Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. Foreword by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016. 421 pp. Pb; $32. Link to Eerdmans

Seriously?
This is not a new commentary from Dunn, but a reprint of the 1996 Epworth commentary. Unfortunately the book has been out of print for many years and is often outrageously overpriced from some book sellers (this is not the case for any other out of print Epworth commentary as far as I can tell). I happened to buy my copy at a local store for a reasonable price, but for most the commentary has been inaccessible. Some material from that commentary ended up in Dunn’s Beginning at Jerusalem (Eerdmans, 2009).
When I published my Top Five Commentaries on the Book of Acts in 2012 I included Beginning at Jerusalem simply because it was more comprehensive and easer to purchase than the Epworth volume. With the reprinting of this commentary students of the book of Acts have access to a deceptively simple commentary on Acts. This is a commentary which provides what is necessary to understand the book of Acts without becoming overwhelmed a thousand details.
As McKnight says in his introduction, there are several massive commentaries available, including the exhaustive four-volume set by Craig Keener (Baker, 2012-2015). It is something of a shock to realize Dunn’s commentary is less than 10% of Keener’s page count, and Keener’s volumes are larger in page size. One might ask in the post-Keener world of Acts commentary, is anything left to say? Simply put, Dunn wrote before Keener was first published, so one might ask, was there anything left to say after Dunn? Although his commentary does not have the encyclopedic breadth of the Keener commentary, it is the sort of commentary a pastor or Bible teacher can use to prepare sermons and Bible studies. Dunn’s commentary is more like what commentaries looked like before publishers became willing to print 4000 pages on a book like Acts.
Every section begins on the same page as the earlier volume, so students will be able to check this new edition even if the older edition is cited. I noticed some very small differences in the typesetting where a single word or two at the end of a page runs over to the next, but this will not affect citation. After spot checking ten chapters late in the book, I noticed the copyright page indicates the book is retypeset and new maps added, but pagination is the same. In fact, this is neither a “second edition” nor a revised edition, it is a reprint of the original with very little change. The introduction is about a page longer (using Roman numerals), updating the bibliography to include many of the major commentaries which have appear since 1996.
In his brief introduction to commentary, Dunn recognizes Luke is a history, but not a history in the modern sense of the word. Luke went beyond simply reporting and passing along tradition; he felt free to elaborate, expand and interpret those traditions. This is not to say Luke has created unadulterated fiction. With respect to the speeches, Dunn concludes Luke followed the ancient conventions used by Thucydides and other historians. Like the Gospel of Luke, the theology of the book reflects early Christian preaching, but theology filtered through Luke’s unique concerns.
The body of the commentary progresses through the book in small units, sometimes a few verses other sections include whole paragraphs. His commentary is on the English text and he does not interact with the Greek at all. There are no footnotes or in-text citations in the commentary. This may be a cause for concern given recent plagiarism controversies, but this was the style of the original commentary. This makes for an extremely readable commentary. Since Dunn is not concerned with the minutiae of the text, one could read this commentary like a monograph. Although occasionally brief, Dunn using gives enough detail to help the reader make sense of what Luke is saying.
Conclusion. I agree with McKnight’s very brief forward to this volume recommending this short yet powerful commentary. Eerdmans is to be applauded for bringing this commentary back into print.
NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 29, 2016 at 4:38 pm
Vincent S Artale Jr
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Rubén de Rus
Reblogged this on Ayuda Ministerial/Resources for Ministry.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 8:15 pm
Howard Pepper
Thanks, Phillip. Good to know about this, tho I think I have library access to the old edition, and don’t collect commentaries (nor read much in them). But I suppose this one should be high on my “to do” list when I can free up some time. If my general impression about Dunn is right (you can inform me), then I expect the commentary is relatively objective. That is, unbiased as to traditional vs. other views of Acts as a whole or specific issues within it.
As you’ve probably heard me say more than once, I believe what Luke attempted and largely accomplished in Acts was pivotal in how subsequent generations (down to the present, for many people) view Christian origins. Acts clearly gives some data influential for ALL interpreters of early Christianity, but I say “pivotal” purposely in that it seems to have established a foundation that proto-orthodoxy and then orthodoxy built upon, whereas, without Acts, theology and “orthodoxy” might have taken a different turn.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 7:41 am
Phillip J. Long
I might describe the commentary as objective; although Dunn thinks Acts was written in the 80s by a non-Pauline companion, he also thinks the history is generally reliable from the perspective of ancient history. Speeches are the gist of what was said, even if there is some creativity in the way the speeches are reported. Dunn certainly does not think Luke is creating stories out of nothing to imply a unified church when that was not the case.
I think I would recommend Beginning at Jerusalem since it incorporates material from this commentary and Dunn perhaps “updates” his thinking occasionally.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Howard Pepper
Thanks. Doesn’t the practice of creating first-person speeches by key characters for key occasions go beyond citing “the gist of what was said”? For example, who took notes (or had phenomenal memory) for some of the very lengthy, historically detailed speeches in Acts? (One I recall as being probably 1000 words or more… not taking time to check now). And is he suggesting he accepts that ANY lengthy speech would have been attempted or allowed at points of high tension and dynamic action? Or, as with Peter at Pentecost, no concern about the questionable setting and details, such as where over 3000 people gathered around the house where they were meeting and received the “tongues of fire”, speaking in tongues, etc. (Weren’t the streets real narrow, with no amphitheaters or open courtyards like around the Temple, in such a location?… I could go on and on.
Also, does he address the case for Luke using Josephus as a source (pushing earliest date to around 95 at least)? I think the case made by Steve Mason in his specialized work on Josephus and Acts is pretty strong, tho I know others argue against it. (The reverse of Josephus using Acts is highly unlikely.)
And if the “we” sections are literary device and not first-person accounts (which I think is abundantly clear, as Dunn may also), doesn’t that lend toward the need to be cautious in taking many other things as historical or from primary sources? That is, beyond the general history framework used, with names of rulers, places, etc., which does generally seem quite reliable (not unlike some historical novels, btw). If you can say he wrestles with such issues and makes a decent case, I’m more inclined to give it a serious look.
LikeLike