What do you think?
Rate this book
New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament #5
The Acts of the Apostles: Volume 5
Dennis Hamm stresses the unity between the Acts of Apostles and the Gospel of Luke. His section-by-section commentary (along with New American Bible translation), based on the best of recent scholarship, will appeal to teachers, preachers and Bible study groups with its non-technical, yet scholarly style.
Hamm helps visualize Christianity's growth from Jewish roots and the Church as continuation of God's covenant with Israel. Paying close attention to the use of the Old Testament. Hamm demonstrates how the Acts of the Apostles--first addressed to the early Christian community--speaks to our generation today.
Chapters are The Risen Christ and the Restoration of Israel in Jerusalem (1:1 -8:3)," "The Mission in Judea and Samaria (8:4-9:43)," "The Inauguration of the Gentile Mission (10:1-15:35)," and "The Mission of Paul to the Ends of the Earth(15:36-28:31)." Also includes maps and discussion questions.
Dennis Hamm, SJ, PhD, since 1975 has taught Scripture at Creighton University. He is author of the various journal articles and reviews, as well as the three-volume Let the Scriptures Speak, published by Liturgical Press(1999, 2000, 2001).
Hamm helps visualize Christianity's growth from Jewish roots and the Church as continuation of God's covenant with Israel. Paying close attention to the use of the Old Testament. Hamm demonstrates how the Acts of the Apostles--first addressed to the early Christian community--speaks to our generation today.
Chapters are The Risen Christ and the Restoration of Israel in Jerusalem (1:1 -8:3)," "The Mission in Judea and Samaria (8:4-9:43)," "The Inauguration of the Gentile Mission (10:1-15:35)," and "The Mission of Paul to the Ends of the Earth(15:36-28:31)." Also includes maps and discussion questions.
Dennis Hamm, SJ, PhD, since 1975 has taught Scripture at Creighton University. He is author of the various journal articles and reviews, as well as the three-volume Let the Scriptures Speak, published by Liturgical Press(1999, 2000, 2001).
- GenresReligion
115 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2026
[5/30/2026] My introduction to this series came via Volume 17 of the Old Testament: John J. Collins' commentary on Joel, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. I enjoyed that one so much, I decided to go ahead and get some more. This one on Acts, by Dennis Hamm, is the second one in this series that I have read. This commentary didn’t excite me as much as Collins' commentary.
I didn’t realize when I started reading these commentaries that they are aimed at lay people and endorsed by the Catholic Church, having received the official *Nihil Obstat* and *Imprimatur*, meaning the Church recognizes it as free from doctrinal or moral error. The fact that a critical scholar such as Collins could get past the Catholic censors surprised me somewhat, but doing a little searching I found that in fact the Church does embrace historical-critical methods of studying the Bible. That didn’t seem to be much in evidence in the Acts volume, where nearly everything in seemed to be taken at face value, at least on my first reading.
I was wondering if I was being unfair in this evaluation. So, after reading a couple other short commentaries in my library (the article on Acts in the *New Oxford Bible Commentary* by Loveday Alexander, and the commentary on Acts in the *New Interpreter's Bible* by Robert W. Wall) I decided I would give this commentary by *Dennis Hamm* another try. It’s a quick enough read—about an hour if you skip the text of Acts. I decided I was being unfair in my first evaluation. Hamm admits that we should not read these commentaries speeches in Acts as though they were transcripts of taped speeches; an important point.
Concerning the controversial "we" sections, Hamm twice says that they reflect the author's (Luke's) personal experiences with Paul. "Ancient historians were eager to mark their presence at events when they had grounds for such claims. We have no evidence that such claims are groundless", and, "We have no evidence of the 'we' form used as a literary convention in ancient history writing by authors who are not describing their own experience." Nonetheless it seems that Thucydides used the collective "we" to signal what the Athenian assembly or the army was doing, rather than recounting his own firsthand exploits as a general in the Peloponnesian War. Other commentators are not as certain. So as not to beg any questions, Lovejoy Alexander refers to the author of the "we" sections as the we-narrator.
Concerning the discrepancies in the three narrations of Saul's Damascus road experience Hamm claims that these are not the discrepancies of a negligent author but variations of an artist in full control of his material. Alexander agrees: "Ancient educational practice placed high value on the ability to introduce variety into the retelling of well-known stories." So does Wall: "The primary problem of the 3 narratives of Saul's Damascus road experience is not how best to harmonize or explain its discrepant details, but how its repetition more fully defines the prophetic vocation of Paul in Acts." Lawrence Richards, though, in typical bull-headed evangelical fashion, insists on harmonizing the accounts by interpreting the differing accounts as either understanding the voice, or hearing the sound. In a footnote, Wall notes that evangelical scholar Ben Witherington also tries to force the passages into harmony. Hamm's approach is much more productive, and I appreciated his observation that the variations and details in the language of the third telling of Saul's experience are far more than an effort at literary variety. The language about light, darkness, and seeing participates in a consistent symbolic theme carrying symbolic implications, and the blinding light in the first two telling has become a metaphor for a light to the gentiles
Acts contains many interpretive difficulties which Hamm avoids, perhaps because of the intended audience and perhaps because of the Catholic censors. As an example, Hamm passes over 23.8-9 with little comment, but Robert W. Wall claims that these verses are problematic, because there is little evidence that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels or spirits. (Both of these are found in the Torah.) Hamm also avoids such well-known problems as the conflicting accounts of Judas’s suicide in Luke and Matthew, whether Paul would circumcise Timothy or take part in a Nazirite vow, or whether Paul was truly a Roman citizen.
Was this book worth reading? Yes, I think so, although for a serious student this series can only be supplemental to more robust commentaries. I appreciated Hamm giving the nod to Luke Timothy Johnson, James D. G. Dunn, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Ben Witherington, scholars also frequently referred to by Wall in his longer commentary. While much of the material in this commentary was just pointing out the obvious, there were points I felt worthy of writing into my notes. For example, "Luke narrates the Ascension from two points of view." I appreciated that Hamm did not try to reconcile the discrepancy. The observation that the Athenians may have thought Jesus was preaching two new gods, Jēsous and (his consort?) Anastasis was not a new one to me, but it is good to be reminded. The idea that the reconstituted 12 will judge the reconstituted people of Israel after Pentecost is a new one to me, and I don’t know how well it floats.
These commentaries are inexpensive enough, and so far they have been a good investment. The next one I will read, I suppose, will be the one on Revelation.
[update 6/30/2026] It was not until I had read my fourth book in this series (on Revelation) that I realized that certain Bible passages were cross-referenced with paragraphs from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Looking up these cross-references is an excellent way to educate oneself on the doctrines of the Catholic Church. So I decided to revisit this book and engage in this admittedly somewhat tedious exercise.
Things got interesting right off the bat with the Church's interpretation of Acts 1.3. Paragraph 659 says Jesus's final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven. On Acts 1.11, paragraph 665 says that Christ's ascension marks the definite entrance of Jesus's humanity into God's heavenly domain. This contrastswith what preterist Randall Otto says in his book *Coming in the Clouds*. If I am understanding Otto correctly, he believes that Jesus always embodied divine glory, but this glory was veiled in human flesh. Nor does Otto believe that Jesus entered into an irreversible glorious state at the Ascension, but rather Jesus can put off his glorious state to become visible.
What paragraph 673 says concerning Acts 1.7, that since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent, seems to contradict what paragraph 674 says (Acts 3.19-21): "The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel'." However, this understanding of "imminent" has long confused me.
In her commentary on Revelation, Catherine Cory cites three interpretations of the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation 12: Eve, Mary, the Church. All three seem to be evident in paragraph 726 "At the end of this mission of the Spirit, Mary becomes the Woman, the new Eve ('mother of the living'), the mother of the 'whole Christ' (re. Acts 1.14)."
Paragraph 597, "Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’s death," was cross referenced with Acts 2.23; 3.13-14, 17; 4.10; and 7.52. However if you read those passages you can see that Jews are being addressed collectively. In each case the group being addressed contains substantial numbers of Jews that were not present at Jesus's trial or death, probably most of them were not present.
Also a stretch is the cross-reference to infant baptism for Acts 18.8: "Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." It is simply an assumption that Crispus's household included infants. To be fair, the commentary put an asterisk by the paragraph number in the Catechism: 1252*, which is supposed to mean that the paragraph paraphrases the scripture quote. But I don’t think there’s getting around the fact that there is no infant baptism in Acts 18.8, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter.
The Church says in paragraph 788 (re: Acts 2.33) that as a result of the sending of the Spirit, communication with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense. More intense than being in Jesus's personal presence? I’m going to have to have someone explain that to me.
The Church finds the Lord's Supper in Acts 2.46; and 20.7, 11; see paragraph 1329*. But it’s not true that every time breaking of bread is mentioned that they’re talking about the Lord's supper. This is particularly true in 2.46: "They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."
The Church is to be commended for paragraph 952 (re: Acts 4.32): "Everything the true Christian has is to be regarded as a good possessed in common with everyone else. All Christians should be ready and eager to come to the help of the needy … and of their neighbors in want [Roman Catechism I, 10, 27]."
In sum, I learned a lot through this little exercise. Will I continue it as I read through these commentaries? That remains to be seen; the commentary on John has many more cross-references, and the process will be tedious.
I didn’t realize when I started reading these commentaries that they are aimed at lay people and endorsed by the Catholic Church, having received the official *Nihil Obstat* and *Imprimatur*, meaning the Church recognizes it as free from doctrinal or moral error. The fact that a critical scholar such as Collins could get past the Catholic censors surprised me somewhat, but doing a little searching I found that in fact the Church does embrace historical-critical methods of studying the Bible. That didn’t seem to be much in evidence in the Acts volume, where nearly everything in seemed to be taken at face value, at least on my first reading.
I was wondering if I was being unfair in this evaluation. So, after reading a couple other short commentaries in my library (the article on Acts in the *New Oxford Bible Commentary* by Loveday Alexander, and the commentary on Acts in the *New Interpreter's Bible* by Robert W. Wall) I decided I would give this commentary by *Dennis Hamm* another try. It’s a quick enough read—about an hour if you skip the text of Acts. I decided I was being unfair in my first evaluation. Hamm admits that we should not read these commentaries speeches in Acts as though they were transcripts of taped speeches; an important point.
Concerning the controversial "we" sections, Hamm twice says that they reflect the author's (Luke's) personal experiences with Paul. "Ancient historians were eager to mark their presence at events when they had grounds for such claims. We have no evidence that such claims are groundless", and, "We have no evidence of the 'we' form used as a literary convention in ancient history writing by authors who are not describing their own experience." Nonetheless it seems that Thucydides used the collective "we" to signal what the Athenian assembly or the army was doing, rather than recounting his own firsthand exploits as a general in the Peloponnesian War. Other commentators are not as certain. So as not to beg any questions, Lovejoy Alexander refers to the author of the "we" sections as the we-narrator.
Concerning the discrepancies in the three narrations of Saul's Damascus road experience Hamm claims that these are not the discrepancies of a negligent author but variations of an artist in full control of his material. Alexander agrees: "Ancient educational practice placed high value on the ability to introduce variety into the retelling of well-known stories." So does Wall: "The primary problem of the 3 narratives of Saul's Damascus road experience is not how best to harmonize or explain its discrepant details, but how its repetition more fully defines the prophetic vocation of Paul in Acts." Lawrence Richards, though, in typical bull-headed evangelical fashion, insists on harmonizing the accounts by interpreting the differing accounts as either understanding the voice, or hearing the sound. In a footnote, Wall notes that evangelical scholar Ben Witherington also tries to force the passages into harmony. Hamm's approach is much more productive, and I appreciated his observation that the variations and details in the language of the third telling of Saul's experience are far more than an effort at literary variety. The language about light, darkness, and seeing participates in a consistent symbolic theme carrying symbolic implications, and the blinding light in the first two telling has become a metaphor for a light to the gentiles
Acts contains many interpretive difficulties which Hamm avoids, perhaps because of the intended audience and perhaps because of the Catholic censors. As an example, Hamm passes over 23.8-9 with little comment, but Robert W. Wall claims that these verses are problematic, because there is little evidence that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels or spirits. (Both of these are found in the Torah.) Hamm also avoids such well-known problems as the conflicting accounts of Judas’s suicide in Luke and Matthew, whether Paul would circumcise Timothy or take part in a Nazirite vow, or whether Paul was truly a Roman citizen.
Was this book worth reading? Yes, I think so, although for a serious student this series can only be supplemental to more robust commentaries. I appreciated Hamm giving the nod to Luke Timothy Johnson, James D. G. Dunn, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Ben Witherington, scholars also frequently referred to by Wall in his longer commentary. While much of the material in this commentary was just pointing out the obvious, there were points I felt worthy of writing into my notes. For example, "Luke narrates the Ascension from two points of view." I appreciated that Hamm did not try to reconcile the discrepancy. The observation that the Athenians may have thought Jesus was preaching two new gods, Jēsous and (his consort?) Anastasis was not a new one to me, but it is good to be reminded. The idea that the reconstituted 12 will judge the reconstituted people of Israel after Pentecost is a new one to me, and I don’t know how well it floats.
These commentaries are inexpensive enough, and so far they have been a good investment. The next one I will read, I suppose, will be the one on Revelation.
[update 6/30/2026] It was not until I had read my fourth book in this series (on Revelation) that I realized that certain Bible passages were cross-referenced with paragraphs from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Looking up these cross-references is an excellent way to educate oneself on the doctrines of the Catholic Church. So I decided to revisit this book and engage in this admittedly somewhat tedious exercise.
Things got interesting right off the bat with the Church's interpretation of Acts 1.3. Paragraph 659 says Jesus's final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven. On Acts 1.11, paragraph 665 says that Christ's ascension marks the definite entrance of Jesus's humanity into God's heavenly domain. This contrastswith what preterist Randall Otto says in his book *Coming in the Clouds*. If I am understanding Otto correctly, he believes that Jesus always embodied divine glory, but this glory was veiled in human flesh. Nor does Otto believe that Jesus entered into an irreversible glorious state at the Ascension, but rather Jesus can put off his glorious state to become visible.
What paragraph 673 says concerning Acts 1.7, that since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent, seems to contradict what paragraph 674 says (Acts 3.19-21): "The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel'." However, this understanding of "imminent" has long confused me.
In her commentary on Revelation, Catherine Cory cites three interpretations of the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation 12: Eve, Mary, the Church. All three seem to be evident in paragraph 726 "At the end of this mission of the Spirit, Mary becomes the Woman, the new Eve ('mother of the living'), the mother of the 'whole Christ' (re. Acts 1.14)."
Paragraph 597, "Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’s death," was cross referenced with Acts 2.23; 3.13-14, 17; 4.10; and 7.52. However if you read those passages you can see that Jews are being addressed collectively. In each case the group being addressed contains substantial numbers of Jews that were not present at Jesus's trial or death, probably most of them were not present.
Also a stretch is the cross-reference to infant baptism for Acts 18.8: "Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." It is simply an assumption that Crispus's household included infants. To be fair, the commentary put an asterisk by the paragraph number in the Catechism: 1252*, which is supposed to mean that the paragraph paraphrases the scripture quote. But I don’t think there’s getting around the fact that there is no infant baptism in Acts 18.8, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter.
The Church says in paragraph 788 (re: Acts 2.33) that as a result of the sending of the Spirit, communication with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense. More intense than being in Jesus's personal presence? I’m going to have to have someone explain that to me.
The Church finds the Lord's Supper in Acts 2.46; and 20.7, 11; see paragraph 1329*. But it’s not true that every time breaking of bread is mentioned that they’re talking about the Lord's supper. This is particularly true in 2.46: "They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."
The Church is to be commended for paragraph 952 (re: Acts 4.32): "Everything the true Christian has is to be regarded as a good possessed in common with everyone else. All Christians should be ready and eager to come to the help of the needy … and of their neighbors in want [Roman Catechism I, 10, 27]."
In sum, I learned a lot through this little exercise. Will I continue it as I read through these commentaries? That remains to be seen; the commentary on John has many more cross-references, and the process will be tedious.
March 13, 2026
Surprisingly good commentary for how short this text is. Thank God I wasn't more attentive when looking at the edition notice because I saw "NRSV" and thought "great", but it was only the author's quotations that were lifted from the NRSV. The text of Acts of the Apostles itself is lifted from the New American Bible. Considering it is a Catholic commentary, I shouldn't have expected less.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews