A Date Before 70
A Date Before 70
Arriving at a firm date for books within the New Testament is not easy—there are few solid data to go by, and many of the arguments cancel each other or are so subjective that they can only confirm a conclusion reached on other grounds. But a significant number of scholars have thought that the book of Acts furnishes one piece of evidence that determines a relatively firm and exact date for the book: its abrupt ending.
Acts ends with Paul languishing for two years under house arrest in Rome. This conclusion seems to be rather lame and unfulfilling. Is not the best explanation for this ending that Luke had decided it was necessary at this point to publish his work? After all, Luke has spent eight chapters detailing the course of Paul’s judicial proceedings. Is it likely that he would have left us in suspense about the outcome of these proceedings? It is almost certain that Paul was not executed at the end of this two-year period. Why, if Luke knew this, did he not tell us that Paul was released from prison, as a final, climactic indication of the innocence of the Christian movement in the eyes of the Romans? Alternatively, if Luke was writing late enough to know of Paul’s execution in A.D. 64 or 65, why did he keep this from the reader? Would not Paul’s execution have made a fitting parallel to the execution of James earlier in Acts (Acts 12:2) and brought Acts to a similar climax as the gospel of Luke, with its narrative of Jesus’ death? And would Luke have left as it is Paul’s solemn assurance to the elders of Ephesus that he would never see them again (20:25, 38) if he had known that Paul had returned and ministered in Ephesus (as 1 Timothy assumes that he did, probably in the years 63-64)? Our difficulty in answering these questions satisfactorily suggests that the simplest and most natural explanation for the abrupt ending of Acts is that Luke finished writing the book when Paul had been in Rome for two years—in 62, according to the most probable chronology. 30
This line of argument appears to be objective, simple, and persuasive. But there are other possible explanations for the ending of Acts that claim to invalidate this argument. One explanation is that Luke may have intended to write a third volume and that Acts ends where it does to keep the reader in suspense until he or she can begin that third volume. 31 Indication that Luke intended a third volume has been found in his use of the word πρώτος (protos, “first”, G4755) in Acts 1:1 to describe the gospel of Luke. This word is technically a superlative adjective and would thus refer to the first of three or more books rather than to the former of two. But Hellenistic Greek tended to confuse the degrees of comparison in adjectives, and little can be built on the use of this word here. We have no other indication that Luke intended another volume, and this explanation for the ending must be considered purely speculative.
The explanation of the ending of Acts that is most popular today is that Paul’s arrival in Rome and his unhindered preaching of the gospel in the capital of the empire bring the book to its intended conclusion. 32 Luke’s focus is not biographical but theological— he is not interested in a life of Paul but in the expansion of the gospel. To have the gospel being preached in Rome "without hindrance” (Acts 28:31) brings Luke’s epic account of the growth and expansion of the Christian movement to its natural terminus. To argue, then, that Acts is strangely incomplete because it does not tell us the outcome of Paul’s appeal to the emperor or the ultimate fate of the apostle is to assume that Luke was more interested in Paul per se than he really was. Perhaps, indeed, Luke knew that the outcome of Paul’s trial in Rome was a negative one or that Paul had been executed by the Romans, but he deliberately refrained from giving us this information because it would have spoiled his upbeat conclusion. Perhaps Luke knew that Paul had been freed after this first Roman trial and did not want to get Paul in trouble by publishing the details of his further ministry. 33 Or perhaps—and this is the most probable explanation—Luke knew that Paul was continuing to minister in the churches of the East but did not include this information because it did not make as neat a climax as did Paul’s preaching in Rome. In any case, it is argued, the ending of Acts, being the natural climax of the narrative, gives no help at all in dating the book.
This argument carries considerable weight. Further substantiating it is Luke’s mention of a specific period of time—"two whole years”—during which Paul preached in Rome. This suggests that Luke knew that Paul’s circumstances changed after this two-year period. Nevertheless, doubts linger about Luke’s failure to mention the results of Paul’s trial in Rome. Luke’s interest in Paul may be exaggerated, but he does spend a considerable amount of time telling us of the apostle’s own circumstances and history. The space devoted to Paul’s trials in the latter part of the book makes Luke’s failure to tell us the outcome of those trials somewhat unexpected.
While it is difficult to be certain, then, we are inclined to think that the most natural explanation for the ending of Acts is that Luke decided to publish the book at that particular point in history. This leaves unanswered the question, Why did Luke not wait to learn the outcome of Paul’s trial before publishing the book? One answer is that Luke wrote Acts as a defense brief to be used by Paul at this trial. But this explanation is unlikely, and we must admit that we do not not know what prompted Luke to finish his work at this point. Nevertheless, a failure to answer this question does not invalidate the general line of reasoning.
The ending of Acts, we have argued, suggests a date of about A.D. 62 for the book. But since this argument is by no means certain, we should seek for other grounds on which to establish a date. In fact, several other factors point to a date of about the same time (e.g., 62-64): (1) Luke’s apparent ignorance of the letters of Paul; (2) Luke’s portrayal of Judaism as a legal religion, a situation that would have changed abruptly with the outbreak of the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 66; (3) Luke’s omission of any reference to the Neronian persecution, which, if it had occurred when Luke was writing, would surely have affected his narrative in some way; (4) the vivid detail of the shipwreck=voyage narrative (27:1-28:16), which suggests very recent experience. 34