Review in: Journal
for the Study of the New Testament 2010 32: 53
Review door: Ruth B.
EdwardsGevonden op: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/5/53.full.pdf+html
Acts: A
Commentary
Richard
I. Pervo Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009,
978-0-8006-6045-1, $85.00, £56.99, xxxvi + 812 hb
This
commentary follows the normal Hermeneia pattern with ET, textual notes,
analysis and comment. The short Introduction (26 pp.) summarizes Pervo’s views on
standard introductory issues. The translation includes a separate rendering of
the D-text where it varies significantly from the conventional one.
Documentation is thorough with extensive footnotes, 37 (unnumbered) excurses, a
64-page bibliography, 50 pages of indexes (the subject-index is
over-restricted) and 5 appendixes on Graeco-Roman materials. The work embodies
Pervo’s views on Acts, as evidenced in his earlier publications: composed c.
115 ce by an anonymous author, in ‘middlebrow’ Greek, and not a genuine
two-part work with Luke’s Gospel, Acts is a ‘history’, written to ‘legitimate’
the early church (this does not imply that what it relates is historical; Pervo
finds strong affinities with Greek novels). He believes its author used a
collection of Paul’s letters and, probably, Josephus. He takes a ‘low’ view of
Luke as a theologian, but is perceptive on how he expresses his theology in
narrated action.
The
Introduction and Commentary are written in a terse, at times sardonic, style
with some exceedingly short sentences. The translation is fresh but very free:
e.g., ‘On one of these occasions . . .’ (Acts 1.6), ‘he investigated the
sights’ (17.16), ‘Best Wishes,/Your brothers and sisters,/The Apostles and
Elders’ (15.29), with the very doubtful addition of ‘sisters’ to the official
senders of the apostolic decree. One especially difficult feature is Pervo’s
tendency to state his personal conclusions as if they are facts (see, e.g., p.
5 on date and authorship); it would have been helpful here to have a summary of
his arguments for these. Pervo is extremely sceptical about the historical
worth of Acts, at times unduly so (e.g., on Paul’s circumcision of Timothy),
especially as he seems happy to accept the testimony of other writers, like
Justin on Simon Magus. Some of the source criticism is speculative (see pp.
239f. on Paul’s Damascus Road experience). Despite these criticisms, this work
is a major achievement, which will provoke and challenge scholars for many
years to come.
Ruth B. Edwards
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten