James R. McConnell

Book review: Carl R. Holladay, ActsActs, by HolladayCarl R.. The New Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2016. 672 pp.

Carl Holladay, Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, has written this volume on Acts for The New Testament Library commentary series. The commentary is a welcome addition to this series. In it, Holladay analyzes the text through a narrative critical lens, while ably leading the reader through the historical background necessary for its interpretation. Holladay covers the usual ground in the introduction to the commentary. He argues for the unity of the gospel of Luke and Acts owing to thematic congruence and literary connections found in the narratives. Regarding authorship, he maintains that the Luke of Col 4:14 is “possibly, not certainly” the author (p. 4); the “we” sections are potentially excerpts from the journals of a traveling companion of Paul, but do not necessitate that the same author is responsible for the rest of the narrative. Written in the 80s or 90s, Acts is representative of the genre of praxeis, ancient accounts of heroic deeds and/or historical narratives. He cautions against reading Acts as history, however, arguing that readers must always consider both the world of the text and the world behind it, as they can be different. Holladay offers an extensive, helpful discussion of the textual history of Acts, concluding that the origin of the two major textual traditions of the document is a mystery. Dismissing traditional views on the major divisions of Acts (Peter, then Paul, to the Jews, then to the Gentiles), Holladay argues that the structure of Acts is one that exemplifies “the Way,” the geographical spread of the Jesus movement, inducing some to reject its message and others to accept it. The author’s strategy can be inferred from the author’s style; major elements of the narrative style of Acts include: an intentional mimesis of the Septuagint, especially the Deuteronomistic history; speeches that have been attributed to the main characters; and summaries and travelogues that describe the spread of “the Way.” Holladay concludes the introduction with a description of the major themes in Acts. Holladay’s analysis of the text will be familiar to readers of other commentaries in this series. Each major section of the text follows general observations concerning the organization of the following narrative. The text is then treated in major thought units in order to avoid atomizing the narrative. For each of these sections Holladay provides his translation of the Greek text accompanied by copious explanatory notes; this aspect of the commentary is one of its strong points. Following the translation, Holladay presents his interpretation of the section of text in question. Holladay’s narrative analysis of the book of Acts is thorough and reasonable. As noted above, he cautions his readers to pay attention to both the world of the text and the world behind the text. This is an apt description of his analysis throughout the commentary. Holladay displays a thorough knowledge of the ancient world in which Acts takes place. The commentary is replete with references to ancient literature that provide the historical background that illuminates the narrative. I found the extended section describing ancient Ephesus and its relation to Artemis of Ephesus especially helpful. At the same time, Holladay leads his readers through the flow of the narrative, 777804 RAE0010.1177/0034637318777804Review & ExpositorBook Reviews book-review2018

75.00 (hbk). ISBN 978-0664221195.

Previous research focusing on rhetorical criticism of Paul’s letter to the Galatians has failed to reach a consensus. Scholars are divided as to the genre of rhetoric Paul is employing. There is equally little agreement as to the structure of the letter and how it should be sub-divided into the categories for speeches as described by the rhetorical handbooks. This article seeks to simplify the approach to the structure of Galatians 1–4 by reading this portion of the letter in light of Theon’s description of the elementary exercise of thesis as found in the Progymnasmata. After demonstrating that Galatians can be read as a thesis, the article then examines proofs that Paul has employed in arguing his thesis, the most important of which is the proof from divine testimony. It is with this proof, which was considered to be of the highest value by the authors of the rhetorical handbooks, that Paul begins his argument; he then draws other arguments from authority and divine testimony that are based on this initial proof.

Galatians as Thesis

In this article, we argue that Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ temptation by Satan (Luke 4:5–7) presents Satan as the figurehead for imperial oppression on the culture of all humanity, not merely the Jewish culture that was dominated by the Greco-Roman forces. We therefore exegete the story of the Gerasene Demoniac in Luke 8:26–39 as the model of a postcolonial story. First, we connect the man’s poverty and possession by demons named after an army battalion to Leo Perdue’s definition of colonial occupation. Second, we link the man’s inability to speak for himself and the demonic ventriloquism to the imperialistic repression of language. Third, we discuss the inhumane living conditions of the man as the proof of dehumanization. Each one of these situations is reversed by Jesus in this pericope with ample textual and linguistic evidence. In addition, the people who witness this miraculous transformation and fearfully oust Jesus can be described as “native collaborators” with the colonial masters (demons). Finally, just as Jesus’ ministry begins with Satan’s imperialistic statement of ownership, it ends with a linguistic and theological connection to the intended human culture of Eden. On the cross, Jesus states that upon death he will be in παραδείσῳ (Luke 23:43). Luke 4:5–7 and 23:43 provide the contextual bookends for the story of the demoniac’s exorcism. Jesus begins with an understanding of the colonial occupation and moves toward a renaissance of the native culture.

Hijacked humanity: A postcolonial reading of Luke 8:26–39

C. Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, has revised his 2001 publication of the same name (published at that time by Chalice Press). It is a collection of essays, divided into three major applications of rhetorical criticism: the Gospels, Acts, and preaching. An introductory and a concluding chapter complete the collection. Two chapters are new additions (chaps. 4 and 9), and the others have been reworked in order to reflect the current scholarly trends. Thus, the intent of the newest edition is the same as the first; in the preface (to the original publication), Black notes that the book targets scholars and students, but he hopes that clergy might also find the book helpful. In the introduction, Black reminds us that term “rhetorical criticism” in the context of biblical studies is polyvalent. Some practice this method of interpretation as James Muilenburg described it (a more literary sense); others understand the method as comparing the composition of biblical documents to the guidelines stated in the ancient rhetorical handbooks. Finally, others read the NT documents through the lens of modern rhetorical criticism (“New Rhetoric”), as in the work of Perelman and Obrechts-Tyteca. After offering readings of John 4 using all three methods, Black argues that all three offer valid approaches to NT texts (and Black employs all three in the essays that follow). He further argues that rhetorical criticism complements, and does not replace, historical criticism; what the interpreter must strive to avoid is force-fitting texts into forms pre-determined by the tenets of rhetorical criticism. According to Black, the ultimate payoff of rhetorical criticism is recovering the persuasive nature of the NT kerygma. Black then applies these various methodologies to the Gospels and Acts. In the first, Black applies rhetorical criticism (à la Muilenburg) in order to study the characterization found in Matthew’s Gospel. He argues that Matthew portrays his characters as those who accept (or not) the author’s theological point of view. In the next, Black analyzes Jesus’ Olivet discourse in Mark’s Gospel by discerning a structure informed by the ancient rhetorical handbooks, as well as other rhetorical features, such as figures of speech. His conclusion is that the authors of the handbooks would (somewhat) approve of Mark’s rhetoric, and that Mark’s pastoral concern for his original audience is readily apparent in this speech. In the third essay of this section, Black compares Luke’s characterization of the unjust manager (Luke 16:1–8) with Theophrastus’s stock characters. The major difference Black finds is that Theophrastus’s characters are consistent, whereas Luke’s are not, therefore surprising the readers of the Gospel. This inconsistency in turn emphasizes the shock value of the parable(s). Finally, in his last essay, Black evaluates the speech of the Johannine Jesus, concluding that Jesus in John speaks with a sublime style that is aptly suited to the message espoused by the Gospel. Black then adds that the language used in 1 John imitates the speech of Jesus in order to encourage the recipients to continue as part of the community. In the next two essays, Black considers aspects of Acts. First, he analyzes the character of John Mark, arguing that this character “plays the literary role of a ficelle,” a foil to the more significant 0010.1177/0034637315569018Review & ExpositorBook Reviews book-review2015

Book Review: C. Clifton Black, The Rhetoric of the Gospel: Theological Artistry in the Gospels and Acts

In this book, Timothy Wengert, who recently retired from The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia after a twenty-five-year tenure, argues that twenty-first-century Christians would do well to return to a Lutheran reading of Scripture. Wengert’s premise is that current readings of the Bible, from either side of the theological spectrum, have become stale and lifeless, missing the greater point. Thus, according to Wengert, reading the Bible through Luther’s eyes would bring the church’s proclamation back to a correct emphasis—the conviction of all human beings as sinners and the rebirth of said sinners through Christ. Wengert presents his thesis in five major chapters and an epilogue. In the first chapter, Wengert deals with the authority of the Bible according to Luther. He demonstrates that, for Luther, the Bible was self-authenticating, in that it is through engagement with Scripture that sinful humans realize their need for Christ and hear the gospel, and he maintains that Luther found this paradigm throughout the OT and the NT. Furthermore, Luther argued that the Bible was to be read in conjunction with one’s experience, thus adding a nuance to his dictum, sola Scriptura. Regarding Luther’s view of law and gospel, Wengert (in the second chapter) argues that Luther saw the law as an invitation—an invitation for the reader of Scripture to understand that the issue of sin is one that is impossible to rectify on one’s own. Thus, the reader is driven to a second truth, namely that God has forgiven sin through Christ. In the third chapter, Wengert explicates Luther’s theology of the cross. He argues that Luther saw the Bible as “weak,” in that it contains a rather foolish message being proclaimed by those who have admitted their weaknesses and placed their faith in God. According to Wengert, modern churches would benefit by reading all biblical texts through this lens, rather than portraying the biblical message as strong and infallible. Wengert discusses Luther’s ethic in chapter 4, summarizing Luther’s ethical teachings through three German words: Gleichmut, Gewissen, and Glaube (justice, conscience, and faith). To this Wengert adds a fourth, Gemeinschaft (community), the proper arena in which Luther’s ethic is to be practiced. The last of the major chapters is an extended example of Luther’s exegesis of Galatians 3. This is a very interesting book. Given its title, I had a completely different idea of what I would be reading before I started. The emphasis of the book is the Reading the Bible part. In other words, the purpose of the book is to suggest methods by which the modern church could learn to read the Bible from Luther (and Melanchthon, to a great degree). Wengert is clearly concerned that the church in the twenty-first century is not being transformed through its current methods of reading and interpreting the Scriptures. He argues that reading the Bible with the reformers would result in lives that are lived out in dependence on God, ultimately resulting in love and care for others. Although readers can quibble about some of the very minor details within the book (i.e., that the gospels constitute a brand new genre, and that all the miracle accounts in the gospels are about death and resurrection), it will be of interest to anyone who, along with Wengert, finds current methods of reading and interpreting the Scriptures in ecclesial settings to be wanting. There could quite possibly be a large audience for this book.

Book Review: Timothy J. Wengert, Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory GuideReading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, by WengertTimothy J.Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. ix + 134 pp.

considers chapter one, but that the latter sections of the epistle do present extended argumentative sections. McKnight’s commentary is thorough (461 pages) and he clearly argues his points. He does give evidence of engaging a wide range of Jacobean scholarship; the bibliography is adequate, if not overly extensive. The commentary should be consulted for a serious student of the epistle of James, albeit with some caution. For example, McKnight, in his introduction, rightly notes the lack of unity in first century Jewish thought (arguing that diversity would also have characterized first century Jewish Christianity). Later, however, in his discussion of 2:8-13, McKnight makes the statement that “Judaism did not tolerate a ‘pick and choose’ mentality when it came to Torah observance” (p. 212), thus negating the comments made in the introduction. An illustration of McKnight’s tendency toward idiosyncratic interpretations can be found in his comments on the section 3:1-4:12. McKnight finds unity in this section in that the entire pericope is addressed to teachers (citing only Moo in opposition to this view). Furthermore, in addressing the idea of murder found in 4:2, McKnight “favors a physical reading of ‘commit murder’” (p. 327). This conclusion stems from “the balance of the evidence,” which consists of the connection of murder and anger in Did. 3.2 and the voice of two other commentators. Herein lies the greatest drawback to this commentary. All too often McKnight draws unsuit-able inferences from other documents, in most cases canonical, but sometimes not. He uncritically assumes that these literary and/or thematic parallels are considering issues from the same perspective as the author of James. Thus, as with his overgeneralization of Judaism in the first century, McKnight somewhat marginalizes the voice of the author of James, allowing others to place words in his mouth.