Shared with Permission from Criswell Theological Review.
Luke-Acts in Modern Interpretation in the Milestones in New Testament Scholarship series. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Ron C. Fay. Kregal Academic, 2021, 398 pp., $31.99, Hardcover
In Luke-Acts in Modern Interpretation,( 2021, Kregle Academic) Stanley E. Porter (PhD, University of Sheffield) and Ron C. Fay (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) continue their collaborative efforts in the Milestones in New Testament Scholarship series, which began in 2018 with The Gospel of John in Modern Interpretation. Porter is the author of many works ranging from Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (1989, Peter Lang) to When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (2016, Cambridge University Press). Fay is the author of Father, Son, and Spirit in Romans 8: The Roman Reception of Paul’s Trinitarian Theology, the first volume of Studies in Jewish and Christian Literature (2020, Fontes Press), and “The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts,” Trinity Journal 27 N.S. (2006): 255-270.
The goal for the series is to “open historical vistas normally closed to nonexperts”[1] in a review of the general state of scholarship that lands between individual biography and a dictionary entry. The terms “lay reader” and “non-specialist” are also employed. This second installment is designed to bring this reader up to speed with the modern world of Luke-Acts studies by examining select figures whose labors in Luke-Acts have set the stage for the modern discussion. In the long tradition of articles and monographs dedicated to “the present state of scholarship in X,” Porter and Fay have made a solid contribution for Luke-Acts studies.
Porter and Fay launch with a history of the major shapers in the field. Only ten of these receive their own chapters, but all, beginning with F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and ending with Loveday C. A. Alexander (1947-present) have played an important role by pressuring the religious and scholarly community alike to validate their beliefs with actual evidence and to consider Luke-Acts from new investigative perspectives. In ten subsequent chapters, the life, works, contributions, strengths and weaknesses for each scholar are summarized.
Zachary K. Dawson, McMaster Divinity College, considers Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), before whom the description “prolific” pales. Using critical methodology and a liberal mindset, Harnack still managed to draw many of the same conclusions about Luke-Acts as modern conservative scholars, particularly in regard to early dating, and Lukan authorship.
James D. Dvorak, Oklahoma Christian University, looks at Martin Dibelius (1983-1947), paramour and hero of Form Criticism, who sought to find the original Jesus hiding behind the Gospel frames, which he deemed products of retraceable historical development.
Osvaldo Padilla, Beeson Divinity School, unpacks Henry Joel Cadbury (1983-1974), the first scholar to hyphenate Luke-Acts, and a dedicated Quaker. His linguistic analysis of Luke-Acts’ Greek held Harnack’s assessments of the writing to the scientific fire, and found it wanting.
Karl Armstrong, McMaster Divinity College, examines Ernst Haenchen (1894-1975), who disregarded the reconstructive interests of Form Criticism and focused his energies on discovering the intentions behind the writing. For him, Luke is a theologian with a message, a historian with an intention, and a writer with the skill to shape his material to preach.
Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College, takes on the Brethren devotee, F. F. Bruce (1910-1990), who brought his skills as a classicist to bear upon Biblical Studies, and revived evangelical scholarship in the process.
Alan J. Thompson, Sydney Missionary and Bible College, explores the contributions of Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989), known best for the development of redaction Criticism and a serious focus with Ernst Haenchen on Luke as a Theologian who shapes his materials to preach.
John Byron, Ashland Theological Seminary, writes on C. K. Barrett, (1917-2011), the dedicated churchman who asked of the text, What does it say? What does it mean? And What is its place in Christian tradition?
David K. Bryan, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrangles Jacob Jervell (1925-2014), who strives to reimagine the portrait of Luke as a wholly Jewish agent and lover of the Law with two agendas, one Jewish, one Gentile.
Ron C. Fay, Liberty University, scrutinizes Richard I. Pervo (1942-2017), who drew attention to the dramatic entertainment value of Luke-Acts as well-crafted storytelling, and erased the hyphen that Cadbury had added.
Finally, Laura J. Hunt, Spring Arbor University, wrestles with Loveday C. A. Alexander, whose classics expertise allowed her to shed new light on the linguistics and genre of Luke-Acts as a work of Greek “scientific” writing, particularly in regard to the Luke-Acts prefaces.
But for one notable exception (Porter’s article on F. F. Bruce) the chapters are consistent. Porter’s chapter, while well-written and thorough, is almost twice the average length of the other nine, and spends more time critiquing Bruce than highlighting his actual contributions to Luke-Acts scholarship. There is some variance in the depth and relevance of each biography section (ranging from one half to nineteen pages) and some chapters provide less detailed summaries of key arguments than others. Ron Fay’s chapter on Pervo and Hunt’s on Alexander stand out for their focus on presenting the textual and historical details behind their scholar’s positions.
Reading with the stated student in mind, some elements of the book did give me pause.
First, while the introduction is a must read, expertly filling in the cracks left by the necessary selection process, its level is out of sorts with the rest of the book. It is a rough start for novices. An “on-ramp” would benefit the average conservative newbie, for whom the entire higher critical approach and mindset is strange and threatening territory.
Second, more than a few highly specialized terms appear without definition or explanation. At this level, Hegelian dialectics and German idealism, for instance, which underpins both Marxism and Baur’s work in historical criticism, developmentalism, and the history of religions methodology, plead for elucidation.
Third, the final section of the introduction could be more inclusive of ideas and scholars that point toward future areas of growth in Luke-Acts studies. For example, much work has been done, other than by Jervell, in the role of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts generally, and what some have labeled “programmatic prophecies” more specifically. The impact of Isaiah 61:1-2 on Luke’s Gospel has been commonly discussed, and proposals for discovering an equal function in Acts by Isaiah 61, Isaiah 59, or Joel 2 has also been debated to much benefit.
Finally, while some of the authors discuss the worldview commitments[2] of their scholars, most do not. Scholars are readily criticized and discarded when they let faith and tradition do their thinking, but are let be when religious hostility, disbelief and dialectic lenses do it. By way of another example, we might note that some of the authors make special mention of anti-Nazi sentiments in their scholars, but those who have been accused of either laying theological tracks for Nazism or actually being pro-Nazi are mostly given a pass.
On the whole, Luke-Acts in Modern Interpretation is an excellent collection of articles that prove useful in initiating the uninitiated into the world of Lukan studies. It reveals important areas of consideration for exegesis and poses the right kinds of challenges to the beginning Luke-Acts student for launching his or her rational investigation of them.
[1] Stanley E. Porter, Ron C. Fay, Luke-Acts in Modern Interpretation, pg. 10.
[2] What basic story does their heart tell them about the nature of the world in which they live? Are they philosophical materialists? How would they answer basic questions of God, man, and reality? Where do they think we come from? What do they think is wrong with the world? How do they think it can it be fixed?
~Andrew D. Sargent, PhD
