Peter and Paul in Acts: A Comparison of Their Ministries. David Spell

38 C. K. Barrett, Paul: An Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 7, “Paul was a great theologian; the author of Acts was not, and if on some important issues he misunderstood Paul he was certainly not the last to do so.”

39 Barrett, “The Historicity of Acts,” 534.

40 Riesner, 7.

41 D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 186.

42 Hemer, 20.

43 Gasque, 142. In this article, Gasque not only reviews scholarship since F. C. Baur, he also gives a thorough review of Hemer’s book.

44 Hemer, 316.

45 Jack T. Sanders, “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ Statements in Galatians 1–2,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966) 343. See also Peter Ricahrdson, “Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-4,” New Testament Studies 26 (1979–1980) 359, “The selection of material in Galatians 1 and 2 is shaped by the need to demonstrate that Paul does not please men.”

46 W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul The Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951) 18.

47 Marshall, 34.

48 Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 201.

49 Ibid., 203–4.

50 Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, trans. John Bowden (1980; reprinted, Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1979) 43.

51 Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 108. See also Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 19, Jervell takes Morris’ thought a step further. Luke was not only a believer. He is also a, “preacher and theologian describing past situations with relevance for the situation of his own readers.”

52 I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970) 69.

53 Ibid., 74. See also John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 21, While, “Luke himself has carried out the historian’s task of carefully scrutinizing his sources, it is clear that he has arranged them according to his own purposes.”

54 I. Howard Marshall, “Luke’s View of Paul,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990) 36.

55 Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 75. See also F. F. Bruce, “Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 58 (1976) 282. Bruce feels that both portraits of Paul, the one in Acts and the one in his letters must be carefully examined to get “the real Paul.”

56 Marshall, 75.

57 Foakes-Jackson, ix.

58 Keathley, 68.

59 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Bernard Noble et al. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 113–15.

60 Ibid., 114.

61 2 Corinthians 10:11.

62 Willam Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 22. See also Carson, Moo, and Morris, 190, “We have shown that there is no convincing reason to deny that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. That he was his companion is the natural implication of the ‘“we”’ passages. That this companion was none other than Luke ‘“the beloved physician”’ is the unanimous opinion of the early church. We have good reason, then, to conclude that Luke was the author of Acts.”

63 Luke 1:2

64 Hengel, 36, “He certainly knew a good deal more than he put down; when he is silent about something, there are usually special reasons for it.”

65 Hemer, 69, “Facts do not come in sealed packets untouched by human hand: selection and interpretation, at however rudimentary stage, are inseparable from historical information, and it is none the worse for it.”

66 Joseph B. Tyson, A Study of Early Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1973) 204, “Any evaluation of the Gospel of Luke must recognize the unity of the two books and consider the material in Acts as having a direct bearing on the meaning of the Gospel.”

67 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (New York: Crossroad, 1997) 2–3, Talbert, for example, argues for the unity of the two books based on the similar prefaces, the architecture of the two books, and the theological themes. See also Hengel, 37, “Acts cannot be separated from the Third Gospel: both books must be understood as a historical and theological unity.”

68 Mark Allan Powell, What Are They Saying about Acts? (New York: Paulist, 1981) 32–33.

69 Krodel, 111.

70 See note 57 above.

71 Munck, xxxv.

72 Ibid., xxxiv. See also, Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 231, “The reliability of Acts has often been challenged, but it has never been