Author & Date of Luke-Acts (Prof. Dicken)

1. THE AUTHOR OF LUKE-ACTS
2. Luke-Acts provides very little information about the author, though the prologue to the Gospel offers two details. Luke 1:1–4 indicates that the author was male and was not an eyewitness to the events he recorded (François Bovon, Luke 1, 8). There are essentially two options regarding the identity of the author of Luke-Acts. The first is Luke, the physician and occasional travelling companion of Paul. From the late second century CE to the modern period this has been the preferred option. The second option, held by critical scholars in the modern period (but by no means ubiquitously) is that the author of these documents is unknown (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 50; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 33).

The Argument against Lukan Authorship

First, arguing against Lukan authorship is the fact that the document is unsigned and that there is no internal claim to authorship in either Luke or Acts (Porter, “Companion or Disciple?,” 147). Based on this alone one should be hesitant to assign a particular authorial name to these books. Also, we should note a few assumptions that undergird the above argument. The first assumption is that the “we sections” are Luke’s actual eyewitness testimony. This is not necessarily the case; the “we sec tions” may be a literary convention or perhaps are based on one of the author’s sources (cf. Luke 1:1–4). Furthermore, an eyewitness would likely have been more explicit about his participation in events he deemed so significant (Josephus, J.W. 1.3, 22; Susan Marie Praeder, “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts,” NovT 29 (1987): 208, 216). A second assumption is that the Prison Epistles were written by Paul during the Roman imprison ment narrated in Acts 28. The Pauline authorship of Philippians and Philemon is unquestioned, but the authorship of Colossians and especially Ephesians is less certain and the provenance of all four letters is up for debate (Rainer Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, 9–29). A third assumption, which builds on the first two, is that the author of Luke-Acts was named in the Prison Epistles. Paul had many co-workers and travelling compan ions and Λουκας was a very common name; why must the author of these two books be one of those named in the epistles? Even if the author is named in the Prison Epistles, all that this provides is a potential pool of candidates, not a definitive indication.

Fourth, while it is true that early Christian tradition consistent ly attributes Luke-Acts to Luke, the assumption is that the tradition, which did not arise until at least several decades after Luke and Acts were composed, is accurate. Although the Gospel of Luke was known to writers before the mid-second century our record of the attribution to Luke did not occur until the last quarter of the second century (though the tradition would have arisen earlier). Also, we must remember that the early Christian writings cited above were apologetic texts attempting to refute what they deemed heretical and to establish an apostolic link to certain writings, in this case, Paul via Luke (Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 107). While for us Luke may not seem the most logical choice as a link to Paul, the recurrence of his name in epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul and the ability to tie him to the “we-sections” made him a likely candidate for the early apologists. Several additional objections to Lukan authorship could be made. For instance, scholars have posited alternate explanations for the “we sections” of Acts in order to demonstrate that these passages do not reflect the author’s eyewitness testimony (Michael Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts: Differences and Distance,” ExpTim 122 (2011): 427). Several scholars have advanced the hypothesis that the “we sections” are literary creations of the writer meant to involve the reader in the narrative and/or add color to the stories

Vernon Robbins attempted to show that “we sections” were common to narratives involving sea voyages in ancient literature (Vernon K. Robbins, “By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 215–42). François Bovon states that the author has employed the first person plural in these instances “to substantiate the credibility of the story and to heighten its vividness” (Bovon, Luke 1, 8). Richard Pervo’s analysis of the genre of Acts concludes that throughout the book historical events have been embellished by the author in order to add entertaining elements to the work (Richard I. Pervo, Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles, 138). Given the author’s literary prowess, this remains an attractive option (William Sanger Campbell, “The Narrator as ‘He,’ ‘Me,’ and ‘We’: Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles,” JBL 129 (2010): 385–407). Other scholars have hypothesized that the “we sections” are based on one of the author’s many sources utilized in the composi tion of Luke-Acts (A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The We-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,” ZNW 93 (2002): 78–98; C. K. Barrett, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus,” ExpTim 88 (1976): 4; Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 22; Hemer, “First Person Narrative,” 104). Haenchen believes that the “we sections” (par ticularly Acts 27–28) are literary creations based on several diaries or travelogues (Haenchen, Acts, 85–87).

The apparent discrepancies between the theology and history of Acts regarding Paul when compared to first-hand information found in the Pauline Epistles form a major objection to Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts. On this account we must be careful to differentiate between whether or not the author knew Paul personally (something we cannot know) and whether or not the author made use of the Pauline Epistles in his writing. Also, neither the author’s personal acquaintance with Paul nor his use of the Pauline Epistles proves that the author was the same Luke mentioned in the Prison Epistles. Scholarly opinions concerning Lukan dependence on the Pauline Epistles have varied widely. Concerning the author of Luke-Acts and his knowledge of the Pauline Epistles, perspectives include: 1) that the author had no knowledge of the epistles; 2) that the author knew the epistles but did not make use of them; 3) that the author knew the epistles and reinterpreted the ideas contained therein (Stanley Porter, “Companion or Disciple?”; Stanley Porter, “When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon, 95–128; Bovon, Luke 1, 10–11; Morton S. Enslin, “‘Luke’ and Paul,” JAOS 58 (1938): 81–91; Morton S. Enslin, “Once Again, Luke and Paul,” ZNW 61 (1970): 253–71); 4) that the author was directly dependent on some of the epistles (Michael D. Goulder, “Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Let ters?,” PRS 13 (1986): 97–112); and 5) that the author was dependent on an early collection of all of the epistles (Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, ch. 4).

Alleged discrepancies between Luke-Acts and the Pauline Epistles include the stories surrounding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem and appearances before the apostles there (particularly Gal 2 and Acts 15), Paul’s attitude toward his Jewish heritage and the Law, the narratives of Paul’s calling (Galatians) or conversion (Acts), the near absence of a doctrine of justification in Acts, and differing conceptions of the death of Christ (Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 81; Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts,” 429–36; Guthrie, Introduction, 119, 122). However, we may account for these differences by considering the purposes and genres of these disparate works—Luke-Acts was composed to provide certainty for Theophilus in the form of ancient biography/history (generally speaking) while the epistles were ad hoc documents written for the correction and edification of groups of Christians in various lo cales. In other words, those who maintain that Luke Acts shows no knowledge of the Pauline corpus have misplaced their emphasis on the differences between the works. Indeed, it is likely that the author of Luke-Acts did know at least some of the Pauline letters either from reading them himself or having heard them read in Christian gatherings, but had no need to cite them directly in composing his works. Paul’s letters enjoyed relatively wide circulation, even in his own lifetime (cf. 2 Cor 10:10) and certainly by the end of the first century (cf. Col 4:16; 2 Pet 3:15–16) (Pervo, Dating Acts, 52, 137). Additionally, Pervo has compiled a notable number of correspondences (verbal, thematic, setting, con textual, etc.) between Acts and the epistles that demonstrate that the author of Luke-Acts knew the epistles (Pervo, Dating Acts, chapter four).

1. 
   Moreover, Porter has argued that Luke-Acts and the epistles may be closer than previ ously thought on several key issues such as their use of the Old Testament (OT), Christology, Jesus’ resurrection, and the Eucharist (Porter, “Companion or Disciple?,” 151–68).

Therefore, Luke-Acts is anonymous (Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts,” 428).

Dating Luke-Acts

Terminus a Quo

Several issues help us determine the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts: 1) the date of last event recorded in the books; 2) whether or not the author knew of Paul’s death; 3) the date of composition for the Gospel of Mark; and 4) Luke’s redaction of Mark 13 in light of the destruction of Jerusalem. We begin with determining an approximate date for the last event recorded in the Book of Acts: Paul’s Roman imprisonment. The last datable event in Acts is the procuratorship of Porcius Festus, which began sometime between 57–59 CE. Allowing time for Paul’s trial and sea voyages (Acts 27–28), we arrive at 60 CE for an approximate date of Paul’s Roman impris onment. Luke-Acts could not have been written before this date (Pervo, Dating Acts, 23–24). Did the author know what happened to Paul after his imprisonment in Rome? As Daniel Marguerat says, “The end of the book of Acts intrigues” (Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian, 229). Several clues in Acts show that the author knew of Paul’s trial (Acts 23:11; 25:11–12; 26:32; 27:24) and death (Acts 20:18–38, especially vv. 25–26, 38). Many scholars agree that these passages indicate that the author knew of Paul’s trial and death; e.g., Bovon, Luke 1, 8; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (3d ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 13–14; Hans Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays presented in honor of Paul Schubert (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 299; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 85; Maddox, Purpose, 8; Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 205; Pervo, Dating Acts. Pervo (Acts, 517) states that Acts 20 is Paul’s testament. Paul’s death probably occurred in the mid 60s CE during the reign of Nero. But why were Paul’s Roman trial and eventual death not mentioned explicitly?

1. It appears that the abrupt ending of Acts sufficiently concludes the narrative that the author intended to compose by bringing the message of the kingdom of God to Rome (Acts 1:8; 13:47; 23:11) and drawing the reader into the narrative by finishing with a statement about preaching the kingdom of God unhindered (Mark 16:8. William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westmin ster/John Knox, 1993), 109; Charles B. Puskas, The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Significance of Acts 28:16–31 (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009), 109, 140; Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 220–21). Given the author’s awareness of Paul’s death, this pushes the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts forward a few years to ca. 65 CE.
2. The third matter in determining a terminus a quo is a date for the composition of the Gospel of Mark since it served as the pri mary source material for the Gospel of Luke (Craig Evans, Luke, 3; Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place,” 300; Marshall, Luke, 34; Pervo, Dating Acts, 26; Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke, 14; John Nolland, Luke 1:1—9:20, xxxvii; Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 66–73). Suffice it to say that scholars generally agree on a date for Mark between 65–70 CE (Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, 14; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1—8:26, xxxi; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 163–164; Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 53; Fitzmyer, Acts, 53; Shellard, New Light, 14; Pervo, Dating Acts, 26; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 99).
3. The final issue regarding the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts is re lated to the third: Luke’s redaction (21:20–24) of Mark 13:14–20 in light of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” JRS 37 (1947): 47–54; Marshall, Luke, 770–71; Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, 1344–47). Marshall outlines the changes made by the Third Evangelist to the Markan account: 1) Luke specifically names Jerusalem whereas Mark has “abomina tion of desolation”; 2) Luke’s version includes a warning to keep away from Jerusalem in place of Mark’s warning about a delay; 3) Luke omits Mark’s reference to the shortening of the tribulation for the sake of the elect and replaces it with a statement concerning the death of the Jews and Jerusalem’s subjugation by Gentiles (Marshall, Luke, 770; Pervo, Dating Acts, 337). Further support for the view that Luke adapts Mark in light of the fall of Jerusalem is found in Luke 19:41–44, a passage unique to Luke, where Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem in terms that are reminiscent of the siege of Jerusalem (Green, Gospel of Luke, 738). Therefore, Luke’s redaction of Mark 13:14–20 is apparent. Many agree that the destruction of Jerusalem influenced the com position of Luke (Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1329; Marshall, Luke, 770–71; Bruce, Acts, 16–17; Guthrie, Introduction, 116–17; Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 13–14). This does not change the terminus a quo significantly. In fact, if Mark was written prior to 70 CE, we may maintain that 75 CE is the earliest date at which the third Gospel and Acts were written. If we date Mark later than 70 CE, then this pushes the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts into the 80s CE.

The case that Luke-Acts is dependent on Josephus usually rests on the mention of Lysanias the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1; Josephus, Ant. 19.275; 20.138), the reversal of Theudas’ and Judas’ respective re bellions (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97–102), and a reference to the Egyptian rebel (Acts 21:38; Josephus, J.W. 2.254–263; Ant. 20.160–172) (Bruce, Acts, 43–44). Josephus completed his Antiquities and the appended Life in 93 or 94 CE (Ant. 20.267 and Life 5). If 1 Clement (96 CE) is dependent on Acts there would have been a very small window of opportunity for the author of Acts to utilize Josephus’ works and then for Acts to be come available for Clement. However, it seems that even with works as significant as Josephus’ Antiquities and Luke-Acts this window is too small. In addition, Pervo’s examples of Acts’ de pendence on Josephus are intertextual echoes and are not as sub stantial as the dependence of 1 Clement and Ignatius on Acts. It seems very likely that any author composing works in Greek in the late first century about recent events would inevitably make use of some of the same vocabulary as Josephus and Luke-Acts do. In the end, the dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus is not very likely.

Anachronisms are errors of a special kind. Not all of them bear weight for the case Pervo wishes to argue (as he knows perfectly well and indicates himself). What he is interested in is the search for words, subjects, or institutions that cannot possibly be linked to the last quarter of the first century, or only with difficulty. As an instance of the latter, Pervo cites the use of the honorary title neokoros for the city of Ephesus in Acts 19:35. As Pervo notes, the title has so far not been attested before the middle of the sixties and became more wide spread only by the very end of the century. It makes the case “not grossly anachronistic” and at best “it savors of a later period” (Pervo, Dating Acts, 312), likewise, the absolute use of the title “Lord” for the emperor, as found in Acts 25:26, may not be clearly attested in the first cen tury, but is after all only “a bit of an anachronism,” as Pervo calls it in his commentary (Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, 62), as “popular usage may well have been looser”;2 after all it is again an argument that is built on negative evi dence only. The one set of anachronisms Pervo considers to be “least dis putable and most cogent” has to do with organization of the com munity. When presbyters come to be called bishops, individuals are appointed as deacons, and widows are given a voice in the community, we are in “the world of the early second century,” as Pervo formulates it (Pervo, Dating Acts, 310). By putting together the whole “organization issue” in the way he does Pervo is in danger of blur ring some lines. Little wonder that words such as “oversight,” “ministry,” and “apostleship” (see Acts 1:17, 20, 25) are lacking in the Gospel.

This is a matter of keeping to the historical perspec tive. It would really have been a gross anachronism to have intro duced these terms already in the account of Jesus’ life. The “Seven” are not yet called “deacons,” and the fact that later authors saw in Acts 6:6 some kind of ordination rite says more about these later generations than about Luke and the time he is writing Acts. The fact that the title episkopos (“overseer”) is used only once and does not seem to be clearly distinguished from the (team of) “presbyters” that elsewhere are said to lead the community may be another indication that for Luke things were not yet so clear-cut as they were for Ignatius.