M13a
Acts of the Apostles
​
​
Introduction
​
​
The book of Acts is different from every other writing of the New Testament. It is unique in its content, tracing the first three decades of the Christian church. It is distinct in its genre as a theologized history. When coupled with Luke, it has the distinction of being part of the longest writing in the canon. As the second volume, it is the continuation of Jesus‘ ministry, which began in Galilee and ended in Jerusalem. Acts begins with Jesus’ ascension in Jerusalem and ends with Paul preaching the gospel freely in Rome as he awaits his trial. Although Jesus has departed, his disciples continue his ministry with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ prediction in Acts 1:8 that the disciples will receive the Holy Spirit and be his witnesses “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” is the programmatic statement that sets the entire narrative in motion.
​
Title page of Acts illustrating Christ blessing the apostles, 12th century. Manuscript W.522, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. Taken from http://www.thedigitalwalters.org.
The main character in Acts is the apostle Paul, who interestingly does not fit the criterion of an apostle set out by Jesus’ closest followers in Acts 1:21-26. Nevertheless, after his epic conversion to Christianity on the road to Damascus, he is divinely chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Most of Acts narrates the adventures of Paul during his missionary journeys. Often called the father of Christianity, Paul is unquestionably the most instrumental figure in Christianity’s transition from its Jewish roots to its Gentile expansion.
​
As explained in the previous chapter on the Gospel of Luke, the separation of Luke-Acts into two separate Modules creates some overlap and even clumsiness, especially in relation to the broader plot, authorship, purpose, and the theological themes. Both Luke and Acts are dependent on one another. The Gospel constantly looks ahead to Acts, and Acts assumes the story of Jesus in the Gospel. Foresight and hindsight affect the way that the author presents his material. Nevertheless, since Luke and Acts are separated in the canon, they are here treated as separate Modules. They are placed adjacent to one another because many professors teach Luke and Acts together, as a two-volume work.
​
Since the title “Acts” (Praxeis) or “Acts of the Apostles” does not appear in the earliest extant Greek manuscripts, it probably did not appear in the original autograph. We have no way of knowing if Luke even ascribed a title to this work, especially as it was a second volume. Most likely, it attained a title when it started to circulate independently from Luke’s Gospel.
​
Mosaic of the Apostle Paul, 11th century. St. Sophia, Kiev.
​
​
The earliest reference to this title is found in the late second-century writings of Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.13.3), the bishop of Lyons. While the term “Acts” appropriately situates the writing within a recognized genre in the ancient world, which narrated great deeds of individuals, cities, or nations, its connection with “the apostles” is not entirely correct. Only Paul and a distant Peter are prominent in the writing, not “the apostles.” As a result, many scholars, past and present, have suggested that this writing should be renamed to better reflect its content, such as “Acts of the Holy Spirit,” “Acts of Paul,” or “Acts of Paul and Peter.” Some have even suggested that it should be entitled “Acts of the Ascended Jesus,” since the preface of Acts (1:1-5) implies the continuation of Jesus ministry.
​
​
Info Box 13.1: Other Christian Acts
Acts of the Apostles was influential in the writing of numerous other acts about the adventures of the apostles between the second and fourth centuries. These are usually called apocryphal or extra-canonical acts since they are not included in the New Testament. The genre of these writings is controversial, but most would agree that they are patterned after Hellenistic novels and may well be a primitive form of hagiography (literature that venerated the saints). All of them contain stories about the missionary adventures and teachings of the apostles, some of which are quite entertaining. For example, there are stories about Andrew and Mattathias among cannibals, Peter literally putting a camel through the eye of a needle, Andrew riding a cloud to meet Peter, Paul being beheaded in Rome, Thomas travelling to India, John raising people from the dead and destroying a temple in Ephesus which crushes a pagan priest, John casting out bedbugs, and Peter bringing a smoked fish in the marketplace back to life. Many of the fantastic episodes served as proofs for the truth of Christianity. Most lists of apocryphal Christian writings include Acts of Andrew and Mattathias, Acts of John, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul, Acts of Peter and the Twelve, Acts of Philip, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Thecla, and Acts of Thomas.
​
​
Fresco of Paul and his disciple Thecla, 5th century. Grotto of St. Paul, Ephesus. Thecla’s elevated right hand, which was a sign of authority, and her eyes were disfigured probably as a protest against female roles of leadership.
​
​
Sources
​
Historians who study ancient literature, like the book of Acts, are always curious to know what sources authors used. Sources help us to understand the purpose of a written work, its audience, and the biases employed by its author. In the previous chapters we have seen how important the identification of Mark as a source is for understanding Matthew and Luke. When it comes to Acts, however, we do not know where Luke obtained all of his information. The so-called “we” passages, which are discussed below, imply that Luke may have been an eyewitness to some of the accounts, but this is not without problems. We know from Luke’s prologue (1:1-4) that he was not an eyewitness to Jesus, but he was aware of prior accounts that were written about him. It is unclear, though, whether these prior accounts played any role in the composition of Acts.
​
​
Oral Tradition
​
Since the vast majority of information in the ancient world was not transmitted through writing, Luke most likely received much of his data by word of mouth. Oral traditions about Jesus were passed on in the forms of stories and sayings. We know that oral transmission was common, but isolating and extracting oral traditions from where they are now embedded is problematic. As was discussed in Chapter 9, form criticism, which became prominent in the early part of the twentieth century, tried to tackle this problem. Focusing primarily on the Gospels, form critics wanted to know what the traditions looked like and how they functioned in the religious life of the early church, namely between the death of Jesus (c. 30 CE) and the writing of the first Gospel (c. 70 CE). Consider, for example, the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-12; Matt 13:1-15; Luke 8:4-10). Long before it was incorporated into the Gospels, and thus fixed forever, form critics argued that the parable had a life of its own. Thus, they wanted to know how the parable functioned in the ministry of Jesus and particularly in the life of the early church. They wanted to answer questions, such as: “When was the parable recited?” “Did it look the same as it does in the Gospels?” “Was it used in the context of worship and/or mission?”
​
​
A bearded teacher instructing his students by passing on tradition orally. Marble relief found on a sarcophagus in Rome, 180-185 CE.
Rheinisches Landesmuseum. Trier.
​
​
One of the main insights that emerged out of form criticism was that individual narratives and sayings, called “pericopes” (Greek for “sections” or “passages”), circulated as independent units during the oral period of the early church. Christian teachers, missionaries, and prophets communicated their faith by including sayings and acts of Jesus in support of their message. This practice was probably common. In addition to the Gospels, we find, for example, a “floating” saying of Jesus without a context in Acts 20:35 (“Once Jesus said, it is more blessed to give than to receive”) and a reference to the “Lord’s’” saying in 1 Cor 7:10. The book of Acts contains similar remnants of oral traditions in the form of both speeches, such as Peter’s speech at Pentecost, and accounts of events, such as Paul’s conversion. It is impossible to know, however, the origin of the traditions. For example, Luke may have heard the story of Paul’s first missionary journey directly from Barnabas or from those who may have heard it third-hand.
​​
While we have both the precedent that oral traditions played an important role in the composition of ancient writings and the specific patterns in Acts that strongly indicate the reliance on oral traditions, the reconstruction of those traditions is virtually impossible since Luke may have reworded them. If Luke’s use of Mark is an indication of how he edited and revised his sources, then the recovery of the exact wording of oral material is challenging, to say the least.
​
Paul’s first missionary journey.
Courtesy Accordance Bible Software.
​
​
​
Info Box 13.2: Was Philip the Evangelist a Source?
It is likely, according to Acts 21:8, that Philip, “one of the seven,” who lived in Caesarea could have been a source. Philip takes on an important evangelistic role already in Acts 8 before settling in Caesarea. He is credited for the Samarian mission and several conversions, such as the Ethiopian eunuch who was a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.
​
​
​
While literate cultures can readily use writing to record information that they wish to recall later, oral cultures must situate that information within social (or collective) memory, which was the means by which groups, like the early Christians, retained and processed data. When Luke gathered his information, it undoubtedly included oral material that was retained through the mechanisms of social memory. That oral material would have circulated in a form that was easily recalled. It would not have included non-pragmatic material since this was often not circulated in oral cultures. Only the material that was deemed relevant in the recollection of the past would have been preserved. This material would have reflected the current cultural values, instead of an arbitrary curiosity about the past. It is also likely that as the church grew and developed its own peculiar identity, these memories were retold in ways that further strengthened the values that the church deemed as central. Both the larger narrative and the speeches strongly reflect the early theological values.
​
​
Written Sources
​
A considerable amount of interest has been generated over the last fifty years in Luke’s use of written sources for the writing of Acts. Since there are no extant sources, opinions have varied. One proposal, which has tended to dominate the discussion, is that Luke used three major sources in the composition of Acts. These are implied in the overall geographical organization of the narrative.
​
Scholars have noticed that Acts is composed of three major stories that are set in three geographical locations: (1) the apostles in Jerusalem, (2) the Gentiles who fled from Jerusalem to Antioch, and (3), Paul’s journeys westward from Antioch to Rome. These stories are supposedly rooted in three sources. The first source, which is the basis of chapters 1-12, is called the “Jerusalem (or Palestine) Source.” The Semitic style in this section of Acts suggests that the original source, written in Aramaic, was a narrative about the life of the early church in Jerusalem. The problem with this proposal is that the Semitic style can be attributed to Luke himself. The second source, which is generally the basis for the material spanning chapters 6 to 15, is usually called the “Antioch (or Hellenistic) Source.” It was supposedly a collection of traditions stemming from the church at Antioch, used primarily for telling stories about Stephen and Barnabas. The third source, which accounts for select portions of the material found in chapters 9-28, is called the “Pauline Source.” It may have originally been a travel diary that was used for the composition of Paul’s missionary journeys. While debated, it is possible that this source may have been composed by Paul’s fellow traveller(s), which is implied in the “we” passages.
​
​
​
Speeches
​
Speeches consist of approximately one quarter of Acts. In many instances Luke prefers to have his characters communicate various events and their significance instead of simply having the narrator describe them. By placing more of the content onto the lips of the characters, the story takes on a more dynamic quality and conveys credibility. The author of John’s Gospel uses a similar technique, which gives his story a forensic quality whereby the characters serve as witnesses to Jesus’ messianic identity.
​
The bulk of the speeches in Acts are presented by Peter, Stephen, James, and Paul. Since it is doubtful that Luke would have been present when all of these were made, scholars have wondered if Luke relied on a source (or sources) that contained these speeches. The spectrum of opinion is broad. Some argue that the speeches are much like recollections from memory with little or no authorial manipulation. Others argue that since speeches were used as a literary devise by ancient historiographers to give credibility to their works, Luke probably did not rely on any sources. Instead, he developed them himself in the style commonly used by his contemporaries, who saw no problem in constructing a speech to reflect what was probably said. The historical quality of speeches and their relation to the genre of Acts is discussed in more detail below.
​
Info Box 13.3: List of Speeches and Sermons (adapted from Carl R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005, Pp. 332-33).
​
Peter
• Advising the 120 in Jerusalem about Judas’s replacement (1:16–17, 20–22)
• Missionary sermon before the Jerusalem crowd at Pentecost (2:14–36, 38–40)
• Sermon in the temple after healing the crippled beggar (3:12–26)
• Defense before the Sanhedrin about the healed beggar (4:8–12, 19–20)
• Defense (with the apostles) before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (5:29–32)
• Missionary sermon to Cornelius and his household at Caesarea (10:34–43)
• Explaining to the Jerusalem church why he preached to Cornelius (11:5–17)
• Giving advice at the Jerusalem Council (15:7–11)
​
Stephen
• Defense before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (7:2–53)
James, the brother of Jesus
• At the Jerusalem Council justifying the Gentile mission (15:13–21)
• With the elders advising Paul how to respond to charges (21:20–25)
​
Paul
• Missionary sermon in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (13:16–41)
• Missionary sermon to the crowds at Lystra (14:15–17)
• Missionary sermon before the Areopagus in Athens (17:22–31)
• Pastoral sermon bidding farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:18–35)
• Defense before the crowds near the Temple in Jerusalem (22:1, 3–21)
• Defense before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (23:1, 6)
• Defense before the Roman governor Felix in Caesarea (24:10–21)
• Appeal to Caesar before the Roman governor Festus in Caesarea (25:10–11)
• Defense before King Herod Agrippa II in Caesarea (26:2–23, 25–27, 29)
• Reassuring speech on the ship en route to Rome (27:21–26)
• Addressing the Jewish leaders in Rome (28:17-20, 25–28)
​
Outsiders
• Gamaliel advising the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (5:35–39)
• Demetrius’ speech before his fellow artisans at Ephesus (19:25–27)
• The town clerk’s speech in the theater at Ephesus (19:35–40)
• The letter of the Roman tribune to Felix concerning Paul (23:26–30)
• Tertullus’s summary of charges against Paul before Felix (24:2–8)
• Festus’ summary of charges against Paul before Agrippa (25:14–21, 24–27)
​
Others, including prayers, letters, and shorter speeches
• The disciples’ prayer for Judas’s replacement (1:24–25)
• The church’s prayer after Peter and John’s release in Jerusalem (4:24–30)
• Peter rebuking Ananias (5:3–4)
• The Twelve calling for the selection of the Seven (6:2–4)
• Peter rebuking Simon Magus (8:20–23)
• Paul rebuking Elymas (13:10–11)
• Paul and Barnabas defending the Gentile mission (13:46–47)
• The Jerusalem Council’s letter to Gentile Christians (15:23–29)
• Proposal by the forty men to kill Paul (23:14–15)
• Nephew’s report to the Roman tribune of the plot against Paul (23:20–21)
• The response of the Jewish leaders in Rome to Paul (28:21–22)
​
Authorship
Since there is broad agreement that the book of Act was written by the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke, the section on authorship in the previous chapter applies here as well. Like the Gospel, the book of Acts is anonymous. Following tradition, he is commonly called Luke. Below is a list of extraordinary parallel passages that convincingly demonstrate common authorship. Since many of the parallels follow the same sequence, it is possible that portions of Luke’s Gospel could have served as a template for Acts. If this is the case, then as with the Gospels, we see a very strong literary and theological itinerary in Luke’s presentation of the events that unfolded in the first three decades of the church (Adapted from M.A. Powell, Introducing the New Testament, 201).
​
Instead of repeating the common arguments for and against Lukan authorship, the focus here is on the so-called “we” passages, where the author identifies himself using the first person plural pronoun when narrating the travels of Paul and his companions (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–8; 27:1–28:16). Whoever it is, he enters the story abruptly in 16:10 after Paul has a vision to go to Macedonia. These passages have captivated interpreters from the second century to the present. Was Paul’s fellow traveller Luke? Was he an eyewitness? What other meaning might the pronoun “we” have? Was he by implication not present during the events described in Acts 1-14?
​
Most casual readers assume that Luke included himself as a fellow traveller during Paul’s second and third missionary journeys. If so, the “we” passages are simply autobiographical accounts. This reading is certainly endorsed by some Acts scholars, despite the fact that Acts makes no mention of the author and differs in its historical and theological portrayals of Paul when compared to his letters, as we shall explain below.
​
Paul’s second missionary journey. The blue line traces the journey of Mark and Barnabas. The white line traces the journey of Paul and Silas.
Courtesy of Accordance Bible Software.
​
Paul’s third missionary journey. The white line traces the journey of Timothy and Erastus. The blue line traces Paul’s journey.
​
​
“We” as a Literary Device
Those scholars who claim that Acts was not authored by one of Paul’s companions tend to rely on two arguments. The first is that the pronoun “we” is a literary device designed to guide readers to experience the story firsthand. Rather than referring to the author as a companion of Paul, the pronoun “we” is used to incorporate the readers, along with the author, into the adventures of the story. In so doing, the readers participate, for example, in the maritime journeys with Paul and witness first-hand the events that transpire. This idea is not far-fetched when it is compared to the use of the first person plural pronoun (“we”) in various Greco-Roman sea travel stories. Vernon K. Robbins has uncovered several examples in Greco-Roman literature, which were probably influenced by Homer’s Odyssey, where the use of “we” is featured in the narration of sea voyages (and battles), particularly those that ended in shipwrecks. Robbins points to numerous examples from epics, such as Virgil’s (70 BCE-19 CE) Aeneid (books 2-3), satires, such as Varro’s (116-27 BCE) Menippean Satires, parodies, such as Lucian’s (125-180 CE) A True Story, and histories, such as Josephus’ (37-97 CE) Life.
​
Info Box 13.4: The Roman poet Virgil narrates the voyage after the destruction of Troy from centuries earlier, which results in a shipwreck off Carthage, using the first person plural.
With Asian power and Priam’s tribe uprooted,
though blameless, by heaven's decree; with Ilium’s pride
fallen, and Neptune’s Troy all smoke and ash,
God’s oracles drove us on to exile, on
to distant, lonely lands. We built a fleet
down by Antander and Ida’s Phrygian peaks,
uncertain which way Fate led or where to stop.
We marshaled our men. When summer first came on,
Anchises bade us trust our sails to fate (Aeneid 3.1-9).
​
​
In addition, Robbins compares the “we” passages in Acts to copyists of eyewitness accounts in ancient Mediterranean literature. For example, Xenophon’s (430-354 BCE) Anabasis (meaning “ascent”), which recalls his own accompaniment of a large army of mercenaries sent out to capture the throne of Persia, is largely written in the third person. A later copyist, however, who was not a participant, added a concluding summary using the second person plural. According to Robbins, the practice of copyists inserting themselves into the narratives was not unusual. Could Luke have been a copyist of someone else’s autobiographical source?
​
Info Box 13.5: This section of Xenophon’s Anabasis was compiled by his copyist, who was not present during the events. Note the use of the first person plural.
The governors of all the king's territories that we traversed were as follows: Artimas of Lydia, Artacamas of Phrygia, Mithradates of Lycaonia and Cappadocia, Syennesis of Cilicia…. The length of the entire journey, upward and downward, was two hundred and fifteen stages, one thousand, one hundred and fifty parasangs, or thirty-four thousand, two hundred and fifty-five stadia; and the length in time, upward and downward, a year and three months (7.8.25-26).
​
​
Robbins’ intriguing comparison between Acts and contemporaneous Mediterranean literature has received mixed reviews. Opponents have noted that while some similarities exist, the differences cannot be omitted. The uses of “we” in maritime stories are inconsistent and do not constitute a genre of sea travel, in contrast to Robbins’ suggestion. In addition, several scholars have noted that the pronoun “we” is not used every time Luke narrates sea voyages. If Luke did use “we” as a stylist feature to include his readers, it is not at all clear why some passages would not have incorporated the readers in the same way. Nevertheless, many of Robbins’ comparisons should still be part of the overall conversation about Luke’s literary practice.
Conflicting Portrayals of Paul
The second, and primary, argument in support of an author who was not one of Paul’s fellow travellers is based on a comparison between Paul’s letters and Luke-Acts. Many scholars argue that since the historical and theological portrayals of Paul in Luke-Acts differ so much from Paul’s letters, Luke could not have been a fellow traveller. Therefore, the “we” passages are not autobiographical. While scholars often point out that Luke makes no mention of Paul writing letters, and that Paul makes no mention of his own conversion (which occurs three times in Acts), the contrast between Paul and Luke-Acts is usually focused on the following differences.
​
Six points of contention are commonly raised when Paul’s portrayal in Acts is compared to his letters. First, Paul claims that he did not go down to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles after his conversion (Gal 1:15–18). Luke, however, tells us that he did (Acts 9:10–30). The consultation most likely focused on the acceptance and verification of his experience by the apostles. Second, in Gal 2:6-10, Paul claims that the “acknowledged leaders” of the church in Jerusalem endorsed his mission to the Gentiles with no legal requirements. However, in Acts 15:22–29, Luke says that the church leadership prescribed a list of legal requirements that Paul needed to incorporate in his mission to the Gentiles. Third, Paul says that when he ministers to those “outside the law” (i.e. Gentiles), he identifies himself as “one outside the law” in order to convert Gentiles (1 Cor 9:21). In Acts, however, Paul is presented as being completely loyal to the Jewish law (Acts 25:8; 28:17). Fourth, Paul is opposed to relying on Greek philosophy in 1 Cor 1:18–31. Yet in Acts, Luke portrays Paul as being friendly to Greek philosophers and endorses their philosophical traditions as a common ground for dialogue (Acts 17:22–31). Fifth, Paul argues that idol-worshipers have no excuses since the knowledge of God has always been evident in creation (Rom 1:18–23). Whereas in Acts, Paul says that God will overlook the worship of idols as a consequence of ignorance (Acts 17:29–30). Finally, in his letters, Paul frequently identifies himself as an apostle, sometimes adamantly as the “apostle to the Gentiles.” Yet of the twenty-eight occurrences of “apostles” in Acts, only one refers to Paul, alongside Barnabas (14:14). All of the other occurrences refer to Jesus’ disciples.
​
The Areopagus (or Mars’ Hill), Athens, where Paul spoke with the Greek philosophers in Acts 17. Today, all that remains is large rock.
​
​
These examples of differences are not without contention. Proponents of the view that Paul and Luke (as the author of Acts) were fellow travellers have attempted to soften or explain the differences away. Their focus, instead, has been on the similarities between Acts and Paul’s letters. Three are often proposed. First, the Eucharistic formula in Luke 22:19-20 is very similar to the one found in 1 Cor 11:23-25. Second, both Luke (Luke 24:34) and Paul (1 Cor 15:5) attest that the first appearance of the risen Christ was to Simon Peter. Third, Paul’s ability to perform miracles is attested in his letters (2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:18-19) and by Luke (Acts 19:11).
​
​
Info Box 13.6: Comparisons and Contrasts
Many literary comparisons and contrasts often suffer from a lack of attention given to method in primarily two ways. First, comparisons and contrasts are not considered equally. The evidence tends to be skewed to one side at the expense of the other. For instance, scholars who attempt to make the case for Luke not knowing Paul, tend to provide as many differences as possible between Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters, while omitting the similarities that exist. Contrasts should incorporate a fair treatment of comparisons, and vice versa. Secondly, comparative studies often neglect the problem of the burden of proof. In most studies, the burden of proof usually lies on the one who challenges a prevailing position, which often removes the responsibility from the one holding the “common” view. A fairer approach is to have the burden of proof lie on anyone making a case, be it for a common or uncommon position.
Date of Writing
​
The dating of Acts correlates closely to the dating of Luke’s Gospel. In the previous chapter, it was explained that the Gospel is frequently dated between 85-90 CE. On occasion some have argued for a dating prior to 70 CE. We do not know exactly how long after the Gospel’s composition Acts was written. Nevertheless, Acts is usually dated within the same time frame as the Gospel.
Prior to Paul’s Death (62-65 CE)
​
Scholars who argue for an earlier date of composition argue that Acts must have been written before Paul’s death. At the end of Acts, Paul is alive and well, awaiting his trial. If Paul had been dead when Acts was written, his death surely would have been recorded. It is inconceivable that he, as the main character in the narrative, would not be depicted as a martyr if Acts were written later. Omitting his death does not appear to have a benefit for the writer of Acts and its overall purpose. In addition, an intentional omission of Paul’s death would be inconsistent with the broader narrative of Acts, which does not shy away from including the deaths of other key figures such as Stephen (7:59-60) and James (12:2). Even more puzzling, if Acts was written late, is the omission of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
​
A few scholars date Acts even earlier. Since Luke makes no mention of Christian persecutions under the Emperor Nero, which began in 64 CE, Acts must have written between 62 and 64 CE. Had Luke been writing after the persecution, it is unlikely that the Romans would have been portrayed in the same positive way.
During the Second Generation of Christians (80-95 CE)
​
Acts is most commonly dated well within the context of second generation Christians, approximately 80-95 CE. One of the main reasons for this is that Mark is overwhelmingly dated around 70 CE. Since Luke used Mark, and Acts is the second volume of Luke, it reasons to say that Acts was written sometime after 70 CE. Allowing for Mark’s popularity to grow and expand to Asia Minor and perhaps Greece, it is fair to assume that Luke-Acts was written about a decade or two later (see the section on the dating of Luke in the previous chapter). Adopting an early dating of Acts, sometime prior to Paul’s death, would push Mark back to the late 40s or early 50s, which does not correspond to Mark’s content as well as 70 CE. An early dating for Luke raises the problem of his detailed account of the Temple’s destruction (Luke 21). While Mark‘s account in chapter 13 could have been a prediction, Luke’s more detailed version of it suggests that it was written well after.
​
The ending of Acts poses little problem for advocates of a late dating since they do not share the same assumptions about the nature of the writing. Unlike proponents of an early dating, Acts is not viewed as a modern history that catalogues the events over three decades. Instead, Acts is viewed as a theologized history that is more concerned with meaning than with reconstruction. Having Paul preaching the gospel in an unhindered manner at the epicenter of the Roman Empire conveys Christian victory and success. It is a fitting, even predictable, ending to a story that begins with the promise by the risen Christ that the gospel will preached from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (1:8). This approach to Acts is rooted in the study of the genre, purpose, and the historiography of Acts, to which we now turn.
Genre
​
More than any other writing in the New Testament, Acts resembles what we might today call a history or historiography (which technically refers to the way history is written). It narrates the origins and progress of a particular social group, known initially as the “Way” and later as the “Christians.” Spanning over three decades, from the death of Jesus (ca. 30 CE) to Paul’s residence in Rome (62-65 CE), Acts can be described as the first historical writing of the church. It is a narration that is very much at home in the ancient world and cannot be equated to modern historical writing. Ancient histories took on a variety of aims, focusing on important leaders, cities, or major events like battles and wars. Acts overtly celebrates the accomplishments of early missionaries, particularly of Peter and Paul, and actively promotes their beliefs.
​
​
The temple of Hadrian, early 2nd century. Ephesus. During Paul’s day, Ephesus would have had approximately 50,000 residents.
​
​
Acts is a highly selective history. The reader is not told of any failed missionary trips, unanswered prayers, or apostate churches (e.g. the divisions in the Corinthian church). The controversies found in Paul’s letters and the underlying issues addressed by the evangelists are not found in Acts. We are told that Paul awaits his trial in Rome, but not how Christianity began there. We are told about Paul’s lengthy stays in Corinth and Ephesus, but little about his ministry there. By contrast, his short visit to Philippi receives lengthy treatment. We are not told about the fate of Peter after the Jerusalem Council, yet we are told about Stephen’s martyrdom. Finally, it is curious why, apart from Peter and Paul, Luke either minimizes or entirely omits the ministries of the other apostles.
​
What we find is a homogeneous nascent Christianity that triumphs over every imaginable obstacle. Acts certainly contains history, even by modern standards, but it is best understood in comparison to the literature of its own day. While, in the end, genre identifications do not necessarily settle the question of Acts’ historicity, they do formulate expectations about how the past was conveyed.
​
So, what kind of literature does the book of Acts most resemble? Does Acts accurately record what happened? Or is Acts more concerned with the theological meaning of the events? Questions like these have generated considerable debate. They are ultimately questions about genre. In the quest to identify the genre of Acts, comparisons have been drawn from a wide array of early Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, even the Septuagint. Three proposals contend for the closest genre.
Biography
​
Some scholars view Luke-Acts as a single genre. One of the best representatives of this position is Charles Talbert who compares Luke’s two volumes with “succession lists/narratives” within Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian contexts. Talbert argues that Luke-Acts is a composite biographical work, closely resembling the form and purpose of ancient biographies of philosophers and their followers. Both Luke-Acts and ancient biographies of philosophers exhibit the same pattern, which includes (a) a narrative of the life of the founder and (b) a succession narrative about the followers.
Correspondingly, Luke’s Gospel tells the story of Jesus’ mission and Acts serves as the succession narrative, which tells the story of the apostolic mission (particularly Peter and Paul) throughout the Roman Empire. This pattern is found in no other contemporaneous literature. As such the narration of the past contains all the characteristics and biases of ancient biography. Despite all of the obstacles faced by the apostles, the “history” of their mission is a great success because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus in the first volume, the apostles remain unwavering and committed. For Talbert, the purpose of the pattern was to convey the truth of the tradition, which has been adopted by Luke’s audience. This was understood as a very old tradition, which extends back to the divine promises given to ancient Israel.
​
Talbert’s position is not without criticism. Many have questioned his choice of ancient sources as valid comparisons since most of them are succession lists and not the same kind of extensive narrative that we see in Acts. Talbert has also been criticized for viewing Luke-Acts as a single genre. In addition, while biographies concentrate on a single person, Acts is more concerned with several individuals and their missionary activity, which resembles ancient history rather than biography.
Ancient Novel
Some scholars, like Richard Pervo, object to classifying Acts as a historical writing of any kind. He notices that most attempts to demonstrate the historical accuracy of the narrative have been apologetically motivated. While recognizing the contributions made by scholars attempting to align Acts with ancient history, Pervo identifies several points of divergence that more closely resemble ancient novels, especially the prefaces of Luke and Acts, the use of speeches as a literary device that enhances the narrative, and the omniscience of the narrator. Of main importance for Pervo is the high concentration of direct speech. In Acts, fifty-one percent of the verses contain direct speech, a proportion unparalleled in any form of ancient historiography.
Pervo’s statistical analysis of direct speech in Acts leads him to conclude that Acts is more closely aligned with ancient fictional novels than with ancient histories or biographies. In addition to direct speech, Acts contains other similar features, such as the narrator’s techniques of fantastical characterization and the use of adventurous episodes to generate plot and reinforce the narrator’s point of view. As such, Acts should be categorized as popular literature that sought to entertain its readers or hearers.
​
Pervo also notices that there are numerous literary parallels between Acts and the Septuagint. Unlike the historian Josephus who intentionally writes to differentiate himself from the writing style of the Septuagint, Luke writes in a style that seeks to imitate it. For Pervo, and others, the Septuagint was a formative influence in the writing of Acts.
While most scholars today agree that Acts contains the story-telling techniques and sub-plots that were customary in Greco-Roman novels, they do not regard Acts as an ancient novel. Greco-Roman novels, like Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon or Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe, were romantic tales about the misfortunes and restorations of love. Acts contains no romantic content and does not focus on a single character or lovers.
Apologetic Historiography
Gregory Sterling identifies Luke-Acts as “apologetic historiography,” which was a literary form that emerged in reaction to Greek ethnography (i.e. writings about ethnic groups). People groups who previously had been the subjects of Greek ethnic historical portrayals responded to what they must have regarded as inaccurate histories by writing their own accounts. The new ethnic histories utilized the literary frameworks of the Greeks, but were written from the perspectives of the local ethnic groups. For Sterling, the greatest Jewish example of apologetic historiography is Josephus’ Antiquities, which retells the Jewish story (from a Jewish perspective) in a way that establishes his nation’s antiquity and respectability for his Roman readers.
​
​
Apostle Peter Preaching, Lorenzo Veneziano, c. 1370. Berlin State Museum.
​
​
Sterling argues that the entire narrative of Luke-Acts is an extension, even fulfillment, of the Jewish scriptures, written from the perspective of the inside group. Both the prologue and the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel provide hints. The prologue clearly contains a reference to the present time of fulfillment. Luke writes, “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us…” (Luke 1:1). The conclusion of his Gospel sets the stage for the continuation of that fulfillment among the disciples, as they preach Christ to all the nations (Luke 24:46-47), which is realized in Acts. Luke, who sees himself as a member of the group in which the fulfillments are realized, writes a “history” of the first three decades that concentrates on the success of that realization. In essence, as an apologetic historiography, it is a story of the inside group’s triumph over Jewish and Roman opposition.
​
Sterling also observes that Luke, like ancient historiographers, utilized local or ethnic sources in order to tell the story of his own people group. This is most evident in his use of Mark and the Septuagint. Sterling goes further by arguing that Luke not only relies on, but also imitates the Septuagint as is evident in his use of Semitic expressions and his portrayal of God’s role in human history.
​
The functional necessity of an apologetic historiography was rooted in the distinctiveness and diversity of Christianity, as it was becoming a movement and more known to the Romans. Although the Romans (and pagans in general) were inclusive, they were highly suspicious of religions that were not rooted in the past. To compound the suspicion, earliest Christianity was diverse. In response, Luke tries to show that both Jesus and the emerging churches were unified and rooted in the promises of God given to ancient Israel. Though Sterling does not support the view that Luke-Acts was written to Roman officials as a defense of Christianity, he affirms that these texts acted as an indirect apology that would have eased Roman suspicions.
​
In his attempt to root Christianity in the distant past, Luke retells the story of Israel twice in Acts: in the speech of Stephen (chapter 7) and in the speech of Paul (13:16-41). Sterling argues that Luke’s understanding of Israel’s story is shaped by earlier Jewish retellings. Luke uses these retellings to develop speeches, which lend credibility to his retelling. For example, Paul’s speech in Acts 13 provides an occasion to locate his missionary activity well within the history of Israel, beginning with the Egyptian exile. Luke divides the speech into three parts: the story of Israel, the gospel, and the offer of salvation. Luke’s aim is to show that the promises given to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus.
​
​
Info Box 13.7: Were speeches used as a literary device?
Many scholars view the speeches in Acts as a literary device. Among ancient historiographers it was common practice to place speeches on the lips of famous men. Since the aim of the historian was not to reconstruct past events, but to infuse them with meaning, the crafting of a speech was a carefully targeted exercise that was much appreciated by readers. Speeches were used to contribute to the broader ideas in the narrative. For example, the 2nd century rhetorician, Lucian of Samosata, wrote in his How to Write History 58, “When it comes in your way to introduce a speech, the first requirement is that it should suit the character both of the speaker and of the occasion.” The touchstone for understanding the role of speeches in ancient historiography is Thucydides (c. 460-395 BCE), who in his History of the Peloponnesian War constructed speeches and placed them on the lips of the characters in the narrative, believing that they represented the speakers accurately. Speeches functioned rhetorically and provided dynamism to the narrative. Acts does not appear to deviate from the standard ancient role of speeches in histories. For instance, Peter’s opening speech contributes to the missionary plot by rooting the nascent Christian movement within Judaism—as a fulfillment of the scriptures (1:15-22). In response to Jews who could not fathom a crucified messiah, Peter preaches to the Jewish pilgrims that it was foretold in scripture (Psalm 69, 109) and confirmed by phenomena that they just experienced. The speech ends with a crescendo. In Acts 2:36 Peter tells his fellow Jews, “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” The speech contributes to the apologetic and evangelistic force of the narrative.
​
​
While there are numerous differences between Acts and Paul’s letters, it is in the similarities where Luke’s historiography is most visible. When parallel events are compared with one another, the divergent intentions come into sharp focus. An interesting example is Paul’s dramatic departure from Damascus.
​
The remarkable similarities in the accounts indicate that Luke knew about this incident. He may have even read 2 Corinthians. Nevertheless, the details of his account are different. In Paul‘s version, the dangerous situation is attributed to the Nabatean ruler Aretas IV who controlled the city in 37-39 CE. In Luke’s version, the troubles are attributed to the “Jews.” At this point many historians are skeptical about the historical accuracy of Acts. Why does Luke change the enemy? The broader context of Acts gives us the answer. Since Luke tends to portray the Jewish leadership in a negative tone, calling them “jealous” on several occasions (7:9; 13:45; 17:5), their hostility toward Paul in this episode fits Luke’s bias. Historians are also skeptical about two other details. First, it is difficult to imagine that the Jews would have had such control in a city that was controlled by Arabs. Second, it is also difficult to imagine why the Jews would have cared about Christian missionary activity in a pagan context like Damascus.
​
​
Info Box 13.8: History and Objectivity
Whether ancient or modern, the writing of history can never be completely objective because it is impossible for the historian to access every single detail from the past. History and the past are not the same. There are simply millions of events that occur, even on a minute scale, which can never be included in a written work. The historian has to be selective. He or she needs to choose events and persons that are significant to his aim. In recalling those past events, the historian imposes, sometimes unconsciously, his own values and beliefs. This is especially evident among ancient writers like Luke and Josephus.
​
​
Coin with image of Nabatean King Aretas IV and Queen Shuqailat, c. 40 CE.
​
​
​
​
​