CONNECTING LUKE WITH ACTS
This section initially addresses how redaction criticism has influenced a shift in the study of Luke-Acts from the historical to the theological. It will be argued that a synthesis between the two must be present in order to nurture a Biblical faith. The second part of the chapter looks at the unity of Luke-Acts by citing important theological and historical parallels between the two books.
In his major commentary The Acts of the Apostles, Joseph Fitzmyer states that "the major problem that confronts any interpreter of the Acts of the Apostles today is the historicity of the Lucan account" (1998:124). Despite the claims by Luke to Theophilus that he has attempted to "carefully investigate" and "write an orderly account," scholars such as Conzelmann (1960), Dibelius and Haenchen have been skeptical of Luke's historicity.
The influence of the source-critical school "brought about a major shift in emphasis in Lukan studies. Lk-Acts now came to be regarded and appreciated primarily as the work of a theologian" (Verheyden 1999:22). In this view advanced by Conzelmann and others, Luke is primarily concerned with the meaning of history and not just the recording of incidents which may or may not have occurred.
Countering this questioning of the historical value of Luke-Acts are sounded in the works of Bruce (1985), Gasque (1975, 1989), Hengel (1979) and Marshall (1971). Fitzmyer himself espouses "a middle ground between the skeptical approach and the conservative reaction to it" (1998:124). In seeking this middle ground Fitzmyer cites a number of arguments which attempts to qualify the historicity of Luke-Acts. Among these qualifications are the conjectures that Luke has not written according to the canons of modern history, nor