To be honest, I didn’t put much attention into the research of that issue, though I did read up on it briefly. I think the fact that the lack of variants to that regard also speaks volumes. The link to Tektonics that Dave gave has a good bit on this at the end.

I’ll probably read up on it a bit more and post a supplemental entry a bit later on.

Thanks

Thanks for the comment, and for stopping by!

I do take Luke-Acts to be a two-volume work with a span of time in between, although I think the time-span wasn’t that long. I reserve the right to be wrong however!

A big reason for this is that the opening lines of Acts are superfluous if Luke-Acts was published as one work. “In the first/former book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.”

Luke uses prwtos which refers to one of several, or the first of a pair. Some debate that this word suggests that Luke intended a third volume, although koine greek tends to forgo superlatives in order to just make a direct comparison, so while possible, an argument for a third volume isn’t necessary. It’s best to understand that Luke just means that his Gospel was first, which was followed by Acts.

Also, we can’t deny the similarities and thematic unity between Luke-Acts, but at the same time we can recognize that the two have two different (albeit similar) styles. Luke’s gospel tends to fit more into a theological ancient biography while Acts tends more towards historical- with the understanding that we see snippets of other genres in both.

All that to say, that I do take them to have been separate volumes, though probably not written too far apart from one-another. Again, that’s not the final word by any means on the issue though!