Why was Acts of the Apostles written?

Answer 1

A:Acts of the Apostles was written late in the nineties of the first century, or early in the second century, certainly after Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE by Josephus, as it has been shown that Acts contains material from Antiquities.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) says that the whole of Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament 'book of history', is a work of Propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians.

Hans Joachim Schoeps (Das Judenchristentum) says that Acts is a retrospective view of Christian origins written by one party - the winners. He says that Acts follows a clear didactic line and for this reason energetically cultivates the creation of legends and reshapes persons and events according to its own standards.

One way in which 'Luke' sought to reshape history seems to have been to downplay the role of Paul in the emergence of Christianity. For example, in Paul's epistles, it was his own decision to preach to the gentiles, but in Acts, this decision came to him from Peter. Acts draws many parallels between Paul and Peter, with Peter always emerging as the more worthy apostle. It may be that the author was concerned about the excessive veneration of Paul and wanted to moderate this, or that the theology taught by Paul and his subsequent followers was winning too many followers, compared with the theology that has come to us in the gospels.

Answer 2

A:Acts of the Apostles was written late in the nineties of the first century, or early in the second century, certainly after Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE by Josephus, as it has been shown that Acts contains material from Antiquities.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) says that the whole of Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament 'book of history', is a work of Propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians.

Hans Joachim Schoeps (Das Judenchristentum) says that Acts is a retrospective view of Christian origins written by one party - the winners. He says that Acts follows a clear didactic line and for this reason energetically cultivates the creation of legends and reshapes persons and events according to its own standards.

One way in which 'Luke' sought to reshape history seems to have been to downplay the role of Paul in the emergence of Christianity. For example, in Paul's epistles, it was his own decision to preach to the gentiles, but in Acts, this decision came to him from Peter. Acts draws many parallels between Paul and Peter, with Peter always emerging as the more worthy apostle. It may be that the author was concerned about the excessive veneration of Paul and wanted to moderate this, or that the theology taught by Paul and his subsequent followers was winning too many followers, compared with the theology that has come to us in the gospels.