The unity of Luke-Acts

J Verheyden I Katholieke Universiteit Leuv.en Research Fellow of Andries G van Aarde Professor of New Testament, University of Pretoria Abstract The article contains a summary of contributions delivered at he 47" Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense (1998) held at the Catholic University, Leuven on the subject: "The unity of Luke-Acts". The opening address was delivered by J Verheyden (Leuven) on "The Unity of Luke and Acts: What are we up to?". The contributors were: J Kremer (Vienna) "Die dreifache Wiedergabe des Damaskuserlebnis Pauli in der Apostelgeschichte: Eine Hilfe flir das rechte Verstlindnis der lukanischen Osterevangelien"j D Marguerat (Lausanne) "Jusqu' oil faut-il parler d'une "uniti". Luc-Actes? Continuiti et ruptures dans !'lZVre de Luc"j J Delobel (Leuven) "The text of Luke-Acts: A confrontation of recent theories"; R L Brawley (Chicago) "Abrahamic covenant traditions and the characterization of God in Luke-Acts"; F W Horn (Mainr.) "Die Haltung des Lukas zum rlimischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte"; J A Filunyer (Washington) "The role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts"; M Rese (Minster) "The Jews in Luke-Acts: Some second thoughts"; J Taylor (Jerusalem) "La fraction du pain en Luc-Actes"; W Radl (Augsburg) "Die Beziehungen der Vorgeschichte zur Apostelgeschichte, dargestellt an Lk 2:22-39; F Neirynck (Leuven) "Luke 4:16-30 and the unity of Luke-Acts"j C M Tuckett (Oxford) "The Christo!ogy of Luke-Acts"; 0 Mainville (Montrelll) "Le Messianisme de Jesus: Le rapport IInnounce/llccoMplissement entre Lc 1,35 et Ac 2,33"; A LindeMtlnn (Bethel-Bielefeld) "Form und Fun1ction von Reden und WundererVlhlungen ;", Lukllsevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte", A DenllllX The 'heMe of divine visits lind humlln (in)hospitllbility in Luke-Acts lind its Old TestllMe'" lind Graeco-Roman antecedents.


INTRODUCTION
The 47th session of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, held at the Leuven Faculty of Theology, July 29-31, 1998, was devoted to the study of ''The unity Luke-Acts".About I Dr Jos Verheyden visited the University of Pretoria as research fellow of Prof Dr Andries G van Aarde, July-August 1999.
HTS Ss/4 (1999) 964 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services J Verheyden 150 participants attended the meeting.On the programme were eleven main papers, four seminars, and twenty-seven offered papers.
Thirty years ago, in 1968, the topic of the 19th Journees Bibliques (with F Neirynck as its president) was "L'evangile de Luc", the first in a series on each of the canonical gospels.Matthew followed in 1970, Mark in 1971, and John in 1975.The next New Testament session in 1977 (chaired by J Kremer) dealt with "Les Actes des ApOtres".
Several contributors at the conferences of 1968 and 1977 discussed passages and themes of the Gospel of Luke or the Book of Acts with ari eye on the other volume.But the specific and "unique phenomenon" (Van Unnik) that a Gospel writer composed his account as part of a larger work had not yet been dealt with as a separate topic at the Colloquium.So, this year's session, while taking us back in a certain sense into the history of the Journees Bibliques, also added something new to it.In the following I will briefly present the content of the main lectures (in the order of the programme) and of the seminars.
My opening address (The unity of Luke and Acts: What are we up to?) introduces the topic and surveys the research regarding different aspects of the unity of Luke's work.
There may be an almost complete consensus on the view that Lk-Acts were written by the same author, but scholars otherwise use various models to designate the relationship between both volumes.While some refer to "Acts as the intended sequel to the Gospel" (I H Marshall), others will regard Acts as the continuation of a work that is already com;:llete  Acts, but this unity is "a heuristic proposition" which is to be verified on the text and is realized in the act of reading.The reader must discover the signs the author has put in his text in order that his work should be read as a unity.In an initial section Marguerat first sums up some remarkable discontinuities (e g, the change from a kerygma that is centered on the Kingdom in Luke to one that is basically christological in Acts).He then formulates the principles behind his own reading for which he is influenced by the work of G Genette.
Acts is a rereading (relecture) of the Gospel.It is not a commentary of Luke, nor a repe- Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services rature, the specific interpretation of7tVEUlla that is found in the texts of the New Testament is absent from it.Luke depends on the LXX both for the vocabulary that he uses (e g, 7tVEUlla clyt.OV, 7tVEUlla ICUPIOU, or absolute 7tVEUlla) and for its meaning.With one exception (the "Spirit" of Jesus in Acts 16,7), 7tVEUlla (clyt.OV or ICUpIOU) refers to the Spirit of God and expresses God's presence to God's people.This presence is especially experienced and mentioned at the beginning of each period in Luke's conception of salvation history.It is the Spirit of God who inaugurates a next development in that history.
The Spirit is with Mary at the conception (Lk 1, 35), with Jesus at his baptism (Lk 3,22) and his temptation by Satan (4, 1.14), and with the apostles at the ascension (Acts 1, 9-11) and at the beginning of their ministry (2,4.36).This emphasis on the presence of the Spirit at the beginning of a new era in salvation history is in contrast with the Spirit's absence later on, in the ministry of Jesus (the Spirit plays no role in Jesus' miracles) or of his disciples (no mention of the Spirit in Acts 17-18 or 22-27).On the other hand the Spirit of God is mentioned again at certain crucial events in the history of the Church, as in Acts 15 or in the account of Saul's conversion in Acts 9.In Acts the Spirit also becomes personified at times.In some passages, as in Acts 5, 3-4, this personification adds an element of dramatisation.In the Old Testament or non-personified use, the Spirit is spoken of as a gift, as something that falls or comes upon people who so become filled with or full of the Spirit.
This use is consistent in the Gospel and in Acts and marks both volumes which are otherwise bound together by such references to the Spirit as the quotations from Isaiah 61, 1-2 and Joel 3, 1-2 in Luke 4, 18-19 and Acts 2, 17-21.The reference to the Spirit in Jesus' and in Peter's opening discourse makes it clear to the reader that the Spirit that was given to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry is identical with the one that will be given later on to the whole of the community, indeed that the disciples in Acts 2 receive the Spirit of Jesus.
M RESE (Miinster) deals with the crucial issue of the role of the Jews as the au- for some of the attempts proposed in this regard (e g, by J B Tyson and 0 L Tiede), Rese also draws attention to the methodological difficulty of interpreting a text on the basis of presuppositions about the historical situation of Luke and his audience.In the second part of his lecture, Rese points out the difference there exists between the mention of oi 'IououlOl in the Gospel and in Acts and concluded with a study of the ending of Acts (28,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31).From the significant difference in attestations of the plural in Luke (only 5x) and Acts (79x), he draws the double conclusion that Luke, on the one hand, emphatically distinguished between the literary genre of the Gospel and of Acts (a negative attitude to the Jews was understandable in an account of the growth of the Church out of Judaism, but less so in the Gospel) but, on the other hand, since Luke-Acts were intended as a unity, also could afford it to leave out the criticism from his first volume because he had planned to integrate it in the second one.As to Acts 28, 17-31, Rese is sceptical of attempts to read the whole of Luke-Acts from its closing scene and to read it as an expression of hope that for Luke the fate of the Jews is not sealed.By way of conclusion he again points out (as he did already in 1991) that there remains a contrast between Paul's dealing with this topic in Acts 28,17-31 and in Rom 9-11.
J TAYLOR (Jerusalem), in his paper on Lafraction du pain en Luc-Actes, argues that the custom among early Christians to break the bread (while nothing is said of the wine) is certainly not in all instances to be linked with the celebration of the eucharist.His reasoning is based on the evidence from the New Testament (e g, Acts 20, 7.11) and on a detailed analysis of chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache which show that the rite could have different connotations.Among these is the interpretation of the breaking of the bread as symbolising the dispersion of the faithful.It was probably followed by the positive act of reassembling the "pieces", a moment that is also explicitly mentioned in the feeding narratives and for which Taylor finds further evidence in such passages as Mark 13, 19-20 and John 10, 12-16; 11,50; 17,21-23, but in itself (M C Parsons -R I Pervo).In my survey I pay special attention to the works of H J Cadbury and H Conzelmann. Cadbury's famous definition of Lk-Acts as "a single continuous work" showed the way for studying Luke's double work as a narrative unity with a common purpose.His influence on subsequent research is illustrated with the discussion about the extent of the prologue in Lk 1,1-4 and possible indications in the Gospel that Luke was already looking forward to Acts.With Conzelmann, Luke became a theologian in his own right.His emphasis on the theological significance of Luke's work as a whole opened the discussion on what constitutes its distinctive theology and how to describe it.Is Luke's theology ruled by one central motive as some have thought?Or is it built according to one basic (theological) model, for example the apology or the model of announcement and fulfilment?This second model has proven to be very attractive in understanding the connexion between Luke and Acts and between Luke's work and Jewish tradition.Or should one look for coherency in Luke's thinking within a particular area (his HTS 5514 (1999) 965 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services

J
Verheydentition, but a continuation of the account in the Gospel which brings about a postponed rereading of ~s latter (une relecture en difJere).Marguerat analyzes three models of relecture, each of which contains specific text markers.The first one, which he calls "a rereading by progressive elucidation", comprises such techniques as elliptic prolepsis, relocation of information from the Gospel to Acts, or the narrative chains Luke installs between different stories.The second one, relecture par modeiisation in Marguerat's terminology, is perhaps better known as the old rhetorical te~hnique of synkrisis.Luke models a story in Acts on a similar one from the Gospel and creates a comparison between the deeds (not the words) of his main characters, Jesus and Peter, Jesus and Paul, or Peter and Paul.This parallelism is guided by the story of Jesus, but there always remains a difference between the initial act of Jesus and the imitation of it by the apostles.A more complex relation is found in the third model, the rereading by relocation, which focuses on themes for which there seems to exist a tension between the Gospel and Acts (e g regarding the Law or the Christian attitude towards wealth and property).Apparently Luke did not want to do away with these tensions.Marguerat distinguishes between Luke the theologian and Luke the historian, and emphasizes the function of both themes in establishing the Christian identity as Luke saw it.J DELOBEL (Leuven) surveys recent work on the text of Luke-Acts (The text of Luke-Acts: A confrontation of recent theories).The discussion on the relationship between the Alexandrian and the Western text in Luke-Acts, which seemed a foregone issue in Lukan studies, was reopened in the mid eighties.Taking as his starting point the survey ofB Aland(ETL, 1986), Delobel presents the works ofEDelebecque (1980Delebecque ( -1986)), M-E Boismard and A Lamouille (1984), W A Strange (1992), C-B Amphoux (several contributions from 1986 on with special consideration for the Codex Bezae).J Rius-Camps (esp the series of articles on the Western recension in Acts), and P Taverdon (1997) who continues in the line of Boismard.In a last section he formulates some observations on this revival of the inte~est in the Western text.One should realize, first, that those who are opposed to the consensus opinion do not constitute a homogeneous group.And second, a critique of the attempts at reassessing the value of the Western text should focus on the qualities of the methods that are proposed.Delobel makes nine observations in this regard which do not all apply to each and everyone of the proponents of the Western text.He is sceptical about the ease with which some authors go from the level of ''tradition'' to that of HTS 5514(1999)    967Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library ServicesThe "lfity L"U-tu:ts ''written sources" that are no longer available to us.At the same time these authors have no problem with accepting the traditional ascription of Luke-Acts to a companion of Paul.He further points o~t some of the risks and difficulties in using arguments based on the occurrence of doublets (do they always have to go back to different traditions?) or of "Lucanisms", and warns for too optimistic views on the possibility of reconstructing the Western text on the basis of Codex Bezae or other evidence.An important difficulty remains the lack of direct evidence from the second century, which is responsible for the widely diverging conclusions that are proposed regarding the date of the Western recension and of its nature.As a general observation, several of the attempts suffer from a lack oftaIanced text-critical method giving too much importance to internal criticism (e g, Boismard-Lamouille). R L BRAWLEY (Chicago), in his paper on Abrahamic covenant traditions and the characterization o/God in Luke-Acts, offers a reading of all the passages that refer to Abraham as a key towards a (partial) understanding of Luke's characterization of God.From the outset it is clear that the references to the Abrahamic covenant traditions stand along those to other or figures as Moses and David.Thus Mary's interpretation in 1,37 of Gabriel's announcement, which echoes Davidic traditions (1, 32-33), leads the reader beyond David to the scene in Genesis 18, 14 that proclaims the power of God to keep his promises.Zechariah's interpretation, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the two previous ones, though in such a way that God's promises to David are seen as the fulfilment of those that were given to Abraham.Brawley then discusses the other Abraham passages which together offer a double characterization of God as the One who keeps promises and whose blessings are not bound to laws on religious praxis but include all the families of the earth (cfLk 3, 8, where the negative qualification of the appeal to Abrahamic descent is balanced by the positive moment of revaluation by referring to the criterion of repentance; 13, 10-17, with the expression "daughter of Abraham" that is reminiscent of 4 Maccabees 15,28 and the quotation ofGenesis 22,18 in Acts 3, 25; 13,[28][29] and also 16,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] all    three again characterize God as the One who blesses all people).Abraham plays a prominent role in the speech of Stephen who recalls the old promise about inheriting the land (7, 3-5) which is followed by a reference in 7, 16-17 to the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham.Finally, the reference to Abraham in Paul's speech at Antioch is seen as in some sort summarizing God's promises to God's people.Moreover, like Stephen, Paul 968 HTS 5514(1999)    Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services synthesizes the covenant traditions about Abraham and David, subsuming the latter under the fonner.This is indeed Luke's way of understanding the significance of the promises originally made to Abraham.God has repeated them throughout history to Moses and David, and even if the Davidic and Mosaic covenants may have failed in some respect, it is the Abrahamic covenant that remains the touching stone.Die Haltung des Lukas zum romischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte is the title of the lecture by F WHom (Mainz), who takes as his starting point the often fonnulates conclusion that for Luke it were the Jews who were opposed to Jesus and his followers, against the will of the Roman authorities who rather protected the Christians and saw no harm in their mission.In three parts Horn offers an exegetical study of the trial scenes of Jesus and Paul, a survey of recent contributions on the topic, and a proposal regarding Luke's intended audience on the basis of his dealing with the Herodian dynasty.Luke clearly puts the blame for the condemnation of Jesus and of Paul with the Jewish religious authorities.Pilate and his ally Herod Antipas in Luke, and the Roman military government in Acts, are not convinced of their guilt and, in the case of Paul, are rather more concerned about his safety (Acts 23, 23).In the literature Luke's positive attitude towards the civil authorities is generally recognized, whatever one thinks that may have been the reason behind this apology.Herod Antipas and the other members of the dynasty are presented by Luke as reliable allies of Rome.They are his witnesses before his Roman audience that Christianity is not to be feared as a politically threatening movement.Those few passages that offer a different picture(Lk 13,31; 23, 11; Acts 4,(27)(28) and put Herod and Pilate on the side of the opponents of Jesus, testify to what may have been historically the more probable situation and to the degree of Luke's efforts to discharge the Roman authorities and their allies of the accusation that they had any part in the death of Jesus.J A FITZMYER (Washington) addresses another important topic in Lukan studies.His paper on The role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts comprises three sections.In the first and second one he looks for the sources of Luke's references of the Spirit in Greco-Roman literature and in the LXX.In the third one he goes through the relevant passages in Luke-Acts to present a general description of Luke's understanding of the role of the Spirit in the life of Jesus and of the early Church.Fitzmyer is sceptical of a possible Hellenistic influence.Though the concept of "inspiration" is well attested in contemporary Greek lite-HTS 5514 (1999) 969 dience and opponents of Jesus and as addressees and characters of Luke's account (The Jews in Luke-Acts: Some second thoughts).Rese's "first" thoughts are found in an article he contributed to the FS G Schneider in 1991.They are briefly summarised in the first part of his lecture and supplemented with a survey of the more recent literature.As before, current discussion centers around the question whether or not Luke, through the mouth of Paul, has '"written off' the Jews (Haenchen).Rese is critical of J Jervell's positive inter-970 HTS 55/4 (1999) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services pretation of oi'Iou&x.iOl in the Gospel and Acts.Two aspects of the discussion that have received quite some attention in recent years are the identification of the God-fearers as Jews and the alleged Jewish origin of the author of Luke-Acts.Though he shows sympathy also in Luke's version of the Last Supper.Defending the shorter reading at Luke 22, 19-20, Taylor speculates about the possibility that the rite of breaking the bread could be a fragment of that same pattern of negation (here the death of Jesus) and HTS 55/4 (1999) 971 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services and his artistry as a redactor and author bring in other aspects of the discussion.Luke masters a wide variety of narrative techniques that show up The unitychristology or his pneumatology or ecclesiology)?The study of the genre and of the narrative unity of Luke's work narratives, e g by turning a conversion story into a call story with a vision(Acts 22,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).D MARGUERA T .(Lausanne) explores the limits of the hypothesis of the unity of Luke's work: Jusqu 'ou faut-il parler d'une "unite" Luc-Actes?Continuite et ruptures dans I'reuvre de Luc.Marguerat does not deny the literary and theological unity of Luke-