In den vergangenen beiden Dezennien hat, wenn ich recht sehe, die Diskussion darüber, welcher literarischen Gattung das lukanische Geschichtswerk bzw. die Apostelgeschichte zuzurechnen seien, an Intensität zugenommen. Meist ging man davon aus, daß das lukanische Werk, besonders aber die Apostelgeschichte, in den Kontext der antiken Geschichtsschreibung gestellt werden müss-ten, etwa, indem man das Gesamtwerk als ‘popular “general history” written by an amateur Hellenistic historian with credentials in Greek rhetoric’ definierte oder die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie klassifizierte, ähnlich den Werken Sallusts und entsprechend dem von Cicero, Ep. ad fam. V 12.2–3 vorgetragenen Programm. Dieser Konsens – wenn er denn wirklich je bestanden haben sollte – wurde dann aber durchbrochen, zunächst von Charles H. Talbert, der das Doppelwerk in den Kontext der Biographie, insbesondere der Philosophenbiographie, stellen wollte, und neuerdings hat man wieder einmal gemeint, die Apostelgeschichte in die Nähe der apokryphen Akten rücken und in ihr so etwas wie einen historischen Roman entdecken zu sollen.

In a provocative article on misunderstandings about the early history and significance of synagogues, H. C. Kee makes the following comment.

1.1 L'histoire du jugement de Dieu sur Ananias et Saphira (Ac 5.1–11) compte parmi les épisodes les plus pathétiques du livre des Actes. L'art lucanien de la dramatisation atteint ici un sommet. La fin tragique d'Ananias foudroyé par la parole dénonciatrice de Pierre, son enterrement hâtif, puis la venue de Saphira ignorante du drame, son mensonge public suivi de sa mort annoncée sur un ton d'humour noir (5.9b): l'effet pragmatique cherché par le narrateur est programmé par le scénario; il s'inscrit aussi dans le texte lui-même: ‘un grand effroi saisit ceux qui l'entendaient’ (5.5, 11). L'histoire est destinée à provoquer la crainte.

The earliest witness to a Latin version of Acts is found in the citations of the African church father, Tertullian. This means that the Latin version of this book probably originated in the latter part of the second century. The exact date and place of its origin are, however, obscure. A revision during the early part of the third century resulted in the first identifiable text-type of this version, the African text (K), witnessed to by Cyprian, the Fleury Palimpsest (55, h) and two writings by Augustine.

The interpretation of 1 Cor 12.31–13.13 is thwarted by three problems. The most important obstacle is the obscurity of the genre to which this passage belongs, added to which are two minor riddles. The question of the function and meaning of the exhortation: ‘Zealously strive for the greatest gifts’ (12.31) as well as of the clause: ‘that I might boast’ (13.3) has not, as yet, been answered convincingly.

Recent investigation of the Pauline corpus has brought into focus several important facets of Paul's rhetorical skill. It is now generally recognized that Paul knew and used the forms and techniques of classical rhetoric. Various analyses of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Corinthians 1–4, Galatians, for example, have reinforced the conviction that Paul consciously constructed his letters using rhetorical patterns and appeals. This type of investigation does not, however, operate in opposition to the epistolary analysis that was pioneered by Robert Funk and others. Indeed, attention to epistolary clichés and formulae proves especially valuable in reconstructing the ‘rhetorical situation’ of each letter, since these provide a road map of the conversation between Paul and his partners, indicating, for example, what is prior shared knowledge, what is new information and what are the points of controversy in the matters discussed.