Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[1.62]

Well,let's address your evidence one item at a time.

The earliest reference to the martyrdom of Peter comes from the letter of Clement of Rome. He said, in his Letter to the Corinthians, "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labors, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

Clement says that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom because of “jealousy and envy.” Hmmm…jealousy and envy.

Where else have we heard that Apostles were martyred for similar reasons? Hmmm, now I remember it’s… a reference to the Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, Andrew and others. These “later apocryphal Acts” have the apostles martyred at the instigation of jealous pagan husbands whose wives, having been converted to Christianity, would no longer sleep with them. These Acts are full of legends, such as Paul baptizing a talking lion. Tertullian says the Apostle John survived being boiled in oil.

Thus we have no real reason to believe Clement is good evidence that Peter or any of the earliest preachers, whoever they may have been, were martyred for their faith.

Also, this apparent anachronism (Clement borrowing tales that were written after he supposedly wrote his epistle to the Corinthians) would disappear if we were to date the Clementine writing later.

[jimwalton]

OK, this is good discussion. First Clement (to the Corinthians) was written somewhere between AD 70-95 (most scholars say 95). "Jealousy and envy" were the motive, "having delivered his testimony" was the cause.

"Jealousy" is the motive given for all the persecutions (1 Clem. 5.4 [Peter], 5.5 [Paul], 6.1 [vast multitudes of martyrs], 6.2 [women believers]—all martyred for their faith: "his testimony" (5.5), "having taught righteousness" and "his testimony" (5.6).

What testimony did Peter deliver? According to Acts 2.24, 27, 31-32; 3.15ff., 26; 4.10, 30; 10.40-42, it was the preaching of the resurrection. And for preaching the resurrection the apostles were persecuted (Acts 4.1-3, 33; 5.17-20).

What testimony did Paul deliver? The resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 9.27; 13.30-37; 17.2-4, 31, et al.). And for preaching the resurrection Paul was persecuted (13.45; 14.5; 17.5ff.). Acts 13.45; 17.5 even uses the word "jealousy" as to the motive of persecution.

As to your "Acts of Paul," that was written in the mid-2nd century. "Acts of Peter"? Late 2nd century. "Acts of Andrew"? 3rd century. Clement could not have been borrowing from them or copied from them, because Clement died in about AD 100. He could not possibly have been referencing them. If anything, they may have been copying his words (jealousy). As you say, these "Acts" are full of legends. That's why they're considered to be apocryphal—interesting reading, but not much history.

Thus we have reason to believe Clement is giving us reliable information that Peter and the others were martyred for their faith. Do we have some corroboration? Indeed.

- The Shepherd of Hermas (late 1st, early 2nd c.) refers to a Clement who sent books to other churches
- Irenaeus (140-202) mentions that Clement had seen and conversed with the apostles. He also reports that First Clement to the Corinthians was written while Clement was in Rome
- Clement of Alexandria (150-215) attributes 1 Clement to the "apostle Clement" and quotes from it.

The strength of evidence is in favor of the position I have endorsed.

[1.62]

> Jesus died because he claimed to be equal with God. Matthew 26.63-66; Mark 14.61-64; Lk. 22.66-71; Jn. 18.35-19.7.

So, no one thought they were executing potential leader of an uprising? The Temple disruption and threat of insurrection are moot reasons for the Romans to enact their best deterrent, crucifixion?

[jimwalton]

We have to go by the information we have.

Matthew 12.14: Jesus, in teaching about the Sabbath, makes a messianic claim to be sovereign over the Sabbath, a position that belongs to God alone. In Matthew 21.38, Jesus implies to the Jewish leaders that he is the son of God, and for that he would be killed. His entry in to Jerusalem (Mt. 21.1-11) has strong Messianic overtones and undertones (Ps. 118). Before the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26.57-66), the accusation against Jesus is his messianic claims and his aligning himself with the glorious end-time figure (Ps. 110.1; Dan. 7.13). He is accused of blasphemy (not insurrection), and is considered worthy of death.

The problem is in how to get Rome to sign on to the execution? He is accused by them in front of Pilate (Mt. 27.12-13), but we are not told the content of the accusations, although a hint is given in v. 17 (also 22), "who is called Christ." Pilate would probably only use this word if it were handed to him in v. 12. Pilate finds no evidence of insurrection (Mt. 27.23-24).

The other Gospel narratives are in agreement. Mark 3.6, same Sabbath teaching as Mt. 12. In Mark 11, Jesus enters Jerusalem as a messiah, clears the temple, and the religious leaders conspire to kill him. This has nothing to do with Roman insurrection, but with his triumphal entry and his clearing of the temple. His actions cannot go unchallenged. You'll notice in the following segments they grill him with questions to trap him so they can ridicule his messianic claims. Jesus doesn't falter. In front of the Sanhedrin (Mk. 14.53-64). They finally catch him on a messianic claim (Mk. 14.61-64), not on a treasonous one. Mark's account of Jesus before Pilate is parallel to the Matthean account.

Luke is a much more political narrative than Mt & Mk. Strewn throughout are all sorts of political references. Mary's song in Lk. 1.46-55; Zechariah's Song in Lk. 1.68-79; As rightful antagonist to Caesar Augustus in Lk. 2, 1-14; as rightful antagonist to Herod (Lk. 13.31), etc etc etc. It's interesting in Luke that there are no mentions of wanting to kill Jesus (notice Lk. 6.11) until we get all the way to Lk. 19.47, and here again it is because of his messianic claims. Luke's account of the trials is interesting. Before the Sanhedrin, it's the same testimony (22.66-71), but no mention of blasphemy. They take him to Pilate, and this time we DO hear their accusation that Mt & Mk omitted: "Subverting our nation...opposes payment of taxes to Caesar [a lie]...claims to be [the Messiah], a king!" The chief priests were trying to manipulate Pilate into a verdict of treason or insurrection. But Pilate finds him innocent of insurrection (Lk. 23.4). The leaders try "disturbing the peace" (23.5). It doesn't work (23.13-15). But the political pressure is too strong, and Pilate caves (Lk. 23.20-25).

In the Gospel of John, Annas inquires about his teaching (we're not told the direction or content of most of the conversation). But he is regarded as being disrespectful to Annas, which is one of the legitimate grounds for a charge of blasphemy in 1st-c. Palestine. Annas sends him to Caiaphas, but John records nothing of their conversation. Before Pilate we see another power play (Jn. 18.30), but Pilate doesn't fall for it (18.31). Jesus explicitly says he has no interest in insurrection because his kingdom is not of this world (18.36-37). Pilate finds no evidence of insurrection (v. 38).

[1.62]

> 70-95 (most scholars say 95). "Jealousy and envy" were the motive, "having delivered his testimony" was the cause.

You are taking the portion of the translated quote, “having delivered his testimony,” out of context; “having delivered his testimony" may have been what they cried while they were being put to death, who knows.

Jealousy and envy was the motive because they lost their wives, the heart of their marriages, to these guys. These men saw the preacher as someone who wooed their women away from them as we also see in the apocryphal Acts. Those men did not know their wives weren’t having sex with these renegade preachers and neither do you, but it would be reasonable to believe that a good many of them did think so. We know, or at least I do, that, as an example, the Carpocratians practiced all manners of sex. That is according to Irenaeus. There were lots and lots of perverse practices of which people were aware. It’s preposterous to imagine that they were jealous of the preachers’ faith or their destiny as leaders in the kingdom of God. The object of the jealousy was the loss of sex with their wives to those crazy preachers.

What’s missing here are the same things that are missing for almost all of the bible and in this case, the New Testament. What do we know about Clement from contemporary sources? Actually Clement is “traditionally” attributed to Clement of Rome. The letter does not include Clement's name, and is ANONYMOUS; it is addressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." When was the letter written? You go with 70-95 but the range is much wider, AD 80 and at the latest AD 140 (L.L. Welborn, "The preface to 1 Clement: the rhetorical situation and the traditional date," in Breytenbach and Welborn, p.201,). Goodness, we can’t pin it down better than 70 years? For someone who is supposed to be a “reliable” source this is suspicious and takes at least something away from the credibility bin. When you proceed with the rest of the historical inquiry one has reason to begin building some serious doubts. What is the first writing we have from this anonymous writer we call Clement? The first complete copy we have was from 1056. However, we do have very, very incomplete scraps that date between 80 and 140, making this one of the oldest pieces of ancient manuscript. What sources did Clement use? Were Clement’s sources reliable? How far removed in time from the sources were the stories he tells? Were those stories altered (we know of many alterations, interpolations and outright forgeries both within and outside the cannon of New Testament writings)? Were the writings we have for Clement altered? Remember the earliest full copy we have is dated 1056.

You are telling me that what we have is reliable but the questions and facts above need to be taken for what they represent; proper questions and facts that tend to degrade the reliability of the work.

> What testimony did Peter deliver? According to Acts 2.24, 27, 31-32; 3.15ff., 26; 4.10, 30; 10.40-42, it was the preaching of the resurrection. And for preaching the resurrection the apostles were persecuted (Acts 4.1-3, 33; 5.17-20).

Having read so much against the historical reliability of Acts from the NT, I cannot accept any of this as credible evidence. Here is one of the best summary reasons why I oppose Acts as anything other than historical fiction written to persuade others that their beliefs have a factual history: The Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy. “Acts is the first and most successful attempt to tell the story of Christian origins. It is a story so well told that it has dominated Christian self-understanding down to the present day. Yet today the historicity of much of the story Acts tells can be challenged. Part of that challenge derives from a new awareness of the complex diversity of Christian origins—the story in Acts simply cannot successfully account for that diversity. But the most significant challenge to Acts' story of Christian origins derives from a critical study of Acts itself. Today we are convinced that Acts is a work of imaginative religious literature exhibiting the characteristics of other such literature of its day. When critically examined, it is unable to support the high level of trust that Christian interpreters have traditionally placed in the accuracy of its story.” Findings: The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar: 1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment. 2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century. 3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources. 4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts. 5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul. 6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity. 7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature. 8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices. 9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals. 10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

The Acts Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts.

> As to your "Acts of Paul," that was written in the mid-2nd century. "Acts of Peter"? Late 2nd century. "Acts of Andrew"? 3rd century. Clement could not have been borrowing from them or copying them, because Clement died in about AD 100. He could not possibly have been referencing them. If anything, they may have been copying his words (jealousy). As you say, these "Acts" are full of legends. That's why they're considered to be apocryphal—interesting reading, but not much history.

There is are a number of scholars who descent from your conviction that Clement (the supposed writer of 1 Clement) was written in the 90 and died in 100; Otto Zwierlein, Hermann Detering, F.C. Baur, Robert Price, Matthew Ferguson, etc.

> As you say, these "Acts" are full of legends. That's why they're considered to be apocryphal—interesting reading, but not much history.

That’s exactly why I enjoy reading the bible and trying to put myself in those times and places, just good, ancient fiction. Now, I will be the first to jump up and say I was wrong if we were able to have something come along that proves otherwise. Even a single confirmed miracle, like what Jesus told his followers; that they would be able to pray to God/Jesus and someone confirmed to be medically dead, is corporally reconstituted and brought back to life. Yeah, that would go a long way in proving both the supernatural and at least one of the predictions made by Jesus to be correct.

> Thus we have reason to believe Clement is giving us reliable information that Peter and the others were martyred for their faith. Do we have some corroboration? Indeed.

That evidence you present for "corroboration" needs to follow the same method of historical inquiry and validating as I presented you above with the writing's of the anonymous letter to the Corinthians attributed to a guy named Clement.

> The Shepherd of Hermas (late 1st, early 2nd c.) refers to a Clement who sent books to other churches

Please, you said you appeal to historiography…you have to connect these sources just like I outlined for Clement above. Until that is done this makes no sense to rely on these guys. How does this reference ever support Peter’s martyrdom or anything in what we have in 1 Clement?????? You are saying that because the writing in the Shepard of Hermas refers to a, underscore a, Clement who sent some books to some? Churches???? How do you connect that to 1 Clement, or maybe I should further clarify, what we read and have today that was written, and properly translated from a work written in 1056, a thousand years after the fact. Imagine we are in court and you offer this as evidence for Peter’s martyrdom.

> Irenaeus (140-202) mentions that Clement had seen and conversed with the apostles. He also reports that First Clement to the Corinthians was written while Clement was in Rome

Hearsay. I know you think you “we have to go with what we have” but if what we have is hearsay then it fits the definition of bad evidence.

> Clement of Alexandria (150-215) attributes 1 Clement to the "apostle Clement" and quotes from it. The strength of evidence is in favor of the position I have endorsed.

Hearsay. I know you think you “we have to go with what we have” but if what we have is hearsay then it fits the definition of bad evidence.

[jimwalton]

I'm not sure we're going to progress much further.

> You are taking the portion of the translated quote, “having delivered his testimony”, out of context and “having delivered his testimony" may have been what they cried while they were being put to death, who knows.

Not true. The Chapter title is "The martyrdom of Peter and Paul." We know for a fact that Peter and Paul were preachers of the resurrection before they died. Clement even says so (chapter 5). The NT says so. I'm going on the evidence; you're going on a supposition ("may have...").

> Jealousy and envy was the motive because they lost their wives

Whaaaaat? That's not what Clement says. It is generic ("envy has alienates wives from husbands"). Martyrdom has a way of separating husband from wife. Christians are being tortured and killed (Clement 6) because they "spent their lives in the practice of holiness" (6.1). The women were not exempt, but for the same holiness and the same jealousy they were being killed, with husbands and wives being separated from each other in the process.

> These men saw the preacher as someone who wooed their women away from them as we also see in the apocryphal Acts.

You just have to stop referencing the Apocryphal Acts. It's junk.

> What’s missing here are the same things that are missing for almost all of the bible and in this case, the New Testament.

This is a bit disingenuous, since you discredit the NT as fictional. For that matter, it seems you discredit all of these sources as fictional ("hearsay").

> The Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles

Oh, my, you believe THESE GUYS? And yet you disregard the NT and the Church Fathers? You know, people believe what fits their predispositions, so it seems.

[1.62]

> Not true. The Chapter title is "The martyrdom of Peter and Paul." We know for a fact that Peter and Paul were preachers of the resurrection before they died. Clement even says so (chapter 5). The NT says so. I'm going on the evidence; you're going on a supposition ("may have...").

We are debating on whether or not these preachers/apostles died as a direct result of their personal beliefs. I do not dispute that the, "NT says so", but I do not accept the NT to be good evidence for its claims. It CAN'T BE IT'S OWN EVIDENCE. The burden to show why others should believe those claims are upon you and all believers who claim them to be true.

Throughout this conversation you have repeatedly said , "we have to go with what we have...", but you don't seem to realize that if "what we have" is bad evidence then we are under no obligation what so ever to accept that. You have repeated that you rely on historiography to inform you but have consistently failed to demonstrate a connection between claims of ancient writings to facts. Even to rely on Clement, you are relying on an anonymous letter that at best dates to 1056 and that has been in the hands of plenty of people who had devotional motivation to edit, redact and interpolate the version we have today. I am not talking specifically about the parts about Peter but about the letter in general. We could have good reasons to think it was written anytime between 80 CE and 140 CE and if the latter, it definitely could have been written under the influence of the proto catholic Christianity.

> believe it's historiography, written by people who had access to eyewitnesses or documentation that is no longer extant for our examination, passed on by written record.

All you have to do is demonstrate - one - single - person - with access to an eyewitness or documentation. It is disingenuous to secretly suppose that because someone could have been alive when Calvin Coolidge was, that they saw him sworn into office. That's all you are doing when you trot down the rabbit trail saying: "I hold historiography as a method of preserving historical facts." You have made repeated statements that you rely on Historiography but, Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, (Historiography, WikiPedia), not a "method of preserving historical facts". It is the study of the methods of historians.
You don't even acknowledge that your sources are secondary, not primary. All your evidence fails to show authenticity: we don't know if anything you have presented is the real source. We do know all the sources you offer are loaded with inauthenticity, such as Acts, and other second and third century writings. We know there are forgeries in the New Testament and that the New Testament has been tampered with. We know nothing of the competence of those who supplied the source information nor can we be sure of it's accuracy.

You never addressed the main concerns of any historical method such as: authenticity, competence, or credibility. You only offered hearsay and stories handed down to others, which is exactly what I said to begin with. You only offer traditional stories and nothing that can be verified. I also commented that your reliance on "tradition" is also your best evidence for practically all the claims in the bible, because I needed to show that your "method" for determining bible related facts is a macro problem and not one that crops up in the question of Christian martyrdom.

You mentioned above that your witnesses had "access to eyewitnesses" but that is disingenuous on your part. The folks you brought up were too far removed from the events. You said that they had information that we could only dream of:

Eusebius had access to writings and sources that are no longer extant for us. Lots have been lost to the ravages of time, but Eusebius had references we still dream we had.

Neither you nor I know what Eusebius or the anonymous writer of the letter to the Corinthians (Clement), or Ignatius is said to have had or didn’t have. It is disingenuous to continue reasoning as though these few people actually had anything at all that you want or need that would help you support your claims.

All the reasons you have given do not add up to good evidence for someone dying directly for their beliefs. Your witnesses are anonymous, or notorious for altering the truth. I dare you to deny that of Eusebius or even the beloved Paul.

> I never said Clement mentioned Rome, but only that Peter had died for his faith.

But again you haven’t clearly shown that to be true. Everything we have is too far removed or probably too far removed to be credible, not to mention authentic.

> No, we have the written records of the Gospel writers, set to paper within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, to give veracity to the Gospels.

I would love to see you verify this bogus claim above. We don’t even know who the Gospel writers were much less any “written records” of the Gospel writers! Wow, where do you get this from?

> Not so. Ignatius and Irenaeus both put Peter in Rome, both written in about AD 90-110, long before AD 185. Origen also puts Peter in Rome.

You are wrong about Irenaeus. He was born in 130 CE and died in 202 CE. Ignatius was born about 30 CE and died about 108 CE

Below are your claims (again) and I am giving a quick review of what I have rebutted below each:

> First Clement mentions him dying for his faith, but nothing more.

You have not shown that Peter didn’t die because he smarted off to the wrong guy with his big mouth and was killed for insubordination. I have shown that Clement could have been written as late as 140, which would allow the “jealousy and envy” mentioned in the apocryphal acts (which I, like you, consider as BS but I consider Acts in the NT BS too) to be included in Clement. Don’t forget; the earliest complete anonymous letter (attributed to someone named Clement) is dated to be from 1056 ……… 1056! Because of the devotional nature and the willingness of early Christians to alter their scriptures we can’t regard this as anything near good evidence.

> Ignatius puts Peter in Rome (Ignatius' letter to the Romans, where he says Peter and Paul had also spoken to them, 4:3)

The letters of Ignatius are at the most likely to be forgeries and at the least, heavily interpolated. Either way you have not set pen to paper to show otherwise!

> Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1 section 1; chapter 3 section 2) puts Peter in Rome.

Appeal to tradition and has no credible link to anything other than TRADITION.

> Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, mentions Peter's martyrdom (Chapter 5)

Appeal to tradition

You have not shown that Peter didn’t die because he smarted off to the wrong guy with his big mouth. I have shown that Clement could have been written as late as 140, which would allow the “jealousy and envy” mentioned in the apocryphal acts (which I, like you, consider as BS but I consider Acts in the NT BS too) to be included in Clement. Don’t forget; the earliest complete anonymous letter (attributed to someone named Clement) is dated to be from 1056 ……… 1056! Because of the devotional nature and the willingness of early Christians to alter their scriptures we can’t regard this as anything near good evidence.

> Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 36, says Peter endured a passion like his Lord's.

Source is John 21, a known interpolation and an item I went to lengths to provide you with a great rebuttal.

> Origen says Peter was crucified in Rome

Yeah, Origen would know….

I thought you were serious about getting to the truth of things. It would appear, though I could be wrong, you are not willing to treat this fairly and use the same standards of reason you would in any non-religious aspect of life. I would welcome an honest reply that honestly addresses any of the issues I presented you. It appears my claim that you are only relying on Tradition stands.

[jimwalton]

> We are debating on whether or not these preachers/apostles died as a direct result of their personal beliefs. I do not dispute that the, "NT says so", but I do not accept the NT to be good evidence for its claims.

OK, here we go again. I'm not sure how many more rounds I want to go. I NEVER SAID THE NT IS THE ONLY WITNESS WE HAVE OF THE MARTYRDOMS OF PETER AND PAUL. As a matter of fact, the NT says NOTHING about either of those. It's at least indirect evidence that at least most of the NT was written before AD 64.

> IT CAN'T BE ITS OWN EVIDENCE

I never claimed that it was! The NT doesn't say anything about the deaths of Peter and Paul!! I'm getting frustrated.

> you don't seem to realize that if "what we have" is bad evidence

And how do you know this? What makes you think what we have is bad evidence?

> The first letter of Clement to the Corinthians

Bob Walton, Eerdman's Bible Handbook of Christianity, William Percy, and Wikipedia put First Clement at AD 95. Mike Licona puts it at 70. First Clement was excluded from the NT, so it was around for consideration. A fragment of it exists in Papyrus 6 from the 3rd century. You said it "at best dates to 1056," which is outrageously inaccurate. Then you say it was written from 80-140, which is what Wikipedia says. Further down the page Wikipedia says, "The traditional date for Clement's epistle is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96): the phrase 'sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us' (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. The Epistle to the Hebrews' call for leadership from the church in Rome has been thought to have been influential. Some scholars believe 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (c. AD 95 – 97)."

You're claiming it's tradition and not historiography. On what evidence do you substantiate that claim?

> All you have to do is demonstrate - one - single - person - with access to an eyewitness or documentation

Eusebius, book 3, chapter 16 says the epistle of Clement is still extant. He mentions its public reading and discussion. We have evidence, then, that he had access to documentation.

On what evidence can you claim with certainty that it's mere hearsay?

What evidence do we have that Clement wrote First Clement? Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. What evidence is there against Clement? None.

> You don't even acknowledge that your sources are secondary, not primary.

The problem is, you have NO sources except modern ones.

> You only offered hearsay and stories handed down to others, which is exactly what I said to begin with. You only offer traditional stories and nothing that can be verified.

First of all, you can't prove they're hearsay. Secondly, you have NO sources to offer in rebuttal.

> All the reasons you have given do not add up to good evidence for someone dying directly for their beliefs.

I have offered the evidence, and you have offered none in rebuttal.

> I would love to see you verify this bogus claim above. We don’t even know who the Gospel writers were much less any “written records” of the Gospel writers! Wow, where do you get this from?

The writers of the Gospels are unanimously acclaimed by all ancient sources to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Modern scholarship has arguments pro and con, and by my study the arguments pro are the strongest arguments with the most substantial evidence.

> You are wrong about Irenaeus.

Au contraire. Wikipedia says what you claim (130-202); others are similar. Brush says 140-202. Walton says the last part of the 2nd century. But he still puts Peter in Rome, which was my contention. Irenaeus was a study of Polycarp, who most likely knew the Apostle John.

> Acts in the NT BS too

There are reasonable arguments favoring the identification of Luke as the author of Acts.

- The internal evidence supports Luke as the author. Some passages are written in the first person plural, plausibly from the mind and pen of Luke, a companion of Paul. The second part of the book has evidences of direct, firsthand knowledge of the events being described, consistent with a fellow-worker and traveling companion of Paul.
- Every attestation of the early church and the church fathers is that Luke is the author. There is no evidence of any other author: Luke’s authorship is uncontested.
- Acts was most likely written by a Gentile Christian.
- The author emphasized details and used terminology characteristic of a physician.

No sustainable argument has been offered that seriously puts Luke's authorship of Acts in question or in doubt.

The historicity of Acts, where checkable, proves to be accurate.

> the earliest complete anonymous letter

Remember, Hammurabi's code is anonymous also, along with most ancient inscriptions. Should we throw them out, too?

> The letters of Ignatius are at the most likely to be forgeries

The letters of Ignatius are widely accepted as authentic (Bart Ehrman, Craig Evans, P. Foster, Jefford, to name a few. Where are you GETTING this stuff that you choose to believe???? It seems that you find the wildest theorist out there, and subscribe to their theories. Again, you believe the evidence that agrees with the position you have already pre-decided to believe. In other disciplines it's called bias. So also here.

> Irenaeus, Clement: Appeal to tradition and has no credible link to anything other than TRADITION.

Substantiate it. What is the evidence it is TRADITION?

> Tertullian: Source is John 21

Prove it.

> Yeah, Origen would know….

Prove he didn't.

I'm getting weary of your "no he didn't," but offering no evidence contrary to what I have offered. You can't prove any of what you claim.