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

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 ?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

Yay, another piously off-topic post!

yeshuaslavejeff said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

2PhiloVoid said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

2PhiloVoid said:

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 ...!]

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Does this make sense?

Click to expand...

< 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.

Josheb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

2PhiloVoid said:

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

Click to expand...

Happy B-day then?

2PhiloVoid said:

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

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...

yeshuaslavejeff said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Josheb said:

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.

Click to expand...

?? 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.