Acts and theGospel of Luke form a two-volume work known asLuke–Acts by the same author.[5] Tradition identifies the writer asLuke the Evangelist, a doctor who travelled withPaul the Apostle, though the text is anonymous, not naming its author.[6][5] Critical opinion remains divided about whether Luke the physician wrote it.[7] Many scholars still regard the author ofLuke–Acts as a companion of Paul, although they note tensions with the Pauline epistles.[8][9][10] Most scholars treat Acts as historiography, though focus is more on the author's aims than on settling questions of strict historicity.[11][12][13] Scholars usually date the book to 80–90 AD.[14]
The Gospel of Luke depicts the life, death, and resurrection ofJesus of Nazareth. Acts continues the story ofChristianity in the 1st century, beginning with theascension of Jesus and the mission fromJerusalem into the wider Mediterranean world. The early chapters describePentecost, the shared life of the first believers, and the establishment of the church atAntioch. The later chapters follow Paul as he carries the message throughout the empire and conclude with his imprisonment in Rome as he awaitstrial.
Luke–Acts addresses how the Jewish Messiah came to have an overwhelmingly non-Jewish church by arguing that the message reached the Gentiles after theJewish rejection.[4] The work also reads as a defense of the Jesus movement for Jewish audiences, since most speeches respond to Jewish concerns while Roman officials arbitrate disputes about Jewish customs and law.[15] Luke presents thefollowers of Jesus as a Jewish sect entitled to legal protection, but remains ambivalent about the future of Jews and Christians, affirming Jesus' Jewish identity while emphasizing the Jews' rejection of the Messiah.[16]
The name "Acts of the Apostles" was first used byIrenaeus in the late 2nd century. It is not known whether this was an existing name for the book or one invented by Irenaeus; it does seem clear that it was not given by the author, as the wordpráxeis (deeds, acts) only appears once in the text (Acts 19:18) and there it refers not to the apostles but to deeds confessed by their followers.[3]
The Gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two-volume work which scholars callLuke–Acts.[5] Together they account for 27.5% of theNew 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 theearly church.[17] The author is not named in either volume.[18] According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, the author wasLuke, named as a companion of theapostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but twentieth century scholarship cast this into doubt,[19] withTheissen stating “a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[20] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' 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).[21] The author "is an admirer of Paul, but does not share Paul's own view of himself as an apostle; his own theology is considerably different from Paul's on key points and does not represent Paul's own views accurately."[22] Many modern scholars have therefore expressed doubt that the author of Luke–Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[23] More recent developments in interpretation find that Paul and the author of Luke–Acts are not as different theologically as previously thought.[24] Most scholars maintain that the author ofLuke–Acts, whether named Luke or not, met Paul.[25] 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.[26]
The interpretation of the "we" passages as indicative that the writer was a historical eyewitness (whether Luke the evangelist or not), remains the most influential in current biblical studies.[27] Objections to this viewpoint include the above claim that Luke–Acts contains differences in theology and historical narrative which are irreconcilable with the authentic letters ofPaul the Apostle.[28]
The earliest possible date for Luke–Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome,[29] but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century).[30] If it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible.[31][32][33] However, many arguments mediate against this dating, such as the Gospel of John's awareness of the gospel, its independence from the Gospel of Matthew in the two-source hypothesis, and 1 Clement.[34]
There are two major textual variants of Acts, theWestern text-type and theAlexandrian. The oldest complete Alexandrian manuscripts date from the 4th century and the oldest Western ones from the 6th, with fragments and citations going back to the 3rd. Western texts of Acts are 6.2–8.4% longer than Alexandrian texts, the additions tending to enhance the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and the role of the Holy Spirit, in ways that are stylistically different from the rest of Acts.[35] The majority of scholars prefer the Alexandrian (shorter) text-type over the Western as the more authentic, but this same argument would favour the Western over the Alexandrian for the Gospel of Luke, as in that case the Western version is the shorter.[35]
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.[3] The anonymous author aligned Luke–Acts to the 'narratives' (διήγησιςdiēgēsis) which many others had written, and described his own work as an "orderly account" (ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς). It lacks exact analogies in Hellenistic or Jewish literature.[36] The author may have taken as his model the works ofDionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote a well-known history of Rome, or the Jewish historianJosephus, author of ahistory of the Jews.[37] Like them, he anchors his history by dating the birth of the founder (Romulus for Dionysius, Moses for Josephus, Jesus for Luke) and like them he tells how the founder is born from God, taught authoritatively, and appeared to witnesses after death before ascending to heaven.[37] By and large the sources for Acts can only be guessed at,[38] but the author would have had access to theSeptuagint (a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) and theGospel of Mark. Advocates of theTwo-source hypothesis argue that Luke knew theQ source, while a growing number of scholars defend either theFarrer hypothesis where Luke usedMatthew without Q or theMatthean Posteriority Hypothesis where neither were used.[39][40][41][42] He transposed a few incidents from Mark's gospel to the time of the Apostles—for example, the material about "clean" and "unclean" foods in Mark 7 is used in Acts 10, and Mark's account of the accusation that Jesus has attacked the Temple (Mark 14:58) is used in a story about Stephen (Acts 6:14).[43] There are also points of contact (meaning suggestive parallels but something less than clear evidence) with1 Peter, theLetter to the Hebrews, and 1 Clement.[44][45] Other sources can only be inferred from internal evidence—the traditional explanation of the three "we" passages, for example, is that they represent eyewitness accounts.[46] The search for such inferred sources was popular in the 19th century, but by the mid-20th it had largely been abandoned.[47]
Acts was read as a reliable history of the early church well into the post-Reformation era, but by the 17th century biblical scholars began to notice that it was incomplete and tendentious—its picture of a harmonious church is quite at odds with that given by Paul's letters, and it omits important events such as the deaths of both Peter and Paul. The mid-19th-century scholarFerdinand Baur suggested that the author had rewritten history to present a united Peter and Paul and advance a single orthodoxy against theMarcionites (Marcion was a 2nd-century theologian who wished to cut Christianity off entirely from Judaism); Baur continues to have enormous influence, but today there is less interest in determining the historical accuracy of Acts (although this has never died out) than in understanding the author's theological program.[13] Most New Testament scholars view Luke-Acts as representing a form of historiography with a number of sub-genres under discussion, with other proposed genres including novel, epic, and ancient biography.[11][12]
Luke was written to be read aloud to a group of Jesus-followers gathered in a house to share the Lord's supper.[37] The author assumes an educated Greek-speaking audience, but directs his attention to specifically Christian concerns rather than to the Greco-Roman world at large.[48] He begins his gospel with a preface addressed toTheophilus (Luke 1:3; cf.Acts 1:1), informing him of his intention to provide an "ordered account" of events which will lead his reader to "certainty".[26] He did not write in order to provide Theophilus with historical justification—"did it happen?"—but to encourage faith—"what happened, and what does it all mean?"[49]
Acts (or Luke–Acts) is intended as a work of "edification", meaning "the empirical demonstration that virtue is superior to vice."[50][51] The work also engages with the question of a Christian's proper relationship with the Roman Empire, the civil power of the day: could a Christian obey God and also Caesar? The answer is ambiguous.[15] The Romans never move against Jesus or his followers unless provoked by the Jews; in the trial scenes the Christian missionaries are always cleared of charges of violating Roman laws; and Acts ends with Paul in Rome proclaiming the Christian message under Roman protection. On the other hand, Luke makes clear that the Romans, like all earthly rulers, receive their authority from Satan, while Christ is ruler of thekingdom of God.[52]
Acts is divided into 28chapters. The work has two key structural principles. The first is the geographic movement from Jerusalem, centre of God's Covenantal people, the Jews, to Rome, centre of the Gentile world. This structure reaches back to the author's preceding work, theGospel of Luke, and is signaled by parallel scenes such as Paul's utterance in Acts 19:21, which echoes Jesus's words in Luke 9:51: Paul has Rome as his destination, as Jesus had Jerusalem. The second key element is the roles of Peter and Paul, the first representing the Jewish Christian church, the second the mission to the Gentiles.[53]
Transition: reprise of the preface addressed to Theophilus and the closing events of the gospel (Acts 1–1:26)
Petrine Christianity: the Jewish church from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 2:1–12:25)
2:1–8:1 – beginnings in Jerusalem
8:2–40 – the church expands to Samaria and beyond
9:1–31 – conversion of Paul
9:32–12:25 – the conversion of Cornelius, and the formation of the Antioch church
Pauline Christianity: the Gentile mission from Antioch to Rome (Acts 13:1–28:31)
13:1–14:28 – the Gentile mission is promoted from Antioch
15:1–35 – the Gentile mission is confirmed in Jerusalem
15:36–28:31 – the Gentile mission, climaxing in Paul's passion story in Rome (21:17–28:31)
TheGospel of Luke began with a prologue addressed to Theophilus; Acts likewise opens with an address to Theophilus and refers to "my earlier book", almost certainly the gospel.
The apostles and other followers of Jesus meet and elect Matthias to replaceJudas Iscariot as a member of The Twelve. OnPentecost, theHoly Spirit descends and confers God's power on them, and Peter and John preach to many in Jerusalem and perform healings,casting out of evil spirits, andraising of the dead. The first believers share allproperty in common, eat in each other's homes, and worship together. At first manyJews follow Christ and are baptized, but the followers of Jesus begin to be increasinglypersecuted by other Jews.Stephen is accused ofblasphemy andstoned. Stephen's death marks a major turning point: the Jews have rejected the message, and henceforth it will be taken to the Gentiles.[54]
The death of Stephen initiates persecution, and many followers of Jesus leave Jerusalem. The message is taken to the Samaritans, a people held in hostility by the Jews, and to theGentiles.Saul of Tarsus, one of the Jews who persecuted the followers of Jesus, is converted by a vision to become a follower of Christ (an event which Luke regards as so important that he relates it three times). Peter, directed by a series of visions, preaches toCornelius the Centurion, a Gentile God-fearer, who becomes a follower of Christ. The Holy Spirit descends on Cornelius and his guests, thus confirming that the message of eternal life in Christ is for all mankind. The Gentile church is established inAntioch (northwestern Syria, the third largest city of the empire), and here Christ's followers are first called Christians.[55]
The mission to the Gentiles is promoted from Antioch and confirmed at ameeting in Jerusalem between Paul and the leadership of the Jerusalem church. Paul spends the next few years traveling through western Asia Minor and the Aegean, preaching, converting, and founding new churches. On a visit to Jerusalem he is set on by a Jewish mob. Saved by the Roman commander, he is accused by the Jews of being arevolutionary, the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes", and imprisoned. Later, Paul asserts his right as a Roman citizen, to be tried in Rome and is sent by sea to Rome, where he spends another two years under house arrest, proclaiming theKingdom of God and teaching freely about "the Lord Jesus Christ". Acts ends abruptly without recording the outcome of Paul's legal troubles.[56]
Prior to the 1950s, Luke–Acts was seen as a historical work, written to defend Christianity before the Romans or Paul against his detractors; since then the tendency has been to see the work as primarily theological.[57] Luke's theology is expressed primarily through his overarching plot, the way scenes, themes and characters combine to construct his specific worldview.[58] His "salvation history" stretches from the Creation to the present time of his readers, in three ages: first, the time of "the Law and the Prophets" (Luke 16:16), the period beginning with Genesis and ending with the appearance of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5–3:1); second, the epoch of Jesus, in which theKingdom of God was preached (Luke 3:2–24:51); and finally the period of the Church, which began when the risen Christ was taken into Heaven, and would end with hissecond coming.[59]
Luke–Acts is an attempt to answer a theological problem, namely how the Messiah, promised to the Jews, came to have an overwhelmingly non-Jewish church; the answer it provides, and its central theme, is that the message of Christ was sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected it.[4] This theme is introduced in Chapter 4 of the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus, rejected in Nazareth, recalls the rejection of prophets. At the end of the gospel he commands his disciples to preach his message to all nations, "beginning from Jerusalem." He repeats the command in Acts, telling them to preach "in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the Earth." They then proceed to do so, in the order outlined: first Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, then the entire (Roman) world.[60]
For Luke, the Holy Spirit is the driving force behind the spread of the Christian message, and he places more emphasis on it than do any of the other evangelists. The Spirit is "poured out" atPentecost on the first Samaritan and Gentile believers and on disciples who had been baptised only byJohn the Baptist, each time as a sign of God's approval. The Holy Spirit represents God's power (at his ascension, Jesus tells his followers, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you"): through it the disciples are given speech to convert thousands in Jerusalem, forming the first church (the term is used for the first time in Acts 5).[61]
One issue debated by scholars is Luke's political vision regarding the relationship between the early church and the Roman Empire. On the one hand, Luke generally does not portray this interaction as one of direct conflict. Rather, there are ways in which each may have considered having a relationship with the other rather advantageous to its own cause. For example, early Christians may have appreciated hearing about the protection Paul received from Roman officials against Gentile rioters in Philippi (Acts 16:16–40) and Ephesus (Acts 19:23–41), and against Jewish rioters on two occasions (Acts 17:1–17; Acts 18:12–17). Meanwhile, Roman readers may have approved of Paul's censure of the illegal practice of magic (Acts 19:17–19) as well as the amicability of his rapport with Roman officials such as Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6–12) and Festus (Acts 26:30–32). Furthermore, Acts does not include any account of a struggle between Christians and the Roman government as a result of the latter's imperial cult. Thus Paul is depicted as a moderating presence between the church and the Roman Empire.[62]
On the other hand, events such as the imprisonment of Paul at the hands of the empire (Acts 22–28) as well as several encounters that reflect negatively on Roman officials (for instance, Felix's desire for a bribe from Paul in Acts 24:26) function as concrete points of conflict between Rome and the early church.[63] Perhaps the most significant point of tension between Roman imperial ideology and Luke's political vision is reflected in Peter's speech to the Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:36). Peter states that "this one" [οὗτος], i.e. Jesus, "is lord [κύριος] of all." The title, κύριος, was often ascribed to the Roman emperor in antiquity, rendering its use by Luke as an appellation for Jesus an unsubtle challenge to the emperor's authority.[64]
As the second part of the two-part work Luke–Acts, Acts has significant links to theGospel of Luke. Major turning points in the structure of Acts find parallels in Luke: the presentation of the child Jesus in the Temple parallels the opening of Acts in the Temple, Jesus's forty days of testing in the wilderness prior to his mission parallel the forty days prior to his Ascension in Acts, the mission of Jesus in Samaria and the Decapolis (the lands of the Samaritans and Gentiles) parallels the missions of the Apostles in Samaria and the Gentile lands, and so on (seeGospel of Luke). These parallels continue through both books, contributing to the narrative unity of the work.
However, scholars have noted differences between Luke and Acts, including some apparent contradictions. For example, the gospel seems to place theAscension onEaster Sunday, shortly after theResurrection, while Acts 1 puts it forty days later.[65] Such differences have led to debates over the nature of the unity between the two books. While not seriously questioning the single authorship of Luke–Acts, these variations suggest a complex literary structure that balances thematic continuity with narrative development across two volumes.[66] Literary studies have explored how Luke sets the stage in his gospel for key themes that recur and develop throughout Acts, including the offer to and rejection of the Messianic kingdom by Israel, and God's sovereign establishment of the church for both Jews and Gentiles.[67]
Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: he is converted and becomes a Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and compelling Gentile Christians to not obey theJewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. Recent shifts in interpretation find that the Paul and the author of Luke–Acts are not as different theologically as previously thought.[24] But details of these same incidents are frequently contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Acts it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24). Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never mentions Paul being in conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2).[68] Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also major differences between Acts and Paul onChristology (the understanding of Christ's nature),eschatology (the understanding of the "last things"), andapostleship.[69]
^"The principle essay in third regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 33–50, who suggests that Luke's presentation of Paul was, on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul's own letters (e.g. attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, eschatology). This has become the standard position in German scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2–5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48–52. This position has been challenged most recently by Porter, "The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common Misconceptions', in his Paul of Acts, 187–206. See also I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42–44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974) 45–47.", Pearson, "Corresponding sense: Paul, dialectic, and Gadamer", Biblical Interpretation Series, p. 101 (2001). Brill.
^"A glance at recent extended treatments of the "we" passages and commentaries demonstrates that, within biblical scholarship, solutions in the historical eyewitness traditions continue to be the most influential explanations for the first-person plural style in Acts. Of the two latest full-length studies on the "we" passages, for example, one argues that the first-person accounts came from Silas, a companion of Paul but not the author, and the other proposes that first-person narration was Luke's (Paul's companion and the author of Acts) method of communicating his participation in the events narrated.1717. Jurgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passegen der Apostelgeschitchte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus judischer Tradition (GTA 40; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); Claus-Jurgen Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulus reisen (WUNT 56; Tugingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). See also, Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, and Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles.", Campbell, "The "we" passages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as narrative", p. 8 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
^"The principle essay in this regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 33–50, who suggests that Luke's presentation of Paul was, on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul's own letters (e.g. attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, eschatology). This has become the standard position in German scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2–5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48–52. This position has been challenged most recently by Porter, "The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common Misconceptions', in his Paul of Acts, 187–206. See also I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42–44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974) 45–47.", Pearson, "Corresponding sense: Paul, dialectic, and Gadamer", Biblical Interpretation Series, p. 101 (2001). Brill.
^Tyson, Joseph B., (April 2011)."When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?", in: The Bible and Interpretation: "...A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110–120 CE. Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93–94 CE...Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters."
^Gnuse, R. (2002). Vita Apologetica: The Lives of Josephus and Paul in Apologetic Historiography. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 13(2), 151–169.https://doi.org/10.1177/095182070201300203, Abstract: "This article suggests that the author of Acts may have been inspired by Josephan texts when crafting biographical narratives about Paul."
^Runesson, Anders (2021).Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans.ISBN9780802868923.
^Pierson Parker. (1965). The "Former Treatise" and the Date of Acts. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 84, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), pp. 52–58 (7 pages). "Furthermore, the relative calm of both of Luke's books, and sparse apocalyptic as compared with Matthew and Mark, sugg the church was out from under duress when Luke wrote. This is cially true of Acts. Some scholars used to put Acts in the second century, but few nowadays would do so. Indeed if Clement of Rom knew the book, as he seems to have done, it will have to be prior to a. d. 96." and "I Clem 2 1 with Acts 20 35; I Clem 5 4 with Acts 12 17; I Clem 18 1 w 13 22; I Clem 41 1 with Acts 23 1; I Clem 42 1–4, 44 2 with Acts 1–8; I Clem with Acts 26 7; I Clem 59 2."
Allen, O. Wesley Jr. (2009)."Luke". In Petersen, David L.; O'Day, Gail R. (eds.).Theological Bible Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.ISBN978-1-61164-030-4.
Matthews, Christopher R. (2011)."Acts of the Apostles". In Coogan, Michael D. (ed.).The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Oxford University Press.ISBN9780195377378.
Pickett, Raymond (2011)."Luke and Empire: An Introduction". In Rhoads, David; Esterline, David; Lee, Jae Won (eds.).Luke–Acts and Empire: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Brawley. Wipf and Stock Publishers.ISBN9781608990986.
_fol._142r_-_2_Corinthians_11%2c33-12%2c9.jpg)
_P._Oxy._XIII_1597_(Papyrus_29)_recto_Acts_26%2c_20.jpg)
_P._Oxy._XIII_1597_(Papyrus_29)_verso_Acts_26%2c_7-8.jpg)
_f11r.jpg)
