The Literary Genre of Acts
The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology
In his chapter regarding the genre of the book of Acts, Osvaldo Padilla introduces the topic of genre, provides a brief history of genre theory, and proposes several options for the genre of Acts. Padilla correctly asserts that bad genre identification results in bad theology.[1] Regarding genre theory, Padilla’s historical reflections include the rather rigid ancient perspective of genre, especially in Aristotle’s Poetics, the modern rejection of classical theory that opposed unchanging genres, and the postmodern perspective that shifts genre into a category imputed by readers.[2] Edward Regis notes that Stanley Fish represents the postmodern perspective whereby “meaning of an utterance is constituted by the total set of effects which it occasions in one’s consciousness during the process of reading.”[3] More specifically, Padilla notes that Claire Clivaz applies the postmodern perspective to Luke-Acts, which blurs the lines between history and fiction while simultaneously allowing for maximum genre flexibility determined by the reader.[4] As with most theories, reality engages the morsels of truth within all perspectives while avoiding the extremes. Accordingly, Padilla correctly contends that the readers’ involvement utilizes the original author’s genre as a guide established by the audience who is contemporary with the author while recognizing that genre is neither completely stagnant nor completely flexible.[5]
Scholars have proposed various genres for the book of Acts. Padilla identifies four options: (1) an ancient epic, (2) an ancient novel, (3) an example of history, and (4) a historical monograph.[6] Specifically, Padilla contends that the book of Acts is a “Hellenistic historical monograph in the Jewish tradition.”[7] The idea of a historical monograph, such as Cicero’s correspondence with Atticus, as the genre of Acts is a reasonable claim. However, Padilla’s point that Acts is unashamedly theocentric must be considered.[8] In other words, the genre of Acts must acknowledge the unique nature of a work that incorporates a Jewish Messiah and God’s revelation. Accordingly, a Messiah-centric theological history seems to best name the genre of Acts. Padilla then suggests that the benefits of viewing Acts as a historical monograph both encourage the reader to view the events as real history and expect the author to be an eyewitness involved in the story.[9] Padilla’s benefits are not unreasonable. However, the more specific genre of a Messiah-centric theological history prompts the reader to not only recognize the historical realities of the work, but also encourages the reader to recognize the spiritual benefits of a new cosmic reality inaugurated by God through Christ. In sum, if the genre of Acts is simply a historical monograph or even a theological history, then the reader would likely miss its eschatological significance.
_______________________________________________
[1] Osvaldo Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 42.
[2] Ibid., 43–51.
[3] Edward Regis, “Literature by the Reader: The ‘Affective’ Theory of Stanley Fish,” College English 38, no. 3 (November 1976): 264.
[4] Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles, 49–51.
[5] Ibid., 52.
[6] Ibid., 53–63.
[7] Ibid., 62.
[8] Ibid., 65.
[9] Ibid., 72.
Bibliography
- Padilla, Osvaldo. The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.
- Regis, Edward. “Literature by the Reader: The ‘Affective’ Theory of Stanley Fish.” College English 38, no. 3 (November 1976): 263.
