Review Essay For Profit Or Delight Richard Pervo’s Contributions To Lukan Studies

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

Review Essay

For Profit or Delight?

Richard Pervo’s Contributions to Lukan Studies

Martin William Mittelstadt

Associate Professor of New Testament, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri, USA

mittelstadtm@evangel.edu

Abstract

Given Pentecostal proclivity to (Luke-) Acts, it should come as no surprise that Pentecostals consider the work of the prolific Richard Pervo. In this essay, I offer a synopsis and evaluation of his work, particularly four recent volumes, on Acts for the Pneuma readership. On one hand, Pervo proves controversial (not only for Pentecostals) concerning questions about authorship, date, and historicity. On the other hand, Pervo offers fine insight on literary conventions and thematic motifs employed by the author of the Tird Gospel and Acts. In the end, I suggest that a careful reading of Pervo produces some profit for readers. As for delight, this will depend on the reader’s needs and interests.

Keywords

Pervo, Luke-Acts, Pentecostal, literary criticism, canon, Pauline literature

Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, CA: Poleb- ridge Press, 2006. xiv + 513 pp., $47.50, paper.

Te Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2008. ix + 182 pp., $20.00, paper.

Acts: A Commentary. Hermenia Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. xxvi + 812 pp., $85.00, cloth.

Te Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity. Minne- apolis: Fortress Press, 2010. xv + 376 pp., $32.00, paper.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157007411X554749

1

96

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

By our lights Luke is better regarded as a creative author than as a historian, for it is the expectation of our culture that historians will strive for objectivity, that, while they may argue a thesis and seek to make a good case of it, they will not falsify data or ignore other points of view or interpretations. Luke had no interest in objectivity.1

— Richard Pervo

Such a statement would indeed raise the ire of many traditional biblical schol- ars, not the least being Pentecostals. But before Pentecostal (and like-minded) readers call for the head of Richard Pervo, note his follow-up remark: “it is erroneous to propose that if Acts is not a good history it is not a good book.”2 So what kind of book is Acts? Tis question sits at the center of Pervo’s career as a Lukan scholar and his lifelong quest “to pursue the knowledge of the genre of Acts” and “to ask where ancient readers would shelve this book.”3 Pervo’s analysis and conclusions raise two indisputable issues. First, questions on the historicity and generic understanding of Acts continue to create sharp divi- sions between scholars, and second, Pervo remains at the center of the conflict. He may rank as the most prolific Lukan scholar of the current generation with a career that includes an astounding seven volumes on Luke and Acts over some thirty-five years. In this essay, my task is to review and evaluate his recent work. In order to do so, however, it seems prudent to begin with synopses of his earliest works, for the publications under review build upon his earlier theses.4 Tereafter, I summarize the works under review (with minimal spe- cific evaluation along the way) and conclude with broad evaluation. Given the recurrence of various issues, this format seems most profitable (I deal with the publications according to date of publication). Tough Pervo stands well out- side the door of traditional and conservative views on authorship, date, genre, and interpretation, his voluminous efforts and sphere of influence elicit a response. Many readers will find themselves in stark disagreement with Pervo, particularly his conclusions regarding the historical reliability of (Luke)-Acts. Having said this, if readers remain patient, I believe his appreciation of ancient literary conventions should provide interpreters with a good measure of satis-

1

Richard Pervo, Te Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2008), 152.

2

Ibid., 153.

3

Ibid., 164.

4

Te earlier works are Profit with Delight: Te Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Phila- delphia: Fortress Press, 1987), Luke’s Story of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (with Mikeal A. Parsons; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Pervo is also author of numerous articles and conference papers; the content thereof generally finds its way into the more voluminous monographs.

2

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

97

fying exegetical and theological insights. Finally, given Pentecostal proclivity to Luke-Acts, I consider specific points of interest to, though certainly not the exclusive domain of, the Pneuma readership.

Te Emergence of Pervo — Foundations for a Career in Luke and Acts

Anyone interested in Pervo’s recent work would do well first to become acquainted with his earliest publications. On the one hand, the biblical adage “there’s nothing new under sun” might apply, for Pervo’s early conclusions remain intact throughout his lengthy career. On the other hand, his most recent work naturally reflects the breadth of a more seasoned scholar. Pervo burst on the scene with his seminal and influential Profit with Delight in 1987. He immediately teases his readers: “although few would quibble at the descrip- tion of the Gospels and Acts as ‘popular,’ most studies have concentrated upon the profit and ignored the delight” (xi). Pervo proceeds to illuminate the enter- tainment value of Acts as a lowbrow koine production with common forms easily understandable by those unable to pay attention to better literature. Acts smacks of an adventure novel with a frightening yet amusing array of arrests, persecution, trials, martyrdoms, and last-second escapes, often played out amid riotous crowds and/or formal trials , as well as the familiar material uti- lized to excite and surprise, such as famines, shipwrecks, and snake bites! Tese captivating stories have led various theorists to compare Acts to a variety of literary models available in the ancient world, including love poetry, travel writings, local and national saga and legend, myth, and heroic exploits (101). Pervo settles tentatively on Acts as a “mixed bag” novel with an unsophisti- cated yet typical collage of topics, namely, politics, patriotism, fidelity, status, and religion, the most extensive single theme.

But as Pervo continues pursuit of a Lukan purpose, he only complicates matters. At first glance, one might say, if an author writes only to entertain, he requires no further purpose. It is at this point that many interpreters dig in their heels and miss Pervo’s appreciation of Luke and Acts as instruction. Pervo locates Luke alongside other ancient writers who entertain their readers by arousing aesthetic merits and thereby lead them to assess inherent rational and emotional demands. Pervo underscores not only the entertainment value of the marvelous, sentimental, tragic, comical, and satirical styles, but also explores potential “didactic,” “missionary,” and “pastoral” appeal (109).5 He

5

Pervo refers regularly to Greco-Roman novels and includes a helpful table with select pieces such as Petronius, Apollonius of Tyre, Longus, Acts of Paul, Acts of Tecla, and Chariton (114).

3

98

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

states: “I hope that it is by now clear that relating Acts to ancient novels is hardly a means for writing the book off as fiction, least of all, pure fiction. Tis classification seeks rather to account more satisfactorily for Acts’ literary char- acter and its content than does association with formal historiography” (122). In short, through travel narratives, adventure, political conflict, aretalogy, and court life, as well as a catchall interest in natural history, the sciences, and rhetoric, the author of Acts provides readers with profit, pastoral words of encouragement, and delight, that is, good entertainment.Indeed, Pervo takes his title from Horace: “Te one who combines profit with delight, equally pleasing and admonishing the reader, captures all the plaudits.”6

In Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, Pervo teams up with Mikael Par- sons to address various questions of unity and disunity. First, they affirm the traditional view of authorial unity; the Tird Gospel and Acts share the same author. Second, they address implications of the indisputable canonical dis- unity between the two volumes. From the early church fathers through much of the twentieth century, the majority of interpreters of the Tird Gospel find its purpose and meaning as part of the fourfold gospel witness, while the canonical location of Acts provides a larger context for reading Paul. In other words, even if the author intended that Luke and Acts be read as a continuous story, the church does just the opposite (12). Tird, canonical disunity raises the question of generic unity. In contrast to Henry Cadbury, to whom Pervo and Parsons attribute the hyphenated label Luke-Acts, generic, narrative, and theological unity prove more controversial.7 Do Luke and Acts share the same genre? Should the canonical arrangement adopted by the early church direct contemporary analysis toward common genres rather than presumed authors? Might Luke and Acts function better as independent narratives with distinct narration? Given the possibility of generic and narrative disunity, should scholars view Luke and Acts with theological continuity? Must Acts function as sequel or companion piece to the Tird Gospel? Tese questions surface regularly in Pervo’s subsequent publications.

Finally, in Luke’s Story of Paul, Pervo produces a descriptive commentary that moves rapidly through Acts. He concludes that the author of Acts serves to bridge the transition from synagogue to church, from Judaism to Christian- ity, and from Jerusalem to Athens and Rome, and all of this by way of Paul, the focal character. Unlike his approach in the volumes cited above, Pervo

6

Horace, Ars poetica, 343-44.

7

Henry Cadbury, Te Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan, 1927).

4

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

99

steers clear of generic and methodological questions. Instead, he focuses more on profit, the pastoral and theological appeal of the author.

For the essay at hand, I wish to highlight two conclusions with implications for Pervo’s most recent efforts. First, although Acts was written by the author of the Tird Gospel, he is unlikely to have been a companion of Paul, but was, rather, a writer of the third Christian generation (13). In subsequent works, Pervo not only develops his views on date and authorship but also draws out implications for a later date. Second, Pervo muses, “For us human interpreters it may matter little whether one assigns inspiration to the Holy Spirit or to the literary genius of the author. It is difficult to contend that inspired authors should have less creativity, imagination, or art than noninspired writers” (11). In a roundabout way, this statement exposes Pervo’s worldview. Tough bibli- cal writers undoubtedly bring their personal, educational, and contextual backgrounds to their projects, the cumulative effect of Pervo’s efforts suggests that human writers and interpreters have no need to consider God’s hand in the revelatory process. Such a view becomes problematic for those with a high view of Scripture and a strong sense of Spirit-led ecclesiology. Tese conclu- sions remain foundational for Pervo’s most recent scholarly endeavors and keep him at the crossroad of controversy. I will return to these issues later; I turn now to his most recent works.

Te Works at Hand

In Dating Acts (DA), Pervo places the composition of Acts, according to his subtitle, Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, in the first quarter of the second century.8 As noted above, for Pervo this conclusion immediately puts to an end the possibility that Luke, the physician and traveling companion of Paul, could have been the author of the Tird Gospel and Acts. When asked “Who was Luke?” Pervo muses: “male, gentile, probably born a believer, thor- oughly familiar with LXX, basic but not advanced Greek education, writing from a viewpoint of Ephesus.”

9

8

Tough Pervo comes to this conclusion prior to this volume, Dating Acts, as the title sug- gests, zeroes in on this long debated question. Space limitations do not allow me to detail the history of the debate except to say that the range typically falls into one of three periods: before the death of Paul, thus the early sixties; after the death of Paul some time into the seventies/ eighties; or second century.

9

Michael Bird, “Interview with Richard I. Pervo re: Acts of the Apostles,” n.p. [retrieved October 10, 2010]. http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/02/interview-with-richard-i- pervo-re-acts.html. See also Rethinking the Unity, 8.

5

100

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

Pervo begins with the latest possible date, a terminus ad quem of ca. 180 CE. Based on the explicit use of the Tird Gospel and Acts by Irenaeus (26-27) and possible allusions by Polycarp, Pervo argues that Acts surfaces no later than 150 CE and possibly a couple of decades earlier. As to the earliest possible date for composition, Pervo begins with Markan priority, a text he dates to around 75 CE. Tough the majority of scholars will agree with Luke’s employment of Mark’s Gospel, many will take exception to Pervo’s late date for Mark. Pervo argues next that Luke draws upon Paul’s letters, including, possibly, early Pau- line collections that he suggests began to circulate only after 100 CE. Pervo examines verbal and thematic connections as well as settings and contexts for various statements/vignettes in Acts alongside the Pauline literature and draws attention to no less than ninety commonalities; Pervo suggests that Luke uses Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Tessalonians as historical, ecclesiological, and pastoral resources.10

In so doing, Pervo moves forward not satisfied with a mere date for Acts, but to address the contextual and interpretative significance of his findings (DA, viii, 342).11 His early second-century date locates Acts strategically between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Accordingly, the ecclesial and ethical issues in Acts compare well with those addressed by the Apostolic Fathers and the Pastoral Epistles (ca. 125 CE). He examines the likes of 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, Barnabas, the Shep- herd of Hermas, and Diognetus. Since these works share similar content, spe- cifically theological concerns, matters concerning church order, community life, and ethics, Pervo arrives at a terminus a quo of 100 CE (292, 343-46). For example, he suggests that Luke creates an ideal ecclesial community with an organized widow’s ministry, commissioning services, and church councils (see Acts 6:1-7; 9:39; 15) analogous to the deuteropauline content concerning institutional government with presbyters, bishops, and deacons and their responsibilities regarding various heretics and heresies. With this in mind, Pervo finds Acts suitably alongside the Apostolic Fathers and toward the apol- ogists. By way of summary, and reminiscent of F.C. Baur and the nineteenth century Tübingen School, Pervo presents Acts as the story of Jewish followers of Jesus who emerge under the leadership of Paul, the preeminent example of

10

In Te Making of Paul, Pervo suggests a date for Luke-Acts “perhaps c. 100” (244).

11

Pervo offers a standard synopsis of the science or art of dating a text, namely, direct evidence (paleographical, external, and internal data) and indirect evidence (sources, referential such as institutions, ideologies, or datable trends, and comparative analysis via vocabulary and style). See DA, 13-14.

6

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

101

early Catholicism. Luke produces a “Golden Age” of first-generation Christi- anity as a model of unity and rapprochement for subsequent generations.

In Te Mystery of Acts Pervo points to various literary conventions and pro- duces, in my opinion, his most helpful work. For example, beyond the well- known triple references to Paul’s conversion/commissioning or Peter’s triple vision concerning a visit to Cornelius, Pervo recognizes other “threepeats” (59). He mines Paul’s threefold repetition of his decision to turn to Gentiles over three crucial geographical areas of Asia, Greece, and Italy (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28) or the threefold attention to the “Apostolic Decree” that brings Jewish and Gentile believers into table fellowship (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). Pervo also draws attention to numerous parallels like the healing of a cripple by Peter and Paul following their inaugural sermons in Acts 2 and 13 (67). Still other parallels run between the Tird Gospel and Acts. Jesus’ journey on the road to Emmaus serves as backdrop for Philip’s encounter with the Ethio- pian eunuch (87). Philip the Evangelist parallels Jesus by way of sudden appearances to an unsuspecting but curious traveler in need of gospel procla- mation. Both Jesus and Philip offer scriptural interpretation followed by respective invitations, sacramental action (eucharistic meal and baptism), and sudden disappearance. Pervo also extends the parallels between the well-known “farewell journeys” of Jesus and Paul (see Table 1).12 Trough a combination of triple passion predictions, parallel farewell speeches, impending opposition in spite of declarations of innocence, and potential mob scenes, Pervo offers decisive evidence that the author of Acts views Paul as an extension of Jesus’ life, death, and ministry.13

Of course, it is in the midst of these delightful insights that Pervo consis- tently pushes the envelope. For example, concerning the healing stories above, Pervo hypothesizes that Luke composes one of them to provide a parallel to the other with the likely scenario that Luke makes Paul look like Peter. More- over, according to Pervo, if Luke could invent one story, why not two (67)? Pervo cannot resist the conclusion that Luke sacrifices the integrity of histori- cal records in order to meet the stronger demands of his literary plan (69). Luke creatively squeezes his material into formulas, cycles, and fixed patterns to suit his purposes; in so doing, Luke’s literary methods are in strong tension

12

Tis table appears again in Pervo, Te Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 154.

13

Te idea of “parallel lives” is not unique to Luke. Plutarch, the most famous of ancient biographers, issued a series of “parallel lives,” a comparison of famous figures from Greek and Roman history, such as the orators Demosthenes and Cicero and the great conquerors and founders Alexander and Caesar (Mystery of Acts, 69).

7

102

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

Table 1. Te Farewell Journeys of Jesus and Paul

Jesus Paul

1. “Passion Predictions”

Luke 9:22

Luke 9:34

Luke 18:31

2. Farewell Address

Luke 22:14-38

3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose

Luke 20:27-39

4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus

Luke 22:63-64

5. Four “Trials” of Jesus

A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71

B. Roman Governor (Pilate):

Luke 23:1-5

C. Herodian King (Antipas):

Luke 23:6-12

D. Roman Governor (Pilate):

Luke 23:13-25

1. “Passion Predictions”

Acts 20:23-25

Acts 21:4

Acts 21:11-13

2. Farewell Address

Acts 20:17-35

3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose

Acts 23:6-10

4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul

Acts 23:1-2

5. Four “Trials” of Paul

A. Sanhedrin: Acts 23:1-2

B. Roman Governor (Felix):

Acts 14:1-22

C. Herodian King (Agrippa):

Acts 26

D. Roman Governor (Festus):

Acts 25:6-12

with the requirements of history (81, 88-89). As readers enjoy Pervo’s sense of Lukan literary conventions and sift through questions of historicity, Pervo’s conclusions come into focus. Te author of Acts does not produce the story of the early church but an account of the victorious progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome with an important caveat: since Paul meets believers upon arrival in Rome, Pervo states, “Acts tells the story of the victorious Torah-free Pauline gentile gospel from Jerusalem to Rome” (31). In so doing, Pervo places the Paul of Acts in a deuteropauline world. Luke creates Acts as a secondary source to support the letters of Paul and contribute to the reception of Paul (145). According to Pervo, Christianity, specifically the Pauline form, would not have survived without the Acts myth, for Acts plays a critical role in the preservation of the Pauline heritage, particularly the letters (155).

While Pervo produced Dating Acts (2006) and Te Mystery of Acts (2008), he was also immersed in work on a new commentary on Acts for the Herme- neia series. In this mammoth volume of over 800 pages, Pervo draws upon and

8

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

103

enlarges previous conclusions. His thirty-page introduction offers a succinct synopsis of earlier efforts; he addresses the regular issues for a commentary such as date, authorship, and place as well as his previous matters, such as a witty section on “Te Unity/ies of Luke and Acts” (18-20). Concerning the verse-by-verse commentary, space limitations require careful selection on my part. As in Te Mystery of Acts, Pervo demonstrates his exegetical prowess by way of an uncanny ability to connect the larger Lukan story. He develops the cycle of persecution, release, and witness throughout Acts 3-6 or Paul’s fare- well journey on the way to Jerusalem and subsequent transport to Rome in order to draw thematic/theological conclusions. Tis in no way diminishes the detailed verse-by-verse comments, particularly the detail afforded to oft- neglected text-critical issues. Pervo not only addresses the “Text of Acts” in the introduction but regularly deals with variant readings and their implications. Finally and in many respects, I find the most value in various excurses, such as “Punitive Miracles” (52-53), “Te List of Nations” (66-68), “Popular Justice in the Ancient Mediterranean World” (193-94), and “Te Name ‘Christian’” (294-95).

In Te Making of Paul, his most recent work, Pervo directs his attention to the importance of Acts for the second-century church and the formation of Western Christianity. Indeed, even Paul, who states, “I have become all things to all people, that I might by some means save some” (1 Cor 9:22), may have been surprised at the sphere of this saying, for, according to Pervo, “in the course of time, [Paul becomes] a gentile to the gentiles, a sinner for the sin- ners, a Gnostic for the Gnostics, a radical for the radicals, a conservative for the conservatives” (x). Once again, the subtitle is telling: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity. Trough much of the second century, several Pauls compete for Christian attention and experience acceptance or rejection. Te Paul of the Gnostic interpreters seizes upon dialectic of spirit and flesh and opposes inferior matter to the higher level of spirit (233). Marcion pushes the canonical envelope when he rejects the harsh God of the Hebrew Scrip- tures for the God revealed in Jesus via Paul’s radical Gentile Christianity. Still others, such as Papias, diminish Paul and limit authoritative status to “the prophets” (Israelite scripture) and “the Lord” (sayings/writings about Jesus [234]). Tough Paul appears as a villain worthy of comparison with Judas, he survives as the archetypal victim, worthy of comparison with Jesus (xi). In the end, church leaders find their normative synthesis in concert with the canoni- cal Acts, and Paul emerges as a universal apostle and a heroic figure (234). By the end of the second century, Irenaeus, the consummate organizer, produces

9

104

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

the enduring synthesis consisting of four gospels, thirteen/fourteen Pauline epistles, and other apostolic writings (234-35). For Pervo, Paul’s status esca- lates to principal founder of catholic Christianity. Tough not devoid of the teachings of Jesus, Paul emerges as the exemplar for what would become nor- mative Christianity (237). Once again, the author of Acts resolves second- century ecclesial problems by harmonizing Peter, James, and Paul; they taught the same thing and enjoyed nearly perfect concord (239).

Evaluation

Clearly, Pervo’s consistent unwillingness to place the Tird Gospel and Acts alongside other historical works “on the ancient bookshelf” proves most con- troversial. He states:

For my part, thirty-five years devoted largely to the study of Acts have brought changes of mind on many issues along with continual surprise at the discovery of things over- looked. Such discoveries, along with attendant disappointments and failures, will con- tinue. About one conviction, however, my mind has not changed. Tat is the belief that a full appreciation of Acts is not possible until one has accepted its limitations as a work of history. Luke the historian is an impediment to one’s appreciation of Luke the author and theologian.14

Countless scholars, contra Pervo, recognize Luke’s preface (Luke 1:1-4) as a initial signal for historical accuracy, whereby Luke pens an “orderly account” based upon research of narrative sources before him, both oral and written. Luke interviews “eyewitnesses” so that their encounters with Jesus might be “handed down” carefully and in telling the story follows a broad historical chronology with sequential references to pivotal events (see Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12). Joel Green points to numerous Lukan conventions com- mon in Greco-Roman historiography: a genealogical record; the use of meal scenes as occasions for instruction (as in Greco-Roman symposia); travel nar- ratives; the inclusion of organizational speeches; and letters of recommenda- tion. Green locates (Luke and) Acts as a narrative (diegesis) alongside chief prototypes such as Herodotus and Tucydides.15 In response, Pervo would suggest that medical writers, astrologers, dream interpreters, and novelists

14

Mystery of Acts, 155-56.

15

Joel B. Green, “Internal Repetition in Luke-Acts: Contemporary Narratology and Lukan historiography,” in Ben Witherington III, ed., History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 286.

10

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

105

longed for marks of sophistication and the use of an erudite preface does not settle the question of genre and may suggest verisimilitude.16 But such a notion is not persuasive. Instead, ancient writers make use of genre-specific prefaces in order to set their writings apart. In other words, prologues appear in specific forms in order to set up ancient novels as novels and ancient historiography as historiography. Pervo’s suggestion that the author of Acts attempts to “create verisimilitude” is likewise unpersuasive. Pervo offers no concrete examples of a historigraphical preface as a mask for a novel.17 Marion Soards also notes that “many—perhaps most or all—the common characteristics Pervo identified between Acts and the ancient novel may be located in these ancient historians whom Pervo basically ignores.”18 Ben Witherington remarks that Pervo “must strain to show that Acts has features that are distinctive of, not merely charac- teristic of, ancient novels.”19 Soards concurs and adds that Acts remains devoid of numerous juicy parts of ancient novel such as sexual escapades, graphic martyrdoms, pirates, and bandits. He states: “Pervo’s case that Luke is novelis- tic is made largely from Luke’s own lively style and from the inclusion of accounts of miracles,” and ancient historians were not unequivocally skeptical of miracles (see Herodotus).20 A brief turn to 2 Corinthians 11:23-33 also sheds light on the historical Paul and confirms numerous imprisonments (often with torture) by Roman and Jewish authorities, several shipwrecks, and the fantastic escape from Damascus by being lowered down a wall in a basket. If readers have only Acts before them, they may view the Pauline story as an adventure tale; however, episodes that may appear to some as free creations for an entertaining novel find confirmation from the hand of Paul.21

Te cumulative effect of criticism suggests at the least that the various sto- ries and motifs in Acts do not provide scholars with certainty to genre. On the

16

Pervo, Profit with Delight, 5.

17

Tough a second-century work, Lucian of Samosata in Te Way to Write History writes: “Facts must not be carelessly put together, but the historian must work with great labor and often at great trouble make inquiry, preferably being himself present an eyewitness, failing that, he must rely on those who are incorruptible, and have no bias from passion or prejudice, to add or to diminish anything” (Quomodo, 47). Te author of Luke-Acts resonates with such a maxim for he explains that while he himself is not an eyewitness, he derives his information from them.

18

Marion L. Soards, “Review of Richard Pervo’s Profit with Delight,” JAAR 58, no .2 (1990), 307-10.

19

Ben Witherington III, Te Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 378.

20

Soards, “Review,” 309.

21

Furthermore, there is virtual unanimity that the Corinthian correspondence stands among seven authentic letters attributed to Paul.

11

106

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

other hand, few scholars match Pervo’s ability to capture the oft underappreci- ated humor, wit, irony, and pathos of (Luke) and Acts. For example, there seems little doubt that Luke writes the account of Peter’s miracle escape from prison (Acts 12) and Paul’s journey to Rome (Acts 27-28) as nail biters. On the other hand, though Acts does indeed entertain and inform, ancient novels offer a profit/delight ratio much more in favor of delight than does Acts. Since Luke writes prologues in Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2 with no hint toward plea- sure, it seems prudent to suggest an entertainment/history balance found in ancient historiography, not ancient novels. In sum, though Pervo’s theories continue to receive mixed reviews, some of which are hostile, his contributions must not be easily dismissed. Regardless of conclusions reached concerning history or fiction and early or late date, Pervo provides a valuable service to students of Luke-Acts. A primary necessity for sound biblical interpretation must include questions concerning genre. While many scholars and students make specific statements about the genre of Luke and Acts (history, biography, sui generis, and so forth), few are familiar with the comparative ancient Medi- terranean literature.22 It should only be natural that literary conventions as employed in these texts would be in Luke’s methodological bag. On this mat- ter, Pervo produces a number of invaluable appendices. For example, his syn- opsis of sources (really a summary of the history of source criticism) and his comprehensive list of scholarly estimates for the date of Acts provide an excel- lent starting point for students/scholars interested in the implications of sources and date upon genre and interpretation (DA, 347-58; 359-63).

Implications for a Pentecostal Readership

As for the Pneuma readership, I recommend varied doses of Pervo for different audiences. First, Pervo makes it clear that issues of authorship, date, unity, and genre remain a storm center in Lukan scholarship. My recent analysis of the growing Lukan Pentecostal scholarship, particularly among literary critics (including me!), demonstrates a “been there, done that” approach concerning these issues. Many offer a short footnote akin to “I refer to Luke as author of Luke-Acts. While I have no reason to deny he is the physician and the travel- ing companion of Paul, such a position is of no consequence to this study. I also affirm the two volume unity of Luke-Acts and interpret them in relation

22

According to Luke Timothy Johnson ( Acts of the Apostles [Collegeville, MN: Te Liturgical Press, 1992], 451-52), accounts such as the Odyssey and the Aeneid, as well as novels of Chariton, Achilles Tatius, Petronius, Heliodorus, and Xenophon, would have been staple readings.

12

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

107

to each other.”23 Pervo serves as a reminder that these questions remain very much alive and serious Pentecostal scholars need to participate in this debate and consider the implications.

Second, Pervo represents a growing scholarly concentration upon interdis- ciplinary analysis. More and more scholars engage in comparative analysis among Jewish, Greek, and Roman literature with an eye toward biblical inter- pretation. Serious literary critics require familiarization not only with narra- tive and rhetorical conventions of the ancient world, but also with the content of stories from the world in which the author of Luke and Acts (and other NT writers) lives. Pervo’s attempt to link canonical Acts to the Apocryphal Acts and other literature surrounding the controversies of second-century Christi- anity makes obvious the need to discern similarities and differences as well as the socio-theological issues behind them. And Pentecostals, who typically embrace a cosmology that includes the contemporary possibilities of miracles, exorcism, and Spirit-encounter, would do well to view Luke-Acts alongside similar stories of the ancient world.

Tird, regardless of overarching agreement or disagreement with Pervo, homileticians should find wonderful exegetical and thematic insights (though he might cringe at this). Students, teachers, and preachers with the patience to mine his work will discover literary gems and excellent comparative connec- tions to the ancient world. At the same time, I would add a word of caution. Pervo is not for the faint of heart. In Dating Acts and his commentary (as all commentaries in the Hermenia series), Pervo assumes broad familiarity with ancient literature and reasonable ability with Greek. In his commentary, Pervo provides another helpful feature, though not a necessity for all readers, namely, the juxtaposition of the conventional text represented by NA27 and UBS4 with the so called Western or D-Text. For the novice, I would suggest his first work, Profit with Delight, or the recent Mystery of Acts. Either one would prove beneficial to undergraduates or seminarians not yet familiar with Greco- Roman literature or the Greek language. In fact, these works should stimulate such further interest. In addition, though most Pentecostal scholars and stu- dents will find significant disagreement with Pervo’s minimalist approach to historicity, his tone is by no means harsh.24

23

Martin Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2010), 4-5. See further Matthias Wenk, Community-Forming Power: Te Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPTS 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 13.

24

A member of the Westar Institute, the sponsoring agency of the controversial Jesus Semi- nar, Pervo’s tone is gracious when compared to fellow Seminar participants.

13

108

M. W. Mittelstadt / Pneuma 33 (2011) 95-108

Finally, Pervo puts little stock in inspiration. Pentecostals stand in concert with the rich orthodox tradition that believes God’s hand is somehow at work, however mysterious, in the composition of biblical texts. Whatever Pervo believes on this matter, he seems indifferent to its importance; nowhere does he address the interplay between the God-granted inspiration of the biblical writers and their research (Luke 1:1-4). Given Pervo’s persistent accent upon Luke’s creative and fictive skill, I find myself reflecting regularly on the general similarities between Pervo and those of Walter Bauer. If Orthodoxy and Heresy may be reduced to a fictive winning party, early Christianity smacks more of a political power play than God’s plan for humans as revealed through Jesus.25

On another related concern, I must also address Pervo’s consistent disregard for the role of the Spirit in directing the characters of the Lukan narrative. On the one hand, his purposes in Profit and Delight and Te Mystery of Acts may not warrant specific attention to this matter. On the other hand, Pervo is with- out excuse in his commentary. For example, in Acts 4:8 and the larger context (3:11-4:31), Pervo either ignores or dismisses the Spirit language and other revelatory language. Peter addresses his opponents “directed by the Spirit” (Pervo’s translation in Acts, 113) and proclaims Jesus boldly before angry learned men. In the commentary, Pervo pays no attention to Peter’s speech as inspired witness and in fulfillment of Jesus’ promises (Luke 12:11-12; 21:12- 15). Tough Pervo captures the adventurous element of this scene, many scholars, not the least Pentecostals, highlight the Holy Spirit as the primary agent to assist Peter (and the subsequent community in 4:23-31) with Jesus’ message. Similarly, in Acts 6:1-7, Luke describes the appointment of the Seven for service to neglected Grecian widows. Again, Pervo offers no comment on Luke’s repeated emphasis upon these men as “filled with the Spirit.” In fact, Pervo’s translation of the passage actually minimizes the Spirit by reducing this qualification to “their spiritual and intellectual capacity” (6:3) or, in the case of Stephen, “notable for his strong spiritual convictions and gifts” (6:5 [Acts, 151]). Given Pervo’s prowess concerning literary conventions such as repeti- tion, cycles, foreshadowing, and fulfillment, such oversights seem shocking.

In the end, I suggest that a careful reading of Pervo produces some profit for readers. As for delight, this will depend on the reader’s needs and interests.

25

Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934); translated by Georg Strecker as Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadel- phia: Fortress Press, 1971).

14