Why Is The Book of Acts In The Bible?

What factors distinguished the canonical book of Acts from all the other Acts in Early Christian Literature? Why did the early Church Fathers choose this particular book of Acts to be included in the Bible; to the exclusion of all the others?

As to what factors may have set the canonical book of Acts apart from all others in the view of those who approved the canon of the New Testament writings, such must surely have related to the interests, or overall agenda of such individuals.  In this regard, the context of the process of canonization is as relevant to the queries at hand as is the context of the times that such material was actually written.

The process of Canonizing the New Testament writings was a work in process throughout the 4th CE.  Orthodoxy was the prevailing form of Christianity by that time, having somewhat prevailed in the 2nd CE struggle with the less organized, mystical movement for supremacy within the Christian faith .  Although Gnostic Christianity was still in practice by the 4th CE, the hey day for "the heretics" (as they were known to the Orthodox Church) had been in the 2nd-3rd CE. Howbeit, even as late as the 4th CE there remained an abundance of "heretical" writings in circulation, so much so that the Orthodox Church began forming a distinctive canon of writings which were deemed as being authentic and true.   Hence; the New Testament as it is generally known came to be.

And so the writings of the New Testament are regarded as canonical primarily because the 4th CE Orthodox Church regarded such as so. The Acts of the Apostles thus "made the cut" over all the other books of Acts which were in circulation at the time because such met the standard of Orthodoxy.  Having met the standard of ecclesiastical Orthodoxy; the book of Acts subsequently gained the approval of those so inclined.

The Acts of the Apostle having then met the approval of the early Orthodox Church, surely its acceptance as the only authentic and authorized account among the many other such items of early Christian literature would seem to indicate that its narrative served the interest of the same in a most distinctive fashion. Evidently, the canonical Acts represented Orthodoxy in a way which uniquely distinguished such from the other Acts of Early Christian Literature.  And so, in spite of the several other books of Acts among early Christian Literature which narrated the doings of such well known figures as Peter, Paul, John, Mary Magdelene, Thomas, Simon Magi, and others; nonetheless, only the Acts of the Apostles was regarded as authentic by the early Orthodox Church.

It should be no surprise then that the biblical book of Acts should favor Orthodoxy, and portray such from a positive perspective, as it most assuredly does.  Such basic doctrines as Apostolic Authority, Monotheism, a flesh and blood Jesus who was born of a virgin and raised from the dead, Baptism for the remission of sins, Martyrdom as a means to eternal salvation, and the persecution of the saints are represented within the pages of  the biblical book of Acts. Yet the docetic Christ, who was a mere image of earthly man, and who left no footprints, or who did not blink his eyes, is not featured within its content, even though such a Christ is spoken of throughout other books of Acts of Early Christian Literature.

The primary factor then which lead to the canonization of the Acts of the Apostles to the exclusion of all other books of Acts among early Christian writings, would seem to be that such promoted Orthodoxy as not only the preferred ideology of Christianity, but even as the exclusive such perspective.

Which leads to the question as to the context of the writing of the content itself.  A question which seems to deserve investigative research on its own grounds.

Dating The Canonical Acts of the Apostles

The dating of the authorship of the canonical book of Acts (aka Lukan-Acts) is an intriguing endeavor.  Scholarship offers a variety of theories, based upon a number of considerations.  The most common dates range from 80-130CE.

The nature of the content is revealing in and of itself, yet such is likewise a matter of debate.  Up until the 19th CE, Lukan-Acts was widely regarded as a historical narrative.  The sciences of textual and historical criticism have since yielded alternative perspectives..  

I myself interpret the biblical book of Acts as a mythical narrative, which appears to have been written for the general purpose of manufacturing a history which would be favorable to the 2nd CE Orthodox Church.  In the process, the author of the canonical Acts of the Apostles envisioned Judean roots for the Orthodox Church, while at the same time incorporated Paul; “the apostle of the heretics”, into the fold of the faithful.

That said, contrary to the most common dating of the authorship of the book of Acts, I personally regard such to have taken place even later yet.  My reasoning is based upon a number of observations:

1. The thoroughness of the diaspora of the Christians from Jerusalem as described in Acts 8, seems to refer to the historic diaspora of the Jews from the same city in135CE. I acknowledge that such may refer to 70CE, but  the diaspora so described in Acts 8 was so complete as to disperse and relocate everyone (except the seemingly immortal Apostles), and was so thorough as to seemingly end an era.  For just as the Jewish independent movement finally came to a bitter end in 135CE; the embryonic church era in the womb of Jerusalem comes to an end in Acts 8.

2. Lukan Acts seems to utilize the primary Pauline letters without actually referencing them. Such appears to have been for the purpose of mapping out Paul's historically unconfirmed missionary journeys; whereas the failure to reference the same is consistent with the author's recreation of the feisty and independent “epistle Paul" in the image of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the stubborn and uncompromising Paul of Galatians is transformed within the pages of Acts into a conciliatory and sometimes Jewish Law abiding Church Missionary (21:20-26; cf Gal 2:3-5).  Hence, the dating of Acts would seem to depend upon the dating of the Pauline letters, and the Pauline letters were not even known to exist until the mid 2nd CE.

3.  For that matter, the conciliatory relationship between Paul and Peter as described in Acts was unknown within the Orthodox Church until mid to late 2nd CE. Even then there were those who questioned and criticized the concept of the self proclaimed apostleship of Paul (cf Tertullian; of particular note see Book V).

4.  The persecution/martyrdom theme of Acts (14:22; 21:13) may likewise indicate a mid to late authorship of the canonical Acts of the Apostles.  Such claims were representative of that era within  the history of the Orthodox Church.

5.  The fact that the Acts of the Apostles was unknown of until the latter 2nd CE could be an indicator of a later composition than is traditionally theorized.

6.  The addressee;  the “most excellent Theophilus” (cf Luke 1; Acts 1) may actually be Theophilus of Antioch, a highly skilled mid 2nd CE Apologist of the Christian religion. (cf his Apology to Autolycus)

Conclusion:

All items considered, it seems to me that there are no indications that the canonical Acts of the Apostles was written any earlier than the mid 2nd CE.