In this blog post I make a case for the Book of Acts being a late second-century letter written by a follower of Marcion to Theophilus, Archbishop of Antioch, for the purpose of rebranding Paul as a founding member of the Antioch Church, in fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles.
Prologue of Luke and Acts
At the beginning of Acts (Acts 1:1-5) the author states that this is the author’s second book addressed to Theophilus. This corresponds to the prologue of Luke (the author’s first book), which provides a bit more information. The author claims in the prologue of Luke to be a researcher who compiled an account of the life of Jesus and the apostles for “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4). So who is Theophilus and what were the sources mentioned by this researcher who is writing to Theophilus? First let’s consider the sources.
Marcion’s Canon
Marcion of Sinope in the mid-second century had developed his own canon of texts that were used by himself and his followers. The canon consisted of ten of Paul’s letters (all except for the pastoral letters) and a version of Luke without a prologue or birth narrative (See Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.4 and Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7). Marcion’s version of Luke was not called the Gospel of Luke but instead simply the Evangelion (meaning ‘gospel’), and it was likely inherited by Marcion rather than composed by Marcion. In Marcion’s time, as attested to by Justin (150-160), it was rare for a gospel to have an author’s name attached to it. Marcion’s Evangelion was the primary source text for the author who was writing to Theophilus, comprising the vast majority of the content of the text and following a nearly identical chronology.
The Birth Narrative
The birth narrative in Luke consisted of narratives taken from the Infancy Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, each of which are attested to by the mid-second century. The prologue, birth narrative, and Evangelion of Marcion together made up almost all of the author’s material, such that later commentators referred to Marcion’s gospel as Luke without a birth narrative or prologue.
Earliest Attestation of Luke
Irenaeus in Against Heresies, composed in Lyon around the year 180-185, is the earliest attestation to the Gospel of Luke as being identified with Luke (See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.7-8) and as having a birth narrative and prologue. Therefore the birth narrative and prologue had to have been added to the gospel Marcion was using sometime after Marcion (160) and before Irenaeus (180-185). Thereafter whoever this researcher was who was writing to the most excellent Theophilus had to have been writing in the second half of the second century, between 160 and 185. So now who is Theophilus?
Theophilus
The most likely candidate is Theophilus, who was the Archbishop of Antioch from approximately 168 to 182 (See Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 4.20). The “most excellent” title is most likely an indicator that he is the archbishop, which means it was likely composed to him around the year 168. This would place the letter exactly where we would expect it in the timeline, based on the 160-185 range that the previously mentioned evidence suggests. This would also explain why Antioch plays such a central role in the Book of Acts, if the text is written to the newly appointed Archbishop of the Antioch church. So who wrote these two lengthy letters to Theophilus?
Writer to Theophilus
I don’t know that it can be narrowed down to a specific person, but much can be derived about who in a general sense composed the letters, based on a few clues in the texts. The first clue is that the material in Luke is an expanded version of the gospel Marcion was using, which we have already established. The second clue is that the primary purpose of Acts seems to be to portray Paul as being heavily involved in the early Antioch church and also working in unison with and having the approval of the Jerusalem apostles. Both of these points are contrary to the sense one would get strictly from reading Paul’s letters, apart from Acts. These clues would suggest that the writer composing these works to Theophilus was a member of a Marcionite (Pauline) church. So why did the researcher write these two (Luke and Acts) letters to Theophilus?
Antioch in Acts and the New Testament
Antioch (Strong’s Greek: 490. Ἀντιόχεια (Antiocheia)) is only mentioned 18 times in the New Testament, 16 of which occur in Acts. These 16 instances in Acts portray Paul as being heavily involved in the early Antioch church. The two other references to Antioch each occur in Paul’s letters. One is in a list of places Paul says he endured persecution: “But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me” (2 Timothy 3:10-11, NKJV).
The other is in Galatians and is likely describing this persecution he endured at Antioch: “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:11-13, NKJV).
Given that mention of Antioch is completely absent from anywhere else in the New Testament, and is only referenced twice in Paul’s letters, and likely in reference to the same episode, there really is not any indication anywhere outside of Acts that Paul ever visited Antioch except one brief time. So this begs the question as to why Antioch plays such a central role in the Book of Acts and why Paul is portrayed therein as being such a major figure in Antioch.
Antioch at the time of Theophilus (170)
A plausible explanation is that the author of Acts is trying to convince the archbishop of Antioch (Theophilus) that Paul was heavily influential in establishing the early Antioch church, a point that would run contrary to what we find anywhere else in the New Testament. In addition to exaggerating Paul’s influence in Antioch, the author of Acts also seems to want to mend the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles, likely because the church of Antioch at the time of Theophilus had great reverence for the Jerusalem apostles, and had heard negative things about Paul and the Pauline (now Marcionite) churches. To accomplish this, Paul is depicted in Acts as someone who once persecuted the church but then converted and was accepted by the apostles. This is not the sense one would get from reading what Paul says in his letters about the Jerusalem apostles, and those sent by them, including Peter, calling them hypocritical liars, weak in faith, deceitful workers, false apostles, super apostles, and not the source of the gospel he preaches.
Saul as Early Paul in Acts
In an attempt to rebrand Paul as having mended this rift, Paul is depicted as repenting, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, and henceforth working shoulder to shoulder in fellowship with the apostles. Prior to his conversion, and only in Acts, Paul is called Saul (Strong’s Greek: 4549. Σαούλ (Saoul)). This name is used 9 times in the New Testament, all nine of which are found in Acts, and all refer to Paul up to Acts 13:9. The same character was thereafter referred to as Paul instead of Saul. The name Saul is almost certainly an allusion to King Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, who hunted down David. The use of this name in Acts symbolized the time in which Paul was persecuting Jesus and His followers. The change from Saul to Paul is concurrent with the part of the story where the Holy Spirit was received, indicating that this was a turning point for Paul as a believer. A straightforward reading of the text somewhat obscures this literary device, but the name change indicating Paul’s reception of the Holy Spirit is almost certainly the author’s intention. This acknowledgement of Paul’s early damage and suggestion that Paul’s conversion was accepted and approved by Jesus and the apostles, would serve as damage control and rebranding of Paul a century after the events and controversies and letters in question.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated, Acts seems to be written for the purpose of rebranding Paul as heavily involved in the early Antioch church and approved of by the Jerusalem apostles. And Luke is an expanded version of the gospel that the Marcionites used at the likely time of the writing of these letters to Theophilus. This would suggest that the author is of a Pauline Marcionite church and is attempting to persuade the newly appointed Archbishop of Antioch to what the author perceives to be the truth of the beliefs of the Pauline Marcion churches. This would also suggest that the Antioch Church was not already a Pauline Marcionite church. Otherwise Theophilus would already have this information and these beliefs and the author would be wasting time and ink preaching to the choir.
Choose Love 
Leave a comment