Loading...I am circling around the ultimate question of this thread, whether Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A big reason this matters: if Paul’s companion, “the gentile physician,” wrote Acts, he had first-hand knowledge of Paul’s life and teachings. That would certainly increase the likelihood that he was giving an authoritative account!
The first step to answering the question — was it written by Luke? — was to show that Paul never *mentions* Luke as a gentile physician in any of his undisputed letters. The second step involves asking the question of whether *any* companion of Paul – whether Luke or anyone else – wrote these books. The argument that a companion of Paul did write the books is based on the “we-passages” that I mentioned in the previous post. Now I want to advance the argument by saying that I don’t think the we-passages indicate that a companion of Paul wrote Acts (or, by inference, Luke) because I think there is good counter-evidence to indicate that Acts (and Luke) were decidedly NOT written by someone who was familiar, personally with Paul.
Here I’ll reproduce my comments on it from my college-level textbook, more accessible than some of my other posts recently. The basic point I’m making at this stage is that the book of Acts is not very reliable in its report of Paul. The implication of that will be (in a subsequent post) that a companion of Paul almost certainly didn’t write it. That in turn will mean that the “we-passages” have to be explained on other grounds. And more germane to our point, it will suggest that Luke/Acts was not written by Luke the gentile physician (or more accurately: if they were, we have no evidence of it).
So, for now, let me lay out the argument for thinking a companion of Paul did not write Acts, namely, that its author does not seem to have known about Paul’s life and teachings very well.
*************************************************************************************
For a historically reliable account of what Paul said and did, can we rely on the narrative of the book of Acts? Different scholars will answer this question differently, some trusting the book of Acts with no qualms, others taking its accounts with a grain of salt, and yet others discounting its narrative altogether — that is, discounting its *historical* credibility for establishing what Paul said and did, not necessarily discounting its importance as a piece of literature.
My own position is that Acts can tell us a great deal about how Luke *understood* Paul, but less about what Paul himself actually said and did. for discerning the reliability of Acts we are in the fortunate situation that Paul and Luke sometimes both describe the same event and indicate Paul’s teachings on the same issues, making it possible to see whether they stand in basic agreement.
What is striking is that in virtually every instance in which the book of Acts can be compared with Paul’s letters in terms of biographical detail, differences emerge. Sometimes these differences …
This is important information about the New Testament and it’s second most important figure, the apostle Paul. Want to know more? Join the blog. You’ll get your money’s worth in about 47 seconds. And it’s not much money. And all of it goes to charity. So whatcha waiting for?
I would very much like your take on a theory I have encountered more and more of late, i.e., that Jesus was neither a myth (a la Carrier et al.) nor a single individual, but a composite character such as Robin Hood is thought to have been.
It completely depends on what one means. There certainly was a single person named Jesus about whom we can say a lot. But the “Jesus’ people have in their minds is a composite of all the things they’ve heard and thoguht about him.
I would say that if a historical person — (a) had the requisite name and lived at the requisite time and place, (c) taught a moral philosophy not too dissimilar from that attributed to him, (b) claimed at least privately to be the Messiah, (c) was crucified, (d) had followers who came to believe he was resurrected — then it’s safe to say that person is unambiguously Jesus. However, if we rejected (c) then it would be necessary to view Jesus as a composite character. Indeed, this was a question I had myself until you (Bart) convinced me that the morally insightful Jesus of Q is not incompatible with Jesus the apocalyptic preacher.
I agree that these discrepancies are difficult (some are impossible) to reconcile with Paul’s own writings, and that the author of Acts had made mistakes (even in other chronological details such as Theudas’ revolt in Acts5:36).
However, the Jerusalem visit by Paul may not be far off the mark. Paul says in Galatians that after three years he did go down to Jerusalem. In Acts 9:23 it says “After some time had passed…” he went to Jerusalem. Wouldn’t this be vague enough to allow for three years?
I’m not sure what you’re asking: yes, Paul definitely went to Jerusalem. One problem is reconciling the number of times he went, according to Paul and according to Acts.
“The book of Acts, of course, provides its own narrative of Paul’s conversion. In this account, strikingly enough, Paul does exactly what he claims *not* to have done in Galatians: after leaving Damascus some days after his conversion, he goes directly to Jerusalem and meets with the apostles (Acts 9:10-30).”
You claim that Acts says that Paul went to Jerusalem “some days after his conversion” but in Acts it says “After some time had passed…” he went to Jerusalem (according to NRSV). I’m claiming that Acts retains accordance with Galatians as “some time” and “three years” could amount to the same thing.
It says he went there just as soon as he left Damascus. According to Paul he did not — he went to Arabia for three years first.
Acts says he spent several days in Damascus but that is beside the issue correct? The issue is how much time passed between his conversion and him meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem. I agree acts 22:14-21 seems to suggest he went back to Jerusalem after Damascus but it doesn’t seem to suggest he met the Apostles at that time. Instead he seems to indicate he left quickly.
I wonder if you see a connotation in the Greek that is not represented in translations I am reading.
Could you tell me exactly what verse you are referring to?
I also wonder if you accepted these arguments before your research on memory. If Luke was writing decades after he was with Paul it certainly seems possible that some of the details about what he learned of Paul would be misremembered. Luke doesn’t claim to have been with Paul when he went to Arabia (or necessarilly for very long at all) so if Luke misremembered the precise timing of when he went to Jerasualem (assuming Paul even told Luke that precise timing) does not seem a significant lapse.
I would think Paul did keep the old law when he was with other Jews. Acts suggests that it was Paul’s custom to go to Synagogues to argue with them. Moreover, Acts 24:21 and 23:6-10 suggest that he was being tried about his views on whether people can be resurrected. I assume (as does acts) that was Paul putting it cleverly.
I’m not sure I would read 28:17-18 as Paul saying he always kept kosher even after becoming Christian. I don’t think Paul understood his view that he is no longer bound by Kosher laws as violating Jewish laws but rather that the rules have changed. If we pass an amendment to the constitution and then follow that amendment we are not violating the customs of the founding fathers or Americans. He believes his views are built into the cake.
Finally even if we assume Luke as “gentile physician” was not written by Paul does that mean we should completely discount what it says? I have heard Luke’s introduction is similar to what one would expect in a technical writing such as a medical treatise in ancient times. Does Loveday Alexander argue this?
What verse? I’m not sure what you’re asking. I was referring to the very verse you were.
But no, in Acts Paul definitely does not think the rules have changed. That’s why he has to go to make the sacrifice in the temple that led to his arrest i the first place.
And no, the question of authorship has no direct bearing on the question of accuracy, one way or the other.
“I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days.” Galatians 1:17-18
If I say “I did not go to Oak Brook in 2017 to see Bart Ehrman present at the defenders conference, but I did go in 2019 to see his presentation”, does that mean I did not go to Oak brook *at all* for any reason in 2017? It seems to me that is not what the words mean.
In the exact same way I would not read Galatians as Paul claiming he did not go to Jerusalem for over three years for any reason at all. Rather he is saying he did not to there *to see the other apostles.* I don’t think Acts says he did go to Jerusalem to see other apostles and in fact Acts suggests, he did not do that when he went to Jerusalem right after Damascus.
“But no, in Acts Paul definitely does not think the rules have changed. That’s why he has to go to make the sacrifice in the temple that led to his arrest i the first place.”
I have a few reservations about that reading of Acts.
First Paul seems to be pretty practical about such things when we consider his view of 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 on eating food sacrificed to idols. It would seem refusing to go through the purification process would be quite offensive to some so it would seem he may do something like that just so he does not cause needless friction.
Second your reading seems to have Luke having contradictory views. Consider Peter’s vision that he can eat unclean foods in Acts 10. Is Luke not saying Peter (a Jew) is free to eat unclean foods? Yet Luke think’s Paul is still bound by such laws? I find that unlikely. Does Luke think Jews violating Kosher laws is “wrong” or not? Does he think it is ok for Peter to violate the Kosher laws but not Paul?
Well if you said I went to see Ehrman at Oakbrook in in August 2017 and then after a few days I saw him in Evanston, most people would assume you didn’t mean “three years later”
Where is the “after a few days” verse that you are talking about? Perhaps there is something in the Greek that is not brought out in the translations I am reading because I am not reading anything that suggests that in Acts 9. Acts 9 is the description of the visit to Jerusalem where Luke does say Paul successfully tried to associate with the apostles thanks to Barnabas.
Acts 22 is where Paul is explaining a sequence of events and Luke is putting words in Paul’s mouth. This visit to Jerusalem seems different than the Jerusalem visit described in Acts 9. In Paul’s description in Acts 22 (so again Luke’s version just out of Paul’s mouth) Acts he seems to just go to a temple fall in a trance and leave.
“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’”
Acts 22:17-18
I do agree Acts seems to have the same sequence of events of Damascus to Jerusalem to Caesaria. But the two descriptions of the what happened in Jerusalem seem different in Acts.
Both accounts are sandwiched in between Damascus and Caesarea. But either Luke seems to be inconsistent about what happened in Jerusalem (assuming Luke does not have Paul giving wrong information in his speech) or Paul did visit Jerusalem at least two times after Damascus but before traveling to Caesarea according to Luke.
Do you agree that what occurred in Jerusalem in Acts 9 seems different than what occurred in the account given in Acts 22? I agree the fact that they are both sandwiched in between Damascus and his leaving for Caesarea would suggest that they were the same trip if we had no reason to think they were different. But what occurred in Jerusalem seems different *in Acts itself* and this suggests Acts may be talking about two different trips.
You’re right, it says many days. So I gues in your understanding that means something like a thousand days? And yes, Acts 9 has key differences from Acts 22, rather famous contradictions. So too the account in Acts 26.
I defer to what scholars think “many days” (or whatever the Greek term is) could mean. If scholars of ancient Greek think it could cover years then OK. If they don’t, that is OK too.
But in all of this I think we should be mindful of how our human memory works. My daily work where I am questioning accounts and memories as a trial lawyer forced me to quickly adapt to the reality of how people’s memories work. I think others (including others in academia) have very unrealistic expectations.
If you think that Luke traveling with Paul for a while, years before he wrote his account, means he must be able to get details about how long Paul was in Arabia how many trips Paul made to Jerusalem exactly how Paul’s experience of Christ went down exactly how Paul’s atonement doctrine works etc., completely accurate, then we have different expectations of how memory works.
And isn’t that the basis for your argument that Luke could not have traveled with Paul? Your argument is if Luke traveled with Paul 1) He must have been told these details and 2) Luke couldn’t not have gotten them so wrong in an account written years after he was traveling with Paul. I think both premises are based on unwarranted assumptions. That is why I asked if you accepted this argument before you studied memory, and if your study of memory effected your views.
Even if Paul traveled with Luke it is unclear how much he spoke with Luke at all. Did Paul say he went to Arabia? Did he tell him how long he was there? Maybe Paul spoke with Luke about it but never said exactly how long he was there and for whatever reason Luke thought it was just months. Our memory fills gaps. We shouldn’t think that if Luke traveled with Paul for a while then Luke suddenly must know everything about Paul’s life and views as clearly as Paul does!
If Acts was written by one author then the discrepancies between the descriptions in Acts of the visit(s) does suggest Paul made more than one visit to Jerusalem. Neither Luke nor Paul explicitly tell us.
“its author does not seem to have known about Paul’s life and teachings very well.”
Ive always wondered if this could also be attributed to Luke’s over all agenda to present Christians as one unified movement triumphantly marching from Jerusalem to Rome. That is, Luke eliminates things
about Paul that show differences, tensions and disagreement. For example, he eliminates Paul’s trip to Arabia and has him go straight to Jerusalem to meet the apostles.
,,,,,in my mind, Lucius of Cyrene could also have been in such a position to be the author of the Acts and the gospel of Luke.
,,,Lucius of Cyrene was among those who was among the founders of the Christian community in Antioch. Also he (probably) was disregarded and questioned by those who were of the Jewish faith who were the close followers of Jesus,,,(the Jerusalem Christians who confronted Paul) John, Peter, Andrew, James and those of the closer following. His position, his role was closely related to Paul and his missions,,,,being among the seventy (two) disciple after Christ,, Yes,,,he might be a candidate of authorship of Acts and the Gospel of Luke.
Kjell Tidslevold
The “New Catholic Bible” published in 1947, in its introduction to Luke, plainly states the author was the companion of Paul (and therefore the author of Acts) and that Acts was written “around 63 AD”. The current New American Bible, published in 1970, makes no such claim in its own intro to Luke. Shows you what difference modern scholarship has made within our own lifetimes.
How does the biblical inerrancy crowd deal with the contradiction between Paul’s trip to Jerusalem after “three years” in Galatians vs. “days” in Acts?
Different trips!
Is it possible to know when the various companions of Paul became companions?
I’m afraid not! But it’s a great question.
But doesnt Acts understand that the trouble Paul had with the Jews was came from his preaching to gentiles to not follow the law?
Acts 18:12 “But when Gallio was proconsul of Acha′ia, the Jews made a united attack upon Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.”
Yes.
Paul does not actually say that Timothy was ever with him in Athens. I suggest the following:
Paul travelled to Athens with some Macedonian converts (Acts 17:15a). Paul then sent those Macedonian converts back to Macedonia to ask Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible (Acts 17:15b). The instruction to Timothy was to travel via Thessalonica. Thus Paul was left alone in Athens (1 Thess 3:1), but he was willing to put up with the solitude because he would then hear Timothy’s news of the Thessalonians sooner. Donfried proposed something similar. On this view Paul is left alone in Athens after he sends his companions to Timothy with the instruction to come to Athens via Thessalonica. It works, doesn’t it? Paul can have sent Timothy using the messengers of Acts 17:15, rather than by face-to-face conversation in Athens.
Our assessment of Acts depends, to a large extent, on how we understand Galatians. See my recent article: “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the confusion in Galatia” Biblica (2018) 544-66.
It seems odd to me to have various small discrepancies such as when and where or how many times. If an author is posing as a companion to Paul, these small facts seem more easily replicated than say Paul’s raison d’etre — which the author may have every intention of tweaking. Would the author not have been referring to Paul’s letters throughout this whole process?
I think the problem is that we are so accustomed to having easy access to books that it just seems natural that Paul’s letters were known thorughou the Xn world. A better analogy would be to imagine there was *no* mass communication or even postal service, and a preacher in Virginia writes a bunch of letters to his churches. How likely is it that another preacher in Vermont would know about them. He *might*; but no reason he necessarily would. Luke show no evidence of knowing the letters, and my guess is that this is becaus he didn’t…
Luke writes that Paul’s escape from Damascus was after some time had pass (δε επληρουντο ημεραι ικαναι). We can imagine Paul’s two or three year visit to Arabia being during that interval. Why, then, was Luke silent about that visit to Arabia? Perhaps Paul’s evangelistic efforts in Arabia were unsuccessful. Or perhaps Paul got into trouble with Aretas in Arabia (2 Cor 11:32) and Luke wanted to avoid giving ammunition to the opponents of the faith. You, Bart, suggest that Luke wanted to present Paul as being close to the Jerusalem church leaders. All these explanations are possible, and none of them require us to believe that the author of Acts was not a companion of Paul, do they? How do we make the jumps from Luke’s silence to Luke’s ignorance to Luke’s distance from Paul?
I once saw a list of ways in which the Paul of the undisputed letters contradicts himself. It was a longer list than the list of apparent discrepancies between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the undisputed letters. Paul was a very “high context” writer, so we need to be careful. Paul is more positive towards the Law in Romans and Acts than he is in Galatians. He exaggerates his opposition to circumcision and the Law in Galatians (and he knows his readers know that he is doing so). See my 2018 Biblica article.
Since Acts presents Paul (rightly I think) as being accommodating to Jewish practices, doesn’t this argue that the author was close to Paul? Someone writing a generation later, when the church was more Gentile, would surely have distanced Paul from Jewish customs. Colossians is a case in point. This fake letter thinks that Paul had only three circumcised coworkers (Col 4:10-11), whereas the audience of Acts takes it for granted that Paul’s fellow missionaries had to be circumcised to be effective (otherwise Acts 16:3 falls flat as an explanation of why Timothy was circumcised). Your own work on anti-semitic textual variants confirms that the trend over time was for Christians to want to rewrite the NT to distance it from Jewish customs and identity. If Luke’s Paul is Jewish, then Luke is early, isn’t he?
I don’t think “some days” makes sense if he means “three years.” He could just as easily have said “three years.”
And I don’t agree that Paul never did anything contrary to the law, as Acts says. Paul says just the opposite in 1 Corinthians 9:20: he was often acting as one “not under the law.”
Of course we could argue about these things till the cows come home. But unless soneone has a goal of reconciling these passages (as I used to have) I don’t think a generous reading (letting the author say what he says and assume that he means what he says) will see them as compatible.
The culture of the time was high context, so Paul’s hearers would have expected him to adapted his message according to the circumstances and according to who he was addressing. In Acts 28:17 Paul is addressing Jewish leaders at a time when he is facing death for violating Jewish law, so of course he will play up his own allegiance to Jewish customs and people (and the audience of Acts would expect him to do so). Acts 9:10 introduces Ananias as a disciple, but when Paul addresses Jews in Acts 22:12-15 he presents Ananias as a devout Law-observant man who endorsed his work. Clearly Luke’s Paul adapts his message according to his audience. He does the same in Acts 17. He was deeply distressed at the idols (Acts 17:16) but, when addressing Gentiles, he holds back his disgust and opens by complimenting them for their religion (Acts 17:22-23). Luke’s Paul was “all things to all people”, and that is exactly what Paul says about himself.
If we take Acts 28:17 too literally we make the same mistake that the Galatians made when they inferred from Paul’s circumcision of Timothy that he was preaching circumcision (Gal 5:11). His circumcision of Timothy and his words in Acts 28:17 were messages aimed at Jews, and have to be understood in that context.
“However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.”
NIV Acts 24:14-15
“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, ….”
KJ Acts 24:14
Paul is saying he believes the OT. But he is explicitly saying he worships differently than the Jews who accuse him. He says they call Christianity (followers of “the way”) a sect (or “heresy” although “heresy” might be too strong) so it is reasonable to think they have disagreements on what it means “to go against [his] people or the customs of [his] fathers.” He believes Moses and Abraham would approve of him following God’s will in accepting Christianity.
But even if he did follow laws while in Jerusalem that does not mean he believes he must. Paul is not out to offend and says it can be ok to eat food sacrificed to idols. Paul likely acted in accordance with the Jewish codes that he no longer felt he had to follow. Just because I do not burn a Koran when I visit a Muslim city does not mean I think it would be a sin against God to do that. So just because Paul followed ceremonial aspects of Jewish law that does not mean Acts is saying Paul thinks he must do that or he sins against God.
Clearly Luke is saying Jews are not bound by kosher laws any longer Acts10:9-13. “Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”” Unless you interpret this voice as coming from Satan, Luke couldn’t be more clear. Peter, a Jew, does not need to keep Kosher. Is Luke saying Paul disagrees with this? That is a hard sell. But that is what you have to swallow if you accept the view that Luke is contradicting the views Paul expressed in his epistles on these issues.
maybe flogging a dead horse.
A point that might be of interest:
Acts 8.3 claims that Paul carried out his persecutions in the vicinity of Jerusalem and then went to Damascus.
BUT at Gal 1.22, Paul (himself?) writes that even after his conversion he was not known by sight to the churches of Judea.
Hultgren, Arland. “Paul’s Pre-Christian Persecutions.” Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 95, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 105
Yup!! Big problem.
Paul states that the Law has been fulfilled through Christ. My issue with this statement is Paul’s personal background as a persecuting Pharisee of the followers of the Way. While Paul states that he comes from a long line of Pharisees, we don’t hear anything about any of his family members (or for that matter, his mentor Gamiliel) being persecutors of the Way, even though they, like Paul, would have strictly followed the Law. In other words, is Paul targeting the Law as an excuse or explanation for his own past transgressions (he repeatedly admonishes himself as being the worst of the worst) because he does not want to accept personal responsibility for the families that he harmed (they were imprisoned and in some instances killed)? Perhaps that is why there is no evidence that Paul, after “seeing the light” on the road to Damascus, ever made amends to the families that he harmed in the past. Instead, he seems to just walk away from his troubled past as “Saul” and start his new life as “Paul,” apostle to the Gentiles. Thanks, Stuart.
I dont’ think so. Paul says that before the law he was “blameless.” The problem with the law for Paul is that it instructs people how to live but it cannot bring salvation. Only God can, through Christ.
Did Paul see the way he experienced the risen Jesus as no different than those of the disciples? Luke seems to differentiate them.
He doesn’t say, but he certainly doesn’t talk about the vision itself as if it were different. What was different was what he took from it: he had been called to be the apostle to the gentiles.
Hi Bart! I believe I pressed you on this before, but can’t seem to find the comment again.
One thing about the reliability of acts I’m constantly encountering when researching popular apologetics is Frank Turek’s argument in his “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” book. In it he quotes a Colin Hemer, who apparently chronicled the last 16 chapters of Acts for facts that could be an have been confirmed by archeology and ended up with 84.
Many of these are insignificant, but others seem to be things “only an eyewitness could know,” like the location of a sailor’s landmark or sea approach to a city. Craig Blomberg has one similar for John, with mentions like “going up to Jerusalem” being the correct geography for the city, or “coming down” for western Galilee, etc, only being things a local/eyewitness would know.
My question is: are these legitimate arguments for the gospels being eyewitness or is there something I’m missing?
Cheers!
No, I don’t think they have much of any bearing on the accuracy of Acts or the Gospels. It would take a long time to explain — so maybe I’ll post on it! (But before doing that, I should say that *I* always talk about “going up to Jerusalem” too — but that doesn’t mean I was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus!)
Very interesting about the Acts vs Galatians contradiction. Didn’t know about that one before and happy to have learned something. Now wondering how I would have responded in my Christian days if I or someone in a Bible study had noticed it. I imagine most Christians would favour the Acts account, partly because preaching a private revelation without consulting with the community is generally considered highly suspicious behaviour!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
First off, thank you for all the work you do. The depths of scholarship you bring to this topic, the charities you support, and the charitable way you handle yourself in your books and debates, in response to those who disagree with you.
My question is: Could you do a blog post on the sources used in Acts? I can’t find any, other than that a companion of Paul didn’t write it – so what sources were used?
Some of the theories I’ve seen are:
* The writer used Paul’s own letters as a source (and, possibly, wanted to “redact” Paul by omitting the fact that he wrote letters) in order to advance his own agenda. Hence the contradictions with the letters.
* The more epic portions of Acts (“We” naval voyages, shipwrecks, jail escapes) were borrowed from Greek epics and stories.
* The writer used Josephus as a source for the names of many Roman figures, as well as some revolutionaries that are referred to.
I’m not sure how credible these theories are, but it would be great to hear your opinion, or if you have your own ideas about any sources used by Acts. Thanks for your time.
I probably should post on this down the line. The short answer is: we don’t really know. In part it depends on what you mean by “source.” For New Testament studies that usually refers to a story or a saying that an author has picked up from an oral or, more usually, written text and edited to incorporate into his own. If that’s what we meah, the Paul’s letters would not apply, since none of acts produces any of the texts of Paul’s writings; the Greek parallels are similar ideas and plots, but those usually aren’t thought of as “sources” (the fact that two documents describe a shipwreck doesn’t mean that one of them got it from the other). Some scholars do think the author used Josephus for somem of his information, so I guess that would be more like a source. But I personally have never been convinced.
Dr. Ehrman,
I just listened to some of your recent podcasts (great job by the way!) and I had a question about Acts. In Acts, there are three accounts given of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26). As you pointed out, these accounts seem to disagree among themselves. However, why would the same author give three different contradicting accounts? Or, did multiple authors write the book of Acts? I’m just trying to figure out what constitutes the contradictions within the same book.
I”ve sometimes wondered why students give me three different excuses for why they had to miss the midterm exam. 🙂 It is usually thought that Luke had three sources that recounted the story in different terms, and simply included them all. The standard reply to that is that he surely would have noticed the differences. My standard response is, Yes, you would think so. But obviously whatever the reason he included three stories that are at odds, well, he did — and the same objection can be raised to any of them! My sense is that he probably just never noticed. Many authors don’t notice discrepancies in their own books or, well, Phd Dissertations. I see it a lot.
I noticed that Acts 3:15 seems to have a very high christology by calling Jesus the “author of life”. That appears to be equating Jesus with God which is much higher than what’s found in Luke. Are there any debates as to whether this was original to Luke? And if not, am I correct in understanding that Luke believes that Jesus created life?
It really depends on what the phrase means. If it means “the one who first created life,” then yup, that would be mighty high. If it means: “the one who brought ito existence eternal life” then it could be high but not an indication of pre-existence divinity. Since the preaching in Acts is all about how Jesus death brings salvation, that would probably be the more likely understanding, I’d assume.
Interesting. That would make sense. That said, every translation I’ve seen for Acts 3:15 translates it in a way implying that Jesus was in fact “the one who created life”.
Really? That’s interesting! It’s an unusual word, ARCHEGON, occurring just four times in the NT (twice in Acts; twice in Hebrews), and not terribly common outside of it, often translated something like originator, founder, prince, first of a family. It is a compound noun formed from the word “Beginning” or “Ruler” (ARCHE can mean both since its base meaning is “first” and so termporally in is the first thing that happns and relationally it is the first among us, the ruler) and “One hwo leads to” — so it menas something like the one who takes the lead, is the first in something. The key though is seeing how it is used in the NT, especially in the NEXT occurrence in Acts two chapters later, where it definitely does not mean “creator” in the sense of “one who brings something for the first time into existence.” Acts 5:31 indicates that God “exalted Christ to his right hand as the ARCHEGON (Leader) and Savior.” If God makes him this at his exaltation, then he obviously is not making him the creator of human life in the beginning. In Hebrews the term is used to indicate that Christ is the ARCHEGON of salvatoin through his sufferings (2:10) and the ARCHEGOn of faith; in the first it appeas to mean that he blazed the way of salvation and in the other that he was the pioneer of faith. IN none of these cases does it appear to mean that he was the one back in Genesis who created life on earth.