Does anyone know of any recent Biblical scholars who advocate for a position that separates Luke and Acts (from an interpretive point of view)?
edit: Many scholars view Luke and Acts as an intentionally-planned sequence, moving from the third gospel to Acts. Martin Dibelius views them as separate works based on his belief that Luke has different audiences in view. Is anybody aware of any newer scholars who support this (or a similar) view that Luke and Acts should be taken as truly separate works?

