70 GEORGE C. HEIDER canonical placement), particularly affecting (and being affected by) the reading of the letters of Paul 5. Likewise, with respect to Luke, Gerald T. Sheppard notes that it “does not claim to be a Gospel and is closest to a Hellenistic memoir” and that “John interrupts the two-volume Luke and Acts in order to mark more explicitly how Luke functions as a Gospel synoptically with the other three” 6. The practical result of this observation is to call into question the focus that “Luke-Acts” has received as an entrée into the theology of the NT, however legitimate such study may be for historical purposes. II. External Factors in the Old and New Testaments that Contribute to the Canonical Functions of Deuteronomy and John With these things said by way of introduction, we now turn to our main concern, the discernment of what effect the canonical placement of one particular book from each testament has had on its context, particularly insofar as the theological functions of the book within the canon of each testament display similarities 7. 5 The point regarding the linking function of Acts in the current canon is made by A.C. OUTLER, “The ‘Logic’ of Canon-making and the Tasks of Canon- criticism”, Texts and Testaments. Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers (ed. W.E. MARSH) (San Antonio, TX 1980) 268. The mutual effects on Acts and the Pauline epistles are drawn out by B.S. CHILDS, The New Testament as Canon. An Introduction (Philadelphia, PA 1984) 239-240. 6 G.T. SHEPPARD, “Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions”, Int 36 (1982) 30. 7 It is essential to note that we are not here engaged in an historical study of the formation of the OT and NT canons, a subject of extraordinary com- plexity and much dispute. Rather, it is the theological effect that is of present interest, however the canons came to be. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that both Deuteronomy and John interrupt the narrative flow in their respec- tive canons (from Numbers to Joshua in the OT and, as just observed, from Luke to Acts in the NT) and effectively recapitulate prior material. Given the paucity of evidence regarding both the processes and the motives that un- derlay the formation of the canons, we can only observe that some kind of in- tentionality in placement seems to be at work here, whether or not there was conscious imitation of the OT in the NT. For a summary of the historical is- sues, see L.M. MCDONALD, The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA 32007).