Review in: JOURNAL
OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 41/1
Review door: William
J. Larkin, Jr.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
The Acts of the Apostles.
Vol. 1: Preliminary Introduction
and Commentary on Acts I–XIV.
By C. K. Barrett. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994, xxv + 693 pp.,
$69.95.
This magisterial volume on the first half
of Acts crowns a life of erudition. It reveals a breadth of learning from
ancient and modern sources and a depth of exegetical insight that we have come
to expect from this consummate practitioner of the historical-critical method.
As the first volume in this series, Cranfield’s Romans,
immediately established itself as the standard of reference in the
English-speaking world for the exegesis of Romans, so this work is destined to
do for Acts.
After a 25-page section filled with
abbreviation lists for bibliography consistently cited throughout the text and
climaxed with a map of the eastern Mediterranean world listing all the provinces
with boundaries, ethnic regions and places relevant to the events in Acts,
Barrett presents a 58-page “Preliminary Introduction.” The writer immediately
tells the reader he intends to deal with traditional introductory matters after
he has dealt exegetically with Acts. What he does evaluate in detail is the manuscript
evidence for the text of Acts and the external evidence for authorship. He asserts
that Acts’ internal evidence calls into question the traditional identification:
Luke, the physician, the traveling companion of Paul. His positive conclusion
is that Acts was probably known in the first half of the second century.
Returning
to Acts itself, Barrett discusses the author’s sources and plan in writing. He
asserts that because of narrative inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies the
writer was not an eyewitness to any of the events of Acts 1–14, but received
them second- or third-hand. He did use sources and always tried to rely on
information to write up his account. Any composing he did should not be viewed
as a production of fiction, but rather a filling in of details necessitated by
the nature of his sources. Chapters 1–7 and 13–28 present one strand of
narrative, while chaps. 8–12 give us four. The “Preliminary Introduction”
concludes with an outline of Acts 1–14, which has nine major sections containing
a total of 37 continuously numbered subsections. The former are repeated in the
body of the commentary only as headings, while the latter are the commentary
units.
Each
commentary unit contains the writer’s English translation; a list of
bibliography, mainly periodical articles and essays, keyed by abbreviation
either to the master list or to other commentary sections; an introduction to
the unit as a whole and then a verse-by-verse, even word-by-word or
phrase-by-phrase, commentary on the text. Following his longstanding practice,
inspired by his Durham forebear, J. B. Lightfoot, Barrett’s verse-by-verse
commentary uses not footnotes but incorporates all primary and secondary
references into the text itself.
Barrett’s
translation stands midway between the freedom of the idiomatic translation (e.g.
NIV) and the discipline of a formal correspondence rendering (e.g. NKJV). He
footnotes other major ecumenical and Roman Catholic English translations,
though not versions commonly used by North American evangelicals: NIV or NASB. The
introduction to each commentary unit discusses matters of literary structure and
analysis, then considers sources, the historicity of the content and finally
Luke’s theological purposes. The commentator’s assessment of the evidence stands
squarely in the mainstream of the historical-critical method, building on its
“assured results.”
The ample
space allotment means that the verse-by-verse commentary sections give consistent
attention to the full range of exegetical concerns: text-critical, grammatical and
literary, historical and lexical, theological and sometimes applicational via
the history of interpretation. No issue of even minor importance for a full and
precise understanding of Acts escapes Barrett’s exacting hold on things ancient
and modern.
The
commentary’s strengths and weakness should be discussed in three areas:
preliminary introduction, documentation and methodology/results. The
commentator is to be commended both for the comprehensive way the external
evidence is presented and for the desire to develop the conclusions to
introductory matters inductively from the exegesis. What mars the approach,
however, is the basically skeptical stance adopted concerning the author’s
connection with or access to detailed information about events (pp. 50–51).
This grows out of the discovery of a nest of historical di—culties that the
Acts narrative allegedly generates. Many of these di—culties show themselves to
be more apparent than real, if a “hermeneutics of goodwill” and a legitimate
practice of harmonization is pursued.
The
commentary contains ancient source documentation with text when discussing background
parallels and historical problems. The reader has what he needs for assessing
the commentator’s analysis of such material. The only drawback is the
consistent rendering of the sources in their original language, especially
Latin, which is not very serviceable for North American readers, who generally
lack a classical education. Secondary source documentation is also ample. What
other commentary contains a listing of eleven explanations of the significance
of the Son of Man’s position: “standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:59;
pp. 384–385)? Both the twentieth-century scholarship on Acts up to the 1980s,
as well as key figures in the history of interpretation (Augustine, Bede,
Calvin) are consistently and appropriately cited. Again the purposeful
retention of quotes in Latin, German or French means that they are lost on many
North American readers. British evangelicals such as F. F. Bruce and I. H. Marshall
are consistently referenced. The commentary, however, enters into less dialogue
with North American evangelical scholars, e.g. Richard Longenecker. There is little
or no interaction with North American Lukan studies, particularly volumes
produced over the years by the SBL Luke-Acts Seminar and its members.
Barrett’s
rigorous, yet deft, application of the historical-critical method to Acts
produces a curious mixture of results, some supportive of, some antithetical to
a conservative evangelical inerrantist understanding of Acts. Many times he is
quite moderate, even appreciative, in his estimate of Acts’ historical value.
Concerning Acts’ report of Paul’s conversion he says, “In essentials, the three
Acts narratives agree with one another and with evidence of the epistles” (p.
443). He eschews a use of reason in dissecting the text that leads to a
mechanical understanding of Luke’s redactional procedure. On Acts 6:8–15 he
comments, “It would be a mistake to suggest that Luke has combined sources in
the manner of a jig-saw puzzle so that they may be disentangled and rearranged
so as to produce two distinct stories” (p. 321). The commentary reflects many
times a judicious, common-sense approach to the probability of an event’s
authenticity and Luke’s method of composition.
What
consistently mars the commentary, however, is the skeptical approach, a “hermeneutics
of suspicion,” which the practitioner of the historical-critical method believes
the modern reader demands. The commentator views this stance positively as the
demand for objective critical rigor in assessing the material (pp. 306–307).
Though such rigor is indeed welcome and necessary, it can not fulfill its
proper function when it is combined with a consistent refusal to view “harmonizing”
of Biblical data with each other or with extra-Biblical data as a legitimate
procedure (e.g. Matthew’s and Acts’ accounts of Judas’ demise, p. 92; “Judas
and Theudas” in Gamaliel’s speech, p. 295). In the latter case, Barrett
observes that “the simplest explanation of Luke’s text, and the only one that
does not involve him in some kind of error, is the view that there was another
Theudas, otherwise unknown, who did take up arms at some point before Judas.
This is of course possible; it does not seem probable” (pp. 294–295). He does not
go on to explain why such a solution cannot be raised to the level of
possibility. Maybe it is the lack of independent confirmation of the existence
of that other Theudas. In the end he goes on to another “simple solution”:
“Luke, writing Gamaliel’s speech (for the Christians can hardly have had inside
information of what was said in the Sanhedrin after v. 34—unless Gamaliel’s
pupil, Saul of Tarsus, was present!), made a mistake either unaware of the true
date of Theudas or confusing him with some other rebel. An author who could
misread a plain passage in Josephus could mistake any other source of
information” (p. 296).
Indeed,
Barrett’s reconstructions consistently involve so interposing Luke’s
compositional hand, sources, and traditions between Acts and the events that
often very little is recoverable of the actual detail of the historical events
themselves (e.g. Pentecost, p. 109). He does exegesis on the assumption that
supernatural features are beyond the ability of the historical-critical method
to assess (p. 422). They are assigned either to the tradition or to Luke’s
desire to present an idealized picture of the Church of the first generation
(pp. 478, 305).
In the
end, Luke has only sources with scanty information (pp. 50–52) and is possessed
of a temperament and outlook of a historian/theologian. This does not permit him
to distinguish critically between the views of his subjects, the apostles and
those of the Church in his day (p. 132). He cannot seem to avoid inaccuracies
as he develops his idealistic edifying picture of the early Church (p. 258). He
lacks the profundity of a Paul when it comes to articulating the great truths
of the Christian faith (p. 132). It appears to me that this picture owes more
to the historical-critical method’s skepticism and limits that the commentator
has embraced than to the character of Acts’ internal evidence.
This
commentary is now the premier technical—exegetical and critical—commentary on
Acts in English. It supersedes F. F. Bruce’s The
Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text for documentation of primary
sources. It is the first summary in English of the historical-critical
discussion of Acts through the mid-1980s. Other critical commentaries— Haenchen,
Conzelmann (Hermeneia), and Luke Timothy Johnson (Sacra Pagina)— will be
challenged by the more moderate approach taken to historical matters. The
challenge to conservative evangelicals is to assess and respond to the
arguments and negative judgments concerning Acts’ historical accuracy and the
authenticity of reported events. The value of Luke as a theologian is also in
need of rehabilitation. I hope that Ward Gasque (NIGTC), Scott Bartchy (WBC)
and Darrell Bock (Baker Exegetical Commentary) are not too far along in their
commentary projects in Acts to interact with it.
William J. Larkin, Jr.
Columbia Biblical Seminary and
Graduate School of Missions,
Columbia, SC
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten