Footnotes
Footnotes
1.For the date of this prologue to the third gospel, traditionally thought to be directed against Marcion (hence its name), see F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 5 n. 6. For a summary of current scholarly views about these prologues, see esp. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, AB (New York: Doubleday,
1982), p. 39.
2.See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, "The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction?” ANRW 25.3 (1985): 2571.
3.The division of Acts into six sections based on these summary statements was proposed by C. H. Turner, "The Chronology of the New Testament,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898-1904), 1:421, and is adopted by, among others, McNeile, pp. 97-98, and Richard N. Longenecker, "The Acts of the Apostles,” in EBC 9:234.
4.There has been considerable debate over the meaning of the word παρηκολουθηκότι
(parekolouthekoti, G4158) in v. 3 of the prologue. Cadbury insists that it must mean "having kept in touch with” and implies the author’s personal involvement in at least some of the events narrated ("The Tradition,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, 5 vols. [London: Macmillan, 1920-33],
2:501-3). Others, probably correctly, argue that the word means simply "having investigated,” with no implication of personal involvement (e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 297-98).
5.The claim that the Greek of Luke-Acts indicates that the author is a medical doctor (W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke [Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1882]) is not valid (H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, HTS 6 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919]). The most that can be said is that the Greek is consistent with the author’s being a medical doctor.
6.We assume here, as is argued in the relevant chapters, that Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written during Paul’s Roman imprisonment; the provenance of Philippians is not so clear.
7.Cadbury, "The Tradition,” pp. 250-64.
8.See, e.g., Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2 vols., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1980-82), 1:108-10.
9.Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 41.
10.E.g., Kummel, p. 184.
11 .Adolf Harnack, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Putnam,
1911), pp. 1-89.
12.Vernon K. Robbins, "The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages,” BR 20 (1975): 518.
13.See esp. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, WUNT 2.49 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 316-21.
14.Philipp Vielhauer, "On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), pp. 33-50.
15.A treatment of the speech that is more sympathetic to the possibility that it stems from Paul himself is Bertil Gartner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, ASNU 21 (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955).
16.On the subject of this paragraph, see esp. Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 245-63.
17.Ulrich Wilckens, "Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period of Existentialist Theology,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 60-83.
18.To use the analogy employed by F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 17. See further Bruce’s article "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?” BJRL 58 (1975-76): 282-305.
19.William Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897), pp. 200-205.
20.The editors of Beginnings of Christianity, in "The Internal Evidence of Acts,” 2:200-204.
21 .The anti-Marcionite prologue to the gospel of Luke (late second century), Eusebius, H.E.
3.4, Jerome, De vir. ill. 7. The western text of Acts may indirectly suggest the same tradition by making Acts 11:28, which mentions an incident that takes place in Antioch, the first "we” passage in Acts.
22.E.g., Zahn 3:2-3; Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 45-47.
23.In Justin’s Apology 1.50.12 (see Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], pp. 3-8).
24.On this approach to the book of Acts, see W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, BGBE 17 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1975), pp. 21-54.
25.E.g., F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1911), pp. 105-10.
26.This has been argued convincingly in Zahn 3:94-100; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 2425.
27.J. C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1961).
28.E.g., Kummel, pp. 185-87; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte 1:118-21.
29.A few scholars have suggested that Acts was written only after the first edition of Luke’s gospel—what they claim to be a proto-Luke—but there is little to commend the suggestion.
30.The most important defenders of this line of argument are Harnack, Date of Acts, esp. pp. 90-116; Richard Belward Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Methuen, 1901), pp. l-lv (and see the updating of Rackham’s arguments by A. J. Mattill, Jr., "The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham Reconsidered,” CBQ 40 [1978]: 335-50); and J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp. 88-92.
31.Zahn 3:57-61; Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 23, 27-28.
32.See, e.g., Bruce, Book of Acts, p. 11; Longenecker, "Acts,” pp. 234-35; Floyd V. Filson, "The Journey Motif in Luke-Acts,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 68-77.
33.Hemer, Book of Acts, pp. 406-8.
34.See esp. ibid., pp. 376-90, and also Longenecker, "Acts,” pp. 236-38.
35.See David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), p. 78.
36.E.g., Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 36-37; W. Ward Gasque, "A Fruitful Field: Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles,” Int 42 (1988): 129.
37.Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts, SBLMS 20 (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1974).
38.Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
39.See Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, pp. 78-80.
40.Wikenhauser, pp. 351-52; Kummel, p. 165; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte 1:73-76.
41 .Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, p. 80.
42.Albert C. Clark argued on the basis of stylistic differences that Luke and Acts were written by different people (The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages [Oxford: Clarendon, 1933], pp. 393-408), while Wikenhauser thinks that Luke wrote Acts so long after the gospel that they can be considered separately (pp. 352-54).
43.E.g., Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 9; I. Howard Marshall, "Luke and His 'Gospel,’” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher, WUNT 2.28 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1983), pp. 289-308.
44.A. J. B. Higgins, "The Preface to Luke and the Kegygma in Acts,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, pp. 78-83.
45.E.g., Johannes Weiss, Absicht und literarischer Charakter der Apostelgeschichte (Marburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897); O’Neill, Theology of Acts, pp. 166-177; cf. Bruce, Book of Acts, pp. 8-13.
46.See Schneider, Apostelgeschichte 1:139-45.
47.Paul W. Walaskay, "And So We Came to Rome”: The Political Perspective of St. Luke, SNTSMS 49 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
48.A. J. Mattill, Jr., "The Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger Reconsidered,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, pp. 108-122.
49.Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination of the Lucan Purpose (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966).
50.See esp. Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961).
51 .See, e.g., Ernst Haenchen, "The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Earliest Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 258-278; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 20-21; idem, "Luke and His ‘Gospel,’” pp. 289-308; Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 9.
52.See esp. the essay by W. C. van Unnik, "The 'Book of Acts’ the Confirmation of the Gospel,” NovT 4 (1960): 26-59.
53.See Walter L. Liefeld, "Luke,” in EBC 8:802.
54.This theme is stressed by C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961), pp. 56-61; Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 20-21; Gasque, "Recent Study,” pp. 120-21.
55.E.g., Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts, pp. 65-70; Jacques Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964), p. 88; Haenchen, Acts, p. 81.
56.Adolf Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Williams & Norgate, 1909), pp. 162-202.
57.See Joachim Jeremias, "Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte,”
ZNW 36 (1937): 205-21; Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, p. 23.
58.Charles Cutler Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts, HTS 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916), pp. 3-41.
59.See esp. Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).
60.Haenchen, Acts, p. 82.
61.See Hemer, Book of Acts, pp. 336-64.
62.Martin Dibelius, "Style Criticism of the Book of Acts,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven (London: SCM, 1956), p. 4 (the original German essay was published in 1923); see also Kummel, pp. 184-85.
63.Most notably, Clark, Acts of the Apostles.
64.F. Blass, "Die Textuberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte,” TSK 67 (1894): 86-119; Zahn 3:8-41.
65.E.g., James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of Beginnings of Christianity, pp. ccxv-ccxlvi; Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 40-47; Kummel, pp. 187-88.
66.Eldon Jay Epp also discerns an anti-Jewish bias in Bezae, (The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, SNTSMS 3 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966]).
67.On the date of the text, see Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 69.
68.This history is thoroughly surveyed in Gasque, History. See also Haenchen, Acts, pp. 14-50.
69.See Gasque, History, pp. 24-26.
70.The fullest treatment of Acts from the Tubingen approach is that of Eduard Zeller, The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, Critically Investigated, 2 vols. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1875-76); the German original was published in 1854.
71.Adolf Harnack, Luke the Physician (New York: Putman, 1907), The Acts of the Apostles (London: Wiliams & Norgate, 1909), and Date of Acts.
72.See esp. Ramsay’s Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), and St. Paul: The Traveller and Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897).
73.Haenchen, Acts, p. 24.
74.The relevant essays are collected in Martin Dibelins, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven (London: SCM, 1956).
75.See esp. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, and also his commentary Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); Haenchen’s major work is his commentary The Acts of the Apostles.
76.E.g., the Tubingen School and many contemporary redactional approaches (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts).
77.E.g., Harnack, Ramsay; and note also two of the classic treatments from this perspective: Eduard Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 192123); and Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert, NTAbh 8.3-5 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1921).
78.Gerd Ludemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989).
79.Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, pp. 67-68.
80.Talbert, Literary Patterns.
81.Richard Pervo, Profit with Delight ; see also Vernon K. Robbins, "The We-Passages in Acts.”
82.W. C. van Unnik, "Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 15-32.
83.Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke.
84.Oscar Cullman, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950).
85.See, e.g., A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966).
85.See, e.g., Kummel, pp. 170-73, and on this and the subject of this paragraph, see esp. E. Earle Ellis, Eschatology in Luke (Philadephia: Fortress, 1972); A. J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1979); I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), esp. pp. 77-88.
87.L. T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1977); Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, eds., Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983); P. F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987).
88.See particularly Jacob Jervell, "The Divided People of God” and "The Law in Luke-Acts,” in Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 41-74 and 133-51.
89.Jervell, "The Law in Luke-Acts,” p. 141.
90.See Robert L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation, SBLMS 33 (Atlanta: SP, 1987); Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 58-59.
91 .See particularly Jack T. Sanders, "The Jewish People in Luke-Acts,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, ed. Joseph B. Tyson (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1988), pp. 51-75.
92.S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law, SNTSMS 50 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983); Craig L. Blomberg, "The Law in Luke-Acts,” JSNT 22 (1984): 53-80; M. A. Seifrid, "Jesus and the Law in Acts,” JSNT 30 (1987): 39-57.
93.Quoted from the translation of W. R. Paton, Polybius: The Histories, vol. 1, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922). On these points, see esp. A. W. Mosley, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World,” NTS 12 (1965-66): 10-26; Hemer, Book of Acts, pp. 43-44, 75-79. See also W. C. van Unnik, "Luke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Les Actes des Apotres: Traditions, redaction, theologie, ed. J. Kremer, BETL 48 (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1979), pp. 37-60.
94.On Thucydides, see Hemer, Book of Acts, pp. 421-26.
95.Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery and St. Paul.
96.A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (London: Oxford, 1963).
97.Hemer, Book of Acts.
98.On the shipwreck voyage, see James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed.
(London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1880; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978). 99.Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, p. 18.
100.See esp. Dibelius, "The Speeches of Acts and Ancient Historiography,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 138-85; Cadbury, "The Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, 5:405-27; Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, WMANT 5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1961); Eduard Schweizer, "Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 208-16.
101.See, on Christology, C. F. D. Moule, "The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 159-85; and Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM, 1970).
102.See, again, on the speeches, Hemer, Book of Acts, pp. 415-26.
103.Haenchen, Acts, p. 98; Longenecker, "Acts,” p. 218.
104On this theme, see particularly Marshall, Luke, Historian and Theologian ; idem, Acts, pp. 20-21; Gasque, "Recent Study,” pp. 120-21.
105.E.g., Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 2.
106.Childs, pp. 225-27.