"‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar'" (Acts 27:24)
Now, I won’t lunge straight in at 62AD. First, some evidence that Acts was written by 68AD at the latest. This comes from exploring a question that is not really about trying to date the book at all: simply, which of the Caesars was it who figures in the overarching story to the end of Acts, the story at the time Paul was headed towards a trial in Rome? Luke doesn't say the personal name of this crucial Caesar. The reason why he doesn't say so is simple. It is because Luke tellingly just casually assumes that his readers know that this important emperor is Nero without having to play guessing games. He does so in the way that you would do if writing while Nero is still the living emperor, and here are a few things that illustrate it.
- We know Luke's practice elsewhere. For the context of former emperors he does give their personal names in little side notes: Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1 “In those days Caesar Augustus”); Tiberius (Luke 3:1 “year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”); and Claudius (Acts 11:28 “This happened during the reign of Claudius”). If you know your history, the sequence of the five emperors in the era covered by Luke's Gospel and Acts is as follows: Augustus (27 BC - AD 14), Tiberius (AD 14-37), Caligula (AD 37-41), Claudius (AD 41-54), Nero (AD 54-68). Luke's little notes are each meaningful. The first and second give a historical context for Christ's birth and moment of starting his ministry. The Claudius reference serves to prove that Paul's co-workers are on God's side, uttering prophecy that comes true. Naming emperors is something Luke does when there is significance to attach to it.
- So Luke has consigned the first four Caesars to the past, as at his time of writing, and even given three of them a name-check, serving as historical markers for his story. Make no mistake: if Luke as a writer were looking backwards from some time after 70AD, there would have been at least five more emperors in the meantime, and Luke would have needed to provide context for the latter part of Acts (eg “these were the days when Nero was emperor”). This makes it very difficult to understand why any post-70AD Luke would not give the emperor's personal name in a note.
- As for Caligula's reign, AD 37-41 is a period for which little or no information is recorded in the Book of Acts about anything at all.
- As for Claudius' reign, it makes its mark in the story: ‘There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome’ (Acts 18:2). So Claudius is still emperor until around the time of Acts 18:2. Nero's reign overshadows the latter part of Acts much more than that.
- But what of the fifth emperor, Nero? Was he past or present at the time when Luke was writing? His significance is much much greater to the story than the others, but Luke never name-checks him.
- So, we've had Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius. We've had 'Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome’. But Luke gives no such detail when it comes to ‘You must stand trial before Caesar' - why doesn't he say? We have the answer.
- Whereas Luke gives the impression of the others being past reigns at the time he was writing, this is precisely the impression that Luke never gives about the reign of Nero Caesar, the living emperor of the crucial final chapters of Acts, leading towards Paul's trial in Caesar's court. Of course, this impression is so subtle that it would only really make contextual sense with someone reading it while Nero is still alive, their present emperor.
- Needless to say, Luke is not doing a massive treatise on the life and times of Roman emperors, and doesn't have to do a complete roll-call. But in the books of the New Testament, the three Caesars named by Luke are named by no-one else. This naming is something that only Luke is interested in doing, so it's obvious that he cares about such details more than any other gospel writer does. In each case, he provides a little bit of historical context by inserting a note giving Caesar's personal name. Yet Luke never makes a little side-note to give the personal name of the more crucial Caesar who is mentioned simply as 'Caesar' in speech after speech, page after page, of the latter chapters of Acts. The name: Nero. Why doesn’t Luke insert a little note to identify the Caesar referenced in the crucial dialogue and speeches as Nero, as he has been wont to do?
- It's not just a question of an interest in mentions of a 'Caesar' in speeches. Naturally, in dialogue and speeches, his contemporaries refer to him just as 'Caesar', and not all of these necessarily are of sufficient importance to need a comment. But why does Luke, telling the story of Paul being headed towards Caesar's court, not add a non-speech side note to say that the Caesar he keeps referencing in speeches is Nero Caesar?
- Another thing that illustrates this is that whilst Luke has previously in Acts named a past emperor as active, Claudius (Acts 18:2), scholars know that Luke has moved on in the story to reference the next crucially relevant emperor, but does so without distinguishing him from the previously mentioned Caesar. It's not Claudius; but if you didn’t know your history, that wouldn't occur to you. Claudius is the only one name-checked in Acts. There is significance in that a reader could be confused by it. If you were not well informed, the modern casual reader would easily get it wrong trying to name this crucial emperor - you might guess it was Claudius if you just went by the text of Acts. Luke's casual assumption that his readers are not ignorant or confused, and know which unnamed emperor Paul is expecting to meet - Nero - is easily explained by it being common knowledge among Luke's contemporary readers. They knew the name of the living emperor.
- To reinforce the point, why, unlike the other Caesars who have a place in Luke-Acts, does Nero go unnamed, even though he is the emperor referenced more than any other?
Of course, an author might give personal names for past and present emperors, but when the author always omits the personal name where one particular Caesar is repeatedly referenced, and where this would be inconsistent with what the author is generally doing in terms of adding notes about emperors, then you are in the realms of a living emperor unless there is unusually strong evidence to explain away the inconsistency.
- In summary then, the most ‘normal’ non-theological explanation for Luke's inconsistency in not adding a note to give the personal name of this crucial much referenced emperor, is this: Luke does not do so because he is referring to the then-living emperor whose name was universally known - Nero is still alive, still emperor, at the time he is writing. No contextual explanation is therefore called for, as his contemporaries reading this would understand the reference. That is the generation it was written for. And as Nero died in 68AD, this means that Acts was written no later than 68AD.
- For comparison of the naming pattern: any current British Prime Minister can be referred to in conversation as the “Prime Minister” and the identity will be unmistakable even without giving the name (currently the PM is Teresa May, as I write, so anyone today saying “the Prime Minister thinks…” means her). But an ex-Prime Minister always has to be named and sometimes put in context to avoid mis-identification: “former Prime Minister Tony Blair” or “when David Cameron was the Prime Minister”).
How do we narrow it down to about 62AD? Of the arguments for this, the strongest comes about from trying to answer a different question which is not really about dating at all (again). The question: why does Luke choose to end the story of Acts where he does, not telling us a thing about Paul appearing in Caesar’s court, after a great big build up towards it? It’s the climax that never comes because Luke closes the book there. As Harnack once expressed, eight chapters build up to nothing. Why?
- Make no mistake: Acts really does build up in style to the appearance of Paul before the Imperial Court. Indeed, there is a series of legal hearings heading in the direction of Rome. What’s more, Jesus and an angel in turn prophesy his trial will happen at Rome/before Caesar (Acts 23:11, 27:24). That impels the reader to expect to read of the great trial: Jesus and the angel prophesied it, so it has to be scheduled in reality, this is under heaven’s control. Luke describes several hearings in turn, and these are building up towards the great moment of the Imperial hearing. But the story stops dead just before it gets there.
- Yes, Luke has a neat theological point, tying up the ending to his book in a ribbon and a bow, and some commentators want us to believe that that is enough of an explanation for the whole ending. But Luke would do that anyway wherever the story ended. And why the anti-climax? As Mauck observes, Luke “has no reason after pointing and leading his readership to a climactic trial to blithely omit the culminating event of the book” (John W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defence of Christianity, Nelson, 2001).
- The most ‘normal’ non-theological explanation is that the next episode had not happened yet at the time of Luke writing. Acts was thus likely completed about 62/63AD, prior to the impending Imperial trial (Mauck, 42-3, 176). Why is such a precise date available? Well, it’s in the detail Luke gives: he mentions Festus’ role; and Festus was appointed in 59 or 60AD, so the two years mentioned in Acts 28:30 end in 62 or 63AD (Mauck, 48).
- A similar argument was expressed long ago by Harnack whom Mauck quotes: “The more clearly we see that the trial of St Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does, otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion.” (Harnack, Date of Acts, 96f.)
- It is not as if Luke even primes us to know what the result of the legal proceedings will be. Nero’s court could not yet have ruled on Paul’s case: “if Nero had already ruled on Paul’s guilt or innocence, then the ruling of the emperor would have been by far the single most important event to the faith declaration [if the reader were a Christian]. The ruling and, indeed, all of Acts would need to be explained in the context of that ruling” (Mauck, 217). So it is not a book written for Christians some years after the trial in Rome, it is a book written before the ruling, around 62AD.
- It may be possible that conditions were never properly met for a trial to take place, but if so, Luke definitely did not see that coming, as he primes the reader to think that a supernatural prediction means that Paul will stand trial before Caesar. Luke says that one condition to be satisfied is for the accused to be able to face their accusers face to face (Acts 25:16), but what if his accusers never travelled to Rome to finish the job? Could that mean the trial never came, which would have taken Luke by surprise? So whether the trial had an important result, or the trial never took place, it looks like Luke just didn't know either way. This fits with Acts being written before it was resolved either way.
- Acts 20:22-23 has foreboding about going to Jerusalem (with no mention of Rome). Paul in Miletus says, ‘I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.’ The narrative goes on to show us that Paul leaves Jerusalem alive, having been handed over by the Jews to the Romans.
- Acts 20:38 says, “What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again.” This is another reference to Paul’s foreboding about going to Jerusalem, where he survives. Paul is explicitly not prophesying his death, as he firmly states: “I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.” So there is foreboding, but not of death but of imprisonment in Jerusalem.
- More interesting is Acts 21:10-14, quoted here at greater length, where Paul is leaving Miletus, and does fear death in Jerusalem:
- “After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”
- In Acts 28:27-29, it is clear that Paul went to Rome because he expects fairer treatment from Romans than from his fellow Jews: “I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. The Jews objected, so I was compelled to make an appeal to Caesar.” Elsewhere, from place to place, Paul has been running the gauntlet. But now in Rome, there is optimism, and Paul is expecting the Romans to keep up their good treatment of him. There is no shadow of doom and death hanging over these words: the message is that he has escaped Jerusalem and the Romans are trusted to continue to spare Paul from the Jews. And more or less there, Acts ends.
- It's perhaps worth adding that the ending of Acts was not written to curry favour with Romans decades later (as some suggest). Pointless to end with optimism with Paul in Rome, as if that would impress later Roman officials, if the officials already knew that that they (or their predecessors in office) had executed Paul. It would be an own goal to walk the story right up to the trial in Nero's court, as if to make Christians look good fellows, if they knew Paul had subsequently been found in the wrong in Rome's eyes and worthy of death. If the intention was to show Romans that Christians were living in good standing with Rome, this was not a sensible path to lead the Roman reader up.
- John A T Robinson wrote a few decades back (but has this ever been expressed better?) that the tradition of Paul’s execution in Rome is apparently unknown to Luke: “If the outcome of that trial (or a subsequent one) was already known, it is surely incredible, as Harnack says, that no foreshadowing or prophecy of it after the event is allowed to appear in the narrative… Yet the only hint he gives of [Paul’s] ultimate fate is that 'imprisonment and hardships' await him and that his friends at Miletus would 'never see his face again' (20.24f, 38)” (Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 1976, chapter 4).
So far: the way that Luke leaves unsaid the name of the Emperor to whom Paul is headed is explained by Luke writing whilst Nero was the living emperor; the fact that the story stops dead before it gets to the trial is explained by Luke writing whilst awaiting the trial; the fact that Luke's is optimistic about Paul's future is explained by Luke writing before Paul's execution. Next, we see Luke is writing in a world in which Sadducees and Pharisees were still debating each other, which is explained by Luke writing before the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.
- 1) The Sadducees.
- 'The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.' (Acts 23:8)
- If Luke-Acts were written some time after 70AD (scholars suggest around the 90s, remember), then something doesn't make sense about the Sadducees. It's that Luke reports the views of the sect of the Sadducees in the present tense: 'the Sadducees say/are saying'. It's as if the Sadducees are still substantially around, and as if their views are a live issue while Luke is writing. That fits before 70AD, but not very well after 70AD. The views in question are on the resurrection. Thus Acts 23:8: 'The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.' (Also, Luke 20:27: 'Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him'.) What's the problem? Well, the Sadducees more or less disappear from the map of history after 70AD. They were an elite Jewish party, closely connected with control of the temple, and politically influential. That all ended when the Romans wreaked devastation on Jerusalem - no more temple, no more influence, no more party of the Sadducees. In fact not so much as a single historical text written by the Sadducees has survived, such is their obliteration. Whereas the Pharisees may have survived in a sense by being part of the root of the Jewish rabbinic movement, the party of the Sadducees was finished. You would expect a post-70AD Luke, writing to Theophilus about them, to switch to the past tense, resulting in something like 'the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection' rather than the sense of 'they do not believe in it'. The question of their non-belief in the resurrection was no longer even a live issue because of their demise. Secondly, there is absolutely no sense of foreboding hanging over the Sadducees in the narrative, as if Luke knew they were doomed. It seems that Luke is writing at a time when Sadducees were still debating these views. The inference to be drawn is that Luke was writing before 70AD wiped out their party. After that, the Talmud written a couple of centuries later has reference to them, but that cannot be treated as an accurate reflection of the first century. All that is left of them is notes in Josephus, and the present tense presentation of their views in the New Testament. This point is not as strong as those above, as Josephus uses past and present tenses when talking about the views of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and we know he was writing after 70AD. See: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html But the force of Luke's presentation is very much more that this was still a live debate at the time of writing.
- 3) Expecting a fair hearing in Rome. Acts assumes Paul will get a reasonably fair hearing in Caesar’s court, something no Christian in Rome would suppose after the Neronian persecution of Rome’s Christians in 64AD (told of by Roman historian Tacitus). Acts thus likely pre-dates the 64AD persecution (Mauck, 42). (It might be added that here is Luke telling of Paul in Rome, the centre of world power, just a couple of years before fire ravaged it, and Luke seems blissfully unaware that this was coming on the city where Paul was. Never mind the Neronian persecution this is even bigger! The Great Fire Of Rome for goodness sake! You would never know from Luke that he had the slightest idea that such a thing could be a short time away.)
- 4) No comparison with the Jewish revolt in 66AD. Acts could have strengthened its key theme of Paul’s peaceful innocence at the hands of Jewish mobs, if, for example, Luke contrasted Paul’s peacefulness with the violent Jewish revolt of 66-70AD. They are just a few years apart. They are in the same decade. But no such comparison is made. Acts thus likely pre-dates the 66-70AD revolt (Mauck, 42, 153 n. 10).
- 5) The Jerusalem temple and Jesus. Stephen’s speech (see Acts 6) labours a theological point about Jesus himself, rather than the temple, being the new centre of Jewish religion (Stephen’s speech is actually the longest of 29 speeches in Acts), but the extensive and complicated labour of the speech would be a bit over-the-top for a reader post-70AD for whom the competition was over, as the temple was already a ruin cast down into the ashes (Mauck, 42, 76, 80).* Why not just give a little prophetic statement that the fall of the temple will make Jesus the only remaining true focus? Because Luke gives so much time to Stephen trying to make the point, Acts likely pre-dates the 70AD destruction of the temple. As Mauck also says, “If Jerusalem had already been destroyed by the time Acts is written, the narrative of Acts affords dozens of reasons and opportunities to allude to it” (209). “See Acts 5:42, 7:48-50, 24:6” (212 n.16a).
- 6) Sitz im Leben (this means the context at the time Luke was writing): still on the fall of the Jerusalem temple, a digression to Luke's Gospel pays off. Jesus in the gospels predicts its fall with dire warnings. In relating this, Luke displays some animus towards the temple. Allow me to explain how this sits perfectly with a pre-70AD occasion for Luke expressing it. Luke had reason to have such animus. The prospect of the fall of the temple could have appealed to him, something to wait for. There is a scholarly consensus that Luke was writing with sympathy for Paul. According to Luke, his friend has been almost brutally murdered in the temple. So it’s little wonder that Luke-Acts spends more time displaying negativity about the temple, and imagining its future more darkly than other gospels do. Rejections of Jesus and Paul are major focal points in Luke-Acts. (Jesus’ dire warnings would have resonated strongly with Paul’s sympathisers, seeing their hero rejected like Jesus in Jerusalem.) If we form a view of the best historical-critical reading, was it the case that the occasion for Luke describing dire warnings about the temple in Luke-Acts was when the author was deeply affected by Paul being nearly murdered in the temple? His message:, there will be bad consequences for the temple. In this, we have a naturalistic explanation for the writing of the verses. That is, “Reject our man, who was sent by God, and see what will happen to you!” Of course, the impact of that sentiment on dating Luke-Acts is that it tends it towards being a Sitz im Leben close to the time of Paul’s anguish and pre-70AD. There is no clearer Sitz im Leben.
- What is given too little attention by scholars is how the New Testament authors felt about the temple, not just what they thought about it. Sentiment, not just ideas, plays a huge part in the development of a movement. Sentiment about Israel's temple is a case in point. Jesus came to transform the nation, but once it had clearly rejected his message, how did sentiment in his movement change? One of the rising currents in sentiment was a bold demonstrative anger towards the temple elite. Once Jesus had done his very physical demonstration in the temple, turning over the tables of the money-changes, this surely released something in the disciples. All the gospels feature such a scene. It gave them licence to stop being respectful of the temple's elite, and to openly court conflict with it. We see that in Luke's Acts, where Peter and John wilfully ignore official instructions to stop preaching about Jesus within the temple. They treated it as if they owned it. We see similar courting of conflict when Stephen is killed for speaking out against the temple. Something had given them licence to speak and act disruptively against the temple's Jewish leaders, and the Gospels trace that attitude back to Jesus. Every word uttered against the temple is a manifestation of that licence, such that they could now give vent to negative attitudes towards it that had previously been kept in check by Jewish social order. (By way of a comparison, in Britain in 2018, one might consider how there has been more strident anti-EU sentiment after the Brexit vote than before it, as if the vote gave licence to attitudes which many people previously did not feel free to express.) We may see Luke's animus towards the temple similarly released by the near-death of his friend Paul in the temple, and he gives vent to that by foregrounding Jesus issuing dire warnings about the temple in his Gospel.
- 7) The temple and prophecy. Where the author of Acts can laud the final fulfilment of prophecy to help his arguments, he does. So why doesn’t Acts do so regarding the temple (as he easily could do if writing after 70AD)? For example, in Acts 11:28, Agabus’s prediction of famine is supplemented with the narrator’s explicit backward-looking comment that this prediction was fulfilled in the reign of Claudius ("One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius."); but there is no backward-looking comment from Luke about the fall of the temple fulfilling early Christian predictions of the temple’s doom. The simplest reason for Luke not opportunistically seizing upon this is that it hadn’t happened yet when Luke was writing. So it is likely the writing pre-dates 70AD.
- Digression: As impressive as Agabus' prediction of famine might be, imagine how impressive it would have been if Luke could have recalled someone predicting the Great Fire of Rome of 64AD, and then Luke could have said "And this took place in the reign of Nero." Luke doesn't show signs of knowing of any disaster befalling the Roman Empire other than a famine. The impression one has is that Acts was written before 64AD.
- 8) The temple’s fall and the last days. The early Christians were anticipating some kind of last days ending to the era they lived in, and the fall of Jerusalem’s temple to the gentiles was an ending as big as they come in their era (for Jews/Christians that is - obviously if you were in Rome, then the Great Fire would have seemed a major event!). If you followed Jewish religion and had thoughts about the 'last days', you couldn't ignore the fall of the temple. It was an event that demanded eschatological interpretation, acknowledgement, and explanation by Jewish and Christian writers of post-70AD if they touched on the subject of the temple. Acts touches on the Jerusalem temple many times, but there is no such notice of this particular last days-type event in Acts. The most ‘normal’ explanation for this is that Acts was written before 70AD.
Of course, what I'm not saying is that Luke should have written up all these stories of the deaths of James, Peter, Paul, Nero, and all these other things. That is asking Luke to write a different book, and there's no reason why he should. So there is no advantage to be claimed there. But what I do say is that if Luke was writing after 70AD and aware of all of these things, it's weird that it does not cast some kind of shadow over the way he writes about them all. There's not so much as an ominous tone, or oblique reference to these things. By way of contrast, you know through much of Luke's Gospel that Jesus has already died even before Luke has told the story of his death. (Likewise, the end of John's Gospel gives a very strong hint that it was written after the death of Peter.)
In fact, for the work of an author whose themes incorporate Peter, Paul, Jesus' brother James, Jerusalem, Rome, Caesar, the tone of Acts just doesn't fit with someone who knew that within a decade tragedy and disaster, premature death and destruction, befell them all. It's just not there in Luke's tone. The tone of Acts is blithely unaware of all of these tragedies. Talking about James with no hint in his tone, or any passing remarks, of any knowledge that James was murdered not too long after the events he describes, is typical of the whole problem. Apart from some animus to the temple and some Jewish antagonists, Luke's tone is blissfully urbane. It is just not the tone of someone who knew what unpleasant and premature ends befell his protagonists. It is also an urbane tone towards Rome that simply has no place after the breakout of violence against God's people in the later first and second centuries, as testified to by Pliny, Tacitus, and indeed the book of Revelation.
Revelation’s tone about the Christian dead is far from urbane. It’s tone towards Rome (the city on seven hills) is likewise far from urbane. From 64AD onwards, first century Christians couldn't all feel that Rome was necessarily benevolent. Revelation has the anguished desperation for justice of someone who is really aware that people have been meeting premature and unpleasant ends.
And if Luke thought these were the 'last days', such a disastrous sequence of things would demand some theological interpretation - I don't mean telling all the stories - but some interpretation insofar as these characters are part of his story.
J.A.T. Robinson again, referring to the broader range of events of the 60s of the first century detailed above: “One could never guess from Acts what was to break within a few years” (Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 1976, chapter 4).
Given that Luke takes meaning from fulfilment of a prophecy of a famine, the fact that he takes meaning from none of the above is telling. He simply did not know about it all because it hadn't happened yet.
TWO MORE ARGUMENTS AGAINST LATE DATING
- 1) A very late date is most unlikely because the accuracy of minor details such as of people and places in the Book of Acts adds up to overwhelming evidence of authorship closer to the time and place of the setting of Acts. Examples can be seen here.
- 2) A very late date is unlikely because of the “we” and “us” passages in Acts. These are where the author is present at events (as in “we did this”, “we went there”). These have no more ‘normal’ non-theological explanation than that the author was actually present in those places at those moments. Luke Timothy Johnson (even though he goes for a later dating) persuasively argues the narrator of the “we” passages really was a companion of Paul. Johnson makes these points about the authenticity of the “we”, of the author being a companion of Paul:
- sometimes the author is without Paul. In some places, “we” excludes Paul, distinguishing Luke’s group from Paul: so it is not as if the narrator is saying “we” just to make an emphatic noise about his relationship to Paul. And it also means that the “we” passages cannot be dismissed as a literary device to give Paul’s perspective.
- the “we” is not ever-present in the book, so it has the ring of truth. For example, the “we” drops off at Philippi and reappears later, in a way that is just matter-of-fact and sporadic – not the mark of someone bigging up his attachment to Paul (Luke Timothy Johnson, cited in Early Christian Writings.)
- that Acts (and with it Luke’s gospel) is of a later date that gives grounds for being more sceptical of the contents of both Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts; and
- that very late dating removes the possibility of the author being a companion of Paul, adding to the grounds to be more sceptical of its contents.
- compare the lengths of time in Acts 9:26-28 and Galatians 1:16-19. How long really?
- compare Acts 16:13 (Timothy circumcised) with Galatians 2:13 (Titus not circumcised on a different occasion). Why the different treatment of the men?
- what about Paul’s attitude in Acts 13:31 compared to Galatians 2:6? How respectful to the Jerusalem apostles was Paul really?
- compare Acts 1:21 (criteria would exclude Paul from being an apostle?) and Galatians 2:2 (Paul later considers himself an apostle). How are they reconciled?
- “As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’”
And it has long been known that Luke’s prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction are products of Old Testament prophetic language, showing no actual knowledge of how things unfolded in 70AD. Far from it! (See C.H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the 'Abomination of Desolation'” in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 37, Parts 1 and 2 (1947), 47-54. This article has never been bettered on the question of Luke’s lack of acknowledgement of 70AD events, to my knowledge.)
- Acts 20:22-23: Paul in Miletus says, ‘I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.’ But this is only about Jerusalem.
- Acts 20:29: Paul says, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” But that says nothing about Paul’s fate: Paul is still only on his way to Jerusalem, where he survives.
- Acts 20:38: “What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again.” But this is still only a reference to Paul’s foreboding about going to Jerusalem, where he survives. And Paul is explicitly not prophesying death, as he firmly states: “I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.” Not death, then.
- Acts 21:10-14: “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”” This is still only a prophecy about what will happen to Paul in Jerusalem. Paul says he is ready “to die in Jerusalem”, but Luke tells us that Paul survives in Jerusalem. So this is explicitly not a prophecy of Paul’s death.
- Absolutely none of this can be taken to indicate that, surviving Jerusalem, Paul will be killed in Rome. In fact the emphasis on Jerusalem without reference to Rome indicates that at the time of writing, the author did not realise that an accurate prophecy would have been of death in Rome. The author did not yet know that Paul would die in Rome: “if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”; “Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar”; “I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. The Jews objected, so I was compelled to make an appeal to Caesar.” Elsewhere, from place to place, Paul has been running the gauntlet. But now in Rome, there is optimism about Paul's future. There is no shadow of doom hanging over these words: the message is that he has escaped Jerusalem and the Romans are trusted to continue to spare Paul from the Jews. And more or less there, Acts ends. Luke’s seeming unawareness of the bad news that Paul was executed by the Romans in Rome is telling. So, far from a successful argument for a later dating, the notes of foreboding centred on Jerusalem (not on Rome) actually undermine later dating – they point to a date no later than about 62AD.
- that Luke, unusually for him, leaves never-mentioned the name of the Emperor to whom Paul is headed
- that the story, with an unexpected anti-climax, stops dead before it gets to Paul’s trial
- that Luke is optimistic about Paul's future
- that Luke is writing in a world in which Sadducees and Pharisees were still debating each other
- the 62AD murder of James
- the 64AD Great Fire of Rome
- the persecution in Rome
- the 66AD revolt
- the 70AD fall of the temple which ended the ruling elites such as the party of the Sadducees
- no hint of the death of Nero in 68AD which may have seemed good news to some Christians
- the abundance of highly accurate first century data unique to Luke
- the apparent authenticity of the ‘we’ and ‘us’ passages