There was total of 30 years of history covered by the Acts of the Apostles.
Not as many as you might think; less than 25
It covers 30 years of history.
The actual value varies, but most people generally agree that it covers from about 29 A.D. to about 64 A.D., meaning that it covers around 35 years worth of history.
Acts covers the period from approximately 33AD to 62AD.
The Christian view is that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a historical record of the early years of Christianity. The book is addressed to Theophilus, but the book must have been written for a wider audience, including converts and potential converts. Theophilus ("friend of God") may have been a real person, or may have simply symbolised the faithful.
Acts seems to have been written to a Christian community that was beginning to identify itself as distinct from the Gnostic Christians, and the author seems to have been trying to draw together different strands of that Christianity. The audience for Acts of the Apostles is likely to have included much of the 'centrist' Christian community. It may well have been aimed at the 'Paulist' and Gnostic adherents who were amenable to accepting the centrist approach to Christianity. It shows the Christians as friendly and loyal towards Rome, so may also have been, in part, an apology intended to impress the Romans that Christianity was not inamicable to Roman rule.
Other answers from our community: Between 63 and 70 A.D.
Answer
Acts of the Apostles is known to have been written some time after Luke's Gospel. The author of Luke is also known to have relied on Mark's Gospel, which has been dated to approximately 70 CE, so clearly Luke's Gospel could not have been written until some time after 70 CE. In fact, scholars say that Luke was written around the end of the first century.
In addition, it can be shown that the author of Actsrelied heavily on the book, Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Jewish historian, Josephus and published in 93 CE. For example, his attribution to Gamaliel of the following passage:
(Acts 5:34): Then stood there up one in the council, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, high in reputation among all the people, and he said unto them: Take heed of yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; he was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought. After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
These words were attributed by Acts to Gamaliel, but he could not possibly have been responsible for them. He is supposed to have mentioned Theudas' revolt and "after him Judas the Galilean." If this Sanhedrin session took place around 35 CE, Theudas' revolt had not yet taken place, and the revolt by Judas the Galilean had taken place thirty years before. Luke wrote long after the event and might not have realised his error, which probably resulted because, while Josephus had his chronology correct, he mentioned Judas after he mentioned Theudas. A misreading or poor notetaking from Antiquities could cause someone to think Theudas lived before Judas of Galilee. This error relied of the pecular sequence in which Josephus wrote his account and would not have occurred if Luke had relied on some other source.
From this and many other examples, we can establish with confidence that Acts of the Apostles was written after Antiquities of the Jews, and probably in the early years of the second century.
There is considerable evidence that Acts of the Apostlesused, as one of its sources, Jewish Antiquities,published by Flavius Josephus in 93 CE. Thus Acts would have been written some time later than the year 93, probably early in the second century. Some representative examples that demonstrate the reliance ofActs on the works of Josephus follow:
Acts of the Apostles covers events described as happening between the crucifixion of Jesus and the arrival of Paul in Rome, thus a period of about thirty years. However, many modern New Testament scholars do not consider Acts to be a work of history. The Acts Seminar was set up to review the book carefully and look for for evidence of historicity in Acts. It determined that the book was written in the second century and does not accurately record events at the time of the early church. Scholars participating in the Seminar concluded (See Acts and Christian Beginnings) that Acts is "a primary resource for understanding second-century Christianity" rather than a reliable source for the history of early Christianity.
luke
No. The Book of Acts is in the New Testament.
The fifth book of the New Testament is Acts of the Apostles.In early Christianity, 'Acts' was a literary genre applied to a whole range of supposed biographical/historical books, but Acts of the Apostles was the only one of this genre considered worthy of inclusion in the New Testament. The title might imply that it covers the lives of all or most of the apostles, whereas it is largely a record, and perhaps a comparison, of Peter and Paul. Nevertheless, it is probably the one book of Acts that does cover the two most important apostles, with some brief mentions of other apostles. On that basis, this book has the best claim to its title, although it is not necessarily a historical account.
Other answers from our community:Some consider Acts of the Apostles to be a history of the early Church.Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John give the history of Jesus. That is why they are called the Gospel, or good news. Acts gives the History of the early Christians, and the spread of Christianity throughout Israel, Asia Minor, and Europe.Acts is the one that contains most history in a concentrated form and is the only one that could be considered as 'pure history'. The Gospels contain 'history' of a different kind as their main focus is also on the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus. They are thus history with a very clear focus and concentrated on a relatively short period of time.The Gospels record the history of Christ's time on earth. Acts records the history of the beginning of the church. All Bible books have SOME history in them, but the 'New Testament' books that come to mind are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as they give an account of Jesus' life and ministry. Also, Acts, since it's basically the history of the early Christian congregation and the beginning of the Christian preaching work.Acts of the Apostles.
the New Testament, the final portion of the Christian Bible
Ananias. Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Acts of the Apostles.
A:No. This would be impossible. Acts of the Apostles does not cover events we know to have happened within the context of Christianity, does cover events about which scholars are sceptical, and seems to offer a different history of Paul's mission than Paul does in his own epistles. Hans Joachim Schoeps (Das Judenchristentum) says that in reality Acts is only a retrospective view of Christian origins written by one party - the winners. He says that Actsfollows a clear didactic line and for this reason energetically cultivates the creation of legends and reshapes persons and events according to its own standards. Acts has been believed much too readily.
Who is Stephen in Acts of the Apostles?
The book known as Acts of the Apostles is important to know if you are a Christian and if you believe the book is a reliable history of the early church. It is also possible to be a Christian and accept a scholarly view that Acts is often not historically reliable, in which case knowing Acts of the Apostles would be of secondary importance.
No. The Book of Acts is in the New Testament.
Your first resource in studying the history of the early church should be the book of Acts (Acts of the Apostles) in the Christian New Testament in the Bible.
The Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles, abbreviation Acts, fifth book of the New Testament, a valuable history of the early Christian church. Acts was written in Greek, presumably by the Evangelist Luke, whose gospel concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ's Ascension into heaven.
The Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles, abbreviation Acts, fifth book of the New Testament, a valuable history of the early Christian church. Acts was written in Greek, presumably by the Evangelist Luke, whose gospel concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ's Ascension into heaven.
AnswerNo. The Acts of the Apostles is essentially a record of the supposed acts of Peter and Paul, perhaps even a subtle comparison of the two apostles. Apart from Stephen, who is not mentioned anywhere outside Acts, there is no real mention of the other apostles.
The Acts of the Apostles which details the history of the early church is between the Gospel accounts and the epistles.
By studying Acts of the Apostles, you would hope to learn the history of the early Christian church. Modern scholarship says that Acts is not really a reliable history, but you would probably be entirely unaware of this in your studies.
acts