Acts: A Late Date is Great

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I really enjoyed the stream. We are considering reviewing parts of this on a stream next week. I wanted to inform you and say we don't plan to be hostile but want to offer some pushback and defend Bernier and Armstrong.

[@m.davidlitwa]

Feel free, but please cite us appropriately

[@Gatesofhistory3858]

Lol😊

[@dwaynealwyn]

Please respond. The evidence is so clear that Luke wrote before 70 AD and before Paul's death. This is the simplest and most natural conclusion. These two are betraying Occam's razor. They have so many implausible arguments that I'm not sure why they are investing their time with Luke/Acts.

[@SobekLOTFC]

Great interview, Dr Litwa. Keep up the exceptional work 👏

[@stephen-krewson]

One of the best discussions of this topic in print or video!

[@nzmaryb9523]

Thoroughly enjoyed this engaging conversation loaded with clear argumentation and perceptive insights. Thank you so much.

[@auldlangsign3179]

Absolutely superb!

[@m.davidlitwa]

Thank you! Cheers! Share the video

[@ken170647]

Excellent discussion. Thank you

[@m.davidlitwa]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@scottduke]

Very enjoyable discussion! It prompts me to crack open my copy of Mason and become more familiar with his arguments. I’m also gonna look for Dr. Glover’s paper!

[@rylands4289]

love this, im just imagining baristas educating us about the historicity of acts and its implications

[@mcosu1]

There's so many baristas with PhDs, they probably could teach us

[@m.davidlitwa]

😂

[@jamescutler428]

I love content like this. Please do more!

[@steveclark4018]

Excellent TY both so much

[@KarlKarsnark]

Whoa! I love the Hi-Tech streaming effects :) Another great vid, as usual. Happy early Turkey Day. Cheers!

[@m.davidlitwa]

Thanks! You too!

[@taboulefattouch4744]

Thank you both for this fascinating video.

[@JC-vq2cs]

Terrific interview thanks. The early dating authors mentioned sound mired in apologetics, not scholarship. This is why academic religious studies, especially of Xianity, is so problematic. I appreciate these examples of clear-eyed critical analysis wherever the data may lead.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

The term apologetics derives from the word apologia (ἀπολογία). In the Classical Greek legal system, the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), which was essentially an accusation. The defendant replied with an apologia, the defense. Good scholarship, by definition, will attempt to provide the most satisfying intellectual reason for holding to a particular position. Historical arguments are much like those engaged in legal argumentation. The most compelling arguments depend on the soundness of judgement of the historian, who asks what explanation derives from the data and what corresponds to generally accepted warrants or back up statements, and what kind of assent it compels.

[@realSeanMcMahon]

The focus upon eschatology as criteria for dating is fascinating. There seem to be strains of scholars willing to entertain the notion of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as the subject of NT apocalypticism. In which case, an early date would suffice for something like 2 Peter, especially given the traditions that the author was martyred during the Neronic persecution. However there is an entirely different strain of scholarship that seems unwilling or unable to interpret the figurative language in NT apocalypticism in any other way than literal. Hence, the concept of the Delayed Parousia can easily be projected long past A.D. 70. since such scholars assume the NT writers expected a global, rather than local, conflagration. Anyway, I find the late date for Acts and the Gospels in particular compelling. I’m not sure the latter viewpoint is the best evidence however. I rather suspect the writers were bold about the Parousia because they were writing after they’d witnessed its signs come to pass (those outlined in the Olivet Discourse etc) and were more concerned with using the Gospels as a polemical “victory lap”. In the case of Acts - “look ma, we conquered Rome!” Food for thought.

[@m.davidlitwa]

Thanks for your thoughts!

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

Being an intimate would make Luke's word superior to letters, particularly if they are being read in support of conflicting theologies

[@codex3048]

Good discussion.

[@TheDanEdwards]

It was from Dennis MacDonald (IIRC) that I heard that Acts should be looked at (along with Luke) as a _founding mythology_ for Christianity, that the author intentionally is designing a founding mythology, from whatever he knew of Christianity. This suggests a 2nd century creation by an author who had access to both non-Christian (e.g. Josephus) literature as well as early (house) church teachings about Paul and others via Paul's letters (or some other document(s)). It's all very puzzling.

[@drummermylo]

Love the new production! Camera looks super nice

[@m.davidlitwa]

Appreciate it!

[@KarlKarsnark]

Relying on "Paul" for anything is "problematic", to say the least. We have no idea who he was. At least 1/2 of "his" Epistles were likely written by someone else and he was noting but an antagonist to Jesus and his followers at the time, who only later "saw the light" and then co-opted the early Church, not to mention being a card-carrying "Rabbi" himself. All of these makes him a rather "biased" source for anything that could be considered "Historically reliable".

[@m.davidlitwa]

Thanks for your comment

[@NotMyGumDropButtons.444]

This view on Zoom or Microsoft Teams or whatever is my favorite it’s so goddamn funny

[@briannacery9939]

Just listening.

[@Joseph_Ben_David]

Sorry I missed the live.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Thanks for doing this, it is informative. The author of Acts does seem to know of Paul's letters, or some redactor of Romans and 1 Corinthians seems to know of Acts, I can't tell which is a preferable solution. There are so many questions, such as over Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca?): You mentioned Priscilla and Aquila, and Acts chapter 18 mentions them, but only says Aquila was a Jew (from Pontus, came to Corinth via Rome.) Somehow Priscilla and Aquila knew the "Way of God" more accurately than the man from Alexander, Apollos, whom they taught. *Yet the conversions of Priscilla and Aquila are never discussed by the author.* Assuming these two are the same as "Prisca and Aquila" Paul mentions in Romans and 1 Cor, how did they (and Apollos) first hear of the "Way"? Verse 25 simply says "He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord," but does not say by whom, or where (Alexandria?)

[@m.davidlitwa]

Answer: see my book early Christianity in Alexandria

[@taboulefattouch4744]

I am not a scholar but one of the reasons I lean towards a mid second century dating of acts is because I find it illogical that followers of "the way" would chose Antioch as their base camp only around 20 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Antioch at the end of the 1st Century had a majority Syriac Pagan population (in addition to perhaps 5% of the population who were Syriac Jews) but also a substantial Hellenic population with Greeks consisting of as much as 35% of the city's populace. The suburb of Dafni was an affluent hub for Greco-Roman officials and Pagan priests and theologians. Palestinian and Syrian Jews spoke mainly Aramaic which was intelligible with Syriac (a potential threat to the Hellenisation efforts of Rome) and so I find it surprising that a community of as many as 1,500 Jews moved en masse to a city of 40,000 - 45,000 people and opened shop there (essentialy a rival to the Imperial cults for which the colonial outpost of Antioch was illustriously set up in the first place) without facing a major backlash. The Jews were viewed with high suspicion for at least until 120 CE and so it is surprising no historical Roman record of them identifying as a seperate and exclusivist cult and opening a Messianic Church in Antioch exists if it indeed happened as claimed by the author of acts.

[@MathewClark-pr4cu]

By Acts treatment of Simon compelled me to date Acts in a much later date even to 150-155 CE

[@taboulefattouch4744]

The fire of Rome took place in 64 AD and as far as I know (kindly correct me if I am wrong) the only historical account of Nero blaming the Christians of Rome and executing many of them was that of Tacitus. The latter had grudges against Latins generally and possibly Nero particularly because of his family background and ethnicity. Tacitus' main goal in fabricating the tale of Nero's scapegoating of Christians was probably to enhance the generally held view among Rome's citizens that it was Nero who masterminded the fire so he can rebuild certain areas without facing opposition from property owning citizens. Rome probably did have Christians in 64 CE but they were few (No more than 700 individuals in a city of 1,000,000 inhabitants) and their social status was very low (slaves, ex-slaves and peniless missionaries from Asia minor and modern day Greece). To the vast majority of Romans they were unknown. Those that knew them probably viewed them as delusional Jews who expect the end of the world to happen at any given moment. I found the interview very mind provoking and the professor extremely knowledgable but I think he should refrain from quoting historians from antiquity as if they are totally reliable as many of them harbored agendas.

[@Daniel-id6le]

Sorry guys. Acts was written before 70 AD.

[@m.davidlitwa]

That settles it!

[@ThreeFoldDivision]

Paul had another journey that's not in Acts. "Erastus has remained at Corinth, and Trophimus I left sick in Miletus." If we follow the last journey we have in the writings we see that Trophimus was not left sick, he actually returned with all the men to jerusalem. Paul gets accused of the Jews that he let him into the temple cus they were both seen there. Secondly, at the time of the last journey in the writings , Paul was raising people from the dead, healing people, also people would not even get sick during the ministry. But if they would Paul wouldn't of have to leave him behind. Truth is Paul left him behind in a journey afterwards. Like Paul said he was planning to go to Spain. So Paul left him sick on that journey, when the gift were tapering off, and Paul told Timothy to take some wine for his stomach, and stirr up the gift. Also why would Paul even write to Timothy when Timothy was right there in the journey before. They removed Acts 29, and possibly 30.

[@m.davidlitwa]

Very imaginative

[@ThreeFoldDivision]

@@m.davidlitwa Really, it's all there in the text my friend. Go back and read it for yourself.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

45:01 Maybe he might have been re-using his own older autobiographical material about his sea voyages

[@davidaaronhill5680]

How much is Justin's alllusions to Acts an allusion to Acts or the Acta Pilati he seems to be aware of?

[@m.davidlitwa]

Great question. Let me handle this over at Patreon.

[@AdithiaKusno]

Why not multiple editors where proto Lukan text written in late 60s then redacted post 70s and further edited in 2nd century by Marcion et al. So instead of debating whether the entire Lukan text written early or late why not seeing it as evolution of how the Lukan text being appropriated by later ecclesiastical authors to claim ancient authorship known by everyone but expanded for 2nd century context.

[@m.davidlitwa]

That’s similar to what I argue in my book late revelations

[@AdithiaKusno]

​​@@m.davidlitwa I think the issue is that late revelation imply it was solely written late instead of late redaction which affirm early date while not denying later interpolation and/or extrapolation by later ecclesiastical authors. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church. I think you may be interested to invite Fr Christiaan Kappes from Byzantine Catholic Seminary on your show. He only accept 7 proto Pauline texts to be written in late 1st century while deutero Pauline texts were redacted in the 2nd century. As a clergy I believe Christians, Catholics, and Orthodox need to have access to academic works and shouldn't be afraid of the facts. I think many people avoiding academic works by assuming it would undermine their beliefs. But IMO one must seek the truth and shouldn't be afraid even if their beliefs were to be questioned. For an example in USCCB approved Catholic Study Bible you would find textual criticism are included. Untested faith is more dangerous than the facts. I hope you can invite Orthodox/Catholic scholars which would help Christians to embrace the facts. Just because some people become agnostics because of textual criticism that is not an argument to avoid it but rather I argue textual criticism actually enhanced ones faith with facts.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

In much the same way Mark & Gospel of Matthew can be said to be "Proto-Luke"-s in their own right.

[@taboulefattouch4744]

Editing was common in antiquity but I doubt a gospel as "kosher" as Luke would be in the process of editing for half a century. Around 4 in 5 followers of "the Way" in the period 60 - 110 CE were living in Egypt. Up to the late 1st Century Christianity was mainly confined to Alexandria hence dogma was tightly controlled by the Alexandrian Popes (Ananias, Evilius and Kedron who I believe are historical figures who had a large following in the city and its close environs) but by the turn of the century Christianity spread to rural and more distant parts of the delta and beyond. It was too risky for the ambitious Alexandrian Church to have various versions of the same gospel that differed in substance as well as typographical errors so I should think the spiritual authorities did their best to avoid this outcome.

[@taboulefattouch4744]

I doubt the Alexandrian Church trashed its own Gospel of Luke to instead adopt an edited version by its greatest enemy Marcion sometime in the period 110 - 140 CE.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

It's only a distance of location (Jerusalem), not a distance from the lifetime of a traveling companion of Paul-not the earlier church-who died at age 87, and may well not have been (more than 5 years) older than Josephus

[@Dybbouk]

Personally I felt he misses the point. Acts emphasizes that the Christian/Jewish split was gradual and 'reasonable'. Whereas the split, after BAR K, was short and violent. So for me Acts is clearly post BAR K.

[@drewsgotblues]

Sounds like you read Crossan’s most recent book.

[@m.davidlitwa]

I haven’t, honestly

[@robcat2075]

Very odd visual presentation of the two speakers, as if they are in the same room yet not looking at each other.

[@m.davidlitwa]

We’d rather look at your lovely face

[@taboulefattouch4744]

When it comes to dating historical events and writings hints are often hiding in plain sight which is why few people see them. The Census of Quirinius took place in 6 CE and it is not far fetched to assume that the author of Luke knowingly refutes Matthew's claim of an earlier birth to achieve a goal. The most common name for Jewish males in 1st Century Palestine was Yeshu'a/Yesha'aya/Yehoshu'a. Around 1 in 3 Jewish males carried this name (or a version of it). Seeing that the Galilee and Judea were restless it is probable 10 - 15 mini revolts took place before the Great Revolt of 70 CE and that 4 or 5 leaders of these armed revolts was an individual named Jesus. The particular war lord cum miracle healer from Nazareth named Jesus the Gospels are concerned with could well have been born at around 6 CE and led a revolt sometime between 45 and 60 CE. Males aged 40 and over were considered more wise and competent by Jews and he had accumulated enough adherents and amassed sufficient wealth to stage a (failed) uprising. One of his disciples/supporters named Mark could well have been the author of the first Gospel as is commonly accepted in clerical circles. The only difference was that Mark completed his Gospel sometime between the years 60 and 63 CE instead of the year 52 CE as is the claim of the Coptic Orthodox Church. At that stage Christianity was exclusively an Alexandrian phenomenon but soon after the completion of the Gospel missionaries were sent to Asia Minor, Greece, Syria and Rome. Shortly later the character of Paul was invented to lend credence to the fabrication and rid the new creed of its Egyptian orientation. That Paul is supposedly an educated Roman citizen of Tarsus who hailed from a wealthy family of Pharisees that traced their ancestry to the tribe of Benjamin is also symbolic (and probably deliberate) because Benjamin was the smallest tribe who according to scripture suffered the most, was always territorially spiritually engulfed by the tribe of Judah and Benjamin being the youngest son was also the apple of his father's eye. Matthew was probably written 5 to 12 years later but was also heavily edited before a final version was achieved sometimes in the mid 70's CE. By the time Matthew began circulating the Pauline epistles were also completed (or near completion) by Roman authors in the service of the Flavians. The Flavian's goal was to revive the character of the failed revolutionary who was probably popular and revered for his miracles for decades after his demise and rebrand him as a pacifist pro-rome Messiah who had the potential to get elevated to qualify as an avatar of Jehovah. The ignorance on the geography of Palestine and even the cults of 1st Century Athens (there was no cult to the "unknown God" in Athens) points to the authors having been picked for their literary skills rather than their proficiency in history or theology. Luke and John are classical Roman works of the late 1st or early 2nd Century (Luke) and the mid 2nd Century (John) seeing the latter is philosophically dogmatic as is expected of a work written at a time the most influential and prominent sect of the "christianities" was that of Marcion. The latter evidently was not aware of the Gospel of John at the time of his ex-communication in the year 144 CE (again if I am in error I will gladly be corrected on this premise). Luke is supposedly Greek and a "doctor" - someone one would not expect to meet in 1st Century Palestine because all people were doctors to various degrees but not a single person had access to an institute that would award him this title. Luke was also supposedly a painter - not a profession a Jew would practice at the time due to the prohibition on graven images. In conclusion it is impossible to scientifically deduce whether the Acts were written as early as 90 CE or as late as 140 CE but common sense leads to the belief that 110 CE - 130 CE is the more likely period.

[@elliot7205]

What is your opinion of preterism and Israel only?

[@m.davidlitwa]

Please explain what you mean

[@elliot7205]

@@m.davidlitwa well was jesus meant to come back physically in the first century? And was the resurrection of the dead supposed to be physical? And IO claim that Paul's gentiles are secret biological Israelites?..

[@dwaynealwyn]

What gets me is that you two question and criticize everything in Luke and Acts only to tell us what you think, as if you would have greater knowledge than someone like Luke even if the writings have an early date or late date. The amount of time you are relegated to saying "I think", should make everyone question the value of your scholarship.

[@m.davidlitwa]

I think your comment is maybe unthinking? Or do you think to make comments just like we other human beings?

[@auldlangsign3179]

I'm only 24 minutes into this terrific interview but would like to point out that even 2 Peter doesn't talk of Jesus' "return". In fact none of the epistles do. It's as if this Jesus figure is anticipated to appear for the first time at the end of the present age. ( A short line in Hebrews may still be understood this way as well).

[@BryanKirch]

So Saul was persecuting people for believing in a future Jesus that hasn’t yet come ?

[@richardfellows4734]

Daniel, you did not explain in sufficient detail why you think the author of Acts knew of Paul's death. I think Paul announces that he will never see the Ephesians again because he is carrying an illegal collection to Jerusalem and knows that he would risk arrest if he returned to the Aegean. I argued this in Nov Test 2023. I think you are right that Luke was a Jew. If so, he surely (for various reasons) was the Lucius of Rom 16:21, and probably the Lucius of Acts 13:1. This rules out a second century date for Acts. You made an interesting point that Luke seems to not distinguish between Jews and Christians (for example when mentioning the expulsion from Rome), and you said that the Neronian persecution created such a distinction. This argues that Luke was writing BEFORE the Neronian persecution, or not long after it. It is baffling that you think it argues for a late date for Acts. I do not think that the purpose of Acts was to show that the gospel was taken to the ends of the earth, and you think Acts ends on a high note. You are deducing the purpose of Acts from the way it ends, and then justify the ending from the purpose that you have deduced. The faith was brought to Rome well before Paul arrived. Acts describes the Damascus escape with similar language to Paul. This is what we might expect if Luke heard it from Paul. It is baffling that you jump to the conclusion that it shows literature dependence. The data simply does not support your assertion that Acts wants to minimize the conflicts within the church. Also, the Paul of Galatians is not different from the Paul of Acts. Have you read my 2018 article in Biblica? If the author of Acts was late and knew the letters, he would surely have mentioned Titus. The fact that he does not name "Titus" is to his credit because Titus was Timothy's praenomen. You are not entitled to sidestep the we-passages, especially as you did not argue for an alternative explanation. Luke's preface it to Luke's gospel, not to Acts, so there is no evidence there that he was not an eyewitness many events in Acts. David, if Acts agrees with a second century author you would say it is evidence for a second century date for Acts. If Acts disagrees with a second century author you say that Acts was responding to the second century author. Am I right? David, you too seem to be assuming your own conclusions. For example, you posit a history of the American Civil wars that stops in 1863. Do you know of any history of the civil war that stops in 1863? No. So you make your opponents' point for them. Acts does not "Portray a Paul that does not write any letters". Scholars may be obsessed with writings and therefore define Paul as a letter writer, but there is no reason to suppose that Paul's companions saw him primarily as a letter writer. What percentage of Paul's time was spent writing letters? A tiny percentage. In any case, Acts is about how churches were founded. Paul writes to churches that have been established. You say that an eyewitness of Paul would have made a big thing about it. However, I have argued elsewhere that Acts was written for the churches of the Aegean, and they already knew Luke. The "we" is introduced when sailing, which is where it is natural to use "we". This should alert us to the possibility that the author was present before the "we" as well as during it. Concerning Clements' lack of use of Acts, you say "given what we know about how literature travelled in this period". However, Clement has recently just received a copy of 1 Corinthians (see my 2024 JSNT article). You say that Paul was not elite. Have you read E.A. Judge's "the Roman base of Paul's mission"? For me, Josephus is your strongest evidence. However, we should account for the fact that the works that have been lost far outnumbered those that have survived. The dependence of both Acts and Josephus on a common source is made more likely by this thought. Thanks for doing this presentation.

[@soarel325]

There are several alternative explanations for the "we" passages given in the stream (stylistic use of the first person plural during sailing journeys in other ancient literature, deliberate forgery)

[@davidaaronhill5680]

This is same warmed over apologetics we've heard before j7st with footnotes.

[@richardfellows4734]

@@davidaaronhill5680 Can you give a reasoned argument? What is j7st?

[@richardfellows4734]

@@soarel325 Which of these explanations explains why Luke's full name (Lucius) appears at Rom 16:21, where he is second only to Timothy? Why does such a prominent figure not appear in Acts? Acts names ALL of Paul's prominent co-workers.

[@davidaaronhill5680]

​@richardfellows4734 oh wow buddy, you got me on typo. Great job with that and your apologetic regurgitation.

[@kakarot9309]

You have been refuted by Inspiring philosophy

[@m.davidlitwa]

I’m glad I could inspire you

[@mercster]

All of these "what ifs/maybes" seem driven by a particular point of view that assumes intentional misdirection, misattributions, omissions, etc. Are all these machinations by shifty cultists, who seem to be organized in deceiving, the simplest explanation? So many of the assertions here are merely, again, "what ifs"... but they are referred to as if almost certain. It pays the bills, I guess, and it sure is interesting, ain't it? But in the end, not all that persuasive.

[@m.davidlitwa]

?? Really not sure what you’re saying

[@richardfellows4734]

@@m.davidlitwa I agree with @mercster. Please give some thought to why you are not sure what he is saying. His comments, while perhaps not nuanced, seem clear to me. The presentation merely raises possibilities, which are dependent on other mere possibilities. No real evidence is presented. The presenters seem to confuse scepticism and scholarship. The "late is great" movement seems to be acclaiming a naked emperor. I like that both of you are open to thinking new thoughts, but you are willing to let those new thoughts lead you in only one direction. For example, the idea that the gospels grew gradually over time should make us explore the possibility of early dating, with the temple destruction predictions being added later. Similarly, the unreliability of Papias and/or John the elder, raises the possibility that Mark's gospel was composed by an eyewitness. Also, you haven't engaged with my critique of the presentation in the first comment.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

​​​@@richardfellows4734I partially agree with you. My issue with identifying Temple Destruction passages as specifically Bar kokba or is that running away from Jerusalem is the one thing that non -Jewish christians were NOT doing after the building of Aelia Capitolina. The claim that Paul's circumcision of Timothy is anti-Marcionite fiction creates more questions than it answers: WHY will someone who clearly thinks gentiles should not be circumcised go about refuting Marcion by fabricating a claim that Paul circumcised a gentile?? Claiming that a Jew cannot be a Roman citizen ignores the fact that Jews received all forms of concessions to practice their unique ancestral traditions (including radical monolatry). I have not seen any good reason to reject the position that Luke-Acts was written between 96 AD and 120 AD by a Luke who is said by tradition to have died at the age of 87 (eight-seven; which makes it probable that he could have been a traveling companion). Why would a traveling companion of the Paul's LATER life need to be older than the man Josephus!?

[@richardfellows4734]

@@tsemayekekema2918 Interesting thoughts. You may be interested in my "Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the confusion in Galatia" Biblica (2018). I argue there that Galatians makes most sense when it is seen as Paul's response to confusion in Galatia caused by his circumcision of Timothy. The agitators, I argue, said, "You Galatians should be circumcised because Paul believes in circumcision, for he circumcised Titus-Timothy. If he continues to preach against circumcision to you, it is only because the Jerusalem church leaders have told him to do so, and he wants to please them." This new understanding of the background of Galatians is a bit hard for people to wrap their heads around, especially when they they are used to the usual assumptions. It reverses the usual assumptions. The Jerusalem church leaders were against the need for circumcision, and the agitators were appealing to PAUL's authority, claiming that (deep down) he was on their side. Paul's response is exasperated (not angry), and he must show as much emotion as possible to convince his audience that he is sincere and that he is not just writing to please Peter and the others. Thus, Galatians is a corrective and a deliberate exaggeration of Paul's opposition to circumcision. This exaggeration is needed to convince the Galatians the he opposes circumcision at all. The sequence was 1) circumcision of Titus-Timothy, 2) writing of Galatians, 3) writing of Acts, 4) misinterpretation of Galatians by Marcion 5) 1900 years of scholarship that still sits in Marcion's shaddow 6) invention of theories of Acts being a response to Marcion. I have little against the idea of an old Luke-Lucius writing after 96 AD. It becomes less likely if he was Lucius of Cyrene, however. Also, I am not convinced that we apply Occam's razor correctly when we say it is more likely that Luke used Josephus than that they both used a common source. If we see two red haired people in a town, we don't say "one is probably the son of the other because that is simplest". There may be many other red haired people in the town who we have not seen, just as their may have been many lost documents that both Josephus and Luke could have been influenced by. Still my thoughts are far from settled on the Josephus-Luke relationship.

[@KarlKarsnark]

Sadly, the point is to "discuss" not to convey the facts, which are "We don't know.. We're just guessing, can't agree and keep changing our minds". These are all just "scholarly" opinions that aren't actually any more valid than a "layperson's" opinion as we have no physical evidence, or other contemporaneous accounts by which to confirm or deny these speculations. It is rather ironic that "Modern Scholarship" requires just as much "Faith" and "Belief" as any form of religion and they're just as Cultish in their alliances and outlooks. They're all "-ists" of one kind, or an other, which is just a way of advertising their biases. (Literal-ists; Myth-icists; etc...) It is "interesting" to "discuss" at times, but ultimately fruitless as you simply end up in the same place you started, which is "We don't know".

[@tsemayekekema2918]

42:30 they are not.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

41:54 of course, a Luke who lived to the age of 87 (eighty-seven) would distinguish himself from the eyewitnesses of events that happened everywhere else outside the "We-passages"! Luke doesn't use the we-pronoun in the first book of Luke because he never witnessed Jesus or John The Baptist. This is a kind of non sequitur

[@BagzAndPresident]

The age you cited is pulled out of thin air

[@tsemayekekema2918]

@BagzAndPresident NO!! It is the literal LIFESPAN/age that all of church tradition (i.e. external evidence ignored by critical New Testament scholars who tend to favour beloved speculative theories above certain kinds of hard data/evidence of this nature) gave to Luke the Physician!! A quick Google search about Luke The Physician will tell you about his traditional lifespan. This is an interesting undesigned coincidence because these ancient Christians didn't know or suspect that Luke used Josephus-therefore living up until 93 AD or 95 AD-and would therefore have needed a long lifespan if he was a companion of Paul. There is simply no age limit on Paul's traveling companions that would make a 120 AD dating of Acts incompatible with traditional authorship; scholars have long proposed decades ago that some of the historical Jesus' closest disciples could have been as young as 15 at the start of his public career (I'm honestly not sure where they got that from, but it is/was mainstream scholarship-& it serves no apologetic purpose that I can imagine)-therefore-if Paul had an 18-year old traveling companion as at 60 AD, such a companion with an 87-year lifespan (the actual lifespan of Luke the Physician) would have been 11 years YOUNGER THAN Flavius Josephus (which is remarkable, given how many New Testament scholars have used Luke's dependence on Flavius Josephus' 93 AD publication as an argument against a traveling companion of Paul)!! Furthermore, such an 18-year old with an 87-year lifespan (Luke's lifespan) would have died in 129 AD, if the "We-passages" in Acts occurred as early as 60 AD (and there is no absolute guarantee that it is that early; it could hypothetically be as late as 6 years later, bringing Luke's death to 135 AD)-which is in line with the Luke-Acts 120s AD dating of many scholars who allow the possibility that Luke & Marcion merely shared a common pre-Marcionite source that dispenses with the need for Luke to have been dependent on Marcion's Euaggelion (or older scholars who never even considered the idea that Luke used Marcion's Gospel). Another consideration that David Trobisch's argument (he has been interviewed twice on History Valley) that the very GENRE of "Letter COLLECTIONS" in Classical Antiquity, of any famous person (such as Paul), was by definition all about literary "fictional" composition; he says that by his statistical survey, 90% of "Letter Collections" in Classical Antiquity were never real letters written by the claimed author, and that even in the cases when someone self-publishes collections of his own past letters, they were very usually heavily redacted to suit the rhetorical goals & much wider audience of the COLLECTION, which were often substantially different from the rhetorical goals the original individual letters had in their original unredacted form to a tinier number of original recipients. The implications of his thesis are that our canonical authentic letters of Paul are largely a literary creation that is a reaction against Marcion, who himself was a literary "fabricator" of the contents of his own version of Pauline letters; therefore, my tentative guess is that Paul's "authentic letters" are not necessarily a more reliable reflection of the historical Paul than Acts. If, based on the fact that there are some good arguments to refute all the reasons given for doubting an authorship by Paul's companion (for that, look at my comment history), you allow for the possibility of Luke's traditional authorship between 96 AD and 135 AD, then Acts may be more reliable than "Paul's letters (which David Trobisch proposed to be a literary creation)", and that many elements in canonical letters of Paul might hypothetically be blindly following the lead of elements that Marcion himself could hypothetically have fabricated out of thin air to support his fictious theological claims about Paul (such as the claim that a Pharisee would think Israel's God is a lesser deity that is distinct from the father of Christ). I admit large swathes of my thoughts above might be wrong, but I am quite confident on the aspects that directly concern the person of Luke

[@tsemayekekema2918]

@BagzAndPresident look up patristic primary literature a bit more. It's an actual ancient unanimous church tradition