Identifying the genre of a work can be important for understanding the expectations it might create in readers.26 Hemer cautions, however:
Contemporary literature, in particular, was an aristocratic avocation pursued within the confines of a social and cultural éAlite, whereas the Christian movement seems to have been concerned from the outset with popular proclamation. It is wholly probable that their writers, especially one with the literary ability and aspiration of Luke, were influenced by their cultural environment and reflect their trends, but it is by no means certain how closely or consciously.27
The multiple proposals that attempt to identify the genre of Luke-Acts reveal that it is not immediately obvious.28 According to Downing, there is a “flexibility and overlap between all the genres we or the ancients discern,”29 which makes the confusion in precisely identifying the genre of Luke-Acts something that should not cause surprise.
For some time, it was thought that the Gospels were unique (sui generis).30 Aune comments that this view is true “in the sense that no other ancient composition, Greco-Roman or Jewish, is precisely like them.”31 Knight observes, “The Gospel form was an innovation in first century Christianity but it is broadly related to another ancient literary type.”32 While Luke-Acts bears affinities with other genres, these can coexist and mingle to create something new. The noun for “gospel” does not appear in Luke and only twice in Acts 15:7 and 20:24, so Luke does not see himself as writing a gospel, even though he has Mark for a model, and possibly Matthew. Luke in particular has similarities with various types of Hellenistic literature, and an inordinate number of proposals have been made trying to connect Luke to one of them. The following elements deserve mention.
Some have made the case that the gospel is a biography, the life of Jesus, though this should not be confused with the modern genre of biographies.33
Knight points out, however, that “the impression remains that Luke describes not so much the life of Jesus as such but what Acts 2:11 calls ‘the mighty works of God’ (R.S.V.).”34 Luke says in his preface that he is writing about “the events [ or ‘things’] that have been fulfilled among us” (1:1), which refer to divine acts (see Heb 2:3 – 4).35 He is writing not simply about the life of Jesus but what Jesus inaugurated that continued in the deeds of his followers (Acts 1:1 – 8). That Luke begins with John’s birth and continues the story after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension in Acts with an emphasis on the progress of the gospel in the world suggests that Luke’s gospel cannot be classified simply as a biography of Jesus.
I take the position that Luke and Acts must be considered together when discussing genre. Aune asserts that Luke wrote his single literary work “in two ‘books’ (a ‘book’ was identical with the content of one papyrus roll, a convention preserved in the English word ‘volume’ from the Latin volumen,
‘papyrus roll’), probably using one roll for Luke of ca. 35 feet, and another of ca. 32 feet (papyrus rolls came in stock sizes with maximum lengths of 35 to 40 feet).”36 He cites a striking proportionality between the two books.
Both cover approximately the same amount of time, a thirty-year period:
the gospel from 4 BC to AD 30, and Acts from AD 30 to AD 60 or 62. The last 23 percent of Luke (19:28 – 24:53) deals with the arrest, trials, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and the last 24 percent of Acts deals with Paul’s arrest, trials, and arrival in Rome.37
Such symmetry suggests that these are not two different works with two different genres but a single work. Johnson avers, “Luke-Acts must be read as a single story. Acts not only continues the story of the Gospel but provides Luke’s own authoritative commentary on the first volume. Any discussion of Luke’s purposes, or the development of his themes must take into account the entire two-volume work.”38 I would contend that this also applies to genre, despite recent attempts to remove the hyphen between Luke-Acts.39
The connection between Luke and Acts is important for understanding both writings fully, though they have been separated in the canon and can be read profitably independently of one another. Longenecker highlights
“the chain-link interlock” at the Luke-Acts seam. Luke’s ending looks forward to what is picked up in Acts. Jesus' citation of the promise of Scripture that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins be preached in his
name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47) correlates with what happens in the early chapters of Acts (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31) and beyond (Acts 10:43; 11:18; 13:38; 20:21; 26:20). His instruction that the disciples are to “stay in the city” (Luke 24:49) is fulfilled through the first seven chapters of Acts, which describe the disciples' experiences there. The temporal qualification “until you are clothed with power from on high”
(24:49) is fulfilled with the description of the coming of the Holy Spirit on Jesus' followers at Pentecost (Acts 2:1 – 41). The disciples' special role as
“witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:48) is reemphasized in Acts 1:8 with the promise that their witness is to spread from Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to the ends of the earth. The emphasis on their testimony appears throughout the narrative (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41;
13:31; 22:20; 26:16).40
In addition, the beginning of Acts recounts the ascension of Jesus from a new and different perspective than what appears at the end of Luke.
Longenecker recognizes that thematic correlations are “not a sure foundation for demonstrating literary unity,” and the links can be explained away as a later attempt by Luke to connect the two works when he set about to write Acts as an independent, supplementary volume.41 Marguerat and Dunn, however, point to scenes that appear in Mark and are omitted in Luke but whose themes appear in Acts, where they seem to have a greater narrative impact.42
1. The quotation from Isa 6:9 – 10 in Mark 4:12 as the explanation for speaking in parables is abbreviated in Luke 8:10. It appears in a much lengthier form, however, in Acts 28:26 – 27 at the climax of that narrative.
2. The discourse on clean and unclean foods and what defiles a person in Mark 7:1 – 23 has Jesus declare all foods clean (Mark 7:19). It is omitted in Luke, but Peter’s vision from God about unclean food in Acts 10 addresses the same issue, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). Here it applies more transparently to the inception of the Gentile mission. Had Jesus already declared all food clean in the gospel of Luke, it would have
been strange in the narrative for Peter to balk so adamantly at eating profane food (Acts 10:14).
3. The charge during Jesus' trial in Mark 14:58 that he said he would destroy the temple does not surface in Luke. It does appear in the charges against Stephen that he declared that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place (Acts 6:14). Since the disciples are said to be
“regularly in the temple praising God” (Luke 24:53; see Acts 2:46;
5:21, 42), and teach, pray, and perform a miracle in the temple through the first five chapters of Acts, it would seem that Jesus' threat against the temple is more appropriate in Acts 6 – 7 after Luke has narrated these events. After the priestly hierarchy has so mistreated both Jesus and the disciples, rejected the message of his resurrection, and forbidden preaching in his name, the denunciation of the temple and the threat of its demise are more forceful and understandable. Longenecker concludes from these observations that Luke “made adjustments to the plot in volume one in view of the needs of the plot in volume two” and that Luke seems to have projected “one grand plot line running throughout the two volumes.”
The chain-link evidence would then support the view that Luke-Acts was intended to be one great work.43
Spencer identifies other narrative features that stitch the two works together. The trajectory prophesied by Simeon that Jesus would extend salvation to the Gentiles (Luke 2:25 – 35) does not come to fruition until the narrative in Acts, and the phrase “God’s salvation” in Acts 28:28 forms an inclusio with Simeon’s prophecy in 2:30 – 32. Moreover, Luke-Acts forms a beginning, middle, and end; “the progression from possibility (Luke-Acts 1), to realization (Acts 2 – 15), to result (Acts 16 – 28) is only complete when Acts is viewed as a whole.”44
Schmidt comments that “the opening of Luke’s gospel claims that it is passing along a reliable story about the past. Modern scholars continue to debate the status of this statement. Is Luke in fact making a historiographical claim?”45 Alexander’s analysis of Luke’s preface notes how it varies from other historical writings. It is much shorter, does not identify the author, and offers a dedication. Its style, lofty as it is when compared to the rest of the gospel, falls short of the elevated style of the
prefaces found in the Greek historians, and it also uses the first person as opposed to the normal third person.46 She claims that the closest formal parallels to Luke’s preface are to be found in writing that is characterized as technical or scientific writing (Fachprosa). The problem with this conclusion is that technical writing “is a level of language and not genre- specific”47 (see comments on 1:1 – 4 for more on this).
In my view, Luke intends to write history, and Luke-Acts belongs within the broad spectrum of Hellenistic historiography.48 Aune contends that Luke “adapted the genre of general history, one of the more eclectic genres of antiquity, as an appropriate literary vehicle for depicting the origins and development of Christianity.” 49 Luke sets his account in the context of world history (1:5; 2:1 – 2; 3:1 – 2) and uses chronological references throughout Acts.
The imitation of the style of the Septuagint in the infancy narrative is a clue that he understood his history not just to be any history of any events but to be a continuation of biblical history. As O’Toole states it, “God who brought salvation to his people in the Old Testament continues to do this, especially through Jesus Christ.”50 Luke was influenced by biblical Deuteronomistic and Hellenistic historiography.51 Jervell asserts that for Luke the only meaningful and “normative” (normativ) and “compelling”
(verpflichtend) history is that of the people of God because it alone is the history of God’s interaction with the world.52 It is to be expected, then, that his work would manifest differences from other secular histories. Luke affirms that these events really happened, but they signify the fulfillment of what God is doing in the world. He recounts God as acting in history to fulfill the divine plan despite human rebellion and wickedness.
I agree with Hengel that Luke “shows himself — far ahead of his time — to be the first Christian ‘historian’ and ‘apologist.’ ”53 The reader should expect that his work will provide a historically accurate account of the events surrounding Jesus and the founding of the church. The reader should also expect to discern the moral implications of the account and learn positive attitudes and behavior. Luke further expects the reader to learn and be persuaded of the truth and, since Luke is a Christian historian, to see God behind these events.