Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Digitized Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/29184
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorPorter, Stanley E.-
dc.contributor.advisorWestfall, Cynthia-
dc.contributor.authorArmstrong, Karl L.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-17T00:36:21Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-17T00:36:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-05-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/29184-
dc.description.abstractAlthough the date of Acts requires no introduction there has been consistent apathy in recent years with regards to this longstanding debate. While the ‘majority’ of scholars have been lulled into thinking it was written between 70 and 90 CE the vast majority of recent opinion is unanimously adamant that this middle range date is a convenient, political compromise. A large part of the problem relates to the recent and remarkable neglect of historical, textual, and source-critical matters. Compounding the problem further are the methodological flaws among the approaches to the middle and late date of Acts. A historiographical approach to the debate offers a stronger framework for evaluating the primary and secondary sources. Under this umbrella, and with the support of modern principles of textual criticism and linguistics, the historical context of Acts is determined to be concurrent with a date of 62-63 CE. This thesis also examines the much-neglected issue of Acts and its sources. As a consequence, it was found that there is no clear evidence that Luke used Paul's letters or the writings of Josephus—which (in concert with other evidence) effectively removes the plausibility of a late date of Acts. Additionally, the relationship between the date of Acts and the various interpretations on the end of Acts demonstrate that many of the modern and more recent theories are not only assumptive (especially with regards to genre), in some cases they utilize anachronistic literary methods that were originally applied to nineteenth-century novels. It is proposed below that the ancient interpretation (that Luke wrote no more because he knew no more) remains the most logical in light ofthe combined literary and historical evidence. This interpretation is further strengthened by a study of the variants at the end of Acts, the fall of Jerusalem (and its aftermath), the great fire of Rome and the subsequent persecution of Christians under Nero—all of which strongly indicate a pre-64 CE state of affairs.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectdate of Actsen_US
dc.subjectActs sourcesen_US
dc.titleA NEW PLEA FOR AN EARLY DATE OF ACTSen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentChristian Theologyen_US
dc.description.degreetypeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)en_US
Appears in Collections:Digitized Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Armstrong_ANewPleaForAnEarlyDateOfActs_FullOCR.pdf
Open Access
106.89 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue