Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
As far as we know, Peter and Paul died in Rome in the mid 60s. According to most scholars the Book of Acts is dated to 80+, sometimes as late as 120.
Given how often the book mentions Peter and especially Paul, you’d expect there to be at least one verse about their ultimate fate. But instead it just ends in
So he [Paul] stayed two whole years in his own rented house, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, without hindrance.
as if they were still alive.
How do scholars explain this discrepancy?
Anonymous
Because it was written by Luke as part of Paul’s defense before Caesar.
Anonymous
Ken Van Horn proof? Philip Williams
Anonymous
Troy Day obviously because Theophilus, the warden of the prison in Rome, already knew.
Anonymous
Philip Williams Theophilus ??>? a literary character ?
Anonymous
Troy Day according to you liberal critics.
Anonymous
Troy Day 1. He tells us that he interviewed the witnesses. When did he have opportunity to do that? For the two years Paul was in prison in Caesarea and he was in Jerusalem.
2. What would motivate Luke to write about their travels? Paul would need a defense and a list of witnesses to call to confirm the account… particularly Roman officials (note the number of Roman officials named in Acts). Also consider the formal legalese present in the prologue to the Gospel such as “eye witnesses,” “account,” “carefully investigated,” “know the certainty of things which you have been instructed.” The conclusion of the Book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and under arrest awaiting trial, suggesting it was the intention of the author to update Theophilus on Paul’s history to provide for an explanation of his travels and preaching and serve as evidence in support of his innocence under Roman law. Some also point to the parallel between the account of Jesus’ trial before Pontius Pilate narrated in Luke’s Gospel with the account of Paul’s trials before Roman judges in the Book of Acts. In total, Jesus was declared innocent 3 times by Pontius Pilate as was Paul before various judges. (from Wikipedia).
3. The account of Paul surviving shipwreck is particularly noteworthy. In a recent analysis of Acts 27–28, Miles and Trompf have emphasized the strategic position of these sections in the text and their value as a kind of witness for Lukan theology. Luke’s statement that “everyone escaped to land” after the shipwreck (27:44), they argue, is in fact a “long-forgotten theological punch line.” To an ancient reader, the assertion that all escaped with their lives would, they contend, be prima facie evidence of Paul’s innocence. Drawing on pagan concepts of divine retribution, pollution, and shipwreck, they attempt to reconstruct the attitude of this reader on his first encounter with these passages. If Paul had been guilty, such a reader, according to their reconstruction, would have believed that his pollution should have resulted in death for himself and/or fellow passengers. The fact that no one died, however, would amount to “decisive confirmation of Paul’s innocence.” There was no need, therefore, to relate the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Caesar since he had already been put to the test “by forces and exigencies far more dreaded than the requirements of a human law court” (Cambridge Press, Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28).
4. Theophilus is a family name in the High Priest line. Theophilus was the son of Ananus (Hebrew: חנן) and the brother of Eleazar, Jonathan, Matthias and Ananus, all of whom served as High Priests. He was also the brother-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest before whom Jesus appeared. In addition, his son Matthias served as the next to the last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. The term “Most Excellent” is a reference to some official capacity within the Roman system of government.
5. Luke writes a great deal about the very issues most directed at the Jewish priesthood and worship in the Temple. All of the New Testament passages concerning alms and almsgiving, except one in Matthew, are in Luke-Acts. Therefore, these parables may be about alms, almsgiving and the proper use of the wealth controlled by the temple authorities. Luke’s criticism focuses on the use of these temple resources by the religious aristocracy for their own selfish purposes. This means that the religious authorities controlled tremendous wealth that had been in times past properly distributed to the people as part of the institutional form of almsgiving. The priests in these parables are unfaithful, dishonest and disobedient because, inter alia, they have not invited the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind to the banquet table. Once the office of the High Priest became non-hereditary, and available to the highest bidder, the institutional role of almsgiving was abandoned or reduced as the purchaser had to recoup his purchase price.
After I asked the first two questions. the rest fell into place for me. You may come to your own conclusions but I am satisfied for now by these answers.
Anonymous
Ken Van Horn this is a NICE copy paste but you dont answer WHY DOES ACTS NOT MENTION THE DEATHS OF PETER AND PAUL?
As far as we know, Peter and Paul died in Rome in the mid 60s. According to most scholars the Book of Acts is dated to 80+, sometimes as late as 120.
How do scholars explain this discrepancy?
Anonymous
Troy Day Roman historian Josephus records that in 60 AD, Nero removed Felix from office because of local complaints against him. Porcius Festus was then appointed the new Roman procurator in Judea Province, serving at Caesarea until his death two years later. Both Felix and Festus are well attested in writings outside the Bible.
Both Peter and Paul died between 4 and 7 years later.
If Luke-Acts was written as part of Paul’s defense, it would have been completed before his and Peter’s deaths.
But that much should be obvious.
Anonymous
Ken Van Horn sure Josephus did BUT WHY did LUKE not do it?
Anonymous
Troy Day Because he wrote it on a papyrus scroll and not a word processor? Because once it is in print it is hard to add to it???
What is hard about this? Luke was writing a defense of the Gospel and of Paul’s ministry. He wasn’t writing a history of the Church.