Which Was Written First, Luke or Acts?

New Testament scholars have almost universally assumed that Luke was written before Acts. The evidence to support this assumption is not great, and the possibility that these two books might have been written in the reverse order should also be considered. The clearest and perhaps the only evidence...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Russell, Henry G. (Verfasst von)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: 1955
In: Harvard theological review
Jahr: 1955, Band: 48, Heft: 3, Seiten: 167-174
Online-Zugang: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1784643181
003 DE-627
005 20220105043128.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220105s1955 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1017/S0017816000025153  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1784643181 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1784643181 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Russell, Henry G.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Which Was Written First, Luke or Acts? 
264 1 |c 1955 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a New Testament scholars have almost universally assumed that Luke was written before Acts. The evidence to support this assumption is not great, and the possibility that these two books might have been written in the reverse order should also be considered. The clearest and perhaps the only evidence for the priority of Luke to Acts is to be found in Acts 1:1, where the author speaks of a “first book” which he has written, and then describes it in terms which show that he is referring to the Gospel of Luke. To this might perhaps be added the evidence of Luke 1:1–4, where the author is almost certainly giving us a preface not only to the Gospel but to Acts as well. But as Cadbury has indicated, Luke 1:1–4 may have been written after Acts had already been completed, so that this General Preface does not really give us substantial evidence for the priority of Luke. And although the secondary preface in Acts 1:1 is explicit enough about the priority of Luke, there is the possibility that it too may have been written only after the main body of both Luke and Acts had been completed. The editors of The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, p. 350, say, “Prefaces then, as now, were probably written after the work was completed….” This comment was made with special reference to the preface to Luke, but it might apply equally to the preface to Acts. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Harvard theological review  |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1908  |g 48(1955), 3, Seite 167-174  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)331504553  |w (DE-600)2051494-3  |w (DE-576)094533326  |x 1475-4517  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:48  |g year:1955  |g number:3  |g pages:167-174 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/1508672  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000025153  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext  |7 1 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/which-was-written-first-luke-or-acts/33E6D38918ADC48AE29B3244B7B1795C  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext  |7 1 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4029947522 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1784643181 
LOK |0 005 20220105043128 
LOK |0 008 220105||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-28#5286155F4368AD144DDBAF1523941ACC137D7CB2 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/1508672 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
LOK |0 939   |a 05-01-22  |b l01 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw