Stanley E. Porter and Ron C. Fay. Luke-Acts in Modern Interpretation. Kregel, 2021.

This is another in what is becoming a series titled Milestones in New Testament Scholarship. We have reviewed the book in this series on the Gospel of John. Most of what was written in the first few paragraphs in that review could be written about this volume as well. There are ten essays written about ten influential theologians who contributed in some form in the last one hundred fifty years to the study of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament. These books are often studied together since they are written by the same person. (At least most people think they are…a few of the theologians discussed here thought otherwise.)

As with the volume on John, the essays are arranged chronologically, with the earliest writer first. Each essay itself is written by a theologian who has studied in detail the theologian being written about. The editors each contributed an essay as well as co-authoring an introduction and conclusion. As with the other volume, we more or less begin with the historical critical approach, then a history of religion perspective, followed by various types of literary criticism.

Much of the study, especially the writings from the later nineteenth century, deal more with the origins and authenticity of the writings rather than the specific content or teaching in the two “Lukan” books of the New Testament. The more recent theologians cited in this book are more likely to take the works seriously and treat them as genuine writings by a single author. It seems that each scholar studied has a slightly different take on the “we” portions of Acts. Beginning in chapter 16, parts of the book are written in the first person—using we—rather than the third person. This has traditionally been understood to mean that Luke was accompanying Paul in those episodes. Some of the critics featured here have different takes on that interpretation, but all have to admit that it does make for some interesting discussions.

We begin with older German theologians who tend to be skeptical of the New Testament and its origins. The first essay on Adolf Harnack does all readers a service by actually defining what Theological Liberalism means. The term liberal means different things in different contexts, but here we are reminded that a liberal theology believes (1) religious belief must be updated to keep in line with new ideas and discoveries, (2) it is OK to challenge long-held beliefs, (3) ethics is more important than historical accuracy, (4) liberal theology is based on something other than biblical authority, and (5) God is more subjective and less transcendent.

Martin Dibelius tried to explain the Lukan writings in terms of the historical context. He believes, for example, that Luke came after Mark and Matthew and reflected a particular brand of Christianity. Like other scholars of his ilk, he sees the first three gospels as all likely coming from a single source but embellished in different ways. He then attempts to harmonize his ideas with the writing of Acts.

H. J. Cadbury takes an interesting approach. He was a Quaker, and Quakers tend to emphasize subjective religious experience. He attempted to analyze Luke and Acts without referring to any theology because he believed that approaching Scripture with a theological perspective automatically created bias.

Ernst Haenchen hypothesized about sources. Source criticism goes back about two hundred years, but he tries to re-create what he would consider “authentic” sources to determine what was really accurate in the New Testament books. He would emphasize that there is a difference between the persona of Paul in Acts and his character as it comes through in his epistles. This, then, gets into fuzzy ideas of authorship, which had been very popular in theology for a century through the 1960s. Still, he notes some different literary types and styles which can help readers appreciate the writings regardless of their theological leanings.

Dr. Porter, one of the editors, wrote the chapter on F. F. Bruce. He also noted that he had the opportunity to hear Dr. Bruce speak, so there is a bit of a personal connection here. Although Bruce is open to some questions about sources, he would not be considered a liberal theologian. Indeed, one could define conservative theology as the opposite of the five points of liberalism mentioned above. Porter also notes that Bruce’s background was the classics and history rather than theology. Bruce, then, takes the New Testament as a historical document comparable to (and mostly superior to) classical histories, notably the work of Thucydides. As a classicist, he takes the wording of the Greek New Testament at its face value. Probably his two best-known works (which this reviewer recommends) are New Testament History and The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? He looks at the New Testament with the scholarly understanding of a classicist in both. He did write more scholarly commentaries as well, but his work is still widely read by evangelical Christians today.

Hans Conzelmann is interesting because he took a theological position on the writings on Luke. He is liberal. He considers Luke-Acts later books, but he does because of his understanding of eschatology. We understand that the disciples during Jesus’ time on earth expected Him to set up his final kingdom. When he ascended to Heaven, they expected Him to return shortly. Other books in the New Testament seem to echo that idea. The Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts recognize that His return may be delayed. Therefore, Luke’s eschatology focuses on Jerusalem in the first century, and Acts emphasizes the growth of the church apart from any immediate return of Jesus.

C. K. Barrett takes a historical perspective to develop his theology of Luke and Acts. To him, those two books are the core of the New Testament. Luke contains more history than the other gospels, and Acts tells some of the history of the early church, especially the life of Paul. To him, then, these two books present what the early church needed to know. The author of this chapter, John Byron, actually studied under Barrett and got to know him pretty well. Byron probably does speak more of Barrett’s personal motivations, especially as a Methodist preacher as well as a professor, than other essays in this collection.

Jacob Jervell emphasizes the Jewishness of the Book of Acts. He maintains that the book only ends with a loose call to Gentiles. Yes, Paul ministered outside Judea, but he first sought out Jews in most places where he went, and much of the Book of Acts focuses on Jewish ministry and reactions to the Gospel by Jews. His story in Acts concludes with the note that “the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles” (Acts 28:28), so there is some evidence to Jervell’s point.

Richard Pervo, picking up a postmodern vibe, emphasizes Luke-Acts as stories or narratives. He compares them to other ancient works and calls them novels. Dr. Fay, who wrote this chapter, assures us that Pervo does not mean that Luke and Acts are fiction, but that they use narrative techniques found in novels. Of course, one could argue that the term novel means “new,” and that novels were not written before the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. But there were prose romances written in the classical era such as The Golden Donkey (2nd Century A.D.), but that is the only one that has survived. One could make a case that the travels of the apostles, especially Paul, are picaresque in nature as is The Golden Donkey.

Loveday Alexander, the last of the theologians the book describes, makes a more specific literary approach. I recall years ago having a conversation with a theologically liberal pastor who was telling me that the Gospels developed out of oral traditions. Now, I was probably the wrong person to discuss this with him because I had studied oral tradition in literature under Albert Lord, who with Milman Parry developed the explanation of how orally transmitted works such as epics were passed on.

I asked this pastor about oral formulae or other evidence that the Gospels had been orally transmitted. It was clear he did not know what I was talking about. I have complained that theologians speak of oral traditions of various Bible books, but I never have come across one that actually explained how it might have happened. Nor have I ever seen or heard of a reference to Lord or Parry in any speculation about books of the Bible emerging from oral tradition. I have expressed my annoyance with this elsewhere in these pages.

Well, I still have not read anything about the Bible remotely like Lord’s thesis in The Singer of Tales, but Alexander looks at Luke and Acts as literature and actually explains how they could have been transmitted orally. Even today, many observant Jews memorize Scripture and Talmudic writings. So she says that early followers of Jesus strictly memorized his teachings and passed them on that way. Interesting and possible. However, for at least the last 1500 years and probably 2500 years, Jews who have done such memorizing have done their memory work from written sources. So which came first, the memory work or the writing? Alexander touches on other literary types and devices as well, and certainly gave this teacher of literature some things to think about.

Some topics are picked up by many of the writers. Are these books an apologetic to Gentiles or for a Jewish audience, or both? Are the recorded speeches and sermons written in their entirety or are they excerpts or summaries selected by the Holy Spirit? When were the books written? And, perhaps most importantly, what can we learn about Jesus and the first Christians from reading these books?

P.S.: If you are curious about the basics of oral transmission according to Parry and Lord, the following article is a good introduction: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/09/feature-vita-milman-parry.