Issues in Luke-Acts: Selected Essays 9781463223984

Citation preview

Issues in Luke-Acts

Gorgias Handbooks

26 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

The Gorgias Handbooks series provides students and scholars with textbooks and reference books useful for the classroom and for research.

Issues in Luke-Acts

Selected Essays

Edited by

Sean A. Adams Michael Pahl

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2012

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-60724-160-7

ISSN 1935-6838

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Issues in Luke-Acts : selected essays / edited by Sean Adams ; edited by Michael Pahl. p. cm. -- (Gorgias handbooks, ISSN 1935-6838) Includes indexes. 1. Bible. N.T. Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. Acts--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Adams, Sean A. II. Pahl, Michael W. BS2589.I37 2012 226.4'06--dc23 2012014736 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Contributors ............................................................................................................... vii Preface ........................................................................................................................ xi Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................xiii Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Sean A. Adams and Michael W. Pahl The Author and Date of Luke-Acts: Exploring the Options........................... 7 Frank Dicken The Unity of Luke-Acts: One Work, One Author, One Purpose? ......................................................................................................... 27 Joseph Verheyden The Text of Luke and Acts: Witnesses, Features, and the Significance of the Textual Traditions ...................................................... 51 Dieter T. Roth The Sources for Luke and Acts: Where Did Luke Get His Material (and Why Does it Matter)? .......................................................... 73 Brandon D. Crowe The Genre of Luke and Acts: The State of the Question .............................. 97 Sean A. Adams The Narrative of Luke-Acts: Getting to Know the Savior God .................121 F. Scott Spencer The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts: Luke’s Scriptural Story of the “Things Accomplished among Us”...................................147 Kenneth D. Litwak v

vi

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

The Speeches in Acts: Historicity, Theology, and Genre .............................171 Osvaldo Padilla The Pneumatology of Luke-Acts: The Spirit of Prophecy Unleashed ....................................................................................................195 David G. Peterson Christology in Acts: Jesus in Early Christian Belief and Practice ................217 Larry W. Hurtado Paul in Acts: The Prophetic Portrait of Paul ..................................................239 Carl N. Toney The Patristic Reception of Luke and Acts: Scholarship, Theology, and Moral Exhortation in the Homilies of Origen and Chrysostom ............................................................................263 Karl Shuve Luke-Acts and “Early Catholicism”: Eschatological and Ecclesiological Trajectories in the Early Church...................................287 Thomas Keene Index of Scripture and Ancient Writings ..................................................................311 Index of Authors .....................................................................................................333

CONTRIBUTORS Sean A. Adams (Ph.D., Edinburgh) is a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, U.K. His main areas of research include the relationship between the New Testament and Greco-Roman literature. He is the author of The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (forthcoming). Brandon D. Crowe (Ph.D., Edinburgh) is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, U.S.A. He is the author of The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew (de Gruyter, forthcoming). Frank Dicken is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Edinburgh, U.K. He is currently writing his thesis on the characterization of the Herodian rulers in Luke-Acts. His interests include literary criticism of Luke-Acts, imperial Rome, and the writings of Josephus. He is the author of articles on Herod Antipas, Archelaus, Philip the Tetrarch, Agrippa I, and Agrippa II in the Lexham Bible Dictionary. Larry W. Hurtado (Ph.D., Case Western; F.R.S.E.) is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, U.K. He is the author of Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003), How on Earth did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Eerdmans, 2005), and God in New Testament Theology (Abingdon, 2010). Thomas Keene (Ph.D., Westminster) is Lecturer in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, U.S.A. His interests include the eschatology of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and allegorical and typological approaches to hermeneutics. He is a contributor to The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Baker, forthcoming). vii

viii

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Kenneth D. Litwak (Ph.D., Trinity College, Bristol) is the author of Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (T&T Clark, 2005), and a contributor to several academic and reference works. His main areas of interest include Luke-Acts, the role of the Scriptures of Israel in the New Testament, and intertextuality. Osvaldo Padilla (Ph.D., Aberdeen) is Assistant Professor of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, in Birmingham, U.S.A. His research interests include Luke-Acts, Matthew, 1 Peter, suffering and mission, and ancient and modern historiography. He is the author of The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology, and Historiography (Cambridge University Press, 2008). Michael W. Pahl (Ph.D., Birmingham) is Associate Professor of Theological Studies at Cedarville University, U.S.A. He is the author of Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (T&T Clark, 2009) and co-editor of The Sacred Text: Excavating the Texts, Exploring the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures (Gorgias, 2010), with Michael F. Bird. David G. Peterson (Ph.D., Manchester) is a research fellow in New Testament linked to Moore College, Sydney, Australia. He is the author of Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Intervarsity, 1992), Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (InterVarsity, 1995), Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, edited with I. Howard Marshall (Eerdmans, 1998), and The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 2009). Dieter T. Roth (Ph.D., Edinburgh) is Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Johannes GutenbergUniversität in Mainz, Germany. His interests include textual criticism, Marcion’s Gospel, parables, and Q. He is the author of numerous articles in Expository Times, Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal of Theological Studies, Vigiliae Christianae, and Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Karl Shuve (Ph.D., Edinburgh) is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, U.S.A. His teaching and research treat the intersection of biblical interpretation, the development of doctrine, and cultural and intellectual history in late antique Christianity. F. Scott Spencer (Ph.D., Durham) is Professor of New Testament and Preaching at Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond,

CONTRIBUTORS

ix

U.S.A. In addition to Lukan studies, his interests include the role of women in the New Testament and intertextual links between the Old and New Testaments. He is author of Journeying through Acts: A Literary-Cultural Reading (Hendrickson, 2004), The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (Abingdon, 2008), and a forthcoming volume on women in Luke’s Gospel (Eerdmans). Carl N. Toney (Ph.D., Loyola Chicago) is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Graduate Ministry Program at Hope International University in Fullerton, U.S.A. His interests include Pauline literature and rhetorical criticism. He is the author of Paul’s Inclusive Ethic (Mohr-Siebeck, 2008) and co-author with Ralph P. Martin of a commentary on 2 Corinthians (Tyndale, 2009). Joseph Verheyden (D.Theol., Leuven) is Professor of New Testament Studies in the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, The Netherlands. His research interests include Synoptic studies, extra-canonical literature, and the reception history of the New Testament in the early church.

PREFACE Editing a volume on current issues related to Luke and Acts has made us acutely aware that we who are currently engaged in scholarship owe much to those who have gone before us. Not only do our theories build on previous ones, but we have each sat at the feet of other scholars and learned from their experiences and training. As a result, we would like to thank the Lukan scholars who have preceded us, to whom we owe much. We would also like to thank all the scholars who have contributed to this volume and assisted in its production. Sean A. Adams and Michael W. Pahl March 2012

xi

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABRL ACCS ACNT AnBib ANQ ANRW

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament Analecta biblica Andover Newton Quarterly Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries ANTF Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung BBR Bulletin of Biblical Research BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BWA(N)T Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBR Currents in Biblical Research CJA Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove, 1992 DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F., Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, D. G. Reid. Downers Grove, 1993 EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G. Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993 ESEC Emory Studies in Early Christianity ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses EvQ Evangelical Quarterly EvT Evangelische Theologie xiii

xiv ExpTim FRLANT GCS GNC GNS HNT HTR HTS IBT ICC Int JAAR JAOS JBL JPTSup JRS JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JSPSup JTS JTSA KEK LCL LD LEC LNTS LPS LSJ LXX MT NIBCNT

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte Good News Commentary Good News Studies Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Interpreting Biblical Texts International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Library of Early Christianity Library of New Testament Studies Library of Pauline Studies Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Septuagint Masoretic Text New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament

ABBREVIATIONS NIGTC NovT NovTSup NPNF1 NSBT NT NTM NTP NTS NTTS NTTSD OG OT PNTC SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SNT SNTSMS SNTSU SNTW SP SSEJC StudNeot SUNT SwJT TNTC TU TynBul VE WBC WUNT ZNW

xv

New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1 New Studies in Biblical Theology New Testament New Testament Monographs New Testament Profiles New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents Old Greek Old Testament Pillar New Testament Commentary Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Studies of the New Testament and Its World Sacra pagina Studies in Early Judaism and Christianity Studia neotestimentica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Southwestern Journal of Theology Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin Vox Evangelica Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

INTRODUCTION Sean A. Adams and Michael W. Pahl

EVOLVING ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS The Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles are again coming into prominence within the world of New Testament (NT) scholarship. This is not to say that Lukan scholarship has been dormant—by no means is this the case—but it is simply to note that scholarship on Luke and Acts is in a state of renewed vigor and wider attention than in the recent past. Not only have there been several important monographs published in recent years which have received broad interest,1 but there are also a number of commentaries on Luke and Acts slated for publication in the near future.2 At times like these articles on the current state of scholarship are valuable not only to take stock of where scholarship is at but also to anticipate where scholarship may be heading. For there can be no doubt that scholarship on Luke and Acts has evolved considerably over the past several decades and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. To be sure, many of the questions remain the same. Who wrote Luke and Acts, and when? Should we consider Luke and Acts two distinct works, even if written by the same hand, or should we consider them to be E.g. C. Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the GraecoRoman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), which received focused attention at the annual meetings of both the British New Testament Society (September, 2010) and the Society of Biblical Literature (November, 2010). 2 E.g. Craig Keener’s multi-volume commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012–). 1

1

2

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

“Luke-Acts,” a unified, two-volume work? What are we to make of the rather unusual textual tradition of Acts? What genres are the Gospel and Acts, and how should we then read them? What should we make of Luke’s Christology, his soteriology, his pneumatology, or his ecclesiology? How do the speeches function in Acts? How should we relate the depiction of Paul in Acts to the Paul we know from his letters? These and similar questions continue to be in the minds of Lukan scholars. But new answers are proposed for these questions, and new questions are crowding for attention. As an example of the former—new answers for old questions—one could note the issue of genre. At one time it might have been simply assumed that Acts was some form of ancient Greco-Roman history. Over the past few decades, however, this has become less clear-cut. Is Acts a history, a biography, an epic, or even a novel? And as for the latter—new questions demanding answers—wider movements in biblical scholarship have caught Lukan scholarship in their wake, prompting narrative approaches to Luke-Acts, a renewed focus on Luke’s use of the Jewish Scriptures, the reception of Luke and Acts in the early church, and more.

THE PRESENT CONTRIBUTION The task of this volume, then, is to provide brief introductions to several of these complex issues surrounding the study of Luke and Acts. The essays contained in this volume are not designed to be exhaustive, nor are they necessarily breaking new interpretive ground. Rather, they are intended to orient the reader to some of the more important scholarly issues and to provide a framework by which the reader can approach the particular topic. Each essay, therefore, introduces major players in the field and provides a summary of their argumentation and contribution to the subject. Additionally, theories and approaches are often critiqued in order to show some of the weaknesses of these models and to outline the developing scholarly trends that have forced scholars to reevaluate older theories in light of new methodological approaches. Sometimes these new approaches expose faulty presuppositions; other times (and this is more often the case) new theories build on the findings of previous scholars to provide a more nuanced understanding of the topic. Ultimately, these essays are designed to provide an overview of the topic and to inspire

INTRODUCTION

3

further investigation by the reader. To this end, there is a short bibliography at the conclusion of each essay which highlights a handful of books or articles that the essay’s author considers to be formative in the field and deserving of closer inspection. The volume opens with Frank Dicken outlining the various scholarly positions on the author and date of Luke and Acts. Dicken evaluates these positions through a detailed analysis of secondcentury sources. Dicken concludes that, despite the widespread agreement of the early Church Fathers, we still do not know who wrote Luke and Acts. Regarding the date of Luke and Acts, Dicken argues for a range of 75–90 CE based on internal and external references. The second article, “The Unity of Luke-Acts” written by Joseph Verheyden, provides a general overview to the unity question through an interaction with recent scholarship. Beginning with an overview of Henry J. Cadbury’s position, Verheyden outlines and evaluates a number of unity theories based on theology, genre, and sources. The final part of the essay discusses new avenues of discussion that have emerged in recent years: the dating of Acts, authorial language use, and the textual tradition(s) of Luke and Acts. Following this is Dieter T. Roth’s article “The Text of Luke and Acts,” which outlines the difficulties in reconstructing the textual histories of Luke and Acts. Roth opens his discussion of Luke by identifying the papyrological fragments current available. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the so-called “Western” text type as well as Marcion’s influence on the text of Luke’s Gospel. The second half of the article explores the textual tradition of Acts, noting the more recent critical concerns with determining the significance of specific variants and the interpretation of particular manuscripts. “The Sources of Luke and Acts,” written by Brandon Crowe, is the fourth contribution to this volume. Crowe begins by defining what constitutes a source for Luke, examining the criteria scholars have used to determine the presence of a source in Luke or Acts. Crowe then outlines the major theories (Augustinian, Griesbach, Two-Source, Four-Source, Farrer-Goulder) that have been advanced to explain the “Synoptic Problem.” Crowe proceeds to discuss the role of the Old Testament as a source for Luke and Acts. Remaining in Acts, Crowe discusses the suggested sources behind

4

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the Acts narrative (Jerusalem, Antiochene, speeches, “we”) and evaluates their viability as sources for Acts. Sean A. Adams’ article, “The Genre of Luke and Acts,” outlines recent scholarly perspectives on genre. Beginning with a brief caveat regarding the nature of genre in the ancient world, Adams divides his article into two parts. In the first half, Adams deals with the genre of Luke and the dominant perspective of Luke as biography as established by the work of Richard Burridge. In the second part, Adams identifies and evaluates the proposals of Acts as history, novel, epic, and biography, arguing for a greater emphasis on the perspective of Acts as biography. F. Scott Spencer’s “The Narrative of Luke-Acts” traces the narrative development of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the subsequent ministry of his disciples through a united reading of Luke-Acts. Highlighting the distinct contours of the Lukan double narrative, Spencer expertly leads his readers through a whirlwind tour of Luke-Acts with a hope for them to “know with certainty” Luke’s presentation of Jesus and God. Spencer concludes with a bold claim: Luke’s narrative builds awareness and assurance, knowledge and solidity, of the magnanimous breadth of God’s salvation in Christ, inexorably bursting through barriers of smallmindedness, social prejudice and political oppression and destined to proceed “unlimitedly (ἀκωλύτως)”—literally, the last word in Acts—until the ultimate restoration of all things. The narrative ends not so much with a stop sign as with a bold arrow pointing to the climactic “hope of resurrection.”

Following this is Kenneth D. Litwak’s chapter “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts.” Here, after a brief discussion of terms and text forms, Litwak describes the primary ways in which Luke’s use of the Scriptures of Israel has been understood in some significant recent works. Litwak argues that there are multiple ways scholars approach Luke-Acts in order to understand Luke’s scriptural hermeneutics, and organizes them into three broad perspectives: proof-from-prophecy, intertextuality, and “other approaches.” Litwak concludes by identifying areas that need further study. The subject of “The Speeches of Acts” is tackled next by Osvaldo Padilla. This chapter concentrates on tracing the place of the speeches in Acts scholarship from the period of F. C. Baur to the present by investigating the writings of a number of prominent

INTRODUCTION

5

Lukan scholars. To this end, Padilla examines the speeches in relation to what he believes are the three most researched aspects of speech scholarship, namely, historicity, theology, and genre. Padilla then identifies areas for future investigation, emphasizing the need for a study of the speeches in the early Church Fathers. Turning to theological concerns, David G. Peterson’s article on “The Pneumatology of Luke-Acts” seeks to map out this hotly debated topic. Recognizing that this study is foundational to certain theological traditions (e.g., Pentecostal and Charismatic churches), Peterson engages in a close reading of the text in an attempt to determine Luke’s perspective on the Spirit. In order to facilitate this inquiry, Peterson draws upon background studies and narrative criticism to frame his study of the text. Peterson claims that Luke’s distinctive teaching about the person and work of the Holy Spirit is best uncovered through a progressive examination of his two volumes and this forms the structure of the article. Another theological topic that has received much attention in recent decades is Christology. As Christology in Acts has received less attention than the Christology of Luke’s Gospel, Larry W. Hurtado focuses on this topic in his article. Hurtado examines the beliefs and claims about Jesus reflected in Acts as well as the place of Jesus in the religious life of the author and earliest readers as evidenced in Acts’ reported devotional practices. Regarding the former, Hurtado suggests that the variety of Christological claims and beliefs in Acts points to the author seeking to represent a certain spectrum of early Christian Christological expressions and affirmations and to reflect specifics of the Christological discourse of various circles of believers and in various settings. As for the devotional practices, Hurtado argues that these indicate a very exalted view of Jesus. Carl N. Toney’s essay, “Paul in Acts,” compares the portraits of Paul in Acts and in his letters. Challenging some of the arguments and presuppositions of Ernst Haenchen and Philipp Vielhauer, Toney provides a brief introduction to the topics of the “Life of Paul” (Gentile mission, miracle worker, orator, apostleship, Jewish opposition, Roman citizenship) and “Paul’s Theology” (natural theology, law, Christology, eschatology). The final part of the essay draws on the works of Stanley Porter, Thomas E. Phillips, and Jacob Jervell, outlining the portrait of Paul in Acts (name and family, profession, orthodox Jew, noble Greek

6

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

character, Damascus road, apostleship, travel, team, missionary speeches, etc.). Toney argues that Acts presents Paul as a prophetic figure like Jesus, whose life and message proclaim God’s faithfulness to keep his promises to Israel, which now includes Gentiles. Karl Shuve’s “The Patristic Reception of Luke and Acts” offers an analysis of the “scholarship” of Luke and Acts by two of the most important biblical exegetes of the early church: Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254 CE) and John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407 CE). In doing so Shuve gives a sense of the issues that early Christians faced in explaining the importance of these books to their congregations and demonstrates how these two books contributed to the development of Christian thought and practice in Late Antiquity. This focus on the actual use of Luke and Acts by early Christians, rather than simply their reception, provides an in-depth model of how early church scholars interpreted these books and how they functioned in their development of theology and defense against encroaching heresies. The final article in this volume is Thomas Keene’s “Luke-Acts and Early Catholicism.” Keene first offers a brief overview of the origin of the question, focusing particularly on where matters stand at present. Second, Keene evaluates the various scholarly concerns within the discussion. It is at this point that Keene provides a classification of the markers that scholars have used to identify “early catholic” concerns. Though these features vary from scholar to scholar, Keene focuses on the two key determiners: a diminishing hope in the parousia and an increasing emphasis on institutionalism. In his conclusion, Keene returns to the present state of the question in order to determine the usefulness of the debate and to suggest future trajectories. The essays collected here reflect but a sample of the questions and answers prompted by close, critical readings of Luke and Acts. We trust this volume will be useful to all who are currently engaged in Lukan studies, whether you are beginning your foray into the world of Lukan scholarship or you are already an acknowledged master of its terrain.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS: EXPLORING THE OPTIONS Frank Dicken

Questions of author and date for most of the New Testament (NT) documents are notoriously difficult to answer. With the exception of Hebrews and 1–3 John, the epistles contain the names of their authors, but some of these may be pseudepigraphal. None of the Gospels name an author; the only attribution of authorship in the Gospels is the enigmatic (and problematic) “disciple who testifies concerning these things” in John 21:24. The traditional ascriptions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were assigned several decades after the writings were composed. These ascriptions may have been based on reliable tradition, but without earlier corroborating evidence, we may continue to be skeptical. The date of NT documents is even more difficult to ascertain. Our evidence for dating the writings of the NT is based on an incomplete historical record pieced together from what we can glean from the documents themselves, often having to read between the lines of those documents, and deducing probabilities based on that information. In very few cases can we be certain of a date. Luke and Acts are not exempt from these problems. In this essay I will present the major issues surrounding the questions of authorship and date of Luke and Acts while interacting with current scholarship, and offer some tentative conclusions.1 1 It is generally assumed that the same author wrote both books. Even Mikeal Parsons and Richard Pervo, who wish to separate Luke and Acts on generic, narrative and theological grounds agree that the two works share an author (Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts [Minneapolis:

7

8

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

THE AUTHOR OF LUKE-ACTS Luke-Acts provides very little information about the author, though the prologue to the Gospel offers two details. Luke 1:1–4 indicates that the author was male2 and was not an eyewitness to the events he recorded.3 This is all we can know for certain regarding the author of Luke-Acts from the writings themselves. Though he would have been known to Theophilus, the author did not identify himself in the document. There are essentially two options regarding the identity of the author of Luke-Acts. The first is Luke, the physician and occasional travelling companion of Paul.4 From the late second century CE to the modern period this has been the preferred option.5 The second option, held by critical scholars in the modern period (but by no means ubiquitously) is that the author of these documents is unknown.6 These two options will now be explored.

Fortress, 1993]). See also the essay in this volume on the unity of LukeActs. 2 Indicated by the masculine participle παρηκολουθηκότι. 3 François Bovon, Luke 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002), 8. 4 Paul lists a Luke among his co-workers (Phlm 24; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). In these passages we learn that Luke was a physician and an occasional travelling companion of Paul. Further, we may deduce that Luke was a Gentile based on Col 4:10–14. The author of that passage claims that Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus who is called Justus are his Jewish coworkers leaving us to conclude that the others listed there (Epaphras, Luke, and Demas) are Gentiles. This information, however, tells us nothing about the authorship of Luke-Acts. 5 Those who hold this traditional view include Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 114–118; D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 113–15. 6 For example Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 50; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 33.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

9

The Argument in Favor of Lukan Authorship The view that Luke wrote these books rests primarily on connecting three interrelated arguments: 1) that the “we sections” of Acts preserve the author’s eyewitness accounts of the events narrated in those sections; 2) that when the “we sections” are read alongside Paul’s Prison Epistles we can narrow the pool of potential candidates; and 3) that the testimony of early Christian authors attributing authorship of the third Gospel and Acts to the same Luke of the Prison Epistles is trustworthy. In four instances, the author of Acts narrates in the first person plural instead of the typical third person. These pericopae have come to be known as the “we sections” of Acts (16:10–17; 20:5– 15; 21:1–18; 27:1—28:16). For many who maintain Lukan authorship, these passages reflect first-hand testimony of one of Paul’s travelling companions.7 Typically, the argument in favor of Lukan authorship claims that since the author was with Paul during these times it is highly unlikely that his name would appear in these sections; thus Silas, Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are eliminated as possibilities. Additionally, this position maintains that since Acts ends with a “we section” the author was with Paul during the apostle’s Roman imprisonment and therefore is one of the individuals named in the Prison Epistles8 but not Acts—Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Epaphroditus, or Luke. This pool of candidates is narrowed further by appeal to early church traditions which ascribed Luke-Acts to Luke.9 Beginning in the late second century, Christian authors consistently attribute Luke-Acts to the Luke of the Prison Epistles.10 7 See Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1979), 66; Guthrie, Introduction, 116–17. 8 Philippians, Philemon, Ephesians and Colossians. 9 Colin Hemer has compiled a list of archaeological and historical data that is not normally considered in assessing the “we sections” (“First Person Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 36 [1985]: 79–109). However, his conclusion that the amount of detail in the narrative of Acts 27–28 could not have been reproduced from a source is drawn too quickly and does not account for the author’s own claim to use sources (Luke 1:1–4). 10 See the extensive and very useful lists of external witnesses to Luke-Acts in Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of The Apostles (Oxford: Basil

10

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Five key examples will serve to illustrate this point. In Adversus haeresus 3.1.1 and 3.14.1 (ca. 180 CE) Irenaeus names Luke as the author of these two works and was the first to base his claims on an analysis of the “we sections” as outlined above. To support his claim he states that Luke’s Gospel was based on Paul’s preaching just as Mark’s Gospel was based on Peter’s. The second witness to Lukan authorship, dating to approximately the same time as Irenaeus, is the Muratorian Canon. This fragmentary text states that Luke composed his Gospel shortly after Jesus’ ascension and that the events described in Acts took place during the author’s lifetime.11 Another late second-century document that names Luke as the author of the third Gospel is the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue.12 Fourth, dating to ca. 207–208 CE, is Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem 4.2, which assumes that Luke wrote the Gospel that bears his name. Finally, on the leaf of P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV/XV, ca. 175–225 CE) containing the end of the Gospel of Luke a scribe has added the words ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ.13 These witnesses demonstrate the tradition of connecting the third Gospel and Acts to Luke and indicate that by the turn of the third century CE this tradition was well established. We may safely assume that this tradition predated these witnesses by several years and conclude that the association of Luke with the canonical

Blackwell, 1971), 3–14; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles I–XIV, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 30–48. 11 For a brief overview of the Muratorian Canon, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 37, though some claim that this is actually a fourth century document. 12 This document adds several traditions concerning Luke stating that he was from Syrian Antioch, a disciple of the apostles, a follower of Paul until Paul’s death, and that he composed his Gospel in Achaia. Further, the text claims that Luke was a faithful Christian, unmarried, childless, filled with the Holy Spirit, and died in Boeotia. See Haenchen, Acts, 10–11 for an overview of this prologue; see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), 9; Bovon, Luke 1, 9 on the date of the prologue. 13 See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 303–304 on the titles of the Gospels.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

11

books of Luke and Acts arose no later than the mid-second century. The claims of these early Christian witnesses, coupled with the analysis of the “we sections” described above, provide the evidence for the traditional ascription of Luke-Acts to Luke, the beloved physician and occasional companion of Paul. Additionally, some claim that the choice of Luke as the author seems more likely because he is such an unlikely candidate, particularly in the early church when canonicity was often tied to apostolicity.14 The Argument against Lukan Authorship Maintaining that Luke composed the third Gospel and Acts based on the line of reasoning outlined above is plausible, but it is not conclusive. First, arguing against Lukan authorship is the fact that the document is unsigned and that there is no internal claim to authorship in either Luke or Acts.15 Based on this alone one should be hesitant to assign a particular authorial name to these books. Also, we should note a few assumptions that undergird the above argument. The first assumption is that the “we sections” are Luke’s actual eyewitness testimony. This is not necessarily the case; the “we sections” may be a literary convention or perhaps are based on one of the author’s sources (cf. Luke 1:1–4). Furthermore, an eyewitness would likely have been more explicit about his participation in events he deemed so significant.16 A second assumption is that the Prison Epistles were written by Paul during the Roman imprisonment narrated in Acts 28. The Pauline authorship of Philippians and Philemon is unquestioned, but the authorship of Colossians and especially Ephesians is less certain and the provenance of all 14 Stanley Porter, “Luke: Companion or Disciple of Paul?,” in Paul and the Gospels (ed. M. Bird and J. Willits; LNTS 411; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 149; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 113; Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 13. 15 Porter, “Companion or Disciple?,” 147. 16 Compare to Josephus, J.W. 1.3, 22. See also Susan Marie Praeder, “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts,” NovT 29 (1987): 208, 216, who states in reference to the lack of the first person singular, “If Acts is a first person ancient history, then it is alone in its lack of first person [singular] participation.”

12

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

four letters is up for debate.17 A third assumption, which builds on the first two, is that the author of Luke-Acts was named in the Prison Epistles. Paul had many co-workers and travelling companions and Λουκας was a very common name; why must the author of these two books be one of those named in the epistles? Even if the author is named in the Prison Epistles, all that this provides is a potential pool of candidates, not a definitive indication. Fourth, while it is true that early Christian tradition consistently attributes Luke-Acts to Luke, the assumption is that the tradition, which did not arise until at least several decades after Luke and Acts were composed, is accurate. Although the Gospel of Luke was known to writers before the mid-second century our record of the attribution to Luke did not occur until the last quarter of the second century (though the tradition would have arisen earlier). Also, we must remember that the early Christian writings cited above were apologetic texts attempting to refute what they deemed heretical and to establish an apostolic link to certain writings, in this case, Paul via Luke.18 While for us Luke may not seem the most logical choice as a link to Paul, the recurrence of his name in epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul and the ability to tie him to the “we-sections” made him a likely candidate for the early apologists. Several additional objections to Lukan authorship could be made. For instance, scholars have posited alternate explanations for the “we sections” of Acts in order to demonstrate that these passages do not reflect the author’s eyewitness testimony.19 Several scholars have advanced the hypothesis that the “we sections” are literary creations of the writer meant to involve the reader in the narrative and/or add color to the stories.20 In his classic essay 17 See Rainer Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul (ed. S. Westerholm; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 9–29. 18 Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (London: Yale University Press, 1995), 107. 19 See the overview in Michael Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts: Differences and Distance,” ExpTim 122 (2011): 427. 20 Of course, one could argue that the “we sections” are eyewitness testimony to which the author has added his own literary flare, but based on the evidence available to us this would be unprecedented. See note 16 above.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

13

Vernon Robbins attempted to show that “we sections” were common to narratives involving sea voyages in ancient literature,21 but his hypothesis has been thoroughly critiqued.22 François Bovon states that the author has employed the first person plural in these instances “to substantiate the credibility of the story and to heighten its vividness.”23 Richard Pervo’s analysis of the genre of Acts concludes that throughout the book historical events have been embellished by the author in order to add entertaining elements to the work.24 Given the author’s literary prowess, this remains an attractive option.25 Other scholars have hypothesized that the “we sections” are based on one of the author’s many sources utilized in the composition of Luke-Acts.26 Haenchen believes that the “we sections” (particularly Acts 27–28) are literary creations based on several diaries or travelogues.27 Porter has concluded that a single “we” source

Vernon K. Robbins, “By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. C. H. Talbert; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 215–42. 22 Stanley Porter, “The ‘We’ Passages,” in The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (ed. D. W. J. Gill and C. Gempf; The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 548–558; Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 18–20; Hemer, “First Person Narrative,” 84–85, 107–108; Praeder, “First Person Narration,” 208–10; Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts,” 428; Robert Maddox [The Purpose of Luke-Acts (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982], 7) states plainly that there are no ancient parallels of the “we sections.” 23 Bovon, Luke 1, 8. 24 Richard I. Pervo, Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 138. 25 Also see William Sanger Campbell, “The Narrator as ‘He,’ ‘Me,’ and ‘We’: Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles,” JBL 129 (2010): 385–407. 26 A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The We-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,” ZNW 93 (2002): 78–98; C. K. Barrett, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus,” ExpTim 88 (1976): 4; Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 22. Hemer (“First Person Narrative,” 104) dislikes both the literary and the source theories because of the amount of detail given in Acts 27–28; see n. 9 above. 27 Haenchen, Acts, 85–87. 21

14

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

stands behind the narratives.28 The fact that the author claims to rely on eyewitness accounts as sources makes this option probable.29 In fact, we might combine the literary and source theories and imagine the author utilizing a “we” source (or sources) among many others and creatively incorporating them into the larger narrative.30 In any event, whether the “we sections” are the author’s own creation, taken over from a source or some combination thereof, for those who do not subscribe to Lukan authorship these passages do not reflect the author’s own eyewitness testimony. The apparent discrepancies between the theology and history of Acts regarding Paul when compared to first-hand information found in the Pauline Epistles form a major objection to Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts.31 On this account we must be careful to differentiate between whether or not the author knew Paul personally (something we cannot know) and whether or not the author made use of the Pauline Epistles in his writing. Also, neither the author’s personal acquaintance with Paul nor his use of the Pauline Epistles proves that the author was the same Luke mentioned in the Prison Epistles. Since it is impossible to know if the author of Luke-Acts knew Paul personally (and if the “we-sections” are not eyewitness testimony, unlikely), I will proceed by exploring the literary relationship between the Pauline Epistles and Luke-Acts. Scholarly opinions concerning Lukan dependence on the Pauline Epistles have varied widely. Concerning the author of Luke-Acts and his knowledge of the Pauline Epistles, perspectives include: 1) that the author had no knowledge of the epistles;32 2) that the author knew the epistles but did not make use of them;33 Porter, “‘We’ Passages.” See Luke 1:1–4 and Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 569. 30 See Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 392–396; Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM Press, 1956), 104–105, 204–206. 31 For the sake of engaging the scholarly arguments, here I am referring to the so-called undisputed Pauline letters: Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. For more on Paul and Acts, see the essay in this volume and refer to the notes below. 32 Barrett, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus”; Haenchen, Acts, 112–16. 33 John Knox, “Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays presented in honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 28 29

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

15

3) that the author knew the epistles and reinterpreted the ideas contained therein;34 4) that the author was directly dependent on some of the epistles;35 and 5) that the author was dependent on an early collection of all of the epistles.36 Alleged discrepancies between Luke-Acts and the Pauline Epistles include the stories surrounding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem and appearances before the apostles there (particularly Gal 2 and Acts 15), Paul’s attitude toward his Jewish heritage and the Law, the narratives of Paul’s calling (Galatians) or conversion (Acts), the near absence of a doctrine of justification in Acts, and differing conceptions of the death of Christ.37 However, we may account for these differences by considering the purposes and genres of these disparate works—Luke-Acts was composed to provide certainty for Theophilus in the form of ancient biography/history (generally speaking)38 while the epistles were ad hoc documents written for the correction and edification of groups of Christians in various locales. We should not expect such dissimilar types of literature by different authors and for different purposes to state ideas in the same ways or provide a complete historical picture of even one person (i.e., Paul). In other words, those who maintain that LukeActs shows no knowledge of the Pauline corpus have misplaced their emphasis on the differences between the works. The differ1966), 279–287; William O. Walker, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,” JSNT 24 (1985): 3–23. 34 Porter, “Companion or Disciple?”; Stanley Porter, “When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon (ed. S. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 95–128; Bovon, Luke 1, 10–11; Morton S. Enslin, “‘Luke’ and Paul,” JAOS 58 (1938): 81–91; Morton S. Enslin, “Once Again, Luke and Paul,” ZNW 61 (1970): 253– 71. 35 Michael D. Goulder, “Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?,” PRS 13 (1986): 97–112. 36 Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2006), chapter four. 37 See Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 81; for a more extensive list of historical and theological differences see Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts,” 429–36; Guthrie, Introduction, 119, 122. 38 See the essay on the genre of Luke-Acts in this volume.

16

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ences lie in the intents and genres of the works, not in abbreviated explanations of travel itinerary or supposed doctrinal statements. Indeed, it is likely that the author of Luke-Acts did know at least some of the Pauline letters either from reading them himself or having heard them read in Christian gatherings, but had no need to cite them directly in composing his works. Paul’s letters enjoyed relatively wide circulation, even in his own lifetime (cf. 2 Cor 10:10) and certainly by the end of the first century (cf. Col 4:16; 2 Pet 3:15–16).39 Furthermore, it is unlikely that a person who made Paul one of the heroes of his narrative would have been entirely unfamiliar with the apostle’s works. Additionally, Pervo has compiled a notable number of correspondences (verbal, thematic, setting, contextual, etc.) between Acts and the epistles that demonstrate that the author of Luke-Acts knew the epistles.40 Moreover, Porter has argued that Luke-Acts and the epistles may be closer than previously thought on several key issues such as their use of the Old Testament (OT), Christology, Jesus’ resurrection, and the Eucharist.41 Concerning Paul’s epistles, the evidence indicates that the author of Luke-Acts knew some or all of the epistles but did not make extensive use of them in his writings and often reinterpreted or restated Pauline concepts to meet his own literary purposes. This does not mean that the Luke mentioned in the epistles wrote Luke-Acts. It merely indicates that whoever composed Luke-Acts did, in fact, know the Pauline Epistles.42 So Pervo, Dating Acts, 52, 137; contra Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006), 7. Though we do not know when the Pauline Epistles were finally collected, Marcion made use of ten letters along with the Gospel of Luke by the mid-second century; see Porter, “When and How?” 40 Pervo, Dating Acts, chapter four. While I think Pervo has shown that the author knew the letters, I believe he has gone too far in claiming that the author had access to a Pauline letter collection (144). 41 Porter, “Companion or Disciple?,” 151–68; see also Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts.” 42 The author’s knowledge of the Pauline Epistles also has implications for determining the date of Luke-Acts. I have noted this below (n. 71) in the discussion of the date, but will not rehearse the information provided here. 39

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

17

Authorship of Luke-Acts For the sake of simplicity we may continue to refer to the author of Luke and Acts as “Luke.” But can we know with certainty who wrote these books? Given the fact that the books make no claims of authorship we should answer that question in the negative. Any hypotheses we wish to propose concerning the authorship of LukeActs will be based on interpreting several pieces of data: the “we sections” of Acts and their relation to Paul’s Prison Epistles, the author’s alleged discrepancies with or knowledge of the Pauline Epistles, and the ascription of the works to Luke by secondcentury Christian apologists. As we have seen above, there are many ways to interpret this data. At this point the evidence is inconclusive. We may cautiously name Luke as the author as no other serious options have been put forward, but ultimately the author of Luke-Acts must remain anonymous.43 As Henry Cadbury noted, If the internal evidence unmistakably proves or disproves Lucan authorship, its testimony is worth more than tradition; if it is inconclusive, the tradition may be right, but is not adequate proof, and we must be content, as in the case of many other of the greatest books, to be ignorant of the author.44

THE DATE OF LUKE-ACTS45 The date of Luke-Acts is inextricably tied to the issue of authorship. If one believes that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote the books, then the date is limited to sometime before Luke’s death, As Bauckham (Eyewitnesses, 301) points out, it is highly unlikely that a work sent to a particular individual, Theophilus in this case, would have originally been anonymous. The author surely would have been known to the intended recipient. However, that name is lost to us. Cf. Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts,” 428. 44 Henry J. Cadbury, “The Tradition,” in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. F. J. F. Jackson, K. Lake, and H. J. Cadbury, vol. 5; London: Macmillan, 1933), 264; We may agree with Joel Green (The Gospel of Luke [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 21) and Marshall (Luke, 33) who state that the actual identity of the author is of secondary importance in our interpretation of Luke-Acts. 45 See Appendix II in Pervo, Dating Acts, 359–63, for an extensive list of scholarly proposals regarding the date of Luke-Acts which range from 60 CE to 140 CE, though most are between 80–100 CE. 43

18

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the date of which is unknown but probably occurred before the end of the first century. If one maintains the anonymity of the works, then the range of dates increases to sometime before 140 CE when Marcion made use of the Gospel of Luke. Having concluded that the books are anonymous we must address two questions in establishing a range of possible dates: what is the earliest date we can assign to Luke-Acts (terminus a quo) and what is the latest date we can assign to Luke-Acts (terminus ad quem)? Terminus a Quo Several issues help us determine the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts: 1) the date of last event recorded in the books; 2) whether or not the author knew of Paul’s death; 3) the date of composition for the Gospel of Mark; and 4) Luke’s redaction of Mark 13 in light of the destruction of Jerusalem. We begin with determining an approximate date for the last event recorded in the Book of Acts: Paul’s Roman imprisonment. The last datable event in Acts is the procuratorship of Porcius Festus, which began sometime between 57–59 CE. Allowing time for Paul’s trial and sea voyages (Acts 27–28), we arrive at 60 CE for an approximate date of Paul’s Roman imprisonment. Luke-Acts could not have been written before this date.46 Did the author know what happened to Paul after his imprisonment in Rome? As Daniel Marguerat says, “The end of the book of Acts intrigues.”47 That the author does not explicitly mention Paul’s trial and/or death could be evidence of an early date for Acts, as early as 62 CE.48 However, several clues in Acts show that the author knew of Paul’s trial (Acts 23:11; 25:11–12; 26:32; 27:24) and death (Acts 20:18–38, especially vv. 25–26, 38).49 Paul’s death Pervo, Dating Acts, 23–24. Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 229. 48 Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, (WUNT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), chapter nine; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 116. 49 Many scholars agree that these passages indicate that the author knew of Paul’s trial and death; e.g., Bovon, Luke 1, 8; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (3d ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 13–14; Hans Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays presented in honor of Paul Schubert (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. 46 47

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

19

probably occurred in the mid 60s CE during the reign of Nero. But why were Paul’s Roman trial and eventual death not mentioned explicitly? It appears that the abrupt ending of Acts sufficiently concludes the narrative that the author intended to compose by bringing the message of the kingdom of God to Rome (Acts 1:8; 13:47; 23:11) and drawing the reader into the narrative by finishing with a statement about preaching the kingdom of God unhindered.50 Given the author’s awareness of Paul’s death, this pushes the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts forward a few years to ca. 65 CE. The third matter in determining a terminus a quo is a date for the composition of the Gospel of Mark since it served as the primary source material for the Gospel of Luke.51 The issue then becomes that of dating the Gospel of Mark and allowing time for it to become available to the author of Luke-Acts. A full-fledged investigation into the date of Mark is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that scholars generally agree on a date for Mark between 65–70 CE.52 If this is the case, then the earliest possible Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 299; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 85; Maddox, Purpose, 8; Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 205; Pervo, Dating Acts. Pervo (Acts, 517) states that Acts 20 is Paul’s testament. Whether Paul died after the Roman imprisonment of Acts 28 or a later imprisonment is immaterial. What matters is that the author of Luke-Acts knew Paul stood trial in Rome and had subsequently been executed. 50 For a similar abrupt ending compare Mark 16:8. William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 109; Charles B. Puskas, The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Significance of Acts 28:16–31 (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009), 109, 140; Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 220–21. 51 Luke’s dependence on Mark is practically a given. See Craig Evans, Luke (NIBCNT 3; Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1990), 3; Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place,” 300; Marshall, Luke, 34; Pervo, Dating Acts, 26; Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 14; John Nolland, Luke 1:1—9:20 (WBC 35a; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989), xxxvii; For a survey of the issues surrounding Luke’s use of Mark, see Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 66–73. See the essay on the sources of Luke-Acts in this volume. 52 Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 14; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1—8:26 (WBC 34a; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxi; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 163–164; Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 53;

20

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

date for Luke-Acts becomes 70 CE; allowing time for Mark to be circulated makes 75 CE more reasonable. The final issue regarding the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts is related to the third: Luke’s redaction (21:20–24) of Mark 13:14–20 in light of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.53 Marshall outlines the changes made by the Third Evangelist to the Markan account: 1) Luke specifically names Jerusalem whereas Mark has “abomination of desolation”; 2) Luke’s version includes a warning to keep away from Jerusalem in place of Mark’s warning about a delay; 3) Luke omits Mark’s reference to the shortening of the tribulation for the sake of the elect and replaces it with a statement concerning the death of the Jews and Jerusalem’s subjugation by Gentiles.54 Further support for the view that Luke adapts Mark in light of the fall of Jerusalem is found in Luke 19:41–44, a passage unique to Luke, where Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem in terms that are reminiscent of the siege of Jerusalem.55 Therefore, Luke’s redaction of Mark 13:14–20 is apparent.56 This does not change the terminus a quo significantly. In fact, if Mark was written prior to 70 CE, we may maintain that 75 CE is the earliest date at which the Fitzmyer, Acts, 53; Shellard, New Light, 14. Pervo (Dating Acts, 26) opts for a slightly later date of 75 CE; Carson, Moo, and Morris (Introduction, 99) opt for a slightly earlier date. However, if Mark is to be dated before 65 CE then the issue with regard to the dating of Luke-Acts becomes moot as we have seen that the author of Luke-Acts was probably aware of Paul’s death in ca. 65 CE. 53 C. H. Dodd has claimed that Luke 21:20–24 is based on a source other than Mark 13:14–20, specifically the oracles of Jerusalem’s judgment found in the LXX version of the prophets (“The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” JRS 37 [1947]: 47–54). However, Marshall (Luke, 770–71) and Joseph Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke X– XXIV [AB 28b; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985], 1344–47) have shown that Luke’s dependence on the language of the LXX does not preclude his reliance on Mark. Indeed, the influence of the LXX is a marker of Lukan style. 54 Marshall, Luke, 770; Pervo, Dating Acts, 337. 55 Green, Gospel of Luke, 738. 56 Many agree that the destruction of Jerusalem influenced the composition of Luke. See, e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1329; Marshall, Luke, 770–71; Bruce, Acts, 16–17; Guthrie, Introduction, 116–17; Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 13–14.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

21

third Gospel and Acts were written. If we date Mark later than 70 CE, then this pushes the terminus a quo for Luke-Acts into the 80s CE. Terminus ad Quem The author’s date of death cannot be used as a limit since the author of Luke-Acts is unknown. So, we must rely on external attestation to the works; that is, which other authors demonstrate knowledge of the works? As we have seen above, Luke’s Gospel and Acts were known to various apologists by the late second century. Several other authors help us in establishing a terminus ad quem. Haenchen has shown that both Luke and Acts were authoritative texts by the middle of the second century and were cited by Justin Martyr (ca. 160 CE).57 However, another second century writer is most important in establishing the date of Luke-Acts: Marcion. Marcion was a second-century bishop who believed that the God of the OT was inferior and incompatible with the God revealed in Jesus and subsequently sought to rid the church of its Jewish heritage including the OT Scriptures. His attempt to delineate a canon of Scripture for the Christian church involved ignoring what we know as the OT and only accepting those Christian writings that appeared to downplay Judaism. Therefore, based on what he saw as anti-Judaistic tendencies in the writings, he accepted ten of the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Luke into his self-made canon of Scripture. It is generally agreed that Marcion accepted a modified version of what we know as the Gospel of Luke into his canon ca. 140 CE, thus providing a terminus ad quem at least several years earlier than that for Luke-Acts, ca. 130–135 CE.58 57 Haenchen, Acts, 8–9; also Shellard, New Light, 25; Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 23. Haenchen is hesitant to claim that 1 Apol. 39.3 draws on Acts 4:13 and 1 Apol. 49.5 on Acts 13:48, but shows that Luke 23:49, 24:25, 44–45, and Acts 1:8 stand behind 1 Apol. 50.12 and that Acts 17:23 provides the vocabulary concerning the unknown god (θεὸς ἂγνωστος) for 2 Apol. 10.6. 58 Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place,” 298; Guthrie, Introduction, 117; Pervo, Dating Acts, 25 (though he states the we do not know what form of Luke’s gospel Marcion had). John Knox posited that Luke-Acts was based on Marcion’s gospel (Marcion and the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942]); John T. Townsend (“The Date of Luke-Acts,” in

22

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Working backward from Marcion, Polycarp of Smyrna, whose writings we may date to ca. 130 CE, probably knew many of the writings that eventually formed the canonical NT including LukeActs.59 Several scholars have noted the similarity between Acts 2:24 (λύσας τὰς ὡδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου) and Polycarp, Phil. 1.2 (λύσας τὰς ὡδῖνας τοῦ ᾅδου).60 The change from θανάτου to ᾅδου may be accounted for given that Hades was a common euphemism for death (cf. Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Matt 11:23; 16:18) and by close references to Hades in the passage on which Polycarp was drawing (Acts 2:27, 31). Haenchen also points out the correspondences between Acts 1:25 and Polycarp, Phil. 9.2, as well as Acts 20:35 and Polycarp, Phil. 2.3.61 If Polycarp knew Luke-Acts, we must allow some time for the books to have become available to him, pushing our terminus ad quem back to ca. 120–125 CE. Moving backward yet again, we come to Ignatius of Antioch. Conzelmann bluntly states that Ignatius did not know Luke-Acts, but his assessment may have been too hasty.62 Maddox, just as forthrightly as Conzelmann, claims that Ignatius was dependent on Acts.63 What does the evidence say? Haenchen lists three passages before he dismisses Ignatius’ knowledge of Acts. As Haenchen states, correspondences between Ignatius, Magn. 5.1 and Acts 1:25, and Ignatius, Phld. 2.2 and Acts 20:29, are unlikely.64 However, Ignatius, Smyrn. 3.3 (μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν ὡς σαρκικός) shows a remarkable similarity to Acts 10:41 (οἵτινες συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar [ed. C. H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984], 47) follows Knox. Tyson (Marcion and Luke-Acts) has creatively suggested that Marcion’s gospel was based on “proto-Luke” and that canonical Luke was written as a response to Marcion’s gospel. 59 Shellard, New Light, 25; Pervo, Dating Acts, 20; see the numerous footnotes in Bart D. Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers I, trans. Bart D. Ehrman (LCL 24; London: Harvard University Press, 2003). 60 See Pervo, Dating Acts, 20; Shellard, New Light, 25. The Greek text of the Church Fathers is taken from Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers I. 61 Haenchen, Acts, 3, 6, respectively. 62 Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place,” 299. 63 Maddox, Purpose, 7. 64 See Haenchen, Acts, 3–5.

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

23

ἀναστῆναι αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν). Acts and Ignatius are the earliest

Christian writers to preserve the tradition of Jesus eating and drinking with his disciples after the resurrection using this particular language.65 In this case, it seems more probable that Ignatius learned this tradition from Acts rather than the other way around. Additionally, both Ignatius, Smyrn. 1.2, and Luke 23:1–15 and Acts 4:26– 27 link Pilate and Herod (Antipas) to Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. Luke and Acts are the only canonical writings to include Herod Antipas in the passion narratives and with the previous case provide a likely source for Ignatius in this instance. Ignatius composed his epistles ca. 115 CE. If he knew Luke-Acts, as it appears, then our terminus ad quem is sometime during the first decade of the second century. There is one other early Christian author we must consider: 1 Clement. While the date for 1 Clement itself is debated,66 a date in the mid-90s CE still seems to be the best option.67 Pervo cites many commonalities between 1 Clem 42.1–4; 44.2–3 and Acts.68 The clearest example of dependence is the near citation of Acts 13:22 (εἶπεν μαρτυρήσας εὗρον Δαυὶδ τὸν τοῦ Ἰεσσαί ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου) in 1 Clem 18.1 (τί δὲ εἴπωμεν ἐπὶ τῷ μεμαρτυρημένῳ Δαυίδ πρὸς ὃν εἶπεν ὁ θεός εὗρον ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου Δαυὶδ τὸν τοῦ Ἰεσσαί). Haenchen points out

the contextual differences in each passage but this is to be expected in works with such different purposes (much the same as the differences between Acts and the Pauline Epistles are to be expected).69 Furthermore, Haenchen claims that both passages rely on an independent tradition that grouped Ps 89:21, 1 Sam 13:14, and 2 Sam 23:1, a claim that, without solid evidence of said tradition, 65 John 21:9–15 includes references to Jesus sharing breakfast with the disciples but does not share the συνεσθίω and συμπίνω vocabulary with Acts and Ignatius. 66 See H. Benedictus Green, “Matthew, Clement and Luke: Their Sequence and Relationship,” JTS 40 (1989): 1–3. 67 Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers I, 25. 68 Pervo, Dating Acts, 203–209. The correspondence between 1 Clem 13:2 and Luke 6:31 should be noted, but as Green points out, this passage actually shares more in common with Matt 5–7 than Luke 6 (“Matthew, Clement and Luke,” 4–6). 69 Haenchen, Acts, 4.

24

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

seems strained.70 It seems more likely that one of these works borrowed from the other. If Clement knew Acts, we need to push our terminus ad quem back a few years to allow time for Acts to circulate, perhaps to ca. 85–90 CE.71 The difficulty of proving dependence of one document on another through a very small sampling of verbal correspondences is apparent in the case of Acts and the Apostolic Fathers.72 Since very few scholars date Luke-Acts after Polycarp, the latter’s dependence on Acts is probable. As for Clement and Ignatius, Acts could have been dependent on those writings. However, the slightly more developed ecclesiology of 1 Clement and Ignatius, with ideas of apostolic succession and an early version of the one bishop system of church governance, concepts that are absent in Acts, seems to point to a later date than Acts for those writings.73 Additionally, if we grant that the writings that eventually became our canonical NT were disseminated widely and relatively quickly (as the letters of Paul demonstrate), then the availability of Luke-Acts to writers in the late first and early second century is less problematic.74 Josephus’ relationship to Luke-Acts must be addressed here. The majority of scholars believe it to be unlikely that Luke-Acts was dependent on Josephus.75 However, Pervo has reopened the case with an elaborate and creative attempt to demonstrate intertextual dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus.76 As Bruce points Haenchen, Acts, 3–4. The influence of the Pauline Epistles on Luke-Acts has been addressed above and I direct the reader again to Pervo, Dating Acts, chapter four, for a detailed analysis. 72 Pervo, Dating Acts, 198. 73 Pervo, Dating Acts, 198; Brown, Introduction, 273. 74 Gamble (Books and Readers, 129–30) concludes that “the making and retaining of copies, the forming of collections, the dispatching of texts to foreign parts through Christian couriers…the encouraging of further secondary distribution—all was happening by the early second century.” 75 E.g., Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place,” 299; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (2d ed.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xxxiii; Fitzmyer, Acts, 53–54; Guthrie, Introduction, 117; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 117. 76 Pervo, Dating Acts, chapter five. 70 71

THE AUTHOR AND DATE OF LUKE-ACTS

25

out, the case that Luke-Acts is dependent on Josephus usually rests on the mention of Lysanias the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1; Josephus, Ant. 19.275; 20.138), the reversal of Theudas’ and Judas’ respective rebellions (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97–102), and a reference to the Egyptian rebel (Acts 21:38; Josephus, J.W. 2.254–263; Ant. 20.160–172).77 Josephus completed his Antiquities and the appended Life in 93 or 94 CE.78 If 1 Clement (96 CE) is dependent on Acts there would have been a very small window of opportunity for the author of Acts to utilize Josephus’ works and then for Acts to become available for Clement. However, it seems that even with works as significant as Josephus’ Antiquities and Luke-Acts this window is too small. In addition, Pervo’s examples of Acts’ dependence on Josephus are intertextual echoes and are not as substantial as the dependence of 1 Clement and Ignatius on Acts. It seems very likely that any author composing works in Greek in the late first century about recent events would inevitably make use of some of the same vocabulary as Josephus and Luke-Acts do. In the end, the dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus is not very likely. The Date of Luke-Acts Our investigation has placed the terminus a quo at ca. 75 CE and the terminus ad quem at ca. 90 CE. It is not possible to be more precise than this. Scholarly consensus has been to date Luke-Acts ca. 80– 85 CE.79 The surest markers are Paul’s Roman imprisonment (Acts 28), which we may date to ca. 60 CE, and the composition of 1 Clement (ca. 96 CE). A date within this range is acceptable, but sometime between 80–90 CE is probable given Luke’s redaction of Mark after the destruction of Jerusalem and the probable dependence of the Church fathers on Acts.

Bruce, Acts, 43–44. See Ant. 20.267 and Life 5, where Josephus states that he completed the writings in the thirteenth year of Domitian. Jewish War was completed by the late 70s and could have been a source for Luke-Acts. Most of Pervo’s examples are from Antiquities, so I focus on that here. 79 Again, see Pervo, Dating Acts, 359–63. 77 78

26

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

CONCLUSION We began this essay by noting the difficulty in determining the authorship and date of NT documents. The varied scholarly interpretations of the data presented above testify to that difficulty. Nevertheless, the considerations offered in this essay of the major factors in determining the author and date of Luke-Acts point us to a tentative conclusion: Luke-Acts was composed by an unknown Christian between 75–90 CE. Until more evidence becomes available, a tentative conclusion such as this is the best we can expect.80

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981. _______. The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV. AB 28a. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2006. Porter, Stanley. “Luke: Companion or Disciple of Paul?” Pages 146–68 in Paul and the Gospels. Edited by Michael Bird and Joel Willits. LNTS 411. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Porter, Stanley. “The ‘We’ Passages.” Pages 545–74 in The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting. Edited by David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf. Vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

80 I offer special thanks to Seth Ehorn and Chuck Sackett for their comments which have helped clarify several points in this essay.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS: ONE WORK, ONE AUTHOR, ONE PURPOSE? Joseph Verheyden

Four different stories of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus were included in the New Testament (NT) canon. By contrast, this same corpus contains only one such story dealing with the lives and ministries of his disciples. This other story is introduced by a dedication addressed to the same person mentioned in the dedication that opens the Gospel of Luke. The story itself begins by resuming the last episode that was told in that Gospel; it continues by telling the stories of two of the major protagonists in the earliest Christian communities and frequently it does so in a way that invites comparing one with the other and both with Jesus. Much of what Jesus did is done by Peter as well and then also repeated once more by Paul; the apostles are largely modeled after the figure of Jesus. Together these indications have generally been taken as sufficient evidence to conclude that one and the same author must have been responsible for the two works. But upon reflection what is “evident” may prove to be somewhat more complicated than one first thought, especially when it comes to deciding how the two works are related to each other in terms of composition, purpose, and theology. Theoretically there are several possibilities and all of these have also been proposed or defended in the literature. The large majority of scholars still hold to the “old” view that “Luke-Acts” were planned and conceived as two parts of one and the same work. Later on the work was broken up into two separate 27

28

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

books, which, according to some scholars, may have involved some adaptations at the ending of the first and the beginning of the second book. The fact that Luke and Acts occur at different places in the manuscripts and in lists of the canonical books does not work against this view. This may just be one of those hazards of history, or the result of the dominance of the Gospels, in number and in genre, which did not allow for a kind of “hybrid” work to figure among them. But it also illustrates that copyists (and readers) must have realized that the two works after all differed too significantly in topic and genre in order to consider and treat them as the two parts of one and the same work and locate them as such in the manuscripts or in lists of canonical writings. The majority view stands over against three minority positions. The first and most important of these argues that Luke originally wrote two autonomous works, each with its own purpose and character, which, at the end or shortly after, he tried to connect with each other, above all by making minor changes at the end of the first and the beginning of the second work. More distinctive positions include the view that Acts was written before the Gospel; that Luke-Acts are but the first two parts of an incomplete trilogy; or that Luke wrote a first version of his work (called Proto-Luke) that included elements of the Gospel and of Acts (up to chapter 15) which he later completed by adding more material on Jesus (from Mark, and for some also Q), thereby separating the Gospel story from that about the disciples. The diversity of options and possibilities that have been put forward can also be illustrated from the terminology scholars use for describing the relationship between the Gospel and Acts. It makes quite a difference whether one labels Luke as an “introduction” to Acts, or Acts as an “appendix” or an “afterthought,” or as an intended sequel to the Gospel, or as a “novelty” which never was in view when Luke composed his Gospel but was created only long after the latter had been completed; or whether one puts full emphasis on the close links there are between both works and regards Luke and Acts as “a single continuous work.” The latter position was strongly defended by Henry Cadbury some ninety years ago and was expressed by using a hyphen to connect both parts:

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

29

Luke and Acts actually is “Luke-Acts.”1 Cadbury argued that the uniformity and strong agreements in style and vocabulary between the Gospel and Acts are proof that the two were written by the same author, and that they were conceived and written as an original unity. To argue the latter, one should also identify a unity of purpose and a unity—or at least a continuity—in all the important topics Luke is dealing with, be they theological or social ones.

HENRY J. CADBURY’S THE MAKING OF LUKE-ACTS… Cadbury’s small monograph has dominated the discussion for many decades and still remains a major position today. Three of his conclusions are particularly worth mentioning.2 1. The view that Luke-Acts constitute a unity is based above all on the prologue in Luke 1:1–4, which Cadbury read and analyzed as the introduction to both the Gospel and the Book of Acts. When the author refers to his work as “a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us” (1:1) and concludes the prologue with a word of comfort and encouragement (1:4 “that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed”), he already has in mind, so Cadbury, both the Gospel and the second volume. The same is true for what the author says about his predecessors and the eye-witnesses and above all about his own status and involvement in the story. Contrary to what one might expect, the latter observation is based not so much on the phrase “among us” in 1:1, but rather on the verb “to follow” (parēkolouthēkoti) in 1:3, which would suggest that Luke was present, actually an eyewitness, of at least some of the facts he is telling the reader about. The prologue to Acts does not necessarily argue against such a conclusion; it rather supports it. As Cadbury saw it, this is not a second prologue to a second, separate book, but a kind of “sub-prologue” composed for merely technical and pragmatic reasons: Luke-Acts was simply too long to be written out H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: Methuen, 1927). For a more detailed presentation, see, e.g., J. Verheyden, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 11–14. For an update on the critical survey of research on Luke-Acts, see, P. E. Spencer, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge,” CBR 5 (2007): 341–66. 1

2

30

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

on one papyrus. Authors of that era as a rule introduced individual “books” with a short prologue which took up some of the material and issues that had been dealt with in the previous one and looked forward to what would follow. Cadbury’s interpretation has much to commend it, but it has also had its critics. 2. Cadbury took the very last words of the prologue to the Gospel as Luke’s intended description of the overall purpose of Luke’s work. Luke-Acts is an apology for Christendom that needed to be defended and protected against all sorts of misunderstandings. It would explain why Luke puts so much emphasis in 1:4 on “the truth” of the message he is bringing and on the need to convince Theophilus. The objection that such an explanation works maybe better for Acts than for the Gospel is countered by acknowledging that Luke may of course still have had other reasons for writing the Gospel and as a matter of fact turned into an argument in support of the unity hypothesis, for it would prove that Luke was indeed already thinking of the second volume at the moment he was composing the prologue to the first one. It might even be an indication that the prologue in Luke 1:1–4 was written (or rewritten) when the whole work was finished. Of course, the latter is difficult to prove and Cadbury does not seem to have realized that such an argument can easily be used against his own hypothesis of an original unity. 3. Cadbury had no problem with the fact that Luke and Acts seem to belong to different genres. The unity of a work is not, or not primarily, determined by the genre, but by an author’s sustained efforts to create such a unity in reworking the material he wants to include in his work. Luke is first and foremost true to the traditions he received and is flexible enough to switch genres when needed. But at the same time he is also a great innovator, for he is the first one to go far beyond the “genre” of the Gospel, as he had received this from his main source Mark, to explore new ways of telling the story of Jesus and the earliest community. It is an inevitable conclusion if one wishes to argue for the unity of Luke and Acts, but it does not necessarily render impossible the whole hypothesis.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

31

…AND WHAT FOLLOWED AFTERWARDS Cadbury thought he had “proven” the unity of Luke-Acts. His conclusions were followed by many, but other voices have been heard as well. Mikeal Parsons and Richard Pervo have challenged the “unity hypothesis” as developed and formulated by Cadbury, arguing that its roots may not be as strong as many believed them to be.3 They distinguished five levels on which to study the relationship between Luke and Acts. The first two, that of the author and that of the manuscript tradition and the canon, pose no problem. Parsons and Pervo do not question the assumption that the two books were written by the same author. The fact that the Gospel and Acts figure at different places in the manuscript tradition and in the canon does not argue against Cadbury’s hypothesis. It is the result of what scribes and copyists or those compiling a list of “canonical” books thought to be the better solution, for whatever reason. Other factors may have prevailed here than the concern for not separating what Luke had brought together: maybe the need to put emphasis on the fourfold gospel played a role in this, which would work well with the idea of creating a transition from “Jesus” to “the apostles and the Church” using Acts as a bridge. Matters change when it comes to theology, the genre, and the composition and narrative technique. Here the differences seem to dominate, or so they look to Parsons and Pervo. Their critical remarks in this regard are partly justified, though one should note that in the end Parsons and Pervo do not wish to argue that Luke and Acts are totally different works. The major asset of their little book may well be that it offers a warning to those who would be inclined comfortably to settle the whole issue by adhering to Cadbury’s “evident solution”; as such, it is a call to take the differences seriously and to look into the evidence in more detail and perhaps also more critically than Cadbury had done. At the same time one should realize that the various issues Parsons and Pervo have listed were also already addressed and thoroughly discussed in scholarly literature on Luke and Acts.

3 Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993; repr. 2007).

32

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Unity on the Level of the Theology With the rise of redaction criticism in the fifties of last century, interest in defining Luke’s theology took center stage. One can distinguish three major approaches. 1. A number of scholars have been looking for the one theme or perspective that dominates the whole of Luke’s work. Probably the most important, because the most influential, in this regard is Hans Conzelmann who describes Luke as the author of “the history of salvation.”4 If one wishes to re-tell the story of Jesus from such a perspective, one has of necessity also to tell what followed after Jesus. Luke does so, while at the same time deciding somehow to keep the two parts separate. This was probably not only a matter of respect for the genre as this had been developed by his predecessor(s) writing about Jesus’ ministry, trial, and death. A theological factor must have been in play as well. Luke divides history into “the time of Jesus” and “the time of the Church” and by doing so tries to answer a burning question that was raised by Jesus promising a future for the community that included his return. This could best be illustrated and supported by relegating each of the two periods to a separate volume. Others have tried to unearth other “central themes.” W. C. van Unnik argued that Luke was not so much interested in writing on the history of salvation as on the proclamation of salvation.5 This again would have required some separation of what was done by Jesus and by his first followers, while at the same time making sure the links between both were not completely loosened. Others propose to find this unity on the level of God rather than on that of Jesus and the Church and describe Luke-Acts as a demonstration of God’s will6 or of God’s providence,7 two themes that are Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961). 5 W. C. van Unnik, “Luke-Acts: A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Studies in Luke-Acts. Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; New York: Abingdon, 1966, 1988²), 15–32, here 24; repr. in idem, Sparsa Collecta, I, NovTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 92–110. 6 See, e.g., R. F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts (GNS 9; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1984). 4

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

33

certainly not absent from Luke-Acts, but of which one may ask whether they are really at the center of Luke’s composition in this way, as theological categories. All of these positions looking for connections on the theological level come down, in various degrees, to looking for the unity of Luke’s theology. 2. Other scholars have argued that this unity is to be found above all in the way Luke has theologically supported his major intention for writing his work, regardless of whether this is defined as an apology for Christendom or as a plea for interpreting Jesus in light of the messianic claims and prophecies that had been made in Jewish tradition and Scripture. The first of these two models again can take various forms. Attempts to regard Luke’s Jesus as one preaching revolution and Luke-Acts as a call for a socio-political revolution8 are based on a too selective reading of the evidence and are frustrated when trying to make sense of the whole picture. The same goes for the hypothesis that Luke, quite to the contrary, would above all have written an apology pro imperio, a defense of Rome and its representatives against such voices in the community that were more critical of what might be expected from Roman dominance.9 In both instances Luke-Acts would have been a (more or less) “splendid failure.” A more plausible hypothesis is that Luke tried seriously to take into account the social and other forms of diversity that characterized the earliest communities and to tell the story of Jesus and of the Church (the latter was needed because that is where the problems are) in such a way that everyone could find a place in it. 10 Christians came from various religious backgrounds, Jewish and Gentile, and from various social classes, poor and middle class, and 7 Cf. J. T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 8 So emphatically R. J. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1978) and Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987). 9 See P. W. Walaskay, “And So We Came to Rome”: The Political Perspective of St Luke (SNTSMS 49; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 10 Cf. Philip Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

34

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

may have had quite diverse views on central issues: how to position this “new” movement over against its origins in Jewish tradition, how to deal with the political reality of the day, or how to make sense of the tension that was created by Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension and the promises of a return that did not seem to materialize. Luke tried to accommodate all. One might say that in the longer term his attempt was not a complete success—some Christians of Jewish descent did break the ranks and the story of “Rome and the Church” had its dark pages. But neither was it a complete failure, in part because Luke proved himself not to be blind to the differences and gave a significant place to the efforts of the members of these earliest communities to try and settle their disputes, something later generations have repeatedly fallen back upon. The second model mentioned above pays much attention to the quotations from Scripture, which are said to have above all an apologetic purpose in defending and supporting a messianic exegesis.11 Others have noted, however, that this reading of the evidence applies only to part of the citations. Some of these, as is the case with Acts 2:33–36, are not intent on presenting Jesus as the Messiah but as the Lord.12 But in any case the model opens possibilities for a more “dynamic” reading, in which the two volumes are seen as interacting with each other. Thus, promises made in the first volume on the basis of citations from Scripture are said to be realized later on (see Luke 1:35 or 2:29–34 and Acts 2:33). Yet the model is not without any problems, in particular with regard to the way Jesus’ mission is described in Luke 2:29–34 and how the missions to the Jews and to the Gentiles should be connected to each other. The traditional view that Acts describes the failure of the mission to Israel and uses this to explain the mission to the Gentiles is nowadays considered by some to be too simplistic and to lack nuance. Both missions are interconnected in a more positive way. The mission to the Gentiles is not the alternative or the se11 So P. Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954, 1957²), 165–86. 12 Cf. M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (SNT 1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969).

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

35

cond option after the one to Israel was thought largely to have failed, but is regarded as the means by which some in the Church have tried to reach back at the Jews, by giving an example and creating an impetus for the latter to believe in Jesus and join the movement. In this view, Luke-Acts is not the story of an unexpected and therefore hard-to-swallow failure and of an equally unexpected and therefore difficult-to-grasp success. Rather it is a success story that opens up a perspective of hope and conviction that in the end it will all turn out for the better, even for the Jews, current obstacles notwithstanding. However, such a reading might perhaps be too optimistic (or anachronistic) and is in danger of minimizing the tone and the effect of Paul’s harsh words at the address of his Jewish audience in such passages as Acts 13:46–47. Conversion is not formally excluded, but the conditions and the limits are clearly spelled out: it is possible only for those who come to believe in Jesus, as Luke makes it clear through what Jesus had said before and what Paul repeats on more than one occasion. Salvation comes from God in Jesus the Messiah. 3. A third model is presented by those scholars who try to illustrate and support the unity of Gospel and Acts by offering a synthesis of Luke’s theology as a whole and pointing out the most specific or important themes that hold this theology together or have been developed in a systematic way all through Luke and Acts (see, e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer or Peter Pokorný).13 It goes without saying that such an approach may result in a somewhat artificial construction that goes beyond the evidence from the text or is not always supported by it with the same force. It is not always clear how the various elements of this “theology” hold together; moreover, in some cases at least Luke seems to have been more intent on creating a consistent view than in others which have a more disparate outlook. It is a difficult exercise to decide whether certain differences in perspective and focus are proof of a somewhat incomplete effort, or Luke’s concern to give attention to nuances, or rather, an argument or indication against an intended unity of Gospel and Acts. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Doubleday, 1989); P. Pokorný, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). 13

36

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Here are two examples. Pneumatology is one of those theological themes in Luke and Acts that have been studied extensively.14 In the NT no other author speaks so frequently about the Spirit. Scholarly discussion has focused on the way the Spirit is identified and on the role he is given. One element in the discussion has to do with the question whether Luke in this use primarily relies on categories and concepts he borrowed from Hebrew Scripture and thinks of the Spirit as some sort of impersonal power, or rather should be regarded as a predecessor of the later Christian position that sees the Spirit as a person. It is commonly accepted that Luke regards the Spirit as a source of inspiration for human behavior, be it in a merely prophetic or also in a soteriological way. It is debated whether Luke keeps to one and the same view on the Spirit all through his work, though it is obvious that for him the same Spirit led Jesus and the mission of the disciples, but even if there are some differences, nuances, or developments, it does not necessarily mean that the Gospel and Acts were conceived as completely different works. The same is true for Luke’s Christology.15 It seems to be impossible to discover a more or less coherent or systematic Christology in Luke’s work. With some good reason he has been called a “collector” of Christological traditions which he has integrated in his work without much concern for systematization or the fact that there may be some lack of clarity or even tensions in his overall picture (see Lord below). Consequently it remains a very difficult task to find the unity of Luke and Acts in its Christology. The Genre All attempts to root this unity in the genre of the work are equally debated. Cadbury thought that the question for the genre of LukeThe classic study is that of H. von Baer, Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (BWA[N]T 39; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). More recently, see, among others, W. H. Shepherd, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 147; Atlanta: SBL Press, 1994). 15 The ‘classic’ here is G. Voss, Die Christologie der lukanischen Schriften in Grundzügen (StudNeot 2; Brugge: Desclée De Brouwer, 1965). See more recently, among others, H. D. Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology (SNTSMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). See also the essay on the Christology of Acts in this volume. 14

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

37

Acts is a non-question, though this did not dissuade others from trying to come to some results in this matter as well by comparing Luke-Acts to various other genres from ancient literature. Two genres in particular have been given much attention. Luke-Acts has been compared with several forms or types of ancient historiography, most importantly the so-called “historical monograph,”16 but also the genre of the history of a nation (i.e., the Church), or apologetic and polemical and even institutional historiography.17 Others have compared the work with ancient biography, which again took many different forms in antiquity, among them, the “biography” of a philosophical school, which first focuses on the founder (the Gospel) and then also on his school and disciples (Acts).18 But there is room for other approaches as well and some have tried to read Acts (and to a lesser degree, Luke) as a historical novel with pedagogical purposes (R. Pervo).19 The search for the one genre that can unite Gospel and Acts is not finished yet, but it looks as if a solution or a consensus is not in sight, unless perhaps one is prepared to accept that Luke-Acts is a somewhat unique mixture of biography and historiography put at the service of a theological message; but what genre would this be? A Common Source or Common Narrative or Composition Technique The large majority of scholars agree that Luke in writing his Gospel made use of written sources, two of which can more or less easily be identified: (a version of) Mark and (a version of) a Sayings Source (Q). In addition he seems also to have used other material that some have thought to have been taken from yet another written source (L). A few scholars have even tried to argue that Luke 16 So, repeatedly and with emphasis, E. Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 17 Cf. H. Cancik; “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History,” JBL 116 (1997): 673–95. 18 See above all, Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: SBL Press, 1974). 19 A suggestion made by Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

38

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

and Acts in their current form are the result of a thorough revision of an earlier work that contained parts of the L and Q material and large parts of the first half of Acts. The existence of this so-called Proto-Luke is heavily disputed; and the lack of agreement among its few proponents together with the somewhat adventurous nature of some of their proposals puts a heavy burden on the whole hypothesis.20 The second approach may be more promising. It asks for indications of coherence and unity on the level of the narrative. Research into the structure and composition of Luke-Acts as a whole and of Luke’s narrative technique includes several aspects, some of a more grammatical and others of a more literary nature (the way characters are introduced and developed).21 One observation is of particular importance: the author of Luke-Acts has a clear preference for forms of parallelization.22 Most remarkable, perhaps, is the parallel that is drawn between Jesus and Paul, Peter and Paul, and between the two apostles and Jesus. The technique was not unknown in antiquity and is called syncrisis. A whole work can be composed according to this principle. The parallels are not limited to some generalities but include the structure, the presentation of particular events or episodes, but also the interest in specific details within such passages. One might even say that it constitutes the one characteristic of Luke’s compositional technique. Acts “repeats” the Gospel, and the Gospel “repeats” itself in Acts. Of particular significance in this respect is the interest in the discourses the protagonists are offering, above all, in their “maiden speech” by which they present the core of their message and set the standards 20 For a critical survey of the history of the hypothesis in general, see J. Verheyden, “Proto-Luke, and What Can Possibly Be Made of It,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem – Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (ed. P. Foster et al.; BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 617–53. 21 A full-scale study from this perspective, and a classic, is C. H. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986). 22 The classic study in this respect is G. Muhlack, Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte (Theologie und Wirklichkeit 8; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1979). It was followed by many others: see Verheyden, “What Are We Up To?,” 52–54.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

39

of their further ministry. Jesus did so in Luke 4:16–30; Peter does it in Acts 2:14–36; Paul is given an opportunity to do so in Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:16–41. In each case most of the wording differs, but much of what is said (on the status, person, and ministry of Jesus, linking in with Jewish history), the way it is argued (with reference to Scripture), and the outcome (there follows a row with some in the audience) are, after all, remarkably similar. The protagonists of Luke-Acts not only act in very much the same way, they also speak the same language.

THE DEBATE CONTINUES Cadbury’s certainly was not the last word on the question, and neither was Parsons-Pervo’s, nor were the many essays in the proceedings of the international conference on the unity of Luke-Acts that were published in 1999. The debate goes on, new paths are explored, and old questions are addressed in a new way. In what follows I propose to explore briefly three topics that have received some attention in the past years. Dating Acts This section title is the main title of a monograph by Richard Pervo which claims to dispute the still commonly held view that Acts was written sometime in the second last or last decade of the first century. Pervo states his purpose, and the consequences it has for “Luke-Acts,” most clearly in the preface to his book: “The principal aim is not so much to establish a particular date as to undermine the widespread view that the dating of (Luke and) Acts has little, if any, importance for the understanding of their texts.”23 The argument Pervo develops involves many aspects, including hypotheses on Luke’s use of sources (among these, Flavius Josephus) and a comparison with the Apostolic Fathers. It certainly needs to be looked into in much more detail than can be offered within the framework of this essay. I have therefore decided to focus on one set of arguments only, those mentioned in the last chapter. Taking at face value Pervo’s position as summarized above, one might object that if it is really true that the dating does not 23 Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006), viii.

40

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

matter for understanding Luke-Acts, the whole argument can be left aside in a discussion on the relationship between Luke and Acts. Actually, the situation is slightly more complex. In a sense, one might say that if it were true that Acts was written several decades after work on the Gospel had been finished, the idea of reading the later as a “preface” to Acts, or as having been composed with an eye on what was to follow, would not be completely invalidated, but it would mean that Luke had been pondering on Acts for a very long time indeed before putting pen to paper. This is not impossible. And even if Acts was written much later, it cannot be positively ruled out that Luke had indeed the firm plan of writing Acts when composing the Gospel, but then had to postpone it. That is of course not how Pervo would like us to see things. Acts was never, or at best very faintly, in view when the Gospel was being written. Luke had no sense of a future volume. But such thoughts are only preliminary and rather general ones; so I propose to have a look at two of the arguments Pervo develops in his eighth and last chapter. First there is the search for anachronisms. Anachronisms are errors of a special kind. Not all of them bear weight for the case Pervo wishes to argue (as he knows perfectly well and indicates himself). What he is interested in is the search for words, subjects, or institutions that cannot possibly be linked to the last quarter of the first century, or only with difficulty. As an instance of the latter, Pervo cites the use of the honorary title neokoros for the city of Ephesus in Acts 19:35. As Pervo notes, the title has so far not been attested before the middle of the sixties and became more widespread only by the very end of the century. It makes the case “not grossly anachronistic” and at best “it savors of a later period,”24 but it does not formally exclude a date of Acts in the second last decade. Likewise, the absolute use of the title “Lord” for the emperor, as found in Acts 25:26, may not be clearly attested in the first century, but is after all only “a bit of an anachronism,” as Pervo calls it in his commentary,25 as “popular usage may well have been loos-

Pervo, Dating Acts, 312. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 621 n. 11. 24 25

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

41

er”;26 after all it is again an argument that is built on negative evidence only. The one set of anachronisms Pervo considers to be “least disputable and most cogent” has to do with organization of the community. When presbyters come to be called bishops, individuals are appointed as deacons, and widows are given a voice in the community, we are in “the world of the early second century,” as Pervo formulates it.27 Yet one is entitled to ask how strong the evidence actually is for such a conclusion. By putting together the whole “organization issue” in the way he does Pervo is in danger of blurring some lines. Little wonder that words such as “oversight,” “ministry,” and “apostleship” (see Acts 1:17, 20, 25) are lacking in the Gospel. This is a matter of keeping to the historical perspective. It would really have been a gross anachronism to have introduced these terms already in the account of Jesus’ life. But it is equally noteworthy that in using these nouns Luke seems to be still far less clear and certain about their precise connotations than will be the case with Ignatius; or at least, he does not (yet) seem to care much about it. The “Seven” are not yet called “deacons,” and the fact that later authors saw in Acts 6:6 some kind of ordination rite says more about these later generations than about Luke and the time he is writing Acts. The fact that the title episkopos (“overseer”) is used only once and does not seem to be clearly distinguished from the (team of) “presbyters” that elsewhere are said to lead the community may be another indication that for Luke things were not yet so clear-cut as they were for Ignatius.28 It is then also with great hesitation that I would subscribe to Pervo’s conclusion that Luke knew of Ignatius’ position and attempted to organize the church of Antioch along such lines. Luke’s opposition against this is weak, at best, and not of a kind to shake a figure like Ignatius. Even if he was expressing only “some reservations about this model,”29 what could have been the result and what would it mean for his own position? Pervo, Dating Acts, 312. Pervo, Dating Acts, 310. 28 The title occurs in Acts 20:28, in the plural, to refer to the body of presbyters ruling the church at Ephesus. 29 Pervo, Dating Acts, 213. 26 27

42

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

A second argument has to do with identifying Luke’s generation. As Pervo sees it, Luke would have presented himself in the preface to the Gospel as belonging to the third generation of Christians. The first one is that of the apostles, to which also belongs Paul. The second one would be “the many” Luke mentions in 1:1, but the mere mention of the latter does not automatically make Luke a member of the third generation. He competes with “the many” and implicitly claims to surpass them, but he does not say he is a child of a later generation. But even if this were the case, one might wonder where that puts Luke in terms of calculating the decades that had passed since the death of Jesus. Prominent members of the first generation had passed away already as early as the early forties; the death of other such members cannot be dated with much certainty, but Luke’s account in Acts does not allow for dating Paul’s death in the fifties. It is not clear by what criteria one was reckoned to belong to the second or the third generation. Pervo uses as a criterion that of officially and formally being appointed successor to a predecessor (“the appointees of the appointees” are the third generation30), a criterion that is first formulated by the author of 1 Clement. But if that is also Luke’s criterion, there is hardly any evidence in Acts that would place him in the third generation. Generations overlap. The second generation did not start at the moment that the last representative of the first one had passed away. Hence, members of the third generation may have been active already at quite an earlier date than Pervo seems to suppose on the basis of 1 Clement. And then again, even if 1 Clement speaks of a third generation that is gradually taking over from its predecessors, we probably still are in the late nineties of the first century—not so far away in time from one of the traditional suggestions, sometime between 85–90, that many have accepted for Luke. So it seems that none of these arguments are really decisive for throwing out Acts of the first century.

30

Pervo, Dating Acts, 314.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

43

Counting Differences An argument against the unity of Luke and Acts of a quite different kind has been put forward lately by Patricia Walters.31 She focuses on the author and “authorial unity,” one of the levels Pervo and Parsons were still convinced was not in the picture when they started questioning the unity of Luke-Acts. The criticism is not new, as Walters refers to the work of Albert C. Clark and A. W. Argyle.32 It has to do with differences in matters of style and rhythm between the Gospel and Acts. The core argument against relying too much on the argument of “difference” in general was already formulated by Martin Dibelius and is repeated and rephrased by Walters as follows: “Because Acts was a new venture, a new task, ‘Luke’ needed to use a new style.”33 The argument does not impress her, even though it is theoretically not impossible or even improbable that such may have been the case. The fact that Luke in writing Acts still has a close eye on the Gospel, working from “models” taken from the Gospel (Jesus and Peter/Paul), does not argue against this. He is after all also dealing with “another topic.” But there are phenomena that have little, if any, to do with content and where the differences prove to be statistically relevant, hence in need of an explanation. Walters compares a selected body of texts from the Gospel and Acts that are generally considered to stem from Luke (the author) and finds this in the so-called “summaries.”34 Within this corpus Walters is looking for a number of phenomena: hiatus, dissonances, long sequences of long syllables, final prepositional phrases, paratactic “and,” finite/main verbs in final position, and the use of postpositive particles and other connectives instead of paratactic “and.” A good deal of the argument rests on statistics, in itself often a ra31 P. Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (SNTSMS 145; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 32 A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles: A critical edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933, repr. 1970); A. W. Argyle, “The Greek of Luke and Acts,” NTS 20 (1974): 441–45. 33 Walters, Assumed Authorial Unity, 76. 34 The complete list, as selected by Walters on the basis of what scholars have identified as summaries, is given on pp. 73–74 (Gospel) and 87–88 (Acts).

44

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ther questionable argument, as we all know, and one that can be used in too mechanical a way when judging on the work of an author, but one also that is relevant when it shows “highly significant” differences. Walters’ analysis demonstrates that such is the case, to different degrees, for all of the phenomena listed. For some of these phenomena the Gospel has statistically significantly more cases than Acts; for other it is the opposite. “These differences actually differentiate Luke and Acts.”35 Walters sees but one possible conclusion: “different authorship offers the most likely explanation.”36 As the argument is highly technical, both because of the use of statistics and of the phenomena that are studied, I cannot in any way deal in detail with Walters’ most interesting research within the framework and purpose of this essay. But neither do I want to pass it by in silence, for some of the statistics for the corpus that has been studied certainly show significant differences. What follows are only some cautious notes and observations in the margin of a project that should be continued and expanded. The author is very well aware of the latter and at the end of her monograph expresses the wish to go on with this kind of research. Here are some of the things that should perhaps be taken into account. First of all, the corpus should be expanded to include also passages in which Luke has been working on the basis of sources. This is easier to determine for the Gospel than for Acts, and so most likely will introduce a complicating factor. Yet such an expansion is needed both to get a broader or more complete view and to create a counter-check. The latter might be useful to get a better grasp on what weight Luke may have given to the phenomena that are studied by Walters. Were they really an issue for him, and can we say that he systematically changed his sources (in the Gospel) in order to comply with the rules of style and grammar in handling these phenomena? If no significant results can be noted, one is entitled to ask whether the author (or authors) really bothered about them. It is also possible that one should make further distinctions in the material according to genre; maybe Luke is more

35 36

Walters, Assumed Authorial Unity, 189. Walters, Assumed Authorial Unity, 160 (and passim).

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

45

careful or attentive to such phenomena in composing discourses than in telling stories. Finally, one should explain why there are significant differences between the Gospel and Acts for certain aspects and not for others. This is most clear with the hiatus, instances of “vowel clash,” “when two vowels or diphthongs stand immediately adjacent to one another, either between or within words, causing a pause in time as the mouth changes from one position to another, thus interrupting the smoothness,” as she describes the phenomenon.37 Walters rightly distinguishes between various forms of hiatus (sequence of long/long vowel, short/long or long/short, and short/short, all of these both within a word and between two words). For the corpus she has studied there is a highly significant difference between Gospel and Acts for the first category (Gospel 58 cases, Acts only 24), but the differences are far less impressive for the other categories. Pure coincidence, or is the difference somehow linked to the form of Greek words in general, hence something that one can hardly avoid? Walters lists four cases of long/long vowel hiatus within the same word in the corpus of Acts (against twelve in the Gospel). Two of these are the same word (2:44 and 5:14 pisteuontes, the present participle nominative plural of the verb pisteuō, “to believe”); the others are two instances of an imperfect third person plural of a verb with a diphthong (5:16 etherapeuonto, of the verb therapeuō, “to heal,” and 6:7 hypēkouon, of the verb hypakouō, “be obedient”). In 2:44 there is a strong variant reading with the participle aorist (so until Nestle-Aland25), which would undo the hiatus. There are a few other instances of hiatus with the same verb pisteuō in Acts (see, e.g., 9:26), but also in the Gospel (8:13, here introduced by Luke against Mark). The same form of the verb therapeuō that occurs in Acts 5:16 is found also in Acts 28:9, and in Luke 6:18, where Luke again has made a change compared to the text of Mark (3:10). A form of hypakouō with hiatus occurs in Luke 8:25 (against Mark 4:41). Acts 6:7 has no less than eleven hiatus (of all sorts), an exceptionally high number. Perhaps the most striking one is the long/long sequence between words in ho logos tou theou ēuxanen (“the word of God increased”). Luke has a similar hiatus, with the same 37

Walters, Assumed Authorial Unity, 150.

46

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

verb, in 13:19 (kai ēuxēsen, “and it grew”), which, according to the Critical Edition of Q, he would have retained from his source, whereas Matthew has changed it to the less awkward hotan de auxanē (“when it grows”). These few illustrations from one specific case may indicate that Walters’ book is a beginning only, as the author says. So, perhaps we must wait for “the bigger picture” before tackling the issue in all its amplitude, complexity, and consequences. Where Has Acts Gone? The textual tradition of Luke and Acts does not contain the slightest indication that the two volumes were ever considered by scribes and copyists to be part of the same work. It may be a matter of some concern for those arguing for the unity of the work, but it is not a decisive argument against this position, as Parsons and Pervo rightly note. The hazards of textual transmission and the freedom of later generations of readers, combined with the dominance and authority of a certain tradition of reading and interpreting a work, may account for this. Luke-Acts would certainly not be the first and sole work to have been gloriously misunderstood in its dynamics and purpose by later generations. The process seems to have started already at a very early moment. Kavin Rowe, while keeping to the authorial unity (“a given”) as well as the narrative and theological unity, has drawn attention to the fact that no one in the second century seems to have bothered much about linking Acts to the Gospel.38 This is true, of course, but the question is what is to be made of this. Rowe summarizes his observations and findings in five questions. I fully agree with Rowe that we cannot find much evidence (he will say: none at all) that the first generations after Luke ever 38 See C. K. Rowe, “History, Hermeneutics, and the Unity of LukeActs,” JSNT 28 (2005): 131–57. The essay opened a discussion that involved a number of scholars. Rowe answered some of the comments in another essay while repeating his main observations (“Literary Unity and Reception History: Reading Luke-Acts as Luke and Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007): 449–57). All these essays, together with some other ones, were collected in one volume in 2010; see Andrew F. Gregory and C. Kavin Rowe, eds., Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2010). Rowe’s essays are found here on pages 43–65 and 74–81.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

47

read his work as if it were a literary unity. This only proves that early Christians saw no point in reading Luke-Acts in the way suggested by Cadbury. So be it. This would only be a problem if we would have to rely on evidence from the early Church to argue for such a reading, but that is obviously not the case: the “single-book” reading is not based on any external evidence, but on internal criteria and evidence. To put things a bit more provocatively, even if we would have absolutely undisputed evidence that some early Christians read the work in this way, modern scholarship might have good reasons to discard such a reading, if the evidence from the work itself would go against this. Arguments based on the assumptions and the praxis of the ancient Church have only a relative value (as do all arguments). No ancient author seems to have pondered the possibility that Luke had used Mark as one of his major sources, and read the Gospel accordingly. Yet this is now a common position in current scholarship, and for quite some time already. In addition to this, one should also give due weight to the fact that, going on the evidence that has come to us, Luke’s Gospel and Acts were apparently not the first books second-century authors turned to: the evidence is scanty, and this reflects, or should reflect, on the consequences that can be drawn from it. Could it be that Marcion’s “tampering” with Luke’s Gospel played a role in this clearly somewhat hesitant reception? When confronted with such a project as Marcion’s, one actually has two options, a defensive one and an offensive. Some authors at least may have chosen the first, and left Luke’s Gospel aside (and with it, Acts); alternatively, one might go “after Marcion” and try to save Luke’s Gospel from him. From the preceding it should be clear that I cannot agree with Rowe’s second point, that since there is no evidence in the ancient Church for reading Luke-Acts as “a single book,” “there is certainly no reason why modern studies must treat the two as a connected unity.”39 As said, it is rather the contrary: modern scholars should treat Luke-Acts as a unity, if that is what the evidence from the books points to, regardless of what ancient authors and readers did. It cannot be denied that at least most of these early readers were eager to read Luke’s Gospel “with the other Gospels.” In itself this

39

Rowe, “History,” 54.

48

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

is not a completely flawed approach, and we should also keep it, but not at the cost of giving up on this other approach. I can again agree with Rowe that there may be various ways for reading Acts “legitimately and valuably.” He refers to reading Acts as a sequel to the Gospels and as a prelude or sequel to Paul’s letters. That is a way of looking at Acts from a canonical(-critical) perspective. A most valuable way for reading Acts, and one that has been applied most widely in Pauline studies, is to read Acts as an alternative (contrastive/polemical?) way of dealing with Paul from what the man says in his own correspondence. Likewise, it is certainly useful to read Luke’s Gospel “with the other Gospels” (including John’s, as yet another voice). But when it comes to read and understand “Luke” for his own, one should focus first and foremost on the two volumes and take a position on the matter, whether or not one wishes to read them as a single work. And that is also the view taken by Rowe, who in the end seems to side with those who wish to keep to the unity of the work, when he asks, “Do we not forfeit an understanding of the literary dynamics of Luke-Acts if we separate Luke from Acts and/or join them together with other works?”40 It is a question that seems to allow for only one answer, a positive one. Consequently, Rowe’s last question becomes immaterial, for “what are the current interpretive options if we take seriously the possibility that Acts was intended to go with Luke but that they were not actually read together,”41 but to conclude that such an approach, even it is the one used by the oldest readers, is wrong, misses out on what was a prime issue for Luke, and hence probably on a good part of Luke’s theology and purpose?

CONCLUSION The question of the coherence of Luke’s work, of how it has to be explained and how to account for the differences, is a much more complicated one than many may have thought. For Cadbury, and many others with him, “coherence” equals “unity”: Luke-Acts was conceived as one work and created accordingly. That it was afterwards broken up is a mere accident of history. Later generations of 40 41

Rowe, “History,” 55. Rowe, “History,” 55.

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS

49

scholars have become more sensitive for the complexity, but also for the dynamics that are at work. Reading Luke-Acts on the hypothesis that it was originally meant by its author to be a work in two parts that are to be read as one, has proven to be a worthwhile and rewarding approach. Two objections that can be raised against such an approach do not seem to invalidate this conclusion. First, it may not be the absolutely “perfect” approach, the one that solves all problems, for once and forever and without further discussion. But that is our fate in most scholarly discussions. Speaking for myself, I must say that I can live with an “incomplete” or “difficult” solution, one that leaves some of the problems still open, and that such a solution is to be preferred to an easier one that does not really solve the problem. Granted the authorial unity of Luke-Acts, those who would wish to loosen the bounds that link the Gospel to Acts still have to explain why Luke did change his mind on a number of matters. A good deal (maybe more than the skeptics would suspect) of what can be said in this regard may well be acceptable also for those arguing for “unity.” Second, it is impossible to tell with certainty and in some detail how much of the second work was available to Luke when he started writing the first part, nor in what form it was available (e.g., a mere general idea about a story of the Church, some sort of overall structure, specific stories taken from oral tradition or possibly even written sources, or the plan to write this continuation after the model of the first part and with strong emphasis on the parallels). But again this does not invalidate the hypothesis. It is a priori not impossible that Luke had a rather clear idea of the overall structure and that he had some good ideas about how to write particular stories, and that this may have influenced the way he composed the Gospel. What seems to be certain is that the second part was influenced in a not unimportant way by the first part, but not to such a degree that it was a mere copy of it. That would not have been possible, for the latter “takes up” and “continues” the first one; it is not meant as a mere repetition of the same. In other words: does Luke portray a consistent interest in parallelism? Absolutely. In coherence in form and content? For sure. In unity of composition? To quite some extent. In extensive and detailed planning? Not impossible.

50

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. London: Methuen, 1927. Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Gregory, A. F. and C. Kavin Rowe, eds. Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2010. Parsons, Mikeal C., and Richard I. Pervo. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Repr., 2007. Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006. Pervo, Richard I. Acts. A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Verheyden, Joseph, ed. The Unity of Luke-Acts. BETL 142. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Walters, Patricia. The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence. SNTSMS 145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS: WITNESSES, FEATURES, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS Dieter T. Roth

No serious study of Luke-Acts is able to avoid consideration of the issues surrounding the text of these books, as their textual history, and that of Acts in particular, remains one of the most fascinating and noteworthy problems of New Testament (NT) textual criticism.1 It is particularly due to the issues surrounding the differences between the so-called “Western” textual tradition, which has its most distinctive form in Acts, and the so-called “Alexandrian” textual tradition that Stanley Porter has observed, “The text of Acts has probably been studied more than that of any other New Testament book.”2 Though not quite as pronounced, a similar set of 1 Georg Gäbel makes a similar point at the outset of his study: “Among the most striking and fascinating problems of New Testament textual scholarship is the history of the text of Acts” (“The Text of P127 (P.Oxy. 4968) and its Relationship with the Text of Codex Bezae,” NovT 53 [2011]: 107). For a helpful overview of the manuscripts and issues involved see C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–1998), 1:2–29, 2:xix–xxii. 2 Stanley E. Porter, “Developments in the Text of Acts before the Major Codices,” in The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations/Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeshichte: Text, Text-

51

52

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

issues is found in the textual history of Luke, a history that is all the more fascinating due to Marcion having utilized a gospel text that was related, in some manner, to canonical Luke.3 Though the textual questions in scholarship on Luke-Acts have often focused on recovering the older, and even the supposed “original,” readings, or upon the age and development of the “Western” text, recent work in textual criticism has become significantly more interested in the historical and theological questions raised by the variant textual traditions.4 This chapter is intended, therefore, not only to present traditionen und antike Auslegungen (ed. T. Nicklas and M. Tilly; BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 31. Though the term “Western” text is retained here for convenience, in recognition of the difficulties associated with it, I always place it in quotation marks. For discussion see, e.g., J. Neville Birdsall, “The Western Text in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (ed. W. L. Petersen; CJA 3; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 3–17. Given the variety of witnesses, W. A. Strange suggests that in a certain sense it might be more appropriate to speak of “Western” texts (The Problem of the Text of Acts [SNTSMS 71; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 35–37). Noting the increasing challenge leveled against “text types” in general is D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 171–74. 3 For discussion of the history of research on Marcion’s gospel, including some recent misunderstandings, see Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate,” JBL 127 (2008): 513–27. 4 For difficulties with the term “original text” in Textual Criticism, see Eldon Jay Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” HTR 92 (1999): 245–81. Helpful interaction with recent work on the “Western” text can be found in Joël Delobel, “The Text of Luke-Acts: A Confrontation of Recent Theories,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 83–107, and Christopher Tuckett, “How early is ‘the’ ‘Western’ Text of Acts?,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 69–86. Highlighting interest in historical and theological questions raised by textual variants are, e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Eldon J. Epp, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century,” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. D. A. Black; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 17–76; and Tobias Nicklas, “Zur historischen und theologsichen

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

53

some of the more interesting textual features and questions surrounding Luke-Acts, but also to consider the potential historical and theological significance of the textual traditions of these two NT books.

THE TEXT OF LUKE Gaining insight into the textual history of Luke has certainly been aided by the appearance of the two volumes by the American and British Committee of the International Greek New Testament Project entitled The Gospel According to St. Luke.5 This work, which was the result of many years of labor marked with difficulties and setbacks,6 did not present a new critical edition of the Greek text, but rather sought to provide a full critical apparatus for the Textus Receptus. As François Bovon noted, “the two volumes are a welcome tool, providing a handy and comprehensive view of the manuscript evidence for the Gospel of Luke,” even if he also had to point out that the edition clearly has its limitations and must be employed with caution as the apparatus “is a permanent source of mistakes for both the author and the reader.”7 When considering early manuscripts of Luke, it is worth noting that of the Synoptic Gospels, only Luke’s extant early papyri contain extensive amounts of text.8 There are now ten papyri conBedeutung der Erforschung neutestamentlicher Textgeschichte,” NTS 48 (2002): 145–58. 5 The Gospel According to St. Luke (ed. The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project; 2 vols.; The New Testament in Greek 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). 6 See the “Historical Retrospect” in The Gospel According to St. Luke, v. 7 François Bovon, Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 25. For an early use of the insight gained into the textual tradition of Luke through the collations that took place for these volumes, see Kenneth W. Clark, “The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” JBL 85 (1966): 11–15. 8 See Peter Head, “Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (ed. P. Foster et al.; BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 152–53. Though I will largely focus on the text of the papyri, for important observations concerning how the manuscripts them-

54

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

taining portions of Luke: P3 (6th/7th cent.), P4 (3d cent.), P7 (3d/4th cent.),9 P42 (7th/8th cent.), P45 (3d cent.), P69 (3d cent.), P75 (3d cent.), P82 (4th/5th cent.), P97 (6th/7th cent.), and P111 (3d cent.).10 Six of these papyri, if one includes P7, are dated prior to the 4th cent.11 Not surprisingly, some of these papyri are extremely fragmentary: P7 contains only Luke 4:1–3; P111 contains 17:11–13, 22–23; and P69 contains Luke 22:41, 45–48, 58–61. At the same time, however, it should be noted that the extremely fragmentary nature of a papyrus does not a priori translate into a lack of importance. For example, P69 is interesting in that it contains more non-D readings than D readings, though at the same time attesting three characteristic D variants.12 More significantly, P69 lacks Luke 22:42–44,13 which has led not only to extensive scholarly discussion, but even to a cau-

selves are also artifacts that provide vital insight into early Christian communities, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 9 P7 is unfortunately lost and we are dependent on a transcription made by Gregory in a travel journal. The papyrus fragment appears to be the conclusion of a homily or commentary. For discussion see Kurt Aland, “Neue neutestamentliche Papyri P7, P68, P11,” in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (ANTF 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 137–40. 10 The dating of all papyri in this chapter is that assigned by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. A list of manuscripts with further details, often including images, can now be accessed online at http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php. 11 For a recent analysis of these early papyri, see Juan Hernández, Jr., “The Early Text of Luke,” in The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. C. E. Hill and M. J. Kruger; Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2012). 12 See E. Lobel et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XXIV (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1957), 2–3. 13 The omission of Luke 22:43–44, as attested in various witnesses, is well known; however, the additional omission of v. 42 is unique to P 69. For discussion of the tradition found in vv. 43–44 see Claire Clivaz, “The Angel and the Sweat Like ‘Drops of Blood’ (Luke 22:43–44): P69 and f13,” HTR 98 (2005): 419–40 and idem, L’ange et la sueur de sang (Lc 22, 43–44): ou comment on pourrait bien encore écrire l’histoire (Biblical Tools and Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2010).

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

55

tious, but ultimately unlikely, suggestion that the papyrus could be read as a fragment from Marcion’s Gospel.14 In addition to these fragmentary papyri, P4, P45, and P75 contain greater amounts of text. P75 is by far the most extensive of these and has played a significant role in shaping textual opinions about Luke. Both Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland, in their respective introductions to the text of the NT, noted not only the similarity of the text of this papyrus with that of B, but highlighted how the discovery of this papyrus demonstrated that the Alexandrian text was not the result of a fourth-century revision.15 For this reason, appeal has often been made to P75 as providing important support for the view of the primacy and greater purity of the Alexandrian textual tradition. At the same time, however, Andrew Gregory cautions that despite the obvious importance of the discovery of this papyrus, “it is not clear to what extent it is reasonable to extrapolate backwards from P75 to argue that it must represent an older tradition.”16 Regardless of whether one finds Gregory’s view too pessimistic or not, his observation is an important reminder of the difficulties faced in attempting to gain insight into the NT text prior to the end of the second century.

14 Clivaz, “The Angel,” 429–32. Clivaz’s suggestion is methodologically problematic in that it rests entirely on an argument from silence involving verses that are unattested in the sources for Marcion’s gospel. It is also unlikely that one could respond with an affirmative answer to Richard Pervo’s question: “Was the ‘western revision’ a counter-blast [to Marcion’s revised version of Luke and Paul]?” (“Social and Religious Aspects of the ‘Western’ Texts,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders [ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett; Lanham: University Press of America, 1985], 241). 15 See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 41; and Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 97. A helpful summary of the textual analysis of P75 can be found in Parker, Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts, 320–23. 16 Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 2/169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 29.

56

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

P4 contains around 96 verses of Luke’s Gospel and exhibits agreement with P75 and B in over 90% of its text.17 Hernández points out that P4 and P75 are identical in forty complete verses and exhibit only five significant variants between them.18 In addition to the question of its textual affinities, P4 is also important in that if it belongs to the same codex as P64 and P67, these papyri would attest the earliest four-Gospel codex, a position argued by T. C. Skeat, though questioned by Peter Head.19 P45 contains sections, some of them quite extensive, from eight chapters of Luke. Concerning its text, James Royse observes, “P45 fails to side clearly with any of the major manuscripts of text-types.”20 Though its textual history is somewhat idiosyncratic, P45 is not merely an amalgamation of “Western” and Alexandrian readings in Luke. In fact, Hernández observes that out of 223 readings, only 22 are connected to D and/or the Old Latin whereas 165 are connected to primary Alexandrian witnesses (P75, ), B). Taken together, the early papyri tend to attest an Alexandrian text, though P69 does contain a mixture of D and non-D readings. An appreciation of the textual variation in the manuscripts of Luke can best be gained through examples of some of the bestknown variant readings found in its textual transmission. In the introduction it was noted that though the differences between the Alexandrian and the “Western” textual traditions are most acute in Acts, the issue certainly is not absent in Luke. The “Western” text in Luke-Acts is often characterized by its greater length, with Acts usually being said to be about 10% longer in the “Western” than in

17 See Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts: New and Complete Transcriptions with Photographs (corrected and enlarged ed.; Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001), 43. 18 Hernández lists these variants as occurring in 3:22, 36; 5:39; 6:11, 14 (“The Early Text of Luke”). 19 See T. C. Skeat, “The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?,” NTS 43 (1997): 1–34 and Peter M. Head, “Is P4, P64, and P67 the Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels? A Response to T. C. Skeat,” NTS 51 (2005): 450–57. 20 James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 105.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

57

the Alexandrian text.21 Greater length in Luke is also evident in some places, with a famous instance occurring in Luke 6:4 of D where this manuscript reads τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης τοῦ νόμου.22

Interestingly, however, in the final chapter of Luke the bestknown phenomenon concerning the “Western” text is its shorter readings, as seven of Westcott and Hort’s so-called “Western noninterpolations” are found there.23 These sets of shorter readings have engendered a tremendous amount of discussion, with several scholars still advocating the superiority of the shorter readings, often with an appeal to the theological significance of the readings.24 At the same time, the discovery of P75 has provided significantly earlier evidence for the longer readings than the earliest manu-

E.g., Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bible Gesellschaft, 1994), 223. Though this is a significant characteristic, it is by no means the only one. M. Wilcox rightly refers to the D-text deviating from the B-text in four main ways “(a) additions, (b) omissions, (c) substitutions (usually of a word or phrase), and (d) alterations of sense” (“Luke and the Bezan Text of Acts,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie [ed. J. Kremer; BETL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979], 448). 22 For discussion of this pericope, see especially Ernst Bammel, “The Cambridge Pericope: The Addition to Luke 6:4 in Codex Bezae,” NTS 32 (1986): 404–26; Joël Delobel, “Luke 6, 5 in Codex Bezae: The Man who Worked on Sabbath,” in À cause de l’évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes: Offerts au P. Jacques Dupont, O. S. B. à l’occasion de son 70 e anniversaire (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985), 453–77; and J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Luke 6:5D Reexamined,” NovT 37 (1995): 232–48. 23 The nine readings labeled “Western non-interpolations,” i.e., readings where all non-Western witnesses had suffered interpolations, by Westcott and Hort are Matt 27:49; Luke 22:19b–20; 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, and 52 (see Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix [2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1896], 295). 24 E.g., Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 198–209, 217–21; and D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 148–74. 21

58

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

scripts available to Westcott and Hort.25 In addition, though appeals have often been made to the text of Marcion’s Gospel as early evidence for several of the shorter, “Western” readings, such appeals are rather problematic.26 In fact, in the two instances where a source offers clear testimony for Marcion’s Gospel, i.e., Luke 22:19b–20 (Tertullian, Marc. 4.43.2) and 24:6 (Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.6 [σχ. 76]), Marcion’s Gospel appears to have contained at least some of the longer readings. In every other instance, the readings are unattested in the sources, and drawing the conclusion that Marcion’s Gospel contained the shorter reading is a dubious use of an argument from silence.27 Another verse that is variously omitted or included in the manuscript tradition is Jesus’ prayer from the cross: πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (Luke 23:34). Bart Ehrman has argued that there are good, and indeed compelling, reasons for viewing the verse as original to Luke. For example, the verse coincides perfectly with Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as calm, in control, and more concerned about others throughout the passion account; contains a presentation of the Lukan emphasis of Jesus in prayer; and reflects the “ignorance motif,” also found in Acts, as part of the reason for Jesus’ execution.28 As an explanation for how the petition came to be omitted, Ehrman suggests that it must be understood within the context of the Jewish-Christian conflict in the second century. Certainly, some Christians believed that the Jews not only had not been forgiven, but indeed that they were held responsible and had been punished by God for their crucifixion of Jesus. It is at least possible that the social and theological environ25 A helpful summary of this point can be found in Hernández, “The Early Text of Luke.” 26 For discussion, see Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion and the Early Text of the New Testament,” in The Early Text of the New Testament. 27 For brief comments on the problematic manner in which arguments from silence have factored in Marcion research, see Dieter T. Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel: Relevance, Contested Issues, and Reconstruction,” ExpTim 121 (2010): 291–92. 28 See Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (ed. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux; NTTS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 111–12.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

59

ment of the second century led a scribe (or scribes) to omit a question that not only had Jesus asking God to forgive the Jews, but also a petition that could appear as one that God had not honored.29 A final textual variant, and one that has led to a spate of scholarly publications, concerns the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2. Gregory of Nyssa, in one of his homilies on the Lord’s Prayer, attests that instead of the petition ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, Luke reads ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα σου ἐφ’ ἡμας καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς.30 Adding to the intrigue of this variant is the question of the reading of Marcion’s Gospel. Adolf von Harnack, in his magisterial work on Marcion, reconstructed Marcion’s text here as reading (ἐλθάτω) τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα (σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς).31 Regarding the elements in parentheses, in the apparatus Harnack stated that because Tertullian’s testimony establishes that the first petition was for the Holy Spirit, Marcion’s text would have read consonant with the other witnesses for such a petition.32 This contention, however, is rather problematic. Tertullian, the only witness for the reading in Marcion’s version of the Lord’s Prayer, simply queried A quo spiritum sanctum postulem? (Marc. 4.26.4). This question does imply that the first supplication of the See Ehrman, “The Text of the Gospels,” 111, 113. An extensive, though not exhaustive, list of scholars who have argued for and scholars who have argued against the originality of this reading can be found in Shawn Carruth and Albrecht Garsky, The Database of the International Q Project: Q 11:2b–4 (ed. S. D. Anderson; Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 4–17; and Gerhard Schneider, “Die Bitte um das Kommen des Geistes im lukanischen Vaterunser (Lk 11,2 v.l.),” in Studien zum Text und Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80: Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (ed. W. Schragel; BZNW 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986), 344–73; repr. in Jesusüberlieferung & Christologie: Neutestamentliche Aufsätze 1970–1990 (NovTSup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 86–115. 31 Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (2d ed.; TU 45; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924), 207. 32 The witnesses, in addition to Gregory of Nysaa, are Maximus Confessor and minuscules 700 and 162. For the readings and discussion see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 130–31. It is striking how often Marcion is mentioned in the discussions concerning the originality of this petition (see n. 30). 29 30

60

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

prayer in Marcion’s text was for the Holy Spirit; however, it is far too tenuous a basis on which to build the argument that Marcion is a witness for the full reading attested by Gregory of Nyssa et al.33 Nevertheless, the early evidence for textual variation in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer indicates the importance of considering textual issues when studying the Gospel of Luke.

THE TEXT OF ACTS In the introduction to this chapter it was observed that there has been a long-standing debate concerning the relationship between the two main textual traditions for the book of Acts. It is simply not possible to engage with much of the literature in this debate within the confines of this chapter, though the general scholarly consensus would still agree with the assessment of Porter that the development of the “Western” textual tradition came as a “later development when compared to the Alexandrian tradition.”34 In the following discussion, however, the primary concern is not the question of which readings are closer in proximity to a supposed “original” form of Acts, for even as broader questions concerning the “Western” and Alexandrian textual traditions have continued to garner scholarly interest, increasing attention has been devoted to the questions of how the early papyri are related to the textual traditions of later codices, such as Sinaiticus ()), Vaticanus (B), and Bezae (D), and whether there are discernible theological or literary tendencies in the “Western” text. Thus, after mentioning the current textual research on Acts and offering a few examples of the types of differences found in the different textual traditions of Acts, these more recent trends in the study of the texts of Acts will be considered.35 For further discussion, see Dieter T. Roth, “The Text of the Lord’s Prayer in Marcion’s Gospel,” ZNW 103 (2012): 47–63. 34 Porter, “Developments,” 66. For a recent, different view of the “Western” text, see Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (4 vols.; JSNTSup 257, LNTS 302, 365, 415; London: T&T Clark, 2004– 2009). 35 For a full study of scholarship on D and Acts, in particular, up to the early 1990s, see Kenneth E. Panten, “A History of Research on Codex 33

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

61

In 1985, at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, “The International Project on the Text of Acts” was announced. This project was centered at Abilene Christian University and was under the direction of Carroll Osburn and Thomas Geer, Jr. The intention of this project was to publish a major critical edition of Acts with a new, complete, and accurate textual apparatus.36 Though this publication never appeared, the information from this project has been passed on to the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster where the work on the text of Acts is continuing within the Editio Critica Maior. The volume on Acts is scheduled to appear within the next few years. It was already mentioned above that the “Western” text of Acts is characterized by its greater length, specifically as found in long insertions or paraphrases,37 and that the “Western” text has its most pronounced form in Acts.38 A few examples are illustrative of the situation. In Acts 7:24, after relating that Moses struck the Egyptian, the “Western” text adds a detail from Exod 2:12 (LXX) καὶ ἔκρυψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἄμμῳ. In Acts 8:24, at the end of the verse D adds ὅς πολλὰ κλαίων οὐ διελίμπανεν. The reference is to Simon and the addition seems to suggest that he cries either Bezae, with Special Reference to the Acts of the Apostles: Evaluation and Future Directions” (Ph.D. diss., Murdoch University, 1995). 36 For a discussion of this project, see Carroll D. Osburn, “The Search for the Original Text of Acts—the International Project on the Text of Acts,” JSNT 14 (1991): 39–55. 37 In her study of the “Western” text, Barbara Aland focuses specifically on such characteristic passages (see her statement on methodology in “Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. Westlichen Textes – Untersucht an der Apostelgeschichte,” ETL 62 [1986]: 9). 38 D’s text is the most distinctive in Acts. Unfortunately, the manuscript is missing Acts 8:29–10:14; 21:2–10; 22:10–20; and 22:30 to the conclusion of the book. The details of the differences between an “Alexandrian” text (in B) and a “Western” text (in D) can be seen in the parallel presentation by James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts (vol. 3 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles; 5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1926), 1–255. Though the two traditions are to some extent distinct, M.-É. Boismard has shown that D also reveals points of contact with elements of the “Alexandrian” tradition (“Le Codex de Bèze et le texte occidental des Actes,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994, 257–70).

62

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

tears of remorse or tears of disappointment and anger when asking Peter, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” Acts 8:37 (Philip’s response to the Ethiopian eunuch) is a “Western” reading found in E, many minuscules, and several versions. In Acts 11:2, D has a significantly longer reading as it states ὁ μὲν οὖν Πέτρος διὰ ἱκανοῦ ἠθέλησεν πορευθῆναι εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα· καὶ προσφωνήσας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἐπιστηρίξας αὐτούς, πολὺν λόγον ποιούμενος, διὰ τῶν χωρῶν διδάσκων αὐτούς· ὃς καὶ κατήντησεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ. οἱ δὲ ἐκ περιτομῆς ἀδελφοὶ διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτον. Numerous other readings could be listed, though here only

one more reference will be made to the variant that Benjamin W. Bacon, already in 1928, referred to as “the most noted and most drastic” reading in the “Western” text of Acts.39 In the decree from the Jerusalem Council, as recorded in 15:20 and 29, D reads

ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πορνείας· καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέρω μὴ ποιεῖν. Ιt is often said that this

reading leads to the “Western” text having recorded a moral decree, whereas the Alexandrian text presents a ceremonial decree.40 Though there is clearly a sense in which ceremonial or moral elements in the decree receive greater emphasis in one or the other version, one must be careful not to oversimplify or assume that the “ceremonial” and the “ethical” elements can be clearly or cleanly divided.41 Though Westcott and Hort’s observation towards the end of the nineteenth century that “had D of the Gospels and Acts…perished, it would have been…far harder than now to form a clear conception of the Western text, and consequently of early 39 Benjamin W. Bacon, “Some ‘Western’ Variants in the Text of Acts,” HTR 21 (1928): 128. 40 For a recent overview, see Joël Delobel, “The ‘Apostolic Decree’ in Recent Research on the ‘Western’ Text of Acts,” in ΕΠΙΤΟΑΥΤΟ: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. J. Mrazek, S. Brodsky, and R. Dvorakova; Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 1998), 67–81. 41 See C. K. Barrett, “The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:29,” Australian Biblical Review 35 (1987): 50–59 and Martin Meiser, “Texttraditionen des Aposteldekrets – Textkritik und Rezeptionsgeschichte,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 373–98.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

63

textual history” remains true in many respects,42 the Greek papyrus finds over roughly the past century have provided whole new data sets, the importance of which cannot be overestimated.43 Unfortunately, space does not permit an extensive discussion and analysis of the extant papyri, and only a brief overview can be offered here.44 There are now sixteen papyri and one early parchment that contain portions of Acts. The manuscripts dated prior to the 4th century include P29 (3d cent.), P38 (ca. 300), P45 (3d cent.), P48 (3d cent.), P53 (3d cent.), P91 (3d cent.), and the parchment 0189 (2d/3d cent.). The later papyri are P8 (4th cent.), P33+58 (6th cent.), P41 (8th cent.), P50 (4th/5th cent.), P56 (5th/6th cent.), P57 (4th/5th cent.), P74 (7th cent.), P112 (5th cent.), and P127 (5th cent.). As noted above, it is particularly those papyri (and one parchment) that are dated earlier than the major codices that have been of particular interest and importance for the study of the text of Acts. This is not to say, however, that the other papyri are not of interest or lack importance. For example, Parker notes that P74, with its relatively high agreement with ), A, and B, is a “significant papyrus, in spite of its late date.”45 In addition, the recently published P127 is a fascinating papyrus that has a remarkable number of agreements with D, including previously considered singular variants; a series of agreements with other manuscripts; and numerous singular readings.

42 See Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix, 131. 43 The papyri, of course, are not the only significant discoveries. Amongst others, one could mention the publication of the Coptic Codex Glazier revealing that at least a form of the “Western” text was known in Egypt in the fifth century (for a brief and nuanced assessment, see Aland, “Enstehung,” 57). In addition, work has continued on the Old Latin and the Old Syriac versions, as well as citations by Irenaeus—all significant for studies of the “Western” text. 44 For more extensive discussion, see Aland, “Enstehung,” 11–43; J. K. Elliott, “Codex Bezae and the Earliest Greek Papyri,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Conference June 1994, 161–82; Porter, “Developments,” 31–67; and Christopher Tuckett, “The Early Text of Acts,” in The Early Text of the New Testament. 45 Parker, Introduction, 288.

64

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

The analysis of this papyrus has provided important new insight into the textual history of Acts.46 Slightly different than the case for the Lukan papyri, nearly all of the early papyri of the Book of Acts are quite fragmentary. For example, P29 contains Acts 26:7–8, 20; P38 contains Acts 18:27– 19:6, 19:12–16; P48 contains text from Acts 23:11–17, 25–29; P53 contains text from Acts 9:33–10:1; P91 contains Acts 2:30–37, 46– 3:2; and the parchment 0189 contains Acts 5:3–21. Only P45, which contains extended sections from Acts 4:27–17:17, has substantial portions of text. Of these papyri, P29, P38, and P48 have often been identified as being “Western” in some sense. The original editors of P29, for example, stated that the fragment “seems to represent a very ancient Greek text akin to the ‘Western.’”47 Porter, however, has highlighted several problems with such a conclusion. First, it is very difficult to gain insight into the textual character of such a small fragment. Second, since D is not extant for the attested verses, later, Latin manuscripts have often been used for the points of contact. Finally, it does not appear that there are any distinctive Western readings in the fragment.48 Similarly, P48 also contains verses not extant in D, even though its readings are closely related with other manuscripts labeled as “Western.”49 P38 does allow for comparison with the readings found in D, and the papyrus reveals striking agreement with the “Western” text, especially in chapter 19.50 Though its text is definitely not identical with that of D, it likely reflects a text that was part of the developing tradition that eventually became what is now called the “Western” text. P53 contains text from a section of Acts that is not extant in D and a section that has essentially no distinctive “Western” readings. Porter concludes that apart from two incidental variants the manuscript attests no evidence for an affinity to the “Western” textual See Gäbel, “The Text of P127.” B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, eds., “1597. The Acts of the Apostles xxvi,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XIII (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1919), 10. 48 See Porter, “Developments,” 41. 49 See Aland, “Entstehung,” 36–40. 50 See the analysis by Henry A. Sanders, “A Papyrus Fragment of Acts in the Michigan Collection,” HTR 20 (1927): 1–19 and Elliott, “Codex Bezae,” 179. 46 47

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

65

tradition and reveals a “limited amount of variation in the Alexandrian tradition.”51 A similar conclusion can be made concerning P91, even if in this instance the relationship with the Alexandrian tradition is strengthened by the lack of distinctive “Western” readings in the papyrus at 2:37 and 3:1. 0189, a parchment considered by the Alands as being one of the five important parchments for NT textual criticism,52 evidences an Alexandrian text. Concerning P45, it is worth noting that despite its length, it offers no support for distinctive “Western” readings. Overall, “the preponderance of evidence sees P45 siding with the tradition represented by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.”53 Thus, one may conclude that the early Acts papyri, though revealing a wide variety of variants, offer only limited evidence for the “Western” textual tradition of Acts before D.54 In addition, Tuckett observes that when papyri do reveal some affinity to the “Western” text, they seem to reveal that the “Western” text was less strictly preserved as far as detailed wording is concerned that the Alexandrian text.55 It is not, however, merely the analysis of readings that holds scholarly interest in the textual tradition of Acts, it is also the historical and theological significance of variant readings found in the manuscript traditions. Matthew Black, for example, has drawn attention to this shift of emphasis “from the classical approach to textual problems to the hermeneutical questions raised by significant variae lectiones.”56 A particularly significant monograph in this Porter, “Developments,” 61. See Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 104. 53 Porter, “Developments,” 57. 54 So also Porter, “Developments,” 66. 55 Tuckett, “Early Text of Acts.” 56 Matthew Black, “The Holy Spirit in the Western Text of Acts,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 159. See also, idem, “Notes on the Longer and Shorter Text of Acts,” in On Language, Culture and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 119–31. The study of the textual traditions in Acts is a particularly clear example confirming Pheme Perkins’s observation, “Today’s text critics are no longer just providing the Greek text from which other scholars and translators work. They are contributing insights into the social and theological history of Christiani51 52

66

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

regard is Eldon Epp’s The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts in which he argues that the D text evidences a tendency to anti-Judaism and a particular interest in the Holy Spirit.57 Epp contends that the anti-Judaic tendency of D can be seen in this text portraying the Jews and their leaders as more hostile to Jesus, assigning them great responsibility for Jesus’ death, minimizing the response and importance of Judaism and its institutions to the new faith, and presenting the Jewish leaders as more hostile towards the apostles.58 Of course, recognizing that there are important historical and theological components of variant readings does not immediately translate into an understanding of how precisely such readings came into the manuscript tradition, or into a clear recognition of which reading is to be given priority. Furthermore, when one begins to speak of the historical, theological, or hermeneutical significance of readings, one is not simply noting variations, but also seeking to explain why such variation has occurred. Clearly, the various types of accidental copying errors that occur in all manuscripts are not in view; instead, in order to argue for “significance” it is the intentional and deliberate rewriting of a text in the copying process that must be identified and analyzed.59 The difficulty involved in such an endeavor can be illustrated by one example involving the idea of anti-Judaism and the Holy Spirit. In Acts 20:3, all textual witnesses indicate that Paul was faced with a plot by the Jews that ty” (Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 47). At the same time, it should be observed that even in the first years of the twentieth century Kirsopp Lake spoke of using “the textual variants in [Acts] to illustrate the difficulties found by early scribes, and the varying ideas and customs of the early church” (“The Practical Value of Textual Variation: Illustrated from the Book of Acts,” The Biblical World 19 [1902]: 362). 57 Eldon Jay Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). See also idem, “The ‘Ignorance Motif’ in Acts and Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Codex Bezae,” HTR 55 (1962): 51–62. 58 See Epp, Theological Tendency, 165–66. 59 Brief but helpful comments on this issue can be found in Ann Graham Brock, “Appeasement, Authority, and the Role of Women in the D-Text of Acts,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 206–207.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

67

threatened his travel plans; however, a few witnesses, including D, state that Paul wanted to set sail to Syria, εἶπεν δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ to travel to Jerusalem via Macedonia. In all other manuscripts, the account relates simply ἐγένετο γνώμης to take the circuitous route through Macedonia. Epp argues that the reading in D represents a conscious effort to highlight the Holy Spirit’s protection of Paul from hostiles Jews, which Epp interprets as an anti-Jewish tendency.60 Black, however, wonders whether the “rational alternative to a charismatic direction” could have come about through the response in the Alexandrian catechetical School to Montanist enthusiasm, and whether the B and ) texts could be “deliberately toning down” a strong anti-Jewish feeling.61 The point here is not to attempt to evaluate who has the better argument as it relates to this reading, even if Epp’s view here generally appears more convincing, but rather to highlight how beginning to focus on the theological significance of a variant raises broader hermeneutical questions of how the reading of one manuscript tradition is to be understood in comparison with another.62 Another area of some interest in the study of the text of Acts, and one that can further elucidate the variety of issues already mentioned above, is the question of the role of women in the textual traditions. Michael Holmes observes that “decades before the rise of contemporary feminism, claims were made that there existed within the New Testament textual tradition an ‘anti-feminist’ tendency,” with the “Western” text of Acts often at the center of such claims.63 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has gone so far as to suggest

Epp, Theological Tendency, 143–44. Black, “The Holy Spirit,” 165. 62 An overview of how this discussion has developed can be found in Eldon J. Epp, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 111–146. 63 Michael W. Holmes, “Women and the ‘Western’ Text of Acts,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 183 and the literature cited there. Ben Witherington III lists Acts 1:14; the treatment of Lydia in chap. 16; 17:4, 12, 34; and the handling of Priscilla in chap. 18 as examples of passages in the “Western” text where it “appears that there was a concerted effort by some part of the Church…to tone down texts in Luke’s second volume that indicated that women played an important an prominent part in the 60 61

68

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

that concerning prominent women for the Christian mission “Codex D eliminates them totally.”64 Following Schüssler Fiorenza, Ann Graham Brock has recently argued that D intensifies the diminishment of women already present in Luke-Acts.65 She sees the most compelling indication of this tendency in the references to Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18 and cites Metzger’s observation “Apparently the Western reviser (D itgig syr copsa arm al) desired to reduce the prominence of Priscilla, for he either mentions Aquila first (as here [Acts 18:26]) or inserts the name of Aquila without including Priscilla (as in verses 3, 18, and 21).”66 In addition, Brock references three readings in Acts 17 that she views as demonstrating a pattern of patriarchally-motivated alteration. In Acts 17:4, instead of the reading γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων, which is somewhat ambiguous and could be translated either “and wives of the leading men” or “and leading women,” D’s reading, καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν πρώτων, unambiguously is “and wives of the leading men.” In 17:12, instead of τῶν Ἑλληνίδων γυναικῶν τῶν εὐσχημόνων καὶ ἀνδρῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι, D reads τῶν Ἑλληνίδων καὶ τῶν εὐσχημόνων ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες. Finally, in 17:34 the woman listed as a convert (γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις) is altogether absent in D. early days of the Christian community” (“The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’ Text in Acts,” JBL 103 [1984]: 83). 64 Elisabeth Schlüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 52. 65 Brock, “Appeasement,” 217. See also Brock, “Scribal Blunder or Textual Plunder? Codex Bezae, Textual-Rhetorical Analysis, and the Diminished Role of Women,” in Her Master’s Tools: Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse (ed. C. Vander Stichele and T. Penner; SBL Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 253–64. It is also worth noting that some scholars have tended to see all the theological emphases in the “Western” text or D as the enhancement or exaggeration of various theological themes in Luke-Acts, rather than an independent and developed set of theological tendencies (see, e.g., C. K. Barrett, “Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae?,” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black [ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 15–27; and David C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 190). 66 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 413.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

69

Undoubtedly, this is an interesting constellation of variants; however, Holmes considers the possibility that some of these readings may also be open to other explanations. For example, in Acts 18 Holmes argues that it is not always evident whether Aquila’s name was added “so as to downplay Priscilla’s role, or to explain and clarify the narrative.”67 The change of the order of names in 18:26 is less impressive when it is noted that all witness mention Aquila first in 18:2 and Priscilla first in 18:18, which are the only other verses in Acts in which their names are found. If one assumes that this was the original order, then in the first two instances D follows the original order. It is only in v. 26 that a change occurs, where “whether this reading was the result of a deliberate alteration or an unconscious slip (due to the cultural habit of mentioning the husband first) can scarcely be determined with any meaningful degree of probability.”68 In 17:12, though the effect leads to the prominence of the women being curtailed, the reading itself “could also be, however, merely another example of Bezae smoothing out the grammar to produce better Greek.”69 The omission in Acts 17:34, due to the fact that Bezae is written in short sense lines, could simply be an accidental one.70 Nevertheless, even though Holmes is hesitant to speak of “motive or intent” he is willing to speak of “effect or result,” and concludes that from this vantage point it is clear that there is “some loss of emphasis on women leadership or prominence in Acts” in the “Western” textual tradition.71 The prominent questions of anti-Judaism, a heightened role of the Holy Spirit, and a de-emphasizing of women are certainly not Holmes, “Women,” 196 (on Acts 18:2–3). Holmes, “Women,” 199. 69 Holmes, “Women,” 192. 70 An accidental omission is viewed as “probable” by Barrett (Acts, 2:855). 71 Holmes, “Women,” 203. Cf. his “Summary & Analysis” on pp. 200–203. One must also be cautious about basing broad conclusions about the “Western” text on singular readings in D and remain cognizant of the various “layers” of readings found in D that preserve readings from a variety of different eras (see Holmes, “Women,” 186–87; idem, “Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels,” in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994, 123–60; and Parker, Codex Bezae). 67 68

70

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the only issues discussed in studies of the theological tendencies in the “Western” textual tradition.72 They are, however, prominent examples for how the text of Acts has factored in scholarly discussion, particularly in the studies of the more recent generation of text critics.

CONCLUSION Without a doubt, the text of Luke-Acts presents a unique set of challenges for the establishment of a critical text of these books. Generally speaking, especially since Westcott and Hort, it is the Alexandrian textual tradition that has exerted the greatest influence on critical editions of the NT, a tendency that is particularly apparent in Luke and Acts.73 Though the question of establishing the text of critical editions of the NT remains an important task for textual criticism, it is also clear that the study of the theological and hermeneutical import of textual variants has found and continues to find fertile ground in Luke-Acts. As such, the textual tradition of these two books remains an important avenue for insight into early Christian communities and the question of Christian origins. Thus, for all of the disputed elements in the literature dealing with the text of Luke-Acts, it is, or at least should be, undisputed that their textual history remains of profound relevance and significance not only for scholars of the Lukan corpus, but also for the study of early Christianity in general.

72 One could also consider the potentially more saintly or authoritative presentation of Peter and/or Paul in the “Western” text of Acts as argued by Joseph Crehan, “Peter according to the D-Text of Acts,” TS 18 (1957): 596–603 and C. M. Martini, “Pierre et Paul dans l’Église ancienne: Considérations sur la tradition textuelles des Actes des Apôtres,” in Paul de Tarse: Apôtre du nôtre temps (Section paulinienne 1; Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul H.L.M., 1979), 261–68. 73 For a discussion of and appeal for a thoroughgoing eclectic approach to the text of Acts, see J. Keith Elliott, “An Eclectic Study of the Book of Acts,” in The Book of Acts as Church History, 9–30.

THE TEXT OF LUKE AND ACTS

71

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Delobel, Joël. “The Text of Luke-Acts. A Confrontation of Recent Theories.” Pages 83–107 in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. BETL 142. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Epp, Eldon J. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. SNTSMS 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Nicklas, Tobias, and M. Tilly, eds. The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations/Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeshichte: Text, Texttraditionen und antike Auslegungen. BZNW 120. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Ropes, J. H. The Text of Acts. Vol. 3 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles. London: Macmillan, 1926. Strange, W. A. The Problem of the Text of Acts. SNTSMS 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS: WHERE DID LUKE GET HIS MATERIAL (AND WHY DOES IT MATTER)? Brandon D. Crowe

WHY ASK ABOUT LUKE’S SOURCES? It is well known that Luke’s Gospel begins with an impressive prologue that describes his intentions for the narratives that follow.1 Two aspects of this prologue are relevant for the present chapter. First, in Luke 1:1 Luke specifically mentions his knowledge of many (πολλοί) others who had compiled an account (διήγησις) of the things that had been accomplished among them. The usage of πολλοί seems to indicate that Luke knew of at least three other sources that were in some way comparable to what he decided to write.2 Second, and even more significant for the present chapter, is the additional research that Luke claims he made in conjunction with his writing project. In 1:2 Luke mentions those who were eyewitnesses (αὐτόπται) of the events he will recount who also became ministers of the word (ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου) and handed down (παρέδοσαν) to them the authoritative Jesus 1 It is likely that Luke intended his prologue to refer to both his Gospel and to Acts. I will refer to the author of Luke and Acts simply as “Luke.” 2 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (AB 28; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), 65–66.

73

74

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

traditions.3 In the next clause (1:3) Luke indicates that he himself has also followed all things closely from the beginning (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς).4 It is certainly not unreasonable to conclude that part of the research Luke did involved learning from—perhaps even interviewing directly—those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Indeed, as Martin Hengel suggests, it may be that we have in Luke our earliest theological representative of a historiographical approach that goes back ad fontes.5 In light of these statements Luke makes about his own method, we have sufficient warrant for asking what sources he may have used. Before we do, however, one caution is necessary: we should not think of Luke and Acts simply as a hodgepodge of preexisting source material. Instead, whatever sources Luke used have, in most instances, been woven into his narrative seamlessly; it is often quite difficult to determine the remnants of a source. Thus, we do the most justice to Luke’s authorial intentions if we allow our investigation of Luke’s sources to illuminate the completed whole of his work. In light of this, it may be helpful to think of Luke’s sources in two ways: synchronically and diachronically.6 A synchronic approach to Luke’s sources looks at Luke and Acts as finished products and asks what sources Luke himself highlights. The clearest example here is the Old Testament (OT), which Luke emphasizes on a number of occasions. A diachronic approach seeks to retrace Luke’s steps as an historian in order to decipher what sources he may have utilized that lie hidden within his text. Since Luke himself does not highlight these sources, the interpreter must try to reconstruct what Luke was using. This is a difficult task, yet this is the approach that most often must be taken when investigating Luke’s sources. To return to the present question, why is it important to ask what sources Luke may have used? Several reasons can be men3 See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), especially 116–24. 4 All Greek translations in this chapter are mine. 5 Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1979), 63. By ad fontes Hengel here means going back to the most primitive Christian sources. 6 Thanks to Vern Poythress for stimulating my thinking here.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

75

tioned. First, Luke situates his own work in close relationship to one of his most important sources—the OT—which provides a hermeneutical guide for the reader. For example, Luke’s use of the OT as a source is one way he alerts his readers that Jesus as Son of God is to be understood as the fulfillment of scriptural, messianic hopes, rather than in light of the sons of the gods of the GrecoRoman pantheon, or a proposed “divine man” (θεῖος ἀνήρ) category from the ancient world.7 Second, those who write about Luke and Acts (e.g., commentators) will sometimes base their decisions about the meaning of a text on the way Luke has utilized source material. In order to evaluate such arguments, one should have an awareness of the various theories of Luke’s sources. For example, someone’s interpretation of wisdom’s children in Luke 7:35 might be based (in part) on whether Luke has reformulated Matthew’s deeds of wisdom (Matt 11:19). Thus, the evaluation of a commentator’s conclusions may necessitate an evaluation of a commentator’s view of Luke’s use of sources.8 Third, by understanding Luke’s use of sources we may gain a better appreciation for Luke as an author, his method of working, and his intentions.9 To use an illustration from everyday life, just as learning what ingredients comprise one’s favorite dish may lead to a new appreciation of the rich combinations of flavor one’s palate encounters, so investigating Luke’s sources may lead to a new appreciation for those elements that make Luke’s works distinctive. Before turning to the sources for Luke and Acts in order, two matters require clarification. First, what do we mean by sources? By sources we mean something more than just influences in general. Luke certainly had, as everyone does, a number of influences in his life and education that would have been factors in the way he composed his accounts. However interesting this question may be, the question of sources is more specific: it refers to those documents, 7 For more on this point, see Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1976), 21–56. 8 Though we should always be cautious of placing too much emphasis on a theory of sources in order to explain Luke’s text. 9 So Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 11.

76

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

oral traditions, personal knowledge, or other resources that Luke would have drawn upon in the writing of Luke and Acts. Further, it should be emphasized that Luke’s sources were not all necessarily written texts. There is actually a very high degree of likelihood that much of his source material was oral in nature. A second matter requiring clarification is how one is to determine the presence of a source. This is a question to which there is no uniform answer. Further compounding the matter is Luke’s skill in reworking his sources into his own style (or the appropriate style for the character).10 Nevertheless, a few methodological points can be made. The easiest way to identify a source is in those passages where Luke himself identifies his use of another source, such as with an introduction to an OT quotation (see Luke 3:4–6, citing Isa 40:3–5).11 Another rather straightforward method is identifying shared language, or verbal parallels, between Luke or Acts and another known text, even though there may not be any citation introduction. An example here might be the probable allusion to Deut 18:15 in Luke 9:35. One drawback to this approach is it requires we know the text that Luke is appropriating; if we do not know the supposed text from which Luke draws, we are not be able to identify it with any certainty as a source. Thus, this approach is primarily helpful for Luke’s interaction with scriptural traditions, since the OT was clearly a major source for Luke (see below).12 Related to the task of identifying verbal parallels is identifying more subtle allusions to sources, though here again the modern interpreter is dependent upon some existing knowledge of the proposed Lukan intertext. To detect allusions the interpreter might look for such features as thematic coherence between texts and the likelihood that Luke would have known the proposed intertext.13 This approach, however, is often less objective than identifying Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 6–7. 11 Cf. Charles B. Puskas and David Crump, An Introduction to the Gospels and Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 45–46. 12 Even identifying verbal parallels to the OT, however, is not always straightforward because it is not always clear what textual form of the OT Luke may have been using or remembering. 13 See Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 10

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

77

verbal parallels, and what might be compelling evidence to one exegete may not be compelling to another. Other possible indications of an underlying source for Luke include those passages where one may observe a change in vocabulary or style, personal information that seems to be something only an eyewitness would know, and detailed information about specific events that seem to derive from a specific record of those events. The discussion that follows will consider possibilities of sources in each of these ways.

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE Relationship to Other Gospels Luke’s awareness of many other accounts of the things that had been accomplished among them (Luke 1:1) almost certainly refers to his knowledge of other gospels, probably even one or more of the other canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, John). Thus, a key question for Luke’s use of sources is whether and/or how he has utilized an earlier account (or accounts) of Jesus. A number of options have been suggested through the years, which focus mainly on the relationship between Luke and the other two Synoptic Gospels: Matthew and Mark. The quest to determine literary priority among these books is part of the Synoptic Problem.14 Although not everyone would consider the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels to be a literary relationship, the rather extensive verbal parallels in Greek between Luke and Mark, and between Luke and Matthew, are quite suggestive that Luke was using some sort of source material. One of the most ancient understandings of the relationship between these books is the Augustinian Hypothesis, which derives its name from the famous fifth century Bishop of Hippo. Augustine suggested that Matthew was the first Gospel written, Mark was written second as an abbreviation of Matthew, and Luke wrote the

For concise and accessible introductions to the Synoptic Problem, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 85–103; Robert H. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” in DJG, 784–92. 14

78

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

final Synoptic Gospel, apparently through the lens of Mark.15 For a number of reasons, including the implausibility that Mark was an abbreviated form of Matthew (since Mark’s accounts often contain more detail), Augustine’s theory gave way to that of J. J. Griesbach in the eighteenth century. Griesbach’s theory, known as the TwoGospel or Griesbach Hypothesis, states that Matthew was the first Gospel written, Luke wrote second and used Matthew as a source, and Mark was written third, gleaning from Matthew and Luke (see Figure 1). One strength of the Griesbach Hypothesis is its explanation of the so-called “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke. This refers to those passages where both Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, which could suggest Luke’s use of Matthew as a source. Griesbach’s theory also accords well with Christian tradition that, at least until the nineteenth century, posited Matthew as the first Gospel written.

2) Luke 1) Matt 3) Mark Figure 1: Griesbach Hypothesis

Not long after Griesbach, however, the tide of opinion began to turn from Matthean priority toward Markan priority (though, to be sure, Griesbach’s position still finds many adherents today). The case for Markan priority was made, among others, by Karl Lach-

15 Augustine’s position is not altogether clear. See David Peabody, “Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine’s Thought in De Consensu Evangelistarum,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. W. R. Farmer; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 37–64.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

79

mann.16 The arguments for Markan priority include the shared order between Matthew and Luke in those passages that have a parallel in Mark. The conclusion reached was that the order of events in Matthew and Luke seems to follow that of Mark, even though Matthew and Luke deviate in other ways from Mark.17 The argument for Markan priority eventually led to the TwoSource Hypothesis, which remains the dominant hypothesis today (see Figure 2). This theory states that Mark was the first Gospel written, and Matthew and Luke (independently) used both Mark and another sayings source of Jesus, known as “Q.”18 Basically, the Q material in the Gospels comprises those portions shared by Matthew and Luke that are not included in Mark (approximately 230 verses). For these verses, it appears as though Matthew and Luke share a Greek source, since it would be unlikely for them independently to render Aramaic accounts into such strikingly similar Greek formulations. Additionally, the order of this material in both Matthew and Luke is mostly the same, though they use the material in different contexts.19 Although the debate continues concerning the precise nature of Q, including the interplay of oral and written elements,20 it does appear that Matthew and Luke demonstrate enough shared language, which is developed in different ways, to posit this second source.

Cf. Brandon D. Crowe, “J. J. Griesbach and Karl Lachmann,” in Pillars in the History of New Testament Interpretation: Old and New (ed. S. A. Adams and S. E. Porter; Sheffield Phoenix Press, forthcoming). 17 It is to be noted that this so-called “argument from order” is unable to establish that Mark was written first, but only that Mark is in some sense a middle term for both Matthew and Luke. To determine which came first, one must decide if it is more likely that Mark’s author reworked Matthew and/or Luke, or if the authors of Matthew and Luke reworked Mark. 18 Q likely comes from the German word for “source” (Quelle). 19 Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 75–81. 20 Cf. John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 59–60. We should also leave room for the possibility that Q was more than just one source. 16

80

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Mark

Q

Matt

Luke

Figure 2: Two-Source Hypothesis

Although the Two-Source Hypothesis appears to many to be the best solution to the Synoptic Problem, two other theories merit consideration. One complementary theory to the Two-Source Hypothesis is the Four-Source Hypothesis of B. H. Streeter (see Figure 3). This theory states that, in addition to Mark and Q, we should posit two additional sources: a special source for Matthew (“M”), and a special source for Luke (“L”).21 This “L” source is related to Luke’s unique material, and will be discussed under the next heading. A second, more recent theory to consider is often called the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (see Figure 4).22 This theory maintains Markan priority, but denies the need to posit the existence of a hypothetical Q source. Instead, the supposed Q material is explained by the direct dependence of Luke upon Matthew. In addition to conforming to Occam’s Razor, another point in favor of this theory is its explanation of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke, which could suggest that Luke did indeed know Matthew. Nevertheless, many remain unconvinced that Luke used Matthew as a source since the two Gospels seem to redact Mark in noticeably different ways.23

B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924). 22 This theory is named after Austin Farrer and Michael Goulder. See Mark S. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002). 23 One older theory that does not have a very broad following today is the F. C. Baur/Tübingen School theory that proposed the secondcentury heretic Marcion’s “gospel” was actually one of the sources used 21

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

Mark

M

Matt

81

L

Q

Luke

Figure 3: Four-Source Hypothesis

2) Matt 1) Mark 3) Luke Figure 4: Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis

Although several of the theories of Synoptic relationships have arguments in their favor, this study will assume the basic structure of the Two-Source Hypothesis as the best available solution to a complex issue. However, the reference to two sources can be misleading since Luke seems to have used more than only two sources. Nevertheless, it appears that he did glean much of his material from Mark and Q. Given this hypothesis, we should also ask if we can determine what Luke’s version of Mark may have looked like. Did Luke use the Gospel of Mark as we know it today? Minor divergences between Mark and the “Markan” material in Luke and Matthew make it difficult to say, though the source that Luke would have known must be close enough to our canonical Mark to be recognizable as Markan. One interesting possibility is whether Luke (and Matthew) for Luke and Acts. Cf. Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 21.

82

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

may not have been dependent upon a written Markan text, but drew upon oral retellings of the Markan stories, or, whether Luke and Matthew themselves reshaped the Markan stories for new audiences.24 In the end, it is perhaps safest to state simply that Luke seems to have known much of the material that is also included in the Gospel of Mark; it is difficult to be more precise than this. To conclude, one final caveat is necessary: as probable as the basic structure of the Two-Source Hypothesis appears to be, the issues are complex and it is difficult to be dogmatic in one’s solution to the Synoptic Problem. Thus it is best not to let a theory of gospel relationships govern how we read Luke. Luke’s Unique Material Luke’s Gospel not only contains those materials that have parallels in Matthew and Mark, but also quite a bit of material not found in any other gospel. In fact, perhaps as much as 42% (485 verses) of the material in Luke’s Gospel is unique to Luke.25 This includes such famous passages as the Magnificat of Mary, the shepherds’ visit to the baby Jesus at his birth, the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, and the post-resurrection journey to Emmaus. From what source or sources did Luke acquire this additional information? Based on the Four-Source Theory of Streeter, many have viewed this unique material deriving from an “L” source. This designation, however, can be misleading if we were to view “L” as a single source since it is unlikely that all of Luke’s unique material came from one place. Instead, we might refer to “L” simply as a remainder category for all the material not found in Matthew or Mark, yet without suggesting it all comes from one source. Thus, we can more confidently say Luke’s unique material probably came from one of three categories of sources: Q, known traditions about Jesus, or Luke’s own investigation.26 To put it this way is by no 24 See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), ch. 8, esp. 222. “Matthew” is used here as shorthand for the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 25 Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 12. 26 So Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 15–16.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

83

means to answer the question definitively, but simply to suggest three categories of sources.27 First, it is possible that some of Luke’s unique material is also found in Q. The hypothesis here is that Luke may have included additional material from Q that Matthew omitted. However, we are not able to know for sure if any of Luke’s unique material was first found in Q since the lack of these portions in Matthew provides no corroborating evidence. Second, some of Luke’s unique material may have been derivative of Jesus traditions that were publicly known at the writing of Luke’s Gospel. It is widely affirmed that the written documents we have today were preceded by a significant amount of oral tradition. Luke may have gathered some of his information from this repository of tradition. Third, using Luke’s prologue as a guide, it seems as though Luke made his own investigation into the matters of which he wrote. Thus, it may be that much of the material we encounter only in Luke is a result of his own research from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Not only does Luke’s prologue suggest this possibility, but some of Luke’s material has the ring of eyewitness accounts. For example, Luke’s Gospel contains much that seems to derive from Mary’s perspective. Mary’s interactions with her cousin Elizabeth are recounted, as is Mary’s response to the angelic annunciation. Moreover, the phrase in Luke 2:19 that Mary “treasured up all these matters, pondering them in her heart” appears to be the sort of personal information that is more likely to derive from a more direct encounter with Mary herself than from a bit of circulating tradition. Other suggestions for eyewitnesses Luke may have interviewed include Philip the evangelist to the Samaritans (who may have known more stories about the Samaritans, cf. Luke 9:52– 56; 17:11–19), John the Baptist’s disciples (note the additional content of John’s preaching in Luke 3:10–14), and Joanna, wife of Chuza, steward of Herod Antipas, who may have been privy to additional knowledge concerning Herod (Luke 8:3; 9:9; 23:7–10).28 27 James R. Edwards (The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]) has recently suggested that the high density of Semitisms in Luke’s special material reveals Luke’s use of the “Hebrew Gospel” apparently known in the early church. 28 Fitzmyer (Luke I–IX, 88–89) includes these and others as options for eyewitness sources.

84

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

One final source theory to consider suggests that the uniquely Lukan material, along with material from Q, originally comprised an early form of the gospel known as proto-Luke. The theory posits that Luke later supplemented this proto-gospel with material from Mark, forming the Gospel we have today. Accordingly, proto-Luke, which may have been something like a “rough draft,” would be considered a source for canonical Luke.29 It is to be noted, however, that even if this theory were to be a likely option, the material in proto-Luke would still derive from Q, known traditions, or Luke’s own investigations. The Old Testament Thus far we have considered most of the primary options for Luke’s sources. However, one significant source remains to be discussed: the OT. In fact, given the difficulties of the Synoptic Problem, the OT is perhaps the source we can be most sure about for Luke. Luke cites twenty-five OT passages, often using some sort of introductory comment (e.g., Luke 4:8; 7:27; 18:20; 20:37).30 In addition to these, several other passages exhibit verbal parallels with OT texts. Yet Luke’s use of the OT runs deeper than only explicit citations or even verbal parallels. Indeed, Luke demonstrates an ability to incorporate OT imagery, language, themes, and structure into his Gospel programmatically. One way Luke does this is by repetition of OT style and cadences. For example, Johnson suggests the annunciation scene of Luke 1:28–38 builds on previous biblical annunciations, such as Judges 13:2–7, combined with allusions to Zeph 3:14 and Zech 2:10.31 Another example is the way Luke seems to use the model of Moses as a key for his Gospel, and possibly also for Acts.32 Luke’s inclusion of these scriptural elements suggests something fundamental to his purposes: Luke seems to have viewed his Carson and Moo, Introduction, 214. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 295–313. 31 Johnson, Luke, 12. 32 So Johnson, Luke, 18–21; David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). 29 30

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

85

Gospel (along with Acts) as a continuation or fulfillment of the OT story.33 This may also illumine Luke’s “it is necessary” (δεῖ) passages, which express a sense of divine will or compulsion and may derive from Luke’s understanding of God’s plan in accordance with Scripture (e.g., Luke 4:43; 9:22; 22:37).34 In sum, to understand Luke’s intentions as an author we must give adequate weight to the background of the OT for his thought. Finally, we should ask what version of the OT Luke used. As far as we can tell, it seems to have been a Greek version that is close to what we know as the Septuagint (LXX) today. Luke often agrees verbatim with the LXX, but even in those passages where he does not, his text does not seem to agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) or another text (possibly Aramaic) against the Greek. Put succinctly, although Luke seems to have referenced the OT from a Greek translation, it is not possible ultimately to rule out scriptural sources from different languages as well.35 How Does Luke Use His Sources? Having considered the options for the sources of Luke’s Gospel, we should now consider how Luke engages his sources. At the outset we should note that Luke’s attempt to write his own account of Jesus does not necessarily mean that he intended to deprecate the works of his predecessors. Indeed, Luke seems to associate himself with those who came before him.36 Based on the Two-Source Hypothesis, this would likely include the author of Mark’s Gospel. Luke generally seems to follow the order of Mark’s narrative, with Q material interspersed in two main blocks: Luke 3:1–4:30; 6:20b– 33 See Johnson, Luke, 10; Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 10; Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (2d ed.; 1958; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 37. 34 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 129. 35 Fitzmyer, To Advance, 304–306; David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 251– 414, here 252. Some of Luke’s OT references were also found in his sources. Nevertheless, Luke’s selection and inclusion of these texts into his Gospel further indicates his deep-seated interest in the OT. 36 So Stonehouse, Witness, 31–32.

86

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

7:50.37 Additionally, Luke improves upon the style of Mark, and leaves out aspects of Markan chronology and geography, while also adding his own contributions.38 Nevertheless, where we seem to be able to check the way Luke handled his sources, it appears that he followed them rather closely.39

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Relationship to the Gospel of Luke In accordance with what was mentioned above, it is likely that Luke’s prologue was intended to cover both the Gospel and Acts. Thus, the investigation undertaken by Luke in conjunction with the writing of his Gospel also applies to Acts.40 Furthermore, as we also saw with Luke, we must not assume that all of the accounts Luke includes would have been known in written form; he may well have encountered them orally.41 Compared to Luke’s Gospel, determining the sources Luke used for Acts is even more difficult.42 The reason is simple: we have other Gospels with which to compare Luke; this is not the case for Acts. Moreover, Luke’s skill as an author means that most of the distinctive elements of his material are masked in Lukan

37 François Bovon, Luke: A Commentary on Luke 1:1–9:50 (trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 1:6. 38 I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (3d ed.; NTP; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 67. 39 Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 13. 40 Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98), 1:50–51. 41 So James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 70. Dunn further suggests that the oral nature of Luke’s sources is one reason why they are so difficult to detect—if Luke himself were the first to write them down, they would be thoroughly “Lukan” in style and language. 42 Jacques Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (trans. Kathleen Pond; New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 166; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 80; Johnson, Luke, 7.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

87

style.43 Thus, we cannot identify the sources Luke may have used on the basis of style or language.44 Luke and Acts share many thematic and structural features, so many that it has been suggested that Luke is a primary source for the way Luke modeled Acts.45 (Conversely, it has been argued that Luke arranged his Gospel based on the accounts of Acts.46) It is probably not necessary, however, to categorize these similarities in terms of Luke’s using his own work as a source. Given the close relationship of Acts to Luke’s Gospel, it should come as no surprise that the OT is a key source for Acts. Indeed, unlike other proposed sources for Acts, when Luke cites the OT the language remains that of the OT. This allows us to identify the OT as a source with a high degree of confidence.47 According to Fitzmyer’s count, Acts cites the OT in 37 places.48 In addition, much as we saw in Luke’s Gospel, Luke imitates and evokes scriptural passages in a variety of ways. For example, Brian Rosner suggests that Luke intended to write a biblical history,49 and Fitzmyer that Luke was relating Acts (along with Luke) to the plan of God begun in the OT.50 Beyond this, several other ways that Luke engaged the OT in Acts have been observed, including Luke’s “global references” to the OT. In these Luke does not refer Cf. Adolf von Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams, 1909), 163; Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3/17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998), 62–67. 44 Cf. Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5. 45 Note recently Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 14. 46 Michael D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964), 61–62 n. 1. 47 So also Jervell, Acts, 6. 48 Fitzmyer, Acts, 90. I. Howard Marshall (“Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 513–606, here 513) posits there are 27 OT passages cited. 49 Brian S. Rosner, “Acts and Biblical History,” in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 65– 82. 50 Fitzmyer, Acts, 92. 43

88

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

to one specific passage, but he summarizes what God did or said in the OT (cf. Acts 3:18, 24; 10:43; 18:28).51 Others have suggested OT patterns for characters and events in Acts: the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11) is reminiscent of the stoning of Achan in Joshua 7:1–26; the Elijah/Elisha narratives may be models for Luke in a number of ways, including the role of the Spirit’s coming in Acts (Acts 1:9–11; 2:1–13; cf. 2 Kings 2:1–14); the importance of the pattern of Moses for Luke also holds true for Acts (Acts 2:17–24; 7:17–44; cf. Deut 34:10–12); and the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:4b–6 may have precedent in OT appearance conversations (cf. Gen 31:11–13; 46:2–3; Exod 3:2–10) or the calling of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and/or Ezekiel.52 On an even broader scale, one well-known study suggests a comprehensive New Exodus theme in Acts drawn from Isaiah.53 Finally, we should consider what version of the OT Luke used for Acts. As we saw with the Gospel, he seems for the most part to be using a Greek version that is very similar to the LXX,54 though in some places he may either adapt the wording or he may have encountered a text of the OT text that was slightly different than what we know today.55 One final note here: it is sometimes observed that the arguments in Acts necessitate an LXX text form inasmuch as it may differ substantially from the MT. A frequently noted example is the citation of Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:15–18. Here Acts seems to follow the LXX which mentions the nations will seek the Lord, whereas the MT states that Israel will possess the nations. However, the view that Luke’s arguments necessitate an

Fitzmyer, Acts, 91. Johnson, Luke, 12–20; Rosner, “Biblical History,” 72. 53 David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 54 Fitzmyer, Acts, 91. Still valuable is William K. L. Clark, “The Use of the Septuagint in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; London: Macmillan, 1922; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 2:66–105. 55 Marshall, “Acts,” 516–17. 51 52

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

89

LXX text form is probably going too far, since even here the same point could be established by appealing to the Hebrew text.56 Acts 1–15 We turn now to the distinctive sources of Acts. Scholars often divide this question into roughly the two halves of the book: Acts 1– 15 and 16–28. The first 15 chapters appear to lack some of the colorful detail of Acts 16–28, suggesting Luke did not know these events firsthand, but relied upon others for his information. Additionally, it is to be noted that all but two OT citations in Acts are found in the first half of the book.57 It is especially difficult in the first half of Acts to identify Luke’s sources, although a number of options have been suggested. One major theory, stemming from Adolph von Harnack, is that Luke primarily used two sources for most of Acts 1–15: a Jerusalem source and an Antiochene source.58 The Jerusalem source(s) is said to contain information relating to Peter, Philip, and the Jerusalem church, whereas the Antiochene source concerns events connected with the church in Antioch, including the account of Stephen and some of the early exploits of the Apostle Paul. These sources, however, cannot be identified by style or by language, but must be recognized by content or possibly by a shift in topic, such as in 6:1. Despite the detailed arguments from Harnack and others, it is difficult to identify precisely what sources might lie behind Acts 1– 15, for a number of reasons. First, as noted above, the interplay between written sources and oral tradition was certainly a complex one.59 Much of Luke’s information may well have come from known tradition, especially since it is virtually impossible to establish literary sources in the first part of Acts on stylistic grounds. See the discussion in G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (NSBT 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 232–44. 57 So Fitzmyer, Acts, 91. This statistic follows Fitzmyer’s enumeration. 58 Harnack, Acts, 162–202. Cf. Hengel, Acts, 65–66. Harnack himself actually proposed two Jerusalem sources. 59 Dunn, Beginning, 70; Jervell, Acts, 7. To be fair, Harnack himself (Acts, 231–48) recognized that at least some of Luke’s sources were oral. He also allows for other sources, such as in Acts 1, 9 (Acts, 188–89). 56

90

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Second, many of Harnack’s proposals can be explained in other ways. For example, Harnack proposed that Luke included “doublets” of the same events in Acts as he followed his sources, but these actually seem to be separate events (e.g., 2:14–36; 3:11–26). Third, we should allow for Luke’s own investigations as an historian. Indeed, if the conclusions above are correct that Luke himself interviewed eyewitnesses for his Gospel, it is quite plausible that Luke may have interviewed some of the same people for Acts (cf. Mary in Acts 1:14).60 Fourth, especially in relation to the Antiochene source, tradition has it that Luke was himself a native of Antioch. If this tradition has merit, then Luke may have known the accounts of the Antiochene church firsthand.61 Similarly, given Luke’s association with Paul, Luke may have learned the information relating to Paul from the Apostle himself.62 Before moving on to the second half of Acts, we will briefly turn to the speeches of Acts 1–15. The question of the sources for the speeches in Acts is a complex one that has often divided scholarship. German scholarship has tended to see the speeches as Lukan compositions, whereas English-speaking scholarship is, in general, not as persuaded of this.63 An interesting observation is made by Jervell, who suggests that the Pauline letters, which record Paul’s speeches and appeal to the known preaching of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, provide a Sitz im Leben that explains how the speeches from the Apostles and missionaries of the early church would have been remembered for many years.64 Thus, it is quite feasible that records of the Apostles’ speeches—whether written or oral—remained well after the speeches were delivered, and Luke may have used these in the writing of his second volume. 60 Beyond Mary, some additional suggestions of eyewitnesses Luke may have interviewed include Mnason (Acts 21:16), Philip and his family (21:8–16), John Mark (Col 4:10, 14), Aristarchus (Acts 19:29). Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 45. 61 Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 3.4. 62 For ancient witnesses associating Luke with Paul, see Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 2.22; 3.4; Irenaeus, Haer., 3.1.1; 3.14.1. 63 Jervell, Acts, 8–9. 64 Jervell, Acts, 8–9.

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

91

Acts 16–28 In many ways the question of sources for the second half of Acts is more interesting. Indeed, it is really only in the second half of the book that we see clear distinctions in the text itself that suggest Luke was using a source other than the OT, namely, the famous “we” sections of Acts. These are the portions of Acts (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16) in which one can detect a slight shift in Luke’s narrative technique: instead of describing Paul’s ministry in third person terms (e.g., “he” or “they”), he describes some of the details in first person plural (“we”). One of the questions many ask about these passages is what they tell us about Luke’s sources. Is Luke reflecting an underlying source that utilized the first person plural pronoun? Was he simply using a narrative technique? Or do these passages indicate that Luke was with Paul for these stages of his journeys? In favor of the suggestion that we cannot make too much of the “we” passages is the view that they are an ancient convention of travel narratives in which “we” seems to have been used as a narrative device. Thus, a shift in style does not necessarily reveal a shift in sources.65 Nevertheless, it seems as though the more straightforward reading—that the “we” passages reflect Luke’s actual presence with Paul on these journeys—is the most likely option,66 especially since the style and language of these sections is otherwise consistent with the rest of Acts.67 In this case, Luke himself would be the source for his information, though one could still postulate a written source used by Luke such as a travel diary, personal notes, or itinerary. Aside from the probable Lukan “we” source, however, less can be said with reference to the sources for the other portions of Acts 16–28. Given the detailed information we have of the trials of Johnson, Luke, 6; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 57. 66 So, e.g., Bruce, Acts, 41; Dunn, Beginning, 66; Jervell, Acts, 2, 6; Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 68; Fitzmyer, Acts, 580; Hengel, Acts, 66; also Harnack, Acts, 162. 67 Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 53–54; following John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), 182–89. 65

92

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Paul in the second half of Acts, some have suggested Luke had access to trial records of some sort for Acts 21–28.68 This is certainly possible, but difficult to establish. Another point of debate is whether Luke may have used Paul’s letters. This seems unlikely, though Luke probably did have access to a bevy of information about Paul—whether oral, written, or from Paul himself.69 We might also note at this juncture some of the references to GrecoRoman literature in Acts: in Lystra in Acts 14:11–13, Paul and Barnabas are thought to be Hermes and Zeus. Here it has been suggested Luke was reflecting well-known traditions, such as when Jupiter and Mercury were thought to have visited and rewarded the elderly Philemon and Baucis.70 Luke also has Paul citing the Greek poet Aratus in his Areopagus speech in Athens (Acts 17:28, citing Aratus, Phaenomena).71 However well these passages may reflect Luke’s knowledge of the religious and literary milieu of his day, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty what source(s) Luke may have been using for these references.72 Another hypothesis is that Luke has modeled at least portions of Acts on the works of Homer.73 This suggestion has yet to persuade many as a thoroughgoing paradigm, though the influence of Jervell, Acts, 6. For a discussion of the relationship of Paul in Acts to the Pauline Epistles, see David Wenham, “Acts and the Pauline Corpus: II. The Evidence of Parallels,” in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 215–58. 70 Note Ovid, Metam. 8.617–725. Cf. C. Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 20; Fitzmyer, Acts, 531. 71 Paul’s citation in Acts 17 varies by one verbal form. Instead of Aratus’s Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν (Phaen., 5), Acts has: Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν (either option can be translated: “For we also are his offspring”). This could be due to Luke’s updating of the Attic form, or it may reflect his source(s). Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 611. 72 So Rowe, World Upside Down, 21. 73 See especially Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Similarly, Marianne Palmer Bonz (The Past as Legacy: LukeActs and Ancient Epic [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000]) has argued that Virgil’s Aeneid is a key source for Luke and Acts. 68 69

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

93

the Odyssey on the account of Paul’s shipwreck (Acts 27) may have more to commend it since the seafaring exploits of Odysseus may have, to some degree, influenced the way other seafaring tales were told.74 One additional possibility to consider is whether Luke has utilized the work of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. This question arises in part because of apparently similar episodes involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36–37; Ant. 20.97– 102) and an Egyptian agitator (Acts 21:38; J.W. 2.254–63; Ant. 20.160–72). As intriguing as this possibility is, the parallels are not entirely clear, and such a reconstruction would require that Acts was written after the publication of Antiquities in ca. 93 CE. Strong arguments can be mounted that Acts was earlier than this.75 Before concluding our discussion of Acts, one additional textual factor should be mentioned briefly: the so-called “Western” text of Acts.76 In the early church Acts seems to have circulated in two basic forms, which are commonly labeled today as the Alexandrian text and the Western text.77 The Western text is around six to eight percent longer than the Alexandrian text, and is generally 74 Bruce, Acts, 45–46. Dennis R. MacDonald (“The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul,” NTS 45 [1999]: 88–107) argues that the “we” passages do not reflect Luke’s sources but are based entirely on the Homeric model of the Odyssey. See also Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 12 n. 67. For the view that extrabiblical literary evidence does not explain the “we” passages, see Stanley E. Porter, “The ‘We’ Passages,” in The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting (ed. D. W. J. Gill and C. Gempf; vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; 1994), 545–74. 75 Cf. Bruce, Acts, 43–44. For a recent position that Luke did use Josephus, see Pervo, Acts, 12. 76 The following draws largely upon the discussions in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 222–36; Peter M. Head, “Acts and the Problem of Its Texts,” in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 415–44. 77 However, the recent assessment of an early fragment of the text of Acts (P127) has led some to question whether this explanation best accounts for the evidence. Cf. D. C. Parker and S. R. Pickering in D. Leith et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXIV (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2009), 1–45.

94

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

smoother and fuller.78 Some have suggested that the Alexandrian text of Acts reflects an earlier text that was used as a source for what has come to be known as the Western text of Acts. This would assume the Western text is, for the most part, later than the Alexandrian text, a conclusion that seems to be well founded.

CONCLUSION In sum, it is not easy to determine definitively what sources Luke may have used for Luke and Acts. To be sure, the question appears to be somewhat easier to answer for Luke’s Gospel for which we have three similar works to compare it. Luke may well have used Mark and/or Q, but it is important to recognize that he would have had access to a number of other sources that we are unable to identify. His prologue should be a reminder to us that Luke was quite capable of looking into matters himself and was not limited to a fixed number of previously written sources. Similarly, Luke’s prologue encourages us to consider what sources Luke may have drawn upon for the writing of Acts, even though it is quite difficult to find specific indications of sources in Acts. However, the “we” passages point to the probability that Luke himself was a companion of Paul, which should also open to us the possibility that some of Luke’s source material could have come from Paul himself. In all this, Luke certainly could have relied on written records, though he also lived in a day when oral traditions would have been alive and well. Regardless of the sources from which Luke gleaned his information, we should be grateful that he took up the task of setting pen to papyrus that we may take up and read about Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity. Tolle lege.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

One example is Acts 1:2, where Codex Bezae (D), representing the Western text, includes an additional phrase. Another interesting passage is Acts 11:28, where D places Luke in Antioch in its first “we” passage. 78

THE SOURCES FOR LUKE AND ACTS

95

________. The Gospel according to Luke I–IX. AB 28. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981. Jervell, Jacob. The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991. Stein, Robert H. “Synoptic Problem.” Pages 784–92 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION Sean A. Adams

Many have investigated the literary nature and genre of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, both as separate and unified works.1 This chapter maps the current state of scholarship for Luke and Acts genre studies, as well as provides a brief description and critique of key works by scholars who have made a significant contribution to the debate. I will begin with a brief discussion of the genre of Luke before spending the remainder of the article untangling the debate over Acts’ genre. In this last section, I will begin with the dominant view that Acts is a history and subsequently focus on major challenges to this position: novel, epic, and biography. A thorough delineation of all perspectives out-strips the confines of this article. However, I hope to provide a schema which will facilitate future study.

LITERARY BACKGROUND AND GENRE Before attempting to assign genre labels to Luke and Acts, a brief note on their literary background and the nature of genre is in order. Both Luke and Acts were written in the latter-half of the first 1 For a good overview, see T. Penner, “Madness in the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current Study,” CBR 2 (2004): 223–93, esp. 233– 41; T. E. Phillips, “The Genre of Acts: Moving Towards a Consensus?,” CBR 4 (2006): 365–96.

97

98

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

century CE.2 This was a time in which there was substantial literary production and genre ingenuity, both in Latin and Greek literature. Furthermore, ease of travel facilitated the distribution of literature, particularly among group associations. At the same time, the Roman conquests of the Greek Hellenized world forged a new blending of cultures that precipitated ingenuity and experimentation in literary works, particularly in the treatment of genre. Consequently, what is observed in the Early Empire is a not a strict, rigid delineation of genre categories, but more fluid, flexible genre conception. Although genres at this time showed strong familiar resemblance, it is important when approaching ancient texts not to hold genre categories too tightly or to judge them with modern expectations.

GENRE OF LUKE It is now widely held that the Gospels are best understood as ancient biographies. Although this view has not always been dominant, since Richard Burridge’s proposal in What Are the Gospels? this position is now widely held.3 However, before discussing Burridge’s position we will briefly look at notable previous proposals. At the beginning of the twentieth century, following the program of form criticism (Dibelius, Bultmann), there was general disregard for the view that the evangelists were authors or creative agents.4 Rather, they were seen as jewelers, beading pearls of tradition together with little regard for literary refinement. Unfortunately, by dividing the text so discretely in an attempt to get behind the text to its sources, the value of the literary whole and the role of the author in the creation process were neglected. This view, however, was challenged by the rise of redaction criticism, which brought renewed focus on the role of the au-

2 Although see the discussion in Dicken, “The Author and Date of Luke-Acts” in this collection. 3 R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), first published in 1992. 4 M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangelium (3d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1919); R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921).

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

99

thor/editor.5 Since then, Luke has been understood as aretalogy6 as well as midrash,7 and Logoi Sophon.8 Following these theories, Burridge, adapting the perspective of others, has successfully argued that the Gospels are ancient biographies.9 In his study, Burridge compares the Gospels’ formal features with those of a diverse selection of Greco-Roman biographies and concludes that the focus on the person of Jesus as well as a number of formal biographical features comfortably situates the Gospels within the biography genre.10 There are, however, some who disagree with this position, suggesting that Luke is best understood as a type of Hellenistic history.11 This emphasis, often supported by a discussion of the preface (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1), seeks to understand Luke’s method and purpose in relation to Greek history writers (notably, Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius).12 These proponents argue that Luke’s appropriation of historiographic methodology (use and acknowledgement of sources, creation of speeches, preface) indicates that 5 E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); W. G. Doty, “Fundamental Questions about Literary-Critical Methodology: A Review Articles,” JAAR 40 (1972): 521–27. 6 M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1965). 7 M. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974). 8 J. M. Robinson, “Logoi Sophon: On the Gattung of Q,” in Trajectories through Early Christianity (ed. J. M. Robinson and H. Koester; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 71–113. 9 See also P. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels: The Biographical Character of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); 10 Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 247–51. 11 J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 2–6; D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 77; J. T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 20–23; C. K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History (WUNT 2/175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Most of these authors do not necessarily see Luke’s Gospel, in isolation, as history, but rather the combined work of Luke-Acts. 12 Squires, Plan of God, 20.

100

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the work he was attempting to create is, therefore, associated with that genre. These features, however, are not limited solely to ancient history, but can also be found in a number of ancient biographies.13 This discussion of the genre of Luke is necessarily short as a number of scholars who advocate a non-biographical genre for Luke do so based on the genre of Acts and the generic unity of these two works. Accordingly, we now turn our focus to the discussion of Acts’ genre.

GENRE OF ACTS Acts as History Although there were a number of suggestions regarding the genre of Acts prior to the twentieth century, the scholar who has arguably had the most lasting influence is Henry J. Cadbury. In his pivotal work, The Making of Luke-Acts, Cadbury proposes that Luke and Acts are not two separate works by one author, but rather two parts of one unified work.14 With the understanding that identifying the genre of a work is the “beginning of wisdom,” Cadbury attempts to place Luke-Acts in its Hellenistic literary situation by comparing Luke’s works to similar prose works.15 In light of Cadbury’s understanding that Luke and Acts form one work, the attribution of the genre of biography to Luke, he claims, must also fit with the nature of Acts if this is to be a correct label. Unfortunately lacking sufficient discussion regarding his decision, Cadbury declares that Acts is not a biography (although there are biographical foci on Peter and Paul), and that Luke-Acts is best understood under the rubric of history.16 Cadbury cautions that, although Luke is the most literary of the Gospel writers, Luke-Acts is not “formal history” in the nature of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but has similarities to more popular “folk literature.”17 See Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, passim. The Making of Luke-Acts (London: Macmillan, 1927), 1–11. 15 Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts, 127. 16 Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts, 132–33. 17 Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts, 134–35. 13 14

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

101

Cadbury’s investigation struggles by not clearly defining genre, or what makes a work a history and not a biography. Although he rightly identifies that Acts has a focus on the disciples, his use of style as a major genre-distinguishing feature is problematic without support from other formal features, such as subject, character representation, etc. Furthermore, his lack of thorough formal comparisons with other biographies and histories is disturbing as he makes a number of generalizations (e.g., subject, language use, inclusion of speeches) that do not hold up after critical comparison. Another scholar who has significantly influenced the investigation of the genre of Acts is Martin Dibelius, who was particularly interested in investigating parallels between Acts and GrecoRoman histories. With studies on major interpretive issues such as sources, speeches, and the person of Paul, Dibelius set the tone of scholarship for many years, particularly with his application of form criticism.18 In light of his comparisons, Dibelius concludes that Acts, unlike Luke’s Gospel, is history, although there are still a number of unanswered questions surrounding its historical veracity and the amount of liberty that Luke took in the creation of this piece of literature.19 Following Dibelius, a majority of scholars readily dismissed the idea that Acts might belong to a literary genre other than history, being content to apply the general category of ancient historiography to this work and ignoring the nuances of the genre established by classical scholarship. In more recent times the history perspective has splintered into more refined and specific subgenres. Such subgenres include historical monograph (Conzelmann, Hengel, Palmer, Plümacher, Bock),20 institutional history (Cancik),21 kerygmatic history (Fear18 M. Dibelius, The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology (ed. K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 19 Dibelius, Book of Acts, 5. 20 H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xl; D. W. Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting: Vol. 1 Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1–29; E. Plümacher, “Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Tradition, redaction, théologie (ed. J. Kremer; Gembloux: Duculot, 1979), 457–66; E. Plümacher, “Cicero und

102

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ghail),22 apostolic testimony in oral history (Byrskog),23 biblical history (Rosner),24 theological history (Maddox),25 typological history (Denova),26 rhetorical history (Rosthschild, Yamada),27 and historical hagiography (Evans).28 These approaches, although identifying important features of Acts, each have particular methodological problems in their interaction with Acts’ formal features and corresponding discussion of Luke’s purpose of composition. Due to space limitations, I will only interact with the more widely accepted views.

Lukas: Bemerkungen zu Stil und Zweck der historischen Monographie,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 759–75; D. L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 3; M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 21 H. Cancik, “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History,” JBL 116 (1997): 673–95. For a critique of this perspective see C. Heil, “Arius Didymus and Luke-Acts,” NovT 42 (2000): 358–93. 22 F. Ó. Fearghail, The Introduction to Luke-Acts: A Study of the Role of Lk 1,1–4—4,44 in the Composition of Luke’s Two-Volume Work (AnBib 126; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991). 23 S. Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 228–34. 24 B. S. Rosner, “Acts and Biblical History,” in Ancient Literary Setting, 65–82. 25 R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 16. 26 R. I. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 26–28, 112. 27 Rothschild, Luke-Acts; K. Yamada, “A Rhetorical History: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles,” in Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (ed. S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht; JSNTSup 131; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 230–50. 28 C. A. Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; JSPSup14; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 170–201.

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

103

General History David Aune suggests Luke-Acts is a “popular ‘general history’ written by an amateur Hellenistic historian with credentials in Greek rhetoric.”29 Although his labelling Acts “history” is not unique, his understanding of Luke-Acts’ genre as a whole is distinct. Aune endorses the inherent unity of Luke-Acts, and despite strong scholarly consensus on the genre of the Gospel, states that “Luke does not belong to a type of ancient biography for it belongs with Acts, and Acts cannot be forced into a biographical mould.”30 After a survey of history genres (or, more correctly, subgenres) within the Greco-Roman literary world, Aune claims to have found “five major genres of Hellenistic ‘historical’ writing in antiquity…: (1) genealogy or mythography, (2) travel descriptions (ethnography and geography), (3) local history, (4) chronography, and (5) history.”31 Aune further defines “general history” in the ancient world as “focused on particular people (typically the Greeks or Romans) from mythical beginnings to a point in the recent past, including contacts (usually conflicts) with other national groups in various geographical theatres.”32 Aune sees this definition as fitting the nature of Luke-Acts in that the main representatives of the Luke-Acts Christian movement had contact with significant GrecoRoman persons in important places throughout the Mediterranean world.33 Having suggested formal parallels between Luke-Acts and general histories, Aune states: “Luke’s dependence on the conventions of general history made it natural to conceptualize Christianity on analogy to an ethnic group. He presents Christianity as an independent religious movement in the process of emerging from Judaism to which it is its legitimate successor.”34 Furthermore, the distancing of Christians from other religious, political, and partisan

Aune, New Testament, 77. Aune, New Testament, 77. 31 Aune, New Testament, 84. 32 Aune, New Testament, 139. 33 Aune, New Testament, 140. 34 Aune, New Testament, 140. 29 30

104

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

groups in the Acts narrative serves to identify the content of LukeActs as a fitting subject for historical treatment.35 One of the challenges to Aune’s view is his proliferation of genre and sub-genre categories, as it is difficult to see how the ancients would have ascribed to all these genre divisions. Furthermore, his criteria for establishing parallels between Luke-Acts and history are not always well defined, and do not take into account some important formal features. In discussing style, Aune needs to compare Luke to other historians and prose writers in addition to the writers of the Gospels. He also needs to account for Acts’ clear emphasis on disciples and the presence of other biographical literary topoi. Furthermore, Aune fails to interact with how religious/philosophical groups were typically discussed in GrecoRoman literature.

Deuteronomistic History Since his doctoral thesis in 1981, T. L. Brodie has argued that the best model for Luke-Acts can be found in the “Primary History” (Genesis–2 Kings) of the Old Testament (OT).36 Although Luke uses models from throughout the OT, his primary source according to Brodie is the Elijah/Elisha narrative in 1 and 2 Kings.37 Brodie writes: Of all the models and sources used by Luke—and he seems to have used many, old and new—the most foundational was the main body of the Elijah–Elisha story (1 Kings 17.1—2 Kings 8.15, a text which is approximately the same length as Mark’s

Aune, New Testament, 141. T. L. Brodie, Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings (Vatican City: Pontificia Universita S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 1981). 37 For a picture of the various sources that went into the creation of Luke-Acts, such as Genesis—2 Kings, 1 Corinthians (among other epistles), proto-Luke, Mark, Matthew and John, see T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004), xxviii. 35

36

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

105

Gospel). This was the component around which all the other components would be adapted and assembled.38

Brodie’s dissertation and later writings argue that Luke used the Elijah-Elisha narrative in two primary ways to create a sort of “prophetic biography.”39 From the Elijah-Elisha narrative, Luke both derived the basic plan of a two-part work centered on an assumption/ascension of the main protagonist, and also gleaned various narrative elements from which to build specific texts in LukeActs. This systematic use of the OT in the creation of the Jesus narrative adheres to the Greco-Roman practice of imitatio and emulatio, forming a new text by appropriating old material in such a way as to say something new.40 Luke’s new message, according to Brodie, is that Jesus completely fulfilled every aspect of the OT. Although Brodie is not the first to suggest that the Deuteronomistic histories and their Septuagint versions influenced Luke’s writings,41 he does make a unique proposition as to the development and sources of the Lukan narratives through his conception of “proto-Luke,” a document containing portions of Luke-Acts, based on the Septuagint, which is an ancestor of the Gospels. His argument is unconvincing, however, as he does not define precisely what he means by positing “intertextuality” between Luke and the Elijah-Elisha narratives, how he understands Luke to have “used” and “reworked” this material, nor the relationship between intertextuality and genre.

Political History In a number of articles David L. Balch has attempted to map parallels between Acts and Hellenistic history writers, concluding that

T. L. Brodie, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. E. Richard; Collegeville, Minn.: Michael Glazier, 1990), 78–85, 78. 39 Brodie, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation,” 79. 40 Brodie, Birthing, 6–22. 41 See, for example, C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 37–53; M. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964). 38

106

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Acts is akin to Greco-Roman political history.42 In an early article, “The Genre of Luke-Acts,” Balch addressed concerns with labelling Acts as biography (Talbert) and novel (Pervo).43 Although Balch did not dismiss all of the arguments comprising these two views, he did suggest that the genre most similar to Luke-Acts is Greek history, especially the approach of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Balch argues that the historiographic form created and utilized by Dionysius provided a model for Luke’s narrative. Following a preface, 1.1–8, Dionysius divides his Roman Antiquities into three main parts: 1) 1.9–70—Rome: Ancestors and Date of Settlement; 2) 1.71–4.85—The Roman Monarchy: Founding and Overthrow; and 3) Books 5–20—The Roman Aristocracy: Annual Consuls to the First Punic War (before Polybius’ history).44 Balch saw a similar pattern in Luke’s work, which, excluding the prefaces (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2), is also divided into three similar parts: 1) Luke 3:23– 28; Acts 7:1–53; 13:16–41, 46–47—Ancestors; 2) Luke—The Royal Founder; and 3) Acts—“Growth of the Word among All Nations.”45 For Balch, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, the concept of a royal founder with accompanying birth and death narratives, and the story of the expansion of the Christian faith to include many different ethnic groups linked Luke-Acts to the political history strain of Dionysius. In a more recent article, however, Balch has deemphasized the importance of being able to specify the genre of Acts, stating that “the question of genre is for the most part secondary.”46 Balch now

42 See also W. C. van Unnik, “Luke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Les Actes des Apôtres (ed. J. Kremer; BETL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 37–60; E. Plümacher, “The Mission Speeches in Acts and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel, 251–66; S. E. Porter, “Thucydides 1.22.1 and the Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?,” NovT 32 (1990): 121–42. 43 D. L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History,” SwJT 33 (1990): 5–19. 44 Balch, “Genre,” 11. 45 Balch, “Genre,” 12; 46 D. L. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ—Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Contextualizing Acts:

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

107

offers a more nuanced understanding of ancient genre in which the categories of biography and history overlap and have blurred boundaries.47 Furthermore, Balch has determined that specifying the genre of Acts is secondary to understanding its internal argument.48 Balch still views Acts as history, but suggests that identifying a specific subgenre of history should be resisted.49 Nevertheless, Balch still highlights a number of parallels between Luke-Acts and Dionysius of Halicarnassus and certain of Plutarch’s Lives that have distinct political emphases.50 Though this more nuanced approach rightly identifies the generic overlap of history and biography, I disagree with his claim that understanding the genre of a work is secondary, as genre provides the underpinning for Balch’s interpretive approach. Furthermore, Balch’s delineation of Dionysius’ History is far too rigid to provide a model structure for Luke-Acts to follow. Finally, Balch errs by generically connecting Plutarch’s Lives to Dionysius’ History based solely on their political focus, as if topic were the most important genre indicator. Plutarch’s Lives, although having political subjects, is a collected biography and is highly focused on character development.

Apologetic History One of the first scholars to note that Acts has a strong apologetic emphasis was F. F. Bruce: “The author of Acts has a right to be called…the first Christian apologist.”51 Following Bruce, other scholars have also identified apologetic aspects in Acts; however,

Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (ed. T. Penner and C. V. Stichele; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003), 139–88, 141. 47 Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 143. 48 Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 145. 49 Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 186. 50 Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 154. 51 F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 22. Bruce is not the first person to suggest that Acts is an apology. The most notable scholar is Ernst Haenchen, who popularized the view that Acts was apologia pro ecclesia (The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [trans. R. M. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], 78–81).

108

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

most of these scholars would not categorise Acts as “apologetic history,” but rather as history with an apologetic component.52 The scholar who has developed this position is Gregory Sterling, whose oft-cited monograph has become the standard work for this perspective.53 Sterling attempts to place Luke-Acts within the Greco-Roman apologetic historiography tradition, which has its original roots in Greek ethnography.54 After outlining the origins and initial development of the Greek ethnographic tradition, Sterling maps a shift from Greeks writing from a position external to the culture they describe, to internal members of a culture group attempting to give an accurate portrayal of their culture from within.55 For Sterling, the ultimate parallel for Luke and his work was Josephus and his Antiquities.56 Sterling defines the genre of apologetic historiography as “the story of a subgroup of people in an extended prose narrative written by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world.”57 As Josephus’ Antiquities attempts for Jews, Sterling understands Luke to be providing the external reader in the larger Greco-Roman world with a new framework for understanding Christian group identity. A similar approach has been adopted by Todd Penner in his work on the Stephen narrative.58 Penner is primarily interested in

These include, but are not limited to, C. K. Barrett, “The First New Testament?,” NovT 38 (1996): 94–104, esp. 101; L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 3–9; P. J. Tomson, “Gamaliel’s Counsel and the Apologetic Strategy of Luke-Acts,” in Unity of Luke-Acts, 585–604. 53 G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992). 54 G.E. Sterling, “Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography,” SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 326–42. 55 Sterling, “Luke-Acts,” 327–36; Sterling, Historiography, 220–25. 56 Sterling, Historiography, 226–310. 57 Sterling, Historiography, 17. 58 T. Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (ESEC 10; New York: T&T Clark, 2004). 52

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

109

the epideictic rhetorical nature of Acts 6:1—8:3,59 and claims that Luke creates a speech that recasts the history of Israel in such a way as to place the immediate literary audience, in the midst of a conflict between the newly formed Christian community and unbelieving outsiders into that history.60 Luke thus highlights the praiseworthy features of the nascent Christian movement in opposition to the established Jewish leadership and grounds the ideals of his own day in the past story of the Israelite community.61 Although he does not provide the sort of rhetorical discussion put forward by Penner, Daniel Marguerat, after eliminating other generic options for the classification of Acts, settles on the idea that the “closest categorization [for Acts] is a historiography with an apologetic aim.”62 Although Marguerat does not develop Acts’ apologetic nature in as much depth as Penner, his choice of genre indicates that the apologetic perspective continues to be a viable categorization of Acts within the scholarly community. The challenge to understanding Luke-Acts as apologetic historiography is the question of audience: For whom was Luke-Acts written? Marguerat is correct when he claims, “The language of Acts is a language for the initiated. The implied reader is the Christian or an interested sympathizer, as for example, the most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1.3–4; Acts 1.1). Luke’s apologetic is addressed to Christian ‘insiders’ of the movement and a circle which gravitates around it.”63 59 Penner (Praise of Christian Origins, 223) explicitly states, “I do not argue here that this tradition of historiography provides some sort of direct literary model for Luke (although that does remain a possibility), I do suggest that examining Acts in the context of this particular mode of cultural communication will reinforce some of the broader literary patterns…” Therefore, even though Penner does not make Luke-Acts explicitly model itself on apologetic historiography as Sterling does, he does see “Luke-Acts as a premiere example of early Christian historiography written in the tradition of Jewish apologetic historiography” (p. 260). 60 Penner, Praise of Christian Origins, 323–27. 61 Penner, Praise of Christian Origins, 330. 62 D. Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 34. 63 Marguerat, First Christian Historian, 30.

110

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

A number of episodes in Luke-Acts, however, undermine the apologetic perspective. Although Luke portrays the Christian community as having a strong social ethic (Acts 2:44–47; 4:32–35) and being willing to submit to authority (Acts 25:10–11), there are also scenes in which Christians cause social disturbances (Acts 19:23–41). Additionally, in Acts nearly every Christian leader is arrested at one time and charged with disturbing the social order.64 Maddox draws attention to the fact that the work ends with the trials and imprisonment of Paul, which “blunts the edge of any suggestion that Luke’s aim was evangelistic.”65 That the Christians in Acts are portrayed as social deviants challenges the view that it is designed as an apologetic portrayal of the Christian movement. Acts as Novel/Romance One of the major challenges to the consensus of Acts as history was developed by Richard I. Pervo, who states in Profit with Delight that his work attempts to view Acts “from a different perspective” in the quest to identify its genre.66 Pervo critiques Haenchen for, without reference to evidence, suggesting that Luke was a historian and at the same time dismissing the historicity of Acts as “untenable.”67 Pervo claims that Haenchen presents his readers with “a Luke who was bumbling and incompetent as a historian yet brilliant and creative as an author.”68 Portraying Luke as a historian whose history cannot be trusted does not sit well with Pervo, who looks elsewhere for a genre that includes works that are bad history, but good writing. While acknowledging that features of Acts such as the preface and speeches have parallels in ancient historiography, Pervo maintains that these 64 Peter, 4:3; 12:3; John, 4:3; “the Apostles,” 5:18; Stephen, 6:12; James, 12:2; Paul, 16:22–24; 17:9; 18:12–17 (court); 21:33—28:31; Silas, 16:22–24; 17:9. The notable exceptions are Barnabas and Philip. 65 Maddox, Purpose of Luke-Acts, 181. Maddox concludes that there are “good reasons for doubting that Luke was writing for an audience outside the Christian fellowship” (pp. 12–15) 66 R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1. 67 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 3; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 224, 640, 709–10, 740. 68 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 3.

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

111

specific features are insufficient for characterizing the entire work as historiography, especially in light of other literary features that are not characteristic of that genre.69 For Pervo, two primary criteria distinguish Acts from ancient historical writings. First, Luke is a “popular” writer and does not follow the socially accepted rules appropriate for a work of history.70 Second, Luke betrays a deeper interest in entertaining his readers than would have been appropriate for an historical work at that time. Luke’s attempt at entertainment, for Pervo, is expressed in literary themes (arrests, torture, riots, travel, shipwrecks, persecution, conspiracies)71 and devices (humor, wit, irony, pathos, exotica).72 In light of these and other features, Pervo proposes that Acts bears a strong resemblance to an ancient novel, which he defines as “a relatively lengthy work of prose fiction depicting and deriding certain ideals through an entertaining presentation of the lives and experiences of a person or persons whose activity transcends the limits of ordinary living as known to its implied readers.”73 This definition, with its elements of entertainment, accessible popular style, and incorporation of particular if not predictable themes, affirms A. Heiseman’s formula for a novel: “a novel = material + manner + style + structure.”74 In the final chapter of Profit with Delight, Pervo evaluates the nature of Luke and Acts in light of his discussion of the novel genre and of other early Christian Acts that appeared in the centuries following Luke’s work. Pervo is not dismayed by the fact that no 69 Pervo remarks that the cultural elite of the day would not have seen Acts (or Luke for that matter) as sophisticated history. Rather, Pervo claims, “No educated Greek would place such a poorly written account of the missionary activities of a newfangled oriental cult during its first thirty years on the shelf beside the Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” Pervo, Profit with Delight, 6. 70 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 11. 71 For an outline of Acts and various dangers, see Pervo, Profit with Delight, 14–17. 72 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 58–85. 73 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 105. 74 Pervo, Profit with Delight, 114, citing A. Heiserman, The Novel Before the Novel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 59.

112

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

extant apocryphal Acts have a corresponding gospel, because he does not view Luke and Acts as a literary unit; he therefore has no problem assigning them two distinct genres.75 Pervo views Luke as a biographical novel and its sequel, Acts, as a historical novel.76 Although Pervo is not the first to interpret Acts through the lens of the ancient novel, his work has been instrumental in bringing this idea into mainstream scholarly discussion.77 Furthermore, despite the fact that there have been critiques leveled against his classification of Acts as an ancient novel,78 Pervo’s thesis has inspired a number of other scholars to explore the relationship between Acts and ancient popular literature.79 Nevertheless, there are some notable issues with this perspective. First, Pervo ignores the preface of Acts, which explicitly links Acts to Luke’s Gospel and the (biographical-historical) methodological approach espoused in Luke 1:1–4. Second, though there are superficial similarities between Acts and historical romances, there are also differences. For example, there is little evidence that the main protagonists in romances pass their task to other characters and then depart from the narrative. In Acts, however, especially with Peter, Stephen, Philip, this is the case. Rather than following the narrative pattern of novels, which follows the main characters throughout the work, Acts shifts character focus regularly. Acts 75 For Pervo’s view of Luke and Acts as distinct works, see Pervo, Profit with Delight, 4; M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 76 For Luke as a “biographical novel,” see Pervo, Profit with Delight, 185 n. 5. For Acts as a “historical novel,” see Pervo, Profit with Delight, 137. 77 For a precursor, see S. M. Praeder, “Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel,” in SBLSP (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 269–92. 78 For example, James M. Dawsey, “Characteristics of Folk-Epic in Acts,” in SLBSP (ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 317–25; Stanley E. Porter, “The Genre of Acts and the Ethics of Discourse,” in Acts and Ethics (ed. T. E. Phillips; NTM 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005), 1–15, 5–7. 79 See, for example, Loveday Alexander, “Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts,” in Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 289; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 133–64; S. Schwartz, “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts Exercises,” in Contextualizing Acts, 105–38;

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

113

also has an open ending with no conclusion, a feature that is highly problematic for the novel genre. Finally, Acts lacks any romantic element. As a result, Pervo’s proposal needs further support. Acts as Epic Following Pervo’s impetus to evaluate Acts in light of other, nonhistorical genres, Dennis R. MacDonald has initiated a movement to view Acts and other Christian narratives in light of the Homeric epics.80 Beginning with apocryphal Acts and Tobit, MacDonald attempts to determine if these religious texts depend or are modeled on the works of Homer.81 In his monograph on Mark, MacDonald makes the bold claim that “Mark wanted his readers to detect his transvaluation of Homer.”82 The claim that Mark imitates Homer has been challenged on a number of levels, including the literary character of Mark, the possible modeling of Mark on another non-Homeric writer whose work was based on Homer, and the lack of consistency of some of MacDonald’s criteria.83 Arguably the most challenging question in response to MacDonald’s claim is why no other author, especially in the classical period, has seen these parallels in Mark.84 In response to this question, MacDonald says he has found someone

80 Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). 81 D. R. MacDonald, Christianizing Homer: “The Odyssey,” Plato, and “The Acts of Andrew” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); D. R. MacDonald, “Tobit and the Odyssey,” in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (ed. D. R. MacDonald; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2001), 11–40. 82 MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 3. 83 For a critical evaluation, see K. O. Sandnes, “IMITATIO HOMERI? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s ‘Mimesis Criticism,’” JBL 124 (2005): 715–32. 84 Robert B. Coote and Mary P. Coote, “Homer and Scripture in the Gospel of Mark,” in Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire (ed. H. E. Hearon; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2004), 189–202, 191.

114

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

who notes Mark’s imitation of Homer: “the author of LukeActs.”85 To demonstrate this claim, MacDonald applies his six criteria to four passages in the Acts narrative and compares them with their Homeric counterparts: the visions of Cornelius and Peter (Acts 10:1–11:18) with Iliad 2 (Agamemnon’s dream); Paul’s farewell at Miletus (Acts 20:18–35) with Iliad 6 (Hector’s farewell);86 the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:15–26) with Iliad 7 (casting lots for Ajax); and Peter’s escape from prison (12:3–17) with Iliad 24 (Priam’s escape from Achilles). In light of his investigation, MacDonald claims that Luke, in Acts, consciously imitates Homer’s Iliad.87 This conclusion implies that Luke-Acts, as a created narrative with no basis in Christian tradition or sources, can no longer inform Christian theology.88 Although MacDonald was the first to posit that Acts makes use of Homeric models, his is not the first work to suggest that Luke-Acts is based on an ancient epic. Bonz set the stage by stating that the creation of epics within a culture or community typically occurs at a transitional time in that community’s development and, as a result, holds a particularly powerful place within that culture.89 Building on the models of The Epic of Gilgamesh, the OT narratives, Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, and Virgil’s Aeneid, Bonz posits that Luke created his foundational epic to provide in his narrative a sense of history and to reshape the vision of the community.90 In MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?, 14. See also, D. R. MacDonald, “Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector’s Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad,” in Contextualizing Acts, 189–203. 87 MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?, 146–51. Still unclear, however, is the imitation of Homer by Luke’s Gospel. If Luke did acknowledge Mark’s use of Homer, what effect did this have on Luke’s Gospel? Furthermore, why are these parallels not clearly highlighted in Luke’s gospel narrative? 88 MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?, 151. 89 Marianne P. Bonz, The Past As Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 25. 90 Bonz, The Past As Legacy, 26. Bonz suggests that Luke writes from the perspective of “nostalgia for the heroic past and a longing to connect himself and his audience to an idealized version of those early days.” 85 86

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

115

particular, Bonz proposes that Luke modeled his narrative on Virgil’s Aeneid epic: “Luke has endeavored to interpret the underlying meaning of the whole of Christian history—and in the manner surprisingly analogous to Virgil’s interpretation of the meaning of Roman history.”91 These major attempts to view Acts in light of ancient epic have inspired other scholars to see possible relationships between Luke’s writings and epic works.92 In response to the proposals of MacDonald and Bonz, Loveday Alexander identifies possible epic influences in the writings of Luke. Although she is very clear in stating that “Acts is not an epic,” and that it does not contain the necessary formal features that would place it within this literary genre, she finds the influential role of Homer and Virgil in the ancient literary world too important to ignore.93 She argues that it is important for modern scholars not only to read the text sensitively for the influences of ancient epic, but also to realize that the mere inclusion of themes of and allusions to Homer and Virgil do not make a text an epic.94 Alexander is correct when she critiques Bonz and MacDonald and points out that Acts lacks the formal features typically associated with an epic. First, it is not in metered verse, a key component of an epic.95 Second, the work is not on a grand scale, such as that of Homer or Virgil. The use of an epic theme or a reference to a particular Homeric scene is not enough to make a work an epic. These theories conflate content with formal structure; shared content cannot determine genre when formal features are lacking. Bonz, The Past As Legacy, vii–viii. One example would be M. Moreland, “Jerusalem Imagined: Rethinking Earliest Christian Claims to the Hebrew Epic” (Ph.D. Diss., Claremont Graduate University, 1999). 93 Loveday Alexander, “New Testament Narrative and Ancient Epic,” in Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 289; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 165–82, 173. Alexander does state that “at certain points in the narrative there are subtle linguistic and symbolic clues which create hyperlinks with alternative cultural scripts,” namely the narratives of Homer and Virgil (181). 94 Alexander, “New Testament Narrative and Ancient Epic,” 181. 95 According to Aristotle (Poet. 1459b–1460a), epic requires “heroic verse.” 91

92

116

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Acts as Biography The fourth major generic category applied to Acts is biography. Originally proposed by C. H. Talbert, the perspective of Luke-Acts as biography successfully challenges the dominant perspective of Acts as history. In his influential work Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts, Talbert suggests Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers as modelling the sort of genre Luke chose for Luke-Acts.96 Investigating the content, form, and function of Diogenes’ Lives, Talbert argues that the modern reader needs to remember that “the role of a founder of a philosophic school in antiquity is a religious, not an academic one.”97 Another connection to Acts is that the Lives by Diogenes also includes “narratives about the masters’ successors and selected other disciples who in actuality formed a type of religious community created and sustained by the divine figure.”98 These narratives conclude with a summary of the doctrines held by the various schools and their adherents. Talbert proposes that the content of Diogenes’ Lives takes “an (a)+(b)+(c) form” with “(a) life of the founder + (b) narrative about the disciples and successors + (c) summary of the doctrine of the school” creating a holistic picture of the philosopher and his doctrines.99 This “(a)+(b)+(c) form” is not a rigid literary form for Diogenes Laertius, and that the (c) component can be omitted be96 C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1974), 125. For other works by Talbert that attempt to place Luke-Acts in the matrix of biography, see C. H. Talbert, “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1619–51; C. H. Talbert, “The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or ‘Bios?,’” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. B. Witherington; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996), 58–72. For a substantial critique of Talbert’s view, particularly his What is a Gospel?, see D. E. Aune, “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C. H. Talbert’s What is a Gospel?,” in Gospel Perspectives (vol. 2; ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 9–60. 97 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 126; citing the writings of Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 140–42; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 20. 98 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 126. 99 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 127.

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

117

cause there is occasional overlap between sections (a) and (c).100 The (a) and (b) sections, on the other hand, need to be consistently present, because they present a unified picture of the origins of the school and the way in which the particular philosophy was carried out and handed down through the generations. With this literary model firmly in mind, Talbert compares Diogenes’ Lives with Luke-Acts. Both Luke-Acts and Diogenes have for their content “the life of a founder of a religious community, a list or narrative of the founder’s successors and selected other disciples, and a summary of the doctrine of the community.”101 In addition, Luke-Acts follows the same form as Diogenes’ Lives in that the life of the founder is the first structural unit, followed by a narrative of successors and other disciples, thus forming an (a)+(b) pattern. Although the final (c) component of Luke-Acts, according to Talbert, is present, located within the narratives of the (a) and (b) sections, its absence suggests that the form of Luke-Acts is similar to the sources that Diogenes used in the creation of his Lives rather than to the Lives themselves.102 Although aware of some of the dissimilarities between LukeActs and Diogenes, such as structural differences, the limited number of pre-Lukan gospels, and the superior development of Acts’ (b) section over those in Diogenes’ Lives, Talbert holds that the similarities in content, form and function are sufficient for comparison. As a result, Talbert concludes that “Luke-Acts, to some extent, must be regarded as belonging to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, in particular, to that type of biography which dealt with the lives of the philosophers and their successors.”103 Loveday Alexander evaluates Talbert’s work and the nature of intellectual biography in the Hellenistic era.104 Alexander investigates the similarities and differences between Acts and Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, concluding that, although there are some parallels such as the concept of succession, overall Diogenes’ work is a “bad Talbert, Literary Patterns, 129. Talbert, Literary Patterns, 129–30. 102 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 131, 133. 103 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 134. 104 Loveday Alexander, “Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography,” in Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 289; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 43–68. 100 101

118

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

fit” for Acts in that a number of the characteristic features of Diogenes’ Lives are either missing in Acts or over/under developed.105 Alexander therefore rejects Talbert’s position that Acts is based on a Diogenes-like model. Despite her critique of Talbert’s work, Loveday Alexander states that a number of “underlying traditions and patterns of thought” in biography may be of interest for the study of Acts.106 Alexander compares the portrayal of Paul in Acts with a composite representation of Socrates and concludes that, despite the fact that this type of biography does not exist for Socrates, similar paradigms may have been used by Luke in the creation of his Pauline section.107 Although I appreciate this comparison, there are some issues with Alexander’s approach. In particular, she does not address the first half of the Acts narrative in her comparison of Paul and Socrates. Though this is somewhat understandable, it does represent a serious hurdle for understanding Acts as an individual biography. Recently, Stanley Porter has proposed a biography label for Luke-Acts. Porter begins by raising some questions about interpretation by attending to three foci of reading: the author, the reader, and the work itself.108 After evaluating proposals for Acts as romance and history, and pointing out inherent weaknesses of these, Porter suggests that biography is the ideal genre for Acts because it creates the greatest “generic compatibility between the Gospel and Acts.”109 In order to substantiate this claim, Porter proceeds to discuss a number of formal features within Acts (e.g., speeches, genealogies, sources) that, although they have been used to support the label of history, are not excluded from biographical works. Although Porter does make some good points within his article, its brevity limits the impact of his argument. Despite the fact that there have been a handful of attempts to view Acts in light of ancient biography, to date there has been no thorough monograph-length proposal. However, in a recent docAlexander, “Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography,” 49. Alexander, “Intellectual Biography,” 62. 107 Alexander, “Intellectual Biography,” 62–68. 108 Porter, “The Genre of Acts,” 2. 109 Porter, “The Genre of Acts,” 9. 105 106

THE GENRE OF LUKE AND ACTS

119

toral dissertation and forthcoming monograph, Adams claims that Acts is best understood as a modified collected biography.110 Making use of ancient and modern genre theory, Adams demonstrates that genres are flexible—a dynamic system whose internal boundaries are constantly in flux. Adams further evaluates the formal features of Acts and how they relate to ancient genres, particularly biographies. Overall, Adams determines that, though Acts has some genre relatedness with history, the best genre category for Acts is collected biography. This perspective is thoroughly applied to the Acts narrative with particular emphasis on the delineation of “in-group” members, the structure of the work as a whole, and the ending of Acts.

CONCLUSION This chapter has provided a brief evaluated of the major genre labels for Luke and Acts over the past century, with a particular focus on the last forty years. Over the past few decades a general consensus has been reaching in viewing Luke as biography. No such consensus, however, has been gained for Acts. Though the view of Acts as history is still the dominant perspective, there is a growing movement that is challenging this label. As a result, there has been a renewed effort and a deeper investigation into the genre of Acts. It is clear, however, that one of the primary challenges for the generic labeling of Acts, and one that needs to be more thoroughly addressed, is determining the sets of literary features that are associated with ancient genres. Although some scholars have delved deeply into the primary literature to create a set of criteria with which to compare Acts, all too often there has only been a cursory comparison with just a handful of literary features before making an assertion of genre categorization. Furthermore, scholars have often equated thematic or content parallels with genre classifications. This has resulted in much unnecessary confusion.

110 S. A. Adams, “The Genre of Acts and Collected Biographies” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011).

120

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, Loveday. Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles. LNTS 289. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with GraecoRoman Biography. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Penner, Todd. “Madness in the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current Study.” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2004): 223–93. Phillips, T. E. “The Genre of Acts: Moving Towards a Consensus?” Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006): 365–96.

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS: GETTING TO KNOW THE SAVIOR GOD F. Scott Spencer

Ever since critical scholarship revoked the medical license of the writer of Luke-Acts—or, if granting the possibility of Dr. Luke’s authorship, denying that his literary work reflects any distinctive medical training or bedside manner1—the composer of the Third Gospel and Book of Acts has suffered a protracted identity crisis. If not Paul’s traveling companion writing with a physician’s interest in suffering and healing, who was he? And what kind of material was he writing—history, theology, apology, hagiography, or some combination of these? While most twentieth-century critics accepted “Luke’s” function as both historian and theologian, in varying degrees, some scholars in the 1970–80s exposed the relative neglect of his accomplishments as master storyteller, befitting the headline of his work as an “orderly-arranged account [or] sequential narrative (διήγησιν) of the events that have been fulfilled among us” (1:1). Accordingly, the implied author aims first and foremost to guide the reader through (διήγησις connotes a “through [δια]-way”) a compelling story of divinely-orchestrated events surrounding Jesus and his followers, not to plunge the reader into a labyrinth of sources and 1 See H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (HTS 6; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), 39–72; idem, The Making of Luke-Acts (2d ed.; London: SPCK, 1958), 118, 219, 273, 338, 358.

121

122

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

snippets behind the story. While we can be assured that Luke’s story is based on “solid” (ἀσφάλεια [1:4]) research, our attention should be fixed not on footnotes or bibliography (of which there are none), but on the finely-crafted, densely-packed final narrative product. And it is through such a complex narrative that we come to know (ἐπιγινώσκω [1:4]) God from Luke’s perspective, or better, that we come to know God’s story, begun with the “older” scriptural people of Israel and culminating “in these last days” (Acts 2:17) through the mission of God’s Messiah-Son and his emissaries, empowered by God’s Spirit. Luke operates, then, as neither an academic historian of “Christian origins” nor a scholastic exponent of “systematic theology.” Rather, he writes chiefly as a narrative theologian, dramatically unfolding his storied vision of God’s purpose through history. It is this narrative-theological vision of Luke-Acts that I survey in this essay, focusing on two aspects: first, some key features of Luke’s literary method pervading his two volumes; and second, an “orderly” guided tour through Luke’s theological message conveyed in the story of Jesus and the early church. The latter will receive fuller attention, following the conviction that Luke’s theology is best ascertained by a sustained, sequential, cumulative reading of his narrative. Such an approach marks a monumental shift from the dominant paradigm of treating Luke and Acts throughout Christian history “more as a library of episodes from which favorites might be borrowed…[and] typically sundered from their narrative service,” as Green observes.2 Heading the hit parade would be the famous Christmas story, Parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son, the Pentecost spectacle, and Paul’s Damascus Road conversion. Wonderful as these episodes are, however, Luke does not present them as self-contained, free-floating specimens, but rather as integral parts of an overall unfolding saga. Ideally, a responsible narrative-theological reading would proceed deliberately and reflectively, slowly taking it all in and constructing a thick tapestry of meaningful characters, plots and themes along the way. But space constraints permit only a whirlwind tour here. Hopefully, J. B. Green, “Luke-Acts or Luke and Acts? A Reaffirmation of Unity,” in Reading Acts Today: Essays in Honour of Loveday C. A. Alexander (ed. S. Walton et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 108. 2

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

123

such an excursion will whet the appetite and prepare the way for many fuller and deeper re-readings.

GETTING TO KNOW LUKE’S LITERARY METHOD: NARRATIVE LINKS AND PATTERNS Fitting a more panoramic than telescopic approach, I sketch in this section several broad elements bridging Luke’s narrative landscape and structure rather than finer points of language and style. Single Story, Double Volume Referencing in Acts 1:1 a prior “first book” dedicated to Theophilus, the same addressee in Luke 1:3, suggests prima facie a twovolume work written by the same author (“Luke”) to the same audience (1–2 Theophilus). Starting from that baseline, however, does not determine the relationship of the two books’ contents. The options range from (1) a single, continuous story split into two parts because of scroll space limitations to (2) two separate, distant works, treating different interests and issues. In the middle, we might place something like 1–2 Thessalonians where Paul (assuming he wrote the second letter) continues to address developments, both old and new, in the Thessalonian church over a short period of time. While debate continues to swirl regarding the precise relationships between Luke’s two volumes, sometimes reducing to hairsplitting quibbles over the proper linguistic marker—hyphen (Luke-Acts) versus conjunction (Luke and Acts)—the narrative approach in this essay tilts toward a tight nexus of continuity and unity. Picking up where the Gospel leaves off, with Jesus’ postresurrection instruction and ascension, Acts immediately establishes a close character-and-plot linkage (Acts 1:1–11). More broadly, the succinct summation of the “first book” as “all that Jesus began (ἢρξατο) to do and teach” (1:1) suggests that the sequel aims at unfolding what Jesus continued to do and teach through his Spiritimbued disciples. But I qualify this primary stress on the connection and coherence of Luke-Acts with two caveats: one narratological, the other canonical. First, sophisticated narratives are not prefabricated jigsaw puzzles where are all the pieces perfectly fit together; rather they contain various gaps and tensions employed to various effects and not always smoothly resolved, leaving the reader, with Mary,

124

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

“much perplexed” and much to “ponder” (Luke 1:29). Second, the canonical separation of Luke and Acts, which narrative criticism has sought to overcome on literary and theological grounds, reminds readers that Luke has functioned quite well in the church’s life as a complementary partner with Matthew, Mark and John; and likewise Acts as a bridge between fourfold Gospel and Epistles or narrative introduction to the writings of Paul, Peter, James and John.3 Of course, literary works can be profitably interpreted in dialogue with multiple intertexts. Hence, I view narrative and canonical approaches to Luke and Acts as more complementary than competitive.4 But a valuable corrective element also emerges, as canonical perspectives urge a degree of caution regarding a superhyphenated hyper-driving of links between Luke and Acts that effectively seals them off from the rest of the New Testament (not to mention from wider Jewish and Greco-Roman literature) and fails to appreciate the literary integrity of each volume and potential for presenting distinctive viewpoints. Pairs and Parallels However, granting these cautions, the array of parallel patterns within and between Luke’s two volumes remains quite stunning. Yet even here, while these parallels offer compelling evidence for the basic coherence of Luke-Acts, they do not represent copy-andpaste duplicates of each other. Unity is not uniformity. What is often most significant interpretively among otherwise similar characters or incidents are the differences, both subtle and salient. For example, Luke alone features Jesus’ dispatching his disciples on two itinerant missions, with shared agendas of kingdom promoting, miracle working, traveling light, and receiving hospitality (Luke 9:1–6, 10; 10:1–12, 17–20). But against this common backdrop stands out the distinctive distribution of emissaries from the twelve sent out “together” (9:1) to the seventy sent out “in pairs” (10:1). Such developments convey a sense of expanding outreach from Israel (biblically configured in twelve tribes) to the wider world (tradiSee R. W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (ed. L. E. Keck et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 26–32. 4 Cf. Green, “Luke-Acts.” 3

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

125

tionally comprised of seventy nations) spearheaded by dynamic missionary duos. Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, Paul and Silas, and Priscilla and Aquila fill out the pattern nicely in the book of Acts. Related patterns include: x Luke’s penchant for pairing characters becomes a major structuring device through numerous juxtapositions of male-female experiences, such as those of Zechariah and Mary confronting shocking angelic birth announcements (Luke 1:5–38), a shepherd and sweeper-woman dealing with “lost” objects (15:1– 10), Aeneas and Tabitha receiving miraculous restorations (Acts 9:32–43), and Lydia and a jailer spearheading household baptisms in Philippi (16:11–15, 29–34).5 Again, the couplings can serve multiple functions—contrastive as well as comparative—with the female figure occasionally outshining the male (e.g., the young village girl Mary overshadows the elderly priest Zechariah). x The most overarching structural links involve the parallels in character and action between the earthly Jesus in Luke and early church leaders in Acts.6 Filled with the same Spirit that anointed Jesus, his disciples follow in his footsteps and further his work in his name. Like their Lord and Christ, Peter and Paul preach the gospel of God’s kingdom, explicate prophetic Scripture, heal the lame, raise the dead, challenge temple authorities and suffer unjust arrests and judicial trials. Stephen, too, faces trumped up charges, which lead to his execution, when he echoes Jesus’ final words of committal to Father God and forgiveness of his executioners (Acts 7:59–60; Luke 23:34, 46). The risen Jesus continues his mission through his delegates in Acts. Previews and Reviews Over the course of the Lukan story key signposts regularly appear, pointing the reader both forward to coming attractions and backward to important statements and events worth remembering and For a full list of male-female pairings, see F. S. Spencer, The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 41–44. 6 See C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula: Scholars, 1974). 5

126

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

pondering further. The attentive reader thus travels a carefully plotted narrative path that is both progressive and reflective. Preview markers set the stage for a prophecy-and-fulfillment pattern within and between Luke’s two volumes that certifies the “solidity” (ἀσφάλεια) of God’s realized “purpose” (βουλή): the story unfolds the way God desires and designs. For example, in poetic jubilation Mary forecasts God’s merciful project of “lifting the lowly…filling the hungry…and sending the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52–53), which is fulfilled on multiple and varied occasions in the ensuing work of Jesus and his followers (see below). And at the outset of his public ministry, Jesus adopts the prophetic agendas of Isaiah, on the one hand, “bringing good news to the poor…release to the captives…sight to the blind…and the year of the Lord’s favor [Jubilee]” (4:18–19; Isa 61:1–2; 58:6) and Elijah/Elisha, on the other hand, reaching out to people like the hungry Sidonian widow and leprous Syrian general Naaman (Luke 4:25–27): women and men, destitute and prominent, poor and sick, Jews and Gentiles. Even a cursory survey of the balance of Luke’s Gospel demonstrates how Jesus repeatedly fulfills this announced vocation; and the anticipated extension beyond Jewish borders comes to fruition in Acts, which develops along the broad track outlined by the risen Jesus in 1:8—“You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem [Acts 1–7], in all Judea and Samaria [8–12], and to the ends of the earth [13–28].” As with previews, reviews of significant prior material typically emerge in reliable characters’ speeches to various audiences. Accordingly, the reader is invited to participate with the in-story audiences in recalling and reflecting upon preceding instructions and situations. For example, at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts, we find these flashbacks: Speaker/Audience “Two men in dazzling clothes” to women at the empty tomb

Review “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again” (Luke 24:6–7; cf. 9:22, 44; 18:31–33).

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

Cleopas and companion to each other in Emmaus

Risen Jesus to Disciples in Jerusalem

Risen Jesus to Disciples in Jerusalem

127

“Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32; cf. 24:13–27). “These are my words that I spoke while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). “This is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4–5; cf. Luke 3:16).

These samples urge the reader to “remember” and “pay attention to how you listen” (Luke 8:18)—especially to the teaching of Jesus grounded in Scripture (see more below) and focused upon the seminal events of his death, resurrection, exaltation and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Scriptural Echoes and Models Beyond citing key Old Testament (OT) texts from “Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” and explicating how these have been fulfilled “today” (Luke 4:21) in Jesus and his messianic community, Luke’s story is saturated in biblical language and structured around biblical models. The narrative opens with a pair of natal accounts heavily stylized after miraculous OT birth stories involving barren women, such as Sarah and Hannah; for example, to a great extent Mary’s Magnificat re-sets Hannah’s Song in a different key (1 Sam 2:1–10; Luke 1:46–55). Beyond Luke 1–2, not simply isolated texts from “Moses,” but also the broader template of a “prophet-like-Moses” (Acts 3:22; 7:37; cf. Deut 18:15–18) shapes the portraits of Jesus, Stephen, Philip, Peter and Paul, as figures who overcome oppressive forces and false prophet-magicians through superior wisdom and authentic miraculous power, yet typically suffer rejection from their own

128

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

people.7 Moreover, as the glorified Moses discusses Jesus’ impending exodus (ἒξοδος, “departure, death” [Luke 9:31]) with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, he sets the stage for Jesus’ winding “wilderness journey,” as it were, in Luke 9:51—19:27, providing instruction that both echoes and exegetes Moses’ farewell sermons in Deuteronomy8 and prepares the way for a “new exodus” or restoration of God’s exiled people, Jew and Gentile, envisioned in Isaiah and extended to “the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6; Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; 26:17–18).9 Along with this rich Moses/Exodus prototype, we should add the Elijah/Elisha model from Jesus’ programmatic first sermon (Luke 4:25–27; see above).10 Although it would stretch too far to claim that Luke thought he was writing new Scripture on a par with Torah (Moses), prophets (Isaiah) and psalms (David), it would fall short to evaluate his project merely as an account of Jesus Messiah and the early church spiced with a smattering of OT illustrations and motifs. It is not too strong to say that the God-directed, Christ-centered, Spiritinspired narrative of Luke-Acts represents, on a root level, a continuation and culmination of the divinely-driven story of God’s chosen people revealed in Israel’s Scriptures. We now proceed to track the main lines of Luke’s biblical-theological drama in a fuller, more “orderly” sequence. 7 On the “prophet-like-Moses” paradigm, see L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 194–99; D. P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1989); F. S. Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations (JSNTSup 67; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 8 See C. A. Evans, “Luke 16:1–18 and the Deuteronomy Hypothesis,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 121–39; 9 See D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002). 10 See T. L. Brodie, The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000); Evans, “The Function of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives in Luke’s Ethic of Election,” in Luke and Scripture, 70–83.

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

129

GETTING TO KNOW LUKE’S THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE: NARRATIVE LINES AND PLOTS In this section I attempt to unfurl the plot of Luke’s narrative, with particular attention to three interlaced organizing principles conveniently captured in the title, “Knowing the Savior God.” 1. The epistemological principle propounds the explicit purpose of Luke’s work: “in order that (ἵνα) you might know well the solidity (ἐπιγνῷς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν) of the instructions you have received” (Luke 1:4). In other words, Luke writes to nurture his readers’ knowledge—intellectual and experiential, cognitive and affective— of the complex Christ-event; in today’s parlance, we might view Luke-Acts as a pastoral-narrative exercise in Christian spiritual direction or formation. 2. The theological principle underscores our earlier point that Luke’s story unfolds crucial events “fulfilled” by God, before God, in the presence of God, for the glory of God (1:1, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19). What must be solidly known is the significance in readers’ lives of what God has wrought through the crucified-risen-exalted Christ. As Peter concludes his inaugural speech in Acts: “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with solidity (ἀσφαλῶς γινωκέτω) that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). 3. The soteriological principle accentuates God’s preeminent role in Luke-Acts as Savior of God’s people, individually and corporately, in Israel and the world. The first confession of faith presented in jubilant liturgical form comes from the lips of Mary, affirming the identity of “God my Savior (σωτήρ)” (Luke 1:47). The balance of her hymn slides smoothly from extolling God’s redemptivegenerative work in her life to that accomplished for all who fear God, especially God’s “servant-child (παῖς) Israel” (1:50, 54). The “Savior” designation soon shifts to God’s Son Jesus (2:11) and is never used with “God” simpliciter again in Luke-Acts. But the very uniqueness of this title in such a primary, programmatic position— coupled with the profusion of “save/salvation” (σώζω/σωτηρία) terminology and themes—commends “God Our Savior” as a virtual banner over the entire Lukan narrative. Moreover, as the analysis below will demonstrate, the notion of God’s saving work defies narrow definition, approaching a cosmic, holistic vision of God’s restorative purpose for all creation. In short, Luke wants his read-

130

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ers to know how the Savior God has acted dynamically in Christ to make their broken lives and world whole. Knowing God the Creating Savior in the Birth and Growth of Jesus (Luke 1:5—4:15) Though Luke does not match John in overtly grounding his Gospel “in the beginning” of God’s creation (John 1:1; cf. Gen 1:1), he nonetheless echoes Genesis and emphasizes God’s powerful activity in generating the human lives of God’s Son Jesus and his forerunning prophet John and equipping them to blaze the way of renewed life for God’s people. The conceptions of both John and Jesus are “impossible” (Luke 1:37) in natural terms. Elderly, postmenopausal women like Elizabeth and young, non-sexually active girls like Mary cannot conceive children apart from divine intervention. And intervene God does via archangelic announcement and dynamic operation—quite intimately in Mary’s case. As God’s Spirit brooded over the chaotic waters at creation to produce life (Gen 1:2), so this same Spirit “comes upon” and “overshadows” the virginal waters in Mary’s womb to generate the Holy One “called Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Genealogically, Luke uniquely tracks Jesus’ ancestors back to primordial origins as “son of Adam, son of God” (3:38), thus representing “all flesh” (3:6), including Israel in particular (“son of David…son of Abraham” [3:31, 34; cf. 1:54–55, 68– 73; 2:11]), and realizing God’s good purposes for all creation. The temptation scene following the genealogy demonstrates Jesus’ commitment to faithful worship and exclusive service of the Lord God (4:8), where Adam and Israel had both tragically failed. In the face of the world’s barren, broken condition, God’s creative work in Christ is in fact re-creative and restorative. Nothing less than this complete, cosmic re-creation is envisioned in God’s salvation extolled in three hymns punctuating Luke’s birth narrative. Mary magnifies “God my Savior” not only for elevating her “lowly” state, but also for “lifting the lowly” and feeding the hungry exploited by proud, prosperous elites (1:46–48, 51–53). Salvation thus redresses social, political and economic injustices. Zechariah’s Benedictus extends the scope both outward, to international politics, rejoicing in God’s appointing Christ as a “horn of salvation…[through whom] we would be saved from our enemies,” and inward, to spiritual “knowledge of salvation…by the forgiveness of sins” (1:69–71, 77). And Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis sums up the

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

131

theological and universal thrust of “your [God’s] salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples [Israel and Gentiles]” (2:29–32). These holistic salvation themes are echoed in the angel’s gospel proclamation of the newborn Jesus as Savior, Messiah and Lord “for all the people” collectively, but particularly for nocturnal, nomadic shepherds on the fringes of society (2:8–11). Such lowbrow folk are the first invited to see this Savior-child lying in a manger—an apt site for shepherds’ attendance—not in a mansion suitable for Caesar Augustus, whose census edict provides the political backdrop for Jesus’ birth (2:1–2, 12–16). Subtly but surely, Luke polarizes the agendas of Caesar and Christ as “Savior (σωτήρ)/Lord (κύριος): the former boosting the privileges of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and lowly; the latter dismantling this unjust hierarchy, such that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:6). Zechariah’s stress not only on God’s accomplished activity of salvation, but also on the communicated knowledge (γνῶσις) of that salvation reinforces the epistemological goal set forth in Luke’s prologue. Ironically, however, key characters’ experience of knowing remains problematic and incomplete. Zechariah’s query to Gabriel—“How will I know (γνώσομαι) this [birth promise] is so?”— would seem right on target. But instead, it is met with sharp angelic rebuff and the affliction of total muteness (1:18–20). And after “not knowing (οὐκ ἒγνωσαν)” where twelve-year-old Jesus was, his parents search for him, find him in the temple among the teachers, and ask him to explain his behavior (2:43–48). But rather than politely and clearly enhancing their understanding, Jesus responds derisively and cryptically: “Did you not know (οὐκ ἢδειτε) that I must be about my Father’s matters?” The narrator then adds that “they did not understand what he said to them” (2:49–50). Knowing God is a complicated, enigmatic process in Luke’s story, demanding extended time for quiet reflection (Zechariah) and deep pondering (Mary; cf. 1:29; 2:19, 51). Solid knowledge will come surely, but slowly. Knowing God the Liberating Savior in the Teachings and Miracles of Jesus (Luke 4:16—9:50) In his inaugural public sermon, based on a blended prophetic text from Isa 61:1–2 and 58:6, Jesus sets forth his Spirit-anointed program of salvation in terms of liberation: “release/freedom (ἀφέσις)”

132

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

for the oppressed, cancellation of debts and emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee “year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Lev 25:8–55). Such a manifesto encompasses a wide range of liberating ministry, including physical-psychic remediation from deathly disease and demon-possession and socioeconomic relief (“good news for the poor”) from various types of deprivation and exploitation. Moreover, the ἀφέσις term denoting “release/freedom” in the Isaiah citation also carries the idea of “redemption/forgiveness,” both from material-financial debts and moral-spiritual sins. The Lukan Jesus thus commits himself to fulfilling “today” (4:21), in this climactic historical moment, God’s comprehensive program of liberation through healing, resuscitating, exorcising, forgiving, and feeding. Specific examples abound in Jesus’ ensuing mission, connected with “saving/salvation”: x Healing a man disabled by a withered hand, thus “saving (σῶσαι) [his] life” (he can now resume employment [6:9–10]), and a woman afflicted by a bleeding disorder, thus “making her well (σέσωκεν)” (8:48). x Resuscitating the deceased “only son” of a widow (7:11–17), reminiscent of Elijah’s ministry on behalf of the Zarephath widow (4:25–26; 1 Kgs 17:17–24), and the corpse of the “only daughter” of a synagogue leader (8:40–42, 49–56). The latter miracle follows Jesus’ forecast to despairing mourners: “Do not fear. Only believe, and she will be saved (σῶθήσεται)” (8:50). x Exorcising a “Legion” of demons from a tormented man (8:26– 39) and a seizure-inducing malevolent spirit from the “only child” of a desperate father (9:37–43). In the former case, the “Legion” horde eerily evokes the oppressive Roman forces possessing the land of Israel; accordingly, the experience of this healed/saved (ἐσώθη [8:36]) man hints at wider hopes of political-national liberation. x Forgiving the sins of a paralyzed man (and enabling him to walk [5:17–26]) and those of a woman of dubious reputation, whose “many sins” Jesus compares to a massive debt canceled by a gracious creditor (7:36–49). The latter story concludes with Jesus’ declaring the woman “saved” (σέσωκεν) and dispatching her in the way of “peace” (7:50).

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS x

133

Feeding a multitude of hungry people (again recalling Elijah’s provision for the Sidonian widow [4:25–26; 1 Kgs 17:8–16]) “in a deserted place” after a full day of teaching them about God’s kingdom and healing them of infirmities (9:10–17). This merging of teaching and healing, word and deed, is typical of Jesus’ mission in this section (4:31–37; 6:17–19; 8:1–3; 9:1– 2), and the “word (λόγος) of God” which Jesus sows like seed carries the generative potential to bear a fruitful, “saving” harvest (8:11–15; σώζω in 8:12) and to effect liberation from demonic bondage: “What kind of word (λόγος) is this? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and out they come!” (4:36). Unfortunately, however, while satanic forces know full well the liberating power of Jesus’ mission as God’s Son (4:34, 41; 8:28), even as they try to undermine it (4:1–13; 8:12), Jesus’ hometown folk, pious Pharisees and other legal experts, and even his chosen disciples all repeatedly fall short in understanding Jesus’ saving words and deeds, even vehemently rejecting them at times. But Jesus assures “a great crowd…from town after town” (8:4) together with male and female disciples (8:1–3, 9) that, while his “mysterious” (μυστήρια) teaching about God’s realm may not be grasped at first by most hearers (8:10; cf. Isa 6:9–10), ultimately there is nothing “cryptic (κρυπτὸν)…that will not become known (γνωσθῇ) and come to light” (8:17). Still, such knowledge will not come easily and may even be deliberately concealed from his closest associates (9:45), presumably because they are not ready to receive it. Not surprisingly, the most difficult point for Jesus’ companions to accept is his prediction of betrayal and death on a cross for himself—and them!—as the paradoxical path to salvation: “If any want to become my followers, let them…take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save (σῶσαι) their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save (σῶσει) it” (9:23–24; cf. 9:21–22, 44–45). God’s liberating life somehow pulses through (not simply rescues from) cruciform loss. Comprehending that enigma requires not only considerable divine insight, but also concerted human effort: “Pay attention to how you listen” or, more literally, “See (βλέπετε) how you hear (ἀκούετε)” (8:18). It’s going to take all senses on deck to solidify true knowledge of God’s saving work in Christ.

134

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Knowing God the Seeking Savior in the Travels and Parables of Jesus (Luke 9:51—19:44) The ponderous complexity of knowing the saving God continues to be stressed in Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem in the central section of Luke. While the opening double-reference to Jesus’ “setting his face” to go to Jerusalem (9:51, 53) suggests a “resolute determination”11 to accomplish his mission, in fact the ensuing trek from Galilee to Judea takes an inordinate amount of story time for such a relatively short geographical distance and defies precise mapping. The meandering, languorous nature of this road trip reflects a comparably circuitous spiritual pilgrimage for Jesus and his followers. Moreover, “setting his face” also carries some ominous overtones, via Ezekiel and other OT prophets, of divine judgment for God’s people.12 Thus the way of salvation winds along a narrow and treacherous path upon which “many”—especially those overconfident of their “first” positions before God—may stumble and fall (13:22–29). Poignant words of Jesus toward the beginning and end of this journey crystallize a hidden/revealed dialectic surrounding the knowledge of God: the first spoken to God in thanksgiving, the second over Jerusalem in lament: I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants.…No one knows (γινώσκει) who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (10:21–22). If you, even you [the people of Jerusalem], had only known (ἒγνως) on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies…will crush you…because you did not know (ἒγνως) the time of your visitation from God (19:42– 44).

Jesus is supremely “in the know” about God’s peacemaking efforts and holds the key to unlocking that knowledge for others, which, C. A. Evans, “‘He Set His Face’: On the Meaning of Luke 9:51,” in Luke and Scripture, 100. 12 Evans, “‘He Set His Face,’” 93–105. 11

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

135

however, does not happen naturally. A persisting tension complicates the epistemological process: while Jesus longs for others to know God and provides abundant clues, people must actively respond to the light they receive. If they remain in the dark, “hidden” from true knowledge, it’s because they have tragically missed their appointed “visitation from God.” “If only you had known…” For Jesus’ part, his journey constitutes an urgent search-andrescue mission—“seeking out and saving the lost” (19:10)— scripted in a triad of parables in the heart of this section (15:3–32) and exemplified in a “salvation”-encounter with the wealthy “sinner” Zacchaeus (19:1–10). But Jesus does not win them all, especially not those who are prosperous and self-sufficient. Unlike Zacchaeus, who exhibits an intense desire to see, know and emulate Jesus’ care for the poor (19:3–4, 6–8), rich figures featured in another parable cluster prove resistant to God’s purposes (12:16–21; 16:1–13, 19–31). And another “very rich” man who respectfully seeks out Jesus still fails to enter fully into God’s salvation. Though a pious observer of Torah, he cannot bring himself to meet Jesus’ requirement to share all his possessions with the poor. And far from smoothing his way, Jesus candidly admits “how hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” (18:24–25). Shell-shocked, the wider audience, including Jesus’ disciples, understandably queries: “Then who can be saved (σωθῆναι)?” (18:26). Are we not all “rich” in something we’d rather not surrender? Might the less well-off cling even more tenaciously to the little they have? Salvation heralded by Jesus remains a precarious business—but not a hopeless one. This is God’s gracious salvation, after all, not our self-help enterprise or our desperate attempt to wrench a drop of mercy from a callous deity. So “what is impossible for mortals is possible for God” (18:27). The same humanly “impossible” divine power that brought Jesus to life in Mary’s virgin womb (1:37) operates to save God’s people, rich and poor. Knowing God the Suffering Savior in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Luke 19:45—24:53) As Jesus thrice predicted (9:21–27, 44–45; 18:31–34), his life comes to a brutal end in Jerusalem on a Roman cross. And as his followers could scarcely process this unthinkable fate for their Lord and Messiah when he forecast it (9:45; 18:34), they were even less cognitively and emotionally prepared when it happened: “We had [so]

136

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

hoped he was the one to redeem Israel” (24:21). But all hopes of salvation seemed irremediably shattered with the Savior’s capital punishment. As glibly as Christians today might celebrate the saving significance of Jesus’ death, we must acknowledge how profoundly scandalous, even absurd, the notion of a crucified Savior would have been for first-century Jews, Greeks and Romans alike (cf. 1 Cor 1:17–25). In Luke, this incredulous mockery coalesces in three sardonic taunts of Jesus’ saving potential during his final moments on the cross (23:35–39). Mocking Parties Jewish Rulers Roman Soldiers One Criminal Crucified with Jesus

Salvation Taunts “He saved others; let him save (σωσάτω) himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” “If you are the king of the Jews, save (σῶσον) yourself!” “Are you not the Messiah? Save (σῶσον) yourself and us!”

Since, by all reason and reality, the dying Jesus is manifestly not saving himself, how could anyone possibly believe he could save others? Here hangs another failed messianic pretender; so what else is new (cf. Acts 5:36–37; 21:38)? But Luke’s narrative dares to promote an alternative logic. Jesus’ paradoxical conviction that salvation actually comes via cross-bearing and life-losing (9:24) receives surprising support from dissenters among the three character groups cited above. A Jewish ruler, one Joseph of Arimathea, defies the Council and provides an honorable burial for Jesus (23:50– 56); the other criminal crucified with Jesus requests and is promised inclusion in Jesus’ coming kingdom (23:40–43); and a Roman soldier, indeed, the presiding centurion, ultimately “praises God” and declares Jesus’ innocence upon hearing his final cry of committal to God (23:46–47). Though Luke expounds no theory of atonement, he intimates the saving significance of Jesus’ death. Such intimations explode into glorious vindication with Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus still does not save himself; he fully enters the experience of death befalling every child of Adam. But he also experiences God’s salvation as nothing short of restored life from the grave and thus ushers in a climactic era of salvation for God’s people. But yet again, the full knowledge of that salvation will not come easily for Jesus’ followers. Cleopas and companion, so deeply mired in their grief and disappointment over Jesus’ demise, do not recog-

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

137

nize their risen Lord even when he walks and talks with them (24:13–27). Likewise the twelve disciples (minus Judas) remain riddled with fears and doubts when Jesus first appears alive among them (24:36–43). As such, these first flustered followers typify the continued response of Luke’s readers: hope of salvation remains hard to come by—even after Jesus’ resurrection—in light of his own terrible suffering which preceded, and the suffering of Israel and the world which persists. But amid this confusion, two main avenues of theological and experiential knowledge emerge: (1) opening the Scriptures by Jesus, unfolding how “necessary [it was] that the Messiah should suffer” (24:25–27, 32, 44–47); and (2) breaking the bread with Jesus, in fellowship with his broken-and-restored “flesh and bones” (24:28–31, 35, 39–43; cf. 22:14–23). But such meaningful Christological encounters with word and bread still remain partial and elusive this side of the full consummation of God’s saving purposes. Now we see him; now we don’t (24:31)—requiring persistent alertness and openness to Christ’s presence. Knowing God the Empowering Savior in the Fullness and Boldness of the Spirit (Acts 1:1—6:7) During the forty-day instructional period between Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, his disciples ask him a very reasonable question: “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Since resurrection and restoration are tightly enjoined in Israel’s Scripture-anchored hope (cf. Ezek 37:1–14),13 all the signs—in light of the Messiah’s resurrection!—point toward imminent restoration for God’s people. In response, however, Jesus rather curtly begins: “It is not for you to know (γνῶναι).” Great…we’re starting a second volume of an epic story designed to solidify our knowledge of God’s purposes in Christ, and Christ informs us that such insight is outside our purview. So what’s the point of going on? We’re reminded again that spiritual knowledge is not conveyed in convenient capsule form. But it would be nice to make a little progress; and in fact, Jesus’ reply is not as offputting as it first appears. For what is specifically “not for you to 13 See J. D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).

138

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

know” is “the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority” (1:7). The saving-restoring project of God remains God’s scheme accomplished according to God’s schedule. Period. But while the totality and temporality of God’s program remain beyond the early disciples’ (and our) ken, there is a lot they (and we) can know. First and foremost, the spiritual path blazed by the risen Christ will be guided by no one less than the dynamic Holy Spirit who will be poured out in drenching fullness (“baptism”) on all of Jesus’ followers “not many days from now” (1:5, 8). And apart from the flood of fresh awareness of God such a spiritual outpouring will bring, Jesus also makes clear that the Spirit will supply power for a missional outgoing from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (1:8). That is, to answer their fundamental question, the disciples are to play an active role—with God and through God’s Spirit—in restoring Israel and all nations to God. Jesus’ promise is fulfilled on the great harvest festival of Pentecost, when the Spirit fills the entire company of believers, inspiring them to “speak about God’s deeds of power” to the throng of pilgrims that had swelled Jerusalem from “every nation under heaven” (2:1–11). This multinational scope, however, while encompassing a wide Diaspora, is still limited to “Jews and proselytes” (2:10) streaming to Jerusalem. But “in these last days,” the Spirit is beginning to push hard against conventional sociopolitical boundaries, not only in terms of ethnicity, but also gender, age, and class (2:17–18). Nothing short of a cosmic re-creation of heaven and earth is erupting (2:19–20) in which “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (σωθήσεται)” (2:21; cf. 2:47). Following the Pentecost event, the other main inaugural “sign” (2:19; 4:22) of God’s salvation features the healing in Jesus’ name of a forty-year-old lame beggar at the temple gate. His age and condition evoke memory of Israel’s halting forty-year slog through the desert, and his jubilant “leaping and praising God” through the temple precincts realizes Isaiah’s vision of Israel’s restorative “highway” cruise home to Zion from exile, in which “the lame shall leap like a deer” (Isa 35:1–10). Peter and John may not be granted exact knowledge of the times of “universal restoration” (Acts 3:22), but they are given every assurance that God has commenced such a saving operation and will bring it to completion. And while they boldly help to carry out this plan, they do so as humble servants of God, Christ and the Spirit. In no uncertain

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

139

terms, Peter promptly disabuses an awestruck audience of any inkling of hero worship they might entertain in the wake of the lame man’s healing: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus [and]…raised [him] from the dead.…His name itself has restored this man to full health, whom you see and know (οἲδατε)” (3:13–16). And this particular case of restored wholeness becomes a billboard advertising God’s exclusive-yet-comprehensive saving health plan for all humanity: “There is salvation (σωτηρία) in no one else [than Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved (σωθῆναι)” (4:12). But once again, such a holistic plan of salvation, as wonderful as it is, remains hard to grasp. Many in Israel continue to struggle with a tragic legacy of willful “ignorance” (ἂγνοια) of God’s ways (3:17). The temple authorities wrestle with the perceptual dissonance of a pair of backward, unschooled Galileans speaking with uncommon “boldness” about God’s saving purpose (4:13). Yet thousands break through this ignorant wall by “repenting,” literally, “changing their minds” (μετανοέω), and opening themselves by faith to “being saved” by God (2:37–41, 47; 4:4). Knowing God the Embracing Savior in the Freedom and Liberality of the Spirit (Acts 6:8—16:5) Thus far Luke’s narrative echoes Paul’s proposition of the Christian gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16). Jesus’ goal of outreach from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth has yet to be realized, though Peter has offered important adumbrations, both retrospectively, affirming that the original covenant with Abraham envisioned that “in your descendants all families of the earth shall be blessed” (Acts 3:25; Gen 12:3; 22:18; 26:4); and prospectively, announcing that the promised gift of the Spirit “is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls” (Acts 2:38–39). In Acts 6–15, the axis of mission begins to turn more outward, to those “far away” in the Greco-Roman world, though not to the exclusion of receptive Jews. The key theme is God’s gra-

140

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

cious embrace of all types of people,14 fueled by the unfettered, nondiscriminating wildfire of God’s Spirit through the ministries of Stephen, Philip, Peter, Paul and James. To note the highlights: x In his defense speech before a suspicious High-Priestly Council, the Spirit-motivated Stephen (6:5, 8–11) reviews Israel’s biblical history, with particular accent on God’s longstanding commitment to reveal his glory and sustain his people outside the Promised Land and Jerusalem temple (7:1–6, 9–16, 29–36, 48–50). The scope of God’s ruling interest and restoring intent, as Isaiah concluded, is nothing less than all heaven and earth (Acts 7:48–50; Isa 66:1–2). x In the persecution following Stephen’s execution (the path of salvation continues to traverse rough terrain), his diaconal partner Philip (6:5) pioneers the gospel’s propulsion to a throng of “foreign” Samaritans (Acts 8:4–13; cf. Luke 17:18) and an isolated Gentile eunuch en route home to Ethiopia (Acts 8:26– 40). The free-wheeling Spirit certifies both events: the former, by its oddly late downfall upon the Samaritans (long after their baptism [8:14–17]); the latter, by its abrupt uptake of Philip after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch (8:39; cf. 8:29). By no means may the gift of God’s Spirit be controlled by human hands (8:18–24). x The apostle Peter is credited with the major breakthrough to Gentiles in his God-directed outreach to the Roman centurion Cornelius and his household. The Spirit incorporates this uncircumcised group into God’s “saved” family (11:14) by falling upon them “just as it had upon us [Jews] at the beginning [Pentecost]” (11:15; this time the Spirit descends before baptism! [10:44–48]). As salient, however, as the Gentiles’ marvelous salvation is Peter’s intense epistemological struggle about God’s impartiality (10:34–35). He admits his narrow perspective to Cornelius’ emissaries, which he takes to be shared knowledge: “You yourselves know (ἐπίστασθε) that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile” (10:28). But For a masterful, wide-ranging, biblically-informed theological treatment of this theme, see M. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). 14

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

x

x

141

he also confesses now and twice later before a skeptical Jerusalem community that, despite his protestations, God revealed to him beyond all doubt a more inclusive vision of salvation: “But God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.…You know (ἐπίστασθε) that…God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles…will be saved (σωθῆναι)” (10:28; 15:7, 11; cf. 11:1–18). Peter’s change of mind (repentance) is as critical as Cornelius’. If Philip cracks the door to evangelizing Gentiles with the Ethiopian eunuch and Peter pushes it wide open with Cornelius’ household, Paul blows it off its hinges with his mission across the northeastern Mediterranean world (13:4—14:52). Once more, this Spirit-spearheaded mission (13:2) flows out of a cataclysmic epistemological shift—in this case, from Paul’s blindness, as a violent church antagonist, to maturing awareness of his vocation to proclaim Christ before Gentiles (and Jews) amid “much” suffering (9:15–16; cf. 9:1–31; 11:19–30). Having been so enlightened, Paul comes to see himself as the Lord’s Isaiah-like servant, “set…to be a light for the Gentiles…[to] bring salvation (σωτηρίαν) to the ends of the earth” (13:47; Isa 49:6). Not everyone, however, is overjoyed with the influx of Gentiles, particularly a faction of Pharisee Christians, who would gladly accept Gentiles’ salvation, but only if they would become full Jewish proselytes as well as believe in Christ: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved (σωθῆναι)” (15:1, 5). The dispute prompts a deliberative assembly in Jerusalem and an executive “decision” announced by James (15:19). The testimony of Peter, Paul and Scripture confirms that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised in order to be saved; but, nonetheless, to certify their “turning to God” and to cement their solidarity with Jewish believers, they must abstain from common idolatrous practices. Happily, such a policy unanimously carried the day, as “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us [the whole assembly]” (15:28–29).

142

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Knowing God the Empire-Confronting Savior in the Challenge and Defense of the Spirit (Acts 16:6—28:31) While the early church in Acts conducts its entire life and mission in territory ruled by Rome, it’s in the Paul-centered last segment of the book where direct engagement with Rome predominates. This section begins with Paul’s advancing God’s saving gospel into the “Roman colony” of Philippi in Macedonia (16:12) and ends with his house arrest in Rome, where he continues “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (28:30–31). Paul rolls from one public accusation to another in perpetual defense mode, sustained on the spiritual side, by God’s presence and the Spirit’s guidance (16:6–7; 18:9–11; 19:21; 20:22–23; 23:11; 27:23–25; cf. Luke 21:12– 19); and on the legal side, by his native status as a citizen of both Tarsus (his prominent city of origin [21:39]) and Rome (16:37–39; 22:25–29; 23:27). How does the narrative negotiate Paul’s precarious position in the Roman world as both “pestilent fellow” (24:5) and privileged citizen? Very carefully, of course, and also more provocatively than is often assumed. Paul’s portrait in Acts resists simple pro- or antiRoman profiles and, likewise, pro- or anti-Jewish labels—at least from “official” establishment perspectives. On the one hand, Acts takes pains to stress Paul’s innocence of false charges. Summarizing his consistent position throughout his several trials before Roman and Jewish authorities, Paul crisply avers: “I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor” (25:8). And overall, except for obstinate Sadducean temple hierarchs, Roman and Jewish magistrates agree with Paul’s defense. But on the other hand, while he clearly mounts no organized revolution against Rome (like “the Egyptian” [21:39]) and happily observes Jewish laws and customs (18:18; 21:17–26), the effects of his saving mission “turn the worldwide empire (οἰκουμένη) upside down” (17:6)15—not just a remote “corner” 15 See C. K. Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); J. H. Neyrey, “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,’ in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 271–304.

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

143

here or there (26:26)—and disturb false images of peace (Pax Romana). x Economically, Paul’s work undercuts the lucrative fortune-telling racket of the owners of a slave-girl possessed by a “python”spirit in Philippi, and the magical arts business and massive Artemis figurine trade of silversmiths in Ephesus (19:18–19, 23– 27). Ironically, the possessed clairvoyant proclaims Paul and associates as guides to “a way of salvation (σωτηρίαν)” (16:17); when Paul expels the demon in Jesus’ name, he doubly liberates her from spiritual-somatic oppression and socio-economic exploitation. x Philosophically, Paul’s declaiming “the good news about Jesus and the resurrection” in Athens prompts his derisive dismissal as a “babbler” by some Epicurean and Stoic sages and a cool curiosity by others “to know (γνῶναι)” more about this “strange new teaching” (17:18–21). Paul, then, sardonically dares to expound to them “the unknown (ἂγνωστον) deity”—as they have dubbed one of the city’s idol-monuments—whom they “worship in ignorance (ἀγνοῦντες),” as the true Creator God of all things and “all nations” who will bring the world to justice through the appointed judge (Jesus) whom God raised from the dead. Accordingly, the “times of human ignorance (ἀγνοίας)” must give way to immediate “repentance (μετανοιεῖν)” (17:23–31). Small wonder that such a sharp challenge sparks “scoffing” among some Athenian sophisticates. Others, however, want to hear more, and some even believe (17:32–34). But in any case, Paul undoubtedly leaves his tumultuous mark on this venerable center of Greek learning. x Theologically, Paul’s emphasis on “the hope of resurrection”— that is, God’s resurrection of Jesus Messiah which inaugurates and guarantees the final resurrection of God’s people and restoration of Israel and all creation—emerges as the core offense driving Paul’s prosecutors: “I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead” (23:6; cf. 24:14–15; 26:6–8; 28:20). While such hope comports with scriptural-prophetic and Pharisaic thought and even “almost persuades” the Jewish client-king Agrippa (26:28), it clashes head-on with the resurrection-denying stance of the Sadducean-controlled temple establishment (23:6–10). Of course, such theological conflict has volatile political repercussions. For talk about an end-time (es-

144

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

chatological) resurrection is in fact revolutionary speech about a new world order of saving justice supplanting the present corrupt system. The Christ-honoring Jewish Paul is no threat to Judaism or the temple per se; but he very much does threaten, as Jesus did, the current cadre of Jewish leadership. x Politically, Paul’s rocking of commercial, ideological and religious boats (all of which flow together in political currents) certainly does not commend him as a model, peaceable citizen of Rome. But does his menace to the empire cut deeper than irritation, meriting a seditionist’s death? As we have seen, various officials find him fairly harmless and are willing to dismiss his case. But significantly, it is Paul himself who insists on playing his citizen trump card to ensure a hearing before Caesar. He doesn’t want to be released! He wants to go to trial in Rome, indeed, believes that God and the Spirit insist upon it! (19:21; cf. 21:11; 27:23–24). Why? Because he has critical testimony to register in the imperial capital, and it is not at all innocent. Though he never quite gets to Caesar by Acts’ end, he does ensconce himself in Rome and, even as a prisoner, bears witness “morning and evening” for “two whole years” about “the kingdom of God and…the Lord Jesus Christ” (28:23, 30– 31). Make no mistake: talk about “kingdom” (βασιλεία = “empire”) and “Lord” (κύριος) is political dynamite, tantamount to claiming God’s empire as antithetical and superior to Rome’s and even more provocatively: Jesus Christ is Lord, and Lord Caesar isn’t!16 While Paul continues to engage his own people, even convincing some Jewish leaders in Rome about Jesus, he remains chiefly committed to extending the good news of God’s salvation to the Gentiles. But along with this mission, Paul especially wants the Jews to know that their restoration is wrapped up with that of all peoples: “Let it be known (γνωστὸν) to you then that this salvation of God (σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ) has been sent to the Gentiles” (28:28; cf. “all” in 28:30). From start to finish, Luke’s narrative builds awareA major theme in J. D. Crossan’s many works; e.g., God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now (New York: HarperCollins, 2007); Crossan and J. L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2004). 16

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS

145

ness and assurance, knowledge and solidity, of the magnanimous breadth of God’s salvation in Christ, inexorably bursting through barriers of small-mindedness, social prejudice and political oppression and destined to proceed “unlimitedly (ἀκωλύτως)”—literally, the last word in Acts—until the ultimate restoration of all things. The narrative ends not so much with a stop sign as with a bold arrow pointing to the climactic “hope of resurrection.”

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. ________. The Acts of the Apostles. SP 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992. Kurz, W. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Spencer, F. Scott. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon: 2008. ________. Journeying through Acts: A Literary-Cultural Reading. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986–90. ________. The Shape of Luke’s Story: Essays on Luke-Acts. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade, 2005.

THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN LUKE-ACTS: LUKE’S SCRIPTURAL STORY OF THE “THINGS ACCOMPLISHED AMONG US” Kenneth D. Litwak

Studies on Luke’s use of Scripture focus on a variety of topics, such as the text-forms of his quotations, or his hermeneutics when he interprets the Scriptures of Israel.1 Luke’s use of the Scriptures was distinct, as “each of the canonical evangelists has a distinctive way of putting a particular spin on the story of Jesus through rereading the Old Testament (OT) in different ways.”2 So it is important to ask about Luke’s hermeneutical practices separate from those of Matthew, Mark, or John. Most likely neither Luke nor any other first-century Christian would have thought of the books of the Hebrew Bible as the “Old Testament.” There was not a “New Testament” in the form that we know it today, so there was not an old one to compare with the New Testament (NT). Rather, as most if not all of the NT authors For a survey of twentieth-century research on Scripture in LukeActs, see François Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005) (2d ed.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 87–121; 525–31. 2 Richard B. Hays, “The Liberation of Luke-Acts: Intertextual Narration as Countercultural Practice,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually (ed. R. B. Hays et al.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009), 102. 1

147

148

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

were Jewish, they would have seen Genesis, 1 Samuel, Isaiah, and Psalms as all part of the Scriptures given by God to Israel. Hence, in this essay the OT will be referred to as the “Scriptures of Israel.” This has relevance for Luke because he saw his work, along with the people and events he was narrating, as part of the ongoing story of what God was doing in and through Israel and its Messiah in the “things accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). This chapter will describe primary ways in which Luke’s use of the Scriptures of Israel have been understood or approached in recent significant or representative works, and will suggest issues that need further study.

DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Definition of Terms A key issue in discussing the role of Scripture in Luke-Acts is the meaning of terms, like “quotation” or “allusion.” These can have a variety of meanings, so it will be helpful to provide some definitions.3 x Citation: this is a quotation from the Scriptures of Israel that is identified in Luke-Acts as coming from a specific biblical book or uses a citation formula, such as “it is written”; e.g., “As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet” (Luke 3:4). x Quotation: Like a citation, the wording matches fairly closely the wording of a verse or verses from the Scriptures of Israel but is not identified with a citation formula; e.g., Stephen’s quotation of Gen 12:3 in Acts 7:3, “Go out from your land, and from your relatives and come to the land that I will show you.” The wording is not exactly that of Gen 12:3 but quite close. x Allusion: A “loose” quotation that contains several of the original words of a scriptural passage but may be shorter or longer, and have different wording at some points. It is fairly clear what text is being alluded to by Luke-Acts; e.g., Luke 1:17 alSee also Stanley E. Porter, “Introduction: The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. S. E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 1–8. 3

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

149

ludes to Mal 4:6 (LXX 3:23), “to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.” Luke 1:17 changes the wording and adds additional clauses not found in Malachi, so it is not a quotation.4 x Echo: Reference to the Scriptures of Israel that uses a few to several words that can be recognized as coming from one or more biblical passages; e.g., the echo of Isa 42:6/49:6 in Luke 2:32, “a light for revelation among the Gentiles.” The boundary lines between quotation, allusion, and echo are not precise, but these examples should give a good sense of what each looks like. It has been suggested that echoes differ from quotations and allusions in that an echo might be unintentional on the part of the author. Since we cannot determine this with certainty, this essay assumes that echoes, like allusions and quotations are part of what the text intends a competent reader to understand. A competent reader is someone with the necessary background knowledge to recognize a reference to the Scriptures of Israel when he or she hears it. The level of knowledge would have varied among Luke’s initial audience, which did not possess concordances, let alone Bible software, to use to look up things that Luke wrote to see from where in the Scriptures Luke may have drawn his wording. One further item that needs definition is the term “Septuagint,” usually abbreviated as LXX, the Roman numeral for seventy. This is based upon the tradition attested in the Letter of Aristeas that the Torah, Genesis-Deuteronomy, was translated by seventy-two translators simultaneously in seventy-two days.5 The rest of the Scriptures of Israel were translated over time and is known collectively as the “Old Greek,” or OG. Since most scholars, however, refer to the whole as the LXX, this essay will follow that custom. This leads naturally to the first issue: What language/version of the Scriptures does Luke-Acts use?

4 See also Bart J. Koet, “Isaiah in Luke-Acts,” in Dreams and Scriptures in Luke-Acts: Collected Essays (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 52–54. 5 See the “Letter of Aristeas,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Volume II: Pseudepigrapha (ed. R. H. Charles. Berkeley, Calif.: Apocryphile Press, 2004), 94–122, especially Let. Aris. 273, 307.

150

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Text-Form It is the consensus of scholars that Luke-Acts employed the LXX when referring to the Scriptures of Israel. This was demonstrated by Traugott Holtz and scholars since have cited his work with approval.6 Some scholars have suggested that parts of Luke-Acts, such as Luke 1–2, particularly the songs of Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon, have a Semitic basis, so that some of Luke’s source(s) were in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.7 This may well be true but it remains the case that Luke’s biblical intertexts generally conform more or less to the text-forms known from the LXX. Commentaries and other works that deal with Luke’s scriptural citations and quotations often compare the version in Luke-Acts to both the primary Hebrew text (MT) and the LXX and, with few exceptions, Luke’s version is closer to the LXX.8 Whether this is due to Luke having a Greek translation of a biblical book that is lost to us, or Luke was paraphrasing, or his sources had these versions of various passages, or the differences relate to Luke’s memory (if there are instances when Luke did not have a copy of the biblical book that he cites or quotes), or multiple explanations, is difficult to determine.

THE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES OF ISRAEL IN LUKE-ACTS. When we talk about the Scriptures of Israel in Luke-Acts, there are actually two issues. First, how did Luke interpret the Scriptures? Second, in what way(s) did Luke use the Scriptures? Luke, for example, might have a general “Christological” hermeneutic to interpret the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, yet Luke might deploy Scripture for an ecclesiological purpose. This essay, along with general scholarly practice, treats these two questions as intricately linked and will not treat them separately. There are multiple ways scholars approach Luke-Acts in order to understand Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968). 7 See, for example, Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke’s infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 8 For a brief overview of the complexities of the use of the LXX in the New Testament, see J. Ross Wagner, “The Septuagint and the ‘Search for the Christian Bible,’” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible (ed. M. Bockmuehl and A. J. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008): 17–28. 6

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

151

Luke’s hermeneutics when he uses Scripture.9 This essay will consider the perspectives of proof-from-prophecy, intertextuality, and “other approaches.” This last category includes a variety of interpretive strategies that do not represent a single, dominant method but are nevertheless noteworthy. While studies in intertextuality pay attention to allusions and echoes as well as citations and quotations, most studies focus primarily on citations.10 This is especially true of the study of the use of Scripture in the speeches in Acts,11 as this is the locale of virtually all the citations or quotations of the Scriptures of Israel occur in Acts. Proof-from-Prophecy The primary way that Luke’s use of Scripture has been understood in recent decades is that of “promise-fulfillment” or “proof from prophecy.” This view holds that Luke quotes or makes obvious allusions to the Scriptures in order to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, as well as showing other examples of God fulfilling his promises, such as Judas’ death and the need to replace him with another apostle (Acts 1:15–22) as the fulfillment of prophecy. The Scriptures of Israel offer proof because Jesus and his first followers “fulfill” biblical texts. Luke has re-read these Scriptures in light of the Christ-event and he interprets them as predictions about the ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the out-

9 For examples of the kinds of issues and questions raised in considering the use of Scripture in Luke-Acts, see Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green, “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (2d ed.; ed. J. B. Green; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010): 122–39; and Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 61– 75. 10 See for example C. K. Barrett, “Luke/Acts,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): 231– 244. Barrett considers only citations and then really only those not also found in Mark or “Q.” 11 See Gert Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1995).

152

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

pouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:16–21), the ministry of the apostles (Acts 13:47), and so forth. Although many have observed that Luke-Acts uses verbs that have been rendered in English as “fulfill,”12 the modern scholarly understanding of promise-fulfillment in Luke-Acts was first put forth by Paul Schubert in his essay, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24.”13 Schubert argues that the theme that binds the unrelated bits and pieces of Luke 24 together is “proof from prophecy,” a motif used by Luke to show that Jesus is the Christ.14 The theme of “proof from prophecy” is Luke’s major concern in Luke 24, where it serves as “the structural and material element which produces the literary and theological unity and climax of the gospel.” Schubert concludes that Luke’s “proof-from-prophecy theology is the heart of his concern in chapter 24.”15 Furthermore, this prooffrom-prophecy theology is the central theological theme throughout Luke’s two-volume work.16 It is certainly true that the end of Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts show the fulfillment of events predicted earlier in Luke’s Gospel by Simeon, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself. Yet, Schubert offers remarkably little evidence to show in what way(s) Jesus fulfilled prophecy in Scripture. He does not describe what scriptural texts Jesus might have referred to in his discourse on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25–27), even though Schubert says this is the most important pericope in Luke 24. Indeed, Schubert claims that proof from prophecy is the central theological idea in Luke-Acts, yet does not show how scriptural

12 For example, Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke: Homily 12 (trans. R. Payne Smith; Long Island, N.Y.: Studion, 1983), 94–95. 13 In Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem Siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20 August 1954 (ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1954), 165–86. 14 Schubert, “Structure and Significance,” 173. For a discussion of the validity of Schubert’s view, see Kenneth D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the Story of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 9–12, including footnotes. 15 Schubert, “Structure and Significance,” 176. 16 Schubert, “Structure and Significance,” 176.

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

153

prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus.17 In spite of this seemingly large gap in Schubert’s argument, many scholars have followed him in claiming that fulfillment of prophecy is Luke’s primary way of interpreting and using the Scriptures of Israel.18 In an influential study, Darrell Bock examines the question of “promise and fulfillment” as a motif in Luke-Acts, in which he seeks to “examine key passages in which Luke uses the OT to develop Christology, the key area of Luke’s OT usage as is readily acknowledged by all.”19 Bock argues, contra Rese, that promiseand-fulfillment is the best way to understand how Luke applied the Scriptures of Israel as Luke connected the Scriptures primarily with Christology, though the “promise and fulfillment” motif is not confined to this subject matter. Bock provides a schema for classifying Luke’s hermeneutical approach, including a “typologicalprophetic” usage which represents “a link of patterns with movement from the lesser OT person or event to the greater NT person or event.”20 In typological-prophetic usage “pattern and prophecy is involved through appeal to the OT.”21 Bock states that, “this feature of pattern is why prophecy in Luke is not limited to directly prophetic predictions, but also includes the noting of a divine pattern or a typological-prophetic reading of the Bible.”22 Bock argues that Luke’s Gospel uses the Scriptures of Israel to move progressively from a focus on Jesus’ messianic task to who Jesus is more deeply.23 17 See also the critique of Schubert’s view by Martin Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (Bonn: Rheinische FriedrickWillhelms-Univ., 1965). 18 See for example David Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. C. Clarke; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 83–104. 19 Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation From Prophecy and Pattern: Lukan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 47. 20 Bock, Proclamation, 49. 21 Bock, Proclamation, 49. 22 Darrell Bock, “Scripture and the Realization of God’s Promises,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 46. 23 Bock, Proclamation, 148.

154

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Bock also examines the Christological use of the Scriptures of Israel in Acts 2–13. Bock contends that “promise” for the early church included both prophetic texts and pattern texts. He states that “understanding this ‘pattern fulfillment’ dynamic is crucial to understanding how Luke reads Scripture.”24 While granting that there are several functions in Acts for the Scriptures, these functions may all be seen as prophetic fulfillment or prophecy and pattern. 25 Bock’s approach has been followed by many works that assume its validity. Some authors incorporate it into their own argument, such as Mark Strauss’ The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts,26 which argues for the importance of Jesus as a Davidic Messiah for Luke, which includes examining Luke’s use of biblical text for “promise-fulfillment.” Others write specifically on the topic of the role of the Scriptures in Luke-Acts and assume that they can talk about promise-fulfillment as described by Bock. For example, the chapter on Luke in the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament quotes Bock to claim that Luke’s use of the OT, especially when it pertains to Christology, is “proclamation from prophecy and pattern,”27 because “Luke sees the Scripture fulfilled in Jesus in terms of OT prophecy and in terms of the reintroduction and fulfillment of OT patterns that point to the presBock, “Scripture,” 47. Bock, “Scripture,” 48. 26 The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 27 David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids; Baker, 2007): 251–414. See also Stanley E. Porter, “Scripture Justifies Mission: The Use of the Old Testament in LukeActs,” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. S. E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 104–126; and I Howard Marshall, “Acts” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007): 513–606. Marshall asserts that there is a promise-fulfillment motif in the use of the Scriptures of Israel in Acts and thus an apologetic function for the Scriptures, but accords to Acts other uses. Scripture has shaped both the Christology and ecclesiology of Acts. 27 Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2008). 24 25

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

155

ence of God’s saving work.”28 Scripture is the means that Luke uses to comprehend God’s acts in the past, present, and future. Another recent example that assumes Bock’s perspective is The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose by James A. Meek.29 The author focuses “on the neglected use of the OT to legitimate the Gentile mission in LukeActs.”30 This will lead to shedding “fresh light” on the text behind Luke’s citation, his hermeneutic for interpreting the OT, and his purpose in using these citations. Meek examines briefly both the OT summaries (fourteen) and citations (seventy-five) in Acts. Meek then examines more closely four citations: Joel 3:1–5 (Acts 2:17– 21), Isa 49:6 (Acts 13:47), Amos 9:11–12 (Acts 15:16–18), and Gen 22:18 (Acts 3:25). He concludes that all four could have come from either the MT or the LXX. These citations are “congruent” with their original contexts, are understood Christologically, and “the central prophetic themes they evoke illustrate how Luke understands all of the OT to be about Christ and how broadly the OT supports the Gentile mission.”31 The four citations are used by Luke to legitimate the Gentile mission of the church and demonstrate “proof from prophecy.”32 While this promise-fulfillment hermeneutic is affirmed by many, if not most, scholars in assessing the role of the Scriptures of Israel in Luke-Acts, the view is not without problems. Fundamental issues of definition raise serious questions about what it means to say that a passage or prophecy is fulfilled.33 One passage that may look on the surface like a good example of proof-from-prophecy is Acts 1:15–26. In Acts 1:20, Peter quotes from Ps 69:25 and Ps 109:8. In Acts 1:15, Peter says that the Scripture had to be

28

253.

Quoting Bock, Proclamation, 274–277, in Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,”

The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose (London: T&T Clark, 2008). 30 Meek, Gentile Mission, 9. It is probably not correct to see the passages that Meek treats as “neglected.” Several works, some described below, have treated Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2 in detail. 31 Meek, Gentile Mission, 132. 32 Meek, Gentile Mission, 133. 33 See further Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts, 13–17. 29

156

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

plērōthēnai (πληρωθῆναι). This verb, normally rendered in English translations as “fulfill,” is applied to two texts from the Psalms. In both Psalm 69 and 109, the psalmist is referring to things that have already transpired. While the first psalm text, Ps 69:25, refers in Peter’s speech to what has already taken place with regard to Judas, the second text, Ps 109:8 is quoted with reference to an event that has not yet taken place: the replacement of Judas Iscariot by Matthias.34 How does one “fulfill” a past event? How is an event in the past fulfilled when used as the warrant for an event that has not yet taken place? The concept of promise-fulfillment in LukeActs, therefore, must be something other than mapping some event “accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1) to predictions in the Scriptures. The category promise-fulfillment of Scripture is a problematic one on this ground alone as the hermeneutical basis of how Luke reads and deploys Scripture. The Ps 109 passage alone practically requires a different understanding of Luke’s word choices, and therefore a different understanding of how Luke relates scriptural texts to events and characters in his narrative. Intertextuality The term “intertextuality” was originally coined by Julia Kristeva as a response to those who saw texts as having fixed meanings and saw importance in determining the meaning of a given text that is used in a later text, which would include the use of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Instead, Kristeva saw every text as intersecting with the textual surfaces of every other text, which caused texts to have no fixed meaning but an ever-changing meaning as new texts came along.35 In fact, Kristeva saw all texts as part of the “general text” that is part of culture and could be read in the light of things like psycho-analytic theory. While scholars do seek to employ Kriste-

34 See further Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study of Context and Concern of Acts 1:15–26 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 137. 35 Julia Kristeva, “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (ed. L. S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 65.

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

157

va’s approach, it is problematic and will not be the focus of this section.36 The term “intertextuality” has been given a different sense in some literary studies and followed in many works in biblical studies. In the sense of the word that we are interested in here, the emphasis is upon the way that one text takes up and uses another text, such as the way that Luke takes up and uses Psalm 118 or Joel 3:1– 5 (LXX) in Acts 2:17–21.37 In this perspective, which is much more historically grounded than Kristeva’s form of intertextuality, readers seek to identify prior texts, called “intertexts,” used in a given text, to know how the successor text reads the intertext, and to determine how the intertext may add meaning to the successor text. For example, if we were analyzing the use of the Scriptures of Israel in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, we would want to consider the possible ways in which the passages from Genesis, Exodus, Amos, etc., and their original contexts, may open up richer meanings as we hear their voices in the text of Acts. This stands in contrast to views that assert that NT authors plucked texts from the Scriptures, ignored their contexts, and have deployed them in ways that have little to do with the “original” meaning of the scriptural passage.38 The importance of the contexts of Luke’s intertexts is For a fuller description and critique of Kristeva’s approach, see Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts, 48–51. 37 See David P. Moessner, “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2:14–36),” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (ed. R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998): 215–32; and J. Ross Wagner, “Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 154–78. Wagner seeks to show how all of Luke’s uses of Psalm 118 connect together and to show that Luke used Psalm 118 “more extensively and in a more subtle and sophisticated manner than has heretofore been recognized” (156). 38 If Luke were to have simply plucked texts out of their contexts and used them in totally novel ways the texts would lose their meaning and the rhetorical value of his work would have been lessened significantly. The intertexts add to the narrative precisely as their voices are heard in the text of Luke-Acts. 36

158

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

stressed, for example, by Huub van de Sandt in his study, “The Minor Prophets in Luke-Acts.”39 He states that ignoring the contexts from which Luke’s quotations “originate is to miss important intertextual echoes.” Intertextuality is the perspective that takes most seriously Luke’s more subtle use of the Scriptures of Israel beyond quotations, such as through allusions, echoes and scriptural themes, and seeks to show how all of these intertextual references contribute to Luke-Acts.40 The word “perspective” is used, rather than the word “method,” because focusing on intertextuality leads us to listen to the text of Luke-Acts differently than if we did not have intertextuality in view, but it is not an approach with steps in it to follow, as rhetorical criticism would be. Considering intertextuality this way in Luke-Acts was sparked by Richard Hays’ book, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.41 Hays took an important step forward by considering not only citations and quotations in Paul’s letters but by also listening for “echoes.” Hays shows how listening for and identifying echoes can aid an interpreter of Paul by helping one see how the echoed text and its context contribute to understanding the way the echo is being used in Paul’s letters. Hays proposed seven criteria that he used for determining if an echo was present. Since an echo is not a clear quotation or allusion, it is important to have some sort of “control” on what is identified as an echo.42 The two most important criteria, as used by Robert Brawley, Kenneth Litwak, and others, are “availability” and “volume,” while the other five seem to be largely judgments about whether one can justify hearing an echo. In our discussion, availability refers to the notion that an intertext, like Genesis or Isaiah, was available to Luke. Volume refers to how much 39 In The Minor Prophets in the New Testament (ed. M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 77. 40 See Joel B. Green, “The Problem of a Beginning: Israel’s Scriptures in Luke 1–2,” BBR (1994): 61–85. 41 Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989). 42 Hays cites the work of John Hollander in The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). Although Hollander views echoes as possibly unintentional, Hays takes the line that if he can “hear” an echo, then we may assume the echo is intentional.

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

159

evidence there is, based upon explicit quotations or citations, that Luke knew these intertexts. Thus, we know that Isaiah 40:5 was available in textual form before the first century CE, so it was “available” to Luke. Since it is quoted explicitly in Luke 3:6, it has “volume” and can therefore be “heard” in Acts 28:28 as well. The remainder of this section will consider the ways that intertextuality has been “employed” as a lens for viewing the use of the Scriptures of Israel, including citations, quotations, allusions, and echoes, in Luke-Acts. The first major work to consider “echoes of Scripture” in the way that Hays does (along with many other recent literary approaches) is Robert L. Brawley’s Text to Text Pours Forth Speech.43 Brawley seeks to help readers hear voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts better and thus understand Luke-Acts better. Brawley asserts that “the surface of Luke-Acts ripples with intertextuality because it constantly folds textual patterns from Scripture into its text.”44 Brawley states that intertextuality is concerned with both a text’s sources and influences and with the reservoir of textual patterns “from which an author construes a text.” Explicit allusions to the Scriptures of Israel guide readers to listen for more “expansive voices” from the context.45 Brawley uses many literary theories in analyzing the use of Scripture in Luke-Acts, from intertextuality to the “carnivalesque” use of Scripture in Luke’s passion narrative and Acts 1. In a chapter on the hermeneutical role of voices of Scripture in Acts 2, Brawley argues that the function of Joel 2 is not to show the fulfillment of a prediction, but to serve a hermeneutical role in explaining the events of Pentecost, and to “make sense of the world of the narrative.”46 Peter’s use of Joel 2 is revisionary and reciprocal; it is “revisionary in that the text of Joel assumes a novel meaning. It is reciprocal in that the juxtaposition of the events of Pentecost with Joel imparts an added dimension of meaning to both.”47 This revisionary reading results in “Acts read[ing] Joel with expanded eschatological, ecclesiological and theocentric empha43 Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1995). 44 Brawley, Text to Text, 3. 45 Brawley, Text to Text, 41. 46 Brawley, Text to Text, 79. 47 Brawley, Text to Text, 79–80.

160

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ses.” Brawley asserts that his study’s partial, analytical approach has shown that explicit references to the Scriptures of Israel point readers to less explicit voices of Scripture. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, by David W. Pao, takes an intertextual approach to understanding Luke’s use of Scripture and seeks to “examine the appropriation of the Isaianic New Exodus in the narrative of Acts.”48 Pao emphasizes that quotations from the Scriptures of Israel in Acts should not be understood as “isolated statements that bear no significance beyond their immediate contexts.”49 Isaiah’s exodus is used in Acts “in the development of the identity of the early Christian movement, the appropriation of ancient Israel’s foundation story provides grounds for a claim by the early Christian community to be the true people of God in the face of other competing voices.”50 Pao critiques previous studies that have focused on Christology and missed the ecclesiological use of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Pao seeks to highlight “the fact that the scriptural tradition recalled in the use of certain key words may be more profound than the content explicitly noted in the quotations and allusions.”51 Pao asserts that “the weight placed on explicit scriptural quotations has not been balanced by examinations of other modes of the “use” of Scripture.”52 Pao argues that Acts should be read through the “hermeneutical framework” of Isaiah’s new exodus. Scripture is used in Acts for ecclesiology, using Scripture “in the construction of the identity claim of the early Christian movement.”53 Pao’s study emphasizes the ecclesiological function of the use of the Scripture for group identity and validation, the importance of seeing Scripture in more than the explicit quotations in Acts, and the integration of all the scriptural intertexts in Acts. A major study that uses intertextuality in the way that Hays presented it is by Kenneth D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in LukeActs and the Isaianic New Exodus (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000), 17. Pao, New Exodus, 4. 50 Pao, New Exodus, 5. 51 Pao, New Exodus, 7 n. 26. 52 Pao, New Exodus, 8. 53 Pao, New Exodus, 10. 48 49

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

161

Acts.54 Litwak argues first that promise-fulfillment is a problematic concept when applied to Luke-Acts because the term is used to cover so many concepts that it ceases to have explanatory power and, second, that the words translated as “fulfill” in Luke-Acts ought not to be so rendered. After providing a detailed description of non-Kristevan intertextuality, Litwak examines passages in the beginning (Luke 1), middle (Luke 24, Acts 1 and 2) and end (Acts 28) of Luke’s two-volume narrative. He argues that the Scriptures of Israel are not used for proof-from-prophecy or primarily for Christology but for ecclesiology. Luke uses scriptural intertexts to point to the identity of Jesus’ followers as the new Israel, composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Promise-fulfillment is an element in Luke-Acts for statements made within Luke’s narrative, such as the prediction of John the Baptist that the one coming after him would baptize with the Spirit (Luke 3:16), which is fulfilled in Acts 2:1–4. Litwak examines Luke 1 for its echoes of the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis and echoes of commissioning stories, such as Mary’s commissioning by Gabriel to be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:26–39). Litwak inspects Jesus’ first use of the Scriptures in Luke 4:1–13 to show that Jesus employed Scripture in a way that has no prophetic element at all. Contra Schubert, Litwak argues that Luke 24 does not show promise-fulfillment and contends in fact that there are no biblical texts that speak of a suffering, dying, or rising Messiah for Jesus to fulfill. Rather, when Jesus spoke of the Messiah and the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, he referred to larger themes in the Scriptures, such as the suffering of injustice by the righteous at the hands of the unrighteous. The end of Luke 24 and beginning of Acts 1 echoes several biblical elements, especially the “ascension” of Elijah in 2 Kings 2, placing the disciples in the role of Elisha. Litwak follows Brawley in seeing the use of Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2:17–21 as a revisionary reading, not a fulfilled prophecy. Acts 28:25–28 use Isa 6:9–10 and 40:5 not to speak of promisefulfillment, but to compare Paul’s audience to their fathers and to announce the salvation that Jesus brings to all, including Gentiles.

54 Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the Story of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; London: T&T Clark, 2005).

162

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

None of these texts shows proof-from-prophecy. The Scriptures of Israel speak primarily to ecclesiology, not prophecy. Intertextual narration, which is what Luke-Acts offers as narratives, is a “culture-forming practice” according to Hays.55 Luke’s weaving of the Scriptures into the story of Jesus illustrates an approach to the OT that is distinctive among the canonical Gospel writers. In contrast to Matthew’s use of the OT as a collection of prophetic oracles that are fulfilled singularly in Jesus, Luke “sees the Old Testament not merely as a collection of fragmentary predictions about a future messiah, but rather as a book of promises made by God to the people Israel.” Luke emphasizes the “ecclesiological implications of these promises.” These promises find their fulfillment not only in the life of Jesus, but the ongoing life of God’s people.56 Luke’s approach can be seen in his allusion to 2 Sam 7:12b–14b in Luke 1:32–33. In discussing this passage in Luke 1, Hays makes two important points, which are generally true of studies of Luke’s intertextual use of the Scriptures of Israel. First, Luke is “content to allude to this well-known messianic promise without any citation formula, without any overt cues to the reader to read intertextually.”57 Second, Hays, referring to the important work of Umberto Eco on intertextuality, notes that Luke’s intertextual references to the Scriptures of Israel assume “a reader whose ‘encyclopedia of reception’ includes knowledge of the story of God’s promises...”58 Intertextuality assumes a reader or hearer will “get” the allusion or echo of the scriptural text. Without the necessary knowledge of the biblical text, Luke’s allusions and echoes will be of little value to the reader.59 Hays elaborates on this issue when he discusses the way that Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1 alludes to Hannah’s song in 1 Sam 2:1–10, which is also picked up in Psalm 113, which connects God’s vindication of his people to Passover. That idea of deliverHays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 102. Hays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 103. 57 Hays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 104. 58 Hays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 104. 59 While the composition of Luke’s audience is unknown, it seems likely that it contains both Jews, and Gentiles, because Luke’s narrative assumes some at least of his audience will know the Scriptures of Israel well enough to recognize his allusions and echoes of Scripture. 55 56

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

163

ance is thus present in Mary’s song for those whose “encyclopedia of knowledge” includes these scriptural texts. A point made implicitly in Hays’ presentation is that, while many scholars may recognize a similarity between something in Luke-Acts and a biblical passage, they often do little if anything with that similarity. They merely offer “cross-references.” An intertextual approach, by contrast, is particularly interested in these other passages for the potential meaning and significance they have for Luke’s narrative. Luke uses the Scriptures of Israel to narrate Gentiles into the story of God’s workings among his people Israel.60 Hays concludes that Luke’s hermeneutical strategy is to use Scripture to show narrative continuity between the story of Jesus and the much larger story of God’s promises to and working among his people to redeem and gather a “people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17).61

OTHER APPROACHES AND STUDIES Not all studies fit into the two broad categories described so far. There is a diverse range of books and articles on Luke’s use of the Scriptures of Israel.62 Some focus on an individual passage while others focus on an entire book of Scripture or a biblical theme that is deployed in Luke-Acts. This section will briefly look at some of these approaches and studies. One of the ways that Luke’s hermeneutics have been assessed is through the lens of “Comparative Midrash,” a term coined by

Hays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 112. Hays, “The Liberation of Israel,” 117. 62 See, for example, Thomas R. Hatina, ed., The Gospel of Luke (vol. 3 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels; London: T&T Clark, 2010). This collection of essays has no unifying approach, but ranges in method from historical criticism to the theory of cultural memory; and Jordan Daniel May, “Is Luke a Reader-Response Critic? Luke’s Aesthetic Trajectory of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts: Essays in Honor of John Wesley Wyckoff (ed. P. Alexander, J. D. May, and R. G. Reid; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), who traces Luke’s aesthetic trajectory in applying Isa 49:6, which he connects not only to Jesus, as in Luke 2:32 and Acts 26:23, but also to Jesus’ disciples in Luke 24:47 and in Acts 1:8, and to Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:47. 60 61

164

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

James A. Sanders.63 Essentially, this approach examines how an author has appropriated and resignified (transformed and recontextualized) an ancient text or tradition. Put more simply, Luke has taken biblical texts and “made them his own.” John Strazicich states that, “the hermeneutical value of antecedent texts does not lie in its interpretation, but rather in its resignification.”64 Unlike Hays or Litwak, the issue here is not what a scriptural text likely meant in its original context and the way that might affect the use a NT author makes of it, but on what a NT author does in transforming the text’s meaning and significance for a new context. So the comparison is between the original significance and function of the biblical text and the appropriation and function of the text in Second Temple Jewish and NT writings. These authors, Luke included, transformed the text according to a new hermeneutical function, such as prophetic critique, so that it spoke to a contemporary audience in a new sociological and theological context. The primary example of comparative midrash as applied to Luke-Acts is the collection of essays by James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in LukeActs.65 The essays focus on various aspects of Scripture in LukeActs, from the use of Isaiah by Luke in general to the use of Joel in Acts 2:17–21. The authors show how traditions, such as that of prophetic critique, were present in the biblical text and how these traditions have been used by Luke for Christological, soteriological, apologetic, and other purposes. A more recent application of comparative midrash to Acts is John Strazicich’s work on the “hermeneutical purpose that Christology, ecclesiology, and pneumatology

63 See the definition of Comparative Midrash in James A. Sanders, “From Prophecy to Testament: An Epilogue,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 256–57. The more general application of the word “midrash” to Luke’s use of Scripture is problematic because that term does not actually tell us anything about Luke’s hermeneutic, but is merely a label. 64 John Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignificantion in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 3. 65 Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993).

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

165

play” in Luke’s appropriation of Joel 3:1–5 (LXX).66 He focuses on the “functional diversity” of Joel 3 in Acts 2, since the citation performs multiple functions within Peter’s speech.67 Luke recontextualizes Joel’s “all flesh” to refer to those who call upon the name of Jesus, which “radically reorients the whole prophecy as resignified exegesis of the early Jewish ekklesia.”68 Isaiah is a very important book for Luke-Acts, and Peter Mallen has examined the use of Isaiah in Luke’s narrative from a variety of perspectives, especially intertextuality (as described above) and the rhetorical function of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. Mallen stresses that Luke wrote to offer the significance of the events in his narrative and not primarily to tell his audience about these events. Mallen concludes, “the mission to proclaim salvation to all people and its rejection by many in Israel form Luke’s characteristic use of Isaiah.”69 According to Mallen, Luke has “transformed” the vision of Isaiah. For example, Luke applies the mission of the Servant of YHWH to Jesus, the disciples, and Paul. Luke extends Isaiah’s words about salvation for the nation so that Jews and Gentiles are equally God’s people, with the blind, the lame, and women being full participants in salvation. Mallen also addresses Luke’s apologetic agenda, arguing that Luke focused on Isaiah because the mission of the Servant (Isa 49:6) best describes the ministries of Jesus, John, the disciples, and Paul. He states that these examples are meant to spur his audience on to continue the mission of the Servant of YHWH in witness and other activities. Although still acknowledging a “fulfillment of prophecy” motif in Luke-Acts, Rebecca I. Denova argues that what binds Luke and Acts together into a narrative unity is the theme of rejection, running from Luke 4 to Acts 28.70 All the events prophesied for 66 Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture, 255. This is covered in his chapter, “The Use of Joel 3 in Acts 2: Particularistic, Apologetic, Salvific, Christological and Pneumatic Emphases,” 255–334. 67 Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture, 255. 68 Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture, 280. 69 Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts (LNTS 367; London: T&T Clark, 2008),101. 70 Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 18.

166

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

“the last day” have been “accomplished among us.” Denova argues that for Luke, “the prophets are not ‘fulfilled’ in light of the ‘church’ or in light of ‘Christianity,’ but in the light of what was promised to Israel in the Scriptures.”71 Luke’s grand design for the structural pattern of his two-volume work was to “continue the story of Israel into the life of Jesus and his followers.”72 Denova moves beyond the “proof from prophecy” understanding of Luke’s use of the Scriptures of Israel and instead uses the broader perspective of scriptural allusions, or biblical typology to view Luke’s method of composition.73 Denova argues that every event in LukeActs fulfills Luke’s understanding of the Scriptures of Israel in some way, with or without a citation.74 Denova concludes that allusions to the Scriptures of Israel “function to bind the community to Israel in both books; there is no theological change in the point of view in Luke’s reading of the Jewish Scriptures and the way he applies this interpretation in the Gospel or Acts.”75 Several scholars have noted the similarities between certain events in the Scriptures of Israel and events in Luke-Acts. Luke has been influenced in his presentation of events by the Scriptures, in some cases following, or “imitating” scriptural stories, such as birth annunciations (e.g., Luke 1:5–25). Thomas L. Brodie argues that for Luke, the “most foundational [model for imitation] was the Elijah-Elisha story (1 Kgs 17:1—2 Kgs 18:15)…”76 Brodie argues that Luke’s use of this narrative was in line with standard Hellenistic practice of “imitation” (mimesis), which sought to “rework and Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us, 20. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us, 26. Denova argues that the structural pattern Luke used for Luke-Acts came from the text of Isaiah. The narrative in Acts follows the fivefold pattern Luke discerned in Isaiah (26–28). 73 Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us, 92. 74 Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us, 112. 75 Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us, 210. 76 Thomas L. Brodie, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. E. Richard; Collegeville: Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 78. See also Thomas L. Brodie, The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000). 71 72

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

167

reproduce both the form and content of the model or source text in a variety of ways.”77 Luke also makes “systematic literary use of specific texts,” employing meticulous, line-by-line adaptations of stories in the Elijah-Elisha narrative, e.g., the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17).78 Brodie stands apart from other works described here because he is not interested in the function of biblical texts in Luke-Acts. Rather, he is focused upon how Luke used stories, especially the Elijah-Elisha narrative, as the basis for creating out of whole cloth a story of a man named Jesus and his early followers. Brodie’s thesis, however, fails in understanding what imitation meant for Hellenistic authors. Imitation of earlier works was a well-known and even expected practice in the Greco-Roman world, including the works of Hellenistic historiographers.79 An author might well recount the same events as an earlier author, with expansions or omissions and might well write in the same style as an earlier author. Taking a well-known story and completely changing the setting, the characters, the events, the causes, the outcomes, and the context, with so little evidence of the former narrative that only the highest-powered microscope can find the connections, is not mimesis. The fact that 2 Kings recounts Elisha raising the dead son of a widow and that Jesus heals the dead son of a widow may suggest that Luke wants Jesus to be compared positively with Elisha, but this is not evidence that Luke has invented this story by some otherwise unknown definition of “imitation.” Brodie has noted at some points in Luke-Acts interesting parallels to stories in the Scriptures of Israel, but these should not be seen as anything more than an influence upon Luke’s narration.

Brodie, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation,” 79–80. Brodie, “Luke-Acts as an Imitation,” 81. See especially The Birth of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004), for Brodie’s theoretical discussion of the nature of imitation. 79 See, for example, the discussion of imitation in John L. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 77 78

168

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS As is evident from the above, there is a great deal of diversity among scholars regarding Luke’s understanding and appropriation of the Scriptures of Israel, with new approaches continually being applied to Luke-Acts. Here I want to suggest three areas for further research. First, more work needs to be done to determine the reason for Luke-Acts’ composite quotations. Might they have been from a failure of memory? A reading strategy needs to be developed that does not require that passages, even from different books, be kept separate, such as Isa 2:2 and Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2:17–21. In what way can events in Luke-Acts “fulfill” passages that do not exist in their Lukan form in the Scriptures of Israel? Second, further work on the notion of promise-fulfillment is needed. When a passage from Psalms is quoted that refers to a past event, how is Luke interpreting this passage so that it seems to become prophetic, if that is indeed the correct way to understand Luke’s language? It cannot be a simple “A was predicted, and B fulfills it,” like Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem according to Matt 2:1–6. A specific model of Luke’s understanding of such texts—not a vague, broad category like “pattern”—needs to be established. Third, more research regarding the notion of mimesis in Hellenistic writers needs to be done to determine precisely what this concept means and then analyze Luke’s use of scriptural models in the composition of his work. In Luke’s hermeneutics, the multi-purpose use of the Scriptures of Israel is complex, rich, and nuanced, and the last word on it has most certainly not been written.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Bock, Darrell L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lukan Old Testament Christology. JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Brawley, Robert L. Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1995. Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Mallen, Peter. The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. LNTS 367. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

THE USE OF THE OT IN LUKE-ACTS

169

Pao, D. W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000.

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS: HISTORICITY, THEOLOGY, AND GENRE Osvaldo Padilla

One of the distinctive features of the book of Acts is the vast amount of speeches included in it. Defining a speech as a “deliberately formulated address made to a group of listeners,” one author has calculated thirty-six speeches in Acts.1 Thus, taking as a rough guide the number of chapters of Acts in our modern Bibles, there are more speeches than chapters. This, added to the fact that some chapters are almost entirely given to the reporting of a speech (e.g., Acts 2, 7, 22), gives us a sense of just what an essential element to Acts the speeches are. There are different types of speeches in Acts. Most are what we may call evangelistic or missionary sermons. These evince a stable structure such as direct address, the use of Scripture as proof, Christological kerygma, and an invitation to respond to the message.2 There are also apologetic speeches, which are either a hybrid of an evangelistic sermon or a plea for innocence before a court.3

M. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 20–21. 2 For example, see Acts 2, 3, 10, 13. On the structure of the speeches in Acts, see E. Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 208–16. 3 For example, see Acts 16, 17, 24, 26, 28. 1

171

172

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

There are didactic speeches addressed to other believers.4 Lastly, there are a number of speeches by non-Christians.5 Given the number and varied nature of speeches in Acts, it is not surprising that they are one of the most researched aspects of the book. And so this chapter will concentrate on tracing the place of the speeches in Acts’ scholarship from the period of F. C. Baur to the present. What do we mean, however, by the “place” of the speeches? Essentially, we refer to how the speeches have been used in the scholarly trajectories of Acts’ research in order to illustrate, justify, explore (and so on) this or that particular trajectory. So, for example, when the agenda on the table was the matter of the historicity of Acts, the questions posed had to do with the author’s6 faithfulness to the words of the individual reported to be giving a speech. Or, when the agenda has to do with the genre of Acts, the speeches are used as justification for placing Acts under a particular generic label. This is what we mean by the “place” of the speeches in Acts’ scholarship. The above way of putting the matter, however, betrays what is really a more complex situation. The reason is that the speeches do not always follow in the train of the research trends of Acts, thus being examined only to the extent that they shed light on the area being studied. So, even if the dominant trend of Acts’ studies is at a particular moment concerned with (say) historicity, studies on the speeches could be concerned primarily with theology rather than history. In the last ten years or so, scholars have been laboring on the question of the genre of Acts; but that does not mean that publications on the theology or historicity of the speeches have come to a standstill. And so there is a more complex back-and-forth between the speeches and Acts’ research, the latter not always dictating what is studied of the former. Therefore, while our approach For example, see Acts 15 and 20. For example, see Gamaliel (Acts 5), Gallio (18), the Ephesian Town Clerk (19), Cladius Lysias (23), Terttullus (24), and Festus (26). On the role of these speeches in Acts, see O. Padilla, The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 6 Whom I shall call “Luke,” without thereby implying a reference to the “beloved physician” of Col 4:10. 4 5

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

173

will be to sketch the speeches in their relation to research trends (and so in a way subservient to these trends), we are cognizant that this has the potential of producing artificial results and so will have to guard against extremes. Our task, then, will be to examine the place of the speeches in relation to what in my opinion are the three most researched aspects, namely, historicity, theology, and genre.

THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS AND THE SPEECHES Prior to the rise of the historical critical method, the Acts of the Apostles was viewed primarily as a transparent record of the doctrine of the apostles. If in today’s hermeneutical climate authors are swallowed by the reading community, in the church Fathers the author of Acts was swallowed by the characters in his narrative. Acts was a window through which to view apostolic doctrine. Consequently, the speeches were seen as accurate records of the teaching of the apostles. Putting the matter this way is somewhat anachronistic, however, since it looks at the speeches as isolated objects of study. This was not the case with the Fathers, for whom the relation between Acts and its speeches was one organic whole. Put more precisely, the rhetorical and theological movements found in the different speeches were not primarily those of Luke, but rather of Peter or Stephen or Paul. Although he was not the first to raise questions about the historical value of Acts, F. C. Baur stands as a formidable exponent of the problems of the historicity of Acts. His indebtedness to philosophical idealism, particularly that of Hegel, has been rehearsed in other places, so there is no need to go into detail here. Whatever the amount of influence, it is certain that Baur viewed Luke as a highly tendentious historian who could not be trusted to provide an accurate record of what actually happened during the apostolic period. This Tendenz is especially visible in the parallelism between Peter and Paul, where Luke shaped the narrative in such a way so as to make the two apostles look identical. In doing this, Baur reasons that Luke, for apologetic reasons, added and suppressed data on the apostles: “Any writer who is purposely silent upon so many points, and thereby places the facts of his narrative in a different light, cannot certainly be considered as just and conscientious.” Further,

174

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS It is certainly apparent that a decided apologetic feeling lies at the root of his statement, and therefore it must be doubtful whether we can have a purely historical relation from him: and it can scarcely be denied that possibly, if not probably, he has in many cases ignored the true history, not only negatively, by ignoring actions and circumstances which bear essentially on his subject matter, but also positively.7

With this overall view of Acts, it is not surprising that Baur questioned the historical reliability of the speeches. Concerning the first five chapters of Acts with its numerous speeches, Baur argued that the era of the church portrayed by these chapters is so distorted by Luke’s propensity to present the apostles as faultless superhumans and to portray the church as blissfully free from conflicts, that the events narrated therein could not possibly be historical.8 If this entire section is thus tendentious, the speeches that are part of the narrative block are also fictitious. In the best-case scenario there is a mixture of free invention and received tradition; however, this latter element does not vouchsafe any more historical reliability because “a writer like the author of the Acts of the Apostles, cannot deny himself the right to use even traditional materials in a free and independent manner.”9 The speech of Stephen is equally viewed as the work of Luke. Is it possible, Baur asks, that Stephen—a man portrayed in Acts as being utterly selfless—could make such a rhetorically and theologically polished speech in order to defend none other than himself? Are we also to believe that the angry Jewish audience was able politely to hold back its rage until Stephen had reached the conclusion of his long speech in order then to attack him? None of this seems historically plausible for Baur. Therefore, Baur answers in the affirmative the question he himself poses: “What is there to prevent the supposition that it is nevertheless the work of the historian himself”?10 Similar conclusions concerning the historical reliability of the different speeches are found in other parts of Baur’s work. 7 F. C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, his Epistles and his Teachings (trans. A. Menzies; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 10, 11. 8 Baur, Paul, 12. 9 Baur, Paul, 38. 10 Baur, Paul, 56.

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

175

Baur’s comments on the speeches allow us to see that historicity and historiography (the latter to the extent that it shed light on the former) were two salient factors in his examination of Acts. A similar conclusion was reached by the respected American scholar Henry J. Cadbury in 1933.11 Cadbury compared the speeches in Acts to those of Greco-Roman historians (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus, Dio Cassius, and Tacitus), thus placing Acts in its ancient literary context. On the whole, Cadbury was not persuaded that Greco-Roman historians were conservative in their reproduction of speeches. Acts was not dissimilar. For Cadbury, there were a number of features in Acts’ speeches that made their reliability questionable. Examples include the almost identical apologetic pattern in the mission speeches, supplementation of material in a speech that was lacking in a previous one, and chronological and historical errors.12 The speeches should be viewed as examples of dramatic historical imagination on the part of the author rather than faithful records. He thus concludes: Even though devoid of historical basis in genuine tradition the speeches in Acts have nevertheless considerable historical value. There is reason to suppose that the talented author of Acts expended upon them not only his artistic skill, but also a considerable amount of historic imagination…Probably these addresses give us a better idea of the early church than if Luke had striven for realism.…They indicate at least what seemed to a well-informed Christian of the next generation the main outline of the Christian message as first presented by Jesus’ followers in Palestine and in the cities of the Mediterranean world.13

Although Cadbury made some important observations on the speeches in two other works (The Making of Luke-Acts [New York: Macmillan, 1927]; H. J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History [London: A&C Black, 1955]), his lengthiest and most concentrated contribution is “The Speeches in Acts,” in The Acts of the Apostles. Additional Notes to the Commentary (ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; part 1, vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity; London: Macmillan, 1933), 402–27. 12 Cadbury, “The Speeches,” 407–22. 13 Cadbury, “The Speeches,” 426–27. 11

176

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

A response to this view on the speeches was provided by F. F. Bruce at the inaugural Tyndale lecture in 1942.14 As with Cadbury, Bruce examined the speeches by comparing them to those of Greco-Roman historians. But unlike Cadbury, he believed that there were a number of historians who operated with a “scientific” method of speech reporting. Thus, although by no means devoid of rhetorical cosmetics, these historians could be trusted to deliver the substance of what speakers actually said. The fountainhead for this scientific tradition was Thucydides, as can be seen in his programmatic statement concerning his method of composition. The statement deserves to be quoted in full, since it is central in discussions about Luke’s consciousness as a historian: As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore, the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.15

Bruce understands this passage to indicate that the Athenian historian strived for general accuracy in his reporting of speeches. According to Bruce, there were other historians, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Polybius, who operated in a similar conservative fashion.16 The question, then, is whether Luke actually works within this tradition or under the more rhetorically inventive one such as is exemplified by Luke’s contemporary Josephus. Bruce’s opinion is that the differences which Acts’ speeches demonstrate when compared with those of Josephus would indicate that Luke did not intend his speeches to be samples of flowery rhetoric: “At once we are struck by a difference, for [Acts’] speeches can by no means be called the summit of Luke’s literary perfecLater published as The Speeches in Acts (London: Tyndale, 1944). Translation from the LCL edition. 16 Bruce, Speeches, 6–7. 14 15

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

177

tion. For an author who could write such idiomatic Greek as the Prologue to the Third Gospel, the Greek of the speeches in Acts is surprisingly awkward.”17 Bruce continues by claiming that, if we observe where Luke could be checked, that is, in his Gospel, it can be shown that he has faithfully preserved his sources; thus it follows that the burden of proof for the character of the speeches falls on those who deny their basic historicity.18 With these two arguments as a foundation, Bruce proceeded to examine several of the speeches. He classed them into four categories: evangelistic, deliberative, apologetic, and hortatory. Regarding the first category, Bruce reasoned that, given the number of Aramaisms which can be detected in Peter’s speeches, it is very likely that Luke faithfully followed early sources.19 In the deliberative camp, the speeches found in the Jerusalem Council fit so well with what we know of the characters from other literature that it is reasonable to conclude that they are trustworthy representations of what the speakers actually said.20 Moving to the apologetic speeches, Bruce noted that Paul’s defenses in Acts 22 and 26 were so well tailored to their different audiences that they were probably historical: “The two defences…are so subtly adapted to their respective audiences that we must either assume a remarkably astute composer, or conclude that we have substantially faithful reports of what Paul really said on both occasions.”21 Finally, Bruce suggested that the hortatory speech given by Paul to the Ephesian elders at Miletus shows so many parallels to his own letters that it should also be seen as historical. Furthermore, given that a “We” passage follows the speech, Bruce concluded that “there can be little doubt that Luke heard it himself.”22 Bruce sums up his study the following way: We need not suppose that the speeches in Acts are verbatim reports…Paul, we know, was given to long sermons…but any of the speeches attributed to him in Acts may be read through Bruce, Speeches, 7–8. Bruce, Speeches, 8. 19 Bruce, Speeches, 9. 20 Bruce, Speeches, 19–20. 21 Bruce, Speeches, 25. 22 Bruce, Speeches, 26. 17 18

178

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS aloud in a few minutes. But I suggest that reason has been shown to conclude that the speeches reported by Luke are at least faithful epitomes, giving the gist of the arguments used.23

To sum up, it can be observed that Bruce continued the preoccupation of scholars with the historicity and historiography of the speeches. Like Cadbury, Bruce brought to bear on the issue the practice of Greco-Roman historians. He nuanced this comparative observation by noting that sweeping statements to the effect that all historians invented speeches from nothing or that all historians were responsible reporters were exaggerations. Rather, there were both “rhetorical” as well as more “documentary” historians. Bruce opined that Luke belonged to the camp of those historians who reported compressed accounts of what the speakers actually said. The work of Martin Dibelius on Acts as a whole and the speeches in particular can be legitimately placed in this section or the next on theology. On the one hand, Dibelius observed that in his second volume Luke was not restricted by the Gospel form and therefore had a freer hand over the shaping and organization of his material: he was an author in his own right. Thus, by noting his work as a legitimate author, we can get a clearer picture of his theology. For it was Luke the theologian (not primarily the historian) who was driving the enterprise in the second volume. On the other hand, Dibelius was concerned with historicity to the extent that his understanding of the nature of the speeches in Acts was indebted to the method of speech reporting in Greco-Roman historiography. 24 Dibelius thus straddles history and theology. Bruce, Speeches, 27. Concerning the historical reliability of the speeches, he stated: “I should like to say: ‘if we deny the historicity of these speeches,’ but we cannot go so far. Luke may have known of individual occasions when Paul spoke there. He may also have had information about the σύμπασα γνώμη of the speaker or of the speech in individual instances; he may even have been an eye-witness, but we cannot say where or when this was the case. Nor are we able in this case to attribute the speeches to the itinerary, which was undoubtedly used in Acts 13–21, for if this source recorded any speeches that had been made, then they would have been found in the itinerary more often. The selecting of the occasion and the elaboration of the speech is in each case the work of the author” (“The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” in Studies in the Acts of the 23 24

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

179

In his important essay “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” Dibelius began by making a number of remarks on Greco-Roman historiography, focusing particularly on speeches. He stated that ancient historians did not feel any obligation to reproduce what the speakers had actually said. The aims of historians were: to give insight into the situation as a whole, to illuminate the historical moment, to provide insight into a speaker’s character, and to explain a particular situation.25 In the second part of his essay, Dibelius sought to place Acts within the Greco-Roman historiographic tradition. His aim was to discover “what place the speeches in the Acts of the Apostles take among the quite varied types of speeches recorded by historians, and thus, at the same time, of determining the meaning to be attributed to the speeches in the work as a whole.”26 In order to accomplish this Dibelius adopted a dual method. First, he investigated those speeches that did not seem to correspond well to the events to which they were attached. Under this group he discerned four: that at Cornelius’ home, at Athens, at Miletus, and at the Antonia. The second method was the literary tactic of repetition. By this Dibelius referred to those themes that were constantly inserted in the different speeches, particularly the missionary speeches.27 The use of the first method yielded the conclusion that Luke had inserted speeches at certain vital sections of the narrative. The purpose of this ploy was to clarify the main themes being advanced in the story. In other words, what Luke did was to complement the action by the word and thus explain the significance of momentous events. This explanation, however, was not provided for the sake of the characters in the story but for the readers of Acts. According to Dibelius, in this respect, Luke followed ancient historians. Nevertheless, Luke had also used this technique to illuminate for his readers the ways of God; and in this Luke parted company with historians.28 Apostles [ed. H. Greeven; trans. M. Ling; London: SCM Press, 1956], 164 n. 55). 25 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 138–45. 26 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 145. 27 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 165. 28 Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 175–78.

180

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

In the second method Luke forsook historical norms. In the missionary sermons of Peter and Paul, for example, one notices that, unlike many ancient historians, Luke primarily employed direct rather than indirect speech. Dibelius gave the following opinion for this procedure: What indirect speech is intended to avoid is exactly what Luke wishes to achieve. The speaker’s words are to reach the reader as directly as if they had been spoken contemporaneously, for the content of the speeches is the Christian message itself, the defence of the community against Judaism and against the danger of Gnosticism in the future, the presentation of individual Christian ideas—of God or the resurrection of the dead—and, finally, the justification of the conversion of the Gentiles on the grounds that it was a task ordained by God…[The speeches] are unimportant in comparison with the ideas which are constantly emphasised by the speakers. They are not, however, intended to be conveyed to the reader simply as part of the story, but as a living proclamation and as an exhortation.29

In addition to repetition, Luke chose not to follow the ancient historians in the following two techniques: authorial intrusion (“Luke does not venture to make a personal judgment; he portrays the works of God and exercises not criticism of events”) and the juxtaposing of speeches giving alternative opinions.30 Dibelius thus concluded that Luke was both similar and dissimilar to ancient historians. The very fact that he included speeches is evidence that he followed ancient historical practices. However, by showing through the speeches the ways of God, by employing repetition, and by forfeiting authorial intrusion and the union of speeches with opposing viewpoints, Luke has shown that he was ultimately a preacher. Summary Authenticity has been a dominant aspect of research in the speeches of Acts. Are the speeches, then, to be considered historical or not? An easy and simple answer cannot be given. I think that to 29 30

Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 180. Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts,” 181.

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

181

address this question a number of complex and interrelated issues need to be explored, which we can only briefly mention in this piece. First, we must ask what we mean by “historical.” A positivist approach to history, in which the author is supposed to provide a comprehensive, dispassionate, and cleanly objective presentation of the past is an unrealistic expectation for the ancient period (and for ours). This does not mean that we must go to the other extreme and embrace a view of history in which rhetorical tropes so swallow up the facts that at the end history is essentially another form of fiction.31 A more nuanced approach is possible in which history faithfully represents the past while also having an ideological or theological dimension. In other words, having a strong (theological) point of view does not exclude the possibility of writing an accurate account of the past. Yet, in reading someone like Baur it is clear that for him a writer like Luke who is selective (because he has a theological point of view) cannot be called a faithful historian. The case is similar with Dibelius. To the extent that Luke introduced speeches and used them to illuminate the “total situation,” Dibelius had no qualms in granting him a place among the ancient historians. However, when Luke employed certain techniques— repetition, exclusive direct speech, radical ruptures between speech and situation—or failed to employ others such as authorial intrusion to give judgments or the juxtaposition of speeches with conflicting viewpoints, at that point Luke ceased to be a historian and became a preacher. In other words, when Luke put aside practices that were meant to ensure “objectivity” and introduced practices that were channels of ideational propositions, he was no longer a historian. When Luke sermonized he was conveying religious convictions about his own views on a movement of God; this is not history writing but rather proclamation. One suspects that the reason for this conclusion is Dibelius’ view of genuine history as excluding a theological stance on the part of an author. But this is too narrow a view of history. 31 A view powerfully expressed, for example, by H. White, Metahistory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). For what I consider to be still one of the better responses to White, see A. Momigliano, “The Rhetoric of History and the History of Rhetoric: On Hayden White’s Tropes,” in Comparative Criticism: A Yearbook (ed. E. S. Shaffer; vol. 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 259–68.

182

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Secondly, in assessing the matter of historical reliability it continues to be incumbent upon the interpreter to place the speeches in their literary milieu. But here also the issue is complicated. For we must ask, what is Luke’s literary milieu? If the interpreter believes that he best fits among Greco-Roman historians, then we must ask what their standard of speech reporting was. And here there is disagreement. To be sure, a number of Greco-Roman historians seek to put readers at ease when they either promise to be faithful to the words of the different speakers or castigate those who purportedly do not. We have seen Thucydides’ methodological statement above, which I suggest indicates the historian’s goal to provide the essence of what the speakers said.32 Polybius expresses the sentiment in a stronger manner as he attacks Timaeus: The peculiar function of history is to discover, in the first place, the words actually spoken, whatever they were, and next to ascertain the reason why what was done or spoken led to failure or success…a writer who passes over in silence the speeches made and the causes of events and in their place introduces false rhetorical exercises and discursive speeches, destroys the peculiar virtue of history.33

Lucian of Samosata states that while the historian must not fail to be rhetorically pleasing, nevertheless the speech must be historically appropriate.34 Concerning Roman historians specifically (e.g., Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus), Gempf has argued that there is an attempt to preserve the general sense of what the speakers said.35 Nevertheless, a number of modern historians believe that these statements of method are no more than rhetorical clichés. That is, it was a rhetorical convention in ancient historiography to make noble claims about aspirations to the truth; in actual practice, the only obligation of the ancient historian was to rhetorical beauty On Thucydides, see the helpful explanation by Conrad Gempf and the literature he cites in “Public Speaking and Published Accounts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 265–69. 33 Polybius, 12.25b. Translation is from Paton in the LCL. 34 Lucian, How to Write History 58. 35 Gempf, “Public Speaking and Published Accounts,” 283–85. 32

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

183

rather than the “truth.”36 On the whole, however, this last opinion is an exaggeration, partly based on the belief that just because something is a topos it cannot at the same time be true. It is better to understand the method of speech reporting in at least some Greco-Roman historians as faithful, rhetorical approximations of the historical event. Gempf summarizes this nicely: Critics of the speeches may bring in the statements of ancient authors such as Isocrates or Dionysius which seemingly indicate that the historian is to invent speeches out of thin air just to make an impression on the audience. In fact, the write-up of a speech in an ancient history does call for rhetorical skill simply because the author must, while being faithful to the main lines of the historical ‘speech event,’ adapt the speech to make it ‘speak to’ a new audience in a different situation…Thus, to say that in presenting a speech, the historian has an opportunity to show rhetorical skill is a bit like saying that the write-up of the battle is an occasion for the author to write colourfully. ‘Colourfully’ and ‘rhetorically’ need not mean ‘unfaithfully.’ The ancient writers themselves are very clear on this point. A recorded speech is not a transcript, but woe betide the historian if the speech is not faithful to the alleged situation and speaker.37

But was Luke a Greco-Roman historian? Are we actually looking in the right place? I have suggested elsewhere that in a number of significant ways—volume, length, style—Luke’s use of speeches is actually closer to the Old Testament (OT) and certain Second Temple works.38 What were their standards of speech reporting and historicity as a whole? This necessitates further study. An interesting opinion in this respect has been offered by Arnaldo 36 See, for example, the work of Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and The Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), esp. 104–36. 37 Gempf, “Public Speaking and Published Accounts,” 264. 38 Padilla, Speeches of Outsiders, 42–105, 237–40. See also the important work of Loveday Alexander in this respect: “Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek Historiography,” in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies (ed. D. J. A. Clines and S. D. Moore; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 93– 125.

184

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Momigliano, who suggests that while biblical historiography is thoroughly theological, nevertheless it is committed to truth in a way that perhaps other traditions are not: Jews have always been supremely concerned with truth. The Hebrew God is the God of Truth. No Greek god, to the best of my knowledge, is called ἀληθινός, truthful. If God is truth, his followers have the duty to preserve a truthful record of the events in which God showed his presence. Each generation is obliged to transmit an account of what happened to the next generation…Consequently, reliability, in Jewish terms, coincides with the truthfulness of the transmitters and with the ultimate truth of God in whom the transmitters believe.39

THE THEOLOGY OF ACTS AND THE SPEECHES As we saw above, Dibelius had pointed out that, in contrast to the Gospel, in Acts Luke had more freedom to engage in “original composition.”40 This meant that in the second volume one could get a better idea of his theology. This observation provided a great boost to Acts’ scholarship, particularly in Germany. The focus would thus not be on the historical reliability of Acts, but on Luke the theologian. An extremely influential article on the theology of Luke was written by P. Vielhauer.41 For Vielhauer, Dibelius had convincingly demonstrated that the speeches in Acts were free inventions. Therefore, these would be an ideal location to explore to what extent Luke had modified the theology of Paul. Vielhauer chose to examine four areas of Pauline theology as these were portrayed in Acts’ speeches: natural theology, law, Christology, and eschatology. He would then compare this portrayal to that of the epistles.42 Vielhauer concluded that the Paul presented in Acts is radically different from the Paul of the letters. Whereas in the epistles A. Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 19–20. I owe this quotation to Alexander, “Marathon or Jericho,” 125. 40 Dibelius, “Style Criticism of the Book of Acts,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 2–3. 41 “Zum ‘Paulinismus’ der Apostelgeschichte,” EvT 10 (1950–51): 1– 15. ET, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 33–50. 42 Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 33–34. 39

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

185

natural theology is wholly negative (it leads to idolatry and condemnation), in Acts it can serve as a positive starting point and as “a forerunner of faith.”43 For the Paul of Acts there was not much of “the problem of the law.” The Paul of the letters, on the other hand, was consumed with the place of the law in salvation; for the Paul of Acts this worry seems to be a thing of the past.44 The Christology of the Paul of Acts is closer to that of the earliest congregations (with a lack of emphasis on the salvific effects of the cross), and the eschatology which is decisive in the epistles “disappears” in the Paul of Acts: It leads a modest existence on the periphery of his speeches as a hope in the resurrection and as faith in the return of Christ as the judge of the world…and in this aspect as a motivation of the exhortation to repentance. Eschatology has been removed from the center of Pauline faith to the end and has become a ‘section on the last things.’45

Thus, the “Paulinism” of Acts is really only the zeal for the Gentile mission and admiration for the great missionary to the gentiles.46 According to Vielhauer, therefore, the speeches of Paul in Acts serve to show the theology of Luke rather than that of the apostle. Hans Conzelmann has been a towering figure in the study of the theology of Luke. His work, The Theology of St. Luke, although not as widely accepted as it once was, is a classic in the field.47 For him also the speeches of Acts are above all an essential channel of the author’s own theological thought, not a record of actual statements: “These are not abbreviated versions of actual speeches but are literary creations; the same practice was followed in other literature of the time.”48 The speeches, therefore, are a source for underVielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 36. Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 42–43. 45 Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 45. 46 Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” 45. 47 Trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960. For criticisms, see F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950– 2005) (2d ed.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 13–16. 48 H. Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H. Juel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 44. He depends on Dibelius for this conclusion. 43 44

186

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

standing essential aspects of the theology of Luke: “Thus we can recognize in the speeches the specifically Lukan theology with its understanding of Christology, Scripture, promise and fulfillment, and the pattern of salvation—repentance—baptism.”49 For Conzelmann one of the speeches with most theological freight is that of Paul before the Areopagus. The speech is a literary invention of Luke; but it is nevertheless theologically useful, for it allows us to see how a Christian around 100 CE responded to the pagan context from the perspective of an argument based on the Christian faith.50 While the first two parts of the address contain many philosophical elements, it is the last part (17:30–31) that is distinctively Christian. Here we can see that the resurrected Jesus becomes the center of history: “The course of world history is now divided in two periods: before and after the raising of Jesus.”51 In addition, in the Areopagus speech one gains insight into the Lukan understanding of the scheme and nature of history. Before Christ, humans had the potential to know God but did not attain this knowledge. But at the present, since Christ has been resurrected, this lack of realization is inexcusable and humans must respond in faith to the Christian message. Yet this “present,” from Luke’s perspective, is at the same time the end, for it is a reworking of Jewish apocalyptic which was adopted by early Christianity. In this Lukan reworking the focus is no longer the imminent end of the world, but the proclamation of the gospel by the church.52 Christology, eschatology, ecclesiology, salvation—all these fundamental categories of dogmatics are thus encountered in the Areopagus speech. According to Conzelmann, the usefulness of the speeches is in helping us understand how Luke viewed these categories. A different approach to the speeches and the theology of Luke is found in the work of I. Howard Marshall.53 Marshall agreed Conzelmann, Acts, 44. Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, 217–30, 218. 51 Conzelmann, “Address of Paul,” 225. 52 Thus Conzelmann finds in the speech almost the same schema that he made so popular in The Theology of St. Luke. 53 Luke: Historian and Theologian (enlarged ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). 49 50

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

187

with the scholars examined above: it is very difficult if not impossible to detect a discreet source in a speech. Furthermore, it is inconclusive if Luke operated with the conservative Thucydidean approach in the reporting of speeches. Yet, Marshall still asks the question: “Is it Lukan theology or is it a distinguishable theology (or theologies) which can be attributed to his sources?”54 Whereas Vielhauer and others concluded that we find in the speeches a Lukan theology that has very few links to traditional material, Marshall believes that in fact the theology of the speeches does show considerable moorings in the early traditions. How does he reach this differing conclusion? According to Marshall, we should note that each speech fits admirably with its historical context and thus performs a specific function for the readers of Acts. What is this function? Given that the content of the speeches in Acts does not fit well with Hellenistic historiography, we must conclude that the insertion of speeches by Luke is not the result of mere historiographic convention. Rather, Luke has included speeches because he is recording the activity of a community that actually often preached: It is thus likely that Luke incorporated speeches not primarily to express his own theological viewpoint but rather because preaching was an integral part of the activity of the early church, as he saw it…In short, it is one-sided to look at the speeches in Acts merely as evidence for Luke’s theology, they have a claim to be based on the practice of the early church.55

For Marshall, there are two extremes that do not follow from this conclusion. On the one hand, this does not mean that Luke was a mere transcriber, one devoid of any theological insights. To be sure, he was not Paul; nevertheless he had certainly reflected carefully on the theological topics presented in his double-work.56 It is probable that the main topic he develops is, broadly speaking, that of salvation. His emphasis here is on the work of Christ, which makes salvation available to all. This emphasis is brought out in the speeches of the second volume.57 On the other hand, Luke should Marshall, Luke, 72. Marshall, Luke, 73. 56 Marshall, Luke, 18–20. 57 Marshall, Luke, 103–215. 54 55

188

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

not be viewed as someone who either invents or reworks speeches in such a way that the resultant theology is without any link to the traditional preaching of the early church. Here the suggestions of Vielhauer and E. Käsemann, that in Luke’s presentation of Paul the latter is not at all similar to the apostle of the epistles but rather reflects an early catholicism, are viewed as exaggerations.58 Summary One of the merits of the scholars surveyed above is that they have shown us just how important the speeches are in order to understand Luke’s theology. In doing this they have rehabilitated an essential aspect of Luke’s work and given him a deserved place in our constructions of a New Testament (NT) theology. There is no doubt that the speeches in Acts are a primary conduit for Luke’s theology. The fact that in their majority they share similar structure, techniques, and vocabulary means that Luke has certainly shaped them into their final form.59 Should we conclude from this that he was an independent author and theologian in the sense that he was not interested in reporting the traditions of the early church or Paul? Should we, as a result, further conclude that although his speeches are assigned to apostolic figures, in reality the thoughts are his own? As we saw above, the similarities of speeches, added to a particular view of speech reporting in Greco-Roman historians, led many scholars to conclude that the speeches are ideal to understand Luke the theologian. Through them we can appreciate his views on history, salvation, eschatology, and so forth. I conclude this section with two observations. First, the extreme views of Vielhauer (followed by Conzelmann, Haenchen and many others) should be rejected. It is unlikely that if Paul was a heroic figure for Luke (and this Vielhauer admits) the latter would diverge so far from the former’s theology in such fundamental areas. Other significant problems have been pointed out by Daniel Marguerat. First, in the matters of natural theology and circumcision, Vielhauer has produced a one-sided reading that

58 59

Marshall, Luke, 81–82. See especially the work of Soards, The Speeches in Acts, passim.

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

189

ignores points of contact between Acts and the epistles.60 Secondly, Vielhauer has overlooked the fact that in modes of presentation the genre of Acts and that of the epistles are different: “Paul argues, while Luke describes a practice.”61 There is thus a flattening of generic differences. Thirdly, and following from the previous point, Marguerat points out that in Acts Paul is presented as an external debater, an “outsider;” in his correspondence, on the other hand, he argues from an internal perspective, and thus as an “insider.” Not observing these distinctions can lead to the distortions made by Vielhauer.62 Secondly, I suggest that trying to distinguish what is Lukan theology and what is Pauline theology in the speeches of Acts shows a certain lack of nuance at the historiographic level. In composing, it is unlikely that Luke has failed to weld Pauline thought to his own, even if he possessed sources or was himself an eyewitness. The reason for this is that the message of the speeches cannot be properly understood if one does not take the narrative in which they are found into account. Thus, even if Luke presents a faithful précis of Paul’s speeches, the set-up for the speech, ultimately, is Luke’s work. By that which Luke chooses to exclude or include in a narrative; by his presentation of setting; by the angles in which he presents characters; and by his shaping of plot—in short, by emplotment—Luke has put his own stamp in the narrative which is crucial in the meaning of the speeches. There is thus a welding that makes it impossible to wrench cleanly Paul’s theology or Luke’s theology from the speeches. This does not mean that it is impossible to use the speeches to obtain information about Paul’s theology; it does mean that caution must be used when comparing his speeches to his letters.

THE GENRE OF ACTS AND THE SPEECHES What is the genre of Acts? This is a question that continues to captivate Lukan scholars. The desire to know the genre of Acts is not 60 D. Marguerat, “Paul après Paul: une histoire de réception,” NTS 54 (2008): 317–37, 319. 61 Marguerat, “Paul après Paul,” 319: “Paul argumente, alors que Luc décrit une pratique.” 62 Marguerat, “Paul après Paul,” 320.

190

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

simply a matter of chronic, bookish curiosity; there are significant repercussions for the way we read Acts today that emerge from genre classification. In this section we shall look at three generic candidates that have been put forth in large part because of their perceived similarities with Acts in the matter of speeches. One of the genres that makes significant use of speeches (direct and indirect) is that of ancient history, whether it be classical Greek (e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon), Hellenistic (e.g., Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus), or Roman (Sallust, Livy, Tacitus). Their importance to history is not only seen in the practice but also in methodological statements concerning speeches found throughout (e.g., Thucydides 1.22; Polybius 12; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Thucydides 42; Lucian, How to Write History 58). It is thus a prima facie sensible conclusion that, since Acts also contains numerous speeches by leading characters, it too belongs to ancient history. This is the conclusion of, for example, Ben Witherington,63 among others. It should be noted that although the use of speeches by itself does not lead these authors to their generic conclusion, it plays a major part. Another genre that has been put forth because, among other things, of its use of speeches, is the historical monograph. One can see the concept of the historical monograph in statements by Cicero and Sallust; its actual practice can be seen in a number of historical works that focus on a particular event that occurred in a relatively short period of time. According to D. W. Palmer, the historical monograph can be found in a number of traditions.64 Thus, although they survive only in fragmentary fashion, there are Greek historical monographs.65 There are also Roman historical monographs, the best examples being Sallust on the Catiline conspiracy and the Jugurthan war.66 Palmer also suggests that a number of Hellenistic Jewish works are historical monographs. Here he includes 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as 1 Esdras.67 Acts shares a num63 The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 64 “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 1–29. 65 Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” 14. 66 Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” 8–11. 67 Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” 18–21.

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

191

ber of features with historical monographs, including the use of direct speech, both spoken and included as written correspondence. Another genre, outside of history, that has been suggested due to its use of direct speech is the ancient romantic novel. Here the important work of Richard Pervo takes pride of place.68 Pervo notes a number of similarities of the novels with Acts: attempt to delight, episodic nature, and sea voyages. But perhaps it is in the area of direct speech that the similarities are most striking. After a careful comparison on the amount of direct speech between historiography, romantic novels, biographies, and Jewish and Christian fiction, Pervo concludes that Acts is far closer to the realm of fiction than history.69 Summary To the extent that the use of speeches plays a role in deciding the genre of Acts, the category of ancient, classical history written in various volumes (e.g., Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, and so forth) should be rejected. Quite apart from the significant issue of difference in subject (classical histories focusing on war), the speeches of Acts differ in some important ways from those of classical history. As I have argued elsewhere,70 one important area of difference is the agonistic dimension accomplished by the pairing of speeches with opposing points of view that is found in classical histories. This is not the norm in Acts (the one exception is the exchange between Tertullus and Paul in Acts 24), where speeches normally stand alone. One potential explanation for this difference (and an educated Greek reader would have thought this a deficiency on the part of the author of Acts) is Luke’s lack of a rhetorical education reaching to the tertiary level. It was usually at this stage 68 R. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); idem, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre,” JSNT 28 (2006): 285–307; idem, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 69 Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts.” See the tables in pp. 300–301. Note also that for Pervo history and fiction “are not categories that can be applied with any precision” (301). 70 See O. Padilla, “Hellenistic παιδεία and Luke’s Education: A Critique of Recent Approaches,” NTS 55 (2009): 416–37.

192

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

that students were trained in the progymnasmata (where the exercise of prosopopeia prepared for pairing of speeches) and declamation, where the agonistic dimension of speeches was inculcated.71 Another explanation is that Luke was not trying to compose a work in the classical, historical genre. Was he trying to compose a novel? The data adduced by Pervo with respect to direct speech are impressive. Nevertheless, Acts is markedly different in subject matter from the ancient novel, the latter generally focusing on estranged lovers being reunited after much adventure and suffering throughout the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the tone of Acts in describing supernatural events has a sense of seriousness and sobriety that is markedly different from the sensationalism of the ancient romances. Thus, although Acts is similar to the novel in speeches and in its attempt to delight, the differences in subject matter and tone make it doubtful that an ancient reader would have appraised it as a novel. I conclude this section by suggesting that the best parallel for Acts in its use of speeches is the historical monograph in the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. The best examples, I suggest, are 1–2 Maccabees and 1 Esdras. The speeches are short, lack the rhetorical elaboration of the classical histories, and generally stand alone. In addition, the theological subject matter and the use of the Septuagint are at home in Acts.

CONCLUSIONS This essay shows that the speeches in Acts are integral to the interpretation of Acts. Whether it be in its historical, theological, or generic dimension, the book cannot be properly grasped if the reader has not wrestled with the place of the speeches. Research on the speeches does not appear to be reaching a level of exhaustion despite the massive amount of literature. One area of exploration that may move research forward is suggested below. In NT studies as a whole, the value of reception history (Wirkungsgeschichte) has recently been given fresh impetus.72 This can be applied with profit to Acts. In particular, it may be useful to ask Padilla, “Hellenistic παιδεία,” 432–34. See, for example, M. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). 71 72

THE SPEECHES IN ACTS

193

how early Christian authors viewed the speeches of Acts, as it may shed light on how they were received in the early church. One author who could pay dividends is John Chrysostom. First, simply as a matter of surviving material, we have Chrysostom’s sermons on Acts, which are very well preserved and cover all chapters of Acts. Secondly, Chrysostom possessed a rhetorical education. It would thus be intriguing and instructing to examine how this individual, who was thoroughly familiar with both the biblical and Greek tradition of writing, understood the place of the speeches in Acts.73

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, Loveday C. A. “Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek Historiography.” Pages 93– 125 in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies. Edited by D. J. A. Clines and S. D. Moore. JSOTSup 269. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Gempf, Conrad. “Public Speaking and Published Accounts.” Pages 259–303 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by A. D. Clarke and B. W. Winter. Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Padilla, Osvaldo. The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography. SNTSMS 144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Penner, Todd. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. ESEC 10. New York: T&T Clark 2004. Soards, Marion. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

The works of J. N. D. Kelly (Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995]) and M. M. Mitchell (The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000]) may be good places to start. 73

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS: THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY UNLEASHED David G. Peterson

Pneumatology has been a hotly debated area in Lukan studies. To a large extent this has involved engagement with issues raised by Pentecostal and Charismatic interpreters.1 In recent decades, however, a certain consensus has arisen in exegetical and hermeneutical discussion. Background studies and Narrative Criticism have been particularly helpful in achieving this consensus.2 Luke’s distinctive teaching about the person and work of the Holy Spirit is best uncovered through a progressive examination of his two volumes.3 The word “spirit” (πνεῦμα) occurs some thirty-six times in Luke’s Gospel, only sixteen of which are references to the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Lord (Matthew has 12 such references, Mark 6, and John 20). Acts uses the noun some seventy times, fifty-four of which are explicit references to the Holy Spirit (more 1 Cf. J. Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 13–36; M. M. B. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (JPTSup 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 20–79. 2 Cf. G. K. A. Bonnah, The Holy Spirit: A Narrative Factor in the Acts of the Apostles (SBB 58; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwek, 2007). 3 In D. G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 5–15, I argue that Luke-Acts is a two-part work by the same author (whatever the process by which it came into its final form), combining two different genres (Gospel and Historical Monograph).

195

196

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

than any other New Testament document).4 Both volumes have an introductory discourse referring to the operation of the Spirit in a new and significant way (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 2:14–39), first in the ministry of Jesus and then in the experience of the early church. These discourses, together with certain narrative details, show the similarities and differences in the Spirit’s relation to John the Baptist and other prophetic figures, to Jesus, and then to the disciples after Pentecost.

THE TEACHING OF LUKE’S GOSPEL The Dawn of the Age of Salvation Seven of Luke’s references to the Holy Spirit occur in the first two chapters of his Gospel. A fresh outpouring of the gift of prophecy heralds the coming of the messianic era. Within these prophecies, and in two angelic announcements, there is first a focus on the Spirit’s work in relation to John the Baptist (1:15–17) and then Jesus (1:30–35). The wider unit (1:5—2:40) seeks to establish a close parallel between these characters, recalling similar scenes in the Old Testament (OT) where God discloses an important birth. “This similarity suggests that John and Jesus are part of a single divine purpose, which is developing according to the same biblical pattern.”5 Significantly, however, these early references indicate different modes of the Spirit’s operation. John is portrayed by Luke as an ascetic, who is dedicated to God’s service as a prophet, “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (1:15; cf. 7:33).6 His pre-natal empowerment is Πνεῦμα is also used for the human spirit (Luke 1:17, 47, 80; 8:55; 23:46; Acts 6:10; 7:59; 17:16; 18:25), sometimes very clearly influenced by the Spirit of God, for unclean, evil or demonic spirits (Luke 4:33, 36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2, 29; 9:39, 42; 10:20; 11:24, 26; 13:11; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:16, 18; 19:12, 13, 15, 16), and for the spirit of a dead person (Luke 24:37, 39). The Holy Spirit is described in Luke 24:49 as “power from on high” (cf. Acts 1:6). In Acts 23:8–9 πνεῦμα is used for a supernatural power without qualification. 5 R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol 1. The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 16. 6 Ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ could mean “from birth,” but 1:41, 44, suggest the meaning “from conception,” and ἔτι confirms this. J. Nol4

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

197

signified by the giving of a prophetic sign to his mother before he is born (1:41, 44). An angel reveals that the goal of the Baptist’s ministry is to restore many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. As the returning Elijah-figure predicted in Malachi 4:5–6, he will go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (cf. Sirach 48:10). Spirit and power are linked again in Luke 1:35; 4:14; 24:49 (cf. Acts 1:8; 10:38). In the sequence of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus appears as the Lord whom John precedes.7 Reconciliation with God is linked with transformed relationships and behavior: John will “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just” (1:17). The ultimate purpose of his ministry is to prepare a people who are ready to meet the Lord when he comes (1:76; 3:4; 7:27).8 At this stage, there is no revelation that John prepares specifically for the Messiah’s coming. When “the word of God” comes to John in the wilderness, he is enabled to speak with the authority of the prophets of old (3:2) and the powerful effect on the people is disclosed (3:7–21). John’s significance in terms of salvation history is clarified with an extensive quotation from Isaiah 40:3–5 in Luke 3:4–6. This “reveals the purpose of God which underlies the whole narrative of Luke-Acts.”9 John is a transitional figure. His most important prophetic function is to point to the Christ who is uniquely empowered by the Spirit for his ministry and who alone can baptize “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3:15–17, 21–22; 7:18–28). Others are “filled with the Spirit” as they prophesy about John and Jesus (1:41–45, 67–79; 2:25–35, 36–38). In a subordinate and supportive prophetic role, these characters proclaim the significance of John and Jesus, using many scriptural allusions. They signal the dawn of the eschatological era in which the Spirit will be poured out on all land, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989), 31, observes that “such total invasion by the Spirit of God is unprecedented.” 7 As in Luke 1:6, going before the Lord could refer to an obedient and faithful lifestyle, though the specifically prophetic dimension to this walk is highlighted with the qualifying phrase “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” 8 Preparing a people and preparing a way for the Lord (1:76; 3:4; 7:27) are closely related tasks. 9 Tannehill, Luke, 47.

198

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the disciples of Jesus at Pentecost and all will prophesy (Acts 2:16– 18).10 Jesus and the Spirit Gabriel’s revelation to Mary about the birth of Jesus indicates that he will be more than a prophet like John. As “the Son of the Most High,” the Lord God will “give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (1:32–33; cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16; Isa 9:6–7; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–26). Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that he is the promised Davidic Messiah, but also more profoundly because of the way he is conceived (1:34–35; cf. Isa 7:14). Mary is told that “the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” God’s Spirit is the agent of his conception, “as is appropriate in the new creation.”11 Put another way, the power of God “overshadows” Mary, just as the cloud settled on the tabernacle in the wilderness, so that it was filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:35). As the one begotten by God in this unique way, the child will be holy and divine. The Baptist predicts that only the one who comes after him, who is mightier than he is, will be able to baptize “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3:16). In the prophetic writings, “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit” can be both a means of cleansing (Isa 4:4; Jer 4:11–12) and a means of judgment (Isa 11:4; 29:6; 30:28; 57:13; Jer 13:24; 23:19; 30:23). Similarly, the refiner’s fire can purify precious metals while destroying the dross (Isa 1:25; 36:9; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2–3). John envisages the double effect of Messiah’s coming on

Cf. Turner, Power, 336–37. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 70. Marshall observes that Isa 32:15 may lie behind the phrase here, making it unlikely that the word “come upon” (ἐπελεύσεται) is used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The same verb is used of the coming of the Spirit upon people at Pentecost (Acts 1:8), but the context in Luke 1:35 implies a distinctly creative role for the Spirit. 10 11

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

199

Israel. As one mightily endowed with the Holy Spirit, he will cleanse the penitent and bring judgment on the godless (cf. 3:17).12 When “all the people” who responded to John’s preaching were baptized, Jesus himself submitted to baptism. As he was praying, “the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (3:21–22). The opening of the heavens signifies that a divine revelation is about to take place. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus marks him out as the promised deliverer (Isa 11:1–2; 42:1; 61:1).13 God’s multi-layered attestation alludes to him as the promised Servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1), the Son of David (Ps 2:7), and as his only or “beloved” Son (ἀγαπητός, as in Gen 22:2, 12, 16; cf. Luke 20:13).14 God delights in his Son, whom he has appointed to be the Servant Messiah. The Spirit anoints and equips him for this task, as set forth in biblical prophecy. The Spirit then leads Jesus into the wilderness to confront the Devil (4:1). “Essentially this is a story about the beginnings of Israel’s restoration, a ‘New Exodus’ begun in her messianic representative through an ordeal/contest with Satan (in which Jesus emerges as the victorious Isaianic servant warrior).”15 He returns to Galilee, “in the power of the Spirit” (4:14), where he commences a task that

Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), 8–14, as modified by Turner, Power, 177–80, 183–86. 13 Marshall, Luke, 152, observes that the expression “bodily form” “stresses the reality of what was seen, whether by Jesus (Mark 1:10) or by John (John 1:32–34).” Although many suggestions have been made about the significance of “like a dove,” Marshall, Luke, 153–54, concludes that the reference is to the manner of the Spirit’s descent. Cf. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 161–62. 14 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 155–57. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 162–63, discusses the interplay between “beloved” and “chosen” (ἐκλεκτός) in various texts. Turner, Power, 429, notes that “Luke shows rather little interest in how the Spirit affected Jesus’ own religious life before God.” Luke 10:21 alone speaks of a psychological effect of the Spirit on Jesus. 15 Turner, Power, 204. Jesus was tested much as Israel was in the wilderness, but where Israel failed, Jesus proved faithful to God and to his revealed will. 12

200

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

includes the release of the Devil’s captives (4:18; cf. 4:33, 36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2, 29; 9:39, 42; 13:11, 16; Acts 10:38). In the Nazareth Discourse (4:16–30), Jesus declares himself to be the Spirit-anointed, eschatological prophet promised in Isaiah 61:1–2 (with words from Isaiah 58:6 added as an interpretive gloss: “to set at liberty those who are oppressed”).16 Luke highlights Jesus’ role as prophet, teacher and preacher (4:31–44; 13:33; 19:41– 48; 24:19). Jesus is greater than the Baptist because he fulfills the predictions of John and those who went before him (7:18–35). As “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (24:19), he not only preaches with unusual authority, but has “the power of the Lord with him to heal” (5:17). His mighty works cause people to glorify God and to claim: “A great prophet has risen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” (7:16). His role is not merely to announce the eschatological salvation of God, but by his ministry of preaching and mighty works to make its benefits available. Evangelizing “the poor” is the primary description of Jesus’ task (cf. 4:43; 7:22; 8:1). This is expounded in the clauses that follow: “to proclaim liberty to captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” The poor appear to be the people of Israel, “understood in terms of their great need of healing, understanding, forgiveness, freedom and peace; in short, their need of salvation.”17 Liberty or release (ἄφεσις) is to be enacted through proclamation; both a literal and a spiritualized application of the terms in Isaiah’s prophecy emerge in Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry: “spiritual restoration, moral transformation, rescue from demonic oppression, and release from illness and disability.”18

Turner, Power, 215–26, argues persuasively that the citation as we have it belongs fundamentally to Luke’s source, not to his own editorial activity. Cf. D. P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (SNTSU 6; Linz: Fuchs, 1982), 44–54. 17 Seccombe, Possessions, 66. Cf. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 197; Turner, Power, 250. 18 Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 202. Nolland rightly argues that the Jubilee release in the Isaiah texts is not simply spiritualized into the forgiveness of sins, “but neither can it be resolved into a program of social reform.” 16

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

201

Disciples and the Spirit As one filled with the Spirit for his earthly ministry, Jesus encourages his disciples to pray for the Holy Spirit (11:9–13). The giver of the Spirit here is clearly “the heavenly Father,” not yet Jesus himself (cf. Acts 2:33). The context suggests that the Spirit is “a prePentecost possibility available to some of Jesus’ followers. They could experience this beneficent ‘Spirit’ from God in answer to prayer, at least as divine empowerment against the demonic.”19 In a collection of sayings about acknowledging him publicly, Jesus warns about the danger of disowning him (12:8–10). He also warns that “everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” In Mark 3:28–30 and Matthew 12:31– 32, those who explain Jesus’ exorcisms as satanic, rather than the work of God’s Spirit, are particularly in view. In the Lukan context, however, blasphemy against the Spirit seems to include any denial of the Spirit’s operation in the ministry of Jesus and his disciples.20 Jesus goes on to promise his disciples that the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say when they are put on trial for their faith (12:11–12; cf. Matt 10:19–20; Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14–15). The Spirit at work in him will be evidenced in them as they acknowledge him publicly. As in 11:13, this could refer to a prePentecost availability of the Spirit, though Luke illustrates the fulfillment of this promise in the post-Pentecost narrative of Acts, especially with reference to Stephen (Acts 6:10). After his resurrection, Jesus opens the minds of his disciples to the Scriptures, explaining the significance of what has taken place and revealing what is yet to come (Luke 24:44–49). The suffering and resurrection of the Messiah make it possible for repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name “to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” In the first instance, these blessings will be proclaimed by those whom he identifies as “witnesses of these things.” Speaking indirectly about the Spirit, Jesus underTurner, Power, 340. Turner, Power, 255–59, argues against the view that Luke has affected changes to the sayings of Jesus in 12:10 and 11:20 because he thinks of the Spirit as exclusively enabling prophecy and cannot attribute exorcisms to the Spirit. 19 20

202

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

takes to send “the promise of my Father” upon them and tells them to “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” As he ascends into heaven, Jesus anticipates being the giver of that promised gift (“I am sending”). Conclusions to Luke’s Gospel “Luke’s portrait is dominated by his broader intention to portray the ministry of Jesus, and the Church which results, as the fulfillment of God’s promises savingly to restore his people Israel and make her a light to the nations.”21 Within this context, Jesus is first presented as the Spirit-conceived Son of God and Spiritempowered Servant Messiah, who brings the promised transformation through his ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. John the Baptist and other prophetic figures in Luke’s opening chapters point to Jesus as the one in whom all the promises of God are to be fulfilled.

THE TEACHING OF ACTS Before and after Pentecost, the Spirit is identified as the one who “spoke long ago” through prophetic figures in Scripture (Acts 1:16; 4:25; 28:25; cf. 7:51–52). Consistent with the picture painted in the Gospel of Luke, Peter acknowledges having recently experienced the Spirit of God at work in a new way in the ministry of Jesus (Acts 10:37–38; cf. 2:22). But he also testifies to the radical novelty of Pentecost for those who had been followers of Jesus (10:47; 11:17; cf. 2:14–21). So there is both continuity and discontinuity in the presentation and experience of Spirit-endowment “from the Gospel to Acts or from the Jewish Bible to Luke-Acts.”22 The Promises of Jesus The opening verses of Luke’s second volume repeat some of the themes in Luke 24, describing the same incidents in different terms. According to Acts 1:2, Jesus’ instruction to them at this time was “through the Holy Spirit.” The risen Lord offers himself as the “model of prophetic witness” for his witnesses in Acts, and, “at the 21 22

Turner, Power, 428. Hur, Dynamic Reading, 169–70.

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

203

same time, he becomes the core of the message that his witnesses are represented proclaiming to the ends of the earth.”23 Jesus makes two related promises, which are critical for understanding the narratives to follow. First, he reiterates in an abbreviated fashion the Baptist’s claim that the one coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit, applying the outcome directly to the disciples and saying that it would be fulfilled in Jerusalem “in a few days” (1:4–5; cf. Luke 3:16).24 As in Luke 24:49, Jesus calls the Spirit “the promise of the Father,” but true to the Baptist’s prediction, Peter later declares that the ascended Lord Jesus has “received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (2:33). Secondly, Jesus promises that his disciples will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on them, enabling them to be his witnesses, “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8; cf. Luke 24:48–49). Several things are immediately obvious from these pronouncements. First, the giving of the Spirit is in some sense the giving of God himself to believers (cf. 16:7, “the Spirit of Jesus”), with the implication that this effects a new relationship between God and his people, in fulfillment of his ancient promises (e.g., Isa 32:15; 59:21; Ezek 36:26–27; Joel 2:28–32; cf. Jer 31:31–34).25 Second, the coming of the Spirit upon the apostles (1:8) is equivalent to being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (1:5). Third, the word Hur, Dynamic Reading, 189. The version of the promise in Acts 1:5 does not include “and with fire” (cf. Luke 3:16). Perhaps this reflects the fact that Jesus, as Servant of the Lord, suffers on behalf of his people; “the fire is kindled on him; he is baptized with the messianic baptism of others; he drains the cup of wrath which was the portion of others” (Dunn, Baptism, 43; cf. Turner, Power, 186–87). So after his baptism of suffering (12:49–50), Jesus baptizes his disciples with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). 25 D. W. Pao has argued that Luke evokes Isaiah’s new exodus program throughout Acts (Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus [WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr, 2000; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 112–42). The post-exilic picture of salvation described by Isaiah (and shared by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Joel) indicates that before God’s people can be a light to the nations, they must be transformed into a people of righteousness. An outpouring of God’s Spirit is critical to this transformation. 23 24

204

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

“power” is used with reference to miracles in 2:22; 3:12; 4:7; 8:13; 10:38; and 19:11; but in 4:33 and 6:8–10 it includes power to speak boldly. In view of what follows, the power that is promised in 1:8 is essentially for the task of being Christ’s witnesses, though this is not all that Acts teaches about the role of the Spirit in believers. Finally, the gift of the Spirit is a sign that God’s end-time restoration has begun, but since the Spirit is specifically given for the world-wide mission envisaged in 1:8, the “day of the Lord” and all that it entails is delayed (cf. 2:17–21). The Spirit and Believers The eschatological coming of the Spirit is described in terms of clothing (Luke 24:49), baptism (Acts 1:5; 11:16), coming upon (1:8; 19:6), falling upon (8:16; 10:44; 11:15), pouring out (2:17–18, 33; 10:45), reception (1:8; 2:38; 8:15, 17, 19; 10:47; 19:2), and filling (2:4; 9:17).26 These are complementary metaphors, used interchangeably in some contexts, and designed to express different aspects of the same experience. One should not be elevated above the others as an interpretive key to the rest. The Spirit’s empowering of Christ’s witnesses implies some sort of prophetic enabling, as the narrative in Acts 2:1–37 indicates. However, the witness of the Spirit involves more than inspired speech.27 In 5:30–32 the challenge to repent is based on the apostolic witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the witness of the Holy Spirit, “whom God has given to those who obey him.” In Acts 2–5, Luke illustrates the transforming effect of the Spirit’s presence in the Jerusalem church, resulting from the apostolic preaching about Jesus. Peter implies that the work of the Spirit in individuals and in the community of the Messiah is a divine endorsement of the claims made in 5:30–31. Jesus is truly the prom-

26 “Filling” can refer to the initial endowment of the Spirit, or to the special inspiration of a person for prophetic utterance, for preaching or for testimony to Christ in some other way (4:8, 31; 13:9, 52). Someone who is already filled with or full of the Spirit can receive a further filling or enabling for a particular ministry (4:31). 27 Turner, Power, 330, outlines different ways in which the narrative of Acts associates the Spirit with witness.

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

205

ised Leader and Savior of Israel, who has poured out the eschatological gift of the Spirit on his disciples. The gift of the Spirit brings an experiential knowledge of the ascended Lord Jesus and of salvation in the fellowship of his disciples (2:38–47). Indeed, the Spirit’s work to restore God’s people and mold the inner life of the church reverberates throughout the Acts narrative. Luke makes the Spirit’s role in the community of believers clear in various ways. For example, the lying of Ananias and Sapphira to the church in Jerusalem is said to be a sin against the Holy Spirit (5:1–9). After a period of severe persecution, the Spirit is instrumental in building or strengthening the church on a wide scale (9:31), enabling it to live in the fear of the Lord and go forward with encouragement or comfort. The Spirit endows and equips various individuals for ministry within, and between the churches (6:3; 11:28; 20:28). The Spirit guides the Jerusalem Council to make a decision that will enable Jews and Gentiles to live and work together in the churches (15:28–29). Even when not explicitly identified as such, the Spirit’s work may be assumed in summaries of church life and ministry such as 2:42–47 and 4:32–37.28 The Significance of Pentecost Luke is the only New Testament (NT) writer to describe the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and portray this as a decisive event in salvation history. The uniqueness of Pentecost is indicated by the “sound like a mighty rushing wind,” “divided tongues as of fire,” and the ability of those filled with the Spirit to speak in other tongues and be understood (2:2–4, 6–11). There is no indication that these particular phenomena were ever repeated. Nevertheless, each subsequent reference to the Spirit in Acts must be interpreted in the light of this foundational event. Hur also notices that as the plot of Luke-Acts develops, so do the functions of the Holy Spirit: on the one hand, references to the Spirit function to verify group characters as incorporated into God’s people; and on the other, the Spirit is employed in relation to the lifeCf. M. Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Turner, Power, 341–43. Turner rightly acknowledges secondary missiological effects from these activities. 28

206

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS situations of believers in settled communities by granting them charismatic gifts, or comforting and encouraging them or initiating forms of patriarchal leadership. 29

Pentecostal scholarship has tended to regard the Spirit’s coming upon the disciples at Pentecost, and then upon the Samaritans (8:14–17), the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (10:44–48), and twelve “disciples” in Ephesus (19:1–7), as providing a paradigm for everyone to experience Spirit-baptism in addition to conversion. The aim of such an experience is said to be prophetic empowerment for mission.30 However, Turner has argued extensively for a broader, soteriological view of the Spirit’s work in Acts, so that with the ascension of Christ, the gift of the Spirit becomes “the key to the ongoing presence and intensification of the salvation/kingdom of God which the disciples began to experience through Jesus’ ministry.”31 The Spirit is given as much to create life in the kingdom—conversion, transformation, and relationship building—as for the numerical growth of the kingdom—through prophetic ministry and missionary outreach. According to Luke’s Gospel, the disciples had recognized, enjoyed and preached the in-breaking kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus. They experienced God’s rule in following Jesus and under the influence of the Spirit working through him. But his death and then his ascension posed the problem of how they would continue to experience the powers of the new age shaping their existence. Acts 2 indicates that the answer to their needs was Hur, Dynamic Reading, 281. Cf. R. P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994; repr. London: T&T Clark, 2004). J. M. Penney, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), presents a modified Pentecostal view. 31 M. M. B. Turner, “The Spirit and Salvation in Luke-Acts,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins (ed. G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, and S. C. Barton; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 115, reflecting the argument of some of his previous works. Cf. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 152–58. R. P. Menzies offers an extensive criticism of Turner’s approach (The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to LukeActs [JSNTSup 54; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 205–79). Menzies’ treatment of Acts 2:38–39 is significantly weak. 29 30

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

207

the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, viewed in terms of Joel’s prophecy. But the outcome was not simply ecstatic speech, inspired preaching or predictive prophecy. The Spirit is more fundamentally portrayed by Luke in terms of Jewish thinking about the “Spirit of prophecy” being the organ of communication between God and his people.32 The “Spirit of Prophecy” As in the OT, the Spirit’s presence is associated in Acts with dreams, visions, ecstatic speech, prayer and praise, and words that formed the basis of prophetic utterance and preaching. All of these things belong to the category of what Turner calls “prophetism.” But it must also be noted that Joel’s emphasis on seeing visions and dreaming dreams was a way of predicting what Jeremiah 31:31–34 also anticipated. In the last days God would enable all his people (“from the least of them to the greatest”) to know him as Moses and the prophets knew him.33 Such knowledge would lead to a transformation of behavior and relationships. There would be a “democratization” of access to God, making it possible for all to call on the Lord for salvation and to enjoy his deliverance (cf. Joel 2:32). Covenant faithfulness would be the outcome of this spiritual renewal of the people of God. Reading Joel’s prophecy in the light of Acts as a whole, it appears that Christian prophesying in its various manifestations is the means of giving expression to that relational knowledge of God Cf. M. M. B. Turner, “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power of Israel’s Restoration and Witness,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 330–37; Turner, Power, 82–138. Luke evidently regards “the promise” made to believers (2:38–39) to be “a christianised version of Joel’s ‘Spirit of prophecy’” (p. 335). Turner thus concludes that Luke does not synthesize some more composite “promise of the Spirit” by adding other OT prophecies of the eschatological Spirit. However, see my comments on the echoes of Jer 31:31–34 in Acts 2. 33 In the OT, prophetic gifting is the privilege of the few who mediate the knowledge of the Lord to the people (e.g., Num 11:16–30; 1 Sam 10:6; 19:20; 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Chron 12:18; 2 Chron 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). Joel transforms Moses’ wish that “all the Lord’s people were prophets” (Num 11:29) into a formal prediction. 32

208

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

made possible through the Spirit. It involves bringing others to the same experience of God, through bold and effective proclamation of Christ. It also makes possible the edification of the church. In Acts 2:38–39, the gift of the Spirit is promised to all whom the Lord our God will call to himself, who respond to the preaching of the gospel by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The purpose of water baptism is to receive the New Covenant promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit works through the preaching of the gospel to bring people to faith, and in turning to the Lord Jesus for salvation they receive the fullness of the Spirit, as promised. Acts 2:38– 39 establishes the normal expectation of the apostles for those who believe the gospel. It is as if the two elements of Jeremiah 31:34 are being offered together: a definitive forgiveness of sins accompanied by a profound transformation of Israel’s relationship with God, made possible by the gift of his Spirit (cf. Ezek 36:26–27).34 The experience of being Jesus’ disciples for several years and subsequently receiving the Spirit is not set forth in Acts as the pattern for others. The disciples experienced the transition of the ages, as they witnessed the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, followed by Pentecost. But the expectation of Acts 2:38–39 is that those who respond to their preaching of the gospel with repentance and faith receive the blessings of a relationship with the exalted Christ immediately. There is no hint of a need for the regenerative work of the Spirit, followed by a second experience of empowerment for ministry and mission. Turner rightly argues that the advent of “the Spirit of prophecy” does not create a special class of spiritually gifted or empowered Christians over against others: Rather, it brings to each the means of receiving not only “communion with the Lord” viewed generally, but also the same concretely specified in charismata of heavenly wisdom 34 Menzies (Early Christian Pneumatology, 225–26) argues that it is inappropriate to link the prophecies of Joel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel because this was rarely done in Jewish literature. However, NT interpreters are bound to relate such eschatological prophecies when the context allows for it and other NT writings point to the appropriateness of such a link. Cf. Dunn, Baptism, 47–49.

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

209

and knowledge. These may inform the teacher, guide the missionary, lead in individual decisions, give diagnosis to the pastor, “irresistible wisdom” and power to the preacher, or be related as prophecy to the congregation or other individuals. The “power” received by the apostles (cf. Acts 1:8) was not something in addition to Joel’s promised gift, but precisely an intense experience of some of the charismata which are part and parcel of the operation of the Spirit as Joel’s promised Spirit of prophecy.35

Equivalent possession of the Spirit of prophecy does not necessitate equivalent roles for everyone. Only some are designated as “prophets” in Acts (11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9–10), though the Spirit enables a wide range of people to engage in different types of prophetic ministry (e.g., Stephen and Philip [6:5, 8–10; 8:5–8]; ordinary believers engaged in evangelistic outreach [8:4; 11:19–21]). Paul is different from Agabus (11:28) in his level of prophetic authority and significance, as is Peter when compared with Judas and Silas (15:7–11, 32). Sequels to Pentecost The particular displays of charismata at Pentecost and when the Spirit was received by the Samaritans (8:14–17), the Gentiles (10:44–46), and the twelve Ephesian disciples (19:1–7), were “appropriate divine attestations of the beginning of the whole postascension Christian work of the Spirit.”36 Outpourings of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost were critical moments in the unfolding of God’s saving purposes, involving a movement outwards from Jerusalem to new people groups, as predicted and outlined in Acts 1:8. They cannot be taken as universal paradigms for individual experience.37

35

M. M. B. Turner, “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now,” VE 15 (1985):

51. Turner, “Spiritual Gifts,” 52. Turner, “Spirit of Prophecy,” 338–39, points out that “the only passage which postpones the gift of the Spirit to a point discernibly later than Christian baptism is Acts 8:12–17, and 8:16 implies that this was exceptional (the notice would be redundant if the Spirit were normally given subsequent to baptism).” Water baptism and the gift of the Spirit 36 37

210

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Samaria The visit of Peter and John was a response to the news that “Samaria had received the word of God” (8:14).38 Even so, when they arrived they perceived that the Spirit “had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:15–16). In view of the promise in 2:38–39, this is clearly an unusual outcome. The impartation of the Spirit through prayer and the laying on of hands (8:17) further highlights the oddity of the situation. Since the exalted Christ is the giver of the Spirit (2:33), the delay in imparting the Spirit to the Samaritans cannot be explained in terms of any human failure, either by Philip as the evangelist or by the Samaritans. A divine purpose must be discerned. The narrative in 8:14–17 should be compared with what is later said about the incorporation of the Gentiles into the church (10:44–48; 11:15–18). The need for Jewish apostles to witness the giving of the Spirit in both contexts appears to be related to the historic, cultural and religious divisions between Jews and other nations.39 The Spirit was withheld from the Samaritans until the coming of Peter and John, “in order that the Samaritans might be seen to be fully incorporated into the community of Jerusalem Christians who had received the Spirit at Pentecost.”40 Ancient barriers were broken down as people came to a common faith in Jesus as Lord and Messiah. The giving of the Spirit in a way that could be are then linked together again in the narrative of Saul’s conversion (9:17– 18). 38 The sweeping reference to Samaria here is interesting because Luke knows that there are many more Samaritan villages that need to hear the gospel (8:25). He is drawing attention to the fact that Samaritans as a race or culture have embraced the gospel in this first city visited by Philip. 39 Hur, Dynamic Reading, 241, observes that in 8:14–17 Luke as narrator “confirms Philip’s mission through the reliable characters’ co-work (i.e. praying and laying on of hands) of the apostles (sent from Jerusalem) and God’s sending the Spirit.” 40 I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 157, following G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 1967), 70–72. Cf. Turner, Power, 374; B. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 289.

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

211

outwardly discerned was a sign that these “outsiders” shared the same New Covenant relationship with God, whatever their background.

Cornelius and his household In Acts 10, various forms of supernatural guidance bring Peter and his associates to preach to Cornelius and his Gentile household and offer them salvation in Christ on the same basis as Jewish believers. While Peter was offering them the forgiveness of sins through Jesus, “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (10:44). Luke then emphasizes that “the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles,” who were “speaking in tongues and extolling God” (10:45–46). Their experience was similar enough to Pentecost for Peter to say, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47). No other supernatural signs are noted and there is no indication that their speaking in tongues was the same as the phenomenon recorded in Acts 2. But the obvious impartation of the Spirit to this small group of Gentiles appeared to be an extension of Pentecost or a different manifestation of the same gift. Nevertheless, when Peter returned to Jerusalem, “the circumcision party” criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (11:2–3). Peter responded by explaining how God had led him to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his household and then to enjoy their hospitality (11:4–17). His recounting of the story concludes with a reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles, which recalled for him both the experience of the first Jewish believers at Pentecost and the promise of the Lord about its significance. When God gave to Gentiles the same gift he gave to believing Jews it was a clear sign of their acceptance on an equal footing, confirming the message of the threefold vision given to Peter (cf. 10:15, 28). No one makes any further objection when Peter has defended his actions (11:18), but there were probably some who remained uneasy about the situation. Jewish believers soon expressed different views on the incorporation of Gentiles into the church (15:1– 5), making it necessary for the Jerusalem Council to revisit the issue (15:6–21). For the third time in Luke’s narrative, Peter’s preaching

212

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

to Gentiles is recounted and the significance of the gift of the Spirit is highlighted: “God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith” (15:8–9). The gift of the Spirit was a witness to the Gentiles themselves that they were accepted by God. Indirectly, it was also a testimony to Jews who had received the same Spirit through believing in Jesus that Gentiles were united with them in the New Covenant community. Gentiles, who were previously unclean because they lacked the purifying benefits of the law, were cleansed because God enabled them to believe the gospel and receive the forgiveness it offers. Unity amongst Christians at the experiential level is located in the faith which God makes possible, and not simply in the gift of the Spirit, which is represented here as a testimony to saving faith.

The Ephesian Disciples The twelve “disciples” whom Paul met in Ephesus had received John’s baptism, but did not understand the purpose of John’s mission. They needed to grasp where Jesus fitted into the picture, to be baptized in his name, and to receive the promised Holy Spirit (19:1–7). “They represent a degenerate form of John’s heritage, from the viewpoint of Paul and the narrator. Even so, John’s heritage helped lead them to recognize what they had missed.”41 Noting in particular that Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2), some argue that the aorist participle πιστεύσαντες refers to Christian conversion.42 A parallel is observed with the experience of the Samaritan believers in 8:14–16, who believed the gospel but did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John prayed for them and laid hands on them. R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (vol. 2 of The Acts of the Apostles; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 234. 42 Menzies (Early Christian Pneumatology, 271) takes “disciples” to mean Christians, and reads the aorist participle in a sequential sense (“after you believed”). However, it is more likely that the participle is used in a coincidental or circumstantial way (cf. Dunn, Baptism, 86–87; D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 622–25). 41

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

213

These passages are taken together to build a case for a postconversion experience of the Spirit being normative. However, the parallel with Acts 8 is significantly diminished when it is noted that the Samaritans had received Christian baptism, but the Ephesian disciples had only received John’s baptism (19:3). Moreover, when asked by Paul, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?,” the Ephesian disciples answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Their answer showed that they were definitely not Christians.43 Since Luke employs the term μαθητής with reference to disciples of John the Baptist (Luke 5:33; 7:18; 11:1), that could be the meaning here. If such a group existed in Ephesus, several decades after Pentecost, their failure to join the Christians in celebrating the fulfillment of John’s prophecies would have been confusing and disconcerting. Luke goes on to record the only instance of rebaptism in the NT (19:5), highlighting the unusual nature of the recipients and their situation. Marshall rightly argues that, it would be wrong to conclude from this incident that people today who did not receive the Spirit at their baptism (whether as infants or adults) ought to be rebaptised in order to receive the Spirit; the characteristic and essential feature of the ceremony of Christian baptism is that it is performed in the name of Jesus, and the chronological relation of the gift of the Spirit to the actual rite is unimportant, as the varied order in Acts demonstrates (before baptism: 10:47; at baptism: 2:38; 8:38f.; after baptism: 8:15f.).44

When Paul had laid his hands on them, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (19:6).45 Apart from the narrative about the Samaritans (8:15–17), It is surprising that anyone who knew the Scriptures could say “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” It is particularly puzzling that people who had received John’s baptism could be ignorant of his teaching on this subject. When they “believed,” they apparently did not appropriate this vital aspect of his legacy. As a fringe group on the edge of Judaism, they needed to come into the full experience of the Messianic salvation that Paul wished to proclaim in Ephesus. 44 Marshall, Acts, 307. 45 Luke’s description in 19:6 recalls the promise of 1:8 (“come upon”), the reference to “tongues” in 2:4, and the prediction of Joel 2:28–29 43

214

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

this is the only account in Acts where the laying-on of hands is specifically linked with the coming of the Spirit. It is “the climax of a single ceremony whose most important element is baptism, and whose object is the reception of the Spirit.”46 They became Christians and were empowered for Christian life and ministry by a single endowment of the Spirit. But why did the Ephesian disciples collectively experience the phenomena of tongues and prophecy when most other converts in Acts apparently did not? At one level, it was the appropriately dramatic inauguration of Paul’s ministry in this city, where God’s Spirit would be remarkably at work, opposing the power of magic and false religion, and winning many to Christ throughout the region.47 At another level, it was specifically related to the identity and need of these particular men. As those influenced in some way by the ministry of John the Baptist, they were brought collectively into the community “established by Jesus and his disciples through the Spirit.”48 In salvation-historical terms, they were a transitional group, whose full incorporation into the church needed to be openly demonstrated.

CONCLUSION TO ACTS Acts does not imply that there should be a “Pentecost experience” for every believer, since Pentecost was a unique event in salvation history. Even subsequent outpourings of the Spirit on different people-groups in Acts are not the same as that foundational event. about prophesying, suggesting an extension of the Pentecost experience to this particular group. 46 Dunn, Baptism, 87. Dunn makes the further point that, “when Paul learned that they had not received the Spirit he immediately inquired after their baptism, not their faith, and not any other ceremony.” 47 So Turner (Power, 396) suggests that, “Luke may well have considered the initial outburst of charismata to be a form of attestation and sign of encouragement to Paul that it was now the appropriate time for the important ministry based in Ephesus that was to follow.” Cf. Hur, Dynamic Reading, 260–62. 48 Turner, Power, 396. Carson (Showing the Spirit, 150) says that the tongues and prophecy “serve as the attestation to the Ephesian believers themselves of the gift of the Spirit that transfers them as a group from the old era to the one in which they should be living.”

THE PNEUMATOLOGY OF LUKE-ACTS

215

Such collective experiences of the Spirit include outward manifestations that are reminiscent of Pentecost for the purpose of showing the full incorporation of that people-group in the Messianic community. Nevertheless, Acts implies that the benefits of Pentecost must be appropriated by every single believer. This happens when people turn to Jesus as Savior and Lord and become members of the body that the Spirit brought into being at Pentecost. In so doing, they take to themselves the birthright of Christ’s body, which is the Spirit himself.49 The Spirit fundamentally communicates the blessings of a relationship with God through faith in Christ. The Spirit then works through those who have turned to the Lord Jesus, enabling them to communicate salvation to unbelievers and to make disciples. Believing communities are established by the Spirit, in which gifted individuals minister to one another to edify and grow the church. Together with angels, heavenly voices and visions, the Spirit initiates new phases of mission, and oversees the direction of mission (8:29, 39; 10:19, 44; 13:2–4; 16:6–10). The Spirit establishes and preserves unity between different racial and cultural groups in the church (8:14–17; 11:12, 15–18),50 providing guidance in important ecclesial and personal decisions (6:1–7; 15:12, 28–29, 32; 20:22–24, 28). As the Spirit imparts wisdom and knowledge of the risen Lord, he effects changes in the life of believers on a communal, as well as on an individual level.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970. Hur, Ju. A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

49 D. J. Williams rightly observes that “when we become Christians, we participate in the baptism with the Spirit that uniquely took place on that day so long ago” (Acts [GNC; San Francisco: Harper, 1985], 26). 50 Hur observes that “the Spirit’s direct speeches and actions are noticeably highlighted in relation to the witness-mission to non-Jews” (Dynamic Reading, 283). Cf. 8:29, 39; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2–4; 15:28; 16:6–7.

216

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Turner, M. Max B. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPTSup 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Turner, M. Max B. “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power of Israel’s Restoration and Witness.” Pages 327–48 in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS: JESUS IN EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF AND PRACTICE Larry W. Hurtado

Although Acts is typically (and justifiably) seen by scholars as the second volume of a two-part work by one author and with a unified purpose, “Luke-Acts,” it is appropriate to consider Acts in its own right as to its theological emphases.1 Certainly, the author’s Christian outlook prompted and in various ways shaped his story of Jesus in the first volume of his work. So, for instance, with a distinctive frequency among the four Evangelists, the author of GLuke refers to Jesus as “the Lord,” reflecting the dominant title by which in Acts he also portrays early Christians referring to Jesus (e.g., Luke 7:13, 19; 10:1, 39, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5; 18:6; 19:8; 22:61), a matter to which we return later.2 Nevertheless, the E.g., the influential study by Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of LukeActs (London: Macmillan, 1927; repr., London: SPCK, 1961). More recent questioning of the unity of Luke-Acts is the focus of a multi-author volume: Andrew F. Gregory and C. Kavin Rowe, eds., Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2010). 2 I refer to the Evangelists by their traditional names without thereby taking a view of who the actual authors were. To distinguish between the traditional names of the authors of the Gospels and the texts that bear their names, I refer to the latter as GLuke, etc., except when I cite specific passages. GMatthew and GMark refer to Jesus as “the Lord” only in the account of Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem: Mark 11:3//Matt 1

217

218

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

author seems to have made an effort to maintain a certain distinction between the setting of Jesus’ ministry and the situation of the early churches after Jesus. As examples, the message of Jesus in GLuke (focused on the Kingdom of God, e.g., 8:1; 9:2) is distinguishable from the preaching of believers in the “post-Easter” setting of Acts, which is focused on Jesus’ significance, (e.g., 2:36; 4:12); people are not baptized in the name of Jesus in GLuke, whereas this is frequent in Acts. Moreover, the only time in GLuke where disciples worship (προσκυνεῖν) Jesus is after his resurrection (Luke 24:52).3 Certainly, in Acts the author openly aims to portray early Christian beliefs and activities, especially, of course, the geographical spread of the Christian witness about Jesus in a sprawling narrative that takes readers from Jerusalem and across numerous regions, winding up in Rome. So, however much the author’s Christian faith is reflected in GLuke, it is Acts that will give us the most direct indications of the author’s efforts to show the place of Jesus in the religious beliefs and practices that he affirms. Before we look at look at specifics, however, I offer a brief preliminary word about what data we will consider. Although in scholarly literature “Christology” more typically designates beliefs about Jesus (with a focus on the terminology used to express these beliefs), I maintain that there are two bodies of relevant data to consider. To be sure, we want to take account of beliefs about Jesus, the claims made about him and the terms used to express these claims/beliefs. But, for a fuller sense of the place of Jesus in the religious life of the author and earliest readers, we also need to consider what Acts tells us about early Christian devotional practices and how Jesus figured in these. In what follows, therefore, although I devote most of the discussion to Christological beliefs, we will look at both kinds of evidence. 21:3//Luke 19:31, 34. Except for only two instances (John 6:23; 11:2), in GJohn the title is reserved for the accounts of the risen Jesus: John 20:2, 13, 15, 18, 20, 25, 28. For a recent and vigorous proposal that GLuke subtly reflects the author’s elevated Christological emphases, see C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009). 3 The omission of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν (“they worshipped him”) in Codex D and some other witnesses is generally judged a secondary reading.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

219

CHRISTOLOGICAL BELIEFS/EXPRESSIONS As noted already, early in Acts the author conveys the focus of the text on the early testimony of Jesus’ followers about him. In 1:6–8, after deflecting his disciples’ question about when “you will restore the kingdom to Israel,” Jesus promises them empowerment from the Holy Spirit, by which they “will be my witnesses” from Jerusalem “to the ends of the earth.” In the ensuing narrative in Acts, however, there are various Christological terms and claims, as well as the differences of emphasis noted already between GLuke and Acts. Influenced by the notion that the author of this ambitious literary project (Luke-Acts comprises 25% of the entire New Testament) had his own particular theological standpoint and sought to advance it in this two-part narrative, some scholars have tried to identify a central and unifying Christological emphasis. In his 1996 monograph, Buckwalter critically surveyed eighteen such efforts, judging them all to fail in providing “a unified account” of Luke’s Christology. Undeterred, however, Buckwalter then proceeded to lay out his own proposal that Luke’s “main or controlling Christological concern” was to portray “the servanthood of the Lord Jesus,” contending that this “reconciles the Christological tension in Luke-Acts between Jesus’ sovereign Lordship and his apparent subordination to the Father.”4 Nevertheless, it is not clear that Buckwalter succeeded any more than those whom he cites. The particular “Christological tension” addressed by Buckwalter is one of several posited by others as well. Indeed, for some scholars, the variety of Christological expressions in Acts is judged not susceptible to a fully unifying effort. Moule, for example, contended that “the Christology of Acts is not uniform, whatever may be said to the contrary,” and that Luke’s own Christian outlook, which differed from that of GJohn and Paul, was “nearer, one may guess, to the ‘average’ Christian mentality than to that of these giants.”5 As another example, granting that Luke was “the primary 4 H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology (SNTSMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 6–24 for his review of proposals. Quoted phrases from 283. 5 C. F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 159–85, quotation 181.

220

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

architect of the Christological edifice of Acts,” and that this implies a certain “unity to the Christological perspective” of the text, George MacRae nevertheless warned against exaggerating this, for “not all the statements about Jesus in Acts are really harmonious.”6 On the one hand, scholars are now accustomed to think of the New Testament (NT) authors as each having theological concerns, and for some time it has been fashionable to portray them as advancing these concerns in their writings. On the other hand, Luke professes to have drawn upon a number of early Christian sources (Luke 1:1–4), and if to any significant degree he sought to register them in his own narrative that would likely have resulted in a certain diversity of emphasis. Moreover, in this same passage the author states that he seeks through his narratives of Jesus and the early church to assure his reader (“Theophilus”) about the teachings of Christian faith that he already knows, and he gives no indication of intending to revise or introduce some particular teachings of his own. In any case, numerous scholars recognize a diversity of Christological statements in Luke-Acts, making it difficult to posit a convincing single emphasis that distinguishes the work. One of the most provocative proposals alleging serious differences within Acts was offered by J. A. T. Robinson, who contended that in the speeches in the early chapters of Acts there are “points where their theology is demonstrably different from that of the editor of the work as a whole,” and that “these speeches contain at least two incompatible Christologies.”7 Noting the statement in Acts 2:36 that God’s resurrection of Jesus involved his present exaltation to heavenly glory as “both Lord and Christ,” Robinson argued that in Acts 3:12–26 we have a different and more primitive view in which the resurrected Jesus is “still only the Christ-elect,” and is to be fully installed as Messiah when God sends him again for the salvation of Israel, “embedded in the book of Acts like a fossil of a by-gone age.”8 6 George W. MacRae, “‘Whom Heaven Must Receive until the Time’: Reflections on the Christology of Acts,” Int 27 (1973): 151–65, citing 154. 7 John A. T. Robinson, “The Most Primitive Christology of All?,” JTS 7 (1956): 177–89, citing 177 (emphasis his). 8 Robinson, “Most Primitive Christology,” 180–81, the final quotation from 188.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

221

Robinson’s argument has not proven widely persuasive, but certainly some scholars, such as Stephen Wilson, have perceived a Christological diversity in Luke-Acts, judging that the author was “a somewhat indiscriminating collector of Christological traditions who transmits a variety of traditional terms and concepts without reflecting upon them individually or in conjunction with each other.”9 So, let us turn to the text of Acts to see for ourselves the nature and extent of the Christological beliefs it reflects. Christological Titles One of the common approaches to characterizing the Christology of NT authors is to note the “Christological titles” or honorific epithets for Jesus used. In Acts we have a rich variety of these, and for a few of them Acts is the unique NT witness to their usage.10 By far, the most frequently used Christological title in Acts is “the Lord” (ὁ κύριος, usually with the definite article), applied to Jesus some 70–75 times.11 In a number of cases, we find “the Lord Jesus” (4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11, 31; 19:5, 13; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13), in a few others “the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:17; 15:26; 28:31), and in one case (10:36), it is probably Jesus designated “the Lord of all.”12 But in most of the remaining cases where Jesus is the referent he is designated simply as “the Lord.”13 The primacy of 9 Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979), citing 79–80. For additional references to scholars who see a similar diversity, see Buckwalter, Character and Purpose, 4–5 n. 2. 10 See, e.g., Henry J. Cadbury, “The Titles of Jesus in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. V, Additional Notes (ed. F. J. F. Jackson and K. Lake; London: Macmillan, 1932; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966), 354–75. 11 Cf. Gerhard Schneider, “Gott und Christus als ΚΥΡΙΟΣ nach der Apostelgeschichte,” in Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1985), 213–26; J. D. G. Dunn, “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ in Acts,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift (ed. Christof Landmesser et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 363–78. 12 For discussion of whether the referent is God or Jesus, see, e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, Volume I (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 519–20. 13 There are eleven vocatives, where Jesus is addressed directly as “Lord” (κύριε; 7:59, 60; 9:10, 13; 10:4, 14; 11:8; 22:8, 10, 19; 26:15). Of

222

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

references to Jesus as “the Lord” corresponds to the usage of this term to designate Jesus in GLuke (e.g., Luke 7:13, 19; 10:1, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5–6; 18:6; 19:8, 31, 34; 22:61; 24:34), which is far more frequent than in the other Gospels. This same title is also applied to God in Acts ca. 20–25 times. In several cases, however, it is difficult to be sure whether the referent is God or Jesus; hence the approximate tallies given here. For example, in 5:19; 9:31; 12:11, 17, the referent is probably God but could be Jesus in one or more, and in 2:21; 8:25; 11:21; 13:2; 15:17 (the first of the two uses) and 16:14 I take the referent to be Jesus, but it is a judgment call.14 Along with this sharing of the title by God and Jesus, and the resulting ambiguity in some instances, there are cases where the referent is rather clearly Jesus but the expressions equally obviously derive from biblical/Jewish discourse about God. These include the references to “the word of the Lord” (Acts 8:25; 11:16; 13:48– 49; 15:35–36; 16:32), all (or nearly all) of which concern the gospel message about Jesus.15 Likewise, in 2:21, the Old Testament (OT) statement about calling “upon the name of the Lord” (from Joel 2:32) clearly refers here to Jesus. In some other sentences as well, Jesus features in ways that resemble references to God. Note, e.g., Acts 7:59–60, “Lord Jesus” in Stephen’s dying prayer-appeal, and 9:10–19, where “the Lord” (Jesus) appears to Ananias and directs him to receive and heal the blinded Saul. So, in Acts Jesus is foremost “the Lord” and is by far the most frequent referent for this title, which reflects a major “overlap” between Jesus and God in the discourse of the author, and probably in the devotional life reflected in Acts as well. The title is not applied to Jesus as the expense of God, so to speak, but instead is course, by itself this could be taken as simply a polite form of address (“Sir” or “Master”). But in the context of the other uses of “Lord” for Jesus, these vocatives are probably laden with additional meaning. 14 Cf. Schneider’s sometimes different judgments about various texts where the referent of “the Lord” is somewhat ambiguous, “Gott und Christus als kyrios,” 219–23. 15 The textual variants in a few of these (e.g., 8:25; 13:48; 16:32, in each of which some manuscripts have “word of God”) show that ancient readers found the statements ambiguous as to referent. I return to this later in this discussion.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

223

extended to Jesus in usage. In short, Jesus is incorporated (uniquely) within the referents-sphere of the title, sharing it with God, indicative of the dyadic re-shaping of discourse and devotional life characteristic of early Christian circles. Later in this discussion, we will notice other ways in which Jesus and God “overlap” or are directly linked in Acts. The next most frequent title is “Christ” (Greek: Χριστός= “anointed one,” translating “Messiah”; some 24 times). In twelve cases we find “Jesus Christ,” in four of which the full expression “Lord Jesus Christ” is used, the latter favored in scenes where fellow believers are addressed.16 But the remaining instances make it clear that for the author “Christ” really is a title that expresses Jesus’ messianic significance, which is an important emphasis in Acts. So, e.g., 2:36 declares that God made Jesus “both Lord and Christ,” thereby installing him in a role that now demands assent, and in various other instances Jesus is referred to as “his [God’s] Christ” (3:18) and “the Christ” (3:20; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23). In all of these, the narrative portrays Jews addressed, and so clearly Jesus is presented as Israel’s Messiah. Indeed, in 10:38, Peter refers to God as having “anointed” (ἔχρισεν) Jesus “with the Holy Spirit and power,” enabling him to perform healings and exorcisms, the verb here further showing the author’s familiarity with the connotation of “Christ.” “Son of God” appears only once in Acts (9:20), though there are two other texts where Jesus’ divine sonship is reflected (13:33, quoting Ps 2:7, and, probably, 20:28).17 It is noteworthy that in 9:20 and 20:28 the claim is ascribed to Paul addressing fellow Jews and in 13:33 fellow believers, and that Acts never presents Jesus’ divine sonship as featuring in proclamation to gentile unbelievers (cf., e.g., 10:34–43; 14:8–18; 16:25–34; 17:16–31). This suggests that for the author, as for Paul, Jesus’ divine sonship was not understood along the lines of the pagan background of divine/divinized heroes, and did not function to promote Jesus as such a one to people of pagan “Lord Jesus Christ” in Acts 11:17; 15:26; 20:21; 28:31; “Jesus Christ” in 2:30; 3:6; 4:10; 8:12; 9:34; 10:36, 48; 16:18. 17 Of the variants in 20:28, if “church of God” is preferred over “church of the Lord,” then the final Greek words (τοῦ ἰδίου) probably refer to Jesus as “his own Son.” 16

224

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

background. Instead, shaped by the OT references to divine sonship, and especially its application to the Davidic king (as in Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), referring to Jesus as God’s “Son” likely functioned to ascribe to Jesus this royal/messianic significance.18 The Greek word Ναζωραῖον (“the Nazarene”) is applied to Jesus in several places in Acts (2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 22:8; 26:9). Jesus is called “the Nazarene” several times also in the Gospels, but not elsewhere in the NT (or in the Apostolic Fathers or early Apologists such as Justin Martyr).19 The term probably originated through Jesus’ connection with Nazareth, but seems to have become a particular designation of him, and then (in plural form) of his followers also (as reflected in 24:5).20 But the term seems not to have figured much in early Christian discourse, and hardly at all as a “Christological title.” Its usage in Acts probably reflects the author’s desire to convey something of the linguistic “color” of the early scenes of Jewish-setting discourse that he portrays. There are other terms applied to Jesus in Acts that similarly reflect the author’s effort to convey what are likely authentic features of early Jewish-Christian discourse. Among these terms is “the righteous/just one” (ὁ δίκαιος), by which Jesus is designated in 7:52 and 22:14, and also in 3:14 in the slightly fuller expression “the holy and righteous one.” The use of the term with the definite article suggests that in these instances it is to be taken as a title and not simply an adjective. We probably have the term used also in 1 This may also be reflected in the Lukan version of the centurion’s statement in the crucifixion scene (Luke 23:47), “this man was righteous/innocent” (δίκαιος). Cf. Mark 15:39, “son of God.” The other Lukan instances (1:36; 4:3, 9, 41; 22:70) likewise all probably reflect this OT/Jewish background. On references to Jesus’ divine sonship in the Gospels, see D. R. Bauer, “Son of God,” DJG, 769–75; and for Pauline usage see L. W. Hurtado, “Son of God,” DPL, 900–906. 19 Ναζωραῖος is also applied to Jesus in the Gospels (Matt 2:23; 26:71; Luke 18:37; John 18:5, 7; 19:19), as is Ναζαρηνός, which is probably to be taken as an alternate form of the epithet (Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 4:34; 24:19). See, e.g., H. Kuhli, “Ναζαρηνός, Ναζωραῖος,” EDNT 2: 454–56. 20 Petri Luomanen, “Ebionites and Nazarenes,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. M. Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 81–118. 18

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

225

Enoch 38:2 (and also “the Righteous and Elect One” in 53:6) designating the messianic figure of the “Similitudes” in this composite book. This may mean that “the Righteous One” was, to some degree, in circulation in ancient Jewish messianic expectations, and so Jewish believers applied it to Jesus.21 Yet another title applied to Jesus in Acts that seems to stem from early circles of Jewish believers is the Greek word παῖς, which can mean “servant” or “child” (3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). The first two instances are in a speech to fellow Jews ascribed to Peter, and the latter two are in a prayer ascribed to Jewish believers. From other uses in the NT (Matt 12:18; Luke 1:54, 69; Acts 4:25) and OT and later Jewish texts it appears that the term was used for Moses, the prophets, the righteous, Israel, and David, any of whom can be called God’s “servant.”22 From these very positive usages in Jewish tradition, including also key OT passages (esp. Isa 42:1), references to Jesus as God’s παῖς connoted a high status. Indeed, the application of the term to David in particular (Acts 4:25) suggests that παῖς could sometimes carry a royal-messianic flavor in particular. Although the term survived as a Christological title in some limited uses in later texts, especially in material exhibiting the influence of liturgical tradition (e.g., 1 Clem. 59:2–4; Did. 9:2–3; 10:2–3; Diogn. 8:9, 11; 9:1; Mart. Pol. 14:1), it seems to have been superseded by “Son of God” (υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ). Perhaps gentile Christians, for whom “servant of God” was not such a treasured category, found παῖς insufficiently exalted as a title for Jesus. It is interesting that, as noted, in Acts the term is applied to Jesus only in the early chapters focused on Jerusalem and earliest Jewish Christians. Other expressions reflective of Jewish eschatological hopes applied to Jesus include “the coming one” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος), in Acts 19:4 (and also Luke 7:19–20//Matt 11:3), and the related claims that Jesus is the (final?) prophet promised by Moses (Acts 3:22–26; 21 On the term in 1 Enoch, see Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 195; and cf. also the description of the messianic king in Pss. Sol. 17:32. 22 Israel (e.g., Isa 41:8–9; 42:1; 43:10; 44:1–2), Moses (Bar 1:20; 2:28), the OT prophets (Bar 2:20), the righteous (Wis 2:13; 9:4–5; 19:6). Note also “my servant, the Messiah” in 2 Bar. 70:10. For further discussion of the term, see Cadbury, “Titles,” 364–70.

226

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

7:37; referring to Deut 18:15–19). We should probably also include “savior” (σωτήρ; Acts 5:31; 13:23; also Luke 2:11), a term also applied to God in Luke 1:47 (echoing biblical tradition).23 Likewise, the Greek term ἀρχηγός (“leader”), applied to Jesus in Acts only in speeches ascribed to Jewish Christians in 3:15 (“the leader of life”) and 5:31 (“leader and savior”), draws on the numerous uses of this term in the Greek OT (mainly for leaders of Israel). That the term appears elsewhere in the NT only in Hebrews (2:10; 12:2) suggests that Acts and Hebrews reflect an ancient Christological expression that did not persist in Christian discourse. In sum, two major observations about the Christological titles/terms used in Acts. First, we note the variety, suggesting that the author sought to represent a certain spectrum of early Christian Christological expressions and affirmations. Secondly, the author seems to have aimed to reflect specifics of the Christological discourse of various circles of believers and in various settings. Thus, for example, in the narratives set in Jerusalem and in speeches directed to Jewish audiences the author uses terms that rather clearly seem to derive from very early Jewish-Christian circles and modes of Christological discourse. As noted, some of these terms dropped out of Christian discourse as the Christian movement became dominantly gentile, and by the time of the writing of Acts some or all of these terms may already have been somewhat archaic. So, (contrary to the assumptions of some scholars), the author may have been more concerned to reflect his sources of information about early Christological statements than to assert some distinctive Christological teaching of his own. Subordinate and Exalted In addition to the rich variety of Christological titles, another interesting feature of Luke-Acts is what some have judged as the tension between certain statements (esp. in GLuke) that reflect a view of Jesus as Messiah and Lord from his conception onward (e.g., Luke 1:32–35; 2:11), and other statements (esp. in Acts) that refer to his resurrection as the point when God exalted him to heavenly

23 God is referred to as “savior” in the Greek OT numerous times, e.g., Deut 32:15; Pss 23(24):5; 24(25):5; 26(27):1.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

227

glory and “made [ἐποίησεν] him Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).24 Also, as noted earlier, GLuke refers to Jesus of Nazareth as “the Lord” with a distinctive frequency, which indicates that the author regarded the earthly Jesus as worthy of this majestic title. Yet other statements both in GLuke and Acts refer to Jesus as a human figure through whom God worked powerfully (e.g., Acts 2:22–24). Indeed, in some cases within the immediate context we find almost side by side statements that seem to carry different Christological emphases, such as Acts 10:34–43, where Jesus is referred to as “the Lord of all” (v. 36) and also then as God’s anointed and empowered figure who went about working miracles “for God was with him” (v. 38).25 The author clearly affirms all these ways of referring to Jesus, and likely saw no conflict or serious tension among them. We should always assume this, for any author, unless the evidence requires us to think otherwise; and so the first interpretive task is to try to perceive how a given author probably held together ideas that may seem to us somewhat dissonant. We are most likely to find the answer in this particular instance by beginning with the recognition that for the author of Luke-Acts Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly exaltation by God is foundational, both for the subsequent proclamation of the gospel and also for all else that he holds about Jesus’ significance. So, e.g., in Acts the key task of the Twelve is to be witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1:21–22; also 4:33). In speeches to Jews and Gentiles, Jesus’ resurrection (which is taken also as his glorification) is the crucial claim upon which rest the call to repentance and the offer of forgiveness of sins and full salvation (e.g., 3:13–16; 4:8–12; 5:30– 32; 10:36–43; 13:26–39; 17:30–31). That is, God’s resurrection of Jesus involved installing him fully as the regnant “Lord and Christ” who is now openly proclaimed as such, and in whom uniquely salvation is offered. But it is also clear that this author believed that the messianic exaltation of Jesus simply fulfilled what had been divinely ordained 24 See also, e.g., Acts 3:13. We have a similar statement in Luke 24:26, which refers to Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies that Messiah was to suffer “and then enter into his glory.” 25 “Lord of all” likely here means all people, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles. So, e.g., Cadbury, “Titles,” 362, who cites comparable expressions used for God in ancient Jewish texts.

228

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

for him all along, and laid out prophetically in the OT, as is affirmed in the statement ascribed to the risen Jesus in Luke 24:25– 27. In this passage, Jesus as Messiah suffers and then “enter[s] into his glory,” and in 24:44–47 there is a similar emphasis on the fulfillment of Scriptures in Jesus’ death and resurrection. This does not, however, in any way reduce the significance of these events, but instead underscores them as the new and decisive expression of divine purposes, and powerful confirmations of Jesus’ status. In Luke 1:32–35, the angel declares that God will give to Jesus “the throne of his ancestor David,” and that Jesus “will be called Son of God,” both statements in future tense. So, although the angelic announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:11 refers to Jesus as “a savior, who is Messiah, the Lord,” for this author Jesus is fully installed as such in God’s resurrection and exaltation of him. To be sure, in GLuke Jesus of Nazareth came with divine authority and divine recognition as God’s Son (e.g., 3:21–22), and in various ways the earthly Jesus’ messianic identity is a theme (e.g., recognized by Simeon, demons, and Peter, 2:26–32; 4:41; 9:20; a key charge of Jesus’ accusers, 22:67; 23:2; the mockery at the cross, 23:35, 39; and then affirmed by the risen Jesus, 24:26, 46). But for this author there was also a strong sense in which Jesus’ full and open investiture as Lord and Messiah, with a previously unimagined larger dimension to his status, came in his resurrection. So, on the one hand, in light of God’s resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, this author treats Jesus retrospectively in the GLuke as rightfully Messiah from his birth onward. On the other hand, God’s resurrection of Jesus has now more fully conferred and ratified his exalted status, even beyond previous messianic expectations and hopes, and this new divine affirmation of Jesus authorizes the bold proclamation of it in Acts, with all the redemptive consequences that it offers. What some have seen as a “tension” in the author’s various Christological statements is probably more accurately understood as an expression of his fundamental conviction that God’s resurrection of Jesus both confers on him a new and high role in the divine plan, precisely as the one in whose name salvation is now offered, and also casts a powerful light back on the

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

229

whole prior life of Jesus, showing him always to have borne uniquely divine approval and authority.26 Ascended and Active The vividness and materiality of the risen Jesus is a particular feature of the resurrection-appearance narratives in GLuke (e.g., 24:36–43), and there are similar qualities in the Acts account of Jesus’ ascension (1:6–11), where Jesus goes upward in a bodily form into a cloud and disappears from sight. Indeed, this account is unique to Acts, and the consequent emphasis on Jesus’ heavenly ascent has sometimes been taken as reflecting a somewhat distinctive absence of Jesus in Acts.27 Certainly, Jesus’ ascension plays a role in Acts, and is alluded to several times, among them in 3:21, where Jesus is to remain in heaven “until the time of universal restoration” promised by God through OT prophets. Moreover, when Jesus is portrayed as acting directly in Acts, he does so from heaven, as in the appearances to Paul en route to Damascus (9:3–5; 22:6– 8; 26:12–15) and/or in visions (Paul’s in 22:17–18; 23:11; Ananias in 9:10). In other cases, an angel or the Spirit is the agency through whom directions and revelations come (e.g., 8:26, 29, 39; 11:27–28; 12:7–8; 13:2–4; 16:6–8; 20:23; 21:11; 27:23). But it is an exaggeration to allege an emphasis on Jesus’ absence in Acts.28 Instead, as Zwiep has argued, the ascension of Jesus likely functioned in close connection with the author’s belief in Jesus’ future return in glory (Jesus’ παρουσία, to use the Greek word).29 Cf. C. Kavin Rowe, “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 (2007): 37–56, who proposes reading 2:36 as expressing a timeless “making” of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, and argues that Acts 2:36 be interpreted in light of the references to Jesus as “Lord” in GLuke. For a different view, see Arie W. Zwiep, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God (WUNT 293; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010), esp. 139–56. 27 E.g., MacRae, “‘Whom Heaven Must Receive until the Time,’” esp. 157–60, who cites Moule’s reference to an “absentee Christology” in Acts (“The Christology of Acts,” 179–80). 28 Contra MacRae, “‘Whom Heaven Must Receive until the Time,’” 157–58. 29 Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997), and now, idem, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 38–67. 26

230

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

That is, probably drawing upon biblical stories of ascended OT worthies (e.g., Moses and Elijah), the author portrays Jesus as taken into heaven, from where he exercises executive authority on earth, and from whence he will return at the future consummation of the divine plan of redemption. As Zwiep contends, the author’s aim was to encourage readers to cope with waiting for this consummation by thinking of Jesus vividly as installed in heavenly glory and returning at a future time. That is, the vividness of Jesus’ ascension functioned to strengthen hope in the reality of his return, as expressed in the angelic words to the disciples in 1:11 that “this Jesus…will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (emphasis mine).30 The particular role of Jesus’ ascension (as distinguished from his exaltation to heavenly glory) is distinctive to Acts, but belief in his heavenly status and expectation of his return are attested in other NT texts (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:16; Rev 22:12). Moreover, Acts certainly presents the ascended Jesus as active and influential in the earthly events recounted. That is, though Jesus is to return in person in God’s good time, he is also now the focus of Christian witness and proclamation and is operative in directing and empowering believers in these matters. For example, it is the exalted and ascended Jesus who dispenses God’s Spirit to all who turn to him (2:33), and in 16:7 the author even refers to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Jesus,” indicative of the Spirit’s role as the agency of Jesus in directing Paul and his companions. Also, in the accounts of visions/appearances of Jesus previously cited, it is clear that these are to be taken as real and powerful actions of the heavenly Lord Jesus, as in the dramatic reorientation of Saul from opponent to advocate of Jesus on the Damascus Road. The Name of Jesus There are also expressions of Jesus’ power in earthly affairs in the numerous references to Jesus’ name in Acts. References to actions involving the name of Jesus are frequent, at least 31 times in Acts. For example, repeatedly in Acts, Christian baptism is specifically identified with reference to Jesus’ name, and likely involved the invoking of Jesus by name (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16), by which the person baptized was placed under Jesus’ authority and efficacy 30

Zwiep, Ascension, 180.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

231

in conveying forgiveness of sins.31 Likewise, healings and other miracles are worked through the power of Jesus’ name (3:6, 16; 4:10, 30; 16:18). But the author was obviously concerned to distinguish all this from magical practices, involving the use of powerful names, as is reflected in the amusing story of the itinerant Jewish exorcists who tried to use Jesus’ name and are set upon violently by a demoniac (19:13–20). The point of the story is that the power of Jesus’ name cannot be manipulated and is available only to those who call upon him in a relationship of faith. In a variety of other ways as well, Jesus’ name features in Acts with unusual prominence in comparison to other NT writings.32 The Jewish leaders command the apostles to cease teaching/speaking in Jesus’ name (4:17–18; 5:27–28, 40), and the apostles rejoice to be “considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name” (5:40). Philip’s proclamation to the Samaritans concerned “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12). The risen Jesus reveals that the recently converted Paul is chosen to “bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel,” and also to “suffer for the sake of my name” (9:15–16). After his conversion, Paul then speaks “boldly in the name of the Lord” (9:28), and later Paul and Barnabas risk their lives “for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:26). In 21:13, Paul declares his readiness “to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Everyone who believes in Jesus “receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43), and in one of the most forthright assertions in the NT Peter is portrayed as declaring that “there is no other name under heaven…by which we must be saved” (4:12). We return to devotional practices in Acts later in this discussion, but we should note here that Acts also reflects the invocation of Jesus by name as characteristic of and constitutive for Christian worship. Indeed, the author can simply designate believers as those 31 For full discussion, Lars Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). 32 To be sure, other NT texts reflect the prominence of Jesus’ name in early Christianity: e.g., Matt 7:20; 10:22, 41–42; 18:5, 20; Mark 9:37; 13:6; John 1:12; 14:13, 28; 15:16; 16:23; 1 Cor 5:4; 6:11; Phil 2:9–11). In comparative frequency of references to Jesus’ name, GJohn (12x) comes next after Acts.

232

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

who “call upon” Jesus’ name, as in the several references to the Jewish-Christian targets of persecution by the pre-converted Paul (9:14, 21; 22:16). In the speech set before the ruler Agrippa (26:1– 23), Paul describes his pre-conversion attitude as “convinced that I ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (26:9), and states that he tried to force Jewish believers to “blaspheme” (26:11), which likely refers to coercing them to denounce Jesus or pronounce an imprecation on him.33 It is noteworthy that thereafter Paul, too, refers to fellow Christians simply as “all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:2), a devotional practice he reflects also in Romans 10:9–13. In all these references to “calling upon the name” of Jesus, the phrasing (the Greek verb ἐπικαλέω + τὸ ὄνομα) is a deliberate appropriation of the OT expression, to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Joel 2:32; explicitly cited in Acts 2:21), which means to offer worship and to commit oneself to “the Lord.” In the appropriation reflected in these NT references, “the Lord” is obviously Jesus. Given ancient Jewish concerns about God’s uniqueness, especially in worship, this is quite simply an astonishing development that directly reflects the degree to which the risen Jesus was linked with God (the Father) in earliest Christian faith and devotional practice. This also powerfully illustrates how we must take account of devotional practices in assessing adequately the Christology of Acts, and we return to devotional practices later in this discussion. Jesus and God’s Will A number of statements in Acts emphasize that Jesus is the expression of God’s will and purposes. In particular, Jesus’ death is referred to both as the wrong-headed actions of Jewish leaders and “lawless ones” (the Roman authority), and yet also as the fulfillment of God’s foreordained purpose (ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ, 2:23; and similarly in 4:28), Jesus’ “suffering” foretold of the Messiah by OT 33 We may also have an allusion to this cursing of Jesus by unbelievers in 1 Cor 12:3, Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς. The Roman governor Pliny says that he sought to get those denounced to him as Christians to “curse Christ” (Ep. Tra. 10.96.5); cf. Josephus’ reference to the Essenes put under torture by the Romans in an unsuccessful effort to get them to “blaspheme their lawgiver” (J.W. 2.152).

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

233

Scriptures and so necessary (3:18; 13:26–29; 17:3; 26:23), and Jesus’ resurrection likewise the fulfillment of divine promises (2:24–31; 13:32–37), an emphasis reflected already in the GLuke (24:25–27, 44–48). Other statements present Jesus as “ordained” (the Greek verb, ὁρίζω) by God “as judge of the living and the dead” (10:42) and the one by whom “the whole world” will be judged (17:31). This emphasis on Jesus’ death (“suffering”) in particular as fulfillment of the divine plan (Acts 3:18) and so “necessary” (the Greek verb δεῖ, Acts 17:3, connoting divine necessity) is by no means unique to Luke-Acts (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:12; Matt 16:21).34 But it stands out in Luke-Acts, perhaps because this is pretty much what the author has to say about Jesus’ death, and he does not use the “for us/for our sins” formulas or “redemption” terminology (λύτρον, λυτρόω) so familiar from some other NT writings (e.g., Mark 10:45). But there are statements in Acts that either directly or implicitly refer to the redemptive efficacy of Jesus’ death. In the “apostolic decree” cited in 15:11, believers are “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,” the “grace” likely alluding to Jesus’ obedience to suffering and death and the redemptive consequences. Likewise, when read in the context of Paul’s address in which Jesus’ death and resurrection are central (13:26–41), the statements in 13:38–39 that “through this one [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,” and that “everyone who believes in him is justified [δικαιοῦται]” connect these benefits, at least implicitly, with these events. Also, in 20:28, we certainly have an explicit reference to Jesus’ death (“blood”) as the means whereby God “obtained the church” for salvation.35 But, certainly, the author’s primary emphasis about Jesus’ death and resurrection is that these events fulfilled God’s plan. In this, we have one of a number of indications of the profoundly theo-logical and theo-centric nature of the author’s religious outlook and beliefs. This does not at all involve a minimizing of Jesus or a significantly “lower” Christological stance in comparison to other W. Popkes, “δει,” EDNT 1: 279–80. The phrasing in 20:28, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, can be taken to mean “through his own blood” or “through the blood of his own (son).” If, as seems preferable, God is the subject of the sentence, the latter is the likely sense of the phrase in question. 34 35

234

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

NT authors. Instead, as we have noted, the author affirms lofty claims about Jesus, even linking Jesus with God in discourse and religious practices, and does so confidently because all this has the strongest imaginable basis in God’s will and purposes. Word of God / Word of the Lord The conspicuous link of Jesus with God noted earlier, e.g., their sharing the title “the Lord,” is reflected also in the noteworthy use of several expressions in Acts referring to the message proclaimed. Most frequently, the author refers to the gospel message as “the word of God” (4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7; 13:46; 17:13; 18:11; cf. “your word,” 4:29). But in another eight cases it is “the word of the Lord” (8:25; 13:44, 48, 49; 15:35, 36; 16:32; 19:10). Distinctively, in another twelve cases, the author simply designates the message as “the word” (4:4; 6:4; 8:4; 10:36, 44; 11:19; 14:12, 25; 16:6; 17:11; 19:20; 20:27). It is clear that in all these expressions the proclaimed “word” concerns Jesus, as is especially clear in 10:36, “the word concerning Jesus Christ,” and reflected in other related expressions: “the word of this salvation” (13:26), “the word of his [Jesus’] grace” (14:3; cf. “the word of his [God’s] grace,” 20:32), and “the word of the gospel” (15:7). Moreover, in light of the frequency with which the author designates Jesus as “the Lord,” in at least some of the uses of “the word of the Lord” it is probable that Jesus is the referent. This is especially likely in 16:32, for in the preceding verse Paul’s exhortation is “Believe on the Lord Jesus.” At the very least, the expression “the word of the Lord” takes on a certain ambiguity, and this is likely deliberate, signifying that for the author Jesus shares with God not only the title “the Lord” but also the content, derivation and authority of the gospel message.36

36 This ambiguity seems to have led to the variants in a number of these texts. So, e.g., in 8:4 “the word/word of God”; 14:25 “the word/word of the Lord/word of God”; 16:6 “the word/word of the Lord”; 13:49 “the word of the Lord/the word”; and in 6:7; 8:25; 13:5, 44, 48; 16:32 “the word of God/word of the Lord.” These variants probably reflect efforts by some ancient readers to remove the ambiguity in various directions.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

235

Savior of Israel and the Gentiles Emphatically in Luke-Acts, Jesus is presented as the true Messiah of Israel, the fulfillment of OT prophecy and Jewish hopes of redemption. This is so not only in GLuke (e.g., 1:30–35, 46–55, 67– 79; 2:29–32), where Jesus’ ministry is situated among fellows Jews of Galilee and Judea, but also in Acts. Of course, he is also the savior of the world, emphasized especially in Acts, where the gospel message goes out to the Gentiles of various lands. Already in Luke 24:46–47, the risen Jesus declares that the message of “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his [Jesus’] name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” In Acts 1:6–8, in response to his disciples’ question about “when you will restore the kingdom to Israel,” Jesus first demurs (v. 7) and then promises empowerment by the Holy Spirit and assigns them as his witnesses “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” So the author consistently presents the gospel message about Jesus as arising in a Jewish context and proceeding outward to all peoples. But in this universal dissemination of the gospel proclamation, the identification of Jesus as (Jewish) Messiah and fulfillment of OT prophecies remains indelible. Some scholars, however, have claimed that Acts portrays the Jewish people as irredeemably disobedient to the gospel, and so as written off in favor of the (essentially Gentile) church. It is not possible here to argue the point adequately for anyone not already disposed to my view, but I find this a dubious reading of the text.37 To be sure, Acts repeatedly portrays Jewish rejection of the gospel, reflected especially in several strident statements: e.g., Stephen’s concluding indictment in 7:51–53; the complaint of Paul and Barnabas in 13:45–47; similarly in 18:5–6; and Paul’s rebuke in 28:25– 29. But up to the end of Acts, Jews continue to be included among those to whom the gospel is preached, and at various points the author refers to Jews who accept the message (e.g., 2:41–42; 4:4; 5:14; 13:43; 14:1). To be sure, the author holds that faith in Jesus is essential to salvation (e.g., 4:12), for Jews as well as Gentiles. So, Jewish unbelief in the gospel is profound disobedience to God. But in Acts, the extension of the gospel to Gentiles (e.g., 11:18; 15:13– 18) is not at the expense of the Jewish people. Although the author 37

So also, e.g., Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 2:xcvii–xcviii.

236

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

excoriates unbelieving Jews, especially those who actively oppose the gospel-proclamation, the Jewish people remain among those to whom the gospel is preached in the hope of their assent to it, and Jesus’ role as savior of the world remains firmly based in his legitimacy as Messiah of Israel.

DEVOTIONAL PRACTICES Earlier we noted the references in Acts to “calling upon the name” of Jesus as reflecting the highly significant devotional/liturgical practice of invoking Jesus, which seems to have been characteristic of Christian baptism and also corporate worship. This and other devotional practices reflected in Acts are important (but often under-estimated or overlooked) evidence of how remarkably central Jesus is in this text. Space permits here only a limited discussion of these important phenomena. In addition to the invocation of Jesus, we also have prayers addressed to him. The clearest examples of these are the appeals of the dying Stephen, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” and “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (7:59–60). Even if it is a dramatized scene, the author surely expected his Christian readers to approve of Stephen’s prayers here, which likely means that prayer-appeals to Jesus were a familiar feature of their devotional practice. In 13:1–2, we have a scene of the gathered church “worshipping the Lord” and fasting. It is curious that some commentaries do not even engage the question of who “the Lord” is here.38 But, again, in light of the author’s use of “the Lord” as a frequent designation of Jesus, it seems entirely plausible to judge that he presents the risen Jesus here as the object of the worship and prayer. Certainly, in 9:10–16, it is the Lord Jesus who designates the newlyconverted Saul as his chosen witness. So, also here in 13:1–2, “the Lord” is probably Jesus, this text another indication that for this author Jesus is uniquely and strikingly linked with God both in religious discourse and in devotional life/practice. The strong theo-centric stance of the author makes this all the more remarkable. The author shows no sympathy for deification of human rulers or heroes (e.g., 12:21–23!), and certainly does not 38 E.g., Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 1:601–606, considers various other questions but not this one.

CHRISTOLOGY IN ACTS

237

present Jesus as another/new deity alongside the one God. Yet he equally clearly holds Jesus in the highest imaginable regard, not only as Messiah and appointed savior, but also as the exalted Lord who now dispenses the Spirit, is the content of the gospel and directs its progress, and is rightfully to be linked with God uniquely in reverence. The absence of reference to Jesus’ “pre-existence” or agency in the creation of the world, ideas familiar to readers of GJohn, should not blind us to the very exalted view of Jesus attested in Acts. Although the author may essentially gather up Christological beliefs from the tradition known to him, they represent a fascinating and remarkable body of evidence of the centrality of Jesus in that tradition.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Bovon, François. Luke the Theologian. 2d rev. ed. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. Buckwalter, H. Douglas. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. SNTSMS 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Cadbury, Henry J. “The Titles of Jesus in Acts.” Pages 354–75 in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. V, Additional Notes. Edited by F. J. F. Jackson and K. Lake. London: Macmillan, 1932. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966. Moule, C. F. D. “The Christology of Acts.” Pages 159–85 in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Edited by L. E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966. Schneider, Gerhard. “Gott und Christus als ΚΥΡΙΟΣ nach der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 213–26 in Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte. Bonn: Hanstein, 1985.

PAUL IN ACTS: THE PROPHETIC PORTRAIT OF PAUL Carl N. Toney

Who was Saul of Tarsus? When looking at Scripture and tradition, what portraits are presented? What sources will we rely upon to shape our image? In the New Testament (NT), Paul is introduced first by Acts of the Apostles, which often is used to construct a framework for his life and chronology and to flesh out his theology. However, scholars rightly caution against reading the Paul of Acts into his letters. Conversely, readers of Acts need to be wary letting knowledge from his letters skew Acts’ portrayal of Paul. This essay will compare the portraits of Paul in Acts and his letters (noting issues), then present Acts’ portrait of Paul as a prophetic figure (like Jesus), whose life and message proclaim God’s faithfulness to keep his promises to Israel and now includes Gentiles.1

THE PAUL OF ACTS AND OF HIS LETTERS Several attitudes are taken when discussing the relationship between the presentation of Paul in Acts and the letters: one side seeks to harmonize, noting extensive parallels and claiming that they are consistent, while another side suggests they are different but compatible, while yet another side highlights inconsistencies 1 See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), for a sustained treatment of Acts’ prophetic themes.

239

240

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

favoring the Pauline Epistles.2 Any interpreter of Acts must begin with a decision regarding the extent to which Acts speaks to history and creates theology and whether there is a tension between these two portraits of Paul. Critical scholars would argue that the NT presents at least three portraits of Paul—from Acts, his authentic letters, and the pastorals. Historical reconstructions rightly begin with the primary sources of his letters and then add to them using secondary sources, such as Acts. With the historical approach, we must decide which letters are to be included: the seven undisputed letters (Rom, 1–2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, Phlm), the disputed letters (Eph, Col, 2 Thess), and/or the highly disputed pastorals (1–2 Tim, Titus).3 We need to decide how to use Acts as a secondary source (with the extensive parallels to Paul’s letters4) and if the author was really an eyewitness (here scholars debate the role of the “we” passages, e.g., Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15).5 Skepticism may remain concerning Paul’s letters when the polemic and contextual natures are taken into account. Conversely, a certain affirmation of Acts may occur in light of the fact that a third party may illuminate where personal blindness may occur. The current debate over the “split personality” of Paul may be traced to F. C. Baur, who questioned the historicity of Acts and the authenticity of all but four of Paul’s letters (Rom, 1–2 Cor, Gal). Baur theorized (refuted today) that Paul’s letters present a conflict between Pauline Christianity and Petrine Christianity while Acts

2 For a sample list of scholars, see Steve Walton, “Acts: Many Questions, Many Answers,” in The Face of New Testament Studies (ed. S. McKnight and G. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 242–44. 3 Paul’s letters are probably the earliest of the NT writings, with all of his undisputed letters being written prior to the composition of Mark (65– 72 CE). Paul’s letters are ordered according to length, not chronology, with Gal and 1 Thess contending for being the earliest. 4 For an extensive list of parallels, see Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 134–35. 5 See Stanley Porter, Paul in Acts (LPS; Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2001), 47–66.

PAUL IN ACTS

241

polemically presents a unified church.6 Since Baur, the debate has split into two directions. One direction concerns Paul’s life. John Knox offered a radical, “letters only,” reconstruction of Pauline chronology based on the three journeys to Jerusalem rather than the five recorded in Acts.7 He penned the guiding principle, “We may, with proper caution, use Acts to supplement the autobiographical data of the letters, but never to correct them.”8 Critical approaches to reconstructing Paul’s life include Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s Paul: A Critical Life and Rainer Riesner’s Paul’s Early Period.9 Current datings of Paul’s letters often break or read-into Acts’ chronology (e.g., postulating an Ephesian imprisonment for the composition of Philippians). Ernst Haenchen, whose commentary is often used to frame the discussion of Paul’s life and chronology, raised doubts over Acts’ familiarity with Paul.10 To this we may include John C. Lentz Jr.’s more recent discussion questioning Paul’s social status as related to his citizenship, education, and profession.11 The other perspective held by scholars, following Philipp Vielhauer, critiques Acts’ portrayal of Paul’s theology. Vielhauer asks “whether and to what extent the author of Acts took over and Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrines (2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1873; trans. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845). 7 Chronological issues include: diverging Damascus accounts (Acts 9:23; 2 Cor 11:32–33); being sent to Tarsus (Acts 9:27–30; Gal 1:21–24); aligning Gal 2:1–10 with either Acts 11:29–30 or 15:1–35; and postulating an Ephesian imprisonment. 8 John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (rev. ed.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987 [1950]), 19. 9 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997); Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 10 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. B. Noble et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971 [1965]). 11 John C. Lentz Jr., Luke’s Portrait of Paul (SNTSMS 77; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); responded to by Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 71–114. 6

242

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

passed on theological ideas of Paul, whether and to what extent he modified them.”12 Let us now turn to Paul’s life and his theology and the critiques raised by Haenchen, Lentz, and Vielhauer. Thorough responses may be found in Stanley Porter’s Paul in Acts and Thomas Phillips’ Paul, His Letters, and Acts.13 Life of Paul

Gentile Mission According to Haenchen, both Acts and Paul identify and validate a Gentile mission apart from the Law. In his letters, Paul uses an internal logic pitting the Law against grace (Rom 10:3–4; Gal 3:19). In contrast, Acts does not include this solution; rather, it validates the mission using miracles as external proof of God’s will.14 In response, Acts does briefly contrast the Law with Jesus in terms of forgiveness of sins when Paul speaks to Jews and God-fearers (13:38–39); however, it is usually silent. Instead, Acts’ solution stresses continuity and is not strictly “apart from the Law.” For example, the Jerusalem Council’s prohibitions for Gentiles (Acts 15) are based the Law’s commands to Gentiles living among Jews (Lev 17–18).15 Paul’s letters either make no mention of the agreement (because it is fictional, he rejects it, etc.) or allude to it in Paul’s discussions of food regulations, idolatry, and sexual ethics (e.g., 1 Cor 5, 7, 8–10; Rom 14–15; Gal 2). More will be said on Paul’s view on the Law below.

12 Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in LukeActs (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; trans. W. C. Robinson Jr. and V. P. Furnish; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 33–50; trans. of “Zum ‘Paulinismus’ der Apostelgeschichte,” EvT 10 (1950–51): 1–15. 13 Porter, Paul in Acts; Thomas E. Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts, (LPS; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 30–49. 14 Haenchen, Acts, 112–13. 15 On Lev 17–18, see Terrance Callan, “The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25),” CBQ 55 (1993): 284–97. An unlikely option, due to late dates, is the “Noahic Covenant”; see HansJoachim Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 259–60.

PAUL IN ACTS

243

Miracle Worker Haenchen argues that Paul is a great miracle worker in Acts (13:6– 12; 14:8–10, 19–20; 19:11–12; 20:7–12; 28:3–6), but in his letters he is a suffering apostle (2 Cor 12:10) lacking a miraculous reputation (2 Cor 12:12).16 In reply, Acts certainly highlights Paul’s miraculous activity (e.g., 14:8–10; 20:7–12) and visions (e.g., 16:9–10) as a means to parallel Paul with Jesus and Peter (see below), but his ministry also is marked by suffering and persecutions (Acts 14:5, 22; 16:19–40; 17:5–9, 13; 18:12–17; 20:1, 3; 21:4, 11–14, 27–36). Further, while 1–2 Corinthians portray Paul as an apostle of weakness, his letters also testify to miraculous activity (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 2:1–4; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 3:1–5; 1 Thess 1:5).17 Rather, both Acts and Paul’s letters contain contrasts between Paul’s strength and suffering. For Acts, the miracles validate Paul’s mission and demonstrate God’s triumph over his suffering.

Orator Haenchen observes that Paul does not write letters but is an outstanding orator in Acts (e.g., Acts 13:16–41; 17:22–31; 24:10–21; 26:2–26), while Paul proclaims his inability to speak in 2 Cor 10:10.18 In response, Acts certainly crafts Paul’s speeches (as speech in character) according to Acts’ purposes, but Paul’s letters place him within the 5–10% of literate society.19 Scholars following KenHaenchen, Acts, 113–14. Porter (Acts, 193–94) distinguishes the “we” source as one tradition that does not highlight Paul’s miraculous ability. 18 Haenchen, Acts, 114. 19 On ancient literacy see William Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard, 1989). Catherine Hezser persuasively argues that Jewish rates are the same or worse (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001]). On letter writing, see E. Randolph Richards, Paul and FirstCentury Letter Writing (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004); Stanley Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Luther Stirewalt, Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Texts were read out loud, and letters were often sent with someone who could read. Texts were written with an eight- to ten-inch reed stylus typically using black ink made from charcoal mixed with gum Arabic on either leather parchment or papyrus with an average sheet size of eight to 16

17

244

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

nedy and Betz argue that Paul’s letters demonstrate his own rhetorical ability, including his comment in 2 Cor 10:10, which fits a rhetorical strategy of boasting in his human “weakness” to turn his audience against his opponents’ “strength.”20

Apostleship Haenchen contends that Paul is not equal to the Twelve (Acts 1:21–22; 10:41), while Paul claims to be equal but distinct (Gal 2:7– 8; 1 Cor 15:5–8). However, as Haenchen notes, Acts 14:4, 14 does apply “apostle” more broadly to Paul and Barnabas, and Paul is brought to equal footing with Peter through narrative parallels (see below).21 Yet, fitting with Acts’ objectives, Paul clearly remains submissive to James and others (as seen in the events of his five trips to Jerusalem). With Paul’s letters, one may certainly emphasize Paul’s claims of equal status (Gal 1:11–12; 2:1–11; 1 Cor 9:1) or note tones of subservience to apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:23–25; 15:1–11). Paul does claim to be the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13; cf. Gal 2:1–11). Yet, he also has a clear Jewish mission: “to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 11:14), which aligns with Acts’ pattern of witness to the Jews then Gentiles (13:13–52; 18:6–7; 28:25–28).

Jewish Opposition Haenchen argues that Acts centers the Jewish opposition to Paul’s gospel on his belief in Jesus’ resurrection versus the Pharisaic belief ten inches, holding about 200 words. A standard roll (chartes) was twenty sheets or twelve feet long, which could be combined into scrolls up to thirty feet. Writing occurred sitting with the sheet on a lap, either outside or in the main room of an apartment or villa. It was common practice to use a scribe (amanuensis) who wrote dictated words or expanded based on a brief outline. See Richards, Letter Writing, 47–80. 20 H. D. Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1982). Measured assessments in Stanley Porter and T. H. Olbricht, Rhetoric and the New Testament (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). For an introduction, see Carl Toney, “Rhetorical Criticism,” in 2 Corinthians by Ralph P. Martin (WBC, rev. ed.; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012). 21 Haenchen, Acts, 114–15.

PAUL IN ACTS

245

in a general, eschatological resurrection (Acts 23:6; 24:21; 26:6; cf. 4:2); however, Paul’s letters focus upon the Law (Gal 2:11–16). Haenchen rightly highlights Acts’ distinctive emphasis upon the resurrection (found especially in Paul’s final speeches), and this theme will be explored below. However, as even Haenchen acknowledges, Paul was also persecuted for his alleged opposition to the Law and Temple (e.g., Acts 13:38–39; 15:5; 21:21; 21:28).22

Roman Citizen To this list, Lentz argues that Acts creates an idealized portrait created with contradictory characteristics. According to Acts, Paul has dual citizenship from Tarsus and Rome (Acts 16:37–38; 21:39; 22:3, 25–29). However, Lentz notes that Paul does not mention his citizenship. Nor is citizenship historically plausible, since Tarsus’ citizenship required a religious syncretism, which does not match with Paul’s claims of being an orthodox Jew (Phil 3:4–6; 2 Cor 11:22; cf. Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:4–5). Further, citizenship required possession of moderate wealth (500 drachmae; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 34.23), and their negative attitude toward artisans (Cicero, Off. 1.150) does not match with Paul’s manual labor (e.g., 1 Cor 4:12; 9:1–18; 2 Cor 6:5; cf. Acts 18:3).23 Yet, Paul’s advice to pay taxes and submit to governing authorities in Rom 13:1–7 opens the possibility of supporting Acts’ claims of citizenship. Rapske provides the best response to Lentz, marshaling evidence indicating Haenchen, Acts, 115–16. Lentz, Paul, 23–61. In response, see Rapske, Paul, 71–114. On status, see the often cited Wayne Meeks (First Urban Christians [2d ed.; New Haven: Yale, 2003], 53–55), who considers status to be multidimensional and measures power, occupational prestige, wealth/income, religious and ritual purity, parentage and ethnic group position, local community/public status, and education. Jerome Neyrey provides eight levels of social stratification to note Paul’s low status as an artisan: (1) ruler (the emperor, client kings), (2) governing class (1–2%), (3) retainer class (5%), (4) merchants [some wealthy, majority poor], (5) priests, (6) subsistence peasant farmers (90%), (7) artisans (2–5%), (8) unclean, degraded, and expendables (“Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts [ed. B. Witherington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 251–79). 22

23

246

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

that orthodox Jews were citizens. In regards to Paul’s manual labor, Paul’s comments about his manual labor as “slavish” and “demeaning” may reflect the wealthy’s view of manual labor (1 Cor 9:19; 2 Cor 11:7), and he probably learned the trade as part of his missionary strategy (see below) and possibly because his father disowned him.24 Theology of Paul

Natural Theology Vielhauer notes that Paul’s speeches in Lystra (Acts 14:14–17) and Athens (Acts 17:16–34) reflect a positive natural theology preparing Gentiles to become Christians; however, in Rom 1:18–32 nature condemns Gentiles.25 In response, though there may be differences, there are also similarities such as recognizing God as creator and people’s present accountability to God and his past forbearance. Further, it should be noted that Acts’ natural theology is not completely positive, since the speech in Lystra fails to convince the audience, and the speech in Athens ultimately criticizes the Epicureans and Stoics who reject resurrection.26

Law Vielhauer also takes issue with Acts’ portrayal of Paul as “utterly loyal to the law” (e.g., 16:3–4; 18:18; 21:23–24), but in the letters he is against Christians practicing Law (esp. Gal 2:14–21; 5:1).27 However, the “New Perspective”28 challenges this “Lutheran” lens of 24 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 40, 85–89. Other scholars unwisely seek out later rabbinic sources to argue that Paul learned tentmaking as a pupil, since rabbis may have been expected to support themselves (’Abot 2.12; 4.7). 25 Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 34–37. 26 For a complete argument, see Porter, Paul in Acts, 145–48. 27 Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 37–43. 28 E.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); J. D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). A good survey and response is in Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). “New Perspective” adherents consider the Law to be a covenant of grace (called “Covenantal Nomism”), only missing

PAUL IN ACTS

247

pitting Law versus grace, since Paul’s letters contain positive stances toward the Law. Thus, in Phil 3:4–6 and 2 Cor 11:22, Paul claims to be blameless according to the Law, and he is willing to follow the Law for the sake of witnessing to his fellow Jews (1 Cor 9:19–23) and to promote church unity between Jews and Gentiles (Rom 14–15).29 Also, Acts stresses continuity, but it also contains limited critique. So, Paul’s first speech, delivered to a Jewish audience, critiques the Law with a Pauline flavor (Acts 13:38–39), and his speeches to Gentiles significantly lack exhortations to practice the Law. Both Acts and Paul note the Law’s continuity for the Jewish people, but Acts stresses the Law, not as ethics, but as God’s faithfulness to keep his promises to Israel and now Gentiles. However, Paul’s letters stress Christ’s fulfillment of the Law and empowerment by the Holy Spirit for right relationships with God and others.

Christology Vielhauer argues that Acts portrays Christ’s sonship as adoptionistic in light of Ps 2:7 (13:13–43; 26:22–23) and the resurrection inaugurates the world mission (26:23), while Paul understood Christ as preexistent and the resurrection being connected to Christ’s dominion (Col 1:18) and to the final resurrection (1 Cor 15:20). Also, in Acts the crucifixion is an error of justice, while for Paul, the cross judges and reconciles humanity (Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:14–21). However, Acts’ sonship language can be understood as Christ’s exaltation and can be related to Rom 1:2–4, Phil 2:6–11, and Col 1:18. Also, in Acts the crucifixion is not simply an error of Christ, with the Law giving ethical guidelines as the best expression of God’s will, not legalistic entrance requirements. Dunn describes the “works of the Law” as identity markers (circumcision, food laws, and observance of days) distinguishing Jews from Gentiles (not acts to earn salvation). 29 Paul’s logic of salvation through Christ alone and Christian freedom allows Jewish Christians the freedom to practice the Law (Rom 14–15) while Gentile Christians are free from the Law (Gal 2–5), so long as they are under the Lordship of Christ (Gal 6:2; Rom 14:7–12) and are empowered by Holy Spirit to live according to God’s will (Gal 5:16–25; Rom 15:13) (Carl N. Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic [WUNT 2/252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007]).

248

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

judgment, but part of a prophetic pattern warning of impending judgment.30

Eschatology According to Vielhauer, Paul’s imminent eschatological expectations have been replaced in Acts by a continuous historical pattern of promise-fulfillment. Yet, Paul’s eschatology develops from an imminent expectation (1 Thess 4:15; 1 Cor 15:51–52) to an understanding that he would die before Christ’s return (2 Cor 5:1–10; Phil 1:19–26).31 Acts uses its pattern of promise-fulfillment to support the theme of God’s faithfulness to his promises. Paul in Acts A critical comparison of Paul’s portrait in his letters with Acts can help readers of Acts understand Acts’ portrayal of Paul. The serious student of Acts also will read Paul’s character in light of the narrative world of Acts. Good starting points may be Stanley Porter’s Paul in Acts, Thomas E. Phillips’ Paul, His Letters, and Acts, or Jacob Jervell’s The Unknown Paul.32 Acts presents Paul as a prophet whose life has three primary movements as (1) persecutor turned proclaimer (7:58–8:3; 9:1–31), (2) evangelist (11:19–30; 13:1–21:16), and (3) imprisoned witness (22:17–28:31). Each role is given increased narrative space, indicating Acts considers the last role to be the most important.33

Name and Family Paul is introduced as “Saul,” who is a “young man” (νεανίας, 7:58), someone 25–40 years old (cf. Acts 20:9; 23:17). Murphy-O’Connor speculates that he may “have been born about the same time as Christ” based on Paul’s claims to be an “old man” (πρεσβύτης, Phlm 9), someone over 50.34 We also learn that Paul had a sister 30 31

48.

Porter, Paul in Acts, 201–203; pace Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 43–45. Porter, Paul in Acts, 203–205; pace Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 44, 45–

Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). Lentz, Paul, 4. 34 Murphy-O’Connor (Paul, 4) also notes that Paul could have been ten years younger than Jesus. 32 33

PAUL IN ACTS

249

and nephew in 23:16. Acts is the only NT work that calls the apostle “Saul” (Grk. Σαῦλος = Heb. ‫ ;שָׁאוּל‬7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1, etc.). “Saul” would have been his Jewish birth name (signum) being named after the first king of Israel (13:21–22). Despite popular belief, Acts does not present God changing his name (like Abram to Abraham) as part of his Damascus Road conversion. Acts consistently uses “Saul” in 7:58–13:9, and only switches names during the beginning of Paul’s first missionary journey with the simple statement “Saul, also known as Paul” (13:9). In Greek, “Saul” (Σαῦλος) could be confused as a nickname, since the adjective σαῦλος describes the “loose, wanton gait of courtesans.”35 “Paul” (Grk. Παῦλος = Lat. Paullus), which means “small,” would have been his family name (cognomen) reflecting the final portion of his Roman tripartite name—personal (praenomen), clan (nomen), and family (cognomen). As Saul moves into the leadership of the Gentile mission, Acts switches from his Jewish birth name, Saul, to his Roman family name of Paul as found in his letters. The name “Paul” is linked in the narrative with his first convert, the proconsul Sergius Paulus (13:7, 12).36

Profession Acts portrays Paul as an artisan “tentmaker” (σκηνοποιός, Acts 18:3) working to support himself (Acts 18:3; 20:34–35; cf. 1 Cor 4:12; 9:1–18; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8).37 Most likely, Paul learned his trade as part of his missionary strategy. The simple tools of a moon-shaped knife, an awl, needles, and waxed thread made for easy travel. He may have worked with rough cloth made from goats’ hair (cilicium) or, more probably, leather making and repairing booths, canopies, and awnings for the military, merchants, sailors, and travelers and could have including a broader range of leatherwork. Plying his trade created a network that al-

LSJ, 1586. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 41–43. 37 R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); Paul W. Barnett, “Tentmaking,” DPL, 925–27. 35 36

250

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

lowed him contact with a variety of people to share the gospel (e.g., Priscilla and Aquila, 18:2–3).38

Orthodox Jew As Vielhauer has noted, Acts emphasizes Paul’s Jewish loyalties. He is introduced by his Jewish name, “Saul” (7:58), speaks Aramaic (21:40; 22:2), was educated under Gamaliel (22:3; cf. 5:34), and observed the Law as a Pharisee, son of a Pharisee (23:6; cf. 26:5). Paul’s Damascus call is reaffirmed while praying in the Temple, the heart of Judaism (22:17)! During Paul’s ministry, he circumcises Timothy (16:3), spreads the apostolic decree (16:4), keeps a vow (18:18), and brings alms to Jerusalem (24:17–18; cf. Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1–7; 9:1–5; Rom 15:25–27, 31).39 As proof of his orthodoxy to the church, Paul is willing to offer a sacrifice in the Temple (21:23–24), but is unjustly incarcerated (21:28). Once arrested, Paul consistently defends his orthodoxy (e.g., 26:4–5, 10–11). When Paul arrives in Rome, the Jews are not concerned about his orthodoxy as much as the orthodoxy of Christians (28:21–22). This orthodoxy of the “apostle” to the Gentiles reinforces Acts’ emphasis upon the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

Noble Greek Character In addition, as Lentz has noted, Paul is portrayed as having a noble Greek character, which would appeal to those of high social status and those concerned with moral virtue.40 Paul’s status and rights as a Roman citizen were introduced during his imprisonment in Philippi (16:37–38). When arrested at the Temple, he claims dual citizenship from Rome and Tarsus “an important city” (21:39; 22:3; 22:25–29). Further, Paul is presented as an educated Roman elite who commands respect of the Roman officials by speaking Greek (22:37), crafting defense speeches that display a rhetorical educa38 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 88. Typical workshops had a front room with a ten-foot opening to the street and a counter for business as well as a more private backroom (10' x 10'). 39 David Downs argues that scholars skew alms in Acts by reading into the “collection” from Paul’s letters (The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem [WUNT 2/248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008]). 40 Lentz, Paul, 3, 171; Neyrey, “Social Location,” 278.

PAUL IN ACTS

251

tion outmatching rhetoricians (24:1), and extolling philosophical virtues of justice and self-control to a Roman ruler while (ironically) being unjustly imprisoned (24:25). Paul’s status is reinforced when he is escorted by two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen (23:23–27), Felix’s hope for a bribe (24:26), and Festus’ granting his appeal to the emperor (25:11–12). Further, when sailing to Rome, the centurion heeds the advice of Paul the prisoner (27:31–38)! Finally, in Rome, Paul lives for two years at his own expense (28:30). These characteristics of Paul as orthodox Jew and noble Greek come to the forefront during Paul’s final imprisonment, and impress upon the audience these characteristics of Acts’ final hero.

Damascus Road Acts narrates the Damascus Road experience three times (9:1–19; 22:1–21; 26:2–23) indicating its importance. Paul’s letters also mention this experience (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal 1:11–17; Phil 3:2–11) with some differences.41 The Damascus experience has been described as a conversion (an opponent transformed into an ally), a conquest (Christ overpowers an enemy), or a call (commissioned as an emissary or prophet).42 As Krister Stendahl has rightly pointed out, conversion language may be applied, but should exclude an understanding of changing religions (from Judaism to Christianity) where Saul has an internal crisis that prompts him to reject the legalistic Law in favor of grace. Instead, Acts portrays Christianity as the fulfillment of Jewish expectations that now include Gentiles (2:18; 13:27, 32–33, 47–48, etc.), and Paul will continue to practice the Law (e.g., 16:3; 21:23–24).43 Paul’s character serves as a concrete example of hope that God can transform any Jewish opponent into an ally, even conquering enemies who have oppressed the church. Finally, call language is also appropriate, since each account brings 41 Murphy-O’Connor (Paul, 7–8) dates Paul’s call to 33 CE. For an analysis, see Charles Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts,” JBL 100 (1981): 415–32. 42 See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts (rev. ed.; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 83–90. 43 Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).

252

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

increased focus upon Paul’s commission as a witness to Jews and Gentiles (9:15–16; 22:15, 21; 26:17–18). The triple account of Saul’s calling has an accumulating effect. The similarities reinforce important aspects of the story, while the differences flesh out the portrait of Saul and may reflect multiple sources or, more likely, literary concerns.44 First, Acts 9:1–19, narrates the original call, emphasizing Saul as an overthrown enemy, now filled with the Holy Spirit (9:18) as Jesus (Luke 3:21–22) and the Twelve (2:1–13) were when they began their prophetic ministries. This calling of Saul, the major witness to the Gentiles, overlaps with Peter’s witness to Cornelius, the first major Gentile convert (10:1–48; 11:1–18; 15:7–11).45 These stories mark the shift of emphasis upon the ministry of Peter in Jerusalem, Judah, and Samaria to the ministry of Paul spreading to the ends of the earth. Second, Acts 22:1–21 recounts Paul’s account of the event while in the Temple, which serves as a closing to Paul’s missionary activity and a transition to his imprisonment. It includes a Judaic coloring that emphasizes Paul as a loyal Jew. Third, in Acts 26:2–23, Paul gives his testimony before Festus and Agrippa, which fits a Hellenistic setting and focuses upon Paul’s obedience to his call as witness, including evangelizing Agrippa (26:28)!46

Apostleship Although Paul describes himself as the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13), Acts does not focus on this description, only calling Paul an apostle twice (14:4, 14). Paul’s missionary pattern, as stated at the beginning, middle, and end of his ministry, is to witness to the Jews first, then the Gentiles (13:13–52; 18:6–7; 28:25–28). Certainly this pattern, along with the continual rejection by Jewish opponents and Paul’s final pronouncement against the Roman Jews at the end of Acts, can be read as a turn from the Jewish people (so 44 A literary approach: Beverly R. Gaventa, From Darkness to Light (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). Multiple sources: Emanuel Hirsh, “Die drei Berichte der Apostelgeschichte über die Bekehrung des Paulus,” ZNW 28 (1929): 305–12. 45 Minor Gentile conversions (2:10; 8:26–40) foreshadow Cornelius. 46 See Gaventa, Darkness to Light, or more recently, Richard Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 629–30.

PAUL IN ACTS

253

some scholars will argue that Acts is an apology for Gentile Christianity). However, it is more likely that Acts envisions a continued mission to both Jews and Gentiles. As noted above, Paul’s Jewish orthodoxy and noble character appeal to both Jewish and Gentile Christianity. Further, Paul’s Damascus call is to be a witness to both Jews and Gentiles (9:15; 22:15; 26:17). His travels throughout the Roman Empire do not necessarily imply a Gentile focused mission, since part of Israel’s prophetic hope is the gathering of the Diaspora Jews scattered among the Gentile nations (e.g., Isa 11:10– 16; 27:12–13; Jer 23:3–4; 29:14; Zech 10:8–12). Paul’s evangelistic efforts typically begin with Jewish people (e.g., 13:13–51; 14:1–7), while occasionally beginning with Gentiles (13:4–12; 14:8–19; 17:16–34). Acts portrays a consistent acceptance (e.g., 13:43; 14:1; 16:1; 17:4) and rejection by both Jews (e.g., 13:50; 14:19; 17:13) and Gentiles (e.g., 14:19; 17:32). Luke T. Johnson proposes the best solution by noting that the purpose of Acts is to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to keep his promises (of both salvation and judgment) to the Jewish people, but also now includes the Gentiles in these promises. When viewed through the prophetic lens, Paul’s final words in 28:25–28 (which are a quotation from the prophet Isaiah), serve as a prophetic warning and final appeal to change rather than the last word on the state of the Jewish people.47

Travel Paul is often described as having three missionary journeys in Acts, due to his leaving Antioch three times (13:1–14:28; 15:36–18:22; 18:23–21:16). This threefold pattern fits with Acts’ style of emphasizing important events multiple times. With these journeys, Paul is portrayed as an extensive traveler (covering over 6,200 miles), and one-third of both Luke and Acts involve journey motifs.48 Most Johnson (Acts, 473–76) argues that Paul is speaking prophetically against Israel like the OT prophets, fulfilling God’s promises of judgment when Israel rejects God. 48 For an excellent map of travel times, see Michael B. Thompson, “The Holy Internet: Communication between Churches in the First Christian Generation,” in The Gospel for All Christians (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 49–70. See also Richards, Letter Writing, 190–200; Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1994); Brian Rapske, “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck,” in The Book of 47

254

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

people traveled during fair weather (from June to September) to avoid travel during rainy seasons (April, May, October) and in winter (roads were considered closed from November 11 to March 10). People usually traveled on foot (roughly 15–25 miles a day) or by ship (2–6 knots).49 On long journeys, Jewish travelers would rest on Sabbaths. Hospitality and networks were important, otherwise travelers would have to pick between the dangers of staying on the open road or staying in a roadside inn with untrustworthy proprietors and clientele (cf. 2 Cor 11:25–27). The Jewish synagogues, craftsmen associations, and ultimately established churches provided a new traveler an entry point into the city. Acts records Paul traveling primarily to major cities as a means of spreading the gospel, noting two prominent stops in Corinth for eighteen months (18:1–17) and Ephesus for nearly three years (19:1–41).50 Churches could meet either in wealthier member’s homes (such as in Corinth) or in small apartments (such as in Troas, where Acts records one of the earliest evidences of Sunday worship including the sharing of the Eucharist, 20:6–8).51 Paul’s travels fit with Acts’ theme of Acts and Its Greco-Roman Setting (ed. D. Gill and C. Gempf; vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 1– 47. 49 Those using donkeys or camels traveled about the same distance as walking, wagons and chariots went 25–30 miles per day, and those on horseback rode 50 miles per day. Sailing occurred in a clockwise direction (Rome-Greece-Turkey-Palestine-Egypt-Rome) with heading east tending to be more favorable than going west. Boats typically hugged the coast and anchored nightly. A boat with favorable winds could go 4–6 knots in open water or 3–4 knots along the coast and 2–2.5 knots against the wind. Passenger ships were typically 100 feet long with two masts holding maybe 200–600 people and grain ships were 130–150 feet long with three masts (Richards, Letter Writing, 190–200). 50 Paul’s encounter with Gallio in Corinth (summer 51/52 CE) is one anchor of Pauline chronology (Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 15–22). 51 The urban population consisted of 5–10% of the total population in the Empire. Approximately 90% of city dwellers lived in small, crowded two to five story apartments (insulae). During Paul’s house arrest in Rome, he may have stayed in a larger apartment of the slightly wealthy. For larger apartments, the stairway from the street led to a multi– windowed middle room (medianum, 20' x 5') that served as a kitchen, dining area, and accessed bedrooms (cubiculum, 9' x 9') with one back window,

PAUL IN ACTS

255

God’s faithfulness by fulfilling eschatological expectations of God’s prophetic word spreading among the nations in order to gather his people (e.g., Isa 11:10–16; Jer 23:3–4), such as the Diaspora Jews’ conversion in Acts 2:5–11, 37–42.

Team Paul is presented as the primary figure working on a missionary team, reminding audiences that the spread of the gospel is a community effort of people working as God’s agents. Companions include Barnabas (Acts 13:2; Gal 2:1; 1 Cor 9:6; etc.) who is introduced as “Joseph of Cyprus” who sells his field (4:36—5:11). Later he presents Paul to the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch and goes on the first missionary journey with his cousin John Mark (Acts 15:36– 41; cf. Col 4:10), whose “desertion” in Cyprus causes the team to split. Silas (“Silvanus” Acts 15:40; cf. 1 Thess 1:1; etc.) joins Paul on his second journey, famously sings his way out of prison (16:19–34), and is a “co-sender” of 1–2 Thessalonians. Timothy (Acts 16:1–3; 1 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 4:17; etc.), who is circumcised by Paul, joins him on the second and third journeys, and is often a “co-sender” of Paul’s letters (2 Cor; Phil; Col; 1–2 Thess, Phlm). Finally, the audience meets the “we” character (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–29; 28:1–16), whose identity may be either the author of Acts, an unknown eyewitness from the source material, or a stylistic device. Most major companions mentioned in Paul’s letters are found in Acts; however, Titus is noticeably absent (cf. 2 Cor 7–8; Gal 2:1, 3).

Missionary Speeches Over the course of Paul’s missionary activities, Paul’s gospel is developed in three major speeches to three different audiences (13:16–41; 17:22–30; 20:18–35). Acts briefly introduces Paul’s gospel when he proclaims in Damascus that Jesus is the “Son of God” and the living room (exedra, 15' x 20') had multiple windows. In wealthy homes, rooms would surround a large, open-air atrium which served as a living room (exedra) with an adjacent dining room (triclinium)—in larger villas these areas could hold up to fifty people, hence the estimate of house churches being 40–50 members (Richards, Letter Writing, 36–42, including photos).

256

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

(9:20)—a title that challenges the Roman emperor and identifies Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (cf. 13:32–37). Paul gives his first (and most complete) speech to Jews at Pisidian Antioch (13:16–41). Acts’ theme of God’s faithfulness to fulfill Old Testament (OT) promises is repeated through the speech (13:23, 27, 29, 32–33) and a brief salvation history leading to the promise of the Davidic Messiah is given (13:22–23, 33–37).52 At the heart of the speech, Acts presents the kergyma of Jesus’ rejection, death, and burial with Acts’ particular emphasis upon the resurrection as exaltation and eschatological first-fruits of eternal life in light of Ps 2:7 (13:27–32, 46; cf. 2:22–35).53 Acts’ theme of the resurrection (e.g., 1:2–3, 22; 2:32–33) is especially emphasized in the speeches of Paul’s arrest (discussed below). Acts’ theme of “forgiveness of sins” through Jesus (e.g., 2:38; 3:19) is given a Pauline flavor of “apart from the Law” in 13:38–39 (reflecting speechin-character). The resulting Holy Spirit community in 13:52 reflects Acts’ ideal community and prophetic fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32 (e.g., 1:5; 2:16–21).54 Reflecting the theme that salvation is for everyone (e.g., 1:8), Acts notes that the message of salvation is first received by the Jews (13:43) and then extended to the Gentiles (13:47). In his second major speech, given to Athenian Gentiles (17:22–30; foreshadowed by a minor speech in Lystra, 14:16–17), Paul emphasizes God’s past forbearance and creation as a witness to save Gentiles (cf. Rom 1:18–32). This second speech presents Acts’ resurrection theme to a Gentile audience, now noting its rejection by Gentiles (17:31–32) which parallels other Jewish rejections (13:44–47; cf. 23:6–10).55

John the Baptist (13:24–25) is not mentioned in the Pauline letters. Compare Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8 versus Heb 1:5; 5:5. 54 Fitzmyer (Acts, 508) writes “the Christ-event in Pauline theology, justification by faith, is adjusted as an explanation of forgiveness of sins [Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; cf. Luke 24:47]…which, however, is absent in Paul’s uncontested letters…found in the Deutero-Pauline Col 1:14 and Eph 1:7.” 55 Neither the Stoics nor the Epicureans nor the Sadducees believe in the resurrection and interrupt Paul when he mentions the resurrection (17:31–32; 23:6–7). 52 53

PAUL IN ACTS

257

In his third speech, Paul reviews his ministry at the close of his missionary activity with a farewell speech to a Christian audience (20:18–35) reiterating Acts’ themes of the gospel’s availability to both Jews and Greeks (20:21), proclaiming the kingdom of God (20:25), repentance and faith (20:21), and the blood of Jesus (20:28).

Prison Speeches The closing scenes of Acts give the most narrative space to discussing Jesus’ resurrection, with Paul making this theme central to his proclamation. Acts has already signaled the importance of the resurrection throughout the narrative. Thus, Acts begins with the resurrected Jesus (1:1–11), who continues to make appearances to his followers (e.g., 7:55–56; 9:10–16; 18:9–10). Paul’s commission is linked to a vision of the resurrected Jesus (9:4–6; 22:6–10, 17–21; 26:13–18). As an evangelist, Paul makes the resurrection of Jesus central to his proclamation in Damascus (9:20), Antioch (13:16– 41), and Athens (17:22–31). Now, in his first speech before the Temple mob, Acts reintroduces the theme with Paul recalling his visions of the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road and in the Temple as validation of his Jew-Gentile mission (22:6–21). In the second speech, before the Sanhedrin, Paul links his vision of Jesus (as the first-fruits of resurrection) with the Pharisaic belief in visions, angels, and the hope of a final resurrection (23:6–8). Before Felix, Paul will claim the debate is over the issue of the hope of the resurrection (24:15, 21). Festus summarizes the dispute as being over the Jewish claim that Jesus is dead in contrast to Paul’s claim that he has resurrected (25:19). In his final defense, Paul attempts to evangelize Agrippa and provides a succinct summary of his gospel—Jesus suffered and rose from the dead to fulfill the OT Law and prophets by being the first to rise from the dead, which is the reason for Paul’s ministry to both Jews and Gentiles (26:22–23). Upon his arrival in Rome, Paul tells his Jewish audience that he is chained because of Israel’s hope (28:20) going on to witness about the “kingdom of God” and Jesus as exalted Lord and Davidic Messiah (28:23, 31).56 56 Proclaiming the “kingdom of God” bookends Acts (1:3; 28:31). While the disciples attempt to limit God’s promises to “the kingdom of

258

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Holy Spirit and Activity of God Luke-Acts’ emphasis upon the Spirit is obvious with the Spirit appearing seventeen times in Luke and fifty-seven times in Acts, including five dramatic “baptisms” (Jesus, Luke 3:21–22; the Twelve and others, Acts 2:1–4; Samaritans, 8:15–17; Cornelius, 10:44–46; the Ephesians by Paul, 19:4–6). In Acts, the Holy Spirit is primarily portrayed as God’s presence and activity guiding (and validating) the growth of the kingdom of God among Jews and Gentiles.57 Haenchen has noted rightly that the miracles validate the Gentile mission, but this is not merely “external.” Rather, the Spirit transforms, bringing “internal” change by uniting Jews and Gentiles as the people of God. L. T. Johnson notes, “Because [Luke-Acts] understands this Spirit to be the “spirit of prophecy” (Acts 2:17–21 [see Joel 3:1–2]) that derives from the resurrected Lord (2:33), he is able to link Jesus and his followers in a prophetic succession like that of Moses and Joshua (Deut 34:9) or Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 9–14).” The Spirit’s role in Paul’s calling and “baptism” (9:17–18), subsequent miracles (e.g., 14:8–18; 19:11–17; 20:7–12), prophetic utterances (e.g., 20:22–23; 27:13–44), and directing his ministry (e.g., missionary calling, 13:2; final imprisonment, 20:22; 21:7–11) validate his ministry and identify him as a prophetic successor of Jesus.

Jesus-Peter-Paul Parallels The characters of Luke-Acts, who receive the most narrative time, are Jesus, then Paul, then Peter. These three characters are portrayed in parallel fashion.58 All three ministries begin with the bapIsrael” (1:6), Acts ends with Paul proclaiming Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who establishes the “kingdom of God” for both Jews and Gentiles. 57 Compare Mark (6x); Matt (12x); and John (15x). The Spirit both directs (Luke 2:4; 4:31; 8:29, 39; 10:19, 44; 11:28; 13:2, 4; 15:28; 19:21[?]; 20:22, 28) and hinders (16:6–7; 21:4) activity (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke [AB; New York: Doubleday: 1979, 1983] 1:227–28). 58 David Moessner correctly argues that these parallels make them prophets like Moses (“‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the JesusPeter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts,” NovT 28 [1986]: 220–56). Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns: Theological Themes and the Genre of LukeActs (SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974); Andrew J. Mattill

PAUL IN ACTS

259

tism by the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21–22//Acts 2:1–4//Acts 9:17–18) and a paradigmatic speech coupled with Jewish rejection (Luke 4:16–30//Acts 2:14–40//Acts 13:13–52). All three heal paralytics (Luke 5:17–26//Acts 5:17–26//Acts 14:8–18), the sick and demon possessed (e.g., Luke 4:31–40; by Jesus’ cloak, Luke 8:43– 48//Peter’s shadow, Acts 5:13–14//16:16–18; 28:7–10; Paul’s “holy hankies,” Acts 19:11–17) and raise people from the dead (Luke 7:11–17; 8:40–56//Acts 9:36//Acts 20:7–12). Both Jesus and Paul have three passion predictions that highlight Jerusalem as the city of their destiny (Luke 9:21–27; 9:43–45; 18:31–34//Acts 20:22–24; the disciples, 21:4; Agabus, 21:10–14). Both Jesus and Paul have Eucharistic meals (Luke 22:14–23//Acts 20:7–12; 27:24–38) and “last words” (Luke 22:24–38//Acts 20:17–38). All three men are arrested due to Temple disturbances (Luke 19:45–48//Acts 4:1–3; 5:17–26//Acts 21:27–36) and appear before the Jewish council (Luke 22:66–71//Acts 4:5–22; 5:27–42//Acts 23:1–10) and a Herod (Luke 23:6–12//Acts 12:1–19//Acts 26:1–32). Both Jesus and Paul appear before Roman procurator(s) (Luke 23:1–5, 17– 25//Acts 24:1–27; 25:1–12) with the Roman rulers consistently declaring innocence while the Jewish leadership presses for conviction. While Jesus dies and is resurrected (Luke 23:26–24:12), Peter escapes from an expected death (Acts 12:1–19), and Paul’s missionary activity begins by being stoned to death, but raised and ends with Paul facing “death” twice—at sea and by deadly viper— but is “resurrected” by being saved (Acts 27:13–44; 28:3–6).59 The ministries of Jesus, Peter, and Paul all end with proclaiming the gospel (Luke 24:44–49//Acts 12:24//Acts 28:23–31). Both Luke and Acts end with stories of unhindered success as the disciples continue to worship in Jerusalem’s Temple (Luke 24:52–53) and Paul freely proclaims the gospel in Rome (Acts 28:30–31). Through these parallels, first Peter and now Paul are portrayed as the prophetic successors of Jesus (e.g., 3:19–26). These parallels point to

Jr., “The Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered,” NovT 17 (1975): 15–46. 59 Favoring a symbolic death, e.g., Pervo, Acts, 653–54; against, e.g., Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 775 n. 105.

260

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

the story’s main character—God, “who is unseen but powerfully works in similar ways through disparate characters.”60

Roman Destiny and the Ending of Acts Acts foreshadows Paul’s Roman destiny. When Jesus commissions his disciples to be his witnesses from “Jerusalem…to the ends of the earth” (1:8), there is an expectation that the gospel will spread.61 At Pentecost, both Jewish and proselyte pilgrims from all over the world, including Rome, become followers of Jesus (2:10). By the end of Acts, Paul, the former persecutor, becomes imprisoned like those he persecuted (8:3; 9:1–2), and he faces charges of blasphemy against the Law and Temple like the first Christian martyr, Stephen (6:11–15). During his Damascus call, Ananias is given a vision that Saul would suffer as Jesus’ chosen instrument and bring his name before Israel, Gentiles, and kings (9:15–16). Paul’s ministry foreshadows his suffering and imprisonment via being stoned and revived (14:19–20) and being imprisoned and released (16:16–40). At the end of his missionary activities, three predictions of his Jerusalem imprisonment are given (20:22–24; 21:4; 21:10–14). And while Acts’ ending is notoriously ambivalent regarding Paul’s fate after two years of imprisonment (28:30), the narrative alludes to Paul’s trial before Nero (27:24) and eventual death (e.g., 20:22–24, 25, 38). Like other characters (Peter, James, Barnabas, Silas, etc.), Paul’s ambivalent fate reminds the audience that Acts was not written to tell the story of Paul; rather, it is the story of Israel’s God keeping his promises (both to save and judge) to Israel and now including the Gentiles. The open-endedness of the narrative also serves the rhetorical function of challenging the audience to complete the story of the gospel’s spread in their own lives.

CONCLUSION This essay has briefly introduced issues pertaining to the construction of Acts’ character of Paul in light of the purpose of Acts and in comparison with Paul’s letters. While there are similarities beJohnson, Acts, 236; see also Witherington, Acts, 407–408. It is debated whether the “ends of the earth” (1:8) refers to Paul’s arrival in Rome, the conversion of Gentiles, or an event beyond Acts’ ending. 60 61

PAUL IN ACTS

261

tween the Pauls presented in Acts and in the letters, Acts also shapes the stories of Paul (like other characters) in order to further the themes and message of Acts. When narrating the character of Paul, Acts presents him as a prophetic figure, who demonstrates God’s faithfulness first to Jews and now to Gentiles by keeping his promises—both judging those who reject God’s call and saving everyone who accepts the gospel. Ultimately, the audience is challenged to join Paul and the cast of Acts, to be anointed by the Holy Spirit, and to proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God to all who will listen.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Lentz, John C. Jr. Luke’s Portrait of Paul. SNTSMS 77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Phillips, Thomas E. Paul, His Letters, and Acts. LPS. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. Porter, Stanley. Paul in Acts. LPS. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2001. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS: SCHOLARSHIP, THEOLOGY, AND MORAL EXHORTATION IN THE HOMILIES OF ORIGEN AND CHRYSOSTOM Karl Shuve

An essay on patristic exegesis sits rather uneasily in a volume entitled Issues in Luke-Acts. There was, to begin, no such thing as “Luke-Acts” in early Christianity. François Bovon laments that very early in the life of the church “the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts ceased to be two volumes of a single work circulating at the book markets,” thereby “conceal[ing] the original shape of the work.”1 The “issues,” moreover, that troubled ancient interpreters of Luke and Acts were, in most cases, not those that exercise modern commentators. The advent of historical criticism, to speak in generalities, moved scholarship to focus on the historical, cultural, and theological particularities of each book, rather than to treat Scripture as a whole that revealed a unified vision of God and salvation. For early Christians, the Bible had a single “aim” [skopos] and “mind” [dianoia], to which each individual book witnessed.2 It would have been inconceivable to the Fathers to speak of “Luke’s” Christology, ecclesiology, or pneumatology. 1 François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1— 9:50 (trans. C. M. Thomas; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 1. 2 See esp. Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 29–45.

263

264

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

This is not to say, however, that early Christians did not engage critically and systematically with the text of Scripture. From the late second century onwards, Christians began to compose commentaries on individual books of Scripture, in which the text was interpreted lemma by lemma.3 No later than the middle of the third century, moreover, we see the emergence of lectio continua preaching—that is, preaching through an entire book verse by verse.4 Such tasks forced interpreters to engage with individual books as discrete units, even as they desired to integrate them into a broader, unified doctrinal picture. We may legitimately think of these earliest interpreters as “scholars.” They brought the methods of the Greco-Roman grammatical and rhetorical schools to bear on the task of interpreting Scripture: this involved establishing an accurate text, punctuating the text correctly, defining unclear or unknown words, establishing historical context and identifying its subject.5 These preliminary tasks, which remain part of the scholarly enterprise today, were understood to be crucial in order to understand the spiritual significance of the words of Scripture. They also asked theological and ethical questions that continue to engage exegetes: Who does the text say that Jesus is? What is his relationship to God and the Spirit? What is the church? How are followers of Christ to live rightly? How does the vision of God affect our vision of the cosmos? They answered these questions, however, in ways that mod3 The earliest known biblical commentary is the now-lost Commentary on John by the Valentinian theologian Heracleon (ca. 145–80), which survives only in citations of Origen’s Commentary on John (cf. Comm. Jo. 2.100– 104, 137–39), which was composed in the early third century. 4 Our earliest evidence for such preaching is the collections of homilies on individual biblical books delivered by Origen in Caesarea beginning ca. 238. There is, however, evidence from earlier in the third century (from Carthage, Rome and Alexandria) that attests to weekday morning non-Eucharistic services and Wednesday and Friday evening Eucharistic services, during which such lectio continua preaching could have occurred. See P. Nautin, Origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 389– 412. 5 For a detailed analysis of the methods employed in the GrecoRoman schools and their appropriation by Christian exegetes, see Young, Biblical Exegesis, 76–96.

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

265

ern scholarship often finds inappropriate, particularly because they would interpret Scripture in light of other passages of Scripture (from entirely different books!) and by the standards of doctrinal orthodoxy. Hence, Luke has a logos-Christology; the Spirit who descends at Pentecost is “equal” in status to the divine Son. These interpreters were, however, first and foremost scholars in the service of the church. They were not interested in objectively reconstructing the life and thought of earlier communities of Christians (and Jews). Their primary concern was to make Scripture immediately relevant to the lives of their congregations, and they did so by collapsing the distinction between text and interpretive community that is so sacrosanct in modern biblical scholarship. In the present essay, I offer an analysis of the “scholarship” of two of the most important biblical exegetes of the early church— Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254) and John Chrysostom (ca. 347– 407)—on the books of Luke6 and Acts7 to give some sense of the issues that early Christians faced in explaining the importance of these books to their congregations. In so doing, I hope to demonstrate how these two books contributed to the development of Christian thought and practice in Late Antiquity. This approach is conditioned in part by the exigency of limited space, although I also think it particularly apt in such a volume to focus on Christian scholarship on Acts rather than the broader category of the use of Acts (which can range from allusion to and citation of individual verses to full-blown commentaries), connecting modern interpretHomilies on Luke (Homiliae in Lucam, abbreviated Hom. Luc.). Critical edition in Max Rauer, ed., Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Ubersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Commentars (GCS 35; Berlin: Akademi-Verlag, 1959 [1931]). ET Joseph T. Lienhard, Origen: Homilies on Luke; and, Fragments on Luke (Fathers of the Church 94; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). 7 On the Beginning of Acts (In principium Actorum, abbreviated Hom. princ. Act.). Edition in Patrologia graeca 51, cols. 67–112. ET Michael Bruce Compton, Introducing the Acts of the Apostles: A Study of John Chrysostom’s On the Beginning of Acts (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1996), 248–312. Homilies on Acts (Homiliae in Acta Apostolorum, abbreviated Hom. Act.). Edition in Patrologia graeca 60, cols. 13–384. ET George B. Stevens, Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Romans (NPNF1 11; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999 [1889]), 1–328. 6

266

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ers to their ancient forebears. For readers desiring a more detailed account of the earliest use and “canonization” of Luke and Acts, Andrew Gregory’s recent monograph The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus offers an excellent and extensive overview.8 The Gospel of Luke was not exceptionally popular in late antique Christianity, although, as we shall see, its account of the Annunciation and the infancy of Christ were particularly important in the development of Christian understandings of the virginity of Mary and the humanity of Christ. The earliest mention of the Gospel is found in the third book of the work The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called (popularly known as Against Heresies or Adversus haereses) by Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200), who argues that the Gospel of Christ is given “under four aspects,” but bound together by “one Spirit” (3.11.8), using the four “living creatures” of Rev 4:6–7 as an image. He identifies Luke’s Gospel as having a “priestly character,” because it begins with the prophecy to the priest Zechariah, which corresponds to the creature “like a calf” (3.11.8). Luke’s inspired status does not appear to have been challenged, but its contents were. Marcion (d. ca. 160), originally from Pontus in Asia Minor, rejected the continuity between the “law and the gospel”—the Old and New Testaments—and he adopted Luke as his sole authoritative Gospel, excising passages that he perceived were Judaizing.9 Three compilations of homilies on the book from the third through fifth centuries are extant, by Origen, Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339–397)10 and Cyril of Alexandria

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. For decades, the definitive account of Marcion’s life and career has been Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960 [1921]). A spate of recent scholarship has, however, challenged Harnack’s “Lutheran” portrait of Marcion. See esp. Sebastian Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Moll discusses Marcion’s “adoption” and adaptation of Luke’s Gospel at 89–102. 10 ET Theodosia Tomkins, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke: with Fragments on the Prophecy of Esaias (Etna, Calif.: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2003). 8 9

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

267

(ca. 375–444).11 I have selected Origen’s Homilies on Luke for analysis because it is the earliest extant collection we have and it exercised a significant influence on the later interpretive tradition. Acts was considerably less popular, and only two homiletic series preached by John Chrysostom are extant. Indeed, when he comes to preach on Acts, Chrysostom laments that his congregation is ignorant of the work! As we shall see below, it is likely that the reason for this neglect of Acts is liturgical: it seems to have been read infrequently throughout the year, primarily during the Easter Octave—the eight days between Easter Sunday and the following Sunday. The first literary mention of the work also comes from Book Three of Against Heresies, in which Irenaeus uses the account of Paul’s presentation of himself to the apostles in Jerusalem to argue for the unity of the apostolate (3.13.3). Its canonical status is clearly evident from the Muratorian fragment, which attributes authorship of Acts to Luke (35–39). Portions of the work were, however, decisively important for Christian theology, particularly the story of Pentecost, which was fundamental for Chrysostom in developing his theology of the Holy Spirit and its relationship to the sanctification of the believer.

ORIGEN’S HOMILIES ON LUKE: THE DISCIPLINE OF SEEING THE WORD The collection of thirty-nine of Origen’s homilies on Luke is our earliest extant systematic exposition of this Gospel. Origen is one of the luminaries of the early church, who combined the intellectual capabilities necessary for pioneering work in speculative theology with the pastoral sensibilities needed to apply his theological insights to the lives of ordinary Christians. He applied himself, almost exclusively, to the interpretation of Scripture. In his early life, he headed the catechetical school in Alexandria, but after a dispute

ET Robert Payne Smith, Commentary upon the Gospel According to Saint Luke by St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria: first translated into English from an Ancient Syriac Version (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2009 [1859]). 11

268

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

with his bishop, he departed for Caesarea, where he was ordained a presbyter and regularly preached.12 Origen delivered these short sermons on Luke at the Eucharistic assemblies held in the church at Caesarea, which took place three times a week: on Wednesday and Friday evenings, and Sunday mornings.13 These services were generally reserved for baptized members of the Christian community, but catechumens who were soon to receive the sacrament seem to have been allowed to attend the reading and preaching of the Gospel.14 The preaching at these assemblies was lectio continua. The entirety of the Gospels would have been read in three-year cycles, but the length of the selections appears to have been quite fluid: Origen could preach on as few as one or as many as fifteen verses at a time. We possess only a fraction of the homilies that Origen delivered on Luke. The first thirty-three in the collection treat the infancy, childhood and early ministry of Jesus (1:1—4:27) in a relatively unbroken fashion, with only a few verses omitted, whereas the remaining six are on a seemingly random assortment of verses. There is no exposition of the Passion or of Christ on the road to Emmaus. The homilies, moreover, survive only in Latin translation, which is the unfortunate case with most of the exegetical works of

12 For an accessible overview of Origen’s career, see Ronald Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 13 The liturgical life of the church at Caeasarea has been carefully documented by P. Nautin, Origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 389–412. He proposes that there were three main gatherings of Christians during the week: the synaxis, a non-Eucharistic assembly that was held in the morning on each day except Sunday, at which the Old Testament was read and which was open to the catechumens; a Eucharistic assembly on Wednesday and Friday evenings, at which a text from the Gospels was read; and the Sunday morning Eucharistic assembly, at which a text from each of the Old Testament, Acts or the Epistles, and the Gospels was read and exposited. 14 Origen occasionally makes reference to the presence of catechumens in the congregation (Hom. Luc. 7.8; 21.4; 22.6; 32.6), exhorting them not to turn away from Christ and the church out of fear but to press on to the waters of baptism.

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

269

Origen.15 Jerome’s comments in the preface to his translation suggest that the Greek compilation with which he was working contained only the thirty-nine homilies. In these homilies, Origen is concerned to shape his hearers in Christian virtues, to encourage his catechumens to persist in the road towards baptism and to guard against the challenges posed by Marcionites, Valentinians, and Jews. The opening chapters of Luke—with their account of Mary’s divine conception, Jesus’ infancy (in particular, his circumcision) and childhood, his baptism, and his framing of his ministry in terms of Isaiah 61—provide Origen with particularly fertile ground to argue for the continuity between Old and New Testaments and to present Christ as a model whom believers are to emulate. Origen’s key concern in his interpretation of Luke is to train his hearers in the “discipline” of “seeing the Word” (Hom. Luc. 1.4), whose assumption of flesh for the redemption of humanity is made manifest in the text. Text Criticism and Exegetical Method Origen began his biblical commentaries with lengthy prefaces that set out the theme of the book, how it is to be interpreted and how it fits within the skopos—the integrated theological vision—of Scripture as a whole. In the first book of the Commentary on John, Origen explains that the Gospels are the “first-fruit” of Scripture— and John more specifically is the “first-fruit” of the Gospels— because they reveal the “divinity” of Christ most clearly (1.4.22). Origen argues, however, that even in the Gospels this revelation is not easily or clearly grasped. There are, rather, two distinct aspects: the “sensible gospel” and the “intelligible gospel,” the former pertaining to the narrative and grammatical sequence of the text and the latter to its spiritual meaning (1.7.37–43). His task as exegete is to transform the narrative of the “sensible” gospel into a “spiritual” one.

15 They were translated by Jerome of Stridon at the request of two Roman ladies to whom he served as mentor, Paula and her daughter Eustochium, in either 390 or 391, in fairly direct response to the publication of Ambrose’s Exposition on the Gospel According to Luke, which was heavily reliant on Origen’s Homilies.

270

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

He uses his first homily, the text of which is Luke 1:1–4, as a sort of preface to the study of Luke, but his aims are less philosophically ambitious than they were in the Commentary on John. Origen interprets the author’s claim that “many have tried” to write an account of the events of Christ’s life and ministry to refer to the gospels of the “heretics” (Hom. Luc. 1.1). The Church has “four Gospels” (Hom. Luc. 1.2), which were composed by “Matthew, Mark, John and Luke,” who did not “try” to write, but did so “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Hom. Luc. 1.1). Christian doctrine about “the person of our Lord and Savior” should only be deduced “from these approved Gospels” (Hom. Luc. 1.2). Origen begins by marking the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, using the words of Luke to establish the four Gospels as the sole reliable source of truth about Christ. Origen does not, however, stop at distinguishing these “authorized” Gospels from other “heretical” gospels, but he also makes a firm distinction between the Gospels and the Old Testament (OT), by seizing on the phrase “eyewitnesses of the word” (1:2). He understands this “word” to be the divine logos of John 1:1, whom the disciples saw through the covering of the body. In Exodus, by contrast, the people were permitted only to see the “voice” of the Lord (cf. 20:18). Johannine language looms large in the prefatory homily. Jesus, son of Mary, is the divine Word enfleshed, and those who see the Word see the Father as well (cf. John 14:9). But, Origen avers, not all who see the body of Christ see the Word. To see the Word is “a discipline and a science,” and it is the task of Origen the preacher to lead his congregation to such knowledge. Although he does not explicitly frame it in such terms, one can detect in the background the distinction between “sensible” and “intelligible” gospel. It is insufficient simply to hear the narrative of Luke’s Gospel, just as it is insufficient simply to look on the body of Christ; rather, one must apply oneself to learning the “discipline” of seeing the Word. Although the four Gospels each have their own emphases and idiosyncrasies, their “sensible” narratives are but the starting-points from which one ascends to the “spiritual” gospel and a direct encounter with the logos. Since Origen is interested in the particularities of Luke’s Gospel not to distinguish “his” Jesus from “John’s” or “Mark’s” Jesus but to construct a more complete and integrated vision of the Word—the Gospels always being complementary to

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

271

one another—he will often impose verses from other books of Scripture to illuminate the text on which he is preaching. Origen reads the text in a way that addresses directly the concerns of his hearers. This most often takes the form of what we might call “moral” exegesis, in which he extends the relevance of the verse in question to the lives of all believers. A good example of this is his interpretation of the statement that John “grew and was strengthened in Spirit” (Luke 1:80). Origen understands this to be a kind of ascetic training of the Spirit, which John, though a young boy, rigorously undertakes. And even though it is a historically accurate description of John’s childhood, Origen confidently asserts, “It is written for our imitation” (Hom. Luc. 11.3). After elucidating the grammatical and historical sense of the text—what it means to “grow in Spirit”—Origen must then relate it to the moral and spiritual progress of his hearers. There are, however, instances in the Homilies when the “deeper” (Hom. Luc. 37.1) meaning of the text has doctrinal or cosmological content, which Origen thinks it appropriate only for the more advanced Christians to know. He gives a reading of John’s baptizing of the tax collectors (Luke 3:12) “according to anagōgē” (Hom. Luc. 23.5)—anagōgē being one of his favored terms for referring to the “elevated” or “spiritual” sense of Scripture, which Jerome helpfully leaves untranslated. After expressing anxiety about revealing such “mystical” content to a mixed audience, he identifies the “tax collectors” as demonic powers, who will “be seated at the boundary of the world” and will examine us after we leave the world to see whether we owe anything to their “prince” (Hom. Luc. 23.5–6). Although it is precisely this kind of allegorizing that evokes the ire of contemporary scholars, since it is only tenuously linked to the narrative under consideration, it is noteworthy that Origen’s construction of a parable in which the Roman system of taxation serves as an image of post-mortem reckoning is highly reminiscent of the pedagogy employed by the synoptic Jesus. Because Scripture, for Origen, has a single skopos, he has no anxiety about reading theological presuppositions from the other Gospels or the epistles “into” the text of Luke. These anagogical readings must nonetheless be built on a firm understanding of the grammatical sense, which cannot be obtained without establishing a reliable text and resolving problems of historical accuracy. Given the liturgical context of Origen’s exegesis,

272

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

we do not see as many text critical excurses as we do in his commentaries, but he does note that the Magnificat is assigned in some manuscripts to Mary, and in others to Elizabeth (Hom. Luc. 7.3). Origen also identifies the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke as an issue of reliability, asserting, “This fact has disquieted some people very much” (Hom. Luc. 28.1). He resolves the issue by pointing to the supposedly complementary aims of Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s genealogy appears at the beginning his Gospel, and includes the names of sinful women, such as Tamar and Rahab; this is to reveal that Christ “took on the person of sinners and depraved men” (Hom. Luc. 28.2). Luke, by contrast, presents his genealogy after Christ has gone through the waters of baptism and is born a second time—“not through Solomon, but through Nathan” (Hom. Luc. 28.3). This reveals the redemption and renewal of humanity. For Origen, the divergent aims of Matthew and Luke do not arise from their use of different sources or from the differing theological presuppositions of the communities for which they are writing. Rather, they each present a different piece of the gospel puzzle, and taken together they fully reveal the economy of the Incarnation. Christ and Salvation Origen elsewhere asserts that Luke “leaves to him who reclines on the breast of Jesus the greater and more complete discourses concerning Jesus,” and that it was only John who “plainly declared [Christ’s] Godhead” (Comm. Jo. 1.6.22). But, for Origen, this does not make Luke’s Gospel deficient. Rather, the emphasis placed on the humanity of Christ—in particular, his submission to and fulfillment of the Law—allows Origen to counter both the Marcionite and Valentinian suspicion of the OT and the Jewish repudiation of Jesus as Messiah. The stories of Jesus’ conception, circumcision and visit to Jerusalem as a youth, all of which are unique to Luke, cement Origen’s case that there is direct continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Origen is, however, equally clear that the Christ of Luke’s Gospel is divine as well. That the angel must “appear” to Zechariah means that the angel must choose to be seen—a luxury that corporeal beings do not possess (Hom. Luc. 3.1). Origen then extrapolates from this that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only seen when they will to be seen, and thus looking on the body of Christ does not necessarily mean that one sees “the

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

273

greatness of his divinity” (Hom. Luc. 3.4); this is a privilege reserved for the pure of heart. John’s assertion that those who truly see Christ see “the Father also” (Hom. Luc. 3.4; cf. John 14:9) and Paul’s promise of the eschatological “face to face” vision (Hom. Luc. 3.4; 1 Cor 13:12) inform the contours of Origen’s exposition of Lukan Christology. Origen uses the narrative of the conception and infancy of Christ to show the place of the Incarnation in the divine economy. Sin originates with woman “and then spread to the man”; salvation, therefore, “had its first beginnings from women”—evidenced by the prophecies of Elizabeth and Mary before the birth of their children (Hom. Luc. 8.1). Christ’s registration in the census reveals that he assumed humanity for the purpose of sanctifying it: “He was registered with everyone, and sanctified everyone. He was joined with the world for the census, and offers the world communion with himself” (Hom. Luc. 11.6). He is genuinely human, because he needed to become like us to save us; he registered with us, so that we might register with him. An offering needed to be made in the Temple for his purification precisely because Christ had a real “human body,” not one made of a “heavenly or spiritual substance” (Hom. Luc. 14.4). Luke’s assertion that Christ was “filled with wisdom” (Luke 2:40) before the age of twelve, however, reveals that he is more than human (Hom. Luc. 19.1). Origen asserts that we “may not doubt that a divine being appeared in the flesh of Jesus” (Hom. Luc. 19.2), who is the “Son of God in the proper sense” (Hom. Luc. 29.2). It is only the divine Word who is naturally Son, whereas we are all children by adoption. We must, therefore, love Christ with the same love that we love God: “Love the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father” (Hom. Luc. 25.8). Christ is, moreover, “circumcised on our account” so that “we were circumcised along with him” and we no longer have any need “for a circumcision in the flesh” (Hom. Luc. 14.1). In submitting to this act, he fulfills the Law and releases humanity from its burdens. Origen, at times, directs particular verses against Marcionites and Valentinians, who deny that Jesus is the Son of the Creator God. He asserts that because the Gospel reads that Jesus was brought to Jerusalem “according to the Law of Moses” (Luke 2:22), there are no reasonable grounds on which one can deny that Christ came to reveal “the God of the Law” (Hom. Luc. 14.7). Origen is also particularly interested in Simeon’s prophecy that Christ

274

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

has come “for the falling and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34– 35). He reads this as a cognate expression to the proclamation of the Lord in Deuteronomy, “I shall kill and I shall make alive” (Hom. Luc. 16.4; cf. Deut 32:39), which the Marcionites reject as at variance with the message of love proclaimed by Christ. Both passages Origen interprets as referring to God’s spiritual slaying of the “old man” and humanity’s restoration in the second birth (Hom. Luc. 16.7–8). Christ’s visit to the Temple as a youth, moreover, which he refers to as his “Father’s house” (Luke 2:49), further serves as evidence for Origen that Jesus did not come to reveal a God other than the God of the patriarchs and prophets (Hom. Luc. 18.5). The Gospel of Luke also provides Origen with a clear account of the supersession of the Jews by Christians. Zechariah is inflicted with muteness for his disbelief, which signifies for Origen the silencing of the prophets (Hom. Luc. 1.1). Zechariah’s wordless gestures—he communicates by nodding—reveal how the “Jewish practices” are alogoi—“without words and reason” (Hom. Luc. 5.2– 3). They practice circumcision, but this is “an empty sign” (Hom. Luc. 5.2). The Word no longer endows their practices and precepts with reason, and they have been “rejected for our sake” (Hom. Luc. 5.4). His supersession is here tempered, however, by the somber assessment that the Gentiles are deserving of “even greater punishment” (Hom. Luc. 5.4) if they prove unworthy of adoption. Origen, moreover, interprets Simeon’s prophecy that Christ comes for the “falling and rising of many” to refer to the falling of the Jews, whom God blinded, and the rising of the Gentiles, to whom God restored sight (Hom. Luc. 16.3). This passage is thus susceptible to both an anti-Jewish and an anti-“heretical” interpretation. The Virgin Mary The Gospel of Luke also came to serve as an important locus of reflection on the person of Mary, whose sanctity and perpetual virginity were becoming increasingly important—and contentious— matters of theological discussion. Origen begins by addressing why the virgin needed to be betrothed. He infers that if she were not betrothed, when her pregnancy became known, “the state of virginity itself would be a cause of disgrace” (Hom. Luc. 6.3). Her reputation would have been tarnished, and she would not be fit to admire and to emulate. Origen also follows Ignatius of Antioch

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

275

(Eph. 19.1) in offering a more mystical reason for her betrothal: it caused Satan to remain ignorant of the divine conception, which means he did not realize that the plan for salvation had been put into effect (Hom. Luc. 6.4). Mary, for Origen, is a model of holiness. He asserts that she “knew the Law” and had “learned the writings of the prophets by meditating on them daily” (Hom. Luc. 6.7). She represents the ideal Christian contemplative. Origen explains that she was taken aback by the angel’s greeting—kecharitōmenē, “Hail, full of grace” (Hom. Luc. 6.7; cf. Luke 2:28)—because she was intimately familiar with the Law and knew such an expression had never before been used. She was, therefore, the one “most suitable to bear God’s Son” (Hom. Luc. 7.2), “eager and not slothful” (Hom. Luc. 7.2), whose journey to visit Elizabeth in the “mountain country” signifies her ascent in holiness. Origen affirms the doctrines of Mary’s virginity ante partum (“before parturition”) on the basis of the citation of Exodus 13:2— “every male that opens the womb shall be called holy”—at Luke 2:23 (Hom. Luc. 14.7). He reads the phrase arsen dianoigon mētran not as a circumlocution for “firstborn,” but as prophetically signifying a son who will be born to a mother whose womb was not opened by intercourse with a man, but only at the point of delivery—i.e., who conceived while still a virgin. The physical marks of her virginity, according to Origen, remained intact until the birth of Jesus, who opened the womb. He also chastises those who deny Mary’s virginity post partum (“after parturition”), by arguing that there is no evidence that she engaged subsequently in sexual relations (Hom. Luc. 7.4; pace Matt 13:55). Sexual intercourse, for Origen, is defiling, and it is unthinkable for Mary, at any point in her life, to have engaged in it. Significantly, Origen denied the nascent doctrine of Mary’s virginity in partu (“during parturition”)—that is, the doctrine that Mary suffered no pain in labor and did not lose the physical marks of her virginity during the birthing process. His exegesis of Luke 2:23 leads him to defend strongly the position that Jesus removed those physical markers at his birth.16 The doctrine of Mary’s virginity in partu would soon become Catholic orthodoxy, being defended by Ambrose of Milan in his commentary on Luke. See David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient 16

276

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON ACTS: A DEMONSTRATION OF THE RESURRECTION John Chrysostom was the first Christian exegete to interpret systematically the book of Acts, and the only one to do so before the sixth century. He preached on the book in two different instances: first, as a presbyter at Antioch, when he delivered five homilies explaining the title “Acts of the Apostles,” transmitted as On the Beginning of Acts (Hom. princ. Act.);17 and then, perhaps more than a decade later, as bishop of Constantinople, when he preached fiftyfive homilies on the book.18 In his first homily On the Beginning of Acts, Chrysostom laments that his congregation is “not accustomed to hearing such a work” and that for many “this book is not even known [gnōrimon]” (1.3; PG 51.71), a claim that he repeats in his first Homily on Acts (Hom. Act. 1.1). The problem of ignorance was, therefore, widespread, existing at both Antioch and Constantinople. It seems likely that this ignorance that Chrysostom bemoans— as Ward Gasque proposes—refers to the contents of the Acts rather than to its existence.19 It is unsurprising that many (polloi) Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 197–204. 17 In the third homily, Chrysostom refers to the city in which he is preaching as having received “the chief of the apostles as our first teacher” (2.6). Traditionally, Peter was identified as the first bishop of Antioch. The sermon could plausibly be dated to any year during his tenure as presbyter at Antioch (i.e., 386–97). 18 The place of delivery must be Constantinople, because in the third homily he bemoans the burdens placed upon Christian bishops (3.1). J. N. D. Kelly dates the homilies to the latter half of 400 CE (Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop [London: Duckworth, 1995], 166–67). 19 Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 7–8. Chrysostom was frequently given to denigrating rhetorically the knowledge and zeal of his congregation. In his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, he accuses his hearers of being unable to count accurately the number of the Pauline Epistles (1.1); in the second of his series of Homilies on Matthew, he chastens his congregation for not being able to “recite one Psalm” or any other portion of Scripture (2.5); and, in the Homilies on Acts, he accuses his flock of never reading the Bible outside of worship (19.4).

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

277

would be unfamiliar with the narrative of Acts, because it seems to have been read infrequently during the liturgical year, perhaps only during the season of Pentecost (that is, the seven weeks between the feasts of Easter and Pentecost). Chrysostom devotes his final homily in Beginning of Acts to answering the question why Acts is read during Pentecost and not after, which is when it would be most appropriate. The internal evidence of Beginning of Acts, moreover, suggests that Chrysostom preached the first homily on Easter Monday, possibly to coincide with the reading of Acts. Preaching on Acts was rhetorically and theologically a challenge for Chrysostom. He not only had to overcome the issue of those who were generally unfamiliar with the work, but he also had to rebut the opinion of those who remained ignorant of its significance because its meaning seemed to be “clear [saphes]” (1.3; PG 51.71). Michael Compton has advanced the compelling thesis that many in Chrysostom’s congregation were indifferent towards Acts because they understood it simply to be a catalogue of miracles of the Apostles—interpreting praxeis as “miracles” or “wonders”— which they could not emulate.20 Given the importance of parenesis in early Christian biblical interpretation, it was crucial for Chrysostom to demonstrate how the narrative of Acts presents paradeigmata for the moral and spiritual edification of its readers/hearers. His resolution is remarkable. He argues for the importance of Acts by subverting his hearers’ expectations about the significance of the miracles of the apostles. These miracles or “signs” of the apostles, Chrysostom asserts in the final homily of the Beginning of Acts series, are indeed fundamental to the work, because they serve as a “demonstration of the resurrection” (4.6), fulfilling the promises made in the Gospels and securing a place for Acts as “no less even than the Gospels” (Act. 1.1). But the miracles are secondary to the overall aim of Acts. By serving as a “demonstration of the resurrection,” the miracles lead to a “vision of faith” (4.6), which makes it possible to emulate the righteous conduct (praxeis) of the apostles.21 The work is thus called “Acts of the Apostles” and not “Miracles of the Apostles” because its fundamental aim is to present the Compton, Acts of the Apostles, 150–51. For Chrysostom, right action comes both “from our own zeal and from divine grace” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.2). 20 21

278

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

apostles as models of love and virtue whom Christians are to emulate. He demonstrates that Acts is a crucial text both theologically and parenetically. Rhetoric and Exegesis John Chrysostom was one of the great rhetors and moralists of the late antique world, and he contends with Augustine for the title of most prolific preacher of the age. Recent scholarship has highlighted how Chrysostom’s biblical exegesis was indebted to the literary techniques of the rhetorical schools, and this is evident in his exegesis of Acts, particularly in the Beginning of Acts series.22 In his first homily in the Beginning of Acts series, he argues for the importance of the close analysis of the title of Acts as significant for understanding the subject (hypothesis) of the work—a fundamental task in the rhetorical interpretation of texts.23 Rather than begin his inquiry straightaway, however, Chrysostom flatters those “few” present in his congregation, who, unlike the multitudes that attend church only on feast days out of “habit,” come out of a “longing for the divine oracles” (Hom. princ. Act. 1.1). He “rejoices” for those who are present and “grieves” for those who are absent, opting instead to attend the “theater” (Hom. princ. Act. 1.1). The goal is to produce an effect in the hearer, and Chrysostom achieves this through both his praise and empathy, which he offers with no little hyperbole. There is also subtle moral exhortation: those who desire to live rightly will attend church frequently and keep their distance from secular entertainment. From his accusation of those who only attend church on feast days out of vanity, Chrysostom diverges into a discourse on the proper use of wealth, which is a burden for those who have it (Hom. princ. Act. 1.2). He accuses them, he says, not out of malice, but out of a desire to correct, because he as preacher has the responsibility for the “salvation” not only of those present, but also “for those who are absent” (Hom. 22 Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (New York: Routledge, 2000), 26–33; Young, Biblical Exegesis, 248–64. 23 Frequently in Antiochene homilies, the preacher would define the subject (hypothesis) or aim (skopos) of the work in the opening paragraphs. Although these terms do not appear in Hom. princ. Act., Chrysostom uses both at Hom. Act. 1.2 (PL 60.16).

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

279

princ. Act. 1.2). He acknowledges that the true objects of his wrath are not present, but that those present should go out and “teach” those who were slothful (Hom. princ. Act. 1.2). Chrysostom has developed his initial praise of his hearers into a more nuanced discourse on the need for Christians to work zealously in the task of saving souls. We may interpret this lengthy opening section, which ostensibly has nothing to do with Acts, as indirection, the technique of beginning one’s discourse by foreshadowing later content. Acts, Chrysostom will argue, is a source of paradeigmata that define the shape of the Christian life. Paul preached from the moment of his baptism and continued to oppose the Jews; he is to be an example for Christians to “teach through deeds and conduct” (Hom. princ. Act. 1.5). Chrysostom praises the constancy of his hearers in order to exhort them to zeal in teaching, which he identifies as the subject matter of the book itself. When he finally begins, after his lengthy introduction, to discourse on Acts, Chrysostom identifies several elements that must first be established if the book is to be interpreted correctly. He must determine whether the book is divinely inspired; who wrote it and in what circumstances; what is the subject of the work; why it is read during Pentecost; and why it has been given the title “Acts of the Apostles,” which requires defining properly the words in the title. These concerns align neatly with the methodokion (identifying subject matter, lexical analysis, etc.) and historikon (determining context and circumstance of events) of the schools, which were the foundational steps in the interpretation of texts.24 For Chrysostom, the key to understanding the subject of Acts lies in the proper understanding of the word praxeis. He uses the third homily25 in the Beginning of Acts series to defend his claim that praxis is distinct from “miracle [thauma],” “sign [sēmeia],” “mighty work [dunamis]” and “wonder [teras],” all of which are displays of

For a more detailed discussion, see Young, Biblical Exegesis, 169–76. In the Greek edition of the Beginning of Acts series, the extant homilies are numbered sequentially from one to four; the missing homily is frequently identified as “Q.” Thus the third, fourth and fifth homilies are numbered 2, 3, and 4 respectively. 24 25

280

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

“divine generosity” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.2; PG 51.80).26 Praxis is, rather, cognate to katorthōma, “right action,” which originates in “one’s own zeal [oikeias spoudēs]” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.2; PG 51.80). A miracle requires “no effort on our part” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.2), which means that we have no capacity to reproduce them. It is simply the grace of God that determines who works miracles and who does not. If the book were, therefore, entitled Thaumata Apostolōn, there might be reason to ignore it, for it could offer no hope of moral improvement. An act, however, comes both from our own zeal and from divine grace (Hom. princ. Act. 2.3), which means all who have been led to the “vision of faith” (Hom. princ. Act. 4.6) have the capacity to imitate the deeds of the apostles. Therefore, although miracles are “greater,” acts [praxeis] and conduct [politeia] are “more useful” because they are the “reward for zeal [spoudēs misthos]” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.3; PG 51.80). Chrysostom is here careful to define praxis as a “reward” rather than something we achieve entirely on our own, for our ability to act well is contingent both on our own effort and on God’s grace. Chrysostom finds this particular definition of the term praxis consonant with the theology of the Gospels and the epistles. Christ, for example, warns in a parable that he will turn away those who performed miracles yet were “workers of iniquity” (Hom. princ. Act. 2.3; cf. Matt 7:23). Instead, he will welcome into the kingdom of heaven those who feed the hungry and welcome the stranger (Hom. princ. Act. 2.3; cf. Matt 25:34–36). It is deeds, not miracles, that are necessary for salvation, and it was for their pure life—not for the miracles that they worked—that the apostles merited to be so called. For Chrysostom, the book of Acts puts a stop to those who object that his demand to “imitate [mimēsai] Peter; emulate [zēoson] Paul” is impossible (Hom. princ. Act. 2.3; PG 51.82). Having defined the meaning of praxis, Chrysostom in the following homily feels compelled to explain what an apostolos is, although he notes that many are becoming frustrated with his “slowness” (Hom. princ. Act. 3.2). He invokes this objection to reinforce The second homily appears to have affirmed Lukan authorship of Acts (cf. Hom. princ. Act. 3.3). By authorship, however, he means that Luke was the “minister” of the words he wrote, but that “he did not bring about the things which have been said” (Hom. princ. Act. 4.3). 26

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

281

his own duty of pastoral care: such depth of analysis is for “your benefit” (Hom. princ. Act. 3.3). He rhetorically solidifies his claim to exegetical expertise, which is particularly relevant in a homily that presents Acts as defending a hierarchical model of authority in the church. Relying on the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, Chrysostom defines the apostolate as the chief office in the church (Hom. princ. Act. 3.3). It is not distinct from the offices of “prophet” and “teacher” and the gifts of “healing,” “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues,” but is rather “the origin and root of the gifts”—the apostolate contains all these offices and possess all these gifts within itself (Hom. princ. Act. 3.3). The apostles, moreover, exercise the functions of rulers and judges. Peter acted as judge over Ananias and Sapphira, convicting them of withholding goods due to God; their deaths resulted from his condemnation (Hom. princ. Act. 3.5; Acts 5:1–11). Yet, since Peter and the apostles were rulers over death, they could not only send people to death but also call them back. This was the case in the resurrection of Tabitha by Peter (Hom. princ. Act. 3.5; Acts 9:36–43). One must, I think, see in this homily a tacit defense of the superiority of bishops (and clergy, perhaps—Chrysostom was not yet a bishop), who continued to exercise the authority of the apostles in the church. But it also serves to temper his portrait of the apostles in his earlier homily as subjects for emulation: as Compton astutely notes, the apostles, for Chrysostom, are both “imitable and inimitable.”27 In the final homily in the series, Chrysostom defines the subject of Acts with reference to its place in the lectionary. As noted above, he asserts that it is read during Pentecost because its miracles are a “demonstration of the resurrection [anasteōs apodeixis]”— “this book is a school of the apostolic signs [sēmeiōn apostolikōn didaskaleion]” (Hom. princ. Act. 4.6; PG 51.105). The miracles are necessary because the sight of the resurrected Christ alone would not be sufficient; even the disciples did not believe their eyes and thought that he was some ghostly apparition (Hom. princ. Act. 4.6). If raising Lazarus were not sufficient demonstration, then neither would it be sufficient for Christ to present his own resurrected body to the crowd. The miracles performed by the apostles, however, elicited 27

Compton, Acts of the Apostles, 204.

282

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

belief from the crowds (cf. Acts 2:41), which proved that Christ had risen and ascended and the Holy Spirit had descended (Hom. princ. Act. 4.6–7). The homilies in the Beginning of Acts series sit together rather uneasily. In one instance, Chrysostom offers the apostles as models of emulation. Then, in the next homily, he portrays them as nearly superhuman rulers who have power over death. He makes a strong case in the third homily that the work is called “Acts” because conduct is far more important than miracles, and yet in the fifth homily he defines the work as a “school” of “signs.” Each homily was rhetorically designed to elicit a particular set of responses from the congregation, from reverence and submission to the apostolic office, to zeal for practicing the virtues, to faith in the risen Lord and the Holy Spirit. There is, I shall argue below, a coherence in Chrysostom’s interpretation of Acts that indelibly links theological propositions and ethical action, but each homily gives a piece of the puzzle—not the big picture. Theology and Virtue There is little speculative theology in the homilies of John Chrysostom. His task as preacher was the “salvation” of his flock, and he used the tools of his rhetorical education to effect moral and spiritual transformation in his hearers. In his first homily On the Beginning of Acts, Chrysostom presents examples—paradeigmata—from Acts to warn and edify his congregation. For Chrysostom, there was a host of paradeigmata in Scripture, good and bad: “For it is necessary to reform and to heal you, not only from those who stand, but also from those who are fallen” (1.5). Simon Magus serves as an example of one of the “newly-enlightened” who returned to his former wicked ways by coveting the power of the apostles (Hom. princ. Act. 1.5; cf. Acts 8:18–25). Paul, however, who wasted no time in opposing the Jews from his rebirth in the faith, is a positive example of one who has never lost the zeal of the newly baptized (Hom. princ. Act. 1.5; cf. Acts 9:18–20). It is, as we saw above, the principal aim of Acts to familiarize Christians with the conduct [politeia] of the apostles for the purpose of imitation [mimēsai]. Although Chrysostom hints at the need for grace to perform these apostolic praxeis, the theological underpinning for right Christian action is not fully developed.

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

283

The connection between theology and virtue—resurrection and right action—is made significantly more clearly in the first sermon of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts (Hom. Act.), which was preached in Constantinople around the year 400, perhaps more than a decade after the series On the Beginning of Acts. One can detect most of the elements Chrysostom draws together in the later Homilies already in Beginning of Acts, with the significant exception of the Holy Spirit, who is surprisingly absent in the earlier treatise. After again lamenting his congregation’s lack of knowledge of Acts, he asserts that this work “may profit us no less even than the Gospels.” The book is filled with “Christian wisdom and sound doctrine” and here Chrysostom singles out in particular “what is said of the Holy Spirit” (1.1). He identifies the “subject [hypothesis]” and “aim [skopos]” of the work as a “demonstration of the resurrection,” as he had at Hom. princ. Act. 4 (1.2; PG 60.16). Chrysostom here, however, draws out more clearly the relationship among the resurrection, ascension, and the descent of the Spirit than in Beginning of Acts. Indeed, in Beginning of Acts it is not clear, except in the most vague sense, how the resurrection of Christ empowers Christians to live the virtuous lives to which they are called by the examples of the apostles. In the Homilies on Acts, Chrysostom develops an account of sanctification in which the believer is transformed by the “grace” of the Holy Spirit, which follows one’s encounter with the resurrected Christ. It is no longer, as in Beginning of Acts, the miracles themselves that are the demonstration of the resurrection, but rather the descent of the Holy Spirit, who gives the power to do the miraculous. Acts is the fulfillment of the Gospels, because “the Gospels are a history of what Christ did and said; but the Acts, of what that ‘other Comforter’ said and did” (Hom. Act. 1.3). Whereas the Holy Spirit played a limited role in the Gospels, in which he “came into the Virgin’s womb and fashioned the Temple,” in Acts he comes “directly into apostolic souls…in the likeness of fire” (Hom. Act. 1.3). There is a distinctly narrative shape to Chrysostom’s account of the economy of salvation, which begins with the prophecies of Christ (cf. Matt 10:18, 24:14; John 13:35, 14:12), reaches its climax with the passion and resurrection, and is resolved with the ascension of Christ into heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. In the Gospels we encounter “the predictions which Christ utters” and in Acts we see these “actually come to pass”

284

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

(Hom. Act. 1.1). Whereas Chrysostom does mention the miracles of the apostles as proof of this fulfillment, as he had in Beginning of Acts, the greater weight of this proof falls on the perfection of “virtue” and “love” in the apostles (Hom. Act. 1.1). There is no longer the “imitable” and “inimitable” distinction between “conduct” and “miracles,” which may mean the problem of Acts as catalogue of apostolic miracles was uniquely an issue at Antioch, but all together are attributable to the working of the power of God. The foundation of faith consists of the “passion, resurrection and ascension”—it must first “be believed that he has ascended and risen into heaven” (Hom. Act. 1.1). This is why, Chrysostom asserts, the sermons in Acts address the “humanity” of Christ and not his “equality with the Father” (Hom. Act. 1.1). There is an apostolic sunkatabasis (“condescension”) at work: the pagan and Jewish crowds would have been unable to tolerate any lengthy account of the Son’s divinity, and thus only the essentials of the faith— resurrection and ascension—were preached (Hom. Act. 1.1). Once this is believed, “the rest would come in due course” (Hom. Act. 1.1). Chrysostom interprets the phrase that Christ remained with the disciples “during forty days” (Acts 1:2) as meaning that he was not always with them during that period, frequently departing to prepare them for his ascension (Hom. Act. 1.3). This was to lead them, who now accepted the truth of his resurrection, to focus on his divinity, rather than his humanity. Christ prepared them during this final forty days to receive the “grace” of the Holy Spirit, who could not descend until he had ascended. The Spirit did not descend for another ten days after the ascension, however, to increase the desire of the disciples for him. Christ calls the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost a “baptism” (Acts 1:5) to signify that it is by the Spirit that the baptismal “water has its operation” (Hom. Act. 1.3). Although the Spirit is imparted in the waters of Christian baptism so that there is now a single baptism, the earliest followers of Jesus who were baptized by John stood in need of the Spirit (Hom. Act. 1.3). This Spirit, who is neither “impersonal energy” nor “inferior to the Son,” brings the “benefit of grace” to those who have faith in the resurrected Christ (Hom. Act. 1.3), so that living the “virtuous life” is no longer a burden, but a “gift.” This life in the Spirit is embodied by the disciples, who despise the “affections” of “wealth, glory, passion and concupiscence”; reject pride; seek unity; and practice “charity” (Hom. Act.

THE PATRISTIC RECEPTION OF LUKE AND ACTS

285

1.1). The Book of Acts is, therefore, for Chrysostom “the very crowning point of our salvation” (Hom. Act. 1.1) because it sets forth both the model of the virtuous life in the paradeigmata of the apostles and provides the theological basis on which Christians may hope to partake in such a life themselves.

CONCLUSIONS Both Origen and John Chrysostom took up the task of systematically explaining the books of Luke and Acts, respectively, to their congregations. Both, therefore, had to take seriously the unique and distinctive aspects of the books on which they were preaching, and to present the works as coherent units. Unlike modern scholars, however, their ultimate goal was to integrate the theological and moral insights of Luke and Acts into a broader, unified vision of God and the Christian life. For Origen, Luke’s emphasis on the humanity of Christ provided a convincing refutation of the “heretical” and Jewish insistence that Jesus was not the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Moreover, the stories of Luke’s Gospel provided a pattern for Christian imitation. For Chrysostom, Acts was a “demonstration of the resurrection”—it revealed the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of the apostles, whose virtuous deeds provide the Christian both with the assurance of salvation and the model for holiness. Biblical exegesis was, for both, a scholarly endeavor, although one undertaken in the service of the Church.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Just, Arthur A., ed. Luke. Vol. 3 of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture—New Testament. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Martin, Francis, ed. Acts. ACCS 5. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006. Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen. John Chrysostom. New York: Routledge, 2000. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”: ESCHATOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH Thomas Keene

To what extent are the ecclesiastical emphases of ancient catholic Christianity latent in the New Testament (NT) itself? Did the emerging second century catholic consensus impose an orthodoxy and intuitionalism upon the NT that was foreign to its original character and impetus, or did various portions of the NT set trajectories that would eventually mature into Western Catholicism? More particularly, has the author of Luke-Acts accurately and objectively portrayed the earliest period of Christianity, or have later second and third-generation concerns colored the presentation of his material—particularly his portrayal of Paul—such that the narrative represents an early conciliatory move that will eventually crystallize in catholic institutionalism? In short, is Luke-Acts representative of a so-called “early-catholic” development within the early church? This article will examine the current state of scholarship regarding these issues as they relate to Luke-Acts. First we will provide a brief overview of the origin of the question, focusing particularly on where matters stand at present. Second, we will divide the issue up into more manageable parts, assessing to what extent the various features of early catholicism are found in Luke-Acts. Finally, we will return to the present state of the question in order 287

288

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

to determine the usefulness of the debate and suggest future trajectories.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Though the term was not used until later, the identification of “early catholic” tendencies within the NT goes back to at least F. C. Baur.1 Baur argued that the earliest Christians were divided among two parties: the Jewish Petrine party and the Gentile Pauline party. Documents such as Acts, Philippians, and Hebrews represent a third position, which constitutes a later compromise and synthesis of these opposing viewpoints. This synthesis would later develop into a kind of proto-catholicism. Though Baur’s thesis would not, in the end, catch on,2 the questions he raised have endured. There is not one singular expression of Christianity in the NT, but many diverse and often competing expressions, and therefore the united front we find in Acts is (perhaps) a later imposition on the data. It was Philipp Vielhauer who first used the term “early catholic” to describe the conciliatory move represented by Luke-Acts.3 Vielhauer focused on Luke’s portrayal of Paul, largely with respect to his theology, but also his mission and personality. He concluded that the author of Luke-Acts was not a friend of Paul—his understanding of Paul’s theology does not bear the marks of one who was mentored by the apostle—but was rather of a later development of the church, one which represents a different theological 1 For a more detailed analysis of the history of the issue, with a particular focus on German scholarship, see V. Fusco, “La discussione sul protocattolicesimo nel Nuovo Testamento. Un capitolo di storia dell’esegesi,’” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995): 1645–91. 2 Though, see Dunn’s description of his own position (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity [2d ed.; London: SCM Press, 1990], 356). 3 P. Vielhauer, “On the Paulinism of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 33–50. This article concentrates on the ascription of early catholicism to Luke-Acts, and therefore ignores a good deal of scholarship in other areas of the NT. For a more general overview, see M. Y. MacDonald, “Early Catholicism,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden; London: SCM Press, 1990), 182–83.

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

289

environment than that of Paul. In Acts, therefore, we come into most direct contact not with the real Paul, but rather with “the nascent early catholic church.” Acts is part of a later development, and as such presents a theology and set of ecclesiastical emphases that are at odds with the earliest church. Vielhauer’s thesis was something of a watershed moment, and many began to build and develop on these ideas, but it is the work of Ernst Käsemann that became the focal point and fountainhead of the debate over early catholicism. Appreciating Vielhauer, and also building on the work Hans Conzelmann, Ernst Haenchen, and to a lesser degree Martin Dibelius,4 Käsemann presents the author of Acts as a representative of the early catholic church. Aside from his differences with Paul, what makes Luke such an obvious exponent of early catholicism? Luke has watered down Paul’s apocalyptic expectation—his belief that the end of the world was at hand— with the result that Luke presents us with an “eclipsed” eschatology. Luke takes as his own peculiar theme the hour of the Church as the mid-point of time. Eschatology is replaced by a salvation history which is remarkably well organized and connected but which, in spite of the sheen imparted to it by miracles, remains confined within the limits of immanence.5

Luke has transformed Paul’s kingdom-centered and corporate eschatological viewpoint, with its emphasis on imminent judgment and Spiritual freedom, and turned it inward, locking the work of the Spirit away within the confines of ecclesiastical institutionalism. Luke abandons eschatology in favor of ecclesiology and redemp4 E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 21; E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968); H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte Der Zeit: Studien Zur Theologie Des Lukas (3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960); Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press, 1956). 5 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 21. For Käsemann, “eschatology” is almost identical to apocalypticism. Current scholarship tends to speak of “eschatology” in a broader sense, including both redemptive history and apocalyptic expectation as two components of an author’s eschatological outlook.

290

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

tive-history. We will need to explore all this in greater detail, but for now it is enough to note Käsemann’s general orientation. The author of Acts has distorted Paul’s view of eschatology and the Holy Spirit, domesticating both under the rubric of the church, and in this way Luke is representative of a later early catholic trajectory. Though Käsemann’s thesis was enormously influential, it did have its detractors. Despite their extensive support of the early catholic thesis in general, and though they shared much with Käsemann regarding the particular theological orientation of LukeActs, both Conzelmann and Haenchen would later deny those books the label “early catholic.”6 Stephen Neill took a more ad hominem approach, arguing that the ascription of early catholicism to NT writers had more to do with contemporary Protestant struggles against Rome than with first-century Christianity.7 More conservatively oriented scholars were consistently critical of the idea from a number of angles.8 Thus, though it enjoyed a flurry of initial success, particularly in Germany, over time the label “early catholic” became a very difficult one to get to stick on any one NT document. As a result of this, as well as a number of other concerns to be discussed shortly, the term “early catholic” is no longer in frequent use.9 This is not to say that the issues have disappeared, only that “early catholic” is no longer regarded as a helpful blanket description of those issues (for reasons that will become clear). Thus, though the terms and categories have changed and developed, the H. Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 298–316; Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 46. 7 S. Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986 (2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 200ff. 8 I. Howard Marshall, “‘Early catholicism’ in the New Testament,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 217–31; Leon Morris, “Luke and Early Catholicism,” WTJ 35 (1973): 121–36; F. F. Bruce, “Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?,” BJRL 58 (1976): 282–305. 9 See especially the analysis of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 1:23–27; R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006), 213. 6

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

291

specific details of the underlying issue remain open and are a matter of some debate. To what extent does Luke-Acts reflect a later and conciliatory perspective within the emerging Christian movement? Does our author pave the way for the institution-centered expression of Christianity that develops in the second and third centuries of the church, or does he remain the faithful apprentice of and spokesman for Paul and a largely united apostolic band? What is the nature of Luke’s eschatology, and how does that relate to his view of salvation and the church? Has Luke subordinated the Word and the Spirit to ecclesiastical institution? All these are important questions, for at the heart of the issue is an appreciation that the NT is neither monolithic nor static in its theological and ecclesiastical perspective, but is rather a collation of diverse expressions of early Christian faith and hope. The rest of this essay looks at one angle on that diversity, seeking to assess the extent to which the author of Luke-Acts gives expression to various features of “early catholic” Christianity.

LUKE-ACTS AND EARLY CATHOLICISM At this point in the discussion it becomes necessary to define more fully what we mean by the term “early catholic.” As will become increasingly clear, there is no singular mark that, once identified, would offer determinative proof of a document’s early catholic character. As has been already noted, the phrase “early catholicism” (Frühkatholizismus) describes something that is essentially historical; it is an attempt to identify an ecclesiological and theological development, a development that arguably begins in the NT itself and is finally concluded with the emergence of ancient catholic Christianity. It is an attempt to explain how the earliest expression of Christianity, with its decidedly apocalyptic accent, its decentralized structure, and its emphasis on the charismatic work of the Holy Spirit, develops into the later expression of catholic Christianity, which coalesces on the sacraments, semi-centralized authority structures, and creeds of faith. What needs to be mentioned here is that history is messy; it is often difficult to determine the difference between development and diversity, not to mention to connect all the dots into something like a linear narrative. Caution is called for. Therefore, in order to assess the value of classifying LukeActs as early catholic we need a more systematic understanding of what constitutes the salient features and hallmarks of early catholi-

292

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

cism. What types of things are we looking for? While the precise identification of what constitutes early catholic trends varies from scholar to scholar, Dunn helpfully isolates three typical features: a diminishing hope in the parousia, an increasing emphasis on institutionalism, and a heavier reliance on set forms for communicating the faith (the rule of faith).10 Of these three categories, only the first two concern us in the present discussion. Little needs to be said about the rule of faith in relation to Luke-Acts; though Käsemann opined that the “principle of tradition and legitimate succession runs like a red thread through the fabric of the whole first section of Acts,” few have followed him in this, and what remains can be adequately addressed as we consider the institutionalism of LukeActs. We therefore center our attention in what follows on Luke’s eschatology and ecclesiology. Diminishing Hope in an Imminent Parousia The first (and arguably essential) feature of early catholicism is a de-emphasis on the apocalyptic expectation of an earlier generation. Käsemann, for example, contrasts early catholic eschatology with that of Paul, whose writings are characterized by “the expectation of the imminent end of the world.”11 We find such an apocalyptic urgency in the “first-fruits” language of 1 Cor 15:20—the eschatological harvest has already begun in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (cf. Rom 1:3–4), for which reason Paul cries out for the return of the Lord (1 Cor 16:22; 1 Thess 1:10). It is also the grounds for Paul’s hope that, as the full measure of the Gentiles come into the kingdom, he will see an influx of his fellow Jews before the end (Rom 11:11–16). This apocalyptic perspective is also a prominent feature of the coming Kingdom that Jesus preached (Mark 1:15, 13:1–37), and Peter likewise applies apocalyptic lanDunn, Unity and Diversity, 344. Though he has some reservations, Dunn is largely sympathetic to the early catholic thesis, particularly with regard to the delay of the parousia and with the tendency of Acts to portray more unity in the church than was actually the case. See also his Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 157–93. For his reservations, see idem, Unity and Diversity, xxix–xxx; idem, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 69. 11 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 241. 10

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

293

guage to contemporary events (Acts 2:14–21), for which reason he calls the present generation to repentance in order to hasten the return of the Lord (3:18–20). Yet as time passed this apocalyptic expectation began to weaken, and this weakening is at the heart of the movement toward early catholicism. Käsemann made the diminishment of apocalypticism the central determinative feature of early catholicism: Early Catholicism means that transition from earliest Christianity to the so-called ancient Church, which is completed with the disappearance of the imminent expectation.12

The result is what Dunn calls a “slackening of the eschatological tension between the already of Christ’s earthly ministry and the not yet of his imminent reappearing to bring in the End.”13 Early catholicism places the accent of eschatology on the already of redemption, on the reality of Christ’s early ministry as that ministry is carried out in and through the church, rather than on the not yet of final judgment and vindication (cf. 2 Pet 3:9).14 As the church begins to grow and spread, and as the first generation of Christians begins to die, with no return in sight, the language of impending judgment gives way to a new set of emphases—to the reality of

12 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 237. Dunn traces this slackening emphasis to Paul himself, noting that as early as 1 Cor 15:51–52 Paul seems to regard death prior to the return as a norm, rather than an exception (cf. Matt 24:34)—and perhaps he too will die before the End (compare 1 Thess 4:15–17 with Phil 1:20–26). See Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 345–46. 13 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 344. Dunn’s use of the term “eschatology” is different than Käsemann’s. For Dunn eschatology includes both redemptive-history and expectations regarding the end of that history. Dunn’s usage is more representative of the current state of discussion than Käsemann’s. 14 As Bovon puts it, “like the majority of his Christian contemporaries, Luke attempts far more to solve the problem of the delay of the parousia without betraying the original faith…The main emphasis is no longer on the future but on the past, on the salvation of God already made manifest in Jesus’ advent, death, and resurrection” (Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1—9:50 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 11).

294

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

redemption in Jesus Christ as it is manifest in the mission of the church. Many biblical scholars argue that Luke-Acts provides an obvious and paradigmatic instance of such a de-emphasis. The perennial example is Luke 21, the language of which is strikingly nonapocalyptic when compared to its parallel in Mark 13.15 In Mark’s account, the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment are blended together, giving the impression that the two are one and the same and that both are expected to occur more or less immediately. Luke’s account, by contrast, consistently distinguishes between and separates events associated with Jerusalem’s fall and those of the final end.16 Luke omits references to the end that are prominent in Mark (Mark 13:8 and Luke 21:11; Mark 13:13 and Luke 21:19). Further, in 21:7–9 Luke subtly alters Mark’s warning against false prophets (Mark 13:6) so that it is no longer a sign of the end but rather a warning against those who would claim that the end is here; false prophets will have the immediacy of the end on their lips. Conzelmann sees this latter alteration as part of a general pattern; Luke consistently resists associating the end with a particular time and warns the church against those who would claim otherwise (Luke 17:20; 19:11; 21:7; Acts 1:6–7), an agenda that he describes as essentially “anti-apocalyptic.”17 Furthermore, the main [motive] in the recasting to which Luke subjects his source, proves to be the delay of the Parousia, which leads to a comprehensive consideration of the nature and course of the Last Things. Whereas originally the imminence of the End was the most important factor, now other factors enter. The delay has to be explained, and this is done by means of the idea of 15 The debate over Luke’s sources is a critical piece of this discussion. It is generally argued that Mark’s account predates Luke, and further that Luke is aware of Mark; thus, the variants in Luke are both intentional and theologically significant. See H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 125; D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 2:1653–55. 16 D. L. Tiede, Luke (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 355. 17 Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 123. It should be noted (and we will pick up this point subsequently) that though Conzelmann believes Luke downplays the apocalyptic, he does not believe this is enough to describe him as early catholic.

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

295

God’s plan which underlies the whole structure of Luke’s account.18

The result is the introduction of a new period in history, an indefinite period of time between Christ’s first and second coming in which the church must struggle, persevere, and preach. Correspondingly, in Acts the accent has moved from future judgment to present mission. When apocalyptic language occurs, it is used to describe what is now going on (2:17–21), or is a matter of the possibly distant future (3:19–21). The idea of final judgment occurs, but without the tone of urgency that characterized the language of Jesus or Paul (10:42; 17:31). Further, Luke introduces all of this with the reminder, already mentioned above, that no one knows when the end will come, the appropriate response to which is to engage in a (potentially long-term) world-wide witnessing campaign (1:6–8). The focus, then, is not on judgment but on mission, and world-wide mission at that, which implies a (Godordained and possibly lengthy) missional period, an epoch within which the church is called to preach Christ, to protect its member, and to preserve the faith. The emphasis falls on the already rather than the not yet, on the individual and the ecclesiological rather than on the climactic and final manifestation of God’s Kingdom. To all this may be added that the very act of writing a history of the church seems antithetical to the belief that the end of all things is at hand. Käsemann himself opined that “you do not write the history of the Church if you are expecting the end of the world to come any day.”19 Dunn takes this a step further: When Luke wrote not only a ‘Life of Jesus,’ but also a history of the Church, he was in effect interposing a whole new epoch between the resurrection/ascension of Jesus and the parousia. Jesus’ death and resurrection could no longer be regarded as the beginning of the End, the (final) eschatological climax, as Jesus and the first Christians understood it, but rather as the mid-point of history, with an epoch stretching forward into the

Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 131. For a similar, if more nuanced position, see R. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 25. 19 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 28. 18

296

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS future on the one side as well as one stretching back into the past on the other.20

Luke, in his redemptive-historical focus, has effectively periodized history. Since Conzelmann there has been some debate as to the precise delineation of Luke’s redemptive-historical presentation. Conzelmann argued from Luke 16:16 for three stages in redemptive history: (1) the period of Israel, which ended when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, (2) the period of the Christ, which ended with the ascension, and (3) the period of the church, which ends at the parousia.21 Kümmel disagreed, arguing for a simpler promise/fulfillment scheme.22 Among recent interpreters, Dunn and Fitzmyer seem to follow the three-stage approach.23 Bovon prefers two stages, but the second age should be “again divided into the time of Jesus and the time of his witnesses, and the latter again can be differentiated into the time of the eyewitnesses and the time after that, including the Lukan generation (Luke 1:1–4).”24 These latter subdivisions are in tension with an imminent expectation of the end. Regardless of the specifics, most in the end argue that Luke posits some form of distinct and extended delay between Christ’s resurrection and the end. Thus the very existence of Acts implies a more or less definitive period of history within which the church has work to do; a period of time that is characterized by Spirit-wrought missional activity, by the need to persevere in faith against enemies of the kingdom, and by the spread of the gospel message to the ends of the earth. In each of these cases, Luke has toned down the language of apocalyptic urgency in order to account for the delay of the parousia.25 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 348. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 12ff. 22 W. G. Kümmel, “Current Theological Accusations against Luke,” ANQ 16 (1975): 131–45. 23 J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989), 60–63. 24 Bovon, Luke 1, 11. 25 This is not to say that all of the scholars described above would identify Luke as early-catholic, or would agree with the more extreme elements of Käsemann and Conzelmann’s assessment of Luke’s eschatol20 21

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

297

While the assessment described above seems to be the majority report among Luke’s interpreters, there is also significant opposition to these claims. Leon Morris puts forth a two pronged rebuttal, arguing first that “nobody has ever proved that the early church did live in the daily expectation of the parousia,” “at least in the sense that it was so certain that there was no point in church organization.”26 He then notes that while Luke’s tone is often more muted, he is nevertheless perfectly at home with apocalyptic language (Luke 3:17; 10:11–14; 12:35; 21:32).27 I. Howard Marshall argues that Käsemann’s distinction between apocalyptic expectation and redemptive-history is arbitrary at best—the two include and imply one-another as far as the earliest church is concerned—and therefore arguing that Luke replaced the former with the latter is to misread both Luke and the work of earlier Christians.28 Darrell Bock sounds a similar note, stating that the language of Luke 21 is easily explained as a shift in emphasis; Mark focuses on the end of history while Luke is more concerned (perhaps anticipating the narrative presented in Acts) on the immediate future, but both are apocalyptic in orientation.29 John Carroll provides a thorough reexamination of Luke’s eschatological outlook and provides a more moderating position, including an excellent summary of the state of scholarship up to that point.30 Carroll argues that Luke “incorporated delay into his eschatological scenario,” but this incorporation “serves for Luke the opposite function to that identified by Conzelmann. Delay does not oppose but undergirds expectation of an imminent End.”31 Carroll therefore sees substantial continuity between Luke and Mark, and notes that Luke’s eschatological reflections are primarily parenetic, designed to motivate a community toward renewed acogy, only that they agree that the delay of the parousia in some measure motivates Luke’s eschatological focus on redemptive-history. 26 Leon Morris, “Luke and Early Catholicism,” JTSA 40 (1982): 8, 10–13. 27 Morris, “Luke and Early Catholicism,” 8, 10–13. 28 Marshall, “‘Early catholicism’ in the New Testament,” 226–27. 29 Bock, Luke, 2:1656–57. 30 J. Carroll, Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts (Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988). 31 Carroll, Response to the End of History, 166.

298

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

tion and mission on the basis of the fact that “Jesus will return suddenly, and his appearance will signal universal, inescapable, and final division.”32 Joel Green, building on Carroll’s work, asserts that while Luke differentiates between the immediate judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment at the end, and while Luke certainly places a delay between the two, nevertheless he does all this while maintaining an apocalyptic tone of imminent expectation (cf. particularly 21:32–36).33 Luke’s emphasis admittedly lies on salvation in the present, and Luke implies that there may be a delay (12:45; 19:11), but this does not constitute a denial of an impending parousia in favor of a theology of church progress.34 On the contrary, Green follows Carroll and notes that the repeated refrain that no-one knows the day or the hour (Acts 1:6–7) is parenetic, and as such serves to inculcate an attitude of watchfulness and expectancy (cf. 1 Peter 4:7; 5:8–9); the end is still “near”—near enough that those who follow Jesus are to be ready and waiting in expectant hope.35 Furthermore, Green implies an alternative explanation for Luke’s emphasis on the present over the future, on the redemptivehistorical over the apocalyptic. Building off of recent contributions in the genre and purpose of Acts,36 Green argues that Luke mani-

Carroll, Response to the End of History, 165–66. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 731. Green further notes the important discussions of V. Fusco, “Problems of Structure in Luke’s Eschatological Discourse (Luke 21:7–36),” in Luke and Acts (ed. G. O’Collins and G. Marconi; New York: Paulist, 1991), 72–92; W. Nicol, “Tradition and Redaction in Luke 21,” in Essays on the Gospel of Luke and Acts (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 1973), 61–71. 34 Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 97–101. 35 Green, Luke, 742–43. Green elsewhere comments that “Luke’s presentation of the parousia defies oversimplification” (Green, Theology, 98). 36 For an overview of the genre and purpose of Acts, see T. E. Phillips, “The Genre of Acts: Moving Towards a Consensus?,” CBR 4 (2004): 365–96; Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Pervo, Acts, 14–18. See also the essay in this volume. 32 33

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

299

fests a concern with “legitimation and apologetic.”37 As the church struggles to survive in the midst of Jewish and Roman opposition, Luke is concerned to demonstrate “the coherence between God’s ancient agenda and the ministry of Jesus.”38 If one of Luke’s goals is to demonstrate that the beliefs and mission of the Christfollowing church are the natural and appropriate fulfillment of God’s ancient covenant with Israel, then the author’s interest in redemptive-history over the apocalyptic is adequately accounted for without any appeal to the delay of the parousia. Increasing Institutionalism The diminishing expectation of Christ’s immediate return is often seen as the root and source behind the other features of early catholicism. This makes sense. As the urgency implied in an imminent parousia recedes, and as the dangerous realities of Empire, heresy, and the death of its founding members take hold, a new set of concerns and priorities evolve, and the early Christian movement correspondingly begins to crystallize and unite, which results in a set of trajectories that are to some extent foreign to the earliest representatives of the Christian movement.39 The church begins to domesticate, entrenching into set traditions, forms, and polities as it struggles to persevere through the troubles to come. Thus, in response to declining expectations, Luke is concerned to present the church as a (united) institution, as an organization with set policies, structures, authorities, practices, and beliefs. For early catholicism the accent is placed on endurance, stability, and consistency. As Dunn puts it, “early catholicism is not simply about organiza-

Green, Luke, 21. Green, Luke, 22. 39 Dunn argues that “early catholicism is properly defined as, in part at least, a reaction consequent upon the failure of the parousia hope” (Unity and Diversity, 345). Käsemann states something similar, but also cites the threat of Empire and especially Gnosticism as a cause and impetus, arguing in the latter case that “only when we see gnosis as a possibility which was seized on by the Hellenistic community from its beginnings, do we comprehend the genesis of early catholicism, which is nothing but the Church’s defense mechanism in the face of gnostic take-over” (New Testament Questions, 21). 37 38

300

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

tion, but organization that will last.”40 We can explore this idea of institutionalism by looking at three interconnected areas: Luke’s view of church authority (and its relationship to the Word), his presentation of the early Christian church as a largely unified body, and his theology of the Holy Spirit.

The Nature and Structure of Church Authority First, then, how does Luke describe the authority structure of the church? A central feature of early catholicism is the identification of authority with office (as opposed to Spirit-filled power, or possession of certain gifts, or charismatic leadership), which results in a corresponding emphasis on tradition (as opposed to continued prophecy) and the central role of officers in teaching and protecting that tradition (discipline, the sacraments). The nature and function of officers in Acts is a difficult issue to analyze, not the least because it is often hard to distinguish between Luke’s view of certain people and the office that they supposedly hold. Käsemann provides the starkest analysis, arguing that in Luke’s writings we find “the monarchial bishop, surrounded by presbyters, deacons and other co-workers bound by vow.” Indeed, “the Lucan work as a whole is totally incomprehensible if it is not seen that only in the stream of apostolic tradition does one also belong to the holy Church as the earthly realm of salvation.”41 For Käsemann, Luke associates salvation with the elements of the church’s mission—the preaching of the word, the sacraments, discipline, etc. There is no salvation outside the church. What is more, these ecclesiastical elements are the rightful possession of appointed and ordained leadership, a leadership which is hierarchically organized and ultimately derives its authority from the apostolic body.42 This is particularly and paradigmatically true of the Word: “The Word is no longer the sole criterion of the Church, but the Church is the legitimation of the Word.”43 The ministry of the Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 345. Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 247. 42 “The apostolic origin of the Church’s ministerial office provides the guarantee of a valid proclamation” (Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 21–22). 43 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 21. 40 41

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

301

Word and the power of the Spirit have been subsumed into and absorbed by the institution of the church; Spirituality is ecclesiology. Luke’s view of church authority therefore has two components for Käsemann. The first is the relationship between the church and the Word. Does the church rule the Word, or does the Word rule the church? Though Käsemann maintained the former, few follow him in this. Most argue that the situation is precisely the opposite. C. K. Barrett is particularly influential here. Luke does not replace the oracles of the Word with the offices of the church but rather maintains the primacy of Spirit-wrought proclamation; the church “provides the framework within which the preaching of the word takes place,” but that and only that.44 Jervell’s discussion is also instructive. Luke, he argues, has the highest possible view of Scripture and Spirit-empowered proclamation. He attributes full authority to all the prophets, both old and new, for they are carried along by the Spirit as they speak the Gospel. Jervell therefore reverses Käsemann’s mantra; “there is no legitimacy for the church unless it can be displayed from Scripture.”45 The second component of Käsemann’s presentation of church authority in Luke-Acts regards the nature of church office. Here the discussion is more complicated.46 While few follow Käsemann in his sweeping characterization of Acts, most do see some level of institutional office affirmed. One way to get at the debate is through the lens of Paul’s appointment of “elders” or “presbyters” in Acts 14:23. This is something of an anomaly in the NT; the language is official (they “appointed” these men), and nowhere else does Paul (or the NT) refer to such an event.47 It is par44 C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961), 74. Others offer similar reflections: Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 13–15; Marshall, “‘Early catholicism’ in the New Testament.”; Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 356-57. 45 J. Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 75. 46 What follows is little more than a sketch of various representative views. For a more than detailed overview of the question, see F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005) (2d ed.; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 329–462, 553–64. 47 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:535.

302

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

ticularly significant for two reasons, first because it seems to imply the existence of official rulers in the church, and second because the appointment of these rulers comes from “higher up,” which may imply some form of ecclesiological hierarchy, and perhaps some form of apostolic succession. Ernst Haenchen, for example, argues that in Acts 14:23 Luke anachronistically uses the term “presbyter” in the same sense as the deutero-Pauline pastorals, thereby importing an early catholic ecclesiology into the early church.48 Yet Haenchen goes on to claim that it would be improper to argue that Luke is early catholic in government, since the document lacks any reference to bishops or any developed sacramentalism.49 Dunn also finds this verse significant; Paul is here promoting a form of local government similar to that which was practiced in Jerusalem, and such a move serves to underline the unity of the governing practices of the church.50 For Dunn this is a component in Luke’s argument that the early church, even its Gentile fringes, was in general accord with one another (see below). David Peterson’s view is similar to Dunn’s, though argued on different grounds. He sees Paul’s actions here as circumstantially motivated (and therefore unique). While it is the case that 14:23 implies some form of formal ordination, this should not be taken as a Lukan anachronism or as normative for the universal church; on the contrary, Paul is responding to the unique situation of this church plant by (perhaps) encouraging it to adopt practices similar to that in Jerusalem.51 Pervo takes a moderating position. On the one hand, the reference to “presbyters” is “anachronistic;” the term never occurs in the genuine Pauline Epistles, which in turn dates Luke’s ecclesiology to that of Titus 1:5 or later.52 For Luke, presbyters possess official authority, but they are governed by the apostles along with Paul and James (Acts 20:17–38; 21:18–25). Nevertheless, Luke is not a proponent of a hierarchical system; while he is aware of the moti48 E. Haenchen The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 436. 49 Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 44ff. 50 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 355. 51 D. Perterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 415. 52 Pervo, Acts, 362.

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

303

vation for monarchial powers, he “has some reservations about this development.”53 Thus, while Luke acknowledges the various offices—bishop, deacon, presbyter, etc.—he himself imposes no hierarchy, nor argues for a succession of authority, nor offers any systemic picture of church authority, apart from preferring government by a body of appointed officials. In sum, “Luke is a collaborator with ‘early catholicism’ rather than a vigorous proponent of it.”54 Kevin Giles, by contrast, is apparently convinced that the best defense is a good offense, and so argues that Acts is, if anything, an example of “early protestantism.”55 He takes each of the major heads in turn. Baptism is so thoroughly Christocentric that it implies an “individualistic soteriology,” without any hint that such an act incorporates one into the church (that is, it is nonsacramental).56 Similarly, the “breaking of bread,” though certainly a spiritual expression of fellowship, is nevertheless not to be identified with the Eucharist. As far as government is concerned, the twelve apostles are not presented in a hierarchical fashion; on the contrary, the “spiritual egalitarianism” of any early generation is still operative.57 The twelve are essentially missionaries and eyewitnesses, not officers with inalienable authority.58 Luke’s consistency in only applying the term “apostle” to the Twelve is attributed to typological symbolism, not institutionalism; God is restoring Israel. For this reason Paul is not numbered among the apostles, “but he does everything he can to give Paul a status equal to that of any of the twelve.”59 Furthermore, the “elders” that Paul Pervo, Dating Acts, 208. Pervo, Acts, 25. 55 K. Giles, “Is Luke an Exponent of ‘early Protestantism?’ Church Order in the Lukan Writings (Part 1),” EvQ 54 (1982): 193–205; “Is Luke an Exponent of ‘Early Protestantism?’ Church Order in the Lukan Writings (Part 2),” EvQ 55 (1983): 3–20. See also his K. Giles, “Luke’s Use of the Term ekklesia with Special Reference to Acts 20:28 and 9:31,” NTS 31 (1985): 135–42. 56 Giles, “Early Protestantism I,” 201. 57 Giles, “Early Protestantism II,” 3. 58 For support of this view, see W. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1969). 59 Giles, “Early Protestantism II,” 7. 53 54

304

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

appoints (14:23) are not office bearers, nor are the deacons of Acts 6 (no ordination is involved in either case), but rather wise older men who function as guardians and shepherds (mentors, rather than officers) (cf. 1 Peter 5:1–4). In short, Acts presents us with no sacraments, no cult, no apostolic succession, and no formal church offices. Jervell pays special attention to the role of the Twelve in Acts. He argues that while they possessed a certain degree of authority, they are not “the first ecclesiastical officials,” nor do they constitute an abiding office “in the sense that such a college of Twelve will always be found within the church to guide it.” Jervell therefore opposes the early catholic thesis: “Luke does not trace ecclesiastical authority to the Twelve; they do not institute offices, transfer authority and install office-holders.”60 While Paul is not identified with the Twelve, this should not imply that he was subordinate in importance or authority. Paul was “the leader of the church;” “no one compares with him, not even the Twelve.”61 It is therefore wrong to subordinate Paul to the Twelve;62 Luke’s avoidance of the term “apostle” works out in Paul’s favor, rather than his detriment.

The Unity of the Church The second hallmark of institutionalism is an emphasis on the unity of the church, an emphasis that is arguably the result of revisionist history.63 Dunn deserves pride of place here. He argues that in so far as Acts consistently downplays any division or contention between Paul and other leaders in the early church, it correspondingly portrays Christianity “as much more unified in spirit and uniform in organization than was in fact the case,” which constitutes “an early catholic papering over the first-century cracks.”64 As evidence he notes that the very serious division between the Hebrew Christians and the Hellenists is presented “as merely an administrative Jervell, Theology of Acts, 81–82. Jervell, Theology of Acts, 82. 62 Dunn does precisely this, arguing that Paul’s subordination promotes Luke’s presentation of the unity of the church. 63 Luke’s status as a historian has a long and complicated history. For an overview of scholarly opinion, see Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, 24–59. 64 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 353. 60 61

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

305

hitch” (Acts 6), and that Paul’s various confrontations with Jerusalem and the leaders of the church is similarly plastered over and quickly resolved.65 Luke’s emphasis on the Jerusalem church achieves a similar effect. Jerusalem is the center and fountainhead of the ministry of Jesus (Luke 24:6) and of the early church (Acts 1:8; 28:30), and when key decisions must be made, they are made in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Finally, Dunn argues that Luke consistently concentrates authority around the apostles. The apostolic band, which Luke identifies with ‘the twelve,’ are concentrated in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8; 8:1), giving the impression of a central authority structure. What is more, Paul is effectively excluded from the list (1:21). This is significant, not only because it implies that Paul and Luke therefore have different views of apostleship (Gal 1:1–2; 1 Cor 15:8), with Luke being the more rigid of the two, but also because in excluding Paul from the apostolic band, and by associating the apostles with the Jerusalem church, Luke effectively subordinates Paul’s ministry under that of Jerusalem, which contrasts sharply with Paul’s own account (Gal 1:11–17). The net effect is to imply a greater degree of unanimity than Paul himself appears to acknowledge (Gal 2:11–13, Rom 15:31). Pervo takes a different route, but reaches a similar conclusion; particularly in Acts 15 and 20:17–35 Luke is showing and telling leaders of a later but similarly tumultuous generation how to lead. He does this by “appealing to the methods of earlier times,” by describing a consensus-building church in order to inculcate an attitude that promotes unity and stability.66 The church is not always unified, but it is always unifying; it seeks consensus while protecting the flock from both internal and external wolves.

The issue of the presentation of Paul in Acts is also a long and complicated one, and goes far beyond the confines of the present study. The issue goes back to Vielhauer, “On the Paulinism of Acts.” For a helpful overview, as well as some constructive commentary, see Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 430–38; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:129–151; Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 82–94; I. Howard Marshall, “Luke’s View of Paul,” SwJT 33 (1990): 41–51. 66 Pervo, Dating Acts, 203–208. 65

306

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts The final feature of institutionalism centers on the work of the Holy Spirit. For Käsemann, institutionalism is in opposition to enthusiasm;67 Luke’s emphasis on ecclesiastical authority and polity is inimical to the free and sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. In its movement away from the enthusiasm of Paul, and in its efforts to protect itself in the face of opposition from both Rome and the gnostic threat, the church “was compelled to bind the Spirit to the office.”68 Luke-Acts throws up a dam against “enthusiasm” and the Holy Spirit.69 This idea is closely tied to Käsemann’s previous statements regarding the relationship between the church and the Word, the latter being subservient to the former. Both Word and Spirit are subordinate to office and sacrament. Though Käsemann’s view enjoyed early success, again the current scholarly climate is against Käsemann on this point. Dunn provides a thorough refutation of the position. Though Luke-Acts can be appropriately classified as early catholic, given certain qualifications, nevertheless and paradoxically, Luke is clearly “enthusiastic in outlook.” In so far as Luke has refused to subordinate Spirit to sacrament, or word to Church, and so refused also to portray the earliest Christian ministry as a kind of priesthood, to that extent he cannot be designated ‘early catholic.’ The description of Luke the early catholic has to be qualified by the description of Luke the enthusiast—and vice versa.70

Pervo agrees: “If the Spirit is a bit of an opportunist [in Luke-Acts], it still blows where it will, as any will discover who try to find in Acts a fixed pattern in the relation between spiritual gifts and baptism.”71 Thus “the Spirit rules the church; the church does not conThe term “enthusiasm” here refers to a particular approach to the work of the Holy Spirit, one which emphasizes the unpredictability and sovereignty of the Spirit (John 3:8). 68 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 248. 69 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 22. 70 Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 357. For the justification of these claims, see pp. 180–84. 71 Pervo, Dating Acts, 214. He cites Acts 8:4–25 and 10:44–48 as examples. 67

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

307

trol the Spirit.”72 William Shepherd helpfully applies a literary and narratival approach to the issue, concluding that the Spirit is a living character in the story, a character that propels and supports the church (rather than the other way around).73 Max Turner has influentially argued that the Spirit, far from an added gift controlled by the church, functions to enable the preaching of the Word and the life of the church; again, though the Spirit’s work is certainly soteriological, Käsemann has the relationship between the church and the Spirit backwards.74 Thus, though there is certainly division and diversity in the present state of scholarship, most agree that the work of the Spirit is central to the mission and expansion of the church, to the proclamation of the word, and to the growth of the Christian movement.75

THE DECLINING INTEREST IN EARLY CATHOLICISM The above discussion should indicate some of the complexity involved in identifying Luke-Acts as “early catholic.” While each of the features of early catholicism mentioned above is still a matter of debate, almost no contemporary author maintains that Luke is unambiguously “early catholic.” Why this declining interest in the early catholic character of Luke-Acts (and, by extension, of other NT documents)? One reason for the decline stems from the theological environment within which the early catholic thesis was posited. Käsemann’s interest in early catholicism was neither neutral nor strictly historical; it is part of an essentially protestant project to recover the genius of Paul, a genius that has been veiled and distorted by the concerns of later generations. When the church tries to “break out of its traditional walls” to rediscover the real Paul “there issues

Pervo, Acts, 25. W. H. Shepherd, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994). 74 E. Käsemann, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 75 In addition to those above, see Peterson, Acts, 60–65; Jervell, Theology of Acts, 43–54. For more detail, see Bovon, Luke the Theologian, 225–72, 536–40. 72 73

308

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

forth from him explosive power.”76 Early catholicism is a tool and a filter by which the contemporary church can more aptly apply the Lutheran “canon within a canon” principle.77 Thus the initial popularity of the early catholic thesis can be in large part ascribed to an interest in “ferreting out...every taint of post-apostolic dilution and contamination.”78 Neill attributed the whole school of thought to an incipient anti-Catholic prejudice in continental thought; “if there is anything even in the New Testament that seems to lend support to the Catholic position, that must at once be stigmatized as the beginning of the falling away of the church from its true nature.”79 Such an agenda results in a decidedly negative and pejorative cast to the term “early catholic,” which the modern spirit of ecumenism has a difficult time stomaching. A second problem involves the difficulty of precise definition. While we have noted above certain features of early catholicism, we have likewise noticed that, even when that feature is present, there is still marked division as to whether or not this or that document should thus be identified as early catholic. Conzelmann, for example, who argues so strongly that Luke is promoting an antiapocalyptic agenda (see above), actually denies that Luke-Acts should be considered early catholic because it lacks certain ecclesiological distinctives.80 And when Käsemann avers that “Paul himself was a forerunner of early catholicism” one wonders if the lines are really too blurry to be actually useful.81 Thus, as one critic put the 76 Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1964), 247, 249. 77 C. H. Talbert, “The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian,” in Jesus and Man’s Hope (ed. D. G. Buttrick; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 1:220; Marshall, “‘Early catholicism’ in the New Testament,” 224. 78 Pervo, Dating Acts, 213. He describes the present state of scholarly reflection of the issue as “somewhat moribund.” 79 Neill and Wright, Interpretation, 200. Dunn likewise notes this difficulty with the term, but sees no way around it (Unity and Diversity, xxix– xxx). 80 Conzelmann, “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity.” See also the discussion of Conzelmann’s views in Bovon, Luke the Theologian, 355–56. 81 Käsemann, New Testament Questions, 238.

LUKE-ACTS AND “EARLY CATHOLICISM”

309

matter, early catholicism is “a German Protestant construct, of more use in ecumenical anatomy than in New Testament study.”82 In addition to these more negative reflections, Pervo attributes the decline to three salutary developments in the study of Luke-Acts, “ecumenism, the development of the social-scientific interpretation, and, above all, the appreciation of diversity within the New Testament.”83 The issues of Käsemann’s day—the opposition between Catholic and Protestant—are no longer felt as keenly. And while it is certainly the work of the historian to describe trends and trajectories, it is often difficult to distinguish between diversity and development. An earlier generation of scholarship focused on the latter, and did so for a variety of reasons that are no longer deemed significant. Rather than take on the burden of proving whether or not a particular historical label applies to Luke-Acts, most contemporary scholars are content to describe its features in isolation from evolutionary categories.

CONCLUSION The term “early catholic” is passé, but the issues surrounding it are not. Recognizing its deficiencies, most contemporary scholars have moved on from using the term “early catholic” as a blanket description of Luke-Acts, preferring a more atomistic exploration of the issues. This does not mean that the topic is without value, however. Luke’s use of traditional formulae, his view of the church, and especially his eschatological outlook are all matters that elude scholarly consensus, but none of these areas constitute a necessary and sufficient condition for early catholicism. The best contenders for such a label seem to be Luke’s toning down of earlier apocalyptic expectations and his desire to present a largely unified church throughout its turbulent initial founding. Yet, as has already been discussed, the former of these may be motivated by other factors, and the latter is not a uniquely early catholic concern. Luke is a theologian in his own right, and while he is certainly developing and extending the tradition, he does so in a way that R. S. Murray, “Jews, Hebrews and Christians: Some Needed Distinctions,” NovT 24 (1982): 197. 83 Dating Acts, 426 n. 73. I would add the recent interest in literary criticism to this list. 82

310

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

resists easy categorization. Thus, though most resist neat and tidy classifications and developments, nevertheless the debate over early catholicism serves to highlight the diversity of perspective in the NT, a diversity that has no doubt given rise to various expressions of Christianity throughout the centuries, even if the precise lines are not always traceable.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Dunn, James D. G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 2d ed. London: SCM Press, 1990. Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Marshall, I. Howard. “‘Early catholicism’ in the New Testament.” Pages 217–31 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND ANCIENT WRITINGS Old Testament Genesis 148, 157–58, 161 1:1 130 1:2 130 12:3 139, 148 22:2 199 22:12 199 22:16 199 22:18 139, 155 26:4 139 31:11–13 88 46:2–3 88 Exodus 157 2:12 61 3:2–10 88 13:2 275 20:18 270 40:35 198 Leviticus 17–18, 242 25:8–55 132 Numbers 11:16–30 207 11:29 207

Deuteronomy 128 18:15 76 18:15–19 226 18:15–18 127 32:15 226 32:39 274 34:9 258 34:10–12 88 Joshua 7:1–26 88 Judges 13:2–7 84 1 Samuel 148 2:1–10 127, 162 10:6 207 13:14 23 19:20 207 2 Samuel 7:12–16 198 7:12–14 162 7:14 224 23:1 23 23:2 207

312

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

1 Kings 104, 166 17:17–24 132 17:8–16 133 2 Kings 104, 166–67 2 161 2:1–14 88 9–14 258 1 Chronicles 12:18 207 2 Chronicles 15:1 207 20:14 207 24:20 207 Psalms 148 2:7 199, 223–24, 247, 256 24:5 226 25:5 226 27:1 226 69 156 69:25 155–56 89:21 23 109 156 109:8 155–56 113 162 118 157 Isaiah 148, 158, 160, 164–65, 203 1:25 198 2:2 168 4:4 198 6:9–10 133, 161 7:14 198 11:1–2 199 11:4 198

11:10–16 253, 255 27:12–13 253 29:6 198 30:28 198 32:15 198, 203 35:1–10 138 36:9 198 40:3–5 76, 197 40:5 159, 161 41:8–9 225 42:1 199, 225 42:6 149 43:10 225 44:1–2 225 49:6 128, 141, 149, 155, 163, 165 57:13 198 58:6 126, 131, 200 59:21 203 61 269 61:1–2 126, 131, 200 61:1 199 66:1–2 140 Jeremiah 203 4:11–12 198 13:24 198 23:3–4 253, 255 23:5–6 198 23:19 198 29:14 253 30:23 198 31:31–34 203, 207 31:34 208 33:14–26 198 Ezekiel 203 36:26–27 203, 208 37:1–14 137

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS Joel 203 2 159 2:28–32 203, 256 2:28–29 213 2:32 207, 222, 232 3 165 3:1–5 155, 157, 161, 165, 168 3:1–2 258 Amos 157 9:11–12 88, 155 Zephaniah 3:14 84 Zechariah 2:10 84 10:8–12 253 13:9 198 Malachi 3:2–3 198 4:5–6 197 4:6 149 OT Apocrypha Baruch 1:20 225 2:20 225 2:28 225 1 Esdras 190, 192 1–2 Maccabees 190, 192 Sirach 48:10 197

313

Wisdom of Solomon 2:13 225 9:45 225 19:6 225 New Testament Matthew 7, 46, 77–83, 104, 124, 147, 162, 195, 272 2:1–6 168 2:23 224 5–7 23 7:20 231 7:23 280 10:18 283 10:19–20 201 10:22 231 10:41–42 231 11:3 225 11:19 75 11:23 22 12:18 225 12:31–32 201 13:55 275 16:18 22 16:21 233 18:5 231 18:20 231 21:3 218 24:14 283 24:34 293 25:34–36 280 26:71 224 27:49 57 Mark 77–83, 104, 124, 147, 195, 240 1:10 199 1:15 292 1:24 224

314

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 3:10 45 3:28–30 201 4:41 45 8:31 233 9:12 233 9:37 231 10:45 233 10:47 224 11:3 217 13 294 13:1–37 292 13:6 231, 294 13:8 294 13:11 201 13:13 294 13:14–20 20 14:67 224 15:39 224 16:6 224 16:8 19

Luke

1–2 150 1 161–62 1:1—4:27 268 1:1–4 8–9, 11, 14, 29– 30, 99, 106, 112, 220, 270, 296 1:1 29, 42, 73, 77, 121, 129, 148, 156 1:2 73, 270 1:3–4 109 1:3 29, 74, 123 1:4 29–30, 122 1:5—4:15 130 1:5—2:40 196 1:5–38 125 1:5–25 166 1:6–8 219 1:6 129, 196–97

1:8 129 1:14 129 1:15–17 196 1:15 196 1:16 129 1:17 148–49, 163, 196– 97 1:18–20 131 1:19 129 1:26–39 161 1:28–38 84 1:29 124, 131 1:30–35 196, 235 1:32–35 226, 228 1:32–33 162, 198 1:34–35 198 1:35 34, 130, 197–98 1:36 224 1:37 130, 135 1:41–45 197 1:41 196–97 1:44 196–97 1:46–55 127, 235 1:46–48 130 1:47 129, 196, 226 1:50 129 1:51–53 130 1:52–53 126 1:54–55 130 1:54 129, 225 1:67–79 197, 235 1:68–73 130 1:69–71 130 1:69 225 1:76 197 1:77 130 1:80 196, 271 2:1–2 131 2:4 258 2:8–11 131

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 2:11 129–30, 226, 228 2:12–16 131 2:19 83, 131 2:22 273 2:23 275 2:25–38 197 2:26–32 228 2:28 275 2:29–34 34 2:29–32 131, 235 2:32 128, 149, 163 2:34–35 274 2:43–48 131 2:49–50 131 2:49 274 2:51 131 3:1—4:30 85 3:1 25 3:2 197 3:4–6 76, 197 3:4 148, 197 3:6 130–31, 159 3:7–21 197 3:10–14 83 3:12 271 3:15–17 197 3:15 226 3:16 127, 161, 198, 203 3:17 199, 297 3:21–22 197, 199, 228, 252, 258–59 3:22 56 3:23–28 106 3:31 130 3:34 130 3:36 56 3:38 130 4 165 4:1–13 133 4:1–3 54

315

4:1 199 4:3 224 4:8 84, 130 4:9 224 4:14–30 196 4:14 197, 199 4:16—9:50 131 4:16–30 39, 200, 259 4:18–19 126, 132 4:18 200 4:21 127, 132 4:25–27 126, 128 4:25–26 132–33 4:31–40 259 4:31–37 133 4:31–34 200 4:31 258 4:33 196 4:34 133, 224 4:36 133, 196, 200 4:41 133, 224, 228 4:43 85, 200 5:17–26 132, 259 5:17 200 5:31 226 5:33 213 5:39 56 6 23 6:9–10 132 6:11 56 6:14 57 6:17–19 133 6:18 45, 196, 200 6:20—7:50 85–86 7:11–17 132, 167, 259 7:13 217, 222 7:16 200 7:18–35 200 7:18–28 197 7:18 213

316

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 7:19–20 225 7:19 217, 222 7:21 196, 200 7:22 200 7:27 84, 197 7:33 196 7:35 75 7:36–49 132 7:50 132 8:1–3 133 8:1 200, 218 8:2 196, 200 8:3 83 8:4 133 8:9 133 8:10 133 8:11–15 133 8:12 133 8:13 45 8:17 133 8:18 127, 133 8:25 45 8:26–39 132 8:28 133 8:29 196, 200, 258 8:36 132 8:39 258 8:40–56 259 8:40–42 132 8:43–48 259 8:48 132 8:49–56 132 8:50 132 8:55 196 9:1–6 124 9:1–2 133 9:1 124 9:2 218 9:9 83 9:10–17 133

9:10 124 9:20 228 9:21–27 135, 259 9:21–22 133 9:22 85, 126 9:23–24 133 9:24 136 9:35 76 9:37–43 132 9:39 196, 200 9:42 196, 200 9:43–45 259 9:44–45 133, 135 9:44 126 9:45 133, 135 9:51—19:44 134 9:51 134 9:52–56 83 9:53 134 10:1–12 124 10:1 124, 217, 222 10:11–14 297 10:15 22 10:17–20 124 10:19 258 10:20 196 10:21–22 134 10:21 199 10:39 217 10:41 217, 222 10:44 258 11:1 213 11:2 59 11:9–13 201 11:13 201 11:20 201 11:24 196 11:26 196 11:28 258 11:39 217, 222

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 12:8–10 201 12:10 201 12:11–12 201 12:16–21 135 12:35 297 12:42 217, 222 12:45 298 13:2 258 13:4 258 13:11 196, 200 13:15 217, 222 13:16 200 13:19 45 13:22–29 134 13:33 200 15:1–10 125 15:3–32 135 15:28 258 16:1–18 128 16:1–13 135 16:6–7 258 16:16 296 16:19–31 135 16:23 22 17:5–6 222 17:5 217 17:11–19 83 17:11–13 54 17:18 140 17:20 294 17:22–23 54 18:6 217, 222 18:20 84 18:24–25 135 18:26 135 18:27 135 18:31–34 135, 251 18:31–33 126 18:34 135 18:37 224

19:1–10 135 19:3–4 135 19:6–8 135 19:8 217, 222 19:10 135 19:11 294, 298 19:21 258 19:31 218, 222 19:34 218, 222 19:41–48 200 19:41–44 20 19:42–44 134 19:45—24:53 135 19:45–48 259 20:13 199 20:22 258 20:28 258 20:37 84 21 294, 297 21:4 258 21:7–9 294 21:7 294 21:11 294 21:12–19 142 21:14–15 201 21:19 294 21:20–24 20 21:32–36 298 21:32 297 22:14–23 137, 259 22:19–20 57–58 22:24–38 259 22:37 85 22:41 54 22:42–44 54 22:43–44 54 22:45–48 54 22:58–61 54 22:61 217, 222 22:66–71 259

317

318

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 22:67 228 22:70 224 23:1–15 23 23:1–5 259 23:2 228 23:6–12 259 23:7–10 83 23:8–9 196 23:17–25 259 23:26—24:12 259 23:34 58, 125 23:35–39 136 23:35 228 23:39 228 23:40–43 136 23:46–47 136 23:46 125, 196 23:47 224 23:49 21 23:50–56 136 24 152, 161, 202 24:3 57 24:6–7 126 24:6 57–58, 305 24:12 57 24:13–27 127, 137 24:19 200, 224 24:21 136 24:25–27 137, 152, 228, 233 24:25 21 24:26 227–28 24:28–31 137 24:31 137 24:32 127, 137 24:34 222 24:35 137 24:36–43 137, 229 24:36 57 24:39–43 137

24:40 57 24:44–49 201, 259 24:44–48 233 24:44–47 137, 228 24:44–45 21 24:44 127 24:46–47 235 24:46 228 24:47 163, 256 24:48–49 203 24:49 196–97, 203–4 24:51 57 24:52–53 259 24:52 57, 218 John 77, 104, 124, 147, 195 1:1 130 1:12 231 1:32–34 199 3:8 306 6:23 218 11:2 218 13:35 283 14:9 270, 273 14:12 283 14:13 231 14:28 231 15:16 231 16:23 231 18:5 224 18:7 224 19:19 224 20:2 218 20:13 218 20:15 218 20:18 218 20:20 218 20:25 218 20:28 218 21:9–15 23

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 21:24 7 Acts

1–15 89–90 1–7 126 1 89, 159, 161 1:1—6:7 137 1:1–11 123, 257 1:1–2 106 1:1 99, 109, 123 1:2–3 256 1:2 94, 202, 284 1:3 257 1:4–5 127, 203 1:5 138, 203–4, 256, 284 1:6–11 229 1:6–8 235, 295 1:6–7 294, 298 1:6 137, 258 1:7 138 1:8 19, 21, 126, 138, 163, 197–98, 203– 4, 209, 213, 256, 260, 305 1:9–11 88 1:11 230 1:14 67, 90 1:15–26 114, 155–56 1:15–22 151 1:15 155 1:16 202 1:17 41 1:20 41, 155 1:21–22 227, 244 1:21 305 1:22 256 1:25 22, 41 2 155, 159, 161, 165, 171, 206–7, 211 2:1–37 204

319

2:1–13 88, 252 2:1–4 161, 258–59 2:2–4 205 2:4 204, 213 2:5–11 255 2:6–11 205 2:10 252, 260 2:14–40 259 2:14–39 196 2:14–36 39, 90 2:14–21 204, 293 2:16–21 152, 256 2:16–18 198 2:17–24 88 2:17–21 155, 157, 161, 164, 168, 204, 258, 295 2:17–18 204 2:17 122 2:18 251 2:19 138 2:21 138, 222, 232 2:22 202, 204, 224 2:22–35 256 2:22–24 227 2:23 232 2:24–31 233 2:24 22 2:27 22 2:30–37 64 2:30 223 2:31 22 2:32–33 256 2:33–36 34 2:33 34, 201, 203–4 210, 230, 258 2:36 129, 220, 218, 227, 229 2:37–42 255 2:37–41 139

320

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 2:37 65 2:38–47 205 2:38–39 139, 206–8, 210 2:38 230, 256 2:41–42 235 2:41 281 2:42–47 205 2:44–47 110 2:44 45 2:46—3:2 64 2:47 138–39 3 171 3:1 65 3:6 223–24 231 3:11–26 90 3:12–26 220 3:12 204 3:13–16 139, 227 3:13 225, 227 3:14 224 3:16 231 3:17 139 3:18–20 293 3:18 88, 223, 233 3:19–26 259 3:19–21 295 3:19 256 3:20 223 3:21 229 3:22–26 225 3:22 127, 138 3:24 88 3:25 139, 155 3:26 225 4:1–3 259 4:2 245 4:3 110 4:4 139, 234–35 4:5–22 259 4:7 204

4:8–12 227 4:8 204 4:10 223–24, 231 4:12 139, 218, 231, 235 4:13 21, 139 4:17–18 231 4:22 138 4:25 202, 225 4:26–27 23 4:27—17:17 64 4:27 225 4:28 232 4:29 234 4:30 225, 231 4:31 204, 234 4:32–37 205 4:32–35 110 4:33 204, 221, 227 4:36—5:11 255 5 172 5:1–11 88, 281 5:1–9 205 5:3–21 64 5:13–14 259 5:14 45, 235 5:16 45, 196 5:17–26 259 5:18 110 5:19 222 5:27–42 259 5:27–28 231 5:30–32 204, 227 5:30–31 204 5:31 226, 256 5:34 250 5:36–37 93, 136 5:36 25 5:40 231 5:42 223 6–15 139

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 6 305 6:1—8:3 109 6:1–7 215 6:1 89 6:2 234 6:3 205 6:4 234 6:5 140, 207 6:6 41 6:7 45, 234 6:8—16:5 139 6:8–11 140 6:8–10 204, 209 6:10 196, 201 6:11–15 260 6:12 110 7 157, 171 7:1–53 106 7:1–6 140 7:3 148 7:9–16 140 7:17–44 88 7:24 61 7:29–36 140 7:37 127, 226 7:48–50 140 7:51–53 235 7:51–52 202 7:52 224 7:55–56 257 7:58—13:9 249 7:58—8:3 248 7:58 248–50 7:59–60 125, 222, 236 7:59 196, 221 7:60 221 8–12 126 8 213 8:1 241, 305 8:3 249, 260

321

8:4–25 306 8:4–13 140 8:4 209, 234 8:5–8 209 8:5 223 8:7 196 8:12–17 209 8:12 223, 231 8:13 204 8:14–17 140, 206, 209– 10 215 8:14–16 212 8:14 210, 234 8:15–17 213, 258 8:15–16 210, 213 8:15 204 8:16 204, 209, 221, 230 8:17 204, 210 8:18–25 282 8:18–24 140 8:19 204 8:24 61 8:25 210, 222, 234 8:26–40 140, 252 8:26 229 8:29—10:14 61 8:29 140, 215, 229 8:37 62 8:38–39 213 8:39 140, 215, 229 9 89 9:1–31 141, 248 9:1–19 251–52 9:1–2 260 9:1 249 9:3–5 229 9:4–6 88, 257 9:10–19 222 9:10–16 236, 257 9:10 221, 229

322

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 9:13 221 9:14 232 9:15–16 141, 231, 252, 260 9:15 253 9:17–18 210, 258–59 9:17 204 9:18–20 282 9:18 252 9:20 223, 256–57 9:21 232 9:22 223 9:23 241 9:26 45 9:27–30 241 9:28 231 9:31 128, 205, 222 9:32–43 125 9:33—10:1 64 9:34 223 9:36–43 281 9:36 259 9:51—19:27 128 10 171, 211 10:1—11:18 114 10:1–48 252 10:4 221 10:14 221 10:15 211 10:19 215 10:28 140–41, 211 10:34–43 223, 227 10:34–35 140 10:36–43 227 10:36 221, 223, 227, 234 10:37–38 202 10:38 197, 200, 204, 223, 227 10:41 244 10:42 233, 295

10:43 88, 231, 256 10:44–48 140, 206, 210, 306 10:44–46 209, 258 10:44 211, 215, 234 10:45–46 211 10:45 204 10:47 202, 204, 211, 213 10:48 223, 230 11:1–18 141, 252 11:1 234 11:2–3 211 11:2 62 11:4–17 211 11:8 221 11:9–13 201 11:12 215 11:14 140 11:15–18 210, 215 11:15 140, 204 11:16 204, 222 11:17 202, 221, 223 11:18 211, 235 11:19–30 141, 248 11:19–21 209 11:19 234 11:20 221 11:21 222 11:27–28 229 11:27 209 11:28 94, 205, 209 11:29–30 241 12:1–19 259 12:2 110 12:3–17 114 12:3 110 12:7–8 229 12:11 222 12:17 222 12:21–23 236

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 12:24 234, 259 13–28 126 13–21 178 13 171 13:1—21:16 248 13:1—14:28 253 13:1–2 236 13:1 209 13:2–4 215, 229 13:2 222, 255, 258 13:4—14:52 141 13:4–12 253 13:5 234 13:6–12 243 13:7 234, 249 13:9 204, 249 13:12 249 13:13–52 244, 252, 259 13:13–51 253 13:13–43 247 13:16–41 39, 106, 243, 255–57 13:21–22 249 13:22 23 13:23 256 13:24–25 256 13:26–41 233 13:26–39 227 13:26–29 233 13:26 234 13:27–32 256 13:27 256, 251 13:29 256 13:32–37 233, 256 13:32–33 251, 256 13:33 223, 226 13:38–39 233, 242, 245, 247, 256 13:38 256 13:43 235, 253, 256

323

13:44–47 256 13:44 234 13:45–47 235 13:46–47 35, 106 13:46 234, 256 13:47–48 251 13:47 19, 128, 141, 152, 155, 163, 256 13:48–49 222 13:48 21, 222, 234 13:49 234 13:50 253 13:52 204, 256 14:1–7 253 14:1 235, 253 14:3 234 14:4 244, 252 14:5 243 14:8–19 253 14:8–18 223, 258–59 14:8–10 243 14:11–13 92 14:12 234 14:14–17 246 14:14 244, 252 14:16–17 256 14:19–20 243, 260 14:19 253 14:22 243 14:23 301–2, 304 14:25 234 15 15, 28, 172, 242, 305 15:1–35 241 15:1–5 211 15:1 141 15:5 141, 245 15:6–21 211 15:7–11 209, 252 15:7 141, 234 15:8–9 212

324

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 15:11 141, 221, 233 15:12 215 15:13–18 235 15:15–18 88 15:16–18 155 15:17 222 15:19 141 15:20 62, 242 15:26 221, 223, 231 15:28–29 141, 205, 215 15:28 215 15:29 62, 242 15:31 221 15:32 209, 215 15:35–36 222 15:35 234 15:36–18:22 253 15:36–41 255 15:36 234 15:40 255 16–28 89, 91 16 67, 171 16:1–3 255 16:1 253 16:3 250–51 16:4 250 16:6—28:31 142 16:6–10 215 16:6–8 229 16:6–7 142, 215 16:6 234 16:7 203, 230 16:9–10 243 16:10–17 9, 91, 240, 255 16:11–15 125 16:12 142 16:14 222 16:16–40 260 16:16–18 259 16:16 196

16:17 143 16:18 196, 223, 231 16:19–40 243 16:19–34 255 16:22–24 110 16:25–34 223 16:29–34 125 16:32 222, 234 16:34 246 16:37–39 142 16:37–38 245, 250 17 171 17:3 223, 233 17:4 67–68, 253 17:5–9 243 17:6 142 17:9 110 17:11 234 17:12 67–69 17:13 234, 243, 253 17:16–34 246, 253 17:16–31 223 17:16 196 17:18–21 143 17:22–31 243, 257 17:22–30 255–56 17:23–31 143 17:23 21 17:28 92 17:30–31 186, 227 17:31–32 256 17:31 233, 295 17:32–34 143 17:32 253 17:34 67–69 18 67–69, 172 18:1–17 254 18:2–3 250 18:2 69 18:3 68–69, 245, 249

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 18:5–6 235 18:5 223 18:6–7 244, 252 18:9–11 142 18:9–10 257 18:11 234 18:12–17 110, 243 18:18 68–69, 142, 246, 250 18:21 68 18:23—21:16 253 18:25 196 18:26 68–69 18:28 88, 223 18:27—19:6 64 19 64, 172 19:1–41 254 19:1–7 212, 206, 209 19:2 204, 212 19:3 213 19:4–6 258 19:4 225 19:5 213, 221, 230 19:6 204, 213 19:10 234 19:11–17 258–59 19:11–12 243 19:11 204 19:12–16 64 19:12 196 19:30–20 231 19:13 221, 196 19:15 196 19:16 196 19:18–19 143 19:20 234 19:21 142, 144 19:23–41 110 19:23–27 143 19:29 90

325

19:35 40 20 19, 172 20:1 243 20:3 66, 243 20:5–15 9, 91, 240, 255 20:6–8 254 20:7–12 243, 258–59 20:9 248 20:17–38 259, 302 20:17–35 305 20:18–38 18 20:18–35 114, 255, 257 20:21 221, 223, 257 20:22–24 215, 259–60 20:22–23 142, 258 20:22 258 20:23 229 20:24 221 20:25 257, 260 20:27 234 20:28 41, 205, 215, 223, 233, 257 20:29 22 20:32 234 20:34–35 249 20:35 22, 221 20:38 260 21–28 92 21:1–18 9, 91, 255 21:2–10 61 21:4 243, 259–60 21:7–11 258 21:8–16 90 21:9–10 209 21:10–14 259–60 21:11–14 243 21:11 144, 229 21:13 221, 231 21:16 90 21:17–26 142

326

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 21:18–25 302 21:21 245 21:23–24 246, 250–51 21:25 242 21:27–36 243, 259 21:28 245, 250 21:33—28:31 110 21:38 25, 93, 136 21:39 142, 245, 250 21:40 250 22 171, 177 22:1–21 251–52 22:2 250 22:3 245, 250 22:6–21 257 22:6–10 257 22:6–8 229 22:8 221, 224 22:10–20 61 22:10 221 22:14 224 22:15 252–53 22:16 230, 232 22:17—28:31 248 22:17–21 257 22:17–18 229 22:17 250 22:19 221 22:21 252 22:25–29 142, 245, 250 22:30 61 23 172 23:1–10 259 23:6–10 256 23:6–8 257 23:6–7 256 23:6 143, 245, 250 23:11–17 64 23:11 18–19, 142, 229 23:16 249

23:17 248 23:23–27 251 23:25–29 64 23:27 142 24 171–72, 191 24:1–27 259 24:1 251 24:5 142, 224 24:10–21 243 24:14–15 143 24:15 257 24:17–18 250 24:21 245, 257 24:25 251 24:26 251 25:1–12 259 25:8 142 25:10–11 110 25:11–12 18, 251 25:19 257 25:26 40 26 171–72, 177 26:1–32 259 26:1–23 232 26:2–26 243 26:2–23 251–52 26:4–5 245, 250 26:5 250 26:6–8 143 26:6 245 26:7–8 64 26:9 224, 232 26:10–11 250 26:11 232 26:12–15 229 26:13–18 257 26:15 221 26:17–18 128, 252 26:17 253 26:18 256

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 26:20 64 26:22–23 247, 257 26:23 163, 223, 233 26:26 143 26:28 143, 252 26:32 18 27–28 9, 13, 18 27 93 27:1—28:16 9, 91 27:1–29 255 27:13–44 258–59 27:23–25 142 27:23–24 144 27:23 229 27:24–38 259 27:24 18, 260 27:31–38 251 28 11, 19, 161, 165, 171 28:1–16 255 28:3–6 243, 259 28:7–10 259 28:9 45 28:20 143, 257 28:21–22 250 28:23–31 259 28:23 144, 257 28:25–29 235 28:25–28 161, 244, 252– 53 28:25 202 28:28 144, 159 28:30–31 142, 144, 259 28:30 144, 251, 260, 305 28:31 221, 223, 257 Romans 240 1:2–4 247 1:3–4 292 1:3 256 1:16 139, 244

327

1:18–32 246, 256 2:9–10 244 5:6–11 247 10:3–4 242 10:9–13 232 11:11–16 292 11:13 244, 252 11:14 244 13:1–7 245 14–15 242, 247 14:7–12 247 15:13 247 15:19 243 15:25–27 250 15:31 250, 305 1 Corinthians 104, 240, 281 1:2 232 1:17–25 136 2:1–4 243 4:12 245, 249 4:17 255 5 242 5:4 231 6:11 231 7 242 8–10 242 9:1–18 245, 249 9:1 244, 251 9:6 255 9:9 246 9:19–23 247 11:23–25 244 12:3 232 13:12 273 15:1–11 244 15:5–8 244 15:8–10 251 15:8 305 15:20 247, 292

328

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS 15:51–52 248, 293 16:1–4 250 16:22 292

2 Corinthians 240, 255 5:1–10 248 5:14–21 247 6:5 245, 249 7–8 255 8:1–7 250 9:1–5 250 10:10 16, 243–44 11:17 246 11:22 245, 247 11:23 249 11:25–27 254 11:27 249 11:32–33 241 12:10 243 12:12 243 Galatians 240 1:1–2 305 1:11–17 251, 305 1:11–12 244 1:21–24 241 2–5 247 2 15, 242 2:1–11 244 2:1–10 241 2:1 255 2:3 255 2:7–8 244 2:10 250 2:11–16 245 2:11–13 305 2:14–21 246 3:1–5 243 3:19 242 5:1 246

5:16–25 247 6:2 247 Ephesians 9, 11, 240 1:7 256 Philippians 9, 11, 240–41, 255, 288 1:19–26 248 1:20–26 293 2:6–11 247 2:9–11 231 3:2–11 251 3:4–6 245, 247 Colossians 9, 11, 240, 255 1:14 256 1:18 247 4:10–14 8 4:10 90, 172, 255 4:14 8, 90 4:16 6 1 Thessalonians 123, 240, 255 1:1 255 1:5 243 1:9–10 230 1:10 292 2:9 249 4:15–17 293 4:15 248 4:16 230 2 Thessalonians 123, 240, 255 3:8 249 1 Timothy 240

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS 2 Timothy 240 4:11 8, 90 5:8 256

1 Enoch 38:2 225 53:6 225

Titus 240 1:5 302

Psalms of Solomon 17:32 225

Philemon 9, 11, 240, 255 9 248 24 8, 90

Josephus

Hebrews 7, 288 1:5 256 2:10 226 5:5 256 12:2 226 1 Peter 4:7 298 5:1–4 304 5:8–9 298 2 Peter 3:9 293 3:15–16 16 1 John 7 2 John 7 3 John 7 Revelation 4:6–7 266 22:12 230 OT Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 70:10 225

The Life 5 25 Jewish Antiquities 108 19.275 25 20.97–102 25, 93 20.138 25 20.160–72 25, 93 20.267 25 Jewish War 1.3 11 1.22 11 2.152 232 2.254–63 25, 93 Mishnah Abot 2.12 246 4.7 246 Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 13.2 23 18.1 23 42.1–4 23 44.2–3 23 59.2–4 225

329

330

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Didache 9.2–3 225 10.2–3 225 Diognetus 8.9 225 8.11 225 9.1 225 Ignatius, To the Ephesians 19.1 275 Ignatius, To the Magnesians 5.1 22 Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 2.2 22 Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 1.2 23 3.3 22 Martyrdom of Polycarp 14.1 225 Polycarp, To the Philippians 1.2 22 2.3 22 9.2 22 Church Fathers and Other Christian Writings Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies 42.11.6 58 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.22 90 3.4 90

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 10, 90 3.11.8 266 3.13.3 267 3.14.1 10, 90 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1.1 276–77, 283–84 1.2 278, 283 1.3 283–84 3.1 276 19.4 276 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Beginning of Acts 265 1.1 278 1.2 278–79 1.3 276–77 1.5 279, 282 2.2 277, 279–80 2.3 280 2.6 276 3.2 280 3.3 279–81 3.5 281 4.3 280 4.6–7 281 4.6 277, 280–81 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans 1.1 276 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 2.5 276

INDEX OF ANCIENT WRITINGS Justin, First Apology 39.3 21 49.5 21 50.12 21 Justin, Second Apology 10.6 21 Muratorian Canon 10, 267 Origen, Commentary on John 1.4.22 269 1.6.22 272 1.7.37–43 269 2.100–104 264 2.137–39 264 Origen, Homilies on Luke 265 1.1 270, 274 1.4 269 3.1 272 3.4 273 5.2–3 274 5.2 274 5.4 274 6.3 274 6.4 275 6.7 275 7.2 275 7.3 272 7.4 275 7.8 268 8.1 273 11.3 271 11.6 273 14.1 273 14.4 273 14.7 273, 275 16.3 274 16.4 274

331

16.7–8 274 18.5 274 19.1 273 19.2 273 21.4 268 22.6 268 23.5–6 271 23.5 271 25.8 273 28.1 272 28.2 272 28.3 272 29.2 273 32.6 268 37.1 271 Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2 10 4.43.2 58 4.26.4 59 Classical and Other Writings Aratus, Phaenomena 5 92 Cicero, On Duties 1.150 245 Dio Chrysostom, Orations 34.23 245 Diogenes, Lives 116–18 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Thucydides 42 190

332

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 107 1.1–8 106 1.9–70 106 1.71—4.85 106 5–20 106

Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.617–725 92

Homer, Iliad 2 114 6 114 7 114 24 114

Plutarch, Lives 107

Homer, Odyssey 92–93, 114

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22 190

Lucian, The Way to Write History 58 182, 190

Pliny the Younger, Letters to Trajan 10.96.5 232

Polybius, Histories 12 190 12.25 182

Virgil, Aeneid 92, 114–15

INDEX OF AUTHORS Adams, S. A. 4, 79, 119 Aland, B. 55, 61, 64–65 Aland, K. 54, 55, 65 Alexander, L. C. A. 112, 115, 117–18, 120, 183–84, 193 Alexander, P. 163 Allen, P. 278, 285 Amphoux, C.-B. 58 Anderson, S. D. 59 Argyle, A. W. 43 Aune, D. E. 99, 103–4, 116 Bacon, B. W. 62 von Baer, H. 36 Balch, D. L. 105–7 Bammel, E. 57 Barnett, P. W. 249 Barrett, C. K. 10, 13–14, 51, 62, 68–69, 86, 108, 151, 221, 235–36, 301 Barrett, D. P. 56 Barton, S. C. 206 Bauckham, R. 10, 17, 74, 253 Bauer, D. R. 224 Baur, F. C. 4, 80, 172–75, 181, 239, 241, 288 Beale, G. K. 85, 87, 89, 154 Best, E. 68 Betz, H. D. 244

Bird, M. 11 Birdsall, J. N. 52 Black, D. A. 52 Black, M. 65, 67, 225 Bock, D. L. 82, 86, 102, 153– 55, 168, 294, 297 Bockmuehl, M. 150, 192 Boismard, M.-É. 61 Bonnah, G. K. A. 195 Bonz, M. P. 92, 114–15 Bovon, F. 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 53, 86, 147, 185, 237, 263, 293, 296, 301, 307, 308 Brawley, R. 158–61, 168 Brodie, T. L. 104–5, 128, 166–67 Brodsky, S. 62 Brock, A. G. 66, 68 Brown, R. E. 19, 24–25 Bruce, F. F. 18, 20, 25, 90– 91, 93, 107, 176–78, 290 Buckwalter, C. H. 36 Buckwalter, H. D. 219, 221, 237 Bultmann, R. 98 Burridge, R. 4, 98–100, 120 Buswell, G. 185 Buttrick, D. G. 308

334

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Byrskog, S. 102 Cadbury, H. J. 3, 17, 28–31, 36, 39, 47–48, 50, 85, 100–101, 121, 175–76, 178, 217, 221, 227, 237 Callan, T. 242 Campbell, W. S. 13 Cancik, H. 37, 102 Carroll, J. 297–98 Carruth, S. 59 Carson, D. A. 8, 11, 18, 20, 24, 77, 84–85, 87, 151, 154, 206, 214 Cassidy, R. J. 33 Casson, L. 253 Charles, R. H. 149 Charlesworth, J. H. 102 Clark, A. C. 43 Clark, K. W. 53 Clark, W. K. L. 88 Clarke, A. D. 87, 92–93, 101, 153, 182, 193 Clines, D. J. A. 183, 193 Clivas, C. 54–55 Coggins, R. J. 288 Collins, A. Y. 19 Comfort, P. W. 56 Compton, M. B. 265, 277, 281 Conzelmann, H. 18–19, 21– 22, 24, 32, 50, 101, 185– 86, 188, 289, 290, 294– 97, 308 Coote, M. P. 113 Coote, R. B. 113 Crehan, J. 70 Crossan, J. D. 144 Crowe, B. 3, 79 Crump, D. 76 Dawsey, J. M. 112

Delobel, J. 52, 57, 62, 71 Denova, R. I. 102, 165, 166 Derrett, J. D. M. 57 Dibelius, M. 14, 43, 98, 101, 178–81, 184–85, 289 Dicken, F. 3, 98 Dodd, C. H. 20 Doty, W. G. 99 Downs, D. 250 Dunn, J. D. G. 82, 86, 89, 91, 199, 203, 208, 212, 214– 15, 221, 246–47, 288, 292–93, 295–96, 299– 302, 304–306, 310 Dupont, J. 86 Dvorakova, R. 62 Eco, U. 162 Edwards, J. R. 83 Ehorn, S. M. 26 Ehrman, B. D. 22–23, 52, 57–59 Elliott, J. K. 63–64, 70 Eltester, W. 152 Enslin, M. S. 15 Epp, E. J. 52, 65–67, 71 Esler, P. 33 Evans, C. A. 19, 102, 128, 134, 157, 164, 168 Evans, C. F. 105 Farmer, W. R. 78 Farrer, A. 80, 81 Farris, S. 150 Fearghail, F. Ó. 102 Fee, G. D. 65 Fitzmyer, J. A. 8, 10–11, 13, 19, 20, 24–25, 35, 73, 79, 83–89, 91–92, 94– 95, 240, 256, 258, 290, 296, 301, 305

INDEX OF AUTHORS Foakes Jackson, F.J. 17, 88, 175, 221, 237 Foster, P. 38, 53 France, R. T. 116 Fusco, V. 288, 298 Gäbel, G. 51, 64 Gamble, H. 12, 24 Garsky, A. 59 Gasque, W. 276 Gaventa, B. R. 91, 252 Geer, Jr., T. 61 Gempf, C. 13, 93, 182–83, 193, 254 Giles, K. 303 Gill, D. W. J. 13, 93, 254 Goodacre, M. S. 80 Goulder, M. D. 15, 80–81, 87, 99, 105 Green, H. B. 23 Green, J. B. 17, 20, 23, 99, 122, 124, 145, 151, 158, 298, 299 Gregory, A. F. 46, 50, 55, 217, 266 Griesbach, J. J. 78 Grenfell, B. P. 64 Groh, D. E. 55 Guelich, R. A. 19 Guthrie, D. 8, 15, 20–21, 24 Hadas, M. 99 Haenchen, E. 5, 9–10, 13–14, 21–24, 110, 188, 241– 45, 289–90, 302 von Harnack, A. 59, 87, 89, 91, 266 Harris, W. 243 Hartman, L. 231 Hatina, T. R. 163 Hawkins, J. C. 91

335

Hays, R. B. 76, 147, 151, 158, 162–64 Head, P. 53, 56, 93 Hearon, H. E. 113 Hedrick, C. 251 Hegel, G. W. F. 173 Heil, C. 102 Heine, R. 268, 285 Heiserman, A. 111 Hemer, C. 9, 13, 18 Hengel, M. 9, 74–75, 89, 91, 101–2 Hernández, Jr., J. 54, 56, 58 Hezser, C. 243 Hill, C. E. 54 Hirsh, E. 252 Hock, R. F. 249 Hollander, J. 158 Holmes, M. W. 67, 69 Holtz, T. 150 Hort, F. J. A. 57–58, 62–63, 70 Houlden, J. L. 288 Hunt, A. S. 64 Hunter, D. G. 275 Hur, J. 195, 202–3, 206, 210, 214–15 Hurtado, L. W. 5, 54, 224 Jackson-McGabe, M. 224 Jervell, J. 5, 15, 19, 87, 89–92, 95, 151, 248, 301, 304– 5, 307 Jewett, R. 55, 241 Johnson, L. T. 76, 84–86, 88, 91, 95, 108, 128, 145, 239, 258, 260 Just, A. A. 285 Käsemann, E. 188, 289–90, 292–93, 295, 297, 299– 301, 306–10

336

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Keck, L. E. 18, 32, 124, 171, 219, 237, 242, 288, 290 Keene, T. 6 Keener, C. 1 Kelly, J. N. D. 193, 276 Kennedy, G. A. 243–44 Kloppenborg (Verbin), J. S. 79 Knox, J. 14, 21–22, 241 Koester, H. 99 Koet, B. J. 149 Kremer, J. 57, 101, 106 Kristeva, J. 156–57, 161 Kruger, M. J. 54 Kuhli, H. 224 Kümmel, W. G. 296 Kurz, W. S. 19, 145 Lachmann, K. 78–79 Lake, K. 17, 66, 88, 175, 221, 237 Lampe, G. W. H. 210 Landmesser, C. 221 Leith, D. 93 Lentz, Jr., J. C. 241–42, 245, 248, 250, 261 Levenson, J. D. 137 Lienhard, J. T. 265 Litwak, K. D. 4, 152, 155, 157–58, 160–61, 164 Lobel, E. 54 Longenecker, B. W. 206 Longenecker, R. N. 290, 310 Luomanen, P. 224 MacDonald, D. R. 92–93, 113–14 MacDonald, M. Y. 288 MacRae, G. W. 220, 229 Maddox, R. 13, 19, 22, 102, 110 Mallen, P. 165, 168

Marconi, G. 298 Marguerat, D. 18–19, 109, 188–89 Marincola, J. L. 167 Marshall, I. H. 8, 17, 19–20, 85–88, 91, 153–54, 186– 87, 198–99, 207, 210, 213, 216, 290, 297, 301, 305, 308, 310 Martini, C. M. 70 Martin, F. 285 Martin, R. P. 244 Martyn, J. L. 19, 32, 171, 219, 237, 242, 288, 290 Mattill, A. J. 258 May, J. D. 163 Mayer, W. 278, 285 McKnight, S. 240 Meek, J. A. 155 Meeks, W. 245 Meiser, M. 62 Menken, M. J. J. 158 Menzies, A. 174, 206, 208, 212 Metzger, B. 55, 57, 59, 68, 93 Mitchell, M. M. 193 Moessner, D. P. 84, 128, 157, 258 Moll, S. 266 Momigliano, A. 181, 183–84 Moo, D. J. 8, 11, 18, 20, 24, 77, 84 Moore, S. D. 183, 193 Moreland, M. 115 Morris, L. 8, 11, 18, 20, 24, 290, 297 Moule, C. F. D. 219, 229, 237 Moyise, S. 158 Mrazek, J. 62

INDEX OF AUTHORS Muhlack, G. 38 Murphy–O’Connor, J. 241, 246, 248–51, 254, 261 Murray, R. S. 309 Nautin, P. 264, 268 Neill, S. 290, 308 Neyrey, J. H. 142, 245, 250 Nicklas, T. 52, 71 Nicol, W. 298 Nineham, D. E. 105 Noble, B. 241 Nolland, J. 19, 196–97, 199– 200 O’Collins, G. 298 O’Toole, R. F. 32 Oden, T. C. 285 Olbricht, T. H. 102, 244 Osborn, G. 240 Osburn, C. D. 61 Padilla, O. 4, 5, 172, 183, 191–93 Palmer, D. W. 101, 190 Panten, K. E. 60 Pao, D. W. 85, 88, 128, 154– 55, 160, 169, 203 Parker, D. C. 52, 55, 57–58, 63, 68–69, 93 Parsons, M. 7, 31, 39, 43, 46, 50, 87, 112 Peabody, D. 78 Penner, T. 68, 97, 107–109, 120, 183, 193 Penny, J. M. 206 Perkins, P. 65, 66 Pervo, R. I. 7, 13–26, 31, 37, 39–43, 46, 50, 55, 93, 110–13, 191, 192, 252, 259, 290, 295, 298, 302– 3, 305–10 Petersen, W. L. 52

337

Peterson, D. G. 5, 153, 195, 207, 216, 302, 307 Phillips, T. E. 5, 97, 112, 120, 157, 242, 248, 261, 298 Pickering, S. R. 93 Plümacher, E. 37, 101, 106 Pond, K. 86 Popkes, W. 233 Porkorný, P. 35 Porter, S. E. 5, 11, 13–16, 26, 51, 60, 63–65, 79, 93, 102, 106, 112, 118, 148, 154, 240, 242–44, 246, 248, 261 Poythress, V. 74 Praeder, S. M. 11, 13, 112 Puskas, C. B. 19, 76 Rapske, B. 241, 245, 253, 261 Rauer, M. 265 Read-Heimerdinger, J. 60 Reed, J. L. 144 Reid, R. G. 163 Rese, M. 34, 153 Rhodes, E. F. 55 Richard, E. 105, 166, 243, 253–55 Richards, K. H. 112 Riesner, R. 12, 241 Rius-Camps, J. 60 Robbins, V. 13 Robinson, J. A. T. 220–21 Robinson, J. M. 99 Ropes, J. H. 61, 71 Rosner, B. 87–88, 102 Roth, D. T. 3, 52, 58, 60 Rothschild, C. K. 99, 102, 298, 304 Roudiez, L. S. 156 Rowe, C. K. 1, 46–48, 50, 92, 142, 217–18, 229

338

ISSUES IN LUKE-ACTS

Royse, J. 56 Sackett, C. 26 Sanders, E. P. 99, 246 Sanders, H. A. 64 Sanders, J. A. 128, 157, 164, 168 Sandnes, K. O. 113 van de Sadnt, H. 158 Schmithals, W. 303 Schnabel, E. J. 85, 154–55 Schnider, G. 59, 221–22, 237 Schoeps, H.–J. 242 Schragel, W. 59 Schubert, P. 34, 152–53, 161 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 67–68 Schwartz, S. 112 Schweizer, E. 171 Seccombe, D. P. 200 Shaffer, E. S. 181 Shellard, B. 19–22 Shepherd, W. H. 36, 307 Shuler, P. 99 Shuve, K. 6 Skeat, T. C. 56 Smalley, W. A. 65 Smith, M. 99 Smith, R. P. 152, 267 Soards, M. 171, 188, 193 Spencer, F. S. 4, 125, 128, 145 Spencer, P. E. 29 Squires, J. T. 33, 99 Stanton, G. N. 206 Steely, J. E. 303 Stein, R. H. 77, 95 Stendahl, K. 251 Sterling, G. E. 108 Stevens, G. B. 365 Steyn, G. 151 Stirewalt, L. 243

Stonehouse, N. B. 81, 85 Stowers, S. 243 Strange, W. A. 52, 71 Strauss, M. 154 Strazicich, J. 164–65 Streeter, B. H. 80, 82 Talbert, C. H. 13, 22, 37, 99, 116–18, 125, 251, 258, 308 Tannehill, C. H. 38, 145, 196–97, 212 Thompson, M. B. 12–13, 15– 17, 253 Thompson, R. P. 157 Tiede, D. L. 294 Tilly, M. 52, 71 Tomkins, T. 266 Tomson, P. J. 108 Toney, C. N. 5–6, 247 Torrance, A. J. 150 Townsend, J. T. 21 Tuckett, C. 52, 63, 65 Turner, M. M. B. 195, 198– 210, 214, 216 Tyson, J. B. 16, 20–22 van Unnik, W. C. 32, 106 Vander Stichele, C. 68, 107 Verheyden, J. 3, 29, 38, 50, 52, 102 Vielhauer, P. 5, 184–85, 187– 89, 241–42, 246, 248, 250, 288–89, 305 Volf, M. 140 Voss, G. 36 Wagner, J. R. 150, 157 Walaskay, P. W. 33 Walker, W. O. 15 Wall, R. W. 124 Wallace, D. B. 212 Walters, P. 43–46, 50

INDEX OF AUTHORS Walton, S. 240 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 13 Wenham, D. 92, 116 Wenk, M. 205, 216 Westcott, B. F. 57–58, 62– 63, 70 Westerholm, S. 246 White, H. 181 Wilcox, M. 57 Williams, D. J. 215 Williamson, G. M. 151 Willits, J. 11 Wilson, R. McL. 68, 107 Wilson, S. G. 221 Winter, B. W. 87, 92–93, 101, 153, 182, 193, 261 Witherington, III, B. 67–68, 91, 116, 190, 210, 245, 259–60, 305 Wolter, M. 75, 82 Wright, N. T. 290, 308 Yamata, K. 102 Young, F. M. 263–64, 278– 79, 285 Zwiep, A. W. 156, 229–30

339