It would appear then that the date of Acts must be determined to a great extent by the date assigned to the third Gospel; and this apparently was the view of Bishop Lightfoot (cf Plummer, St. Luke, p. xxix., and Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 163, 2nd edit.), inasmuch as he leaves the question of the date of Acts undetermined, and refers for its solution to the date assigned to St. Luke’s Gospel; although it should be noted that he does not attach any weight to the argument which finds in Luke xxi. 20-24 a proof that the Gospel was written after Jerusalem had fallen (cf. also Headlam, ‘ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., p. 30, and Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, p. 40, for various dates).
As in the case of the Gospel, so in that of the Acts, it is impossible to say at what place it was written. The traditional view since the days of St. Jerome, De Vir. Illust., 7, has favoured Rome (although elsewhere Jerome refers the writing of the Gospel to parts of Achaia and Beeotia, Pref. to Comm. in Matt.), cf. Schneckenburger, Lekebusch, Godet, Felten, Blass, amongst others (Wendt, 1899, although rejecting the traditional account of St. Jerome, adds that he knows of no decisive grounds against Rome, p. 40). Lekebusch, A postelgeschichte, pp. 393, 429, in supporting the claims of Rome argues for the probability that St. Luke, like many medical men at. the time, would be likely to find in Rome a good field for his pro fessional work. Achaia, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Alexandria have all been mentioned, and Lightfoot also mentions Philippi. Pfleiderer has supported Ephesus on the ground that the writer manifests a special interest in that city, whilst Zéckler thinks that something may be said for Antioch in Syria, owing to St. Luke’s traditional connection with the place, Eus., H. Ε., iii, 4; Jerome, De Vir. Iilust., 7, cf. Acts xi. 28, D., if there was the slightest ground for supposing that Luke at the period when the book was written had any residence in the Syrian town. On the whole it seems best with Nésgen, Apostelgeschichte, p. 42; Lightfoot, 1. 5., p. 40; Zahn, Ein- leitung, ii, pp. 337, 439, to leave the locality undetermined; see especially the latter as to the bearing on the question of the mention of insignificant places such as Tres Tabernz, Appii Forum, in the
in the same year, 75. It is remarkable no doubt that τε is used so often in Acts in all parts of the book: nevertheless it occurs also in the third Gospel nine or ten times, but in St. Mark not at all, and in St. Matthew and St. John only three times in each; μὲν οὖν, although no doubt frequent in Acts, does not occur at all in St. Matthew and St. Mark, although it is found once in St. Luke, iii. 18 (twice in St. John) ; and καὶ αὐτός, although occurring very frequently in the third Gospel, is not: dropped in Acts, although proportionately it is rarely found (eight times).