Luke-Acts as a whole work is best understood as..?

Question

A. an oral source
B. a Greco-Roman biography
C. a Greco-Roman epic
D. an apocalypse

I know every one has there own opinion about this but I need to know wich of the choices that I put up are the best fit. It is for a test.

Answer 1

I have a book called, Paul on Trial. It's saying that Luke/Acts is written as a defense for Paul as he was to face a trial in Rome. Luke wrote them as a defense for Paul.

So none of the above.

Answer 2

Dear animull,

In answering your question i would choose letter "e"- none of the above.

The first part of Luke off course is the gospel which covers the life of Jesus. The end of Luke and Acts give a strong historical account of the birth of the church (of the disciples after the crucifixion) and Pentecost where the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples and the gospel begins to spread throughout the known world at the time.

I would say the book of Luke and Acts is best understood as the word of God, and in looking at its genre in the Bible as historical.

In terms of your choices- Their is historical, arachaeological, internal evidence, among other sources that give a strong argument for the Bible being the word of God. It's more than an oral source.

It is not a biography because there are many people in the book, although there is much focus on the disciples and the Holy Spirit in Acts. It is not an epic (it's not merely a story), and an apocalypse (It's not a doomsday book about the end of the world)... The end of Luke through Acts- gives a great account of the history of the birth of the church and what the disciples and the Holy Spirit were doing after the death of Jesus.

Hope that helps. Kindly,

Nickster