<P> The Gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two - volume work which scholars call Luke--Acts . Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution attributed to a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus and the early church . </P> <P> The author is not named in either volume . According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the "Luke" named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters .") (An example can be seen by comparing Acts's accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9: 1--31, 22: 6--21, and 26: 9--23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1: 17--24).) He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately . He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high - brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience . </P> <P> The earliest possible date for the composition of Acts is set by the events with which it ends, Paul's imprisonment in Rome c. 63 AD, but an early date is now rarely put forward . The last possible date would be set by its first definite citation by another author, but there is no unanimity on this--some scholars find echoes of Acts in a work from c. 95 AD called I Clement, while others see no indisputable citation until the middle of the 2nd century . The majority of scholars date Luke--Acts to 80--90 AD, on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source and looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the century); if, however, it does show awareness of Paul and also of Josephus, then a date early in the 2nd century is more likely . In either case, there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century . </P> <P> Luke (or more accurately the anonymous author of Luke--Acts) aligned his work, Luke--Acts, to the "narratives" (διήγησις, diēgēsis) which many others had written, and described his own work as an "orderly account" (ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς). Acts, the second part, is widely thought of as a history, but it lacks exact analogies in Hellenistic or Jewish literature . The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Praxeis Apostolon) would seem to identify it with the genre telling of the deeds and achievements of great men (praxeis), but it was not the title given by the author . </P>

When was the act of the apostles written
find me the text answering this question