The Acts of the Apostles

3.3. Acts 9:43–10:48 (cf. Gal 1:18c)

3.4. Acts 11:1–18 (cf. Gal 1:19–20)

3.5. Acts 11:19–26 (cf. Gal 1:21–22)

3.6. Acts 11:27–12:25 (cf. Gal 1:23ab)

Chapter 4. The first missionary journey (Acts 13–14; cf. Gal 1:23c–2:1)

4.1. Antioch in Syria (Acts 13:1–3; cf. Gal 1:23c)

4.2. Cyprus (Acts 13:4–13; cf. Gal 1:23cd)

4.3. Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, and beyond (Acts 13:14–14:7; cf. Gal 1:24)

4.4. Lystra (Acts 14:8–20; cf. Gal 1:24)

4.5. Derbe and back to Antioch (Acts 14:21–28; cf. Gal 2:1)

Chapter 5. The second missionary journey (Acts 15:1–18:23a; cf. Gal 2:2–5:7)

5.1. Jerusalem meeting (Acts 15:1–29; cf. Gal 2:2–10)

5.2. Antioch and Barnabas (Acts 15:30–41; cf. Gal 2:11–14c)

5.3. Galatia again (Acts 16:1–8; cf. Gal 2:14c–3:5)

5.4. Philippi (Acts 16:9–40; cf. Gal 3:6–28)

5.5. Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–10a; cf. Gal 3:29–4:6b)

5.6. Beroea (Acts 17:10b–15; cf. Gal 4:6b–7)

5.7. Athens (Acts 17:16–34; cf. Gal 4:8–13)

5.8. Corinth (Acts 18:1–17; cf. Gal 4:14–31)

5.9. To Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 18:18–23a; cf. Gal 5:1–7)

Simon David Butticaz has applied to the relationship between the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul, especially Rom 9–11, the literary category of hypertextuality. For example, in his opinion the Lucan use of the adverb πρῶτον, placed in the mouth of both Peter and Paul as referring to the soteriological priority of the Jews over the Gentiles (Acts 3:26; 13:46), reflects its usage in Rom 1:16; 2:9–10. Likewise, the universalistic phrase ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς in Acts 1:8 is not unlike the phrase εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης in Rom 10:38. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Swiss scholar, Luke narratively translated the major axes of Paul’s argumentation in Rom 9–11. Although discreet in his lexicographical borrowings, Luke proved to be very faithful to the Pauline legacy in terms of rephrasing it for a new historical situation. On the other hand, this faithfulness did not prevent Luke from thinking differently on certain aspects.⁴

Andreas Lindemann expressed the opinion, rather typical of mainstream German scholarship of that time, that the parallels between the Miletus speech (Acts 20:17–38) and the Pauline letters are not close enough to imply a direct literary relationship between these texts.⁵

Richard I. Pervo described his scholarly change of mind in this matter and strongly argued that Luke made use of a number, probably a collection, of Pauline letters.⁶

Jens Schröter tentatively suggested Luke’s partial knowledge of Paul’s letters, but in some cases (e.g., in the Miletus speech) rather of some traditions influenced by Paul’s ideas.⁷

Joseph H. Hellerman has noted the conceptual (humiliation and exaltation) and linguistic (δοῦλος, κύριος, also ξύλον) similarities between Luke’s description of Paul’s activity in Philippi (Acts 16:11–40) and the christological hymn in the Letter to the Philippians (Phlp 2:6–11). However, due to the lack of more substantial verbal parallels and due to his confidence in Luke’s reliability as a historian, he attributed these parallels to Paul’s reminiscences of his past activity in Philippi while writing his Letter to the Philippians.⁸ Alas, he did not adequately consider the number and the sequence of the parallels between these texts, which suggest a direct literary relationship rather than Luke’s and Paul’s use of some merely mental recollections.

Lars Aejmelaeus has strongly argued that Luke knew and made use of Paul’s letters. His arguments are based on the comparison of Acts 9:23–25 with 1 Cor 11:32–33, as well as Acts 20:18–35 with 1 Thessalonians. Moreover, he compared Luke’s use of Paul’s letters with his use of the Septuagint, which often consists of loose reminiscences of its contents.⁹

Niels Hyldahl was of the opinion that the author of the Acts of the Apostles both knew and used the letters of Paul, but he did not want to use them openly because they had already earlier been used and misused by Gnostics.¹⁰

Heikki Leppä demonstrates that Luke knew Paul’s Letter to the Galatians because he used rare words and phrases which can be found in both Galatians and Acts: συμπαραλαμβάνω (Gal 2:1; Acts 12:25; 15:37–38), οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς (Gal 2:12; Acts 10:45; 11:2), ἀκροβυστία referring to an uncircumcised person (Gal 2:7; Acts 11:3), συνεσθίω referring to Peter (Gal 2:12; Acts 10:41; 11:3), and πορθέω referring to Paul (Gal 1:13.23; Acts 9:21). Moreover, the Finnish scholar notes that the thematic structure of Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–11:30; 12:25; 13:2–3; 15:1–2a sequentially corresponds to the thematic structure of Gal 1:13–2:14, which points to Luke’s use of Galatians as a source.¹¹

Craig S. Keener is of the opinion that since Luke did not cite Paul’s letters and he appears to contradict them on some points of detail, their possible echoes in Acts may reflect the influence of Pauline preaching rather than his letters per se. Nevertheless, he states that Luke presumably knew that Paul wrote letters, and may have known some of these letters, but they were less important to him than the living memory of Paul himself. He finds no answer to the question of Luke’s silence concerning key elements in Paul’s letters, like the collection for Jerusalem, conflict over spiritual gifts, struggling with Jewish–Gentile issues, ‘Galatians’, etc.¹² It is surprising that Keener fails to explain Luke’s omission of all these divisive issues in early Christianity while he admits that Luke’s personality was probably more conciliatory and integrative than some other early Christian voices.¹³

Joshua D. Garroway notes that the phrase ‘οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς [Acts 10:45; 11:2] is not attested in the LXX or inter-testamental literature or in Christian literature outside the Pauline corpus until Justin Martyr, an absence that renders all the more likely the prospect that Luke borrowed the term from Galatians [Gal 2:12]. Otherwise, one is left with the uncanny and unlikely coincidence that Luke and Paul coined the expression independently from one another.’¹⁴

Alan J. Bale, having analysed the rhetoric and phraseology of the Miletus speech (Acts 20:17–38), came to the conclusion that Luke knew Paul’s letters but parodied, rather than copied, their style.¹⁵

Marc Rastoin opts for Luke’s use of the Pauline letters (including the Pastoral Letters) in a way which was not direct (citing), but narratively reworked. The French scholar argues that the great themes of Paul’s theology (for example, his image of the Church as the body of Christ) were creatively reworked by Luke in his apologetic story of Paul.¹⁶

Ryan S. Schellenberg notes that the basic geographical framework of Acts 15:36–20:16 is easily explicable as Lucan deduction from Paul’s letters (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, probably Philippians, as well as 2 Timothy). Moreover, the travel notices in Acts 19:21; 20:22 remarkably well correspond to those in Rom 15:23–25.30–31. Schellenberg argues that differences in detail are convincingly explained as Luke’s redaction, which can also be traced in his Gospel. In the scholar’s view, the hypothesis of Luke’s use of Paul’s letters accounts for features of the narrative that other theories of the itinerary’s source do not, especially the remarkable correspondence between those cities named in the Pauline corpus and those which serve as Luke’s narrative settings for Paul’s activity.¹⁷