User:Alecmconroy/Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Testament
Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation This box: view • talk • edit

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, or sometimes as Acts of the Holy Spirit.

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 imprisionment.

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 circa 60 AD by a companion of Paul named Luke. Modernly, many scholars view the books as having been written by an unknown author at a much later date-- sometime between 80 and 150 AD.

Contents 1 Summary 1.1 Peter and the apostles 1.2 Paul's ministry 2 Themes and style of Luke-Acts 3 Authorship 3.1 Common authorship of Luke and Acts 3.2 Luke the physician as author 3.3 An anonymous, non-eyewitness author 3.4 A female Luke? 4 Date 5 Sources for Luke-Acts 6 Historical value 6.1 Purposes/trends 7 Date 8 Intended Audience 9 Historicity and genre of Acts 9.1 Methods 9.2 Acts as scripture 9.3 Acts as more-reliable history 9.4 Acts as less-reliable history 10 Researchers 10.1 Acts as Good History 10.2 Acts as Bad History 10.3 Acts as Biography 10.4 Acts as Novel 10.5 Acts as Epic 11 Themes/style/beliefs 12 Title 13 Historical 13.1 Speeches 13.2 Miracles 14 Place 15 Manuscripts 16 External links 17 Footnotes

[edit] 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.

[edit] Peter and the apostles

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", and when they addressa 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 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 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.

[edit] Paul's ministry

The second half of Acts revolves around the ministry of Paul of Tarsus, formerly known as Saul. Initially, Saul is a zealous Pharasee with a history of persecuting Christians and ordering their executions. While he is traveling on the road to Damascus, Saul sees a bolt of lightning and hears a voice that calls out,"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?". When Saul inquires further, the voice replies,"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting". As a result of this experience, Saul converts to Christianity and changes his name to Paul.

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 christians need not follow all of the law of Moses, and in particular, they do not need not be circumscised.

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.

Ultimately, Paul returns to Jerusalem where he is recognized outside the Jewish Temple and nearly beaten to death by a mob because they assumed Paul had brought his traveling companion (a Greek) into the Temple, thus "defiling" it. Ananias the High Priest make accusations against Paul that result in his 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)

[edit] Themes and style of Luke-Acts

Universality of Christianity

One of the central themes of Acts is universality of Christianity-- the idea that Jesus's teachings were for all humanity-- Jews and Gentiles alike. In this view, Christianity is seen as a religion in its own right, rather than a subset of Judaism. Whereas the members of Jewish Christianity were circumcised and adhered to dietary laws, the Pauline Christianity featured in Acts did not require Gentiles to be circumcised or to obey all of the Mosaic laws. The final chapter of Acts ends with Paul condemning non-Christian Jews and saying "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"^[1]

Holy Spirit

As in the Gospel of Luke, there are numerous references to the Holy Spirit throughout Acts. Acts features the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" on Pentecost^[2] and the subsequent spirit-inspired speaking in tongues. The Holy Spirit is shown guiding the decisions and actions of Christian leaders^[3], and the Holy Spirit is said to "fill" the apostles, especially when they preach.^[4] As a result, Acts is particularly influential among branches of Christianity which place particular emphasis the Holy Spirit, such as Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.

Attention to the oppressed and persecuted

The Gospel of Luke and Acts both devote a great deal of attention to the oppressed and downtrodden. The impovershed are generally praised^[5], while the wealthy are criticized. Luke-Acts devotes a great deal of attention to women in general^[6] and to widows in particular^[7] The Samaritans, an ethnically minority which were oppressed in ancient Israel, are also shown favorably in Luke-Acts.^[8] In Acts, attention is given to the religious persecution of the early christians, as in the case of Stephen's martyrdom and the numerous examples are Paul's persecution for his preaching of Christianity.

Prayer

Prayer is a major motif in both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Both books have a more prominent attention to prayer than is found in the other gospels.^[9] The Gospel of Luke depicts prayer as a certain feature in Jesus's life. Examples of prayer which are unique to Luke include Jesus's prayers at the time of his baptism^[10], his praying all night before choosing the twelve ^[11], and praying for the transfiguration ^[12] Acts also features an emphasis on prayer and includes a number of notable prayers such as Stephen's death prayer^[13]

Speeches

Acts features a number of extended speeches or sermons from Peter, Paul, and others. In fact, there are at least 24 different speeches in Acts, and the speeches comprise about 30% of the total verses.^[14] These speeches, which are quoted verbatim at length rather than simply summarized, have been the source of debates over the historical accuracy of Acts. (see below).

Pro-Rome

In Acts, Rome is shown in a positive light.^[15] Roman authorities are never shown initiating persecution of Paul or Christians-- indeed, in some cases Roman authorities are shown actively protecting Paul and his associate from the non-Christian Jews. Similarly, Paul and the Christians are shown as being obedient to Roman law and respectful of Roman rule.

Parallels between Jesus and early Christians

In Luke-Acts, the early Christians are shown as continuing Jesus's work, and the story of the apostles in Acts often parallels the story of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. ^[16]

Unity of the early Christian Church

While Acts mentions the controversies within the early Christian Church (such as whether Gentiles Christians should follow Mosaic Law), the various members of the church are generally shown as being in agreement and working together in harmony. Acts does not meantion any harsh conflicts or bitter disputes between Gentile and Jewish Christianity. ^[17] Similarly, Acts features numerous parallels between Peter and Paul.^[18]

[edit] Authorship

While the precise identity of the author is debated, the most popular view is that the author was a Greek gentile writing for an audience of Gentile Christians.

[edit] 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"^[19] 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 amongst scholars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.

[edit] 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 ^[20], Tertullian ^[21], Clement of Alexandria ^[22], 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.^[23] 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", etc. ^[24] 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 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.

[edit] 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 idiosyncracy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.^[25]

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.

[edit] 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). 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.

[edit] Date

Although many argue for an earlier or later date, most scholars date Luke-Acts to 80-100 CE.

Acts describes the imprisonment of Paul in Rome-- an event that is believed to have occured c. 62 CE. Therefore, this date the earliest possible date of composition. Similarly, Clement and Marcion, writing in 120–140 CE, quote from the Gospel of Luke. Since Luke and Acts are usually agreed to be written by the same author, most scholars regard 140 CE as the latest possible date. The earliest known direct quotation of Acts itself is from 177 CE.^[26]

Since Paul's ultimate fate is curiously absent from the book, the traditional view has been that Acts was composed during Paul's imprisonment but prior to his eventual execution (or release). This would place the composition around 64 CE. Modernly, however, many scholars have come to believe that Luke-Acts was written at a somewhat later date. One reason is that there is strong evidence to suggest that the Gospel of Mark as a source for the Gospel of Luke. Since Mark is believed to have been written sometime 70 CE, Luke-Acts would have to have been written sometime after that date.

Another school of thought held that Acts may have been written sometime in the mid-second century. However, the author of Acts does not seem to have access to Paul's collected letters. This would suggest Acts war written some time earlier, before the Pauline epistles had been collected and circulated throughout the Christian churches.

[edit] Sources for Luke-Acts

Main article: Synoptic problem

While there are a number of theories about what sources the author of Luke-Acts used in creating the Gospel of Luke, 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. Evidence for this comes from the direct similiarities between the Mark and Luke—indeed 53% of Mark is found in the Gospel of 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 used in the creation of their gospels. The Gospel of Luke also draws upon a good deal of material not found in Mark or Q-- this material is referred to as "Source L". ^[27]

There is less certainty about what sources were used in the creation of Acts. The author of Luke-Acts likely relied upon some other written 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 alluded 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.^[28] 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).

[edit] Historical value

Historical accuracy of Acts

Yes

• Biblical inerrancy
• Prologue, attempt to find sources
• Accurate "contemporary color"

• Notable figures (Pilate, Ananias, Felix & wife Drusilla, Festus, Agrippa & sister Bernice)
• Adminstrative districts of Macedonia, titles of officials

• "we passages" and iternary detail strongly imply access to a source familiar with Paul's travels (The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies) Martin Dibelius, K. C. Hanson)

No

• Objectivity
• Discrepancies with the Pauline Epistles

• Paul's visits to Jerusalem-- 3 lists in epistles, 5 listed in Acts

• Conflating two visits to Corinth?
• Speeches

• Generally accepted to write speeches

• Thucydides quote
• Multiple versions of speeches often disagree with each other

• Logistical problems-- verbatim speeches not recorded
• different characters "all sound the same"

• Pauline epistles

• Miracle worker in Acts, not in epistles
• Great orator in Acts, feeble speaker
• Pro-Law in Acts, Anti-law in Epistles
• Acts, Paul opposed due to teaching resurrection. In Epistles, opposed because of Anti-Law (Gal 2:11-16)
• Acts-- not imminent eschatology, Epistles, imminent
• Irreconcilable? or just different emphasis

• Worldview

• Biblical inerrancy
• Miracles

"they have referred, for instance, to the improbability of certain scenes as, for example, to the fact that both Stephen and Paul make long speeches before raging crowds, or that Paul assumes towards the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem a yielding attitude which we cannot possibly believe he would have adopted. " The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies) Martin Dibelius, K. C. Hanson p.27

[edit] Purposes/trends

• "Make Peter more Pauline and Paul more Peterine"
• Parallel Paul&Peter, minimized differencies, redact conflict

• Peter baptizes first gentile (Cornelius)
• "Yoke we could not bear" or something like that

• In Epistles, Peter and Paul seem to "agree to disagree", partition, etc. In Acts, peter agrees with paul
• Baur: an "overturn to peace" from a Pauline to the Peterine"

Acts as a novel (Pervo) Acts as a biography Acts as Epic

[edit] Date

Early date

• Positive view of Rome suggests persecutions had not yet begun.
• Attention given to conversion of Gentiles and whether they had to comply with Mosaic laws suggests the issue had not yet been resolved.

[edit] Intended Audience

Who were the Gospel of Luke and Acts initally written for? What is the intended audience?

A noble patron

In the prologue to the Gospel, the author states "it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught".

Although the precise identity of Theophilus, most scholars presume that Theophilus was a Romam noble or official who served as the author's patron. Several pieces of evidence suggest this. Theophilus was a valid Roman name, and history records the existences of many individuals with that name. Other evidence suggests Theophilus may have held some elevated status. In the prologue of the Gospel of Luke, Theophilus is addressed as "Most Excellent"^[29], an honorific usually applied to the nobility. The only other times "Most Excellent" appears in Luke-Acts, it applies to Roman Governors.^[30] Additionally, the "dedication prologue" strongly suggests that Theophilus was the author's patron. Other works written during the same era often feature similar dedications to a patron^[31][32] According to this intepretation of the prologue, Theophilus is a specific individual who has already been exposed to Christian teachings.

A Christian community

Another prominent theory is that Luke and Acts were intended be read by a community (or communities) of gentile Christians living in the Roman Empire. Some scholars believe that the word "Theophilus", which means "dear to God", refers not to one specific individual, but rather to the Christian community as a whole. Others hold that while Theophilus may have beeen a specific individual, the author intended Luke-Acts to be read by other Christians as well.

Paul's trial

Other theories about Luke-Act's audience are more controversial. One traditional hypothesis was that Luke and Acts were written in Rome by Luke the Physician as a defense in preparation for Paul's upcoming trial. ^[33] Adherents of this theory point to the fact that in Luke-Acts, both Jesus and his followers are shown as complying with Roman law, and the books cast a generally favorable light on the Roman Empire. Additionally, since Acts does not record the outcome of Paul's trial in Rome, many have suggested that it was completed at some point after Paul had arrived in Rome, but prior to the trial.

However, most scholars are skeptical of this scenario. For one, the author never explicitly mentions such a goal in any of the prologues-- instead the prologues seem to indicate a goal to inform other Christians, not aid in a Roman trial. Additionally, Luke-Acts contains many discussions of theological teachings that seem unsuited to a Roman trial. Perhaps most tellingly, however, is the fact that in Acts 20, before Paul boards the ship to make the journey to Rome, He gives a farewell speech in which he proclaims,"I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again". Most scholars take this as evidence that the author of Acts knew of Paul's death and was therefore writing sometime after Paul's trial had already concluded.

A pagan audience

Because the Roman empire is portrayed in such a relatively positive light, and because Christians are shown as complying with Roman law, a few scholars have suggest that Acts was intended for a Roman non-christian audience. Scholars raise several points of evidence that dispute this suggestion. For example. Luke-Acts quote extensively from the Old Testament and references the beliefs and practices Judaism-- facts that would have been lost on a pagan audience.

A Jewish Christian audience

Because the conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christianity are minimized, a few scholars have suggested that Jewish Christians many have been the intended audience. One scholar^[34] even suggested that perhaps Acts was intended as a "peace overture" meant to heal the rifts between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

In general, however, few modern scholars regard this as a realistic possibility. Throughout Luke-Acts, Jews are shown in a relatively negative light. They are depicted as persecuting Jesus, the early Christians, and Paul. The final chapter of Acts has Paul condemning the non-Christian Jews. Meanwhile, Gentiles and the Roman Empire are depicted in a relatively positive light. This suggests that the author did not primarily intended Jewish Christians to be the audience.

Says one scholar: "It is neither the Synagogue (that bristled at the degradation of the figure of the 'Jews' on every page), nor the Gentiles ignorant of Christianity (who got lost incessantly in the reminiscences of the [Old Testament]). The language of Acts is a language for the intiated. The implied reader is the Christian or an interested sympathizer". The First Christian Historian: Writing the 'Acts of the Apostles' (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series) Daniel Marguerat, Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, Richard Bauckham http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521609496/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0341075-2940172#

[edit] Historicity and genre of Acts

[edit] Methods

• Comparison of "local color" contemporary setting, anachronisms
• Comparison with authentic Paul's letters
• Comparison with Josephus
• Objectvity

[edit] Acts as scripture

For many, the genre and historicity of Acts is dictated by their religious beliefs. For example, those who accept the doctine of Biblical Inerrancy regard Acts as a divinely-inspired document that is historically accurate in every detail. Conversely, those who believe in the impossibility of miracles hold that the numerous miraculous occurances depicted in Acts as proof that portions of the book are historically inaccurate.

[edit] Acts as more-reliable history

• Prologue, attempt to find sources
• Accurate "contemporary color"

• Notable figures (Pilate, Ananias, Felix & wife Drusilla, Festus, Agrippa & sister Bernice)
• Adminstrative districts of Macedonia, titles of officials

• "we passages" and iternary detail strongly imply access to a source familiar with Paul's travels (The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies) Martin Dibelius, K. C. Hanson)

[edit] Acts as less-reliable history

• Objectivity
• Discrepancies with the Pauline Epistles

• Paul's visits to Jerusalem-- 3 lists in epistles, 5 listed in Acts

• Conflating two visits to Corinth?
• Speeches

• Generally accepted to write speeches

• Thucydides quote
• Multiple versions of speeches often disagree with each other

• Logistical problems-- verbatim speeches not recorded
• different characters "all sound the same"

• Pauline epistles

• Miracle worker in Acts, not in epistles
• Great orator in Acts, feeble speaker
• Pro-Law in Acts, Anti-law in Epistles
• Acts, Paul opposed due to teaching resurrection. In Epistles, opposed because of Anti-Law (Gal 2:11-16)
• Acts-- not imminent eschatology, Epistles, imminent
• Irreconcilable? or just different emphasis

"they have referred, for instance, to the improbability of certain scenes as, for example, to the fact that both Stephen and Paul make long speeches before raging crowds, or that Paul assumes towards the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem a yielding attitude which we cannot possibly believe he would have adopted. " The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies) Martin Dibelius, K. C. Hanson p.27

"Luke's purpose, as Dibelius understood it, was 'to illuminate and to somehow present the [underlying] meaning of events'" The Past As Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic Marianne Palmer Bonz

For Dibelius, Luke's primary contribution to the recording of early Christian history was not to convey historical information through the consciously stylized but nonetheless faithful transmission of his sources, as Cadbury had asserted. Rather, Luke's primary contribution was his nuanced interpretation of what he regarded as the tradition's true meaning" The Past As Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic Marianne Palmer Bonz

[edit] Researchers

[edit] Acts as Good History

• F. F. Bruce (1954; 1960; 1984; 1990),
• I. H. Marshall (1969; 1970; 1978; 1992; 2003) and
• C. Hemer (1977; 1989), who often followed the earlier work of the British
• W. M. Ramsay (1897; 1911) and the
• H. J. Cadbury (1927; 1955; 1958)
• W. W. Gasque (1989)

[edit] Acts as Bad History

• van Manen 1898;
• Bumstead 1901;
• Moffatt 1908
• A. J. Matill (1959)
• Martin Dibelius (1956),
• H. Conzelmann (1960; 1966; 1987)
• Ernst Haenchen (1966; 1971).

[edit] Acts as Biography

Charles H. Talbert (1974)

[edit] Acts as Novel

Richard I. Pervo (1987)

[edit] Acts as Epic

Dennis R. MacDonald (1993)

[edit] Themes/style/beliefs

• Parallels between Peter and Paul
• Minimize conflict between Peterine and Pauline
• Non-imminent eschatology
• Pro-Roman
• Christianity as the fulfillment of God's plan-- ties to Judaism.
• Christians as followers of the Law of Moses and the Law of the Empire

[edit] Title

Many scholars believe that title "Acts of the Apostles" was almost certainly a later addition^[35]-- the original work may have been untitled.^[36] The earliest source to refer to the text uses the title The Acts of the Apostles^[37], while a late-2nd-century source calls it The Acts of All Apostles^[38][39]

The title is often regarded as somewhat of a misnomer-- The Twelve appear only in the early chapters, and only Peter acts as an individual. Most of Acts centers on not on The Twelve, but on Paul. Although Paul emphatically claims to be an apostle, as seen in his epistles, Acts itself does not clearly refer to him as one. Instead "Acts regularly represents the apostles as a closed body of twelve"^[40]

[edit] 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 Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. "^[41] In addition, conservative scholars see the book of Acts being corroborated by archaeology.^[42]

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)

[edit] 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.[6] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.).

[edit] 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 most 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 that was subsequently published by the original 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 the rough-draft/polished-draft theory.

A second theory is 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. ^[43] This view is popular 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. ^[44]

A third class of manuscripts, known as the 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.

[edit] External links

• Book of Acts at Bible Gateway
• English translation of the Western text of Acts of the Apostles

• Acts from the Biblical Resource Database

• Acts as a Source from Paulonpaul.org
• Course Notes on Acts
• Acts of the Apostles entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia
• Acts of the Apostles entry from 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica
• Acts from earlychristianwritings
• Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts

[edit] Footnotes

Books of the Bible
Preceded by: John	Acts	Followed by: Romans