We've
been continuing our study through the book of Acts on Wednesday
nights and it's had me thinking about the date that it was written.
Some scholars say that Acts was written anytime from AD 80 to AD 100
while others say earlier.
Does
it even matter?
The
authors of the New Testament claim to be eyewitnesses and
contemporaries to the stories and events described in it (Luke 1:1-4,
2 Peter 1:16-18). Of course, the further removed a writing is from
the events it claims to describe, the more doubt is cast on its
truthfulness, accuracy, and whether it was even written by an
eyewitness as it claims.
The
dating of the book of Acts is important because it was written after
the Gospel of Luke by the same author. The earlier Acts was written,
the earlier Luke was written. Roman historian Colin Hemer gives
strong evidence that Acts was written around AD 62. Here are a few of
his arguments:
- There is no mention of the destruction of the temple or the fall of Jerusalem that happened in AD 70. This one of the more significant events of the time and surely the author of Acts would've included it had he written it after 70. Jesus predicted the temple's destruction in Luke 21:20 and one would think it would be advantageous to mention fulfilled prophecy in your sequel had it already happened.
- There is no mention of the horrendous persecution by Emporer Nero in AD 64. A book that records the history of the early Christian church and records other significant persecutions (Acts 8:1) would surely have mentioned this.
- Acts records the death of Stephen and the disciple James, yet there is no hint of the death of James (the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church) by the hands of the Sanhedrin in AD 62.
- There is no mention of the death of Paul which happened between AD 62 to AD 68.
- Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome. It is written with immediacy and it is also an odd place to end a book if it had been written much later on.
- Acts seems to predate the arrival of Peter in Rome.
These
are just a few arguments of many that suggest that Acts was written
around AD 60 to AD 62. This means that the Gospel of Luke was written
even earlier and makes it a contemporary to the generation who
witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It means that
the author makes good on his claims (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3).
Evidence and arguments are obviously necessary and helpful. We base
our faith on truth and the facts surrounding Jesus Christ. Either the
New Testament is accurate or it's not. God has not asked us to leave
our brains behind. He wants us to think and reason (Isaiah 1:18).
Jesus himself is called "the Logos", a Greek word meaning
reason or word.
I
believe the bible is a supernatural book because of the internal
witness of the Holy Spirit, yet I'm also glad that God has provided
us evidence to base our claims on. The book of Acts tells us that the
early Christians devoted themselves to the apostles teaching. They
bet their lives on it. Should it be any different for Christians
today?
Philip
