Table of Contents

Reliability of the Text II
Multiple Autographs of Acts

Acts of the Apostles, the book in the New Testament that traditionally follows the Gospel of John, has an interesting predicament for text critical scholars and historians. Luke, a colleague of the apostle Paul, was very concerned with accuracy of his written text, so he released updated revisions over a span of a few years, causing variations in the length of the book by as much as 8%! So, which text should be considered the most accurate scripture? Let's step back a moment to discuss Luke, what he was trying to achieve, and what contemporaries thought of his works.

Luke was a physician by trade. One may think that medicine in ancient times was crude, but realize that cataract surgery existed in Ancient Rome 2000 years ago, the still-used Hippocratic Oath originated in Ancient Greece, and alcohol was known as an antiseptic for surgeries and wounds. Doctors at that time paid just as much attention to details as they do today. A doctor could be described as a biological detective, attempting to diligently assemble all available evidence into a diagnosis to heal a patient. It was this nature that easily allowed Luke to become an historian, comparable to any other in the Classical Greek world.

His first Biblical work was the Gospel of Luke, which he wrote to the Greek audience and addressed to Theophilus ("lover of God". For this book, he traveled throughout Judea and interviewed all eye-witnesses to the teachings and miracles of Jesus. When writing, he made sure to correctly cite people, places, events, and titles. Because of this, historians today can accurately trace specific details into their historicity and tie them to non-biblical historical works.

After completing and distributing his first work, Luke began writing a second volume, which became Acts of the Apostles - or just Acts for short. He began in the same manner as with the Gospel, in that he interviewed anyone he could and researched throughout Judea and Greece to gather details on the lives of the he apostles after the Crucifixion. Some time after starting his writing, Luke joined with the apostle Paul on his journey by boat through the Mediterranean Sea and continued documenting events as they unfolded. (This is where Acts changes to first-person.)

After the journey, Luke continued to stay in close contact with Paul and published his work. Luke wasn't done, though, as many eye witnesses still lived and events had either recently occurred or were still occurring. Thus, Luke continued to write revisions to Acts, filling in as many details as he could and releasing at least one revision at a later time.

When various scrolls and codices were circulating to the young Church in the first century, these works were not yet canonized. It was understood by the end of the century that there were exactly 4 Gospels, since they were combined and circulated as a set. Paul's letters were traveling in groups, as well. All of these quickly became considered sacred works. Acts stood separate from the rest in that it wasn't considered scripture until a century later. It was, instead, considered an historical book. Thus, scribes had no guilt adding more details they had researched in an effort to "improve" the book.

So, what is considered to be the accurate text of Acts? Enough manuscripts have survived from diverse geographic locations that scribal additions are easily determined by comparing grammatical styles, vocabulary, and other textual details. By eliminating these textual variants, that leaves Luke's own variants. The debate still wages on which of Luke's own revisions are considered scripture, but scholars tend to look to the longer text, since Luke himself made the later edits for the most accuracy and detail.