The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography by Scott Shauf

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography by Scott Shauf Thomas E. Phillips scott shauf, The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). Pp. 350. Paper $49.00. Shauf’s introduction admirably clarifies both his inquiry and its underlying assumptions. Inquiry: “How does the author of Acts understand and thus portray divine involvement in history, and how is the Acts portrayal like and unlike that of other ancient works?” (p. 1). Primary assumption: “Acts is rightly described as a work of ancient historiography” [End Page 151] (p. 3). The project of this volume is to compare the depiction of divine action in Acts with the depictions of divine action in ancient historiography. In chaps. 2–4, S. provides an analysis of the comparative material that he brings to bear on his topic: Greco-Roman historiography, biblical and Jewish historiography, and Hellenistic Jewish historiography. S. acknowledges that these categories overlap; the distinctions are not absolute. Generally speaking, however, he finds that Greco-Roman historians tend to be critical both in their approach to events and sources and also in regard to their own role as historians. They tend to emphasize human causation and motivations, sometimes eschewing any direct divine role in history (e.g., Thucydides) but more typically allowing for an ambiguous divine role in history. The biblical and Jewish writers sometimes acknowledge their reliance on sources, but they were far less clear about their approach to sources and events and are nearly silent about their role as history writers. They actively promote a role for the divine in history, typically portraying God’s partiality toward Israel and God’s direct role in providing both punishment and reward to humans. The Hellenistic Jewish historians, primarily Josephus and Philo, were shaped by the Jewish tradition of historiography with its emphasis on the divine as the moral judge of human actions, but they also demonstrate some critical awareness of history writing as informed by the Greco-Roman writers. The literature reviewed and the analysis offered in chaps. 2–4 are solid and reflect the mainstream of interpretation on these documents. Those who are uninitiated in the study of ancient historiography would be hard-pressed to find a better overview of this material. S. places Luke-Acts within the Jewish sphere of historiography, because he (1) perceives that “the story of Luke’s Gospel takes place within the context of God’s partiality toward Israel” (p. 200), while Acts seeks to expand that partiality to all persons; (2) finds little conscious reflection upon the task of historiography in Acts; (3) notes a concern for divine retribution in Acts; and (4) discerns a clear role for divine action in Acts. On the basis of such evidence, S. concludes, “Surely . . . the portrayal of the divine in Acts is much closer to the portrayal of the divine in biblical and Jewish historiography than to the portrayal of the divine in Greco-Roman historiography” (p. 262). The final chapter, on historiography and the divine, provides a sustained dialogue with Erich Auerbach’s classic Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953). S. quotes—with seeming approval—Auerbach’s assertion that “[o]ne can perfectly well entertain historical doubts on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus’ wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without believing Abraham’s sacrifice, it is impossible to put the narrative of it to the use for which it was written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. . . . The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels” (p. 274, citing Auerbach, 14–15). Unfortunately, many critical readers will interpret S.’s inclusion of this quotation as evidence of his conservative, uncritical acceptance of the historicity of Acts. That would be a serious error of interpretation. S...