A Question regarding Acts

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Luke 1:3:
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.

Acts 1:1:
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Joseph Smith:
The book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke, and may be considered as a continuation of his Gospel.
(Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, 1:375).

Ancient scribes were masters at copying the styles of other ancient authors, so the mere mention of the same person doesn't necessarily convince me one way or another. And the context in which JS was examining and commenting would be important. My witness of JS doesn't hinge upon his declaration regarding acts. JS may have merely been reciting what he had heard others state.

And again, it might be Luke.

I'll try to dig into the linguistic comparisons to determine what others believe.

Here's one work discussing it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9Dt...esult#PPA54,M1

A competent evangelical scholar weighs in.

Witherington.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2P7...ad=1_1#PPR8,M1

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

FWIW, Elder McConkie also said that Luke was the author. I'll try and dig up the reference.

Origen suggested that Hebrews may have been written by Luke (I was answering Arch's question right there at the end).

I'm not putting the authorship of Acts to the question.

I think Luke did write (and readact and so on) Acts, and probably with an approach similar to what he did with his gospel.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Some of the research I've been studying makes Acts, which is not too bad to read in Greek, to be a later composition because it downplays the conflicts between Peter and Paul, but instead tries to paint a unified position of the apostles.

This aside got me thinking, that such a position is almost identical to the position which the LDS Church takes with regard to its internal dissent.

Some of the Pauline letters highlight the conflicts between Peter and Paul and they seem to support the more confrontational real world that existed during the first century.

Thoughts?

Since Acts was apparently written by Luke it was likely written decades after the fact.

Yes, Arch, all religions tend to engage in similar PR. That's a brilliant insight.

[SeattleUte]

Here is a worthwhile little essay I found a long time ago on the subject.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...tory/luke.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Since Acts was apparently written by Luke it was likely written decades after the fact.

Yes, Arch, all religions tend to engage in similar PR. That's a brilliant insight.

Quite sarcastic and snippy this morning are we?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Quite sarcastic and snippy this morning are we?

Just going for a few laughs. That's all.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Just going for a few laughs. That's all.

Plagarist

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Just going for a few laughs. That's all.

BTW, the link is interesting. So thanks.

[Ceteris Paribus]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Just going for a few laughs. That's all.

Speaking of laughs, try making an offhand remark in HP Group about the fact that Paul did not write Hebrews and Moses did not write the first five books of the OT. Talk about your righteous indignation.

Fun to sit back and be an apostate for a day. It could become a pleasurable habit.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm just an amateur here but I had it in my head that the Pauline letters were all older than than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Where did I get that idea?

Paul was likely dead before any Gospel was written.