About the book of Acts of the Apostles.

[Eloi]

Let's talk about that here.

Since the book of Acts had the same writter than the gospel of Luke, it is evident that the gospel was written some time before Acts.

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Acts 1:1 The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus started to do and to teach 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given instructions through holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After he had suffered, he showed himself alive to them by many convincing proofs. He was seen by them throughout 40 days, and he was speaking about the Kingdom of God.

To what year do the scholars date the book of Acts, and what are the reasons why they do it?

[Eloi]

In the chapter dedicated to the first letter to Timothy in our book "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" you can read some relevant information regarding the events related to Paul and his death:

Luke's account of Paul’s life in the book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome awaiting the outcome of his appeal to Caesar. Paul is shown as dwelling in his own hired house, preaching the Kingdom of God to all who came to him, and doing so “with the greatest freeness of speech, without hindrance.” (Acts 28:30, 31) But in his second letter to Timothy, Paul writes: “I am suffering evil to the point of prison bonds as an evildoer,” and he speaks of his death as imminent. (2 Tim. 2:9; 4:6-8) What a change! In the first instance, he was treated as an honorable prisoner, in the second, as a felon. What had happened between the time of Luke’s comment on Paul’s situation in 61 C.E., at the end of two years in Rome, and Paul’s own writing of his condition to Timothy, which appears to have been written shortly before his death?

The difficulty of fitting the writing of Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus into the period covered by the book of Acts has led some Bible commentators to the conclusion that Paul was successful in his appeal to Caesar and was released about 61 C.E. Says The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible: “The closing verse of The Acts accords better with this view [that Paul was released after two years’ confinement] than with the supposition that the imprisonment which has been described ended in the apostle’s condemnation and death. Luke emphasizes the fact that no one hindered his work, thus certainly giving the impression that the end of his activity was not near.” [Footnote: 1970, edited by H. S. Gehman, page 721.] It is, then, to the period between his release from his first imprisonment in Rome and his final imprisonment there, or about 61-64 C.E., that the writing of First Timothy belongs.

On his release from prison, Paul evidently resumed his missionary activity in association with Timothy and Titus. Whether Paul ever reached Spain, as some suppose, is not certain. Clement of Rome wrote (c. 95 C.E.) that Paul came “to the extreme limit of the W[est],” which could have included Spain.[Footnote: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, page 6, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” chap. V.]

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990115

A relevant detail is that Luke was a companion of Paul at the end of his earthly career as a missionary for Christ. He said in his second letter to Timothy:

2 Tim. 4:6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my releasing is imminent. 7 I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith. 8 From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation. 9 Do your utmost to come to me shortly. (...) 11 Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark along with you, for he is helpful to me in the ministry.

... which shows that Luke was his faithful companion, and the information he had previously recorded in his finished book of Acts of the Apostles had been first hand.

[JoeyKnothead]

... which shows that Luke was his faithful companion, and the information he had previously recorded in his finished book of Acts of the Apostles had been first hand.

Where is this "finished book", that we may compare it against claims presented about it?

Just because someone says "I'm telling you what the book would say, it's just I can't produce the book for analysis", that's no reason to believe anything such a claimant may claim about that book.

I can just as well say, "Naw, that book, that I can't produce, it says this whole god and Jesus thing is just the original version of 'The Aristocrats'."

[TRANSPONDER]

Scholars typically date the book of Acts to around 80-90 AD. This timing is based on its relationship to the Gospel of Luke, historical events mentioned or omitted, and the theological development evident in the text. Acts is considered to have been written after Luke, and the lack of reference to significant events like the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD suggests it was written later. Some argue for an earlier date due to the abrupt ending with Paul in Rome, possibly before his death in 64 AD.

That is certainly the Official version, taken by Biblical scholars (so far as i have read or heard) even if some critics question that.

I'm no expert so it's no use asking me for Proof, especially as the whole Bible was written to conceal truth and promulgate lies and nonsense, but here's how i see it.

1st c AD. Jesus carried out his failed messianic liberation attempt and was executed for rebellion. That is pretty much what the gospels tell us, despite a clumsy cover up. Disciples suppose that Jesus or his spirit has been resurrected and gone to heaven. Simon is the first to imagine this as a vision as in 1. Cor. The Gabriel stone and Talpiot graffiti may even show a three day resurrection - belief (based on Jonah) before Jesus's mission.
Originally opposed to the Nazoreans on political grounds (as were the Sadducee R Priesthood), Paul converted for a reason I propose - he expected the End to come any day and wanted his fellow Romans to be saved. They might believe in God but would never accept the Mosaic Law, so he fooled himself into thinking that the risen messiah somehow saved and the Law wasn't necessary.

Escaping the Nabateans in 36 AD, Paul started selling his own new religion to the Greeks, and used the 45 AD famine as way to ingratiate himself with the disciples (collecting for the 'saints' in Jerusalem). James appears to have imposed the usual Noahide laws for 'associate Jews' (gentile believers) but Paul attracted opposition to his wholesale abolishing of the mosaic law.
Where and how he ended up, in Rome or not, Nero's rule drove the Jews to revolt, just as happened in Britain at the same time. Jewish war about 60 - 80 Ad? Without looking it up .

So, around the end of the first c the first Christianised account of Jesus' life appeared. Very basic; no nativities, no sermon on the mount, no syrio - phoenecian woman or cursed fig - tree and I think, no healing at a distance or walking on water; and no resurrection account. Just an empty tomb. No angel explaining everything as John, when he wrote his gospel (prob. sometime in the 2nd c) doesn't have one. But he does know that the Christian basics were in place - the Jews were offered the Zealot Barabbas or Christian Jesus and they rejected Jesus and chose Barabbas, and the Temple was destroyed as a punishment. Oh, and the Romans were not Really to blame for killing Jesus; somehow the Jews had to get the blame for that.

What John did know, however was that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem. But is the Original gospel (as in Mark) there is only Jesus the Galilean. John blusters, but Matthew and Luke Correct the Bible by adding nativities to make Jesus Bethlehem - born We are already in the mid to late 2nd c, But already John has added a resurrection to his received story (which he claims as Eyewitness). Matthew's stab as a resurrection is later with a fanciful angel and appearance of Jesus, and Luke is the last of all, and I suspect we may be in the 3rd c AD. He knows Paul's letters, which the others clearly don't. So he has to change the story so the disciples don't go to Galilee as in ordered by Jesus, but stay in Jerusalem to found the Church and rubber - stamp Paul's mission.

That is why Luke (announcing his reliance on various sources - gospels, Paul's letters and Josephus) writes Acts ending around AD 60 because that is all Paul's letters tell him.

It doesn't end there as the Freer logion is added to Mark, additions are made to Luke, like the disciples running to check the tomb, borrowed from John, (but not in all versions) and (so I am assured) the whole appearance of Jesus in Galilee, after the resurrection, in John, is a later addition. As is the woman taken in adultery, sometimes put in Luke's gospel.

So my proposal is that ALL the Christian stuff must post - date the Jewish war as retrospective prophecy, and that is only the proto - gospel, with even Mark being a later version of that. It is very late indeed before Luke gets to the writing of Acts, and any companions of Paul are long gone. The author of Acts is not an eyewitness, nor talking to one, but is working, as he implies himself, from pre - existing records, and notably Josephus.