Nov 30, 2012 -- 7:39PM, Blü wrote:

Harry

The Muratorian Fragment, itself dated to circa 170 AD, states that Acts was already completed prior to St. Paul's release from his first imprisonment and his journeying on to Spain.

No.  The author of the Greek document translated in the Muratorian Fragment reflects on what events are, and are not, reported in Acts. 

He doesn't say when Acts was written.

  The author of The Muratorian Fragment states that Acts was already completed prior to St. Paul's being released from his first imprisonment. Following this release the fragment states that he journeyed to Spain.

  This gives us a definite time period in which Acts had to have been written. Even the most ultra-liberal scholars agree that he was executed no later than 64 AD, when Nero declared war on all Christians. Since he could not have gone to Spain following his death, and his death took place in Rome, this puts the year of his first release as no later than 62 AD. Otherwise, he would not have had sufficient time to make the journey to Spain, be rearrested, and then be executed in Rome. So Acts was already completed prior to 62 AD. 

  As well, even the most ultra-liberal scholars agree that Luke was #3 of the synoptic gospels, having been preceded by Matthew and Mark. They also agree that Acts was originally simply the continuation of Luke, rather than its being a seperate book. It wasn't separated from Luke until the 2nd century.