What biblical genre is Acts of the Apostles?

Answer 1

Acts is a Hellenistic Historiography. The purpose of such literature was to not only report history but to, "encourage or entertain... and to inform, moralize or offer an apologetic." (Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth[Zondervan. Grand Rapids, Michigan; 2003] 109)

Answer 2

Acts of the Apostles is a mix of historical narrative and theological reflection. It records the early history of the Christian church, focusing on the acts and teachings of the apostles, particularly Peter and Paul, as they spread the message of Jesus Christ.

Answer 3

A:Acts of the Apostles is ostensibly a history of the early Church, but an important, well disguised theme is the primacy of St Peter over St Paul, drawing them together in a number of subtle comparisons even when those comparisons are in widely separated chapters. If a previously unknown miracle was attributed to Paul, then quite comparable miracles were also associated with Peter, and the miracles associated with Paul were always less impressive those associated with Peter.

Acts provides a miraculous explanation for the conversion of Paul, with three parallel but different stories in which Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. In each account there was a blinding light, which appeared only to Paul in the version at Acts 9:3-8 and probably at Acts 26.13-19, but appeared to both Paul and his men at Acts 22:6-11. Paul alone heard a voice from heaven at Acts 22:6-11 and probably at Acts 26.13-19, but both Paul and his men heard the voice at Acts 9:3-8. What the three accounts do have in common is that they seem to have been based on the ancient play of Euripedes called the Bacchae. This suggests that Paul's own, more mundane account might have been the true story of his conversion and subsequent travels.

Point by point, Acts of the Apostles appears to address Paul's account in his epistles, written some decades earlier, and then attribute his achievments to Peter or the other disciples, while making Paul more dependent on their support and advice than is found in his own epistles. Paul might have been regarded for much of the first century as Christianity's greatest apostle, but the legacy of Acts is to show him as outshone by St. Peter.

New Testament scholars do not see Acts of the Apostles as a genuine attempt at writing history. For example, John Dominic Crossan (The Birth of Christianity) says that Acts of the Apostles is theology rather than history. Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament) more bluntly says that Acts of the Apostles marks the shift in focus for second century mythmaking, away from Jesus and towards the apostles, while Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) says the book is a work of Propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians. Hans Joachim Schoeps simply says that Acts has been "believed much too readily." Without even canvassing whether Luke the physician was really the author of Acts, we should rule this out as a useful record of early Church history.

Answer

The central theme of Acts is the resurrected Christ as the way to salvation. The growth of the church is documented and the role of the Holy Spirit in that growth is highlighted. It is sometimes referred to as the 'Acts of the Holy Spirit'.

AnswerActs is the history of the initial fulfilment of the Great Commission from Jesus to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. It is the history of the early church and the establishment of Christianity. It is the bridge between the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus and the epistles. AnswerActs of the Apostles is universally seen as a history of the Church in the years immediately following the resurrection of Jesus, with its focus on the lives and works of St Peter and St Paul, as well as St Stephen, who did great wonders and miracles among the people in Jerusalem, but was called before council of the high priest to give an account of himself. But Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) believes the story of Stephen's trial and execution was based on the trial and execution of Jesus, and that we can never verify the existence and martyrdom of Stephen. The story of Stephen was really about Saul, who is introduced as a weak and despicable coat-carrier.

An important, well disguised theme of The Acts of the Apostles is the primacy of St Peter over St Paul during the period of their respective ministries. For example, if Luke attributed a previously unknown miracle to Paul, then his followers or admirers were unlikely to complain, but quite comparable miracles were also associated with Peter, and the miracles associated with Paul were always less impressive those associated with Peter.

According to Acts, Paul's first miraculous cure was improbably similar to Peter's first cure. In both cases, a man who had been lame since birth was immediately cured by being commanded to stand and walk. Peter's first miracle cure was performed in the name of Jesus, at the Temple, where the faithful saw the healed beggar praising God, and was the opportunity for some outstanding proselytising. Paul's first cure was clumsy and without apparent purpose, given that Paul did not tell the man about Jesus and he was even mistaken for a pagan god. Since there is no corroboration in Paul's own epistles, we should assume that he never performed a miraculous cure.

In an even more difficult challenge, Peter resurrected Tabitha, a good woman and a disciple, who was certainly dead and her body had already been washed. This miracle became known throughout Joppa and, as a result, many were converted. Paul also resuscitated a young man who foolishly fell asleep in an upper storey window and fell to the ground. There is some uncertainty as to whether the young man was really dead when Paul intervened to revive him, and the miracle did not present an opportunity to convert unbelievers. In the same way, Acts says that angels twice rescued Peter from prison, escorting him past sleeping guards, while Paul was only released by a timely earthquake that need not have been of divine origin.