The Gospels and Acts

Michael Wilkins, Craig A. Evans, Darrell L. Bock, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Jeremy Royal Howard

• Publisher: Holman Reference
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780805495300
• eBook ISBN: 9781433681011
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The most comprehensive volume ever produced in defense of the Gospels and Acts The four Gospels and the book of Acts tell stories of Jesus' life and the birth of Christianity. Are these stories true history or just religious fiction? Christians accept the stories as true and say that the entire Bible is a reliable communication inspired by God. Against this, non-Christians have argued that the Bible is a book of legends, myths, and historical inaccuracies—just another example of human religious endeavor. In this volume, four world-class New Testament scholars address challenges to the reliability of the Gospels and Acts. In order to identify the most important challenges, the authors drew from the literature of skeptics and New Testament critics, plus they included questions that many Christians ask as well. The result is the most comprehensive defense of the Gospels and Acts that has ever been published. The primary purpose of the Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible is to equip readers to defend the reliability of Scripture and the historic evangelical understanding of its teachings. It is designed for use by general readers, though scholars will find it a probing and welcome resource as well. A secondary purpose is to encourage awareness and discussion of Bible difficulties that are not commonly mentioned from the pulpit or even the seminary lectern. This is not a verse-by-verse commentary. The authors were provided an index that identified verses known to be relevant to the topics of apologetics and biblical reliability. They restricted their comments to these verses, plus any others that they recognized as germane to the aims of this project. Typically, each commentary note begins by stating the challenge or challengesregarding the text at hand. We attempt to state the case in all its potency, as a critic would state it. This approach takes seriously the critical viewpoint and helps ensure that the reader feels the full weight of the challenge. The contributors take each challenge seriously and seek to describe viable solutions that support faith and align with a high view of Scripture.

Apologetics Commentary on the
Gospel of Luke

Introduction

The Gospel of Luke is tied to the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1) and explains how the Good News of Jesus Christ is intended for both Jews and Gentiles. Although the Christian faith was new, Luke shows that it was rooted in old promises and the long-awaited salvation program of God. In the ancient world people viewed new religions with suspicion. Luke legitimized the faith by showing how Jesus fulfilled promises God made to the patriarchs and prophets. The very first verse of the Gospel strikes this note, where Luke speaks of “the events that have been fulfilled among us.”

Authorship

Features both internal and external to the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts have bearing on a decision about authorship of these companion volumes. Internally the books are anonymous, but two factors bear strongly on the questions of authorship and reliability. First, the author discloses immediately in the Gospel that he was not an eyewitness to most of the events he narrates about Jesus’ life (Luke 1:2–4). This fits with what is known of Luke. But far from confessing unreliability, the author assures the reader that his exposition of Jesus’ life is based on the testimonies of “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (v. 2). He also claims to have “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (v. 3). This suggests the author enjoyed close access to Jesus’ original followers. Second, the author further bolsters his credibility by showing himself to be a companion of Paul in the portions of Acts known as the “we” sections (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This too fits with known facts about Luke, for biblical testimony confirms that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul on his missionary journeys (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24).

Scholars debate whether the “we” sections reflect the perspective of an authentic eyewitness (Ellis 1974, 43–44; Hemer 1989, 312–34) or merely a literary device calculated to give the impression that the author was an eyewitness (Haenchen 1971, 85–90; Vielhauer 1966, 33–34, 47–48). A way of testing the authenticity of the “we” sections is to compare what the author says about Paul with what Paul says of himself in the Pauline Epistles. If these portraits do not match, we would have strong indication that the “we” sections are inauthentic. Haenchen (1971) and Vielhauer (1966) argue that the portraits are indeed mismatched in historical detail and theological emphasis. F. F. Bruce (1975–76), to the contrary, finds the portraits compatible. Proponents of the skeptical view also note that the author of Luke-Acts fails to cite or allude to Paul’s writings when describing his work, though Goulder contests this (1989, 129–46).

In support of the traditional view, Fitzmyer (1989, 1–26) argues that the “we” sections arbitrarily come and go in the book of Acts. This is not what we would expect if they were merely a literary device created by an author to give a false impression of eyewitness testimony. Surely an author bent on such deception would take greater care to place the “we” sections consistently and strategically throughout his narrative. Fitzmyer further argues that several of the “sailing” narratives (Acts 13:4,13; 14:26; 17:14; 18:18,21; 20:1–2) lack the “we” element even though these would be convenient locales for literary insertion. Together the inconsistent placement of the “we” sections and their absence in ideal locations argue that the author was not attempting to use a literary device to build a false impression of being an eyewitness. In place of the skeptical view, Fitzmyer suggests that Luke was a “junior” companion of Paul, not an “inseparable” friend as Irenaeus had described (Against Heresies 3.14.1).

In conclusion, the internal evidence is consistent with the idea that the author was a second-generation Christian who had good access to the oral and written traditions of the community of faith and was acquainted with Paul. There is nothing about Luke that would preclude him from these stipulations.

The external testimony about the authorship of Luke-Acts is consistent that Luke is the author, despite the fact that many better-known candidates who were closely tied to Paul could have been put forward in place of the lesser-known Luke. These better-known candidates would include Mark, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphras, and Barnabas. Even Aristarchus and Demas might seem better candidates than Luke (Col 4:14; Phlm 24). This field of candidates suggests that if the church had simply chosen to attribute the writings to an author in order to give the work a higher status, Luke would not have been the natural name to employ. And yet Luke and Luke alone was the name embraced in the early tradition.

Around ad 160 Justin Martyr cited a passage from the third Gospel and called it a “memoir of Jesus” (Dialogue with Trypho 103). A short time later the Muratorian Canon (c. 170–180) named Luke, described as a doctor and a companion to Paul, as the author of the Gospel of Luke. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (c. 175) names Antioch of Syria as Luke’s home (Acts 11:19–30; 13:1–3; 15:30–35) and says he was a physician and a bachelor. Irenaeus (c. 175–195) named Luke as the author, basing his case in part on how the “we” sections tie Luke to Paul (Against Heresies 3.1.1; 3.14.1). In the early third century Tertullian called the Gospel of Luke a digest of Paul’s gospel, a description that fits nicely with Luke’s familiarity with Paul (Against Marcion 4.2.2; 4.5.3). Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339) affirmed that Luke was a companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts (Ecclesiastical History 3.4.2).

Date

The date of composition for this Gospel is tied to two other factors: Luke’s literary relationship to the other Synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Mark) and the date of Acts. The last event narrated in Acts is Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, which can be dated to the early 60s. The debate is whether Acts ends with Paul in prison because that is the last thing that happened before Luke finished writing Acts, or whether Luke simply stopped his narration at this event because Paul’s imprisonment marked the arrival of the gospel message in Rome, which could be viewed as the theological goal of the book. In the first scenario the book of Acts was written in the early 60s, while in the second scenario it could have been written much later. Many place the composition of Acts in the 60s and then put the Gospel of Luke slightly earlier. This is a reasonable approach. The later in the 60s Acts is placed, the later the date for Luke is placed. Some even place Acts in the 70s or 80s, while a few move the work all the way into the second century.

Tied to this decision is whether Luke used the other Gospels as sources. The most common view is that Luke did use Mark; scholars debate whether he also used Matthew, which they have seen as less than likely given the differences between those Gospels (e.g., the infancy material). Scholars date Mark variously from the mid-50s to around AD 70. Mark assumes the church is suffering persecution or at least anticipates that possibility, making a 60s date plausible since this was the time Nero’s persecution. The question then becomes how long after Mark would Luke have been written. With these key factors in place, let’s take a closer look at the argument for Luke’s date.

Though scholars dispute the date of Luke’s writing, there are some upper and lower limits. The last event recorded in Acts defines the earliest possible origin, which can be dated to around AD 62. Luke was not likely written much earlier than this since it was composed shortly before Acts. Indisputable citations of the Gospel of Luke by Irenaeus (died c. AD 202) define the latest possible date of composition at around AD 170 (Against Heresies 3.13.3; 3.15.1). Some scholars push the date as close to this terminus ad quem as possible, naming the early to mid-second century as the likely time of composition. They base their argument on a comparison of the Gospel of Luke to writings from Marcion, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and the Pseudo-Clementines (Knox 1942, 110, 120; O’Neill 1970, 19; Townsend 1984, 47–58). But careful analysis shows that the tone of Acts differs from that of writings from the late first century (e.g., 1 Clement in ad 95) and the second century (e.g., Ignatius in AD 117). Another factor arguing against a late date for Luke-Acts is Acts not showing much awareness of Paul’s letters, which by the second century were widely circulated and regarded as authoritative. Furthermore, apparent allusions in 1 Clement 2.1 (to Acts 20:35), 5.6–7 (to Acts 26), and 18.1 (to Acts 13:22) argue that 1 Clement was written well after Act...

Table of contents

• Frontmatter
• Introduction
• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts
• Bibliography
• Contributors