The Acts of the Apostles is not history. Acts was long thought to be a first-century document, and its author Luke to be a disciple of Paul-thus an eyewitness or acquaintance of eyewitnesses to nascent Christianity. Acts was considered history, pure and simple. But the Acts Seminar, a decade-long collaborative project by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute, concluded that dates from the second century. That conclusion directly challenges the view of Acts as history and raises a host of new questions, addressed in this final report. The Acts Seminar began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy. Contributors include: Ruben Dupertuis, Associate Professor of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas; Perry V. Kea, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Indianapolis, Indiana; Nina E. Livesey, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Oklahoma at Norman; Dennis R. MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology, California; Shelly Matthews, Associate Professor of New Testament, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth; Milton Moreland, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee; Richard I. Pervo, retired, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Thomas E. Phillips, Dean of Library and Information Services, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California; Christine R. Shea, Professor of Classics, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana; William O. Walker, Jr., Jennie Farris Railey King Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.

The death of Jesus is of central importance in all four New Testament gospels. For centuries much attention and scholarship have been devoted to both the historical and theological aspects of this event. Recent years, however, have witnessed new ways of studying these texts. In The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, Joseph B. Tyson applies literary-critical methods to the two New Testament writings attributed to Luke. His focus is on the death of Jesus, the most dramatic segment of the Gospel of Luke and the event of fundamental significance in Acts. Tyson's clear treatment of Luke's view of the growing opposition to Jesus from the Jewish leadership and his discussion of the circumstances that ultimately led to the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans provide a deeper understanding of these two important texts. His careful analysis of the ways in which Luke differs from Matthew and Mark helps establish Luke's uniqueness as a literary chronicler of events. The resulting study offers an original interpretation of Luke's views of the death of Jesus and makes an important contribution to Lukan and New Testament scholarship.

In Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts, Joseph B. Tyson addresses the ways in which Jewish people and religious customs are presented in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These texts present a wealth of material about Jewish institutions and practices. But these images of Jews and Judaism were shaped by theological and historical concerns of communities that increasingly saw themselves as separate from the Jewish synagogues. Probing questions about the roots of modern anti-Semitism in relationship to the New Testament, Tyson concludes that there is a deep and complex ambivalence in Luke-Acts, making the texts both profoundly pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish. He maintains that an appreciation of this fact is essential for understanding Luke-Acts and in assessing its role in fostering the development of Christian attitudes toward Jews.

Building on recent scholarship that argues for a second-century date for the book of Acts, Marcion and Luke-Acts explores the probable context for the authorship not only of Acts but also of the canonical Gospel of Luke. Noted New Testament scholar Joseph B. Tyson proposes that both Acts and the final version of the Gospel of Luke were published at the time when Marcion of Pontus was beginning to proclaim his version of the Christian gospel, in the years 120-125 c.e. He suggests that although the author was subject to various influences, a prominent motivation was the need to provide the church with writings that would serve in its fight against Marcionite Christianity. Tyson positions the controversy with Marcion as a defining struggle over the very meaning of the Christian message and the author of Luke-Acts as a major participant in that contest. Suggesting that the primary emphases in Acts are best understood as responses to the Marcionite challenge, Tyson looks particularly at the portrait of Paul as a devoted Pharisaic Jew. He contends that this portrayal appears to have been formed by the author to counter the Marcionite understanding of Paul as rejecting both the Torah and the God of Israel. Tyson also points to stories that involve Peter and the Jerusalem apostles in Acts as arguments against the Marcionite claim that Paul was the only true apostle. Tyson concludes that the author of Acts made use of an earlier version of the Gospel of Luke and produced canonical Luke by adding, among other things, birth accounts and postresurrection narratives of Jesus.