Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

The Genre of Acts:

Moving Toward a Consensus?


THOMAS E. PHILLIPS
Point Loma Nazarene University
San Diego, CA, USA
enctom@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

This article examines the four most widely discussed proposals for
the genre of Acts in contemporary scholarship (biography as proposed
by C. Talbert, novel as proposed by R. Pervo, epic as proposed by
D. MacDonald, and history as reflected in the consensus of schol-
arship). Because the historical genre is currently the most widely
accepted understanding, four historical subgenres are also considered
(general history as proposed by D. Aune, political history as proposed
by D. Balch, deuteronomistic history as proposed by T. Brodie, and
apologetic history as proposed by G. Sterling). Currently the tendency
of scholarship appears to be moving in the direction of understanding
Acts as a mixture of genres, some of which are fictive.
Keywords: Acts, genre, historicity, interpreters, Luke–Acts.

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, issues of historical


accuracy and reliability dominated Acts scholarship. As early as the turn
of the twentieth century, surveys of scholarship demonstrated that Acts
scholarship was clearly divided into two traditions, a conservative (largely
British) tradition which had great confidence in the historicity of Acts and
a less conservative (largely German) tradition which had very little con-
fidence in the historicity of Acts (van Manen 1898; Bumstead 1901;
Moffatt 1908). Several subsequent surveys of scholarship have demon-
strated that the same division continues within Acts scholarship to the
present time (e.g. Robertson 1920; Clarke 1922; Hunkin 1922; McGiffert
1922; Barrett 1961; Guthrie 1963; Rese 1967; Blaiklock 1970; Karris
1979; Plümacher 1984; Hahn 1986; Powell 1991; Tyson and Parsons

Currents in Biblical Research


Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi) Vol. 4.3: 365-396
http://CBI.sagepub.com ISSN 1476-993X DOI: 10.1177/1476993X06064629

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


366 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

1992; Grässer 2001; Marshall 2003). The two most important histories
of nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth century Acts scholarship also
illustrate this division with W.W. Gasque (1989) privileging the more
historically conservative tradition of Acts scholarship and A.J. Mattill
(1959) privileging the less historically conservative tradition of Acts
scholarship.
In the second half of the twentieth century, the best of the conservative
tradition was represented by scholars such as F.F. Bruce (1954; 1960;
1984; 1990), I.H. Marshall (1969; 1970; 1978; 1992; 2003) and C. Hemer
(1977; 1989), who often followed the earlier work of the British W.M.
Ramsay (1897; 1911) and the American H.J. Cadbury (1927; 1955;
1958). During the same period, the other tradition, which had less con-
fidence in the historicity of Acts, was best represented by M. Dibelius
(1956), H. Conzelmann (1960; 1966; 1987) and E. Haenchen (1966;
1971). In this two-century-long debate over the historicity of Acts and its
underlying traditions, only one assumption seemed to be shared by all:
Acts was intended to be read as history. Although the debate over his-
toricity has never fully abated, since the mid-1970s another debate has
arisen to parallel (and sometimes overshadow) the unsettled historicity
debate.
This parallel debate has questioned whether the historicity debate was
predicated upon an inaccurate assessment of the genre of Acts as history.
This essay will examine the Acts scholarship of the last thirty-five years
which has engaged in this rethinking of the genre of Acts. It will examine
the major proposals for the genre of Acts as biography, novel, epic and
various kinds of history. After examining these proposals, the essay will
conclude by examining what may be an emerging consensus regarding
the genre of Acts.

Acts as Biography (Charles H. Talbert)


The first major challenge to classifying Acts as history came from Charles
Talbert (1974). In his wide-ranging and influential monograph, Literary
Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke–Acts, Talbert
observed the ‘principle of balance’ which was ‘present in the Lucan mileu
and rooted in the aesthetic assumptions of the Mediterranean peoples’
(1974: 125). For Talbert, the balance present both between the two vol-
umes of Luke–Acts and between the characters and deeds within those
volumes was the key to understanding the genre of Luke–Acts. Talbert

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 367

noted, ‘It has not yet been determined, however, just exactly how the
patterns are related to the genre of Acts… The major problem, of course,
is to determine exactly to what genre Luke–Acts belongs’ (1974: 125).
Talbert attempted to solve this ‘major problem’ by comparing Luke–Acts
to Diogenes Laertius’ third-century Lives of Eminent Philosophers.
Talbert’s comparison focused upon three areas: content, form, and
function. In regard to content, Talbert argued that Laertius’ subjects,
philosophers, ‘were regarded as divine figures… The proper model for
understanding the role of a founder of a philosophical school in antiq-
uity is a religious, not an academic one’ (1974: 126). He further ex-
plained that Laertius’ Lives not only discussed the lives of the founders
of the various philosophical schools, but also included ‘narratives about
the masters’ successors and selected other disciples who in actuality
formed a type of religious community created and sustained by the
divine figure’ (1974: 126). The final component in the content of Laer-
tius’ Lives contained ‘summaries of the doctrine of the various schools’
(1974: 127).
In Talbert’s analysis, this content therefore took ‘an (a)+(b)+(c) form’
in which ‘(a) life of the founder + (b) narrative about the disciples and
successors + (c) summary of the doctrine of the school’ could be expected
(1974: 127). Importantly, however, the (c) component could be omitted in
some cases because both the (a) and (c) components fulfilled the same
function, ‘to protect the master from false charges’ (1974: 129). Accord-
ing to Talbert, both the life of the philosopher (a) and the narrative about
the disciples (b) were consistently present because they complemented—
without overlapping—one another in function. The account of the foun-
der’s life established ‘the way of life of a given school derived from or
associated with him’, while the narrative about the founder’s disciples
sanctioned ‘the authentic or true way of the various schools’ (1974: 128).
According to Talbert, the disciples’ narrative served to legitimate the true
and appropriate heirs of the founder’s tradition.
After offering this explanation of the content, form and function of the
biographies in Laertius’ Lives, Talbert made comparisons between
Laertius’ Lives and Luke–Acts. In terms of content, Talbert argued that
‘Luke–Acts, as well as Diogenes Laertius, therefore, has for its contents
the life of a founder of a religious community, a list or narrative of the
founder’s successors and selected other disciples, and a summary of the
doctrine of the community’ (1974: 129-30). In terms of form, Luke–Acts
contains the two essential elements of Laertius’ form, the account of the
founder’s life (a) and the narrative about the subsequent disciples (b) even

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


368 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

though the less significant third element, the summary of doctrine (c), is
omitted (1974: 130). For Talbert, Luke–Acts, therefore, functioned as
did Laertius’ Lives: to legitimate the proper interpreters of the founder’s
original teachings. Talbert explained:
In the ancient world the (a)+(b) pattern is found only in certain Lives of
the philosophers and in Luke–Acts. This is a striking fact. There is
furthermore a similarity in purpose between Luke–Acts and the Lives
of philosophers following this pattern, whether they be collections or
individual Lives. Both are concerned to say where the true tradition is
to be found in the present (1974: 134).

Given the similarity of content, form and function, Talbert was able to
conclude that ‘Luke–Acts, to some extent, must be regarded as belonging
to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, in particular, to that type of biog-
raphy which dealt with the lives of the philosophers and their successors’
(1974: 134). According to Talbert, the author of Luke–Acts chose this
genre in order to vindicate a particular form of Christianity (represented
by the apostles and Paul) as the true heir to Jesus’ life and teachings and
to undermine competing claims to legitimacy. Talbert explained:
Both Luke’s choice of genre type for his message to the church and his
development of the type chosen were rooted in the Sitz im Leben of his
community. The Lucan community was one that was troubled by a
clash of views over the legitimate understanding of Jesus and the true
nature of the Christian life. The Evangelist needed to be able to say
both where the true tradition was to be found in his time (i.e., with the
successors of Paul and of the Twelve) and what the content of that
tradition was (i.e., how the apostles lived and what they taught, seen as
rooted in the career of Jesus) (1974: 135, emphasis Talbert’s).

In subsequent writings, Talbert continued to defend this argument


both in regard to the genre of the gospels as biography (1977; 1992) and
in regard to Luke–Acts as biography (1978; 1980; 1996). Not surpris-
ingly, several scholars have accepted and continued to develop Talbert’s
suggestions about the biographical nature of the gospels (e.g. Shuler
1990; Stuhlmacher 1990; Burridge 1992; 1998). More significantly, some
scholars have also continued to develop Talbert’s hypothesis in regard to
Luke–Acts (Robbins 1979; 1981; Barr and Wentling 1984; Alexander
1993b; 1999a; Porter 2005). In spite of such sporadic attention, the fact
remains that in terms of the consensus of scholarship, J.T. Carroll’s
assessment is correct: Talbert’s classification of Acts as biography ‘has
found few followers’ (1999: 59).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 369

Acts as Novel (Richard I. Pervo)


In his widely discussed monograph, Profit with Delight, R. Pervo de-
scribed his attempt to identify the genre of Acts as an effort ‘to view the
document of Acts from a different perspective’ (1987: 1). Pervo was well
aware of scholarly tendencies both to regard Acts as historiography and to
remain suspicious of the historicity of Acts. Pervo, therefore, began his
analysis by considering an irony which he found in the work of the
distinguished Acts scholar E. Haenchen. According to Pervo, Haenchen
assumed ‘without reference to evidence, that Luke was a historian’, but
also dismissed the historicity of Acts as untenable (Pervo 1987: 3). Yet,
according to Pervo, Haenchen ironically demonstrated that Acts needed
‘no apologies’ when viewed as a literary achievement because
[w]ith consummate skill he [Haenchen] revealed Luke’s capacity to
conjure up exciting episodes with creative ingenuity and a sound
dramatic instinct. Heanchen convincingly elucidated Luke’s bewitch-
ing ability to foist upon his readers one inconsistency after another and
convert the most dreary material into good reading (Pervo 1987: 3).

The central concern for Pervo’s monograph, therefore, became the


‘enigma thus produced: a Luke who was bumbling and incompetent as
a historian yet brilliant and creative as an author’ (1987: 3).
Pervo rejected the notion that Luke could be both a ‘stupid historian
and brilliant writer’ and instead sought a more appropriate genre classifi-
cation for ‘works that are bad history and good writing’ (1987: 3). Pervo
acknowledged that the prefaces and speeches in Acts were consistent with
ancient historiography, but he also insisted that their presence alone was
insufficient to establish the genre of Acts as historiography. Instead,
Pervo noted ‘the great gulf fixed between Luke and learned historians of
his era’ (1987: 7). Pervo argued that cultured writers in the first century
‘sneered at the notion of lowbrow history’ and that the lowbrow Acts,
therefore, could not be historiography (1987: 11).
For Pervo, Acts was distinguished from the histories of the era by two
major criteria. First, Acts was a popular, as opposed to a learned, docu-
ment. ‘Luke did not write a learned treatise. He was a “popular” writer’
(1987: 11). Second, as popular literature, Acts maintained a deeper inter-
est in entertaining its readers than did the learned historiography of the
time (1987: 11). For Pervo, many of the literary themes (e.g. persecution,
conspiracies, riots and travels) and literary devices (e.g. wit and irony) in

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


370 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Acts would have entertained ancient readers and encouraged them to read
Acts as something other than historiography (1987: 12-85).
Pervo suggested that Acts bears significant resemblance to ancient
novels, which he defines as ‘a relatively lengthy work of prose fiction
depicting and deriding certain ideals through an entertaining presentation
of the lives and experiences of a person or persons whose activity tran-
scends the limits of ordinary living as known to its implied readers’
(1987: 105). Pervo, like Talbert, offered a formula for determining the
genre of Acts, suggesting that ‘the novel = material + manner + style +
structure’ (1987: 114). For Pervo, a novel is a fictive narrative about
intriguing personalities which incorporates predictable themes (e.g.
religion, status, travel, and adventure) and is told both in an entertaining
manner and in a style accessible to the common person (1987: 104-14).
Pervo suggested that the apocryphal Acts are very close to the canoni-
cal Acts in genre and that ‘none of the attempts to distinguish these Acts
into canonical and apocryphal types of substantially different genres is
compelling’ (1987: 131). Although none of the apocryphal Acts have a
companion volume like the third gospel, Pervo was unbothered because
he assumed that Luke and Acts do not belong to the same genre (1987: 4;
1989; Parsons and Pervo 1993). For Pervo, the Gospel of Luke is
probably biography or perhaps a ‘biographical novel’ (1987: 185 n. 5),
while Acts tilts ‘sharply toward the historical novel’ (1987: 137). Pervo
argued for the ‘ancient novel’s relevance to the understanding of Acts’
and desires ‘that such comparison [between Acts and ancient novels]
proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using
historiographical models’ (1987: 137).
Although Pervo is often sharply criticized for classifying Acts as an
ancient novel (e.g. Walker 1989), he never made a complete equation
between the genre of Acts and the ancient novel. His research did,
however, highlight both what he regarded as strong parallels between the
ancient novel and the book of Acts and what he considered a fruitful point
of comparison for subsequent research. Although such comparisons were
already in their infancy (e.g. Schlierling and Schlierling 1978; Praeder
1981) before Pervo’s eloquent apology for rethinking the fictive nature of
Acts, in the wake of Pervo’s monograph comparisons between Acts and
ancient novels became increasingly common in leading peer-reviewed
publications (e.g. Dawsey 1989; Alexander 1995; Ascough 1996; Harrill
2000; Schwartz 2003).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 371

Acts as Epic (Dennis R. MacDonald)


During the 1980s and early 1990s, D. MacDonald distinguished himself
as a leading scholar in the study of the apocryphal Acts (1983; 1984;
1990a; 1990b; 1993a; 1993b). In the mid and late 1990s, MacDonald
began to investigate the relationship between early Christian narratives
and the Homeric epics. His initial explorations considered the relation-
ship between the apocryphal Acts and Homer (1994a) and between the
Apocrypha’s Tobit and Homer (2001). During this time, he also made
occasional comparison between specific New Testament scenes and
Homer (e.g. 1994b; 1998; 1999; 2000a), but MacDonald broke entirely
new ground when he announced that ‘I have come to conclude that Mark
wanted his readers to detect his transvaluation of Homer’ (2000b: 3).
MacDonald suggested that discussions of Mark’s genre had been mis-
guided to that point. He explained that in regard to the genre of Mark, ‘the
elusive Holy Grail of gospel studies’,
…[t]he most common solution avers that Mark intended to write a
biography of sorts but was humbugged by the unreliable, legendary
traditions available to him. In this book I argue, however, that the key
to Mark’s composition has less to do with its genre than with its imita-
tion of specific texts of a different genre: Mark wrote a prose epic mod-
eled largely after the Odyssey and the ending of the Iliad (2000b: 3).

Although MacDonald’s arguments demonstrated his characteristic


scholarly acumen and meticulous analysis, many reviewers remained
skeptical about Mark’s imitation of Homer because, as MacDonald noted,
they wondered ‘why did ancient readers not mention it?’ (2003a: 13).
Eventually, MacDonald came to believe that he had discovered at least
one of Mark’s early readers who ‘did recognize his [Mark’s] imitations of
the epics: the author of Luke–Acts’ (2003a: 14). MacDonald contended
that having recognized Mark’s imitation, Luke employed the same tech-
nique in Acts. For MacDonald, the implications of his literary reclassi-
fication of Mark and Luke–Acts as imitations of Homeric epic were
immense. It meant that ‘one best reads these texts against the backdrop
not of history and antecedent Christian tradition but of classical Greek
literature and mythology’ (2003a: 14-15; also see Selvidge 1986; Kull-
man 1988). The supposed Greek heritage behind Mark and Luke is impor-
tant, because it legitimized MacDonald’s criticism of Bonz’s attempt to
identify Acts with the Latin epic poem, Aeneid (Bonz 2000). MacDonald

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


372 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

appropriately noted that the incongruities between the New Testament’s


Greek prose and the Aeneid’s Latin poetry presented ‘a high hurdle’
which Bonz was unable to clear (MacDonald 2003a: 8-9).
MacDonald offered six criteria for establishing one ancient author’s
imitation of another author, including Luke’s imitation of Homer. These
six criteria were: (1) accessibility: the originating text must have been
widely available and readable to the imitating author (Bonz’s Latin model
fails this test); (2) analogy: other ancient writers must have also imitated
the originating text; (3) density: the imitation must display several speci-
fic signs of imitation; (4) sequence: the imitation must convey accounts in
the same sequence as the source text; (5) distinctiveness: the source and
its imitation must share distinctive (rather than culturally common) fea-
tures; and (6) interpretability: the imitation must reveal its intention to
reinterpret the source text (MacDonald 2003a: 2-6). For MacDonald, ‘If
any author of the New Testament was capable of imitating Homeric epic
it was the author of Luke–Acts’ (2003a: 7). MacDonald sought to demon-
strate this imitation by comparing four scenes from Acts with similar
scenes from Homer. He compared the visions of Cornelius and Peter (Acts
10.1–11.18) with Agamemnon’s dream (Iliad 2); Paul’s farewell at
Miletus (Acts 20.18-35) with Hector’s farewell (Iliad 6); the election of
Matthias (Acts 1.15-26) with casting lots for Ajax (Iliad 7); and Peter’s
escape from prison (12.3-17) with Priam’s escape from Achilles (Iliad 24).
Not surprisingly, after subjecting these accounts to a cautious analysis
on the basis of his six criteria, MacDonald concluded: ‘Does the New
Testament imitate Homer? For me the answer is a resounding Yes! One
cannot discount the parallels as coincidental or trivial’ (2003a: 151).
According to MacDonald, the recognition of Acts as an imitation of
Homeric epic entails ‘theological implications [that] are profound’ (2003a:
151). According to MacDonald, in the mind of the author of Acts the
function of the narrative was never to preserve historical memories from
the early church (even though at points the author may have been in-
formed by such traditions) and the nature of evangelism in the early
church was not an appeal to the supposed facts of history. Rather the
function of Acts was ‘intertextual “transvaluation”, the strategic replace-
ment of the values of the targeted text [Homer] with new ones [those of
early Christianity]’ (2003a: 151). For MacDonald, therefore, ‘[a]ncient
evangelism was, to a large extent, a mythomachia, a battle among com-
peting fictions’ (2003a: 151).
MacDonald recognized that acceptance of his arguments about the
genre of Acts would demand a reconsideration of a vast array of religious

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 373

and scholarly assumptions—and he is not naïve. He recognized that


‘scholarly glaciers move slowly’ (2003a: 14). Of course, the acceptance
or rejection of his arguments will ultimately be determined in large part
by the plausibility of the intertextuality he offered. On this point,
MacDonald was walking a treacherous path. He argued that ancient
imitators
learned to disguise their dependence to avoid charges of pedantry and
plagiarism, but mimesis often is difficult to recognize even when
authors advertise their works as imitations. Today we read these texts
with a cultural competence radically different from those for whom
they were written; ancient readers could detect allusion invisible to all
but the best-trained classicists (2003a: 2).

Essentially, MacDonald has given himself the task of making the ‘in-
visible’ visible again. Not surprisingly, some interpreters suspect that
MacDonald was creating rather than discovering the parallels that he
developed (e.g. Sandnes 2005).
The reader will ultimately have to determine the plausibility of Mac-
Donald’s parallels. The following examples are typical. On a thematic
level, MacDonald (2003a: 101) offered this chart:

Iliad 6 Acts 20
* Hector was a target of violence. * Paul was a target of violence.
* Hector returned to Troy to have the * Paul had left Troas and summoned
* elders pray to the gods. * the elders for instruction and prayer.
* Hector was eager to return to the * Paul was eager to return to Jerusalem
* battle despite the danger. * despite the danger.
* Hector’s farewell to Andromache * Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders
* took place not at their home but at * took place not at their home but at
* the gate. * Miletus.
* Hector would not die until days later. * Paul would not die until years later.

As more direct literary parallels, MacDonald (2003a: 111-12) offered


these analogies.

Iliad 7.161 Acts 1.23


And nine men all stood And they presented two men.

Iliad 7.161-69 Acts 1.13-14


And nine men all stood, They ascended to the upper room
The first by far to stand was Agamemnon, where they stayed—Peter, and John, and
Lord of men, then rose mighty Diomedes James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


374 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

of Tydeus, and after them the two Ajaxes, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of
clothed in impetuous valor, and after them Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and
Idomeneus and Idomeneus’s comrade Judas son of James—
Meriones, equal to man-slaying Enyalius,
and after them Eurypylos, glorious son of
Euaemon, and up jumped Thoas of
Andaemon and bold Odysseus—
all these wanted to all these were continuing
fight with noble Hector. together in prayer.

Iliad 7.175-83 Acts 1.24-26a


And each man marked his lot (Peter’s statement in 1.17 anticipates
and cast it into the helmet of Atreides the casting of lots: Judas won his ministry
Agamemnon. with the Twelve in a lottery of sorts)

And the people prayed and lifted their And they prayed
hands to the gods, looking up to broad
heaven, one would speak like and said:
this: “Father Zeus, “Lord, knower of hearts,
(I pray that) Ajax may win the lot, indicate which of these two men
or the son of Tydeus, you select to take
or the king of gold-rich Mycene himself.” the place of this service and apostleship
that Judas forsook to go to his own place.”
So they spoke, and the horseman, Nestor And they gave them lots,
of Gerenia, shook them and out from the
helmet popped the lot that and the lot fell
they had wanted: that of Ajax. for Matthias.

Undoubtedly, some parallels will prove more convincing than others. In


the appendix, MacDonald (2003a: 153-65) offers twelve pages of paral-
lels in Greek and Latin (the italics in the table above indicate where
MacDonald finds direct correspondence between the language in Homer
and Acts).

Acts as History (Variations on the Majority


Opinion within Scholarship)
In spite of the significant arguments raised by the scholars considered to
this point in this article, a clear majority of scholars still argues—and, in
fact, often assumes—that the book of Acts belongs to a historiographical
genre. For many scholars, the possibility that Acts belongs to something
other than a historical genre is dismissed with little more than a brief
mention. A great number of Acts scholars has been satisfied to grant Acts

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 375

the largely undifferentiated designation of ancient historiography (e.g.


Haenchen 1971: 90-103; Scott 1974; Hemer 1977; 1989; Hengel 1979;
Roloff 1981: 6-10; Maddox 1982: 15-18; Krodel 1986: 39-43; Kurz 1987;
1990; Jones 1989; Lüdemann 1989; Thornton 1991; Green and McKeever
1994: 32-35; Pesch 1995: 34-36; Jervell 1996; Dunn 1996: xv-xix; Green
1996; 2002; Kee 1997: 11-14; Alexander 1998b; Gilbert 1999; Verhey-
den 1999: 45-48; Wilson 2001; Bovon 2003; Culy and Parsons 2003:
xviii-xix).
In spite of the scholarly tendency to blur distinctions between different
types of ancient history, a significant number of scholarly works (includ-
ing other works by some of the scholars just noted) has sought to provide
Acts with a more precise classification within the broadly conceived
genre of historiography. For these scholars, the question has not been
whether or not Acts is history, but rather to what the specific subgenre of
history Acts belongs. Scholars have suggested various descriptions of
Acts as ‘apologetic history’ (Sterling 1989; 1992; Barrett 1996b: 37;
1996a; Johnson 1992: 3-9; Tomson 1999; Penner 2000), ‘rhetorical his-
tory’ (Yamada 1996), ‘apostolic testimony’ and ‘oral history’ (Byrskog
2000: 228-34; 1999), ‘historical monograph’ (Plümacher 1979; Conzel-
mann 1987: xl-xliii; Palmer 1993; Fitzmyer 1998: 127), ‘hagiography’
(Evans 1993), and ‘institutional history’ (Cancik 1997). Although such
designations are often useful for the various authors’ immediate purposes,
many of these designations overlap and, therefore, lack the precision to
clearly distinguish them from other historiographical genre designations.
After one sorts through the competing and overlapping designations
for the historical subgenre of Acts, one is left with four major options for
the historical subgenre to which Acts belongs. This article will now
examine these four major options as explained by their most important
advocates.

Acts as General History (David Aune)


Even though Talbert’s arguments for placing Luke–Acts in the genre of
biography were never widely accepted, his monographs (1974; 1977)
about ancient biography helped to reinforce the scholarly consensus about
the biographical nature of the gospels (but not Acts). In his influential
examination of the literary backgrounds for the New Testament, D. Aune
agreed with Talbert about the biographical nature of the gospels (1987:
46-74). Somewhat surprisingly, however, Aune argued that the Gospel of
Luke could not be classified as ancient biography, because it ‘was subor-

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


376 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

dinated to a larger literary structure. Luke does not belong to a type of


ancient biography for it belongs with Acts, and Acts cannot be forced into
a biographical mold’ (1987: 77). Aune, like Talbert before him, sought
a genre designation which was appropriate for the two-volume work of
Luke–Acts in its entirety. For Aune, ‘Luke–Acts is a popular “general
history” written by an amateur Hellenistic historian with credentials in
Greek rhetoric’ (1987: 77).
After rejecting Talbert’s and Pervo’s suggestions (as outlined above),
Aune surveyed historiographical genres within the Greco-Roman world.
He found ‘five major genres of Hellenistic “historical” writing in antiq-
uity…: (1) genealogy or mythography, (2) travel descriptions (ethnogra-
phy and geography), (3) local history, (4) chronology, and (5) history’
(1987: 84). Within the fifth category of ‘history’, he suggested three
additional subgenres which he labeled: ‘historical monographs’ (which
addressed a specific topic within the recent past), general history (which
presented the recent history and culture of a particular people), and
antiquarian history (which presented the ancient history of a people)
(1987: 86-89). For Aune, Luke’s self-designation of his gospel as a
‘narrative’ (1.1), rather than a ‘gospel’ (as in Mark), ‘indicated his inten-
tion to write history’ (1987: 116) and the content of Luke–Acts placed the
text within the subgenre of general history (1987: 139).
In Aune’s opinion, as a general history, Luke–Acts was designed to
define the community’s identity for its adherents and to legitimate its
identity for non-adherents. Aune suggested that ‘Luke–Acts provided
historical definition and identity as well as theological legitimation for the
author’s conception of normative Christianity’ (1987: 137). Aune argued
that Luke–Acts addressed a series of important needs which arose among
Christians during the second half of the first century. According to Aune’s
reconstruction of the occasion for the writing of Luke–Acts,
[b]y ca. A.D. 50, Christianity was a religious movment [sic] needing
definition, identity, and legitimation. (1) Christianity needed definition
because during the first generation of its existence, it exhibited a broad
spectrum of beliefs and practices, sometimes manifested in splinter
groups making exclusive claims… (2) Christianity needed identity
because, unlike other Mediterranean religions, it had ceased to remain
tied to a particular ethnic group (i.e., it had increasingly looser relations
to Judaism)… (3) Christianity needed legitimation, because no reli-
gious movement or philosophical sect could be credible unless it was
rooted in antiquity (1987: 137, emphasis Aune’s).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 377

According to Aune, the genre of general history allowed Luke the


opportunity ‘to conceptualize Christianity on analogy to an ethnic group…
as an independent religious movement in the process of emerging from
Judaism to which it is its legitimate successor’ (1987: 140). Aune argued
that even Luke’s use of the titles such as ‘the Way’, ‘the Nazarenes’,
‘sect’, and ‘Christians’ conforms to the identity-establishing function of a
general history because ‘these labels all serve to identify Christians as a
distinct group’ (1987: 141). For Aune, therefore, the book of Acts (more
accurately Luke–Acts) belonged to the genre of general history, a genre
which allowed Luke to establish the identity and legitimacy of the
emerging church as a people with a distinct cultural heritage within the
Greco-Roman world.

Acts as Political History (David L. Balch)


Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, D. Balch produced a host of influential
articles exploring the book of Acts as ancient historiography (1985; 1987;
1989; 1990a; 1990b; 1993; 1995; 1997; 1998; 1999). Of course, Balch
was not alone in comparing Acts to Roman and Greek political histori-
ography (e.g. Plümacher 1972; 1999a; 1999b; van Unnik 1979; 1999; van
der Horst 1983; Donelson 1987; Porter 1990; Hilgert 1993; Winter 1993;
McCoy 1996; Witherington 1996; 1998: 1-39; Hengel 1997; Heil 2000),
but he did distinguish himself as a leading advocate for understanding
Luke–Acts as political history—and his work serves as a noteworthy
example from this scholarly tradition. Although he read Acts against the
background of several different ancient historians, the primary thesis of
his work over the course of fifteen years is well illustrated by his article
aptly entitled ‘The Genre of Luke–Acts’ (1990a). In this article, which
predated MacDonald’s work, Balch rejected both Talbert’s biographical
and Pervo’s novelistic theses as too ‘individualistic’ (1990a: 11). He
insisted that the genre designations offered by Talbert and Pervo ‘encour-
age an individualistic reading of Luke–Acts; that is, if these are either
biography or novel, they are stories that inform about unique individu-
als, whom I as a Christian imitate in my individual life’ (1990a: 5). Balch
countered that ‘[t]hese books concern rather a sovereign God who gave
promises to Israel through Moses and Isaiah that “all nations” would be
“received” into God’s people’ (1990a: 5). Balch insisted that ‘[a]ncient
history was not individualistic, but narrated social and political events, as
does Luke–Acts’ (1990a: 11).
In order to demonstrate the social and political nature of ancient
history and of Luke–Acts, Balch compared Luke–Acts to the Roman

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


378 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Antiquities by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (which he assumed also to be


the model for Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities) (Balch 1990a: 5, 11). Balch
suggested that ‘Dionysius writes of Ancestors and Kings’ and organized
his work into a preface, the story of Rome with its ancestors and settle-
ment, the story of the Roman monarchy with its founding and overthrow,
and the story of the Roman aristocracy with its annual consuls to the first
Punic War (1990a: 11). Similarly, he understood Luke–Acts to be organ-
ized in parallel fashion, consisting of prefaces (Lk. 1.1-4; Acts 1.1-2), the
story of the ancestors (Lk. 3.23-38; Acts 7.1-53; and 13.16-41, 46-47), the
story of the royal founder (Luke’s Gospel), and the story of the growth of
the word among all the nations (Acts) (1990a: 12). After a careful and
detailed analysis, Balch summarized his analysis by arguing that

I find significant similarities as well as important differences between


the ‘narratives’ of Dionysius and Luke in their central sections describ-
ing the Founder(s), but it seems possible to explain many of the differ-
ences as developments within the genre.

Dionysius and Luke–Acts both narrate history in three epochs: ances-


tors, Founder(s), and successors. For both historians the first epoch
requires an encomium of selected patriarchs, but for Luke this means an
invective of the remaining ‘fathers’ who were unjust, enslaved their
brother, were disobedient and impious (Acts 7). One function of these
stories of the ancestors for both Dionysius and Luke is that these great
heroes of the past serve as models of the coming king, Aeneas and
Romulus of Augustus, Moses and David of Christ.
The Founders which both writers describe have a number of remark-
able similarities: stories of their birth, nature, teachings, disappearance,
physical appearance after death, and ascension are told sometimes in the
same words (1990a: 16).
For Balch, these parallels between Luke–Acts and the Roman Antiq-
uities were sufficient to demonstrate their common genre—political his-
tory. The most important difference between the Roman Antiquities and
Luke–Acts was the means by which the world-changing events of the
Founders and their successors were accomplished. ‘Dionysius develops
the military possibilities of the topic, while Acts emphasizes rather the
logos, the powerful “word” “growing” throughout the world’ (1990a: 18).
According to Balch, as a political history, Luke–Acts narrates how the
‘ancestors’ (e.g. Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah) proclaimed the blessing of
God to all people, how the ‘founder’ (i.e., Jesus) returned this mission to

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 379

the people of God in spite of opposition from the Jewish leadership, and
how the ‘successors’ (i.e., the apostles and the Christian church) stood in
the truest tradition of the ancestors and founder (1990a: 19). For Balch,
understanding Luke–Acts as political history enables one to appreciate
how the two volumes serve to establish the Christian church as the true
successors of the Jewish ancestral traditions.

Acts as Deuteronomistic History (or Prophetic Biography) (T.L. Brodie)


Throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s, T. Brodie advanced the thesis
first developed in his PhD dissertation at the University of Thomas (1981).
His thesis, simply stated, was
that, of all the models and sources used by Luke—and he seems to
have used many, old and new—the most foundational was the main
body of the Elijah–Elisha story (1 Kings 17.1-2 Kings 8.15, a text
which is approximately the same length as Mark’s Gospel). This was
the component around which all the other components would be
adapted and assembled (1990: 78).

For Brodie, this ‘model’ for a literary work is best described as ‘a pro-
phetic biography’ (1990: 79). Brodie was careful, however, to distinguish
his understanding from Talbert’s earlier work. According to Brodie,
Luke’s model was not Talbert’s generalized biographical genre from the
Hellenistic world, but rather the specific Elijah–Elisha narrative in the
deuteronomistic historian. Of course, several scholars, both before and
concurrent with Brodie, had observed the deuteronomistic historian’s
influence upon Luke and Acts (e.g. Goulder 1964; Dahl 1966; Cave 1969;
Drury 1976; Karris 1979; Sanders 1982; Schmidt 1985; 1999; Marcos
1987; Schmidt 2002), but Brodie made a unique contribution.
Brodie argued that the Elijah–Elisha narrative in particular was ‘cen-
tered on the taking of Elijah, and it is thus divided into two parts of about
seven chapters each’ (1990: 79). He then noted a parallel between the
Elijah–Elisha narrative and Luke–Acts. He found this parallel demon-
strated first by Luke’s emphasis upon Elijah in Jesus’ inaugural speech
(Lk. 4.16-30), second by Luke’s presentation of Jesus as ‘Elijah redividus’
and his presentation of Jesus ‘as emulating the OT, as going beyond it’
(1990: 80-81), third by Luke’s ‘meticulous reworking’ of passages from
the Elijah–Elisha narrative (e.g. Lk. 7.11-17//1 Kgs 17.17-24; Lk. 7.36-
50//2 Kgs 4.1-37; Lk. 9.51-56//2 Kgs 1.1-26; Acts 1.1–2.6//1 Kgs 21.8-
13) (1990: 81), and fourth by ‘the basic organization of the narratives’
(1990: 82). According to Brodie, this basic organization of the narrative

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


380 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

was particularly important for understanding the genre of Luke–Acts as


‘prophetic biography’. Brodie noted that
the Elijah–Elisha narrative consists of two balanced parts. The same is
true of Luke–Acts. While the Third Gospel presents Jesus, among other
things, as a great prophet, Acts tells of the words and deeds of Jesus’
disciples, and it does so in such a way that those words and deeds
consist sometimes of variations on the example of Jesus. In other words,
not only are both narratives (Elijah–Elisha; Luke–Acts) composed of
two parts, but, in both narratives, the two parts, in some elements at
least, balance one another (1990: 82-83).

In spite of the similarities between the analyses of Brodie and Talbert,


Brodie believed that his model better explained the genre of Luke–Acts
because Luke–Acts and the Elijah–Elisha narratives—unlike the Diogenes
Laertius’ Lives—had ‘an assumption into heaven’ in the center of their
narratives (1990: 84). For Brodie, therefore,
[w]hat also seems true…is that there is direct dependence on the
Elijah–Elisha story for Luke–Acts overall plan. Such dependence is
first suggested by the place given to Elijah and Elisha in the pro-
grammatic Nazareth speech, but decisive indication comes from the
fact that, like the balanced Elijah–Elisha text, the balanced two-part
narrative is centered on an assumption which, in many ways, appears
to be an assumption of Elijah (1990: 85).
Although a number of scholars have recognized the influence of the
Septuagint upon Luke–Acts (e.g. Schmidt 1985; Kurz 1990; 1999; Rosner
1993; Evans 1993; Holladay 1999), Brodie has given the most compelling
arguments for the notion that Luke consciously used specific Septuagint
narratives as a model for his entire composition. Unfortunately, in spite of
Brodie’s numerous attempts to defend his thesis with several detailed
studies (1984; 1986; 1989; 1990; 1994; 1997; 1999) and his more recent
effort to extend his argument to the other gospel narratives (2000; 2001),
his arguments have not gotten the attention they deserve from scholar-
ship. Perhaps scholarship’s general disregard for Brodie’s thesis has
stemmed from his reluctance to speculate upon the theological purposes
which could have motivated Luke’s selection of this particular genre
(compare Barrett 1996a).

Acts as Apologetic History (Gregory E. Sterling)


As an important crest to the wave of studies on the genre of Acts, G. Ster-
ling published his revised dissertation, arguing that Acts was ‘apologetic
history’, a genre which he defined as

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 381

the story of a subgroup of people in an extended prose narrative written


by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but
Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within
the setting of the larger world (1992: 17).

Sterling understood this genre to be a reaction to Greek ethnography by


‘[i]ndigenous authors [who] were dissatisfied with the way they had
been represented by Greeks in the ethnographic tradition and responded
by setting out their own definition of who they were’ (1992: 18). Accord-
ing to Sterling, apologetic history ‘provided a self- rather than a [sic]
alien-definition’ and the most important example of this genre was
Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (1992: 19).
For Sterling, the author of Luke–Acts (emphatically taken as a unity,
1992: 331-32) began his account with an implied criticism of his prede-
cessors, the ‘other accounts’ to which Luke refers (1992: 345). In Luke–
Acts, the author’s agenda was to defend what he regarded as the
authoritative tradition, the traditio apostolica (1992: 345-46). This tra-
dition, however, was not limited to a single individual, but rather was ‘a
movement’ (1992: 349). In language very similar to Aune’s earlier
work, Sterling explained that
Luke–Acts tells the story of Christianity from its beginnings through its
transformation from a Palestinian sect into an empire-wide movement
some seventy years later. It is, therefore, not the story of Jesus nor of
Paul. It is the story of Christianity, i.e., of a people. In this sense it is
reminiscent of historical works which relate the story of a particular
people (1992: 349).

For Sterling, Luke–Acts is distinguished from most apologetic history by


its concern to explain the plan of God. Sterling suggested that
[w]hat is unique to Luke–Acts is the writing of history from the
perspective of the fulfillment of both the promises and prophecies. The
plan of God is in the OT in the form of promise. Luke–Acts represents
an attempt to write out the record of its fulfillment (1992: 359).

According to Sterling, in Luke–Acts, ‘[t]he period of promise is the LXX;


the period of fulfillment is Luke–Acts subdivided into the age of Jesus
(Luke) and the church (Acts)’ (1992: 361-62). Therefore, ‘Luke–Acts
represents sacred narrative’ (1992: 363, emphasis Sterling’s).
Sterling found clear parallels between this Lukan agenda and the
agenda of Josephus. According to Sterling, both authors were narrating
the story of God’s people. However, ‘Josephos retold the entire story; the

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


382 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

author of Luke–Acts was a continuator’ (1992: 368). For Sterling, Luke–


Acts was therefore to be regarded as apologetic history which defined the
Christian heirs to God’s promise. According to Sterling, ‘Luke–Acts
argues de rigueur that Christianity has taken its rightful place in history.
It must, therefore, be defined not only in relation to itself, but in relation
to the larger world in which it exists’ (1992: 379, emphasis Sterling’s).
Sterling explained that
Luke–Acts defines Christianity both internally and externally. The two
are related by the recognition that Christianity is a movement in his-
tory. It must understand both itself and the world in which it exists. It
was essential therefore to define Christianity in terms of Rome (politi-
cally innocent), Judaism (a continuation), and itself (traditio apostolica)
(1992: 386).

In many ways, Sterling’s widely discussed monograph merely reiter-


ated and expanded the ideas already put forward by Aune and Balch, a
judgment which could also be rendered against those who have sought to
further develop Sterling’s arguments (e.g. Moessner 1996; Marguerat
2002). In the wake of Sterling’s extensive (but not particularly revolution-
ary) monograph, it seemed that there was little new to say about Acts as
ancient history. The proliferation of historical subgenres was doing little
to add to our understanding of Acts.

A Challenge and a Consensus


In 1993, L. Alexander published a volume with the unpretentious title,
The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (1993a). This volume and the host of
articles with which Alexander continued to develop her thesis (1993b;
1995; 1996; 1998a; 1998b; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c) were, however, to have
a profound influence upon the future direction of studies into the genre of
Luke and Acts. Alexander’s central thesis, which she restated many
times, was essentially: ‘If Luke is writing history, the preface conventions
he chooses would locate his work on the fringes of the genre’ (1999a: 23).
Alexander repeatedly argued that the prefaces to Luke and Acts are more
compatible with the style, grammar and vocabulary of ‘scientific writings’
than with the literary conventions of first-century history. Alexander has
maintained that ‘the personal tone evoked by the dedication is at home in
the technical manuals of the various school traditions in a way that it is
not in historiography’ (1999c: 19; Robbins [1999: 66] correctly desig-
nates such texts ‘profession-oriented writings’). Alexander has been

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 383

reluctant to assign Luke–Acts to any narrowly defined genre. In fact, she


has considered several different possibilities for the genre of Luke–Acts,
including biography (1993b), romantic novels (1995), and even history
(1996; 1998a; 1999a; 1999b). Alexander has, however, consistently main-
tained that Luke’s prefaces, traditionally one of the surest evidences of
Luke’s assumed historiographic intent, are not very consistent with the
historical genres of the first century.
Of course, not everyone has been convinced by Alexander’s arguments
(e.g. Balch 1999; Moessner 1999a; 1999b; Aune 2003). Her work has,
however, done more to challenge the prevailing association of Acts with
historiography than have any of the existing counter-proposals for the
genre of Acts. With both Talbert’s biographical and Pervo’s novelistic
designations largely dismissed and MacDonald’s epic designation not
yet widely discussed, Alexander’s work gained rapid ascendancy as the
premier challenger to Acts as historiography. Although Alexander has
been reluctant to provide a definitive answer to the question of Acts’
genre, her placement of Acts on the ‘fringes of history’ has encouraged
scholars to reconsider their categories, and the result has been a softening
of the borders between genre designations.
Recently, Talbert and his student P. Stepp revisited Talbert’s early
work on the genre of Acts. In a masterful two-part article, they examined
‘succession’ in the ancient world (1998a) and in Luke–Acts (1998b) and
noted that ‘the succession principle [in Luke–Acts] raises the question of
genre’ (1998b: 175). Rather than restating Talbert’s earlier conclusions,
the pair answered their own question by lamenting: ‘Unfortunately, it [the
presence of the succession theme] does not automatically answer the
question. Various genres were shaped by the succession principle’ (1998b:
175). Eventually, they concluded that Luke–Acts is a blending of genres:
It is as though the author of Luke–Acts stands with one foot in the
Greco-Roman culture of succession with its biographies of founders
and their successors and the other foot in the biblical world of Ancient
Judaism with its stories of successions, and from that dual stance
creates a distinctive synthesis of the two that would nevertheless be
recognizable to pagan, Jew, and early Christian alike as a succession
narrative…the issue that remains for the two authors of this paper is: is
Luke–Acts more like biographies of individual founders that contain
within them a succession list or narrative, or biographies of communi-
ties that employ a Life of their founder to define the Way and then
follow with a succession list or narrative?… At this point, from our
perspective, the decision is too close to call (1998b: 178-79).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


384 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

For Talbert, the person who—more than other—initiated the quest to


understand the genre of Luke–Acts, the question has become unanswer-
able in light of Luke’s apparent blending of genres. Talbert and Steep
quote R. Burridge approvingly and suggest that Luke has taken a ‘ “leap
of imagination” from the known to the unknown’ and created a new genre
of his own (1998b: 178). For Talbert and Steep, however, Luke–Acts is
not without ancient parallels; they have found parallels between Luke–
Acts and the succession narratives in a large number of biographical and
historical texts. Luke–Acts, regardless of ‘whatever name one gives to
the genre of Luke–Acts’ has ‘affinities’ with such works (1998b: 178).
By loosely associating Luke–Acts with a broad cluster of biographical
and historical genres in antiquity, Talbert and Steep foreshadowed an
emerging consensus of scholarship. Just a year later, in his re-examination
of the genre of Acts, V. Robbins echoed sentiments similar to those of
Talbert and Steep. Robbins noted that
one of the characteristics of works like Luke and Acts is the variegated
texture of their discourse—they inherently defy simple classification.
Precisely because they contain multiple generic features that interact
dynamically with one another, they regularly evoke new insights from
highly disciplined and well-informed interpreters (1999: 65).

In the same volume, even though R. Pervo remained committed to the


label of ‘fiction’ for Acts, he was also willing to admit that ‘[t]hose who
look to more general histories and antiquities correctly sense the compass
of Luke and Acts. Apologetic history is not an inappropriate label for the
author’s aim’ (1999: 135).
More recently, even D. Balch has abandoned the importance of attach-
ing a specific genre to Acts, noting ‘in contrast to my earlier publications,
I argue that the question of genre is for the most part secondary’ (2003:
141; also see Stichele 2003). Balch has come to accept that ‘the line
between history and biography is not so easily drawn, as the overlap in
material is not always statistically evident’ (2003: 143). For Balch, there-
fore, ‘the debate about genre—whether the authors are writing history or
biography—is much less important in this light than the issues at stake
in the argument itself’ (2003: 145). For Balch, Luke–Acts continues to
belong to ‘historical literature’ (2003: 186), but further narrowing of the
categories is resisted.
The emerging consensus of scholarship seems clearly in agreement
with Balch. Acts is ancient history of various kinds and the mixture of
genres within Acts makes further narrowing of the categories unwar-

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 385

ranted. Against this consensus, however, D. MacDonald continues to


maintain that
it would appear that Luke expected at least some of his readers to
appreciate the stories not as aspiring historical reports but as fictions
crafted as alternatives to those of Homer and Vergil. In other words,
the truth of Luke’s narrative lies in its imaginative reconstruction of the
past to address the ideological needs of the nascent church… By
insisting that Luke–Acts is history in one form or another, scholars
have placed a burden on Lukan narrative that its author never intended
his story to bear (2003b: 203).

Apparently, MacDonald assumes that historical genres cannot participate


in the mythomachia, the battle between competing fictions, to which he
earlier alluded (2003a: 151). Yet, Pervo (1999: 135) and even Alexander
(1998a) have recently reminded us that the genre designation of history
does nothing to assure the historicity of an account. Few contemporary
scholars of Acts would disagree with Alexander’s recent conclusion that
‘it now seems abundantly clear that we shall never solve the question of
Acts historicity by solving the genre question’ (1998a: 394). History, at
least in the antiquity, is not a genre which preludes the inclusion of
fiction.
Ironically, therefore, as J. Tyson has noted (2003), the question of
the genre of Acts initially drew attention away from questions of the
historicity of Acts and towards the rhetorical effects of the narrative.
Now, however, the question of Acts’ genre has come full circle and is
again raising the question of historicity. Is Acts history or fiction? In the
eyes of most scholars, it is history—but not the kind of history that
preludes fiction. As Pervo has suggested, Acts is probably both fiction
and history at the same time. If we can adapt MacDonald’s term, perhaps
we should say that Acts is historical mythomachia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, L.C.A.
1993a The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTSMS, 79; Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press).
1993b ‘Acts and Intellectual Biography’, in Winter and Clarke (eds.) 1993: 31-63.
1995 ‘ “In Journeying Often”: Voyaging in the Acts of the Apostles and in Greek
Romance’, in Tuckett (ed.) 1995: 380-99.
1996 ‘The Preface to Acts and the Historians’, in Witherington (ed.) 1996: 73-103.
1998a ‘Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts’, NTS 44: 380-99.
1998b ‘Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek His-
toriography’, in Clines and Moore (eds.) 1998: 92-125.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


386 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

1999a ‘Formal Elements and Genre: Which Greco-Roman Prologues Most Closely
Parallel the Lukan Prologues?’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 9-26.
1999b ‘The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text’, in Edwards (ed.) 1999: 15-
44.
1999c ‘Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing’, in Orton (ed.)
1999: 90-116.
Argall, R.A. (ed.)
2000 For a Later Generation (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International).
Ascough, R.S.
1996 ‘Narrative Technique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke–Acts
and in Chariton’, CBQ 58.1: 69-81.
Aune, D.E.
1987 The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster).
2003 ‘Luke 1:1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?’, in Christophersen (ed.) 2003:
138-48.
Babcock, W.S. (ed.)
1990 Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: SMU Press).
Balch, D.L.
1985 ‘Acts as Hellenistic Historiography’, in Richards (ed.) 1985: 429-32.
1987 ‘Comparing Literary Patterns in Luke and Lucian’, PJT 40: 39-42.
1989 ‘Comments on the Genre and a Political Theme of Luke–Acts: A Preliminary
Comparison of Two Hellenistic Historians’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 343-61.
1990a ‘The Genre of Luke–Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Politi-
cal History?’, SWJT 33: 5-19.
1990b ‘The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against
Later Stoics and the Epicureans’, in Ferguson and Meeks (eds.) 1990: 52-79.
1993 ‘ “…You Teach All the Jews… To Forsake Moses, Telling Them Not to…
Observe the Customs” ’, in Lovering (ed.) 1993: 369-83.
1995 ‘Paul in Acts: “…You Teach All the Jews…to Forsake Moses, Telling Them
Not to… Observe the Customs” (Act. 21,21)’, in Wacht (ed.) 1995: 11-23.
1997 ‘Political Friendship in the Historian Dionysius of Harlicarnassus, Roman
Antiquities’, in Fitzgerald (ed.) 1997: 123-44.
1998 ‘Attitudes toward Foreigners in 2 Maccabees, Eupolemus, Esther, Aristeas,
and Luke–Acts’, in Malherbe (ed.) 1998: 22-47.
1999 ‘CMTKDY`L…ITC [CK (Luke 1:3): To Write the Full History of God’s Receiv-
ing All Nations’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 229-50.
2003 ‘0(7$%2'+ 32',7(+:1—Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke–Acts:
Form and Function’, in Penner and Stichele (eds.) 2003: 139-88.
Balch, D.L. (ed.)
1990 Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Barr, D.L., and J.L. Wentling
1984 ‘The Conventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of Luke–Acts: A Pre-
liminary Study’, in Talbert (ed.) 1984: 63-88.
Barrett, C.K.
1961 Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth Press).
1996a ‘The First New Testament’, NovT 38.2: 94-104.
1996b ‘How History Should Be Written’, in Witherington (ed.) 1996: 33-57.
Bauckham, R. (ed.)
1998 The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 387

Blaiklock, E.M.
1970 ‘The Acts of the Apostles as a Document of First Century History’, in Gasque
and Martin (eds.) 1970: 41-54.
Bonz, M.P.
2000 Past as Legacy: Luke–Acts and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Bovon, F.
2003 ‘Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of Apostles’, JECS 11.2: 165-94.
Brodie, T.L.
1981 ‘Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke–Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and
Updating of the Elijah–Elisha Narrative’ (PhD dissertation, University of St.
Thomas, St. Paul, MN).
1984 ‘Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke’s Use of Sources’,
in Talbert (ed.) 1984: 17-46.
1986 ‘Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kgs 5 as
One Component of Acts 8, 9-40’, Bib 67: 41-67.
1989 ‘Luke 9:57-62: A Systematic Adaptation of the Divine Challenge to Elijah
(1 Kings 19)’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 237-45.
1990 ‘Luke–Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah–Elisha Narrative’, in
Richard (ed.) 1990: 78-85, 172-74.
1994 ‘Again Not Q: Luke 7:18-35 as an Acts-Oriented Transformation of the Vin-
dication of the Prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:1-38)’, IBS 16: 2-30.
1997 ‘Intertextuality and Its Use in Tracing Q and Proto-Luke’, in Tuckett (ed.)
1997: 469-77.
1999 ‘The Unity of Proto-Luke’, in Verheyden (ed.) 1999: 627-38.
2000 The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah–Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis
of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Minneapolis:
Liturgical Press).
2001 ‘Towards Tracing the Gospels’ Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles’, in
MacDonald (ed.) 2001: 104-16.
Bruce, F.F.
1954 Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction: Exposi-
tion and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1960 The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 5th edn).
1984 ‘The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction?’,
ANRW II.25.3: 2570-2603.
1990 The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3rd edn).
Bumstead, A.
1901 ‘The Present Status of Criticism’, BW 17: 355-60.
Burridge, R.A.
1992 What Are the Gospels? (SNTSMS, 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
1998 ‘About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences’, in Bauck-
ham (ed.) 1998: 113-46.
Byrskog, S.
1999 ‘History or Story in Acts—A Middle Way? The “We” Passages, Historical
Intertexture, and Oral History’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 257-84.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


388 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

2000 Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of


Ancient Oral History (WUNT, 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Cadbury, H.J.
1927 The Making of Luke–Acts (London: SPCK, 1st edn).
1955 The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper).
1958 The Making of Luke–Acts (London: SPCK, 2nd edn).
Cancik, H.
1997 ‘The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography:
Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History’, JBL 116: 673-95.
Carroll, J.T.
1999 ‘Luke–Acts’, in Powell (ed.) 1999: 58-69.
Cave, C.H.
1969 ‘Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy’, NTS 15: 319-25.
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.)
1993 The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSup, 14; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press).
Christophersen, A. (ed.)
2003 Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World (JSNTSup, 217; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press).
Clarke, W.K.L.
1922 ‘The Acts of the Apostles in Recent Criticism’, Theology 4: 69-81, 314-22.
Clines, D.J.A., and S.D. Moore (eds.)
1998 Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
(JSOTSup, 269; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Conzelmann, H.
1960 The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell; San Francisco: Harper & Row).
1966 ‘Luke’s Place in the Development of Earliest Christianity’, in Keck and Martyn
(eds.) 1966: 298-316.
1987 Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia;
ed. E.J. Epp and C.R. Matthews; trans. J. Limburg, A.T. Krabel and D.H. Juel;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Crenshaw, J.L., and S. Sandmel (eds.)
1980 The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events (New
York: Ktav).
Culy, M.N., and M.C. Parsons
2003 Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University).
Dahl, N.
1966 ‘The Story of Abraham in Luke–Acts’, in Keck and Martyn (eds.) 1996:
139-58.
Dawsey, J.
1989 ‘Characteristics of Folk-Epic in Acts’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 317-25.
Dibelius, M.
1956 Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. H. Greeven; trans. M. Ling; New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Donelson, L.R.
1987 ‘Cult Histories and the Sources of Acts’, Bib 68: 1-21.
Drury, J.
1976 Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: A Study in Early Historiography
(Atlanta: John Knox Press).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 389

Dungan, D.L. (ed.)


1990 The Interrelations of the Gospels (Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Dunn, J.D.G.
1996 The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).
Edwards, M. (ed.)
1999 Apologetics in the Roman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press).
Evans, C.A.
1993 ‘Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography’, in Charles-
worth (ed.) 1993: 170-201.
Ferguson, E., and W. Meeks (eds.)
1990 Greeks, Romans, and Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Fitzgerald, J.T. (ed.)
1997 Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (SBLRBS, 34; Atlanta: Scholars
Press).
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1998 The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; New York: Doubleday).
Foakes-Jackson, F., and K. Lake (eds.)
1922 The Beginnings of Christianity (London: Macmillan).
Gasque, W.W.
1989 A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson).
Gasque, W.W., and R.P. Martin (eds.)
1970 Apostolic History and the Gospel (Exeter: Paternoster Press).
Gilbert, G.
1999 ‘Roman Propoganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke–Acts’,
in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 233-56.
Goulder, M.
1964 Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK).
Grässer, E.
2001 Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT, 137; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Green, J.B.
1996 ‘Internal Repetition in Luke–Acts: Contemporary Narratology and Lucan His-
toriography’, in Witherington (ed.) 1996: 283-99.
2002 ‘The Book of Acts as History/Writing’, LTQ 37.3: 119-27.
Green, J.B., and M.C. McKeever
1994 Luke–Acts and New Testament Historiography (IBRB, 8; Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House).
Guthrie, D.
1963 ‘Recent Literature on the Acts of the Apostles’, VE 2: 33-49.
Haenchen, E.
1966 ‘The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Earliest Christianity’,
in Keck and Martyn (eds.) 1966: 258-78.
1971 The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. R.M. Wilson; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press).
Hahn, F.
1986 ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte. Kommen-
tare und Aufsatzbände 1980-85’, TRev 82: 117-90.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


390 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Harrill, J.A.
2000 ‘The Dramatic Function of the Running Slave Rhoda (Acts 12.13-16): A Piece
of Greco-Roman Comedy’, NTS 46: 150-57.
Heil, C.
2000 ‘Arius Didymus and Luke–Acts’, NovT 42.4: 358-93.
Hemer, C.J.
1977 ‘Luke the Historian’, BJRL 60: 28-51.
1989 The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (WUNT, 49; Tübingen:
Mohr Seibeck).
Hengel, M.
1979 Acts: The History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
1997 ‘Problems of a History of Earliest Christianity’, Bib 78: 131-44.
Hilgert, E.
1993 ‘Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of Historiography and Rhetoric’, in
Miller (ed.) 1993: 83-109.
Hock, R., J. Chance and J. Perkins (eds.)
1998 Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Holladay, C.R.
1999 ‘Acts and Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999:
171-98.
Hunkin, J.W.
1922 ‘British Work on the Acts’, in Foakes-Jackson and Lake (eds.) 1922: 2, 396-
433.
Jervell, J.
1996 ‘The Future of the Past: Luke’s Vision of Salvation History and Its Bearing on
his Writing of History’, in Witherington (ed.) 1996: 104-26.
Johnson, L.T.
1992 The Acts of the Apostles (SP, 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Jones, D.L.
1989 ‘Luke’s Unique Interest in Historical Chronology’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 378-87.
Karris, R.J.
1979 What Are They Saying About Luke and Acts? (New York: Paulist Press).
Keck, L.E., and J.L. Martyn (eds.)
1966 Studies in Luke–Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Kee, H.C.
1997 To Every Nation Under Heaven (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
Kremer, J. (ed.)
1979 Les Actes des Apôtres (BETL, 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Krodel, G.A.
1986 Acts (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg).
Kullman, W.
1988 ‘“Oral Tradition/Oral History” und die frügriecheische Epik’, in von Ungern-
Sternberg and Reinau (eds.) 1988: 184-96.
Kurz, W.S.
1987 ‘Narrative Approaches to Luke–Acts’, Bib 68: 195-220.
1990 ‘Narrative Models in Luke–Acts’, in Balch (ed.) 1990: 171-89.
1999 ‘Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives and in Luke and
Acts’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 147-70.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 391

Lovering, E. (ed.)
1993 SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Lüdemann, G.
1989 Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press).
Lull, D.J. (ed.)
1989 SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
MacDonald, D.R.
1983 The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Phila-
delphia: Westminster Press).
1984 ‘The Role of Women in the Production of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apos-
tles’, IR 41: 21-38.
1990a ‘Apocryphal and Canonical Narratives about Paul’, in Babcock (ed.) 1990:
55-71.
1990b The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the
Cannibals (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1993a ‘The Acts of Paul and The Acts of John: Which Came First?’, in Lovering
(ed.) 1993: 506-10.
1993b ‘The Acts of Peter and The Acts of John: Which Came First?’, in Lovering
(ed.) 1993: 623-26.
1994a Christianizing Homer: “The Odyssey,” Plato, and “The Acts of Andrew”
(New York: Oxford University Press).
1994b ‘Luke’s Eutychus and Homer’s Elpenor: Acts 20:7-12 and Odyssey 10-12’,
JHC 1: 5-24.
1998 ‘Secrecy and Recognitions in the Odyssey and Mark: Where Wrede Went
Wrong’, in Hock, Chance and Perkins (eds.) 1998: 139-54.
1999 ‘The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul’, NTS 45: 88-107.
2000a ‘The Ending of Luke and the Ending of the Odyssey’, in Argall (ed.) 2000:
161-68.
2000b The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University
Press).
2001 ‘Tobit and the Odyssey’, in MacDonald (ed.) 2001: 11-40.
2003a Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the
Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press).
2003b ‘Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector’s Farewell to Andro-
mache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad’, in Penner and Stichele (eds.)
2003: 189-204.
MacDonald, D.R. (ed.)
2001 Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International).
Maddox, R.
1982 The Purpose of Luke–Acts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Malherbe, A.J. (ed.)
1998 The Early Christian Church in Context (NovTSup, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Marcos, N.F.
1987 ‘La unción de Salomón y la entrada de Jesús en Jerusalén: 1 Re 1,33-40/Lc
19,15-40’, Bib 68: 89-97.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


392 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Marguerat, D.
2002 The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (trans.
K. McKinney, G.J. Laughery and R. Bauckham; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Marshall, I.H.
1969 ‘Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles’, ExpTim 80: 4-8.
1970 Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
1978 The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans).
1992 The Acts of the Apostles (New Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
2003 ‘Acts in Current Study’, ExpTim 155.2: 49-52.
Mattill, A.J.
1959 ‘Luke as a Historian in Criticism since 1840’ (PhD dissertation; Vanderbilt
University, Nashville).
McCoy, W.J.
1996 ‘In the Shadow of Thucydides’, in Witherington (ed.) 1996: 3-32.
McGiffert, A.C.
1922 ‘The Historical Criticism of Acts in Germany’, in Foakes-Jackson and Lake
(eds.) 1922: II, 363-95.
Miller, L. (ed.)
1993 Good News in History (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Moessner, D.P.
1996 ‘ “Eyewitnesses,” “Informed Contemporaries,” and “Unknowing Inquirers”’,
NovT 38: 105-22.
1999a ‘The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke 1:1-4)’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 84-
123.
1999b ‘The Lukan Prologues in the Light of Ancient Narrative Hermeneutics’, in
Verheyden (ed.) 1999: 399-417.
Moessner, D.P. (ed.)
1999 Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International).
Moffatt, J.
1908 ‘Wellhausen and Harnack on the Book of Acts’, ExpTim 19: 250-52.
Orton, D.E. (ed.)
1999 The Composition of Luke’s Gospel (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Palmer, D.W.
1993 ‘Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph’, in Winter and Clarke (eds.)
1993: 1-29.
Parsons, M.C., and R.I. Pervo
1993 Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Penner, T.
2000 ‘In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Luke Apologetic
Historiography’ (PhD dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta).
Penner, T., and C.V. Stichele (eds.)
2003 Contextualizing Acts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
Pervo, R.I.
1987 Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press).
1989 ‘Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 309-16.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 393

1999 ‘Israel’s Heritage and Claims Upon the Genre(s) of Luke and Acts’, in Moess-
ner (ed.) 1999: 127-43.
Pesch, R.
1995 Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1-12) (EKKNT, V.1; Düsseldorf: Benziger).
Phillips, T.E. (ed.)
2005 Acts and Ethics (New Testament Monographs, 9; Sheffield: Phoenix Press).
Plümacher, E.
1972 Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller (SUNT, 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
1979 ‘Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie’, in Kremer (ed.) 1979:
457-66.
1984 ‘Acta-Fortschung 1974-82’, TRu 48: 105-69.
1999a ‘Cicero and Lukas: Bermerkungen zu Stil und Zweck der historischen Mono-
graphie’, in Verheyden (ed.) 1999: 759-78.
1999b ‘The Mission Speeches in Acts and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, in Moessner
(ed.) 1999: 251-66.
Porter, S.E.
1990 ‘Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?’,
NovT 32: 121-42.
2005 ‘The Genre of Acts and the Ethics of Discourse’, in Phillips (ed.) 2005: 1-15.
Porter, S.E., and T.H. Olbricht (eds.)
1996 Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Powell, M.A.
1991 ‘Luke’s Second Volume: Three Basic Issues in Contemporary Studies of Acts’,
TSR 13.2: 69-81.
Powell, M.A. (ed.)
1999 The New Testament Today (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
Praeder, S.M.
1981 ‘Luke–Acts and the Ancient Novel’, in Richards (ed.) 1981: 269-92.
Ramsay, W.M.
1897 St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 3rd
edn).
1911 The First Christian Century (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Rese, M.
1967 ‘Zur Lukas-Diskussion seit 1950’, JHB 9: 62-67.
Richard, E. (ed.)
1990 New Views on Luke and Acts (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier).
Richards, K.H. (ed.)
1981 SBLSP (Chico, CA: Scholars Press).
1985 SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1986 SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Robbins, V.K.
1979 ‘Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke–Acts’, PRS 6: 95-108.
1981 ‘Laudation Stories in the Gospel of Luke and Plutarch’s Alexander’, in
Richards (ed.) 1981: 293-308.
1999 ‘The Claims of the Prologues and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Prefaces to
Luke and Acts in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Strategies’, in Moessner
(ed.) 1999: 63-83.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


394 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Robertson, A.T.
1920 Luke the Historian in Light of Research (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Roloff, J.
1981 Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Rosner, B.S.
1993 ‘Acts and Biblical History’, in Winter and Clarke (eds.) 1993: 65-82.
Sanders, J.A.
1982 ‘Isaiah in Luke’, Int 36: 144-55.
Sandnes, K.O.
2005 ‘IMITATIO HOMERI? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s “Mimesis
Criticism”’, JBL 124.4: 715-32.
Schierling, S.P., and M.J. Schierling
1978 ‘The Influence of the Ancient Romances on the Acts of the Apostles’, CB 54:
81-88.
Schmidt, D.D.
1985 ‘The Historiography of Acts: Deuteronomistic or Hellenistic?’, in Richards
(ed.) 1985: 417-27.
1999 ‘Rhetorical Influences and Genre: Luke’s Preface and the Rhetoric of Helle-
nistic Historiography’, in Moessner (ed.) 1999: 27-60.
Schmidt, K.L.
2002 The Place of the Gospels in the General History of Literature (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press).
Schwartz, S.
2003 ‘The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts Exercises’, in Penner and
Stichele (eds.) 2003: 105-38.
Scott, J.J.
1974 ‘Stephen’s Speech: A Possible Model for Luke’s Historical Method’, JETS
17: 91-97.
Selvidge, M.
1986 ‘The Acts of the Apostles: A Violent Aetiological Legend’, in Richards (ed.)
1986: 330-41.
Shuler, P.L.
1990 ‘The Genre(s) of the Gospels’, in Dungan (ed.) 1990: 459-83.
Staley, J.L.
1996 ‘The Father of Lies: Autobiographical Acts in Recent Biblical Criticism and
Contemporary Literary Theory’, in Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1996: 124-60.
Sterling, G.E.
1989 ‘Luke–Acts and Apologetic Historiography’, in Lull (ed.) 1989: 326-42.
1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke–Acts, and Apologetic His-
tory (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Stichele, C.V.
2003 ‘Gender and Genre: Acts in/of Interpretation’, in Penner and Stichele (eds.)
2003: 311-30.
Stuhlmacher, P.
1990 ‘The Genre(s) of the Gospels: Response to P. L. Shuler’, in Dungan (ed.) 1990:
484-94.
Talbert, C.H.
1974 Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke–Acts (Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


PHILLIPS The Genre of Acts 395

1977 What is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).


1978 ‘Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propa-
ganda in Mediterranean Antiquity’, ANRW II.16.2: 1619-51.
1980 ‘Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biogra-
phies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15’, in Crenshaw and Sandmel (eds.)
1980: 129-38.
1992 ‘Biography, Ancient’, in ABD (New York: Doubleday): I, 745-49.
1996 ‘The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or “Bios?” ’, in Witherington (ed.)
1996: 58-72.
Talbert, C.H. (ed.)
1984 Luke–Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar
(New York: Crossroad).
Talbert, C.H., and P. Stepp
1998a ‘Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity: The Lukan Milieu’, in SBLSP
(Atlanta: Scholars Press): I, 148-68.
1998b ‘Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity: Luke–Acts’, in SBLSP (Atlanta:
Scholars Press): I, 169-79.
Thornton, C.-J.
1991 Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT, 56;
Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck).
Tomson, P.J.
1999 ‘Gamaliel’s Counsel and the Apologetic Strategy of Luke–Acts’, in Verhey-
den (ed.) 1999: 585-604.
Tuckett, C.M. (ed.)
1995 Luke’s Literary Achievement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
1997 The Scriptures in the Gospels (Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Tyson, J.B.
2003 ‘From History to Rhetoric and Back: Assessing New Trends in Acts Studies’,
in Penner and Stichele (eds.) 2003: 23-42.
Tyson, J.B., and M.C. Parsons
1992 Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study of Acts
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
Van der Horst, P.W.
1983 ‘Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles 1:1-26’, ZNW 74: 17-26.
Van Manen, W.C.
1898 ‘A Wave of Hypercriticism’, ExpTim 9: 205-11, 257-59, 314-19.
Van Unnik, W.C.
1979 ‘Luke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography’, in Kremer
(ed.) 1979: 37-60.
1999 ‘The “Book of Acts”—The Confirmation of the Gospel’, in Orton (ed.) 1999:
184-218.
Verheyden, J.
1999 ‘The Unity of Luke–Acts: What Are We Up To?’, in Verheyden (ed.) 1999:
3-56.
Verheyden, J. (ed.)
1999 The Unity of Luke–Acts (Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Von Ungern-Sternberg, J., and H. Reinau (eds.)
1988 Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (Stuttgart: Teubner).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015


396 Currents in Biblical Research 4.3 (2006)

Wacht, M. (ed.)
1995 Pancahaia. Festschrift für Kalus Thraede (Münster: Aschendorff).
Walker, Steven
1989 Review of Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles
by Richard I. Pervo. Christianity and Literature 39: 100-101.
Wilson, W.T.
2001 ‘Urban Legends: Acts 10:1–11:18 and the Strategies of Greco-Roman Foun-
dation Narratives’, JBL 120: 77-99.
Winter, B.W.
1993 ‘Official Proceedings and the Forensic Speeches in Acts 24-26’, in Winter
and Clarke (eds.) 1993: 305-36.
Winter, B.W., and A.D. Clarke (eds.)
1993 The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (The Book of Acts in Its First
Century Setting, 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Witherington, B.
1996 ‘Finding Its Niche: The Historical and Rhetorical Species of Acts’, in SBLSP
(Atlanta: Scholars Press): 1-7.
1998 The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Witherington, B. (ed.)
1996 History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Yamada, K.
1996 ‘A Rhetorical History: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles’, in
Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1996: 230-50.

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at MCGILL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on April 7, 2015

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi