Dating the book of acts
This is in fact a traditional view found in most commentaries.
The issue is gentile circumcision and the consensus reached according to Gal 2 is that Gentiles are not required to submit.
Analyzing the author's sources, methods, theology, familiarity with ecclesiastical developments and vocabulary, Pervo discovers that the author of Acts is familiar with the later writings of Josephus (c. E.) and that the theological perspectives of Acts have much in common with elements found in the Pastoral Epistles and Polycarp (c. He also situates the book of Acts in terms of its place in the development of early Christianity and its social and ideological context, and shows how a second-century date helps to interpret it.
, Richard Pervo subjects the scholarly consensus that Acts was written about 80–85 C. “A wonderful book—carefully researched, beautifully written, powerfully argued, and possibly a landmark that could radically reshape the study of the book of Acts.
He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A. 63) is gaining support constantly."9 The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
In Dating Acts, Richard Pervo subjects the scholarly consensus that Acts was written about 80-85 C.
The following outline is intended to be used while studying the book.
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A. As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.
If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year A. 70, then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus himself. If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events.
If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. "lover of God") "may have been Luke's patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in A. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.