Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I would like to get some input here. I am interested in looking at indications of internal tension between the gospel of Luke on the one hand and the Acts on the other, spots where the two works appear to disagree on something. The ultimate goal is to evaluate issues of authorship (whether the same individual penned every passage of both works, or whether the same individual collected materials for both works, or whether different individuals penned each work and they were joined by their prefaces artificially at a later date, or anything in between), but the data to be collected ought to be initially free of such considerations.

The most famous instance of a disagreement between Luke and Acts may be the ascension: in Luke it appears to occur on the same day as the resurrection, whereas in Acts it famously occurs 40 days after the resurrection.

What other examples are there?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I will start with the treatment of independent exorcists.

Luke 9.49-50 (confer Mark 9.38-40):

49 John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”

Acts 19.13-17:

13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.

Casting out demons in Jesus' name produces very different results here.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I will start with the treatment of independent exorcists.

Luke 9.49-50 (confer Mark 9.38-40):

49 John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”

Acts 19.13-17:

13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.

Casting out demons in Jesus' name produces very different results here.
Magic (as in belief that men could control demons who in turn control physical phenomenon, by means of incantations and rites) has always carried the risk of failing to achieve ones' goal. Usually this is perceived as some sort of failed attempt at the proper rituals. Magicians took very great pains to create amulets and such to pre-plant around town, usually buried, that could be called upon as needed at the moment.

I guess the author of Acts was assuming that these sons of Sceva (all seven at once?) must not have used the correct incantations or utilized improper ritual objects (the incantation is not given). That will teach them (which ties in with Luke, as Jesus did not forbid them, knowing that their attempts will fail - only Jesus has absolute authority, he's "connected" to the "big kahuna" IAO, so to speak, and does not need to use incantations/rituals).

But that is why all those ritual objects are buried around, so if the demon will not obey you, you find the object that summons the disobedient demon's superior demon, and command the superior demon to command his subordinate demon to comply with the magician's command. The appropriate incantations/rituals may well work, if only by chance, on the superior demon, You never know with them demons ... It does not appear that the sons of Sceva expected such a violent reaction by the demon in the man, as running away with their clothes torn off would have made attempting another incantation difficult, so they were clearly unprepared and mere amateurs.

And what the heck are seven "chief priest's" sons doing in Ephesus. Are we speaking of a shaman or pagan priest here? I wonder if the "chief priest" was not a Magian priest, and thus representative of Magi in general, popularly considered to be the highest authorities in such matters as demon commanding. The author of Acts is not phased, but amused, that they didn't know the proper incantations/rituals for such a demon. Everyone (= the author of Acts) knows that Judean "magicians" like Jesus would kick Magian priest ass, as the author of Luke describes Jesus' almost effortless abilities to command demons and by implication control the elements (sorry no alchemy here, the ancients only recognized four or five elements (air, fire, water, earth and on a good day ether).

This really only suggests that the two accounts do not have to be considered inconsistent with one another. Still, I'm not ready to equate the author of Luke with the author of Acts. If I remember correctly, there are differences in vocabulary (IIRC, the vocabulary of the author of Acts more closely resembles that of the gospel of John than the gospel of Luke, but I haven't located the article I thought I had read on the subject).

/Rambling

DCH
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben and DCH--

I'm always the Minority Report but sometimes that allows a Divergent Opinion that points to something else. So it is here.

1. From my position, Acts was constructed to show the Divinity of the Flavians by detailing the surrounding Tableau of the 12th Legion and Muciaus, who held Imperial Power in his hands and got rid of Antonius Primus and certain Piso people. YMMV but I'm VERY certain that this is accurate.

OK. Fine.

2. So, what about Luke? I've never been fond of the idea that Luke and Acts were joined at the hips. There's too much relation to Matthew, for example. Consider:

a. Luke 13: 23 - 25 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
[25] When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.'

Matthew 18: 2 - 4 (RSV):

[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

These 2 passages are from the same Story. This shows a direct line of Matthew and Luke to a Source Document. Acts shows Source Documents of Tacitus and Josephus and other Roman authors in a manner different from the above 2 passages. Ya' gotta' see it or ya' don't. More verbiage on this subject by request (I'm not holding my breath here...).

b. Date of young Jesus.

Luke 2: 41 - 42 (RSV):

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;

This should be a Time Marker but if it is, it Matches to something not easily seen. Such a Story is not found in Acts. I've Deconstructed the Ascension in Acts, for example, and it in no way reads as in the Luke 2 passages. Aeneas the Cripple is a Parable of the 12th Legion. The Intentionality is not even in the same Area Code as Luke. Compare with:

Luke 2: 36 - 38 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

This, Friends and Neighbors, is a reference to Queen Salome, with a time Marker that references the Passover of 9 CE. In no way is there a reflection in Acts that reads as this passage does.

Again, this is my view and it doesn't resonate with many (any...) on this Site. Nonetheless, I believe it points to a difference in Texts between Luke and Acts. Mebbe somebody WANTED to create a Link but the differences appear, to me, to be too great for a common author(s).

Thnx,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sat May 07, 2016 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Adam »

Acts 4:12 would have it,
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (NIV)
This disagrees radically with Matthew 25:31-46, wherein the goats "go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life", a works-based gospel. However, the entire implication of the Synoptics is the same, and in Luke specifically 11:42b, "you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone." For its own similar parable, see Luke 16:19-31, the Rich Man and Lazarus.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you, Adam.

CW
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by JoeWallack »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I would like to get some input here. I am interested in looking at indications of internal tension between the gospel of Luke on the one hand and the Acts on the other, spots where the two works appear to disagree on something. The ultimate goal is to evaluate issues of authorship (whether the same individual penned every passage of both works, or whether the same individual collected materials for both works, or whether different individuals penned each work and they were joined by their prefaces artificially at a later date, or anything in between), but the data to be collected ought to be initially free of such considerations.

The most famous instance of a disagreement between Luke and Acts may be the ascension: in Luke it appears to occur on the same day as the resurrection, whereas in Acts it famously occurs 40 days after the resurrection.

What other examples are there?

Ben.
JW:
Something to consider is the big picture, in GLuke/Acts, what gifts are given to the Disciples in order for them to properly promote Jesus. A more basic question is what is the development of whatever convinced the disciples to promote a resurrected Jesus in the first place which looks like this:
  • GMark: = Disciples were never convinced to promote a resurrected Jesus.

    GMatthew: = The appearance of a resurrected Jesus convinces.

    GLuke: = The resurrected Jesus persuaded the disciples to promote a resurrected Jesus.

    GJohn: = The signs from Jesus convinced the disciples.
GLuke to some extent is an apology as to why the disciples did not accept a supposed resurrected Jesus during his supposed ministry. All subsequent Gospels accepted the original GMark as the base. This base showed the disciples as complete failures regarding any kind of continuing Jesus promotion. The subsequents gradually show the disciples as promoting a resurrected Jesus but the righteous critical comment is that the bulk of even the subsequent Gospels show the disciples as continuously failing Jesus. GLuke added the apology that the reason the disciples were failures during the ministry was because they had not received "The Holy Spirit" (from "Luke's" standpoint, the ending of GLuke was also the ending of GMark).

As indicated above GLuke already fits the explanation/apology of the development of the explanation of how the disciples were convinced. The idea of why the disciples were supposedly successful in promotion of a resurrected Jesus, because they received "The Holy Spirit", would be new to the Synoptic tradition, but be the base of Acts. This suggests that "The Holy Spirit" was indeed received by "Luke" but as an addition to the original Gospel of Luke.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat May 07, 2016 5:59 am The most famous instance of a disagreement between Luke and Acts may be the ascension: in Luke it appears to occur on the same day as the resurrection, whereas in Acts it famously occurs 40 days after the resurrection.

What other examples are there?

Ben.
Was delighted to find this thread. I’ve been growing skeptical that a single author can be attributed to “Luke-Acts,” or that Luke-Acts was ever a thing. (Obviously the dedicatory prefaces to “Theophilus” were intended to convince the reader that it’s one and the same Luke).


When did any of the 12 begin following Jesus?

Acts 1: 21-22
“…Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

The premiss of this speech by Peter is that he and all the other apostles began to follow Jesus in Judea, from the day of Jesus’ baptism in the river Jordan. But this is not how the story goes in Luke’s Gospel.

Luke 3:21 has the story of Jesus’ baptism, followed by his genealogy, and then by his temptation in the wilderness and in Jerusalem. At 4:14, Jesus returns to Galilee. He speaks in the synagogue at Nazareth and is almost thrown off of the cliff.

So far, no disciples.

Then (4:31) he goes to Capernaum, where he teaches and exorcises a demon.

Suddenly “Simon” is mentioned without introduction (4:37-39):

And the report about Him was spreading into every locality in the surrounding district. Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s home. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her.

More healings and exorcisms. Then Jesus retires to a secluded place, presumably by himself, since no disciples are mentioned. Luke 4 concludes with a verse that reflects some confusion about where Jesus is supposed to be:

So He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:44)

Then at the start of chapter 5 Jesus is again at the sea of Galilee. Finally, “Simon Peter” is introduced properly as a disciple of Jesus, along with the sons of Zebedee (i.e. the Pillars).

What can we conclude?

1. In gLuke, Jesus has no disciples at the baptism, or in Judea, or any time shortly after the baptism. It is only later and in Galilee. Jersualem and Bethany are some 80 miles from Capernaum.

2. In gJohn ch. 1, by contrast, Simon and Andrew are disciples of John the Baptist, and they see and begin to follow Jesus for the first time at the River Jordan, near Bethany in Judea.

3. Therefore, Peter’s speech in Acts 1 seems to presume the story as we have it in John’s Gospel. It doesn’t agree with how the disciples are introduced in Luke’s Gospel.

This disagreement on so sensitive an issue makes it hard to imagine Luke as the only author of the 3rd Gospel and Acts, and to imagine him working independently of the other Gospels, particularly the 4th.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by davidmartin »

Another two

Acts has an unknown saying "more blessed to give than receive" not found anywhere else, why not quote one from Luke or mention the existence of gospels?

Secondly - Acts mentions the tree but never the cross (pretty sure this is right, some translations manage to say 'cross' when the word was xylon?)

My guess is Acts is a composite document that pulls together various sources and you could say the same for Luke, and if so then who is the author? Just the compiler? Better to think of the relationship existing at some level but not a very deep one?
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by rgprice »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:01 am Was delighted to find this thread. I’ve been growing skeptical that a single author can be attributed to “Luke-Acts,” or that Luke-Acts was ever a thing. (Obviously the dedicatory prefaces to “Theophilus” were intended to convince the reader that it’s one and the same Luke).
I think at base, Luke has three layers. One is Marcon's Gospel. Luke 3-23 is essentially Marcon's Gospel. Parts of Luke 3-5 seem to have a separate author. It is unclear whether there was a proto-Gospel that included the genealogy from which Marcion's Gospel was derived, or if Marcion's Gospel came first and then someone added the genealogy, but Luke 3-23 does have at least two authors/editors. Then there is Luke 1-2 & 24, which are written by the canonical author. It is presumably these portions, and these portions only, that would have been written by the person who wrote Acts. But, if there are major discrepancies between Luke 1-2 & 24 and Acts, then then we may question whether the person who wrote Acts was the same person who wrote 1-2 & 24.

And as for Acts, I think it was also compiled from sources, and is not so much the unity that so many claim it to be. However, I do think that the final author of Luke and Acts was the same person. But, whoever that person was, they were either rushed or just lazy or sloppy, because they didn't really revise much of the material, they mostly just added things together and failed to fully harmonize many of the sources, even within the individual works. In other words, Luke contradicts Luke and Acts contradicts Acts, never mind Luke contradicting Acts.

Personally, I think that the "we passages" in Acts do come from a source story about Paul (or potentially Simon), and the person who wrote Acts intentionally left those passages from his source in the first person in order to appropriate the identity of the writer of his source. The three main theories regarding the "we passages" are either that:

1) They are from a source and the editor failed to revise his source to correctly integrate it into his narrative.
2) They are not from a source, and they use the style common to maritime journals.
3) They are not from a source, but the first person is used intentionally in order to create the impression that the author is a personal witness to teh events.

Advocates of 1 & 3 seem not to have considered the possibility that both are true, and advocates of 1 and 3 see those positions as in opposition to each other, with either one invalidating the other. But I don't think so. advocates of 3 claim that the writer of Acts couldn't have been such a poor editor so as not to simply revise his sources. But, advocates of 3 fail to recognize that their argument actually supports 1. Instead of thinking that the only reason an editor wouldn't have revised his source is incompetence, it makes far more sense that an editor wouldn't have revised his source in order to appropriate the identity of his source. If the source was perceived to be a first hand account, then what better way to give the impression that your story is a first hand account, than to use a first hand account and appropriate the identity of the source?

There are many other aspects of the "we passages" that are best explained as having come from a source, especially as we compare them to the Gospel of Mark, with which they share a significant number of strong literary parallels. The extension of my theory, then, is that the source used by the writer of Acts as an account of the "ministry and trial of Paul", was also used by the writer of Mark as the basis for his ministry and trial of Jesus.

And so, when we ask why Jesus was tried by a governor of Judea, it is because in the account of the ministry and trial of Paul, Paul (or Simon) was tried by a governor of Judea.
Post Reply