This book, a PhD dissertation originating at Loyola University in Chicago (2005), attempts, on the basis of classical Greek prose conventions, to challenge the putative authorial unity of Luke and Acts. The author, Patricia Walters, currently Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Religious Studies program at Rockford College (Illinois, USA), is aware that the prefaces of Luke (1:1–4) and Acts (1:1–5), the consistent testimony of writers from the second to fourth century, and the similarities between Luke and Acts in vocabulary, style, themes and theology generate an exceedingly strong case for the single authorship of Luke-Acts. Walters makes no attempt to refute this traditional evidence, but focuses instead on ‘genre-neutral text’ in Luke and Acts, which should ‘reveal the same or similar prose compositional features’ if single authorship is indeed true (p. 190). She finds such material in the ‘seams and summaries’ of Luke-Acts, i.e. in transitional material and editorial conclusions where authorial style is theoretically free from source influences, or theological, historical and thematic interests. The following seams and summaries are identified: Luke 1:1–4; 1:80; 2:40, 52; 3:1–3, 18; 4:14–15, 31–2, 40–1, 44; 5:15–16, 17; 16:17–19; 7:11; 8:1–3, 4a; 9:51; 10:38a; 13:22; 14:25a; 17:11; 18:35a; 19:28, 47–8; 21:37–8; and Acts 1:1–5, 14; 2:41, 42–7; 4:4, 32–5; 5:12–16; 6:1a, 7; 7:58b; 8:1b–c, 25; 9:31; 11:21, 24b; 12:24, 25; 16:5; 19:20. This material provides a linguistic database that is examined in light of prose compositional criteria evidenced in Aristotle, Pseudo-Demetrius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Pseudo-Longinus. Walters concludes, on the basis of euphony (i.e. hiatus – vowel clashes between or within words that cause a pause in speech; and dissonance – harshness of sound due to awkward consonantal combinations), rhythm (long and short syllables), and two aspects of sentence structure (syntax and end of clauses, and clause and sequence segues), ‘that the differences between Luke and Acts are not explainable by the normal variations expected in the prose compositional style of a unitary author’ (p. 189).

This well-organised and closely argued monograph exhibits Walters' proficiency in Luke-Acts studies, literary criticism, ancient Greek prose styles and statistical analyses. Both she and the publisher are to be congratulated for producing a volume that, despite the density of detail, is enviably free of typographical errors. Avoiding sweeping assertions, Walters patiently insists that her stylometric evidence leaves the assumed unitary authorship of Luke and Acts open to question. My facility in mathematics and statistical analysis is insufficient to judge Walters' quantitative methodology. I would raise two questions, however, that leave doubts in my mind about her methodology and conclusions. First, the different sources that doubtless lie behind Luke and Acts are not sufficiently factored into the author's argument. Many of the seams and summaries identified by Walters exhibit high Hebraic content and are scarcely ‘genre-neutral’ (see my Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 292–332). Her select linguistic database is thus not as valid as she assumes. Second, the specialised linguistic criteria by which she judges the database (hiatus, dissonance, rhythm, etc.) are relevant only if the author(s) of Luke and Acts was/were attentive to such features. I am doubtful of this. The several styles evident in Luke alone (classical prologue, alternating clusters and dearth of Hebraisms, alternating similarities to Mark and Double Tradition) seem to imperil the assumption that the author(s) of Luke and Acts was/were tutored and tethered to such compositional constraints.

This is not to suggest that the assumed unitary authorship of Luke and Acts is unassailable, but I cannot see that Walters' methodology and conclusions have seriously challenged the traditional assumption.