T&MP

T&MP Introduction: Analyzing the Acts of the Apostles Centre Place

(17) How Accurate Is Acts of the Apostles? - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nOgzPAO1b0

Transcript:

(00:03) Our topic uh this evening is kind of a big one. We are looking at the book Acts of the Apostles. And um we haven't done an a lecture before on Acts, which is surprising to me. And we're going to have to do several more on covering all of the contexts of Acts. But we're going to do kind of an overview tonight with a special look at um authorship, dating, and look at how accurate is it in a historical sense in terms of representing the earliest histories of the Christian movement after the period of Jesus. And by the time we start to

(00:43) have other historical evidence for early Christianity, especially into the uh 2 century. So for the story of Jesus ministry, the period that begins with his baptism by John and carries through all of the wonders and teachings that he does all the way up until his execution on the cross.

(01:12) and then even uh the story of his female disciples finding his tomb empty. We have four uh gospel accounts and the details within these vary. Some cases uh they vary considerably and even provide completely contradictory uh stories. So multiple sources with different literary, editorial, theological perspectives and backgrounds. the fact that we have Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John and presumably then can anticipate what the whole communities that um that these different authors uh are writing to are like based on the um based on the perspectives, the literary

Synoptic Gospels and Literary Dependency

(02:01) or theological perspectives and so forth presented in them. Um that then also gives historians additional resources in order to tease out from them details of the life of the historical Jesus much more so than if we had just one gospel account. So for example, as we know in the case of the synoptic gospels Mark, Luke and Matthew, they share literary dependency, which means uh the authors are using one another's works directly on the table in some way.

(02:42) The most likely solution to that dependence, as we always point out, is Mark in priority. That means to say that the gospel of Mark was written earliest and then the authors of Luke and Matthew were using Mark independently of one another. That allows us if we understand that dependence that also gives us insight into these authors.

(03:05) So the way the authors of Luke and Matthew use that text tells us something about their editorial tendencies. the their theological tendencies even. So for example, when they correct uh Mark, when Mark is misquing the Septuagent, that is to say the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, Mark is often um quoting those presumably from memory, as a lot of ancient people do.

(03:34) And nevertheless, when you quote things from memory, you misquote it. And so they don't necessarily have the the the verse right in front of you. And so when that happens um in the Mark text and we come to that same place in the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew will silently correct the text because Matthew has a copy of the Septuagent right there in order to say, "Well, that's not what it says.

(03:59) " And so uh they will fix that. Likewise, um um their traditions, you know, if we're if they are if there's something in the tradition that is a little enimical to them or soften to them, they will you you'll see a change. Uh or in the most um in the most sort of uh extreme sense, they will delete things, you know, that they don't like.

(04:28) And that reveals their tendencies as we see them making use of an actual source that we have access to. So in addition to those four canonical gospels, the narrative of that time period in the ministry of Jesus that is covered by them, we also have additional sources outside the canon of the New Testament that may also preserve additional early and independent traditions.

Sources Outside the New Testament Canon

(04:57) One of these that we focused on is the sayings gospel of Thomas which we have in the version of a a complete manuscript. Although the original is in Greek and we only have fragments of the Greek original, we have from the Nagamadi library a Coptic translation of this. And many scholars posit that this includes an independent tradition that goes back to early first century oral material about the sayings of Jesus.

(05:27) In addition to that famous uh gospel, we also have a few other tiny fragments that are interesting and important. we have a fragment of the gospel of Peter that we've looked at before and it seems to also be independent literarily of the other gospel traditions and preserves different details and so um if we had the whole of that that would be a very interesting thing.

(05:54) It kind of implies that there were many more gospels than what we have. The same is true for two other fragments that are known as the Edertton and the Oxy Rinkus gospels. Um again when this case we have even tinier fragments unfortunately the unfortunately of these from um little pockets of papyrus that have been preserved. Um and so uh what we can say though at least is that from this all we have you know some additional checks on our story that we can help add and consider material um about from various traditions to get us back to the

Later Gospels and Nativity Traditions

(06:34) historical Jesus. So beyond those early sources of course there are also many additional gospels that are written in the second and third centuries and we've covered a bunch of these. Uh for example we have for the nativity period in the canon only the gospels of Luke and Matthew tell that nativity Christmas story.

(07:00) Um, and usually when it comes to Christmas time, when when people are telling the Christmas story, they go back and forth and they read both and create in their minds a synthesis of both. And indeed, when you have like a a nativity set, you'll have all the shepherds from and the stable from Luke's version, and you'll have the star and the three kings from Matthew's version.

(07:22) You put them all together in one set. So um in terms of having these later more expanded gospels, examples of those include the infancy gospel of Thomas, the infancy gospel of James, which we've had lectures on those. Um but even though these fill in lots of details that Christians in the second and third centuries were wondering about in terms of the the in this case the early life of Jesus.

(07:54) Um they generally speaking have no value in reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus because they are simply being written by um just too late by Christians who really don't have any tradition that they're basing it on. they're having to extrapolate and more or less create those additional ideas themselves. Um, and so when we have an early account and we have two contradictory accounts, we can judge them.

Historical Analysis of Birth Narratives

(08:26) Uh, and this we've done this before when we've looked at the Christmas stories that we have in Matthew and Luke. So we know that the Old Testament book Micah, the prophet Micah uh in a uh in a verse uh chapter 5:2 talks about um uh a son being born in Bethlehem. It was widely seen by the time of the first century as a messianic prophecy prophecy.

(08:55) And so many people understood then uh many Jewish people in the the second temple period understood that this meant that the Messiah needed to be born in Bethlehem. So both the authors of Matthew and the authors of Luke understood this is a this is a problem an apologetic problem. They believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They absolutely understand that.

(09:20) That's their faith. But they also know that one of the main things we know about Jesus is that he is a Galilean. In other words, he is Jesus of Nazareth. And so they both said, "Well, how do we fix this? How do we make it so that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem? We have this need to say that we don't actually know anything about um his actual birth or growing up or anything like that.

(09:48) " And so um using scriptures they are able to uh using the Septuagent as their source they're able to create narratives um that explain how Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However um they create contradictory accounts. And so in Matthew, Joseph and Mary are simply from Bethlehem. And they later flee to Egypt to escape a massacre of all of the infants that King Herod has ordered in order to try to make sure that Jesus or the new Messiah that the uh wise men have told him about being born is killed.

(10:29) And then after they spend time in Egypt after Herod dies, they are given another prophecy or another dream that says, "Okay, it's okay to go back now." But they are concerned that Herod's son is the ruler in Judea where Bethlehem is. And so they instead go to Galilee where a different presumably less dangerous son uh is ruling up there as tetrarch.

(10:53) And so that's how um Matthew creates a story that has Jesus born in Bethlehem but then be of Nazareth. By contrast in Luke, Joseph and Mary are actually from Bethlehem. They're from Galilee and they are only visiting Bethlehem in response to a Roman census. There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(11:17) So the fact that these two stories are entirely contradictory and in the one case they rely on an unattested events, this massacre um we have lots of um historioggraphy, we have lots of stories of Herod the Great. Josephus talks at length about Herod the Great and is no not a big fan and if he'd done such a horrible thing, that's one of the things that Josephus would love to tell about.

(11:43) And so even though that's negative evidence, most historians agree that there was no such massacre. And uh and Luke's relies on other fictions. Whereas there were censuses, um no census requires people to go to their ancestral town in order to be numbered. Uh the whole point of a a census is to count all of the people where they are so that you will be able to tax them.

(12:10) And so anyway, um in these cases, they're um stories that you can see the apologetic need and you can see how the uh the gospel writer created them and and the conclusion therefore is that they don't have historicity. Um and in fact, the fact that we have both of them and that they're contradictory, that allows us or that helps us to discount both as invented.

(12:36) you know, if we had only had um Luke's account, it would be much more difficult to say, well, you know, maybe they were from maybe they were in Bethlehem for this reason or something like that. In other words, it would be much less able. Now, we can see with the two of them together that helps us check both stories. So like I say um for the general events then of Jesus ministry things that we can say are very likely to be historical his baptism by John the Baptist.

(13:09) The fact that he leads a group of disciples. The fact that he has a reputation as a healer. The fact that he is executed by crucifixion. His some of his teachings. These all have multiple traditions then that help us tease out what is authentic among them. We have the canonical gospels, other gospels, fragments.

(13:32) Um we have in addition references to teachings and and some historical events and letters of Paul and others. So it's still a little bit meager and it's all um a little bit removed from the historical Jesus. And yet, because there's this much of it, there if we really were limited to one one gospel to tell it, um we would have much less ability to check anything in that uh source.

Acts as the Primary Narrative for Early Christianity

(14:01) And so the multiple sources allows us to um read them all against each other and understand their biases and tease things out much more easily. So the contrast um for the period covered by the book of acts is pretty stark. So the story of how a small localized movement of Jewish disciples who had been called by Jesus and then within that group being that smaller group is surrounded by a whole multitude let's say who came to hear Jesus preach but just as um frequently faded away in the moment of crisis when Jesus is arrested. How does that

(14:46) become Christianity as it exists at the end of the first century? So, a more diverse movement with members from Jewish and Samaritan backgrounds, but increasingly from non-Israelite backgrounds, what in Judaism would call the Gentiles. Um, people who have converted into Christianity that are spread all across the Roman world.

(15:13) And for that narrative, the narrative of how the Jesus mo movement evolved into Christianity and spread Acts is the only thing we have. We don't have any other um narrative. We have other early sources that we can use to check it. But that's there they themselves are pretty limited in terms of the story. Like I say, the story connecting the births of Jesus and John the Baptist, that's only told in Luke.

(15:40) Luke indicates that uh Elizabeth, you know, Luke names John the Baptist's mother as Elizabeth. We don't have that in any other source. Um and we have them and Luke says that they're relatives and so therefore John the Baptist and Jesus are cousins and they have them being born right around the same time because of this story.

(16:02) So that only um uh exists in a as a in a literary invention of the author in Luke. And because we don't have that in Matthew or anything else, that helps us to say, well, this is fulfilling a literary function in in Luke's gospel, but is not likely to be historical. But for the stories in Acts, like the story of Pentecost where 50 days after um uh the first Easter, the disciples are all gathered together and the spirit uh descends on them in an incredible way and they have this outpouring of the spirit that where they feel empowered now to actually spread

(16:42) the gospel to every nation. So no other sources exist either to confirm the account that we have in the book of acts or maybe to tell a different contradictory account. So if there was a second book let's say if the author of Matthew had continued to write another whole volume that talked about how Christianity spread and the gospel of Matthew failed to mention Pentecost.

(17:11) Um, I'm sorry. If the Gospel of Matthew's author that's continuing to write another book of Acts fails to mention Pentecost, um, then historians would question, well, is this simply an invention of, uh, the author of Acts or what? So, um, the book of Acts itself, just to be talking about it, internally presents itself as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

Acts as a Sequel to the Gospel of Luke

(17:39) though it is um a second book in a two volume composition. uh the title itself when we say acts of the apostles that is not in the manuscript itself but it is first attested by our old friend Irenaeus this um bishop of Leon one of the main protoorthodox leaders the first um Christian who argues that the four canonical gospels as we have them should all be considered canonical uh is the u first author who identifies both the gospel of acts and the gospel of um Luke as being written by someone named Luke.

(18:19) So we haven't heard we don't hear that otherwise there are volumes themselves the manuscripts themselves are anonymous um and the title of acts may be a second century addition to it. So it may not be the original title. Um but um but in any event, the idea that both are um written by the same author is included in both manuscripts.

(18:46) So the author of Acts is presenting themselves as the author of Luke. The Gospel of Luke begins with a prologue uh that the an Luke's anonymous author writes to someone named Theophilles. And so it starts out at the very beginning. Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord, I too decided as one having a grasp of everything from the start to write a well-ordered account for you, most

(19:30) excellent Theophilus, so that you may have a firm grasp on the words in which you have been instructed. So, Theophilles in this prologue anyway is said to therefore have been instructed in Christianity. the author of Luke Acts um is not an eyewitness but has had testimony handed on to them from eyewitnesses and is thus has a good grasp on everything from the start and they are aware that there are a bunch of other gospel narratives running around by the time um this text is being written. And specifically, as we've

(20:15) said, we we believe that one of those that they have access to uh is the Gospel of Mark. And scholars also posit that there was a saying gospel that was being um uh handed around at that time that the author of Luke has. And so, uh the author of Luke is saying, "Okay, many have tried to do this, but I am going to write a well-ordered account of it.

(20:41) " And so took taking those sources, Mark and Q, and making them into a better account, the conversation with Theophilos that begins in the uh prologue of Luke then continues in the very first verse of Acts. So in the first verse, the author says, Theophilles, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day that he was taken up to heaven after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

(21:13) So that's what the first book talked about, the Gospel of Luke. But now we're going to go on and and have a second volume. The author of Acts therefore is claiming to be the same person as the author of Luke. And there's an ancient tradition and modern scholarly consensus that there is here a single author writing a twopart work. And so most everybody agrees about that.

(21:37) Um as such when we look at the entire volume of the New Testament so we can see this is presented as a pie chart beginning with Matthew and then going around the clockwise Mark Luke John Acts the various letters of Paul the letters to by other people and the book of revelation. You can say even though Paul writes a whole lot of long letters, the authentic ones being the lighter yellow, um the other ones being including the orange ones being doubtful uh to have been written by Paul.

(22:12) Um even though he's written a lot, uh because of how long Luke and Acts are, um in fact, the author of Luke Acts is the most prolific by volume author uh in the canonical New Testament. And so a very important um uh shaper of Christian thought. So who is this theophilus that the author of Luke and Acts is writing to? It was very frequent for Greek authors to address wealthy patrons.

Who Was Theophilus?

(22:46) So the text calls Theophilles who is not otherwise known in the New Testament. So we don't know them as some other character that's running around and hanging out with Jesus or the apostles. not a character in the book of Acts or the Gospel um but is called most excellent by the author of Luke Acts.

(23:06) And that could indicate that they're saying that this patron is as a wealthy or even a noble person, a Roman noble or a Greek noble. The name in Greek Theophilus means friend of God or loved by God or loving God. And so it's very frequent that there it is suggested that this is not though the name of any one individual uh patron but rather um the author of Luke Acts is referring to the book's audience.

(23:40) So uh they're writing to a community of Christian disciples and we all of us are called you know we are all essentially standins for theophilos since we are all loved by God beloved of God and so forth. So the jury is out on that that is there's no consensus one way or the other. um writing around the year 180, Irenaeus uh the bishop of Leon was the earliest writer as I said to identify the author of Luke Acts as Luke.

Authorship: Identifying Luke

(24:12) And around that same time as we're getting to the end of the 2n century, we do have early manuscripts that have the name according to Luke, gospel according to Luke attached to those manuscripts. So earliest manuscript dating to about 200. And we also have a late much later copy of a manuscript that um is thought to have been dated to around 180 that names Luke.

(24:42) And so um it's it's the earliest attributions we have are to Luke, but these are kind of late. So they're century after uh the gospel would have been written. In his letter to Felimon, one of the authentic letters, Paul describes a person named Luke, doesn't necessarily the Luke in who's the author of Luke Acts, but there is a companion Luke as one of his co-workers.

(25:10) So, this letter lists Luke along with Mark, Aristotarkus, and Damos as being co-workers in the work with Paul. In other words, people who are part of Paul's ministry as he is evangelizing um Greekeaking communities in Anatolia and Greece. Um so tradition identifies Paul's companion as Luke Acts author. So Luke the companion of Paul is also mentioned in Colossians and second Timothy, but these are both generally regarded as not authentic.

(25:47) In other words, these are not uh writings of Paul himself but later disciples writing in Paul's name rather than Paul. So uh of these two the account in Colossians gives us two additional details about this particular Luke. Although again, Colossians doesn't go back to Paul and we don't know that this Luke has anything to do with um the author of Luke Acts if that author is indeed named Luke.

(26:20) So um we read in in Colossians, Aristarus, my fellow prisoner, greets you as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions. If he Mark comes to you, welcome him. and Jesus who is called justice greets you. These are the only ones of the circumcision among my co-workers for the kingdom of God and they have been a comfort for me.

(26:47) And then a little bit later he continues on and he says Luke the beloved physician and they must greet you. And so um it's reasoned that if Aristoarkus, Mark, and this guy Jesus Justice are the only companions of Paul who are of the circumcision, that is Christians of a Jewish background. The implication seems to be from Colossians that Luke and Damos have a non-Jewish background.

(27:15) So they are what we might call Gentiles. they are coming from a Greekeaking um but also originally pagan background as opposed to Jewish background and um often therefore they're thought of as being uh this group that the Gospel of Acts talks about as the god-fearers that is people who have this um background of previously worshiping the multiple gods the old gods of the Greek world but who have come to synagogues and they have been um listening to you know Jewish worship to the Septuagent the Jewish sorry the Greek version of the Jewish

(27:58) Hebrew Bible um and have essentially been converted to the God of Israel but have not been able to become Jews because of all the strictctures of how you have to what you have to do in order to join and uh in terms of following Mosaic law and so forth. um that these god-fearers were some of the people who really um converted very easily into Christianity where um Paul started telling them that they don't have to adhere to Jewish law in order to be part of the community.

(28:28) So the detail here also that Paul's companion Luke is a physician that's also found only here. Meaning that even if the identity identification of the author of Luke Acts with the companion Luke is um authentic. It actually tells us very very little. So, we don't have Paul writing, you know, any long stories of things that he's done with Luke or anything more about anything Luke does or what Luke, his companion, is doing.

(29:01) We just have the idea that he's a companion of Paul. Uh he's a physician and presumably a non-Jewish background. So, um, in his commentary though on the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, Luke Timothy Johnson, who's one of my favorite, uh, scholars of the historical Jesus, um, he's a relatively conservative Catholic scholar, he notes that, quote, attempts to discover in Luke Acts the distinctive style or outlook of a physician have repeatedly been refuted.

(29:40) So this is something that um is grist for sermons. People like to think of Luke as a physician and and think that um uh some some detail or other from the gospel especially indicates somebody has has a medical mind but um when systematic studies have been done that doesn't prove true. uh according to Luke Timothy Johnson. The idea however that the author of Luke Acts does not have Jewish background does find support in the text itself as we'll see.

Greco-Roman Chronology in Luke-Acts

(30:12) So in the prologue to theo the theo to the theophilles character or to the patron or all of us as uh beloved of god the author of Luke acts states that their intention is to write a well-ordered account and in other places connects events with contemporary chronology. So for example, as we read in the nativity story, in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

(30:46) This was the first registration and was taken while Quorinus was governor of Syria. So essentially here what we're trying to do is take the nativity story and place it within a broader context. So Caesar Augustus is the emperor of the world at this time and Corinus is the governor of Syria, the local important um area within which Judea uh you was subsumed.

(31:14) And so in acting this way, Luke or the author of Luke Acts is essentially working within what is understood a hell the role of a henistic historian. how um Greeks were writing in the genre of ancient history. The baptism of Jesus is still more precisely placed within kind of a Greco Roman chronology. So at the beginning of chapter 3 in the Gospel of Luke, we read in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod uh was tetrarch was ruler of Galilee. So the son of Herod and his

(31:58) brother Philip ruler of the region of Itura and Trachonitis and Lysanius the ruler of Abalene. During the high priesthood of Annus and Caiaphas, the word of God came to Zachchariah, I'm sorry, John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness. That is to say, John the Baptist. And so that whole long kind of preface um is how people tried to date things before they had a universal system.

(32:27) So we now date everything according to BC or AD or we sometimes in scholarship use before the common era or the common era. Um that didn't exist certainly not obviously in the first years of Jesus's life. This is not adopted right away. It's a much later thing that's um popularized for example by the venerable bead in the middle ages.

(32:52) So um the Greco Romans could use a couple universal systems. So they would date things by the Olympiad. So there had been you know they'll say this took place in the 25th Olympiad as they were going through the um every four-year cycle of having the Olympics. And um occasionally, but not very frequently, um people would date things AU, which is to say abbe kunda since the founding of the city of Rome. But that was unusual.

(33:21) Um actually most likely people would date things to regal years. So this took place in the uh the third year of the reign of Tammy uh Soter or in consular years for the Romans. This took place when you know Nas Pompeus and uh gas barbarus were were um were the consoles of the city of Rome. So they would date things that way as opposed to a universal system where you're saying that this took place in 79 AD.

(33:55) And so this is essentially a function of acting like a Greek historian, a hellenistic historian. So as we're looking at this, the reign of the emperor Tiberius is normally dated from the year 14. And that would make this reference in Luke when you're saying it's the 15th year of his reign. That would add up to around 20 or 29.

(34:17) And so that's one of the ways we get to a dating of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Nevertheless, writing in the genre of henistic history is absolutely not the same as the modern academic discipline of history, which now has a, you know, nonpartisan goal of reconstructing the most likely narrative of the past and all of the different means that we have to do that in terms of critical reading of sources and so forth.

(34:48) The author of Luke Acts, by contrast, is writing with a partisan religious goal, not only of telling their Christian audience how they got to where they are, how did the Christian Christianity emerge, why how are we like this in in the city that we are existing in the Roman Empire, in this Greekeaking community that really has very little to do anymore with our Jewish roots, but als also assuring them that this was all meant to happen.

(35:23) Um, which really if you take Luke and Acts together as a composite, that's where it's from where it starts and all the transitions until it gets to its conclusion. So, was um Luke as we been calling him the author of Luke Acts, was uh that author a companion of Paul? So, um it's not out of the question. So Paul had lots of companions according to his letters and Paul and his imitators are writers among early Christians.

(35:54) So Paul is the earliest Christian we have whose writings survive. And we've talked about how there are a number of letters attributed to Paul that made their way into the canon um because early Christians thought they were written by Paul. So they're written in Paul's name and it's modern scholarship who thinks that they're written too late to be by Paul with anacronisms.

(36:16) Um, nevertheless, the implication is still if they are not written by Paul that Paul has a circle of people that are writers and maybe maybe Luke Acts is coming out of that circle. So if Luke Acts is written in the 80s, it's written in the 80s or the '9s, and if somebody then was writing it, they could be in their 50s or their 60s.

(36:44) Then if you want to get back to when Paul was active when he's writing letters, he's this is in the in the 50s AD, he's killed around 60 or 62. And so the author then would have been able to be in their 20s and still not be overly old by the time Luke Acts is composed. So maybe a companion of Paul or a young companion that wasn't as important um but maybe maybe part of the circle or extended circle.

(37:12) It's possible or it's possible simply that um we're dealing with somebody who is um part of a church that Paul founded and who admires Paul and looks back to Paul. So just to place that um we've had this timeline before but this is essentially the first century as we look at things and Paul's ministry we have from 35 to 60 or so.

(37:40) His letters are from the end of that time period, authentic letters. And um we can see in the 80s and 90s there Luke Acts. So it has to be written after Luke Acts has to be written after Mark and it can't be much into the first century because it's already also uh known into the second century. I mean so that places it there. So in addition to this on the side of um uh the idea that the author of Luke acts is a companion of Paul are a series of passages in the book of acts where which are called the wei passages.

The 'We' Passages and Paul's Companions

(38:24) So the author by scholars the author of Luke acts of course is an admirer of Paul and Paul becomes a major character by the end is the main character of the book of acts. So Paul is introduced as Saul in chapter 7 of the book of Acts. Initially as a persecutor of the early Christians, then is converted and then by the time we get to chapter 13 through the end of Acts chapter 28, Paul becomes the book's protagonist.

(38:54) And so like I say there are these we passages four sections of the story uh stories about Paul in the book of acts where the author suddenly shifts from third person descriptions talking about what they are doing to first person descriptions talking about what we are doing.

(39:16) So we read in chapter 16 as uh as the book of acts is just telling the story of Paul and his companions and we say they and that is Paul and his companion Timothy. They went through the region of Friia and Galatia those are two parts of Anatolia we now think of as Turkey having been forbidden um by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.

(39:42) So Asia here means the Roman province of Asia which is the very western part of Anatolia near where Istanbul is now. So um they uh went through Friia and Galatia having been forbidden to by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. When they had come opposite to Misia they attempted to go into Bethnia. Actually Bethnia is closer to where where Constantinople is but the spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

(40:09) So passing by Misia they went to Trrowass. Um these are just all areas in Anatolia. Trrowass is where Troy was had been. During the night Paul had a vision. There stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him saying come over to Macedonia to help us. So Macedonia is across the Aian um from where they are in in the Trowad.

(40:35) So when he had seen the vision and now suddenly we have this change of person. Before it has been them, them they, him, everything like that. Now says when he Paul had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them. We therefore set sail from Trrowass and took a straight course to Samothrace the following day to Neapolis in Macedonia.

(41:06) Not Neapolis in Italy, Naples, but another Neapolis. And from there to Philippi, which is a leading city in the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. So they've gone from Anatolia now to Europe to the Balkans to Macedonia. um we remained we remained in this city for some days. So this happens in four sections of the text.

(41:33) So Acts chapter 16, chapter 20, chapter 21 and then 27 to 28 to the end of the book there. It concludes in the middle of the last chapter these this last we section as Paul arrives in Rome. And so we read there in Acts 28, chapter 28, when we came to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself with the soldier who was guarding him.

(42:00) So if this indicates that the author of Luke Acts is traveling around with Paul and other companions of Paul at these times, the problem is there's no other indication of it. So Paul and Timothy, you know, when they arrive in Trrowass and then Paul and his companions, we set sail from Trrowass in to Macedonius a few weeks later.

(42:24) But there's no indication in the text that Paul and Tim Timothy met me Luke in trrowass or that when we Paul and me Luke got to Rome, he began living in a house in under guard and I Luke went off and did something else. In other words, the the author makes no other penetration into the text. There is no me, there's no I, there's no Luke mentioned in Acts.

(42:50) Um, another thing that people have um found odd is that Acts also seems to strangely end without seeming to finish if it's really about Acts of the Apostles because at the very end of the book we we read he Paul lived there in Rome two years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus.

Questions Regarding the Ending of Acts

(43:21) Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance and then it that's it. It just ends. Um so we might expect um uh there to be some kind of a uh you know a follow-up. What happens to Paul? He was going to Rome to to be under trial. Did the trial occur? Did he get executed? Um, previously we had had a major character um in Peter as a protagonist for the first half of the book of acts.

(43:52) What happened to him? Did he end up getting crucified? So, if it's really the acts of the apostles, the two main apostle characters, we don't actually follow it to the end of their ministries. So, what about um the possibility that the author of Acts and Luke is not a companion of Paul? So on the opposite side of the ledger, while an admirer of Paul, the author of Luke Acts, does not have access to the corpus of Paul's letters, which would later be gathered and circulated and does not even mention that Paul wrote the letters. And so I'm I'm sorry that

(44:31) Paul wrote letters at all. That's not even part one of the details in Acts. Paul, you'd think that if we what we know from Paul because we have the letters that you would um when you're writing a story about him, you would he'd stop every once in a while to write a letter to people because we know he does that.

(44:47) Um that does not happen in the book of Acts. And so I was talking about the possibility that if this was a companion of Paul, one of the things we know about the companions of Paul that they continue to or the followers of Paul anyway in later generations, they continue to write letters in Paul's name.

(45:06) And when they're doing that, when they're writing um Colossians or or first and second Timothy, they um they have access to Paul's write writings, his other letters which they're imitating. But um that is not true for the author of Acts. And in its portrait of the character of Paul, Axe uh presents Paul's own views and his behaviors in ways that are contradicted in Paul's own writings.

(45:36) So lacking access to the letters, the author of Acts gets many details about Paul wrong, even though um they're an admirer of Paul. For example, while Paul in the book of Acts tells non-Jewish converts to Christianity that they don't need to obey the strictures of Jewish law. That's something that Paul was doing in his own letters and it's something that he does in Acts.

(46:02) Nevertheless, in the account in Acts, he himself continues to keep kosher. He continues to obey Jewish tradition and thus he considered himself to be free to enter the area of the Jerusalem temple that was restricted to observant Jews alone. And indeed, when he's arrested in the temple, Acts portrays the charges as being bogus, trumped up charges.

(46:30) And when Paul is trying to answer for uh these charges, it's a um it's a p capital penalty. you'll get be killed put put to death for entering into a precinct um of the temple without uh having the right to do so. Paul tells Jewish leaders in Rome that no no I continued to follow all the Jewish customs.

(46:54) So he says brothers though I had done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors yet I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. So I have not done anything against the customs of our ancestors. When they examined me, the Romans wanted to release me because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case and it's only antagonistic Jewish leaders back in Jerusalem that caused me to be sent on.

(47:23) Their appeal caused me to be sent on to Rome and that's why I'm awaiting trial here. So in this portrayal of Paul, this portrayal of Paul in Acts having never contravened Jewish law is contradicted by his by I'm sorry self-descriptions of his actions and positions within his own letters. So in his own description, his own explanation of how he acted, Paul said he lived like a Jew when it served his purposes and more frequently he lived like a gentile which allowed him to be a more effective Christian missionary among non-Jewish populations. And so for

(48:02) example in first Corinthians he explains this. He says, "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all so that I might gain all the more." So to the Jews, I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews. To those under the law, I became as one under the law, though I myself am not under the law, so that I may gain those under the law.

(48:37) So when I am talking to potential Jewish converts, I will keep to all of the Jewish purity laws. I will follow Mosaic law. Even though I'm not under the law, even though I don't have to do that, but I'm doing that in order to be in fellowship with potential Jewish converts so that I may convert them to Christianity. And he says, "To those outside the law, I became as one outside the law.

(49:04) though I'm not outside God's law. I'm within Christ's law. I'm outside I'm not out I don't I'm not under Mosaic law. I'm under a better law here which is Christ's law. God's law. So that I might gain those outside Mosaic law. So when I'm hanging out with potential gentile converts, I don't keep kosher. I go to their house and and share meals with them um so that I can uh be better at converting them.

(49:30) I have therefore become all things to all people so that I might by all means save some. So that's my objective here. I do it all for the sake of the gospel so that I might become a partner in it. So like I say, therefore in his own writings, Paul doesn't consider himself to be subject to Jewish law and therefore only occasionally follows the restrictions in order to fellowship with potential Jewish converts.

(49:59) That's a big contrast to what Acts says where he says he he justifies himself uh as always following the law. And the contradiction is important especially if Acts the account in Acts is historically accurate. In other words, that Paul is arrested in the temple uh on the charge that he is not um a person who is an observant Jew and therefore should not be allowed into these precincts because he's not observing the law.

Contradictions: The Council of Jerusalem

(50:29) So, it's an important question. Um there's another contradiction in Acts between uh the account we have and and Paul's own account and that is what's called the council of Jerusalem. So this is a story in Acts of a meeting between Paul and then James the brother of Jesus and other apostles at Jerusalem so that they can decide the question of whether gentile Christians need to adhere to Jewish law.

(51:02) And like I say the account in Acts also differs a lot from Paul's own account. In act 15, Acts 15 we read, "Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching to the brothers, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." So um so Paul is uh is among his own Christian communities that he's founded in Syria.

(51:32) Then some individuals uh came from Judea and they and they're telling him something different from what Paul has uh told all his his converts. So these are Gentiles who have become u Christians uh which name according to Acts is first coined in Antioch in Syria. And so they've now become Christians and Paul said well you can be you you've been a god-fearer.

(51:55) You've been uh listening to the Septuagent. You've been listening to the stories of the Hebrew Bible. You believe the God of Israel is God, but you've always been told that you'd have to uh if you're men, you'd all have to get circumcised was a big big ask and you'll have to keep kosher and some certain other things according to Jewish law.

(52:12) But Paul said, "No, no, you don't have to." But now some Jewish Christians from Judea have come and said, "You have to. You can't be saved unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses." And after Paul and Barn Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.

(52:42) So they were sent on their way by the church and as they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles and that brought great joy to all the brothers and sisters. So people are hearing about these large Christian communities that are now being formed up in Syria in Greekeaking, formerly pagan communities that have now become Christians.

(53:05) And so when Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders and they reported that all that God had done with them. But some believers, some Christians who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, so not really not going to be the good guys in this story, uh, stood up and said, "It is necessary for them to be circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses.

(53:34) " The apostles and the elders met together to consider the matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days, God made me a choice among you that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.

(53:58) " And and God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. and in cleansing their hearts by faith. God has made no distinction between them, the Gentiles, and us, the Jews. Uh, in other words, we're all Christians of background, whether we have Jewish, we're all Christians together, whether we are of Gentile, uh, background or Christian back or Jewish background.

(54:22) So, we're all Christians together. Now therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we would have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that all we will all be saved through grace uh that we will believe we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as they will.

(54:48) So, so anyway, here in Acts, then Peter is the one who in this speech, he's claiming a special calling to take the gospel to the Gentiles. And it's Peter that makes the argument that there's no difference between a Jew or a Gentile in Christ. And he says that Gentiles need not submit to the yoke of the law.

(55:12) They will all be saved by grace. And so if we know Paul's letters, these are all Pauline teachings more much more than what we'd expect to come from Peter. So as the story in Acts continues, James the just, the brother of Jesus, who in this passage indicates that he is the leader of the church of Jerusalem, he agrees with Peter's speech.

(55:38) So James says, "Therefore, I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God and becoming Christians, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city for generations past, Moses had those who proclaim him.

(56:06) for he has been read aloud in every Sabbath in the synagogues. So in every city where there are synagogues and Moses has been um preached, in other words, where the people are reading the Bible, when they're reading the Septuagent, um that has caused all of these Gentiles to gather around and find God and turn to God, the God-fearers.

(56:26) But we shouldn't have I agree. We shouldn't um be uh making all of these Gentiles who are turning to God, who are becoming Christians, we don't need them to obey Mosaic law, they just have a couple things that we want them to do. So abstain from things polluted by idols. So if somebody has made you know has sacrificed a cow or a um p pig I guess especially anything to a pagan god and uh and then that meat has been you know come from a pagan temple and is now being put for sale that's been polluted by idols. So abstain from that sexual

(57:03) immoral immorality. So in other words we're um you know there's a purity code um that is here very present in the first century church. and then things strangled and things from blood. There's a um Jewish understanding that life in of a thing is in blood and so you're not supposed to um you're not supposed to eat you know blood pie and that kind of a thing.

Paul’s Pragmatic View on Food Offered to Idols

(57:27) Uh and so those kind of things that's the sole that's the sole compromise here according to James. Um but they can therefore with those things they can be exempted gentile Christians from adherence to Mosaic law according to the story in Acts. So in terms of the um eating uh meat that has been sacrificed as part of a pagan sacrifice, Paul though in his own writings has a much more pragmatic response.

(57:57) And so he does not um he doesn't say that that's forbidden if that had been the actual compromise in in that period in Acts. Paul Paul's not aware of it or he's not promoting that. So he says to the Corinthians as to eating of food offered to idols, look, we know that no idol in the world in the in the world really exists.

(58:17) So these idols aren't really gods. You know, you can sacrifice something to Zeus or Athena and that's it's it's really just mummy because there is no god but one god. Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth, we know that that's not true for us. There is just one God, the Father, from whom all things uh are and from whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ and so forth.

(58:43) However, Paul's pragmatic. Not everyone, however, has this knowledge and since some um who have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol. And because of their conscious being weak, they become defiled when they eat that food that's been offered to an idol because that has them fall back into idolatry.

(59:10) They think that they're honoring Athena when Athena doesn't really exist. So we know the precept food will not bring us close to God. We are not worse off if we do not eat it, nor are we better off if we do. It doesn't matter according to Paul. But he says, "Take care of this liberty of yours.

(59:31) Just because we know that, take care that that does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak, to people who still believe in all these pagan gods. For if others see you, who possess knowledge eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols?" So Paul says more or less there's nothing wrong in a way in a sense um with eating food sacrificed to idols but abstaining from it as a way to help new Christians who used to be pagans continue to disbelieve in the

(1:00:05) their former gods and the worship through idols. Um in elsewhere Paul uh is equally pragmatic. He says if you go to the um if you go to the marketplace you don't have to ask where this meat came from. Almost all meat in the Greor Roman world is part of a sacrifice. But as long as you're not, you know, paying attention to that, as long as you're not, you know, you know, finding out about it, it doesn't really matter.

(1:00:29) Um, but if you go to somebody's house and they feed you uh a meal and then and then after you eat some of the meat, they say, "Ha, that was um you know, that was sacrificed to Neptune or something like that." Well, then then you say, "Okay, well then don't eat it anymore." because they're trying to they're trying to catch you up and so forth.

(1:00:51) So, it is not this same um it's a much more ambivalent and pragmatic uh pro uh idea that Paul has about this as opposed to Acts which presents it as this is the one thing in the compromise that we're making all of you guys do. Don't eat um uh food sacrificed to idols. Paul's um firsthand account in Galatians of his meeting with leaders in Jerusalem in the Jerusalem church also differs significantly from the very amicable ver amicable version that we had in acts.

(1:01:20) So in Galatians chapter 2 Paul says after 14 years after my conversion I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas one of his companions taking Titus and other companion along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them uh the leaders the uh of Jerusalem, though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders.

(1:01:50) I laid before them the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false brothers and sisters secretly brought in who had slipped in to spy on the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus so that they might enslave us, we did not submit to them even for a moment so that the truth of the gospel may might always remain with you.

(1:02:25) So that's a little hard to unpack, but it's certainly not, you know, the amicable thing where Peter just says up stands up and and uh says, "I was called to be a apostle to the Gentiles." And James agrees, "We're not going to make these uh Gentiles um you know, do anything really too tough. They just have to have this little limited requirement.

(1:02:47) " So Paul mentions here that the apostles in Jerusalem are the acknowledged leaders of the church and they have been listening to false brothers and sisters who were in meeting in Paul's groups and have slipped into Paul's groups in order to spy on them and now they've come and they are are testifying about the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus so that they might enslave us.

(1:03:11) And so this freedom and slavery talk that um Paul always has is um enslavement essentially to Mosaic law and freedom in in Christ in grace. So the argument that Paul has with leaders is over Jewish law and he and cites their admittance um of the uncircumcised Greek Christian Titus, Paul's companion.

(1:03:37) So in other words, he's uncircumcised. He's a Greek, but they he's allowed to be in this group by them. They offer him fellowship. That's evidence he's saying essentially they're being inconsistent. So Paul's description of this event continues and gets even more heated. He says, "From those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders.

(1:03:56) " So these are the people who are supposed to be acknowledged leaders. What they actually were makes no difference to me. God shows no partiality. They're supposed to be acknowledged leaders. Those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just had as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised, for he worked through Peter, making him an apostle to the circumcised.

(1:04:23) He who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles. So, as Paul's continuing this, he's discounting the credentials of the acknowledged leaders. He's saying, "What they are actually makes no difference to me. God isn't showing partiality." And in contrast to the speech by Peter in Acts where Peter sees himself as having a special calling to the Gentiles, he said in Acts, "I should be the one through whom the Gentiles hear the gospel.

(1:04:56) " Paul claims that role for himself and he names Peter as apostle to the circumcised. So he's saying Peter has been given a calling to go to the Jews. I'm been the one that's called as the apostle to the Gentiles. Like Acts, Paul portrays the meeting as ending with an agreement. So when James the brother of Jesus and Cphus that is to say Peter and John who were the acknowledged pillars recognized the grace that had been given me.

(1:05:25) They gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing that we remember the poor which actually I was eager to do. So this is a different um it's a resolution um it was more hostile to get there but it's a different resolution than what we heard in Acts which was um an acknowledgment that uh Gentiles don't need to come to Jewish law this in this case what we h have is okay we have different spheres we'll let you continue to evangelize among um the

(1:06:02) Gentiles because you're having some success and what they want instead is remember the poor and we'll see how Paul does understands that. Anyway, if there was an amicable agreement at the very end and they exchanged fellowship as Paul says, um the agreement broke down very quickly because in the next verse we read when Cphus when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self- condemned.

(1:06:34) It's quite a thing to say about Peter. For until certain people came from James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, these people from James, certain people from James, Peter drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy.

(1:07:00) So that even Barnabas, my companion, was led astray by their hypocrisy. So when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel as I Paul understand it, I said to Cphus before all of them, if you though a Jew live like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews? So Paul had been the person who has been founding churches among non-Jews in first the Nabotian kingdom, Arabia Petraa, the area around what's now the Trans Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia um and in Rome and Syria where Antioch was this great metropolis

(1:07:42) where this confrontation takes place. So what we can glean from this um account is that Peter called Cphus here in Paul's writing came came to the church at Antioch and he initially had dispensed with Jewish dietary laws in order to share meals with gentile Christians. Part of the whole problem here is one one of the main practices in early Christianity is sharing um sacred meals together either in the form of um what's becoming communion but also in the form of maybe agape meals where people are um you know have having

(1:08:20) essentially a a large sacred potluck. So when you are keeping kosher you can't share those meals with people who aren't keeping kosher. It's a it's a breaking of the ritual purity laws. And so when Peter first comes, presumably in keeping with that understanding of the compromise uh that James and Peter and John and Paul and everybody agreed to in Jerusalem, Peter went ahead and dispensed with um his own practice of Jewish dietary law in order to share fellowship with the non-Jewish Christians. But this breaks down when

(1:08:58) new envoys from Jesus's brother James came from Jerusalem to Antioch, insisting presumably that at minimum Christians with a Jewish background like Peter needed to continue to observe some components of Jewish law. So, we might have agreed to let um Paul to let you all of your um gentile Christians not obey uh Jewish law, but that doesn't mean that Jewish Christians or Christians with a Jewish background don't have to do that.

(1:09:27) And so, Peter then stops uh fellowshipping or having meals fellowship with the Gentile Christians and starts to keep kosher and keep to the um Jewish Christians. And more or less Paul stands up to them. He confronts him, but he ends up losing this battle. Paul calls Peter's change of practice hypocrisy uh to his face, he says.

(1:09:53) And he labels um Paul's Paul labels all of his own opponents the circumcision faction. Um which attempts to diminish them and how important they are. There's just these people that are crazy about circumcision is in his branding. Nevertheless, given that the leaders of this faction are James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, whom Paul has just barely called the acknowledged pillars of the church, it doesn't seem that Paul won this conflict.

(1:10:18) Indeed, Paul in his own description um his own companion Barnabas is one over to you know the circumcision faction that is to say acknowledging that James and Peter and John are the leaders and they say that Jewish Christians have to continue to observe the law. So ultimately, you know, after this, as Paul is explaining to his new churches in Anatolia, in Galatia, he ultimately left the Syrian churches to Peter so Peter could continue to just be in charge of the churches in Antioch.

(1:10:50) And he then went on to plant new churches in Anatolia, Greece, Macedonia, and so forth. uh and that's what why he's having to explain himself now because new envoys now from the circumcision faction in other words from the Jamesian church have now started to come to Galatia and and bring up the same uh conflict there. So like I say in Paul's version the initial compromise with James and Cphus included the stipulation they asked only one thing that we remember the poor which was actually what I was eager to do. So taking up a collection for the

The Collection for the Poor of Jerusalem

(1:11:27) poor of Jerusalem, which we might argue is the group of members, the church of Jerusalem, the members led by James, people who um in a lot of cases in terms of the disciples had taken vows uh of poverty, voluntary poverty, they've given all their property uh sold, you know, give it away to the poor and uh and followed Jesus as mendicant disciples.

(1:11:54) That becomes a major emphasis of Paul then in his letters to the wealthy church members in the churches that he's found among the Gentiles in places like Galatia, Corinth, Rome and elsewhere. He didn't found Rome but anyway there have the gentile Christian population there was richer than the people in Jerusalem. So in uh his letter to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 16, he says, "Now about the collection for the Lord's people, do what I told the Galatian churches to do.

(1:12:26) On the first day of every week on Sunday, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come, no collections will have to be made. Then when I arrive, I will give you letters of indu introduction to the men you approve and with them send you send them with your gift to Jerusalem so that we can give a collection to the Lord's people there.

(1:12:53) If it seems advisable for me to go to Jerusalem, they will accompany me. So uh similarly in his letter to the Romans as Paul is leaving now Anatolia, Greece and Macedonia once again letting his rivals take over so that he can start all over again in Spain. He plans to go on his way to Rome to and then Spain to Jerusalem to donate that collection to James.

(1:13:21) So he tells the Romans in chapter 15, Roman Christians, but now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, Anatolia and Greece. So I've had this same problem that I had when I got kicked out essentially of Syria and Arabia. Now again, there's no place for me to work in these regions. And since I have been longing for many years to visit you, this important Christian community that has emerged in Rome, I plan to do so when I go to Spain.

(1:13:51) I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there and after I have enjoyed your company for a while. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord's people there. So he's going to go visit the church in Jerusalem. For Macedonia and Aia, Macedonia and Greece were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord's people in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it.

(1:14:20) And indeed, they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.

(1:14:40) So that's Paul's plan as of um when he's writing this letter to the Romans and makes this last trip to Jerusalem where he is arrested. And so although the collection of this fund is a very serious focus of Paul's uh journey to Jerusalem according to his own letters, he hopes to give this contribution and presumably appease James uh and try to have a new compromise with uh James and the church in Jerusalem considering that he's had these troubles follow him through everywhere he's been planting churches. Um none of that is mentioned

(1:15:18) in the account in Acts. The account in Acts does not talk about uh the collection and bringing the collection to the poor. Instead in Acts, J has a different way to reconcile. He has Paul pay for a purification right for a number of the Gentiles who've become Christians there in Judea. And so we read in the book of acts when we there's another wei passage arrived at Jerusalem the brothers and sisters received us warmly.

(1:15:53) The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James and all the elders were present. Uh then they all the elders including James said to Paul you see brother how many thousands of Jews have believed uh and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been for they have been informed that you teach all of the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

(1:16:22) What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come and so do what we tell you. So we're we're trying to we we so Acts is not portraying this as a problem that um uh that Paul is having with James and James's authorities, but it's just all of these other Jewish Christians. So there are four men with us who have made a vow.

(1:16:46) Take these men, join in their purification rights, and you pay the expenses so that they can have their heads shaved. and then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. So Paul follow Paul follows through with this plan. But then after the purification ritual when Paul and the others enter the temple precinct, they're recognized by some Jews from Asia, the province of Asia.

(1:17:16) And they have them arrested for purity violation. In other words, for entering precincts of the Jerusalem temple that are reserved only to observant Jews. So when we when we look at these and we're going back to the Wii passages. So these and other contradictions between Paul and Acts have left scholars divided about how do we interpret these wei passages.

(1:17:43) Some of them arguing that despite any other um self- reference the author here is identifying himself as a companion of Paul. So it's never saying Paul came to me Luke and then we went off with he I and Timothy we went off after otherwise. Um other proposals are that the there's a work here of a redactor. So um the author of Luke Acts as a redactor or as an editor has a bunch of different sources like Mark like Q.

(1:18:13) There's another source here from a companion of Paul that is being edited in. And um there's also been the idea that because this often happens when there's traveling going on. Like for example, it starts when they're crossing the sea from uh Troy and going to um Macedonia that this is just a stylistic convention in Greek for sea travel.

(1:18:36) that's not particularly convincing because we don't have like a lot of u lot of sources that consistently show anything like that. Um the problem there's a problem too with a redactor adding a source um because the author of Luke Acts so usually so thoroughly rewrites texts that they almost certainly would have corrected that.

(1:18:56) Um another um possibility uh is not just that this is a companion of Paul but the person is u pretending that they're a companion of Paul. So that's part airman's explanation for example. So he's saying that the author of Luke and Acts uses the Wii in order to imply or to indirectly state that they are a companion of Paul and that they the author really is traveling with Paul during those times.

(1:19:23) but that this is a um a false claim and so uh are falsely claiming to be Paul's companion because um the the author of Luke Acts doesn't have the letters of Paul or access to them and has a bunch of different contradictions uh from it. So those are different possibilities uh for understanding these Wii passages. Um attempts to find this Wii source um if it was a issue of redaction that has been added to Acts by the author of Luke Acts.

(1:19:56) It's largely broken down in part because um like I say the author has a real predilction for rewarding all of their sources. is unclear why the author would have failed to they would have just corrected it and saying made it to they and not put the we um we can also you know we can see how the author of Luke acts does this this complete rewriting most clearly in their use of Mark as a source.

(1:20:23) So Mark uh writes in a kind of Greek that has very few subordinate clauses or tenses. everything is u abrupt present tense and connected by ands. Uh and this is implied to many that the author of the gospel of Mark um is a non-native Greek speaker is originally a speaker of Aramaic. Um so throughout in using Mark as a source the author of Luke Acts continuously upgrades the Mark and narrative into a more elevated kind of Greek. So it's always being rewritten.

(1:20:56) Um, the author also seems to alter their language for context. And so there's been studies that kind of show that, okay, well, maybe the first half of Acts, you know, maybe it's readacted together because the first half half of Acts, which follows Peter around, um, uses a lot of more Hebraisms and the second half is more elevated Greek that uses fewer Hebraisms.

(1:21:22) that is to say, um these these things that kind of imply that uh that there's a Semitic speaker or that is involved in it. Um but this may even just be an example of how um sophisticated the author of Luke Acts Greek is. And so in other words, when when they're making a speech that Peter is saying before the the Jewish high council, before the Sanhedrin, um they're adding a lot of Hebrewisms into it because they think that that's kind of how Peter would talk or it making it sounds more Jewish.

(1:21:55) Um, and this person who has read u the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagent, as a god uh fearer for so long, really knows that text really well. And so was able to make it sound more um more like it. And then when Paul is talking, for example, to the Aropagus, when he's talking to the uh the council of of the leaders of Athens, of course, he's not going to um use a lot of Hebrewisms because now he's trying to speak to the Gentiles.

(1:22:25) And so, um, this is a counterargument to the idea that there's a redaction with a a Wii source underneath it. You'd think that the author would have edited edited the WIS. Um, let's go back again to this idea that the author doesn't have access to the writings of Paul. Um, so we know or we believe that the author of Luke Acts has access to the Gospel of Mark which is written around the year 70.

(1:22:53) We can say that date it pretty clearly because there internal indications in the text that Jerusalem has already been destroyed but the war hasn't ended and we can say that because uh uh includes apocalyptic prophecies of Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed the text of Mark but the writer clearly thinks that that's going to lead immediately to the end of the world and the world does not immediately end.

(1:23:22) Um, and so the Roman war, Roman Jewish, first Roman Jewish war has not presumably ended while Mark is writing it. So they're writing it in this apocalyptic moment. Um, so we have the idea that um, Luke has then Mark and probably also this hypothetical saying source Q, but does not have access to Paul's letters.

(1:23:46) Because if the author had access to all the letters of Paul, we could anticipate that they would have been used in much the same way that the author uses Q says, for example, to create sermons for Jesus. So um taking the the narrative the basic narrative that we have or we've inherited from Mark Luke then takes Q which is mostly sayings has almost no narrative and takes those sayings and and alters them all and so that to make um to make uh sermons that are put into uh uh Jesus you know in the various parts of the narrative. And so the book of acts

(1:24:28) includes many many long speeches that are attributed to Paul. And if the author had access to Paul's writings, Paul's own words would have been a very valuable resource. He could have taken any of the the long um uh theological understanding statements especially like what Paul has to say in Romans and those could easily provide material.

(1:24:49) Uh none of that material is made it way into Acts. And so, like I say, if you'd had access to the that corpus, that would have been a valuable resource for con constructing speeches of Paul. Instead, the words in Acts attributed to Paul seem to be the creation of the author, which then again, like I say, indicates a lack of access to the letters.

(1:25:12) On the other hand, the on the positive side of this, it also argues for a relatively early date for the composition of Luke Acts. So Paul's letters are written early but they don't circulate immediately but at a certain point in early Christianity they are compiled together by um by admirers of Paul by followers of Paul and then circulated and then they become um um you authoritative in the second century.

(1:25:40) And so presumably not having access to that corpus means that the author of Luke Acts is operating before they're widely circulated. So I want to talk a little bit about this idea of composing speeches that um are not anything that any ancient person actually said in history. Um this is part of the idea of what ancient history was uh in Henistic and Greek writing.

(1:26:10) So Heroditus who is often cited as the father of ancient history is operating at the fifth century BC. um he had a predilction for all kinds of fabulous accounts, but he nevertheless one of the reasons what changes him from just a collection of myths is that he's often critical of his sources. He includes alternate explanations and he says which ones often that he believes and doesn't believe and why.

(1:26:40) Um, part of what he is doing is seeking to find kernels of truth among myths. And that's a a popular thing that people still love to do today, even if it's not um uh as it's not what we understand as of how history works in in the modern academic sense. It's certainly what they did in ancient history.

(1:27:00) uh when you read Heroditus it does sound though like a a big collection of fables compared to his contemporary the second uh father of history Thusidities who's just writing a generation uh later essentially Thusidities writes in what seems like a much more modern historical s style about events that he was a contemporary of but even though it seems kind of like a modern history still includes the creation of all kinds of long speeches is speeches that um he was not a witness to that there were no notes from and so speeches that he is creating and what

(1:27:36) he's doing is he's saying what a great general uh or what a leader of Athens or something like that should have said at that time and so the speeches are creations of historians about um what should what they believe should have been spoken and the very same thing is going on you know throughout all of ancient history and common actually all the way up until until modern times, you know, as as a as a thing that historians did.

(1:28:07) Um, and so a significant component of Acts are long speeches in the form of sermons given especially by Peter and Paul. But there's a lot of other speeches by others including for example Stephen whom Acts identifies as one of the first seven of a new institution of deacons which become to be important by the end of the first century as officials within Christian communities.

(1:28:35) Stephen is arrested and brought before the Jewish high council in Jerusalem. And so in chapter 7 of Acts, Steven embarks on a really long speech to the high council to the Sanhedrin. And so it's trying to tell um explain to the Jewish people uh the new emerging Christian understanding of uh the scriptures, the Jewish scriptures and inheritance and how that is now to be understood in the new covenant.

(1:29:02) So Steven says, "Brothers and fathers, listen to me. The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Heron. And he said to him, "Leave your country and your relatives and go to the land I will show you." And then he left the country of the Chelans.

(1:29:24) He settled in Haran, which is in northern Mesopotamia. And then after his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living. So that's just the preface of the speech. It goes on and on and on. So Stephen records the Abrahamic covenant, the whole long story of Joseph in Egypt, the story of the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, the um the you know the making of the idol, the the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the institution of the kingdom by David, the construction of the temple by Solomon, and so on. But then at the very

(1:30:01) end, um, Stephen pivots and when he's talking about a temple made by Solomon, he says, "Yet the most high does not dwell in houses made with human hands." So, we're not about uh worshiping in one temple anymore, Stephen is saying. And then he condemns the council generally and um the non-Christian Jewish people too.

(1:30:25) You stiff- necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears. You are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the righteous one. And now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the ones who received the law ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.

(1:30:51) So after this condemnation, the people drag Steven out of the city and stone him. And included in this is a young man named Saul who begins persecuting the church. And so in keeping with hellistic practice, Steven's speech is the inventor of the invention of the author of Acts. And it puts into his mouth what Steven should have said at the time.

(1:31:14) So there might be some tradition that the first person martyed in Jerusalem for the cause after uh Jesus's own martyrdom is a guy named Steven who's called in Christian tradition the proto martyr or the first martyr. Um and so once again um it also shows in addition to that um the author of acts is versed in this kind of henistic history of uh writing speeches.

(1:31:44) It's also though shows that this author is deeply rooted in the stories of the Septuagent Bible. So potentially one of these god-fearers who has really studied it and there's all kinds of indications throughout Luke and Acts that um um the author is maybe as best as well read as any any person in in the texts of the Hebrew Bible in Greek.

(1:32:06) And the speeches are also um in Acts crafted in order to connect narratives. So we're getting to a certain point uh the Christian church is established. we have um uh these new deacons. Uh there is persecution uh and the persecution and this first narrative introduces the character of Saul who then begins his career as a persecutor.

(1:32:32) The martyrdom of Steven also expresses the author of Acts and Luke's understanding of literary prophecy. So we see here that Steven ends his um speech with a prophesied a prophecy that the people of Jerusalem kill all the prophets and then in fulfillment of that they immediately stone him. And so that's uh it's showing that you know they do what he says they do.

(1:32:59) And throughout Luke and Acts um even more than other gospels Jesus or disciples will make predictions that then later find fulfillment in the text. And so this is especially true in Acts at the very beginning of the book with the prophecy that Jesus makes to the disciples. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of all the earth.

(1:33:33) And that's how the text then rolls forward. So they have that story of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit comes on them all in power. They witness in Jerusalem as Stephen does as a proto martyr and then all Judea and Samaria. And then as the book pivots um and uh Paul's ministry goes all across Anatolia, Macedonia, Aia, and ultimately to Rome, all of the ends of the earth uh are fulfilled in the prophecy that the author of Acts at the very beginning um puts in Jesus' mouth.

(1:34:08) So what do we do with this? You know, we have all these very differing pictures of the same events as I said. So the fact that Acts remembers a version of Paul's meeting with James in Jerusalem and the conflict over adherence to Jewish law shows that the author of Acts has not simply created the story whole cloth.

(1:34:35) So it's not told the same way. So Paul gives a different version of it. There's a different compromise. There's a different outcome. And yet the conflict, the fact that um something was going on and it was about uh Gentiles and needing to gentile Christians and whether or not everybody needs to observe Jewish law that's remembered even if it's told in a slightly different way.

(1:34:57) Um there are other examples of this. So um we have in the gospel, I'm sorry, in the book of Acts, um Paul's own conversion story. So when he's introduced, he's a persecutor. That's something that Paul himself says in his letters that he had originally been a persecutor. Uh and we're told in a very elaborate uh story in the gosp in sorry the book of acts about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

(1:35:24) Um Paul never references anything like that um story. He just simply says uh that uh the risen Christ appeared to him in a list as he's explaining of all the other uh apostles and disciples whom the risen Christ had appeared to. um but without giving any of those kind of details. Um likewise um you know Paul's attempt at that reconciliation during his last journey to Jerusalem you know such a focus of his letters where he's taking up a collection for the poor of Jerusalem.

(1:36:00) And yet when we have that event happen in Acts it's retold in a very different and I would say garbled form. So Paul um is asked to pay for a purification ritual uh which it doesn't end up having the desired effect. But what I can say though about that though is that the handful of indications that we can check seems to indicate that the author of Luke Acts is working within a number working with a number events that are memorable.

(1:36:31) So there may be a memory of like I say the story of the first um martyr Stephen or that Steven was the first martyr is named or a memory of this experience on Pentecost um but you know where we have examples of it um as with Paul's conversion as with the Jerusalem council as with the collection um the memory is the details of the memory or are a little bit misremembered or garbled as um Luke Acts is working from a different time frame and a different um uh perspective.

(1:37:10) So ultimately the author of Luke Acts has the goal of proving to his gentile Christian audience that all the promises of God uh those from the beginning have now been fulfilled among us as he said uh to Theophilus at the very beginning of the gospel of Luke. um a mostly gentile church as is now emerging in the Lucan community seemingly um might begin to question okay well wait a second though is God's word good when we read in um in the Hebrew Bible when we read in the Septuagent that's so important to us uh that God has made this eternal

(1:37:55) covenant with the Jewish people and now um the church has not grown very much among Jewish Christians. They ended up being continued to be a small number of Jewish Christians. But the majority of the Jews have largely failed to join Christianity and instead we have now a vast Christian community uh among the what the Gentiles in other words among people who have converted from paganism.

(1:38:23) um does that indicate that God is a little bit fickle in making these covenants and will God at some point not fulfill ours? And so Luke and Acts is designed to show that even though the covenant has shifted, um God's word is ultimately true. It's not God that changed. It's rejection here of some of the chosen people from of and rejecting what is now understood to be the new covenant.

(1:38:52) >> [clears throat] >> So whatever the author of Luke Acts relationship with Paul, so whether was a youthful companion or not, simply from a church that admired Paul, the two book narrative moves from the life and ministry of Jesus to a story of a spirit-led expansion of the church under the original disciples, including re-imagining Peter as a major missionary to the Gentiles.

(1:39:25) It then gets to the conversion of Paul and ultimately pivots to the growth of Christianity among god-fearing Gentiles everywhere. Um, and so with this purpose in mind, the ending of Acts is not as unexpected as it seems if we credit the title. So, Acts is not really about Acts of the Apostles.

(1:39:52) If it were about the Acts of the Apostles, you know, we'd expect to hear what happened to Peter and Paul, you know, how did they die? We have traditions of um Peter and Paul's martyrdoms, individual martyrdoms in Rome, but those don't take place in Acts. Instead, the narrative ends with the gospel message being taken by Paul to the capital so that the new covenant can be accepted by all of the Gentiles, which is what the author of Luke Acts is concerned about.

(1:40:22) So, in other words, we're not just simply having as our purpose what does Peter do, all the other apostles do, what does Paul do, and so forth. Rather, what we're showing is how did we get from um Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that people didn't accept who had a ministry among Jews that culminated in his uh death and resurrection in Jerusalem to a universal church that is planted all around the Roman world that has now really become much more um uh much more popular.

(1:41:00) anyway or where where more of the people have non-Jewish background than the ones that have have Jewish background. How did we get here? And does that indicate um that God keeps God's promises and the testimony and the apologetics of the author of Luke Acts is? Absolutely. And so that is my um assessment anyway of how accurate from a historical sense T