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

[Resha Caner]

Israeli researchers are using artificial intelligence to analyze biblical texts, as well as cultural artifacts, and their findings strengthen rather than refute Wellhausen's DSH.

Hebrew Bible Written By Humans, Computer Scientists Say

I have to say, I'm disappointed.

AI is such a misrepresentation of what actually happens in computer analyses. I should know, as my engineering expertise is in the use of computers to model nonlinear dynamic systems. Anyway, the oldest computing mantra remains true today: garbage in - garbage out. Computers and "AI" can only find what humans have programmed them to find.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph of your link because of this: According to the results, multiple styles and voices were used in composing many of these ancient, sacred Hebrew texts. Naturally, this finding undermines the evangelical belief in the inerrant, divine inspiration of the holy book of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

You can do better. The first sentence is true, and has always been acknowledged by the church - we don't need computers to know that. But the second sentence doesn't follow at all. Not in the least. The Bible itself acknowledges it is made up of many authors, and the text of Ezra strongly supports the tradition that Ezra was the one who compiled the first OT texts. So, no one is denying that the Bible first started to come together during the Exile. Nor is anyone denying that human voice is evident in how God's message is communicated.

But that in no way refutes divine inspiration. It's so silly. Don't these people realize they're invoking a sort of inverse Intelligent Design in this argument? If Intelligent Design doesn't work for life origins, it won't work as an inverse argument to refute divine inspiration.

What smells so bad to me about this whole thing (had you read my link) is that when the Documentary Hypothesis crumbled, it's supporters essentially kept the same conclusions and tried to insert a new argument behind them. Yes, they now acknowledge earlier sources than the Exile (sort of), but they're still trying to make the Exile date of compilation important to the content of those texts for some inexplicable reason. You would never allow me to do that. Why do you allow them to do it?

If you're not locked in to exclusively reading opinions you agree with. If you're willing to read an opposing opinion (as all good historians should do), I'll suggest you start with Kitchen and Steinmann:

Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul

 

[Resha Caner]

AI is such a misrepresentation of what actually happens in computer analyses.

FYI, I just asked Siri, "Do you have free will?"
Her reply, "I don't have an answer for that."

 

[Resha Caner]

Oh, and with regard to different "voices" coming from a single person, you should watch this. It's super cool.

Oh, and in terms of changing the "voice" of a text, Postmodern Jukebox is also impressive:

 

[Uber Genius]

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

Bock is great and a true scholar. Here he uses the word "Possible," to represent an inference. But it is an outlier by far. All knowledge areas have standard theories and inferences that compete with the standard but don't have the same warrant, not yet anyways.

From Acts 13 through the end of the book, focuses on Paul. The fact that we wouldn't here about how Paul's trial before Caesar turned out, Paul's death, Peter's death, the destruction of the Temple (biggest event impacting Israel since Antiochus Epiphanes at least) from a historian like Luke, seem to strain credulity. Possible yes. There are a lot of things that are possible.