This week, I found myself musing about the composition of the New Testament Gospels. Not so much about the content or theological propositions therein, but about the actual methodology involved in writing such texts. My focus shifted primarily to Luke-Acts, the first and second volumes of a second-century survey of Christian origins. I think that it is easier to postulate an authorial plan of action with Luke-Acts than for the other Gospels. What I would like to do then is combine my historical knowledge with a bit of imagination to suggest a plausible means by which the task of chronicling the earliest days of the Jesus movement was carried out.

First of all, we must settle a few questions that will be fundamental to how we proceed. I agree with most scholars that Luke-Acts was not written by anyone who personally knew Jesus or even the apostle Paul. In fact, recent scholarship is trending toward a second century date for both volumes and I think there are good grounds for doing so. One piece of evidence in this regard is the use of the word Christian (Christianoi). Christian and Christianity (Christianismos) are anachronisms in the first century. They are second century terms. They appear in second-century texts such as First Peter (not written by the apostle Peter) and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch, as Acts purports, was probably the location of the first use of such terms though not in the days of Paul (who never uses either). Also, it seems clear to me and some other scholars that the author of Luke-Acts was familiar with the works of Josephus which were published in Rome around the turn of the century.

Rome is a good starting point for our reconstruction of the origins of Luke-Acts. From the incipits to both volumes, we learn that a benefactor, wealthy and educated, has sought some kind of report on this new religious movement called Christianity. The patron is addressed at the beginning of both volumes, suggesting the two texts may have been delivered sequentially. Note also the resemblance to introductions written by Josephus: AgAp 1.1–4; 2.1–2).

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught. (Luke 1:1-4 NET)

I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3 NET)

Several important pieces of information can be gleaned from these passages. First, the individual responsible for delivering the reports (for convenience we’ll call him Luke without suggesting he was an individual known to us) was already a believer. He was chosen by Theophilus, who was most likely a God-fearing pagan deciding whether this new faith movement (“things you were taught”) was dangerous or advantageous.

Theophilus is Greek for “friend” or “beloved” i.e., of God implying his gentile origins. This may not be the patron’s real name. According to ABD, the name “suggests that he was a person of social and political prominence, perhaps a Roman governor, procurator, or magistrate, but this is by no means certain. Very likely, he was a leading figure in the group that Luke was addressing.” Suggested locations for Theophilus span the Roman Empire. I’m going to suggest Rome, but Corinth or Ephesus are also possible (Luke knows a lot about Paul’s work in both cities).

Luke was likewise educated, perhaps a scribe, maybe someone in the local Jesus-believing synagogue or assembly with whom Theophilus struck up a relationship. There is no consensus as to whether he was a Jew or gentile. Either way he spoke and wrote Greek and was well versed in scripture.

Luke knows that others have written origin accounts, that is, other gospels. Luke says there were “many” but we can no longer be sure exactly which accounts he was referring to. He most certainly knew the Gospel of Mark. And there is an academic dispute over whether Luke also knew Q, a hypothetical source shared by both Luke and Matthew, or whether he knew the Gospel of Matthew directly. Either way these were two of the “many” sources he knew about (he needn’t have had access to all the ones he knew about).

Unsatisfied with local explanations or with the rather incomplete story as found in the Gospel of Mark, Theophilus commissioned Luke to journey eastward in order to discover what else might be known of the origins and growth of Christianity.

It is certain that Luke would have taken companions. No one in the ancient world traveled by themselves. It was hazardous and time consuming. And experts in ancient literary composition tell us that extensive works like the Gospels and Acts were not written by lone individuals sitting by candlelight scratching out gospels on papyrus. That is a medieval fantasy. Large texts like these were group compositions. Even Paul’s longer letters were written in conjunction with others.

I suggest that Luke and his team traveled first to Antioch not Jerusalem as might be expected. By the late first century, Jerusalem had been destroyed and many Jews put to death at the conclusion of the first Jewish revolt (ca. 70 CE). If Luke wrote late enough, Jews would have even been banned from Judea following the second Jewish revolt (ca. 132 CE). In any event, Antioch was the third largest city in the empire and had a large Christian assembly. It was where both Peter and Paul were said to have stayed as well as Barnabas and others. It would make a good starting point.

Once on site, Luke and his party would have begun to interview the believers and devour the local texts. These would have included either Q or Matthew and possibly a lost text known as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, aka the Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Gospel of Luke is the longest of the three Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it includes much that is present in the others. But it also includes material found nowhere else. I suggest Luke derived these traditions from an otherwise lost gospel or from oral memories still circulating in the Antioch church(es).

With their work done in Syria, and after having discussed Paul’s history in the city, Luke’s team set out to retrace the steps of the apostle to the gentiles on his missionary trip westward. Where they began is uncertain, but they may have made stops at Cyprus (now likely devoid of Jews) and certain cities within Galatia (Lystra, Iconium, Pisidian Antioch) from which they derived a number of legendary accounts of Paul’s visits. The investigative party then made their way to Ephesus (unless they originated there) before moving across the Peloponnesus and into Philippi and Thessalonica. At each stop, the party would meet with church leaders and discuss and record stories associated with Paul’s mission. Passing through Athens, the investigators then arrived in Corinth for more background on Paul’s work there.

Scholars have long known that many of the speeches in Acts were constructed by the author(s) and do not reflect firsthand accounts. These help to fill out the stories but also capture what the authors thought were the important issues of the moment. These took time to create, and we can imagine late night discussions among these theologian/historians as they struggled to come up with just the right theological expressions and scriptural citations to provide Theophilus with an understanding of what had happened and why.

Some might be led to ask: If Luke-Acts was written so late, why are there no accounts of the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus? The answer seems simple enough upon reflection. Luke was trying to put the best spin possible on the origin story of the church. To foreground the apostles’ run-ins with authority figures that led to their executions would not give Theophilus, perhaps a government official himself, a warm and fuzzy feeling about the movement. Theophilus may have already had some knowledge of Christian persecution – Luke does not hide general hostilities by the people (though he likes to put most of the blame on Jewish mobs). Even the account of Paul’s trip to Rome (according to Acts, this was to bring his case to Emperor Nero) is left unresolved (implying a negative outcome for Paul). Those who are shown to have been angry with the apostles are clearly depicted as resisting the Messiahship of Jesus Christ or challenging the implied attack on their (idolatrous) religious faiths. Theophilus would have already known something about Jesus Christ and therefore aware that accepting him as the Messiah of Israel would necessarily result in the rejection of local and national deities.

My reconstruction may be purely fiction, but it does try to take into account our ever growing comprehension of ancient history. Gone forever are the days when we can realistically envision lone apostles sitting under a lamp at their writing desk composing gospels and histories out of their personal recollections. Activities like this were expensive, funded by the elite, composed by the group, and generally kept for local usage. Only sporadic travel and long periods of time worked to help spread this material to multiple locations. Luke and his team may have been unwitting actors in this dissemination of the story of Christian origins.