When was the book of Acts written?

The introduction to this book compared with the introduction to the gospel by Luke makes it plain that the two were written by the same person. The Acts 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 issue of Paul's trial. This would place the date about A.D. 63.

Already the church father Ireneus (ca 140-202) 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.

In the book of Acts itself we find two important hints which are important to ascertain the time of writing. First of all Luke mentions the fact that Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke (written around 55-60 AD), and therefore must have been written later. Secondly Luke at the end of Acts Luke mentions Paul's two-year imprisonment in Rome. The book will therefore have been written only after the end of this time. It is generally assumed that Paul came to Rome around 60/61AD. Therefore the earliest that the book of Acts could have been written would have been around 63. It cannot have been written much later as Luke would then have mentioned the result of the Paul's case, the fire of Rome and the first great persecution of Christians in 64.

Some scholars believe that chapter 5:36 and 11:28 are quotes 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 have been written even later. But it is very unlikely that Luke copied from Josephus, and therefore this idea is held by only few scholars nowadays.

There are numerous internal evidences which show likewise that the writer of the third Gospel is the instrument through whom the Book of Acts was given. For instance, there are about fifty peculiar phrases and words in both books which are rarely found elsewhere: they prove the same author.

Then we learn from the Book of Acts that Luke was an eyewitness of some of the events recorded by him in that book. He joined the Apostle during his second missionary journey to Troas (chapter 16:10). This evidence is found in the little word "we." The writer was now in company of the Apostle, whose fellow laborer he was. He went with Paul to Macedonia and remained some time in Philippi. He was Paul's fellow traveler to Asia and Jerusalem (chapter 21:17). He likewise was with him in his imprisonment in Caesarea, and then on to Rome. There is no doubt that Luke had completely written and sent forth the Book of the Acts of the Apostles at the end of the two years mentioned in Acts 28:30, though the critics claim a much later period.

“Then we have the Syriac translation, so old that no one knows its age. Eusebius, in his history (b. iii. c. 39), tells us that Mark wrote his Gospel from the instruction of Peter, who was probably put to death about the tenth year of Nero, A.D. 65. But Peter mentions Paul’s Epistles, classing them with the “other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul wrote fourteen epistles before he was put to death by Nero, who killed himself, A.D. 68. Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was living, for he leaves Paul “in his own hired house” (Acts 28:30-31). But Luke had written his Gospel before he wrote the Acts (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1-5). And Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel (Luke 10:7) as “Scripture” along with Deuteronomy 25:4, in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. And Luke tells us that others had written of the life of Christ before he did (Luke 1:1-4).

Rome, A.D. 64, (supplementing the third Gospel).

If Matthew refers to the son of Baruchus, so of course must Luke. It is the same person who is alluded to, as no one, I suppose, doubts. Now Luke, in the Acts, refers to his gospel as a previous treatise which he had written: but in the Acts he closes with St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome; that is to say, the year 65. So that his gospel was already written in that year, that is, five years and more before the death of the Zachariah of whom Josephus speaks. That is, it is impossible that he can refer to him, for he speaks of an act already committed; indeed, were it sot so, it would be inspired prophecy as in Matthew. But this is evidently not so; it refers to a past act.

W. Kelly has regarded Luke as a prophet: see "Exposition of Mark," p. 2. Hippolytus prefixed a quotation of 18:2-5 by "as the apostle and Evangelist says" ("On Antichrist," in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. x., p. 33).

In seeking to determine the date of the composition of this Gospel time must be allowed for the attempts made by others of which the Prologue speaks. Followed by the Book of Acts, which does not record Paul's death, the Gospel might seem to have been completed before 64 A.D. (Blass, after Eusebius: by at least 60). So the late Bishop Hervey and Dr. Gloag; whilst Keim puts it at 66; Godet, between 63 and the last-named year. Writers such as Jülicher (p. 336), influenced by the idea that the language of Luke 19:43 f. as to the overthrow of Jerusalem imports composition after the event, would say after 70; and so Zahn, about 75; Plummer and Sanday, 75-80; B. Weiss, Abbott, Ramsay, about 80; McGiffert and Bacon, following Harnack's former opinion (down to 1897: see below), decide for 78-93; Wernle and Moffatt, for circ. 90. In the same way it has been argued that Deuteronomy could not have been of Mosaic date, because of the contents of the last chapter: but in either case allowance may he made for editorial accretions or modifications after the original record was put in writing. As to grounds for belief that Luke's Gospel was put forth before the year 70 of the era, see Pullan, in Murray's "Bible Dictionary," p. 487.

Holtzmann, Keim, Hausrath and Burkitt, after Krenkel, hold that Josephus' work was known to Luke, and accordingly date this Gospel after 93 (Clemen: 94 or 95) A.D. Zahn, Sanday, Salmon, Wellhausen, Harnack and Moffatt discredit all this. The words employed by the two, of course contemporaries, were undeniably in common use: each drew from the LXX., and thus sometimes used an identical vocabulary.

The Gospel of Luke was probably written during the years 55 to 60 AC. Many researchers suppose that Luke wrote it during the 2 year-imprisonment of the apostle Paul in Caesarea (compare Peculiarities).

As to its author there can be no doubt. The writer of the Third Gospel is the writer of the Acts. And the same man for whom that Gospel was written was before his mind when he penned this the later history. Luke is by general consent acknowledged to be the writer of the Third Gospel. He must therefore by consequence be the writer of the Acts, as its opening sentence indicates.

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which He was taken [or, received] up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen" (1:1,2). So reads the short introduction. Luke had written an account of the Lord Jesus Christ's sojourn upon earth from His birth to His ascension. He will now write an account of the effect produced in early years by the coming of the Holy Ghost to dwell on this earth in the Church of God . For about thirty-three years was the Lord Jesus Christ dwelling here below. Of the Church's history, for the first thirty years of its existence, Luke writes for the benefit directly of Theophilus, and indirectly for all his readers in subsequent ages.