Dating the Acts of the Apostles

Different proposed dates for Acts correspond to very different understandings of the character and purpose of the writing. Three distinct periods have emerged as prominent candidates: early (62–70 CE), intermediate (80–90 CE), and late (110–150 CE; Tyson, 1–23; Drane, 245–47).

Those scholars who prefer an early date believe Paul’s arrival and sojourn in Rome (Acts 28) most likely occurred between 58 and 60 CE. On this view, the author of Acts, who included ample and detailed descriptions of Paul’s earlier trials, did not provide a description of the final trial in Rome or its outcome because Acts was written before that trial took place. This would also explain why Acts does not mention any of Paul’s letters, since they had not been collected and circulated at so early a date. Further, the so-called we-sections (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28), which appear to imply that the narrator was present with Paul as an “eyewitness” on a number of important occasions, are taken as evidence that at least chapters 13–28 depend on a firsthand report, and the character of these chapters is taken to suggest the historical reliability of the book as a whole. The author’s intention presumably was to document and describe the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and once Paul arrived at this destination, that task was completed.

Scholars who favor an intermediate date for Acts point out that while the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts, it is alluded to in the Gospel of Luke (21:20–24). Furthermore, if Luke used the Gospel of Mark, which was arguably written between 66 and 70 CE, Luke-Acts could not have been written before this time. These scholars propose a date before 90 CE, however, because the author does not seem to know of Paul’s letters, which were presumably collected and being circulated by that date. This dating, perhaps in the mid-70s to mid-80s, casts doubt on arguments for an “eyewitness” account of the life of Paul. The author is arguably a generation removed from the persons and events about which he writes, and while he devotes considerable attention to Paul, he fails to mention important aspects of the apostle’s teaching; for example, his preaching of justification by faith for gentiles (Galatians 3 and Romans 4), or the validity of his identity as an apostle (see 1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 3; Rom. 1:1). (The criteria for being an apostle in Acts 1:21–22 implicitly exclude Paul, notwithstanding Acts 14:4, 14, where Paul and Barnabas are called apostles—perhaps reflecting a source used by the author and not his own view.) On this view, it would have been highly unlikely for an author who had been Paul’s close associate and companion to have overlooked or excluded these and other essential Pauline concerns. Furthermore, Acts expresses attitudes and beliefs that became common in the postapostolic age and tends to smooth over tensions in the early church, portraying the apostles as unified and in mutual agreement in matters over which Paul’s letters indicate tension and debate.

Scholars who prefer a late date for the composition of Acts (110–150 CE) observe that Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century; the first unquestionable witness to Acts is the church leader Irenaeus (fl. c. 180 CE). Further, the author of Acts was apparently acquainted with Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93–94 CE): we may compare the mention of Theudas in Acts 5:36–37 and of the Egyptian troublemaker in Acts 21:38 with Josephus’s description of related events in Antiquities 20.5.1. Positioning Acts between the times of Josephus and Irenaeus yields a period between 110 CE and 150 CE. In contrast to advocates of earlier dating, some recent studies have argued that the author of Acts was quite aware of the Pauline Letters (Pervo 2006), especially Galatians (Leppä). Indeed, it has been argued that Acts was written to subvert at least one possible second-century interpretation of Galatians. Although there are verbal and conceptual similarities between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (Walker 1985; 1998), there are also marked differences, as Acts conveys more unified and harmonious relationships between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles. One explanation is that the author of Acts sought to counteract the notion of a radical break between law (Torah) and gospel that could be inferred from an “improper” reading of Galatians, as for example by Marcion or his followers. In contrast to Marcion’s separation of Jesus from Israel’s Scriptures, Acts depicts Peter, Paul, and other believers proclaiming that Jesus as their fulfillment. While Marcion claimed that Paul was the only true apostle, Peter and the others being “false apostles,” Acts portrays Paul as in total agreement with the other apostles and even subservient to them; portrays Peter (not Paul) as the first to initiate preaching to the gentiles (Acts 10:1–11:18); and even defines apostleship in a way that excludes Paul (Acts 1:22–24). While Marcion attributed to Paul a radical distinction between law and grace, the dispensation of the law (Torah) having come to an end with the coming of Christ (see Gal. 3:23; Rom. 10:4), Acts characterized Paul as a Torah-observant Jew and a devout Pharisee, even portraying him as circumcising Timothy “because of the Jews” (Acts 16:1–4). Recent studies take these aspects of the narrative as evidence that Acts was written in direct opposition to Marcionite teaching and belongs alongside other anti-Marcionite figures like Justin Martyr (c. 140s CE). Indeed, Acts appears to share aspects of the thought-world of early second-century writings including those of Justin, 4 Maccabees (c. 100 CE), the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 CE), and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 150 CE), and appears a close relative of the apocryphal Acts of Paul, both in terms of genre and dating (S. Matthews, 5–6; see also Gregory; Mount; Tyson; and Skarsaune).

A late date for Acts has obvious implications for its relationship to the Gospel of Luke. The facts (mentioned above) that no extant manuscripts or canon lists ever joined the two writings together and that patristic writers discussed them separately suggest to some scholars that we should exercise caution in claims regarding the assumed unity of authorship (Parsons and Pervo; Walters). Patricia Walters argues that literary seams and redactional summaries in Luke-Acts, which have usually been attributed to a single author’s use of different sources, should instead be attributed to the work of different authors. Lexical and theological thematic differences between the writings are too great, she argues, to be accounted for as the result of different genres (gospel, acts) or a shift in narrative style. She proposes dating the Gospel to the first century, but Acts to the second.

The diversity of these arguments means that a precise date for Acts still cannot be determined with certainty. What is certain is that decisions about the date of Acts shape the various ways we read it: as a history of the first Christian generation from the 60s or 70s, incorporating “eyewitness” accounts; as a second-generation (70s–80s) account of Christianity’s movement away from its Jewish roots to become a largely gentile movement; or as a second-century (110–150) effort to combat Marcionite teachings.