Below is a great post to BSA by Scott Bignell on 4/26/2026. Below that is Michael Waddell’s response with suggestions.
Back around 2017/2018, I [Scott Bignell] was discussing with an Evangelical friend of mine the idea that The Gospel According to Luke and/or Acts of the Apostles may have been written in the second century CE. My friend baulked at the idea, handwaving it off as merely a “fringe” idea only held by a handful of cranks. I decided to compile list of contemporary PhD-level scholars of early Christianity who hold to that view. Over the years, I’ve kept up with adding names as I come across them. And it’s become quite a list!
The point of the list has never been to PROVE 2nd century authorship by way of an argument from authority, but only to dispell the misunderstanding of the state of scholarship – to show that the idea is certainly NOT “fringe”, but very much a respectable position held by many TOP TIER scholars. Indeed, with big-name mainstream folk like James Tabor, Amy-Jill Levine, Paula Fredrikesen, Mark Goodacre and Douglas Campbell now on the list, I am starting to think not only is it a respectable minority, but perhaps THE standard critical view in the field at this point (I know Bart’s a holdout haha!).
Please let me know if you spot any errors, or if you are aware of other contemporary scholars who should be on this list.
Notes:
1. In many cases, scholars often give a range like “90-120CE” (e.g. David Brakke in his Understanding the New Testament Great Courses lecture on Luke-Acts). Such scholars are included (unless they explicitly say they prefer 90-99, for example).
2. In many cases, I only have an example of the scholar commenting on Luke alone or Acts alone, and not necessary the two together. I have tried to indicate that below, but sometimes the comment I’m running off is not always clear whether they’re referring to one or both. When it says “Acts only” below, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think Luke is first century, only that the quote I have found is explicitly talking about Acts independent of Luke.
3. For some scholars, I have only been able to find a quote of them affirming Luke/Acts’ dependence on Josephus’s Antiquities (c.93CE) without giving a terminus ante quem. Those scholars are also included. That they would then concede second century is assumed.
- Bartosz Adamczewski – c.110-120
- William Arnal – c.100-150
- Coleman A. Baker – mid 90s – early 100s
- Jason BeDuhn – 2ndC (Acts only)
- Mary Ann Beavis – 2ndC (Acts only)
- Mark Bilby – after 109 (Acts only)
- Jennifer Grace Bird – c.120 (Acts only)
- Helen Bond – early 2ndC
- David Brakke – 90-120
- Jack Bull – c.150
- Douglas Campbell – after 93
- Ryan Carhart – early 2ndC (Acts only)
- Richard Carrier – 93-130 *
- Chris J. Cornthwaite – early 2ndC
- Rose Mary D’Angelo – 110-130
- Rubén R. Dupertuis – early 2ndC (Acts only)
- Pamela Eisenbaum – c.100
- Cameron E. Ferguson – c.115 (Acts only)
- Paula Fredriksen – c.110
- Gary Gilbert – early 2nd century (Acts only)
- Daniel L. Glover – 2ndC
- Mark Goodacre – early 2ndC
- Andrew Gregory – 2ndC (Acts only)
- R. Joseph Hoffman – 2ndC *
- Gregory C. Jenks – c.75-125 (“leaning on the later side”)
- Matthias Klinghardt – post-Marcion
- John S. Kloppenborg – c.115-120
- Raphael Lataster – after 93 *
- Amy-Jill Levine – Luke = 90s, Acts = early 2ndC
- M. David Litwa – not before 130
- Nina E. Livesey – 2ndC (“c.115 too conservative”)
- Dennis R. MacDonald – c.115-120
- Burton L. Mack – c.120
- Daniel McClellan – early 2ndC (Luke 1:4-2:52)
- Steve Mason – after 93
- Linda M. Maloney – Luke = 90s, Acts = early 2ndC
- Shelley Matthews – 100-130 (Acts only) [See Waddell’s bullet below that she also argues for Luke as 2nd C.]
- Hugo Mendez – Luke 80-110, Acts = after 93)
- David R. McCabe – 2ndC
- Richard C. Miller – c.115
- John Moles – 100-110
- Milton C. Moreland – 2ndC
- Christopher N. Mount – 2ndC
- Laura Nasrallah – early 2ndC (Acts only)
- Ken Olsen – 93-138
- Mikeal C. Parsons – Luke = c.90, Acts c.110
- Todd Penner – early 2ndC (Acts only)
- Richard Pervo – c.115
- Thomas E. Phillips – late 1stC to early 2ndC
- Robert M. Price – not before 130
- Ivoni Richter Reimer – Luke = 90s, Acts = post-100
- Laura Robinson – after 93
- Thomas A. Robinson – c.93-120
- Clare Rothschild – c. 115
- Barbara Shellard – Luke = 90s, Acts = early 2ndC
- Dennis E. Smith – c.115
- Gregory E. Sterling – c.93 (“around the same time as Antiquities”)
- John V. M. Sturdy – Luke = c.110, Acts = c.130
- James Tabor – early 2ndC
- John T. Townsend – 140s
- David Trobisch – mid 2ndC
- Joseph B. Tyson – c.115
- Markus Vinzent – 140s
- Robyn Faith Walsh – 100-150
- Theodore J. Weeden Sr. – c.120-125
- L. Michael White – c.90-110
- Joseph A. P. Wilson – c.110-130
.* See Waddell’s 4th paragraph below, where he recommends dropping them.
This is a solid list… though the scholars listed differ significantly in quality. I’d [Michael Waddell] suggest incorporating a bit more nuance in a few places. Some scholars (like McClellan) are only dating specific passages to the 2nd century, not the whole work. The list could benefit from a brief note that “dating Luke-Acts to the 2nd century” covers a spectrum — some scholars date all of Luke-Acts late, some date only Acts late while keeping Luke in the 90s, and some think specific editorial layers (like Luke 1-2) are later additions to an earlier core. Lumping everyone together could slightly overstate the consensus.
To me, your note 3 makes sense… but not everyone agrees. A terminus post quem of 93 CE technically allows a date in the late 90s, which some of these scholars might prefer. Sterling’s “around the same time as Antiquities” (~93) is a good example: that could mean the 90s, not necessarily the 2nd century. Same with Hugo Mendez’s “Luke 80-110” range — the lower end is firmly 1st century. (Personally, I find it very unlikely that a work based on Josephus could have been written before 100, but I don’t want to put my conclusion in the mouths of scholars who may disagree.)
I don’t think it’s a consensus yet, but it’s moving in that direction. Most Biblical scholars who don’t specialize in Luke-Acts still go with the dating that was consensus in the late-20th-century, as expounded by Brown, Fitzmyer, and Hengel. Even those who disagree still tend to hedge, as you may have noticed. But you’re right that nearly every recent analysis of Acts thinks a 2nd-century date is most likely. It’s customary to use careful phrases like “a consensus is forming around a 2nd-century date” or “fewer and fewer scholars maintain a 1st-century date”, which is more accurate than “The 2nd-century is the consensus date”.
Personally, I’d drop Carrier from the list. He’s far outside the scholarly consensus, holds no academic appointment, and is self-published. Most working scholars don’t engage with him, and your list would be stronger without him. Same for Lataster, and to a lesser extent, Hoffman. There are also some scholars whose names I don’t recognize: Jack Bull, Daniel L. Glover, Ryan Carhart, Cameron E. Ferguson, Joseph A. P. Wilson. There are enough top-tier scholars in your list that I wouldn’t bother padding it with names nobody recognizes.
Possible additions/modifications:
- Shelly Matthews appears only for Acts, but she’s argued more broadly for a 2nd-century context for Luke as well.
- Clare Rothschild has strongly argued for Luke-Acts’ literary dependence on Josephus. She gives a date of 110-140 CE. See:
- Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (2004). Investigates the Greek rhetorical context of Luke-Acts.
- Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17 (2014). Concludes Acts 17 is dependent on various 2nd-century traditions, especially Epimenides.
- Tyson’s work specifically on Marcion and Luke-Acts (2006) argues for Acts as an anti-Marcionite composition, which I think would push it past 140. The entry just says “c.115” which might not capture his full argument. You may want to check that one though.
Scott Bignell/OP: Follow up – Michael Waddell, Thanks! From Paul in Athens, I was able to find a confirming quote on p.26: Rothschild: “This study assumes that an otherwise unknown and anonymous early second century author (ca. 115 c.e.) wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts”. Adding to the list!
