What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story
The author of Acts unwittingly committed a near-perfect crime: He told his story so well that all rival accounts vanished with but the faintest of traces. And thus future generations were left with no documents that recount the history of the early Christian tradition; because Acts is not history. According to Richard Pervo, 'Acts is a beautiful house that readers may happily admire, but it is not a home in which the historian can responsibly live.' Luke did not even aspire to write history but rather told his story to defend the gentile communities of his day as the legitimate heirs of Israelite religion. In The Mystery of Acts, Pervo explores the problem of history in Acts by asking, and answering, the fundamental questions: Who wrote Acts? Where was Acts written? When was Acts written? Why was Acts written? How was Acts written? The result is a veritable tour-de-force that enlighten, entertains, and brings Acts to life.
196 pages, Paperback
First published December 9, 2008
1 person is currently reading
68 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 16, 2017
It’s been so long since I finished this book I almost gave up on reviewing it. No way I could remember enough about it to have any opinion on it.
Actually, I talk all the time about things I have no right to hold an opinion on. I suppose that is no reason to stop me. Funny story though… well, it’s funny in the way that it’s not funny at all, and instead just a piece of trivia that’s only nominally interesting to me, the person telling it, and probably actively boring to anyone else who would read this….
But the people in my life that have become so hardcore religious and have sort of forced me down this path… they’ve sort of stopped with all the religious talk. They haven’t stopped talking to me altogether, but they’ve stopped with these sorts of conversations. It’s weird to me, I don’t know if they’ve thrown up their hands and figured I’m hopeless (probably) or have conceded my victory in all our debates and haven’t the will power to give up their outward appearances (doubtful).
But there is silence here. And as such, much of my motivation for pursuing religious topics is fading somewhat. I still have at least half a dozen books in my tbr pile to get through (or more, I’ve not been counting) but I’m starting to think it’s okay to pick out something else to read. Finally.
This book, btw, is dedicated to the book of Acts, you know, the story of the disciples and early apostles as they started the first Christian churches after the stories told in the gospels leave off.
In fact, the book of Acts was almost certainly written by the same author as wrote the gospel of Luke. It sort of fudges the end of Luke a bit (in the same way that the later Terminator movies subtly reinterpreted the events of the earlier ones) and picks right up with Jesus ascending into the clouds and saying goodbye to his followers – and an angel telling the men not to worry, that’d he’d be coming back really soon just the way he left.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and Richard Pervo has written a book about the book of Acts. This is a relatively short book that more or less points out how implausible (or impossible) this book is to take serious as a piece of history. Not just the supernatural aspects, but there are tells that show that the entire thing is a complete fiction.
In all, I didn’t enjoy my read through of this book as much as I wanted to. It’s cited quite a bit in other works I’ve read, so I’m assuming it’s somewhat well liked in the realm of critical scholarship. For me, I don’t know. It seemed like the book focused more on the conclusions and less on how the scholar got there. It’s the journey I like, walking through the logic of why this piece of evidence is worth holding up as valid, and another is discarded, is where my interest lies. And in a lot of cases here, I didn’t go on that journey.
It might be that the author assumes the reader has more historical acumen than I actually possess. Or maybe it I was distracted as I read. Maybe I’m too dumb to appreciate its genius.
But I can only give my opinions given the brain I have. And I feel this could have been much more than what it was. That said, I still found parts of the read fascinating and eye opening. Just not enough for the time I invested in reading.
Actually, I talk all the time about things I have no right to hold an opinion on. I suppose that is no reason to stop me. Funny story though… well, it’s funny in the way that it’s not funny at all, and instead just a piece of trivia that’s only nominally interesting to me, the person telling it, and probably actively boring to anyone else who would read this….
But the people in my life that have become so hardcore religious and have sort of forced me down this path… they’ve sort of stopped with all the religious talk. They haven’t stopped talking to me altogether, but they’ve stopped with these sorts of conversations. It’s weird to me, I don’t know if they’ve thrown up their hands and figured I’m hopeless (probably) or have conceded my victory in all our debates and haven’t the will power to give up their outward appearances (doubtful).
But there is silence here. And as such, much of my motivation for pursuing religious topics is fading somewhat. I still have at least half a dozen books in my tbr pile to get through (or more, I’ve not been counting) but I’m starting to think it’s okay to pick out something else to read. Finally.
This book, btw, is dedicated to the book of Acts, you know, the story of the disciples and early apostles as they started the first Christian churches after the stories told in the gospels leave off.
In fact, the book of Acts was almost certainly written by the same author as wrote the gospel of Luke. It sort of fudges the end of Luke a bit (in the same way that the later Terminator movies subtly reinterpreted the events of the earlier ones) and picks right up with Jesus ascending into the clouds and saying goodbye to his followers – and an angel telling the men not to worry, that’d he’d be coming back really soon just the way he left.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and Richard Pervo has written a book about the book of Acts. This is a relatively short book that more or less points out how implausible (or impossible) this book is to take serious as a piece of history. Not just the supernatural aspects, but there are tells that show that the entire thing is a complete fiction.
In all, I didn’t enjoy my read through of this book as much as I wanted to. It’s cited quite a bit in other works I’ve read, so I’m assuming it’s somewhat well liked in the realm of critical scholarship. For me, I don’t know. It seemed like the book focused more on the conclusions and less on how the scholar got there. It’s the journey I like, walking through the logic of why this piece of evidence is worth holding up as valid, and another is discarded, is where my interest lies. And in a lot of cases here, I didn’t go on that journey.
It might be that the author assumes the reader has more historical acumen than I actually possess. Or maybe it I was distracted as I read. Maybe I’m too dumb to appreciate its genius.
But I can only give my opinions given the brain I have. And I feel this could have been much more than what it was. That said, I still found parts of the read fascinating and eye opening. Just not enough for the time I invested in reading.
May 17, 2013
Instead of writing a "review", I think this deserves more of a summary of content, and I'll be as brief as possible. A summary seems more apt to this book, as it's a piece of scholarly literature and I think it's better to give out quick snap-shots of the arguments than just my vague opinions. Note, it's still best and is very much worth you time to actually read the detailed analysis of the topics covered. The case and the problem of historicity is well examined.
The conclusion is simple. Acts is not pure history. I'm still skeptical as to if we can get any history at all from Acts, but Pervo remains in the camp that says we can. Pervo shows through analyzing the character creations, the use of repetition, parallels within the story itself, cycles, "stereotyped" scenes, mimesis, and symbolism, that history can't be quite so symmetrical. The dating of Luke-Acts is something of much importance, and I think the painful example of hostility to the Jewish people inside the stories of Acts is one of the pieces to dating it at 110-120 CE, as Pervo does. The winners write history. Thus, it's easy to conclude that Luke writing under the gentile Christian context, would spend chapters 21-28 on Paul alone. Acts is a book on Paul, with very little else. It's point was to justify gentile Christianity, not to write accurate, objective history.
The case is closed on the question. Does Acts give us a reliable historical account of the early church? No, it does not and those that remain strong tugging to make it history do so for unhistorical reasons. It stems from the idea that the Bible must be historically and scientifically true before ever examining the evidence. Or worse, a belief that God wouldn't inspire fiction, or lies.
The conclusion is simple. Acts is not pure history. I'm still skeptical as to if we can get any history at all from Acts, but Pervo remains in the camp that says we can. Pervo shows through analyzing the character creations, the use of repetition, parallels within the story itself, cycles, "stereotyped" scenes, mimesis, and symbolism, that history can't be quite so symmetrical. The dating of Luke-Acts is something of much importance, and I think the painful example of hostility to the Jewish people inside the stories of Acts is one of the pieces to dating it at 110-120 CE, as Pervo does. The winners write history. Thus, it's easy to conclude that Luke writing under the gentile Christian context, would spend chapters 21-28 on Paul alone. Acts is a book on Paul, with very little else. It's point was to justify gentile Christianity, not to write accurate, objective history.
The case is closed on the question. Does Acts give us a reliable historical account of the early church? No, it does not and those that remain strong tugging to make it history do so for unhistorical reasons. It stems from the idea that the Bible must be historically and scientifically true before ever examining the evidence. Or worse, a belief that God wouldn't inspire fiction, or lies.
May 1, 2020
Creative...
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews