Gregory E. Sterling. <i>Shaping the Past to Define the Present: Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography</i>

This volume is intended to be a sequel to Sterling’s work, Historiography and Self-Definition: Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, published by Brill three decades ago (1992). In that volume, Sterling argued that Luke’s work was an example of “apologetic historiography,” the best model of which is Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Sterling defines apologetic historiography as the story of a subgroup that “follows the group’s own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world” (p. 5). In the present work, Sterling expands on this thesis in a variety of directions in nine chapters. The common theme is how the author of Luke-Acts utilized Jewish and Greco-Roman historiographic models and traditions to define and defend Christian identity. As in his earlier work, Sterling utilizes genre criticism, though here modified in light of recent developments, especially with reference to “prototype” genre theory.Six of these nine chapters are revisions of previously published articles, while three are new. The nine are divided into three parts of three chapters each. The three parts are (1) The Historiographical Tradition: Luke-Acts as Apologetic Historiography; (2) The Connection to the Past: The Story of Israel in Luke-Acts; and (3) Looking to the Future: The Greco-Roman World in Luke-Acts.Chapter 1 seeks to show that Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, Luke-Acts, and Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History all fit the pattern of apologetic historiography. An emphasis on the antiquity of these traditions is especially important, which is why Josephus traces the history of the Jews from creation to his present day. Although Luke cannot trace the new Christian movement from antiquity, he provides a genealogy for Jesus that goes back to Adam, the first human, and presents Christianity as a continuation of Israel (p. 33). “Through the writing of the story of the movement and the effort to distinguish it, Luke attempted to give Christians ‘a national identity’” (p. 24).Chapter 2 asserts that the genre of apologetic historiography is not just a modern construct but rather a recognizable genre in the ancient world. Sterling begins with Josephus’s critique of Greek historiography in the opening excursus to Against Apion, where the author asserts the superiority of Eastern historiographic traditions over against Greek ones in terms of antiquity and accuracy. Sterling then seeks to show this same polemic in ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, and Babylonian traditions. While these Eastern authors wrote in response to Greek cultural hegemony, they wrote in Greek and using Hellenic forms in order to gain acceptance in the larger world. We can see clear parallels here to Luke’s enterprise.In chapter 3, Sterling examines the literary relationship between Luke and Acts, and more specifically, whether they are simply two volumes by a single author, or a single two-volume work. To do this he suggests evidence that the author already had the contents of Acts in mind when he wrote the Gospel. Four examples are discussed: (1) Luke’s extension of Mark’s quotation of Isa 40:3 (Mark 1:2–3) up to Isa 40:5 (Luke 3:4) to include the phrase “and all flesh will see the salvation of God”; (2) Luke’s “great omission” of Mark 6:45–8:26, which Sterling claims was because Luke knew he would deal with the gentile mission later in Acts (p. 72); (3) Luke’s modification of Mark 13:9 in Luke 21:12 to more closely resemble the persecution of the apostles in Acts; and (4) Luke’s omission of the temple charge in Jesus’s trial (Mark 14:58) and at the crucifixion (Mark 15:29), since Luke will recount the same charge against Stephen in Acts 6:12–14.In chapter 4, Sterling examines the Septuagint (LXX) as a historical model for both Josephus and Luke. Their different perspectives, however, explain why Luke did not write a comprehensive “Christian Antiquities” in the same way as Josephus. While Josephus repeats much of the content of the Letter of Aristeas, at various points he weakens its claims of the divine origin of the LXX. Sterling suggests that while Josephus viewed the Septuagint as a precedent, he considered his own “translation” (the Antiquities) to be a replacement for it—not among the Jews of the diaspora synagogues but among non-Jews in the Greco-Roman world (p. 96). Luke, by contrast, viewed the Septuagint primarily as an unfinished work. Luke-Acts was not its replacement but its continuation. “Christianity was a movement in search of an identity. Luke attempted to give it one by claiming that Christians were the people of God.” (p. 104).Chapter 5 is about Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Sterling points to a tradition among Hellenistic Jewish historians to show the legitimacy of their diaspora communities by connecting these communities with great leaders of Israel’s past. The most striking example is from the Hellenistic Jewish fragment by Artapanus (preserved by Polyhistor), which focuses on Egypt, and on Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, the same three figures that dominate Stephen’s speech. Sterling suggests that Luke uses this diaspora tradition to help justify the expansion of the gospel beyond Jerusalem.Chapter 6 also deals with a long retelling of Israel’s story, this one from Paul’s sermon in Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13. Sterling argues that the three major divisions of the speech, each introduced by direct addresses to the audience (13:16, 26, 38), correspond to Luke’s three-stage understanding of salvation history (proposed by H. Conzelmann): the period of promise leading up to John the Baptist, the story of Jesus, and the period of fulfillment related to the church. The author of Luke-Acts thus uses the speech to affirm that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism and to justify the mission to the gentiles.Chapter 7 concerns Luke’s presentation of the death of Jesus, which is characterized especially by Jesus’s calm demeanor in the face of suffering and death. Sterling compares this motif to Greco-Roman depictions of the death of heroes as noble. The prime example is the death of Socrates, which Sterling claims influenced Luke’s account. Luke thus seeks to deflect criticism related to the ignoble death of Jesus by comparing it to famous philosophers who died nobly.Chapter 8 concerns three summaries in Acts related to the Jerusalem community (2:41–47; 4:32–35; and 5:12–16). After discussing various possible literary precedents, especially Markan summaries, Sterling suggests that these cannot account for the longer summaries in Acts (p. 194). He suggests that they are modeled after Hellenistic descriptions of native and non-native religious and philosophical groups, which are set forth as exemplary. These include descriptions of the Egyptian priests in Chaeremon, the Essenes in Pliny, the Indian sages in Arrian and Philostratus, the naked Egyptian sages in Philostratus, and the Pythagoreans in Iamblichus. Sterling also compares the descriptions of the Essenes in Philo and Josephus.In chapter 9, Sterling argues that Luke deflects criticism of the Christian community related to accusations of low social status, disrespect for the established order, and immoral practices. In this way, the author positions Christianity as a nonrevolutionary movement that should be viewed as respectable by the larger Greco-Roman world.This book is interesting, innovative, and erudite. Sterling demonstrates an impressive mastery of a broad range of Greco-Roman literature as well as thorough knowledge of Lukan narrative themes and theology. His overall thesis also seems to me to be spot-on. Luke’s two-volume work is all about the confirmation of the gospel and Christian self-identity. And this self-identity is inextricably linked to the continuity between the early church and the promises made to Israel. Luke seeks to show that Christianity is not a shiny new religion but has deep roots in the past. “Apologetic historiography” is an accurate designation for the genre of Luke-Acts.At the same time, not all of Sterling’s proposed antecedents are equally convincing. For example, I am less than convinced that Jesus’s attitude toward his coming death reflects the model of calmness seen in the noble death of Socrates. Jesus’s perspective seems rather to reflect his confidence that he is fulfilling God’s purpose and plan as predicted in Scripture. Similarly, the pervasive theme of Jesus’s innocence/righteousness, which certainly dominates the Lukan passion narrative (Luke 23:4, 14, 15, 22, 41, 47), is more likely drawn from the suffering servant of Isaiah’s servant songs that from a Socratic prototype. The description of Jesus as ho dikaios (the innocent/righteous one) in Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14 is used of the servant in Isa 53:11 LXX.While some of the parallels that Sterling proposes are weaker than others, the work is full of valuable insights. It demonstrates beyond doubt the need for a thorough understanding of Luke’s historical, cultural, and literary milieu in order to comprehend his narrative purpose and theology.