The Two Conclusions of NT Mark: A Case to Deconstruct the Text

The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise.  One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.  Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time.  Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of  the Jesus narrative.

The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.  As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.  

It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself.  For example, why are there two endings?  Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings?  And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale.  In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?

To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion.  Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen.  Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.

My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction.  It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.

Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.

The Markan Myth Summarized

Many Biblical scholars regard Mark as having been written before any of the other Canonical Gospels.  Although I don't know for certain, it does seem reasonable in the light of its comparative brevity.  It would seem more reasonable that the additional content which is found in the other Gospels is supplemental to the Markan material, rather than the notion that the minimalist Markan author ignored material in the other gospels in order to abbreviate the story.  Or so it seems to me.

As to the nature of the material, Mark appears to be a fictional drama which portrays the heroics of one who rose from obscurity to overwhelming fame, only to be cut off in the prime of his life due to a traditional technicality.  The story may have been written after the complete diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE, in which case the narrative itself is possibly an allegory utilized to describe the rise and the fall of the Jewish independence movement during the first century and third of the common era. 

The tale features a small town commoner who is thrust into the limelight after a religious experience at his baptism renders him empowered by the Holy Spirit. The commoner uses his newly realized powers to slay the demonic forces which have plagued the villagers, hence becoming somewhat of a local superhero.  His mere presence leaves demons quaking in fear. The villagers are ever so grateful, and in spite of his expressed wishes for anonymity, they publicize his exploits far and near to the extent that he must oftentimes hide in secluded areas. 

The local authorities become suspicious of the small town commoner turned hero, and accuse him of being demon possessed himself. They soon grow weary of his popularity, and scheme to entrap him at an opportune time.  Since the hero of the tale speaks to his followers exclusively in parables,

 the authorities seem uncertain as to how to deal with the situation.  This all changes when he finally speaks plainly to them regarding his death, and makes the bold claim that he will be resurrected from the dead.  His band of faithful followers seem unsure themselves as to what to make of his claims, and so the opportunistic authorities seize the moment. 

First they pay one of his closest followers money to identify the controversial hero of the tale so they can arrest him. (The notion that such efforts for proper identification would have been unnecessary since the hero of the story had been teaching in their midst and was so well known to have developed a notable following seems lost to the author of the narrative.  As is oftentimes the case in a narrative, the quest for dramatic effect seems to supersede detail.) Subjected to interrogation, the

hero of the story finally admits that he actually believes that he is the Son of God, and is subsequently accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death.

The one final hope for the hero of the tale to be spared is the local tradition to free a criminal on a particular cultural holiday.  Under pressure from the populace of the people, who have inexplicably turned on the hero, the government unfortunately opts to free one who was a murderer and a seditionist instead. And so

 

at public expense and by public means, the hero of the tale is executed.

The developments being what they were, our hero’s final words expressed frustration at being forsaken by God in such a crucial situation.

And then the hero of the story dies, and is laid to rest.

In the cliffhanger conclusion of the tale, some of the hero’s female entourage visit his tomb o

n the third day after his execution

 in order to anoint his body with selected spices, only to find his tomb empty.  According to one unidentified individual who was on the scene, our hero was raised from the dead, precisely as he had promised while he was alive. 

In spite of being directed by the unidentified stranger to go tell his disciples what they had seen, the entourage of females flee the scene in fear, and told no one what they had seen.

And so the story ends.

Lukan Literature: Transitional Phases Within The Christian Myth

The nature of Lukan Literature is evident upon reading.  Both treatises of Lukan Literature are clearly mythical narratives.  The virgin birth and miraculous healings of Luke; the divine manifestations and miraculous healing handkerchiefs of Acts; and the sky flying, heavenward ascending Jesus of both Luke and Acts, are representative of legend and folklore.

The Gospel of Luke was an anonymously written version of the story of the earthly Jesus; a tale which evidently was in circulation as early as the mid 2nd CE.  As noted in the introduction to Luke, several writers had written their particular version of this common narrative.  By the late 2nd CE, the Orthodox Church had adopted four such versions as authentic and authoritative, one of those being the Gospel of Luke. 

Although each of the four Church sanctioned Gospels have a similar cast of characters, and although three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) seem to have used a common original source (either Matthew or Mark possibly being the original source), yet Luke is distinguished from the others in that he wrote Acts as an addendum; a supplementary treatise as it were, which provided a link between the story of the four Gospels and the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.  The Lukan author also cited certain transitional phases which distinguish specific eras within the Christian narrative, thus establishing a direct relationship between Judaism and the early Roman Church.


"The Law and the Prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached" (Luke 16:16)

"all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44)



The major eras of the Christian myth were those of "The Law and the Prophets", and that of "the kingdom of God"; the former representing the national identity of the Hebrew people, and the latter referencing the era of the Church.  "The Law and the Prophets" are representative of the religion of Judaism, the Hebrew people, and their epoch struggle and collective obsession with independence and national identity.  Throughout the first Century and a third of the common era, certain elements of the Hebrew people were engaged in an ongoing revolt against what they perceived to be the Roman occupation of their homeland. As a result of their quest for religious freedom and national independence, several "Messianic movements" arose in support of a variety of attempted military coups against the reigning Roman government.  The final such effort; the Simon Bar Kochba uprising of 132-135CE, was seemingly successful for about 3 years, until a confederation of several national armies was dispatched by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to subjugate the insurgents and restore order to the region.  The action was swift, brutal, and effective.  Jerusalem was surrounded; the insurgents were starved out, Bar Kochba and his forces were killed, and the aftermath was that all Jews were driven out of Jerusalem, which was then leveled and hand plowed by the Roman victors.  The military tactics employed, the brutal nature of the subjugation of the Bar Kochba uprising, and the complete diaspora of all Jews from Jerusalem were historic events evidently known to the anonymous author of Lukan Literature (Luke 21:20-21; Acts 8:1,4).  After the unsuccessful Bar Kochba uprising and the complete diaspora of the Hebrew people from Jerusalem in 135CE, the Jews who were not slaughtered, starved to death, or sold into Egyptian slavery, became refugees who over the course of the following decades slowly assimilated into a variety of Roman-Greco cultures throughout the Empire.


"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22)


The baptism of Jesus by John is recognized in Lukan Literature as a transitional event which signified the end of one era of the Christian myth, and the dawning of another.  For whereas John symbolizes the end of the era of the Law and the Prophets, the baptism of Jesus by John marks the commencement of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. The nature of the kingdom God is then revealed at the baptism of Jesus, an event which could be interpreted as an anointing of the kingdom's symbol of peace.  Hence, rather than being crowned as an icon of militarism, Lukan Literature envisions Jesus the baptized as one anointed as a symbol of peace (Luke 3:21-22; cf  Luke 2:11,14).  And so the kingdom of God envisioned by Lukan Literature is a contrast to the sought after and fought for, yet ever elusive earthly kingdom based upon militarism; one which the Hebrew Zionists of the first Century and a third of the common era had coveted. For whereas the Hebrew Zionists had sought a national identity based upon militarism and might; the kingdom of God of Lukan Literature was rather a spiritual relationship based upon peace, healing, and non-violence (Luke 8:1; 9:1-2;10-11; 11:1-2; 22:15-16; Acts 1:3,6-8).


"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen" (Acts 1:1-2)

"ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8)


The ascension of Jesus, by its very nature, represented the end of the era of the earthly Jesus, and likewise introduced an advanced role of the Apostles within the Christian myth.  For once Jesus cleared the clouds so to speak, the Apostles suddenly evolved from wandering comrades of Jesus, into confident witnesses of the resurrection of the same from the dead. The era of Apostolic authority in this embryonic stage soon developed into the Orthodox Church doctrine of Apostolic succession, which would prove to be their major competitive edge over Gnostic Christians in the 2nd CE, as well as the foundation for Church hierarchy ever since. 

New Testament Lukan Literature: The Addressee; Most Excellent Theophilus

Lukan Literature, which comprises over one-fourth of the volume of the writings of the New Testament, consists of two anonymously written treatises, each addressed to an individual named Theophilus.  Since he is addressed as "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:4), then the recipient of the Lukan writings was likely an official of sorts. In fact, the Lukan author evidently reserved such phraseology exclusively for persons of social rank (cf Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Furthermore, Theophilus was evidently a Christian (Luke 1:4).  The phrase "the things you have been taught" contains a form of the word 'catechism'.  Hence, Theophilus had been indoctrinated into the Christian faith. 

Yet, in spite of having been indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the Lukan author apparently felt that there was an element which was lacking in the understanding of the "most excellent Theophilus".  So much so that in spite of the social status of his addressee, the Lukan author nonetheless felt compelled to more correctly instruct Theophilus so that he might "know the exact truth" about the things that he had been taught.

The identity of Theophilus then might actually be identified, if in the annals of Early Christian Literature, the record might be found of a Christian official so named, who would have lived during the time period that Lukan Literature was written, and whose understanding might have lacked a basic element of Orthodox Christian ideology.  Such an individual would surely be a likely candidate as being the addressee of the New Testament Lukan literature.

And it so happens that there is in fact among the annals of Early Christian Literature the record of a person who meets all such qualifications. Theophilus; the Bishop of the Antioch Church from the late 160's to the early 180's, was not only a Church official, but likewise a  capable Christian Apologist.  His only remaining writings, an Apology to his pagan friend Autolycus (Ad Autolyc), reveal that Theophilus had extensive knowledge as to Greek and Hebrew mythology, and was furthermore a zealous and capable defender of the Christian faith.  His knowledge and convictions notwithstanding, the writings of Theophilus reveal a deficiency in his knowledge which would seem unfathomable to a contemporary Christian, yet which is quite revealing as to the state of affairs of 2nd Century Christianity.

For the fact is that although Theophilus identified himself as a Christian, believed fervently in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, preached the need for repentance and confession, related water baptism to the remission of sins, warned of the eternal judgment of the just Creator God, and was the first person ever known to use the word "Trinity"; he nonetheless refers to all such topics while remaining seemingly unaware of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus.  

For although Theophilus proudly identified himself as a Christian ("you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God"; Ad Autolycum 1:1); and although he maintained that the truth was exclusive to such ("we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:33); and although he even addressed the reason for the name 'Christian' ("we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God"; (Ad Autolycum 1:12); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any point, not even while discussing the name "Christian". 

 In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And as to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, although Theophilus cited several natural examples, including recurring seasons ("consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits"; Ad Autolycum 1:13) and the lunar cycle ("the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection"; Ad Autolycum 2:15) as sufficient evidence "that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men." (Ad Autolycum 1:13, 2:); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus as an example of one raised from the dead.  

In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And although Theophilus maintained that faith is the primal quality necessary for humankind ("why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters?"; Ad Autolycum 1:8); and although he preached the need for repentance and confession ("being long-suffering, He (God) gave him (Adam) an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26); and although he believed in water baptism for the remission of sins ("the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration"; Ad Autolycum 2:16); and although he warned of eternal fire and damnation for disbelievers ("But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men"; Ad Autolycum 1:14); and although he offered hope for those who would be obedient to the law and the commandments ("he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption"; Ad Autolycum 2:27); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any time, not even while discussing these topics which are so basic to the Christian faith.

In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And again, with reference to the nature of God, although Theophilus was the first to ever reference the Trinity, ("In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom" Ad Autolycum 2:15"); and although he maintained that God made all creation by the Word ("but His Word, through whom He made all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:22); and although he noted that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence; and although he acknowledged that  "the Word" of God was also "his son"; nonetheless he specifically distinguishes "the Word" from the concept of being the product of human birth ("the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God."), rather clarifying that "when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word uttered, the first-born of all creation".  And even when Theophilus cites the example of the Word "assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all", noting that "whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place"; even then the example that he opts to utilize with reference to such an occurrence was when the Word "went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam"; rather than to cite Jesus as such an example, in any shape or form.

Theophilus simply seems to have never heard the doctrine of an earthly Jesus Christ.

The fact that Theophilus, the Church Bishop of a major city, who was familiar with the nature of God and with the basics of Orthodox Christian doctrines, and was himself a capable Apologist on behalf of the same, should be ignorant as to the doctrine of an earthly Jesus as late as the early 180’s, is actually quite revealing.  For it is evident that; contrary to popular belief, the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was by no means the foundation of Christianity.  Rather, the concept of an earthly Jesus appears to have been a late developing doctrine within the 2nd CE Christian movement itself. Foreign as such thinking might seem in this day and age, the fact is that the Christian doctrine is by no means dependent upon the concept of an earthly Jesus.

For evidently, in the early days of Christianity, faith was not the belief in the resurrected Jesus, but rather the trusting belief that God was able to raise one's own self from the dead in order to inherit incorruption ( “When you shall have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall you see God worthily. For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal… But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now.”; Ad Autolycum 1:7,8)  Confession then was not to express one's belief in the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was the profession of the penitent sinner to amend their ways and to turn away from their sinful ways, so as to be restored to their original state ("countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins."; Ad Autolycum 3:11; "those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:17; "And as to God's calling, and saying, Where are you, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26; "When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil those also shall be restored to their original gentleness; Ad Autolycum 2:17). Baptism then was not administered in the name of Jesus, but rather was an act to procure the remission of sins ("Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God."; Ad Autolycum 2:16").  Thus, the holy church in the early days of Christianity was by no means the church of Christ due to the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was so, as the assembly of the saved ("so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies — we mean holy churches — in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:14).


And so it is evident that the concept of an earthly Jesus was a later development within the Christian movement. It is furthermore clear that even as late as 180 CE, the distribution of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was still somewhat limited. At least such was the case with reference to Antioch, which was alleged to have been a major church within the New Testament. And so it is the fact that Theophilus of Antioch seems to have been ignorant of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus which leads me to speculate that such may well be the very context of the writing of the New Testament Lukan literature.  As the Lukan author explains to the one he calls "most excellent Theophilus"; he himself "having investigated everything from the beginning", took it upon himself to  "write it out for you in consecutive order... so that you might know the exact about the things which you have been taught" (Luke 1:3,4).  Evidently, the Lukan author felt that though Theophilus had been taught, that nonetheless there was something lacking in his knowledge.  And what more basic doctrine of the Christian story should a Church Bishop know than that of the life and doings of the earthly Jesus? Such seems to supply a logical and verifiable context then for the Lukan writings, as introduced in the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke.

My ongoing studies of Lukan Literature then will allow for the viable theory that the anonymous writer of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles addressed both treatises to Theophilus; the Church Bishop of Antioch, in order to instruct him in the basics of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus, as a developmental process within the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.



 

 

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.