When was the Book of Acts really written? I mean, really written ...?

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know, and neither do you! But we can always look at various remains of evidence that might persuade us to opt for one of a handful of different positions, positions that might in turn influence the structure of the processes at work in how any one of us understands the nature of the Christian Faith and whether we will feel like making an attempt to believe it ...

So, here's an article by Darrel L. Bock (being that Bock is one of dozens of scholars I happen to like) that's not real long, covering some of the issues involved in how we might decide when the Book of Acts was written....

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh arranged it , inspired it, directed it, and guarded all of His Word,

so even if no one were to know when ACTS was written, so what ?

(I just checked what section this is in, thus: ) Does it have any effect on apologetics at all ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yahweh arranged it , inspired it, directed it, and guarded all of His Word,

so even if no one were to know when ACTS was written, so what ?

Simply put, it affects the degree that some people will more seriously consider engaging the Christian Faith ... of course you and I already believe and understand that the Lord inspired, organized and arranged the earliest discourses of His Church so that we could have a New Testament. But, today, that isn't always taken as a first axiom by which to believe. Some folks, such as myself, even when being called by God, need to find at least some relevance and rationality in the essential goal of having belief and in reaching toward placing faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

So, this thread isn't for you, it seems, since in your case, it's not needed. But for those skeptics or seekers on the edge, who waffle around wondering if Christianity is true and the Bible is relevant, this thread is intended to, at least a little, address the field of inquiry in which they're trekking.

Does this make sense?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yahweh arranged it , inspired it, directed it, and guarded all of His Word,

so even if no one were to know when ACTS was written, so what ?

Yay, another piously off-topic post!

(I just checked what section this is in, thus: ) Does it have any effect on apologetics at all ?

Yes. It does. Acts and the Gospel of St. Luke are thought to have been written as one contiguous work. Thus, if the book was written in the 80s AD or after, it's interesting but not necessarily persuasive.

But if it was written in 69 AD or before then it contains a legitimate, verifiable prophecy which should not have been knowable by any human means.

On that basis then, yes, it matters for apologetics purposes when St. Luke/Acts was written.

 

[Sabertooth]

Just going by its text [Acts of the Apostles 28:30-31], it could not have been released before 62 AD. Since it does not include Paul's execution, it was probably released sometime before 67-68 AD.

 

[Josheb]

I don't know, and neither do you! But we can always look at various remains of evidence that might persuade us to opt for one of a handful of different positions, positions that might in turn influence the structure of the processes at work in how any one of us understands the nature of the Christian Faith and whether we will feel like making an attempt to believe it ...

So, here's an article by Darrel L. Bock (being that Bock is one of dozens of scholars I happen to like) that's not real long about some of the issues involved in how we might decide when the Book of Acts was written....

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

Increasingly the dates of authorship are all moving earlier and earlier as new archeological information comes in. Acts is a book of history and I think the most telling fact of acts is that it does not mention Jerusalem had been destroyed, nor does it mention the killing of James, Peter or Paul, indicating the book of acts was concluded before any of those events happened, placing the book at least prior to 68 AD, if not even earlier. Acts ends with Paul's arrival in Rome and that happened circa 60 AD, but the book mentions very little about Paul's work there. I think the best estimate is 62-64.

Bock's article is good but there is some indication Matthew was written before Mark so using Mark as a reference point may require some adjustment. Matthew may have been written in Aramaic and then later translated to Greek and Mark used as a reference for the translation in an effort to provide some reconciliation between the gospels and their subsequently shared language. Although I first learned of this in the mid- or late nineties F. F. Bruce held this view as early as the mid-1940s.

 

[cvanwey]

Just wondering...? You changed your position pretty fast?

Look, I'm done here in Apologetics for the most part.

From this point on, the ONLY time I'll be showing up here is if someone BRAND NEW just happens to wander into one of my threads and asks some questions.

[2PV sadly shakes the dust off of his sandals and wanders off into the Son-set ...!]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Does this make sense?

< shrugs? > Perhaps to someone. The other reply shows it just resulted in or spurred conflict in those without the attitude of Christ (Shalom, edifying, uplifting) , , even though you and I are for peace (shalom) in Christ, thus for the worldly not seeking truth, instead of peace comes disharmony , so I don't know if it is actually helpful for anyone else or meaningful or not -

except as Yahweh can make, I mean as Yahweh DOES make everything work out to the good of those WHO LOVE HIM, WHO ARE CALLED according to HIS PURPOSE.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just wondering...? You changed your position pretty fast?

It's my birthday, and I needed something other than a cake by which to remember this day!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Increasingly the dates of authorship are all moving earlier and earlier as new archeological information comes in. Acts is a book of history and I think the most telling fact of acts is that it does not mention Jerusalem had been destroyed, nor does it mention the killing of James, Peter or Paul, indicating the book of acts was concluded before any of those events happened, placing the book at least prior to 68 AD, if not even earlier. Acts ends with Paul's arrival in Rome and that happened circa 60 AD, but the book mentions very little about Paul's work there. I think the best estimate is 62-64.

This might all be good, true and accurate,
but might not matter at all also - in the so-called 'scholarly' circles, it appears the dates are often argued, for different reasons, and even changed, then changed back, as the 'scholars' rely on men instead of on Yahweh.
For one instance or example, the death of someone even if important, may not be in ACTS not because of the time it was written,
but because according to Yahweh Himself, it was not written nor initiated by any man in man's wisdom or knowledge - rather it is , with all Scripture, inspired
and authoritative because it is from Yahweh, His Doing, and not relying on nor coming from man or men or flesh, but from Him and Guarded By Him: His Doing and His Accomplishing His Way. (not with regard to constraints of the flesh, etc)

 

[cvanwey]

It's my birthday, and I needed something other than a cake by which to remember this day!

Happy B-day then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Happy B-day then?

Thank you, cvanwey!

So, after the smoke clears in a few days from these posts and threads I've made today, and maybe from that of a birthday cake, I'll probably ride off into the Son-set once more ...

 

[miamited]

I don't know, and neither do you! But we can always look at various remains of evidence that might persuade us to opt for one of a handful of different positions, positions that might in turn influence the structure of the processes at work in how any one of us understands the nature of the Christian Faith and whether we will feel like making an attempt to believe it ...

So, here's an article by Darrel L. Bock (being that Bock is one of dozens of scholars I happen to like) that's not real long about some of the issues involved in how we might decide when the Book of Acts was written....

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

Hi PV,

Your link is a bit confusing to me. It seems to hold to what has long been believed that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. It seems to contain much of his journeys with Paul and other early disciples after the ascension of Jesus. However, the link says that the latest possible date of writing would be 160 A.D. In this it makes the claim that it may have been written just prior to any references found to it from other works.

What confuses me is how the author can agree that Luke wrote it, but date the writing to have possibly been some 80 years after Luke was dead. That's got to be quite a trick. Luke must have sold out to packed audiences every night as he wrote as a dead man.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi PV,

Your link is a bit confusing to me. It seems to hold to what has long been believed that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. It seems to contain much of his journeys with Paul and other early disciples after the ascension of Jesus. However, the link says that the latest possible date of writing would be 160 A.D. In this it makes the claim that it may have been written just prior to any references found to it from other works.

What confuses me is how the author can agree that Luke wrote it, but date the writing to have possibly been some 80 years after Luke was dead. That's got to be quite a trick. Luke must have sold out to packed audiences every night as he wrote as a dead man.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Ted, just read the rest of the article, dear brother!

Don't worry, Bock doesn't think that Acts was written 80 years after Luke was dead.

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you, cvanwey!

So, after the smoke clears in a few days from these posts and threads I've made today, and maybe from that of a birthday cake, I'll probably ride off into the Son-set once more ...

May I give you a piece of newer found 'wisdom', as I've been here for about 2 years now?

The more you tell yourself that, the more you might feel compelled to hang around It's kinda like telling yourself you will start your diet tomorrow. The more you think about opposing the food, the more you want it.

It's rather entertaining to see everyone's differing 'opinions'. And we also learn a lot, I think...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

May I give you a piece of newer found 'wisdom', as I've been here for about 2 years now?

The more you tell yourself that, the more you might feel compelled to hang around It's kinda like telling yourself you will start your diet tomorrow. The more you think about opposing the food, the more you want it.

It's rather entertaining to see everyone's differing 'opinions'. And we also learn a lot, I think...

...Oh, but I already DID start my diet, and I know this because my wife made sure that I know it .....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

May I give you a piece of newer found 'wisdom', as I've been here for about 2 years now?

The more you tell yourself that, the more you might feel compelled to hang around It's kinda like telling yourself you will start your diet tomorrow. The more you think about opposing the food, the more you want it.

It's rather entertaining to see everyone's differing 'opinions'. And we also learn a lot, I think...

Yes, I suppose so, and that very last statement you've made above does ring with some definite truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just going by its text [Acts of the Apostles 28:30-31], it could not have been released before 62 AD. Since it does not include Paul's execution, it was probably released sometime before 67-68 AD.

... along with you, this is my first inclination to think, too, even if there are other factors we would have to look at and bring into the overall deliberation we'll make about the dating of the book of Acts. Regardless though, I'd also say that another biblical scholar whom I like, Gary Habermas, seems to generally agree with Bock's inclinations on when the book of Acts was likely written.

 

[Josheb]

This might all be good, true and accurate,
but might not matter at all also - in the so-called 'scholarly' circles, it appears the dates are often argued, for different reasons, and even changed, then changed back, as the 'scholars' rely on men instead of on Yahweh.
For one instance or example, the death of someone even if important, may not be in ACTS not because of the time it was written,
but because according to Yahweh Himself, it was not written nor initiated by any man in man's wisdom or knowledge - rather it is , with all Scripture, inspired
and authoritative because it is from Yahweh, His Doing, and not relying on nor coming from man or men or flesh, but from Him and Guarded By Him: His Doing and His Accomplishing His Way. (not with regard to constraints of the flesh, etc)

Well, when you possess the ability to tell all what it is Yahweh accords I'll give that some credence. Until then this is the information God has provided.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, when you possess the ability to tell all what it is Yahweh accords I'll give that some credence. Until then this is the information God has provided.

?? again, a lot of information posted/ in the news/ anywhere is not provided by God at all, and God says not to trust it, but to trust HIM.
Even if an Apostle or an apparent angel of light brings any message, it is to be tested proven truth before accepting it.