How important is it that we accurately identify the author of Acts? Is the subject of authorship merely of historical interest, or would you argue that there are implications for interpretation and/or the role that the text plays in the formation of Christian doctrine? Do you agree with Padilla’s treatment of the subject of authorship (see pp. 31-37)?
Lukan Authorship
The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology
The identity of the author of Acts has recently been deemed irrelevant by various scholarly initiatives. Osvaldo Padilla points to three specific influences contributing to the devaluation of the author: philosophical hermeneutics as represented by continental philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, narrative criticism, and postliberal theology purported by thinkers such as George Lindbeck and Hans Frei.[1] The common thread between all three perspectives is an emphasis on the text to convey meaning, which, often times, is at the expense of the real author and real history. Gadamer succinctly communicates the hermeneutical perspective by stating, “The meaning of what is said is, when we understand it, quite independent of whether the traditionary text gives us a picture of the author and of whether or not we want to interpret it as a historical source.”[2] The emphasis upon the text is a breath of fresh air, but, within evangelical circles represented by Padilla, the initiative has gone too far by either overtly or covertly subverting the author and history.
In light of the scholarly backdrop, the question remains as to the importance of identifying the author of Acts. Padilla asserts that the identity of the author is important because if Luke was Paul’s traveling companion, then, as an eyewitness, Luke helps strengthen the possibility of Acts’ historical reliability.[3] Accordingly, in a sense, accurately identifying the author of Acts is important, and the “we” passages of Acts provide fuel for the contention. However, in another sense, accuracy is not that important. For example, if an archaeological discovery would prove that either the Apostle Paul or another one of Paul’s companions wrote portions of Acts and essentially disproves that Luke was the author, then it is unlikely it would make a significant impact on the implications of interpretation. Furthermore, Padilla admits that an eyewitness account does not prove the historical reliability of Acts; thus, even if Luke is definitively proven to be the author, the requirement of “transcendent revelation” continues.[4] In other words, for believers, even if Luke was not the author and even if the historical reliability of Acts is not proven, the reality of the events and truth claims in Acts remains intact. In general, I agree with Padilla’s treatment of the subject of authorship with two nuanced observations. First, Padilla suggests that the “historiographic genre of Acts makes…demands about historical truth claims.”[5] One wonders if Padilla’s assertion would require the same historical truth claims about other biblical genres. Second, I would like to have seen Padilla not only engage the three text-based scholarly perspectives with his view of a historical reality behind the text, but also engage them by merging the historical reality of the text with the importance of transcendent revelation as he espouses in his preface.
_________________________________
[1] Osvaldo Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 32, fn 30.
[2] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 410.
[3] Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles, 36.
[4] Ibid., 36, 20.
[5] Ibid., 35.
Bibliography
- Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
- Padilla, Osvaldo. The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.
