the7ones.comReview of Hemer’s ‘The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History’
Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
(ed. Conrad H. Gempf; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). 482 pp.
In every serious Bible student’s library, alongside the introductory works and the commentaries on the book of Acts, there should be a space either filled by or reserved for The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. This work by Colin J. Hemer is a far-reaching, nearly encyclopedic examination of the historicity of the Book of Acts from a conservative viewpoint that re-opens the question of the reliability of the Acts narrative and in the process fires a warning shot across the bow of the ship called Redaction, and the rest of the vessels in the liberal, historical-critical fleet.
The author’s purpose in writing is to discover whether Acts can be relied upon as history by using a scientific approach. He strives to establish the historicity of Acts by appealing to reason and evidence, not faith. Some of the criteria he examines include the types of knowledge demonstrated in the text, evidence from inconsequential details that correlate with known history, parallels between Acts and the epistles of Paul, and the “we” passages. Hemer argues for an early date for Acts (AD 62), the traditional Lukan authorship, and a general historical reliability. To support his thesis, the author utilizes an examination of the historical details in Acts and Luke, and draws upon extra-biblical resources such as inscriptions from the era in question. The author concludes that the best evidence points toward the general reliability of the narrative.
Dr. Hemer, a school teacher turned New Testament scholar, labored over this manuscript between the years 1969 and 1986, writing essays and compiling notes on the historical background of Acts. His untimely death in 1987 after a brief, intense illness left the work unpublished. But since Dr. Hemer’s work was well advanced, the manuscript was nearly in a publishable form. With Conrad H. Grempf taking up the editing reins, the completed work was finally published in 1990.
Chapter 1 of Hemer’s monumental work discusses the neglect with which the question of the historicity of Acts has been treated. The author gives several reasons for this neglect, including the “all-pervasive interest in Lukan theology,” the increasing specialization of modern scholarship, the suspicion that defending the historicity of Acts equals apologetics, and the enormous complexity of the task itself (p. 2). Hemer says the question of historicity was being addressed up until World War I, at which time the pursuit was interrupted without resumption afterwards. The author proposes that the question of the historicity of Acts is not only a valid one, but one that needs to be reopened for examination. In fact, he says, the “question of Acts’ relationship to the history which it purports to relate is too important and fundamental not to be re-opened.
Chapter 2 contains some preliminary questions which Hemer feels need addressing. Among them is the unity of Luke/Acts. Are both written by the same author? What are the purposes and genre of these works? The author also asks what, exactly, do we mean by “historicity” in the first place? He also addresses contextual problems, and how he proposes to approach the question of historicity.
Chapter 3 is made up of a brief survey of the ancient historiography. What are the qualifications of an historian during the period on question? Does the author of Acts meet those requirements? Hemer points out that the requirements for the modern day historian is somewhat different than for the historian in the ancient world. A good discussion on the handling of speeches, the presence of bias, and the order and arrangement of materials is presented.
In the fourth chapter, Hemer presents a verse-by-verse list of the types of historical knowledge displayed in Acts. Chapter 5 contains a similar listing of verses in regard to evidence from historical details in Acts. This exhaustive listing will serve to help Hemer in his summary in support of historicity.
After an excursus on the names and titles in Acts in which specific titles and names are cross-references with inscriptions and various other sources, Chapter 6 presents a discussion on the relationship between Acts and the epistles of Paul. Utilizing the basis of so much historical data contained in the work, Hemer argues that there is no real disparity between the letters of Paul and the account in Acts. The author approaches the main problem of Paul’s visits described in Acts with the ones Paul himself presents in Gal. 1-2. Hemer dispels the supposed disparity by proposing that first visit in Acts 9 lines up with Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 1, and that the second visit in Acts 11 parallels with Paul’s mention in Gal. 2. This means, Hemer proposes, that Galatians must have been penned earlier that the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15. Hemer continues by presenting a proposed chronology in which Acts and Paul’s epistles match up well.
The entirety of Chapter 7 is devoted to the “Galatian Problem,” in which Hemer makes good arguments for a South Galatian destination for Paul’s letter, along with a pre-Acts 15 date.
In Chapter 8 Hemer discusses authorship and sources for Acts. Considerable attention is given to the “we” passages of Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:17; and chapters 27-28. The author examines the meanings and implications of these “we” passages in light of internal and external evidences, eventually concluding that although falling short of “proof,” the assimilation of all the evidence leads to a conclusion that Luke and Paul did indeed travel together during these “we” passages (p. 333). Following this, the author discusses how Luke had access to the materials he used to write Luke/Acts.
Chapter 9 is a discussion of the dating of the book of Acts. In this section, Hemer argues for an early date of AD 62 for Acts. Hemer gives a valuable listing of the dates for Acts that have been proposed and defended by the many scholars over the years, ranging from AD 57 to AD 135. Among the reasons for his defense of AD 62, Hemer cites the lack of a mention in Acts of the Jewish War in AD 66; no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70; the lack of a mention of the persecution of Christians under Nero; and no hint of the death of James in AD 62 at the hands of the Sanhedrin (p. 376-377). All these facts and others, Hemer surmises, lead to an AD 62 dating at the least. In addition to these general matters, the author also explores the ending of Acts, the “immediacy” of the book, and other factors influencing the understanding of the dating of Acts.
Chapter 10 contains a summary compiled by the editor. Appendix 1 contains information on the speeches and miracles in Acts from Hemer’s notes. The author intended two more chapters in this book covering these topics. Appendix 2, on the “God-fearers,” was written by the editor.
Does Hemer accomplish what he set out to do? Opinions from scholars are varied, perhaps depending on their own personal views on inspiration and/or the historicity of Acts. Matthews, for instance, states,
“There is a fundamental problem with the transition between chaps. 4-5 and 6-9. Although the structure of the book implies, and Hemer explicitly states, that the considerations of the former chapters confer plausibility on the argument of the latter chapters, in fact that argument does not emerge with any logical necessity from the observations that precede it” (p. 728)
In other words, Matthews believes the historical details Hemer presents do not necessarily support the dating, authorship and correlation of Acts with the epistles of Paul as Hemer suggests. However, Matthews also states that Hemer “has no feel for Lukan theology,” and thereby seems to confirm Hemer’s believe that some have gone so far into the idea of “Lukan theology” that a re-examination of the plain facts in regard to historicity holds no sway with them.
Other reviewers have criticized Hemer’s view of a split purpose for Acts and the third gospel. Kraabel comments,
“When H. [Hemer - MC] takes up this topic [genre - MC] in His second chapter, he moves too quickly to split Acts off from the Third Gospel: “Luke and Acts are themselves different in type,” he says; they are not of the same genre (p. 33). Perhaps, but didn’t Luke put them very much together? Aren’t they in fact carefully linked, one work in two volumes? We must assume then that they have the same purpose, which might be expressed as follows: to present the foundational and normative story of the first two generations of the new religion, the Jesus-story and the church-story. For Luke the latter is essential to complete the former” (p. 157).
Kraabel, however, seems to miss Hemer’s point. Hemer does indeed say Luke and Acts are different in type, but Kraabel ignores Hemer’s next phrase, where he says he also understands the unity and continuity of Luke and Acts (p. 33). So it is possible to have a continuous work, different genres, but unified in purpose. Kraabel’s criticism here seems unnecessary.
In a work of this size, scope and complexity, there are bound to be things with which scholars and readers in general will disagree. Often Hemer’s language is burdensome to the average reader, perhaps even confusing to the average scholar. However, one thing is for certain: Hemer presents in this work an enormous amount of historical evidence, the likes of which has not been presented in one place before. On this fact, Johnson comments,
“In this section [pp. 101-307 - MC], Hemer makes available far more epigraphical evidence than has previously been brought together on the issue. His final chapters align his conclusions concerning authorship and dating with these findings, although he insists that the question of historical accuracy in no way depends on such decisions” (p. 429).
Toussaint agrees in this regard, and comments that “it will be a necessary sourcebook for any scholarly treatment of Acts” (p. 249).
Despite the sometimes-difficult language employed, this work should be a resource in every library for years and years to come. Hemer grapples with a subject that many a modern liberal scholar-and the students they influence-thought had been put to bed. The author re-opens the subject, however, with a work that will demand response from those who believe Acts is not reliable history, and also those who feel there is a large disparity between Lukan and Pauline theology.
Hemer ably argues his thesis from the scientific viewpoint of a historian. His arguments for the early dating of Luke/Acts, the traditional authorship of Luke, and the reliability of Acts as history are impossible to ignore. Those in disagreement may try to tear his arguments apart, and those that agree with Hemer will carry his positions even further, but one thing is certain: every one of them will likely have his book in line on their shelves as another great “tool of the trade.”
References
Johnson, Luke Timothy. (1990). Review: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Interpretation, no. 44, pp. 429-430.
Toussaint, Stanley D. (1990). Review: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Bibliotheca sacra no. 147, p. 249.
Kraabel, A.T. (1992). Review: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Catholic Biblical Quarterly no. 54, pp. 156-158.
Matthews, Christopher R. (1990). Review: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Journal of Biblical Literature no. 109, pp. 726-729.
Comments are currently closed.