The Dating of Luke-Acts:

A More in Depth Study

Joshua Barchenger

Introduction:
This is a more in depth study to the video I have on the same topic located here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4_BcxZPiG8
The video is to provide the basics for those that are not as interested in the scholarly side of
this.
As this is not actually a paper, but just a blog, I will treat it moreso as such. I am not an expert in
the field, I am merely a student in the field. This is what I have concluded by reading the works
of others as well as looking into it myself. Sometimes I will not include every little detail in this
article and instead source places where you can go to get a better grasp of the concept. If the
main source I would be using says what I want to better, I might simply tell you to go there to
learn more, but I will still mention what I am using from the source to reach my conclusion.

Luke-Acts Common Authorship:

The first thing to establish is the common authorship of Luke and Acts.
First thing we can do to establish this common authorship is to look at the prefaces of both
Luke and Acts.
Acts 1:1-3
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, after he had given commands through the Holy
Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his
suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the
kingdom of God.
We can see that the author of Acts clearly wrote a Gospel to Theophilus. When we look at the
Preface of Luke we can see that it was written to the same person:
Luke 1:3-4
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to
write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty
concerning the things you have been taught.
This gives us good reason to believe that the author of Luke is the same as the author of Acts.
There also exists many similarities between Luke and Acts which is best explained by common
authorship.
Luke
Acts
Preface to Theophilus (1:1-4)
Preface to Theophilus (1:1-5)
Spirit descends on Jesus as he prays (3:21-22) Spirit comes to apostles as they pray (2:1-13)
Sermon declares prophecy fulfilled (4:16-27) Sermon declares prophecy fulfilled (2:14-40)

Jesus heals a lame man (5:17-26)

Religious leaders attack Jesus (5:29-6:11)
Centurion invites Jesus to his house (7:1-10)
Jesus raises widows son from death (7:1117)
Missionary journey to Gentiles (10:1-12)
Jesus travels to Jerusalem (9:51-19:28)
Jesus is received favorably (19:37)
Jesus is devoted to the temple (19:45-48)
Sadducees oppose Jesus, but scribes support
him (20:27-39)
Jesus breaks bread and gives thanks (22:19)
Jesus is seized by an angry mob (22:54)
Jesus is slapped by high priests aides (22:6364)
Jesus is tried four times and declared
innocent three times (22:66-23:13)
Jesus is regarded favorably by a centurion
(23:47)
Final confirmation that scriptures have been
fulfilled (24:45-47)

Peter heals a lame man (3:1-10)

Religious leaders attack apostles (4:1-8:3)
Centurion invites Peter to his house (10:1-23)
Peter raises widow from death (9:36-43)
Missionary journeys to Gentiles (13:1-19:20)
Paul travels to Jerusalem (19:21-21:17)
Paul is received favorably (21:17-20)
Paul is devoted to the temple (21:26)
Sadducees oppose Paul, but Pharisees
support him (23:6-9)
Paul breaks bread and gives thanks (27:35)
Paul is seized by an angry mob (21:30)
Paul is slapped at high priests command
(23:2)
Paul is tried four times and declared innocent
three times (23:1-26:32)
Paul is regarded favorably by a centurion
(27:43)
Final confirmation that scriptures have been
fulfilled (28:23-28)

Source [1]

This doesnt even address all the similarities that exist between Luke and Acts, which include
linguistic and theological parallels [2].
This here gives us really good evidence that both Luke and Acts were written by the same
person. This is why they are usually referred to as Luke-Acts.

Earliest Dating for Luke-Acts

Luke and the Olivet Discourse:
Luke shows knowledge of the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21 (almost the entire thing is dedicated
to it). Most Christian fundamentalists try and claim it is a prophecy, but it is much more likely
that the author knew of the event and included it in his writing.
The Olivet Discourse is also known to have happened in 70CE due to a first-hand account by
Josephus Flavius, a Jewish Historian, in his book Jewish War, also known as War of the Jews.
This means that Luke-Acts must have been written after 70CE.
Luke and Mark, the Synoptic Problem

The use of Mark by both Luke and Matthew is one of the most widely accepted ideas by
scholars. It is known as the Synoptic Problem.
We can use the following diagram to help us understand just what the Synoptic Problem is:

As we can see from the diagram, 42% of Luke is based on Mark.

I will address the Synoptic problem more in depth in a later piece, and so I will leave this section
at the diagram and also encourage you to read up about this.
This means that Luke-Acts must have been written after Mark. I will address the dating of Mark
at a later time, though the earliest it could have been is 70CE (though, I will argue for much
later).
Lukes usage of Josephus
The usage of Josephus by the author of Luke-Acts is not as widely accepted by the scholarly
community, but there are good reasons to believe that the connection is there.

We can look at story parallels first, using Luke, Acts, Jewish War, and Jewish Antiquities (the
passages will be long, and so this will take up a lot of space. If you wish to get to the meat of the
argument, you may wish to skip the comparison section):
Luke
Acts
Jewish War
Jewish Antiquities
Census under
2:1-3
18:1:1-4
In
those
days
Caesar
Quirinius, a Roman
Quirinius
Augustus issued a
decree that a census
should be taken of
the entire Roman
world. (This was the
first census that
took place while[a]
Quirinius was
governor of Syria.)
And everyone went
to their own town
to register.

senator who had

passed through all
the other
magistracies until he
became consul, and
one who in other
respects was very
distinguished, came
at this time into Syria,
with a few others,
having been sent by
Caesar to be governor
of that nation and to
make an assessment
of their property.
Coponius, a man of
the equestrian order,
was sent with him to
have supreme
authority over the
Jews. Quirinius came
himself to Judea,
which had now been
added to the province
of Syria, to make an
assessment of their
property and to
dispose of Archelaus's
estate. Although the
Jews at first took the
report of a taxation
angrily, they gradually
left off any further
opposition to it by
the persuasion of the
high priest Joazar son
of Boethus.
Persuaded by Joazar's
words, they gave an
account of their
estates without any
dissent.
But there was one
man, Judas, a

Gaulanite from a city

named Gamala, who,
taking with him
Saddok, a Pharisee,
became zealous to
draw them to revolt.
They both said that
this taxation was no
better than an
introduction to
slavery, and exhorted
the nation to assert
their liberty...

Same three
Rebel Leaders

5:36

2.117-118

18:1-8

Some time ago

Theudas
appeared,
claiming to be
somebody, and
about four
hundred men
rallied to him. He
was killed, all his
followers were
dispersed, and it
all came to
nothing.

AND now
Archelauss part of
Judea was reduced
into a province, and
Coponious, 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 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.

[same passage as
above]

5:37
After him, Judas
the Galilean
appeared in the
days of the
census and led a
band of people in
revolt. He too
was killed, and all
his followers
were scattered

21:38
"Aren't you the
Egyptian who
started a revolt
and led four
thousand
terrorists out
into the
wilderness some
time ago?"

2.261-263
But there was an
Egyptian false
prophet that did
the Jews more

20:97
Now it came to pass,
while Fadus was
procurator of Judea,
that a certain
magician, whose
name was Theudas,
persuaded a great
part of the people to
take their effects with
them, and follow him
to the river Jordan;
for he told them he
was a prophet, and
that he would, by his
own command,
divide the river, and
afford them an easy
passage over it;

20:171
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

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 with the
assistance of those
guards of his that
were to break into
the city with him,
but Feliz prevented
his attempt, and
met him with his
Roman soldiers,
while all the people
assisted him in his
attack upon them,
insomuch that,
when it came to a
battle, the Egyptian
ran away, with a
few others, while
the greatest part of
those that were
with him were
either destroyed or
taken alive; but the
rest of the
multitude were
dispersed every one
to their own homes
and there
concealed
themselves.

took two hundred

alive.

The death of
Agrippa I as
God's vengeance
for accepting
praise as a god

12:21-23

19.343-352

On the
appointed day
Herod (Agrippa
I), wearing his
royal robes, sat
on his throne
and delivered a
public address to
the people. They
shouted, This is
the voice of a
god, not of a
man.
Immediately,
because Herod
did not give
praise to God, an
angel of the Lord
struck him down,
and he was eaten
by worms and
died.

Now when Agrippa

had reigned three
years over all Judea,
he came to the city
Caesarea, which was
formerly called
Stratos Tower; and
there he exhibited
shows in honor of
Caesar, upon his
being informed that
there was a certain
festival celebrated to
make vows for his
safety. At which
festival a great
multitude was gotten
together of the
principal persons, and
such as were of
dignity through his
province. On the
second day of which
shows he put on a
garment made wholly
of silver, and of a
contexture truly
wonderful, and came
into the theater early
in the morning; at
which time the silver
of his garment being
illuminated by the
fresh reflection of the
suns rays upon it,
shone out after a
surprising manner,
and was so
resplendent as to
spread a horror over
those that looked
intently upon him;
and presently his
flatterers cried out,
one from one place,
and another from
another, (though not
for his good,) that he
was a god; and they
added, Be thou
merciful to us; for

although we have
hitherto reverenced
thee only as a man,
yet shall we
henceforth own thee
as superior to mortal
nature. Upon this
the king did neither
rebuke them, nor
reject their impious
flattery. But as he
presently afterward
looked up, he saw an
owl sitting on a
certain rope over his
head, and
immediately
understood that this
bird was the
messenger of ill
tidings, as it had once
been the messenger
of good tidings to
him; and fell into the
deepest sorrow. A
severe pain also arose
in his belly, and
began in a most
violent manner. He
therefore looked
upon his friends, and
said, I, whom you
call a god, am
commanded
presently to depart
this life; while
Providence thus
reproves the lying
words you just now
said to me; and I, who
was by you called
immortal, am
immediately to be
hurried away by
death. But I am
bound to accept of
what Providence
allots, as it pleases
God; for we have by
no means lived ill, but
in a splendid and
happy manner.
When he said this, his

pain was become

violent. Accordingly
he was carried into
the palace, and the
rumor went abroad
every where, that he
would certainly die in
a little time. But the
multitude presently
sat in sackcloth, with
their wives and
children, after the law
of their country, and
besought God for the
kings recovery. All
places were also full
of mourning and
lamentation. Now the
king rested in a high
chamber, and as he
saw them below lying
prostrate on the
ground, he could not
himself forbear
weeping. And when
he had been quite
worn out by the pain
in his belly for five
days, he departed
this life, being in the
fifty-fourth year of his
age, and in the
seventh year of his
reign; for he reigned
four years under
Caius Caesar, three of
them were over
Philips tetrarchy
only, and on the
fourth he had that of
Herod added to it;
and he reigned,
besides those, three
years under the reign
of Claudius Caesar; in
which time he
reigned over the
forementioned
countries, and also
had Judea added to
them, as well as
Samaria and
Caesarea. The

revenues that he
received out of them
were very great, no
less than twelve
millions of drachmae.
Yet did he borrow
great sums from
others; for he was so
very liberal that his
expenses exceeded
his incomes, and his
generosity was
boundless.

I know that I have only put up the comparison of three, but due to the length of Josephus
works that I would have to put down, it would probably be best to just point you to where you
can get this information[3][4].
Now, story parallels alone do not prove that Luke used Josephus, but that isnt all that is
available to us. There are other types of parallels that Dr. Carrier points out in source 3.
Furthermore, as he further points out, the nature of Luke-Acts and the nature of Josephus
work makes it more likely that the author of Luke-Acts used Josephus. I highly recommend
reading the article, as well as Steven Masons arguments (in which Carrier is summarizing).
Since the latest of Josephuss works that the author of Luke-Acts used came out around 97CE,
this means that Luke-Acts was written sometime after 97CE.
Luke-Acts and Marcion
Marcion (or, at least his followers) had a Gospel called The Gospel of the Lord that is very
similar to the Gospel of Luke. The similarities are so much that they are almost certainly
connected. There are numerous sources in the second century that allow us to know that The
Gospel of the Lord was written in the early second century.
Instead of simply reposting much of the work from my source, I will simply recommend you
read it yourself[5].
The main part that I want to address is the Principal of Accretion. This is a principal in historical
studies that states:
1) When two verses from different (but connected) sources say the same thing, the one that
uses more words to describe it usually comes from a later period of time.
2) When there are two different (but connected) books, the one with more verses usually
comes from a later period of time.

When it comes to comparing The Gospel of the Lord and The Gospel of Luke, the Principal of
Accretion supports The Gospel of the Lord as coming first (with odds around 230 to 1).
Furthermore, the ordering of the verses between the two gospels can also help. When a story
flows more naturally, it usually is the original. The ordering of the verses in The Gospel of the
Lord is much more natural than The Gospel of Luke.
For more on this, I recommend reading source 5, the work of Dr. Robert M Price, and the book
Luke-Acts: A Discerning Problem by Joseph B Tyson.
With the connection between Marcion and Luke-Acts, with Marcion coming first, we know that
Luke-Acts must have been written after the turn of the century. Furthermore, without Papias
referencing Luke-Acts (and we would expect him to if Luke-Acts was around), we can safely say
that Luke-Acts was written after 120CE.

Latest Dating for Luke-Acts

Irenaeus and Luke-Acts:
Irenaeus is the first person who ever explicitly mentions Luke-Acts. He does so in his work
Against Heresies 3:1
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through
whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public,
and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they
possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as
improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were
invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were
filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the
earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and
proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually
possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the
foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also,
the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards,
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a
Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
As this was written around 180CE, we know that Luke-Acts must have been composed before
then.

When is our earliest copy or fragment?

This is another important question when dating a work. When is our earliest copy of Luke-Acts
or, if it is older than the copy, the earliest fragment dated to?
First thing to note is that our earliest copy of Luke is actually older than our earliest copy of Acts
(the earliest fragments of Acts are dated to 250CE at earliest [6]), so we must use Luke
fragments.
The earliest fragments of Luke date to around 175-250CE (most scholars prefer putting it after
200CE), with Papyrus 75 being the oldest.
This means that we can say that 180CE, maybe 175CE, is the latest that Luke-Acts could have
been written.

More precise dating, two competing hypotheses

Who was Luke-Acts written to?
Knowing who Luke-Acts was written to is one way of being able to get a more precise dating.
When we look at the prefaces of both Luke and Acts we see that it is written to Most Excellent
Theophilus (both of these verse are used above in the section dealing with common
authorship).
This can mean that it is meant for Christians in general (based on the meaning of Theophilus) or
that it is meant for a person named Theophilus.
When we look at other times the author of Luke-Acts used the words Most Excellent we can
see that it was almost certainly meant for a person named Theophilus, but more than that,
someone in power who is named Theophilus.
Acts 24:2-3
When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: We have enjoyed a
long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this
nation. Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with
profound gratitude.
Acts 26:25
I am not insane, most excellent Festus, Paul replied. What I am saying is
true and reasonable.

The simplest, and best, candidate for this would be Theophilus of Antioch, who was 7 th Bishop
of Antioch from 169CE to 183CE.

But wait, there is another competing hypothesis. Some scholars, like Robert M Price, believe
that the author of Luke-Acts was Polycarp, and that he wrote Luke-Acts to his friend and ally
Theophilus. This would be before Theophilus became the 7th Bishop of Antioch.
Mid-Late Second Century Dating
This is the idea that Luke-Acts was written to Theophilus of Antioch while he was the 7th Bishop
of Antioch.
It is based on the idea that Justin Martyr, a prominent figure from the mid-second century,
never explicitly mentions Luke-Acts, and so an argument from silence is made. This makes it
most likely to be dated at this time.
And so, this hypothesis is that it was written between 169-180CE (169-175CE if Papyrus 75 is
from 175CE).
Early-Mid Second Century Dating
This idea is based around Justin Martyr not explicitly mentioning Luke-Acts, but showing signs
of having knowledge of Luke-Acts.
The theological ideas that are in Acts are paralleled in Justin Martyrs writing First Apology,
which many say is evidence that Luke-Acts predates Justin Martyrs writings.
As Justin Martyr wrote sometime between 140CE and 150CE, this puts the dating of Luke-Acts
to the mid-second century.
This hypothesis is that Luke-Acts was written by Polycarp to his friend and ally Theophilus
around 120-150CE (due to the possibility that Justins writings were closer to 150 than 140).
Which is it?
So, the real question. Which of these two hypotheses is most likely correct?
It all rests on whether or not Justin Martyr actually used Luke-Acts or not.
If he did, the most likely answer is the early-mid second century date of 120-150CE.
If he did not, the most likely answer is the mid-late second century date of 169-180CE.
I, personally, favor the early-mid second century date, as I think a case can be made for Justin
Martyr using Luke-Acts.
And so, the conclusion is that Luke-Acts was composed between 120-150CE, probably by
Polycarp. It was written to Theophilus, who later became the 7th Bishop of Antioch.
Sources:

[1] http://assets.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/esource-assets/files/1032/original/0904.pdf?1417577532
[2] Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259
[3] http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
[4] http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels.htm#Quirinius
[5] http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri