Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:26:43.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which Was Written First, Luke or Acts?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Henry G. Russell
Henry G. Russell
Affiliation:
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

New Testament scholars have almost universally assumed that Luke was written before Acts. The evidence to support this assumption is not great, and the possibility that these two books might have been written in the reverse order should also be considered. The clearest and perhaps the only evidence for the priority of Luke to Acts is to be found in Acts 1:1, where the author speaks of a “first book” which he has written, and then describes it in terms which show that he is referring to the Gospel of Luke. To this might perhaps be added the evidence of Luke 1:1–4, where the author is almost certainly giving us a preface not only to the Gospel but to Acts as well. But as Cadbury has indicated, Luke 1:1–4 may have been written after Acts had already been completed, so that this General Preface does not really give us substantial evidence for the priority of Luke. And although the secondary preface in Acts 1:1 is explicit enough about the priority of Luke, there is the possibility that it too may have been written only after the main body of both Luke and Acts had been completed. The editors of The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, p. 350, say, “Prefaces then, as now, were probably written after the work was completed….” This comment was made with special reference to the preface to Luke, but it might apply equally to the preface to Acts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1955 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cadbury, Henry J. in The Beginnings of Christianity (London, 1920–1933), vol. II, p. 492 and p. 136Google Scholar. See also articles by Cadbury in the Expositor for June 1921, p. 439, and for December 1922, pp. 414 and 418.

2 Beginnings of Christianity, vol. II, p. 492.

3 See note by Lowrie, Walter in A Kierkegaard Anthology, edited by Bretall, Robert (Princeton, 1946), p. 413Google Scholar.

4 Cadbury, Henry, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York, 1927), p. 332Google Scholar.

5 Godet, F., A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (New York, 1887), p. 544Google Scholar.

6 Op. cit. p. 545.

7 Moffatt, James, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (New York, 1917), p. 311Google Scholar.

8 Chase, F. H., “The Gospels in the Light of Historical Criticism” in Cambridge Theological Essays, edited by Swete, H. B. (London, 1905), pp. 380–381Google Scholar.

9 Williams, op. cit. p. 37.

10 Cf. McNeile, A. H., An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, first edition (Oxford, 1927), p. 36Google Scholar.

11 Koh, Roland, The Writings of St. Luke (Hongkong, 1953), pp. 23–35Google Scholar.

12 Koh, op. cit. pp. 31–34.

13 For a recent assertion of the view that Luke 19:41–44 and 21:20–24 are genuine forecasts and hence prior to 70 A.D., see Dodd, C. H., “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation’” in The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 37 (1947), pp. 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For the theory of a third volume see Zahn, Theodor, Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1909), vol. III, pp. 56–61Google Scholar. For a discussion of this theory see Beginnings of Christianity, vol. IV, pp. 2 and 349, and vol. V, pp. 336–338. For a recent discussion of the abrupt ending of Acts see Pherigo, Lindsey P., “Paul's Life after the Close of Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 70 (1951), pp. 277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For the suggestion that the author of Luke-Acts may have known Paul's letters but made little or no use of them, see Kirsopp Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, pp. 238–239. For the view that the author of Luke-Acts did not know Paul's letters see H. Windisch, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 308–309. For the suggestion that Luke-Acts was the stimulus for the collection and publication of Paul's letters see Goodspeed, Edgar J., New Solutions of New Testament Problems (Chicago, 1927), pp. 1–10Google Scholar.

16 For the theory of Luke-Acts' dependence on Josephus see Burkitt, F. C., The Gospel History and its Transmission (Edinburgh, 1906), pp. 105–110Google Scholar. For a discussion of the theory see Beginnings of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 355–359.

17 Nock, A. D. in a review of Martin Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte, in Gnomon, 1953, vol. 25, no. 8, p. 503Google Scholar.

18 Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, pp. 3–4. For other discussions of this problem see Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (New York, 1925), pp. 142–143Google Scholar, and Enslin, M. S., “The Ascension Story,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 47 (1928), pp. 60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 The Making of Luke-Acts, pp. 231–232.

20 Mark 13:32–Acts 1:7; Mark 14:56-Acts 6:11; Mark 14:58-Acts 6:14; Mark 5:40-Acts 9:40; Mark 14:2-Acts 12:4.