Aug 2, 2009

Review of Richard Pervo's Acts Commentary


Richard
I Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia, ed. Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009). The author is well-known for his work in Acts, having written a number of books and articles on Acts, including Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (1987), Luke’s Story of Paul (1990), Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (with Mikeal A. Parsons, 1993), and Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (2006).

Pervo’s commentary on Acts is part of the Hermeneia series published by Fortress Press. This series is known for its comprehensive exegetical examination of the text and an emphasis of historical-critical concerns. In this regard, this volume on Acts is a worthy represent
ative of the Hermeneia series. The comments are often exegetically insightful and occasionally pastorally helpful. There are copious footnotes, extensive bibliography, and four indexes (Scripture and ancient literature, Greek words, subjects, and modern authors). The juxtaposition of translations of the conventional text as represented by NA27 and UBS4 with the so called Western or D-Text at certain points is also a helpful feature.

Many interpreters in general, and theologically conservative interpreters in particular will question Pervo’s conclusions on the dating of Acts to the second century (pp. 5–7), the genre of Acts as a form of popular historical novel or popular apologetic history (pp. 14–16), and the rejection of the traditional affirmation of the unity of Luke-Acts (pp. 18–19). A bigger problem in my view is the author’s ambivalence, skepticism, and at times downright rejection of the historical veracity of Acts (e.g., pp. 58, 60, 76, 115, 151, 239, 302, 331, 334, 519, 538, 684, 688). As Pervo states, “Luke’s achievement as a historian lies more in his success at creating history than in recording it” (p. 18). That being said, Pervo’s idiosyncrasies do not prevent the observant reader from gleaning helpful exegetical insights from the comments in general. His handling of syntax and text-critical issues are often quite insightful.


But, the Hermeneia series in general, and this commentary in particular is probably not the best resource for your average pastor or Sunday school teacher. Critical commentaries such as this one usually provide little to no help in communicating, applying, or illustrating the text. Therefore, Pervo’s commentary is best suited for an academic setting. In this context, one suspects that there will be more appreciation for the novel contributions propagated in this volume.

9 comments:

Richard Fellows said...

I recently bought this book through amazon. I am surprised that it ever made it to print. It seems to consist of little more than unsupported assertions, which will appeal only to those who confuse scholarship with skepticism. The way he assumes the date of Acts without evidence or argument is breath-taking. His underlying assumptions, which he lays out in his introduction are in tension with each other. So far I have found this book useful only for the references in it.

Charles Savelle said...

Hi Richard,

As you can tell from my review, I am somewhat more positive about the book than you apparently are. But I share some some of your criticisms as also reflected in the review. Craig Keener's review of the commentary in the June 2009 issue of JETS contains some fairly pointed criticisms as well.

richard i. pervo said...

Keener has provided a review of the indices. He does not speak to text, sources, theology, etc. (Indeed, he suggests that remarks about Lucan theology or ethics are not appropriate to a commentary!) The subject of historical novels is a major concern. For serious criticism one will have to go elsewhere. K. does note that I am respectful of many conservative commentators, and he urges reciprocity. This is welcome.
richard i. pervo

Anonymous said...

from Richard I. Pervo. In response to Richard Fellows' statement about the way in which I assume date of Acts without evidence or argument I note that I published a 513 page book on subject in 2006. One may disagree, but not on basis of absence of evidence or argument

Charles Savelle said...

Fair enough. I have yet to go through your book on dating Acts. Looking at the table of contents on Amazon it seems that your examination was very thorough. But again, I have not gone through your book. Thanks for your comment.

Richard Fellows said...

Richard, I am aware of your earlier work, "dating Acts". My point is that your commentary makes no attempt to give a summary of those arguments for a late date. Why limit your audience to the (few) who have both read and agreed with your earlier work? Since most of what you write in the commentary is predicated on your views on date and genre, I expected to find a sizable introduction justifying those views, but was disappointed to find nothing that I could pin down and call evidence.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard,

I barely ever post comments on blogs, but someone brought this to my attention, so I wanted to respond briefly. First, be assured that I read your commentary the whole way through (as well as some of your other works), not just the index. Second, the review was not wholly negative, even where I disagreed. Third, I don't object to commentaries treating the theology and ethics of the author; my concern was your judging the author's theology and ethics by your own. I will concede, however, that we all have our presuppositions and it's not possible to read the texts wholly divorced from them.
-Craig (Keener)

Anonymous said...

Pervo's comment that Keener provided a review of the indices is disingenuous and unworthy of the congenial attitude Keener displays in his review (I went and read it because of Pervo's comment). Keener interacted with far more than the indices. Pervo's comment can only really apply to Keener's discussion of Pervo's interaction with conservative scholars (which could be derived from examining those authors from the index). I suspect Pervo was peeved by the one comment Keener made on the indices, that Pervo cites 1000 authors while Fitzmyer cited 2000. Pervo has to live with the fact that his position is extreme even within mainstream biblical studies (as Fitzmyer's commentary is evidence of) not just "conservative" scholarship. That does not mean that he is an aberration (someone mentioned idiosyncrasies); I well recall the dismay Greg Sterling expressed in a graduate seminar on Luke-Acts over Fitzmyer's position on authorship.

Anonymous said...

Pervo's comment that Keener provided a review of the indices is disingenuous and unworthy of the congenial attitude Keener displays in his review (I went and read it because of Pervo's comment). Keener interacted with far more than the indices. Pervo's comment can only really apply to Keener's discussion of Pervo's interaction with conservative scholars (which could be derived from examining those authors from the index). I suspect Pervo was peeved by the one comment Keener made on the indices, that Pervo cites 1000 authors while Fitzmyer cited 2000. Pervo has to live with the fact that his position is extreme even within mainstream biblical studies (as Fitzmyer's commentary is evidence of) not just "conservative" scholarship. That does not mean that he is an aberration (someone mentioned idiosyncrasies); I well recall the dismay Greg Sterling expressed in a graduate seminar on Luke-Acts over Fitzmyer's position on authorship.