Review in: The Expository
Times 2009 120: Number 12 Pages 594–595
Review door: Paul FosterGevonden op: http://ext.sagepub.com/content/120/12/594.full.pdf+html
Book of the Month: Hermeneia
Commentary on Acts
Richard I.
Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009. $85.00. pp. xxxvi
+ 812. ISBN 978–0–8006–6045–1).
The
appearance of any Hermeneia commentary is always somewhat of an ‘event’ in
biblical scholarship. Over the last few years there has been a fairly rapid
sequence of New Testament volumes: Bovon, Luke 1:1–9:50
(2002); Luz, Matthew 21–28 (2005); Jewett, Romans (2007); and Collins,
Mark
(2007). Now
Pervo’s volume on Acts has appeared, effectively serving as a replacement for
Conzelmann’s Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia, 1987) which was
itself a translation of the German original (1963). In the intervening five decades, research
on Acts has made significant headway and new methods for reading the text have
come to the fore. Pervo’s new volume is fully cognizant of these developments,
and integrates them into this new commentary in a thoughtful and stimulating manner.
The
introduction is surprisingly compressed (pp. 1–26); no doubt this is to create more
space for the actual commentary and many of the critical issues are discussed
there rather than in the introductory matter. The introduction is broken into
eleven sections: (1) The Earliest Witnesses to Acts and Its Canonical History; (2) The Text;
(3) The Date
and Place of Composition; the Author; (4) Language and Style; (5) Sources; (6) Genre; (7) The
Unity/ies of Luke/Acts; (8) Structure; (9) General
Purpose; (10) Theology; (11) Bibliography and History of Research.
From this list it is immediately apparent that alongside traditional
introductory questions, Pervo is also concerned to address issues of reception history,
literary-critical perspectives and questions of genre and style. Although the
earliest explicit reference to the text is traced to Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13.3), it is
suggested that there is a possible citation in Polycarp’s Philippians
(1.2) dating to around
130
ce.
Acknowledged
as more speculative, the possibility that Acts was known to the author of the
Pastorals is also entertained (p. 1). The textual problems surrounding
Acts are summarized by Pervo. He refers to the so-called Western Text in relation
to Acts as ‘the D-Text of Acts’, and argues that there ‘is sufficient material
with consistent qualities to label the D-Text of Acts as an “edition”’ (p. 3). It is
suggested that this ‘edition’ came into existence around 150 ce and that its
production may be compared ‘with that of a pedantic copy editor, in this case a
careful reader (or a series of readers) mindful of error or inconsistency and
eager to correct it’ (p. 4). The original composition of Acts is
dated to about 115 ce. Pervo does not provide here detailed arguments for this
judgement, but rather refers readers to his earlier work, Dating
Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (2006). Furthermore,
it is suggested that the provenance of the text is to be found in Ephesus:
‘[i]f detail suggests focus, volume goes a long way toward confirming it [Ephesian
provenance]. Seventy verses, c. 7 per cent of the text, take place in or
are related to the Asian metropolis’ (p. 6).
In relation
to style and literary features, Pervo describes the level of writing as
‘middlebrow Koine Greek’ (p. 7) with an author possessing the
ability to imitate the LXX. The rhetorical and narratival conventions employed
by the author are also discussed. The contested issue of genre is given more
space than most of the other issues. Pervo notes that Acts is history, but
gains its comparison with biblical historiography. Nonetheless this description
is not seen as describing the genre, instead it refers ‘to narrating history
found in LXX’ (p. 15). Pervo refrains from proposing a single generic description. He
notes that ‘Acts is a “popular” work. Unrestrained by the conventions governing
elite literature, popular writers were able to blend genres and create new ones’
(p. 18).
The
commentary section occupies the majority of the volume and focuses on
text-critical, structural and hermeneutical issues. The translation of each section
of text is accompanied by selective notes documenting the major textual issues
with particular focus on the alternative readings of the D-text. In each
section there is then a section entitled ‘analysis’ where Pervo discusses
narrative and structural issues as well as addressing questions pertaining to
the sources employed and the historicity of the material. In this section the
intention, purpose and theological orientation being promoted by the author is
explored. In relation to Acts 1:15–26: ‘Replenishing the Apostolic College’,
it is suggested that ‘[a]postleship centres upon, but cannot be mechanically
reduced to, witness to the resurrection’ (p. 49). The need for a replacement apostle
is seen as Luke’s attempt ‘to supply a historical and institutional basis for
the witness of the Spirit, thereby to block unbridled “enthusiasm”’ (p. 49). In
relation to Acts 15 (and also at other places in the commentary) Pervo prints the
D-text alongside what he labels as the ‘conventional text’, at a number of
points of significant discrepancy. The label ‘conventional text’, although
perhaps not as biased as the Westcott-Hort description of a ‘neutral text’,
still perhaps is not the most useful term and an actual listing of the textual
witnesses may have been more appropriate. Here the analysis section devotes
space to the somewhat intractable historical problems that beset this account.
Pervo states that ‘The place of chap. 15 in the structure of Acts is difficult
to determine. Historical knowledge exacerbates the question, since commentators know that,
subsequent to the sequel of this meeting, Paul began his career as an independent
gentile missionary’ (p. 367). It is stated that Acts 15 is a
brilliant example of Luke’s handling of traditions, theology and ecclesial
concerns. Pervo suggests that this ‘portrait does not reflect a patina of legend,
nor does it depend on the best reconstruction Luke could make with his limited
knowledge. The author of Acts knew better, and, although the Jesus movement had
become a new and largely gentile religion, its legitimacy was still open to
question in certain circles, and both Paul and his opponents remained
controversial figures’ (p. 370).
Towards the
end of the volume there are many helpful features. The excursus on the ending
of Acts makes a number of helpful observations. ‘No amount of sophisticated
literary criticism and theological reflection – good and useful as most of it
is – can persuade readers that something is not wrong’ (p. 688). The
possible desire of the author to conclude with an upbeat finale is seen as a
motivation for the end-point. ‘The close of Acts is “fictitious” in that it
chooses to abandon its principal story line on a high note rather than follow
it into failure and abandonment’ (p. 688). According to Pervo, this also allows
the author to construe an open-ended story where the completion of the story
lies in a future to be determined by God. The volume also contains five helpful
appendices of primary sources that elucidate, by literary parallel, the
narrative intentions that may have shaped Luke’s thinking.
In
comparison to its predecessor in the Hermeneia series, Pervo is able to address
a wider range of critical and exegetical issues. Some of his critical positions
suggested in the introduction will undoubtedly be questioned, but this is
perhaps more a reflection of the limited nature of the evidence and the
differing presuppositions that are brought to the text. The ‘analysis’ sections
in each unit of commentary are particularly helpful and clearly present the
major issues that confront interpreters of this fascinating text. Pervo has
provided a highly readable, detailed and engaging treatment of Acts.
PAUL FOSTER
School of Divinity, University of
Edinburgh
Nice post thank you Walter
BeantwoordenVerwijderen