The Acts of the Apostles is the most exciting book in the New Testament, probably in the whole Christian Bible. It tells of the beginnings of Christianity with a vigour and vividness which often leaves the new reader breathless. It is a story of men (almost entirely men) who are filled with divine power, inspired to speak with an effectiveness far beyond native ability, guided and sustained at crucial moments by heavenly visions, their mission punctuated by miraculous healings and rescues, their initial success staggering and their progress to the centre of the civilized world (Rome) remorseless. Its particular hero and the one whose character is most clearly drawn is Saul who becomes Paul, persecutor become advocate, Pharisee become apologist, ardent Jew become missionary to Gentiles. His conversion, his travels and many crises, his preaching and encounters, disappointment and success, even his long drawn out defence in the final chapters, is the stuff of adventure yarns.
Acts is a book which even today still stirs the passions when read in Christian congregations and groups, evoking the same mixed responses that Paul’s own message received: some being persuaded by what is said, others disbelieving (28.24). Some sighing, ‘Oh that the church today could know again the same empowering of the Spirit.’ Others doubting, ‘Could it really have been as Acts narrates?’ The rest probably somewhere in between, wondering how comfortable or disconcerted they would be should either alternative prove to be the case. But few, surely, can remain unimpressed or unmoved by the Acts account, whether as a superb adventure tale or as a historical narrative, in its portrayal of a Christianity which excites and provokes. Is this Christianity as it really was in the beginning, as we should continue to envisage it, or even as it should be?
What is this book then? What do we need to know about it before we can read it to best effect?
§1 The author, recipient, date and text of Acts
The book does not tell us who its author was; in this it is more like the Gospels than the Epistles in the New Testament. From earliest times, at least from the end of the second century AD, the tradition has been that the author was Luke, the one described as ‘the beloved physician’ in Col. 4.14 (cf. II Tim. 4.11; Philemon 24). The evidence available to us from Acts does not enable a firm judgment on the point. But there are two features within the document itself which are particularly relevant.
One is the presence of ‘we/us’ sections in the second (the Pauline) half of the narrative, where the impression certainly seems to be given that the narrator was personally present at and involved in the events described (16.10–17; 20.5–15; 21.8–18; 27.1–28.16). Most critical studies ascribe this feature to artistic invention or literary convention, but the abruptness of the transitions from third person to first person and back again are better explained in terms of personal presence and absence, and overall it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the narrator intended his readers to infer his personal involvement in the episodes described.
The other is the fact that Acts is the second of a two-volume work — Luke-Acts. This is clearly signalled in the opening sentence of the latter volume (1.1–2), as also by the stylistic characteristics which permeate both volumes, and is confirmed by the several obviously deliberate points of parallel between the two volumes which effectively lock them together (see below §3). We can therefore take the prologue to the Gospel (Luke 1.1–4) and conclude that the claim indicated there, of careful research after sources and eyewitness information, applies also to the Acts.
In other words, it makes not a lot of difference whether we can or cannot give a particular name to the author of Acts or describe his character and precise relation to the story he tells. It is enough to know that he was personally close to the events, often/usually(?) able to draw on eyewitness recollections, and that he went about his task with considerable care and with due sense of responsibility. Since we cannot be sure who he was, we will stick with the traditional identification of the author as ‘Luke’.
Like the Gospel, Acts is addressed to one Theophilus. Who he was we now have no means of knowing, other than that the manner of Luke’s address in Luke 1.3 (‘most excellent’) suggests that he was a man of some rank and influence (cf. the address in Acts 23.26, 24.3 and 26.25). There is no suggestion that the two volumes were for Theophilus’ personal use alone. The hope would rather be that Theophilus would act as a sponsor, formal or otherwise, for the work. He must have been either a Christian or a strong sympathizer. His sponsorship would not have made much difference in the various Christian churches who would soon learn of and seek out their own copies, but it could have made a difference in drawing attention to the volume among the literate and governing classes in some parts of the Empire. The address, however, does not help us much in resolving the question of why Luke wrote his two books (below §2).
Not much hangs on the date of the composition, but a date in the middle of the second generation of Christianity (the 80s) fits best with the evidence: (1) a volume written some time after the Gospel of Luke, itself usually thought to be dependent on Mark’s Gospel (usually dated to the late 60s or early 70s), (2) by someone who had probably been a companion of Paul, and (3) whose portrayal of earliest Christianity seems to reflect the concerns of the post-Pauline generation after that stormy petrel had disappeared from the scene.
All New Testament writings come down to us in different textual forms, from manuscripts and translations dating chiefly from the fourth century onwards. Usually the differences between them though multitudinous are insignificant. But in the case of Acts, a text form of Acts (usually called the ‘Western’ text) can be discerned which consistently seeks to clarify and smooth the earlier text by numerous elaborations. These do not belong to the original text, and so are rarely referred to in the following commentary, but are often interesting and tell us how Acts was received and used within early Western Christianity. Those interested can find regular reference to the ‘Western’ elaborations in Johnson’s commentary and technical evaluation of the textual tradition in Metzger’s commentary.
§2 Why did Luke write this book?
Luke indicates his own answer to this question — again in the very opening sentence: (1) his concern evidently was to trace out the continuation of and the continuities with the work which Jesus began (1.1–2). As we shall see when we turn to the beginning of his narrative, this does indeed seem to be his fundamental concern: to identify the movement whose early history he describes as clearly as possible by its reference to Jesus. This also means by reference to his message, the kingdom of God (see on 1.3), to his death and resurrection, the central emphasis of the gospel as preached consistently through Acts, to his name, the banner under which they marched forward, and to his Spirit, the major force behind the evangelism and its success. Since Jesus is also Messiah of his people, that means also, not least, to identify the Jewish sect of Jesus the Nazarene by reference to Israel’s God (as the fulfilment of his purposes), to Israel’s heritage (the law and the prophets), to Israel’s mission (to be a light to the Gentiles) and to Israel’s hope (resurrection) (see further §5 below).
Other objectives fall within this overarching objective. (2) Prominent among them is the intention to describe the spread of the new movement and the success of its evangelism in the power of the Spirit, following the programme set out in 1.8. (3) This includes the developing schism with the leaders of Judaism in Jerusalem (chs 3–7) and in most cases with the chief representatives of ‘the Jews’ in other centres (chs 13–25). But Luke nowhere shows this to be a final schism (see 28.17–31). Rather it is more a case of sibling rivalry or ‘sectarian’ tension — integral, in fact, to Christianity’s emerging identity. So Luke had no qualms in portraying Paul asserting his own identity as a Jew (21.39; 22.3) and protesting his loyalty to the ancestral traditions of his people to the end (22.3; 23.6; 24.11–17; 25.8; 26.4–7; 28.17).
(4) It also includes the beginning, justification and development of the mission to the Gentiles, with its various crucial moments of decision for a Jewish sect (particularly chs 10–11, 15), and with the sequence of confrontations with false understandings of God, particularly in Samaria, Lystra and Athens (chs 8, 14 and 17), and with the false practices of magic in Samaria, Cyprus and Ephesus (chs 8, 13, 19). The whole plot unfolds at the instigation of God (see on 2.23 and 4.12) and mission to the Gentiles is the central feature of Paul’s commission (9.15–16; 22.21; 26.16–18, 23). That it is the God of Israel is always taken for granted, and the proclamation of this God as creator and judge to pagans and idolaters is a major feature (the speeches of chs 10, 14 and 17).
(5) Included also is a deliberate attempt to underline the unity of the expanding movement, despite the tensions caused by a Jewish mission to Gentiles. Its object is achieved by emphasizing the centrality and oversight of the Jerusalem church (as in 8.14 and 11.22) and of ‘the apostles’ (1.26; 2.42; 8.1; 9.27; 11.1; 15.2, 6, 22–23; 16.4), and by drawing a discrete veil over the tensions provoked by ‘the Hellenists’ (6.1) and Stephen (8.2), not to mention those involving Paul (see below §4(2)).
(6) So too the overarching objective includes an apologetic strand in relation to the power of Rome. In contrast to the repeated antagonism of Jews, Roman officials are regularly portrayed in a positive light, particularly in the unresolved trial of Paul in chs 21–28. Pilate’s verdict on Jesus’ innocence is repeated from the Gospel (3.13). The centurion of Caesarea and the proconsul of Cyprus are equally attracted to the new movement (ch. 10; 13.4–12). The magistrates in Philippi are depicted as having to eat humble pie because they had infringed Paul’s citizen rights (16.35–39), and the Christians are exempted from any blame for the riot in Ephesus (19.21–41). Above all, the ruling of Gallio in 18.12–17, that the disputes between Paul and his fellow Jews were an internal affair, not liable to prosecution under Roman law, is sustained by procurator Festus and king Agrippa (25.19, 25; 26.30–32). Luke’s story fades out on the picture of Paul preaching and teaching freely in Rome, with the legal term ‘unhindered’ literally the last word (28.31). Paul, and so also the movement he represented, was evidently no threat to Roman law or state, and could be left free to get on with its own business. Equally, Luke’s Christian readers could take confidence from what he wrote that Roman law and government were no real threat to their movement and mission (Walaskay).
Some have focussed attention on these last features and suggested that Luke wrote Acts primarily as a brief for Paul’s defence in his final trial before Nero (which would push the date of Acts back to the early 60s). However, that would hardly explain why Paul is not introduced till the narrative is well advanced, why there is so much repetition of what would be irrelevant themes, and why the subject of Paul’s trial fades almost entirely from view in the last two chapters of the book. It is not just the political status of Christianity which Luke was concerned to defend; his concern much more was to define its theological identity.
(7) In some contrast, definition of believers’ social identity as such does not seem to have been a major interest for Luke. He does note examples of wealthy recruits, like Barnabas and Lydia (4.36–37; 16.14–15), to the new sect, and concern for those in need is a recurring feature (2.45; 6.3–4; 11.28–30; 24.17; cf. particularly Luke 4.18; 6.20). But the social tensions in such episodes as 6.1 (different language groups), 8.4–8, 12 (Jews and Samaritans), 14.8–18 (encounter with unsophisticated highland townsfolk) and 16.16–19 (slave girl manipulated by owners) are left unstated. Nevertheless, it is true that, for example, his portrayal of the primitive community of goods and the emphasis he put upon Peter’s acceptance of the hospitality of the uncircumcised Cornelius would have provided precedents for the social behaviour of his Christian readers (cf. Esler).
§3 Literary structure
In commenting on the character and structure of Luke’s narrative we will have frequent occasion to call attention to Luke’s skill as a storyteller (e.g. 3.1–10; 5.21–26; 14.8–18; 16.11–40; 19.23–41; 21.27–40). The influence over the centuries of the picture he portrayed and its continuing impact today bear their own witness. It may be useful here, however, to draw attention to some of the more striking features of Luke’s overall construction.
Particularly notable is the care Luke has evidently taken to draw out whole sequences of parallels: within Acts between Peter and Paul —
| Peter | Paul |
| 2.22–39 | 13.26–41 |
| 3.1–10 | 14.8–11 |
| 4.8 | 13.9 |
| 5.15 | 19.12 |
| 8.17 | 19.6 |
| 8.18–24 | 13.6–11 |
| 9.36–41 | 20.9–12 |
| 12.6–11 | 16.25–34 |
— and in relation to the Gospel with Jesus also —
| Luke | Acts |
| 3.21–22 | 2.1–4 |
| 4.14–21 | 2.14–39/13.16–41 |
| 4.40 | 28.9 |
| 5.17–26 | 3.1–10/14.8–11 |
| 8.40–56 | 9.36–41/20.9–12 |
| 22.66–71 | 6.8–15 |
| 22.69 | 7.56 |
| 23.34, 46 | 7.59–60 |
See further the Introductions to ch. 1 and chs 21–28; also on 1.1–5 as a whole.
Less frequently noted are the number of features in the Gospel which Luke chose to omit or to refer to only briefly, because, evidently, he wanted to reserve their impact until Acts. Thus, although, as is generally agreed, he used much of Mark’s Gospel as one of the sources for his own Gospel, he nevertheless omitted the accusation at Jesus’ trial that Jesus had threatened to destroy the Temple (Mark 14.58), presumably because he wanted to reserve the confrontation and split over the Temple until the Stephen episode (chs 6–7; see on 6.14). Likewise, he omitted Mark 7, the episode which in Mark spells the end of the ritual distinction between clean and unclean, presumably because he wanted to reserve the full impact of Peter’s ‘conversion’ on this point until the Cornelius episode (see Introduction to ch. 10). So too Luke may have omitted the account of John the Baptist’s death in Mark 6.17–29 because he wanted to save its impact for Acts 13.24–26. Finally we may note that he restricted the allusion to Isa. 6.9–10 in Luke 8.10 (contrast Mark 4.12 and Matt. 13.14–15), presumably because he wished to reserve the impact of the full quotation of Isa. 6.9–10 until Acts 28.25–27. As a feature of Luke’s technique we may compare his holding back of the information in 22.17–20 for the more dramatic second telling of Paul’s conversion-commission.
One interesting corollary which follows from these observations is that Luke and Acts were evidently intended to make a matching pair, and a pair complete in itself. It would be difficult to envisage how Luke could have extended such motifs into a third volume or to identify any other loose ends which he may have intended to tie up in a projected third volume. So too this second volume seems to fade out into an open-ended future (28.30–31), the effect of which a third volume would destroy. We may conclude from such structural observations that Acts was intended by Luke to be the climax and completion of his career as historian and epitomizer of earliest Christianity.
§4 What kind of history?
Luke’s narrative can certainly be described as a history, but that title (‘history’) raises issues which Luke himself probably never envisaged. This is because the concept of historiography and of what is proper to a history has changed significantly over the centuries. It is not that ancient historians were any less interested in what had happened in significant periods and events of the past than are modern historians. Nor is it the case that modern historians are any less biased and tendentious in their reconstructions and portrayals of characters and events than ancient historians; we may think, for example, of the current diverse historical recountings and evaluations of such figures as Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher. In other words, the issues confronting us over the kind of history which Acts is cannot be simply reduced to a black and white choice between unadorned fact and unadulterated fiction. That has never been the case with responsible historical writing, and it is not the case with Acts. Good history has never been simply a matter of pedantic communication of information.
The issue is rather what counted as responsible history writing in the ancient world. What would Luke’s readers have expected from him? How would they have read Acts? We can derive the answer in part from the New Testament itself.
(1) However conventional Luke’s claims for the carefulness of his research and the reliability of his findings (Luke 1.1–4), we have good reason to conclude that Luke did try to live up to these claims. At the very least we can be confident of the broad outlines of his narrative. This is borne out by the comparisons we can make between the Gospel of Luke and the other two Synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Mark): they indicate a homogeneity and overlap of material which points to the conclusion that Luke had access to early reminiscences of Jesus’ ministry and used them in such a way that the outline of particular incidents and substance of particular teachings remain clear. Although Acts is a different format (a form of history, not a Gospel), the explicit detail of persons and titles, of times and places, particularly from ch. 13 onwards, attests the similar effectiveness of Luke’s sources of information (probably including his own personal involvement in various episodes), so that the reader can justifiably be confident of the historical basis of most of his narratives. In the following pages, the introduction to each chapter usually draws attention to the pertinent features.
(2) At the same time, comparison between the Gospels indicates that Luke, like the other Evangelists, did not see his task limited to the collection and passing on of tradition. Rather we see a readiness to edit the available traditions — to locate in different places, to omit or add, to expand or contract, to elaborate and interpret. The method and technique is well illustrated within Acts itself by the triple telling of the story of Paul’s conversion (chs 9, 22, 26), where both the common outline and detailed core of the story are clear enough, but also the freedom in the manipulation of detail to bring out different emphases. That the same author can include such retellings within the same volume tells us much of what he regarded as good historical as well as good storytelling technique (see also on 11.4–14).
In Acts, Luke’s freedom in regard to tradition is shown by his practice of telescoping events (see Introduction to 8.1–3), by his playing down the probable seriousness of the crisis for the Jerusalem church occasioned by the activities of the Hellenists and Stephen in particular (chs 6–8), by his smoothing out initial relations between Paul and the Jerusalem church (9.23–30), by his ignoring the confrontations between Paul and other Christian Jews at Antioch and Galatia (of which we learn from Paul’s letter to the Galatians), by his failure to mention Paul’s letter-writing activity and the tensions they indicate particularly in Paul’s relations with the church in Corinth (see e.g. on 20.1–2), and by his side-lining of the principal reason why Paul made his final journey to Jerusalem (to deliver the collection; see Introduction to ch. 20). Luke evidently had a different agenda from that of Paul, Luke presumably wanting to highlight the unity of the Nazarene sect in its expansion, whereas Paul’s letters were occasioned more by the conflicts and tensions which his church planting occasioned. So too we should not be surprised at the different details and divergent tendencies as between Luke’s portrayal of his great hero and the self-portrayal of Paul himself in his letters; that even the closest collaborators in a great enterprise have different impressions and divergent evaluations of their common endeavours is a recurrent feature of history both ancient and modern.
(3) The most sensitive area of unease over Luke’s portrayal of Christian origins is the speeches or sermons which constitute a major feature of his narrative (they take up about 30% of the space) and which carry the most heavy weight of the book’s theology. It is at this point that conventions of ancient historiography differ most markedly from those of the modern period. In ancient historiography speeches served not only to indicate what the person was known to have said, but also what the writer thought he was likely to have said. They also played a role within the drama of the unfolding narrative, being included for rhetorical effect, to entertain as well as to inform the reader; the ancient historians show varying degrees of responsibility and irresponsibility in this practice. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of Luke, places two quite different speeches in the mouth of Herod in his parallel accounts of the same episode (Jewish War 1.373–9; Antiquities 15.127–46). At this point the line between the ancient historian and the dramatist becomes quite fine and the ancient history becomes more like the historical novel than the modern history, where much stricter controls apply over what can and cannot, should and should not be attributed. Much quoted in discussions on this question are the words of the Greek historian Thucydides, often regarded as the greatest of ancient historians. In his History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22.1 he writes:
As to the speeches which were made either before or during the war, it was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general import of what was actually said (Bruce [1990] 34 using B. Jowett’s translation).
In Acts we can see fairly clearly how Luke worked within these ancient conventions. In all cases the style of the speeches is Lukan through and through; they are, properly speaking, Lukan compositions. At the same time, in most cases the individuality and distinctiveness of the material points to the conclusion that Luke has been able to draw on and incorporate tradition — not necessarily any specific record or recollection as such, but tradition related to and representative of the individual’s views and well suited to the occasion. In almost all cases we cannot but be impressed by the combination of brevity (speeches which take only three or four minutes to deliver) and roundedness; they are neither outlines nor abbreviations, but cameos. Given the conventions of the time, the readers would not expect any more. Twentieth- and twenty-first-century readers, accustomed to modern conventions, should neither expect more nor judge Luke unfavourably on this score.
This also means that the speeches of Acts can be used only with care as sources for earliest Christian proclamation and teaching. They represent Luke’s impression of that theology, but it is theology seen through Luke’s eyes and reflecting also his own concerns. In the following commentary the Introduction to the chapter or section containing a significant speech summarizes both the (Lukan) theological emphases and the indications of earlier tradition.
§5 The teaching of Acts
What then is the theology of Acts? What is the overall message that Luke wanted Theophilus and his other readers to take away from his book? We may sum it up under several headings.
(1) The creator is God of all, sovereign in the ordering of times and seasons (4.24; 14.15; 17.24–27). He is the God of Israel, and Jesus is the climax of his purpose for Israel and the focus of his purpose for the nations at large; note the divine ‘must’ (see on 4.12) and the divine purpose (see on 4.27–28; also Squires). The gospel to the Gentiles calls on them to recognize the true character of God and to repent in face of the judgment to come (8.10, 18–24; 10.25–26, 34–43; 14.15–17; 17.22–31; 19.26).
(2) Jesus is at the centre of the narrative. Not that much attention is paid to his earlier ministry (already dealt with fully in the Gospel), nor that much is made of his continuing function as ascended. But his death and rejection by the leaders of his own people (see on 2.23) and subsequent vindication by God (see on 2.24) were foreordained by God (again the divine ‘must’; see on 4.12). And the subject of the book, ‘Christianity’ (to use the later title for convenience), is the continuation of what began with Jesus (1.1–2), its chief identity marker is its relation to Jesus (it is named with his name; see Introduction to ch. 3), and its principal testimony is to his resurrection (2.24–32; 4.1–2, 33; 10.40–41; 13.30–37; 17.18, 30–31; 23.6; 26.6–8, 23), to which the major theme of ‘witness’ is most closely linked (see on 1.8).
(3) The Christianity of Acts is characterized by mission from start to finish (1.8; 28.30–31), by the effectiveness and expansion of ‘the word’ (see on 4.4). That mission begins with the empowering of the Holy Spirit (1.5, 8; 2.1–42). Its direction and success is dependent on and enabled by the Holy Spirit (4.8, 31; 5.32; 6.5; 7.55; 8.29, 39; 10.19–20, 47; 13.2, 4, 9; 15.28; 16.6–7; 20.22). The crucial factor in conversion is the gift of the Spirit, the manifest evidence of the Spirit’s presence knitting converts into the established communities (2.38; 8.14–17; 9.17; 10.44–48; 11.15–18; 18.24–19.6), and the grace and insight enabled by the Spirit maintaining the unity of the burgeoning movement (2.43–47; 9.31; 11.23–24; 13.52; 20.28). Spirit-inspired prophecy and prophets are vital features of the ongoing life of the churches (2.17–18; 3.25; 11.27; 13.1; 15.32; 19.6; 21.9–10).
(4) Integral to the self-understanding of this Christianity is its recognition that it is an extension of Israel (cf. Maddox). It is the heir of key promises and fulfilment of important prophecies in their common scriptures (2.16–21, 25–28; 3.21–25; 4.25–26; 8.32–35; 13.33–41, 47; 15.15–18; 28.25–27). It claims that ‘the hope of Israel’ (28.20) has already begun to be fulfilled in Jesus (1.16; 3.18; 7.52; 13.27). It is not antagonistic to the law, even though so accused by Israel’s current leaders (6.13–14; 18.13; 21.21, 28; 24.6); but each charge is countered (7.38, 53; 18.15, 18; 21.24–26; 22.3, 12; 23.29; 24.14; 25.8; 28.17, 23). Its mission is Israel’s mission to the nations, an essential aspect of Israel’s own restoration (1.6–8; 2.39; 3.17–26; 11.18; 15.14–18; 23.6; 24.14–15; 26.18, 23; 28.23). Its message for Greeks as well as Jews (see on 20.21) offends the majority of the Jews in many centres (12.3, 11; 13.50; 14.2, 4, 19; 17.5; 18.6, 12; 19.9; 20.3, 19; 22.30; 23.12). But the Jews continue to have first claim upon its message (2.39; 3.22, 25–26; 5.31; and see on 13.5), and many are convinced (2.41, 47; 4.4; 5.14; 6.7; 9.31; 13.43; 14.1; 16.1; 17.4, 11–12; 18.4, 8; 19.9; 20.21; 21.20; 23.9; 26.20; 28.24). And the dialogue with the Jews has to be an ongoing dialogue in search of mutual self-understanding in relation to God’s Messiah and in response to his Spirit (17.2–4, 11; 18.4, 19, 28; 19.8; 23.6; 24.14–15; 26.6–8, 19–29; 28.17–31). This true understanding of ‘the way of the Lord’ is set over against not only the deficient insights of the less well instructed (18.24–19.6), but also the false claims of corrupt or syncretistic forms of Judaism (8.9–24; 13.6–12; 19.11–20).
It is important to recognize that for Luke these are the three most fundamental features — (the name of) Jesus, (the power of) the Spirit, and continuity with Israel — which mark out the movement whose beginnings he records and which define its identity most clearly.
(5) Among other distinctive features of Luke’s portrayal of Christian beginnings the following are particularly worthy of note:
(a) the limitation of Jesus’ resurrection appearances to Jerusalem, the clear differentiation in character and time of Jesus’ ascension from his resurrection, and the tradition of Pentecost (see Introduction to ch. 1);
(b) the limitation of full apostolic status to those who had been with Jesus from the beginning (1.21–22), with the consequential implicit denial that Paul was an apostle like the twelve (despite 14.4, 14), and the attribution to Peter of the decisive breakthrough to the Gentiles (10.1–11.18; 15.7–11);
(c) the restriction of Luke’s attention to particular individuals, giving no doubt a selective view of Christianity’s development — the Acts of Peter, of Stephen and Philip, and of Paul;
(d) the primitive christologies incorporated in the early speeches (2.22, 33, 36; 3.13–15, 19–21; 7.55–56; 10.38, 42; 13.33), including that of the prophet like Moses (3.22–23; 7.37), and the absence of any salvific function attributed to the cross in the evangelistic and apologetic speeches of Acts, beyond that of Jesus’ suffering prior to his vindication (2.23–24; 3.14–15; 4.10; 5.30; 8.32–33; 10.39–40; 13.28–30);
(e) the primacy of ‘salvation’ as the dominant metaphor for what the gospel achieves (particularly 2.21, 47; 4.12; 11.14; 13.26, 47; 15.1, 11; 16.17, 30–31) and the centrality of the gift of the Spirit in conversion (see (3) above), without diminishing the importance of repentance (2.38; 3.19; 5.31; 8.22; 11.18; 17.30; 20.21; 26.20), faith (4.4; 9.42; 10.43; 11.17, 21; 13.12, 48; 14.1, 9, 23, 27; 15.7, 9; 16.31, 34; 18.8, 27; 19.2, 4; 20.21; 26.18) or baptism (2.38, 41; 8.12–13, 36, 38; 9.18; 10.47–48; 16.15, 33; 18.8; 19.5; 22.16);
(f) not simply the emphasis on prophecy (see above §5(3)), but also Luke’s conceptualization of the tangibility of spiritual phenomena (1.3, 9; 2.33; 8.18; 10.45–46; 12.9; cf. Luke 3.22; 24.39);
(g) likewise the somewhat enthusiastic and uncritical blurring of prophecy and glossolalia (2.4, 16–18; 10.46; 19.6), acceptance of visions in crucial decision-making (9.10–12; 10.3–6, 10–14; 11.5–14; 16.9–10; 18.9–10; 22.17–21), and delight in the miraculous, particularly the signs and wonders of the early phase (see on 2.22; also 5.15 and 19.11–12), in contrast to the critical treatment of magic (8.18–24; 13.4–12; 16.16–18; 19.13–20; see also on 5.15);
(h) also in some contrast, the emphasis on Jerusalem as the mother church of Christianity and on ‘the apostles’/‘the twelve’ as the focus of continuity (6.2; see Introduction to ch. 1 and on 1.2), and on the unity and orderliness of the churches from the first, as indicated by the handling of the problems posed in chapters 5 and 6, the monitoring and approval of developments in Samaria and Antioch (8.14–17; 11.22–24), the solution to the problem of mixed Jew-Gentile churches (15.19–16.5), the integration of Paul (9.26–29; 11.29–30; 16.4) and of his churches (by the appointment of elders; 14.23; 20.17) and of otherwise detached groups (as illustrated in 18.24–19.7) — features regarded by some as evidence of an ‘early catholic’ perspective (but note also points (f) and (g) above);
(i) the lack of much concern to indicate how Christian ethics developed, marked by the use of the Old Testament for its predictive rather than prescriptive value, and by the complete absence of any talk of ‘love’, agape (Acts is the only New Testament writing in which neither verb nor noun occurs);
(j) the fading of any sense of eschatological intensity and urgency beyond the references in 2.17–21 and 3.19–21, with even talk of judgment presented more as a doctrine of ‘the last things’ than a matter of urgent crisis (10.42; 17.31; 24.25), and the appropriate balance of emphasis indicated at beginning and end (1.6–8; 28.30–31).
In the commentary itself care will be taken in the Introductions to each chapter to highlight the chief features of Luke’s narrative, including the main theological points and evaluation of its historical and dramatic force.
§6 Bibliography
Sources
The Greek text used has been the Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions. English translations referred to are Jerusalem Bible (JB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New English Bible (NEB), Revised English Bible (REB), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Most of these include the Apocrypha.
Invaluable for Jewish background and thought are the texts collected in the two-volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. H. Charlesworth (London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1983, 1985) or the briefer collection edited by H. F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon 1984). The most convenient text for the Qumran Scrolls is G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin, 41995), and for the early rabbinic writings is still H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon 1933). The writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Paul’s older contemporary, Philo, are cited from the twelve-volume Loeb edition, and of the Jewish historian, Luke’s contemporary, Josephus, from the corresponding nine-volume Loeb edition. The Apostolic Fathers likewise can be consulted in the twovolume Loeb edition, and other classical Greek texts, cited sparingly, also use the equivalent Loeb editions.
There are several valuable commentaries available in English. The most technical is the long-awaited International Critical Commentary in two volumes by the doyen of British New Testament scholars, C. K. Barrett, Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1994, 1997). On the textual variations see particularly B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies 21975).
Also technical are the two commentaries which well represent the traditions of German critical evaluation of Acts — H. Conzelmann, The Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress 1987), and E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell 1971). Less technical, but in the same category is G. Lüdemann’s Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts (London: SCM Press/Philadephia: Fortress 1989), which concentrates on sifting tradition from redaction.
A counterbalance to these is the more conservative commentary on the Greek text by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester: Apollos 31990), with its popular complement and fuller exposition, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 21988). The older two-volume commentary edited by K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury remains of value, particularly the latter volume of additional notes, which appeared as volumes 4 and 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, The Acts of the Apostles, edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake (London: Macmillan 1933).
Highly recommended as spanning the division between technical and popular, and for its overall balance, is the Sacra Pagina (Roman Catholic) commentary by L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical 1992).
Of popular treatments in English mention may also be made particularly of the New Clarendon Bible by R. P. C. Hanson, The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon 1967), and the Tyndale Commentary by I. H. Marshall, Acts (Leicester: Inter-Varsity 1980). The two volumes by R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress 1986, 1990) provides a well-regarded analysis of the narrative of Acts.
Those who can cope with German are recommended to the two-volume Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar by A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (Gütersloh: Gütersloher 1981, 1985), the two-volume Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar by R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1986), and the more popular Neue Testament Deutsch volume by J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1981).
Selected studies
Thorough introductions are provided, e.g., by W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon/London: SCM Press 1975) and L. T. Johnson, ‘Luke-Acts, Book of’, Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday 1992) IV.403–20, the latter in particular reminding us of the importance of reading Acts as part of a two-volume project. For analysis of various features of Acts as illumined by its historical background the five-volume series, The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, edited by B. W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster 1993–96) can be recommended. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon 1963) is still valuable on the legal background to Acts. The classic study of Luke’s style remains H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan 1927).
On questions of Acts, historical reliability, particularly the speeches, the principal critical impetus came from M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press 1956). In contrast, the Tübingen scholar M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press/Philadephia: Fortress 1979) has been consistently more confident in using Acts as a historical source. The equivalent debate in English scholarship is between treating Acts primarily as literature, as, for example, R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress 1987) — Acts as a historical novel or romance — and treating it primarily as history, as particularly by C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1989). The recent thorough study by G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill 1992), concludes that Luke-Acts is best classified as ‘apologetic history’.
For general histories of earliest Christianity reference may be made to F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (London: Nelson/Pickering & Inglis 1969), S. Brown, The Origins of Christianity (Oxford University Press 1984, 21993), H. Conzelmann, History of Primitive Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1973), L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (London: A. & C. Black 1970), and C. Rowland, Christian Origins (London: SPCK, 1985).
On the particular issues surrounding Stephen and the Hellenists, the spread of debate is well represented by M. Simon, St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans 1958), M. Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Fortress 1983), E. Richard, Acts 6:1–8:4. The Author’s Method of Composition (Missoula, Montana: Scholars 1978), and C. C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress 1992).
For the life of Paul the following will give a good example of scholarly opinion: G. Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper/London: Hodder 1971), F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster 1977), M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International 1991), M. Dibelius, Paul (London: Longmans Green 1953), and J. Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (London: SCM Press 1950, revised 1989).
Overviews of Luke’s theology and purpose include the collection of important, some classic essays in Studies in Luke Acts, edited by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon 1966), R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1982), I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster 1970), R. F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier 1984), and H. C. Kee, Good News to the Ends of the Earth: The Theology of Acts (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International 1990). For the interplay of Lukan emphases within New Testament theology see the author’s Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press/Philadephia: Trinity Press International 21990).
On the theme which runs most persistently through Acts and the following pages, the relation between Judaism and Christianity as portrayed by Luke, the spectrum runs through an amazingly diverse range, from the view that Luke was bitterly and unyieldingly hostile to the Jews, to a much more positive evaluation of their interdependence — from J. T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM Press/Philadephia: Fortress 1987), through J. B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia, S. Carolina: University of South Carolina 1992), the two volumes by S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge University Press 1973) and Luke and the Law (Cambridge University Press 1983), and R. L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (Atlanta: Scholars 1987), to the three controversial volumes by J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg 1972), The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Augsburg 1984), and The Theology of Acts (Cambridge University Press 1996). Mention should also be made of the more specific study by J. A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts (Sheffield Academic 1994). For these issues within a wider New Testament framework see the author’s The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism (London: SCM Press/ Philadelphia: Trinity Press International 1991).
On the particular issues raised by Luke’s portrayal of the Spirit, readers might wish to consult the author’s earlier studies — Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Westminster 1970), and Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Westminster 1975). Individual monographs of value on other specific aspects, whose titles are self-explanatory, include S. Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 1969); R. J. Cassidy, Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Orbis 1987); P. F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge University Press 1987); S. R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress 1989); M. L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster 1994); F. S. Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts (Sheffield Academic 1992); J. T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (Cambridge University Press 1993); P. W. Walaskay, ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St Luke (Cambridge University Press 1983); and R. F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (Nashville: Abingdon 1971).
Further bibliography, 1996–2016
Acts has received much attention in the past twenty years. To be recommended are Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2007); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 31; New York: Doubleday 1998); Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2012–15)—thorough and magisterial; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2012); Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
Others worth noting are Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008); Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress 2009); David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Nottingham: Apollos 2009).
Also to be mentioned for those capable in French is Daniel Marguerat, Les Actes des apôtres (1–12) (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, 2e série, 5 A; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007).
And fans of the famous Durham scholar-bishop will want to know about J. B. Lightfoot, The Acts of the Apostles: A Newly Discovered Commentary (Vol. 1 of The Lightfoot Legacy Set; edited by Ben Witherington III and Todd D. Still; Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic 2014).
Advance notice of Loveday Alexander’s Acts in the Black’s New Testament Commentary series and Steve Walton’s two volumes in the Word Biblical Commentary whet the appetite.
For various other introductory issues, the following should be noted: Loveday C. A. Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (Early Christianity in Context; Library of New Testament Studies 298; London: T. & T. Clark 2005) — an excellent exploration of Acts; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (translated by John Bowden; London: SCM/Louisville: Westminster John Knox 1997); Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (translated by Brian McNeil; Minneapolis: Fortress 2013); Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (translated by Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, and Richard Bauckham; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Claire K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (WUNT 2, 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004).