I. Authorship of ActsLuke is the author of the book Acts. He
was also the author of its companion work, the Gospel of
Luke. Luke-Acts makes up 28% of the New Testament--more
than that written by either Paul or John.
A. External Evidence: Luke is uniformly identified as the
author Acts by the second century A.D.:
1. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (c. A.D. 2)
2. The Murtorian Fragment (lines 2-8,34-39; c. A.D.
2)
3. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.1.2; 3:14.1 etc.; end of A.D. 2)
4. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5:12.82.4; Adumbr.
in 1 Pet; A.D. 2)
5. See also: Tertullian (Adv. Marc 4:2, 5; 5:2),
Origen (ap. Euseb. HE 6.25.14), Eusebius (HE
3.4.6), and Jerome (De vir.ill 7).
B. Internal Evidence:
1. The Author was the Third Evangelist:
a. This is implied in Acts 1:1, "In the first
book ...."
b. "Theophilus" is probably the same person as
in Luke 1:1-4, "most excellent Theophilus."
c. There close similarity in style and language
between Luke and Acts
d. The tone of Luke and Acts is similar: world:
worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles,
interest in woman, apologetic tendency
e. The end of Luke dovetails into the beginning
of Acts
f. Jesus only appears to his disciples in
Jerusalem in Luke and Acts
g. Themes left out of Luke as a synoptic are
incorporated into Acts by design (e.g.,
destruction of the temple [Acts 6])
h. Luke is the only Gospel which refers to
Jesus' appearance before Herod Antipas in his
trial (Luke 23:7-12), and this theme is
alluded to in Acts 4:27)
2. The Author Was a Companion of PaulThis is a
debated position, but there is good evidence for
its support:
a. There are movement in the narrative from the
3rd person to the first person plural--the
"We" sections (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1--
28:16). It is most natural to understand
these to refer to the personal memoirs of one
of Paul's companions. There is no change in
style which demonstrate these to be an
external source.
b. The prologue to the double work of Luke-Acts
allows for Luke to have participated in some
of the events of Acts ("having followed all
things closely for some time past ..." Luke
1:3)
c. Luke's Paul is not necessarily different from
Paul's Paul. The differences can be
accounted for in style, and context.
3. The Author was Luke the Physician
a. The earliest traditions identify the author
with the expression of Colossians 4:14,
"Luke, the beloved physician" and this
epistle probably aligns with Paul's Roman
imprisonment which Luke would have been
present during according to the "We" sections
(see also Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11)
b. He is distinct from those named in the "We"
sections: Silas/Silvanus, Timothy, Sopater,
Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius (of Derbe)
Tychicus, or Trophimus
II. The Date of Acts: Before A.D. 64/65.
A. The earliest date for the book of Acts is the two year
imprisonment which is recorded in Acts 28:30-31 which
would have been around A.D. 60 and 61.
B. The latest date for the book of Acts is in the second
century writings of the church fathers
C. The abrupt ending of Acts allows for an early date
(around the time of the events), but could also be
understood theologically to emphasize the continuance
of Paul's mission through other believers. Acts 20:25
may hint at Paul's death. Therefore, it is not
determinative.
D. The Neronian persecution of c. A.D. 64/65 probably had
not taken place by the time the book was written.
There is no evidence of oppression by Rome, even if the
Roman officials are less than scrupulous. There is
also no indication of oppression in Rome (Acts 28).
This is an argument from silence and is not
determinative.
E. The Jewish revolt of A.D. 66 and / or the fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is / are not indicated in the book
of Acts. This leads many to date the book no later
than A.D. 70. This is an argument from silence and is
not determinative. There may also be indirect
allusions to the fall of Jerusalem in Luke especially
(Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31). But these cannot
be limited to the fall of A.D. 70. Rather, it is a
part of a greater whole--the final judgment upon the
nation (Luke 21:22,24).
F. Many subjects in Acts would have been prominent before
A.D. 70: Gentile admission to church fellowship,
coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in the church, food
requirements of the apostolic decree
G. Many facts: "political, geographical, and social
fields," "nomenclature," "titles of officials," and
"Roman citizenship" indicate that the work was written
not long after the events occurred
H. There are many "primitive" expressions of theology:
"the Christ," "the Servant of God," "the Son of Man",
Christians as "disciples," use of "laos" for Jews, and
the use of Sunday as the first day of the week.
I. Conclusion: The above evidence leans heavily for a
date that is prior to A.D. 64/65. The difficulty with
this date is in explaining Luke's use of Mark since the
Gospel of Luke would have had to have been written very
early in this case. However, it is possible that Luke
used similar sources as Mark (if "Q" is a stream of
oral and written tradition). Also, if Luke's gospel
was written in A.D. 60, he could have used Mark's
gospel written in the 50s. However, it is not
necessary to understand Luke to be altering Mark's
eschatological passage in chapter 13. Jesus speaks
precdictively and Luke understands this.
III. The Sources of Acts
A. It is certain that Luke used sources in his composition
of his double work (Luke 1:1-4).
B. In the Gospel of Luke there are parallel sources (the
synoptics) from which one can compare Luke's writing
and posit sources and his work of redaction, however,
in Acts the majority of the material is unique.
Therefore, both source and redaction criticism are
limited. The speeches in Acts provide a fertile area
for suggestions of "Lucan" compositions. While it is
certain that they are in an "edited" form, and reflect
similar design, they also occurred. Luke's treatment
of historicity in Luke allows the reader to assume that
he is also careful with his sources in Acts.
C. Although Luke may have been present for some of the
events in Acts (the "We" sections), he was not an eye
witness for all of them (at least all of Luke; Acts 1--
12, and probably other units where "we" is not
employed).
D. It is not presently possible to isolate Luke's sources
for Acts, but all indications are that he is a credible
historian/theologian.
IV. Purpose of Acts
A. There are many candidates: (1) to evangelize, (2) to
defend Paul and Christianity in the face of Jewish
attacks, (3) to present Christianity as the religio
licita, (4) to defend Paul's memory, (5) to explain the
delay of the parousia by positing a long term salvation
history, (6) to defend against gnosticism, (7) to
confirm the gospel, (8) to convey the historical
movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, (9) to
present Jesus as Lord as a defense and present
fulfillment of promise against charges of false
religion by Jews and explanation of partial Jewish
rejection, (10) to reassure second-generation
Christians of the truth of Christianity and fulfillment
it represents despite Jewish rejection and the presence
of persecution because Christians are heirs of promises
that Israel has forfeited, (11) to show in salvation
history that the church is true Israel, true
Pharisaism, (12) to explain the defeat and rejection
brought to Israel and her hope by the events of the
fall of Jerusalem, and explain its cause and the answer
to it found in Christianity. While all of these play a
part in the book, they are not adequate as an overall
purpose.
B. Luke-Acts must be approached as a double work with a
single purpose that is historical but primarily
theological in nature.
C. Suggested purpose: Perhaps the question which is
being asked by Theophilus (a Gentile-Christian) and
those with him is, "How is it that Christianity is
primarily Gentile in nature if it came from Judaism?"
Therefore, Luke writes Luke-Acts to argue that the
Christian Gospel is not anti-semitic, but is rooted in
the Hebrew Scriptures' promise of salvation to both the
Jews and the Gentiles. "The Way" shares in the
initiation of the spiritual promises to Israel. They
are the stewards of the promises to Israel. The reason
it is primarily Gentile in nature is because the Jews
rejected the message of Jesus as Messiah, and pushed
the church out. Nevertheless, the Jews as a people are
not rejected by God or his servant Paul. The promises
will yet be consummated for the nation through the
resurrected Jesus--the hope of Israel.
Report Problem