Acts An Introduction and Commentary by
E.M. Blaiklock
III. THE DATE OF THE BOOK
Converging lines of evidence preclude a second-century date.
The sure touch of the writer in matters of nomenclature, his eyewitness command of detail and feeling for atmosphere, his view of Rome and the imperial administration, so obviously free from the tone of censure and hostility which marks the Apocalypse, all combine to make it certain that Acts could not have been written after the organized attack on the Church instituted by Domitian (AD 81-96).
There are possible references to the text of Acts extending from the Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 100) to Justin Martyr
(c. AD 150) and beyond. Clement quotes the logion of Christ, (logion is a traditional saying, maxim, or oracle, specifically used to describe a brief saying or utterance attributed to Jesus.)
mentioned in
Acts 20:35, as early as AD 95, though of course it is always possible that he had the saying from another source.
It seems clear that writers of the first half of the second century were acquainted with the book.
It has been alleged on quite insufficient grounds that Luke was familiar with the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, published about AD 93. If this point could be proved it would follow that Acts must have been written in the middle nineties. This would raise two serious difficulties. First, the attitude towards the Roman administration, mentioned above; and secondly, the fact that Paul's letters do not seem to be known to Luke. These documents were collected and generally circulated about AD go.
A case for the early composition of Acts, say in the early sixties, rests on several grounds. First, the fresh and vivid writing of the biographical portions of the book, the so-called
'we-sections'. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that such passages were written long after the events described. Once grant the Lucan authorship of the book, and it seems likely that Luke worked upon the latter part of his narrative during the two years at Rome. This would also account for the termination of the book at that point, although this argument is admittedly weakened by the hypothesis favoured above that a third 'treatise' was intended. Secondly, if the earlier chapters of Acts depend upon researches conducted in Palestine, and the evidence of those still living who were associated with the beginnings of the Church, Caesarea provided location and occasion for such investigations, and the first part of Acts could have been written at that time. Thirdly, it is sometimes stated that the fact that the fall and devastation of Jerusalem in AD 70 left no mark upon the narrative, is an argument for composition before that date, or even before the Jewish insurrection in AD 66. No weight or little weight can be given to this argument. Luke, an accomplished historian and a disciplined writer, need not have coloured his narrative of doings in Jerusalem by references to later events irrelevant to his theme. The cogent arguments for an early date lie elsewhere.
The question of date and authorship are closely associated.
If Luke wrote Acts, and that fact is beyond reasonable dispute, he wrote rather earlier than later. This was the belief of the early Church, and tradition is not without significance or importance. Critics who admit that the date cannot have been later than the outbreak of the persecution of Domitian, are sometimes in favour of a date between AD 70 and 80 because of the alleged idealization of the picture of the early Christian community in Palestine. It is contended in this commentary that such 'idealization' is imaginary. Luke's account is realistic, stresses faults and shortcomings, recounts abortive policies, and generally reveals a community coming down to earth and to reality from the witness and experience of unique events. On the whole a date in the neighbourhood of AD 62 seems reasonable.