Historiographic Re-interpretation of Identity formation in Acts 15: A Social Identity Complexity paradigm

Acts 15:1-35 has been interpreted from different perspectives for decades, and several results were obtained from these methods, the historical-critical method (Dibelius, 2004; Haenchen 1985, Feminist criticism Fiorenza, 1999), among others. The multiplicity of identities has been a topical subject in contemporary times, as shown by the prevalence of scholarly conversations and literature. It is imperative to note that identity formation occurs in a maze of complex and numerous connections. Identity formation is neither a stable nor complete but rather an ongoing process of ‘becoming ‘regularly (re)visited and (re)shaped. These are fundamental insights into understanding identity in contemporary times. The main thrust of this article is to interrogate and rethink the historiographical (re)construction of identities in Acts 15 from a social identity complexity paradigm. To identify the identity formation of the different ethnic and social boundary markers in Acts 151ff.This article demonstrates the use of Social Identity Complexity theory (SIC) on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and various ethnic boundaries in Luke’s community. It seeks to analyse and interrogate the ethnic and social boundary markers that caused conflict in the community of Luke. The overlap complexities among different ethnic and social groups will be considered in this article. The article argues that SIC theory helps to locate Luke’s theology and the manner he juggles in solving the various social identities. The article also utilises documentary analysis as a complementary method to gather data from books, articles and reports to understand the phenomenon under study. The main contention in this study is that identity construction is a complex and troubled terrain which destabilises previously by identifying the social categories projected through the three models and how identities entangle intricately and overlap, resulting in fluidity and ambivalence of social identity boundaries.