The author did not give this book a title, any more than he gave the Gospel a title; but the later Church Fathers dubbed it "Acts" (in the sense of deeds), thus implicitly comparing it to the Hellenistic writings of the same name describing the careers and achievements of famous men. The noun complement "of the Apostles" is not precise, for there are only two major figures: Peter (who is one of the Twelve Apostles, and appears first with John) figures prominently in nine or ten chapters, and Paul (who is called an apostle only twice, and appears first with Barnabas) figures prominently in seventeen chapters. This is why scholars sometimes prefer the designation: Acts of Peter and Paul.

1. Introduction: Preparing Jesus' Followers for the Spirit (1: 1-26)
   1. Jesus instructs his disciples and ascends to heaven (1: 1-11)
      • (1, 1-2) A sort of sub-prologue. "I had devoted my first book, Theophilus, to all that Jesus had done and taught, from the beginning until the day when, after having given in the Holy Spirit his instructions to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up." The author takes care to link his second volume to the first and to summarize the scope of the Gospel. In this new book, what Jesus began is continued by the same Spirit that works in the apostles. The story of the ascension is told twice: at the end of the Gospel the ascension takes place on Easter Sunday night from Bethany (on the Mount of Olives), but in Acts it takes place at least forty days later from the Mount of Olives. From God's perspective, the ascension of the risen Jesus after death is timeless, but there is a sequence from the perspective of those whose lives were touched. For the Gospel, the ascension visibly ends Jesus' activity on earth; for Acts, it prepares the apostles to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth.

      • (1:3-7) The risen Jesus appears to his disciples for forty days after his passion. Ancient tradition speaks of several appearances of Jesus, but architecturally Acts has grouped them into forty days to correspond to the forty days Jesus spent in the desert before he went, in the power of the Spirit, to begin his ministry in Galilee. In both cases, the author refers to the forty years of wilderness during which God prepared Israel to enter the Promised Land. Here, the preparatory period allows Jesus to give evidence of the resurrection and to present clearly his conception of the kingdom. In this regard, Jesus says, "You do not have to know the times and moments that the Father has set by his own authority." This point is important in the 80s: if the end were to come immediately, it would not be reasonable to write a book for future readers or to consider a mission that would reach the whole world.

      • (1:8-11) The outline of the 2nd volume: "then you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." The narrative of Acts, which begins in Jerusalem, will end in Rome, the center of an empire extending to the known ends of the earth. Just as at the empty tomb, two men (angels) in dazzling clothes appear after Jesus' ascension to interpret the event. It all takes place on the Mount of Olives where God will come at the last judgment and manifest his kingship over all the earth (Zech 14:4-21), where Jesus will return in the same way he was seen leaving.

   2. Awaiting the Spirit- replacement of Judas (1: 12-26)
      • (1:12-15) Numbering of those awaiting the promised coming of the Spirit: the eleven (apostles without Judas), the women, Mary, the mother of Jesus (chronologically, this is the last time the NT mentions her), and the brothers of Jesus pray together in Jerusalem, in the upper room. Each one witnessed in his own way: the public ministry of Jesus and his resurrection for the apostles, the burial and the empty tomb for the women, the birth and youth of Jesus for Mary. The number of believers is estimated at 120 (120 = 10 believers for each of the 12), which reflects the author's penchant for numbers and symbolism.

      • (1:16-20) Judas loses his share of the apostolic ministry. The account of Judas' suicide is quite different from that of Mt 27:3-10. From what the two accounts have in common, we can assume that Judas died quickly and violently and that the early Christians invoked the deaths of wicked characters (Ahitophel, Antiochus IV Epiphanes) from the Old Testament to explain God's punishment of the man who had betrayed Jesus.

      • (1, 21-26) The choice of Matthias. The latter occupies the place of Judas, but this character is of no importance in itself, and will never be mentioned again; what is essential is to restore the number twelve. Israel of old had twelve patriarchs representing the twelve tribes; over time, Levi lost a regular share of the Promised Land, and Joseph's sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) were counted so that the pattern of the twelve would be preserved. The history of renewed Israel in Jesus can begin with no fewer than Twelve. They are not to be a permanent institution in the Church of later centuries, but a unique symbol for the whole of renewed Israel, never to be replaced at their death. The method of casting lots to replace Judas is a way of trusting in God's will.

2. Mission in Jerusalem (2: 1 - 8: 1a)
   1. The Pentecost scene; Peter's sermon (2: 1-36)
      • (2:1-13) The coming of the Spirit. The Feast of Weeks or Pentecost (so called because it was celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the Passover) was a pilgrimage feast at which devout Jews traveled from their homes to the Temple or central sanctuary in Jerusalem. The historical context of the Acts account is that on the pilgrimage feast following the death and resurrection of Jesus, his Galilean disciples and family went to Jerusalem and while they were there, the presence of the Spirit was manifested charismatically when they began to speak in tongues. This was taken as a sign that they were to proclaim publicly what God had done in Jesus.

        Acts gives this event a central place in Christian salvation history. An agricultural feast of thanksgiving among the Jews, celebrated in May or June, it had acquired, like the other Jewish feasts, an additional significance by recalling what God had done for the chosen people in "salvation history. The deliverance from Egypt, in the middle of the first month of the Jewish calendar, was commemorated by the Passover. In the third month, about a month and a half later, the Israelites arrived at Sinai. Thus, Pentecost, occurring at about the same interval after Passover, became the commemoration of God's gift of the covenant to Israel at Sinai, the moment when Israel was called to become the people of God.

        In describing God's appearance at Sinai, Exodus 19 includes thunder and smoke; and the Jewish writer Philo (contemporary with the NT) describes angels taking what God said to Moses at the top of the mountain and transmitting it on tongues to the people on the plain below. The Acts of the Apostles, with its description of the sound of a mighty wind and tongues of fire, echoes this imagery and thus presents Pentecost in Jerusalem as the renewal of God's covenant, once again calling a people to become his own. According to Exodus, in the Sinai covenant, the people who heard the invitation to be God's people and accepted it were the Israelites. Then, with its wide range from the eastern extremities of the Roman Empire (Parthians, Medes, and Elamites) to Rome itself, the author describes the nationalities who, at Pentecost, observed and heard what was accomplished by the Spirit in the renewal of the covenant at Jerusalem. Thus, Acts anticipates the vast scope of evangelization, now begun, that will eventually make the Gentiles themselves the people of God. Implicitly, this Pentecost is more important and far-reaching than the first Pentecost at Sinai.

      • (2:14-36) The first sermon. The reaction of the Spirit-filled disciples speaking in tongues - an ecstatic behavior that, to observers, resembled drunkenness - leads Peter to deliver the first sermon, a sermon that Acts considers the foundational presentation of the Gospel. Peter interprets the Spirit's action at Pentecost as the fulfillment of the signs of the last days announced by the prophet Joel, an interpretation that is consistent with the emphasis on prophecy in Acts.

        Quoting the OT confirms the fundamental consistency of what God has done in Jesus Christ with what the God of Israel has done and promised to the covenant people. Then Peter turns to the account of what God has done in Jesus: a brief summary of his mighty works, his crucifixion and resurrection, culminating in the scriptural evidence that he was the Lord and Messiah. In some ways, this focus on Christology represents a change from the style of Jesus as told in Luke's Gospel. Indeed, Jesus did not speak directly about himself, proclaiming instead the kingdom of God and confronting the received values of his time. But with Acts, confirmed by Paul, the early preachers shifted the focus of their proclamation to Jesus himself, almost as if they could not proclaim the kingdom without first speaking of the one through whom the kingdom was made present. The fundamental gospel became focused on the Christological identity of the risen Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

   2. Reception of the message; Jerusalem communal life (2: 37-45)
      • (2:37-41) The fundamentals of accepting the gospel in question/answer format. What should one do after believing the Christological proclamation?
        1. The first answer: "repent", in continuity with the "baptism of repentance" preached by John the Baptist.

        2. The second answer: that people be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. In the Synoptics, forgiveness of sins was by the power of his word. In Acts, Jesus' power over sin remains, but it is now exercised through baptism; thus, in his second request, Peter goes beyond the model of Jesus' life. Baptism becomes a visible and verifiable profession of their acceptance of Jesus. The basic Israelite concept is that God has chosen to save a people, and so one is saved as a member of God's people. And now one is saved as a member of the church.

        3. The third answer: baptism must be "in the name of Jesus Christ". We are not sure what procedures were used in early baptismal practices, but most likely "in the name of" means that the person being baptized was confessing who Jesus was (and in this sense, pronouncing his name), e.g., "Jesus is Lord"; "Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)"; "Jesus is the Son of God"; "Jesus is the Son of Man". Such baptismal confessions would explain why titles were so commonly applied to Jesus in the NT.

        4. The fourth answer: "You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, ...as many as the Lord our God shall call". Peter and his companions received the Holy Spirit, and now they promise that the same Holy Spirit will be given to all believers. There are no second-class citizens, for the same equality in receiving the gift of the Spirit will hold true when the first Gentiles are baptized.

      • (2:42-47) Four traits of community life. Luke reports that about three thousand of those who heard Peter's sermons responded to his demands and were baptized; he then describes how they lived. Memories are very selective, so we have as much a theology of the early church as a history. The first years in Jerusalem (until about the year 36) are idealized and summarized by four characteristics: koinōnia, prayers, breaking of the bread and teaching of the apostles.
        1. The Greek word koinōnia means: brotherhood, communion, community. It shares the same root as the adjective koinos ("common"). Baptism created an impetus to "come together" and a deep sense of having much in common. Sometimes translated as "brotherhood", koinōnia literally means "communion", i.e. a spirit that binds people together, or "community", i.e. the grouping produced by this spirit. It is possible that koinōnia reflects an ancient Semitic name by which early Christian Jews referred to themselves, as did the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls who referred to themselves as Yahad ("the oneness, unity"). All this entailed the voluntary sharing of goods among the members of the community. If the idealism of Acts exaggerates ("all goods"), the fact that there were common goods in the Dead Sea Scrolls community shows that a picture of sharing is plausible for a Jewish group convinced that the end times have begun and that the riches of this world have lost their meaning. Did this "Christian socialism" impoverish the Jerusalem community? Paul refers to the poor (Christians) in Jerusalem for whom he collected money. The willingness of the Gentiles in the distant churches to share some of their wealth with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem was for Paul a tangible proof of koinōnia that bound Christians together - an outward manifestation of the common faith and common salvation that were at the heart of the "community".

        2. The early Christians were diligent in their prayers. What kind of prayer forms did the early Jews who believed in Jesus use? Since they did not cease to be Jewish in their worship, they continued to say the prayers they knew before, and new prayers would have been formulated according to Jewish models. Among the latter are the hymns or canticles of Luke's infancy narrative, which are most likely Christian compositions that Luke adapted and put on the lips of the first characters of his Gospel. Like the Jewish hymns of that time, they are a pastiche of certain passages from the OT. Moreover, the first Christians would have adopted Jesus' own style of prayer, visible in the Lord's Prayer, some of whose requests echo the requests of the synagogue prayers. Gradually, Christian prayer focused on remembering and praising what Jesus had done, reflecting a growing Christian specificity.

        3. Another characteristic of the first Christians is the breaking of bread. According to Acts, since Peter and John continued to go frequently, even daily, to the Temple to pray at the usual times, as did good, devout Jews, the "breaking of bread" at home (presumably the Eucharist) seems to have been added to, not substituted for, the sacrifices and worship of Israel. How did the early Christians interpret the Eucharist? Paul, writing in the mid-50s (1 Cor 11:23-26), mentions a Eucharistic model that had been handed down to him (presumably, then, from the 30s) and says, "Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." The reminder of the Lord's death may echo the Jewish model of the re-presentation of the Passover (Hebrew: zikkārôn ; Greek: anamnēsis), making present again the great saving act, now moved from the exodus to the crucifixion/resurrection. The "until he comes" reflects an eschatological perspective visible in the Our Father and the Marana tha (Mārâna' 'āthā': "Our Lord, come"), but now attached to a sacred meal. This expectation may have had a particular Jewish background, for the Qumran community envisioned the presence of the Messiah at the end times meal. The fact that the risen Jesus was present at the meals, so that his disciples recognized him in the breaking of the bread, may have been related to the belief in his coming at the celebration of the Eucharist. A sacred meal taken only by those who believed in Jesus was a major manifestation of the koinōnia and ultimately contributed to Christians feeling distinct from other Jews.

        4. The final characteristic is the teaching of the apostles. The Scriptures were authoritative for all Jews, especially the Law and the Prophets; this must also have been true for the first followers of Jesus. Thus, the teaching of the early Christians would have been, for the most part, Jewish teaching. Those points where Jesus modified the Law or departed from other established interpretations of the Law were retained and became the core of a particular teaching. In passing on this teaching, Christian preachers applied it to situations that Jesus had not encountered; and this expanded form of what came from Jesus is probably what Acts means by the teaching of the apostles. This teaching, though secondary to that of the Jewish Scriptures, was authoritative on the specific points it addressed. When it was written down, the resulting compositions were on their way to becoming a second set of Scriptures.

        The four features of Jerusalem community life recorded in Acts show both the continuity with Judaism and the distinctiveness that distinguished Jewish believers in Jesus from other Jews. These aspects were in tension, pulling in opposite directions: the first kept the Christians close to their fellow Jews whom they met in synagogue meetings; the second gave the Christians an identity of koinōnia and the possibility of being self-sufficient. External factors of rejection and reaction, however, had to intervene before Christians became a distinctly separate religious group.

   3. Activity, preaching, and trials of the apostles (3: 1 - 5: 42)
      • (3:1-10) A healing of Peter and John. Peter and the apostles are pursuing the same work as Jesus and with the same power. The healing is done "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," that is, it is done by the power of the heavenly Christ, not by any personal power of the apostles.

      • (3:11-26) Sermon following the healing. Just as in the Gospel Luke combined healings and words in Jesus' ministry, so Peter's healing is followed by a sermon. This sermon ends with a challenge based on Moses' promise in Deut 18:15 (God would raise up a prophet like him to be heeded), just as the previous sermon referred to the prophet Joel's promise about the gift of the Spirit. And just as in the previous sermon, the requirement to "repent" or "change your mind" appears (metanoein), but now with greater precision. The Jews of Jerusalem handed over and denied Jesus, the servant of God, in the presence of Pilate, denying the Holy and Righteous One. But they acted in ignorance, as did their leaders, and that is why they are offered this chance to change. However, in the face of apostolic preaching, ignorance ceases to be an excuse, and a change of mind/heart is necessary if they are to receive Jesus as the Messiah when he is sent down from heaven. Unfortunately, while many people did change afterwards, most Jewish leaders did not.

      • (4:1-22) The arrest of Peter and John. This arrest stems from the success of the apostolic preaching. The priests and Sadducees are disturbed by the fact that Peter and John have proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. A meeting of the Sanhedrin composed of leaders, elders, scribes and high priests is called against them, as it was for Jesus. The questioners focus on the miracle, asking in whose name they did it. Peter answers without hesitation: "It is in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, crucified by you, raised from the dead by God... for no other name under heaven is offered to men, which is necessary for our salvation." The same Peter who had denied Jesus, and for whom the Lucan Jesus had prayed, now openly and confidently confesses his faith. Annoyed by the audacity of the religious proclamation of the apostles, who had not received any formal education in religion or the Law of Moses, the Sanhedrin authorities brutally interrupt the debate and arbitrarily order Peter and John not to speak in the name of Jesus.

      • (4:23-31) Triumphal prayer of praise to God. Coming out of the Sanhedrin, Peter and John tell their co-religionists what has happened; it is a prayer of praise that compares the forces that had lined up in Jerusalem against Jesus (Herod and Pilate, the pagans and the "peoples" of Israel) to the forces that are now issuing threats against his disciples. All believers are filled with the Holy Spirit and, thus strengthened, they proclaim the word of God with boldness.

      • (4:32-35) A summary, which emphasizes one of the characteristics of community, specifically having things in common (koinos). Two examples follow. The first concerns Barnabas who sold a field and brought the money to the apostles to contribute to the common fund. In addition to positively illustrating the spirit of the koinōnia, this reference sets the stage for the future story. Barnabas is a Levite, and Acts 6:7 will tell us that many priests (who would have been from the tribe of Levi) began to believe. Moreover, Barnabas is a native of Cyprus; and when, later in Antioch, he becomes a missionary with Paul, they will first go to Cyprus (13:1-4).

      • (5:1-11) Ananias and Sapphira represent the second example of community characteristics, but a negative one that illustrates the divine punishment meted out to those who violate the purity of the early community. No story better captures the Israelite mentality of the early believers. The Twelve were destined to sit on thrones to judge Israel; here, through Peter, judgment is exercised on renewed Israel. In the Old Testament (Joshua 7), Israel's attempt to enter victoriously beyond Jericho into the heart of the Promised Land failed because Achan had secretly hidden for himself property that was to be dedicated to God. His deception led God to judge that Israel had sinned and needed to be cleansed. Only when Achan was put to death and his possessions were burned could Israel move forward as a people who were to be perfect as God is perfect. Likewise, renewed Israel was desecrated by the deceptive retention of goods that were supposed to have gone into the common fund. The impurity is eradicated by Peter's judgment which brings about the fatal action of God. It is in describing the fear produced by this intervention that Acts first uses the term "church".

      • (5:12-42) The second confrontation of the apostles with the Sanhedrin, which has many parallels to the first, illustrates the author's affection for passages in symmetrical pairs as a means of intensifying an issue. This time it is not a single healing but many signs and wonders. People, even from surrounding villages, begin to bring their sick to be healed by the apostles, especially Peter. Once again, the chief priests and Sadducees have the apostles arrested, but they are frustrated when an angel of the Lord releases them to return to the Temple, a release that is all the more ironic because the Sadducees do not believe in angels. Thus, the session of the Sanhedrin convened to discuss the apostles must have them arrested again; and as with the arrest of Jesus, care must be taken not to excite the people. Peter expresses his distrust of the high priest with a memorable phrase: "We must obey God rather than men", then he delivers a Christological sermon as if he hoped to convert the Sanhedrin. The fury generated reaches the point of wanting to kill the apostles, but it is interrupted by the intervention of the famous Pharisee Gamaliel I (who would have lived in Jerusalem at that time). The Acts of the Apostles did not mention the Pharisees in opposition to the followers of Jesus, and now the Pharisee Gamaliel advocates tolerance for them. Giving examples of other failed movements, he sums up the situation: "If this work is of human beings, it will fail; if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it." Gamaliel's advice prevails.

   4. The Hellenists; toleration; Stephen's trial and martyrdom (6: 1 - 8: 1a)

      Here begins a period (about 36?) when, with the exception of the brief reign of the Jewish king Herod Agrippa in Palestine (41-44), the branch of the Jerusalem Church closely associated with the Twelve was not persecuted. This period would end around the year 62 when James, the Lord's brother and leader of the Jerusalem Church, was put to death. During these years of peace (36-40, 45-62), Paul was able to go to Jerusalem at least three times and see the leaders of the church without having to hide.

      • (6:1-6) A hostile division among the Christians in Jerusalem. Acts is probably drawing on an old tradition here, and the narrative is sketchy: the commons are no longer a sign of koinōnia, because two groups of Jewish believers within the Jerusalem community are fighting over them. Why? The designation of one group as Hellenists (like the Greeks), whose leaders bear Greek names, suggests that they were Jews who spoke (only?) Greek and had been raised acculturating to Greco-Roman civilization. Deductively, by contrast, the other group called the Hebrews would have spoken Aramaic or Hebrew (sometimes Greek as well) and would have been more culturally Jewish in their outlook. Beyond the cultural difference, there was apparently also a theological difference. The apostles, who were clearly Hebrew Christians, did not let their faith in Jesus prevent them from attending the Temple. In contrast, Stephen, who would become the leader of the Hellenists, speaks as if the Temple no longer had any meaning. In fact, we know that the Jews of that time were sharply divided over whether the Temple in Jerusalem was the only place on earth where sacrifices could be offered to God, so it is not unlikely that Jews of opposing convictions on this issue could have become believers in Jesus. In any case, the disagreement between these Jerusalem Christians took on a financial face, as the Hebrews (certainly the largest group) attempted to force the Hellenists to conform to Hebrew traditions by closing the common fund to Hellenist widows, who were presumably totally dependent on this support.

        In order to deal with this situation, the Twelve summon "the multitude" of disciples (perhaps a technical name for those who could vote) to settle the matter. Although Hebrews themselves, the Twelve do not demand that the Hellenists comply or leave. Moreover, they refuse to take over the administration of the common property; in particular, they do not wish to be involved in serving tables to ensure fair distribution of food. Instead, they wish to allow the Hellenists to have their own leaders and administrators of the commons.

        This brief scene offers important food for thought.

        1. First, nowhere do we see more clearly the unique role of the Twelve in maintaining the integrity of God's renewed people. They preserve the koinōnia by their solution, for Hellenists must remain fully recognized brothers and sisters in Christ.

        2. Second, the acceptance of the suggestion made by the Twelve was a decision of the early Church in favor of pluralism and what we today call "the hierarchy of doctrines" (not all doctrines are equally important). The cultural and theological disagreements that existed in Jerusalem between the Hebrews and the Hellenists were implicitly considered less important than their common belief in Jesus. Most believers in Jesus decided early on that it was better to tolerate certain differences in practice and thought than to destroy a koinōnia based on Christology.

        3. Third, with regard to the structure of the church, no plan had come from Jesus to show how the community of those who believed in him was to be governed. At the time described here (about 36?), believers are growing in number and contending with each other - two sociological factors that always lead to the need to define leadership more clearly. As a result, we hear of the seven becoming administrators of the Hellenistic believers. It is likely that administrators appear at the same time for the Hebrew Christian community, for now James (the Lord's brother) and the elders (presbyters) appear as authorities in Jerusalem, alongside the apostles. Here, the choice of administrators is made in the context of prayer and the laying on of hands. Although the development of the church structure reflects a sociological necessity, for the believer the Holy Spirit guided these decisions, and thus embodies the will of the risen Jesus.

        4. Fourth, by keeping the Hellenists within the Christian koinōnia, the Jerusalem community now became responsible for the actions and preaching of the Hellenist leaders, especially their attacks on the Temple. All of this did not make for easy relations with the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, who, while they could tolerate those who believed in the risen Christ, would not accept attacks on the Temple.

      • (6:7 - 8:1a) A summary and conflict centered on Stephen. A summary about the spread of God's word and the conversion of the priests sets the stage for a conflict centered on Stephen. The latter, the first of the Hellenists, arouses opposition in a Jerusalem synagogue attended largely by foreign Jews. They drag him before a Sanhedrin and make a (false) accusation about the message he is preaching, in general his remarks against Moses and the Law, and in particular that Jesus would destroy the Temple sanctuary. In his long speech in response to the Temple accusation, Stephen will formulate these radical implications in the final statement: "The Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands."
        Stephen's long discourse presents salvation history from the patriarch Abraham to Israel's entry into the Promised Land under Moses and Joshua. This history does not reflect the standard understanding of the OT, so some biblical scholars have proposed that we have here a reflection of a Samaritan background in harmony with the mission to Samaria soon to be undertaken by the Hellenists. The final verses are surprisingly polemical from a prisoner in the dock, as Stephen accuses his listeners of giving in and murdering the righteous Jesus as their fathers persecuted the prophets. Not surprisingly, this accusation brings the rage against Stephen to a head, and he is driven out of the city and stoned to death. This scene is truly significant, not only because Stephen is the first Christian martyr, but also because Stephen's death in Acts corresponds so closely to Jesus' death in Luke:
        • the reference to the Son of Man at the right hand of God
        • prayer for the forgiveness of those who carry out this execution
        • the dying character recommends his spirit to heaven
        As the figure of Peter shows continuity with Jesus' ministry of healing and preaching, the figure of Stephen showed continuity with Jesus' death. And just as Jesus' death was not the end, since the apostles will receive the Spirit to continue his mission, so Stephen's death will not be the end, since a man named Saul, who watches the stoning scene, will continue Stephen's work.

3. Missions in Samaria and Judea (8: 1b - 12: 25)
   1. Dispersal from Jerusalem; Philip and Peter in Samaria (8: 1b-25)

      Acts 1:8 outlined the divine plan of evangelization: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Now that the witness in Jerusalem has taken place, it is time for the other regions, as the Hellenists are scattered in Judea and Samaria because of persecution. These Hellenists are the most radical Christians in their relationship to Jewish Temple worship, and their converts to Jesus have no deep attachment to the essential characteristics of Jewish worship.

      The Hellenists went to the Samaritans and thus began to preach Jesus to the non-Jews. They are ideally placed to evangelize Samaria, for the Samaritans did not accept the Temple in Jerusalem as the only place of worship. The success of their proclamation attracts Simon the magician. However, it was Peter, not Philip, Stephen's Hellenist successor, who had to confront him, because the Church in Jerusalem, having heard of the success of the Hellenists, had sent Peter and John so that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit. Simon wants the power of the apostles and offers money to obtain it, thus forever immortalizing his name in "simony" (selling or buying spiritual goods). Peter challenges him to repent; however, unlike Stephen's prayer for his opponents, it is unclear whether Simon can truly change his heart. On their way back to Jerusalem, Peter and John also preach to the Samaritans.

   2. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch en route to Gaza (8: 26-40)

      More of the Hellenistic evangelizing takes place in the southern part of Judea, which is evidence of geographical expansion. The Ethiopian eunuch, minister of Candace, comes from an exotic part of Africa (probably not modern Ethiopia, but Sudan or Nubia, south of Egypt - one of the "ends of the earth"). He reads Isaiah, and the Hellenist Philip's ability to interpret the prophet in order to explain Christ is a continuation of the risen Jesus' interpretation of Scripture for his disciples. Although Deut 23:2 excludes the admission of the castrated into the community of Israel, Philip does not hesitate to respond to the eunuch's request to be baptized into the community of renewed Israel. This openness prepares us for the admission of the Gentiles and, by way of transition, Acts stops here to tell us about Saul/Paul who will be the great emissary to the Gentiles.

   3. Saul en route to Damascus; return to Jerusalem and Tarsus (9: 1-31)

      After telling the story of Saul/Paul's conversion here, the author will later relate it twice more from Paul's mouth in his self-defense speeches. Luke proceeds step by step in Paul's vocation to evangelize the Gentiles: Ananias, who heals and baptizes him, is informed of the future mission, but not Saul himself. First of all, because of Paul's major role, Luke wants to present us with the story of his conversion by Jesus himself. The dramatic touches of the story are superb, for example the personalization of Saul's hostility: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Ananias' reluctance to have anything to do with Saul, despite the Lord's instruction, highlights Saul's metamorphosis into a truly formidable persecutor. Acts is careful to point out that Saul has received the Holy Spirit, for Paul's proclamation will ultimately be as powerful as that of Peter and the others who received the Spirit at Pentecost. In significant harmony with the earlier emphasis in Acts on Christological belief, the new convert preaches that "Jesus is the Son of God". Acts also lays the groundwork for Barnabas' future activity with Paul by telling us that it was Barnabas who supported Saul against those in Jerusalem who could not believe that the persecutor had now changed. Probably under the constraint of the present chronology, Acts postpones Saul/Paul's most famous activities by telling us that he has returned to Tarsus; his great mission will be described later, after the author has told us more about Peter. As a narrative device, the superimposition of the two characters shows that the same gospel is preached by both.

   4. Peter at Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (9: 32 - 11: 18)
      • (9:31-43) A transitional summary, the healing of Aeneas and Peter's revival of Tabitha. With the Church experiencing a moment of peace, Peter returns to the forefront. Peter's healing of Aeneas at Lydda, with the command to rise, closely echoes Jesus' healing of the paralyzed man (Lk 5:24-26). Even more, Peter's revival of Tabitha in Joppa resembles Jesus' action in raising Jairus' daughter (Lk 8:49-56). No power has been denied to the Church, not even the power over death itself. We are now on the verge of crossing the boundary not crossed by Jesus as Peter's action takes Christianity out of Judaism, to the Gentiles and to Rome, the representative of the ends of the earth.

      • (10:1 - 11:18) The baptism of Cornelius and the aftermath. It is led by the Spirit that Peter has Cornelius (and his family) baptized, a Gentile who participates in the prayers of the synagogue and accepts the moral requirements of Judaism. He later repeats what happened in a first-person report as he defends his behavior before the Christians in Jerusalem (as with the repetitions of the story of Paul's conversion, the duplication indicates that this is a critically important story). The narrative of Acts has six subdivisions:
        1. 10:1-8: The pious Roman centurion Cornelius receives in Caesarea a vision of an angel of God telling him to send to Joppa for Simon called Peter;

        2. 10:9-16: In Joppa, Peter receives a vision that tells him three times that foods traditionally considered ritually unclean are not in fact unclean;

        3. 10:17-23a: Reflecting on the vision, Peter receives the men sent by Cornelius who ask him to come to Cornelius' house;

        4. 10:23b-33: Cornelius receives Peter and they compare their visions;

        5. 10:34-49: Peter preached a sermon, and the Holy Spirit came upon the uncircumcised present, so Peter commanded them to be baptized;

        6. 11:1-18: Back in Jerusalem, Peter must give an account of his boldness in baptizing the Gentiles.

        Since heavenly revelations are addressed to Cornelius and Peter, readers are expected to recognize that what happens here is solely the will of God.

        1. First, were Christians bound by Jewish rules concerning kosher foods? The thesis that all food is ritually pure in the eyes of God is a major break with Jewish practice, a break which will now be supported not only by the Hellenistic radicals but also by the first of the Twelve. Gradually it becomes clear that new wine cannot be put into old wineskins.

        2. Second, did Gentiles have to be circumcised to receive baptism and the grace of Christ? Implicitly or explicitly, those who insisted that Gentiles should be circumcised (i.e., become Jews) argued that being a Jew took precedence over faith in Christ in terms of the grace of God. Peter is depicted as rejecting this idea in word and deed. Note that the Hellenists were the first to accept uncircumcised pagans into the Christian koinōnia. However, since Paul portrays Peter (or Cephas) as being present in Antioch to deal with the Gentiles (Gal 2:11-12) and perhaps in Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5), it is probably the memory that among the leaders in Jerusalem Peter was the first to show such openness, hence the ability of Peter or his image to appeal to both sides of the Christian community. In any case, the acceptance of Cornelius is a major step, accompanied by an outpouring of the Spirit manifested in speaking in tongues, comparable to Pentecost - the beginning of the Church of the Gentiles comparable to the beginning of the Church of the renewed Israel.

        The radical nature of what Peter did and proclaimed is now challenged by fellow members of the Jerusalem church: "Why did you go to the uncircumcised and eat with them?" It is not clear whether this Christian "circumcision party" was actually opposed to the conversion of the Gentiles to the belief in Christ or whether it simply insisted that the Gentiles could only be converted after becoming Jews. Peter responds to the circumcision party by recounting his visions and the coming of the Spirit upon the house of Cornelius. This existential argument silences the circumcision party (for the time being) and leads to the acceptance of Gentiles into the existing Jewish Christian groups.

   5. Antioch; Jerusalem; Herod's persecution; Peter's departure (11: 19 - 12: 25)
      • (11:19-26) The church at Antioch. It is in Antioch that the followers of Jesus are first called "Christians," the name by which they will be known for the rest of time. As part of his technique of simultaneity, the author now takes up the story of the Hellenists, interrupted in chap. 8, when they were scattered from Jerusalem to Samaria. We are belatedly told that they also went to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (in Syria), preaching at first only to the Jews, then gradually to the Gentiles as well. Although a Hebrew Christian like Peter accepted a Gentile household into the community, it seems that the aggressive effort to convert Gentiles began with the Hellenists. When Jerusalem heard this, Barnabas was sent to Antioch to check on the developments, and he approved it. This becomes the occasion to bring Saul to Antioch. Thus, Antioch develops as a second major Christian center, more dynamic than Jerusalem in the mission.

      • (11:27 - 12:25) A famine and persecution. At this time, Jerusalem and Judea are particularly affected by a famine foretold by Agabus and by a change in the political situation where direct Roman rule has been replaced in 41-44 by a Jewish kingdom resulting in the persecution of Christians under Herod-Agrippa I. The famine offers the Christians in Antioch the opportunity to show koinōnia by sharing goods with the poorer believers in Judea; the persecution offers the Christians in Jerusalem the opportunity to bear witness through martyrdom, as James, son of Zebedee, brother of John and one of the Twelve, is put to death (c. 41). Now it is not just the leaders who are hostile to Christians, it is now the whole Jewish people who are associated with Herod's anti-Christian hostility. Readers are prepared for a situation in which Judaism and Christianity are not only distinct but hostile. Thus, Peter is imprisoned. But again, God intervenes through an angel to free him. These divine interventions show God's care for the great spokesmen of the Gospel. Once freed, Peter says, "Go and tell James and the brothers." Why James? It is likely that as soon as an administrative role was created for the Hebrew element of the Jerusalem church, James filled it, which is not illogical since he was related to Jesus by family ties. Then, Acts describes the account of the sudden and horrible death of King Herod Agrippa in 44 AD; Luke offers us a theological interpretation of this sudden death: those who dare to raise their hand against God's people suffer divine punishment. Finally, the stories of famine and persecution in Jerusalem end on a triumphant note: the persecutor has fallen, the word of God grows and multiplies, and Barnabas and Saul bring John Mark (the evangelist?) back to Antioch.

4. Mission of Barnabas and Saul Converting Gentiles; Approval at Jerusalem (13: 1 - 15: 35)
   1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul: Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia Minor (13: 1 - 14: 28)
      • (13:1-3) Brief description of the church at Antioch. If Jerusalem has the apostles (i.e. the Twelve), Antioch has the prophets and teachers, among whom Acts places Barnabas and Saul. Barnabas is mentioned first and Saul last; it is only during the course of the mission that Paul's name will begin to be used systematically instead of Saul and the order will be reversed to Paul and Barnabas. We are told that the prophets and teachers of Antioch "performed a liturgical service to the Lord and fasted"; fasting became a part of the life of the early church. What was the liturgical service? Was it a eucharist? In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. This is not an anachronistic ordination, but a mandate from the church in Antioch for a mission that is often considered the first Pauline journey and is dated around 46-49.

      • (13:4-12) Barnabas and Saul in Cyprus, with John Mark. This is Barnabas' home country, and we go to the Jewish synagogues. Saul's encounter in Cyprus and his victory over the false prophet and magician, Bar-Jesus, draws a parallel with Peter's encounter with Simon the magician in Samaria. The enemies of the Gospel are not simply earthly forces.

      • (13:13-50) To Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor. This is perhaps the most adventurous extension of the mission, and it may have been what prompted John Mark to leave and return to Jerusalem. A later reference (15:37-39) shows that this departure left Paul with a bad memory. The author makes what happened in Antioch of Pisidia an example of the Pauline mission. There, Paul (henceforth named) delivers a sermon in a synagogue which, with its appeal to the OT and its summary of what God has done in Jesus, is not unlike the sermons preached earlier by Peter. Thus, we have the image of a coherent message preached by the two great figures who dominate the history of the early Church, Peter and Paul. The Jewish reaction is initially favorable, but on the following Sabbath there was hostility from the "Jews" so that Paul and Barnabas shifted their proclamation to the Gentiles.

      • (13:51 - 14:28) To Iconium, then to Lystra and Derbe. Driven out of Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas go to Iconium where they will spend a considerable period of time, applying the same procedure and receiving the same reactions; and once again they must move, this time to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe. In Lystra, Paul is shown healing a man crippled from birth - the healing power of Jesus, which had been passed on to Peter in his dealings with the Jews of Jerusalem, was passed on to Paul in his dealings with the Gentiles. The strong reaction of the Gentiles, who greeted Barnabas and Paul as the gods Zeus and Hermes, reflected the ethos of a different world where the message of the one God had not really taken root, making the preaching of Christ all the more difficult. The hostility aroused by the Jews of the previous city pursued Paul; he was stoned and left for dead. But Paul recovers and continues his journey with Barnabas to Derbe. The two disciples retrace their steps through the cities of Asia Minor and then return to Antioch in Syria. Acts briefly mentions that they appoint presbyters (or elders) in each church, which allows us to affirm that, when Acts was written, presbyters existed in these churches and that their status was considered part of the Pauline heritage. The journey ends with a report to the church in Antioch that had sent Paul and Barnabas: "God has opened a door of faith to the Gentiles."

   2. Jerusalem conference and approval; return to Antioch (15: 1-35)
      • (15:1-30) The conference in Jerusalem. What Paul had done did not please the circumcision party in Jerusalem, who now sent people to Antioch to challenge the acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles. One would have thought that this issue had already been settled in Jerusalem (Acts 11) when Peter justified his acceptance of the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius. However, it was one thing to incorporate a few Gentiles into a largely Jewish Christian community; it was quite another to be confronted with whole churches of Gentiles such as those Paul had founded, churches that had little to do with Judaism except that they held the Jewish Scriptures in veneration. The circumcision party may have been much more realistic than Paul in their fears that Christianity would become almost entirely a pagan religion, which of course it did. Far from being grafted onto the tree of Israel, Gentile Christians will become the tree. To prevent this predictable catastrophe, Paul's opponents attack the principle that Gentiles can be admitted without becoming Jews (i.e. being circumcised). They cause so much trouble that Paul and Barnabas have to go to Jerusalem to debate the issue. What follows is an account of what may be considered the most important meeting ever held in the history of Christianity, for implicit in the Jerusalem conference was the decision that the following of Jesus would soon overtake Judaism and become a separate religion reaching the ends of the earth.

        We are fortunate to have two accounts, one in Acts 15, the other in Galatians 2, and this double perspective tells us a lot about the great personalities of early Christianity. For example, in Galatians 2:1, Paul says, "I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also"; Acts 15:2 says that "Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem." The fact that they went to Jerusalem at the request of the church in Antioch may well be the more accurate picture, even though Paul emphasizes his initiative to cooperate.

        Acts indicates that those in Jerusalem had the power to decide the matter. Paul speaks disparagingly of the "so-called pillars" whose reputations were of no importance to him; but this very title implies that their reputations were of importance to others, and that in the long run Paul could not stand alone. Although he received his gospel (of grace freely given to the Gentiles) by a revelation from Jesus Christ and would not change it even if an angel told him to, he raises the possibility that he ran in vain. Indeed, if these "pillars" denied the Gentile churches the koinōnia with the mother church in Jerusalem, there would be a division that would negate the very nature of the church. Thus, despite Paul's certainty about the thoroughness of his gospel, the outcome of the Jerusalem meeting for the communities he had evangelized was uncertain.

        The fact that Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, was taken along is a clever move. It is likely that some of the Christian Pharisees who supported circumcision had never seen any of the uncircumcised Gentiles whom they denied were true Christians; and it is always more difficult to confront people who clearly believe in Christ and say to them face to face, "You are not Christians because you do not agree with me." Another cautious approach by Paul is to first make his case in private before those who had a reputation in Jerusalem. The initial reactions of the authorities are often defensive; when expressed privately, they can be modified later without losing face. Public "face-to-face" confrontations with the authorities usually express only short-sightedness.

        The public dispute in Jerusalem is at the heart of the story. Four participants are involved, two predictable ones (in opposing camps: the supporters of circumcision and Paul), one less predictable (Peter), and one unpredictable (James). It is understandable, given the focus of Galatians, that Paul's account focuses on his own role, not yielding even for a moment to submission and convincing the reputed pillars of the truth of his gospel. Yet it is Barnabas and Paul who are given the least space in Acts, placing their report between the words of Peter and James, an arrangement that gives the impression that it is the latter who have prevailed. One must read between the lines of the two accounts. The issue was the missionary activity of Paul and Barnabas, and in that sense the conference was Paul-centered. Yet perhaps the real suspense was centered on what James was going to say, since he was taking the Jerusalem church with him. This is implied by Galatians 2:9, which places James as the first "pillar" of the church, ahead of Cephas (Peter) and John.

        What is the reasoning of the participants? Paul recounts his actions among the Gentiles (Acts) and the gospel he preaches to them (Galatians), which certainly means an account of how these people came to faith without circumcision. Peter's argument is also based on experience (Acts): God had sent the Holy Spirit upon the uncircumcised Cornelius. James' argument is reasoned (Acts) and, as one would expect from a conservative Hebrew Christian, is based on Scripture. The prophets predicted that the Gentiles would come, and the Law of Moses allowed uncircumcised Gentiles to live among God's people provided they refrained from certain listed pollutions. Unfortunately, we do not hear the arguments put forth by the circumcision party, other than the simple statement in Acts 15:5 that the Law of Moses required circumcision.

        Even more significant is the puzzling silence about Jesus. None of the proponents of admitting Gentiles without circumcision mention Jesus' example, saying, "Jesus told us to do it." And, of course, the reason is that he never told them to do so. Indeed, one suspects that the only ones who might have mentioned Jesus would have been those of the circumcision party, arguing precisely that there was no authorization from him for such a radical departure from the Law. Even Paul remembers Jesus as being "born under the Law". This is perhaps the first of many times when those who resisted change in the Church did so by arguing that Jesus never did this, while those who encouraged change did so by invoking the implication of the risen Christ for a situation that the historical Jesus did not encounter. In any event, Acts and Galatians agree that Peter (and John) and James maintained the koinōnia with Paul and his Gentile churches. The road was now open for free and effective evangelizing to the ends of the earth. In fact, this road would also lead away from Judaism. Even though the Savior for the Gentiles was a Jew born under the Law, Christianity would soon be seen as a Gentile religion quite alien to Judaism, especially to a Judaism for which the Law would become even more important after the destruction of the Temple.

      • (15:30-35) The return to Antioch. It is with a letter of clarification that circumcision was not to be required of Gentile converts that Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch. However, the Gentiles are required to refrain from four things proscribed by Lev 17-18 for foreigners living among Israel:
        1. meat offered to idols,
        2. the consumption of blood,
        3. the consumption of strangled animals (i.e. animals that have not been ritually slaughtered),
        4. incestuous unions (porneia, "impurity", but here with family members).

        A plausible combination of the two sources of information might yield the following result. Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch with the good news that the absence of circumcision has been recognized. However, there is some debate as to whether Gentile Christians are bound by the dietary laws obeyed by the Jewish Christians who make up the church alongside them. Paul argues that they are not bound, and Peter participates in this free practice until men from James come to demand specific practices of the dietary laws. Peter gives in to James, much to Paul's anger. Paul's loss of such an important supporter may have influenced his departure for his next mission. Paul's letters show that in the churches he evangelized (where Gentile Christians would have been the majority), his converts were not bound by Jewish dietary laws. In the area where James of Jerusalem had influence (Acts 15:23: Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, where Jewish Christians were probably in the majority), the Gentiles were bound. The Jerusalem conference preserved the koinōnia on the essentials for conversion: the Gentiles did not have to become Jews. However, this did not guarantee uniformity of lifestyle. Paul considers freedom from dietary laws so important that he calls it a matter of gospel truth (Gal 2:14); apparently others do not attach as much importance to it.

5. Mission of Paul to the Ends of the Earth (15: 36 - 28: 31)

   The second half of Acts now becomes almost exclusively the story of Paul. We hear about his travels which take him twice to Corinth in Greece and cover the years 50-58. It is more than likely that it was during this period that Paul wrote most of his undisputed correspondence that has been preserved for us. The combination of the Jerusalem decision, which allowed the churches to freely accept Gentiles, and the Antioch dispute, which threw Paul into isolation, seems to have catalyzed the most creative period of Paul's life.

   1. From Antioch through Asia Minor to Greece and return (15: 36 - 18: 22)
      • (15:36 - 16:5) Paul's dispute with Barnabas and John Mark, and departure on mission. In the Antioch conflict, Barnabas and John Mark may well have accepted the position demanded by James' men; for Acts, which is silent on the struggle between Paul and Peter, Paul's quarrel with Barnabas and Mark is such that they could no longer travel together. So Paul takes Silas with him on another mission, the first part of which takes him to Syria and his native Cilicia. Then Paul returns to Lystra and Derbe. This visit is the occasion of Timothy's circumcision, the historicity of which is questioned by scholars who find it inconceivable that Paul would have changed his position on circumcision, even to win converts. However, if Timothy was considered a Jew, there is no clear evidence that Paul wanted Jewish Christians to renounce circumcision.

      • (16:6-10) Through Phrygia and Galatia to Troas. It is at Troas that Paul receives a vision of the man from Macedonia pleading for help, which prompts him to cross into Greece. The author of Acts sees this as a moment of divine inspiration. (The "we" form of narration begins at Troas and continues through the crossing to Philippi; thus, the author's personal involvement may have enhanced his appreciation of the moment.) The spread of the Christian faith in Macedonia, and thus in Europe, is presented almost as a manifest destiny.

      • (16: 11-40). The evangelizing at Philippi shows us the best and worst of a mission among the Gentiles. The generous openness and support of Lydia, a Gentile follower of the Jewish cult, is a model for the Christian household. On the other hand, the legal and financial problems posed by the girl who had a spirit of divination remind us that Paul was dealing with a foreign and superstitious world. In the rest of the story, the miraculous opening of the prison echoes the scenes of Peter's miraculous release and shows that God is with his emissary to the Gentiles. The complexity of Paul's trial, because he is a Roman citizen, illustrates how the early Christians, in order to survive, had to use all available means, including Roman law. The "we" form of narration ceases when Paul leaves Philippi, so it is possible that the unnamed companion remained there for seven years (AD 51 to 58) until Paul returned to Philippi.

      • (17: 1-14). At Thessalonica Paul faces the same kind of Jewish opposition that marred his mission in Asia Minor before the Jerusalem conference. The list of charges against Paul and his followers resembles the list of charges against Luke's Jesus before Pilate. Compelled by Jewish opposition, Paul goes to Beroea, where, in an interesting gesture of impartiality, the author tells us that the Jews were more noble and less contentious.

      • (17:15-34) Paul goes to Athens. We are presented with a dramatic background of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers trying to fit this new teaching into their categories. Luke knows the agora or public square and the Areopagus Hill; he phrases the sermon delivered there in fine Greek and makes it witness to an awareness of the city's many temples and statues. The play on the altar to an unknown god and the philosophical and poetic quotations offer a cultivated approach to the message about Christ, quite different from the approach of the other sermons in Acts. Perhaps the masterful touch of the scene is the reaction of the cosmopolitan audience to this eloquence: some mock, some reject Paul, some believe. The first letter to the Corinthians will testify to the lesson Paul learned from his Athens experience: "When I came to you, brothers, it was not with the prestige of speech or wisdom... I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ crucified."

      • (18:1-18) Paul's stay in Corinth. It is from there that Paul writes 1 Thessalonians, our earliest surviving Christian writing; and he will much later address correspondence to Corinth, which allows us to know more about this Pauline church than any other. Aquila and Priscilla (Paul uses the name "Prisca"), whom he met there, would appear later in Paul's correspondence and career. They had come from Rome (probably already as Christians) and would eventually return there to be part of Paul's contacts with Rome before he even got there. We can see Paul forming a circle of colleagues and friends who would be in contact with him throughout his life. The reference to making tents at the beginning of Paul's stay in Corinth reminds us of the indication in his letters that he was normally self-supporting and did not ask his hearers for personal financial help. Once again, we see the hostility of the Jews, so that Paul is brought before the court of the Roman proconsul Gallion, a person whose presence in Corinth provides a very important key to dating Paul's mission in Corinth to the year 51 to 52. The return from Corinth to Antioch is condensed into a brief (and somewhat confusing) account, as Paul passes through Ephesus, Caesarea and Jerusalem on the way.

   2. From Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and return to Caesarea (18: 23 - 21: 14)
      • (18:23 - 19:40 [41]) Ephesus. After some time, Paul leaves Antioch and travels through Galatia and Phrygia. While Paul is on the road, we are told of the presence in Ephesus of Apollos, who came from Alexandria, and then, at the beginning of Paul's stay in Ephesus, of others, who believed in Jesus but had received only the baptism of John and did not know the Holy Spirit. Little is said about how such a situation could have existed - were these people evangelized by some who knew Jesus during his ministry but left Palestine before the crucifixion and resurrection?
        Paul stays in Ephesus for about three years. There Paul heals alongside Jewish exorcists who attempt to cast out evil spirits using the name of Jesus. The struggle between those who appealed to Jesus plays an important role in much of the Pauline correspondence written from Ephesus (Galatians? Philipians? Philemon? 1 Corinthians). The refrain that "the word of the Lord was spreading" indicates that besides Jerusalem and Antioch, Christianity now has another important center, Ephesus, and that Paul's ministry has been blessed as has that of the Twelve. Acts 19:21 is the first indication of Paul's ultimate plan to go to Rome via Greece and Jerusalem, an important anticipation of how the book will end. A picturesque account of the goldsmiths' riot, centered on Artemis or Diana of the Ephesians, ends Paul's stay.

      • (20:1-16) The Return to Greece. Paul's travels through Macedonia to Greece, i.e. Corinth, where he stays for three months, are briefly recounted. (During this period, around the year 57/58, he writes 2 Corinthians before arriving in Corinth, and Romans from Corinth). ) Then he goes back to Macedonia and Philippi. The "we" form of narration resumes when Paul goes from Philippi to Troas where he raises the dead, just as Peter raised Tabitha in Joppa. It would be interesting to know if Paul's breaking of the bread in 20:11 means that he presided over the eucharist. In a hurry to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost (AD 58), Paul sails along the coast of Asia Minor to Miletus, bypassing Ephesus.

      • (20:17-38) The Farewell at Miletus. At Miletus, Paul delivers an eloquent farewell sermon to the presbyters of the church at Ephesus. This sermon has great value as a guide to how the author of Acts views the presbyters who inherit the care of the church from Paul. The Pastoral Epistles contain information suggesting that Paul returned to Asia Minor in the mid-60s. The Acts of the Apostles makes no mention of this, so the sermon is Paul's last instruction to those he will never see again. He begins by highlighting his work, reflecting on how he had served the Lord; then he begins to foresee the imprisonment and afflictions he must now endure. This man, who had first come face to face with the profession of Christ in Jerusalem some twenty years earlier, at the trial and stoning of Stephen, is led by the Spirit to return to that city where he will be judged amidst cries for his death. In this disturbing context, Paul exhorts the presbyters he leaves behind to be the guardians of the flock entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit. The most pressing danger to be faced, as in the Pastoral Epistles, is false teaching: "those who speak perverse things in order to attract disciples" (Acts 20:30). Paul emphasizes that he was self-supporting, not coveting anyone's money or gold and warning against the corrupting love of money, a persistent temptation since presbyters managed the common funds.

      • (20:39 - 21:14) From Caesarea. After this farewell at Miletus, the journey back to Palestine continues, taking Paul to Tyre, where he bids another dramatic farewell, and then to Caesarea. There, in the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the Seven, and in the presence of his four daughter-prophets, the prophet Agabus, who had come from Judea, warns Paul by a symbolic gesture of his imprisonment. Thus, Paul's journey to Jerusalem and his impending suffering echo Jesus' journey to Jerusalem where he would be seized and put to death.

   3. Arrest in Jerusalem; imprisonment and trials in Caesarea (21: 15 - 26: 32)
      • (21:15-27) Paul in Jerusalem at James. Clearly, the climax is reached when Paul goes up to Jerusalem, where the "we" form of the description ends, only to resume six chapters and two years later. Paul is received by James and the elders and tells them of his success among the Gentiles. They respond to his claims by reporting their own successes among the Jews. Acts cannot hide the negative feelings among the Christian authorities in Jerusalem about the (false) rumors of what Paul had taught. The well-intentioned plan to have Paul show his loyalty to Judaism by purifying himself and going to the Temple fails when fanatics start a riot, claiming that he has defiled the holy place by bringing in pagans. Paul is only saved from the mob by the intervention of a Roman tribune accompanied by soldiers; but after being arrested, Paul protests in Greek that he is a Roman citizen. He is allowed to speak in Aramaic to the crowd.

      • (22:1 - 24:27) Paul's defense speech recounts his conversion and its aftermath, with some variations from the original account in 9:1-30. The speech provokes a conflict; the crowd reacts violently, but Paul's Roman citizenship earns him the protection of the tribune. The next day, Paul is brought before a Sanhedrin. He stirs up dissension between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about the resurrection. Even though the tribune saves him from the violent melee, a vision of the Lord warns Paul that he will have to testify in Rome. Paul's nephew foils the Jewish plot to kill Paul, and Paul is sent to Caesarea and the Roman prefect Felix. Paul's trial before Felix, who was procurator in Palestine between 52 and 60, has parallels with the trial of Jesus before Pilate. The high priest and the Jewish elders present Felix with a list of charges that resemble those presented by the Sanhedrin of high priests and elders against Jesus. Paul's response in his defense is worth mentioning: "This I acknowledge: I serve the God of our fathers according to the Way which they call a sect; I believe everything that is written in the Law and the Prophets" (for the Jews, Christians are a sect along with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes). It is interesting to note that we are told that Felix knew the Way. Paul says that he brought alms to Jerusalem, indirectly confirming the many references in his letters to a collection for Jerusalem. Felix expects a bribe (the Jewish historian Joseph confirms his venality) and Paul is left in prison in Caesarea for two years (AD 58-60) until the end of Felix's proxy.

      • (25:1 - 26:32) Paul is questioned by Festus, the next procurator who ruled from AD 60 to 62; but the prisoner refuses the offer to be tried in Jerusalem and appeals to Caesar. The meaning of the author's drama is captured in the lapidary response of the Romans: "You appeal to the emperor: you will go before the emperor". The parallel with the trial of Jesus in Luke is reinforced, for Festus hands Paul over to the Herodian king Agrippa II to be heard, just as Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. Once again, the Herodian king declares the prisoner not guilty. For the third time, Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is told.

   4. Journey to Rome as a prisoner (27: 1 - 28: 14a)

      Again using the "we" format, the Acts recounts a long sea voyage along the Syrian coast, past Cyprus, along the southern coast of Asia Minor, to the southern coast of Crete, and then, in the midst of a great storm, to Malta, Sicily, and the west coast of Italy, until a landing at Pozzuoli, near Naples. This journey probably began in the late summer of year 60 and ended in year 61. The fact that he survived the storm and the snake bites illustrates God's care for Paul, whose concern for his fellow travelers and the healings in Malta show that his sense of mission had not left him. Striking details about the navigation and the various ships lend verisimilitude, although some scholars skeptically dismiss the whole as unhistorical.

   5. Paul at Rome (28: 14b-31)

      This is the final step foreseen by the risen Jesus: "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." At that time, in the early 60s, the Christian communities had been in Rome for about twenty years. But in the unfolding of the story that centered on Peter and Paul, a climax was reached with the arrival in the capital of the great missionary. Ironically, the Roman authorities sent him there because of his appeal to the emperor and thus become responsible for the evangelization of their own Empire. Until the end of Acts, Paul appeals to the local Jews, insisting that he did nothing "against the customs of our fathers". Acts 28:21 is important: the author portrays the Jewish community in Jerusalem as being in close contact with the Jewish community in Rome (which may well be true). Paul's preaching about Jesus is not successful; and the last words attributed to him in the book express his discouragement with his countrymen and his firm intention to turn to the Gentiles who would listen to him. The summary at the end of Acts tells of Paul's successful preaching for two years in Rome.

1. Traditions and/or Sources

   The picture of Luke's sources for his gospel is fairly clear (Mark, Q Document and his own material), but for Acts it is more nebulous. Some biblical scholars believe that Christians did not care enough about the apostles or the churches to preserve ancient accounts of them, and thus that much of Acts is fictitious. But the undisputed Pauline writings contain reasonable evidence to the contrary, as they echo the exchange of information that took place between the churches. Moreover, since the author indicates consistency by dedicating the two volumes of Luke-Acts to Theophilus, there is no reason to think that the careful tracing of everything from the beginning promised by Luke 1:3 stopped with the gospel. Consequently, the following questions deserve further investigation: what sources did the evangelist have for the traditions he has taken up and developed in Acts? Did he have written or at least already shaped sources for Acts?

   In discussing the Gospel of Luke, we have seen that the sources of some particular Lucan material (L) may have been persons who appear in Acts, for example, the tradition of Herod Antipas of Manaen (Acts 13:1). Assuming that the author was Paul's companion in the "we" passages of Acts, the fact that it is reported that "we entered the house of Philip the evangelist" (21:8-10) and that Agabus came there suggests that it may be from one or both of these individuals that the accounts of Philip and the Hellenists and Agabus come (6:5; 8:5-10; 11:27-28). If the author is traditionally Luke and comes from Antioch, was he in contact with Barnabas, who told him about Paul's "first missionary journey" with Barnabas and Mark (Barnabas' cousin)?

   In addition to personal sources of information, fixed sources were suggested. Two factors contributed to the various suggestions.

   1. The diverse content of Acts covers in chronological order the activities of three different agents in three geographical areas, namely the apostles in Jerusalem; the Hellenists who were eventually driven out of Jerusalem and played a role in the development of the church in Antioch; and finally Paul whose missions from Antioch went westward to the "end of the world.

   2. Doublets (e.g. chapters 4 and 5) have been detected in the first half of Acts and explained as the product of the interweaving of two sources.

   Consequently, a typical proposal detects the following sources (with the first two interleaved):

   • Jerusalem (Cesarea, Palestine) Source: 1: 6 - 2: 40 ; 3: 1 - 4: 31 ; 4: 36 - 5: 11 ; 5: 17-42 ; 8: 5-40 ; 9: 32 - 11: 18 ; 12: 1-23.
   • Antioch (Hellenist) Source: 6: 1-6 ; 6: 8 - 8: 4 ; 11: 19-30 ; 15: 3-33.
   • Pauline source: 9: 1-30 ; 13: 3 - 14.28 ; 15: 35 - 28: 31, including "we" passages.

   There is little evidence that the author of Acts was present for much of what he recounts (with the exception of the "we" passages), and it is unlikely that he made it all up, so he must have had information or traditions at his disposal. But had these traditions already been shaped into sequential sources? The argument of style enters the discussion but hardly solves the problem, for Luke is able to adapt his style to the context. Moreover, there are marks of Lucan style and vocabulary in the various sections of Acts, so the author may have used loose traditions or fixed sources, and would have subsequently rewritten this material. By way of summary, we can make this observation: there is no consensus on the Acts. The question then arises: what is the historical value of the final account? This question will be addressed later in the section "Luke the Historian".

2. Speaches

   About a third of Acts consists of speeches, delivered mainly by Peter, Stephen, Paul and James. Instead of describing in the third person the meaning of what is happening, Acts prefers to offer a speech in which one of the main characters speaks. Why does Acts adopt this technique? Thucydides, History 1.22.1, says that, although he kept as close as possible to the general meaning of the words spoken, he made the speakers say what he thought the situation required. Does this indicate a possible combination of the memory of what was said and the interpretive imagination of the historian? In the case of Acts, once again, we must recognize that the author of Acts himself was not present when many of these speeches are supposed to have been made.

   According to some biblical scholars, the important speeches were memorized by the speaker's disciples who were present; according to others, the speeches are virtually a pure Lucan creation; according to still others, each speech must be evaluated on its own merits: for example, Paul's speeches that are tailor-made for an occasion could be free compositions of the Acts author interpreting the spirit of the great missionary, while the somewhat stereotypical kerygmatic speeches of Peter (2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43) and Paul (13:16-41), who speaks in the same manner as Peter, may have been fashioned in Acts from recollections of a primitive apostolic preaching style. As we have seen, Stephen's speech is almost unique in its perspective and emphasis, and some have seen it as evidence that Acts must have drawn on tradition even for nonkerygmatic speeches. Whatever the origin of the material in the speeches, no appeal to purely literary and historiographical conventions does sufficient justice to the way the speeches serve to develop the theological orientation of Acts; for these speeches reflect the progress of Christian understanding of God's historical plan.

3. Summaries

   The account of the activities in Jerusalem in Acts uses summaries (2:42-47; 4:32-35; 5:11-16; 6:7) to depict the growth and holiness of the community in its golden age and to mark the stages of missionary action. Later in the book, the latter function is fulfilled by one-sentence summaries (9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30-31). This effort at transition enhances the readability of Acts as a fluid narrative. Some of the summaries appeal to the author's knowledge of the early Christians in Jerusalem. Let us now see how accurate this knowledge was.

Since Luke begins his two-volume work by speaking of an orderly narrative based on the word of original eyewitnesses, and by speaking of tracing everything from the beginning and writing in order, it is worth asking the question of the historical value of Acts. The judgment of historians varies greatly, ranging from a purely fictional work to a remarkably accurate one.

Before going into the details of the discussion, all must recognize and acknowledge that the Acts reports are very selective chronologically and geographically. It is reasonable to estimate that a period of three years is covered between chapters 1 and 8, and nearly twenty-five years between chapters 9 and 28. The incidents recounted during this period are indeed few. By focusing on the Christians in Jerusalem and the transition to Antioch, Acts does not tell us when and how the followers of Jesus spread to Damascus. The author has information about Paul's travels to the west, but he reports nothing about the spread of Christian missionaries to eastern Syria or North Africa, nor about the initial evangelization of Rome itself. Thus, even if everything he reports were to prove historically accurate, it would be a summary account.

What did the author of Acts know about the early churches in Jerusalem and Antioch? Since there are no other detailed sources for this period, there are many things we will never be able to verify, such as the harassment of Peter and John by priestly authorities, the existence and martyrdom of Stephen, and the murder of James, son of Zebedee, by Herod Agrippa. Two elements that can contribute to an intelligent assessment of historicity are the determination of plausibility through what we otherwise know of the Jewish and Christian scenes, and the detection of provable errors in what is claimed.

1. Plausibility of what is said

   We must take into account the author's desire to confirm Theophilus' faith. There is no doubt, for example, that he romanticizes the image of the early Christians in Jerusalem in terms of the speed and number of conversions, the holiness of life, the generosity in giving up possessions and the determination. He implicitly admits this simplification when he tells us, as an exception, the stories of the deceivers Ananias and Sapphira, and of the division between the Hebrews and the Hellenists. However, allowing for such romanticization and simplification, the picture of the values, actions and organization of an apocalyptically minded Christian Jewish community is quite plausible when tested by comparable elements in the Dead Sea Scrolls community. In terms of NT parallels, the emphasis on Peter and John among the Twelve is confirmed by Galatians 2:9, just as Peter's role as the chief missionary evangelist among the Twelve is confirmed by Galatians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 9:5. As we have seen, many scholars analyze the conflict between the Hebrews and the Hellenists in Acts 6 in terms of Temple membership. If this is the case, the picture in Acts that it was not the Twelve who evangelized Samaria, but those who had no loyalty to the Temple in Jerusalem, may find some confirmation in John 4:23.37-38.

2. Proven errors

   The most obvious errors are found in Palestinian rather than Christian history. We cannot know whether, perhaps for anti-Sadducee reasons, Gamaliel the elder advocated some tolerance for the early followers of Jesus (Acts 5:34-39), but his speech is probably largely a Lucan creation. The date assigned to the census of Quirinius is inaccurate, and there is a similar inaccuracy in Acts 5:37 about the revolt of Judas the Galilean directed against that census. At the time Acts was written, the Roman cohort called the Italica was in Syria and could be used in Caesarea if needed; it is not impossible that 10:1 ("There was a man named Cornelius in Caesarea, a centurion in the cohort called the Italica") is anachronistic in positing its presence there around the year 39. But such minor inaccuracies do not mean that we can reject the general historicity of the representation of early Christianity in Acts.

What did the author of Acts know about Paul's missionary journeys? Biblical scholars long ago pointed out the extraordinary accuracy of Acts' knowledge of the widely differing titles of municipal and imperial officials in the various cities visited (e.g., 13:12; 17:6; 18:12; 19:31.35) - an accuracy often proven by dateable inscriptions discovered at the respective sites. Overall, the book is also accurate in terms of the boundaries and alignments of districts and provinces in the 50s. These observations are a major factor in challenging the thesis that Acts was written in the mid-2nd century, for at this late date even a meticulous researcher would have had difficulty being accurate about such details. Moreover, much of what Acts tells us corresponds very well with what we can determine from Paul's own letters.

Since he was not an eyewitness to what he is recounting and is very selective, the author of Acts is not rated poorly for the historical accuracy of the various sections of his book. Although he wrote more in a biblical style than in a classical history style, it is not ridiculous to think that the author might have been a suitable candidate to become a member of the brotherhood of Hellenistic historians, even if he would never have been appointed president of that society. Yet, in evaluating Luke the historian, it is worth remembering that this author who never called his Gospel a gospel never called his Acts a history. He considered both to be a diēgēsis, a "narrative". The narrative in Acts is primarily intended to give assurance to believers and to strengthen them with theological insight. Therefore, everything that Acts preserves from history is put at the service of theology and pastoral preaching.

For the Gospel according to Luke, we have seen the reasonable possibility that the evangelist was a Gentile (a Syrian from Antioch?) who was converted or drawn to Judaism some years before being evangelized by Christian preachers. In Acts, the detail that he was a companion of Paul was added both by early church tradition and by internal analysis. All of this is linked to several interconnected assumptions: that the "we" passages are historical; that only two people are involved in the "we" (Paul and an unnamed companion); and that the author of Acts is the companion of the "we. Let us examine these hypotheses.

1. The historicity of the passages with "we"

   There is no major reason to doubt that the "we" passages are historical in the general sense that Paul made the voyages in question. But was there a specific companion who accompanied him (and thus knew the details), or is "we" simply a literary convention in boat travel? If "we" is purely conventional, why doesn't this pronominal usage appear throughout the sea voyage in Acts instead of only in a few sections separated by years in the narrative? Moreover, in the first "we" passage (Acts 16:10-17), Paul is on land at Philippi, not at sea, except for two verses. Finally, it could be argued that the "we" of Acts should be related to the "we" of Luke 1:1-2 ("of the events accomplished among us, according to what have handed down to us those who were..."), which has nothing to do with a sea voyage.

2. The people involved through this "we"

   A simple assumption is that the "we" is autobiographical, so that the "we" passages constitute a kind of diary describing times when the author was with Paul. Normally, then, it would follow that the author of the diary is the author of the whole book of Acts, especially since the general style and interests of the "we" passages are those found elsewhere in the book. Nevertheless, scholars who fail to reconcile the image of Paul in Acts with the "real" Paul revealed in his own letters have proposed that the author obtained the diary of a real companion of Paul's and included sections of it at appropriate times in the narrative he has built around them. Before resorting to such a cumbersome solution, it is worth examining just how irreconcilable Acts and Paul's letters really are.

   Acts gives information about the early life of Paul. He was a native of Tarsus and his name was Saul. He was raised and studied in Jerusalem and apparently did not come there alone, for in 23:16 we find Paul's sister's son in Jerusalem. Acts tells us that after his conversion Paul returned to Tarsus and then came to Antioch, but it tells us nothing about Paul's life or activities there. Most of this information goes beyond the information in Paul's letters without contradicting them, although Paul's upbringing in Jerusalem rather than Tarsus is disputed.

   The real obstacle to identifying the author as the "we" companion concerns his knowledge of Paul's theology and career as a missionary for Christ. The main examples of discrepancy concern the account of Paul's return to Jerusalem after his conversion, around the year 36, and Paul's acceptance of the rules of dietary purity after the Jerusalem meeting of 49. Similarly, the author of Acts betrays no knowledge of the Pauline letters and remains silent on many of the major theological themes emphasized in those letters. Yet, there are similarities. The Eucharistic formula of Luke 22:19-20 is very similar to that of 1 Cor 11:23-25. The first appearance of the risen Lord to Simon Peter is suggested by Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:5. The image of Paul in Acts as one who performs miracles is confirmed by 2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:18-19. As for the differences, although Acts generally does not emphasize the theme of justification and prefers the forgiveness of sins, 13:38-39 speaks of both and argues that justification comes from belief in Christ rather than observance of the Law. The basic Christology of Jesus as the Son of God, as formulated in Acts 13:33, is not far from Romans 1:3-4. The natural theology of the ability to recognize God from creation is shared by Acts 17:24-30 and Rom 1:19-21; 2:15.

   One solution is that Acts was probably written by Luke, and that this companion "we" was with Paul only at certain times. The references to "we" begin in Troas, on the "second missionary journey", around 50 AD, so it is possible that the companion "we" had only an imprecise knowledge of earlier events. The first passage of "we" stops after the companion and Paul have gone from Troas to Philippi, and the next one resumes when Paul embarks at Philippi (20:5) to return to Palestine in 58. We must assume that the "we" companion remained in Philippi for the entire intervening period of some seven years (while Paul went to Corinth, returned to Palestine and Antioch, came to Ephesus and stayed there for a long time, then returned to Corinth). If he did, he was not with Paul when he sent out 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1-2 Corinthians, and Romans. This might explain why, if the companion wrote Acts, he shows no knowledge of the letters or the theology they contain, shaped by the situations Paul encountered.

   But this solution does not solve some problems.

   1. First problem

      This concerns Paul's letter to the Philippians, written while he was in prison: shouldn't the companion "we" have known about this letter? There are three proposals for dating this letter: from Ephesus in 54-56, from Caesarea in Palestine in 58-60, and from Rome in 61-63. The companion "we" was with Paul in Palestine in 58-60 (but was he in Caesarea or did he stay in Jerusalem?); he went with Paul to Rome in 60-61 (but since the "we" passage ends in Acts 28:16, did he stay with Paul there for the two years described in 28, 30?) In fact, the best option may be that the letter to the Philippians was written from Ephesus in 54-56; but then, if the "we" companion was in Philippi from 50 to 58, he would have been there when the letter arrived. If this is Luke, why is he not mentioned in the letter? On the other hand, of all the Pauline communities, the Philippians are the most concerned about Paul's welfare, never forgetting to send him help in his activities (Phil 4:14-18) and his imprisonment. Is it because the one who had come there as Paul's companion remained in Philippi, guiding this community and making sure that it did not forget the apostle who had evangelized it? Could he be the "true yokemate/companion" of Phil 4:3?

   2. Second problem

      The other problem revolves around the proposition that because the companion "we" was not with Paul between 50 and 58, he could not have known or at least been affected by the theology of the great debates reflected in the letters of that period. Yet the companion "we" traveled with Paul on long journeys after 58 and surely would have learned from him the disputes and the theology developed in response. This objection loses its force, however, if Acts was written several decades after Paul's death, when his struggles with the Judaizers were a distant memory and no longer very relevant to the present scene. In evaluating Acts, some of the differences from Paul's letters may stem not from the author's ignorance of Paul's mind, but from the fact that he emphasized what he thought was more appropriate for another generation. Could he, for example, have been aware of Paul's difficulties with the Corinthian Christians (reflected in four or more letters and a rebuking visit) but chose to remain silent so as not to scandalize his readers? Or, if he knew of Paul's confidence that all Israel would be saved by coming to Christ (expressed in Romans 11:25-26 in AD 57/58), he may have felt, twenty-five years later, that this optimism was no longer warranted. Was it dishonest of Acts to adapt Paul to the later situation by putting a different perspective on his lips?

In short, it is not impossible that a minor character who traveled with Paul during a small part of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle's death, assuming that there were details about Paul's early life that he did not know, that he simplified and reorganized the information (just as he did in the Gospel by taking elements from Mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul's accents that were no longer relevant. We have no way of being certain that this was Luke, as the second-century tradition asserts; but there is no serious reason to suggest another candidate. Luke is mentioned only once in Paul's uncontested letters (Phlm 24) and twice in the Deutero-Pauline letters (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11), so he was hardly the most obvious Pauline figure to focus on as a fictional author. There is nothing to contradict the fact that Luke was with Paul at the places and times indicated by the "we" passages, and he fits the profile of a minor character. This authorship proposal has more arguments than other theories, and at least allows us to say about Luke: "not impossible".

1. Western textual witnesses have a Greek text of the book of Acts one-tenth as long as the Egyptian or Alexandrian textual tradition. The additional material includes sentences, clauses, and whole verses. The manuscript and patristic evidence alone does not allow one to decide which is older. The majority opinion regards the Eastern text as more original, and the Western text as paraphrastic, reflecting the copyists' additions of religiously enriching glosses, clarifications, and emphasis of certain perceptions. Yet there are reasons to disagree: the additional data included in the Western text matches the style of the rest of the text, is often neutral, and sometimes seems to indicate additional specific knowledge. To address this problem, most biblical scholars have resorted to the theory of two different editions of Acts (rather than simple retouching by copyists). The variants of the two-edition theory are as follows:
   1. Luke did both, with either the Eastern text as a more polished second effort, or the Western text as a more extensive second effort;

   2. A second scribe produced the western text by glossing the first with notes that Luke left;

   3. The Western edition was the original edition, while an abridged edition was produced in the 2nd century for wider distribution, or to offer a more polished work;

   4. An original edition of Acts is no longer preserved; it can be reconstructed from the Western text whose author used this unpreserved original text as a primary source; another author produced the Eastern text by revising the Western text in light of the original text to which he had independent access.

   Whichever solution is chosen, most commentaries are based on the shorter Eastern text.

2. Acts 1:7, "It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father has set by his own authority," has become the response of the great church to the kingdom of God: the belief that these things will come, but ignorance of when and how. Often in stark contradiction to this position, apocalyptics go to great lengths to calculate and predict the end times. So far, they have always been wrong about the dates assigned, and so mainline Christians tend to view futuristic predictions as fanatical with disgust. However, a strongly apocalyptic Christianity does a service. If those who profess not to know the times and seasons begin to overlook the credible proposition that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, they may begin to think that they can build the kingdom of God. Apocalyptics are very certain that the end times depend on God establishing the kingdom, because human beings, by themselves, usually only build the Tower of Babel. Christians must therefore profess with equal fervor that they cannot know the times and seasons and that one day, in a way that will probably be a complete surprise to all, God will establish the kingdom.

3. Many sermons or speeches in Acts begin by telling the OT story before telling the story of Jesus. Perhaps this pattern should be emphasized in preaching today. The people of Israel experienced in advance what has often been the experience of Christians in the centuries since Jesus. Jews and Christians have needed faith to see the realities of God in and through a long history where God sometimes seems absent. The NT alone covers too short a period of time and is too full of successes to give Christians such lessons. Before Vatican II, the OT was totally neglected in the liturgy. Since then, this defect has been corrected, yet it is disappointing to see how rarely the OT readings are the subject of the homily. Preachers too easily and quickly turn to the Gospel readings for their topic, even when the thing that would most challenge their audience is found in the OT passage!

4. For someone who would be compared, rightly or wrongly, to other founders of religions, Jesus was remarkably "unorganized. True, he is reported to have called some people (especially the Twelve) to leave their work and follow him, but for the rest, he seems to have been content to leave those who had met him and had been visibly moved by what he was doing and saying without following. The Gospels tell us, in a vague generalization, that they returned to their towns and villages and enthusiastically reported what they had seen and heard, but there is no evidence that they formed "Jesus groups" during his lifetime. After the resurrection, however, his followers show an instinct to gather and hold those they convince about Jesus; and their requiring a sign of identification such as baptism is the first step in this gathering process. The new Christians are integrated into a community. They are justified and can be saved, but not simply as individuals.

5. In its first description of the baptism of new believers in Jesus (2:38-41), Acts speaks of baptism "in the name of Jesus." From the beginning, the identity of Jesus' followers was established by what they believed and professed about Jesus. This was an astonishing difference from Judaism; for although the Jews might be called "followers of Moses," no one would ever have thought to define them by what they believed about Moses' personal identity. The need to express the centrality of Jesus in the new covenant made Christianity a creedal religion in a different way than Judaism. What defines Christianity is not love of neighbor, for Christians are not the only ones who show love to one another. The most basic answer is that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ?

6. As with other aspects of the portrait of the early church painted by Acts, the notion of koinōnia ("communion," "community") needs to be emphasized in our time. It is scandalous that the Christian churches have broken the koinōnia with one another; and the purpose of ecumenism is to see if they can regain communion. After the Reformation of the 16th century, the Protestant churches seemed to divide again and again; and although there has been some reunification within the denominations, new divisions arise over sensitive issues. Roman Catholics pride themselves on being united; yet, after the 20th century self-reformation at Vatican II, Catholics are divided. The ultraconservatives are convinced that the Church has strayed too far from the "good old days"; the liberals are convinced that the Church is not moving fast enough; and both are extremely critical of the Pope for not siding with them. All Christians need to be reminded that the koinōnia break hardly reproduces the values of the early Church.

7. The life and practice of the early Christians described in the beginning of Acts had many Jewish features. A Jewish pattern may also have influenced the Christian choice of a time for the Eucharistic meal. The discovery of the empty tomb early on Sunday morning helped to focus Christian attention on what, by the end of the first century, would be known as "the Lord's Day. However, the choice of Sunday may also have been facilitated by the pattern of the Jewish Sabbath, which ended at sunset on Saturday. Before sunset, Jewish believers in Jesus were restricted in their travels (the Sabbath journey); but when the Sabbath was over (Saturday night), they were free to come from afar to gather in the home of another believer to break the Eucharistic bread. This may explain the ancient Christian memory of a celebration at night between Saturday and Sunday.

8. Acts 6:1-6 (the institution of the Seven) shows us the development of the church structure as both the product of sociological necessity and the work of the Spirit. In other words, by analogy with the incarnation, there can be both the human and the divine in the church and its structure. Recognition of this fact will allow for certain adaptations of the church structure to meet the needs of the day without giving the sense that each generation is free to reinvent the church. The difficult task is to decide which issues are changeable, and the Spirit working in the church and among Christians must play a role in this decision.

9. A major issue in chapters 10, 11 and 15 of Acts is the admission of Gentiles into the Christian koinōnia without circumcision. This was not detectably an issue resolved by Jesus during his lifetime, since he showed little interest in the Gentiles. Today there are people at both ends of the ecclesiastical spectrum who think they can appeal to the words or deeds of Jesus to resolve any issue in the church (parish, regional or universal). If Jesus did not resolve the most fundamental question of Christian mission, we can doubt that the answer to most of the later issues discussed in the church can be found in the gospels. How was the question of circumcision resolved in Acts? Peter did not act on his own initiative or wisdom, but God showed him that he should not consider anyone unclean (Acts 10:28). Since Cornelius received a vision from God, God shows no partiality (10:34). The uncircumcised Cornelius can be baptized because the Holy Spirit has come upon him (10:47). In other words, we have an example of Christians facing an unforeseen problem and solving it, not by appealing to a previous plan of Jesus for the Church, but by understanding (through the Holy Spirit) what Christ wanted for the Church.