Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
114 bytes added ,  19:53, November 9, 2019
m
Line 13: Line 13:     
==Date==
 
==Date==
−
Luke is generally believed to have been written in the 70's or 80's, but it is also possible it was written in the late 50's or early 60's based upon the abrupt ending in Acts. The thinking goes why wouldn't Luke have continued the history in Acts if he had written it later? And why wouldn't he have mentioned the [[martyr]]dom of [[Paul]]?
+
Luke is generally believed to have been written in the 70's or 80's, but it is also possible it was written in the late 50's or early 60's based upon the abrupt ending in Acts.
 +
 
 +
The arguments for an earlier date are as follows:
 +
*Why wouldn't Luke have continued the history in Acts if he had written it later?
 +
*Why wouldn't he have mentioned the [[martyr]]dom of [[Paul]]?
 +
*Why is there no mention of the fall of [[Jerusalem]] (which took place in 70 A.D.)?
    
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
8,856

edits

Navigation menu