1. Prolegomena: Reflections on Erasmus

This year, as we gather for the 71st General Meeting of the Society, we have the happy coincidence of also celebrating the quincentenary of the publication of Erasmus’ New Testament.Footnote ¹ When this seminal work was published by Johannes Froben at Basel in early March 1516, under the title Novum Instrumentum, who could have imagined its impact upon the Protestant Reformation and its residual effects far beyond Europe, especially in shaping the discipline of New Testament studies? In what sense Erasmus' Novum Testamentum (the title under which the work appeared in the second edition of 1519) displayed the first Greek New Testament is still debated, as are his motives for publishing the work.Footnote ² H. J. de Jonge has convincingly argued that ‘Erasmus and his contemporaries regarded the Novum Testamentum and its later editions in the first place as the presentation of the New Testament in a new Latin form, and not as an edition of the Greek text’.Footnote ³ Over the course of two decades, with the appearance of four subsequent editions, numerous significant changes were introduced, both in the Latin and in the Greek text.Footnote ⁴ By the time the fifth edition appeared in 1535, Erasmus' Greek text had begun to acquire the character of a standard Greek text, which could easily function as a reference point in exegetical and theological discussions and be used as a basis for the collation of newly found Greek manuscripts, the assessment of ancient versions and the production of new translations from Greek into the vernaculars.

On this occasion, we rightly pause to reflect on Erasmus' truly foundational work and the subsequent labours of generations of scholars, both textual critics and New Testament exegetes alike, who have provided us with reliable critical editions such as Nestle–Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28th edition) and The Greek New Testament (5th edition). In a letter written at Louvain to Mark Lauwerijns on 5 April 1518, Erasmus reminisces: ‘I have edited the New Testament, and much besides; and in order to do a service to the reading public I have thought nothing of a most perilous journey, nothing of the expense, nothing at all of the toils in which I have worn out a great part of my health and life itself.’Footnote ⁵ Everyone engaged in scholarly study of the New Testament has certainly known the expense required to carry out such work, and the toil that taxes one's physical health and even life itself; and, each of us in our own way, however distant from Erasmus chronologically or theologically, knows at a deeply personal level some of the perils of journeying with the Novum Testamentum.

2. Introductory Remarks: Framing the Question

The last century has yielded a prodigious amount of substantial scholarship on Luke-Acts. The still referential Beginnings of Early Christianity marked a critical watershed for numerous research trajectories.Footnote ⁶ Over the last few decades several field-defining conferences and collections of published essays have resulted in different assessments of the status quaestionis. Footnote ⁷ Construals of Lukan theology that were once dominant have ebbed and flowed, and new lines of consensus have arisen. Commentaries, monographs and scholarly articles on virtually every aspect of Luke-Acts continue to flow from the presses. Soon an editio critica maior of Acts will appear and will undoubtedly prompt even further debate about the seemingly insoluble textual history of Acts. Not far behind is Der neue Wettstein on Acts, which will be yet another landmark critical resource giving Acts scholars even greater access to the intricate connections between the early Christian and Greco-Roman worlds. Even with the many gains of the last century, the decades ahead hold rich possibilities for Luke-Acts scholars.

Two closely related themes have been the focus of scholarly inquiry: the purpose of Acts and its literary genre. History as an analytical category for interpreting Acts has been a fruitful line of inquiry, and many aspects of this complex question continue to be explored. And yet, throughout this debate, scholars have recognised that history alone, either as a literary genre or as an indication of authorial purpose, is insufficient to assess fully the multiple dimensions of the Acts narrative.

M. Dibelius' well-known statement of the problem in his 1948 essay ‘The First Christian Historian’ has acquired iconic status.Footnote ⁸ His equally, if not more, influential article ‘The Speeches of Acts and Ancient Historiography’ (1944) laid the groundwork for scholarly investigation of the speeches as one of the defining elements of historiography.Footnote ⁹ Nevertheless, for all of his erudition in placing Acts within the tradition of ancient historiography, Dibelius detected subtle but important differences between Acts and its Greek and Roman counterparts, concluding that ‘in the last analysis [Luke] is not an historian but a preacher’.Footnote ¹⁰ He further states that in writing Acts, ‘Luke did not completely become an historian; for though it is certain that, as the author of Acts, he adopted different methods from those he used as an author of the Gospel, in the second work, though in a higher sense, he remained an evangelist.’Footnote ¹¹

Subsequent scholars echoed Dibelius' sentiments, offering variations on his theme. Despite Dibelius' cautious and carefully articulated assessment, Acts scholarship has tended to emphasise Luke's work as an historian, even amid the many efforts to ascertain Luke's distinctive theological and literary achievements. But one sometimes gets the impression that efforts to define the precise historical genre into which Acts fits are like Cinderella's stepsisters trying on the glass slipper.

In these remarks I want to remind us of Dibelius' observation about Luke by taking up a point made by W. C. van Unnik, in his influential essay ‘The “Book of Acts”: The Confirmation of the Gospel’.Footnote ¹² Contesting Käsemann's construal of Acts as history, especially church history, and the implication that in writing Acts Luke objectified the gospel, van Unnik asks ‘whether Luke wanted to be a historian in the first place; it may be that his story is composed to convey a message.’Footnote ¹³ Pressing the question further, van Unnik wondered whether Luke was ‘really writing church-history’.Footnote ¹⁴

Van Unnik's questions still linger. The multiple attempts over the past fifty years to assess Luke's role as historian or Acts as an instance of ancient historiography or as representing a particular genre or sub-genre of history writing raise the methodological question: how does one determine literary purpose or genre? And, as its corollary: what are the operative criteria in such investigations?

To answer his questions, van Unnik traced two major themes in Acts: salvation and witness. In these remarks I want to sharpen van Unnik's thesis by arguing that Acts is essentially kerygmatic in its literary texture.Footnote ¹⁵ To develop this point, I want to suggest that one way to investigate literary purpose, or even genre, is to see how language within a narrative functions in two respects: first, through the authorial voice of the narrative; and second, by the direct speech of characters within the story. In this study I assume that: (1) the ‘narrator's’ comments reflect, or are an extension of, the actual author's voice; (2) the language placed on the lips of the characters in the narrative is also a reflection of authorial purpose; and (3) if these voices – the narrator's voice and the characters' voices – converge to a significant degree, this is a defining indicator of the narrative texture and, by extension, of the work as a whole and, therefore, an important, indeed essential, element in determining Luke's purpose in writing Acts.

I will focus on three literary aspects of Acts: (1) kerygmatic vocabulary; (2) the speeches; and (3) the expression ‘Word of God’/‘Word of the Lord’. I shall argue that each item standing alone supports my thesis, and that all three cumulatively make it more than probable.

3. Acts as Kerygma

Deciding how to characterise Acts is a critical choice because the formal literary category that we use in interpreting a text, even if it is a working hypothesis, is a consequential decision: choice of genre establishes interpretive horizons.

The suitability of kerygma as an interpretive category for Acts is easily justifiable.Footnote ¹⁶ Although the Greek word κήρυγμα does not occur in Acts,Footnote ¹⁷ the verb κηρύσσω is used both dialogically and narratively, and so the term reflects the actual language of the text itself.Footnote ¹⁸

Luke's use of κηρύσσω and its cognates, though limited in scope, signals the broader sense in which the subject matter of Acts is kerygmatic. However, as is usually the case with any methodically constructed narrative, the best way to experience the kerygmatic richness and density of Acts is by reading it. What we discover is that from beginning to end – in virtually every chapter of Acts – the language of proclamation shapes and defines this narrative. At the most obvious level is the well-known fact that, depending on how one defines ‘speech’, a remarkably high percentage of the narrative is devoted to some form of direct address.Footnote ¹⁹ Moreover, the designed placement of the speeches throughout the narrative ensures its continuity and stresses the kerygmatic theme. Along with these formal speeches, numerous metaphors are embedded within the narrative with which Luke highlights proclamation. Sometimes these occur on the lips of characters, at other times they represent the narrator's voice. In both cases the kerygmatic language is remarkably similar.

4. Luke's Kerygmatic Vocabulary

Perhaps the clearest indication of the pervasive kerygmatic texture of Acts is the extensive, often interlocking, network of terms used for proclamation.Footnote ²⁰ Luke's kerygmatic vocabulary exhibits remarkable richness and variety representing several distinct semantic fields that might be described as oral (λαλέω, λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον, λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου, λέγω, φημί), didactic (διδάσκω, διδαχή, διδάσκαλος, ὁδηγέω), evangelistic (εὐαγγελίζομαι, εὐαγγέλιον), kerygmatic (in the narrow sense, perhaps heraldic, κηρύσσω), proclamatory (καταγγέλλω, καταγγελεύς, ἀπαγγέλλω, ἀναγγέλλω), testimonial (διαμαρτύρομαι, μαρτύρομαι, μαρτυρέω, μάρτυς, μαρτύριον, μαρτυρία), courageous (παρρησιάζομαι, παρρησία), argumentative (διαλέγομαι, ἀντιλέγω, συζητέω, διακατελέγχομαι), apologetic (ἀπολογέομαι, ἀπολογία), prophetic (προφητεύω), inspired (φθέγγομαι, ἀποφθέγγομαι), edificatory/pastoral (παρακαλέω, παράκλησις), persuasive (πείθω, ἀναπείθω), conversational (ὁμιλέω, συνομιλέω), oratorical (προσφωνέω, ἐνωτίζομαι) and transmissive (βαστάζω + τὸ ὄνομα [Ἰησοῦ], εἰσφέρω). Or if each function is linked with some identifiable social role, it might roughly correspond to public speaker, teacher/instructor, evangelist, herald, proclaimer, witness, critic/contrarian, debater, apologist/defendant, prophet, oracle, edifier/pastor, persuader, interlocutor, orator and traditor.Footnote ²¹

Despite this wide range of terminology, some broad generalisations are possible. Certain expressions are outliers. For example, the risen Lord's charge to Ananias that Paul was chosen ‘to bring the name of Christ (τοῦ βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου) before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel’ (9.15) is unique. Another distinctive formulation occurs when the Athenians report Paul's preaching as ‘bringing something strange to our ears’ (ξενίζοντα γάρ τινα εἰσφέρεις εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς ἡμῶν, 17.20). The use of προσφωνέω to designate Paul's address before the temple crowd (21.40; 22.2) is unusual, although its use in reference to a public address is attested elsewhere.Footnote ²² Some are said to prophesy (προφητεύω), but proclamation in Luke-Acts is not typically called prophetic speech.Footnote ²³ Inspired speech may be signalled in the three uses of ἀποφθέγγομαι, first of Peter's Pentecost speech (2.4, 14), and later of Paul addressing Festus (26.25).Footnote ²⁴

Luke's use of language relating to oral discourse in Acts also exhibits some interesting patterns in its construal of social space. When describing Herod Agrippa I's public address in Caesarea to the delegation from Tyre and Sidon, Luke employs δημηγορέω, a NT hapax legomenon, but a term deeply rooted in the Greek rhetorical tradition and clearly associated with deliberative speech given before the δῆμος.Footnote ²⁵ Reporting that Agrippa ‘delivered a public address to them’ (ἐδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτούς, 12.21), Luke portrays a form of public speech appropriate to a political setting. But in a religious space such as the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, he reports οἱ ἀρχισυνάγωγοι inviting their ἀδελφοί Paul and Barnabas to give a λόγος παρακλήσεως πρὸς τὸν λαόν (13.15). Ηow this ‘word of exhortation’ relates to the only other NT use of this expression in Heb 13.22 remains an open question, but Luke's understanding of the expression is clear: it is exemplified by Paul's remarks, in which a brief summary of OT history culminating with David gives way to a recital of the early Christian kerygma exhibiting some distinctive elementsFootnote ²⁶ and concluding with a prophetic warning (vv. 16–41). Although παράκλησις is often associated with certain forms of epistolary paraenetic speech, here it clearly designates first-order evangelistic speech (v. 32) that employs subtle, complex forms of midrashic exposition to advance its christological claims.Footnote ²⁷ But this should come as no surprise since Luke uses παρακαλέω with διαμαρτύρομαι in 2.40 to amplify Peter's explicit evangelistic appeal.

By their sheer frequency of usage several terms (and their cognates) constitute the core of Luke's kerygmatic vocabulary: λαλέω, διδάσκω, εὐαγγελίζομαι, κηρύσσω, καταγγέλλω, διαμαρτύρομαι, παρρησιάζομαι, διαλέγομαι and ἀπολογέομαι. Of these, the first four typify Luke-Acts,Footnote ²⁸ that is, when Luke employs them in Acts, he is drawing on a register of terms already deeply embedded in his gospel accounts of the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. The last five, however, are distinctive, and in some cases unique, to Acts.Footnote ²⁹ This suggests that the narrative challenge posed by new subject matter and circumstances required Luke to expand his kerygmatic vocabulary. Luke's indebtedness to Paul, at least for some of this language, also seems clear. This is especially the case with εὐαγγελίζομαι and κηρύσσω, and to some extent with καταγγέλλω.

Also worth noting are patterns of usage in relation to narrative location. Some terms are used throughout the narrative in different settings, but others cluster around certain figures or within particular sections of the narrative. The argumentative (or dialogical) term διαλέγομαι, whose occurrences are confined to chs. 17–24, exclusively relates to the Pauline mission.Footnote ³⁰ In a similar vein, the use of πείθω to designate persuasive speech on behalf of the gospel is confined to Paul (e.g. 13.43). There is also a noticeable terminological shift at ch. 21, as explicit evangelistic or missionary language diminishes and forensic language (ἀπολογέομαι/ἀπολογία) relating to Paul comes to the fore.

However illuminating the identification and relative frequency of Luke's kerygmatic vocabulary might be, such an exercise can be misleading to the extent that it oversimplifies the picture. Luke's actual deployment of these terms reveals complicated formulations that yield a more nuanced notion of kerygma as well as some intriguing questions.

The cluster of Lukan expressions built around the simple verb λαλέω (and its complementary verb ἀκούω) illustrates the complexity. Luke uses λαλέω, as one might expect, in a general sense when referring to apostolic speech (4.1, 20), or with a specific object, for example when the Jewish leaders warn the apostles ‘to speak no more to anyone in this name’ (μηκέτι λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ μηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων, 4.17; cf. 5.40), or when the angel instructs the apostles to ‘tell the people all the words of this life’ (λαλεῖτε … τῷ λαῷ πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης, 5.20). But when the content of λαλεῖν is specified as ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου (4.31; 8.25; 13.46; 16.32; cf. 4.29),Footnote ³¹ this phrase, along with its shorthand form ‘to speak the word’ (λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον, 11.19; 14.25; 16.6), functions as a terminus technicus for proclaiming the gospel.Footnote ³² Closely related expressions employing alternative synonyms for λαλέω include ‘to evangelise the word’ (εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον, 8.4), ‘to teach and evangelise the word of the Lord’ (διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι … τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, 15.35), ‘to teach the word of God’ (διδάσκων … τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 18.11), ‘to proclaim the word of God’ (κατήγγελλον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 13.5; also 17.13) and ‘to proclaim the word of the Lord’ (κατηγγείλαμεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, 15.36). Although Luke was not the first to use λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον and related expressions in the technical sense ‘to proclaim the gospel’, this language, by its frequency and distribution throughout Acts, acquires a public platform unmatched elsewhere in the NT.Footnote ³³

Also worth noting is the narrative placement of these phrases, along with other phrases mentioning the spread/growth of the word of the Lord/God (6.7; 12.24; 13.49; 19.20). Within chs. 1–20, Luke includes some thirty-seven such descriptors (roughly two per chapter), and they are fairly evenly distributed (none is mentioned in chs. 3, 5, 7, 9).Footnote ³⁴ In most cases (27x), they are reported by the narrator, although the dialogical uses tend to reflect the same phraseology (e.g. 13.46; 15.7, 36). But equally striking is Luke's penchant for creative variation. When an exception to the standard formula occurs, it tends to be a dialogical use: the apostles' expressed reluctance to ‘abandon the word of God’ (καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 6.2), or their mention of ‘the ministry of the word’ (τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου, 6.4);Footnote ³⁵ or Paul's declaration in Pisidian Antioch: ‘to us the word of this salvation was sent’ (ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη, 13.26).Footnote ³⁶

The cumulative effect of these kerygmatic expressions is clear: when the narrator repeatedly reports the proclamation of the gospel, using formulations ranging from such shorthand expressions as ‘speak/hear the word’ (λαλεῖν/ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον) to more fully amplified formulations, he is speaking for himself. The episodes he is reporting may be reported as past events but through them we can peer into the narrator's present. And when the narrator consistently places similar kerygmatic language on the lips of his characters, even offering innovative variations that break the tedious monotony of the narrative voice, here, too, we are hearing the narrator's voice: the characters are expressing the sentiments of the narrator himself, and when we hear kerygmatic neologisms in which the narrator is not exercising free literary licence, we are undoubtedly hearing the ecclesial language of his own time or perhaps language preserved in the tradition.

Through these carefully placed formulations we can easily see the kerygmatic fibres with which Luke is weaving the overall tapestry of the narrative, and the result is a narrative portrayal in which proclamation of the gospel is constantly in the foreground.

Although the complicated creativity of Luke's kerygmatic language is evident throughout Acts, a few examples will suffice. First, Luke's use of didactic language is especially instructive. Given its rather general usage in many different settings, διδάσκω, a term frequently used in the gospel tradition and Paul, is something of a utility player in Luke's kerygmatic discourse.Footnote ³⁷ But one of the most intriguing features of Acts is the way in which Luke pairs διδάσκω with εὐαγγελίζομαι, κηρύσσω, καταγγέλλω and related terms. The Jewish leaders, we are told, were annoyed that Peter and John were ‘teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead’ (διὰ τὸ διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς τὸν λαὸν καὶ καταγγέλλειν ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4.2).Footnote ³⁸ Conceivably ‘proclaiming’ could be a subset of ‘teaching’, but just as conceivable is that with both terms Luke is presenting a single, undifferentiated activity: announcing the gospel. Similar fluidity seems implied in Paul's recollection of his ministry among the Ephesians: ‘I did not refrain from declaring anything profitable to you and from teaching you publicly and from house to house’ (οὐδὲν ὑπεστειλάμην τῶν συμφερόντων τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν καὶ διδάξαι ὑμᾶς δημοσίᾳ καὶ κατ᾿ οἴκους, 20.20). Again, the ambiguity of ἀναγγεῖλαι, even with τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ as its expressed object (20.27), combined with the generality of ‘public and private teaching’, make it difficult to decide whether two discrete and qualitatively different sets of activity are in view.Footnote ³⁹ Nevertheless, with these bifocal phrases, rather than sharply differentiating between didactic and evangelistic activity, it seems more judicious to see them as indistinguishable activities that tend to blend with each other in Luke's usage. That Luke blurs the lines between didactic and evangelistic activity is further reflected in his report that Paul remained in Corinth for eighteen months ‘teaching among them the word of God’ (διδάσκων ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 18.11).

This pattern of undifferentiated activity appears to be broken, however, in Luke's concluding description of Paul's two-year ministry in Rome (28.31), when ‘proclaiming the kingdom of God’ (κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) is distinguished – sharply, perhaps – from ‘teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ’ (διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This suggests that with the former phrase Luke is maintaining his consistent pattern of linking κηρύσσω with ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ that is already established in Acts (20.25) and GLuke (8.1; 9.2),Footnote ⁴⁰ thereby upholding the NT perspective that one proclaims the kingdom of God rather than teaches (or teaches about) it.Footnote ⁴¹ By placing Paul's instructions about Jesus to his Roman visitors in a separate category, however, Luke may reflect an early view that Jesus traditions, as was the case with Apollos (18.25), are transmitted and inculcated through teaching. Luke's formulation in 28.31b also reiterates his tendency to portray Paul's explicit interest in Jesus traditions. Even so, this concluding summary statement implies that there is a qualitative difference between evangelistic and didactic discourse.Footnote ⁴²

A second instructive example is the use of εὐαγγελίζομαι/εὐαγγέλιον in Acts, which replicates certain patterns of usage already established in GLuke, and even earlier by Paul.Footnote ⁴³ Luke's fondness for this language is reflected in its broad distribution throughout Luke-Acts both in the narrator's voice and on characters' lips. One noticeable difference is that the narrative use typifies Acts, whereas GLuke favours the dialogical use. The explicit appropriation of εὐαγγελίζομαι from Isa 61.1 LXX in Luke 4.18; 7.22 establishes its LXX provenance, thereby anchoring the concept of a hopeful future squarely within Israel.

Although εὐαγγελίζομαι sometimes stands alone or has as its object certain addressees or places, its expansive possibilities are enhanced by its frequent use with an object that lends nuance to the content of the good news: τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (5.42); τὸν λόγον (8.4); περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (8.12); τὸν Ἰησοῦν (8.35); εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (10.36); τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν (11.20); τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην (13.32); ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν ματαίων ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ θεὸν ζῶντα (14.15); τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου (15.35); and τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν (17.18). While christological elements are prominent in these occurrences, they form part of a wider spectrum – Luke's way of expanding the scope of the gospel by giving it richer texture. Jesus and the kingdom of God may be recurrent elements of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, but so is the happy prospect of pagans turning from idols to serve the living God (14.15). By singling out ‘peace’ as a central element of God's ‘good news’, and immediately claiming that ‘[Christ] is the Lord of everyone’ (οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος, 10.36), the Lukan Peter, addressing Cornelius, subtly challenges a core assumption of the Pax Romana. In doing so, he utters one of the few undeniably anti-Empire sentiments in Luke-Acts.

Luke's two uses of εὐαγγέλιον also reflect linguistic creativity. Peter's claim at the Jerusalem conference that through him God had enabled ‘the Gentiles to hear the word of the gospel and believe’ (ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ πιστεῦσαι, 15.7) yields a unique substantival formulation that aptly captures the earlier participial phrase εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον (8.4; cf. 15.35).Footnote ⁴⁴ Similarly, Paul's claim in the Miletus speech that he had been charged by the Lord Jesus ‘to bear witness to the gospel of the grace of God’ (διαμαρτύρασθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ, 20.24) produces yet another unusual expression.Footnote ⁴⁵

Moving to the register of terms that are distinctive to Acts,Footnote ⁴⁶ we find similar patterns of innovative usage. As was the case with εὐαγγελίζομαι, there is strong resonance between Luke's use of καταγγέλλω and Pauline usage. As J. Schniewind rightly observes, Luke's use of καταγγέλλω echoes its usage outside the NT where the term ‘has the constant sense of “proclaiming”’.Footnote ⁴⁷ In Acts καταγγέλλω ‘shares with εὐαγγέλιον and λόγος the emphatic meaning of a solemn religious message or teaching’.Footnote ⁴⁸ In its NT usage and its three uses in the Apostolic Fathers (Ign. Phld. 5.2; 9.2; Pol. Phil. 1.2), καταγγέλλω is ‘always sacral’.Footnote ⁴⁹ In both Acts and Paul, Schniewind insists, ‘καταγγέλλω reflects directly the language of mission’.Footnote ⁵⁰ ‘Proclaiming the mystery of God’ (καταγγέλλων τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor 2.1) is an undisputed recollection of Paul's missionary preaching among the Corinthians. That ‘those who proclaim the gospel should live by the gospel’ (τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν, 1 Cor 9.14) reflects actual missionary practice in the early 50s, if not earlier, is widely recognised.

Given these examples from Paul, it is not surprising that uses of καταγγέλλω in Acts occur almost exclusively in relation to the Pauline mission. Typical is Luke's report that in Salamis Paul and Barnabas ‘proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews’ (κατήγγελλον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, 13.5).Footnote ⁵¹ Remarkably, before Agrippa, Paul asserts that the prophets and Moses had envisioned a risen Messiah, who, by virtue of being the first to experience the resurrection of the dead, would himself proclaim light to both the (Jewish) people and to Gentiles (φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 26.23).

Although Paul is the main καταγγελεύς in Acts (see 17.18), early in the narrative Luke portrays the apostles as those who were ‘teaching the (Jewish) people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead’ (διὰ τὸ διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς τὸν λαὸν καὶ καταγγέλλειν ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4.2). Acts thus boldly asserts that all the apostles, but Paul especially, and even the risen Lord, are proclaimers of the gospel.Footnote ⁵²

With διαμαρτύρομαι and its cognates a slightly different pattern emerges – language especially typical of Acts, minimally present in GLuke (and Paul), and prominent in a different way in the Johannine writings. Characterising this language as ‘testimonial’ attempts to gather under a single heading the varied though related notions of witness and witnessing, testimony and bearing (or giving) testimony. In some contexts there is a clear forensic element – bearing testimony or serving as a witness in court (Luke 21.13; 22.71). While Luke's use of the metaphorical language of witness/witnessing with specific reference to Jesus' ministry and the Christ-event and, by extension, to the proclamation of these events as part of the ‘story of salvation’ (ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας, 13.26) has some resonance with the broader NT tradition, especially in the Johannine writings, this language has a distinctive prominence and configuration in Luke-Acts not found elsewhere in the NT.Footnote ⁵³ Acquiring the specific sense of ‘martyr’ is, of course, a later development.

In keeping with the literary pattern we have seen elsewhere, διαμαρτύρομαι occurs in the authorial voice to describe the preaching of Peter (2.40), Peter and John (8.25) and Paul (18.5; 28.23), but also on the lips of Peter (10.42) and Paul (20.21, 23–4; 23.11). Twice μαρτύρομαι occurs on Paul's lips in a kerygmatic sense, once before the Ephesians elders (20.26), the second time characterising his defence before Agrippa as ‘testifying to both small and great’ (μαρτυρόμενος μικρῷ τε καὶ μεγάλῷ, 26.22). When the risen Lord envisions the apostles as witnesses in the church's expanding mission (1.8), this sets the stage for μάρτυς to have a defining role in the unfolding narrative.

The majority of the dialogical uses of μάρτυς belong to Peter, who makes being a witness to Jesus' resurrection a prerequisite for being an apostle (1.22), and who repeatedly speaks of himself and his fellow apostles as witnesses of Jesus' ministry and his resurrection (2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.39, 41). Paul not only reconfirms the role of Jesus' earliest followers as witnesses (13.31; cf. 22.20), but also includes himself within this select group because of his unique visionary experience of the risen Lord (22.15; 26.16).Footnote ⁵⁴

Among the other uses of testimonial language in Acts (4.33; 22.18; 23.11), one of the most fascinating is the remark in 14.3 relating to the Pauline mission in Iconium, when Luke reports that Paul and Barnabas remained for a long time, ‘speaking boldly for the Lord, who testified to the word of his grace by granting signs and wonders to be done through them’ (παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ μαρτυροῦντι [ἐπὶ] τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, διδόντι σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα γίνεσθαι διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν).Footnote ⁵⁵ Several exegetical issues surface. How should we understand ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ? ‘For the Lord’ (NRSV) suggests surrogate speech: Paul and Barnabas channelling the Lord's voice. But if ἐπί τινι ‘most frequently denotes the basis for a state of being, action, or result’,Footnote ⁵⁶ the Lord would then be the underlying cause, the primal motivation, of their bold speech: ‘speaking boldly because of the Lord’. The sense is nicely captured by Lake and Cadbury: ‘being bold in reliance on the Lord’.Footnote ⁵⁷ But who is testifying? The Lord Jesus or God? And to whose ‘word of grace’? Either way, divine rather than human testimony is implied. Moreover, specifying ‘signs and wonders' as the concrete evidence of this heaven-sent testimony suggests that ‘kerygmatic’ should not be limited to oral discourse but extended to include miraculous activities and other forms of ministerial or evangelistic praxis.

With παρρησιάζομαι and its cognate παρρησία we come to language used in Acts but not in GLuke, and minimal resonance with the Pauline writings (1 Thess 2.2; Eph 6.20). The common thread here is bold, courageous proclamation typically prompted by stout opposition.

Uses of παρρησία tend to cluster in the early part of Acts, once on the lips of Peter at Pentecost (2.29) and later in the early church's prayer (4.29). In the narrative voice we also hear Luke describing the boldness of Peter and John (4.13) and the preaching of the apostles, and possibly the whole church (4.31). Only once is παρρησία used with reference to Paul, in the description of his final two-year period of preaching in Rome (28.31). By contrast, all seven occurrences of παρρησιάζομαι in Acts relate exclusively to the Pauline mission. One of them occurs in direct speech when Paul says, ‘to [Agrippa] I speak freely’ (πρὸς ὃν καὶ παρρησιαζόμενος λαλῶ, 26.26). Elsewhere Luke is reporting instances of Paul's bold speech: his initial preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem (9.27–8); Paul and Barnabas's courageous response to the Jewish opposition in Pisidian Antioch (13.46); shortly thereafter, their extended period of bold proclamation in Iconium (14.3); Apollos' preaching in the synagogue at Ephesus (18.26); and Paul's initial preaching in Ephesus (19.8).

As with παρρησιάζομαι, what distinguishes διαλέγομαι is its exclusive use in relation to the Pauline mission. Unlike other terms such as εὐαγγελίζομαι, κηρύσσω and καταγγέλλω that feature monologic proclamation, διαλέγομαι has a prominent dialogical element. When the adversarial nature of the discussion is in the forefront, as for example Paul's activity in synagogue settings (17.2, 17; 18.4, 19; 19.8), the temple (24.12), or even in the school of Tyrannus (19.9), ‘debate’ seems an appropriate translation. Similar forms of give-and-take might also be in view in the Troas church meeting (20.7, 9) and even in the discussions with Felix and Drusilla (24.25).

Other language that accents dialogical give-and-take and persuasion also occurs. Συζητέω is linked with λαλέω in Luke's early report that Paul ‘spoke and argued with the Hellenists' (ἐλάλει τε καὶ συνεζήτει πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνιστάς, 9.29; cf. 6.9; Luke 24.15). As a technical rhetorical term, πείθω suggests speech in which the speaker offers arguments for a position and actively responds to counter-arguments. As already noted, it is used exclusively in relation to the Pauline mission. Its final use in 28.23 is typical: ‘from morning until evening [Paul] explained the matter to [the Jewish leaders], testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince (πείθων) them about Jesus from the law of Moses and from the prophets'.Footnote ⁵⁸

Although παρακαλέω is not ordinarily associated with kerygmatic activity, its use in 2.40 requires that it be included. Luke reports that Peter ‘testified (διεμαρτύρατο) with many other arguments and exhorted (παρεκάλει) [the Pentecost crowd], saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”’ Linked with διαμαρτύρομαι, παρακαλέω here qualifies as kerygmatic speech. Elsewhere in Acts, however, it describes hortatory speech typically addressed to other members of the Jesus movement (11.23; 14.22; 15.32; 20.1–2). Clearly in view in these latter references is pastoral speech whose aim is to edify and strengthen believers. Another anomaly, however, occurs with the proposal by the synagogue leaders in Pisidian Antioch that Paul and Barnabas offer a λόγος παρακλήσεως (13.15). Since a missionary speech follows, this may reinforce Luke's kerygmatic use of παρακαλέω in 2.40.

As already noted, a discernible shift in the register of kerygmatic language occurs at ch. 21, as the narrative focus turns to Jerusalem and Caesarea. Since the use of ἀπολογέομαι/ἀπολογία is well documented in the Pauline letters,Footnote ⁵⁹ it is not surprising that Luke tends to use this language in connection with the Pauline mission.Footnote ⁶⁰ Apologetic language in Acts is mainly concentrated in chs. 22–6. Of the six occurrences of ἀπολογέομαι in Acts, five are used in reference to Paul.Footnote ⁶¹ Three times it is used by the narrator to describe Paul's defence: before the tribunal in Caesarea (25.8), before Agrippa (26.1), and before Agrippa and Festus (26.24). Twice it occurs on the lips of Paul: first, addressing Felix (24.10), later, Agrippa (26.2). Ἀπολογία occurs twice in Acts, once on the lips of Paul before the Jerusalem crowd (22.1), and again on the lips of Festus explaining the reason for giving Paul a hearing (25.16).

Although the narrative tone shifts at ch. 21 and the speeches after that are mainly defence speeches by Paul, that does not mean that the kerygmatic texture of chs. 21–8 disappears. While Paul's speeches in chs. 22, 24 and 26 are not missionary speeches in the same sense as Peter's speeches in chs. 2–3, 10 or Paul's speeches in chs. 13–14, 17, they nevertheless have strong kerygmatic elements.

Upon arriving in Jerusalem, Paul reported to James and the elders ‘one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry’ (21.19), a retrospective summary of his preaching efforts described in chs. 16–20. Even though the Asian Jews' characterisation of Paul's activity as ‘teaching (διδάσκων) everyone everywhere against our people, our law and this place’ (21.28) is negative, it rings true because didactic language is used elsewhere to describe kerygmatic activity.

Paul's belief in the resurrection as a key element of his preaching is emphasised several times (23.6; 24.15; 26.6–8; cf. 24.25). One of the ways Luke portrays belief in the resurrected Jesus in chs. 21–8 is by reporting Paul's dialogic interactions with the risen Lord, first in his Damascus road experience (22.7–8; 26.14–15), and also in his temple vision (22.17–21). Each of these episodes is a form of narrative proclamation showing that the Jesus who died is now alive, effectuating his will among his chosen representatives. Because he had seen ‘the Righteous One’ and heard his voice, Paul is now the Lord's ‘witness to all the world’ of what he had seen and heard (22.15), and he is especially the Lord's agent in completing the Gentile mission (22.21; 26.16–18).

Along with these dramatic depictions of the risen Lord's appearances, Luke also includes brief references to the christological kerygma either on the lips of characters such as Festus (25.19) and Paul himself (26.23) or through the narrator's voice summarising Paul's discussion with the Jewish leaders in Rome (28.23). Kerygmatic language is especially concentrated in the concluding section of Paul's speech to Agrippa. Paul's vision of the risen Lord has a central role (26.13–15). Because of it Paul becomes the Lord's servant and witness (26.16). Emphasised is Paul's role as one who would ‘open the eyes’ of the Gentiles so that they might ‘turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God’ and receive ‘forgiveness of sins’ and a ‘place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’ (26.17–18). Thereupon Paul begins proclaiming that the Gentiles ‘should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance’ (26.20). Also emphasised is Paul's role as witness, ‘testifying … saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place’, and ‘that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles' (26.22–3). The clear implication of Agrippa's remark in 26.28 is that Paul's speech was explicitly evangelistic, probably in content as well as intent. References in the final chapter, in addition to the summary of Paul's discussions with the Jewish leaders (28.23), reiterate the same theme (28.28, 31).

Given the pervasiveness of kerygmatic language in chs. 21–8, especially in Paul's three defence speeches in chs. 22, 24 and 26, there may be good reason to blur the distinction usually made between the missionary speeches of the earlier chapters and the forensic speeches in chs. 22–6.

There can be little doubt that kerygmatic rhetoric, formulated with an extensive, often interlocking, network of terms, by its occurrence throughout the narrative of Acts is one of its most distinctive features, if not the defining feature. This linguistic fact firmly establishes the kerygmatic content of Acts.

5. The Speeches

If the pervasive kerygmatic rhetoric in Acts is one indicator of its essential literary texture, its formalised nature becomes especially evident in the speeches.

Constructing a narrative that prominently displays oral discourse as one of the distinguishing features of the early Jesus movement may seem like a self-evident literary choice on Luke's part, but it was also a strategic decision, given the conspicuous role public oratory played in the first-century Roman world.Footnote ⁶² Other aspects of Luke's social world such as athletic contests, theatrical performances or even military battles could easily have been used to construct his narrative but they were not. Instead Luke tells a story that privileges public speaking. It is true that Luke reports activities such as healing the sick or dealing with various crises within the life of the newly formed community of believers, but these episodes are often laced with oral discourse. Even the numerous travel reports relating to Paul are typically interwoven with direct discourse. Occasionally we encounter written discourse such as the Jerusalem decree or Claudius Lysias' letter to Felix, but these scribal activities are the exceptions that prove the rule. Oral discourse is the norm throughout Acts.

Because of the critical attention given to the speeches in Acts we have a much better understanding of how they figured in Luke's literary strategy, especially within the Greek and Roman historiographical traditions respectively. There is a broad scholarly agreement on several points: (1) the speeches, actually speech summaries, are well-crafted Lukan compositions that conform to the rhetorical conventions of prosopopoeia and ethopoeia; (2) rather than belonging to a single genre, the speeches exhibit formal differences that render some as explicitly evangelistic and others as more distinctly pastoral or apologetic; (3) though including distinctive Lukan material, the speeches nevertheless contain pre-Lukan traditions; (4) they constitute a rich resource for accessing the Lukan kerygma or, to put it more broadly, Luke's theological vision; and (5) while they ostensibly represent early Christian preaching during the apostolic period, they also, and probably more clearly, reflect what was being proclaimed in Luke's own time.

It is also worth remembering that the speeches in Acts, for all their stereotypical language and the tendency among interpreters to read them as homogenised expressions of Lukan theology, still constitute an unusually rich resource for early Christian preaching. We have no comparable literary texts from the first century or the early patristic period that report examples, even in summary form, of what Christians actually proclaimed, either in missionary or pastoral settings. In this respect Acts is sui generis.

While the practice of incorporating speeches into a narrative aligns Luke with ancient historiography, the content of the Acts speeches differs sharply from the content of speeches we find in Thucydides, Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Josephus, or even with what we find in the novelistic literature. What these authors and Luke have in common is that the speeches in the respective texts function as a way for the author to express his own views. They illustrate a common literary function. And yet, the content of the Lukan speeches and their function within the overall narrative are remarkably different when compared with those reported by authors with whom he is regularly compared.

No one seriously contests the thoroughly kerygmatic content of the speeches, even with all of their formal variety. With some exceptions (e.g. Tertullus' speech), the speeches are an unusually rich resource for understanding how early Christians summarized the OT story, what they regarded as the main outlines of early Christian preaching, and which OT proof texts were used in their preaching.

6. Word of God/Word of the Lord

A third way to enter the dense thicket of Luke's kerygmatic language is to look more closely at how ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ and the closely related expression ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου function within Acts. Both expressions have a rich history with deep roots in OT thought, and they play an especially prominent role in Acts, and to some extent in Luke-Acts. Of the two, ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου presents the simpler picture. Its NT usage is confined to Acts (8x) and Paul (2x). Paul's report that ‘the word of the Lord has sounded forth’ (ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου) from the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1.8) anticipates, and possibly influences, Luke's use of the phrase as an equivalent of ‘gospel’.Footnote ⁶³ The twin expression ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, while prominent in Acts (11x), also occurs in GLuke (4x) and in the Pauline corpus (9x), and it, too, signifies the message of the gospel in both Acts and Paul.Footnote ⁶⁴

That Luke uses both phrases interchangeably is clear from his report of events on ‘the next Sabbath’ in Pisidian Antioch, when, we are told, ‘the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord’ (πᾶσα ἡ πόλις συνήχθη ἀκοῦσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, 13.44).Footnote ⁶⁵ Stormy Jewish resistance prompts Paul and Barnabas's oracular declaration: ‘it was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you’ (ὑμῖν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 13.46). Learning that they were now to be the recipients of God's salvation as articulated in Isa 49.6, the Gentiles ‘were glad and praised the word of the Lord’ (ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, 13.48). Struck by the seeming oddity of ἐδόξαζον, some witnesses (D gig mae) substitute ἐδέξαντο (conforming to 8.14; 11.1; 17.11), thereby missing the point that here ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, immediately following the Isa 49.6 citation, refers to scripture, especially since the citation is introduced by οὕτως γὰρ ἐντέταλται ἡμῖν ὁ κύριος (13.47).Footnote ⁶⁶ Upon hearing the scriptural promise that explicitly extends salvation to those who, even if they were scattered to ‘the ends of the earth’, would experience the redemptive power of divine light, the Gentiles understandably ‘glorified’ or ‘praised’ this scriptural promise. After noting that ‘as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers' – surely one of the most unusual descriptions of Gentile conversion in the NT – Luke concludes by reporting ‘that the word of the Lord spread throughout the region’ (διεφέρετο δὲ ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου δι᾽ ὅλης τῆς χώρας, 13.49).

This passage complicates any analysis of Luke's use of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου. At one level, these two phrases appear to be functionally, if not syntactically, equivalent ways of designating the content of early Christian proclamation. And yet, the use of ἐδόξαζον in 13.48 introduces the possibility that ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου may refer to scripture, thus suggesting that it, along with its counterpart ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, may be bivalent if not multivalent expressions. The D-text introduces yet another dimension with its amplified form of v. 44b, that ‘Paul spoke at length about the Lord’ (Παύλου πολύν τε λόγον ποιησαμένου περὶ τοῦ κυρίου), thereby specifying that ‘the word of the Lord’ should be understood christologically.Footnote ⁶⁷ In this case the D-text accurately reflects Luke's fluid understanding of ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου/θεοῦ as a cipher for early Christian proclamation that combines several elements: divine revelatory proclamation (what YHWH speaks) with scriptural mandate (what YHWH commands in scripture), both with a christological focus (the message whose main theme and essential content is the Lord Jesus).

Occasionally ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου occurs on the lips of characters in Acts.Footnote ⁶⁸ More frequently, however, the narrative use of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου prevails. Prominent among these narrative uses are the three intermittent ‘growth’ notices, which, as van Unnik observes, ‘sound like a chorus’.Footnote ⁶⁹ These metaphorical summaries are strategically positioned immediately following the resolution of various crises that threatened the Jesus movement: (1) settling the internal Hellenist–Hebrew dispute (6.7); (2) the elimination of the external threat posed by the θεομάχος Herod (12.24); and (3) the public book-burning that marked the gospel's final triumph over magic (19.20). Especially significant is the geographical location of each report: Jerusalem, Caesarea and Ephesus – a triple reminder of the gospel's irrepressibility, first in the Jewish heartland, then in the Roman capital of Judea, and finally in the nerve centre of the Aegean.

Here, again, we detect the subtle Lukan pattern of linguistic differentiation that invites readers to experience the multivalence of these expressions. In 6.7 and 12.24 the phrasing is identical: ‘the word of God grew and multiplied’ (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ηὔξανεν καὶ ἐπληθύνετο). In 19.20, however, there is a noticeable shift in phrasing: ‘thus according to the power of the Lord the word grew and became mighty’ (οὕτως κατὰ κράτος τοῦ κυρίου ὁ λόγος ηὔξανεν καὶ ἴσχυεν). That an early scribe would change τοῦ κυρίου ὁ λόγος to ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου (θεοῦ) is not surprising since this would standardise the wording in all three ‘growth summaries’.Footnote ⁷⁰ But an equally, if not more, plausible interpretation understands Luke's altered phraseology as an echo of ἐμεγαλύνετο τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ in 19.17. Just as the efficacious name of the ‘Lord Jesus’ had earlier triumphed over the evil spirits who had turned Ephesus into a disease-ridden city, the same (risen) Lord is the source of power behind the growth and expansion of the gospel. With this seemingly slight, though somewhat awkward, change in phrasing, Luke juxtaposes ὁ κύριος and ὁ λόγος (v. 20), but with this change he opens the possibility for understanding ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου in a specifically christological sense.

The way was already paved with the four uses of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in GLuke.Footnote ⁷¹ Because no other occurrences of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ as a shorthand synonym for ‘gospel’ are attested in the gospel tradition,Footnote ⁷² in these cases we are surely hearing post-Easter language retrojected into the pre-Easter period. Once this technical kerygmatic usage of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is firmly established in GLuke, it can be used as Luke's critically important structural device for highlighting the progress of the gospel in Acts. Moreover, Acts offers numerous examples of ‘those who hear the word of God and do it’ – obedient hearers becoming members of Jesus’ true family. Obedience to the Word of God thus becomes a defining theme of Acts. As Haenchen rightly observes, ‘it is this “Word of God” which fills the time after Pentecost; this Word is furthermore the message concerning Jesus … [it is] the clamp which fastens the two eras together and justifies, indeed demands, the continuation of the first book (depicting the life of Jesus as the time of salvation) in a second’.Footnote ⁷³

The Lukan couplet ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου thus has theological, scriptural and christological import, depending on the context. Indeed, Luke's ambiguous formulation and use of these phrases opened the possibility that they could signal one or more, or possibly all three, aspects simultaneously within a single context.

7. The Twin Voices: Author and Characters

Throughout this analysis we see a typical literary pattern in which the language of the author, as reflected in the narrative comments, coheres with the language of characters within the narrative. Even though we have detected patterns where the use of a certain register of language occurs in relation to specific characters such as Peter or Paul, or the use of certain language within a particular part of the narrative such as the Pauline mission or within chs. 22–6, Luke's consistent tendency is to use an identifiable kerygmatic vocabulary within the narrative voice, both in GLuke and Acts, and to place the same vocabulary, with little variation, on the lips of the characters within the narrative. Were this the case only occasionally or only in certain parts of Acts, or GLuke, or in Luke-Acts, that would require substantial qualification of our thesis that the texture of Acts is essentially kerygmatic. Instead, this pattern is detectable throughout Acts as well as in GLuke, and as such it constitutes one of the most distinctive literary features of Acts.