in Acts Luke portrays the Twelve in a significant position. In the very first chapter of Acts Luke outlines their unique requirements. They had to have been around Jesus and His followers from the beginning, from the time of John’s baptism until the time that Jesus was taken up. Obviously, Paul did not meet these requirements. Paul’s understanding of his own apostleship, however, was that he received it directly from Jesus when He appeared to him on the Damascus road. This special appearance of Jesus to Paul qualified him as an apostle. Paul understood that the Twelve was a unique group that he could never be a part of, but he saw himself as an apostle nonetheless. While Luke only refers to Paul as an apostle once in Acts (14:4), he nevertheless validates his apostolic ministry. Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s ministry parallels that of Peter’s in many ways. Paul is shown doing the same kinds of things that Peter does. Luke seems to be implying that Paul’s apostolic ministry was just as valid as that of the Twelve.
Conclusion
As has been seen in this brief overview, scholars take a number of different views when it comes to the accuracy and historicity of Acts. The goal here has not been to conduct an in-depth study of the different viewpoints but to highlight the most prevalent ones. In examining many of the various views concerning the reliability of Acts, it has been noted that there are extreme differences of opinion over whether or not Luke’s work can be trusted.
While the Tübingen School and its proponents are at the extreme end of liberal scholarship and not nearly as influential as they were in the past, there are still those who hold to some of Baur’s tenants. Baur and his followers rejected an early date for Acts and felt that the author fictionalized the characters that he wrote about, primarily Peter and Paul. Specific discrepancies were raised by Haenchen between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles. By digging a little under the surface, however, these discrepancies can easily be resolved. While those scholars who reject the historicity of Acts do bring up valid points, they still do not present enough evidence to overturn the traditional view. As Neil points out, “The traditional view has not been conclusively proved to be wrong, and many of us would prefer to give more weight to the tradition of the Church than to the hypotheses of individual scholars.”62
The work of a number of scholars who hold to the traditional view regarding Acts, i.e., that it was written by Luke, the companion of Paul was also highlighted. By the standards of his day, Luke can be considered a reliable historian who carefully investigated the things that he wrote about. Luke even describes his method of writing by acknowledging the “eye-witnesses and servants of the word”63 from whom he got much of his material. It can be acknowledged that Luke did have an agenda for his writing without rejecting his work. Even though Luke only focused on one part of the expansion of the early church, it does not take away from his reliability as a historian.64 He may have been selective in the story that he presented but the case has been made that what he presented can be trusted as an accurate account of early church history.65 Further evidence of the historicity of Acts will be presented in the next section as attention is focused on some of the literary concerns that are associated with the book.
Literary Issues Concerning Acts
Authorship
Before moving on to an examination of the apostolic ministries of Peter and Paul, it is important to focus on some of the literary issues that are present in Acts. The first issue that will be addressed is that of its authorship. It is important to remember that Acts is part of a two-volume work, commonly referred to as “Luke-Acts.”66 There is little debate in the scholarly world that the same author composed both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.67 There does continue to be much debate and discussion over who that author was. The traditional view of authorship states that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote both volumes. Scholars who hold to this view believe that the evidence clearly points to one of Paul’s co-workers. If this is the case, Luke would be the leading candidate, based on tradition and textual evidence from Luke-Acts, as well as Paul’s letters.68
Krodel represents the view of many scholars in his rejection of the traditional view of authorship. In his understanding, there are too many historical discrepancies between what is written in Acts and what is written in Paul’s own letters. Some of these same discrepancies were raised by Haenchen and discussed in the previous section. Krodel says, “that not much is gained by affirming the traditional view on the authorship of Acts by a travel companion of Paul if simultaneously the discrepancies which have been noted are not glossed over.”69 Some of these same issues that concern authorship were also discussed in the previous section relating to critical issues concerning Acts and bear reiterating here.
To address Krodel’s statement about the discrepancies in Acts, it is important to remember that there will always be some discrepancies between biographical writing and autobiographical writing.70 A biographer’s perception of Paul will always be different from Paul’s perception of himself. Events that Paul considered important, Luke did not mention, and vice versa. Munck argues the case that even if Acts were not written by Luke, it had to have been written by another of Paul’s companions. He believes that there are too many vivid eyewitness accounts in Acts for it to have been written by someone who was not there.71 He points out that, “In historical sources from other fields such discrepancies are no surprise to the scholar, nor do they make him doubt the historical reliability of the accounts . . .”72
Munck argues that the traditional view of Lukan authorship should not be dismissed lightly. It is safer, in his view, to accept the traditions and look for supporting testimony in the written sources.73 Hemer also saw the strength behind the traditional view:
There is no apparent reason why the early church should have chosen to ascribe the two longest books in the New Testament,
together some two-sevenths of its total bulk, to so relatively obscure a person unless it preserved sound tradition.74
The argument can be made that the historicity of Acts does not necessarily depend on whether or not its author was Luke, the companion of Paul. It is unlikely that those who hold to the traditional view believe that Luke was an eyewitness to the events that took place in his gospel or in the first half of Acts.75 The first “we” passage occurs in Acts 16:10 and they continue sporadically throughout the rest of the book indicating that he was an eyewitness for much of what took place. For the first half of the book, however, the author had to have had other sources. This was alluded to in the preface to the Gospel of Luke, “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”76 The author of Luke-Acts is clearly claiming that he is presenting a reliable, historical account. Not only does he acknowledge his use of sources, he, “emphasizes that the authors who preceded him were eyewitnesses ‘from the beginning.’”77 Even though the reliability of Acts does not hinge on Lukan authorship, the reader will “probably have more confidence in the accuracy of the narrative if they could be reasonably certain that the author was in one way or another in close
