The Genre and Purpose of Luke

7172019 The Genre and Purpose of Luke

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullthe-genre-and-purpose-of-luke 111

The Genre and Purpose of Luke-Acts

copyDavid Peterson (2010)

1 Genre

Genre can be defined in terms of the content form and function of a particular text Considering the

genre of a book can be an important preliminary in the process of interpretation With regard to

Luke-Acts it is necessary to investigate the character of each book individually and then to

consider the relationship of the two to each other It is also instructive to consider these documents

in relation to comparable forms of literature in the ancient world A Christian writer with a desire to

influence people in the first-century Greco-Roman environment may well have reflected some of its

literary trends though the critical question is how closely or consciously And what might have been

the influence of the LXX and other Jewish literature[1]

A The unity of Luke and Acts

Many contemporary scholars would agree with Cadburyrsquos proposal that lsquoActs is neither an appendix

nor an afterthought It is probably an integral part of the authorrsquos original plan and

purposersquo[2] However Parsons and Pervo have offered a significant challenge to this approach

Acknowledging the common authorship of the two volumes they insist that it is neither necessary

nor helpful to force one to fit the pattern of the other Indeed Luke and Acts are sufficiently different

to suggest two distinct genres[3]

Distinctive characteristics of Luke and Acts

If Mark was one of his sources Luke clearly modified the Gospel form by more than doubling its

length and increasing the time-span of the story But his first volume still broadly resembles the

other Synoptic Gospels in structure character and style

The Gospel genre was a unique creation of Christian writers determined partly by the realities of

Jesusrsquo life and partly by the exigencies of the Christian mission a focussed lsquobiographyrsquo

concentrating on the words and works of Jesus in his public ministry especially those associated

with his death and resurrection

Structurally Lukersquos Gospel provides an lsquoepisodic series of events punctuated by numerous

aphorisms and parables of Jesusrsquo whereas Acts lsquounfolds more smoothly as a continuous narrative

featuring extended journeys and developed discourse by Jesusrsquo followersrsquo[4]

Acts appears to be a highly selective history carried forward by a number of significant speeches

from key characters covering a period of thirty or more years after Jesusrsquo resurrection and



ascension Lukersquos innovation is to show that lsquothe gospel-story is incomplete without the church-

storyrsquo[5]

Narrative unity

Analysing Luke and Acts from a literary perspective Parsons and Pervo first conclude that at thediscourse level it is inappropriate to speak of a narrative unity lsquoThe two works are independent

narratives with distinct narration that is they each tell the story differentlyrsquo[6] The narrative unity

exposed by writers such as Tannehill is said to be almost exclusively at the level of the story and

lsquodoes not reckon adequately with the disunity at the discourse levelrsquo[7]

Tannehill practices a conservative form of narrative criticism approaching Luke-Acts as lsquoan

interactive whole with harmonies and tensions that develop in the course of narrationrsquo[8] This

approach has been poorly assessed by Parsons and Pervo and they have inadequately considered

its implications particularly the theological coherence between Luke and Acts

They rightly suggest that where theological unity between Luke and Acts can be established it

should not be lsquoa brush with which to efface particularityrsquo[9] They also rightly argue that Acts is a

sequel to the Gospel rather than a simple continuation But they obscure the literary stylistic and

thematic links between the two volumes

In short Parsons and Pervo have offered an important caution in the ongoing debate about the

relationship between Luke and Acts but they have overstated their case These two volumes may

be different in genre structure and style but it is necessary to explain the links between them at the

level of story themes and theology

A two-part work

Assessing a variety of theories about the relationship between the Gospel and Acts Marshall

describes this as a two-part work (whatever the process by which this two-volume work came to its

present form)[10] He particularly notes

1 The evidence of the two prologues (Lk 11-4 Acts 11) linking the works in terms of subject

matter and purpose

2 Some material in the Gospel appears to have been either adapted or excluded because of what

is found in Acts (eg Mt 151-28Mk 71-30 finds no parallel in Luke presumably because the

theme of true purity and healingsalvation for Gentiles is addressed so fully in Acts 10-11)

3 The overlap between the ending of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts is significant (Lk

2436-52 is recapitulated in Acts 11-14 and its predictions are shown to be fulfilled in subsequent

narratives)

lsquoLukersquos justification for his fresh attempt to give an account of ldquothe things that have taken place

among usrdquo was in the fact that his predecessors had treated only the material contained in the



Gospel and not gone on to present the other comparably important material about the spread of the

gospel Their story was incompletersquo[11]

Moreover lsquoLuke planted some seeds in his Gospel that he did not intend to fully cultivate and bring

to harvest before his second volume In short the first volume was likely written with at least one

eye already on the sequelrsquo[12]

B Acts as an lsquohistorical monographrsquo

The term is a modern one lsquocommonly applied to ancient historical writings which deal with a limited

issue or period without regard to the length of the books themselvesrsquo[13]

Palmer contends that lsquowhile Acts may be allowed an implicit function of apology or self-definition its

length scope focus and formal features fit the pattern of a short historical monographrsquo[14]

1 Esdras (2nd cent BC) and 1 and 2 Maccabees (1st cent BC) share many of the features of

Greek and Roman historical monographs though their religious perspective is influenced by earlier

Jewish writings They provide a link between lsquothis double background in the past and the future

composition of Actsrsquo[15]

Witherington argues from Luke 11-4 that Luke intended both his volumes lsquoto be compared to other

ancient works of Greco-Roman historiographyrsquo[16] However reviewing various Greek and Roman

models Witherington argues that lsquoLukersquos work stands much closer to Greek historiography than to

the Roman sortrsquo[17]

A particular hallmark of true history for the Greeks was lsquopersonal observation (autopsia) and

participation in events travel inquiry the consultation of eyewitnessesrsquo[18] Acts also has a broadethnographical and geographical scope which is the pattern of the Greek histories with a message

about salvation for the nations being announced in the earliest chapters of the Gospel (Lk 229-32

31-6)

Witherington contends that Lukersquos work is most like that of Polybius and to a lesser degree that of

Thucydides[19] However Luke differs from these Greek historians in at least two significant ways

1 He is lsquonot in the main concerned about the political or military history of the larger culture but

about the social and religious history of a particular group or subculture within the Empire Luke

believes it is a group which can and should continue to have a growing and ever broader impact for

they proclaim a universal savior and salvationrsquo[20]

2 Luke includes many visions prophecies and amazing events in his narrative to highlight

Godrsquos involvement in the story However Luke does not present the amazing and the supernatural

in a way that suggests any immunity from historical scrutiny lsquounlike some of the literature about the

ldquofabulousrdquo in antiquityrsquo[21]



Witherington further observes a notable similarity between Acts and the work of the historian

Ephorus with respect to the arrangement and presentation of his material In a given book or

section Ephorus would lsquoonly deal with matters in a particular geographical or major cultural region

usually proceeding with it in a chronological orderrsquo[22]

C Acts and biblical histories

Rosner has argued that Acts is lsquoconsciously modelled on accounts of history found in the Old

Testamentrsquo[23]

There is a Semitic colouring to some of Lukersquos language particularly in Luke 1-2 and Acts 1-15

though scholars debate the extent to which this is the result of deliberately imitating the LXX

Thematically Luke-Acts shows a close relationship with the OT in dealing with matters such as

promise and fulfilment Jerusalem the Law and the Jewish people Characters such as Peter

Stephen and Paul are presented to some extent as prophetic figures following OT models

Furthermore certain narratives in Acts appear to be patterned on biblical precedents Together

these characteristics suggest that the author intended to create lsquoa ldquobiblical effectrdquo for those readers

familiar with the Biblersquo[24]

Rosner further investigates the extent to which the OT may have provided Luke with his

understanding of the nature of history God is in controlmdashdespite human wickedness and rebellion

mdashwith key terms being used to draw attention to the will and purpose of God and his direction of

human history Events are narrated as the action of God and there is a great stress on the fulfilment

of divine promises in what is recorded sometimes using specific quotations from Scripture to make

the point

The LXX appears to have influenced the language form content and presuppositions of Lukersquoswork Rosner agrees with Sterling that lsquoour author conceived of his work as the continuation of the

LXXrsquo[25] Luke was concerned to reflect upon sacred history for the benefit of the believing

community drawing a link between the time of Israel the time of Jesus and the time of the early

church

D Conclusion about genre

Having surveyed the options I find myself largely in agreement with Witheringtonrsquos conclusion

lsquoLuke-Acts bears some strong resemblances to earlier Greek historiographic works in form and

method and general arrangement of material as well as some similarities to Hellenized Jewish

historiography in content and general apologetic aims Furthermore the echoes and quotes of the

OT in Luke-Acts as well as the stress on fulfillment reveal a vital link to the biblical promises and

prophecies of the past Lukersquos work follows no one model but clearly enough it would not have

been seen as a work like Roman historiography Greek biography or Greek scientific treatises It

would surely however have been seen as some sort of Hellenistic historiography especially by a

Gentile audiencersquo[26]



Against Witherington who tends to play down the differences between Lukersquos two volumes in form

style and function portraying the Third Gospel as an historical monograph like Acts I would argue

that two distinct genres are developed by Luke and these are linked together in textual and

thematic ways to achieve a remarkable degree of narrative unity

Although there are other ancient examples of literary compositions in two parts Marshall observesthat even within the Christian context there is nothing corresponding to it lsquoChristians produce

apocryphal Gospels and apocryphal Acts but not apocryphal Gospels-cum-Actsrsquo[27]

2 Purpose

The previous discussion about the unity of Luke and Acts needs to be kept in mind as the issue of

purpose is considered It really makes a difference if Acts is considered together with the Third

Gospel[28] Although Lukersquos two-volume work may employ different literary genres there are

sufficient grounds for considering it as one project with a common aim[29]

Bruce considered that Luke deserves to be called lsquothe first Christian apologistrsquo

lsquoThe great age of Christian apologetic was the second century but of the three main types of

defense represented among the second century Christian apologists Luke provides first-century

prototypes defense against pagan religion (Christianity is true paganism is false) defense against

Judaism (Christianity is the fulfillment of true Judaism) defense against political accusations

(Christianity is innocent of any offense against Roman lawrsquo[30]

However the apologetic aim has been differently understood For example OrsquoNeill argues that

lsquoLuke-Acts was primarily an attempt to persuade an educated reading public to become Christians

it was an ldquoapologyrdquo in outward form but like all true apologies it had the burning inner purpose of

bringing men to the faithrsquo[31]

He rightly opposes the view that it was designed to gain recognition for Christianity by Roman

officials arguing that large portions of Luke-Acts would be irrelevant to such a narrowly-defined aim

He rightly highlights the evangelistic dimension of the speeches in Acts and Lukersquos interest in the

progress of the word from Jerusalem to Rome However he assumes that Theophilus and those he

represents were outsiders who were wrongly or inadequately instructed about Christianity and

needed to be corrected and persuaded about the true significance of what was being proclaimed

But was Luke-Acts published for the benefit of unbelievers or was it designed to help Christians in

their engagement with unbelievers Maddox draws attention to the fact that the work ends with a

long section about the imprisonment and trials of Paul which lsquoblunts the edge of any suggestion

that Lukersquos aim was evangelisticrsquo[32]

Acknowledging the presence of apologetic elements in Lukersquos narrative Marguerat wisely cautions

that this does not yet say what might be lsquothe apologetic aim of the narrative itselfrsquo[33] The decisive

question seems to be one of audience



lsquoThe language of Acts is a language for the initiated The implied reader is the Christian or an

interested sympathizer as for example the most excellent Theophilus (Luke 13-4 Acts 11)

Lukersquos apologetic is addressed to Christian lsquoinsidersrsquo of the movement and a circle which gravitates

around itrsquo[34]

Marguerat links Acts with ancient apologetic histories that were designed to lsquounfold the identity of amovement by exposing its native traditions by revealing its cultural dignity and the antiquity of its

originsrsquo[35] He considers that Esler has given a sociological foundation to this view by describing

Lukersquos programme as a lsquosophisticated attempt to explain and justify Christianity to the members of

his community at a time when they were exposed to social and political pressures which were

making their allegiance waverrsquo[36]

The danger with such an approach is to lose the evangelistic dimension entirely If Luke-Acts was

not addressed directly to unbelievers it must surely have been intended to motivate and equip

believers to bear faithful witness to the apostolic gospel

Marguerat allows for this when he argues that Luke wanted to help his readers lsquoto understand and

speak of themselves (to others to the Jews and the Gentiles)rsquo[37]

Maddox does the same when he concludes that Luke writes lsquoto reassure the Christians of his day

that their faith in Jesus is no aberration but the authentic goal towards which Godrsquos ancient

dealings with Israel were drivingrsquo[38] With this reassurance lsquoLuke summons his fellow-Christians to

worship God with whole-hearted joy to follow Jesus with unwavering loyalty and to carry on with

zeal through the power of the Spirit the charge to be his witnesses to the end of the earthrsquo[39]

Other recent scholars have also identified Luke-Acts an apologetic work for a Christian readership

Johnson compares Jewish apologetic literature at the time which had the dual function of seeking

to defend Jews against misunderstanding and persecution by outsiders while aiming to help them

understand their own traditions within a pluralistic context[40]

Luke wrote to give his Christian readers lsquofull confidencersquo (τη991092ν σφα983980λειανἀ Lk 14) by the way he

told his story lsquoin sequencersquo (καθεξςῆ 13) In the broadest sense his approach was to write a

lsquotheodicyrsquo defending Godrsquos activity in the world

lsquoLuke-Acts ostensibly addresses a wider audience in the clothing of Greek literature but its main

interest is to construct a continuation of the biblical story for Gentile believers in order to help them

come to grips with the profound puzzle generated by their own recent experiencersquo[41]

Johnson believes that the success of the Gentile mission created lsquoa serious problem of confidence

in the very God who accomplished itrsquo[42] The failure of many Jews to believe and experience the

blessings of the messianic salvation raised questions about the faithfulness of God and his ability to

sustain Gentiles in their faith Luke aims to assure his readers by setting forth lsquothe sequence of

events in the storyrsquo showing how God has fulfilled his promises



For all its strengths Johnsonrsquos approach does not sufficiently highlight the problem of persecution

from Jewish quarters nor the need to help Christians communicate effectively with Jewish and

Gentile opponents

However Green incorporates these emphases when he proposes that lsquothe purpose of Luke-Acts

would have been to strengthen the Christian movement in the face of opposition by (1) ensuringthem in their interpretation and experience of the redemptive purpose and faithfulness of God and

by (2) calling them to continued faithfulness and witness in Godrsquos salvific projectrsquo[43]

Squires similarly concludes that Lukersquos work is a kind of cultural lsquotranslationrsquo an attempt to explain

and defend Christianity to hellenized Christians Various techniques familiar to educated readers

from contemporary histories are embedded into the story of Luke-Acts to show how the gospel

related to their thought-world

Lukersquos appeal is to lsquoinsidersrsquo using the categories provided by lsquooutsidersrsquo Although the primary

audience for which Luke writes is the Christian community his apologetic method offered Christians

a lsquomissionary toolrsquo to assist them in evangelism Even the prominence of the Hebrew Scriptures

and the insistently Jewish practices of Jesus and the earliest Christians in Luke-Acts lsquoreinforce the

notion (essential in the hellenistic context) that Christianity was ldquono mere noveltyrdquo but was able to

claim a long antiquity in Israelrsquo[44]

Lukersquos attempt to outline the continuity between Christians and Israel and between the events of

Jesusrsquo career and OT prophecies was an important aspect of his response to criticisms of

Christianity that may have been made both by Jews and by pagans

[1] Cf D PetersonThe Acts of the Apostles PNTC (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2009) 5-15

[2] H J CadburyThe Making of Luke-Acts (Naperville IL Allenson 1927 2nd ed London SPCK

1958) 8-9 Since Cadburyrsquos foundational work a variety of publications regarding the generic

narrative and theological unity of Luke-Acts have emerged Cf J VerheydenThe Unity of Luke-

Acts BETL 142 (Leuven Leuven University 1999)

[3] M C Parsons amp R I PervoRethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Philadelphia Fortress

1993) 37-40

[4] F S Spencer Acts (Sheffield Sheffield Academic 1997) 14

[5] R MaddoxThe Purpose of Luke-Acts(Edinburgh Clark 1982) 10

[6] Parsons amp PervoRethinking 82

[7] Parsons amp PervoRethinking 83 Cf R C TannehillThe Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts A

Literary InterpretationVolume 1 The Gospel of Luke(Minneapolis Fortress 1986) andVolume 2

The Acts of the Apostles(Minneapolis Fortress 1990)



[8] R C Tannehill lsquoNarrative Criticismrsquo in R J Coggins and J L Houlden (ed)Dictionary of

Biblical Interpretation (London SCM Philadelphia TPI 1990) 488 R C TannehillThe Shape of

Lukersquos Story Essays on Luke-Acts (Eugene Cascade 2005) offers a convenient republication of

articles in which he has demonstrated his methodology over several years


[10] I H Marshall lsquoActs and the ldquoFormer Treatiserdquorsquo in B W Winter and A D Clarke (ed)The

Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Vol 1 Ancient Literary Setting (Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carlisle Paternoster 1993) 163-182 Cf MaddoxPurpose 3-6 9-12 C K Barrett lsquoThe Third

Gospel as a Preface to Acts Some Reflectionsrsquo in F Van Segbroeck (ed)The Four Gospels

1992 Festschrift Frans Neirynck (Leuven Leuven University 1992) 1451-66

[11] Marshall lsquoActs and the ldquoFormer Treatiserdquorsquo 176-7

[12] Witherington 1998 8 M F Bird lsquoThe Unity of Luke-Acts in Recent Discussionrsquo JSNT29

(2007) 425-48 surveys a number of scholarly responses to Parsons amp Pervo concluding that they

have failed to convince the majority due to lsquothe success of Cadbury and others like Tannehill who

have constructed arguments that are both persuasive on the textual level and that resonate with the

current interests of scholarship in literary-critical studiesrsquo (435)

[13] D W Palmer lsquoActs and the Ancient Historical Monographrsquo in Winter and ClarkeBook of Acts I

4 Palmer 26 concludes that lsquothe fragmentary evidence for numerous Greek monographs and one

in Latin confirms the existence of the genre but does not give a picture of what an individual

example looked likersquo

[14] Palmer lsquoAncient Historical Monographrsquo 18 Palmer includes the notions of apology and self-

definition in his evaluation because he has compared Acts with the Jewish Antiquitiesof Josephus

[15] Palmer lsquoAncient Historical Monographrsquo 27 See below for comments on Acts and Biblical

History

[16] Witherington 1998 381

[17] Witherington 1998 27 He notes that Josephus lsquoby limiting himself to the chronicling of

developments among one people (the Jews rather than the Romans) and attempting a ldquouniversal

historyrdquo of this one people much more closely approximates some of his Roman predecessors and

contemporariesrsquo

[18] Witherington 1998 27 CadburyMaking 220 concluded from the style of Luke-Acts that the

author must have been lsquofor his time and station a gentleman of ability and breadth of interest

whatever his past reading and training may have beenrsquo D Mealand lsquoHellenistic Historians and the

Style of Actsrsquo ZNW82 (1991) 59 concluded that Luke lsquois a skilful literary artist who can use

varieties of style for effectrsquo





[21] Witherington 1998 32 Witherington 31 compares Lukersquos style to that of Herodotus lsquothe so-

called father of Greek historiography who wrote what can rightly be called a form of theologicalhistoriographyrsquo

[22] Witherington 1998 34 Ephorusrsquos method became standard for Greek historians after him and

Witherington submits that Luke followed his approach

[23] B S Rosner lsquoActs and Biblical Historyrsquo in Winter and ClarkeBook of ActsI 68 Cf J

JervellThe Theology of the Acts of the Apostles New Testament Theology (Cambridge Cambridge

University 1996) 104-26

[24] Rosner lsquoBiblical Historyrsquo 73 Rosner argues that Luke is not inventing material to fit the

pattern but rather he is making important theological links by his use of OT language and allusion

[25] Rosner lsquoBiblical Historyrsquo 81 citing G E SterlingHistoriography and Self-Definition Josephus

Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden Brill 1992) 363 (Sterlingrsquos emphasis)

[26] Witherington 1998 39 D MargueratThe First First Christian Historian Writing the lsquoActs of

the Apostlesrsquo SNTSMS 121 (Cambridge Cambridge University 2002) 34 identifies Acts as a work

of apologetic historiography specifically a lsquonarrative of beginningsrsquo

[27] Marshal lsquoFormer Treatisersquo 180 He concludes that lsquothe whole work demonstrates affinities

both to historical monographs and to biographies but it appears to represent a new type of work of

which it is the only examplersquo

[28] Cf Peterson Acts 26-39

[29] MaddoxPurpose 4 rightly observes that we can only speak confidently of lsquothe purpose of

Luke-Actsrsquo if Luke planned the whole work as a unity though in two volumes

[30] Bruce 1990 22 Bruce argues that Acts contains a defence against paganism (eg 1415-18)

and a defence against Judaism (eg 72-53 2139- 2828) Bruce 23-5 does not agree with the

view that Luke-Acts was written to provide material for Paulrsquos defence at his trial but he

nevertheless discerns a political apologetic throughout This concerns the innocence of Christianityin relation to Roman law Bruce 25-7 further notes that there is also a sense in which Acts has an

apologetic intention with reference to some sections of the church

[31] J C OrsquoNeillThe Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (2nd ed London SPCK 1970) 176

He acknowledges the need to demonstrate lsquothe innocence of the Christians of any revolutionary

political tendenciesrsquo (p 179) but insists that this was a subsidiary aim Cf MargueratFirst



Christian Historian 27-8 OrsquoNeill 181-5 goes on to consider a number of specific warnings to the

church which flow from Lukersquos apologetic and evangelistic material

[32] MaddoxPurpose 181 Maddox 12-15 considers the options carefully and concludes that

there are lsquogood reasons for doubting that Luke was writing for an audience outside the Christian

fellowshiprsquo

[33] MargueratFirst Christian Historian 29

[34] MargueratFirst Christian Historian 30 He defines the implied reader as lsquothe image of the

recipient of the narrative as the text makes him appear (his presupposed knowledge) and as the

narrative constructs him (his cooperation in reading the text)rsquo


[36] P F EslerCommunity and Gospel in Luke-Acts The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan

Theology SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge Cambridge University 1987) 222 MaddoxPurpose 21-3

182-3 reviews and critiques four theories concerning issues of faith that Luke may have been

addressing in the church of his day The dominant themes of Luke-Acts are identified as

ecclesiology (with special reference to Israel and the promises of the OT) and eschatology (pp 183-

6)

[37] MargueratFirst Christian Historian 31 (my emphasis) However it limits the scope and intent

of Lukersquos work to describe it as lsquoa tool of self-understandingrsquo Cf Longenecker 2007 676-8 on the

kerygmatic purpose of Luke-Acts

[38] MaddoxPurpose 187


[40] L T JohnsonThe Gospel of Luke Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville Liturgical Press 1991) 9

Such literature could provide security or reassurance to Jewish readers lsquoby demonstrating within a

pluralistic context the antiquity and inherent value of their traditionsrsquo

[41] L T JohnsonThe Acts of the Apostles Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville Liturgical Press 1992)

7

[42] Johnson 1992 8

[43] J B GreenThe Gospel of Luke NICNT (Grand RapidsCambridge Eerdmans 1997) 21-2

Green considers that the genre of Luke-Acts suggests the Evangelistrsquos concern with lsquolegitimation

and apologeticrsquo

[44] SquiresPlan of God 191 Note the way Squires 192-4 develops the argument that Lukersquos

apology was directed to hellenized Christians





ascension Lukersquos innovation is to show that lsquothe gospel-story is incomplete without the church-

storyrsquo[5]

Narrative unity

Analysing Luke and Acts from a literary perspective Parsons and Pervo first conclude that at thediscourse level it is inappropriate to speak of a narrative unity lsquoThe two works are independent

narratives with distinct narration that is they each tell the story differentlyrsquo[6] The narrative unity

exposed by writers such as Tannehill is said to be almost exclusively at the level of the story and

lsquodoes not reckon adequately with the disunity at the discourse levelrsquo[7]

Tannehill practices a conservative form of narrative criticism approaching Luke-Acts as lsquoan

interactive whole with harmonies and tensions that develop in the course of narrationrsquo[8] This

approach has been poorly assessed by Parsons and Pervo and they have inadequately considered

its implications particularly the theological coherence between Luke and Acts

They rightly suggest that where theological unity between Luke and Acts can be established it

should not be lsquoa brush with which to efface particularityrsquo[9] They also rightly argue that Acts is a

sequel to the Gospel rather than a simple continuation But they obscure the literary stylistic and

thematic links between the two volumes

In short Parsons and Pervo have offered an important caution in the ongoing debate about the

relationship between Luke and Acts but they have overstated their case These two volumes may

be different in genre structure and style but it is necessary to explain the links between them at the

level of story themes and theology

A two-part work

Assessing a variety of theories about the relationship between the Gospel and Acts Marshall

describes this as a two-part work (whatever the process by which this two-volume work came to its

present form)[10] He particularly notes

1 The evidence of the two prologues (Lk 11-4 Acts 11) linking the works in terms of subject

matter and purpose

2 Some material in the Gospel appears to have been either adapted or excluded because of what

is found in Acts (eg Mt 151-28Mk 71-30 finds no parallel in Luke presumably because the

theme of true purity and healingsalvation for Gentiles is addressed so fully in Acts 10-11)

3 The overlap between the ending of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts is significant (Lk

2436-52 is recapitulated in Acts 11-14 and its predictions are shown to be fulfilled in subsequent

narratives)

lsquoLukersquos justification for his fresh attempt to give an account of ldquothe things that have taken place

among usrdquo was in the fact that his predecessors had treated only the material contained in the
























31-6)



















Testamentrsquo[23]














the point




church



















2 Purpose

































around itrsquo[34]



































Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo




























31-6)



















Testamentrsquo[23]














the point




church



















2 Purpose

































around itrsquo[34]



































Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo













Testamentrsquo[23]














the point




church



















2 Purpose

































around itrsquo[34]



































Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo













2 Purpose

































around itrsquo[34]



































Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo










around itrsquo[34]



































Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo









Gentile opponents























1993) 37-40
































History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo






























History





contemporariesrsquo












































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo











































fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo











fellowshiprsquo











6)










7

[42] Johnson 1992 8



and apologeticrsquo







Documents

The Genre and Purpose of Luke