FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2918746510> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2918746510 endingPage "153" @default.
• W2918746510 startingPage "151" @default.
• W2918746510 abstract "Reviewed by: The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography by Scott Shauf Thomas E. Phillips scott shauf, The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). Pp. 350. Paper $49.00. Shauf’s introduction admirably clarifies both his inquiry and its underlying assumptions. Inquiry: “How does the author of Acts understand and thus portray divine involvement in history, and how is the Acts portrayal like and unlike that of other ancient works?” (p. 1). Primary assumption: “Acts is rightly described as a work of ancient historiography” [End Page 151] (p. 3). The project of this volume is to compare the depiction of divine action in Acts with the depictions of divine action in ancient historiography. In chaps. 2–4, S. provides an analysis of the comparative material that he brings to bear on his topic: Greco-Roman historiography, biblical and Jewish historiography, and Hellenistic Jewish historiography. S. acknowledges that these categories overlap; the distinctions are not absolute. Generally speaking, however, he finds that Greco-Roman historians tend to be critical both in their approach to events and sources and also in regard to their own role as historians. They tend to emphasize human causation and motivations, sometimes eschewing any direct divine role in history (e.g., Thucydides) but more typically allowing for an ambiguous divine role in history. The biblical and Jewish writers sometimes acknowledge their reliance on sources, but they were far less clear about their approach to sources and events and are nearly silent about their role as history writers. They actively promote a role for the divine in history, typically portraying God’s partiality toward Israel and God’s direct role in providing both punishment and reward to humans. The Hellenistic Jewish historians, primarily Josephus and Philo, were shaped by the Jewish tradition of historiography with its emphasis on the divine as the moral judge of human actions, but they also demonstrate some critical awareness of history writing as informed by the Greco-Roman writers. The literature reviewed and the analysis offered in chaps. 2–4 are solid and reflect the mainstream of interpretation on these documents. Those who are uninitiated in the study of ancient historiography would be hard-pressed to find a better overview of this material. S. places Luke-Acts within the Jewish sphere of historiography, because he (1) perceives that “the story of Luke’s Gospel takes place within the context of God’s partiality toward Israel” (p. 200), while Acts seeks to expand that partiality to all persons; (2) finds little conscious reflection upon the task of historiography in Acts; (3) notes a concern for divine retribution in Acts; and (4) discerns a clear role for divine action in Acts. On the basis of such evidence, S. concludes, “Surely . . . the portrayal of the divine in Acts is much closer to the portrayal of the divine in biblical and Jewish historiography than to the portrayal of the divine in Greco-Roman historiography” (p. 262). The final chapter, on historiography and the divine, provides a sustained dialogue with Erich Auerbach’s classic Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953). S. quotes—with seeming approval—Auerbach’s assertion that “[o]ne can perfectly well entertain historical doubts on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus’ wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without believing Abraham’s sacrifice, it is impossible to put the narrative of it to the use for which it was written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. . . . The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels” (p. 274, citing Auerbach, 14–15). Unfortunately, many critical readers will interpret S.’s inclusion of this quotation as evidence of his conservative, uncritical acceptance of the historicity of Acts. That would be a serious error of interpretation. S..." @default.
• W2918746510 created "2019-03-11" @default.
• W2918746510 creator A5035881763 @default.
• W2918746510 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2918746510 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2918746510 title "The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography by Scott Shauf" @default.
• W2918746510 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2017.0030" @default.
• W2918746510 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2918746510 type Work @default.
• W2918746510 sameAs 2918746510 @default.
• W2918746510 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2918746510 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2918746510 hasAuthorship W2918746510A5035881763 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C150152722 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C194105502 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C2779702343 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C29598333 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C111472728 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C121332964 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C124952713 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C138885662 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C142362112 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C150152722 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C166151441 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C166957645 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C194105502 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C27206212 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C2779702343 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C2780791683 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C29598333 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C62520636 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C74916050 @default.
• W2918746510 hasConceptScore W2918746510C95457728 @default.
• W2918746510 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2918746510 hasLocation W29187465101 @default.
• W2918746510 hasOpenAccess W2918746510 @default.
• W2918746510 hasPrimaryLocation W29187465101 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2028062491 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2094185847 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2111354142 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2159110621 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2172144143 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2481832292 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2516018211 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2969792318 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W4211032351 @default.
• W2918746510 hasRelatedWork W2088439839 @default.
• W2918746510 hasVolume "79" @default.
• W2918746510 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2918746510 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2918746510 magId "2918746510" @default.
• W2918746510 workType "article" @default.