Which Was Written First, Luke or Acts?

1955 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-174
Author(s):  
Henry G. Russell

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

Author(s):  
Mbengu D. Nyiawung ◽  
Ernest Van Eck

The Jewish peasantry as a character group in the Gospel of Luke has, thus far, not really attracted much attention in Lukan scholarship. In cases where it has been studied, scholars have often treated ὄχλος [crowd] and λαὸς [people] as synonymous characters. But the question of Jesus’ identity, as depicted in the New Testament, was crucial to the early church and it is this exact question that animates the relationship between Jesus and the various ‘systems’ functioning as part of Luke’s Gospel. From an etic viewpoint, the context of Luke’s Gospel indicates that Jesus’ leadership was characterised by conflict, opposition and rejection. Therefore, this article attempted, through an emic reading of Luke, to differentiate between (and describe) the role played by each of these character groups in Luke’s narrative, focusing on the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish peasantry – with special reference to the ambivalent attitude of the latter. It was argued that each Lukan character group has to be read and understood in terms of their attitude, as well as in the broader context of Luke’s intention with their inclusion and specific description. Therefore the various terminologies used when referring to the Jewish peasantry were also discussed; for any analysis of a biblical character group should begin with a reading of the Greek text, because working only with translations can lead to a misappropriation of the text. In order to attain the goals as set out above, this study used a character group which seemed ambivalent and hypocritical in their attitude to analyse Jesus’ leadership approach.


Scrinium ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
David C. Sim

The early Church Fathers accepted the notion of an intermediate state, the existence of the soul following death until its reunification with the body at the time of the final resurrection. This view is common in the modern Christian world, but it has been challenged as being unbiblical. This study reflects upon this question. Does the New Testament speak exclusively of death after life, complete lifelessness until the day of resurrection, or does it also contain the notion of life after life or immediate post-mortem existence? It will be argued that, while the doctrine of future resurrection is the most common Christian view, it was not the only one present in the Christian canon. There are hints, especially in the Gospel of Luke and the Revelation of John, that people do indeed live again immediately after death, although the doctrine of resurrection is also present. These two ideas are never coherently related to one another in the New Testament and it was the Church Fathers who first sought to  systematise them.



2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-50
Author(s):  
Kasiatin Widianto

Offering made by Christians today cannot be separated from the teachings of the Bible both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Offerings should be offered seriously with full sincerity and an attitude of sacrifice. Giving offerings does not talk about how much material or wealth is given, but talks about sincerity and longing to give the best to God. The discussion of the results of quantitative research proved that the congregation of the Gereja Sidang Jemaat Allah Pait Kasembon Malang understood the doctrine of the meaning of giving offerings in the Gospel of Luke 21: 1-4 for 44.5%, so the congregation would participate in giving offerings with the right motivation and the best quality for God. Thus the results of this study indicate that the result is in accordance with what the researcher has proposed before.


Exchange ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-133
Author(s):  
Jan Jongeneel

AbstractThe Messiah figure originates from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In a linear setting it interprets his person and work politically, spiritually, and apocalyptically. The New Testament applies this Hebrew concept spiritually and apocalyptically to Jesus of Nazareth: he is unrepeatably and irreversibly the Messiah/Christ of both Jews and gentiles. In the Qu'ran Jesus is known as al-Masih, but there this term merely functions as a name. However, the Islam points to the coming of the Mahdi figure at the end of the times, comparable with the Second Coming in Christianity. Therefore, the Messiah/Christ/Mahdi figure, as a unique figure, is at home in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These monotheistic religions place him, each in their own way, in a linear frame. In modern times cultural anthropologists and other scholars in the humanities have extended the use of the terms 'Messiah' and 'Messianism' to figures and phenomena in cyclical contexts. They do not hesitate to speak about 'the Hindu Messiah' and 'Buddhist Messianism'. The present article explores the nature of both the cyclical and linear views of time and history, investigates the birth and growth of Messianism in these specific settings, with special reference to modern developments, and compares the linear concepts of the Messiah and Messianism with the cyclical ones. At the end the article questions whether the cyclical and linear views of the Messiah and Messianism can be harmonized by the use of the spiral as bridge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document