Book of Acts- Author & Date

Evidence for determining the date Acts was written. What indicators of historical reliability are found in Acts? What role does Luke as author play? Why are the issues of date and author important to a proper interpretation of Acts?

Scholars date the writing of the book of Acts from AD 62 to AD 130 in light of three different perspectives. First, W. Ward Gasque suggests that the influential scholar of the Tübingen School, F. C. Baur, promotes the view of an early Christian faith divided between a Jewish Petrine Christianity and a Gentile Pauline Christianity.[1] Accordingly, Baur hypothesizes a later second-century date for Acts written by a Paulinist “in order to defend the mission of Paul to the Gentiles against the criticisms of the Jewish Christian party.”[2] Jimmy Dukes also notes that some scholars assume a second-century date due to an assumption that the author utilized Josephus as a source.[3] Second, D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo explain that most scholars believe a date in the 80s is most reasonable for the book of Acts.[4] The logic supporting a date in the 80s includes the assumptions that the writing occurred after the Gospel of Luke, during a time supportive of the Roman government and without the author’s knowledge of the Pauline corpus.[5] Finally, Carson and Moo also point out that some scholars believe the sudden conclusion of the book supports a date before AD 70.[6] In other words, Luke simply finished writing the book of Acts in accordance with the current chronology of events – Paul under house arrest in Rome around AD 62.[7] Carson and Moo also provide additional support for a date in the 60s including Luke’s lack of knowledge of Paul’s letters, representation of Judaism as an organized religion, silence regarding Nero, and colorful explanation of Paul’s shipwreck.[8] Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence appears to support a date in the mid-60s.

Carson and Moo recognize that certain scholars doubt the historical reliability of the book of Acts by questioning Luke’s historical accuracy, contesting his theological accuracy in relationship to Paul, and doubting Luke’s accuracy in recording the speeches of Acts.[9] First, regarding the historical accuracy of Acts, Carson and Moo reference a number of ancient historians, such as Polybius, Lucian, and Thucydides, who supported very high standards of historical documentation in antiquity.[10] Furthermore, W. M. Ramsay notes that when Acts is read without prejudice, Luke is recognized as highly authoritative when read in light of current scholarship regarding Asia Minor’s “topography, social conditions, political divisions, municipal institutions, etc.”[11] Second, Gasque notes that beginning with numerous nineteenth century German scholars, many theologians viewed the theology of Acts as representing a post-apostolic age, and thus, unintentionally misrepresenting Paul in Acts.[12] However, Carson and Moo point out that any alleged contradictions between the theology of Acts and Paul’s theology involve ideas where Paul is ambiguous or where the purposes of the two authors diverge.[13] Finally, Carson and Moo explain that any question regarding the reliability of the speeches in Acts is swiftly resolved by conceding that, although Luke may not have penned the exact words, his paraphrases have the ability to convey accurate content.[14]

Regarding Luke’s role as the author of Acts, Joseph Fitzmyer succinctly explains that Luke’s role is to provide “a historical monograph with a proclamation.”[15] In other words, Luke contextually weaves the story of Jesus’s life and ministry into the Roman, Palestinian, and Church history.[16] Furthermore, Gasque summarizes Luke’s role in providing a theological proclamation by noting the author’s emphasis on the centrality of God, salvation, Christology, ecclesiology, and the Holy Spirit.[17] Carson and Moo agree with Fitzmyer and Gasque while adding that the ultimate purpose of the narrative is to edify Christians.[18] Beyond the primary role of Luke and the purpose of his work, the author also provides a conciliatory attitude toward any tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians, an apologetic within the context of Roman influence, as well as various theological themes and sub-themes such as the Word of God and the people of God.[19] Luke’s foci have a practical implication and modern Christians would do well to integrate into ministry the author’s primary themes, which include edification, conciliation, salvation, God’s Word, the Holy Spirit, and the body of Christ.

Finally, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of accurately identifying the date and author of Acts for a proper interpretation of the work. For example, if the dating of Acts is incorrect, the reader may place the context of the author’s polemic within a form of second century Gnosticism or within a later political context, which may significantly alter the message. Furthermore, if the reader incorrectly identifies the author as a non-eyewitness or redactor, then the reader may not value the intimate relational component necessary for a proper interpretation of the book. Accordingly, a proper identification of both date and author are critical for proper modern day exegesis.