Acts of the Apostles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The traditional view is that it was written by the Macedonian Christian physician and historian Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Paul, in the first century AD.
An alternative name for the book is Acts of the Holy Spirit. It describes many of the journeys and actions taken by the apostles, meaning "those who have been sent" by God, to be His witnesses. This was originally applied exclusively to those who had personally seen and/or lived with Jesus of Nazareth. The book of Acts contains many descriptions of miraculous events (which were given as signs from God to validate the apostles' teachings), which were performed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. These included miraculous healings, casting out evil spirits, the raising of the dead, and also historical descriptions of everyday life in the Roman Empire and in ancient Jerusalem.
Acts describes the beginning of the Jewish-Christian church on the Day of Pentecost, explains and describes the growth and spread of the Church despite (and because of) official persecution, narrates the inclusion of the gentile Greeks, Romans and other pagans of the Near East into the Church (and explains how this became possible), and focuses on the lives of the apostles, specifically Simon, called "Peter" of Galilee (who followed and lived with Jesus for probably three years) and Saul Paulus of Tarsus (who began as a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church and was converted later on the Road to Damascus).
Generally speaking, the book is a historical account of the early years of the church. It focuses mainly on the activities of Peter and Paul. It records the history of the Jerusalem Church as led by James the Just from its inception with about 120 members (1:15) composed of Jews and Proselytes, to Peter baptizing Cornelius (10:44) ,who is traditionally considered the first Gentile convert, to the Council of Jerusalem (15), to James challenging Paul on the rumor that he aims to subvert the Law of Moses (21:18), to Paul's arrest in Jerusalem.
Internal evidence shows that it was the companion and sequel of the Gospel of Luke (for instance, they are both addressed to Theophilus, which means "God-lover"); its separation from that gospel occurred prior to any surviving manuscript. Historically it is of unique interest and value: there is no other book like it within the New Testament. It is the main ancient Church history; apart from it a connected picture of the Apostolic Age would be impossible. With it, Paul's letters are of priceless historical value; without it, they would be incomplete or even misleading.
Contents |
Plan and Purpose
All agree that 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 at showing 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.
- 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 also 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 Messiah's witnesses should go, through divine power, to all the world to spread the Gospel (see 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 to the tribulations of the witnesses, and their constancy in them, after the type of their Lord Himself. It is emphasized in absence of earthly prosperity, which the pagan mind was apt to see as the 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 be 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
There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author 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 the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus.
Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle 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" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259).
The external evidence, such as it is, is in favor of authorship by Luke, a companion of Paul (Phlm 24) who was a physician (Col 4:14). The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (around 200), is titled the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.1.1, 3.14.1), Tertullian (Marc. 4.2.2), Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.1.15 and Strom. 5.12.82), Origen, and the Muratorian Canon also ascribe the third Gospel to one called Luke. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.
Some also consider the internal evidence to favor authorship by Luke. The thesis that the vocabulary of Luke-Acts is special to a physician met with a rebuttal by H. J. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke, which argued that the vocabulary is found in nonmedical works; the saying goes that Cadbury earned his doctorate by depriving Luke of his. Some state that the prominence given to Antioch in Acts coheres with the tradition of Luke's birth in Antioch. It is also argued that the minute character of the narrative and accuracy of the journeyings suggest an eyewitness source. Chief among the features of Luke-Acts that have been thought to support the idea that the author knew Paul are the "we passages" found in 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16. Some note that the "we" narration drops off at Philippi and then picks up in the second passage with "We sailed from Philippi," and conclude from this dovetailing of incidents that the author of Acts was among those left behind at Philippi who joined up with Paul to sail from there later. Other views of the "we passages" include that a first person travel diary was incorporated into Acts, that the first person narration is generic style for sea voyages (according to V. K. Robbins), and that the author was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul.
Others consider the internal evidence to be against authorship by Luke. Critics of authorship by Luke mention divergence in theology between Luke-Acts and the letters of Paul, to whom Luke was companion. They also state that there are disagreements between the narrative of Acts and the letters of Paul, such as Galatians, in describing the period from his conversion to his visit with the apostles in Jerusalem. Some say that the absence of mention of Paul's letters in Acts speaks to non-Lukan authorship, while others attribute this to Paul's letters being published together after Acts was written.
Sources
So far from the recognition of a plan in Acts being inimical to a quest after the materials used in its composition, some scholars say that it points the way thereto, while it keeps the literary analysis within scientific limits. These scholars claim that the standpoint of the mind pervading the book as a whole causes them to feel that the speeches in the first part of Acts (e.g., that of Stephen)—and indeed elsewhere, too—are not "free compositions" of the author, the mere outcome of dramatic idealization such as ancient historians like Thucydides or Polybius allowed themselves. The Christology, for instance, of the early Petrine speeches is considered by them to be such as a Gentile Christian writing circa 80 simply could not have imagined. Thus they are forced to assume the use of a certain amount of early Judaeo-Christian material, in the manner in which he supposedly used the Gospel of Mark and the Q source in compiling his own Gospel.
C.C. Torrey expressed these suspicions in his thesis (The Composition and the Dates of Acts, 1916) that an Aramaic source underlay the text of Acts 1–15, arguing from (1) the preoccupation of this section on the church at Jerusalem, and on the church's Judaic background, and (2) a Semitic coloring of the language, which he argued was "distinctly translation-Greek" with a number of peculiarities in the language that he claimed were "Semiticisms". While the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided us with an irrefutable sample of the language of Judea in the 1st century AD, severely undermining Torrey's linguistic arguments, study of the content has led to a consensus that the author drew from a set of sources associated with Peter that originated in Jerusalem, and a set of sources associated with Paul that, at least in part, originated in Antioch.
In the second half which focuses almost exclusively on Paul's activities, we are confronted by the so-called "we" passages. Their explanation has led to several theories: (1) they are traces of an earlier document—whether entries in a travel diary or a more or less consecutive narrative written later; (2) the use of "we" was due to the author's lapsing unconsciously into the first person plural at certain points where he felt specially identified with the history; or (3) this use of "we" was a feature of an ancient convention when talking about sea travel (a thesis proposed by V.K. Robbins in 1975 and embraced by such scholars as Helmut Koester). The first hypothesis raises the issue whether the "we" document does or does not lie behind more of the narrative than is definitely indicated by the formula in question (e.g., 13–15, 21:19–16). The second likewise leads to the question whether the presence or absence of "we" may be due to the writer's absorption in his narrative causes, rather than to the writer's mere presence or absence. However, this alternation from third person to first person plural may be due to emphasis, as Martin Hengel explains:
- "We" therefore appears in travel accounts because Luke simple wanted to indicate that he was there. However, his personal experiences are uninteresting. Paul remains the sole focal point.
- (Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
Robbins's suggestion has been treated with a certain amount of skepticism based on the examples he has produced for this genre; his examples are drawn from ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, and even his Greek examples are fraught with problems that include the fact many of the examples come from narratives told in the first person. Joseph A. Fitzmyer notes in his commentary to the Anchor Bible translation of Acts, "this 'conventional' literary device is more alleged than demonstrated."
In both parts of Luke-Acts, scholars suggest that the author collected materials from oral tradition, if not directly from different witnesses, possibly supplemented by the first person knowledge of the author in Acts. In this case, the author would have had the opportunity to collect materials, varying no doubt in accuracy, but all relatively primitive, whether in Antioch or in Caesarea Palaestina, where he may have resided for some two years in contact with men like Philip the Evangelist (21:8). There and elsewhere he might also have learned a good deal from John, surnamed Mark, Peter's friend (1 Pet 5:13; Acts 12:12).
Historical Value
The question of authorship is largely bound up with that as to the historicity of the contents. 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. Some of it may have suffered partial transformation in oral tradition before reaching our author; for example, the nature of Speaking the Tongues at Pentecost does not accord with what is known of the gift of "tongues" generally. 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 Jewish law were of no importance to the Christian as such. His words on these points in all his letters are strong and decided. 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). 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 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.[1] 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 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 is closely tied with the structure of Acts. Both books are most easily tied to the geography of the book. Luke begins with a global perspective, dating the birth of Christ 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.
Date
External evidence now points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century. As evidence for the Third Gospel holds equally for Acts, its existence in Marcion's day (120–140) is now assured. 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 AD 70, 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 AD 80; some prefer 75 to 80; while a date between 70 and 75 seems no less possible. 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 AD 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 AD 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 (non-historical) 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 AD 177. If it was 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.).
Text
Of the many problems with Acts, perhaps the most complex is that of its text. As with the other books of the New Testament, Acts exists in several text types; however, unlike with the other books, the difference between the Alexandrian text-type and the Western text-type is very great; the size of the Western text of Acts (as represented by the Codex Bezae) is 10% larger than the Alexandrian (as represented by the Codex Sinaiticus). Although this issue was first observed in the 17th century, explanations for this difference remain little more than conjectures. Any explanation that reduces the Western text to the product of generations of scribes who showed little care for fidelity to their exemplar ignores the evidence that the Western text's additions and omissions have the same stylistic characteristics as the Alexandrian; that Western text readings in Acts date from early Latin authors like Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine.
The earliest theory, first espoused by Leclerc in 1684, but restated by Blass in 1895 and others since, explains the Western text as a first draft by the author, while the Alexandrian was a more polished version he subsequently published. The French scholars Boismard and Lamouille, in their extensive study of the text of Acts, have embraced this theory.
In 1914, A.C. Clark espousing the principle lectio longior potior (which is the opposite of the normal principle used in textual criticism) has argued that the shorter text was a modification of the original text. The opposite direction, that the Western text of Acts was expanded, was first proposed by G. Salmon in 1897 and recently revised by E. Delebecque, who believes the expansion of the text was performed by Luke at Ephesus after Paul's death.
Despite this ongoing debate, the majority of biblical scholars believes the text of Acts as witnessed in the Alexandrian tradition is the closest to the original, although accepting various isolated readings from the Western text families at different points. This was the conclusion of the text of Acts as printed by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, as well as the most recent edition of Nestle and Aland's authoritative Novum Testamentum graece (1993).
External links
|
|
||
| Preceded by: |
Acts | Followed by: |
