achieved the
	goal of being freely proclaimed in Rome, the capital of the Gentile 
	world.  The author of Acts does not leave us in any uncertainty as
	to the ultimate fate of Paul, however; the touching story of Paul's
	farewell to the elders from the church at Ephesus (20:17-38) makes
	it clear that Paul is to die for his testimony to the faith.

b)  The destruction of the Temple of Jeruselam is also mentioned:
In Luke, [2](153) cites verses 21:20 (which is copied from Mark), verse
24, and 19:43-44 as "a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which
has already occurred."

I can find no reference to c), so I will pass over this one.

d)  I know that there are passages in I think Acts that refer to persecution,
specifically "sending sheep out to the wolves," but I am too tired to
look for them.  (or is this in Matthew?)


2)  There are whole pages in most of my references enumerating the differences
in the teaching of Paul as presented in Acts versus how Paul himself
presents them in his Epistles.  Here is a sampling:

[1](128)
	...More significant is the contrast between Paul's understanding of 
	his apostleship and the way it is presented in Acts.  Paul
	emphatically insists that he is an apostle by a direct commission
	from the risen Lord,...In Acts, Paul is never called an apostle
	except at Acts 14:4,14,...[which] probably means envoys commissioned
	by the Antioch community, not apostles of Jesus Christ.
[2](158)
	...Acts knows no difference between the doctrine of Peter and that
	of Paul; not a word is mentioned concerning the sharp conflict 
	which occurred between the two in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21). ....
	...The portrayal of the ministry of Paul gives no indication
	of how he had to struggle for the freedom of the gospel from the law.
	...In the remaining chapters which deal with the message and
	ministry of Paul, there is no discernible awareness either of
	Pauline theology or of the letters of the apostle.  The author
	obviously did not know Paul's writings and had only rather
	general ideas of his teaching. ...
	...one must also decide in the case of Acts that an author who 
	possessed such a minimal awareness of Pauline theology could not
	have been the traveling companion of the apostle.
[3](169)
	...From all these facts -- and they could easily be multiplied -- 
	it is quite clear that the author of Acts could not possibly
	have been a companion of Paul, and also that he has no clear idea
	of the apostle's aims.


3) Factual differences in Paul's itinerary between Acts and Paul's letters.
There is no point in my enumerating them; [1] has an entire chapter devoted to a
chronology of Paul's journeys.  It suffices to say that they are numerous.


4)  As to the statement in Luke 1:1-4 that he has spoken to eyewitnesses,
this is by no means conclusive; as [1](119) says:
	...Whether the eyewitnesses form a group distinct from the 
	'ministers of the word' is not clear.  If they are distinct, Luke
	stands in a tradition twice removed from the original events
	of Jesus -- the eyewitnesses, the ministers (e.g. Mark), and Luke.
	Luke is definitely a sub-apostolic work.
and [5](105) is quite emphatic about Luke being 'twice removed from 
the original events':
	...Moreover, Luke is concerned to retain the difference between
	those historical eyewitnesses, and those who came later.  Luke
	makes no claim to have an independent access to the events which would 
	rival that of the eyewitnesses.  Rather, he has received the tradition
	through the 'ministers of the word', which he now attempts to 
	set down in writing.

Now, in Acts, Luke uses 'we' quite often, and this might lead us to think
that the author was an actual participant in the action, but as [2](156) says:
	...in the novels and stories in the Hellenistic literature this
	stylistic device of shifting from the narrative report to the
	first person was variously used... The 'we' permits us to draw no
	conclusions concerning a source for Acts, but was used "in order to
	present the author of Acts to his readers as a widely traveled man"...


5)  The language and style of Luke/Acts
All things here point to an end of the first century date, and there are a
whole bunch of clues, such as:
[1](129)
	...in the speeches attributed to him Paul becomes the mouthpiece
	of sub-apostolic theology (Acts 13,14,17), with its positive 
	natural theology and natural law.  He provides his missions with a
	sub-apostolic form of polity, with presbyter-bishops (Acts 14:23,
	20:17, 28), whereas the historical Paul left his churches in the
	hands of charismatic ministers...
and there are more examples.


6)  The apologetic character of Luke is most clearly stated by Pritchard in
_A Literary Approach to the New Testament_:
	   The date may also be inferred from the hints the Gospel contains
	of the Roman attitude toward the Church when it was being composed.
	In both his Gospel and the Acts, Luke indicates that Jesus and Paul
	were acceptable to Roman authority.  At Jesus' trial Pilate stated
	emphatically, "I find no fault in this man" (23:4).  Paul was a
	Roman citizen who had no trouble with Gallio, the proconsul of 
	Achaia, had favorably impressed both Judean procurators whom
	he had been imprisoned, and had been approved by a Jewish ruler,
	Agrippa.  Luke evidently desired to impress on his readers that 
	Christianity's two leaders were upstanding.  This concern would
	surely have been in the mind of an apologist and propagandist 
	during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), when Christians were
	subjected to vicious persecution...
This is also very interesting since Luke goes out of his way to tone down
the differences between the Jews and Christians, while shifting the blame
for the Crucifixition as much as is possible from Roman onto Jewish shoulders.
It indicates not so much an anti-Jewish stand as a pro-Roman stand.  Too
bad this probably was not understood in the early Church - it could have
alleviated much suffering...
[1](119)
	[Talking about Theophilus]
	...It also explains the apologetic motif running through Lk-Acts.
	Christianity is not a subversive movement.  The actions taken
	by Roman officials against both Jesus and his later followers
	were due to Roman misunderstandings and Jewish machinations.  This
	suggests that Lk was written when the imperial authorities were
	beginning to distinguish between Jews and Christians and to refuse
	to the latter the tolerance they had traditionally shown to the
	former.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu