Basic Methodology For Dating Ancient Documents

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

But now I'm guilty of bouncing around.

 

The point is, I do concede that a scientific approach can only take us so far in anything.  But after the bible passes a certain number of legitimate (not rigged) tests (rigged in a sense of presuppositions), then I think it becomes trustworthy.

 

The same is true of anything in science.  Big bang for example.  There is no way to directly test the big bang, but wherever we can test it, it passes to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous to avoid it.

 

Steve,

 

What you mean by the words, "the Big Bang" may not be what I understand them to mean.

Which is why you need my input, cooperation and agreement that those words are being used properly, in their proper context.  In case, you think I'm being awkward, please look here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

If you read the Inflationary Epoch section, the second paragraph reads like this...

 

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to the time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

 

So you could have been talking about the... traditional Big Bang ...which is not my understanding of those words and you and I would have been talking at cross-purposes.

 

Which is why these threads can only proceed by common consent.

 

Do I have your agreement on that?

 

BAA

 

The simple point is that the Big Bang is easily falsifiable in any different number of ways.

 

But it has never been falsified--  despite the innumerable number of legitimate falsifying mechanisms present throughout its history.  At first people just mocked it because it didn't fit in with their paradigms, but then it passed experiment after experiment after experiment.

 

 

Which Big Bang do you mean, Steve?

 

 

Red shift, background radiation, triangulation.  Those were the ones that sold me.

 

 

Those lines of evidence apply to more than one model of Big Bang.

 

Hint:

I know what I'm writing about here... you don't.

 

So take my advice and just accept that until you and I mean exactly the same thing, you'll make no progress here.

 

And Yes, I'm familiar with the Drake equation.

[Ravenstar]

Drakes Equation is based on variable unknowns.. it's an interesting mathematical exercise. It is not proof of anything other than we may be able to use it ONCE we get the actual variables to put into it. It has not been falsified as of yet. It's an HYPOTHESIS.

 

At this point we are missing essential data to make the formula workable.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Ahh woops.  11 p.m. here.  Speaking of conversations running their course, 

 

Drakes Equation is based on variable unknowns.. it's an interesting mathematical exercise. It is not proof of anything other than we may be able to use it ONCE we get the actual variables to put into it. It has not been falsified as of yet. It's an HYPOTHESIS.

 

At this point we are missing essential data to make the formula workable.

 

Well one it was first made, there were lots of empirical gaps that modern science has since filled.

 

One might be surprised at how precise of values we may now populate the equation with.

[bornagainathiest]

Ahh woops.  11 p.m. here.  Speaking of conversations running their course, 

 

Drakes Equation is based on variable unknowns.. it's an interesting mathematical exercise. It is not proof of anything other than we may be able to use it ONCE we get the actual variables to put into it. It has not been falsified as of yet. It's an HYPOTHESIS.

 

At this point we are missing essential data to make the formula workable.

 

Well one it was first made, there were lots of empirical gaps that modern science has since filled.

 

One might be surprised at how precise of values we may now populate the equation with.

 

Then I'm sure that Bhim, our resident astrophysicist would be quite keen in keeping you honest on those values, Steve.

[Ravenstar]

But…. not sure what this (or the Big Bang Theory) has to do with dating ancient manuscripts. (I will come back to that.. ON TOPIC)

That IS the OP, correct?

 

You might not want to take on BAA on cosmology..just trying to be nice here,  even I can't follow him on some of it - it's pretty complicated astrophysics. And he know MATHS!

 

(BAA - Have you had a chance to look at Stephen Hawkings new material on black holes yet?)

[Guest SteveBennett]

Ever hear of John Leslie?  Or the "Dice In The Dark Room" analogy?

[Guest SteveBennett]

And by the way, I'm just chatting informally here.  

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

Ahh woops.  11 p.m. here.  Speaking of conversations running their course, 

 

Drakes Equation is based on variable unknowns.. it's an interesting mathematical exercise. It is not proof of anything other than we may be able to use it ONCE we get the actual variables to put into it. It has not been falsified as of yet. It's an HYPOTHESIS.

 

At this point we are missing essential data to make the formula workable.

 

Well one it was first made, there were lots of empirical gaps that modern science has since filled.

 

One might be surprised at how precise of values we may now populate the equation with.

 

Then I'm sure that Bhim, our resident astrophysicist would be quite keen in keeping you honest on those values, Steve.

 

 

Oooh!  I would LOVE to talk to him!

[bornagainathiest]

And by the way, I'm just chatting informally here.  

 

So am I.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leslie_(pornographic_actor)

[bornagainathiest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leslie_(TV_presenter)

 

The disgraced BBC tv presenter, perhaps?

[Guest SteveBennett]

So the analogy works like this right?

 

Your standing in a dark room in which nothing may be empirically observed.  You've done a lot of research on this room, and you've come to learn that the lights can turn on, but only after 2000 dice are cast and they all land on "six."

 

The lights turn on, and you use your new found ability to empirically observe by looking at the dice in the middle of the room.  Sure enough. . . they've all landed on their pre-requisite "six."

 

Which category of investigation do you choose to investigate why the dice landed precisely as they had to before empirical observation could be enabled?

 

1)  Necessity (laws of physics and natural mechanisms)

2)  Random chance

3)  Someone's purposeful intent

[♦ ficino ♦]

Guys, if you're going to discuss cosmology, can it be elsewhere? As R pointed out, this is supposed to be about ancient documents...

 

cheers, F

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you Ficino!

 

Stay on topic Steve.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Okie dokie.  Sorry.  I'm just feeling my way through everyone here.

 

I, personally, enjoy structure also.  Maybe a mod could just delete everything that has been off-topic thus far?

 

cheers!  I'm off to bed.

 

-- Steve

[Ravenstar]

There are mathematical formulas to ascertain the odds of physical occurrences - if one has the values. So.. none of the above.

[falemon]

So the analogy works like this right?

 

Your standing in a dark room in which nothing may be empirically observed.  You've done a lot of research on this room, and you've come to learn that the lights can turn on, but only after 2000 dice are cast and they all land on "six."

 

The lights turn on, and you use your new found ability to empirically observe by looking at the dice in the middle of the room.  Sure enough. . . they've all landed on their pre-requisite "six."

 

Which category of investigation do you choose to investigate why the dice landed precisely as they had to before empirical observation could be enabled?

 

1)  Necessity (laws of physics and natural mechanisms)

2)  Random chance

3)  Someone's purposeful intent

Did you create this yourself?

[Ravenstar]

I'm leaving this one to Ficino, his knowledge of the 1st/2nd century texts and history is far greater than mine.

 

I just want to add that I am more of a materialist historian. 

 

The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.^{[citation needed]}

In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school tried to date the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd-century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books.

Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp.

John A. T. Robinson, former Bishop of Woolwich, Dean of Trinity College and New Testament scholar argues for a much earlier dating. Robinson challenges almost all the judgments which teachers of the New Testament throughout the world commend to their pupils on the dating of the NT books. His reassessment has all of the New Testament completed before AD 70. Using inductive reasoning, he uses historical argument and historical knowledge as the basis of his theory. Robinson points to four major historical events of which, he argues, no New Testament authors make mention:

1. the Great Fire of Rome (AD 64), one of the most destructive fires in Roman history, which Emperor Nero blamed on the Christians, and led to the first major persecution of believers
2. the final years and deaths of Paul, who wrote most of the epistles, Peter, whom Catholics recognize as the first pope, and the other apostles
3. Nero's suicide (AD 68), or
4. the total destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (AD 70). He writes, "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period—the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple—is never once mentioned as a past fact. Jesus prophesied its total destruction in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but the fulfillment of that prophecy never appears anywhere in the New Testament.

Therefore, Robinson claims that every book which would come to form the New Testament must have been written before AD 70.^[71][72] Robinson's proposed set of consistently early dates are rejected by the majority of scholars.^[73]

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan priority).^[74] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of theTemple of Jerusalem, around 70,^[75] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems likely.^[10][76] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.

Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.^[77] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.^[78]

 

Like I said.. I don't know much about the NT origins. Our earliest (and fragmentary) physical copies are about 125 AD, they could have been written earlier, probably were. However, they are not eyewitness accounts. Fascinating subject though.

 

​For me, they hold as much weight as any other ancient documents though. If how ancient something is… is proof of veracity, then I'll have to begin building my shrine to Enki and Ninhursaga.

[florduh]

You people aren't taking this tutorial seriously.

[♦ ficino ♦]

To say that Luke drew from some earlier source would mean that only Luke had any use for those sources-- but no one else did.  Historians don't do that.  Tacitus, Josephus, Philo, historians in general make sure that sources are preserved.  So now, not only do you have to say  "an earlier source was lost" you would also have to present some plausible mechanism as to why it was lost.

Your sentence about ancient historians making sure that sources are preserved is confused. Josephus used various sources other than the Septuagint, and many of those are no longer extant. You can see him switching sources within the later books of the Antiquities, where there are contradictions and unexplained shifts in attitude. No one can present a plausible mechanism for how this or that ancient sources was lost. The vast majority of works of antiquity are lost. They only survive if there was a demand for copies of them. Lots of long works of history were too long to undergo repeated copying. For example, Josephus in his Life criticizes a certain Justus, author of a rival history of the Jewish revolt. That work is lost now. So it's not clear what your point is.

 

 

 

As one small example of yet another detail, we can know that Paul would have rubbed shoulder's with Philo of Alexandria's second niece Berenice:

 

1)  Philo of Alexandria had a brother-- Alexander the Alibarch

2)  Alexander the Alibarch had a son-- Marcus Julius Alexander

3)  Marcus Julius Alexander Married Berenice-- The Herodian princess 

4)  Berenice was the daughter of Herod Agrippa

 

Then

 

-- In Acts 12:21-23, we see Herod Agrippa killed in front of everyone. 

 

-- We know from Josephus that Bernice then married her uncle -- King Herod of Chalcis.

 

-- After King Herod of Chalcis died in 40 A.D. Berenice then married her brother-- King Agrippa II.

 

-- Then we see Berenice in Acts 25:13, accompanied by King Agrippa.

 

------

 

So whats the point?  Look at how many connections we have to make between Josephus, Philo, and Luke just to arrive at the conclusion that this Berenice in Acts 25:13 was the second niece of Philo of Alexandria.

 

We have to follow Berenice's personal history through all of these various sources just so that we can know that this is the same Berenice present when Paul stood before Festus.

Your point about kinship between Philo and Berenice is irrelevant to the date of Acts. Philo is not mentioned in the NT. Berenice is mentioned only in this Festus scene in Acts. All the info in your 1)-4) above is in Josephus (AJ 18.259, 19.276-277, 20.145-146), and Acts does not supply any additional facts about the relationships among these people.

 

How on earth could Luke have gotten this right?  What source would have possibly told Luke that this Berenice was present while Paul stood before Festus?  

 

What source would have possibly recorded such a trivial detail for Luke to then copy for himself decades after the fact?

 

This whole half-baked business of saying that Luke was writing after 64 A.D. is ludicrous.  It's simply, mind bogglingly, ludicrous. Anyone with any respect to attention to detail and a systematic approach to testing the trustworthiness of documents purporting to be historical knows just how ludicrous it is.

 

I'm not attacking any person, mind you, I'm just saying the idea itself is ludicrous.

As for your question, how could Luke have possibly known that Berenice was present while Paul stood before Festus [sc. if Luke had not been present himself]: he could have used a source now lost, which Josephus did not use (see above); he could have invented the scene. After all, if he was writing not pre-64 but in the 90s or later, he could have known from Josephus that Berenice was living with her brother. Your question presupposes that the events of Acts 25-26 actually occurred. Acts is the only source; the degree of that work's factuality is precisely one of the points under discussion, so you are not entitled to assume factuality of all Acts recounts, and therefore, not entitled to assume this scene is factual.

 

 

I note in passing that Luke gives himself a lot of license in attributing motives to dignitaries, e.g. Festus proposed sending Paul back to Jerusalem to the Sanhedrin "wanting to curry favor with the Jews" (25:9). How can Luke know this? Presumably (assuming the account is factual) he is conjecturing. A better conjecture, offered by a historian who accepts the historicity of the account but does not pronounce on the date of Acts, is that Festus, having been satisfied that Paul is not a political agitator, wants to bump the religious residue of the case back to the body in charge of Jewish law (Michael R. Young-Widmaier in Historia 51.1 [2002] 124-9: 128).

 

You still tend to fall back into argumenta ad ignorantiam, versions of "I don't know how this could have gotten into the text if Luke hadn't been an eyewitness..." and the like. He may have been an eyewitness. There is much solid detail about names, places, titles, and laws in Acts. I do not think that Acts is as early as pre-64 -- can't debate the whole question here -- but things like what you say about Berenice and Philo do nothing to contribute to your case. A later writer can have used Josephus, or one of his sources, plus his imagination for the details you provide. Bold or enlarged fonts, by the way, are starting to make you look desperate.

 

There are many problems with Acts that lead other scholars to date it either in the 80s-90s or, like Pervo and now the Acts Seminar, in the first quarter of the second century. Problems with how Acts deals or does not deal with other Christian writings, for example. You will be more convincing when you show that you understand the arguments of other positions, which in turn will entail that you understand how to deal with different genres of text.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So the analogy works like this right?

 

Your standing in a dark room in which nothing may be empirically observed.  You've done a lot of research on this room, and you've come to learn that the lights can turn on, but only after 2000 dice are cast and they all land on "six."

 

The lights turn on, and you use your new found ability to empirically observe by looking at the dice in the middle of the room.  Sure enough. . . they've all landed on their pre-requisite "six."

 

Which category of investigation do you choose to investigate why the dice landed precisely as they had to before empirical observation could be enabled?

 

1)  Necessity (laws of physics and natural mechanisms)

2)  Random chance

3)  Someone's purposeful intent

4) god did it

 

I mean, let's just cut to the chase here.  It has already been established that your conclusions drive your "research" and your "methodology".

[falemon]

 

So the analogy works like this right?

 

Your standing in a dark room in which nothing may be empirically observed.  You've done a lot of research on this room, and you've come to learn that the lights can turn on, but only after 2000 dice are cast and they all land on "six."

 

The lights turn on, and you use your new found ability to empirically observe by looking at the dice in the middle of the room.  Sure enough. . . they've all landed on their pre-requisite "six."

 

Which category of investigation do you choose to investigate why the dice landed precisely as they had to before empirical observation could be enabled?

 

1)  Necessity (laws of physics and natural mechanisms)

2)  Random chance

3)  Someone's purposeful intent

4) god did it

 

I mean, let's just cut to the chase here.  It has already been established that your conclusions drive your "research" and your "methodology".

 

I've reached my quota for the day lol

[♦ ficino ♦]

This post is a continuation of #144 above, in reply to SB's contention that the mention of Berenice in Acts 25 is only plausible on the assumption of an early date of Acts, presumably with Luke as eyewitness to the speech of Paul before the governor Festus, King Agrippa II, and his sister, Berenice.

 

Your hypothesis of an early date of Acts, i.e. before 64 CE, is not confirmed by the material that you adduced above from Acts 24-26. It is only consistent with this data set. Also consistent with the same data set is a rival hypothesis: that Acts was written later than Josephus' Antiquities 19-20, i.e. no earlier than the mid-90s.

 

As far as I am aware, Acts is the only source for the relations between Paul and the Roman governor, Felix, his Jewish wife, Drusilla, and between Paul and the next governor, Festus, and king Agrippa and his sister, Berenice. The information added to Acts' account by SB is from Josephus.

 

Therefore, Luke can have been using Josephus directly or a source used by Josephus; it is premature to conclude from the evidence that SB has given that Luke's account has to be that of an eyewitness. The material not found in Josephus can be from a source not quoted by Josephus or can have been invented.

 

But why, one may ask, would Luke insert obscure personages like Drusilla and Berenice? Steve says it's ludicrous to think that Luke dug this material up from some now lost source that no one else mentions.

 

[i already declined to accept SB's tacit premise that the account is factual; we don't know one way or the other.]

 

We can only make inferences about Luke's intentions from the text, and there's only so far we can go in that direction. Something Luke accomplishes by putting in these two women with these two men is to insinuate that rejection of Paul's gospel is motivated by lust.

 

Felix had entered into an adulterous marriage with Drusilla, who, says Josephus, "transgressed her ancestral laws" (AJ 20.143). Note that Paul's preaching to Felix is portrayed as focusing on "uprightness, continence, and the coming judgment" (Acts 24:25). Felix can't take this. The Greek εγκράτεια for "continence" often implies sexual self-control.

 

When Paul sermonizes before Agrippa in ch. 26, Agrippa likewise can't deal with the message, although he thinks Paul innocent of the charges brought by the Sanhedrin. Josephus reports that it was believed that Agrippa and his sister, Berenice, conducted incestuous relations (AJ 20.145).

 

These two sisters, and their sketchy reputations, appear within a few lines of each other in bk. 20 of the Antiquities. They appear within a few chapters in Acts, in similar contexts, where Paul's message is rejected.

 

Luke's aim looks as though it's to insinuate that the Jewish elite are corrupt and that such are the corrupt people who reject the gospel. A theme throughout Acts is the opposition that the Jews put to the gospel; that persists through the last chapter. And it looks as though Luke is following along in a copy of Josephus' Antiquities.

 

So, add up a copy of Josephus and perhaps other accounts, Luke's literary flair, his knowledge of laws, his rhetorical and narrative structure and you get sufficient material to account for Acts 24-26. It's not necessary to postulate that the author must be an eyewitness.

 

I say all this to try to offer you a tutorial, Steve, about ways of handling texts. Much more would be needed for me to work up a case for a late date of Acts. As Centauri already did, I suggested in #144 that the big problem for Acts is its inconcinnity with other Christian texts, starting with Paul's epistles. My scenario about Acts 24-26 is presented merely as an alternative to yours, by way of demonstrating that the assumptions that you brought to those chapters are not sufficient to support the weight you try to put on them.

 

Likewise, your hypothesis of a date pre-64 is only consistent with the data set provided by the end of Acts, where Paul's supposed martyrdom is lacking. Your hypothesis has not yet been shown to generate the most plausible explanation of that ending. But to go into the problem of the end of Acts is too much for this post.

[♦ ficino ♦]

It is absolutely ludicrous to think Acts was written after 64 A.D.

 

Its like saying someone would write a book titled "A Record of Events in East and West Germany," AFTER the fall of the Berlin wall and then not include the Berlin wall's falling in the text.

 

We are talking about a book whose topic is to record Paul's missionary journey's and the persecution of Christians. Even if one presupposes Acts is propaganda, then that should compel one to think Acts was written before 64 A.D.-- because if the author of Acts were really, primarily concerned with propaganda, then he would have jumped at the opportunity to record more and more Christian martyrs.

 

It is enormously irresponsible to deviate from established methodology. And if one does, then it fundamentally begs the question  of the philosophical presuppositions which govern one's investigation.

Off the bat, I can think of four famous, ancient accounts, purporting to recount the history of great men and their deeds, which end without portraying the hero's final exploits and close of his saga as known from other sources. One of these is a smoking gun -- nay, smoking cannon -- so huge that it would threaten to blow established dating methodology out of the water. I cannot, however, mention it now, nor the other three.

[raoul]

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason.

It's been my experience regarding these type of discussions that the more 'intelligent' the theist appears to be, the more ridiculously obscure their arguments tend to be. However, as you duly note, hell comes up as a topic in order to what? Threaten people? So then, the seemingly 'intelligent' theist is no different than the redneck rabid fundy from Alabama or similar residence.

[raoul]

This post is a continuation of #144 above, in reply to SB's contention that the mention of Berenice in Acts 25 is only plausible on the assumption of an early date of Acts, presumably with Luke as eyewitness to the speech of Paul before the governor Festus, King Agrippa II, and his sister, Berenice.

 

Your hypothesis of an early date of Acts, i.e. before 64 CE, is not confirmed by the material that you adduced above from Acts 24-26. It is only consistent with this data set. Also consistent with the same data set is a rival hypothesis: that Acts was written later than Josephus' Antiquities 19-20, i.e. no earlier than the mid-90s.

 

As far as I am aware, Acts is the only source for the relations between Paul and the Roman governor, Felix, his Jewish wife, Drusilla, and between Paul and the next governor, Festus, and king Agrippa and his sister, Berenice. The information added to Acts' account by SB is from Josephus.

 

Therefore, Luke can have been using Josephus directly or a source used by Josephus; it is premature to conclude from the evidence that SB has given that Luke's account has to be that of an eyewitness. The material not found in Josephus can be from a source not quoted by Josephus or can have been invented.

 

But why, one may ask, would Luke insert obscure personages like Drusilla and Berenice? Steve says it's ludicrous to think that Luke dug this material up from some now lost source that no one else mentions.

 

[i already declined to accept SB's tacit premise that the account is factual; we don't know one way or the other.]

 

We can only make inferences about Luke's intentions from the text, and there's only so far we can go in that direction. Something Luke accomplishes by putting in these two women with these two men is to insinuate that rejection of Paul's gospel is motivated by lust.

 

Felix had entered into an adulterous marriage with Drusilla, who, says Josephus, "transgressed her ancestral laws" (AJ 20.143). Note that Paul's preaching to Felix is portrayed as focusing on "uprightness, continence, and the coming judgment" (Acts 24:25). Felix can't take this. The Greek εγκράτεια for "continence" often implies sexual self-control.

 

When Paul sermonizes before Agrippa in ch. 26, Agrippa likewise can't deal with the message, although he thinks Paul innocent of the charges brought by the Sanhedrin. Josephus reports that it was believed that Agrippa and his sister, Berenice, conducted incestuous relations (AJ 20.145).

 

These two sisters, and their sketchy reputations, appear within a few lines of each other in bk. 20 of the Antiquities. They appear within a few chapters in Acts, in similar contexts, where Paul's message is rejected.

 

Luke's aim looks as though it's to insinuate that the Jewish elite are corrupt and that such are the corrupt people who reject the gospel. A theme throughout Acts is the opposition that the Jews put to the gospel; that persists through the last chapter. And it looks as though Luke is following along in a copy of Josephus' Antiquities.

 

So, add up a copy of Josephus and perhaps other accounts, Luke's literary flair, his knowledge of laws, his rhetorical and narrative structure and you get sufficient material to account for Acts 24-26. It's not necessary to postulate that the author must be an eyewitness.

 

I say all this to try to offer you a tutorial, Steve, about ways of handling texts. Much more would be needed for me to work up a case for a late date of Acts. As Centauri already did, I suggested in #144 that the big problem for Acts is its inconcinnity with other Christian texts, starting with Paul's epistles. My scenario about Acts 24-26 is presented merely as an alternative to yours, by way of demonstrating that the assumptions that you brought to those chapters are not sufficient to support the weight you try to put on them.

 

Likewise, your hypothesis of a date pre-64 is only consistent with the data set provided by the end of Acts, where Paul's supposed martyrdom is lacking. Your hypothesis has not yet been shown to generate the most plausible explanation of that ending. But to go into the problem of the end of Acts is too much for this post.

You may also wish to ask the theist WHICH book of Acts he's referring to because, as Dr. Ehrman and others have noted, there were actually TWO books of Acts being used by various factions. One had about 10 percent MORE info in it. In addition, regarding Paul's alleged martyrdom - there were many ancients including some church fathers who believed he ended out his days doing his preaching in Spain.