{"title":"Dating Luke-Acts Further Arguments for an Early Date","authors":"David Seccombe","doi":"10.53751/001c.27747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alexander Mittelstaedt (2005) has provided new impetus to a long-standing opinion that Luke-Acts was written in the early 60s of the first century AD. Karl L. Armstrong (2017) provides a recent overview of the dating debate and argues that an early date makes best sense of the extensive evidence. This paper suggests three considerations arising from the historical character of the rest of the century which support Mittelstaedt’s and Armstrong’s view. The first: AD 66–98 was a time of intense anti-Jewish sentiment, in which articulation of the nationalistic Jewish hopes expressed in the third Gospel and Acts would have been dangerous, and unlikely for a careful author. Second, it was also a time that ill accords with Acts’ assumption of Jewish legitimacy and its plea for the acceptance of Gentile Christianity. Third, the attention given to the voyage as Acts draws to its conclusion bespeaks an author who knew nothing of the cataclysmic avalanche of events that took place from AD 62–70.","PeriodicalId":23462,"journal":{"name":"Tyndale Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tyndale Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.27747","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Alexander Mittelstaedt (2005) has provided new impetus to a long-standing opinion that Luke-Acts was written in the early 60s of the first century AD. Karl L. Armstrong (2017) provides a recent overview of the dating debate and argues that an early date makes best sense of the extensive evidence. This paper suggests three considerations arising from the historical character of the rest of the century which support Mittelstaedt’s and Armstrong’s view. The first: AD 66–98 was a time of intense anti-Jewish sentiment, in which articulation of the nationalistic Jewish hopes expressed in the third Gospel and Acts would have been dangerous, and unlikely for a careful author. Second, it was also a time that ill accords with Acts’ assumption of Jewish legitimacy and its plea for the acceptance of Gentile Christianity. Third, the attention given to the voyage as Acts draws to its conclusion bespeaks an author who knew nothing of the cataclysmic avalanche of events that took place from AD 62–70.
Alexander Mittelstaedt(2005)为长期以来的观点提供了新的动力,即Luke Acts写于公元一世纪60年代初。Karl L.Armstrong(2017)对约会辩论进行了最新的概述,并认为早期约会最有利于广泛的证据。本文从本世纪剩余时间的历史特点出发,提出了支持米特尔斯泰特和阿姆斯特朗观点的三点考虑。第一:公元66–98年是一个强烈的反犹太情绪的时期,在这个时期,第三部福音和使徒行传中表达的犹太民族主义希望是危险的,对于一个谨慎的作者来说是不可能的。其次,这也是一个不符合《使徒行传》对犹太人合法性的假设及其接受非犹太人基督教的请求的时期。第三,《使徒行传》结束时对这次航行的关注,让一位对公元62-70年发生的灾难性雪崩事件一无所知的作家感到惊讶。