Vinnie

I just read a very convincing piece placing it earlier and it alleviated the difficulties of Luke's post- 70 c.e. references by positing a proto-Luke not yet aware of Mark.

Proto-Luke w/o Mark
Acts of the Apostles
Canonical Luke w/ Mark

A number of arguments were presented for an earier date. I am aware of several arguments for a later date:

Dependence on Josephus
Dependence on Mark and the priority of Luke which mentions events ca. 70 C.E.
Inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's own letters indicates removal from the time period.

Any other arguments for a later date?

Toto

Could you tell us the title and author of the convincing piece?

Vinnie

The "Former Treatise" and the Date of Acts
Author(s): Pierson Parker
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), pp. 52-58
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264072
Accessed: 31/07/2009 01:13

I want to see how the internal arguments for a later date compare.

Vinnie

spamandham

The biggest argument, I would think, is the noncanonical corpus of Acts-style documents proliferating in the late 2nd century, with an incestuous relationship of quotes among themselves and Acts.

With no a priori biases, we would classify Acts as one of these, thus making it late 2nd century. This takes precedence in my mind over all internal arguments, since the late 2nd century saw such proliferation of Christian pseudepigrapha as has perhaps never been seen before or after. Considering this, the internal evidence becomes very suspect.

I am unaware of any very good reasons to date Acts early. From what I've seen, the reasons are related to the dating of other documents (such as Mark).

Since there isn't a very good reason to date Acts early, the simplest way of alleviating the "difficulties" of the post 70- references in Luke is to not assume a pre-70 date for Luke.

A second reason to date Acts later, is that Luke is written by the same author, Luke shows signs of being dependent on Mark, and Mark best fits a post 130 date from the internal evidence of Mark 13. Yes, the destruction of the temple mentioned in Mark places a lower bound of 70, but the more specific statements of Mark 13 - specifically the mention of the abomination and the mention of Christian persecution - do not fit the context of 70 CE, they fit the context of the Bar Kochba revolt.

The bottom line is, the range of dates is still wide open as long as we do not try to make too much of too little, though I think a post 130 date for the gospels, as well as Acts, is a better fit.

Steven Carr

So there are arguments for an earlier date and arguments for a later date?

Wouldn't a real historian now conclude that Acts was written at an unknown time between those 2 dates?

Vinnie

If the arguments are thoroughly evaluated and there are still strong reasons for an earlier and a later dating then yes. Most scholars accept the latter two points I raised but deny the first. Conservative scholars no doubt have ingenious ways of resolving the third one. I have not fully investigated it for myself therefore I abstain though I am inclined to side towards the critical consensus for the simple fact that the conservatives want Acts early whereas many of the moderates would prefer this as well but side against it.

Toto

Richard Pervo has made Acts his life's work. You could read his Dating Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk)

. . . or his more recent The Mystery of Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Neil Godfrey has some discussion on the dating of Acts here and here based on Tyson's work.

All of the arguments point to Acts as a product of the second century.

There are parts of Acts that seem to rely on earlier material. But parts also rely on much later material (Josephus.)

Julio

It appears that none of the apostolic fathers, following the departure of the apostles, mention either the gospels or Acts [Marcion also does not include Acts in his canon, though he sympathized with Luke's work]. That's excellent external evidence, outweighing any hint of internal one, I suppose.
However, I regard the incident of Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5:1-11 good internal evidence that Acts is a fabrication of much later versions of distorted folklore.

gurugeorge

Could you expand on that, what do you mean?

(What a vile, petty little story, though - so clearly aimed at frightening the rubes into paying their dues and keeping fat bishops fed and pampered. Actually come to think of it, that, in itself, is suggestive of a later date!)

Julio

Absolutely! That horrific display of FEAR-INFUSING technique in the church could only come from a church in big [financial] trouble sometime in the second century, at a time when the "official church" was infested & plagued with many so-called heresies, heretics and antichrists, bringing in divisions galore, and in need of great doses of FEAR to calm down the waves of agitation. Besides, no other text in the NT refers to that incredible incident!
What I find extremely distasting is that every time I challenge a Bible student with this particular aberration in Acts, I have to suffer a "lesson" on stewardship whereby two innocent people had to be killed for money, and we end up not knowing what happened to Ananias' money in the end! That is the most important part of the incident that the amanuensis left out!