Conclusion
The second part of this first chapter has highlighted many of the literary issues that are associated with the writings of Luke, and Acts in particular. First of all, the authorship of Acts was discussed. While many scholars do not accept the traditional view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote Acts no one has been able to present enough evidence to successfully refute it. Tradition and internal evidence point towards Lukan authorship.
The dating of Acts was examined next. Authorship and dating are closely related. If Acts is given a late date, such as the early to middle of the Second Century, as many scholars do, then the traditional view of authorship is effectively nullified. If Luke was the author of Acts, then an early date of 60 to 85 AD is not unreasonable. A date in the early to mid-60’s seems to make the most sense in the light of the internal evidence that was presented.
The relationship between Luke’s Gospel and Acts was the next area that was discussed. A number of themes that are common to both works were discussed. There are numerous literary parallels between the two books. Several of these were highlighted.
The purpose for Luke-Acts was the next literary topic that was examined. The primary purpose for both works is found in the prologues. There, are, however, numerous other subsidiary purposes that have been set forth as to why Luke wrote these volumes. Several of these were mentioned. The last literary issue that was discussed was the basic message of Acts.
The next chapter will start the process of looking specifically at Peter and Paul. The focus will be on their relationship to each other in the early church and whether or not they should be considered friends or foes. It will look beyond Acts to their respective letters to see what they had to say about each other.
10 Hemer, 1. See also W. Ward Gasque, “The Historical Value of Acts,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989) 136.
11 F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, The Moffatt Commentary (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931) ix.
12 Gasque, 136. See also Samuel Sandmel, The Genius of Paul: A Study in History (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 149.
13 Hemer, 308–9.
14 Ibid., 309.
15 R. V. Pierard, “Tübingen School,” http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/bxc/Tübingen.htm (May 22, 2003).
16 French L. Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988) xxxiv. See also, Sandmel, 157. See also Willam R. Cannon, “The Book of Acts,” http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin (May 22, 2003); Luke’s motive for writing Acts, “was to present to posterity a harmonious and unified picture of Christianity by playing down all controversies and differences of opinion, especially those between Peter and Paul, the one the protagonist of Judaism and the other the champion of the rights of the gentiles.”
17 E. Earle Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 18. Ellis says that in this verse, Bauer found his “interpretive key . . . conflict between Paul, the apostle to the Greeks . . . and the narrow Jewish Christianity of the original apostles.”
18 Horton Harris, The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) 1, “No single event ever changed the course of Biblical scholarship as much as the appearance of the Tübingen School.”
19 Gerhard Krodel, Acts, Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 2. Krodel also says, “We should recognize that Luke’s silence about Paul’s problems with his churches or with Peter in Antioch is theologically motivated and his theology determines his writing of history,” 110.
20 Harris, xxiii–xxiv, Baur felt that anything that had to do with God, “should be excluded from all historical events, so that history is treated as pure history, as purely historical, with no admixture of supernatural factors or forces.”
21 Krodel, 102.
22 Sandmel, 146.
23 Ibid., 147.
24 Ibid., 157.
25 Ibid., 158. Sandmel goes on to say, “Acts is no more reliable for the ‘Petrine’ tradition than it is for the Pauline.”
26 J. Christiaan Beker, Heirs of Paul: Their Legacy in the New Testament and the Church Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1991) 64.
27 J. Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 10, “Thus the thought of the apostle was reduced and domesticated to a minimum for the sake of harmonizing his witness with that of the other apostles, with the result that Paul’s theological influence in the patristic period was minimal.”
28 Ibid.
29 Michael Goulder, St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) x.
30 Ibid., ix–x, “The two missions were agreed about the supreme significance of Jesus, but they disagreed about almost everything else . . .”
31 Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teachings (New York: Paulist, 1987) 9.
32 Ibid., 34.
33 Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, trans., Frank Clarke (Richmond: John Knox, 1959) 80–81.
34 Ibid., 84.
35 C. K. Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts,” Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999) 526.
36 Ibid., 527.