|
|
|
|
|
ACTS: THE EARLY DATEKurt Dahlin June 18, 2002 Rev. April 22, 2004 |
|
|
LUKE RECAP: Last week we examined the historical information used to determine the author of Luke and Acts as well as the sources for the gospel. Luke told us in the prologue to his gospel that he had access to many written and oral accounts from eyewitnesses of the life and ministry of Jesus. Luke has intimate information about the family and birth of John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ. He also has prophetic dialogue from Elizabeth and Mary. He records Jesus’ journey, at 12 years of age, to Jerusalem. These are eyewitnesses directly related to Jesus. Luke knows endless early disciples and apostles through his travels with Paul.
ON THE OTHER HAND B. H. Streeter in 1924 wrote The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins from London. He originated the theory that there were really only four sources behind the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He further added that none of the sources were eyewitness accounts. He wrote that not “even the earliest documents carry us back directly to Jesus himself" (McKnight 7). Yet, Luke wrote that he had plenty of written accounts, oral tradition and eyewitness sources from the very beginning. Streeter’s schema of gospel origins is a complete violation and repudiation of Luke’s statements. Streeter’s theory or some form of it is the prevailing source theory taught not only in State schools but also now in Bible Schools, Colleges and Seminaries. There is no logical or historical reason to accept Streeter’s contradiction of Luke. Luke can be trusted. Please know and forever understand that simply because something is in print doesn’t always make it correct. Simply because something is popularized doesn’t make it correct. Streeter’s source theory also affects the dating of the gospels in a negative way further undermining our confidence in the NT. Our discussion today about chronology is vital to the integrity of the NT. DATE OF ACTS When were Luke and Acts written? It is supremely important that we wade through the various possibilities. The origination date and location of writing are essential to the integrity and value of the gospel message. Chronology is central to a correct interpretation of scripture. Correct interpretation leads to correct application and correct authority. If the NT is not reliable or simply a mythological rendition of an average Jew—then it is not worth the paper it is written on. On the other hand, if the NT documents are reliable historical reports of the acts and teachings of Jesus—then it makes sense to leave everything and follow Jesus. He alone has the road map to heaven. We do not have blind faith. We believe in the Jesus of the NT because the overwhelming masses of evidence are the stepping-stones of faith. There is good reason for our faith in the biblical Jesus. I hope you will be inspired to read the NT with greater confidence. I hope you will understand the facts support the truthfulness of the biblical portrait of Jesus. I hope you will serve Jesus with greater zeal, obedience, worship, initiative and sacrifice. I hope you will study harder and pray more. I hope you will resist the modern twisting of history, which reduces Jesus to mere legend. Luke can be trusted. Luke is right. Jesus is the Son of God who came to earth to pay the ransom for sin. He died on the cross and rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. The promised Holy Spirit came to earth at Pentecost 2,000 years ago and is the Lord of the New Era. It is possible to be born again, filled with the Holy Spirit and receives spiritual gifts of power and blessing. Jesus is coming back again to judge the world. There will be a new heaven and earth where only those who desire righteousness will dwell with God forever. That’s the truth. THE DISPUTE There is a wide range of opinions held among scholars concerning the publication date of Luke’s gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The variation extends from A.D. 60 to 150. However, the real dispute is between an early date of about A.D. 60-63 and a date somewhere between A.D.80-90. Joseph Fitzmyer stated, “Many NT interpreters use the date A.D. 80-85 for the composition of Luke-Acts, and there is no good reason to oppose that date, even if there is no real proof for it” (Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Acts of the Apostles: The Anchor Bible. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1998 54). At least he is honest that there is no reason, proof or evidence to support the later date. The main reason for a late date stems from presuppositions about the literary relationship between the synoptic gospels (Macgregor G.H.C. “Introduction.” The Acts of the Apostles: The Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. George A. Buttrick, editor. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 17). Streeter’s four-source theory negatively changes the way scholars date the gospels. Chronology and sources are an incredibly important foundation for establishing the validity of the gospels. However, there is no substantive reason to assign a late date to Acts of the Apostles. Yet, there are many valid reasons that indicate an early date prior to A.D. 63. The best evidence, both internally from Acts and externally in world history, supports the early Roman date. A wide survey of scholarly resources gives overwhelming documentation in favor of an early date for the publication of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Luke’s gospel was written earlier to the Acts of the Apostles. So, if we can establish the date of Acts the gospel would be dated earlier. THE LIFE SETTING OF ACTS Luke was with Paul in Rome and abruptly ended the Acts of the Apostles with Paul under house arrest. Luke was very curt about the ending. 30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31 Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV) Paul’s first Roman imprisonment is dated about A.D. 60-62. The general consensus among Bible scholars is that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles during this time period. Let’s test their theory. Paul was sent to Rome to be tried before Nero, the Roman Emperor. The life setting finds Paul under house arrest waiting for trial. Luke unexpectedly ended Acts without informing us of the result of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Luke spent the last 7 chapters in Acts explaining why and how Paul went to Rome from Jerusalem for trial. One fourth of the book is dedicated to a long series of trials and court appearances in Israel—then Luke has the nerve not to tell us what happened in Rome. That is cruel and unusual punishment. It is not like Luke to ignore or overlook a major legal decision. Especially a regal decree of this magnitude. The abrupt ending of Acts is a significant chronological marker for the proper dating of the book. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EARLY DATE A major apologetic theme for Luke in Acts was to highlight the relative non-political nature of Christianity. Luke chronicled every successful encounter that Paul had with the Roman legal system. Luke sought to show that Christianity was not a menace to Roman law and order. The Romans were portrayed in a positive light. Paul, Barnabas and later Silas never incited a riot or insurrection. They were never subversive. It is shown in the Acts that a certain body of militant Jews instigated any civil controversy. The Romans in behalf of Paul and his companions always resolved every public disorder surrounding Christianity favorably. The trials of Paul show that nothing was inherently evil or illegal about Christianity. 1. In Philippi, Paul and Silas were released from prison with an apology by the local Roman magistrates (Acts 16:37-40). 2. In Thessalonica, Jason rallied support for Paul and Silas and the Roman rulers of the city set them free (Acts 17:5-9). 3. In Corinth, Gallio, the Roman proconsul of Achaia, dismissed all charges against Paul (Acts 18:12-16). 4. In Ephesus, the city clerk exonerated Paul of any wrongdoing (Acts 19:28-41). 5. In Judea, the Roman governors Felix and Festus and king Agrippa agreed that Paul committed no offense worthy of death (Acts 25:24-27; 26:30-32). The conclusion of his long trial, Acts 26:32, “This man could have been set free.” Luke consistently included numerous court acquittals even a miraculous escape from a Roman prison in Philippi. Remember, Paul was sent to Rome from Israel for a final disputation before Emperor Nero. At this time the Romans understood the controversy as an internal squabble dealing with Jewish law. We know from other historical documents that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment about A.D. 63. He resumed his missionary travels. There would be no purpose in ending the Acts without recording Paul’s triumphant release, if in fact Luke wrote as late as A.D. 80 or 90. What would be the point in bringing the reader to Rome without a conclusion—unless the conclusion had not yet occurred? This insight alone is incontrovertible evidence for the early date for Acts. Nothing would have been greater news to the world than to publish the vindication of Paul in the Imperial City of Rome. The exoneration of Paul at Rome would have been the perfect ending for the Acts. Luke simply could not have overlooked such a monumental event. Paul’s release from prison in the heart of the Roman Empire was a major victory for Christianity. Luke continued to travel with Paul after he won his case before Nero. Luke was with Paul when he was rearrested four years later. Luke was there during Paul’s final Roman imprisonment and witnessed Paul’s execution. Yet, Luke included nothing in Acts subsequent to this initial two-year period of confinement. Luke rushes to close Acts compressing two years of time into two verses. The most reasonable conclusion to be made is that Luke published his inspired work while Paul was still under house arrest and prior to Paul’s trial and release in A.D. 63. This inspiring information should help us in our understanding of the purpose and importance of Acts. PAUL’S TRIAL Let’s put some of the puzzle together using the easy pieces. Acts of the Apostles ends with Paul under house arrest waiting for trial before Nero. 1 When it was decided that we would sail for Italy, Paul and some other prisoners were handed over to a centurion named Julius, who belonged to the Imperial Regiment. 2 We boarded a ship from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us. The seriousness of Paul’s situation cannot be over emphasized. A successful defense before Nero would not only free Paul but could possibly free Christianity from the continual abuse of false charges. A major reason for writing Luke’s gospel and Acts was to provide accurate information about the substance of Christianity and Paul. The text would be given to Theophilus, the Roman official in charge of Paul’s case. It certainly would be a lot of work for Luke to produce such a remarkable piece of literature for a powerless, uninterested third party. It certainly would be odd to incorporate such a wealth of court appearances for the benefit of one lone uninvolved Roman. If Luke were simply recounting the history and spread of Christianity for posterity—why focus so much attention on Paul and his many successful court battles? Acts was intended to be read by someone interested in the cause of the disorder in the empire and the outcome of previous court cases against Paul and Christians. Therefore, Acts is not just history but a premier description and defense of everything that is true about Christianity. Paul becomes center stage in the Acts not only because he is an important leader in church history but also because he is the one on trial to determine his destiny and perhaps the future of Christianity. Paul was an influential, vocal and energetic leader of the new Christian movement. A favorable resolution rendered in Nero’s Supreme Court would not only benefit Paul but also all Christianity. There was too much at stake for Luke to be preoccupied with any lesser goal than the full defense of the Christian message and Paul, its key proponent. No longer would Paul proclaim the gospel before foreign proconsuls and local Roman authorities. None other than Nero himself would hear Paul’s case (Acts 27:24). This was the most important trial of Paul’s life. This was the most important trial in Christian history since the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Paul needed the supremest defensive effort. Luke was fully intent on securing Paul’s release. Paul could lose his life if the trial went wrong. The adequate defense of his case could save Paul’s life. The life setting of Paul preparing for his day in court would supply sufficient reason for Luke to comprise a written defense of Christianity for official review. It doesn’t make any sense for Luke to produce such a masterful piece of work that would have no direct bearing on Paul’s looming trial. Why would Luke squander five years of his precious time creating a monumental classic for someone without any influence over Paul’s case? Why publish so much intimate and carefully crafted information for Theophilus unless Theophilus was central to the case? Why compile and produce such a wealth of legal information, history, doctrine, names and places simply for one peripheral person? There is much information supplied by Luke that would better serve Paul’s defense before Nero rather than a mere history of the geographical spread of the gospel. Paul is on trial for his life and Luke is fritting away his time writing for some unknown recipient? Luke was in Caesarea with Paul when Paul was in prison for two years. Acts 24:27 27 When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison. NIV This time frame and location would have given Luke abundant opportunity for the in depth research he mentioned in Luke 1:1-4."The former treatise," of Acts 1:1 is the gospel of Luke and was probably compiled during Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea A.D. 57-59 and published in Rome. The Gospel of Luke was written before the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1). The Acts can be dated somewhere between A.D. 60-62. Since Luke wrote both the gospel and the book of Acts it must be concluded that the gospel of Luke was in print around A.D. 60. MORE REASONS FOR THE EARLY DATE If Acts were written as late as A.D. 80 there would be indications of a significantly different political climate. In the Acts of the Apostles, Roman officials are portrayed as honest and just. There is no hint of the horrible persecution against Christians initiated by Nero in A.D. 64. The whole tone of the book of Acts would best describe the period prior to the outbreak of Christian persecution begun by Nero. As you read through Acts, Christianity is not yet considered illegal. Each individual case was tried for criminal content. Christianity itself was not yet considered a crime. The apologetic use of court cases would have no value after A.D. 64 when Nero declared Christianity illegal. Therefore, Acts was written before the official anti-Christian policy was legislated in A.D. 64. In the Acts of the Apostles there is no discussion of the bitter destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 66-70. The attitude maintained in the Acts between Romans, Christians and Jews would have been very different after the burning of Rome in A.D. 64 and after the Romans brutally destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. There is no mention of Paul’s glorious martyrdom in Rome about A.D. 67. If Luke wrote Acts later in A.D. 80 or 90 Paul’s death would have been big headline news. Adolf Harnack wrote, “The omission of the story of the martyrdom would have involved on the part of the author a piece of self-sacrifice which would have been quite useless, and which is, moreover, psychologically unintelligible” (Harnack, Adolf. The Acts of the Apostles. J.R. Wilkinson, Trans. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000 44). The death of Paul would have been too epic to ignore or overlook. Luke does not document something so sensational as Paul's death simply because Paul was still alive when he finished his account. Harnack (1851-1930) is recognized as one of the great church historians of his time. The most reasonable way to understand Luke's unexpected close of the Acts of the Apostles is due to the fact that Paul was still alive, under house arrest and awaiting trial. In other words, Acts ends when it does because that was the point at which it was completed. Adolf Harnack says: "It seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical order were written while Paul was still alive" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). F. F. Bruce, my favorite author, agreed that both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written while Paul was alive during his first Roman incarceration, “a little earlier than the persecution of 64” (Bruce, Acts 22). His view of the early date is the position held by the majority of scholars. The best objective interpretation for the inconclusive conclusion of Acts in Rome (Acts 28:31) is the fact that Luke finished the book at that time. Therefore, Acts would have a completion date sometime before A.D. 63 from the capital city of Rome. (Cf., Maclean, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1-volume. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment about A.D. 63. Historical tradition states that Paul visited Spain and more likely traveled back to the east toward Asia Minor (Rom 15:24-28; Phil 1:18-19, 24-26; 2:24; Philemon 22) (cf., Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus 4-5). Paul was re-arrested at Troas and imprisoned a second time in Rome. He was beheaded with the sword for his Christian faith in the closing years of Nero's reign, about A.D. 67 (Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics xxxvi). 16 REASONS WHY ACTS WAS WRITTEN EARLY
The major reason some scholars don’t accept an early date for Acts is due to an a priori assumption that the prediction of the destruction of the temple by Jesus was ex eventu or after the event. In other words, Jesus didn’t really predict the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The gospel writers put those words in his mouth after it happened in A.D. 70 to make Jesus look like a great prophet. However, a late date is not based on any evidence or historical fact. A late date is purely a preference held by those who cannot believe that Jesus was a prophet (Martin, Ralph. New Testament Foundation: a Guide for Christian Students. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975 213-214). When all the evidence is sifted an early Roman date is most convincing. Both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written while Paul was alive and peacefully under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28). If the gospel of Luke and Acts were written early prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70—then Jesus made more than a lucky guess. The prophecy concerning the judgment of Israel goes directly back to Jesus. It was recorded correctly and fulfilled completely. Jesus is the Promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. We can live forever with him in heaven. Streeter is wrong. Luke is right. The choice is clear. I hope you will be inspired to read the NT with greater confidence. I hope you will understand the facts support the truthfulness of the biblical portrait of Jesus. I hope you will serve Jesus with greater zeal, obedience, worship, initiative and sacrifice. I hope you will study harder and pray more. I hope you will resist the modern twisting of history that reduces Jesus to mere legend. Luke can be trusted. Luke is right. THE HERMENEUTICAL IMPACT OF AN EARLY DATE Paul wrote the epistles to the Colossians and Philemon about A.D. 60-62 during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. They are two of four prison epistles. We learn from these two NT documents that Mark and Luke were together with Paul in Rome at this time. · Paul and Luke were together in Rome. Acts 28:16 When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him. NIV Colossians 4:14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. NIV · Paul, Luke and Mark were together in Rome. Philemon 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers. NIV Therefore, the early date of Acts, the Roman location and the presence of Paul, Luke and Mark together should be viewed as a major hermeneutical foundation essential for the proper interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Luke, Paul and even Mark collaborated on the Acts of the Apostles. It helps when reading the Acts of the Apostles to picture Luke, Mark and Paul sitting together and discussing the events collected, recorded and edited by Luke. Obviously, Paul is a major source for Luke’s account. Yet, not only is Paul a source he is actually a present participant in the final form of Luke’s history. Paul would have contributed much to Luke’s work. Luke was a longtime traveling companion of Paul. Luke was an eyewitness of much of the second half of Acts (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). However, he entered the picture in Acts 16. Therefore Luke must research the origins of the Christian movement. He stated that he investigated both written and oral eyewitness sources (Luke 1:1-3). One of his sources would have been Paul. Luke would have interviewed Paul. In a sense Luke is Paul’s biographer. Luke depended on Paul to clearly communicate the early information that he would work into his account. Paul would include and exclude information according to his own purpose. We must read Acts with the knowledge that Luke and Paul collaborated. At some point in Luke’s research project he would have worked together with Paul. This is an obvious point—though full of untapped significance. Normally the puzzle is not put together this way. Yet as the pieces come together—so does the picture. Even if Luke wrote later than A.D. 63—Paul is acknowledged as imparting his memoirs to Luke. In this case the date of publication is of little import. Paul is a key contributor to the Acts whether completed early or later. Therefore, Acts must be interpreted with the knowledge that Paul contributed to and approved the final document. Regardless of the date of Acts, Paul would have exercised some authority over his biography. Paul is Luke’s hero. It is important to note that Luke was Paul’s close and beloved friend. Luke would not have taken liberties with Paul’s story that would have offended or misrepresented Paul. Luke was not going to publish information detrimental to his friend. This is not to say that Luke was not a theologian in his own right. Roger Stronstad cogently contends in his book, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, that Luke/Acts should be interpreted for its unique contributions to NT pneumatology (11). First and Second Timothy and Titus were the only epistles written by Paul after the Acts was completed. Luke wrote the Acts to fill in the holes concerning the Holy Spirit left by Paul’s epistles. However, Luke did not write Acts to spite Paul or contrary to Paul’s wishes. Luke wrote in support of Paul’s purpose and theology. Luke worked hard to clarify history, theology and Paul. Luke wrote with Paul’s approval. Therefore, Luke’s characterization of Paul must be scrutinized with the same diligence as his theology and history. Luke is very sparing of personal details. Ramsay wrote concerning the succinct nature of the text of Acts. It is rare to find a narrative so simple and so little forced as that of Acts. It is a mere uncoloured recital of the important facts in the briefest possible terms. The narrator’s individuality and his personal feelings and preferences are almost wholly suppressed (21). The importance of his observation is to alert the reader to pay closer attention to sections where Luke includes personality clues. Again Ramsay noted, Wherever any little fact is mentioned by Luke, we can always observe some special force in it, and such details must have had real importance, when an author so brief and so impersonal as Luke mentions them; and they are very rare in him (37). It is extremely important to carefully read Luke’s description of Paul. Luke doesn’t characterize Paul. Paul characterized himself. Acts becomes Paul’s self-disclosure. In Acts we hear Paul speak. In Acts Paul reveals his weakness, failures, passions and successes. The Acts must be gleaned for the hidden or background influences of Paul. It is important to notice how Luke treats Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem. Luke’s retelling of events otherwise known through other NT documents should be analyzed for redaction. It is very imperative to read Luke’s history with the perspective that Paul and Luke are setting the record straight for future ages. Acts is not a rush job of small purpose and limited vision. There is no guarantee that Paul would be set free. The Romans crucified Jesus the ringleader of the new Christian movement—they could just as easily kill Paul for little reason. Acts should be read as the memoirs of Paul. There is very little after this time that Paul published. For instance, Luke’s record of the Antioch controversy in Acts 15:1-3 should be viewed as a retraction of the Peter Rebuke in Galatians 2:11. If Paul was looking over Luke’s shoulder, perhaps he felt it best for posterity to favorably redact the Galatians chapter 2 castigation of Peter. Luke wrote in retrospect from an historical perspective. Luke took great pains to exclude any and every negative reference to Peter in the book of Acts. Nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles do we see any hint of Peter caricatured as we do in Galatians 2 as a hypocritical coward. Instead Peter is filled with the Spirit and power. He is willing to suffer imprisonment and torture for Christ while courageously and fearlessly leading the Christian movement. There are no chinks in his armor. Peter can do no wrong. Peter is Luke’s hero. Peter is the champion of Gentile freedom. He is the rock. Yet, scholars believe that Peter’s impulsiveness stayed with him his whole life. Supposedly, the episode at Antioch (Gal 2:11) was just another faux pas in an unbroken chain of Peter’s mistakes. Apparently his time with Jesus, Spirit baptism, visions and 20 years of service were no match for Peter’s weak personality. Conversely, scholars believe that Paul lost his vitriolic pharisaic personality and was immediately transformed into Jesus upon conversion. However, Luke crafted his work to correct this inaccurate caricature of Peter and Paul. Luke sought to remedy the damage done to Peter’s reputation from Galatians 2. In Lukan redaction the Antioch rebuke of Peter (Gal 2:11f) is more about Paul’s volatile temper and not Peter’s “hypocrisy.” Luke also included some of Paul’s inconsistencies and foibles to temper Paul’s self-aggrandizement. It was Luke’s intention to give his readers a balanced view of Paul. He had a personality that was Jewish, educated and pharisaic. We are allowed an intimate view of Paul’s ferocious temper and pharisaic snobbery. Luke, true to Jewish historiography, was honest enough to include vignettes of Paul’s volatile personality. Luke in Acts vindicated the Apostles and in particular Peter. He also introduced and humanizes Paul. Luke recorded regarding Paul: 1. He was not one of the original 12 apostles (Acts 1:15). 2. He was a murderous persecutor of Jewish Christians (Acts 8:1-3; 22:4; 26:10-11). 3. He was rejected by the Jews and sent away by Jewish Christians to his hometown of Tarsus (Acts 9:23-25, 29-31). 4. He disappeared for 10 silent years. Barnabas brought him back into the ministry picture, late into the Gentile movement (Acts 11:25). 5. He was not the principal agent of change, nor the leader of the world Christian movement (Acts 10; 13:1-3). 6. His inability to tolerate Mark led to his own mission venture (Acts 15:39; 13:13). 7. His temper got the best of him, resulting in a split with the incredibly congenial Barnabas (Acts 15:39). 8. He circumcised Timothy contrary to his own doctrine (Acts 16:3). 9. His temper got the best of him in his trail before the Sanhedrin. He insulted the high priest (Acts 23:1-5). 10. The gospel preceded him to Rome (Romans 16). 11. He was not the first Christian in Europe (Acts 18:2). 12. Paul’s reputation did not precede him to Rome (Acts 28:21). The majority opinion among scholars is that Luke wrote Luke and Acts from Rome before Paul was released from prison about A.D. 63. Other NT documents show that Paul, Luke and Mark were together in Rome during this 2-year time frame. Luke used Mark’s gospel as an exemplar or pattern for his own work. Mark’s gospel was composed to provide the Romans with a summary of Peter’s preaching. Mark’s gospel is dated from A.D. 55-60 and written in Rome. Rome was the center of much literary activity that later became a major part of the New Testament. The Acts should be read in part as the memoirs of Paul (Eusebius 5.8.2-4). The knowledge that Paul, Luke and Mark worked together as Acts was being written should inform a more careful reading of the text. Luke’s rendition of history, theology and people should be compared with other NT documents and gleaned for redaction. Acts should not be relegated to the backwaters of NT studies as mere historical narrative. Instead, the Acts should be interpreted for the clarity it brings to history, theology especially pneumatology, ecclesiology and Paul. |
