When was the book of Acts written?
Acts never dates itself, so its date has to be worked out from where the story stops rather than from any statement by the writer. Two facts do most of the work: the book is a sequel, and it breaks off while Paul is still waiting for his case to be heard in Rome.
The writer
The book opens by pointing back to an earlier volume written for the same reader, Theophilus. Commentators treat that link as decisive for identifying who held the pen.
C. E. StuartAs to its author there can be no doubt. The writer of the Third Gospel is the writer of Acts. And the same man for whom that Gospel was written was in his mind when he wrote this later history. Luke is by general agreement acknowledged to be the writer of the Third Gospel. He must therefore be the writer of Acts, as its opening sentence indicates.
That conclusion is not only drawn from the text. It is backed by an early named witness and by the way the two books are written.
Arend RemmersIrenaeus (about 140–202) already mentions that Luke is the author of the book of Acts. Various scholars have also pointed out that the style and the choice of words in Luke and Acts are very similar.
Two clues that fix the earliest possible date
Because Acts is volume two, it cannot be earlier than volume one. And because it reports two years of Paul's Roman imprisonment, it cannot be earlier than the end of those two years. Put those together with the events of the mid-sixties, and a narrow window appears.
Arend RemmersIn the book of Acts itself we find two important hints for working out the time of writing. First, Luke mentions that Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke (written around A.D. 55–60), so it must have been written later. Second, at the end of Acts Luke mentions Paul's two-year imprisonment in Rome. So the book will only have been written after that time ended. It is generally assumed that Paul came to Rome around A.D. 60/61. The earliest that Acts could have been written would therefore be around 63. It cannot have been written much later, as Luke would then have mentioned the outcome of Paul's case, the fire of Rome and the first great persecution of Christians in 64.
What the book does not say
The strongest argument for an early date is an argument from silence. Luke tells us the trial was pending but never tells us how it went.
Morrish Bible DictionaryActs ends with the two years' imprisonment of the apostle Paul at Rome. It could not therefore have been written before the end of that time, and was probably written very soon afterwards, or it would have given the outcome of Paul's trial. This would place the date about A.D. 63.
Where the disagreement lies
Commentators differ, and the range proposed by scholars is wide. One writer lists the options and notes that later-looking material in a book does not automatically prove a late original.
William KellyFollowed by the Book of Acts, which does not record Paul's death, the Gospel might seem to have been completed before A.D. 64... whilst Keim puts it at 66; Godet, between 63 and 66. Writers... influenced by the idea that the language of Luke 19:43-44 about the overthrow of Jerusalem implies composition after the event, would say after 70; and so Zahn, about 75; Plummer and Sanday, 75–80... In the same way it has been argued that Deuteronomy could not date from Moses, because of the contents of the last chapter: but in either case allowance may be made for editorial additions or changes after the original record was put in writing.
One specific late-dating theory rests on supposed borrowing from the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote near the end of the first century.
Arend RemmersSome scholars believe that chapter 5:36 and 11:28 are quotations from, or similarities to, Flavius Josephus' work "The Antiquities of the Jews." Since Josephus wrote in the last decade of the first century, the book of Acts would then have been written even later. But it is very unlikely that Luke copied from Josephus, and so this idea is held by only a few scholars nowadays.
The ending was chosen, not forced
An early date does not mean Luke ran out of time. He later had access to Paul himself, and still left the trial unreported — which suggests the stopping point is deliberate.
C. E. StuartIts composition betrays no such haste; for if Luke had wanted to extend it, he certainly had ample opportunity, when he was with the apostle shortly before his martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:11), to gather from him all the details of the hearing before the imperial judgment seat, even if Luke had not been an eyewitness of the events as they took place. But all this is wholly passed over, as well as Paul's labours after those two years so briefly noticed. And why?
The span it covers
The date of writing sits at the far end of the period the book narrates.
James McBroomIn general this book is occupied with the first thirty years of the history of the church on earth, and is the bridge between the gospels and the epistles... It begins with the ascension of our Lord and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and closes with the apostle to the Gentiles in prison at Rome.
Summary
- Sequel — Acts is volume two of a work addressed to Theophilus, so it must be later than Luke's Gospel, dated around A.D. 55–60.
- Floor — the two years of Paul's Roman imprisonment set the earliest possible date at roughly A.D. 63.
- Ceiling — the silence about Paul's verdict, the fire of Rome and the persecution of 64 argues the writing came quickly, not decades later.
- Dispute — commentators differ; proposals run from before 64 up to 75–80, and a Josephus-based late date is now held by few.
- Design — Luke could have added the trial later and did not, so the abrupt close reflects purpose rather than an interrupted manuscript.