Genre
Most scholars today agree that Acts is a work of ancient history. Those who view it as history or biography outnumber proponents of all the other views put together. Many details of Acts are confirmed by Paul’s letters and (more the focus of this study Bible’s notes) external historical information. No nonhistorical work from antiquity exhibits so many correspondences with external information. Corroborating external information, in fact, may be more extensive for Acts than for any other book in the New Testament. As a work of ancient history, it fares well.
There were ways that ancient historical writing in general differed from modern historical writing. Ancient historians, e.g., rather than simply narrating bare information, often developed their scenes. They often developed speeches, using rules of rhetoric, more concerned to make the speech as close to what would have been said than to duplicate their more limited sources. No one expected these speeches to be verbatim. It should be noted, however, that Acts, unlike many of these other ancient histories, was only one volume, and therefore does not expend much space elaborating scenes or expanding its summary speeches. Luke acknowledges that more was said than he can report (Acts 2:40; Luke 3:18).
Ancient historians were also interested in communicating moral, political, or theological lessons; Acts certainly uses its historical information to offer models for the continuing mission to spread the message about Jesus Christ. Further, minority peoples often wrote “apologetic” histories; the political agenda that guided their selection and presentation of material was to show that their peoples merited respect. One of Luke’s emphases is that the Christian movement is not a threat to Roman order and that it should therefore be welcomed rather than repressed.
Authorship
When ancient historical writings used the first person (“I” or “we”), the author was nearly always claiming to have participated personally. The author of Luke-Acts plays down his own presence rather than emphasizing it, but includes himself among the group of Paul’s companions from Troas to Philippi (16:10–17), and then years later from Philippi to Judea to Rome (20:5–28:16). Among the traveling companions that Paul mentions in his letters, one who accompanied him to Rome yet is not named in the third person in Acts is Luke the physician (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24). Contrary to what some have argued, Luke’s language does not demonstrate that he was a physician; his language is, however, quite consistent with that view. Early Christian tradition was also unanimous that Luke was the author of Acts and of the Gospel that now bears his name; Luke was not a major figure for anyone to attribute as author if they lacked concrete reason to focus on him. When scholars examine sources from the Greco-Roman world, they usually start with external evidence (in this case, tradition in second-century Christian writers) and then check internal evidence. The tradition of Luke’s authorship passes both tests.
Provenance and Date
Given Luke’s special interest in Acts in the northern Aegean region—as well as perhaps his own lengthy sojourn in Philippi (compare 16:10–17 with 20:5–6)—the center of Luke’s target audience may be Macedonia, with a wider circulation in the Aegean region as a whole (including Greece and western Asia Minor). A range of dates have been proposed, from as early as the closing scene of Acts (perhaps AD 62) to the early second century. Some evidence favors a suggestion in the earlier decades of this range. First, a physician who initially traveled with Paul to Philippi before AD 50 likelier than not wrote earlier in the range rather than later. Moreover, one theme in the second half of the book of Acts is to defend Paul against the charge of having started riots—the capital charge of sedition (24:5). This is important because Paul was the most prominent leader of the mission to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8), so charges against him would bring shame on all the Diaspora churches (cf. shame about his chains in 2 Tim. 1:16). Luke narrates many riots associated with Paul, showing that he was not at fault in any case. Yet if Luke wants to defend Paul, why even mention the riots unless they were an issue? Luke probably writes at a time when Paul’s legacy remains in question and strong memories remain of the riots in various cities where the book of Acts might travel. It is therefore likely that Luke-Acts dates to a time soon after the final events narrated in Acts. This would allow a time in the 60s (when Acts closes) or 70s. Scholars who believe that Luke has in mind the traumatic conquest of Jerusalem (see Luke 19:43–44; 21:6,24) naturally date Luke-Acts sometime after (or occasionally just before) AD 70. Luke, who adapts Mark’s grammar for a somewhat more educated Greek audience, also writes after Mark.
Structure
The structure of Acts follows the basic geographic outline of 1:8, with an emphasis on the ends of the earth (Acts is a history of early Christian mission). One can also note the development of the structure in other ways. Besides these, we may note that whereas Luke’s Gospel begins and ends in Jerusalem, Acts begins in Jerusalem but ends in Rome, valuing heritage while pursuing mission. Another structural feature, however, characterizes Luke’s two volumes in a special way. Whereas Matthew’s Gospel can fit a hierarchical outline, Luke is particularly interested in paralleling figures. Ancient rhetoricians and storytellers often compared and contrasted different figures by narrating about them side by side. Luke parallels similar events in the ministries of Jesus, Peter and Paul (plus Stephen’s martyrdom). Greeks looked for such parallels in history, but Luke sees such models in earlier Scripture itself. See “Answered Charges and Parallel Figures in Acts 7.” ◆
Quick Glance
Author:
Luke, a Gentile physician and missionary companion of Paul
Audience:
Addressed to Theophilus, but intended for all believers
Date:
About AD 63 or later
Theme:
Luke shows how the gospel spread rapidly from Jerusalem to the whole Roman Empire, and from its Jewish roots to the Gentile world.