From the vast number of proposals there are essentially five main Acts’ structures. These are bipartite, tripartite, fourfold, “Five-Act Structure” (quinquepartite), and six-panel, with variations within each one. A major factor is whether the structure is symmetrical or asymmetrical.159 This research favours a symmetrical structure
154 M. Völkel, “Exegetische Erwägungen zum Verständnis de Begriffs ΚΑΘΕΞΗΣ im
lukanischen Prolog”, NTS 20 (1973–74): 289–99; F. Mussner. “καθεξῆς im Lukasprolog”, in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift for Werner Georg Kümmel, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 253–55; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation and Notes, 2 vols., AB 28, 28a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–85), 1.299; Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1, SNTSMS 78 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 131–32, 136; François Bovon, Luke, 3 vols., Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–12), 1, 3; David E. Garland, Luke ZECNT 15 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 55; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, PillNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 26–27.
155 Shiell, Lector, 4–5; Botha, Orality and Literacy, 101; Casey W. Davis, Oral Biblical
Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 11–63.
156 See §1.2.1, pp. 22–24. 157 See §2.2.4.2, pp. 67–74. 158 Liefeld, Acts, 36.
supported by the Graeco-Roman love of symmetry160 and the careful planning
required for limited and expensive manuscript space161 especially if the narrative
expects to fill the whole scroll as with Acts.162 The approach to the four alternative
Acts’ structures is not to reject them outright, but to assess their potential and particularly ways in which they may relate to the “Five-Act Structure”. This is important since although the aim is clearly demarcated divisions, the transition sections create a more flexible structure.
Bipartite Structure
This divides Acts into two parts with similarities163 between Peter and Paul.164
Acts 1–12. Acts of Peter (Jerusalem Church/mission to Jews) (8,046 words).
Acts 13–28. Acts of Paul (Gentile church/mission to Gentiles) (10,404 words).
The bipartite structure is problematic due to an unclear transition165 between
Paul appearing166 and Peter disappearing.167 There is also a literary disproportion
between the two parts which gives a greater attention to Paul.168 In addition the
bipartite structure has no clear story central section and overlooks the role of other characters.169
160 Talbert, Patterns, 6. John L. Myres, Herodotus: Father of History (Oxford: Clarendon,
1953), 85. Gooding, According to Luke, 358–59, argues that literary symmetry in a historical work is not inconsistent with strict historicity.
161 E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition
and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 51–52; Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 51; Botha, Orality and Literacy, 69–80.
162 Morton, Gathering, 113. Pate, Story of Israel, 178. Although extra parchment could be
added to a scroll, this is unlikely with Acts since it is at the upper limit of scroll size.
163 What scholars call “parallelism”, but in this study used of a character or theme
reappearing throughout the narrative.
164 Arator, De Actibus Apostolorum (also known as Historia Apostolica). Cf. Richard Hillier,
Arator on the Acts of the Apostles: A Baptismal Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 5, 15; Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition (London: Methuen, 1906), xlvii-l; Talbert, Patterns, 23–26; Pervo, Acts, 21;
165 Philippe H. Menoud, “The Plan of the Acts of the Apostles”, in Jesus Christ and the
Faith. A Collection of Studies, trans. Eunice M. Paul (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978), 121–132, citing 121.
166 Acts 7:58; 8:1a, 3; 9:1–31; 11:25–26; 12:25–15:4; 15:12; 15:35–28:31. 167 Acts 1:13–5:42; 8:14–25; 9:32–11:18; 12:3–18; 15:7–11.
168 An exact word count of Peter (3,890) and Paul (9,118) further increases the disproportion
of literary emphasis (see §2.2.5.6, p.98, 101).
A more proportionate bi-partite structure divides Acts170 into:
Acts 1–14. Up to the Jerusalem Conference (9,453 words). Acts 15–28. From the Jerusalem Conference (8,997 words).
This has a greater symmetry with the Jerusalem Conference (15:1–35) as the central turning point from Peter to Paul with the legitimisation of Gentile mission.171
As shown later in this chapter with Horace’s “Five-Act Structure”, Acts 15 is not the statistical central section, but closer to the beginning of Acts’ second half.
Tripartite Structure
The two main proposals are either a spatial asymmetrical arrangement based on Acts 1:8 or a symmetrical literary arrangement. The spatial arrangement interprets Acts 1:8 as a programmatic statement suggesting a threefold gospel mission movement across geographical and ethnic boundaries.172
Acts 1:1–8:3. Jerusalem (or to the Jews) (4,767 words).
Acts 8:4–11:18. In Judaea and Samaria (or to Gentile God-fearers and Samaritans) (2,569 words).
Acts 11:19–28:31. To the end of the earth (Gentiles) (11,114 words). Its disproportionality is shared with several possible structural variations. First, the middle pericope (8:4–11:18) extended to 12:25 links the Peter and Herod section with the Judaea and Samaria section.173 However, this extension is
unlikely since it removes (Syrian) Antioch’s function as a book-end (11:19–30; 13:1–3).174
170 Charles C. Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts, HTS 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1916), uses this division to confirm his hypothesis of an Aramaic source for the first half; Wall, “Acts”, 35–36, starts the second half at 15:13; Gaventa, Acts (2003), 54, starts the second half at 15:36 with an opening long prologue from 1:1–2:47. She argues the climactic events of Cornelius (10:1–11:18) and Paul’s final defence speech (26:1–26) are central to the two parts with preparation (3:1–9:43 and 15:36–25:27) and denouement (11:19–15:35 and 27:1–28:31) sections.
171 Menoud, “Plan”, 121–132; Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,
ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xlii, sees the two epochs of the church’s history as Acts 1–14 (Israel) and 16–28 (Christianity) around the centre piece of Acts 15 prepared for by the first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14) and worked out by the great missionary journey (15:36–21:26).
172 I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, NTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1992), 29, 1:1–5:42; 6:1–11:18 and 11:19–28:31, with the first section in Jerusalem adjusted to 1:1– 8:3 as in Morgenthaler. Lukas, 421, and O’Neill, Theology of Acts, 72.
173 J. Bradley Chance, Acts SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007), 195–206; William
S. Kurz, Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 21–23.
Second, the middle pericope extended to 15:35 marks the beginning of a witness to the ends of the earth.175 However, this proposal is undermined by Paul’s
frequent returns to Jerusalem.
Third, a different tripartite arrangement proposed by James Scott based on a world-view of ancient Jewish geography with missions to Shem (2:1–8:25), Ham (8:26–40), and Japheth (9:1–28:31).176 The extreme disproportions make it unlikely.
Such disproportional structures were unusual within Graeco-Roman literature. One possible explanation is that the longer third part gives an emphasis to Gentile mission.177 The third part is traditionally sub-divided into Paul’s three
missionary journeys (13:1–14:28; 15:40–18:22 and 18:23–21:17).178 However, a
break between the second and third journeys is unclear, since 18:23 onwards is probably only a second stage or lap in the last mission.179 The tripartite structure also
lacks a clear spatial scheme with Jerusalem constantly reappearing180 and 1:8 being
reversed with Samaria (8:4–25) preceding Judaea (9:31–43). Also the “end of the earth” is an ambiguous term and there is no clear mission movement to Gentiles since Paul persists in focusing on Jews nearly to the end of Acts (28:17–27). Whilst 1:8 is programmatic for the ongoing mission beyond Acts, it is not an outline for the book.181
A possible more proportional tripartite structure is: 1:1–9:43. Acts’ Beginning (6,186 words). 10:1–19:20. Acts’ Middle (6,233 words). 19:21–28:31. Acts’ Ending (6,031 words).
This is worth pursuing as a possible “Three-Act” structure, but this study gives priority to Horace’s “Five-Act Structure” as existing when Acts was written. The strong division at 9:43/10:1 and the uncertain division at 19:20/21 are relevant
175 Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols., HTKNT 5 (Freiburg: Herder, 1980–
1982), 1.7–9, 68.
176 James M. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon”, in The Book of Acts in its Graeco-
Roman Setting, ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, BAFCS 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994), 483–544, citing 531.
177 Keener, Acts, 1:575. Marshall, Acts (1992), 29.
178 For discussion of the origin of this idea see Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons, The
Acts of the Apostles Through the Centuries, Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 143.
179 Donald T. Rowlington, “The Geographical Orientation of Paul’s Missionary Interests,
JBL, 69 (1950), 341–4; Menoud, “Plan”, 126; John T. Townsend, “Missionary Journeys in Acts and European Missionary Societies”, in Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 433–37; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 97; Holladay, Acts, 257.
180 Holladay, Acts, 30–31.
for further consideration since they are also the midpoints of the transitional “Acts II and IV” in the “Five-Act Structure”.
Fourfold Structure
Morgenthaler proposes a symmetrical literary structure based on his own word count.182
1:1–7:60 (or 8:3).183 Foundation (M. 4,690 words; 4,767 words).
8:4–14:28. Transition (M. 4,731 words; 4,686 words).
15:1–21:26 (or 21:17).184 Mission (M. 4,400 words; 4525 words).
21:27–28:31. Opposition (M. 4,561 words; 4,472 words).
The strength of this arrangement is that the sections are roughly proportional with the four equal parts of 25% fitting into the 25%–50%–25% basis of “Five-Act Structure”. Scholars propose a large number of asymmetrical variations for the middle 50%.185 These are too numerous to deal with here, but this study of literary
shape considers the valid story breaks.
182 Morgenthaler. Lukas, 321–323.
183 Morgenthaler. Lukas, 421, confusingly has a summary chart in which first section ends at
8:3 rather than 7:60 which he previously calculated in 322. Cf. Bruce W. Longenecker, Boundaries, 192–198, sees 8:1b–3 as the first chain-link interlock in Acts at an approximate midpoint in first half of Acts.
184 Satterthwaite, “Classical Rhetoric”, 349, discusses Morgenthaler’s statistical approach for
a division at 21:26 and concludes from a story perspective that 21:17 is a better division still allowing for four ‘roughly equal’ parts.
185 E.g. Alexander, “Acts”, 1030, as 1:1–7:60; 8:1–12:25; 13:1–21:16 and 21:17–28:31; Ernst
Haenchen, “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity”, in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 258–78, citing 259, as 1:1–8:3; 8:4–15:35; 15:36–21:26; and 21:27–28:31; Johnson, Acts, v-vii, as 1:1–8:3; 8:4–15:35; 15:36–22:29; and 22:30–28:31; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 5–7, as 1:1–8:40; 9:1–15:35; 15:36–21:26; and 21:27–28:31; Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, Acts, 1:43, as 1:1–5:42; 6:1–12:25; 13:1–20:3 and 20:4–28:31, but then confusingly (due to editorial requirements) has 13:1–18:23 for their third volume; Goulder, Type and History, 65–66, as 1:1–5:42; 6:1–9:31; 9:32–12:24; and 12:25–28:31; Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 111, as 1:1–7:60; 8:1–12:25; 13:1–20:38; and 21:1–28:31; Bruce W. Longenecker, Boundaries, 229–235, as 1:1–8:3; 8:4–12:25; 13:1–19:41; and 20:1–28:31.
Six-Panel Structure
The asymmetrical six-panel structure was first proposed by Charles Turner using the identification of selected summaries as boundary markers for periods of progress in the extension of the church.186
Acts 1:1–6:7. The Church in Jerusalem (3,441 words). Acts 6:8–9:31. Palestine (2,522 words).
Acts 9:32–12:24. Antioch (2,068 words). Acts 12:25–16:5. Asia Minor (2,210 words). Acts 16:6–19:20. Europe (2,178 words). Acts 19:21–28:31. Rome (6,031 words).
The use of summaries as textual markers is apparently a strong argument for this structure. Also the middle four panels are fairly proportionate, but the first panel and especially the last are not. Even more problematic is that the identification of the summaries is arbitrary without a consistent pattern.187 The additional summaries such
as 5:42;188 15:35;189 16:5;190 and 21:16191 suggest further panels. In spite of these
weaknesses, the structure does have some merit since it confirms some of the story breaks used within the “Five-Act Structure”.
186 Acts 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30–31. Charles H. Turner, “Chronology of the New
Testament”, in A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing with its Language, Literature and Contents Including Biblical Theology, ed. James Hastings, asst. John C. Selbie, et al., 5 vols. (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1900–1904), 1:403–425, citing 421. Cf. Gooding, True to the Faith, 17–21; William J. Larkin Jr., “Acts”, in The Gospel of Luke. Acts, ed. Philip W. Comfort, CorBC 12 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006), 350–668, citing 360, but starts the fourth panel at 13:1; Richard N. Longenecker, “Acts”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, ed. Tremper Longman and D. E. Garland, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 664–1102, citing 696.
187 Acts 19:20; 12:24; 6:7 contain the “Word of God/Lord” motif, but this also occurs in the
summary of 13:49. Acts 28:31; 16:5; 9:31 do not share any common features making them distinctive from other summaries. An expanded discussion of summaries is given later in this chapter (see §2.2.5.5, p.91–92).
188 F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary,
3rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 97, 179, 180.
189 F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 300. 190 Bock, Acts, 46–48.
Seven,192 eight,193 twelve,194 or fourteen195 part structures simply add further sub-
divisions to the structures already considered.
Within the proposals for Acts’ structure, Horace’s “Five-Act Structure” stands out as the one present in the Graeco-Roman literary world. Though some scholars attempt disproportionate quinquepartite schemes196 without reference to
Horace, a more thorough and proportionate arrangement is now explored.