The Acts of the Apostles is the name given since the second century A. D. to the second volume of a History of Christian Origins composed by a first-century Christian and dedicated to a certain Theophilus. The earlier volume of this History is also extant as one of the twenty-seven documents ultimately included in the New Testament canon: it is the work ordinarily known to us as The Gospel according to Luke.1
Originally, as we might expect, these two volumes circulated together as one complete and independent History, but not for long. Early in the second century the four “canonical” Gospels (as we call them) were gathered together into one collection and began to circulate as the fourfold Gospel. This meant that the earlier volume of our twofold History was detached from its sequel and attached to three works by other writers which covered more or less the same ground, relating the story of Jesus and ending with the witness to his resurrection. The second volume was thus left to pursue a career of its own, but an important and influential career, as it proved.
About the same time as the four Gospels were gathered together to form one collection, another collection of Christian documents was also being made—the collection of Paul’s letters. These two collections—The Gospel and The Apostle, as they were called—make up the greater part of our New Testament. But there would be a hiatus between the two collections were it not for the second volume of the History of Christian Origins, the volume to which from now on we shall refer briefly as Acts. Acts played an indispensable part in relating the two collections to each other. As regards the Gospel collection, Acts forms its general sequel, as it was from the first the proper sequel to one of the four documents making up that collection (the third Gospel). As regards the Pauline collection, Acts provides a narrative background against which several of its component letters can more readily be understood, and—more important still in the eyes of some Christians in the latter half of the second century—Acts provides cogent independent evidence for the validity of Paul’s claim, made in his letters, to be a servant of Jesus Christ who labored “more abundantly” than any of the others.2
The importance of Acts was further underlined about the middle of the second century as a result of the dispute to which Marcion and his teaching gave rise. Marcion of Sinope was an exceptionally ardent devotee of Paul who nevertheless misunderstood him.3 About A.D. 144 he promulgated at Rome what he held to be the true canon of divine scripture for the new age inaugurated by Christ. Christ, in Marcion’s teaching, was the revealer of an entirely new religion, completely unrelated to anything that had preceded his coming (such as the faith of Israel documented in our Old Testament). God the Father, to whom Christ bore witness, had never been known on earth before: he was a superior being to the God of Israel, who created the material world and spoke through the prophets. Paul, according to Marcion, was the only apostle who faithfully preserved Christ’s new religion in its purity, uncontaminated by Jewish influences. The Old Testament could have no place in the Christian canon. The Christian canon, as promulgated by Marcion, comprised two parts—one called The Gospel (a suitably edited recension of the third Gospel) and the other called The Apostle (a similarly edited recension of Paul’s nine letters to churches and his letter to Philemon).
The publication of Marcion’s canon was a challenge and a stimulus to the leaders of the Roman church and other churches which adhered to the “catholic” faith (as it came to be called). It did not compel them to create the canon of holy scripture which has been accepted, with minor variations, throughout the historic Christian church;4 but it did compel them to define that canon with greater precision. For them, the writings of the new age did not supersede the Old Testament canon; they stood alongside it as its divinely ordained complement. For them, The Gospel comprised not one document only but four, and those four included the full text of the one which Marcion had published in a mutilated form. For them, The Apostle included not ten but thirteen Pauline letters, and not Pauline letters only but letters of other “apostolic men”as well. And, linking The Gospel and The Apostle, Acts was now seen to have greater importance than ever, for not only did it validate Paul’s claims but it validated the authority of the original apostles—those whom Marcion had repudiated as false apostles and corruptors of the truth as it is in Jesus. The position of Acts as the keystone in the arch of the Christian canon was confirmed. A catholic work like Acts was a suitable pivot for a catholic canon; it could have no place in a sectarian canon like Marcion’s.5
This significant aspect of Acts is reflected in the title The Acts of the Apostles, which it has been given from that time to this. So far as extant evidence goes, it first receives this title in the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Third Gospel, late in the second century (the earliest extant document, also, to ascribe the authorship of the twofold work to Luke, the physician of Antioch).6 The title The Acts of the Apostles may have been intended to point out its witness to the fact that Paul was not (as Marcion thought) the only faithful apostle of Christ. Even so, it makes an exaggerated impression: the only apostle (apart from Paul) of whom any extended account is given is Peter. (If the title be rendered simply Acts of Apostles, then the reference might be to Paul and Peter—although the author, who for the most part restricts the appellation “apostle” to members of the Twelve, does not give it to Paul in anything like the sense in which Paul claimed it for himself.)7 Even more exaggerated is the form of the title given to the work in another document of around the same date, the Muratorian Canon; here it is called The Acts of All the Apostles,8 although nothing is said about most of them after they co-opt Matthias to take the place of Judas at the end of the first chapter.
II. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF ACTS
The important part played by Acts in the middle of the second century has suggested to some scholars that (in its final form at least) it was composed about that time in order to play that part. One scholar has argued, indeed, that Luke-Acts was composed as a catholic Gospel-and-Apostle corpus in order to meet the challenge posed by Marcion’s sectarian Gospel-and-Apostle canon.9 Against such views one consideration tells with special weight: the historical, geographical, and political situation presupposed by Acts, and for that matter by Luke-Acts as a whole, is unmistakably that of the first century and not of the second. This is specially true of Paul’s invocation of his Roman citizenship and his appeal to Caesar.10
The purpose of Acts cannot be considered in isolation from the purpose of Luke’s Gospel. The two parts, for all their stylistic differences,11 make up an integral whole, with one coherent purpose. The author does not leave his readers to speculate what that purpose might be: he states it explicitly in the prologue to his Gospel, which should be read as a prologue to the twofold work. Here are his words (Luke 1:1–4):
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.12
He himself, it appears, could not claim to be an eyewitness of the earlier events recorded in his history, but he had access to the information which eyewitnesses could supply. He was not the first to draw up an account based on eyewitness information (he thinks, perhaps, of Mark’s Gospel as a record earlier than his own), but he claims for his account that it rests on thorough and accurate research and that it is arranged in a proper sequence.13
When he says that he himself had “followed all things closely for some time past,” he implies that he had taken part in some at least of the later events which he records.14 It is difficult to avoid linking this implied claim with the incidence of the “we” sections in Acts—that is to say, sections (dealing largely with journeys by sea made by Paul and some of his friends) in which the narrative is cast in the first person plural (“we” / “us”) instead of the usual third person plural (“they” / “them”).15 It is a reasonable inference that the narrator was one of Paul’s companions for the periods covered by those sections. This inference (which is not universally drawn)16 may have given rise at an early date to the tradition that the author of the twofold work was Luke the physician, mentioned as one of Paul’s companions in Col. 4:14. On the other hand, the tradition and the internal evidence of the “we” sections may be independent of each other, and so mutually confirmatory. The tradition appears at the end of the second century in the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke and in the Muratorian Canon, and possibly at an even earlier date it found its way into one or two recensions of Acts. The original text does not reveal the author’s name, but the Western text of 11:28, telling of an incident at Antioch on the Orontes, soon after the founding of the church there, has the form of a “we” section (“when we were gathered together”), implying that the narrator was an Antiochene (and thus confirming the tradition to this effect in the anti-Marcionite prologue),17 while another early recension (just possibly the same one) introduces the name of Luke into the “we” narrative at 20:13.18 Throughout this commentary the Lukan authorship of the twofold work is accepted, while it is recognized that some scholars find it impossible to believe that the author could have been personally acquainted with Paul.19
Luke, then (as the author will be called from now on), announces that his purpose in writing was to give Theophilus (whoever he may have been) an accurate and orderly account of the origins of Christianity, about which Theophilus had some information already. He was anxious that Theophilus should be able to rely confidently on the account now being given him. The earlier part of the account (contained in what we know as the Third Gospel) is in essence a record of the apostolic witness to Jesus’ ministry of word, deed, suffering, and triumph, amplified by material collected by Luke himself.20 The second volume takes up the tale after the resurrection of Jesus and carries it forward for some thirty years; it traces the progress of the gospel along the road leading from Judaea via Antioch to Rome, and ends with the chief herald of the gospel proclaiming it at the heart of the empire with the full acquiescence of the imperial authorities.
But it is not only information that Luke aims to give Theophilus. At the time when he wrote, Christianity was, to use one of his own phrases, “everywhere spoken against” (28:22). There was a widespread suspicion that it was a subversive movement, a menace to imperial law and order. And indeed in the eyes of those who set some store by imperial law and order Christianity started off with a serious handicap. Its Founder had admittedly been condemned to death by a Roman governor on a charge of sedition. Thus Tacitus’s estimate of its criminal character is based partly on the fact that it owed its inception to one Christ, who “was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor.”21 And the movement thus inauspiciously inaugurated seemed to be attended by tumult and disorder wherever it spread, both in the Roman provinces and in Rome itself. Luke sets himself to deal with this handicap.
The crucifixion of Christ is presented in his Gospel as a gross miscarriage of justice. True, Pilate sentenced him to death, but he had already pronounced him not guilty of the charges brought against him, and passed the death sentence only under pressure and against his better judgment.22 Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee (where the greater part of Jesus’ public ministry had been carried on), agreed that the charges brought against him need not be taken seriously.23
Similarly in Acts a variety of officials, Gentile and Jewish, show goodwill to Paul and other Christian missionaries, or at least admit that there is no basis for the accusations pressed against them by their opponents. In Cyprus the proconsul of the island-province is favorably impressed by Paul and Barnabas, and by their message and activity.24 At Philippi, a Roman colony, the chief collegiate magistrates apologize to Paul and Silas for their illegal beating and imprisonment.25 At Corinth the proconsul of Achaia, Gallio (member of an influential Roman family), decrees that the charges brought before him against Paul by the local Jewish leaders relate to internal disputes of Jewish religion, and declares him guiltless of any offense against Roman law.26 At Ephesus the Asiarchs, leading citizens of the province of Asia, show themselves to be Paul’s friends, and the chief executive officer of the city administration absolves him and his associates of anything in the nature of public sacrilege.27 During Paul’s last visit to Judaea the procurators Felix and Festus successively find no substance in the charges urged against him by the Sanhedrin, whether of attempted violation of the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple or of stirring up unrest throughout the empire.28 The Jewish client king Agrippa II agrees with Festus that Paul had done nothing deserving either death or imprisonment, and that he could have been discharged on the spot had he not taken the decision out of the procurator’s hands by appealing to have his case referred to the imperial tribunal in Rome.29 And when he is taken to Rome to have his case heard, he occupies the time of waiting by preaching the gospel there for two years, under constant surveillance, without any attempt to hinder him.30 If Christianity were such a lawless movement as was widely believed, Paul would certainly not have been allowed to propagate it by the praetorian guard in whose custody he was.
How then, it might be asked, was the advance of Christianity attended by so much strife and disorder? Luke arraigns the Jewish authorities in Judaea and the other provinces as bearing chief responsibility for this. It was the chief-priestly establishment in Jerusalem that prosecuted Jesus before Pilate and, a generation later, Paul before Felix and Festus; and most of the disturbances which broke out when the gospel was introduced to the Roman provinces were fomented by local Jewish communities, who refused to accept the saving message themselves and were annoyed when their Gentile neighbors believed it.31
Yet Luke is not anti-Jewish in principle. Christianity is, for him, no innovation but the proper fulfilment of Israel’s religion. He is at pains to present Paul as a loyal and law-abiding Jew. This comes out particularly in the speeches made by Paul in his own defense in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome.32 As with the other speeches reported in Acts, Luke (in the best Thucydidean tradition) aims to give the general purport of what was actually said,33 while at the same time he makes the speeches an integral part of his presentation and argument. In those apologetic speeches, then, Paul claims to believe everything in the law and the prophets and to have done nothing contrary to Israel’s ancestral customs.34 The one point at issue between him and his accusers is the resurrection faith: by this he means the faith that Jesus rose from the dead, but Jesus’ resurrection is for him the confirmation of the Jews’ national hope. Why then should they object to it?35 Nothing is said in these speeches about Paul’s law-free gospel which, according to his letters, was the principal stumbling block in the sight of his opponents, whether they were Jews or judaizing Christians.
It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judaean authorities, had so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule.36 True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire—that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.
The argument that there is nothing in Acts—or even in Luke37—that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work—early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack38 and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson.39 Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events—the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul—that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65.40 So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man’s malignity rather than an expression of public policy,41 and the official reprobation of Nero’s memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke’s recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero’s anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now execrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power.
Again, whether Paul’s execution was or was not an incident in the Neronian persecution, the fact that it is not mentioned in Acts is not a decisive argument for the dating of the book:42 Luke’s goal has been reached when he has brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel freely there.43 Certainly, Paul’s arrival in Rome, his gospel witness there for two years, the legal procedure involved in the bearing of his appeal to Caesar, must have brought Christianity to the notice of classes in Roman society on which it had until then made no impression. The interest that was now aroused in it did not die out, but maintained itself and increased, until under Domitian (A.D. 81–96) it had penetrated the highest ranks of all. At any time in this period a work which gave an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity, and at the same time gave a reasoned reply to popular calumnies against it, was sure of a reception among the intelligent reading public—or rather listening public44—of Rome, of whom Theophilus was probably a representative. Its positive defense was best expressed in the words of Paul, the Roman citizen, whose appeal to Caesar was made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Christian community and its faith.
It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69–96), possibly about the middle of the period. The arguments by which Sir William Ramsay, late in the nineteenth century, concluded that it was composed about A.D. 80 are precarious,45 but nothing that has been discovered since then has pointed to a more probable dating. One consideration, admittedly subjective, is the perspective from which the work has been composed. The relations between Paul, Peter, and James of Jerusalem are presented in a way which would be more natural if all three of them had died and the author had been able to view their lasting achievements in a more satisfactory proportion than would have been so easily attained if they had still been alive. Certainly the impression he gives us of their relations is not the impression received from Paul’s letters, and this is more intelligible if they had been dead for some years and their disagreements (in the eyes of a man like Luke, at any rate)46 no longer seemed so important as they would have done at the time.47
Luke’s narrative as it stands cannot have been intended to serve as evidence for the defense when Paul’s appeal came up for hearing in the imperial court. A document drawn up for this purpose may have served as a source for Acts, but there is much in Acts (and a fortiori in Luke-Acts) that would have been quite irrelevant forensically, whether it be (on the one hand) the detailed account of Paul’s voyage and shipwreck or (on the other hand) the pervasive emphasis on the dominant role of the Holy Spirit in the expansion of the gospel. This emphasis constitutes one of Luke’s leading theological motifs.48 Another is his concept of salvation history:49 the gospel, based as it is on the resurrection of Christ, is the culmination of a long preparatory process of divine revelation and overruling, traced as far back as Israel’s exodus from Egypt (as in Paul’s synagogue address at Pisidian Antioch)50 or even farther, to the call of Abraham (as in Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin).51
Would these emphases have been more relevant for the intelligent public that Luke had in view than they would have been for Paul’s defense counsel before Nero? To many members of that public they would have meant little, but Theophilus himself, and some others like him, may well have been converts, or near-converts, to the Christian faith. In any case, Luke wishes to make it clear that the progress of this faith was no mere product of human planning; it was directed by divine agency. In a way, this may have contributed to Luke’s apologetic purpose, although it would not have been of much use as a plea in a Roman law-court.
Luke is, in fact, the pioneer among Christian apologists, especially in that form of apologetic which is addressed to the civil authorities to establish the law-abiding character of Christianity. But other forms of apologetic are represented in the course of his work, particularly in some of the speeches of Acts. Thus, Stephen’s defense is the prototype of Christian apologetic over against the Jews, designed to demonstrate that Christianity and not Judaism is the true fulfilment of the word of God spoken through Moses and the prophets, and that the Jews’ rejection of the gospel is consistent with their rejection of the divine message brought to them by earlier messengers. Paul’s address to the Athenian court of the Areopagus is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetic to pagans, designed to show that the true knowledge of God is given in the gospel and not in the idolatrous vanities of paganism.52 His farewell address at Miletus to the elders of the Ephesian church is partly apologetic; he replies by implication to some criticisms voiced against him within the Christian community.53 And his speech at Caesarea before the younger Agrippa is the crowning apologia for his own missionary career.54
In a number of his letters Paul found it necessary to defend the reality of his divine call and commission against those who questioned it, and he appealed in support of his claim to the “signs of an apostle” which attended his ministry.55 It was unnecessary for him to describe those signs in detail to people who had firsthand experience of them. But other readers of his letters might be uncertain of the validity of this appeal were it not for Luke’s record of Paul’s ministry. No one could read Acts and doubt that Paul was really commissioned by the risen Christ as a “chosen instrument”56 in his hand for the widespread proclamation of the gospel.
The vindication of Paul’s claim was not Luke’s primary purpose in writing. Luke does, in passing, show that Paul’s commission was as valid as Peter’s, and that both men were equally faithful to their commission. But these secondary aspects of his work acquired special importance in the second century, in view of the Marcionites’ tendency to claim Paul peculiarly for themselves, and also in view of tendencies in other quarters to play down Paul’s record in the interests of Peter’s or James’s.57 Tertullian, for example, points out the inconsistency of those sectarians (the Marcionites in particular, no doubt) who rejected the testimony of Acts but appealed so confidently to the unique authority of Paul. “You must show us first of all who this Paul was,” he says to them. “What was he before he became an apostle? How did he become an apostle?”58 Paul in his letters gives his own answer to such questions, but for independent corroboration one would naturally appeal to Acts, when once that work had been published. But this the Marcionites could not do: Acts did vindicate the claims made by and for Paul, indeed, but since it simultaneously vindicated claims made by and for Peter, its testimony was unacceptable. Acts shows that Peter and the rest of the Twelve were true and faithful apostles of Jesus Christ (which the Marcionites denied) at the same time as it shows how Paul’s missionary achievement was not only as great as theirs, but greater. One feature of Acts which will be observed in the course of our exposition is the series of parallels drawn between Peter’s missionary activity and Paul’s,59 although neither of the two is made the standard of comparison by which the other is assessed.
In recording the greatness of Paul’s achievement Acts may have had happy consequences beyond Luke’s immediate intention. A comparison of Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus with the evidence of the Pastoral Epistles suggests that, after Paul left his Aegean mission field, his influence there, and especially in the province of Asia, declined, and that his opponents won at least a temporary victory in the churches.60 Insofar as those opponents inculcated judaizing tendencies, however, their victory was very temporary. Before long, Paul’s name and reputation were firmly reestablished and venerated in the areas which he had evangelized (even if his teaching was not understood or applied as consistently as he might have wished). Two reasons may be found for this vindication of Paul’s memory. One was the dispersal of the church in Jerusalem shortly before the fall of that city in A.D. 70. Another, and more important, reason was probably the publication of Acts and its circulation among the Aegean churches—a more extended public than that to which Luke first addressed his History. The appearance of Acts must have brought about a revival of interest in Paul; it may even, as Edgar J. Goodspeed suggested, have done something to stimulate the collection of his writings into a literary corpus which circulated among the churches.61 It is a noteworthy point (and one which has been interpreted variously) that the author of Acts betrays no knowledge of the letters of Paul;62 whatever else this indicates, it means almost certainly that Acts was written before the letters began to be generally known as units in a collection.63
Paul no doubt is Luke’s hero. And this fact goes far to explain the differences between the impression which Luke gives of Paul’s personality and that which we receive from Paul’s own letters. For Paul was certainly no hero in his own eyes. In Acts, from the time when Paul sets out from Antioch for extended missionary work, he dominates the situation. He is always sure of himself; he always triumphs. In his letters, Paul is too often the victim of conflicting emotions—“fightings without and fears within” (2 Cor. 7:5). He confesses that he has neither the self-assurance nor the self-assertiveness of the intruders who have stirred up trouble for him among his converts in Corinth: where those others exploit his converts, he refuses to claim his rights as their spiritual father, and some of them despise him for his weakness.64 The Paul of the letters is a many-sided character. At times, to be sure, he can assert his authority,65 and this is the side of him that Luke chiefly depicts.66 But even if there are aspects of the real Paul at which we might scarcely guess if we did not have his letters, the picture of him that Luke gives is ineffaceable. And in giving us this picture, limited though it may be, Luke has made a great—indeed, a unique—contribution to the record of early Christian expansion. His narrative, in fact, is a sourcebook of the highest value for the history of civilization.67
It may, or it may not, be a good thing that over so much of the world today Christianity is looked on as a European religion. But how does it come about that a faith which arose in Asia should have become integrated into European rather than Asian civilization? The answer surely is that, in the providence of God, its leading herald and missionary in the three decades following its inception was a Roman citizen, who saw how the strategic centers and communications of the Roman Empire could be turned to the service of Christ’s kingdom, and planted the Christian faith in those centers and along those lines of communication. “In little more than ten years St. Paul established the Church in four provinces of the Empire, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Before A.D. 47 there were no Churches in these provinces; in A.D. 57 St. Paul could speak as if his work there was done, and could plan extensive tours into the far West without anxiety lest the Churches which he had founded might perish in his absence for want of his guidance and support.”68
And Luke is the historian of this enterprise—one of the most far-reaching in world history. He shows plainly how it was carried out. “Generally speaking, Paul’s activity was based on certain centres, from which he undertook his longer and shorter journeys, and which in the course of years were transferred from one province to another.”69 The first of those centers was Damascus, from which (according to Paul’s own account in Galatians) he penetrated Nabataean Arabia. He would have made his next center Jerusalem, had he not (according to Luke’s account) been divinely directed not to settle there. He went back therefore to his native Tarsus, which provided a convenient base for the evangelization of the united province of Syria and Cilicia (for which Paul himself, again in Galatians, is our authority). Then, for shorter or longer periods, his successive centers were Antioch on the Orontes, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome.70 Something of his achievements as he worked in one after another of those centers, and preached the gospel along the roads leading from one to another, may be gathered from his letters. But it is Luke that we have to thank for the coherent record of Paul’s activity.71 Without his record, we should be incalculably poorer. Even with it, there is much about Paul’s career that remains obscure to us; there would be much more if we had no book of Acts.
A. Editions and Commentaries (Acts)
Alexander, J. A., A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles ([1857] London: Banner of Truth, 1965)
Alford, H., “The Acts of the Apostles,” The Greek Testament, II (London: Rivingtons/Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 61871), pp. 1–310
Andrews, H. T., The Acts of the Apostles WNT (London: Melrose, 1908)
Bartlet, J. V., The Acts, CentB (Edinburgh: Jack, 1902)
Bauernfeind, O., Die Apostelgeschichte, THKNT 5 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1939)
Bengel, J. A., Gnomon Novi Testamenti ([1742] London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 31862), pp. 388–489 (“Annotationes ad Acta Apostolorum”)
Beyer, H. W., Die Apostelgeschichte, HNT 7 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1938)
Blass, F., Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: editio philologica (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895)
Blass, F., Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: secundum formam quae videtur Romanam (Leipzig: Teubner, 1896)
Blunt, A. W. F., The Acts of the Apostles, ClarB (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923)
Browne, L. E., The Acts of the Apostles, Indian Church Commentaries (London: SPCK, 1925)
Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 31989)
Burnside, W. F., The Acts of the Apostles, CGT (Cambridge: University Press, 1916)
Camerlynck, A., and van der Heeren, A., Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum (Bruges: Beyaert, 71923)
Clark, A. C., The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933)
Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, HNT 7 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1963, 21972); E.T., Acts, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987)
Delebecque, E., Les Actes des Apôtres: texte traduit et annoté (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982)
Dupont, J., Les Actes des Apôtres, Bible de Jérusalem (Paris: du Cerf, 21954)
Findlay, J. A., The Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM, 21936)
Foakes-Jackson, F. J., The Acts of the Apostles, MNTC (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931)
Furneaux, W. M., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary for English Readers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912)
Grosheide, F. W., De Handelingen der Apostelen, I, II, CNT 5 (Amsterdam: van Bottenburg, 1942, 1948)
Grosheide, F. W., De Handelingen der Apostelen, KV (Kampen: Kok, 1950)
Hackett, H. B., A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1882)
Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, E.T. from KEK 5, 141965 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971)
Hanson, R. P. C., The Acts of the Apostles, NClarB (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967)
Hilgenfeld, A., Acta Apostolorum graece et latine secundum antiquissimos testes (Berlin: Reimer, 1899)
Holtzmann, H. J., Die Apostelgeschichte, Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament I.2 (Tübingen: Mohr, 31901)
Jacquier, E., Les Actes des Apôtres, ÉB (Paris: Lecoffre, 21926)
Kelly, W., An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (London: Hammond, 31952)
Knopf, R., Die Apostelgeschichte, SNT III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31917)
Knowling, R. J., “The Acts of the Apostles,” Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll, II (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1900), pp. 1–554 (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951)
Krodel, G. A., Acts, Augsburg Comm. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986)
Lake, K., and Cadbury, H. J., The Acts of the Apostles: English Translation and Commentary = Beginnings I.4 (London: Macmillan, 1933)
Loisy, A., Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris: É. Nourry, 1920)
Lumby, J. R., The Acts of the Apostles, CBSC (Cambridge: University Press, 1882)
MacGregor, G. H. C., “The Acts of the Apostles,” IB IX (New York/Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1954), pp. 3–352.
Marshall, I. H., The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980)
Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, I, II, E.T. from KEK 3, 41870 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877)
Munck, J., The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967)
Neil, W., The Acts of the Apostles, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1973)
Packer, J. W., The Acts of the Apostles, CBCNEB (Cambridge: University Press, 1966)
Page, T. E., The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text … with Explanatory Notes (London: Macmillan, 1886)
Pesch, R., Die Apostelgeschichte, I. II, EKK (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986)
Preuschen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte, HNT 4.1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913)
Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles, WC (London: Methuen, 1901)
Rendall, F., The Acts of the Apostles in Greek and English with Notes (London/New York: Macmillan, 1897)
Roloff, J., Die Apostelgeschichte, NTD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981)
Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts = Beginnings I.3 (London: Macmillan, 1926)
Schille, G., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, THKNT 5 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983)
Schlatter, A., Die Apostelgeschichte, ENT 4 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1948)
Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, I, II, TKNT 5 (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1980, 1982)
Stählin, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, NTD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962)
Steinmann, A., Die Apostelgeschichte übersetzt und erklärt, HSNT (Bonn: Hanstein, 41934)
Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, II (Munich: Beck, 21956), pp. 588–773
Walker, T., The Acts of the Apostles ([1910] Chicago: Moody Press, 1965)
Weiser, A., Die Apostelgeschichte, I, II, Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 5.1, 2 (Gütersloh: Mohn/Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980, 1985)
Weiss, B., Die Apostelgeschichte: Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung = TU 9.3/4 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893)
Wendt, H. H., Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 91913)
Wikenhauser, A., Die Apostelgeschichte übersetzt und erklärt, RNT 5 (Regensburg: Pustet, 31956)
Williams, C. S. C., The Acts of the Apostles, BNTC (London: A & C. Black/New York: Harper, 1957)
Williams, D. J., Acts, GNC (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985)
Williams, R. R., The Acts of the Apostles, TBC (London: SCM, 1953)
Wilson, J. M., The Acts of the Apostles: Translated from the Codex Bezae, with an Introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance (London: Rivingtons, 1877)
Zahn, T., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas, I, II, ZKNT (Leipzig: Deichert, 31922, 3.41927)
Zahn, T., Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, FGNTK 9 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1916)
de Zwaan, J., De Handelingen der Apostelen, Het Nieuwe Testament (Groningen: Wolters, 21932)
B. Other Books
Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, II (Cambridge: University Press, 1917)
Barker, C. J., The Acts of the Apostles: A Study in Interpretation (London: Epworth, 1969)
Barrett, C. K., Freedom and Obligation (London: SPCK, 1985)
Barrett, C. K., Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961)
Barrett, C. K., New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972)
Barrett, C. K., The Signs of an Apostle (London: Epworth, 1971)
Baur, F. C., The Church History of the First Three Centuries, E.T., I, II (London/Édinburgh: Williams& Norgate, 1878, 1879)
Baur, F. C., Paul: His Life and Works, E.T., I, II (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1875, 1876)
Bernard, T. D., The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament ([1864] London: Macmillan, 51900)
Bishop, E. F. F., Apostles of Palestine (London: Lutterworth, 1958)
Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 31967)
Blass, F., Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898)
Bornhäuser, K., Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924)
Brown, R. E., and Meier, J. P., Antioch and Rome (London: Chapman, 1983)
Brown, S., The Origins of Christianity (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)
Burchard, C., Der dreizehnte Zeuge, FRLANT 103 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970)
Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings (London: University of London Press, 1924)
Cadbury, H. J., The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper/London: A. & C. Black, 1955)
Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts ([1927] Naperville, IL: Allenson/London: SPCK, 1958)
Cadbury, H. J., The Style and Literary Method of Luke, 1. The Diction of Luke and Acts, HTS 6 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920)
von Campenhausen, H., Tradition and Life in the Church, E.T. (London: Collins, 1968)
Cassidy, R. J., and Scharper, P. J., Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983)
Chase, F. H., The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan, 1902)
Clemen, C., Die Apostelgeschichte im Lichte der neueren text-, quellen- und historisch-kritischen Forschungen (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1905)
Conzelmann, H., History of Primitive Christianity, E.T. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973)
Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, E.T. (New York: Harper/London: Faber, 1960)
Cullmann, O., Christ and Time, E.T. (London: SCM, 1951)
Cullmann, O., The Early Church, E.T. (London: SCM, 1956)
Cullmann, O., Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, E.T. (London: SCM, 1953)
Cullmann, O., Salvation in History, E.T. NTL (London: SCM, 1965)
Davies, W. D., Jewish and Pauline Studies (London: SPCK, 1984)
Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948, 21958)
Deissmann, (G.) A., Bible Studies E.T. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 21903)
Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East E.T. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 21927)
Deissmann, A., Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, E.T. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 21926)
Dibelius, M., Paul (ed. W. G. Kümmel), E.T. (London: Longmans, 1953)
Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles E.T. (London: SCM, 1956)
Dietrich, W., Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972)
Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936, 1944)
Duncan, G. S., St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929)
Dunn, J. D. G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit, SBT 2.15 (London: SCM, 1973)
Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit, NTL (London: SCM, 1975)
Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1977)
Dupont, J., Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, LD 45 (Paris: du Cerf, 1967)
Dupont, J., Nouvelles Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, LD 118 (Paris: du Cerf, 1984)
Dupont, J., The Sources of Acts, E.T. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964)
Easton, B. S., The Purpose of Acts (1936) in Early Christianity: The Purpose of Acts and Other Papers (Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1954)
Ehrhardt, A., The Acts of the Apostles: Ten Lectures (Manchester: University Press, 1969)
Ehrhardt, A., The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester: University Press, 1964)
Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/London: Oliphants, 21974)
Epp, E. J., The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae in Acts, SNTSM 3 (Cambridge: University Press, 1966)
Féret, H. M., Pierre et Paul à Antioche et à Antioche Jérusalem (Paris: du Cerf, 1955)
Field, F., Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1899)
Filson, F. V., Three Crucial Decades (London: Epworth, 1964)
Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees, I, II (New York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938)
Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke, I, II, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985)
Flender, H., St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History, E.T. (London: SPCK/ Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967)
Foakes-Jackson, F. J., and Lake, K. (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, vols. 1–5 (London: Macmillan, 1920–33)
Foakes-Jackson, F. J., The Life of St. Paul (London: Jonathan Cape, 1927)
Foakes-Jackson, F. J., Peter: Prince of Apostles (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927)
Gasque, W. W., A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, BGBE 17 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975)
Gasque, W. W., and Martin, R. P. (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel (Exeter: Paternoster/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970)
Goguel, M., La naissance du christianisme (Paris: Payot, 1946)
Goguel, M., L’ église primitive (Paris: Payot, 1947)
Goulder, M. D., Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964)
Harnack, A., The Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1909)
Harnack, A., Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, E.T. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1911)
Harnack, A., Luke the Physician, E.T. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1907)
Harnack, A., Mission and Expansion of Christianity, E.T., I, II (London: Williams & Norgate, 21908)
Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, E.T. (London: SCM, 1979)
Hengel, M., Between Jesus and Paul, E.T. (London: SCM, 1983)
Hobart, W. K., The Medical Language of St. Luke (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis/London: Longmans, Green, 1882)
Hock, R. F., The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Discipleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)
Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas = TU 104 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968)
Hort, F. J. A., The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1897)
Hort, F. J. A., Judaistic Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1894)
Hull, J. H. E., The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles (London: Lutterworth, 1967)
Hunter, A. M., Paul and his Predecessors (London: SCM, 21961)
Jervell, J., Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972)
Jervell, J., The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984)
Jewett, R., Dating Paul’s Life/A Chronology of Paul’s Life (London: SCM/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)
Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937)
Jones, A. H. M., The Herods of Judaea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938)
Jones, A. H. M., Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1960)
Judge, E. A., The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960)
Juel, D., Luke-Acts (London: SCM, 1984)
Keck, L. E., and Martyn, J. L. (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1966)
Kennedy, G. A., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: University Press, 1972)
Kenyon, F. G., The Western Text in the Gospels and Acts (London: British Academy, 1939)
Kertelge, K. (ed.), Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, QD 89 (Freiburg: Herder, 1981)
Klausner, J., From Jesus to Paul, E.T. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1944)
Klostermann, A., Probleme im Aposteltexte (Gotha: Perthes, 1883)
Knox, J., Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York/Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950)
Knox, J., Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942)
Knox, W. L., The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: University Press, 1948)
Knox, W. L., Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London: British Academy/Oxford University Press, 1944)
Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: University Press, 1939)
Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (Cambridge: University Press, 1925)
Kremer, J. (ed.), Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie, BETL 48 (Gembloux: Duculot/Leuven: University Press, 1979)
Krenkel, M., Beiträge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe des Apostels Paulus (Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1890)
Krenkel, M., Josephus und Lucas Leipzig: Haessel, 1894)
Lake, K., The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivingtons, 1911)
Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit (London: Longmans, Green, 1951)
Lampe, G. W. H., St. Luke and the Church of Jerusalem (London: Athlone Press, 1969)
Lekebusch, E., Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte (Gotha: Perthes, 1854)
Lietzmann, H., The Beginnings of the Christian Church, E.T. (London: Lutterworth, 21949)
Lightfoot, J. B., Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893)
Lightfoot, J. B., Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London: Macmillan, 1892)
Lohmeyer, E., Galiläa und Jerusalem, FRLANT 52 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936)
Löning, K., Die Saulustradition in der Apostelgeschichte (Münster: Aschendorff, 1973)
Loyd, P., The Holy Spirit in the Acts (London: Mowbray, 1952)
Lüdemann, G., Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, I. Studies in Chronology, E.T. (London: SCM, 1984)
Lüdemann, G., Paulus der Heidenapostel, II. Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum, FRLANT 130 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983)
McLachlan, H., St. Luke: the Man and his Work (Manchester: University Press, 1920)
Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982)
Manson, T. W., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester: University Press, 1962)
Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Exeter: Paternoster, 1979)
Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970)
Mattill, A. J., and Mattill, M. B., A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles, NTTS 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1966)
Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, I-III (Stuttgart/Berlin: Cotta, 1921–23)
Momigliano, A., Claudius: The Emperor and his Achievement, E.T. (Cambridge: Heffer, 21961)
Morgenthaler, R., Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas, I, II, ATANT 14, 15 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1948)
Morton, A. Q., and MacGregor, G. H. C., The Structure of Luke and Acts (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1964)
Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, E.T. (London: SCM, 1959)
Nock, A. D., Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background, Harper Torchbooks (New York: Harper, 1964)
Nock, A. D., St. Paul, HUL (London: Lutterworth, 1938)
Norden, E., Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1913, 21929)
Ogg, G., The Chronology of the Life of Paul (London: Epworth, 1968)
O’Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 21970)
O’Toole, R. F., The Christological Climax of Paul’s Defense, AnBib 78 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978)
Overbeck, F., Introduction to W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte, 4te Auflage, bearbeitet und stark erweitert von Frz. Overbeck (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1870; E.T. of the Introduction appears as preface to E. Zeller, The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, E.T. (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1875)
Paley, W., Horae Paulinae (London: J. Davis, 1790, etc.)
Pallis, A., Notes on St. Luke and the Acts (London: H. Milford, 1928)
Pierson, A. T., The Acts of the Holy Spirit (London: Morgan & Scott, 21913)
Plümacher, E., Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, SUNT 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972)
Ramsay, W. M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915)
Ramsay, W. M., The Church in the Roman Empire to A.D. 170 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 41895)
Ramsay, W. M., The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895, 1897)
Ramsay, W. M., The Cities of St. Paul (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907)
Ramsay, W. M., Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London: John Murray, 1890; repr. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1962)
Ramsay, W. M., Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908)
Ramsay, W. M., Pauline and Other Studies (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1906)
Ramsay, W. M., Pictures of the Apostolic Church: Its Life and Teaching (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910)
Ramsay, W. M., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895, 141920)
Ramsay, W. M., The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 21914)
Reicke, B., Glaube und Leben der Urgemeinde, ATANT 32 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957)
Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906)
Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976)
Robinson, J. A. T., Twelve New Testament Studies, SBT 34 (London: SCM, 1962)
Ropes, J. H., The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (New York: Scribner/London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1906)
Safrai, S., and Stern, M. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, I, II, CRINT 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974, 1976)
Sahlin, H., Der Messias und das Gottesvolk, ASNU 12 (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1945)
Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress/London: SCM, 1977)
Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
Sanders, J. T., The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM, 1987)
Schneckenburger, M., Über den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte (Bern: Fisher, 1841)
Schoeps, H.-J., Aus frühchristlicher Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950)
Schoeps, H.-J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, E.T. (London: Lutterworth, 1961)
Schoeps, H.-J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1949)
Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised English edition, I–III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–86)
Schütz, R., Apostel und Jünger (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1921)
Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)
Simon, M., St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (New York/London: Longmans, Green, 1958)
Simon, M., Verus Israel (Paris: Boccard, 1948, 21964), E.T. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)
Smallwood, E. M., The Jews under Roman Rule, SJLA 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1976)
Smith, J., The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London: Longmans, Green, 1848, 41880)
Spitta, F., Die Apostelgeschichte: ihre Quellen und derer geschichtlicher Wert (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1891)
Still, J. I., St. Paul on Trial (London: SCM, 1923)
Stonehouse, N. B., Paul before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies (London: Tyndale Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957)
Stonehouse, N. B., The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951)
Suhl, A., Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975)
Talbert, C. H., Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974)
Talbert, C. H. (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 1978)
Torrey, C. C., The Composition and Date of Acts, HTS 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916)
Torrey, C. C., Documents of the Primitive Church (New York: Harper, 1941)
Trocmé,., Le “livre des Actes” et l’Histoire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957)
van Unnik, W. C., Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth, E.T. (London: Epworth, 1962)
Waszink, J. H., van Unnik, W. C., and de Beus, C. (eds.), Het oudste Christendom en die antieke Cultuur, I, II (Haarlem: Willink & Zoon, 1951)
Weiss, J., Earliest Christianity (1917), I, II, E.T., Harper Torchbooks (New York: Harper, 1959)
Weiss, J., Über die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897)
Wellhausen, J., Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte, AGG NF 15 (1914) (Berlin: Weidemann, 1914)
Wellhausen, J., Noten zur Apostelgeschichte, NGG, phil.-hist. Kl. (1907), pp. 1–21
Wikenhauser, A., Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert (Münster: Aschendorff, 1921)
Wilckens, U., Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, WMANT 5.2 (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21963)
Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965)
Willi, H., Am Urquell: Die urchristliche Gemeinde in Jerusalem (Basel: Gaiser, 1945)
Williams, C. S. C., Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Blackwell, 1951)
Wilson, J. M., The Origin and Aim of the Acts of the Apostles … with an Appendix on Codex Bezae (London: Macmillan, 1912)
Wilson, S. G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, SNTSM 23 (Cambridge: University Press, 1973)
Wilson, S. G., Luke and the Law, SNTSM 50 (Cambridge: University Press, 1983)
Yoder, J. D., Concordance to the Distinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae, NTTS 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1961)
Zeller, E., The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, Critically Investigated, I, II, E.T. (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1875, 1876) (See also Overbeck, above.)