Wikipedia

Acts of the Apostles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lostcaesar (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 2 November 2006 (two source hypothesis has nothing to do with acts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Acts of the Apostles (Greek Praxeis Apostolon) is a book of the Bible, which now stands fifth in the New Testament. It is commonly referred to as simply Acts.

Acts tells the story of the Early Christian church, with particular emphasis on the ministry of the Twelve Apostles and of Paul of Tarsus. The early chapters, set in Jerusalem, discuss Jesus's Resurrection, his Ascension, the Day of Pentecost, and the start of the Twelve Apostles' ministry. The remainder of Acts details Paul's conversion, his ministry, and finally his arrest and imprisonment and trip to Rome.

It is almost universally agreed that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. The traditional view is that both the two books were written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke — a view which is still held by many theologians. Alternatively, many modern scholars view the books as having been written by an unknown author at a much later date, sometime between 80 and 150.

Content

Summary

The author begins with a prologue addressed to someone named Theophilius and references "my earlier book"—almost certainly the Gospel of Luke. This is immediately followed by a narrative which is set in Jerusalem.

Peter and the apostles

Main article: Jewish Christians

After his resurrection, Jesus orders the apostles to remain in Jerusalem to await a "baptism in the Holy Spirt". The Apostles witness Jesus's ascending into Heaven, and then witness two angels who predict Jesus's return.

The apostles, along with other of Jesus's followers meet and elect Matthias to replace Judas as a member of The Twelve. On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends on them—the apostles hear a great wind and witness "tongues of flames" descending on them. Thereafter, the apostles have the miraculous power to "speak in tongue", see also Glossolalia, and when they address a crowd, each member of the crowd hears their speech in his own native language.

Peter, along with John, preach to many in Jerusalem, and perform many miracles such as healings, the casting out of evil spirits, and the raising of the dead. As a result, thousands convert to Early Christianity and are baptized.

As their numbers increase, the Christians begin to be increasingly persecuted. Some of the apostles are arrested and flogged, but ultimately freed. Stephen, one of the first deacons, is arrested for blasphemy, and after a trial, is found guilty, executed by stoning, thereby becoming the first martyr.

Peter and the apostles continue to preach, and Christianity continues to grow, and begins to spread to Gentiles. Peter has a vision in which a voice commands him to eat a variety of impure animals. When Peter objects, the voice replies, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." When Peter awakes from his vision, he meets with a centurion, who converts. Peter baptizes the centurion, and later has to justify this decision to the other Christians.

Paul's ministry

Main article: Paul of Tarsus

The ministry of Paul of Tarsus, formerly known as Saul, is the central theme of the second half of Acts. Initially, Saul is a zealous Pharisee with a history of persecuting Christians and ordering their executions. "As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"" (9:3–4 NIV) When Saul inquires further, the voice replies, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting". As a result of this experience, Saul converts to Christianity. It is commonly believed that he changed his name to Paul at this time, but the source of this claim is unknown, the first mention of another name is later in Acts, 13:9, during his first missionary journey.

After his conversion, Paul sets out on a mission to further spread Christianity, particularly among the Gentiles. Paul travels through Asia Minor, preaching and visiting churches throughout the region.

Paul travels to Jerusalem where he meets with the other apostles — a meeting known as the Council of Jerusalem. Members of the Jerusalem church have been preaching that circumcision is required for salvation. Paul and his associates strongly disagree. After much discussion, James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church, decrees that Gentile christian converts need not follow all of the Mosaic Law, and in particular, they do not need not be circumcised.

Paul spends the next few years traveling through western Asia Minor and founds his first Christian church in Philippi. Paul then travels along to Thessalonica, where he stayed for some time before departing for Greece. In Athens, Paul visits an altar with an inscription dedicated to the Unknown God, so when he gave his famous speech on the Areopagos, he proclaims to worship that same Unknown God who he identifies as the Christian God.

Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he was confronted with the rumor of teaching Antinomianism (21:21). To prove that he was "living in obedience to the law", Paul took a Nazirite vow along with some others (21:26). After the seven days of the vow, Paul was recognized outside Herod's Temple and was nearly beaten to death by a "mob", "shouting, 'Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place'" (21:28). Ananias, the High Priest, accuses Paul resulting in Paul's continued imprisonment. Paul asserts his right, as a Roman citizen, to be tried in Rome. Paul is sent by sea to Rome, where he spends another two years in detention. Surprisingly, Acts does not record the outcome of Paul's legal troubles — some traditions hold that Paul was ultimately executed in Rome, while other traditions have him surviving the encounter and later traveling to Spain and Great Britain — see Paul - Imprisonment & Death.

Plan and purpose

It is widely agreed that the book of Acts is the work of a skilled author, and that he has exercised care in keeping with a definite purpose and plan.

  • His second narrative is the natural sequel to his first. The Gospel of Luke set forth in orderly sequence the stages by which Jesus was led, "in the power of the Spirit," to begin the establishment of the consummated Kingdom of God. In the same way, Acts aims to show how the apostles were led in sequential stages by the Holy Spirit. This involves emphasis on the identity of the divine—not merely human—power expressed in the accounts. Whereas the Gospel of Luke begins in Galilee and narrates the journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, Acts begins in Jerusalem and narrates the journey to Rome. Both books use the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles as an overarching theme.
  • The Holy Spirit appears as directing and energizing throughout the apostles' whole struggle with the powers of evil to be overcome; however, it also shows how human effort must be brought forth to overcome evil. The working of the energy in the disciples is conditioned by the continued life and volition of their Master at His Father's right hand in heaven. The Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Jesus", is the living link between Master and disciples. Hence the pains taken to exhibit (1:2, 4f., 8, 2:1ff.; cf. Luke 24:49) the fact of such spiritual solidarity, whereby their activity means His continued action in the world.
  • The scope of this action is nothing less than humanity (2:5ff.), especially within the Roman Empire. It was commanded that the Messiah's witnesses should go, through divine power, to all the world to spread the Gospel (see Acts 1:8 and also Matt 28:19–20). The book of Acts was written partially to show how this was accomplished in the early years of the church.
  • Finally, as we gather from the parallel account in Luke 24:46–48, the book was designed to show the divinely appointed method for victory through suffering (Acts 14:22). This explains the large space devoted in Acts to the witnesses' tribulations, and their persistence despite tribulation, thus imitating the example of their Lord. Acts emphasizes their witness despite the absence of earthly prosperity, which to the pagan mind was a token of Divine approval.

These, then, seem to be the author's main points: the Gospel is universal; divine initiative led men of Jewish birth to gradually recognize the divine will in the tearing down of national boundaries; and that although difficulty will befall those who attempt to spread the gospel, they shall overcome through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This view has the merit of giving the book a practical religious aim. Though meant for men of pagan birth, it is as inquirers or even converts, such as Theophilus, that the argument (that in spite of all difficulties, this religion is worthy of personal belief) is addressed. Among the reasons why such an appeal was needed were doubtlessly the existence of persecution by the Roman authorities, often at the instigation of local Judaism. The author holds up the picture of early days, when the great protagonist of the Gospel constantly enjoyed protection at the hands of Roman justice, as a sort of banner of hope. It is implied that the present distress is but a passing phase, resting on some misunderstanding; meantime, the example of apostolic constancy should yield strong reassurance.

Authorship

While the precise identity of the author is debated, the general consensus is that the author was a Greek gentile writing for an audience of gentile Christians.

Common authorship of Luke and Acts

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of The Gospel of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron—and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole as it can be read "Beloved by God". Futhermore, the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus—almost certainly the work we know as The Gospel of Luke.

Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Luke and Acts. As one scholar writes,"the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author"[1] Because of their common authorship, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are often jointly referred to simply as Luke-Acts. Similarly, The author of Luke-Acts is often known as "Luke"—even among scholars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.

Luke the physician as author

The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).

The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the start of the gospel (dating to around 200 CE), uses the title "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus,[2] Tertullian,[3] Clement of Alexandria,[4] Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.

In addition to the authorship evidence provided by the ancient sources, some feel the text of Luke-Acts supports the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul. First among such internal evidence are portions of the book which have come to be called the "'we' passages". Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from a first-person perspective.[5] These "we" sections are written from the point of view of a traveling companion of Paul: e.g. "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia", "We put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace"[6] Such passages would appear to have been written by someone who traveled with Paul during some portions of his ministry. Accordingly, some have used this evidence to support the conclusion that these passages, and therefore the entire text of the Luke-Acts, were written by a traveling companion of Paul's. The physician Luke would be one such person.

It has also been argued that level of detail used in the narrative describing Paul's travels suggests an eyewitness source. Some claim that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training, but this claim has been widely disputed.

An anonymous, non-eyewitness author

Modernly, many scholars have come to doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who was not an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

Foremost among the evidence comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the prefaces, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events. Accordingly, some cite this to argue that the author's work as a product of research, not of recall.

Except for a few "we" passages, the narrative of Luke-Acts is written in the third person—the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". One might expect that had its author been an eyewitness, there would be more discussion of the author's background and of his personal experiences. To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the "we passages" are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. An alternate theory is that the use of "we" was a stylistic idiosyncrasy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.[7]

Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Acts and the Pauline letters disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem. Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different than the account given in Acts. Similarly, some feel the theology of Luke-Acts is slightly different than the theology espoused by Paul in his letters. This suggests that the author of Luke-Acts did not have direct contact with Paul, but instead relied upon other sources for his portrayal of Paul.

A female Luke?

Compared to the other canonical gospels, Luke-Acts devotes significantly more attention to women. The Gospel of Luke features more female characters, features a female prophet (2:36), and details the experience of pregnancy (1:41–42). Prominent discussion is given to the lives of Elizabeth, John the Baptist's mother (ch. 1), and Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. 2).[8] Although most scholars understand the evangelist's self-referential use of a masculine participle in Luke 1:3 to mean that the evangelist was male, this prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led a small number of scholars, including Randel McCraw Helms, to suggest that the author of Luke-Acts may have been female.[9]

Sources

Main article: Synoptic problem
 
Acts 15:22–24 from the seventh-century Codex laudianus in the Bodleian Library, written in parallel columns of Latin and Greek.

While there are a number of theories about what sources the author of Luke-Acts had access to, the most popular explanation is known as the Two-source hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the author of Luke-Acts had access to the Gospel of Mark and used it as the primary source for the Gospel of Luke. Evidence for this comes from the direct similiarities between the Mark and Luke—indeed 53% of Mark is found in Luke. The theory also posits that the author of Luke-Acts also had access to a second document which has since been lost. This second source, known as Q document, is believed to be a collection of Jesus's sayings to which the author of Luke-Acts and the author of Matthew both had access.

The author of Luke-Acts likely relied upon other sources, as well as oral tradition, in constructing his account of the early church and Paul's ministry. Evidence of this is found in the prologue to the Gospel of Luke, where the author allued to his sources by writing, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." Some theorize that the "we" passages in Acts are one such "handed down" quotation from some earlier source who was a part of Paul's travels.

The author of Luke-Acts also has access to the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible. One striking illustration of this involves how the author of Luke-Act seems to have copy-edited Mark before incorporating it into the Gospel of Luke. When Mark quotes the Hebrew Bible, it sometimes does so incorrectly. But when Luke-Acts incorporates these portions of Mark, it corrects the Hebrew Bible quotations. Luke-Acts also features other Septuagint quotations not found in Mark or Matthew.

It is genenerally believed that the author of Acts did not have access to a collection of Paul's letters. One piece of evidence suggesting this is that although half of Acts centers on Paul, Acts never directly quotes from the epistles. Additionally, the epistles and Acts disagree about the general chronology of much of Paul's career. Since many of Paul's epistles are believed to be authentic, the discrepancies between the authentic epistles and Acts are probably errors on the part of Acts which were made because its author lacked access to the Pauline epistles or a similar source.

Other theories about Luke-Acts' sources are more controversial. The Farrer hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis each argue that Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source. The Griesbach hypothesis theorizes that Luke used Matthew alone as a source, and that Mark represents a sythesis of Luke and Matthew. Some historians believe that Luke-Acts borrows phraselogy and plot elements from Euripides' play The Bacchae.[10] Some feel that the text of Luke-Acts shows evidence of having used the Jewish historian Josephus as a source (in which case it would to have been written sometime after 94 CE).

Historical

The question of authorship is largely bound up with that as to the historicity of the contents. Conservative scholars view the book of Acts as being extremely accurate while skeptics view the work as being inaccurate. For example, the conservative Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote in his work Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament the following: "For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."[11] In addition, conservative scholars see the book of Acts being corroborated by archaeology.[12]

Acts is divided into two distinct parts. The first (chs. 1–12) deals with the church in Jerusalem and Judaea, and with Peter as central figure—at any rate in the first five chapters. "Yet in cc. vi.-xii.," as Harnack observes,

the author pursues several lines at once. (1) He has still in view the history of the Jerusalem community and the original apostles (especially of Peter and his missionary labors); (2) he inserts in vi. 1 ff. a history of the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem and of the Seven Men, which from the first tends towards the Gentile Mission and the founding of the Antiochene community; (3) he pursues the activity of Philip in Samaria and on the coast...; (4) lastly, he relates the history of Paul up to his entrance on the service of the young Antiochene church. In the small space of seven chapters he pursues all these lines and tries also to connect them together, at the same time preparing and sketching the great transition of the Gospel from Judaism to the Greek world. As historian, he has here set himself the greatest task.

No doubt gaps abound in these seven chapters. "But the inquiry as to whether what is narrated does not even in these parts still contain the main facts, and is not substantially trustworthy, is not yet concluded." The difficulty is that there are few external means of testing this portion of the narrative. The second part pursues the history of the apostle Paul, and here the statements made in the Acts may be compared with the Epistles. The result is a general harmony, without any trace of direct use of these letters; and there are many minute coincidences. But attention has been drawn to two remarkable exceptions: the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.

In regard to the first point, the differences as to Paul's movements until he returns to his native province of Syria-Cilicia do not really amount to more than can be explained by the different interests of Paul and the author, respectively. But it is otherwise as regards the visits of Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15. If they are meant to refer to the same occasion, as is usually assumed, it is hard to see why Paul should omit reference to the public occasion of the visit, as also to the public vindication of his policy. But in fact the issues of the two visits, as given in Galatians 2:9f. and Acts 15:20f., are not at all the same. Nay more, if Galatians 2:1–10 = Acts 15, the historicity of the "Relief visit" of Acts 11:30, 12:25 seems definitely excluded by Paul's narrative of events before the visit of Galatians 2:1ff. Accordingly, Sir W. M. Ramsay and others argue that the latter visit itself coincided with the Relief visit, and even see in Galatians 2:10 witness thereto.

But why does not Paul refer to the public charitable object of his visit? It seems easier to assume that the visit of Galatians 2:1ff. is altogether unrecorded in Acts, owing to its private nature as preparing the way for public developments—with which Acts is mainly concerned. In that case, it would fall shortly before the Relief visit, to which there may be tacit explanatory allusion, in Galatians 2:10; and it will be shown below that such a conference of leaders in Galatians 2:1ff. leads up excellently both to the First Mission Journey and to Acts 15.

As for Paul as depicted in Acts, Paul claims that he was appointed the apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was to the Circumcision; and that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were of no importance to the Christian as such. His words on these points in all his letters are strong and decided, but see also Antinomianism and New Perspective on Paul. But in Acts, it is Peter who first opens up the way for the Gentiles. It is Peter who uses the strongest language in regard to the intolerable burden of the Law as a means of salvation (15:10f.; cf. 1), so-called Legalism (theology). Not a word is said of any difference of opinion between Peter and Paul at Antioch (Gal 2:11ff.). The brethren in Antioch send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem to ask the opinion of the apostles and elders: they state their case, and carry back the decision to Antioch. Throughout the whole of Acts, Paul never stands forth as the unbending champion of the Gentiles. He seems continually anxious to reconcile the Jewish Christians to himself by personally observing the law of Moses. He personally circumcises the semi-Jew, Timothy; and he performs his vows in the temple. He is particularly careful in his speeches to show how deep is his respect for the law of Moses. In all this, the letters of Paul are very different from Acts. In Galatians, he claims perfect freedom in principle, for himself as for the Gentiles, from the obligatory observance of the law; and neither in it nor in Corinthians does he take any notice of a decision to which the apostles had come in their meeting at Jerusalem. The narrative of Acts, too, itself implies something other than what it sets in relief; for why should the Jews hate Paul so much, if he was not in some sense disloyal to their Law?

This is not necessarily a contradiction; only such a difference of emphasis as belongs to the standpoints and aims of the two writers amid their respective historical conditions. Peter's function toward the Gentiles belongs to early conditions present in Judaea, before Paul's distinctive mission had taken shape. Once Paul's apostolate—a personal one, parallel with the more collective apostolate of "the Twelve"—has proved itself by tokens of Divine approval, Peter and his colleagues frankly recognize the distinction of the two missions, and are anxious only to arrange that the two shall not fall apart by religiously and morally incompatible usages (Acts 15). Paul, on his side, clearly implies that Peter felt with him that the Law could not justify (Gal 2:15ff.), and argues that it could not now be made obligatory in principle (cf. "a yoke," Acts 15:10); yet for Jews it might continue for the time (pending the Parousia) to be seemly and expedient, especially for the sake of non-believing Judaism. To this he conformed his own conduct as a Jew, so far as his Gentile apostolate was not involved (1 Cor 9:19ff.). There is no reason to doubt that Peter largely agreed with him, since he acted in this spirit in Galatians 2:11f., until coerced by Jerusalem sentiment to draw back for expediency's sake. This incident simply did not fall within the scope of Acts to narrate, since it had no abiding effect on the Church's extension. As to Paul's submission of the issue in Acts 15 to the Jerusalem conference, Acts does not imply that Paul would have accepted a decision in favor of the Judaizers, though he saw the value of getting a decision for his own policy in the quarter where they were most likely to defer. If the view that he already had an understanding with the "Pillar" Apostles, as recorded in Galatians 2:1–10, be correct, it gives the best of reasons why he was ready to enter the later public Conference of Acts 15. Paul's own "free" attitude to the Law, when on Gentile soil, is just what is implied by the hostile rumors as to his conduct in Acts 21:21, which he would be glad to disprove as at least exaggerated (vv. 24 and 26).

(Questions and evidence of historicity are presented in Colin J. Hemer, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", Eisenbrauns, 1990)

Speeches

The speeches in Acts deserve special notice, because they constitute about 20% of the entire book. Given the nature of the times, lack of recording devices, and space limitations, many ancient historians did not reproduce verbatim reports of speeches. Condensing and using one's own style was often unavoidable. Nevertheless, there were different practices when it came to the level of creativity or adherence individual historians practiced.

On one end of the scale were those who seemingly invented speeches, such as the Sicilian historian Timaeus (356–260 BCE). Others, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tacitus, fell somewhere in between, reporting actual speeches but likely with significant liberty. The ideal for ancient historians, however, seems to have been to try as much as possible to report the sense of what was actually said, rather than simply placing one's own speech in a figure's mouth.

Perhaps the best example of this ideal was voiced by Polybius, who ridiculed Timaeus for his invention of speeches. Historians, Polybius wrote, were "to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the speeches he narrates" (Hist. 2.56.10–12). Another ancient historian, Thucydides, admits to having taken some liberty while narrating speeches, but only when he did not have access to any sources. When he had sources, he used them. In his own words, Thucydides wrote speeches "of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said" (History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22.1). Accordingly, as stated by C.W. Fornara, "[t]he principle was established that speeches were to be recorded accurately, though in the words of the historian, and always with the reservation that the historian could 'clarify'" (The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, p. 145).

On what end of the scale did the author of Acts fall? There is little doubt that the speeches of Acts are summaries or condensations largely in the style and vocabulary of its author. However, there are indications that the author of Acts relied on source material for his speeches, and did not treat them as mere vehicles for expressing his own theology. The author's apparent use of speech material in the Gospel of Luke, obtained from the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document or the Gospel of Matthew, suggests that he relied on other sources for his narrative and was relatively faithful in using them. Additionally, many scholars have viewed Acts' presentation of Stephen's speech, Peter's speeches in Jerusalem and, most obviously, Paul's speech in Miletus as relying on source material or of expressing views not typical of Acts' author.[3] Additionally, there is no evidence that any speech in Acts is the free composition of its author, without either written or oral basis. Accordingly, in general, the author of Acts seems to be among the conscientious ancient historians, touching the essentials of historical accuracy, even as now understood.

Miracles

Skeptics object to the trustworthiness of Acts on the ground of its reports of miracles, while Christian apologists defend the work as containing earlier sources.

There are possibilities of mistakes intervening between the facts and the accounts reaching its author, at second- or even thirdhand. Some modern scholars argue that Acts shows several errors, and suggest its value as history is doubtful. However, the use of "we" at some points in the book suggests its author was an eyewitness to some of the events he describes.

Quellenkritik, a distinctive feature of recent research upon Acts, solves many difficulties in the way of treating it as an honest narrative by a companion of Paul. In addition, we may also count among recent gains a juster method of judging such a book. For among the results of the Tübingen criticism was what Dr. W. Sanday calls "an unreal and artificial standard, the standard of the 19th century rather than the 1st, of Germany rather than Palestine, of the lamp and the study rather than of active life." This has a bearing, for instance, on the differences between the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the recovery of a more real standard, we owe much to men like Mommsen, Ramsay, Blass and Harnack, trained amid other methods and traditions than those which had brought the constructive study of Acts almost to a deadlock.

Structure

The structure of the book of Luke[13] is closely tied with the structure of Acts.[14] Both books are most easily tied to the geography of the book. Luke begins with a global perspective, dating the birth of Jesus to the reign of the Roman emperors in Luke 2:1 and 3:1. From there we see Jesus' ministry move from Galilee (chapters 4–9), through Samaria and Judea (chs. 10–19), to Jerusalem where he is crucified, raised and ascended into heaven (chs. 19–24). The book of Acts follows just the opposite motion, taking the scene from Jerusalem (chs. 1–5), to Judea and Samaria (chs. 6–9), then traveling through Syria, Asia Minor, and Europe towards Rome (chs. 9–28). This chiastic structure emphasizes the centrality of the resurrection and ascension to Luke's message, while emphasizing the universal nature of the gospel.

This geographic structure is foreshadowed in Acts 1:8, where Jesus says "You shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem (chs. 1–5), and in all Judea and Samaria (chs. 6–9), and even to the remotest part of the earth (chs. 10–28)." The first two sections (chs. 1–9) represent the witness of the apostles to the Jews, while the last section (chs. 10–28) represent the witness of the apostles to the Gentiles.

The book of Acts can also be broken down by the major characters of the book. While the complete title of the book is the Acts of the Apostles, really the book focuses on only two of the apostles: Peter (chs. 1–12) and Paul (chs. 13–28).

Within this structure, the sub-points of the book are marked by a series of summary statements, or what one commentary calls a "progress report". Just before the geography of the scene shifts to a new ___location, Luke summarizes how the gospel has impacted that ___location. The standard for these progress reports is in 2:46–47, where Luke describes the impact of the gospel on the new church in Jerusalem. The remaining progress reports are located:

  • Acts 6:7 Impact of the gospel in Jerusalem.
  • 9:31 Impact of the gospel in Judea and Samaria.
  • 12:24 Impact of the gospel in Syria.
  • 16:5 Impact of the gospel in Asia Minor.
  • 19:20 Impact of the gospel in Europe.
  • 28:31 Impact of the gospel on Rome.

This structure can be also seen as a series of concentric circles, where the gospel begins in the center, Jerusalem, and is expanding ever outward to Judea & Samaria, Syria, Asia Minor, Europe, and eventually to Rome.

Again, just as in the prologue to Acts, Luke refers to his former treatise as being an "account of all that Jesus began to do and teach", so the impression is given that Acts itself is set forth as 'an account of what Jesus continued to do and teach', Christ himself being the principal actor.

Date

External evidence now points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century. Conservative Christian scholars date the book of Acts early. For example, Norman Geisler dates the book of Acts being written between 60-62 A.D. for a number of reasons.[15] As evidence for the Third Gospel holds equally for Acts, its existence in Marcion's day (120–140) is now assured.[citation needed] Further, the traces of it in Polycarp 6 and Ignatius 7 when taken together are highly probable; and it is even widely admitted that the resemblance of Acts 13:22 and First Clement 18:1, in features not found in Psalms 89:20 quoted by each, can hardly be accidental. That is, Acts was probably current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than circa 115, and perhaps in Rome as early as circa 96.

With this view internal evidence agrees. In spite of some advocacy of a date prior to 70 since the book of Acts does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem, the bulk of critical opinion is decidedly against it. The prologue to Luke's Gospel itself implies the dying out of the generation of eyewitnesses as a class. A strong consensus supports a date about 80; some prefer 75 to 80; while a date between 70 and 75 seems no less possible. Two points used by advocates of pre-70 authorship is the fact that (1) Nero's mass execution of Christians in 64 is omitted, and (2) Paul's death is not recorded. Although point two can be addressed as being off focus with respect to Acts, the numerous amount of Christians that were killed would surely have contained a motif for the writer to record since in the very least it would offer a case of martyrdom. Of the reasons for a date in one of the earlier decades of the 2nd century, as argued by the Tübingen school and its heirs, several are now untenable. Among these are the supposed traces of 2nd-century Gnosticism and "hierarchical" ideas of organization; but especially the argument from the relation of the Roman state to the Christians, which Ramsay has reversed and turned into proof of an origin prior to Pliny's correspondence with Trajan on the subject. Another fact, now generally admitted, renders a 2nd-century date yet more incredible; and that is the failure of a writer devoted to Paul's memory to make palpable use of his Epistles. Instead of this he writes in a fashion that seems to traverse certain things recorded in them. If, indeed, it were proved that Acts uses the later works of Josephus, we should have to place the book about 100. But this is far from being the case.

Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited. (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21–23 is largely parallel to his Antiquities 19.8.2; but the latter adds an omen of coming doom, while Acts alone gives a circumstantial account of the occasion of Herod's public appearance. Hence the parallel, when analyzed, tells against dependence on Josephus. So also with (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f. and in Josephus (J.W. 2.13.5; A.J. 20.8.6) for the numbers of his followers do not agree with either of Josephus's rather divergent accounts, while Acts alone calls them Sicarii. With these instances in mind, it is natural to regard (3) the curious resemblance as to the (nonhistorical) order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f.; A.J. 20.5.1) as accidental.

It is worth noting, however, that no ancient source actually mentions Acts by name prior to 177. If it were composed prior to then, no one spoke of it by that name, or at least no one whose writings have survived down to the present day.

Place

The place of composition is still an open question. For some time Rome and Antioch have been in favor, and Blass combined both views in his theory of two editions. But internal evidence points strongly to the Roman province of Asia, particularly the neighborhood of Ephesus. Note the confident local allusion in 19:9 to "the school of Tyrannus" and in 19:33 to "Alexander"; also the very minute topography in 20:13–15. At any rate affairs in that region, including the future of the church of Ephesus (20:28–30), are treated as though they would specially interest "Theophilus" and his circle; also an early tradition makes Luke die in the adjacent Bithynia. Finally it was in this region that there arose certain early glosses (e.g., 19:9; 20:15), probably the earliest of those referred to below. How fully in correspondence with such an environment the work would be, as apologia for the Church against the Synagogue's attempts to influence Roman policy to its harm, must be clear to all familiar with the strength of Judaism in Asia (cf. Rev 2:9, 3:9; and see Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, ch. xii.).

Manuscripts

Like most biblical books, there are differences between the earliest surviving manuscripts of Acts. In the case of Acts, however, the differences between the surviving manuscripts is more substantial. The two earliest versions of manuscripts are the Western text-type (as represented by the Codex Bezae) and the Alexandrian text-type (as represented by the Codex Sinaiticus). The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 10% more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts. Since the difference is so great, scholars have struggled to determine of the two versions is closer to the original text composed by the original author.

The earliest explanation, suggested by Swiss theologian Jean LeClerc in the 17th century, posits that the longer Western version was a first draft, while the Alexandrian version represents a more polished revision by the same author. Adherents of this theory argue that even when the two versions diverge, they both have similiarities in vocabulary and writing style-- suggesting that the two shard a common author. However, it has been argued that if both texts were written by the same individual, they should have exactly identical theologies and they should agree on historical questions. Since most modern scholars do detect subtle theological and historical differences between the texts, most scholars do not subscribe to the rough-draft/polished-draft theory.

A second theory assumes common authorship of the Western and Alexandrian texts, but claims the Alexandrian text is the short first draft, and the Western text is a longer polished draft. A third theory is that the longer Western text came first, but that later, some other redactor abbreviated some of the material, resulting in the shorter Alexandrian text.

While these other theories still have a measure of support, the modern consensus is that the shorter Alexandrian text is closer to the original, and the longer Western text is the result of later insertion of additional material into the text.[16] It is believed that the material in the Western text which isn't in the Alexandrian text reflects later theological developments within Christianity. For examples, the Western text features a greater hostility to Judaism, a more positive attitude towards a Gentile Christianity, and other traits which appear to be later additions to the text. Some also note that the Western text attempts to minimize the emphasis Acts places on the role of women in the early Christian church.[17]

A third class of manuscripts, known as the Byzantine text-type, developed after the Western and Alexandrian types. These manuscripts, dating from the 5th century or later, served as the basis for the 16th century Textus Receptus, the first Greek-language version of the New Testament to be printed by printing press. The Textus Receptus, in turn, served as the basis for the New Testament found in the English-language King James Bible.

References

  1. ^ (Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259).
  2. ^ (Haer. 3.1.1, 3.14.1)
  3. ^ (Marc. 4.2.2)
  4. ^ (Paed. 2.1.15 and Strom. 5.12.82)
  5. ^ Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16
  6. ^ Acts 16:10
  7. ^ V.K. Robbins [http://christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages]
  8. ^ The Prominence of Women in the Gospel of Luke
  9. ^ Randel McCraw Helms (1997) Who Wrote The Gospels? ISBN 0-9655047-2-7, Millennium Press
  10. ^ Randel McCram Helms (1997) Who Wrote The Gospels
  11. ^ A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.
  12. ^ [1]
  13. ^ See, for example, Gooding, David W., According to Luke, (1987) ISBN 0851107567
  14. ^ See, for example, Gooding, David W., True to the Faith, (1990) ISBN 0340525630
  15. ^ [2].
  16. ^ The Text of Acts
  17. ^ The influence on the Textus Receptus and the KJV of the Western Text's "anti-feminist bias"
Preceded by Books of the Bible Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acts_of_the_Apostles&oldid=85323578"