And what better way to end the story than to report that Paul martyred for these teachings, not once recanting his testimony to the truth of Christianity?
As I said, it would be EXTREMELY odd for Luke to omit this fact, if Paul were already dead at the time of its writing. It would have provided a neat ending to the book, one full of drama and pathos. It would have provided a powerful testimony to Paul’s dedication in preaching to the Gentiles. It would have also answered the inevitable question raised by the abrupt ending of Acts: “Well, what happened next?”
Like you, I can not prove that the book was written before 70 A.D. However, I think that is clearly the most logical and most probable conclusion that we can draw, by far.
However, that assumes that Paul went to Rome and was martyred right then and there. If we follow Paul along to Spain and back to Rome and wait while he grows old* and is then imprisoned again and martyred, we lose the power of Paul taking the Word to Rome: The End. Your position only makes sense from one perspective. It’s nice, but it is hardly “clearly the most logical and most probable conclusion that we can draw, by far.” It is only “clearly” true if every other statement made about Paul’s ministries by other Church Fathers is false.
We are, obviously, not going to agree on this point.
*(Following the usual time-line, Paul first arrived in Rome around 55, at which time he was in his late forties (or younger). He can hardly be the “old man” of 1 Timothy if we kill him off right away. However, if we accept that he journeyed to Spain and was martyred 10 or so years after his fist visit to Rome, then we can, with some fudging, accept him as an old man writing the Timothies and Titus. To do that, Luke would have to give up his whole literary thrust to Acts. Everyone knew that Paul had suffered martyrdom; Luke did not need to include it in a work that made a totally different point.)
Not at all. Luke could simply say that Paul continued his ministry, ultimately being imprisoned, tortured and martyred. This would by no means lose the power of Paul taking the Word to Rome; if anything, it would STRENGTHEN that claim by showing the longevity of his ministry and his dramatic end result. It would certainly be a far stronger ending than Luke’s anti-climactic “Paul lived for two more years in a rented house” ending.
In fact, if Luke’s intent had been to merely describe some of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles, there would have been no need to add that last (and practically pointless) bit about Paul living two more years in that home. That ending would have been extremely odd, if it were not meant as a fairly up-to-date account.