Overview of dating Luke-Acts

Concerning Luke and Acts, it has been argued that the book should be written relatively recently, when a companion of Paul could not have been alive. Pervo’s Dating Acts is the basic introduction. As of 2006, he has a comprehensive list of which scholars dated Acts when.

Some things to think about when dating Luke after 70:
Luke may have been known to Ignatius and appears to have been quoted by Polycarp, but there is no clear evidence that he existed prior to approximately 110. Acts do not appear before the year 150. Irenaeus around 180 is the first definite instance of Luke-Acts evidence. This is striking considering that Matthew is cited frequently very early on (in Didache, 1 Clement, and Barnabas’ Epistle).

Luke-Acts appears to be based on Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, which was published in Rome in 93/4. This is due not only to the fact that Luke-Acts shares historical details with Josephus (in fact, Luke-Acts knows very little about Palestinian history that doesn’t appear in Antiquities), but also to the fact that Josephus’ redactional and interpretative practices dictate which historical details Luke-Acts includes and how they are interpreted. To put it another way, Luke-Acts repeats the same details (and only those details) that no longer make sense outside of Josephus’ original context after Josephus brings up a person or an event and mentions some related details that make sense in Josephus’ context. Josephus and The New Testament by Mason are examples.

Luke-Acts seems to be familiar with a group of Pauline letters, particularly Galatians and 2 Corinthians. In contrast to individual letters, Pauline collections appear to have only been available since the late first or early second century.

Luke-Acts is much more at home in Christian literature and the social context of the early church in the second century than the first century. The laying on of hands and ordination of elders in Acts demonstrate a level of church institutionalization that is absent from earlier writings (such as Paul and Didache) and only begins to appear in the early second century.
Christ’s Associations by Kloppenborg includes a number of additional details that are more appropriate for a setting in the second century, such as churches receiving endowments from wealthy individuals.

Similarly, texts about Jesus’ disciples’ missions and martyrdoms only begin to appear in the second century. The second half of the second century is when the earliest apocryphal Acts and hagiographical works were written. If Acts is from the 60s, then nobody wrote anything like it after Luke’s Acts for about one hundred years. Really? Luke-Acts, according to some scholars, is a polemical response to Marcion of Sinope’s dualist theology, which would place it in the middle of the second century. Luke and Acts take every opportunity to portray Jesus as the son of the Judean God in order to refute the idea that Jesus’ God is not the same as the evil Judean deity. Additionally, it systematically rewrites Paul in order to reclaim him from Marcion and portray him as being on the same page with the Jerusalem church from the beginning (for instance, Acts leaves out Paul’s three-year solo career in Arabia and Peter’s rebuke in Antioch). The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, by Matthias Klinghardt, can be found here.

Last but not least, my home-brew argument is as follows: If Luke-Acts was actually written in the late 1960s, it would have been 80 years since Marcion arrived in Rome, when a historiographical account of the early church, supposedly written by an eyewitness, was published. If that’s the case, then how exactly did his theology begin to flourish?

Notes:
(1.) The author of Acts was an accomplished storyteller theologian who wrote a story with a decidedly apologetic purpose. He did not write with an antiquarian interest or with a goal toward getting his history right. Nor did he simply stitch together sources he had collected. Rather we found that he was in complete control of his material and fully capable of making it say what he wanted it to say.

(2.) Acts was written in the early decades of the second century. This conclusion, which we only reached after we were well into the research agenda of the seminar, was seminal to our project. Up to this point, there has been a scholarly consensus that Luke-Acts as a two-volume work was written in the 80s CE. This dating has been fundamental for all proposals regarding the historical reliability of Acts, using arguments ranging from the view that the author was a companion of Paul to arguments that the reliability of Acts is proven by how well it tracks with the story of Paul’s mission as found in his letters. Early on in its research the Acts Seminar, led by the foundational work of Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyson, overturned that consensus and found instead that Acts was written in the early second century. This conclusion has significantly undermined a vast segment of Acts scholarship that has relied on the 80s CE dating.
(3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as one of his sources. This is a corollary of the revised dating of Acts. Another longstanding scholarly consensus has been that the writer of Acts did not have access to Paul’s letters, primarily because Paul is not pictured as a letter writer in Acts and because Acts does not seem familiar with Paul’s theology. Relying on groundbreaking studies by William O. Walker and others, the Acts Seminar concluded that Acts did indeed use the letters of Paul as a resource for its story of Paul while relegating Paul’s theology to the background. This conclusion is made even more likely whenever Acts is dated in the second century, since by then the letters of Paul were becoming widely known.
(4.) Except for the letters of Paul, no other reliable historical source can be definitively identified for Acts. Once Acts is dated in the second century, and is determined to have used the letters of Paul, then virtually all previous scholarship on the sources of Acts has to be rethought. Previous theories that reconstruct the historical sources used by Acts have been primarily based on the “remarkable” correlation of the story of Acts with the letters of Paul. This argument is buttressed by the perception that the author, by writing in the 80s CE, was either a participant in many of the events related or knew people who were. Whenever Acts is defined as a second-century document which used Paul as a source, virtually all previous source theories have to be completely rethought. We found instead that Acts used a variety of “sources” like Josephus, Homer, Vergil, and the Septuagint (LXX). These materials, however, only provided background material or literary models for the Acts story. They were not sources for the story of Christian beginnings per se.
(5.) Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity, contrary to the story Acts tells in chapters 1-7. The revised understanding of Acts we are proposing starts with the very beginning of the story. According to official Christian history as well as popular theology, the Pentecost story in Acts is firmly established as the official story of Christian origins. The Acts Seminar has shown through multiple studies that the entire Acts narrative of Christian beginnings in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7) has little historical value. This is a significant challenge to most theories of Christian origins.
(6.) Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul. Rather we have found that the use of Paul’s letters as a source is sufficient to account for all details of the life and itinerary of Paul in Acts. There is very little, if any, evidence for the use of independent sources, much less sources that can be proposed as historically reliable. As a result, we must rethink how we reconstruct the historical story of Paul without any reliance on or reference to the template created by the author of Acts.
(7.) Acts constructed its story on the model of the epic and related literature. This is a perspective on Acts that has been proposed in scholarly research for some time. What we accomplished in the Acts Seminar was to make this model much more functional in making hard decisions about the historical reliability of the story told in this way.
(8.) The author of Acts created names for characters as a storytelling device. Scholars have in the past commonly concluded that when names are preserved in the story, then they are probably based on historical personages. However, we have found that names in ancient narrative literature often had symbolic meaning appropriate to the stories in which they were found. This means that the name would therefore have been created by the author to lend verisimilitude to the story. The same phenomenon is found in Acts. The Acts Seminar has therefore concluded that names should not be used as an indicator of the historical reliability of the narrative.
(9.) Acts constructed its story to fit ideological goals. This is another perspective that the Acts Seminar inherited from previous generations of Acts scholarship. What is different is the rigor with which the Seminar applied this approach. We found that the ideological goals invariably emerged as the primary key to much of the content, form, and structure of the stories in Acts.

(10.) No longer can Acts be assumed to be historical unless proven otherwise. Rather, the burden of proof has shifted. Acts must be considered non-historical unless proven otherwise. This is the cumulative result of the accomplishments noted above. There is another by-product of our research that we came to appreciate but were unable to address fully in this report. While Acts is highly questionable as a resource for first-century Christianity, it is a significant resource for understanding the issues and shape of the Christianity of its own day. As a product of the second century, Acts is a primary resource for understanding second-century Christianity. The Acts Seminar has addressed this issue with several papers, but research on this subject is still preliminary. It should be noted that interpreting Acts as produced in the second century is not the same as interpreting Acts as read in the second century and results in a different research methodology, a distinction not always made clear in current scholarship.

Steve Mason’s Josephus and the New Testament gives an extended discussion of this topic and argues that the author of Luke-Acts likely knew the works of Josephus and largely used them to give his telling of the story of Jesus and the apostles a more elaborate historical setting. Aside from the way the author refers to Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, and the census of Quirinius, and much more, Mason also points out how Josephus gives a very selective telling of Jewish history and that the Lukan author follows him almost too closely:
I cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke knew the writings of Josephus. If he did not, however, we have a nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that Luke knew something that closely approximated Josephus’s narrative in several distinct ways. This source (or these sources) spoke of: Agrippa’s death after his robes shone; the extramarital affairs of both Felix and Agrippa II; the harshness of the Sadducees toward Christianity; the census under Quirinius as a watershed event in Palestine; Judas the Galilean as an arch rebel at the time of the census; Judas, Theudas, and the unnamed “Egyptian” as three rebels in the Jerusalem area worthy of special mention among a host of others; Theudas and Judas in the same piece of narrative; the Egyptian, the desert, and the sicarii in close proximity; Judaism as a philosophical system; the Pharisees and Sadducees as philosophical schools; and the Pharisees as the most precise of the schools. We know of no other work that even remotely approximated Josephus’s presentation on such a wide range of issues. I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus’s work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. (pp. 292-293)
There are parallel stories in Luke and Book XX of Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews:
Josephus mentions a “Saulus” who was of Herodian descent and who violently persecuted people in Jerusalem. This may be “Saul/Paul.” This is the only place where Paul is identified has having a different name (the stoning of St. Stephen).

Josephus mentions Judas the Galilean and Theudas as does Luke. Luke gets the chronology wrong (he has Theudas preceding Judas) but that is how they are mentioned in Josephus as well, leading people to believe that Luke copied from Josephus, but just did a sloppy job with the chronology.

Josephus discusses famine relief efforts by Queen Helena. Luke does as well regarding one of Paul’s Jerusalem trips.

Josephus also discusses the conversion of Queen Helena’s son, Izates, first by an unnamed person who insisted that circumcision was not necessary (Paul?)—and then later Izates changed his mind. The debate over circumcision in Acts has this has backdrop.
Let’s look at the comparison in depth:
Mark 9:2-8 NRSV

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.
Luke 9:28-36 NRSV

Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.
From here, it’s clear that Luke knew gMark, or in fact gMatthew which uses gMark (see ⁠markan-priority ).
Let’s compare Acts with Josephus:
Jewish War 2

AND now Archelaus’s part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.
Acts 5:34-37 NRSV

But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
Acts 5:34-36 NRSV

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.
Acts 21:37-38 NRSV

Just as Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” The tribune replied, “Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?”
Antiquities of the Jews 20

Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.
Acts 21:37-38 NRSV

Now, are these all coincidences? There seems to be a lack of word-for-word agreement, yes. However, similarities exist, some of which weren’t mentioned by Carrier. I want to mention something first. The Acts passage we looked at above portrays Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, in a good light. Josephus, in his autobiography (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.i.html?highlight=gamaliel#highlight) speaks highly of a Pharisee, in fact none other than Simon son of Gamaliel. Generally speaking, this isn’t the only positive attribute of Pharisees in Luke’s work. Jesus is reported to have eaten at the homes of the Pharisees (7:36; 11:37), in the paralle passages, they seem to omit this information. Luke 13.31 has some Pharisees come to Jesus in a warning that Herod would want to kill him. (John’s gospel, almost universally agreed to be the last written, also contains a positive story about a Pharisee, Nicodemus, who came to Jesus at night for instruction. A fragment of John’s gospel has been found which dates to about 125 AD, which virtually forces us to date the original in the first century. This adds support to the positive-mention-of-Pharisees-in-the-late-first-century hypothesis. [Rylands Library Papyrus P52; https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/3.html)
According to The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature by Doris Lambers-Petry:
Steve Mason has established that as distinct from the Jewish War, Josephus’ later works display a clear sympathy for the Pharisees. A somewhat similar sympathy is found in Luke’s works, in roughly the same period. Rather than give in to speculative theories of dependence, we must think of a common setting, which in view of the prominent patrons both authors mention in their dedications apparently had to do with influential circles in Rome. In this setting they both took care to portray the Pharisees and especially their influential representatives in a positive daylight.
Something interesting I found with some parallels: http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

Leave a Reply Cancel reply