A Discussion of the Genre, Historicity, Date,
and Authorship of the Acts of the Apostles
By Christopher Price
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: THE GENRE OF ACTS…………………………………………… 3
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Acts as Ancient Historiograpy
Acts as Scripture
Acts as Ancient Biography
Acts as Ancient Novel
Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS…………………………………….20
I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Challenge Faced by Ancient Writers
Examining the Case for Dependence
An Alternative to Dependence
Summary
CHAPTER 3:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
THE DATE OF ACTS………………………………………………54
Allusions to Luke-Acts
Paul’s Letters Widespread by the Second Century
Avoiding Anachronisms
The Western Text of Acts
Conclusion
CHAPTER 4:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
THE AUTHOR OF THE ACTS…………………………………… 80
The We Passages of Acts as Evidence of Authorial Participation
Objections to Authorial Participation
Additional Internal Evidence of Authorship
External Evidence of Authorship
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
DID LUKE USE JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES…………………… 111
A Convincing Consensus Against Dependence
Examining the Case for Dependence
An Alternative to Dependence
Summary
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………... 122
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….. 124
2
CHAPTER 1: THE GENRE OF ACTS
“The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a
corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is – what it was intended to do
and how it is meant to be used.”
C.S. Lewis, Preface to Paradise Lost
What is the Acts of the Apostles? It is a writing, a narrative, to be sure.
But what kind? This question is one of genre. Genres “are social conventions that
provide contextual meaning for the smaller units of language and text they
enclose. The original significance that a literary text had for both author and
reader is tied to the genre of the text, so that the meaning of the part is dependent
upon the meaning of the whole.”1 In other words, authors write according to a set
of conventions and expectations held by writers and audiences about different
types of literature. To write according to a particular genre was to communicate
specific intentions and to imbue your work with certain meaning.
Is the question of genre important? Yes, it is. “Identification of a work’s
genre . . . aids us in its interpretation.”2 Genre “is widely acknowledged as one of
the key conventions guiding both the composition and the interpretation of
writings. Genre forms a kind of ‘contract’ or agreement, often unspoken or
unwritten, or even unconscious, between the author and a reader, by which the
author sets out to write according to a whole set of expectations and conventions,
and we agree to read or to interpret the work using the same conventions, giving
us an initial idea of what we might expect to find.”3
Knowledge of genres was widespread in the literate Hellenistic world in
which Acts was written. As Prof. Richard Burridge states in his book, What Are
the Gospels?, “[a]n awareness of genre and its conventions was widespread in the
ancient world through elementary schooling, particular in its use of rhetorical
exercises and moralistic stories of the heroes.”4
Because of the importance of genre classification, scholars have spilled
much ink exploring the genre of Acts and the majority has concluded that Acts is
of the genre of the ancient history, also known as ancient historiography.5 In this
chapter I join the discussion by making a preliminary case for Acts being
1
David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, page 13.
A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament
Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402.
3
Richard Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus, page 5.
4
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels, page 69.
5
John B. Polhill, Acts, page 42.
2
3
classified as ancient historiography and then evaluate the other candidates,
comparing and contrasting their suitability with that of historiography.
I.
Acts as Ancient Historiography
Ancient histories “are vehicles for narrating events worthy of record. . . .
Historians [ ] treated events that actually happened and people who really lived;
they had historical stories worth telling.”6 Professor Luke T. Johnson explains
why he concludes that the author of Acts was attempting to write history:
(1) His prologue tells us that he is writing an “orderly account.”
Historians of his age used such language to describe their work. He
refers as well to oral and written sources; he knew others had written
narratives before him. He had sources; therefore, he regarded them
as such, and he used them critically. (2) He tries to relate his story to
the broader historical context. He does this first by providing
chronological references for pivotal events (see Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:12; Acts 18:12). In addition, he identifies power blocs and governing
agents, not only in Palestine (Acts 18:12-17). (3) Above all, Luke
has the historian’s instinct for chronology and causality; he makes
connections between events, so that a thread of purpose runs through
his narrative.7
Joel Green provides additional similarities between Acts and historiography.
Luke’s two volumes evince a number of other attributes common in
Greco-Roman historiography – for example a genealogical record
(Lk. 3:23-28); the use of meal scenes as occasions for instruction (as
in Greco-Roman symposia); travel narratives; speeches; letters; and
dramatic episodes, such as Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (4.16-30) and
Paul’s stormy voyage and shipwreck (Acts 27.1-28.14). Further in
characterizing his work as a narrative (diegesis), Luke qualifies his
project as a long narrative of many events, for which the chief
prototypes were the historiographical writings of Herodotus and
Thucydides.8
Finally, Willen van Unnik determined that there were ten basic features that
characterized the writings of Greco-Roman historians: 1) choosing a noble topic;
6
Aune, op. cit., page 79.
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, page 200.
8
Joel B. Green, “Internal Repetition in Luke-Acts,” in History, Literature and
Society in the Book of Acts, page 286.
7
4
2) choosing a topic that would be useful to the audience; 3) independence and
impartiality; 4) a well structured narrative, especially at the beginning and the end;
5) collection of preparatory material; 6) selection and variety in presentation of the
information; 7) correct disposition and ordering of the narrative; 8) liveliness in
the narration; 9) moderation of the topographical details; and 10) composition of
speeches well suited to the orator and situation. French New Testament scholar
Daniel Marguerat concludes “that Luke follows eight of the ten rules.”9 Rules 1
and 3 were exceptions explained by “the specificity of Luke’s project”10 and are
more similar to Jewish historical writings. Thus, Luke seems greatly influenced
by Greco-Roman historiography but his subject-matter and agenda are more akin
to Jewish historiography.11
On its face, therefore, the author of Acts appears to be consciously writing
in the genre of ancient historiography. Although not without bias or theological
focus, the genre of Acts indicates the author’s intent to record and describe
historical events based on the available sources.
II.
Acts as Scripture
Some scholars believe that the author of Acts saw himself as writing
scripture; adding to the story of the Old Testament.12 Even here, though,
proponents of the theory see Acts as influenced by the “historical” books of the
Old Testament, such as 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Samuel. This theory has much
to commend it. “[O]ur author conceived of his work as the continuation of the
LXX [the Greek translation of the Old Testament common in the time of Acts].
His deliberate composition in Septuagintal Greek and the conviction that his story
was the fulfillment of the promises of the OT imply that as a continuation, LukeActs represents sacred narrative.”13 The return of the gift of prophecy, the
centrality of Jerusalem to his narratives (as the destination of the gospel in Luke
9
Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian, page 16.
Ibid.
11
Professor David Balch also makes a strong case for both Luke and Acts
being ancient historiography by comparing them with Dionysius’ Roman
Antiquities. Balch, David, “The Genre of Luke-Acts,” SWJT (Fall 1990),
pages 5-19.
12
Jacob Jervell, “The future of the Past,” in History Literature and Society in the
Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, pages 103-28.
13
Darryl W. Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book
of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting, eds. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D.
Clarke, page 17.
10
5
and the origin of the gospel in Acts), and the motif of fulfillment, also indicate that
the author sees himself as completing the Old Testament story.14
That the author of Acts may have seen himself as adding to scripture,
however, does not mean that he was not writing under the influence of the
conventions of ancient historiography. In essence, Luke was writing “salvation
history” – the story of God bringing salvation to the world through the nation of
Israel and then through Jesus and the Church – influenced by the historical
conventions of his day. When this focus is considered in light of Acts’ genre of
historiography, we may have the best explanation of the intentions of the author of
Acts. Though Acts shares many of the features common to the Greco-Roman
historians, it is somewhat unique in that its author does not describe himself in any
detail in his books. Instead, his focus is on recounting the salvation history begun
in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the events about which he writes.15
Additionally, while other historians (even a Jewish one like Josephus) show some
reservation about miracles, Luke does not. How could he if he is writing about
God’s salvation history?16
Accordingly, the idea that the author of Acts viewed himself as writing a
continuation of the Old Testament does not count against the idea that he was
writing according to the genre of historiography, but it does shed light on his
intent and explains some of the variances with other historiography.
III.
Acts as Ancient Biography
Another theory is that Acts is a form of ancient biography. The most
prominent proponent of this theory is C.H. Talbert. Talbert initially made his case
in his book, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Biography,
like ancient historiography, intends to impart historical information about ancient
figures. However, the focus is narrower, such as the life of a famous person. This
characteristic would seem to preclude Acts, given its focus on multiple characters.
Talbert, however, argues that Acts is akin to a “succession narrative,” which he
explains was a writing that followed up a biography and described the followers
of, or movement birthed by, the figure featured in the biography.17 This theory has
the advantage of explaining the genre of Acts in light of the genre of Luke, which
more scholars are willing to see as biography.
W. Ward Gasque, “A Fruitful Field, Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles,”
Interpretations 42.04 (1998), pages 119-20.
15
Palmer, op. cit., page 111.
16
Ibid., pages 113-15.
17
C.H. Talbert, Acts, pages 1-3.
14
6
Most scholars, however, are unconvinced by Talbert’s classification and
note that such “succession narratives” are much shorter than Acts and have little
narration. Professor Aune believes that Luke and Acts are best explained as
historiography and notes that Talbert’s phrase, “succession narrative,” is “an
inappropriate description of brief lists of students or successors.”18 In other words,
“succession narratives” were more akin to descriptive lists rather than narratives.
For example, Talbert points to a few brief paragraphs in Laertius’ writings as
examples of these succession narratives. Here is one such paragraph:
His disciples were Speiusippus of Athens, Xenocrates of Chalcedon,
Aristotle of Stagira. . . ., and many others, among them two women,
Lastheneia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Philius. . . . Some say that
Theophrastus too attended his lectures. Chamaeleon adds Hyperdies
the orator and Lycurgus, and in this Polemo agrees. Sabinus makes
Demostenes his pupil, quoting . . . Mnesistratus of Thasos as his
authority. And it is not improbable.19
Acts, on the other hand, is obviously an extended narrative. “The narrative
unity of Luke-Acts is far greater than the sequential lives of the individual figures
of the philosophical schools…..”20 Indeed, if anything, Acts is a richer narrative
than the Gospel of Luke. Obviously, there is no comparison between such
succession lists and the Acts of the Apostles. Given the broad range of subjects
covered in Acts and the similarities of Acts with ancient historiography, the better
explanation remains that the genre of Acts is ancient historiography.
IV.
Acts as Ancient Novel
The notion that Acts is ancient fiction, or an “ancient novel,” has been
advanced by Richard Pervo in his book Profit with Delight.21 This genre involved
the writing of fictitious narratives intended to entertain and perhaps edify the
reader. For a variety of reasons, however, leading Lukan scholars have rejected
his arguments.22
18
Aune, op. cit., page 79.
Diog. Laert. 3.46-47, as cited by David L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts,”
SWJT, Vol. 33 (Fall 1990), page 7.
20
Gregory Sterling, History and Self Definition, Josephos, Luke-Acts, and
Apologetic Historigraphy, page 319
21
This genre is also referred to as “ancient romance.”
22
See, e.g., David A. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment; F.F.
Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles; Ben Witherington, A Socio Rhetorical
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; John Polhill, Acts; Stanley Porter, Paul in
Acts; William F. Brosend, II, “The Means of Absent Ends,” in History, Literature
and Society in the Book of Acts.
19
7
A.
The Prefaces
The prefaces of Luke and Acts are strong evidence that their author
intended to write history, not fiction. As Professor Gasque notes, “the majority of
interpreters would [conclude] that his preface indicates he has historical
pretensions.”23 Thought not all ancient writings had prefaces, many did. They are
found in many different genres and signal the intent of the writer, and therefore the
genre of the work. The prefaces of Luke-Acts show an obvious intent to write
history:24
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the
things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us
by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of
the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated
everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in
consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know
the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1.
The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began
to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after
He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had
chosen.
Acts 1:1.
23
Gasque, op. cit., page 119.
24
Loveday Alexander has argued that rather than being typical of ancient
historiography, the prefaces of Luke-Acts are examples of technical prefaces, such
as might be in a medical treatise of the time. Many scholars have been convinced
by Alexander that the author of Acts may have been influenced by technical
treatises, but still see it as an example of ancient historiography. Loveday
Alexander, “Luke's preface in the context of Greek preface-writing,” Novum
testamentum, 28 no 1 Ja 1986, pages 48-74. As asked by one reviewer, “What
would a preface look like if someone from the intermediate sociocultural stratum
(who also worked within the scientific tradition and was familiar with its
literature) wanted to write historiography?” Douglas F. Huffman, “Review,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 40.1 (1997).
8
These passages certainly suggest that the author is attempting to write
history. He refers to “eyewitnesses” as sources of information. He writes about
information being “handed down.” He writes of investigating everything
“carefully.” He is putting his writing in the form of a “narrative,” using the same
term that Dionysius uses in his Roman Antiquities to describe his own work.
Rom. Ant. 2.48.1. Perhaps most important, he states that his purpose for writing is
that his reader will know “the exact truth” about the subject. In short, everything
about the preface suggests that the author intended to write history, not narrate
fictitious stories.25
This is the way the ancients thought history should be written. In his
second-century work, The Way to Write History, Lucian of Samosata writes:
“Facts must not be carelessly put together, but the historian must work with great
labor and often at great trouble make inquiry, preferably being himself present an
eyewitness, failing that, he must rely on those who are incorruptible, and have no
bias from passion or prejudice, to add or to diminish anything.” Quomodo 47.
The author of Acts seems aware of this maxim and explains that while he himself
is not an eyewitness for matters related in the Gospel of Luke, his information is
derived from them. Notably, Lucian and Acts’ author use the same Greek word
for “eyewitness.” Regarding making note of the effort put into writing their
respective histories, the author of 2 Maccabees refers to the “labour of making this
digest,” Josephus refers to growing weary and the difficulty of translating into
Greek, and Luke refers to “carefully investigating” all things (Lk. 1:3).
The reference in the Gospel’s preface to the author’s forerunners also
invites comparison to ancient historiography. “It is customary in ancient
historiography to give a critical evaluation of the other historians, the
predecessors, who had dealt with the same history as the historian in question.”26
The preface of 2 Maccabees, for example, says of his predecessor (and one of his
sources), “I was struck by the mass of statistics and the difficulty which the bulk
of the materials causes to those wishing to grasp the narratives of this history.”
So, he summarized and reordered the material. 2 Mac. 2:23-25. Josephus is more
critical of his predecessors, claiming that he wrote because others had “perverted
the truth” of the war between the Jews and the Romans. Ant. 1.4. His preface to
Jewish War is similarly critical. War 1:1-2. In his preface to Roman Antiquities,
Dionysius ironically notes with disapproval other historians who were critical of
other historians, although he goes on to mention that some historians were
“careless and indolent” in compiling their “narratives.”
25
The use of a preface in a second work to relate back to an earlier preface in a
previous work is not uncommon for ancient works of history (e.g., the histories of
Diodrus Siculus).
26
Jervell, op. cit., page 119.
9
The author of the Luke-Acts does something similar, noting that others
had written accounts before him and that he was going to offer his own
contribution because he wanted to write an “orderly account.” Although the
criticism – if any – of earlier writings is mild, Luke distinguishes his account
from them. All told, the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts works in “all
the crucial points” we would expect from a preface to ancient historiography.27
Pervo argues, however, that the prefaces are irrelevant to the issue of genre
and that the author might have been trying to simulate historical intent:
Prefaces were highly conventional. Composition of them may have
been taught in school. Their claims would be the object of parody.
Not only historians but medical writers, astrologers, dream
interpreters, and novelists made use of such marks of erudition. The
use of the preface does not settle the question of genre, for such
devices could be employed by novelists to create verisimilitude.28
The notion that prefaces are irrelevant to the issue of genre, however, is not
persuasive. While it is true that there were prefaces in various genres, it is also
true that each genre had characteristics that distinguished it from the other genres.
Those ancient novels with prefaces had prefaces that indicated that the writings
were novels. Those works of ancient historiography with prefaces had prefaces
that indicated that the writings were historiography.
Pervo’s suggestion that the author of Acts could have been attempting to
“create verisimilitude” is likewise unpersuasive. He provides a footnote
supposedly supporting this point, so I checked it expecting to find examples of
ancient novels that had prefaces that pretended to be writing historiography. I
found no examples. The footnote simply refers the reader to a later part of his
book that also provides no examples.
The only references to novel prefaces in Pervo’s discussion are in an earlier
footnote to his assertion that many different genres use prefaces. Of course this is
not in dispute. The argument is not that Acts has a preface, but that it has a
preface that indicates historical intent. A review of Pervo’s references to novel
prefaces actually adds weight against his argument.29 The referenced novel
prefaces do not attempt to simulate historiography. In fact, they indicate to the
reader that he is reading a novel.
To take one of Pervo’s examples – the preface of Longus’ Daphnis and
Chloe – “[the author’s] aim was to make a verbal equivalent of a painting he saw
in Lesbos, and that is what he has done - summoned up a Golden Age of
innocence in which his hero and heroine can have adventures and never get
27
Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 254.
Pervo, op. cit., page 5.
29
Pervo, op. cit., page 144, n. 22.
28
10
hurt.”30 This purpose is clearly stated in his preface.31 There is no attempt to
render this an apparent historical account. Moreover, the preface of Daphnis and
Chloe signals its genre “by repeated use of the key term, eros, “passionate love,”
and its cognates, such as erotikos, “romantic.”32 In other words, everything in this
preface alerts the reader to the fact he is reading a novel, not history.
To take another of Pervo’s examples – Lucian’s True History – “Lucian
states in the Preface (§1:2) that everything in his story is a ‘more or less comical
parody of one or another of the poets, historians, and philosophers of old, who
have written much that smacks of miracles and fables.’”33 Again, no attempt is
made to pass off this writing as history. Indeed, Lucian – ever the satirist – states
that his subject “is things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of
from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not
ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say.”34 He also warns
his readers that he is “going to tell you the biggest lies you ever heard; and this is
the only true statement in the whole book.”35 In any event, it is questionable
whether this work is accurately classified as an ancient novel. Although it is
included in Reardon’s Collected Ancient Greek Novels, he concedes its relation to
the genre may be “tenuous.”
As Pervo’s own examples demonstrate, when the authors of ancient novels
used prefaces they appear to be candid about their goals. But no element of the
ancient novel is hinted at in either of Luke’s prefaces. “Luke does not suggest in
either Luke 1:1-4 or Acts 1:1-2 that he sees it as his essential task to give pleasure,
to entertain, to edify, or even in the main to encourage certain virtues.”36 Instead,
Luke tells us his aim is to write accurate history that is based on information
provided by eyewitness testimonies. Such historical prefaces “are not found in
ancient novels.”37
In sum, the prefaces written by the author of Acts are strong evidence that
he intends to write historical accounts rather than fictitious narratives.
“Pastoral – Two Dimensions or Three?,”
http://www.parsonsd.co.uk/pastoral.php (accessed April 24, 2005).
31
Longus, “The Pastorals or the Loves of Daphnis and Chloe,”
http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/longus_daphnis.pdf (accessed April 24, 2005).
30
32
Collected Ancient Novels, ed. B.P. Readrdon, page 289 n. 1.
S.C. Fredericks, “Lucian’s True History as SF,” Science Fiction Studies No. 8,
Vol. 3, March 1976, available online at
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/8/fredericks8art.htm (accessed April 24,
2005).
33
34
35
Collected Ancient Novels, op. cit., page 622.
Ibid., page 620.
36
Witherington, op. cit., page 11.
Porter, op. cit., page 16 ("Pervo must minimize . . . the historical preface,
because they are not found in ancient novels.”) (emphasis added).
37
11
B.
The Ending of Acts
Another feature of Acts that counts against it being an ancient novel is its
abrupt ending. Pervo notes that one of the defining characteristics of the ancient
novel is that its outcome is predictable and complete.38 Other scholars agree.39
But Acts has anything but a predictable, complete ending. Indeed, the ending of
Acts has raised questions for two thousand years:
It is the abrupt ending of Acts that is most troubling…. Ancient
novels tell the tale of a hero or heroine, often both, following them
through adventure and misadventure until they are reunited, married,
and ‘living happily ever after.’ Villains are captured and punished,
oracles fulfilled, the virtuous rewarded. There are no loose ends.
Acts follows Paul (leaving Peter forgotten!) through thick and thin,
recounting preachings, beatings, arrest, trial, voyage, shipwreck, and
eventual arrival at Rome. And then stops. If the genre of Acts is
that of the ancient novel, the end of Acts is unthinkable: There are
no parallels to the ending.40
To emphasize this point we can examine the apocryphal Acts, which clearly
contain fictional elements. The Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of
Thomas, and the Acts of Andrew all narrate the deaths of their leading characters.
The Acts of Paul narrates Paul’s judicial sentence and execution in detail. (10.5).
The Acts of Peter likewise narrates the sentencing and execution of Peter. (37-40).
Nero plays prominent roles in both accounts, but in the Acts of the Apostles Nero
does not even make an appearance. Moreover, what happened to Peter? Or
James? And what about Paul? By the time Acts was likely written, all three of
these figures were dead. Yet Acts narrates nothing of their fates.
The failure to narrate Paul’s fate is especially glaring because he is the hero
of the second half of the book. Nevertheless, Paul is left in Rome awaiting trial
(and thus in danger of his life or about to be set free). This is far from what we
would expect from an ancient novel. But if Acts is a history of the progress of the
gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, it is not surprising as ancient historiography.
C.
Purported Inaccuracies
38
Pervo, op. cit., pages 48-50.
J. Lee Magness, “Senas and Absence,” Semeia Studies (1986), page 42 (“In
general, the romances achieve full disclosure.”) and Tomas Hagg, Narrative
Technique in Ancient Greek Romances, page 310 (1971) (describing the key
characteristics of ancient romances as, “[t]he straightforward mode of narrative . . .
a beginning ab ovo, a linear succession of events, and a definite end.”).
40
Brosend, op. cit., page 354.
39
12
One reason Pervo concludes that Acts is not historiography is that he
believes Acts is too full of inaccuracies. But as Pervo candidly admits, he simply
assumes rather than demonstrates that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies.41
To Pervo, the most important of these inaccuracies appears to be Luke’s supposed
theological conflict with Paul’s letters.42 I deal with these more specifically
below, but for now it sufficient to note that historiography with inaccuracies is still
historiography. As Professor Balch notes in his article on the genre of Luke-Acts,
Pervo confuses modern history with ancient. “Pervo has nowhere seriously the
form, content, or function of ancient historiography. He constantly contrasts
novels with history, but the latter is his own reconstruction.”43 Another scholar
puts it this way:
In supposedly establishing the difficulty in seeing Acts as history,
Pervo begins by pointing out what he sees as the historical
inaccuracies in Acts. He apparently does not recognize that he has
moved outside of the form-critical examination in which he purports
to engage. He has moved to criteria that have little, if any, bearing at
this stage of discussion on whether the book of Acts is, or is not, a
historical account. The possible explanations for the supposed
historical flaws in Acts are several. For example, Luke could be a
historian but a bad one, even a very bad one. There were many in
the ancient world, but simply because they were bad historians does
not mean that they were therefore writing novels. They were simply
engaging in bad history writing.44
Accordingly, even if Pervo’s evaluation of the accuracy of Acts had merit,
it does not count against classifying Acts as historiography. Moreover, as
discussed in detail below, Acts actually fares well when viewed as a historical
account.
D.
Writing to Entertain
Perhaps the most important point Pervo advances is that Acts was written to
entertain its readers. Because the central purpose of ancient novels was to
entertain, Pervo believes this feature of Acts makes his case. This argument,
however, fails to adequately cope with three facts: 1) the most entertaining
41
Pervo, op. cit., page 1 ("I do not seek to demonstrate once again the presence of
historical problems in Acts.").
42
Ibid.
43
Balch, op. cit., page 10.
44
Porter, op. cit., page 17.
13
features of Acts Pervo points to are historical events confirmed by other sources;
2) ancient historiography was also written to entertain; and, 3) the entertaining
elements of Acts in relation to other elements are far from the balance found in
ancient novels.
Pervo helpfully includes a table of the “entertaining” events that
purportedly show that Acts was written to entertain. It includes Paul’s being
arrested, beaten, and shipwrecked. But, Paul confirms these events in his own
writings:
I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been
flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I
was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have
been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in
danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger
from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in
danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and
toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and
thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and
naked.… In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city
of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered
in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
2 Corinthians 11:23-33.
In just one passage Paul confirms that he was imprisoned on many
occasions, that he was physically punished by Roman authorities, that he was
physically punished by Jewish authorities, that he was shipwrecked, and that he
endured many adventures during his travels. Perhaps most instructive is that Paul
confirms Luke’s rather fantastic account of Paul escaping from Damascus by
being lowered down through the wall in a basket. If not confirmed by Paul, this
episode might be seen as free creation evidencing that Acts is a novel intended to
entertain. Fortunately this episode – as with most of the exciting elements in Acts
regarding Paul – is confirmed by Paul himself.
Nevertheless, Pervo argues that it is not merely the existence of exciting
episodes that proves Acts is fiction, but the way he weaves them together to create
an exciting narrative. This argument is unpersuasive. Because the author of Acts
has successfully strung together several true episodes we must conclude that he is
writing fiction? Is this not better construed as evidence of historical intent?
The entertaining elements of Acts can be explained more readily by
recognizing that this was one of the characteristics of the genre of ancient
14
historiography.45 “Historians of the period were also obligated to make their
narratives exciting and ‘delightful.’”46 In his How to Write History, Lucian noted
that historians should write “what will interest and instruct” their audience. § 53
(emphasis added). The author of 2 Maccabees tells his audience that he was
writing “to provide for the entertainment of those who read for pleasure, the
convenience of students who must commit the facts to memory, and the profit of
even the casual readers.” 2 Mac. 2:25. Professor Soards points to additional
examples of such historiography that Pervo overlooks or downplays:
[S]cholars have long recognized that one of the goals of ancient
historians was to please their readers. . . . The presence of
entertaining or pleasing elements in an ancient work does not
automatically mean that it is not history. Yet Pervo takes this
position. He is able to do so largely by ignoring this characteristic in
ancient historiography–for example, it is remarkable that while
Pervo mentions Thucydides (only!) five times in his study, he
completely ignores Herodotus, “The Father of History,” who writes
in a lively, engaging, entertaining, and even fantastic manner–not
unlike the author of Acts. Similarly, Pervo refers several times to
Lucian of Samosata and Xenophon of Ephesus, but he brings
Dionysis of Halicarnassus into the study only twice; Polybius, once;
and Sallus, three times. Many–perhaps most or all–the common
characteristics Pervo identified between Acts and the ancient novel
may be located in these ancient historians whom Pervo basically
ignores.47
Finally, when one compares the entertaining parts of Acts to the rest of the
narrative, it becomes clear that though its author wanted to entertain, other
purposes and features – such as speeches, evangelism, and reference to scriptures
– predominate. As Professor Brosend notes, “[w]hile Acts does indeed entertain
and inform, the ancient novels offer a profit/delight ratio weighed much more in
favor of delight than does Acts.”48 This ratio favors the entertaining/historical
balance found in ancient historiography, not ancient novels.
In conclusion, none of the exciting episodes or the fact that Acts was
written to be entertaining means it is a novel as opposed to historiography.
45
Cross, op. cit., page 404 ("[T]he aim to edify and entertain was by no means
peculiar to novels.").
46
Mason, op. cit., page 264.
47
Marion L. Soards, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 58.2 (Summer
1990), pages 307-10.
48
Brosend, op. cit., page 354.
15
E.
The Apocryphal Acts
Pervo attempts to make much of the fact that later, apocryphal Acts, such as
the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul, are fiction. Because Acts is literarily
related to these later documents, Acts too supposedly is fiction. The most obvious
problem with this argument is the causal flow. The later apocryphal Acts are
embellishments perhaps encouraged by the original Acts and the gospels. They
can tell us nothing, however, of the intent of the author of Acts. You cannot
assess the genre of the original by simply equating it with some later, derivative
writings:
The circular and anachronistic nature of this argument is manifest.
He uses texts that are self-evidently derivative in order to assess the
primary source. However, these later fictive interpretations of
scenes from canonical Acts cannot be used to assess the literary or
historical dimensions of Acts itself. This is confirmed by the
treatment of canonical Acts even by classicists who consider
Apocryphal Acts to fall within the ancient novel tradition. For
example, Hagg assumes canonical Acts is a different sort of
literature than the Apocryphal Acts of Paul, which he sees as a type
of ancient novel.49
Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, two of the main
differences between Acts and the Apocyphal Acts are the lack of a satisfying
ending and the absence of romance. Both of these features – which are found in
the Apocryphal Acts – are typical of ancient novels. Their presence in the
Apocryphal Acts and absence from Acts further undermines Pervo’s point.
Finally, there were later Christian writers, such as Eusebius, who arguably
was influenced by Acts when writing his ecclesiastical history. By focusing on the
apocryphal Acts, Pervo has skewed his analysis.
Accordingly, Pervo’s reliance on these later apocryphal writings is not
helpful in determining the genre of Acts itself.
F.
The Speeches of Acts
Most scholars have noted that the use of speeches in Acts is similar to that
of other historians (though Acts, being largely about missionary efforts, has a
greater proportion of them). Pervo rejects the idea that the speeches in Acts
indicate that its genre is ancient historiography and argues that “the use of
speeches does not establish the genre.”50 The only distinctions Pervo attempts to
49
50
Porter, op. cit., page 17.
Pervo, op. cit., page 76.
16
make is that that the speeches in Acts are “Lucan compositions” and that there
were no “missionary addresses in Thucydides.”51 Neither point is convincing.
Although it is true that the language of the speeches in Acts is similar to the
rest of the book, the significance of this should not be misconstrued. No ancient
historian wrote verbatim transcripts of speeches. The Greek historian Thucydides
stated that, when writing speeches, the historian should record them “of course
adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.”
History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22.1. Though Thucydides believed that it
was the historian’s duty to try and report the sense of what was actually said, he
realized that nothing more than a paraphrase was possible in ancient times.
Ancient historians could not avoid using their own style and language when
reporting speeches.52
Pervo’s second point – that Thucydides did not write missionary speeches –
is irrelevant. Thucydides did not write a history of an evangelistic religious
movement. Certainly Pervo offers no evidence that missionary speeches were
typical of ancient novels. Though claiming that the nature of the speeches in Acts
cannot be used as a guide to genre he goes on to claim that ancient novels “provide
much more convincing and useful parallels to the contents and literary function of
the speeches in Acts than will histories.”53 This assertion is not backed up by
convincing evidence. Rather, as Professor Bosend recognized, “[Pervo] scarcely
provides any examples, and does not address the much broader use of speeches in
Acts in comparison to the novels.”54
Clearly, therefore, the speeches of Acts are more akin to the historiography
genre than historical fiction.
G.
The Absence of Romance
If Acts is intended to be an ancient novel it is strange that there is no
romance in it. Romance was an important, even defining, part of ancient novels
51
Ibid. Additionally, Thucycidides is often seen as setting the bar for ancient
historiography.
52
Of course, there were some ancient historians who were free with their
composition, but this hardly helps Pervo's point. Luke might simply be one of
those historians who used a freer hand in his speeches than some others. But the
evidence suggests not. As I conclude here
(http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_acts.html), Luke appears to have
followed the path of the ancient historian who tried to record the sense of what
was actually said.
53
54
Pervo, op. cit., page 76.
Brosend, op. cit., page 354.
17
and “[t]he absence of [it] is a significant omission.”55 Although Acts features
some women, it contains no hint of romance. Not even Priscilla and Aquila are
depicted in anything approaching romantic or adventurous scene. Even Paul, the
“hero” of the second half of Acts, is distinctly romantically uninvolved.
It could be argued that Acts’ audience would not be interested in romance.
But this is more assumed than demonstrated. “Ultimately, there is too much in
this reasoning that has to be given away to the audience. It will seem easier to
many who weigh Pervo’s case to conclude that Acts communicates to its readers
using a different genre from the ancient novel rather than that genre minus most of
its juicy parts.”56 The better explanation is that Acts does not include romance
because Acts is not an ancient novel.
Further, the absence of any hint of romance from Acts is all the more
telling in light of its presence in the apocryphal Acts. Far from proving a Christian
lack of interest in the characteristics of the ancient novel, the apocryphal Acts
prove the opposite. “Many of the motifs of the Hellenistic romance recur in the
Christian apocryphal acts.”57 Perhaps the most telling example is found in the
Acts of Paul, which narrates the plight of the young virgin Thecla. This story is
what we might expect from a Christianized version of the romance novel. As
Richard Baukham explains:
The story of Thecla is of special interest because it is the only part of
the Acts of Paul in which a character other than Paul takes centrestage and because it bears a very close relationship to the themes of
the Greek novels that tell the story of two lovers (such as Chariton’s
Chaereas and Callirhoe, and Xenephon’s Ephesiaca). . . . Thecla,
like the heroines of the novels, is a beautiful young girl who
preserves her chastity and remains faithful to her beloved through
trials and dangers in which she comes close to death but experiences
divine deliverance. Thamyris and Alexander are unwanted suitors
such as appear in the novels. Unlike the heroines of the novels, of
course, Thecla’s chastity is not temporary, but permanent, and
represents her total devotion to God. But her devotion to God is also
devotion to his apostle Paul, and the author does not hesitate to
depict this devotion in terms which, while not intended to be sexual,
parallel the erotic (cf. Athe 8-10, 18-19). As in the case of the
heroes and heroines of the novels, the plot partly turns on the
separation of Paul and Thecla, her search for and reunion with him
(Athe 21-25, 40-41). Thecla’s offer to cut her hair short in order to
55
Ibid.
Soards, op. cit., pages 307-10.
57
Edgar J. Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature, revised and
enlarged by Robert M. Grant, page 64.
56
18
follow Paul where he goes and her adoption of male dress when she
travels in search of Paul [resemble] the novelistic theme of a woman
traveling in male disguise to escape detection. The wealthy upperclass circles in which the story takes place, including the historical
figure of the emperor’s relative Tyrphaena, are also consonant with
the character of the Greek novels. It seems clear that the story of
Thecla has been directly modeled on the themes of the Greek erotic
novel. . . .58
So, there are clear novelistic elements of romance, but adapted for its Christian
message and audience. There are other examples:
● The Acts of John includes a story about the pious Druisiana being
romantically pursued by “a messenger of Satan.” She was so pious she had even
“separated herself” from her husband for a time. After she died, the “messenger of
Satan” defiled her corpse.
● In the Acts of Peter, the martyrdom of Peter’s wife is described, even
recounting the last words of Peter to his wife.
● In the Acts of Thomas, a king’s daughter is getting married. At the
wedding, Thomas sings a mystical bridal song and persuades the bride and groom
to renounce marriage. There is also a side story of a flute-girl who obviously
becomes infatuated with Thomas. After his song, she was “gazing and looking
earnestly upon him” and “loved him well.”
● In the Acts of Andrew, it is lending aid to a woman in distress that lands
Andrew on a cross. Maximilla is the wife of the proconsul of Greece. Following
her conversion by Andrew, Maximilla wants to escape from her husband and
Andrew encourages her to do so. When she is successful in leaving him, the
proconsul has Andrew crucified. Maximilla saw to it that Andrew received a
proper burial.
While it is true that these “romances” are different than the pagan ones in
that the emphasis is often on abstinence even within marriage, the similarities
remain. Women in distress or difficult situations are followed through until
resolution of their plight. As noted by Goodspeed and Grant, this Christian fiction
was “valuable as a substitute for the romances current among Greeks and Romans.
It is sometimes supposed that these romances were characterized by what we
should call pornography, but generally speaking they were rather edifying
narratives of love and adventure. The emphasis put on sex in their Christian
counterparts is rather more impressive, in spite of – and partly because of – the
enthusiasm of the heroes and heroines for asceticism.”59 That the romantic
features of ancient fiction are so common in the apocryphal Acts but absent from
Acts itself is telling. It counts heavily against Acts being an ancient novel.
Richard Baukham, “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,” in The Book of Acts
in its Ancient Literary Setting, pages 135-36.
59
Goodspeed and Grant, op. cit., page 64.
58
19
H.
Conclusion
The elements of Acts that Pervo identifies as demonstrating historical
fiction fail to persuade because they are also characteristic of historiography.
Moreover, Pervo fails to adequately explain features of Acts that were unknown in
the ancient novel, such as the historical preface, the abrupt ending, and the
abundance of speeches. Nor does his theory adequately explain the absence of
significant elements of the ancient novel, such as romance end the erotic.
V.
Summary
After reviewing the potentially applicable genres, Acts stands out as a work
of ancient history. Though he viewed himself as continuing the historical work of
recording God’s unfolding plan of salvation, the goal of the author of Acts was to
write about real people and real events. As Professor Aune concludes, “Luke-Acts
is popular ‘general history’ written by an amateur Hellenistic historian with
credentials in Greek rhetoric.”60
CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORICITY OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
I.
The Challenges Faced by Ancient Writers
The author of Acts faced a problem common among ancient writers: a lack
of records and information. Unlike today, there were no – or very few – reference
books, encyclopedias, or textbooks available. As for geography, “exact and
detailed geographical knowledge on the basis of maps and accurate descriptions of
places was limited to a very tiny elite of soldiers, politicians and scholars, and
even with them, personal knowledge of a place was irreplaceable.”61 Maps or
other resources that were available were often wildly inaccurate. Even educated
writers with connections to the areas they were writing about often demonstrated
imperfect geographic or political knowledge. “That even educated Jews had little
information about the geography of Palestine is clear from the imaginary
description of Judea and Jerusalem in the Letter of Aristeas or that of the Holy
City by Pseudo-Hecataeus; we can presuppose that even Philo had only a vague
knowledge of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Holy Land, though he did visit it
once in his life.”62
60
Aune, op. cit., page 77.
Martin Hengel, “The Geography of Palestine in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in its
First Century Setting, page 31.
62
Hengel, op. cit., page 29.
61
20
Otherwise well-regarded historians and geographers got a lot wrong,
especially about Judea.
[T]o Strabo’s account of Palestine, which has a great many errors in
it, and to the confused remarks of Pliny the Elder, who completely
muddled up his sources. Tacitus, too, had only very inaccurate ideas
of the geographical relationship of Samaria and Galilee within the
province of Judaea. Even Ptolemy, who sought to give exact
locations of places in Palestine with indications of longitude and
latitude, makes serious mistakes: his mention of Idumeaea, which
lies well to the west of the Jordan’ is an anachronism in the second
century AD and his location of Sebaste and Gaza in Judaea, in
contrast to Joppa, Ashkelon . . . is also misleading.63
The problem for ancient writers was not limited to geography. There was a
dizzying diversity of governments and officials throughout the Roman Empire.
There were provinces; some controlled by the Senate and some controlled by the
Emperor. Titles of the governors of these provinces varied (for examples,
Proconsul, Prefect, and Procurator). Adding to the diversity was the fact that
many areas under Roman control were not provinces at all, but client kingdoms.
King Herod’s reign over Palestine is an example. After his death, his kingdom
was split up, with Rome eventually assuming direct control over Judea and
Herod’s son becoming Tetrarch over Galilee. Because client kingdoms were
given a freer hand in their internal administration, titles and offices were not
uniform.
There were also a variety of cities. At the top were the coloniae civium
romanorum, colonies of Roman citizens – mostly military veterans. Then there
were the oppida civium romanorum, towns of Roman citizens. A step lower were
“Latin” towns where the Roman franchise was within reach. Other cities, some
prominent, were “free cities” and governed their own internal affairs.
There were differences in the city governments, depending on the type of
city, its geographic location and its culture. Cities in the eastern Mediterranean
especially “show much more variety in their local government, because they could
keep older forms of municipal organization rather than imitate Rome.”64 Even in
Jerusalem, a city under direct Roman control, the Sanhedrin – a group of Jewish
religious leaders – was given a prominent role in governing aspects of the city.
Adding to the confusion was the ever changing nature of government in the
Roman Empire. “[T]he titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great
63
Ibid., pages 29-30.
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pages 39-41. I relied on
pages 38-45 of Backgrounds for much of the background information in this
paragraph.
64
21
length of time; a province might pass from senatorial government to
administration by a direct representative of the emperor, and would then be
governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate (legatus pro
praetore).”65 Cities might achieve their Roman franchise. Provinces may be split
up. Client kingdoms may be split up with different parts being ruled in different
ways. For example, Palestine after the reign of King Herod was split into a
Roman Province ruled by a Prefect and to Galilee, ruled by a Tetrarch (as a client
king).
Obviously, keeping oneself knowledgeable about so many different parts of
the Roman Empire over any period of time would have been an almost
insurmountable challenge. When it came to knowledge about where ordinary
people were, what they were doing, and why they were doing it, the problem was
even greater. Personal participation and/or excellent sources were often the only
ways to get such details right.
II.
Familiarity with Jewish Customs, Geography, and the Temple
Despite the challenges faced by ancient historians, Acts demonstrates
familiarity with varied Jewish customs and beliefs, including many related to the
Temple. Notably, the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the related practices
and rituals extinguished. As a result, without good sources, precise knowledge of
customs associated with the Temple was hard to come by after 70 AD.
1. Purification Vow
“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a
vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in
order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the
things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk
orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we
wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and
from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” Acts 21:23-25.
This ritual is described in the Old Testament by Numbers 6. That its
practice continued in the second-temple period is attested by Josephus. Ant.
19.6.1, §§ 293-94.
2. The Court of the Gentiles
“And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon
seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him,
crying out, Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all
men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place; and besides he
65
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, page 82.
22
has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” Acts
21:27-28.
This passage correctly describes the Court of the Gentiles as being the limit
of passage for Gentiles. BJ 5.194; 6.124f; Ant. 15.417; Ap. 2.103f; Philo, Leg ad
Gai 212.
3. Against the Law and Punishable by Death
“Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and
taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors
were shut. While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the
commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion” Acts 21:3031 & “And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. And
we wanted to judge him according to our own Law.” Acts 24:6.
The penalty for bringing a Gentile into the Temple was death.
Transgressors were to be immediately removed to be executed so as not to defile
the Temple. Ant. 18.30. This is also confirmed by inscription evidence.66
4. Steps into the Temple
“And when he got to the stairs, it so happened that he was carried by the
soldiers because of the violence of the mob; for the multitude of the people kept
following behind, crying out, ‘Away with him!’ And as Paul was about to be
brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, ‘May I say something to
you?’ And he said, ‘Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who
some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins
out into the wilderness?’” Acts 21:35-38.
This passage accurately depicts the steps at the Jerusalem Temple. Acts is
also correct that there was a rebel at this time known as the Egyptian.
5. Prayer in the Sixth Hour
“And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city,
Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.” Acts 10:9.
The time of prayer is confirmed by rabbinic tradition. Pesach. 5.1, but is
not mentioned in Antiquities.
6. Description of the Temple
As Professor Hengel notes, Luke’s “description of the temple resembles
rabbinic tradition,” not Josephus. Unlike Josephus, “Luke . . . never makes a
distinction between the inner sanctuary and the Court of the gentiles. They are all
speaking only about the one iepov, the real Temple. This is in some way in
accordance with rabbinic terminology, which makes a sharp distinction between
66
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/images/WarnSign.htm
23
the sanctuary proper and the outer courtyard, the Temple mount, which is not
called sanctuary.”67
7. The Location of the Roman Commander
“And all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together; and taking
hold of Paul, they dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were
shut. And while they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander
of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. And at once he took
along some soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them; and when they saw the
commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.” Acts 21:30-32.
Verse 31 correctly describes how the Roman commandant could intercede
in a timely manner because the Roman barracks were on a higher level and
connected by stairs to the Temple site. Jewish War 5.242-5.
8. Priestly Duties Selected by Lot
“Now it came about, while he was performing his priestly service before
God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly
office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.”
Luke 1:8-9.
In fact, priestly duties were assigned by lot. This is not mentioned by
Josephus and is otherwise known to us only through the Mishnah. Yoma 2, 1-4;
Tamid 1, 2; 2, 5; 3, 1; T. Yoma 1, 10.
9. Time of Prayer at the Temple
“Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of
prayer.” Acts 3:1.
“The specific reference to the time of prayer at the ninth hour points to a
precise knowledge of Jewish customs in the Temple. This was the time of the
tamid sacrifice, in the afternoon, which was concluded with an incense offering
and the priestly blessing.”68 See m. Pes. 5:1 and Ant. 14.65.
10. A Lame Man at the Beautiful Gate
“And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being
carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple
which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the
temple.” Acts 3:2.
Once again Acts demonstrates familiarity with Jewish customs. A lame
man was not permitted to fully participate in Temple worship. m. Shab. 6:8.
11. Solomon’s Portico
67
68
Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, page 103.
Ibid., page 42.
24
“While he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to
them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement.” Acts 3:11.
The portico is also attested independently by John 10:23.
12. A Sabbath Day’s Journey
“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is
near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.” Acts 1:12.
The reference to a “Sabbath day’s journey” from Jerusalem to the mount of
Olivet, shows accurate knowledge of Jewish customs. “The distance of their walk
a ‘Sabbath day’s walk,’ which was the longest distance one could walk without
breaking the Sabbath. The rabbinic tradition set this at 2,000 cubits, i.e., about
three-fourths of a mile.”69 As Hengel notes, “[t]he term ‘a sabbath day’s journey’,
which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly
intimate knowledge—for a Greek—of Jewish customs.”70
13. Field of Blood
“And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their
own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” Acts 1:19.
“Hakeldama” is an Aramaic word accurately translated as “field of
blood.”71 This place and name was also known by Matthew (27:8).
14. David’s Tomb
“Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that
he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” Acts 2:29.
The tomb of David is mentioned in Neh. 3:16. Its continuing veneration in
the time of Jesus is attested by Josephus. Ant. 7:239ff.
III.
Familiarity with Other Geography and Culture
Although Acts spends a significant amount of its narrative discussing
Palestine, it also follows Paul and others to many places in the Roman Empire.
Again and again the author of Acts demonstrates accurate knowledge about the
geography and culture of the places Paul traveled.
1. A Natural Crossing
69
Polhill, op. cit., page 88.
Hengel, op. cit., page 46.
71
Polhill, op. cit., page 91.
70
25
“So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and
from there they sailed to Cyprus. When they reached Salamis, they began to
proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John
as their helper.” Acts 13:4-5.
The author has Paul crossing the sea from Seleucia to Cyprus, which was a
natural crossing point, as noted by Strabo, Geography 7.5.8 and Polybius, History
5.58.4.
2. The River Port Perga
“Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to
Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Acts 13:13.
“The text names Perga, a river-port, and perhaps the direct destination of a
ship crossing from Cyprus, whereas a coaster would have called only at the coastal
harbour town of Attalia.”72
3. The Pisidian Antioch
“But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the
Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.” Acts 13:14.
Although the city was a part of Phrygia, not Pisidian, Luke is correct in
referring to “Pisidian Antioch.” Strabo also recognized the connection to Pisidian.
12.6.4 and 12.8.14. Moreover, because of the confirmed presence of a colony of
Jews in Pisidian, the presence of a synagogue is also likely.
4. Iconium Not in Lyconia
“[T]hey became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and
Derbe, and the surrounding region.” Acts 14:6.
“The implication is that Iconium was not in Lycaonia. As it was a frontier
town between Phrygia and Lycaonia, and commonly shared the fortunes of the
latter region, it is frequently called a Lycaonian city by ancient writers (e.g.,
Cicero, Fam. 15.4.2; Pliny, NH 5.25). But strictly it is in Phrygia.”73 This is
confirmed by Xenophon, Anab.1.2.19, Hierax, Acta Iustini and Cyprian, Ep. 75.7.
5. Coasting Port for Coasting Vessel
“When they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia.”
Acts 14:25.
See point No. 2 above. Although Perga is a port, it is only a river-port. To
catch a “coaster” for travel in the Mediterranean, they had to go to the sea port of
Attalia.
6. Derbe to Lystra
72
73
Hemer, op. cit., page 109.
Bruce, op. cit., page 319.
26
“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named
Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a
Greek.” Acts 16:1.
Acts lists in correct order the overland approach to Lystra from the Cilician
Gates.74
7. Lystra and Iconium
“[A]nd [Timothy] was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra
and Iconium.” Acts 16:2.
“Lystra and Iconium were relatively close, although belonging to different
jurisdictions, whereas Derbe is now known to have been more distant than was
supposed when it was wrongly placed at Zostra or Gudelisin. It is thus natural that
Timothy, if a native of Lystra, was known to these two churches rather than in
Derbe.”75
8. Troas
“[A]nd passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.” Acts 16:8.
Not only is the geography correct, but the use of the name “Troas” itself is
an interesting accuracy. “The use of the name Troas, formerly Alexandria, is
characteristic of first century usage, after Augustus made the city a colony
formally designated ‘Colonia Augusta Troadensium’ or ‘Colonia Augusta
Troas.’”76
9. Samothrace
“So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace,
and on the day following to Neapolis;” Acts 16:11.
“Samothrace was a conspicuous sailor’s landmark, dominated by a 5000
foot mountain.”77 Additionally, Luke uses the technical nautical term “anagein,”
which he also uses in 13:13 (literally, “having been carried up [onto the high
sea]”).
10. Amphipolis and Apollonia
“Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they
came to Thessalonica. . . .” Acts 17:1.
Here, Acts accurately places these two cities as stations on the Egnatian
Way from Philippi to Thessalonica.78 It is likely that the author also gets the
distances correct. “The mention of Amphipolis and of Apollonia should probably
74
Hemer, op. cit., page 111.
Ibid., page 112.
76
Ibid., page 179.
77
Hemer, op. cit., page 113.
78
Ibid., page 108. See also Bruce, op. cit., 368.
75
27
be taken to imply that theses were place where the travelers spent successive
nights, dividing the journey to Thessalonica into three stages of about 30, 27, and
35 miles.”79
11. A Synagogue in Thessalonica
“[T]hey came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.”
Acts 17:1.
Inscription evidence supports the conclusion that a synagogue existed in
Thessalonica.80
12. The Lycaonian Language in Lystra
“When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying
in the Lycaonian language, ‘The gods have become like men and have come down
to us.’” Acts 14:11.
Verse 11 says the Lycaonian language is spoken in Lystra. However, the
use of native languages was rather rare in urban Hellenized society. Nevertheless,
Acts is correct that in Lystra they did in fact speak their native language. This was
apparently not widely known. There is only one other reference to this language
in all writings discovered up to the present day. It would require a person who
was very familiar with specific local information on Lystra to be aware of this
detail.
13. The Gangites Outside Philippi
“And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we
were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began
speaking to the women who had assembled.” Acts 16:13.
The Gangites River matches this description and is outside of Philippi.
14. Philippi a Roman Colony
Acts correctly lists Philippi as a Roman colony, and its seaport is properly
given as Nea Polis. Acts 16:12. Confirmation of these facts range from ancient
writings and inscriptions to ancient coins.
15. Few Jews in Philippi
Acts indicates that there were too few Jews to form a synagogue in Philippi.
Acts 16:13. This is highly probable. Given that Philippi was a colony rather than
a center of commerce or trade, there were likely few Jews.
16. The Dye Trade in Thyatira
79
80
Hemer, op. cit., page 115.
Corpus Inscription Iudaicarum, 693.
28
“A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple
fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to
respond to the things spoken by Paul.” Acts 16:14.
The city of Thyatira is involved in the dye trade. Archaeologists have
found 7 inscriptions in the city that refer to it.
17. The Correct Order of Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus
“But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to
take Paul on board; for so he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land.
And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene.
Sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day
we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul
had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia;
for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts
20:13-16.
In verse 14-15, the author lists small cities in the correct order in which
they would have been encountered on such a trip.
18. Organization of the Military Guard
“When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four
squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out
before the people.” Acts 12:4.
Gives correct information on the details of a Roman military guard.
Vegetius, de Re militari 3.8.
19. The Appian Way
“And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the
Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked
God and took courage.” Acts 28:15.
This verse correctly lists the Appii Forum (the Market of Appius) and Tres
Tabernae (the Three Inns) as stops on the Appian Way. They are 30-45 miles
southeast of Rome. The Appii Forum is the marketplace of Appius and is a
market town south of Rome along the Appian Way. Horace, Sat. 153. Tres
Tabernae is “The Tree Taverns” which was a station on the Appian Way 33 miles
south of Rome. Both are mentioned by Cicero, Att. 2.10.
20. Athens
Acts 17:16-34, gives a vivid description of life in Athens that matches the
knowledge obtained from archaeological discoveries and other Greek writers.
Luke mentions Athens in relation to the Stoics, the altar to an unknown god (such
altars are confirmed by Pausanias, 1.1.4 and Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos.
1.110), and he gives the correct title for a member of the Areopagus (verse 34).
Luke also reports Paul’s speech as quoting two Greek philosophers (Epimenides
29
and Aratus) in verse 28. Aratus was a Stoic philosopher from Soli near Paul’s
hometown of Tarsus, therefore making it highly plausible that Paul was familiar
with his work. Luke also has the Athenians call Paul an “idle babbler,” which is a
“word of characteristically Athenian slang.”81
21. An Odd Grouping of Hellenized Gods
“And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he
was the chief speaker. . . .” Acts 14:12ff.
The Greek names Zeus and Hermes are hellenized versions of the local cult.
There is archeological evidence from Lystra showing that the grouping of Zeus
and Hermes was unique to this region. The inscriptions were published and
discussed in W.M. Calder’s, “A Cult of the Homonades,” CR 24 (1910), pages 7681. Further, these passages recount how the locals started worshiping Paul and
Barnabas as if they were the gods Hermes and Zeus. This fits well with their
religious beliefs about those two gods. As Professor Hemer writes:
The story named appropriate gods. A statuette of Hermes and an
eagle, bird of Zeus, have been found near Lystra; the two gods are
coupled in an inscription from the general region; on a sculptured
relief, we can see how people locally pictured these divinities,
round-faced and solemn, with long hair and flowing beards, a
searching gaze and the right hand held prominently across the chest.
Such a Zeus looks uncommonly like our image of a wandering
Christian holy man: in these reliefs, we, too, can sense the elusive
features of Paul or Barnabas.82
22. Worship of Artemis
Acts 19:24-41, associates the worship of Artemis with the city of Ephesus.
This has been proven by numerous inscriptions uncovered in the ruins of Ephesus.
IV.
Familiarity with Political and Religious Leaders
Whether discussing Judea, Galilee, or some Roman province or free city,
the author of Acts accurately describes the titles and positions of many different
political and religious leaders.
1. Annas as High Priest After Formal Deposition
81
82
Heber, op. cit., page 117.
Robin L. Fox, The Unauthorized Version, page 100.
30
“[A]nd Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and
Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.” Acts 4:6.
“Annas is pictured as continuing to have great prestige and to bear the title
high priest after his formal deposition by the Romans and the appointment of
Caiaphas.”83 (Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2.34-35; 20.9.1.198).
2. Cyprus Ruled by a Proconsul Named Quintus Sergius Paullus
Acts 13:7, correctly says that Cyprus was ruled by a proconsul when Paul
visited. This has been confirmed by substantial inscription evidence.84
There is inscription evidence that Quintus Sergius Paullus was indeed the
proconsul of Cyprus under the reign of Claudius.85
3. Synagogue in Corinth
Acts 18:4-7, reports that Paul taught in a synagogue in Corinth. There is
evidence that Corinth had a synagogue at this time.86
4. Achaia was Ruled by a Proconsul
Luke knows that Achaia was ruled by a proconsul during this time period.
Achaia was ruled by a proconsul from 27 BC to 15 AD, and then again after 44
AD. Acts 18:12. It also appears likely that Luke correctly identifies Gallio as the
proconsul (as verified by an inscription).87
5. The Chief Man of Malta
“Now in the country surrounding that place were the lands belonging to the
chief man of the island.” Acts 28:7.
The unique phrase – “chief man” – used for the leader of Malta has been
confirmed by the discovery of inscriptions in the area.
6. Sadducees as Opponents of Paul
“But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees,
Paul began crying out in the Council, ‘Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of
Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!’ As he said this,
there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the
assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an
angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. And there occurred a
83
Hemer, op. cit., page 108.
T.B. Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion, page 169.
85
Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanaspertinentes (ed. R. Cagnat, I-IV, 191114), section 3.935, as cited by F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, page 297.
86
Fitzmyer, op. cit., page 626.
87
Bruce, op. cit., page 395.
84
31
great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to
argue heatedly, saying, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or
an angel has spoken to him?’ And as a great dissension was developing, the
commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the
troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the
barracks.” Acts 23:6-10.
Acts portrays the Sadducees as the main opponents of Paul. The Sadducees
were basically extinct by the middle of the 2nd-century so it is unlikely that
someone writing 100 years after the event would create them as Paul’s opponents.
It is more likely that the Pharisees – whose Rabbinic descendents were still in
contest with Christians – would be cast as the villains. Also, Acts is correct about
the Sadducees’ disbelief in the resurrection.
7. Felix
Acts 23:24, has Felix as ruler in the correct time frame. Tacitus, Hist. 5.9.
8. Politarchs in Thessalonica
Acts 17:1-9, uses the term “politarchs” for a board of magistrates in
Thessalonica. Recent archaeological discoveries of inscriptions in the area near
Thessalonica have found the term “politarch” and proven Luke to be correct. No
less than eighteen inscriptions from 100 BC to 200 AD refer to the politarchs of
Thessalonica.88
9. Beroea
“The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea,
and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.” Acts 17:10.
According to Colin Hemer, “Beroea is a suitable immediate refuge as a
place off the major westward route, the Via Egnatia.”89
10. Proconsuls and Governors
Acts correctly and consistently differentiates between the Roman rulers of
senatorial provinces from the Roman rulers of imperial provinces or minor
provinces. The former are proconsuls (Acts 13:7; 18:2; 19:38) whereas the latter
are governors (Lk. 2:2; 3:1; Acts 23:24; 26:30).90
V.
Familiarity with Other Historical Events
Acts also correctly narrates other historical events.
88
E.D. Burton, "The Politarchs," AJT 2 (1898), pgs. 598-632.
Hemer, op. cit., pages 115-16.
90
Bruce, op. cit., pages 31-32, citing H.J. Mason, “The Roman Government in
Greek Sources,” Phoenix 24 (1970), pages 150-59.
89
32
1. Famine
“
One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit
that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place
in the reign of Claudius.” Acts 11:28.
There is substantial confirmation of widespread famines in the Roman
Empire during the reign of Claudius. “The reign of Claudius was in fact marked
by a long series of crop failures in various parts of the empire–in Judea, in Rome,
in Egypt, and in Greece. The Judean famine seems to have taken place during the
procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (A.D. 46-48), and Egyptian documents
reveal a major famine there in A.D. 45-46 due to flooding.”91
2. Expulsion of the Jews
“And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently
come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the
Jews to leave Rome.” Acts 18:2.
The expulsion of the Jews from Rome is confirmed by the Roman author
Suetonius in his Life of Claudius, 25.4. He records that following a disturbance at
the instigation of “Christus,” the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome.
Thus, not only is the fact of the expulsion confirmed by independent account, so is
the timing and the ruler involved.
3. Paul the Tentmaker
“[A]nd because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they
were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.” Acts 18:3.
“Paul’s trade, if understood as that of ‘tentmaker,’ is interestingly
appropriate to his Cilician origin.”92 The material “cilicium,” a cloth of woven
goat hair, was a standard material used in the creation of tents. Notably, “cilicium
originated in and was named for Paul’s native province of Cilicia.”93
VI.
Familiarity with Roman Citizenship and Legal System
To a remarkable degree, Acts narrates Paul’s involvement in the Roman
legal system (including local systems). It discusses his citizenship as a Roman and
its implications, as well as narrating several actual legal proceedings before
Roman and local officials. The most significant of these are:
●
Acts 16:16-40 (arrest, trial, and release in Philippi)
91
Polhill, op. cit., page 275.
Hemer, op. cit., page 119.
93
Polhill, op. cit., page 383.
92
33
●
●
●
●
●
Acts 18:12-17 (before Gallio in Corinth)
Acts 19:17-20:1 (disturbance and assembly in Ephesus)
Acts 21:26-22:30 (Jerusalem riot)
Acts 23:11-24:27 (Paul before Felix)
Acts 24:27-26:32 (before Festus and appealing to Rome)
Regarding Paul’s arrest and trial in Philippi, Sherwin-White notes that “the
procedure followed at Philippi is in good order . . .”94 Brian Rapske, in his
excellent work, Paul in Roman Custody, The Book of Acts in its First Century
Setting, agrees and details the accuracy of the account, including the reference to
Paul as a servant of the “Most High God,” which was a pagan term often used to
describe “Zeus or other pagan deities.”95 The phrase that “the crowd joined in the
attack” is notable because it does not describe a riot or state of confusion as in
Acts 19 (Ephesus) and Acts 21 (Jerusalem). The attack in this case was a legal
one. The crowd’s participation was orderly and part of the system. “The character
of the ‘joining in’ expressed by the sun– compound must indicate a degree of
articulateness and orderliness in keeping with both the judicial content and the
character of the rhetor’s presentation of the case.”96 This practice has been
confirmed by other ancient sources. Further, the stripping of the garments, beating
with rods, being cast into the “inner prison,” and being placed in stocks are likely
punishments given the context.97 Finally, the fear with which the authorities react
upon learning that Paul and Silas were Romans is entirely appropriate for the time
period.
When we come to the events in Ephesus, the accuracy continues. “The
evidence of Acts not only agrees in general with the civic situation in Asia Minor
in the first and early second centuries A.D., but falls into place in the earlier rather
than the later phase of development. . . . The author of Acts is very well informed
about the finer points of municipal institutions at Ephesus.”98 The accuracy
includes the arrest by the city magistrates and their police instead of Roman
authorities and soldiers, the debating of civic policy by an assembly, and the
prominence accorded to the town clerk.
As for the other official proceedings, Sherwin-White notes:
It is similar with the narrative of Paul’s judicial experiences before
the tribunals of Gallio, Felix, and Festus. As documents these
narratives belong to the same historical series as the record of
provincial and imperial trials in epigraphical and literary sources of
94
A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Society in the New Testament, page 82.
Ibid., page 116.
96
Ibid., page 122.
97
Ibid., pages 125-27.
98
Sherwin-White, op. cit., 82, 84, 87.
95
34
the first and early second-centuries A.D. They stand closest of all
perhaps to the well-known Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, but are
markedly superior to these in clarity and accuracy of detail. The
trials in Acts belong unmistakably, as has been shown at extreme
length above, to a particular phase in the history of Roman
provincial jurisdiction.99
The author of Acts not only accurately narrates various aspects of the
Roman legal systems, he places them in the right time period and context.
VII.
Acts and the Pauline Epistles
Many of the events and persons in Acts are confirmed by the Pauline
epistles. The sum of these agreements, and the fact that Acts does not use Paul’s
letters as source material, shows that the author of Acts possessed a rich amount of
accurate information about Paul’s post-conversion life and activities.
A.
Correlation, Confirmation and Coherence
Acts specifically lists and discusses accurately Paul’s companions and
cities in which he ministered. There are also agreements of high specificity, such
as when and where Paul met certain companions. There are details about when and
where Paul was traveling that show strong agreement and consistency.
1. Paul was a Jew
Paul was a Jew. Phil. 3:5 (“Of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew of the Hebrews”).
2. Paul was a Pharisee
Paul was a Pharisee. Acts 23:6 (“But when Paul perceived that one part
were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and
brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and
resurrection of the dead I am being judged.”) and Phil. 3:5 (“I more so:
circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a
Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee.”).
99
Ibid., page 121.
35
3. Paul’s Hebrew Name and the Tribe of Benjamin
Acts 13:21 (“And afterward they asked for a king, so God gave them Saul
the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.”) and Phil. 3:5
(“circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a
Hebrew of the Hebrews, concerning the law, a Pharisee”).
This is what Colin Hemer calls “a classic instance of undesigned
coincidence.”100 Basically, Paul’s Hebrew name – Saul – is known only from Acts.
Paul’s tribe is known only from Philippians. The coincidence is that “Saul” was a
more common name in the relatively small tribe of Benjamin, who counted
Israel’s first king as a member of their own tribe.
4. Paul Engaged in Harsh Persecution Against the Early Christian Movement
Paul, before becoming a Christian, was an official who engaged in
persecution targeted at Christians. Paul’s persecution of the early church is
described in many places in Acts (7:58, 60; 9:1-3; 26:9-12; 22:1-5, 7-8, 20) as well
as in Paul’s epistles (Gal. 1:13, 23; Phil. 3:6. See also 1 Tim. 1:13-25).
5. Paul Converts to Christianity After Persecuting Christians
After an encounter with the risen Christ, Paul converts to Christianity. His
conversion is recounted in many places in Acts (9:1-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18) as well
as Paul’s undisputed epistles. (Gal. 1; 1 Cor. 15:8-9).
6. The Sequence of Christ’s Appearance to Paul
Both Acts and 1 Corinthians place the appearance of the risen Christ to
Paul after appearance to the disciples. Acts 22:6-11, 26:13-19 and 1 Cor. 15:8-9.
7. Paul’s Conversion was related geographically to Damascus
Paul’s conversion occurred within geographic proximity to Damascus. Acts
9:2, 22:6, 26:18 and Gal. 1:17.
8. Paul Called to a Gentile Mission
Paul received a special call to conduct a ministry to the Gentiles. Acts
9:15, 13:26, 22:21 and Rom 1:5 (“through whom we have received grace and
apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name”) and Gal.
2:2, 7.
100
Hemer, op. cit., page 183.
36
9. Paul Had an Initial Ministry in Damascus
Paul conducted an initial Christian ministry in Damascus after his
conversion. Explicit in Acts 9:20, 22 (“Immediately he preached the Christ in the
synagogues, that He is the Son of God. . . . But Paul increased all the more in
strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus
is the Christ.”) and implied by Gal. 1:17 (“nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those
who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to
Damascus”) and especially 2 Cor. 11:32-33, which indicates that he had already
generated a substantial level of hostility by his activities in Damascus.
10. Paul’s Dramatic Escape from Damascus
Paul dramatically escaped an attempt to apprehend him in Damascus by
being lowered by his disciples through the city wall in a basket.
Acts 9:24-25 (“But their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the
gates day and night, to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night and let him
down through the wall in a large basket”) and 2 Cor. 11:33 (“In Damascus, the
governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a
garrison, desiring to apprehend me; but I was let down in a basket through a
window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.”).
11. Paul Travels from Damascus To Jerusalem
Paul traveled from Damascus to Jerusalem specifically intending to meet
with the leaders of the Church. Although Acts says that Paul was brought to the
“apostles” whereas Paul specifically states he met only Peter and James, Acts
could simply be wrong, exaggerating, simplifying, or treating Peter as a
representative of “the apostles.” In any event, the timing, geography, and occasion
are the same. Acts and Galatians suggest that it is an extended visit. Acts 9:26-29
and Gal. 1:18-19.
12. Paul Travels from Jerusalem to Syria
After meeting and preaching in Jerusalem, both Acts and Galatians report
that Paul left that city and proceeded to Syria.
Acts 9:30 (“And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and
disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren
found out they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.”) and
Gal. 1:21 (“But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. .
. . Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia”).
37
13. Paul’s Second Visit to Jerusalem
This correlation depends on acceptance of the early Southern Galatian
View (“SGV”), where Acts 11 = Gal. 2. Because this understanding is disputed
by many scholars, only a couple of the examples require acceptance of the SGV. I
have explicitly identified them. The SGV is discussed in more detail in the section
on Lukan authorship.
Acts 11:28-30 (“Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by
the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which
also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, each according
to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea. This they
also did, and sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”) and Gal. 2:1
(“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also
took Titus with me.”).
14. Paul Goes to Jerusalem by Revelation
This is another SGV correlation. It emphasizes that in Acts a prophet
announces that there will be a famine, so Paul takes relief to the Jerusalem Church.
In Galatians, Paul notes that he went up to Jerusalem by “revelation” and later
notes that when he left, James asked him to “remember the poor.”
Acts 11:28 (“Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by
the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which
also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.”) and Gal. 2:2 (“And I went up by
revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might
run, or had run, in vain.”).
15. Paul’s Relationship with Barnabas
Both Acts and Paul report the close association of Paul and Barnabas, and
their joint efforts among the Gentiles in Antioch.
Acts 11:30 (“This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of
Barnabas and Saul.”) and Gal 2:1 (“Then after an interval of fourteen years I went
up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also”), Gal. 2:9 (“and
recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who
were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,
so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”) and, Gal. 2:11
(“But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he
was to be blamed . . . even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy”).
38
16. Paul’s Enemies Stoned Him Prior to His Writing 2 Corinthians
Acts and 2 Corinthians report that Paul was stoned by his enemies. Acts
14:19 (“But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the
crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be
dead”) and 2 Cor. 11:25 (“Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned,
three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep”). The
generally accepted reconstructed chronology of Paul’s activities places the stoning
described in Acts prior to 2 Corinthians.
17. Justification by Faith
Acts portrays Paul as teaching a doctrine of salvation from the law through
faith in the risen Christ – very similar to Paul’s teachings in his letters.
Acts 13:38-39 (“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through
Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by Him everyone who believes
is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of
Moses.”) and Gal. 1:6 (“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who
called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel”); 2:16 (“knowing that a man
is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have
believed in Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the
works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”).
18. Description of Jesus’ Crucifixion as Being Nailed to a Tree
In a reference to Deut. 21:22-23, Acts has Paul using an uncommon
description of Jesus’ crucifixion as being on a “tree” rather than a cross. In
Galatians, Paul uses the same phrase to describe Jesus’ crucifixion.
Acts 13:29 (“Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning
Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.”) and Gal. 3:13
(“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us,
for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’”).
19. Paul’s Opposition to Promoting Circumcision
According to Acts and Paul’s epistles, Paul was strongly opposed to those
seeking to encourage or require Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Both sources
also record that there was a pro-circumcision party that came from Jerusalem to
teach the Gentile Christians to accept circumcision.
Acts 15:1, 5 (“And certain men came down from Judea and taught the
brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you
cannot be saved’. . . But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up
saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law
39
of Moses.’”) and Gal. 2:12 (“for before certain men came from James, he would
eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing those who were of the circumcision”); 5:2-6 (“Indeed, I, Paul, say to you
that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again
to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law;
you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of
righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
avails anything, but faith working through love.”); 6:12-15 (“As many as desire to
make a good showing in the flesh, these try to compel you to be circumcised, only
that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those
who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that
they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory except in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, but which the world has been crucified to me, and I
to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails
anything, but a new creation.”).
20. Discouragement of Certain Practices to Gentile Christians
In Acts, the Jerusalem Council sent a letter to the Gentile Churches
discouraging them from eating food sacrificed to idols and instructing them to
refrain from sexual immorality, while recognizing their general freedom from
other Old Testament restrictions. In Paul’s letters, he discouraged Gentile
Christians from eating “things polluted by idols” and from “sexual immorality”
although he recognized their general freedom from other Old Testament
restrictions.
Acts 15:20 (“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by
idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood”), 29 (“that
you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and
from sexual immorality”) and 1 Cor. 8:1-13 (“Therefore concerning the eating of
things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing. . . . Therefore if food
makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat”); 10:18-30 (“Are not those
who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? I do not want you to have
fellowship with demons”); 1 Cor. 5:1 (“It is actually reported that there is sexual
immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among
the Gentiles”); 6:12-20 (“Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the
Lord, and the Lord for the body. . . . Flee sexual immorality”).
21. Timothy, Companion of Paul
Timothy was a companion of Paul during his ministry to the Gentiles. Acts
16:1; 17:14-15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4, and Rom. 16:21 (“Timothy my fellow worker
40
greets you, and so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen”); 1 Cor. 4:17;
16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1, 19; Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1.
22. Paul’s Flexibility
Although adamantly opposed to requiring circumcision, Acts report that
Paul circumcised Timothy – one of his coworkers – fits well with his motto that he
would be “all things to all people.” Moreover, despite his emphasis on freedom
from the law, he was willing to be very Jewish.
Acts 16:3 (“Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and
circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew
that his father was Greek.”) and Acts 21:23-24 (“Therefore do what we tell you:
We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them,
and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know
that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that
you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.”) and 1 Cor. 9:19-22 (“For
though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might
win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those
who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the
law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward
God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to
the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake,
that I may be partaker of it with you.”).
23. Paul’s Association With the Philippian Church
Acts and Paul agree that he had a longstanding and important relationship
with the Christian Church in Philippi. Acts 16:12-40 (Paul’s ministry there/Paul
and Silas imprisoned there) and Phil. 1:5 (“For your fellowship in the gospel from
the first day until now”).
24. Paul Beaten with Rods
Acts and 2 Corinthians report that Paul suffered beating by rods. Acts
16:22-23 (“Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates
tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. And when they
had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison.”) and 2 Cor. 11:25
(“Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was
shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep.”).
25. Paul and Companions Persecuted in Philippi
41
Acts’ account that Paul was physically persecuted while ministering in
Philippi is confirmed by 1 Thessalonians. Even Acts’ use of the plural (“they had
laid many stripes on them”) is confirmed (“we had suffered”).
Acts 16:22-23 (“Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the
magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods.
And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison,
commanding the jailer keep them securely.”) and 1 Thess. 2:2 (“But even after we
had suffered before and were spitefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we were
bold in our God to speak to you the gospel of God in such conflict.”).
26. Paul and Silvanus’ Letter to Thessalonica
Acts records that Silas/Silvanus was a close companion of Paul who
ministered in and suffered with the Thessalonian Church, whereas Paul’s two
letters to the church in Thessalonica are the only ones that include Silas/Silvanus
as an author. Acts 16 & 17 and 1 & 2 Thess.
27. Aquila/Priscilla Connected with Corinth
Both Acts and 1 Corinthians indicate that Aquila and Priscilla had an
important connection with Corinth, and had likely dwelt there at one time.
Acts 18:1-2 (“After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he
found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from
Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to
depart from Rome); and he came to them.”) and 1 Cor. 16:19 (“The churches of
Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisa greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church
that is in their house.”).
28. Timothy Returns to Paul in Corinth
Acts reports that Timothy returned from Macedonia and rejoined Paul in
Corinth. This is confirmed by Paul in 1 Thess.
Acts 18:5 (“After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to
Corinth. . . . When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was
constrained by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.”) and 1
Thess. 3:6 (“But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and brought us good
news of your faith and love, and that you always have good remembrance of us,
greatly desiring to see us, as we also to see you. . . .”).
29. Silas & Timothy With Paul for First Preaching in Corinth
42
Both Acts and 2 Corinthians report that Paul had the same companions
when he first preached in Corinth. This is an important agreement given that both
Paul’s letters and Acts have Paul working with a diverse number of companions in
a diverse number of places.
Acts 18:5 (“After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to
Corinth. . . . When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was
constrained by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.”) and 2
Cor. 1:19 (“For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by
us–by me, Silvanus and Timothy–was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes.”).
Furthermore, this is attested by “implication in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, since both
are written as from Paul, Silvanus and Timothy.”101
30. Cenchrea & Phoebe
Acts records that Paul underwent a Jewish ritual in Cenchrea, whereas
Romans suggests that Paul indeed had a relationship with that city and its
Christians. Acts 18:18 (“He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a
vow.”) and Rom. 16:1 (“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of
the church in Cenchrea. . . . “).
Once again, the correlation is tangential, but real. It is not something that
points in any way to literary dependence.
31. Paul Leaves Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus
Acts’ report that Paul left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus is confirmed by 1
Corinthians, written from Ephesus, which reports that Aquila and Priscilla hosted
a house church there.
Acts 18:19 (“So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the
brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his
hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. And he came to Ephesus, and left
them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.”)
and 1 Cor. 16:19 (“The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you
heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.”).
32. Apollos, Aquila, and Priscilla
Paul’s relationship with Apollos is confirmed, as well as Apollos’
relationship with Corinth.
101
David Wenham, "Acts and the Pauline Corpus II. Pauline Parallels," in The
Book of Acts in its Literary Setting, ed. Bruce D. Winter, Andrew D. Clarke, page
245.
43
Acts 18:27 (“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an
eloquent man and mighty in the Scripture, came to Ephesus. This man had been
instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught
accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he
began to speak boldly in the Synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him,
they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And
when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to
receive him and when he arrived greatly helped those who believed through grace,
for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus
is the Christ.”) and 1 Cor. 1:12 (“Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of
Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ’“); 3:6 (“I
planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase”); 4:6 (“Now these things,
brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that
you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be
puffed up on behalf of one against the other”).
33. Sending of Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia
Colin Hemer explains this correlation involving two of Paul’s companions,
Timothy and Erastus:
Paul’s sending of Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia is to be
placed near the end of his Ephesian residence (c. 52-55). The
Corinthian correspondence gives evidence for a previous visit of
Timothy to Corinth from Ephesus (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10) and also of
Titus (2 Cor. 8:6; 12:18) as well as the “painful” visit of Paul
himself (2 Cor. 2:1). The present mission to Macedonia is an
advance of Paul’s progress there to meet Titus (2 Cor. 2:13), from
whom he anxiously awaited news in Corinth.102
Acts 19:22 with 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10, 2 Cor. 2:13; 8:6; 12:18.
34. Ephesian Riots
Acts reports a riot concerning Paul in Ephesus, which aligns with the
tribulations Paul’s Corinthian correspondence mentions while he was in Ephesus.
Acts 19:23-41 and 1 Cor. 15:32 (“If, in the manner of men, I have fought
with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me?”) and 2 Cor. 1:8-10 (“For we
do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia:
that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even
of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in
102
Hemer, op. cit., page 188.
44
ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death,
and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us.”).
35. Aristarchus, Thessalonian Companion of Paul
Acts specifically mentions Aristarchus as a companion of Paul and
identifies him as a Thessalonian. Paul’s own correspondence confirms that he had
a companion named Aristarchus.
Acts 19:29 (“So the whole city was filled with confusion and rushed into
the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians,
Paul’s travel companions”); 20:4 (“And Sopater of Baroea accompanied him to
Asia–also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe,
and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia.”); 27:2 (“So entering a ship of
Adramyttium, we put to sea, meaning to sail along the coasts of Asia. Aristarchus,
a Macedonian of Thessalonica, was with us”) and Col. 4:10 (“Aristarchus my
fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you
received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him).”) and Plm. 24
(“Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark,
Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers”).
36. Travel Through Macedonia
Acts 20:1 and 2 Cor. 2:12-13 discuss Paul’s travels through Macedonia,
which is in accord with his travel plans that were laid out in Acts 19:21 and 1 Cor.
16:5.
Acts 20:1 (“After the uproar had ceased, Paul called the disciples to him,
embraced them, and departed to go to Macedonia.”) and 2 Cor. 2:12-13
(“Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was
opened to me by the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I did not find Titus
my brother, but taking my leave of them, I departed for Macedonia.”).
Acts 19:21 (“When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the
Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem,
saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome’”) and 1 Cor. 16:5 (“Now I
will come to you when I pass through Macedonia (for I am passing through
Macedonia)”).
37. Paul Travels to Greece
Acts records that Paul traveled from Macedonia to Greece, just as Paul
stated his intentions were in 1 Corinthians.
Acts 20:2 (“Now when he had gone over that region and encouraged them
with many words, he came to Greece.”) and 1 Cor. 16:3 (“And when I come,
45
whomever you approve by your letters, I will send to bear your gift to
Jerusalem.”).
38. Paul’s Departure to Jerusalem
Acts records that Paul traveled to Greece and spent three months there,
which accords with his stated intention in 2 Corinthians to spend the winter in
Corinth.
Acts 20:3 (“He came to Greece, and stayed three months. And when the
Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return
through Macedonia.”) and 1 Cor. 16:5 (“But I will come to you after I go through
Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; and perhaps I will stay with you,
or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may
go.”).
39. Sopatar/Sosipater (the Macedonian)
Acts reports that Sopater of Beroea (a Macedonian city) traveled with Paul.
This is confirmed by Paul’s own letters which recount the presence of his
companion Sosipater (a more formal version of the name), who Paul also indicates
is a Macedonian.
Acts 20:4 (“And Sopater of Barea accompanied him to Asia–also
Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy,
and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia.”) and Rom. 16:21 (“Timothy, my fellow
worker, and Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, greet you.”) and 2 Cor. 9:4
(“Lest if some Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared we (not to
mention you) should be ashamed of this confident boasting.”).
40. Tychicus, Companion of Paul
Acts mentions Tychicus as a companion of Paul who was from Asia and
traveled with him to Macedonia. As discussed above, it also mentions Aristarchus
as a companion of Paul on the same journey, though Aristarchus was from
Thessalonica. Paul’s letters also discuss a companion of Paul named Tychicus.
Acts 20:4 (“[H]e decided to return through Macedonia. And Sopater of
Berea accompanied him to Asia–also Aristarchus and Secundus of the
Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of
Asia.”) and Eph. 6:21 (“But that you also may know my affairs and how I am
doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make all
things known to you; whom I have sent to you for this very purpose. . .”) and Col.
4:7-10 (“Tychicus, who is a beloved brother, a faithful minister, and a fellow
servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me. I am sending him to you
46
for this very purpose, that he may know your circumstances and comfort your
hearts, with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. . .
.”).
41. Ministry in Troas
Acts and Paul’s letters report that he ministered and traveled through Troas.
Acts 16:8-9, 20:6-12 and 2 Cor. 2:12-13.
42. Paul’s Suffering at Ephesus
Acts reports that Paul suffered persecution in Ephesus. This is confirmed by
undisputed Paulines.
Acts 20:19 (“And when they had come to him, he said to them: ‘You know,
from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you,
serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to
me by the plotting of the Jews. . . .’”) and 1 Cor. 15:32 (“If, in the manner of men,
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do
not rise, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’”) and Rom. 9-11.
43. Opponents Ardent for the Law
Acts and Galatians agree that there were many Jewish Christians in
Jerusalem who were zealous for the law.
Acts 21:20 (“And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said
to him, ‘You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed,
and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that
you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that
they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.”)
and Galatians.
44. Silas & Timothy left in Macedonia
Acts reports that on one of Paul’s journeys, he left Timothy behind when he
departed from Macedonia. This is confirmed by 1 Thess.
Acts 17:14-15 (“Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away, to go to the
sea; but both Silas and Timothy remained there.”) and 1 Thess. 3:1-6 (“Therefore,
when we could no longer endure it, we thought it good to be left in Athens alone,
and sent Timothy, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow laborer in the
gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith, that no
one should be shaken by these afflictions; for you yourselves know that we are
47
appointed to this. For in fact he told you before when we were with you that we
would suffer tribulations, just as it happened, and you know. For this reason, when
I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the
tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain. But now that Timothy
has returned to us from you, and brought us good news of your faith and love, and
that you always have good remembrance of us, greatly desiring to see us, as we
also to see you.”).
45. The Collection for the Jewish Church
Paul traveled to Jerusalem to deliver a gift to the Jerusalem Church.
Acts 24:17 (“Now after many years, I came to bring alms and offerings to
my nation.”) and 1 Cor. 16:1-4 (“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I
have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also. . . And when I
come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to
Jerusalem. . . . “) and 2 Cor. 8:1, 9, 16 (“Collection for the Judean Saints”)
(“Moreover brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the
churches of Macedonia: . . . . They were freely willing, imploring us with much
urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering of the
saints. . . . For you know the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was
rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might
become rich”) and Rom. 15:25-28 (“But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister
to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain
contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. It pleased them
indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their
spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. Therefore,
when I have performed this and have sealed to them this fruit, I shall go by way of
you to Spain.”).
46. The Route Taken by Paul to Jerusalem
The route Paul takes to get to Jerusalem with the collection is the same in
Acts and his letters.
Acts 19:21(“When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the
Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem”);
24:17 (“Now after many years I came to bring alms and offering to my nation”)
and 1 Cor. 16:3-8 (“And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I
will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it is fitting that I go also, they will
go with me. Now I will come to you when I pass through Macedonia (for I am
passing through Macedonia). But it may be that I will remain, or even spend the
winter with you, that you may send me on my journey, wherever I go. For I do not
48
wish to see you now on the way; but I hope to stay a while with you, if the Lord
permits.”) and 2 Cor. 8, 9.
47. Imprisonment in Rome
Acts records Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, which matches the context of
the “captivity epistles,” which were written while Paul was in Rome.
Acts 28:30-31 (“Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house
and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the
things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding
him.”). The undisputed Philippians and Philemon confirm that Paul was
imprisoned in such a way that also allowed him some measure of freedom, to
write letters for example. Colossians, taken as authentic by what is likely a
majority of New Testament scholars, and Ephesians also support such a
circumstance.
48. Special Influence of James in Jerusalem Church
Acts and Galatians agree that James had special influence and was a leader
in the Jerusalem Church. They also suggest that his influence was respected
beyond Jerusalem. Acts 15:13 and Gal. 1:19; 2:12; 1 Cor. 15:7.
49. Thessalonian Christians Persecuted by Own Countrymen
Acts report of the Christian converts in Thessalonica being persecuted by
their own countrymen is confirmed by 1 Thessalonians. Acts 17:5-9 and 1 Thess.
2:14 (“For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in
Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own
countrymen, just as they did from the Jews.”).
50. Table-Fellowship Controversy in the Early Church
The early church endured controversies over table-fellowship – whether
Jewish Christians should eat with Gentile Christians. Significantly, both Acts and
Galatians agree that Peter had previously engaged in table-fellowship with Gentile
Christians.
Acts 11:3 (“And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the
circumcision contended with him, saying, ‘You went in to uncircumcised men and
ate with them. But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning”) and
Gal. 2:11-14 (Peter lapses after previously engaging in table-fellowship with
Gentile Christians).
49
51. Jerusalem Church Welcomes Christian Gentiles
Acts and Paul agree that Gentiles were accepted by the Jerusalem Church
as Christians without first converting to Judaism. Galatians 2 and Acts 15.
52. Paul’s Ministry in Athens
Both Acts and Paul mention his ministry in Athens, though neither
indicates that he had much success there. 1 Thess. 3:1 (“Therefore when we could
endure it no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone”) and Acts
17:15-22 (“Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and
receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible,
they left. Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being
provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. So he was
reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the
market place every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of
the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were
saying, ‘What would this idle babbler wish to say?’ Others, ‘He seems to be a
proclaimer of strange deities,’-- because he was preaching Jesus and the
resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May
we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are
bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things
mean.’ (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their
time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.) So Paul stood in the
midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I observe that you are very
religious in all respects.’”).
53. Ephesian Ministry
Acts reports that Paul had a very successful ministry in Ephesus. Acts
19:10 (“This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word
of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.”). Paul confirms this in his own letters. 1 Cor.
16:8-9 (“But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a wide door for effective
service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.”).
54. Erastus, the City Treasurer
Acts knows that Erastus was a companion of Paul. Acts 19:22 (“And
having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and
Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while”) with Rom. 16:23 (“Gaius, host to
me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and
Quartus, the brother.”).
55. Conclusion
50
In sum, the author of Acts was familiar with Paul’s missionary activities
and co-workers. Indeed, he seems to have known quite a lot about what Paul
was doing, where he was going, and who he was doing it with. As Colin
Hemer concludes, “[t]he author of Acts is not vaguely familiar with the story
of Paul, but has a considerable amount of detailed knowledge, about Paul’s
journeys, the churches that he founded and the people he worked with.”103
B.
Acts Did Not Use Paul’s Letters as Source Material
The previous section raises the question of whether the author of Acts
relied on Paul’s letters in writing his narrative. Despite Acts’ extensive
knowledge of information about Paul’s ministry, the vast majority of scholars
from diverse backgrounds conclude that he did not use Paul’s letters as source
material.104 The arguments supporting this conclusion are persuasive.
First, the manner of the purported use of Paul’s letters by the author of
Acts would be inconsistent with how he uses sources elsewhere. We have a
track record to examine – the Gospel of Luke. As Paul Barnett remarks, we
have “an objective means by which we can measure Luke’s use of texts that
were at his disposal.”105 The result? In his Gospel, the author of Acts
faithfully used the pre-existing sources of Mark and Q (or Matthew). Though
the author tends to smooth out the Greek and clarify some things for his
audience, when we compare the Gospel of Luke to its sources, the reliance is
obvious. “[W]hen passages in Luke are set alongside passages from Mark,
Luke proves to have been a sober and careful scribe.”106 Further, Luke does
not scatter his sources throughout his text. He reproduces them in large
chunks. “Luke has tended to insert this material in blocks that preserve the
sequences of his source.”107 Is this practice how the author supposedly used
Paul’s letters in Acts? Not at all. Accordingly, “in view of the considerable
evidence that Luke and Acts are two volumes of one work, the burden of proof
must be on those who want to suggest that Luke chose to deal with his source
material (or lack thereof) in Acts significantly differently than he did in his
Gospel.”108
103
Ibid., page 256.
Hemer, op. cit., page 377 (It is "widely accepted” that Acts “betrays no
knowledge of the Pauline Epistles").
105
Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, page 209.
106
Ibid.
107
John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, at xxxi.
108
Ben Witherington, “Editing the Good News,” in History, Literature and Society
in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, page 346.
104
51
Second, the author of Acts fails to refer to or emphasize important events
mentioned in Paul’s letters that would have been relevant to his own efforts. As
Luke T. Johnson notes, “Luke [does] not tell us a great deal that he could have told
us if he were using Paul’s letters–about the Galatian mission, for example, or the
Corinthian controversies.”109 It could be argued that some of the omissions in
Acts are explained by the author’s desire to avoid putting the early church in a bad
light. Although at first glance this argument seems persuasive, it is clear from the
Gospel of Luke that the author of Acts can narrate the failings of Jesus’ disciples,
including Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial, the disciples’ sleeping instead of praying,
and their disbelief about the resurrection culminating in Jesus telling two of his
followers that “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets
have spoken!”
Acts also narrates some unflattering events in the early Church – such as,
the controversy over circumcision, Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas over the
dismissal of John Mark, the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, the disagreement
between the Hellenists and the Hebrews about caring for widows, and the original
fear and distrust of the Jerusalem Christians towards Paul. Thus, the notion that
Acts sought to portray early Christianity without blemish is mistaken. In any
event, there are relevant but uncontroversial details in Paul’s letters which are not
reproduced in Acts (such as Paul’s ministry in Arabia and that Paul was of the
tribe of Benjamin). Accordingly, the absence from Acts of relevant information
found in Paul’s letters suggests that the author of Acts did not use those letters as
source material.
Third, on points where Paul’s letters and Acts seem to overlap, there are
differences that preclude literary dependence. As stated by Prof. Johnson, “in the
places of overlap there are so many points of discrepancy that the hypothesis of
independent information rather than of literary dependence seems more likely.”110
Specific examples are discussed below with references to the points of agreement
noted above:
•
Regarding No. 10, Acts attributes the pursuit of Paul in Damascus to
Jewish leaders, whereas Paul mentions only King Aretas.
•
Regarding No. 11, the differences in Paul’s description of his
meeting with Paul and James indicate that it is not a literary source
for Acts’ description of Paul’s first post-conversion Jerusalem visit.
•
Regarding No. 12, Paul refers specifically to Caesarea and Tarsus,
whereas Galatians more broadly mentions Syria and Cilicia.
•
Regarding No. 28, Acts uses the name “Priscilla” whereas Paul uses
the more formal “Prisca.”
109
Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, pages 4-5.
110
Id.
52
•
Regarding No. 30, Acts’ use of the term “Silas” instead of
“Silvanus” indicates that Paul’s letters were not the source for this
information. Silvanus was identified by that name in 2 Corinthians,
1 Thess., and 2 Thess.
•
Regarding No. 40, Acts uses the less formal “Sopater” whereas Paul
uses the formal “Sosipater.” Also, Paul refers to one of his
companions being a Macedonian whereas Acts specifically mentions
that companion being from a city in Macedonia.
•
Regarding No. 46, the collection for the Jerusalem Church plays a
more important part in Paul’s letters than it does in Acts. Paul
mentions it in his most influential letters, including Romans and 1
Corinthians. Acts only has Paul mention it in passing.
•
Regarding No. 55, Acts omits reference to Erastus as the city
treasurer (as he is identified by Paul). This is noteworthy given
Luke’s attention to titles elsewhere.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the linguistic evidence is decidedly
against any reliance by Acts on Paul’s letters. John Knox, who had a strong
motive to find evidence of Lukan dependence on Paul’s letters, concedes that there
is none:
As a matter of fact, in the absence of adequate evidence of verbal
dependence (and this, it will be agreed, we do not have in the case of
Acts), can there ever be, in a situation like this, any certainty of
dependency at all? Indeed, the lack of verbal conformity may have
the effect of reversing the argument. Can it be supposed that Luke
used the letters of Paul as sources for facts or data but succeeded in
avoiding (or would even have tried to avoid!) any trace of their
actual language? In a word, so important is verbal reminiscence that
one is almost justified in saying that in the absence of it every
possible piece of evidence of Luke’s having used the letters
increases the probability that he did not use them. The citing of
evidence, therefore, tends to defeat itself and to point more and more
to the conclusion that Luke got his data on Paul’s life and teaching
from other sources. . . . .
So far as the evidence goes, then, I should say that no convincing
case can be made for Luke’s reliance on the letters of Paul or for his
knowledge of them at all.111
111
John Knox, "Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus," in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed.
Leander Keck, page 282.
53
The evidence demonstrates that the author of Acts did not use Paul’s letters
as source material for his narrative. The implications of this are significant. It
demands a different explanation for Luke’s extensive and accurate knowledge
about the life of Paul. Luke had an incredible amount of independent but accurate
information about early Christianity. Furthermore, the subjects upon which the
Pauline corpus and Acts agree may be deemed all the more reliable. “If two
independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is
measurably enhanced.”112
VIII. Conclusion
Having reviewed Acts’ accuracy on varied subjects, we can now judge
what kind of historian is its author. The evidence suggests that we should come to
the same conclusion as Prof. Johnson:
How reliable is Luke as a historian? Taking into account his fidelity
to the one source we can check, his general accuracy in matters we
know about from archaeological or documentary sources, and the
overall agreement between his description of Paul’s movements and
the descriptions in the Pauline letters, we conclude that Luke is
accurate in what he tells us.113
This is the same conclusion as classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White:
“[A]ny attempt to reject [Acts’] basic historicity even in matters of detail must
now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”114 The
confirmed accuracy of Acts on so many details is not without significance for
those details for which we have no independent evidence. Pursuant to the longstanding maxim of the study of history, “[t]he source whose account can be
confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in
its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.”115
CHAPTER 3: THE DATE OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
The question of when Acts was written has found many answers. On the
early end are those who date Acts to the early-to-mid 60s AD because of the
abrupt ending and other indications. On the late end are those who do not date
112
Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Source, An Introduction
to Historical Methods, page 70.
113
Johnson, The New Testament Writings, page 201.
114
Sherwin-White, op. cit., page 189.
115
Howell and Prevenier, op. cit., page 70.
54
Acts until the earliest explicit reference to it later in the second century. The
evidence, taken as a whole, supports a date somewhere between 62 and 90 A.D.
I.
Allusions to Luke-Acts
The earliest Acts could have been written is established by the events it
mentions. The narrative ends with Paul alive in Roman custody. This places the
earliest possible date of authorship around 62 AD. As discussed below, the latest
possible date is set by the use of Acts by other Christian authors. Allusions and
references to Luke are also relevant. These attestations demonstrate that Acts
could not have been written any later than 120 AD.
A.
Possible Early Allusions
There are possible allusions to the Acts of the Apostles in 1 Clement 2:1,
(“giving more gladly than receiving”), with Acts 20:35; 1 Clem. 2:2 (“pouring out
of the Spirit”) with Acts 2:17; Ignatius’ Magn. 5:1 (“to go down to his own place”)
with Acts 1:25; Smyrn. 3:3 (Jesus “eating and drinking” with his disciples after the
resurrection) with Acts 10:4; Barnabas and the Didache (Barn. 19:8 and Did. 4:8,
“you shall not say anything is your own”) with Acts 4:32; and, Polycarp (2:1,
“judge of the living and the dead”) with Acts 10:42. These similarities, however,
are only suggestive. Some are not sufficiently distinct and others may be traced to
traditions common among the churches independent of the Acts of the Apostles.
B.
2 Clement
2 Clement was likely written between 120 and 140 AD.116 It is not a letter,
but a sermon. The author of 2 Clement shows himself familiar with the Gospel of
Luke.117
Compare:
2 Clement 4:5: “And it is not fitting that we should fear men, but rather
God. For this reason, if we should do such [wicked] things, the Lord hath said,
“Even though ye were gathered together to me in my very bosom, yet if ye were
not to keep my commandments, I would cast you off, and say unto you, Depart
from me; I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.”
with,
116
117
Clayton N. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers, page 122.
Jefford, op. cit., page 123.
55
Luke 13:26-27: “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your
presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know
where you are from; depart from me, all you evildoers.’
Compare:
2 Clem 6:1: “But the Lord saith, No servant can serve two masters. If we
desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable for us”
with,
Luke 16:13: “No servant can serve two masters for either he will hate the
one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Compare:
2 Clement 13:4: “For, whenever they hear from us that God saith, “No
thank have ye, if ye love them which love you, but ye have thank, if ye love your
enemies and them which hate you” – whenever they hear these words, they marvel
at the surpassing measure of their goodness; but when they see, that not only do
we not love those who hate, but that we love not even those who love, they laugh
us to scorn, and the name is blasphemed.”
with,
Luke 6:32: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For
even sinners love those who love then. . . . But love your enemies, and do good,
and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will
be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.”
Notably, the phrase, “God saith” is a common phrase used to refer to the
citation of scripture, not oral tradition. This indicates a written source.118 Though
two of the three passages are common to Matthew and Luke, 2 Clement follows
the Lukan version. Luke 16:13 is from the special Lukan material, with no known
counterpart. The case for dependence on the Gospel of Luke, therefore, is
persuasive. And, given common authorship, Acts would not be too far removed in
time. This is especially true if, as seems likely, Luke was written with Acts in
mind. In other words, they are one literary unit.119
118
E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, page 39.
I discuss the unity of Luke-Acts in a post on my blog,
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/04/unity-of-luke-acts-modernscholarship.html.
119
56
C.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr wrote several apologetic works. Most relevant here is his
First Apology, written no later than 155 AD. Therein, he paraphrases and alludes
to the Acts of the Apostles.120
First, Acts 1:1-9 is paraphrased by Martyr in First Apology 50.12.
Compare:
The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began
to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after
He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had
chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering,
by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty
days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave
Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,”
He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but
you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying,
“Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He
said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the
Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power
when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even
to the remotest part of the earth.” And after He had said these
things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud
received Him out of their sight.
Acts 1:1-9.
with,
[A]fterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to
them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these
things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him
ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power
120
The notion that Acts is dependent on Justin Martyr has been advanced by J.C.
O’Neill, but his theory has not received acceptance from other scholars.
57
sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they
taught these things, and were called apostles.
First Apology 50.12.
Second, in First Apology 39.3, Martyr refers to the apostles as “illiterate, of
no ability in speaking,” which is similar to Acts’ description of Peter and John at
4:13. The description is unique and both use the Greek term idiotes in their
description.
Third, in his Second Apology, Martyr may demonstrate an awareness of
Paul’s Areopagus speech and his references to “the unknown God” (Acts 17:23).
He too is aware of the tribute paid by the Greeks to a God who is not known to
them. However, Martyr does not explicitly associate this with Paul’s speech. The
usage is, therefore, inconclusive.
Fourth, First Apology 10.1 (“God does not need the material offerings
which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things.”)
appears to be based on Acts 17:25 (“nor is He served by human hands, as though
He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all
things”).
The first, second, and fourth allusions combined persuasively demonstrate
Justin Martyr’s awareness of Acts around 155 AD. Whereas Gospel-like
traditions conveying sayings or deeds of Jesus might still be trickling down
through the churches via oral tradition, evidence of comparable independent
traditions of early Christian history is less apparent. It seems unlikely such was
the case with most of the material in Acts. Therefore, the similarities between
Justin Martyr’s First Apology and Acts is probably the result of Martyr’s
dependence on Acts.
D.
Marcion
Marcion was a heretic of the early Church. In another article I provide
additional background of his writings and significance to early Christian history.121
Around 130 AD, he used a version of the Gospel of Luke that he had whittled
down to his liking. This not only demonstrates the existence of the Gospel of
Luke, but indicates the existence of two traditions by that time – Marcion’s and
the “orthodox” version. Given Marcion’s reworking of an existing version of
Luke, it must have been earlier than 130 AD.
E.
Conclusion
Christopher Price, “Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus,”
http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html, accessed on April 24, 2005.
121
58
Although Justin Martyr’s use of Acts is helpful, the most relevant material
for dating Acts is 2 Clement and Marcion. 2 Clement could be dated as early as
120 AD. Marcion must have used an existing version of the Gospel already
established in the early churches by 130 AD. Thus, a last possible date of 120 AD
is the most reasonable conclusion based on the earliest external references to
Luke-Acts.
II.
Paul’s Letters Widespread by the Second Century
By the second century, Paul’s letters had been circulated among
geographically diverse churches. Not only is this relevant to understanding Acts’
relationship to Paul, it goes far in rebutting the already marginal theory that Acts –
as an orthodox response to Marcion – would have been afraid to use Paul’s letters.
Certainly, other orthodox Christian writers in the late first century and early
second century had no such fear – they used Paul’s letters to a great extent.
Finally, the availability and importance of the Pauline canon by the second century
is relevant to dating Acts.
A.
Allusions and Citations by Early Christian Writers
When determining whether an early Christian writer referred to one of
Paul’s letters, we are on easier ground than hunting for allusions to the gospels.
For most of Paul’s letters, it is undisputed that they were written around the midfirst century. Thus, there is no doubt of their existence and it renders irrelevant the
classic “chicken-egg, which came first?” conundrum. Furthermore, though there
likely was an “oral tradition” phase of gospel material prior to their being written
down, the same is unlikely for Paul’s letters. Though Paul undoubtedly uses some
traditions, by far most of his letters were free hand writings in response to specific
situations as they arose among the churches. As a result, it is less likely that
correlations are the result of common oral tradition. Finally, explicit attribution
was not a regular practice among the Apostolic Fathers. We know from their use
of the Old Testament that they would often times quote or allude to a written
source without identifying what the source was or even that there was a source.
1. 1 Clement (95 AD)
Origin:
Destination:
Letters Cited:
Rome
Corinth
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans
1 Clement, written by a leader (or leaders) in the Roman church to the
Corinthian church, explicitly refers to and quotes 1 Corinthians, and quotes 2
Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. That the author of 1 Clement is familiar with
59
Romans is unsurprising. After all, Paul wrote that letter to the Roman church. But
knowledge of the letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians is quite informative
because those letters were not associated with Rome. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians
from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Although Galatians is not so explicit, no theory of its
origins attributes its province to Rome. So, at the very least, the first epistle to the
Corinthians and the epistle to the Galatians had circulated beyond their churches
of origin and the churches of their destination by the end of the first century. It
also appears that Clement presumes that the Corinthians know Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans, indicating that it had circulated beyond its province. Finally, the author’s
reliance on 1 Corinthians to help resolve a dispute demonstrates the high regard in
which it was held.
a. Citation of 1 Corinthians
As indicated above, the author of Clement explicitly refers to one of Paul’s
letters to the Corinthians. Which letter to the Corinthians is made clear by his
quote from 1 Corinthians when emphasizing his point about avoiding division in
the church.
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he
first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged
you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos,
because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of
parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles
that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight.
1 Clement 47.
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and
“I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ
been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you
baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of
you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were
baptized in my name.
1 Cor. 1:12-15.
b. Citation of 2 Corinthians
1 Clement shows familiarity with Paul’s recounting of his travails in 2
Corinthians.
Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance,
after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and
stoned.
60
1 Clement 5:6.
Are they servants of Christ? – I speak as if insane – I more so; in far
more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without
number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the
Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I
was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have
spent in the deep.
2 Cor. 11:23-25.
Although the Greek is not the same, Clement recounts Paul’s suffering,
including his being imprisoned and stoned. Further, there “is the massive fact of
the list itself. The suggestion of such a list would almost certainly come from a
recollection of the list in II Corinthians.”122 Accordingly, though a direct literary
contact is elusive, it is likely that the author of 1 Clement had read 2 Corinthians.
c. Citation of Romans
The similarities in the language and the context of 1 Clement make clear its
reliance on the Epistle to the Romans.
If our mind be fixed through faith towards God; if we seek out those
things which are well pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we
accomplish such things as beseem His faultless will, and follow the
way of truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and
iniquity, covetousness, strifes, malignities and deceits, whisperings
and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory and
inhospitality. For they that do these things are hateful to God; and
not only they that do them, but they also that consent unto them. For
the scripture saith; But unto the sinner said God, Wherefore dost
thou declare Mine ordinances, and takest My covenant upon thy
mouth? Yet thou didst hate instruction, and didst cast away My
words behind thee. If thou sawest a thief, thou didst keep company
with him, and with the adulterers thou didst set thy portion. Thy
mouth multiplied wickedness, and thy tongue wove deceit. Thou
sattest and spakest against thy brother, and against the son of thy
mother thou didst lay a stumbling-block. These things thou hast
done, and I kept silence. Thou thoughtest, unrighteous man, that I
should be like unto thee. I will convict thee, and will set thee face to
face with thyself.
122
Albert E. Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence, pages 90-91.
61
1 Clement 35.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God
gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not
proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed,
evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of
evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy,
unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God,
that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not
only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice
them.
Rom. 1:28-32.
1 Clement has taken the list of vices from Paul and adapted it somewhat for
his own use and with his own flavor. As Professor Corwin notes:
The catalog of defects in 1 Clement 35:5-6 is structured on that of
Roman 1:28-32; Clement simply restructures it according to his
ideas. Sanders clearly demonstrated the indisputable dependence; A.
Vogtle has already explained the change of some terms of Rom. as
related to Clement’s context. The fidelity with which Clement
follows here the Pauline text comes from the fact that the catalogues
of vices represented the literary genre of the invectives of the
diatribe’s preachers. In order to follow the diatribe, Clement,
therefore, did not have to abandon Paul. He merely emphasizes
through slight modifications the Greek and Stoic character of the
Pauline catalog.123
d. Citations of Galatians
There are some unique points of contact between 1 Clement and the Epistle
to the Galatians that strongly suggest the author’s reliance on Paul’s letter. 1
Clement 5’s use of the term “pillars” for the Apostles is striking given that the
only other writing that uses that term for those men is the Epistle to the Galatians.
Gal. 2:9 (“and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas
and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right”).
Additionally, 1 Clement imitates the rather unique approach of speaking of
Christ being crucified in the presence of those to whom he writes. Compare Gal.
3:1 (“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus
123
Massaux, op. cit., page 43.
62
Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”) with 1 Clem. 2:1 (“Content with the
provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, you
were inwardly filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were before your
eyes.”).
2. The Epistles of Ignatius (105-115 AD)
Origin:
Destinations:
Letters Cited:
Antioch (Ignatius’ hometown)
Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna
1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians
(perhaps 1 and 2 Timothy and others)
Though Ignatius tends not to identify his sources, Old or New Testament,
there is no doubt that he referred to many of Paul’s letters. Ignatius’ citations to 1
Corinthians are overwhelming. Additionally, “[w]e know from Ignatius himself
that he was acquainted with more than one letter, for he writes to the Ephesian
church (12.2) that the apostle Paul mentioned them ‘in every letter.’”124 Scholars
have seen this reference not necessarily to all the letters which mention Ephesians
(such as 1 and 2 Timothy), but as the “polite exaggeration of Ignatius to the
Ephesians” which “is taken as further evidence that he was familiar with an early
collection of Paul’s letters.”125
It should be remembered that Ignatius was not writing from his Bishop’s
office in Antioch, with his library spread out before him. Rather, he wrote while
traveling – in the custody of unfriendly soldiers – to Rome to become a martyr.
Due to his circumstances, Ignatius’ allusions were based on memory rather than
on close readings.126 As a result, his allusions may be “free and inexact.”127
Nevertheless, many literary contacts with Paul’s letters are obvious. All told,
Ignatius’ letters demonstrates that at least 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Galatians,
Colossians and Philippians, were widely circulating though churches unrelated to
their province by the end of the first century.
a. Citations of 1 Corinthians
The most obvious reliance by Ignatius is on Paul’s First Letter to the
Corinthians. As Prof. Corwin notes:
Ignatius himself knew best 1 Corinthians and the gospel of Matthew,
which was the favorite if not the only gospel used. These two of the
124
Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch, page 67.
Daniel Hoffman, “The Authority of Scripture and Apostolic Doctrine in
Ignatius of Antioch,” JETS 18/1 (March 1985), page 75.
126
Hoffman, op. cit., page 74.
127
Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence, page 152.
125
63
New Testament books provide the largest number of direct
quotations in the letters. Because his references to 1 Corinthians are
relatively clear and numerous, they make us aware of his freedom in
paraphrasing and in using a quotation in changed context.128
Similarly, Robert Grant concludes that “[i]t is very clear that he knew 1
Corinthians practically by heart. It would appear that there are not fewer than
forty six allusions to it in his letters.”129
Notably, 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus and sent to Corinth. But
Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch. So, by the end of the first century, 1
Corinthians had been widely circulated. Not only to Antioch, but to Rome as well.
And, likely, to the destination churches of Ignatius’ own letters.
Grant begins his analysis with Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians:
There is little doubt about a passage like this [Eph. 17:2-18:1]:
Why do we foolishly perish, not recognising the gift
which the Lord has of a truth sent to us? Let my spirit
be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which
is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to
us salvation and life eternal. “Where is the wise man?
where the disputer?” Where is the boasting of those
who are styled prudent?
Here Ignatius is obviously following 1 Corinthians 1:18-20 with
remarkable care.130
Compare Ignatius’ Ephesians 17 with the relevant Pauline passage:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is
written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of
the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise man? Where is the
scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of the world?
1 Cor. 1:18-20.
128
Corwin, op. cit., page 66.
Robert Grant, After the New Testament, page 39.
130
Ibid.
129
64
Grant continues: “[H]e also quotes isolated phrases from the epistle–for example,
in Trallians 12:3 and in Romans 5:1.”131
I need your love, so that I may be judged worthy of the lot which I
am set to obtain, ‘lest I be found a castaway’ [1 Cor. 9:27].
I become more of a disciple because of their wrongdoing, ‘but not by
this am I justified’ [1 Cor. 4:4].”132
Compare with Ignatius:
“[A]nd pray ye for me also, who need your love in the mercy of God, that I
may be thought worthy of the lot to which I press forward to attain, that I
may not be found a castaway.” [Trallians 12:3]
“But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of
Christ]; “yet am I not thereby justified.” [(Ignatius’) Romans 5:1]
There are many other allusions, but these are sufficient to prove reliance.
b. Citation of Ephesians
Many scholars have noted that in his own letter to the Church in Ephesus,
Ignatius relies on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. This conclusion is facially
probable because Ignatius explicitly refers to Paul’s letters which discuss the
Ephesians. Having established Ignatius’s familiarity with Paul’s epistle to the
Ephesians, the introductions to both letters are suspiciously similar. Packed into
the first sentence of Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians and Paul’s Ephesians 1:3-6
are the same or similar Greek terms when referring to Jesus and God the Father,
emphasis on Christians being chosen by God before creation, arguing that the precreation calling was related to showing the Glory of God, and emphasizing that
this was all in accordance with the will of the Father.
The text of Ignatius’ own letter to the Ephesians further supports this point:
[I]n the following verses, Paul develops the theme of the unity of
Christians in Christ. As for Ignatius, he insists on this unity
throughout his letter. It can, therefore, be inferred that, in drafting
the address of his letter, the bishop of Antioch remembered what [he
believed] Paul wrote at the beginning of the epistle that he sent to
this same church at Ephesus. . . . Ignatius seems, therefore, to be
131
132
Jefford, op. cit., page 122.
Robert Grant, op. cit., page 39.
65
inspired by the first sentences of the Pauline epistle; the presence of
the same terms implies his literary dependence on Paul.133
According to Prof. Jefford, “there is even some reason to believe that the bishop
constructed his work according to the framework of the New Testament letter to
Ephesus. In many respects, it is with both the theology and the works of Paul that
we find the key to Ignatius’ own theological speculation and concern for the
Christian life.”134
c. Citation of Galatians
There are several points of contact between Ignatius’ letters and Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians. In his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius warns against
“Judaizers” much the same as Paul did in his letter to the Galatians. Compare
Magn. 8:1 (“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are
unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that
we have not received grace”) with Gal. 5:4 (“You have been severed from Christ,
you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”). The
emphasis on Jewish law and losing grace is suggestive, though not in and of itself
determinative. But compare Ignatius’ Rom. 7:2 (“My lust hath been crucified, and
there is no fire of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking in
me, saying within me, Come to the Father.”) with Gal. 5:24 (“Now those who
belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”) and
Gal. 6:14 (“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the
world.”). Together, these indicate dependence on Galatians.
d. Citation of Philippians
After reciting some of the challenges he had faced, Paul declares, “I can do
all things through Him who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13. Similarly, after
reciting a list of hardships, Ignatius declares, “Though this is difficult, yet Jesus
Christ, our true Life, has power to effect it.” Smyrn. 4:2.
Barnett calls this a “rather clear echo of Phil. 4:13” and states:
The probability that it indicates literary acquaintance is heightened
by the fact that the statement forms the climax of an enumeration of
the suffering Ignatius had endured. Both men testify to their
spiritual empowerment for all trials through their fellowship with
Christ.135
133
Massaux, op. cit., page 106.
Jeffords, op. cit., page 67.
135
Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence, page 164.
134
66
There is also a possible allusion in Smyrn. 11:3 to Phil. 3:15.
e. Citation of Colossians
Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians uses the same Greek terms as Paul’s letters
to the Colossians to describe a fellow servant.
As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and
blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your
honour and that of your bishop.
(Ignatius’) Ephesians 2:1. See also Philad. 4:1, and Smyrn. 12:2.
[J]ust as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bondservant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf,
Col. 1:7
The reliance is firmly established. As Prof. Barnett, notes:
The term sundoulou occurs only in the Pauline letters only in Col. 1:7
and 4:7. In the one instance it is applied to Epaphrus and in the
other to Tychicus. In each case pistos diakonos is a further element in
the characterization. In the letters of Eph. 2:1, Philad. 4:1, and
Smyrn. 12:2, each time in connection with sundoulou. The usage in
these instances strongly suggests acquaintance with Colossians.136
3. The Epistle of Barnabas (80-130 AD)
Place of Origin:
Destination:
Letter Cited:
Alexandria
Unknown
Ephesians
Though the dating of Barnabas is less secure, it stands as evidence that by
the early second century the author of this epistle was aware of and relied on the
Epistle to the Ephesians as authoritative instruction.
Compare Barn. 6:14b-15 (“for He Himself was to be manifested in the flesh
and to dwell in us. For a holy temple unto the Lord, my brethren, is the abode of
our heart.”) with Ephesians 3:17 (“so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
faith”) and Ephesians 2:20-22 (“Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in
whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in
136
Ibid., page154.
67
the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the
Spirit.”). Though the theology of the body being a dwelling place – temple – for
Christ may not be unique enough to indicate direct dependence, the similarities in
the Greek add more weight. The Greek used for “abode” and “dwelling place” is
katoiketerion. The Greek used for “holy temple” is hagios naos. The Greek used
for “heart” is kardia. The correspondence between thought and language clustered
in Ephesians is persuasive.
4. The Epistle of Polycarp (120-130 AD)
Origin:
Smyrna
Destination: Philippi
Letters Cited: Philippians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians,
Galatians, Romans, 1 Timothy (perhaps 2 Timothy and Titus)
Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (in Asia Minor) definitely knew Paul’s
letter to the Philippians, as well as Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Romans, and 1 Timothy, though none of them are related to Smyrna. Professor
Jefford agrees: “In evidence among Polycarp’s sources are the authentic letters of
Paul, the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus), 1 Peter and 1
John.”137 That Polycarp jams so many references to Paul’s epistles into just one
letter is powerful evidence that the Pauline corpus was well-established and
widely circulated by the early second century.
a. Citation of Philippians
In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp explicitly refers to Paul’s Epistle to
the Philippians and demonstrates knowledge of its contents.
For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of
the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and
steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who
were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter,
which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of
building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which,
being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and
Christ, and our neighbor, “is the mother of us all.” For if any one be
inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled the command of
righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin. (Chapter 3).
b. Citation of 1 Corinthians
137
Jefford, op. cit., page 81.
68
In Philippians 11:2, Polycarp makes an explicit reference to the teachings
of 1 Corinthians: “‘Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world?’ as Paul
teaches.” Compare with 1 Cor. 6:2: “Or do you not know that the saints will
judge the world?” There can be no doubt, therefore, that Polycarp and the Church
of Smyrna had this letter. It also suggests that the Church of Philippians knew 1
Corinthians as well.
c. Citations of 2 Corinthians
Compare Polycarp’s Philippians 2:2 (“Now He who raised him from the
dead will also raise us.”) with 2 Cor. 4:14 (“knowing that He who raised the Lord
Jesus will raise us”). The similarities in the Greek are even more suggestive. 2
Cor. 4:14 contains all of the terms present in the corresponding passage. “In
addition to the words `o evgeiras applied to God as in Paul, the kai `hmas is
remarkable: it recalls clearly 2 Cor. and compels recognition of a literary
contact.”138 See also below, where dependence of Phil. 4:1 on 2 Cor. 6:7 (and/or
Roman 6:13) is shown.
d. Citations of Romans
Polycarp’s reference to the “armor of righteousness” also appears to be
dependent on Paul. Paul uses a similar phrase in Rom. 6:13 and 2 Cor. 6:7
(“instrument of righteousness”). In the Greek, “instrument” and “armor” come
from the same Greek word (“hoplon”). Compare Pol. 4:1, oplois ths dikaiosunhs
with 2 Cor. 6:7, oplwn ths dikaiosunhs. The similarities in language would not be
sufficient to claim dependence, but here it is accompanied with the introductory
formula “we know then.” This phrase, and its similar “knowing that,” is meant to
“introduce a reference to a written document.”139 Thus, its use – combined with
the similarities with Romans – indicates that Polycarp relied on Paul’s letter to the
Romans. Further, because the formula only works if the receiving party is also
aware of the letter, it also appears that the Philippian church was in possession of
Paul’s letter to the Romans.
Additional support for Polycarp’s knowledge of Romans is found in
Polycarp 6:2: “we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every
one give an account of himself.” This is very similar to Romans 14:10b, 12: “For
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . . So then each one of us
shall give account of himself to God.” The Greek is nearly identical. For
example, Rom. 14:10: “pantes gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou qeou” (with
Phil. 6:2: “pantas dei parasthnai tw bhmati tou Christou”. Massaux notes that
138
139
Massaux, op. cit., page 36
Ibid., page 35.
69
Polycarp may have changed “gar” to “dei” under the influence of 2 Corinthians,
which Polycarp also knows.
e. Citation of Galatians
Polycarp’s Philippians 5:1: “Knowing then, that “God is not mocked,” we
ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory.” Paul uses the exact same
phrase in Gal. 6:7 (“God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also
reap.”). Moreover, we have Polycarp again signaling a citation by the use of the
phrase, “knowing then.” Additional evidence of literary dependence is that “this
citation is found literally in Gal. 6.7 [ ] in a similar context which invites us to act
according to the law (Gal. 5:14) and which enumerates a series of
prescriptions.”140 Finally, Gal. 6:7 is the only place anywhere in the New
Testament that uses the same Greek verb for “mocked that Polycarp does:
“mukthrizetaix.”
f. Citations of Ephesians
Compare (Polycarp’s) Philippians 1:3 (“knowing that by grace you are
saved, not through works but by the will of God through Jesus Christ”) with
Ephesians 2:5-9 (“even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive
together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), . . . For by grace you have
been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a
result of works, so that no one may boast”). Polycarp once again signals his
dependence on an existing writing by using the phrase “knowing that.” That the
writing being referred to is Ephesians is very likely. Not only are the ideas the
same in the above-referenced verses, but so is the Greek for “by grace you have
been saved” and “not as a result of works.” As Massaux notes, “[t]his observation
is sufficient to allow the assertion that Polycarp depends here on the text of
Eph.”141 Even so, more evidence is available to us. Compare Polycarp’s 12:1
(“Be ye angry, and sin not,” and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”)
with Eph. 4:26 (“Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your
anger.”). Both Polycarp and Ephesians paraphrased two different verses and
linked them together to articulate the same sentiment. Thus, the case for
Polycarp’s dependence on the Letter to the Ephesians is strong. Furthermore, that
Polycarp uses the phrase “knowing that” suggests that Ephesians was known in his
home church of Smyrna, as well as the audience of his letter, the Church in
Philippi.
140
141
Massaux, op. cit., page 36.
Op. cit., page 35.
70
g. Citation of 1 Timothy
Compare (Polycarp’s) Philippians 4:1 (“But the love of money is the root of
all evils. . . . “) with 1 Tim. 6:10 (“For the love of money is the root of all evil.”).
That this is not merely a shared opinion is demonstrated by the fact that Polycarp
immediately follows the phrase with another one from 1 Timothy. (Polycarp’s)
Philippians 4:1 (“Since we know then [that] we have brought nothing into this
world and can take nothing of it either, let us arm ourselves with the armor of
righteousness and learn first to advance in the commandment of the Lord”). As
mentioned above, the phrase “we know then” is an introduction of a literary
citation. Moreover, the passage being introduced quotes verbatim many of the
terms in 1 Tim. 6:10 (“for we brought nothing into the world, for neither can we
carry anything out”).
h. References to 2 Thessalonians
Compare 2 Thessalonians 11:3-4:
We must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters, as
is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of
everyone of you for one another is increasing. Therefore we
ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your
steadfastness and faith during all your persecutions and the
afflictions that you are enduring.
with Polycarp’s Philippians 11:3-4:
But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in
the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are
commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in
all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of
Smyrna] had not yet known Him. . . . And be ye then moderate in
regard to this matter, and "do not count such as enemies," but call
them back as suffering and straying members, that ye may save your
whole body. For by so acting ye shall edify yourselves
Many scholars conclude that there is some form of dependence here
because of 1) the explicit reminiscence of Paul’s letters; 2) the similarities in the
latter half of Phil. 11:4 (Paul boasting about the faithfulness of the church to other
churches); and 3) the similarities between Phil. 11:4 (“be ye then moderate in
regard to this matter, and do not count such as enemies”) and 2 Thess. 3:15 (“Yet
do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”). The problem, of
71
course, is that Polycarp is writing to the church in Philippi and Paul was
addressing 2 Thessalonians to the church in Thessalonica.
Two solutions have been offered. Massaux suggests that “due to a memory
lapse, the Bishop of Smyrna attributed to the Philippians what Paul said about the
Thessalonians.”142 This is certainly possible, especially if Polycarp was writing
based on his memory rather than having all of Paul’s letters spread out before him.
On the other hand, Barnett, following Harnack, believes that “Polycarp knew the
letters of Paul as a collection, and he probably regarded the message of each letter
as for every congregation. He might, therefore, very logically take II Thess. 1:3, 4
as applicable to the Philippians.”143
i. Reference to a Collection of Ignatius’ Letters
Polycarp’s letter is also useful in what it tells us about early Christian
attitudes towards letter collections. From Polycarp 13 we learn that the church in
Philippi had requested that Polycarp send all of Ignatius’ letters to them for their
collection. The significance of this is twofold. If the Philippians were so keen on
collecting the letters of Ignatius, how much more keen would they be on collecting
the letters of the Apostle Paul – writing earlier and with more authority? It seems
that letter collecting was important to the early Church. The second point is that
Polycarp already had a number of Ignatius’ letters – more than the one we know
Ignatius wrote to him. Again, if Ignatius’ letters were already collected by
Polycarp in Smyrna, how much more likely that Paul’s were as well? Thus,
Polycarp’s letter also demonstrates the likelihood of an early Christian effort to
gather a collection of Paul’s letters.
5. 2 Clement (120-140 AD)
Place of Origin:
Rome/Corinth
Destination:
Rome/Corinth
Letters Cited:
1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians
Though the provence and date of 2 Clement is uncertain – either Rome or
Corinth are the most likely places of origin –, this homily provides additional
evidence of the wide circulation of and reliance on 1 and 2 Corinthians and
Galatians in the Christian churches by the early second century.
142
143
Massaux, op. cit., page 40.
Barnett, op. cit., page 179.
72
a. Citation of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Clem. 9:3 (“We must therefore preserve the flesh as the temple of God.”).
As noted by Massaux, the expression “temple of God” applied to the human body
“is quite Pauline.” Massaux, op. cit., page 17. Corresponding Pauline passages
include 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16.
From the point of view of meaning, the parallel closest to this
passage is 1 Cor. 6:19, where the Apostle aims at individual
Christians and recommends purity of their body, just as PseudoClement does in the immediate context (2 Clem. 8:6).144
b. Citation of Galatians
There is also the curious similar use of Isaiah 54:1. In 2 Clement 2:1 and
Galatians 4:27, the authors quote Isaiah 54:1 and equate the church with the barren
woman of Isaiah.
Other specific images and allusions in the homily recall the writings
of Paul. The first is the image of the potter and the clay at 8.1-3. As
observed above, our author presumably borrows this image from
Jeremiah 18. Yet, once again, Paul himself makes a similar allusion
in Romans 9:19-24. Additional parallels may derive from Paul’s
correspondence with the Corinthians. Recall the plea in 2 Clement
7:1-6 that each Christian compete as an athlete of God; this seems to
reflect Paul’s imagery in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. So too our author’s
warning in 3.1 not to worship or make sacrifices to dead gods
probably should be read against Paul’s own command in 1
Corinthians 8:1. And finally, 2 Clement’s association between the
human body as the church into which Christ has come bears
interesting parallels with Paul’s insistence that the body is the temple
of Christ in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. Such imagery strongly suggests
that our author had an extensive knowledge of Paul’s theology, and
probably had access to some form of 1 Corinthians.145
6. Marcion (130 AD)
144
Massaux, op. cit., page 17.
145
Jeffords, op. cit., page 131.
73
Letters Cited:
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
Ephesians, Philemon, Galatians, Colossians, Philippians
Marcion promoted his own – albeit corrupted – collection of Paul’s letters,
which included Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians,
Galatians, Philemon, Colossians, and Philippians. Tertullian provides a detailed,
often line-by-line, response to Marcion’s version of Paul’s canon in his five
volume Against Marcion. Because the evidence of extensive Marcion redactions
to the Pauline epistles is undeniable, his collection of a corrupted version of such
texts in the early second century is strong evidence that there existed a widely
circulated Pauline corpus by the early second century.
7. 2 Peter (mid-first or early-second century AD)
The Second Epistle of Peter is relevant because it mentions at least some of
Paul’s letters.
[R]egard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our
beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to
you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in
which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and
unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their
own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16
Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess the evidence of this letter because its
date and province are so disputed. Tradition favors Petrine authorship and a date
around 65-68 AD. Many contemporary scholars reject Petrine authorship and
accept a date as late as the early-second century. As for its audience, the letter
says simply that it is addressed “[t]o those who have received a faith of the same
kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter
1:1. Nor is it clear which Pauline letters the author of 2 Peter was addressing.
Under either dating, it shows that some of Paul’s letters were known by some
group of Christians and this author had a high view of Paul’s authority (comparing
his letters to “the Scriptures”).
8. Other Second Century Writings
In his indispensable three-volume analysis of the use of the New Testament
scriptures by the early Christian writers, Massaux also concludes that 1) the
Shepard of Hermas (100-160 CE), relies on 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 2
Corinthians, and Romans; 2) the Odes of Solomon (100-200 CE), relies on 1
74
Corinthians, Colossians, Romans, and Philemon (with other allusions likely); and
3) the Christian Sibylline Oracles (second century), relies on Romans and 1
Corinthians. Again, while the province of these documents cannot be firmly
established, they provide further confirmation that Paul’s letters were widely
circulated and considered authoritative by the early second century.
9. Conclusion
This analysis of the early Christian writers firmly establishes the
widespread use, as authoritative, of Paul’s letters by the late-first century to earlysecond century. Indeed, from 1 Clement (94 AD) into the early second century we
Christian writings that does not refer to some of Paul’s letters as authoritative are
exceedingly rare. It seems clear that by the end of the first century at the latest,
the Pauline corpus was widespread and significant enough to demand Luke’s
attention. It is very unlikely that he would ignore them as potential sources
(unless he had better sources – unlikely in the second century) and is just as
unlikely that his audience would not be expecting to hear about the letters.
B.
Did Acts Choose to Ignore Paul’s Letters?
It has been argued by John Knox and others that the author of Acts was
well aware of Paul’s letters but simply chose not to use them because they were
being used by early heretics. Thus, the failure to use the letters is irrelevant to
dating. The main problem with this theory is that the evidence indicates that there
was never any fear of Paul’s letters among the “orthodox.” From 1 Clement, to
Ignatius, to Polycarp, there is no hesitation in using Paul’s letters. Indeed, they are
assumed to be known and respected by the respective destinations of the letters.
In short, the evidence completely contradicts Knox’s proposed explanation.
A related argument that I have encountered on the Internet actually assumes
that Paul’s letters were widely circulated and canonized very early. So early in
fact, that even if written in the first century, the author of Acts must have known
all the letters and simply chose to ignore them. Because he either ignored the
letters in the first century or in the second century, the lack of reliance on Paul’s
letters is deemed irrelevant to its date. This argument, however, likewise fails to
persuade.
As an initial matter, though 2 Peter may be taken as some evidence of an
early circulation and respect for Paul’s letters (most proponents of a late dating of
Acts would also argue for a late dating of 2 Peter), it is simply incomparable to the
evidence for a wide-spread canon of Paul’s epistles in the late-first century to
early-second century. Additionally, even if the letters of Paul were immediately
75
granted wide-spread circulation and respect, it is understandable that a companion
of Paul would write without recourse to his letters, whereas it is very unlikely that
a second-century admirer would. As Prof. Ellis notes, a companion of Paul would
have little need to rely on his letters:
It is conceivable that a companion would present Paul independent
of his letters and in some diversity from them. But would a postapostolic admirer of the Apostle have done so? The apocryphal
‘Acts’ and ‘Apocalypse’ of Paul show that later writers clothed their
‘Paul’ with clear allusions to his letters. The independent case of
Luke-Acts argues against authorship by a later admirer. It lends
some support to Lukan authorship, for only a colleague would write
the story without recourse to Paul’s letters. 146
Indeed, the Acts of Paul not only alludes to Paul’s letters, but it narrates Paul’s
receiving another letter from Corinth and writing a response. Again, this is not
surprising from an author that knew Paul primarily as a letter writer.
Accordingly, the failure of Acts to rely on Paul’s letters remains persuasive
evidence of a first-century composition date.
III. Avoiding Anachronisms
To a rather remarkable degree, Acts is devoid of anachronisms that would
betray second-century authorship. If written into the second century, he again and
again passes up opportunities to betray preceding events.
A proposal that Luke was written about 130 (close to the latest
possible date) would have to concede that the author shut out of his
mind, or at least kept out of his work, at least 50 years’ worth of
events. There is, for example, no reference, even in coded language,
to the persecution of parts of the church under Domitian (in the mid90s). The author of Luke-Acts held the view that God punished the
Jews for rejecting Jesus, and he seems to have seen the destruction
of the temple (70 AD) in this light (see below). But in 115-117 there
were major revolts of the Jews against Rome in Egypt, Cyrene and
Cyprus, revolts which destroyed cities and led to much bloodshed.
There is no hint of further ‘punishment’ of the Jews in Luke-Acts,
which counts as evidence for dating his work before 115-117, and
possibly before the mid-90s. A theory that Luke wrote very late
must be based on the supposition that he successfully maintained his
146
Ellis, op. cit., page 50.
76
focus on an earlier period. Few authors can be entirely successful in
such an effort.147
The flip side of the coin is that Luke’s theology often seems to be what
some call “primitive”:
The picture Luke paints of life in the earliest Palestinian churches is
consistent with what we would expect. Much of the theology which
he attributes to those earliest Christian believers has a far less
sophisticated character than the theology of Paul or the church, later
in the first century. For example, Jesus is still referred to as ‘the
Messiah’ (Christ) in Acts 2:36; 3:20; 4:27, and he can be called ‘the
Servant of God’ (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25-30), or even ‘the Son of Man’
(a title much used by Jesus himself but found nowhere in the rest of
the New Testament except Acts 7:56), and the church itself is ‘the
Way’ (Acts 9:2; 19:9-9, 23; 24:14, 22). . . . [A]ll this as
‘extraordinary realistic … the narratives of Acts are full of elements
taken directly from the life and experience of the church’.148
Also notable is that Acts highlights problems that would have been
irrelevant in the second century, such as the Jewish-Gentile controversy that the
early Church faced as the new faith spread beyond its Jewish beginning.
It is significant that the major interests of the author of Acts are
those prevalent in the earliest period of church history, but which
were not so relevant in later times. The Jewish-Gentile controversy
is dominant and all other evidence apart from Acts suggests that this
was a vital issue only in the period before the fall of Jerusalem.
Even by the time of Paul’s later letters it had ceased to be a burning
issue. Moreover, the question of Gentile inclusion was taken for
granted when once the universal character of the Christian church
had been established. Again, the preoccupation with food
requirements in the report of the decisions of the Jerusalem Council
points to an early stage of Christian development. Before the fall of
Jerusalem all these factors were of vital importance.149
Additionally, as noted above, Acts’ discussion of the relevant legal systems
is remarkably accurate and time appropriate. Most significant is Acts’ treatment
of Paul’s Roman citizenship in general. The importance that Acts places on Paul’s
147
E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, page 17.
John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, page 240.
149
Guthrie, op. cit., page 359.
148
77
Roman citizenship was true during the early to mid first century, but had
dissipated by the end of the first century.
The general importance attributed to the Roman citizenship in Acts
fits the early period . . . . [W]hat calls for attention is the tone, the
indignant tone, in which these things are mentioned, and the alarmed
reaction of those who find that unwittingly they have maltreated a
Roman citizen.150
The significance of Roman citizenship changed by the end of the first
century. As Sherwin-White notes, “[t]he force of this feeling ultimately petered
out with the large extension of the citizenship through the provinces, just as the
privileges of Romans came to be whittled down at a similar rate.”151 Further,
Acts breathes the climate of the earlier phase. Fifty years later the
literary Pliny, though steeped in Cicero, when he comes to deplore
the savagery of proconsul towards Roman citizens forgets to dwell
on their privileged status as citizens, and characteristically for his
generation, concentrates on the social status of a victim who was a
Roman knight, instead of his legal status as a citizen. The dramatic
date of Acts belongs to the period when the spread of Roman status
in the provinces was still on a small scale. The scale of extension
was a matter of great debate at Rome in the time of the emperor
Claudius. There was still organized opposition at Rome to the overrapid extension of Roman privilege in the provinces at that time. In
the half-century after Claudius the tide of extension flooded fast and
high, though, as will presently appear, not so fast or so high in the
eastern provinces as in the west. In references to the citizenship,
Acts get things right both at the general level, in its overall attitude,
and in specific aspects such as were discussed in the last lecture–the
type of names and the centurions, the prevalence of bribery in this
context under Claudius.152
In sum, the absence of obvious anachronisms and correct, time-sensitive
characterizations of the early Church and Roman legal proceedings, adds weight to
a first-century date for authorship.
IV.
The Western Text of Acts
150
A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament,
page 172.
151
Sherwin-White, op. cit., page 173.
152
Ibid.
78
There are two well-attested and early manuscript traditions for the Acts of
the Apostles. The Alexandrian (or Egyptian) text is the one used for our English
translations of Acts. The other, the Western text, is longer and commonly
believed to be an expansion on the Alexandrian text (or a common ancestor). The
primary Greek witness for the Western Text is the Codex Bezae, probably written
in Western Europe during the fifth century. Codex Bezae contains both Greek and
Latin texts of Acts. It is also attested by the Harclean Syriac version:
The Harclean Syrian has frequently been taken to be a revision made
in 616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heracleia) of the Philoxenian version
of 508. Thomas’s revision consisted apparently for the most part in
bringing the Philozenian into line with the prevalent text, but in Acts
he also gives a large number of ‘Western’ readings mainly in
marginal notes (hcl.mb), but also in some 95 asterisked additions in
the body of his text, with the result that, next to D, the Harclean
Syrian is our most important authority for the ‘Western’ text of
Acts.153
Other early evidence includes three partial Greek manuscripts dating from
as early as the third century. “[P38] belongs to the end of the third century or
beginning of the fourth, and its text is decidedly Western.”154 P28 and P48 also
date from the third or fourth centuries and are noteworthy because of their
Egyptian (“Eastern”) origins.155 Earlier still are the Old Syriac and Old Latin
manuscript traditions, “both of which go back to the later decades of the second
century.”156 Significantly, the Syrian and Latin traditions are independent of each
other – attesting to an earlier common source.
Finally, there are the early Christian writers who rely on the Western Text
of Acts. “Early church fathers show familiarity with the Western tradition, among
them Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. In short, the Western tradition
is well-attested in the very early witnesses, some of which date back to the second
century.”157 Fitzmyer notes especially the use of the Western Text by the Latin
Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine.158 He also finds significant the use of
153
Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, pages 71-72.
Ibid., page 72.
155
Ibid.
156
Ibid.
157
John Polhill, Acts (The New American Commentary), pages 39-40.
158
Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, page 70.
154
79
the Western Text by Ephraem of Syria in a commentary dating from the fourth
century.159
Given the diversity of Western Text traditions, scholars put its origins as
early as the mid-second century. C.H. Talbert sees in the Western Text a
persuasive argument for a first-century dating. “[S]ince the Western text of Acts
is very early – at least mid-second century – if Acts is late, there is no time for
these variants to arise.”160
V.
Conclusion
The ending of Acts and patristic references to Acts set a range of possible
composition dates between 62 AD to 120 AD. That Acts shows no dependence on
Paul’s letters – widely used by the early second century – counts towards a firstcentury date. That Acts avoids anachronisms and accurately represents the
significance of Roman citizenship and legal proceedings for that time period
reinforces a first-century date. My conclusions regarding authorship – discussed
in the next section – add further weight to this conclusion. All told, a date
between 62 AD and 90 AD is the best answer to the evidence.
CHAPTER 4: THE AUTHOR OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
Who wrote the Acts of the Apostles? Though the author refers to himself
in the preface and – as we will see – at times in the narrative, he never identifies
himself. Thus, the work is “anonymous.” This term is misleading, however, as
there is no doubt that the first readers and distributors of Acts knew the author’s
identity. Below I will review the so-called “we-sections” of Acts, external
evidence, and further internal evidence, to identify its author.
I.
The We Passages of Acts as Evidence of Authorial Participation
The most important evidence of Acts’ authorship by a companion of Paul is
the “we sections” (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16) – where the author
transitions from describing events in the third person to describing them in the first
person plural. “The most natural explanation is that the author himself was
present during those phases of his story which he records in the 1st pers. – that the
‘we’ of those sections includes the ‘I’ of 1:1. . . . The unobtrusive introduction of
these ‘we’ sections into the main narrative of Acts, by a simple transition from the
3rd pers. to the 1st pers. plur. is best accounted for if this is the author’s delicate
159
Ibid.
C.H. Talbert, “An Introduction to Acts,” Review and Expositor, 441 (Fall
1974).
160
80
indication that at certain points in the course of events he himself joined Paul and
other fellow travelers.”161 Classical historian Robin L. Fox reaches the same
conclusion: “despite attempts by scholars to deny the obvious, it stands out as the
work of a companion of Paul.”162 Accordingly, the best reading of the text
indicates that its author participated in some of the events about which he wrote.
II.
Objections to Authorial Participation
Various objections to the idea that the author of Luke was a companion of
Paul have been offered. None are convincing.
A.
Literary Device to Narrate Sea Voyages
One of the more popular attempts to reject the “we-passages” as evidence
of authorial participation is the theory popularized by Vernon Robbins, that the
first-person plural is a literary device used to narrate sea-voyages and is not meant
to signal the author’s participation. Some commentators – such as Robert Price
and Earl Doherty – have uncritically accepted his theory as established.163 But for
those scholars who have actually taken the time to evaluate the basis of Robbin’s
theory, there appears to be a unanimous conclusion that it lacks merit.164
Available online are two articles refuting this application of Robbins’
theory. The first is mine and concludes:
Critical scholarship’s conclusion that Robbins has failed to
demonstrate that Acts’ “we passages” are the product of a common
161
Bruce, op. cit., page 4.
Fox, op. cit., page 129.
163
Review of Luke: A Critical Study, by Friedrich Schleiermacher ("In light of the
work of Vernon Robbins, who adequately accounts for the "we" passages in Acts
as a convention of ancient sea voyage narratives, may we not recognize and
dismiss the tired old "We Source" as another harmonizing device of the same
type?"), available at http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/schleier.html; Earl Doherty
("The puzzle was solved when Vernon Robbins . . . made a splendidly simple
observation. All such passages in Acts begin with and mostly encompass sea
voyages. . . . Luke is employing a stylistic device of Hellenistic literature."). The
Jesus Puzzle, page 360, fn. 123
164
See Stanley Porter, Paul in Acts, pages 12-24; Susan M. Praeder, "The Problem
of First Person Narration in Acts." NovT 29, pages 193-218 (1987); Joseph
Fitzymer, Luke the Theologian, pages 16-23; Colin Hemer, First Person Narrative
in Acts, 27-28, TB 36, pages 70-109 (1985); Ben Witherington, The Acts of the
Apostles, pages 483-84; C. K. Barrett, "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning
and Method, pages 53-55.
162
81
Hellenistic literary device for portraying sea voyages is borne out.
The examples offered by Robbins fail to support his theory. In fact,
many of them–such as the Voyage of Hanno–actually reiterate that
the use of the first-person plural in a narrative was intended to
communicate authorial participation. Moreover, although there is no
evidence that such a literary device existed, even if it did it does not
appear that Luke employed it. Luke is just as likely to use the firstperson plural to describe events on land and the third-person
perspective to narrate sea voyages. None of Robbin’s proffered
criteria could explain this seeming arbitrary use of the first-person
plural.165
Peter Kirby also provides a persuasive review of Robbin’s theory as applied to the
study of Acts. His conclusion is the same as mine:
There are no known examples of a simply generic first person plural
(where the person speaking is not present but rather employing an
expected style) in an ancient sea voyage story, and this suggests
strongly that an ancient author would not have slipped into the first
person plural in response to a supposed demand of a sea travel genre.
There is no precedent, and, thus, there is no such literary device.166
Thus, Robbins’ theory that the we-passages are not meant to be read as
indicating authorial participation fails.
B.
Literary Device to Emphasize Important Events
Some have argued that the “we-passages” were just a literary device
intended to emphasize important aspects of the ministry of Paul. Others have
argued that perhaps they are simply a false claim to participation to heighten the
author’s stature. Neither theory has much to recommend it.
It is done with the express purpose of suggesting that the author was
in the company of Paul for the whole of the concluding period
covered by the narrative, but was not in his company on any
previous occasion, except for the brief voyage from Troas and the
Christopher E. Price, “The We Passages as a Literary Device or Sea Travel? A
Critique of Vernon Robbins,
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_wepassages.html, accessed on
April 24, 2005.
166
Peter Kirby, “First Person Perspective in Ancient Sea Travel,
http://www.christianorigins.com/wesea.html (accessed on April 24, 2005).
165
82
visit to Philippi years before. That an actual companion of Paul
should have been with him on these occasions, and on these only, is
in no way improbable. That a person, who wished to create the
impression that he had been a companion of Paul in order to give
weight to his story, should limit his claim to be an eye-witness in
this extraordinary way is quite incredible.167
I would add that the most significant omission of the use of the we-passages – if
the purpose was to legitimate the account – is in the Gospel of Luke. In other
words, when Luke is actually narrating the means of salvation, he makes no claim
to participation at all.
C.
A Travel Diary of a Companion of Paul
A more plausible explanation is that the “we sections” reflect the author’s
use of another person’s diary – a person who was a companion of Paul. Though
this would explain the accuracy and vividness of those sections, it ultimately fails
for lack of evidence.
The argument that Luke is quoting or heavily reliant on someone
else’s diary or journal in the ‘we’ passages is weak for the very good
reason that the style, grammar, and vocabulary of the ‘we’ passages
are very much the same as that found elsewhere in Luke-Acts. In
other words, apart from the mere use of ‘we’ itself, the theory of a
non-Lukan source here has little concrete linguistic evidence to
support it.168
J.C. Hawkins’ exhaustive study of the language of Luke and Acts
concluded that there was no literary basis to distinguish the “we” passages
from the rest of Acts as a whole. “[T]here is an immense balance of internal
and external linguistic evidence in favor of the view that the original writer of
these sections was the same person as the main author of the Acts and of the
Third Gospel.”169
Although it could be argued that the author of Acts rewrote the diary in
his own style, it does not explain why he retained the first-person plural. It
167
B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, page 549. See also
Kummel, op. cit., page 131 ("[T]he author hardly would have inserted the 'we' so
sporadically if he intended by these insertions to give his account the appearance
of an eyewitness report."); Ellis, op. cit., page 44 ("Their occurrence is too
occasional and unobtrusive to bear an artificial claim to 'eyewitness status.'").
168
Witherington, op. cit., page 53.
169
Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, page 188.
83
seems unlikely that he would have left it in for emphasis because he never once
hints who the source might be. “Another author incorporating into his history
the diary of an eyewitness would probably have named the writer of so
important a contemporary document, on order to enhance its value in the eyes
of the readers.”170 Furthermore, there does not seem to be any convention for
such use of sources.171 Goodspeed offers additional reasons to doubt the diary
theory:
[N]o evidence has been offered that the ancients kept
diaries; the supposed parallels in Xenophon’s travel notes-so
many days, so many stages, so many parasangs-is not a case in
point, but quite the contrary. There we have Xenophon, a literary
man, making his own travel notes and later using them himself,
exactly as Luke seems to have done.
And, further, what a marvel it would be for such a diary,
kept supposedly by one of Paul’s travel companions, to have
survived for thirty or forty years and then fallen into the hands of
the man who had conceived the idea of writing the history of
those travels! And above all, how strange it is that, in using it, he
should have forgotten that it was not his own work and
mistakenly copied the first persons unaltered in it in seventyseven instances, when he should of course have changed every
one of them to the third person! We must here remember that this
author of Luke-Acts is no stranger to us, for we have seen him
carefully using the Gospel of Mark and other sources in his
gospel and making no such crude blunders as this.
On the whole, it is safe to say that the idea that the wesections were drawn by the author from somebody else’s diary
must be given up, simply because it involves such a series of
improbabilities, none of which has been grappled with, much less
answered, by its advocates. 172
D.
Theological Differences
170
Bruce, op. cit., page 4.
Ellis, op. cit., page 44 ("[T]here are few, if any, parallels in ancient writings for
a writer to use another's notes in this fashion.").
172
Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, pages 201-02
(University of Chicago Press 1937), available online at
www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch12.html
171
84
Another objection that is often raised against the authorial-participation
theory is the supposed irreconcilable theological differences between Paul and
the author of Acts. This counter argument fails for a number of reasons.
First, it rests on the false premise that all of Paul’s companions agree
with – and express in the same terms – all of Paul’s theological beliefs for their
entire lives.
The lack of an authentic ‘Paulinism’ in Luke is no counter-argument
against the later traveling companion and eyewitness. Not every
one of Paul’s traveling companions need have remained
theologically and authentically “Paulinist” all his life. In the case of
Luke, contact with the bearers of the specific Palestinian Jesus
tradition which he worked into his Gospel will also have brought
about a certain theological change of position, possibly already
during the time of Paul’s captivity in Caesarea.173
Further, “[w]e cannot know to what extent Paul was understood by his
companions in his specific theology.”174
Second, this argument ignores the important points of agreement
between Acts and Paul, even on matters of theological perspective. The author
of Acts demonstrates familiarity with core beliefs stated in Paul’s letters (such
as salvation by faith, the Eucharist, the Gentile mission, and resistance to
circumcision for gentiles).
Third, though informative, Paul’s letters are not an exhaustive
articulation of his theological beliefs. They were written mainly to people who
had already converted to Christianity and in response to specific occasions,
such as the eruption of potential heresy or divisions. On the other hand, much
of Acts recounts Paul’s missionary activities to unbelievers. Additionally, the
author of Acts was writing with his own theological perspective. We should
not expect him to necessarily share Paul’s focus in his letters, but must
recognize that he had his own story to tell. It is naïve to expect complete
harmony from accounts with such disparate ends.
Finally, if Acts is dated after the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), the usual
arguments about theological differences fail to account for the passage of time
and occurrence of significant events.
Against this, however, is urged that the writer cannot have been a
follower and companion of Paul, for he is not a good Paulinist
and the picture he gives of Paul’s attitude to Jewish ritual is
hopelessly out of keeping with Paul’s own account of it in
173
174
Hengel, op. cit., page 9.
Feine-Behm Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, page 129.
85
Galatians and elsewhere. But with the lapse of time the Jewish
question had ceased to be important in the early church; it had
become a dead issue. The passage of time has precisely the same
effect upon modern writers who deal with events in which they
have participated; it would be easy to illustrate this. The mistake
we have been making about the Acts is that we have dated it too
early; in a document contemporary with Paul such a picture of
his attitude toward Judaism is indeed inconceivable in one of his
followers or in anyone else. But the Acts was not written in
Paul’s day, as we have seen. Changing issues in a living
movement would lead any writer, whether a companion of Paul
or not, to changed interests and emphases….
Surely it is in the highest degree artificial to turn away
from the natural interpretation of the We-narratives and regard
them with suspicion and distrust as though the writing of LukeActs were a crime, the perpetrator of which had taken great pains
to cover his tracks and conceal his identity. The objections
usually urged against the Lucan authorship of Luke-Acts fade out
when the true date of the work is perceived. They are all
sufficiently explained by the lapse of a generation.175
E.
Different Portraits of Paul
There are a series of related arguments complaining of differences
between the portrayals of Paul in Acts and Paul in his own letters. For
convenience, I shall refer to the arguments made by an Internet commentator,
who has amassed these arguments on one site.176 Ultimately, all of the
arguments rest on the premise that no companion of Paul could have portrayed
Paul so drastically different than Paul portrays himself. There are a couple of
basic problems with this premise. First, Paul’s letters were highly occasional.
He wrote not to give a comprehensive history of his life or a systemic
theological presentation of his beliefs, but in response to specific problems or
issues that had arisen. In short, they cannot be assumed to give us a complete
and accurate portrayal of Paul. Second, even a companion of Paul would write
with his own purposes and his own understanding of theology and events. A
companion of Paul who was apparently not a convert of Paul, who traveled
with him only occasionally, who had significant contact with other prominent
early Christian leaders, and who was writing possibly decades after Paul’s
175
Goodspeed, op. cit., pages 202-04.
“The Unhistorical Portrayal of Paul in Acts,” available online at
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukepaul.html (accessed July 5, 2005).
176
86
death, should not be assumed to share slavishly Paul’s perspective and view of
events.
1. Paul as an Apostle
One of the less impressive arguments against Lukan authorship of Acts is
that Luke and Paul disagree on what it means to be an apostle. There is no doubt
that Paul claimed to be an apostle because he was called by Jesus to serve as a
messenger to the Gentiles. Paul’s role as an apostle is attested in the following
places: Rom 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 12:12; Gal. 1:1; Eph.
1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1:11; and Titus 1:1. While it is true that
in 1 Cor. 15:9, Paul associates his being an apostle with being commissioned by
the risen Jesus, it is also true that this is not the only way in which he uses the
term. The world itself is something akin to “sent messenger.” Paul refers to
apostles (“apostolos”) that he has sent out as his representatives to another church
in 2 Cor. 8:23. A similar usage of the term is found in Phil. 2:25. This also
appears to be his use of “apostles” in 1 Thess. 2:6. Some of the rest of the
references do not lend themselves to an easy understanding of the precise
definition beyond being specially called to act as a representative of Christ, mostly
likely in the founding of churches.
The situation is further muddied by yet more variety in the use of the term
among early Christians. A curious example of how the term could be used
differently comes from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author of Hebrews refers
to Jesus himself as “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” (Heb. 3:1).
The Gospel of Matthew uses it to refer to the twelve disciples (Mat. 10:2), as does
the Gospel of Mark (Mark 6:30). The usage in Mark is interesting in its focus on
being sent by Jesus. The twelve are sent out as “disciples” but when they return
from their missions they are “apostles.” (Mark 6:7, 30). Given the temporal
primacy of Mark and the popularity of Matthew, this association of the term with
the Twelve was, at the least, quite common in the early Christian churches. Luke,
for the most part, follows Matthew and Mark by using “apostles” to generally refer
to the Twelve.
One skeptic argues: “In Acts, however, the apostleship was presented as an
office which could only be conferred on someone who had been with Jesus when
he was alive and must be one of the twelve.” But this case is overstated. The
verses he cites to claim that Acts unequivocally states that no one could be an
apostle without having broken bread with Jesus are not applicable. In Acts 1:2125, Peter describes how the Twelve chose a successor to Judas. Although Peter
says that Matthias will take his place in this “ministry and apostleship” from
which Judas turned aside, he does not equate “apostleship” exclusively with being
a member of the Twelve anymore than he equates having a “ministry” exclusively
with being a member of the Twelve.
87
The skeptic’s other reference, Acts 10:41, does not mention any “criterion
for apostleship.” In fact, it does not refer to apostleship at all. The same is true of
Acts 13:30-31. Therein, Acts refers to those who followed Jesus from Galilee
through the resurrection. They are witnesses (“martus”) to Jesus’ ministry and
resurrection, not necessarily apostles. Nowhere is Paul “made to accept” that he is
not an apostle because he did not follow Jesus from Galilee through his
resurrection. Additionally, as the skeptic must concede (albeit in tiny print in an
endnote), the author of Acts specifically refers to Paul as an apostle twice in Acts
14:4 and 14:
“But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and
some with the apostles,” and,
“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes
and rushed out into the crowd, crying out.”
The commentator argues that it is irrelevant that Acts specifically refers to
Paul as an apostle on two occasions because the author is relying on a source for
verse 14. Of course, the author of Acts is also relying on a source (Mark) and his
usage in Luke when he refers to the Twelve as apostles. And here we perhaps
have the crux of the explanation. The author of Acts is somewhat boxed in by the
established usage of the term “apostles” in his most important gospel source,
Mark. Having faithfully followed Mark’s use of the term in the Gospel of Luke
(and consistent with Matthew and most likely a widely established usage at the
time he wrote), the author of Acts continues to use the same term in the same way
in his second volume. Nothing about this is inconsistent with the author having
been a companion of Paul. Simply because the author traveled with Paul on
occasion does not mean that he was obligated to make an issue out of how the
term apostle was used.
If it is true – as many claim – that the author of Acts was attempting to
portray a positive portrait of the early Church, and if there was a more accepted
understanding of the term “apostle,” why is he obligated to rock the boat? There
is no compelling reason to pick such a fight. Even if it were not a point of
contention at the time he wrote, why would he be obligated to use the term in a
way that might confuse a good portion of his readers? He is not. Moreover, the
author of Acts may simply have wanted to be consistent in how he used the terms
in both volumes. Following his primary gospel source he used “apostles” to refer
to the Twelve and, rather than jump ships midstream, continued with that usage of
the term in Acts. Surely even a friend of Paul could use the term apostle in the
same way he used it in his first volume without denigrating Paul. Afterall, Acts
was written probably 10 or 15 years after Paul’s death. It is not a biography of
Paul or even a defense of his ministry. Rather, it is a history of the progress of the
88
gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Peter, James, and John carry the torch in the first
half. Paul in the second.
In any event, whatever the subtleties of Acts’ and Paul’s use of the term
“apostle,” they both agree about the facts underlying the basis of Paul’s apostolic
claim. Paul encountered the risen Jesus and was given special authority to be his
messenger to the Gentiles. Thereafter, Paul carried out a successful ministry to the
Gentiles. As F.F. Bruce notes, “when Paul in letters argues for the validity of his
apostleship by an appeal to his achievements, the record of Acts provides
abundant independent confirmation of his argument.”177
Finally, let us return to our two exceptions in Acts – where the author does
refer explicitly to Paul as an apostle. While we probably cannot know why the
author of Acts slips into using the term to refer to Paul, what vs. 4 and 14 do tell
us is that the author was not ignorant of Paul’s usage of the term. Paul thought of
himself as an apostle. 1 Cor. 9:6 reveals that Paul thought Barnabas was one as
well. The author of Acts knows that Paul was called an apostle. He apparently
knows that Barnabas was called one as well.
In sum, there is no reason to doubt the authorship of Acts by a companion
of Paul because of how he uses the term apostle.
2. Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem
Another argument raised by the commentator is that there “is also a
discrepancy in the actual timing of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem.” Here is how
Paul describes the timing of that visit:
But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called
me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I
might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any
human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already
apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and
afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go
up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but
I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:15-19.
177
F.F. Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 156.
89
According to the skeptic, “in Paul’s own words, he did not go to Jerusalem until
three years after his conversion. Paul’s itinerary here is Damascus-ArabiaDamascus-Jerusalem. The first Damascus is implied since Paul said he went back
there.”
As an initial point, the ancients often counted years inclusively. So part of
a year could count as a year. (See also v. 43). As a result, even Paul is a little
vague about the amount of time he waited before going to Jerusalem after his
conversion. It was at least two full years, but beyond that we cannot be more
specific.178
In any event, does Acts contradict this two-to-three year period between
Paul’s conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem? According to this commentator,
the answer must be yes.
The picture painted by Acts is very different. Acts chapter 9 narrated
Paul’s conversion on the way to Damascus (9:1-10). He was
miraculously healed a Christian in Damascus called Ananias (9:1019) and "for several days" (9:19) preached in Damascus. Then "after
some time" the Jews plotted to kill him and Paul had to escape in a
basket lowered from the city wall. (9:23-25). Then Paul’s trip to
Jerusalem followed in Acts 9:26. Thus there is no mention of a trip
to Arabia and certainly no indication that three years had passed.
It is clear, however, that there is no contradiction here because Acts does not tell
us how long Paul was in Damascus. Just ask this question: What is the difference
in time between how long Acts says Paul waited before going to Jerusalem and
how long Paul says he waited before going to Jerusalem? Cannot answer the
question? That is because Acts does not tell us how long Paul waited before going
to Jerusalem. Either he did not know or did not think it worth mentioning.
Ancient historians were wont to summarize and generalize, especially if they
lacked exact information; but sometimes simply to move the narrative along.
Furthermore, when we look at what Acts actually says about Paul’s stay in
Damascus, it is clear that there is no contradiction – Acts also contemplates a
lengthy period of time before Paul goes to Jerusalem.
For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and
immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying,
"He is the Son of God." All who heard him were amazed and said,
"Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who
178
F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, page 241.
90
invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of
bringing them bound before the chief priests?" Saul became
increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in
Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. After some time
had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known
to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they
might kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down
through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.
Acts 9:19-23.
It must be conceded of course that Acts does not explicitly refer to a trip to
Arabia, but omission of such a tangential subject is hardly surprising and does not
preclude authorship by someone who knew Paul. Luke had his reasons for writing
Acts, and it was not to write an exhaustive biography of Paul. “Here as elsewhere
Luke operates as a Hellenistic historian, not as a biographer. He is interested in
significant deeds that affected the flow of history, not in biographical vignettes.”179
Not even Paul details how long he was in Arabia or for what reason. His focus too
is Damascus. Moreover, though unnecessary for a defense of Lukan authorship,
some commentators have noted that the mention of two temporal indicators by
Acts (v. 19b, “now for several days he was with the disciples in Damascus” and v.
23, “when many days had elapsed”) indicates an interruption of Paul’s say in
Damascus, such as for a trip to Arabia.
Turning our attention to the length of time in Acts that Paul delayed going
to Jerusalem, the argument against authorship rests on the assumption that the
phrase “after some time had passed” must mean a period of less than two years.
But such a conclusion is baseless. As Gerd Ludemann notes, this phrase is “a
common Lukan indication of time” that “permits no conclusion regarding
specifications of periods of time in Acts or regarding Luke’s knowledge of
such.”180 Martin Hengel notes that the use of this phrase “with a temporal
meaning is a favourite word of Luke’s and indicates a lengthy period of time.”181
The phrase is used in Acts 18:18 for a period of about a year and half.
Interestingly, this phrase is used in 1 Kings 2:38 to refer to a period of three years.
Although chronologically imprecise, Luke does give a couple of clues
suggesting that Paul’s stay in Damascus was lengthy. Paul “became increasingly
powerful” in his public speaking. More significant is that when Paul’s life was
threatened, “his disciples” acted to deliver him. As John B. Polhill notes, “that
179
Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, page 323, n. 77.
Gerd Ludemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, page
241.
181
Hengel, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, page 345-46, n. 219.
180
91
Paul had ‘disciples’ at this point is somewhat surprising.”182 Of course, if Paul
had spent at least two-three years preaching and converting Jews at the
Synagogue, he could have acquired disciples while in Damascus. A short stay in
Damascus for Paul would not seem to leave time for Paul to acquire his own
disciples.
Clearly, therefore, the commentator is wrong to argue that Acts and Paul
disagree over the period of time between Paul’s conversion and his first visit to
Jerusalem. To the extent the account in Acts’ suggests a time period, it is a
lengthy one that does not at all contradict Paul’s two-to-three year period.
However, this does not resolve all of the tension between Acts and
Galatians. Acts says that Paul met with “the apostles” (Acts 9:27), whereas
Galatians says he met only with James and Peter (Gal. 2:9). Luke is likely
generalizing here as writers of ancient historiography are wont to do. In fact,
Bruce mentions that Luke may be using a “generalizing plural” in his reference to
the apostles.183 Nothing about such a generalization would count against
authorship by a companion of Paul. Indeed, even if this is not a generalization, it
could be argued that Luke is relying on a Pauline source here given that Paul
would have considered Peter and James to be “apostles.”
Finally, after Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, he remarks that he was “still
unknown by sight to the churches of Judea.” (Gal. 1:22). In Acts, however, Paul is
said to have persecuted the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1ff). Even so, it first has
to be remembered that Paul himself claims to have wrecked great havoc on the
Church prior to his conversion (Gal. 1:13). Moreover, if not being known by sight
is to be taken to mean by the Christians in Jerusalem, Paul would be contradicting
his own statement about spending 15 days with Peter and meeting James (Gal.
3:18-19). So, there are good reasons to believe Paul meant something other than
to say that no Christian in Jerusalem had seen him. As James Dunn explains,
“[s]ince Paul must have been ‘seen’ by at least a few of the (non-leading)
Jerusalem believers, ‘the churches in Judea’ presumably were not intended to
include Jerusalem with which he had already dealt.”184 Dunn also provides several
helpful examples of generalized references to Judea as distinct from Jerusalem:
Matt. 3:5; 4:25; John 3:22; Acts 10:39. Even Josephus makes such a distinction in
Antiquities 10:184. Accordingly, that Paul was not known by site to the churches
in Judea does not foreclose the fact that Paul was known to some Christians in
Jerusalem. Thus, there is no reason, based on these verses, to doubt Lukan
authorship.
182
John Polhill, The New American Commentary, Acts, page 241.
F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, page 243.
184
James D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, page 81.
183
92
3. Paul the Orator
Next up in the commentator’s arguments against Lukan authorship is the
supposed disagreement between Paul’s rhetorical skills as depicted in Acts and in
Paul’s letters. According to the commentator, “Paul is everywhere presented in
Acts as an outstanding orator. He defended himself with eloquence in front of
Tertullus (Acts 24:1-21). Through his mastery of public speaking, Paul was able to
keep a tumultuous Jewish crowd silent for some time (Acts 21:40-22:21).” But,
“the picture we get from Paul’s own letters is the exact opposite! Paul himself
recounted his opponents’ critique of him: “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty
and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech
contemptible." 2 Cor. 10:10.
This argument presumes to judge the speaking skills of Paul – in the
running for the most influential evangelist of all time – from 2,000 years distance
based on the insults cast by Paul’s enemies. Why should we take Paul’s enemies
at their word? Afterall, Paul pushes back. To those who concede the strength of
his letters while diminishing the power of his oration, Paul warns, “Let such
people understand that what we say by letter when absent, we will also do when
present.” 2 Cor. 10:11. That does not sound like a concession. Additionally,
“[t]here are those who take this and others as his utilization of the categories of
rhetoric, especially that of assuming a suitable level of humility with regard to his
oratorical skill. This is especially appropriate in a book such as 2 Corinthians,
where Paul wishes to be seen boasting not in his own abilities, but in what has
been accomplished among the believers in Corinth – they are his
commendation.”185 Note Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 3:1-3:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as
some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our
letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being
manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not
with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone
but on tablets of human hearts.
Furthermore, Corinth itself was a city known for the high value it placed on
formal rhetoric. Their accusation against Paul could be nothing more than the
snobbish assessment that Paul was not as skilled in formal rhetoric as they were.
Another significant factor to consider is Paul’s success as an evangelist. Paul was
not simply a letter writer, he was a founder of churches. If Paul was such a failure
at public speaking, how did he establish so many churches in so many different
cities? Could Paul have been such a successful evangelist if he was a pathetic
185
Stanley E. Porter, Paul in Acts, page 196.
93
speaker? Very unlikely. Especially when the only countervailing evidence is an
insult cast against Paul by his enemies that Paul rejects. Furthermore, to laud
Paul’s letters but not his orator skill is problematic. “[T]here is a basic
contradiction in this criticism, since the theological content of his preaching must
have been overwhelming: otherwise he could not have written such letters and
have been successful as a missionary.”186
In the final analysis, however, this argument is simply not very relevant to
the issue of authorship. Having chosen to select Paul as his hero for the second
half of Acts, the author – even if a companion of Paul – is not obligated to portray
Paul as a bumbling idiot of a speaker. Of course, a bumbling idiot of a speaker
would not have been the successful evangelist that Paul was, and would not have
merited such a place in Acts’ history in the first place. Stacked up against such a
weight of counter evidence, the statement in 2 Cor. 10:10, is insufficient to raise
an issue as to Lukan authorship.
4. Paul the Miracle Worker
It is also argued that Paul portrays Acts as a miracle worker while Paul’s
letters do not.
Acts presents Paul as a miracle worker. The performance of miracles
forms a major part of Paul’s apostleship. He was supposed to have
made a blind man see again (Acts 13:6-12), to have enabled a cripple
to walk (Acts 14:8-10) and to have raised a young man from the
dead (Acts 20:7-2). Even his handkerchief had miraculous powers
(Acts 19:12)! His miraculous powers also enabled him to survive
stoning unscathed, although those who stoned him thought he was
dead (Acts 14:19-20) and to survive what would have been a lethal
snakebite (Acts 28:3-6).
This argument begins by overstating Acts’ portrayal of Paul as a miracle
worker. It is true that the author of Acts narrates the performance of three
miracles by Paul (Acts 13:6-12; 14:8-10; 20:7-12), as well as the people healed by
contact with clothing that had been in contact with Paul (Acts 19:12). This latter,
however, is more similar to the purported healing effects of relics or sacred shrines
than portraying Paul himself as a miracle worker. The raising of the dead boy is
portrayed as a miracle, but it is soft pedaled as Paul himself says that the boys’
spirit had not left him. Regarding Paul supposedly surviving (it nowhere says that
he was unscathed) stoning by “miraculous powers,” Acts 14:19-20 does not
attribute Paul’s survival to his miracle working. Even if the statement, “But when
the disciples surrounded him, he got up and went into the city,” means to imply
186
Hengel, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, pages 3-4.
94
the laying on of hands and healing of Paul (which I doubt), the miracle working is
not done by Paul. In fact, by stressing that Paul only appeared to be dead, the
author of Acts appears to be ruling out a miracle altogether. Further, we know
from Paul’s own letters that he survived many beatings, including a stoning. 1
Cor. 11:25.
Finally, as noted by Stanley Porter, there is decidedly less emphasis on
miracles in the “we-passages” than in the rest of Acts, as well as the fact that the
“we-passages” often pass over opportunities to embellish Paul’s miracle working.
(“The author of the ‘we’ source provides a credible portrait of Paul the apostle,
without exaggeration or embellishment. Not only is Paul not depicted as a miracle
worker, but clear opportunities to depict him as such are passed by.”187). So,
compared to the miracle working of his first volume, Acts is actually quite tame.
Next, the commentator states:
Yet we find very little of such claims of miracles in the authentic
epistles. In his own statements about this Paul used vague terms like
"signs of the Apostle" (II Corinthians 12:12), "demonstration of the
Spirit and of power" (I Corinthians 2:4) and "the power of signs and
wonders" (Romans 15:18-19). Paul’s tone in these remarks was
generally defensive, showing us that these were made in defense
against some accusations of his opponents. In II Corinthians
(chapters 10-12) for instance, he was defending against the critiques
of his presence and public speaking skills (10:7-11), of his status as
an apostle (11:7-15) and that he was granted no vision (12:1-10).
Within this context then, the criticism which forced Paul into verse
12:12 must be that he had performed few and unimpressive miracles.
This argument is wrong on at least two counts. First, there is no evidence that
Paul’s opponents denied he performed miracles. Second, Paul clearly claims to
have performed miracles.
The skeptical commentator vaguely claims that Paul was being “defensive”
about something when he discussed his miracles. The only example he gives,
however, has Paul defending himself about his public speaking skills. Nothing is
said about his miracle working. Indeed, if anything, the miracle working is
conceded. In fact, there is no evidence in any of Paul’s letters that he was accused
of an inability to perform miracles. Instead, Paul’s performance of miracles seems
assumed by those he writes to and is expressly claimed by Paul himself.
187
Porter, Paul in Acts, page 62
95
First, let us look closer at 2 Corinthians. Therein, Paul states that he
performed the “signs of a true apostle” among them.
Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this
reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn
in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from
exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times
that it might leave me. And He has said to me, "My grace is
sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly,
therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power
of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with
weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with
difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect
was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a
nobody. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you
with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.
2 Corinthians 12:7-12.
There is no doubt that Paul here is claiming that he performed miracles among the
Corinthians. In addition to referring to “signs and wonders” (about which see
more below), Paul also refers to miracles. This term, "dunamis," is used elsewhere
to refer to miracles, not visions or speaking in tongues. Consider Heb 2:4 (“God
also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and
by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.”) especially, as well as Luke
10:13 (“For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred
in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.”); Mark
6:2 (“Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him,
and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”); Matthew 11:23; Acts 2:22
(miracles performed by Jesus) and, perhaps most notably, Acts 19:11 to refer to
the miracles performed by Paul (“God was performing extraordinary miracles by
the hands of Paul,”). Given our comparison of Acts and Paul’s letters, the use of
the same language for miracles by Paul in Acts as used by Paul to refer to the
miracles he performed is all the more relevant.
Additional evidence of Paul’s status as a miracle worker is gained from his
first letter to the Corinthians:
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ,
and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in
much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in
96
persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power. . . .
1 Corinthians 2:2-4.
According to Graham H. Twelftree, “[i]n contrasting his weakness, fear and
spoken word with the demonstration of the gospel, Paul is probably referring not
only to the Corinthians’ encounter with God’s power to transform their lives in
conversion, . . . but also to the miracles involved in his mission as the
demonstration or proof of his gospel (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9-10; 1 Thess. 1:9). For in
Romans 15:19 the power of the Holy Spirit is paralleled with the power of signs
and wonders, and when the Galatians received Paul’s message they experienced
the gift of the Spirit and miracles.”188 Given Twelftree’s reference to Romans, we
turn there next.
Therefore in Christ Jesus I have found reason for boasting in things
pertaining to God. For I will not presume to speak of anything
except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the
obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, in the power of signs
and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem
and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel
of Christ.
Romans 15:17-19.
Paul claims that miracles were performed “through me.” Though it has
been suggested that perhaps Paul is only referring to visions or feeling the
powerful presence of God, the language of “signs and wonders” is typical
Jewish language for miracles.189 It is used before Paul in the LXX and after
Paul throughout the rest of the New Testament, to refer to miracles. Not to
visions. Regarding the LXX, consider the references to the miracles performed
by Moses: Exod. 7:3; Deut. 4:34; 29:2; 34:11; Ps 135:9; and, Isa. 8:18. In the
NT, consider John 4:48 (Jesus’ healing a very sick child); Matthew 24:24
(wonders performed by false prophets); Acts 4:30 (healing miracles performed
by the disciples); 14:3 (miracles performed “by the hands” of Paul and
Barnabas); 15:12 (miracles performed by Paul and Barnabas). For the same
terms, but reversed ("wonders and signs"), consider Acts 2:22 (miracles
performed by Jesus), 43 (miracles performed by the apostles); 7:36 (miracles
performed during the Exodus). That Paul came up with his very own unique
Graham Twelftree, “Signs, Wonders, Miracles,” in Paul and His Letters, page
876.
189
Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, page 713.
188
97
meaning for this phrase that was unrelated to how Jews and Christians alike
used it is unlikely.
The similarity of Rom. 15 to Paul’s reference to the power of God’s spirit
through him in 1 Corinthians 2:4 is all the more reason to read that verse as
referring to Paul’s performance of miracles.190
So, Paul three times claims to churches he founded that he performed
miracles amongst them. In fact, the miracles he performed played a role in
convincing them to follow Christ and in the founding of their churches. This
claim was made to people who would have known if they were baseless.
Additionally, Paul claims to the Christians in Rome that he has performed
miracles. Accordingly, Paul clearly and explicitly claimed to have performed
miracles as part of his work in establishing churches.
Thus, arguments against Lukan’s authorship based on the supposed
difference in portrayals of Paul’s miracle working are baseless. Even if some of
Paul’s enemies denied he had performed any miracles – and there is no evidence
of this – Paul’s letters clearly showed that he believed he had performed miracles
and that some in the churches he founded agreed with him. Why would Luke, a
companion and friend of Paul, side with Paul’s opponents against the word of Paul
himself?
5. The Jerusalem Council
Some have argued that Luke could not have written Acts because of the
different ways in which Acts and Paul describe the Jerusalem Council.
However, the author of Acts does not claim to have been present at the
Jerusalem Council. Moreover, this argument assumes that the events depicted
in Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) correspond with the events described by
190
There is another likely reference to miracles in 1 Thessalonians:
Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians
in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.
We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you
in our prayers; constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and
labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in
the presence of our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by
God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word
only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full
conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be
among you for your sake.
1 Thessalonians 1:1-5.
Paul is clear that he did not just preach, but convinced them of the Gospel
“in power and in the Holy Spirit.” Again Paul is claiming before and audience
that would know that he performed miracles in their midst.
98
Paul in Galatians 2 (Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem Church “pillars”). Here
is how they see the trips to Jerusalem playing out:
1. Acts 9:26-28 = Gal. 1:18-20 (First Post-Conversion Trip to Jerusalem).
2. Acts 11:27-30 = No Pauline Corollary (Famine Visit).
3. Acts 15:2-30 = Gal. 2:1-10 (the Jerusalem Council).
4. Galatians written to Northern Galatian churches founded on Paul’s 2nd
missionary journey.
The problem usually raised is that Acts’ account of the Jerusalem
Council differs too much from Paul’s account in Galatians. Paul recounts a
private meeting with John, James, and Peter addressing the issue of
circumcision, whereas Acts recounts a bigger meeting about gentile adherence
to the law, with the circumcision party as well as the broader leadership of the
Jerusalem Church (including James and Peter) participating. It is also argued
that Paul is clear that at the time he wrote he had made only two postconversion trips to Jerusalem, whereas Acts lists at least three by that time.
As an initial matter, a number of scholars have recognized the
differences in the two accounts while still accepting Lukan authorship. Joseph
Fitzmyer, for example, accepts Lukan authorship but equates Acts 15 with
Galatians 2. He notes the differences but concludes that, “None of these
differences . . . is significant enough to undermine the substantial agreement of
the two reports, Lucan and Pauline.”191 Martin Hengel also emphasizes the
similarities. While acknowledging disagreements between the two accounts,
Hengel emphasizes the different perspectives and, quite different, motives
driving the respective accounts.192 Fitzmyer and Hengel also believe that Luke
used sources in addition to Paul to recount the events in Jerusalem relating to
the Gentile controversy. Nothing about the differences, in the opinion of some
of the most respected New Testament scholars, necessarily precludes Lukan
authorship.
A significant minority of scholars, however, believes that the above
time-table is flawed in its assessment of the writing of Galatians. Although it
is generally agreed that the Jerusalem Council took place around 49-50 AD,
many highly respected New Testament scholars – F.F. Bruce and Richard
Longenecker among them – believe that Galatians was written before the
Jerusalem Council even took place: around 48-49 AD. As a result, Gal. 2 is
not to be equated with Acts 15, but with Acts 11 (the Famine Visit). The timetable of this theory is as follows:
191
Joseph Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, page 540. See also John B. Polhill, Acts
(The New American Commentary).
192
Martin Hengel, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, pages 204-21.
99
1. Acts 9:26-28 = Gal. 1:18-20 (First Post-Conversion Trip to Jerusalem).
2. Acts 11:27-30 = Gal. 2:1-10 (Famine Visit + Private Meeting with Pillars).
3. Galatians written to Southern Galatian churches founded on Paul’s 1st
missionary journey.
4. Acts 15:2-30 = No Pauline Corollary (the Jerusalem Council).
In this scenario, Paul traveled to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus with
money from the Antioch church to assist those suffering from famine in
Jerusalem. Acts 11 notes that there were prophets who had earlier told of a
widespread famine. As a result, the Antioch church collected together relief and
sent it with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. This correlates well with the
otherwise unexplained statement in Galatians 2 that they went up to Jerusalem
“because of a revelation.” It also would explain the final exchange between the
pillars and Paul as Paul was returning to Antioch: “They only asked us to
remember the poor–the very thing I also was eager to do.”
Thus, it appears that Paul traveled to Jerusalem because of the revelation
about providing relief to the poorer church there. While in Jerusalem, the issue of
circumcision came up in a private meeting with James, Peter, and John. At the
conclusion of the trip, the pillars ask Paul to remember the poor and Paul notes
that this was already what he was intent on doing.
There are other issues, such as indicia in Galatians that it was written very
early, that it was written to churches in Southern Galatia, and that it was written
before Paul’s second missionary journey. Fuller-length treatments of these issues
can be found in Ben Witherington’s commentary on Galatia, Grace in Galatia,
and David Wenham’s article in The Acts of the Apostles in its Ancient Literary
Setting.193 All told, “[t]he simplest solution which results in the most satisfactory
and convincing reconstruction and leaves the fewest loose ends . . . is that
Galatians 2:1-10 corresponds to the “famine visit” of Acts 11:30.”194
III.
Additional Internal Evidence of Authorship
A.
Detail in the “We Passages”
Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia, pages 2-20; David Wenham, “Acts and
the Pauline Corpus,” in The Book of Acts in its Literary Setting, pages, 226-43.
See also F.F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems,” BJRL, 51-55; Colin Hemer, The Book
of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, pages 247-70, 277-307; Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pages 465-83. There is also a helpful
overview of the respective arguments in H. Wayne House’s Chronological and
Background Charts of the New Testament, pages 136-139.
194
Richard N. Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul, page 39.
193
100
Although there are no discernable linguistic differences between the wepassage sections of Acts and the rest of the book, there is a difference in the
literary vividness. This difference has been noted by many scholars.
The we-sections are disproportionately lengthy and detailed, in
comparison with the rest of Acts, which, in narrative, is usually brisk
and succinct. The fact that the we-sections have not been cut to a
suitable length strongly suggests that they are extended personal
reminiscence in which eyewitnesses sometimes indulge.195
No expertise is needed to observe this phenomenon. Prof. Gilchrist
suggests the following distinctions that any layperson may observe in a careful
review of the text:
(a) The main body of Acts names the places visited by Paul during
the triumphant progress of the gospel; but the we-sections lose their
sense of proportion, even naming islands glimpsed in the distance
(Acts 20.13-15; 21.1-3). (b) Acts keeps the mission always to the
fore: the we-sections wander from the point. (c) Except in the wesections, Acts is scarcely interested in Paul’s perils at sea (2 Cor.
11.25); but in Acts 27 and 28, every detail is mentioned. (d) Almost
everything in the main body of Acts has theological significance:
but why, for example, do the we-sections recount an unexplained
thirty-mile walk (Acts 20.13)?196
The best explanation for the increased attention to detail and vividness of the
narrative in the we-sections is that we take it at face value; the author was
present during those parts of the story.
B.
The Accuracy of the Traditions in Acts
As discussed in Chapter 2, Acts contains a remarkable amount of
accurate information about the time of which he writes. Most notable here is
the author’s detailed knowledge about Paul and his ministry. Other than Acts
J.M. Gilchrist, “The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck,” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament, page 37. See also Barnett, op. cit., page 209 ("Where
the author is part of the narrative in the 'we' passages, the detail given is more
intense than in other passages where he is dependent on the oral testimony of
those who had been present, which the author has noted."); Jervell, op. cit.,
page 117 ("There is a wealth of details in these sections compared to other
parts of Acts, even details with no significance for his account.").
196
Gilchrist, op. cit., page 37.
195
101
itself and the Pauline corpus, there is no evidence that a substantial amount of
such information was preserved in any other tradition. On the other hand,
knowledge of other early Christian events not involving Paul is more limited in
Acts. That Acts was written by a companion of Paul is the best explanation for
the knowledge demonstrated therein.
C.
Is There a Doctor in the Text?
There are a number of features about the Gospel of Luke that are
suggestively related to physicians and/or the ancient practice of medicine.
Although this evidence may not be enough to establish authorship by a
physician – such as Luke – it adds weight to the cumulative case for Lukan
authorship.
1. Redacting out a negative portrayal of doctors
The narrative of the bleeding woman who sought healing from Jesus is
found in all of the synoptic gospels. Mark emphasizes that she “had endured
much at the hands of many physicians” and had “spent all that she had” on them
but had received no help. Mark 5:24-34. Luke, on the other hand, leaves some of
this text out. He does not mention that the woman had spent all her money
attempting to get healed. Nor does he mention that “physicians” had not been able
to help her. He simplifies all of this by merely noting that she “could not be
healed by anyone.” Luke 8:43-47.197 Matthew simplifies the story down so far he
makes no mention of any attempts to be healed. Matthew 9:20-22. Unlike
Matthew, however, Luke is not abbreviating the story. Luke simply generalized a
small part of the text, so as to avoid singling out physicians. The explanation for
this redaction is not apparent, unless we take the idea of Lukan authorship
seriously.
2. A high fever
197
There is some dispute about the original phrasing of this verse. The New
Living Translation and the KJV retain in Luke the reference to the woman
spending her money on doctors. The NIV and NAU, however, leave out the entire
section. The NRSV places the words in brackets, “indicating doubt whether they
have the right to stand there.” Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, page 121. For me, this particular question is resolved by
the manuscript evidence and the indicia of redaction. Such a simplification is
typical of Luke’s use of Mark. More important, the phrase is not found in P75, the
earliest of the Lukan manuscripts. Nor is it found in various other early Western
and Alexandrian Witnesses. Indeed, Metzger describes the manuscript evidence
as “well-nigh compelling.” Ibid.
102
It is also notable that when writing about Peter’s sick mother-in-law, the
Gospel of Luke – otherwise dependent on Mark – adds a medical term to
specify the severity of the fever involved.
Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and
immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. And He came to her and
raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she
waited on them.
Mark 1:30-31.
The Gospel of Matthew follows closely the Markan text.
When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying
sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her;
and she got up and waited on Him.
Matthew 8:13-15.
Both Mark and Matthew chose to indicate the severity of the fever by
indicating that Peter’s mother-in-law was bedridden. But the Gospel of Luke
takes a different tact:
Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s home.
Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and
they asked Him to help her. And standing over her, He rebuked the
fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on
them.
Luke 4:38-39.
The Greek term translated “high” is an “ancient medical term […] for a
high-grade fever that might have included dysentery.”198 The distinction made
by physicians was between “great” or “high” fevers and “small” ones.199 Other
commentators believe Luke was simply emphasizing the greatness of Jesus’
miracle. Even if true, this does not rebut the point about the use of medical
terminology. After all, Mark leaves no doubt that the fever is a significant one
as Peter’s mother-in-law was bedridden by her sickness. So, too, with
Matthew. The fact that Luke was the only one who chose to use a medical
198
199
Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, page 436.
JBL 45 (1926) 194-95, as cited by John Nolland, Luke 1:1-9:20, page 211.
103
term to emphasize the sickness – he leaves out the reference to her “lying sick
in bed” – is still a notable distinction indicating a greater awareness of the
medical arts. Whatever his motive, Luke is aware of the appropriateness of the
more precise description.
3. The influence of technical treatises on the Preface
There is evidence that the Prefaces to Luke and Acts were influenced by
the prefaces used in ancient technical treatises – such as were used in the
medical field.200 If the author of Acts were a doctor attempting to write
history, an “amateur historian” as Professor Aune describes him, the prefaces
we have are the prefaces we might expect. In other words, the author was
attempting to write according to the conventions of ancient historiography but
was influenced by the writings peculiar to his trade.
4. Medical vocabulary
In 1882, W.K. Hobart published The Medical Language of St. Luke, in
which he provided extensive linguistic evidence that the vocabulary of Luke
was paralleled the language of Greek medical writings. This seemed strong
evidence of authorship by a physician, such as Luke. However, in 1920 H.J.
Cadbury published a study demonstrating that the language Hobart had relied
on was not unique to medical writings, but in many cases was simply the
language of educated Greeks.201 So Hobart’s correlations cannot bear the
weight they were intended to.
All that can be said of the state of the question is that the vocabulary of
Luke-Acts points to a Greek author of high learning and culture. Though this
is consistent with a physician, it is also consistent with just about anyone in a
position to write what he did for a patron such as Theophilus.
IV.
External Evidence of Authorship
Early Christian writers beginning in the second century maintained that
the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by Luke the
Physician, a companion of Paul. This section will examine the external
evidence for authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
The Luke of tradition is identified by Paul in Philemon 24 as a “fellow worker”
Loveday Alexander, “Luke's preface in the context of Greek preface-writing,”
Novum testamentum, 28 no 1 Ja 1986, pages 48-74.
201
“The Style and Literary Method of Luke,” Harvard Theological Studies (1920),
pages 39-72.
200
104
and Col. 4:14, where he is identified as “the beloved physician.” He is also
mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:11, as Paul’s “sole companion.”
A.
The Papyrus Bodmer–P75 (175 - 225 AD)
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Luke, P75, is found in the
Bodmer Papyri. The title “evangelion kata Loukan” (“Gospel according to
Luke”) is found in P75. Dating between 175 and 225 AD, this manuscript
proves that by around the end of the second century, the authorship of Luke
was so strongly associated with this Gospel that it had worked its way into the
manuscript tradition.
Is it possible that this written association with Luke goes back to the
original autograph? Many scholars believe that it does. Luke obviously wrote
for a patron of high status. At that time in the Hellenized world, private
libraries were common among the rich. Labeling books by their author was an
innovation of the Greeks.202 “Before placing a book-roll in the library it would
be tagged for ready reference with a title and the author’s name. In all
likelihood Luke’s volumes were so tagged by Theophilus since this was the
common custom.”203 Accordingly, there is a strong possibility that the Gospel
of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were labeled by author from the
beginning of their existence.
B.
Justin Martyr (155 AD)
Justin Martyr is one of the first Christian apologists. Though he does
not specifically name Luke as the author of the Gospel or Acts, he provides
some useful information on the subject: “For in the memoirs which I say were
drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them. . . .” Dial. 103:19
Martyr’s comment indicates that around the middle of the second
century, the church was circulating writings that were held to be authored by
“those who followed” apostles. It also seems clear that Martyr knew of more
then one book so ascribed (“those,” obviously, is plural). Obvious candidates
would be Mark and Luke (and, by association, Acts).
C.
Iranaeus (175 AD)
The earliest surviving explicit references to Luke as the author of the Gospel of
Luke and Acts are by Irenaeus. In Against Heresies, he writes:
202
203
R.F. Strout, LQ, 1956, 7.
Ellis, op. cit., page 65.
105
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did
also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.
Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel
preached by him (Paul). Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord,
who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
3.1.1
That this Luke was inseparable from Paul and was his collaborator in
[preaching] the gospel, he himself makes clear, not by boasting, but
led on by the truth itself. For after Barnabas and John, who was
called Mark, had parted company with Paul and had sailed for
Cyprus, he says ‘We came to Troas. When Paul saw a man of
Macedonia in a dream saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia,’ Paul, and
‘help us’, immediately he says, ‘we sought to set out for Macedonia,
realizing that the Lord had summoned us to preach the gospel to
them. So we set sail from Troas and steered our course toward
Samothrace. Then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey
as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address. . . .
And later he recounts ‘But we sailed from Philip after the days of
Unleavened Bread and arrived at Troas . . . where we stayed seven
days. All the rest with Paul he sets forth in due order. . . . In this
way he shows that Luke was always associated with him and
inseparable from him.
3.14.1
D.
Clement of Alexandria (182-200 AD)
A theologian in charge of the Christian school at Alexandria, Clement
refers to Luke-Acts in the late second century:
It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace,
and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts
of the Apostles relates that Paul said, “Men of Athens, I perceive
that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and
beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was
106
inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly
worship, Him declare I unto you.
Stromata, 5.12.82
E.
Tertullian (202-04 (AD)
A Christian of the late-second and early-third centuries, Tertullian is the
earliest Latin Church writer. He was quite prolific, but for our purposes it is
his writings against Marcion that are of interest. Here are the relevant
selections:
Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only a man of apostolic
times; not a master, but a disciple, inferior indeed to a master–and at
least as much later (than they, as the Apostle whom he followed,
undoubtedly Paul (was later than the others).
Marcion 4:2
Tertullian also referred to Paul as Luke’s “inspirer” and Luke’s Gospel
as “the gospel of his teacher” or a “digest” of Paul’s gospel. (4.5.2-5).
F.
Muratorian Fragment (170-180 AD)
The Muratorian Fragment is a list of New Testament books preserved in
Latin. It is the earliest canonical list and may have been written in Greek.
Though a few scholars have dated it to the fourth century, the majority position
remains the late-second century. It refers to Acts as “the Acts of all the
apostles.” This ancient document states:
The third book of the Gospel: According to Luke. This Luke
was a physician. After the ascension of Christ, when Paul had
taken him along with him as one devoted to letters, he wrote it
under his own name from hearsay. For he himself had not seen
the Lord in person, but, insofar as he was able to follow (it all),
he thus began his account with the birth of John.
G.
Anti-Marcionite Prologue of the Gospel of Luke (150-190 AD)
Some early Latin codices containing the gospels also have the same
prologues respective to each gospel. Uniquely, the prologue for the Gospel of
Luke (which mentions Acts) is also preserved in Greek. As a result of the anti-
107
Marcionite tendencies of all of the prologues, they are known as the “AntiMarcionite Prologues.” The prologues to the Gospels of Luke and John,
however, appear especially intended to counter Marcionite thought. Moreover,
there is good reason to think that the prologue for the Gospel of Luke was
earlier than the rest.204
The anti-Marcionite features of the Luke prologue are the emphasis on
“the integrity of the first chapters of Luke [which Marcion had cut from his
version]205 with the gospel as a whole and the essential character of John the
Baptist’s ministry in Luke 3:2-22.”206 These features are obvious responses to
Marcion, who was active in the early-to-middle second century.
Accordingly, when combined with the fact that this is the only one of
the prologues preserved in Greek, there is good reason to date the antiMarcionite prologue of the Gospel of Luke from the mid-to-late first century.
Here is the portion of the prologue related to authorship:
Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, by profession a physician, the
disciple of the apostles, and later a follower of Paul until his
martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction, without a wife,
and without children. He died at the age of eighty-four in Boeotia,
full of the holy Spirit. . . .
Though gospels were already in existence, that according to
Matthew, composed in Judea, and that according to Mark in Italy, he
was prompted by the Holy Spirit and composed this gospel entirely
in the regions about Achaia. He made very clear in the prologue that
other (gospels) had been written before him, but that it was
necessary to set forth for Gentile converts the accurate account of the
dispensation that they might not be distracted by Jewish fables or
deceived by heretical and foolish fantasies, and so miss the truth
itself. From the very beginning (of his gospel) we have received as
of no little importance (the story of) the birth of John, who is the
beginning of the Gospel. He was the Lord’s precursor, the one who
shared in the articulation of the good news, in the ministering of
baptism, and in the company of the Spirit. Of this dispensation a
prophet among the Twelve makes mention. Later the same Luke
wrote the Acts of the Apostles.
H.
Additional References
204
Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, page 243.
Id.
206
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 255.
205
108
Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius also record explicit traditions attributing
the Gospel of Luke and/or the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. Though in and of
themselves the references may be too far removed to be considered direct
evidence of authorship, they are notable in their unanimity and failure to record
any competing traditions:
The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing
the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the
belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and Origen
were great travellers, and all three were omniverous readers. They
had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding
centuries; but they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel
(and Acts) was ever called in question. This, taken by itself, would
be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the majority of
classical works.207
These witnesses add weight to the already well-established tradition of
Lukan authorship and to the significance of the absence of any competing
traditions.
I.
Summary of Early Church Witnesses
Because the Apostolic Fathers were largely aware of each other’s
writings, it is unclear how many independent traditions this recitation of
sources evidences. However, the tradition in P75 appears to be independent of
that in Irenaeus and Clement. Moreover, it is significant that – though the
attributed author is no apostle – there is no dispute as to authorship.
It has been argued that the external evidence should be dismissed
because it is based entirely on surmises of the early Church fathers, gleaned
from readings of the text of Acts.208 But an out-of-hand dismissal of this
evidence is not called for:
It will not be denied that an initial conjecture may be repeated by
successive witnesses until it becomes mistaken for fact, as the
history of modern criticism abundantly illustrates, but Cadbury’s
suggestion involves a remarkable and highly improbable process.
Where various possibilities existed, what governed the choice of
C. Aherene, “Gospel of Luke,” Catholic Encyclopedia, available online at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm (accessed on February 16, 2004).
208
H.J. Cadbury, “The Tradition,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed.
Foakes Jackson-Lake, pages 209-264.
207
109
Luke? Cadbury, with some hesitation, suggests a process of
elimination, but does not explain how it is that such a process led so
inevitably to Luke. Why not Mark or Epaphras? In any case, why
did not the second-century church attribute both the third gospel and
Acts to an apostolic name rather than the insignificant Luke? And
how did the inference drawn from the books themselves gain such
undisputed sway among the Church Fathers? These questions need
more concrete answers than Cadbury gives before the tradition can
so readily be set aside as relatively unimportant in discussion of
authorship.209
Even if the early Christian reader was astute enough to narrow the
possibilities down to those companions of Paul mentioned in the captivity
epistles – thus coordinating the final “we section” with Paul under arrest in
Rome, Luke is not the only or the most obvious choice. Among those other
companions of Paul present at that time but not mentioned in Acts are Jesus
Justus, Epaphras, Demas, and Epaphroditus. Finally, it must be recognized
that the early Christian writers discussed above nowhere say that they
discerned the identity of the author by evaluating the text. Accordingly, the
unanimous evidence of church tradition, beginning in the mid-second
century, strongly attests to Lukan authorship.
V.
Conclusion
The internal evidence for authorship by a companion of Paul is
convincing. Once such authorship is accepted, the external evidence and some
internal hints convincingly point to Luke, the physician, as the author of the
Gospel of Luke and Acts. The implications of this conclusion are significant.
Professor Fox summarizes the incredible value that Lukan authorship bestows
on Acts:
I regard it as certain, therefore, that he knew Paul and followed parts of his
journey. He stayed with him in Jerusalem; he spent time in Caesarea,
where he lodged with an early member of the Seven, Philip, who had four
209
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, page 115. See also
Fitzymer, op. cit., page 41 ("But the argument that the second-century
church inferred from the NT itself that Luke was the author, while in se
possible is all too pat. That an individual in the second century–or even
several individuals–might have so reasoned is certainly possible; but that
such inferences from the NT text are the sole basis of an otherwise
uncontested or unambiguous tradition (unlike that of the First Gospel) is
difficult to accept.").
110
prophetic daughters, all virgins (Acts 21:8-9). It must have been quite an
evening. He had no written sources, but in Acts he himself was a primary
source for a part of the story. He wrote the rest of Acts from what
individuals told him and he himself had witnessed, as did Herodotus and
Thucydides; in my view, he wrote finally in Rome, where he could still talk
to other companions of Paul, people like Aristarchus (a source for Acts
19:23 ff.; cf Acts 27:2, 17:1-15) or perhaps Aquila and Priscilla (whence
18). From Philip he could already have heard about the Ethiopian eunuch
(Philip met him), or Stephen and the Seven (Philip was probably one), or
the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea (Philip’s residence);
from the prophet Agabus, whom he met at 21:10, could come knowledge of
Agabus’ earlier prophecy in 11.28.210
CHAPTER 5: DID LUKE USE JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES
Some have argued that the author of Acts could not have been a
companion of Paul because he relied on Josephus’ Antiquities, published in 93
AD. Even if true there is nothing about the use of Antiquities that would
preclude authorial participation. For example, if the companion of Paul was 25
while traveling with Paul he would be 63 when Josephus published Antiquities.
As Peter Kirby has recognized, therefore, authorship by a companion of Paul
would not preclude a date of Acts up until the second century. Nevertheless,
the question of the relationship between Acts and Antiquities raises other
important issues.
I.
A Convincing Consensus Against Dependence
There is a broad consensus against Luke’s dependence on Josephus. In
fact, the scholarly community has so aligned against this proposition that a
leading scholar, who is no conservative, has pronounced that “[t]he
dependence of Acts upon Josephus has rightly been given up.”211
In addition to the general weakness of the case for dependence –
discussed in detail below – I begin the discussion by outlining three reasons for
rejecting Lukan dependence on Antiquities.
First, “[t]here is no evidence for direct literary relationship between
them.”212 Discussing the usual passages used to support dependence, Polhill
210
Fox, op. cit., page 210.
F.B. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, page 132. See also Ellis, op.
cit., page 55 ("The argument that Luke used the historian, Josephus (AD 93), was
never fully convincing. . . . Today it is seldom pressed.").
212
Ibid.
211
111
notes that “[n]one of these passages . . . shows the least literary dependence on
Josephus.”213
Second, the subject matter that the two writings have in common would
have been common knowledge for Jews or those with Jewish sources. There is
simply no reason to suppose that the author of Luke-Acts could only have
learned the things he writes about from Josephus. Indeed, he demonstrates a
vast amount of accurate knowledge about Jewish and Gentile history, politics,
geography, and religion that is independent of Josephus. Furthermore, as
admitted by one of the few proponents of Lukan dependence on Antiquities,
although few other accounts of ancient Jewish history have survived to this
day, there were many others that survived to the late ninth century.214
Third, the points of contact proponents of dependence rely on are
actually so different that they defeat the argument. “If either used the other, he
misused him. They are surely independent, and follow independent, indeed
conflicting, sources.”215
Accordingly, the combination of an absence of literary evidence of
dependence, the general availability of the information recounted by both
authors, and the divergent nature of the points of contact, have convinced the
vast majority of scholars that Acts did not use Antiquities as a source.
II.
Examining the Case for Dependence
Despite the consensus of scholars to the contrary, in his 1992 book
Josephus and the New Testament, Steve Mason argues that Luke-Acts is
dependent on Antiquities. Mason candidly concedes that he is fighting an
uphill battle: “Neither position has much of a following today, because of the
significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same
events.”216 Whatever acceptance Mason’s work has achieved among Internet
skeptics, it has not caused any discernable shift in scholarly attitudes.
Mason’s arguments are not novel and rest on the already refuted notion
that the discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Josephus can be accounted for
by poor reading or poor memory on Luke’s part. B.H. Streeter responded to
this theory several decades ago and carried the academic day.217 Nevertheless,
Mason argues that there are three points of correlation between Acts and
Antiquities that demonstrate literary dependence.
A.
The Census
213
Polhill, op. cit., page 30.
Mason, op. cit., page 19.
215
Hemer, op. cit., pages 372-73.
216
Mason, op. cit., page 251.
217
Streeter, op. cit., pages 557-58.
214
112
First, Mason argues that Luke’s reference to the census under Quirinius
is dependent on Josephus’ Antiquities.
In the few lines that he devotes to the census, Luke manages to
associate it with both Quirinius, governor of Syria, and Judas the
Galilean. These points agree with Josephus’ presentation in a
conspicuous way. Because of his literary aims, Josephus is the
one who makes the point that the census symbolized Roman
occupation and so was opposed by the arch-rebel Judas the
Galilean. We suspect that other writers would not have given the
census such prominence or made such connections with the rebel
psychology. These observations suggest that Luke was familiar
with Josephus’ work.
Otherwise, it would be a remarkable coincidence that he also
chooses to feature the census and to mention its connection with
Judas the Galilean. Yet if Luke had known Josephus, it is
difficult to understand why he placed Quirinius’ census at the
end of Herod’s reign, flatly contradicting Josephus. Perhaps
these circumstances are best explained if Luke knew some
highlights of Josephus’ story but did not recall or was not
concerned with the details.218
This argument is unconvincing because it assumes that Josephus was
the only person who would have reported (or remembered) the events at issue.
The only justification Mason offers for this assumption is that he “suspects” it
is so. The census under Quirinius, however, was a defining event because it
demonstrated Rome’s assumption of direct control over Judea. It was this
direct assumption of power that caused the revolt lead by Judas the Galilean.
Why mention Quirinius at all in this verse? . . . The simple
answer to this is that the census under Quirinius marked a turning
point and was decisive in the flow of Jewish history. Certainly it
was so for Josephus, and even Tacitus Ann. 2.42 (following the
discussion of the humbling of Archelaus the Older, discussed
above) makes mention of the problems of taxation in Syria and
Judaea, quite likely in reference to the Quirinian census and the
events surrounding it. It would only be natural that this census
218
Mason, op. cit., page 276-77.
113
was a memorable one, . . . if for no other reason than because it
caused a rebellion!219
Accordingly, given the significance of the census under Qurinius, its
demonstration of Rome’s assumption of direct control over Judea, and the
rebellion by Judas it caused, there is no reason to believe that Luke must have
obtained this information from Antiquities.
B.
The Rebels
Mason finds it significant that both Acts and Josephus mention three
“rebel leaders”: Judas, Thuedas, and the Egyptian. “When we turn to LukeActs, we are struck by two facts: (a) the author happens to mention the same
three figures who are featured by Josephus, and (b) he associates them in ways
reminiscent of Josephus’ narratives.”220 Though Mason is correct that both
authors mention Judas, Thuedas, and the Egyptian, the way in which they
describe these figures counts against, not for, literary dependence.
First, it is somewhat misleading to say that Luke mentioned the “same
three figures” as “featured” in Josephus. Josephus names and discusses more
than these three figures. Indeed, in addition to Judas, Thuedas, and the
Egyptian, Josephus mentions eight other such leaders in Antiquities alone:
●
●
Eleazar, the son of Dineas;
Sadduc, a Pharisee;
● Simon, the son of Gioras;
● Manahem, the son of Judas;
● John of Gischala;
● Eleazar the arch-robber; and,
● James and Simon, sons of Judas.
Josephus discusses even more rebels in Wars, such as “that arch-robber
Hezekias,” “the two thousand of Herod’s veterans,” and “Athrongeus.” Thus,
at most Luke mentions 3 of 14 rebel figures (or groups) also mentioned by
Josephus.
Second, Mason’s argument assumes that Josephus’ mention of the three
was arbitrary, rather than related to their actual historical prominence. Because
of the notoriety of the three mentioned by Luke and Josephus, knowledge of
them would hardly be restricted to Josephus. As we saw above, Luke had
219
Brook Pearson, "The Lucan Censuses, Revisited," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 61:2 (April, 1999), pages 277-78.
220
Mason, op. cit., page 278.
114
access to other Jewish sources so there is no need to suppose Lukan
dependence on Josephus for this information.
If we return for a moment to the list Mason gives of important
correspondences in major figures and events between Josephus
and Luke, it will be immediately seen that in each case we are
talking about major political figures whose lives and exploits
were widely known among Jews, especially among Jews in the
Holy Land. It is far from unlikely that Luke could have had
independent information of these figures and their lives from
sources other than Josephus.221
Third, the well-known dispute between Luke and Josephus as to the
number of followers that the Egyptian had demonstrates that Luke is relying on
a separate – and more accurate – source. Josephus puts the number of rebels at
30,000, whereas Luke uses the more likely number of 4,000. Luke also notes
the leader’s death, whereas Josephus is silent as to his fate. As a result, it
seems more reasonable to conclude that the reason Luke’s account is more
accurate is because he had independent information.
Further counting against Mason’s arguments that Luke had a poor
memory and that numbers in ancient times were fluid, is Luke’s use of
numbers found in Mark. For example, Mark mentions the feeding of 5,000
men, with 5 loaves and 2 fish, and so does Luke. Indeed, Josephus shows
much more of a propensity to play with his numbers than Luke.222
Witherington offers these further criticisms of the poor-memory/hastyperusal theory:
Poor memory might lead to a jumbling up of some facts, but it
hardly accounts for the difference in the numbers of followers –
are we to think Luke picked a number at random, not
remembering at all what Josephus said? Is it not more plausible
to conclude that Luke and Josephus had independent traditions
about the Egyptian that differed on some important matters? . . . .
Mason points to the same order in Josephus’ discussion of these
two figures in Ant. 20.97-99, 100-102. He suggests that Luke
remembered the order of Josephus’s discussion but forgot that
Josephus had indicated that Judas was a much earlier figure. In
221
Witherington, op. cit., page 237.
Ibid., page 238, fn. 175 ("In view of Josephus’s track record with numbers, it is
easier to believe he exaggerated, turning four thousand into many more, than that
Luke, who had no obvious reason to change the figures, did the opposite.").
222
115
short, his memory was selective and what he remembered was
not the actual substance of Josephus’ account but the order. It
must be admitted that this seems strange, especially when one is
talking about an ancient historian like Luke who was far more
likely to concentrate on matters of substance than matters of
chronological order.223
Fifth, from what we know of the author of Acts, he would not have
made such sloppy use of one of his sources. Mason’s theory fails to deal with
what we know about the author’s use of sources in Luke. As discussed above,
the author of Acts made extensive use of Mark and Q (or Matthew) in writing
his Gospel. Although Luke smoothed out the Greek he is a sober editor of his
source material rather than a creative author. He did not use sources carelessly
or half-remembered.
Finally, Acts accurately recounts many events confirmed by sources
other than Josephus. First, there are those Jewish events or people reported by
Josephus but also attested by independent sources. Such is true of their
accounts of the death of Herod,224 the reference to the penalty of death for
Gentile entry into the Temple,225 the Pharisaic belief in resurrection, and John
the Baptist. Additionally, the following facts from Chapter 2, Section 2,
though mentioned by Josephus, are confirmed by other Jewish sources: Nos. 2
(Court of the Gentiles), 3 (Gentile incursion into Temple punishable by death),
and 9 (Time of Prayer on the Temple). Second, there are those Jewish events
or people in Acts that are not mentioned by Josephus but confirmed by other
sources. This includes Luke’s account of the expulsion of the Jews from
Rome, which is not mentioned by Josephus, but is confirmed by the Roman
historian, Suetonius, The Life of Claudius 25.4. Additionally, the following
facts from Chapter 2, Section 2 are confirmed by other sources but not
mentioned by Josephus: Nos. 5 (Prayer in the Sixth Hour), 6 (Description of
the Temple), 8 (Priestly Duties Selected by Lot), 10 (Lame Man Not Allowed
Into Temple), 11 (Solomon’s Portico), 12 (A Sabbath Day’s Journey) and 13
(Field of Blood). Clearly, therefore, Luke wrote with access to other sources
of Jewish information independent of Josephus.
C.
Supposed Linguistic Similarities
223
Witherington, op. cit., pages 237-38.
Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, page 44 ("One of the most important points of
contact between the two relates to the death of the elder Agrippa it is quite plain
that here each is independent of the other.").
225
Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, page 103.
224
116
Although most scholars have found no linguistic evidence
demonstrating Acts’ use of Antiquities. Mason amasses what evidence he can
to argue for dependence. None of it is persuasive.
1. sicarri
The most prominent of the scant linguistic similarities Mason’s relies on
is Josephus’ and Luke’s use of the term sicarri to refer to a group of Jewish
rebels. Mason goes on to argue that “[i]t is even more remarkable because
sicarii is a Latin term for assassins. Josephus seems to have been the first to
borrow this word and make it a technical term for the Jewish rebels in his
Greek narrative. How then did Luke, who also writes in Greek, happen upon
the word?”226
Mason’s assumption that Josephus was the first to use the term sicarii to
refer to these Jewish rebels is unsupported. Indeed, there seems to be no
reason why Josephus would “borrow” the term in the first place. Josephus
spoke and wrote in Aramaic and (less proficiently) Greek. None of his
writings are in Latin. It is much more likely that Josephus used this term
because these Jewish rebels were already known by that term. After all, the
people most likely to use a Latin term to describe assassins in Palestine would
be Roman soldiers and officials stationed in Palestine. This accords well with
Luke’s use of the term. Acts does not have a Jew or a Greek use the phrase,
but a Roman soldier. This rather obvious point is absent from Mason’s
discussion.
Notably, the term also found its way into other Jewish literature with no
apparent connection to Josephus.
In Latin “sicarius” is a common term for an assassin, as in the
title of the law promulgated by Sulla, the “Lex Cornclia de
Sicariis”; and the word has the same general meaning in the
Mishnah (Bik. i. 2, ii. 3; Git. v. 6; Maksh. i. 6). The Mishnah
mentions a “sikarikon” law enacting that title to a piece of
property held by a “robber” may be taken in case it has been first
purchased from the owner and then from the “robber” (such
being the meaning of the word in this passage), but not vice
versa.227
226
Mason, op. cit., page 281.
Richard Gottheil, “Sicarrie,”
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=681&letter=S&search=sicariu
s (accessed on April 24, 2005).
227
117
Thus, there is no reason to assume that Luke could only have learned of
this term from Josephus. It is much more likely that it was a common term
used to describe zealots.
2. The Egyptian
In a related argument, Mason finds it significant that Luke and Josephus
both refer to this rebel as “the Egyptian.”
Presumably, his parents did not call him ‘the Egyptian,’ but gave
him a personal name. It is easy enough to understand why Josephus
should have chosen the geographical epithet alone, given his
hostility toward Egyptians. It is harder to explain Luke’s use of this
term, rather than a personal name, if he had independent access to
information. There were many Jews from Egypt in Judea.228
Again we see Mason assuming that Josephus himself must have coined the
term at issue: the Egyptian. If this leader was known by another name it is
odd that Josephus does not mention it. That he did not like Egyptians is not an
adequate explanation for such an omission, as Josephus could just as easily
have identified his nation of origin as well as his name (as he does for other
Egyptians at Ant. 1:94; 1:187; 1:220; 2:39; 6:360). It seems more likely that
this was simply how this particular rebel was known. As for there being
“many Jews from Egypt,” this is irrelevant. The issue would be how many
Egyptian Jews were significant rebel leaders during the first century prior to 70
AD. If there were many, no doubt Josephus would not have passed up the
opportunity to disparage Egyptians again. Thus, the more likely explanation is
that significant Egyptian rebel leaders in Judea were so rare that it the
appearance of one was occasion enough for him to be known by his
nationality.229
3. Philosophical Schools
Mason’s last attempt to demonstrate literary dependence also falls short.
Mason is impressed by the fact that Luke and Josephus describe Jewish sects as
Greek philosophical schools:
228
Mason, op. cit., page 280.
Mason’s additional arguments that the sicarri would not have gone into the
wilderness or been associated with the Egyptian are unpersuasive speculation.
Simply because the name derives from daggers does not mean they would not hide
out where most rebels hid – in the desert. Moreover, as Mason himself realizes,
caution must be exercised when reading Josephus’ account of the rebels, because
his political and apologetic interests significantly affect his narrative.
229
118
It is truly remarkable that Acts takes over Josephus’ classification of
the Pharisees and Sadducees as “philosophical schools” (haireseis;
5:17; 15:5; 26:5), as if this terminology were self-evidently
appropriate.230
Given the common Hellenized audience and social setting of the authors
of Acts and Antiquities, it likely was “self-evidently appropriate” for them to
describe Jewish sects in this manner. How else is a writer to explain Jewish
sects to a Greek audience? Especially given that the author of Luke-Acts was a
Greek himself. Therefore, this correlation is unremarkable and best explained
by sharing similar audiences.
There are terms related to philosophy that Mason relies on to argue
dependence. He notes that Josephus and Luke refer to tradition being “handed
down.” But this is typical Jewish, especially Pharisiac language, and it should
therefore come as no surprise that it is used by Luke to refer, well, to the
handing down of tradition. Paul also uses this language in 1 Cor. 11:23 and
15:23, as do other early Christians in Jude 1 and 2 Peter 2:21. The same may
be true for Luke and Josephus’ use of the phrase “most precise school” to
describe the Pharisees. Though parallels are not found beyond Luke and
Josephus’ writing, it is a flattering presentation that could have been used by
the Pharisees themselves. It seems that the two ancient historians most
knowledgeable about Pharisees writing to a Greek audience are Luke and
Josephus. Again, the congruence is not notable. The rest of Mason’s linguistic
examples are not unique words or phrases, but par for the course in presenting
such ideas to a Greek audience.231
Mason goes on to argue that Luke’s failure to mention the Essenes –
juxtaposed with Josephus’ positive description of them – points towards
dependence:
The obvious explanation for this omission is that in Luke’s portrayal
the Christians take the place of the Essenes. Recall that Josephus had
depicted that group as the most philosophical of all Jews, sharing
everything in common, living peaceful and disciplined lives, and
accordingly having powers of healing and prophecy. In Acts, it is the
school of the Nazarenes, or Christians, that fulfills this role. They
share their goods, live in peace, practice healing, exorcism, and
prophecy, and shame all other Jews with their love of the truth. To
include the Essenes in his narrative would have caused needless
230
Mason, op. cit., page 137.
J.P. Holding has a helpful line-by-line discussion of these parallels. Luke
Skywriter, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html (accessed online on April
24, 2005).
231
119
problems for the author of Acts, for that group would have been in
direct competition with the Christians!232
The problem here is one of proportionality. Luke does not put
Christianity forward as one of many Jewish philosophical schools, but as the
fulfillment of all Jewish expectations. Josephus’ own presentation of the
schools of Judaism is not so slanted in favor of the Essenes. They are one sect
among many. Better in some ways, but not the only true Judaism.
Further, there is a more likely explanation for Luke’s silence about the
Essenes. Having largely isolated themselves in the wilderness and
disassociated themselves from the Temple, the Essenes would have had little
contact with Jesus during his ministry. Their numbers were relatively few.
They did not have political or financial power like the Sadducees or the
Pharisees. They simply were not competitors with Jesus or Christianity. It
appears that given their popularity and similarities in doctrine with Christians,
the Pharisees were the real Jewish competitors with Christianity. But rather
than replace the Pharisees, Luke-Acts highlights the conflicts with (in Luke)
and conversions from (in Acts) that sect. Afterall, no other early Christian
writer (not even the other gospels) mentions the Essenes. Nor do the Rabbis
for that matter.
In all candor, I found Mason’s attempt to link Luke’s vague presentation
of Jewish sects in philosophical terms with Josephus explicit description of
Jewish sects as philosophical schools to be the most unpersuasive part of his
argument.
In sum, the evidence supporting dependence is weak and outweighed by
the arguments against it. Though Luke and Josephus may have shared similar
sources, Luke did not rely on Josephus to write Acts.233
III.
An Alternative to Dependence
Even if Mason is correct about Josephan influence on Luke-Acts, it does
not follow that Luke must have used Antiquities or Wars as a source. Because
the author of Luke-Acts likely spent time in Rome and likely had a Roman
sponsor of some esteem it is possible that Luke heard Josephus recite parts of
his literary histories in public. So, to the extent some explanation is needed for
Luke’s similarities and differences with Josephus, this seems a better
232
Mason, op. cit., page 141.
Mason also refers to some “minor parallels” that he concedes, “[b]y
themselves, […] are too vague to establish a relationship between the texts.”
Mason, op. cit., page 283. As such, I do not address them. To see them discussed,
however, you may read J.P. Holding’s article on the subject.
233
120
explanation than Luke simply did not read Josephus carefully or forgot most of
what he read. Mason acknowledges this alternative possibility.
Although Professor Streeter rejects the entire notion of dependence, if
there is reliance, he explains the reasons that it was more likely from an earlier
lecture of Josephus:
[I]f a gross mistake is to be attributed to imperfect notes, it would
surely be more natural to suggest that the notes in question were
taken down hurriedly at some lecture, rather than in the course of
a perusal of a book, especially as it was not so possible with
ancient methods of writing as with modern print to make
mistakes through running one’s eye rapidly over the page.
Now there is not the slightest improbability in the supposition
that Luke had heard Josephus lecture in Rome. Josephus was
granted by Vespasian rooms in the Imperial Palace, and remained
in favour with subsequent emperors. Luke also, I have
suggested, had a connection with the Flavian house. The
writings of Josephus were addressed to the Roman world at large,
and it would appear that after A.D. 70 he for the most part lived
and wrote in Rome. In that case, unless his practice was quite
different from that of other contemporary writers, it would have
been a matter of course for him to recite large portions of his
works to public audiences before they were published in written
form. Pliny and Juvenal constantly refer to this custom–the latter
to expatiate on the boredom it induced. Plutarch tells us that
while in Rome, at about this date, he was so busy lecturing, and
doing minor political business, that he never had time to master
the Latin language–an observation which incidentally reveals the
extent to which Greek was a second language of the educated
Roman as well as the immense city population of foreign origin.
The Antiquities of Josephus was published c. A.D. 93. It is a
long work and would have taken many years to compose–
probably most of the interval since the publication of his earlier
work, The Jewish War, between 75 and 79. Josephus was
extremely conceited, not at all the man to lose an opportunity for
publicity, and he would do much to be in the literary and social
fashion. Moreover, his writings were largely intended for
propaganda purposes; he wished to do his best to reinstate the
credit of the Jewish people. He would certainly have recited
121
parts of the Antiquities at intervals during the ten years before its
publication.234
Accordingly, although I do not believe there is any need establish a
point of contact between Josephus and Acts, if one is needed then Streeter’s
hypothesis is more convincing than Mason’s theory of direct literary
dependence.
IV.
Summary
Having reviewed the arguments in favor of Lukan dependence on
Antiquities, it is clear that the majority position is well-taken. There is no need
to conclude that Luke-Acts is literarily dependent on Antiquities.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS
1. Acts was written as a work of ancient historiography, describing real
people and events. As an ancient historian, Luke would have written “with
three combined purposes, though the emphasis could vary greatly. History
ought to be truthful, useful, and entertaining, but it should not be entertaining
at the expense of truth or utility.”235 The additional purpose of his writing may
have been to continue writing, as an extension of the Old Testament, the
history of God’s salvation. But to express this history it seems that it was most
influenced by Greek historiography.
2. Though the author of Acts faced the daunting obstacles of any
ancient historian – as there were very few accurate maps to help understand
geography and few, if any, sources of information about local customs and
practices, as well as an ever changing legal and political regime – he writes
with a high level of accuracy regarding geography, local details, Jewish
customs and beliefs, current events, political situations, and Roman legal
proceedings. The author’s accuracy suggests excellent sources and/or
personal participation.
3. Although Luke did not use Paul’s letters as source material, he
accurately records a substantial amount of information about Paul’s ministry
and the early Church. He shows detailed knowledge about Paul’s missionary
routes, the timing and sequence of his travels, Paul’s teachings, and –
especially – Paul’s companions. Again, the high level of accuracy suggests
excellent sources and/or personal participation.
4. The notion that Acts does not rely on Paul’s letters because of a fear
of using documents appropriated by heretics – such as early Gnostics or
234
235
Streeter, op. cit., pages 557-58.
Aune, op. cit., page 95.
122
Marcionities – is unsupported. There is no evidence that any of the “orthodox”
Christians had any reservations about using Paul. In fact, the evidence is to the
contrary. Almost all the “orthodox” Christian writers of this time period relied
on Paul’s letters. Indeed, two of the most significant early church writers,
Ignatius and Polycarp, are two of the most enthusiastic users of the Pauline
corpus. The better explanation for Luke’s failure to use the letters of Paul as a
source is that he wrote before they became so widely circulated and accepted
as authoritative. Moreover, it is more likely that a companion of Paul would
rely on his independent knowledge to write about Paul, rather than seeking out
the letters of Paul.
5. Acts was written between 62 and 90 AD. The fact that Acts does not
narrate Paul’s death, and that Luke refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, are
too uncertain of basis to further limit the range of dates within which Acts was
written.
6. The author of Acts was a sometime companion of Paul. The most
likely identity of that companion is Luke the Physician. The objections to
Lukan authorship are unpersuasive.
7. The theory that Luke used Josephus’ Antiquities is unpersuasive.
Rather, the evidence demonstrates that Luke and Josephus shared some sources
in common mostly regarding notable events in Jewish history.
123
Bibliography
Aherene, C. “Gospel of Luke,” Catholic Encyclopedia, available online at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm (accessed on February 16,
2004).
Alexander, Loveday, “Luke’s preface in the context of Greek preface-writing,”
in Novum testamentum, 28 no 1 Ja 1986, pages 48-74.
Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment Westminster
Press 1987.
Balch, David, “The Genre of Luke-Acts,” SWJT (Fall 1990), pages 5-19.
Barnett, Albert E. Paul Becomes a Literary Influence Univ. of Chicago Press
1941.
Barnett, Paul Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity InterVarsity Press 2002.
Barrett, C. K. “Paul Shipwrecked,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method ed. B.
P. Thompson (Hull University Press 1987).
Bock, Darrell Luke 1:1-9:50 Baker Academic 1994.
Brosend, II, William F., “The Means of Absent Ends,” in History, Literature
and Society in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington (Cambridge Univ. Press
1996).
Bruce, F.F. The Acts of the Apostles Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1990.
Bruce, F.F. Apostle of the Heart Set Free Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2000.
Bruce, F.F. “Galatian Problems,” BJRL, 51-55.
Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents InterVarsity 1982.
Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture InterVaristy Press 1988.
Burridge, Richard A. Four Gospels, One Jesus Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
1994.
Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? Cambridge Univ. Press 1995.
124
Burton, E.D., “The Politarchs,” AJT 2 (1898).
Cadbury, H.J, “The Style and Literary Method of Luke,” Harvard Theological
Studies (1920).
Cadbury, H.J. “The Tradition,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Foakes
Jackson-Lake (Baer 1979).
Calders, W.M., “A Cult of the Homonades,” CR 24 (1910).
Classical Teaching Resources, Pastoral – Two dimensions or three?, available
online at http://www.parsonsd.co.uk/pastoral.php (accessed on February 12,
2005).
Corwin, Virginia St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch Yale Univ. Press
1960.
Cross, A.R., “Genres of the New Testament,” in Dictionary of New Testament
Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter (InterVarsity Press 2000).
Dunn, James D.G. The Epistle to the Galatians London 1993.
Ellis, E. Earle The Gospel of Luke Eugene 2003.
Ferguson, Everett Backgrounds of Early Christianity Second Edition, Grand
Rapids 1993.
Fitzymer, Joseph Luke the Theologian Paulist Press 1989.
Fitzmyer, Joseph Romans Anchor Bible 1993.
Fox, Robin L. The Unauthorized Version Knopf 1992.
Fredericks, S.C., “Lucian’s True History as SciFi,” Science Fiction Studies,
No. 9, Vol. 3 (March 1976), available online at
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/8/fredericks8art.htm (accessed on
February 12, 2005).
Gasque, W. Ward, “A Fruitful Field, Recent Study of the Acts of the
Apostles,” Interpretations 42.04 (1998), pages 119-20.
Gilchrist, J.M. “The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck,” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament No. 61 (1996), pages 29-51.
125
Gottheil, Richard and Krauss, Samuel, “Sicarri,” at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=681&letter=S&search=sic
arius (accessed on February 12, 2005).
Grant, Robert After the New Testament Fortress Press 1967.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. A History of Early Christian Literature, revised and
enlarged by Robert M. Grant, Phoenix 1966.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. An Introduction to the New Testament Univ. of Chicago
Press 1937, available online at
www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch12.html (accessed on February
15, 2005).
Green, Joel B., “Internal Repetition in Luke-Acts,” in History, Literature and
Society in the Book of Acts Cambridge Univ. Press. 1996.
Guthrie, Donald New Testament Introduction InterVarsity 1990.
Hagg, Tomas Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances, P. Aström 1971.
Hemer, Colin The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History Coronet
Books 1989.
Hengel, Martin Between Jesus and Paul Wipf & Stock Publishers 2003.
Hengel, Martin, “The Geography of Palestine in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in its
Palestinian Setting ed. Richard Baukham (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. 1995).
Hoffman, Daniel, “The Authority of Scripture and Apostolic Doctrine in Ignatius
of Antioch,” JETS 18/1 (March 1985), page 75.
Holding, J.P., Luke Skywriter, Did the Works of Josephus Influence the Works
of Luke, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html (accessed on March 5,
2005).
House Wayne H. Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament
Academie Books 1981.
Howell, Martha and Prevenier, Walter From Reliable Sources, An Introduction
to Historical Methods Cornell Univ. Press 2001.
126
Jefford, Clayton N. Reading the Apostolic Fathers Hendrickson Publishers
1996.
Jervell, Jacob, “The future of the Past,” in History Literature and Society in the
Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington (Cambridge Univ. Press 1996).
Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles Fortress Press 1986.
Kirby, Peter Acts of the Apostles, available online at
http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html (accessed on February 12, 2005).
Kirby, Peter First Person Perspective in Ancient Sea Travel, available online at
http://www.christianorigins.com/wesea.html (accessed on December 15, 2003).
Knox, John “Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed.
Leander Keck (Fortress Press 1980).
Koester, Helmut Ancient Christian Gospels Scm. Press 1990.
Kummel, F.B. Introduction to the New Testament Abingdon Press 1966.
Longenecker, Richard N. The Ministry and Message of Paul Grand Rapids
1971.
Ludemann, Gerd Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology Fortress
Press 1984.
Magness, J. Lee, “Senas and Absence,” Semeia Studies (1986).
Margeurat, Daniel The First Christian Historian Cambridge Univ. Press 2002.
Mason, Steve Josephus and the New Testament Hendrickson 2003.
Massaux, Eduoard The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian
Literature before Saint Irenaeus, Book I trns., Belval, Norman J. and Hetcht,
Suzanne (Mercer Univ. Press 1990).
Massaux, Eduoard The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian
Literature before Saint Irenaeus, Book 2 trns., Belval, Norman J. and Hetcht,
Suzanne (Mercer Univ. Press 1992).
127
Massaux, Eduoard The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian
Literature before Saint Irenaeus, Book 3 trns., Belval, Norman J. and Hetcht,
Suzanne (Mercer Univ. Press 1993).
Mitford, T.B. The Inscriptions of Kourion Philadelphia 1971.
Nickle, K.F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction Atlanta 1980.
Nolland, John Luke 1-9:20 Nelson Reference 1989.
O’Connor, Jerome M. St. Paul’s Corinth Liturgical Press 1990.
Palmer, Darryl W., “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book
of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting, eds. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D.
Clarke (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. 1994).
Pearson, Brook, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited,” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 61:2 (April 1999).
Polhill, John B. The Acts (New American Commentary) Broadman & Holman
Publishers1992.
Price, Christopher, Marcion, The Canon, The Law, and the Historical Jesus
2002, available online at http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html
(accessed on February 12, 2005).
Price, Christopher, The We Passages of Acts as a Literary Device for Sea
Travel 2003, available online at http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html
(accessed on February 12, 2005).
Rapske, Brian Paul in Roman Custody, The Book of Acts in its First Century
Setting Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 2004.
Soards, Marion L. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 58.2 (Summer
1990), pages 307-10.
Stanley Porter Paul in Acts Hendrickson Publishers 2001.
Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Law and Society in the New Testament, Oxford
Univ. Press 1963.
Streeter, B.H. The Four Gospels, A Study of Origin The Macmillan Company
1925.
128
Talbert, Charles H. Acts Knox Publ. 1984.
Talbert, Charles H. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels
Fortress Hill 1977.
Talbert, Charles H., “An Introduction to Acts,” Review and Expositor, 441
(Fall 1974).
Wenham, David, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II. Pauline Parallels,” in The Book
of Acts in its Literary Setting, ed. Bruce D. Winter, Andrew D. Clarke (Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publ. Co. 1994).
Witherington, Ben, “Editing the Good News,” in History, Literature and
Society in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington (Cambridge Univ. Press
1996).
Witherington, Ben A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1997.
Witherington, Ben Grace in Galatia Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1998.
© Christopher E. Price 2005
129
130