Deciphering the messages conveyed in the Bible must be one of the hardest and the most controversial aspect of studying the Bible. It is important to keep in mind that, in most cases, the reader deals not with the source material, but with its translated copy and, therefore, has greater chances of getting lost in the wrong translation. In addition to the fact that the reader has to use the translated medium, for the most part, the fact that the Biblical scriptures can be interpreted in a number of ways also creates a considerable obstacle in the way on the reader’s path to learning about God. As De La Torte put it,
It is not my intention to try to convince the reader of the validity of scriptural interpretations arising from the depths of oppression. Instead, the book provides persons of the dominant culture with a window into a world with which they are unfamiliar, even when this world is but a few blocks away from where they live. (De La Torte 11)
However, by trying to read the Bible “by the margins” (De La Torte, xi) as De La Torte suggests, and to interpret the events and characters described in it from a neutral point of view, one can possibly shape a relatively clear idea of what the narrator was trying to say. Applying the given idea to such stories from the Bible as the so-called Luke-Acts, one can possibly read between the lines of the well-known stories and see the Biblical stories through the lens of its authors, possibly learning to separate the wheat from the chaff.
One of the hand, it can be assumed that the so-called Luke-Acts have been forged for some reasons – mostly, under the Hellenistic influences (Powell 20) – and that they have nothing to do with the actual Scripture. Indeed, there is historical evidence that Christians started adding new writings to the Bible (Powell 51).
On the other hand, even though there are reasons to suspect that the Luke-Acts do not belong to the actual Biblical person, one should ask to what extent the given addition to the traditional Bible defaces the original. Indeed, the fact that later changes were added to the original text could seem a sacrilege. However, the Luke-Acts never actually say anything terrible in the Biblical context – on the contrary, they chime in with the rest of the Scriptures rather naturally. Therefore, it can be assumed that the authenticity of the Luke-Acts does not need to be looked into anymore.
Therefore, another reading of the Luke-Acts definitely questions the authorship of the texts. Arguably, the given part of the Bible could be written by the person who had little to do with the events and the people of the time. The given issue, therefore, begs the question concerning the significance of the authorship. If the stories told in the “Acts” feel authentic, are in chord with Christ’s teachings and raise religious awareness in many people, then their authorship might not be that relevant. Even Powell, who is an acclaimed theologist, makes it clear that he omits a traditional step of telling the students “which ideas and positions ought to be accepted” (Powell 11) because he did not “find it helpful for the textbook to make such determinations” (Powell 11). With that being said, one might agree that true or false, Luke-Acts bear no harm and can be accepted as a part of the Bible.
Works Cited
De La Torte, Miguel A. ”Preface.” Reading the Bible from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. xi-xii. Print.
De La Torte, Miguel A. ”Chapter 1.” Reading the Bible from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. 1-20. Print.
Powell, Mark Alan. “Preface.” Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academy, 2009. 9–13. Print.
Powell, Mark Alan. “The New Testament World.” Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academy, 2009. 15–45. Print.
Powell, Mark Alan. “The New Testament Writings.” Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academy, 2009. 47–62. Print.