The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (80 page)

This prominently surfaces in Acts 28:25–27, where Paul, upon reaching Rome, first speaks to the Jewish leaders there. Some of them believe, but to those who do not Paul cites Isa 6:9–10:

The Holy Spirit correctly spoke through the prophet Isaiah to your forefathers when He said, “Go to this people and say: ‘You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. For this people's heart has grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted—and I would heal them.’”

Having thus explained the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, Paul drew the following implication: “Therefore, let it be known to you that this saving work of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!” (28:28). With this, the book of Acts closes.

The literary structure of the book thus points to a historical apologetic that explains God's plan extending the gospel to the Gentiles while including believing Jews as well. While it can be surmised that Luke's target audience included non-Aramaic speakers who were familiar with the OT, the apologetic presented is wide-ranging, including the evangelism of Diaspora Jews as well as the edification of Gentile Christians who worship the Jewish Messiah whom the Jews had rejected. Luke's purpose was to write an accurate historical narrative designed to edify his Christian readers and to help them evangelize unbelievers.

LITERATURE

Genre

The question regarding the genre of Acts is more than merely a matter of curiosity. The answer to this question helps one to identify the expectations one should have when approaching the book. Certain genres of literature have no or little expectation of trustworthiness or historical veracity (e.g., a fairy tale or a novel). It matters, therefore, if the book of Acts was written as a collection of legends or as a serious historical narrative. For this reason identifying the genre of Acts is a significant aid in understanding Luke's purpose.

Similar to the Gospels, the literary genre of Acts is difficult to determine with certainty. There are few (if any) works of a similar nature prior to the publication of Acts. Also, again similar to the Gospels, a host of apocryphal “Acts” were written in imitation of the canonical book.
¹⁶
This is not to say that the term “Acts” is original. In literary circles, “Acts” (praxeis) referred to the heroic deeds of mythical or historical figures, but this kind of writing was most likely not an established literary genre (even less was the term featured in titles) when Luke penned this volume.
¹⁷

The Gospels have been identified by some as a specialized form of biography, with the words and deeds of Jesus at the center. If so, at first sight, Luke's second volume does not seem to fit this description, as it features the deeds of more than one person: Peter, Stephen, Philip, Paul, and so on. There are several significant human agents, but there is one, and only one, major divine agent underlying the entire plot of the book of Acts: the Holy Spirit. For this reason, rather than identifying the book as presenting the “Acts of the Apostles,” it may be more accurate to say that at its heart are the “Acts of the Holy Spirit.”
¹⁸

In fact, this unity of what Jesus began to do during his earthly ministry and what he began to do in the power of the Holy Spirit subsequent to his ascension seems to be precisely what is implied by Luke himself in the opening verse of Acts: “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up, after He had given orders through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:1 –2). This may constitute the common ground between Luke's Gospel and Acts and mark both books as a literary unity.
¹⁹

In recent times the genre of Acts has been identified by some as related to the romance literature of its time, that is, as a kind of novel.
²⁰
This is ultimately unproven and not very helpful.
²¹
More likely, the genre of Acts is bound up with historiography. The early church fathers, who were familiar with the different literary genres, referred to the book as a “history.”
²²
Although Luke did not use the term himself, there is good evidence that he set out to write a historical account. He wrote in a Septuagintal style resembling OT narratives.
²³
It thus appears that Luke saw himself as writing sacred history.
²⁴

Another good indication of this comes from the prefaces of Luke and Acts. D. Aune suggested that Luke's Gospel exhibits the following four of seven features of ancient historiography: (1) requests and dedications; (2) mention of predecessors; (3) use of appropriate methodology; and (4) reasons for writing.
²⁵
If the preface to the Gospel covers both volumes, then Luke claimed to have written an account that is trustworthy, emphasizing the veracity of his research. Moreover, Luke produced a linear historical writing. He was careful to set events clearly at a point in history (called “synchronisms”) and, in line with Greek historiography, arranged his work geographically.
²⁶

However, Acts does not seem to fit any one genre of historiography. Like Plutarch's
Lives
, Acts features the lives and words of well-known people (Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc). At the same time, the book shifts from person to person. Stephen is only important in Acts 6 and 7, Philip in Acts 8. After Acts 15, Peter drops off the scene altogether; and then the main character is Paul, as the gospel moves through the known world. It seems that the personalities involved serve a purpose other than chronicling their lives.

The genre of Acts is also similar to OT historiography. Similar to the Gospels, the history is properly seen as ancient historiography, with a theological focus. Blomberg called it a “theological history,”
²⁷
which seems to be a satisfying way of capturing the nature of the book. If so, the reader should expect the book to set forth a historical narrative that strives not only for accuracy in its portrayal of events but also seeks to be God centered in its approach to history. In Acts, God is engendering salvation history. Thus the next question is: How accurate is this history?

The Historical Reliability of Acts

Introduction
Assessments of Luke's accuracy in Acts range from complete affirmation to total denial.
²⁸
Some, such as Pervo, complimented Luke's literary ability while denigrating his accuracy in recording historical details. Pervo claimed that Luke was “bumbling and incompetent as an historian.”
²⁹
Those advocating a radical denial of historicity include M. Dibelius, H. Conzelmann, O. Vielhauer, and E. Haenchen. On the other side of the spectrum, F. F. Bruce, C. Hemer, W. Gasque, and I. H. Marshall, among others, strongly defend Luke's accuracy. In recent days many have sought to find middle ground. One of these scholars is J. Fitzmyer, who noted, “It is clear today that a middle ground has to be sought between the skeptical approach and a conservative reaction to it. One has to admit that at times Luke's information is faulty and that he has confused some things in his narrative, but by and large he does present us with a reliable account of much of what he recounts.”
³⁰
Bumbling and incompetent, historically accurate, or somewhere in between—which is it?

Luke's general reliability in verifiable matters has been well attested. In matters of geography, he knew the topography of Jerusalem (e.g., Acts 1:12, 19; 3:2, 11). He was also familiar with the geography of Asia Minor. In 13:4–5, the natural crossing is correctly called “ports.” In 16:1, Paul passes through the “Cilician gates,” and Luke correctly chronicled Derbe as the first city on the route. Luke was also well acquainted with the Greek peninsula. In 16:12, Philippi is correctly described as a Roman colony. In 17:6, the board of magistrates in Thessalonica is properly identified as “politarchs.” More examples could
be given. Suffice it to say that C. Hemer's 51-page treatment “specific Local Knowledge of Luke” has conclusively settled the matter of Luke's geographical and provincial accuracy in the affirmative.
³¹

Luke's descriptions are also accurate in terms of specific people. The title of the emperor was “Augustus” (transliterated
Augoustos
in Luke 2:1), but on the lips of a Roman official it was formally and correctly rendered
Sebastos
(Acts 25:21, 25). Cyprus was governed by a proconsul at Paphos (13:7). Luke correctly stated that Ananias was the high priest (23:2). The Roman governor of Malta was known to be the “first man” (
prōtos
) of the island (28:7). Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in Corinth starting in the year 44 (18:12).
³²

Luke also correctly portrayed elements of ancient culture. He accurately noted that the people at Lystra spoke their own dialect (14:11). They were also particular worshippers of Hermes and Zeus (see the ascription of the titles “Hermes” and “Zeus” to Paul and Barnabas in 14:12). Also, Luke accurately detailed ancient navigation (chap. 26). Classicist A. N. Sherwin-White ably demonstrated that Luke presented an accurate description of Roman jurisprudence.
³³
Because Luke narrated many encounters with the Roman courts (especially the last quarter of the book) in Acts, this covers a large portion of the narrative.

Further, Luke correctly narrated events that were recorded elsewhere in ancient historiography. These included a famine during the reign of Claudius (11:28), the death of Herod Agrippa I (12:19–23), the edict of Claudius (18:2), and the replacement of the proconsul Felix by Porcius Festus (24:27).

There are only a few points where Luke is severely criticized in verifiable matters outside of Scripture. The first is found in the short speech of Gamaliel when he mentioned a certain Theudas and Judas (5:34–37). Theudas, according to Gamaliel, claimed to be someone important, gathered 400 men, but was killed and his followers scattered. A Theudas whom we know from Josephus appeared 10 to 15 years prior to Gamaliel's speech.
³⁴
This is seen by many as an anachronism on Luke's part. A possible key to unlocking this puzzle may be the mention of a certain Judas who is said to have come after Theudas. The Judas of Galilee we know comes from the time near Jesus' birth (at the death of Herod the Great). It is possible that Gamaliel's Theudas was not the same man as Josephus's.
³⁵
Since Theudas was a common name, and after the death of Herod numerous uprisings occurred, this otherwise unknown Theudas may be one of them.
³⁶

The second specific charge against Luke's accuracy is related to his use of numbers in the case of the number of the Egyptian's band of 4,000 (21:38). The ancient historian Lysias also mentioned an Egyptian terrorist with 4,000 men, but Josephus said he had 30,000 men.
³⁷
But in this instance Luke should be preferred over Josephus since Josephus had a well-demonstrated tendency to inflate numbers.
³⁸

Those striking the middle ground often concede the point of Luke's accuracy in historical matters but do not necessarily extend it to the story he told.
³⁹
These scholars take issue with Luke at three major points. Fitzmyer's threefold charge is representative: (1) the speeches in Acts are Lukan compositions; (2) there are tendentious story lines (Fitzmyer cites Acts 15 as a conflation of two councils); and (3) the recounting of miracles and heavenly interventions are judged problematic in terms of historicity.
⁴⁰
It is therefore necessary to address these three issues next. As will be seen, in each case closer scrutiny vindicates Luke's accuracy.

The Speeches of Acts
The speeches in Acts take up about 25 to 30 percent of the book, depending on how one identifies a speech. Some have suggested that the speeches in Acts are wholly Luke's invention, so much so that some theologians do not even use Paul's speeches in Acts to develop a Pauline theology.

Although some claim that the precritical understanding of the speeches in Acts considered them
verbatim
reports, this is not the case. Many pre-Enlightenment exegetes considered them to be summaries rather than dictated notes.
⁴¹
Indeed,
verbatim
reports are a virtual impossibility given the textual evidence. First, in some cases the receptor language is different from the original speech. Luke said that Paul's defense against the mob in the temple was in Aramaic (21:40), as was the heavenly voice at Paul's conversion (26:14). On other occasions the language used would most likely have been Greek, such as Paul's speech in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (13:15) or the conversation between Paul and the commander of the guard (21:37). But in none of these cases is the conclusion warranted that these were
verbatim
reports.

Second, the text itself indicates at places that the speeches have been summarized. For example, Peter's sermon at the temple square lasted from three p.m. to evening (see 3:1; 4:3), but it only covers 17 verses. No one suggests that these 17 verses represent the totality of the original speech.

Finally, in matters of literary and linguistic style, Luke's diction is evident even in the speeches. But the rhetorical style (i.e., the shape of the speeches) is suitable to the context. For instance, Peter's Pentecost sermon reads like that of an OT prophet (2:14–36), but Stephen spoke like a Hellenistic Jew (chap. 7).
⁴²
Paul's speech at the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch resembles that of a rabbi (13:16–41), while he used the structure of a philosopher in Athens (17:22–31).
⁴³
This suggests that while the speeches are not
verbatim
reports, neither are they “free compositions” by Luke.
⁴⁴

Nevertheless, many object to this conclusion and challenge Luke's accuracy. Hemer summarized the arguments as follows: (1) ancient historians often invented speeches to suit their purposes; (2) the unity of style also suggests that the material was fabricated (or at least embellished) by Luke rather than accurately recording the actual original content of the speeches; and (3) the speeches display a continuity of content that spans from speech to speech and from speaker to speaker.
⁴⁵
Fitzmyer, modifying Schweizer, identified a series of elements that commonly appear in the major speeches of Acts. He proposed that these elements allowed him to characterize them as “Lukan compositions.”
⁴⁶
But these objections can be met by the following rejoinders.