Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing. The prominence of ' God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in (cf. If so, the book must have appeared before those events. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period.
This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. Most of the New Testament, including all the gospels, is available in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscript from 150 yeas after the New Testament was finished (ca. No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either. He mentions the hundreds of eyewitnesses who could verify the resurrection (1 Cor. Paul rests the truth of Christianity on the historicity of the resurrection (1 Cor. Paul also gives historical details about Jesus' contemporaries, the apostles (1 Cor. Ignatius referred to six Pauline epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's epistles.It is widely accepted by critical and conservative scholars that 1 Corinthians was written by 55 or 56. 15:5-8), including his private encounters with Peter and the apostles (Gal. Surrounding persons, places, and events of Christ's birth were all historical. Albright wrote, ' We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.' (, 136). Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books.This is less than a quarter century after the crucifixion in 33. Luke goes to great pains to note that Jesus was born during the days of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1) and was baptised in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Elsewhere Albright said, ' In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A. 50 and 75)' (' Towards a More Conservative View,' 3). Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books.Further, Paul speaks of more than 250 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when he wrote (15:6). There are nearly 600 quotations of 1 Corinthians in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian alone (Theissen, 201). Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. There is a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates, even among some liberal scholars. This scholar when so far as to affirm that the evidence from the Qumran community show that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is probably first century (' Recent Discoveries in Palestine'). D.' (, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John.The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former accountant' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1).The destiny (' Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts -17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia.When the New Testament was written is a significant issue, as one assembles the overall argument for Christianity.Confidence in the historical accuracy of these documents depends partly on whether they were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to the events described, as the Bible claims.Negative critical scholars strengthen their own views as the separate the actual events from the writings by as much time as possible.For this reason radical scholars argue for late first century, and if possible second century, dates for the autographs [original manuscripts].