2.2 Method for Exploring Acts’ Literary Shape and Significance
2.2.2 Validity of Literary Shape Method for Acts
Objections raised in applying narrative criticism to the Bible98 are relevant to Acts,
but do not equally apply to each model of narrative criticism. The focused narrative criticism method attempts to answer the following objections.
2.2.2.1 Objection One: narrative criticism is a new method of study rejecting older academic disciplines
Stanley Porter argues that modern literary criticism loses the history of criticism.99
However, aspects of narrative criticism are not new since classical-rhetorical (or historical-rhetorical) criticism100 using ancient rhetorical handbooks to interpret the
biblical text is prevalent amongst the Greek Fathers, Augustine, Calvin, Luther and Melanchthon.101 Narrative criticism actually complements the older academic
disciplines of textual criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and historical criticism.102 Socio-Rhetorical Criticism103 attempts to combine all methods.
However, as Blake Shipp rightly argues, a study based on one method potentially yields more clear in-depth results to set alongside the findings of other methods.104
By focusing on the final form of the text, narrative criticism treats Acts as “a coherent and purposefully written narrative”105 and a whole literary unit, rather than
a conglomeration of disparate sources.
98 Powell, Literary Criticism, 16–19; Powell, Narrative Criticism, 91–98; Osborne,
Hermeneutical Spiral, 212–216; Porter, “Literary Approaches”, 116–20; Barry M. Foster, “The Contribution of the Conclusion of Acts to the Understanding of Lucan Theology and the Determination of Lucan Purpose” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1997), 7–12.
99 Porter, “Literary Approaches”, 116. 100 Shipp, Reluctant Witness, 127–41. 101 Witherington, “Almost”, 64–65.
102 Powell, Narrative Criticism, 86–87. Cf. Bauer and Traina, Inductive, 53–56, for “an
integrated approach” focused on the final form of the text.
103 Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical
Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1996); Robbins, The Tapestry of Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996).
104 Shipp, Reluctant Witness, 6, 7, 144–46, critiques socio-rhetorical criticism and the use of
it by Witherington, Acts, as often being unclear and shallow with anaemic results, hermeneutical confusion and reader-orientated interpretations.
105 Chris Green, The Word of His Grace: A Guide to Teaching and Preaching from Acts
2.2.2.2 Objection Two: Narrative criticism is an anachronistic imposition of modern literary concepts onto ancient literature
Parsons argues that the use of modern literary concepts is inappropriate since they do not share the same literary conventions and social settings as ancient literature.106
However, although a tentative application is required,107 modern concepts are useful
for literary analysis since they are often simply developments of ancient concepts.108
In particular the three key theoretical concepts from Horace and Aristotle have a long history of application within literary criticism. In the present study they regulate the use of modern concepts.
2.2.2.3 Objection Three: Narrative criticism uses fictional concepts that undermine historical veracity
Eckhard Schnabel argues that historiography does not create “story” or “plot”.109
However, he misses the point that an arrangement of true facts has a literary shape. Porter’s concern that literary criticism loses the historical context,110 is overcome by
Alexander’s observation that fact and fiction were not separate generic categories in the Graeco-Roman world.111 Story artistry can co-exist with accurate history.112
Viewing Acts as a selective history with a deliberate literary shape which reveals theological significance113 produces important insights not possible through
historical-criticism.114 This overcomes Porter’s censure that literary criticism
106 Mikeal K. Parsons, “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the
Preliminary Exercises”, in Penner and Stichele, Contextualising Acts, 43–64, citing 62.
107 As called for by Sean A. Adams, “Lucian and the New Testament: An Evaluation of His
Life, Work and Relationship to New Testament Studies”, ExpTim 121 (2010) 594–600, citing 599, in relation to Lucian writing later than Acts.
108 Norman R. Petersen, review of Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of
Luke-Acts, by Charles H. Talbert”, JBL 96 (1977): 455–58, citing 457.
109 Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Fads and Common Sense: Reading Acts in the First Century and
Reading Acts Today”, JETS 54 (2011): 251–78, citing 265–66.
110 Porter, “Literary Approaches”, 116–17.
111 Alexander, “Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts”, 144–45. Cf. Keener, Acts, 1:103–104;
Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 60.
112 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 71–96; Keener, Acts, 1:97–101, 131–147; Samson
Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature and Ideology of Luke-Acts, WUNT 2.366 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 12–19; Shenoy, Four Fabulists, 153–174; Padilla, Acts, 75–122.
113 Gabel. Wheeler and York, Bible as Literature, 234; Sternberg, Poetics, 41–46; Demetrius
K. Williams, “Acts as a History of the Early Church”, in The New Testament Fortress Commentary on the Bible, ed. Margaret Aymer, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, David A. Sánchez (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 309–326, citing 314–16; Marshall, Luke, Historian and Theologian, 21–52; Padilla, Acts, 120– 122.
114 Powell, Literary Criticism, 18; F. Scott Spencer, “Acts and Modern Literary Approaches”,
produces unenlightening and pedestrian readings.115 Narrative analysis brackets out
historical-critical issues since the story-world of a biblical narrative is a self- contained entity.116 Osvaldo Padilla is right that the postmodern historical focus on
the story of the past is closer to ancient history than the nineteenth/twentieth century histories based on scientific verification of historical facts.117
2.2.2.4 Objection Four. Narrative criticism is too sophisticated and complicated for the original readers
Amos Wilder argues that the classical Greek literature is too sophisticated and artistic compared to the New Testament.118 However, the pervasiveness of the Greek
culture and education means literary and rhetorical practice was widespread.119
Although Acts is possibly written for a popular audience,120 the early church
included gifted and well-educated persons.121 Even if many were not conscious of the
literary shape, all great artists “always put more into the work than is ordinarily realised”.122 The author of Acts uses literary skill and artistry to address a capable
reader like Theophilus.123 Lauri Thurén rejects Aristotle as too innovative a thinker
for application to the New Testament.124 However, Acts’ author is also innovative
and Aristotle’s two key story concepts, previously outlined, are simple, elementary and well-suited for application to Acts.125 Narrative criticism actually brings scholars
and non-professional readers closer together.126 The accusation that different literary
approaches are often contradictory and obscurantist127 without an explicit method or
formal controls128 is best overcome by establishing a straightforward literary shape
model with clear terminology.
115 Porter, “Literary Approaches”, 117. 116 Yamasaki, Insights From Filmmaking, 40. 117 Padilla, Acts, 75–122.
118 Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric, 44.
119 Witherington, “Almost Thou Persuadest Me”, 66–69. 120 Shipp, Reluctant Witness, 148–52; Keener, Acts, 1:29. 121 Witherington, “Almost Thou Persuadest Me”, 69. 122 Duckworth, Structural Patterns, vii.
123 Witherington, Acts, 45.
124 Lauri Thurén, “Is There Biblical Argumentation?”, in Rhetorical Argumentation in
Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed. A. Eriksson, T. H. Olbricht and W. Ubelacker (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2002), 77–92, citing 79–80.
125 Octavian Baban, “The Reasons for Luke-Acts: The Message of Luke’s Descriptive
Theology”. 23 May 2013. http://www.obinfonet.ro//docs/tyndale/tyndrex/la/luke-acts.pdf.
126 Powell, Narrative Criticism, 87–88. 127 Longman, Literary Approaches, 47–49. 128 Porter, “Literary Approaches”, 117.
2.2.2.5 Objection Five. Narrative criticism introduces subjective theories fundamentally different to Jewish or Christian theology
Graeme Goldsworthy contends that there is “the eclipse of the gospel in literary criticism”129 since some literary theories, such as reader-response, structuralism, and
deconstructionism can lead to a subjectivity of interpretation undermining the distinctiveness of the biblical text. However, a carefully constructed text-centred model of literary shape answers Goldsworthy’s criticism by showing how narrative creates theology.130 Literary artistry co-exists in Acts with theological truth that is
drawn from the Old Testament and interpreted within a Christian framework.131
In answering the objections, the positive values of using a literary approach to Acts include: (1) a revival of an older interpretative approach; (2) a focus on the final form of the text; (3) an emphasis on a whole literary unit rather than disparate sources; (4) using modern literary concepts to develop ancient ones; (5) being closer to Graeco-Roman historiography and culture; and (6) allowing narrative to create theology. Porter adds:132 (7) an attention to detail; (8) the value of story; (9) an
interest in the writing and reading process; and (10) a freedom of interpretation which allows interesting readings.
Having defended the validity of applying narrative criticism to Acts, I now outline my approach to the application of ancient and modern literary shape concepts.