Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Are Luke and Acts by the same Author?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Kirby
    Udo Schnelle writes, the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements
      and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that
      both works derive from the same author" (_The History and Theology of the
      New Testament Writings_, p. 259).

      On the other hand, John Knox argues in his _Marcion and the New Testament_
      that Marcion knew only Luke, not the Acts, and that Acts is the work of
      another, Roman author in the mid second century, connecting himself to the
      (revised) Lucan gospel in order to draw it back into orthodoxy.

      So what is the evidence that ties Luke and Acts together as the work of
      single author? Contrarily, is there any internal evidence that would render
      them asunder or suggest a revision of Luke by the author of Acts?

      Thank you for your consideration.

      best,
      Peter Kirby
      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Richard Anderson
      Peter Kirby ask: So what is the evidence that ties Luke and Acts together as the work of single author? Contrarily, is there any internal evidence that would
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1 5:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Kirby ask: So what is the evidence that ties Luke and Acts together as
        the work of
        single author? Contrarily, is there any internal evidence that would render
        them asunder or suggest a revision of Luke by the author of Acts?



        Many have established the narrative unity of Luke-Acts. One additional
        approach follows:
        Luke uses Isa. 40:1-11 as an outline to Luke-Acts. Luke makes this clear
        with the explicit quotation of Isa. 40-3-5 in Luke 3:4-6 and the use of the
        remaining verses as his outline. Matt and Mark did not understand the
        parables in the same way as did Luke. Matt and Mark quote Isaiah. Only Luke
        adopts the Isaianic themes. Only Luke organizes his material with reference
        to Isaiah. Luke makes Isaiah the "fifth gospel".

        The introduction of the new period of salvation history in Luke 3:4-6 citing
        Isa 40:3-5 which introduces the "way" terminology suggests the Isaianic
        traditions/themes functions as a hermeneutical principle for the narrative
        of Luke-Acts. In the narrative of Acts, the absolute use of the "way"
        terminology [Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14 and 22] is an attempt to define
        the people of God and establish the identity of the early followers of Jesus
        against the competing claims of all others that also claims the ancestral
        traditions of Israel. Luke uses the material provided by Isa. 40:1-11 as his
        outline for Luke-Acts.

        Luke has Stephen bring out Aaron's responsibility for making the idol with
        the story of the calf demonstrating that high priests from the beginning
        have been 'wicked tenants.' This is an example of another Lucan theme
        present in both Luke & Acts.

        Luke has adopted a number of Isaianic themes which can be seen throughout
        Luke-Acts.

        Richard H. Anderson
        Wallingford PA
        http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David C. Hindley
        Peter Kirby, ... of single author? Contrarily, is there any internal evidence that would render them asunder or suggest a revision of Luke by the author of
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 1 7:41 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter Kirby,

          >>So what is the evidence that ties Luke and Acts together as the work
          of single author? Contrarily, is there any internal evidence that
          would render them asunder or suggest a revision of Luke by the author
          of Acts?<<

          Your inquiry made me think of an essay I had read some years ago, and
          which I just recently rediscovered. In volume 1 of _Christianity,
          Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults_ (ed. J. Neusner, Brill, 1975),
          Pierson Parker contributed "The Kinship of John and Acts" (pages
          187-205).

          While acknowledging that the language and style of Acts resembles
          Luke, and the words about "the former treatise" in Acts 1:1 do seem to
          connect the books, he reflects that "yet, in their reflections of
          early Christian thought, and supremely in what they say about Jesus,
          *John and Acts are closer to each other* than either of them is to
          Luke's Gospel. Their agreements together against Matthew and Mark are
          stronger still. That is to say, for all their differences of language
          and of topic, John and Acts are akin." (pg. 187)

          He cites agreements about Jesus' career, agreements about Jesus'
          message, agreements in the author's own viewpoints, paralleled stories
          and common omissions. When these relationships are analyzed, he infers
          that the "chief links between John and Acts lie evidently in the realm
          of concepts, or common background and inherited attitudes." He readily
          concedes, though, that Acts' literary links are to Luke. He concludes
          that "John and Acts evidently reflect that form of Jewish Christianity
          that was known and practiced in the Roman province of Judea." (pg.
          204)

          "Apparently this [Judean] Christianity knew little or nothing of
          Jesus' parables [in contrast, it seems, to Galilean Christians]; or
          that he foretold his own resurrection -- though it proclaimed that
          resurrection itself." (pg 204) It looks as though Parker conceives
          that they believed Jesus was Messiah, of the seed of David, a
          messiahship confirmed by the miracles and signs God worked through
          him. Jesus was Judge, and will usher in the Last Day. After his death,
          they rallied around Peter and a few chosen disciples who proclaimed
          that Jesus had risen from the dead, and found confirmation of this
          course of events in scripture. (pg. 205)

          Although Parker did not specifically state it, I think he is asking us
          to question how Acts can be linked to Luke stylistically and by
          language, but simultaneously have a close affinity with concepts,
          common background and inherited attitudes found in John. All this does
          tend to raise questions in my mind, but I do not (yet) know what to
          make of it.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.