The written records as evidence

[Aractus]

This time, the authorship of Luke-Acts.

Perhaps because "Luke" (or whoever) was writing a Gospel about the life of Jesus, not a siege of Jerusalem that would happen four decades later. The "martyrdom" of Peter and Paul are also separate topics and might not yet have been fabricated (this is part of what I regard as Christian folklore). And my contention is that a different author wrote the ridiculously fanciful and woo-drenched (even by the Bible's standards) tale of Acts.

Of no consequence since a different author wrote Acts.

I have asked back in the other thread DP to tell me why he believes two different authors wrote Luke-Acts, he didn't respond, so we'll press on with the evidence.

On his first point, about the siege of Jerusalem, I would remind you of this passage:

• John 21:18-19: Truly, truly, I say to [St. Peter], when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

It is clear from the internal evidence in this verse that Peter has already died (at the time the Gospel is written), and his death was that of a martyr. Now I've mentioned this account is at odds with the 2nd century church fathers, who said St Peter was crucified upside down because if someone is lead to their cross they are stripped naked and lead to where they "do not want to go", when someone is beheaded they are clothed and then lead to where they "do not want to go"

In the synoptic Gospels, the prediction of the siege of Jerusalem is never accompanied by a remark that "this he said to show that he had foreknowledge of the upcoming siege on the city" or anything of the sort. There are only four possibilities: 1. It's a genuine prophecy. 2. It's inserted into the text later than the text was originally written, 3. The texts were written after AD 70 or 4. It isn't really a prophecy and doesn't really predict the siege of Jerusalem. The biggest problem for the arguments 2. and 4. is that it appears multiple times, for instance:

• Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
  
  Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

So it's not just in there once, but twice in the one Gospel, and neither time does it have anything to say about what would actually befall.

So can we have confidence that Luke-Acts is indeed written by the same author? Let's consider the evidence.

Firstly, we do not know 100% that it was written by "Luke", and I'm happy to concede that point. We do not have Luke/Acts attributed to any other author by early church fathers though, and for that reason it is easiest to reaffirm Luke as the author, even if it may have been written by somebody else. Most scholars do agree that Luke did write both Luke-Acts. Virtually all serious scholars - including secular/liberal/sceptics agree that both works are written by the same author.

Evidence.

The external evidence is clear and unanimous that Luke is the author. This includes the Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome. Being that Luke was not a disciple, this would make Pseudepigrapha unlikely.

The internal evidence is the strongest evidence of single-person authorship. Luke and Acts together total more than all the epistles of Pauls, even including Hebrews! The two books together make up more than 1/4 of the New Testament.

Both books are written to the same gentleman, Theophilus:

• Luke 1:1-4: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
  
  Acts 1:1-3: In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Theophilus is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and nor is anyone with the same name for that matter. As is also obvious from the above passages, Acts refers to the Gospel According to Luke as the "first book", making it the "second".

The author was a companion of Peter and of Paul. He focuses on these two more than any others in the book of Acts.

According to church fathers, Peter is the main source for "Mark"'s Gospel. If we were to assume that this is true, then it makes sense for Luke to expand upon Mark's accounts more than Matthew would have, assuming that Luke is a companion of Peter and that Matthew isn't. And this could be why we find almost all of Mark in Matthew, but not in Luke, it could well be that Luke preferred the passages in Mark that he had also heard from Matthew. Most significantly, it means we have a reason why Luke is able to expand on the stories present in Mark without being an eye-witness himself.

There are numerous passages where Luke uses "we" when describing events with Paul, and then there's of course the Pauline epistles which mention Luke.

Finally, and I mention this only in passing, by the mid 2nd century the four gospels had been bound together, however there is also good evidence to support the theory that Luke-Acts had been bound together sometime early-mid 2nd century.