History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts

Abstract

This article attempts to raise questions on the basis of the early reception history of Luke and Acts about the relation between a literary-critical interpretation and an interpretation of Luke's work that asks after its meaning for an early Christian audience. That Luke-Acts can be read as a literary unity is not challenged. But the evidence that we have suggests that Luke and Acts were not read/heard together by the early Christians in the ancient world. We may thus ask whether our interpretations that depend in principle on the unity of Luke-Acts are in fact not as historical as we might suppose, at least in the sense that the texts would not have been heard together in the way we read them today. Conversely, we may also ask whether a historical interpretation that seeks to read Luke and Acts as they were most likely heard is of necessity estranged from the literary dynamics of Luke-Acts.

Literary Unity and Reception History

“…On one side, there are those who think that the literary unity of Luke-Acts supplies sufficient ground for us to suppose that the writings were read together as Luke-Acts prior to their separation (see Gregory in this issue; Johnson 2005): ideal readers must be translated into a group of real readers. On the other, there are those who think that we have no evidence for such a smooth translation and that what later evidence we do possess points uniformly in the opposite direction (Rowe 2005;Bockmuehl 2005): ideal readers may not so easily be translated into real readers (literary unity does not offer us the concrete, requisite community or interpreters). With respect to the late first or early second century (assuming the more or less traditional dating of Luke and Acts), perhaps we are simply at a stalemate.…”

The Unity of Luke—Acts in Recent Discussion

“…There have been several responses to Gregory's monograph, both positive and negative (contrast the reviews of Paget 2004and Elliott 2006with Marshall 2006). C. Kavin Rowe thinks that Gregory has not taken the evidence far enough, and he contests whether Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment actually testify to Luke-Acts being read as one literary unit (Rowe 2005). While Irenaeus coordinates the end of Luke with the beginning of Acts, this may have been perceived by Irenaeus as a form of 'chain-link' with no literary intent to read the volumes in light of each other.…”

What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco‐Roman Biography – By Richard A. Burridge, Grand Rapids

“…He concludes, ‘In the case of Luke's Gospel, this means that readings and studies of the Gospel itself, as with Matthew, Mark, or John, are entirely appropriate. Further, the evidence of early Christian readings would press us more towards studies of Luke in the context of other Gospel traditions than toward studies of Luke–Acts’ (Rowe 2005:153).…”