Dating of the Book of Acts

Counter Argument-

Despite the convincing arguments for the early date, as I previously mentioned, scholars are still disputing over this topic and no certain conclusions have been made. With regard to the intermediate date, there are some interestingly strong arguments in favour of such a date. For example it was widely agreed that Luke had based his gospel on Mark’s Gospel, and if so then the date of Acts must be later than AD70. In addition to this, arguably the most convincing argument in favour of the intermediate date is that Luke does not prophesy in his gospel that Jerusalem with be destroyed but actually appears to describe the event which was in AD70. Many scholars believe this to be strong evidence that Acts was written around this date. However, the intermediate date has some obvious weaknesses which many believe decrease its reliability as the correct date of Acts. For instance, if Acts was written around AD75 then why would Paul have not including Paul’s letters which, as Guy points out, . In addition to this, the martyrdom of Paul is also not mentioned, which is another major event in the early church, which is believed to have taken place around AD68, years before this suggested date. Despite the considerable evidence in favour of the intermediate date, this is outweighed by the strong arguments in favour of the early date.

Last of all, there is the late date, which is suggested to be AD98. In my opinion, which is in support of the opinion of many others, the late date appears to be the least likely. Nevertheless, in order to reach a fair conclusion all suggestions should be taken into account and evaluated. The first argument in support of such a date is the way in which the book is carefully structured to show the spiritual and geographical spread of Gospel. Many believe this would have required an element of hindsight and reflection and so it is written quire a long time after the events happened. Moreover, the belief that Luke used the writing of an historian called Josephus also supports the late date as Josephus’ work was only published in AD96. However some scholars disagree with this suggesting that if Luke used Josephus’ writing, he surely would have used Paul’s which would have been available to him at this point. Last of all, Guthrie adds that it would not have been possible for Luke to write Acts much after AD85 due to his lifespan.

To conclude, despite the convincing arguments in favour of the early date rather than other suggested dates, the question still remains unanswered. However, as I have portrayed throughout this essay, I am strongly in favour of the early date of around AD63. I believe arguments such as the abrupt ending of Acts in which Luke fail’s to tell Paul’s ending as well as the omission of Paul’s letters are too strong to dismiss and outweigh other arguments in favour of other suggested dates. Bruce however suggests an alternative to other beliefs. He suggests that the writing of Acts took place over an extended period of time and that the story was brought to an end at a significant point- gospel reaches Rome.

Comment on the claim that the main purpose of Acts was to provide an accurate account of the growth of the church-

The purpose of Book of Acts is widely debated by many, with some believing it to be an account of the growth of the church; others believe Acts was written for various other reasons. I will attempt to outline the arguments against Acts as an account of the growth of the church, as well as the discussion of arguments supporting the claim.

To begin with,

A consideration of the claim may include, e.g.:

• Luke’s role as an historian; Acts as an historical and/or theological

text

• Luke’s reliability as an author; his honesty in describing strengths

and weaknesses of the Church

• archaeological evidence, e.g. titles, names, customs, practices

• dedication to Theophilus

• We passages

• discrepancies within Acts; relationship with Paul’s letters

• other purposes of Acts, e.g. to show how the Gospel reached

Rome; an apology; universalism.

Comment on the claim that the main purpose of Acts was to provide an accurate account of the growth of the Church