Koine Greek: Is the writing style of Luke the same as Acts?

Question

The authorship of the first two chapters and last two verses of Luke and Acts are contested because they were not part of Marcion's Canon. Does the writing style in those disputed texts match the sophisticated literary style of the non-disputed text?

Answer 1

Marcion was branded a heretic in his own day and did not accept any New Testament writings except an abridged version of Luke & Paul's writings. (ie. he did not even accept any of the other gospels). He rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and Jesus' Father were the same being.

So I'm don't know that he can really be used as the basis for any real dispute among Christians.

Early Christians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claimed that Marcion's editions of Luke and the Pauline epistles were intentionally edited by Marcion to match his theological views, and many modern scholars agree. (Wikipedia article on Marcion, with footnote to Robert J. Wilkinson (5 February 2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century)

In terms of non-Christian scholarship, the question doesn't seem to be raised there either.

When looking at source criticism of Acts, I can find no reference to Marcion's selection. The main areas of discussion are of whether chapter 1-15 and 16-28 are based on different sources (due to the sudden use of "we" beginning in 16). In terms of textual criticism it is between the Alexandrian and Western texts (the Western being longer and attested by ancient sources, but the shorter Alexandrian one being the one most English translations are based on, based on the theory the shorter original work is usually added to rather than the longer original work abbreviated).

The common authorship of Luke-Acts is accepted by almost all. The reason for this is clear when one compares the two works: a. Both begin with a similar preface (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–5). b. Both are addressed to the same person, Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). c. Acts 1:1 serves as a recapitulation of the material found in Luke. d. Acts begins where Luke leaves off temporally, i.e., at Jesus ascension (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–10). e. Acts begins where Luke leaves off geographically, i.e., in Jerusalem (Luke 24:52–53; Acts 1:9–10). f. Acts begins with the same situation with which Luke ends, i.e., the disciples waiting for the coming of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8). g. There is a clear parallelism between the arrangement of Luke and that of Acts: an introductory period typified by prayer (Luke 1:5–2:32; Acts 1:6–26) followed by the coming of the Spirit in fulfillment of prophecy (Luke 3; Acts 2), followed by a thematic sermon (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 2:14–40). h. Both share a common vocabulary, style, structure, and theological concern. [Stein, Robert H. Luke. Vol. 24. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992. Print. The New American Commentary.]

So I would conclude that Luke-Acts has a consistent literary style (whether it would be termed "sophisticated" is debatable).