We made the observation earlier, that, in broad terms, four distinct trends appear to have emerged in the study on Luke-Acts since the 1950's. Generally, English- speaking scholars have tended to accept the historical value of Luke's writings, following on the footsteps of Ramsay and Sherwin-White, whose works clearly demonstrated the value of studying Luke's writings from the point of view of ancient geography, history, and archaeology. In this they have had the support of some scholars like Hengel, Trocme, and Hemer, among others. The stress on the historical value of Luke-Acts did not, however, exclude the fact that the author had also a theological interest. Nonetheless, according to this group of scholars, Luke's primary aim was a historical one.
The generality of German scholarship, on the other hand, tended to stress the theological aspect of Luke-Acts. Luke's historical reliability was given an extremely low rating by the dominant school represented by Vielhauer, Haenchen, and
230 J.A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 107.
J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 110.
232 Ramsay had started from a position of skepticism regarding the historical value of Acts but his studies had so convinced him of the historical reliability of Acts, which, according to Marshall, he came to describe "in terms that might well be regarded as excessive". See I.H. Marshall's Foreword to Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, vii.
Conzelmann. A whole generation of scholars, both German- and English-speaking, arose that viewed Luke's historical dependability with varied degrees of suspicion.
However, it is fair to note that even among German scholars there began to be a shift from the extremist skeptical position of Conzelmann and others to a more balanced assessment of Luke's writings. For example, Ludemann, a convinced 'Luke-the- theologian' scholar, has made an important effort to identify the traditions preserved in Luke's writings and to assess their possible historical value. There have at least been signs, admittedly few, that some of the "Luke-the-theologian' school have become more open, if not to the possibility that Luke's writings contain important historical information, certainly to questioning their own positions.
What marks the modern trend in Lucan scholarship is therefore not so much the rigidity that has traditionally marked the polarized positions 'Luke-the-historian' and 'Luke-the-theologian', but a conscious trend towards a synthesis of the two views.
Not few are the voices in either camp that have begun to accommodate, or at least be open to the position of those holding opposing views. In the section 'Luke the Historian and Theologian', above, we have tried to show the attempts made by scholars from both sides to meet each other half-way, as it were, and acknowledge that, given the multiplicity of Luke's purposes and the injustice done to his writings by trying to force them into one particular mould, Luke was in fact both a historian and a theologian. Some have viewed Luke-Acts as a theological history, while others have seen him as a historical theologian. Notwithstanding the questions that can arise from the use of this terminology, the main point remains that efforts have been, and still are, underway for scholars to come to some working consensus regarding the approach to Luke-Acts. Given this current thrust, it might be that we are beginning to see a shift from Gasque's despairing remark that "there is no general agreement among scholars on even the most basic issues of Lucan research"234 to a broader and more dialogical methodological approach to this research, one that may yield more positive results in terms of a broader scholarly consensus on some of the key issues. Recent research has shown such a great fluidity in studies on Luke-Acts that it may be best under the circumstances to be not too dogmatic about one's
R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 16.
W.W. Gasque, History, 305.
position and maintain a healthy questioning but open attitude to advances in scholarship.
3.2 Literary Approaches to Luke-Acts
A result of the continuing openness to different perspectives and approaches to Lucan studies is perhaps seen in the shift from history to theology and, in our days, to the application of the principles of narrative theory, best seen in the rhetorical and narrative criticism which make extensive use of secular literary theory. In recent years, Lucan research in general (and New Testament study in particular) has seen a great influx of literary critical methodologies that attempt to interpret scriptural texts according to systems and criteria traditionally used for secular literature. While previous (and some current) studies have invariably viewed (or have found it necessary to view) Luke-Acts as a window to the world and environment behind the text, narrative criticism concentrates on the actual story line, the narrator, the audience (sometimes referred to as the "auditors"), and the point of view that the narrator wants to put across, or the emotion he or she intends to arouse in his readers.
This last point is a major element in rhetorical analysis, especially in its 'reader response' application. This response by the reader is defined in the following way by W.S. Kurz:
Reader-response criticism generally presumes spontaneous and habitual imaginative reading activities and focuses on the conscious steps readers must take to fill in gaps in the information provided them in the narrative...The endings of Luke and Acts and beginning of Acts provide good illustrations of readers' filling gaps in the plots ofnarratives.236
The examples cited, namely the endings of Luke and Acts and beginning of Acts, are chosen because of their seeming "incompletion",237 thus providing the reader an
See R.C. Tannehill (The Narrative Unity of Luke Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1986): "Past concern with sources and historical events has sometimes led to hypotheses that stretch beyond the available evidence. Nevertheless, an understanding of first century society and of historical events within it may be important for understanding Acts as a narrative. I appeal, for instance, to the conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple to explain an important aspect of Luke-Acts...I believe the study of first-century Mediterranean literature and society may illuminate unspoken assumptions behind the narrative and may also suggest specific reasons for emphases in the text" (:4-5).
236 W.S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, Louisville, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, 32.
We emphasize the words "seeming incompletion" because what the reader-response critics see as gaps in the narrative are in fact interpreted differently by other scholars. For M.C. Parsons, for example, the so-called "gaps" are an indication of the openness of the Gospel to its sequel, Acts.
When, in other words, the Gospel ends with the disciples waiting in Jerusalem for "power from on
opportunity to fill in gaps in narratives that close "in the midst of an action that continues beyond the end of the story". In other words, there is a lacuna in the story that the (attentive) reader has to fill in. Kurz offers the following as an example:
Another sign of incompletion...is the very grammar used in the final sentence [of Luke]. Instead of using a tense like the aorist or perfect, which would finish the narrative with a completed action, the writer concludes with an awkward periphrastic construction using a verb in the imperfect tense with a present participle: "and they were continually in the Temple praising God" (24:53, RNAB: KCU rpav 5ia
IUXVTOQ kv TOO lepco euAoyouvTeg xov 9eov). The grammatical forms emphasize by their very awkwardness the continuous state of the disciples' praising God in the Temple. The narration thus closes in the midst of an action that continues beyond the end of the story.238
The reader-response method is seen as offering the modern reader communion with the ancient past. When applied to contemporary literature, however, the method focuses more on the reader's entertainment in reading, or on how the reader is affected by it. This method carries with it a subjectivity that is worth taking note of, as it relies on the free play of the reader's imagination. Clearly, application of the reader-response method may not always be appropriate when applied to the Bible as sacred scripture.
As we have already noted, for decades Lucan studies have been considered in terms of their weight on the 'history-theology' scale, and much debate has centred around either upholding or denigrating the one or the other side of the scale, seeking, as it were, to tip the scale in favour of the one or the other position. In recent years, however, scholars have tended to move away from these 'neat' definitions (e.g.
'Luke-Acts as History' or 'Luke-Acts as Theology'), and have sought to go beyond these set categories. H. Moxnes' way of doing so has been to pay attention not just to the possible historical nature of events narrated in Luke-Acts, but in getting to the 'soul' of the narrative - the meaning of the historical data presented by Luke in his
high" (Luke 24:49, 54 "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high... And they returned to Jerusalem"), this ending is a way of implying "to be continued..." which connects directly with Acts 1:4, 5 ("he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father.. .the Holy Spirit") Acts 1:8 ("you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you"), and with the coming of the Holy Spirit (i.e.
"the power from on high") in Acts 2. See M.C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1987, 93-94.
238 W.S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 33.
65
writings. Moxnes believes it is a meaning that can be so actualized that the reader is not only informed of the events by Luke the author, but that he or she actually engages in and with the story. The reader in fact participates in the story being told.
If Luke-Acts is 'history', what is the meaning behind that history, and how can the present, modern reader be part of this history?
In The Economy of the Kingdom (1988), Moxnes attempts to move "beyond old conclusions, set categories, and conventional methods",240 and he does so by seeking to give meaning to the history behind the events in Luke-Acts. But Moxnes is surely aware also of the vast array of scholars for whom the Lucan opus is primarily a theological work (note, for example, some of the key names in his bibliography:
Fitzmyer, Marshall, to mention a few), yet he does not extend his new "category" to include or apply it to the 'Luke-the-theologian' position. This has the unfortunate result that it limits his new approach to the confines of a social science. It is that, certainly, and Moxnes admits as much;241 however, Luke-Acts also clearly seeks to make a statement about faith and belief, a fact which, in our view, Moxnes continues to neglect. The questions he asks from a historical perspective could well be asked also from a theological reading of Luke-Acts: "What are the norms and values of this
* 94"?
society? What are the rules for social relations and human interaction?" One searches Moxnes' book in vain for a theological response to these questions, while one is sated from a socio-analytical point of view.
This omission notwithstanding, it must be accepted that Moxnes does indeed mark a significant shift from "set categories and conventional methods" in Lucan studies and initiates a trend that other scholars (e.g. Esler, Moessner, Schottroff and Stegemann, among others) later develop. This group of representatives of a new direction in Lucan studies has certainly gone a long way towards unfettering Lucan studies from merely historical and theological considerations. They have, instead, introduced a socio-literary dimension to the discipline.
239 See H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, xv-xvii.
240 H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, xi.
241 "In particular, this study focuses on an often neglected aspect, the moral understanding of social relations and economic interaction" (:xvi).
242 H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, xv.
It must be noted, however, that this new socio-literary dimension has neither sprung from, nor developed into a monolithic, one-sided position. Indeed, it is probably correct to say there are as many tributaries to the mainstream as there are scholars who have adopted this approach to Lucan studies. The literary approach has been fruitful both in terms of the diversity of methodologies as well as in the enrichment of scholarly insight. The new socio-literary approach is especially attractive for its openness to, and creative use of modern developments in sciences like sociology, anthropology, and structures of political and hierarchical organization.
One positive element that the various branches of literary criticism in general (which includes narrative criticism, among others) have brought to biblical studies is that it is seen by some scholars as promising some redress from what some see as "the failure of historical criticism to approach the text as canonical and as biblical authority for the Christian church".243 This is the basic presupposition of narrative criticism, namely that the biblical text is taken "as is", that is to say in its canonical form.244
Thus the main concerns of the historical-critical method such as form-, redaction-, and textual-criticism (all of which seek to come to grips with the world and processes
H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, 174.
244 On this concept see W.S. Kurz {Reading Luke-Acts, 1-2). This position would, no doubt, give a lot of joy to B. Childs, the foremost proponent of the view that the scriptures (particularly the Old Testament, but also the New) are best left to speak to the reader in their received form. See his strong argument for this position in his Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Contex/ (London, SCM Ltd., 1985), especially page 6, on which he expresses the view that "the canonical approach to Old Testament theology is unequivocal in asserting that the object of theological reflection is the canonical writing of the Old Testament, that is, the Hebrew scriptures which are the received traditions of Israel.
The materials for theological reflection are not the events or experiences behind the text...The discipline of Old Testament theology derives from theological reflection on a received body of scripture whose formation was the result of a lengthy history of development". Childs applies the same principle in his The New Testament as Canon (London, SCM Ltd., 1994, 5-53). It must be noted, however, that the canonical approach to Luke-Acts is not without its problems. M.C. Parsons & R.I.
Pervo {Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1993), deliver a broadside early on in their investigations when they state that "the canonical disunity of Luke and Acts is not a debatable point...according to all the evidence available to us, Luke and Acts never stood side-by-side in any canonical list" (:8). They also point to the distinct textual histories of the two writings, and the problematic "relationship between the Alexandrian text and the much longer Western text" (:10), aspects that seem to them to suggest that Luke and Acts had quite distinct histories of transmission and reception in the early church. Indeed, Parsons and Pervo go so far as to maintain that both the textual variations and the different histories in transmission "indicate, at the least, a disinterest among early readers in preserving the 'unity' of Luke and Acts" (:9). Basically, therefore, the two authors plead for clarity when narrative criticism talks of the 'canonical' text: Which text? In Reading Acts, {A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, New York, Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), C.H. Talbert attempts to find a way round this obstacle by suggesting Luke and Acts be read today as they would have been read in the "precanonical period" (.13), that is to say as a continuous story told in two volumes without the interruption of the Gospel of John. R.C. Tannehill defends the canonical approach to Luke-Acts: "I am concerned with Luke-Acts in its finished form, not with pre- Lukan tradition" {The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. 1, 6).
behind the text) play a very limited (if at all any) role in narrative criticism. Historical criticism provides an important distancing in reading scripture, by which the Bible is rescued from contemporary prejudices about its meaning to recover what it meant historically at the time of its production. But once the Bible is thus detached from present preconceptions, it remains locked in the past unless there are ways other than historical criticism by which to dialogue and find some communion with the text. 4
Central to the literary approach (whether in the form of rhetorical or narrative criticism) is the acknowledgment that Luke-Acts is a story, and, as has been noted above, a "good story".246 Powell247 expresses the same view differently:
Luke is a masterful storyteller and the book of Acts well displays his art. Where else within so few pages, E.J. Goodspeed once observed, "will be found such a varied series of exciting events - trials, riots, persecutions, escapes, martyrdoms, voyages, shipwrecks, rescues?"248
In addition to these aspects of Luke's writings, Pervo has also been able to demonstrate "how pervasive the element of entertainment actually is" in them:
Popular works were doubtless often edifying, the quality Haenchen found dominant in Acts. They were also quite frequently intended to entertain, an object that did not at all diminish their value for illumination and improvement. Only recently has the presence of entertainment in Acts been accorded some of the appreciation it merits.249
In acknowledging the importance of storytelling in transmitting a message, R.C.
Tannehill briefly outlines what is involved in narrative criticism:
245 See, generally, Walter Wink's assessment of the areas that historical-criticism and other critical methodologies do not cover when used at the exclusion of other approaches. Wink calls for inter- disciplinary and more inclusive approaches to biblical-criticism. See W. Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1973.
246 See H.W. Willimon, The Acts of the Apostles, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1990, 11.
247 M.A. Powell, What Are They Saying About Acts?', 96.
248 Powell quotes from E.J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1937, 187. On Luke's gift for storytelling, see also G.F. Nuttall, The Moment of Recognition: Luke As Story-Teller, London, Athlone Press, 1978. We have already made reference to how Powell (What Are They Saying About Acts?), in reviewing Pervo's Profit With Delight, notes that according to that work Luke-Acts is "an ancient novel written to entertain its readers", and he also points to the preponderance in Acts for "harrowing escapes from peril, travel to exotic locations, and the working of fantastic miracles. Palace intrigue, mob scenes, adventurous voyages and shipwrecks are all standard novelistic features. Humor and wit also abound, as do what Pervo regards as burlesque and rowdy episodes (5:17-25; 12:5-17; 16:16-18; 19:14-16; 19:21-20:1; 23:6-10)" (:11-12).
249 R.I. Pervo, Profit With Delight, 11.