Homepage

Blog Feed

Navigation
Articles Wanted
External Links
Other Blogs

Online Books
The Historicity of Jesus
by S. J. Case
Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?
by Maurice Goguel
Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?
by G. R. S. Mead
More Online Books

Book Reviews
Habermas
by Peter Kirby
Theissen and Merz
by Peter Kirby
Doherty
by Bernard Muller
Akenson
by Michael Turton
Crossan
by Michael Turton
Lüdemann
by Michael Turton
Wells and Price
by Michael Turton

Republished Articles
Smith's Secret Mark
by Paul J. Achtemeier
The New "Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel"
by A. Büchler
Pagan Christ or Jewish Messiah?
by Laurence and Shirley Dalton
The Outer Evidence as to the Gospels
by G. R. S. Mead
The Synoptical Problem
by G. R. S. Mead
The Fourth-Gospel Problem
by G. R. S. Mead
The Religion of Flavius Josephus
by James A. Montgomery
Smith's Secret Mark
by Norman R. Petersen
By Land and By Sea
by Vernon K. Robbins
The Christ Passage in Josephus
by Solomon Zeitlin

Original Articles
Response to Gakusei Don
by Earl Doherty
Jesus Myth and Second Century Christian Writings
by Gakusei Don
Interpolation in 2 Corinthians
by Sid Green
Sons of Zadok
Interpolation in 2 Corinthians
by Sid Green
Sons of Zadok
by Sid Green
Qumran and Early Christianity
by Sid Green
Citations concerning the Testimonium
by David C. Hindley
A Note on Trypho
by Peter Kirby
Robert Price vs Gregory Boyd
by Peter Kirby
The Etymology of Jesus H. Christ
by Peter Kirby
The Seven Apostles
by Peter Kirby
Jesus Variants
by Peter Kirby
Euripides and Luke
by Peter Kirby
First Person Perspective in Ancient Sea Travel
by Peter Kirby
External References to Islam
by Peter Kirby
Paul and Damascus
by R. E. Lay
Acts
by Chris Price
The Miracles of Jesus
by Chris Price
Marcion
by Chris Price
Paul's Belief in a Bodily Resurrection
by Chris Price

Other Blogs
Thoughts on Antiquity
NT Gateway Weblog
Hypotyposeis
PaleoJudaica
Philo of Alexandria Blog
Bible Software Review Weblog
Jim West's Biblical Theology
Chris Price's Blog
AKMA's Random Thoughts
deinde
textweek
rogueclassicism
Studi Galileiani
Danny's Journal
Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity. Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail to Peter Kirby with ideas for an article or book review. Thanks!
Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts
A thorough discussion of the evidence.
by Chris Price (July 30, 2005)

It may be easier to view or print the Word file here.

 

 

CHAPTER 1:  THE GENRE OF ACTS

 

            “The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is – what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used.” 

                        C.S. Lewis, Preface to Paradise Lost

 

            What is the Acts of the Apostles?  It is a writing, a story, to be sure.  But what kind?  This question is one of genre.  Genres “are social conventions that provide contextual meaning for the smaller units of language and text they enclose.  The original significance that a literary text had for both author and reader is tied to the genre of the text, so that the meaning of the part is dependent upon the meaning of the whole.”[1]  In other words, authors write according to a set of conventions and expectations held by writers and audiences about different types of literature.  To write according to a particular genre was to communicate specific intentions and to imbue your work with certain meaning. 

            Is the question of genre important? Yes, it is. “Identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.”[2]  Genre “is widely acknowledged as one of the key conventions guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.  Genre forms a kind of ‘contract’ or agreement, often unspoken or unwritten, or even unconscious, between the author and a reader, by which the author sets out to write according to a whole set of expectations and conventions, and we agree to read or to interpret the work using the same conventions, giving us an initial idea of what we might expect to find.”[3]

            Knowledge of genres was widespread in the literate Hellenistic world in which Acts was written.  As Prof. Richard Burridge states in his book, What Are the Gospels?, “[a]n awareness of genre and its conventions was widespread in the ancient world through elementary schooling, particular in its use of rhetorical exercises and moralistic stories of the heroes.”[4] 

            Because of the importance of genre classification, scholars have spilled much ink exploring the genre of Acts and the majority have concluded that Acts is of the genre of the ancient history, known as ancient historiography.[5]  Below I discuss the possible genre classifications for Acts.  I begin by making a preliminary case for ancient historiography and then evaluate the other candidates, comparing and contrasting their suitability with that of historiography. 

 

I.          Ancient Historiography

 

            Ancient histories “are vehicles for narrating events worthy of record. . . .  Historians [ ] treated events that actually happened and people who really lived; they had historical stories worth telling.”[6]  Luke T. Johnson explains why he concludes that the author of Acts was attempting to write history:

 

(1) His prologue tells us that he is writing an “orderly account.”  Historians of his age used such language to describe their work.  He refers as well to oral and written sources; he knew others had written narratives before him.  He had sources; therefore, he regarded them as such, and he used them critically.  (2) He tries to relate his story to the broader historical context.  He does this first by providing chronological references for pivotal events (see Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12).  In addition, he identifies power blocs and governing agents, not only in Palestine (Acts 18:12-17).  (3) Above all, Luke has the historian’s instinct for chronology and causality; he makes connections between events, so that a thread of purpose runs through his narrative.[7]

 

Joel Green provides additional similarities between Acts and historiography. 

 

Luke’s two volumes evince a number of other attributes common in Greco-Roman historiography – for example a genealogical record (Lk. 3:23-28); the use of meal scenes as occasions for instruction (as in Greco-Roman symposia); travel narratives; speeches; letters; and dramatic episodes, such as Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (4.16-30) and Paul’s stormy voyage and shipwreck (Acts 27.1-28.14).  Further in characterizing his work as a narrative (diegesis), Luke qualifies his project as a long narrative of many events, for which the chief prototypes were the historiographical writings of Herodotus and Thucydides.[8]

 

Finally, Willen van Unnik determined that there were ten basic rules that characterized the writings of Greco-Roman historians:  1) choosing a noble topic; 2) choosing a topic that would be useful to the audience; 3) independence and impartiality; 4) a well structured narrative, especially at the beginning and the end; 5) collection of preparatory material; 6) selection and variety in presentation of the information; 7) correct disposition and ordering of the narrative; 8) liveliness in the narration; 9) moderation of the topographical details; and 10) composition of speeches well suited to the orator and situation.  Of these, Daniel Marguerat concludes “that Luke follows eight of the ten rules.”[9]  Rules 1 and 3 were exceptions explained by “the specificity of Luke’s project”[10] and are more similar to Jewish historical writings.  Thus, Luke seems most influenced by Greco-Roman historiography but his subject-matter and agenda are more akin to Jewish historiography.[11] 

            On its face, therefore, the author of Acts appears to be consciously writing in the genre of ancient historiography.  Although not without bias or theological focus, the genre of Acts indicates the author’s intent to record and describe historical events based on the best sources available. 

 

II.        Acts as Scripture

 

            Some scholars believe that the author of Acts saw himself as writing scripture; adding to the story of the Old Testament.[12]  Even here, though, proponents of the theory see Acts as influenced by the “historical” books of the Old Testament, such as 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Samuel.  This theory has much to commend it.  “[O]ur author conceived of his work as the continuation of the LXX [the Greek translation of the Old Testament common in the time of Acts].  His deliberate composition in Septuagintal Greek and the conviction that his story was the fulfillment of the promises of the OT imply that as a continuation, Luke-Acts represents sacred narrative.”[13]  The return of the gift of prophecy, the centrality of Jerusalem to his narratives (as the destination of the gospel in Luke and the origin of the gospel in Acts), and the motif of fulfillment, also indicate that the author sees himself as completing the Old Testament story.[14]

            That the author of Acts may have seen himself as adding to scripture, however, does not mean that he was not writing under the influence of the conventions of ancient historiography.  In essence, Luke was writing “salvation history” – the story of God bringing salvation to the world through the nation of Israel and then through Jesus and the Church – influenced by the historical conventions of his day.  When this focus is considered in light of Acts’ genre of historiography, we may have the best explanation of the intentions of the author of Acts.  Though Acts shares many of the features common to the Greco-Roman historians, it is somewhat unique that its author does not describe himself in any detail in his books.  Instead, his focus is on recounting the salvation history begun in the Old Testament and concluded in the events about which he writes.[15]  Additionally, while other historians (even a Jewish one like Josephus) show some reservation about miracles, Luke does not.  How could he if he is writing about God’s salvation history?[16] 

            Accordingly, the idea that the author of Acts viewed himself as writing a continuation of the Old Testament does not count against the idea that he was writing according to the genre of historiography, but it does shed light on his intent and explains some of the variances with other works of historiography. 

 

 

III.       Acts as Ancient Biography

 

            Another theory is that Acts is a form of ancient biography. The most prominent proponent of this theory is C.H. Talbert. Talbert initially made his case in his book, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. This genre, like ancient historiography, intends to impart historical information about ancient figures.  However, the focus of ancient biographies is narrower, such as the life of a famous person.  This characteristic would seem to preclude Acts, given its focus on multiple characters.  Talbert, however, argues that Acts is akin to a “succession narrative,” which he explains was a writing that followed up a biography and described the followers of, or movement birthed, by the figure featured in the earlier biography.[17]  This theory has the advantage of explaining the genre of Acts in light of the genre of Luke, which more scholars are willing to see as biography. 

            Other scholars, however, are unconvinced and note that such “succession narratives” are much shorter than Acts and have little narration.  Professor Aune believes that Luke and Acts are best explained as historiography and notes that “succession narrative” is “an inappropriate description of brief lists of students or successors.”[18]  In other words, “succession narratives” were lists rather than narratives.  For example, Talbert points to a few brief paragraphs in Laertius’ writings as examples of these succession narratives.  Here is one such paragraph:

His disciples were Speiusippus of Athens, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Aristotle of Stagira. . . ., and many others, among them two women, Lastheneia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Philius. . . .  Some say that Theophrastus too attended his lectures.  Chamaeleon adds Hyperdies the orator and Lycurgus, and in this Polemo agrees.  Sabinus makes Demostenes his pupil, quoting . . . Mnesistratus of Thasos as his authority.  And it is not improbable.[19]

            Acts, on the other hand, is obviously an extended narrative.  Indeed, if anything, Acts is a richer narrative than the Gospel of Luke.  Obviously, there is no comparison between such succession lists and the Acts of the Apostles.  Given the broad range of subjects covered in Acts and the similarities of Acts with ancient historiography, the better explanation remains that the genre of Acts is ancient historiography.

 

IV.       Acts as Ancient Romance/Ancient Novel

 

            The notion that Acts is ancient fiction, or an “ancient novel,” has been advanced by Richard Pervo in his book Profit with Delight.[20]  This genre involved the writing of fictitious narratives intended to entertain and perhaps edify the reader.  For a variety of reasons, however, leading Lukan scholars have rejected his arguments.[21] 

 

A.        The Prefaces

 

            The prefaces of Luke and Acts are strong evidence that its author intended to write history, not fiction.  As Professor Gasque notes, “the majority of interpreters would [conclude] that his preface indicates he has historical pretensions.”[22]  Thought not all ancient writings had prefaces, many did.  They are found in many different genres and signal the intent of the writer, and therefore the genre of the work.  The prefaces of Luke-Acts show an obvious intent to write history:[23]

 

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. 

 

Luke 1:1.

 

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.

 

Acts 1:1.

 

            These passages certainly suggest that the author is attempting to write history.  He refers to “eyewitnesses” as sources of information.  He writes about information being “handed down.”  He writes of investigating everything “carefully.”  He is putting his writing in the form of a “narrative,” using the same term that Dionysius uses in his Roman Antiquities to describe his own work.  Rom. Ant. 2.48.1.  Perhaps most important, he states that his purpose for writing is that his reader will know “the exact truth” about the subject.  In short, everything about the preface suggests that the author intended to write history, not narrate fictitious stories.[24]


            This is the way the ancients thought history should be written.  In his second-century work, The Way to Write History, Lucian of Samosata writes:  “Facts must not be carelessly put together, but the historian must work with great labor and often at great trouble make inquiry, preferably being himself present an eyewitness, failing that, he must rely on those who are incorruptible, and have no bias from passion or prejudice, to add or to diminish anything.”  Quomodo 47.  The author of Acts seems aware of this maxim and explains that while he himself is not an eyewitness for matters related in the Gospel of Luke, his information is derived from them.  Notably, Lucian and Acts’ author use the same Greek word for “eyewitness.”  Regarding making note of the effort put into writing their respective histories, the author of 2 Maccabees refers to the “labour of making this digest,” Josephus refers to growing weary and the difficulty of translating into Greek, and Luke refers to “carefully investigating” all things (Lk. 1:3).

            The reference in the Gospel’s preface to the author’s forerunners also invites comparison to ancient historiography.  “It is customary in ancient historiography to give a critical evaluation of the other historians, the predecessors, who had dealt with the same history as the historian in question.”[25]  The preface of 2 Maccabees, for example, explains of his predecessor (and one of his sources), “I was struck by the mass of statistics and the difficulty which the bulk of the materials causes to those wishing to grasp the narratives of this history.”  So, he summarized and reordered the material.  2 Mac. 2:23-25.  Josephus is more critical of his predecessors, claiming that he wrote because others had “perverted the truth” of the war between the Jews and the Romans.  Ant. 1.4.  His preface to Jewish War is similarly critical.  War 1:1-2.  In his preface to Roman Antiquities, Dionysius ironically notes with disapproval other historians who were critical of other historians, although he goes on to mention that some historians were “careless and indolent” in compiling their “narratives.” 

            The author of the Luke-Acts does something similar, noting that others had written accounts before him and that he was going to offer his own contribution because he wanted to write an “orderly account.”  Although the criticism – if any – of earlier writings is mild, Luke distinguishes his account from them.  All told, the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts works in “all the crucial points” we would expect from a preface to ancient historiography.[26]

            Pervo argues, however, that the prefaces are irrelevant to the issue of genre and that the author might have been trying to simulate historical intent:

 

Prefaces were highly conventional.  Composition of them may have been taught in school.  Their claims would be the object of parody.  Not only historians but medical writers, astrologers, dream interpreters, and novelists made use of such marks of erudition.  The use of the preface does not settle the question of genre, for such devices could be employed by novelists to create verisimilitude.[27]

 

The notion that prefaces are irrelevant to the issue of genre, however, is not persuasive.  While it is true that there were prefaces in various genres, it is also true that each genre had characteristics that distinguished it from the other genres.  Those ancient novels with prefaces had prefaces that indicated that the writings were novels.  Those works of ancient historiography with prefaces had prefaces that indicated that the writings were historiography. 

            Pervo’s suggestion that the author of Acts could have been attempting to “create verisimilitude” is likewise unpersuasive.  He provides a footnote supposedly supporting this point, so I checked it expecting to find examples of ancient novels that had prefaces that pretended to be writing historiography.  I found no examples.  The footnote simply refers the reader to a later part of his book that also provides no examples.  In reality, no supporting evidence is offered.  It appears that the authors of ancient novels did not try to simulate historiography by the use of such prefaces.[28]  In fact, in ancient novels, “there was little concern for credibility in the narrative.”[29]

            The only references to novel prefaces in Pervo’s discussion are in an earlier footnote to his assertion that many different genres use prefaces.  Of course this is not in dispute.  The argument is not that Acts has a preface, but that it has a preface that indicates historical intent.  A review of Pervo’s references to novel prefaces actually adds weight against his argument.[30]  The referenced novel prefaces do not attempt to simulate historiography.  In fact, they indicate to the reader that he is reading a novel. 

            To take one of Pervo’s examples – the preface of Longus – “[the author’s] aim was to make a verbal equivalent of a painting he saw in Lesbos, and that is what he has done - summoned up a Golden Age of innocence in which his hero and heroine can have adventures and never get hurt.”[31]  This purpose is clearly stated in his preface.[32]  There is no attempt to render this an apparent historical account. 

            To take another of Pervo’s examples – Lucian’s True History  “Lucian states in the Preface (§1:2) that everything in his story is a ‘more or less comical parody of one or another of the poets, historians, and philosophers of old, who have written much that smacks of miracles and fables.’”[33]  Again, no attempt is made to pass off this writing as history.

            As Pervo’s own examples demonstrate, when the authors of ancient novels used prefaces they appear to be candid about their goals.  But no element of the ancient novel is hinted at in either of Luke’s prefaces.  “Luke does not suggest in either Luke 1:1-4 or Acts 1:1-2 that he sees it as his essential task to give pleasure, to entertain, to edify, or even in the main to encourage certain virtues.”[34] 

            In sum, the prefaces written by the author of Acts are strong evidence that he intends to write historical accounts rather than fictitious narratives. 

 

B.        The Ending of Acts

 

            Another feature of Acts that counts against it being an ancient novel is its abrupt ending.  Pervo notes that one of the defining characteristics of the ancient novel is that its outcome is predictable and complete.[35]  Other scholars agree.[36]  But Acts has anything but a predictable, complete ending.  Indeed, the ending of Acts has raised questions for two thousand years: 

 

It is the abrupt ending of Acts that is most troubling….  Ancient novels tell the tale of a hero or heroine, often both, following them through adventure and misadventure until they are reunited, married, and ‘living happily ever after.’  Villains are captured and punished, oracles fulfilled, the virtuous rewarded.  There are no loose ends.  Acts follows Paul (leaving Peter forgotten!) through thick and thin, recounting preachings, beatings, arrest, trial, voyage, shipwreck, and eventual arrival at Rome.  And then stops.  If the genre of Acts is that of the ancient novel, the end of Acts is unthinkable:  There are no parallels to the ending.[37]

 

            To emphasize this point we can examine the apocryphal Acts, which contain much more evidence of containing fictional elements.  The Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Thomas, and the Acts of Andrew all narrate the deaths of their leading characters.  The Acts of Paul narrates Paul’s judicial sentence and execution in detail.  (10.5).  The Acts of Peter likewise narrates the sentencing and execution of Peter.  (37-40).  Nero plays prominent roles in both accounts, but in the Acts of the Apostles Nero does not even make an appearance.  Moreover, what happened to Peter?  Or James?  And what about Paul?  By the time Acts was written, all three of these figures may have been dead.  Yet Acts narrates nothing of their fates. 

            The failure to narrate Paul’s fate is especially glaring because he is the hero of the second half of the book.  Nevertheless, Paul is left in Rome awaiting trial (and thus in danger of his life or about to be set free).  This is far from what we would expect from an ancient novel.  But if Acts is a history of the progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, it is not surprising as ancient historiography. 

 

C.        Purported Inaccuracies

 

            One reason Pervo concludes that Acts is not historiography is that he believes Acts is too full of inaccuracies.  But as Pervo candidly admits, he simply assumes rather than demonstrates that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies.[38]  To Pervo, the most important of these inaccuracies appears to be Luke’s supposed theological conflict with Paul’s letters.[39]  I deal with these more specifically below, but for now it is enough to note that historiography with inaccuracies is still historiography.  As Professor Balch notes in his article on the genre of Luke-Acts, Pervo confuses modern history with ancient.  “Pervo has nowhere seriously the form, content, or function of ancient historiography.  He constantly contrasts novels with history, but the latter is his own reconstruction.”[40]  Another scholar puts it this way:

 

In supposedly establishing the difficulty in seeing Acts as history, Pervo begins by pointing out what he sees as the historical inaccuracies in Acts.  He apparently does not recognize that he has moved outside of the form-critical examination in which he purports to engage.  He has moved to criteria that have little, if any, bearing at this stage of discussion on whether the book of Acts is, or is not, a historical account.  The possible explanations for the supposed historical flaws in Acts are several.  For example, Luke could be a historian but a bad one, even a very bad one.  There were many in the ancient world, but simply because they were bad historians does not mean that they were therefore writing novels.  They were simply engaging in bad history writing.[41]

 

            Accordingly, even if Pervo’s evaluation of the accuracy of Acts had merit, it does not count against classifying Acts as historiography. 

 

D.        Writing to Entertain

 

            Perhaps the most important point Pervo advances is that Acts was written to entertain its readers.  Because the central purpose of ancient novels was to entertain, Pervo believes this feature of Acts makes his case.  This argument, however, fails to adequately cope with three facts:  1) the most entertaining features of Acts Pervo points to are historical events confirmed by other Christian writings; 2) ancient historiography was also written to entertain; and, 3) the entertaining elements of Acts in relation to other elements are far from the balance found in ancient novels.    

            Pervo helpfully includes a table of the “entertaining” events that purportedly show that Acts was written to entertain.  It includes Paul’s being arrested, beaten, and shipwrecked.  But, Paul confirms these events in his own writings:

 

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.  Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.  Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.   I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.…  In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.  But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

 

2 Corinthians 11:23-33.

 

            In just one passage Paul confirms that he was imprisoned on many occasions, that he was physically punished by Roman authorities, that he was physically punished by Jewish authorities, that he was shipwrecked, and that he endured many adventures during his travels.  Perhaps most instructive is that Paul confirms Luke’s rather fantastic account of Paul escaping from Damascus by being lowered down through the wall in a basket.  If not confirmed by Paul, this episode might be seen as free creation evidencing that Acts is a novel intended to entertain.  Fortunately this episode – as with most of the exciting elements in Acts regarding Paul – is confirmed by Paul himself. 

            Nevertheless, Pervo argues that it is not merely the existence of exciting episodes that proves Acts is fiction, but the way he weaves them together to create an exciting narrative.  This argument is unpersuasive.  Because the author of Acts has successfully strung together several true episodes we must conclude that he is writing fiction?  Is this not better construed as evidence of historical intent?

            The entertaining elements of Acts can be explained more readily by recognizing that this was one of the characteristics of the genre of ancient historiography.[42]  “Historians of the period were also obligated to make their narratives exciting and ‘delightful.’”[43]  In his How to Write History, Lucian noted that historians should write “what will interest and instruct” their audience.  § 53.  The author of 2 Maccabees, for example, tells his audience that he was writing “to provide for the entertainment of those who read for pleasure, the convenience of students who must commit the facts to memory, and the profit of even the casual readers.”  2 Mac. 2:25.   Professor Soards points to additional examples of such historiography that Pervo overlooks or downplays:

 

[S]cholars have long recognized that one of the goals of ancient historians was to please their readers. . . .  The presence of entertaining or pleasing elements in an ancient work does not automatically mean that it is not history. Yet Pervo takes this position. He is able to do so largely by ignoring this characteristic in ancient historiography–for example, it is remarkable that while Pervo mentions Thucydides (only!) five times in his study, he completely ignores Herodotus, “The Father of History,” who writes in a lively, engaging, entertaining, and even fantastic manner–not unlike the author of Acts.  Similarly, Pervo refers several times to Lucian of Samosata and Xenophon of Ephesus, but he brings Dionysis of Halicarnassus into the study only twice; Polybius, once; and Sallus, three times. Many–perhaps most or all–the common characteristics Pervo identified between Acts and the ancient novel may be located in these ancient historians whom Pervo basically ignores.[44]


            Finally, when one compares the entertaining parts of Acts to the rest of the narrative, it becomes clear that though its author wanted to entertain, other purposes and features – such as speeches, evangelism, and reference to scriptures – predominate.  As Professor Brosend notes, “[w]hile Acts does indeed entertain and inform, the ancient novels offer a profit/delight ratio weighed much more in favor of delight than does Acts.”[45]  This ratio favors the entertaining/historical balance found in ancient historiography, not ancient novels. 

            In conclusion, none of the exciting episodes or the fact that Acts was written to be entertaining means it is a novel as opposed to historiography. 

 

E.         The Apocryphal Acts

 

            Pervo attempts to make much of the fact that later, apocryphal Acts, such as the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul, are fiction.  Because Acts is literarily related to these later documents, Acts too supposedly is fiction.  The most obvious problem with this argument is the causal flow.  The later apocryphal Acts are embellishments perhaps encouraged by the original Acts and the gospels.  They can tell us nothing, however, of the intent of the author of Acts.  You cannot assess the genre of the original by simply equating it with some later, derivative writings:

 

The circular and anachronistic nature of this argument is manifest.  He uses texts that are self-evidently derivative in order to assess the primary source.  However, these later fictive interpretations of scenes from canonical Acts cannot be used to assess the literary or historical dimensions of Acts itself.  This is confirmed by the treatment of canonical Acts even by classicists who consider Apocryphal Acts to fall within the ancient novel tradition.  For example, Hagg assumes canonical Acts is a different sort of literature than the Apocryphal Acts of Paul, which he sees as a type of ancient novel.[46]

 

            Further, there were later Christian writers, such as Eusebius, who arguably was influenced by Acts when writing his ecclesiastical history.  By focusing on the apocryphal Acts, Pervo has skewed his analysis. 

            Accordingly, Pervo’s reliance on these later apocryphal writings is not helpful in determining the genre of Acts itself. 

 

F.         The Speeches of Acts

 

            Most scholars have noted that the use of speeches in Acts is similar to that of other historians (though Acts, being largely about missionary efforts, has a greater proportion of them).  Pervo rejects the idea that the speeches in Acts indicate that its genre is ancient historiography and argues that “the use of speeches does not establish the genre.”[47]  The only distinctions Pervo attempts to make is that that the speeches in Acts are “Lucan compositions” and that there were no “missionary addresses in Thucydides.”[48]  Neither point is convincing. 

            Although it is true that the language of the speeches in Acts is similar to the rest of the book, the significance of this should not be misconstrued.  No ancient historian wrote verbatim transcripts of speeches.  The Greek historian Thucydides stated that, when writing speeches, the historian should record them “of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22.1.  Though Thucydides believed that it was the historian’s duty to try and report the sense of what was actually said, even he realized that nothing more than a paraphrase was possible in ancient times.  Ancient historians could not avoid using their own style and language when reporting speeches.[49] 

            Pervo’s second point – that Thucydides did not write missionary speeches – is irrelevant.  Thucydides did not write a history of an evangelistic religious movement.  Certainly Pervo offers no evidence that missionary speeches were typical of ancient novels.  Though claiming that the nature of the speeches in Acts cannot be used as a guide to genre he goes on to claim that ancient novels “provide much more convincing and useful parallels to the contents and literary function of the speeches in Acts than will histories.”[50]  This assertion is not backed up by convincing evidence.  Rather, as Professor Bosend recognized, “[Pervo] scarcely provides any examples, and does not address the much broader use of speeches in Acts in comparison to the novels.”[51]

            Clearly, therefore, the speeches of Acts are more akin to the historiography genre than historical fiction. 

 

G.        The Absence of Romance

 

            If Acts is intended to be an ancient novel it is strange that there is no romance in it.  Romance was an important, even defining, part of ancient novels and “[t]he absence of [it] is a significant omission.”[52]  Although Acts features some women, it contains no hint of romance.  Not even for the prominent couple of Priscilla and Aquila.  Not even for Paul, the hero of the second half of Acts, who is distinctly romantically uninvolved. 

            It could be argued that Acts’ audience would not be interested in romance.  But this is more assumed than demonstrated.  “Ultimately, there is too much in this reasoning that has to be given away to the audience.  It will seem easier to many who weigh Pervo’s case to conclude that Acts communicates to its readers using a different genre from the ancient novel rather than that genre minus most of its juicy parts.”[53]  The better explanation is that Acts does not include Romance because Acts is not an ancient novel.

            Further, the absence of any hint of romance from Acts is all the more telling in light of its presence in the apocryphal Acts.  Far from proving a Christian lack of interest in the characteristics of the ancient novel, the apocryphal Acts prove the opposite.  “Many of the motifs of the Hellenistic romance recur in the Christian apocryphal acts.”[54]  Perhaps the most telling example is found in the Acts of Paul, which narrates the plight of the young virgin Thecla.  This story is what we might expect from a Christianized version of the romance novel.  As Richard Baukham explains:

 

The story of Thecla is of special interest because it is the only part of the Acts of Paul in which a character other than Paul takes centre-stage and because it bears a very close relationship to the themes of the Greek novels that tell the story of two lovers (such as Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe, and Xenephon’s Ephesiaca). . . . Thecla, like the heroines of the novels, is a beautiful young girl who preserves her chastity and remains faithful to her beloved through trials and dangers in which she comes close to death but experiences divine deliverance.  Thamyris and Alexander are unwanted suitors such as appear in the novels.  Unlike the heroines of the novels, of course, Thecla’s chastity is not temporary, but permanent, and represents her total devotion to God.  But her devotion to God is also devotion to his apostle Paul, and the author does not hesitate to depict this devotion in terms which, while not intended to be sexual, parallel the erotic (cf. Athe 8-10, 18-19).  As in the case of the heroes and heroines of the novels, the plot partly turns on the separation of Paul and Thecla, her search for and reunion with him (Athe 21-25, 40-41).  Thecla’s offer to cut her hair short in order to follow Paul where he goes and her adoption of male dress when she travels in search of Paul [resemble] the novelistic theme of a woman traveling in male disguise to escape detection.  The wealthy upper-class circles in which the story takes place, including the historical figure of the emperor’s relative Tyrphaena, are also consonant with the character of the Greek novels.  It seems clear that the story of Thecla has been directly modeled on the themes of the Greek erotic novel. . . .[55]

So, we have clear novelistic elements of Romance, but adapted for its Christian message and audience.  There are other examples: 

            The Acts of John includes a story about the pious Druisiana being romantically pursued by “a messenger of Satan.”  She was so pious she had even “separated herself” from her husband for a time.  After she died, the “messenger of Satan” defiled her corpse. 

            In the Acts of Peter, the martyrdom of Peter’s wife is described, even recounting the last words of Peter to his wife. 

            In the Acts of Thomas, a king’s daughter is getting married.  At the wedding, Thomas sings a mystical bridal song and persuades the bride and groom to renounce marriage.  There is also a side story of a flute-girl who obviously becomes infatuated with Thomas.  After his song, she was “gazing and looking earnestly upon him” and “loved him well.” 

            In the Acts of Andrew, it is lending aid to a woman in distress that lands Andrew on a cross.  Maximilla is the wife of the proconsul of Greece.  Following her conversion by Andrew, Maximilla wants to escape from her husband and Andrew encourages her to do so.  When she is successful in leaving him, the proconsul has Andrew crucified.  Maximilla saw to it that Andrew received a proper burial. 

            While it is true that these “romances” are different than the pagan ones in that the emphasis is often on abstinence even within marriage, the similarities remain.  Women in distress or difficult situations are followed through until resolution of their plight.  As noted by Goodspeed and Grant, this Christian fiction was “valuable as a substitute for the romances current among Greeks and Romans.  It is sometimes supposed that these romances were characterized by what we should call pornography, but generally speaking they were rather edifying narratives of love and adventure.  The emphasis put on sex in their Christian counterparts is rather more impressive, in spite of – and partly because of – the enthusiasm of the heroes and heroines for asceticism.”[56]  That the romantic features of ancient fiction are so common in the apocryphal Acts but absent from Acts itself is telling.  It counts heavily against Acts being an ancient novel. 

             

H.        Conclusion

 

            The elements of Acts that Pervo identifies as demonstrating historical fiction fail to persuade because they are also characteristic of historiography.  Moreover, Pervo fails to adequately explain features of Acts that were unknown in historical fiction, such as the historical preface, the abrupt ending, and the abundance of speeches. 

 

V.        Summary

 

            After reviewing the potentially applicable genres, Acts stands out as a work of ancient history.  Though he viewed himself as continuing the historical work of recording God’s unfolding plan of salvation, the goal of the author of Acts was to write about real people and real events.  As Professor Aune concludes, “Luke-Acts is popular ‘general history’ written by an amateur Hellenistic historian with credentials in Greek rhetoric.”[57]

 

CHAPTER 2:  THE HISTORICITY OF THE ACTS OF THE APOTLES

 

I.          The Challenges Faced by Ancient Writers

 

            The author of Acts faced a problem common among ancient writers: a lack of records and information.  Unlike today, there were no – or very few – reference books, encyclopedias, or textbooks available.  As for geography, “exact and detailed geographical knowledge on the basis of maps and accurate descriptions of places was limited to a very tiny elite of soldiers, politicians and scholars, and even with them, personal knowledge of a place was irreplaceable.”[58]  Maps or other resources that were available were often wildly inaccurate.  Even educated writers with connections to the areas they were writing about often demonstrated imperfect geographic or political knowledge.  “That even educated Jews had little information about the geography of Palestine is clear from the imaginary description of Judea and Jerusalem in the Letter of Aristeas or that of the Holy City by Pseudo-Hecataeus; we can presuppose that even Philo had only a vague knowledge of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Holy Land, though he did visit it once in his life.”[59] 

            Otherwise well regarded historians and geographers got a lot wrong, especially about Judea. 

 

[T]o Strabo’s account of Palestine, which has a great many errors in it, and to the confused remarks of Pliny the Elder, who completely muddled up his sources.  Tacitus, too, had only very inaccurate ideas of the geographical relationship of Samaria and Galilee within the province of Judaea.  Even Ptolemy, who sought to give exact locations of places in Palestine with indications of longitude and latitude, makes serious mistakes:  his mention of Idumeaea, which lies well to the west of the Jordan’ is an anachronism in the second century AD and his location of S