Audio only:
Discover when Luke and Acts were REALLY written! Jimmy Akin dives into the shocking abrupt ending of Acts—why does it stop right in the middle of Paul’s dramatic Roman trial with no verdict? Using rock-solid evidence (even quoting a famous liberal scholar!), Jimmy argues both books were finished during Paul’s house arrest in Rome: Luke in A.D. 59, Acts in A.D. 60. Mind-blowing early dates that crush late-date myths and supercharge the Gospels’ credibility! Must-listen!
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
When were the four Gospels written?
Ultimately, from a faith perspective, the precise dates don’t matter.
What matters is that they are divinely inspired and thus authoritative for faith.
However, by showing that the Gospels were written in the first century, within a few decades of Jesus’ life, their credibility is strengthened even from a secular perspective.
Today virtually all scholars—whether skeptical or believing—acknowledge that the Gospels are first century documents.
The real question is how early in the first century they were written.
That’s what we’ll examine in this series of occasional episodes on the podcast.
And today we’re going to be looking at when the Gospel of Luke was written—as well as its companion, the book of Acts
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get yourself early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
The Importance of Acts
More than a century ago, the liberal German scholar Adolf von Harnack published a work titled The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels in which he considered this question.
In Episode 50 of the podcast, I talked about the conclusions von Harnack came to in his book and how they’re quite similar to mine—even though von Harnack was a theological liberal and I’m not.
I promised that I’d tell you the reasons for the dates that I assign to the Gospels in future episodes, so that’s what we’re going to be doing today—beginning with Luke and Acts.
As you might guess from the title of von Harnack’s book—The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospel—he considered the date of Acts first.
The reason is that it’s easier to establish this date and then use it to determine the dates of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) with respect to it.
Acts is important because it’s the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. At the beginning of Acts, Luke writes:
Acts 1:1-2
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up.
That’s a description of the Gospel of Luke, which covers the ministry of Jesus and ends with his ascension into heaven.
So Luke was the “the first book” and Acts is now the second book or the sequel to Luke.
Since Luke was written before Acts, the date of Acts determines the latest possible date for Luke.
So . . . when was Acts written?
Acts’ Sudden Ending
The first twelve chapters of Acts are concerned principally with St. Peter, and from chapter 13 onward, St. Paul becomes the focus of the narrative.
Beginning in chapter 21, Paul makes a fateful trip to Jerusalem, being prophetically warned along the way that if he goes there, he will be arrested.
This indeed happens, and the rest of the book is taken up with the consequences of this event.
Paul spends years in custody, and in chapter 25 a turning point occurs when the new Roman governor, Porcius Festus, arrives.
To avoid having the outcome of his trial affected by the hostile Jewish authorities, Paul invokes his Roman citizenship and the right to have his case tried before Caesar (the Caesar in question being Nero at the time). Festus then replies:
Acts 25:12
You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you shall go.
The rest of the book is taken up with the events leading up to Paul’s voyage to Rome and what happened on that trip.
Acts ends in chapter 28 with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting his trial. Luke simply says:
Acts 28:30-31
And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.
The end. That’s it! We get no resolution on what happened when Paul appeared before Nero.
The Significance of the Ending
Many scholars have argued that the book’s abrupt ending reveals when it was written.
It makes no sense, if Luke knew the outcome of the trial, for him to cut off the narrative at this point.
He has been building toward this climactic event for eight chapters—a quarter of the entire book—and yet he doesn’t tell us what happened!
This is all the more striking, because whatever happened to Paul would have suited Luke’s purposes.
If Paul was acquitted at this trial then Luke could portray Paul and the gospel as gloriously vindicated.
If Paul was imprisoned or martyred then Luke could portray Paul as gloriously and heroically suffering for the gospel, as he has done so often in the book, or even Paul being gloriously martyred for the gospel.
Either an innocent or a guilty verdict would make a very compelling ending.
We learn from later sources that Paul was actually released, and he conducted a further period of ministry, only to be re-arrested and then martyred after Nero found it convenient to blame Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64.
With Paul’s death by beheading likely taking place in A.D. 67.
Yet Luke gives us neither of these endings—either with Paul being declared innocent of the charges against him (which he was), thus vindicating the gospel and the Christian faith . . . or with Paul suffering and possibly dying for the sake of the gospel.
The only reasonable conclusion is that he didn’t do this because he couldn’t: The trial had not yet happened.
Von Harnack comments:
The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 95, 97
Throughout eight whole chapters St. Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St. Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them—they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! . . .
The more clearly we see that the trial of St. Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of the Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does, otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion. If St. Luke, in the year 80, 90, or 100, wrote thus he was not simply a blundering but an absolutely incomprehensible historian!
Von Harnack also points out that Luke repeatedly records prophecies of future events in Acts, yet he makes no mention of Paul’s ultimate fate, which is something he could have related as a prophecy if he was writing after the fact:
The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 97-98
St. Luke allows Agabus to foretell a famine, to foretell St. Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem; he suffers St. Paul himself (on the voyage) to foretell, like a fortune-teller, the fate of the ship and all its passengers; he in many chapters of the book deals in all kinds of “spiritual” utterances and prophecies—but not one word is said concerning the final destiny of St. Paul (and of St. Peter)! Is this natural? There are prophecies concerning events of minor importance [in the book], while there is nothing about the greatest event of all!
This further reinforces the conclusion that Acts was written before the trial to which it has been building had finished.
And on this I absolutely agree with von Harnack.
The Date of Acts
So in what year was Acts written?
Well, when does its narrative break off?
The specific year is disputed by scholars.
The two years Paul spent under house arrest in Rome begin shortly after the arrival of the governor Porcius Festus, who ships Paul off to Rome.
The problem is that we do not know precisely when Festus arrived in Judaea.
This is the key event for determining when Paul’s voyage to Rome began and thus when his two-year period of house arrest began.
Many estimate that Festus arrived in A.D. 59, and so Paul arrived in Rome early in 60, and his house arrest lasted from A.D. 60-62.
However, I have done a (currently unpublished) study of the issue, and I agree with scholars such as Jack Finegan and Andrew Steinmann that Festus arrived in A.D. 57.
That would mean that Paul arrived in Rome in early 58, and his house arrest lasted from A.D. 58-60.
Since Acts ends with the house arrest having lasted “two whole years,” that means Acts was written at the end of those two years.
I thus conclude that Acts was written in A.D. 60.
The Date of Luke
Since Luke refers to his Gospel as “the first book,” we know that the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, but how much before?
A careful study of the end of the Gospel suggests it was not long.
This can be seen by comparing its end with the end of one of Luke’s sources—the Gospel of Mark.
The original ending of Mark may or may not have been lost, but it concludes in a way that indicates what would have happened next.
An angel tells the women who have come to Jesus’ tomb:
Mark 16:7 (cf. Mark 14:28)
But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.
Mark thus envisions a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee. This is also what happens in Matthew (See Matt. 28:7, 10, 16-20).
However, Luke omits Mark’s reference to the disciples going to Galilee and focuses instead on post-Resurrection appearances that occurred in Jerusalem and its vicinity (See Luke 24:13-53).
He makes no mention of the disciples going to Galilee. Instead, Luke records Jesus telling the disciples:
Luke 24:46-49
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.
Notice: Repentance is to be preached to all nations “beginning from Jerusalem” and the disciples are to “stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”
This difference has led some to accuse Luke of contradicting Mark and Matthew, but that’s not true. In reality there is no conflict.
The truth is that Jesus appeared to the disciples both in the vicinity of Jerusalem and in Galilee.
This is something the Gospel of John makes clear, as John reports resurrection appearances both in Jerusalem (See John 20:19-31) and in Galilee (See John 21:1-23).
Luke simply focuses on the first location, while Mark and Matthew focus on the second.
For our purposes, the question is: Why did Luke choose to end his Gospel as he did?
The obvious answer is that he was already planning what he was going to write in Acts.
Thus at the beginning of the Acts, he records Jesus telling the disciples:
Acts 1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.
This directly echoes the end of Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus says.
Luke 24:49
“And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
The statement in Acts that “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” refers to the events of Pentecost, and it corresponds to the statement in Luke that the disciples are to “stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:46-48
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
Similarly, the statement in Acts that “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” is the outline of the book of Acts, and it corresponds to the statement in Luke that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.”
Other elements of the end of the Gospel are also recapitulated in Acts, including the Ascension (Luke 24:51// Acts 1:9-11), the disciples returning to Jerusalem (Luke 24:52//Acts 1:12), and their regular worship in the temple (Luke 24:53//Acts 2:46, etc.).
The presence of these elements at the end of Luke, and particularly the way Luke diverges from Mark, indicates that he was already planning what he would write in Acts.
That means that it can’t have been long between when Luke composed his Gospel and when he composed Acts.
If there had been a gap of years between the two, Luke’s ending would not dovetail with the beginning of Acts the way it does.
I therefore estimate that Luke was finished immediately before Acts, likely in A.D. 59, and that Luke used the two-year period of Paul’s house arrest in Rome to finish gathering material for and to compose his two works.
In fact, much of the material found in the first twelve chapters of Acts—which focus on Peter—as well as some of the material unique to Luke’s Gospel, likely came from interviews that Luke conducted with Peter in Rome during this period.
Conclusion
We thus find there are good reasons for thinking that Luke and Acts were both composed during Paul’s two-year house arrest in Rome, likely with Luke being written in A.D. 59 and Acts being written in A.D. 60.
But what can we say about when the other Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and John—were written?
Stay tuned, and we’ll look at them in future episodes.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get yourself early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!