>There are some (serious, I think) problems with trying to date Luke
>[after 70 CE]. It is agreed that Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts
>and that Luke was written before Acts. Acts, as a historical narrative
>of the early church is notable for failing to mention any events that
>occurred after 60 A.D., and some of those events were very significant.
>
>1. No mention is made of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.,
> significant when one realizes that in the book of Acts, Jerusalem was
> still the center of Christianity.
>2. Paul is one of the most prominent figures in the Acts, yet no mention
> is made of his death in 64 AD under Nero. Instead, Acts ends with
> Paul alive and well in Jerusalem.
>2. Although the death of Stephen and James the son of Zebedee is
> recounted, no mention of the death of James, the brother of Jesus, is
> mentioned (A.D. 62, approx.). This is a remarkable omission given
> that James is the leader of the church in Jerusalem and also a
> prominent figure in the Acts.
>
>It is highly unlikely that a history of the early church would leave out
>the above three historically very significant events, unless it was
>actually written before the above events occurred. This would date the
>writing of Acts to about 62 A.D.
This is an old argument from silence going back to at least Harnack. In isolation it seems plausible enough, but fails to hold up under close scrutiny. For instance it does not address Luke's purpose. Luke is an apologist and dedicates his work to a patron who is a Roman official named Theophilus (Lk. 1:3). Theophilus is probably from the upper class (he is addressed as "most excellent") and someone who can afford to commission a work from Luke. Luke wishes to present the best possible history of Christianity and Jesus that he can to this Roman official. He especially wishes to emphasize Paul's outreach to Rome, not his death. In fact, Luke does drop a heavy hint at Paul's death by having Paul tell the Ephesians that they "will see his face no more" (Acts 20:22-25). But again, this is not Luke's purpose in writing. It would not sit well with the financier of your work to remind him that he was responsible in part for the wrongful death of the two heroes of your story (Jesus in Luke; Paul in Acts).
Luke's work uses a technique called "dramatic history" by presenting the details of Jesus' and Paul's career, i.e., around 50 CE. This is not to say that Luke himself is writing this as a work of current affairs, or a present-tense phenomenon. Further, if the evidence for Luke argues for a much-later dating, then Acts must concur. Luke seems to be aware of the siege of Jerusalem (in 70 CE). Luke has Jesus warn that "the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will case up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side" (Lk. 19:43). This clearly seems to refer to the siege of 70 CE since Josephus does tell us that Jerusalem was surrounded completely and earthworks were erected to lay siege to the city. Also since Luke follows Mark I must reiterate that we have good sources from Irenaeus to indicate a date of Mark to no earlier than 65 CE. It seems to me that rather than take the argument from silence in Acts prima facie Kirk, you must deal with the Markan priority hypothesis first.
>Now, given that Luke was written before Acts, a more likely date would
>be somewhere between A.D. 57-62. I should point out here that this puts
>the writing of Luke at close to the same time as the writing of some
>of the Pauline epistles. The implication of this is that Luke would
>be just as much in touch with the historical Jesus as Paul was.
Yes, all kinds of neato scenarios can be imagined of Luke once we slip in such an early dating. However, like Mark, Luke is extremely unfamiliar with Jewish purity customs and Palestinian geography so even if we were to somehow entertain that Luke was a contemporary of the historical Jesus we cannot move to the much stronger suggestion that Luke knew or was "in touch" with Jesus.
>Now recall that most scholars date Mark before Luke (Robinson dates
>Mark at about 45 A.D.). Rudolph Pesch, author of a massive commentary
>on Mark's gospel, argues that the geographical references and personal
>names point to Jerusalem as the place of origin of Mark's source. Pesch
>also notes that Mark never mentions the high priest by name, but simply
>as 'the high priest'.
I don't think you have treated your own sources as critically as you should because this is way off the mark. (no pun intended!) Mark, in fact gets the high priest's name wrong! In 2:26 Jesus says in Mark: "[David] went into the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the shewbread...." This is in most mss. However some mss. omit the clause "when Abiathar was high priest" because later Christian scribes realized that the high priest in 1 Sam. 21:1-7 who gave David the shewbread was Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar. In any case, Mark NEVER says "the high priest" (unless you are using one of those creepy translations that seeks to put a gloss over Mark's mistake...) Pesch's observation is flat wrong. Luke also notices Mark's mistake and corrects it in his telling of the story (Lk. 6:4; cf. Mt. 12:4). This, by the way, is one of dozens of places that Luke and Matthew correct some sloppy work on Mark's part--an argument for Markan priority since they seem to be aware of and correct his mistakes. As for your other point, Mark is HORRIBLE in his geography of Palestine. Take a peek at 7:31ff where Jesus is said to have left Tyre for the Sea of Galilee via Sidon. Sidon is to the north of Tyre and Capernaum is to the south of Tyre. There are other instances, but why use battering rams when the doors are left wide open? Further, Mark is clearly writing for a gentile audience since he has to explain Jewish purity customs to his readers. The whole thing is flawed to try to put Mark in Jerusalem. I won't even comment on the suppositions you draw from this since from here on it is a house of cards.
Regards, Jim
still@ix.netcom.com http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/g369/stil0037/