This article argues that Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian Fragment each read Luke and Acts as two elements of one literary whole, but that Irenaeus's understanding of what this literary unity entails appears to have been different from that of many modern scholarly readings of Luke—Acts. It also argues that there is reason to believe that Luke intended his two volumes to circulate together, and offers hermeneutical reflections on the fact that they have not always been read in this way. Two different approaches to the reception of Luke and Acts are identified and the merits of each are discussed.
Barrett, C.K.1994A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, I (ICC; Edinburgh : T&T Clark).
2.
Bieder, W.1960Die Apostelgeschichte in der Historie: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegungsgeschichte des Missionsbuches der Kirche (ThSt, 61; Zürich: EVZ Verlag ).
3.
Bird, M.F.2007 `The Unity of Luke—Acts in Recent Discussion', JSNT29.4: 425-47.
4.
Bovon, F.1967De Vocatione Gentium: Histoire de l'interprétation d'Act. 10, 1-11, 18 dans les six premiers siècles (BGBE, 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
5.
forthcoming `The Reception of the Book of Acts in Antiquity', in T. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).
6.
Cadbury, H.J.1955The Book of Acts in History (London : A. & C. Black).
7.
Childs, B.S.1984The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction ( London: SCM Press).
8.
Davies, J.G.1958He Ascended into Heaven (London: Lutterworth Press).
9.
Gregory, A.F.2003The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (WUNT, 2.169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
10.
forthcoming `Irenaeus and the Reception of Luke and Acts in the Second Century ', in T. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).
11.
Haenchen, E.1971The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (ed. R. McL.Wilson; Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
12.
Johnson, L.T.2005 `Literary Criticism of Luke—Acts: Is Reception-History Pertinent?', JSNT28.2: 159-62.
13.
Maddox, R.1982The Purpose of Luke—Acts (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
14.
Pagels, E.1978 `Visions, Appearances and Apostolic Authority: Gnostic and Orthodox Tradition', in B. Aland (ed.), Gnosis (Fs. Hans Jonas; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 415-30.
15.
Parsons, M.C., and R.I. Pervo1993Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts ( Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
16.
Pelikan, J.2006Acts (SCM Theological Commentary on the Bible; London: SCM Press).
17.
Rousseau, A., and L. Doutreleau1974Irenée de Lyon contre les hérésies livre III tome II (SC, 211; Paris: Cerf, 1974).
18.
Rowe, C.K.2005 `History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke—Acts ', JSNT28.2: 131-57.
19.
`Literary Unity and Reception History: Reading Luke—Acts as Luke and Acts', JSNT29.4: 449-57.
20.
Smith, D.E.2002The Canonical Function of Acts: A Comparative Analysis ( Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/ Liturgical Press).
21.
Stuehrenberg, P.F.1987 `The Study of Acts before the Reformation: A Bibliographical Introduction', NovT29: 100-36.
22.
Verheyden, J.1999 `The Unity of Luke—Acts. What are we up to?', in idem (ed.), The Unity of Luke—Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters , 1999): 3-56.
23.
Wall, R.W.1992 `The Acts of the Apostles in Canonical Context', in R.W. Wall and E. Lemcio (eds.), The New Testament as Canon ( JSNTSup, 76; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 110-28.
24.
2002 `The Acts of the Apostles', in L.E. Keck (ed.), New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press), X: 1-368.
