Postscript
During the course of this work’s publication (2012–2015), numerous other works have been published. Although I have continued attempting to update the volumes that remained forthcoming, many works that would have been addressed in 2015 are naturally missing in the introduction published in 2012. For example, in 2015 a greater number of Acts scholars follow Richard Pervo’s second-century date for Acts than was the case several years earlier. Dr. Pervo has made a consistent argument and drawn on a range of evidence.
For reasons already stated in my introduction, I remain persuaded of a first-century date. Nevertheless, in 2015 I would take into account the shift in opinion when summarizing the state of scholarship; although a second-century date for Acts undoubtedly remains a minority position, it is surely more prominent than it was even a mere decade ago. Because both my commentary, only now complete, and several forthcoming major works on Acts argue for a first-century date, I suspect that supporters of a first-century date will flourish more, but it is currently appropriate to speak of divided opinion. Scholars who cite only their own circles as representative of “critical” scholarship or consensus (a behavior characteristic neither of Dr. Pervo nor myself) display merely their own academic parochialism.
In light of this current discussion, I would argue my own case for a first-century date at slightly greater length, including by pointing out more strongly that the argument for a second-century date for Acts often depends on separating Acts chronologically from Luke’s Gospel, as some of its key supporters do. Although I allow for some differences in extrinsic genre, I, with most Acts scholars, view Luke-Acts as a mostly cohesive narrative unity, a case I believe firmly established by Charles Talbert, Robert Tannehill, and others. I believe it is less plausible to date components with such literary unity decades apart, and I believe that evidence also continues to support a first-century date for Luke’s Gospel (although some scholars also challenge this point).1 I would also highlight again my intrinsic argument based on Luke’s apologetic for Paul responding to specific local accusations that appear to remain live issues, as well as noting both internal and external evidence regarding authorship.2
Some newer studies would lead me to highlight some elements of a discussion more than before.3 Recent publications with full translations of fragments of historians would also further inform my work and should inform the work of those who follow.4 Contrary to what some scholar friends suggested with reference to the completion of this four-volume commentary, much more work remains to be done on Acts in light of its historical context. I have merely begun scratching the surface, hoping to whet students’ appetite for further explorations.
Still, new information often simply reinforces existing information, for example, that historians were bound to sources in a way that epic poets were not;5 that historians might be less careful on some details;6 that it is important to take into account historians’ perspectives;7 and so forth. Although I could cite countless valuable new works that I did not discover or were not published in time to cite at appropriate places in the commentary proper—yet that I discovered before its completion—normally they would complement, augment, or qualify individual footnotes rather than major strands of argument.8
In addition to acknowledgments noted in volume 1, I am grateful to Asbury Theological Seminary for a sabbatical in fall 2012 allowing me to check the editing and perform the majority of indexing for volume 2, as well as checking nearly half the editing for volume 3. I owe special thanks also to Tim West at Baker Academic. For good reason, almost no biblical scholars subscribe to the wooden view of inerrancy of the biblical narratives held by the most conservative popular readers; but Tim’s careful and detailed work on the commentary is so superb that it could almost meet that unusual standard. I am grateful also to those who have contributed in proofreading and Scripture indexing, including those who did the largest amounts: Robert Banning, Jeremy Cunningham, Amy Donaldson, and Cal Robertson.