Acts: A Commentary 978-0800660451

The Acts of the Apostles joins the Gospel of Luke with the ministry of Paul. Renowned New Testament scholar Richard I. P

1,606 126 13MB

English Pages 895 Year 2008

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Acts: A Commentary
 978-0800660451

Table of contents :
Foreword xi
Editor’s Note xiii
Preface xv
Reference Codes xvii
1. Sources and Abbreviations xvii
2. Short Titles of Commentaries, Studies, xxiv
and Articles Often Cited
1. The Earliest Witnesses to Acts and Its
Canonical History 1
2. The Text 1
3. The Date and Place of Composition; the Author 5
4. Language and Style 7
5. Sources 12
6. Genre 14
7. The Unity/ies of Luke and Acts 18
8. Structure 20
9. General Purpose 21
10. Theology 22
11. Bibliography and History of Research 25
Title 29
1:1-5 Preface 31
Excursus: The Prefaces to Luke and Acts 32
Excursus: Direct Speech in Acts 38
1:6-14 The Ascension 40
Excursus: Power in Luke and Acts 42
1:15-26 Replenishing the Apostolic College 48
Excursus: Punitive Miracles 52
Excursus: The Beginning of Acts 56
2:1-13 The Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost 58
Excursus: Glossolalia and Prophecy in Acts 63
Excursus: The List of Nations 66
2:14-41 Peter’s Speech at Pentecost 72
Excursus: The Text of Acts 2:17-21 76
Excursus: The Size of the Early Jerusalem Church 86
2:42-47 A Summary 88
Excursus: The Summaries in Acts 88
3:1-10 Peter and John Heal a Paralytic 96
3:11—4:4 Peter Addresses the Crowd 102
4:5-22 Peter and John before the High Priests 113
Excursus: Confronting Tyrants 118
4:23-31 Prayerful Celebration 120
4:32—5:16 Community Life and Outreach 125
5:17-42 The Apostles in Prison and on Trial 138
6:1-7 The Appointment of Seven Assistants 151
Excursus: Luke’s View of Ecclesiastical Office 160
6:8-15 Stephen’s Ministry 164
7:1-53 Stephen’s Speech 171
Excursus: Popular Justice in the Ancient Mediterranean World 193
7:54—8:3 Stephen’s Martyrdom 195
8:4-13 Simon of Samaria 202
Excursus: Simon of Samaria 206
Excursus: “Magi,” “Magic,” and “Magicians” 207
8:14-25 The Spirit, Peter, and Simon 212
8:26-40 Philip Converts an Ethiopian Official 217
Excursus: Ethiopia and Ethiopians 221
9:1-19a The Call of Saul 230
Excursus: Source Hypotheses for Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1-19 239
9:19b-31 Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem 245
The D-Text of Acts 9:3-22 249
9:32-43 Peter Launches a Mission along the Coast 251
10:1—11:18 The Conversions of Peter and Cornelius 258
11:19-30 The Church Spreads to Antioch 289
Excursus: Syrian Antioch 291
Excursus: The Name “Christian” 294
12:1-23 Persecution by Herod and Peter’s Miraculous Escape 299
Excursus: The Source of 12:20-23 312
12:24-25 A Summary 316
13:1-12 Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus 318
13:13-52 Paul Preaches in Antioch of Pisidia 328
Excursus: “God-Fearers” in Acts 332
14:1-28 Missionary Activity in Lycaonia 345
Excursus: Lucan “Natural Theology" 359
15:1-35 Resolution of a Controversy over Circumcision 364
Excursus: The Apostolic Decree 376
15:36—16:10 Toward a New Mission 385
Excursus: “We” in Acts 392
16:11-40 The Mission in Philippi 397
Excursus: Prison Escapes in Acts 409
17:1-15 Paul Visits Thessalonica and Beroea 416
17:16-34 Paul’s Areopagus Address 423
18:1-23 Paul in Corinth 443
Excursus: Acts 18 and Chronology 445
18:24-28 Apollos 458
19:1-12 Paul in Ephesus 462
19:13-22 An Attempted Exorcism and Its Aftermath 474
19:23-40 A Disturbance in Ephesus 484
20:1-38 Paul’s Departure from Asia 503
Excursus: The Seven of Acts 20:4 508
Excursus: The Farewell Scene 529
21:1-17 Paul Travels to Jerusalem 532
21:18-26 Paul Confers with James 541
Excursus: Luke and Torah Observance 544
21:27-40 Paul Is Arrested 548
Excursus: Paul the Prisoner 552
Excursus: Was Paul a Citizen of Tarsus? Of Rome? 554
22:1-21 Paul Addresses the Crowd in the Temple 558
22:22-29 Reactions to Paul’s Address 567
22:30—23:11 Paul before the Sanhedrin 570
23:12-35 A Plot against Paul 577
Excursus: Felix 587
24:1-23 Paul before Felix 589
Excursus: The Trials of Paul 592
24:24-27 Paul before Felix and Festus 602
25:1-12 Festus Takes the Case 607
Excursus: Porcius Festus and the Date of His Accession 608
25:13-22 Agrippa and Bernice Arrive 614
Excursus: Agrippa II and Bernice 615
25:23-27 The Prelude to Paul’s Defense 619
26:1-32 Paul’s Defense 623
Excursus: Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion/Call 629
27:1-44 Paul’s Ocean Voyage 639
28:1-16 Paul on Malta 668
28:17-31 Paul the Prisoner in Rome 679
Excursus: The Ending of Acts 688
Appendixes 691
Appendix 1. The Conversion of Polemo 691
Appendix 2. The “Sarapis Aretalogy” from Delos:
The Foundation of a Cult 691
Appendix 3. Political Activity by a Guild 692
Appendix 4. Artemidorus Oneirocritica 694
Appendix 5. Endings 695
Bibliography 697
Indexes 761
1. Passages 761
2. Greek Words 797
3. Subjects 797
4. Authors 797
Designer’s Notes 811

Citation preview

Acts

Acts FM C.indd 1

8/27/2008 9:46:42 AM

Hermeneia —A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible

Old Testament Editorial Board Peter Machinist, Harvard University, chair Klaus Baltzer, University of Munich Sidnie White Crawford, University of Nebraska Paul D. Hanson, Harvard University Thomas Krüger, University of Zurich S. Dean McBride Jr., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University, emeritus New Testament Editorial Board Helmut Koester, Harvard University, chair Harold W. Attridge, Yale University Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale University Eldon Jay Epp, Case Western Reserve University Hans-Josef Klauck, University of Chicago James M. Robinson, Claremont Graduate University

Acts FM C.indd 2

8/27/2008 9:46:42 AM

Acts

A Commentary by Richard I. Pervo

Edited by Harold W. Attridge

Fortress Press

Acts FM C.indd 3

Minneapolis

9/12/08 3:33:54 PM

Acts A Commentary Copyright © 2009 Fortress Press, an imprint of Augburg Fortress All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Augsburg  Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. The Hebraica, Payne, and Semitica fonts used to print this work are available from Linguist’s Software, Inc., PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 USA. Tel. 425-775-1130. www.linguistsoftware.com. Cover and interior design by Kenneth Hiebert Typesetting and page composition by The HK Scriptorium Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pervo, Richard I.   Acts : a commentary / by Richard I. Pervo ; edited by Harold W. Attridge.    p. cm. — (Hermeneia)   Includes bibliographical references and index.   ISBN-13: 978-0-8006-6045-1 (alk. paper)   1. Bible. N.T. Acts—Commentaries. I. Attridge, Harold W. II. Title.   BS2625.53.P42  2008   226.6'077—dc22                                                             2008003463 The paper used in this publication meets the mini­ mum ­requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48–1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. 13

Acts FM C.indd 4

12

11

10

09

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

9/12/08 3:33:54 PM

The Author

Richard I. Pervo, born 1942 in Lakewood, Ohio, received his B.A. from Concordia College, Fort Wayne, Indiana; his B.D. from the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and his Th.D. from Harvard University. He taught at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois, from 1975 to 1999, and at the University of Minnesota from 1999 to 2001. His ­specialization has been the interaction of early Jewish and Christian writings with ancient fiction. Previous books on Acts include Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Fortress, 1987), Luke’s Story of Paul (Fortress, 1990), (with Mikeal Parsons) Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Fortress, 1993 [­reissued 2007]), and Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge, 2006).

Acts FM C.indd 6

9/12/08 3:33:54 PM

 This book is for Karen



Acts FM C.indd 5

8/27/2008 9:46:43 AM

Contents Acts

Foreword Editor’s Note Preface Reference Codes    1.  Sources and Abbreviations    2. Short Titles of Commentaries, Studies, and Articles Often Cited

xi xiii xv xvii xvii xxiv

 Introduction 1. The Earliest Witnesses to Acts and Its Canonical History   2. The Text 3. The Date and Place of Composition; the Author 4. Language and Style 5. Sources 6. Genre 7. The Unity/ies of Luke and Acts 8. Structure 9. General Purpose 10. Theology 11. Bibliography and History of Research

1 1 5 7 12 14 18 20 21 22 25

 Commentary Title 1:1-5  Preface   Excursus: The Prefaces to Luke and Acts   Excursus: Direct Speech in Acts 1:6-14  The Ascension   Excursus: Power in Luke and Acts 1:15-26  Replenishing the Apostolic College   Excursus: Punitive Miracles   Excursus: The Beginning of Acts 2:1-13  The Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost   Excursus: Glossolalia and Prophecy in Acts   Excursus: The List of Nations 2:14-41  Peter’s Speech at Pentecost   Excursus: The Text of Acts 2:17-21   Excursus: The Size of the Early Jerusalem Church 2:42-47  A Summary   Excursus: The Summaries in Acts 3:1-10  Peter and John Heal a Paralytic 3:11—4:4  Peter Addresses the Crowd 4:5-22  Peter and John before the High Priests   Excursus: Confronting Tyrants 4:23-31  Prayerful Celebration 4:32—5:16  Community Life and Outreach 5:17-42  The Apostles in Prison and on Trial 6:1-7  The Appointment of Seven Assistants   Excursus: Luke’s View of Ecclesiastical Office 6:8-15  Stephen’s Ministry

29 31 32 38 40 42 48 52 56 58 63 66 72 76 86 88 88 96 102 113 118 120 125 138 151 160 164

vii

Acts FM C.indd 7

8/27/2008 1:33:55 PM

7:1-53  Stephen’s Speech   Excursus: Popular Justice in the Ancient Mediterranean World 7:54—8:3  Stephen’s Martyrdom 8:4-13  Simon of Samaria   Excursus: Simon of Samaria   Excursus: “Magi,” “Magic,” and “Magicians” 8:14-25  The Spirit, Peter, and Simon 8:26-40  Philip Converts an Ethiopian Official   Excursus: Ethiopia and Ethiopians 9:1-19a  The Call of Saul   Excursus: Source Hypotheses for Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1-19 9:19b-31 Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem The D-Text of Acts 9:3-22 9:32-43  Peter Launches a Mission along the Coast 10:1—11:18  The Conversions of Peter and Cornelius 11:19-30  The Church Spreads to Antioch   Excursus: Syrian Antioch   Excursus: The Name “Christian” 12:1-23  Persecution by Herod and Peter’s Miraculous Escape   Excursus: The Source of 12:20-23 12:24-25  A Summary 13:1-12  Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus 13:13-52  Paul Preaches in Antioch of Pisidia   Excursus: “God-Fearers” in Acts 14:1-28  Missionary Activity in Lycaonia   Excursus: Lucan “Natural Theology" 15:1-35  Resolution of a Controversy over Circumcision   Excursus: The Apostolic Decree 15:36—16:10  Toward a New Mission   Excursus: “We” in Acts 16:11-40  The Mission in Philippi   Excursus: Prison Escapes in Acts 17:1-15  Paul Visits Thessalonica and Beroea 17:16-34  Paul’s Areopagus Address 18:1-23  Paul in Corinth   Excursus: Acts 18 and Chronology 18:24-28  Apollos 19:1-12  Paul in Ephesus 19:13-22  An Attempted Exorcism and Its Aftermath 19:23-40  A Disturbance in Ephesus 20:1-38  Paul’s Departure from Asia   Excursus: The Seven of Acts 20:4   Excursus: The Farewell Scene 21:1-17  Paul Travels to Jerusalem 21:18-26  Paul Confers with James   Excursus: Luke and Torah Observance 21:27-40  Paul Is Arrested   Excursus: Paul the Prisoner   Excursus: Was Paul a Citizen of Tarsus? Of Rome?

171 193 195 202 206 207 212 217 221 230 239 245 249 251 258 289 291 294 299 312 316 318 328 332 345 359 364 376 385 392 397 409 416 423 443 445 458 462 474 484 503 508 529 532 541 544 548 552 554

viii

Acts FM C.indd 8

8/27/2008 1:48:41 PM

Contents

22:1-21  Paul Addresses the Crowd in the Temple 22:22-29  Reactions to Paul’s Address 22:30—23:11  Paul before the Sanhedrin 23:12-35  A Plot against Paul   Excursus: Felix 24:1-23  Paul before Felix   Excursus: The Trials of Paul 24:24-27  Paul before Felix and Festus 25:1-12  Festus Takes the Case   Excursus: Porcius Festus and the Date of His Accession 25:13-22  Agrippa and Bernice Arrive   Excursus: Agrippa II and Bernice 25:23-27  The Prelude to Paul’s Defense 26:1-32  Paul’s Defense   Excursus: Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion/Call 27:1-44  Paul’s Ocean Voyage 28:1-16  Paul on Malta 28:17-31  Paul the Prisoner in Rome   Excursus: The Ending of Acts

558 567 570 577 587 589 592 602 607 608 614 615 619 623 629 639 668 679 688

Appendixes    Appendix 1. The Conversion of Polemo   Appendix 2. T  he “Sarapis Aretalogy” from Delos: The Foundation of a Cult   Appendix 3. Political Activity by a Guild   Appendix 4. Artemidorus Oneirocritica   Appendix 5. Endings

691 691 691 692 694 695

 Back Matter Bibliography Indexes   1.  Passages    2.  Greek Words   3.  Subjects    4.  Authors  Designer’s Notes 

697 761 761 797 797 797 811

ix

Acts FM C.indd 9

8/27/2008 1:48:41 PM

Acts FM C.indd 10

8/27/2008 9:46:43 AM

Foreword

The name Hermeneia, Greek eJrmhneiva, has been chosen as the title of the commentary series to which this volume belongs. The word Hermeneia has a rich background in the history of biblical interpretation as a term used in the ancient Greek-speaking world for the detailed, systematic exposition of a scriptural work. It is hoped that the series, like its name, will carry forward this old and venerable tradition. A second, entirely practical reason for selecting the name lies in the desire to avoid a long descriptive title and its inevitable acronym, or worse, an unpronounceable abbreviation.   The series is designed to be a critical and historical commentary to the Bible without arbitrary limits in size or scope. It will utilize the full range of philological and historical tools, including textual criticism (often slighted in modern commentaries), the methods of the history of tradition (including genre and prosodic analysis), and the history of religion.   Hermeneia is designed for the serious student of the Bible. It will make full use of ancient Semitic and classical languages; at the same time, English translations of all comparative materials—Greek, Latin, Canaanite, or Akkadian—will be supplied alongside the citation of the source in its original language. Insofar as pos­ sible, the aim is to provide the student or scholar with full critical discussion of each problem of interpretation and with the primary data upon which the discussion is based.   Hermeneia is designed to be international and interconfessional in the selection of authors; its editorial boards were formed with this end in view. Occasionally the series will offer translations of distinguished commentaries which originally appeared in languages other than English. Published volumes of the series will be revised continually, and eventually, new commentaries will replace older works in order to preserve the currency of the series. Commentaries are also being assigned for important literary works in the categories of apocryphal and pseud­ epigraphical works relating to the Old and New Testaments, including some of Essene or Gnostic authorship.   The editors of Hermeneia impose no systematic-theological perspective upon the series (directly, or indirectly by selection of authors). It is expected that authors will struggle to lay bare the ancient meaning of a biblical work or pericope. In this way the text’s human relevance should become transparent, as is always the case in competent historical discourse. However, the series eschews for itself homiletical translation of the Bible.   The editors are heavily indebted to Fortress Press for its energy and courage in taking up an expensive, long-term project, the rewards of which will accrue chief ly to the field of biblical scholarship.   The editor responsible for this volume is Harold W. Attridge, Lillian Claus ­Professor of New Testament and Dean at the Yale Divinity School. Peter Machinist For the Old Testament Editorial Board

Helmut Koester For the New Testament Editorial Board

xi

Acts FM C.indd 11

8/27/2008 9:46:43 AM

Acts FM C.indd 12

8/27/2008 9:46:43 AM

Editor's Note

The commentary by Richard Pervo contains a fresh translation of the text of the Book of Acts. Translations from the rest of the New and Old Testament are usually from the NRSV. Quotations of Latin and Greek authors, except where noted, follow the texts and translations of the Loeb Classical Library, as indicated. The front endsheets show Acts 9:3-5, and the back endsheets show Acts 28:31, in Manuscript E (Number 08, “Laudianus”), a sixth-century Latin and Greek bilingual manuscript at the Bodleian Library, Oxford (MS. Laud Gr. 35). Photo courtesy Bodleian Library, University of Oxford.

xiii

Acts FM C.indd 13

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

Acts FM C.indd 14

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

Preface

Ernst Haenchen began his work on Acts while reading the Greek text on a train ride to Switzerland in 1944 (The Acts of the Apostles [trans. and ed. B. Noble et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], vii). My own interest was aroused while reading Acts in Greek on an airplane f light to St. Louis in 1971. Two years later I read Haenchen’s commentary in preparation for exams while also working up the ancient novels. This led to a dissertation and a career-long preoccupation with both Acts and ancient “popular” literature.   Commentators cannot answer every question about their subjects, but those writing a Hermeneia commentary must seek to address most of them. Commentaries on ancient books must deal with the question of the best recoverable text. Biblical commentaries require attention to theology. Analyses of a narrative have to attend to the story and how it is presented. These matters I have attempted to address. This commentary is the first in recent times to be based on the hypotheses that Acts was written c. 110–120 ce and that the author made use of Pauline epistles and the writings of Josephus. In addition, it constantly examines Acts as a “popular” book that seeks to engage its readers’ interest while purveying its various messages.   No list of thanksgivings could be complete. Three of my revered teachers, George MacRae, Dieter Georgi, and John Strugnell, have departed this life. Helmut Koester inspired me to undertake advanced study in the field of Christian origins. Others, from Irenaeus of Lyons to those with fresh doctorates, have generated most of the ideas advanced in the following pages. Specific thanks are owed to Matt Skinner, Timothy B. Sailors, François Bovon, Dennis R. MacDonald, and the Trial Balloon Society of St. Paul, Minnesota. Paula Harbage, David Gillingham, Harold and Janis Attridge have been treasured friends for a generation. For editorial aid I thank Harold Attridge once more, as well as the staff of Fortress Press and the HK Scriptorium.

Splendor paternae gloriae, De luce lucem proferens, Lux lucis et fons luminis, Diem dies illuminans Ambrose, Bishop of Milan

xv

Acts FM C.indd 15

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

Acts FM C.indd 16

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

Reference Codes 1.  Sources and Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freedman; 6 vols.; New York: Doublday, 1992). ABRL The Anchor Bible Reference Library Achilles Tatius   Leuc. Clit. Leucippe et Clitophon ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Act. Andr. Acts of Andrew Act. Barn. Acts of Barnabas Act. John Acts of John Act. Paul Acts of Paul Act. Pet. Acts of Peter Act. Phil. Acts of Philip Act. Thom. Acts of Thomas ACW Ancient Christian Writers Aelian   Nat. an. De natura animalium   Var. hist. Varia historia Aeschines   Ctes. In Ctesiphonem AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJP American Journal of Philology alt. altered AnBib Analecta Biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1972–). ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentary Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina Ap. Const. Apostolic Constitutions Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. Paul Apocalypse of Paul Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse of Peter Apoc. Zeph. Apocalypse of Zephaniah Apollonius Rhodius   Argon. Argonautica Appian   Bell. civ. Bella civilia Apuleius   Met. Metamorphoses Aratus   Phaen. Phaenomena Aristides   Apol. Apology Aristotle   Ath. pol. Athenain politeia

  Nic. Eth.   Top. Arrian   Anab. Artemidorus   Onir. ARW Asc. Isa. As. Mos. ASNU AsSeign Athanasius   Vit. Ant. AThANT Athenaeus   Deipn. Athenagoras   Leg. ATLA Bib Ser ATR Augustine   Adim.   Enarr. in Ps.   Ep.   Serm.   Serm. Dom.   Util. cred. Aulus Gellius   Noct. att. BA BAR Barn. BCH BDAG

BDF

BECNT BeO BEThL

Nicomachean Ethics Topica Anabasis Onirocritica Archiv für Religionswissenschaft Ascension of Isaiah Assumption of Moses Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis Assemblées du Seigneur Vita Antonii Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Deipnosophistae Legatio pro Christianis American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series Anglican Theological Review Contra Adimantum Enarrationes in Psalmos Epistulae Sermones De sermone Domini en monte De utilitate credendi Noctes atticae Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Epistle of Barnabas Bulletin de correspondence hellé­ nique Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich; 3rd ed. rev. by Frederick W. Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibbia e oriente Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

xvii

Acts FM C.indd 17

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

BGBE BGU BHT Bib BibInt BibNotiz BibRev BIFCS BIS BJRL BJS BK BR BTB BT BWANT BZ BZNW c. CahRB CBQ CBR CCSA CCSL CD CE chap. Chariton   Chaer. CHJ

Chrysostom   Hom.   Sac. Cicero   Ad Fam.   Amic.   De or.   Div.   Inv.   Leg.   Nat. Deor.   Off.   Phil.   Pis.   Resp.   Tusc. disp. CIG

Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Berlinischer griechische Urkunden Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblische Notizen Bible Review Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting Biblical Interpretation Series Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblical Research Biblical Theology Bulletin The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft circa, approximately Cahiers de la Revue biblique Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum Corpus Christianorum, Series latina See under Qumran writings Common Era chapter De Chaerea et Callirhoe Cambridge History of Judaism (ed. W. D. Davies et al.; 4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–2006). Homilies De Sacerdotio Epistulae ad familiares De amicitia De oratore De divinatione De inventione rhetorica De legibus De natura deorum De officiis Orationes philippicae In Pisonem De republica Tusculanae disputationes Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (ed. A. Boeckh; 4 vols.; Berlin: Ex oficina academica, 1828–77).

CIJ

Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (ed. Jean-Baptiste Frey; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1936–52). ClassPhil Classical Philology 1, 2 Clem. First, Second Epistle of Clement Clement of Alexandria   Paed. Paedagogus   Protrep. Protrepticus   Strom. Stromateis ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series Corp. Herm. Corpus Hermeticum CPJ Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum (ed. Victor A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern; 3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957–64). CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiastorum latinorum CurrTheolMiss Currents in Theology and Mission Cyril of Jerusalem   Myst. cat. Mystagogical Catecheses DAC Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (ed. James Hastings; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915– 18). DACL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chré­ tienne et de liturgie (ed. F. Cabrol; 15 vols.; Paris, 1907–53). DBI Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (ed. Leland Ryken et al.; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998). DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al.; 2nd rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Demosthenes   Philip. Philippica Did. Didache Dio of Prusa   Or. Oration   Diogn. Epistle to Diognetus Dionysius of Halicarnassus   Ant. Rom. Antiquitates romanae   Rhet. Ars rhetorica   Thuc. De Thucydide DSS Dead Sea Scrolls EB Études bibliques ed(s). editor, edition, or edited by EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990– 93). EHPR Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

xviii

Acts FM C.indd 18

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

Sources and Abbreviations EKK

Ep. Ep. Apos. Epictetus   Diss. Epiphanius   Pan. EPRO

ERE

esp. EstBíb ET et al. EThL EThR Euripides   Andr.   Bacch.   Iph. Aul.   Iph. taur.   Orest. Eusebius   Dem. ev.   H.E.   Praep. ev.   Vit. Const. EvTh Exp. ExpT FD FGH

FilolNT FoiVie frg(s). FRLANT

FzB GBS GNS GNT

Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Epistle Epistle to the Apostles Discourses Panarion. Medicine Chest against the Heresies Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. James Hastings; 13 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–27). especially Estudios Bíblicos English translation et alii, and others Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses Études théologiques et religieuses Andromache Bacchae Iphigenia aulidensis Iphigenia taurica Orestes Demonstratio evangelica Historia ecclesiastica Praeparatio evangelica Vita Constantini Evangelische Theologie Expositor Expository Times Fouilles de Delphes III, 1929 Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (ed. F. Jacoby; 3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann; Leiden: Brill, 1923–69). Filologia Neotestamentaria Foi et Vie fragment(s) Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bible Guides to Biblical Scholarship Good News Studies Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies) Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of James Gospel of Peter

Gos. Heb. Gos. Jas. Gos. Pet. Gregory Nazianzos   Orat. Oratio

Gregory the Great   Hom. in Ezech.   Regula Past. HDR Heliodorus   Aeth (Ps.) Heraclitus   Ep. Hermas   Man.   Sim.   Vis. Herodotus   Hist. Hesiod   Op.   Theog. Hippolytus   Ref. HNT HNTC Homer   Il.   Od. Horace   Epod. HSCP HThK

HTR HTS HUTh I. Caria

I. Didyma I. Eph.

I. Magn.

Iamblichus   De Vit. Pythag.   Myst. IB ibid. ICC IDB

Homily on Ezekiel Regula Pastoralis Harvard Dissertations in Religion Aethiopica (Ethiopian Story) Epistle The Shepherd of Hermas Mandates Similitudes Visions Historiae Opera et dies Theogonia Refutatio omnium haeresium Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper’s New Testament Commentaries Iliad Odyssey Epodes Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie La Carie: histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscrip­ tions antiques (Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1954–). Albert Rehm, Didyma, II. Die Inschriften (Berlin 1958). Die Inschriften von Ephesos (ed. H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach, et al.; Bonn, 1979–84). Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. Otto Kern; Berlin, 1900). On the Life of Pythagoras De mysteriis Interpreters Bible ibidem, in the same place International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).

xix

Acts FM C.indd 19

8/27/2008 9:46:44 AM

idem, eadem IEJ IG Ignatius   Eph.   Magn.   Phld.   Polyc.   Rom.   Smyrn.   Trall. IGR

IK ILS

Int Irenaeus   A.H. IRT Isocrates   Areop. JAAR JAC JBL JECS JEH Jerome   Comm. in Isaiam   Comm. in Titum   De vir. ill.   Ep. JFSR JHC JHS JJS Jos. Asen. Josephus   Ant.   Ap.   Bell.   Vit. JQR JRS JRT JSJ JSNT JSNTS

the same, the same as previously mentioned Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptiones Graecae (editio minor; Berlin, 1924–). Letter to the Ephesians Letter to the Magnesians Letter to the Philadelphians Letter to Polycarp Letter to the Romans Letter to the Smyrneans Letter to the Trallians Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (ed. R. Cagnat et al.; 4 vols.; Chicago: Ares, 1975). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (1972–). Inscriptiones latinae selectae (ed. Hermann Dessau; 3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1954–55). Interpretation

JTS Julian   Or. Justin Martyr   1, 2 Apol.   Dial.   Epit. Juvenal   Sat. KEK Lampe

LCC LCL LD LEC lit. LNTS Longus   Daphn. LSJ

Adversus haereses Issues in Religion and Theology Areopagiticus Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Commentary on Isaiah Commentary on Titus De viris illustribus Epistulae Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Journal of Higher Criticism Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Joseph and Aseneth Antiquities of the Jews Against Apion The Jewish War Life Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Lucian   Abdic.   Alex.   Bis acc.   Demon.   Deor. conc.   Eunuch.   Fug.   Hermot.   Icar.   Imag.   Jupp. conf.   Jupp. trag.   Lex.   Men.   Merc. cond.   Nav.   Nigr.   Peregr.   Philops.   Sacr.   Salt.   Syr. d.   Tox.   Ver. hist.   Vit. auct. LXX

Journal of Theological Studies Orations First, Second Apology Dialogue with Trypho Epitome of Trogus Satires Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar über das Neue Testament A Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. G. W. H. Lampe; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Library of Early Christianity literally Library of New Testament Studies Daphnis and Chloe Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1940; reprinted, 1966). Abdicatus Alexander Bis accusatus Demonax Deorum Concilium Eunuchus Fugitivi Hermotimus Icaromenippus Imagines Juppiter confutatus Juppiter tragoedus Lexiphanes Menippus De mercede conductis Navigium Nigrinus De morte Peregrini Philopseudes De sacrificiis De saltatione De syria dea Toxaris Vera historia Vitarum auctio Septuagint; all citations are from Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965).

xx

Acts FM C.indd 20

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

Sources and Abbreviations m. MAMA Mart. Mart. Perp. Mart. Pol. Maximus of Tyre   Or. Melito   Apol. Minucius Felix   Oct. M-M

Mishnah tractate Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Manchester, 1928–). Martyrdom of Martyrdom of Perpetua Martyrdom of Polycarp

NTAbh

Orations

NTM NTMon NTOA

Apology

Octavius J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930; ­reprinted, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997). MT Masoretic Text MThS Münchener theologische Studien N-A Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum graece NAB New American Bible NAC New American Commentary Nag Hammadi writings   Dial. Sav. Dialogue of the Savior NCB New Century Bible NEB New English Bible NewDocs New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (ed. G. H. R. Horsley and S. Llewelyn; North Ryde, N.S.W.: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1981–). NF Neue Folge NGG PH Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse NHC Nag Hammadi Codex Nicephorus Callistus   H.E. Ecclesiastical History NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements NPF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NRSV New Revised Standard Version NRT Nouvelle Revue de Theologie n.s. new series NTApoc Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; ET ed. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; rev. ed.; Cambridge: James Clarke; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991, 1992.

NTC NTD NTDH

NTS NTTS OBO OBT OCD Odes Sol. OGIS

ÖKTNT

OLZ Origen   Adnot. Exod.   Cels.   De Orat..   Fr. Jer.   Philoc. OTP

Ovid   Am.   Fast.   Metam. Papyri   P. Coll. Youtie

  P. Lond.   P. Oxy.

  P. Tebt.

par(r). PerspRelStud PG

PGM

Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Commentary Das Neue Testament Deutsch Neukirchener Theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen New Testament Message New Testament Monographs Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Classical Dictionary Odes of Solomon Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (ed. W. Dittenberger; 2 vols.; Leipzig, 1903–5). Ökumenischer Taschenbuch­ kommentar zum Neuen Testament Orientalistiche Literaturzeitung Adnotationes in Exodum Contra Celsum De oratione Fragmenta in Jeremiam Philocalia James H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983, 1985). Amores Fasti Metamorphoses Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie (ed. Ann Ellis; Bonn: Habelt, 1976). Greek Papyri in the British Museum (London, 1893–74). Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. Grenfell, A. Hunt, et al.; Oxford, 1898–). The Tebtunis Papyri (Oxford: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902– 76). parallel(s) Perspectives in Religious Studies Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca (ed. J.-P. Migne; 162 vols.; Paris, 1857–86). Papyri Graecae Magicae, the Greek Magical Papyri; all refer-

xxi

Acts FM C.indd 21

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

ences to this collection refer to the edition by Karl Preisendanz and Albert Henrichs (rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–74). Philo   Abr.   Cher.   Conf. ling.   Dec.   Deus   Flacc.   Hypoth.   Jos.   Leg. all.   Leg. Gaj.   Migr. Abr.   Mut. nom.   Omn. prob. lib.   Op. mun.   Praem. poen.   Prov.   Q. Exod.   Som.   Spec. leg.   Virt.   Vit. cont.   Vit. Mos. Philostratus   Vit. Apoll.   Vit. Soph. Pindar   Ol.   Pyth. PL

Plato   Apol.   Gorg.   Lach.   Leg.   Phaedr.   Prot.   Resp.   Soph.   Tim. Plautus   Amph. Pliny the Elder   Hist. nat. Pliny the Younger   Ep.   Pan. Plutarch   Aem.   Alc.   Alex.   Alex. fort.   Amat.

De Abrahamo De cherubim De confusione linguarum De decalogo Quot Deus sit immutabilis In Flaccum Hypothetica De Iosepho Legum allegoriae Legatio ad Gaium De migratione Abrahami De mutatione nominum Quod omnis probus liber sit De opificio mundi De praemiis et poenis De providentia Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum De somniis On the Special Laws De virtutibus De vita contemplativa De vita Mosis Vita Apollonii Vita sophistarum Olympionikai Pythionikai Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina (ed. J.-P. Migne; 217 volumes; Paris, 1844–64). Apologia Gorgias Laches Leges Phaedrus Protagoras Respublica Sophista Timaeus Amphitryo Naturalis historia Epistulae Panegyricus Aemilius Paullus Alcibiades Alexander De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute Amatorius

  Ant. Antonius   Caes. Caesar   Cat. Min. Cato Minor   Cons. Apoll. Consolatio ad Apollonium   Conviv. Septem Septem sapientium convivium   Cor. Marcius Coriolanus   Def. orac. De defectu oraculorum   Dem. Demetrius   E Delph. De E apud Delphos   Fac. De facie in orbe lunae   Frat. amor. De fraterno amore   Galb. Galba   Is. Os. De Iside et Osiride   Lib. ed. De liberis educandis   Luc. Lucullus   Per. Pericles   Praec. ger. rei publ. Praecepta gerendae rei publicae   Pyth. orac. De Pythiae oraculis   Quaest. conv. Quaestionum convivialum libri IX   Stoic. rep. De Stoicorum repugnantis   Tranq. an. De tranquillitate animi   Tu. sen. De tuenda sanitate praecepta PNF Post-Nicene Fathers Polycarp   Phil. Letter to the Philadelphians Porphyry   Christ. Contra Christianos Ps.-Clem. Pseudo-Clementine   De Virg. De Virginitate   Hom Homilies   Rec. Recognitions PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series PW Paulys Realencyclopädie der classi­ schen Altertumswissenschaft PWSup Supplement to PW QD Quaestiones disputatae Qumran writings   CD Cairo (Genizah) text of the Damascus Document   1QH Hodayoth (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Cave 1   1QS Community Rule from Cave 1 RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum RB Revue Biblique REJ Revue des études juives RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (ed. K. Galling; 7 vols.; Tübingen, 1957–65). RHPhR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RivB Rivista Biblica RivBSup Rivista Biblica Supplements RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RQ Römische Quartalschrift für christ­liche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte

xxii

Acts FM C.indd 22

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

Sources and Abbreviations RSPhTh RSR RThPh SacPag Sallust   Bell. Cat.   Bell. Jug. SANT Sb.

SBL SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLRBS SBLSBS SBLSP SBLSS SBLSymS SBLT-CS SBLTT SBLWGRW SBS SBT SCHNT SciEsp SEÅ SecCent SEG Sem Seneca   Ben.   Ep. mor.   Ira   Nat. Sib. Or. SIG

SNTSMS Socrates   H.E. Sophocles   Ant.   El.   Oed. col.   Oed. tyr.   Phil. ST STDJ StudDoc

Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques Religious Studies Review Revue de théologie et philosophie Sacra Pagina Bellum catalinae Bellum jugurthinum Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten (ed. F. Preisigke et al.; Strasburg: Tribner, 1915–77). Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature SBL Monograph Series SBL Resources for Biblical Study SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Seminar Papers SBL Semeia Studies SBL Symposium Series SBL Text-Critical Studies SBL Texts and Translations SBL Writings from the GrecoRoman World Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Science et Esprit Svensk exegetisk årsbok Second Century Supplementum epigraphicum grae­ cum Semeia De beneficiis Epistulae morales De Ira Naturales quaestiones Sibylline Oracles Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (ed. Wilhelm Dittenberger; 4 vols.; 3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1915–24). Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series Ecclesiastical History Antigone Elektra Oedipus coloneus Oedipus tyrannus Philoctetes Studia Theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studies and Documents

StNT Stobaeus   Ecl StudNTUmwelt Suetonius   Aug.   Claud.   Dom.   Jul.   Tib.   Tit.   Vesp. Sulpicius Severus   Ep. SUNT s.v. Synesius   Ep. T. Jac. T. Job T. Jos. T. Jud. T. Naph. Tacitus   Ann.   Hist. TAM TAPA TDNT

Terence   Ad. Tertullian   Apol.   Bapt.   Idol.   Mon.   Nat.   Prax.   Pud.   Res. TextsS Theocritus   Id. Theophilus   Autolyc. ThLZ ThQ ThRu trans. ThHKNT ThZ

Studien zum Neuen Testament Eclogae Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Divus Augustus Divus Claudius Domitianus Divus Julius Tiberius Divus Titus Vespasianus Epistulae Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments sub verbum Epistulae Testament of Jacob Testament of Job Testament of Joseph Testament of Judah Testament of Naphthali Annales Historiae Titulae Asiae Minoris, 1923– Transactions of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76). Adelphi Apologeticus De baptismo De idololatria De monogamia Ad nationes Adversus Praxean De pudicitia De resurrectione carnis Texts and Studies Idylls To Autolycus Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Rundschau translator, translation, translated by Theologische Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Zeitschrift

xxiii

Acts FM C.indd 23

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

TRE

TRev TSAJ

TThZ TU

TynBul Virgil   Aen. v.l. VT WBC WMANT WUNT

Xenophon   Anab.   Cyr.   Mem. ZKG ZKTh ZNW ZPE ZThK ZWTh

Theologische Realenzyklopädie (ed. G. Krause and G. Müller; Berlin, 1977–). Theologische Revue Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Aeneid varia lectio, variant reading Vetus Testamentum Word Bible Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Anabasis Cyropaedia Memorabilia Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zetischrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zetischrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie

2. Short Titles of Commentaries, Studies, and Articles Often Cited Aejmelaeus, Rezeption Lars Aejmelaeus, Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Miletrede (Helsinki: Suomalienen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). Alexander, Literary Context Loveday C. A. Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 298; London: T&T Clark, 2005). Alexander, Preface Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Alexander, “The Preface to Acts” Loveday C. A. Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians,” in Ben Witherington, History, 73–103. Allen, Death O. Wesley Allen Jr., The Death of Herod: The Narrative

and Theological Functions of Retribution in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 158; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Aune, Prophecy David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Balch, “Areopagus Speech” David L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in idem et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 52–79. Balch, “METABOLH POLITEIWN” David L. Balch, “METABOLH POLITEIWN: Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 139–88. Barclay, Jews John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Barrett Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998). Barrett, “Paul Shipwrecked” Charles Kingsley Barrett, “Paul Shipwrecked,” in Barry Thompson, ed., Scripture: Meaning and Method: Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (Hull: Hull University Press, 1987) 51–64. Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles” Richard Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),” in Witherington, History, 154–84. Bauckham, Palestinian Setting Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Bede Bede, Expositio Actuum Apostolorum (ed. Max L. W. Laistner; CCSL 121; Brepols: Turnholt, 1983). Berger, Formgeschichte Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984). Betz, Lukian Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie, 1961). Bieler, QEIOS ANHR Ludwig Bieler, QEIOS ANHR: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Früh­ christentum (2 vols.; 1935–36; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). Black, “John Mark” C. Clifton Black, “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Thompson, Literary Studies, 101–20. Boismard, Texte Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille, Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et réhabilitation (2 vols.; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilizations, 1984).

xxiv

Acts FM C.indd 24

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

TRE

TRev TSAJ

TThZ TU

TynBul Virgil   Aen. v.l. VT WBC WMANT WUNT

Xenophon   Anab.   Cyr.   Mem. ZKG ZKTh ZNW ZPE ZThK ZWTh

Theologische Realenzyklopädie (ed. G. Krause and G. Müller; Berlin, 1977–). Theologische Revue Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Aeneid varia lectio, variant reading Vetus Testamentum Word Bible Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Anabasis Cyropaedia Memorabilia Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zetischrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zetischrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie

2. Short Titles of Commentaries, Studies, and Articles Often Cited Aejmelaeus, Rezeption Lars Aejmelaeus, Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Miletrede (Helsinki: Suomalienen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). Alexander, Literary Context Loveday C. A. Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 298; London: T&T Clark, 2005). Alexander, Preface Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Alexander, “The Preface to Acts” Loveday C. A. Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians,” in Ben Witherington, History, 73–103. Allen, Death O. Wesley Allen Jr., The Death of Herod: The Narrative

and Theological Functions of Retribution in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 158; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Aune, Prophecy David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Balch, “Areopagus Speech” David L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in idem et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 52–79. Balch, “METABOLH POLITEIWN” David L. Balch, “METABOLH POLITEIWN: Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 139–88. Barclay, Jews John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Barrett Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998). Barrett, “Paul Shipwrecked” Charles Kingsley Barrett, “Paul Shipwrecked,” in Barry Thompson, ed., Scripture: Meaning and Method: Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (Hull: Hull University Press, 1987) 51–64. Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles” Richard Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),” in Witherington, History, 154–84. Bauckham, Palestinian Setting Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Bede Bede, Expositio Actuum Apostolorum (ed. Max L. W. Laistner; CCSL 121; Brepols: Turnholt, 1983). Berger, Formgeschichte Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984). Betz, Lukian Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie, 1961). Bieler, QEIOS ANHR Ludwig Bieler, QEIOS ANHR: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Früh­ christentum (2 vols.; 1935–36; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). Black, “John Mark” C. Clifton Black, “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Thompson, Literary Studies, 101–20. Boismard, Texte Marie-Émile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille, Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et réhabilitation (2 vols.; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilizations, 1984).

xxiv

Acts FM C.indd 24

8/27/2008 9:46:45 AM

Short Titles Borgen, Philo Peder Borgen, Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (BJS 131; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Bornkamm, Tradition Günther Bornkamm, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (trans. P. Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963). Bousset, Kyrios Christos Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (trans. J. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). Bovon, Actes apocryphes François Bovon et al., eds., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres: Christianisme et monde paien (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981). Bovon, Luke the Theologian François Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005) (2nd ed.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006). Bovon, “Saint-Esprit” François Bovon, “Le Saint-Esprit, l’Église et les relations humaines selon Actes 20,36—21,16,” in Kremer, Actes, 339–58. Bovon, “Tradition et redaction” François Bovon, “Tradition et redaction et Actes 10,1—11,18,” TZ 26 (1970) 22–45. Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004). Breytenbach, Paulus & Barnabas Ciliers Breytenbach, Paulus & Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f; 16,16; 18,23 & den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (AGJU 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Brosend, “Means” William F. Brosend II, “The Means of Absent Ends,” in Witherington, History, 348–62. Brown, Apostasy Schuyler Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (AnBib 36; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). Brown and Meier, Antioch Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist, 1983). Bruce Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Bultmann, History Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; 2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968). Bultmann, Theology Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. Kendrick Grobel; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–55).

Burchard, Dreizehnte Zeuge Christoph Burchard, Der dreizehnte Zeuge (FRLANT 103; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). Cadbury, Book Henry J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper & Bros., 1955). Cadbury, “Commentary” Henry J. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in Foakes Jackson and Lake, Prolegomena II, 489–510. Cadbury, “Dust and Garments” Henry J. Cadbury, “Dust and Garments,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 269–77. Cadbury, Making Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (1927; reprinted, London: SPCK, 1958). Cadbury, “Names” Henry J. Cadbury, “Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 375–92. Cadbury and Lake Henry Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake, Commentary on Acts, vol. 4 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. (New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Calvin Jean Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald. Calvin’s Commentaries, vols. 6–7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Campbell, “Who Are We?” William S. Campbell, “Who Are We in Acts? The First-Person Plural Character in the Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000). Carroll, Response John T. Carroll, Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Casey, “Simon Magus” Robert P. Casey, “Simon Magus,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 151–63. Cassidy, Society Richard J. Cassidy, Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987). Clark Albert C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Clark, Parallel Lives Andrew C. Clark, Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (Carlisle, U.K./Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2001). Clarke, “Use of the Septuagint” William Kemp L. Clarke, “The Use of the Septuagint in Acts,” in Foakes Jackson and Lake, Prolegomena II, 66–105. Cohoon, Dio Chrysostom J. W. Cohoon, trans., Dio Chrysostom (5 vols.; LCL;

xxv

Acts FM C.indd 25

8/27/2008 9:46:46 AM

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932–51). Conzelmann Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon J. Epp with Christopher Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Conzelmann, Theology Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960). Courtney, Juvenal Edward Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London: Athlone, 1980). Crossan, Who Killed Jesus John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995). Cunningham, Tribulations Scott Cunningham, Through Many Tribulations: The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts (JSNTS 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Czachesz, “Commission Narratives” István Czachesz, “Apostolic Commission Narratives in the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Groningen, 2002). Dahl, “Abraham” Nils A. Dahl, “The Story of Abraham in LukeActs,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 139–58. Danker, Benefactor Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982). Deissmann, Bible Studies Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901). Deissmann, Light Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. Lionel Strachan; New York: Harper & Bros., 1927). Delebecque, Les Deux Actes Édouard Delebecque, Les Deux Actes des Apôtres (EB n.s. 6; Paris: Gabalda, 1986). Dibelius, Studies Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling and Paul Schubert; ed. Heinrich Greeven; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956). Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (trans. and ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972). Doody, True Story Margaret Anne Doody, The True Story of the Novel (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996). Dupont, “Conclusion” Jacques Dupont, “La conclusion des Actes et son rapport à l’ensemble de l’ouvrage de Luc,” in Kremer, Actes, 359–404. Dupont, Le discours de Milet Jacques Dupont, Le discours de Milet: Testament

pastoral de Saint Paul (Actes 20,18-36) (Paris: Cerf, 1962). Dupont, Nouvelles études Jacques Dupont, Nouvelles études sur les Actes des apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984). Edwards, Religion and Power Douglas Edwards, Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). Egger, “Women in the Greek Novel” Brigitte M. Egger, “Women in the Greek Novel: Constructing the Feminine” (Diss., University of California, Irvine, 1990). Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy Helmut Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (EPRO 44; trans. Ewald Osers; Leiden: Brill, 1975). Epp, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies” Eldon Jay Epp, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” in Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 111–46. Epp, “Ascension” Eldon Jay Epp, “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts,” in idem and Gordon D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis; Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 131–45. Epp, Tendency Eldon Jay Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). Epp and Fee, Textual Criticism Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis; Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981). Esler, Community Philip F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Feldman, Jew and Gentile Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Finger, Of Widows and Meals Reta Halteman Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Fitzmyer Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998).

xxvi

Acts FM C.indd 26

8/27/2008 9:46:46 AM

Short Titles Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols.; AB 28/28A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985). Foakes Jackson Frederick J. Foakes Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Harper, 1931). Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Foakes Jackson and Lake, Prolegomena II Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. Fox, Pagans and Christians Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Knopf, 1989). Franklin, Christ the Lord Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975). Funk, Narrative Poetics Robert W. Funk, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988). Gager, Curse Tablets John G. Gager, ed., Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Gamble, Books and Readers Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Garrett, Demise Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Gärtner, Areopagus Speech Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU 21; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955). Gaventa, Darkness Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Georgi, Opponents Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Georgi, Remembering Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda” Gary Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 233–56. Gill and Gempf, Setting David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

Goold, Callirhoe G. P. Goold, ed. and trans., Chariton, Callirhoe (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995). Goulder, Type Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964). Grant, Miracle Robert M. Grant, Miracle and Natural Law in GrecoRoman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1952). Hadas, Aristeas Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas (New York: Harper, 1951). Haenchen Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. and ed. Bernard Noble et al.; translation revised and brought up to date by R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). Haenchen, “We” Ernst Haenchen, “‘We’ in Acts and the Itinerary,” The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? Journal for Theology and Church 1 (1965) 65–99. Haenchen, “Schriftzitate” Ernst Haenchen, “Schriftzitate und Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZThK 51 (1954) 153–67. Hanson, Apuleius J. Arthur Hanson, Apuleius Metamorphoses (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). Harmon, Lucian A. M. Harmon, Lucian (8 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1913–67). Harnack Adolf von Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1909). Harnack, Mission Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (trans. J. Moffatt; 2 vols.; New York: Putnam, 1908). Havelaar, “Hellenistic Parallels” Henriette Havelaar, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts 5,1-11 and the Problem of Conf licting Interpretations,” JSNT 67 (1997) 63–82. Head, “Problem” Peter Head, “Acts and the Problem of Its Texts,” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 1:415–44. Hedrick, “Paul's Conversion/Call” Charles W. Hedrick, “Paul's Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts,” JBL 100 (1981) 415–32. Hemer, Book Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad J. Gempf; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

xxvii

Acts FM C.indd 27

8/27/2008 9:46:46 AM

Hengel, Acts and the History Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Hengel, Between Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (London: SCM, 1997). Hilgert, Ship Earle Hilgert, The Ship and Related Symbols in the New Testament (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1962). Hill, Hellenists Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division with the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Hills, “Acts” Julian Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” in Eugene Lovering, ed., SBLSP 1994 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 24–54. Hock, Social Context Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Hoffmann, Porphyry R. Joseph Hoffmann, Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994). Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments” Carl Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians,” in Moessner, Heritage, 171–98. Holladay, Fragments Carl Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (5 vols.; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). Horsley, “Inscriptions” Gregory H. R. Horsley, “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament,” NovT 34 (1992) 105–67. Horst, “Acts 3 and 4” Pieter W. van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts Chapters 3 and 4,” JSNT 35 (1989) 37–46. Jacobson, “Paul” Glenn R. Jacobson, “Paul in Luke-Acts: The Savior Who Is Present,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 131–46. Jacquier Eugène Jacquier, Les Actes des apôtres (2nd ed.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1926). Jervell Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt und erklärt (KEK 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Johnson Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SacPag 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992). Johnson, Literary Function Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function

of Possessions in Luke-Acts (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002). Jones, “A Jewish Christian” F. Stanley Jones, “A Jewish Christian Reads Luke’s Acts of the Apostles: The Use of the Canonical Acts in the Ancient Jewish Christian Source behind Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, 1.27–71,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 617–35. Käsemann, “Disciples” Ernst Käsemann, “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W. J. Montague; SBT 41; London: SCM, 1964) 136–49. Kauppi, Foreign Lynn A. Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods: GrecoRomans Read Religion in Acts (LNTS 277; London: T&T Clark, 2006). Keck and Martyn, Studies Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966). Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). Kerényi, Romanliteratur Karl Kerényi, Der antike Roman (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971). Klauck, Ancient Letters Hans-Josef Klauck, with D. R. Bailey, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006). Klauck, Magic Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Brian McNeil; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). Klein, Zwölf Günter Klein, Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (FRLANT 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). Klutz, Exorcism Stories Todd E. Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading (SNTSMS 129; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Knibbe, “Via Sacra” Dieter Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca: New Aspects of the Cult of Artemis Ephesia,” in Koester, Ephesos, 141–55. Knox Wilfred L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948). Knox, Hellenistic Elements Wilfred L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (1942 Schweich Lectures; London: British Academy, 1944). Knox, St Paul Wilfred L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the

xxviii

Acts FM C.indd 28

8/27/2008 9:46:46 AM

Short Titles Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939). Koch, “Kollektenbericht” Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Kollektenbericht, ‘Wir’Bericht und Itinerar: Neue Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem,” NTS 45 (1999) 367–90. Koester, Ephesos Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995). Kratz, Rettungswunder Reinhard Kratz, Rettungswunder: Motiv-, tradi­ tions- und formkritische Aufarbeitung einer biblischen Gattung (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1979). Kremer, Actes Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, redaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979). Krodel Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986). Kurz, Reading William Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Labahn and Peerbolte, Wonders Michael Labahn and Bert L. Peerbolte, eds., Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006). Lake, “Communism” Kirsopp Lake, “The Communism of Acts II. and IV.–VI. and the Appointment of the Seven,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 140–51. Lake, “Gift” Kirsopp Lake, “The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 111–21. Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, eds., Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. Lambrecht, “Farewell” Jan Lambrecht, “Paul’s Farewell-Address at Miletus, Acts 20, 17-38,” in Kremer, Actes, 307–37. Lampe, “Acta 19” Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “Acta 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften,” BZ 36 (1992) 59–77. Lampe, “Miracles” Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Moule, Miracles, 163–78. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser; ed. Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Lausberg, Handbook Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric

(trans. Matthew T. Bliss et al.; ed. David Orton and R. Dean Anderson; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Lentz, Luke’s Portrait John Clayton Lentz, Jr., Luke’s Portrait of Paul (SNTSMS 77; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Leppä, Critical Use Heikki Leppä, Luke’s Critical Use of Galatians (Vantaa, Finland: Dark Oy, 2002). Levick, Government Barbara Levick, The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1985). Levine, Feminist Companion Amy-Jill Levine, ed., A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004). Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (BIFCS 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Lifshitz, Donateurs Baruch Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (CahRB 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967). Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London/New York: Macmillan, 1891). Lindars, Apologetic Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961). Lindemann, “Der ‘Äthiopische Eunuch’” Andreas Lindemann, “Der ‘Äthiopische Eunuch’ und die Anfänge der Mission unter den Völkern nach Apg 8–11,” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, 109–33. Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Richard A. Lipsius and Maximilian Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1891–1903). Lohfink, Conversion Gerhard Lohfink, The Conversion of St. Paul: Narrative and History in Acts (trans. Bruce J. Malina; Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1976). Loisy Alfred Loisy, Les Actes des Apôtres (Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1973). Long, “Paulusbild” William R. Long, “The Paulusbild in the Trial of Paul in Acts,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 87–105. Löning, “Circle of Stephen” Karl Löning, “The Circle of Stephen and Its Mission,” in Jürgen Becker, ed., Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to PostApostolic Times (trans. A. S. Kidder and R. Krauss; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 103–31.

xxix

Acts FM C.indd 29

8/27/2008 9:46:47 AM

Löning, Saulustradition Karl Löning, Die Saulustradition in der Apostelgeschichte (NTAbh 9; Münster: Aschendorff, 1973). Lüdemann Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Lüdemann, Acts Gerd Lüdemann, The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005). Lüdemann, Opposition Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). MacDonald, Imitate Homer Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). MacDonald, “Shipwrecks” Dennis R. MacDonald, “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul,” NTS 45 (1999) 88–107. Mack, Rhetoric Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). MacMullen, Enemies Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). MacMullen, Paganism Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). Magie, Roman Rule David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950). Malherbe, “Corner” Abraham Malherbe, “‘Not in a Corner’”: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” SecCent 5 (1985–86) 193–210. Malherbe, Paul Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Malherbe, Thessalonians Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Malina and Neyrey, Portraits Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). Marguerat, Historian Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (trans. Ken McKinney et al.; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Matson, Household Conversion David L. Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation (JSNTS 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Matthews, First Converts Shelly Matthews, First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). Mealand, “Close” David L. Mealand, “The Close of Acts and Its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” NTS 36 (1990) 583–97. Metzger, Textual Commentary Bruce Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994). Meyers, Women Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000). Millar, Emperor Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977). Millar, Near East Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East: 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). Miller, Convinced John B. F. Miller, Convinced That God Had Called Us: Dreams, Visions, and the Perception of God’s Will in Luke-Acts (BIS 85; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Moessner, Heritage David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999). Moule, Idiom Book Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Moule, Miracles Charles F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965). Moulton, Grammar James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76). Murphy-O’Connor, Saint Paul’s Corinth Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Saint Paul’s Corinth (GNS 6; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1983). Musurillo, Christian Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). Musurillo, Pagan Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954).

xxx

Acts FM C.indd 30

8/27/2008 9:46:47 AM

Short Titles Myllykoski, “Being There” Matti Myllykoski, “Being There: The Function of the Supernatural in Acts 1–12,” in Labahn and Peerbolte, Wonders, 146–79. Neyrey, “Acts 17” Jerome H. Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes,” in David Balch et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 118–34. Neyrey, “Forensic Defense Speech” Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22–26,” in Talbert, Luke-Acts, 210–24. Neyrey, Social World Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of LukeActs: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991). Neyrey, “Symbolic Universe” Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,’” in Neyrey, Social World, 271–304. Nicklas and Tilly, Book of Acts Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Nickle, The Collection Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (SBT 48; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1966). Nippel, Public Order Wilfried Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Nock, Conversion Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1961). Nock, Essays Arthur Darby Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972). Nock, “Paul and the Magus” Arthur Darby Nock, “Paul and the Magus,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 164–88 (= Essays, 1:308–30). Norden, Agnostos Theos Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede (1913; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974). O’Collins and Marconi, Luke and Acts Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi, eds., Luke and Acts (Festschrift Emilio Rasco; trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; New York: Paulist, 1993). Ollrog, Paulus Wolf-Henning Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter (WMANT 50; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979).

Omerzu, Prozess Heike Omerzu, Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). O’Toole, Unity Robert F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts (GNS 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984). Painter, Just James John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). Parsons, Body and Character Mikeal C. Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). Parsons, Departure Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in LukeActs: The Ascension Narratives in Context (JSNTS 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987). Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Pattengale, “Berea” Jerry A. Pattengale, “Berea,” ABD 1:675. Pease, Natura Arthur Stanley Pease, ed., M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958). Penner, Contextualizing Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and GrecoRoman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: SBL, 2004). Penner, “Madness” Todd Penner, “Madness in the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current Study,” CBR 2 (2004) 223–93. Penner, Praise Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10; New York: T&T Clark, 2004). Pervo, Dating Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006). Pervo, “Happy Home” Richard Pervo, “My Happy Home: The Role of Jerusalem in Acts 1–7,” Forum n.s. 3.1 (2000) 31–55. Pervo, “Hard Act” Richard Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts,” JHC 2 (1995) 3–32.

xxxi

Acts FM C.indd 31

8/27/2008 9:46:47 AM

Pervo, Luke’s Story Richard Pervo, Luke’s Story of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Pervo, “Meet Right” Richard Pervo, “Meet Right—and Our Bounden Duty,” Forum n.s. 4.1 (Spring 2000) 45–62. Pervo, “PANTA KOINA” Richard Pervo, “PANTA KOINA: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice,” in Lukas Bormann et al., eds., Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 164–94. Pervo, Profit Richard Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Pervo, “Social Aspects” Richard Pervo, “Social and Religious Aspects of the Western Text,” in Dennis Groh and Robert Jewett, eds., The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985) 229–41. Pervo, “Wisdom and Power” Richard Pervo, “Wisdom and Power: Petronius’ Satyricon and the Social World of Early Christianity,” ATR 67 (1985) 307–25. Peterson, EIS QEOS Erik Peterson, EIS QEOS: Epigraphische, formge­ schichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (FRLANT 41; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926). Phillips, Acts and Ethics Thomas E. Phillips, ed., Acts and Ethics (NTMon 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005). Plümacher, Lukas Eckhard Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). Polhill John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman, 1992). Porter, Paul of Acts Stanley E. Porter, The Paul of Acts (WUNT 115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Porton, “Sadducees” Gary G. Porton, “Sadducees,” ABD 5:892–95. Praeder, “Acts 27” Susan Marie Praeder, “Acts 27:1—28:16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46 (1984) 683–706. Praeder, “Parallelisms” Susan Marie Praeder, “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms in Luke-Acts: A History of Reader Response,” in SBLSP 1984 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984) 23–39. Praeder, “Problem” Susan Marie Praeder, “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts,” NovT 39 (1987) 193–218.

Preuschen Erwin Preuschen, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912). Price, Widow Traditions Robert M. Price, The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny (SBLDS 155; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Rackham Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (2nd ed.; London: Methuen, 1904). Radl, “Befreiung” Walter Radl, “Befreiung aus dem Gefängnis: Die Darstellung eines biblischen Grundthemas in Apg 12,” BZ 27 (1983) 81–96. Radl, Paulus Walter Radl, Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/49; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1975). Ramsay, Church William M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897). Ramsay, Cities William M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907). Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897). Rapske, Roman Custody Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (BIFCS 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). Rapske, “Travel” Brian Rapske, “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 1–47. Reardon, Novels Brian P. Reardon, Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). Reimer, “Virtual Prison Breaks” Andy M. Reimer, “Virtual Prison Breaks: NonEscape Narratives and the Definition of ‘Magic,’” in Todd E. Klutz, ed., Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (JSNTS 245; London: T&T Clark, 2003) 125–39. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906). Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge Philological Society Supp. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Richard, Acts 6 Earl Richard, Acts 6:1—8:4: The Author’s Method of Composition (SBLDS 41; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978).

xxxii

Acts FM C.indd 32

8/27/2008 9:46:47 AM

Short Titles Richard, “Polemical Character” Earl Richard, “The Polemical Character of the Joseph Episode in Acts 7,” JBL 98 (1979) 255–67. Richter Reimer, Women Ivoni Richter Reimer, Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Robbins, “Social Location” Vernon K. Robbins, “The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts,” in Neyrey, Social World, 305–32. Robinson and Koester, Trajectories James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). Rohde, Psyche Erwin Rohde, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks (trans. W. B. Hillis; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1925). Roloff Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Romm, Edges of the Earth James S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Ropes, Text James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. Rothschild, Rhetoric Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (WUNT 2.175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Rudolph, Gnosis Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (trans. and ed. R. McL. Wilson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983). Sabbe, “Son of Man” M. Sabbe, “The Son of Man Saying in Acts 7,56,” in Kremer, Actes, 241–76. Saddington, “Roman Military” Dennis Bain Saddington, “Roman Military and Administrative Personnel in the New Testament,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2409–35. Sanders, Jews Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Schenke, Apostelgeschichte 1,1—15,3 Hans-Martin Schenke, Apostelgeschichte 1,1—15,3 im mittelägyptischen Dialekt des koptischen (Codex Glazier) (TU 137; Berlin: Akademie, 1991). Schnackenburg, Ephesians Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. H. Heron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991). Schneider Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; HThK 5; Freiburg: Herder & Herder, 1980, 1982).

Schoedel, Ignatius William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Schürer, History Emil Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87). Schüssler Fiorenza, Aspects Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976). Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Schüssler Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission” Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission, and Apologetics: An Introduction,” in Schüssler Fiorenza, Aspects, 1–25. Schwartz, Agrippa I Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). Schwartz, “Trial Scene” Saundra Schwartz, “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 105–37. Scott, “Geographical Horizon” James M. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 483–544. Seim, Double Message Turid Karlsen Seim, The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke and Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994). Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen” R. Selinger, “Die Demetriosunruhen (Apg 19,23-40): Eine Fallstudie aus rechtshistorischer Perspektive,” ZNW 88 (1997) 242–59. Shauf, Theology Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). Sherwin-White, Roman Society Adrian N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963). Skinner, Locating Matthew L. Skinner, Locating Paul: Places of Custody as Narrative Settings in Acts 21–28 (SBL Academia Biblica 13; Atlanta: SBL, 2003). Slingerland, “Acts 18:1–18” Dixon Slingerland, “Acts 18:1-18, the Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology,” JBL 110 (1991) 439–49. Smallwood, The Jews E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976).

xxxiii

Acts FM C.indd 33

8/27/2008 9:46:48 AM

Smith, Voyage James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (4th ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1880). Smyth, Greek Grammar Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956). Soards, Speeches Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Söder, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten Rosa Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932). Spencer, Portrait F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts (JSNTS 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Spencer, “Wise Up” F. Scott Spencer, “Wise Up, Young Man: The Moral Vision of Saul and Other neanivskoi in Acts,” in Phillips, Acts and Ethics, 34–48. Spencer, “Women” F. Scott Spencer, “Women of ‘the Cloth’ in Acts: Sewing the Word,” in Levine, Feminist Companion, 134–54. Spicq, Lexicon Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols.; trans. and ed. J. D. Ernest; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994). Squires, Plan John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Stegemann, “Bürger” Wolfgang Stegemann, “War der Apostel Paulus ein römischer Bürger?” ZNW 78 (1987) 200–29. Stenschke, Gentiles Christoph W. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Stephens and Winkler, Greek Novels Susan A. Stephens and John J. Winkler, eds., Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Sterling, Apologetic Historiography Gregory Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Sterling, “Athletes of Virtue” Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Athletes of Virtue’: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-34; 5:12-16),” JBL 113 (1994) 679–96. Stern, Authors Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, 1974–84). Stoops, “Riot” Robert F. Stoops Jr., “Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41,” JBL 108 (1989) 73–91.

Strange, Problem William A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts (SNTSMS 71; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Swanson, Manuscripts Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Tajra, Martyrdom Harry W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends (WUNT 2.67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Tajra, Trial Harry W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). Talbert Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Talbert, Literary Patterns Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974). Talbert, Luke-Acts Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984). Talbert, Perspectives Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978). Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology” Charles H. Talbert and John H. Hayes, “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 321–36. Tannehill, Narrative Unity Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia/ Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990). Taylor, “St Paul” Justin Taylor, “St Paul and the Roman Empire: Acts of the Apostles 13–14,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1190–1231. Theissen, Miracle Stories Gerd Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (trans. Francis McDonagh; ed. John Riches; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983). Thomas, “At Home” Christine M. Thomas, “At Home in the City of Artemis: Religion in Ephesos in the Literary Imagination of the Roman Period,” in Koester, Ephesos, 81–117. Thompson, Literary Studies Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in LukeActs: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998).

xxxiv

Acts FM C.indd 34

8/27/2008 9:46:48 AM

Short Titles Thornton, Der Zeuge C.-J. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). Trebilco, “Asia” Paul R. Trebilco, “Asia,” Gill and Gempf, Setting, 291–362. Trebilco, Early Christians Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Trebilco, Jewish Communities Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Trocmé, Actes et l’histoire Étienne Trocmé, Le livre des Actes et l’histoire (EHPR 45; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957). Turner, Power Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke Acts (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Turner, Style Nigel Turner, Style, vol. 4 of James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76). Tyson, Images Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992). Tyson, “The Problem of Food” Joseph B. Tyson, “The Problem of Food in Acts: A Study of Literary Patterns with Particular Reference to Acts 6:1-7,” in SBLSP 1979 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 69–85. Verheyden, Unity Jozef Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999). Vielhauer, “Paulinism” Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 33–51. Wall, “Successors” Robert W. Wall, “Successors to ‘the Twelve’ according to Acts 12:1-17,” CBQ 53 (1991) 628–43. Walton, Leadership Steve Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and I Thessalonians (SNTSMS 108; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Weaver, Plots John B. Weaver, Plots of Epiphany: Prison Escape in Acts of the Apostles (BZNW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). Wedderburn, “Dilemma” Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘We’-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,” ZNW 93 (2002) 78–98.

Wehnert, Die Wir-Passagen Jürgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus jüdischer Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). Weiser Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖKTNT 5.1/2; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981, 1985). Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse Julius Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, NF 15.2; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1914). Wendt Hans H. Wendt, Die Apostelgeschichte (9th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913). Wikenhauser, Geschichtswert Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert (NTAbh; Münster: Aschendorff, 1921). Wilckens, Missionsreden Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; 2nd ed.; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963). Williams, “Personal Names” Margaret H. Williams, “Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 79–113. Wills, Jewish Novel Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Wilson, Law Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979). Winter, “Food Shortages” Bruce W. Winter, “Acts and Food Shortages,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 59–78. Winter, “Official Proceedings” Bruce W. Winter, “Official Proceedings and the Forensic Speeches in Acts 24–26,” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 305–36. Winter and Clarke, Setting Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). Witherington Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A SocioRhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Witherington, History Ben Witherington, ed., History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

xxxv

Acts FM C.indd 35

8/27/2008 9:46:48 AM

Wordelman, “Cultural Divides” Amy L. Wordelman, “Cultural Divides and Dual Realities: A Greco-Roman Context for Acts 14,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 205–32. Zehnle, Discourse Richard F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971).

xxxvi

Acts FM C.indd 36

8/27/2008 9:46:48 AM

Introduction

1. The Earliest Witnesses to Acts and Its Canonical History

The earliest explicit references to Acts appear in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus (c. 180), who cites the book and regards it as an authoritative composition by the author of the Gospel of Luke.1 The Acts of Paul and the Didascalia Apostolorum quite probably knew and drew upon Acts, without attribution. The dates of these works are uncertain, but they indicate that the work existed in the middle of the second century. Polycarp of Smyrna may cite Acts (Phil. 1:2). This would bring the date of indirect attestation down to c. 130. It is possible that the author of the Pastoral Epistles was familiar with Acts. This book was therefore known in Asia Minor during the second quarter of the second century but did not have a strong impact in circles associated with emergent “orthodoxy” until Irenaeus seized upon its value as a weapon in the struggle against Marcion and various “Gnostic” writers and systems. This utility was not entirely accidental. Acts played a vital role in the formation of a collection of “apostolic” writings.2 One could argue that, for Irenaeus, Acts was the horse that drove the cart of Luke, for this book served to show the unity of the apostolic 1

witness under the guidance of the Spirit (Irenaeus, A.H. esp. book 3). Although first found in the manuscript tradition as the narrative complement to the four Gospels (p 53), Acts was later associated with the letters, placed either before the Catholic Epistles or the Pauline corpus in NT mss. All three locations testify to its role in promoting apostolicity. From the time of Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13.3) Acts served not only as the background to the epistles, but also, to a large degree, as a criterion for their exegesis.3 2. The Text

Martin Dibelius concluded his 1941 essay on the text of Acts with these comments: The chief purpose of this brief sketch was simply to show (1) that the textual criticism of Acts must not be restricted to the question of the evaluation of the Western text; (2) that the exegetes of Acts, instead of aiming at an explanation of many impossible readings, should rather attempt conjectural improvements of such readings; and (3) that the history of Acts before its acceptance into the New Testament entitles us to resort to such conjectures.4

The data have been thoroughly canvassed. See Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). The fullest survey of data up to Irenaeus is Henry J. Cadbury, “The Tradition,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 2:209–64. Charles Kingsley Barrett (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998] 1:30–48, with further judgments in 2:42) is acute. See also Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) xxvii–xxxii, and Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. and ed. Bernard Noble et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 3–14, both with judicious comments. Gerhard Schneider (Die Apostelgeschichte [HThKNT 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder & Herder, 1980–82] 1:169–76) has a full set of references, without original texts.

2

3

4

See David W. Kuck, “The Use and Canonization of Acts in the Early Church,” (S.T.M. thesis, Yale University, 1975); Jens Schröter, “Die Apostelgeschichte und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons: Beobachtungen zur Kanonisierung der Apostelgeschichte und ihrer Bedeutung als kanonischer Schrift,” in J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (BEThL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003) 395–429; and David E. Smith, The Canonical Function of Acts: A Comparative Analysis (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002). On the ancient reception of Acts, see François Bovon, “The Reception of the Book of Acts in Antiquity” (forthcoming in Contemporary Studies in Acts [ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009]). For a concise review of reception up to the Enlightenment, see Schneider, 1:176–82. Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling and Paul Schubert; ed. Heinrich Greeven; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956) 92.

1

Acts part 1C.indd 1

8/27/2008 9:59:26 AM

Introduction

1. The Earliest Witnesses to Acts and Its Canonical History

The earliest explicit references to Acts appear in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus (c. 180), who cites the book and regards it as an authoritative composition by the author of the Gospel of Luke.1 The Acts of Paul and the Didascalia Apostolorum quite probably knew and drew upon Acts, without attribution. The dates of these works are uncertain, but they indicate that the work existed in the middle of the second century. Polycarp of Smyrna may cite Acts (Phil. 1:2). This would bring the date of indirect attestation down to c. 130. It is possible that the author of the Pastoral Epistles was familiar with Acts. This book was therefore known in Asia Minor during the second quarter of the second century but did not have a strong impact in circles associated with emergent “orthodoxy” until Irenaeus seized upon its value as a weapon in the struggle against Marcion and various “Gnostic” writers and systems. This utility was not entirely accidental. Acts played a vital role in the formation of a collection of “apostolic” writings.2 One could argue that, for Irenaeus, Acts was the horse that drove the cart of Luke, for this book served to show the unity of the apostolic 1

witness under the guidance of the Spirit (Irenaeus, A.H. esp. book 3). Although first found in the manuscript tradition as the narrative complement to the four Gospels (p 53), Acts was later associated with the letters, placed either before the Catholic Epistles or the Pauline corpus in NT mss. All three locations testify to its role in promoting apostolicity. From the time of Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13.3) Acts served not only as the background to the epistles, but also, to a large degree, as a criterion for their exegesis.3 2. The Text

Martin Dibelius concluded his 1941 essay on the text of Acts with these comments: The chief purpose of this brief sketch was simply to show (1) that the textual criticism of Acts must not be restricted to the question of the evaluation of the Western text; (2) that the exegetes of Acts, instead of aiming at an explanation of many impossible readings, should rather attempt conjectural improvements of such readings; and (3) that the history of Acts before its acceptance into the New Testament entitles us to resort to such conjectures.4

The data have been thoroughly canvassed. See Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). The fullest survey of data up to Irenaeus is Henry J. Cadbury, “The Tradition,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 2:209–64. Charles Kingsley Barrett (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998] 1:30–48, with further judgments in 2:42) is acute. See also Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) xxvii–xxxii, and Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. and ed. Bernard Noble et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 3–14, both with judicious comments. Gerhard Schneider (Die Apostelgeschichte [HThKNT 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder & Herder, 1980–82] 1:169–76) has a full set of references, without original texts.

2

3

4

See David W. Kuck, “The Use and Canonization of Acts in the Early Church,” (S.T.M. thesis, Yale University, 1975); Jens Schröter, “Die Apostelgeschichte und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons: Beobachtungen zur Kanonisierung der Apostelgeschichte und ihrer Bedeutung als kanonischer Schrift,” in J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (BEThL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003) 395–429; and David E. Smith, The Canonical Function of Acts: A Comparative Analysis (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002). On the ancient reception of Acts, see François Bovon, “The Reception of the Book of Acts in Antiquity” (forthcoming in Contemporary Studies in Acts [ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009]). For a concise review of reception up to the Enlightenment, see Schneider, 1:176–82. Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling and Paul Schubert; ed. Heinrich Greeven; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956) 92.

1

Acts part 1C.indd 1

8/27/2008 9:59:26 AM

The passage of two generations has not rendered his judgments obsolete. The translator of Acts soon discovers that the conventional text (N-A27/UBS4) represents what its editors view as the earliest recoverable text, based on that reading which best explains the origin of the others, rather than a fully intelligible Greek composition. This is a worthy objective, but it does not provide the translator with a finished product. In part because of the abundance of Greek evidence,5 these editors are extremely loath to engage in conjectural emendation.6 They also assign quite limited value to patristic and versional evidence. With both of these views this commentary disagrees.7 Caution, unfortunately, has become a prominent characteristic of the standard editions in recent decades.8 The abundance of data from Greek mss. does not exclude primitive corruption, since the base was quite slender until c. 250, a period in which many copies were lost or destroyed as a result of persecutions.9 A full textual base derived from complete mss. does not 5

6

7

8

emerge until the fourth century ce, at which point editorial activity can be conjectured or identified.10 Despite its patent difficulties, patristic evidence can be useful because the date, provenance, and tendencies of its sources are relatively identifiable.11 Versions can preserve old readings eliminated from the Greek tradition by standardization. When translations representing widely separated geographic areas, such as those in Latin and Syriac, agree, the probability that they reflect a similar Greek prototype rises. The text of Acts is less secure than that of Luke, for example. At a number of points it appears to be corrupt. Possibilities include 1:2; 2:43; 3:16; 4:25; 5:13; 6:9; 7:46; 9:25; 10:11, 30, 36; 12:25; 13:27-29, 32, 34, 43; 14:8; 15:21; 16:12, 13; 19:13-14, 25, 40; 20:6, 24, 28; 21:15-16; 22:30; 24:19; 25:13; 26:16; and 26:20. These require either conjectural emendation, resignation, or strained efforts to support unlikely readings. Explanations for the difficulties vary.12 In the end it makes little differ-

James K. Elliott (“The Greek Manuscript Heritage of the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 9 [1996] 37–50) identified 612: 13 papyri, 32 uncials, and 567 cursive mss. His basis was Kurt Aland, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993). Others continue to appear, such as p112. Barrett (1:2–15) has a useful annotated discussion of witnesses. Acts 16:12 counts as a partial exception to this rule, as there is Latin support for the reading chosen. Historical considerations may have motivated this decision. In light of this disagreement it would be churlish of the author to overlook the contributions of Bruce M. Metzger (who died while this section was being drafted, in February 2007), from whose textbook (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992] he first learned to appreciate textual criticism over four decades ago, and from whose Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994) he has greatly profited. All who work with the Greek NT are deeply indebted to the vast labors of Kurt and Barbara Aland and their predecessors. See Eldon Jay Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” JBL 93 (1974) 386–414 (= idem and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament

Textual Criticism [StudDoc 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 83–108), which brought the wrath of the Alands down upon his head (Kurt Aland, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Ernest Best and Robert McL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979]), evoking a sequel by Epp: “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Epp and Fee, Studies, 109–23. 9 The only substantial third-century ms. witness for Acts, p 45, contains c. 261 verses from fourteen chapters, about one-quarter of the text. 10 “Alexandrian” editing, often resulting in improved Greek, is the most obvious and undisputed element of such activity. 11 Difficulties include uncertainty about whether the author erred in the citation, which may have come from memory, and the need to recognize that patristic texts have their own manuscript history. 12 One popular notion is that the author left the text unfinished, a suggestion as least as old as Adolf von Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (trans J. R. Wilkinson; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909) 48. Johannes de Zwaan developed the argument at length: “Was the Book of Acts a Posthumous Edition?” HTR 17 (1924) 95–153. He proposed that the writing was based on incomplete work by the writer of the Third Gospel and therefore that the final editor of Acts was not the author of Luke.

2

Acts part 1C.indd 2

8/27/2008 9:59:26 AM

Introduction

ence whether the critic determines what the author should have written or what he originally wrote.13 The chief textual difficulty is the existence of different editions. One hundred and fifty years of arduous labor and vigorous discussion have not resolved the questions of the so-called Western Text (hereafter D-Text),14 a phenomenon that, although not limited to Acts, is particularly acute for this book. The prevalent view is that the D-Text of Acts is generally secondary. There is sufficient material with consistent qualities to label the D-Text of Acts as an “edition.” The task has long been to provide explanations for (1) the origin of this edition, (2) its date and provenance, and (3) its purpose or tendency/ies.

Those who work through the most recent edition of the D-Text prepared by Marie-Émile Boismard15 will come to doubt that the D-Text represents a single tradition or type, but one can identify enough features to postulate a profile that probably derives from a person or circle active in the mid-second century, probably in Asia Minor. That conclusion derives from the examples of D-Text readings in the Acts of Paul and a heightened interest in the role of the Spirit.16 The D-Text represents, in several ways, a transition between the mentality (and theology) of the canonical Acts and its apocryphal successors.17 From

13 NT scholars, who work with popular texts, are tion and have exercised, despite claims to the taught to venerate the lectio difficilior. Those who contrary, methodological consistency. Boismard’s edit classical texts presume that their subjects were Texte claims to be fully revised and to have a more competent and seek readings that reflect literary modest goal: the establishment of the precanonical skill. Luke is, at best, midway between a writer with text of Acts (Texte, 11). The revised volume prints a limited education and a learned author. both “Alexandrian” and “Western” texts together 14 Metzger has a succinct survey of research in his with a critical apparatus and offers justifications Textual Commentary, 222–36. See also William A. on a passage-by-passage basis, effectively shifting Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts (SNTSMS toward a cumulative rather than a chiefly theoreti71; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) cal argument. This text is translated as the D-Text 1–34; and the perceptive analysis of Peter Head, throughout the commentary because it represents “Acts and the Problem of Its Texts,” in Bruce W. the most complete database for the D-Text tradiWinter and Andrew D. Clarke, eds., The Book of tion. Reservations, as the notes often indicate, may Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand be appropriate. Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 415–44, esp. 415–28; Joël 16 On the Spirit in the D-Text, see, e.g., Head, “ProbDelobel, “The Text of Luke-Acts: A Confrontalem,” 434–35. On Asia Minor as a likely provenance tion of Recent Theories,” in Jozef Verheyden, ed., of the D-Text, see Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad J. University Press, 1999) 83–107; and Eldon Jay Gempf; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) Epp, “Western Text,” ABD 6:909–12. Almost every 200. Barbara Aland attempted to deny that a text contribution to Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, of this type existed in the second century: “Entsteeds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual hung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Textes untersucht an der Apostelgeschichte,” EThL Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) deals with the D-Text. 62 (1986) 5–65. Her case has not been sustained. See esp. Eldon Jay Epp, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Some edition(s) of the D-Text existed in the second the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” century. It stands behind the Old Latin version and in Nicklas and Tilly, Book of Acts, 111–46, which is found in Irenaeus. For evidence, see Christopher provides a useful survey of research. Tuckett, “How Early is the ‘Western’ Text of Acts?” 15 Le texte occidental des actes des apôtres (EB 40; Paris: in Nicklas and Tilly, Book of Acts, 69–86. Gabalda, 2000). The project of Marie-Émile 17 See Charles K. Barrett, “Is There a Theological TenBoismard, begun in conjunction with Arnaud dency in Codex Bezae?” in Ernest Best and Robert Lamouille (see their Le texte occidental des Actes des McL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies Apôtres: Reconstitution et réhabilitation [2 vols.; Paris: in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black Editions Recherche sur les civilizations, 1984]), is (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) quite controversial. This work involved a complex 15–27, esp. 27; Dennis R. MacDonald, “Apocryphal theory dealing with the composition and editing and Canonical Narratives about Paul,” in William of Luke and Acts. They have at least produced a S. Babcock, ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: collection of deviant readings deserving attenSouthern Methodist University Press, 1990) 25–45;

3

Acts part 1C.indd 3

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

theological18 and ecclesiastical19 perspectives, the D-Text keeps Acts up-to-date. This is a manifestation of the “contemporization” that was responsible for the production of Deutero-Pauline letters and editorial changes in the Pauline corpus. These indications of a date c. 150 raise nearly insuperable difficulties for hypotheses that the author is, in one way or another, responsible for both editions.20 Other notable and extensive qualities of this tradition are attempts to remove blemishes and to connect all the dots.21 The basis of that activity was an early text that almost certainly retained some important readings. Eclectic textual criticism is justified in pruning away apparent additions while giving serious attention to those that do not seem to represent a deviant ten-

4

Acts part 1C.indd 4

dency.22 One may anachronistically compare the production of the D-Text with that of a pedantic copy editor, in this case a careful reader (or a series of readers) mindful of error and inconsistency and eager to correct it.23 Authors appreciate corrections of this nature, but are often less open to pedantic additions. Indeed, one of the leading merits of the D-Text is to illustrate, via contrast, the ability of Luke, who realized that authors can suggest a complete picture with a few well-chosen details, whereas excess of detail may dampen a narrative’s impact.24 Although the D-Text is usually described as longer, largely on the basis of Codex Bezae, which in its extant sections is c. 8.5 percent longer than the conventional text, Boismard indicates a number of points at which

Carlo M. Martini, “La tradition textuelle des Actes des Apôtres et les tendances de l’Église ancienne,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, redaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 21–35; James K. Elliott, “An Eclectic Textual Study of the Book of Acts,” in Nicklas and Tilly, Book of Acts, 9–30, esp. 10; and István Czachesz, “The Acts of Paul and the Western Text of Luke’s Acts: Paul between Canon and Apocrypha,” in Jan N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 107–25. Note also Head, “Problem,” 437–38. 18 Head (“Problem,” 429–34) finds the christological titles of the D-Text appropriate to the mid second century. See also Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 150–65. 19 Examples include 8:37 (baptismal confession) and the later forms of the “Apostolic Decree” (15:23-29). In his “Anti-Judaic Tendencies,” Epp presents reasons for attributing this emphasis to the second century. Günther Zuntz (“On the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles,” in Opuscula Selecta: Classica, Hellenistica, Christiana [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972] 189–215) aptly characterizes the paradigmatic quality of many D-Text alterations. See also Richard Pervo, “Social and Religious Aspects of the Western Text,” in Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett, eds., The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985) 229–41. 20 For literature on second editions in ancient literature, see Marco Frenschkowski, “Der Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Realien antiker Buchproduktion,” in Nicklas and Tilly, Book of

21

22

23

24

Acts, 87–107. Head (“Problem,” 420–44) offers a review of scholarship with a penetrating critique of these theories. The notion goes back to Jean Leclerc (1685), who was also the first person to repudiate the theory. Friedrich Blass (Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: Editio philologica apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895] 24–38) developed the idea in detail, theorizing that the D-Text was the first draft and the “Alexandrian” text a revision. He preferred a number of D-Text readings. Although initially well received (most notably by Theodor Zahn), this argument met strong criticism and fell out of favor. The Oxford thesis of Strange (Problem) inverted Blass: Luke marked one copy of Acts with a number of marginal notes and the like. The editions arose from copies of these autographs. Examples of pedantic editing include the D-Text of 2:41-47; 3:1-9; 5:17-26; 11:20; and 12:1-3. For a general description see James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts (vol. 3 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg.) ccxxxi–xxxii. Biblical citations in the D-Text traditions, for example, are often more deviant from the LXX than are those in the conventional text and are possibly more original. Note, e.g., 2:17-21 and the citations in Stephen’s speech (chap. 7). On the role of the reader in manuscript alteration, see Michael W. Holmes, “Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels,” in D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds., Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (NTTS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 123–60, esp. 145–50, and Epp, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies,” 136–38. If one were to take up the thesis that both texts derive from the author (see above) through a liter-

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

Introduction

the D-Text is shorter. In most cases this is due to intentional abbreviation25 of passages deemed unduly wordy. It is possible that the same reader/editor who expanded portions of the text abbreviated others; it is no less possible that these represent the work of different persons. At the very least it is apparent that the text of Acts could still be treated with considerable freedom in Egypt in the fifth and later centuries and that Latin texts of the D-type were sufficiently common to be used for medieval European versions. 3. The Date and Place of Composition; the Author

Acts was written c. 115 by an anonymous author whose perspective was that of Ephesus or its general environs. This date26 is close to the end of the second generation of Deutero-Pauline activity, the era of the Apostolic Fathers and the Pastoral Epistles, when the focus was on the protection of established communities from external and internal threats.27 The standing of believers, who may be called “Christians,” in the larger society became a leading concern, for both missionary and political reasons. Rival interpretations of the Christian message constituted serious problems. The question of provenance has become compli-

cated.28 The notion that one can extract from a narrative data that will indicate where it was written now seems old-fashioned, for research must deal with the concepts of an implied author and a principal narrator.29 Sources further complicate the question, since an author who lived in Antioch, the traditional home of the author of Acts,30 might possess a relative wealth of material about the Aegean region. If, moreover, the actual author was a companion of Paul, he lived in several places, ranging from Caesarea in Palestine to Rome in Italy, and could have done some composition or note taking in each. The proposed date rules out this last option. The actual author was not a companion of Paul. A question that can be addressed is the geographical perspective and focus of the implied author. Ephesus suits the former and is almost certain for the latter. The Aegean region is the center of interest. There “we” (outside of 27:1—28:16) appear. 31 Whereas Cyprus and the south coast and center of Asia Minor are little more than place-names, concrete information emerges about the missions, together with dashes of local color, for Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, and, above all, Ephesus. Many of these data are arguably due to use of Paul’s letters, but the fact of selectivity is not without force. The narrator exhibits limited knowledge about

ary lens, the D-Text would look like the first draft, skillfully cut in a subsequent revision. 25 In 27:1—28:16 the conventional text is 26.6 percent longer than Boismard’s D-Text. His reconstruction of this section is subject to debate, however. 26 The argument for the period c. 110–120 is developed in Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006). For an update, see idem, “Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists” (forthcoming in Contemporary Studies in Acts [ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009]). 27 This statement generally follows the typology presented by Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). The projects of building, stabilizing, and protecting communities cannot be divided into impermeable categories. They serve to identify the most prominent goal. The first Deutero-Pauline generation extended from c. 65–c. 90. Ephesians stands on the border between stabilization and protection. In this period the Jesus-movement was becoming a “religion” distinct

28

29

30

31

from Judaism, which was also engaged in a process of (re-)self-definition. Modern commentators often ignore provenance or give it the scantiest attention (e.g., Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt und erklärt (KEK 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 86. For example, the narrator of James Joyce’s Ulysses is located in Dublin, and readers will also place the implied author there. The actual author lived in several continental cities while writing the novel (although he had spent his first twenty-two years in Dublin and remained in contact with it). The old Gospel Prologue (Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum [Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964] 532–33) characterizes the author as one Luke, an Antiochene, physician by trade, a pupil of the apostles who remained with Paul until his martyrdom and died in Boetia at age eighty-four, unmarried and childless. The Gospel was written in Greece. Acts followed. This prologue is not a unified piece and is not earlier than c. 200. See the excursus “‘We’ in Acts,” pp. 392–96.

5

Acts part 1C.indd 5

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

Introduction

the D-Text is shorter. In most cases this is due to intentional abbreviation25 of passages deemed unduly wordy. It is possible that the same reader/editor who expanded portions of the text abbreviated others; it is no less possible that these represent the work of different persons. At the very least it is apparent that the text of Acts could still be treated with considerable freedom in Egypt in the fifth and later centuries and that Latin texts of the D-type were sufficiently common to be used for medieval European versions. 3. The Date and Place of Composition; the Author

Acts was written c. 115 by an anonymous author whose perspective was that of Ephesus or its general environs. This date26 is close to the end of the second generation of Deutero-Pauline activity, the era of the Apostolic Fathers and the Pastoral Epistles, when the focus was on the protection of established communities from external and internal threats.27 The standing of believers, who may be called “Christians,” in the larger society became a leading concern, for both missionary and political reasons. Rival interpretations of the Christian message constituted serious problems. The question of provenance has become compli-

cated.28 The notion that one can extract from a narrative data that will indicate where it was written now seems old-fashioned, for research must deal with the concepts of an implied author and a principal narrator.29 Sources further complicate the question, since an author who lived in Antioch, the traditional home of the author of Acts,30 might possess a relative wealth of material about the Aegean region. If, moreover, the actual author was a companion of Paul, he lived in several places, ranging from Caesarea in Palestine to Rome in Italy, and could have done some composition or note taking in each. The proposed date rules out this last option. The actual author was not a companion of Paul. A question that can be addressed is the geographical perspective and focus of the implied author. Ephesus suits the former and is almost certain for the latter. The Aegean region is the center of interest. There “we” (outside of 27:1—28:16) appear. 31 Whereas Cyprus and the south coast and center of Asia Minor are little more than place-names, concrete information emerges about the missions, together with dashes of local color, for Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, and, above all, Ephesus. Many of these data are arguably due to use of Paul’s letters, but the fact of selectivity is not without force. The narrator exhibits limited knowledge about

ary lens, the D-Text would look like the first draft, skillfully cut in a subsequent revision. 25 In 27:1—28:16 the conventional text is 26.6 percent longer than Boismard’s D-Text. His reconstruction of this section is subject to debate, however. 26 The argument for the period c. 110–120 is developed in Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2006). For an update, see idem, “Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists” (forthcoming in Contemporary Studies in Acts [ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009]). 27 This statement generally follows the typology presented by Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). The projects of building, stabilizing, and protecting communities cannot be divided into impermeable categories. They serve to identify the most prominent goal. The first Deutero-Pauline generation extended from c. 65–c. 90. Ephesians stands on the border between stabilization and protection. In this period the Jesus-movement was becoming a “religion” distinct

28

29

30

31

from Judaism, which was also engaged in a process of (re-)self-definition. Modern commentators often ignore provenance or give it the scantiest attention (e.g., Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt und erklärt (KEK 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 86. For example, the narrator of James Joyce’s Ulysses is located in Dublin, and readers will also place the implied author there. The actual author lived in several continental cities while writing the novel (although he had spent his first twenty-two years in Dublin and remained in contact with it). The old Gospel Prologue (Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum [Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964] 532–33) characterizes the author as one Luke, an Antiochene, physician by trade, a pupil of the apostles who remained with Paul until his martyrdom and died in Boetia at age eighty-four, unmarried and childless. The Gospel was written in Greece. Acts followed. This prologue is not a unified piece and is not earlier than c. 200. See the excursus “‘We’ in Acts,” pp. 392–96.

5

Acts part 1C.indd 5

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

the geography of Palestine and the interior of Asia Minor, but details about travel time in the Aegean are reasonable. Acts 19:1 speaks of “upper regions.” This is the “hinterland from perspective of Ephesus.”32 Peder Borgen concludes, “The horizon of Luke-Acts may be defined as the geographical perspective of the world as seen from the standpoint of pagans, Jews, and Christians in Ephesus.”33 Data about Ephesus not derived from the epistles include Paul’s use of the “Hall of Tyrannus” (19:9), a civic assembly that meets in a theater (19:29), the cult of Artemis, whose image is of divine origin, the title “Neocoros,” the “Executive Secretary” (19:35), and an organization of silversmiths (19:25). Everyone, as it were, knew about Artemis of Ephesus, but the details in Acts reflect intimate local knowledge and a desire to exploit it. If detail suggests focus, volume goes a long way toward confirming it. Seventy verses, c. 7 percent of the text, take place in or are related to the Asian metropolis (18:19—19:40 [less 18:22-23, 28]; 20:16-38). 34 Only one site (Pisidian Antioch) receives a third as much space, and about that site the reader learns no more than that it contained a synagogue. Ephesus was the center of Paul’s lengthiest mission (19:10). Ephesus also has tentacles, for Jewish pilgrims from that city incite the riot that brings about Paul’s final arrest (21:27-29). More important are the tentacles trailed by Paul: Ephesus

is the depository of the Pauline legacy and the center of the battleground over that inheritance (20:17-38). Paul’s address to the Ephesian presbyters is a paradigm for all believers everywhere. Ephesus is the navel of the ­Deutero-Pauline universe, the site from which the departed Paul remains a living voice. The actual author was likely to have lived for a considerable time in Ephesus. There one could find the corpus Paulinum, possibly including letters not preserved for posterity. In Ephesus one could garner oral traditions about the apostle, and somewhere in that region one could gain access to copies of Josephus’s works and the sources of the Synoptic tradition. Ephesus suits the geographical perspective of Acts, is almost undoubtedly its focus, and is the most likely site of its actual provenance. The author exudes a cosmopolitan viewpoint, suitable for a major Mediterranean city.35 Ephesus has greater probability than Antioch,36 while Alexandria seems to be out of the question, since the author says nothing about Christian origins there. The speech in 20:17-35 indicates that Ephesus was also the primary, but not exclusive, destination of this book. The author adopts anonymity neither out of modesty nor even in conformity with Mark, but because the name of an actual human author would seriously compromise the technique of narrative omniscience. Papias, who probably wrote closer to c. 130 than to

32 Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake, Commentary 36 Frederick F. Bruce (The Acts of the Apostles [3rd ed.; on Acts (vol. 4 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg.) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 8–9) discusses the 236. traditions about Antioch. Schneider (1:121) favors 33 Peder Borgen, Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives Antioch because of the availability of Mark. Mark on Judaism and Early Christianity (BJS 131; Atlanta: was, however, also known to Papias. Arguments Scholars Press, 1987) 282; note pp. 273–85. Borgen based on knowledge of the Christian community says that Ephesus played a role for Luke similar to at Antioch can be found in August Strobel, “Lukas Alexandria for Philo. See also Karl Löning, “Pauder Antiochener (Bemerkungen zu Act 11,28D),” linismus in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Karl Kertelge, ZNW 49 (1958) 131–34, and R. Glover, “‘Luke ed., Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: the Antiochene’ and Acts,” NTS 11 (1964) 97–106. Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament (QD 89; Because these data are sometimes in conflict with Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 202–34, esp. 205–9. Lucan views, they are likely to stem from a source. 34 Jan Lambrecht (“Paul’s Farewell-Address at MilOn Antioch, see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel etus, Acts 20, 17–38,” in Kremer, Actes, 307–37) according to Luke I–IX. (AB 28; Garden City, N.Y.: says, “There can be no doubt that, in Luke’s view, Doubleday, 1981) 41–47. Ephesus dominates the whole third missionary journey of Paul” (p. 330). 35 Vernon K. Robbins, “The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts,” in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 305–32, esp. 318.

6

Acts part 1C.indd 6

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

Introduction

c. 110, discussed the Gospel of Mark and, perhaps, that of Matthew (Frg. 3).37 No information about Luke is recorded. Papias was concerned about the authenticity of the tradition. Justin was content to leave the Gospels in comfortable anonymity (1 Apol. 66.3). Irenaeus was not, notably in the case of Luke, whom he identified as the author of Luke and Acts and as an “inseparable companion” of Paul (A.H. 3.14.1). An early researcher who presumed that the use of “we” in Acts established the author as a companion of Paul, and that this companion was probably of gentile background, could have taken note of the greetings in the imprisonment epistles. In Phlm 24 Luke is one of four. These names reappear, with expansions, in Col 4:10-14. 2 Tim 4:11 reports that “Luke alone is with me” and therefore the most likely nominee for author.38 Two questions arise: Could this tradition be correct, and, is the tradition itself the result of deduction from these texts? With regard to the former, it is highly improbable that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, and the textual basis is questionable, for only Philemon is undisputedly genuine. That letter (apparently) and Colossians were directed to the Lykos valley, a missionary region not discussed in Acts. In support of the second possibility is Irenaeus, who appeals to Col 4:14 and 2 Tim 4:11 to make his case for Lucan authorship (A.H. 3.14.1). The earliest argument for Luke the physician and companion of Paul as the writer of Luke and Acts is based on deductions from these post-Pauline epistles. No independent or external tradition was evidently available to Irenaeus, who may

have been the originator of the claim. The authorship of Luke and Acts is an element of the early orthodox synthesis. For Irenaeus, Acts, written by Luke, was crucial, for, if the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel, Marcion’s understanding of Luke could not stand. Those who affirm the traditional ascription of Acts to Luke, a companion of Paul, must ask how much has been saved by retaining a Luke who was a companion of Paul but who did not trouble himself to learn about the major struggles in which Paul was engaged.39 Other data about the author—in fact the implied author—are inferred from his work. Limited understanding of Judaism and strong familiarity with the LXX suggest a gentile who had thoroughly immersed himself in Greek Scripture, perhaps a believer of long or even lifelong standing. Familiarity with rhetorical technique and contact with such authors as Homer and Euripides suggest an education that had progressed beyond the elementary level, but his stylistic limitations indicate that he did not reach the advanced stages. Luke, as he is conveniently denominated, had at least occasional access to a wide range of Hellenistic Jewish literature. His cosmopolitan outlook strongly suggests an urban background. 4. Language and Style

The author of Luke and Acts could write in middlebrow Koine Greek.40 His greatest facility is an ability to “write like the Bible,” that is, to imitate the language of the

37 For the fragments of Papias, see Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003) 2:85–118, esp. 96–105. 38 Reference to Aristarchus in 27:2 also points investigators toward the epistles. His name is on the greeting list in Phlm 24 (and Col 4:10). 39 In the Acts of Paul Luke is a character in the martyrdom (11/14.1, 5, 7). In chap. 1 Luke, who had come from Gaul (or Galatia), met Paul upon the latter’s arrival in Rome. He was also a witness at Paul’s tomb (5–7). His role there does not support the view that he wrote the canonical book. For ancient or medieval conjectures that Clement of Rome or Barnabas wrote Acts, see Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. and ed. M. W. Jacobus; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909) 3:3 n. 1.

40 For bibliography, see Jervell, 72–76. See, in addition to the major commentaries (the fullest treatment of which is Eugène Jacquier, Les Actes des apôtres [2nd ed.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1926] clxiv–cc); Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (2 vols.; 1915; reprinted Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995) 2:479–92; Henry J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (HTS 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920); idem, The Making of Luke-Acts (1927; reprinted London: SPCK, 1958) 213–38; idem, “Four Features of Lucan Style,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 87–102; Wilfred L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (1942 Schweich Lectures; London: British Academy, 1944) 8–12; Loveday C. A. Alexander,

7

Acts part 1C.indd 7

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

Introduction

c. 110, discussed the Gospel of Mark and, perhaps, that of Matthew (Frg. 3).37 No information about Luke is recorded. Papias was concerned about the authenticity of the tradition. Justin was content to leave the Gospels in comfortable anonymity (1 Apol. 66.3). Irenaeus was not, notably in the case of Luke, whom he identified as the author of Luke and Acts and as an “inseparable companion” of Paul (A.H. 3.14.1). An early researcher who presumed that the use of “we” in Acts established the author as a companion of Paul, and that this companion was probably of gentile background, could have taken note of the greetings in the imprisonment epistles. In Phlm 24 Luke is one of four. These names reappear, with expansions, in Col 4:10-14. 2 Tim 4:11 reports that “Luke alone is with me” and therefore the most likely nominee for author.38 Two questions arise: Could this tradition be correct, and, is the tradition itself the result of deduction from these texts? With regard to the former, it is highly improbable that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, and the textual basis is questionable, for only Philemon is undisputedly genuine. That letter (apparently) and Colossians were directed to the Lykos valley, a missionary region not discussed in Acts. In support of the second possibility is Irenaeus, who appeals to Col 4:14 and 2 Tim 4:11 to make his case for Lucan authorship (A.H. 3.14.1). The earliest argument for Luke the physician and companion of Paul as the writer of Luke and Acts is based on deductions from these post-Pauline epistles. No independent or external tradition was evidently available to Irenaeus, who may

have been the originator of the claim. The authorship of Luke and Acts is an element of the early orthodox synthesis. For Irenaeus, Acts, written by Luke, was crucial, for, if the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel, Marcion’s understanding of Luke could not stand. Those who affirm the traditional ascription of Acts to Luke, a companion of Paul, must ask how much has been saved by retaining a Luke who was a companion of Paul but who did not trouble himself to learn about the major struggles in which Paul was engaged.39 Other data about the author—in fact the implied author—are inferred from his work. Limited understanding of Judaism and strong familiarity with the LXX suggest a gentile who had thoroughly immersed himself in Greek Scripture, perhaps a believer of long or even lifelong standing. Familiarity with rhetorical technique and contact with such authors as Homer and Euripides suggest an education that had progressed beyond the elementary level, but his stylistic limitations indicate that he did not reach the advanced stages. Luke, as he is conveniently denominated, had at least occasional access to a wide range of Hellenistic Jewish literature. His cosmopolitan outlook strongly suggests an urban background. 4. Language and Style

The author of Luke and Acts could write in middlebrow Koine Greek.40 His greatest facility is an ability to “write like the Bible,” that is, to imitate the language of the

37 For the fragments of Papias, see Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003) 2:85–118, esp. 96–105. 38 Reference to Aristarchus in 27:2 also points investigators toward the epistles. His name is on the greeting list in Phlm 24 (and Col 4:10). 39 In the Acts of Paul Luke is a character in the martyrdom (11/14.1, 5, 7). In chap. 1 Luke, who had come from Gaul (or Galatia), met Paul upon the latter’s arrival in Rome. He was also a witness at Paul’s tomb (5–7). His role there does not support the view that he wrote the canonical book. For ancient or medieval conjectures that Clement of Rome or Barnabas wrote Acts, see Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. and ed. M. W. Jacobus; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909) 3:3 n. 1.

40 For bibliography, see Jervell, 72–76. See, in addition to the major commentaries (the fullest treatment of which is Eugène Jacquier, Les Actes des apôtres [2nd ed.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1926] clxiv–cc); Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (2 vols.; 1915; reprinted Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995) 2:479–92; Henry J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (HTS 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920); idem, The Making of Luke-Acts (1927; reprinted London: SPCK, 1958) 213–38; idem, “Four Features of Lucan Style,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 87–102; Wilfred L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (1942 Schweich Lectures; London: British Academy, 1944) 8–12; Loveday C. A. Alexander,

7

Acts part 1C.indd 7

8/27/2008 9:59:27 AM

LXX, most notably in Luke 1–2.41 He can suit style to matter. As Acts moves into the Greek world, in its second half, the quality of its Greek improves. When Paul faces a learned or elite audience, as in chaps. 17 and 26, his Greek reaches its highest point. These examples also show that, although he can deploy a few optatives and Attic idioms, Luke had difficulty when attempting to write good Greek periods. His literary ambition exceeded his ability.42 A parallel from prose nonfiction is the Latin biographer Cornelius Nepos, whose style and content are uneven.43 His attempts at periodic style were generally unsuccessful, and the Lives are replete with historical errors and exaggerations.44 Nepos, who can be characterized as a “popular” writer, wrote interesting stories in an easy, lucid style. From the realm of Greek prose fiction Callirhoe and An Ephesian Tale provide many interesting formal, thematic, and stylistic analogies to Acts. One candidate from the Jewish sphere is the Biblical Antiquities known as “Pseudo-Philo,” which employs similar narrative techniques.45 These data suggest an audience uninterested in, possibly unable to appreciate, sophisticated thought and style, or at

least an audience that did not always demand such ­m aterial.46 Among early Christian writers, Luke may be compared to the author of 1 Clement. His literary background included a strong immersion in Greek Jewish literature, including but not limited to the LXX (which, it should be noted, displays a broad linguistic range). Receipt of a basic education is confirmed by his ability to compose speeches and letters and his familiarity with the techniques covered in those ancient rhetorical handbooks, entitled Progymnasmata. By one means or another, Luke learned how to organize relatively large literary projects. Negative reflection on style obscures a far from inconsiderable narrative gift. Luke is an accomplished storyteller who has learned many narrative techniques and how to deploy them with impressive skill. Although famed for notable stories, he is also able to forge these into a single, coherent narrative and thereby create (rather than simply report) a sense of historical movement.47 Skills include the ability to build suspense through various means, to tell the same story n times without apparent repetition, to evoke atmosphere with a single

Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 298; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 231–52. Note also James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76) vol. 4: Style (by Nigel Turner) 45–63; and Gerard Mussies, “Variation in the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 4 (1991) 165–82; and idem, “Variation in the Book of Acts (Part II),” FilolNT 8 (1995) 23–61. 41 The classic study of Lucan imitation of the LXX, which can be related to the culture of mimesis (imitation), is Eckhard Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 38–72. See also Cadbury, Making, 219–24; W. K. L. Clarke, “The Use of the Septuagint in Acts,” in Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg. 2:66–105; Turner, Style, 56–57; Haenchen, 73–81; and Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 107–25. 42 BDF §485: “Acts is indeed excellent in structure and arrangement, but in presentation strongly ‘amateurish’ (ijdiwtikh; fravsi~ in contrast to tecnikhv) .” One example of this overreaching is the use of relative clauses as main clauses. Haenchen (139 n. 7) lists these examples: 1:3, 11; 2:24; 3:2, 3, 21; 5:36; 6:6; 7:20, 39, 45, 46; 8:15; 9:39; 10:38,

43

44 45

46

47

40; 11:6, 23, 30; 12:4, 31, 43; 14:9, 16; 16:2, 14, 24; 17:10; 18:27; 19:25; 21:4, 32; 22:4, 5; 23:14, 29, 23; 24:18, 19; 25:16, 18, 26; 26:7, 10, 12, 19; 27:17; 28:8, 10, 14, 18, 23. For the following, see Edna Jenkinson, “Nepos—An Introduction to Latin Biography,” in Thomas A. Dorey, ed., Latin Biography (New York: Basic Books, 1967) 1–15. Lives 25.16.4 reports that Cicero was a true prophet of future events. See Eckart Reinmuth, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Parallels may also be found in various Lives of the Prophets. See Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Propheten­ legenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 vols.; TSAJ 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Even today, it is rumored, the highly educated may, from time to time, dip into a light mystery. They are unlikely to claim that Agatha Christie is great literature, whereas a person of more limited schooling might feel proud of such accomplishments. See Luke T. Johnson, “Luke-Acts, Book of,” ABD 4:403–20.

8

Acts part 1C.indd 8

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

Introduction

deft stroke, and to vary narrative, alternating scene with summary or speech with story. Luke knows how to make the improbable look probable. He can so bedazzle his audience that the critic must patiently point out how the components do not cohere, engaging reluctantly in the technique of slicing up a great painting in pursuit of what often seem tawdry goals. The metaphor is not accidental. That tradition that made Luke an artist recognized that he is a painter rather than a photographer. Historians prefer photographs. Luke gives them paintings.48 Three related features of Lucan technique important to the understanding and evaluation of the narrative are parallelism, repetition, and the use of stereotyped patterns and scenes. Parallelism has generated the most discussion.49 Comparison (suvgkrisi~) was a component of basic rhetorical education. 50 Ancient instruction concentrated on the comparison of unequals, for the purpose of assigning praise or

blame. 51 In this sense suvgkrisi~ applies only to the presentations of Jesus and the Baptizer in Luke 1–2 and Philip and Simon (Acts 8:5-13) but comparison could also be used to demonstrate equality: “Syncrisis is parallel scrutiny of goods or evils or persons or things, by which we try to show that the subjects under discussion are both equal to each other or that one is greater than the other.”52 Most of the less disputable parallels in Luke and Acts are biographical, and all are implicit. Luke does not say that Jesus could do what Moses, Elijah, and Elisha did, for example. He depicts Jesus doing what these ancient Israelite heroes did (and Peter and Paul doing what these worthies and Jesus did, etc.). Luke narrates more through showing than through telling. The obvious comparison, roughly contemporary to Luke and Acts, is the famous Parallel Lives of Plutarch, eighteen of twentytwo of which include explicit comparison. This corpus

48 The same may be said of every ancient author. “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms 49 Important monographs and commentaries explorin Luke-Acts: A History of Reader Response,” in ing these parallelisms include Mathias SchneckenSBLSP 1984 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984) berger, Über den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte (Bern: 23–39; eadem, “Miracle Worker and Missionary: Fisher, 1841); Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Paul in the Acts of the Apostles,” SBLSP 1983 Apostles (2nd ed.; London: Methuen, 1904); Robert (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981) 107–29; David Morgenthaler, Die Lukanische Geschichtsschreibung Moessner, “‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on als Zeugnis (2 vols.; AThANT 14, 15; Zurich: the Jesus—Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in LukeZwingli, 1949); Michael Goulder, Type and History Acts,” NovT 28 (1986) 221–27; and Marilyn McCord in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964); Charles Talbert, Adams, “The Role of Miracles in the Structure Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts,” in Eleonore Stump and Thomas P. of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, Flint, eds., Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and 1974); Walter Radl, Paulus und Jesus im lukanischen Philosophical Theology (Notre Dame: University of Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven Notre Dame Press, 1993) 235–65. On the paralim Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte lels between Jesus and Stephen, note Robert F. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/49; FrankO’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of furt: Peter Lang, 1975); Gudrun Muhlack, Die ParLuke-Acts (Wil­m ington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984) allelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte 63–73. For a survey of research see Radl, Paulus, (Theologie und Wirklichkeit 8; Frankfurt: Peter 44–59, and Clark, Parallel Lives, 63–73. Lang, 1979); Jean Noël Aletti, Quand Luc raconte: 50 The subject is treated, usually following encomium Le récit comme théologie (Lire la Bible 115; Paris: and invective, in the Progymnasmata: Theon 10, Cerf, 1998) esp. 69–112; and Andrew C. Clark, ParHermogenes 8, Aphthonius 10, Nicolaus 9, and allel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the John of Sardis 10. Lucan Perspective (Carlisle, U.K./Waynesboro, Ga.: 51 An example (that may represent a reworked school Paternoster, 2001). Noteworthy articles include exercise) of the practice is Plutarch’s essay on Andrew J. Mattill Jr., “The Jesus-Paul Parallels and whether Alexander’s accomplishments were due to the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H.H. Evans Reconsidskill or luck (Mor. 326D–345B). ered,” NovT (1975) 15–47; Robert F. O’Toole, “Par- 52 Nicolaus Progymnasmata 9, trans. George A. Kenallels between Jesus and His Disciples in Luke-Acts: nedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose ComA Further Study,” BZ 27 (1983) 195–212; the imporposition and Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 10; Atlanta: Socitant methodological study of Susan M. Praeder, ety of Biblical Literature; Leiden/Boston: Brill,

9

Acts part 1C.indd 9

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

provides a useful external control. 53 With regard to Plutarch, two basic interpretations are possible: from these lives Greeks could learn that the Romans also produced great men; Romans, for their part, could be reminded that there had been many illustrious Hellenes. No one reasonably debates the existence of biographical parallels in Luke and Acts. Discussion revolves about their extent and purposes. Their chief purpose is the demonstration of continuity in salvation history. This continuity extends from Abraham to Paul, which is to say that it legitimates the Jesus movement by demonstrating the continuity between “Moses” and “Jesus,” so to speak, and the legitimacy of Pauline gentile Christianity by showing the continuity between Peter and the apostles (and their predecessors, especially Jesus) and Paul. This broad statement meets widespread approval. Disagreement about other purposes is to be expected, for, as the example from Plutarch indicates, comparisons of this sort are amenable to a number of interpretations. 54 Competing interpretations do not invalidate arguments for parallels. Identification involves four major features: form (e.g., healing stories), vocabulary, narrative details (e.g., healing of a cripple outside a temple), and placement in the narrative (e.g., the beginning of one’s active ministry). 55 The occurrence of two or more constitutes good evidence for parallelism. Against a mechanical approach stands the author’s skill at variation. Peter’s healing shadow (5:14-15) and Paul’s therapeutic cloths (19:11-12) are among the most patent parallels in Acts, but fail to meet most of these criteria. Reflection suggests that each of these summaries marks a high point of their respective ministries, Peter’s in metropolitan Jerusalem, Paul’s in Asia. The larger question is whether Luke and Acts, individually and as a pair, are to be viewed as parallel compositions, reflecting a pleasing and significant

53 54 55 56

symmetry. The danger, apparent from Charles Talbert’s proposal, 56 is that proponents of the approach will identify dubious parallels for the sake of the scheme. This objection does not invalidate the hypothesis that there are numerous parallels within and between Luke and Acts. Pursuit of these has led to many interesting observations and useful discoveries about the author’s message. A more controversial proposal pursued in this commentary is that the climactic stories about Peter and Paul (Acts 12; 27–28) represent parallels to Jesus in that they serve as “passion narratives.” The parallels conform to Lucan notions about Christology and anthropology. If Peter and Paul can appear as potent as Jesus, this is because they are, in part. Jesus was a prophet exalted by God. In their earthly roles Peter and others are also powerful speakers and workers of wonders. One important difference is that they are empowered by the Spirit poured out because of the messianic exaltation of Jesus. It must, however, be conceded that Paul is also a savior figure. If the departure of Jesus was a great boon, the absence of Paul is not a bane, for his influence endures. This is a common thread in the trends that make up “Deutero-Paulinism.” Little controversy attaches to Luke’s use of repetition. Prominent among repeated stories are three accounts of the conversions of Cornelius (10:1-48; 11:1-18; 15:7-9) and Paul (9:1-19a; 22:3-21; 26:2-18), and three statements that Paul is turning to the gentiles (13:46-48; 18:6; 28:28). 57 The most obvious function of repetition is to underline importance. Repetitions also hold together the various sections of Acts. Luke uses them for narrative effect. All involve end-stress—the third occurrence is the most important—and, most obviously in the story of Paul’s change of view, successive retellings allow the author to shape the story as he wishes it to be understood.

2003) 162. (This attestation is indirect; see the note Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte (Europäi­ of Kennedy.) On the comparison of equals, see also sche Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 545; Hermogenes 8. Frankfurt: Lang, 1995). See Clark, Parallel Lives, 84–88. 57 Other examples are the three prison deliveries in See Praeder, “Parallelisms,” 38. chaps. 5; 12; and 16, and three statements of the On the identification of criteria for internal con“Apostolic Decree” (15:20, 28-29; 21:25), although trols, see Clark, Parallel Lives, 73–80. the second of these is in such close proximity to Talbert, Literary Patterns; see also Thomas Bergthe first that its status as a triplet is questionable. holz, Der Aufbau des lukanischen Doppelwerkes: Untersuchungen zum formalliterarischen Charakter von

10

Acts part 1C.indd 10

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

Introduction

Narrative patterns, such as that found in chaps. 3–7, 58 can conform to conventional schemes, such as models used to relate the foundation of a cult. 59 Like the parallels, they also demonstrate the pattern of salvation history: the people of God and/or their leaders resist the messengers sent them by God, but these efforts are doomed to failure. The pattern of Paul’s missionary work in Acts 13–19 shows little variation. He begins with efforts to win Jews, meets resistance from at least some of them, and leaves town because of civic or legal pressures. Nowhere is Luke’s availability to produce interesting variations upon a simple theme more apparent than in this part of his story. The preceding comment reveals skepticism about whether this pattern always or often reflects reality. Luke uses persecution as the engine that drives his plot. When to this proclivity for stereotyped description one adds the narrator’s propensity for relating what he has to say about one particular site in the context of a single (usually the first) visit, the corrosive effect on history is intensified. This use of narrative molds into which to fit his stories is, rather than invention of episodes or poor data, the principal reason for the difficulties of treating Acts as simple history. Historians, modern no less than ancient, are likely to look for patterns and primary causes and may be charged with ignoring data that do not fit their theses, but Luke’s narrative is so lacking in subtlety and nuance that penetrating skepticism is quite justified. In sum, the author of Acts is a skilled narrator who can produce a variety of styles. His proclivity for patterns enhances the appeal and impact of his work, while detracting from the factual value of his narrative. Like most good writers, Luke has a number of key tropes, themes that are usually both real and symbolic. An outstanding example is money, the right use of which is crucial, but money also functions as a revealer of people’s hearts, minds, and souls. “Magic” represents vulgar religion, with particular reference to the use of religious rites or activities as a source of income. In Acts, magic belongs to, and is a trope for, the realm of Satan. To defeat magic is to trounce the devil. The rule

of thumb for identifying magic is the association of religious activities with money. These key tropes thus interlock. Confinement, including arrest, incarceration, and bondage, is a literal feature in more than one-third of Acts (4:3-31; 5:17-41; 6:12—7:60; 8:3; 9:2; 12:1-17; 16:22-40; 17:6-9, 19-33; 18:12-17; 21:30—28:31). Prison is also a symbol of the powers of death, Satan, and his earthly minions (cf. Luke 13:16). Freedom from bondage is the essential result of the exodus, a dominant biblical theme in Lucan thought. Darkness is another symbol for death or alienation from God. The passage from darkness to light characterizes conversion, for light is a general symbol of salvation. The blind cannot see this light; like others, Luke uses blindness to portray a spiritual condition. More specifically Lucan is the theme of “light for the nations,” a phrase borrowed from Luke’s “favorite book of the Bible,” Deutero-Isaiah (49:6). The vehicle for spreading light is travel. Mission requires going from place to place. The journeys of Jesus, Paul, and others also symbolize the life of faith, which for Luke is a journey. His preferred name for “Christianity,” “the movement” (hJ oJdov~), epitomizes this key symbol. As a competent writer, Luke knew how to create verisimilitude. The plausibility of a narrative does not establish its historicity, nor do minor details, such as the age of a patient or the duration of an illness, prove that a miraculous cure actually happened. Verisimilitude is more important for writers of fiction than for recorders of history. Literatures of differing eras and cultures exhibit varying conventions of “realism.” The description of the disturbance at Ephesus (Acts 19:23-40) may strike modern readers as highly realistic, at least in part, but it does not conform to the general tenor of ancient historians’ descriptions of such events.60 Realistic touches, like bits of local color, help the reader to enter the story world. They can also be features of pure fantasy. The navigational details and temporal markers that recur throughout Lucian’s True History are quite like those found in Acts 27:1—28:16.61

58 See p. 97. 59 See pp. 389–90. 60 This issue propelled Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Wilfred R. Trask; Garden City, N.Y.:

Doubleday, 1957); for his comments on ancient texts, see 1–66. 61 Formally these items belong to the category of Beglaubigungsapparat, techniques enhancing credibility. In ancient literature these techniques might

11

Acts part 1C.indd 11

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

Acts is not fantasy, but the issue remains: verisimilitude does not establish historicity.62 A less realistic Lucan proclivity is failure to bow down before the idol of consistency. A lack of theological consistency reveals that Luke was not a systematic theologian (below); narrative inconsistency is best attributed to his popular style. Characters may change without warning, and events may display an unlikely sequence. Efforts to defend or rationalize inconsistencies are not unjustified, but they can degenerate into apologetic. Luke was not a modern, highbrow author.63 5. Sources64

Extant sources65 used by the author include the LXX,66 the Gospel of Mark, a collection of Paul’s letters, and some of the writings of Josephus.67 The hypotheses that Luke used Paul and Josephus are not new but have long been out of favor. With regard to Paul’s letters the burden lies on those who contend that Luke did not use them. It is almost impossible to claim that the author of Acts had not heard of the epistles, and it is difficult to propose circumstances in which he had not come into

62

63

64

65

contact with them. The choices are either that Luke knew of the letters but declined to consult them or that he made such use of them as suited his needs and purposes. Tertium non datur. Use did not entail acknowledgement. Although Luke is aware of the use of letters in church life (15:23-29; 18:27), he does not associate Paul with this form. This fact reflects not simply the reluctance of ancient authors to list their sources but more specifically the controversial status of the epistles when Luke wrote. If one of his intentions was to provide a framework for understanding the epistles, he was very successful. Postulating that Luke utilized Josephus also answers more questions than it raises. Many of the details in Acts about events in Judea in the period from c. 1 to c. 60 ce are most logically and economically explained as derived from this Jewish historian, particularly because Luke shares some of Josephus’s understandings and interests. One could attribute the names of such figures as Felix and Festus to information derived from Paul or his circle, for example, but this explanation will not account for the census of c. 6 ce (Luke 2:1-7; Acts 5:37).68

involve the discovery of long-lost manuscripts, as 66 On the use of LXX passages as the model for and in Antonius Diogenes’ Marvels beyond Thule, and inspiration of various episodes in Acts, see under the works attributed to Dictys and Dares about the “Style,” above. Trojan War. Modern police procedural may include 67 Possible literary sources include some of the Jewish police reports and other documents. (The first historians whose work survives in fragments, such person is also a means for making narrative appear as Artapanus and Eupolemus. On these possibiliauthentic.) ties, see Carl Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments On verisimilitude, see John R. Morgan, “Makeof Hellenistic Jewish Historians,” in David P. Believe and Make Believe: The Fictionality of the Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Greek Novels,” in Christopher Gill and Thomas P. Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Wiseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 171–98. Clas(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993) 175–229; sical sources include Homer and Euripides. Dennis David Konstan, “The Invention of Fiction,” in R. MacDonald (Does the New Testament Imitate Ronald F. Hock et al., eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles [New Christian Narrative (SBLSymS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Haven: Yale University Press, 2003]) contends that Press, 1998) 3–17; and Todd Penner, “Madness in Homer was a major source. Some, at least, of his the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current arguments (as in the case of chap. 27) are worthy Study,” CBR 2 (2004) 223–93, here 252. of consideration. An epic model is also proposed Barrett, discussing 23:13-35, states the matter in by Marianne P. Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts these words: “Luke’s strength as a writer lies in the and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, presentation of a single event, not in the linking of 2000), who favors Virgil’s Aeneid. One conventional a sequence of events” (2:1071). definition of the novel is “a popular epic in prose.” For a representative survey of proposals and See, e.g., Jaroslav Ludvíkovsky, Recky Roman Dobropositions since Jacques Dupont, The Sources of duzny—Le roman grec d’aventures (Prague: Filosofika Acts (trans. K. Pond; New York: Herder & Herder, Fakulta University Karlova, 1925). 1964), see Pervo, Dating, Appendix 1, 347–58. 68 On the census, see Pervo, Dating, 152–60. For arguments about these sources, see idem, 21–199.

12

Acts part 1C.indd 12

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

Acts is not fantasy, but the issue remains: verisimilitude does not establish historicity.62 A less realistic Lucan proclivity is failure to bow down before the idol of consistency. A lack of theological consistency reveals that Luke was not a systematic theologian (below); narrative inconsistency is best attributed to his popular style. Characters may change without warning, and events may display an unlikely sequence. Efforts to defend or rationalize inconsistencies are not unjustified, but they can degenerate into apologetic. Luke was not a modern, highbrow author.63 5. Sources64

Extant sources65 used by the author include the LXX,66 the Gospel of Mark, a collection of Paul’s letters, and some of the writings of Josephus.67 The hypotheses that Luke used Paul and Josephus are not new but have long been out of favor. With regard to Paul’s letters the burden lies on those who contend that Luke did not use them. It is almost impossible to claim that the author of Acts had not heard of the epistles, and it is difficult to propose circumstances in which he had not come into

62

63

64

65

contact with them. The choices are either that Luke knew of the letters but declined to consult them or that he made such use of them as suited his needs and purposes. Tertium non datur. Use did not entail acknowledgement. Although Luke is aware of the use of letters in church life (15:23-29; 18:27), he does not associate Paul with this form. This fact reflects not simply the reluctance of ancient authors to list their sources but more specifically the controversial status of the epistles when Luke wrote. If one of his intentions was to provide a framework for understanding the epistles, he was very successful. Postulating that Luke utilized Josephus also answers more questions than it raises. Many of the details in Acts about events in Judea in the period from c. 1 to c. 60 ce are most logically and economically explained as derived from this Jewish historian, particularly because Luke shares some of Josephus’s understandings and interests. One could attribute the names of such figures as Felix and Festus to information derived from Paul or his circle, for example, but this explanation will not account for the census of c. 6 ce (Luke 2:1-7; Acts 5:37).68

involve the discovery of long-lost manuscripts, as 66 On the use of LXX passages as the model for and in Antonius Diogenes’ Marvels beyond Thule, and inspiration of various episodes in Acts, see under the works attributed to Dictys and Dares about the “Style,” above. Trojan War. Modern police procedural may include 67 Possible literary sources include some of the Jewish police reports and other documents. (The first historians whose work survives in fragments, such person is also a means for making narrative appear as Artapanus and Eupolemus. On these possibiliauthentic.) ties, see Carl Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments On verisimilitude, see John R. Morgan, “Makeof Hellenistic Jewish Historians,” in David P. Believe and Make Believe: The Fictionality of the Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Greek Novels,” in Christopher Gill and Thomas P. Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Wiseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 171–98. Clas(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993) 175–229; sical sources include Homer and Euripides. Dennis David Konstan, “The Invention of Fiction,” in R. MacDonald (Does the New Testament Imitate Ronald F. Hock et al., eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles [New Christian Narrative (SBLSymS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Haven: Yale University Press, 2003]) contends that Press, 1998) 3–17; and Todd Penner, “Madness in Homer was a major source. Some, at least, of his the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current arguments (as in the case of chap. 27) are worthy Study,” CBR 2 (2004) 223–93, here 252. of consideration. An epic model is also proposed Barrett, discussing 23:13-35, states the matter in by Marianne P. Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts these words: “Luke’s strength as a writer lies in the and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, presentation of a single event, not in the linking of 2000), who favors Virgil’s Aeneid. One conventional a sequence of events” (2:1071). definition of the novel is “a popular epic in prose.” For a representative survey of proposals and See, e.g., Jaroslav Ludvíkovsky, Recky Roman Dobropositions since Jacques Dupont, The Sources of duzny—Le roman grec d’aventures (Prague: Filosofika Acts (trans. K. Pond; New York: Herder & Herder, Fakulta University Karlova, 1925). 1964), see Pervo, Dating, Appendix 1, 347–58. 68 On the census, see Pervo, Dating, 152–60. For arguments about these sources, see idem, 21–199.

12

Acts part 1C.indd 12

8/27/2008 9:59:28 AM

Introduction

These sources were not used in large chunks, as were Mark and Q in Luke. Two continuous sources are proposed. One, the “gentile mission source” provided the major documentary basis for chaps. 1–15.69 This hypothetical text is a reenvisioned form of the “Antioch Source” first postulated by Harnack.70 As here construed, this document did not relate the origins of the Christian community in Antioch but served as a description and justification of the gentile mission. The gentile movement traced its origins back, via the Seven, to Jerusalem, viewed charismatic phenomena as legitimizing, and regarded Peter as its apostolic hero. The source was not anti-Pauline in the sense of the Pseudo-Clementines (or even of Matthew), but it took care to note that Paul began as a subordinate of Barnabas and Antioch, and that Barnabas took the side of Peter in a conflict at Antioch. Stephen evidently did not seek to convert gentiles, but his successors did so. Since missionary work by members of the Seven and the Spirit-guided decision of the Antiochene community to launch a mission without guidance from the apostles in Jerusalem conflict with Luke’s own portrait, these themes are best attributed to a source. Traces of this source may be detected in 2:1-13; 4:36-37; 6:1-6; 6:8—7:60 (minus 7:1-53/54); 8:1-13; 10:10-16; 11:19-26; 12:12-17; chaps. 13–14, partim; and 15:19-21. This source provided Luke with more than data. In several important ways it constituted a model for the composition of Acts: charismatically endowed missionaries guided by the Spirit reach out to gentiles despite persecution, which serves only to help the mission expand. Apart from material from this hypothetical

text, very little in chaps. 2–7 can be confidently assigned to a source.71 Although 15:36—19:40 represents the center and culmination of Paul’s missionary career—his work, in the scholarly consensus, as an independent missionary—no sustained source can be detected for this material. Luke did not possess an “itinerary” for this stage of Paul’s career, although the use of some independent traditions and data is probable. (The term tradition is often used quite loosely in the study of Acts. Properly understood, tradition presupposes a social context, including both reasons for gathering and sharing material and the desire to do so. Bits of data may be available and utilized, but these are not identical with tradition in the technical sense.72) Much of 20:1—21:19 and possibly some elements from the subsequent chapters appear to derive from a source. This hypothetical source dealt with the results of the collection for the church in Jerusalem, climaxing with the failure of that project and Paul’s arrest, in the form of a letter written by Paul’s colleagues and circulated to the communities that participated in the collection.73 The fragment preserved in 2 Corinthians 8 indicates that an accounting would have been highly desirable, if not necessary. This hypothesis cannot be demonstrated and is therefore not a basis for further speculation. Its advantages are the use of a known form (the letter), a probable setting, and a clear purpose. The “itinerary” is also an attested form, but none of its proponents have been able to make a strong case for the preparation and preservation of such a document.74

69 For discussion see Richard Pervo, “‘Antioch, farewell! For wisdom sees . . . ’: Traces of a Source about the Early Gentile Mission in Acts 1–15,” Forum (forthcoming). 70 For a concise summary of Harnack’s source theories, see Matti Myllykoski, “Being There: The Function of the Supernatural in Acts 1-12,” in Michael Labahn and Bert Jan L. Peerbolte, eds., Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 146–79, esp. 151–53. 71 See Richard Pervo, “My Happy Home: The Role of Jerusalem in Acts 1–7,” Forum n.s. 3.1 (2000) 31–55. 72 For example, one might have been able to hear, in Ephesus c. 115, stories about Prisca and Aquila.

These would be “traditions.” If the “Hall of Tyrannus” were pointed out as a place where Paul once taught, that would be a datum, although both were preserved by similar means. 73 Only after formulating this hypothesis (Pervo, Dating, 358) did I discover that Dietrich-Alex Koch had reached similar conclusions: “Kollektenbericht, ‘Wir’-Bericht und Itinerar: Neue Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem,” NTS 45 (1999) 367–90. 74 See Gottfried Schille, “Die Fragwürdigkeit eines Itinerars der Paulusreisen,” ThLZ 89 (1959) 165–74.

13

Acts part 1C.indd 13

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

The first person plural would have been appropriate for this hypothetical letter. Its disappearance should occasion no surprise, for the motivation to preserve the story of a failure would have been relatively low.75 Remains of this hypothetical source can be identified in 20:1b-6, 13-16; 21:1-19. Subsequent traces cannot be detected, but this does not prove that the source ended with Paul’s arrest. Acts 21:20—26:32 is almost entirely Lucan composition. It is possible that some items in this section derived from one or more other lost letters of Paul.76 Tensions between chap. 27 and its context indicate that some historical source material may be embedded in the account. Verse 1 is a harsh and somewhat dissonant transition from the foregoing. Paul is but one of a number of prisoners who, one might deduce from v. 42, are condemned criminals. The presence of Aristarchus (v. 2) is mysterious. The first plural returns, but it is not unified (i.e., there is more than one “we” narrator).77 Whatever traditions were used have been inundated by other sources and editorial contributions. Acts 28:17-31 is entirely Lucan composition. The speeches (and letters) in Acts do not derive from sources. Ancient writers were expected to compose their own speeches, and the author of Acts is no exception. As the commentary indicates, aspects and sections of these addresses can be related to Greco-Roman rhetorical practices, but they are often too brief to yield to conventional rhetorical analysis. Authorial responsibility

for their content does not exclude the use of traditional materials, especially creedal formulae, but it is preferable not to take them as examples of preaching in the author’s own time (c. 110–120), since none of the more substantial addresses is a sermon directed to an assembly of “ordinary” believers. In Acts, the author is, more than in the Gospel, the master of his sources. Attempts to identify the sources of this book have two principal values. One is the secondary project of utilizing Acts to uncover early Christian history. The other is negative, for it reveals how much of this book is the creation of the author and how freely he used the sources at his disposal. 6. Genre

Genre is one of the most hotly contested topics in the study of Acts.78 Two issues drive this controversy. One is formal. Unlike the Gospel, which can be compared to and contrasted with other Christian Gospels and with a variety of biographical texts, Acts is without peers in the NT. The quest for form involves the identification of comparable texts. Genre involves expectations and standards. This generates the second issue. Defense of the historical accuracy of Acts long propelled the desire to classify it as historiography.79 This circular argument has been pierced. Although some still associate the author of Acts with Thucydides and Polybius80 and claim a high level of accuracy for the book, NT scholarship

75 Cf. the edition of Romans that concluded with Apostelgeschichte,” in Hubert Cancik, Hermann chap. 14. Romans 15 discussed two unsuccessful Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, eds., Geschichte— projects: delivery of the collection and a proposed Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum mission to Spain. 70. Geburtstag, vol. 3, Frühes Christentum (Tübin76 The Pauline corpus is a collection, the result of a gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 303–22; and Thomas process including selection of some items, rejection E. Phillips, “The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward of others, and at least some editorial activity. Paul a Consensus?” CBR 4 (2006) 365–96. Note also probably wrote a number of short letters other Alexander, Literary Context, 133–63, and Penner, than Philemon and the fragments preserved in “Madness,” 223–93. 2 Corinthians 8–9 and Phil 4:10-20. Copies of at 79 See the valuable bibliographical survey of Joel B. least a number of these may have been available Green and Michael C. McKeever, Luke-Acts and in Ephesus. New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 77 See the comments on 27:1—28:16. 1994); and Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the 78 See the following surveys: Richard Pervo, “Must Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?” in Historiography (WUNT 2.175; Tübingen: Mohr David J. Lull, ed., SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Siebeck, 2004) 32–59. Press, 1989) 309–16; Mikeal C. Parsons and Rich80 For example, Hemer, Book; and Ben Witherington, ard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commen(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 20–44; Alexantary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). der J. M. Wedderburn, “Zur Frage der Gattung der

14

Acts part 1C.indd 14

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

The first person plural would have been appropriate for this hypothetical letter. Its disappearance should occasion no surprise, for the motivation to preserve the story of a failure would have been relatively low.75 Remains of this hypothetical source can be identified in 20:1b-6, 13-16; 21:1-19. Subsequent traces cannot be detected, but this does not prove that the source ended with Paul’s arrest. Acts 21:20—26:32 is almost entirely Lucan composition. It is possible that some items in this section derived from one or more other lost letters of Paul.76 Tensions between chap. 27 and its context indicate that some historical source material may be embedded in the account. Verse 1 is a harsh and somewhat dissonant transition from the foregoing. Paul is but one of a number of prisoners who, one might deduce from v. 42, are condemned criminals. The presence of Aristarchus (v. 2) is mysterious. The first plural returns, but it is not unified (i.e., there is more than one “we” narrator).77 Whatever traditions were used have been inundated by other sources and editorial contributions. Acts 28:17-31 is entirely Lucan composition. The speeches (and letters) in Acts do not derive from sources. Ancient writers were expected to compose their own speeches, and the author of Acts is no exception. As the commentary indicates, aspects and sections of these addresses can be related to Greco-Roman rhetorical practices, but they are often too brief to yield to conventional rhetorical analysis. Authorial responsibility

for their content does not exclude the use of traditional materials, especially creedal formulae, but it is preferable not to take them as examples of preaching in the author’s own time (c. 110–120), since none of the more substantial addresses is a sermon directed to an assembly of “ordinary” believers. In Acts, the author is, more than in the Gospel, the master of his sources. Attempts to identify the sources of this book have two principal values. One is the secondary project of utilizing Acts to uncover early Christian history. The other is negative, for it reveals how much of this book is the creation of the author and how freely he used the sources at his disposal. 6. Genre

Genre is one of the most hotly contested topics in the study of Acts.78 Two issues drive this controversy. One is formal. Unlike the Gospel, which can be compared to and contrasted with other Christian Gospels and with a variety of biographical texts, Acts is without peers in the NT. The quest for form involves the identification of comparable texts. Genre involves expectations and standards. This generates the second issue. Defense of the historical accuracy of Acts long propelled the desire to classify it as historiography.79 This circular argument has been pierced. Although some still associate the author of Acts with Thucydides and Polybius80 and claim a high level of accuracy for the book, NT scholarship

75 Cf. the edition of Romans that concluded with Apostelgeschichte,” in Hubert Cancik, Hermann chap. 14. Romans 15 discussed two unsuccessful Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, eds., Geschichte— projects: delivery of the collection and a proposed Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum mission to Spain. 70. Geburtstag, vol. 3, Frühes Christentum (Tübin76 The Pauline corpus is a collection, the result of a gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 303–22; and Thomas process including selection of some items, rejection E. Phillips, “The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward of others, and at least some editorial activity. Paul a Consensus?” CBR 4 (2006) 365–96. Note also probably wrote a number of short letters other Alexander, Literary Context, 133–63, and Penner, than Philemon and the fragments preserved in “Madness,” 223–93. 2 Corinthians 8–9 and Phil 4:10-20. Copies of at 79 See the valuable bibliographical survey of Joel B. least a number of these may have been available Green and Michael C. McKeever, Luke-Acts and in Ephesus. New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 77 See the comments on 27:1—28:16. 1994); and Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the 78 See the following surveys: Richard Pervo, “Must Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?” in Historiography (WUNT 2.175; Tübingen: Mohr David J. Lull, ed., SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Siebeck, 2004) 32–59. Press, 1989) 309–16; Mikeal C. Parsons and Rich80 For example, Hemer, Book; and Ben Witherington, ard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commen(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 20–44; Alexantary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). der J. M. Wedderburn, “Zur Frage der Gattung der

14

Acts part 1C.indd 14

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

Introduction

in general has taken at least a step or two back from that position, while the objectivity of ancient historians has been subject to sharp qualification, to which injury postmodern thought has added the insult of narrowing the gap between history and fiction. It has even become possible to say that, because Acts is a representative of historiography, one should not expect it to be factual.81 The question of accuracy cannot be resolved by appeal to genre, nor does the identification of genre resolve the debate about accuracy. Acts is a history. The author has produced a coherent story in conformity with a plan, and his subject includes historical persons, places, and events. These facts do not establish the genre or the reliability of the work; the same statement would apply to Aseneth and the Alexander-Romance. Judgments about the historical accuracy of particular passages and statements depend on the results of historical criticism, which can often do no more, when external confirmation or disproof is lacking, than identify varying degrees of probability. This is a cumulative enterprise. Findings of more or less credibility incline critics to evaluate individual statements in the light of the preponderance of their findings. Conclusions vary. Two common principles are methodologically questionable. One is the historical equivalent of “innocent until proven guilty,” the assumption that every statement should be regarded as true until proven otherwise. The other is the assumption that authors usually deemed reliable should be given the benefit of the doubt when they make unsupported claims. Historical criticism requires that every putative fact or claim be treated without prejudice. Acts gains from comparison with “biblical historiog­ raphy.”82 This phrase refers not to a genre but to ways of

narrating history found in the LXX. Luke has a “Deuteronomic” viewpoint. From the biblical tradition comes the technique of omniscient narration and its companion, anonymous authorship. Luke’s style can be biblical, and his technique of presenting history through the lives of a succession of great leaders can be referred to biblical models. The cycles centered on Elijah and Elisha served as a fertile source of inspiration. The books of the Maccabees were important structural and stylistic resources. With 2 (and 3) Maccabees the stream of biblical historiography has begun to flow into the river of Hellenism. In the Hellenistic and subsequent eras, rhetoric exercised an oft-lamented influence on historiography. This is not surprising, since rhetoric constituted the basis of education. On the positive side, rhetorical education taught how to construct a persuasive argument based on a thesis. Rhetoric did not, however, privilege objectivity, nor did it award a premium to truth. Its goal was the best case, and its methods included beguiling, diverting, distracting, and, when necessary, hoodwinking the audience. Rhetoric allowed historians to make blatant and sometimes gratuitous appeals to their readers’ emotions. In such an environment, Lucian’s shrill and conventional insistence on the priority of truth is intelligible (Quomodo historia 9). The two most vital proposals for affiliation under the banner of historiography are the monograph and “apologetic historiography.” The former has been advanced by Hans Conzelmann and his students, especially Eckhard Plümacher,83 the latter by Gregory Sterling.84 Monographs had a specific focus and could overlap with both biography85 and fiction.86 Comparison with the monograph is appropriate, as monographs tended to

81 Todd Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10; New York: T&T Clark, 2004) 366. (Penner is speaking of the pervasive influence of rhetoric on historiography.) 82 For discussion, see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 33–35; and B. Rosner, “Acts and Biblical History,” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 65–82. 83 Recently, Eckhard Plümacher, “Cicero und Lukas: Bemerkungen zu Stil und Zweck der historischen Monographie,” in Verheyden, Unity, 759–75. See also idem, “Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie,” in Kremer, Actes, 457–66; Darryl W. Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical

Monograph,” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 1–29; Charles H. Talbert, “The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or Bios?” in Ben Witherington, ed., History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 58–72; and Alexander, Literary Context, 37–40. 84 Gregory Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992). 85 Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971) 83. 86 Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 26–27.

15

Acts part 1C.indd 15

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

display artistic unity and did not need to shy away from apologetic purposes. The weaknesses of this categorization include the fluidity of the genre, which can embrace fiction, and the relative paucity of the database. Sterling’s copious argument for apologetic historiography approaches the question from a different angle. Rather than show how Acts conforms to classical models, he takes up the ethnographic tradition, represented in part by Herodotus but also through insider and outsider descriptions of non-Hellenic nations and cultures. Apologetic historiography—a genre that Sterling christened—has links with methods ranging from ancient science to ancient fiction. Sterling’s major model was Josephus, but some of the texts he surveys were of a decidedly popular character, directed to audiences that did not require elegant Greek and sophisticated explication of incident. This hypothesis identifies Luke’s most important Hellenistic Jewish antecedents and inspiration. Those who hold that Luke knew some of Josephus’s work may wish to simplify the argument: Luke took that Jewish historian as a model.87 There were other models, including Artapanus, whose similarities to Acts Sterling explores.88 Artapanus brings apologetic historiography into the orbit of the historical novel.89 Others seek to affiliate Luke and Acts with a single genre. In general these efforts proceed from the presumption that the unity of Luke and Acts requires

generic unity. The two books could belong to the same genre, but this is not a necessary presupposition.90 David Aune and David Balch have advocated types of “General” or “Universal” history.91 The latter long focused on the “Antiquities” type produced by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his evident imitator, Josephus. One advantage of this orientation is the light it sheds upon Luke’s “political” understanding of the church and his transformation of traditional political history.92 Difficulties are also apparent: one of the two books amounts to a biography, while the other relates the spread of a cult, largely by focusing upon prominent missionaries.93 Charles Talbert has sought to address these difficulties by appeal to intellectual history, specifically the succession narratives of the philosophical tradition, traces of which can be seen in Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers.94 This proposal deals with the major problem of Aune’s classification, for it recognizes the Gospel as a biography. It also recognizes Luke’s focus on continuity in salvation history. Despite these merits, Talbert’s hypothesis has not gained general acceptance, for the contents of Diogenes Laertius’s work do not conform to the pattern stipulated by Talbert, and Luke does not treat succession in the formal way found in later succession lists.95 Hubert Cancik has made an interesting comparison of Acts to the manner of narrating the history of an institution. This proposal, which does not

87 Sterling ventured no stronger statement than “[I]t is impossible to establish the dependence of LukeActs on the Antiquitates” (Apologetic Historiography, 366). 88 Sterling, Apologetic Historiography, 167–87, 268–83, 363–65; see also Richard Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 117–19. 89 Sterling rejects the usual definition of Artapanus as a “romance” on the grounds that it is not a love story (Apologetic Historiography, 184–86). These criteria are inappropriate; his own definition, “romantic national history,” is acceptable. 90 See Richard Pervo, “Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?” in David J. Lull, ed., SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 91 David Balch has shifted toward a biographical understanding of Luke and Acts. See “METABOLH POLITEIWN: Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-

92

93

94

95

Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 139–88. See also Todd C. Penner, “Civilizing Discourse,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 65–104; and, in the same volume, Gary Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts,” 233–56. Rothschild (Rhetoric) relates the Gospel to antiquarian historiography and Acts to political history. The thesis was first advanced in Talbert, Literary Patterns, and has been refined in subsequent works, including idem, What Is A Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) and “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1619–51. For a sympathetic critique of Talbert’s classification see Alexander, Literary Context, 43–68. On succession, see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 36.

16

Acts part 1C.indd 16

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

Introduction

focus upon biography, introduces the realm of technical, “scientific” prose.96 Although each of the attempts to associate Acts with a particular type of Greco-Roman historiography has made, and will continue to make, valuable contributions to its understanding, serious impediments to the enterprise exist. Among these are (1) the preface(s) to (Luke and) Acts do not conform to those found in ancient historiography.97 (2) The subject (rise and expansion of a cult) is not a suitable theme for ancient historiography.98 (3) The speeches, often held to align Acts with historiography, are not consonant with the orations found in histories. Those tend to comment on or explain decisions, but the speeches in Acts are very often part of the narrative, provoking action or advancing the plot. Insofar as they do comment, they tend to be repetitious. (4) The quantity of direct speech, around 51 percent of the book, has no parallel in history or biography.99 (5) Narration is consistently omniscient. The narrator knows what characters think and can report private conversations and the like in direct speech. (6) The nature, quantity, and perspective of “supernatural” activity, miracles, visions, and divine guidance differ

from presentations found in ancient historians, who were likely to place some distance (“it is said”) between themselves and the prodigies.100 (7) The narrator of Acts makes no claims to objectivity. The author writes as a believer who does not seek to represent opposing views with any degree of fairness. (8) The book is devoid of a chronological framework.101 (9) The style does not achieve the standards expected of historians. Josephus is an example. He writes away from the LXX, improving its style, whereas Luke writes toward it, viewing the LXX as a worthy object of imitation (rather than Thucydides or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example).102 Luke often improves Mark’s Greek (as does Matthew), but he does not transform it into good biographical or historical prose.103 Acts is more nearly an example of the sorts of historical writings Lucian despised than a model of what he recommended.104 (10) A number of the narrator’s techniques have more in common with ancient fiction than with historiography. These include the following: (a) the mode(s) of characterization. In Acts the leading characters are endowed with extraordinary powers and insight. Peter, Stephen, and Paul are “supermen” with more or

96 Hubert Cancik, “The History of Culture, Relithat can be dated, a framework of around thirty gion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: years can be postulated (Pilate to Festus). For Philological Observations concerning Luke’s Hisresults based on these data, see, e.g., Schneider, tory,” JBL 116 (1997) 681–703. For a critique of his 1:129–33; and Witherington, 77–78. In addition proposal, see Mark Reasoner, “The Theme of Acts: are references to passage of time: one year (11:25), Institutional History or Divine Necessity in Hiseighteen months (18:11), two years (19:10; 28:30), tory?” JBL 118 (1999) 635–59; and Christoph Heil, two years, possibly (24:27), and indications of some “Arius Didymus and Luke-Acts,” NovT 42 (2000) or many days, a fortnight, and so on (e.g., 1:3; 9:18, 358–93. 23; 10:30; 18:18; 25:6), and indications of time on 97 See the excursus “The Prefaces to Luke and Acts” journeys (e.g., chaps. 20–21; 27:1—28:16). Chapter in the commentary on Acts 1. 12 is an instructive example. The critic must first 98 Willem C. van Unnik, “Luke’s Second Book and determine that “King Herod” is Agrippa I (41–44 the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Krece) and then date the material to his last year. No mer, Actes, 37–60, here 39. reader would imagine that around fourteen years 99 See the excursus “Direct Speech in Acts” in the have elapsed since the beginning of the story. commentary on Acts 1. 102 See also Pervo, Profit, 3–8. 100 Against Eckhard Plümacher, “TERATEIA”: Fik103 On Luke’s modifications of Mark, see Wilfred L. tion und Wunder in der hellenistisch-römischen Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: CamGeschichtsschreibung und in der Apostelgebridge University Press, 1948), 6. schichte,” ZNW 89 (1998) 66–90. 104 Lucian Quomodo historia. For a Latin example of 101 On chronology, see Pervo, Profit, 5 and 144 n. 1. the kind of target Lucian had in mind, see Fronto One must distinguish between chronological inforAd Verum Imp. 2.3. Lucius Verus wanted Fronto to mation supplied by the narrator and inferences compose an encomiastic history of his Parthian made from data in the text that can be used to concampaign. He, like Cicero (Ad fam. 5.12), would struct a chronological framework. The one clear supply the raw data, which Fronto was to put into datum supplied is “under Claudius” (11:28). This proper form. Only the lengthy and highly artificial is not very specific. From the names of officials preface survives.

17

Acts part 1C.indd 17

8/27/2008 9:59:29 AM

less identical qualities. (b) Plot devices. Persecution is the chief motive of the plot. Although belief is both a genuine and an ostensible factor, the actual reason for persecution is jealousy based on success. The overarching plan of God that drives the narrative can be compared with historiography, but the specifics belong to the realm of novelistic narrative. The story is told in the form of adventurous episodes. The mode of narration is that of popular narrative. Parallels from histories certainly exist, but what amount to occasional instances and asides, digressions and anecdotes in Tacitus or even Josephus are the staple of Acts. (c) Too many episodes are, from the perspective of historiography, fictions concocted in conformity with the values of the narrator and framed in accordance with popular taste. Examples of episodes invented by historians can certainly be adduced; quantity is the determining factor. Acts is a “popular” work. Unrestrained by the conventions governing elite literature, popular writers were able to blend genres and create new ones. This freedom from formal restraints, conventions not expected by their consumers that may often have passed unappreciated when they were followed, was not always advantageous to ancient popular writers. There is a difference between discarding conventions one has thoroughly learned in favor of the fresh and failure to observe conventions that one has failed to grasp. Ancient popular writers tended to fall closer to the latter side of this scale. In any case they broke the rules by utilizing prose for purposes that tradition generally assigned to poetry.105 Out of these efforts the novel came to birth. Popular history did not rob the realm of poetry, but its proponents offered limited homage to Clio, at most.

The outcome may look very much the same. C. K. Barrett puts it this way: “The form of the romance is popular history, and that is the kind of history that Acts is.”106 Luke’s achievement as a historian lies more in his success at creating history than in recording it. With his considerable skills this author fashioned what became and has remained the normative story of Christian origins.107 This is epitomized in his contribution to the two components of the Christian year: the solar cycle based on Christmas, which determines the dates of the Annunciation and Candlemas (March 25 and February 2, both deduced from the later selection of December 25 for the Nativity), as well as the lunisolar cycle from Easter to Pentecost. All of these events except Easter derive exclusively from Luke and Acts.108 Daniel Marguerat, in a useful investigation, calls this “poetic” or “epic” history.109 Rigorous historians of today will object to the use of “history” in terms that evoke myth and poetry, whereas the ancient predecessors would have said that stories of this nature should have been cast in poetic form, but the result speaks for itself. The major impetus—which is not to be confused with genre—for Acts and its apocryphal successors was not history, but the content of the canonical Gospels.110 When he turned to writing Acts, Luke did not discard the hat of an evangelist. 7. The Unity/ies of Luke and Acts

Studies of Luke and Acts face two challenges: to account for the similarities of the two works, including interrelationships, and to explain the differences.111 The former

105 James M. Dawsey (“Characteristics of Folk-Epic in Acts,” in David Lull, ed., SBLSB 1989 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989] 317–25) discusses a number of features in Acts that are typical of popular storytelling. 106 C. K. Barrett, “The First New Testament?” NovT 38 (1996) 94–104, esp. 98. 107 Luke T. Johnson: “So successful was Luke that his narrative has become the etiological or foundational myth of gentile Christianity” (The Writings of the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986] 204). 108 Matthew contributes an Epiphany story (2:1-12) but does not describe the birth of Jesus. 109 Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian:

Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (trans. Ken McKinney et al.; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 20–22. These terms are quite appropriate, but they also apply to the works of Homer and Virgil, which became myths of origins. 110 See François Bovon, “The Synoptic Gospels and the Non-Canonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988) 19–36. 111 The earliest known explanation for the separation of Luke and Acts is that of Chrysostom: “And why did he not make one book of it? . . . For clearness, and to give the brother [Theophilus] a pause for rest. Besides, the two treatises are distinct in their subject matter” (Hom. 1, in J. Walker et al., Saint

18

Acts part 1C.indd 18

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

less identical qualities. (b) Plot devices. Persecution is the chief motive of the plot. Although belief is both a genuine and an ostensible factor, the actual reason for persecution is jealousy based on success. The overarching plan of God that drives the narrative can be compared with historiography, but the specifics belong to the realm of novelistic narrative. The story is told in the form of adventurous episodes. The mode of narration is that of popular narrative. Parallels from histories certainly exist, but what amount to occasional instances and asides, digressions and anecdotes in Tacitus or even Josephus are the staple of Acts. (c) Too many episodes are, from the perspective of historiography, fictions concocted in conformity with the values of the narrator and framed in accordance with popular taste. Examples of episodes invented by historians can certainly be adduced; quantity is the determining factor. Acts is a “popular” work. Unrestrained by the conventions governing elite literature, popular writers were able to blend genres and create new ones. This freedom from formal restraints, conventions not expected by their consumers that may often have passed unappreciated when they were followed, was not always advantageous to ancient popular writers. There is a difference between discarding conventions one has thoroughly learned in favor of the fresh and failure to observe conventions that one has failed to grasp. Ancient popular writers tended to fall closer to the latter side of this scale. In any case they broke the rules by utilizing prose for purposes that tradition generally assigned to poetry.105 Out of these efforts the novel came to birth. Popular history did not rob the realm of poetry, but its proponents offered limited homage to Clio, at most.

The outcome may look very much the same. C. K. Barrett puts it this way: “The form of the romance is popular history, and that is the kind of history that Acts is.”106 Luke’s achievement as a historian lies more in his success at creating history than in recording it. With his considerable skills this author fashioned what became and has remained the normative story of Christian origins.107 This is epitomized in his contribution to the two components of the Christian year: the solar cycle based on Christmas, which determines the dates of the Annunciation and Candlemas (March 25 and February 2, both deduced from the later selection of December 25 for the Nativity), as well as the lunisolar cycle from Easter to Pentecost. All of these events except Easter derive exclusively from Luke and Acts.108 Daniel Marguerat, in a useful investigation, calls this “poetic” or “epic” history.109 Rigorous historians of today will object to the use of “history” in terms that evoke myth and poetry, whereas the ancient predecessors would have said that stories of this nature should have been cast in poetic form, but the result speaks for itself. The major impetus—which is not to be confused with genre—for Acts and its apocryphal successors was not history, but the content of the canonical Gospels.110 When he turned to writing Acts, Luke did not discard the hat of an evangelist. 7. The Unity/ies of Luke and Acts

Studies of Luke and Acts face two challenges: to account for the similarities of the two works, including interrelationships, and to explain the differences.111 The former

105 James M. Dawsey (“Characteristics of Folk-Epic in Acts,” in David Lull, ed., SBLSB 1989 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989] 317–25) discusses a number of features in Acts that are typical of popular storytelling. 106 C. K. Barrett, “The First New Testament?” NovT 38 (1996) 94–104, esp. 98. 107 Luke T. Johnson: “So successful was Luke that his narrative has become the etiological or foundational myth of gentile Christianity” (The Writings of the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986] 204). 108 Matthew contributes an Epiphany story (2:1-12) but does not describe the birth of Jesus. 109 Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian:

Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (trans. Ken McKinney et al.; SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 20–22. These terms are quite appropriate, but they also apply to the works of Homer and Virgil, which became myths of origins. 110 See François Bovon, “The Synoptic Gospels and the Non-Canonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988) 19–36. 111 The earliest known explanation for the separation of Luke and Acts is that of Chrysostom: “And why did he not make one book of it? . . . For clearness, and to give the brother [Theophilus] a pause for rest. Besides, the two treatises are distinct in their subject matter” (Hom. 1, in J. Walker et al., Saint

18

Acts part 1C.indd 18

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Introduction

has been dominant for the past eighty years.112 The same person wrote canonical Luke and the Acts. Knowledge of one is enriched by knowledge of the other, particularly when one sees how Acts develops, fulfills, and plays on themes and so on found in the Gospel. Luke does not require Acts. Its story is complete even for those not familiar with Matthew, Mark, or John. The uninformed (a group not envisioned by the narrator) who took up Acts would be able to learn the basic elements of the gospel story—the creed, in effect—and would learn that the earthly Jesus was a beneficent Galilean healer who succeeded John the Baptizer. Acts could stand independently. Even the preface to Acts does not resolve this question.113 Although the second volume continues the first, it tells a different story with different methods and some different themes. The last is apparent in the altered role assigned to Jesus. In the formulation articulated by Rudolf Bultmann, the Jesus of Luke is the proclaimer of God’s reign. In Acts, he is the proclaimed,114 the object of the message rather than its source.115 In this sense Acts is more like Paul and his theology than like Luke. Two principal themes of Jesus’ message, eschatology and ethics, receive limited coverage in Acts, which focuses on the means of salvation, an assumed need not related to an imminent end. Both Luke and Acts present their heroes as itinerant teachers who may be compared

to philosophers. In Luke, there is minimal information about the course of the journeys and incidents therein. Travel, especially Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (9:51—19:27), is a platform for teaching; in Acts, however, details about stations are numerous and missionary adventures dominate the content. The ethical focus of Acts is on the use of money. This subject emerges through inference and example rather than by exhortation. In short, much of Luke teaches by telling, whereas Acts generally communicates by showing. Another clear formal difference is the presence in Acts of a number of speeches composed by the author. The Gospel also inclines toward longer speeches than, for example, Mark, but the components of these addresses can often be identified as traditional items transferred into a new context and provided with some rhetorical organization (see Luke 12). In Acts, the writer used his sources with more freedom than in the Gospel. Even the most ardent proponent of the unity of the two books must grant that the Christology of Acts differs considerably from that of Luke.116 In the former, Jesus is a traveling teacher and sage, executed, raised, and taken into heaven. In the latter, he is a heavenly being who bestows the Spirit and appears in visions to counsel and exhort. The unities of Luke and Acts are questions to be pursued rather than presuppositions to be exploited.117

Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans [NPF 11; 1889; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 4). 112 See, e.g., Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking; Marguerat, Historian, 43–64; some of the essays in Verheyden, Unity; C. Kavin Rowe, “History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” JSNT 28 (2005) 131–57; Markus Bockmuehl, “Why Not Let Acts Be Acts? In Conversation with C. Kavin Rowe,” JSNT 28 (2005) 163–66; Luke T. Johnson, “Literary Criticism of Luke-Acts: Is Reception-History Pertinent?” JSNT 28 (2005) 159–62; Michael F. Bird, “The Unity of LukeActs in Recent Discussion,” JSNT 29 (2007) 425–48; C. Kavin Rowe, “Literary Unity and Reception History: Reading Luke-Acts as Luke and Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007) 449–58; Andrew Gregory, “The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007) 459–72; and Patrick E. Spencer, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge,” CBR 5 (2007) 341–66. 113 With regard to the preface, Alexander says: “Acts may be read either as ‘Volume II’ of a unified com-

114

115

116

117

position, or as an independent monograph which simply reminds the reader that its narrative is a sequel to the earlier work” (Literary Context, 27). Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. Kendrick Grobel; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955) 1:33–37. Luke solves Bultmann’s problem by having Jesus announce this shift in his farewell messages (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:8). The risen one teaches his followers to understand his status and proclaim it as his witnesses. The Christology of Acts is based on the resurrection, without reference to the events and empowerment of Luke 1–2. Henry J. Cadbury, the first vigorous proponent of unity, revealed his prejudice with this comment: “Fortunately our author had the judgment or foresight to make each of his two volumes somewhat self-sufficient, though in doing so he has perhaps prevented some modern readers from recognizing their fundamental unity” (The Book of Acts in History [New York: Harper & Bros., 1955] 139).

19

Acts part 1C.indd 19

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Pursuit is most fruitful in the area of themes, as Robert Tannehill’s work has richly demonstrated.118 The continuity of salvation history is a governing theme that integrates the two volumes. This commentary does not presume that the author planned and executed his books in advance. Acts is best understood as a sequel to Luke.119 If canonical Luke represents the original form of that Gospel, Acts could have been composed as much as a decade later.120 8. Structure

Acts exhibits careful attention to structure at several levels. The work begins where its author chose to start and ends where he wished to close.121 Structural organization is apparent also in units of different sizes, such as the cycles of persecution in chaps. 3–7, and individual units such as 19:1-7.122 Ring composition (chiasmus) and inclusion are means for presenting rounded sections.123 Chapters 13–14, for example, are framed by a complex

inclusion. When travel is involved, the pattern follows the time-honored “there and back” formula, as in Jerusalem–Samaria–Jerusalem (8:14-25). This pattern continues with Paul, who repeatedly returns to Jerusalem, but is broken decisively in chaps. 27–28. The story ends in Rome. Although this presumably reflects history, it shows that Jerusalem has ceased to play a central role. Conflicts also exhibit a “there and back” pattern: All is well, then a problem appears. The issue is resolved, and all is once more well (e.g., 6:1-7; 4:32—5:11; 5:12-42; 8:6-13, 14-25; 11:1-18; 15). This accords with the technique of popular literature, in which tension alternates with relaxation. Chapters 27–28 both continue and deviate from this pattern. Paul is arrested and remains in custody, but the story concludes in an atmosphere devoid of tension. The variety of plans presented for Acts in the various commentaries indicates not only the use of different models (thematic,124 geographical,125 literary126) but also Luke’s propensity toward a fluid, overlapping

118 Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia/ Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990). 119 “Sequel” is at least apt insofar as the Apocryphal Acts viewed the book as separable and a suitable object for imitation. For arguments that the canonical Acts served as their model, see Gonzalo del Cerro, “Los hechos apócrifos de los Apósteles: Su género literario,” EstBíb 51 (1993) 207–32. Jervell (57 n. 23) puts it thus: Luke and Acts are two works by the same author, not one book in two parts. 120 The question of whether canonical Luke is the earliest edition of that Gospel continues to arise. Joseph Tyson has recently restated the hypothesis that canonical Luke is subsequent to the edition known to, for example, Marcion (Marcion and LukeActs: A Defining Struggle [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006]). If this hypothesis is correct, the author who produced canonical Luke wrote Acts as a companion piece. The hypothesis cannot be demonstrated (saving the discovery of a ms.), but it is not easily refuted. The question of the unity of Luke and Acts as discussed here relates to the canonical edition of the Gospel. 121 Contrast with the canonical Gospels illustrates this relative freedom. 122 Careful attention to the structure of both small and large units is a feature of Charles Talbert’s compact commentary, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles

123

124

125

126

(Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Jacques Dupont provides detailed analyses of the structure of many episodes; see Études sur les Actes de apôtres (LD 45; Paris: Cerf, 1967) and Nouvelles études sur les Actes des apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984). See also G. Leonardi, Atti degli apostoli, traduzione strutturata, analisi narrativa e retorica (2 vols.; Sussidi Biblici 61–61b; Reggio Emilia: San Lorenzo, 1998). Mary Douglas argues that ring composition is an important clue to understanding many traditional works, esp. those of non-Western origin (Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007]). Rebecca I. Denova (The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997]) bases her structural analysis on prophetic patterns, coordinating structure with typology and source criticism (e.g., the Elijah-Elisha cycle). These range from outlines based on the geographical locations of the action (e.g., Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte [NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981] 13–14) to the sophisticated approach of James M. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 483–544. Witherington (p. 74), for example, utilizes the

20

Acts part 1C.indd 20

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Pursuit is most fruitful in the area of themes, as Robert Tannehill’s work has richly demonstrated.118 The continuity of salvation history is a governing theme that integrates the two volumes. This commentary does not presume that the author planned and executed his books in advance. Acts is best understood as a sequel to Luke.119 If canonical Luke represents the original form of that Gospel, Acts could have been composed as much as a decade later.120 8. Structure

Acts exhibits careful attention to structure at several levels. The work begins where its author chose to start and ends where he wished to close.121 Structural organization is apparent also in units of different sizes, such as the cycles of persecution in chaps. 3–7, and individual units such as 19:1-7.122 Ring composition (chiasmus) and inclusion are means for presenting rounded sections.123 Chapters 13–14, for example, are framed by a complex

inclusion. When travel is involved, the pattern follows the time-honored “there and back” formula, as in Jerusalem–Samaria–Jerusalem (8:14-25). This pattern continues with Paul, who repeatedly returns to Jerusalem, but is broken decisively in chaps. 27–28. The story ends in Rome. Although this presumably reflects history, it shows that Jerusalem has ceased to play a central role. Conflicts also exhibit a “there and back” pattern: All is well, then a problem appears. The issue is resolved, and all is once more well (e.g., 6:1-7; 4:32—5:11; 5:12-42; 8:6-13, 14-25; 11:1-18; 15). This accords with the technique of popular literature, in which tension alternates with relaxation. Chapters 27–28 both continue and deviate from this pattern. Paul is arrested and remains in custody, but the story concludes in an atmosphere devoid of tension. The variety of plans presented for Acts in the various commentaries indicates not only the use of different models (thematic,124 geographical,125 literary126) but also Luke’s propensity toward a fluid, overlapping

118 Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia/ Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990). 119 “Sequel” is at least apt insofar as the Apocryphal Acts viewed the book as separable and a suitable object for imitation. For arguments that the canonical Acts served as their model, see Gonzalo del Cerro, “Los hechos apócrifos de los Apósteles: Su género literario,” EstBíb 51 (1993) 207–32. Jervell (57 n. 23) puts it thus: Luke and Acts are two works by the same author, not one book in two parts. 120 The question of whether canonical Luke is the earliest edition of that Gospel continues to arise. Joseph Tyson has recently restated the hypothesis that canonical Luke is subsequent to the edition known to, for example, Marcion (Marcion and LukeActs: A Defining Struggle [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006]). If this hypothesis is correct, the author who produced canonical Luke wrote Acts as a companion piece. The hypothesis cannot be demonstrated (saving the discovery of a ms.), but it is not easily refuted. The question of the unity of Luke and Acts as discussed here relates to the canonical edition of the Gospel. 121 Contrast with the canonical Gospels illustrates this relative freedom. 122 Careful attention to the structure of both small and large units is a feature of Charles Talbert’s compact commentary, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles

123

124

125

126

(Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Jacques Dupont provides detailed analyses of the structure of many episodes; see Études sur les Actes de apôtres (LD 45; Paris: Cerf, 1967) and Nouvelles études sur les Actes des apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984). See also G. Leonardi, Atti degli apostoli, traduzione strutturata, analisi narrativa e retorica (2 vols.; Sussidi Biblici 61–61b; Reggio Emilia: San Lorenzo, 1998). Mary Douglas argues that ring composition is an important clue to understanding many traditional works, esp. those of non-Western origin (Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007]). Rebecca I. Denova (The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997]) bases her structural analysis on prophetic patterns, coordinating structure with typology and source criticism (e.g., the Elijah-Elisha cycle). These range from outlines based on the geographical locations of the action (e.g., Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte [NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981] 13–14) to the sophisticated approach of James M. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 483–544. Witherington (p. 74), for example, utilizes the

20

Acts part 1C.indd 20

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Introduction

t­ echnique.127 Units, notably but far from exclusively the summaries,128 function as bridges, concluding one section and introducing the next. A leading question is whether chap. 15 is to be regarded as the pivotal point dividing Acts into two major sections. Although that division was once common,129 modern commentators tend to divide Acts into three or more major sections.130 One may ask whether focus on chap. 15 is not due at least as much to an understanding of church history as to the author’s plan. The Pauline mission that embraces gentiles continues after chap. 15 in the same fashion exhibited in chaps. 13–14. The old plan (which goes back to Arator’s De actibus apostolorum) that places the decisive division after chap. 12 is arguably more reflective of Acts’ internal parallelisms.131 Chapter 13 inaugurates the Diaspora mission that quickly brings Paul to the leadership. This division is not merely biographical, although Peter and Paul symbolize the Jerusalem mission that began converting gentiles and the mission “to the ends of the earth,” respectively. 9. General Purpose

Acts (and Luke) can blandly but accurately be characterized as “legitimating narrative.” “Narrative” is the func-

127

128 129 130

131

tion: making a case by telling a story (or stories), rather than by means of a treatise or a dialogue. “Legitimating” serves to express the object of the work, whether this is construed more narrowly as the legitimacy of Pauline Christianity (possibly in rivalry to other interpretations) or generally as the claim of the Jesus-movement to possess the Israelite heritage.132 Since Aristotle, a major reason for composing a history of a subject has been the bestowal of legitimacy upon it.133 Luke’s project has many companions. The adjective also locates Acts on a continuum between an evangelist such as Mark and an apologist such as Justin.134 Median points are likely to be ambiguous, and that is the case with Acts, which seeks to gather many chicks under its wings. It is not, therefore, surprising that scholars can find evidence to support opposing positions regarding Lucan views. The ostensible addressees of formal apologies are “outsiders.” Luke and Acts speak to insiders,135 believers in Jesus, rather than to polytheists or to Jews who did not accept Christian claims. Arguments for legitimacy intimate accusations of illegitimacy. What and whom do Luke and Acts seek to legitimate, and how? Against what and whom are these claims made, and how? Acts certainly seeks to legitimate a social body comprising

growth statements of 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20, to identify the structure. Bruce W. Longenecker (“Lukan Aversion to Humps & Hollows: The Case of Acts 11:27—12:25,” NTS 50 [2004] 185–204) posits these divisions: 1:1—8:3; 8:4—12:25; 13:1—19:41; 20:1—28:31. His basis is rhetorical means of ­organization. On the overlapping nature of Acts’ structure, see G. Betori, “La strutturazione del libro degli Atti: un proposta,” RivB 42 (1994) 3–34. Betori sees five interlocking parts, with an introduction and a conclusion. See the excursus “The Summaries in Acts” in the commentary on Acts 2. An example Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, xlii– xliii. E.g., Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖKTNT 5.1/2; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981, 1985) 1:27–28 (three); Schneider, 1:68 (three); Jervell, 52–54, (four); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday: 1998) 119–23 (seven sections, with good summary of various plans and bibliography on the subject). Talbert, Reading Acts, 93–94. On this scheme, note

132

133

134

135

also Rackham, xlviii; and Philippe H. Menoud, Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (trans. E. M. Paul; PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 131 n. 2. “Legitimating” is not a synonym for “apologetic.” It derives from the sociology of knowledge set forth in Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967) and is intimately related to the notion of a “symbolic universe.” The seminal application of this concept to Lucan studies was Philip F. Esler’s Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); see esp. 16–23, and 45. See R. French’s general introduction to Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (London: Routledge, 1994) xvi–xvii. “Legitimating” is, from the social-scientific perspective, a proper task of the second and later generations of a movement, although it may well begin at the time of origin. One may contrast Epaphroditus, the patron and dedicatee of several of Josephus’s works, who

21

Acts part 1C.indd 21

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Introduction

t­ echnique.127 Units, notably but far from exclusively the summaries,128 function as bridges, concluding one section and introducing the next. A leading question is whether chap. 15 is to be regarded as the pivotal point dividing Acts into two major sections. Although that division was once common,129 modern commentators tend to divide Acts into three or more major sections.130 One may ask whether focus on chap. 15 is not due at least as much to an understanding of church history as to the author’s plan. The Pauline mission that embraces gentiles continues after chap. 15 in the same fashion exhibited in chaps. 13–14. The old plan (which goes back to Arator’s De actibus apostolorum) that places the decisive division after chap. 12 is arguably more reflective of Acts’ internal parallelisms.131 Chapter 13 inaugurates the Diaspora mission that quickly brings Paul to the leadership. This division is not merely biographical, although Peter and Paul symbolize the Jerusalem mission that began converting gentiles and the mission “to the ends of the earth,” respectively. 9. General Purpose

Acts (and Luke) can blandly but accurately be characterized as “legitimating narrative.” “Narrative” is the func-

127

128 129 130

131

tion: making a case by telling a story (or stories), rather than by means of a treatise or a dialogue. “Legitimating” serves to express the object of the work, whether this is construed more narrowly as the legitimacy of Pauline Christianity (possibly in rivalry to other interpretations) or generally as the claim of the Jesus-movement to possess the Israelite heritage.132 Since Aristotle, a major reason for composing a history of a subject has been the bestowal of legitimacy upon it.133 Luke’s project has many companions. The adjective also locates Acts on a continuum between an evangelist such as Mark and an apologist such as Justin.134 Median points are likely to be ambiguous, and that is the case with Acts, which seeks to gather many chicks under its wings. It is not, therefore, surprising that scholars can find evidence to support opposing positions regarding Lucan views. The ostensible addressees of formal apologies are “outsiders.” Luke and Acts speak to insiders,135 believers in Jesus, rather than to polytheists or to Jews who did not accept Christian claims. Arguments for legitimacy intimate accusations of illegitimacy. What and whom do Luke and Acts seek to legitimate, and how? Against what and whom are these claims made, and how? Acts certainly seeks to legitimate a social body comprising

growth statements of 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20, to identify the structure. Bruce W. Longenecker (“Lukan Aversion to Humps & Hollows: The Case of Acts 11:27—12:25,” NTS 50 [2004] 185–204) posits these divisions: 1:1—8:3; 8:4—12:25; 13:1—19:41; 20:1—28:31. His basis is rhetorical means of ­organization. On the overlapping nature of Acts’ structure, see G. Betori, “La strutturazione del libro degli Atti: un proposta,” RivB 42 (1994) 3–34. Betori sees five interlocking parts, with an introduction and a conclusion. See the excursus “The Summaries in Acts” in the commentary on Acts 2. An example Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, xlii– xliii. E.g., Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖKTNT 5.1/2; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981, 1985) 1:27–28 (three); Schneider, 1:68 (three); Jervell, 52–54, (four); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday: 1998) 119–23 (seven sections, with good summary of various plans and bibliography on the subject). Talbert, Reading Acts, 93–94. On this scheme, note

132

133

134

135

also Rackham, xlviii; and Philippe H. Menoud, Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (trans. E. M. Paul; PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 131 n. 2. “Legitimating” is not a synonym for “apologetic.” It derives from the sociology of knowledge set forth in Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967) and is intimately related to the notion of a “symbolic universe.” The seminal application of this concept to Lucan studies was Philip F. Esler’s Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); see esp. 16–23, and 45. See R. French’s general introduction to Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (London: Routledge, 1994) xvi–xvii. “Legitimating” is, from the social-scientific perspective, a proper task of the second and later generations of a movement, although it may well begin at the time of origin. One may contrast Epaphroditus, the patron and dedicatee of several of Josephus’s works, who

21

Acts part 1C.indd 21

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

both “Jews” and gentiles, and to do so by the erection and maintenance of a symbolic universe that includes theological views, notably a Christology. The purpose is to explain and defend a body that has existed for some time and whose identity has been challenged rather than, for example, to nurture a young and fragile body grappling to discover its identity.136 10. Theology

At one time it was presumed that the theology of Acts was to be discovered in its speeches.137 This view is out of favor: Acts is a narrative, and its theology must be recovered from the narrative rather than from the embedded speeches.138 If, however, the claim is made that the narrative is a triumphal story built on the words and deeds of Spirit-endowed leaders, objections will arise, many based on various items from the speeches. Although the privilege given to the narrative strikes closer to Luke’s heart, many of the themes and concepts of the speeches remain important. One could not construct a valid summary of Lucan theology by attending to the narrative alone, for the speeches explain why and

how the story happened. The speeches are also components of the narrative. Sixty years ago Lucan theology did not exist as a distinct subject (which is not to say that it was never the object of reflection). Since then, it has occasioned considerable debate.139 The subject first flourished in the springtime of redaction criticism, the primary motive of which was to profile the theology of the Synoptic evangelists. Hans Conzelmann took up the discussion by asking what problem Luke was addressing.140 His answer, “the delay of the parousia,” focused on one dimension of a larger issue: the nature and identity of the church as it became an enduring body in a larger society. Conzelmann also addressed Luke as a theologian of salvation history. In circles influenced by Bultmann, “salvation history” amounted to betrayal. Conzelmann sought, not without reservations, to place this orientation in a more positive light. He thus identified what is more or less universally accepted: Luke’s principal theme is the continuity of salvation history.141 He engaged this issue in the context of Deutero-Pauline conflicts with particular attention to both those who argued that God’s send-

will receive desired information, with the at least 139 See the comprehensive review by François Bovon, somewhat “informed” Theophilus of Luke 1:4. For Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research a pointed discussion of the role of “apologetic” in (1950–1983) (trans K. McKinney; Allison Park, Luke and Acts, see Esler, Community, 205–19. Pa.: Pickwick, 1987), now revised in a second edi136 Michael Wolter, “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als tion, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research Epochengeschichte,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., (1950–2005) (Waco: Baylor University Press, ed., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichts­ 2006). Studies of the theology of Acts include J. C. schreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: (London: SPCK, 1961); Jacob Jervell, The TheolBrill, 2004) 253–84, focuses on the issue of ogy of Acts (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: identity, arguing, against Conzelmann, that the Cambridge University Press, 1996); Petr Pokorny, formation of Christianity constitutes a single epoch Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; of Israelite history. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); and I. 137 See, e.g., Charles F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Howard Marshall and David Peterson, eds., Witness Acts,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 159–85. (Moule to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: holds that the Christology of Acts differs from that Eerdmans, 1998). of Luke and that it is not consistent.) 140 Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. 138 E.g., Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Toward a TheolG. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960). ogy of Acts: Reading and Rereading,” Int 42 (1988) 141 Conzelmann’s attempt to show that Luke set 146–57. A leading pioneer of this approach is forth epochs of salvation history is out of favor at David Moessner, whose Lord of the Banquet: The Litpresent, but it has some merit, even if the precise erary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel delineations are debatable. For an illuminating Narrative (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), discussion of the Lucan situation, see Walther although devoted to Luke, demonstrates the merits Schmithals, “Identitätskrise bei Lukas und of basing theological analysis on literary rather ­A nderswo?” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, than redaction criticism. 223–51.

22

Acts part 1C.indd 22

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

both “Jews” and gentiles, and to do so by the erection and maintenance of a symbolic universe that includes theological views, notably a Christology. The purpose is to explain and defend a body that has existed for some time and whose identity has been challenged rather than, for example, to nurture a young and fragile body grappling to discover its identity.136 10. Theology

At one time it was presumed that the theology of Acts was to be discovered in its speeches.137 This view is out of favor: Acts is a narrative, and its theology must be recovered from the narrative rather than from the embedded speeches.138 If, however, the claim is made that the narrative is a triumphal story built on the words and deeds of Spirit-endowed leaders, objections will arise, many based on various items from the speeches. Although the privilege given to the narrative strikes closer to Luke’s heart, many of the themes and concepts of the speeches remain important. One could not construct a valid summary of Lucan theology by attending to the narrative alone, for the speeches explain why and

how the story happened. The speeches are also components of the narrative. Sixty years ago Lucan theology did not exist as a distinct subject (which is not to say that it was never the object of reflection). Since then, it has occasioned considerable debate.139 The subject first flourished in the springtime of redaction criticism, the primary motive of which was to profile the theology of the Synoptic evangelists. Hans Conzelmann took up the discussion by asking what problem Luke was addressing.140 His answer, “the delay of the parousia,” focused on one dimension of a larger issue: the nature and identity of the church as it became an enduring body in a larger society. Conzelmann also addressed Luke as a theologian of salvation history. In circles influenced by Bultmann, “salvation history” amounted to betrayal. Conzelmann sought, not without reservations, to place this orientation in a more positive light. He thus identified what is more or less universally accepted: Luke’s principal theme is the continuity of salvation history.141 He engaged this issue in the context of Deutero-Pauline conflicts with particular attention to both those who argued that God’s send-

will receive desired information, with the at least 139 See the comprehensive review by François Bovon, somewhat “informed” Theophilus of Luke 1:4. For Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research a pointed discussion of the role of “apologetic” in (1950–1983) (trans K. McKinney; Allison Park, Luke and Acts, see Esler, Community, 205–19. Pa.: Pickwick, 1987), now revised in a second edi136 Michael Wolter, “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als tion, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research Epochengeschichte,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., (1950–2005) (Waco: Baylor University Press, ed., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichts­ 2006). Studies of the theology of Acts include J. C. schreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: (London: SPCK, 1961); Jacob Jervell, The TheolBrill, 2004) 253–84, focuses on the issue of ogy of Acts (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: identity, arguing, against Conzelmann, that the Cambridge University Press, 1996); Petr Pokorny, formation of Christianity constitutes a single epoch Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; of Israelite history. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); and I. 137 See, e.g., Charles F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Howard Marshall and David Peterson, eds., Witness Acts,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 159–85. (Moule to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: holds that the Christology of Acts differs from that Eerdmans, 1998). of Luke and that it is not consistent.) 140 Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. 138 E.g., Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Toward a TheolG. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960). ogy of Acts: Reading and Rereading,” Int 42 (1988) 141 Conzelmann’s attempt to show that Luke set 146–57. A leading pioneer of this approach is forth epochs of salvation history is out of favor at David Moessner, whose Lord of the Banquet: The Litpresent, but it has some merit, even if the precise erary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel delineations are debatable. For an illuminating Narrative (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), discussion of the Lucan situation, see Walther although devoted to Luke, demonstrates the merits Schmithals, “Identitätskrise bei Lukas und of basing theological analysis on literary rather ­A nderswo?” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, than redaction criticism. 223–51.

22

Acts part 1C.indd 22

8/27/2008 9:59:30 AM

Introduction

ing of Jesus had utterly inverted and disrupted salvation history and those who viewed Paul as a saboteur of saving history. Luke appropriated more than a little from Paul. He views Torah observance as an inadequate means for salvation. The Law is, for him, soteriologically irrelevant. He speaks of justification by faith (13:38-39) as the result of grace (15:11), but, because the choice between two competing soteriological systems—one based on Torah, the other on faith—was no longer relevant, the Pauline opposition of faith to works appeared antinomian, and Luke prefers to view dikaiosuvnh as “ just behavior” rather than “ justification.”142 Demands that believers keep Torah (e.g., 15:1) are just that. They are not linked to the Abrahamic covenant.143 Related to this stance is Luke’s view of the crucifixion, which is not an ultimate and paradoxical apocalyptic act of God but a tragic and revelatory act reversed by the resurrection. Insofar as there is a Lucan “theology of the cross,” it is expressed through continuities: the continued rejection of God’s prophets by God’s people, and Jesus’ continuation of his ministry to seek and save the lost (Luke 23:39-43). For Luke Paul’s breathtaking interpretation of the crucifixion was unduly conducive to dualism and actively promoted the discontinuity Luke wished to rebut.144 In a manner similar to, but not identical with, that

of Paul, Luke viewed the resurrection as the defeat of Satan. Like Paul (and, perhaps, others), he viewed the Holy Spirit as a “replacement” for the “kingdom of God.” Acts 1:6-8 makes this explicit.145 Jesus was a human being, a prophet, exalted by God to the divine realm, an action that made the universal gift of the Spirit possible (Acts 2:33). One result of this is a potential confusion between Jesus and the Spirit. Luke was not a systematic theologian, and he did not prize consistency.146 The strains evident are due in part to his efforts to preserve a theocentric perspective and in part to his imperfect efforts to incorporate elements of different systems. Lucan consistency emerges in his firm commitment to monotheism and his attempt to portray the continuity of salvation history. Consistency notwithstanding, the Spirit, with its various roles and functions, is a vital element of the theology of Acts.147 The importance of the Spirit in Acts is a pervasive and palpable testimony to the presence of the Pauline legacy. The gift of the Spirit serves both as a means for portraying continuity, signaled by the quotation from Joel in Peter’s Pentecost sermon, and as an (unwelcome) indicator of discontinuity. Appeal to the Spirit as the principal mode of legitimation is essentially charismatic. This view was shared by both Paul and those who produced the gentile missionary source. Acts does not seek to justify the

142 Pervo, Dating, 266–68. 143 “Covenant” (diaqhvkh) appears but twice in Acts. In the Petrine speech in 3:25 it is related to the promise of universal beatitude, that is, an intimation of the gentile mission. Stephen’s reference to the “covenant of circumcision” (7:8) is fuel for his accusations in 7:51-53. 144 This subject generates considerable controversy. Some arguments for a Lucan “theology of the cross” involve harmonization with Pauline thought and the presumed consensus of nascent Christianity. An example of this approach is H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology (SNTSMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). More sophisticated efforts seek to profile the place of suffering in Lucan thought, e.g., David Moessner, “The ‘Script’ of the Scriptures in Acts: Suffering as God’s ‘Plan’ (boulhv) for the World for the ‘Release of Sins,’” in Witherington, History, 218–50. See also Scott Cunningham, Through Many Tribulations: The Theology

of Persecution in Luke-Acts (JSNTS 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 145 Note also Luke 17:20-21: the kingdom is “within you.” 146 For examples of inconsistency, see David Seeley, Deconstructing the New Testament (BIS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 81–102. 147 Note the important study of Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke Acts (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). The Spirit can be studied as a character within the narrative, as by William H. Shepherd (The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts [SBLDS 147; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994]), and made the object of literary inquiry (Ju Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts [ JSNTS 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001]).

23

Acts part 1C.indd 23

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

acceptance of gentiles by appeal to Scripture or other formal norms. The Spirit validated acceptance of gentiles (10:1—11:18).148 Charismatic legitimation typically emerges from dissident circles. Luke finessed this potential contradiction with two moves. Scripture, properly understood, foretells the christological facts, which thus belong to the sacred story from the beginning. This depends on an entirely Christian view of Israelite Scripture, in which prophecy has priority over regulations for community life. Prophecy can be found where it is sought; that is, Luke does not, as it were, list the promises and then look for their realization in “the events that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). He argues from fulfillment to promise: since, in effect, this is how God did it, the prophets must have spoken about it. The Bible may include the same texts, but Christian use of these texts—although not without Jewish parallels149 — shows that two religions are in view. The other move is to integrate the Spirit into salvation history by depicting Israelite leaders as powerful speakers and miracle workers who were rejected by the people and thus resisted repeated manifestations of God’s Spirit (7:51). Lucan “parallelism” is one of the more important instruments of his narrative theological repertory. Miracles introduce the controversial theme of Luke’s alleged “theology of glory.” Ernst Haenchen found little to admire in Acts’ focus on miraculous delivery and the busy hand of providence in its plot.150 This theology is not, by contemporary standards, particularly mature. When it appeared, the Christian movement was far from mature, and its world was neither cozy nor comfortable. Transference of this perspective into the lives of upper-middle-class residents of the United States in the form of a Gospel promising money, power, and success was an abuse that brought a

24

Acts part 1C.indd 24

backlash against Lucan theology.151 It is no less abusive to apply Lucan triumphalism to a national situation. Abusus non tollit usum. In the original setting, these disputed components of Lucan thought had value, as they may in kindred situations.152 Something positive may also be said about miracles. The individual miracles in Acts are symbols. The text does not claim that all who suffer from misfortune are entitled to immediate relief.153 For Luke, the theology of glory was a tool rather than a program, a means rather than an end. Providence is active at both the individual and corporate levels. The latter coordinates with the concept of salvation history and may be compared with philosophies of history.154 Luke probably picked up this theme from Josephus and others whom he had read, but he is no philosophical theologian and he does not reflect on issues related to the success and failure of nations and movements over time. God supports those who have the right understanding (5:35-39). In the most vulgar sense, God is on the side of the winners. This empirical dimension was doubtless stimulated by Luke’s aversion to dualistic understandings of the message and is properly introduced when the church becomes invisible to the extent of nonexistence. This was an important contribution to the catholic understanding of Christianity, which holds the church to account for failures no less than successes throughout its history. Belief in providence serves to sustain hope. Because God is God, no situation is totally devoid of the possibility for redemption. These issues bring in their wake the qei`o~ ajnhvr (“divine man”) debate. In the Roman era, this expression was always complimentary and applied to a range of figures,155 among whom miracle working was not the most prominent quality.156 The Christian leaders in Luke and Acts, including Jesus, Peter, and Paul, are

148 In 15:13-18, James adduces arguments for the gentile mission from Scripture, exemplifying the method of arguing from fulfillment to promise. 149 Cf. the prophetic function of Scripture at Qumran. 150 Like many Germans who lived in the first half of the twentieth century, Haenchen (who suffered throughout his life from wounds received in WWI) was allergic to promises of miraculous deliverance, as the Nazi regime had continually proclaimed that marvelous weapons (Wunderwaffen) would deliver them from the Allied and Soviet forces. 151 The author’s Profit with Delight was composed in the heyday of the money, power, success gospel.

152 See p. 149. 153 See the excursus “Power in Luke and Acts” pp. 42–43. 154 See John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 155 Ludwig Bieler’s survey, QEIOS ANHR: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum (2 vols.; 1935–36; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967) might better have been titled Bilder, or “images,” rather than “the image.” 156 David L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Introduction

charismatically endowed individuals whose powers are not always attributed to the authorities they invoke. Whatever the formula or circumstance, however, God is always the ultimate source of these spiritual graces. A subordinationist Christology devoid of preexistence was no embarrassment to an uncompromising monotheist.157 “Divine man” has been used to characterize one of the Christologies that stands behind the canonical Gospels, elements of which were opposed by Mark, John, and Paul. Of all canonical authors, Luke is the least critical of this tendency, which accords with his anthropology.158 One result is a reduction of the gap between Jesus and the subsequent leaders. They are not, however, identified. The right hand of God is in no danger of becoming overcrowded. What this does mean is a continuation of the work of Christ through the Spirit in the church. In all probability, various charismata were known to the churches with which Luke was familiar. Lucan ecclesiology is a difficult subject, for it is all but submerged in his missiology. The growth of the church is his constant focus; it is, by definition, a missionary institution.159 The concept of the church as a cosmic body (e.g., Colossians and Ephesians; cf. Ignatius of Antioch) is implicitly rejected. The Spirit rules the church; the church does not control the Spirit. Nonetheless, charismatic phenomena occur in ecclesiastical settings and involve the presence of leaders.160 Luke is familiar with the emerging catholic orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. He prefers government by a body, be they called “presbyters” or “bishops.” Succession is not presented in a formal manner. From the

157

158 159

160

161

ecclesiological perspective, Luke is a collaborator with “early catholicism” rather than a vigorous proponent of it.161 The church represents the reformed, authentic Israelite tradition. This reformation, like later reform movements, claimed to have recovered the original purposes of God, revealed in prophetic Scripture. Reform is not simply institutional; it is manifested in personal behavior, notably in the use of resources, and is a model for the reform of society.162 Eschatology, long a burning issue in the study of the Gospel, is not a prominent topic in Acts.163 Judgment and parousia remain on the calendar, without an explicit assertion of imminence or concern about the subject. Hints of the tendency to individualize eschatology, one mark of the absence of imminence, are present.164 Acts’ refusal to consider the question of “when” gives prominence to Luke’s primary understanding. For the Paul of Acts, resurrection is the hope of Israel (26:6-7; 28:20). Resurrection is therefore the essence of eschatology. The parousia and judgment are components of resurrection rather than events subsequent to it. 11. Bibliography and History of Research

The bibliography in this volume concentrates on works consulted. Printed bibliographies include the valuable contribution of Andrew J. Mattill and Mary B. Mattill, A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles (NTTS 7; Leiden: Brill, 1966), which treats works published through 1961. Watson E. Mills, The Acts of the

protocattolicesimo nel Nuovo Testamento: Un Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars capitolo di storia dell’esegesi,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) Press, 1972). 1645–91. The existence of early and/or proto-Marcionite 162 On the church as a reform movement, see Jerome theologies and the forms of incipient Gnosis Neyrey, “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: provided no encouragement to the formulation or ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,” in Neyrey, support of higher Christologies by Luke. Social World, 271–304. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 84–114. 163 John T. Carroll’s study, Response to the End of HisSee, e.g., Francis Pereira, Ephesus: Climax of Unitory: Eschatolgy and Situation in Luke-Acts (SBLDS versalism in Luke-Acts—A Redaction-Critical Study of 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 121–64, examPaul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23—20:1) (Jesuit ines the eschatology of Acts, concentrating on four Theological Forum Studies 10.1; Anand, India: passages (1:3-11; 2:17-21; 3:19-26; 28:17-31). Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983). 164 Carroll (Response, 60–71) argues against individuThe exception is Ananias’s healing of Paul alization. Even if his conclusions are accepted, it is (9:17-18), which probably derives from a source and noteworthy that the question must be addressed. fades out of the subsequent accounts. See Pervo, Dating, 203–18. Vittorio Fusco has a recent survey of the question: “La discussione sul

25

Acts part 1C.indd 25

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Introduction

charismatically endowed individuals whose powers are not always attributed to the authorities they invoke. Whatever the formula or circumstance, however, God is always the ultimate source of these spiritual graces. A subordinationist Christology devoid of preexistence was no embarrassment to an uncompromising monotheist.157 “Divine man” has been used to characterize one of the Christologies that stands behind the canonical Gospels, elements of which were opposed by Mark, John, and Paul. Of all canonical authors, Luke is the least critical of this tendency, which accords with his anthropology.158 One result is a reduction of the gap between Jesus and the subsequent leaders. They are not, however, identified. The right hand of God is in no danger of becoming overcrowded. What this does mean is a continuation of the work of Christ through the Spirit in the church. In all probability, various charismata were known to the churches with which Luke was familiar. Lucan ecclesiology is a difficult subject, for it is all but submerged in his missiology. The growth of the church is his constant focus; it is, by definition, a missionary institution.159 The concept of the church as a cosmic body (e.g., Colossians and Ephesians; cf. Ignatius of Antioch) is implicitly rejected. The Spirit rules the church; the church does not control the Spirit. Nonetheless, charismatic phenomena occur in ecclesiastical settings and involve the presence of leaders.160 Luke is familiar with the emerging catholic orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. He prefers government by a body, be they called “presbyters” or “bishops.” Succession is not presented in a formal manner. From the

157

158 159

160

161

ecclesiological perspective, Luke is a collaborator with “early catholicism” rather than a vigorous proponent of it.161 The church represents the reformed, authentic Israelite tradition. This reformation, like later reform movements, claimed to have recovered the original purposes of God, revealed in prophetic Scripture. Reform is not simply institutional; it is manifested in personal behavior, notably in the use of resources, and is a model for the reform of society.162 Eschatology, long a burning issue in the study of the Gospel, is not a prominent topic in Acts.163 Judgment and parousia remain on the calendar, without an explicit assertion of imminence or concern about the subject. Hints of the tendency to individualize eschatology, one mark of the absence of imminence, are present.164 Acts’ refusal to consider the question of “when” gives prominence to Luke’s primary understanding. For the Paul of Acts, resurrection is the hope of Israel (26:6-7; 28:20). Resurrection is therefore the essence of eschatology. The parousia and judgment are components of resurrection rather than events subsequent to it. 11. Bibliography and History of Research

The bibliography in this volume concentrates on works consulted. Printed bibliographies include the valuable contribution of Andrew J. Mattill and Mary B. Mattill, A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles (NTTS 7; Leiden: Brill, 1966), which treats works published through 1961. Watson E. Mills, The Acts of the

protocattolicesimo nel Nuovo Testamento: Un Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars capitolo di storia dell’esegesi,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) Press, 1972). 1645–91. The existence of early and/or proto-Marcionite 162 On the church as a reform movement, see Jerome theologies and the forms of incipient Gnosis Neyrey, “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: provided no encouragement to the formulation or ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,” in Neyrey, support of higher Christologies by Luke. Social World, 271–304. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 84–114. 163 John T. Carroll’s study, Response to the End of HisSee, e.g., Francis Pereira, Ephesus: Climax of Unitory: Eschatolgy and Situation in Luke-Acts (SBLDS versalism in Luke-Acts—A Redaction-Critical Study of 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 121–64, examPaul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23—20:1) (Jesuit ines the eschatology of Acts, concentrating on four Theological Forum Studies 10.1; Anand, India: passages (1:3-11; 2:17-21; 3:19-26; 28:17-31). Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983). 164 Carroll (Response, 60–71) argues against individuThe exception is Ananias’s healing of Paul alization. Even if his conclusions are accepted, it is (9:17-18), which probably derives from a source and noteworthy that the question must be addressed. fades out of the subsequent accounts. See Pervo, Dating, 203–18. Vittorio Fusco has a recent survey of the question: “La discussione sul

25

Acts part 1C.indd 25

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Apostles(Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1996), includes material through 1994. Günter Wagner, An Exegetical Bibiliography of the New Testament: Luke and Acts (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985) 331–550, is organized by verses and passages and extends into 1981. The recent commentaries of Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Jacob Jervell include substantial bibliography for each unit. The second volume of The Beginnings of Christianity included chapters on British and German scholarship on Acts (pp. 363–433). Haenchen offered a penetrating analysis of research in his commentary (pp. 14–50, 116–32). This was continued in the last German edition by Erich Grässer, whose several contributions were gathered up in Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT

2.137; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).165 Eckhard Plümacher contributed articles on “Acta-Forschung 1974–82” in ThRu 48 (1983) 1–56; 49 (1984) 104–69; Jens Schröter continues with “Acta Forschung seit 1982. I Form­geschichte und Kommentare, ThR 72 (2007) 179–203. Todd Penner, “Madness in the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current Study,” CBR 2 (2004) 223–93, surveys the period from c. 1985 to c. 2003. The most valuable resource is François Bovon’s revised Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005) (2nd ed.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), which includes, in its supplementary essays (pp. 463–564), comments about literary and other matters.

165 See also Gerhard Schneider, “Literatur zum lukanischen Doppelwerk. Neuerscheinungen, 1990–91,” TRev 88 (1992) 1–18; and José Antonio

Jáuregui, “Panorama de la evolución de los estudios lucanos,” EstBíb 61 (2003) 351–98.

26

Acts part 1C.indd 26

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Commentary

Acts part 1C.indd 27

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Acts part 1C.indd 28

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Title

Acts of the Apostles

The best-attested title1 for this book is pravxei~ ajpo­ stovlwn (“Acts of the Apostles”). a 1175 pc have pravxei~ (“acts,” “accomplishments”) alone, but this must be an abbreviation, since this noun requires a genitive or the equivalent. In due course, this title became more elaborate, for example, “The Acts of the Holy Apostles, composed by St. Luke the Apostle and Evangelist.2 “Acts of the Apostles” could not have been the original title, since the major figure of the book, Paul, is not, by the author’s definition (1:21-22), an apostle. The only use of the word “acts” in the text is an unmodified reference to the practice of “magic” (19:19). 3 The book is anonymous and would not have needed a title.4 Titles, however, provide useful information about the reception of the book. They indicate how readers of the middle and late second century, when titles are first attested, would have understood the contents and 1

purpose of Acts. 5 The earliest witnesses to the familiar, though not yet fixed, title are Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13.3) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5.82). Irenaeus also refers to Acts as Lucae de apostolis testificatio (“Luke’s Testimony about the Apostles” [A.H. 3.13.3; cf. 3.15.1]), as well as to material that is ex sermonibus et actibus apostolorum (“from the words and deeds of the apostles” [A.H. 3.12.1]). Tertullian employs Commentarius Lucae (“Luke’s Memoirs” [De ieiunio 10]), as well as Acta Apostolorum, a usage followed by Cyprian.6 The phrase is somewhat analogous to Justin’s ta; ajpomnhmoneuvmata tw`n ajpo­ stovlwn (“The Memoirs of the Apostles” [1 Apol. 67.3]), used to define the in-house word “Gospels” (ibid. 66.3). Acts, therefore, unlike the Gospels, did not acquire a lasting “Christian” designation.7 In historical writings, pravxei~ was used as a title for accounts of political and military careers that were not full biographies and did not evaluate character,8 as in the translation of Latin Res Gestae in the Res Gestae Divi

On the title, note Theodore Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. and ed. Christopher S. Thayer; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909) 3:59, 87; Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert (NTAbh; Münster: Aschendorff, 1921) 95–107 (with a valuable discussion of pravxei~ literature); Cadbury and Lake, 4:1–2; Christian Maurer, “pra`xi~,” TDNT 6:642–44; Eckhard Plümacher, “Apostelgeschichte,” TRE 3:483–528, esp. 483; Schneider, 1:74–75; Sterling, Apologetic Historiography, 314–15; Raoul Mortley, “The Title of the Acts of the Apostles,” in Lectures anciennes de la Bible (Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1; Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques, 1987) 105–12; David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 78; Gonzalo del Cerro, “Los Hechos apócrifos de los Apósteles: Su género literario,” EstBíb 51 (1993) 207–32, esp. 215–16; John Economou, The Problem of the Title “Acts of the Apostles” [in Greek] (Thessaloniki, 1995) and Christopher Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 40–43. Sterling (Apologetic Historiography, 315) rightly observes that the title is inappropriate but that it reveals that the early church viewed Acts as a historical work. The same observation may be made about the Apocryphal Acts. Finally, Haenchen (146–47), after observing the extent to which the title is not appropriate, concedes that “the book’s title is not wholly a misnomer,” since

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

the apostles are the heads of the early church and Paul is a kind of “suffragan apostle.” For various forms of the title, see N-A 27, 735; and Constantinus von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1869) 2:1. Christian Mauer (“pra`xi~,” TDNT 6:644) states that most of the NT uses of the word have a derogatory nuance. This is quite true of the three instances of the plural: Acts 19:18; Rom 8:13; Col 3:9. Conzelmann, 3. See the extensive comments of Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 37–38. Later Latin tradition preferred the fourth declension actus to the second declension acta. The latter is a more accurate rendition of pravxei~ (“acts”). Irenaeus’s “Testimony about the Apostles” could have been a candidate for a specialized title, but it did not endure and it is not clear whether it was ever intended to be a kind of title or was used by others. Examples include the pravxei~ ÆAlexavndrou (“Accomplishments of Alexander”) by Callisthenes (c. 330 bce ; FGH 124 F 14, and, following this, in mss. of the Alexander Romance (with or without bivo~ [“life”], quite possibly dependent on Callisthenes, as in the novel circulated under his name); Sosylus’s ÆAnnivbou pravxei~ (c. 200, FGH 176 F 1), in mss.).

29

Acts part 1C.indd 29

8/27/2008 9:59:31 AM

Augusti (“Accomplishments of the Deified Augustus”), and not infrequently in the bodies of historical works.9 In this sense, it occurs in the later historical books of the LXX.10 Because of the association of pravxei~ with mighty accomplishments, the term could be understood as “miracles,” raising modern questions about its suitability, though educated readers of the second century would have been more likely to understand the title (pravxei~) to refer to a historical work focused on the career of an individual.11 The tradition of associating the noun “acts” with a single name (such as Alexander, Hannibal, Pompey, or Augustus) raises the possibility that the title passed to the canonical work from the Acts of Paul.12 The eventual title “Acts of the Apostles” could serve as a counter to works focused on particular missionaries. This sentiment reaches its most hopeful form in the claim of the Muratorian Fragment that Luke wrote “the acts of all the apostles” (acta omnium apostolorum [line 34]). The notion that the apostles as a body formed a unified

front against all practices and teachings viewed as aberrant is certainly congenial to Acts (e.g., 15:22-29) and is manifest in titles such as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, The Apostolic Tradition, and, in due course, “The Apostles’ Creed.”13 Pravxei~ thus suggests that the material it characterizes will be an account of the accomplishments of an important person. The received title, “Accomplishments of the Apostles,” accepts this characterization—rather than, for example, a label indicating a narrative about the growth of the Christian mission or the dissemination of the word of God—but applies it to a body, the apostles, instead of to an individual. “Acts” implies that this volume was viewed as more or less biographical, while the subjective genitive “apostles” stresses the unity of the tradition, possibly in opposition to those who appealed to a particular apostle, such as Paul (e.g., Marcion), Peter (e.g., the Pseudo-Clementines), Thomas (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas), and so on.

9

See, e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.16 (Cyrus); Josephus title, so understood, whereas the great philologist Ant. 14.68 (Pompey); and Cassius Dio 62.29 (“All Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff found it “perthe deeds of the Romans”). fectly suited” to Acts. Richard Reitzenstein and 10 2 Chr 12:15; 13:22; 27:7; 28:26. Cf. 1 Macc 16:23, Paul Wendland shared that opinion, but Harnack of the sayings and actions of monarchs. See also strongly disagreed, as did Wikenhauser and, for the subscript to 2 Maccabees in mss. Alexandrinus that matter, Fridrichsen. and Venetus, which read ÆIou`da tou` Makk(ab)aivou 12 Cadbury (Book 157–58) allows this possibility. pravxewn ejpistolhv/ejpitomhvv (“A letter/epitome of 13 See Manfred Hornschuh, “The Apostles as Bearthe accomplishments of Judas Maccabeus”), respecers of the Tradition,” in Edgar Hennecke, New tively. Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; 11 Cf. Anton Fridrichsen, The Problem of Miracle in ET ed. Robert McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Primitive Christianity (trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Westminster, 1965) 2:74–87, esp. 74–79; and WolfJohn S. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 163 gang A. Bienert, “The Picture of the Apostle in n. 9. Writing in 1925, Fridrichsen noted that the early Christian Tradition,” in NTApoc, 2:5–27. famous historian E. Meyer protested against the

30

Acts part 1C.indd 30

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

1:1-5

1

1:1-5  Preface 1/ In the previous book, Theophilus, a I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning 2/ until that day when he was taken up after instructing the apostles whom he had been inspired to choose. a 3/ For forty days after his passion he gave them numerous proofs b that he was alive. He appeared to them c and spoke d about God’s reign. 4/ During a meal, he directed them not to leave Jerusalem. e b “Wait here,” he said, “to receive what the Father has promised, about which I have told you. 5/ John baptized with water. Before many days have passed f you will be baptized with Holy c Spirit.”

d

e

f

The translation of these two verses is quite disputed. Alternatives for v. 1 include “all that Jesus began to do and teach,” “all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning,” or “all that Jesus did and taught.” In v. 2 it is not certain whether “inspired” (lit. “through Holy Spirit”) refers to his instruction or to the choice of the apostles. John J. Kilgallen argues for translating diav as “because of” (a meaning normally found with the accusative) (“‘The Apostles Whom He Chose because of the Holy Spirit’: A Suggestion Regarding Acts 1,2,” Bib 81 [2000] 414–17). David Mealand concluded that the phrase is “normal in Hellenistic Greek” (“The Phrase ‘Many Proofs’ in Acts 1,3 and in Hellenistic Writers,” ZNW 80 [1989] 134–35, here 135). Witherington (108) erroneously states that it is “very rare in Greek literature except in Greek historiographical works.” The form ojptavmeno~ is a deponent that means “to make an appearance.” See Cadbury and Lake, 4. Haenchen (140 n. 5) observes that Luke does not wish the appearances to be viewed as visions. This changes after the ascension. Paul summarizes this special era in 13:31. In place of “speak,” the participle in some D-Texts is didavskwn (“teaching”), which aptly reinforces the inclusio with 28:31. In the NT, “Jerusalem” may be either a transliterated indeclinable noun (as in v. 12) or a hellenized neuter plural, as here. Efforts to find a distinction between them as a basis for detecting sources have not been successful. As Acts moves into the Hellenic world the neuter plural becomes prevalent. Lit. “Not after many these days.” The phrase (which includes an improper demonstrative) is an odd way to say “within a few days.” This may be the first instance of the figure of litotes, of which Luke is quite fond. The same phrase, including the misplaced demonstrative, appears in the Act. Paul 11/14.6 (4). This is a strong example of the knowledge and use of Acts by the Acts of Paul. See Julian Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” in Eugene Lovering, ed., SBLSP 1994 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 24–54, esp. 49. On the syntax, see, e.g., Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 61–62. Before ouj meta; polla;" tauvta" hJmevra", a number of D-Texts (D* it; Aug pt) add o{ kai; mevllete lambavnein (“which you also will receive”) . At the close, D* sa mae aug pt add “until Pentecost,” a typically anticlimactic and pedantic expansion, which does, however, prepare the way for the abrupt beginning of 2:1. On this, see Strange, Problem, 113–15.

31

Acts part 1C.indd 31

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

Analysis

Acts 1–7 moves the narrative firmly but without haste toward the gentile mission, the legitimacy of which is the governing theme of the book. The pace is deliberate insofar as the narrator wishes to show that Christianity is the divinely directed final manifestation of Israelite faith.1 Although the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures, the Jewish leaders reject their evidence and attempt to stifle the rapidly growing movement, which they perceive as a threat. Success among those of Greek-speaking Diaspora background raises questions about loyalty to Torah and temple. The general public then shifts from strong support to fervent opposition. Acts begins like Luke’s Gospel. The first two chapters present an ideal situation marked by loyalty to Israelite tradition and the absence of conflict.2 Both narratives are set in Jerusalem3 and open in an atmosphere brimming with epiphanies (e.g., Luke 2:8-14; Acts 1:9-11; 2:1-12), most of which include angelic announcements or messages (Luke 1:11-20, 26-38; 2:10-12; Acts 1:11). There are also differences. Formally, for example, the first two chapters of Luke are notable for their canticles composed in the style of the LXX and in the manner of Hebrew poetry (Luke 1:13-17, 46-45; etc.). Acts 1–2, by contrast, lacks such poetry. Instead, there are speeches of Peter (1:16-22; 2:14-41, which cite the LXX.4 In retrospect this marks a characteristic difference between the two books. Luke 1–2 uses biblical forms of discourse, while Acts 1–2 uses set-piece speeches. This distinction hints at the different milieux of the books; the second volume will engage the wider, specifically Greek­speaking, world. 1 2

3

4

If the parallels between Acts 1–2 and Luke 1–2 are formal and modal, the links between the close of Luke (24:36-53) and the beginning of Acts (1:1-14) are specific and thematic. Both contain a postresurrection appearance in which Jesus promises the disciples forthcoming endowment with heavenly power, commissions them as “witnesses,”5 and directs them to remain in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36-49; Acts 1:3-8). Both report an ascension outside of Jerusalem and the subsequent return of the disciples to the city (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:9-12).6 These similarities contribute to the leading problem of the structure of Acts 1: where does the introduction or prologue end? The preface, which lacks a clear ending, complicates resolution of this question. Moreover, the syntactical nature of v. 3 is disputed, and the summary—if that is what it is—shifts from indirect to direct speech in the course of v .4. One may also ask whether v. 6 introduces a distinct scene. Since this preface appears to be the type that offers a recapitulation of the previous book without a preview of this one, it is reasonable, but not necessary, to hypothesize that the prologue will end at the point where new information appears.

“Christianity” is not an anachronism in reference to Acts; see on 11:26. One may attribute this to authorial plan, but it is also possible that this is how Luke preferred to begin books. On the role of Jerusalem in Luke and Acts, see Mikeal Parsons, “The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 155–71. On the use of the LXX in Acts, see, in general,

Excursus: The Prefaces to Luke and Acts Scholarship has long held that by the inclusion of prefaces Luke and Acts make a bid to be considered as literature and that the two books are to be considered historiography. The scrupulous research of Loveday Alexander has challenged these assumptions.7 She has shown that these prefaces do not conform to the conventions and style of historical writings (which in Greco-Roman antiquity belonged to the realm of belles lettres) but are most similar to those used by authors of “scientific,” technical

5

6 7

Pervo, Dating, 29–35. For bibliography, see Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002) 58 n. 42 and 60 n. 53, to which add Dietrich Rusam, Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (BZNW 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). A biblical basis for Luke’s understanding of “witness” is Isa 43:8-13. For a concise summary of the theme in Luke and Acts, see Weiser, 1:72–75. See Goulder, Type, 16–17, who lists nine parallels. Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in

32

Acts part 1C.indd 32

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

Analysis

Acts 1–7 moves the narrative firmly but without haste toward the gentile mission, the legitimacy of which is the governing theme of the book. The pace is deliberate insofar as the narrator wishes to show that Christianity is the divinely directed final manifestation of Israelite faith.1 Although the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures, the Jewish leaders reject their evidence and attempt to stifle the rapidly growing movement, which they perceive as a threat. Success among those of Greek-speaking Diaspora background raises questions about loyalty to Torah and temple. The general public then shifts from strong support to fervent opposition. Acts begins like Luke’s Gospel. The first two chapters present an ideal situation marked by loyalty to Israelite tradition and the absence of conflict.2 Both narratives are set in Jerusalem3 and open in an atmosphere brimming with epiphanies (e.g., Luke 2:8-14; Acts 1:9-11; 2:1-12), most of which include angelic announcements or messages (Luke 1:11-20, 26-38; 2:10-12; Acts 1:11). There are also differences. Formally, for example, the first two chapters of Luke are notable for their canticles composed in the style of the LXX and in the manner of Hebrew poetry (Luke 1:13-17, 46-45; etc.). Acts 1–2, by contrast, lacks such poetry. Instead, there are speeches of Peter (1:16-22; 2:14-41, which cite the LXX.4 In retrospect this marks a characteristic difference between the two books. Luke 1–2 uses biblical forms of discourse, while Acts 1–2 uses set-piece speeches. This distinction hints at the different milieux of the books; the second volume will engage the wider, specifically Greek­speaking, world. 1 2

3

4

If the parallels between Acts 1–2 and Luke 1–2 are formal and modal, the links between the close of Luke (24:36-53) and the beginning of Acts (1:1-14) are specific and thematic. Both contain a postresurrection appearance in which Jesus promises the disciples forthcoming endowment with heavenly power, commissions them as “witnesses,”5 and directs them to remain in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36-49; Acts 1:3-8). Both report an ascension outside of Jerusalem and the subsequent return of the disciples to the city (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:9-12).6 These similarities contribute to the leading problem of the structure of Acts 1: where does the introduction or prologue end? The preface, which lacks a clear ending, complicates resolution of this question. Moreover, the syntactical nature of v. 3 is disputed, and the summary—if that is what it is—shifts from indirect to direct speech in the course of v .4. One may also ask whether v. 6 introduces a distinct scene. Since this preface appears to be the type that offers a recapitulation of the previous book without a preview of this one, it is reasonable, but not necessary, to hypothesize that the prologue will end at the point where new information appears.

“Christianity” is not an anachronism in reference to Acts; see on 11:26. One may attribute this to authorial plan, but it is also possible that this is how Luke preferred to begin books. On the role of Jerusalem in Luke and Acts, see Mikeal Parsons, “The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 155–71. On the use of the LXX in Acts, see, in general,

Excursus: The Prefaces to Luke and Acts Scholarship has long held that by the inclusion of prefaces Luke and Acts make a bid to be considered as literature and that the two books are to be considered historiography. The scrupulous research of Loveday Alexander has challenged these assumptions.7 She has shown that these prefaces do not conform to the conventions and style of historical writings (which in Greco-Roman antiquity belonged to the realm of belles lettres) but are most similar to those used by authors of “scientific,” technical

5

6 7

Pervo, Dating, 29–35. For bibliography, see Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002) 58 n. 42 and 60 n. 53, to which add Dietrich Rusam, Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (BZNW 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). A biblical basis for Luke’s understanding of “witness” is Isa 43:8-13. For a concise summary of the theme in Luke and Acts, see Weiser, 1:72–75. See Goulder, Type, 16–17, who lists nine parallels. Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in

32

Acts part 1C.indd 32

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

1:1-5

books. 8 Neither preface invites the informed reader to expect that the contents will belong to the sphere of historiography (which does not, of course, mean that they are not historical or history). Acts has a secondary preface. Such prefaces, used intermittently in multivolume productions, delineate both a break and a link: this new volume/roll bears some relation to another or to others. The most common feature of secondary prefaces is a recapitulation (anakephalaioµsis) of the preceding work.9 This may also include a preview (proekthesis) of the current volume. The mevn of v. 1 (this is a Greek particle that plays various syntactical roles) leads one to expect that a preview of the second volume will follow, but it does not, even if v. 8 fulfills some of that function. This omission has some bearing on the relation between Luke and Acts, since such statements may indicate a change of subject, as in Philo Vit. Mos. 2.1, or a continuation of the previous, as in Josephus Ap. 2.2.10 The preface permits one to read Acts either

as “volume 2” or as a separate writing.11 This means that the preface to Acts does not illuminate the question of whether the preface to Luke applies to both volumes or to the Gospel alone. Those who stress the unity of Luke and Acts are likely to hold that the Gospel prologue applies also to Acts; those who see the relation as somewhat looser tend toward the opposite understanding.12 Both views are possible and neither is demonstrable, although general limitation of Luke 1:1-4 to the Gospel is somewhat more likely.13

Joseph Fitzmyer would conclude the prologue with v. 2, on the grounds that vv. 1-2 “combine different literary forms and use some pre-Lucan tradition.”14 This reasoning is cloudy. Verse 3 is a relative clause modifying “apostles.”15 I. Howard Marshall is an example of those who define vv. 1-5 as the prologue, which summarizes

Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); eadem, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians,” in Witherington, History, 73–103; and eadem, “Formal Elements and Genre: Which Greco-Roman Prologues Most Closely Parallel the Lukan Prologues?” in Moessner, Heritage, 9–26. See also Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006) 109–16. 8 An example from symposium literature is Plutarch’s preface to his fictional account of a banquet of the seven sages; see David E. Aune, “Septem Sapientium Convivium (Moralia 146B–164D),” in Hans Dieter Betz, ed., Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 51–105. He comments on the similarities to Acts and returns to the same text in “Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” in Alf Christophersen et al., eds., Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 138–48, to argue that strict divisions among types of prefaces are undesirable. (Christian examples of such improbable prefaces include those to the Acts of Barnabas and the ­Lausiac History.) 9 Recapitulations were more of an exception than a rule in ancient historiography; see Alexander, “Preface to Acts,” 89–90. 10 These examples are apt because each comes from the second book of a two-volume work. Although Josephus’s preface to Contra Apionem is frequently cited as a parallel to Acts 1:1-3 (e.g., Sterling, Apologetic Historiography, 368–69), Josephus’s work is

11 12

13

14 15

not historiography. See also David Moessner, “The Lukan Prologues in the Light of Ancient Narrative Hermeneutics: parhkolouqhkovti and the Credentialed Author,” in Verheyden, Unity, 399–417. Alexander, “The Preface to Acts,” 82; eadem, Context, 210. Cadbury (“Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in Cadbury and Lake, 2:489–510, esp. 489–90) maintains that the preface to Luke applies to both books. He is followed by, for example, Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 287–302; and I. Howard Marshall, “Acts and the ‘Former Treatise,’” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 163–82, esp. 172–74. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 1:9–12) evidently assumes this view, since all of his references to the terms of the prologue to Luke are from Acts. Opposed are, for example, Haenchen (136 n. 3), who says that the preface to Luke applies only to the Gospel, as well as those who view Acts as a historical monograph. On the subject, see the balanced observations of Alexander, “The Preface to Acts,” 76–82; she finds attempts to apply Luke 1:1-4 to Acts problematic (77 n. 11). Fitzmyer, 191–98, here 191. One element of Lucan style, to be sure, is the use of relative clauses as somewhat independent sentences, but that is not fully true of v. 3. Stephen G. Wilson suggests that it may be a parenthesis (The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts [SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973] 101). It is barely possible to take v. 4 as a sequence to v. 3.

33

Acts part 1C.indd 33

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

the Gospel. At v. 6 fresh material appears.16 Yet there is fresh material in v. 5 (baptism with the Spirit is but a few days away), and not all that follows is new. Luke T. Johnson views vv. 1-11 as a recapitulation of the Gospel and thus the prologue.17 Acts 1:12, however, repeats Luke 24:52, while the list of v. 13 is essentially that of Luke 6:12-16, and v. 14 is parallel to Luke 24:53. Genuinely new material begins in v. 15. It is therefore preferable to regard all of Acts 1:1-14 as the prologue.18 Verse 14a, which reads like a brief example of the summaries in Acts, supports this division.19 The implication of these observations is that the author evidently envisioned the possibility of reading Acts independently of Luke. That book related “all that Jesus did and said,” but those words and deeds do not play a major role in Acts—notably in the sphere of ethics.20 The one saying of Jesus that is cited outside of the prologue is not found in the Gospel (20:35). The difficulties of the relationship between Luke 24 and Acts 1, which include both similarities and differences—most notably the disparate accounts of the ascension—have prompted proposals that the present opening of Acts is the secondary result of the division of the work into two books for the purposes of canonization.21 “Canonization,” however, is an anachronism when applied to second-century Christian activity. Gospel collections and harmonies did appear in that era, but

the evidence for the independent existence of Acts is, if anything, earlier than clear evidence for a formal Gospel collection.22 In addition, proponents of this editorial process must explain why the redactor introduced divergent information about the ascension. The hypothesis seeks to explain an assumption—that Luke and Acts were once a single book—for which there is no evidence.23 Structural divisions within vv. 1-14 are problematic. me;n ou\n (a particle) 24 in v. 6 may mark a transition, and it transpires that vv. 6-11 are a scene. The author, not a later editor, is responsible for these difficulties. Verse 3 is particularly difficult, a relative clause modifying the “apostles” of v. 2, followed in v. 4 by a return to “Jesus” as subject. If v. 3 is taken as a parenthesis, vv. 1-5 recapitulate, with additions, the ending of Luke.25 The focus is on the apostles, who were chosen by Jesus as recipients of convincing proofs of his resurrection and of a forthcoming gift of the Spirit. This gift prepares and equips them for their role as inspired witnesses to Jesus. Comment   1  The opening mevn solitarium is not untoward (cf. 3:13, 21; 21:39; 27:21; 28:22), but, as noted, it does lead readers to expect a balancing dev clause (“book 1 told the story of

16 I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An excised all of Luke’s work that is now found in Acts Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Commenor to attribute the separation to a predecessor of tary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 55. his. That action would have to be assigned to the 17 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles early first quarter of the second century, much (SacPag 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, earlier than the practice of Gospel collections. The 1992) 23–32. Haenchen (135–47) treats 1:1-8 as the imitation of Acts in the Acts of Paul and the Acts of prologue, but he does not justify this decision. Peter supports the view that Acts had an indepen18 So also, e.g., Talbert, Reading Acts, 19; Barrett, dent existence by the middle of the second century. 1:61; and Weiser, 1:46–47. On the evidence for a four-Gospel collection, see 19 Linguistic evidence includes the periphrastic form Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their of proskarterei`n (“devote oneself to”; 1:14; 2:42; History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press cf. 2:46) and the adverb oJmoqumadovn (2:46; 5:12). International, 1990) 242–44. On early witnesses for On the summaries see pp. 88–89. Acts, see the introduction, p. 1. 20 See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 38–40. 23 Mikeal Parsons addresses literary and textual 21 On these proposals, see Haenchen, 145. issues of Luke 24 and Acts 1 in The Departure of 22 Irenaeus is the earliest witness to a formal colJesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Conlection of Gospels, the plurality of which he is text (JSNTS 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, obliged to defend (A.H. 3.1.11). Marcion and Justin 1987). are important here, as both utilize an edition of 24 On this phrase in Acts, see Moule, Idiom Book, the Gospel of Luke but not Acts. The division 162–63. BDF §251 states that it is ambiguous here. hypothesis would have either to claim that Marcion 25 Alexander (“The Preface to Acts”) finds the lack of

34

Acts part 1C.indd 34

8/27/2008 9:59:32 AM

1:1-5

Jesus; book 2 will tell about . . .”).26 “Volume” (lovgo~) is a vague term that sheds no light on genre or content.27 “Theophilus” is the same dedicatee as in Luke 1:3. Dedication was not customary in historiography.28 Critical opinion holds that Theophilus, whose name was common among Jews,29 was a real person. The basis for this is the use of the epithet “most excellent” in Luke 1:3.30 In any case, the name readily yields to a symbolic interpretation.31 The characterization of Theophilus in Luke 1:1-4 functions also to define the implied reader.32 In the latter sense, at least, few commentators on Acts have improved upon Bede: “Theophilus means ‘lover of God’ or ‘loved by God.’ All lovers of God may therefore believe that [Acts] was written to them, because Luke the Physician wrote so that they might find health for the soul here.”33

26

27 28

29

No convincing inference can be made about the social status of author or dedicatee. Dedicatees are normally of higher standing than dedicators, but the status of the latter here is unknown. The relation between dedication and patronage is too complicated to allow firm conclusions,34 and a connection between Acts and a Christian community (or communities) would make any relationship atypical.35 “All that Jesus did and taught from the beginning”: writers of prefaces like to include the word “all”; for Luke it also anticipates any appeal to secret teachings of Jesus (or Paul: 20:20, 27). 36 The translation “from the beginning” would evoke the sense of “beginning” (ajrchv) found in Luke 1:2 (cf. Mark 1:1; John 1:1) that could underlie the verb h[rxato, which may, however,

a transition from recapitulation to new narration unparalleled. If Luke was attempting to write in a literary style, he was not successful. prw`to~ is inelegant. Cadbury and Lake (2) give preferable Greek expressions. Luke also uses this word to mean “the former of two” in 7:12. Barrett, 1:64. Alexander, “The Preface to Acts,” 85. Josephus is the earliest example. Alexander (89) warns against the common practice of using Josephus as a model in assessing the prefaces. Insofar as Josephus is not typical, this is an important caution. If, however, Luke made use of Josephus (see p. 12), his prefaces may have been direct models. It is interesting that Luke and Josephus share a number of atypical elements in the matter of composing prefaces. The “most excellent Diognetus” (kravtiste Diovgnhte) of Diognetus 1 could be a real person or a literary fiction, precisely like Theophilus, as Andreas Lindemann observes in Paulus im Ältesten Christentum (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979) 344. On this, see Giovanni Menestrina, “L’incipit dell’epistola ‘ad Diognetum’, Luca 1,1-4 e Atti 1,1-2,” BeO 19 (1977) 215–18; and Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 2:126. The Philocrates to whom Aristeas is addressed (1, 120, 171, 295, 322) is almost certainly fictional. Aristides, Justin (1 Apol.), and Athenagoras address their apologies to the emperors. The Autolycus to whom the three books of Theophilus are addressed (2.1; 3.1) is unknown and could be imaginary. In short, when the dedicatees are known, it is almost certain that they did not read the work and certain that they did not request it. As for the others, it makes little difference whether they are real or imaginary. Louis H. Feldman goes so far as to call it “dis-

30

31

32

33

34 35

36

tinctly Jewish” ( Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993] 58). For various understandings of the dedicatee, see Robert F. O’Toole, “Theophilus,” ABD 6:511–12. On the social role of dedication, note Alexander, Preface, 187–200; and Robbins, “Social Location,” 320–23. Symbolic elucidations of the name are attested since Origen (e.g., Hom. in Lucam 1.10-11), who has no difficulty including “most excellent” in his interpretation. See also the citation from Bede in the text. The proposal that “Theophilus” is a pseudonym for a highly placed person whose Christian sympathies Luke would not dare expose (e.g., Jacquier, 3) unintentionally opens a can of worms: how could such an individual perform many of the traditional duties of literary patronage without undesirable publicity? See William S. Kurz, “Narrative Approaches to Luke-Acts,” Bib 68 (1987) 195–220, esp. 208–12. For further observations on the implied reader, see idem, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 12–16. Theophilus is the “overt narratee,” the person to whom the story is ostensibly told. Bede, Expositio Actuum Apostolorum (ed. Max L. W. Laistner; CCSL 121; Brepols: Turnholt, 1983) 6 (author’s trans.). See Alexander, Literary Context, 30 n. 35. See Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 123. Gamble, Books and Readers, 102. Alexander, Preface, 130.

35

Acts part 1C.indd 35

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

be no more than the equivalent of a weak auxiliary (cf. Luke 4:21; 9:12). 37 Some view it as emphatic: Jesus continues to work through the Holy Spirit.38 Since Luke often refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 3:23; 23:5; Acts 1:22; 10:37), some emphasis seems appropriate.39 The verbs “did and taught” go a fair way toward defining Luke as a biography. The philosophical tradition in particular stressed the necessity of concord between words and deeds as the test of the validity of an intellectual system.40   2  The text and translation of this verse present major problems that are difficult to compartmentalize.41 The text of N-A27, a[cri h|" hJmevra" ejnteilavmeno" toi`" ajpostovloi" dia; pneuvmato" aJgivou ou}" ejxelevxato ajnelhvmfqh (lit. “until the day in which, after giving

orders to the apostles through the Holy Spirit whom [masculine plural] he had chosen he was received up”42) has overwhelming support in mss., versions, and citations. The problem is its awkwardness: does “through [the] Holy Spirit” modify “ordered” or the choice of the apostles? One solution is to delete dia; pneuvmato" aJgivou.43 This phrase may be a reading of the D-type that became general in the tradition.44 Against this solution is the objection that an interpolator would have chosen a better place to make this insertion, but such appeals reveal little more than what critics would have done had they made the interpolation, and it is difficult to dispute that the phrase makes no apparent contribution. The text may be corrupt. This corruption would have occurred quite early, for the various alternatives—there are at least

and Testimony: Essays on the New Testament and Apoc37 See Cadbury and Lake, 3; Conzelmann, 3. ryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (Kampen: 38 This is the view of Barrett, 1:66–67. cf. also Bruce, Kok, 1988) 46–55, who argues that the D-Text had 98. no ascension narrative. 39 Conzelmann, 3. 42 On the meaning of ajnelhvmfqh in v. 2, see Pieter 40 This view was part of the philosophical tradition A. Stempvoort, “The Interpretation of the Ascenfrom Plato Lach. 188C-E onward. It was emphasion in Luke and Acts,” NTS 5 (1959) 32–33; and sized by the Stoics (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.40) Parsons, Departure, 128–33. despite the contrary claims of Plutarch Stoic. rep. 1 43 The phrase is Pauline and Deutero-Pauline: Rom (Mor. 1033A-B). See the notes in Harold Cherniss, 5:5; 2 Tim 1:14; and 1 Clem. 8:1. For arguments Plutarch’s Moralia XIII, part II (LCL; Cambridge, against its originality, see Dibelius, Studies, 90. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976) 412–13. 44 J. Rendell Harris associated the D-Text with MonNote also Luke 6:47, 49. A similar phrase about tanism in his Codex Bezae: A Study of the So-Called Jesus appears in Papias (Eusebius H.E. 3.39.5). Western Text of the New Testament (TextsS 2.1; Cam“Teach” is effectively an inclusio: Acts 1:1 (of Jesus), bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891) 148–53, 28:31 (of Paul). 228–34. It is probably more prudent to observe 41 Metzger has a lucid discussion of the issues (Textual that the second century witnessed a number of Commentary, 236–41). Note also Ropes, Text, spiritual revivals, discernible in works as distinct 256–61; Kirsopp Lake, “The Preface to Acts and as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul, and the Composition of Acts,” in idem and Henry J. that the D-Text bears imprints of this interest. Cadbury, eds., Additional Notes to the Commentary For early refutations of Harris’s specific theory, (vol. 5 of Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beg.) 1–7, esp. see the references in Eldon Jay Epp, The Theologi1–4; John M. Creed, “The Text and interpretacal Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts tion of Acts i.1-2,” JTS 35 (1934) 176–82; Eldon (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Jay Epp, “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition Press, 1966) 2 n. 2. D-Text interest in the role of of Luke-Acts,” in idem and Gordon D. Fee, eds., the Spirit is indisputable. See the variants in 6:10; New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance 11:17; 15:7, 29, 32; 19:1; 20:3, discussed by, among for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger others, Epp, Tendency, 7, 103–4, 116–18, 153–54; (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 131–45; and Parsons, and Head, “Problem,” 415–4, esp. 434–35. A difDeparture, 117–35. Arie W. Zwiep argues that the ferent view is taken by Matthew Black, “The Holy D-Text removes the suggestion of a physical ascenSpirit in the Western Text of Acts,” in Epp and sion and is thus related to theological controversies Fee, Textual Criticism, 159–70. Luke 6:13, where the of the second and third centuries (“The Text of the apostles were chosen, does not refer to the Spirit, Ascension Narratives [Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.1-2. nor does Luke 24. 9-11],” NTS 42 [1996] 219–44). See also Gijs Bouman, “Der Angang der Apostelgeschichte und der ‘westliche’ Text,” in Tjitze Baarda et al., eds., Text

36

Acts part 1C.indd 36

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

1:1-5

five—to the text of N-A27 all seem to be efforts to improve on that text. One of these is Codex Bezae, which reads a[cri h|~ hJmevra~ ajnelhvmfqh ejnteilavmeno~ toi`~ ajpostovloi~ dia; pneuvmato~ aJgivou ou{~ ejxelevxato kai; ejkevleuse khruvssein to; eujaggevlion (“Until the day when he was taken up . . . and instructed them to proclaim the gospel”), shifting “he was taken up” toward the beginning and filling in the contents of Jesus’ instruction with typical (and conventional) material.45 Efforts to establish the true D-Text have yielded: ejn h/| hJmevra/ tou;~ ajpo­stovlou~ ejxelevxato dia; pneuvmato~ aJgivou kai; ­ejkevleusen/ ejneteivlato khruvssein to; eujaggevlion (“on the day when he chose the apostles through the Holy Spirit and instructed them to proclaim the ­gospel”).46 This

proposal, which deletes the reference to the ascension, resolves some of the syntactical problems, but it is unlikely to be original.47   3  Following the evident summary, Luke adds the information that the period of apostolic instruction lasted for forty days. This dissonance between Luke and Acts allows the risen Christ time to provide detailed explication of the Scriptures that foretold his fate (Luke 24:44-48a) and to mark an interim between the ministry of the earthly Jesus and that of his followers. The passage thus functions in a way analogous to the temptation story of Luke 4:1-13.48 Another divergence between the Gospel and Acts is that, whereas the risen Jesus appears to members of the general community in Luke,

45 Cf. Mark 1:14; 13:10; 14:9; Pseudo-Mark 16:15 may be the immediate source. Note Barn. 5:9. Epp (Tendency, 64–65) relates the phrase “preach the gospel” to the gentile mission, by way of Luke 24:47. 46 This is the proposal of Boismard, Texte, 48–49. Others have contributed to the task, including Friedrich Blass, James Hardy Ropes, and Albert Curtis Clark. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 236–41. 47 According to the Gospel, Jesus chose the apostles in Luke 6:13. Alteration of the opening relative expression is unlikely to have been original, since there is no good rationale for changing “on” to “until.” The epexegetic infinitive phrase is certainly secondary. On the probability that the reference to the ascension is primary, see Epp, “Ascension”; and Parsons, Departure, 117–35. 48 “Forty” is, of course, a good biblical number, too good for those who wish to pin down a particular symbol for or antitype to Acts. See Talbert, Reading Acts, 23, for a list. The reference to “commands” in v. 2 evokes Moses’ time on Sinai (Exod 24:18). This parallel would evoke a period of preparation and instruction. See Philippe Menoud, “‘Pendant quarante jours’ (Actes i 3),” in Neotestamentica et patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 148–56, whose views promote the parallelisms between Luke and Acts. Conzelmann (Theology, 203) is content to refer to “a sacred period between the times.” Talbert (Reading Acts, 23) notes that 2 Bar. 76:1-5 is similar: Baruch teaches the people for forty days before being taken to heaven. Luke does not appear to be attempting to

place the Ascension within a specific time frame. Not until the fourth century does the liturgical season of Easter take its present shape. Tertullian says, “With certain disciples he spent forty days in Galilee, a region of Judaea, teaching them what they should teach. Then he appointed them to the duty of preaching throughout the world, and, with a cloud cast about him, he was caught up to heaven—far more truly than any Romulus of yours in the tale of Proculus” (Apol. 21.23; [trans. Terrot R. Glover; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931] 113). Note that Tertullian places this instruction in Galilee and that he does not dispute the aptness of a “pagan parallel” to the ascension of Jesus, but only its veracity. (Proculus served as the witness to the deification of Romulus [Livy 1.16]). The time of the ascension (when distinguished from the resurrection) varies from Easter day to twelve years later (Kirsopp Lake, “The Ascension,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 16–22). Luke probably did not take the figure of forty days from tradition but devised it to accord with his own views and plan. See Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 28. It is possible that Luke introduced the interval to combat other accounts of postresurrection appearances to the apostles.

37

Acts part 1C.indd 37

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

appearances in Acts are restricted to the apostles.49 They are the focus of chap. 1. “Passion” is a later technical term that suits here, for, as the adjective “living” (Luke 24:5) indicates, it includes death. 50 The Lucan tendency to submerge the passion in the resurrection is quite apparent. 51 To speak about the reign of God (Luke 31 times; Acts 6 times) amounts to “proclaiming the gospel” (cf. Acts 8:12; 14:22 is different). It summarizes the message of and about Jesus. Both “teach” (v. 1) and “reign of God” appear at 28:31, forming an inclusio that is not simply a circle but an indication of a major thematic element: what Jesus does in Jerusalem Paul does in Rome. In vv. 4-5, the instructions shift from general to particular and the discourse from indirect to direct. The word sunalizovmeno" (v. 4) is uncertain on both text-critical and lexicographical grounds. The choice is between understanding sunali­ zovmeno~ in the rare sense of “eat with” (supported by many versions, but lacking Greek evidence for c. 100 and earlier), or as a misspelling of sunaulizovmeno~ (“stay with”). 52 “Eat with” follows Lucan convention. In particular, the combination of a meal scene with a farewell address echoes Luke 22. Moreover, since the text claims that Jesus made appearances to the apostles, “stay with” seems inappropriate. 53   4  The verse begins with a paraphrase of Luke 24:49. Acts 2:33 will reiterate and expound the sentiment. The

abrupt shift from indirect to direct speech provides one more bit of confusion, but with it the narrator directly engages the reader with a grasp that will never be relaxed. 54 The phrase “what the Father has promised” is a not-especially-elegant effort to clarify that they are going to get not a promise for the future but fulfillment of a promise past. This is the Lucan antithesis of the Synoptic commands to go to Galilee. 55 The allusion in v. 5 to John’s saying in v. 5 (“I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” [Luke 3:16]) 56 is another evocation of the “beginning.” One might expect the risen one to say, “I shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire,” but the passive here suggests that God is the agent. Omission of “fire” (cf. 2:3) places all of the emphasis on the gift of the Spirit. 57 “Before many days have passed” is an intentionally vague means of raising suspense. Excursus: Direct Speech in Acts Although the use of set-piece speeches in Acts— which distinguishes this book from the Gospel—has long invited comparisons with historiography, Acts has proportionately more speeches than do various types of historiography (particular histories, universal histories, and historical monographs), as well as biography. Moreover, and more importantly,

49 John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing n. 50. Examples include Luke 5:14; Acts 14:22; the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the 23:23-24 (reverse) and 25:4-5. The D-Text improves Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, the shift to direct discourse by reading, instead of 1995) 205–6. hjkouvsate mou (“You have heard me”), hjkouvsate, 50 Cf. Luke 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23; fhsin, dia tou` stovmato~ mou (“You have heard,” and Haenchen, 140 n. 4. he said, “through my mouth”). 51 See Conzelmann, Theology, 202-6; and Eric 55 Cf. also Luke 24:6, the Lucan revision of Mark Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and 16:7. Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 56 By 11:16 the transformation is complete: the saying 1975) 29–41. is ascribed to Jesus rather than to John. 52 See the lengthy discussion in Cadbury and Lake, 57 Most of the textual variants in v. 5 involve confor4–6; Bruce, 101, who cites a number of translamity to the Synoptic tradition. See Metzger, Textual tions; BDAG, s.v. sunalivzw; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 243. Ropes (Text, 2–4) suspects, from Commentary, 241–42. Augustine (Ep. 265.3), a Greek text ÆIwavnnh" me;n 53 So also Barrett, 1:71–72. ejbavptisen u{dati, uJmei`" de; ejn pneuvmati aJgivw/ 54 The practice of moving from indirect to direct (“John baptized with water, you with Holy Spirit”) speech, or vice versa, appears from Homer and asks whether this might be the source of the onward. See BDF §470 (2); and Marius Reiser, “Der different readings. It is probably a secondary soluAlexanderroman und das Markusevangelium,” in tion to a problem. When Peter commands that Hubert Cancik, ed., Markus-Philologie (WUNT 33; his hearers be baptized (2:37), he is introducing a Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984) 131–63, 148 and novelty, for Jesus had not so ordained. (Ropes [Text,

38

Acts part 1C.indd 38

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

appearances in Acts are restricted to the apostles.49 They are the focus of chap. 1. “Passion” is a later technical term that suits here, for, as the adjective “living” (Luke 24:5) indicates, it includes death. 50 The Lucan tendency to submerge the passion in the resurrection is quite apparent. 51 To speak about the reign of God (Luke 31 times; Acts 6 times) amounts to “proclaiming the gospel” (cf. Acts 8:12; 14:22 is different). It summarizes the message of and about Jesus. Both “teach” (v. 1) and “reign of God” appear at 28:31, forming an inclusio that is not simply a circle but an indication of a major thematic element: what Jesus does in Jerusalem Paul does in Rome. In vv. 4-5, the instructions shift from general to particular and the discourse from indirect to direct. The word sunalizovmeno" (v. 4) is uncertain on both text-critical and lexicographical grounds. The choice is between understanding sunali­ zovmeno~ in the rare sense of “eat with” (supported by many versions, but lacking Greek evidence for c. 100 and earlier), or as a misspelling of sunaulizovmeno~ (“stay with”). 52 “Eat with” follows Lucan convention. In particular, the combination of a meal scene with a farewell address echoes Luke 22. Moreover, since the text claims that Jesus made appearances to the apostles, “stay with” seems inappropriate. 53   4  The verse begins with a paraphrase of Luke 24:49. Acts 2:33 will reiterate and expound the sentiment. The

abrupt shift from indirect to direct speech provides one more bit of confusion, but with it the narrator directly engages the reader with a grasp that will never be relaxed. 54 The phrase “what the Father has promised” is a not-especially-elegant effort to clarify that they are going to get not a promise for the future but fulfillment of a promise past. This is the Lucan antithesis of the Synoptic commands to go to Galilee. 55 The allusion in v. 5 to John’s saying in v. 5 (“I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” [Luke 3:16]) 56 is another evocation of the “beginning.” One might expect the risen one to say, “I shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire,” but the passive here suggests that God is the agent. Omission of “fire” (cf. 2:3) places all of the emphasis on the gift of the Spirit. 57 “Before many days have passed” is an intentionally vague means of raising suspense. Excursus: Direct Speech in Acts Although the use of set-piece speeches in Acts— which distinguishes this book from the Gospel—has long invited comparisons with historiography, Acts has proportionately more speeches than do various types of historiography (particular histories, universal histories, and historical monographs), as well as biography. Moreover, and more importantly,

49 John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing n. 50. Examples include Luke 5:14; Acts 14:22; the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the 23:23-24 (reverse) and 25:4-5. The D-Text improves Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, the shift to direct discourse by reading, instead of 1995) 205–6. hjkouvsate mou (“You have heard me”), hjkouvsate, 50 Cf. Luke 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23; fhsin, dia tou` stovmato~ mou (“You have heard,” and Haenchen, 140 n. 4. he said, “through my mouth”). 51 See Conzelmann, Theology, 202-6; and Eric 55 Cf. also Luke 24:6, the Lucan revision of Mark Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and 16:7. Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 56 By 11:16 the transformation is complete: the saying 1975) 29–41. is ascribed to Jesus rather than to John. 52 See the lengthy discussion in Cadbury and Lake, 57 Most of the textual variants in v. 5 involve confor4–6; Bruce, 101, who cites a number of translamity to the Synoptic tradition. See Metzger, Textual tions; BDAG, s.v. sunalivzw; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 243. Ropes (Text, 2–4) suspects, from Commentary, 241–42. Augustine (Ep. 265.3), a Greek text ÆIwavnnh" me;n 53 So also Barrett, 1:71–72. ejbavptisen u{dati, uJmei`" de; ejn pneuvmati aJgivw/ 54 The practice of moving from indirect to direct (“John baptized with water, you with Holy Spirit”) speech, or vice versa, appears from Homer and asks whether this might be the source of the onward. See BDF §470 (2); and Marius Reiser, “Der different readings. It is probably a secondary soluAlexanderroman und das Markusevangelium,” in tion to a problem. When Peter commands that Hubert Cancik, ed., Markus-Philologie (WUNT 33; his hearers be baptized (2:37), he is introducing a Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984) 131–63, 148 and novelty, for Jesus had not so ordained. (Ropes [Text,

38

Acts part 1C.indd 38

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

1:1-5

about 51 percent of the verses in Acts contain some direct speech. This volume is unprecedented for either history or biography. For comparable percentages of direct speech one must turn to works that modern criticism classifies as fiction. 58 Those data and this fact do not in and of themselves catapult Acts into the realm of fiction. They do, however, quite strongly suggest 4] eventually comes to this position also.) At Pentecost, the apostles were not “baptized” in the formal sense. This nice antithesis, “John baptized with water, but you will baptize with [the] Holy Spirit,” describes their role as it was later understood and authorizes the same. 58 For data, see Richard Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre,” JSNT 28 (2006) 60 285–307. 59 For a definition of “popular” literature in the

that Acts is a representative of “popular literature.”59 Such a profile is one of the obstacles to the classification of Acts, for popular writers were often indifferent to the elite social conventions that governed various literary genres.60 The sudden eruption of direct speech in Acts 1:4 is therefore stylistically appropriate; it indicates the author’s desire for immediate and vivid communication. ancient Greek world, see William Hansen’s introduction to his Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998) xi–xxiii; and the conference essays edited by Oronzo Pecere and Antonio Stramaglia, La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino (Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino, 1996), and Pecere’s comments, 5–7. See p. 17.

39

Acts part 1C.indd 39

8/27/2008 9:59:33 AM

1

1:6-14  The Ascension 6/ On one of these occasions the apostles asked Jesus: “Lord, are you going to reestablish the kingdom of Israel now?”a 7/ “The choice of times and occasions is up to God, not you,” he replied. b 8/ “You will receive power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you c and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in d the rest of Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9/ Then, as they watched, he was taken up, hidden from their sight by a cloud. e 10/ As he went, they continued to stare f into the sky, when two men in white suddenly appeared right next to them, and said: 11/ “Why are you standing here looking into the sky, g Galileans? Jesus has been taken up from your midst into the sky, from which he will return in the same way that you saw him leave.” 12/ They then headed back to Jerusalem from Mount Olive Grove, which is about half a Sabbath’s journey from the city. 13/ They went up to the second floor room in which they had been staying. These people were Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon “the zealot,” and Judas, son of James. 14/ All these men, as well as the women disciples h and Mary the mother of Jesus and his siblings, devoted themselves to a common life of prayer. i

a

b

c

d

e

f g

h

i

According to Boismard (Texte, 52), the D-Text reads: oiJ me;n ou\n sunelqovnte" ejphrwvtwn aujto;n levgonte" kuvrie, eij ejn tw`/ crovnw/ touvtw/ ajpokatastaqhvsh/ kai; povte hJ basileiva tou` ÆIsrahvlÉ (“Lord, will you be reinstated at this time, and when will there be the kingdom of Israel?”). This moves the question in the direction of Luke 17:20. This construes tivqhmi as “placed within God’s power” rather than “appointed.” See Barrett, 1:78. Witnesses vary on the introduction to the answer. There is slender support (Cyprian, Augustine) for reading “no one can know the time.” This assimilates to Mark 13:32. The same verb (ejpevrcomai) is used of the conception of Jesus in Luke 1:35 (where duvnami~ (“power”) is also found. Note Isa 32:15. A C* D 81 323 pc omit ejn (“in”) before “the rest of Judea.” If included, it strengthens the distinction between “Jerusalem” and other parts of Judea. (D-texts have “me” in the dative and omit “and” before “ends of the earth.”) Ropes (Text, 5, followed by Boismard, Texte, 54) proposed this D-Text: kai; tau`ta eijpovnto~ aujtou` nefevlh uJpevlaben aujto;n kai; ejphvrqh ajp j aujtw`n (Aug, sah) (“After he had said this a cloud covered him and removed him from them”). He concludes that blepovntwn aujtw`n is secondary, as it “badly overloads the sentence.” That it may, but Luke wishes to stress that the disciples witnessed the event (see below). The D-Text is probably an assimilation to Luke 9:34 (the transfiguration). On this verb (ajtenivzw), see Rick Strelan, “Strange Stares: Atenizein in Acts,” NovT 41 (1999) 235–55. A number of D-Text witnesses (D 33c 242 326* and some Old Latin) omit the third of the monotonous repetitions of “into the sky.” Haenchen (150 n. 8) says that Luke wished to emphasize this absence with a fourfold repetition. He is probably correct. The Byzantine tradition adds kai; dehvsei, “prayer and supplication”; cf. Phil 4:6. D (and other D-Texts [Barrett, 1:89]) reads su;n gunaivxin kai; tevknoi~, thus “their wives and children.” See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 236–37; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 246. Barrett (1:59) renders “their wives.” Luke is not in favor of matrimony and has no married missionaries. The expression is usually articular and may be anarthrous here because the proper names are anarthrous. At the close, a group of witnesses (B C3 E Y M) adds a second suvn before toi`~ ajdelfoi`~. This separates the women from the “brothers” and may also reflect a mariological interest, as Metzger observes (Textual Commentary, 246–47). The term oJmoqumadovn cannot mean “of one mind” in every case. The sense is that of the LXX, “together.” One could read the articular noun as “place of prayer,” that is, “synagogue,” but this is unlikely. See Cadbury and Lake, 10–11.

40

Acts part 1C.indd 40

8/27/2008 9:59:34 AM

1:6-14

Analysis

The first episode in Acts is narrated from the viewpoint of the apostles.1 Readers are not immediately aware that these verses constitute a distinct episode, and its location is revealed only at its close (v. 12). The “Mount of Olives,” as it is usually called in English (“Olive Grove Hill” is more accurate2), had served as Jesus’ base while he was teaching in Jerusalem (Luke 19:29, 37; 21:37; 22:39) and was a common locale for appearances of the Savior.3 Its significance here derives from an occasion on which Luke did not mention this hill: Mark 13:3, the eschatological address, from which Luke will now take a leaf.4 A single verse will do for the ascension; the emphasis lies on the spoken words that envelop it. These announcements affirm and establish the political and eschatological outlooks of Acts. Viewed structurally, vv. 6-11 contain three units, of which the ascension (v. 9) is the center. Surrounding it are words or actions of the apostles that receive ­correction: A. B. C. A'. B'.

V. 7. Question of apostles about “the kingdom” V. 8. Implicit rebuke by Jesus, followed by a promise V. 9. Jesus taken up into heaven V. 10a. Apostles’ attention fixed on the sky Vv. 10b-11. Messengers rebuke behavior, followed by a promise. 1

2

3

4

This apophthegmatic “sandwich” establishes the meaning of the ascension and sets out the future program, which rejects both political messianism and imminent expectation in favor of vigorous mission. Comment   6  The vocative marks a change. For the first time

Jesus is addressed as “Lord.”5 As a climax to forty days of instruction on the reign of God, however, the question is excruciatingly inept. Literary tradition permitted pupils to ask dull or inappropriate questions so that teachers could promulgate the correct view. This question is delicately posed. The apostles do not ask if Jesus will now ascend the throne.6 Jesus does not say no. The response, based on Mark 13:32,7 removes calculation about the time of the end from the human sphere.8 In place of an answer, the apostles receive a promise that functions as the indicative and imperative. The indicative resides in the promise of power, which will enable the hearers to fulfill the implicit imperative of world mission. The ends of the earth rather than the end of the world will be the subject of this book.9 The promise of power is another evocation of the beginning and close of Luke (1:35; 24:39) and a component of both accounts of the ascension. The fulfillment of that

It is technically possible to render the opening words as “now they who had come together,” and thus treat v. 6 as continuing the previous verse, but this would be quite awkward and seems unlikely. Acts 1:12 is clear. In other cases one cannot tell whether ejlaiwn is the nominative singular of that word or the genitive plural of “olives.” See Bruce, 104–5. Of revelation Gospels, Helmut Koester says, “The scene is usually on a mountain, preferably the Mount of Olives,” in Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 194. Examples are Ep. Pet. Phil. NHC 8,2, 132.12; The Coptic Psalm Book 2.187.27–29 (Allberry); The Questions of Bartholomew 3.1–4.12; Apoc. Pet. (Ethiopic) 1; Apoc. Paul 51; Ap. John, NHC 2,1, 1.19–20, and the opening of the Pistis Sophia. It is unlikely that all of these usages derive directly or indirectly from Acts. The eschatological significance of this locale first appears in the oracles added to Zechariah (14:4-5).

5

6

7 8

9

For mountains as sacred sites, see Leland Ryken et al., eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998) 573–74. As Moule (“The Christology of Acts,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 159–85, esp. 160) notes, “Lord” is used by the narrator in Luke but not by the disciples. Augustine (Sermon 265) understood v. 6 as asking whether Jesus, who had hitherto not been visible to ordinary eyes, would now “go public” in proof of his vindication. This interpretation shows the difficulty of a concrete understanding. Pervo, Dating, 35–36. The phrase “times and seasons” (crovnoi kai; kai­ roiv) belongs to the vocabulary of early Christian edification. See Schneider, 1:202. For Haenchen (143) the response is decisive, for it sets discipleship on the path followed ever since: the task of finding a new relationship to the world.

41

Acts part 1C.indd 41

8/27/2008 9:59:34 AM

­ romise in the subsequent narrative has generated a bitp ter debate about Lucan theology. Excursus: Power in Luke and Acts “Power” is a key word in Lucan theology, an indicator of its consistency and transparency no less than of its difficulties.10 In the simplest of both socialscientific and theological formulation, power is what people want and what God can give them. The Hellenistic and early Roman eras intensified questions about the nature of power, questions that religion and tradition, custom and convention had tended to obscure. Frequent and rapid changes of sovereignty and regime, culture and society, coupled with striking vicissitudes in the fortunes of individuals, contributed to the development of learned and popular cosmologies brimming with friendly and hostile forces.11 For the religion of Israel these interests and events stimulated the development of angelology and demonology, conveniences that threatened the unity of God and the concept of divine rule. They also led to a logical and concomitant emphasis on the eschatological manifestation of the power of God.12 It would not be erroneous to say that for Luke the essence of power is the miraculous, so long as one understands that every manifestation of divine power is a miracle, and that such epiphanies include judicial acquittals no less than wondrous deliverances from incarceration.13 Power is an attribute (e.g., Luke 1:35; 5:17; 24:49; Acts 1:8), even a name (Luke 21:27; 22:69), of God, but Satan is not without power (Luke 10:19). Considered as a philosophical historian, Luke stands with those who, like Josephus, view history as governed by providence, rather than as a canvas illustrated by the caprices of fate, of whom Polybius is an example.14 Luke was not,

10 For the general background, see Walter Grundmann, “duvnamai,” TDNT 2:284–317. 11 “Gnostic” systems and Neo-Platonism were among eventual results of this process. 12 Both developments can be seen in the distinctive (sectarian) texts from Qumran. 13 See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 92–96. 14 See Squires, Plan. 15 See, in particular, Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 65–66. On the phenomena, see Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Brian McNeil; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). 16 On the role of power in popular religion, see Arthur Darby Nock, Essays on Religion and the

however, a philosophical theologian. As the narrative episodes of Acts indicate, his battle takes place in the trenches of popular religion against “magic” and its practitioners, in opposition to demons, and in the aid of their victims. Through the beneficence of God, the powers of Satan can be defeated.15 Because Luke is a popular writer, the explicit manifestations of divine power in Acts tend to be thaumaturgic and charismatic. The author wishes to produce a vivid and accessible narrative that focuses on concrete, empirical evidence. Unlike Mark, John, and Paul, Luke does not engage in what theologians since the Reformation era would regard as critical reflection on the potential abuse of miracle stories. For him, the abusers are “magicians” (Acts 8:9-24; 13:6-12; 19:17-20) and those who exploit supernatural power for financial gain or other unworthy motives (Acts 16:16-19; 19:13-17). His understanding of power is not, for that reason, to be dismissed as entirely unreflective.16 Luke regards miracle as a mode of authorization.17 This understanding was not a given in the Greco-Roman world; it rather constitutes a fundamental difference between Lucan and Pauline thought. In Acts 3–5, for instance, miracles lie at the nexus of a debate between the apostles and the “authorities.” Readers are to assume that these healings (Acts 3:1-10; 5:12-16) legitimate the apostles and their message, while disqualifying the authority of their opponents. The proper inference is that the torch has been passed on. Those who do not accept the assumption that miracles and numerical growth establish legitimacy in a situation of social conflict will find much of Acts unpersuasive.18 Luke does not dispute the possibility of marvels performed by nonbelievers. He rather assures the reader that the deeds of Christian missionaries are qualitatively and Ancient World (2 vols.; ed. Zeph Stewart; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 1:34–45; and Martin P. Nilsson, Greek Piety (trans. Herbert Jennings Rose; New York: Norton, 1969) 103–10. Douglas Edwards provides many valuable insights on the subject, with particular attention to Luke and Acts (Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996]). 17 Power is the capacity to achieve one’s will. Authority is power that is bestowed or recognized by society. In Lucan thought, authority (ejxousiva) is both potential power and a character bestowed or revealed by duvnami~. See Luke 4:32, 36; 5:24; 10:19; Acts 8:19. 18 Origen may have been the first Christian author to affirm that miracles in and of themselves prove

42

Acts part 1C.indd 42

8/27/2008 9:59:34 AM

1:6-14

quantitatively superior (Acts 8:9-13). Since the narrator takes no great pains to establish this understanding of power and miracle, it is apparent that the implied reader of Acts embraces Luke’s views. One element of Lucan theological integration is the association of power with Spirit. Power is a medium through which the Spirit is active in the life of Jesus and the activity of early missionaries and the church. Power is therefore not a phenomenon more or less restricted to the end times.19   8  Verses 3-8 contain two references each to the

“kingdom” (vv. 3, 6) and the Spirit (vv. 5, 8). The narrative invites the readers, like the apostles, to look for the coming of the Spirit rather than for the advent of God’s rule. The Spirit is “an essential and characteristic feature” of Acts.20 One of the important contributions of literary analyses of Luke and Acts has been to indicate that the author communicates theological views by showing rather than telling, through story rather than through exposition. So it is here: the narrator does not say, or have Jesus say, “For a number of reasons it is preferable to replace incendiary and misleading talk about ‘the kingdom of God’ with discourse about the gift of the Spirit, language that is comprehensive of both erudite philosophical reflection and unbridled charismatic

19 20 21

22

23

24

enthusiasm.” Instead his narrative approach makes Lucan theology more accessible to the unreflective and more obscure to the analytical. Verse 8b raises two questions. Is this verse intended to be an outline of the book? What is the meaning of “to the ends of the earth”? As an outline the promise is inadequate. It carries the reader no further than chap. 8. A related approach is to take 1:8 as indicating that geography determines the structure of Acts.21 Geographical outlines have their uses, but they do not necessarily expose penetrating insights into the structure of a work. A preferable understanding is that this is a “programmatic statement.”22 “Jerusalem” reflects the understanding of this city as the “navel” of the Israelite earth,23 but the preposition “from” is significant. The story moves away from this ambiguous capital. Judea refers to the Jewish mission, Samaria to the transitional phase, which includes “God-Fearers” (8:26-39), followed by the gentile world. The outline is salvation-historical rather than geographical. The literary function of 1:8b is like that of the “introductory oracle” found in some ancient narratives. These prophecies or predictions usually seek to engage the reader by revealing the plot in an indirect or opaque manner.24

nothing (Cels. 3.51). This is not the same as criticizing a faith that demands miracle. See Conzelmann, Theology, 181–83. Barrett, 1:63. See Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 155. This is what Marshall (61) appears to mean: “[I]n a broad sense the programme outlined here corresponds to the structure of Acts as a whole.” Cf. also Haenchen, 144. See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 120–25; and Mikeal Parsons, “The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 155–71. A relevant example of the “introductory oracle” is Addition A to Greek Esther, in the form of a dream. The interpretation of this in Addition F frames the book. Other examples or similarities include Jonah 1:1, Xenophon of Ephesus An

Ephesian Tale 1.6.2; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Cit. 1.3; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.4-5; Longus Daphn. 1.7-8; Heliodorus Aeth. 1.18, 2.35; Parthenope (in Susan A. Stephens and John J. Winkler, eds., Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) 78; Antonius Diogenes Wonders beyond Thule; Photius Library 110a 16; Petronius Satyrica, frg. 44; Pseudo-Clementine Hom. 12.8.4; and Apuleius Metam. 2.12 (a parody). See also Rosa Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932) 44–46, 171, 180; John R. Morgan, “Heliodoros,” in Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 444–45; and “On the Fringes of the Canon: Work on the Fragments of Ancient Greek Fiction 1936– 1994,” ANRW 2.34.4. (1998) 3293–3390, here 3345. See also J. Bradley Chance, “Divine Prognostications and the Movement of Story: An Intertextual Exploration of Xenophon’s Ephesian Tale and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Ronald F. Hock, J. Bradley Chance, and Judith Perkins, eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (SBLSS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 219–34.

43

Acts part 1C.indd 43

8/27/2008 9:59:34 AM

The intriguing element here is the phrase “to the ends of the earth.” As a geographical expression, the location of this limit depends on the extent of geographical knowledge and the orientation of the speaker or narrator.25 The latter contributes to the metaphorical sense of “far, far away.” The range of geographical options is wide.26 The two locations most applicable to Acts are Ethiopia27 and Rome,28 the former because of the symbolism of 8:26-39, the latter because it is the geographical destination of the book. It is unlikely that Luke means the phrase in a particularly literal sense. When Christ wishes to tell Paul that he is destined for Rome, he does so (23:11). The phrase had an exotic allure for ancients, somewhat comparable to the appeal of planetary exploration today.29 The phrase “the ends of the earth” regularly appears in accounts of world “missions.” Heracles, one learns from Dio of Prusa’s first oration On Kingship, “held empire over every land from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof” (Oration 1 60).30 Alexander is a less mythical figure (in fact, if not in story): “He advanced to the ends of the earth (e{w" a[krwn th`" gh`"), and plundered many nations” (1 Macc 1:3; cf. 3:9).31 Dio applied the phrase to his own career. Perplexed about his future, he decided to consult the Delphic oracle:

And then when I consulted him [Apollo], he gave me a strange sort of reply and one not easy to interpret. For he bade me to keep on doing with all zeal the very thing wherein I am engaged, as being a most honourable and useful activity, “until you come,” he said, “to the uttermost parts of the earth” (ejpi; to; e[scaton . . . th`~ gh`~). (Dio of Prusa Oration 13 9) 32 Dio, whose career as an itinerant teacher provides a number of illustrations for the Lucan depictions of Jesus and Paul, received an oracle commissioning him as a universal missionary. The activity of such individuals as Heracles and Alexander rapidly acquired the patina of a mission civilisatrice, a goal that was equally congenial to Luke.33 “The ends of the earth” could thus be a symbol of universality. For Luke, universality meant first and foremost universalism. He applies the phrase to the gentile mission. The “mystery” is resolved in 13:47b: “‘I have made you a light for the gentiles and a means of salvation to the ends of the earth’” (e{w" ejscavtou th`" gh`").34 The sun of salvation will soon shine upon everyone.35 The church is a missionary institution. 36

25 For various ancient views, see James S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). On the importance of orientation, see L. Völkl, “‘Orientierung’ im Weltbild der ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 25 (1949) 55–70. James M. Scott discusses the geographical orientation of Acts in “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 483–544, esp. 526–27. 26 For a survey, see E. Earle Ellis, “The End of the Earth (Acts 1:8),” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 123–32. Ellis views the term as strictly geographical and identifies Spain as the most logical location. 27 In Homer, the Ethiopians are “the most distant peoples” (e[scatoi ajndrw`n; e.g., Od. 1.23). See Romm, Edges of the Earth, 49–60; cf. Luke 11:31. 28 Ps. Sol. 18:15 may refer to Rome. More timely and certain is Ignatius (Rom. 2:2), who views himself as on a journey from the far east to the far west. 29 Cf. Pervo, Profit, 70–72. 30 In James W. Cohoon, trans., Dio Chrysostom I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

31

32

33 34

Press, 1932) 33. Ragnar Höistad analyzes the image of Heracles in Cynic thought of the imperial era in his Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala: n.p., 1948) 50–73. For a discussion of Dio’s views of kingship, see 150–223. Alexander was believed to have reached the ends of the earth in his own lifetime (Aeschines Ctes. 165). His postmortem travels, recounted in various versions of the Alexander Romance, do not detract from that picture. See Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (London: Penguin, 1991) 25 n. 35. In James W. Cohoon, trans., Dio Chrysostom II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939) 97 alt. The context is worth consulting. See below on Acts 14:8-18. This precise phrase occurs nowhere except in these places and writers who quote them. The parallel in Luke 24:47-48 is confirmatory: kai; khrucqh`nai ejpi; tw`/ ojnovmati aujtou` metavnoian eij" a[fesin aJmartiw`n eij" pavnta ta; e[qnh. ajrxavmenoi ajpo; ÆIerousalh;m 48 uJmei`" mavrture" touvtwn (“and that repentance and forgiveness of sins are to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from

44

Acts part 1C.indd 44

8/27/2008 9:59:34 AM

1:6-14

  9-12  There are, according to the prevailing textcritical arguments, two accounts of the ascension in Luke and Acts.37 This is, for those who wish to maintain the seamless unity of the narrative, one in excess of the maximum. For Luke the ascension of the risen Christ is both ending and beginning. 38 This insight and understanding may be no less sophisticated than that which tabulates the number of ascensions. The meaning is clear: the ascension is the postlude to the career of Jesus on earth and the prelude to the advent of the Spirit. Because Jesus has been “exalted to the right hand of God” (2:33), he can pour out the Spirit upon “all flesh.” The scheme involves some theological shortcuts, since Luke does not expound a doctrine of Christ’s exaltation, but it reflects the eventual creedal understanding of resurrection, ascension, and exaltation as distinct “events.”39 It is entirely characteristic of Lucan theology that the physical body of the risen Christ departs into the divine realm. This body was not, to be sure, subject to ordinary limitations. It could assume different forms (Luke 24:15-16) and appear or disappear at will (24:31, 36), but

35

36

37 38

it was capable of being touched and of taking nourishment (Luke 24:36-43; cf. Acts 1:4). Placing to one side the confusing mixture of religio-historical and traditional conceptions, it would have been quite possible for Jesus simply to vanish after 1:8. Luke, however, elected to use the vehicle, as it were, of an ascension, for which event there were varied traditional warrants.40 Ascensions are parallel to birth narratives in that they are suitable means by which “heroes” might make their departure. The range of circumstances, themes, and motifs indicate that those who wished to recount an ascension had a substantial repertory from which to select details.41 These stories illuminate the world of the first readers of Acts. For Luke, the most cogent parallel or model was the story of Elijah’s ascension in 2 Kgs 2:1-14, for this story, which also appears near the beginning of a book,42 deals with succession. The ascension of Elijah leads to the endowment of his successor Elisha with Spirit. Details support this allusion, which the implied reader may well have been expected to recognize.43 Since the Elijah-Elisha cycle served as a source for the Jesus ­tradition in general

Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things”). Origen (Comm. Matt. 10.18) already associated “all the gentiles” of Matt 28:19 with Acts 1:8. Insofar as Rome is a trope for the whole world, the identification is valid. Cf. Barrett, 1:80. Ethiopia (8:26-39) has anticipatory value, but it does not signal the fulfillment of 1:8. See Bertram L. Melbourne, “Acts 1:8 Re-examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment?” JRT 58 (2005) 1–18. In reflecting on the alleged deficiencies of the preface, Haenchen (145–46) remarks: “Luke has in fact described the contents of Acts through the words of Jesus in verse 8. He has done so, moreover, in a manner incomparably superior to the classical scheme, for now the whole action of Acts becomes the fulfillment of Jesus’ word, and this is much more than a mere table of contents: it is a promise!” See p. 36 n. 41. Weiser (1:60–62) discusses the question of underlying traditions. For a detailed study, see Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997); and idem, “Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts,” in Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, eds., Auferstehung– Resurrection (WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 323–49.

39 Luke evidently appropriated his understanding of the meaning of Christ’s exaltation from DeuteroPauline sources. See Pervo, Dating, 263. 40 Lüdemann (29) says, “Underlying this is a tradition the form of which can no longer be recognized,” and he points to Luke 24:50-53 as “a doublet of this tradition which has been worked over even more intensively by Luke.” This claim does not assert a great deal and is of limited use in the analysis of the text. 41 Talbert (Reading Acts, 20–22) succinctly surveys varieties of ascension stories and their functions. For more detailed analysis and a very full discussion, see Gerd Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (Munich: Kösel, 1971) and Zwiep (n. 38). Clouds, for example, were media for the rescue and rapture of heroes in Greco-Roman literature. See Homer, Il. 3.381; 20.444; 3.381; Virgil Aen. 1.411; Horace Odes 2.7.14. On the cloud, see Bruce, 104. It is used in the description of the parousia in Mark 13:46 parr. and plays a role in the transfiguration (Luke 9:34-35). Note, in addition, Albrecht Oepke, “nefevlh,” TDNT 4:902–10. 42 Luke presumably did not know 2 Kings as the second of two books and thus like Acts, but as Fourth Kingdoms. 43 Note the use of ajnalambavnw in 2 Kgs 2:9, 10 and

45

Acts part 1C.indd 45

8/27/2008 9:59:35 AM

and especially for Luke, this explanation is inherently probable.44 It also points to contrasts. Whereas the other followers of Elijah were distraught about the news and instituted a search for their leader (2 Kgs 2:15-18), Jesus’ followers exhibit neither doubt nor grief. Their demeanor also contrasts with that initially presented in the resurrection stories (24:11, 36-43), but Luke takes care to portray the ascension, which is, strictly speaking, an “assumption” here, as an “Easter event” and thereby preserves the unity of the resurrection story. He achieves this unity by assigning the role of interpretation to “two men” in striking dress,45 as at the tomb. Here, also, they have a rebuke that begins with “why?” (24:4-5). Jesus is to be seen neither at the grave nor in the sky. Verse 11 confirms that Jesus is now in the divine realm, from which he will return.46 This confirms Luke 21:27. The parousia is in view,47 not some future postresurrection appearance, but the answers to two pressing questions are neglected: when Jesus will return, and why? Passive gazing into heaven is Luke’s rebuke of that approach to imminent expectation which advocates passivity and withdrawal.48 Not until later (2:33; cf. 7:56) will the reader learn that in his ascension Jesus took a place of power at the right hand of God. This status differentiates his experience from that of Jewish heroes and is somewhat comparable with descriptions of apotheoses, including those of Roman emperors.49

44 45 46 47 48

49

As often, the transitional v. 12 can be taken either as the conclusion to the prior section or as the beginning of a new unit. 50 Lucan style is often fluid and is thus resistant to rigid divisions. Equally characteristic of Luke is the withholding of an important detail until the end. The potent eschatological symbol of the Mount of Olives comes as if it were an afterthought. To this, Luke appends an item that bathes the episode in verisimilitude and quotidian homeliness. With this one stroke, the permissible distance for a Sabbath day’s walk, 51 characters and narrative are firmly located in a world of Torah observance.   13-14  The entire group can lodge in a second-floor room. The word uJperw/`on evidently reveals the normal meeting places of the community or communities familiar to the author: the second floor of a house or apartment.52 At this juncture, the reader is treated to a fresh list of the apostles. The only substantive difference from the list in Luke 6:12-16 is the relocation of John, who will be paired with Peter in the subsequent narrative (chaps. 3–4, and 8:14-25). 53 Lists in Acts signal an important transition in the narrative (6:5; 13:1; 20:4). If Luke and Acts form a seamless narrative, this repetition of an earlier list is difficult to explain. With these “key players,” Luke associates two other groups: “the women,” female disciples who had been with Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem, and the family of Jesus. These

Acts 1:2, 11, 22 (but not in Luke 24:51); the phrase eij~ to;n oujranovn in 2 Kgs 2:1, 10, four (possibly three) times in Acts 1:10-11; and the specific reference to the follower/s as watching the ascension in 2 Kgs 2:10, 12; Acts 1:9-10. There are also differences. Elijah was assumed in a whirlwind, and Elisha saw a vision. See Pervo, Dating, 23–35, for examples and references. Note also Zwiep, “Assumptus est.” “Two men”: see 2 Macc 3:26-33. Acts 3:20-21 fleshes out details of this interval and return. The cloud evokes the parousia. Cf. Luke 21:27 (and its basis in Dan 7:13). Identification of the audience as “Galileans” evokes the passion (e.g., Luke 22:56), prepares the way for 2:7, and underlines the geographical scope of Luke and Acts: from provincial Galilee to “the ends of the earth.” See Gary Gilbert, “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121 (2002) 497–529; and David Balch,

50 51

52

53

“METABOLH POLITEIWN: Jesus as Founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 139–88, esp. 162 n. 72. For a parody of such apotheoses, see Lucian Peregr. 40. Cf. Haenchen, 154. For details about the limits imposed on Sabbath travel, see Barrett, 1:85–86. This is merely a rough measure of distance, not an indication that the incident occurred on a Saturday. Cf. Acts 9:37, 39; 20:8. In Dan 6:11, this area serves, as evidently here, as a place of prayer. Note also Mart. Pol. 7:1. The term is not identical with the locale of the Last Supper (Luke 22:12; ajnavgaion). These references, together with the “house churches” of 12:12 and elsewhere, place a control on the claims of “thousands” or “myriads” of believers (2:41; 4:4; 21:20). On these names, see Margaret H. Williams, “Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts,” in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 79–113, esp. 84–99. The basic source is Mark

46

Acts part 1C.indd 46

8/27/2008 9:59:35 AM

1:6-14

women and Mary make their first and only appearance in Acts. 54 Identification of Jesus’ mother and siblings is a surprise, because the last reference to them was in Luke 8:19-21. Luke does not portray the family of Jesus as hostile to his mission; he idealizes them. 55 Two reasons stand out for their prominence in the original group (which numbered 120, according to v. 15). One is continuity with the past. The mother of Jesus, who played a prominent role in Luke 1, reappears in Acts 1. 56 A second reason, probably, is that among the “siblings” is James, who will appear without other advertisement in a prominent role in 12:17 and will eventually lead the Jerusalem community. 57 Acts 1:13-14 was probably composed with Gal 2:9 in mind, which names Peter, James, and John as the “three pillars.” What is indisputable is that Luke has suppressed any data he possessed about

a Galilean movement, including resurrection appearances there. 58 Although the apostles are the ostensible subjects and audience of 1:1-14, the true audience is the readers of the book, who here learn answers to some fundamental questions about the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection/ departure and the relation of these events to God’s final vindicating action. Rather than participate in a worldwide empire, believers are to engage in a universal mission. In place of the eschaton will come the eschatological gift of the Spirit. “When” is the wrong question, and waiting for the end is the wrong behavior. As for life, it seems much like before. After the ascension, the apostles walk back to their lodgings—on feet, not clouds—there to engage in worship and prayer. The difference is that believers now walk in hope.

materials pertinent to Jesus’ family in Just James: 3:13-19, paralleled in Matt 10:1-4 and Luke 6:12-16. The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (ColumOther lists are John 21:1-2, which notes the presbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997) ence of seven, the Gospel of the Ebionites (according 11–41. The notion that the family of Jesus were to Epiphanius Pan. 30.13, 2-3), the Act. Thom. 1; unbelievers until converted by the resurrection, the Ep. Apos. 2; Papias (Eusebius H.E. 3.39.4), who endorsed by Haenchen (155), is an invention based names seven, followed by the equivalent of “et on the view that the antipathy displayed in Mark is cetera,” and the First Book of Jeu 3, which speaks of historical. Neither 1 Cor 15:7 nor the Gospel of the “all the apostles” but names only five. Hebrews (Jerome De vir. ill. 2), cited by Haenchen, 54 Luke 8:2-3; 23:49—24:10. On women in (Luke supports this interpretation. and) Acts, see, among others, Turid Karlsen Seim, 56 On Mary in Luke and Acts, see Raymond E. Brown The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke and et al., eds., Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); Ivoni Richter Fortress Press, 1978) 105–77. The additional suvn Reimer, Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist (“with,” B et al.) prefixed to “Mary” may indicate Liberation Perspective (trans. Linda M. Maloney; a mariological interest. Arator (Historia Apostolica Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); Helga Melzer[ed. A. P. Orbán; CCSL 130–130a; Turnholt: Keller, “Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte,” BK 55 Brepols, 2006]) takes the opportunity here to put (2000) 87–91; and the essays in Amy-Jill Levine, in a few good words for the female sex (1.57-68). ed., A Feminist Companion to The Acts of the Apostles 57 Luke (like Paul) nowhere identifies James as the (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004). On the text, see p. 40 brother of Jesus. n. h above. Acts is less positive in its portrayal of women than Luke: the “double message” is becom- 58 Acts 9:31 speaks of believers in Galilee, without indicating how the movement arose. ing singular. 55 John Painter provides a good analysis of the Gospel

47

Acts part 1C.indd 47

8/27/2008 9:59:35 AM

1

1:15-26 Replenishing the Apostolic College 15/ A few days later Peter arose to address the assembled believers, who then numbered about 120. a 16/ “My fellow believers, the scripture about Judas, a prediction of the Holy Spirit through David, had to be fulfilled. b Judas showed those who arrested Jesus where to find him. 17/ Judas belonged to our company and had a share in this ministry. 18/ While on the farm he had obtained with his ill-gotten gains, he fell flat on his face. His stomach burst open, and all of his insides poured out. 19/ Everybody in Jerusalem learned about this, and so they called the place “Blood Farm”—“Akeldama” in their language. 20/ Scripture says, in the Book of Psalms: ‘His homestead is to become a deserted place where no one will live,’ as well as, ‘Someone else is to assume his responsibilities.’ 21/ For that we must have one of the men who have been with us from the Lord Jesus’ arrival to his departure, 22/ that is, from his baptism by John until he was taken up from us. This person must, like us, be a witness of his resurrection.” 23/ Two names were presented: that Joseph known as “Barsabbas,”c also known as “Justus,” and Matthias. 24/ After offering this prayer: “Lord, to whom all hearts are open, show d which of these two you have chosen 25/ to assume this place of apostolic ministrye that Judas abandoned to go to his rightful place, 26/ they cast lots.“ The lot indicated that Matthias was chosen to join the other eleven apostles. f

a

b

c d e

f

Analysis

Verses 15-26 propel the reader medias in res. The believers have assembled, evidently in conformity with v. 14. The narrative seems straightforward enough: following the departure of their Lord, the community, led by Peter, attends to its first order of business: the selection of a replacement for Judas. As is his wont, the narrator moves so briskly and persuasively that one does

In place of ajdelfw`n (“siblings,” often “believers,” an expression of “fictive kinship”) are the variants maqhtw``n (“disciples”) in D and ajpostovlwn (“apostles”) in p 74, both evidently attempts to avoid confusion with the family (ajdelfoi`~) of Jesus in v. 14. The D-Text reads dei`. This present tense (“must”) may come from the view that the fulfillment is not complete until someone else has taken the position. The widely attested variant “this scripture,” which points ahead to the psalm verse, is clearly secondary. On the singular “scripture,” see Barrett, 1:96. “Sabbath’s child.” Cf. Luke 10:1, where the same verb (ajnadeivknumi) is used of the appointment of the seventy/seventy-two. The terminology is rather bureaucratic. The translation takes diakoniva~ tauvth~ kai; ajpostolh`~ (lit. “this ministry and apostleship”) as a hendiadys, an understanding supported by the following relative, which is singular. Not understanding the idiom, or wishing to avoid confusion, some representatives of the D-tradition read “twelve.”

not pause to ask questions. Among these are: Why is Peter the leader, why is a twelfth apostle needed, what is the apostolic role, and why did not Jesus select a twelfth prior to the ascension? Most briefly and comprehensively, why tell this story describing a method not employed thereafter to select a person who has no role in the narrative? The key must be, as Étienne Trocmé states, the nature and function of apostleship

48

Acts part 1C.indd 48

8/27/2008 9:59:35 AM

1:15-26

in vv. 21-22.1 Apostleship centers upon, but cannot be mechanically reduced to, witness to the resurrection.2 Luke seeks to supply a historical and institutional basis for the witness of the Spirit, thereby to block unbridled “enthusiasm.”3 The association of the Spirit with God’s will (dei`) in this passage is a vital link in the authentication of the Lucan theological program.4 Had Luke simply concocted the whole thing, Jesus no doubt would have chosen a successor for Judas. 5 Elements of the selection of Matthias certainly derive from tradition, as, presumably, does the notion of “the Twelve,” an expression found seven times in the Gospel (Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 30, 47) but only once in Acts (6:2).6 It is difficult to find an important role for “the Twelve” qua twelve in Acts.7 After devoting twelve

verses to the choice of the twelfth, the narrator restores Matthias to that oblivion from which he had so briefly emerged.8 The functions of the apostles must be deduced from the narrative. “Witness” is a primary, albeit not exclusive, function.9 Apostles exercise, in a manner not described, leadership over the community (e.g., 6:1-6) and receive funds (4:35). Direction of missionary enterprise is apparent in 8:14, but they play no decision­making role in 11:1-18 and silently share that responsibility with (James and) the presbyters in chap. 15. Jerusalem, with varying leaders, is in charge of “foreign missions.” For Luke, the time of the apostles lies in the distant, vague, and idealized past. After chap. 15 the views of the apostles are to be found in their epistle

1 Étienne Trocmé, Le livre des Actes et l’histoire (EHPR 45; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957) 199. 2 Paul could assert, presumably as generally understood, a vision of the risen Lord as qualification for apostleship (1 Cor 9:1; cf. 15:8-9). 7 3 In some senses it is appropriate to say that for Luke the Spirit is a substitute for the parousia/kingdom. This view should be placed not only in the context of those who looked for an imminent end or were dismayed by the continuation of history, but also of those for whom the Spirit was the parousia. Luke, like Paul, stood between those who claimed nothing for the present but the certainty of final vindication and those who believed that believers possess the fullness of eschatological life in the present. 4 See Erich Fascher, “Theologische Beobachtungen zu Dei,” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bult- 8 mann: zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (ed. Walther Eltester; BZNW 21; Berlin: A. Töpel9 mann, 1954) 228–54, here 246. 5 Dennis R. MacDonald argues that Luke concocted the story, noting its similarities to ancient epic, specifically Il. 7.123-82 (Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003] 105–19). 6 Lüdemann (33–35), who is alert to possible tradition, is quite modest about its extent in 1:15-26. There is general agreement about the presence of tradition as well as doubts about its recoverability in detail. Roloff (29–34) says that Luke has created the scene (and speech) from some probably oral traditions about Judas and the Twelve. Rudolph Pesch (Die Apostelgeschichte [EKK; 2 vols.; Zurich: Benziger, 1986] 1:82–92) envisions a pre-Lucan

legend of the death of Judas and material about the replenishment of the apostolic circle, and sees the form of the speech as Lucan. Weiser (1:64–68) has a judicious analysis. See also Talbert, Reading Acts, 36–37. Luke 12:29-30 (“and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”) is doubtless relevant, as Talbert (Reading Acts, 35–37), for example, maintains, but Matthias was not among those addressed, whereas Judas was (Luke 21:22). The Matthean parallel does speak of twelve thrones, ignoring the presence of Judas (19:28). Luke 22:30 derives from Q, according to James M. Robinson et al., eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 560–61. Later writers filled in this gap. See Walter Bauer, “Accounts,” in NTApoc. 2:35–74, here 65–66. Apostles as witnesses: 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31. Paul appeals to this authority in 13:28-31 and bears the title “witness” in 22:15; 26:16. See Talbert, Reading Acts, 37. The basis for the theme of witness appears in Luke 23:49. The next scene (Acts 2) shows the apostles as witnesses to Israel (Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:22). “Witness” is also found in philosophical contexts: Epictetus Diss. 1.29.45; 3.24.11; Seneca Ep. 20.9; see Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), 195–96. See also the comments on Acts 26:16.

49

Acts part 1C.indd 49

8/27/2008 9:59:35 AM

(16:4). Peter assumes leadership, without a hint of authorization from above or from below.10 It is reasonable to suppose that the implied reader of Acts was familiar with the concepts of twelve apostles and the presidency of Peter. The lesson and thrust of the narrative are obvious. Judas was inconstant, abandoned his office, misused money for personal purposes, and died horribly. Jesus rose while Judas fell flat on his face. That had to be. There also has to be a new member of the Twelve, one who was a constant companion of Jesus and who will fulfill apostolic ministry by proclamation of life. Pastorally, 1:15-26 demonstrates that betrayal cannot impede the growth of the community.11 The general structure of vv. 15-26 is clear, as is the purpose. After a brief introduction12 Peter makes a speech recommending the selection of a replacement for Judas, with qualifications for the candidates. Two are proposed, one of whom is selected by lot. The apostolic college has been replenished.13 An implicit method also appears: Scripture, when searched, forecasts events that might otherwise appear to be great misfortunes, and, since it is reliable in prediction, one must also trust its solutions. This method also appears to justify the action taken. The replacement of Judas is mandated by Ps 109:8. Less transparent is the passage that forecasts his betrayal: “His homestead is to become a deserted place

where no one will live” (Ps 69:26). In order to establish the relevance of those words, Peter had to relate the otherwise somewhat extraneous story of the last days of Judas, who must acquire a farm in order to be eligible for the psalmist’s judgment. This exegesis—if that is the proper word for the procedure—is a forcible reminder that there are some vast chasms separating the world of the modern reader from that of Acts.14 This first formal speech in Acts also reveals, quite unblushingly, that speeches are addressed to the readers of the book, since vv. 17-19, as commentators since Calvin have recognized, are inappropriate for the dramatic audience.15 A rhetorical approach yields the following scheme: I. Vv. 16-17. Address and exordium II. Vv. 18-19. Narration III. V. 20. Proofs (inartistic) IV. Vv. 21-22. Thesis and peroration

This is a useful outline, for negative reasons. It shows that this speech, like many of those in the book, is far too brief to be analyzed in rhetorical categories. Moreover, it is not a sound example of deliberative rhetoric. Peter does not urge the desirability of nominating a successor to Judas. That would require more justification. He rather asserts the necessity of finding a successor

10 Luke 22:32, “but I have prayed for you that your revised the source) that underlying tradition canown faith may not fail; and you, when once you not be isolated. have turned back, strengthen your brothers,” 14 Cf. Haenchen, 161 n. 5. suggests a role, but, in the balance of the Gospel 15 Calvin’s approach was redactional: “I think it Peter’s faith does appear to fail (22:54-62), and he probable that this account of the death of Judas neither formally repents nor “strengthens” the othwas inserted by Luke, and I therefore set it within ers (24:12, 34). a parenthesis to distinguish it from the address 11 Cf. Barrett, 1:94. Leadership failures, such as of Peter. For what object was there in recounting apostasy and financial misconduct, were not just what the disciples well knew? Further it would have theoretical possibilities to Luke’s readers. On the been absurd to declare before them that the field subject of Judas’s apostasy, see the detailed analysis bought with the proceeds of the betrayal was called of Schuyler Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the by the Jews in their own tongue, Aceldama. . . . Theology of Luke (AnBib 36; Rome: Pontifical BibliBesides, how could the word Jerusalem be suitably cal Institute, 1969) 53–57, 82–97. used, when Peter was delivering his sermon in that 12 Acts 1:15 was inspired by Num 1:18. See Haenchen, place? Why should he interpret in Greek among 159. Jews a word of their own mother-tongue? There13 Inspiration from the LXX is evident: when new fore Luke himself inserts this sentence, in case leadership is required, qualifications are identified readers ignorant of the events should find Peter’s and suitable candidates duly set apart. Cf. Exod words obscure” (Jean Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles 18:14-25; Num 27:12-33. This imitation suggests [trans. James W. Fraser and William J. G. McDonthat Luke composed the incident (or so thoroughly ald; Calvin’s Commentaries vols. 6–7; Grand Rapids:

50

Acts part 1C.indd 50

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

1:15-26

and what the requirements are. Finally, the narrative is, as noted, not relevant to the specific subject. A formal and thematic outline is more revelatory: (V. 16a: address) I. Vv. 16-20a. The Fate of Judas Was Necessary and Foretold in Scripture A. Vv. 16b-17. Scripture said that betrayal had to occur. Judas fulfilled that role B. Vv. 18-19. The Story of Judas’s End C. V. 20a. Scriptural Proof II. Vv. 20b-22. The Traitor Must be Replaced by a Witness of Jesus’ Entire Earthly Ministry A. V. 20b. Scriptural Proof B. V. 21a. The Necessity of Replacement C. Vv. 21b-22. The Qualifications for a Successor: companion and witness

This plan indicates that the two LXX citations form the pivot of the short address, each part of which has a form of dei` (“must”).16 It is not accidental that this initial speech exhibits Luke’s understanding of Scripture as well as the related themes of salvation history and providence.17 The two parts have corresponding references to the companions of Jesus (vv. 16, 21) and to ministry (vv. 17, 20b), and a fundamental contrast between Judas the betrayer and the true office of resurrection witness (vv. 17, 22).18

16

17

18

19

Comment   15  The temporal phrase in v. 15 (lit. “And in these

days”) marks an important break (cf. 6:1; 11:2719). “In the midst of” is a common marker for the beginning of a speech in Acts (1:15; 2:22; 17:22; 27:21). “[He] said” is followed by an arcane parenthesis that evidently intends to be archaic.20 One hundred twenty is a number of appropriate size and symbolism for an occasion of this magnitude. Attempts to find a basis for this statistic in accurate tradition overlook the ancient approach to such matters.   16  The address a[ndre~ ajdelfoiv (“gentlemen and brethren”) is modeled on the opening of Attic orations, “Gentlemen of Athens” (as in Acts 17:22). “Gentlemen and brethren” appears fourteen times in Acts, four altogether in 1 Clement, and elsewhere only in works dependent on Acts.21 The vital words “it was necessary,” “fulfill,” “Scripture,” “the Spirit foretold,”22 are packed into the opening.   16-18  Luke’s account of the demise of Judas introduces to Acts a fresh mechanism: the punitive miracle or action. The operative principle is that the punishment should suit—and thus verify—the crime. Monarchs who perished through an infestation of worms, for

Eerdmans, 1995] 6:41). Similarly, Cadbury and 14:8; Zech 8:9, 15) are different in nature. Other Lake (11–15) incline to view vv. 18-19 as an addition examples are Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom. to the source, as well as the first quotation, in v. 20. 7.71.3; Cassius Dio 73.16.2. Bruce (109) agrees. Haenchen (163) demolishes the 20 o[clo" ojnomavtwn ejpi; to; aujtov (lit. “there was a idea that the speech contains an insertion. crowd of names together”) uses two SeptuagintalPaired quotations function similarly in the kerygisms: “name” as a metonymy for “person” (cf. Num matic speeches of chap. 2 (vv. 25-28, 34-35) and 1:18, 20, 22; etc., and, in general, Barrett, 1:96) and chap. 3 (vv. 22-23). ejpi; to; aujtov, a LXX idiom that comes to mean someOn these themes see p. 22. Note that there is no thing like “in plenary session” in early Christian difference in the use of Scripture in this speech literature. See Bruce, 108. Cadbury and Lake (12) from that in chap. 2; that is, Peter could make simiview it as the equivalent of “amounting to.” The te lar arguments before the gift of the Spirit. This is here is not grammatically sound; see BDF §443 (1). another indication that the author has composed 21 1 Clem. 14:1; 37:1; 43:4; and 62:1. In addition, the the address. phrase occurs four times in the Acts of Paul, which On the careful structure of this speech, see Jacques is dependent on Acts, and once in the Acts of John, Dupont, “La destinée de Judas prophétisée par which takes it from Acts or the Acts of Paul. (If David,” CBQ 23 (1961) 41–51. Verses 17, 18-19, 20a, there is an intertextual relationship between Acts and 20b, for example, have an A B B A pattern and 1 Clement, it is more probable that the former (ministry, parcel of land, habitation, office). used the latter.) Chrysostom (Hom. 3) noted that This phrase is not especially common. Luke is fond a[ndre~ (lit. “men”) was inclusive. of it. In addition to the three examples from Acts, 22 Use of verbs with the prefix pro-, such as proei`pen see Luke 1:39; 6:12; cf. 24:18. Uses in the LXX (Jdt (“predict”) in v. 16, is not found in the LXX, but is

51

Acts part 1C.indd 51

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

example, established themselves as tyrants.23 In the case of Judas, there are three accounts: Acts 1; Matt 27:3-10; and Papias, frg. 3/4.24 Attempts at discovery of an historical basis are ill-advised.25

Others include the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), the death of Herod (12:20-23), the blindings of Paul (9:1-19a) and Elymas (13:6-12), and the punishment of Sceva’s heirs (19:13-17). The most important punitive action in the book is implicit: the destruction of Judea for its rejection of Jesus. Punitive miracles are thus synecdoches for the righteous providence of God. Gerd Theissen classifies them among “rule miracles,” for they maintain sacred boundaries.28 Unlike healings or exorcisms, they need not be “miraculous.” People do die from dreadful illnesses, and vipers can be deadly. These stories clearly demonstrate that “miracle” is a matter of interpretation. The popular quality of individual punishments is apparent in their fondness for the lex talionis. Such judgments may also serve to reform miscreants, such as Paul (and, possibly, Elymas), for whom the punishment is then reversed or ­w ithdrawn.29 Punishment miracles, which are absent from the canonical Gospels but found in the various Acts, 30 grate against modern Western sensibilities. Their frank endorsement of injury and violence portrays

Excursus: Punitive Miracles In his reflections on Lactantius’s treatise De mortibus persecutorum, Pierre de Labriolle observed, “The idea that Providence manifests in the world below the effects of its rigour by the chastisement whereby it strikes the impious in their bodies and in their life had for long brought to the Christians (as to the Jews . . .) its avenging consolations.”26 Behind this arch observation stands the longing for justice. For those who believe themselves dreadfully oppressed, the concept of vengeance nurtures hope. Light fiction’s fondness for the equitable assignment of rewards and punishments shows that this hope is general.27 Framing Acts are two stories about punitive miracles, one (the fate of Judas) that occurred before the story opened, and another (28:1-6) that did not meet popular expectations. common in Josephus (Squires, Plan, 130–31), from whom Luke may have derived the practice. Note Acts 2:23; 3:18, 20; 4:28; 7:52; 10:41, 42; 17:26, 31; 22:14; 26:16. This prefix does not always carry temporal significance, however. 23 See below on Acts 12:20-23. 24 This is frg. 3 in the edition of Funk-Bihlmeyer Die Apostolischen Väter (rev. ed.; ed. Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 294–306, and frg. 4 in the edition of Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 2:105–6. For other traditions about Judas in early Christianity, see William Klassen, “Judas Iscariot,” ABD 3:1091–96. See also Hans-Josef Klauck, “Judas der ‘Verräter’? Eine exegetische und wirkungsgeschichtliche Studie,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992) 717–40. Both Klauck ( Judas, Ein Jünger des Herrn [QD 111; Freiburg: Herder, 1987]) and Klassen ( Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996]) have sought to rehabilitate the historical Judas, a project anticipated in the recently published Gospel of Judas, for which see Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, The Gospel of Judas (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006). See also Arie Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of ­Matthias: A Story of Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 (WUNT 187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 25 Pierre Benoit, “La mort de Judas,” in Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburts­ tag am 22. Februar 1953, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen, und Schülern (Münster: Aschendorff,

26

27

28

29

30

1954) 1–19. Kirsopp Lake (“The Death of Judas,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 22–30) demonstrated the futility of harmonization. See also Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1:636–60; and Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? 71–75. Pierre Champagne de Labriolle, History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius (trans. Herbert Wilson; New York: Knopf, 1925) 74. Agamemnon says: “It is the common wish of each person privately and each city that the bad should get bad treatment while the good enjoy good fortune” (Euripides Hecuba 902-4 [trans. David Kovacs, Euripides II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995) 381]). Gerd Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (trans. Francis McDonagh; ed. John Riches; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983) 106–12. He provides a range of examples, with discussion. Theissen finds such “educative miracles” more common in the Greek tradition. He does not take into account descriptions of those struck down by gods for some violation. Examples from the Apocryphal Acts: Act. Pet. frg. (NTApoc. 2:286); 2; 15 (Verc.); Act. John 41–42, 86; Act. Thom. 6; Act. Andr. Narr. 36 (Epit. Gr. 15). Condign punishment is common in popular fiction, e.g., Heliodorus Aeth. 4.19, where Charikles, who had sinned with his eyes, claimed to be punished

52

Acts part 1C.indd 52

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

example, established themselves as tyrants.23 In the case of Judas, there are three accounts: Acts 1; Matt 27:3-10; and Papias, frg. 3/4.24 Attempts at discovery of an historical basis are ill-advised.25

Others include the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), the death of Herod (12:20-23), the blindings of Paul (9:1-19a) and Elymas (13:6-12), and the punishment of Sceva’s heirs (19:13-17). The most important punitive action in the book is implicit: the destruction of Judea for its rejection of Jesus. Punitive miracles are thus synecdoches for the righteous providence of God. Gerd Theissen classifies them among “rule miracles,” for they maintain sacred boundaries.28 Unlike healings or exorcisms, they need not be “miraculous.” People do die from dreadful illnesses, and vipers can be deadly. These stories clearly demonstrate that “miracle” is a matter of interpretation. The popular quality of individual punishments is apparent in their fondness for the lex talionis. Such judgments may also serve to reform miscreants, such as Paul (and, possibly, Elymas), for whom the punishment is then reversed or ­w ithdrawn.29 Punishment miracles, which are absent from the canonical Gospels but found in the various Acts, 30 grate against modern Western sensibilities. Their frank endorsement of injury and violence portrays

Excursus: Punitive Miracles In his reflections on Lactantius’s treatise De mortibus persecutorum, Pierre de Labriolle observed, “The idea that Providence manifests in the world below the effects of its rigour by the chastisement whereby it strikes the impious in their bodies and in their life had for long brought to the Christians (as to the Jews . . .) its avenging consolations.”26 Behind this arch observation stands the longing for justice. For those who believe themselves dreadfully oppressed, the concept of vengeance nurtures hope. Light fiction’s fondness for the equitable assignment of rewards and punishments shows that this hope is general.27 Framing Acts are two stories about punitive miracles, one (the fate of Judas) that occurred before the story opened, and another (28:1-6) that did not meet popular expectations. common in Josephus (Squires, Plan, 130–31), from whom Luke may have derived the practice. Note Acts 2:23; 3:18, 20; 4:28; 7:52; 10:41, 42; 17:26, 31; 22:14; 26:16. This prefix does not always carry temporal significance, however. 23 See below on Acts 12:20-23. 24 This is frg. 3 in the edition of Funk-Bihlmeyer Die Apostolischen Väter (rev. ed.; ed. Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 294–306, and frg. 4 in the edition of Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 2:105–6. For other traditions about Judas in early Christianity, see William Klassen, “Judas Iscariot,” ABD 3:1091–96. See also Hans-Josef Klauck, “Judas der ‘Verräter’? Eine exegetische und wirkungsgeschichtliche Studie,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992) 717–40. Both Klauck ( Judas, Ein Jünger des Herrn [QD 111; Freiburg: Herder, 1987]) and Klassen ( Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996]) have sought to rehabilitate the historical Judas, a project anticipated in the recently published Gospel of Judas, for which see Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, The Gospel of Judas (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006). See also Arie Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of ­Matthias: A Story of Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 (WUNT 187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 25 Pierre Benoit, “La mort de Judas,” in Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburts­ tag am 22. Februar 1953, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen, und Schülern (Münster: Aschendorff,

26

27

28

29

30

1954) 1–19. Kirsopp Lake (“The Death of Judas,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 22–30) demonstrated the futility of harmonization. See also Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1:636–60; and Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? 71–75. Pierre Champagne de Labriolle, History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius (trans. Herbert Wilson; New York: Knopf, 1925) 74. Agamemnon says: “It is the common wish of each person privately and each city that the bad should get bad treatment while the good enjoy good fortune” (Euripides Hecuba 902-4 [trans. David Kovacs, Euripides II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995) 381]). Gerd Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (trans. Francis McDonagh; ed. John Riches; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983) 106–12. He provides a range of examples, with discussion. Theissen finds such “educative miracles” more common in the Greek tradition. He does not take into account descriptions of those struck down by gods for some violation. Examples from the Apocryphal Acts: Act. Pet. frg. (NTApoc. 2:286); 2; 15 (Verc.); Act. John 41–42, 86; Act. Thom. 6; Act. Andr. Narr. 36 (Epit. Gr. 15). Condign punishment is common in popular fiction, e.g., Heliodorus Aeth. 4.19, where Charikles, who had sinned with his eyes, claimed to be punished

52

Acts part 1C.indd 52

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

1:15-26

a deity of the sort journalists refer to as an “Old Testament God.” One purpose they serve is to give the lie to such characterizations. The Hebrew Bible has no monopoly on divine violence. Punitive stories embrace and nurture the temptation to characterize misfortune as divine judgment. 31 This is a theological danger of which Luke is aware (Luke 13:1-9), 32 and, for those with ears to hear, 28:1-6 could also be taken as a bit of a cautionary tale. Few would have done so. In Acts, the death of Judas and the deliverance of Paul are contrasting episodes. At the macro level, providence is manifested in the unfolding of God’s plan. At the micro level, providence is manifested in a judicious distribution of rewards and punishments. 33   19-20  In Acts, Judas illustrates his betrayal of Jesus

by using his reward money to purchase a field, the precise opposite of the action of loyal believers, who sell their fields and donate the proceeds to the community (2:45; 4:34-37). His loyalty to self is the opposite of true loyalty, and so Judas literally turns inside out. 34 His property, like his office, become vacant. Such is the “reward of iniquity” (v. 18), which becomes a double entendre. 35 prhnh;" genovmeno" (v. 18) evidently means

31

32 33

34

35

36

37 38

“becoming prone,” that is, “falling down.” This could be less awkwardly phrased, leading to efforts from antiquity onward to associate the adjective with prhvqw (“swell up”) or pivmprhmi (“burn”). Attempts to harmonize Acts with Matthew (and Papias) confound the lexical and text-critical questions. 36 The proper setting for the death of Judas is the passion narrative. This is apparent not only on intrinsic grounds, 37 but also in the scriptural source and warrant for the account of Judas’s death.   20  The citation is from Psalm 69 (68), while general inspiration appears to have come from the reflections in Wis 4:17-20 on the fates of the righteous and the unrighteous.38 Psalm 69 is a primary source for understanding the passion of Jesus,39 while stories about the suffering righteous served as a basis for its narrative development.40 Luke has evidently placed a tradition about Judas’s death in the present context and given it a new focus: the vacancy of his office.41 Each of the quotations unveils another element about the early Christian use of Scripture. Not only are “events” conformed (or concocted) to the biblical

by losing sight of the one he loved. For a catalogue to the ground (rJhvxei aujtou;" ajfwvnou" prhnei`"), of such punishments, see Weiser, 1:139-42. and shake them from the foundations; they will Labriolle’s sarcasm is once again equal to the chalbe left utterly dry and barren, and they will suffer lenge: “Lactantius is indiscreet in the zeal which he anguish, and the memory of them will perish. displays in endeavouring to unravel God’s designs 39 Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The with the intrepid certitude which he reveals in all Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations their details, as if these had been confided to him (London: SCM, 1961) 99–108. He discusses Acts from above” (216). 1:20 on 102–3. On Luke 13:1-9, see p. 216 n. 30. 40 George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Genre and FuncSee also Lorenzo Tosco, Pietro e Paolo ministri del tion of the Markan Passion Narrative,” HTR 73 giudizio di Dio: Studio del genere letterario e della (1980) 153–84. funzione di At 5,1-11 e 13,4-12 (RivBSup 19; Bologna: 41 Comparison of Acts 1:16-20 to Matt 27:3-10 indiEdizioni Dehoniane, 1989). cates that the common element is the purchase of See the analysis of Robert L. Brawley, Text to Text land and its designation as a “Field of Blood,” a Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts known location. Behind this view of Judas’s death (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995) as the antitype of Jesus’ is an understanding of 61–75. Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice. Since this is This genitive (th`" ajdikiva") is probably objective not the Lucan understanding, he is unlikely to have (i.e., they rewarded his unrighteousness.). On the concocted this tradition independently. Haenchen phrase, note 2 Pet 2:13, 15. (159 n. 9) says that the two verses are treated as See the lucid discussion by Lake, “The Death of one quotation; but Johnson (35) would, without Judas,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, support from the text, restrict the formula to the 22–30; as well as Metzger, Textual Commentary, first quotation. 247–48. See Brawley, Text to Text, 65. Wis 4:19, “because he will dash them speechless

53

Acts part 1C.indd 53

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

models that they fulfill; the text of Scripture itself can be adjusted to highlight this fulfillment: Ps 68:26 LXX genhqhvtw hJ e[pauli" aujtw`n hjrhmwmevnh, kai; ejn toi`" skhnwvmasin aujtw`n mh; e[stw oJ katoikw`n. Let their homestead become abandoned and let there be no dweller in their tents.

Acts 1:20b-c genhqhvtw hJ e[pauli" aujtou` e[rhmo~ kai; mh; e[stw oJ katoikw`n ejn aujth/`. Let his homestead become an empty place and let there be no dweller in it.

Ps 108:8b LXX kai; th;n ejpiskoph;n aujtou` lavboi e{tero". May someone else take his position.

Acts 1:20d th;n ejpiskoph;n aujtou` labevtw e{tero". Let someone else take his position.

Acts alters the subject of the citation from Psalm 69 from plural to singular, by adjusting a pronoun and removing a clause.42 Otherwise it could scarcely be applied to Judas. The verb in Ps 109 (108):8 has been changed from optative, which may denote a mere wish, to imperative, thus coordinating the two verbs (­genhqhvtw/labevtw) and necessitating action.43 The address is, as noted, impossible in the dramatic

setting. It displays considerable chronological and linguistic distance from a Jerusalem community around six weeks after the first Easter. The concept of a college of twelve apostles is also a good deal later.44 The oration positively reeks of technical terms pertinent to Christian “ministry” that are familiar from the late first century onward, such as klh`ro~, tovpo~, ejpiskophv, and ajpostolhv.45 The exegesis depends on the LXX, rather than the MT, and thus derives from Greek-speaking ­Christianity.46   21-22  The concluding sentence, which states how the imperative of the psalm is to be fulfilled, is awkward even if the sense is clear.47 The one who replaces Judas must be a male who was associated with Jesus continually “from the beginning.” “From the baptism of John” probably refers to John’s baptism of Jesus, despite Luke 3:21-22. The phrase reflects a tradition that the Jesus movement began with John the Baptizer and, possibly, that Jesus’ disciples came from that circle. This idea is not integrated into the picture developed in the Gospel.48 The speech views the beginning and the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry as events equally remote in time. Luke certainly did not invent the qualifications for apostleship, since they exclude Paul. The “office” of witness is definitely vital to Luke, and this will include Paul.49   23  Peter does not indicate the procedure by which “one of these” will be chosen. The verse may well reflect the abrupt introduction of another piece of tradition.

42 “In it” (ejn aujth/`) refers to the “homestead” (e[pauli~), rather than to “their tents.” 43 The two citations constitute an ABA triplet of imperatives in -tw with a rhyme at the close of the first and third line (e[rhmo~ . . . e{tero~) 44 See, in general, Günter Klein, Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (FRLANT 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). Klein’s claim that Luke invented the identification of “the Twelve” with “the apostles” is an exaggeration, since Matt 10:2 refers to “the twelve apostles.” Notable studies include Lucien Cerfaux, “Pour l’histoire du titre ajpovstolo~ dans le Nouveau Testament,” RSR 48 (1960) 76–92; Eduard Lohse, “Ursprung und Prägung des christlichen Apostolates,” TZ 9 (1953) 259–76; P.-H. Menoud, “Les additions au groupe des Douze Apôtres d’après le Livre des Actes,” RHPR 37 (1957) 71–80; Beda Rigaux, “Die ‘Zwölf’ in Geschichte und Kerygma,” in Helmut Ristow and Karl Matthiae, eds., Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961) 468–86,

45 46 47

48

49

and Hans von Campenhausen, “Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff,” ST 1 (1948) 96–130. For details on these terms, see Pervo, Dating, 269, 272, and 289. So Haenchen, 163. The subject of the initial dei` (“must”) in v. 21 does not come until the close of v. 22. The verb lacks a complement. The phrase eijsh`lqen kai; ejxh`lqen ejfÆ hJma`" oJ kuvrio" ÆIhsou`" is elliptical (BDF §479 [2])—it lacks “from us.” ajrxavmeno" (“beginning”) in v. 22 is best seen as a “frozen nominative” effectively equivalent to an adverb (or a preposition). Cf. 10:37; 11:4; Luke 23:5; 24:27, 47 (and Matt 20:8; John 8:9). Theologically, vv. 21-22 conflict with the birth narratives in Luke 1–2. In narrative terms they conflict with Luke 3–5, which places the call of the first disciples (5:1-11) at some distance from the activity of John. This function of “witness” in Acts is well evoked by Christoph Burchard, Der dreizehnte Zeuge (FRLANT

54

Acts part 1C.indd 54

8/27/2008 9:59:36 AM

1:15-26

Ms. E smooths the transition with an initial kai; touvtwn lecqevntwn (“After these statements . . .”). Other D-Text witnesses read the verb here, and the initial participle in v. 24, as singular. 50 Peter, like a later monepiskopos, promulgated the criteria and nominated the candidates. 51 The implication of the preferred text is that the community as a whole proposes (by a means not described and from a pool of unstated size) the two candidates. 52 Identification of the first of these takes seven words; 53 Matthias, who will be chosen, merits but one.   24  The prayer has formal elements that would become standard in the liturgical “collect”: address, ascription, and petition. 54 The petition is grounded in the attribute “knowledge of human hearts.”55 Does “Lord” here refer to God, as in 15:8, or to Jesus, as in v. 2? The former appears more probable. 56   25  The verse rounds off the account by summarizing vv. 16-20. The prayer is the first instance of unison speech, 57 a device with several ramifications, the most

50 51 52

53

54

55

obvious of which is the demonstration of divine guidance. In this sense, it is not unlike the double dream. 58 Thematically, like unison property, unison speech manifests the marvelous unity of the community. 59 As a religio-historical phenomenon, unison speech may be related to acclamation. Although sustained unison public chants, such as the invocation of Artemis in Acts 19:28, 34, may seem little more than the eager cheers of devoted fans, ancients were willing to view them as no less inspired than inspiring.60 In the NT, public acclamation is a common element at the conclusion of miracle stories.61 These “choral endings” point to the literary function of unison speech. Like dramatic choruses, they comment on the action; choral speech also allows the reader to participate in—better, to identify with—the action as a part of the anonymous “crowd.”62   26  The narrator once more (cf. v. 12) withholds vital information until the end: the decision was reached by casting lots.63 For Luke, the principal value of what was

103; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). The meaning of Acts 1:21-22 is clarified in 10:39. See Boismard, Texte, 58–59. See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 229–41, esp. 232–35. It would be unwise to assume that Luke viewed James (v. 14) as ineligible. The use of different traditions probably accounts for the absence of his name. “Justus” is probably the Greco-Roman form of “Joseph.” Williams (“Personal Names,” 101–2) states that “Barsabbas” is probably a nickname. Apart from here and 15:22, it is unattested in Palestine. A character named Barsabbas appears in the Act. Paul Martyrdom 2 and 6. See also Papias (in Eusebius H.E. 3.39.9-10). Orthography varies. A D-Text alternative for “Joseph” is “Joses.” This name is attested also in 4:36, the meaning of which becomes apparent in the variant “Barnabas” (D 6 s pc it vg mss) for “Barsabbas.” This elevates the status of Barnabas and integrates him into the apostolic circle. Unlike the standard collect, this prayer lacks the purpose clause. For a brief description of the form and history of these prayers, see Marion J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American Prayer Book (New York: Seabury, 1981) 163–64. The noun kardiognwvsth~ (“knower of the heart”) is attested only in Christian literature: Acts 15:8; Hermas 31 (Man. 4.3.4); Act. Paul 3.24; Act. Pet. 2; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 4.14, 16; Ap. Const. 2.24.6; 3.7.8; 4.6.8; etc. All refer this quality to

56

57

58 59 60 61

62 63

God. See the comments of Hills, “Acts,” 24–54, here 45. The concept is, of course, biblical (Barrett, 1:103). So, e.g., Conzelmann, 25; and Jervell, 128; although Barrett (1:102) argues for Jesus on the grounds that the selection of apostles is his ­prerogative. Cf. also 4:23-31 (community prayer), 5:29-32 and 6:2-4 (the apostles), 14:14-17 (Paul and Barnabas), and 21:20-25 (James and the presbyters). See p. 58 n. 1. So Haenchen, 162. See Cassius Dio’s comments on acclamation in the hippodrome, 75.4, 5-6. Examples include Luke 7:16; Acts 8:10; 14:11-12. On the subject, see Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; 2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 225–26, 427; in greater detail, Theodor Klauser, “Akklamation,” RAC 1 (1950) 216–33; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 152–72; and Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984) 231–39. See p. 119 n. 48. One would expect e[balon klhvrou~ (“they cast lots”) rather than e[dwkan (lit. “they gave”). Cadbury and Lake (15) argue for “gave” with the possible connotation of “casting votes,” but says that it is not a Hebraism. Barrett (1:104–5) argues otherwise. Luke wishes to evoke the atmosphere of classical government, but he wishes even more

55

Acts part 1C.indd 55

8/27/2008 9:59:37 AM

evidently a tradition64 was to provide a contrast between the pre- and post-Pentecost periods. Thereafter, the community will trust in or listen to the Spirit. Through this practice of choosing officers by lot from among qualified candidates Luke can portray the community as an ideal political body, like, for example, Athens of old.65 The verb sugkateyhfivsqh intimates the atmosphere of an election, without the fact thereof.66

ing the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come, brimming with confidence through the Holy Spirit. And as they preached throughout the countryside and in the cities, they appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops and deacons of those who were about to believe, testing them by the Spirit.67 This summary, probably written c. 100, is quite independent of Acts, which does not proclaim the imminence of divine rule (1:6-7). Justin, some years later than Acts, has a similar picture: “For a band of twelve men went forth from Jerusalem, and they were common men, not trained in speaking, but by the power of God they testified to every race of humankind” (1 Apol. 39.3).68 Justin thus also deviates here from the picture of Acts.69 Eusebius (H.E. 3.1) asserts that “the holy Apostles and disciples” dispersed over the entire world, referring to a lottery.70 Just such a method of determining particular

Excursus: The Beginning of Acts An alternative approach to the “acts of the Apostles” holds a prominent place in early Christian literatrue. 1 Clem. 42.3-4 reports: When, therefore, the apostles received his commands and were fully convinced through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and persuaded by the word of God, they went forth proclaimstrongly to indicate that God made the decision. The narrator leaves the method of casting lots to the imagination of the reader. 64 Luke may have been aware of other explanations of Judas’s death, but he does not appear to be engaging in correction of them. This story may be his own invention. Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny ReadHeimerdinger argue that Luke (i.e., the D-Text) does not approve of adding an apostle; “After the Death of Judas: A Reconsideration of the Status of the Twelve Apostles,” Revista Catalana de Teología 29 (2004) 305–34. If that were the case, he could have omitted the episode. 65 Lots were in widespread use in political and religious contexts, including the practice of the Jerusalem temple (Cadbury and Lake, 15; Barrett, 1:104; cf. Luke 1:9—another parallel between the openings of the two books), and the Roman Senate (Livy 23.2), as well as classical Athenian democracy (Aristotle, Ath. pol. 8). Pindar (Ol. 7.54-63) reports that the gods, anticipating the apostles, cast lots to see which land would belong to each. See also the excursus on “the List of Nations,” pp. 66–68. On the practice, note Nock, Essays, 1:255; Todd Penner, in “Civilizing Discourse,” in idem, Contextualizing, 65–104, esp. 96 n. 94; and Conzelmann (25), who shows that 1QS 8.1 is not a valid parallel. Use of the term “lot” in the Qumran texts is important for the understanding of klh`ro~, here and elsewhere in the NT, but not for the selection of officers. See also Lynn A. Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts (LNTS 277; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 19–26. 66 Pervo, Profit, 39–40. The verb is of uncertain mean-

67 68

69

70

ing. Luke may be using an overly elaborate term. Georg Braumann (“yh`fo~,” TDNT 9:604–7, esp. 607, with nn. 27-30) says that, if katayhfivzomai is the basis, it means that Matthias was given an official place along with the eleven. “If, however, we take sumyhfivzw as the basis . . . the meaning is that he was counted with the eleven” (n. 30). The v.l. aujtw`n (“their,” D* E y m it vg mss syh) reflects the difficulty of interpretation. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 250. Luke nowhere intimates that officials are elected. The community chooses the seven (6:1-6), by a means not identified, but these are not officials and have no place with the “apostles and presybters” in, for example, chap. 15. Trans. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:109–11. Trans. Edward R. Hardy (alt.) in Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (LCC 1; New York: Macmillan, 1970) 266. For varying accounts and perceptions, see Walter Bauer, “Accounts,” in NTApoc. 2:35–74, 43–44. Bauer (44 n. 2) cites, in addition to biblical references, the Kerygma Petrou frg. 4, the Ep. Apost. 30 (41), the Diatessaron, Aristides, Irenaeus, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Apostolic Church Order, and the Pistis Sophia. Eusebius appeals to book 3 of Origen’s commentary on Genesis, but the scope of this reference is not clear.

56

Acts part 1C.indd 56

8/27/2008 9:59:37 AM

evidently a tradition64 was to provide a contrast between the pre- and post-Pentecost periods. Thereafter, the community will trust in or listen to the Spirit. Through this practice of choosing officers by lot from among qualified candidates Luke can portray the community as an ideal political body, like, for example, Athens of old.65 The verb sugkateyhfivsqh intimates the atmosphere of an election, without the fact thereof.66

ing the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come, brimming with confidence through the Holy Spirit. And as they preached throughout the countryside and in the cities, they appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops and deacons of those who were about to believe, testing them by the Spirit.67 This summary, probably written c. 100, is quite independent of Acts, which does not proclaim the imminence of divine rule (1:6-7). Justin, some years later than Acts, has a similar picture: “For a band of twelve men went forth from Jerusalem, and they were common men, not trained in speaking, but by the power of God they testified to every race of humankind” (1 Apol. 39.3).68 Justin thus also deviates here from the picture of Acts.69 Eusebius (H.E. 3.1) asserts that “the holy Apostles and disciples” dispersed over the entire world, referring to a lottery.70 Just such a method of determining particular

Excursus: The Beginning of Acts An alternative approach to the “acts of the Apostles” holds a prominent place in early Christian literatrue. 1 Clem. 42.3-4 reports: When, therefore, the apostles received his commands and were fully convinced through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and persuaded by the word of God, they went forth proclaimstrongly to indicate that God made the decision. The narrator leaves the method of casting lots to the imagination of the reader. 64 Luke may have been aware of other explanations of Judas’s death, but he does not appear to be engaging in correction of them. This story may be his own invention. Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny ReadHeimerdinger argue that Luke (i.e., the D-Text) does not approve of adding an apostle; “After the Death of Judas: A Reconsideration of the Status of the Twelve Apostles,” Revista Catalana de Teología 29 (2004) 305–34. If that were the case, he could have omitted the episode. 65 Lots were in widespread use in political and religious contexts, including the practice of the Jerusalem temple (Cadbury and Lake, 15; Barrett, 1:104; cf. Luke 1:9—another parallel between the openings of the two books), and the Roman Senate (Livy 23.2), as well as classical Athenian democracy (Aristotle, Ath. pol. 8). Pindar (Ol. 7.54-63) reports that the gods, anticipating the apostles, cast lots to see which land would belong to each. See also the excursus on “the List of Nations,” pp. 66–68. On the practice, note Nock, Essays, 1:255; Todd Penner, in “Civilizing Discourse,” in idem, Contextualizing, 65–104, esp. 96 n. 94; and Conzelmann (25), who shows that 1QS 8.1 is not a valid parallel. Use of the term “lot” in the Qumran texts is important for the understanding of klh`ro~, here and elsewhere in the NT, but not for the selection of officers. See also Lynn A. Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts (LNTS 277; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 19–26. 66 Pervo, Profit, 39–40. The verb is of uncertain mean-

67 68

69

70

ing. Luke may be using an overly elaborate term. Georg Braumann (“yh`fo~,” TDNT 9:604–7, esp. 607, with nn. 27-30) says that, if katayhfivzomai is the basis, it means that Matthias was given an official place along with the eleven. “If, however, we take sumyhfivzw as the basis . . . the meaning is that he was counted with the eleven” (n. 30). The v.l. aujtw`n (“their,” D* E y m it vg mss syh) reflects the difficulty of interpretation. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 250. Luke nowhere intimates that officials are elected. The community chooses the seven (6:1-6), by a means not identified, but these are not officials and have no place with the “apostles and presybters” in, for example, chap. 15. Trans. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:109–11. Trans. Edward R. Hardy (alt.) in Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (LCC 1; New York: Macmillan, 1970) 266. For varying accounts and perceptions, see Walter Bauer, “Accounts,” in NTApoc. 2:35–74, 43–44. Bauer (44 n. 2) cites, in addition to biblical references, the Kerygma Petrou frg. 4, the Ep. Apost. 30 (41), the Diatessaron, Aristides, Irenaeus, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Apostolic Church Order, and the Pistis Sophia. Eusebius appeals to book 3 of Origen’s commentary on Genesis, but the scope of this reference is not clear.

56

Acts part 1C.indd 56

8/27/2008 9:59:37 AM

1:15-26

mission fields is depicted in the openings of the Acts of Thomas, the Martyrium Andreae Prius, and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias.71 These two elements, a catalogue of the nations and a lottery, may be creative developments from Acts 1–2, but the legend of the 71 The loss of the openings of all but the Acts of Thomas makes it impossible to determine how general the “apostolic lottery” was, although it is

division of the world into territories for each apostle may antedate Luke and Acts. It is in any case noteworthy that early Christianity in general preferred this alternate picture to that of Acts.

unlikely to have been a component of the Acts of Paul and quite probably did not feature in the Acts of Peter.

57

Acts part 1C.indd 57

8/27/2008 9:59:37 AM

2

2:1-13 The Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost 1/ On the day of Pentecost the entire group was together. 2/ A sudden noise from above, like the roar of a strong rushing wind, filled the house in which they were sitting. a 3/ Phenomena resembling jagged fiery tongues appeared. b One of these settled upon each person. 4/ All were filled with Holy Spirit c and, all, directed by the Spirit to give utterance, began to speak in foreign tongues. 5/ Among the residents of Jerusalem were devout persons from every country under the sun. 6/ In response to the noise a crowd flocked together, for each and every one of them heard these people speaking in their native languages. 7/ In absolute bewilderment they exclaimed: “Aren’t all these people who are speaking Galileans? 8/ How can it be that each of us is hearing d our original language? 9/ There are Parthians, Medes, Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia, [___], e Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, 10/ Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt, residents of Cyrenean Libya, visiting Roman citizens, 11/ Jews by birth and Jews by choice, Cretans and Arabs. Yet we are hearing these Galileans glorifying God in our own languages! 12/ All were bewildered and perplexed, constantly asking one another, “What is going on?” 13/ although there were some who made fun of the whole business by announcing, “They’re full of cheap wine.”

a b

c d e

Analysis

Acts 2 follows a general pattern that is dominant in the first half of Acts, Apocryphal Acts, and what may be called “narrative of religious propaganda” in general: a miracle draws a crowd which is rewarded with a sermon, leading to an accession of devotees, followed often 1

Boismard (Texte, 60) omits “filled . . . sitting.” See below. Boismard (Texte, 60) reads kai; w[fqh aujtoi`~ wJsei; pu`r (“There appeared something like fire . . .”), eliminating the “(divided) tongues.” Boismard (Texte, 62) omits “all . . . Spirit.” The tense and number of the verb “hear” vary in the textual tradition. See the discussion of the text.

enough by persecution.1 The essence is that miracles bring converts. Acts 2 introduces a novelty in NT narrative: a chapter-long episode including an incident, an explanatory address, and an appropriate reaction by the hearers, followed by a summary.2 The style of the Gospel is being set aside.

Examples include Acts 3:1-26; 9:32-35 (in telescoped form); 14:8-18; Act. And. Epit. 6; Act. Pet. and And. 13–23; Act. John 37–45; Act. Paul 5/6; Act. Pet. (Verc.) 10–13; 25–29; Act. Thom. 30–38. On the role of crowds in Acts, see Richard S. Ascough, “Narrative Technique and Generic Designation:

2

Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton,” CBQ 58 (1996) 69–82. Cf. Conzelmann, 13.

58

Acts part 1C.indd 58

8/27/2008 9:59:37 AM

2:1-13

Verses 1-4 constitute a single sentence framed by statements about “all”: all were gathered (v. 1); all were filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 4). The intervening vv. 2-3 exhibit a parallel structure, the first part of which introduces a noun qualified by a simile, followed by a clause with a predicate: A. V. 2. Sound like B. V. 2. Sound filled (cf. also v. 4) A1. V. 3. Tongues like B2. V. 3. Tongues sat

This relatively tight structure encases events of the most extraordinary and irregular nature. The next paragraph, vv. 5-13, consists of A. V. 5. Parenthetical introduction: Jerusalem had a diverse population. B. V. 6. Summary: The noise attracted them. Confusion resulted. C. Vv. 7-12. Development of summary3 a1. V. 7a. Astonishment b1. Vv. 7b-8. Paradox: Galileans speaking languages of the whole world c. Vv. 9-11a. List of groups and types b2. V. 11b. Native languages (inclusion with v. 8) a 2. V. 12a. Astonishment d. V. 12b. Conclusion: Confusion (cf. B, v. 6) D. V. 13. A contrary interpretation

This outline indicates that the paragraph is carefully organized but not well balanced. Confusion prevailed. And so it does. Pentecost may be the most exciting and 3

4

5

the least comprehensible episode in Acts.4 The story collapses at the slightest breeze. It begins with a group gathered in a house, perhaps for devotion (cf. 1:13-14). 5 These (12? 120?) persons experience a complicated epiphany that issues in inspired speech, possibly glossolalia (vv. 1-4). Somehow this noise within a house becomes loud enough to attract a crowd evidently composed entirely of non-native residents who somehow perceive that the speakers are from Galilee, although they hear neither ecstatic speech nor Palestinian Aramaic (which may have betrayed a Galilean origin to the experienced ear), but, to their utter amazement, a religious message in their respective native tongues (vv. 5-12).6 In a logical narrative, each would have heard (a group?) speaking Latin, Egyptian, or the like, leading to a conversation in which one participant says to another, “Do you know what that language is? It’s Phrygian,” to which the companion replies, “Oh no. That’s the indigenous language of rural Cyrene,” and so forth. The narrative telescopes such conversation, reporting that all spoke these words in unison, somehow grasping the precise distribution of ethnic origins among them. Some could not determine what all this meant, but others were clear: “they’re drunk” (v. 13). That charge would fit glossolalia, and Peter assumes that it is the opinion held by the entire audience (vv. 14-15). Most amazingly—and quite revelatory from the narrative perspective—nothing specific is said about the content of the message they heard. This is a confusion worthy of Babel. A redactional solution almost leaps from the page: Luke had a story

The technique of an initial summary followed by a more detailed description (rather than vice versa) is not unusual in ancient popular narrative. See, e.g., Ephesian Tale 1.8.1-3 (katevklinon . . . katevklinan) and 1.14.1-3 (kateflevcqhsan . . . kateflevgonto), treating the escort of the couple to the bridal chamber and the destruction of their ship, respectively. For a review of scholarship on the Pentecost story, see François Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research (1950–1983) (trans., Ken McKinney; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1987) 229–38. See also Jacob Kremer, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2,1-13 (SBS 63/64; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973). One hundred twenty is a large number for a house.

6

The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII,2) presents an alternative “Pentecost.” The work, which has several reminiscences of Acts (e.g., the heavenly Christ’s statement that the apostles are “witnesses” [135, 5-6]), records a general bestowal of the Spirit in a Christophany, followed by each apostle’s healing and preaching (140, 7-15) and their subsequent departure on a world mission. Although Peter is the undisputed leader, all share in the gifts of the Spirit and subsequent ministry. See Klaus Koschorke, “Eine gnostische Pfingstpredigt: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirchlichem Christentum am Beispiel der ‘Epistula Petri ad Philippum’ (NHC VIII, 2),” ZThK 74 (1977) 324–43.

59

Acts part 1C.indd 59

8/27/2008 9:59:38 AM

about ecstatic speech that he transformed, either out of distaste for glossolalia or to expound universalism, or both, into a linguistic miracle focusing on what was heard. This remedy recognizes the presence of conflicting elements and posits a likely source, but it is more of a description of the problem than an unraveling of it.7 Comment   1  The verse is difficult to translate because the pres-

ent infinitive sumplhrou`sqai should mean something like “was being completed” or possibly “was approaching,” whereas the sense seems to demand “had arrived.” The best solution may be to posit that Luke was more interested in producing a sonorous Septuagintal phrase8 that intimated the fulfillment of prophecy while evoking a parallel with Luke 9:51 that retains the theological unity of the saving events (passion, resurrection, ascension, gift of the Spirit9) and therefore to conclude

that it means no more than “on Pentecost.”10 The D-Text is an evident improvement.11 “All the apostles” (326 [614], 1505 al p* t) resolves the problem of who received the gift.12 “Pentecost” is the Greek form (Josephus Ant. 3.252; Bell. 1.253; Tob 2:1; 2 Macc 12:31-32) of the HB “Festival of Weeks.”13 Like other festivals, Weeks was rooted in the annual cycle of nature. Like other festivals, Weeks was ultimately linked to salvation history, specifically, the Sinai covenant, but the date of this association is difficult to establish. It would be easier to understand the association of Weeks with the Pentecost episode if the former feast were associated with a revelatory event.14 Despite the failure of both Philo and Josephus to link Weeks to sacred history, it is possible that such associations may have been customary in some circles, although “unofficial” before 70 ce and eventually regularized in rabbinic Judaism.15

7

Kirsopp Lake explored this hypothesis in “The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 111–21, esp. 117–20. Lüdemann (40–42) develops the ramifications of the assumption that the primary source was an ecstatic event. For Conzelmann (15), however, “the original substratum is precisely the miraculous speech in many languages.” He refers to Otto Bauernfeind and Eduard Schweizer in support of this view. On this issue, see also Schneider, 1:243–47; Roloff, 37–40; Weiser, 1:78–81; Barrett 1:109–10 (who has a good summary of the discussion); and Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1-13,” JSNT 55 (1994) 27–54. 8 Although literate Greek makes use of the articular infinitive, the expression ejn tw/` + inf. as the equivalent of a temporal clause reflects a Hebrew idiom, literally rendered. 9 Luke 9:51: ÆEgevneto de; ejn tw`/ sumplhrou`sqai ta;" hJmevra" th`" ajnalhvmyew" aujtou` kai; aujto;" to; provswpon ejsthvrisen tou` poreuvesqai eij" ÆIerousalhvm (“When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem”). This key verse introduces the central section of the Gospel: Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. 10 On the problems of translation and various attempts, see Ropes, Text, 16 (who prefers “toward the completion of the weeks,” a version that requires thinking across two languages); Moule, Idiom Book, 129; Bruce, 113; and Barrett, 1:110–11. 11 kai; ejgevneto ejn tai`~ hJmevrai~ ejkei`nai~ tou`

12

13 14 15

sunplhrou`sqai ta;~ hJmevra~ th`~ penthkovsth~ o[ntwn aujtw`n pavntwn ejpi; to; aujtov. (2) kai; ijdou; ejgevneto . . . (When the days of Pentecost were concluding, as all of them were together . . . ,” Boismard, Texte, 60). This notes a major transition and makes it more OT-like (and less Lucan, as Luke 9:51 indicates). Boismard allows that “in those days” may come from liturgical usage (the introduction of a reading). a* and E delete “all.” This may have a similar effect, suggesting that the subject is the Twelve of 1:26. Instead of oJmou` C3 E Y 33 et al. read oJmo­ qumadovn. If this is different, it refers to their spiritual state (“of one mind” rather than “together”). Since the following prepositional phrase makes oJmou` seem redundant, it is an intelligent correction and thus presumed secondary. See James C. VanderKam, “Weeks, Festival of,” ABD 6:895–97. It is not likely that Luke’s tradition included the date of Pentecost. Barrett (1:111–12) has a concise discussion of the evidence and comes to the minimal conclusion that Pentecost was the next pilgrim feast after Passover. Jervell (132–33 and 137–39, with numerous references) argues for the Sinai tradition as the background; cf. also Haenchen, 174; and Schneider, 1:246. Good evidence for pre-rabbinic, “unofficial” interpretations of Weeks comes from Jubilees and Qumran. The Temple Scroll (11QT and frgs.) envisions several “Pentecosts,” while Jubilees associates

60

Acts part 1C.indd 60

8/27/2008 9:59:38 AM

2:1-13

  2  The signs accompanying the revelation are those of

the classic HB epiphany: wind, fire, and noise, of which the Sinai theophany (Exod 19:16-19) is a prime example.16 There are many others, but Sinai deserves priority because it is a foundational epiphany. The readers of Acts need not have known this specific intertextual link nor the proposed liturgical connection. They are windows into the author’s mind, as it were, bridges that could be burned after crossing. Philo’s reflections on this theophany (De Decalogo) are also illustrative: The philosophical exegete proceeds from the miraculous generation of an “invisible sound” (h\co~) that is transmuted into “flaming fire (pu`r flogoeidev~), sounded forth like the breath (pneu`ma) through a trumpet an articulate voice (fwnhvn). . . . Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the

flame became articulate speech in the language (diav­ lekton) familiar to the audience” (Dec. 33, 46).17 Philo’s wrestling with these images indicates that the learned were not bound to view such items as an unrelated sequence of remarkable phenomena, but as marvelous demonstrations of the deity’s ability to manipulate and transmute the elements, that is, that such wonders could be understood “scientifically.” Although Luke had no overt interests in developing theories like that of Philo, he envisioned no conflict between “miracle” and ­“science.”18 Not unrelated to this theme is the most obvious intertextual connection to Pentecost: the story of Babel (Gen 11:1-9).19 By reversing linguistic disunity, the experience is revealed as both an eschatological event of new creation20 and a utopian restoration of the unity of the

a number of covenants with this time of year. Spec. leg. 2.189 is worthy of note. There Philo On the Qumran material, see Fitzmyer, 233–35. speaks of the trumpet of Exod 16:19 as a sound VanderKam (“Weeks”) discusses the relevant pasthat penetrated to the ends of the earth. sages from Jubilees. One may hypothesize that the 18 Philo justifies “visible sounds” from the LXX of agricultural basis was quite suitable for the temple Exod 20:18 (eJwvra th;n fwnhvn, lit. “[all the people] but that synagogues (and probably Qumran) would saw the voice”). Cf. also Migr. Abr. 47; Vit. Mos. have been motivated to find another basis for this 2.213. Visible sounds occur in the Act. And. Epit popular celebration. In the post-temple period, 33 (healing of a leper), on which see Dennis R. one of these bases became normative. (A ChrisMacDonald, Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, tian analogy is January 6, on which various places Plato, and The Acts of Andrew (New York: Oxford and communities have commemorated different University Press, 1994) 200, 215 n.145. epiphanies.) In the Christian tradition, the first 19 According to a tradition found in Jub. 10:26 and solid evidence for the observance of Pentecost as Sib. Or. 3:97-109, the tower of Babel was cast down a distinct festival comes from the fourth-century by a violent wind. The oracle was cited by Josediary of Egeria (Peregrinatio 43.1-3). As early as phus Ant. 1.118. Theophilus of Antioch (Autolyc. the third century (Tertullian Bapt. 19; Origen 2.31) also cites this passage, adding Sib. Or. 8:4-5, Cels. 8.22; cf. Act. Paul 7/9), the term was used which concludes, . . . glw`ssai t j ajnqrwvpwn / for the “Great Fifty Days” of Easter. Weiser (1:78) eij~ polla;~ ejmerivsqhsan dialevktou~. Cf. offers support for the Sinai tradition as part of the ­diamerizovmenai in Acts 2:3. The most interesting exegetical background. Stefan Schreiber proposes verbal parallel (other than references to languages) another theme: the work of God in the present for is the verb sugcevw (“confuse”; Gen 11:7, 9; Acts the people (“Aktualisierung göttlichen Handelns 2:6). This supports the interpretation that the am Pfingsttag: Das frühjüdische Fest in Apg 2,1,” author wished to evoke the story of Babel. ZNW 93 [2002] 58–77). Heinz Giesen also focuses 20 Barrett (1:113) notes a parallel with the “wind” of on the calendar (“Gott steht zu seinen VerheissunGen 1:2, although he does not find much value gen: Eine exegetische und theologische Auslegung in it. A possible intertextual connection that has des Pfingstgeschehens [Apg 2, 1-13] StudNTUmwelt an eschatological cast is Isa 66:15, 18: “For the 28 [2003] 83–126). L ord will come in fire (wJ" pu`r [Acts 2:3]), and his 16 The history-of-religions background is the epiphchariots like the whirlwind . . . and his rebuke in any of a storm god on a mountain. Note also 1 Kgs flames of fire (ejn flogi; purov"). . . . For I know 19:11; Isa 66:15; 4 Ezra 13:10. their works and their thoughts, and I am com17 Francis Henry Colson, trans., Philo VII (LCL; ing to gather all nations and tongues (e[rcomai Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937) sunagagei`n pavnta ta; e[qnh kai; ta;" glwvssa"); 23, 29 (emphasis added). In the present context, and they shall come and shall see my glory.”

61

Acts part 1C.indd 61

8/27/2008 9:59:38 AM

human race.21 In this thrilling narrative Luke expresses fundamental theological principles: the gift of the Spirit is the present eschatological benefit, and this gift is for the entire human race.22 Pentecost reaffirms and explicates Acts 1:6-8. Bede’s crisp Latin grasps the point and more: Vnitatem linguarum quam superbia Babylonis disperserat humilitas ecclesiae recolligit, spiritaliter autem varietas linguarum dona variarum significant gratiarum.23   2-4  The next two verses describe (unlike Philo, supra) a series of events, first the windlike sound, followed by the firelike tongues. 24 The narrator does not state that the sound ceased before the tongues appeared. The ­primary referents are in the similes: wind and fire.25 This pair was a biblical symbol of theophany and judgment.26 “Wind/spirit” (in Greek

the word pneu`ma can mean either) evokes the prophecy of John (Luke 3:16), echoed in Acts 1:5.27 “Phenomena resembling jagged fiery tongues” may refer to the jagged edges of flames, an image found in Enoch’s vision of heaven, 28 but the suitability of the metaphor cannot be ignored.29 “Fire” alone is a frequent sign of epiphanies. The participle diamerizovmenai could be read as circumstantial, yielding the meaning “tongues that looked like fire appeared, and after distributing themselves among the group, one tongue rested upon each person,” but “divided” is adequate. 30 Evidently the reader is to envision a single (object shaped like a) tongue resting on each person. This establishes a parallel between “baptism with the Holy Spirit” and the baptism of Jesus. 31 “Filled with/full of the Holy Spirit”

ecce levis summo de vertice visus Iuli fundere lumen 21 On miracle and science in the Greco-Roman world, apex, tactuque innoxia mollis lambere flamma comas see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 94–96, followed et circum tempora pasci (“Lo! From above the head by observations on the unity of the human race, of Iülus a light tongue of flame seemed to shed 96–101. According to Jub. 3:28 and Josephus Ant. a gleam and, harmless in its touch, lick his soft 1.41, all creatures spoke the same language in locks and pasture round his temples”). In Henry Eden. In the end-time there will once more be Rushton Fairclough, trans., Virgil I (LCL; Camglw`ssa miva (“one language”); T. Jud. 25:3. Plubridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974) 341; tarch says that Zoroastrian eschatology envisions see also Il. 18.214; Euripides Bacch. 348–49; Ovid a new world in which there will be “one manner Fast. 6.635; Josephus Bell. 7.43; and Iamblichus of life and one form of government for a blessed Myst. 3.4. For other instances of fire on the head as people who shall all speak one tongue” (Is. Os. 47 a portent or mark of inspiration, see Pieter W. van [Mor. 370B], in Frank Cole Babbitt, trans., Pluder Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the tarch’s Moralia V [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Apostles (2.1-47),” JSNT 25 (1985) 49–60. The DioUniversity Press, 1936] 115). nysiac epiphany in Longus Daphn. 2.25.3 begins 22 In his treatise on Babel, Philo views a single human with a sudden light, followed by fire and a loud language as the source of more good than harm noise. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan included (Conf. Ling. 12–13) and thus takes pains to superan epiphany of fire, according to Justin Dial. 88. sede a literal interpretation of the event (190–92). Irenaeus (A.H. 1.20.4) and Hippolytus (Ref. 7.32) 23 “The church in its humility recovers the unity allege that the Carpocratians made use of fire in of languages that Babylon in its arrogance had the baptismal ceremony. These references suggest dispersed. At the spiritual level the variety of that a Greek audience would grasp the meaning of languages points to the gifts of different forms of the phenomenon, but the immediate background grace.” Bede, 16 (author’s trans.). is arguably Semitic. See Glen Menzies, “Pre-Lukan 24 Boismard, as noted above, Occurrences of the Phrase ‘Tongue of Fire,’” 25 This is apparent in the subsequent verbs. The Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies subject of “filled” in v. 2 could be either (properly) 22 (2000) 27–60. He examines 1 Enoch 14:8-25; “sound” or “wind,” while “sat” (v. 3) is singular, 71:5-8; 1Q22; 1Q29; and 4Q375-76 and concludes suggesting that “fire” is the envisioned subject into that the image refers to an epiphany. which it has been attracted. 29 In Greek, as in many languages, “tongue” can be a 26 The biblical references are numerous. Note, in metonym for “language.” addition to n. 19 above, Isa 29:6; 30:27-28; 40:24; 30 Cf. BDAG, s.v. diamerivzw. For “distributed” see 41:16; Ezek 1:4; Joel 2:28-30. Barrett, 1:114. This distributive sense helps account 27 See on Acts 1:5. for the singular “sat.” (The plural is a second28 Greco-Roman examples of fire associated with the ary v.l.) head include the striking passage in Virgil Aen. 31 Luke 3:21 reports that the Spirit in a visible form 2.682–84, characterized as a portent (monstrum):

62

Acts part 1C.indd 62

8/27/2008 9:59:38 AM

2:1-13

is a common Lucan expression. 32 The result of this gift is solemn33 speech in “other languages,” which is the most likely translation. 34 Boismard’s D-Text of vv. 2-4 is shorter and less complicated. The “windlike sound” is not said to fill the entire house (v. 2). It is difficult to imagine how such a loud sound would not fill a house. The somewhat confusing image of “divided tongues” in v. 3 is also omitted. Most remarkably, v. 4a, “All were filled with the Holy Spirit,” does not appear. This could be viewed as redundant, since v. 4b refers to the Spirit. These readings apparently derive from an edition (or editions) that abbreviated and simplified the text by reducing the (intentionally) confusing and overloaded imagery of the conventional text.35

32

33

34

35

36

Excursus: Glossolalia and Prophecy in Acts The quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17-21 directs the reader to understand the phenomenon described in 2:1-13 as prophecy. This leads Hans Conzelmann to say, “It should be noted that Luke himself no longer has any exact conception of the original glossolalia. He identifies it with prophecy (10:46; 19:6).”36 The second observation is correct. 37 Luke does wish to identify “speaking in tongues” with prophecy. The opinion that Luke did not comprehend the nature of ecstatic speech is quite unlikely, for, as Conzelmann elsewhere observed, this is a widespread phenomenon. 38 A more probable explanation is that Luke chose to view the phenomenon as intelligible prophecy out of a desire to dissociate the Christian movement from hostile criticism (and, possibly, to discourage Christians from venerating u ­ nintelligible

37 Acts 10:46 (Cornelius) says that Peter and comdescended upon Jesus. Note also fwnhv (“voice,” pany heard the gentiles “speaking in tongues “sound”) in Luke 3:22 and Acts 2:6. and glorifying God” (lalouvntwn glwvssai" kai; Luke 1:15 (John), 41 (Elizabeth), 67 (Zechariah). megalunovntwn to;n qeovn). Acts 19:6 reports that The phrase is used before speeches, as in Acts the twelve former disciples of John “began to speak 4:8 (Peter), or miracles, as in 13:9 (Paul). It is a in tongues and prophesied” (ejlavloun te glwvs­ component of the baptismal gift (9:17, Paul) and is sai" kai; ejprofhvteuon). Acts 10:46 uses a phrase unambiguously bestowed on the entire community evocative of 2:11 and thus of what Peter’s speech (4:31). Luke therefore uses the term variously and identified as “prophecy.” In both cases it might be not consistently. argued that the kaiv (“and”) is sequential (“. . . and “Solemn” seems appropriate for ajpofqevgges­ then to praise God/prophesy”), but this is unlikely. qai, which essentially refers to loud, clear, and The conjunction either records simultaneous activemphatic speech and can refer to oracles, includity or is explanatory. ing ecstatic prophecy (cf. Mic 5:11 (5:12 MT), 38 See Hans Conzelmann, First Corinthians (trans. where it means “soothsayers”; Plutarch Pyth. orac. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: For23 (Mor. 405E) of the Pythian oracles; and T. Job tress Press, 1975), 205–6, and the references in nn. 48:3; 50:1, where Job’s daughters declaim verses 12–13. In the Greek orbit, “enthusiasm” was well in the angelic language (on which note 1 Cor known (and often related to oracular prophecy) 13:1). For other references, see Johannes Behm, from the time of Plato (Phaedr. 244A-B; Tim. “ajpofqevggomai,” TDNT 1:447. In Acts, the verb 71E-72B) onward. From the first century bce, note is used of the rational proclamation of the message Cicero Div. 1, 32, 70-71. Plutarch, roughly contem(2:14, immediately following, and 26:25, where it is poraneous with Acts, discusses ecstatic possesopposed to “madness”). Otherwise, the verb refers sion in Def. orac. 14 (Mor. 417C) and E Delph. 6-24 to weighty utterances (whence “apophthegm”). (Mor. 387B-406F). For data from the later second Cf. the prologue to Greek Sirach v. 22, and, in century, see Apuleius Metam. 8.27 and Lucian Jupp. detail, Christian Wolff, “lalei`n glwvssai~ in the trag. 30. Jewish and Christian evidence includes Acts of the Apostles,” in Alf Christophersen et al., T. Job 48-52 and Tertullian Nat. 2.7. Glossolalia eds., Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays is a widely attested phenomenon. See Felicitas D. in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 189–99. Study of Glossolalia (Chicago: University of Chicago Boismard’s evidence is almost entirely patristic and Press, 1972). For examples from antiquity, see of varied provenance. See the comments in Texte, Johannes Behm, “glw`ssa,” TDNT 1:719–27, esp. 60, 62. He contends with justification that these 722–24. Its appeal may be seen in the ubiquitous are not unrelated errors but the result of editorial “voces magicae” in the magical papyri, on which activity. see John Gager, ed., Curse Tablets and Binding Conzelmann, 15. His view is far from isolated. See, Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford e.g., Lüdemann, 41.

63

Acts part 1C.indd 63

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

2:1-13

is a common Lucan expression. 32 The result of this gift is solemn33 speech in “other languages,” which is the most likely translation. 34 Boismard’s D-Text of vv. 2-4 is shorter and less complicated. The “windlike sound” is not said to fill the entire house (v. 2). It is difficult to imagine how such a loud sound would not fill a house. The somewhat confusing image of “divided tongues” in v. 3 is also omitted. Most remarkably, v. 4a, “All were filled with the Holy Spirit,” does not appear. This could be viewed as redundant, since v. 4b refers to the Spirit. These readings apparently derive from an edition (or editions) that abbreviated and simplified the text by reducing the (intentionally) confusing and overloaded imagery of the conventional text.35

32

33

34

35

36

Excursus: Glossolalia and Prophecy in Acts The quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17-21 directs the reader to understand the phenomenon described in 2:1-13 as prophecy. This leads Hans Conzelmann to say, “It should be noted that Luke himself no longer has any exact conception of the original glossolalia. He identifies it with prophecy (10:46; 19:6).”36 The second observation is correct. 37 Luke does wish to identify “speaking in tongues” with prophecy. The opinion that Luke did not comprehend the nature of ecstatic speech is quite unlikely, for, as Conzelmann elsewhere observed, this is a widespread phenomenon. 38 A more probable explanation is that Luke chose to view the phenomenon as intelligible prophecy out of a desire to dissociate the Christian movement from hostile criticism (and, possibly, to discourage Christians from venerating u ­ nintelligible

37 Acts 10:46 (Cornelius) says that Peter and comdescended upon Jesus. Note also fwnhv (“voice,” pany heard the gentiles “speaking in tongues “sound”) in Luke 3:22 and Acts 2:6. and glorifying God” (lalouvntwn glwvssai" kai; Luke 1:15 (John), 41 (Elizabeth), 67 (Zechariah). megalunovntwn to;n qeovn). Acts 19:6 reports that The phrase is used before speeches, as in Acts the twelve former disciples of John “began to speak 4:8 (Peter), or miracles, as in 13:9 (Paul). It is a in tongues and prophesied” (ejlavloun te glwvs­ component of the baptismal gift (9:17, Paul) and is sai" kai; ejprofhvteuon). Acts 10:46 uses a phrase unambiguously bestowed on the entire community evocative of 2:11 and thus of what Peter’s speech (4:31). Luke therefore uses the term variously and identified as “prophecy.” In both cases it might be not consistently. argued that the kaiv (“and”) is sequential (“. . . and “Solemn” seems appropriate for ajpofqevgges­ then to praise God/prophesy”), but this is unlikely. qai, which essentially refers to loud, clear, and The conjunction either records simultaneous activemphatic speech and can refer to oracles, includity or is explanatory. ing ecstatic prophecy (cf. Mic 5:11 (5:12 MT), 38 See Hans Conzelmann, First Corinthians (trans. where it means “soothsayers”; Plutarch Pyth. orac. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: For23 (Mor. 405E) of the Pythian oracles; and T. Job tress Press, 1975), 205–6, and the references in nn. 48:3; 50:1, where Job’s daughters declaim verses 12–13. In the Greek orbit, “enthusiasm” was well in the angelic language (on which note 1 Cor known (and often related to oracular prophecy) 13:1). For other references, see Johannes Behm, from the time of Plato (Phaedr. 244A-B; Tim. “ajpofqevggomai,” TDNT 1:447. In Acts, the verb 71E-72B) onward. From the first century bce, note is used of the rational proclamation of the message Cicero Div. 1, 32, 70-71. Plutarch, roughly contem(2:14, immediately following, and 26:25, where it is poraneous with Acts, discusses ecstatic possesopposed to “madness”). Otherwise, the verb refers sion in Def. orac. 14 (Mor. 417C) and E Delph. 6-24 to weighty utterances (whence “apophthegm”). (Mor. 387B-406F). For data from the later second Cf. the prologue to Greek Sirach v. 22, and, in century, see Apuleius Metam. 8.27 and Lucian Jupp. detail, Christian Wolff, “lalei`n glwvssai~ in the trag. 30. Jewish and Christian evidence includes Acts of the Apostles,” in Alf Christophersen et al., T. Job 48-52 and Tertullian Nat. 2.7. Glossolalia eds., Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays is a widely attested phenomenon. See Felicitas D. in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 189–99. Study of Glossolalia (Chicago: University of Chicago Boismard’s evidence is almost entirely patristic and Press, 1972). For examples from antiquity, see of varied provenance. See the comments in Texte, Johannes Behm, “glw`ssa,” TDNT 1:719–27, esp. 60, 62. He contends with justification that these 722–24. Its appeal may be seen in the ubiquitous are not unrelated errors but the result of editorial “voces magicae” in the magical papyri, on which activity. see John Gager, ed., Curse Tablets and Binding Conzelmann, 15. His view is far from isolated. See, Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford e.g., Lüdemann, 41.

63

Acts part 1C.indd 63

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

ecstasy). Acts 2:1-4, 13 reads like a narrative presentation of the hypothetical situation set out in 1 Cor 14:23: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together (ejpi; to; aujtov, cf. Acts 2:1) and all speak in tongues (pavnte" lalw`sin glwvssai"; cf. Acts 2:4), and outsiders or unbelievers enter (cf. Acts 2:5-6), will they not say that you are out of your mind”? (cf. Acts 2:13) 39 In this instance, the entire community had come together, all spoke in tongues, outsiders overheard, and some of them concluded that the speakers were deranged, albeit with drink.40 Scholarship has seen the relevance of 1 Cor 14:23 (and 1 Corinthians 12–14 in general) for Acts 2:1-13 and has tended to focus on the differences between Luke and Paul.41 Luke was evidently familiar with the text of 1 Corinthians,42 but that assumption is not necessary to understand that Luke has reservations about unin-

39

40 41

42 43

44

telligible ecstasy. Rather than make an uninformed and highly inaccurate guess about “speaking in tongues,” the author of Acts has altered a tradition that he well understands.43 In this matter, as in others, Luke followed Paul’s inclination without refinement or qualification.44 The primary difficulty for those who claim that this account describes either glossolalia proper or xenoglossia/xenologia is the text, which speaks neither of unintelligible, ecstatic speech (glossolalia) nor of speech in foreign languages unknown to the speaker (one type of xenoglossia),45 but describes what the audience heard.46 By any reasonable criterion the primary recipients of the Spirit are the hearers.47 That is an observation that will receive attention later. For the present, it is sufficient to say that the situation is anomalous and that the simplest explanation of the anomaly is to attribute it to the

University Press, 1992) 5–12. Widespread occur45 Representatives of the Greek patristic tradition rence does not mean that glossolalia is not a valid (e.g., Gregory Nazianzos [PG 36:443], Cyril of religious experience; prayer is also widespread. Jerusalem Myst. cat. 17 [PG 93:388]) judged that See also Luke T. Johnson, “Tongues, Gift of,” ABD those inspired spoke in foreign tongues. See also 6:596–600. the excursus of Jacquier (787–95), who discusses Luke’s lack of interest in exploiting the phenomepatristic and later judgments. non is confirmed by the subsequent sermon, which 46 See the summary of Fitzmyer (239), who lists prorefers only to prophetic activity. ponents of both views. An example of the former is In Acts 26:24-25 Luke will refute the charge of Turner, Power. In this useful study of Luke and Acts madness. from a Pentecostal viewpoint, Turner (441) states Kirsopp Lake (“The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of that Acts 2:4 is an example of “the distinctively Pentecost,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, new Christian phenomenon of invasive glossolalia.” 111–21) intelligently remarks (118), “Even if—as is On the phenomenon, see Hans-Josef Klauck, “Von probable—he had never read 1 Corinthians, he can Kassandra bis zur Gnosis: Zum Umfeld der frühhardly have been ignorant of Paul’s teaching.” Othchristlichen Glossolalie,” ThQ 179 (1999) 289–312. ers are likely to assume Luke’s ignorance of Paul’s Christopher Forbes seeks to discredit the evidence thought. See, e.g., Haenchen, 172; Lüdemann, 41; for ancient parallels to glossolalia (Prophecy and Johnson, 42; Barrett, 1:115. Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic See Pervo, Dating, 51–147, with the summary on Environment [WUNT 75; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995]). 139. Since little is known about either the phenomenon The issue is not that Luke regards ecstasy as a form or many of the proposed parallels, he can make of prophecy. Paul’s careful separation of the two a case, but Paul does state that the phenomenon may be his own contribution, since the history-ofwould resemble “madness” (1 Cor 14:23), and religions tradition (n. 38) is familiar with ecstatic Luke deals with the claim of exuberant inebriaprophecy; it is that he identifies “speaking in tion, both good grounds for presuming an ecstatic tongues” with lucid proclamation of the gospel. It state. On that subject, see David E. Aune, Prophecy may also be noted that Luke never portrays a series in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, of spontaneous prophecies (and/or other spiritual 1983) 19–21. The phenomenon that we label “glosgifts) along the line of the “orderly” situation prosolalia” has occurred in a number of contexts, not posed by Paul in 1 Cor 14:26-33. At Pentecost all all of them religious, and can be characterized in proclaim an identical message in unison. physiological terms. See the study by Goodman Other examples are the consumption of food (Speaking in Tongues [n. 38 above]), who provides offered to idols (15:20; cf. 1 Corinthians 8; a social and psychological analysis of xenoglos10:14—11:1), the leadership of women, which Luke sia on 149–51. Her findings correlate with the does not highlight, and marriage, which he does “apologetic” explanation of Luke’s presentation of not recommend. speaking in tongues.

64

Acts part 1C.indd 64

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

2:1-13

author, who has concocted a story that does not fit into the categories of religious experience.   5-13  The scene shifts, without formal notice, from

indoors to outdoors, where an excited crowd, drawn by the noise, gathers.48 Verses 5-6 propel the narrative in a new and surprising direction, but the opening has no hint of the unusual or the novel. Bruce Metzger asks why Luke should think it worth noting that Jews lived in Jerusalem.49 Early editors and copyists shared his concern. a * and mss. of the Vulgate omit the word, and its place in other mss. varies considerably. “Devout” is absent from some Old Latin texts. “Such confused evidence raises a strong suspicion that katoikou`nte" and ÆIoudai`oi [‘residents’ and ‘Jews’] may be additions to

the text, derived probably from . . . ii.14. . . .”50 In 2:14, the opening phrase might be rendered “Judeans and residents of Jerusalem.”51 Lake concludes that “Jews” is a gloss. He further proposes that Luke wished to suggest that the audience at Pentecost included gentiles. That inference is less likely, 52 but it is probable that “Jews” is a pedantic D-Text gloss that has entered the broader tradition. 53 “From every country under the sun” supplies the requisite intimation of that universality that will rise from firmly Jewish foundations. 54   5-6  Verse 6 is quite intelligible without v. 5, if not more so.55 Verse 5 gives profile to the “crowd” or “multitude” that assembles. 56 The hearers were not an idle mob loitering at street-corners but, one might reasonably infer, observant Jews whose piety had led

47 The contention that because the hearers say, “we Metzger (Textual Commentary, 251) supports its hear them speaking in our languages” the speakoriginality on the grounds that so difficult a word ers rather than the hearers are inspired (e.g., would not have been added; that is, it is the lectio Barrett, 1:124; and, in more detail, Witheringdifficilior. Such glosses often cause more problems ton, 134–35) is inadequate. If each speaker used than they solve. In this instance, the motive for one language, the result would be babble. Bede the addition is clear: to prevent the inference that attempted explanations of the situation based on the group included “heathens.” Acts uses “devout” the presumption that only one person could speak (eujlabhv~) only of Jews and elsewhere also with at a time, recognizing that this might yield the view ajnhvr (“male”): 8:2; 22:12 (cf. Luke 2:25). that the miracle resided “more in the hearing than 54 The hyperbolic “every nation under heaven” is the speaking” (ad 2:6, p. 17). This got him in hot characteristic of Deutero-Pauline emphasis on the water. In his Retractatio (ad 2:6, pp. 110–11) Bede universal proclamation of the message. See, e.g., defended himself by saying that he had cribbed Col 1:23. In Vit. Mos. 2.20, Philo contrasts the unihis exegesis from Gregory Nazianzos, as indeed he versal openness of Judaism to gentile xenophobia: had, from Orat. 4.15, in Rufinus’s translation, fol“[our institutions] attract and win the attention lowed by an even more elaborate explanation. of all, of barbarians, of Greeks, of dwellers on the 48 The effect of Luke’s technique—whatever its mainland and islands, of nations of the east and causes—is rather more vivid than a narrative comthe west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabment to the effect that, “meanwhile, outdoors a ited world from end (ajpo; peravtwn ejpi; pevrata)” large crowd. . . .” There is a similar sudden transi(trans. Frank Henry Colson, Philo VI [LCL; tion to the streets in Apuleius Metam. 11.7. Greek Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935] mime could also shift from indoors. The examples 459). Note the allusion to the “ends of the earth” are connected with religious festivals: Sophron (Acts 1:8). wrote a mime about women viewing the Isthmian 55 D-Texts tend to prefer kaivv (“and”) to o{ti festival, evidently imitated by Theocritus Id. 15. (“because”) . This makes the narrative a bit less 49 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 251. He also observes abrupt but does not explain why they gathered. that it is odd to speak of “Jews from every e[qno~” 56 plh`qo~ has a range of meanings in Acts, most (“nation, people”), since the Jews were a people. often referring to the civic (e.g., 14:4) or religious 50 Lake, “Gift,” 111–21, citing 113. (e.g., 15:12) body, but it can also be applied to a 51 A further problem is that “residents” is repeated in crowd (e.g., 28:3) or a large number (e.g., 17:4). v. 9, with reference to those who live in MesopotaThe most common sense is “the general public.” mia and other places. On “both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs” of v. 11, see below. 52 See, however, the comments at the end of this ­section. 53 See also Ropes, Text, 112–13; and Barrett, 1:117–18.

65

Acts part 1C.indd 65

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

them to spend the remainder of their natural lives in Jerusalem. 57 The “noise” (fwnhv) that attracted them is ambiguous for the sake of suspense, but v. 6b immediately clarifies the situation, in a sense, for, although it is not difficult to imagine outsiders hearing the mighty noise of v. 2, it is less easy to understand why hearing a person or persons speaking one’s native language would generate confusion.58   7-11  These verses simultaneously rationalize their reaction and underline the wondrous character of the event, both with a considerable want of realism, for they can discern that the speakers have Galilean accents, while their speech indicates facility in an exotic language.59 Narrative compression eliminates the process by which the miracle was detected (above).60 The story symbolizes both the universality of the message (“every nation”) and the capacity of the gospel to address all sorts and conditions of people in their own terms. Excursus: The List of Nations In vv. 9-11 the crowd of foreign-born residents recites a catalogue of nations.61 Such lists are very widely attested.62 The purpose of this catalogue is patent: to symbolize—in fact, to achieve—the universal mission 57 See Schneider, 1:251. 58 For this meaning of sunecuvqh, see Haenchen, 169 n. 1. 59 The word diavlekto~ does not have the modern sense of “dialect.” See Barrett, 1:119. It is reasonable to ask, with Haenchen (169 n. 2), how many Diaspora Jews, most of whom lived in Greek­speaking cities, would have known the local languages, but this is beside the point. 60 Among Luke’s inconsistencies is that the miracle appears to be in the hearing. Alternatives such as having each of twelve apostles speak one language would have recreated Babel rather than reverse it. That may be the viewpoint of the D-Texts (D syr p. hmg mae Aug) that read lalou`nta~ tai`~ glwvs­ sai~ aujtw'n or tai`~ glwvssai~ aujtw'n lalouvntwn aujtw`n (“[they heard] them speaking in their tongues”). Cf. Ropes, Text, 13. Strictly speaking, the Spirit should have fallen upon the audience. Moreover, Peter is able to address the entire audience in a language that they understand. Those who pursue consistency or concrete reality in this story are barking up the wrong tree. 61 Witherington (136 n. 27) says that the list is a parenthetical insertion by the author, an irrational claim in defense of the rationality of the text.

of the church.63 It is equally clear that Luke did not invent this list, an insight that has launched a quest for its source and origin while also proffering solutions for some of the conflicts in the text. The catalogue does not have a consistent form. It begins with the enumeration of three ethnic groups, “Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,” then shifts to a series of nouns that are objects of the attributive participial phrase “those who inhabit.” That participle, katoikou`nte~, apparently conflicts with v. 5, where it characterizes the audience. This group (if “Judea” is deleted) has two subsections, each with a pair joined by “both and” (te kaiv) , followed by two others lined by “and.” At v. 10b there is another shift: “visiting Roman citizens!”64 That is a suitable climax, followed in v. 11a by the inclusive reference to “Jews by birth and Jews by choice.” Unfortunately, however, the list continues by reverting to ethnic groups: “Cretans and Arabs.”65 Any underlying source has been edited. As a catalogue of the nations of the Mediterranean oikoumene µ , it is deficient. The most astonishing omission, from the perspective of Acts, is the entire Greek peninsula (Macedonia and Achaea). The most astonishing inclusion, from the perspective of Acts, is the initial “Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,” an obscure and archaic trio not otherwise encountered. The text is problematic.

62 Many examples are provided in Scott, “Geographical Horizon,” 483–544. This thorough review includes a survey of research and a wealth of bibliographical data. See also Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 233–56, esp. 249–50 and n. 58. 63 This function can be seen not only in Jewish lists, such as that in Philo Leg. all. 281-82, but also in the Isis cult, as in the list of cult names in P. Oxy. 1380, 1-136 and in Apuleius Metam. 11.5. See the comments of Nock, Conversion, 150–53, as well as Borgen, Philo, 273–85, who discusses the geographical orientation of Philo and the significance of his various lists. 64 In Acts, ïRwmai`oi means “Roman citizens”; see Cadbury and Lake, 20. The word ejpidhmou`nte~ appears to mean “visiting” in 17:21 and 18:27, but the distinction should not be pressed. 65 The expression “residents of” seems more suitable in a catalogue of Diaspora Jews than do ethnic adjectives, but 11:20, “some men from Cyprus and Cyrene,” suggests caution.

66

Acts part 1C.indd 66

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

them to spend the remainder of their natural lives in Jerusalem. 57 The “noise” (fwnhv) that attracted them is ambiguous for the sake of suspense, but v. 6b immediately clarifies the situation, in a sense, for, although it is not difficult to imagine outsiders hearing the mighty noise of v. 2, it is less easy to understand why hearing a person or persons speaking one’s native language would generate confusion.58   7-11  These verses simultaneously rationalize their reaction and underline the wondrous character of the event, both with a considerable want of realism, for they can discern that the speakers have Galilean accents, while their speech indicates facility in an exotic language.59 Narrative compression eliminates the process by which the miracle was detected (above).60 The story symbolizes both the universality of the message (“every nation”) and the capacity of the gospel to address all sorts and conditions of people in their own terms. Excursus: The List of Nations In vv. 9-11 the crowd of foreign-born residents recites a catalogue of nations.61 Such lists are very widely attested.62 The purpose of this catalogue is patent: to symbolize—in fact, to achieve—the universal mission 57 See Schneider, 1:251. 58 For this meaning of sunecuvqh, see Haenchen, 169 n. 1. 59 The word diavlekto~ does not have the modern sense of “dialect.” See Barrett, 1:119. It is reasonable to ask, with Haenchen (169 n. 2), how many Diaspora Jews, most of whom lived in Greek­speaking cities, would have known the local languages, but this is beside the point. 60 Among Luke’s inconsistencies is that the miracle appears to be in the hearing. Alternatives such as having each of twelve apostles speak one language would have recreated Babel rather than reverse it. That may be the viewpoint of the D-Texts (D syr p. hmg mae Aug) that read lalou`nta~ tai`~ glwvs­ sai~ aujtw'n or tai`~ glwvssai~ aujtw'n lalouvntwn aujtw`n (“[they heard] them speaking in their tongues”). Cf. Ropes, Text, 13. Strictly speaking, the Spirit should have fallen upon the audience. Moreover, Peter is able to address the entire audience in a language that they understand. Those who pursue consistency or concrete reality in this story are barking up the wrong tree. 61 Witherington (136 n. 27) says that the list is a parenthetical insertion by the author, an irrational claim in defense of the rationality of the text.

of the church.63 It is equally clear that Luke did not invent this list, an insight that has launched a quest for its source and origin while also proffering solutions for some of the conflicts in the text. The catalogue does not have a consistent form. It begins with the enumeration of three ethnic groups, “Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,” then shifts to a series of nouns that are objects of the attributive participial phrase “those who inhabit.” That participle, katoikou`nte~, apparently conflicts with v. 5, where it characterizes the audience. This group (if “Judea” is deleted) has two subsections, each with a pair joined by “both and” (te kaiv) , followed by two others lined by “and.” At v. 10b there is another shift: “visiting Roman citizens!”64 That is a suitable climax, followed in v. 11a by the inclusive reference to “Jews by birth and Jews by choice.” Unfortunately, however, the list continues by reverting to ethnic groups: “Cretans and Arabs.”65 Any underlying source has been edited. As a catalogue of the nations of the Mediterranean oikoumene µ , it is deficient. The most astonishing omission, from the perspective of Acts, is the entire Greek peninsula (Macedonia and Achaea). The most astonishing inclusion, from the perspective of Acts, is the initial “Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,” an obscure and archaic trio not otherwise encountered. The text is problematic.

62 Many examples are provided in Scott, “Geographical Horizon,” 483–544. This thorough review includes a survey of research and a wealth of bibliographical data. See also Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 233–56, esp. 249–50 and n. 58. 63 This function can be seen not only in Jewish lists, such as that in Philo Leg. all. 281-82, but also in the Isis cult, as in the list of cult names in P. Oxy. 1380, 1-136 and in Apuleius Metam. 11.5. See the comments of Nock, Conversion, 150–53, as well as Borgen, Philo, 273–85, who discusses the geographical orientation of Philo and the significance of his various lists. 64 In Acts, ïRwmai`oi means “Roman citizens”; see Cadbury and Lake, 20. The word ejpidhmou`nte~ appears to mean “visiting” in 17:21 and 18:27, but the distinction should not be pressed. 65 The expression “residents of” seems more suitable in a catalogue of Diaspora Jews than do ethnic adjectives, but 11:20, “some men from Cyprus and Cyrene,” suggests caution.

66

Acts part 1C.indd 66

8/27/2008 9:59:39 AM

2:1-13

“Judea” (v. 9) is questionable, since one would not expect to find the homeland in a catalogue of the Diaspora and because native Judeans would experience no surprise at hearing their native language. One answer to the first objection is that Acts is listing “every nation under heaven” rather than Diaspora locations.66 This does not resolve the second problem. The probability that Luke based his list on an existing catalogue opens the possibility that he overlooked the inept presence of “Judea.” Against this appeal to carelessness are the anarthrous form (as an adjective “Judea” should have the article67) and, more cogently, that it is out of place. Judea does not lie between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia.68 Without it, the list would progress counterclockwise from Mesopotamia. “Armenia” would fit nicely, as the African Latin tradition (Tertullian, Augustine [once]) recognized. Other options exist.69 Many of the numerous catalogues introduced for comparison lack “Judea.” The best option may be to omit the

word as a later addition to the text. The structure of vv. 9-10b (above) supports deletion. Another possibility is to mark the spot with a blank space, indicating that the original cannot be identified with reasonable certainty. Of the conjectural alternatives “Armenia” is the strongest.70 James M. Scott has offered a contribution to the questions of both form and source.71 He traces the developments of the “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10 through its various ramifications in subsequent Israelite writings. Among the features of this tradition are the convention of pars pro toto, that is, lack of completeness; examples of “a more random structure,” that is, lack of orderly progression; and vacillation “between names of peoples and names of lands.”72 These lists normally viewed Jerusalem as “the navel of the universe.”73 That is one possible geographical framework for Acts 2:5-11; it is not Luke’s own geographical horizon.74 Scott’s model is generic; it does not identify a specific source against

66 At its face value the catalogue is a list of Diaspora 72 Ibid., 529. locations. Hemer (Book, 217) presumes this view; 73 Alexander (Context, 79–80) reports the view of see his evidence on 222–23. Richard Bauckham, expressed in a paper, that 67 See BDF §261 n. 4 (although Luke’s use of the the list views the world from Jerusalem. This may article with place-names is irregular). reflect how the author wished it to be understood, 68 Martin Hengel proposes that “Judea” could include although it was probably not the view of his source. Syria (“ÆIoudai`a in der geographischen Liste Apg 74 The long-standing argument over a “Jewish” or an 2,9-11 und Syrien als ‘Grossjudäa,’” RHPhR 80 “astrological” background is misplaced. In 1948, [2000] 83–86). Stefan Weinstock proposed that the list in Acts 2 69 See Ropes, Text, 14–15; Metzger, Textual Comcorresponded to an ancient geographical scheme mentary, 253–54; and Boismard, Texte, 65. Jerome (“The Geographical Catalogue in Acts 2, 9-11,” speaks of those who dwell in Syria (an apparent JRS 38 [1948] 43–46). Cf. also John A. Brinkman, generalization); Chrysostom read “India” (not “The Literary Background of the ‘Catalogue of likely in this place). According to Metzger (Textual the Nations’ (Acts 2, 9-11),” CBQ 25 (1963) 418–27. Commentary, 254), Burkitt, with reference to some In 1970, Metzger wrote a detailed critique of this Arabic mss., proposed “Gordyaia,” while Dibelius hypothesis: “Ancient Astrological Geography and (Studies, 91) inclines toward “Galatia” or “Gallai.” Acts 2:9-11,” now collected in his New Testament 70 The construction te kaiv supports the hypothesis Studies: Philological, Versional and Patristic (NTTS that another name once filled the place. One might 10; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 46–56. Scott’s claim (“Geoalso propose that te comes from the interpolagraphical Horizon,” 528 n. 171) that Weinstock’s tor. D* it vgcl omit the particle or its equivalent. position represents “the usual view” is erroneous. On this construction, see Knox, 11. Haenchen The idea that each people had its tutelary divine (170 n. 2) lists those who view “Judea” as an error, being was widespread. (This was one matter on including Harnack, Preuschen, Wellhausen, which the views of Celsus and Origen converged Wendt, and Loisy. Conzelmann (14) is uncertain. [Origen Cels. 1.24; 5.25].) This could be correlated Barrett (1:121) is ultimately willing to delete the with the view that each people had its own star word. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 253–54) clings (Manilius Astronomica 4.696-700). See Ramsay unhappily to “Judea.” Boismard (Texte, 65) proMacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New poses for the D-Text a shorter catalogue that does Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) 82 and 185 not include “Judea”: “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, n. 31; and Franz Cumont, “La plus ancienne [in asyndetic style] and those who inhabit Mesopogéographie astrologique,” Klio 9 (1909) 263–73. A tamia, Armenia, and Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and “deep” astrological background for any scheme of Pamphylia.” twelve nations is far from unreasonable, and the 71 Scott, “Geographical Horizon,” esp. 527–30. polemic against it overlooks the use of a­ strological

67

Acts part 1C.indd 67

8/27/2008 9:59:40 AM

which it will be possible to determine Luke’s editorial activity, nor would the identification of a precise source be likely to shed any new light on interpretation.75 Problems nonetheless remain. “Twelve” would seem to be the right number of nations, and this is the figure that results from the deletion of Judea and inclusion of “Romans.”76 “Cretans and Arabs” must then be left dangling, but they are difficult to fit in by any measure.77 All in all, it is difficult to dispute Howard Marshall’s conclusion: “It is an odd list.”78 One feature of its oddity is that it is fearfully old-fashioned.79 If the catalogue is of Jewish origin,80 it evidently reflects the period and perspective of the Seleucid era (312/311–63 bce).81 This perspective points to Antioch and to a possible Antiochene source.82 Whatever the source, the event is a bit of fiction, a list derived from literature recited by a crowd in unison via an omniscient narrator who can

report that crowd’s reaction from its own point of view. The same narrator prevents them from spoiling the plot by reducing their report of what they heard to “praising God.”83   12-13  Recognition of the artificial nature of vv. 6b-11

stimulates the hypothesis that Luke has transformed an account of unintelligible glossolalia into intelligible speech, yet vv. 12-13 are, in their present form, no less an authorial composition than what precedes. Some of the gapers drawn by the phenomenon concluded that the speakers had taken a drop or two more than the situation strictly required. This judgment would apply to ecstatic speech but makes little sense as a reaction to hearing Arabic or Persian and is illogical. Its elements

s­ ymbolism in various contexts, notably apocalyptic. A list of twelve nations/regions that corresponded to the zodiac would be an excellent representation of universality and was so used in, for example, the mosaics of synagogues in the Holy Land, as late as the sixth century ce (Beth Alpha). According to Scott (“Geographical Horizon,” 516), Josephus adjusted the Table of Nations to correspond to Daniel’s picture of a succession of world empires, a scheme influenced by astrological symbolism. Tamsyn Barton (Ancient Astrology [London: Routledge, 1994] 180–82) says that Manilius’s assignment of zodiac signs to geographical zones is the oldest extant list, but no version established itself, as the several lists in plate 12, p. 182, demonstrate. Carl Holladay recognizes the possible relevance of an astrological background (“Acts and the Fragments,” 171–98, esp. 194–95). Malina and Neyrey (Portraits, 120–25) note the highly geocentric quality of ancient cultures. All regarded their native place as the center of the universe. 75 Barrett (1:121–24) comes to a similar conclusion. 76 See the insightful and charming, if romantic, comments of Harnack, 65–71. 77 From the perspective of Jerusalem, these peoples may represent the west and the east, respectively; so Fitzmyer, 243. Haenchen (171 n. 1) traces this view to Eissfeldt and finds it “a mere stopgap.” Scott (“Geographical Horizon,” 529–30) attempts to rationalize the list in terms of the old Table of Nations. For other guesses, see his n. 179 on p. 529. Knox (82 n. 2) proposed that they were “added by Luke himself or by a very early copyist, in deference to Paul’s visit to Arabia and Titus’s real or supposed mission to Crete (Titus 1. 5).” Haenchen (171) agrees that it is a later addition.

78 Marshall, 71. Relations to the contents of Acts are thin: Pontus is the home of Aquila and Priscilla (18:2); Phrygia and Pamphylia are prominent in chaps. 13–14. Cyrene brings to mind 11:20 and 13:3, and Egypt is the home of Apollos (18:24). 79 Note those “Medes” and “Elamites,” who were no longer in the picture. An equally old-fashioned list can be found in Q. Curtius Rufus’s History of Alexander (probably mid-first century ce). See Conzelmann (14–15), who notes that this list, which includes the Medes, also mixes territorial and ethnic names. 80 Scott’s valuable analysis notwithstanding, those in quest of the closest specific parallel to Acts 2:5-11 will have difficulty choosing between the catalogue found in Philo Leg. Gaj. 281-82 and that of Curtius Rufus (see previous note). 81 If the list were based on Seleucid claims of conquest and dominance, Syria could have been omitted as the “homeland,” while Greece and the west would be absent because they were outside the Seleucid sphere. J. Taylor (“The List of Nations in Acts 2:9-11,” RB 106 [1999] 408–20) traces the list back to the Achaemenid period. 82 See Klauck, Magic, 10–11, who suggests an Antiochene origin and aptly identifies a proleptic function: the old list of military conquests now serves to forecast the conquest of the world by the gospel. On this, see Gary Gilbert, “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121 (2002) 497–529, and idem, “Roman Propaganda,” 233–56, esp. 247–53, as well as Edwards, Religion and Power, 88. 83 ta; megalei`a tou` qeou (“God’s great deeds” = megaluvnein t. qeovn [“praise God”]): Luke 1:46 (the Magnificat), 58; Acts 5:13; 10:46; and 19:17

68

Acts part 1C.indd 68

8/27/2008 9:59:40 AM

2:1-13

are Lucan: diaporevw (“to be at a loss”) appears only in Luke (once) and Acts (thrice) in the NT. The hearers’ question is that of the Athenians (17:18-20) as is the mockery by some (17:32).84 Whatever his hypothetical source may have contained, Luke has constructed 2:12-13 to show what Jerusalem had in common with Athens.85 The price of this parallelism is a painful contradiction86 that v. 15 will intensify. Barrett regards this as “simply a matter of careless writing” rather than a clash of sources.87 It rather seems to be a typical Lucan

84 85

86

87 88

89

contradiction that has things both ways: all testify to the miracle, which is thus validated, but an alternative must be refuted. In this very clumsy manner Luke acknowledges the ambiguity of wonders. To proclaim an event as a miracle is to embrace an interpretation of the event. Other views are possible.88 The objection is quite opportune, for it is both a social slur that the subsequent eloquence of Peter will utterly quash89 and an allusion to the familiar association between drunkenness and inspiration.90 Readers may detect an irony. Although certain

(of Jesus’ name). The adjective is found in the LXX and Lake, 20; Bruce, 119). Fitzmyer (235) notes (e.g., Deut 11:2; Ps 70:19) and often in Sirach (e.g., a “Feast of New Wine” as one of the “pente36:7). In the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 65), “hear” in costs” stipulated in the Temple Scroll (19:11-14). v. 11 is in the third person and thus is a comment Why attempts should be made to defend these by the omniscient narrator. mistaken and hostile critics is not clear. Another The simple and complex verbs (dia)cleuavzw are social dimension emerges in v. 15: it is but 9:00 hapax legomena in the NT. a .m. Imbibing before the sun was barely above the Crowd divisions are another Lucan motif (Acts yardarm was a mark of the most degenerate types, 14:4; 23:7), frequently found in popular narrative, including Mark Antony, whose drinking behavior for example, Chariton Chaer. 5.4.1; Heliodorus Cicero excoriates (Phil. 2.41, 104; see also TerAeth. 1.13; the Tobiad Romance (Josephus Ant. ence Ad. 955). Readers may here detect an ironic 11.230); and Act. Paul 3.24. allusion to the new wine of the Christian message The D-Text of vv. 12-13 is, according to Boismard (Luke 5:37—although this evangelist agrees with (Texte, 66), “So they were bewildered and perthe objectors about the superiority of less recent plexed at what had happened (ejpi; tw/` gegonovti), vintages [v. 39]). constantly asking one another ‘What is this business 90 Philo’s treatise on “high sobriety,” De ebrietate, conabout?’ 13 There were some who made fun of the tains a famous passage that speaks of the ecstasy whole business by announcing: ‘all these charof inspiration: “Now when grace fills the soul, that acters are carrying a heavy load of cheap wine’” soul thereby rejoices and smiles and dances, for it (diecleuvazon levgonte~ ou|toi gleuvkei panvte~ is possessed and inspired (bebavkceutai), so that bebarhmevnoi eijsivn). “At what had happened” is a to many of the unenlightened it may seem to be painfully pedantic addition. The transfer of “all” drunken, crazy and beside itself” (146; trans. Frank from v. 12 to v. 13 seeks to alleviate the contradicHenry Colson and George Herbert Whitaker, Philo tion. The participle (lit. “weighed down”) suggests III [LCL; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1930] slurred rather than excited speech and is thus not 395). See the entire passage, 146–48. The text to appropriate to the situation. which Philo refers is 1 Sam 1:11-15, the alleged Barrett, 1:125. drunkenness of Hannah. See, in addition, Som. In a work with a viewpoint, such as Acts, the inter2.248-49. The latter begins, “And, when the happy pretation is usually made or assumed by the narrasoul holds out the sacred goblet of its own reason, tor. For modernity, the event is a problem: “things who is it that pours into it the holy cupfuls of true like this do not happen.” In the world of Acts, gladness, but the Word (lovgo~), the Cup-bearer of the possibility of a marvelous healing is accepted. God and Master of the feast (oijnocovo~ tou` qeou` Controversy is likely to arise over the means utikai; sumposivarco~), who is also none other than lized. Cf. the healing of a cripple in Acts 4:7 and the draught which he pours” (trans Frank Henry 14:11. In the first case, the religious authorities are Colson and George Herbert Whitaker, Philo V concerned about the authority behind the healing, [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, while in the second, the populace concludes that 1935] 555). Note also Plutarch Def. orac. 50 (Mor. Zeus and Hermes are paying a visit. 437D-E), in which the inspiration of the Pythia The charge of intoxication with new wine suggests is compared with intoxication from alcohol, and a cheap drunk. The problem of the availability Lucian Nigr. 5 (enthusiasm for philosophy leaves of new wine this early in the year has given rise Nigrinus giddy). In the NT, see Eph 5:18, “Do not to solutions involving chemical means (Cadbury get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be

69

Acts part 1C.indd 69

8/27/2008 9:59:40 AM

people claim that they are filled (memestwmevnoi) with wine, the speakers have in reality been filled (ejplhvsqh­ san) with Holy Spirit.91 Within the Christian tradition, the events of Pentecost, Acts 2:1-41, are viewed as the birth of the church. This view is correct in that it relates the shift from Jesus as a subject who gathers followers by proclaiming the presence of God’s reign and demonstrating that advent through healings, exorcisms, and acceptance of all at table, to Jesus as the object of proclamation by disciples who now recruit followers. Pentecost, to state the matter in terms of the issue identified by Rudolf Bultmann, tells how—or at least when—the Proclaimer (the earthly Jesus) became the Proclaimed (the heavenly Lord).92 In achieving this, Luke does not, like John 20:19-23, combine bestowal of the Spirit with explicit authority over subsequent followers, nor does he report an appearance at which the risen one orders his followers to recruit and baptize disciples, as in Matt 28:16-20.93 In Luke 24 and Acts 1, the appearances include instruction in scriptural interpretation, theology, and the promise of the coming gift of the Spirit. None apart from God possesses the authority to forgive sins, and baptism is a matter of course.94 These differences do not obviate similarities. In Acts, the authority of the apostles over other believers is assumed. John 20 and Acts 1–2 share a common theme: the ascended Christ empowered the church

91 92 93 94

95

96

through the gift of the Spirit. Eph 4:7-8 reflects the same understanding. It is probable that Luke acquired his understanding in a Deutero-Pauline environment, but John 20:19-23 shows that the concept was shared in other circles toward the close of the first century.95 Acts 2:1-4 relates the spiritual empowerment of the disciples, but the following paragraph focuses on the endowment of their audience, while Peter’s sermon climaxes with the promise that through baptism all believers will receive the Spirit (2:38). For Luke, this gift is essential and, in a number of instances, is attended with visible effects (2:1-4; 8:17-18; 10:44-46; 19:6). With the evident exception of the initial endowment, all of these cases involve believers who possess less than impeccable credentials: Samaritans, gentile “God-Fearers,” and adherents of John the Baptizer. The most unambiguous of these episodes is that about the gentile Cornelius and his entourage (chap. 10), the diction of which evokes Pentecost.96 Peter will use that experience as justification for the baptism of gentiles both on the spot (10:47) and subsequently in Jerusalem, where it is accepted (11:15-18). Luke did not invent the contention that the manifestation of spiritual gifts demonstrated the acceptability of gentile converts. Paul utilizes it in Gal 4:6: “And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”97

filled with the Spirit,” and the comments on this in glwvssai" kai; megalunovntwn to;n qeovn (lit. Pervo, Dating, 295–96, as well as Herbert Preisker, “For they heard them speaking in tongues and “mevqh,” TDNT 4:545–47; and David E. Aune, “Sepextolling God’s greatness”); 2:11b: ajkouvomen tem Sapientium Convivium (Moralia 146B-164D),” lalouvntwn aujtw`n tai`" hJmetevrai" glwvssai" ta; in Hans Dieter Betz, ed., Plutarch’s Ethical Writings megalei`a tou` qeou (lit. “We hear them speaking and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: in our tongues the great deeds of God”). See Earl Brill, 1978) 51–105, esp. 92–94. Richard, “Pentecost as a Recurrent Theme in LukeArator (1:150–55) relates this to new wine in new Acts,” in idem, ed., New Views on Luke and Acts (Colbottles. legeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990) 133–49. Bultmann, Theology, 1:33–37. 97 For details, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A ComCf. also the comments of Barrett, 1:108. mentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia On the theology and practice of baptism in Acts, (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) see Friedrich Avemarie, Die Tauferzählungen der 209–11. This is one of a series of proofs of the Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte (WUNT validity of the Galatian believers’ credentials. 139; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Both Acts 2:38 and Eph 4:7 speak of a gift (dwreav) ; John does not use this noun (or a synonym) in connection with the Spirit, but cf. John 16:7, which also views Jesus as the source of the Spirit/Paraclete. On the subject, see Lindars, Apologetic, 51–59. Acts 10:46a: h[kouon ga;r aujtw`n lalouvntwn

70

Acts part 1C.indd 70

8/27/2008 9:59:41 AM

2:1-13

The roots of the Pentecost story may be in the Diaspora missionary experience; that is, the “original source” of the story may have been a justification of the gentile mission, not unlike Acts 10:44-47 in content. This proposal is highly speculative, but it does account for Luke’s emphases upon the experience of the hearers and the suitability of the catalogue of nations to evoke the gentile world.98 If behind the Pentecost pericope lay a story of the reception of the Spirit by interested gentiles, a number of its difficulties would be alleviated. Antioch would be a reasonable source for this putative story, and the catalogue of nations (which is suitable to the environs of Antioch99) may have been associated with it. Driving this hypothesis is a skeptical attitude toward a coherent “Jerusalem source,” an attitude widely supported by the scholarly tradition,100 and the well-established view that the leading purpose of (Luke and) Acts is to demonstrate the legitimacy of the gentile

mission. Its heuristic value derives from its inversion of the conventional assumptions that Luke has given his portrait of Pentecost a broad splash of universalistic color and that the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 imitates Acts 2. Neither set of assumptions has a preponderant weight of probability; each derives from a particular understanding of Luke’s sources. The achievement of 2:1-13 is considerable. With splendid vividness, Luke has been able to intimate the coming gentile mission without prematurely inaugurating it. Jews are the missionary target, but without limit on place or language—and, it should be added, without the inconvenience of discontinuity. The occasion is an Israelite festival, and the events fulfill earlier promises. On Pentecost, the firstfruits of the ecumenical harvest are taken in. The wind that erupts on this day will not abate until its stormy gusts have propelled Paul to Rome.

98 Cf. the proposal of Lake, “Gift,” 111–21, esp. 114, noted above.

99 See the excursus on the list of nations, above. 100 See pp. 12–14.

71

Acts part 1C.indd 71

8/27/2008 9:59:41 AM

2

2:14-41  Peter’s Speech at Pentecost 14/ At that Peter took his place with the other eleven apostles and addressed the crowd in a strong and solemn tone: “Judeans, and all residents of Jerusalem: there is something that you need to know, so please pay attention. 15/ Now these people are not, as you suppose, drunk. It’s only 900! 16/ No; this is what the prophet a spoke of: 17/ ‘After this it shall come to pass’—God is speaking—‘that I shall pour out some of my spirit upon the whole human race. Then your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young people will become visionaries and your elderly will become dreamers. 18/ Yes; in those days I shall pour out some of my spirit upon the men and women who serve me. 19/ I shall provide portents in the sky above and signs on the earth below: blood, fire, and misty vapor. 20/ The sun will be darkened and the moon take on a bloody hue before the arrival of the Day of the Lord, that great and glorious day. 21/ It shall come to pass that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. 22/ “My fellow Israelites, listen to what I have to say. There was Jesus the Nazorean, a man whom God brought to your b attention by performing mighty deeds, wonders, and signs through him in your very midst. Of these things you are well aware. 23/ You had Jesus killed, nailed up by wicked hands. He was betrayed—but this was in accordance with God’s prior knowledge and fixed plan! 24/ God cut loose Hades’ dreadful cords and brought Jesus back to life, because death could not maintain its grip on him. 25/ With reference to Jesus, David says: ‘I foresaw that the Lord was always with me; because he is at my right side I shall not be perturbed. 26/ Therefore my heart has been happy and my tongue full of joy. Indeed, my flesh will live in hope, 27/ for you will not let my soul languish in Hades, nor will you allow your sacred one to experience decay. 28/ You

a

b

c

d

The name “Joel” should probably be omitted, as D-Text witnesses indicate. Luke does not normally name “minor prophets” (7:42-43; 13:40-41; 15:16-17) and probably viewed the “Book of the Twelve” as a single work. Moreover, his normal procedure is to say “PN the prophet” rather than “the prophet PN.” See, e.g., Ropes, Text, 16; Barrett, 1:135. D* et al. read hJma`~ (“us”). This reading may be anti-Jewish, but there is the ever-present caveat that the forms of “you” plural and “us” were identical in sound. The grammar of vv. 32-33 is difficult. Formally, the apostles are witnesses of Jesus, although one expects them to be witnesses of the resurrection (1:22). Bruce (126), proposes reading the relative ou| as neuter, “of which fact.” This is possible but not likely. The logical subject of v. 33 is “God,” but the nominative participles clearly refer to Jesus. It is tempting to read th`/ dexia`/ (“to the right [hand]”) as instrumental and render “by divine power” (cf. Ps 117:6; Odes Sol. 25:9), but the context suggests that the dative is locative, according to BDF §199. The second main clause is awkward: “Having received . . . he poured this which you see. . . .” The textual variants (e.g., “this gift”) are improvements and thus suspicious. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 260. “The father” (one could render, “his father”) implies that Jesus is the Son of God. See Roloff, 59. Luke would certainly agree (Luke 3:22; etc.), albeit not in Nicene terms. An alternative rendition for ejn th`/ hJmevra/ ejkeivnh/ might be “during that period,” or the like (cf. BDF, §438 4), but this proposal looks like a rationalization. It is more likely that that Luke wishes to report a big day in immediate response to the sermon.

72

Acts part 1C.indd 72

8/27/2008 9:59:41 AM

2:14-41

29/

37/

have shown me the paths of life; your presence will fill me with gladness.’ “Brothers and sisters, if I may be candid with you about the patriarch David, he is dead and buried. His tomb remains in our midst today. 30/ Since, then, he was a prophet and knew that God had solemnly ‘vowed to him’ that ‘one of his descendants would sit upon his throne,’ 31/ David spoke with foreknowledge about the resurrection of the Messiah when he said, ‘He was neither left to languish in Hades, nor’ did his flesh ‘face destruction.’ 32/ Accordingly, God brought this Jesus back to life. To that fact we can testify. 33/ Therefore, after he had been exalted to God’s right hand and had received from the father the promised Holy Spirit, he poured it out in your sight and hearing. c 34/ David did not ascend into the heavens, but he does say, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Take a seat at my right 35/ until I make your enemies a resting place for your feet.”’ 36/ The entire nation of Israel must recognize beyond any doubt that God has made him both sovereign and Messiah, this Jesus whom you people crucified.” These words stung the consciences of the audience, and so they said to Peter and the other apostles: “What shall we do, brothers?” 38/ Peter replied, “Change your ways. All of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus [the Messiah] for the forgiveness of your sins. You will then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39/ The promise is for you, for you and your children and all those far away, whomever the Lord our God might invite.” 40/ Peter pressed his argument for some time, continually urging them: “Save yourselves from this unscrupulous generation.” 41/ Those who accepted Peter’s message were therefore baptized. On that day d God brought three thousand persons into the ­c ommunity.

73

Acts part 1C.indd 73

8/27/2008 9:59:41 AM

Analysis

For this premier missionary address and fundamental exposition of the Christian message, the narrator makes no attempt to provide a detailed description of the setting or make any concessions to the conventions of realism. Peter is, to be sure, readily imagined as standing before the eleven others—but where? Is one to envision them on a balcony? At a street-corner? The residential section of Jerusalem would not have contained a suitable space for a crowd of at least three thousand people. All in all, it is not advisable to imagine how baptisms (by immersion) took place. If an actual event in Jerusalem were the basis of the Pentecost story in 2:1-13, it would not have been a likely occasion for a public speech. The theological ground of the speech is the theme of promise and fulfillment.1 The remarkable events are to be understood as the specific fulfillment of a general promise: the future outpouring of the Spirit (vv. 16-21). On that basis, Peter argues that the experiences of Jesus are specific fulfillments of “messianic prophecies” taken from the Psalms (vv. 22-35), concluding the claim that Jesus is the Messiah (v. 36). The actual audience in mind is not the crowd of the narrative but the readers of the book. The alibi for sobriety advanced in v. 15 is rather thin, since the early hour does not prove that people were 1 2 3

4

not drinking, only that they should not have been so occupied.2 The internal narrator, Peter, detaches himself from the situation, for one would expect him to say, “We are not drunk.” The voice is that of a distant—and omniscient—narrator commenting on the situation. The subsequent evidence about the miracles of Jesus and the resurrection is asserted rather than argued, and the basis of these assertions is the LXX rather than the HB or an Aramaic text familiar to the dramatic audience.3 “Acts 2 comes to us as the most finished and polished specimen of the apostolic preaching, placed as it were in the shop window of the Jerusalem church and of Luke’s Narrative.”4 The speech is, for all that, mixed in type. Its ultimate thrust is symbouleutic, as vv. 37-41 demonstrate, but vv. 14-21 refute an opposing view, while vv. 22-36 climax with an indictment. These last two are features of forensic rhetoric. 5 The net result is not unique in the history of Christian preaching. The hearers have done something wrong, that is, sinned, and should do something about it, that is, repent, but the mixed type reveals that Luke has two goals: the narrative object of gaining adherents and the theological object of vindicating Jesus from false charges. Although one is tempted to see the increasingly intimate vocatives in vv. 14, 22, and 29 as structural markers, a better understanding emerges when vv. 22-36 (III, below) are

On links between this speech and Luke 1–2, see Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:29–31. See n. 89. One decisive example can be seen in v. 25a: pro­ orwvmhn to;n kuvrion ejnwvpiovn mou dia; pantov" (“I foresaw that the Lord was always with me”). Semitic versions could use the equivalent of “Lord” for the tetragrammaton, but the MT here uses a verb meaning “set” (ytiyWIv)i rather than “see,” and Hebrew and Aramaic did not possess compound verbs like that rendered “foresaw” (proorwvmhn). That verb, in turn, provides, as it were, the theological justifica5 tion for the passage, since it is taken to refer to divine foresight, that is, providence (cf. the Vg rendition: providebam). The verb reappears in v. 31. John A. T. Robinson, “The Most Primitive Christology of All?” in idem, Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT 34; London: SCM, 1962) 139–53, here 149 (= JTS n.s. 7 [1956] 177–89). The speeches in Acts 2 and 3 should be studied in tandem, as by Robinson. Note Richard F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpreta-

tion in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971); Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; 2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963) 32–44 (on the structure); and Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 31–44. Note also the short and sharp analysis of Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 88–92. See George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 117. The evident admixture of types is not surprising because, as Mack (Rhetoric, 35) observes, “Most attempts to define precisely the issue of an early Christian argument fail, however, simply because the social circumstances of the early Christian movements did not correspond to the traditional occasions for each type of speech.” This should be taken not as a warrant for dispensing with analysis but as a warn-

74

Acts part 1C.indd 74

8/27/2008 9:59:41 AM

2:14-41

taken as a tightly knit chiastic unit.6 This is a core statement of Lucan Christology, similar to that in the speech of chap. 3.7 Framing this are the assertion that what has happened fulfills prophecy about the general gift of the Spirit (vv. 14-21, II), which is a logical beginning that has no intrinsic connection to section III, and the closing reaction, exhortation, and result (vv. 37-41, IV). The logic of the sermon is implicit, but clear to the Christian reader. The Holy Spirit has been granted to these people, who believe that Jesus is God’s Messiah, as his deeds and final triumph prove. The gift of the Spirit demonstrates that their beliefs are correct. Those who wish to participate in the promised fulfillment will consequently adopt the same belief. Although Peter presents two presumably Davidic texts (and allusions to others) to show that Jesus is the Messiah, in actual fact both (II C1 and 2, vv. 29-31, 34a) prove no more than that David was not speaking about himself. These proofs are signs for believers rather than for unbelievers. They argue from fulfillment to prophecy.8 Although the ostensible audience is world Jewry, represented by the cosmopolitan crowd, only Christian readers would find the arguments persuasive. Despite the appearance of pastiche, sections I and III complement each other. The quotation from Joel ends with a promise of salvation for “any who call upon the name of the Lord” (v. 21), echoed in vv. 38-39, which speak of “the name of Jesus Christ” and a universal promise.

(Vv. 1-13: Narrative Introduction) I. Vv. 14-21. What is taking place/has happened. A. V. 14. Introduction

7

8

Comment   14-16  (I)10 The introduction is solemn. Peter stands

Outline9

6

B. V. 15. One hypothesis rejected C. Vv. 16-21. Events fulfill prophecy 1. V. 16. Claim of fulfillment 2. Vv. 17-21. Proof from Scripture II. Vv. 22-36. Proof that Jesus is God’s promised Messiah A1. Vv. 22-24. Thesis: Jesus the Nazorene, a man attested by God, you crucified, but God raised B1. Vv. 25-28. Scriptural proof (David) C1. Vv. 29-31. Interpretation of Scripture D1. V. 32. Resurrection; apostles as ­w itnesses D2. V. 33. Exaltation; consequent gift of Spirit; audience as witnesses C2. V. 34a. Interpretation of Scripture B2. Vv. 34b-35. Scriptural proof (David) A 2. V. 36. Thesis: Jesus, whom you crucified, but made Lord and Messiah by God III. Consequences: vv. 37-41 A. V. 37. Hearers moved and seek advice B. Vv. 38-39. Proposition 1. V. 38a. Repent and be baptized in name of Jesus the Messiah (cf. vv. 22-36) 2. V. 38b. You will receive the gift of spirit (cf. vv. 1-13, 36) 3. V. 39. Promise is for you and many (cf. vv. 17-21) 4. V. 40. Summary: Save yourselves (cf. v. 21) (C. Vv. 41 [42]. Narrative Conclusion)

rather like an Ignatian bishop with his crescent of attendant presbyters.11 The appearance of the Twelve suggests that Luke understood the “all” of v. 4 to refer

ing that it may not yield precise results. On the same page Mack states, “In general, early Christian rhetoric was deliberative.” See Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 83, as well as Schneider, 1:264. The distinctiveness of 2:22-36 leads Barrett (1:132–33), to ruminate about possible sources. This is valid to the extent that Luke did not invent the theology/ies contained therein. From the perspective of formal rhetoric, Scripture quotations should be “inartistic,” self-validating appeals to fundamental principles, but these citations must be treated as “artistic” or technical in that they require elaborate interpretation.

9

For other detailed outlines, see Mack, Rhetoric, 89–91; and Soards, Speeches, 32. 10 Misunderstanding is also the point of departure for speeches in 3:12 and 14:15. 11 Ignatius usually speaks of presbyters as a college, comparable to the apostles (Magn. 6:1; Trall. 2:2; 3:1; Phld. 5:1; Smyrn. 8:1). James takes a similar place with the presbyters. See the comments on 21:18. Orators stand (whereas teachers sit). Cf. also 5:20; 11:13; 17:22; 25:18; 27:21. D copmae sy p preface the verse with tovte, an adverb of which the D-Text is quite fond. The word provides clear transitions where Luke does not. Some D-Texts insert prw`to~ (“first”) before “raised.” This evidently means

75

Acts part 1C.indd 75

8/27/2008 9:59:42 AM

to the apostles of 1:26.12 Repetition of ajpofqevggomai (“declaim”) and fwnhv (“sound” here) establishes a link with v. 4—and gives additional disclaimer to the notion that the preceding speech was mere jabber.13 The general concept of v. 4 acquires particularity. The address14 expands the audience to include “Judeans”— unless one is to think of the residents as gentiles, which is u ­ nlikely.15 ejnwtivsasqe lends an air of solemnity.16 gnwsto;n e[stw (lit. “let this be known”) forms an inclusio with ginwskevtw (lit. “let [the entire house of Israel] know”) of v. 36.17 Through the awkward insertion of the mockery, the narrator provides a platform that does not deal with the language miracle.18 The narrator takes no pains to establish theological realism: Peter propounds early Christian doctrine.19

12 13

14

15

16 17

18 19

20

“Peter as the leader.” See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 232–35. D, supported by an Ethiopic ms., reads “with the ten,” a reading accepted by Boismard, Texte, 67. The D-Text simplifies this to “said” (ei\pen), missing the connection. On the verb see Cadbury and Lake, 21. “Raised his voice” (lit.) appears in Judg 9:7 and Act. Paul 3/4.29, the latter probably imitating Acts. This is the first occurrence of an address beginning with a[ndre~ (“gentlemen”), an evocation of classical oratorical practice, in which one was addressing an all-male jury or assembly. It received a wide extension. In An Ethiopian Story 1.19.3 the chief of a robber-band addresses his colleagues as a[ndre~ sustratiw`tai (“Fellow soldiers”). The double address is parallel to that of Paul’s inaugural sermon in 13:16, where “Israelites” and “God-Fearers” constitute the two groups. This verb is not infrequent in the LXX, but occurs only here in the NT. The phrase (1:19; 4:10, 16; 9:42; 13:38; 19:17; 28:22; Ezra 4:12, 13; 5:8; 1 Esdr 2:14) forms a kind of inclusion. See Haenchen, 185. One might ask, for example, how Peter knew that Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God (v. 33). This was not part of the angelic message of 1:11. Richard Bauckham (“Kerygmatic Summaries in the Speeches of Acts,” in Witherington, History, 216) says, “Luke’s kerygmatic summaries are not, as such, summaries of his own Gospel. They are attempts to represent what the apostles preached.” This recognizes the lack of theological unity between Luke and Acts. This particular passage has been the basis of a dialogue between George Kilpatrick and Albertus

Excursus: The Text of Acts 2:17-21 The text of this citation from Joel is difficult to establish.20 Manuscript data provide no warrant for appeal to alternate forms of Joel here, 21 and hypotheses about florilegia, collections of “testimonies,” deal with christological texts rather than quotations about spiritual gifts and are not applicable. The variants therefore belong to the textual history of Acts. The dominant alternatives are an “Alexandrian” and a “Western” text.22 N-A 27 amounts to a compromise between these two traditions.23 I believe that both of these are subsequent editions and that the most likely text of Acts is closer to that of the LXX. The translation is based on the following text, set out for comparative purposes against the texts of Boismard 24 and N-A 27.

F. J. Klijn. Kilpatrick’s proposals in “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” in J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson, eds., Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 64–77, prompted Klijn’s “In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” in Keck and Martin, Studies, 103–10, leading to Kilpatrick’s “Some Quotations in Acts,” in Kremer, Actes, 81–97, esp. 81–83, 94–97. See also Ernst Haenchen, “Schriftzitate und Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZThK 51 (1954) 153–67, esp. 162 (= Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965] 157–71, esp. 165–66. See also Epp, Tendency, 66–72; and Josep Rius-Camps, “La Utilización del Libro de Joel (JL 2,28-32a LXX) en el Discurso de Pedro (Hch 2,14-21),” in David G. K. Taylor, ed., Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (SBLT-CS 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999) 245–70. 21 The text of the LXX (= MT 2:28-32) is relatively secure. Nearly all of the variants noted by Joseph Ziegler in his Göttingen edition (Duodecim prophetae [2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967] 235–36) are traceable to the influence of MT or to the reverse influence of Acts. See also Zehnle, Discourse, 28–35. The agreement of Qumran texts with the later MT provides no other opening for an appeal to a divergent Hebrew textual base (Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999] 430–41). 22 Discussion reasonably begins with Ropes (Text, 16–18) although he was not the first to identify the different types. 23 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 255–58) summarizes the issues and the conclusions reached by the ­editors.

76

Acts part 1C.indd 76

8/27/2008 9:59:42 AM

to the apostles of 1:26.12 Repetition of ajpofqevggomai (“declaim”) and fwnhv (“sound” here) establishes a link with v. 4—and gives additional disclaimer to the notion that the preceding speech was mere jabber.13 The general concept of v. 4 acquires particularity. The address14 expands the audience to include “Judeans”— unless one is to think of the residents as gentiles, which is u ­ nlikely.15 ejnwtivsasqe lends an air of solemnity.16 gnwsto;n e[stw (lit. “let this be known”) forms an inclusio with ginwskevtw (lit. “let [the entire house of Israel] know”) of v. 36.17 Through the awkward insertion of the mockery, the narrator provides a platform that does not deal with the language miracle.18 The narrator takes no pains to establish theological realism: Peter propounds early Christian doctrine.19

12 13

14

15

16 17

18 19

20

“Peter as the leader.” See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 232–35. D, supported by an Ethiopic ms., reads “with the ten,” a reading accepted by Boismard, Texte, 67. The D-Text simplifies this to “said” (ei\pen), missing the connection. On the verb see Cadbury and Lake, 21. “Raised his voice” (lit.) appears in Judg 9:7 and Act. Paul 3/4.29, the latter probably imitating Acts. This is the first occurrence of an address beginning with a[ndre~ (“gentlemen”), an evocation of classical oratorical practice, in which one was addressing an all-male jury or assembly. It received a wide extension. In An Ethiopian Story 1.19.3 the chief of a robber-band addresses his colleagues as a[ndre~ sustratiw`tai (“Fellow soldiers”). The double address is parallel to that of Paul’s inaugural sermon in 13:16, where “Israelites” and “God-Fearers” constitute the two groups. This verb is not infrequent in the LXX, but occurs only here in the NT. The phrase (1:19; 4:10, 16; 9:42; 13:38; 19:17; 28:22; Ezra 4:12, 13; 5:8; 1 Esdr 2:14) forms a kind of inclusion. See Haenchen, 185. One might ask, for example, how Peter knew that Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God (v. 33). This was not part of the angelic message of 1:11. Richard Bauckham (“Kerygmatic Summaries in the Speeches of Acts,” in Witherington, History, 216) says, “Luke’s kerygmatic summaries are not, as such, summaries of his own Gospel. They are attempts to represent what the apostles preached.” This recognizes the lack of theological unity between Luke and Acts. This particular passage has been the basis of a dialogue between George Kilpatrick and Albertus

Excursus: The Text of Acts 2:17-21 The text of this citation from Joel is difficult to establish.20 Manuscript data provide no warrant for appeal to alternate forms of Joel here, 21 and hypotheses about florilegia, collections of “testimonies,” deal with christological texts rather than quotations about spiritual gifts and are not applicable. The variants therefore belong to the textual history of Acts. The dominant alternatives are an “Alexandrian” and a “Western” text.22 N-A 27 amounts to a compromise between these two traditions.23 I believe that both of these are subsequent editions and that the most likely text of Acts is closer to that of the LXX. The translation is based on the following text, set out for comparative purposes against the texts of Boismard 24 and N-A 27.

F. J. Klijn. Kilpatrick’s proposals in “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” in J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson, eds., Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 64–77, prompted Klijn’s “In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” in Keck and Martin, Studies, 103–10, leading to Kilpatrick’s “Some Quotations in Acts,” in Kremer, Actes, 81–97, esp. 81–83, 94–97. See also Ernst Haenchen, “Schriftzitate und Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZThK 51 (1954) 153–67, esp. 162 (= Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965] 157–71, esp. 165–66. See also Epp, Tendency, 66–72; and Josep Rius-Camps, “La Utilización del Libro de Joel (JL 2,28-32a LXX) en el Discurso de Pedro (Hch 2,14-21),” in David G. K. Taylor, ed., Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (SBLT-CS 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999) 245–70. 21 The text of the LXX (= MT 2:28-32) is relatively secure. Nearly all of the variants noted by Joseph Ziegler in his Göttingen edition (Duodecim prophetae [2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967] 235–36) are traceable to the influence of MT or to the reverse influence of Acts. See also Zehnle, Discourse, 28–35. The agreement of Qumran texts with the later MT provides no other opening for an appeal to a divergent Hebrew textual base (Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999] 430–41). 22 Discussion reasonably begins with Ropes (Text, 16–18) although he was not the first to identify the different types. 23 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 255–58) summarizes the issues and the conclusions reached by the ­editors.

76

Acts part 1C.indd 76

8/27/2008 9:59:42 AM

2:14-41

This Edition

Boismard

N-A27

17 kai; e[stai meta; tau`ta,

[ ] e[stai ejn tai`~ ejscavtai~ hJmevrai~,

17 kai; e[stai ejn tai`~ ejscavtai~ hJmevrai~,

levgei oJ qeo;~

levgei oJ kuvrio~,

levgei oJ qeov~,

ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmatov~ mou ejpi; pa`san savrka, kai; profhteuvsousin oiJ uiJoi; uJmw`n kai; aiJ qugatevre~ uJmw`n,

ejkcew` [ ] to; pneu`mav mou ejpi; pa`san savrka, kai; profhteuvsousin oiJ uiJoi; kai; aiJ qugatevre~ aujtw`n

ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmato~ mou ejpi; pa`san savrka, kai; profhteuvsousin oiJ uiJoi; uJmw`n kai; aiJ qugatevre~ uJmw`n

kai; oiJ presbuvteroi uJmw`n ejnuvpnia ejnu­ pniasqhvsontai, kai; oiJ neanivskoi uJmw`n oJravsei~ o[yontai,

kai; oiJ neanivskoi [ ] oJravsei~ o[yontai kai; oiJ presbuvteroi [ ] ejnupnivoi~ ejnu­ pniasqhvsontai

kai; oiJ neanivskoi uJmw`n oJravsei~ o[yontai kai; oiJ presbuvteroi uJmw`n ejnupnivoi~ ejnupniasqhvsontai:

18 kai; ejpi; tou;~ douvlou~ mou kai; ejpi; ta;~ douvla~ mou

kaiv ge ejpi; tou;~ douvlou~ mou kai; ejpi; ta;~ douvla~ mou [ ]

18 kaiv ge ejpi; tou;~ douvlou~ mou kai; ejpi; ta;~ douvla~ mou

ejn tai`~ hJmevrai~ ejkeivnai~ ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmatov~ mou. 19 kai; dwvsw tevrata ejn tw`/ oujranw`/ [a[nw] kai; shmei`a ejpi; th`~ gh`~ [kavtw],

ejkcew` to; pneumav mou, kai; profhteuv­ sousin. kai; dwvsw tevrata ejn tw`/ oujranw`/ a[nw kai; shmei`a ejpi; th`~ gh`~ kavtw,

ejn tai`~ hJmevrai~ ejkeivnai~ ejkcew` ajpo; tou` pneuvmato~ mou, kai; profhteuvsousin. 19 kai; dwvsw tevrata ejn tw`/ oujranw`/ a[nw kai; shmei`a ejpi; th`~ gh`~ kavtw,

ai|ma kai; pu`r kai; ajtmivda kapnou`,

ai|ma kai; pu`r kai; ajtmivda kapnou`.

20 oJ h{lio~ metastrafhvsetai eij~ skovto~ kai; hJ selhvnh eij~ ai|ma

oJ h{lio~ metastrafhvsetai eij~ skovto" kai; hJ selhvnh eij~ ai|ma, [.]

20 oJ h{lio~ metastrafhvsetai eij~ skovto~ kai; hJ selhvnh eij~ ai|ma,

pri;n ejlqei`n hJmevran kurivou th;n ­megavlhn kai; ejpifanh`. 21 kai; e[stai pa`~, o}~ a]n ejpikalevshtai to; o[noma kurivou, swqhvsetai.

pri;n h[ ejlqei`n hJmevran kurivou th;n ­megavlhn [ ]. kai [ ] pa`~ o}~ a]n ejpikalevshtai to; o[noma tou` kurivou swqhvsetai.

pri;n ejlqei`n hJmevran kurivou th;n ­megavlhn kai; ejpifanh`. 21 kai; e[stai pa`~ o}~ a]n ejpikalevshtai to; o[noma kurivou swqhvsetai.

Although the editorial interests of the D-Text have been carefully scrutinized, it is also possible to identify “Alexandrian” features. Since Luke tends to handle quotation from the LXX conservatively, readings that conform to the Septuagint should enjoy a certain preponderance of probability.25 Against this probability stands the critical tendency to honor deviations from the LXX on the grounds that ancient editors were more likely to correct toward the LXX than to deviate from it. Some alterations of the biblical text here were required. 24 Boismard, Texte, 68–69. His text differs slightly from that of Alfred C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 10. 25 Examples of Lucan fidelity to the text of the LXX include, to go no further than this very sermon, Acts 2:25-28//Ps 15:8-11 and 2:34-35//Ps 109:1. The classic study of Luke’s use of the LXX is Clarke, “Use of the Septuagint,” 66–105. Max Wilcox attempted to overturn the consensus in “The Old Testament in Acts 1–15,” Australian Biblical Review 5 (1956) 1–41, but Earl Richard has refuted his claims in “The Old Testament in Acts: Wilcox’s Semitisms

The least debatable of these was clarification of the speaker: God, 26 rather than the prophet. Context also encouraged the deletion of the second half of Joel 3:5 (on which see below). The dangling prepositional phrase in v. 17, meta; tau`ta (lit. “after these things”) is awkward without context. The term shmei`a (“signs” [v. 19]) also relates to the context, since it permits the familiar “signs and wonders” that will be introduced as evidence in v. 22.27 Other deviations from the LXX are stylistic and structural.

in Retrospect,” CBQ 42 (1980) 330–41. In general, see Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), esp. Evans, 171–224. Fitzmyer (90–95) has a good summary of the issues. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 255) affirms that “Acts displays a remarkable degree of faithfulness to the text of the Septuagint.” 26 The v.l. “Lord” is less likely, since it is more ­conventional. 27 Note the order in v. 22: dunavmesi kai; tevrasi kai; shmeivoi" (lit. “miracles and portents and signs”), rather than the normal “signs and wonders.” The order conforms to the citation.

77

Acts part 1C.indd 77

8/27/2008 9:59:42 AM

Most of the alleged theological changes appear in the D-Text.28 The vast majority of modern editors and commentators prefer the D-Text ejn tai`" ejscav­ tai" hJmevrai" (“in the last days”) to the LXX “after this.”29 (meta; tau`ta: B 076 cops Cyril of Jerusalem). Haenchen is an exception. 30 Haenchen considered the reading ejn tai`" ejscav­ tai" hJmevrai" secondary because it did not conform to Lucan theology. “The text of B, meta; tau`ta, is the original: in Lucan theology the last days do not begin as soon as the Spirit has been outpoured!”31 Many have disagreed. 32 Even the apostle of the “delay of the parousia,” Hans Conzelmann, accepted 28 An exception is “my” with men and women “slaves” in v. 18. The Christian form derives from the use of dou`lo~ (“slave”) as a trope for those who belong to God. On this, see Karl H. ­Rengstorf, “dou`lo~,” TDNT 2:261–80, esp. 267–69, 273–77. Epp (Tendency, 68–70) proposes a rationale for the D-Text differences: the “intention of the D-Text . . . [is] . . . both to by-pass Judaism and to emphasize universalism.” This conforms to features of the D-Text in general and Bezae in particular that can be observed elsewhere. Kilpatrick rejects the view that the D-Text is anti-Jewish (“Some Quotations in Acts,” in Kremer, Actes, 82–83, 96). 29 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 256) views this “as the work of an Alexandrian corrector who brought the quotation in Acts into strict conformity with the prevailing text of the Septuagint.” 30 Haenchen, “Schriftzitate,” 161–62, which was a response to Lucien Cerfaux, “Citations scripturaires et tradition textuelle dans le Livre des Actes,” first published in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire (Bibliothèque théologique; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950) and later collected in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d’exégèse et d’histoire religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux (3 vols.; BEThL 6–7, 18; Gembloux: Duculot, 1954–62) 2:93–103. Note also Cadbury and Lake, 21. 31 Haenchen, 179, with reference to his article. Traugott Holtz took a similar position: Unter­ suchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968) 7. See also Martin Rese, Altestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (StNT 1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969) 51–52. 32 For example, Franz Mußner, “‘In den letzten Tagen’ (Apg. 2,17a),” BZ 5 (1961) 263–65. Jervell (142), who regards meta; tau`ta as “clearly second-

“in the last days” as a mere “stereotyped expression.”33 If Lucan theology is the guiding criterion, the longer phrase is the more difficult choice. The understanding of ecstatic prophecy as an eschatological event is congenial with the emphasis on the Spirit and other features of the D-Text that are sometimes labeled “Proto-Montanist.”34 Spiritual enthusiasm is characteristic of much early African Latin Christianity. 35 Internal grounds for assigning this phrase to the D-Text are the omission of ejn tai`~ hJmevrai~ ejkeivnai~ (“in those days”) from v. 18 in the D-Text tradition. The introductory “in the last days”

ary,” views “in the last days” as a temporal marker. (His n. 207 is a compact history of recent scholarship on the question.) Barrett (1:136) resolves the question in favor of “in the last days” by reference to Christian theology in general. 33 Conzelmann (19) with reference to 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1. For his understanding of the phrase “last days” see idem, Theology, 95. In the third edition (Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960] 87), Conzelmann conceded that Haenchen may have been correct. Equivocation is also apparent in Lüdemann (44), who understands the time in question as that of the church, whatever the reading. Elsewhere these precise words occur only in Isa 2:2. 34 See p. 36 n. 44. 35 Note the preface to the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity 1.3-4, which cites Acts 2 in support of the exuperationem gratiae in ultima saeculi spatia decretam (“the extraordinary graces promised for the last stage of time”; trans. Herbert Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 107, whose Latin edition is cited here). The text reads In novissimis enim diebus, dicit dominus, effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem, et prophetabunt fillii filiaeque eorum; et super servos et ancillas meas de meo Spiritu effundam, et iuvenes visiones videbunt, et senes somnia somniabunt” (“For in the last days, God declares, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh and their sons and daughters shall prophesy and on my manservants and my maidservants I will pour my Spirit, and the young men shall see visions and the old men shall dream dreams” [trans. Musurillo, 107]). This may be a “pure” form of the D-Text of the opening verses of the passage in question. Boismard (Texte, 68), says that the “old African” text is embodied in the PseudoCyprianic treatise De Rebaptismate. In this passage De Rebaptismate consistently supports Boismard’s witnesses TO. Finally, D alone reads the verb

78

Acts part 1C.indd 78

8/27/2008 9:59:43 AM

2:14-41

rendered the second temporal phrase superfluous. 36 Luke does not employ “last” in conjunction with “day,” while words to this effect appear elsewhere in connection with the appearance of false teaching. 37 Luke uses the phrase as a connective. 38 Readers of Acts might well have construed it to mean “following the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.” On both textual and theological grounds it is reasonable to posit “in the last days” as part of a D-Text revision of Acts 2:17-21. The adverbs “above” and “below” in v. 19 are additions to the text of Joel found throughout the textual tradition of Acts. They are nonetheless somewhat surprising, for the contrasted pairs a[nw/oujra­ nov~ (“above/heaven”) and kavtw/gh` (“below/earth”) are at home in the philosophical tradition, particularly Platonism, as in Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. 39 Luke was no dualist. He may have introduced these adverbs to provide each of the two clauses with an end rhyme. The conclusion is that neither the so-called “B Text” nor the D-Text of Acts 2:17-21 is a pure representative of a single text type and that comparison of the two yields three or four changes that quite probably go back to Luke: the almost necessary “God says” in v. 17, together with the following “and” (kaiv) ; the metaphorical understanding of “slaves” in v. 18; and, in all likelihood, the addition of “signs” in v. 19. There are no convincing arguments for attributing other changes to Lucan redaction. The chief rationale behind the text proposed here is that Acts is generally faithful to the LXX.

36

37

38

39

  17-21  (I.C.2) This quotation from Joel 3:1-5 (LXX

= MT 2:28-32) resembles what has become known as pesher exegesis from the numerous examples found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.40 It illustrates some of the qualities attending “proofs from prophecy.” The original context, which spoke of deliverance for returning Israelites, restricts itself to Jerusalem, and proceeds to denounce gentiles, is not helpful.41 The citation therefore omits the last part of v. 5. Moreover, as the interpolation of “signs” in v. 19 shows, prophecy can be revised in the interest of history.42 The exhilarating promises of vv. 17b-18 find limited fulfillment in the subsequent narrative. Dreams and visions are restricted to important male characters (Peter, Ananias, Cornelius, and Paul), and any prophesying by daughters takes place offstage. By adding the pronoun “my” to “slaves” in v. 19 Luke has shifted the emphasis from broad inclusion (male/ female, old/young, slave/free) to an emphasis on the “servants of God,” that is, believers (see above). The general purpose of vv. 19-20 is to give a clear frame for Christian existence (cf. 1:6-8), which takes place between (and is determined by) Pentecost and parousia. In that epoch believers will be sustained by the gift of the Spirit. The details are more vague, not least because Luke has inserted “signs” to make v. 19b a distinct clause that refers to the time of Jesus and the life of the

“change” in v. 20 as a present passive rather than as 82; Migr. Abr. 182; Clement of Alexandria Protrep. a future: “The sun is giving way to/being altered to 4.62; and Origen De Orat. 23.4; Philoc. 1.23, Adnot. darkness.” This is arguably an intentional change Exod. 17.16; and Fr. Jer. 1.1. See also Plutarch Fac. to exhibit an eschatology that is in the process of 936D and Theophilus Autolyc. 3.9. A and 69 omit realization. a[nw. Since they include kavtw, this is presumably So Ropes, Text, 16: “The ‘Western’ substitute in an error. vs. 17 was thus widely adopted in non-western 40 More precisely, Acts 2:17-21 is a kind of inverted texts, but the corresponding ‘Western’ omission in pesher exegesis, since it begins with events and vs. 18 scarcely at all.” explains them by reference to the prophetic text. See, e.g., 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1; 1 John 2:18; Jude On the subject, see Devorah Dimant, “Pesharim, 18//2 Pet 3:3. Compare the beginning of Did. 16:3, Qumran,” ABD 5:244–51. ejn ga;r tai`~ ejscavtai~ hJmevrai~ with the verbally 41 See Klauck, Magic, 11–12. similar warnings about false prophets in Mark 42 The variant opening “in the last days” is a similar 7:15 and Matt 24:11-12, which lack this temporal adjustment. ­specification. See Luke 5:27 (of activity of Jesus); 12:4 and 17:8 (general); Acts 7:7 (citation); 13:20 (in survey of salvation history); 15:16 (citation); and 18:1 (of activity of Paul). The phrase occurs twenty-five times in the NT and frequently elsewhere. This combination appears in Philo Leg. all. 3.4,

79

Acts part 1C.indd 79

8/27/2008 9:59:43 AM

church (see above). In any event, the reader of Acts is invited to admire “signs on earth” but is not encouraged to investigate cosmological phenomena.43 Verse 21 hints at the universalism that the allusion to Isa 57:19 (2:39) will bring into the full light of day. Although the language miracle drew the crowd to the scene, Luke effectively ignores the phenomenon by subsuming it under the rubric of prophecy.44   22-24  (II.A1) Following the citation, the oration proper begins with a display of Luke’s attempt to compose rhetorical prose. The address begins with a series of smooth initial vowels, then six uses of the vowel -ou-. Alliteration (e.g., a[ndra ajpodedeigmevnon ajpo;45) and assonance (e.g., shmeivoi" oi|" ejpoivhsen . . . mevsw/ uJmw`n kaqw;" aujtoi; oi[date) abound. The first sentence begins with the object, the subject of which comes at the close of v. 23, followed by an astrigent antithesis, itself allitera-

tive (ajneivlate . . . ajnevsthsen), then by the mellifluous luvsa" ta;" wjdi`na". Note also the beginning of v. 23: tou`ton th`/ wJrismevnh/ boulh`/ kai; prognwvsei tou` qeou` e[kdoton, in which the adjectives frame the euphonious adverbial dative phrase. Verses 22-24 do not constitute a true period, but such jingly and vigorous prose probably represents popular style.46 In addition are some choice terms: ajpodedeigmevnon (“shown,” “appointed”), e[kdoton (“betrayed”), and prosphvxante" (“nailed to”). No reader would be surprised had Luke used “handed over” (paradoqevnta; cf. Luke 24:7; Acts 3:13) and “crucified” (staurwqevnta; cf. Luke 24:7; Acts 2:36), and sustaqevnta or memarturhmevnon (cf. Acts 6:3) would have done for the first.47 The Christology is, by later standards, “adoptionistic,” but the label is an anachronism if viewed as pejorative. “Jesus the Nazorean”48 is a male human being

[LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 43 The omission of kai; ejpifanh` (and glorious) by Press, 1998] 31). a and a and a number of D-Texts is difficult to 47 Ignatius uses the adjective ajpodedeigmevnoi of explain. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 258) prodeacons (“appointed with the consent of Jesus” poses visual errors. To Luke’s readers, this adjecin Phld. inscr. On the meaning, see Cadbury and tive might call to mind the understanding of the Lake (22), who translate the term as “appointed” parousia as an epiphany: 2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; and note the absence of a title (such as “messiah”). 2 Tim 4:1, 8; 2 Clem. 12:1; 17:4, on which see MarThe word is used of those designated for an office, tin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral but can be used after the term has begun. One Epistles (trans. and ed. Helmut Koester; Hermemay compare Latin consul designatus, “consul elect” neia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) 104. (e.g., OGIS 379.5), which brings 3:20 (proke­ 44 See pp. 63–65. ceirismevnon, “appointed” or “destined” messiah) 45 The preposition appears to have been selected to to mind. The text is interesting. Boismard (Texte, complement the verb (in place of the standard uJpov 70) reads the shorter a[ndra ajpodedeigmevnon [“by”]). shmei`oi~ kai; tevrasin (“a man accredited by signs 46 For example, the hexametric oracle of Apis in and portents”). He does not even refer to the text An Ephesian Tale 5.4.11: ÆAnqiva ÆAbrokovmhn of Dd. The former reads a[ndra ajpo; tou` qeou` tacu; lhvyetai a[ndra to;n aujth`~ (“Anthia will -----asmevnon. . . . Note that the prepositional phrase soon have Habrocomes, her very own husband”), (“by God”) precedes the participle, which is generand lines 21–25 of a second-century bce popular ally restored to dedokimasmevnon, per the Latin of mime: oujk h[negke nu`n th;n tucou`san ajdikivhn. d: virum a deo probatum, but approbatum would betmevllw maivnesqai, zh`lo~ m je[cei, kai; katakaivvo­ ter render the Greek restoration. Tertullian (Pud. mai kataleleimhvnh (“[the one who] has not 21; cf. Res. 15) reads destinatum. It is tempting to now borne the present hurt. I am about to go ask whether ajpodedeigmevnon might be an “orthomad; for jealousy holds me, and I am burning dox” correction, but the difference seems minor, at being deserted”; trans. I. C. Cunningham in and no adjective would diminish the adoptionistic Jeffrey Rusten and I. C. Cunningham, Theophrascharacter of “man.” tus, Characters; Herodas, Mimes; Sophron and Other Mime Fragments [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 48 This term is difficult to explain because of the long oµ, but it is quite likely that for Luke this was University Press, 2002] 364–65. The early Sophists synonymous with “Nazarene” (Nazarhnov~). Both utilized jingly prose of this nature, and examples appear in the Gospels: “Nazarene” (e.g., Mark appear in classical poetry, for example, Euripides 1:24||Luke 4:34; Luke 24:19), “Nazorean” (Matt Supplices 161: eujyucivan e[speusa~ ajnt j eujbou­ 2:23; 26:71; John 18:5, 7; 19:19, and seven times in liva~ (“It was bravery rather than prudence that Acts [where “Nazarene” does not occur]). See Hans you pursued”; trans. David Kovacs, Euripides III

80

Acts part 1C.indd 80

8/27/2008 9:59:43 AM

2:14-41

(­ ajnhvr), a status that still applies to Jesus as eschatological judge (Acts 17:31).49 Jesus is a prophet elevated by God, but this was not a promotion based on merit; Jesus’ role was determined by God prior to his conception (Luke 1:31-35), ratified at his baptism (Luke 3:22), and subsequently confirmed (Luke 9:35; etc.). In theological language, all that happened regarding Jesus took place in accordance with “God’s prior knowledge50 and fixed plan” (v. 23). 51 That compressed expression of Luke’s view of divine providence is invoked to account for the gruesome death of Jesus. The claim that for Luke there is no “scandal of the cross” is an overstatement, but Luke is more interested in relieving the offense than in glorying in it. No appeal to providence is required for the miracles of Jesus, which are assumed to be probative. 52 Examples need not be adduced, as these deeds were familiar to the audience. That knowledge intensifies their guilt, although their responsibility is qualified: wicked people were the agents of betrayal. 53 Mellifluous as it is, luvsa" ta;" wjdi`na" tou` qanavtou is vexing. 54 The text is not certain. Although “pangs of death” enjoys wide support, the D-Text alternative “pangs of Hades” (ta;~ wjdi`na~ tou` a{/dou) has good early

49 50

51

52

53

attestation. 55 Another group of witnesses56 invert the order: tou` qanavtou ta;~ wjdi`na~, suggesting disturbance at some point in the transmission. Metzger is certain that “Hades arose out of assimilation to the same word in vv. 27 and 31.”57 The argument is quite reversible: “death” is an assimilation to the (slightly) more common LXX locution, 58 as Barrett notes, adding the comment “or thinking of the victory of Christ over the powers of the underworld (cf. Matt 16:18),” before noting the possibility of internal assimilation. 59 If Polycarp Phil 1:2 is based on Acts, which seems quite possible,60 and if Acts is dated in the second decade of the second century, the probability that Polycarp attests the original text is rather high. The difference is admittedly minor, but Luke may have preferred reference to a place, rather than to a concept.61 Literally, the phrase means “having eased the pangs of death/hell,” an odd characterization of resurrection. Appeal to a Semitic background offers a way out, for the different vocalizations of lbj yield either “pang” or “cord.” The LXX could confuse the two.62 “Bonds of death” would fit the context: “because death could not maintain its grip upon him.”63 Research is best advised

H. Schraeder, “Nazarhnov~, Nazorai`o~,” TDNT 4:874–79. Acts 17:31 uses the verb oJrivzw (“determine,” “appoint”) found in participial form in 2:23. Divine foreknowledge: 1 Pet 1:20. For similar conceptions, see Luke 22:22; 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 4:28; 17:3; 26:23; cf. Acts 10:42. Compare also Rom 1:4 (in some sense a probable source) and Heb 4:7. For the links between this understanding of Jesus’ death and the Lucan passion story, see Schneider, 1:272. A more developed exposition of these themes can be seen in the Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.41.1–2, which, according to F. Stanley Jones, is dependent on Acts here (“A Jewish Christian Reads Luke’s Acts of the Apostles: The Use of the Canonical Acts in the Ancient Jewish Christian Source behind PseudoClementine Recognitions, 1.27-71,” SBLSP 1995 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995] 617–35, esp. 626). The expression dia; ceirov~ (“by the hand of”) is a common synecdoche, found thirty-three times in the LXX. Cf. also Acts 17:25; 19:11; 21:11; and 28:17. a[nomoi is of uncertain meaning. It could refer to gentiles (Wis 17:12), in the sense of “those who are outside Israelite legal tradition . . . and act contrary to its moral standards” (BDAG 86, s.v.), as

54 55 56

57 58 59 60 61 62

63

in the Act. Paul 10/13. Haenchen (180 n. 11) notes its application to the Romans “in Jewish writings.” Walter Gutbrot (“a[nomo~,” TDNT 4:1086–87) says that it is “a common term for the Gentiles” (1087). Luke, who does not exaggerate the role of the Romans in the death of Jesus, may here acknowledge that they were agents of the Jewish ­authorities. See Pervo, Dating, 17–20. D itar, c, d, dem, e, gig, p ph, r, rot, w vg syr p copbo, mae Polycarp Irlat Epiphanius Augustine Cassiodorus. syrh, pal cops arm eth geo slav Eusebius Athanasius Ps-Athanasius Greg Nyssa Chrysostom Cyril Theodotus of Ancyra; Greek mss.acc to Bede. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 259. See n. 62. Barrett, 1:143. See p. 1. “Hades” is a place in Luke 10:15; (Q); 16:23, as well as in Acts 2:27 (cit.) and 31 following. 2 Kgdms 22:6; Ps 17:5-6; and Ps 114:3 have “pangs of death” (wjdi`ne~ qanavtou) where “bonds” is the proper word. Thus Charles Cutler Torrey, The Composition and Date of Acts (HTS 1; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1916) 28–29, who says “Luke had

81

Acts part 1C.indd 81

8/27/2008 9:59:44 AM

to focus on the Greek text rather than point the finger at an incompetent translator.64 Birth pangs (a common application of wjdi`ne~) are associated with the pangs of hell in 1QH xi.8-10: For the children have come to the throes of death, and she labours in her pains who bears a man for amid the throes of Death (twm yrbv) she shall bring forth a man-child, and amid the pains of Hell (ylbhb lwv) there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvellous Mighty Counsellor; and a man shall be delivered from out of the throes65 The phrase luvein wjdi`na~ can refer to relieving labor pains,66 and Georg Bertram argues for this view.67 Barrett considers another proposal, that the resurrection of Jesus terminated the messianic woes. This reading views

64

65

66

67 68 69 70 71 72

Death as the personified bearer of children (the dead).68 In such an exegetical thicket, one can see why many find it desirable to prefer the LXX.69 This trope views death as a power.70 Since Lucan theology follows other paths, it is likely that Luke took the phrase from the tradition, possibly liturgical,71 esteeming it a suitable introduction to v. 24b, which, in turn, lays the ground for (and interprets) the citation from Ps 15:10 LXX in v. 27.72   25-31  (II.B1-C1) Ps 15:8-11 is quoted without deviation from the LXX, omitting the final clause.73 The interpretation in v. 29, which begins with an apt rhetorical understatement, proceeds from the principle that often justifies figurative exegesis. Scripture is true. Since the words do not apply to David,74 the presumed author, they must apply to someone else.75 Luke does not, however, exploit this incongruity to uncover spiritual meaning; the citation shows that David was a “prophet,”

73 In the light of v. 33 (exaltation to God’s right before him the words atym yd aylbj arc, ‘loosing hand), it seems odd that the quotation did not the bands of death.’” Cadbury and Lake (23) and include the closing terpnovthte~ ejn th/` dexia/` eij~ Haenchen (180 n. 14) reject this proposal. This tevlo~ (“ joys at your right hand forever”). Franklin image is found elsewhere, for example, “snares of (Christ the Lord, 33) has an answer. Luke wishes to death” (mortis laqueis) in Horace Odes 3.24.8. differentiate between resurrection and ascension A second objection is that Acts 2:24b is almost cerand uses a different proof for each. By omitting tainly Lucan. The notion of “impossibility” implies the end of Psalm 15 LXX, he leaves room for “necessity,” resonating with the theme of a divine Psalm 110 to be fulfilled by the ascension. One plan introduced in v. 23. Furthermore, v. 24b premay ask, with Bruce (125), why Luke did not end pares for the subsequent citation. See below and the citation with v. 27. This ignores the metaphoriZehnle, Discourse, 34. cal understanding of resurrection as “paths to Trans. Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls life” (oJdou;~ zwh`~) that produce the joy of divine in English (New York: Penguin, 1997) 259. (In earpresence in v. 28. “Way” (oJdov~) is Luke’s image of lier editions, col. XI was col. III.) choice for the Christian “movement.” This phrase BDAG 607 4, s.v. luvw. Note Job 39:1-3 and Aelian and the fortuitous “tongue” of v. 26 provide both Nat. an. 12.5. See also the references in Lampe, literary enhancement and support for the interpres.vv. luvw, 817 B3e, and wjdivn, 1555 1B. In these tation. Barrett (1:144–46) supplies ample details on later writers the phrase is a metonym for “be the quotation. Both passage and interpretation are born,” “give birth.” “ Jervell (146) is also hesitant to borrowed in Act. Phil. 6, 14 (François Bovon et al., declare “pangs” an error. eds., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres [Geneva: Labor Georg Bertram, wjdivn,” TDNT 9:667–74, esp. 673. He et Fides, 1981] 204). is followed by Walter Radl, “wjdivn,” EDNT 3:506. Barrett, 1:143–44. The reading “Hades,” viewed as 74 David’s tomb: Neh 3:16; Josephus Bell. 1.61; Ant. 7.393; 13.249; 16.179-83. On the site, see Fitzmyer, a place, is less amenable to this interpretation. 257. The phrase is evocative of the creed in 1 Cor So Cadbury and Lake, 23; Haenchen, 180–81; and 15:3-4. The implied contrast between David, who Barrett, 1:143–44, among others. died and was buried, and Jesus, who died, was See Jervell, 146. buried, and was raised, is independent of the claim So Haenchen, 6; and Plümacher, Lukas, 42; but that Jesus also had a tomb. “Patriarch,” an LXX evidence for this attractive proposal is lacking. coinage, is otherwise restricted in the NT to AbraThe Latin translations of Irenaeus, Augustine (in ham, Isaac, Jacob, and his sons. See Bruce, 126. part), and some Coptic witnesses read “by them,” evidently referring to “the pangs of hell.” Boismard 75 For a similar style of argumentation, also utilizing David, see Heb 4:6-11. (Texte, 70) takes this as the D-Text. The plural would eminently suit the interpretation “bonds of death.”

82

Acts part 1C.indd 82

8/27/2008 9:59:44 AM

2:14-41

inspired to speak about future events.76 Similar arguments appear in Paul’s initial sermon (13:16-47), establishing both the similarity between the two missionaries and the uniformity of the messianic message.77 Supporting this prophetic gift was David’s knowledge of the promise (v. 30).78 The participle proi>dwvn (“foreseeing”) in v. 31 establishes the meaning of the verb in v. 25 (see above).79 The exegesis presumes resurrection of the flesh and is therefore not a residue of the primitive Christian message.80   32-36  (II.D1-A 2) Verses 32-33 show the development of the Christian creed. Resurrection, exaltation/ascension, session at God’s right hand,81 and the gift of the Spirit are distinct theologoumena, sequential events, in Luke’s thought. These elements are more or less accumulated, but not without some integration. The fundamental assumption is that Jesus had to be exalted, with or without a specific resurrection and/or ascension, as the ground for bestowal of the Spirit. This view

is not unique to Luke, and he does not need to justify or expound it. For Acts, Jesus is the source of the Spirit received by believers. The father had promised the Spirit to him. The result of this is the phenomenon seen and heard by the audience, thus cementing the claim of vv. 16-21.82 Verses 34-35 continue to build the verbal sandwich, with interpretation preceding proof. The citation of Ps 109:1 LXX shows that Luke equates ascension with exaltation, that is, empowerment.83 The benefits of this citation are well summarized by Barrett.84 It links Jesus to David while proclaiming his superiority and explains that his departure meant reception into heaven in a privileged position. As a celestial messiah, Jesus can be called kuvrio~ (“Lord,” “sovereign”), justifying the attribution of other biblical uses of that title to him, rather than to God.   36  The verse structurally completes the elaborate ring constituting the core of the speech (vv. 22-36). Rhetorically, it is the peroration—a concluding summary of the

76 The HB does not classify David as a prophet, but appears in Rom 8:34, in the sequence died, rose, he is so denoted in 11QPs 27:2-11 and by Josephus is seated. Note Acts 7:55-56; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; Ant. 6.166. See Fitzmyer, 258. 8:1; 10:12. On the concept of the sessio ad dextram 77 Acts 13:22-23 identifies Jesus as David’s promised (seating at right hand of God), see Franklin, Christ heir, as does 2:30; Acts 13:34-37 follows the arguthe Lord, 29–41; and Robert F. O’Toole, “Luke’s ment of 2:25-31, also citing Psalm 15 LXX. For Understanding of Jesus’ Resurrection-Ascensionother parallels, see the comments on that speech. Exaltation,” BTB 9 (1979) 106–14. 78 Verse 30 exhibits semiticizing, “biblical” language. 82 “See” is a bit surprising, since the earlier focus was “Heart” (kardiva~) may be a euphemistic coron hearing (2:6, 8, 11). Although it may be claimed rection by D*. “Belly” (koiliva~), found in many that the audience would grasp the notion of a D-Text witnesses, assimilates to the text of the promised gift of the Spirit, full understanding is underlying psalm: 131:11 LXX. The direct object available only to the readers (1:4-5). is the prepositional phrase (lit. “from fruit of his 83 Verse 34a may be an echo of Ps 68:19. See Lindars, loins”). This stimulated a number of variants that Apologetic, 43–55. Fitzmyer lists those who support supply the expected infinitive after “swear.” These this proposal, which he views with strong skeptiinclude the wordplay “the messiah would arise” cism. Eph 4:7-16 may be a more fruitful area (ajnasth`sai [-sein] to;n cri`ston). Many D-Texts for investigating intertextuality, since Acts and add “in the flesh” (kata; savrka). That phrase, Ephesians appear to reflect similar views (here and which may be anti-Gnostic (but note “flesh” in elsewhere, on which see Pervo, Dating, 293–99). v. 31), entered the Textus Receptus. On the throne 84 Barrett, 1:150–51. See also David P. Moessner, of David, see Luke 1:32. The expression “fruit of “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms his loins” is borrowed in Act. Paul 10/13. See Hills, and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost “Acts,” 24–54, here 48. Speech (Acts 2:14-36),” in Thompson, Literary 79 The v.l. proeidwv~ (“knowing in advance”) eviStudies, 215–32. Moessner elucidates the connecdently picks up from the “knowing” of v. 30. tions among the citations from Joel and Psalms 80 Outside of the Lucan writings, the earliest insis15 and 109 LXX. He shows that in the LXX Psalm tence on the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh is 15 is a psalm of the suffering righteous and thus found in Ignatius, notably Smyrn. 3:2-3. cf. Eph. 7:2; relates the experiences of David to those of Jesus Magn. 1:2; and Smyrn. 12:2. and serves as a hinge between the citations of Joel 81 The session of Christ at God’s right hand (Psalm and Psalm 109. On Psalm 109, see also David M. 110 is in the background; cf. also 1 Kgs 2:19) Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early

83

Acts part 1C.indd 83

8/27/2008 9:59:44 AM

argument. The initial ajsfalw`~ (“beyond any doubt”) emphasizes the quality of the argument.85 “House of Israel” is a suitably biblical phrase86 stressing corporate responsibility. Said responsibility rapidly transpires in a crisp, closing antithesis to this well-packaged argument: God has made the one whom “you” killed both sovereign and messiah. Psalm 110 established the former; Psalm 16 the latter.87   37-40  (41) (III) The response is all that could be hoped for.88 The narrator states that the primary reaction was not joy that God had given Israel a sovereign messiah but remorse for the contribution to the execution of Jesus.89 The hearers ask90 the essential question posed by all seekers of salvation: “What shall I/we do?”91 In response, Peter issues92 two commands (“repent,” “be

85

86

87

88

baptized”) with two promises, one implicit (forgiveness of sins,93), the other the gift of the Holy Spirit, followed by a reassuring rationale: the promise is universal. The language does not permit attributing forgiveness to repentance and the gift to baptism. The scenario appears to be based on Luke 3 (Q): an exhortation to be baptized for remission of sins reinforced by citations of prophetic Scripture. In any case, it fulfills the promise of John about a coming baptism with the Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5). This is the first reference to baptism in the name of Jesus.94 The narrative assumes that its readers are aware of Christian baptism and that it is too firmly fixed in the life of the community to require specific dominical warrant. Verse 38 states the fundamental principle that

­ hristianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, C 1973); and Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), esp. 146–47. Luke 1:4 also uses a form of the verb “know” (ejpiginwvskw) with the noun ajsfavleia (rendered “truth” by NRSV). This suggests that “knowledge of the truth” is the result of rhetorical persuasion rather than the mere acknowledgment of data. See Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols.; trans. and ed. J. D. Ernest; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994) 1:219. pa`~ oi\ko~ ÆIsrahvl occurs nine times in the LXX (often with the article, on which see Moule, Idiom Book, 95). Taken strictly, the verse suggests that Jesus became Lord and Messiah following his exaltation. The designation “man” in v. 22 does not discourage this understanding, but this is not Luke’s meaning. See Conzelmann, 21. Lucan theology is robustly subordinationist. Verse 36 was troublesome to anti-Arian theologians because of the verb “make” (poievw). C. Kavin Rowe (“Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 [2007] 37–56) argues that it is not temporal but stated from the viewpoint of the hearer. This is valid, but it is also correct to observe that the implied Christology of Luke 1–2 is overlooked in Acts, which takes its departure from the resurrection rather than from the birth of Jesus. Termination of speeches by interruption is a common device in ancient literature. Other examples from Acts include 5:32-33; 7:53-54; 10:43-44; 17:23; 22:21-22; 26:23. Interruptions do not occur before the narrator has made his point.

89 The D-Text is interesting. Boismard (Texte, 73) reconstructs the following: tovte pavnte~ oiJ sunelqovnte~ kai; ajkouvsante~ katenuvghsan th/` kardiva/ kaiv tine~ ejx aujtw`n ei\pon pro;~ Pevtron kai; tou;~ ajpostovlou~ tiv ou\n poihvsomen a[ndre~ ajdelfoiv; uJpodeivxate hJmi`n (“Then all who had gathered and heard were conscience-stricken, and some of them . . . show us”). Apart from stylistic changes, this makes a less abrupt transition and, although stressing that all were moved, assigns the question to only some of the auditors. The change illustrates the narrator’s indifference to realistic description and the desire of some editors to correct this. See also Epp, Tendency, 73–74. (“Show us” [uJpodeivxate hJmi`n] may derive from Luke 3:7, suggesting that the editor of this text recognized the parallel between the close of Peter’s address and the message of John the Baptist, on which see below.) 90 The D-Text omits “other” (loipouv~), which is amenable to the interpretation that Peter enjoys a higher status. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 260) views the omission as “accidental.” 91 Luke 3:12, 14; Mark 10:17 parr.; Acts 16:30; 22:10. Their use of the vocative employed by Peter in v. 29, a[ndre~ ajdelfoiv (lit. “brothers”) indicates that they accept his message. 92 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 261) makes a good case for viewing fhsivn as secondary. The varying forms and placement of “he said” suggest that the earliest text lacked this verb. 93 The omission of “your” with “sins” (found in some D-texts but not admitted into Boismard’s edition [Texte, 75]) could, as Epp (Tendency, 72) suggests, give the text a more universalistic application. Ropes (Text, 22), however, viewed this as a second-

84

Acts part 1C.indd 84

8/27/2008 9:59:44 AM

2:14-41

­ aptism conveys the primary gift of the Spirit. Variab tions on this order are likely to be ad hoc requirements of the narrative rather than the result of conflicting views or a confused narrator.95 The theology of Acts cannot be separated from its narrative context, which is to say that efforts to extract it from that setting and present it in systematized form are precarious, albeit sometimes necessary, enterprises.   39-40  The first verse is a parenetic reinforcement of the preceding verse, with a specific reference to “the promise,” evoking 1:4 in general and 2:30 in particular. Added to this are a strong hint of universalism96 and a reference to the close of the quotation from Joel in v. 21, neatly rounding off the entire speech. The language evokes Third Isaiah, which rivals Second Isaiah as Luke’s “favorite book of the Bible.”97 This allusion to Isa 57:19 comes from the (Deutero-) Pauline workshop (cf. Luke 2:14; Eph 2:13, 17). Verse 40 reinforces the parallel with the Baptizer’s call for repentance by way of a vague summary 98 illustrated with a vivid exhortation of apocalyptic tenor.99 The exhortation to be saved also conforms to the promise found in the last word of the quotation from Joel in v. 21.100

94

95

96

97 98

99

Within the symmetries of Luke and Acts, this speech fills several niches. It is an inaugural address like that of Jesus in Luke 4:16-27.101 Both include a public announcement of salvation, via Deutero-Isaiah. In both structural position and specific content, the Pentecost address displays many affinities to Paul’s address in Antioch (13:16-47).102 The narrative conclusion, with its question from the hearers, exhortation to repentance, (implicit) threat of judgment, and mass baptism recalls the ministry of the Baptizer, Luke 3:2b-18 (21). Peter will be a forerunner of Paul. In the immediate context, the speech fulfills the command that the apostles be witnesses to Jesus in Jerusalem after they have received the gift of the Spirit.   41  The place of v. 41103 in the structure is unclear. The particle me;n ou\n often marks major decisions, and the dev in v. 42 links that verse to v. 41. The syntax thus encourages assignment of v. 41 to a new paragraph,104 but narrative logic pulls in the other direction: v. 41 concludes the entire section; me;n ou\n can be emphatic, as in 1:6. The majority of critics therefore include v. 41 with the paragraph beginning at v. 37. The same question may be raised about the summary v. 42. This

ary conformation to the Gospel tradition, followed by Metzger, Textual Commentary, 261–62. The addition of “Lord” by a range of witnesses is clearly secondary. Boismard (Texte, 74), supported by logic and some evidence, omits “Messiah.” This may be the earliest reading. This is not to imply that Luke would subordinate the Spirit to the authority of an institution, nor that the exceptions can be swept under the rug. See the comments on 8:14-17; 10:44-48. The D-Text typically shifts the pronouns to the first person: “us and our children.” This is a move in the direction of the removal of the Jews from salvation history (Epp, Tendency, 70–72). N-A 27 (pp. 792–93) lists twenty-eight allusions to Isaiah 55–66 in Luke and Acts. Compare Luke 3:18, polla; me;n ou\n kai; e{tera parakalw`n eujhggelivzeto to;n laovn (“So, with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news to the people”), to Acts 2:40a. For similar phrases, see Sallust Bell. Jug. 32.1; Xenophon Hell. 2.4, 42; Polybius Histories 3.111; 11; and Tacitus Ann. 14.1, 3; cf. Pseudo Lucian Onos 24.2. “Unscrupulous generation”: note Deut 32:5; Ps 77:8 LXX; and Luke 9:41; 11:29. Compare John’s “generation of vipers” (a different, albeit related, word) in Luke 3:7-9.

100 For Chrysostom, the invitation of God is the greatest of all miracles (Hom. 5). 101 On the links between these two speeches, see, e.g., Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:29. 102 See above and the commentary on that speech. 103 Some D-Texts indicate that they received the message “gladly” (ajsmevnw~; cf. 21:17). D reads oiJ me;n ou\n pisteuvsante~ to;n lovgon aujtou` ejbap­ tivsqhsan (“Those who believed his message were baptized”). Boismard (Texte, 75) prints oiJ de; ajsmevnw~ ajpodexavmenoi to;n lovgon ejpivsteusan kai; ejbaptivsqhsan (“Those who gladly accepted the message believed and were baptized”). Both of these constructions emphasize that not all accepted the message and that their baptism was based on (a confession of) faith. The question of faith motivated the addition of 8:37. D-Texts also omit “about” (wJseiv) before “three thousand.” 104 So, e.g., Cadbury and Lake, 27; and Barrett, 1:159. (Barrett connects this decision to the use of sources, which is unlikely here.)

85

Acts part 1C.indd 85

8/27/2008 9:59:45 AM

is very similar to 1:14, which is viewed as the conclusion of a unit, and the inclusion of this summary with vv. 43-47 involves an awkward repetition of “devoted” (proskarterou`nte~) in v. 46.105 These questions reveal the character of Lucan structure, which is both tightly woven and fluid.106 A strong reason for grouping v. 42 with vv. 43-47 is that all are imperfect (or the equivalent) and thus relate repeated, habitual action, the proper form for narrative summary. Talbert, however, proposes an A B C B' A' arrangement encompassing vv. 41-47 (v. 41 growth; v. 42, community life; v. 43 miracles; vv. 44-47a community life; and v. 47b growth107). The weakness of this is that B' (vv. 44-47a) is out of balance. It seems preferable to view vv. 41 and 47 as concluding their respective units and v. 42 as the general introduction to the summary, followed by details in vv. 43-47.108 Excursus: The Size of the Early Jerusalem Church Acts 1:15 reports that the community had about 120 members, that around three thousand received baptism on Pentecost, and that, by the time of 4:4, there were five thousand adult males, permitting readers to envision a total of about twenty thousand believers. It therefore comes as no surprise when James later observes that there are “myriads” of observant believers (21:20). Although Luke frequently notes quantitative growth,109 specific data are provided only for Jerusalem in the early days of the post-Easter movement. This generates several intertwined questions: Are these approximate numbers likely to be accurate? Do they derive from a source? And why are they restricted to this time and place? Regarding the 105 UBS4 marks vv. 37-42 as a single paragraph (p. 415). For various divisions in various editions and versions, see the segmentation apparatus on that page. 106 On this fluidity, see Henry J Cadbury, “The Summaries in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 395 and n. 3. 107 Talbert, Reading Acts, 50. Gregory E. Sterling takes vv. 41 and 47 as forming an inclusio, viewing this as decisive (“‘Athletes of Virtue’: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts [2:41-47; 4:32-34; 5:12-16],” JBL 113 [1994] 679–96, esp. 680 n. 7). The distinction between literary inclusion and parallel endings probably cannot be resolved. 108 Arguments similar to those given above are advanced by Maria Anicia Co, “The Major Summaries in Acts (Acts 2,42-47; 4,32-35; 5,12-16,” EThL 68 (1992) 49–85, esp. 58–61.

Pentecost report there is also the question whether three thousand could be converted and baptized on a single occasion. Although those of even moderately critical inclination might be expected to doubt the reliability of these data, commentators tend to pass over the numbers in silence.110 The data are not without defenders. Marshall says that there is “nothing incredible” about the number.111 The Romans would not have worried about so peaceable an assembly. Witherington does not require accuracy of the number: “[I]t could just mean that Luke is indicating a surprisingly large number of the crowd responded positively,”112 but he maintains, “On the other hand, the number itself is not out of the realm of possibility.” Festival pilgrims would swell the population to as much as two hundred thousand, and there was plenty of water for baptisms. Both the assumption of Roman indifference and the appeal to pilgrim multitudes contradict the views of the narrator, for whom opposition comes from Jewish authorities and according to whom the converts were not Pentecost visitors but permanent residents from the Diaspora. Pilgrim crowds will not readily account for the five thousand males of 4:4.113 Wolfgang Reinhardt seeks to refute negative opinions with critical research.114 He rejects the standard population figure of thirty thousand for Jerusalem at this time as too low, preferring a range of sixty thousand to one hundred twenty thousand. His detailed argument on this point merits recognition. To this theoretical populace Reinhardt adds a large number of pilgrims.115 He concludes, “Since there is also no convincing theological interpretation of the figures ‘about 3,000’ and (about) 5,000, one will instead have to accept that Luke was dependent 109 See 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 11:21, 24; 12:24; 14:1; and 19:20. 110 One exception is Roloff (63), who regards the number as “unreal.” 111 Marshall, 82; see also his article “The Significance of Pentecost,” SJT 30 (1977) 347–69. 112 Witherington, 156; he offers no proof or parallels to the use of three thousand to indicate a surprisingly large number. This is just another way of calling the figure a Lucan fiction. 113 Among those who note the swollen population at Pentecost are Pesch (1:126) and Reinhardt (see the following notes). 114 Wolfgang Reinhardt, “The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 237–65. 115 Ibid., 259–63. Reinhardt staves off the problem of 2:5-11 by arguing that the language (specifically,

86

Acts part 1C.indd 86

8/27/2008 9:59:45 AM

is very similar to 1:14, which is viewed as the conclusion of a unit, and the inclusion of this summary with vv. 43-47 involves an awkward repetition of “devoted” (proskarterou`nte~) in v. 46.105 These questions reveal the character of Lucan structure, which is both tightly woven and fluid.106 A strong reason for grouping v. 42 with vv. 43-47 is that all are imperfect (or the equivalent) and thus relate repeated, habitual action, the proper form for narrative summary. Talbert, however, proposes an A B C B' A' arrangement encompassing vv. 41-47 (v. 41 growth; v. 42, community life; v. 43 miracles; vv. 44-47a community life; and v. 47b growth107). The weakness of this is that B' (vv. 44-47a) is out of balance. It seems preferable to view vv. 41 and 47 as concluding their respective units and v. 42 as the general introduction to the summary, followed by details in vv. 43-47.108 Excursus: The Size of the Early Jerusalem Church Acts 1:15 reports that the community had about 120 members, that around three thousand received baptism on Pentecost, and that, by the time of 4:4, there were five thousand adult males, permitting readers to envision a total of about twenty thousand believers. It therefore comes as no surprise when James later observes that there are “myriads” of observant believers (21:20). Although Luke frequently notes quantitative growth,109 specific data are provided only for Jerusalem in the early days of the post-Easter movement. This generates several intertwined questions: Are these approximate numbers likely to be accurate? Do they derive from a source? And why are they restricted to this time and place? Regarding the 105 UBS4 marks vv. 37-42 as a single paragraph (p. 415). For various divisions in various editions and versions, see the segmentation apparatus on that page. 106 On this fluidity, see Henry J Cadbury, “The Summaries in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 395 and n. 3. 107 Talbert, Reading Acts, 50. Gregory E. Sterling takes vv. 41 and 47 as forming an inclusio, viewing this as decisive (“‘Athletes of Virtue’: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts [2:41-47; 4:32-34; 5:12-16],” JBL 113 [1994] 679–96, esp. 680 n. 7). The distinction between literary inclusion and parallel endings probably cannot be resolved. 108 Arguments similar to those given above are advanced by Maria Anicia Co, “The Major Summaries in Acts (Acts 2,42-47; 4,32-35; 5,12-16,” EThL 68 (1992) 49–85, esp. 58–61.

Pentecost report there is also the question whether three thousand could be converted and baptized on a single occasion. Although those of even moderately critical inclination might be expected to doubt the reliability of these data, commentators tend to pass over the numbers in silence.110 The data are not without defenders. Marshall says that there is “nothing incredible” about the number.111 The Romans would not have worried about so peaceable an assembly. Witherington does not require accuracy of the number: “[I]t could just mean that Luke is indicating a surprisingly large number of the crowd responded positively,”112 but he maintains, “On the other hand, the number itself is not out of the realm of possibility.” Festival pilgrims would swell the population to as much as two hundred thousand, and there was plenty of water for baptisms. Both the assumption of Roman indifference and the appeal to pilgrim multitudes contradict the views of the narrator, for whom opposition comes from Jewish authorities and according to whom the converts were not Pentecost visitors but permanent residents from the Diaspora. Pilgrim crowds will not readily account for the five thousand males of 4:4.113 Wolfgang Reinhardt seeks to refute negative opinions with critical research.114 He rejects the standard population figure of thirty thousand for Jerusalem at this time as too low, preferring a range of sixty thousand to one hundred twenty thousand. His detailed argument on this point merits recognition. To this theoretical populace Reinhardt adds a large number of pilgrims.115 He concludes, “Since there is also no convincing theological interpretation of the figures ‘about 3,000’ and (about) 5,000, one will instead have to accept that Luke was dependent 109 See 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 11:21, 24; 12:24; 14:1; and 19:20. 110 One exception is Roloff (63), who regards the number as “unreal.” 111 Marshall, 82; see also his article “The Significance of Pentecost,” SJT 30 (1977) 347–69. 112 Witherington, 156; he offers no proof or parallels to the use of three thousand to indicate a surprisingly large number. This is just another way of calling the figure a Lucan fiction. 113 Among those who note the swollen population at Pentecost are Pesch (1:126) and Reinhardt (see the following notes). 114 Wolfgang Reinhardt, “The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 237–65. 115 Ibid., 259–63. Reinhardt staves off the problem of 2:5-11 by arguing that the language (specifically,

86

Acts part 1C.indd 86

8/27/2008 9:59:45 AM

2:14-41

on a reliable transmission of these figures.”116 Other possibilities are excluded.117 Population estimates cannot vault these statistics into the orbit of probability. One objection comes from the calculations of Rodney Stark, who has produced the most sophisticated estimate of the numerical growth of Christianity. He uses a base of one thousand for the year 40.118 If one used the “Lucan base” of twenty thousand in 30, the numbers would be around 210,827 by the year 100 and 1,133,878 by 150. That is far too large.119 More specific grounds for comparison come from movements discussed by Josephus, who claims that there were six thousand male Pharisees late in the reign of Herod (i.e., near the turn of the eras [Ant. 17.42]) and about four thousand Essenes in the late first century (Ant. 18.20). Had the Christian movement been of comparable size in the mid-first century, the historian would have been likely to contribute more than the thirteen words devoted to the subject in Ant. 18.64 (presuming that these are relatively genuine).120 katoikevw) can be taken to refer to pilgrims as well as residents and that many of these remained for a few days, thus accounting for the figure of 4:4. Since Luke provides no chronological data, the amount of time deemed to have past between 2:41 and 4:4 is a construction of the reader and cannot form the grounds of a reasonable argument. Peter’s speech does not take pilgrim hearers into account, for it accuses the dramatic audience of killing Jesus (vv. 23, 36). Reinhardt and others are compelled to overlook or override the plain meaning of the text at several points in order to preserve the historical value of the statistics. This is not simply perverse; it shows that their approach misunderstands Acts. Reta Halteman Finger (Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007] 21) doubts that sufficient food and water for a million pilgrims could be supplied. 116 Note that Reinhardt supplies “about,” which is not found in the text of 4:4. The quotation is from p. 265. 117 Cf. Pesch (1:126), who rejects both Lucan invention and symbolic interpretations, leaving no option but data from a source. This viewpoint goes back to Wikenhauser, Geschichtswert, 119–22. 118 Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) 7–13 (see table 1.1, p. 7). Stark bases his calculations on an average growth rate of 40 percent per decade. This derives from recent movements, to be sure, but he finds corroboration from both archaeological and literary data. See also

Christians can be dismissed as a “tribe” that has not yet vanished. Since the figures in Acts are beyond the realm of reasonable probability, and since they do not fit into the propensities of any source theories, they are most likely Lucan inventions.121 A “theological” or “symbolic” interpretation is not, in fact, difficult to postulate. Form criticism indicates that large round numbers are appropriate at the close of mass miracles, notably the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:44 parr.).122 By including the numeric data in 2:41 and 4:4, Luke affirms that the advent of the gospel message caused an explosion of new life.123 Those who prefer parables to miracles may wish to think of the hundredfold harvest gathered from the good soil (Luke 8:8), but Luke wished to depict a miracle. The statistics given in the early chapters of Acts are congruent with his overall portrait of the early Jerusalem community as an ideal body. The miraculous numerical explosion of new life at Pentecost will be followed by a summary of the miraculous quality of that life.124

119

120

121

122

123

124

the review of these calculations by Keith Hopkins, “Christian Number and Its Implications,” JECS 6 (1998) 185–226. According to Stark’s model, Christianity reached this size in c. 250, giving rise to the first empirewide persecutions. In 150, the church did not yet present so great a threat to the Roman Empire. Josephus’s account of the death of James (Ant. 20.200) does not indicate that he was the leader of a movement of myriads. Wolfgang Reinhardt does not take up the claim that the three thousand converts immediately constituted themselves as a well-organized community with a vibrant worship program and a full-fledged charitable system (“The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 237–65). Cf. also Mark 6:9 (feeding of the four thousand) and John 20:30-31. Mark 6:44, followed by Luke 9:14, speaks of “adult males,” permitting the same extrapolation as in Acts 4:4. Three thousand is a multiple of twelve, while the value of five thousand is established by the feeding story, but precise identification of a “mystical” referent would miss the point. (Bede, 22, ad 2:41, for example, links the three thousand to the Trinity). For further comments on the function of these “notes on growth,” see the comments on the structure of chaps. 3-7, pp. 96–98 below. For other creative uses of the numbers associated with miracle stories, see the comments on 4:22 and 27: 37.

87

Acts part 1C.indd 87

8/27/2008 9:59:45 AM

2

2:42-47  A Summary 42/ The believers devoted thema selves to the apostles’ teaching, cultivation of unity, their meal, and their prayers. 43/ Awe overtook everyone. The apostles became the agents of numerous portents and miracles. 44/ All the believers remained together and shared everything. 45/ They would sell their goods and property and distribute the proceeds to everyone on the basis of need. 46/ Every day they met together in the temple and ate in homes, taking their food with happy and sincere a hearts 47/ that were filled with praise to God. Everyone approved of them, and the Lord increased daily the number of those who were being saved together.

The meaning of ajfelovthti is debatable. Cadbury and Lake (29–30) incline toward “generosity.” Barrett (1:171) favors “simplicity.”

Analysis

As after the ascension (Acts 1:13-14), summary follows an exciting account. Narrative is well served by interludes between dramatic high points. Such pauses allow readers to digest the story and prevent them from becoming jaded. Summaries, in sum, give readers a rest.1 The specific purpose of this summary is to offer a glimpse at the community that erupted into life at Pentecost and its nature prior to the rise of conflict. The similarity to succeeding summaries (4:4, 32-35; 5:12-16) is no flaw. Conflict had no negative effect on the community’s life or growth. Excursus: The Summaries in Acts In a 1923 essay that may be said to have inaugurated most, if not all, of the more productive contempo1 2

3 4

Cf. Roloff, 65. There are brief summaries at 1:14; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30-31; and statements about growth at 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 11:21, 24; 12:24; 14:1; 19:20 Dibelius, Studies, 9 (“Style Criticism of the Book of Acts”). The process is apparent in Mark 1: 21-34. Verses 5 23-28 relate an exorcism, followed by a healing in vv. 29-31. There follows in vv. 32-34 a general 6

rary approaches to the study of Acts, Martin Dibelius identified the narrative purpose of the detailed summaries in the early part of the book (2:41/42-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16) 2 and their inspiration. 3 These summaries produce the appearance of a connected narrative by linking otherwise isolated episodes. Luke may well have learned from Mark the value of using summaries to transform isolated reports of Jesus’ deeds into examples of his typical behavior.4 A decade later Cadbury provided the details to support Dibelius’s proposal. 5 In The Making of Luke-Acts, Cadbury had laid out the major functions of these summaries, “to divide and to connect . . . [to] indicate that the material is typical, that the action was continued, that the effect was general.”6 Both were building on an important insight offered by Eduard Schwartz in a footnote.7 Schwartz observed that the relationship between incident and generalizing summary in Acts 4:32-35 minimized the

report of healings and exorcisms on that same day. To narrate each of these incidents in detail would be unnecessarily boring. Cf. also Mark 3:10-12 and 6:53-56. Although Luke may have learned this technique from other sources, his use of the summary from Mark 6 in Acts is demonstrable (see Pervo, Dating, 36–38). Henry J. Cadbury, “The Summaries in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 392–402. Cadbury, Making, 58.

88

Acts part 1C.indd 88

8/27/2008 9:59:46 AM

2

2:42-47  A Summary 42/ The believers devoted thema selves to the apostles’ teaching, cultivation of unity, their meal, and their prayers. 43/ Awe overtook everyone. The apostles became the agents of numerous portents and miracles. 44/ All the believers remained together and shared everything. 45/ They would sell their goods and property and distribute the proceeds to everyone on the basis of need. 46/ Every day they met together in the temple and ate in homes, taking their food with happy and sincere a hearts 47/ that were filled with praise to God. Everyone approved of them, and the Lord increased daily the number of those who were being saved together.

The meaning of ajfelovthti is debatable. Cadbury and Lake (29–30) incline toward “generosity.” Barrett (1:171) favors “simplicity.”

Analysis

As after the ascension (Acts 1:13-14), summary follows an exciting account. Narrative is well served by interludes between dramatic high points. Such pauses allow readers to digest the story and prevent them from becoming jaded. Summaries, in sum, give readers a rest.1 The specific purpose of this summary is to offer a glimpse at the community that erupted into life at Pentecost and its nature prior to the rise of conflict. The similarity to succeeding summaries (4:4, 32-35; 5:12-16) is no flaw. Conflict had no negative effect on the community’s life or growth. Excursus: The Summaries in Acts In a 1923 essay that may be said to have inaugurated most, if not all, of the more productive contempo1 2

3 4

Cf. Roloff, 65. There are brief summaries at 1:14; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30-31; and statements about growth at 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 11:21, 24; 12:24; 14:1; 19:20 Dibelius, Studies, 9 (“Style Criticism of the Book of Acts”). The process is apparent in Mark 1: 21-34. Verses 5 23-28 relate an exorcism, followed by a healing in vv. 29-31. There follows in vv. 32-34 a general 6

rary approaches to the study of Acts, Martin Dibelius identified the narrative purpose of the detailed summaries in the early part of the book (2:41/42-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16) 2 and their inspiration. 3 These summaries produce the appearance of a connected narrative by linking otherwise isolated episodes. Luke may well have learned from Mark the value of using summaries to transform isolated reports of Jesus’ deeds into examples of his typical behavior.4 A decade later Cadbury provided the details to support Dibelius’s proposal. 5 In The Making of Luke-Acts, Cadbury had laid out the major functions of these summaries, “to divide and to connect . . . [to] indicate that the material is typical, that the action was continued, that the effect was general.”6 Both were building on an important insight offered by Eduard Schwartz in a footnote.7 Schwartz observed that the relationship between incident and generalizing summary in Acts 4:32-35 minimized the

report of healings and exorcisms on that same day. To narrate each of these incidents in detail would be unnecessarily boring. Cf. also Mark 3:10-12 and 6:53-56. Although Luke may have learned this technique from other sources, his use of the summary from Mark 6 in Acts is demonstrable (see Pervo, Dating, 36–38). Henry J. Cadbury, “The Summaries in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 392–402. Cadbury, Making, 58.

88

Acts part 1C.indd 88

8/27/2008 9:59:46 AM

2:42-47

contribution of Barnabas, who became one of many rather than an example of outstanding generosity. An implication of Schwartz’s observation is that the summaries do not simply “pad” the narrative; they may contradict it. This particular contradiction calls into question the historical value of Luke’s portrait of the early community.8 Although there have been some dissenters, the mainstream of research upon the summaries has followed the trail blazed by Dibelius.9 As the author of these summaries, Luke has therefore created a portrait of the early Jerusalem community, the only church for which he attempts such a description. Since this uniqueness is not due to the possession of source material about the Jerusalem church that was lacking in other cases, a purpose is to be sought. 7

8

Eduard Schwartz, “Zur Chronologie des Paulus,” in 9 Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (Berlin:Weidmann, 1907) 263–99, esp. 282 n. 1. Brian Capper defends the historical accuracy of the record (“The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 323–56). He establishes this cultural context from 1QS and descriptions of Essene life by Philo and Josephus. Aware that the Essene community was of a different nature from the early Christian movement, Capper posits, on the basis of Acts 5:4, the existence of an “inner group” (337). Luke knows of no such divisions. In discussing the action of Barnabas, Capper (340) does not deal with its relation to the summary. Although his thesis is weak, Capper has assembled and discussed a wealth of valuable data. See also his “Community of Goods in the Early Jerusalem Church,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 1730–74. S. Scott Bartchy (“Community of Goods in Acts: Idealization or Social Reality?” in Birger Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991] 309–18) presents a somewhat different defense. Using ancient conventions about friendship and modern social-scientific analysis, Bartchy claims that the early community lived as a fictive kin group, that is, as a family that pooled its resources. The issue is not whether the account, granting a bit of hyperbole and “Hellenic” coloring (as Bartchy does), is plausible, nor what actually happened. The latter cannot be determined from Acts. The only 10 identifiable potential sources (Barnabas, Ananias 11 [and Sapphira], 4:36-37; 5:1-5 [11]) do not support the claims of the summaries for universal sharing. Finger (Of Widows and Meals) develops Capper’s and Bartchy’s arguments in considerable detail

That purpose is basic to Luke’s theological goals and reveals his method and stance. The description has an apologetic thrust;10 the method is narrative fiction. More recent insights into the function of summaries have come from the realm of literary criticism. Summary in one form or another dominates narrative. Few authors could keep the attention of an audience if they constantly spelled out all of the details of “I then went home and went to bed.” When such matters constitute a scene, they make contributions to character or plot. For a cogent example from Acts, contrast the summary account of travel in 13:25-26a with that of chap. 27. Just as scene can illuminate summary, so summary can highlight scene.11

See Haenchen, 190–96, 230–35, and 242–46. For other views, see Sterling, “Athletes of Virtue,” 680. Note also the contribution of Maria Anicia Co, “The Major Summaries,” and Ulrich Wendel, Gemeinde in Kraft: Das Gemeindeverständnis in den Summarien der Apostelgeschichte (NTDH 20; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998); Andreas Lindemann, “The Beginnings of Christian Life in Jerusalem according to the Summaries in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2.42-47; 4.32-35; 5.12-16),” in Julian V. Hills et al., eds., Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. ­Snyder (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998) 202–18; and idem, “The Community of Goods among the First Christians and among the Essenes,” in David Goodblatt et al., eds., Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January 1999 (STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 147–61. Earlier contributions include Lucien Cerfaux, “La composition de la première partie du Livre des Actes,” EThL 13 (1936) 667–91; idem, “La première communauté chrétienne à Jérusalem (Act., II, 41—V, 42),” EThL 16 (1939) 5–31; Heinrich Zimmerman, “Die Sammelberichte der Apostelgeschichte,” BZ 5 (1961) 71–82; Jacques Dupont, “Community of Goods in the Early Church,” in idem, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (New York/Ramsey, N.J./Toronto: Paulist, 1979) 85–102. See Sterling, “Athletes of Virtue.” Sijbolt J. Noorda, “Scene and Summary: A Proposal for Reading Acts 4:32—5:16,” in Kremer, Actes, 475–83, is a pioneering probe of the literary functions of summaries. See also Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:43–44.

89

Acts part 1C.indd 89

8/27/2008 9:59:46 AM

Luke is a writer of narrative. Acts resembles the “evangelists” in that he presents his message in and as a story, while his viewpoint has much in common with the later Christian apologists,12 but the lack of a fully coherent viewpoint indicates that the author was either not seeking to present an integrated philosophical picture or did not perceive its inconsistency. The summaries in Acts 2 and 4 showcase the early Jesus movement in Jerusalem as a utopian community in which an entire society operates like a band of friends (or an extended family)13 by eliminating the barriers imposed by the unequal distribution of wealth. Similarities in theme and diction between these passages and Greco-Roman utopian thought are widely recognized.14 Evaluations of the connections differ.15 Descriptions of utopias and utopian programs appear in a great variety of ancient genres from many cultures.16 Although stories about utopia can be quite entertaining,17 these accounts usually serve political, philosophical, or religious purposes. Utopias set in the distant past or future tend to be critiques of things as they are. Plato’s influence is pervasive. The ideal state of the Republic rejects “private property.”18 Bowing to the

power of myth, Plato also portrays primitive Athens as a time when all was held in common.19 The “myth” in view is the portrait of the “golden age,” when the gods had direct charge of things and such iniquities as individual ownership of real property were unthinkable.20 Utopias set in the (dramatic or actual) present time, on the other hand, often serve to enhance a particular group or system. Relevant examples include the portraits of the Essenes offered by Philo and Josephus.21 These, like Acts, describe the life of particular bodies within a larger society with the object of extolling that society. Just before observing that the Essenes hold their possessions in common, Josephus praises them for maintaining their way of life without interruption over a long period.22 That comment reveals an apologetic aim: the Jews have philosophical sects that are superior to any of the Greeks, since their virtues are both lofty and enduring. Proper apologetic might have used the present tense and/or affirmed that these practices continue. The absence of such claims in Acts has led to the (often convenient) conclusion that Luke described a “communistic experiment” that failed.23 “Propaganda” may be somewhat more apt than “apologetic,” so long as it is

12 Pervo (Dating) develops this thesis in detail. 13 On the friendship tradition, see n. 25. 14 For example, Conzelmann, 24; Plümacher, Lukas, 16–18; David L. Mealand, “Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts 2–4,” JTS 28 (1977) 96–99; and Johnson, 62. 15 David P. Seccombe (Possessions and the Poor in LukeActs [SNTU 6; Linz: F. Plochl, 1982]) 200) regards the allusions as unintentional, since Luke would abhor associations with polytheist mythology. 16 See Pervo, Profit, 69–70, 163. A more recent general study is Doyne Dawson, Cities of the Gods: Communist Utopias in Greek Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). 17 On utopian novels, see Niklas Holzberg, “Utopias and Fantastic Travel: Euhemerus, Iambulus,” in Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 621–28. Sterling (“Athletes of Virtue,” 687) wishes to exclude these from comparison to Acts on the grounds of fictionality. This criterion is not very helpful. Philo’s Therapeutae (Vit. cont.) are not historically well attested, and Sterling draws upon Philostratus’s historically dubious accounts of Indian and Egyptian sages (Vit. Apoll. 3.10-51; 6.6). 18 Plato Resp. 424A, 449C, 416D, 464D, 543B; cf. also the later Leg. 679B-C; 684C-D; 744B-746C; 757A.

19 Plato Critias 110C-D; cf. also Tim. 18B. 20 For the extent of this conception, see Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (2 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935). 21 Philo Omn. prob. lib. 75-91; Hypoth. 8.11.1-18; Josephus Bell. 2.120-61; Ant. 18.18-22. Parallels with the communal life of the Qumran community are of general interest but fail to take important differences into account. Haenchen is quite trenchant, noting that the Qumran community was scrupulously observant and demanded a long period of probation: “One should therefore refrain from matching isolated details of primitive Christian life with similar features of Qumran, but rather take into account the whole circumstantial context. Only so can one learn what the primitive Church on the one hand had in common with contemporaneous phenomena, and what particularly marked it out on the other” (165). 22 Josephus Ant. 18.20. (Both text and translation are uncertain.) 23 “But after a short time the ‘communistic’ experiment broke down for two reasons.” Kirsopp Lake, “The Communism of Acts II. and IV.-VI. and the Appointment and the Seven,” in Lake and Cadbury, 140–51, esp. 141. Lake’s reasons were not,

90

Acts part 1C.indd 90

8/27/2008 9:59:46 AM

2:42-47

understood that the message, unlike formal apologetic, is not even ostensibly addressed to outsiders.24 Iamblicus’s De Vita Pythagorica (On the Pythagorean Way of Life) is a useful parallel to Acts for more than linguistic reasons.25 Luke has commingled a portrait of the ideal “golden age” with the apologetic picture of a specific group (or subgroup). To state that the church once real-

ized the social ideals of the ancient world is not quite the same as maintaining that this fulfillment is part of its enduring life.26 It may well suggest that, when maintained, these principles will yield admirable results.27 Luke can be labeled an apologist manqué and capable of invention, but the question of the proper use of possessions was not for him a matter of minor

however, economic, and he understood that “comsessed anything as his or her own”) is often cited munism” is not a suitable description, since it has in discussion of these summaries (e.g., Bruce, 132; come to refer to common ownership of the means and Conzelmann, 24). Although the dramatic date of production. For the view that it was impractical, of the work is in the distant past, it is intended as see Rackham, 42. Alphons Steinmann (Die Apostela text for students of Platonism c. 300 ce, not as geschichte [4th ed.; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1934] 43) a historical record but as “a dramatized study of is representative of an era when it was important a way of life” characterized by John Dillon and to stress that the early Christians had nothing to Jackson Hershbell as a “gospel,” Iamblichus On the do with socialism. Wikenhauser (69) observes that Pythagorean Way of Life (SBLTT 29; Atlanta: ScholCommunism is an economic system, but he does ars Press, 1991) 25. Iamblichus wished to show consider Ernst Troeltsch’s “religious communism that Plato was quite dependent upon Pythagoras— motivated by love” (religiösen Liebeskommunismus) as community of property (De Vit. Pythag. 167-68) a possible characterization. Troeltsch had, in fact, is one example of this dependence—just as Luke strongly insisted that early Christians maintained strove to show that Paul proclaimed the message the right to private property (The Social Teachof the Jerusalem apostles. Iamblichus’s account of ing of the Christian Churches (2 vols.; 1911; trans. the daily life of the Pythagoreans reads very much O. Wyon; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960) like what Philo and Josephus say about the Essenes. 1:115–18. Bruce (74) says that difficulties arose This work also shows the overlap between theories when the original enthusiasm began to wane. This about friendship and descriptions of communal is a religio-historical judgment that would have life, since Iamblichus presents friendship as the horrified Luke. For references to the discussion of keystone of Pythagoras’s philosophy (De Vit. Pythag. this practice in political thought, see Conzelmann, 229-33). This helps to explain why Alan C. Mitch24 n. 10; and Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, “‘Christentum ell (“The Social Function of Friendship in Acts und Eigentum’: Zum Problem eines altkirchlichen 2:44-47 and 4:32-37,” JBL 111 [1992] 255–72) and ‘Sozialismus,’” Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik Bartchy (“Community of Goods”) utilize the same 16 (1972) 34–49. The major theologians of the evidence. The notion that friends share everything Protestant Reformation took issue with the literal was common in the Greek world: see, e.g., Plato interpretation of Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35 for two Resp. 4, 424A; 5, 449C; Aristotle Nic. Eth. 8.9, 1159 major reasons: the monastic tradition viewed itself b31; Philo Migr. Abr. 235; Cicero Off. 1.16.51; Ps. as meeting these ideals (cf. Jerome’s [fictitious] Life Clem. Rec. 10.5; and Lucian Peregr. 13. of Malchus 7; and Augustine Ep. 211, used as a basis 26 Louis William Countryman reviews the data of their rule by the Augustinian Canons [eleventh on commonality of property from Acts onward, century]) and radical reformers advocated this indicating that it is in the foothills of the apologists “communism” as the basis of Christian social life. (The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Calvin attacks both, but his ire is chiefly directed Contradictions and Accommodations [New York: at the Anabaptists (1:87-88 ad 2:44; 1:128-30 ad Edwin Mellen, 1980] 76–80). He also observes that 4:32-35). See also Finger’s review of research, Of the claims of various authors that believers have all Widows and Meals, 18–47. in common gain no support from their writings in 24 Sterling (“Athletes of Virtue,” 691 n. 42) recognizes general. There is no good evidence for commonalthis distinction, which places a qualification on his ity of property until the rise of coenobitic monastithorough and useful profile of (Luke and) Acts as cism. Statements such as those of Justin 1 Apol. 14 “apologetic historiography.” refer to almsgiving. 25 Iamblichus De Vit. Pythag. 167-68: . . . mia`~ yuch`~ 27 Josephus (Ap. 2.146) says that the Mosaic “consti. . . koina; ga;r pa``si pavnta kai; tau'ta h\n, i[dion tution” is “excellently designed to promote piety de; oujdei;~ oujde;n ejkevkthto (“one soul . . . for all (eujsevbeia), friendly relations (koinwniva) with was common and the same for all, and no one poseach other, and humanity (filanqrwpiva) toward

91

Acts part 1C.indd 91

8/27/2008 9:59:46 AM

concern. As Luke T. Johnson has shown, money was both a fundamental symbol and a pressing reality for this author, a very concrete means of communicating his ethical message.28 Historical accuracy has no monopoly upon truth. Comment   42  The nouns, all datives associated with the verb

proskarterevw (“devote oneself to”), can be variously understood. The conventional text29 makes “breaking bread” appear to be an appositive to koinwniva (“fellowship,” “sharing”).30 Some D-Texts (d vg syr p cops bo) confirm the relationship by placing “breaking” in the genitive, permitting koinwniva to mean “(sacramental) communion.”31 That is anachronistic.32 The phrase th`/ didach`/ tw`n ajpostovlwn might refer to the content of apostolic teaching (cf. the Didache) or to the activity of teaching.33 It is the earliest assertion that valid Chris-

28

29

30 31

32

tian doctrine derives from what the apostles taught. Barrett argues that there are four items arranged in two pairs: teaching and fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.34 This construction would be more likely if there were an intermediate element distinguishing the two pairs. The chief difficulty is the meaning of koinwniva here. “Communal lifestyle” is one strong possibility, supported by both the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition in general and data about the Essenes in particular.35 This interpretation understands vv. 44-45 as an explication of the term koinwniva. Verses 46-47 would likewise explicate “the breaking of bread” (and “the prayers”?). Yet the older argument of Heinrich Seesemann that the term refers to “spiritual” togetherness has the merit of identifying four different qualities or marks of the “primitive church”: attention to apostolic teaching, spiritual fellowship, the communal meal, and a life of prayer.36 This would give the use of possessions a

the world at large, besides justice (dikaiosuvnh), hardihood, and contempt of life” (trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus I [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926] 351). Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). Note also Richard Pervo, “PANTA KOINA: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice,” in Lukas Bormann et al., eds., Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 164–94; and Gerd Theissen, “Urchristlicher Liebeskommunismus: Zum ‘Sitz im Leben’ des Topos hapanta koina in Apg 2,44 und 4,32,” in Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm eds., Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995) 689–712. a2 E Y 33 1739 m sy insert kaiv before th`/ klavsei. This would distinguish “fellowship” from “breaking bread.” Cadbury and Lake (27–28) propose an appositional relation. Boismard (Texte, 76) does not admit this reading into his text. Another secondary v.l. is the insertion of “in Jerusalem” after “apostles” or “prayer.” Lampe (s.v. koinwniva, C, 763) provides no authorities for this understanding before the fourth century.

33 Attempts to establish a strong contrast between kerygma (proclamation of the message) and didacheµ (instruction, e.g., of a moral nature) can be misleading when applied to Acts. Cf. 5:28; 13:12; 17:19, all of which refer to public proclamation. For another view, see Fitzmyer, 270. 34 Barrett, 1:162. 35 On the Qumran/Essene parallels, see Moshe Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ­Ruprecht, 1986) 13–14, who argues that the use of djy has only this sense in the DSS (13 n. 29; cf. 1QS 5:1-2). Weinfeld believes that this is due to the influence of the Greek terms and koinovn and koinwniva. Philo (Omn. prob. lib. 84, 91) and Josephus (Bell. 2.122-23) use this stem in their descriptions of Essene life. Weinfeld does observe that the LXX renders this Hebrew word as ejpi; to; aujtov, a phrase found in Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44, 47; 4:26. Fitzmyer (270) discusses the Qumran data. He regards borrowing from the Essenes as possible, although he stresses the difference in organization. 36 Heinrich Seesemann, Der Begriff KOINWNIA im Neuen Testament (BZNW 74; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933) 87–92. Cf. also Friedrich Hauck, “koinov~,” TDNT 3:789–809, esp. 809 (“an abstract and spiritual term for the fellowship of brotherly concord established and expressed in the life of the ­community”).

92

Acts part 1C.indd 92

8/27/2008 9:59:47 AM

2:42-47

r­ eligious ground. “Worship” and “service” were not separate realms.37 Apostolic instruction produced unity of purpose and will, expressed both in prayer (cf. 4:24-31) and in the communal meal, made possible by the generosity aroused by unity.38 Apostolic authority is central to this life. This role and its abstraction to “instruction” show that for the author the apostles belonged to a distant (as well as idealized) past.39 There is no dispute that the Lucan portrait is idealized.40 Frederick J. Foakes Jackson aptly observes its most remarkable feature: “The believers are supposed instantly to have formed a society, characterized by submission to apostolic authority, unanimity, and devotion.”41 The narrator is not merely idealistic; he is attempting to portray the immediate crystallization of a large and smoothly functioning community.   43  The N-A 27 text of this verse is chiastic: “There happened to every person fear, and many miracles through the apostles happened.” Did the author intend this rather lame repetition of ejgivneto, possibly considering it artistic? Boismard thinks not. The text is possibly corrupt and definitely uncertain.42 The apparently pedantic and labile “in Jerusalem” also pops up

here at two places in the tradition.43 Although its varied placements in vv. 42-43 are arguments in favor of its secondary character, the irregularity also points to confusion in the history of the transmission. The D-Text is attractive: ejgivneto shmei`a kai; tevrata dia; tw`n ajpostovlwn ejn ÆIerousalhvm, ejgivneto de; fovbo~ mevga~ ejpi; pa`san yuch`n (“The apostles became the agents of portents and miracles in Jerusalem. Enormous awe overtook everyone”). This arrangement places awe in its normal position as a response to the supernatural.44 This order, as Ropes perceived, is probably closer to the original text than is that of B et al. (N-A 27).45 The text of a A C, which has both the initial reference to “awe” and the statement that “Enormous awe overtook everyone” at the close of the verse,46 is likely to be a conflation of the two forms.47 “Jerusalem” may not be so otiose as it seems, since the summary in 5:16 speaks of appeal to adjacent regions. This picture of the expanding circles of the mission, from Jerusalem to other parts of Judea (1:8), is characteristically Lucan and is less likely to have occurred to a subsequent editor. The expression “signs and portents” is a characteristic element of summaries. It appears eight times in Acts 1–15.48

37 It is unlikely that a formal distinction between “Eucharist” and “agapeµ” was made in Luke’s time, or, in any case, that Luke wished to show the “primitive church” as celebrating symbolic (as opposed to nourishing) meals. Conzelmann (23) intelligently observes that Luke views the unity of Eucharist and meal as one indicator of the ideal nature of the early church. “Breaking of bread” is not a normal term for a meal. In Hebrew and Aramaic, it refers to the beginning of a repast. In early Christian literature, however, it serves as synecdoche for the eucharistic meal. Cf. the “institution narratives” in 1 Cor 11:24 par., as well as Luke 24:35; Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11; 27:35; Act. John 110; Act. Paul 3.5; Did. 14:1. 38 Jean-Marc Prieur (“Actes 2, 42 et le culte réformé,” FoiVie 94 [1995] 61–72) understands the four items as central components of worship, although without a fixed order. 39 See Jude 17||2 Pet 3:2. The apostles received their message from Christ: 1 Clem. 42:1-2; Ignatius Magn. 7:1; 13:1; Polycarp Phil. 6:3. 40 See Bruce, 135. Ferdinand W. Horn (“Die Gütergemeinschaft der Urgemeinde,” EvTh 58 [1998] 370–83) takes up the historical question and concludes that these descriptions of communalism had no historical basis.

41 Frederick J. Foakes Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Harper, 1931) 20. 42 Boismard, Texte, 76. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 262) defines the problem as “exceedingly difficult.” 43 After the second ejgivneto in E 33 104 pc sy p, placed after “apostles” by copmae and accepted by Boismard, Texte, 76. 44 See (for the noun fovbo~) Luke 5:26; 7:16; Acts 5:5, 11; 9:17. The verb fobevomai (“to be afraid,” “in awe”) is similarly used in the Gospel: 1:13, 30; etc. An editor may have rearranged Acts 2:43 to agree with 5:12, where “awe” precedes the summary of miracles, although it is the formal conclusion to the story of Ananias and Sapphira. 45 Ropes, 24. 46 a 88 have a second ejgivneto, which the others lack. 47 Haenchen (192 n. 3) says that it may be an attempt to smooth the transition to v. 44. This would rationalize a conflation rather than exclude it. 48 The order “portents and signs” is found in 2:19, 43; 6:8; and 7:36; “signs and portents” appears in 4:30; 5:12; 14:3; and 15:12.

93

Acts part 1C.indd 93

8/27/2008 9:59:47 AM

  44-45 49  “Shared everything” is ambiguous, but from

4:32—5:10 it seems most likely that the narrator envisions the liquidation of property followed by presentation of the proceeds to the community—kthvmata and uJpavrxei" are evidently equivalent to “real and personal property.”50 Verses 46-47 comprise two sentences. Verse 47c is short and simple. The first is rather complex, involving four circumstantial participles related to the phrase “they would take nourishment” (metelavmba­ non trofh`~). This is not good hypotactic prose. 51 The temple appears for the first time. Luke does not state explicitly that the believers worshiped there. The only follower of Jesus who indubitably participates in the cult is Paul. 52 For the apostles, the temple is a place for teaching. 53 Luke here quietly introduces a basic inversion of

apocalyptic proportions: the house(hold) will become the locus of God’s saving message and actions, while the temple constitutes the center of resistance to grace. 54 The temporal focus is on the present. 55   47  “Praise of God” is both the appropriate response to grace and a characteristic of all that the believers did. “Everyone approved of them” (e[conte" cavrin pro;" o{lon to;n laovn) evidently intends to associate a horizontal plane to the vertical. 56 If this is accepted— more on logical grounds than linguistic—the question remains whether this refers to favor extended toward others57 or admiration from them. The context supports the latter: charity is directed toward insiders only, while popular admiration remains strong until the advent

49 The witnesses divide over whether to read the participle “believers” as present (A C D E P most) or as aorist (a B 0142 itp Origen Speculum Salvian et al.). Logic seems to favor the present—active believers— whereas the aorist could refer to converts. Since v. 47 speaks of additional converts, the present looks preferable, but Barrett (1:167) is hesitant, with good reason. 50 Note the iterative use of a[n (without the optative), reinforcing the notion of continual action. See §BDF 367. 51 The D-Text, according to Boismard (Texte, 77) recasts vv. 45-46: kai; o{soi kthvmata ei\con h] uJpavrxei" ejpivpraskon kai; diemevrizon ta;~ tivma~ aujtw`n toi`~ creivan e[cousin. kaqÆ hJmevran te proskartevroun ejn tw`/ iJerw`/ kai; h\san ejpi; to; aujto; klw`nte" a[rton, metelambavnonte~ trofh`" (“All who had real or personal property liquidated it and distributed their proceeds to those in need. They participated in the temple on a daily basis and broke bread together [in the same place?], taking their nourishment”). D and sy p place “daily” here. This is secondary, placing the responsibility for liquidation and distribution in the hands of those with property, who were limited in number. This edition improves the syntax of v. 46, making proskarterevw (“participate assiduously”) the finite verb. By eliminating kat joi\kon (“in houses”), this text implies that they celebrated the meal in the temple. (This is not the reading of D, which Boismard [78], with good reason, finds incoherent.) Some representatives of the Latin D-Text tradition (perp gig r—the latter reading orationi instantes [“constant in prayer”]) omit “in the temple,” possibly from hostility toward Judaism. There is no firm D-Text for this verse. Ropes (Text,

52 53

54

55

56 57

25) sees D as emphasizing the eucharistic overtones. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 264), on the other hand, finds them mysterious. Paul in the temple: Acts 21:26-30; 22:17. Teaching in the temple: Acts 3:12-26; 5:20-25, 42. It may be inferred that Peter and John visited in 3:1 with the intent of worship, but they do not do so. See the convincing analysis of John H. Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in Neyrey, Social World, 211–40. Elliott finds the contrast to be pervasive (note the summary on 229–30). He observes that the contrast is implicit in the (Pauline-influenced) parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), in which the latter goes to his house “ justified,” whereas the Pharisee is left in the temple, presumably not justified (Elliott, 213–14). In contrast to the oft-noted use of the temple as an inclusion in Luke (1:5-23; 24:49-53), Acts begins and ends in a house (1:6, apparently; 1:12; 28:30-31) (Elliott, 215). On house churches, see the comprehensive survey by Bradley Blue, “Acts and the House Church,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 2:119–222. The theme is developed by David L. Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation (JSNTS 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). “Daily”: Acts 2:46-47; 3:2; 16:5; 17:11; 19:9. The theological significance of the term is apparent in Luke 9:23 (bearing the cross) and 11:3 (“daily bread”). See Fitzmyer, 272–73. So T. D. Andersen (“The Meaning of ECON­ TES CARIN PROS in Acts 2.47,” NTS 34 [1988] 604–10), who makes a strong linguistic argument for this sense of the phrase.

94

Acts part 1C.indd 94

8/27/2008 9:59:47 AM

2:42-47

of Stephen in chap. 6 (note 5:26). 58 The closing verse59 brings to mind the Gospel summaries about the growth and development of Jesus: Luke 1:80; 2:52. Converts are characterized as “those (being) saved.” Salvation is a present experience in Luke and Acts.60 The final ejpi; to; aujtov is quite difficult in this position, stimulating textual emendation. The D-Text substitutes “in the church,” an excellent guess.61 E Y 33 m sy shifted dev (a particle that is often the signal of a new sentence) to stand before “Peter,” thus placing ejpi; to; aujtov in the next sentence (3:1). This is very likely a secondary improvement.62 If chap. 1 moved in a matter-of-fact manner, chap. 2 breaks barriers of sound and shock. The narrator

seizes his audience’s attention with a breathless series of arresting images. The outpoured Spirit floods through the city, gathering a crowd in its tow. They were not disappointed by Peter’s address, which was an immense missionary success. By the end of that day the community had grown by a factor of twenty-five, and the machinery of a smoothly functioning social and religious organization, characterized by marvelous unity and long-sought justice, sprang into existence. The birth of the church was like the advent of Athena. It required no maturation. Through this depiction, Luke not only foreshadowed the glorious future but also depicted the formation of Christian community as an eschatological event, a miracle.

58 For the vertical and horizontal in a different sense 61 Codex Bezae is fond of the phrase, which it adds three times in 2:44-47. See Metzger, Textual Com(apparently), note Luke 2:13-14. mentary, 263. 59 Acts 2:47 is evoked four times in the Act. Pet. chaps. 62 See Barrett, 1:172–73, for a discussion of the issues. 9, 31, 33, and 41. 60 The participle “being saved” appears in 1 Clem. 58:2, and in the perfect in Eph 2:5; Polycarp Phil. 1:3.

95

Acts part 1C.indd 95

8/27/2008 9:59:47 AM

3

3:1-10  Peter and John Heal a Paralytic 1/ While Peter and John were on their way to the temple precincts at the time of the 1500 service, 2/ a man who had been crippled from birth was being carried in—his people would place him at the gate called “Beautiful” every day to solicit alms from those entering the sanctuary. 3/ When he realized that Peter and John were on their way in, he began to beg alms from them. 4/ Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze upon the man and said: “Look at us.” 5/ That he did, expecting to get something from them, 6/ but Peter said, “I have no money, but what I do have I shall give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean get up and walk!” 7/ He then grabbed him by the right hand and raised him up. Strength immediately came to his feet and ankles. 8/ He sprang to his feet and began to walk about. Then he went into the sanctuary with them, leaping and walking and praising God. 9/ When everyone saw him doing these things, 10/ they recognized him as the fellow who had sat begging at the Beautiful Gate of the temple and were overcome with amazement at what had happened to him.

Analysis

The first two chapters portray the origin and growth of the community in an atmosphere devoid of conflict. In chaps. 3–7, opposition erupts. Henceforth, persecution will drive the plot of Acts.1 Rather than narrow the outlook of the movement or quash its development, 1

2 3

hostility leads to ever-increasing numbers and widening boundaries. The narrative follows a stereotyped pattern, elaborated with highly skillful variation.2 The plot is like that of the Gospels in that the public will long serve as a blocking character that inhibits the officials from achieving their ends. 3 Two particular differences stand out: reversal of public opinion is restricted to

See the analysis of Norman R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 83–92. Talbert (Reading Acts, 50–51) shows the numerous parallels among the various episodes. Another model that may also have influenced the Gospel tradition is Jer 26:1—29:32, which contains

three episodes of conflict between Jeremiah and the authorities. Note, in particular, Jeremiah 26, his sermon in the temple and subsequent trial.

96

Acts part 1C.indd 96

8/27/2008 9:59:48 AM

3:1-10

Greek-speaking Jews affiliated with certain synagogues (Acts 6:8-12), and the Roman government has gone on a convenient holiday from Jerusalem, not to return until the need arises to rescue Paul from a similar mob making similar accusations with the identical objective (21:27-36). The story unfolds with increasing intensity and an expanding horizon that will, in due and providential course, take the mission beyond the heart of Judea and, step by step, to gentiles. The general scheme reflects a widely attested pattern of cult foundation, framed by Luke around these narrative elements: 4 A. A miracle draws attention and followers. B. Teaching is addressed to those attracted by the wonder. C. Concerned and jealous Jewish officials arrest the ­missionary/ies. D. Legal action ensues. E. The eventual result is miraculous vindication of the mission.

Luke deploys this pattern three times in Acts 3–7, with important “interludes,” including summaries, narratives about community life, and a number of notes on numerical (and spiritual) growth. The variations on a theme develop a crescendo: threat of punishment, whipping, execution. The first and third cycles adhere to the pattern closely; the middle episode displays greater elaboration. The interludes (here denoted with X for comments about growth and Y for summary or narrative about community life) serve both to show that growth goes on despite opposition and to introduce variety into an otherwise repetitious account. (Y1. 2:42-46) (X1. 2:47) I. Peter and John A. 3:1-11. Peter and John heal a cripple at the temple gate. A crowd gathers. B. 3:12-26. Peter delivers a missionary address. C. 4:1-3. The chief of the temple police and the Sadducees interrupt the speech to arrest the alleged miscreants. 4

(X 2. 4:4) D. 4:5-22. At a subsequent trial the apostles are accused of practicing magic, to which they respond in the manner of philosophers confronting tyrants. E. 4:23-31. The council releases the pair with a warning. An epiphanic earthquake affirms their cause. (Y2. 4:32—5:11) II. All the apostles A. 5:12-16. Miracles reported in summary form. B1. 5:12b. The apostles teach in the temple, like (Jesus and various) philosophers. (X 3. 5:13-14) C1. 5:17-18. The high priest and the Sadducees arrest them. E1. 5:19-20. An angel engineers a miraculous release. B2. 5:21a. The apostles continue to teach. D1. 5:21-25. Meanwhile, back in the courtroom, the trial aborts for lack of accused. C2. 5:26-27a. The accused are returned to custody. D2. 5:27b-39. The trial may therefore resume. Gamaliel forestalls an imminent threat of death. E2. 5:40-42. The Twelve are whipped, then released. They return to their teaching mission. III. Stephen (Y3. 6:1-6) (X4. 6:7) A. 6:8. Stephen works miracles (summary). B. 6:9-10. He teaches (summary). 5 C. 6:11-12. As a consequence, Stephen is arrested and arraigned before the Sanhedrin. D. 6:13—7:57. A full-length report of the trial is given. E. 6:15; 7:55-56, 59-60. Stephen is murdered. Signs of divine approval mark his vindication.

Although Luke inserted a few slices of evident tradition, such as the death of Stephen, into this artfully constructed narrative, he was not attempting to tease a feasible historical reconstruction from surviving pieces of the past. Acts 3–7 is the literary creation of the author. Further insight into the author’s literary method derives from the recognition that this section reflects the early ministry of Jesus in Luke, perhaps most notably the

The following comes from Pervo, Profit, 19–21. For examples of the general pattern, see 146 n. 11. John B. Weaver develops a sophisticated analysis of this scheme in Plots of Epiphany: Prison Escape in Acts of the Apostles (BZNW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004) 19–91.

5

A lengthy sample of Stephen’s teaching is provided in 7:2-53.

97

Acts part 1C.indd 97

8/27/2008 9:59:48 AM

healing of a cripple in 5:17-26, which goaded scribes and Pharisees to opposition.6 Narrative analyses tend to embrace chaps. 3–5 under a single head.7 Without prejudice to these valuable contributions, from the perspective of the general plot and structure of Acts, there is merit in viewing chaps. 3–7 as a related sequence, within which other sequences can be identified. Luke is the master of his scheme, not its servant. Following the “revolutionary” approach of chap. 2, the narrator presents in section I an even more complex literary unit, framed by summaries.8 The action unfolds in four scenes (3:1-10; 3:11—4:4; 4:5-22; 4:23-31). This is one of the longer narrative sequences in Acts.9 Comment   1-10  (Scene 1).10 This unit gives body to the summary

report of miracles in 2:43 and the statement about visiting the temple in v. 46. Acts 3:1-10 is a healing story of a traditional type, about which there are two widespread assumptions: that the account comes from tradition11 and that it is quite similar to Jesus’ healing of a cripple in Luke 5:17-26 and Paul’s similar action at Lystra in Acts 14:8-11. It would thus constitute one of the JesusPeter-Paul parallels in Luke and Acts.12 The two assumptions are not complementary, for parallel accounts raise the suspicion of composition. In this instance that suspi-

cion is likely to fall on 14:8-11.13 In support of deriving this story from tradition are its abrupt beginning,14 the reference to the mysterious “Beautiful Gate” in v. 2, and the awkward transition to the speech in vv. 11-12 (on which see below). The most apparent Lucan additions to the putative tradition are John, whose presence contributes little beyond the unrelieved awkwardness of v. 4 (lit. “Peter, gazing intently at him—along with John—said . . .”); the reference to money in v. 6a; and v. 8b, which overloads the narrative and provides a transition to the next section.15 In addition is the apparent transposition to 4:22 of the patient’s age, a motif that indicates the duration of the suffering from which he has been relieved. This effectively incorporates all of the intervening material into the story. Formally, the story is a novella, developed with detail and a subsidiary theme, which is then expanded into a lengthier story. In Acts, Luke was moving in a direction similar to that of the Fourth Evangelist. Miracle stories form the core of narrative elaboration.16 The clumsy repetition visible in v. 9 marks it as the basis of this subsequent elaboration. Verse 46 has prepared the way for the apostles’ action, quite unlike such introductions as Mark 3:1. As the story opens, the main characters (who will remain on stage through 4:2217) enter: Peter and John motivated (presumably) by piety, the cripple by poverty. Verse 2 evokes an abundance of pathos in

6

On these parallels, see, e.g., Talbert, Literary Patterns, 16; and Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:50–51. 7 See Robert C. Tannehill, “The Composition of Acts 3–5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect,” in idem, The Shape of Luke’s Story: Essays on Luke-Acts (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 185–219; and Robert W. Funk, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988) 75–97. 8 The scenic division is that of Funk, Narrative Poetics, 73–91. 9 Acts 3:1—4:31 contains fifty-seven verses. Other lengthy units include the story of Stephen (sixtynine verses), the conversion of Cornelius (sixty-six verses), and the voyage to Rome (sixty verses). 10 On this passage, see P. Walaskay, “Acts 3:1-10,” Int 42 (1988) 171–75; Danielle Ellud, “Actes 3:1-11,” EThR 64 (1989) 95–99; Gilberto Marconi, “History as a Hermeneutical Interpretaion of the Difference between Acts 3:1-10 and 4:8-12,” in Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi, eds., Luke and Acts (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; Festschrift Emilio

11 12

13

14

15 16

Rasco; New York: Paulist, 1993) 167–80; M. Dennis Hamm, “Acts 3:1-10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lucan Theology,” Bib 67 (1986) 305–19; and Mikeal Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006) 109–22. So, for a telling instance, Haenchen, 201. See also Lüdemann, 53. Luke 5:17-26 is followed by a symposium with dialogue in 5:27-39; Peter and Paul preach in response to the healing (Acts 3:11-26; 14:14-18). See Lüdemann (159–60), who traces this hypothesis back to Bruno Bauer. (Luke 5:17-26 is based on Mark 2:1-12.) Haenchen, 197. The textual tradition signals this awkwardness through both the placement of the particle dev before “Peter” (above) and in the D-Text introduction “in those days.” Cf. Weiser, 1:108. Note John 5; 9; and 11. Such activity was in

98

Acts part 1C.indd 98

8/27/2008 9:59:48 AM

3:1-10

a few words. He is so helpless that he must be carried, an arduous task possibly performed twice per day, day after day, year after year. Peter and John are his first opportunities on this afternoon. Their response to his petition raises his hopes, which are promptly dashed. The comment about money is the first half of a memorable antithesis foreshadowing those of the subsequent address. “In the name of Jesus the Nazorean” the cripple is ordered to walk. Without hesitation he begins—for the first time in his life—not only to walk but to leap for joy. The “name” is the leitmotif of this section of Acts.18 His transformation draws an excited crowd, whose recognition rounds off the action by underlying the contrast between motionless beggar and bounding beneficiary (v. 10). Wonderful as all this is, it is only the prelude to the full story, as it sets the stage for a confrontation with the authorities.   1-2  These verses introduce the novella.19 The imperfect tense shows the principal actors converging from

17

18 19

20

21

22

different points. This is the first time in Acts where Peter is paired with John, who never takes an independent part in the action.20 The “hour of prayer” is that of the evening sacrifice.21 Simultaneously, a lifelong22 cripple23 was approaching his conventional pitch.24 The adverbial “daily” (omitted by the D-Text) shows the contrast between the life of the believers (2:46) and the miserable existence of this unfortunate fellow25 whose productivity was limited to begging at the “Beautiful Gate.”26   3-7  These verses comprise the core of the healing. The D-Text of vv. 3-4 is quite different. As proposed by Boismard, it reads ou|to~ ajtenivsa~ toi`~ ojfqalmoi`~ aujtou` kai; ijdw;n Pevtron kai; ÆIwavnnhn eijsivonta~ eij~ to; iJero;n hjrwvta aujtou;~ ejlehmosuvnhn. (4) ejmblevya~ de; oJ Pevtro~ eij~ aujto; e[sth kai; ei\pen ajtevnison eij~ ejmev. (“The cripple, gazing intently with his eyes and seeing Peter and John entering the temple began to ask them for alms. Catching sight of him Peter stopped and said:

accordance with basic rhetorical education, which taught students to produce narrative elaborations of anecdotes and so on. It is characteristic of miracle stories that nothing more is said about the recipient, not even that he became a believer. Acts 2:21, 38; 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 30. See Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1:48. The D-Text provides a proper transition with an initial “in those days,” and transforms the bald opening kaiv (“and”) of v. 2 into the biblical kai; ijdouv (“and lo and behold”). See Cadbury and Lake, 31. John is probably selected on the basis of Gal 2:9, which places him on an approximate par with Peter. Note, however, Luke 22:8||Mark 14:13, where these two are given responsibility to prepare for Passover. See the rubrics in Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:1-8. Note also Josephus Ant. 14.66. The hours of the daily sacrifices evidently became times of prayer. Cf. Dan 6:10; 9:21 (and m. Tamid 5.1; 6.4). Ancients divided the day into twelve hours that varied in length in accordance with the time of year. “The ninth hour” is around 1500, or three o’clock in the afternoon. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 78) reads “evening” instead of “the ninth hour.” This may attempt to improve the unusual word order, in which the adjective “ninth” is a second attributive following the genitive “of prayer.” Lit. “from his mother’s belly.” This trope comes from the LXX: Cadbury and Lake, 31. Only here

23

24

25

26

and in 14:8 does it appear in miracle stories. Cf. also Matt 19:12; Luke 1:15; John 3:4; and Gal 1:15. This characterization succinctly depicts the duration of the illness, the contrast between parental hopes for an unborn child and dour reality, and staves off any counterclaims that the disability was temporary. “Lame” is not an appropriate translation of cwlov~, since it suggests that the individual could more or less walk. See Pieter W. van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts Chapters 3 and 4,” JSNT 35 (1989) 37–46, here 37; and Parsons, Body and Character, 110–16. D-Texts omit the apparently superfluous uJpavrcwn (“being”) and thus miss the wordplay in v. 6. Temples were ideal locations for begging, both because of the presence of large numbers of people and the religious duty of almsgiving (on which, see Johnson, 65). According to Dio of Prusa (Or. 32.9), Cynics begged at temple gates. The healing of “cripples” (cwloiv) is a feature of salvation announced by Jesus (Luke 7:22). They will be invited to the banquet (Luke 14:13, 21). On their status as “outcasts,” see Johnson (65), who cites HB and Qumran texts. The nickname is otherwise unattested. For attempts to identify it, see Barrett, 1:179–80. In the face of such useless pedantry, it is tempting to admire Bede’s porta templi speciosa dominus est (“The beautiful gate of the temple is the Lord”) (23 ad 3:2, evidently with Luke 13:24; John 10:7 in

99

Acts part 1C.indd 99

8/27/2008 9:59:48 AM

‘Gaze at me’”).27 In v. 5 this edition reads hjtevnisen (“gazed”) rather than the ejpei`cen (“was attentive to”). Apart from stylistic revision and simplification,28 the D-Text deletes the awkward role of John. As often, its variants serve to confirm what is almost certainly an earlier text. One source of the awkwardness is that Peter (and John) must take the initiative. This is, in general, viewed as a feature of later stories,29 but in this instance it is required, for Peter has no reputation as a healer. In its present shape, this appears to be an account of Peter’s first miracle. That may derive from tradition, be fortuitous, or be the result of editorial activity.30 In any case, the account develops slowly, generating suspense.   6  The elegant dative of possession in v. 6a is a Lucan addition serving more than literary purposes. It assures readers that the apostles do not have community funds at their personal disposal, dissociating them from the stereotype of greedy, exploitative religious quacks, 31 even from mendicant missionaries. They carry no money (Luke 9:3). Peter’s sentiment is suitable for a philosopher.32 Utopian communities do without currency.33 Thus far the story has exposed two poles, each marked by the verb uJpavrcw (“be”): the man is crippled and must beg; Peter is penniless.   6b-7  These verses collapse that gap with a full and elaborate account of the healing, which involves both command and touch. Peter wisely chooses the appro-

27 28

29 30

31

priate formula: “In the name of Jesus Christ 34 the Nazorean. . . .” This, unlike the formula used in 9:34, for example, introduces the theme of “the name,” which will figure in the subsequent debate.35 The evidence for omission of “get up and” before “walk” is strong (a B D copsa), but form-critical considerations indicate that these two words were omitted because Peter raised the man. Formally, the command is conventional (Matt 9:5; Mark 2:9; Luke 5:23; John 5:8). There are no examples of healings with the bare imperative “walk.”36 The Name works ex opere operato. There is no statement about the patient’s confidence in Peter’s skill or a confession by the patient of his faith in Jesus. 37 The effect is instantaneous, just as it should be. Rather than simply state that he rose, the narrator allows the reader to envision wholeness returning to his feet and legs (and life). 38   8-10  These verses conclude the story, albeit not in a typical way, for patient and healer(s) do not take separate paths. The D-Text is different: (7b) “He stood up (ejstavqh) immediately, and strength came to his feet and ankles. 8 He began to walk about, rejoicing and leaping. Then he went into the sanctuary with them [omit walking and leaping and] praising God.”39 Conzelmann rightly observes that the conventional text, with its repetition of “walking” and “leaping,” seems overloaded. He attributes this to redactional preparation for v. 11.40 That is intelligent, preferable to Barrett’s appeal

mind), for he at least understands that identification of a physical site would contribute nothing to interpretation. C. J. Cowton (“The Alms Trader: A Note on Identifying the Beautiful Gate of Acts 3.2,” NTS 42 [1996] 475–76) notes that any gate used by visitors would do for a beggar. Boismard, Texte, 80. The verb ejpevcw could have been understood as “holding on to.” Cadbury and Lake (33) say that there is an implied “mind” or “eyes,” with reference to 2 Macc 9:35 et al. See also Barrett, 1:181. For examples of ejrwtavw with the infinitive (rather than double accusative), see BDF §392 (1), and §409 (5). Bultmann, History, 66. Thereafter, initiative comes from others (5:15). The same sequence appears in 9:32-35, where Peter heals Aeneas on his own initiative, after which he is sought (9:38). Famous examples of such scandals include Josephus Ant. 18.65-80 (missionaries of Isis), 81-84 (Jewish missionaries), and Ps.-Lucian Onos 36–41,

32

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

developed with greater detail by Apuleius Metam 8.24-31. Cf. Lucian Fug. 20, where personified Philosophy says, “As to gold or silver, Heracles! I do not want even to own it” (trans. A. M. Harmon, Lucian V [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936] 77). So primitive Athens: Plato Critias 112B (on which see the excursus “The Summaries of Acts” in the commentary on Acts 2:42-47). Pliny the Elder says that the Essenes have no money (Hist. nat. 7.53). The internal Pauline parallel is Acts 20:33. “Christ” is preferable to “messiah” here, as it seems to be a proper name; see Fitzmyer, 28. See above, n. 18. Barrett (1:183) argues for the shorter text. Verse 16 will correct this (see below). See Cadbury and Lake, 33–34, for the physiological details. Boismard, Texte, 82–83. Other variants do not affect the meaning. Conzelmann, 23; Barrett, 1:184.

100

Acts part 1C.indd 100

8/27/2008 9:59:49 AM

3:1-10

to the lack of final revision. It seems more likely that a later editor simplified the text than that subsequent revision introduced the repetitions. The redundancy effectively underlines the ebullience of the former cripple. Its formal function is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the cure, doing so in language evocative of Isa 35:6 (and Luke 7:22).41 Verses 9-10 contain another typical confirmatory factor, public acclamation. The crowd’s reference to the “Beautiful Gate” produces an inclusio with v. 2 (cf. John 9:8-9). The focus remains on the former cripple through v. 11.   8  The verse says that the man accompanied Peter and John into (or toward) the temple, without mention of their progress. The two principal editions of Acts exhibit different understandings of this movement. According to the conventional text, Peter and John heal the man at the gate and then enter “the sanctuary” (to;

iJerovn). They draw a crowd in the Portico of Solomon, evidently viewed as part of the temple precincts. The D-Text (according to Boismard, Texte, 84–85) has a different notion. The apostles exit from the “temple” with the healed person, while the people stand in awe in the Portico of Solomon. This edition evidently takes to; iJerovn as “temple building” and views the Portico of Solomon as outside of the “temple.” The D-Text is topographically more correct. Dibelius’s literary explanation is preferable: the D-Text is later. Those inclined toward historical solutions are likely to prefer the D-Text.42 The allusion to Isa 35:6 in v. 8, coupled with the reference to more than forty years of disability (4:22), invites a particular symbolic understanding: this healing represents an opportunity for the restoration (cf. 3:21) of Israel.43 The initial response suggests that this restoration will occur, but this hope will be dashed.

41 On Luke 7:22, see n. 25. Leucippe 7.15.3 is a good formal parallel. 42 Literary: Dibelius, Studies, 85. Historical: Kirsopp Lake, “Localities in and near Jerusalem Mentioned in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 5:474–86, esp. 479–86. Strange believes that Bezae represents the introduction of marginal notes into the text, smoothed out by later editors (Problem,

115–19). For a general review, see Cadbury and Lake, 32; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 267–69. Josephus describes this colonnade as a component of Solomon’s original construction (Bell. 5.184; Ant. 8.98). On the basis of John 10:23, it seems likely that there was a tradition associating the Portico of Solomon with the followers of Jesus. 43 Cf. also Parsons, Body and Character, 118–19.

101

Acts part 1C.indd 101

8/27/2008 9:59:49 AM

3

3:11—4:4  Peter Addresses the Crowd 11/ The man who had been healed would not let go of Peter and John. Meanwhile the people, filled with astonishment, flocked toward them in Solomon’s colonnade. 12/ Peter addressed the gathered crowd: “My fellow Israelites, Why do you find this so remarkable?a Why are you staring at us as if we, by our personal power or piety, have made him able to walk? 13/ The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of our forebears b has honored his son c Jesus. You people handed him over and disowned him to Pilate’s face, after he had decided to let Jesus go. 14/ You, yes you, disowned the Holy and Just One, demanding the pardoning of a murderer 15/ and murdering him who opens the way to life. But God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of him. d 16/ God has made this person you see here, one well known to you, strong because of confidence in the name of Jesus. The confidence that comes through Jesus has given him full health, and that right before your eyes. e 17/ “I am certain, sisters and brothers, that you acted in ignorance, as did your rulers, 18/ but God, who had predicted through all the prophets that the Messiah would suffer, fulfilled those predictions in the manner described. 19/ Therefore, you must change your hearts and orient yourselves to God. Get the slates of your sins wiped clean, 20/ so that God may provide relief from the pressures of this age and send Jesus, designated to be your Messiah. 21/ He has to remain in heaven until the time for universal restoration arrives. Through the holy prophets God has spoken of that restoration from the beginning. 22/ Moses said, ‘Your sovereign God will raise up a prophet from your midst, just as he raised up me. Attend to whatever he tells you. f 23/ Anyone who does not attend to that prophet will be rooted out from the people.’

a b

c d e

f

Or: “Why are you surprised by this person?” There is a textual question as to whether the term “God” is to be placed before each proper name. Since it cannot be attributed to assimilation to the LXX of Exod 3:6 or to the Gospels (Luke 20:37||Mark 12:26), the longer form may be preferable (but see Acts 7:32). Or: “servant.” Or: “of this.” An alternative version that does not emend the text: “and of the surety of his name. The name of Jesus, as well as the confidence that it brings, has restored this person you see here, one who is well-known to you.” The D-Text reads “Moses said to our ancestors. . . .” As often, the mss fluctuate between “your” and “our.”

102

Acts part 1C.indd 102

8/27/2008 9:59:49 AM

3:11—4:4

g 24/ Every articulate prophet from Samuel on announced the h coming of these days. 25/ You are the heirs of the prophets and the covenant that God fashioned with your forebears when he told Abraham, ‘Every family on earth will be blessed through your descendant.’ 26/ God raised up his son g for you first of all and sent him to give each and all of you the opportunity to abandon your wicked ways.” While Peter and John were addressing the crowd, the priests, the chief of the temple police, and the Sadducees burst onto the scene. 2/ These people were fed up with the apostles for teaching in public, specifically for arguing the case of Jesus as proof of the resurrection of the dead, h 3/ so they apprehended them and, as it was by now evening, had them put into custody until the next day. 4/ Many who had heard the message became believers. The number of men alone had risen to about five thousand.

4:1/

Analysis

(Scene 2: I.B-C) The balance of chap. 3 conforms its structure to that of chap. 2: a miracle that draws a crowd, which is rewarded with an oration. The sermon of Acts 2 ended with a successful call for repentance. Repentance is also the closing note of 3:12-26, but the aftermath is arrest by angry officials. The general contents of this sermon closely resemble those of its predecessor, but Luke avoids vain repetition. The style is different, attempting Greek antithesis,1 and the christological images also vary. Chapter 2 presented a “Son of David” ­Christology, 1 2

3

Or: “servant.” Or: “For saying that Jesus was the means of ­resurrection. . . .”

while this speech seems to evoke the servant model, refers also to the “Prophet like Moses,” and employs other concepts or titles: “holy and righteous one,”2 “author of life, “the Messiah who suffered and is appointed to return at a later time, and “the descendant of Abraham.” Luke has packed a great variety of christological imagery into these initial addresses. 3 This profusion alone rebuts any contention that the speech preserves “primitive” traditions traceable to an actual Petrine sermon.4 Remarkably, there is no reference to baptism or to the gift of the Spirit. This speech is no less artificial than the Pentecost address, for here, as in 2:15, Peter attributes a viewpoint to the audience. Here

See Haenchen, 210. Verse 14 links “holy” and “righteous” with a single article. They are not presented as distinct titles. Luke may have taken the combination from Mark 4 6:20, where it is used of John the Baptist. These adjectives frame the Lucan characterization of Jesus: Luke 1:35 (holy; cf. also 4:34) and 23:47 (righteous; cf. also 7:52; 22:14). See the discussion of these titles in Wilckens,

Missionsreden, 156–78; Zehnle, Discourse, 47–53; and Weiser, 1:113–15, who has many references to secondary discussions. For refutation of the claim that some of the christological titles in Acts 3 are primitive, see Pervo, Dating, 335–36. On the difficulty of identifying “primitive theology” in this speech in general, see Soards, Speeches, 40 n. 84.

103

Acts part 1C.indd 103

8/27/2008 9:59:49 AM

he takes the position that the audience believes that the healing derives from the apostles’ personal powers. Although this belief may have been typical of the GrecoRoman environment—Luke can come rather close to it himself—it is not the conventional Jewish view, in which the primary question is the basis of authority (cf. Mark 3:22-30). That is the very question posed by the officials who examine Peter and John in 4:7. The argument boils down to the claim that the healing proves Jesus to have been holy and innocent and, as a matter of fact, the predicted Messiah, obliging the hearers to repent of their assent to his execution. The logic of this rhetoric is accessible only to Christians who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that the miracle substantiates that claim. Because vv. 12-16 take the miracle as a point of departure, it may appear that this sermon is apposite to its circumstances, but the connection is no less superficial than it was in the Pentecost address. Peter does not say, “Give God, rather than us, the glory for this healing,” but “God glorified his servant Jesus, whom you killed.” The convoluted v. 16 introduces the theme of pivsti~ (“faith,” “trust,” “confidence”), a fine subject but not one that is relevant to this story. Such confidence is a component of the parallel in 14:9, but it is absent here and cannot be supplied by implication. 5 If Luke were following the practice recommended for ancient historians, which was to compose speeches portraying what might well have been said upon a particular occasion, he was not especially successful. These negative judgments are not apt, for, as more or less always, the speeches are addressed to the reader rather than to the dramatic setting. The structure of this deliberative speech6 is rather clear, but its style is not: “The construction of almost every sentence in this speech is obscure, and some of it is scarcely translatable, but the general meaning is plain.”7 5

6

Although there is general agreement that this sermon has two major parts, disagreement arises about the point of division: at v. 17 or at v. 19.8 The kai; nu`n (“and now”) and the vocative “brothers and sisters” of v. 17 are important clues,9 and the content also favors this division. Krodel identifies a ring composition in each segment:10 I. The Healing (and the “Problem”) 3:12-16. A. V. 12. The healing was not wrought by human power. B. V. 13a. God glorified his servant, C. V. 13b. Whom you betrayed and denied. C'. Vv. 14a-15a. You denied and killed the source of life. B'. V. 15b. God raised him. A'. V. 16. The healing came about by faith in the power of the name. II. The Solution (and the Healing of All) 3:17-26. A. Vv. 17-18 The evil (but ignorant, despite the prophets) ways of Jerusalem. B. V. 19. Repent and be forgiven, C. Vv. 20-21a. So that you may be fit to receive the Messiah. D. Vv. 21b-23. Function of Scripture and citation E. V. 24. All the prophets have proclaimed this message. E'. V. 25a. You are heirs of the ­prophets. D'. V. 25b. Scripture citation. C'. V. 26a. God sent the son B'. V. 26b. so that you might turn A'. V. 26c. from your evil ways.

The two parts are joined by the use of pai`~ (“child,” “servant,”) in vv. 13 and 26. This outline confirms that

In miracle stories, the fundamental meaning of pivsti~ is confidence on the part of the patient or others in the possibility of the miracle. The patient here was looking for money. George Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 118–19) identifies vv. 12-18 as judicial rhetoric. Luke would not have been the only author to commingle the rhetorical species. As Kennedy observes, the “ judicial” portion is the presupposition to the deliberative argument. The speaker must convince the hearers that they have done something that demands repentance.

7 8

Cadbury and Lake, 34–35. For different approaches to the structure, see Soards, Speeches, 39. 9 Note the use of a similar formula in Paul’s speech at Miletus (20:22, 25, 32). 10 Krodel, 18–19, 99–108. (Part II of this outline does not follow Krodel.) For a similar outline, see Talbert, Reading Acts, 55.

104

Acts part 1C.indd 104

8/27/2008 9:59:50 AM

3:11—4:4

the deliberative speech was fortunately completed. The officials did not interrupt before Peter could finish his plea.11 Had 4:4, which provides the sermon with a suitable conclusion quite like that of 2:41, followed directly on 3:26, nothing would seem amiss. Verse 11 awkwardly serves to get the crowd (which one may imagine as quite numerous) into a suitable place. The narrator touchingly depicts the former cripple as unwilling to let go of his benefactors. Comment   12-16  (I) The grounds for Peter’s objection are difficult to fathom, since the onlookers know that the former cripple is praising God (v. 9). Apart from providing grounds for a strong antithesis, this question prepares the way for 4:7. Verse 13 dramatically introduces a new subject: the God of Israel. The speech presumes that Jesus was familiar to the audience. In fact, 3:13 depends on 2:22. The kerygmatic summary12

of vv. 13-15 denounces the hearers for their role in the condemnation of Jesus.13 Antithesis, alliteration, and assonance abound. Although Pilate14 acquitted Jesus,15 the public preferred a murderer. The viewpoint is that of the Lucan passion narrative.16 The learned tradition strongly supports viewing pai`~ in v. 13 in terms of the suffering servant of Isa 52:13,17 but, as Soards observes, Greek readers innocent of the Semitic background might well understand it to mean “son.”18 Suffering receives no more emphasis here than elsewhere. Conzelmann renders as “servant,” but attributes the epithet to the liturgical tradition, where it is an “honorific title.”19 The word ajrchgov~ (“the one who opens the way to life”) comes from the world of Hellenism, which had a great interest in founders, inventors, discoverers, and origins of all sorts. Luke does not wish to ascribe to Jesus the “invention” of (genuine) life. For him, the meaning may be that Jesus is leader by virtue of his standing as the first to rise from the dead.20 The final relative, rendered “We are witnesses of him,” exhibits

11 “Not until all has been said that needs to be said is the speech interrupted” (Talbert, Reading Acts, 56). 12 On the use of the “relative connective,” see BDF §458. Eduard Norden identified the importance of participial and relative clauses for the recognition of creedal material (Agnostos Theos: Unter­suchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede [1913; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­gesellschaft, 1974) 380–87. 13 The text is emphatic: uJmei`~ mevn (“YOU”). There is no true balancing of dev to make a comparison or contrast. D 6 pc omit the particle. The repeated references to denial in vv. 13 and 14 do not suit the character of the speaker, Peter. Contrast Act. Pet. 7, in which the apostle freely admits his failure in denying Christ. 14 Pilate would still have been in office, by any reconstruction of the dramatic date. The text inclines readers to view him as a figure of the past rather than the current governor. 15 The D-Text corrects this remarkable claim to “wished to release him,” conforming the text to Luke 23:20. Other D-Text readings in vv. 13-15 intensify the condemnation. After “handed over” in v. 13 the D-Text adds a clarifying “to condemnation” (eij~ krivsin). In v. 14, D reads ejbaruvnate (“oppressed”) instead of hjrnhvsasqe and underscores the antithesis by supplementing “murderer” with the infinitive “to live and . . . .” Verse 15 notes that the killing took place by crucifixion. Epp (Ten-

16 17 18 19

20

dency, 56) argues that these changes are more than the usual pedantic expansions. On the relation of vv. 13-15 to the Lucan passion narrative, see Wilckens, Missionsreden, 127–31. In Isa 52:13, the noun pai`~ is associated with the verb doxavzw, as in Acts 3:13. Soards, Speeches, 40–41, with n. 84. Conzelmann, 28. He notes 1 Clem. 59:2-4; Did. 9:2-3; Barn. 6:1; 9:2; Mart. Pol. 14:1; 20:2. On “servant,” see Wilckens, Missionsreden, 163–68. Cf. 1 Cor 15:20 and Acts 26:23. On the term in this context, see Cadbury and Lake, 36; Wilckens, Missionsreden, 175–76; Barrett 1:197–98; and, in general, Knox, Hellenistic Elements, 26–27. For the broader context, see Gerhard Delling, “a[rcw,” TDNT 1:478–89, esp. 487–88. Religious use focuses on founders of communities, often a “hero” (on this, see Erwin Rohde, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks [trans. W. B. Hillis; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1925] 527–28, 146 n. 51; 147 n. 56; 149 n. 75). Those who look for a specific Christian context postulate an exodus (Mosaic) or Davidic typology, both of which could be arguable here. On the former, see Leopold Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Studies in the History of Religions; Numen Supp. 25; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 210; advocates of the latter include Paul-Gerhard Müller, CRISTOS ­ARCHGOS: Der Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Hintergrund einer

105

Acts part 1C.indd 105

8/27/2008 9:59:50 AM

the same difficulty as 2:32 (q.v.). This phrase, “we are witnesses to him [= Jesus],” apparently functions apart from grammatical context. The antithetic style of vv. 13-15 foreshadows the full-blown “Asianism” of Melito.21   16  The verse appears impossible.22 Acts evidently wishes to say that invocation of Jesus’ name has healing power, but/and that faith in Jesus is a factor, that is, that the name does not work “magically.”23 Shifting the initial phrase, kai; ejpi; th`/ pivstei tou` ojnovmato" aujtou', in effect, “We are witness of him and to (the power of) faith in his name,” is unlikely; 24 the text is probably corrupt. One approach to emendation is to postulate kai; ejpi; th`/ pivstei tou` ojnovmato" aujtou` as a gloss that has entered the text.25 That gloss would presumably have been designed to clarify the meaning of the pronoun

“his” in kai; hJ pivsti" hJ diÆ aujtou' (lit. “and the faith through him”). The selected alternative takes to; o[noma aujtou' (“his name”) as a gloss on the same prepositional phrase, yielding kai; ejpi; th`/ pivstei tou` ojnovmato" aujtou` tou`ton o}n qewrei`te kai; oi[date, ejsterevwsen, kai; hJ pivsti" hJ diÆ aujtou` e[dwken aujtw`/ th;n oJloklhrivan tauvthn ajpevnanti pavntwn uJmw`n, a parallelismus membrorum evidently fashioned for rhetorical purposes.26 The miracle, of which the hearers are witnesses, shows that Jesus was wrongly executed, and the apostles can verify that he returned from the dead.   17-26  (II) 27 The mode of proof shifts from eyewitness to scriptural testimony. With a new, warmer form of address, Peter mollifies his accusation. Those who killed Jesus acted in ignorance. “Ignorance” of the truth is an

neutestamentlichen ­Christsuprädikation (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 23, vol. 28; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1973); and George Johnston, “Christ as Archegos,” NTS 27 (1981) 381–85. Müller, who also contributed the EDNT article on ajrchgov" (1:163–64), argues for “leader” as the proper translation. Weaver (Plots, 124 n. 119) prefers “founder.” It is doubtful that the author of Acts reflected on the religio-historical background of this finesounding title. 21 The homily of Melito of Sardis On the Pascha, which is usually dated c. 160–170, exemplifies both the liturgical features first analyzed by Norden (n. 12) and the florid rhetorical style known as “Asianic.” See Stuart G. Hall, Melito of Sardis On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Texts; London: Clarendon, 1979). For a brief review of the florid type of “Asianic” rhetoric, see George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972) 97–100. 22 The NRSV renders: “And by faith in his name, his name itself has made this man strong, whom you see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given him this perfect health in the presence of all of you.” This is not English. 23 The text combines two theological views of the healing: (1) “The name caused the healing” is susceptible to a magical understanding. (2) “Faith caused the healing” allows for two different views of faith: confidence in the power of Jesus’ name (a common use of pivsti~ in healing stories), and “faith deriving from Jesus” or the Name. In the adjectival prepositional phrase hJ pivsti~ hJ di a j ujtou`, the pronoun can be construed either as neuter, referring to the name, or as masculine, referring to either Jesus or to the patient. Metzger (Textual Commentary,

24

25

26

27

270–72), has a full discussion of the issues. Luke has introduced the element of faith to ward off the charge of magical practice. On “magic,” see pp. 207–9. This idea was supported by F. C. Burkitt in 1919, according to Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, “The Internal Evidence of Acts,” in eidem, Prolegomena II (vol. 2 of The Beginnings of Christianity [5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33] 121–204, esp. 142). A difficulty is that mavrtu~ is not elsewhere used with the dative. See the discussion of Metzger, Textual Commentary, 270–72. According to Bruce (142), Barrett proposed in 1984 that the author added this phrase to his source. According to Boismard (Texte, 88), the Peshitta and an old French version omit to; o[noma aujtou'. If correct, this may reflect either an early correction or, possibly, an earlier text. The Old Latin h omits the prepositional phrase hJ diÆ aujtou`, which improves the text. Bezae (Greek only) reads kai; ejpi; th`/ pivstei tou` ojnovmato" aujtou` tou`ton qewrei`te kai; oi[date, o{ti ejsterevwsen (“And in faith in his name you see this person and know that he has been made strong”). This offers some relief. Boismard views the omission of the relative as the result of haplography. Finally, it is possible that hJ pivsti" hJ diÆ aujtou` refers to fides quae (cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 58). See the detailed analysis of 3:19-26 in Carroll, Response, 137–54.

106

Acts part 1C.indd 106

8/27/2008 9:59:50 AM

3:11—4:4

important theme in Jewish and Christian missionary and apologetic literature.28 The past behavior of (repentant) polytheists may be overlooked. For Luke, “ignorance” levels the playing field for both Jews (here) and gentiles (17:23, 30).29 The Jews did not know that “they” killed God’s son; gentiles were not aware of the true God. The obvious preparation for this is Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”), a verse excluded from the text by N-A 27.30   18  The verse states a dogmatic early Christian presupposition to biblical exegesis: 31 the prophetic tradition in its entirety had announced that the Messiah would suffer. Those who examine the surface meaning of the HB will have to agree with Cadbury and Lake: “None of the prophets, rather than all of them, made this prophecy.”32 At this juncture, the dramatic audience would have decided that Peter was drunk, crazy, or abominably ignorant, but for the actual audience—Christian readers of Acts—the claim requires no justification. The logical consequences of this action, execution of the Messiah, follow. The audience is summoned to a change of view.   19-21  These verses constitute a single sentence, containing a twofold call to repentance linked to two

promises, the second of which has two parts. Meta­ noevw is an intellectual image (“change one’s mind”), while ejpistrevfw is concrete (“turn around”). The verbs are also combined in 26:20. 33 Conzelmann says that this views conversion as including changes both of mind and conduct.34 The relation between the two purpose clauses is not certain. 35 Barrett says that the first “introduces the immediate personal consequence of repentance,” and the second “the wider cosmichistorical consequence.”36 Both are corporate, however. The second includes the arrival of both (lit. “times of refreshment”; 37 kairoi; ajnayuvxew") and the dispatch of the Messiah.38 It is difficult to establish sequential and consequential relations. General repentance/conversion as a prelude to the parousia is a reasonable postulate,39 but one might expect the arrival of the Messiah to precede rather than follow relief. An additional question is the relation between the “times of refreshment” and the era of universal restoration (crovnwn ajpokatastavsew" pavntwn). Are these essentially synonymous? Luke has almost certainly made use of some traditional material here—witness the atypical words and concepts. Questions include his source(s) and the implications of them,

28 In the NT, note Eph 4:18; 1 Pet 1:14; 1 Tim 1:13; and 2 Pet 2:12. Other references include Ignatius Eph. 19:3; Preaching of Peter, frg. 4. For a somewhat casuistic approach, see Hermas Man. 29; Sim. 60. Examples from the Acts include Act. John 107.14-15 and Act. Pet. 2.21-25.There are many examples in apologetic literature, e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 7.5; 12.11(bis); 61.10; 2 Apol. 14.1; Athenagoras Leg. 2.6; 28.4; and Melito Apol. Frg. 1.3. Christian writers took up the theme from Hellenistic Judaism, e.g., 3 Macc. 5:27; Jos. Asen. 13:11–13; and T. Jud. 19:3. On the subject, see Rudolf Bultmann, “ajgnoevw,” TDNT 1:116–21, esp. 116–19 29 Ignorance does not convey absolution in Acts, but it does leave open the possibility of forgiveness and thus hope. For other uses of this theme, note Wis 14:22; Rom 1:18-32 (ignorance is no excuse); and Acts 13:27, where it is also less than complimentary. 30 On Luke 23:34, see the comments on Acts 7:60. The D-Text of Acts 3:17 reads “Gentlemen (a[ndre~ ajdelfoiv) , we know that you, for your part, did an evil deed, in ignorance. . . .” The first two changes accommodate to the context or convention. Addition of the emphatic pronoun (uJmei`~), “for your part” (mevn), and the object “evil deed” make the clause polemical. They may have been ignorant,

31

32 33

34 35

36 37

38

39

but what the Jews did was wrong and quite against the will of God. This view is as old as the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. It is present in the pre-Pauline creed stated in 1 Cor 15:3. Cadbury and Lake, 37. The verb ejpistrevfw appears nine other times in Acts (seven in Luke), while metanoevw is found in three additional places in Acts (nine in Luke), Conzelmann, 29; for details, see idem, Theology, 99–101. The formal variation (one uses preposition with infinitive, the other o{pw~ a[n with the subjunctive) is not significant. Barrett, 1:203. The phrase “times of refreshment” evokes, without description, the leisure and abundance of the eschatological era. On this, see Pervo, “PANTA KOINA,” 187–92. The phrase ajpo; proswvpou tou` kurivou (v. 20) is difficult. “From the presence of the Lord” would translate the idiom (BDAG, 888 s.v. proswvpou), but in English this suggests that God is present. It seems preferable to view the idiom as indicating the source of refreshment. Cf. 2 Pet 3:12, which moralizes the theme.

107

Acts part 1C.indd 107

8/27/2008 9:59:51 AM

that is, whether this is “the most primitive Christology of all,”40 and whether it might reflect the views of Peter and/or the first believers in Jerusalem. In the parallel verse of the Pentecost address (2:38) Peter also summons the audience to repent and receive forgiveness of sins, but the means thereof is baptism and the result, the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is without doubt Luke’s primary theological understanding. If this is taken as a base, the “periods of refreshment” would be the present eschatological blessings enjoyed by the baptized, followed—at some unspecified point—by the parousia. Acts 3:19-21 coordinates the Christology of the speech in Acts 2, which states that because Jesus has gone to the realm of God41 he can bestow the Spirit. A somewhat different, and probably preferable, interpretation follows the rhetorical doubling and regards “periods of refreshment” and “times of restoration” as synonymous.42 In any case Conzelmann is, at least in part, correct.43 This passage asserts that there is to be

an interval between the two appearances of the Messiah and that the contribution of the Jews to his death was not an unpardonable sin. Just how Luke came upon the atypical expressions in these verses is a matter for (not necessarily fruitless) conjecture.44 Elements of Lucan style are readily identifiable.45 In conclusion: although the author may have utilized some traditional material, it has been integrated into Lucan thought and shaped by the context.46 The lack of reference to baptism and the Spirit is a further indication that the speech addresses its readers rather than the dramatic audience.   21b-25  This portion of the speech supports the claim that all has happened in accordance with God’s plan by appeal to prophetic tradition,47 not, however, by citing an apocalyptic text, but through asserting that Jesus is the “prophet like Moses” predicted in Deut 18:15.48 The focus of this speech is on the “first” sending (v. 26), rather than the “second” (v. 20). Although a good deal of material from disparate sources suggests

40 This is the thesis of John A. T. Robinson, in an essay of that title, first published in 1956 (= “The Most Primitive Christology of All,” in idem, Twelve New Testament Studies [SBT 34; London: SCM, 1962] 139–53). 41 The term devxasqai (“receive”) is based on a common Greek petition or declaration that the gods welcome or provide suitable hospitality for the deserving (BDAG, 221, s.v. devcomai, 3). “Must” affirms the view that the absence of Jesus is in accordance with the will and plan of God. 42 So John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 134; Jervell, 166–68; and Eduard Schweizer, “ajnavyuxi~,” TDNT 9:664–65. Carroll (Response, 137–48) argues that both nouns apply to the present of Acts, since the mission is the restoration of Israel. See also Turner, Power, 309. 43 Conzelmann, 29. 44 The verb ejxaleivfw is not “primitive.” Col 2:14 suggests that it is at home in the Deutero-Pauline world. Note also 1 Clem. 18:2, 9 (cit.) and 2 Clem. 13:1. Phrases like “from the face of” (ajpo; pro­ swvpou) and “through the mouth of” (dia; stov­ mato~) are Septuagintalisms. Verse 20 is related to Isa 32:15, notably in the (presumably much later) version of Symmachus: e{w~ a]n ejpevlqh/ ejf j uJma`~ ajnavyuxi~ ejx u{you~. (In place of ajnavyuxi~ LXX reads pneu`ma!) The D-Text adds uJmi`n, evidently conforming the text to Isaiah. The term “restoration” has prompted proposals to link the theology of vv. 19-21 with the circle of John the Baptist. See

45

46 47

48

Otto Bauernfeind, “Tradition und Komposition in dem Apokatastasisspruch Apostelgeschichte 3,20f,” in Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Peter Schmidt, eds., Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 13–23; cf. also Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979) 79; and Plümacher, Lukas, 92. This is unlikely, for there is no reference to judgment, a leading theme of the Baptizer’s message. See also Roloff (72–73), who refers to Romans 9–11, esp. 11:25-36, for the missionary context. The verb proceirivzw (“arrange in advance” [v. 20]) is an important Lucan concept. See also its use in the speeches of 22:14; 26:16. Both the verbal form of “restoration” and the nouns “times and seasons” appear in 1:6-7, indicating that the statements are parallel. Note also Luke 21:24 (the “times [kairoiv] of the gentiles”). This is the judgment of Polhill, 134–35. Verse 21b is a Lucan formulation (Luke 1:70). Carroll (Response, 140 n. 82) notes a number of correspondences between Luke 1:70-75 (the Benedictus) and Acts 3:19-26. The D-Text omits “from the beginning” (ajp jaijw`no~), perhaps on the pedantic grounds that there were no human prophets in the beginning. For similar hyperbole, see Acts 15:7, 18. The expression “all the prophets” is Lucan (Luke 11:50; 13:28; 24:27; Acts 3:18, 24; 10:43). Deut 18:15-20 was a key text in early Christianity (Mark 9:7 parr.; John 1:21; 5:46; Luke 7:39; 24:25;

108

Acts part 1C.indd 108

8/27/2008 9:59:51 AM

3:11—4:4

the ­development of a prophet with messianic features, Luke’s “prophetic Christology” follows a different path.49 For Luke, (the earthly) Jesus is more a prophet like Moses (and Elijah, etc.) than a messiah endowed with prophetic qualities. 50 Judgment appears in the threat cited, with modifications, 51 from Lev 23:29: those who do not listen to Jesus and heed the call to repent will be expelled from the people of God. 52 This warning is a mirror of the promise in 2:39. Luke is foreshadowing the emergence of conflict associated with the rejection of the message by “the Jews.” Verse 24 postulates, with a maximum of solemnity and a minimum of clarity, the uniformity of the prophetic tradition on this matter. 53 The speech is moving rapidly toward its climax and close. As heirs of the prophets, the auditors enjoy a privileged status that they must use or lose. They are also heirs of the abruptly introduced Abrahamic covenant, 54 a status that permits a hint of the universal mission. Verses 25-26 reveal Luke’s appropriation of Pauline theology. Gentiles can also be heirs of Abraham and thus of the covenant, 55 but the announcement is made to Jews first. 56 The repeated second person, while rhetorically appropriate, reveals a

49

50

51

52

53

difference between Paul and Luke. It is no longer “we” who are Jews but “you people.”57 The Jews have become the other. Repeatedly, they had the first chance, and repeatedly they rejected the offer, as Acts will demonstrate. Fulfillment of the promise to Abraham began with Jesus’ call to repentance. Once more, Luke abolishes a potential gap between “the earthly Jesus” and “the heavenly Christ.”58 The gap between gentiles and Jews also has narrowed: Jews wishing to share in the promise to Abraham must repent.59 Richard Zehnle’s study of the speeches in Acts 2 and 3 concluded that Acts 2 is a summary of Lucan theology, whereas Acts 3 attempts to depict a specific appeal to Jews. He inclines to attribute Acts 3:12-26 to sources, but allows for the possibility that the author is responsible for the “archaizing,”60 a view that Conzelmann endorses with complete confidence.61 Zehnle’s final comment on this speech is: “However, if it is decided that the material is not in itself primitive, then it must be conceded that Luke intended it to be so.” His own notes and citations go a long way toward proving the thesis that Acts 3 is not “primitive.” Luke’s sources, of whatever sort,

as well as Acts 7:37). Zehnle (Discourse, 75–89) traces the various aspects of the Moses typology and their relevance for Acts. Acts 3:22 is directly imitated in Ps. Clem. Rec. 1.36.2, as shared deviations from the LXX and inclusion of a paraphrase of Lev 23:29 prove. On the text of the citation, see Barrett, 1:208–9. Barrett (1:207–8) gives a short and sharp review of the texts and hypotheses about a “prophetic ­messiah.” It is possible to trace a line, through Theophilus of Antioch, from Luke to the “Word/person” Christology associated with Antioch. See Pervo, Dating, 327. The LXX of Lev 23:29 says that “all who do not humble themselves on that day” (h{ti" mh; tapeinwqhvsetai ejn aujth`/ th`/ hJmevra/ tauvth) will be excluded. This is an example of the Christian corruption/modification of Scripture. See Barrett, 1:209–10. Haenchen (209) says, “The idea that the Christians are the true Israel is here brought into sharp relief.” Verse 24 is not a true sentence, as it lacks a verb. The syntax confounds two ways of saying “starting with Samuel and continuing thereafter.” See Haenchen, 209; and Barrett, 1:210–11.

54 Note, however, that v. 13 introduced the name of Abraham, thus laying the groundwork for this theme. 55 Verse 25b is not a direct citation of a particular verse but a conflation of Gen 12:3; 18:18; and 22:18. Gal 3:16 may have influenced Luke’s argument here. 56 Abraham: Gal 3:6-18; Jews first: Rom 1:16, etc. On these dependencies (and the use of patriaiv) , see Pervo, Dating, 77, 104–5, 297. 57 The choice between “your” and “our” “ancestors” in v. 25 is a text-critical dilemma. “Your” corresponds to the subject of the sentence (“you”) and is preferable. 58 Note also the use of “raise” in v. 25, where ajnasthv­sa~ oJ qeo;~ to;n pai`da (lit. “God, raising his son/servant”) could, at first glance, appear to refer to the resurrection, but means instead the “raising up” of a prophet. 59 In theory ejn tw`/ ajpostrevfein e{kaston could be transitive, “by causing each of you to turn away from your sins,” but the meaning is almost certainly intransitive, “If each of you turns.” 60 See the conclusions of Zehnle, Discourse, 75. 61 Conzelmann, 29.

109

Acts part 1C.indd 109

8/27/2008 9:59:51 AM

probably came from contemporary Jewish-Christian thought.62 Haenchen tended to regard the quest for the sources of Acts as a red herring.63 Acts 3 is—to shift metaphors— one of the sharpest arrows in his quiver, for the miracle story in 3:1-10, although based on tradition, does no more to put scholars in touch with the earliest days of the movement than does the Coptic Act of Peter, while the speech of vv. 12-26 is, in its present form, Lucan.64 This address also illustrates the contribution of intertextual studies, a discipline that assumes that every text is a web of allusions, known and unknown. The difficulty of identifying the specific contours of a possible source is not limited to vv. 19-21; none of the scriptural citations in vv. 22-23, 25 is an exact quotation. Luke did not work with scissors and paste. Although it would be lazy to attribute all of the differences between the speeches of Acts 2 and 3 to the desire for rhetorical variation, that well-known Lucan proclivity is a partial answer to the alleged difficulties of comparison.65 Haenchen’s occasionally exaggerated disdain for sources allowed him to ask the important question: Why has Luke given what amounts to a repeat of the

sermon in Acts 2? 66 Despite some theological variation, theology does not provide an answer. Literary criticism does. The speech provides a basis for the advancement of the plot. Opposition now erupts, not from the people but from officials and Sadducees. One ostensible warrant for their action is that Peter is teaching in the temple precincts.67 The contrast between the promise of 2:39 and the threat of 3:23 will be, in retrospect, a foreshadowing of the ultimate Jewish reaction to the message. Acts 3 illuminates chap. 2 by contrast. The events of Pentecost indicate the course events would have followed had the officials left the movement alone. The ultimate irony is that growth will be unhindered by opposition. Various functionaries arrest Peter and John. Readers of the Gospel know what to expect: some sort of rigged trial by the Sanhedrin, for the Sanhedrin68 of Acts can and will administer capital punishment. Despite its power and solemnity, the authorities do not have an easy day. Nonplussed by the courage and skill with which the apostles rebuke their tyrannous behavior and the charge of practicing magic, the body must also deal with its ineptness at including the former cripple in their

62 Zehnle was still influenced by the logical assumption that “Jewish” means “early.” The opposite is more nearly true. As Jervell understood, there was a strong resurgence of “Jewish Christianity” after 70 ce. Ephesians and 1 Clement are two quite different examples of this phenomenon, which is germane to Acts. 63 See his preface (vii) and, on this passage, 203–12. 64 See, in addition to the foregoing comments and references, William S. Kurz, “Acts 3:19-26 as a Test of the Role of Eschatology in Lukan Christology,” SBLSP 1977 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) 309–23; Schneider, 1:315, 323–27; Roloff (70–79), who analyzes the details with considerable care and regards this, along with Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as “archaizing,” still holds that it is a Lucan composition. Barrett (1:186–214) holds to the view that much of the speech is based on “an independent piece of tradition which Luke inserted at this point . . .” (189). 65 On Luke’s penchant for “elegant variation,” see Cadbury, “Four Features,” 87–102. 66 Haenchen, 211. 67 Jesus also taught in the temple (Luke 19:47; 21:37). 68 The text does not identify this assembly as “the Sanhedrin.” When the word appears in v. 15, it may

well refer to a place. Jack T. Sanders (The Jews in Luke-Acts [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] 4–5) argues that this is the normal (but not exclusive) meaning of the word in Acts. It is no longer possible to assume that there was a standing governing body called “the Sanhedrin,” roughly equivalent to the Roman Senate, that sat in Jerusalem. “San­ hedrins” were, in effect, meetings of advisors to the high priest. See, e.g., Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66–70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 112–16; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce–66 ce (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992) 472–84; and Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East: 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993) 360–61. Luke does assume that there was an authoritative body with police powers and the authority to execute capital punishment. As Steve Mason shows, Luke’s picture is quite similar to that of Josephus (“Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 115–77, esp. 175–76.

110

Acts part 1C.indd 110

8/27/2008 9:59:51 AM

3:11—4:4

proceedings. He will not be a useful witness for them. An executive session elicits no better plan than a gag order that the apostles defy with impunity. The narrative closes with an eloquent prayer offered by the entire community, followed by a powerful epiphany.69   4:1-4  These verses are both the formal conclusion to the speech and the introduction to the subsequent trial. The statistics in v. 4 are an exact parallel to those of 2:41 and demonstrate that Peter’s appeal was, once again, remarkably effective.70 This summary “punctuation” also serves the retardation introduced by v. 3. Because it was evening, the action will be delayed until the next day. For those unfamiliar with the passion narrative (Mark 14:4371), the arresting force72 that bursts upon the scene73 is an odd body: the clergy, the chief of the

temple police (probably74), and the members of a political party.75 This is the ancient equivalent of a “celebrity arrest” that draws a gallery of luminaries, albeit not to bask in the attendant publicity but to represent the forces of evil. Talk of arrest is anticipatory; for all the reader knows, these worthies have come to catch the remainder of the sermon. Verse 2 makes immediately clear that their visit is not friendly. The authorities are doubly aggrieved—because the apostles are teaching, which is a usurpation of their own responsibility, and because of what they are teaching (evidently the resurrection), which agitates the Sadducees, as well as their use of the name of Jesus.76 Luke’s compression is vivid but inept.77

69 On the historical basis for this, see Lüdemann (60), (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; 2 who can finally say no more than that the actions vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87) 2:277–78. of the authorities would occasion no surprise. Josephus uses the simple oJ strathgov~, “the officer 70 This is the last time that Acts supplies even in charge (Bell. 6.294; Ant. 20.131). In any event this approximate data on the number of converts. See person ranked second to the high priest. the excursus “The Size of the Jerusalem Church,” 75 Fitzmyer (298) observes, “In Luke’s view the Sadpp. 86–87. ducees are the archenemies of Christianity.” That 71 Luke 22:47 abbreviates Mark 14:43. Both use a is the most salient datum. This party included most genitive absolute to indicate that Jesus was interof the aristocracy, lay and priestly. They were conrupted while speaking. On the “improper” genitive servative defenders of the status quo, who would absolute of Acts 4:1, an imitation of the arrest of have been unlikely to support dissident moveJesus, see BDF §423. ments. See Schürer, History, 2:404–14; and Gary G. 72 The D-Text pedantically provides an object for Porton, “Sadducees,” ABD 5:892–95. the participle “speaking,” overlooking the parallel 76 Foakes Jackson (32) observes that modern readers with the passion story, and omits “the chief of the understand the message of resurrection to be an temple police. B C read oiJ ajrcierei`" (“the leading affirmation that there is a future life, but that priests”). There are thus three different construc“[t]o the Jews at this time it meant imminent worldtions of the arresting group. “High priests” is an catastrophe, in which the powers on earth would obviously secondary improvement (Metzger, Texbe destroyed and a new order miraculously set up.” tual Commentary, 275). D-Texts may have omitted He is correct about the apocalyptic background reference to the “chief” because it belonged either and its threat of revolution, but already for Luke at the beginning or at the end of the series. resurrection means continuing existence after 73 For a similar, aggressive, use of ejfivsthmi, see Luke death rather than political upheaval. 20:1, where “high priests, scribes, and elders” burst 77 Both verbs, “teach” and “proclaim,” are infiniin to question Jesus. The participle lalouvntwn (“as tive objects of the preposition diav (“because they were speaking”) intimates that both Peter and of”), joined with one article. The chief difficulty John were preaching (Acts 3:12). This will justify the is the phrase ejn tw`/ ÆIhsou'. The preposition ejn is arrest of both apostles. the “maid of all work,” with an even wider range 74 The strathgo;~ tou` iJerou` (= saµgaµ n in Hebrew) may of meanings than its English (etc.) cognate “in.” have been an official with police powers. See CadThe leading options are instrumental (Jesus is the bury and Lake, 40; Barrett, 1:218–19; Martin Henmeans of resurrection; so Moule, Idiom Book, 77), gel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter and referential (“in the case of Jesus”). Barrett in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. (1:219) observes that if the phrase were omitted the John Bowden; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, text would be clear. This is one basis for a solution. 1974) 1:25; and Emil Schürer, History of the Jewish Luke has compressed two charges. Cf. 17:18. See People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) Barrett, 1:220; Haenchen, 214 n. 5; Conzelmann,

111

Acts part 1C.indd 111

8/27/2008 9:59:52 AM

Only after expending thirty-five words does the narrator reveal the goal of these visitors: arrest.78 Depiction of the officials as the arresting officers indicates the enormity of their rage: in most cases agents would perform this task. The D-Text of this verse represents a propensity toward paraphrase for its own sake: “so they seized them and handed them over into custody

until the morrow; now it was already evening.” At this dire moment the narrator closes the unit by reporting the results. About79 five thousand males had become adherents. The number evokes the feeding stories (Mark 6:32-44 parr.) and intimates a much larger total.80 This is the last time Luke provides specific numbers, possibly intimating the end of an era.

32, who points to 26:23; and Bruce, 148. The 79 The word wJ~ or the equivalent is textually uncerD-Text (in addition to its charming replacement of tain. Luke likes to qualify statistics, but p 74 a A 81 diaponouvmenoi with kataponouvmenoi [“they were 1175 pc vg omit it, suggesting the possibility that fed up with”]), apparently solves the problem by it was added to harmonize with 2:41. Metzger inverting the order: ajnaggevlein to;n ÆIhsou`n ejn (Textual Commentary, 275) finds the decision diffith/` ajnastavsei tw`n nekrw`n (“they are proclaiming cult. The D-Text omits “message” and paraphrases Jesus by speaking of the resurrection of the dead”), the awkward statement of number (Boismard, although Metzger, (Textual Commentary, 274) finds Texte, 93). it “curious, to say the least.” 80 Bede (25) already evoked the feeding stories. The 78 Haenchen (215) observes that the idiom ejpibavl­ figure is imitated in Ps. Clem. Rec. 1.71.2, on which lein ta;~ cei`ra~ will take its place in the technical see Jones, “A Jewish Christian,” 626–27. terminology of hagiography. See BDAG 367, s.v. ejpibavllw, 1b.

112

Acts part 1C.indd 112

8/27/2008 9:59:52 AM

4:5-22

4

4:5-22 Peter and John before the High Priests 5/ The next day there was an assembly of their leaders, including the elders, the local legal experts, 6/ and, notably, the high priest Annas, as well as Caiphas, Jonathan, a Alexander, and the whole high-priestly clan. 7/ They had Peter and John brought before them and asked, “By what power or with what name have you people done this?” 8/ Directed by the Holy Spirit, Peter answered: “Leaders of the people, elders. 9/ If we are being examined today regarding a good deed for a disabled person, that is, how he was healed, 10/ all of you— and all the people of Israel— need to know that he stands before you in good health by virtue of the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, whom you people crucified but whom God raised from the dead. 11/ This Jesus is the stone that, scorned by you, the builders, has become the keystone. 12/ There is no salvation by anyone else. b There is no other name provided to mortals in the whole world through which salvation can be gained.” 4:13-17: D-Texte

4:13-17: Conventional Text 13/

16/

The Council began to wonder when they saw the assurance with which Peter and John—mere amateurs c in their view—spoke. They also realized that these men had been companions of Jesus. 14/ Since, however, the man who had been healed was standing with the apostles in plain sight, they could offer no refutation. 15/ After directing them to leave the chamber, the members of the council began to deliberate. “What shall we do about these people? The miracle they performed has become public knowledge in Jerusalem. d It is as clear as day, and we cannot deny it. 17/ But, to quash further dissemination, let us enjoin them to make no mention of This Name to anyone.”

13/

All the members of the council marveled when they heard the assurance with which Peter and John spoke, [ ] because they were convinced that they were mere uneducated amateurs. [ ] 14/ Since, however, the afflicted man who had been healed was standing with the apostles in plain sight, they could do nothing, but some of them began to recognize that they had associated with Jesus. [ ] 15/ They then engaged in conversation, asking one another, 16/ “What shall we do with these people? It has become public knowledge in Jerusalem that a miracle took place through them. This is all too clear, and we cannot deny it. 17/ But, to prevent further dissemination of these matters among the public, we shall enjoin them to make no mention of This Name to anyone.”

113

Acts part 1C.indd 113

8/27/2008 9:59:52 AM

18/

They recalled the two and charged them absolutely not to engage in proclamation or to give instruction in the name of Jesus. f 19/ Peter and John replied, “It’s up to you to determine whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you or to God. 20/ For our part, we cannot desist from speaking about what we have seen and heard.” They then let them go, after piling on additional admonitions, since public pressure prevented them from finding a pretext for punishment. Everyone was praising God because of what had taken place, 22/ for the man who had been wondrously healed was over forty years old.

21/

a b c

Or: “John.” Or: “by any other means.” On the meaning of these words, see Pieter W. van d der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts Chapters 3 and 4,” JSNT 35 (1989) 37–46, here 42; Gamble, Books and Readers, 9 n. 30, and Thomas J. Kraus, e “‘Uneducated,’ ‘Ignorant,’ or even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of AGRAMMATOI (and IDIWTAI) in Acts 4.13,” NTS 45 (1999) 434–49. For ancient views about the academic credentials of the apostles, see Walter Bauer, “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition: 1. Accounts,” in NTApoc, 2:35–74, esp. 39–40. On the term ijdiwvth~, note Hippolytus on Zephryinus, whom he calls a[ndra ijdiwvthn kai; ajgravmmaton kai; a[peiron tw`n ejkklhsiavstikwn o{rwn (Ref. 9.11.1). The antonym of ijdiwvth~ is pepaideuvmeno~ (“educated”). Note also Tertullian Prax. 3: simplices, imprudentes, idiotae. References from apologists include Irenaeus A.H. 2.26.1; Athe­ nagoras Leg. 15; Minucius Felix 2.4.31; and Tertullian Apol. 49.4. See, in addition, Eusebius Praep. ev. 132b; Dem. ev. 3.7; and H.E. 2.20.5; 3.24.3. This was a sensitive issue. Celsus uses the term to describe f the vulgar and illiterate Christians (Origen Cels. 1.27). Lucian employs ijdiwvth~ in his religious and philosophical polemic: Alex. 30, Hermot. 1; Syr. d.

8, 11, 28; Fug. 21; Vit. auct. 11; Men.; and Peregr. 13, 18. Or: “that a striking miracle has been performed by them has become public knowledge in Jerusalem and we can’t deny it.” The basis is Boismard, Texte, 96–102. For a slightly different reconstruction, based on h and copmae, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 277. Bezae is, as often, a conflation/compromise of and between text types. In v. 13, D omits kai; ijdiw`tai. This may be due to reverence, but it is not clear why “uneducated” is acceptable and “nonprofessional” is not. Epp (Tendency, 122–23) concludes that the omission meant that, although untrained, they were not ineloquent. In v. 13 a number of witnesses read dev instead of te. This allows an adversative force and is probably secondary, as Luke seems quite fond of te. See BDF §447 (7). In v. 15, Bezae has them dragged out (ajpacqh`nai) rather than excused. This intensifies the tyrannical character of the judges. In Semitic style Y 33 m syh preface the verb with ajpeilh'/, which permits the court to speak in proper biblical style. This may be inspired by 5:28. The D-Text opens v. 18 with, “After they had come to an agreement on the matter, they summoned them. . . .”

114

Acts part 1C.indd 114

8/27/2008 9:59:52 AM

4:5-22

Comment   5-7  (I. D; Scene 3). The arrival of day brings the trial. The initial verses constitute a single sentence (of sorts) intended to convey the solemnity of the occasion, to underscore the formidable character of the opposition, and, no doubt, to effect additional retardation. The style is Septuagintal (ejgevneto + infinitive). “Leaders” (evidently the high priests), “elders,” and “legal experts” (“scribes”) are components of a quite variable formula that occurs in the Gospels and Acts.1 The scene evokes the arraignment of Jesus.2 These are “their” authorities. Jewish officialdom belongs to the realm of the other. 3 “In Jerusalem” adds a note of formality and possible irony.4 The grammar is botched: v. 6 places additional subjects of the infinitive in the nominative case. 5 There are also problems with the data. Annas was not the high priest at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This is evidently a Lucan error, rather than a mistake taken from a 1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

source.6 Whereas Caiaphas requires no introduction,7 Alexander cannot be identified.8 The expression gevno~ ajrcieratikovn (“high-priestly family”) is a stock phrase.9 Luke may have derived these names from a source or tradition (not necessarily connected to the arrest of an apostle) other than Josephus. In short, like the synchronism of Luke 3:1-2, this is a mixed bag of known and obscure data. The officials, who, like the apostles, can be portrayed as speaking in unison, do not initially address either of the charges mentioned in v. 2. They rather take up, in language intelligible only to the reader, the healing of 3:1-10. With words derived from the challenge to Jesus in Mark 11:28,10 they ask by what means the undisputed healing was achieved.11 The implicit accusation is that these two yokels (v. 13) have been dabbling in magic. That concern motivates the issue of the name invoked.12 Peter knows how to handle the opening provided.13 His speech (vv. 8-12) is extremely brief, but it contains

For data on the various officers, with parallels from Josephus, see, in general, Schürer, History, 2:212–13. For Luke and Acts (and a comparison with Josephus) note Steve Mason, “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts,” in Bauckham, Palestinian Setting, 115–77. Note, in particular, Luke 22:66: “When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people (to; pres­ butevrion), both chief priests and scribes (gram­ matei`"), gathered together (sunhvcqh), and they brought him to their council.” The omission of “their” in the D-tradition (below) may be due to the grammatical principle that would have aujtw`n apply to the converts of v. 4. Rackham (57) points to the contrast with “Nazareth” in v. 10. The variants are almost certainly revisions. In Boismard, Texte, 94, the edition of the D-Text uses a finite verb with a string of nominatives. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 275–76. Cf. Luke 3:2, where the reference to Caiaphas (ejpi; ajrcierevw" ÓAnna kai; Kai>avfa) is a patent ­interpolation. Caiaphas is a derogatory nickname (“monkey”?), perhaps taken as family name. See Williams, “Personal Names,” 102. D and some other “Western” texts (gig h p* mss of the Vulgate) read the equivalent of “Jonathan,” which permits identification with a son of Annas (according to Josephus Ant. 18.123). Ropes (Text, 34–35) views this as preferable and notes that

9 10

11

12 13

Jerome included “Jonathan” in a list of names to be found in Acts. He doubts that the D-reviser had resort to Josephus here. “John” would therefore be the substitution of a familiar name for one less familiar. “Jonathan” seems slightly preferable. See also Barrett, 2:225; and Bruce, 150–51. Josephus Ant. 15.40 uses the same expression. See also CIG 4363. kai; e[legon aujtw`/: ejn poiva/ ejxousiva/ tau`ta poiei`"É (“By what authority are you doing these things?”). This question is raised by “the high priests,” “the scribes,” and “the elders” to Jesus in response to his action in the temple (Mark 11:15-17). Boismard (Texte, 94), based solely on h, reads ejpoivhsan (“they did”), thus making this a discussion among the authorities, into which Peter injects his response. The final, emphatic “you” of v. 7 is probably derogatory. Cf. Luke 11:14 (Beelzebul). “Filled with the Holy Spirit” is a stereotyped description of characters in the first half of Acts: 5:32; 6:3; 7:55; 11:24; 13:9. Cf. the promise in Luke 12:21. The same quality was attributed to Jesus (Luke 4:14).

115

Acts part 1C.indd 115

8/27/2008 9:59:53 AM

the essential features of the sermons in chaps. 2 and 3: address, scriptural allusion,14 christological kerygma, and two references to the leaders’ actions in killing Jesus. These matters can be presented in summary fashion because they are familiar to the readers. For suitability to the context, this orationette must receive high marks. It almost qualifies as dialogue, albeit rhetorically

shaped. As such it is not unique in Acts.15 The grammar presents some difficulties,16 and the text is not stable.17   8-12  Peter immediately turns the challenge against the accusers: are they on trial for performing a benefaction? Neither such courage,18 nor such language, nor such activity19 was deemed suitable for Galilean fisherfolk. From this moral high ground the apostle explains

14 The citation of Psalm 118 (117):22 here is distinct marizes Kilpatrick’s argument). Although the steps from that in the Synoptics (Mark 14:10 parr) and of the reconstruction are debatable, Kilpatrick has 1 Pet 2:4, 7, which follow the LXX. On “head,” see a strong argument. Verse 12 is cumbersome. The Col 1:18; 2:10, 19; Eph 1:22; 4:15. This important D-Text of v. 12 reads “for there is no other name term will become a title, but it is not one here. under heaven given to humans by which . . .”), Note that in Luke 20:17 (vs. Mark) the second part omitting the first clause, reading a simple oujk of the citation is omitted. (“not”) instead of oujde; gavr (lit. “for nor”), and 15 Cf. Acts 5:29-32; 23:1-9. Soards (Speeches, 44–47) dropping the preposition ejn, making the meaning recognizes this dimension by including 4:19-20 in “to” plain. With it, the phrase could be taken as his analysis. “among humans.” On the whole passage, see also 16 In particular, the gender of ejn tivni (v. 9) and ejn Epp, Tendency, 120–26. touvtw/ (v. 10) is unclear. These pronouns could 18 parrhsiva (“boldness”) has two anchors in early refer to name (neuter) or Jesus (masculine). Christian thought. One derives from the realm Verse 11 is an awkward intrusion. See Cadbury of politics and philosophy, the other from apocaand Lake, 43. On the strange attributive participle lyptic. The latter usage stresses the confidence of to; dedovmenon (“given”) in v. 12, see Moule, Idiom the wise/righteous in the face of judgment. This Book, 103. The syntax of v. 12 is difficult if the text quality derives from its political origin in the world of N-A 27 is accepted. (See the following note.) of Greek democracy, meaning something like our 17 The v.l. “elders of Israel” in v. 8 is probably second“freedom of speech,” the characteristic of those ary, to balance “leaders of the people.” “Elders who “tell it like it is.” Boldness is a common virtue of Israel” does not occur elsewhere in the NT or of the missionaries in Acts: 4:29; 13:46; 18:26; 19:8; elsewhere in Greek literature in the period 200 26:26; and 28:31. See Heinrich Schlier, “parrh­ bce–200 ce . In v. 9, the D-Text adds a typically siva,” TDNT 5:871–86, esp. 882–86, who concludes pedantic “by you” after “examined.” Verses 10 and that in Acts the word refers to rhetorical ability. 12 present an interesting textual problem. In v. 10 Note also Spicq, Lexicon, 3:56–62; Stanley B. Mara number of D-Text witnesses read at the close: row, “Parrhêsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44 ejnwvpion uJmw`n shvmeron uJgihv" kai; ejn a[llw/ oujdeniv (1982) 431–46; and Penner, Praise, 166–67 and his (adding “and by no other [means/person]”). In references. v. 12 the opening clause, kai; oujk e[stin ejn a[llw/ 19 Verses 9-12 abound with alliteration and assooujdeni; hJ swthriva (“There is no salvation by nance. The reference to the “despised” stone is, in anyone else”) is omitted by some Old Latin witthe dramatic context, an elegant allusion, although nesses (h, Irenaeus, Rebaptism, Cyprian, Priscilreaders would be inclined to view it as a christologlian, Augustine, and some versions made from the ical proof text. Verse 10b-e is syntactically chiastic, Old Latin [Boismard, Texte, 95]). D and p omit hJ two prepositional phrases with ejn (“in”) framing swthriva (“salvation”). Briefly stated, the argument relative clauses beginning with o{n (“whom”). The is either that “in no one else” was interpolated into noun eujergesiva (“benefaction”) occurs elsewhere v. 10 from v. 12 (so Metzger, Textual Commentary, in the NT only in 1 Tim 6:2. The verb is used of 276) and the opening clause of v. 12 was then Jesus’ healing activity in another Petrine speech dropped as redundant (replacing oujdev with oujk, before a distinguished audience in Acts 10:38. not indicated in the editions), or that the omission of kai; ejn a[llw/ oujdeniv was accidental and that the first clause of v. 12 replaced it, with the later addition of hJ swthriva. The latter is the argument of George Kilpatrick, building on Clark (Clark, Acts, 340; Metzger [Textual Commentary, 256–57] sum-

116

Acts part 1C.indd 116

8/27/2008 9:59:53 AM

4:5-22

the incident. The effective power was the name of Jesus, and the healing was a synecdoche, as we should say, of that name as the sole basis of salvation.20 The hearers had crucified Jesus, but God had the last word. The accused has become the accuser.   13-17  Reporting the response requires more words than the speech itself. Since they had not expected that these rude and barbarous creatures could manifest such eloquence and temerity, the court is taken aback. The convenient presence of the healed man made things even worse. Sensing the need to regroup, they go into executive session. The D-Text has a number of improvements that Luke might well wish that he had thought of. Details aside, it is more lucid and exhibits superior dramatic development. The narrator reports the prior conviction of the apostles’ “ignorance,” better justifying and emphasizing their subsequent surprise. Next comes the realization that the presence of the patient makes effective rejoinder impossible. Only then does recognition begin to dawn. (Verse 13b has been transferred into v. 14.) 21 In addition to exhibiting better narrative logic, the D-Text is historically more plausible. First, the recognition that this pair had been associates of Jesus is stated more clearly in the judges’ own terms rather than in the language of Christian discipleship, and this recognition is not universal

but, as is probable, limited to “some.” The conventional text reports recognition in conjunction with the officials’ surprise at the apostles’ assurance. In the D-Text, recognition dawns at the sight of the former cripple and the realization that they are outgunned. Second, this edition eliminates the exclusion of the pair from the hearing, eliminating also the need for an embarrassingly omniscient narrator to report what was said. In sum, this edition has both greater literary and greater historical plausibility. It is nonetheless patently secondary, for it exceeds the bounds of probability to imagine that someone would revise this rather well-crafted and logical paragraph into what is found in the conventional text. Early readers of Acts already perceived that omniscient narration could be a problem. No reader of the preceding speech would consider Peter an “uneducated amateur.”22 This observation in v. 13 (made by a mind-reading narrator) proves just how adept the little rejoinder was. In fulfillment of Luke 21:12-15,23 the followers of Jesus have all the eloquence they may require.24 It is hard to square this surprising discovery of their connection to Jesus with the grounds for arrest in v. 2.25 Be that as it may, the presence of the former cripple, who for some unexplained reason is on the scene,26 is said to make any rebuttal impossible. Why this is so is not immediately apparent, for the judges did

20 The speech plays on the various meanings of the arrest you (ejpibalou`sin ejfÆ uJma`" ta;" cei`ra" stem sw-, which include “health,” “safety,” “rescue,” aujtw`n) and persecute you; they will hand you over and “salvation” in the religious sense. Tannehill to synagogues and prisons (fulakav"), and you will (Narrative Unity, 2:61 n. 6) comments on the be brought before kings and governors because of problematic dei` here, which can be taken as tying my name (ojnovmatov" mou). 13 This will give you an God’s hands, so to speak. For Luke, the verb refers opportunity to testify. 14 So make up your minds to the divine plan of salvation for all. The intention not to prepare your defense in advance; 15 for I of this phrase is more clearly expressed in another will give you words and a wisdom that none of your Petrine speech in 15:12. opponents will be able to withstand or contradict.” 21 Note also that v. 17 has been supplied with a 24 The narrator possesses an eloquence of his own. ­subject. Verse 13 offers two possibilities: to read aujtouv~ 22 John is, as so often in Acts, awkwardly included. Cf. (“them”) as the object of the first verb and the o{ti 16:37, where Silas must also hold Roman citizenclause as the object of the second, in which case ship. The episode is given an expanded interpretathere is prolepsis, or, more likely if less elegantly, to tion in Ps. Clem. Rec. 1.62. Note 1.62.2, “Then he construe both as objects of the second verb (ejpe­ [Caiaphas] further accused me of audacity because givnwskon). Cf. BDF §408 and the longer discussion though I was an unlearned fisher and a boor, I of Barrett, 1:233–34. was so bold as to assume the office of a teacher” 25 In the D-Text, this dissonance is even greater. See (trans. of the Latin by F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Cadbury and Lake, 44. Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: 26 Perhaps readers will think that he has been arrested Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.21–27 [SBLTT 37; with the apostles, to whom he was last seen clinging Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995] 96). (v. 11). He seems to have been forgotten in vv. 15-21, 23 Luke 21:12-15: “But before all this occurs, they will for, if among the “them” (aujtouv~) excluded in v. 15,

117

Acts part 1C.indd 117

8/27/2008 9:59:53 AM

not claim that the healing was fraudulent.27 Disarray calls for an executive session.28   15b-17  These verses function as a summary of the debate, but the form is direct speech.29 This is a quality of popular narration. The absence of the concerned parties does nothing to alleviate their situation. Everyone, they reveal, knows about the miracle.30 They cannot even articulate what they are talking about.31 Lest bad lead to worse, they will promulgate a gag order: “speaking in this name” is forbidden.32 This tyrannical demand, which possesses not even a shred of legal justification, they promptly proceed to issue,33 with a solemn and ominous injunction34 that finally brings together the two points of v. 2: teaching and Jesus.35 No sanctions are mentioned. No sanction would have impeded the apostles,36 who, after teaching in the portico of a temple, like philosophers (3:11), now—and not for the last time—wrap themselves in the mantle of Socrates37 and anticipate the stand of Martin Luther.38 They can do nothing else. This places

27 28 29 30

31

32 33

34

35 36

them in the role of genuine philosophers who boldly rebuke tyrants and let the chips fall where they may.

he would be included in those (aujtouv~) summoned in v. 18 and admonished in v. 21. The actual function of v. 14 is to prepare for vv. 16 and 21. The same tactic will be used in 5:33. Acts 2:37 makes the rhetorical question “what shall we do?” ironic. Formally, it is dissemination of the “sign” that they lament, but the meaning must be “news about this sign.” Verse 17 lacks a stated subject. One may infer a delicate “it.” Haenchen (219 n. 4) asks whether ejpi; plei`on (“further”) is spatial (outside of Jerusalem) or temporal (keep on spreading). He prefers the latter, with a glance at 24:4. Conzelmann (33) agrees. The first use of the phrase (v. 17) is ambiguous. It could refer to healing formulas. The D-Text provides a different introduction to v. 18, required by its context: “Since they had agreed upon a plan, they ordered them . . .” Should the article be taken with the adverb or with the infinitive? The latter is slightly preferable. See Barrett, 1:236. a* B solve the problem by omitting it. The present tense of the infinitives implies that they should cease what they are doing. Acts 5:28 clarifies the official understanding of this injunction. A number of D-Text witnesses utilize a singular participle but do not otherwise alter the construction. This would follow the tendency of enhancing Peter’s status. See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 232–35.

Excursus: Confronting Tyrants “Tyranny” in the sense of arbitrary one-person rule was contrary to Greco-Roman ideals of good government. One of the actions of a tyrant was suppression of free speech (parrhsiva; cf. Acts). Conversely, tackling an alleged tyrant was one means of acquiring philosophical credentials. The themes of the debate were established in Plato’s Gorgias and changed little thereafter. 39 Excesses ensued. Dio of Prusa noted the propensity of some first-century Cynics (and others) to test the limits of free speech (Or. 32.11; 77/78.37, 45). Lucian’s Peregrinus, a parody of the true philosopher, went over the top to achieve expulsion by a benevolent emperor (18). The range of resisters was quite broad, including prophets of ancient Israel who stood up to monarchs, victims of hostility to Judaism, antiSemites, holy men and women of various creeds and convictions, and political opponents of Nero (and 37 On this phrase, see the comments on 5:29. This is the stance of Jewish heroes, including Sus 23; 2 Macc 7:2; 4 Macc 5:16-20; Dan 3:16-18; Josephus Ant. 17.159; 18.268. For parallels from early Christian literature, note Luke 20:25; 1 Clem. 14:1; and 2 Clem. 4:4. 38 On ma`llon h[ (“rather than”) see BDF 245a (1, 3) and Barrett, 1:237. D* omits the final mhv. Boismard (Texte, 101) resolves the problem by preferring the verb “deny.” 39 Plato Gorgias 469. On philosophical resistance in the Roman Empire, see Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966) 46–94, 305–16; Erkki Koskienniemi, Der philostrateische Apollonios (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 94; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1991) 31–44; JaapJan Flinterman, Power, Paideia, and Pythagoreanism: Greek Identity, Conceptions of the Relationship between Philosophers and Monarchs and Political Ideas in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 13; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1995) 165–69; and Alexander, Literary Context, 65–66, 196 n. 39.

118

Acts part 1C.indd 118

8/27/2008 9:59:54 AM

not claim that the healing was fraudulent.27 Disarray calls for an executive session.28   15b-17  These verses function as a summary of the debate, but the form is direct speech.29 This is a quality of popular narration. The absence of the concerned parties does nothing to alleviate their situation. Everyone, they reveal, knows about the miracle.30 They cannot even articulate what they are talking about.31 Lest bad lead to worse, they will promulgate a gag order: “speaking in this name” is forbidden.32 This tyrannical demand, which possesses not even a shred of legal justification, they promptly proceed to issue,33 with a solemn and ominous injunction34 that finally brings together the two points of v. 2: teaching and Jesus.35 No sanctions are mentioned. No sanction would have impeded the apostles,36 who, after teaching in the portico of a temple, like philosophers (3:11), now—and not for the last time—wrap themselves in the mantle of Socrates37 and anticipate the stand of Martin Luther.38 They can do nothing else. This places

27 28 29 30

31

32 33

34

35 36

them in the role of genuine philosophers who boldly rebuke tyrants and let the chips fall where they may.

he would be included in those (aujtouv~) summoned in v. 18 and admonished in v. 21. The actual function of v. 14 is to prepare for vv. 16 and 21. The same tactic will be used in 5:33. Acts 2:37 makes the rhetorical question “what shall we do?” ironic. Formally, it is dissemination of the “sign” that they lament, but the meaning must be “news about this sign.” Verse 17 lacks a stated subject. One may infer a delicate “it.” Haenchen (219 n. 4) asks whether ejpi; plei`on (“further”) is spatial (outside of Jerusalem) or temporal (keep on spreading). He prefers the latter, with a glance at 24:4. Conzelmann (33) agrees. The first use of the phrase (v. 17) is ambiguous. It could refer to healing formulas. The D-Text provides a different introduction to v. 18, required by its context: “Since they had agreed upon a plan, they ordered them . . .” Should the article be taken with the adverb or with the infinitive? The latter is slightly preferable. See Barrett, 1:236. a* B solve the problem by omitting it. The present tense of the infinitives implies that they should cease what they are doing. Acts 5:28 clarifies the official understanding of this injunction. A number of D-Text witnesses utilize a singular participle but do not otherwise alter the construction. This would follow the tendency of enhancing Peter’s status. See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 232–35.

Excursus: Confronting Tyrants “Tyranny” in the sense of arbitrary one-person rule was contrary to Greco-Roman ideals of good government. One of the actions of a tyrant was suppression of free speech (parrhsiva; cf. Acts). Conversely, tackling an alleged tyrant was one means of acquiring philosophical credentials. The themes of the debate were established in Plato’s Gorgias and changed little thereafter. 39 Excesses ensued. Dio of Prusa noted the propensity of some first-century Cynics (and others) to test the limits of free speech (Or. 32.11; 77/78.37, 45). Lucian’s Peregrinus, a parody of the true philosopher, went over the top to achieve expulsion by a benevolent emperor (18). The range of resisters was quite broad, including prophets of ancient Israel who stood up to monarchs, victims of hostility to Judaism, antiSemites, holy men and women of various creeds and convictions, and political opponents of Nero (and 37 On this phrase, see the comments on 5:29. This is the stance of Jewish heroes, including Sus 23; 2 Macc 7:2; 4 Macc 5:16-20; Dan 3:16-18; Josephus Ant. 17.159; 18.268. For parallels from early Christian literature, note Luke 20:25; 1 Clem. 14:1; and 2 Clem. 4:4. 38 On ma`llon h[ (“rather than”) see BDF 245a (1, 3) and Barrett, 1:237. D* omits the final mhv. Boismard (Texte, 101) resolves the problem by preferring the verb “deny.” 39 Plato Gorgias 469. On philosophical resistance in the Roman Empire, see Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966) 46–94, 305–16; Erkki Koskienniemi, Der philostrateische Apollonios (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 94; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1991) 31–44; JaapJan Flinterman, Power, Paideia, and Pythagoreanism: Greek Identity, Conceptions of the Relationship between Philosophers and Monarchs and Political Ideas in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 13; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1995) 165–69; and Alexander, Literary Context, 65–66, 196 n. 39.

118

Acts part 1C.indd 118

8/27/2008 9:59:54 AM

4:5-22

others, especially Domitian), as well as the merely young and attractive.40 These scenes possessed an obvious and excellent quality of timeless drama: the desperate circumstances of life and death situations. They allowed the accused to display all of their gifts and virtues. The theme became a standard feature of ancient rhetorical training41 and played a role in historical42 and romantic43 fiction, as well as in the martyrological and hagiographic tradition.44 Several elements of this theme are important for Acts. One is the tendency for stories about prophets and religious martyrs to assimilate to the philosophical tradition. With this comes the influence of the figure of Socrates.45 A third is that, by invoking this theme, authors of popular writings raise the status of both their characters and their texts.   18-22  The apostles’ insulting refusal assumes that the

views of this supreme religious body are at variance with those of God. For the narrator—and the readers—the miracle establishes the validity of this thesis. Because the general public holds the same view, the hands of the

authorities are tied. They can do no more than lock the barn doors after the horse has fled. After piling on some threats, they discharge the accused.46 Reference to the healing permits mention of the patient’s age, and thus the duration of his illness. That feature is an appropriate characteristic of a healing story.47 Another typical feature is public acclamation at the wonder, reported here by the judicial body.48 By transferring these features to this point, Luke integrates the narrative: all of 4:1-22 is a miracle story.49 The lack of specific resolution and the presence of threats provide suspense and leave space for plot development. The authorities have not given up on the apostles, but thirty-one verses will intervene before there is another arrest. For the present, the hapless leaders can do no more than utter shrill threats, since public opinion inhibits them from anything more drastic. The formerly wavering apostles now imitate their master in stirring sermons and mighty deeds, receiving, like Jesus, popular acclaim and official scorn.

40 John Darr presents a useful and insightful survey of the theme in general (Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization [ JSNTS 163; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998] 92–136). 41 Stanley Frederick Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1949) 34–43. 42 See, e.g., Chion of Heraclea and the Acta ­Alexandrinorum. 43 See Pervo, Profit, 47, 155. 44 See Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) 236–46. 45 On the influence of the image of Socrates, see Moses Hadas and Morton Smith, eds., Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 115–18; and Alessandro Ronconi, “Exitus illustrium virorum,” RAC 6:1258–68. For its influence on Acts, see Cadbury and Lake, 212; Plümacher, Lukas, 19, 97–98; and Abraham Malherbe, “‘Not in a Corner’”: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” SecCent 5 (1985–86) 193–210, esp. 198 n. 26. (Socrates’ condemnation by a democratic jury does not seem to have retarded his absorption into the tradition of the antityrannical philosopher.) 46 On the syntax of v. 21b (mhdevn is an accusative

of respect, while tov substantivizes the indirect question), see Barrett, 1:238. The D-Text has the simpler mh; euJriskonte~ aijtivan. Epp (Tendency, 126) notes that this strengthens the parallel with Jesus (Acts 13:28). 47 Bultmann, History, 221. 48 The last clause of v. 21 is a natural sequel to 3:8-10: the crowd first expresses awe and then praises the responsible deity, as does the former patient. The phenomenon of acclamation is treated with considerable depth by Theissen, Miracle Stories, 71–72, 152–53. See also Erik Peterson, EIS QEOS: Epi­ graphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschicht­ liche Untersuchungen (FRLANT 41; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926); and Theodor Klauser, “Akklamation,” RAC 1:216–33. The phenomenon is found also in popular literature, e.g., Ephesian Tale 5.13.3–5; Longus Daph. 2.29.2; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 7.16.1; Apollonius of Tyre 50. This is one means by which the crowd (and the readers) participate in the story. 49 The genitive beginning with ejtw`n (“years”) is evidently adjectival. The D-Text ejgegovnei to; shmei`on th`~ ijavsew~, which omits the demonstrative, is considered to be possibly original by Ropes, Text, 40.

119

Acts part 1C.indd 119

8/27/2008 9:59:54 AM

4

4:23-31 Prayerful Celebration 23/ Once released the apostles went a to their people and reported everything that the chief priests and the elders had said. 24/ Whereupon they raised a unison prayer to God: “Master, maker of heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them; 25/ you said to our ancestors, through your servant David: a Why did gentiles rage, And peoples plot in vain? 26/ The monarchs of the earth got ready for combat, And the rulers came together, Against the Lord and against the Lord’s Messiah. 27/ “In fact Herod and Pontius Pilate, with gentiles and Israelites, did come together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28/ They accomplished what your power and plan had previously determined would take place. 29/ Take notice of their threats now, O Lord, and grant that your slaves may proclaim your message with complete boldness, 30/ while you stretch forth your healing hand and bring about portents and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31/ After their prayer was finished, the place in which they were gathered shook. All were filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak God’s message boldly. Analysis

(I.E; Scene 4) This unit describes the pair’s return to the community (?). Those assembled offer a prayer for courageous proclamation and accompanying wonders. A quake affirms that their petitions have been heard. Courageous proclamation follows. The prayer echoes a number of themes from the immediate context: threats (v. 21), bold proclamation (v. 13), healing (3:1-10), the name of Jesus (v. 10, etc.), who is characterized as the 1 2

Or: “you said through your servant David.”

“servant/son” (pai`~) of God (3:13). The thematic unity suggests that the scene is a Lucan composition. This is the consensus of the commentators. The exegetical portion of the prayer (vv. 25-27) raises questions, since Luke does not agree with its thesis that the death of Jesus took place through a collaboration between Herod and Pilate.1 Consistency was not a Lucan virtue, however, and the Gospel of Luke includes an encounter with Herod evidently developed on the basis of Psalm 2 (Luke 23:6-12).2 This exegesis of the pesher type3 was

Cf. Conzelmann, 35. Cf. also the Gos. Pet. 1.1–2. See Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? 82–88. Dibelius argued that Luke 23:6-12 was based on Psalm 2 (Botschaft und Geschichte:

3

­ esammelte Aufsätze [2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr SieG beck, 1953–56] 1.289–92). On the suitability of the title “king” for Herod, see Loisy, 254. 4QFlor (174) 1:18–19 interprets these verses of

120

Acts part 1C.indd 120

8/27/2008 9:59:54 AM

4:23-31

clearly useful to the author of Acts.4 It sheds light on the history of composition, since Acts, although composed after Luke, 5 reveals the source of a passage from the Gospel.6 Prayers may be compared with speeches. By and large, they are deliberative rhetoric addressed to the deity. This prayer contains an address, an ascription that is parallel to a captatio benevolentiae, a citation from Scripture, a narratio, and a peroration in the form of a petition.7 The “collect” form represented here is based on Hellenistic Jewish prayers8 and is representative of Christian liturgical language around 100 and later. The vocative devspota (“Master”) is typical of that era, as is the identification of God as creator.9 The structure reveals the concinnity between prayer and sermon.10 I. Vv. 24b-25a Exordium A. V. 24b Address B. Vv. 24b-25a Ascriptions: Creator and Inspirer

4 5 6 7

8

9

II. Vv. 25b-26 Citation III. Vv. 27-28 Narration: application of Scripture IV. Vv. 29-30 Petition/peroration11

The closest intrabiblical parallel is the prayer of Hezekiah (in re: Sennacherib), Isa 37:16-20, which invokes God as ruler and creator of heaven and earth, begs the deity to look upon the threatening situation brought about by kings, includes the phrase “in truth” (ejpÆ ajlhqeiva"),12 and culminates with a miracle (vv. 36-38). The differences are also illuminating. The enemies are foreign polytheists, the essence of the petition is a prayer for deliverance, and the miracle consists of punishment.13   23  The expressions pro;~ tou;~ ijdivou~ (lit. “to their own people”),14 and “place” (tovpo~) in v. 31 leave the setting quite vague. One possibility is to take ijdivou~ to mean “the other apostles.” Supporting this are the

Psalm 2 eschatologically. There is a messianic interpretation of Ps 2:9 in Ps. Sol. 17:23-24; cf. Rev 19:19. Lüdemann (58–59) ultimately assigns the exegesis to tradition. See Pervo, Dating, 48. Weiser (1:131) points to difficulties in assigning the use of Psalm 2 to tradition here. The D-Text of v. 24 supplies a reaction to the report, reading, instead of (lit.) “hearing,” “perceived the working of God” and interpolates “God” after “you.” Luke does not otherwise use ejnevrgeia (“working”), which is found (with despovth~, “Master”) in similar contexts in 2 Macc 3:29; 3 Macc. 4:21. Although Luke is fond of the Maccabean literature, it is unlikely that he would have offered such a banality at this point and thus disrupted the unity of the passage (cf. Epp, Tendency, 127, and 149 n. 2, where he notes a similar summary in the D-Text of Acts 16:40). “God” is a secondary, liturgical and reverential addition. See p. 56 n. 54 (on 1:24ff.) There are also numerous allusions to Scripture, including Isa 37:16-20 (below), Pss 23:1; 145:6 (which is essentially cited in v. 24), and 2 Kgs 19:19. “Master”: see Pervo, Dating, 265–66. The invocation of God as creator became a standard feature of Jewish prayers (“Blessed are you, Lord our God, king of the universe . . .”). Earlier examples are Jdt 9:12 and 3 Macc. 2:2. Formal parallels include Jdt 5:20 and 2 Macc 14:36; 15:22-36. Close early

10 11

12 13 14

Christian parallels include Did. 10:3; 1 Clem. 8:2; 20:11; 33:2; 52:1. Note also Diogn. 3:2; 8:7. For a general parallel in structure and content that is probably more indicative of the actual length of such prayers, note 1 Clem. 59:3—61:3. Although the appeal to God as maker of all derives from Judaism, emphasis on this role in early Christianity may have been stimulated by tendencies to devalue creation. Cf. also Acts 14:15; 17:24. The passage is evidently imitated in Act. Paul 3.24: “[Thecla] cried out: ‘Father, who made heaven and earth, the Father of the beloved servant and son, Jesus Christ.’” There opposition to Marcionite and Gnostic theology is quite probable. Cf. Latin oratio/oro, which became standard designations for prayer. Another indication of (probably Lucan) compositional care is the imperfect chiasm apparent in vv. 25b-27. “Nations” and “people(s)” constitute the frame. Between them are “kings,” “rulers,” “the Lord and his Messiah,” in the center, followed by “Herod” (a king), and “Pilate” (a ruler). This phrase appears three times in Luke and twice in Acts (4:27; 10:34) of seven times in the NT. See Witherington, 203. Cadbury and Lake (45) translate the word as “friends,” leaving open the possibility of a particular group that is not necessarily identical to the apostles and definitely less extensive than the entire community.

121

Acts part 1C.indd 121

8/27/2008 9:59:54 AM

references to preaching in vv. 29, 31, and 33 (the last of which has the apostles as its subject). Although proclamation is not limited to apostles (Stephen, Paul!),15 it is an activity of leaders in Acts. Nonetheless, Luke never reports a meeting of apostles alone,16 and the parallel situation in 12:12 envisions the entire community gathered in prayer—without James (and other leaders?)—in a house.17   25  The text of v. 25a printed in N-A 27 appears to be corrupt.18 The difficulties are grammatical, theological, and stylistic. The genitives “of our father . . . David your servant” are widely separated. God does not elsewhere speak “through the Holy Spirit.”19 David is overburdened with two roles: father and servant. Luke does not otherwise characterize David as “our ancestor.” The syntactic/semantic issues focus on intermediate agency, often expressed in Greek via diav with the genitive. “God spoke through David” is the evident meaning. Competing with this is the problematic reference to the Holy

Spirit, another redundancy possibly added in an era of more developed notions of inspiration and/or emergent trinitarian theology.20 It should be deleted. B. F. Westcott proposed toi`~ patravsin (“to our ancestors”) in place of the gentive “of our father.”21 This phrase appears in Acts 7:44 and is suitable for liturgical language (Heb 1:1). It would, as in 3:13, 25, stress the venerable antiquity of this “prophecy.”22 The proposed text, inspired by Westcott and Dibelius, 23 is oJ toi`~ patravsin hJmw`n dia; stovmato" Daui;d paidov" sou eijpwvn. The alternative is to follow the Byzantine/majority tradition and delete both “father” and “Holy Spirit,” which is the path also followed by the D-Text, as reconstructed by Boismard.24   26-28  For the purposes of exegesis “peoples” and “kings” were evidently construed as “poetic plurals.”25 The interpretation presumes that the conspiracy of Psalm 2 forecasts the fate of Jesus.26 The implied understanding is that the encounter of Peter and John with

15 Cf. also Philip (8:5), Barnabas (11:26), and Apollos (18:11), as well as anonymous missionaries (8:4; 11:19). 16 Acts 21:19 does speak of a meeting of Paul with James and the presbyters. On the question, see Urban C. von Wahlde, “Acts 4,24-31: The Prayer of the Apostles in Response to the Persecution of Peter and John—and Its Consequences,” Bib 77 (1996) 237–44. 17 The issue of size—a facility that could contain five thousand males (4:4)—is not truly relevant to the problem, for, whatever he says about numbers, Luke always envisions a group that can meet within a house, doubtless in accord with his own experience. See Haenchen, 226; and the less certain ruminations of Barrett, 1:243. 18 Cadbury and Lake (46–47) describe the text as “an incoherent jumble of words.” Metzger (Textual Commentary, 279–81) admits that it is unsatisfactory, but will not emend it. 19 The metonymy “through the mouth of” is common in Luke and Acts for human agents: Luke 1:70 (prophets); Acts 1:16 (David); 3:18, 21, (prophets). 20 Note that the Spirit is “community property” in v. 31. This may have motivated the addition in v. 25: if believers spoke in the Spirit, should this be overlooked in the case of biblical writers? 21 Westcott’s conjecture was gleaned from Metzger, Textual Commentary, 281. 22 This would also conform to Conzelmann’s temporal model: “Fathers” = Law and Prophets

23

24

25

26

(vv. 25-26); fulfillment in time of Jesus (vv. 27-28), and time of church (“now,” vv. 29-30). See his commentary (p. 104 ad 13:25 and the reference to Wilckens). Note also Weiser, 332–33. Dibelius (Studies, 90) agrees that, by expunging “Holy Spirit . . . and perhaps also tou` patro;~ hJmw`n, a good sense results.” Haenchen (226) is forthright and deletes both. See also idem, “Schriftzitate,” 156–57. Boismard, Texte, 102–3. Dibelius (Studies, 90) also noted, in reference to 4:25, the problematic mention of the Spirit in 1:2. He concluded that these “may have been influenced by a view which might be called a theology of the Holy Spirit.” Long before Dibelius, scholars had proposed that one feature of some D-Texts could be labeled “protoMontanist.” See p. 36 n. 44. It is not certain that the mention of the “Spirit” here comes from the general D-Text tradition, for Boismard, as noted, excludes it as contamination from the “Alexandrian Text,” and he may be right, but Dibelius did well to consider the passages together. For various uses of the plural in a singular sense, see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956) §§1000–1012. More concretely, E 3 326 Hilary Aug Theophylact read “peoples” in v. 27 as a singular. On the promise/fulfillment theme here, see Ulrich Borse, “Die geschichtliche Absicherung (Luke 23,5-16) des christologischen Psalmwortes (Ps 2,1s/

122

Acts part 1C.indd 122

8/27/2008 9:59:55 AM

4:23-31

the authorities is like the experience of Jesus, who is an example for those arraigned before courts.27 As often in the early chapters of Acts, there is no sense that the subject is “current events.” “Herod” is viewed as a monarch here, as in Mark, but not Luke, another indicator of preLucan tradition. They have Jewish and gentile (cf. 2:23) allies.28 Verse 28 affirms the belief of those praying that these events conform to God’s foreordained plan.29 Therein resides the fundamental irony of the execution of Jesus, variously developed by early Christian ­t heologians.30   29-30  The petition31 seeks not deliverance32 but courageous proclamation, accompanied by confirmatory wonders.33 Gratification will not be long delayed. After the confirming quake comes bold public preaching; 34

27

28

29

30

31

healings follow in 5:12-16. Appeal to the name—the last time that leitmotif sounds in this section—of God’s “holy servant Jesus” cannot be related to a “suffering servant” Christology, not simply because of the absence of any reference to suffering, but primarily because of the parallel with God’s servant David in v. 25, supported by the earlier reference to his regal status. 35   31  “At the appearance of the gods temples shake,” comments Servius, laconically.36 He knew whereof he spoke. When earth tremors of all sorts are added to the inventory, the number of parallels might register 5.5 on the history-of-religions’ Richter scale. One may safely assume that Luke’s readers could grasp the significance of this quake.37 Servius’s comment highlights the transition of the divine presence from temple to house. The

LXX) und seiner Auslegung (Apg 4,25-28),” Stud­ NTUmwelt 26 (2001) 129–38. Schmithals (52) says that Luke’s exemplaristic Christology is a response to a “hyperpauline theology of the cross.” This may explain part of its function, but not its origin, which is deeply rooted in Lucan theology and ethics. A number of witnesses, including the Textus Receptus, strike out “in this city.” Metzger (Textual Commentary, 281) attributes this to its absence from Psalm 2. Boismard (Texte, 103), in his edition of the D-Text, reads “all” instead of “in truth” and omits the name “Jesus,” as well as “Pontius.” The verb (prowvrisen) is singular. Are ceivr and boulhv (“hand and plan”) a kind of hendiadys? The situation is complicated by the textual uncertainty of “your” here and in v. 30. If only one pronoun is to be read (“your hand”), the case for hendiadys is stronger. Cf. BDAG, 1083, s.v. cei'r, which says that the combination “almost = will.” On the textual problems, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 282. “Hand,” an anthropomorphic synecdoche best viewed as a metaphor, is a common trope: 4:30; 11:21; 13:11. Cf. the appearance of a hand in the synagogue paintings at Dura Europos to indicate divine intervention. The verse is quite similar to 2:23 (which also refers to Jesus’ death at the hands of the “lawless”). Because Luke is more of a “romantic” than an “ironic” theologian, he concentrates more on the fact and fulfillment of God’s plan than on what it reveals about the human situation, the tragic nature of existence, or the contrast between appearance and reality. The shift is marked by kai; nu`n (“and now”) , on which see Barrett, 1:248.

32 Insofar as Acts has an external apologetic goal, it seeks to halt official (and other) attacks upon Christians. At the same time, its thesis, amply illustrated throughout the book, is that persecution promotes growth. These contradictory claims are of the very essence of early Christian apologetic, most famously summarized by Tertullian Apol. 50.13: Plures efficimus quoties metimur a vobis, semen est sanguis Christianorum (“The more you mow us down, the more we grow; the blood of Christians is seed”), although his objective was to protest persecution. Cf. also Diogn. 6:9; 7:8; and Justin Dial. 110. 33 The infinitive with ejn tw/` in v. 30 is instrumental. BDF §404 (3) and Moule (Idiom Book, 57) justify the rendition “through.” 34 Internal “testimony” is not meant, since the subject is defiance of the court order. See Haenchen, 228; Schneider, 1:361; and the remarks below. This is the understanding of the D-Text, which adds, at the conclusion of v. 31, pavnti tw/` qevlonti pis­ teuvein (“to everyone who desired to believe”). For an argument that the apostles alone are in view, see Johnson, 90 (who therefore translates ijdivou~ as “associates”). 35 Jesus is characterized as God’s “holy servant” in both v. 27 and v. 30. For Luke, the “anointing” (e[crisa~) of Jesus is symbolic, but it is difficult to determine from Acts precisely when this took place. 36 Adventu deorum moveri templa, Servius Commentary on Vergil, ad. Aen. 3.89–92. 37 In addition to the commentaries, note Arthur Stanley Pease, ed., M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958) 2:583; van der Horst, “Acts 3 and 4,”

123

Acts part 1C.indd 123

8/27/2008 9:59:55 AM

internal parallel is to Acts 16:25-26. Although that experience opens a prison, both are epiphanies that follow prayer, and both are, in the end, signs for the believers. The occurrence of an epiphany together with the gift of the Spirit issuing in speech suggests a parallel with Pentecost. In the heyday of source criticism, this episode lay under the suspicion of being a doublet of 2:1-12. 38 Conzelmann has an intelligent approach: “Luke is indicating how Pentecost became a present reality.”39 It is preferable to say that this episode assures the reader that the gifts of Pentecost endured and, should the question arise, shows what side God has taken in the conflict.40

Verse 31c is imperfect (“they began to speak and continued to do so”) and is thus a mini-summary, complementary to that which follows. Readers are to envision what 5:21 makes clear: the apostles returned to their preaching duties in the temple precincts. This, with the healings reported in 5:12-16, will form the basis for the next arrest (5:17-18). Both petitions of 4:29-30 will be granted.41 While the leaders are thus engaged, Luke will pause to give some glimpses of community life (4:32—5:16).

44–45; and Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie, 1961) 165. Examples include LXX Ps 17:7-8; Vergil Aen. 3.88–92; Ovid Met. 15.671–772; Plautus Amph. 1062–96 (in which the quakes are in response to prayer). In the background is the epiphany of a sky or storm god, as can be seen in such references to Zeus/Jupiter, as Homer Il. 1.528–30; Vergil Aen. 9.106; Catullus 64.205–7. Some other Jewish examples are T. Levi 3:9, Ps.-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 9.5; Josephus Ant. 7.76–77. One of Poseidon’s epithets was “earth-shaker” (Homer Il. 13.43, etc.), and many gods got into the act, including Diana (Statius Thebaid, 4.331–32), Isis (Ovid Met. 9.782–84), and, notably, Dionysius, as in Aeschylus frg. 58 ejnqousia/` dh; dw`ma bakceuvei stevgh (“The home writhes in ecstasy; the house dances in bacchic frenzy”). Finally, and not unimportantly, charismatic persons could bring about earth tremors, as in Lucian Men. 9–10 (cf. Philops. 22).

38 See Harnack, 175–86. 39 Conzelmann, 34–35. For a different approach, see Witherington, 200. 40 Barrett (1:249) observes that the quake added another traditional epiphanic sign to those enumerated in 2:2-3. He had been anticipated by Richard Pervo, Luke’s Story of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 18 (who also noted the cloud in 1:9). Both had overlooked Rackham (61), who had the epiphany to Elijah (1 Kgs 19:11-12) in mind. Barrett’s conclusion that 2:1—4:31 constitute part of a major structural unit is debatable. See also Weaver, Plots, 125–26; and Myllykoski, “Being There,” 167–68. 41 Apart from the addition discussed in n. 28 above, in 4:31 the D-Text omits “all,” thus encouraging the restriction of the activity to the apostles, and “holy” before “Spirit,” according to Boismard, Texte, 104–5.

124

Acts part 1C.indd 124

8/27/2008 9:59:55 AM

4:32—5:16

4

4:32—5:16 Community Life and Outreach 32/ The body of believers was one in a heart and soul. Not even one of b them would say, “That’s mine,” about any of their possessions, but they held all in common. 33/ The apostles continued to give very powerful testimonya to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and all enjoyed an abundance of divine favor. 34/ None of them was in need, for all who owned land or houses sold those objects and placed the 35/ proceeds at the disposal of the apostles; they were distributed in accordance with need. 36/ Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles nicknamed “Barnabas”b (“preacher”), 37/ had a piece of property. He sold it and gave the money to the apostles. 5:1/ Now a man named Ananias (whose wife was Sapphira) sold a piece of property. 2/ With the connivance of his wife, he withheld some of the proceeds and placed the balance at the disposal of the apostles. 3/ Peter said, “Ananias, why did you let Satan move you to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from your land? 4/ Wasn’t that property yours to keep? Once you sold it, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What gave you the idea to do this? You have not lied to mortals but to God.” 5/ When Ananias heard this, he dropped dead. Terror struck all who witnessed this exchange. 6/ The young people then covered him and took the body out for burial. 7/ Three hours later his wife, who was unaware of what had happened, showed up. 8/ Peter asked her, “Tell me, did you sell the field for X amount?” “Yes, for X.” 9/ “Why did you two agree to challenge the Spirit of the Lord? Look, those who buried your husband are at the door. They will be carrying you out, too.” 10/ She dropped dead at his feet. The young people came back and, finding her dead as well, removed her for burial next to her husband. 11/ Dread

Or: “testimony supported by remarkable miracles.” Or: “Joseph surnamed ‘Barnabas of the apostles.’”

125

Acts part 1C.indd 125

8/27/2008 9:59:55 AM

terror struck the entire commu- c nity and everyone who learned what had happened. d The apostles worked numerous miracles and portents among the people. They now frequented the Portico of Solomon in a body, 13/ and no outsiders ventured to get too close to them, c while the general public sang their praises. 14/ Indeed, men and women alike joined the community in droves. 15/ The crowds were so large that people would actually put their sick out on the street in beds and stretchers, so that Peter’s shadow might fall upon one or another of them as he was passing by. 16/ The populace of those towns near Jerusalem flocked in, bringing the ill and those tormented by impure spirits, all of whom d were made well.

12/

Analysis

The structure of 4:32—5:16 (Y2–II.A) is quite uncomplicated. Following the summary of vv. 32-35 are two examples, one of which is positive: the generosity of Barnabas. The other, which narrates the grim fate of Ananias and Sapphira, is negative. Critical commentators find tension between summary and specific instance—and not without reason, since summaries often generalize single reports, but the narrator has no such worries.1 Moreover, in this section the interests of redaction criticism and literary criticism can be in conflict, as separate analysis of the summaries in 4:32-35; 5:12-14, 15-16 tends toward the understanding that the material is composed of a few episodes, probably derived from sources, that have been generalized by means of the summaries. Acts 4:32 is a brief note about community life, followed in v. 33 by another summarizing apostolic activity, after which come detailed reports on community life in vv. 34-35 (general) and 4:36—5:11 (particular). These are followed by a general summary of apostolic miracles (5:12), comments on the popular1 2

“No outsiders . . .” This clause is very obscure; the text may be corrupt. Like some other postclassical writers, Luke uses forms of the complex relative pronoun, such as oi{tine~ here, as equivalents of the simple relative where the latter could be confused with the article.

ity and growth of the movement (vv. 13-14), and the climactic report about Peter’s healings (vv. 15-16).2 The narrative alternates reports about community life and the apostolic mission. While providing relaxation from the tension aroused by 4:1-22, as well as suspense—since few will imagine that the authorities have thrown in the towel—Luke is preparing the ground for 6:1-7, where continued expansion will place pressure on existing arrangements. The summary in vv. 32-35 should be compared to that in 2:42-47. The subjects are similar, but the emphases differ. There is little in ch. 4 about community worship, while the means of sharing, together with its basis and effect, receives a richer description. Both summaries begin with a general note about community life (2:42; 4:32), paired with a summary of apostolic activity (2:43; 4:33). The central figures are the apostles, who engage in preaching and function as the recipients of contributions. Substantial growth has not generated the development of a more complex and hierarchical structure. The wording of v. 32 is somewhat unusual,

See the excursus “The Summaries in Acts” pp. 88–89. This is the view also of Sijbolt J. Noorda, “Scene

and Summary: A Proposal for Reading Acts 4,32—5:16,” in Kremer, Actes, 475–83.

126

Acts part 1C.indd 126

8/27/2008 9:59:56 AM

4:32—5:16

as it begins with the genitive qualifier of the compound subject.3 “Heart and soul” is a kind of hendiadys.4 As an expression of universalism, Luke combines both Jewish and Hellenic values. “Heart” in the senses of “disposition” and “morality” is at home in the Hebrew world; 5 v. 34 is a near citation of the Hebrew ideal expressed in Deut 15:4.6 “One soul”7 and “all in common”8 are Greek proverbs relating to friendship.9 Verse 33 is equally unusual, leading to what are evidently textual improvements.10 It is not intrusive. Grace empowered this generosity.11 Verse 34 is more picturesque than 2:45, 3

4 5

6

7

8

shifting from the ideal (“all in common”) to the reality: the needy received support from contributions of those with more means,12 who liquidated their holdings and presented them to the apostles for distribution.13 This conveyance is not intended to enhance the status of the apostles but to show how early Christians prevented the more wealthy members of the community from acquiring power by making “clients” of others.14 The dissonance that modern readers discover between the summary of 4:34-35 and the subsequent examples is based on sound logic, but Luke was not

On the meaning of plh`qo~ (“body”), see the admirable note in Cadbury and Lake, 47–48. Since “heart and soul” is the subject, the variants that mark these nouns with the article are grammatically correct—and therefore probable corrections. The text of vv. 32-35 is rather unstable, but the meaning is clear. The verb is singular. Cf. BDAG, 509, s.v., kardiva 1 b h; and Friedrich Baumgärtel and Johannes Behm, “kardiva,” TDNT 3:605–13. Parallelism between “heart” (kardiva) and “soul” (yuchv) occurs frequently in Deuteronomy, such as the “summary of the law” (6:5). The sentiment is not limited to Torah: similar notions are found in Thucydides 7.82.2; Isocrates Areop. 83; and Seneca Ep. 90.38. According to Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle defined friendship as “one soul inhabiting two bodies” (Lives 5.20). Among other examples are Euripides Andr. 376–77, Orest. 1046; Plutarch Amores 21.9 (Mor. 967e); Cicero Amic. 25.92; Off. 1.56. Diogenes Laertius cites Timaeus as an authority for Pythagoras as originator of this proverb (Lives 8.10). See also above on Acts 2:44. Euripides Andr. 376–77 indicates that it could be used for cynical manipulation. Aristotle unites these two proverbs in Nic. Eth. 9.8, 1168b.5. Note the similar language of Did. 8:4: “Do not shun a person in need, but share all things with your brother and do not say that anything is your own. For if you are partners in what is immortal, how much more in what is mortal?” (Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:425). Barn. 19:8 belongs to the same tradition. Cf. also the Sentences of Sextus 227. The idea was familiar to Lucian, who mocks it: “They [the Christians] despise all things (aJpavntwn) indiscriminately and consider them common property (koinav)” (Peregr. 13, trans. Austin Morris Harmon, Lucian V [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936] 15). Acts 4:32 reflects common early Christian ethics.

9

10

11

12 13

14

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 105) recasts the sentence. Among the differences are the placement of plh`qo~ (“body”) in the nominative, putting “soul and heart” (in that order) in the dative and adding, after “one,” kai; oujk h\n diavkrisi~ ejn aujtoi`~ oujdemiva (“there were no disagreements among them”). The additional sentence looks like an idealizing addition—although one could argue on the grounds of 6:1, with which it disagrees, that it was original and later deleted. If original, it might well have meant “discrimination,” à la 1 Cor 12:10. On the order and variants, see BDF §473.2; Ropes, Text, 33; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 283–84. Haenchen (231 n. 3) notes, with reference to one variant, that Luke never uses “the apostles” as a title with the genitive. (Other variants are the addition of “Christ” and “our Lord.”) Ropes utilizes these variants to postulate two basic stemmata. On the translation of “power” as “miracle,” see Barrett, 1:254; and Schneider, 1:365. cavri" is better rendered “favor” than “grace. See Barrett, 1:254. Acts 2:47 is different, while Luke 2:40 is parallel. Johnson (86 and 91) notes that Luke correlates authority with his leading symbol of power: the use of possessions. Cf. also Rackham, 63. For Luke a “rich” person is someone with real property, including owners of small farms. The frequentative imperfects of vv. 34-35 indicate that the activity was normal and continual. The use of the (singular!) passive diedivdeto (“was distributed”) avoids stating that the apostles themselves undertook the distribution. On the expression “at the feet,” see Haenchen, 231 n. 5. Chrysostom (Hom. 11) presumes that no slaves were included, as the believers would have manumitted them.

127

Acts part 1C.indd 127

8/27/2008 9:59:56 AM

a logician.15 The narrative does not suggest that the contributions were involuntary or that Barnabas’s action was quite unusual or that no one retained their property.16 The “everyone who” (o{soi) of v. 34 is a hyperbole, but even writers far more scrupulous than this one descend to an occasional hyperbole. Before recounting the example of a couple who fell short of the ideal, it was desirable to present someone who did the right thing, and no harm could come from allowing an eventually important figure in the narrative to play this role. The hypothesis that the stories about Barnabas and Ananias inspired the summary of vv. 34-35 is scarcely stronger than the proposition that Luke invented “the donation of Barnabas.” With this relatively elaborate introduction17 of (Joseph)18 Barnabas, Acts brings onto the stage the character who will serve as the link between the immediate followers of Jesus and the gentile mission eventually led by Paul.19 Is this correct? One would not gather from the undisputed Pauline letters that Barnabas was from Jerusalem,20 but it is arguable that Paul may not have wished to stress that connection when he wrote Galatians. The strongest argument for this pivotal role is that Luke’s

source on the origins of the gentile mission21 may have placed Barnabas in Jerusalem, and done so correctly, although this hypothesis is open to challenge, given Luke’s proclivity to link all missionaries to Jerusalem.22 The traceable lines of that source associate the mission at Antioch with “the Hellenists,” less tendentiously with those who left Jerusalem after the death of Stephen (8:4; 11:19-22). Acts does not associate Barnabas with those affiliated to Mary, the mother of John Mark (12:12), or with “the Hellenists,” although these people also spoke Greek and engaged in the gentile mission. The practice of liquidating property, of which Barnabas is the sole positive example, was not, according to Acts, transferred with Barnabas to Antioch23 or promulgated in the missions established by (Barnabas and) Paul. Much must remain unknown, including the connection between Barnabas and Jerusalem. Whatever the historical background, the narrator has ably brought Barnabas into the story. He debuts as an example of one with the proper attitude toward wealth. Of preaching and the like, nothing is said at present, as it would not fit the picture Luke has painted.

15 See the pithy analysis of Haenchen, 232–33. 16 That is, the home of Mary in 12:12 is not a formal contradiction of the narrative. The voluntary nature of these contributions invalidates comparison with Qumran or other societies in which renunciation of property was a condition for full membership. Luke claims that people donated their resources because they had become members of the community, not vice versa. For a detailed evaluation of the relation between Acts and the Qumran community, see Marcello Del Verme, Comunione e condivisione dei beni: Chiesa primitiva e giudaismo esseno-qumranico a confronto (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1977). 17 Contrast the introduction of Paul in 7:58. (The introductions are similar in that the character first appears in a relatively minor role.) An Ephesian Tale 2.2.3 introduces an important character in a similar manner. 18 Acts is the only source for the notion that “Barnabas” was not a given name. Luke suggests that this man, like Peter (and, in a sense, Paul), earned a new cognomen. (The latter, however, is rather more easily explained than is “Barnabas.”) 19 Aspects of the textual tradition actively resisted this distinction of Barnabas from Jesus’ disciples.

20

21 22

23

D-Texts (Boismard, Texte, 107) read “Joses,” which, although it could be taken as the Greek form of this name (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 284), allows identification with the person or persons named in Mark 6:3 (a brother of Jesus) and 15:47. Mss 181 pc (w) propose “Barsabbas” as the surname, identifying the individual as the unsuccessful candidate for apostleship in 1:23 (where some D-Texts identified this person as “Barnabas”). The statement in Col 4:10 that Barnabas was the cousin of Mark may be incorrect. In any case, identification of this person with the “John Mark” of Acts 12:12, who lived in Jerusalem, is uncertain. See pp. 12–14. One certainly incorrect example is Paul. Others open to question are (John) Mark (12:12, 25) and Silas (15:22). When that church wishes to aid the needy, it takes up an offering (11:30). Lüdemann (63) does not doubt the gift, but says that the time cannot be determined. It could have been made after the conference, when it was decided to raise money for Jerusalem.

128

Acts part 1C.indd 128

8/27/2008 9:59:56 AM

4:32—5:16

This is in some tension with the name “Barnabas,” which, according to Luke, was a nickname supplied by the apostles.24 Semitic languages use such “patronymics” to denote status or quality.25 The interpretation appears to be an example of folk etymology.26 It does fit the character, since the verb parakalei`n is associated with Barnabas in 11:23 and 14:22. The expression lovgo~ paraklhvsew~ (“consoling message”) is one formal description of a sermon.27 Barnabas is identified as a “Levite”28 from Cyprus,29 combining excellent Jewish credentials with a Diaspora background. Paul will share these qualifications.30 Acts works to make Barnabas a sidekick of Paul, despite visible evidence to the contrary.31 Acts 5:1-11 concludes the unit begun in 4:32. 32 Ananias and Sapphira are the subject of the second example, which begins well enough. A single clause distinguishes their action from that of Barnabas (v. 2a). They wished to enjoy the renown of perfect generosity while retain-

ing something for a rainy day. The narrative assumes that the practice would have been acceptable. What was not acceptable was their deceit. Spiritual power is not limited to healing cripples or opening ears. In this instance, the Spirit serves as both financial auditor and executioner, through the mind and voice of Peter. The identical fate of Sapphira does much to enhance the quality of the narrative. At the theological level, her demise eliminates any possibility that Ananias’s expiration was a piece of particularly bad luck. The couple who falsely claimed that they had deposited all at Peter’s feet were presently deposited six feet under. The coincidence of the “young men’s” return with Sapphira’s departure is both dramatically effective and theologically apt. The Spirit of God is directing this scene. The author of the deception is, of course, Satan. The pair’s fate is an apposite reminder that Satan can find other agents than wicked officials and evil priests. Some of them are close to home. Among the refinements in the

24 The rather barbarous ajpov as a mark of agency (uJpov, a v.l., is proper) might be rendered “Barnabas from/of the apostles,” but that does not fit easily with the proposed translation. 25 Cf. “son of peace” (lit.), in Luke 10:6. The idiom is found also in Greek. See I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 419–20. 26 Barrett (1:258–59) has not given up the search for a Semitic antecedent, but see Fitzmyer (320–21), whose knowledge of Semitic philology is substantial. For one explanation of how false etymology might have arisen, see Sebastian Brock, “ barnaba`~ uiJo;~ paraklhvsew~,” JTS 25 (1974) 93–98. According to Williams (“Personal Names,” 101), “Barnabas” is quite rare in the Jewish world (she found only one example), but not uncommon among other Semites. One hypothesis is that Barnabas was nicknamed “the preacher” and that the alleged etymology is secondary. Eduard Schwartz (“Zur Chronologie des Paulus,” in Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse [Berlin: Weidmann, 1907] 263–99, esp. 282 n. 1) proposed that the information about Barnabas came from the source of 13:1-3. He suggested that the title “son of consolation” was originally applied to Manaen (whose name means “consoler”) and was somehow transferred to Barnabas. 27 Acts 13:15, where Barnabas is present and Heb

28 29

30

31

32

13:22; cf. Acts 15:32 and the proposal of Eduard Schwartz in the previous note. D-Texts omit “Levite” (Boismard, Texte, 107), possibly on anti-Jewish grounds. Strictly, tw/` gevnei means “in nationality,” which would suggest gentile origin, but the noun is used loosely here. Another quality that Paul and Barnabas share is wealth. Barnabas is a model whom those with means should emulate. See Bernd Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas: Leben und Wirkungsgeschichte (SBS 175; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998); Wolfgang Reinbold, Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum: Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche (FRLANT 188; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 84–106; and Markus Öhler, Barnabas: Die historische Person und ihre Rezeption in der Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 156; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Note also Clark, Parallel Lives, 294–319. For a survey of research on this passage see Marguerat, Historian, 155–57. He identifies five distinct exegetical solutions. On p. 158, he shows how the author has shaped the sequence. Other recent studies include V. K. Ntumba, “Ac 5,1-11: Ananie et Saphire; Lecture exégetique et réflexions théologiques,” Hekima Review 34 (1995) 43–55; Henriette Havelaar, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts 5,1-11 and the Problem of Conflicting Interpretations,” JSNT 67 (1997) 63–82; Robert F. O’Toole,

129

Acts part 1C.indd 129

8/27/2008 9:59:56 AM

tale are many cross-references, including the ubiquitous and ironic “feet,” the contrast between God and mortals (5:4), which binds this with the previous (4:19) and subsequent (5:29) trials and parallels with the story of Judas (Luke 22:1-6; Acts 1:15-26).33 From the narrative perspective, two miracles have been reported: the generosity of Barnabas and the “executions” of the deceiving couple. Vividness does not require realism. As is usually the case, the narrative evidently presumes that the community is assembled for some purpose and that they remain so for some hours (cf. 4:23; 12:12). The timely arrival of Ananias’s burial party is the sort of coincidence that most often requires a friendly narrator—or the hand of Providence. The story of Susanna (Daniel 13 LXX) presents a number of points for comparison. It is a literary example of how the deceiving couple could be presented as a short novella. An introduction of the wealthy couple (cf. Sus 1-4) would be followed by a detailed description of their plans for a gift, climaxing with their discovery of shared greed and the conspiracy (cf. Sus 7-14). The donation scene would receive due elaboration, after which the plot would take a sudden turn with Peter’s separate prosecutions of Ananias (cf. Sus 52-55) and, upon her return, Sapphira (cf. Sus 56-59) and the communal response (cf. Sus 60-62). Shared themes and motifs include a “deadly sin” (lust, greed), separation

33

34 35

36 37

of the offending pair, and exposure by questioning. 34 God is responsible for the deaths in both stories. 35 Luke could have presented this episode as a lengthy story, just as he could have summarized the speech of Stephen in a few verses or recounted Paul’s journey to Rome in a short paragraph or two. Brevity and length lie within the purview of the narrator. One should not simply presume that Luke said to himself, as it were, “I have so much to recount that I shall have to be concise here.” Nor does brevity always mean diminished importance. Subsequent comments will attempt to show that the very compressed nature of the account enhances its power. The structure is transparent: two scenes (vv. 1-6, 7-11), each of which includes a response (vv. 5, 11). Daniel Marguerat analyzes the piece as a “diptych,” noting these correspondences: vv. 2/8, vv. 3/9a, vv. 5a/10a, and vv. 5b/11.36 The parallelism enhances the drama of the narrative. As step replicates step, the readers wonder whether death will follow death. This punitive activity involves a “rule miracle.”37 In this instance the ruling is underscored by doubling, producing an effect not unlike that of the “double dream” in which two persons receive identical or complementary revelations.38 Luke is responsible for producing the diptych and for a good bit of the wording of vv. 1-6.39 A generally recognized verbal source is the story of Achan (Josh 7:1, 6-26). The verb ejnosfivsato (“withheld”) is a strong

“‘You Did Not Lie to Us but to God’ (Acts 5,4c),” Bib 76 (1995) 182–209; and Julian Hills, “Equal Justice under the (New) Law: The Story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 105–25. Brown (Apostasy, 98–113) notes five links between this story and that of Judas: (1) Satan is the cause (Luke 22:3; Acts 5:3); (2) money is the basis (Luke 22:5-6; Acts 1:18; 5:3); (3) the deed is intentional (Luke 22:6; Acts 5:4); (4) real estate is involved (Acts 1:18; 5:11), and (5) the result is sudden death. Note the use of “lie” as the cause of death in Sus 55, 59. Daniel announces that the “angel of God” will administer justice to the wicked elders (vv. 55, 59). The human agents of these executions are the members of the community (vv. 61-62). Although readers of today might view Susanna as more realistic, the ancient authors would have found these differences relatively unimportant. Marguerat, Historian, 158. See the excursus “Punitive miracles” in the

commentary on 1:15-26. Havelaar, “Hellenistic Parallels,” 63–82, analyzes a number of themes and discusses ancient parallels. In addition to the oftcited Healing no. 36 from Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 122 = Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies [2 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945] 1:228, no. 423) and Lucian Philops. 20, Havelaar points to a roughly contemporary (118/119 ce) dedication to the god Men (Eugene N. Lane, Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Meni [4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971–78] 1:51), which deals with the punishment by death of one Apollonius because he had refused to fulfill a financial obligation taken under oath. 38 On “double-dreams” see on 9:1-19a below. 39 See Theissen (Miracle Stories, 63–64), who notes ajnh;r dev ti" ÆAnaniva" ojnovmati (“a man by the name of”), ejpwvlhsen kth`ma (“sold a piece of property”), used in 4:37; “at the apostles’ feet,” used in 4:35, 37, and the contrast between human and divine plans, which appears in 5:29, 38-39.

130

Acts part 1C.indd 130

8/27/2008 9:59:57 AM

4:32—5:16

signal.40 The questions put by Peter to each partner in turn resemble Josh 7:25: “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord is bringing trouble on you today.” Death is the immediate sequel in all three instances.41 In the search for a suitable context, exegetes have long called attention to 1 Cor 5:1-5 (cf. v. 13).42 Another possibility is that 1 Corinthians constituted a major source of Acts 5:1-10. This economical solution to the question of source illuminates the development of early Christian thought and literature.43 Even without consideration of 1 Corinthians, critical scrutiny leaves very little material for source criticism. It is quite possible that there was an early believer, somewhere, who violated a major community rule, suffered a formal curse and ban, and died shortly thereafter. Such things happened (and happen).44 The putative underlying story need not have been related to financial misconduct, since money is an important Lucan symbol,45 while sex is excluded from his repertory. The story must be ranked among the most difficult for modern readers of Acts. It portrays Peter as a

40

41

42

43

44

man of supernatural insight who is able to pronounce effective curses upon sinners, just like Paul in 13:8-11. The story appears to present the working of the Spirit in almost magical fashion. Neither Ananias nor Sapphira is apparently offered any chance of repentance, and the way in which the former was buried without his wife’s knowledge sounds heartless, to say nothing of being improbable.46 I. Howard Marshall well summarizes some of the questions this episode raises. Theological objections to this story did not have to wait patiently for the incursion of modernity. On the basis of 5:1-11, the Manicheans rejected Acts for broadcasting actions unworthy of God.47 Porphyry added his own scathing criticism.48 Interpreters from Chrysostom to Calvin and beyond stressed the exemplary effect of the tale, often noting that the death of this pair could save the lives/souls of many.49 More recent commentators of an apologetic orientation are likely to claim that this unpleasant episode shows that Luke did not simply idealize the life

Theissen also suspects that the emphasis on the Holy Spirit may be Lucan, since this is a leading theme of that author. In addition, 5:4 is reminiscent of Luke 22:3 ( Judas). The secondary nature of Sapphira is evident not only from the almost identical language of the two episodes (Theissen) but also by the syntax of vv. 1-2. The main verbs there are singular and refer to the husband. Sapphira enters the story in two awkward phrases that, if omitted, would improve the narrative flow. Luke is fond of pairs, especially male-female pairs. See p. 252. For discussion of whether both partners were part of the tradition see Marguerat, Historian, 158. Biblical usage is limited to 7:1; 2 Macc 4:32 (which depends on Joshua), and Titus 2:10. See Spicq, Lexicon, 2:546–47; and the note in Cadbury and Lake, 50 (a “rather obscure word”). Joshua does not include burial of the victim. Josephus Ant. 5:44 mentions the burial of Achan, but this conclusion is probably coincidental. Havelaar (“Hellenistic Parallels”) emphasizes the theme of excommunication, which accords with 1 Corinthians 5. See Pervo, Dating, 70–73, which examines this passage in the light of Joshua 7, 1 Corinthians 5, and 1 Timothy 1:20. Harold Remus points to anthropological and labo-

45 46 47

48

49

ratory data on the possible effects of “excommunication” (Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century [Patristic Monograph Series 10; Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983] 92–93, 256 n. 27). See p. 11. Marshall, 110. In his comments (110–13) he attempts to ameliorate some of these objections. Augustine countered by pointing out punitive miracles in the Apocryphal Acts, of which the Manicheans did approve (Adim. 17), with evident reference to the tale preserved in the Coptic Act of Peter. See R. Joseph Hoffmann, Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994) 54–55. The material comes from Macarius Magnes’s Apocriticus 3.20. Porphyry says that Peter put the couple to death for withholding “a little for their own use.” (“A little” is P.’s own contribution). Even if this act were wrong, there is the demand of Jesus to forgive up to 490 sins. Moreover, Peter should have recalled his own false statement that he did not know Jesus. Origen (Comm. on Matthew 15.15) discussed this passage in detail in commenting on Matt 10:21 (“if you wish to be perfect . . .”). Arator (1:431-32) saw the story as admonitory. For the exemplary view, see also Chrysostom Hom. 12. Bede (30) is quite

131

Acts part 1C.indd 131

8/27/2008 9:59:57 AM

of the early church, 50 to rationalize it, 51 or to ignore its theological ramifications. 52 In this milieu, John Polhill is refreshing: “When all is said and done, there is no ‘comfortable’ solution to the passage.”53 The last thing that should be said about this story is that it demonstrates the absence of an idealizing tendency. Nothing is more idealized than the picture of a world in which vice is promptly punished and virtue properly rewarded. Acts 5:1-11 is a stumbling block for those of a modern Western orientation both because it seems to depict the deity as executing a cheating couple pour encourager les autres and because, like 1 Cor 5:1-5, it focuses on the welfare of the community rather than on the correction of an errant pair. 54 The story is not an account of conflict; no principles or issues are contested, nor do parties with

different views emerge. Finally, as Haenchen shows, the narrative is consistent neither in itself or in its context. 55 Comment   1-6  At the outset, the narrative appears to be recounting a parallel to the deed of Barnabas. 56 Ananias and Sapphira 57 (the first married couple identified among believers in Acts) sold a piece of property. 58 Verse 2 blocks a positive interpretation of the act: they “withheld,” “embezzled” as it were, 59 some of the proceeds. In this compressed manner, the narrator indicates that Ananias represented the proffered sum as his total receipts. There is no indication of what benefits the couple60 hoped to reap from their deception, and

laconic: ceteris exemplum (“an example for others”). Jerome’s Life of Hilarion (which has much of Jerome and little of Hilarion) says that the aspiring ascetic divided his deceased parents’ property among his siblings and the poor because of fear that by retaining any for himself he might share the fate of Ananias and Sapphira (3). On patristic approaches, see also Marguerat, Historian, 172 n. 44. Calvin (1:134–38) endorses the exemplary interpretation: “[T]he punishment of one was a warning for all” (138). He also views the deaths as a prod to liberality in almsgiving and is aware that many find it incredible that a multitude of other deceivers are allowed to prosper. To that, he offers the view that miracles were a particular feature of the early church intended to serve as enduring signs. Rackham (64) finds a different lesson. This episode shows that all attempts—from Novatian to the Puritans and beyond—to maintain a pure and perfect community are misguided. These sentiments are commendable, but they are not germane. 50 An example is Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:79. 51 So Marshall (112), who states that the death of Ananias was “probably a case of heart-failure due to shock.” On the next page, moving toward a social-scientific orientation, he speaks of the effects of a curse in “primitive societies.” 52 Witherington devotes six pages (214–20) to the passage without reflecting on the underlying theology, as is apparent in his critique of Philippe Henri Menoud’s proposal that the original motivation was the death of believers before the parousia (“La mort d’Annanias et de Saphira [Actes 5, 1-11],” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel

53 54 55

56

57

58

59 60

à l'occasion de son soixante-­dixième anniversaire [Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950] 146–54): “One must ask of this theory why Luke, in an apologetic document keen on evangelism, would expand or report the expanded story in this way. Surely, this story would scare more off than it would attract! It is much more likely that he had hard evidence that this story had a strong basis in fact, and he felt he must include at least some traditions that showed that the earliest church was not perfect” (Witherington, 216 n. 82). Polhill, 161. Weiser (1:138–48) attends to theology in his analysis of this passage. Haenchen (239–41) does his usual job of deconstructing the rationalizers while using their proposals to expose the holes in the narrative. For the phrase ajnh;r dev ti~ ojnovmati (“a certain man named”), see 8:9 (Simon “the magician”); 10:1 (Cornelius). The dev is not adversative (i.e., “in contrast to Barnabas”); see Cadbury and Lake, 49. On the name “Ananias,” see Williams, “Personal Names,” 85. On “Sapphira,” see Richard Pervo, “Sapphira,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000) 149–50. The detailed study of Richter Reimer (Women, 1–29) has many valuable data and observations. Her perspective is historicizing and ­r ationalizing. As noted above, the verbs in vv. 1-2 are singular; “Ananias” is the subject. “Sapphira” is limited to a prepositional phrase. Cf. the introduction of Aquila and Priscilla in 18:2. Haenchen (237 n. 4) defines ejnosfivsato in a concise note. According to Jewish legal traditions, Sapphira

132

Acts part 1C.indd 132

8/27/2008 9:59:57 AM

4:32—5:16

speculation about the matter will not enhance the credibility of the story.61 By omitting all but the essential details, the narrator focuses on the central issue. Peter, who, like Jesus, can read minds (see Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:46-47), challenges the donor. The crabbed syntax of vv. 3-4 results from dramatic elaboration.62 Ananias lied about what he received, and this lie was against the Holy Spirit. This charge is contained in four sections, framed by questions using the words “heart”63 and “lie.” This is not a fact-seeking interrogation. Peter gives no opportunity for response.64 Ananias answers by dying.65 He (with

61

62

63

64

65

his wife) has committed “the sin against the Holy Spirit” (Luke 12:10).66 Luke is prepared to classify financial misrepresentation as the most grievous of all sins, more or less equating it with qeomaciva (“opposition to God”).67 Ananias’s death confirms the truth of Peter’s words and the gravity of the offense. The response is appropriate for a miracle and indicates that the message was received.68 Without prompting, “the young”69 gather up the corpse70 and cart it off for burial.

had to know what was happening if she were to be found guilty. See the regulations in Lev. 5:1; CD 14.20–21; 1QS 6.24–25. If such contributions were truly voluntary, any amount would have been appreciated. Otherwise, one must assume a particular status for those who had sold all and given it to the poor (Luke 18:22) and that Luke has evidently concealed this two-tiered approach to community members. Cf. Brown, Apostasy, 99. On p. 106, Brown states that the verb “withhold” indicates that Ananias regarded the property as “his own” and that he should have contributed all of the proceeds. Haenchen says that v. 4 conflicts with 4:32, 34. These are two interpretations of the same dissonance. I think it unlikely that Luke would have been bound to the literal interpretation of his own idealistic summary, but Brown may see the essence of the issue. Haenchen (237) notes that Luke often compresses two ideas into a question; cf. 1:4. Here the underlying question is “Why have you done this?” The answer (“Satan has filled your heart”) is subsumed within the question. The verb yeuvsasqai (“lie” or “falsify”) is evidently a final infinitive, paralleled by nosfivsasqai (“mulct,” “withhold”); that is, the second infinitive is the result of the first (§BDF 391 [4]). Verse 4a is odd, lit. “Didn’t it remain yours while it remained?” The second clause in v. 4 may be declarative, with little difference in meaning. “Heart”; cf. 4:32. The idea that Satan (etc.) enters or controls the heart is at home in apocalyptic; cf. the Asc. Isa. 3.11. The anthropology is elaborated in 1QS 3.13—4.25. Use of “fill” in this context is a Septuagintalism. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 285–86. P74 and witnesses of the D-tradition improve or clarify the language of v. 4b. The variations suggest that the text has become confused. The D-Text adds paracrh`ma (“immediately”), a word of which it is fond and one quite suitable to

66

67 68

69

70

miracle stories (e.g., Luke 4:39; 5:25; 8:44; Acts 3:7, etc.). Luke reserved this for v. 10. E includes it in v. 6. Witherington (216 and n. 81) wishes to stress the medical usage of ejkyuvcw. Since it is found in Acts only in 5:5, 10 and 12:23, it is preferable to say that Luke utilizes it for divine ­executions. See Brown (Apostasy, 107–9), who shows that Luke places this saying about the sin against the Spirit in the era of the church. Goulder (Type, 91) came to the same conclusion. Cf. the speech of Gamaliel in 5:35–39. “Awe” (fovbo~) is one way of characterizing the confirmatory crowd response to a miracle (Wunderglaube), as in Luke 5:26; See Knox, 22. It is the proper response to the presence of the numinous (cf. Luke 1:12) and can have the sense of fear that motivates corrective action, as in Acts 19:17. Verse 5 does not specify that those “who heard” were present at the event. It probably includes both those and others to whom they conveyed the news. The indifferent use of newvteroi in v. 6 and of neanivskoi in v. 10, typical Lucan “elegant variation,” speaks against the notion that there was an organized “order” of youth. See Pervo, Dating, 220. The presence of these persons does seem to indicate that Luke envisions an assembly of the community. See also F. Scott Spencer, “Wise Up, Young Man: The Moral Vision of Saul and Other neanivskoi in Acts,” in Thomas E. Phillips, ed., Acts and Ethics (NTMon 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) 34–48, esp. 40–41. The verb sustevllw means, “cover,” “wrap up,” probably not with reference to a winding sheet (BDAG, 978, s.v. 3). Cadbury and Lake (51) say that the meaning of this word is not very clear. A bland rendition is thus preferable.

133

Acts part 1C.indd 133

8/27/2008 9:59:57 AM

  7-11  An interval71 of about three hours ensues.72 Sap-

phira, who has not been told of her loss,73 arrives for some unspecified reason. Without consolation upon her bereavement or further ado, Peter launches his interrogation.74 All details that do not focus upon the crime are ignored. The proposal that by his questioning Peter offers Sapphira a way out is misplaced.75 Trick questions are not an acceptable means of eliciting repentance. A two-sentence exchange is sufficient to entrap the freshly minted widow. Verse 9 brings a query like that of v. 3.76 Both questions are accusations. Sapphira then learns that she has become a widow but that her tenure in that status will not be lengthy. Some nice touches accompany this stunning coincidence.77 The feet78 of those who buried Ananias are at the door.79 “Feet” is also the

place where gifts, including that of Ananias and Sapphira (v. 2), are offered. At his feet, she will also die.80 With this well-shod piece of poetic justice, the lesson is complete and she goes to join her husband.81 Peter kills the pair with words just as he heals others with words. God is the ultimate cause; Peter is God’s human agent. Comparison of his role with that of the me· baqqeµr of the Qumran community is erroneous.82 Verse 11, the parallel to v. 6, introduces two groups: “the community,” and “everyone else who heard about it.” This is the first use of ejkklhsiva in Acts.83 The intention of this bifurcation may be to lay the ground for v. 13, but it also shows that the passage is ecclesiological, illustrating the nature of the Christian community.84

71 The syntax of v. 7 is difficult. BDF §144 finds two constructions: ejgevneto . . . kaiv and an asyndetically prefixed nominative absolute of time. See also Cadbury and Lake, 52. Barrett (1:269) disagrees. 72 Readers may imagine how this time passed. Marshall (113 n. 1) says, “Haenchen’s picture of the apostle still sitting on his chair without intermission three hours after Ananias’s death with the money lying at his feet is pure fantasy.” So it would be, had Haenchen said it. He takes the tosouvtou in v. 8 to mean that the money “still lies at the Apostles’ feet” (Haenchen, 239). 73 The participles suneiduivh~ (v. 2) and mh; eijdui`a (v. 7) nicely characterize Sapphira. 74 The verb ajpokrivnomai can mean “speak up” (BDAG, 114 s.v. 2). There are variations to the question, including the D-Text’s more refined ejphrw­thvsw se eij a[ra (“Let me ask you whether . . .”). This seems to heighten the sarcasm. It probably imitates Luke 20:3, but see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 286. CopMae is more blunt: “Peter said to her, I asked you about the sale. Did you sell the garden for this money?” 75 The view that Peter was giving Sapphira an opportunity to confess is at least as old as Chrysostom. Modern exponents of the view include Marshall (113) and Witherington (217). 76 The wording sunefwnhvqh uJmi`n is unique. See §BDF 202. Luke is striving for elegance. For Luke, “Spirit of the Lord” and “Holy Spirit” are interchangeable. The v.l. “Holy Spirit” is clearly secondary. It is not clear, however, whether the phrase means “the Spirit of God” or “the Spirit of Christ.” 77 For reassurance that Ananias could have been buried within three hours, see Witherington, 219 n. 95. Rackham (67) was less confident: “The

78 79

80 81

82

83 84

rapidity of the burials and the apparent absence of enquiry suggest difficulties to our minds.” “Feet” is, in this instance, a synecdoche; cf. Isa 52:7. P74 A 1175 bo read “at the doors,” which transforms the setting into a large building, like the churches of post-Constantinian times. Marguerat (Historian, 155) views v. 9b as a bit of grim humor. Complementing the use of “feet” is the preposition prov~, used both of the spot where she died and her final resting place. The D-Texts (D [sy p]) that pedantically have her prepared for burial unintentionally illustrate the economy of the narrative. On this comparison, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 233–57, esp. 247–48; Haenchen, 240–41; and Hans-Josef Klauck, “Gütergemeinschaft in der klassischen Antike, in Qumran und im neuen Testament,” Revue de Qumran 11 (1982) 47–79. The grounds for such a comparison require the assumption that the story is a legend, the “historical kernel” of which is that Peter administered discipline and is therefore a kind of “bishop.” Although Acts shows Peter as the leader of the Jerusalem community at this point, it gives him no special title and portrays no authorization. According to 1QS 6:24-25, intentional lies about property carried a penalty of one year’s exclusion from the community meal and a reduction of rations. On the term, see Barrett, 1:271; Fitzmyer, 325. It is anachronistic. See Marguerat (Historian, 164–65), who stresses the ecclesiological nature of the passage.

134

Acts part 1C.indd 134

8/27/2008 9:59:58 AM

4:32—5:16

Since greed holds pride of place among sins in Acts, it is appropriate that malefactors suffer considerable discomfort,85 but these two believers who lie about money drop dead. Acts happily represents the view that the “ban” demanded by Paul for a man living in an unlawful relationship be applied—with no doubts about its efficacy—to a pair that misrepresented their generous contribution. This is the world of the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:20),86 representative of an era and a milieu in which the church was determined to uphold its morality in the face of criticism by outsiders. For Luke, this episode contained not the least hint of embarrassment; fear is an appropriate motive for Christian behavior. Marguerat aptly compares their deed to the sin of the first couple.87 The “primitive church” had utopian qualities, but sinlessness was not among them.88   12-16  The summary in vv. 12-16 is, like many of the summaries in Acts, a hinge, closing one section and inaugurating another. It takes up the petitions of 4:23-31, both of which are (further) fulfilled, resulting in additional growth. Verses 15-16, like 4:36-37, provide specification by reporting the healing career of Peter, who has so many patients that he is enabled to bestow

mercy without even the need to pause and wave a beneficent hand. For the first time, the movement attracts people from outside of Jerusalem. This much is clear, but the meaning of v. 13a is not, and the transitions are far from smooth. Considerable exegetical ingenuity is required to absolve vv. 12-14 of contradiction, since vv. 12-13 suggest that awe motivated outsiders to keep their distance from the believers, whereas v. 14 has them joining in droves. Appeals to a blend of tradition and redaction flourish in such an atmosphere,89 but they do not explain the author’s apparently loose grip on his material. If diav (“through”) in v. 12 has the sense of intermediate agency, the first sentence would mean “God worked many miracles90 through the apostles,”91 but it is probably instrumental.92 The phrase ejn tw/` law/` seems quite otiose. The translation presumes that it anticipates the contrast between “the people” and “the outsiders” of v. 13. “Solomon’s Portico,” although evidently linked with tradition,93 advances Luke’s portrait of Christianity as a philosophical school94 associated (like Cynics, Platonists, Stoics, Aristotelians, and Epicureans) with a particular meeting place.95 Verse 13 is ­exceptionally

85 Examples: Simon (8:18-24, dire threat), Elymas (presumably threatened with loss of his vision and position, 13:8-11), the owners of the slave at Philippi (16:19-20), the sons of Sceva at Ephesus (19:13-17), and the artisans energized by Demetrius (19:24-27) in the same city all face loss of revenue. 86 Note also 1 Tim 6:10: “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” 87 Marguerat, Historian, 172–78, the conclusion of his valuable study. Rackham (xxxiv) anticipated this view, with many examples. Comparison (via contrast) to the temptation of Jesus (Luke 4:1-13), as proposed by, e.g., Weiser (1:146) and Pesch (1:204), is less germane. Cf. also Thomas E. Phillips, “Creation, Sin and Its Curse, and the People of God: An Intertextual reading of Genesis 1–12 and Acts 1–7,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (2003) 146–60. 88 The situation remains utopian in that justice is directly administered by God rather than through the often corrupt and frequently biased media of human judges. See Saundra C. Schwartz, “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 105–37, esp. 120. 89 For a survey of proposed solutions, see Myllykoski, “Being There,” 168 n. 66. Barrett (1:273) would like to attribute the various linguistic difficulties to the inept merger of traditions about Peter

90

91

92 93 94 95

with the authorial summary. This is a reasonable approach, but the evidence for “traditions” about Peter comes to his shadow. This is an insufficient basis. Haenchen (244–46) exposes the weaknesses of various interpolation hypotheses. The phrase “signs and wonders” evokes the world of the Hebrew Bible (see Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6, 13; 14:3; 15:12). It is essentially limited to the first half of Acts. The “all” of v. 12 evidently designates the entire body of the apostles (cf. v. 18), as does “to them” in v. 13, but these may intend to refer to the community of believers. Moule, Idiom Book, 57. See on 3:11. See Pervo, Dating, 177–78. Cf. Haenchen, 245: “Each might now summon up a vision of a colonnaded hall in which the apostles were teaching like the ancient philosophers.” A specific example is Diogenes Laertius Lives 7.5. D-Texts preface “in the sanctuary” to “in the Portico of Solomon,” although D-Texts in chap. 3 tended to place this portico outside of the sanctuary. E reads ejn tw/` naw/` sunhgmevnoi (“having assembled in the temple”), intimating that they met in a building.

135

Acts part 1C.indd 135

8/27/2008 9:59:58 AM

­ ifficult. The chief difficulty is the meaning of oiJ d loipoiv (“outsiders” [?]), but kolla`sqai (rendered “get too close to”) is also unclear.96 If the “all” of v. 12 refers to the apostles, oiJ loipoiv might be applied to the other believers. This is not very likely. The internal contrast is between oiJ loipoiv and “the people,” suggesting the leadership and generating a number of conjectural emendations, none of which has been well received.97 Haenchen observed that Luke 8:10 replaces the oiJ e[xw (“the outsiders”) of Mark 4:11 with oiJ loipoiv.98 If so construed, the verse would mean that nonbelievers (evidently mindful of what befell Ananias and Sapphira) kept a respectful distance, which should not be taken to imply that the reputation of the apostles had declined.99 In short, exegetes must attempt to say what they think Luke meant. The text is quite possibly corrupt beyond repair.100 Verse 14 does nothing to ameliorate the situation, since it is difficult to fit into the sequence.101

  15-16  Luke composed vv. 15-16 on the basis of Mark, especially Mark 6:55-56.102 Verse 15 is grammatically rugged.103 Barrett exclaims: “No more astounding piece of miracle-working is described in the NT; Peter does not need to speak, to touch, or, it seems, to give any attention to the sick person.”104 In the background is the notion that the shadow is an extension of one’s person or personality.105 This is the basis for Haenchen’s strictures about the account.106 Individual miracles can be viewed as symbols of God’s inbreaking rule of love and related to individual faith and response. Acts 5:15 merely requires that one be in the right place at the right time. For Luke, Acts 5:15—and 19:11-12—communicate at a different “symbolic” level from stories about individuals.107 The internal parallel with Paul in chap. 19 indicates that the purpose of vv. 15-16 is to show that this is the climax of Peter’s career in Jerusalem. Word

96 See the discussion of Witherington, 225, and the succinct summary of Haenchen, 242 n. 5. 97 See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 287. 98 Haenchen, 242. 99 So Barrett, 1:274–75, following Conzelmann, 39. Note also Bruce, 167. To add to the difficulties, Luke does not otherwise (Luke 1:46, 58; Acts 10:46; 19:17) make human beings the object of megaluvnw (“glorify”). 100 The D-Text smooths the opening of v. 13: kai; ouj­ dei;~ tw`n loipw`n (“and/but none of the others”). 101 BDF §465 (1) classifies this as a parenthesis, a polite way of saying that it does not fit. 102 See Pervo, Dating, 36–38. 103 On w{ste kaiv (“actually”) indicating result (of what?), see Bruce, 168. Note Mark 3:10-11, which is similar. The infinitives have no stated subject. If v. 14 is taken as a parenthesis, that subject will be the public of v. 13. See Haenchen, 243. The phrase ejrcomevnou Pevtrou could be taken as an improper genitive absolute, with little difference in meaning. See Cadbury and Lake, 55. Despite the a[n, B 33 614 1241 1505 al place ejpiskiavsh/ in the future indicative. 104 Barrett, 1:276. 105 On the subject, see Erwin Preuschen, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912) 30; Betz, Lukian, 151 n. 7; and Pieter van der Horst, “Peter’s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Background of Acts V.15,” NTS 23 (1976–77) 204–12. Key parallel passages are quoted by Barrett, 1:276–77. That the mere sight of a charismatically endowed individual may convey healing is stated

by Pliny the Younger (Pan. 22.3), who says that the sick dragged themselves to places where they could see Trajan at his arrival. See Geoffrey W. H. Lampe (“Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History [London: Mowbray, 1965] 163–78, esp. 175), who points to the use of “overshadow” in Luke 1:35; 9:34. This may point to Luke’s symbolic understanding of the concept. See n. 107. 106 Haenchen, 246. Barrett (1:276–77) follows ­Schneider (1:382 n. 33) in affirming that Haenchen’s criticism does not recognize that God is the source of all miraculous power. This jejune observation is not relevant. 107 The kind of reservation raised by Polhill (164), for example, that the text does not make the fact of healings explicit, was anticipated by D-Text expansions: unwilling to leave it at “the shadow knows,” the rough transition at the close is eased by D-Text expansions: ajphllavssonto ga;r ajpo; pavsh~ ajsqeneiva~ wJ~ ei\cen e{kasto~ aujtw`n (“For each was relieved from every infirmity from which he or she suffered”) D (p copmae); kai; rJusqw`sin ajpo; pavsh~ ajsqeneiva~ h|~ ei\con. dio; sunhvrceto (“And they were delivered from every infirmity that they had. [] Therefore . . .”) E gig vgcl Lcf. Inspiration for this supplement came from 19:12b. See Epp, Tendency, 156–57. It is not likely that the narrator wished to imply that the hopes of these superstitious fools were dashed. For the author’s understanding of this verb, see Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of

136

Acts part 1C.indd 136

8/27/2008 9:59:58 AM

4:32—5:16

of this therapeutic power spread, resulting in an influx from the surrounding settlements.108 Acts 4:32—5:16 is an interlude between formal persecutions. Official opposition had no chilling effect on evangelism. All of the apostles conspicuously defied the official admonition given to Peter and John. The band of believers continued its rapid increase. The community exhibited remarkable unity and charity. The slightest hint of corruption brought decisive divine interven-

tion, while healings conveyed relief to an ever-growing number of the afflicted. Peter became a veritable healing cornucopia, overflowing with heaven-sent beneficence. Three believers from “the rank and file” receive particular attention. Two of these are Ananias and Sapphira, who promptly depart in death and disgrace. The other is one Barnabas, a generous Levite from the Diaspora. In the light of this activity, renewed interest from the authorities will occasion no surprise.

the Most High will overshadow (ejpiskiavsei) you.” In Luke 9:34 (the transfiguration, from Mark 9:7), the verb is concrete but illustrates an element of the background: overshadowing by a cloud as a symbol of divine presence. This, despite Barrett, 1:277, is not what Luke means. Act. Thom. 59 imitates this passage. Sick persons were placed on the route by which Thomas was traveling, as in Acts, but he healed each in the name of the Lord, after which those who had received succor gave praise to Jesus, who had healed them through Thomas. Intertextuality here provides interesting commentary. The author of the Acts of Thomas has stripped the canonical account of its “questionable” details and produced a much more “orthodox” summary. Not all reservations about the character of Acts

5:15 are of recent vintage. Bede (30) deals with the passage by a series of ingenious wordplays to show that Peter is a trope for the church. 108 The translation assumes that Luke uses “cities” (povlei~) casually. (There were no cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem.) The usage supports his picture of Christianity as an urban movement. A variety of witnesses have the crowds come “to Jerusalem.” This apparently treats pevrix as an adverb, which is how BDAG 802 takes it. Note Josephus Bell. 4.241: ejn tai`~ pevrix kwvmai~ te kai; povlesi (“In both the neighboring villages and cities” [of Jerusalem]). Instead of the (typically Lucan) semiindependent relative clause, D-Texts tend to say “and all were healed” (ijw`nto). Cf. the summary of Philip’s mission to Samaria in 8:7.

137

Acts part 1C.indd 137

8/27/2008 9:59:58 AM

5

5:17-42  The Apostles in Prison and on Trial 17/ As a result, the high priest and his colleagues, that is, the Sadducees, turned green with envy. 18/ They seized the apostles and had them held in official custody. 19/ An angel a of the Lord opened the prison doors at night and escorted them out, saying, 20/ “Go take your place in the sanctuary and proclaim to the public everything about this way of life.” 21/ In response they went to the sanctuary at dawn and began to teach. When the high priest and his colleagues arrived, they convoked the council, that is, the entire Israelite Senate, b and then sent instructions to the jail for the prisoners to be conveyed to court. 22/ The agents dispatched for this task did not find them in the prison and returned with this report: 23/ “We found the prison-house locked and well secured, with guards at the doors, but, when we opened the doors, we didn’t find anyone inside!” 24/ When they heard this information, the chief of the temple police and the leading priests couldn’t figure out what was going on. 25/ At that moment someone came in and announced, “Listen! Those people whom you had put in prison are standing in the temple teaching the populace!” 26/ Thereupon the police chief and his men set out to bring them back, with a minimum of force, since they were afraid that the populace would stone them. 5:27-39: Conventional Text 27/

29/

The authorities arraigned the apostles before the council c for examination by the high priest: 28/ “We strictly enjoined you d not to teach in ‘this name,’ but look at what you’ve gone and done: filled Jerusalem with this teaching! In addition, you are trying to make us responsible for this fellow’s death!” “We must obey God rather than mortals,” replied Peter and the other apostles. 30/ “Our ances-

5:27-39: D-Text 27/

29/

Now when they brought the apostles before the ­S anhedrin, the high priest began to speak to them: 28/ “Did we not strictly enjoin you not to teach in ‘this name’? Look at what you’ve gone and done: filled Jerusalem with this teaching! In addition, you are trying to make us responsible for the death of that fellow!” “Whom must we obey? God or mortals?” replied Peter. He said,

138

Acts part 1C.indd 138

8/27/2008 9:59:58 AM

5:17-42

33/



41/

tral God raised Jesus, whom you took and hung upon a cross. 31/ Divine power exalted him to become Leader and Savior, in order to give Israel opportunity to change its heart and find forgiveness for sins. 32/ As for us, we are witnesses of these matters, as is the Holy Spirit that God gives to those who are obedient.” Cut to the quick, the audience was eager to kill them. 34/ At that point a learned and universally revered Pharisee named Gamaliel took the floor. After directing that the defendants be removed for a while, 35/ he spoke: “My fellow Israelites, think carefully about what you propose to do to these people. 36/ Some time ago Theudas rose up in rebellion, claiming that he was someone special. He gained about four hundred adherents, but, after he had been eliminated, all of his followers were dispersed, and the movement evaporated. 37/ Subsequently, at the time of the census, Judas of Galilee also rose up and gathered a pack of rebels. He also perished, and all of his followers were put to flight. 38/ My advice in this matter is that you keep your distance from these people. Let them go, for, if this scheme or enterprise happens to be of human origin, it will be thwarted, 39/ but, if it is of divine origin, you will not be able to thwart them. Be careful to avoid conflict with God!” They found his argument persuasive. 40/ The officials then recalled the apostles and, after beating them, released them with the command to cease speaking in the name of Jesus.

31/

“God.” Peter said to him, 30/ . . . God exalted him in glory to become . . . sins in him.

32/

As for us, we are witnesses of all these matters. . . .”

33/

Cut to the quick, the hearers were at the point of resolving to kill them. 34/ At that . . . and member of the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel took the floor. After directing that the apostles be removed for a while, 35/ he said to [the leaders and ] the entire Sanhedrin: “Gentlemen of Israel, beware of these people and what you propose to do to them. 36/ For before this time one Theudas rose up in rebellion, claiming that he was a great leader. About four hundred followed him, but, after he had committed suicide, e all of his followers evaporated. 37/ After him, at the time of the census, Judas of Galilee then rose up and raised a large body of rebels. He also perished, and his followers were put to flight. 38/ Now then, brothers, I advise you to keep your distance from these people and let them alone, without defiling your hands. For, if this authority happens to be of human intention, its power will disappear, 39/ but, if this authority is of divine intention, you will not be able to thwart them—neither you, nor monarchs, nor tyrants. 40/ Therefore, keep away from them, lest you also be in conflict with God!” They found his argument persuasive.

The apostles left the Sanhedrin rejoicing that they had been deemed worthy to suffer abuse for the sake of the Name. 42/ They continued to teach and to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah, day after day, both in the temple and in houses.

139

Acts part 1C.indd 139

8/27/2008 9:59:59 AM

a b c

Or: “the angel.” Or: “the council, together with the entire Israelite Senate.” Or: “in the council chamber.” In place of ajkouv­ sante~ de; E Copmae sy p arm begin ejxelqovnte~ de; ejk th`~ fulakh`~ . . . (“leaving the prison”).

Analysis

The episode (II. C1–E2 in the organization suggested above) reports the second collision between the new movement and the religious authorities. The episode follows, in general, the path of 4:1-22, but the development is complicated by two unexpected twists, and both the number of the accused and the danger facing them are greater. After a thrilling ride on this narrative roller coaster, the story ends where it had commenced—with the apostles teaching in the temple. The story contains four principal sections:1 1. 5:17-21a: Arrest and Release. The high priest—with the Sadducees—apprehends and incarcerates the apostles. Evidently, it is too late for a trial on that day, as in 4:3b.2 That night, an angel opens the prison doors and directs them to resume their evangelistic ministry. This they do, early the next day. Matters remain as they were before the arrest. Tension has not abated, but readers are reassured about the power and commitment of God. 2. 5:21b-26: Assembly and Re-arrest. The Sanhedrin and Senate solemnly assemble to try the prisoners. A humorous scene recounts their dismay at the discovery that the prisoners are not available. The pitiable Sanhedrin is all dressed up with nowhere to go, for the prisoners have escaped. At that moment a messenger arrives to announce that the apostles are up to their old tricks. When the prisoners are, with prudent caution, extracted from the admiring throng, proceedings may resume. This is a brief and welcome bit of comic relief, but the trial still looms. 3 3. 5:27-40: The Trial. (A) Peter responds to the 1 2

d e

Or: “Did we not strictly enjoin . . . ?” The phrase o{~ dieluvqh di jauJtou` (“who perished at his own hand”), D (cf. Copmae) may be due to the substitution of dieluvqh for the more probable ajnh/revqh.

accusations of the high priest with the same defense that was offered at 4:19, some accusations of his own, and a summary of the kerygma. As a defense speech, it was not successful. The omniscient narrator informs the readers that the jurors were determined to execute the lot.4 (B) Executions would have promptly followed, had not Gamaliel come to the rescue with a sparkling little speech in another (cf. 4:15) executive session, again thoughtfully contributed by the omniscient narrator. Although he is said to have convinced the body to leave the matter in God’s hands, they nonetheless have the apostles flogged and repeat their prohibition. 4. 5:41-42: The Result. Honored to be abused for their views—rather than shamed (or disabled) by the beating—the apostles resume the mission. The court cannot bully them into silence. Although this lengthy account has made no particular contribution to history— nothing would be lost had it been omitted—Luke has written a thrilling and entertaining episode that shows the Sanhedrin to be no less inept than it is unethical. If the group trusted Gamaliel’s plea to let God decide, they would have said, in effect, “Go ahead and try your luck. God will decide.” Luke portrays the apostles as fearless philosophers whom neither a tyrannical court nor the effects of the whip can quell. Comment   17-21a  (1. Arrest and Release) No setting is provided,

but v. 28 permits the assumption that the arrest takes place in Solomon’s Portico. 5 The arresting agents are now the high priest and his political allies, the

“Scenes” is not quite appropriate, as some of the sections unfold in more than one place. The unstated rationale is evidently that the officials wait for evening when the crowds have diminished or left before apprehending the apostles.

3 4 5

Marguerat (Historian, 160) calls the recapture of apostles a “grotesque interval.” There is a textual variant. See below. The participle ajnastav~ (“rising”) appears twentyeight times in Luke and Acts. Elsewhere, there is some context or qualification. Boismard (Texte, 111)

140

Acts part 1C.indd 140

8/27/2008 9:59:59 AM

5:17-42

­ adducean party.6 Their motive is specific and ignoble: S jealousy. The Greek word zh`lo~ has a variety of meanings (“ardor,” “zeal,” “rivalry,” “envy”7). In the Greek intellectual tradition (of which Philo is a good representative in this instance8), the term is largely positive, relating to an ethic grounded in competition, but there also a negative side appears: mere resentment of what another has accomplished has no relation to the pursuit of excellence. Paul uses the concept both positively (e.g., Rom 10:2; 2 Cor 9:2; Phil 3:6) and negatively (e.g., Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 3:3; Gal 5:20). In Acts 5:17; 13:45 (noun); 7:9; 17:5 (verb), the term accounts for the persecution of such characters as Joseph, the apostles, and Paul. Representatives of the good are persecuted because their success arouses envy. This simplification is a perennial

6

7

8

theme of popular narrative.9 “Zeal for Torah” (Acts 21:20; 22:3), which can justify murder (Num 25:11, 13 LXX; 1 Macc 2:24), is not utterly irrelevant, but it does not address the literary function of jealousy (which is not restricted to Jews) in Acts. The presence of the high priest and the Sadducees does nothing to shade the black-and-white characterization; it also serves to symbolize the narrator’s understanding of the conflict: the Sadducees, who killed Jesus and do not believe in resurrection, wish to suppress information about their double condemnation: God raised Jesus from the dead.10

prefers the versional “Annas” (which must derive 9 from a Greek source). E provides some context: tau`ta blevpwn (“When he observed these occurrences . . .”). Both are probably secondary. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 288. A bland introduction was necessary, since the immediate context speaks of miracles, whereas the formal basis for the arrest (v. 28) is public teaching. Both here and in v. 21, the singular participle violates grammatical concord. The effect of this “error” is to make “those with” the high priests a mere parenthesis. The apparently otiose attributive participle ou\sa (from “be”) is vexatious. See the long note in Cadbury and Lake, 56–57, who after much data and discussion approve “local,” as does Barrett, 1:282–83. Haenchen (248 n. 2), however, omits it as jargon. Conzelmann (41) holds a similar view. For yet other ideas, new and old, see Bruce, 169–70. “Local” will work elsewhere, but not in this instance. The term dhmosiva/ is an adverb elsewhere in Acts (16:37; 18:28; 20:20). Lake and Cadbury (Additional Notes, 57) favor that interpretation. BDAG, 222 s.v. dhmovsio", disagrees, with reason. Within a few verses, the authorities will be apprehensive about making a public arrest. The D-Text reassures readers that the arresting party retired for the evening after apprehending their quarry. The wording is evidently derived from (Ps.-)John 7:53 (but note Acts 21:6). For references to the theme of jealousy in GrecoRoman narrative, see Johnson, 96 and 98. See also Pervo, Dating, 270. Josephus (Ap. 1.224) says that 10 two basic motives for anti-Judaism are hatred and envy. See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 266–67. Cf. the examples from Philo and others in Albrecht Stumpff, “zh`lo~,” TDNT 2:877–88.

Often enough, the motive may be assumed, as in the plot of the envious son of Pharaoh against Aseneth, in which he enlists the aid of four of Joseph’s brothers, whose jealousy was well established ( Jos. Asen. 24). Other examples from the realm of Jewish fiction include the Tobiad Romance (Josephus Ant. 12.154–234, esp. 174), the tale of the royal family of Adiabene (Josephus Ant. 20.17–96, esp. 21, 20) and Artapanus, frg. 3.7 (432D). In romantic novels, the jealousy of rival suitors and lovers is a standard propellant of the plot, for example, Ninus (frg. B); Chariton Chaer. 5.9.4; 6.6–7 (among many); Ephesian Tale 2.7.4; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 5.5.6; 7.3.7; et al.; Heliodorus Aeth. 1.11.5; 7.2.4; 8.62; et al. The jealousy of Chaireas launches the adventures in De Chaerea et Callirhoe (1.2.5–6; 5.1), while the jealous of the heroine Sinonis adds a great deal to the plot complication of A Babylonian Tale—not to mention the monarch’s jealousy of the hero’s success. Jealousy is crucial to the tale of Cupid and Psyche in Apuleius Metam., e.g., 4.34). For secondary literature, see Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike; Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1934) 19; and Brigitte Egger, “Women in the Greek Novel: Constructing the Feminine” (Diss., University of California, Irvine, 1990) 97–98, 342. For the use of jealousy as a theme in ethical exhortation, see 1 Clem. 4:1—6:4, which offers a number of examples. Johnson (96) points to the Greco-Roman proclivity for identifying envy as the basis of a desire to kill (cf. v. 33), citing Plato Leg. 869E–870A and Plutarch Frat. amor. 17 (Mor. 487F). He also notes its appearance in Hellenistic Judaism: Wis 2:24; Philo

141

Acts part 1C.indd 141

8/27/2008 9:59:59 AM

The term ai{resi~ (“party,” “sect,” “school,” “faction”) is deployed by Luke in two ways.11 It facilitates his view of the Jesus movement as a philosophy, “a school.” At the same time, it permits a critique of Judaism, which, unlike Christianity, is rent by sects or factions, a state of affairs that is not compatible with authentic religious belief and practice.12 The positive sense Luke evidently appropriated from Josephus,13 whereas the negative understanding derives from Paul and the post-Pauline world (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20).14   18-20  As v. 18 ends, matters are just as they were in 4:3, except that all twelve are now under arrest. Verse 19 brings an astonishing development: an angel of the Lord15 liberates the Twelve.16 This is the first of three prison (or door) miracles in Acts.17 Like that in 12:6-10,

11 12

13 14

15

16

17

18

which liberates Peter, and that in 16:25-34, which affects Paul, these wonders receive no public recognition or acclamation. Comparison with similar scenes in the Dionysiac tradition and the Apocryphal Acts illuminates the “apologetic” orientation of Luke, who will make no propaganda about disruptions of official authority, even when the disrupter is God.18 After extracting the apostles from prison, the angel directs them not to go into hiding but to resume their proclamation of “everything about this way of life.” That such activity may—and will—lead to loss of life gives the phrase a Johannine ring (cf. John 6:63, 68). Luke is not fond of such paradoxical irony, but the term is scarcely accidental.19 They have been liberated not so that they may gain security but for the furtherance of their mission.20

Jos. 12; T. Jos. 1:3; T. Gad 4:5–6; T. Benj. 7:1–2; nience, followed by a return to prison (119–22), T. Sim. 2:7, 11. there is not a hint of respect for lawful authority. The word appears in 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; Act. Paul 7/9 is similar, and related to, Act. Thom. 28:22. 119–22. John was delivered from imprisonment by Emergent rabbinic Judaism shared this negative some unknown means in a lost episode that fell view of sects. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Macbetween chaps. 36 and 87 of the Acts of John as now cabees to the Mishnah (LEC 7; Philadelphia: Westarranged. See also the Acts of Andrew and Matthias minster, 1987) 224–31. Luke was probably aware of 21–22, 29–30. Deliverance is never the path to easy this principle. street. The case of Peter (Acts 12:1-17) may seem See Pervo, Dating, 168–69. to be an exception, but his exit from prison is also On the Lucan understanding, which is moving his departure from the narrative (apart from his toward the notion of “heresy,” see Pervo (previous brief speech in chap. 15). Luke may have received note). some inspiration from Artapanus frg. 3 (b), 22–24. “Of the Lord” prevents the word from being Cf. also History of the Rechabites 10.4–6, which may construed as “a messenger.” The anarthrous be early. This includes a bright light (cf. Acts 12:7), expression a[ggelo~ kurivou (“angel of the Lord”) angels, and deliverance to a protected place. is an LXX form expressing divine epiphanies and 19 Barrett (1:284) thinks that “it is the new life is often a circumlocution for “God.” See Fitzmyer, offered by Jesus as the ajrchgo;~ th`~ zwh`~ (3:15, 335. An angel appears also in Luke 1:11, 26; 2:9, rendered as ‘[the one] who opens the way to life’).” 13; 22:43 (possibly secondary); 24:23; Acts 7:30-38; An advantage of “way of life” is that 3:15 views that 8:26; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:7-15, 23; 27:23. life as a journey. For Haenchen (249 n. 3), “life” = The D-Text prefaces the verse with that tovte of “salvation” (picking up on Cadbury and Lake [57], which it is so fond and reads—with much of the who took it as a Semiticism). tradition—“open” as an indicative. 20 Cyprian cites this passage in On the Unity of the For a general overview of this phenomenon, see Catholic Church 12. God was with the apostles Pervo, Profit, 21–24, 147; Reinhard Kratz, Rettungs­ because they were “guileless and of one mind” (quia wunder: Motiv-, traditions- und formkritische Aufarbei­ simplices [cf. 4:13] quia unanimes erant). P74 reads tung einer biblischen Gattung (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, ejn tw/` law/`, omitting the temple. This may be due 1979); and, in particular, Weaver, Plots. to the understanding that the Portico of Solomon The symbolic nature of release from bonds is was outside the temple, or it may be anti-Jewish. important in the Dionysiac tradition, where it Varied placement of the phrase shows that it was illustrates the god’s gift of liberation. Among the absent from more than one ms and may have been Christian works, Act. Thom. 107–22 is illustrative. an interpolation. Although this material in Acts of Thomas is clearly based on Acts 5 and 16, viewing liberation as either symbolic (108–13) or for the purpose of conve-

142

Acts part 1C.indd 142

8/27/2008 10:00:00 AM

5:17-42

Brief as this report is, it makes an important contribution to the symbolic thrust of Acts.21 By using themes of the exodus tradition it relates the liberation of the apostles to the liberation of the people of God. “The angel of the Lord” is a common element in HB epiphanies, notably those of liberation.22 The verb ejxavgw (lit. “lead out” [v. 19]), which is prominent in accounts of the exodus (e.g., Exod 16:6; cf. Acts 7:36, 40; 13:17), appears in all three accounts of prison escapes in Acts (12:17; 16:39). “House of bondage” is a common trope for Israel’s condition in Egypt.23 “Prison,” in turn, is a common symbol of death.24 The narrator is readying the soil for Peter’s experiences in chap. 12. This account is less interested in the escape as a symbolic resurrection, for the apostles had not been formally condemned, than in exhibiting the power of resurrection, viz., empowerment for mission.25 The noun “life” (zwhv) , used to summarize the apostolic proclamation in v. 20, focuses on ­resurrection.26   21b-26  (2. Assembly and Re-arrest) The next day, presumably, 27 those who had made the arrest28 returned to their posts and convoked the court.29 Haenchen understands the language: “The grandiose enumeration of 21 22 23 24

25

26 27

28 29

the antagonists in v. 21 stands in intentional contrast to the pitiful fiasco in store for them.”30 Lackeys dispatched to escort the prisoners to the bar of justice discover a glitch: the cell is empty. Their report provides the readers with details not revealed in v. 19. Those familiar with prison-escape stories will probably infer that the guards had been put to sleep or otherwise bewitched by the angel.31 Those reading Acts for the second time will appreciate another irony: the Sadducees have been thwarted by the action of a being in which they do not believe (23:8). Luke’s dramatic vividness is illustrated by his editors: the D-Text reports32 that the servants opened the prison doors and found no one there before continuing the account, pedantically filling in the narrative at the expense of its effect. This information reduced the court to hapless perplexity33 from which they were delivered by the fortunate advent 34 of a messenger, a medium richly developed in ancient drama. 35 The apostles are back in business! This news allows the narrator to omit any reflections about how the alleged miscreants escaped custody or to waste any space about deliberations issuing in the obvious. The action alone is described. No

See the valuable analysis of Weaver, Plots, 93–117. Ibid., 96–101. E.g., Exod 13:3; 20:2; Jdg 6:8; 2 Esdr 1:6. See p. 309 n. 92. Conversely, deliverance from prison symbolizes rescue from oppression: Ps 107:10-14; Isa 24:22; 43:7; 3 Macc. 6:2-29; Bel 31-39. See Weaver, Plots, 102–3. “Open door” is a common trope for missionary opportunity; see Acts 14:27; 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3; Rev 3:8, 20, as Weaver (Plots, 113 n. 68) observes. That opening is the greatest of the door miracles in Acts, of which the prison escapes are a symbol. Weaver, Plots, 112–14. The D-Text, having sent them home the night before, helpfully indicates that those who made the arrest arose at the crack of dawn (i.e., when the apostles returned to their preaching). See Boismard, Texte, 112. Verse 21b returns the characters of v. 17a to the stage. Since this is the first occasion on which Luke uses sunevdrion to mean a body (rather than a place), it is probable that the kaiv is explanatory rather than conjunctive. For this view, see Haenchen, 249; Bruce, 170; and Fitzmyer, 335. Schneider (1:390) and

30 31 32 33

34

35

Weiser (1:136) regard the phrase as referring to two different bodies. For the equivalence of sunevdrion and gerousiva, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom. 2.12. IGR IV.836.8 refers to “the most august Council of the Gerousia” (sunevdrion gerousiva~) at Hierapolis. Cf. also David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), who records that sunevdrion was in use in Ephesus (2:858–59). Note also the use of gerousiva in Gos. Jas. 4:6. Sources for the specific phrase include Exod 12:21; 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10. Haenchen, 250. On the scene, see Pervo, Profit, 61–62. Those not familiar will discover how the escape was engineered when they read 12:6-10. Boismard, Texte, 113. The textual tradition of v. 24 includes a number of variations, none of which alters the basic sense. E (sy p) report that they found the information surprising as well as confusing. The narrator makes characters appear (and disappear) at will. Note the use of paragivnomai in vv. 21, 22, and 25. (This is a Lucan word; of thirty-six uses in the NT, eight are in Luke and twenty in Acts.) Dramatic messengers make varied contributions,

143

Acts part 1C.indd 143

8/27/2008 10:00:00 AM

one ever had to exhort Luke to “cut to the chase scene.” On this occasion the captain of the temple constabulary36 will give the matter personal attention. The situation is delicate, requiring a decorous37 arrest to prevent inflaming the enthusiastic masses. Like Jesus (Luke 22:2), the apostles enjoy popular favor. This estimate will not permanently endure.38 The stage is now ready for the action envisioned by the arrest in vv. 17-18. The intervening “parenthesis” has not, however, been fruitless. The angelic deliverance shows where the Almighty stands on the question, the officials have been made to look ridiculous, and the court has to reckon with the fact that the word of God cannot be locked in chains and that their animosity toward the apostles is at variance with popular sentiment.   27-33  In these verses (3a. The Trial), Peter (and the others) 39 appears, as will Paul (22:30), before the high court. Dispensing with any questions about how the apostles got out of custody, the high priest accuses them of ignoring the earlier (4:18) injunction and complains that they are blaming their leaders for the death of Jesus. To this, the entire body affirms the earlier position of Peter and John. This collision of irresistible force and immovable object can have but one result: a mass execution. The high priest’s accusation is stated in solemn Septuagintal form.40 Emphasis lies on the

36 37 38

39 40

second half: “You not only ignored our injunction, but even tried to place this fellow’s death upon our ­shoulders.”41 The structure of this unison speech, which lacks either address or conclusion, is an uncomplicated ­chiasmus: A. V. 29. Thesis: It is preferable to obey God. B. V. 30. Narrative: God raised, you killed, an antithesis (Christology). B'. V. 31. Narrative: God exalted Jesus to provide repentance (Christology; soteriology). A'. V. 32. Proof: Witnesses include the speakers and the Spirit given to those who obey God.

This defense falls into the category of qualitas absoluta (ajntivlhyi~), essentially an appeal to a higher law.42 The defendants affirm the charge but deny that it is blameworthy. The outline form is permissible for this skeleton of a speech because the readers know the details from the speeches of chaps. 2 and 3 (as does the dramatic audience). The D-Text follows a different path. Peter is the sole speaker, probably to enhance his role,43 possibly also because of distaste for unison speech.44 In the D-Text this encounter takes the form of an apophthegm, not unlike Mark 12:13-17 (paying tribute): question, counterquestion, answer, pronouncement.45 The contrast between divine and human will

including the narration of events that could not be portrayed on stage. Revelation is their principal function. In Oedipus Tyrannus, the messenger from Corinth engages in a lengthy dialogue that leads to the disclosure of Oedipus’s identity (924–1185). The second messenger, who enters at 1222, describes the suicide of Jocasta and Oedipus’s self­mutilation. For another use of a technique from the drama, see below on 12:13-16. The D-Text, possibly concerned about the mysterious appearance of the messenger, eliminated him (and supplied pedantic expansions); Boismard, Texte, 114. On strathgov~ see 4:21. The omission of the negative by D* (“with force”) is probably not, pace Bruce (171), a scribal mistake. The shift comes in 6:12, where the people join their leaders in apprehending Stephen. In 21:30-36 the people employ violence against Paul. As elsewhere, one should add “other” (BDF §306 [5]). paraggeliva/ parhgeivlamen reflects the Hebrew infinitive absolute rather than an underlying Aramaic idiom. See BDF §198 (6); Moule, Idiom Book,

41

42 43

44

45

177–78; and Fitzmyer, 336. For an LXX prototype, see Gen 43:3. The D-Text substantially revises the introduction. Because this edition has no interrogative verb, the initial ouj of v. 28 marks it as a question. That marker has entered other layers of the textual tradition, but should be viewed as secondary. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 289. Instead of touvtou (“this”), the D-Text aptly reads ejkeivnou (“that fellow,” a pejorative circumlocution that is a common mode of referring to Jesus among Jews. Cf. Cicero Inv. 1.11; 2.71. See Richard I. Pervo “Social and Religious Aspects of the Western Text.” In The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. Dennis Groh and Robert Jewett; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985) 229–41. On unison speech, see p. 542 n. 6. Haenchen (251) recognizes that unison speech is proof of inspiration. It also serves a dramatic purpose, since it justifies action against all of the apostles. Clark (Acts, 341–42) prefers the longer text. His arguments serve to support the contrary position.

144

Acts part 1C.indd 144

8/27/2008 10:00:00 AM

5:17-42

unites this and the following speech (vv. 38-39). In v. 29 the parallel with Socrates is more direct than in 4:19.46 The apostles teach like philosophers and, like Socrates (and others), are prepared to suffer for the truth.47 Verse 30 describes, for the first time,48 crucifixion with the LXX phrase49 “hanging upon a tree.” Luke may have taken the expression from Gal 3:13, but he uses it in a different way from Paul’s paradoxical critique of a covenantal theology. 50 Here the OT allusion seeks to shame the hearers. 51 Verse 31 moves from resurrection to exaltation. 52 Although the titles “leader” and “savior” may seem to be a result of the exaltation, Luke does not construe christological categories in a chronological fashion (cf. 3:20). Jesus was Messiah and savior at birth (Luke 2:11), and the earthly Jesus summoned people to repent (Luke 5:32). Through the resurrection and exaltation, his benefits became available to all. Universalism is so central to the gentile Christianity known to Luke that he can write as if Jesus became the Messiah at the

resurrection, while his drive for continuity presses him in the opposite direction: to extend the attributes of the heavenly Christ into the life of the earthly Jesus. 53 The word ajrchgov~ has a somewhat different meaning here from that in 3:15. Paired with “savior” (see 2 Clem. 20:5; cf. Heb 2:10), it approaches the significance of titles given to rulers. 54 The noun “savior” is at home in the post-Pauline world; 55 dexia/` (“right [hand]”) is probably instrumental, a synecdoche. 56 Verse 31b means “to provide the opportunity for repentance and the consequent forgiveness of sins.”57 As proof of “these matters,”58 the apostles add to their own testimony the manifestation of the Spirit, not Scripture here but a present gift, one example of which is their eloquent speech delivered in concert (cf. Luke 12:11-12). 59 The contrast between “we” (v. 32) and “you” (v. 30) underlines the contention that the judges have not benefited from the gift of the Spirit. The reaction (v. 33) indicates that the apostles’ fate is sealed.60 These

46 In the Greek tradition, Plato Apol. 29D is the primary reference, but the idea is central to the Antigone of Sophocles (note 453–56). See also Plutarch Conviv. Septem 7 (Mor. 152C); Epictetus Diss. 1.30.1; and Livy 39.37. For Jewish and early Christian parallels, see on 4:19. Note also Plümacher, Lukas, 18–19. Pesch (1:222–24) reviews the use of this maxim within the Christian tradition. See also Squires, Plan, 175 n. 104, for many references. 47 Socrates. See p. 119 n. 45. 48 The phrase is used again in 10:39 (Peter); see also 13:29 (Paul). Other references include 1 Pet 2:24; Barn. 5:13; 8:1; 12:1, 7; Justin Dial. 86.6. 49 Examples include Deut 21:22-23; 26:26; Gen 40:19; Josh 10:26; Esth 5:14. For extrabiblical parallels, see T. Benj. 9:3; Sib. Or. 5:257; 6:26. On the citation, see Max Wilcox, “Upon the Tree—Deut. 21:22-23 in the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977) 85–99. 50 Other sources are possible, but “passion apologetic” would not readily use a phrase that characterizes criminals cursed by God. 51 The later association, by metonymy, of the cross with the tree of Eden inspired patristic preachers and gave birth to some splendid Latin poetry, of which the Pange lingua of Venantius Fortunatus is the most famous example. 52 See p. 45. 53 Luke must deal with tensions between the heavenly lord and the terrestrial preacher; like Paul, he begins with the former. 54 See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles,

55 56

57

58 59

60

102–3, 144–47. Note also Savior (v. 31). See Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 237–42. Cf. Pervo, Dating, 287–88. BDF §199 says that the phrase is local, “to God’s right hand” rather than “by God’s right hand.” The same problem applies to the D-Text alternative, dovxh, which is less “crude” and therefore secondary. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 290. In Heb 12:2 ajrchgov~ is linked to the exaltation. So Barrett, 1:291; and Conzelmann, 42, who refers to the different view of Jacques Dupont. On the theme of repentance in Luke and Acts, see Pervo, Dating, 273–78. The D-Text adds “in him” to the end of v. 31 to clarify the Christology. Or: “for these claims”; cf. 10:37. Bruce (173) views this usage of rJhvmata as a Septuagintalism. The text of v. 32 exhibits considerable variation. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 290) attributes this to the association of “his” with “witnesses,” in conformity to 1:8. The omission of the relative (“We are witnesses, and God gave . . .”) in B pc Cyril of Jerusalem may be due to fourth-century arguments about the Trinity or simply to a desire not to “equate” the apostles with the Spirit. Use of the masculine pronoun in D* E may be due to the influence of Latin (in which “spirit” is masculine in gender). The verb diaprivw occurs also in 7:54, where it leads to the death of Stephen.

145

Acts part 1C.indd 145

8/27/2008 10:00:00 AM

people wish to kill them,61 and they have the power to do so.62 The message of opportunity to repent and be forgiven has not been well received.   34-39  Deliverance comes from an unexpected quarter: 63 a Pharisee64 named Gamaliel.65 He was a historical figure about whom little is known. Confusion with Gamaliel II (a contemporary of Luke) further contaminates the data. The entire scene is a Lucan composition based upon a topos66 and is designed to showcase Lucan apologetic theology on the lips of an outsider. The source of the name “Gamaliel” is unknown. Luke characterizes him as a popular “law-teacher” (lit.).67 Such esteem made him a formidable figure (cf. v. 26). Luke may well have taken this idea of Pharisaic popularity from Josephus (e.g., Ant. 18.17) and particularized it in his portrait of Gamaliel.68 The speech is deliberative, making use of historical exempla, in the approved manner.69 Gamaliel argues that the court should leave the matter in God’s hands, as the consequences of action could be dire. The conclusion follows two parallel sections, each based on a warning: I. Vv. 35-37 A. V. 35. Address, Admonition

B. V. 36-37. Examples 1. V. 36. Theudas 2. V. 37. Judas II. Vv. 38-39c A. V. 38a-b. Admonition B. Vv. 38c-39. Possible outcomes 1. V. 38c. If human, it will fail. 2. V. 39a. If divine, it cannot be destroyed. III. V. 39b. Conclusion: consequence of ignoring this ­admonition.

The construction is tight. The conclusion is a clause expressing apprehension, which completes and frames the warnings.70 Retardation also marks the examples, the purpose of which is not initially clear. The logical order is this: movements of human origin fail, as the following examples demonstrate. Movements backed by divine power cannot be repressed, and those who attempt to do so range themselves against God. Therefore, the court will be well advised to let this movement take its course. The actual arrangement raises the suspense and thus makes the climax more dramatically effective. The impact also gains from the parallel

61 The v.l. ejbouleuvonto (“they planned,” rather than the common Lucan ejbouvlonto, “wished”) has broad support. It carries a suggestion of formal deliberation. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 291) rejects it as a blunder: “[T]he members of the Sanhedrin, being enraged, were scarcely in a mood quietly to take counsel.” Conzelmann (42) supports this with a triplet from Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 7.1.1: h[cqeto, wjrgivzeto, ejbouleuveto (“He became vexed, got angry, and engaged in further reflection”) . Note, in addition, the parallel with v. 28. 62 It is preferable to view v. 33 as the conclusion to the first part of the section, rather than the beginning of the next. 63 An illustrative literary parallel occurs in Apuleius Metam. 10.8: As a verdict of guilt was about to be finalized, “one of the councillors, a physician whose known honesty and outstanding authority excelled that of the rest, covered the mouth of the urn with his hand to prevent anyone idly dropping in his pebble. Then he addressed these words to the council” (trans. Patrick G. Walsh, Apuleius the Golden Ass. The World’s Classics [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995] 197). 64 This is the first of nine occurrences of “Pharisee” in Acts. Six fall in 23:6-9, five of which are in the plu-

65

66 67 68

69 70

ral. Two refer to Paul (23:6; 26:5). Acts 15:5 speaks of believers in Jesus. Gamaliel is the only Jewish Pharisee specifically identified in Acts. For a discussion, see Sanders, Jews, 84–131. On this person, see Bruce Chilton, “Gamaliel (2),” ABD 2:903–6. Haenchen (252) says, “It is enough for this universally revered jurist to rise to his feet for all the storming councilors to be brought to their senses.” See Squires, Plan, 176 and n. 109. The word nomodidavskalo~ is attested only in Christian literature. The notion of Pharisees’ popularity is characteristic of Josephus’s portrait of them in his Antiquities and differs from that in the earlier War. It is arguable that Josephus invented this idea to promote the Pharisaic program in the light of the postwar situation. Jacob Neusner gives a succinct summary of this argument in From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973) 45–66. On historical examples in speeches, see Conzelmann, 42. Cadbury and Lake (62) say mhvpote probably introduces not a dependent purpose clause but an independent sentence of warning. Barrett (1:297) allows for both interpretations. The translation

146

Acts part 1C.indd 146

8/27/2008 10:00:01 AM

5:17-42

constructions used for both examples (vv. 36-37) and both outcomes (vv. 38c-39a). An additional nice touch appears in the general condition employed to describe human efforts (“if this plan and activity happen to be of human origin”) and the particular condition that characterizes divinely endorsed enterprises. This contrast is a subtle statement of Gamaliel’s view of the matter.71 The speech also exhibits features of popular rhetoric.72 This is among the best of Luke’s miniature addresses. Many of the variants in the D-tradition are typical clarifications, simplifications, or harmonizations. Among the more interesting expansions are the additions of “power” terms (ejxousiva, duvnami~) in vv. 38-39 and the reference to “monarchs” and “tyrants” in v. 39. The latter addresses a difficulty in Gamaliel’s examples, neither of which dealt with the procedures of Israelite justice, but rather with rebellions suppressed by Roman soldiers, which could have been deemed irrelevant. They also encompass persecution of Christians beyond

71 72

73

74

75

the limits of this court and the boundaries of Judea.73 “Power” and “authority” could be an intelligent effort to bring about a closure to the argument that began in 3:11, but this appears to be internal to the D-tradition.74 Moreover, hJ boulhv in v. 38 is rather vague to those who are not sympathetic readers of Acts and therefore realize that the “plan of God” is the subject.75 Especially gratuitous is the added “without defiling your hands” in v. 38, which distinguishes Gamaliel from his colleagues (“your hands”) and concedes the point of responsibility for the death of Jesus—and its impropriety.76   36  Gamaliel’s examples present the most egregious anachronism in Acts.77 Theudas is his first case.78 Theudas led a rebellion in c. 44 ce, well over a decade later than the dramatic date of the speech, while the revolt associated with Judas took place in 6 ce.79 The most probable explanation of this error is that Luke took the examples from Josephus (Ant. 20.97–102), who once referred to these persons in inverse chronological

treats the clause as independent, but its function is to complete the admonition(s). The second “if” approximates “since.” See Conzelmann, 43; and Bruce, 178. Note the use of assonance and alliteration and of repetition with variation, for example, the parallel endings to vv. 36 and 37: (36) ajnh/revqh, kai; pavnte~ o{soi ejpeivqonto aujtw`/ dieluvqhsan (37) ajpwvleto kai; pavnte~ o{soi ejpeivqonto aujtw`/ dieskorpivsqhsan. The use of two differing types of conditional sentences in vv. 38 and 39 is also to be considered a bit of Lucan elegance. See Epp, Theological Tendency, 131–32; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 293, who identifies the source of this expansion: Wis 12:13-14. Note also Haenchen, 253 n. 3. Acts 3:12 (cf. 4:7) uses duvnami~ and eujsebeiva; ejxousiva is a D-Text variant, prompting the conclusion that 5:39 reflects the same editorial viewpoint. The phrase hJ boulh; au{th h] to; e[rgon tou`to (translated “this scheme or enterprise”) refers, in a legal sense, to both intention and action, but there are clearer ways to say this. Note Luke 23:51, which says that Joseph of Arimathea “had not agreed to their plan and action” (th`/ boulh`/ kai; th`/ pravxei aujtw`n). For the sentiment (with reference to councils rather than sects), see Pirqe scurizovmeno~ is a Lucan word. See on 12:15.

366

Acts part 2C.indd 366

8/27/2008 10:16:39 AM

15:1-35

l m

n

o p q

r

s

t u

v w x

y

The D-Text has but minor differences in vv. 3-4. The Didascalia (Ropes, Text, cxciv) reads: “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they told us about the dispute which they had in the church of Antioch.” In a long note, Boismard (Texte, 248) despairs of finding the “primitive” D-Text, then suggests the following: (2c) “Those who had come from Jerusalem, (5b) arose saying ‘they must be circumcised and directed to keep the Law of Moses.’ (2d) And they told them and some others to go to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem so that a judgment concerning this dispute might be made before them . . .” (3–4), as he prints them (almost identical to the conventional text), omit 5, then 6 and following. Syhmg. Once again, “both . . . and ” is changed to “now the apostles . . .” (dev) in a range of witnesses. D-Texts tend to prefer zhvthma (“question,” etc.; cf. v. 2) to lovgo~, possibly indicating that the latter had acquired sacral (“word of God,” “message,” second person of Trinity as divine Word) ­connotations. Gig seeks to increase the tension: “after they had been unable to reach a decision for some time.” Boismard (Texte, 249) accepts this as the D reading. The D-Text indicates that he was inspired: ejn pneuvmati. This enhances both the speaker and the occasion. At this point, p 45 adds much of v. 2. This must be due to error, possibly from a lacuna in v. 2. The order of the words after “days” (lit.) varies considerably, without changing the meaning. “Them” is supplied for clarity, and not an adaptation of “to them” or “upon them” found in various witnesses. Ropes (Text, 142) inclines to prefer ajll jh[, “but in fact.” Numerous witnesses add (typically) “Christ.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 251) reads: “stood up and said,” achieving a precise parallel to Peter (v. 7b). “Write” is possible, but the context makes a variant of “command” preferable. Cf. Barrett, 2:730.

Analysis

Acts 15 is difficult. “The general problem of Acts xv is so complicated that it can only be stated—it cannot be solved—by a process of analysis into smaller ones.”1 The place of chap. 15 in the structure of Acts 1

z Or, possibly, “Barabbas.” aa A range of witnesses give an object for “writing”: “these things.” D-Texts expand to include designation of the following as “a letter,” or “sending a letter containing the following,” and the like. Y alone has “a letter to the following effect,” ejpistolh;n dia; ceiro;~ aujtw`n e[cousan to;n tuvpon tou`ton. Cf. 23:25 (which has similar variants). Barrett (2:739) views the variants as an attempt to underline the importance of the letter bb Or: “Some who came from us.” The alternative seeks to include the variant ejxelqovnte~ (“coming from”). Syntactically, this would be circumstantial (“some . . . having come”), which is difficult to translate. Good arguments can be made for both inclusion and exclusion. If a later addition (cf. the use of this verb in 1 John 2:19; 4:1), it would have distinguished the tivne~ (“some people”) from the senders of the letter. Almost the same argument may be made for its exclusion. The witnesses that omit the participle are a small but select company: a* B 1175 pc. Gal 2:12 could be invoked on either side. Barrett (2:741–42) inclines to omit it, with good reason. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 385. Boismard (Texte, 254) reads ejx hJmw`n pro;~ uJma`~ ejlqovnte~ (“Some of us, having come to you”). This looks like a correction of an archetype that included ejxelqovnte~. His D-Text omits ajnaskeuavzonte" ta;" yuca;" uJmw`n (“making subversive assertions”) . cc Or: “While we were together we decided to select. . . .” It is more likely that unanimity is the point. dd Or (somewhat less likely): “risked . . . for . . .” This is the understanding of the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 255), which adds “in every trial” (eij~ pavnta peirasmovn). On this, see Epp (Tendency, 142), who notes that 20:18 specifies these “trials” as the result of Jewish plots. For “devoted,” see Cadbury and Lake, 180. ee Metzger (Textual Commentary, 388) reports that the Textus Receptus and a number of D-Texts state that they were sent back to “the apostles.” It need, pace Metzger, be no more than a specification.

is difficult to determine. Historical knowledge exacerbates the question, since commentators know that, subsequent to the sequel of this meeting, Paul began his career as an independent gentile missionary. If, as has often been proposed, this is the central chapter in

Kirsopp Lake, “The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes,

195–212, esp. 195. His identification of most of the difficulties is astute.

367

Acts part 2C.indd 367

8/27/2008 10:16:39 AM

Acts, 2 does it complete the first half, begin the second, or is a division into two principal parts undesirable? Although the chapter deals with the central issue of Acts—the legitimacy of the gentile mission—and occurs in the center of the book, it is not the basic structural pivot, 3 nor does it break new ground.4 Acts 15 is central in that it brings together the various threads of the plot: Peter with his mission, Barnabas and Paul with theirs (which is the unacknowledged successor of the “Hellenists”), and those persons concerned with observance. The two geographical bases, Jerusalem and Antioch, also formally converge. The narrator wishes to make a profound impression with a grand assembly and a solemn decree. All of this is to paper over the rift between Paul and Peter, and the tension between Paul and James. When that tension finally emerges, in chap. 21, the reader is directed to perceive their encounter in the light of chap. 15. The gross outline of 15:1-35 is clear. Verses 1-5 provide the occasion; 5 vv. 6-29 present the deliberations and the decision, which is implemented in vv. 30-35.6 A cloud appears on the horizon. To Antioch there come some unnamed Judeans. The narrator does not suggest that these persons acted under the auspices of the apostles in Jerusalem. The visitors assert that circumcision is necessary for salvation. The language speaks not of covenant but of soteriology. Such language was not unheard of among first-century Jews, but it does represent a shift into categories that Christians would develop. Luke casts the debate in Christian terms. Of that debate the narrator says no more than that it was heated. To first readers, this quarrel comes as a complete surprise. Had not the question been disposed of with the conversion of Cornelius? In the event, the community resolves to send an embassy to Jerusalem 2 3 4

5 6 7

to meet with “the apostles and elders.” The delegation was well received in earlier missionary areas and warmly welcomed at Jerusalem. Some believers identified as members of the Pharisaic party did not hesitate to assert that circumcision and observance of Torah were obligatory—although salvation receives no mention. The matter calls for a meeting that allows the narrator to place the decorum and propriety of the Christian assembly on display.7 The meeting includes another lively debate, of which the narrator again shares not a word. The spotlight will fall first on Peter, who reminds the audience of the precedent set in re Cornelius. This matter has already been resolved. Moreover, the Torah is an impossible burden. Only through grace can salvation come to both Jews and gentiles. (This is, in fact, a gentile view of Torah; for Jews obedience is a source of joy.) That times have changed becomes apparent when Peter’s word is not the last. Before James, who has become the leader in Jerusalem, offers his views, Paul and Barnabas are given the floor. They appeal to proof based on the wonders exhibited in their gentile ministries. This would surprise a discerning reader, since the narrative has reported but one specific example (14:8-10). James then rises to give his nihil obstat to the words of Peter, followed by the first explicit theological justification for a gentile mission. Scripture confirms the experience of the Spirit, as a substantial citation from Amos demonstrates. James thus joins Peter in viewing the gentile mission as the result of a hermeneutical breakthrough, the new understanding of Scripture brought to minds opened by Easter (cf. Luke 24:45). Fulfillment of the promises to David takes place in the proclamation of a messianic salvation offered to all. The result is everything that could be expected.

See Barrett, 2:709–10. See pp. 20–21. Johnson (268) says that this is “a watershed in the narrative of Acts.” His claims that Luke has previously followed all the apostles and that gentiles hereafter have priority are disputable. Paul has been the central character since chap. 13, and the theme of “Jews first” remains in force. Cf. 1:15; 6:1; and 11:2-3, where disputes also begin with a statement of the problem. Acts 15:36—16:5 is a different unit. See Pervo, “Meet Right.” The Spring 2001 issue

of Forum 4 was devoted to Acts 15: Alan F. Segal, “Acts 15 as Jewish and Christian History,” 63–87; Hal Taussig, “Jerusalem as a Place for Conversation: The Intersection of Acts 15 and Galatians 2,” 89–104; and Joseph B. Tyson, “Themes at the Crossroads: Acts 15 in Its Lukan Setting,” 105–24.

368

Acts part 2C.indd 368

8/27/2008 10:16:39 AM

15:1-35

Without a further word of debate, the entire body voted to communicate the decision in the form of an official decree, issued as a letter to be conveyed by a delegation that will include Judas Barsabbas and Silas. Luke portrays the Jerusalem church as a formally organized body that issues its decisions in the form of official letters delivered by authorized ambassadors.8 The Sanhedrin has a most formidable rival. Acts 15:30-35 nicely reverses the itinerary of vv. 1-5, indicating that the situation has also been turned around. In place of conflict there is consolation; peace reigns where turmoil had boiled. Chapter 15 could have been an unpleasant interlude. By its end, Paul and Barnabas are back where they were at the conclusion of chap. 14. Well-managed conflict leads to growth. The so-called Apostolic Council of Acts 15 deserves this title, as Dibelius noted, because of the formality with which Luke invests the proceedings.9 The major source of this material is Galatians 2,10 the story of which the narrator revises with considerable artistry. One aspect of this revision is that a dispute about whether believers in Jesus had to become full-fledged converts to Judaism is resolved by promulgating rules that permit those of Jewish and gentile background to enjoy sacramental fellowship. This decree (v. 29), which, judging by its numerous revisions, enjoyed a long life, probably stems from Antioch and represents the

c­ ulmination of the gentile missionary source—at least insofar as Luke chose to utilize that source.11 Luke’s presentation of the story is no less artful than it is disingenuous. The conflict erupts, as in Gal 2:11-14, in Antioch, but rather than the “separate altars”—to use a later trope—described there, the opponents take the position of the “Galatian agitators” and demand circumcision. Since Luke requires the full authority of Jerusalem here, the subject of v. 3 is a vague “they.” The delegation is that of Gal 2:1 (although Titus has suffered damnatio memoriae [become a nonperson]).12 The narrator presents their journey as a triumphal procession through the regions where, in chaps. 8–10, Samaritans and gentiles received the gospel. The intent is clear: the gentile mission is not under a cloud. In vv. 4-5, the narrator becomes quite cagey. Although the reception is full and formal, the occasion is not an official assembly. Yet it is on this occasion that, in response to a report by the delegation, an objection is lodged by persons identified as believing Pharisees. They demand that converts be circumcised and observe the Mosaic regulations. The conflict has recurred, although the demand lacks soteriological grounding. This is quite contrived, for Barnabas and Paul would have, in addition to their reports of missionary success, taken note of the objection that had generated the delegation. Insofar as the reader knows, the fact and

8 See below. ­envisioned here is: following Paul’s departure from 9 Dibelius, Studies, 99. Antioch, those allied with Barnabas and Peter 10 For the evidence, see Pervo, Dating, 79–96. All of worked out the compromise represented in the the arguments demonstrating that Acts 15 and “decree.” The compromise was not acceptable to Galatians 2 treat the same meeting and the elaboJames and those to his right. The latter became rate source hypotheses needed to account for these vigorous opponents of Paul. That missionary, and show how much effort can be expended in avoiding those to his left, also found the compromise unacthe simplest and most probable solution. Witherceptable. As far as the latter were concerned, Peter ington (449–50) posits a source (either Jerusalem, was no better than James. The Gospel of Mark “perhaps Petrine . . . or possibly . . . Antiochian”) represents a later form of that position, using (and for vv. 6–21, Luke’s editorial introduction in v. 22, twisting) traditions from Antioch that upheld Peter citation of a Jerusalem document in vv. 23–29, as the moderating figure who upheld both the old and an editorial summary in vv. 30-35. On p. 450 and the new. That old Antiochene position is thus his rationale emerges: to account “for why Paul’s best represented in the Gospel of Matthew, which contribution to the meeting is barely mentioned.” used Mark as its major source. Luke offered the This is not source analysis. A recent analysis that proposal that there were no important differences views the distinctive elements of Acts 15 as later is among the three. This view took hold, but, as Acts Martino Conti, “Il Concilio Apostolico e la lettera 21 indicates, the Lucan synthesis has leaks. ai Galati (At 15, 1-29; Gal 2, 1-21,” Antonianum 77 12 Witherington (601 n. 174) attributes his absence (2002) 235–56. from the account to controversy over the collec11 A rough sketch of the historical situation tion. For another solution, see on 16:1-3.

369

Acts part 2C.indd 369

8/27/2008 10:16:39 AM

announcement of considerable success among gentiles has encountered the contention that this mission is invalid. Nothing has been said of their success among Jews (cf. 14:1). Amidst this suspense, a full and formal legislative assembly is convoked. After a spirited discussion by unnamed persons come speeches by Peter and James, separated by a summary of what Paul and colleagues said. These speeches encompass a number of proofs: experience, miraculous attestation, and Scripture. James then changes the subject. Rather than reject or accept the necessity of the Torah in its entirety, he proposes some purity regulations that relate to social intercourse, in particular commensality. Neither Paul nor anyone else objects. The expanded delegation is authorized to return with the good news. As Johnson recognizes,13 the community assembly is a “standard narrative device” of popular literature. Such scenes allow a weighted account of the story thus far and give the reader a sense of participation, in this case as one of the “common persons” who lend their voice to the positions advocated by Peter and James. With this admirable picture, Luke proclaims the end of the “Judaizing controversy” in primitive Christianity. Gentiles are to be charitable about Jewish sensibilities, while the latter are to make no demands for observance upon the converts harvested from the nations. Soteriologically speaking, the Torah is a dead letter. Jews are free to follow it, insofar as they do not trouble others. The only matter that will have to be addressed is the malicious rumor that Paul advises Jews by birth to neglect observance (21:21). Acts 15 is a brilliant example of Lucan art. Since readers know that the demand for circumcision has already been rejected, the council can be an opportunity to celebrate church unity based on utterly

r­ easonable compromises. This portrait does not reflect a patina of legend, nor does it depend on the best reconstruction that Luke could make with his limited knowledge. The author of Acts knew better, and, although the Jesus movement had become a new and largely gentile religion, its legitimacy was still open to question in certain circles, and both Paul and his opponents remained controversial figures. Acts 15 is a fresh and, the author hopes, decisive portrait of the Jerusalem conference, an agreement acceptable to all parties and enduring. Comment   1-5  In these verses, D-Texts clarify Luke’s intention by

presenting a different story. The D-tradition generally tends to identify the opponents in Antioch and Jerusalem and their demands, whereas Luke wishes to distinguish between the two groups. D-editor(s) either did not grasp or did not accept this approach.14 A narrative explanation of the D-Text is the anonymous e[taxan (“it was decided” [v. 2]).15 The D-Text evidently presumed that the subject was the Judeans. Luke’s opacity probably derives from Gal 2:2. The progressively expanded D-Text includes circumcision and observance.16 This is logical, but it does not appreciate that Luke, following Galatians, wished to focus on circumcision. The expansion wishes to make the demand involve all Jewish observance and have it rejected in toto. In v. 2, the D-Text increases vividness by citing Paul’s argument, derived from 1 Cor 7:17-20.17 “So that they might make a judgment” (o{pw~ kriqw`sin) evidently anticipates the ruling of James in v. 19 (same verb).18 This text also removes any ambiguity from the “Judea” of v. 1 by stating that the agitators were from Jerusalem.19 The two groups of opponents in the conventional text become

13 He cites Chariton Chaer. 3.4.4–18; 8.7.1–16. See also 18 On this, see Epp (Tendency, 97), who supports the Pervo, Profit, 39–42; and idem, “Meet Right.” view that this presumes the full unity of the early 14 Justification for the D-Text view may be derived church, although the historical Paul would not from v. 24, which states that the objectors are have submitted his views for a judgment. believers. 19 Epiphanius Pan. 28.3 can report that Cerinthus 15 So Cadbury and Lake, 169–70. See also Metzger, was one of the troublemakers at Antioch. Ephrem’s Tetual Commentary, 376–78; and Strange, Text, comments (420–27) are interesting. He identifies 133–35. the nomists of 15:1 as converts made by Peter. 16 Cf. also the D-Text of 15:24. They demanded that the gentiles follow the 17 This is not an argument Paul would have utilized teaching of Peter and friends. Paul denied that he in Galatians, for it assumes that circumcision is abrogated Torah for Jews. The opponents “went theologically irrelevant. wild” (saevibant [422]) with anger. He reports Peter

370

Acts part 2C.indd 370

8/27/2008 10:16:39 AM

15:1-35

one in the D-Text,20 which also stresses the unity of the whole church and reduces the severity of the problem.21 Verses 1-5 constitute a rounded composition that begins and ends with a statement of the demand for circumcision.22 As in chap. 11, which is likewise based on Galatians, both opponents23 and locality (“Judea”) are unspecified. The reference to “Mosaic practice” (e[qo~) is a means of shying away from “the laws delivered to Moses.” As the customs of an ethnic group, these practices are more amenable to adjustment.24 Pauline influence is probably responsible for avoiding the association of Abraham with circumcision. In its Lucan form, Torah belongs to a period of salvation history. Belief in the God of Israel had existed for some centuries before Moses.25 Placement of the demand for circumcision in soteriological terms is, as stated, more characteristic of Christianity than of Judaism.26 The same infinitive

20 21 22 23

24

25

swqh`nai (“to be saved”) will recur in the climax of Peter’s speech (v. 11).   1  According to Acts 15:1, the Judean visitors to Antioch set off stavsi~ (“disorder”). Luke thereby characterizes them as dangerous outside agitators. There would, however, be no disorder in Jerusalem (15:7). The narrative does not suggest that any at Antioch sided with the visitors. The delegation’s27 (overland) progress displays unity by visiting sites associated with the earlier missions of Philip and Peter.28 More importantly, the joy of their reception isolates Jerusalem/Judea. Only there will vocal opponents of the gentile conversion without Torah be found. When they report their success29 to the community,30 some believing Pharisees raise objections. Male circumcision and subsequent observance are to be required. The readers understand that Pharisees are particularly meticulous in their observance (cf. 22:3;

as saying, “[W]hatever God has given us through faith and through the law, he has given the same also to the gentiles through faith without observance of the law” (425). James (evidently, 427) promised spiritual gifts for the gentiles, invoking the example of Cornelius. Cf. Epp, Tendency, 101–2. See Dibelius, Studies, 93 and n. 2. Cf. Talbert, 137. The indefinite tivne~ occurs in Gal 2:12. The term is common in polemical contexts, in which the other party is, for one reason or another, left anonymous. (Cf. the traditional “my opponent” in politics and “Brand X” in advertising, as well as the Roman practice of damnatio memoriae). For an example from religious competition, see the Sarapis aretalogy from Delos, lines 23–24, and the references in Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 23. The historical Paul did not name his opponents (2 Cor 2:5-11; Gal 1:7), nor did Ignatius Smyrn. 5.3. On early Christian practice, see Schoedel, Ignatius, 235 n. 28. The phrase tw`/ e[qei is a dative of cause, BDF §196. On the translation “practice,” see Barrett, 2:698. In Luke 1:9; 2:42; 22:39, the term means “custom.” In Acts (6:14; 16:21; 21:21; 26:3; 28:17), it refers to Torah. (The exception is Roman criminal jurisprudence [25:16].) Another approach emerges in the speech of Stephen: although Abraham received promise and circumcision together, Israel resisted God and the Spirit (7:53). This resistance invalidates circumcision, while the Spirit is bestowed on the (physically) uncircumcised (10:45; 11:2-3). Luke fashions an

26

27

28 29

30

essentially Pauline argument to show that the link between circumcision and promise, circumcision and Spirit, has been shattered. For Paul, this was essentially christological: through God’s action in Christ. For Luke, the argument is salvationhistorical: Israel has repudiated the promise and defied the Spirit, but the concept of separating the Spirit from circumcision derives from Galatians and Romans. Cf. Peter’s speech (v. 8). Alan F. Segal (“Matthew’s Jewish Voice,” in David Balch, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 3–37, esp. 16) says that the typical rabbinic position did not say that circumcision was necessary for gentiles, some of whom would be saved, but that it was necessary for participation in community life (specifically meals). Jub. 15:25-34 takes a stricter position, viewing all uncircumcised males as condemned. The me;n ou\n in v. 3 does not mark a new section. Moule (Idiom Book, 162) classifies it as “purely resumptive.” See also Barrett (2:702), who rightly compares 13:4. Phoenicia: see also 11:19; 21:3-6. On the phrase metÆ aujtw`n, see on 14:27. Luke was not worried about “synergism” (a potential interpretation that Calvin deals with by saying that “with” means “through” [7:30]). The language of v. 4 separates the “laity” (ejkklh­ siva, lit. “church,” “assembly”) from the officers (presbyters and apostles). This is careless parataxis. The narrator wishes to emphasize that all extended a welcome.

371

Acts part 2C.indd 371

8/27/2008 10:16:40 AM

26:5).31 That even such as these will be persuaded to abandon this demand will show how convincing the arguments to the contrary are. The situation is quite artificial.   2  According to v. 2, the delegates from Antioch may well have wished to report on their mission, but they should have stated the purpose of their visit.32 The narrative focuses on the success of the mission, but numbers will not settle the argument.   5  Despite its awkwardness, Luke sets out in v. 5 the theme of the chapter: What is necessary for inclusion within the people of God? Moreover, it removes the necessity of disturbing the formal meeting with an opportunity for the opposition to make its case, a case that is reduced to a demand. This leads Barrett to comment: “In fact the Council turns out to be a sham fight; no dissenting voice is heard.”33   6-29  The meeting proper occupies vv. 6-29. The structure is straightforward: two brief references to the community (vv. 6-7a, 12) precede the speeches of Peter (vv. 7b-11) and James (vv. 13-21), followed by the resolution and letter (vv. 22-29). From the perspective of political history, this material resembles the constitutional debate used by historians to weigh the advantages and drawbacks of various systems, although here the question is specifically the qualifications for citizenship, so to speak.34 The contrast is apparent. The narrator allows the supporters of observance to do no more than assert their position; for the other side, there is a range of argument and evidence, indicating that the ­section as

a whole is the result of careful planning by the author. Peter offers positive and negative artistic proof from history: God did not discriminate against gentiles, and no one can keep the Torah, which is therefore ineffective. Barnabas and Paul present the historical evidence of miracle, which proves God’s endorsement. Finally, James sets forth the inartistic proof of scriptural prophecy. The difficulty is that James (and the entire community) does not offer a rationale for the proposed regulations, which do have some background in Torah and serve the evident purpose of permitting mixed communities to exist with a minimum of discord. Luke does not discuss the rationale of this compromise, which Paul would have rejected.   6-12  Although v. 6 speaks only of “apostles and presbyters,” vv. 12 and 22 indicate that a plenary session is in view.35 Verse 7 repeats v. 2, but without any venomous stasis. Haenchen evokes the atmosphere.36 After speeches advocating one side or the other, 37 “Now, when excitement and conflict have reached their peak, Peter intervenes and with one stroke clarifies the situation.” This brief deliberative address includes the address and proof (vv. 7b-9), a potential threat coupled with a historical observation in the form of a question (v. 10), and the thesis/conclusion (v. 11), which compensates for the absence of a direct Pauline contribution, since it borrows from Galatians (and the Deutero-Pauline tradition).38 There are also allusions to earlier material, in particular the Cornelius story (chaps. 10–11).39

31 See Pervo, Dating, 169–70, which suggests influence from Josephus as a possibility. 32 Cf. Haenchen, 458. The Didascalia (n. m) fills this gap. 33 Barrett, 2:703. 34 Cf. Herodotus Hist. 3.80–84, in which various Persian nobles discuss, following the death of a mad king, different systems. Otanes pleads for democracy. Megabyzus recommends oligarchy, whereafter Darius made the case for monarchy. The dramatic date is 522 bce, prior to the existence of Greek democracies. (Herodotus nonetheless swears that this is all true [3.80].) See also the discussion of various forms of government in Cassius Dio 52.1–40, including the famous (concocted) speech of Maecenas. 35 614 pc syh solve the problem by adding su;n tw/` plhvqei (“with the body”) in v. 6. This derives from v. 12. On the problem, see Weiser, 2:379–80.

36 Haenchen, 445. 37 Paulinists, like those responsible for the D-Text of vv. 1-5, are disappointed. Conzelmann (116) says, “In comparison with Galatians, the passivity of Paul and Barnabas is striking.” That passivity is what Witherington’s ad hoc source theory (n. 10) seeks to address. 38 See Pervo, Dating, 92–95; and William O. Walker Jr., “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter’s Speech at the Jerusalem Conference,” in Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Philips, eds., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 77–86. Chrysostom recognized this by stating that what Paul says in Romans Peter says here (Hom. 32, 275C). 39 From chap. 1: ejklevgomai (“choose”) in 1:24-25, kardiognwvsth~ (“one who knows the heart” [1:24]). The testimony of the Spirit appears in the speech of

372

Acts part 2C.indd 372

8/27/2008 10:16:40 AM

15:1-35

  7  The major clause in v. 7 raises translation difficulties. The text of one phrase is uncertain, and its meaning is obscure. Another prepositional phrase, ajfÆ hJmerw`n ajrcaivwn, does not mean what it should. The verb “chose” (ejxelevxato) may or may not have, or need, an object. “Among you” (ejn uJmi`n) is more likely than “among us,” since it is more difficult.40 The temporal phrase must mean “long ago.” It evidently seeks to place the gentile mission at the “beginning” (ajrchv) of the movement and thus to infer that acceptance of gentiles was not only resolved much earlier,41 but that it is also a foundational element of the faith. Cadbury and Lake propose that the clause means “God made the choice of you.”42 Better choices are to take “gentiles” as the object of the verb (with “hear” as an epexegetical infinitive) 43 or, most preferably, to view the phrase as a noun clause.44 “Gospel message” (to;n lovgon tou` eujagge­­ livou) appears nowhere else before Origen. It combines a favorite Lucan term with the Pauline favorite “gospel.” Proof of the validity of their belief is the action of God, who does not take a superficial view.45 This is a brief equivalent to 10:34. Dibelius observed that the allusions to the Cornelius episode are more apparent

40 41 42

43 44 45

46 47 48

to the readers than they would have been to the dramatic audience.46 Rackham, for example, observes that Peter “alludes to it [the conversion of Cornelius] as to something almost forgotten, whereas it ought to have prevented the discussion arising at all.”47 Luke’s problem is that he claims that the difficulty was resolved “long ago,” whereas, in truth, it was a continuing controversy only apparently resolved by the meeting described in Galatians 2.   9  The verse places divine nondiscrimination48 in the realm of (Deutero-)Pauline theology. “Cleansing/ purification” results from (the gift of) faith, which is thus power. The notion comes from baptismal theology and could only have been known by the Peter of Acts through inference based on the gift of the Spirit, understood not only as the gift of tongues but also as forgiveness.49 The play on “heart” in vv. 8-9 suggests that the knower of hearts cleanses the hearts of the morally good. 50   10  Paul would not have approved of this implication. Verse 10 is a strong accusation that seems out of place. Peter acts as if all the listeners supported the demand for observance.51 Dramatically, this makes no

2:32-33 and elsewhere (Soards, Speeches, 36). Among the obvious parallels to chaps. 10–11 are the use of oujdevn and diakrivnw (“make no distinction” [11:12; 15:9; verb only in 10:20; 11:2, 12]) and “cleanse” (kaqarivzw) in 10:15; 11:8-9; and 15:9. In Acts, these two verbs occur only in reference to the conversion of Cornelius. Note also kaqw;" kaiv (“as also” [v. 8]), with a form of “we” in 10:47; 11:17. See also Ropes, Text, 141. See Barrett, 2:713–14. Cadbury and Lake, 172. They appeal to 2 Esdr 19:7 for support and compare 13:17 (of Israel). See Barrett’s critique, 2:714. So Johnson, 261. So also Barrett, 2:714. God who knows the heart: Acts 1:24; Jer 16:17-18; 17:9-10; Psalm 139; Sir 42:18; Josephus Bell. 6.630; 1 John 3:20; 2 Clem. 9:9; Hermas Man. 4.3.4; Act. Paul 3.24. The appeal to God (or Scripture or the Spirit) as a witness is limited to Acts and Hebrews. See Hermann Strathmann, “mavrtu~,” TDNT 4:474–514, esp. 497. Dibelius, Studies, 94–95. Rackham, 162. P74 reads “we made no distinction.” This would make Peter the agent of “cleansing.”

49 Cf. Eph 5:26. As Cadbury and Lake (173) observe, v. 9 agrees with the variant “let your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse (kaqarisavtw) us” in the Lucan text of the Our Father (Luke 11:2). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 130–31) dismisses this as less likely than “your kingdom come” because it is Christian, but that conclusion ignores the overwhelming dominance of the Matthean form of the prayer. See also James M. Robinson et al., eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) xcvi–xcvii. 50 See Friedrich Hauck, in R. Meyer and Friedrich Hauck, “kaqarov~,” TDNT 3:413–31, esp. 423–26. Compare and contrast Aristeas 139–60, which argues, in effect, that purity codes promote moral cleanliness through discipline and learning, whereas for Luke cleansing is achieved by miracle. 51 Barrett (2:717) is typical in viewing the question as rhetorical. For that purpose, “we” and the subjunctive would serve. The second person indicative deserves to be taken seriously. Jervell (392) understands it as directed to the Pharisees in the community. The initial nu`n is temporal: “now” in contrast to the “early days” of v. 7.

373

Acts part 2C.indd 373

8/27/2008 10:16:40 AM

sense. As in v. 7, Peter speaks as if he were not part of the community. This is the timeless voice of the chief apostle addressed to those who require Torah. To “put God to the test” is an ultimate sin.52 It is the equivalent of the opposition to God of which Gamaliel had warned (5:39). “Yoke” is an ambiguous metaphor. It can be used for political or other oppression (e.g., Sib. Or. 3:448), but also for a guide to life, notably Wisdom (Sir 6:24-30; 51:23-27), Torah (identified with Wisdom, as in m. ’Abot 3.6), and Christ (identified with Wisdom, as in Matt 11:29-30).53 Inspired by Gal 5:1, the term in v. 10 combines both senses; that is, it means an oppressive religious system. The understanding of Torah as an insuperable yoke “expresses the view of a Christian at a time when the separation from Judaism already lies in the past.”54 Early Judaism did not view Torah as a burden, let alone an intolerable weight. 55 A similar criticism was leveled against the Pharisees by Jesus: Luke 11:46 (Q). Only here does Peter take up the first plural, which he will retain through the close of his speech. 56   11  This verse expresses the “level playing field” of “no distinction” in the language of Paulinism. 57 All who are saved are saved by grace. Eph 2:5-8 has inspired this

l­anguage.58 Luke does not retain the Pauline antithesis of “faith” versus “deeds” because such language led to the view that Paul was an antinomian. Peter disposes of the objection raised at Antioch in v. 1 by stating that grace saves and the demand of v. 5 by saying that the Torah cannot be kept. Having legitimated the gentile mission in Pauline terms, Peter retires from Acts.   12  Verse 12a does not mean that the assembly had chatted while Peter was speaking, but that he brought the argument to an end. The D-Text clarifies this by prefacing: “Since the elders were in agreement with what Peter had said. . . .”59 The terse summary in v. 12b may disappoint Pauline scholars, but it is consistent with Lucan theology.60 Such summaries suggest that the single miracle narrated (14:8-10) was but a sample.61   13-21  Although the position of James has been intimated (surprisingly) in 12:17, this speech marks his formal debut in Acts. Here and in chap. 21, he is the undisputed leader who promulgates regulations and issues orders. The implied reader knows of his status, which can be inferred only from the extant Pauline correspondence (Gal 2:12). Luke does not, and perhaps cannot, explain how James acquired his primacy.62 His ­standing

52 See Exod 17:2; Deut 6:16, etc., as noted by Fitzmyer, 547. “Testing” is satanic (Acts 5:9). Satan and other opponents sought to test Jesus (Luke 4:2; 11:16). 53 Note the yoke of Isis: Apuleius Metam. 11.15. In this context, Did. 6:2, which speaks of bearing (bastav­ sai) “the entire yoke of the Lord” as difficult; Barn. 2:6, which describes the “new law” of Christ as lacking “the yoke of necessity” (a[neu zugou` ajnavgkh~); and 1 Clem. 16:17, “yoke of his grace,” testify to a continuing intra-Christian debate. See Georg Bertram and Karl H. Rengstorf, “zugov~,” TDNT 2:896–901. 54 Conzelmann, 117. Barrett (2:718–19) points out the difficulties of viewing this speech as historical. 55 See, for example, the nonrabbinic, non-Palestinian Philo Praem. poen. 80. 56 Boismard (Texte, 250–51) reads a smoother and shorter text: “And now why are you attempting to impose a yoke which not even our forebears could tolerate?” By deleting “God,” the problem of the infinitive is eliminated. Moule (Idiom Book, 127) views the infinitive as epexegetic. 57 As Cadbury and Lake (175) recognize, the phrase kaqÆj o{n trovpon kajkei`noi (“ just as they”) is formally ambiguous, but the context indicates that it means “Jews and gentiles.”

58 Cf. Fitzmyer, 548. 59 Reference to the elders alone conforms to the/a D-Text of v. 5. See Epp, Tendency, 97. Boismard (Texte, 251) does not mention the omission of v. 12 in Irenaeus and Tertullian, who may have been concerned with the speeches alone, but the Didascalia likewise omits it. See Dibelius, Studies, 116 n. 12. Omission of the verse, if it occurred, was probably due to the view that it was irrelevant. The reception of a speech in silence was considered the highest form of praise by Musonius Rufus (frg. 49 = Aulus Gellius Noct. att. 5.1]). 60 See Barrett, 2:722. 61 The order “Barnabas and Paul” probably does not reflect a source but the narrator’s desire to keep Paul in the background. 62 The two most likely historical inferences are either Peter left Jerusalem and James assumed the leadership or James gained ascendancy and Peter consequently departed.

374

Acts part 2C.indd 374

8/27/2008 10:16:40 AM

15:1-35

creates the dramatic tension: everything depends on what James will say. Suspense does not long endure. After endorsing Peter’s63 conclusion, James introduces scriptural proof, a pastiche focusing on Amos 9:11-12.64 Since Luke usually closely follows the LXX, this material probably comes from a Christian collection of texts used in the Deutero-Pauline world.65 Then, without an apparent connection or justification, James imposes certain regulations followed by the enigmatic statement of v. 21. Other than its agreement on the acceptability of gentiles and its affirmation of scriptural support for their inclusion, James’s speech is noteworthy for its lack of transparent logic. This would not seem to be an appropriate moment for the narrator to wrap himself in a cloak of obscurity. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the narrator either lacked or did not choose to provide a suitable rationale for the decree.66   14  The verse paraphrases Peter’s speech67 by characterizing the conversion of Cornelius68 as a “visitation”

of God. This is Lucan septuagintal language for divine intervention in history.69 God70 has fashioned a “people” from the gentiles. The significance of this phrase was recognized by Johann Bengel, who called it an egregium paradoxon.71 Gentiles now belong to the people of God (cf. 18:10).72 Prophetic texts support the testimony of the Spirit.73 Before comparing the citation with the LXX and other verses, it is desirable to examine its structure.74   16  This is a chiastic construction utilizing assonance and rhyme.75 The four verbs are ajnastrevyw,76 ajnoikodomhvsw (twice), and ajnorqwvsw (“return,” “rebuild,” “restore”). The introductory “thereafter” (mevta tau`ta) may have referred, in an earlier context, to the destruction of the temple.77 The citation in that hypothetical context evidently referred to the body of Christ (the church) as the eschatological new temple. In Acts, the referent is “the people of God.”   17-18  The scriptural citation strongly differs from the MT, which has nothing to do with the inclusion of

63 The use of “Simeon” is a touch of Aramaic local color. It is atypical for Luke, who is more likely to hellenize foreign names, as BDF §53 (2) notes. See also Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:186. 64 Bauckham’s claim (“James and the Gentiles [Acts 15.13-21],” in Witherington, History, 154–84, esp. 154) that matters of halakah require scriptural rather than miraculous proof is true of rabbinic Judaism but not of early Christianity, where the exact opposite applies. Cf. the Cornelius story (chaps. 10–11). 65 So also Lüdemann, 171. Eph 2:11-12 and 1 Pet 2:4-10 similarly treat the eschatological temple as the people of God. See Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” 167. 66 An explanation is that the decree is largely pragmatic, whereas the narrator’s focus here is on theological argument for the gentile mission. 67 Conzelmann (117) notes the primary similarities between the two speeches. 68 The adverb prw`ton (“first”) in v. 14 corresponds to the “early days” of v. 7. See Haenchen, 447. The kaqwv~ is somewhat puzzling. BDF §453 (2) is of little help. The context requires that one render it “how.” 69 Cf. Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; cf. 19:44; Acts 7:23. For the background, see Gen 21:1; 50:24-25; Exod 3:16; 4:31; 13:19; 23:22; Deut 4:20, 34; 7:6; 14:2. 70 “His name” is a metonymy for “himself.” 71 Johann A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti (3rd ed.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1862) 449.

72 On the subject, see Jacques Dupont, “Laos ex ethnon (Act. Xv.14),” NTS 3 (1956–57) 47–50; idem, “Un peuple d’entre les nations (Actes 15.14),” NTS 31 (1985) 321–35; and Nils Alstrup Dahl, “‘A People for His Name’ (Acts XV.14),” NTS 4 (1957–58) 319–27. 73 The D-Text ou{tw~, “thus” (Boismard, Texte, 252), may be designed to prevent understanding touvtw/ as a reference to “him” (Peter), although Ropes (Text, 142) thinks it may be original. “Words of the prophets” (lit.) may be a reference to the Book of the Twelve (see on 1:16), but it is more probably part of the citation formula. (The expression appears three times in Origen [e.g., Fr. Jer. 1.4] but not elsewhere in the first three centuries.) For this use of sumfwnou`sin, see Josephus Ant. 1.107; 15.174. 74 On the issues of the LXX text of Amos, which exhibits a number of the same variants as does Acts, some of which are due to contamination, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 379. 75 Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:188–89) takes a similar view. 76 D’s correction to ejpistrevyw (of similar meaning, “return”) overlooks the literary pattern. 77 In this interpretation Luke need not have been responsible for altering the ajnasthvsw of the LXX. For possible origins of the other deviations from the LXX, see Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” 162–65.

375

Acts part 2C.indd 375

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

gentiles.78 This is the vital element in the citation and rules out the possibility that the historical James (who would not have cited the LXX) utilized the passage. Verse 17b echoes the reference to “name” in v. 14, and tau`ta (“these things”) points back to the initial phrase (meta; tau`ta), while the concluding words (which may derive from Isa 45:21) also reinforce v. 14: this has taken place in accordance with the eternal plan of God.79 The inference is that Luke selected the citation and composed v. 14 in accordance with it.80 James has no need to interpret this quotation, for the audience has seen and heard of its fulfillment.81   19  The translation of dio; ejgw; krivnw in v. 19 is disputed. The options range from “I therefore conclude . . .” to “I therefore decree.” In the weaker option, James makes a recommendation; in the stronger, he pronounces a decision. In favor of the weaker is the use of this verb in other places in Acts (e.g., 13:46; 16:15; 26:8).82 The stronger translation is supported by the context. The pronoun “we,” which would be appropriate for a recommendation and for the subject of “write,” is absent.83 The objection that the actual decision was taken by the assembly (v. 22) overlooks the hierarchical nature of such bodies in the imperial era: assemblies ratified the views of their leader(s). Finally, a strong translation accords with the authority of James in 21:23. James says what is to be done and it is so ordered.84 78 For a linguistic explanation of how the LXX version arose, see Fitzmyer, 555. The error probably reflected an interest in avoiding chauvinistic ­statements. 79 A range of variants attempt to flesh out this oracular ellipsis. 80 Note also the verb parenoclei`n (lit. “impose a burden” [v. 19]), which is the equivalent of Peter’s ejpiqei`nai zugovn (lit. “impose a yoke”) in v. 10. 81 Cf. Tyson, Images, 152. 82 So Haenchen, 449 n. 1; Schneider, 2:283; Weiser, 2:283; Fitzmyer, 556. 83 Translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV, NAB, NJB) often supply “we.” 84 So Cadbury and Lake, 177; Krodel, 282; Witherington, 457; Johnson, 266. Barrett (2:279) is difficult to pin down. Some D-Texts (Irenaeus, Ephrem [Ropes, Text, 145, 426]) seek to soften the translation by saying, in effect: “in my view.” 85 See p. 10. 86 On “catalogues of vices,” see Berger, Formgeschichte, 130, 134–35.

Excursus: The Apostolic Decree The title “Apostolic Decree” is appropriate for the commands transmitted in 15:28. This is one of those items found three times in Acts (15:20; 21:25), an indication of its importance.85 This list, which, with one possible exception, is unlike the “catalogues of vices” that speak of general categories (such as greed and rage),86 raises some major questions: When and where did it originate? What is its background and basis in the history of religions? And what is to be made of its quite diverse text? 87 Although it is possible that the decree did originate in Jerusalem as a guide for mixed communities, it is more likely to have been worked out in a mixed Diaspora community where the desire for compromise was strong.88 Paul would have nothing to do with such compromises, so long as they were compulsory, and those linked to James (cf. Gal 2:12) would not have been likely to find this acceptable, since they seem to have required strict observance.89 Peter might well have found these regulations acceptable. It is therefore reasonable to attribute this item to the gentile missionary source, but it is also likely that it was widely disseminated and familiar to Luke’s readers. The probable original—and here unstated90 — function of the decree was to provide a minimal platform for sacramental fellowship in communities where at least some believers of Jewish background had qualms about dietary matters. The basis appears to have been the regulations for gentiles resident in the holy land (Leviticus 17–18), but the matter is 87 See Jacquier, 803–8; Strange, Problem, 87–105; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 381–84 (with bibliography, 382–83); Epp, Tendency, 107–11; and Head, “Acts and Its Texts,” 438–42. 88 On the suitability of the decree in such conflicts, see Justin Taylor, “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25) and the Incident at Antioch,” NTS 47 (2001) 372–80. 89 The decree falls far short of kashrut, certainly of the sort advocated by the Pharisees. Pork, for example, is not mentioned, nor is there any attention to menstruants as a potential source of impurity or to other purity regulations regarding food. Prohibition of pork would, to be sure, conflict with the vision of Peter. This is another indication of the difficulty of rationalizing the decree. 90 Wilson, Law, 81: “It is one of the oddities of Luke’s narrative that he does not tell us precisely what the decree was for nor what it meant.” David R. Catchpole (“Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 [1977] 428–44) relates the decree to Torah and proposes that it originated with James.

376

Acts part 2C.indd 376

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

gentiles.78 This is the vital element in the citation and rules out the possibility that the historical James (who would not have cited the LXX) utilized the passage. Verse 17b echoes the reference to “name” in v. 14, and tau`ta (“these things”) points back to the initial phrase (meta; tau`ta), while the concluding words (which may derive from Isa 45:21) also reinforce v. 14: this has taken place in accordance with the eternal plan of God.79 The inference is that Luke selected the citation and composed v. 14 in accordance with it.80 James has no need to interpret this quotation, for the audience has seen and heard of its fulfillment.81   19  The translation of dio; ejgw; krivnw in v. 19 is disputed. The options range from “I therefore conclude . . .” to “I therefore decree.” In the weaker option, James makes a recommendation; in the stronger, he pronounces a decision. In favor of the weaker is the use of this verb in other places in Acts (e.g., 13:46; 16:15; 26:8).82 The stronger translation is supported by the context. The pronoun “we,” which would be appropriate for a recommendation and for the subject of “write,” is absent.83 The objection that the actual decision was taken by the assembly (v. 22) overlooks the hierarchical nature of such bodies in the imperial era: assemblies ratified the views of their leader(s). Finally, a strong translation accords with the authority of James in 21:23. James says what is to be done and it is so ordered.84 78 For a linguistic explanation of how the LXX version arose, see Fitzmyer, 555. The error probably reflected an interest in avoiding chauvinistic ­statements. 79 A range of variants attempt to flesh out this oracular ellipsis. 80 Note also the verb parenoclei`n (lit. “impose a burden” [v. 19]), which is the equivalent of Peter’s ejpiqei`nai zugovn (lit. “impose a yoke”) in v. 10. 81 Cf. Tyson, Images, 152. 82 So Haenchen, 449 n. 1; Schneider, 2:283; Weiser, 2:283; Fitzmyer, 556. 83 Translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV, NAB, NJB) often supply “we.” 84 So Cadbury and Lake, 177; Krodel, 282; Witherington, 457; Johnson, 266. Barrett (2:279) is difficult to pin down. Some D-Texts (Irenaeus, Ephrem [Ropes, Text, 145, 426]) seek to soften the translation by saying, in effect: “in my view.” 85 See p. 10. 86 On “catalogues of vices,” see Berger, Formgeschichte, 130, 134–35.

Excursus: The Apostolic Decree The title “Apostolic Decree” is appropriate for the commands transmitted in 15:28. This is one of those items found three times in Acts (15:20; 21:25), an indication of its importance.85 This list, which, with one possible exception, is unlike the “catalogues of vices” that speak of general categories (such as greed and rage),86 raises some major questions: When and where did it originate? What is its background and basis in the history of religions? And what is to be made of its quite diverse text? 87 Although it is possible that the decree did originate in Jerusalem as a guide for mixed communities, it is more likely to have been worked out in a mixed Diaspora community where the desire for compromise was strong.88 Paul would have nothing to do with such compromises, so long as they were compulsory, and those linked to James (cf. Gal 2:12) would not have been likely to find this acceptable, since they seem to have required strict observance.89 Peter might well have found these regulations acceptable. It is therefore reasonable to attribute this item to the gentile missionary source, but it is also likely that it was widely disseminated and familiar to Luke’s readers. The probable original—and here unstated90 — function of the decree was to provide a minimal platform for sacramental fellowship in communities where at least some believers of Jewish background had qualms about dietary matters. The basis appears to have been the regulations for gentiles resident in the holy land (Leviticus 17–18), but the matter is 87 See Jacquier, 803–8; Strange, Problem, 87–105; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 381–84 (with bibliography, 382–83); Epp, Tendency, 107–11; and Head, “Acts and Its Texts,” 438–42. 88 On the suitability of the decree in such conflicts, see Justin Taylor, “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25) and the Incident at Antioch,” NTS 47 (2001) 372–80. 89 The decree falls far short of kashrut, certainly of the sort advocated by the Pharisees. Pork, for example, is not mentioned, nor is there any attention to menstruants as a potential source of impurity or to other purity regulations regarding food. Prohibition of pork would, to be sure, conflict with the vision of Peter. This is another indication of the difficulty of rationalizing the decree. 90 Wilson, Law, 81: “It is one of the oddities of Luke’s narrative that he does not tell us precisely what the decree was for nor what it meant.” David R. Catchpole (“Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 [1977] 428–44) relates the decree to Torah and proposes that it originated with James.

376

Acts part 2C.indd 376

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

15:1-35

far from certain.91 Barrett prefers the three things— idolatry, murder, and incest—on which Jews under duress could not compromise.92 The evidence for these cardinal sins is, however, late,93 and they do not conform to the focus on purity that shapes the conventional text. It may be best to say that the regulations of Leviticus 17–18 inspired the decree, directly or indirectly, without attempting to delineate the meaning of the four prohibitions exclusively from that text.94 Something of this sort could have been developed as a guide for Jews about interaction with gentiles in the Diaspora that was then taken up by early Christians. The form of the earliest text is not in great doubt.95 There is a strong consensus that the text translated above is the source of the others.96 William A. Strange has identified six forms of the text: 97 1. Omit “sexual immorality” (porneiva) without golden rule. 2. Four prohibitions, without golden rule. 3. Four prohibitions with golden rule. 4. Omit “strangled,” without golden rule. 91 On Leviticus 17–18 as the source, see Terrance Callan, “The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25),” CBQ 55 (1993) 284–97. 92 Barrett, 2:734–35. 93 As Wilson (Law, 100) observes, these passages are often attributed to the time of Hadrian, an era in which Christians were often eager to distinguish themselves from Jews. 94 See Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” 172–78; and Conzelmann, 118–19, but the case is far from certain, as can be seen from the arguments of Wilson, Law, 74–92. 95 The translation presumes that ajlisghmavtwn tw`n eijdwvlwn (“idolatrous food”) is an elegant variation of eijdwlovquta in v. 29 and 21:25. The expression is literally “contaminations of idols,” but is applied to food. See Barrett, 2:731. The Paraleipomena Jeremiou 7:37 is an exact parallel: Jeremiah . . . e[meine didavskwn aujtou;~ tou` ajpevcesqai ejk tw`n ajlis­ ghmavtwn tw`n ejqnw`n th`~ Babulw`no~ (“Jeremiah [who distributed figs to the sick] . . . kept teaching them [the people] to avoid the contaminations of the gentiles”). This work is not much earlier than Acts—and may be twenty years later. Dependence is unlikely. The order of the prohibitions also varies. 96 For the exception (“strangled,” pniktov~) see below. 97 See his table 2, p. 88, which gives the full evidence. 98 Clark (361) included it, but neither Boismard (Texte, 253) nor Strange does so. See Haenchen’s biting remark (450) about Zahn’s noninclusion. Boismard (Texte, 256) does include it in v. 29.

5. Omit “strangled,” with golden rule. 6. Omit “blood,” without golden rule. No contemporary scholars defend the originality of the golden rule in v. 20.98 The debate has focused on the development of the decree from its “ritual/ ceremonial” origin to a “moral/ethical” form. The “ritual” versus “ethical” distinction is not Jewish.99 It became prominent in Christian works from the middle of the second century, if not earlier, and is a convenient shorthand. It is therefore more likely that the earliest form of the decree dealt with purity issues. In the course of time, these were recategorized in “moral” terms. The insertion of the golden rule is a manifest product of this phenomenon.100 The key term is porneia, “sexual irregularity,” an element of the purity code101 that could readily be understood in ethical terms. In that milieu, “blood” could also be viewed as a metonymy for “murder” (cf. English “bloodshed”),102 while cultic offerings, if technically closer to the “ritual” pole, became a pillar of opposition to polytheism, in good part because this became the “litmus test” for apostasy.103 99 On the ease with which the ceremonial-moral antithesis may be overstressed, see Wilson, Law, 79; and Barrett, 2:736. 100 The negative form of the rule, also attested elsewhere in Jewish and Christian texts (as the positive is in Jewish writings), is evidently necessary in a list of prohibitions. 101 See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 104–9; and Fitzmyer, 557–58. The translation takes a broad view of the concept. 102 From the “moral” perspective, both are open to objection: Did early Christians really need to be told by the apostles that they could not kill or commit adultery? 103 See Pliny Ep. 10.96.5, close in date to Acts. Believers are not to eat such food: Did. 6:3 (note the use of bastavzw with regard to diet in general; cf. Acts 15:10); Ps.-Clem. De Virg. 2.5.2; Justin Dial. 34.8— 35.1; Clement of Alexandria Paed. 2.1.8; Origen Comm. in Matthew 11.12. Rev 2:14, 20 attribute the practice to heretics, as does Justin in the passage cited. Trypho responds to Justin’s claim by noting that some Christians do eat such offerings. According to Irenaeus A.H. 1.6.3; 1.24.5; 1.26.3; 1.28.2, Valentinians eat such offerings, as do the followers of Basilides, according to Eusebius H.E. 4.7.7; 5.1.26. See also Hippolytus Ref. 7.36; Epiphanius Pan. 26.9.2; Minucius Felix Oct. 30; Tertullian Apol. 9. (In Pud. 12.4–5, however, Tertullian understood

377

Acts part 2C.indd 377

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

Development from “ritual” to “moral” was neither smooth nor rapid, however. Prohibitions against consuming blood could be found in the second century and later.104 “Strangled” (pniktov~) is the single item that cannot be given a moral thrust. The D-Text, in its major witnesses, omits “strangled” and includes the golden rule. Some D-Texts, however, omit this adjective and do not include the rule, provoking the proposal that it is a secondary addition.105 This is an obscure word,106 and it is somewhat more probable that it was dropped in interest of the “moral” thrust than added to clarify that “blood” referred to consumption rather than to homicide, a clarification that could have been achieved in a simpler and clearer fashion, for example, by adding “of animals.” The arguments for viewing the D-Text as secondary are stronger than for the inverse.107 The history of the text indicates its continuing vitality. Most Christian bodies have revised their rules over time. In the early church these revisions long continued to be issued under the name of the apostles.108 Within a generation after Acts, the “moral”

104

105

106 107

108

understanding prevailed.109 For Luke, the decree was an important sign of gentile Christian sensitivity toward Jewish Christians, or, as Conzelmann characteristically puts it, salvation-historical in meaning, “since the decree provided continuity between Israel and the church, which was free from the Law.”110   20-21  If Luke were the sort of author who deliber-

ately included something to challenge his subsequent interpreters, v. 21 could qualify for that honor. The use of gavr (“for,” in a coordinating sense) indicates that it is an inference from the preceding, but nothing from v. 16 through v. 20 makes a satisfactory link. Verse 20 wins by default.111 The passage assumes that Judaism is a world religion and that the synagogue is of venerable antiquity,112 but the immediate relevance of this claim is not clear. It can hardly mean that, since the Torah can be heard everywhere (cf. 13:27), gentile believers should have availed themselves of the opportunity to hear it and learn of these prohibitions, for they would

“blood” as murder.) Most meat for public sale came from cultic use (MacMullen, Paganism, 40–41). On the reception and understanding of dietary laws among early Christians see Robert Grant, “Dietary Laws among Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians,” HTR 73 (1980) 299–310, esp. 304–10. See the citations in the previous note; Strange, Problem, 95; and Wilson, Law, 93 (who observes that denials of blood consumption often involved refutations of the charge of cannibalism). Note also Justin Dial. 20; Tertullian Pud. 12.4; Mon. 5 (which says that blood was the sole exception to dietary liberty); Eusebius H.E. 5.1.26; Tertullian Apol. 9.13. See, e.g., Ropes, Text, 265–69; Clark, 360–61; Strange, Problem, 100–102. Strange claims that this term is more suitable to the second century than the first. See Wilson, Law, 87–91; and Hans Bietenhard, “pnivgw,” TDNT 6:455–58. See the critique of Strange by Head, “Acts and Its Texts,” 438–42. He shows that the differences in the D-Text form of the decree conform to other, almost undeniably secondary, D-Text variants in Acts 15. The titles are indicative: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), Apostolic Constitutions, Apostolic Canons, Apostolic Tradition, and so on. The decree itself, in one form or another, appears in Sib. Or. 2:96 (Christian interpolation), Ps.-Phocylides Sentences 31 (a Christian interpolation lacking in the

109

110 111

112

best mss.), and the Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7.8.1. On its history, see also John Townsend, “The Date of LukeActs,” in Talbert, Luke-Acts, 47–62, esp. 49–54; Graeme W. Clarke, The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix (ACW 39; New York: Newman, 1974) 337–38 n. 508; and, in great detail, Gotthold Resch, Das Aposteldecret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt (TU 28.3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905); Karl Six, Das Aposteldekret (Act 15,28.29): Seine Entstehung und Geltung in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten (Veröfflent­ ichungen des biblisch-patristischen Seminars zu Innsbruck 5; Innsbruck: Rauch, 1912). By the time of Bede, the decree related only to the nature of meat to be consumed. For the moral life, he turned to v. 21, presuming that readings from the OT would inculcate better behavior (67). In his Retractatio he added comments on “strangled” (149). Conzelmann, 119. See the good discussion in Wilson, Law, 83–84. Dibelius (Studies, 92) was desperate enough to propose that v. 21 is a gloss, but glosses usually seek to clarify, however wrongly. Cf. Philo Spec. leg. 2.62; Josephus Ant. 16.43; Ap. 2.175; and Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 322.

378

Acts part 2C.indd 378

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

15:1-35

have heard a great deal more, including, for example, the necessity for male circumcision. Scarcely more likely is the possibility that he is offering an equivalent to what Peter said in v. 10: everyone hears/can hear Torah, but this does not produce observance. In the implicit context of seeking a modus vivendi for Christians of Jewish and gentile background, Tannehill’s answer is reasonable: “The underlying point would be that gentile Christians need to find ways of living with people deeply committed to Mosaic law.”113 People whose piety resembled that of Cornelius would not find the regulations objectionable114 but it is far from certain that they would mollify “people deeply committed to Mosaic law.” The “underlying point” is that Luke believes that these regulations ought to satisfy Jewish believers and attributes that position to James.115 An unstated subsidiary point is that all the obligations of Torah remain in effect for Jews.116 Acts 16:1-3 will bear this out. The two most indicative silences of the report are the failure to say anything about Jewish converts and the absence of a rationale for the decree. If either or both were important matters in Luke’s time, these silences would have been inexplicable. Acts, like Galatians (more or less), presents three views. One, upheld by Christian Pharisees, is that gentile converts must keep Torah—in effect, must cease to be gentiles. Peter sets forth the “left-wing” position: gentiles are welcome without any specific conditions. The moderate view is propounded by James.117 Of Paul and Barnabas, no more is said than that they evidently resisted the demand for full observance. From

­ alatians, it is apparent that James (and his associates) G was closer to the “right-wing” view, that Paul took a radical stance, and that Peter was in favor of sensitivitybased compromise. By redistributing these roles, Luke assigns the strict view to believing Pharisees; to Peter responsibility for advocating the admission of gentiles; and to James the role of adroit moderation. Paul may therefore remain on the sidelines.118   22-29  In response to James’s direction, the leaders resolve, with the consent of the community, to send two representatives back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas,119 together with a letter responding to the presenting problem. From this action, it is apparent that the author is familiar with the use of letters as instruments of church policy, specifically as responses to questions raised by “subordinate” communities. The available evidence indicates that Paul was responsible for the development of letters for the purpose of managing missionary foundations at a distance. Acts knows of this practice and utilizes Paul’s letters, but, in its narrative, Paul gets no closer to an ecclesiastical letter than to accompany those who bear it.120 This is powerful testimony for the controversial character of Paul’s letters in certain circles. It is reasonable to hold that Acts was written in Ephesus or its environs, an area with at least one active “Pauline school” that had continued to produce Pauline letters—notably Ephesians, of which Acts makes considerable use.121 Hence, it is difficult to deny the existence of “hyper-Paulinists,” either predecessors of Marcion or possibly even Marcion himself, in his early phase, as the force driving this avoidance of the

113 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:190. 114 This is the basis of Weiser’s (2:384) interpretation. Cf. also Johnson, 267. 115 Other explanations have been advanced. For Dibelius (Studies, 97–98), it means only that proclamation of the Mosaic law requires no assistance. He took this approach from Cadbury and Lake, 177–78. Marshall (254) accepts this as one alternative, in addition to respecting Jewish scruples. Conzelmann (120) says that they justify the decree because Jews must keep Torah. Schneider (2:184) sees the verse as justifying the regulations of Leviticus 17–18. Krodel (286) is similar, with interesting comments. Jervell (399) takes it as grounding authority for the decree in Moses rather than in James.

116 Roloff, 233. 117 Cf. Painter, Just James, 50. In fact, as Painter says, the situation was (and became) more complex. 118 See Esler, Community, 105–9. 119 The other delegates from Antioch (15:2) are omitted. 120 Note also the letter of recommendation for Apollos from Ephesus to Corinth, 18:27. 121 For data, see Pervo, Dating, 51–147, with a summary in Table 4.4, p. 141.

379

Acts part 2C.indd 379

8/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

a­ ssociation of Paul with letters. Unlike the Pastor, who issues letters under Paul’s name to refute such tendencies, Luke effectively pretends that Paul did not write letters. Luke did not, in all likelihood, imagine that he could suppress the letters. His subsidiary goal was to show how they should be understood. If this project seems bizarre, it can only be said that Luke’s view long remained dominant and that he continues to have ­supporters. The letter is unlike Paul’s epistles in that it closely conforms to the style of Greek official letters in the Greco-Roman era and that it addresses only certain members of the communities to which it is dispatched. George Kennedy says: “The letter of Acts 15:23-29 resembles the rescript of a Roman magistrate responding to a query from a subordinate and has the rhetorical characteristics of a public letter of the Roman period.”122 Guilds and other private organizations were wont to imitate the style of municipal decrees as an indication of their culture and participation in civic life.123 Just as its meetings reveal the church to be a proper and useful organization, so its communications proclaim that it is well integrated into civic life.   22  Their action has two linked components, the delegates and the letter, each marked by the formal “it

was resolved” (e[doxe) in vv. 22,124 25, and 28. Silas will be the successor to Barnabas as a colleague of Paul from Jerusalem. He is usually identified with the Sylvanus of the epistolary tradition (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Pet 5:12). “Silas” is evidently the Greek equivalent to the Aramaic counterpart of Hebrew “Saul.”125 He remains in Acts through 18:5 (Corinth) then vanishes from the narrative. This is consonant with the references in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians. There are several possibilities: This is the same individual. He had two names (as did many, e.g., John Mark). Luke prefers the Semitic form. This is the most popular solution. Another is that Antiochene tradition preserved the name of one Silas, who had come from Jerusalem, and that Luke, following the “rule of onomastic economy,”126 identified him with the Sylvanus he knew from the letters. Still another is that Luke concocted both the Semitic form of the name and his association with Jerusalem. Decision among these choices is difficult,127 but the first is the most probable. For whatever reason, Silas is a perfectly suitable companion for Paul, a Jewish believer from Jerusalem, rather than a gentile garnered by Paul from the Diaspora mission. The other delegate,128 Judas Barsabbas, is quite obscure.129 The two representatives honor the recipients while representing the authority of

122 Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 127. Acts 15:24-26 is the only true Greek period in Acts (BDF §464). For evidence of the formal correspondences, see Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982) 310–13. Danker points to C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (Chicago: Ares, 1974) no. 49, pp. 197–202. Another useful Greco-Roman example is a resolution of the Koinon of Asia from Aphrodisias, trans. Robert Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) no. 65, pp. 80–81 (Greek text: T. Drew-Bear, BCH 96 [1972] 444). See also Hans-Josef Klauck, with D. R. Bailey, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006) 420–9. 1 Macc 14:25-45 could have served as a model. Cf. also 2 Chronicles 30, which as Rackham (268) notes, follows a similar pattern of meeting and decree in the form of a letter. 2 Macc 1:1-10a; 1:10b—2:28 are other examples of letters from Jerusalem to Diaspora communities. The church functions like the ruling body of Judaism, of which it is now the true representative.

123 See Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 76, 82. 124 The accusative participle ejklexamevnou~ (“having selected”) is acceptable (as the subject of indirect discourse), as is the dative variant, which agrees with “apostles,” and so on. See BDF §410. 125 Fitzmyer, 564. Williams (“Personal Names,” 95–96) is less certain of the equivalency. 126 The phrase refers to the propensity for biblical (and many subsequent) authors to identify all bearers of the same name and, on occasion, to assist these identifications by correcting the text (cf. 1:23 and comments). 127 Since Luke did not hesitate to ascribe Roman citizenship to this character (16:37), it is difficult to rule out the other possibilities a priori. 128 Although the participle hJgoumevnou~ could mean “leaders,” “leading members” is preferable here, since “apostles and presbyters” played the governing roles. See BDAG, 434, s.v. hJgevomai. Barrett (2:739) permits their inclusion among the ­presbyters. 129 D alone reads “Barabbas.” This is an interesting variant and the more difficult reading, although

380

Acts part 2C.indd 380

8/27/2008 10:16:42 AM

15:1-35

Jerusalem.130 They are not bringing a document to serve as a basis for negotiation. The initial participle of v. 23, gravyante~ (lit. “writing”), is in the wrong case, since it should agree with “apostles.”131 Luke can stumble when attempting to write periods.   23  The letters in Acts (15:23b-29; 23:25-30), like the speeches, are to be treated as authorial compositions.132 The address (v. 23b)133 is surprising, for it encompasses only gentile believers in “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” The distinction between “Antioch” and “Syria” (of which Antioch was the capital)134 is possible, but Acts has made no reference to missionary work there outside of Antioch, nor of activity in Cilicia.135 The modern reader, at least, expects that the areas named in chaps. 13–14 will be designated, since the problem arose after that journey—although the narrator does not say that it came about in response to it. Communities in Syria and Cilicia do come to light in 15:41. Moreover, Luke does not limit the decree to those addressed in v. 23 (16:4).136 It is possible that the address betrays a source,137 although this may be the narrator’s way of identifying the existence of hitherto unnamed communities (cf. 9:31). The assumption of a source for the address is not a necessary

130

131 132

133

hypothesis, since this document appears to be a Lucan composition in its entirety.138 If a source is to be sought, Gal 1:21 is a good candidate.139 Restriction of the addressees to gentiles betrays Luke’s interest and situation. He has stated that these communities were mixed. The letter was of no less interest to those of Jewish background than to the gentiles. Verses 30-31 presume that the letter was read to the entire community. The purpose of this limitation is, as the context will soon make clear, to indicate that these rules apply only to gentiles. Those of Jewish origin are evidently free to remain observant. This concept is quite theoretical, and implementation would have created difficulties that the narrator ignores because of his scheme.   24  The body begins, in the proper way, with “inasmuch as” (ejpeidhv) .140 Certain unnamed individuals, vaguely identified as “of our company” (ejx hJmw`n),141 have been engaging in agitation. The verb taravssw, used in rhetorical and political contexts of the activity of troublemakers, probably derives from Galatians (1:7; 5:10).142 In this context, the participle ajnaskeuavzonte~ means “subverting.”143 The authors disassociate

one should note, with Metzger (Textual Commentary, 384), that the same name appears as “Barnabas” in 1:23. The motives, however, differ. For Barrett (2:738), “Barabbas” is “no more than an unfortunate slip of the pen.” “Judas” is also a “bad” name, as is “Ananias,” although it also belongs to the healer of Paul (9:10-19a). Since D is without other support, “Barsabbas” is, nonetheless, probably ­correct. Cf. Haenchen, 451. Two envoys is, according to Danker (Benefactor, 313), a conventional number for diplomatic proceedings. Cf. Chariton Chaer., 3.14.17, where the delegation includes two members of the council and two from the commons. “King Ptolemy” sends two emissaries, named and characterized, to bear his letter to “Eleazar the high priest” (Aristeas, 35–40). See BDF §468 (3). Cadbury, Making, 190–91; Knox, Hellenistic Elements, 27–28. This was the judgment of ancient critics: Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc. 42 (on Thucydides) and Fronto Epistle 2.1 (on Sallust). The variant, kai; oiJ ajdelfoiv, which has a wide range of support is a secondary attempt to include “the laity,” as it were, as senders. The more likely simple ajdelfoiv (lit. “brothers and sisters”) is a form of epistolary condescension. Although the

134 135

136 137 138 139 140 141

142

143

apostles and presbyters are officials, they share the status (cf. the repetition ajdelfoi`~) of the recipients. See Haenchen (451 n. 4), who relates the term to a[ndre~ ajdelfoiv (lit. “gentlemen and brethren,” often used in the address of speeches, e.g., 1:16, fourteen times in total). Some D-Texts (not followed by Boismard, Texte, 254) resolve the difficulty by eliminating the noun. On Roman Syria, see Robyn Tracey, “Syria,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 223–78. On the destination, see David R. Catchpole, “Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 (1977) 428–44, esp. 436–38. Acts 21:25 assumes that the decree applies to all gentile converts. From a source: e.g., Lüdemann, 170; Weiser, 2:371. Source not necessary: e.g., Conzelmann, 120; Barrett, 2:740. See on 15:41 below. Danker, Benefactor, 311. The most likely understanding of this phrase is that the agitators belong to the Jerusalem community; 15:1 spoke of “Judea.” Cf. the related noun tavraco~ (Acts 16:8, 13; 19:23). For the background, see Spicq, Lexicon, 3:372–76, esp. 372–73. Bruce, 345. D-Texts expand in pedantic ­fashion

381

Acts part 2C.indd 381

8/27/2008 10:16:42 AM

t­ hemselves from the agitators in an awkward relative clause,144 which captures the essence of Gal 2:1-10, as Luke wishes it to be understood. Verses 25-27 correspond to v. 22, while vv. 28-29 present the decree adumbrated in v. 20.   25-26  The verse opens with an affirmation of unanimity145 regarding the delegates, who are not named until Jerusalem has had opportunity to bestow praise upon Barnabas and Paul. This is typical diplomacy, equivalent to the rhetorical captatio benevolentiae. The phrase “devoted their lives” (paradedwkovsi ta;~ yucav~) contrasts nicely with the activity of the agitators, who have (lit.) tried to ruin the lives of the Antiochene believers (v. 24). The phrase brims with early Christian edificatory diction.146   27  The verse states the role of the delegates.147 They will provide oral interpretation and expansion.148 The bland “the same” (ta; aujtav) reveals that the letter is directed toward the readers of the book, for the

144

145

146 147

148 149

150 151

dramatic audience would not (yet) know to what it referred.149   29  The letter comes to the point. Rather than refer to “the assembly” or to an upper house,150 the subject is “we and the Holy Spirit.” This reflects confidence that their resolution was guided by the Spirit. Such confidence is generally characteristic of Christianity through Irenaeus, at least.151 In rather stilted and crabbed language, the letter attempts to distinguish between imposing a burden (bavro~);152 cf. vv. 10, 18) and requiring a few matters that are obligatory but not compulsory.153 In this, the “official” form of the decree, the D-Text omits “strangled” and includes the golden rule, imposing a heavy burden on those who would separate the two issues.154 The final clause conforms to epistolary usage.155 This conclusion was evidently too secular for the D-Text, which adds, after “good standing”: “being guided by the Holy Spirit.”156 At this point, the narrator, eschewing anticlimax, dissolves the scene.

by reminding the reader that these persons demanded circumcision and Torah observance. Chrysostom read “they should circumcise their children,” which is interesting in the light of 21:21. “Without our authorization” translates what one presumes the author wished to say. Oi|~ ouj diesteilavmeqa could be taken to mean: “We didn’t instruct them to demand circumcision” or “We [sent them but] gave them no instructions,” or the like. The participle ejklexamevnoi~ (lit. “having selected”) shows the same variation between dative and accusative as in v. 22. Here, at least, the dative is more likely, because of potential confusion with the following “men” (a[ndra~). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 385–86. Cf. “our beloved brother Paul” in 2 Pet 3:15. D reads “your” in v. 25, on which see Epp, Tendency, 71. The perfect “we have sent” is epistolary. See the comments and examples of Jacquier, 404. D does not recognize this and changes the accompanying participle to a future. Cf. Col 4:7-8||Eph 6:21-22; 1 Macc 12:23. Cf. Haenchen, 453; and Conzelmann, 120. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 255) saw the problem and substituted tau`ta (“these things” = “the following”). Barrett (2:743–44) worries about kai; aujtouv~ in v. 27, which is presumably emphatic. Cf. Josephus Ant. 16.163: e[doxe moi kai; tw/` sum­ boulivw/; and Danker, Benefactor, 311. See the closely parallel 1 Clem. 63.2: uJf j hJmw`n

152

153

154 155

156

gegrammevnoi~ dia; tou` aJgivou pneuvmato~ (“written by us [the Roman community] through the Holy Spirit”). Jacquier (464) notes the continuation of the practice at the head of conciliar decisions. Note the contrasting statement of the narrator e[doxe kajmoiv (“I too decided”) in Luke 1:3. Rev 2:14, 24-25 shows that the language of “burden” in connection with sacrificial food and sexual irregularity was familiar in the milieu of Acts. See Heikki Leppä, Luke’s Critical Use of Galatians (Vantaa, Finland: Dark Oy, 2002) 172. The problem is ejpavnagke~, a rare adverb used in an unusual manner, nominalized with a plural article. Such constructions are normally limited to temporal or spatial meanings. This led to textual alterations, on which see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 386; Cadbury and Lake, 180–81; and Wilson, Law, 82. Boismard, Texte, 256. For other textual variations, see above in the discussion of v. 20. BDF §414 (5) observes that one expects kalw`~ (“well”) with poiei`n (“do”), but Danker (Benefactor, 312) notes a precise inscriptional parallel (= I. Magn. 91d, 8–10 = Caria Magn. 120.1.1.1.1.8–10). Eu\ pravxete ferovmenoi ejn tw/` aJgivw/ pneuvmati. The basis for this is evidently 2 Pet 1:21. Ephrem (426) expands the promise: “As you shall observe these things without circumcision and observance of the laws, you will receive the Holy Spirit to speak all languages, just as your colleagues, the household of Cornelius, who were chosen before you.”

382

Acts part 2C.indd 382

8/27/2008 10:16:42 AM

15:1-35

The council thus concludes in solemn formality and unanimity. Both the original leader (Peter) and James, a new star who has risen on the horizon, concur in rejecting the demand that gentiles observe Torah. The difficulty experienced by readers, especially since the sixteenth century—that the decree does impose elements of Torah—was not shared by the author or, in all probability, his readers. For them “Torah” meant male circumcision, a procedure that gentiles viewed with revulsion; Sabbath restrictions; and purity codes that made social intercourse with non-Jews difficult.157 What the decree required was not an oppressive fence. Acts looks at Torah not as a matter of principle, an all-ornothing proposition, but as a series of deeds and rules. This is at some distance from the Paul of Galatians, but so was the church of Luke’s era. Similarly, Acts is not concerned about the real issue at stake, which was a matter not of tolerance but of sacramental life. Those who could not eat together could not share in a common Eucharist. Repeated references to “Moses” (vv. 1, 5, 21) intimate the approach of the world of the apologists. A distinction between “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” emerged in gentile Christian circles following the First Revolt (e.g. Mark 10:3-9).158 In due course, this would motivate historical-critical theories about interpolations into the Jewish Scriptures.159 Luke has no interest

in t­ heory or dissection, but his characters can imply that the Mosaic regulations are not of divine origin, notably in 15:10 (cf. 13:38-39). In this development, ­nonobservance of Torah and the privileged position of the prophets work hand in hand. The problem comes not from God but from “Moses.”160   30-35  This short Lucan161 paragraph162 rounds off the entire unit in a well-constructed manner. The passage is chiastic (A [v. 30, Jerusalem to Antioch]; B [v. 31, letter read]; B' [v. 32, exhortation]; A' [vv. 33-35, Antioch and Jerusalem]).163 Moreover, the entire passage reflects vv. 1-5 in reverse. In place of agitators from Judea, there are edifying prophets from Jerusalem. Instead of stern demands for circumcision, there is the decree. Verse 35 is a kind of inclusio with 14:28.164 This is to say that chapter 15 is a “there and back” story within the story. Gal 2:1-10 is, in general, similar. In contrast to v. 3, the narrator reports no intermediate stops on the return journey.165 Once in Antioch, they gather the community and formally166 deliver the letter by reading it aloud.167 In Acts, the faithful are always available for a plenary session. This fictional technique is of considerable use to the narrator.168 The news meets a warm reception,169 and, rather than have to explain the decree,170 the delegates—who, it transpires, are

157 For the social implications of this Christian understanding of purity, see Robbins, “Social Location,” 327–28. 158 Pauline thought (e.g., Gal 3:23-25) probably played a role in this development, but Paul was not the most radical critic of Torah. 159 See p. 193 n. 183. 160 Cf. Neyrey, “Symbolic Universe,” 295. 161 For the Lucan character of vv. 30-35, see Lüdemann, 168. 162 The expression me;n ou\n in v. 30 signals the beginning of a new section. 163 Krodel, 372. 164 Note diatrivbw (“spend time”) in each verse, and sunavgw (“gather,” “assemble”) in 14:27; 15:30. 165 This is probably the meaning of the addition “within a few days” (ejn hJmevrai~) to the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 257). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 387. Alternatively, it could imply that they lingered before departing.

166 The verb paradivdwmi is a technical term for delivery of a letter (Cadbury and Lake, 182). 167 Aristeas (42) provides a close parallel: Eleazar replies to Ptolemy that, after receiving his letter “we rejoiced (ejcavrhmen) greatly . . . and we assembled our entire people and read it out to them (kai; sunagagovnte~ to; pa`n plh`qo~ parevgnwmen aujtoi~)” (trans. Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) [New York: Ktav, 1973] 43). Note also 2 Baruch 86, which calls for the text to be read in assemblies. 168 Cf. Chariton Chaer. 1.11.1; 3.4.3; 8.7.7. Spontaneous civic assemblies are possible (Acts 19:29), but writers of fiction treat them as the norm and endow them with official status. 169 Fitzmyer (567–68) calls the description “idyllic.” 170 The dia; lovgou of v. 32 corresponds precisely to v. 27.

383

Acts part 2C.indd 383

8/27/2008 10:16:42 AM

prophets171—provide spiritual nurture and edification.172 In due course,173 the two return. Since v. 33 appears to conflict with v. 40, which presumes the presence of Silas in Antioch, a range of witnesses supply what became, because of its presence in the printed editions of the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus, v. 34. In various forms, it states that Silas decided to stay in Antioch while Judas returned to Jerusalem. This, in turn, sets up a conflict between v. 33 and v. 34. These issues do not seem to have perplexed

the narrator. Characters are where they need to be at a given time. Mark, for example, was in Jerusalem at last notice (13:13), but in 15:37 he is in Antioch.174 At this point, the narrator wishes to affirm that they could leave with the community’s blessings (“peace”). Verse 35 demonstrates that matters had returned to the state of affairs indicated in 14:28, and, for that matter, 13:1. The presence of other “teachers and evangelists” makes it feasible for Paul and Barnabas to leave, as Haenchen observes.175

171 Cf. on 13:1-3. Note also 11:27 (a Jerusalem prophet in Antioch). 172 According to 1 Cor 14:3, paravklhsi~ is one function of prophets. The D-Text (according to Boismard, Texte, 257) substantially rewrites vv. 31-32: “Then Judas and Silas, after they had read, edified the believers with a great deal of spiritual comfort and sustenance, they themselves being prophets.” The order is rearranged to make it clear that Judas and Silas read the letter, the reference to its warm reception is omitted, and the statement that they were prophets receives end stress. This closely links their exhortation to the letter; that is, they preached on this text, so to speak. (D’s pedantic comment that the two were “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not included in other strands of the D-tradition.) The omission by D of “much” (pol­ lou`) with “speech” (lovgou) is inexplicable.

173 Cadbury and Lake (182) note that the unmodified “time” is unusual. 174 Cf. Haenchen, 455 n. 1; Boismard (Texte, 257) pre­ sents, largely on the basis of versional data, a revision that deals with the problems. For vv. 33-34, he reads poihvsa~ de; crovnon uJpevstreyen ÆIouda~ eij~ ïIerosovluma. e[doxe de; tw/` Silea/` ejpimei`nai aujtou` (“After Judas had spent some time he returned to Jerusalem, but Silas decided to remain there”). This text (which omits reference to the farewell of the community) is clearly secondary. See the discussion of Strange (Problem, 142–46), who is not inclined to offer a vigorous defense of the originality of v. 34. For a sympathetic discussion of the D-Text, see Édouard Delebecque, “Silas, Paul et Barnabé à Antioche selon le texte ‘occidental’ d’Actes 15:34 et 38,” RHPhR 64 (1984) 47–52. 175 Haenchen, 455.

384

Acts part 2C.indd 384

8/27/2008 10:16:42 AM

15:36—16:10

15

15:36—16:10  Toward a New Mission 36/ Some days later a Paul said to Barnabas: “Let us go back and visit the believers in every single city where we proclaimed the message about the Lord so that we may see how they are faring.” 37/ Barnabas wanted to take John Mark along with them, too, 38/ but Paul was of the view that they should not take him along, since he had abandoned them in Pamphylia rather than remain with them on their task. 39/ There ensued a quarrel that ended with their separation. Barnabas set sail with Mark for Cyprus, 40/ while Paul chose Silas and, after the believers had commended him to the Lord’s b gracious care, set out. 41/ He proceeded through Syria and Cilicia, fortifying the ­c ommunities. c 16:1/ In due course Paul also reached Derbe and Lystra. At Lystra there was a follower of Jesus named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman and a gentile. 2/ The believers in Lystra and Iconium gave Timothy good recommendations. Paul resolved to have this man accompany him. 3/ He accepted Timothy as a colleague and circumcised him because of the Jews in those parts, all of whom were quite aware that Timothy’s father had been a gentile. d 4/ As they went about the various cities, they delivered the decrees promulgated by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and instructed people to abide by them. 5/ The communities were strengthened in the faith e and grew daily in number. 6/ They then traversed Phrygia f and Galatian territory because the Holy Spirit had vetoed proclamation of the message in the province of Asia.g 7/ When they were near the eastern border of Mysia, they attempted to travel north toward Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus h would not allow them to do so. 8/ So they skirted i Mysia and came to Troas. 9/ There came to Paul at night a vision of a Macedonian man. He stood imploring Paul: “Come over to Macedonia and

a

b

c d

e

f

g h i

Cadbury and Lake (183) say that the temporal connective (metav, “after”) is characteristic of the second half of Acts, as has me;n ou\n in the first part. The frequent variant “God” is preferred by the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 261) and some other witnesses. This word is due to the influence of 14:26. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 262) pluralizes this sentence, keeping both Paul and Silas in equal focus. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 263) reads: “they all knew his father, that he was Greek.” See Barrett, 2:762–63. The D-Text (Bosimard, Texte, 265) omits “in the faith.” The motive is not clear. Perhaps the phrase was taken as instrumental. Or: “Phrygian and Galatian territory.” The Textus Receptus includes the article here. See Metzger, Texual Commentary, 390. According to Hemer (Book, 280–89), there is ample support for the adjective frugiva (“Phrygian”). The D-Text pedantically adds “the message of God to anyone.” A range of witnesses replace “Jesus” with “Lord.” M sa read “the Spirit.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 266) reads the more logical “passing through.”

385

Acts part 2C.indd 385

8/27/2008 10:16:43 AM

help us!” 10/ Because of this vision, we, convinced that God had called us to preach the good news to the Macedonians, immediately set about finding a way to get there.

Comment

Analysis

The overlapping structure of Acts is manifest in the four short paragraphs (15:30-35, 36-41; 16:1-5, 6-10) through which the narrative turns toward Paul’s great missionary work. The first and last of these are oriented toward what lies before and ahead. The middle two are transitional. The narrator’s dramatic sense lulls the reader into thinking that no more than a pastoral visit, like that of 14:21-22, is in prospect. Plans for a trip and the execution of them frame the first unit. Verses 37-38 present Barnabas’s proposal and Paul’s reaction, while vv. 39b-40 report the respective actions of each. Their disagreement and separation1 stand in the center (39a).2 In this brief paragraph, the narrator removes two more characters from the board. Like Peter (and the other apostles), Barnabas and John Mark have served their purpose and may be set aside. Paul has begun to recruit a new staff for the next phase of his work.3 1

2 3 4 5

  36  The verse says nothing about delivering the decree. This task will emerge in 16:4, but at present the narrator does not wish to detract from Paul, who has seized the initiative that he will hold until the end of the book.4 This, not the council, is, in one sense, the watershed of Acts.   37-39  Barnabas did not dispute the plan, but insisted on naming the third member of the team. 5 Paul thought otherwise.6 Mark had touched his hand to the plow and then looked back. Luke acknowledges that Paul and Barnabas separated over a disagreement. From the epistles scholarship infers that Paul broke with Barnabas because the latter did not support him in the dispute at Antioch (2:11-14).7 Luke may have known the reason for the split from another source—the gentile mission source might have said that Paul rejected compromise and left—or he might have concocted the argument

C. Clifton Black (“John Mark,” 112–18) suggests that the imperfects in vv. 37-38 are frequentative, implying a lengthy debate. The participle ajpostavnta intimates desertion (cf. Johnson, 288). The final position of the demonstrative (“him”) in v. 38 is emphatic. The word paroxusmov~ is not the mildest word for disagreement. Black also notes that to; e[rgon (“the work”) in v. 38 is used of mission in 13:2; 14:26 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1). On the structure, see Johnson, 282. Timothy will be added in 16:3. Conzelmann (123) contrasts 13:1-3. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 259–61) offers 6 considerable paraphrase. Verse 35 begins with the 7 article, and has, instead of pw`" e[cousin in v. 36, tiv poiou`sin. h[resen de; kai; Barnaba/` hJ boulhv (“. . . what they are doing. Barnabas agreed with the plan. 37 Now Barnabas wished to take John . . . 38, But Paul did not wish to do so, saying, [v. 38 in direct discourse].”) Verse 39b is an independent sentence rather than indirect discourse. Boismard does

not include the pedantic addition of Bezae: “work for which they had been sent.” Boismard’s text of v. 36 is grammatically defective, as kathggeiv­lamen (“we proclaimed”) lacks a relative. The relative of the conventional text is technically wrong, as it is plural (ejn ai|~), but it is acceptable. The infinitives sumparalabei`n and sumparalambavnein in vv. 38-39 could be contrasted: Barnabas wanted to have Mark with them, but Paul did not wish to keep putting up with him. Cf. Bruce, 349. (This fine distinction was overlooked by p 74 A 33vid 1175 pc, which read the present tense in v. 37.) On the literary imperfect hjxivou, see BDF §328. John P. Meier, in Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983) 39. For a list of scholars on various sides of the issue, see Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 34 n. 117.

386

Acts part 2C.indd 386

8/27/2008 10:16:43 AM

15:36—16:10

over Mark to explain the absence of Barnabas from the subsequent Pauline circle. Barnabas sets out for Cyprus, whence he had come (4:36). The division has resulted in an expansion (one might presume) of the mission.8   40  The narrator demonstrates the transformation of Paul. He is now the superior who can choose Silas as his assistant, quite a different relationship from that expounded in v. 22.9 Whereas Barnabas (and John) simply departed, Paul (and Silas) received a send-off from the believers, with language similar to 14:26. By this means, the narrator shows that he sides with Paul.   41  The troublesome verse has been subject to a number of textual arrangements. The D-Text obliterates any grounds for the dubious chapter division after v. 41: “They proceeded through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the communities by transmitting the commands of the elders.10 When they had passed through these peoples (e[qnh), they arrived at Derbe and Lystra.”11 The plurals equalize the status of Paul and Silas. The article with “Cilicia” is probably more original.12 Heikki Leppä observes that Antioch is almost on the border of Syria. The reference is therefore awkward. He therefore proposes that Luke took this information from Gal 1:21.13   16:1  Paul continues to build his team, adding Timothy. These colleagues play only intermittent roles in the narrative. Silas, selected in 15:40, does not reappear until 16:19, while Timothy will first be named again in 8

9 10 11

12

13 14

17:14. He is thus invisible at Philippi, where, to be sure, he would have been inconvenient.14 One may argue that the new section begins with 15:41,15 but this also raises difficulties, as the D-Text revisions indicate.16 The chief of these is that Derbe and Lystra did not belong to Syria and Cilicia. The narrator could have found a clearer way for saying that the pair left Cilicia, came in time to Lycaonia and thus to Derbe, followed by Lystra, if this was his intent. Verse 3 mentions Iconium, indicating once more that these cities constituted a network in which communication was easy and rapid. The basis for this material is 14:6-7, 20-21.17 Verse 1b introduces Timothy, presumably from Lystra, in genealogical terms. He was “a disciple” (maqhthv~), the son of a Christian (pisthv) mother and a “Greek,” that is, gentile, father. That is the father’s sole importance. Whether he was alive or dead and what his religious preference may have been was of no interest to the narrator.18 Evidently because Timothy was wellthought-of by believers in Lystra and Iconium (Derbe is not mentioned), Paul decided to induct him into his service. Hopeful readers will assume that Paul agreed with the recommendations of others, that the two enjoyed some sort of relationship, however brief, and that Timothy’s views about working with Paul and undergoing circumcision were consulted.19 The motive for a second colleague also remains unstated. This introduction

This is the perspective of the Acts of Barnabas (e.g., 10), the narrator of which is John Mark, who is not entirely free of self-serving and exculpatory sentiment. For a similar view, see Ephrem, 428. It is also justifiable to take the text at face value: Barnabas picked up his toys and went home. See Johnson, 288. D softens this by reading “invited/received (ejpi­ dexavmeno~) Silas.” See also the D-Text of 16:4 and the comments there. Boismard, Texte, 262. Note that “Derbe” and “Lystra” are covered by a single preposition, as if they were “twin cities.” Its omission is probably more the result of conformity to 15:23 than to the varying status of Cilicia, which Luke views as a province (Acts 23:34), as it was from the time of Vespasian, but not in Paul’s lifetime. Leppä, Critical Use, 49–52. The claim that Timothy was also a Roman citizen would have placed undue strain on credulity.

15 So, for example, Fitzmyer (573), who marks 15:41 as a major unit (“second journey”). 16 See above, at 15:41. 17 Lüdemann, 173. 18 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 263) and some other witnesses have a different view: Timothy’s mother was a widow. This explains why his father did not convert and may receive some support from the imperfect uJph`rce of v. 3. See Cadbury and Lake, 184; and Barrett, 2:761–62. 19 The participle labwvn in v. 3b is vexing. Barrett (2:761) agrees that it is not otiose. It evidently establishes some contact between the two. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 263, and p 45) has coordinate indicatives: “He took and circumcised.” This is probably the intended meaning.

387

Acts part 2C.indd 387

8/27/2008 10:16:43 AM

conflicts with 1 Cor 4:17, where Timothy is described as a Pauline convert. Luke has created his own Timothy legend, fashioning him into a Jewish believer.20 He is now the exact equivalent of John Mark.   2-3  To enhance Timothy’s fitness for mission, Paul circumcised him. One must ask what Paul could possibly do to provoke further injury to his reputation among the local Jews, who were last seen hurling stones at him. Circumcision would provide no more protection for Timothy than it had for Paul.21 From Acts one would infer that Timothy was considered a gentile by local Jews, who knew that his father was such. Had a matrilineal principle been presumed, 22 v. 3 would have said that they knew that, although his mother was Jewish, he had not been circumcised. The narrator does not state explicitly that Timothy was a defective Jew.23 The report raises historical questions: Did Paul circumcise Timothy? If so, when did he do this and why? If he did not, is the basis a legend, a rumor, or a Lucan

invention? Responses do not fall out along conservative and liberal lines.24 The tradition is probably without historical basis. The act admirably serves the Lucan program of “Jews first,” and demonstrates Paul’s loyalty to the traditional faith, but it serves no discernible Pauline interest and would have laid him open to the kind of charge he made against Peter in Gal 2:14.25 Although the proposal of Olof Linton that Luke repeats as fact a rumor circulated against Paul (cf. Gal 5:11) is a possibility,26 the simpler solution is the hypothesis that Luke invented the incident, with inspiration from Gal 2:3-5.27 Refusal to mention the uncircumcised Titus and his replacement with the circumcised Timothy is indicative of the lengths to which Luke thought he had to go to place Paul in a favorable light. The fact sheds light on the pressures that the author evidently felt, but it does little to enhance his reputation for historical accuracy. The pericope manifests Paul’s concern for unity. After anticipating any complaints about the religious

20 The Pastor will make Timothy a third-generation believer. See Richard Pervo, “Romancing an Oftneglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistolary Novel,” JHC 1 (1994) 25–47. 21 Ephrem (428) says that the action was prudent, as Timothy was to preach to Jews. Acts says nothing about any preaching or pastoral activity by ­Timothy. 22 Shaye J. D. Cohen (The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999] 263–307) argues that the matrilineal principle was not firmly established in Judaism before the formation of the Mishnah. In Appendix D (pp. 363–77), which contains an excellent review of patristic exegesis, Cohen concludes that Timothy was not Jewish. Christopher Bryan (“A Further Look at Acts 16:1-3,” JBL 107 [1988] 292–94) identifies most of the confusions and suggests that Luke, perhaps, and (some) Jews in Asia Minor would have viewed Timothy as Jewish. Levinskaya (Diaspora Setting, 15–17) argues that, in the face of uncertainty, the matrilineal principle should be accepted. The same argument could be made for the contrary. 23 The alternative must make two assumptions: that Timothy’s father was dead or otherwise out of the picture and that that gentleman’s opposition had prevented him from being circumcised. The text states neither and leaves open the question of why Timothy had not sought circumcision when released from the paternal yoke. Moreover, it is not

24 25

26

27

likely that all the Jews in the region (of hundreds of square kilometers) would have been aware of his parentage. Lüdemann (176), for example, accepts the historicity of the tradition. The always useful 1 Cor 9:20 does not apply here, since it is one thing “to become a Jew to Jews” and another to make Timothy become a Jew to Jews. See Dixon Slingerland, “‘The Jews’ in the Pauline Portion of Acts,” JAAR 54 (1986) 305–21, esp. 310. Porphyry was one ancient critic who saw the contradiction and excoriated Paul for violating his own high principles, citing 1 Cor 9:16; Phil 3:2; and Gal 2:18 (Hoffmann, Porphyry, 58–59). For a defense of the historicity of the report, largely based upon alleged weaknesses in arguments to the contrary, see Witherington, 474–77. For Chrysostom (Hom. 34), the incident demonstrated Paul’s wisdom: knowing that the issue of circumcision had been settled, Paul could engage in the practice. Olof Linton, “The Third Aspect: A Neglected Point of View. A Study in Gal. i–ii and Acts ix and xv,” ST 3 (1951): 79–95. Cf. Haenchen, 482. For Barrett (2:753), “the best we can say . . . is that Luke was dependent upon popular stories.” See his discussion, 2:760–62. Weiser (2:399) notes strong objections to the “rumor” hypothesis. Pervo, Dating, 86–88, which builds on the argument of William O. Walker, Jr., “The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered,” ExpT 92 (1980–81) 231–35. See also Leppä, Critical Use, 135–40.

388

Acts part 2C.indd 388

8/27/2008 10:16:43 AM

15:36—16:10

status of Timothy, he sets out with him and Silas faithfully to promulgate the decree.   4-5  The D-Text of 16:428 is distinctive: “Passing through the cities29 they continued to proclaim with all boldness the Lord Jesus Christ.”30 This sentence (which is indebted to 28:31) has been altered because of the D-Text of 15:41. The editor noted the restriction of the decree to the communities mentioned in the letter (15:23) and therefore rearranged the data to correct the perceived mistake. This also removes any perceived link between implementation of the decree and the qualitative and quantitative growth claimed in v. 5. Church growth now comes from proclamation of the gospel rather than promulgation of commandments.31 Luke, however, intended to show that the decree had general

validity32 and that it was an instrument of community growth, as it encouraged gentile (and possibly Jewish) conversions.33   6-10  This paragraph introduces the foundation of a Christian community on the European continent. This transitional statement is the last section bridging the time between the “Apostolic Council” and Paul’s mission in the Aegean region. The route of travel proposed all but defies rational analysis, mixing ethnic and provincial terms in a strange order. It is best to understand the text as saying that Paul and company were not allowed to deviate either right or left.34 The narrator leaps vast swaths of territory in a single bound.35 The narrative of 16:6-40 reflects a number of the features common to ancient cult-foundation stories,36

28 On this, see also Édouard Delebecque, “De Lystres through Mysia directly to Adramyttium is certainly à Philippi (Ac 16) avec le codex Bezae,” Bib 63 possible” (p. 54). In short, the route described is (1982) 395–405. unclear and can be constructed only through con29 This is probably retrospective, referring to the jecture. Gal 4:13 (to; provteron, “previously”) may cities of v. 1 (and Pisidian Antioch?). Cadbury and be the source of v. 6. Note the astute criticism of Lake (185) ask whether it applies to the region of Koch (“Kollektenbericht” 382–87), who shows that v. 6. this is not from an itinerary source (in the sense 30 Boismard, Texte, 264. put forth by Dibelius) and affirms that the author 31 Cf. also Epp, Tendency, 113–14. shows very limited knowledge of the interior of 32 The infinitive fulavssein (“keep”) is difficult. Asia Minor. See also the summary of research in It could be taken as epexegetic, with dovgmata Barrett, 2:766–69; and the references in Fitzmyer, (“decrees”), but is better construed as final, that 578–79. The journey cannot be traced on the basis is, they transmitted the ordinances so that the of known routes, but Luke was not following a map people would observe them. The term dovgmata here. The difficulty of distinguishing these regions has an official sense (Luke 2:1) and may anticipate is apparent in Strabo 12.7. Weiser (2:403–4) a contrast with “the decrees of Caesar” in 17:7. attributes the data to a source, but must allow for It indicates that the church is a lawful body that considerable abbreviation. can make rules for its members. See Gerhard 36 On this pattern, see James C. Hanges, “The Kittel, “dovgma,” TDNT 2:230–32. The participle Greek Foundation-Legend: Its Form and Relakekrimevna (“legislated”) reinforces this juridical tion to History,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars understanding. The source of these ordinances is Press, 1995) 494–520; Elizabeth R. Gebhard, “The “the apostles and elders,” without note of concurGods in Transit: Narratives of Cult Transfer,” in rence by the general body. With this reference the Adela Y. Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell, eds., narrator lays the word “apostle” to rest. Antiquity and Humanity: Essays in Ancient Religion 33 The me;n ou\n is emphatic. and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 34 Acts 18:23 states, in apparent contradiction, that 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) “the Galatian territory and Phrygia” contained 451–76. On the basis of a number of accounts from converts. the Classical and Hellenistic eras (pp. 473–76) 35 David H. French (“Acts and the Roman Roads of Gebhard identifies the following motifs as “most Asia Minor,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 49–58, esp. common”: a crisis of some sort, communal or 53–55) says, “No Roman road passing westwards individual; appeal to an oracle; command to honor through Mysia has yet been discovered but one may a particular entity, which may require an embassy reasonably suppose however, that [a reconstruction to obtain a statue or other cultic representation; proposing that] Paul traveled by tracks or paths difficulties, including official opposition; arrival first in Galatia, then in Phrygia, perhaps as far as and welcoming of the god in temporary lodgings; Dorylaeum, Cotiaeum or Aezani . . . and finally opposition (possibly); and a new temple or the like.

389

Acts part 2C.indd 389

8/27/2008 10:16:43 AM

including a dream vision, an interpretive oracle,37 lodging of the movement in domestic quarters, opposition by officials, miraculous vindication, further growth, and permanent establishment of the new movement.38 Luke’s artistry is apparent in that each of these elements constitutes a lively and independent episode that can stand on its own feet. Short as this account is, the narrative sweep is much broader than will be found in, for example, stories relating the foundation of an ancient cult, notably the cults of savior gods, such as Asclepius39 and the Egyptian gods.40   6-8  The first three verses raise suspense. Not since the beginning of the Cornelius episode (10:1-16) has divine intervention been so prominent, but here its purpose is not clear. Even the dullest reader realizes that important developments are in the offing, namely, the evangelization of the Aegean region, which is the center and focus of Acts and the geographical location of its implied author.41 At this point also the first

37 38 39

40

person plural makes the first of its intermittent appearances in Acts. Unlike in the stories about Philip (8:26-39) and Cornelius (10:1-48), the role of the Spirit in vv. 6-8 is negative. The narrator does not explain the means of these revelations. All attention is thrust upon Troas.42 The “Holy Spirit” and the “Spirit of Jesus” are practically placed in parallelismus membrorum.43 Their function, if not their identity, is the same.44 The narrative follows the “rule of three”: after two courses of action are rejected, a third is ordered.45 The missionaries arrive at Troas, a Roman colony and an important commercial node in northwest Asia Minor that was also teeming with legendary and historical associations, as it was regarded as the location of Troy, around which much epic poetry revolved; 46 the narrative slows.

For specific ­application to this passage, see Weaver, Plots, 219–79. Acts 16 does not begin with an initial crisis, but the dream revelation in 16:9 is a plea for assistance. See also F. Trotta, “Lasciare la madrepatria per fondare una colonia. Tre esempi nell storia de Sparta,” in Giorgio Camassa and Silvana Fasce, eds., Idea e realtà del viaggio (Genoa: ECIG, 1991) 37–66; and Balch, “METABOLH POLITEIWN,” 162–64. For examples of these oracles, see Squires, Plan, 123 n. 11. See Appendix 2. IG II2 4960a, 4961. Emma J. and Ludwig Edelstein (Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies [2 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945] no. 720, 1:374–75) relate the translation of the cult to Athens in the fifth century bce. For other examples, see Gebhard, “Gods in Transit,” tables 1–2, 472–73. For example, the introduction of the cult of Sarapis in the (Asia Minor?) residence of Zoilus (“The Zoilus Letter,” P. Cair. Zen. [the Zenon Papyri] 59, 034), on which see Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. Lionel Strachan; New York: Harper, 1927) 152–59 (with an edition of the text); Nock, Conversion, 49–50; Martin P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 2, Die hellenistische und römische Zeit (2nd ed.; Munich: Beck, 1961) 190; and Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) 1:257–59, as well as the foundation of the first Sarapeion at

41 42

43

44

45

46

Delos, on which see Nock, Conversion, 50–55; and Helmut Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (trans. E. Osers; EPRO 44; Leiden: Brill, 1975). For a text, see below, Appendix 2. See pp. 5–7. The course of the narrative does not permit discussion of the founding of a community there, however, although 20:7-12 assumes its existence. On this, see G. Stählin, “to; pneu`ma ÆIhsou`,” in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honor of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 229–52. The D-Text (Bosimard, Texte, 265–66) evidently seeks to simplify the narrative by replacing the participle ejlqovnte~ (lit. “going”) with genovmenoi, meaning something like “When they were at Mysia.” This text also softens “they attempted” to “they wished.” In v. 8, the D-Text reads dielqovnte~ (“passing through”) and changes katevbhsan (lit. “they went down to”) to kathvnthsan (“arrived”). At this point, Irenaeus introduces “we”: nos venimus (“we came”). See Edmond Farahian, “Paul’s Vision at Troas (Acts 16:9-10),” in Gerard O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi, eds., Luke and Acts (Festschrift P. E. Rasco; trans. M. J. O’Connell; New York: Paulist, 1993) 197–207, esp. 202. The divine names present a sort of crescendo: “Holy Spirit” (v. 6), “Spirit of Jesus” (v. 7), and “God” (v. 10). See pp. 512–14.

390

Acts part 2C.indd 390

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

15:36—16:10

  9  In Troas, Paul has a vision summoning him to come

to the aid47 of the Macedonians.48 Although the function of the vision is to bring about the foundation of a cult, a phenomenon for which there are parallels,49 the form in which a personified people or province appears to a leader has many political analogies, for example: As Caesar stood in doubt [as to whether to enter Italy], this sign was given him. On a sudden there appeared hard by a being of wondrous stature and beauty, who sat and played upon a reed; and when not only the shepherds flocked to hear him, but many of the soldiers left their posts, and among them some of the trumpeters, the apparition snatched a trumpet from one of them, rushed to the river, and sounding the war-note with one mighty blast, strode to the opposite bank. Then Caesar cried: “Take we the course which the signs of the gods and the false dealing of our foes point out. The die is cast.” (Suetonius Julius 32) 50

Alexander (while in Macedonia) had a vision of the Jewish high priest, who urged him on to the conquest of Asia. 51 Also of interest in this context was the vision of a tall, elderly woman that diverted Apollonius of Tyana from his planned trip to Rome, guiding him instead to Crete, 52 where he carried out his religio-political mission. In each of these instances revelation shows the next step to one in doubt or determined on another course. Readers of Acts would understand not only that the direction of Paul’s mission was determined by God but also that he was an individual of the status of Alexander or Caesar. 53 Acts 16:9-10 is almost certainly a Lucan composition. In an artistic way, it depicts Paul as an independent missionary no longer under the aegis of Antioch. 54 In chap. 10, the gentile Cornelius was visited, in good biblical fashion, by an angel. As Paul crosses the boundary between “Asia” and “Europe”55 to begin his independent career, the vehicle of revelation is not biblical but Greco-Roman.

emperor Ming-ti (c. 60 ce) saw a golden man in a 47 The verb “help” (bohqevw) often appears in prayers dream and sent to India. See William H. McNeill, seeking salvation. See Johnson, 286. The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Commu48 The nature of such reports makes it illegitimate to nity (New York: New American Library, 1965) 362 ask how Paul knew the person was a Macedonian. n. 73. Note the material collected by Alfred Wiken“. . . [I]t is enough to say that in a dream one knows hauser, “Religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zu Apg. this kind of thing” (Barrett, 2:770). 16, 9,” BZ 23 (1935) 180–86; and Weiser’s excursus 49 Other examples are Strabo 4.1.4 (Artemis); Xenoon Paul’s dreams and visions (2:406–15) with phon Anab. 5.3.7 (Artemis). detailed citations of religio-historical parallels. 50 In J. C. Rolfe, trans., Suetonius I (LCL; Cambridge, John B. F. Miller (Convinced, 76) denies this sugMass.: Harvard University Press, 1913) 45. gestion of “heroic” analogies: “This evaluation, of 51 Josephus Ant. 11.333–35. Josephus himself bencourse, ignores the fact that dream-visions appear efited from a consoling figure who appeared to to some characters in Acts who fall outside of this him (Life 208–9). mold.” The issue, however, is the particular form 52 Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.34. See Reitzenstein, Helleof the vision in Acts 16. For a recent analysis that nistische Wundererzählungen, 53–54; and Loisy, 627. takes this form into account and relates the setting 53 Cf. also Gen 31:10-13, 24; Josephus Ant. 1.208; to Roman legend, see Bart J. Koet, “Im Schatten 2.217; 5.193; 6.334; 7.147; 8.125; 11.327; 13.322; des Aeneas: Paulus in Troas (Apg 16,8-10),” in Herodotus 7.12–19 (Xerxes: to invade Greece Reimund Bieringer, Gilbert Van Belle, and Jozef [inverse of the vision of Alexander]); Alexander Verheyden, eds., Luke and His Readers: Festschrift Romance 1.35 (Alexander will capture Tyre); Virgil A. Denaux (BEThL 182; Leuven: Leuven University Aen. 5.719–40 (Anchises tells Aeneas where to Press, 2005) 415–39. proceed); Suetonius Claudius 1 (Drusus sees a bar54 Both 13:2 and 16:10 use the verb proskalevomai barian in a vision); Cassius Dio 55.1; Tacitus Ann. (“summon”). 22.21; Pliny Ep. 7.27; Cicero Div. 1.49 (Hannibal); 55 On the concept of “Europe,” see Koch, “KollektenLivy 21.22.6–9 (Hannibal); Valerius Maximus 1.7 bericht,” 386 n. 61; and Schneider, 2:204. (several examples, including Augustus); Silius Italicus 3.163–214 (Hannibal); Plutarch Luc. 12.1–2 (Lucullus while in a temple at Troas); Appian Bell. Civ. 4.134, 565 (Brutus); Ammianus Marcellinus 20.5.10; 25.2.3 (Julian). A similar story is told about the arrival of Buddhism in China. The

391

Acts part 2C.indd 391

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

John Miller presents 16:6-10 as the central piece in his study of revelatory phenomena in Luke and Acts. 56 His thesis is that revelations involve synergy: human recipients need both to respond to revelations and also to understand them. If some passages involving divine guidance (e.g., 8:26-40) threaten to reduce the earthly actors to puppets, others require interpretation. Peter’s interpretation of the vision in 10:9-17a involved a large interpretive leap. For Miller, such incidents open the door to the claim that Luke and Acts portray a substantial element of human freedom and that this is an important component in missionary success and failure. To a degree this is valid, but Luke is not a theologian who reflects on the fundamental issue of divine will versus human freedom. When crucial issues are at stake, such as the conversion of Cornelius, divine guidance is prominent. The ambiguity of dreams was generally recognized in antiquity, while in the Greek world the cloudiness of oracles was pivotal, as the English adjective “Delphic” still testifies. Vagueness can serve literary purposes, raising suspense while providing some assurance. In Acts, the literary and the theological may walk hand in hand. Acts 16:9-10 is not a particularly cogent example of human freedom. It is most unlikely that Paul’s vision would have been construed as a reference to the need for financial assistance or to a shortage of tentmakers. Mission is the object of Paul’s work. The issue is where his labors should be performed. To that question, the vision provides a clear answer.

  10  “We” is now the basis and object of the Pauline

missionary enterprise. 57 It first appears in the Macedonian call for assistance. “We” are those in need of salvation. 58 At the narrative level, this is a mystery provoking and enticing the reader, while embracing all who hear or read the story, transforming it from a story about “them” into a story about “us.” With this intimacy comes a wealth of detail and color that are lacking in most of the earlier stories. For the first readers, “we” reflects the story of their own origins, the fruit of Paul’s “missionary journeys.”59 The D-Text60 alters the structure of v. 9 and thoroughly revises v. 10: 9 “In a vision [. . .] there appeared a Macedonian man, as it were, standing before Paul’s face . . . 10 Therefore, after Paul had awakened, he related the vision to us [. . .] and we perceived that the Lord had called us to preach the good news to those who were in Macedonia. 11 On the next day we sailed from Troas. . . .” These changes shed light on the conventional text. In the D-Text, “we” is an actual group and an actor. Logically, the others could not have known about the vision until Paul told them. Luke is not interested in such logic. His “we” is ­omniscient.61 Excursus: “We” in Acts 62 One of the most vexing problems for the analysis of Acts is the use of “we” in various parts of the

56 Miller, Convinced, 91–107. sentence less awkward. “Vision” is no longer the sub57 It is worth observing that “we” also appears in conject. Elimination of “at night” heightens the parallel nection with the transit from Troas to Macedonia with Peter (10:9-16) and removes the experience in 2 Cor 7:5 (which is a continuation of the letter in from the realm of nocturnal dreams. The addition 2 Cor 2:12-13). of wJseiv, “as if,” reminds the reader that this is a 58 Cf. Conzelmann, 127. vision. The added phrase “face to face,” in effect, 59 On Macedonia, see David W. J. Gill, “Macedonia,” makes the event more vivid and personal. in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 397–417, as well as 62 Norden (Agnostos Theos, 313–31) laid the grounds Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 153–57 (who presents for subsequent research. Studies include James no evidence for Philippi). Blaisdell, “The Authorship of the ‘We’ Sections of 60 Boismard, Texte, 266–67. (A few minor differences the Book of Acts,” HTR 13 (1920) 136–58; Jacques are ignored here.) Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (trans. K. Pond; 61 Barrett (2:776) adopts the meaning of the D-Text: New York: Herder & Herder, 1964) 75–112; Henry “A person whose words are reported, whether by J. Cadbury, “We and I Passages in Luke-Acts” himself or an editor, was with Paul in Troas; he was NTS 3 (1956) 128–32; Colin Hemer, “First Person told of a vision seen by Paul and concurred with the Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 26 (1975) 79–112; conclusion.” Historicizing deduction cannot replace S. Dockz, “Luc, a-t-il été le compagnon d’apostolat exegesis of the text. Other changes in the D-Text de Paul?” NRT 103 (1981) 385–400; Vittorio include: the initial prepositional phrase makes the Fusco, “Le sezione-noi degli Atti nella discussione

392

Acts part 2C.indd 392

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

John Miller presents 16:6-10 as the central piece in his study of revelatory phenomena in Luke and Acts. 56 His thesis is that revelations involve synergy: human recipients need both to respond to revelations and also to understand them. If some passages involving divine guidance (e.g., 8:26-40) threaten to reduce the earthly actors to puppets, others require interpretation. Peter’s interpretation of the vision in 10:9-17a involved a large interpretive leap. For Miller, such incidents open the door to the claim that Luke and Acts portray a substantial element of human freedom and that this is an important component in missionary success and failure. To a degree this is valid, but Luke is not a theologian who reflects on the fundamental issue of divine will versus human freedom. When crucial issues are at stake, such as the conversion of Cornelius, divine guidance is prominent. The ambiguity of dreams was generally recognized in antiquity, while in the Greek world the cloudiness of oracles was pivotal, as the English adjective “Delphic” still testifies. Vagueness can serve literary purposes, raising suspense while providing some assurance. In Acts, the literary and the theological may walk hand in hand. Acts 16:9-10 is not a particularly cogent example of human freedom. It is most unlikely that Paul’s vision would have been construed as a reference to the need for financial assistance or to a shortage of tentmakers. Mission is the object of Paul’s work. The issue is where his labors should be performed. To that question, the vision provides a clear answer.

  10  “We” is now the basis and object of the Pauline

missionary enterprise. 57 It first appears in the Macedonian call for assistance. “We” are those in need of salvation. 58 At the narrative level, this is a mystery provoking and enticing the reader, while embracing all who hear or read the story, transforming it from a story about “them” into a story about “us.” With this intimacy comes a wealth of detail and color that are lacking in most of the earlier stories. For the first readers, “we” reflects the story of their own origins, the fruit of Paul’s “missionary journeys.”59 The D-Text60 alters the structure of v. 9 and thoroughly revises v. 10: 9 “In a vision [. . .] there appeared a Macedonian man, as it were, standing before Paul’s face . . . 10 Therefore, after Paul had awakened, he related the vision to us [. . .] and we perceived that the Lord had called us to preach the good news to those who were in Macedonia. 11 On the next day we sailed from Troas. . . .” These changes shed light on the conventional text. In the D-Text, “we” is an actual group and an actor. Logically, the others could not have known about the vision until Paul told them. Luke is not interested in such logic. His “we” is ­omniscient.61 Excursus: “We” in Acts 62 One of the most vexing problems for the analysis of Acts is the use of “we” in various parts of the

56 Miller, Convinced, 91–107. sentence less awkward. “Vision” is no longer the sub57 It is worth observing that “we” also appears in conject. Elimination of “at night” heightens the parallel nection with the transit from Troas to Macedonia with Peter (10:9-16) and removes the experience in 2 Cor 7:5 (which is a continuation of the letter in from the realm of nocturnal dreams. The addition 2 Cor 2:12-13). of wJseiv, “as if,” reminds the reader that this is a 58 Cf. Conzelmann, 127. vision. The added phrase “face to face,” in effect, 59 On Macedonia, see David W. J. Gill, “Macedonia,” makes the event more vivid and personal. in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 397–417, as well as 62 Norden (Agnostos Theos, 313–31) laid the grounds Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 153–57 (who presents for subsequent research. Studies include James no evidence for Philippi). Blaisdell, “The Authorship of the ‘We’ Sections of 60 Boismard, Texte, 266–67. (A few minor differences the Book of Acts,” HTR 13 (1920) 136–58; Jacques are ignored here.) Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (trans. K. Pond; 61 Barrett (2:776) adopts the meaning of the D-Text: New York: Herder & Herder, 1964) 75–112; Henry “A person whose words are reported, whether by J. Cadbury, “We and I Passages in Luke-Acts” himself or an editor, was with Paul in Troas; he was NTS 3 (1956) 128–32; Colin Hemer, “First Person told of a vision seen by Paul and concurred with the Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 26 (1975) 79–112; conclusion.” Historicizing deduction cannot replace S. Dockz, “Luc, a-t-il été le compagnon d’apostolat exegesis of the text. Other changes in the D-Text de Paul?” NRT 103 (1981) 385–400; Vittorio include: the initial prepositional phrase makes the Fusco, “Le sezione-noi degli Atti nella discussione

392

Acts part 2C.indd 392

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

15:36—16:10

­ arration: 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1—28:16.63 n These passages raise questions of source, form, and narrative intent. One possibility is that the author utilized “we” to mark points at which he was present on the scene.64 A second is that the “we” represents a source (or sources) utilized by the author.65 Other proposals refer to formal devices66 or narrative emphases.67 Even the straightforward assignment of the first person plural to the presence of the actual recente,” BeO 25 (1983) 73–86; S. M. Sheeley, “Getting into the Act(s): Narrative Presence in the ‘We’ Sections,” PerspRelStud 26 (1999) 203–20; Weiser, 2:387–92; and Witherington, 480–86. Fitzmyer (98–103) provides a concise review of research, as does Barrett, 2:25–30. For a detailed history of research, see Jürgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus Jüdischer Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 47–124; and William S. Campbell, “Who Are We in Acts? The First-Person Plural Character in the Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000) 23–83. Two particularly penetrating studies of the problem are Susan Marie Praeder, “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts,” NovT 39 (1987) 193–218; and Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘We’-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,” ZNW 93 (2002) 78–98. 63 This analysis includes within “we-passages” those pericopes that are enclosed within a first plural verbs. Acts 20:7-12 and 28:3-6, 7-10, for example, are units. 64 This view was first propounded by Irenaeus A.H. 3.14.1, who used them to buttress the claim that Luke was a constant companion of Paul. This says more about Irenaeus’s needs to combat Marcion and others than about the we-passages. C.-J. Thornton has defended this view, with considerable nuance (Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen [WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991]). See the summary and critique by Barrett, 2:xxvii–xxviii. Wedderburn (“Dilemma,” 80–81) observes that Thornton found good parallels only in the final three books of Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century ce). Fitzmyer also represents this view (Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching [New York: Paulist, 1989] 17–22), as does Jervell. Witherington (485), who also supports the claim that “we” refers to the author, who was Luke, concludes his review by saying, “Acts appears to be unique in referring only to the author’s participation by using the first-person plural, but then this may be dictated by the author’s desire to be unobtrusive and by his view that he played a minor role

author is not without difficulties, for it must explain the sudden entrance and abrupt departure of this form, as well as other inconsistencies.68 A. J. M. Wedderburn states the historical problem well. The horns of the dilemma are the apparent claim of authorial presence, which contrasts with evidence, making it difficult to conclude that the author was a companion of Paul.69 Every solution must therefore include a literary dimension. Susan M. Praeder identified four

65

66

67

68

69

as a part of a team of Paul’s coworkers.” Neither of these justifications stands, since “we” is nothing if not obtrusive. Stanley Porter, The Paul of Acts (WUNT 115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 1–66. He presents the reconstructed source on pp. 42–46. Porter calls attention to a number of hapax legomena in the wepassages. See Wedderburn’s critique, “Dilemma,” 80 n. 5. See Norden (Agnostos Theos, 312–31), who examined the first person in relation to various ancient types and genres, and, more recently, Vernon K. Robbins, “By Land and by Sea,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978) 215–42; and idem, “The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages,” BR 20 (1975) 5–18. Robbins’s conclusions have been sharply criticized by, for example Reumann (n. 81) and Wedderburn, “Dilemma,” 81–83. Robbins does, however, show how common the first plural is in travel, esp. seatravel. Samuel Byrskog (“History or Story in Acts—A Middle Way? The ‘We’ Passages, Historical Intertexture, and Oral History,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 257–83) utilizes dissonances as the ground for a complicated hypothesis involving the reoralizing and narrativizing “of an extrafictional past reality.” Wehnert (Wir-Passagen) looks to Daniel and EzraNehemiah (mentioned by Norden, Agnostos Theos, 330) as literary models and Silas as the actual author. Thornton showed the improbability of this hypothesis (Der Zeuge des Zeugen, 114–16). The inconsistencies in the use of “we” are detailed by William Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 112–20. Among the most notorious are the abrupt disappearance of “we” in 16:17, the middle of a unit (Weiser, 2:392), and the difficulty of explaining the relation between “we” and “they” (ou|toi) in 20:5. Wedderburn, “Dilemma,” 78.

393

Acts part 2C.indd 393

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

outstanding narrative questions: anonymity, plurality, restriction of first person to certain sections, and the mixture of first and third persons.70 Each of these is acute, and no comprehensive solution is likely to receive general approval. Readers reasonably expect that first person speakers will be identified, either as characters within a narrative or as the author (with or without others).71 Use of “we” rather than “I” intensifies the problem.72 To these must be added the problem of the text, for the D-Text extends the use and range of “we.” In the tradition the first person is therefore amenable to expansion.73 This suggests that later editors viewed the “we” as authentication and thought that the author had not provided enough of this useful commodity. Although the traditional view holds that the first plural shows that the author was a companion of Paul and thus guarantees the authenticity of the account, the evidence of early Christian literature tends to the contrary: “we” is most often a sign of late composition74 and is rather better attested in fiction than in works of unquestioned accuracy.75 This value is more or less completely compromised

in Acts because the subject of “we” is never specified. Readers must attempt to deduce the memberships of these groups for themselves, and conjectures vary. In 16:10, for example, “we” appears to embrace Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Timothy is present in chap. 20 (v. 3), but excluded from “we” by v. 5. “We” must therefore include Paul and at least one other. The “we” of 27:1 remains anonymous, apart from Paul, while in 27:34 it includes the entire ship’s company. Research has shown that there are no stylistic grounds for isolating the “we-passages” from the balance of the material.76 To this must be added the literary observation that the we-narrator can be no less omniscient than the narrator of third person passages.77 Whatever sources or inspirations the author may have had, the first plural narrator lacks the limitations of ordinary human speakers. Two general functions of first person are noteworthy. One is aujtoyiva (“personal experience”), a claim to have been present on the scene and thus able to authenticate the event or events.78 Personal experience was one quality of the “good” historian, and claims of this sort are not always to be taken

70 Praeder, “Problem.” Examples of a shift between fictional” (Essays 2:827–28 = review of Dibelius, third and first persons is not unknown in Greek Aufsätze, Gnomon 25 [1953] 497–506, esp. 503). literature. For examples from early Jewish and 76 This position was first argued by John C. HawkChristian fiction, see Harm R. Smid, Protevangeins, Horae Synopticae (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968 lium Jacobi: A Commentary (Assen: Van Gorcum, [reprint of the 2nd edition of 1909]) 182–89, 1965) Appendix 3, 176–78. followed independently by Adolf von Harnack, 71 See, for example, the Protevangelium of James 18:3 Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: (“I, Joseph”) and the colophon, 25:1 (“I, James”). Hinrichs, 1911) 1–20. The latter identifies the author. 77 In 16:10, “we” knows of Paul’s vision. In 20:10-11 72 The first singular appears in the preface (1:1-2) and the narrator can follow Paul downstairs and return in the preface to Luke (1:1-4). The “extradiegetic with him. (One may claim that others accompanied narrator” of these passages is not the narrator Paul, saw and heard him, and so on, but the style is of the balance of the narrative, who writes in an omniscient.) In 28:1-6 the narrator can report not omniscient, (usually) third person style. only what “the barbarians” said in their foreign 73 The most notorious example is 11:27. For some language, but also what they thought. Cf. also others, see Ropes, ccxxxix. A similar situation 27:39-44. Kurz (Reading, 113) argues the opposite applies to the numerous editions and versions of with regard to 20:7-12, but what he identifies is narthe Alexander Romance. For examples, see Richard rative suspense. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:264 n. Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (London: 5) makes the same observation regarding 21:10-14, Penguin, 1991) 193 nn. 80 and 85; and Eduard saying that the narrator “shares the limited insight Schwartz, Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman of Paul’s companions.” “Limited insight” is, to be (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1896) 97–98. sure, Tannehill’s own judgment, but the error in 74 For example, John 21:24; 2 Pet 1:16-19, and a host both cases is the assumption that “omniscient” of examples from the Christian apocrypha, on means “tell all” rather than “know all.” which see the references in Ernst v. Dobschütz, 78 On the term and the quality, see Alexander, Pref“Der Roman im Altchristlichen Literatur,” Deutsche ace, 34–41, 80–81, 120–25. She shows that, while Rundschau 111 (1902) 87–106, esp. 90; and Söder, personal experience was an important feature of Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 213–15. some types of historiography, the term is relatively 75 Nock said: “I know only one possible parallel for rare, used also by “scientific” authors, and most the emphatic use of a questionable ‘we’ in consecuoften invoked with reference to visiting places. tive narrative outside literature which is palpably

394

Acts part 2C.indd 394

8/27/2008 10:16:44 AM

15:36—16:10

at face value.79 A major obstacle to comparison with historiography is that historical writings are not anonymous. Readers therefore know who one component of the first plural is. One must therefore question Eckhard Plümacher’s claim: “What initially appears to be an idiosyncrasy of the author has the deeper purpose of demonstrating his role as a historian.”80 The quest for formal parallels must look to smaller forms, notably the itinerary. That quest has not yielded to a solution.81 The first person is certainly a common feature of travel narratives, appearing since the Odyssey in Greek literature. It may be a product of the social psychology of those traveling in a conveyance or party.82 Although parallels from travel accounts are relevant to the consideration of “we” in Acts, they do not fully explain the phenomenon. “We” does not provide explicit authentication of the book.83 The authority of the text derives from the reader’s acceptance of the claims of the narrative in general. One would come closer to an accurate description by 79 Eckhard Plümacher (“Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas: Erwägungen zu den Wir-Stücken der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 68 [1977] 2–22) maintains that the author utilizes the first plural to demonstrate that he was a good historian with experience in travel to the relevant areas and acquainted with some of the principal characters. Lewis R. Donelson (“Cult Histories and the Sources of Acts,” Bib 68 [1987] 1–21) has a useful discussion of ancient historiographical theory and practice, as well as some of the views of present-day analysts. One cogent example is Diodorus Siculus. After summarizing that author’s claims in his preface, Donelson (7) observes: “Having set these rather high standards and having laid claim to the aura of factual truth, Diodorus begins his history with an account of the origin of the gods.” See also the comments of Andrew Laird, “Fiction, Bewitchment and Story Worlds: The Implications of Claims to Truth in Apuleius,” in Christopher Gill and T. P. Wiseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993) 147–74. To judge from Lucian’s Ver. hist. 1.1–4, the quantities of fictitious first person reporting must have been substantial. 80 Erkhard Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” ABD 4:398–402. Note also Praeder (“Problem,” 208), who states that historians also make use of the first person singular. Campbell (“Who Are We?” 84–132) shows that the use of first person (singular and plural) in Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus is not uniform and cannot be linked to their sources.

stating that “we” slips out of the account whenever something important is about to happen. Although one cannot make any sweeping claims for the role of “we” as a conventional feature of travel accounts, particularly those at sea, “we” in Acts is prominent in the coastal regions84 as well as in the voyage to Rome. Readers would have deemed the usage appropriate. Research since Dibelius has made it apparent that the narrative function of “we” should be examined before—or at least independently of—the question of source, since source analysis can preempt questions of function.85 The implication of these findings is that “we” occurs in the narrative because the author has either left or placed it there. The least compelling solution to the problem is the hypothesis that “we” is a relic of a source (or sources) more or less inadvertently not removed by the final editor. Ernst Haenchen provided the basis for recent research on this problem.86 The first plural brings the readers into the story. Tannehill and Kurz reach 81 See the thorough review of literature on the subject by John Reumann: “The ‘Itinerary’ as a Form in Classical Literature and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski, eds., To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 335–57. To state that the first plural is common in accounts of sea voyages is not to state that it is a fixed formal feature, such as a saying in an apophthegm. The criticisms of Reumann and Praeder (“Problem”) are important, but are open to the objection that they demand too exact a correspondence between Acts and putative parallels. The valid observation that most first plural travel accounts derive from a first singular base does not establish that Luke had a different purpose, for one can argue that, here, as elsewhere, Luke followed a convention ineptly. The imposition of various conventions and techniques employed by historians on the framework of omniscient narration creates problems. 82 In English, for example, one is at least as likely to say, “When we crossed the Rocky Mountains, I was on chapter three,” as “When the plane went over the Rocky Mountains, I was on chapter three.” 83 If “we” is to be viewed as authenticating, it has the same status as pseudonymity in the DeuteroPauline letters. 84 Conzelmann, xl. 85 Dibelius (Studies, 197) distinguished the use of “we” from the question of source analysis. 86 Haenchen, “We,” esp. 83–99.

395

Acts part 2C.indd 395

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

a similar conclusion.87 This is most apparent at its first appearance at 16:10. When the story comes to the Aegean region, it comes to “us,” that is to say, the implied audience and the geographical horizon of the implied reader. The Pauline churches of the Aegean region testify in their own voice to the power and progress of his message and labors.88 Yet, as Haenchen recognized, this “vividness” and sense of “participation” cannot be permitted to oust Paul from prominence.89 Thomas E. Phillips and William S. Campbell have developed two corollaries to this approach. Campbell states that “we” helps to bolster the credibility of Paul (a role that was earlier taken by Barnabas).90 For Phillips, the chronological watershed of Acts comes after chap. 15, separating the era of the apostles from the time of Paul. The we-narrator is “postapostolic.” “We” marks a division of eras.91 Contributions like theirs show that future light will come from literary analysis. Sources92 may stand behind the bulk of first plural usages. In chaps. 20–21 “we” may reflect the hypothetical source, a letter from Paul and/or his companions on the journey to deliver the Collection, 87 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:246–47; Kurz, Reading, 113. 88 Cf. 1 Cor 9:1-2; 2 Cor 3:2. On the legitimating function of “we,” see Campbell, “Who Are We?” 89 Haenchen, “We,” e.g., 99. 90 Campbell, “Who Are We?” 133–87. 91 Thomas E. Phillips, “Paul as a Role Model in Acts: The ‘We’ Passages in Acts 16 and Beyond,” in idem, ed., Acts and Ethics (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005) 49–63.

a text in which “we” would be appropriate.93 There, too, “we” has been manipulated by the author. Similarly, the use of “we” on the voyage to Rome (chaps. 27–28) may reflect a source, although this could have been, as Dibelius suspected, a source that had nothing to do with Paul.94 In conclusion: narrative explanations illuminate the use of “we” in Acts but do not fully elucidate it. “We” is not a single character and therefore unlikely to represent the author. “Participation,” in the sense of the “we” of the community (as in John 1:14), is an explanation that best gives credit to the author. This does not eliminate the possibility that the author overlooked the conflict between anonymous, omniscient narration and use of the (theoretically) limited first person and thus inadvertently created most of the problems.95 The use of “we” does not identify the author of Acts. It does serve to enhance the credibility of the narrative and to associate the narrator with the person of Paul. It is a bid to be recognized as an exponent of authentic Paulinism96 and to authenticate the Paulinism of Acts. “We” is to Acts as the letter form is to the Deutero-Pauline epistles. 92 The plural asserts that there was no single, continuous “we-source.” 93 See pp. 12–14; Koch, “Kollektenbericht,” 90–92; and Roloff, 239. 94 Dibelius, Studies, 205. 95 This can be illustrated in reverse: novelists who elect to write in the first singular have difficulty in excluding information that their narrators could not have known. 96 See also Marguerat, Historian, 24–25.

396

Acts part 2C.indd 396

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

16:11-40

16

16:11-40  The Mission in Philippi 11/ We sailed from Troas a on a straight course to Samothrace and came to Neapolis b the next day. 12/ From Neapolis we went to Philippi, a city of the first district of Macedonia c and a Roman colony. We spent several days in that city. 13/ On the Sabbath we went beyond the city gate to the riverside, where we thought there would be a place for prayer. d There we sat and began to converse with the women who had assembled. 14/ One of them, a devout woman named Lydia, who was a dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira, e began to take interest. f The Lord opened her heart, so that she paid close attention g to Paul’s words. 15/ When Lydia, together with her household, h had been baptized, she urged, “Since you have concluded that I am a genuine believer i in the Lord, come and stay j in my house.” We found her argument ­c ompelling. 16/ While we were on the way to the place of prayer, a slave woman with a prophetic spirit who made plenty of money for her owners by issuing oracles encountered us. 17/ As she trailed along behind Paul and us, she kept on shouting: k “These people are slaves of the Most High God! They commend l to you m a means of deliverance.”n 18/ She kept this up day after day, until Paul became so irritated that he turned around and addressed her spirit, “I hereby command you in the name of Jesus Christ to leave her.” It left her right away.o 19/ Her owners realized p that their expectation of income had also left. They apprehended Paul and Silas and hauled them to the authorities in the city center. 20/ When they had brought them before the chief magistrates, they said, “These fellows are convulsing the city! They are Jews 21/ and commend practices that we Romans can neither accept nor follow.”q 22/ The crowd pitched in against them, so the chief

397

Acts part 2C.indd 397

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

25/

31/ 32/

magistrates tore off the clothes of the accused and ordered a flogging. r 23/ After many blows with the rod, the officials tossed them in jail, directing the jailer to secure them carefully. 24/ In obedience to these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and shackled their feet in stocks. s Sometime in the middle of the night, as Paul and Silas were praying and praising God in song while the other prisoners listened to them, 26/ there was suddenly an earthquake so powerful that the foundations of the prison were rocked. All the doors popped open, t and the chains of all the prisoners came loose. 27/ The jailer awakened, saw the doors of the prison wide open, and, presuming that the inmates had escaped, pulled out his sword with the intention of killing himself. 28/ But Paul shouted very loudly: “Don’t harm yourself. We’re all here!” 29/ The jailer called for illumination, u rushed in, and fell trembling before Paul and Silas.v 30/ After bringing them out, he asked, “Milords, what must I do to be saved?” “Believe in the Lord Jesus w and you will be saved, together with your household.” They thereupon told the jailer and all in his home the message about the Lord. x 33/ Late as it was, the jailer took them where he could cleanse their wounds. He and all of his people were then baptized without delay. 34/ He then escorted them to his own home, where a meal was set before them. The household was ebullient because each and all had come to faith in God. 16:35-40: Conventional Text

35/

36/

The next morning the chief magistrates sent their police escort y with the message, “Let those people go.” The jailer z gave Paul the word: “The chief magistrates have sent orders that you two are to be released. All right, then,

16:35-40: D-Textbb 35/

The next morning the chief magistrates assembled together in the city center. Reflecting upon the earthquake that had occurred, they were filled with awe, and . . . sent their police escort with the message, “Let those people of whom you took

398

Acts part 2C.indd 398

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

16:11-40

come on out and be happily on your way!” “They give us,” said Paul, “a public beating, us, Roman citizens convicted of no crime, then toss us into jail, and now they want to kick us out of town secretly? Not a chance!aa Let them come in person and remove us from jail.”

37/

38/

The police reported this to the chief magistrates, who were terrified to learn that their victims were Roman citizens. The magistrates came with reassuring words, took them out of jail, and requested that they leave town.

39/

40/

After their release Paul and Silas went to see Lydia. They provided the believers with spiritual nurture and then left Philippi.

a b

c

38/

39/

custody yesterday go.” 36/ The jailer went in and gave Paul the word: “The chief magistrates have sent orders that you two are to be released. All right, then, come on out and be [ ] on your way!” 37/ “They give us,” said Paul, “a public beating, us, innocent Roman citizens, then toss us into jail, and now they want to kick us out of town secretly? Not a chance! Let them come in person and remove us from jail.” The police went to the magistrates and reported to them what had been said . . . The magistrates came to the jail with numerous friends and urged them to depart. “We were unaware of your situation,” they said, “that you are law-abiding men. Please depart this city lest they once again gang up on us, clamoring against you.” 40/ After their release Paul and Silas went to visit Lydia. When they saw the believers, they related all that the Lord had done for them. After giving them spiritual nurture they left Philippi.

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 267) assures the reader that the party left on the very next day. In the tradition the name appears as either two words (“New City”), preferred in N-A 27, or as one (as in the conventional translation). See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 393. Or: “a leading city of the district of Macedonia.” The translation is based on an almost conjectural emendation (there is some support in medieval versions, which themselves may derive from correction) of prwvth to prwvth~. Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland opposed this emendation, as seen in their note in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 395; see 393–95; and Barrett (2:778–80), who also rejects the emendation. The reading “head,” that is, chief or capital city, of D is unlikely to come from the Latin caput of d, for the equivalent also appears in sy p. For the historical defense of “first district,” see Justin Taylor, “The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2436–2500, esp. 2443–44.

d e f

g

h

i

j

k

For variants, see the comments. “Thyatira” is a neuter plural in Greek. Quateivrwn is therefore an appositive. This understanding of the imperfect h[kouen seems preferable to Haenchen’s inference (494–95) that repeated encounters are in view. On the infinitive prosevcein (“pay heed to”), see BDF §392(3). For its function in missionary activity, see Acts 8:6 (Philip in Samaria). On this translation of kaiv, see BDF §442 (10). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 268) pedantically reads “entire household.” The most obvious meaning of pisthv is “believer.” See Cadbury, “Names,” 375–92, esp. 382. Richter Reimer (Women, 114–17) emphasizes her trustworthiness and fidelity. A variant is the aorist imperative, which is slightly better Greek but may have been introduced because Paul did not long remain with her. Boismard (Texte, 269) prefers the aorist, implying that the woman shouted just once on this occasion.

399

Acts part 2C.indd 399

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

l m

n

o

p q

r

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 269) is less subtle: eujaggelivzetai (“evangelize”). Both “to you” and the less well supported variant “to us,” which sounded alike and were easily confused in Greek, presume an audience about which the text says nothing. Or: “the means of deliverance” (Cadbury and Lake, 193). On this phrase, which the narrator does not wish to equate with “the gospel,” see Todd Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading (SNTSMS 129; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 224–26. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 270) evidently replaces “in that very hour” (lit.) with the conventional “immediately.” B has an initial kaiv (“and”). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 272) makes the crowd “large,” has them shout, and places one of its frequent “thens” before the action of the officials, and makes some improvements to the syntax. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 272) improves the syntax by placing “order” in the aorist and changing the infinitive to the passive: rJabdivzesqai (“to be whipped”). On this issue, see BDF §392 (4); Barrett, 2:791.

Analysis

Each of the communities evangelized by Paul in chaps. 16–19 has distinct and memorable characteristics. Some of these are traditional: Philippi was a Roman colony, Athens was an intellectual and cultural center, and the Ephesian temple of Artemis was famous. Others are more particular: Philippi seems to have no established synagogue; reception in the Thessalonian synagogue is attentive, but mixed; Beroea is highly receptive, until . . . At Athens one hears only of speaking in the synagogue, with no positive results reported. Labor in the synagogue at Corinth leads to an eventual split. Ephesus yielded a similar result. The briefest report pertains to Beroea (17:10-14), the only station in these chapters not mentioned in the extant correspondence of Paul. Framing this mission are great adventures at Philippi and Ephesus. At Corinth Paul works for a living. In Ephesus he teaches in a facility. Whatever the author 1

Lit. “wood,” xu`lon. For a similar usage, see Chariton Chaer. 4.2.6 and Lucian Toxaris 29. t The omission of paracrh`ma (“immediately”) in B gig Lucifer is interesting. The word is common in Luke and Acts (15/16 versus 2 in the rest of the NT). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 396) attributes it to an accident. Boismard (Texte, 273) does not consider it. u Cadbury and Lake (198) note that fw`ta (“light/s”) could have been construed as a singular. v The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 274) introduces the verse with a transitional participial phrase, “When he had heard this,” and adds the customary “at the feet” to “fall before.” w The variant addition of “Christ” reflects later orthodoxy. x As often, there is the variant “God.” See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 308. y Lit., “lictors,” who carried the symbols of authority before Roman magistrates. z P74 promotes him to “head jailer” (ajrcidesmo­ fuvlax). aa For the rendition of ouj gavr, see BDF §452 (2). bb The D-Text follows Boismard, Texte, 276–79. s

possessed or utilized from his sources, he was, as usual, able to produce a lively and varied narrative. In the end, credit for Acts 16–19 must be assigned to Lucan art.1 In these stories, both he and his hero shine. The mission at Philippi calls forth a lengthy narrative, the core of which is bracketed by references to Lydia and other believers (vv. 13-15; 40a).2 Within this frame are a number of sequential episodes. An exorcism in vv. 16-18 leads to trumped-up charges against Paul and Silas, resulting in beating and incarceration (vv. 19-24). The legal situation is resolved by their release and departure (vv. 35-39). Within this comes the story of the earthquake and related events (vv. 25-34). Two important conversions, that of Lydia and her household, and the jailer with his household, are the pillars on which the narrative, and the Philippian community, are erected. For the first time Paul founds communities based on household churches headed by gentiles. For this first independent Pauline endeavor, Luke pulls out

Once more, the contrast with chaps. 13–14 is quite notable.

2

For a history of research, see Peter Pilhofer, Philippi, Band I: Die erste christliche Gemeinde

400

Acts part 2C.indd 400

8/27/2008 10:16:45 AM

16:11-40

all the stops. The wealth of detail exceeds anything that has gone before. To highlight the inauguration of the gospel in the Aegean region, the author chooses not to dwell on patient missionary labors but rather a series of adventures, with many twists and turns in the plot and a happy ending—despite the narrator’s admission that the evangelists leave at the behest of the officials. The mission to Philippi is a great adventure story that portrays the triumph of the faith over the machinations of polytheism. Given the amount of space devoted to this endeavor, the lack of correspondence to the data of Paul’s correspondence with Philippi is noteworthy.3 The source question is not easily resolved. The stages of the journey (vv. 11-12a) “are the natural stopping places on the way to Philippi” and, for that very reason, may or may not come from a source.4 The story of Lydia’s conversion is reasonably, but not indisputably, attributed to a source, perhaps a local Philippian foundation story. The term proseuchv, not otherwise found in Acts, supports this, as may other unusual details. 5 The parallel conversion of the anonymous jailer (also en famille), which yields the desired female/male pair,6 is quite probably a Lucan creation. Although the exorcism of the slave woman could have a basis in tradition

3 4

5

(­ perhaps not at Philippi), it is not typical and is likely to have been developed by Luke to suit his purposes, for several of which it is highly convenient. The entire sequence—arraignment, beating, imprisonment, earthquake, vindication, and release—is probably inspired by 1 Thess 2:2 (with the whipping possibly from 2 Cor 11:25). One may, alternatively, posit that the arraignment before the officials, the beating, and the release a day later come from tradition, but this skeleton raises as many questions as it answers, for example, the grounds for the arrest and punishment, and an explanation for the almost immediate release.7 It is highly probable that Luke possessed some traditions about Philippi, but, apart from proposals about the story of Lydia, attempts to identify these do not contribute to the understanding of the text. The stories do, however, suggest that the author had access to local traditions, and they raise the question of how he obtained this material. Comment   11-12  Easy and rapid voyages are good portents.8

Philippi,9 which receives a flattering introduction,10 was fortunately situated at the juncture of East and West,

Europas (WUNT 87; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 153–99. Cf. Fitzmyer, 582. Luke knew the letter. See Pervo, Dating, table 4.45, p. 141. See Lüdemann (183), who uses the data to claim a historical origin. Many agree, for example, Weiser (2:421), who lists others holding that view. Ignatius (Polyc. 8:1) followed the same route. For some of these, see Weiser (2:421–22), who also attributes the baptism of her household to tradition (423). Lüdemann (183) appeals to her name and occupation. These arguments are in danger of confusing verisimilitude with history. On the other hand, it should be noted that Paul, as is standard in Acts, begins with a mission to Jews, which does not fit his own self-understanding as an apostle to the gentiles. Valerie Abrahamsen (“Women at Philippi: The Pagan and Christian Evidence,” JFSR 3 [1987] 17–30) is willing to consider that the story may be fictitious, while Matthews (First Converts, 93) thinks that it is a Lucan invention. She appeals to Lydia’s absence from the Philippian correspondence, the symbolic value of her name, and her value as a foil for the “difficult” Euodia and Syntyche of Phil 4:2-3. Dennis R. MacDonald (“Lydia and Her Sisters as

Lukan Fictions,” in Levine, Feminist Companion, 105–10) argues for Euripides’ Bacchae as the primary inspiration. Deconstructive arguments from silence have their drawbacks, but this is at least as cogent as Lüdemann’s assumption of historicity from details. For the symbolic value of the name Lydia, see Marianne Palmer Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 131 n. 12, 167. (Against the objection that Luke would not invent a story about a woman as the initial convert is Matthew’s First Converts, which focuses on stories that begin with women who respond positively to the message of a new religion.) 6 See on 9:32-43. 7 See Jervell (428–30) and the lengthy analysis by Weiser (2:421–31). 8 See Appendix 4. 9 See Holland L. Hendrix, “Philippi,” ABD 5:313–17; Lukas Bormann, Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (NovTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1995); and the literature cited by Fitzmyer, 584. 10 Cf. Pseudo-Lucian, Onos 46, where Thessalonica is called “the greatest city in Macedonia.” (megivsth~ probably means “largest” here.)

401

Acts part 2C.indd 401

8/27/2008 10:16:46 AM

land and sea, surrounded by arable land and mineral deposits. The site also benefited from its location as the battleground where Octavian, the future Augustus, and Marc Anthony defeated the assassins of Caesar, which led to the status of Philippi as a Roman colony. Colonies were pieces of Rome, as it were, bulbs planted at strategic sites.11 Those who held this title were proud of it. The political status of Philippi will be important for both the outcome of this particular story and as a symbol of the place of the church in the Roman Empire.12 Verse 12b13 encompasses the entire duration of the mission; it takes little more than a week to launch a community in Acts, but it probably marks time—and raises suspense—before the arrival of Saturday.14   13  The general meaning of the verse is clear—the party joined some women at prayer on the Sabbath— but little else is. The construction is peculiar, and the text is quite uncertain and may be corrupt.15 Of the six possibilities printed in N-A 27, ejnomivzomen proseuch;n

ei\nai) is rendered here, although ejnovmizen proseuch;n ei\nai (“where Paul thought” [a, cf. p 74 (with noun in the nominative)]) is attractive,16 and the argument of Ropes that the verb was passive and meant, in effect, where a place for prayer would normally be found, although open to objections,17 has the merit of making some sense. All solutions raise the problem of why the party did not make efforts to ascertain if and where Jews gathered. The text preferred by Ropes implies that, if Jews gathered anywhere, it would be near the water.18 The missionaries’ uncertainty inclines toward the view that the “place of prayer” (proseuchv)19 was just that, and that readers are free to envision the worshipers meeting al fresco in an area where a synagogue would be, had one been built.20 The text says nothing about entering a building, but that possibility is not excluded. One is permitted to infer that only women were gathered. This phenomenon has resulted in considerable comment, both positive and demeaning,21 but it may

11 Aulus Gellius Noct. Att. 16.13.9: quasi effigies paruae simulacraque esse quaedam uidentur (“miniatures, as it were, and in a way copies”), trans. John C. Rolfe, The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927) 181. 12 Otherwise Acts does not identify colonies. Other sites that held this status are Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Troas, and Corinth. Cf. also Ptolemais, Syracuse, and Puteoli. 13 “Spend time” (diatrivbw) is a Lucan word: 12:19; 14:3, 28; 15:35; 20:6; 25:6, 14. 14 See Haenchen, 494. 15 The possibility of corruption in two consecutive verses raises the possibility that damage occurred in the archetype of all existing witnesses. 16 See Conzelmann (130), who traces the difficulties to an original nominative. 17 See Ropes, Text, 155; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 395–96; Barrett, 2:780–81. Boismard (Texte, 268) reads “where there seemed to be a place of prayer” (ejdovkei proseuch; ei\nai). Although not likely to be original, this supports the reading of Ropes. Bruce (358) does not read Ropes’s text, but he finds it more probable. 18 It appears to have been customary to locate Jewish houses of worship in proximity to sources of water. See Josephus Ant. 14.258 and the data supplied by Barrett, 2:781. J. Goldin, “The Magic of Magic and Superstition,” in Schüssler Fiorenza, Aspects, 115–47, esp. 125 (who relates the practice to a

sense that the deity—and demons—prefer the liquid element). 19 On the term, see Martin Hengel, “Proseuche und Synagoge,” in Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 157–84; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 207–25; Sharon Lea Mattila, “Where Women Sat in Ancient Synagogues: The Archaeological Evidence in Context,” in John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, eds., Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996) 266–86, esp. 275; and Richter Reimer, Women, 85–90. It is equally possible that Luke has simply varied his terminology. In any event, this place of prayer plays the same role in the story as synagogues do elsewhere. It is Paul’s first missionary target. 20 Johnson (292) assumes that the party stopped en route to the place of prayer to preach to a “crowd of women on the beach,” and that v. 16 resumes the actual trip. This is creative, but generates more difficulties than it unravels. 21 See the exhaustive study of Richter Reimer (Women, 71–149), who identifies exegetes who determined that this could not have been a “true” Jewish synagogue community on the grounds that only women are mentioned.

402

Acts part 2C.indd 402

8/27/2008 10:16:46 AM

16:11-40

be a Lucan contribution to explain why Lydia alone appears responsive, and it may also explain why the word “synagogue” does not appear.22 Atypically, the narrative reports no other conversions, no division that leads to opposition. In this story, the narrator will restrict hostility to polytheists.   14  Although “we” spoke to the women, 23 the only result reported is Lydia’s response to Paul: the Lord “opened her heart,” an evocation of Luke 24:45.24 Lydia

represents one important type of early Christian convert: a possible former slave25 who operates a business.26 Nothing is said of her marital status. It is likely that she is to be perceived as single, divorced, or widowed. In any case, she was the head of her household, and a person of some means.27 By ancient standards she was not rich, but, among early Christians, she would have been seen as fairly well situated. A presumed freedwoman, quite possibly an immigrant, practicing an unpleasant type of

22 Valerie Abrahamsen, “Women at the Place of Prayer at Philippi,” in Meyers, Women, 463–64. 23 For the difficulties of taking “sat down” as the position of teaching authority, see Haenchen, 494. Acts 13:14 is a better parallel: worshipers were seated. 24 In Luke 24:45, the risen Jesus opened “the mind” of his disciples. Note also 24:32 (“burning hearts” of travelers to Emmaus) and the use of “heart” in Luke 8:12, 15 (parable of the sower). Cf. 2 Macc 1:4: “May he open your heart to his law and his commandments, and may he bring peace.” This may be the source. 25 This is a reasonable inference from both her name and her occupation: G. Horsley, NewDocs 2:26–28 (1982); and Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 203 n. 93. David Gill (“Acts and the Urban Élites,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 105–18, esp. 114) rejects this and compares here to a Julia Lydia and a Julia Lydia Laterane, but the nomenclature is important. Colin J. Hemer similarly fails to discriminate in his generally useful “Lydia and the Purple Trade,” NewDocs 3 (1983) no. 17, pp. 53–55. The Lydia of Acts 16 has but a single name. Horace deemed “Lydia” a suitable name for a (high-class) prostitute (Odes 1.8.1; 1.13.1; 1.25.8; 3.9.6–7, 20; 4.15.30). 26 See the detailed studies of Lydia’s occupation by Richter Reimer, Women, 100–112; and Luise Schottroff, Let the Oppressed Go Free: Feminist Perspectives on the New Testament (trans. Annemarie S. Kidder: Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 131–37. Richter Reimer (Women, 112) concludes that her income was at the subsistence level. This is not certain. What the text claims is that she was in charge of a household and that her living arrangements were large enough for several guests; that is, she could serve as a patron. See also Abrahamsen, “Lydia,” 110–11; W. Derek Thomas, “Women in the Church at Philippi,” ExpT 83 (1976) 117–20; and Spencer, “Women,” 146–50. Thyatira, Lydia’s place of origin, is associated with this trade. Cf. IGR 4.1213, 1250, and 1265, on which, see T. R. S.

Broughton in Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (5 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933–40) 4:818–19. On the social standing of such persons in general, see John H. D’Arms, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), with references to purple merchants on 128 and 139. A purple dealer from Hierapolis became a member of the city council (n.d.; Fik Meijer and Onno van Nijf, Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World: A Sourcebook [London: Routledge, 1992] no. 137 p. 107), a certain mark of social respectability and thus a challenge to the assumption that purple merchants always had low status. One Euschemon, a vendor of purple goods (porfuropwvlh~), whose name suggests a servile background, refurnished the statue and shrine of the Tyche of Miletus (c. 123 ce, IMysia/Troas 2261). P. Herm. 52 takes note of a Jewish dealer in purple goods (Annas, son of Joses, 399 ce). For the nature and meaning of “purple goods,” see Frederick W. Danker, “Purple,” ABD 5:557–60. A century ago, William Ramsay noticed some affinities between the “Jezebel” of Thyatira in Rev 2:18-28, toward whom he was sympathetic, and the Lydia of Acts (The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse [New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1905] 336.) He did not wish to pursue these connections, but Price (Widow Traditions, 225–34) did so. He hypothesizes that Lydia and the possessed woman of 16:16-18 were originally one person, divided by Luke to show that women prophets should remain silent. His approach displays limited methodological rigor, but he does identify problems in the narrative. See Haenchen (494 n. 8), for amusing identifications of this woman. 27 On the type, see Richard Pervo, “Wisdom and Power,” ATR 67 (1985) 307–25. Matthews (First Converts, 85–89) recognizes that, for Luke, Lydia is a person of status. This is clear not from an abstract analysis of her business but from the role she plays in the narrative.

403

Acts part 2C.indd 403

8/27/2008 10:16:46 AM

work—scarcely more appealing in its working conditions than that of Simon the Tanner (9:43) 28 —Lydia would probably have had a limited place in the social world of her colony.29 The new religion had a place for such persons. That place, for Acts, is to offer hospitality to the missionaries. She is the Martha of Acts. 30 For Luke, Lydia is the host of a house church, not its explicit head. If Luke had thought her occupation degrading, he could have suppressed the data and introduced her as the head of a household. Acts 9:43 and 18:3 indicate that the author had no qualms about presenting artisans as prominent converts. This reveals the difference between the appearance of the social status of early believers in Acts, which claims adherents of the very highest status, such as Sergius Paulus (13:7-12), and the reality: people who work with leather and wool stand near the top of the actual heap. 31   15  Baptism follows immediately, as is customary in Acts (cf. v. 33). Verses 13-15 establish what will become a common pattern in Acts, the shift from “synagogue” to house as a missionary base.32 This is comparable to the transfer of centrality from the temple to the house. 33 For missionaries to stay at the home of converts demonstrates that the new believers are fully acceptable. 34 God-Fearers are not second-class citizens in the Christian community. In v. 15, that purpose is explicit. Lydia’s “compelling” argument is the second possible allusion

to Luke 24 in two verses. 35 New life has come to Philippi. The one who opened her heart opened Paul’s as well. Lydia is the Cornelius of this mission. 36   16-18  Rather than continue to describe Paul’s labors, the narrator moves, not without difficulty, to an incident that will eventually result in his departure.37 The woman’s advertising might seem like a good thing, but Paul had absolutely no use for this kind of vulgar religion, which resembled the superstitions hawked in public squares by unscrupulous quacks. 38 The two demonstrations of the superiority of Christianity to vulgar polytheism here and in 19:23-40 encase Paul’s independent missionary enterprise.39 Rackham saw the point: “Philippi was not exempt from superstition and attempts to trade upon the spiritual cravings of man. This slave girl is a contrast to the well-to-do Lydia; and, like the maidservant who troubled Peter in Caiaphas’ palace, she was to be the involuntary cause of much evil to S. Paul.”40 The chief difficulty is in the (improper) genitive absolute that introduces v. 16.41 If the reader is to understand this as a flashback to the Sabbath walk related in v. 13, the narrator has not been clear, but if, on the other hand, it relates a subsequent trip to the place of prayer, clarity is equally lacking. The best solution is to admit that the two components cannot intelligibly be coordinated. Even the D-Text did not attempt to straighten up this glitch. Only careful or critical readers will pause to

28 One can gain a notion of the activities involved from those fresci in the House of the Vetii at Pompeii, which depict cupids engaged in fulling. (The Vetii evidently earned enough in various trades to acquire a fine villa.) 29 See, however, n. 25. 30 Cf. Kathleen Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993) 143. 31 On Luke’s social orientation, see Pervo, Profit, 77–81. 32 See 18:7 (Corinth) and 19:9 (Ephesus); cf. 28:30 (Rome). On the conversion, see Matson, Household Conversion, 136–54. 33 See p. 94 n. 54. 34 Cf. John 1:40; Acts 10:48b. There could be too much of a good thing (Did. 11:4–5). 35 The verb parabiavzomai (“compel”) appears only in Luke 24:29 (Emmaus, where meivnw likewise is found) and Acts 16:15 in the NT. Cf. also Gen 19:3. 36 See Matthews (First Converts), who also notes that

37

38

39

40 41

specific mention of table hospitality is reserved to the jailer. Rackham (284) notes the difficulty. Richter Reimer (Women, 151–94) analyzes this incident in considerable detail. Klutz (Exorcism Stories, 207–64) also offers a detailed analysis, with considerable attention to its context in Luke and Acts. In addition, see Frederick E. Brenk, “The Exorcism at Philippi in Acts 16.11-40: Divine Possession or Diabolic Inspiration?” FilolNT 13 (2000) 3–21; and Kauppi, Foreign, 27–38. Aune (Prophecy, 268–69) identifies and discusses two formal elements: a recognition oracle and a commendation oracle. Cf. ejrgasivan pollhvn (“considerable income”) in 16:16 with the oujk ojlivghn ejrgasivan (“not inconsiderable income”) of 19:24. Rackham, 286. In n. 1 on 287, he also saw the parallel with Rhoda in 12:13. Verse 16 uses an absolute “we.” In v. 17 “we” is distinguished from Paul and then drops out until

404

Acts part 2C.indd 404

8/27/2008 10:16:46 AM

16:11-40

ponder the ­difficulty, however, for the narrative immediately plunges into a new and exciting development. Verses 16-40 follow the sequence familiar from chaps. 3–5: A miracle rouses official antagonism (3:1-10; 4:1-2; 5:12-16), which results in whipping (5:40), incarceration (4:3; 5:18), prison miracle (5:19; 12:6-17) and release (5:23, 40; 12:10). Here the narrative is far from Jerusalem and the occasion is even farther from pity for a suffering soul. Some men made a good living from the oracular properties of a female slave. Her pneu`ma puvqwna is somewhat tautological, for puvqwn had come to mean a “spirit of divination.”42 These persons were called “bellytalkers” (ejggastrivmuqoi). One theory was that they were pregnant (ejn gastriv) with a god,43 a view popular enough to bring forth a vigorous denial by Plutarch.44 Women did, tradition records, deliver oracles, often to the benefit (or horror) of political leaders.45 The narrator holds the practice in disdain.46 His view resembles

42

43

44

45

that of Lucian’s portrait of Alexander of Abonoutei­ chos.47 To put such individuals out of business will be a community service.48 In this instance, the majestic god Apollo is represented by a street person of the lowest status, whose advertisement is far from Apollonian and whose career collapses at a single pronouncement by Paul.49 Her fate resembles that of the alleged sons of a high priest of the God of Israel in 19:13-17. The episode is a reflex of the story of Balaam (Numbers 22–25), a prophet who surprisingly delivers oracles in support of a rival deity, but Luke’s immediate inspiration came from Mark 5:1-20||Luke 8:26-39. The scene takes place on polytheist territory. The possessed person “encountered” (uJpantavw [Mark 5:2; Acts 16:2]) the exorcist and seized the initiative, using the expression “most high God” (u{yisto~ qeov~), often found in gentile contexts. 50 The incident involves an economic loss (Mark 5:13; Acts 16:19) and ends with a request for the exorcist to leave the jurisdiction (Mark 5:17; Acts

20:5. The narrator thus prepares for the departure of the first plural. BDAG, 896–97, s.v. puvqwn. This may explain the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 269) pneu`ma puvqwno~ (“spirit of a python”), supported also by p 45. Klutz observes that the phrase pneu`ma puvqwna is parallel to the locutions pneu`ma ajkavqarton and pneu`ma ponhrovn (“unclean/evil spirit”). Aristophanes Wasps 1019, with the scholium, on which see Wikenhauser (Geschichtswert, 401–7), who cites other texts, including examples from the LXX (which usually refer to the conjuring of ghosts). Plutarch Def. orac. 9 (Mor. 414E): “Certainly it is foolish and childish in the extreme to imagine that the god himself after the manner of ventriloquists (who used to be called ‘Eurycleis,’ but now ‘Pythones’ [puvqwna~]) enters into the bodies of his prophets and prompts their utterances, employing their mouths and voices as instruments” (trans. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia V [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938] 377). Eric R. Dodds reviews ancient attempts at describing or explaining the phenomenon (The Greeks and the Irrational [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968] 71–72). Sambathis, whose name was altered to Athenais, was a Phrygian slave. See H. C. Youtie, “Sambathis,” HTR 37 (1944) 209–18, esp. 212 n. 17. For others, see David Potter, Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

46

47

48

49

50

Press, 1994) 169, 172–73. For the political ramifications of divination, see MacMullen, Enemies, 128–62. The verb manteuvomai (“issue oracles”) is always used in a negative sense in the LXX and early Christian literature (BDAG, 616, s.v.). Lucian Alex., esp. 19–29; cf. also Petronius Satyricon 134–38; Juvenal Sat. 6.543–47; Apuleius Metam. 8.26–30; and the discussion by Georgi (Opponents, 98–101). As elsewhere, the attitude toward money is revelatory of spiritual condition. Cf. Johnson, Literary Function, 202. Richter Reimer (Women, 154–56) argues that the slave was an itinerant Pythia and that her oracles were attributed to Apollo. See also Klutz (Exorcism Stories, 214–17), who agrees with Richter Reimer, as does Matthews (First Converts, 89–92). Their evidence is persuasive. Aune (Prophecy, 268) says that the symptoms indicate that she was in a trance. The association of this person with Apollo goes back at least to Bede, 69. The implicit argument is that “pagan gods” are in fact demons. This is a thesis of Christian apologists (e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 26.1; Origen Cels. 3.25–27; 4.90–98; Eusebius Praep. ev. 4.23). Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.16 also indicates that “pythons” can be exorcised. Distinction is to be made between u{yisto~ (“highest”) as a divine epithet (more than a hundred times in the LXX) and qeo;~ u{yisto~ (“the highest god”). See Arthur Darby Nock, “The Gild of Zeus

405

Acts part 2C.indd 405

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

16:39). Formally, the exorcism is atypical, since exorcists rarely put up with demons for some days and do not usually act for their own benefit. 51 These features are dramatically suitable, to be sure, but they add weight to the view that this exorcism is a secondary composition, not from tradition. 52 Structurally, Mark 1:23-28 should also be considered. Just as the mission of Jesus began with an exorcism, signifying the irruption of God’s rule, so does Paul’s work in this new field of endeavor. 53 In addition to this reminiscence of the ministry of Jesus, there is a parallel to Peter: Paul also has to encounter a pai­divskh (“slave girl”), and this in proximity to a prison miracle. 54 That the parallel is not precise is a testament to Lucan artistry. Finally, the incident possesses some rough humor. 55 Luke has got a lot of mileage out of these three verses.   19-21  This exorcism brought forth an angry mob56

51

52

53 54

rather than an admiring crowd.57 The owners were shrewd enough to mask their avarice with a potent brew concocted from the ultimate resort of the scoundrel, a dose of old-time religion, and a garnish of racism. It had the desired effect. In practically less time than it takes to tell, they arraigned the missionaries on their foul charges, supported by the testimony of the urban mob. The panicked magistrates caved in to this threat and, without inquiry or examination, had the alleged perpetrators viciously whipped and slapped into firm custody. Those who had loosened the bonds of a demon found themselves in shackles. As in chap. 19, Luke reveals the utter bankruptcy of polytheism. The incident is quite exciting but without much logic. Since the owners58 were perturbed about financial loss, 59 it would have behooved them to lodge a suit against Paul.60 The narrator prefers to relate a typical

Hypsistos,” in Essays, 1:414–43 (abridged from HTR 29 [1936] 39–88, which is preferable), esp. 416–30. Nock demonstrated that the epithet is not always associated with Judaism. For the Greek text, as well as additional comments, see NewDocs 1 (1981) no. 3, pp. 25–29. Note also Deissmann, Light, Appendix 1, 413–24; Richter Reimer, Women, 161–67; and Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 74 nn. 146–48. The Jewish and syncretistic associations of the title are well illustrated in the magical texts adduced by John M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1974) 67–68. See also Paul R. Trebilco, “Paul and Silas, ‘Servants of the Most High God’ (Acts 16:16-18),” JSNT 36 (1989) 51–73; F. Scott Spencer, “Out of Mind, out of Voice: Slave-girls and Prophetic Daughers in Luke-Acts,” BibInt 7 (1999) 133–55; and Kauppi, Foreign, 34–38. Kauppi concludes that “Most High” was another god. Compare Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.20, where Apollonius immediately exorcises a demon that is interfering with his teaching. Boismard (Texte, 270) eliminates diaponhqeiv~ (“became irritated”). His argument is open to objection, but his data do indicate that some authorities viewed this emotion as problematic. (Luke may have found justification in the D-Text ojrgisqeiv~ of Mark 1:41, which he probably read and omitted.) The expression “means of deliverance” in the oracle (v. 17) combines two favorite Lucan words: “way” (oJdov~) and “salvation.” Note also that, as in Mark 1:23-28||Luke 4:33-37, demons are not allowed to propagate the message. See on Acts 12:6-17.

55 See Pervo (Profit, 63), who observes that this exorcism would arouse considerable critical contempt if found in Apocryphal Acts. The verb diaponevomai (“become furious” [n. 50]) appears elsewhere in Acts only of the rage of the Sanhedrin against the apostles (4:2). Klauck (Magic, 69) provides a detailed historicizing rationale for the action. There is irony: a slave recognizes the missionaries as inspired slaves of God. 56 For Brian Rapske (The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody [BIFCS 3; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994] 121–23) the crowd amounts to an “assembly.” The narrative does not describe them as violent, and crowds could influence judgments, but such influence was not viewed as a component of good rule. 57 The narrator says nothing about the fate of the slave, who has played her part. Her subsequent life would not have been enviable. For a similar conclusion, with more detail, see Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 260–62. 58 Two or more persons could share ownership of a slave. See Richter Reimer, Women, 153. 59 There are several adroit plays on words. The term for the departure of the demon in v. 18 and the loss of income in v. 19 are the same (ejxh`lqen). The verb used by their slave of the missionary proclamation (katagevllousin [v. 17]) recurs in their own claim about what Paul and Silas are preaching (v. 21). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 271) revises the verse, eliminating the play on ejxh`lqen and dropping the final “to the authorities.” For more details, see Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 210–12. 60 Richter Reimer (Women, 176–78) recognizes this,

406

Acts part 2C.indd 406

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

16:11-40

scene c­ entered on the labile mob, swayed by unscrupulous manipulators, which can be conjured up as needed.61 Despite the breathless quality of the narrative, the charges are formulated with some cleverness and eloquence.62 The accused are foreign agitators63 who promulgate an alien cult. Readers know that the first is false. The only agitators are the owners of the slave. The second is more complicated. The complainants allege that the missionaries advocate un-Roman practices. A. N. Sherwin-White views this formulation as “positively archaic,” relating it to the decree against the Dionysiac Mysteries (186 bce).64 Jewish proselytism, while not specifically forbidden until a later era, had long been frowned upon,65 but the accusers do not explicitly say that Paul and Silas were attempting to

61 62 63

64

65

persuade Roman citizens to adopt Jewish practices.66 Neither Luke nor his readers need to have been familiar with the fine points of Roman law. Virtually everyone knew that national “customs” (e[qh) could be regarded as sacred,67 and the charges intend to ignite the flames of nationalistic ardor: “us” vs. “them.”68 Proper Romans are not “anti-Christian,” but they are hostile to Jews.69 The final words of v. 21 will become ironic when v. 37 reveals that Paul and Silas are themselves Roman citizens. Less subtle is the irony that the frequent victim of Jewish agitators is accused of being just that.   22-23  Readers will probably infer that the officials,70 stampeded by the crowd and impressed with the gravity of the charges, dispensed with such niceties as a trial.71 The accused are, without further ado, stripped,

and provides data, although she takes the account as historical and thus passes on to criminal matters. Klutz (Exorcism Stories, 249–50) notes that the circumstances would have been ideal for an accusation of magic. C. de Vos (“Finding a Charge That Fits: The Accusation against Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16.19-21),” JSNT 74 [1999] 51–63) claims that the accusation is the practice of magic. Andy M. Reimer (“Virtual Prison Breaks: NonEscape Narratives and the Definition of ‘Magic,’” in Todd E. Klutz, ed., Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon [ JSNTS 245; London: T&T Clark, 2003] 125–39, esp. 133–36), supports this interpretation. At the basis of this view is an attempt at historical reconstruction (although that is not A. M. Reimer’s interest) by making the charges plausible. Plausibility is not the author’s objective. On the absence of Timothy, see p. 387 n. 14. Verses 20 and 21 have parallel conclusions with end stress: “being Jews . . . being Romans.” On ejktaravssw and related words, see Spicq, Lexicon, 3:372–76. Words from this stem are common in descriptions of social disorders. In the present context, note Josephus Bell. 1.216; 4.495; Vit. 103; 1 Macc 3:5; 7:22; the letter of Claudius to Alexandria addressing conflicts between Jews and polytheists (P. Lond. 1912, 73–74); and CPJ 441 (Jewish revolt in Cyrene). Similar charges appear in 17:6 (Thessalonica) and 24:5 (Jerusalem). A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963) 80. The ta; e[qnh (“the nations,” often “gentiles”) of D* 2412* d may be a response to the perceived difficulty. On Roman views toward and actions against

66

67

68

69 70

71

proselytism by Jews, see Smallwood, The Jews, 130, 206–10, 212, 219, 379–81, and 471–73. When Luke wishes to say “attempt to convince” or “persuade,” he uses peivqw. See, for example, Acts 5:36; 18:4. Luke does not, at this point, present the Jesus movement as “true Judaism” (cf. Conzelmann, 131). Krodel (310) notes that v. 21 is similar to Peter’s declaration in 10:28 and observes that both are incorrect. See, for example, Xenophon Mem. 1.3.1–3 (Socrates). Cassius Dio (57.18.5) says that Jews were banished from Rome in 19 ce because they were converting many Romans to their e[qh (“customs”). On the charges, see Willem C. van Unnik, “Die Anklage gegen die Apostel in Philippi (Apostelgeschichte xvi 20f),” in Sparsa Collecta (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 1:374–85; and Rapske, Roman Custody, 116–19. One of the many accusations made against Marc Antony was the abandonment of his ancestral gods (Cassius Dio 50.23.3–4). Tacitus (Hist. 5.5), writing in the wake of two revolts, characterized Jewish customs as depraved and ridiculous (Iudaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque). Cf. Weiser, 2:436. The alternation between “leaders” (a[rconta~) in v. 20 and strathgoiv (“chief magistrates”) elsewhere in the chapter is probably no more than elegant variation. Cf. Cadbury and Lake, 195. Technically, strathgoiv is inexact, usually equivalent to Latin praetor and common for the magistrates of Greek cities. See Barrett, 2:789. ILS 6087, the charter of a Roman colony at Urso in Baetica from the Flavian era (69–96 c.e.) §102 sets out rules for legal procedures, including a number of hours for both plaintiff and defendant.

407

Acts part 2C.indd 407

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

whipped, incarcerated, and secured in stocks.72 The chief difficulty is that Paul and Silas do not state that they are Roman citizens and, as such, could not be beaten unless convicted of crime.73 The answer to this dilemma is that citizenship is a trump card that the narrator will not play until he is ready.74 The atmosphere of this experience (and other trial scenes in Acts) is well evoked in Apuleius’s account of a youth wrongly accused of murder: The grieving father inflamed the council and the people too with so much pity and such intense anger that they wanted to dispense with the nuisance of a trial, with its clear demonstrations by the prosecution and studied evasions by the defense. They shouted in unison that this curse on the people should be punished by the people, crushed under a rain of stones. The magistrates meanwhile were afraid of the danger to themselves if sedition should arise from the small seeds of anger and go on to destroy public order and civic government. Some of them interceded with the councilors, others restrained the common people, arguing that a verdict ought to be rendered with due

72 73

74 75

76

77

78

process and customary procedure, that the allegations of both sides should be examined, and that a sentence should then be pronounced in a civilized manner. They must not, like savage barbarians or uncontrolled tyrants, condemn a man unheard: in a time of peace and tranquility that would be a dreadful example to set for future g ­ enerations.75   24  Paul and Silas were less fortunate. The style of popular narration attributes the tasks of stripping and whipping to the magistrates in person. Their attitude toward the presumed miscreants emerges in the subsequent order: maximum security is called for. The jailer responds by placing his charges in the innermost cell76 and securing77 their feet in stocks.78 This stringent security will be a foil for the subsequent miracle.   25-26  Cast into an earthly hell, Paul and Silas respond with song and prayer, enchanting the other prisoners. Far from the groans and laments such injustice and abuse would justify, they gave themselves to prayer and hymns of praise, devotions that moved even the hearts of calloused criminals to silence. Their conduct reveals that they are genuine “philosophers.”79 As in 4:31, the

The ­duovirs could, however, inflict floggings and 79 Socrates is the primary model of such conduct. “imprison vagrants” without trial, according to According to Plato (Phaedo 60d) he composed a Barbara Levick, The Government of the Roman hymn while in custody. Diogenes Laertius (2.42) Empire: A Sourcebook (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, quotes the alleged beginning. Epictetus discusses 1985) 61. this tradition in Diss. 4.4.23. In 2.6.27 he says, “A Chrysostom (Hom. 35) chastises the officials for platform and a prison is each a place, the one high, failure to examine the accused. the other low; but your moral purpose can be kept Foakes Jackson, 157. On the various statutes and the same, if you wish to keep it the same, in either the observance thereof, see John C. Lentz, Luke’s place. And then we shall be emulating (zhlwtaiv) Portrait of Paul (SNTSMS 77; Cambridge: CamSocrates, when we are able to write paeans in bridge University Press, 1993) 120–30. prison” (trans. W. A. Oldfather, Epictetus I (LCL; See pp. 554–56. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925) Apuleius Metam. 10.6 (LCL; trans. J. A. Hansen; 253. Other parallels are Philostratus Vit. Apoll. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989) 4.36 and Lucian Icar. 1. There is an interesting 225–27. reflex of this incident in Act. Thom. 108: the other The inner part of a jail was the darkest and least prisoners ask Thomas to pray, hoping, no doubt, safe. Cf. the “Martyrs of Lyons” (Eusebius H.E. for a hymn that will liberate them. He sings the 5.1.27); the Martyrdom of Pionius 11; and, especially, Hymn of the Pearl, which tells of a different sort the Passio Perpetuae 3.5–6 (= Musurillo, Christian, of liberation. For other examples of such “spiritu70, 150, and 108). alization,” see Erik Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum On this verb ajsfalivzw (“secure”), see Spicq (Lexiund Gnosis: Studien und Untersuchungen (Freiburg: con, 1:218–19), who shows that it belongs to the Herder, 1959) 183–208. Jewish parallels are Dan language of police procedure. 6:22 and T. Jos. 8:5. (On the last see n. 95.) The Verse 24 is a characteristically Lucan sentence Martyrdom of Pionius 18.12 (Musurillo, Christian, in the form of a relative clause. The D-Text 160) reports that the incarcerated Christians sang. (Boismard, Texte, 273) alters it to a conventional This is probably conventional, possibly derived ­construction. from Acts. Juvenal, characteristically, noted the

408

Acts part 2C.indd 408

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

16:11-40

earth reverberated in response to their prayer. The doors popped open and their fetters fell off. Paul, like the apostles in chap. 5 and Peter alone in chap. 12, has become the beneficiary of a miraculous prison rescue. Readers await the pair’s surreptitious trip to Lydia’s, hoping that no servant will cause difficulty at her door.   27  Before relating this adventure, the narrator’s all-seeing eye turns to the jailer, whom the disturbance has awakened. Drawing the obvious inference from the open doors, he drew his sword, preferring suicide to execution for failing in his duty.80   28-30  As the blade was about to descend, this poor fellow was halted by reassuring words from the allseeing Paul: every prisoner was in place. Paul adds to his manifestation of philosophical virtue a demonstration of good citizenship. The strength of his charismatic character kept all the prisoners from flight. Recognizing at least one epiphany and its source, the jailer rushed into the lockup and threw himself at his rescuers’ feet,

80 81 82 83

84 85

laying before them the essential question: “What must I do to be saved?” That is a question for which the two prisoners have an answer, communicated to the entire household. The injuries of Paul and Silas were washed; for the jailer and his people there promptly followed the bath of regeneration.81 Thereafter the two entered his private quarters for a family meal.82 All in all, it was quite a day. Excursus: Prison Escapes in Acts 83 This is the third and climactic account of a miraculous event in a prison. Suitably for its environment, Acts 16:25-34 is also the most Greco-Roman in flavor.84 Although the primary focus of research on prison escapes and door miracles has been on their role in the propagation of new cults, the event (and its opposite, the blocking of a door) occurs widely, in material ranging from magic85 to myth to fiction.86 The primary context in the Greco-Roman world was the cult of Dionysus.87 His capacity to liberate

flip side of this coin: even astrologers could put doors with incantations” (Origen Cels. 2.34). Texts incarceration on their résumés as proof of their include PGM 1.97–104; 12.160–178; and 26.312– “philosophic” virtue (Sat. 6.560–64.) 320. Cf. also Lucian Gallus 28. The ability to loose For various rationales—and despair of the same— bonds and deliver himself from confinement is one about this behavior, see Weaver, Plots, 266 n. 169. of Simon’s boasts: Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.9. See ReitzenCf. also Bede (70), who calls this a “beautiful stein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, 120–22; exchange” (pulcra rerum varietas). and Albert Dieterich, Abrasax: Studien zur ReligionOn the jailer and his family, see Matson, Household sgeschichte des spätern Altertums (Leipzig: Teubner, Conversion, 154–68. 1891) 190. On these see Reimer, “Virtual Prison Major surveys of this theme include Otto WeinreBreaks,” 125–39, esp. 128–133. ich, Gebet und Wunder: Zwei Abhundlungen zur Reli86 Examples include Chariton Chaer. 3.7; 4.2–3; gions- und Literaturgeschichte (Tübinger Beiträge zur Ephesian Tale 3.12; 4.4; Babylonian Tale (74a–78a); Altertumswissenschaft 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, Apuleius Metam. 6.9–24; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 1929) 169–444 (= Religionsgeschichtliche Studien 6.1–2; Ethiopian Story 8.6–14; Lucian Tox. 27–34; [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968]) 1–298); Kratz, and Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.38–44. Cf. Longus Rettungswunder; and Weaver, Plots. Cf. also Richard Daphn. 2.20–29. Cf. also Pervo, Profit, 147 n. 15. Pervo, “The Literary Genre of the Acts of the 87 Weaver, Plots, 49. He reviews the myth and its funcApostles” (Diss., Harvard University, 1979, 54–90); tions on pp. 32–59. Others who relate Acts 16:11-40 and idem, Profit, 21–24, 147–48. For a review of to the shape of the Dionysiac myth as found in the research, see Weaver, Plots, 11–22. Weinreich Bacchae include Matthews, First Converts, 75–82; focuses on the religio-historical context, Kratz on and Lillian Portefaix, Sisters Rejoice: Paul’s Letter to form-critical aspects, Pervo on literary issues, and the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by First-Century Weaver upon a myth-critical approach. Note also Philippian Women (ConBNT 20; Stockholm: Talbert, 154–55; and Fitzmyer, 586. Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988) 169–71. The previous stories, in 5:19-21 and 12:5-17, involved angelophanies. Magical door miracles do not play a prominent part in current discussions, but they were important. (American children probably learn “open sesame” before they know what sesame is.) “Even some magicians (govhte~) loose bonds and open

409

Acts part 2C.indd 409

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

16:11-40

earth reverberated in response to their prayer. The doors popped open and their fetters fell off. Paul, like the apostles in chap. 5 and Peter alone in chap. 12, has become the beneficiary of a miraculous prison rescue. Readers await the pair’s surreptitious trip to Lydia’s, hoping that no servant will cause difficulty at her door.   27  Before relating this adventure, the narrator’s all-seeing eye turns to the jailer, whom the disturbance has awakened. Drawing the obvious inference from the open doors, he drew his sword, preferring suicide to execution for failing in his duty.80   28-30  As the blade was about to descend, this poor fellow was halted by reassuring words from the allseeing Paul: every prisoner was in place. Paul adds to his manifestation of philosophical virtue a demonstration of good citizenship. The strength of his charismatic character kept all the prisoners from flight. Recognizing at least one epiphany and its source, the jailer rushed into the lockup and threw himself at his rescuers’ feet,

80 81 82 83

84 85

laying before them the essential question: “What must I do to be saved?” That is a question for which the two prisoners have an answer, communicated to the entire household. The injuries of Paul and Silas were washed; for the jailer and his people there promptly followed the bath of regeneration.81 Thereafter the two entered his private quarters for a family meal.82 All in all, it was quite a day. Excursus: Prison Escapes in Acts 83 This is the third and climactic account of a miraculous event in a prison. Suitably for its environment, Acts 16:25-34 is also the most Greco-Roman in flavor.84 Although the primary focus of research on prison escapes and door miracles has been on their role in the propagation of new cults, the event (and its opposite, the blocking of a door) occurs widely, in material ranging from magic85 to myth to fiction.86 The primary context in the Greco-Roman world was the cult of Dionysus.87 His capacity to liberate

flip side of this coin: even astrologers could put doors with incantations” (Origen Cels. 2.34). Texts incarceration on their résumés as proof of their include PGM 1.97–104; 12.160–178; and 26.312– “philosophic” virtue (Sat. 6.560–64.) 320. Cf. also Lucian Gallus 28. The ability to loose For various rationales—and despair of the same— bonds and deliver himself from confinement is one about this behavior, see Weaver, Plots, 266 n. 169. of Simon’s boasts: Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.9. See ReitzenCf. also Bede (70), who calls this a “beautiful stein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, 120–22; exchange” (pulcra rerum varietas). and Albert Dieterich, Abrasax: Studien zur ReligionOn the jailer and his family, see Matson, Household sgeschichte des spätern Altertums (Leipzig: Teubner, Conversion, 154–68. 1891) 190. On these see Reimer, “Virtual Prison Major surveys of this theme include Otto WeinreBreaks,” 125–39, esp. 128–133. ich, Gebet und Wunder: Zwei Abhundlungen zur Reli86 Examples include Chariton Chaer. 3.7; 4.2–3; gions- und Literaturgeschichte (Tübinger Beiträge zur Ephesian Tale 3.12; 4.4; Babylonian Tale (74a–78a); Altertumswissenschaft 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, Apuleius Metam. 6.9–24; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 1929) 169–444 (= Religionsgeschichtliche Studien 6.1–2; Ethiopian Story 8.6–14; Lucian Tox. 27–34; [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968]) 1–298); Kratz, and Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.38–44. Cf. Longus Rettungswunder; and Weaver, Plots. Cf. also Richard Daphn. 2.20–29. Cf. also Pervo, Profit, 147 n. 15. Pervo, “The Literary Genre of the Acts of the 87 Weaver, Plots, 49. He reviews the myth and its funcApostles” (Diss., Harvard University, 1979, 54–90); tions on pp. 32–59. Others who relate Acts 16:11-40 and idem, Profit, 21–24, 147–48. For a review of to the shape of the Dionysiac myth as found in the research, see Weaver, Plots, 11–22. Weinreich Bacchae include Matthews, First Converts, 75–82; focuses on the religio-historical context, Kratz on and Lillian Portefaix, Sisters Rejoice: Paul’s Letter to form-critical aspects, Pervo on literary issues, and the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by First-Century Weaver upon a myth-critical approach. Note also Philippian Women (ConBNT 20; Stockholm: Talbert, 154–55; and Fitzmyer, 586. Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988) 169–71. The previous stories, in 5:19-21 and 12:5-17, involved angelophanies. Magical door miracles do not play a prominent part in current discussions, but they were important. (American children probably learn “open sesame” before they know what sesame is.) “Even some magicians (govhte~) loose bonds and open

409

Acts part 2C.indd 409

8/27/2008 10:16:47 AM

himself and his followers from bonds was a basic symbol of his role as the god who freed women and men from the burdens, restrictions, and boredom of life. In the competitive religious environment of the Hellenistic and Roman eras, other religious movements appropriated this theme, for the vivid picture of shattering barriers was too potent to leave in the sole possession of the devotees of Dionysus.88 Among these competitors was Judaism. Fragment 3 of Artapanus represents the competitive, “syncretistic” manifestation of the prison break, while 3 Maccabees is arguably a direct confrontation with the cult of Dionysus.89 Further testimony to the vitality of this symbol comes from its transformation and adoption into narrative fiction. The primary characters of the romantic novels and other fictional heroes experienced incarceration and torture at the hands of cruel opponents and also enjoyed eventual delivery. Whether these deliverances seem “miraculous” by our criteria is not the primary issue. All were epiphanies, so to speak, of the god(s) or providence that controlled the plot.90 Liberation was a fundamental desire of nearly everyone. This is why it was a constituent element in the Dionysiac myth and why other “missionary” religions (and/or “religions of salvation”) embraced it. The question of an intertextual relationship between Euripides’ Bacchae (which, although it is the primary source of the myth, is a piece of literature rather than mythography) goes back to Origen’s response to the earlier anti-Christian writer Celsus, 88 Weaver (Plots, 53–57) discusses some of these. 89 For a recent discussion of Moses’ liberation in Artapanus, see Weaver, Plots, 64–78. J. R. C. Cousland assembles some of the arguments for polemic against Dionysiac religion in 3 Maccabees: “Dionysus Theomachos? Echoes of the Bacchae in 3 Maccabees,” Bib 82 (2001) 539–48. (3 Maccabees does not report a classic prison break, but it does describe, in 6:1-20, an epiphany delivering a vast horde of Jewish prisoners.) 90 This view differs from that of Weaver, who limits epiphanies to the overtly supernatural or extraordinary. For Jews (and Christians), the rising of the sun was an epiphany of God, while Greeks understood the gift of wine as an epiphany of Dionysus. The Sarapis Aretalogy from Delos acknowledges, in the prose section, that its adherents maintained their temple by winning a lawsuit. This was attributed to the action of the god (lines 25–30). The accompanying poem supplies miraculous details (lines 84–90). One would not be surprised if their

who had contrasted Dionysus’s rescue of himself with Jesus’ failure to do so. In reply, Origen pointed out that Peter and Paul had, like Dionysus and his followers, had been delivered from prison and bonds (Origen Cels. 2.34). Whether non-Christians found this riposte effective is not known, but it did raise, no doubt unwittingly, a genuine theological problem that goes to the heart of the debate about Luke’s alleged “theology of glory.” Be that as it may, the intertextual question continues to be debated. Because of the proliferation of this originally mythic theme, it is not necessary to hypothesize that Luke made direct use of the Bacchae, but use is not unlikely.91 In the course of time proponents of various persons and cults took increasing pains to look like law-abiding supporters of civic life and social benefactors. Far from being bludgeoned—if not, like Pentheus, assassinated—officials are won over. This “apologetic” quality is highly apparent in the prose account that seems furthest removed from the Dionysiac myth: Philostratus’s Apollonius of Tyana (8.34–38).92 Although Apollonius can free himself from fetters and does so twice (7.38; 8.30),93 he confidently awaits Roman justice and receives his vindication. He could have taken Paul as his model. Through this remarkable adventure Luke proclaims the miraculous vindication of the Christian movement at Philippi. Although it is faintly possible that he took up the story from tradition, greater probability resides on the side of Lucan composition. Its place in the conventional missionary scheme, adversaries said that the worshipers of Sarapis had bribed the judges. (See Appendix 2.) 91 Recent arguments in favor of dependence on Euripides include R. Seaford, “Thunder, Lightning, and Earthquake in the Bacchae and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Alan B. Lloyd, ed., What Is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity (London: Duckworth, 1997), on which see Weaver, Plots, 269–71. 92 Weaver (Plots, 61 n. 114) calls this story “an indirect and relatively late witness” to the tradition and provides an outline that shows how Philostratus continues the pattern. 93 Apollonius’s actions come quite close to the realm of “magic,” since no direct divine agent is cited and he alone breaks his bonds. On this see Reimer, “Virtual Prison Breaks.”

410

Acts part 2C.indd 410

8/27/2008 10:16:48 AM

16:11-40

the affinities with Euripides, the author’s interest in parallel episodes involving Peter and Paul, and the complexity of the story argue against the use of a probable source from the Pauline tradition.94

The account began (v. 25) in the very depths of night,95 with Paul and Silas worshiping and the prisoners attentive.96 The narrator’s viewpoint is clear. He does not speak of “the other prisoners.” The epiphany comes, in the approved fashion, “suddenly.”97 An earthquake of apocalyptic force98 causes the doors to fly open and the fetters to fall off. All of this was unremarkable to William Ramsay: “[A]ny one that has seen a Turkish prison will not wonder” at these events.99 The ancient narrator expected the audience to recognize a miracle. The release evokes the liberation of the Maenads in Bacchae 443–48 (fetters loosed and doors opened), while the entire scene includes many of the events and motifs found in 576–659,100 including singing Maenads

(cf. v. 25), an earthquake permitting flight (vv. 26-27), and refusal of the god to escape (v. 28). No less interesting are the parallels between Pentheus (king of Thebes and chief persecutor) and the jailer. In response to the quake (and a flash of fire, unparalleled here in Acts), Pentheus seized his sword and rushed in, later dropping the sword (Bacchae 627, 635).101 If the possibility of transforming the principal villain into a supportive character is accepted, these similarities are difficult to dismiss, since the epiphanic phenomena could be attributed to a general pattern, but the specific behavior of Pentheus is Euripides’ own creation. Unlike Pentheus, the jailer102 knew an epiphany when he saw one, but the epiphany he perceived was not the earthquake. The sight of the open doors led him to conclude (it would not do to have him see whether the shackles remained secure) that the prison was empty. Like many a character in ancient story, he attempts

94 Of the three prison adventures in Acts, chap. 12 has the best claim to be based on a source. Even if one were to posit a source for this story, that fact would contribute little, if anything, to the understanding of the passage. The similarities between Acts 16:19-40 and the story of Demetrius and Antiphon in Lucian’s Toxaris 27–34, noted by Eduard Zeller (“Eine griechische Parallele zu der Erzählung Apostelgeschichte 16, 19ff.,” ZWTh 10 [1865] 103–8) should not be dismissed as few and superficial (Barrett, 2:792). Both stories feature someone wrongly imprisoned who refused to take advantage of the opportunity to escape and ultimately received legal vindication. It is not impossible that Luke made some use of a short story, since Lucian evidently took the tale from a source, but the more important issue is that the general outline had a place in literature and was not restricted to miracles of liberation. See Pervo, Profit, 23–24; and idem, “With Lucian: Who Needs Friends? Friendship in the Toxaris,” in John Fitzgerald, ed., Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Resources for Biblical Study 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 163–80, esp. 170–72. Haenchen (501–4) views the episode as a Lucan creation, while Dibelius (Studies, 23–24) and Conzelmann (132) attribute it to a source, without specifying that it belongs to Philippi. Lüdemann (182) also speaks of a “tradition,” which may not even have named Paul and Silas. 95 Apollonius once loosed his bonds at midnight:

96

97 98

99

100 101

102

Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 8.30. At this time Moses was freed from prison (Artapanus frg. 4). In Acts, night is the time for rescue (5:19; 9:24; 12:6; 27:27). See P. G. Müller, “nuvx,” EDNT 2:481–83; and Weiser, 1:285, 2:437. The Greek text of T. Jos. 8:4-5 is quite similar to Acts 16:24-25. Verse 4 reports that Joseph was beaten and cast into Pharaoh’s dungeon, where (v. 5) Mme. Potiphar came and heard (ejphkroa`to) him praising (u{mnoun) God. Both Greek words are rare in the NT. The latter is a hapax legomenon, while the former appears only in Mark 14:26||Matt 26:30; Heb 2:12, in a citation. Cf. 2:2 (Pentecost). Seismo;~ mevga~: Mark 13:8 (eschatological); Matt 28:2 (resurrection of Jesus); cf. Rev 6:12; 11:13; 16:18. Earthquakes are standard features of the end-time repertory: Amos 8:8; 9:5; Ezek 38:19; Joel 2:10; Ass. Mos. 10:4; 4 Ezra 5:8; 9:3; 2 Bar. 70:8. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 221. On the same page, he explains the prisoners’ failure to flee as due to “the semi-oriental mob in the Aegean lands.” Cadbury and Lake (198) already devastated these crude rationalizations. See n. 91. For more details, see Seaford, “Thunder, Lightning, and Earthquake in the Bacchae and the Acts of the Apostles,” 139–48. The jailer is named “the faithful [perhaps ‘convert’] Stephanas” (oJ pisto;~ Stefanav~) in 614. 2147. The source for this is probably 1 Cor 1:16. It is possible

411

Acts part 2C.indd 411

8/27/2008 10:16:48 AM

suicide,103 only to be stopped, like many a character in ancient story, by someone who intervenes.104 That someone is Paul, who knows both that the jailer is about to kill himself 105 and, despite the profound darkness and the existence of multiple cells, that the count is complete. This is useful omniscience, and it has the desired effect.106 The prison keeper perceives that no one but a god or a beneficiary of divine assistance could know these things. On a more mundane level, Paul further demonstrates his virtue: like Socrates he refuses to flee custody when he has the opportunity (Diogenes Laertius 2.24). The jailer treats the affair as a theoxeny.107   31-34  After proper acknowledgment of their status and benefaction, he removed the pair from confinement108 and posed his famous question, the viewpoint

103 104

105

106 107

of which is no less Christian in perspective than the answer.109 Said answer includes a promise that illustrates the household solidarity of ancient Mediterranean societies. The narrator is in such a hurry to follow this declaration with proclamation that the narrative seems displaced, leaving vv. 30-33 to take place out of doors or in some corridor.110 These difficulties permit the same sequence as in the story of Lydia: proclamation of the message, baptism of the entire household,111 and subsequent hospitality. The account is boldly unrealistic.112 That Paul (and Silas) would find their injuries no impediment to evangelism is to be taken as a matter of course (cf. 14:19-20), but there was little time for adequate catechesis—these were not God-Fearers—which would have included, at a minimum, the refutation of

that the name appeared in the Acts of Paul (9/12) which are quite defective for Philippi, but do indicate an incarceration there. Chrysostom (Hom. 36) places jailers among the more rude and barbarous specimens of the human race. Readers will think of 12:19. (The actual legal consequences for this individual are not material.) Clitophon, the hero of Leucippe, is an appropriate example: “I held my sword up, poised to plunge it down through my throat. In the light of the full moon I saw two men running quickly towards me. . . . It was Menelaos and Satyros” (3.17; trans. J. J. Winkler, in Reardon, Novels, 217.) The chief function of Polycharmus, the faithful companion of Chaireas in Callirhoe, seems to be preventing the hero from committing suicide. For a list of references to attempted suicide in ancient fiction, see Kerenyi, Romanliteratur, 149; and Johnson, 300. Closer to the environment of Acts is T. Jos. 7:3 (Mme. Potiphar threatens to kill herself if Joseph will not yield). The phrase mhde;n pravxh/" seautw`/ kakovn (lit. “do nothing harmful to yourself” [v. 28]) looks like a Latinism, but it is probably popular Greek usage. Conzelmann (132) lists a number of difficulties in the account. Cf. 7:32 (of the theophany to Moses). The “loud voice” (megavlh fwnhv) in which Paul speaks is appropriate to the dramatic setting, but this phrase is connected to epiphanies. See Weaver, Plots, 267, and his references. The vocative kuvrioi in v. 30 is ambiguous. Its meaning could range from something like “gentlemen” to “lord gods.” The old-fashioned English translation seeks to indicate that he addressed them as superior beings. Their answer shows that the Lord Jesus is the one to whom he

108

109

110

111

should turn. Johnson (300) views the jailer’s actions as a novelistic motif, with references. Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 125) says that the scene with the jailor functions in lieu of a defense speech. The D text (Boismard, Texte, 274) states that, after taking the pair out of jail, the keeper saw to the securing of the others. This supplement—which, in actuality, would have taken a good deal of time, given the extent of the damage—reveals an editorial concern for tidy narration. Luke here, and even more so in v. 35, shows his focus and viewpoint. The other prisoners have but two parts to play: (1) listening to the missionaries at their devotions and (2) remaining orderly because of the numinous power of Paul, a power that reveals both his commitment and contribution to civic order, thus refuting the charges of disorder (v. 20). Thereafter the narrator abandons them. Nock, Conversion, 9: “If such a man used phraseology of this sort, he could have meant only ‘What am I to do in order to avoid any unpleasant consequences of the situation created by this earthquake?’ Soteria and kindred words carried no theological implications; they applied to deliverance from perils by sea and land and disease and darkness and false opinions.” The relation between the locales of the jail and the keeper’s house is left to the reader’s imagination. The quake evidently awakened the jailer, but nothing is said about its extent. Since it was miraculous in origin, it could have been limited to the prison precincts. Cf. 4:31. Dibelius (Studies, 23), who noted the confusion, suspected that it was due to editing. The balance of the household is introduced somewhat awkwardly in v. 32b, prompting the addition

412

Acts part 2C.indd 412

8/27/2008 10:16:48 AM

16:11-40

polytheism and some summary treatment of the Creator and God of Israel, as well as Christology.113 Baptism— like the earthquake—takes place “immediately,”114 and appropriately so, for initiation into the Christian faith is an earthquake of sorts. Two sets of bonds have been released.115 The subsequent meal gives the episode the character of an early Christian “baptismal vigil”: a nocturnal event including proclamation of the word, followed by the celebration of baptism and the Eucharist.116 The experience of the early Jerusalem community is recurring on gentile soil.117 Luke has shifted the focus from the salvation of the imprisoned pair to the salvation of the jailer.118 Another individual of relatively high status has been added, with his household, to the ­community.119   35-36  Day dawns, bringing to light a number of questions. What will the public in general and the magistrates in particular think of that earthquake? Will the jailer now place before his superiors his revised

opinion of his two most recent convicts? Will there now ensue a trial at which the insidious manipulations of the unscrupulous oracle-mongers will be exposed to the full light of truth? Each of these sequels is quite plausible. In fact, the magistrates had decided to throw in the towel. There presently arrived at the prison their official escort, bearing instructions to dismiss the pair. No grounds for this change of mind are provided. The jailer rushed off to inform his charges. Leave they must, but without further legal entanglement.   37  The offer sounds good, but Paul would have none of it. He confronted the lictors with a catalogue of official misdeeds, informing them (and the readers) that he and Silas held Roman citizenship. One wonders why they had not raised this point earlier, as the punishments they had endured were illegal in the case of Roman citizens.120 Be that as it may, Paul was prepared to assert his rights, to which he added the demand for a formal escort, a request that the horrified officials

of kaiv (“and”) after “with” in the Byzantine text. Cf. the singular verbal forms in v. 34. The narrator keeps the focus on the jailer. Polhill (354, 356) is certain that infants were not included in the household baptisms. 112 For a very different view, see Rapske, Roman Custody, 115–34. His work, which contains much useful information, represents a dubious method: assuming that the account is quite historical, he supplies supplementary events supported by a number of rationalizations. Rapske concludes that Paul (Silas is ignored) did not reveal his Roman citizenship because this would have been disadvantageous to his mission. (This view was advanced by Theodor Mommsen, “Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,” ZNW 2 [1902] 81–96, esp. 89–90.) The narrative says nothing about this rationale, which cannot explain why the citizenship was ever revealed. Rapske (Roman Custody, 128) states: “The text provides no warrant for asserting that the magistrates, taking the earthquake to be a sign of divine displeasure or simply recognizing their own illegal conduct, released Paul and Silas.” This is correct, but the text does state that the magistrates ordered their release. If one cannot read the mind of the officials, one equally cannot read the mind of Paul. (When, however, it suits his argument, as on pp. 128–29, Rapske does not hesitate to explain the motivation of the officials). Finally, he almost completely ignores vv. 25-34, of which Fitzmyer (588) says: “[T]hese verses . . . resound with

113

114

115 116

117

118 119

120

folkloric elements. It is an idyllic description of the deliverance of Paul and his companions.” A realistic description would have placed these actions in an appropriate space and at least given the jailer time to suggest that he attend to their injuries and other needs—not to mention finding some means of securing the other prisoners. Verse 33a is a pregnant construction, lit. “he washed from the wounds.” See Cadbury and Lake, 199. Boismard (Texte, 275) omits “immediately” in v. 33b, with evidence similar to that for its omission in v. 26. So also Chrysostom Hom. 36. Cf. Philippe Menoud, Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (trans. E. M. Paul; PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 89–90; Weiser, 2:439; and Barrett, 2:799. Krodel (313) aptly observes, “[E]very meal in Luke-Acts has sacramental ­overtones.” Cf. 2:46, where nourishment is taken with “ joy,” a noun (ajgallivasi~) formed from the same stem as the verb here (ajgalliavw). On this, see also Johnson, 301. Kratz, Rettungswunder, 486. For the winning, or conversion, of jail guards, see Mart. Perp. 9.1; 16.4; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7.38; and Act. Pet. 1.1, wherein the jailer follows his wife into the faith and gives Paul leave to go where he will. The relevant law is the Lex Julia on vis publica (“lawful use of force”). Earlier enactments included a

413

Acts part 2C.indd 413

8/27/2008 10:16:48 AM

promptly granted. The mission to Philippi thus ended with a splendid triumphal procession, since, rights notwithstanding, the magistrates did, after all, think it best that the two depart, which, after making a pastoral call upon Lydia and those of her household, they do.121 Verse 35 came as a complete surprise, unalloyed by the absence of an explanation for the release. The stunning news of v. 35 pales in comparison to the next revelation: Paul and Silas are Roman citizens and thus the victims of gross injustice. His question is well structured and mellifluous, echoing at its close the accusation against him in vv. 20-21.122 The claim to be a Roman is sufficient, as in 22:25, where it likewise brings fear to his antagonists. It is not likely that two whose appearance made them suitable for an arbitrary whipping and incarceration would be accepted as citizens on the strength of an oral declaration by one of them. The chief problem is, as noted, why the pair did not reveal their status before subjected to this painful dishonor. The proposal that they did claim citizenship but were not heard at the time123 is both an unauthorized supplement to the narrative and an inadequate explanation. Paul will do just that in similar circumstances in 25:24.   38-40  Moreover, if the two had failed to state their citizenship, no blame could have attached to the officials, who would have had reason for regret but not apprehension. Brian Rapske rightly refutes the claim that their cries went unheard,124 but his own solution, that Paul did not wish to reveal his citizenship for strategic reasons, cannot explain why Paul subsequently raised the point.125 Ancient readers would have been likely to

view this as an episode in the endless competition for honor. Paul (and Silas), shamed by a public beating, reject the further shame of an ignominious expulsion, demanding an honorable escort. “Paul humiliates the magistrates who punished him.”126 The frustration of the accusers reveals that Roman law is not hostile to the new movement, however malign or incompetent some of its officials (of whom Pilate is the most outstanding example) may be. Modern readers, on the other hand, are likely to wonder how the earthquake could have disappeared from the narrative. Apart from reminding the readers of where God stood on the question, its sole purpose is to lead to the jailer’s conversion. Paul’s vindication comes from the slowly grinding mill of Roman justice.127 The numerous parallels with the experience of Peter in chap. 12 serve to heighten the contrast: whereas Peter was led out (ejxavgw) of prison by divine intervention (12:17), Paul was led out (ejxavgw) by the chief magistrates of the Roman colony of Philippi (16:39; cf. 16:37).128 The D-Text of vv. 35-40 shows that the conventional—and clearly more original—text lacks realism. In addition to the pedantic filling in of gaps and blanks, this account is much less vigorous, more fulsome and circumstantial, with more dialogue and careful attention to explanation and motivation. In order to invest the story with sequential logic the D-editor had to make some decisions. One of these was to assume that the earthquake could not or did not escape attention and thus to make it the grounds for the unexplained order to release the prisoners. In short, only in the D-Text is

Lex Valeria and a Lex Porcia. Digest 48.6.7 provides specific comments. Cicero indicates that, in Republican times, at least, low-status Roman citizens were subject to occasional abuse (Verrines 2.161). Acts does not view Paul as a citizen of humble birth. For other violations, see Conzelmann, 133. 121 Foakes Jackson and Lake (Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 201) observe that the summaries in Acts shed much of their “biblical” character after chap. 15. 122 See n. 61. The opening and closing words, “beating,” “Roman citizens,” are the most important in the declaration. Note also the balanced contrast between “public” (dhmosiva/) beating and “secret” (lavqra/) expulsion, the third words from the opening and the closing, respectively. 123 Marshall, 274; Bruce, 322.

124 Rapske, Roman Custody, 128–29. 125 See n. 112. Silas’s possession of the Roman franchise is clearly ad hoc and passed over in silence by most commentators. Fitzmyer (590) can offer the inquiring reader no more than “So one must assume that Silas was also a Roman citizen.” 126 Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 158. On this theme, see also Johnson, 303–4. 127 Cf. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:154. 128 Other echoes include tight security (12:4-5; 16:24), the nocturnal setting (12:6; 16:25), the appearance of light in darkness (12:7; 16:29), chains that fell off (12:7; 16:26), doors that opened without human effort (12:10; 16:26), evident liability of the guards (12:19; 16:27), and the closure: both go to the home of a prominent woman convert and then go elsewhere (12:17-17; 16:40).

414

Acts part 2C.indd 414

8/27/2008 10:16:48 AM

16:11-40

this a miracle of deliverance from prison.129 Second, a reason is advanced for asking the pair to leave. They were not, of course, expelled, but merely advised to leave for their own protection.130 The addition in v. 40 echoes 12:17, enhancing the parallelism between the deliverances of Peter and Paul. This is another indication that a diligent ancient Christian writer recognized the pattern. Amidst some of the loose ends and improbable turns taken by this action-packed account are many symbols and cross-references. Paul, like Jesus, exorcises demons and suffers. The miraculous “release” from prison, when contrasted with the earlier accounts in chaps. 5 and 12, suggests that more confidence may be placed in Roman justice than in the Israelite authorities. The earthquake and its attendant actions symbolize rather than accomplish their eventual release. Within the story of the earthquake the author places the experience of the jailer. In bringing light (cf. 12:7) to the prison, he will be the one illumined. His literal rescue from death and disgrace symbolizes his spiritual deliverance. The open doors of the jail at Philippi were doors admitting gentiles to the faith.

One does not require commentators to learn that this is a fine story. Chap. 16 moves from the middle of Asia Minor into a bit of Rome residing upon long-grecized soil. There are adventures of many types and lessons for all, not least about what we call “politics” and “religion.” Following a venerable pattern about the introduction of a new cult, the author shows the defeat of one ancient god (Apollo), evokes equality with another (Dionysus), and refutes charges against the Jesus movement, whose proponents, it transpires, are no less than true Romans. Early readers could admire its sociological realism,131 and more recent experts its abundance of realistic detail. Yet, as “straight” history, it collapses at the most gentle application of the critical razor. A rapid read suggests a whole cloth, but in reality few threads are not left dangling. Haenchen, who wielded the sharpest of critical razors with penetrating deftness, concludes by letting Luke the historian off the hook, as all the “great Roman historians” did much the same.132 Lüdemann correctly challenges this conclusion as a form of shallow apologetic.133 To invoke a note of realism, things did not work out so well for Paul in Philippi.134

129 Examples of alternative explanations are these: the earthquake was confined to the prison building alone (cf. 4:31) and might not have set the town abuzz; the magistrates could have determined that a solid beating and a night in jail, followed by expulsion from the city, would discourage these rascals from returning. This is the proposal of Cadbury and Lake, 200. Cf. also Haenchen (498), who takes it as a fact, and Witherington, 499. For other conjectures, see Roloff, 248; and Schneider, 2:218. The language of v. 36 is not appropriate to persons being run out of town. 130 A further rationalization is the omission of (lit.)

131 132 133 134

“in peace” from v. 36. This evidently seemed too Semitic to the editor (and rightly so). See Ropes, Text, 158. For the phrase in an appropriate context, see Luke 7:50; 8:48. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 399) states that the omission is accidental, but he makes no argument for this view. On the text note, see also Dibelius, Studies, 86–87; and the parallel in Lucian Tox. 33. See Johnson, 302–4. Haenchen, 504. Lüdemann, 218. See Weiser, 2:440.

415

Acts part 2C.indd 415

8/27/2008 10:16:49 AM

17

17:1-15  Paul Visits Thessalonica and Beroea 1/ After leaving Philippi, Paul and Silas took the road through Amphipolis and Apollonia a and came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2/ As was his normal practice, Paul visited the congregation. For three Sabbaths he lectured on the Scriptures, 3/ showing by interpretation b that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This is the Messiah, Jesus, the one about whom I am telling you.”c 4/ Some of them were convinced and attached themselves to Paul and Silas, as did a large number of devout gentiles and quite a few prominent women. 5/ These conversions aroused the envy of the Jews, who collected some of the worthless loafers that loitered around the city center into a mob and thereby aroused the entire populace. This mob converged upon the house of Jason with the intent of hauling Paul and Silas before the assembly. 6/ Since they couldn’t find those two, they dragged Jason and some believers to the magistrates, d shouting: “These people who are fomenting rebellion everywhere are in our midst! 7/ Jason is harboring them. In opposition e to the decrees of Caesar they want to set up another emperor, f claiming that Jesus rules.” 8/ When they heard these charges, the mob and the officials became thoroughly agitated. 9/ Jason and the others were not released until they had paid a bond. 10/ As soon as darkness fell, the believers sent Paul and Silas on to Beroea. When they got to Beroea, they entered the synagogue. 17:11-15: Conventional Text 11/

Now the Jews there were of a better qualityg than those at Thessalonica. They applied themselves eagerly h to the message and engaged in daily scrutiny of the Scriptures to discover whether the claims might be true. 12/ Many, in

17:11-15: D-Textm



. . . to discover whether these claims were n just as Paul maintained them to be. 12/ Many

416

Acts part 2C.indd 416

8/27/2008 10:16:49 AM

17:1-15

fact, i came to believe, including a substantial number of uppercrust Greek women and quite a few men. 13/ Once the Jews of Thessalonica j had learned that Paul had also proclaimed the message of God in Beroea, they showed up there as well and threw the masses into disorder by their agitation. k 14/

The believers immediately sent Paul to the seacoast, l while Silas and Timothy remained behind. 15/ After those who were conducting Paul had got him to Athens, they returned with instructions for the other two to join him as soon as ­p ossible.

a

b c

d

e f

g

With its usual interest in expanding the mission, the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 280) allows readers to believe that Apollonia was a missionary station: “They came to Apollonia and went from there to Thessalonica.” On this, see Strange, Text, 152. On the rhetorical meaning of parativqhmi (lit. “set before”), see Johnson, 305. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 280) revises this, eliminating the second reference to “the Messiah” and “from the dead.” The variants are less typical and thus have some force, but the support for them is weak. The finite verbs in vv. 5-6a are imperfects. One could construe the narrative as, in effect: “They wished to arraign Paul et al., but, failing in that endeavor, hauled Jason and whomever they could find before the magistrates.” See BDF §327. BDF §214 (4) describes this usage of the preposition ajpevnanti as “peculiar.” The translation of basileuv~ (lit. “king”) is disputed. See, e.g., Cadbury and Lake, 206; Johnson, 307; and Fitzmyer, 596. This word is the standard term for those called in English the “Roman emperors” and is thus used to show the contrast implied: a rival claimant to the throne. Lit. “more noble” (eujgenevsteroi). Superior breeding is reflected in manners and accompanies means. Cf. 4 Macc 6:5; 9:13; 10:3. Inversely, “upper-crust” (eujschvmone~) in v. 12 means “quite decent” but also acquires a connotation of status through metonymy. See Spicq, Lexicon, 2:93–96.

of them believed; some did not. [A large number (iJkanoiv) of the gentile men and women of the upper crust came to believe].o 13/ Once the Jews of Thessalonica had learned that the message of God had been proclaimed [ ] in Beroea, they showed up there as well and threw the crowd into disorder by their agitation. This action went on and on. 14/ The believers [ ] therefore (me;n ou\ n) sent Paul [ ] p to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained behind. 15/ He passed by Thessaly, for he was prevented from proclaiming the message to them . . . They returned with instructions [from Paul] q for the other two to join him as soon as ­p ossible.

h

i j

k

l m n

o

On the phrase meta; pavsh~ proqumiva~, here rendered “eagerly” and taken with the following participle, see Jacob Kremer, “Einführung in die Problematik heutiger Acta-Forschung anhand von Apg 17, 10-13, in idem, Actes, 11–20. On the various meanings and uses of me;n ou\n here (and elsewhere), see Moule, Idiom Book, 162–63. On the use of ajpov to mean “of,” see Cadbury and Lake, 207. (American English uses the same idiom: “people from New York” means “New Yorkers.”) The participial phrase kai; taravssonte~ (lit. “and agitating”) is absent from p 45 E P 049. 056. 0120. 0142 al M. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 403) attributes this to a visual error. Although it is faintly possible that the phrase was interpolated to conform to v. 8, it is more likely that it would have been removed as redundant, if not through homoeoteleuton. On the translation of the phrase e{w~ ejpiv, see Conzelmann, 136; and Barrett, 2:819–20. Boismard, Texte, 284–87. The conventional text has a rare oblique optative: eij e[coi . . . ou{tw~. The D-Text is standard Koine, with the indirect question in the indicative (e[cei). It is possible that the optative was an Alexandrian correction, but more likely the editor of the D-Text changed the mood because of the following correlative kaqwv~ (“ just as”). The bracketed material is omitted by Boismard, Texte, 285. Bezae once more reduces the prominence of women.

417

Acts part 2C.indd 417

8/27/2008 10:16:49 AM

p

Omitting e{w~. The Byzantine tradition reads wJ~, which could suggest a ruse. This is probably secondary. The author evidently strengthened the “improper prep.” e{w~ with ejpiv, leading to the varied corrections.

Analysis

Chapter 17 treats the initial missions to Thessalonica and Beroea (vv. 1-15), followed by Paul’s famous sojourn in Athens. The first two stations return to the pattern used in chaps. 13–14.1 Paul preaches in the synagogue, in accordance with the formula “Jews first,”2 enjoying some success among Jews and prominent God-Fearers, especially women. This provokes jealousy from “the Jews,” who create disturbances that lead to Paul’s departure from both places. The narrator has little interest in the efforts required to found a community and none whatsoever in what happened between the initial ­foundation 1 2 3 4

q

“From Paul” (D), “from him” (E vg sy p sa) is not admitted by Boismard, but it is a typical bit of pedantry and well attested. Cf. Col 4:10.

and the persecution, which is both unsuccessful and yet somehow leads to Paul’s departure.3 Verses 1-9 contradict 1 Thessalonians, which views the recipients as former polytheists (1:10) and Jesus as a heavenly savior rather than an earthly monarch (Acts 17:7).4 Verses 6-9 refer to Jason and his house, circumstantial details that lead critics—not least because of the confusing nature of the verses—to suspect tradition. Acceptance of this source adds nothing to the understanding of the passage, since Jason makes no meaningful contribution.5 The reader is permitted to assume that no synagogue was located until they reached Thessalonica, which had

Acts 13:16 echoes 14:19-20. See Pervo, Dating, 104–5. Cf. Haenchen, 510. 5 There are other differences: In Acts, the mission lasts for roughly three weeks. (The phrase in v. 2 is an accusative of duration and should not be twisted to mean “on three Sabbaths” over a longer course of time. See Cadbury and Lake, 202–3.) Had Luke not wished to indicate that they were consecutive, he could have used a genitive or dative expression. 1 Thess 2:9 and Phil 4:15 presume a longer stay, as Paul worked while there and twice received funds from Philippi. Another strong contrast is in the respective portraits of the believers. Luke speaks of well-to-do women and views the under- and unemployed ajgorai`oi (“people who loitered about the civic center”) with contempt. Paul regarded the Macedonian believers as poor (2 Cor 8:2), whereas Luke shows converts from upper strata, enemies from the underclass. In short, Paul stresses the poverty of this community of former gentiles, Luke the relative affluence of Paul’s Jewish and Godfearing converts. The letter indicates that Timothy played an important role at Thessalonica (1:1; 3:2, 6); in Acts he is not mentioned. For a succinct statement of the difficulties of harmonizing Acts 17:1-9 and 1 Thessalonians, see Earl Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (SacPag 11; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995) 4–5, and, in greater

detail, Malherbe, Thessalonians, 47–57, who seeks to coordinate the two accounts. Gerd Lüdemann (The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church [Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005] 221–23) argues for v. 1a as coming from tradition. This is possible, but it is also the only route leading from Philippi to Thessalonica (so also Conzelmann, 134). Likewise, the officials (politavrcai) of v. 8 are found in many cities (see n. 21), and the phrase “take bail” can be no more than a circumstantial invention, as Lüdemann admits. His support of the historical background of the Jason episode appeals in part to the confused grammar and also to 1 Thess 2:14. Grammatical confusion may result from the inept insertion of source material, but the structure of the entire unit is rather tight. 1 Thess 2:14 is quite probably part of a later interpolation (although Luke may have read it in his edition of Paul’s letters). Weiser (2:443–45) offers a detailed discussion of the traditional elements identified by others. He views the tradition about Jason as independent of the itinerary material in v. 1. The account is thoroughly revised (and/or invented) by the author. This is also the view of Barrett, 2:807. Roloff (249) sagely observes that the material about Jason reflects a Thessalonian perspective. One might suspect that Jason was a Jew who had converted and become, like Lydia (16:15) or Titius Justus (18:7), the head and/

418

Acts part 2C.indd 418

8/27/2008 10:16:49 AM

17:1-15

been founded in 316 bce and had survived the vicissitudes of the Hellenistic and early Roman eras.6 This was the provincial capital, a “free” Greek city, with its own constitution and the largest Aegean port after Ephesus and Corinth. In its synagogue7 Paul lectured8 (i.e., preached) on three (presumably consecutive) Sabbaths.9 The full-fledged Jews were evidently not particularly receptive.10 Among God-Fearers, including a number of well-connected and prosperous women, the results were different. Jealousy over the loss of prominent adherents provoked Jews11 to action, in this case the tried-and-true formula of stirring up an urban riot. It was assumed that such “ruffians from the dregs of society” (Revised English Bible), as Luke unflatteringly labels them (v. 5),12 were riot-prone. Paul’s Jewish opponents therefore did not find it difficult to piece together a mob to assault the house of Jason. Violence seems to have distracted the narrator, but the sequence resolves the problem: Jason was Paul’s host. When their plan to extract Paul and Silas from this domicile failed—the narrator does not explain why the two were not present—the mob snatched whom they could, and arraigned them before a conveniently

gathered democratic assembly,13 charging the believers with fomenting treason and Jason with lending them aid and comfort. There are difficulties: v. 6 describes, in the first instance, the believers not as local converts but as itinerant agitators. One would expect the accusing Jews—or the magistrates—to undertake a search for Paul and Silas, but the entire affair ends with the receipt of a peace bond from Jason and, presumably, from those they had subjected to a citizen’s arrest.14 Since the real source of unrest is Paul, he will leave and, just to be on the safe side, will do so surreptitiously, by night. Comment   2-3  Allusions to other passages abound. Paul’s “normal” practice invites comparison with Jesus.15 Verses 2-3 evoke the creedal assertion of 9:22 (Paul)16 and the arguments of Jesus and Peter that the suffering of the Messiah was part of the divine plan and prophesied in Scripture.17 By such intratextuality Luke establishes and demonstrates the continuity of the message. He need have said no more than that Paul proclaimed the ­message.

or host of the nascent community—although, in that case v. 6 would be more likely to read “Jason and some other believers” (as in v. 9). 6 For the political history of Thessalonica and a thorough survey of the archaeological data, see Holland L. Hendrix, “Thessalonica,” ABD 6:523–27. 7 There is evidence for a Samaritan synagogue in the late Roman era (see Hendrix, “Thessalonica”). Witherington (504) claims CIJ 693 as evidence for a synagogue in the late second century ce or later, but that text is a tombstone. 8 On the meaning of dialevgomai, see Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005) 163 n. 127. It does not refer to dialogue or discussion. 9 For the content of what he said, readers will do better to turn to 13:16-41 than to seek to explicate the summary in vv. 2-3. 10 Note the contrast between tine~ (“some”) Jews and the “large number” (plh`qo~ poluv) of God-Fearers. 11 As Conzelmann (135) observes, “the Jews” means Jews who did not accept the message, as the D-Text makes explicit. See below. 12 On the pejorative meaning of the adjective ajgorai`o~, see BDAG, 14, s.v., and Malherbe,

13 14 15

16 17

Thessalonians, 64. The usage is at least as old as Aristophanes Frogs 1015. Plutarch describes Scipio as utilizing ajgorai`oi, characterized as low-born (ajgennei`~) and former slaves (dedouleukovta~) to create a mob (Aem. 38.3). Philo has little good to say about the idle citizenry, whom he blames for anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria (Flacc. 33–41). On the subject, see Moyer V. Hubbard, “Urban Uprisings in the Roman World: The Social Setting of the Mobbing of Sosthenes,” NTS 51 (2005) 416–28, esp. 422–23. See p. 421. See below. The only other occurrence of kata; to; eijwqov~ is in Luke 4:16. (The D-Text improves this by placing “Paul” in the nominative (Boismard, Texte, 280.) Paul in synagogues: 9:20; 13:4, 14; 14:1; 17:19; 18:4, 7; 19:8. As elsewhere (see on 1:4), the text shifts from indirect to direct speech. Jesus: see Luke 24:26-27, and 32 (which also uses the verb dianoivgw, “open”). See also Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:206–7. For Peter, see, e.g., 3:18. Lucan theology does not envision the death of Jesus as because of or for the redemption of human sins in general.

419

Acts part 2C.indd 419

8/27/2008 10:16:49 AM

  4  The D-Text of v. 4 is different. Boismard prints:

“Some of them were convinced [ ] by the teaching, many of the devout Greeks [ ] and quite a few uppercrust (eujschvmone~) women.” The primary motive appears to be revision for its own sake.18 Bezae converts the latter into “wives” of prominent citizens.19 Verse 6 exhibits similar variation, replacing “ jealous” with “unbelieving,” “taking up” (lit. proslabovmenoi) with “gathering” (sustravyante~), and proagagei`n with ejxagagei`n for the act of bringing them before the assembly.20   5  The disappointment of the Jews is quite intelligible, for, by siphoning off a number—which could not in any circumstances have been very large—of the God-Fearers, Paul had deprived their community of important financial and political support. It will come as no shock to readers that the method elected by these aggrieved persons is the generation of a mob the presence of which will encourage the lawful authorities21 into prompt and

favorable action. When required to formulate charges, they were on thin ice, since alienation of the affection of gentile supporters lacked statutory backing. “In the absence of any legal ground for indicting Paul and Silas, the only method was to adopt the tactics practised at Philippi and stir up the populace. This was not a hard matter. . . .”22 The accusation, given in direct speech, has a preface: the accused (who are not, in fact, present) are international agitators.23 This is far from subtle irony: those who accuse Paul of fomenting riots foment a riot to strengthen their case.24 Although impossible at the dramatic date, this informs readers of the wide impact of the Pauline mission. Specifically, they act in a manner contrary to imperial decrees, alleging that Jesus is the true emperor.25 Learned efforts to specify the decrees in question are probably in vain.26 Apart from 16:20-21, the best-attested source is the charges made against Jesus (Luke 23:2; cf. 23:5).

18 This revision eliminates their gentile status. P74 A D 33.81 pc lat bo insert “and” between “devout” and “Greeks,” making two groups, one of which is gentile. 19 This is typical. See Pervo, “Social Aspects.” The conventional text can also be rendered as “wives,” although with less probability. Boismard (Texte, 281–82) argues that Bezae is conflate. 20 See Boismard, Texte, 282. The first of these conforms the text to 14:2. The verb sustrevfw is common in D: 10:41; 11:28; 16:39. 21 On the “politarchs” (politavrcai), holders of an annual office that usually numbered between three and seven persons and was especially common in northern Greece, see G. H. R. Horsley, “The Politarchs,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 2:419–31; and Taylor, “St Paul,” 2460. 22 Rackham, 297. 23 See on 24:5. The verb ajnastatavw occurs elsewhere only in 21:38, of “the Egyptian” rebel. The NRSV’s “turning the world upside down” removes the political significance of the term. 24 See below on 19:23-40. Suetonius, a contemporary of Luke, spoke of Jews at Rome fomenting disturbances Chresto impulsore (lit. “at the instigation of Chrestus,” evidently “Christ”). This activity led to Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome. By the early second century, Christians were associated with riots. This would explain Suetonius’s ­confusion. 25 Talbert (157) aptly cites Justin 1 Apol. 11 as an

indication that this accusation was troublesome. He refers to his Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 190–94 for evidence that readers would see this accusation as malicious. 26 See Edwin Judge, “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” Reformed Theological Review 30 (1971) 1–7, summarized by Hemer, Book, 167. “Decrees” (dovgmata) is difficult, since the sphere of imperial maiestas was covered by public statute. Witherington (508) appeals to 2 Thessalonians 2 to justify the historicity of the accusations. The contents of that chapter constitute a cogent argument against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. See Frank W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians ( JSNTS 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). The D-Text intelligently deletes “the decrees,” according to Boismard, Texte, 283 (with thin evidence). One might also ask whether an allegation of this sort might not have been referred to the Roman proconsul. Justin K. Hardin (“Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason’s House [Acts 17.1-10a],” NTS 52 [2006] 29–49) proposes that the believers were accused of being an illegal voluntary association. The city may have had no such laws, but the Romans did not encourage the formation of collegia. Trajan considered it better for Nicomedia to burn than to have organized firefighters (Pliny Ep. 10.34). These solutions must tacitly assume that the mission lasted much

420

Acts part 2C.indd 420

8/27/2008 10:16:50 AM

17:1-15

  6-10a  These grave allegations had the desired effect

on both mob and officials, but the narrative continues to raise difficulties. Although v. 5 spoke of the popular assembly (dh`mo~) as the goal of the accusers, v. 8 returns to the language of the mob (o[clo~), introduced in vv. 5 and 9.27 As worded, the text implies that both mob and officials secured a bond.28 Moreover, the narrator leaves a gap between v. 8 and v. 9. A fuller account would presumably have included something like: “So there was a hearing dealing with the nature of this teaching, the whereabouts of Paul and Silas, and the nature and applicability of the decrees in question. After hearing evidence and pondering the matter, the politarchs required Jason and the others to post a bond that would be forfeit if Paul and Silas continued to agitate.” All in all, this passage shows many of the strengths and weaknesses of Luke’s rapid and vivid narrative style. The speed and vigor of the narrative tug the reader over gap and through inconsistency without pause for reflection. The D-Text shows that not all readers were willing to be tugged: “And they stirred the magistrates and the mob by saying these things. So then, the magistrates, after receiving their bond [ ], dismissed them.” This smoothes over an awkward participial phrase at the close of v. 8, nicely repairs the gap between v. 8 and v. 9, states that the magistrates received a surety, and eliminates “and the others,” the identity of whom is not clear.   10b-15  Within a verse, the narrator places Paul in a new town and another synagogue. The Jews of Berea29 proved more fair-minded. Daily Bible study yielded the expected results.30 As usual, converts included many

highly placed members of local society, gentiles no less than Jews. A cloud soon appeared on the horizon. The attentive Jews of Thessalonica discovered what was happening and undertook some itinerant missionary work of their own. Arriving in Beroea, they played the old game (cf. 14:19-20), rousing the local rabble against Paul. Concern for his safety motivated members of the community to escort him out of town. Silas (and Timothy) were not major targets. The next stop is Athens. The story is a replay of Thessalonica. Three times Paul has inaugurated missions in Macedonia. Three times these have resulted in civic unrest and his prompt departure. If his opponents are indulging themselves with self-congratulation, they are cruelly deceived. Far from stifling this new movement, persecution is the fuel of its continued expansion. Readers are also reassured that the charges against Paul, which have taken on a political coloration, are without grounds. They are so baseless that the narrator had no need to summarize them here. It is possible that Luke had information about Beroea, but this short paragraph is an authorial creation.31 He utilizes this stop to contrast reception of the gospel in sophisticated, aristocratic Beroea with that in Thessalonica, the democratic and vulgar ­metropolis. 32 Most of the differences in the D-Text display its penchant for heavy-handed pedantry: Paul had taught them and must thus be mentioned. Since many believed, it should be noted that some did not (cf. 28:24, etc.). The addition at the close of v. 13 indicates why Paul was sent away: rioting was incessant. One mere disturbance

longer than the text envisions, for they require an organized body of some size. 27 It is possible that o[clo~ has a neutral sense here, almost “the common people,” but that is probably not Luke’s intention. He wishes to show the magistrates as swayed by the mobile vulgus who had elected them. 28 The phrase lambanvein iJkanovn appears, like many legal expressions, to be a Latinism (satis accipere/ dare). See BDF §5(3) and Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 95. 29 For information about this salubrious city, see J. Strahan, “Beroea,” DAC 1:148–49; and Jerry A. Pattengale, “Berea,” ABD 1:675. Cicero (Pis. 89) called it an oppidum devium, “off the beaten path.” Beroea is described as a “large and well-populated city of Macedonia” in Onos 34.

30 On the sequence and meaning of the events described in vv. 11b-12, see Weiser, 2:451. As he observes, the reference to Scripture in v. 11b depends on v. 3. Readers are expected to fill in such gaps. 31 See Weiser, 2:445–47, esp. 450–51. Lüdemann (186–88) reports no traditions for these verses. The mission appears to be historical, since the list in 20:4 includes Sopater of Beroea. 32 See Rackham, 292, and many subsequent commentators. One would not draw the same conclusion from Paul’s epistles.

421

Acts part 2C.indd 421

8/27/2008 10:16:50 AM

would not have hindered his efforts. 33 Spiritual intervention explains a large gap in the mission (Thessaly). 34 Although the changes in 17:1-15 look like random small variants, the effect of the whole is notable. The staccato, lacunulose prose of the standard text is altered; the mission in Macedonia is more complete, while the proceedings are better motivated and more logical/rational. 35 The mission at Beroea is atypical in that it yields a rich harvest of Jews and well-placed gentiles—women36 again in the privileged place among the latter—without Jewish opposition. God-Fearers are also absent. 37 When opponents arrived, these persons had the resources to send an escort (oiJ kaqistavnonte~ [“those conducting”]), v. 15) that took Paul (from an unstated port) all the way to Athens. At this point, Timothy, who has not

been mentioned since 16:3, reappears. His return is a possible clue to Luke’s use of Paul’s letters. In 1 Thess 3:1-5, Timothy is mentioned in connection with Athens. This may have been Luke’s only information about a sojourn of Paul in Athens and raises the question of Luke’s specific contradiction of that data, since Paul was not “alone” in Athens until he had sent Timothy to Thessalonica. For Luke, Paul was the only threat to “the Jews.” Once he had left a town, the believers were safe. Furthermore, Athens was not a planned missionary target, but only a layover where Paul would await his colleagues.38 Since it was not in Paul’s nature to be idle, he would have had an interesting experience in the famous citadel of Hellenic culture. 39

33 The phrase is borrowed from the D-Text of 8:24. 34 The inspiration for this is 16:4-6. The D-Text assumes that Paul’s strategy was to start a new community in every place (cf. 17:1) and thus has to explain gaps. Cadbury and Lake (207) observe that the D-Text uses parevrcomai to mean “pass through without engaging in mission,” whereas dievrcomai refers to missionary work. 35 See also Cadbury and Lake (207–8), who argue that “the sea” means “Athens” in the D-Text. 36 Whereas proponents of a particular religion boasted of its appeal to women of high status, opponents would accuse missionaries of seeking to exploit them, for example, Marcus, according to Irenaeus A.H. 1.13–15.

37 Jervell (438) identifies the “Greeks” of v. 12 as “God-Fearers,” basing his claim on the absence of reference to work other than in the synagogue. This is a questionable argument from silence, since the narrator referred to “devout” women in v. 4 and will refer to God-Fearers again in v. 17. 38 According to the narrative, the two did not join Paul until he had come to Corinth (18:5). No reason is given for his departure from Athens without them. 39 Of Athens, Philo says: “The Athenians, the keenest in intelligence among the Greeks—for Athens is in Greece what the pupil is in the eye and reason in the soul” (Omn. prob. lib.140).

422

Acts part 2C.indd 422

8/27/2008 10:16:50 AM

17:16-34

17

17:16-34  Paul’s Areopagus Address 16/ While Paul awaited the arrival of Timothy and Silas, he investigated the sights. He found the abundance of idols quite disturbing. a 17/ So he began to address Jews and devout gentiles b in the synagogue and, on weekdays, whoever happened to be present in the city center. 18/ Among those who encountered Paul were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. “What point is this dilettante trying to make?” some asked, while others said, “He seems to be a herald of alien gods.” (This is because he was preaching about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19/ So they apprehended Paul and led him to the Council of the Areopagus, asking, “May we learn what this novel doctrine c you are talking about is? 20/ Since you are propounding alien ideas, we certainly wish to know just what point you are trying to make.” (21/ All d Athenians, whether native or immigrants, delight e in nothing so much as to hear or speak about anything that is quite novel.) 22/ Whereupon Paul, standing in the middle of the council, said: “Gentlemen of Athens. I observe that you are in every way quite devout. 23/ While I was walking about and examining your devotional monuments, I even found an altar bearing the inscription ‘To an unknown god.’ What you thus revere in ignorance is what I am proclaiming to you. f 24/ “The God who fashioned the universe and all that is does not, as sovereign over heaven and earth, inhabit temples of human manufacture, 25/ nor does the One who bestows life and breath and everything else require the ministration of human hands, as if God had needs! 26/ From one person God fashioned every race and nation g to occupy the entire surface of the earth, having established h times of dominion and boundaries of habitation. 27/ Humankind was fashioned so that it would strive after God, in the hope that it might

a b c d

e

f

g

h

i j

k

l

m

n

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 288) revises v. 16 to eliminate an undesirable genitive absolute. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 288, with thin evidence) eliminates the reference to God-Fearers. B D pc omit the second article. This is an ­improvement. Boismard (Texte, 290) omits “all” from the D-Text. This is probably a pedantic correction of a common hyperbole. “The imperfect describes manners and customs” (Smyth, Greek Grammar, §1898). Perhaps it should be rendered “have long delighted.” A clearly Atticistic touch is the elative kainovteron (“quite novel”); BDF §244 (2). Note also Barrett, 2:835–36. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 290) slightly revises. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 291) varies the wording of the initial participles, omits the adverbial kaiv (“even”), and changes the gender of the relative and demonstrative to masculine: “The one whom you . . .” These variants reek of pedantry or arbitrary variation. The preferable reading is e[qno~. The D-Text, according to Boismard (Texte, 292) is gevno~. The two are partly synonymous. Antiquity lacked the modern concept of a nation-state and did not define “race” with precision. An e[qno~ was a body of people with a common culture (including language and religion). An alternative rendering would be “the entire human race.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 292) reads “arranged in advance” (protetagmevnou~). This is a tempting alternative that is quite consonant with Lucan ­t heology. On kaiv ge, see BDF §425 (1). D d add “day by day” (kaqÆ hJmevran) at the end. This is a good instance of a D revision that is fully Lucan in character (e.g., Luke 9:23; eleven times in all) yet quite inept. V.l. “your.” “Our” is supported by B p 74 614. 1646c. 1837. 2344. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 406) notes that the confusion is common and says: “It is scarcely likely that Paul would have represented himself as one of the Greeks.” For Luke, however, Paul was a Greek (e.g., 21:39), and it is more likely that “our” was altered to “your” than vice versa. The first person in v. 29 supports this view. In this citation tou` (“his”) is a demonstrative (= prose touvtou) and gevno~ (“kind”) is an accusative of respect. P74 omits “of human thought,” perhaps by accident, although it is arguable that an editor—not least an Alexandrian editor—would have held that humans can form a mental conception of God and that therefore the deletion was intentional. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 295) simplifies by

423

Acts part 2C.indd 423

8/27/2008 10:16:50 AM

apprehend God, as it were, and achieve the object of its quest. God is not, in fact, i distant from any one of us, 28/ for ‘In God we live, thrive, and exist.’ j This is how some of our k poets put it: ‘For we are God’s offspring.’ l “Since we have sprung from God, we ought not imagine that the Deity resembles gold or silver or stone, the products of human thought m and mortal craft! 30/ God will overlook past failures that were due to ignorance. For the present, God invites all people everywhere to change their lives, 31/ for God has set a time at which he intends to judge n the world justly by a man he has selected, in proof whereof God has raised this man from the dead.” Some engaged in ridicule when they heard about resurrection of the dead, but others said, “We shall listen to more of what you have to say about this subject on another occasion.” 33/ At that Paul left the council. 34/ Some people did become pupils of Paul and come to believe. These included, among others, Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, and a woman named Damaris.

29/

32/

Analysis

The narrator depicts Paul at loose ends in Athens, awaiting his assistants. That city was the very navel of what was even in Paul’s day viewed as the “golden age” of Greek culture and the location of unnumbered artistic marvels.1 The narrator begins by observing that Paul, 1 2

replacing ejn h|/ mevllei krivnein (lit. “on which he is going/intends to judge”) with the aorist infinitive kri`nai. In addition, some D-Texts (a secondary layer according to Boismard) gloss “man” as “Jesus.” The former eliminates a Lucan expression for the unfolding of God’s plan (Squires, Plan, 2 n. 7). Both fail to appreciate the character of the address.

like Jesus (Luke 21:5-6), is no gawking tourist. All that he can see is the effluvia of idolatry. Not inclined to be idle, Paul engaged in his customary practice of addressing Jews and God-Fearers in synagogue.2 To this he added a fresh dimension of missionary endeavor: daily lectures to passersby in the agora. Such activity was not

On this site, see Hubert H. Martin, Jr., “Athens,” ABD 1:513–18; and Taylor, “St Paul,” 2463–64. The philosophical-sounding verb dialevgomai, which usually means no more than “preach” becomes a favored term after the council (17:2, 17; 18:4, 10; 19:8-9; 20:7, 9; 24:12, 25). Despite this meaning, it is difficult to dismiss an allusion in v. 17 to the famous method of Socrates: Plato Apol. 19D; 33A; Resp. 454A. On the use of traditions about Socrates in Acts 17, see Karl O. Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul’s Areopagus Speech,” JSNT 50 (1993) 13–26; David M. Reis, “The

­ reopagus as Echo Chamber: Mimesis and IntertexA tuality in Acts,” JHC 9 (2002) 259–77, esp. 266–73. Reis notes not only the standard parallels adduced for the narrative but also features of the speech that can be found in writings associated with Socrates. For Socrates parallels in Acts, see Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972) 38 n. 18; Alexander, Literary Context, 62–67; Cadbury and Lake, 212; Plümacher, Lukas, 19, 97–99; and Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 151 n. 26.

424

Acts part 2C.indd 424

8/27/2008 10:16:50 AM

17:16-34

unheard-of at Athens. 3 One of Paul’s predecessors in that endeavor was Socrates. Paul drew the attention of Epicureans and Stoics, disciples of the two most vigorous dogmatic philosophical schools of the era, who could be counted on to take opposing positions on most issues.4 Their reactions, like the crowd attracted by the events of Pentecost in Jerusalem, were mixed. To some, he is yet another dilettante, while others gain the impression that he is introducing new gods. The latter was a capital offense in classical Athens, the very crime for which Socrates had been executed. 5 To those familiar with this history—anyone with a modest Greek education—this is an ominous development. Alarm quickens when Paul is brought before the ancient and venerable Council of the Areopagus, where he is requested to provide an explanation.6 The intellectual theme of the episode is, suitably enough for the city of Socrates, epistemology. The surface manifestation of this interest (which the author does not develop on the basis of philosophical theology) is the presence of words based on the Greek stem for “know” (gnw-): vv. 19, 20, 23 (bis), 30. Formally, the subject of Paul’s address is how knowledge of the true God is to be obtained. The Greeks pursue wisdom (cf. 1 Cor 1:22), and Paul will give them a dose of it.7 The narrative generates both fear and pride, pride in the prospect of Paul’s appearance before so august an assembly, fear of the possible outcome, as the fate of Socrates pervades the atmosphere. The unstated nature of the inquiry does not dispel concerns. Is the Areopagus holding a formal trial, conducting some sort of 3

4

preliminary ­investigation, or sponsoring a seminar for a visiting intellectual? Onto this marble stage the narrator hurls a piece of rotten fruit: Athenians are notoriously seduced by the trendy. Readers will be prepared for the possibility that Paul’s message may not receive the attention it merits. Whether on trial for his life or summoned to relieve the boredom of the Athenian aristocracy, Paul will give them his best: an apposite, witty, erudite, and wellcrafted address. A nicely formulated captatio follows a phrase reminiscent of Plato’s Apology and numerous orations read by students for millennia. The dramatic audience would see this as a compliment, while the readers appreciate what Paul thought of the religiosity on display. Meeting the audience where they are, he proposes as his text an inscription “To an Unknown God.”8 From this Attic rock, God can raise up children of Abraham. Out of that stone Paul will hew several themes. Polytheism cannot meet the deep religious longings of humanity and confesses ignorance of the one true God. This is also the god of the philosophers, a being who cannot be molded from rock or encased in a shrine. To these ideas the philosophically inclined would have posed no strong objections, and they would have agreed that the masses wallow in ignorance.9 The difference is that, for Luke, ignorance creates a level playing field that places an equal demand on Jews and gentiles (cf. 3:17). A single God has created all. The human race constitutes a unity. The one God who made all from one will judge all on a single criterion, through one agent, so designated by rising from the dead. The

On the social context of Athens and its agora, see Dean P. Béchard, Paul outside the Walls: A Study of Luke’s Socio-Geographical Universalism in Acts 14:8-20 (AnBib 143; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000) 381–83, 411. The major sources for these two schools, with some commentary and analysis, are available in A. A. Long and David N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987): Epicureans 1:25–157; 2:18–162; Stoics 1:158–437; 2:163–431. On their traditional adversity, see David L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in idem et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 52–79; Jerome H. Neyrey, “Acts 17,

5 6

7 8

9

Epicureans and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes,” in ibid., 118–34; and Squires, Plan, 39. For details, see Haenchen, 518 n. 2. On the reputation and status of the Areopagus, see Ethiopian Story 4.17–21; 10.34–38. The court of the Ethiopian king is like the Areopagus, that is, highly venerated for its justice. Cf. Conzelmann, 140. Paul’s own embrace of the Christian message began with an encounter by one unknown (Acts 9:5). For Luke’s own view of the deity in view, see Scott Bartchy, “Agnoµstos Theos: Luke’s Message to the ‘Nations’ about Israel’s God,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 304–20.

425

Acts part 2C.indd 425

8/27/2008 10:16:51 AM

issue of resurrection is another challenge to both Jews and gentiles. Nonetheless, at least a few minds were open. Among the converts were an actual member of the distinguished Areopagus and a woman of undisclosed status. Frugal as its harvest may have been, the mission to Athens was most heartening for those who did not care to hear their faith characterized as intellectually worthless. By small but deft touches of local color, the narrator has produced an enduring portrait, a silver-tongued oration in a golden old setting.10 The general structure of this passage is clear: verses 16-21 constitute an introduction that summarizes the mission and sets the stage for the speech, which follows in vv. 22-31, with a concluding reaction in vv. 32-34. Once typical Lucan features and various stereotypes about Athens and its populace have been catalogued,11 only the fact that Paul was in Athens and the names of Dionysius and Damaris remain. No data about a Christian community at Athens is available until the time of Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170).12 The pursuit of sources is valid for seeking to determine what information Luke had available,13 but not helpful insofar as it detracts from the indisputable unity of the episode.14

Comment   16-17  Nock says that this picture of Athens is based on literature.15 This is valid, but it does not prove that the author had never been to Athens, since writers in antiquity were likely to prefer literary tradition to personal observation. Verse 16 is somewhat ambiguous. The verb parwxuvneto could imply anger or mere pity for the failings of polytheism.16 Athens was famous for its religious monuments and piety,17 but the other cities in which Paul had labored were scarcely less contaminated with the physical excretions of polytheism.18 The sites and emotion prepare the ground for his subsequent address, as does deviation from customary procedure in v. 17b.19 Evidently, the Athenian agora had a better clientele than did that of Thessalonica (v. 5). Only here does the narrator thrust his hero voluntarily into the urban throng. The reason is clear: Socrates spoke with all sorts and conditions of people in that very place.20 Memory of this practice endured, although the Cynics (and others, including Christians) had brought such behavior into disrepute.21

10 Cf. Haenchen (527), who speaks of a “motif idols”), see R. E. Wycherley, “St. Paul at Athens,” technique.” Dibelius, Studies, 76: “Therefore Luke JTS 19 (1968) 619–21. conjures up in a few sentences the whole individu19 The me;n ou\n in v. 17 is difficult. It could be adverality of Athens as it was at that time.” sative (“nonetheless”) or merely transitional. It 11 For redactional elements, see Weiser, 2:459–62; does not mark a major division. See Moule, Idiom and Lüdemann, 189–92. On the clichés about Book, 163. Athens, see below. 20 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.10; Dio of Prusa Or. 54.3. 12 Eusebius (H.E. 4.23.2–3) presents a summary of 21 Dio of Prusa’s criticism of (some) Cynics is very Dionysius’s letter to Athens. Many illustrious Chrismuch like what Celsus says about some Christian tians of the period c. 150–c. 225 are associated missionaries: “[T]hese Cynics, posting themselves with Athens, including the apologists Quadratus, at street-corners, in all-ways, and at temple-gates Aristides, and Athenagoras; the Roman bishops [cf. Acts 3:1-9; 14:8-18] pass round the hat and play Anacletus and, possibly, Hyginus and Sixtus II, as upon the credulity of lads and sailors and crowds of well as Clement of Alexandria. that sort, stringing together rough jokes and much 13 The circularity of this quest is apparent: if one tittle-tattle (spermologivan) and that low badinage assumes that Luke had an itinerary of this journey, that smacks of the market-place (ajgoraivou~). then data about travel and converts are attributed Accordingly they achieve no good at all, but rather to it. the worst possible harm, for they accustom thought14 Conzelmann, 140: “The scene and speech are less people to deride philosophers in general” (Or. woven together to form a whole.” See the brief and 32.9, trans. H. L. Crosby [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: vivid analysis of Johnson, 318–19. Harvard University Press, 1940] 181). Celsus com15 Nock, Essays, 2:831. plains: “Moreover, we see that those who display 16 See BDAG, 789, s.v. parozuvnw. their trickery in the market-places (ajgorai`~) and 17 See, for example, Livy 14.27; Pausanias 1.17.1; go about begging would never enter a gathering of Strabo 9.1.16; and the references on v. 22. intelligent men, nor would they dare to reveal their 18 On the adjective kateivdwlon (“riddled with noble beliefs in their presence; but whenever they

426

Acts part 2C.indd 426

8/27/2008 10:16:51 AM

17:16-34

  18  The narrator therefore hastens to single out philosophers as his hearers. They, too, formed part of the local color.22 As Hans-Josef Klauck notes: “This is the decisive difference between the Areopagus discourse and the situation in Lystra: Paul is no longer dealing with an unenlightened provincial crowd, but with an educated city public.”23 Some of these urbane intellectuals dismiss Paul as a spermolovgo~, “a bird-brain devoid of method,”24 while others grasp that he is expounding theology.25 The goal of this unflattering report is to create a nearly exact parallel to the reaction of the audience in Jerusalem to the miracle at Pentecost (Acts 2:12-13).26 This anticipates the level ground of which the address will speak. Understanding is difficult, for Jews and Greeks alike. This creates a problem for the narrator: why should the Areopagus be summoned to listen to such a creature? For the reader, this critique reflected negatively on the philosophers, as Paul’s teaching involved orderly exposition and rigorous adherence to method. The second opinion, also unflattering to its adherent, returns to the Socrates parallel: Paul is introducing alien deities.27 Not all ancient literary views of Athens focused on its

22 23 24

25

26

cultural amenities. Meddling civilians and tough justice await visitors to Athens. Pirates who hoped to make a fortune by selling the extraordinarily beautiful Callirhoe debated about the proper venue: One said, “Athens is nearby, a great and prosperous city. There we shall find lots of dealers and lots of the wealthy. In Athens you can see as many communities as you can men in a marketplace (ajgorav) .” Sailing to Athens appealed to them all. But Theron [the leader] did not like the inquisitive nature of the city. “Are you the only ones,” he asked, “who have not heard what busybodies the Athenians are? They are a talkative lot and fond of litigation, and in the harbor scores of troublemakers will ask who we are and where we got this cargo. The worst suspicions will fill their evil minds. The Areopagus is near at hand and their officials are sterner than tyrants. (Chariton Chaer. 1.11.5–7) 28 The final clause of v. 18 (“this . . . resurrection”) is a rare authorial aside with the characteristics of a gloss, omitted by the D-Text.29 Is this a gloss not found in the

see adolescent boys and a crowd of slaves and a 27 This was the capital charge of which Socrates was company of fools they push themselves in and show convicted: Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1; Plato Apol. 24b. off” (Origen Cels. 3.50, trans. Henry Chadwick On religious trials in ancient Athens, see Rob[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953] ert Garland, Introducing New Gods: The Politics of 162; see also 3.55). For Greco-Roman street preachAthenian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ers, see Horace Satires 2.3; Dio of Prusa Or. 8.9; 36; 1992). Athenians were proverbially allergic to novel Epictetus Diss. 3.22.26–30; Apuleius Metam. 8.24; divinities: Euripides Bacch. 255–56; Josephus Ap. 11.8; Lucian Peregr. 3–4; and the Cynic Epistles 38 2.265–67. Religion and politics were not separate (Diogenes). spheres. In the speech he placed on the lips of MaeCadbury and Lake, 211. cenas kindly advising Augustus on the manageKlauck, Magic, 76–77. ment of an empire, Cassius Dio (52.36.1–2)recomSo Spicq (Lexicon, 268–69), who provides many mended sanctions against religious novelties. The valuable references to the use of this word. In its relatively uncommon noun kataggeleuv~ (“prometaphorical usage, the term refers to those who claimer”) is an elegant parallel to the language of spouted points or principles in a highly unsystemthe oracular slave in 16:17 ­( kataggevllousin). atic manner. In the context, ou|to~ (“this guy”) is 28 Trans. G. P. Gould (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harpejorative, like Latin iste: BDF §290(6). See also vard University Press, 1995) 69. Taylor, “St Paul,” 2467–68. 29 Boismard, Texte, 289. Readers who held the vulgar view that the Epicureans were “atheists” might associate them with the first group, and the religiously inclined Stoics with the second (e.g., Haenchen, 517–18). See the summary of Lucian’s Zeus Tragoedus below. In 2:13 some exclaim tiv qevlei tou`to ei\naiÉ (“What is going on?”), whereas 17:18 employs a potential optative (tiv a[n qevloi), more suitable for Athenian environs.

427

Acts part 2C.indd 427

8/27/2008 10:16:51 AM

prototype of the D-Text or an accidental or deliberate omission from that tradition? It is probably original, but the possibility of a gloss deserves consideration. The plural daimovnia (“divinities”) is conventional, 30 but an early reader insensitive to the tradition might have taken offense at the notion that Paul could have been construed as a polytheist and provided an explanation. The subsequent sermon does not name Jesus, but does speak of his being raised (v. 31). 31   19-20  These verses are casual in style. 32 The logical subject is the philosophers of v. 18, 33 who apprehend Paul and convey him to the Areopagus. The narrator is vague about whether this refers to the place (“Mars Hill”) or to the council that met there, and thus whether the event is to be construed as a legal proceeding or merely a lecture in a suitable place to a learned body of uncertain (but scarcely enormous) size. Although the narrator is cagey, it is probable that Luke wishes to

present the event as a sort of trial before the Council of the Areopagus. In this context, ejpilambavnomai (“apprehend”) implies formal or informal arrest in Acts.34 Possible charges are raised, to which a speech in a formal setting responds, and the presence of a member of the Areopagus among the converts supports the understanding that the narrator intends to say that Paul spoke to the council and that the event therefore had an official purpose.35 The absence of a verdict is not evidence to the contrary, for legal actions in Acts seldom end with formal verdicts.36 Paul’s prompt departure (18:1) after the speech also conforms to other accounts of legal actions.37 The goal is, in the broad sense, apologetic. The movement itself is on trial. In this august setting, Paul will show that Christianity represents Greek paideia (culture) and is not a vulgar foreign superstition.38 That is one

30 It is found, for example, in all of the texts cited in (ejn mevsw/ [v. 22] and ejk mevsou [v. 33]). The phrase n. 27, but only here in the NT in a nonpejorative ejn mevsw means “among” in Luke and Acts: Luke sense. 2:46; 4:30; 22:27; 24:36; Acts 1:15; 2:22; 4:7; 17:33. 31 Ropes (Text, ccxxxvii) regards the omission as On the Areopagus (site and council), see Hubert an accident in the Latin tradition. In support of H. Martin, Jr., “Areopagus,” ABD 1:370–72. Note his view is the addition of aujtoi`~ (“to them”) at also NewDocs 1 (1981) 82; Daniel J. Geagan, The the end in a range of witnesses, including some Athenian Constitution after Sulla (Hesperia Supp. 12; D-Texts: 1739 vg sy p bo. Chrysostom (Hom. 38, 318), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967) 50; who often represents the D-Text, read this clause and Haenchen, 519 n. 1. (Haenchen demands too (and understood it to mean the goddess Anastamuch verisimilitude by saying that the narrative sis). (If the omission was accidental, that does not has Paul led away from the Stoa Basileios, where exclude the possibility that it was a gloss.) Metzger the Areopagus met, to the hill.) Balch (“Aeropagus (Textual Commentary, 404) believes that it was omitSpeech,” 73–74) points to a “fascinating parallel”: ted by intention. Price (Widow Traditions, 235–42) the fictitious “trial” of Pheidias (who produced the takes the bull by the horns, as it were, and suspects famous statue of Zeus at Olympia) in Dio of Prusa a fragment of a tradition in which Anastasis (“resOr. 12.49, 52, 63 (a speech that contains many useful urrection”) was a goddess. He finds support for data for illustrating the Areopagus speech). Other this in the D-Text. trials of philosophers before this body are recorded 32 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 289) seeks to enhance by Diogenes Laertius 2.101, 116; 7.169. Schwartz the realism of the situation by prefacing v. 19 with (“Trial Scene,” 125–26) observes that Thessalonica “After a few days . . .” That text also revises the and Athens constitute, in effect, two halves of a trial. colorless levgonte~ (in effect a quotation mark) to 36 Cadbury and Lake (213) correctly note this propenpunqanovmenoi (“inquiring”) and revises the third sity. In Conzelmann (139), the statement, “Luke part of the verse to eliminate didachv (“doctrine”). makes it very clear when he is describing a trial” is 33 This assumes that the second tine~ in v. 18 does ill-advised. not refer to another group of people. 37 E.g., 16:40; 17:10; 18:18 (all in the immediate 34 Cf. 16:19; 21:33, and the comments of Pesch, ­context). 2:134–35. 38 The Act. Phil. 2 imitates Acts 17: Questioned by 35 Rackham (311) listed the features indicating legal philosophers who love anything quite novel (ti action. See also Timothy D. Barnes, “An Apostle kainovteron), Philip says, “My Lord has brought on Trial,” JTS 20 (1969) 407–19; Balch, “Areopagus a genuinely fresh and original teaching (pai­ Speech,” 52–79, 73; and Pervo, Profit, 44–45. The deivan o[ntw~ nevan kai; kainh;n) into the world.” speech is framed by phrases meaning “among” ­According to Werner Jaeger, revelation of the

428

Acts part 2C.indd 428

8/27/2008 10:16:51 AM

17:16-34

reason for the numerous evocations of Socrates. 39 “The Lukan Paul stands before the body responsible for the regulation of religion in Athens, faced with the same type of question Socrates had faced, a charge that led to his death.”40 Verses 19b-20 continue this theme. In this ABA sequence the indirect questions frame the phrase “propounding alien ideas” (xenivzonta . . . eijsfevrei~), both evocative of Socrates.41   21  The verse contains another aside that produces yet one more cliché about Athenians: their fabled curiosity and love of novelty.42 The rhetorical purpose of this repetition is to shift the focus from what is alien (xevnon) to what is “new” (kainovn).43 Dramatically, it prepares readers for the ambiguous—at best—reception. True dilettantism is represented not by Paul (cf. v. 18) but by the council itself. If, in the end, Paul is to provide no more than entertainment for the frivolous, he will do his best. Jesus had had a similar experience (Luke 23:6-12), as will Paul again (24:24-27; 26). The Lystra

39

40 41

42

speech involved a different sort of apologetic: distinction between Christianity and vulgar paganism. At Athens, Paul can presume the philosophical critique of vulgar religion and show its limits. Both addresses are grounded in an intellectual view of God.   22-31  This has generated a major debate: Does the Areopagus address surrender the biblical doctrine of revelation in favor of “proof” from nature and history?44 Both sides can make a good case. Luke was not a systematic theologian, and he is not setting forth a doctrine of revelation or propounding an anthropology. He was writing a speech that intended to show that Paul could address the learned in suitable categories and terms. Because of its compressed content and the author’s abilities and interests, it not surprisingly contains logical leaps and theological inconsistencies. Paul’s Athenian speech has not eluded scholarly attention.45 A cultured Greek would dismiss these brief words as a stylistically inadequate and muddled

­ aideia of Christ was “[w]hat the author of our [i.e., 43 Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 53 n. 3. On “new teachp the canonical] Acts wanted to do.” See Werner ing/doctrine,” cf. Mark 1:27 parr.; Act. Paul 3.14. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cam44 See the summary of this debate by Weiser, bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961) 12. 2:478–80. (Luke was, however, not interested in stressing the 45 Important studies include Dibelius, Studies, 26–83; newness of Christian revelation.) Hildebrecht Hommel, “Neue Forschung zur Allusions to Socrates are common in the apoloAreopagrede Acta 17,” ZNW 46 (1955) 145–78; gists. See, for example, Justin, 1 Apol. 5 (introducWolfgang Nauck, “Die Tradition und Komposition ing new gods); 18; 2 Apol. 3; 7; and 10.4–6, which der Areopagrede,” ZThK 53 (1956) 11–52; Walther represents Socrates as making an argument for Eltester, “Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede,” one god (and facing trials for so doing). On Justin’s in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann use of the Socrates model, see David M. Reis, “The (2nd ed.; BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957) Areopagus as Echo Chamber: Mimesis and Inter202–57; Paul Schubert, “The Place of the Areopatextuality in Acts,” JHC 9 (2002) 273–76. gus Speech in the Composition of Acts,” in J. Coert Talbert, 160. Rylaarsdam, ed., Essays in Divinity 6 (Chicago: Cf., e.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1. Luke’s coy, albeit University of Chicago Press, 1968) 235–61; Hans stylistically weak, participle xenivzonta calls to Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on the Aremind the “foreign divinities” of v. 18. See Cadbury opagus,” in Keck and Martyn, Studies, 217–30; and Lake, 212. C. K. Barrett, “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,” in Athenian curiosity: see the citation from Chariton M. Glasswell and Edward Fasholé-Luke, eds., New Chaer. 1.11 above; Demosthenes Philip. 1.10; Lucian Testament Christianity for Africa and the World: Essays Icar. 24; Thucydides 3.38.5; Aristophanes Knights in Honour of Harry Sawyer (London: SPCK, 1974) 1260–63; Pausanias 1.17.1; Strabo 9.1.16; Livy 69–77; Pierre Auffret, “Essai sur la structure litté14.27; Sophocles Oed. col. 260; and Aelian Var. hist. raire du discours d’Athènes (Ac XVII 23-31),” NovT 5.17. See also Josephus Ap. 2.130. In Ethiopian Story 20 (1978) 185–202; Jacques Dupont, “Le discours 3.1, Kalasiris says to Knemon, “Your interest in à l’Aréopage (Ac 17,22-31): lieu de rencontre entre incidental spectacle only confirms my impression christianisme et hellénisme,” in idem, Nouvelles that you are a true Athenian!” (trans J. R. Morgan, études, 380–423, 530–46; Karl Löning, “Paulinisin Reardon, Novels, 409). See further A. Hallstrom, mus in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Karl Kertelege, “De Curiositate Antheniensium,” Eranos 14 (1914) ed., Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: 57–59. Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament (QD 89;

429

Acts part 2C.indd 429

8/27/2008 10:16:51 AM

c­ ollection of clichés with an unexpected and improbable conclusion, but it has power and vigor that would have eluded such critics, and, as an experiment in missionary theology, it continues to challenge Christian thinkers.46 The orator takes up presuppositions of his audience with genuine respect but not uncritically and without masking his own presuppositions or compromising his views. He speaks movingly of the human longing for genuine transcendence. On the other hand, the speech does not invest this quest for the divine with passion or speak of the joy that enlightenment will bring. Rather than invite his hearers to change and join the party (cf. Luke 15:25-32), Paul demands that they repent or face the music. For one who could speak so often of the joy of Christian existence, this is remarkable.47 Luke thereby reveals that he does not possess the mentality of a philosopher. Intellectual discovery was not a cause for celebration.48 Although the essential elements of this speech were set out in 14:15-17 and gentiles have been

46 47

48 49

50

among the converts since chap. 13, Luke has reserved his detailed justification/description of the theological means of this mission for the symbolic environs of Athens. This prepares the way for the eruption of the gentile mission in Corinth and its explosion in Ephesus and Asia.49 The intellectual background of this sermon derives, in general, from that Stoic line of thought associated with Posidonius, who reasserted the early Stoic view of a divine providence revealed in nature and history. 50 This information almost certainly came to Luke through the medium of Hellenistic Judaism, with an emphasis on the adjective, for no passage in Acts has elicited so many references to Greco-Roman philosophical writings. Since much of that material has not survived and even less remains of the output of Hellenistic philosophy, researchers must turn to Roman sources. 51 The form of the setting is indebted to the periegesis, narration

Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 202–34; Balch, “Areopagus Speech” (which amounts to a commentary on the speech from a Stoic perspective); Jerome H. Neyrey, “Acts 17,” 118–34; Bruce Winter, “Implied Audiences in the Areopagus Narrative,” TynBul 55 (2004) 205–18; idem, “Introducing the Athenians to God: Paul’s Failed Apologetic in Acts 17?” Themelios 31 (2005) 38–59; Christoph Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 203–24; Klauck, Magic, 73–95; Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 129–32; and Soards, Speeches, 95–100. For further bibliography, see Fitzmyer, 613–17. On patristic interpretation, see Michael Fiedrowicz, “Die Rezeption und Interpretation der paulini­ schen Areopag-Rede in der patristischen Theologie,” TThZ 111 (2002) 85–105. The issue is the tension between evangelism and enculturation. See Klauck, Magic, 94. Joy and gladness: Acts 2:46; 8:8; 12:14; 13:52; 14:17; 15:3. (Note that all of these references come from the first half of Acts, and that the companion/parallel speech in 14:17 speaks of joy, but in reference to nourishment.) Contrast Justin’s description of his intellectual/ spiritual quest (Dial. 1–8) or Lucian Nigrinus. This is well stated by Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:210–13. Jervell’s view (452–56) of this speech as an alien element in the entire New Testament without consequence is incorrect. See Balch, “Areopagus Speech.” (Posidonius has

been the subject of considerable dispute and should not be a red herring in discussion of Acts 17. The issue is the contents of certain texts, not the thought of that philosopher. For a general introduction, see I. G. Kidd, “Posidonius,” OCD 1231–33.) 51 Bertil Gärtner’s The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU 21; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955), although valuable, is methodologically flawed because of its thesis that the background of the speech can be explained almost entirely without reference to Greco-Roman philosophy. The task is not the selection and rejection of various backgrounds, with “Jewish background” occupying a privileged position, but the development of a profile of the sermon in the context of ancient thought. Posidonius admired Plato, and many intellectuals (e.g., Philo) took an eclectic approach to the philosophical tradition. Parallels may thus be adduced from a range of philosophical systems. The true focus of the debate is the question: What does Luke’s Athens have in common with Paul? Those who stress the compatibility tend to regard Dibelius as the source of all errors, since he expounded the address in terms of Greco-Roman philosophical concepts alien to Christianity (see Dibelius, Studies, 26–77). Dibelius does refer to the address as a “Hellenistic speech” (e.g., 57) and characterizes it as representing a rationalistic approach “foreign” or “alien” to the New Testament (e.g., 58, 63), but he does not say that it was

430

Acts part 2C.indd 430

8/27/2008 10:16:52 AM

17:16-34

of travel (vv. 16, 23), 52 best known from Pausanias (who mentions altars of “unknown gods” in Athens [1.1.4]), but familiar also in more popular works. Leucippe begins with the unintended arrival of the narrator in Sidon: “[T]ouring the rest of the city to see its memorial offerings (periskopw`n ta; ajnaqhvmata), I saw a votive painting” (1.1.2). 53 The topos is like that of Acts 17: a stranger comes to a city, walks about and takes notice of a particular object, the interpretation of which will be crucial. The commonplace character of the philosophical subjects can be seen from Lucian’s Juppiter tragoedus, which features a debate in Athens between the Stoic Timocles and Damis, an Epicurean, on the subject of divine providence. The latter holds that the gods exercise no providential care, which, in the view of Zeus, amounts to atheism. Timocles insists that the gods manage all in good order under a fine system (17). In the report of their debate, Timocles argues first from the order of nature: the regular course of heavenly bodies producing seasons (38), from poetic authority (39–41), from the consensus gentium (all peoples believe in god[s] [42]), from the analogy of a ship under sail, which requires a pilot (46–51), and, finally, from a parody of the ontological argument—altars demonstrate the existence of gods (51). In response to Damis’s mockery, Timocles closes with personal abuse (52). All’s well that ends

well, apparently, although Zeus finds Damis a more potent debater (53). In arguing for the view of God as creator and benevolent governor of the universe, the speech assumes the view of the Stoics and does not even consider the opposing arguments. Lucian’s Damis would have endorsed the judgment that Paul is a dilettante (v. 18b). 54 Wolfgang Nauck argued that the speech reflects a creedal pattern. 55 Nauck built on the work of Eduard Norden, who had identified a pattern of missionary discourse found in such disparate texts as Corpus Hermeticum 1 (Poimandres).27–28; 7.1–2; Odes of Solomon 33, the Kerygma of Peter; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 1.7; cf. Sib. Or. 1:150–98. 56 The focus of Nauck’s work was the identification of a shape that can be discerned in Hebrew (the Kedusha of Jozer; the first two of the Eighteen Benedictions), Hellenistic Jewish (Sibylline material in Theophilus Autolyc. 2.36; Ap. Const. 7.34.1–7; 8.12.8–16; Aristobulus; the Prayer of Manasseh), and Christian (1 Clem. 19.2—20.12; 33.2–8; Epistula Apostolorum) works. This pattern, which has biblical roots, 57 flourished in both early Judaism and early Christianity. Its principal features are creation (with particular reference to the creation of humankind in God’s image), the maintenance of the cosmos (including seasons and demarcations), and deliverance: creatio, conservatio, salvatio. Hellenistic interest in cosmology generated increased interest in

not Jewish or Christian. As a “precursor of the apologists,” the speech foreshadows the development of philosophical theology, admittedly necessary, but . . . (63–64). Dibelius placed the tradition of the Hebrew Bible and Paul against the philosophical line represented by the Areo­ pagus address. To a degree, he was engaging in neo-­orthodox apologetics. He can be accused of making the breach between Luke and Paul too wide, but not of selling out the gospel. For a recent statement of the anti-Dibelius understanding, see the important dissertation of Stenschke, Gentiles. The most relevant work from Hellenistic Judaism is Aristeas, which argues that the religious sensibility (eujsevbeia) of Jews and gentiles is based on acknowledgment of God as creator (16-17) and providential ruler of the world (16-19; 132-33; 201). See also Michel Gourgues, “La littérature profane dans le discours d’Athènes (Ac 17,16-31): un dossier fermé?” RB 109 (2002) 241–69. 52 See Klauck, Magic, 75; and Conzelmann, 138.

53 Trans. J. J. Winkler, in Reardon, Novels, 176. Cf. also Ephesian Tale 1.12; 5.11; and Mark ­13:1-2||Luke 21:5-6, noted above. 54 Neyrey (“Acts 17,” 118–34) develops this theme, arguing that Luke follows conventions about the two philosophies’ contrasting approach to providence and theodicy, comparing this to his portraits of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Neyrey adduces Josephus’s comparison of Sadducees to Epicureans and Pharisees to Stoics. Luke may have been inspired by Josephus here. 55 Nauck, “Die Tradition und Komposition der Areo­ pagrede,” ZThK 53 (1956) 11–52; cf. also Conzelmann, 146–48. 56 Norden, Agnostos Theos, 125–40. 57 Cf. Psalms 33; 74:12-17; 89; 135; 136; 145; 148.

431

Acts part 2C.indd 431

8/27/2008 10:16:52 AM

the first of these categories. David Balch notes that both Aristobulus and Acts replace the reference to creation in the divine image with a citation from Aratus Phaen. 5. 58 The theme of deliverance apparently establishes the integrity of vv. 30-31 within the structure of the speech, but Conzelmann objects, saying that, although the Prayer of Manasseh exhibits a pattern approaching Nauck’s model, the other texts, which celebrate a god who fashioned and sustains the universe in a manner that shows benevolence for the human race, do not fit the proposed model. 59 The structure is widely debated—as a bipartite division based on the “first and second articles” (God, vv. 22-29; Christ, vv. 30-31),60 or, rhetorically, as the refutation of the charges followed by countercharges (vv. 22b-28; 29-31).61 Dibelius proposed five components, which amount to an opening (vv. 22-23) and a closing (vv. 30-31) sandwiching the central section of three parts (vv. 24-25, 26-27, 28-29).62 The rhetorical analysis of Dean Zweck is similar: exordium, vv. 22-23a; propositio, v.23b; probatio, vv. 24-29; peroratio, vv. 30-31.63 In short, this speech is difficult to outline because it contains a series of theses that are supported with a minimum

of argumentation.64 The core lies in vv. 24-29,65 which is framed by two critiques of popular religion: God does not reside in temples of human construction and cannot be represented by images. The major themes are statements about the nature of God (vv. 24a, 25b, 26-28), the creator of all who fashioned humans to seek the Holy One. The consequences of these assertions follow: vv. 24b, 25a, and 29. The first two of these are presented in a chiasm: v. 24a, v. 24b, v. 25a, v. 25b; the third (vv. 26-28, 29) in A B fashion.66 The style is relatively elevated. In addition to the familiar alliteration,67 assonance,68 and rhyme,69 paronomasia,70 and effective repetition,71 there are two uses of ge, including eij a[ra ge (v. 27), and two optatives. Verses 24-27 and 29-31 are single sentences, but neither is a true period.72 The author was striving to produce learned and elegant prose, but the task demanded more than he could supply. Moreover, the speech includes some nods to the intellectual tradition, most notably in the quotation from Greek poetry in v. 28 and in the use of the neuter for the divine (to; qei`on [v. 29; cf. the neuter relative and demonstrative in v. 23]) and the idiomatic pivstin parascwvn (“in proof whereof”) in v. 29.73

58 See below, n. 129. 59 Conzelmann, 148. The date of this prayer is uncertain, but it probably antedates Acts. James H. Charlesworth (OTP 2:625–33) defends a date before the Common Era, but the evidence is scant. 60 Conzelmann, 148; Wilckens, Missionsreden, 87. 61 Soards, Speeches, 96. 62 Dibelius, Studies, 37–38. Dupont (“Le discours à l’Aréopage,” 387–96 [n. 45 above]) has a similar arrangement. 63 Dean Zweck, “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts 17.22, 23,” NTS 35 (1989) 94–103. The absence of narratio shows that the speech is deliberative. Witherington (518) suggests that Luke omitted the narratio from this précis as superfluous. Nevertheless, v. 23a is narrative, however brief. Rhetorical analysis reveals that this speech is not a summary of an oration but a compressed speech. F. Lostang (“À la louange du dieu inconnu: Analyse rhétorique de Ac 17.22-31,” NTS 52 [2006] 394–408) argues for demonstrative rhetoric, with a captatio benevolentiae (vv. 22b-23), the excellence of God in self (vv. 24-26), praise of God’s past actions (vv. 26-29), and praise of God’s actions in present (vv. 30-31). 64 Cf. Weiser (2:456–57), who summarizes various plans.

65 This is reinforced by an inclusio on the theme of ignorance in vv. 23 and 30. 66 See Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:219–20, and Talbert, 162. 67 E.g., pivstin parascw;n pa`sin (v. 29). 68 E.g., oujk ejn ceiropoihvtoi~ naoi`~ katoikei` (v. 24). 69 E.g., zwh;n kai; pnohvn (v. 25). 70 Note the effective “unknown god (ajgnwvstw/ qew/`) whom you worship without knowing (ajgnoou`nte~),” v. 23. Cf., in the same context, qewrw` (“observe”) and ajnaqewrw`n (“examine”) vv. 22-23. 71 E.g., uJpavrcw (“be”), vv. 24, 27, 29; forms of “all” (pa`~), vv. 24, 25 (bis), 26 (thrice), 30 (bis), 31. 72 Compare Hebrews, the style of which often hovers in the vicinity of true Greek periods but rarely delivers them. 2 Maccabees provides other apt bases for stylistic comparison. 73 On the style, see also Cadbury and Lake, 209; and Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 402–27, esp. 419 n. 2.

432

Acts part 2C.indd 432

8/27/2008 10:16:52 AM

17:16-34

  22  The verse has the appearance of a captatio benevo-

lentiae, and should be taken as such. The adjective deisidaivmwn means “religious” and can be just as uncomplimentary as the English word in certain contexts. This is not such a context.74 Athenian piety was no less a stereotype than Athenian curiosity.75 Paul has no need to inculcate interest in religion. He assumes that interest and sets out to correct it.   23  Here the periegesis theme, initiated in v. 16, finds its purpose: among the religious artifacts was an inscription to “an unknown god.”76 Such inscriptions were usually an ex voto (thanksgiving) for some benefaction or a petition for assistance to a divinity whose name had not been revealed. The construction is ad hoc, for such inscriptions were in the plural, as Jerome, who briskly corrects “Paul,” establishes: “In actuality, the altar inscription read ‘to the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and foreign gods’—and not, as Paul would have it—to an unknown god” (Comm. in Titum 1:12).77 Polytheism

will not receive any consideration. Paul will not speak of a “new god” to adorn the already crowded polytheist pantheon, and he will come no closer to novel teaching than the judgment announced in v. 31.78 The task he sets for himself is to bring to the audience’s attention a god whom they honor but do not understand.79 Verse 23b is more potent in its striking brevity than the expected leisurely exposition, in which one would report on inquiries made to bystanders, various views on the origin of this inscription, and all that the dramatic audience (and readers of commentaries) would expect. Paul cuts right to the point, with an effective use of the relative/ demonstrative style (cf. 3:12-16) that nicely picks up on v. 18 (kataggeleu;~ . . . katagevllw (“proclaimer . . . proclaim”).   24  Although v. 26 refers to the regular ordering of nature, Paul does not attempt to prove the existence of God from the natural order; he assumes it. For the readers of Acts, this is not a difficulty, because the argument had been made in 14:15-17.80 The same claim cannot

74 BDAG, 216, s.v. deisidaivmwn. See also Johnson, Taylor, “St Paul,” 2472–75; and Stenschke, Gentiles, 314. Interpreters who understand the speech as his212 n. 509. The suitability of Athens for this torical incline toward understanding the adjective dedication is confirmed by Philostratus, who has as ambiguous or ironic. See Stenschke, Gentiles, Apollonius of Tyana speak of altars to unknown 210–12. Balch (“Areopagus Speech,” 74) also views gods (a[gnwstoi daivmone~), especially at Athens the term as pejorative, albeit in retrospect. (Vit. Apoll. 6.3.5). 75 Patrick Gray (“Athenian Curiosity [Acts 17:21],” 78 Contrast the imitation of this episode in the Act. NovT 47 [2005] 109–16) correlates the two in an Phil. 2. New wine cannot be put into old wineskins. interesting study. Unsavory curiosity is linked to 79 Justin 2 Apol. 10.5–6 states that Socrates called inappropriate religiosity in Plutarch’s treatise De to the attention of the Athenians a god unknown curiositate (Mor. 515B–523A) and in the Metamorto them but discoverable via reason. Unlike Paul phoses of Apuleius, both of which are influenced by (Romans 1–2), Justin, and other apologists, Luke Middle Platonism. does not accuse polytheists of immorality. See 76 On the theme of discovering an inscription, see Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 74–75. Apart from Norden, Agnostos Theos, 31–56. assailing greed, the preachers in Acts do not 77 PL 26.607 (author’s trans.). Tertullian (Nat. 2.9) engage in moral critique or exhortation. Klauck also changes the reference to the plural. On the (Magic, 83) refers to the “hidden God” of the question, see Wikenhauser, Geschichtswert, 369–94; Hebrew Bible, but the God Paul proclaims is far and Lake, “The Unknown God,” in Lake and from hidden. The contrast with Paul is clear. He Cadbury, Additional Notes, 240–46. A recent survey says that gentiles know God but do not honor God of inscriptional material is Pieter van der Horst, (Rom 1:18-32). Luke says gentiles worship but do “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens: Acts not know the true God. 17.23 and the Cults of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the 80 See John Townsend, “The Speeches in Acts,” ATR Graeco-Roman World,” in idem, Hellenism-Judaism42 (1960) 150–59, esp. 151–52. Christianity (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 165–202; idem, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” ANRW 2.18.2 (1990) 426–56. See also David Gill, “Achaia,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 433–53, esp. 446–47;

433

Acts part 2C.indd 433

8/27/2008 10:16:52 AM

be made for the dramatic audience. Verse 24a firmly asserts the view of Israelite religion,81 with one concession to Greek philosophical language: the relatively rare kovsmo~ (“universe”) replaces the standard “earth” (gh`) .82 As sovereign of all,83 this creator God does not inhabit products of human manufacture and requires no human ministrations. Both of these assertions are intellectual commonplaces,84 amenable, for different reasons, to the dramatic audience but subversive of civic religion. Demetrius will present that popular viewpoint, in its most elemental form, in 19:26. The predicate of v. 24 (“does not inhabit”) resonates with Stephen’s accusation (7:48).85 Although official Israelite theology held that God did not inhabit the temple, that it was a place for God’s name,86 popular opinion was less subtle, as can be seen in the portents foreshadowing its collapse in both Josephus and Tacitus.87 Temples, for Paul, are no better than idols. Both involve confusion of creator with creation88 and are the sites

of animal sacrifice, implying that God requires or even appreciates such worship. For Luke, it is not a question of the abuse of temple piety or sacrificial worship, as in some of the biblical tradition (e.g., Isa 1:11); 89 for Luke, all shrines and sacrifices are marks of bad theology.   25  The intellectual sentiment here expressed is well attested by the younger Seneca. In Ep. mor. 95.47–50, he addresses the question of proper worship. His first example is Sabbath lamps. The gods need (egent) no light; soot is inconvenient to humans. The philosopher finds morning salutations self-serving.90 The knowledge of God is due worship. God requires no servants but serves humanity—and that not from afar (ubique et omnibus praesto est).91 The gods bestow goodness and govern all things. These periods read like a commentary, mutatis mutandis, on vv. 23-27.92 The thesis that god/the gods need nothing is one of the fixed points of the Greco-­Roman philosophical tradition. Testimonies extend from the pre-Socratics to the Neo-Platonists.93

81 Verses 24-25 reflect the LXX. Note Isa 42:5: kuvrio" oJ qeo;" oJ poihvsa" to;n oujrano;n kai; phvxa" aujtovn, oJ sterewvsa" th;n gh`n kai; ta; ejn aujth`/ kai; didou;" pnoh;n tw`/ law`/ tw`/ ejpÆ aujth`" kai; pneu`ma toi`" patou`sin aujthvn (“Thus says God, the L ord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it”); 2 Macc 7:22-23: Oujk oi\dÆ o{pw" eij" th;n ejmh;n ejfavnhte koilivan, oujde; ejgw; to; pneu`ma kai; th;n zwh;n uJmi`n ejcarisavmhn, kai; th;n eJkavstou stoiceivwsin oujk ejgw; dierruvqmisa, 23 toigarou`n oJ tou` kovsmou ktivsth" oJ plavsa" ajnqrwvpou gevnesin kai; pavntwn ejxeurw;n gevnesin kai; to; pneu`ma kai; th;n zwh;n uJmi`n pavlin ajpodiv­ dwsin metÆ ejlevou", wJ" nu`n uJperora`te eJautou;" dia; tou;" aujtou` novmou". (“I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.”) On the latter, see Jonathan Goldstein, II Maccabees (AB 41A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983) 311–14. 82 See Hermann Sasse, “kosmevw,” TDNT 3:867–98, esp. 880–82. 83 Cf. Dio of Prusa Or. 12.27, associated in 12.35 with the image of the pilot of a ship, used by Lucian’s

84 85 86 87

88

89 90 91

92

93

Stoics (above), and rejected by the Epicureans (12.55). See n. 92. See the comments there. For the linguistic similarities between 7:48-50 and 17:24, see p. 191 n. 168. Cf. 1 Kgs 5:3-5; 8:16, 26-27; 11:36; 2 Chr 6:18. Josephus Bell. 6.288–315; Tacitus Hist. 5.13. Lucian (Sacr. 11) ridicules the idea that gods require shelter. He also implies that worshipers think that the statues they see are not minerals, and the like, but the actual god (cf. Acts 17:29). On the use of ceiropoivhto~ in the LXX, see Eduard Lohse, “ceiropoivhto~,” TDNT 9:436. In Isa 16:12 it is a metonym for a polytheist temple. See also Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924) 159; and Stenschke, Gentiles, 213 n. 513. Ps 50:7-15 corrects the impression that God needs sacrifices; they are expressions of gratitude. Isis worship (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 11.22) may be in view. Cf. Ep. mor. 41.1, which states that God is near, with, and within humans (and that a “sacred spirit has a place within us” [sacer intra nos spiritus sedet]). The most important differences are that Seneca makes no reference to god as creator and that he can alternate between “god” and “the gods” without distinction, but such sentiments doubtless helped inspire the fourth-century Correspondence between Paul and Seneca. See the discussion in Dibelius, Studies, 42–44, with

434

Acts part 2C.indd 434

8/27/2008 10:16:52 AM

17:16-34

The Hebrew Bible contains no explicit mention of this idea, but it does appear in 2 Macc 14:35 and 3 Macc 2:9, in both cases with regard to the temple cult,94 and thereafter in Christian writings.95 Stoic tradition affirmed Zeno’s view that the construction of temples is inappropriate.96 The entire universe is properly regarded as God’s temple.97 To describe God as the source of “all” is also congenial to Stoic thought.98 Acts hovers here on the borderline of the apologetic tradition (see 1 Clem. 52:1 and Kerygma Petrou 2a). A very close parallel can be found in Diogn. 3.3–5, which begins by criticizing “the Greeks” for the view that sacrifices show that God has needs, and continues (4) “For the one who made heaven and earth and all that is in them, and who supplies all of us with what we need,

94 95 96

97

is himself in need of none,”99 followed by a critique of Jewish sacrificial cult.100 The comparison shows that the narrator is more interested in depicting the common ground shared by Paul and the philosophers than in developing a polemic.101 For this reason, contrast with Paul is irrelevant, for Paul’s letters do not address learned polytheists.   26  The verse opens with a compressed assertion of the unity of the human race grounded in a common origin from God.102 Representatives of the philosophical tradition had protested against the division of humankind into Greeks and barbarians. Luke applied this concept to the division between Jews and gentiles, overcome by the miraculous action of God rather than from acquiescence to the political ramifications of an i­ntellectual

numerous references, specifically 43 n. 48. These may be expanded, e.g., Plato Euthyphro 12E–15E; Ps.-Lucian The Cynic 12 (3rd century ce or earlier). Josephus also asserts that God is in need of nothing (Ant. 8.111). A late philosophical example is Porphyry To Marcella 18. See also Heinrich Greeven, “prosdevomai,” TDNT 2:41–42. For data from Philo and Josephus, see Dibelius, Studies, 42–44. E.g., Justin 1 Apol. 13.1; Barn. 2:4—3:5. Diogenes Laertius 7.33 (Zeno forbade temples in his ideal commonwealth); Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta 1, frg. 264, from Plutarch Stoic. rep. 6 (Mor. 1034b), who criticizes subsequent Stoics for affirming this principle while engaging in conventional worship. See the notes of Harold Cherniss, Plutarch’s Moralia XIII.2 (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976) 422–23. E.g., (Ps.) Heraclitus Ep. 4.47–50 (on which, see Abraham Malherbe, “Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epistle 4: The Divinization of the Wise Man,” JAC 21 [1978] 42–64); Philo Spec. leg 1.66–67; Seneca Ben. 7.73; Ep. mor. 90.28–29; Plutarch Tranq. an. 20 (Mor. 477c), which has several parallels to this speech, including a negative reference to handmade and motionless images (ceirokmhvtwn . . . ajkinhvtwn ajgalmavtwn) and of the Platonic Ideas as possessing an innate source of life and motion (e[mfuton ajrch;n zwh`~ e[conta kai; kinhvsew~). An alternative formulation, congenial to the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Isa 66:1), views the universe as the home of the gods: Cicero Resp. 3.14 (Xerxes burned the temples at Athens for reasons of piety). The correlative accepts temples as models of heaven and thus inspirations to the imitation of God or the gods: Philo Vit. Mos. 2.66–108, 136–40; Spec. leg.

98

99

100 101 102

1.71–97; Q. Exod. 2.69–123; Josephus Ant. 3.123, 180. Imitation is the explicit motive in Sallustius Concerning the Gods and the Universe 15. See Arthur Darby Nock, Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926) lxxxiii, 28. Christian writers (e.g., John 14) tended to prefer the view that God dwells in the pious soul. Cf. Philo Cher. 99–100. Jewish tradition rejected the concept that God depends on offerings for sustenance and interpreted temple and cult in symbolic ways but never rejected the practices. So, e.g., Marcus Aurelius Meditations 4.23, ejk sou pavnta, ejn soi; pavnta, eij~ se; pavnta. Cf. Martin Dibelius, “Die Christianisierung einer hellenistischen Formel,” in idem, Botschaft und Geschichte (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953–55) 2:14–29. oJ ga;r poihvsa~ to;n oujrano;n kai; th;n gh`n kai; panvta ta; ejn aujtoi`~ kai; pa`sin hJmi`n corhgw`n, w|n prosdeovmeqa, oujdeno;~ a[n aujto;~ prosdevoito (Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 2:137). Had Diognetus been dependent on Acts, it is unlikely that kovsmo~ (“universe”) would have been replaced by the more biblical “heaven and earth” (as in Ps 145:6 LXX). Diognetus is difficult to date. On linguistic and material grounds c. 150 seems appropriate. See Pervo, Dating, 249–56. Stenschke (Gentiles, 212–17) reads the speech as harsh polemic. Philo developed this theme in Op. mun. 134–47, esp. 136–44. In 136 the first “earthly man” is oJ panto;~ tou` gevnou~ hJmw`n ajrchgevth~ (“forebearer of our entire race”); 142–44 describe humans as “citizens of the world” (kosmopolivth~).

435

Acts part 2C.indd 435

8/27/2008 10:16:53 AM

argument,103 but Paul does not point that out on this occasion. The creation of humankind is described without reference to Genesis or to any mythic account, but Christian readers will take it as a summary of Genesis.104 Greek tradition also viewed (a) god as the parent of the human race.105 A reason for creating humanity—inhabitation of the whole world—evokes Gen 1:28.106 The chief difficulty in v. 26b is the meanings of kai­ roiv and oJroqesivai (“times” and “boundaries”). The former could refer to the seasons of the year and is often taken as such. That would correspond to 14:17, but the address is not speaking of proofs of God from nature,107 and the participle prostetagmevnou~ (“arranged”) does not suit that sense. Another understanding, although not consonant with the traditional argument, which

c­ ontends that the divine hand is apparent in the structure of the universe, is “historical periods,” as in Luke 24:3 (cf. Acts 1:7; 3:20). In this context, oJroqesivai would apply to political boundaries.108 The underlying notion would be that countries rise and fall in political power and dominance. The vicissitudes of history are elements of God’s plan for the human race. Deut 32:8 LXX is in the background.109   27  The purpose of the dispersion of humanity was the peopling of the entire world, but this did not utterly alienate people from God. Indeed, humankind was formed so that it would pursue the divine.110 Behind this lies one of the classic arguments for the existence of God: the consensus gentium, the universal belief in the existence of gods. “Nothing but the presence in our

103 See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 96–101. 104 The phrase ejx eJnov~ is best construed as masculine, corresponding to ajnqrwvpwn, “from one person God created every race of people.” Neuter (“from a single source”) is also possible. See Fitzmyer, 609. The D-Text and Koine traditions add ai{mato~ (“blood,” a synecdoche for “person”). This is probably a secondary attempt to block mythological interpretations of ejx eJnov~, which could be construed as neuter: “from one source” or “entity.” This is more likely than the proposal that “blood” was deleted because Gen 2:7 reports that dust was the basis (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 405), as scribes would have recognized that “one blood” was a trope rather than an identification of the substance. (An interpolator—or the author—may have understood ai|ma as “semen,” that is, “from the seed of one person.”) Y reads stovmato~ (“mouth”). This is probably a metonym for “word.” On the concept, see Karel van der Toorn, “Mouth,” DDD, 605–6. 105 The epithet “father of gods and mortals” is used fifteen times of Zeus in Homer (e.g., Il. 1.544). Philosophers agreed, such as Dio of Prusa Or. 12.29, 42; 12.29 speaks of a progenitive or ancestral god (propavtwr qeov~) and links this role to the bounty of nature. Or. 12.43 states that Zeus is of the same blood as humans. See also Or. 36.56, which speaks of Zeus and Hera generating the cosmos from one seed. 106 The expression ejpi; panto;~ proswvpou th`~ gh`~ (lit. “on the entire face of the earth”) is Septuagintal language (e.g., Gen 2:6) that would have sounded vulgar to the dramatic audience. See Dibelius, Studies, 36 n. 24.

107 Cicero Tusc. disp. 1.28.68–69, for example, views seasons and zones as evidence of divine existence. 108 The debate between the “historical” and “philosophical” interpretations of v. 26 is ably summarized in Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 54–57; Weiser, 2:471 (with many references); and Barrett 2:843–44. The alternative interpretation of oJroqe­ sivai is the boundaries separating land from water, and the like. Documentary evidence (Spicq, Lexicon, 2:596) applies the term exclusively to political boundaries. Literary evidence is lacking. Luke was closer to historians than to philosophers. It would be absurd to imagine him investigating the philosophical nuances of these concepts. Conzelmann (142–44) favors the “historical,” while sagely observing that the controversy demands too much of the author. 109 “When the most high apportioned [the] nations, in scattering the descendants of Adam, he established [the] boundaries (o{ria) of [the] nations in accordance with the number of the angels of God” (author’s trans.). (The MT speaks of “children of Israel,” but 4QDtj [4Q37] shows that “children of God” is more original.) 1 Clem. 29 cites this passage in support of the view that believers are God’s chosen. Irenaeus (A.H. 3.12.9) also quotes it in his discussion of the Areopagus address, in support of the unity of the human race. 110 katoikei`n (“inhabit”) and zhtei`n (“seek”) in vv. 26-27 are probably coordinate complements to “fashioned” (ejpoivhsen). Beg. 4:216 observes that “loose epexegetical infinitives” are characteristic of Lucan style. See also Moule, Idiom Book, 143.

436

Acts part 2C.indd 436

8/27/2008 10:16:53 AM

17:16-34

minds of a firmly grasped concept of the deity could account for stability and permanence of our belief in him” (Cicero Nat. Deor. 2.5).111 The innate knowledge of God is not a matter of volition but the result of reflection on the nature and organization of the world, which leads to a sense of kinship with the deity.112 The speech does not expound this thesis in a systematic way, for its symboleutic object is to stress the quest for God. Luke is edging toward a concept of praeparatio evangelica (background for the gospel). In his terms, this means that gentile history and religion are, at least to a degree, parts of the prehistory of Christianity, as was the history of Israel.113 Both Jews and gentiles must grasp this truth and acknowledge that the glories of their pasts were but prelude. That acknowledgment was

the essence of repentance, and Luke knew that it was neither easy to achieve nor widespread. Verse 27 may be the most moving clause in Acts, a heartfelt statement of Luke’s understanding of the object of human existence. The best commentary on these words is the crescendo of parables in Luke 15 and, especially, Luke 13:6-9. “Seek and find” is ideal, for it is found in material ranging from the most concrete metaphors of the sapiential and prophetic traditions to the peaks of abstract theology.114 The conditional clause “in the hope that it might apprehend God,115 as it were” (eij a[ra ge yhlafhvseian aujto;n) vividly expresses the gap between humanity and deity and—contrary, in fact, to the sentiments of the then current philosophical theology—the frailty of mortal efforts.116 This reserve rapidly

111 Quod nisi cognitum conprehensumque animis haberemus, non tam stabilis opinio permaneret nec confirmaretur (trans. H. Rackham, Cicero De Natura Deorum [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933] 127). Cf. also 2.13. See Cicero Leg. 1.24; and, in particular, Dio of Prusa Or. 12.27–30; and Pease, Natura, 580–84. 112 See Heinrich Greeven, “zhtevw,” TDNT 2:892–93; and Norden, Agnostos Theos, 14–15. In the Hebrew Bible, the quest for God is related to will rather than to intellect. 113 See Bultmann, Theology, 2:117. 114 Philo Spec. leg. 1.36 is noteworthy: God is difficult to trace (dusqhvraton) and apprehend (duskatav­ lhpton), but nothing is superior to pursuit of the genuine God (zhtei`n to;n ajlhqh` qeovn), although finding (eu{resi~) may be beyond human capability. (Spec. leg. 1.32 explains that “seeking” means addressing the questions of existence and essence. Luke assumes the former and addresses the latter, albeit not explicitly.) See also Wis 13:6 and the comments of David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979) 254–55. On seeking the divine, see also Cicero Tusc. disp. 1.68; Nat. Deor. 2.153; Seneca Ep. Mor. 95.47; Sextus Empiricus 9.60.75–100; Rom 1:20-21; Theophilus Autolyc. 1.4, 6; 2.10; Aristides Apol. 1; Tertullian Apol. 17; and Minucius Felix Oct. 18.7. 115 The verb yhlafavw can have the sense of groping about for an object in the dark, as in Homer Od. 9.416 (blind Cyclops); Plato Phaed. 99; Philo Mut. nom. 126, but it does not mean this in Luke 24:39. “Apprehend” may be too bland a compromise, for the verb probably refers to a desire for intimate contact. In his defense of images of the gods, Dio of Prusa (Or. 12.50) says that people have a longing

to touch (aJptomevnou~) them. This “sensuous” verb led Gärtner (Areopagus Speech, 178) to ask if this were not a Stoic interpolation. The speaker does not say how the true god is to be sought. Insofar as this matter is addressed, it is through the summons to repentance in v. 30. 116 The D-Text, as reconstructed by Boismard (Texte, 293) is quite different: zhtei`n to; qei`on eij a[ra [ ] yhlafhvseien [ ] h[ eu{roien a[n. kaivtoi . . . to; qei`on (“the divine,” instead of “God,” or “the Lord”) is tempting but probably secondary (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 405–6). (Note also the masculine participle uJpavrconta, which would have to refer back to the initial “God” in v. 24. D, in fact, reads o[n, but this may be due to Latin influence, which is otherwise detectable here.) The sentence telescopes protasis and apodosis. Addition of a[n makes the statement less likely: “If they should happen to grope for or even find (God), although . . .” The thought is not congenial to the Calvinist tradition, which would—like the D-Text—prefer to understand the condition as practically contrary to fact. (Calvin himself overrode the text by reading it in terms of Romans 1: “Paul is not speaking here about the ability of men, but he is only warning that they are inexcusable” [7:119]). Stenschke (Gentiles, 216–17) builds on the optative of v. 27 the thesis that the speech criticizes gentiles for failing to seek God. That view does not accord with the mentality of the address. When Luke wishes to show a speaker criticizing an audience, he can do so (e.g., 3:14). See Weiser, 2:473.

437

Acts part 2C.indd 437

8/27/2008 10:16:53 AM

yields to the assurance that God is close at hand.117 That assurance is both biblical and in accordance with religious philosophy.118 At this point the speaker shifts into the first plural,119 removing any barrier between himself and the audience. God is no further from gentiles than from Jews. The adverb makravn plays an important role in the theology of a gentile mission.120 There is no great gulf separating Jews from other peoples, for all are ultimately children of God.   28  The verse justifies the claim that God is near. The justly famous resonant first clause may derive from a Greek poem, although the syntax of the second clause speaks against this.121 It is probable that it stems from a source that played on the link between “Zeus” and “live/life,” a pun used in the allegorical interpretation of Greek myth122 and familiar to Jewish writers. The gentile narrator (and putative author) of Aristeas says: God, the overseer and creator of all things (pavntwn ejpovpthn kai; ktivsthn qeo;n), whom they worship,

is He whom all worship, and we too, your Majesty, though we address Him differently, as Zeus and Dis; by these names those of old not unsuitably signified that He through whom all creatures receive life and come into being (diÆ o{n zwopoiou`ntai ta; pavnta kai; givnetai) is the guide and Lord of all. (Aristeas 16)123 The God of Israel is, the narrator asserts, identical to the deity whom Greeks worship as creator and source of life and existence. This deity is identical to Paul’s “unknown god.” Humanity’s relationship to this god is characterized with a triad: vitality, movement, and existence. The first is shared with plants, the second with animals, while genuine existence characterizes human beings—who alone possess “souls.” Other interpretations exist.124 Life in all of its qualities and capacities is due to God. Luke affirms human immortality with the phrase “all live in him” (God).125

117 In simple language, the text means: “if you are seeking God, you will not have far to look.” 118 Biblical: e.g., Isa 55:6; Ps 145:18. Philosophy: e.g., Seneca Ep. Mor. 41.1 (above); Philo Spec. leg. 1.31; Josephus Ant. 8.108 (the temple cult shows that God is not far [makravn]). Dio of Prusa uses the same phrase, ouj makravn (“not far”), in Or. 12.28 (already cited by Norden, Agnostos Theos, 18–19). Note the continuation of this theme in the apologetic tradition, e.g., Minucius Felix Oct. 32.7. Verse 27 contains a basic element of apologetics, the use of history for legitimation. The philosophers, when they were not wrong, were at least groping incompletely toward religious truth. The apologists argued that Christianity had come to fulfill, not to destroy, and that all religious thinkers depend on common human experience and ­longings. 119 In this instance, the variant uJmw`n (“of you” [A* L Y 69 1505 2344]), which can always be attributed to error, may have begun as a correction to separate Paul from his hearers. 120 Note Acts 2:39 (Pentecost address); 22:21 (Paul’s commission). Cf. also Eph 2:13, 17, on which see Pervo, Dating, 294. 121 For a discussion of the possible connection of the first line to a poem of Epimenides, see the judicious comments of Cadbury, Book, 46–50. Kirsopp Lake (“Your Own Poets,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 246–51) was more confident that

v. 28a derived from Epimenides. Max Pohlenz (“Paulus und die Stoa,” ZNW 42 [1949] 69–104, esp. 101–4) argues that this line does not derive from Epimenides. One difficulty is that the text must be revised to be construed as poetry. For attempts, see Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 250. Kauppi (Foreign, 83–93) argues for the Eumenides of Aeschylus. In an intellectual context, one would expect the opening phrase to read diÆ aujtou` (“through him”) rather than “in him” (ejn aujtw/`) , a usage that appears to be instrumental. This is not the best Greek, although Smyth (Greek Grammar, §1511) states that it is acceptable in poetry. Note the parallel form in v. 31, which is, however, a proper (juridical) usage. See Haenchen, 527 n. 3; BDAG, 329, s.v. ejn (6). 122 The oblique cases of “Zeus” are based on the stem zeµn-, which is formally identical to the infinitive of zavw (“live”). 123 Trans. Moses Hadas (alt.), Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: Harper & Bros., 1951) 101–3. 124 Cf. Plato Soph. 248E–249A; Tim. 37C; Aristotle De an. 414a 12–13; Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus 4–5. Note the comments and references of Norden, Agnostos Theos, 19–24; and Conzelmann, 247–48. Although the formula is potentially pantheistic (better: panentheistic), the context excludes that interpretation. The notion that the deity fills all was seconded by Philo (e.g., Leg. all. 3.4; cf. 1.44) and was taken up in Ephesians, for example (e.g., 1:23;

438

Acts part 2C.indd 438

8/27/2008 10:16:53 AM

17:16-34

The citation “we are God’s offspring” is inartistic evidence at a point and with a formula that makes it quite parallel with citations from Scripture in speeches to Jewish audiences.126 It derives from the Phaenomena of Aratus (v. 5).127 One need not imagine that Luke gleaned this citation from his own study of Aratus. It was a popular quotation.128 A possible source was Aristobulus, frg. 4, which names the author and quotes nine of the opening lines of the poem.129 Appeals to Greek literature will become characteristic of the apologetic tradition.130 The speech suggests that Greek writers provide opportunities for insight into the God proclaimed by Jesus and the message about Jesus in a manner comparable to the Israelite sacred writings.131 The tag from Aratus affirms that God is the parent of all people. This common notion132 grounds the unity of the human race in a creedal proposition. It is also a pivot. Just as the creedal affirmation of God as creator discredited the notion of temples, so God’s paternity is the ground

125

126

127 128 129

for rejecting images (v. 29). This enthymeme, as it were, involves a leap. The speaker does not, for example, state that humans were created in the image of God.133   29  Rather than attack images per se, Paul criticizes their construction: created materials designed by human ingenuity. God is no more like a manufactured object than conceivable as dwelling in one.134 This is a typical piece of Jewish polemic against images.135 It clarifies Paul’s views about the “idol-ridden” character of Athens (v. 16) and its “devotional monuments” (v. 23). With this view, philosophers in general would agree. The compromise, represented in Roman imperial Stoicism by Dio of Prusa (Or. 12), was that images (and temples) were necessary for the common people, who required such aids, and that they could be useful in stimulating the learned and intelligent toward reflection upon higher things.136 The views of Paul could be understood—as they were by later apologists—as a defense of philosophical purity against temporizing c­ ompromises.137 It is not likely that

3:19; 4:10) and thence by speculative exegetes, but Luke has no interest in such ideas. Gärtner (Areopagus Speech, 197, 219–20) aptly notes that all three verbs appear in polemic against “dead idols.” See Wis 13:6-19; 15:16-17; Jub. 20:7–8; Ep Jer 8, 24, 26; Bel 5. Luke 20:38: pavnte~ ga;r aujtw/` zw`sin. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 101 n. 72. On the theme note also Diodorus Siculus 1.12.2; 3.61.6; and Aristeas 16. Use of the plural “poets” need not imply more than one. See Cadbury, Book, 49 and 56 n. 39. (Cicero, for example, prefaces his rendition of Aratus Phaen. 129–32 with ut poetae loquuntur [“as the poets say”], Nat. Deor. 2.159.) The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 294) excises “poets,” probably reflecting the anti-intellectual disdain for “heathen poets,” such as Homer, that was characteristic of puritanical Christians. (On “our poets,” see n. k.) On the formula, see Fitzmyer, 610–11. Aratus of Soli (first half of third century bce) was a pupil of Zeno who wrote poetry. See Éduard des Places, “‘Ipsius enim et genus sumus’ (Act. XVII, 28),” Bib 81 (1962) 388–95. Holladay, Fragments, 3:170–74. Aristobulus, frg. 4, line 77. Aristobulus explicitly cites nine lines from Phaen. 1–18. (Claims that humans were made in the divine image would not suit an argument against images.) Possible dependence on Aristobulus gains strength from the similarity of his views on creation to Acts 17:16-31. Acts also uses “of

130 131

132

133

134 135 136

137

God” (qeou`) instead of “of Zeus.” In lines 85–90, preserved by Eusebius, Aristobulus states that he altered “Zeus” and “Dis” to “God.” See John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 150–58, esp. 152–53; and M. J. Edwards, “Quoting Aratus: Acts 17,28,” ZNW 83 (1992) 266–69. E.g., Justin 1 Apol. 18 (Homer et al.); Minucius Felix Oct. 19.1 (citing Homer and Virgil). See Weiser, 2:476. This is the elliptical logic of the address, a logic that can only be convincing to the gentile convert. The idea is not extraneous to Lucan thought, for it climaxes the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:38. For some references and discussion, see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 98–101. Note also Spicq, Lexicon, 3:302–3. Luke, unlike some other representatives of the Deutero-Pauline tradition, avoided speculation about this subject. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 105 n. 90. On the adjective “like” (oJmoi`o~), see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 92 n. 33. See, e.g., Deut 4:28; Isa 40:18-20; Wis 13:10—14:11. Cf. Dio Or. 12.80–83, which represents the great sculptor Pheidias as appealing to Zeus as the great artificer of the universe. The production of images is therefore an imitation of god. On ancient philosophical critiques of images of the gods, see Balch, “Areopagus Speech” 67–72, and,

439

Acts part 2C.indd 439

8/27/2008 10:16:54 AM

this was Luke’s intention, but he does not represent the audience as taking exception to the critique of images, and it is unlikely that many members of the Areopagus would have wished to defend the thesis that the gods shared the properties of such artifacts. Readers would have accepted both critiques, and they are the audience that counts.138   30  Having established, to his satisfaction, that for the audience the true God remains unknown, Paul announces that God is willing to overlook their extended ignorance139 and calls for a universal change of heart.140 With this summons Paul’s speech to gentiles takes the shape of the speeches to Jews.141 Although Luke shows, here and in 14:15-17, that he is aware of the topics of “general” and “particular” revelation, his concern is with a more basic problem of Christian theodicy: How could a good God have overlooked the vast majority of humankind? The answer lies in salvation history. In good time, and doubtless for good reasons, God has made salvation available to all. The somewhat abrupt introduction of this theme in v. 30 leaves Luke open to Philipp Vielhauer’s contention: “The repentance which is called for consists entirely

in the self-consciousness of one’s natural kinship to God.”142 Granted that this may be too harsh—if difficult to disprove in this context—Luke’s anthropology is not pessimistic—much less pessimistic than that of Paul, for example. This leads to a different soteriology. Luke does not have Paul speak of the saving significance of Jesus’ death here because that is not the key to Lucan theology.143 The error of “the Jews” in killing Jesus is comparable to that of the Greeks for failing to recognize the true God.   31  With the promise implied in repentance comes an implied threat. There will be an occasion when God will make all people stand judgment.144 Soteriology is present only insofar as deliverance depends on human initiative in repenting. Divine grace is limited to the overlooking of ignorance.145 Determinism (which would have been congenial to Stoics) is absent. The verb oJrivzw (“determine”) appears in vv. 26 and 31, binding judgment with creation as the poles between which God’s plan unfolds.146 Jesus will be the judge, his resurrection serving as a credential for that function. In accordance with Lucan Christology, the heavenly Christ can be characterized as a male human being (ajnhvr) (see 2:22).

regarding the relation of this speech to Christian apologists, see Kathy L. Gaca, “Paul’s Uncommon Declaration in Romans 1:18-32 and Its Problematic Legacy for Pagan and Christian Relations,” in idem and Larry L. Welborn, eds., Early Patristic Readings of Romans (Romans through History and Cultures; New York: T&T Clark, 2005) 1–33, esp. 10–12. 138 David Gill (“Achaia,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 444–45) envisions another audience: the Athenian general public, which would have believed that the gods lived in temples and were like their representations. Whatever their actual thoughts on these matters may have been, these people did not constitute the dramatic audience. See Haenchen, 528. 139 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 295) specifies this “ignorance.” Epp (Tendency, 48–50) argues that the demonstrative seeks to distinguish the condition here from that of 3:17 (Jesus as Messiah). It is slightly more likely that this is a stylistic improvement. (The D-Text also changes two verbal forms in this verse, without demonstrable purpose.) 140 With the exception of Simon of Samaria (8:22), every call to “repentance” in Acts (2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20) is directed to a group. Individuals do repent and change, but the Lucan understanding of repentance is not exclusively individualistic.

141 Note, in particular, 3:19 (Peter), where the summons to repent also follows an assertion about ignorance (3:17). 142 Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 33–50, esp. 36 (with a reference to Dibelius, Studies, 62). 143 Calvin (7:215): “There is no doubt that Paul said a good deal more about Christ.” The expansions that he would introduce by assuming that the speech is a summary (216) are supplied by the reader from other speeches, but this lack illuminates the subject of the speech, which is the nature of God and how God is to be known. 144 References to judgment are common in speeches: Acts 2:20; 3:19-20; 10:42. 145 See Dibelius, Studies, 27. Apologetic took up this theme, e.g., Minucius Felix Oct. 20.1; 27.8. 146 The verb: Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42. For comment, see Squires, Plan, 172–73; and K. L. Schmidt, “oJrivzw,” TDNT 5:452–56.

440

Acts part 2C.indd 440

8/27/2008 10:16:54 AM

17:16-34

The grounds for judgment are not stated. Presumably they would involve acknowledgment of the one true God and righteous behavior. This touches on another problem of theodicy: How can a righteous, providential God tolerate evil behavior?147 Representatives of the Jewish wisdom tradition wrestled with the issue, as did Greek philosophers.148 The God proclaimed by Paul is therefore beneficent and just, unlike the indifferent gods of the Epicureans, the scheming and competitive gods of Homer, or, for that matter, the Jewish deity, whom many polytheists viewed as partial and nationalistic. These words about “ judgment day” do not provoke a reaction.149 Resurrection does. This is a Lucan device.150 That concept was not alien to Stoic thought, in which it applied to the entire cosmos.151 Verse 31 may have an apologetic element: the rising of Jesus proves that resurrection can and will happen,152 but nothing is said about resurrection in general. Through this means, Luke unites the objections of some members of the Areopagus with those of some members of the Sanhedrin (23:6-12) and Paul’s later apologetic claims.153 The reaction is, as often, mixed. The language is especially evocative of 2:12-13.154 Readers with a smattering of

e­ ducation would have assigned the scoffing to the skeptical Epicureans and the more polite response155 to those of Stoic leanings in the body. Opposition from Epicureans counts as strong support in the circles of philosophical theology.156   32  Amidst derision and the suggestion of a subsequent opportunity, Paul departs. Readers may wonder what to make of this episode. Has Paul narrowly escaped from a dangerous situation or given an impressive summary of his message before a partially sympathetic audience. Or was the entire affair a fizzle? Modern critics may archly observe that he has incriminated himself upon the charges of teaching novel religion and introducing foreign gods. Failure to offer evidence for the god he proclaims and his claim that the entire world will be judged upon a single occasion would confirm the allegation of dilettantism, while he did cast aspersions on the traditional worship of Athens. Early readers would not have doubted that the speech was a tour de force. Paul had held his own before an august body that saw no reason for a criminal indictment against him, while delivering a brilliant summary of his message in terms that the dramatic audience could appreciate.

147 On this question of theodicy, opposition to which was associated with the Epicureans, see Neyrey, “Acts 17.” 148 Answers were disparate, for example, Job and Wisdom. A work roughly contemporary with Acts is Plutarch’s De sera numinis vindicta (Mor. 548A–568), which locates retribution in the afterlife. 149 Verse 31 does not contain even the nucleus of a full-fledged eschatology. There is no reference to the end of the world or an afterlife. Wilfred L. Knox (St Paul, 1–26) discusses some Greco-Roman views of eschatology in the period from the first century bce to the second century ce. 150 Statements about resurrection frequently lead to an interruption that ends a speech; see 5:32-33; 7:53-54; 10:43-44; 22:21-22; 26:23. The resurrection of Jesus is related to judgment in 1 Thess 1:10; Heb 6:1-2; Acts 10:40-42 and is thus part of the traditional message. 151 In apocalyptic in general and Paul in particular (e.g., Rom 8:18-39), renewal of the entire cosmos is not foreign. Luke focuses on resurrection, especially the resurrection of individuals. 152 On the apologetic character of 17:31, see Helmut Flender, St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History (trans. I. and R. Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress

153 154

155 156

Press, 1967) 161. Cf. also 1 Clem. 23–26, which defends resurrection with natural analogies, on which see Robert M. Grant and Holt Graham, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2: First and Second Clement (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964) 50–51. On the use of Stoic arguments about resurrection, see Grant, Miracle, 235–45. Note also Henry Chadwick, “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body,” HTR 41 (1948) 83–102. The speeches in chaps. 24 and 26 depict Paul as on trial over this issue. Note 24:21 and 26:8. The verb (dia)cleuavzw appears only in these two places in the New Testament. This may be a motif. In Corp. Herm. 1.28–29 mockery follows a summons to repentance. Note also Sib. Or. 1:171–72; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 1.101; and Betz, Lukian, 111 n. 3. “Some people” (tine~ [vv. 18 and 34]) bracket the episode. Verse 32b can be taken as either a polite brush-off or as an expression of genuine interest. See Neyrey, “Acts 17,” 134.

441

Acts part 2C.indd 441

8/27/2008 10:16:54 AM

With vulgar polytheism, there is little common ground, but the Christian movement shares a number of vital presuppositions with the reflective and learned. (Most) Jews did not recognize their Messiah; gentiles honored but did not know God. The ignorance of both calls for a change. The harvest was admittedly meager,157 but two proper names are presented: Dionysius and Damaris. They raise questions: Do the names derive from a tradition? Are they historical?158 1 Cor 16:15 states that Paul did not convert these two or anyone else in the province prior to his visit to Corinth, and a subsequent visit is not very likely, for Athens plays no part in Paul’s collection. The names may have been preserved in some otherwise

unidentified tradition, such as a legend about Paul, but a convert with Dionysius’s accomplishments (membership in the Areopagus) was both quite unlikely at this early date and quite characteristic of Luke, who reveled in converts of high social status. The name seems bound up with Paul’s appearance before the court.159 The best explanation is that Luke invented Dionysius, or at least his social position.160 Damaris is a cipher.161 Acts 17:17-34 is a tribute to Luke’s genius. From the most unpromising of results he has produced one of the most memorable passages in early Christian literature and begun to till the soil on which Christian philosophical theology will grow.

157 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 296) reads “many others.” This correction attempts to make the mission to Athens as successful as others. Winter (“Introducing the Athenians to God”) argues that the speech was not a failure. 158 For a negative answer to these questions, see David Gill, “Dionysios and Damaris: A Note on Acts 17:34,” CBQ 61 (1999) 483–90. 159 Dionysius enjoyed a distinguished career in legend. By the last third of the second century (Eusebius H.E. 3.4.10), he had become the first bishop of Athens. In due course, he was assigned authorship of a collection of Christian Neo-Platonic mystical writings that were immensely popular during the Middle Ages. 160 Lüdemann (Acts, 229) inverts this argument. He regards the name of Dionysius as derived from tradition and the possible motive for the speech before the council. This is improbable, since Luke had other and more cogent motives for placing Paul before the Areopagus. 161 Damaris (apparently a variant of davmali~, “heifer” [Hemer, Book, 232; and BDAG, 211, s.v.]) raised difficulties because of the assumption that she was an auditor of the speech. These have included

the proposal that she was the wife of Dionysius (see Chrysostom Sac. 4.7); the Greek word gunhv permits this, although a possessive is lacking), the wife or mother of one of the philosophers present, or a (reformed) prostitute. On the last, see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 252: “[T]he name Damaris . . . suggests a foreign woman, perhaps one of the class of educated Hetairai, who might very well be in his audience.” For a courtesan with that name, see Horace Odes 1.36.13–20. Conzelmann (149 n. 95) refers to inscriptional evidence of the name. D omits her. This could be due to the loss of a line (Clark, 367; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 407–8; and Boismard, Texte, 296), but the presence of eujschvmwn (“of high standing”) in D suggests that her name was suppressed by intention, perhaps in an ancestor of D. That adjective is used otherwise only of women in Acts (13:50; 17:12) and is quite gratuitous of Dionysius, as all members of the Areopagus were highly placed. D E support the application of some status adjective to Damaris: gunh; timiva; mulier honesta (“a woman of high position”). See Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 238. Haenchen (526 n. 5) aptly sums up the tradition: “Pious fantasy became preoccupied with her.”

442

Acts part 2C.indd 442

8/27/2008 10:16:54 AM

18:1-23

18

18:1-23  Paul in Corinth 18:1-23: Conventional Text

18:1-23: D-Texti

1/

After his encounter with the Areopagus, Paul left a Athens for Corinth, 2/ where he came upon a Jew, Aquila, from Pontus, and his wife Priscilla, who had recently arrived from Italy because the emperor Claudius had ordered all Jews out of Rome. b Paul presented himself to this couple 3/ and came to live with them because they, like him, crafted with fabrics. c So Paul went to work.

1/

4/

Every Sabbath he lectured in the synagogue, trying to persuade both Jews and gentiles.

4/

5/

When, however, Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself fully to the mission, d declaring to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. When they impiouslye opposed him,

5/

6/

After substantial presentation and scriptural interpretations, some Jews began impiously to oppose him. m

Paul shook out his clothes in a symbolic gesture and announced: “You are responsible for your own fate. Don’t blame me. Henceforth I shall apply myself to the gentiles.” He transferred his mission from the synagogue to the adjacent house of the devout Titius Justus. 8/ The leader of the synagogue, Crispus, came to faith in the Lord, as did his entire household. Learning of this, f many Corinthians embraced the faith and received baptism. The Lord addressed Paul in a nocturnal vision: “Have no fear. Continue to speak and do not desist, 10/ for I am with you. No one will be able to attack you successfully, for my people are numerous in this city.” 11/ Paul settled there for eighteen months, teaching the word of God. Now while Gallio was governing the province of Achaea, the Jews converged upon Paul en masse and brought him



Then Paul shook his cloak . . . “I am going away from you to the gentiles.”

7/

He left n Aquila’s house . . . Justus . . .o

8/

. . . A large number of Corinthians heard the word of the Lord and were baptized, embracing faith in God through the name of Jesus Christ. p

9/

. . . speak and see . . .

10/

. . .q

11/

And he settled in Corinth.

12/

. . . The Jews, after conversing among themselves against Paul and laying hands upon him,

6/



7/

9/

12/

After his encounter with the Areopagus, Paul left Athens for Corinth, 2/ where he came upon one Aquila j from Pontus, recently arrived from Italy together with Priscilla, his wife. He greeted them. They had left the City because Claudius Caesar had ordered all Jews banished from the City. They had settled in Achaea. 3/ Paul recognized Aquila because he was a member of the same tribe. Paul stayed with them. k Every Sabbath he entered the synagogue and lectured, introducing the name of the Lord Jesus, l trying to persuade not only Jews but also gentiles. Then Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia.

443

Acts part 2C.indd 443

8/27/2008 10:16:54 AM

before the bench. 13/ “This man is trying to persuade people to worship God unlawfully,” they charged. 14/ Just as Paul was about to reply, Gallio addressed the Jews: “If there had been an actual injury or any serious misbehavior, my dear Jews, I should have quite properly entertained your claims, 15/ but, since these are quibbles about mere language, titles, and your own regulations, g please see to the matter yourselves. I have no desire to pronounce judgments on these issues.” 16/ Gallio then had the Jews removed from his court, but not before everybody mobbed Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and gave him a beating in court. 17/ Gallio showed no interest in any of this. Paul stayed on for a number of days before saying his farewells to the believers and sailing off to Syria with Priscilla and Aquila. At the Corinthian port of Cenchreae he had his hair cut off, because he had undertaken a vow. When they reached Ephesus, Paul separated from the couple. He himself went to the synagogue and engaged the Jews. 20/ They asked that he spend more time, but he could not agree, 21/ and bade them farewell, promising, “God willing, I shall come back to you at another time.” Leaving Ephesus by ship,

18/

19/

22/

Paul arrived in Caesarea and went from there to Jerusalem, where he paid his respects to the church before continuing on to Antioch. 23/ He spent some time there and then set out again, moving through Galatian territory and Phrygia, strengthening all h the believers in each community as he traveled. a

brought him to the governor, 13/ crying out and . . . 14/

“Jewish gentlemen . . . r

15/

. . .s

16/

dismissed

17/

The Greeks t mobbed . . . Gallio pretended not to see.

18/

...



making a vow at Cenchreae, had his hair cut. u

19/ After he had reached Ephesus, Paul went to the Synagogue on the next Sabbath and began to engage the Jews.v 20/ They asked that he spend more time with them, but he could not agree, 21/ and bade them farewell: “It is absolutely necessary that I keep the coming feast [day] in Jerusalem. God willing . . .” 22/

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 297) reads “withdrawing from” (ajnacwrhvsa~ de; ajpov) . This is stylistic variation (unless the sense of cwrivzw in v. 2 motivated alteration to indicate that Paul was not forced out of Athens). The v.l. “Paul,” supported by much of the D-Text tradition, probably stems from lectionary usage.

He left Aquila in Ephesus, while he came by ship to Caesarea.

b c d e

BDF §261 (2): “The use of the article in Acts with the stations on the journeys is peculiar.” On the meaning(s) of skhnopoiov~, see below. Or: “By the time Silas and Timothy had arrived, Paul was fully occupied with the mission.” P74, for reasons that are not clear and may stem

444

Acts part 2C.indd 444

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

18:1-23

f

g h i j k l

m n

o

from an error, omits kai; blasfhmouvntwn (lit. “and blaspheming”). The participle ajkouvonte~ (p 74 et al. have the more logical aorist) has no object. An alternative is to construe it as “when they heard the message . . .” The alternate conforms to the general thrust of Acts, but the version presented is more suitable to the immediate context. There are minor variants in the first clause of v. 15. The D-Text omits “all.” Boismard, Texte, 297–309. Omitting ojnovmati (“named”). “With him” according to D (1) . An alternative understanding of the participle ejntiqeiv~ is “inserting the name of Jesus,” which may be taken (e.g., Johnson, 323) as reading the name “Jesus” where “Lord” (a substitute for the tetragrammaton) is found in Scripture. On the D-Text of vv. 4-6, see Epp, Tendency, 84–87. Bezae omits the initial kaiv (“and,” little more than a punctuation mark), permitting the statement about Aquila to be read as part of what Paul said (Epp, Tendency, 93). There are some minor D-Text variants in v. 7. On the problems, see Epp, Tendency, 91–93.

Analysis

The structure of 18:1-18, which treats the mission to Corinth, is relatively straightforward. The same cannot be said of the residue (vv. 19-28). After a flying visit to Ephesus, Paul sets out for Jerusalem by sea, then proceeds to Antioch, followed by an overland pastoral visit to previous foundations (v. 22) that will return him in due course to Ephesus (19:1). The Jerusalem visit is evidently explained by a vow (18:18). One effect of this vast travel is to place a period upon the mission begun in 16:6—or perhaps at 15:36, or even 15:3. This, in turn, highlights the Pauline mission at Ephesus (chap. 19). The sense of a new beginning is marked by the apparent construction of a new team: Priscilla and Aquila (cf. 15:36—16:3).1 If this indication of a fresh adventure is clear, the structure is, at best, convoluted. The author is responsible for this material, which shows Paul’s 1

2

p q r

s t

u

v

On the D-Text of v. 8, see Epp, Tendency, 87–90. The D-Text omits soi after ejpiqhvsetai, presumably as redundant. The D-Text adds the conventional a[ndre~. There are also paraphrases of kata; lovgon (“quite properly”), on which see Ropes, Text, 174. The D-Text adds “some” (tina) to “quibbles” and replaces bouvlomai with the stronger qevlw. A few (36. 453 pc) witnesses read “the Jews,” no doubt correctly. Ephrem attributes the action to Greek converts to Christianity (!). Some D-Texts attribute the vow and action to Aquila (or Aquila and Priscilla, or, possibly, all three). See Ropes, Text, 176; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 412. This may be due to the word order, as the participle “shaving” (keiravmeno~) follows “Aquila,” and both are nominative (v. 18). It is possible that a reviser wished to remove the report that Paul engaged in a Jewish cultic act. The D-Text uses the proper name to produce clarity, as indicated by translation. The verb is imperfect in the D-Text.

c­ ontinuing good relations with Jerusalem and Antioch, as well as his piety. One effect of the baroque arrangement is to remove any personal contact between Paul and Apollos. This is not accidental. Acts 18:24-29 and 19:1-7 are complementary units, best studied together.

The narrator drops Silas (permanently) and Timothy (until 20:4). The reader is justified in presuming that they did not accompany Paul to Ephesus. According to Dixon Slingerland (“Acts 18:1-18, the

Excursus: Acts 18 and Chronology This chapter contains two references that may be correlated with external events and thus provide opportunity for establishing a chronological base. In addition, there are relative, internal temporal markers. The first, meta; tau`ta (lit. “after these things” [18:1]), is vague. “Every Sabbath” (v. 4) indicates a mission of at least some weeks. Verse 11 speaks of an enterprise that lasted for a year and a half. The text does not state whether this applies to the entire mission or only from that point onward. Finally, v. 18 refers to “a number of days,” a vague expression that has different meanings in Acts.2 These data indicate that the mission to Corinth lasted between about Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology,” JBL 110 [1991] 439–49), the phrase means a relatively long period in 8:11, while 27:7 encompasses a brief passage in time, and 9:23, 43; 14:3;

445

Acts part 2C.indd 445

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

18:1-23

f

g h i j k l

m n

o

from an error, omits kai; blasfhmouvntwn (lit. “and blaspheming”). The participle ajkouvonte~ (p 74 et al. have the more logical aorist) has no object. An alternative is to construe it as “when they heard the message . . .” The alternate conforms to the general thrust of Acts, but the version presented is more suitable to the immediate context. There are minor variants in the first clause of v. 15. The D-Text omits “all.” Boismard, Texte, 297–309. Omitting ojnovmati (“named”). “With him” according to D (1) . An alternative understanding of the participle ejntiqeiv~ is “inserting the name of Jesus,” which may be taken (e.g., Johnson, 323) as reading the name “Jesus” where “Lord” (a substitute for the tetragrammaton) is found in Scripture. On the D-Text of vv. 4-6, see Epp, Tendency, 84–87. Bezae omits the initial kaiv (“and,” little more than a punctuation mark), permitting the statement about Aquila to be read as part of what Paul said (Epp, Tendency, 93). There are some minor D-Text variants in v. 7. On the problems, see Epp, Tendency, 91–93.

Analysis

The structure of 18:1-18, which treats the mission to Corinth, is relatively straightforward. The same cannot be said of the residue (vv. 19-28). After a flying visit to Ephesus, Paul sets out for Jerusalem by sea, then proceeds to Antioch, followed by an overland pastoral visit to previous foundations (v. 22) that will return him in due course to Ephesus (19:1). The Jerusalem visit is evidently explained by a vow (18:18). One effect of this vast travel is to place a period upon the mission begun in 16:6—or perhaps at 15:36, or even 15:3. This, in turn, highlights the Pauline mission at Ephesus (chap. 19). The sense of a new beginning is marked by the apparent construction of a new team: Priscilla and Aquila (cf. 15:36—16:3).1 If this indication of a fresh adventure is clear, the structure is, at best, convoluted. The author is responsible for this material, which shows Paul’s 1

2

p q r

s t

u

v

On the D-Text of v. 8, see Epp, Tendency, 87–90. The D-Text omits soi after ejpiqhvsetai, presumably as redundant. The D-Text adds the conventional a[ndre~. There are also paraphrases of kata; lovgon (“quite properly”), on which see Ropes, Text, 174. The D-Text adds “some” (tina) to “quibbles” and replaces bouvlomai with the stronger qevlw. A few (36. 453 pc) witnesses read “the Jews,” no doubt correctly. Ephrem attributes the action to Greek converts to Christianity (!). Some D-Texts attribute the vow and action to Aquila (or Aquila and Priscilla, or, possibly, all three). See Ropes, Text, 176; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 412. This may be due to the word order, as the participle “shaving” (keiravmeno~) follows “Aquila,” and both are nominative (v. 18). It is possible that a reviser wished to remove the report that Paul engaged in a Jewish cultic act. The D-Text uses the proper name to produce clarity, as indicated by translation. The verb is imperfect in the D-Text.

c­ ontinuing good relations with Jerusalem and Antioch, as well as his piety. One effect of the baroque arrangement is to remove any personal contact between Paul and Apollos. This is not accidental. Acts 18:24-29 and 19:1-7 are complementary units, best studied together.

The narrator drops Silas (permanently) and Timothy (until 20:4). The reader is justified in presuming that they did not accompany Paul to Ephesus. According to Dixon Slingerland (“Acts 18:1-18, the

Excursus: Acts 18 and Chronology This chapter contains two references that may be correlated with external events and thus provide opportunity for establishing a chronological base. In addition, there are relative, internal temporal markers. The first, meta; tau`ta (lit. “after these things” [18:1]), is vague. “Every Sabbath” (v. 4) indicates a mission of at least some weeks. Verse 11 speaks of an enterprise that lasted for a year and a half. The text does not state whether this applies to the entire mission or only from that point onward. Finally, v. 18 refers to “a number of days,” a vague expression that has different meanings in Acts.2 These data indicate that the mission to Corinth lasted between about Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology,” JBL 110 [1991] 439–49), the phrase means a relatively long period in 8:11, while 27:7 encompasses a brief passage in time, and 9:23, 43; 14:3;

445

Acts part 2C.indd 445

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

eighteen and about twenty-two months, 3 an unusual length, rivaled thus far only by Antioch (11:26).4 The two possible external pegs are the mention of an expulsion of “all the Jews” from Rome by Claudius (v. 2) and the Achaean proconsulship of (L. Junius) Gallio (Annaeus) (vv. 12-17). No ancient authority except Acts claims that Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome. The biographer Suetonius, writing in the early second century, says that Claudius (41–54 ce) “expelled Jews from Rome because they were generating incessant unrest through the instigation of Chrestus” (Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantis Roma expulit [Claud. 25.4]). 5 This could mean a general expulsion or the expulsion of some troublemakers. The statement is enigmatic. Were the name of the agitator different, interpreters would conclude that Jews, stirred up by some firebrand, were involved in riots with the general population. Since “Chrestus” is a variant of “Christ,” the standard interpretation refers this to internal Jewish disturbances related to Christian missionary activities. Behind this stands the impression made by Acts (e.g., 13:50; 14:2-6, 19; 17:5-10, 10b-13) taken at face value: when the message about Jesus is proclaimed, Jews riot. This understanding is far from certain.6 Suetonius provides no date for the action. Cassius Dio (c. 160–230) Hist. 60.6.6,7 reports that the increase of numbers of Jews made

3

4

5 6

7 8

and 27:9 are vague. On its function here, see the comments on v. 18. This is no more than a guess based on reasonable (Lucan) intervals for the periods described in vv. 4-6 and 18a. As recent versions indicate (contrast, e.g., NRSV to RSV), the opening genitive absolute of v. 12 should be rendered “while,” rather than with an adversative “but when,” which might imply that the action took place when Gallio assumed office. See Stern, Authors, vol. 2 no. 307, pp. 113–17, with commentary. Slingerland has made the most recent argument against the identification of “Chrestus” with “Christ” (Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome [South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997] 151–217). His arguments merit attention. Suetonius distinguishes Jews from Christians in Nero 16. It is possible that Claud. 25.4 derives from an early source and that Suetonius did not realize that it was associated with messianic ideas. See Stern, Authors, vol. 2 no. 422, p. 367. For a concise summary of the issues and solutions, see Barclay, Jews, 303–6. Schürer (History,

e­ xpulsion ­d ifficult, as it would probably lead to a riot (tarachv) , so that Claudius allowed them to follow their traditional lifestyle (tw/` de; dh; patrivw/ bivw/ crwmevnou~), but forbade gatherings (sunar­ qroivzesqai). This report, which is assigned to 41 ce, contradicts Suetonius. Orosius, a Christian historian of the early fifth century, cites Suetonius and assigns the expulsion to 49 ce (anno nono, “the ninth year” of Claudius’s reign) on the authority of Josephus (Orosius Historia contra Paganos 7.6.15). These accounts raise a number of questions: Was there an expulsion of some or all Jews from Rome, or a ban on meetings, the expulsion of some and a ban (which may have led to some departures), or different events at different times? When did this or these things happen? 8 The last is of interest here. Orosius’s claim is as good as his putative source (Josephus does not refer to an expulsion under Claudius) and should be set aside.9 The earlier date (41/42) for an action is more probable.10 In that year, Claudius dealt with Jewish disturbances in Alexandria. Tacitus, who was interested in such matters, does not mention any expulsions or other actions against Roman Jews in 49.11 Philo’s Legatio, composed in the early 40s, states that Augustus did not expel the Jews from Rome or prevent them from meeting (157). He probably has more recent events in mind.12 Were it not for Acts 18, which appears to 3.1:77–78) represents the most common view: there was an expulsion c. 49, a date reached by subtracting at least eighteen months from 51, the presumed start of Gallio’s proconsulship. This construct assumes, erroneously, that Acts 18 presents a clear chronology. For a thorough discussion of the problem of hypothesizing an expulsion in c. 49, see Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (updated ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995) 22–27. 9 A claim that Orosius remembered the year correctly but did not remember his source would be highly questionable. Dixon Slingerland (“Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius Historiarum adversum paganos libri vii: Dating the Claudian Expulsions of Roman Jews,” JQR 83 [1992] 127–44) believes that Orosius concocted his information. Dates between 42 and 54 are possible. 10 Levinskaya (Diaspora Setting, 171–82) identifies all of the relevant issues and provides a number of arguments in favor of an earlier date for the ­expulsion. 11 Tacitus’s material for 41 ce is lacking. 12 By attributing these restraints to Augustus, Philo politely avoids accusing current rulers of taking such actions. See Smallwood, The Jews, 213–14. (One might object that Philo would suppress such

446

Acts part 2C.indd 446

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

18:1-23

demand a later date, the matter would probably not be debated.13 Inscriptional evidence provides some information on the date of Gallio’s tenure as proconsul of Achaea. SIG3 801D is a letter from Claudius that refers to the proconsulship of Gallio.14 With the assistance of another inscription from Caria ­(Hyllarima Caria 17.1), the letter can be dated between January 25 and August 1, 52. The letter does not specifically state that Gallio was then proconsul, nor is it certain that he had but recently arrived on the scene. Although imperial governors normally served one year, two was not unusual. Furthermore, the conclusion that this encounter came near the end of Paul’s residence in Corinth is far from certain, since Luke normally places confrontations with the law toward the end of his account. The greatest allowance for safety yields a range of 49 to 54 for the putative encounter between Paul and Gallio.15 The major difficulty with this datum is the assumption of a “historical kernel.” Acts 18:12-17 is an authorial composition that fits a literary plan. In sum, “Acts 18:1-18 is very far from the kind of prose on which anyone would want to depend for the detailed reconstruction of past social, political, or religious history.”16 The two external references constitute a literary frame of anti-Jewish actions. The first item is probably best dated c. 42, although the

evidence is flimsy and conflicting, while the second would be about a decade later and requires straining out the name Gallio from a nonhistorical narrative. Around 50 would fit other data (although no reader of Acts would imagine that around twenty years have elapsed since the crucifixion).

Corinth17 was ideally situated on both north–south and east–west axes of commerce and travel. Despite its long and complex history, the Corinth of Paul’s era was a relatively “new” city, refounded a century earlier as a Roman colony (Colonia Laus Julia Corinthiensis). Corinth was a rough and vigorous place, a natural hub of business by land and sea, brimming with immigrants from around the Mediterranean. In this bustling, multiethnic city, Paul enjoyed far more success than he had in Athens, the traditional center of Greek culture. That fact is probably indicative of the kind of person attracted to his mission, including what are now called the relatively upwardly mobile, such as former slaves and immigrant business people.18 Those who would seek to cast direct light upon Acts 18:1-18a from the wealth of literary and archaeological information pertinent to Corinth would face a challenge. The primary datum about Corinth in

unpleasant information, but this omission would be subject to exposure.) 13 Gerd Lüdemann uses the date of 41 as one base of his chronology of Paul’s work: Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (trans. F. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 164–73. For a defense of 49, with many interesting observations, see Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser; ed. Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 11–16. Lampe (14) presumes that Orosius had a valid source, that is, that his date is correct but that he misstated the source. This presumption is questionable. 14 The reconstruction of SIG3 801D in Conzelmann (152–53) is not the most current. See Hemer, Book, 252; Fitzmyer, 621–23; the discussion of MurphyO’Connor, Saint Paul’s Corinth, 141–52; and Klaus Haacker, “Gallio,” ABD 2:901–3. For additional bibliography, see Fitzmyer, 632. 15 Slingerland (“Acts 18:1-18,” 439–49) argues for this broad range. The narrowest is Fitzmyer (622–23), who places the encounter between late April and early October of 52. This depends on two assumptions: that Gallio advised Claudius of his concerns about Delphi (the subject of Claudius’s letter)

i­mmediately upon arrival at his post and that Seneca’s statement about his brother’s sudden departure from Greece because of a fever (Ep. 104.2) took place at the beginning of his proconsulship and was permanent. 16 Slingerland, “Acts 18:1-18,” 441. 17 See Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinth,” ABD 1:1134–39, and his Saint Paul’s Corinth. Note also James Wiseman, “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C.– A.D. 267,” ANRW 17.1 (1979) 438–548; and Donald Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 18 For some reflections about these sociological hypotheses, see Pervo, “PANTA KOINA,” and “Wisdom and Power.”

447

Acts part 2C.indd 447

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

Acts is the existence of a Jewish community, supported by the fragment of a synagogue lintel that may be much later than Paul,19 fragments of a pillar with Jewish symbols,20 and the inclusion of the city in a list of places containing Jews by Philo (Leg. Gaj. 281). The first eight verses are essentially summary. Verses 9-10 constitute a brief scene. The climax of the mission comes in the longer scene of vv. 12-17. Following the introduction in vv. 1-3 is the standard “Jews first” program (v. 4). The arrival of Silas and Timothy (v. 5) permits an intensification of missionary activity, which generates opposition, resulting in the second of three announcements that Paul is turning to the gentiles (v. 6).21 This leads to a new base of operations and the conversion of the synagogue president, a synecdoche (cf. “firstfruits”) of the mission’s success (vv. 7-8). After an unsuccessful attempt to enmesh Paul in legal difficulties fails, he nonetheless departs (vv. 12-18a). This description is a variation of the basic stereotype, distinguished by more concrete data, including six new personal names. Literary analysis is more interesting.22 The dominant concept is hostility toward the Jews, within the stereotyped presentation of a mission to them.23 The story opens with a general expulsion of “all the Jews” from Rome by Claudius and closes with the particular expulsion of the Jews at Corinth from the judgment seat of Gallio. In v. 6, Paul denounces the Jews, whose leader presently defects. The ruling theme is prophecy and fulfillment. Paul prophetically announces that the blood of the Jews will be on their own heads (v. 6). Symbolic fulfillment comes in v. 17, when their leader receives a bloody nose, so to speak. The prophecy of the Lord in vv. 9-10 is fulfilled both by the long stay and the final fiasco with Gallio.

Luke’s sources included Paul’s letters and, evidently, some traditions of unknown origin.24 The correspondence indicates that Paul visited Corinth on a number of occasions, but this is the only specific stay reported in Acts.25 As John Hurd showed, Acts tends to concentrate material about Paul’s visits to a particular city in one report.26 From the literary perspective, this practice is quite sensible, but it does not enhance the historical utility of Acts. Corinth is an apt illustration of this technique. The living arrangements are difficult to unravel. In 18:1-4, Paul lived and worked with Aquila and Priscilla. In v. 7, he moved his base to the residence of Titius Justus. The narrative does not say that Paul lived there.27 Aquila and Priscilla disappear from v. 3 until Paul’s departure for Syria, when he takes them as (his only?) companions (18:18). Two synagogue leaders appear: Crispus (v. 8), who becomes a believer, and Sosthenes (v. 17). Readers might presume that he had replaced Crispus, but the narrator does not say so. One solution is to posit conflation of material from different visits. This “conservative” option does not resolve all of the difficulties, since it is likely that Paul would have found lodging with some of his converts during subsequent visits, and the encounter with Gallio does not fit the data, as the epistles say nothing of conflicts with Jews. In both 1 Corinthians (1:14) and Acts (18:8), the first person identified as one baptized by Paul bears the name “Crispus.” Identification of the two is common. Commentators on 1 Corinthians may choose to flesh out the details from Acts 18.28 If Luke took this information from Paul, he made two important changes and inferred another. First, he made Crispus a Jew. 1 Corinthians does not specify this, and most readers of that letter would suppose that he was a gentile. Second, Luke promoted Crispus to a prominent place

19 The inscription is CIJ 718. See Deissmann, Light, 16 n. 7. The poor quality makes dating difficult, but a date after 100 ce is likely. The restoration is not certain, as the only indisputable letters are GWGH EBR. See NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 113, pp. 213–14. 20 Erich Dinkler, Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967) 118–33. 21 See pp. 10–11. 22 See Haenchen, 538–41. 23 Cf. Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 130.

24 Haenchen (537) vaguely expresses a general consensus: “Luke, however, must have drawn on some source or other.” 25 Cf., however, the stay in “Greece” (20:2-3). 26 John C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965) 27–33. Lüdemann (Acts, 235–36) makes a similar point with these examples: Lystra: Acts 14:8-20; 14:21; 16:1-3; Philippi: 16:12-40; cf. 20:2, 3-6; Thessalonica: 17:1-10; 20:2; Ephesus: 19:1—20:1; cf. 18:19-21. 27 See also p. 449 n. 34. 28 Bruce (393) identifies the two, as does Gordon D.

448

Acts part 2C.indd 448

8/27/2008 10:16:55 AM

18:1-23

in the synagogue. Both of these changes, as well as the generalization to include the entire household, are quite characteristic of Luke, who likes to emphasize Paul’s missionary work among Jews and the social status of his converts.29 If Luke derived his information about Crispus from a foundation story, it was obliterated by his own redactional concerns, so that the result differs little.30 The itinerary (from Athens to Corinth) and the information about Silas and Timothy could also derive from the letters. 31 The possibility that the name of the synagogue president Sosthenes (v. 17) was taken from 1 Cor 1:1 is no more likely than the theory that the two are identical.32 Although the voyage of Priscilla and Aquila to Ephesus with Paul could be deduced from 1 Cor 16:19, the circumstantial data about this couple in Acts 18:2-3—that Aquila came from Pontus and had been expelled from Rome as a Jew, and that he and his wife practiced a craft, apparently derive, at least in part, from a different tradition. The expulsion fits Luke’s interest in making the Jews look like enemies of the Roman order, but Luke would have been unlikely to invent the notion that Paul was an artisan, for this does not conform to his view of Paul’s social status. These data may have been known at Ephesus, where the couple could have been remembered among the community’s founders. Another possibility is that the author of Acts

29

30

31

32

visited Corinth at some time. In support of this hypothesis is the possibility that he was familiar with 1 Clement.33 This hypothesis could account for the description of the couple’s association with Apollos (vv. 24-28). The circumstantial statement about Titius Justus in v. 7 is vexatious. It is difficult to understand why Luke would have invented these details, but, once again, the description conforms to the Lucan scheme of synagogue proclamation that attracts sympathetic gentiles. Is it accidental that Luke never speaks of this person as a believer? As in the case of Priscilla and Aquila, his conversion is not narrated. The two Latin names suggest a Roman citizen.34 The harmonizing solution is to posit that his praenomen was “Gaius” and to identify him with the person named in 1 Cor 1:14 (cf. also Rom 16:23).35 As indicated above, the Gallio episode (vv. 12-17) is highly problematic. Weiser contends that it is a pre-Lucan element of Corinthian local tradition and historical (in its essence) because it is a self-contained story not linked to its context that includes the names of Sosthenes and Gallio.36 The same facts argue more cogently for Lucan composition. Every feature of this adventure conforms to Lucan themes. At the conclusion of the mission comes an attempt by unhappy Jews to arraign Paul for illegal teaching, resulting in his vindication by the powers that be. The attempted snare is transparently inadequate and easily rebuffed by Gallio. Initial suspense dissolves in the

Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 63. On the possible derivation of the data about Crispus, see Pervo, Dating, 102–4. Probability of dependence is enhanced by the fact that, although Paul mentions Crispus first in 1 Cor 1:14, the first household baptized was that of Stephanas (16:15). Since 1 Cor 16:14-18 indicates that Stephanas remained a supporter of Paul, the apostle did not name him first. This is the only account of the conversion of a Jewish household in Acts. Significantly, it follows the transfer of the mission base to a house. See Matson, Household Conversions, 168–82. 1 Thess 1:1; 3:6; 2 Cor 1:19. The support implied in Acts 18:6 may have been that mentioned in 2 Cor 11:8-9. The latter has supporters. BDAG, 985, s.v. Swsqevnh", says that “many scholars, not without good reason” have identified the two. For the basis, see, for example, Marshall (299), who allows the

33 34

35 36

possibility that Sosthenes was attacked because he was a Christian sympathizer. Richard G. Fellows (“Renaming in Paul’s Churches: The Case of Crispus-Sosthenes Revisited,” TynBul 56 [2005] 111–30) argues that they are the same person. For a critical view of this hypothesis, see Claudia J. Setzer, “Sosthenes,” ABD 6:160. Cf. Pervo, Dating, 229, 310–15. Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 158) finds Titius Justus as the only convincing case of two Latin names in the New Testament. Edgar J. Goodspeed, “Gaius Titius Justus,” JBL 69 (1950) 382–83. Weiser, 2:486–87.

449

Acts part 2C.indd 449

8/27/2008 10:16:56 AM

burlesque beating of Sosthenes, who received the humiliation he had intended for Paul. The proconsul would not lift a finger to defend the Jewish leader from mob violence.37 Formally, vv. 12-17 resemble an apophthegm. The unit begins with a genitive absolute, contains a minimal narrative setting, and focuses on the statement of Gallio in vv. 14-15. Since the pronouncement is an authorial composition, it follows that the framework also is.38 If a historical report or a legend stood behind this encounter, it has been obliterated. The critical approach has been to assume that the narrative is bath water, but that the baby, Gallio, is historical, or at least traditional.39 The alternative is to ask how Luke, if he is entirely responsible for the episode, obtained this proper name.40 That is a good challenge, assuming that a tradition would be more readily available than data about Gallio.41 Additional questions not addressed in Acts are why the Jewish plaintiffs would not apply to the local magistrates and the propriety of the proconsul’s interference in the internal affairs of a Roman colony. Sherwin-White states the problem: “The question is whether Jewish residents at Corinth, who presumably were not citizens of Corinth, could expect the proconsul to enforce their domestic law within the territory of a community that was a Roman colony.”42 One could no doubt construct a number of plausible scenarios, but Acts does not do so.43 At most

one can say that there may have been a story about an encounter of Paul with Gallio and that this may have had some historical basis.44 Luke could have transferred material located elsewhere in the province to Corinth. This would fit his schematization. Further than that the prudent historian will hesitate to advance. In any event, from the perspective of history, Gallio was an apposite figure, since he represented that Roman cultural elite that would succumb to the machinations of Nero, who would also gain notoriety as a persecutor of Christians. For Luke, the mission to Corinth was first and foremost a conflict between “church” and synagogue. That view gains no support from the Corinthian correspondence and coheres with Lucan narrative themes.45 Luke made creative use of such source material as he had. A major difficulty for exegesis is the highly compressed and elusive quality of the narrative. Nothing reveals these difficulties so clearly as the D-Text, which clarifies the matter of Aquila. He (with his wife subordinated to a prepositional phrase) had come directly from Rome and settled in Corinth. Paul recognized him because of their tribal kinship.46 Aquila’s religious status is even more vague than in the conventional text.47 Nothing is said of their common occupation or of Paul’s labor, evidently deemed socially inappropriate.48 In consequence, v. 5 eliminates the implication that the arrival of Silas and Timothy allowed Paul to engage

37 See Pervo, Profit, 45, 60. Verse 17b can be construed in several ways. The simplest takes oujdevn as subject and touvtwn as partitive (“none of these things”) rather than as a genitive complement to this verb: BDF §176 (3). Another possibility is to take the verb as impersonal, in which case oujdevn would be an accusative of respect. See Moule, Idiom Book, 28. 38 Although Johnson (333) claims that “the Jewish attempt to have Paul convicted by the proconsul Gallio breathes the air of plausibility,” he goes on to speak of its “literary and religious functions.” 39 As Jean Juster (Les juifs dans l’empire romain [2 vols.; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1914] 2:154 n. 4) observed, reference to an actual proconsul does not prove the historicity of the account. Haenchen (541), however, was inclined to accept the general truth of the story. 40 Juster (ibid.) already noted that the existence of (L. Junius) Gallio does not make the story ­h istorical.

41 Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 104–7) shows the difficulties of obtaining this information from available sources. Inscriptions are a possibility. 42 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 100. 43 Some attempts at plausible scenarios are offered by Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 100–104. 44 If historical grounds are sought, this incident could have led to one of the three legal floggings mentioned in 2 Cor 11:25—if they are to be taken at face value. 45 Cadbury and Lake, 220: “Luke’s interest is centred, at least here, on two points—the opposition of the Jews, and the refusal of the Roman authorities to take action against Paul.” 46 The D-Text evidently wishes to imply a previous acquaintance. 47 Epp, Tendency, 92–93. 48 So also Barrett, 2:864. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 409) attributes this omission to accident.

450

Acts part 2C.indd 450

8/27/2008 10:16:56 AM

18:1-23

in full-time mission work. The D-Text has no acceleration of missionary activity. By expanding vv. 4, 6, and 8, this text produces a more circumstantial and logical account, illustrating, as often, both the strengths and weaknesses of Luke’s style.49 Addition of “from you” in v. 6 emphasizes separation from the synagogue, as does the change of subject in v. 7. With separation from the synagogue comes separation from Aquila. Paul changes both residence and base. 50 The expansions to vv. 12-13 establish the action as premeditated and disorderly, the typical behavior of a mob. Assignment of the beating to “the Greeks” reflects the understanding that the attempt to accuse Paul resulted in an outburst of anti-Jewish sentiment, 51 based on the presumption that the Jews are responsible for their own mistreatment. Comment   1-2  The initial verses introduce the Corinthian story

somewhat elaborately. The narrator states neither why Paul left52 Athens nor why he came to Corinth. Luke does not speak of a plan until 19:21. From a glance at a map, one sees that he has moved south from ­Macedonia

through Achaea. At Corinth he encountered53 one Aquila, a well-known person from the Pauline tradition who evidently illustrates the mobility of some early Christians.54 Both Aquila and his wife, Prisc(ill)a,55 bore Latin names. Acts identifies Aquila as Jewish in background and not until 18:26 does it transpire that the two were Christians. 56 They were evidently missionaries who specialized in the formation and nurture of house churches. Extrapolating a hypothesis based on Rom 16:3-5, Paul may have used them as “advance men” in both Ephesus and Rome. Since Luke treats Paul’s colleagues as very junior assistants and does not highlight other missions, their career is obscure. Prisca may have been the more prominent, as she is often mentioned before her husband, 57 but her introduction in v. 2 is so awkward that it looks like an afterthought, raising the possibility that the tradition used by Luke mentioned Aquila alone.58 The first indication of the importance of Corinth is the reference to Claudius’s expulsion of “all the Jews” from Rome. For Luke, links between “sacred” and “secular” history mark important points in the narrative. 59 Although generally accepted, this is the only place

49 The expansion to v. 8 is based on the notion that the converts were gentiles, as Jews would not be said to come to believe in God. Cf. 8:37 and Ropes, Text, 173. 50 In v. 11, the D-Text adds, with its characteristic pedantry, “one year in Corinth.” It also improves the obscure ejn aujtoi`~ (“among them,” perhaps). 51 See Epp, Tendency, 167. On the subject of the verb “beat,” see also below. 52 Verses 1-2 contain a typical feature of Lucan style (Cadbury, “Four Features,” 87–102, esp. 87–97): repetition, although cwrivzw has the sense of compulsion in the second instance. 53 Luke uses euJrivskw (lit. “find”) when he does not wish to state how characters met. Cf. 9:33; 19:1. This may be a clue to the use of sources: when the author does not have information about how characters came together, he resorts to “find.” 54 According to Acts, Aquila came from Pontus, spent time in Rome, and moved thence to Ephesus. 1 Cor 16:19 places the couple in Ephesus, while Rom 16:3 (presuming that this is an integral part of the letter) places them (again) in Rome. According to 2 Tim 4:19, they remained in Ephesus. The author evidently did not know Romans 16. 55 Luke evidently prefers Semitic names: Saul/Paul,

56

57

58

59

Silas/Silvanus, and diminutives Sopater/Sosipater, Prisca/Priscilla. The narrator may have avoided identifying the couple as believers in Jesus to stifle the suggestion that they were expelled from Rome because of their faith. In Rom 16:3; Acts 18:18, 26; 2 Tim 4:19; Acts 18:18, 26, Prisca’s name precedes Aquila’s. Arator obliterates her name from his account (2:506–18). See the articles “Aquila” and “Prisca” by Peter Lampe, ABD 1:319–20, 5:67–68. Lampe argues that the pair were not well-to-do, with rich detail in From Paul to Valentinus, 187–96. On Prisca, see also Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 178–80, 189, which contains hypotheses on their missionary methods. She calls Priscilla “the great woman missionary of early Christianity” (175). If Luke acquired his information at Ephesus around 100 or later, reduction of Prisca’s role would have been in accordance with current practice and convention. See the synchronism in Luke 3:1-2a, marking the ministry of John the Baptizer and the famine mentioned in Acts 11:28, which coincides with the inauguration of the gentile mission in Antioch.

451

Acts part 2C.indd 451

8/27/2008 10:16:56 AM

where Aquila (and Prisca?) is identified as a Jew, nor is it clear why they selected Corinth as their destination, rather than, say, Puteoli, Ostia, or Pontus. From the Lucan perspective, their arrival at Corinth just in time to work with Paul was providential. Claudius’s punishment of the Jews served the furtherance of the message about Jesus.   3  The verse has a convoluted ABBA structure. This elaborate clause may be because, for those unfamiliar with the epistles (1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:1-12; cf. 2 Thess 3:8), the statement that Paul practiced a craft would come as a shock, since it fits neither Acts’ picture of Paul’s worldly position nor of the length of his missions. Work is too common a thing to command much interest.60 The narrator simply says that he went to work. The statement that Paul held a job in Corinth is likely, and it is logical that this was one basis of his association with Prisca and Aquila. Menial employment also lays the grounds for 20:34, where Paul claims to have supported both himself and others. The nature of the craft is a matter of debate, although the answer does no more than fulfill curiosity.61 One line of interpretation adheres to the literal “tentmaker.”

This is defended in some detail by Peter Lampe.62 The patristic tradition and some ancient versions preferred a more general understanding: Paul worked with leather. Proponents of this view include Theodor Zahn, Henry J. Cadbury, and most recently Ronald F. Hock.63 The literal “tentmaker” is open to challenge as too concrete.64 BDAG gives the first meaning as “maker of stage properties.”65 The Latin and Syriac versions, surely independent, give different terms related to leather work, as do Origen and successors in the Greek exegetical tradition. A general understanding of the term is preferable.66   4-5  The mission follows a typical path, brusquely narrated in these and subsequent verses.67 The synagogue preaching (as in Iconium, 14:1) targets Greeks as well as Jews. Verse 5 is mysterious: why should the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia have allowed Paul to devote68 full time to his mission? (Furthermore, Acts states that Paul waited for these two in Athens without explaining why he departed without them.69) Those informed from the epistles fill in the blank from 2 Cor 11:8-9: they brought money. Luke may well have

60 One may compare the descriptions of work in romantic novels. See Egger, “Women in the Greek Novel,” 305. 61 Aelian Var. hist. 2.1 is an apophthegm about Socrates and Alcibiades. Despised professions include a “leather worker” (skutotovmo~), the town crier, and a “tent maker” (skhnorravfo~). (For another list associated with Socrates, see Xenophon Mem. 3.7.6–7). In short, the cultured Greek would answer the question with “Who cares?” Bede (74) offers a “mystical” interpretation, cribbed from Aratus: by his words and actions Paul erects protective coverings that shield believers from sin. 62 Peter Lampe, “Paulus—Zeltmacher,” BZ 31 (1987) 211–21; cf. also Hemer, Book, 119 n. 46. 63 See Zahn, 633–34; Cadbury and Lake, 223; Wilhelm Michaelis, “skhnopoiov~,” TDNT 7:393–94; and Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 20–25. For a realistic description of what such labor involved, see ibid., 67. 64 Etymology is not always a useful guide to employment classifications. English “plumber,” for example, comes from the Latin word for pipes, often made, until recently, from lead (plumbum).

65

66

67 68

69

The formal term for plumbers is “pipe fitters” (or “steam fitters”). Similarly, one takes belts and handbags to shoe menders, since they know how to work with leather. BDAG, 928, s.v. skhnopoiov~. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 21. Paul’s views about his work were ambivalent, but they did provide him with independence from a network of patronage. See Witherington, 547–48. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (“Prisca and Aquila: Traveling Tentmakers and Church Builders,” BR 8 [1992] 40–51) disparages the contrast between leather and linen. Holger Szesnat (“What Did the skhnopoiov~ Paul Produce?” Neotestamentica 27 [1993] 391–402) has a similar view about materials used and items manufactured. See also Spencer, “Women,” 150–53. Note the number of imperfect verbs in vv. 3-5, suitable for summary style. Difficulty of understanding the imperfect mediopassive suneivceto evidently led to the D-Text (in part) and Koine variant pneuvmati: Paul was constrained by the Spirit. For options, see Barrett, 2:866. Luke’s intention may be represented by the alternative translation. On the efforts to reconcile Acts and the epistles

452

Acts part 2C.indd 452

8/27/2008 10:16:56 AM

18:1-23

used the same source.70 Because the subject of Paul and money was, and evidently remained,71 a sensitive issue, Luke deletes it and leaves readers to construct their own conclusions. It may seem curious that only the Jews are targets of the proclamation, but this is explained by the following verse. Turning up the evangelistic heat brought “the Jews” to a boil.   6  Paul responds in prophetic fashion, with both a gesture72 and a pronouncement of holy law73 that resembles prophetic denunciations made by Jesus.74 He has discharged his responsibility. Those who reject his message will bear the consequences. At the second of three large geographical areas, Greece, Paul announces his turn to the gentiles.   7-8  The first verse indicates that the foregoing took place in the synagogue.75 At this point Luke introduces an apparent tradition (which cannot be coordinated with the Corinthian correspondence) about Titius Justus, whose standing as a “God-Fearer” probably derives from the author.

70 71 72

73

74 75

76

Tradition has not known what to do with this name. “Titius Justus” is supported by B* D2 syh geo. Alternatives are “Titus Justus,” “Justus,” and “Titus.”76 “Titius Justus” receives a “C” rating from the editors of UBS.77 In its favor is the probability that “Titus (Justus)” and “Justus” are attempts at harmonization.78 The hypothesis that this person’s home was a base for Paul at some point in his mission at Corinth is not improbable. Narrative, rather than chronological, logic79 dictates the subsequent report of the conversion of Crispus, the climax of the mission thus far.80 A general report of numerous conversions follows.   9-11  The verses are formally an oracle of assurance (Heilsorakel),81 a type found in the Hebrew Bible and other literature.82 This is one of three such revelations delivered to Paul at times of crisis.83 All three are authorial compositions and serve literary goals. The narrative setting here resembles those of Greco-Roman literary parallels. Typical features include the admonition (v. 9b), in triple ABA style,84 and the rationale, which is

here, see Cadbury and Lake, 224; and Barrett, 2:865. 2 Cor 11:8-9 is addressed to Corinth and uses the same general term “Macedonia.” See pp. 508–9. On the gesture, see Cadbury, “Dust and Garments,” 269–77, esp. 274–75, who cannot find a close parallel, but allows a general attempt to imitate at least the flavor of the LXX. The meaning of the action is clarified by the pronouncement. “Blood” is a common biblical trope for responsibility: e.g., Lev 20:9; Josh 2:19; Judg 9:24; 2 Sam 1:16; 3:29; 1 Kgs 2:32; Jer 28:35 (LXX); Ezek 3:17-18; 18:13; 33:4. The pronouncement lacks a verb. “Be” will do well, but BDF §480 (5) supplies ejlqevtw (“come”). It is preferable not to place a full stop after kaqaro;~ ejgwv (lit. “clean, I . . .”), for this would leave two consecutive sentences without a stated verb. Cf. Barrett, 2:867. For the background, see H. Graf Reventlow, “Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt,” VT 10 (1960) 311–27. Cf. Luke 10:13-15; 13:28-30, 34-35; 20:17; 21:23-24. This is the most probable meaning of ejkei`qen (“from there”), but it could be temporal (“thereafter,” “then”). It is not clear whether the narrator wishes to imply that Paul also changed his place of residence. See above. For the data, see Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 485; and UBS4, 479.

77 Omission of ojnovmati (“named”) in A et al. further complicates the question. See Ropes (Text, 173), who supports “Justus,” and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 410. 78 The latter is inept, as Col 4:11 identifies Justus as a Jew. 79 Note that Luke reports no baptisms by Paul of those converted in a synagogue, with the possible exception of Lydia (16:15). 80 On Crispus, see above. 81 Aune, Prophecy, 266–67. 82 See, e.g., Josephus Vit. 208–10 (see the notes to 23:11) and the poem concluding the Sarapis Aretalogy at Delos, lines 85–90 (Appendix 2). From a very different realm comes Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 4.1.4–5. Leucippe says: “The day before yesterday, when I was crying because I was going to be butchered, Artemis appeared, standing above me in my sleep, and said, ‘do not be sad, you shall not die, for I will stand by you and help you. You will remain a virgin until I myself give you away as a bride. No one but Kleitophon will marry you’” (trans. J. J. Winkler, in Reardon, Novels, 222). Note also Johnson, 328. For possible imitation of this episode in Acts, see Act. Thom. 1. 83 The others are 23:11; 27:23-24. He alone in Acts receives these assurances. 84 “Have no fear” (mh; fobou`) is not epiphanic. It applies to the actual situation.

453

Acts part 2C.indd 453

8/27/2008 10:16:56 AM

twofold, introduced by diovti (lit. “because” [v. 10ab]). It is also atypical in that Paul is not in any particular danger when the oracle is delivered. The message thus serves the literary purposes of generating suspense while conveying assurance. Stress, however, belongs to the final clause. Corinth will yield a bountiful harvest.85 The vision prepares readers for what appears to be a mission of unusual length. This datum of a year and a half, like the figures of three months and two years for Ephesus (19:8, 10), may reflect local traditions, but these general numbers are not provided for their own sake as a means to transmit valuable information. They indicate the centrality of these two cities in the Pauline missionary enterprise.   12-13  A long sojourn will give opponents scope for intrigue. The (unexplained) presence of the Roman governor86 offered an evident opening. Not for the first time, his Jewish adversaries whisked Paul into court.   14-17  Gallio was too shrewd a lawyer to overlook the loophole in their ambiguous accusation and dismissed the charge before Paul could utter a word. The proconsul’s comments show that the issue at stake was not a question of criminal law but mere Jewish legal trivia, matters in which he had no interest. There were other matters that did not occupy his interest, notably the sound beating administered to the synagogue president, one Sosthenes, who joined the growing list of would-be

persecutors required to swallow the potion they had brewed for others. With this crude, if vivid, image, Luke portrays the beating Judaism took in Corinth.87 The verses describing the encounter with Gallio (12-17) are not a typical trial scene.88 Paul’s active role is limited to a genitive absolute. The construction is roughly circular. References to Gallio (vv. 12, 17) frame the episode. “The Jews” take action in v. 12; the gentiles (evidently) act in v. 17 (ejpevsthsan, ejpilabovmenoi [“converged,” “mobbed”]). Verses 12 and 16 narrate the approach to and (involuntary) exit from the judicial bench. The central elements deal with their charge and Gallio’s response. The governor’s brief speech resembles that of Gamaliel (5:35-39).89 Here also are two conditional statements, the first of which is contrary-to-fact and thus reveals, without any examination, Gallio’s view, summed up in his conclusion that he will not take jurisdiction.90 The mentality of Paul’s accusers, who believed Gallio would not distinguish between Jewish Torah and Roman ius,91 is childish and unworthy of credence.92 The whole scene dissolves in burlesque: his disappointed co-religionists (or, perhaps, the gentile mob always ready to appear when the narrator beckons) 93 fall upon their leader, Sosthenes, and vent their frustration in violence. “Luke makes Gallio occupy that standpoint which he himself considers as the correct one and which he passionately desires that Rome herself should take as her

85 On the term “people,” cf. 15:14, with the comments of Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:224–25; and Johnson, 326. 86 Corinth may have been the capital of Achaea. (According to Apuleius Metam. 10.18, it was the capital in the second half of the second century.) 87 See Dixon Slingerland, “‘The Jews’ in the Pauline Portion of Acts,” JAAR 54 (1986) 305–21; and idem, “The Composition of Acts: Some Redaction-critical Observations,” JAAR 56 (1988) 99–113, 88 See above, where it is compared to an apophthegm. Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 126) relates this to stories in which the hero is not allowed to speak, but would, as the audience knows, have been quickly vindicated had he been allowed to do so. 89 Luke has Gallio speak in language suitable to his status and position, called “admirable though colloquial” in Cadbury and Lake, 227. Note the colloquial use of the future as imperative (o[yesqe) in v. 15. In Latin (as in English), this is a polite imperative. See BDF §362. Cf. Matt 27:24 (Pilate).

90

91 92 93

On the conditional sentences, see also 19:38 (Ephesian “town clerk”). The second conditional (beginning with eij dev, balancing the prior eij mevn) is rendered “since” here. Two of the objects of periv (“about”) can be variously interpreted. The first, lovgo~, is unlikely to mean “reason” here. “Mere verbiage” is the sense. In contrast to “reason” (kata; lovgon) stands “you people’s language.” The second, ojnovmata, could refer to “technical terms.” “Titles” comes from the context, the debate about whether Jesus is the Messiah (v. 5). On “actual injury” and “serious misbehavior,” see 24:20 and 13:8, respectively, and the notes of Johnson, 328. Conzelmann, 153. Gallio’s kata; lovgon (“quite properly”) says it all. The request is not rational. The narrator says “all,” allowing the possibility that gentiles were involved, but the text says nothing about the presence of gentiles in the scene, and understanding “all the Jews” as the agents makes a

454

Acts part 2C.indd 454

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

18:1-23

own: that Christianity is an inner-Jewish affair in which Rome does not meddle.”94 Sosthenes’ fate would have brought pleasure to early Christian readers. This is one of those moments at which the audience was to stand up and cheer.95 For Christian readers of today, this episode should bring discomfort. Important as it is to note that things were quite different then, when Jews had vastly more numbers, power, and resources than did followers of Jesus, contemporary Christians should repudiate the sentiment herein expressed, specifically the enjoyment of seeing incompetent and violence-prone Jews humiliated. Apology, rather than apologetics, is in order.96   18  This verse,97 which closes the account by reporting Paul’s departure—for which no reason is given—contains two surprises, the sudden reappearance of Priscilla and Aquila and Paul’s religious vow. Priscilla, whose name looked like an afterthought in v. 3, now stands first (as in v. 26). The couple’s role (and presence) will remain unexplained until vv. 24-28, as Luke will have need of them in Ephesus. Paul’s vow is intelligible as motivation for his desire to travel rapidly to Jerusalem. In the long range it cultivates the ground for 21:23-24.98 The announced destination of the voyage is Syria. Since the verb ejkplevw often means “sail back,”99 the narrative evidently intends to complete a circle begun in 15:40. The purpose of this closure is not to mark the

94

95 96 97

completion of one “missionary journey” and the inauguration of another, for the vast amount of travel denoted in vv. 18:21b, 23, and 19:1a is remarkably compressed.100 The expression “flying visit to Jerusalem”101 does not properly apply to Paul or his plans. The narrator is doing the flying here. The purpose of this sweep is the provision of a setting for the climax of Paul’s missionary labor in Ephesus. The contents of Galatians are not conducive to the idea that Paul visited either Jerusalem or Antioch at this time. Circumstances favor viewing this trip as a Lucan contribution to the narrative.102 The distance placed between Paul and Apollos does not look fortuitous, while the source appears to be the voyage described in 20:3; 21:3, which also has Syria as its destination, whereas the trip summarized in 18:18-23 reaches Syria (Antioch) by land.   19-23  The D-Text variants mainly fill gaps in the narrative. The opening clarifies the subject (and keeps the focus on Paul). Luke does not worry about time, so to speak. When Paul shows up, the synagogue will be in session (cf. 13:13-14). The D-Text makes him wait for the Sabbath. In v. 20, the editor assures us that the Jews of Ephesus did not want Paul to stay longer so that he could enjoy the sites. Verse 21 provides an explanation for Paul’s odd abandonment of a, for once, receptive synagogue audience.103 Acts 20:16 is the probable

nice inclusion with the expulsion of “all the Jews” in v. 2. Haenchen (536) is one interpreter who understands this to mean “the [gentile] crowd.” Fitzmyer (630) observes that the indifference conforms to Gallio’s intention not to involve himself in Jewish affairs. Failure to take action against a gentile mob would discredit the governor, an object far from the narrator’s wish. See Moyer V. Hubbard, “Urban Uprisings in the Roman World: The Social Setting of the Mobbing of Sosthenes,” NTS 51 (2005) 416–28. Haenchen, 541. To this one might add the assurance that Christians are not evildoers, an issue by the turn of the century (1 Pet 4:16, etc.). See Chrysostom (Hom. 39): “It was a splendid victory” (trans. J. Walker, 242). Contra Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:226–29. The reference to a temporal interval is provided not for chronological purposes but to emphasize that Paul was not compelled to leave. See the excursus “Acts 18 and Chronology” above.

98 On the practice of vows, see Haenchen, 545–46, and the comments at 21:23. Luke may not have understood the practice, but, since this vow is an authorial creation, it is not necessary to provide a historical rationale. The shaved head may have inspired part of the famous description of Paul in Act. Paul 3.3: yilo;n th/` kefalh/` (which may mean “bald,” but could also be the result of shaving the head). On the possibility that this episode was inspired by Josephus, see Pervo, Dating, 190–91. 99 BDAG, 308, s.v. 100 Foakes Jackson, 172–73. 101 E.g., Cadbury and Lake, 224. On Jerusalem as the destination, see Loisy, 707–9. 102 See Krodel, 352–53; and Lüdemann, Acts, 243–46. As the latter notes, with a number of references and citations, the majority of scholars find some valid data in this report. 103 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 412) says this may well be the correct explanation, citing Bruce, 1951 (but Bruce, 1990, 399, is more cautious). The vow

455

Acts part 2C.indd 455

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

basis for this.104 Verse 22, which replaces the vague and awkward reference in v. 21 with a logical statement, also manifests the pedantic quality of the D-Text, and the omission of Priscilla is another example of its tendency to minimize the presence of women.105 The conventional—and doubtless the earliest extant— text is odd. Had the narrator said that Paul left the couple in Ephesus and continued his voyage, the object would be clear. Instead, he “left them there,” to translate literally, but went to the synagogue, alone (without Priscilla and Aquila!), only to decline a request for more with a promise of an eventual return. The narrator is whetting the readers’ appetite. Ephesus is a fruitful field. To this suspense his pious “God willing” adds its own contribution.106 Another merit of v. 20 is to show why Apollos will receive a favorable reception in the synagogue—although it may not fully explain why the difference between his “gospel” and that of Paul was not the subject of wider notice. To complete preparation of the stage for chap. 19 the narrator introduces a substantial retardation, long not in actual narrative, but psychologically lengthy, as it were, for vv. 22-23 hurl the reader over a vast space of around eighteen hundred

104 105

106

107 108

109

kilometers. Prior to the climax of his Aegean mission, Paul visits all of the areas in which he has labored, apart from Macedonia and Greece.107 In 20:1-3 he will visit those places (another frame). At the micro level, the pivot is marked by the parallel phrases th;n Frugivan kai; Galatikh;n cwvran (16:6) and th;n Galatikh;n cwvran kai; Frugivan (18:23). They are notoriously difficult to translate, but they are mirror opposites.108 In 16:6, the order is “Phrygia . . . Galatia,” whereas 18:23 places Galatia before Phrygia, although both describe movement from east to west. Acts 18:23 evidently speaks of two districts.109 The patient labors of meticulous scholars notwithstanding, the evidence indicates both that Luke is not consistent in his use of geographical terminology and that he had an imperfect grasp of the geography of central Asia Minor. Any assumption that the author of Acts cared deeply about such matters is questionable.110 The presence of six participles (against two finite verbs) in vv. 22-23 enhances the sense of rapidity and smoothness.111 The narrator does not even name Jerusalem, reducing the visit to a mere salutation en route to Antioch.112 At the latter place, the stated object of this

does not seem to play an explicit part here. Not since Beroea (17:10-12) has a synagogue been so receptive. Note also the D-Text of 19:1. See Pervo, “Social Aspects”; and D. A. Kursk­Chomycz, “Is there an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila,” JBL 125 (2006) 107–28. The expression “God willing” is an originally apotropaic formula of polytheist origin, not known to be used by Jews before Islamic times. See Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901) 252; James H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916) 279–80; and W. Schrenk, “qevlw,” TDNT 3:44–62, esp. 47. Witherington (560) also views such visits as marking boundaries. Translation difficulties result from the use of the article and the overlap between adjective and noun. See on 16:6. Haenchen (545), who appeals to the adverb kaqexh`~ (“successively,” on which see Foakes Jackson and Lake, Prolegomena II, 504–5; and Hemer, Book, 120).

110 Observe that 16:6 speaks of “passing through” (dih`lqon, the present participle of which appears in 18:23) these regions, without mentioning evangelism, whereas 18:23 describes pastoral visits (ejpisthrivzwn; cf. 14:22; 15:32, 41; sthrivzwn [p 74 a A B 33 1891 pc] may be original in 18:23, as it is less common). This activity is another indicator of a narrative boundary, as it concludes the journey of chaps. 13–14 and prefaces the journey beginning in chap. 16. Kirsopp Lake (“Paul’s Route in Asia Minor,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 224–40, esp. 239–40) concludes that the variation is stylistic. 111 The style of these verses elicits admiration from BDF §421. 112 Jerusalem is clearly intended in the participle “going up” (ajnabav~), which is used of the city (e.g., 11:2; 15:2; 21:12, 15). Had Paul not intended to go to Jerusalem, he would have sailed to the port of Antioch. The geography so confused Bede (75) that he identified “Caesarea” as the capital of Cappadocia (possibly from a source), since Caesarea Maritima would have been too far south.

456

Acts part 2C.indd 456

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

18:1-23

travel (v. 18) and his (former) base, he does spend “some time” before setting off on a long journey, evidently alone, across all of Asia Minor. The narrator gives no indication of the communities allegedly visited113 and makes no attempt to impress readers with the ardor and immensity of this journey.114 Paul routinely topped off his excellent relations with Jerusalem and Antioch. A final reason for Paul’s “drive through” visit to an Ephesian synagogue115 is that Luke does not claim that

Paul inaugurated the Jesus movement in Ephesus. This claim is probably correct.116 Acts 18:26—which may well not derive from tradition—assumes it,117 and it is more than difficult to imagine that Luke would not claim a Pauline foundation if that were true. As in the case of Rome, Luke nonetheless presents Paul as inaugurating a mission to the Jews.118 In 19:8, he will resume, rather than initiate, that mission.

113 Galatians provides no evidence for the view that Paul had visited the recipients more than once prior to its composition. See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 11, 224. 114 Cf. Ephesian Tale 4.1.1–2: “Meanwhile Hippothous’ band moved off from Tarsus and made their way to Syria, forcing any opposition in their path to submit. They burned villages and slaughtered large numbers. In this way they reached Laodicea in Syria, and there they took up lodgings, not as pirates this time, but posing as tourists . . .

115 116

117 118

[T]hey took a rest and made for Phoenicia, and from there to Egypt” (trans. G. Anderson, in Reardon, Novels, 154–55). Although the text refers to “the synagogue” (18:19, 26; 19:8), this is probably a simplification. See Matthias Günther, Die Frühgeschichte des Christentums in Ephesus (2nd ed.; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998) 32–37. Haenchen (547) states the matter too strongly by saying “18.26 is proof.” Cf. Haenchen, 543.

457

Acts part 2C.indd 457

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

18

18:24-28  Apollos 24/ An Alexandrian Jew by the name of Apollos a came to Ephesus. Apollos was an eloquent b fellow who knew how to make effective use of the scriptures. 25/ He had received instruction in the way of the Lord, c could speak with spiritual ardor, and propound the story of Jesus with precision, but he was aware only of the baptism proclaimed by John. 26/ Apollos launched a vigorous preaching mission in the synagogue. After Priscilla and Aquila had heard him, they took him aside and expounded the Movement d more fully. e 27/ When Apollos expressed a desire to go to Achaea, he received support from the believers, who wrote to encourage the disciples there to receive him. After his arrival he was of considerable value to those who had come to believe through grace, 28/ for he decisively routed the Jews in public debate, f demonstrating from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

a

b c d

e f

Analysis

Different plans and analyses of the following passages have been offered. The view of 19:1 as a major division is generally rejected. Schemes vary, but all shed light on the structure of Acts. Talbert (172) treats 18:24—20:1 as a unit, based on Ephesus; Polhill utilizes the same basis, but takes 18:23—21:16 as boundaries. Barrett and Fitzmyer include 18:23—20:38 as a unit, while Witherington selects 18:24—21:36.1 That all are defensible testifies to the fluidity of Lucan structure. Talbert observes that 18:24—19:20 relate to “eccentric forms of religion,” but this does not adequately describe 19:8-10. Whatever the solution to this complex problem, 18:24-28 and 19:1-7 are to be analyzed in relation to one another, 1 2

D-Text: “An Alexandrian Jew Apollonius by name.” This and the following are based on Boismard, Texte, 309. On the meaning of lovgio~, see Cadbury and Lake, 233. “Eloquent” includes the sense of “cultured.” D-Text: “He had received instruction about the word of the Lord in his native city.” The modifier “way of God” has strong support and may be original, but “the Way” is Luke’s preferred designation for the Jesus movement (9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), which the redundant qualifier apparently overlooks. The unmodified noun is a D-Text reading with strong claims for originality. Cf. Ropes, Text, 178. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 310), as in v. 21, removes Priscilla from the narrative. “Debate” is implicit in the conventional text, explicit (dialegovmeno~) in the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 311).

although they stand on adjoining sides of the pivot indicated by Paul’s return to Ephesus (19:1). Comment   24  This is an intractable, parenthetical paragraph, followed by another that is equally parenthetical and even more intractable (19:1b-7). 2 They constitute a pair, the former of which deals with defective knowledge, the latter with defective practice, but both deficiencies are referred to as “the baptism of John.” The first problem concerns the name of the individual. a* 36. 453. 1175 pc bo offer “Apelles.” The D-Text prefers “Apollonius,” the full form of “Apollos.” In support of Apelles is its difficulty; tradition would tend to

Talbert, 172; Polhill, 393; Barrett, 2:883; Fitzmyer, 636; and Witherington, 562. Ernst Käsemann labels both 18:24-28 and 19:1-7 “contradictory and incredible”; see his “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,” in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W. J. Montague; SBT 41; London: SCM, 1964) 136–48, esp.

143. His effort at resolution posits the continuing existence of followers of John the Baptizer and relates the episodes to post-Pauline intra-Christian ­controversies.

458

Acts part 2C.indd 458

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

18:24-28

assimilate unknown to familiar names. 3 Later tradition knew an Apelles as a disciple of Marcion, but it is more likely that this was an attempt to identify Apollos with the person named in Rom 16:10. “Apollonius” might represent the Lucan tendency to use different forms of names from those in the epistles.4 In Acts, however, these tend to be hypocorisms or diminutives. Against the argument for assimilation is the probability that Acts bases its description of this person in part on 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-11, 22; 4:6; 16:12). 5 From that perspective, “Apelles” may be an attempt to dissociate this person from the Apollos of the Pauline circle and “Apollonius” a possible step in that direction. (All three are variants of a theophoric name.) 6 Except for the statement that Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, all of the information about Apollos7 in this passage that is not Lucan creation could be deduced from 1 Corinthians: his wisdom and oratorical ability, as well as his arrival in Corinth following Paul’s first visit.8 His Alexandrian background could well derive from Ephesian local tradition.9 The introduction is heavily loaded. The core, “Apollos came to Ephesus,” essentially identical to v. 19a, is braced by two ­qualifications: his 3

4

5

6 7

8

9

eloquence, which precedes the predicate, and his exegetical skill, which follows it (v. 24). The latter is Lucan in form (Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22).   25  The narrative next affirms that Apollos was a missionary, or at least a teacher.10 Apollos had been taught “the way of the Lord,” an ambiguous phrase that could refer to conventional Judaism (cf. v. 26), but need not; he engaged in vibrant,11 scripturally informed teaching12 that reflected accurate information about Jesus.13 So far so good, but the narrator adds that Apollos “knew only the baptism of John” (lit.). What kind of Christology v. 25 might imply lies beyond conjecture, since Acts 1:5; 13:4-5 view John’s baptism as a preparatory act for Israelites that did not convey the Holy Spirit.14 That would require proper baptism in the name of Jesus, as will be demonstrated a few verses later (19:5-6). Although it seems to cut the Gordian knot, the best solution is to view “the baptism of John” as a Lucan cipher for inadequate doctrine and rite, not explicitly false teaching, since it is based on ignorance rather than deceit, and the like.

Cf. the discussion of Titius Justus under v. 7. George D. Kilpatrick (“Apollos—Apelles,” JBL 89 [1970] 77) argued that “Apelles” may have been original. Examples include “Saul” (7:58, etc.), Silas (15:22, etc.), and Priscilla (18:2, etc.), known in the letters as Paul, Silvanus, and Prisca. Note also the reference to Apollos in Titus 3:13, which indicates that the name remained in some favor in Pauline circles. See the discussion in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 412–13. As Conzelmann (157) notes, the characterization of Apollos, like that of Stephen, is more typical than individual. On the use of 1 Corinthians here, see Pervo, Dating, 102. “Spiritual ardor” (zevwn tw/` pneuvmati) derives from Rom 12:11 (ibid., 116–17). The statement does not demonstrate the existence of followers of Jesus in Alexandria at that time, for Apollos could have learned about Jesus elsewhere. Cf. Aquila, who is characterized as from Pontus, but had been living in Rome, according to the narrator (18:2). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 413), however, asserts that the D-Text (see n. c) claim that Apollos had been instructed in Alexandria

10 11

12

13

14

“no doubt accords with historical fact.” The name “Apollos” is well attested in Egypt (Hemer, Book, 233; see also NewDocs 1 [1981] no. 50, p. 88). Note the frequentative imperfects in v. 25. It is preferable not to relate zevwn tw/` pneuvmati (n. 16 below) to the Holy Spirit. For a contrary view, see Barrett, 2:888, who thinks it unlikely that it does not refer to the Holy Spirit. This is bound up with his general interpretation of 18:24—19:7. Jervell (470) observes that, for Luke, anyone who understood the Scriptures must have interpreted them in a Christian fashion. He allows that Luke may have made him into a “half-Christian” (with many references in n. 376). The expression ta; periv (“the facts about X”) is used ten times in Acts, twice in Luke, notably Luke 24:19. The vocabulary of vv. 23-25 evokes the preface to Luke (1:1-4): periv (“concerning”), which is common enough, but also ajkribw`~ (“accurately”) and kathcevw (“inform,” “teach”). The Apollos story thus resonates with the opening and final chapters of Luke. The Byzantine tradition alters “Jesus” to “Lord” in v. 25. This permits an entirely non-christological reading of Apollos’s education, but that may not have been the intention of the reviser.

459

Acts part 2C.indd 459

8/27/2008 10:16:57 AM

  26-28  Vigorous proclamation by Apollos of his defec-

tive message in the synagogue15 did not escape the attention of Priscilla and Aquila, who made good the gaps in his knowledge.16 Without further ado, vv. 27-28 wrap up the career of Apollos. He wished to move on to Corinth. Why this destination? Why not continue his work in Ephesus or go elsewhere? 1 Cor 16:12 supplies the answer. The D-Text17 attempts to improve the logic of v. 27: “Now some Corinthians who had been visiting Ephesus and had heard Apollos urged him to go with them to their native city. When he consented, the Ephesians18 wrote19 to the disciples in Corinth so that they would receive the man. When he took up residence in Achaea he was of considerable value to the churches.”20 The initiative thus arose from Corinthians, probably believers.21 The notion of visits from Corinth to Ephesus was inspired by 1 Cor 1:11; 16:17. The secondary character of this text is apparent from the letter of recommendation,22 which would not have been

­ ecessary had Apollos waited to return with the visitors, n or, conversely, might well have been written by them.23 The sudden appearance of believers in v. 27 (lit. “brothers and sisters”) indicates the presence of a Christian community, although its origin and composition are unexplained. This datum is the best basis for a claim that an independent tradition of some type underpins this story, but, when agreement with 1 Corinthians is attributed to the use of that epistle rather than as confirmation of the validity of the material, that hypothesis dissipates.24 It is equally likely that Luke supplied this detail as an ad hoc necessity. No other traces of this body exist. Until 19:9 believers in Ephesus remain affiliated with the synagogue. Such tradition as may have existed has been swallowed up by Lucan composition. According to Acts, Apollos, who was first characterized (like Aquila) as “a Jew,” remained primarily a missionary to Jews. Verse 27 does speak, in a Pauline phrase, 25 of his assistance to the believers, but the nature of this

15 The verb is that used for Paul’s preaching at the Ephesian synagogue in 19:8—parrhsiavzomai, used seven times in Acts, always otherwise of Paul. 16 The language is Lucan: the comparative (note the positive in v. 25) ajkribevsteron is used in precisely the same fashion in 24:22; cf. also 23:15, 20. “Expound” (ejktivqhmi), found only in Acts, appears in a kindred sense in 11:4; 28:23 (differently in 7:22). Cadbury and Lake (233–34) identify the ambiguity: Was accurate information augmented or was Apollos given new information? Barrett (2:884–85, 888), asserts that the phrase means that Apollos had received the baptism of John and that he did not need “Christian baptism.” The text is not so clear about Apollos’s baptism, in contrast to 19:3. Haenchen (555) says trenchantly that the statements about Apollos are contradictory: if he taught accurately, he required (v. 25) no further instruction. If he required further instruction, he did not teach accurately. Haenchen (554–55) and Pohill (396–97) note a number of attempts to characterize the theology of Apollos. All are vigorously argued learned conjectures that attempt to fill a gap intentionally left by the ­narrator. 17 Boismard, Texte, 310–11. At v. 27 the important witness p 38 appears. See p. 463 n. f. 18 Hmg reads “the brothers.” 19 The D-Text omits “to encourage” (protrey­ avmenoi).

20 E adds “and in the homes” (kai; katÆ oi\kon), evidently with an eye to 18:8. 21 The D-Text also resolves the dangling participle protreyavmenoi, which could mean that they encouraged either Apollos to go or, more likely, the Corinthians to welcome him, although Barrett (2:890) inclines toward the former understanding. 22 On letters of recommendation in the Pauline world, see Rom 16:1 and, ironically, 2 Cor 3:1-3. On the form, see Clinton W. Keyes, “The Greek Letter of Introduction,” AJP 56 (1935) 28–44; John L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Foundations and Facets: New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) index, 238, s.v. “Recommendation”; and Klauck, Ancient Letters, index, 499, s.v. “Recommendation.” 23 This is what Hmg seems to indicate. Note also that the D-Text eliminates reference to synagogue preaching. 24 For detailed arguments about the use of tradition in vv. 24-28, see Weiser, 2:505–9. 25 “Through grace” (dia; th`~ cavrito~): Rom 12:3; Gal 1:15 (Acts 15:11). For various interpretations of this phrase, see Witherington, 568 n. 28.

460

Acts part 2C.indd 460

8/27/2008 10:16:58 AM

18:24-28

assistance is most easily understood in reference to his skill as a controversialist. Apollos is a missionary very much on the order of Paul.26 Where Paul planted, in Corinth and Ephesus, Apollos watered (1 Cor 3:6). Ramsay was not far from the mark when he said that this episode was included “for the sake of rendering the opening of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians clear and intelligible.”27 The entire episode is remarkable. Apollos is an itinerant missionary with a message about Jesus. Priscilla and Aquila have not engaged in evangelism but ­faithfully

attend the synagogue. They are roused to action only when Apollos arrives and is, like Paul, permitted to preach. Once his defects have been corrected, he is encouraged in his plans to move on to Corinth, where he once more functions as a Christian evangelist in the synagogue, as well as an inspiring preacher to those who had already accepted the faith. A reasonable interpretation is that Luke wished to subordinate Apollos to Paul and did so through the agency of Priscilla and Aquila. The Alexandrian was not a rival to or independent of Paul.28

26 Cf. (again) 18:26 with 19:8 and 18:28 with 9:22. 27 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 267.

28 Support for this view comes from the similarity of 18:28 to 9:20, 22 (Paul in Damascus).

461

Acts part 2C.indd 461

8/27/2008 10:16:58 AM

19

19:1-12  Paul in Ephesus 19:1-7: Conventional Text 1/

While Apollos a was in Corinth,

Paul made his way by the inland route to Ephesus, where he came upon some disciples. 2/ He asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you came to believe?” “No,” they answered, “We did not even hear that there is a Holy Spirit.”b 3/ “What sort of baptism did you receive, then?” “John’s baptism.” 4/ “John’s baptism dealt with repentance,” explained Paul. “He told the people about one who would come after him, in whom they were to believe. Jesus c is the one of whom he spoke.” 5/ Once they had learned this, d they received baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus.

19:1-7: D-Textf 1/



6/

After Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit descended upon them, and they began to speak in tongues e and utter prophecies. 7/ This group numbered about twelve men altogether.

8/

Paul devoted the next three months to preaching in the synagogue, where he vigorously sought to persuade people about the nature of God’s dominion. 9/ Since some of his hearers stubbornly refused k to be convinced and publicly maligned the Movement, he withdrew, and, taking the followers with him, continued his daily presentations in the facility l of Tyrannus. 10/ This lasted for two years, with the result that everyone in Asia, Jews and Greeks alike, heard the message about the Lord. Moreover, God m began to perform remarkable miracles through Paul’s hands. 12/ Indeed, even the handkerchiefs and work clothes that had touched his skin were taken to the suffering, resulting in the

11/

Although Paul’s personal plan was to go to Jerusalem, the Spirit told him to return to Asia. Passing along the inland route he came to Ephesus and

2/

asked the disciples, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you came to believe?” “No,” they answered, “We did not even hear that some people receive a Holy Spirit.” 3/ Paul said, “What sort of baptism did you receive, then?” “John’s baptism.”g 4/ ...

5/

6/

Once they had learned this they received baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus h for the forgiveness of sins. After Paul had laid hands on them the Holy Spirit fell i upon them and they began to speak in tongues j and themselves interpret them and utter prophecies. 7/ Those who had come to believe numbered [ ] twelve persons.

462

Acts part 2C.indd 462

8/27/2008 10:16:58 AM

19:1-12

removal of their illnesses and the expulsion of evil spirits.

a b

c d e f

The forms of the personal name vary. See on 18:24. “Holy Spirit” is anarthrous in both question and response. One could thus translate “a/some,” “the,” or simply “holy spirit.” Variants include “the Messiah” and “the Messiah Jesus.” The demonstrative supplied in the translation is added in D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 314). Or: “In languages.” See comments on 2:4 and the D-Text of v. 6. Boismard, Texte, 312–15. An important witness is p 38, which contains 18:27—19:6, 12-16. Brief as it is, this early (third century ce) papyrus exhibits what may be a more “pure” form of the D-Text, lacking some of the pedantries characteristic of Bezae. See Clark, 220–25; Sylvia New, “The Michigan Papyrus,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 262–69; Édouard Delebecque, “La mésadventure des fils de Scévas selon ses deux versions (Actes 19:13-20),” RSPhTh 66 (1982) 225–32; B. A. Mastin, “A Note on Acts 19:14,” Bib 59 (1978) 97–99; and Barbara Aland, “Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes untersucht an der Apostelgeschichte,” EThL 62 (1986) 5–65, esp. 12–36.

Analysis

“Paul’s Ephesian labors are a meteoric burst before the darkness of the eclipse of his journey to Rome.”1 The actual mission to Ephesus is an exiguous bit of sausage sandwiched between two large slices of bread. The introduction runs from 18:24 to 19:7 (twelve verses), 1 2

g

h i

j

k l m

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 313) uses the imperfect, which might mean, “They started saying,” or perhaps, “They would say.” Many D-Texts add “Christ” (Boismard, Texte, 314). Although Bezae and the Latin tradition read “immediately” (eujqevw~) before “fell,” it is difficult to construe this in p 38. (N-A 27 reports that this papyrus apparently has both words, including “fell” [ejpevpesen]). If the adverb is not read, per the editors and Boismard, it would indicate a state of the D-Text that may not have, at least in this instance, resorted to a favorite word. On “fell,” see 8:16. Some D-Texts (Hmg Cass Sah Eth) read other languages, an assimilation to 2:4, rejected, with reason, by Boismard, Texte, 314. Cf. also the variants in 10:46. Luke may have wished readers to understand that “tongues” means foreign languages. This is the view of BDF §480 (3), which regards the word as an ellipsis. Or: “were hardened (by God). . . .” On the meaning of this word, see below. On the basis of its omission in some versions and its floating position, Boismard (Texte, 317) omits “God” as the subject of v. 11. The logical subject then becomes “the word” (lovgo~) of v. 10.

and 19:21-40 is, effectively, a twenty-verse postscript. The conventional description of missionary activity consumes but thirteen verses (19:8-20). This framework is an important clue to Luke’s understanding of the location. Ephesus,2 an old Ionian foundation that succeeded Pergamum as the metropolis (capital) of Asia, was one

Borgen, Philo, 331. The bibliography on Ephesus is varied and immense. Among the more important items are the following: Richard E. Oster, A Bibliography of Ancient Ephesus (ATLA Bib Ser 19; Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1987); idem, “Ephesus,” ABD 2:542–49; idem, “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate: I. Paganism before Constantine,” ANRW 2.18.3 (1990) 1661–1728; Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995); Paul Trebilco, “Asia,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting,

291–362, esp. 302–57; idem, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 11–37; and Gregory H. R. Horsley, “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament,” NovT 34 (1992) 105–67, which contains copious bibliography. Note also Giancarlo Biguzzi (“Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation,” NovT 40 [1998] 276–90), who relates Artemisian ideology to imperial theology. For additional bibliography, see Shauf, Theology, 127–28 n. 1.

463

Acts part 2C.indd 463

8/27/2008 10:16:58 AM

of the largest cities of the Roman Empire.3 In addition to its governmental and economic importance as a crossroads between Asia Minor and the west, the north, and the south, and as the terminus of a road system that extended to Persia, Ephesus enjoyed the prestige of the cult of Artemis, whose temple was renowned.4 The city endured until the seventh century ce. During the formative period of Christianity, Ephesus was a leading center of the movement 5 and exhibited the religion’s considerable diversity.6 By the late second century, it could claim Paul as its founder7 and the apostle John as a long-time resident.8 With John came (following John 19:25-27) the mother of Jesus, whose patronage was of considerable importance during the Council of Ephesus (431). Together with Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, Ephesus long ranked as a primary see of Greek-speaking Christianity.9 Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors demonstrates the enduring appeal of Ephesus into the Renaissance.10 This commentary posits Ephesus as the author’s probable location.11 Be that as it may, the city reflects the geographical perspective of the narrator, who regards it (rightly) as the most important Pauline missionary base.12 In no other chapter of Acts 3

4 5 6

7 8

9

does a locality come so alive. Abundance of detail will not gain Luke any kudos for historical accuracy in chap. 19.13 Both what he elects to report and what he omits are revelatory. The story opens with an abrupt encounter with some disciples of the Baptizer, who, it transpires, have never heard of the Holy Spirit. After proper initiation, with a minimum of instruction, they disappear (vv. 1-7). Verses 8-10 present the by-now-familiar summary of the clash with and separation from the synagogue, followed by a terse note that two years of activity brought the message to all Asia—hyperbole, no doubt, but indicative.14 Thereafter Paul’s active role ceases (except for a brief note in vv. 30-31 stating that he was dissuaded from taking action). The residue shows the influence of Paul’s mission: After briefly noting his own healing activity, focus shifts to second-class relics15 (vv. 11-12), the frustration of some religious charlatans (vv. 13-17), a general renunciation of magical practice (vv. 18-19), a terse summary (v. 20), a brief statement about Paul’s future plans, with directions to subordinates (vv. 21-22), and the counterproductive efforts of artisans dependent on the cult of Artemis to bring the Jesus movement

Christine Thomas (“At Home in the City of Artemis: Religion in Ephesos in the Literary Imagination of the Roman Period,” in Koester, Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, 81–117) provides a very valuable portrait of the perception of Ephesus in the Greek-speaking world. In addition to the novels she mentions, one might note also the role of Artemis and her temple at Ephesus in Apollonius of Tyre 27, 48–49, 51 (Rec. B) and also (apparently) in the fragment known as Antheia. See Stephens and Winkler, Greek Novels, 277–88. See below. Shauf, Theology, 135–36. See Helmut Koester, “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature,” in idem, Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, 119–40. Irenaeus (A.H. 3.3.4) claims (wrongly) that Paul founded the Christian church in Ephesus. The Acts of John exploits this relationship. See Richard Pervo, “Johannine Trajectories in the Acts of John,” Apocrypha 3 (1992) 47–68. Information about the Jewish community in Ephesus is limited. Much of what Josephus reports deals with Jewish privileges and applies to the province of Asia (e.g., Ant. 14.223–64, passim; 16.27–65). On these matters, see Schürer, History, 1:22–23. Inscriptional evidence is scanty and late.

10

11 12 13

14

15

See Horsley, “Inscriptions,” 121–27; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 137–52, esp. 143–48; and Trebilco, Early Christians, 37–51. No synagogue has yet been unearthed, although I. Eph. 4.1251 mentions “synagogue rulers” and “presbyters” (ajrcisunavgwgoi, presbuvteroi). His basic source was Plautus’s Menaechmi, the location of which Shakespeare translated to Ephesus. Magic plays a major role, as in The Comedy of Errors I.2.98–105 and IV.4.58–62 (an attempted ­exorcism). See pp. 5–7. See Borgen, Philo, 273–85, esp. 282. As Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (“Miracles, Mission,” 18) sharply observes, if one reads Acts 19 as apologetic narrative, its historical improbabilities are intelligible. For this exaggeration, compare Ephesian Tale 1.1.3, which says of the hero Habrocomes: “Everyone in Ephesus (a{pasin ÆEfesivoi~) sought his company, and in the rest of Asia (toi`~ th;n a[llhn ÆAsivan oijkou`si) as well” (trans. G. Anderson, in Reardon, Novels, 128). “Second-class relics” is an ecclesiastical and anachronistic but convenient shorthand.

464

Acts part 2C.indd 464

8/27/2008 10:16:58 AM

19:1-12

into ignominy (vv. 23-40). Not a single convert’s name is recorded, nor is any information about a community of believers supplied. Absent are data about house churches, information about conflicts with some of Paul’s foundations, notably Corinth and Philippi (quite possibly the Galatian churches also), and the efforts to raise the collection, as well as Paul’s considerable personal difficulties, which evidently included imprisonment.16 All in all, Acts 19 appears to be rather unpromising fodder for the biographer of Paul or the historian of early Christianity.17 Even Luke’s fond admirer William Ramsay confessed disappointment.18 Resolution of this dilemma invites the all-but-inevitable conclusion that Luke narrated the triumph of the Pauline mission in Asia symbolically, by portraying epiphanies of divine power demonstrating the defeat of rival forces, including both “regular” and vulgar forms of Judaism and polytheism while dissociating Christianity from a role in public disorder. The term “symbolic” is not put forward as a slippery means for dodging issues, nor does it intimate allegory or suggest that Luke did not believe that these things happened. Unless authors state or strongly imply their

doubts or beliefs,19 it is preferable not to attempt to read their minds. This presupposition is not utterly vitiated by the recognition that Luke composed, essentially invented, much of this material. The bottom line is that Acts 19 represents how the narrator chose to portray Paul’s triumph. The means involve circumstantial representative episodes and effervescent summaries. “Symbolized” is an appropriate word for these means.20 Considerable importance should also be attributed to the “absence” of Paul from three-fourths of the narrative. Paul’s power did not die with him.21 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has contributed a useful thematic outline of Acts 19, with analytic comments.22 She divides the material into seven “scenes” with three major parts: 23 I. Vv. 1-10. Christianity vis-à-vis Judaism A. Vv. 1-7. The True Christian Faith, unlike That of Various Sects, Conveys Authenticating Spiritual Gifts. B. Vv. 8-10. The Formation of a Distinct Religious Community Based on or within the Synagogue. The Movement, which Resembles a Philosophical School, Addresses both Jews and Gentiles.

16 Cadbury and Lake (234–36) provide a full list of items omitted from Acts 19. Attempts to locate the provenance of the “imprisonment epistles” have led numerous researchers to propose that Paul was in custody in Ephesus. See 2 Cor 1:8-11; 6:5; 11:23; and Phil 1:12-26. Two important studies are Wilhelm Michaelis, Die Gefangenschaft des Paulus in Ephesus und das Itinerar des Timotheus (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1925); and George S. Duncan, St Paul’s Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction with Special Reference to the Ephesian Origin of the Imprisonment Epistles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930) 59–161. For a modern review of the problem, with bibliography, see Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1982) 2:135–40; and Trebilco, Early Christians, 83–87. Conzelmann (163) is discreet: “Events occurring in Corinth during the same time . . . remain outside the field of vision.” See also Walter Grundmann, “Paulus in Ephesus,” Helikon 4 (1964) 46–82. 17 See Pervo, Profit, 9–10. On the question of “history,” see pp. 7–12. Johnson (342) says, “Luke had very little real historical information with which to work.” Although this accurately reflects the historical value of the material, it is a difficult presupposition.

18 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 273. He exhibited high regard for vv. 23-40, but disdain for vv. 11-20 tempted him to suspect the hand of a mediocre editor behind those verses. 19 Greco-Roman authors often avoided judgment by attributing matter to a source, either through a phrase like “some people say” or by utilizing a first-person narrative assigned to a character in the narrative. 20 Two issues arise. Luke 2:7 (birth in an animal feeding stall, no space in the inn) utilizes obvious and universal symbols while generating no challenges to rationalism. Ramsay is not alone in finding the supernaturalism of Acts 19 distasteful. The manifest theology of glory on display here is also a challenge to the taste of many. For Luke, the theology of glory was a tool, a means rather than an end. 21 See below. 22 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Miracles Mission,” 8–10, 16–19. This outline closely follows her proposals, and the appended comments, as well as the descriptive captions, build on her work. 23 “Sections” is preferable to “scenes,” as summaries (such as vv. 8-10) are not formally scenes.

465

Acts part 2C.indd 465

8/27/2008 10:16:59 AM

II. Vv. 11-20. The Miraculous Powers of the Christian ­Missionary A. Vv. 11-12. A Summary of Healing Miracles B. Vv. 13-17. The Failure of Some Jewish Exorcists C. Vv. 18-20. The Burning of Magical Books

This part exhibits the overwhelming superiority of Christianity to its competitors outside of the religious establishment.24 III. Vv. 21(3)-40. Polytheist Competition (A. Vv. 21-22. Future Plans) B. Vv. 23-40. Christianity Threatens the Leading Local Cult 1. Vv. 23-28. Paul’s Critique of Polytheism Endangers the Standing of Artemis and Thus the Economic and General Welfare of Ephesus. The Unit Ends with an Acclamation (v. 28). 2. Vv. 29-34. As Disorder Spreads, Asiarchs Intervene to Spare Paul. Final Acclamation (v. 34). 3. Vv. 35-40. A Civic Official Intervenes and Places Blame on the Agitators.

The final episode ends with the effective “dismissal”25 of charges brought by these means. On the one side stand promoters of civic unrest feeling an economic pinch. Asiarchs and the executive secretary side with Paul. The Christian movement presents no danger to society. In short: with friends like these, Christianity need fear no enemies; with such enemies, powerful friends will be plentiful. The narrative forms a crescendo that opens with a dozen misguided believers in

Ephesus and ends with the populace of Ephesus packed into its theater for a pep rally that ends with a threat of Roman intervention. One after another, “fringe groups,” Jews, exploitative exorcists, users (and producers) of magic, and, finally, the great patron goddess herself cannot frustrate the course of the Christian message or impede the work of its incomparable ­missionary.26 Comment   1-7  The D-Text once more illustrates the difficulties of the conventional text. Paul undertook the long and arduous trip to Ephesus at the explicit direction of the Spirit, rather than on his own initiative.27 Divine guidance is emphasized in the D-Text.28 The D-Text also eliminates the synchronism regarding Apollos. More importantly, rather than happen upon a(n isolated?) group of believers, Paul encounters all the “disciples,” who, evidently because of the ministrations of Apollos, have a defective baptism. This explains the Spirit’s overruling of his personal plan. Instead of making the remarkable claim that they have never heard of the Spirit, these persons are unaware that the baptized receive its gift. Verses 5-6 of the D-Text may posit a two-stage view of Christian initiation: water baptism conveys forgiveness of sins, and the imposition of hands the gift of the Spirit.29 Luke did not so systematize the matter, but it could be inferred from Acts 2:38; 8:14-17. 30 Equally tidy is the assurance that interpretation followed the gift of “tongues.” Paul had required this in 1 Cor 14:27-28 and would no doubt do the same in Ephesus.

24 The expression “message about the Lord” (to;n 28 Acts 16:6-10 provides inspiration for the motif. lovgon tou` kurivou . . . tou` kurivou oJ lovgo~) in vv. 10 Cadbury and Lake (229) note that this text likes and 20 frames this section. to multiply such motifs as divine guidance. The 25 Cf. the final verb ajpevlusen (“dismissed”), v. 40. D-Text adds it in 17:15, here, and 20:3. See Cad26 A reasonable objection to this plan is that it does bury and Lake, 237. not include 18:24-28. As often, Luke provides 29 Alternatively, this expansion may be the result of overlapping episodes that look forward and backthe developing baptismal formula. See Haenchen, ward. Paul’s mission to Ephesus began at 18:19, in 553 n. 6. a sense, but the last part of chap. 18 amounts to a 30 Metzger (Textual Commentary, 416) finds this prelude. addition “inept,” since John’s baptism conveyed 27 It may be, as Bruce (405) observes, that the forgiveness. So Luke 3:3, probably correctly, but reviser did not understand 18:22 as a reference to this historicizing is a bit premature. Jerusalem. Note also Fitzmyer, 642, and his references. Barrett (2:893) finds the contrast between human and divine will (boulhv) congenial to Lucan thought.

466

Acts part 2C.indd 466

8/27/2008 10:16:59 AM

19:1-12

There is a difference, however. The D-Text (p Ephrem [catena] Hmg) attributes the interpretation, audibly or internally [Hmg]) to the candidates, but this may be ad hoc, for there was no one else to interpret.31 Still, this is different from the Pauline “regulations.”32 This passage is as strong evidence as any for the hypothesis that there is a “proto-Montanist” orientation in the D-text tradition.33 The D-Text of v. 7 asserts that only after this message and action had these persons become “believers”; that is, none of them were “Christians” and Paul had truly founded the church in Ephesus. This fresh beginning is reinforced by the use of “names” (ojnovmata) for persons, an evocation of 1:15.34 The D-Text represents a relatively early effort to reduce 19:1-7 to a rational account. The adjective “symbolic” fits vv. 1-7, for exegesis understands this as showing that “Paul wins over the sects”35 or representing “the incorporation of fringe groups into the mainstream church.”36 “Sect” and “fringe group” are quite anachronistic for the time of Paul and not fully suitable for Luke’s day, since there can be no fringe without a broad center, and early Christian sects were not reactions against a developed church, but within the accepted limits (Luke held that false teaching was a “postapostolic” phenomenon), this

probably represents Luke’s objective. 37 Another aim is not hard to detect. Like Peter (8:14-17), Paul has been the instrument through which some believers of irregular background receive the gift of the Spirit. John the Baptizer has an honorable place in salvation history, as Peter (1:5, 22) and Paul (13:24-25) had affirmed, but his message and activity have been superseded. 38 The structure of this unit indicates careful composition. Within a frame dealing with the persons in question (vv. 1, 7) are a question about the Holy Spirit, balanced with the reception of the same (vv. 2, 6), a query about baptism, complemented by the administration thereof (vv. 3, 5) and the core contrast between the Baptizer and Jesus (v. 4).39 This artful ring does not inhibit the brisk narrative exposition. The episode begins with an apparently chance meeting between Paul and some believers, reveals that their faith and experience are not satisfactory, quickly corrects both, and ends by revealing their number. Twelve is always an eminently suitable number. Such numbers are characteristic of miracle stories (cf. Mark 6:44; Acts 27:37).40 For Luke, the gift of the Spirit and incorporation of new believers certainly belong to the realm of the miraculous.   1  The first verse41 reiterates the travels of 18:23 from the perspective of Ephesus, to which Paul (who has been

31 For details, see Ropes, Text, 181, 441. debate about Luke’s Gospel, in Acts John the Bap32 1 Cor 14:13 says that speakers should pray for the tizer belongs to a bygone age. power to interpret, but vv. 26-27 view interpreta39 On the structure, see Michael Wolter, “Apollos und tion as distinct from glossolalia. die ephesinischen Johannesjünger,” ZNW 78 (1987) 33 “Proto-Montanist” refers to antecedents of the 49–73, esp. 67–71; Werner Thiessen, Christen in spiritual movement known as “the New Prophecy,” Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in which erupted in Asia Minor in the last third of vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der the second century. Montanists accepted ecstatic Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen: prophecy and ascetic practices. Emphasis on Francke, 1995) 71–75; and Talbert, 174. For an the Spirit in the D-Text, as well as indications of effort to comprehend Apollos within the various ecstatic rapture, suggest that the movement had movements of nascent Christianity, see Pier Franco forebears. Note also the role of the Spirit in the Beatrice, “Apollos of Alexandria and the Origins Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. See also of the Jewish-Christian Baptist Encratism,” ANRW p. 36 n. 44. 2.26.2 (1995) 1232–75. 34 The evidence is slim, a single lectionary, but 40 On the construction oiJ pavnte~ a[ndre~ (e.g., “the Boismard (Texte, 315) asks why the composer of a number of men in its totality”), see Moule, Idiom lectionary would invent this item. Book, 94. Luke normally qualifies numbers with an 35 Haenchen (557), a view Barrett (2:886) regards as adverb indicating approximation (2:4; 4:4; 5:7, 36; “probably right.” Trebilco (Early Christians, 127–34) 10:3; 18:18, 20; 19:7, 34). views these persons as actual disciples of John. 41 The use of ejgevneto (“it happened”) with infinitive 36 Fitzmyer, 642. and the articular infinitive prepositional phrase 37 For a critique of the anachronism of language are marks of the LXX style. about “sects” and the like, see Jervell, 478. 38 Regardless of the outcome of the redaction-critical

467

Acts part 2C.indd 467

8/27/2008 10:16:59 AM

“offstage” since 18:24) came42 from the hinterlands.43 Rather than relate that he proceeded to the living quarters of Priscilla and Aquila, the narrator reports that Paul came upon “some disciples.” “Come upon” (lit. “find,” euJrei`n) is narrative shorthand in Acts and does not imply a search.44 The expression “some disciples” is, in theory, ambiguous, but the lack of a modifier indicates that Luke views them as “Christians” of a sort. Had the author intended to identify these persons as followers of the Baptizer, he could have done so.45 Followers of John may have existed after his death and could have been rivals of the admirers of Jesus, but Acts 19:1-7 is not directly engaged in this hypothetical conflict.46   2  The subject, as Paul’s apparently unmotivated and surprising question (which must be explained by appeal to the desired outcome) establishes, is the nature of baptism in the name of Jesus. Before readers of the present day, at least, can pause to ponder what manner of salutation this might be, their curiosity is inundated by the

reply: these good people have never heard of the Holy Spirit.47 One popular resolution involves construing the verb “is” to mean “is (now) present.”48   3  This interpretation effectively endorses the D-Text in seeking a rational explanation of a historical report.49 In any case, the narrative would require further development, such as a brief exposition of the nature of the Spirit or an assurance that the Spirit has come. Instead, a further question, which addresses the baptismal formula employed, follows. This question (lit. “Into what were you baptized?”) assumes that those being interrogated had been baptized, thus putting to rest Barrett’s hypothesis that this passage and that which follows provide two different approaches to the reception of former followers of the Baptizer. 50 The question also assumes that there is a firm bond between proper baptism and reception of the Spirit. 51 This is a Christian assumption, as is the formulaic expression eij~ tiv, which presumes the noun o[noma (“in whose name?”), that

42 The compound katelqei`n (“come down”) reflects this. The simpler form ejlqei`n (“came” [B M lat]) may be more original, but it is slightly more possible that it was an alteration based on a lack of geographical understanding. 43 Cf. Cadbury and Lake, 236. For other interpretations, see Haenchen, 552 n. 1. 44 Cf. the comments on 18:2. A disparate range of witnesses (D E Y M gig syh boms) smooth the abrupt indirect discourse by placing “find” in a participial phrase. Scribes had difficulty leaving 19:1-7 as they found it. 45 See Shauf, Theology, 107–10; Barrett, 2:893. Luke 5:33 and 7:18 identify “disciples of John” specifically. Weiser (2:515) argues that, despite the terms “disciples” and “believe,” Luke thought that these persons were “not really Christians.” His only basis for this view is to assert it. See pp. 514–16 for a review of research. 46 For data about followers of John the Baptizer, see Lüdemann, Acts, 250–53. Palestine and its neighbors would have been a suitable place for such a conflict (so also Conzelmann, 159: “the closer to Palestine the better”), while the rival Jesus-people would have been more likely those who viewed Jesus as a prophet and/or sage rather than those who viewed him as the heavenly Lord. Although Fitzmyer (641) attributes this unit to “Luke’s Pauline source,” he states on 642: “[N]o one can tell whether it all really happened at Ephesus.” 47 The anarthrous pneu`ma a{gion (“[a] holy spirit”)

48

49

50

51

appears three times in chap. 8: vv. 15, 17, 19. On the use of eij to mean “that,” see Christoph Burchard, “eij nach einem Ausdruck des Wissens oder Nichtwissens Joh 9:25, Act 19:2, 1 Cor 1:16, 7:16,” ZNW 52 (1961) 73–82. So, for example, Witherington, 571. If the episode is historical, it is possible that actual followers of John did not speak of the Spirit, as the association of John and the Spirit may be due to ­Christianization. Cf. also Cadbury and Lake, 237, and a majority of scholars. For a list, see Shauf, Theology, 108 n. 62. Calvin (7:149) is more intelligent than most, taking “Spirit” as a trope referring to spiritual gifts. In Lucan terms, John did speak of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16). Charles K. Barrett, “Apollos and the Twelve Disciples of Ephesus,” in William C. Weinrich, ed., The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (2 vols.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984) 29–39. Conzelmann, 159.

468

Acts part 2C.indd 468

8/27/2008 10:16:59 AM

19:1-12

is, that the “name” has power and that being baptized “into the name” of someone places the candidate into a relationship with the bearer of that name (cf. 1 Cor 1:13-15). Those who claimed baptism in the name of John would be acknowledging the Baptizer as a savior. 52 An actual follower of John would probably have replied: eij~ metavnoian (“for repentance”).   4-7  That viewpoint is, however, assigned to Paul, who provides a compressed statement of the Christian understanding of John, one that would have been difficult for disciples of the Baptizer to grasp. 53 Without demur, these persons accept Paul’s message and submit to Christian baptism and the imposition of hands, promptly exhibiting spiritual gifts. Attempts to extract pre-Lucan tradition from this account will scarcely be worth the effort, for the most that can be said is that some follower/s of Jesus attempted at some place and time to win over adherents of John to their point of view. Even this nebulous reconstruction requires introduction of the (reasonable) hypothesis that disciples of the Baptizer existed. 54 Although Paul’s words

about John (v. 4) evoke the speech of Jesus in 1:5, 55 he could not say, “John baptized with water; you should be baptized in the name of Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit,” because these persons are about to be rebaptized with water and Acts provides no dominical warrant for baptism in the name of Jesus. 56 In addition to the general theme of correction/ supplementation, this account shares two elements with 18:24-28: the name “Apollos” and the phrase “baptism of John.” The latter ties the exegete in knots. In 18:25, it referred to Apollos’s knowledge, corrected by fuller instruction, whereas experience is the referent in 19:3. 57 In the earlier passage, Luke evidently did not wish to speak about Apollos’s baptism, although it is difficult not to infer that it was, by the criteria of 19:1-7, defective. Early readers of Acts would have been most likely to suspect that at least some (i.e., these dozen) members of the community at Ephesus had been introduced to the faith by Apollos prior to his enlightenment by Priscilla and Aquila and thus were not properly initiated. Paul was the founder of “apostolic” Christianity in Ephesus. 58

52 See also Haenchen, 553; Conzelmann, 159; and Barrett, 2:896. 53 The syntax of v. 4 is quite tortured. If the purpose clause (beginning with i{na) followed “the people” and the prepositional phrase “about one who would come after him” followed that, the wording would be more logical. The wording is most probably due to Luke rather than to modification of a source or a later gloss. The translation takes the participle levgwn (“saying”) as making the phrase iterative: John said this repeatedly. See Cadbury and Lake, 237; Moule, Idiom Book, 169; and Bruce, 407. The result is that “so that they would believe” is framed by “the coming one” and “Jesus.” In this verse. the Synoptic message about John the Baptizer is fully Christianized. Cadbury and Lake (238) already compared it to the Gospel of John. Johnson (333) notes that this is the fifth clarification of John the Baptizer’s place in salvation history (1:5; 11:16; 13:25; 18:25). Barrett (2:897) observes that “Jesus” would have been a familiar name to these persons if they were believers and that the new information would have identified him with the coming one of whom John spoke. The narrator is not clear. 54 The hypothesis that these persons were followers of John goes back at least to Chrysostom (Hom. 40, 536d). For attempts to identify pre-Lucan tradition, see Lüdemann (p. 455 n. 102) and Weiser,

55 56 57

58

2:512–14. Käsemann (“Disciples”) does not make a systematic effort to isolate pre-Lucan tradition. Jervell (478) holds that this reference to followers of John the Baptizer is historical. See n. 53. See 2:38 and the comments there. Cadbury and Lake (4:238) may be right: “The ‘baptism of John’ does not for our author necessarily imply direct or indirect influence from the Baptist, it is his name for Christian water baptism without the Spirit.” On this point, Käsemann (“Disciples”) agrees with Bede (77): Ecce Asia . . . nunc et apostolico sacrata numero et prophetali est munere sublimata (“Behold Asia . . . now both hallowed by the apostolic number [12] and exalted by the prophetic gift”). On Christian origins in Ephesus, see Trebilco’s concise review of scholarship in Early Christians, 2–4. Michael Fieger (Im Schatten der Artemis: Glaube und Ungehorsam in Ephesus [Bern: Peter Lang, 1998]) is quite skeptical about the value of Acts for this purpose. Less so is Werner Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen: Francke, 1995). Trebilco is the least skeptical.

469

Acts part 2C.indd 469

8/27/2008 10:16:59 AM

Other solutions require substantial filling in of blanks and squeezing out of alleged inferences from the text. 59 Luke appears to have seen a firm link between doctrine and practice: those who did not understand the meaning of baptism were not properly baptized, and lack of proper baptism meant inadequate knowledge.60 The foreground yields more than the background.61 Although Luke cannot denominate Paul as an apostle, he portrays him doing what apostles did, in this instance the apostles of chap. 8, who supplement an evidently incomplete baptism.62 Just as Stephen and Philip were precursors of Peter (and Paul) in the gentile mission, so Apollos, who is described in terms evocative of Stephen,63 is a forerunner of Paul in Ephesus. The allusions to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (message of the Baptizer, twelve followers) and to the opening chapters of Acts—the contrast between Jesus and John, gift of the Spirit, the ministries of Stephen and Philip, the collapse of those who view religion (and magic) as means for a good living, the miracles of Peter and Paul (5:12-16; 19:11-12)—endow Ephesus with a special character.64   8  The narrator then abandons these twelve65 and reports Paul’s overture to the synagogue as in 18:19.66

To all intents and purposes the story resumes from that point, as if nothing had intervened. In summary form, the text reports the customary mission that begins in the synagogue and results in separation. This is the last time that Paul is represented as preaching in a synagogue.67 Atypically, the synagogue work lasts for three months and its subject is “the kingdom (or “dominion”) of God.”68 This is the only time, apart from in Rome (28:23, 31), that the phrase is used to define Paul’s message and thus evokes both the beginning (1:3) and the close (28:31) of the book.69 Its meaning must be comprehensive, since no one will claim that Luke had Paul speak over several months without mentioning the place of Jesus in salvation history.70 The phrase has more to do with Christology than with eschatology.71 The surprise is that the synagogue put up with him for so long a period.72 In Ephesus, Paul does not announce a turn to the gentiles. Jews73 will continue to be included in his outreach.74   9-10  As in Corinth (18:7), the mission moves to new quarters, but, rather than a private house, Paul holds forth in a (possibly rented) facility.75 This brief notice artfully indicates both the popularity of his message (no

59 An example is Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:232–34. 60 On the conflicts over baptism in the third century, see François Bovon, Studies in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 61 Shauf (Theology, 144–61) seems to reach a similar conclusion in his complicated study of the passage. He understands the passage as an introduction to chap. 19 and its purpose as the magnification of Paul. 62 Käsemann, “Disciples,” 144–46; and Turner, Power, 397. 63 Note the similarity in language between 6:10 and 18:25. Like Stephen, Apollos was a powerful preacher who effectively refuted Jews with his interpretations of Scripture in synagogue settings (6:9-10; 18:24, 28). See Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:233. 64 On these parallels and evocations, see Spencer, Portrait, 232–36; and Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 231–39. 65 Jacquier (569) remarks that these twelve persons disappear as abruptly as they appeared. 66 Note the similarity of the verb ejparrhsiavzeto (“preach boldly”) to that used of Apollos in 18:26. The D-Text supplies the proper name “Paul” and notes that he preached “with great power”

67 68

69

70 71

72 73

74 75

(Boismard, Texte, 315), clearly secondary but good preparation for what is to come. For various interpretations of the significance of this, see Shauf, Theology, 111. The evidence for and against the article with periv (“about”) is rather evenly divided. Without it, the participle has no object, but none is required. Barrett (2:904) says that it was added to conform with 1:3. This is a good point, but the opposite, that it is parallel to 1:3, is better in the context. Its other use to describe preaching in Acts is in 8:12 (Philip). Shauf (Theology, 164–65) emphasizes its typical character. See Weiser, 2:526–27. Acts 28:31 is different, including both “the kingdom” and the message about Jesus. On its meaning here, see Rackham, 348. The request for a longer stay in 18:20 evidently anticipates this matter. As Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:236) points out, it is Jews from Asia who raise the charges against Paul in the temple (21:27-28). On the atypical features of these verses, see Shauf, Theology, 165–67. On rented quarters as a base for teaching, see 28:30 (if that is the correct understanding) and Acts of

470

Acts part 2C.indd 470

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

19:1-12

ordinary house was of sufficient size for the audience), its relative affluence, and Paul’s status. Like a philosopher, he delivers public instruction via lectures. Another variation from the typical is that the mission lasted for two years, surpassing even Corinth in duration. Finally, the message reached “everyone in Asia.” This evidently reveals Luke’s awareness that Paul used large urban centers as bases from which he and other evangelists radiated throughout a province, and beyond.76 The statement about a mission of two years’ duration and the data about Tyrannus’s “school” or “hall” appear to derive from local tradition.77 The separation (v. 9a) is equally distinctive. The dissidents constitute a minority (“some,” tine~ [cf. 15:5]). They attacked the movement in a synagogue assembly (apparently) with abusive language78 with motivation derived from the exodus tradition.79 The implication is that their stubbornness and vehemence rather than their number prompted Paul to bring about a formal

76

77

78 79

separation and establish a distinct, independent community.80 The term plh`qo~ is ambiguous.81 The D-Text, in addition to recasting the initial adverbial clause as an independent sentence,82 glosses this word with “of the gentiles,” identifying the setting as a gentile crowd, possibly a juridical confrontation. The sequel shows that this does not fit.83 Reference to “daily” teaching84 evokes both a parallel to and a contrast with Jesus, who taught daily in the temple (Luke 19:47; 85 cf. 21:37). The focus of religious life has shifted from temple to house to “facility” or “school.”86 The term scolhv means “leisure,” which, as Sir 38:24 points out, is the basis of learning. It is the source of English “school,” which, by metonymy, often means a place. That is the general understanding of the term in Acts 19:9, but it could mean “under the sponsorship of Tyrannus.” In any case, the activity would require a regular space.87 The language suggests that Tyrannus’s facility was (at one time) familiar to Ephesian believers, but this is not a necessary

J­ ustin 3 (above a bath; the text is apparently corrupt). On a rented cult site, see the Sarapis Aretalogy from Delos, lines 15–16 (Appendix 2). Cf. 1 Thess 1:7-8, as well as Philemon and the Deutero-Pauline evidence provided by Colossians. See Christian R. le Roux, “Ephesus in the Acts of the Apostles: A Geographical and Theological Appraisal,” in Herwig Firesinger et al., eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesus: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995 (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999) 307–13. To this Haenchen (560) would add the three months in the synagogue, but that is questionable, for the thesis that Paul always began in the synagogue is Lucan and cannot be verified from the letters. On kakologevw (“malign,” used only here in [Luke and] Acts), see NewDocs 2 (1982) no. 54, p. 88. The verb sklhruvnw is used in the active (e.g., Exod 7:3; 9:12) and passive (e.g., Exod 8:15; 9:35). The question here is whether the form is passive and, if so, whether God is the unstated agent. This would not counter Lucan thought, but the verb could also be middle (“hardened themselves”), the option taken in the translation. This language has raised theological problems. Both Philo and Josephus avoid it, for example. See Spicq, Lexicon, 3:261–62; and Karl Ludwig and Martin A. Schmidt, ­“ pacuvnw,” TDNT 5:1022–31, esp. 1023–24, esp. 1030–31. This is another evocation of Stephen (7:51).

80 The verb ajforivzw implies formality (cf. Luke 6:22). See Johnson, 339. Note the alliteration, four consecutive words beginning with a-. 81 Barrett, 2:904. 82 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 316) introduces what is now the next sentence with the tovte (“then”) of which it is fond. 83 Ropes, Text, 182. The D-Text would mean, by the strict rules of grammar, that Paul separated the believers from the gentiles. 84 The present participle dialegovmeno" (“lecturing”) refers to action subsequent to the aorist “separated.” See Moule, Idiom Book, 102. 85 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 316) recognizes this by reading to; kaqÆ hJmevran (“daily,” an accusative of respect) precisely as in Luke 19:47 (unless, as is possible, this is more original, with the article later omitted as needless). 86 The name “Tyrannus” is attested at Ephesus: NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 102 (k), p. 186; and Hemer, Book, 120–21. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 316) offers a variant: “a certain Tyrannius” (see n. 88) and adds the time of this teaching: “from the fifth to the tenth hour” (1100–1600 hours). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 417) says that this may be accurate and could have been “preserved in oral tradition before being incorporated into the text of certain manuscripts.” In fact, it is a novelistic detail. 87 For a critique of the translation “hall,” see NewDocs 1 (1981) no. 82, pp. 129–30; Trebilco,

471

Acts part 2C.indd 471

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

c­ onclusion.88 In the course of two more years89 the message90 had spread throughout the province.   11-12  The summary, which continues the summation of vv. 8-10,91 is, like that in 5:12-16, based on Mark 6:55-56.92 The similarity is not merely formal. Just as the former epitomizes the apex of the mission to Jews in Jerusalem, so this résumé expresses the high point of Paul’s mission to gentiles.93 The summary is a single

88

89

90

91

92 93

94

euphonious sentence.94 As in the case of Peter’s shadow (5:15), the result clause appears to imply that the use of cloth was a consequence of the extraordinary healing power on display rather than an example of it, but the construction is loose.95 Paul surpasses Jesus (Mark 5:28-29; 6:56) in power, for material96 that has been in contact with his body is effective even when removed from him.97 This report has inspired a number of

“Asia” 311–12; and Barrett, 2:904–5. Abraham J. Malherbe (Social Aspects of Early Christianity [2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983] 89–91) suggests that the term may refer to a guild hall and connects the report with Paul’s craft. See also the literature cited in Shauf, Theology, 169 n. 143. The variant tino~ (“a certain”), which has a range of support (D*c E H L P Y 33 614, a number of other minuscules, and varied versional evidence), does not support this interpretation. The reference to a three-year ministry in 20:31 suggests that this time was subsequent to the three months of v. 8. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 316–17) fashions the result clause (classical Greek would prefer the indicative as this is an actual result rather than an intention) into a temporal (“until”) construction and ceases at “message,” eliminating the qualifying “of the Lord” and the references to Jews and Greeks. Other witnesses of that tradition change “Lord” to “God” and/or “message” (lovgon) to “messages” (lovgou~), possibly an attempt to indicate numerous sermons. The conventional text is typically Lucan, which is not a decisive point in its favor, but the D-Text overlooks the evident frame in v. 20 (where the D-Text also differs). These variants look like rewriting for its own sake. “Word” (lovgo~) is practically a shorthand expression for “mission” in Acts. See Johnson, 339. For arguments linking vv. 11-12 to vv. 8-10 rather than to the sequence, see Shauf, Theology, 176; and Garrett, Demise, 90. As often, the structure is overlapping: vv. 11-12 form a complex of “word and deed” with vv. 8-10 and also prepare for the sequence. See Pervo, Dating, 36–38. 2 Corinthians 10–13 indicates that some found Paul’s miracles rather quite run-of-the-mill (i.e., ta;" tucouvsa"). On this, see Haenchen, 563. The use of the negative ouj (“not”) with a participle is emphatic. The same construction (with singular participle) appears in 28:2. Cadbury and Lake (239) say that the litotes is a “fixed idiom of Hellenistic Greek.” Roughly contemporary examples of precisely the same phrase include Plutarch Ant.

14.4; Lib. ed. 3 (Mor. 3d); and Artemidorus Onir. 3.20. Bruce (410) notes that the expression is common in Vettius Valens. Rather than “Hellenistic Greek,” it is preferable to say that this litotes was common in the second century ce. Euphony is achieved through seven uses of –ou- and five initial uses of a-. Shauf’s semi-objection to rendering dunavmei~ as “miracles”—“as if any ‘miracle’ could be said to be ‘usual’” (Theology, 170 n. 149)—misunderstands the ancient understanding of miracle. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 92–95. 95 The plural “hands” indicates contact rather than simple agency and thus prepares for the logical next step: that with which the hands have been in contact. 96 The meanings of the terms translated “handkerchiefs and work clothes” (soudavria h] simikivnqia) is far from certain. The latter may have been towels folded over the cincture (a rope belt). A reasonable guess is that both were used to wipe away dirt and perspiration. If so, the underlying notion would be the healing property of spittle and other excretions, for an unrefined example of which, see Epiphanius Pan. 19.1.13. Klauck (Magic, 98) resolves the issue by referring to “the Apostle’s laundry.” See Cadbury and Lake, 239–40; Conzelmann, 164; Trebilco, “Asia,” 313–14; and Barrett, 2:907. Richard Strelan (“Acts 19:12: Paul’s ‘Aprons’ Again,” JTS 54 [2003] 154–57) proposes that the items in question were part of an orator’s habit and thus endowed with power from the charismatic speaker. 97 Other instances of healing cloth are IG IV 951,48–54 (Temple of Asclepius at Epidauros, no. 6); Plutarch Sulla 35.3–5; and Athenaeus Deipn. 5.212F. Historia Augusta 5.7 states that people were condemned for wearing about their necks garlands removed from imperial busts or statues as an apotropaic against fever. (The crime would be laesa maiestas; the power would be analogous to “the king’s touch.”) Note also the mantle of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:8-14). For a close parallel from early Christian hagiography, see Sulpicius Severus Life of Martin of Tours 18.4–5. Act. John 62 (set in Ephesus) seems to imitate Mark 6:56, but the connection to Acts 19 may have been in the author’s mind.

472

Acts part 2C.indd 472

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

19:1-12

t­ heological qualifications,98 but the message is clear enough: human misery, the fruit of Satan’s power, is being wiped off the face of the earth. The inclusion of

both the sick99 and the possessed100 is typical of summaries (Mark 1:34). These groups lay the ground for the next unit.101

notes that God is the primary agent. This, however, 98 Witherington (578) observes that the narrais always true. In the end, he can only approve tor does not claim that “Paul traded in healing its concrete understanding of salvation. Shauf handkerchiefs or the like, or that he initiated such (Theology, 172) rightly states: “It emphasizes both practices.” Bruce (410) states, “The healing virtue the power of the Christian God to bring about resided not in those pieces of cloth but in the faith these feats and the status of the characters through of those who used them.” In the tradition, such whom they are performed as emissaries of that relics usually function in an ecclesial context, workGod who works such wonders.” On p. 218 n. 320 ing ex opere operato only to teach a lesson or bring he lists a number of authorities who admit “[t]hat about a conversion. The faith of the agent receives v. 12 sounds an awful lot like magic.” more emphasis than that of the patient. For various and often amusing interpretations, see Haenchen, 99 The verb ajpallavssw (“remove” [v. 12]) is a technical term in this connection: Lucian Philops. 562; and Shauf, Theology, 111–13. The latter rightly 16; Peregr. 28; PGM 13.245; Ps.-Plato Eryxias 401C; notes that Protestant commentators since Calvin Caracalla 5.7; and the D-Text of Luke 9:40 and Acts have been concerned about the evident support 5:15. for the use of relics in these verses. One who finds such support is Jacquier, 573. Zahn (681–82) is cer- 100 Apollonius went to Ephesus in response to a summons and averted the plague by recognizing the tain that family members of sick persons obtained presence of a “demon” (daivmwn), which he had the these items from Priscilla, who promptly returned Ephesians kill by stoning in the theater (Philostrathem after use. This balances the role of Aquila, tus Vit. Apoll. 4.10). who was unquestionably the minister of baptism in 19:5 (Zahn 675 n. 92). Klauck (Magic, 98–99), while 101 Acts has previously reported but one exorcism by Paul (16:16-18). admitting that “[t]he understanding of miracles in v. 12 is located in dangerous border territory,”

473

Acts part 2C.indd 473

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

19

19:13-22 An Attempted Exorcism and Its ­Aftermath 19:13c-14: Conventional Text 13/

14/

15/

16/

18/

21/

Some itinerant Jewish exorcists endeavored to employ the name of the Lord Jesus in their work with those possessed by evil spirits. They used this formula: “I adjure you by the name of that Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” Among those attempting to follow this technique were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest. a

19:13c-14: D-Textb

13c/

They used this formula: “We adjure you by the name of that Jesus whom Paul proclaims.”

14/

Among whom c also sons of Sceva, a certain priest, wished to do the same thing, as they had a custom of exorcizing such persons, and coming in to the possessed man they began to call upon the name, saying, “By Jesus whom Paul d preaches we command you to come out.”e



In response the evil spirit said to them, “I am familiar with the name of Jesus and know that of Paul, but who are you people?” The possessed person then leapt at them and was able to overpower the entire group.f They ended up running away from that house wounded and nude. 17/ Word of this incident spread among all the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus. All were filled with awe and praised the name of the Lord Jesus. Those who had become believers g began to come forward in large numbers to confess and disclose their improper practices, h 19/ and many persons who had engaged in magic collected their texts and burned them in public. The value of these items was calculated at 50,000 pieces of silver. 20/ In such ways proclamation of the Lord’s message grew mightily and went from strength to strength. In the wake of these accomplishments Paul resolved, with the guidance of the Spirit, i to travel through Macedonia and Achaea j and then on to Jerusalem. “After I have been there,” he said, “I must see Rome as well.” 22/ He sent two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, on to Macedonia, but he himself spent some more time in Asia. k

474

Acts part 2C.indd 474

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

19:13-22

a

b c

d e

f

The translation views h\san . . . poiou`nte" (“there were . . . doing”) as a participial phrase rather than as a periphrastic equivalent to the imperfect. Boismard, Texte, 318. Or: “while . . .” (ejn oi|~). This is a questionable rendition (ejn w/| would be preferable), but one that solves the problem of transition here. P38 reads “the apostle Paul.” The D-Text is inspired by 16:18 (an exorcism by Paul). Note, in particular, the verb paraggevllw. Shauf (Theology, 226) says that this shows that ojrkivzw (“adjure”) is not “freighted with magical connotations.” This is not convincing, since the passage is based on the intertextual link (as he also observes) and could have been used precisely because of the “magical connotations.” Ephrem presents a “singular paraphrase” (Ropes,

Analysis

The structure of the following unit is not as clear as first appears. Verses 13-17 report a failed exorcism, properly concluded with public awe and marked, in vv. 13 and 17, with a bracket: “the name of the Lord Jesus.”1 Verses 18-19 follow as a logical consequence: magic names can boomerang. Talbert’s view of vv. 13-19 as a parody of a miracle story captures something of the thrust of the narrative, if not its form.2 Verses 11-19 flow in an artfully entwined crescendo. The detailed episode seems less artful. Beginning with a general summary in v. 13, the narrative awkwardly follows with a sentence identifying some specific practitioners (v. 14), then leaps (vv. 15-16) to a specific example, engaged medias in res, that may involve but two of the brothers identified in v. 14. The D-text of vv. 13c-14 exposes the problems of the conventional text by solving them. Scaeva is not certainly Jewish or a high priest, although the context 1 2 3

4

g

h i j

k

Text, 183) of v. 16, not preferred or cited by ­Boismard. The tense of the participle varies. The perfect (here translated) is most likely the source of the D-Text variants of present and aorist, since it is less likely that an editor or a scribe would introduce the perfect. Or: “Confess and reveal their spells.” Or: “resolved.” See the comments. A range of witnesses omit the article before “Achaea.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 320) includes it, a simpler and less probable solution. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 321) states that Paul spent but a short time (and improves the prepositional phrase. “Asia” is a synecdoche for “Ephesus.” Haenchen (569 n. 5) lists 20:16; 20:4; 21:29; 21:27; 24:19 as examples.

implies that he was Jewish.3 By eliminating the number of his sons (or altering it to “two,” as in Gig) the apparent conflict between the “seven” and the “both” (ajmfotevrwn [v. 16]) evaporates.4 The conventional text may be corrupt, but the D-Text addresses those points where corruption could be suspected and is thus almost certainly a correction. 5 A more likely option is that Luke used a source that lacked the number “seven,” which he inserted. Scholarship generally assigns this episode to a source, but little can be affirmed of its nature or extent. The name of Paul is almost certainly a Lucan addition,6 and Ephesus (or Asia) need not have been the original location. The final words (v. 20) indicate that the encounter took place in a hitherto unmentioned house.7 Since Dibelius, it has been popular to assign this anecdote a “non-Christian” origin. This is possible, but disapproval is not a valid ground for such attributions. Dibelius judged this “a story which serves to entertain

To 19:17 compare 9:42 (raising of Tabitha). Talbert, 175. See below. P38, however, retains “Jewish” and “high priest.” Cadbury and Lake (241) note the Latin tendency to use sacerdos for ajrciereuv~. For Ephrem (440), Scaeva was a polytheist priest. Two issues emerge: (1) the use of “both” to mean “all,” which is quite vulgar; and (2) the difficulty of overpowering seven men. “Them” rather than “both” made its way into the majority text. Luke uses “both” in 23:8, but it is not clear whether this means “all.” See the comments there.

5

6 7

For defenses of the priority of the D-Text of 19:14, see Sylva New, “The Michigan Papyrus,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 262–69; and William A. Strange, “The Sons of Sceva and the Text of Acts 19:14,” JTS 38 (1987) 97–106. On the textual questions, see also Ropes, Text, 183; Cadbury and Lake, 240–41; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 417–18; and Shauf, Theology, 226–27. Barrett (2:911) is more cautious on this point. The demonstrative ejkeivnou could be rendered as “that house” or “his house.” In the latter case, it would refer to the person of v. 16. The style, as

475

Acts part 2C.indd 475

8/27/2008 10:17:00 AM

and fosters no religious or personal interest whatever.”8 This view, which assumes a firm dichotomy between “magic” and “religion,”9 is quite incorrect. Many Christians would have been proud of the apologetic value of the name of Jesus.10 Dibelius also disapproved of the humor of this episode.11 One element of ridicule is the role taken by sons of a Jewish high priest. Although it is possible that someone who did not differentiate between Jews and Christians might have concocted this story,12 it is more probable that the episode stems from Christian circles. Rough as the story is, it has a learned element: only the high priest was permitted to pronounce the most potent (and “magical”) of names.13 The author may have contributed this note. The most definite Lucan contribution is probably the name of Paul in vv. 13 and 15, and he may have contributed to the climax. Although attempts to identify and delineate a source yield a number of interesting hypotheses, source analysis cannot make a substantial contribution to exegesis here.14 Formally, this is a parody of an exorcism. Typical features include the adjuration of the exorcist (cf. Mark 5:7, which uses the same verb, ojrkivzw); the resistance of the demon, who reveals superhuman knowledge (cf. Mark 1:24); the potency of names; and the extraordinary strength of the patient (cf. Mark

8

9 10 11 12

13

14 15

5:3-4). When the conclusion is taken into account, it will appear that 19:13-17 is a parody of a particular ­exorcism (Mark 5:1-20||Luke 8:26-39). A literary parody of a specific written source does not correspond to popular tradition or a “secular anecdote.” The style, which has a certain verve and complexity, also tells against popular tradition.15 Luke has recast whatever resources were ­available. Comment   13  The generalizing introduction is an editorial

contribution, designed like other miracle summaries (cf. Mark 1:32-34) to make the particular a representative of a general trend. Unlike other summaries, this specifies the formula used.16   14  The name “Skeuas” is apparently Latin Scaeva, which, presuming that this is not a family cognomen, looks like a nickname: “Lefty.” It is attested for gladiators.17 One might suspect a joke, since the left side was unfortunate, sinister, yielding an inauspicious designation, like a physician who rejoiced in the name Dr. Gluecklos, but recognition of this would require some knowledge of Latin.18 Scaeva is a problem for those who

Cadbury and Lake (242) note, is Lucan. See Luke attempt to better—the verb ejfavllomai (“leap 7:37; 8:27; 9:5. upon”) has a certain irony (not appreciated by the Dibelius, Studies, 19. For a catalogue of scholars D-Text, which uses an alternative), since it is found who are disappointed by the tone of this episode, in 1 Kgdms 10:16; 16:13 for the descent of the prosee Shauf, Theology, 114. phetic spirit upon a person, and the finite verb is See the excursus “Magi,” “Magic,” and “Magicians,” accompanied by two participles, on which see BDF pp. 207–9. §421. One example is Justin Dial. 85.3, who speaks of 16 The formula “name the name” appears only here Jewish exorcists who employ the name of Jesus. (v. 13) in the Gospels and Acts. It is DeuteroSee Pervo, Profit, 63. Pauline. Note Eph 1:21 and the comments and One will think of Juvenal’s female Jewish priest references of Clinton Arnold, Ephesians: Power and (Sat. 6.542–547, on which see Georgi, Opponents, Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of 99–103). Its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) If one seeks a historical figure behind the story, 55. Cf. also 2 Tim 2:19. the title of “high priest” would have been assumed 17 See BDAG, 927, s.v. Skeua'"; Hemer, Book, 234; to promote business. Priests have more knowledge and Louis Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec and status than nonpriests, and chief priests pos(Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 278; sess even more. See Cadbury and Lake, 241; and Limoges: Bontemps, 1940; reprinted, Amsterdam: Trebilco, Early Christians, 148–49. Hakkert, 1971) 70–72 and 180–82. See Weiser, 2:523–25; and Lüdemann, Acts, 18 Cf. “Eutychus” in 20:7-12. 255–56. Although the order of the opening words is a bit odd, since “at them” (ejpÆ aujtouv~) precedes the relative clause—an arrangement many witnesses

476

Acts part 2C.indd 476

8/27/2008 10:17:01 AM

19:13-22

seek a historical kernel for this story and also for those who do not.19 As a figure for ridicule, he is admirably well placed and has but one function: to be the progenitor of no fewer than seven sons who make their living as itinerant exorcists. The claim that the progeny of a high priest would pursue such an undignified way of life is slanderous.20 This allegation sets the polemical tone, for the scions of Scaeva’s line were engaged in no mission,21 nor were they emissaries of the Israelite faith.22 They were participants in a highly competitive business, the demands of which required them to introduce the name of “that Jesus proclaimed by Paul” into their therapeutic formulae.23 Theological niceties were not relevant; what counted was a name that worked. As even a cursory scan of the Greek magical papyri reveals, their opinion was not isolated.24 However déclassé their behavior may have seemed to some, Luke probably wished the reader to view these

persons as occupying the highest rung on the ladder of Jewish exorcists, for, as Haenchen observes, defeating the league leader is more impressive than eking out a win over a basement dweller.25 The number seven, holiest of integers, enhances this cachet. It prepares for the defeat of seven exorcists by a single demon, in contrast to the poor person who survives one exorcism only to be overwhelmed by seven superior demons (Luke/Q 11:26).26   15  Following the general summary of v. 13 and the more particular summary of v. 14, the next verse leaps into the midst of a specific instance. One longs for the equivalent of “on one of these occasions.”27 The abruptness is literarily effective: readers are swept from generalities into the midst of an exorcistic conflict. The evil spirit (repeating the demonological language of v. 13) acknowledges the persons/beings named in the formula,28 but disparages the users of the formula. Names, even the name(s) of Jesus (and Paul), do not

19 On the question of Scaeva’s identity, see B. A. Mastin, “Scaeva the Chief Priest,” JTS 27 (1976) 405–12; Fitzmyer, 649–50; and Shauf, Theology, 115. Fitzmyer is willing to entertain the possible translation “a Jew, a Chief Priest,” and thus the possibility that he was a chief priest of the imperial cult. The social difficulties—that the sons of so wealthy and distinguished person would be itinerant exorcists—are even greater than for the heirs of a Jewish high priest. After citing an interesting conjecture of F. C. Burkitt, which includes its own slander (“Scaeva was no doubt a rascally Levantine”), Cadbury and Lake (241) conclude “that Luke regarded these men as Jews.” From the historical perspective, Luke either credulously accepted a dubious report or intentionally misrepresented these persons as actual sons of a high priest. See the apposite comments of Haenchen, 565. 20 If the author viewed the Asiarchs of v. 31 as high priests of the imperial cult, this would set up a nice contrast. 21 Those who took up the wandering life as a vocation saw it differently. Jesus was a wandering teacher who cast out demons and sent forth his followers to do the same (in pairs [Mark 6:7]). Dio of Prusa understood himself as possessing a philosophical call to an itinerant life. Such missionaries could appeal to Heracles. Gods, especially Dionysus, did the same. For their critics, however, itinerancy was a means of getting out of town a step ahead of the sheriff. The Onos 35–41 offers a polemical portrait

22

23

24

25 26 27 28

of this religious lifestyle, intensified in the parallel: Apuleius Metam. 8.26–31. Josephus Ant. 8.42–49 proudly describes the exorcistic potency of formulae composed by Solomon and applied by one Eleazar, who invoked the name of Solomon. The Testament of Solomon contains a number of alleged examples of this material. The language reflects missionary competition. Cf. such expressions as “the God of Andrew,” and the like, in the Apocryphal Acts: e.g., Act. Andr. Greg. Epit. 7; 13; Act. John 42; 44; Act. Paul 7/9; Act. Pet. (Verc.) 25.13. Cf. also Justin Dial. 85.3 (see n. 10) and Origen Cels. 1.22. For example, the spell in PGM 4.3007–86 contains numerous voces magicae that appear to be based on divine names in the Hebrew Bible, such as IOE, ABRAOTH, and IAEL, a mention of the “god of the Hebrews, Jesus,” a summary of the exodus miracles, the seal of Solomon, and an injunction to the user to abstain from pork. PGM 8.60–61 lists “great names,” including IAO, SABAOTH, and ADONAIE. Haenchen, 565. Haenchen (ibid.) archly comments that a college of seven exorcists would have to split fees. See above on the D-Text, which seeks to repair the glitch. The use of two different verbs meaning “know” (ginwvskw, ejpivstamai) is elegant variation. See Moule, Idiom Book, 198. The emphatic particle mevn is probably a later addition, motivated by the

477

Acts part 2C.indd 477

8/27/2008 10:17:01 AM

work apart from proper procedure.29 This soothing thesis stands in tension with the implication of vv. 11-12, upon which it may be seen as a restraint. However comforting to the interpreter this possibility may be, it is deduction about matters on which the text is silent.   16  The boisterous climax is worthy of New Comedy.30 The query of v. 15 was merely rhetorical. The answer comes from the patient, who so discomforts the would-be healers that they must take to their heels, leaving their dignity behind with their dress. The proceedings are like the film of an exorcism run in reverse. Unfortunate victims of demon possession may possess nearly superhuman strength (Mark 5:2-4) and eschew clothing (Luke 8:2731). When demons engage exorcists in dialogue, the latter are expected to win (Mark 1:24-25; 5:7-12).32 Finally, demons ought to be put to flight, rather than cause their opponents to flee. Entirely in keeping with the nature of such stories (cf. 16:16-18), Paul does not, out of humanitarian or evangelistic concerns, subsequently visit this poor creature to expel the demon. The focus is not on relief of the possessed but frustration of the opposition. Satan’s realm is divided against itself and cannot stand.33

29

30

31

32 33 34

The consensus of scholarship is that in this episode Luke presents his view of the distinction between “magic” and “religion.”34 Scott Shauf has waged a vigorous campaign against this interpretation. His argument includes much valuable information and analysis. 35 He is correct in that the passage does not label the sons of Scaeva as magicians, but the aftermath strongly indicates that their failure led to a general renunciation of magical practices,36 and this, together with the strong implication that the exorcists in question were not public benefactors but individuals engaged in making a living, like Simon of Samaria (8:4-25),37 enhances the view that the distinction was one object of this raucous episode.38 The major theme, as Haenchen (565), followed by Shauf, observes, is the great success of Paul that leads to this, and subsequent, humiliations of the competition, from whatever quarter. Plutarch wrote a clause that could have been composed for the benefit of commentators on Acts: “[S]orcerers (oiJ mavgoi) advise those possessed by demons (daimizomevnou~) to recite and name over to themselves the Ephesian letters (ta; ÆEfevsia gravmmata pro;~ aujtou;~ katalevgein

t­ heological concern to distinguish the name of Jesus from that of Paul. The ms. evidence is rather evenly divided. That procedure may be variously understood as invocation by authorized persons, faith on the part of the exorcist, or otherwise. The narrator does not explicate the matter. An example is Plautus’s Casina 758–954, in which a male slave disguised as a woman receives two elderly men, who escape from “her” room humiliated and injured. This Lucan addition is an inference from Mark 5:15. This behavior was (and is) characteristic of the mentally disturbed. Cf. Juvenal Sat. 2.71; 14.287; Lucian Salt. 83. On these dialogues, see Bultmann, History, 224. This is the essence of Susan Garrett’s argument (next note) Shauf (Theology, 116 n. 107) provides a catalogue of commentators who share this view. The most detailed argument for this view is Garrett, Demise, 90–99. She calls attention to the use of the verbs katakurieuvw (“dominate”) and ijscuvw (“be strong,” “prevail”) in v. 16, words found also in the important passage Luke 11:21-22 (93 and 157 n. 30).

35 Shauf, Theology, 177–224. 36 Shauf (Theology, 231–32) argues that vv. 18-20 are not connected to the preceding. If he is correct, one must admit that the narrator is making it difficult for the reader. 37 On this, see Garrett, Demise, 91–92. For other indications of the parallelisms between Acts 2–8 and 19, see Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:238. 38 Shauf (Theology, 197) allows the inference that these exorcists sought to make money. He refers to (p. 201 n. 256) but does not discuss the two uses of “exorcist” in polytheist literature. One, an epigram attributed to Lucian (Anth. Pal. 11.427), speaks of an exorcist who drove out numerous demons (daivmona polla; . . . ejxebalÆ ) not by his oaths but by his foul breath. Ptolemy Apotelesmatica 4.4.11 treats exorcists with “the inspired” (qeo­ lhvmptoi) and dream interpreters (ojneirokrivtai) in a discussion of astrological influences. Schauf’s attempt to minimize the useful parallels to the verb “adjure” (ejxorkivzw and synonyms) in the magical papyri does not succeed. On p. 216 he slips into a historicizing perspective: “they [the sons of Scaeva] had heard Paul preach, after all.” His contention “that there is nothing . . . wrong with the Jewish exorcists’ activity” (p. 217), based on

478

Acts part 2C.indd 478

8/27/2008 10:17:01 AM

19:13-22

kai; o ­ jnomavzein).”39 This provides a firm link between vv. 13-17 and 18-20, establishing a connection between exorcism and magic through use of “naming,”40 and, for good measure, invoking, as it were, the famous “Ephesian letters.”41   17  The verse reports the effect in terms suitable for a miracle story, not least a punitive miracle (cf. 5:11; 9:42).42 Scaeva’s heirs were punished for their audacity. As Johnson observes, “Luke has brought together all the typical responses to a miracle story,” including dissemination, awe, and praise of God.43 This verse resonates with links to the earlier material: “Jews and Greeks,” “inhabitants” (katoikou`nte~, v. 10), and “the name of Jesus” (v. 13). This was not a name to be bandied about as a casual charm. Verses 18-20 indicate the consequences of that insight.   18-20  The structure of this unit is like that of vv. 13-17: a general statement followed by a specific example and concluded with a general comment. Like the story of Scaeva’s sons, it is a bit opaque. The misfortune experienced by those persons motivates some believers to come forth and acknowledge their failures.44 Verse 19 gives one notable result of this activity: the renunciation

of magical practices symbolized by the destruction of the texts used therein. Difficulties include the destination of their “coming,” the meaning of ejnwvpion pavntwn (lit. “in the presence of all”), and the nature and actions of the believers. The probable solution to the first two matters is to assume a community meeting, at which (on one or more occasions) the confession and destruction occurred. The narrator can assume assemblies as the locus of such activity (cf. 5:1-11). If one regards these persons as Christians, as the text implies, difficulties arise. They may have been confessing prebaptismal, as it were, sins, or they may have continued to utilize this traditional behavior, with or without seeing it as incompatible with their new faith, or they may have backslid after joining the community.45 The failure of the narrator to provide precision opens the door to speculation and to the question of whether a specific interpretation is in view. The simple reading of the text is that at least some “postbaptismal” sins can be forgiven, if confessed and followed by amendment of life. This conforms to the implicit view of 5:6-10 (Sapphira) and to the possibility of repentance on the part of Simon (8:20-24). Luke does not endorse either

Luke 9:37-43, 49-50; 11:14-23, takes a unified view of the tradition that does not allow for theological development between Luke and Acts. Confession of the proper faith has become more of an issue in Acts. For this reason, “syncretism” may be more appropriate than “magic” as a designation for what is in view. See Barrett, 2:912. 39 Plutarch Quaest. conv. 7.5.4 (Mor. 706 E), trans. E. L. Minar, Jr., Plutarch’s Moralia IX (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961) 55. 40 Origen is aware of the use of magic in exorcisms: Cels. 1.6. Celsus attributes the success of Christian exorcisms (that is, he does not dispute their effectiveness) to magic. In his refutation, Origen acknowledges that the name of Jesus is so powerful that it can at times possess efficacy when used by outsiders. 41 On “Ephesian letters,” see Arnold, Ephesians, 15–16 (n. 16 above); Trebilco, “Asia,” 314; Gager, Curse Tablets, 5–6; Conzelmann, 164; and Fitzmyer, 651. They consisted of about a half-dozen words. Eric R. Dodds, who glosses them among “the meaningless formulae . . . characteristic of later magic,” notes that they appear in New Comedy (The Greeks and the Irrational [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968] 204 n. 95). Despite this label, it is

42 43

44

45

unlikely that magic was more fashionable at Ephesus than elsewhere. Note also the use of megaluvnw (“praise”) in 5:13. Johnson, 341. Dissemination: Luke 4:37; 7:17; 8:39; awe: Luke 5:26; 7:16; 8:35; praise: Luke 5:26; 6:16; 8:39; 9:43; 13:17; 17:15; 18:43. The verb ejxomologevw is used in the middle for “confession of sins” by a range of authors and texts: BDAG, 351, s.v. (2). Reference to the activity is common in the Apostolic Fathers: Did. 4:14; 2 Clem. 8:3; Barn. 19:12. What the linked participle ajnaggevllonte~ contributes is not clear. It may be pleonastic language for effect. Cadbury and Lake (242) render “confessed and revealed their spells.” This is attractive. (On “spells,” see n. 24.) Conzelmann (164) is willing to attribute the language to authorial carelessness and presume that preconversion activity is in view. Among those who regard these practitioners of magic as Christians is Bruce, 412. Garrett (Demise, 95–96) argues that these persons are recent adherents. Klauck (Magic, 101) considers several options and says that Luke may have left the matter open. Christians, including clergy, were said to make use of magical books: Origen Cels. 6.40–41; and Hippolytus Ref. 6.15; 7.20; 9.9. See Shauf, Theology, 226–34.

479

Acts part 2C.indd 479

8/27/2008 10:17:01 AM

­ erfectionism (the view that Christians cannot sin, so p that either nothing they do is wrong or that any mis­ doing amounts to damnation) or rigorism (a profound reluctance to forgive postbaptismal sin). The chief sins of which he takes countenance are those involving money and/or magic.46 The first of these themes was both symbolic and real, and the same was probably true of the second. Missionary history suggests that the newly converted are likely to retain, in lesser or greater degrees, previous habits.47 Just as he was concerned about the use of resources, so Luke also strongly deprecated any utilization of magical and other syncretistic practices.48 Other readings of this unit have been proposed. Susan R. Garrett seems to treat the event as a general renunciation of magic by “the residents of Ephesus.” Although she agrees that those who confessed their misdeeds were believers and that the book-burners were among them, she views the events less as an internal Christian event than as “a defeat of magic in general.” This proposal is attractive and probably captures the narrator’s desire, but it is liable to the charge of

e­ xaggeration.49 The same charge will not be laid against Shauf, who rejects the notion that these verses deal with the defeat of magic.50 This is evidently a consequence of his dissociation of vv. 13-17 from the theme of magic. The deeds confessed in v. 18 cover a range of sins, of which v. 19 relates to a particular type. The episode is “designed to impress.”51 That is doubtless true, but his antimagic campaign is less successful than that at Ephesus. The language of vv. 18-19 is redolent of the world of magic. Although the technical sense of pravxei~ to mean “spells” can be introduced into v. 18 only by taking ejxomologouvmenoi kai; ajnaggevllonte~ ta;~ pravxei~ aujtw`n as “they confessed and reported their use of magical spells,” the connotation cannot be excluded. 52 “Practicing magic” is the most likely meaning of p ­ eriverga praxavntwn in a discussion of destroying undesirable books. 53 Book-burning is a practice that has, unfortunately, endured for millennia. 54 Initiative and motive have varied. Officials might burn banned religious or other texts. 55 Leaders of one movement might destroy the

46 Apart from apostasy during the persecutions of the is “extremely rare” excludes the evidence of the third and early fourth centuries, sexual conduct magical papyri. was the major subject in discussions of postbaptis53 See BDAG, 800 (2), s.v. perivergo". Note also mal sins until the church expanded beyond urban P. Coll. Youtie I 30 and the discussion in NewDocs areas and “civilized” peoples. 1 (1981) no. 12, pp. 47–49. The term is a euphe47 For examples (from late antiquity to the twentieth mism. Shauf (Theology, 231) says that the adjective century) of efforts to bring about “full” conversion, “could cover a wide body of subjects.” On p. 234 he see Richard A. Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: describes the material burned as “magic books.” From Paganism to Christianity (Berkeley: University 54 See Clarence A. Forbes, “Books for the Burning,” of California Press, 1999). TAPA 67 (1936) 114–25; and Arthur S. Pease, 48 Although his view of Acts 19:13-20 as a critique of “Notes on Book-Burning,” in Massey H. Shepherd syncretism is not endorsed here, Günter Klein’s and Sherman E. Johnson, eds., Munera Studiosa article on the subject (“Der Synkretismus als (Festschrift W. H. P. Hatch; Cambridge, Mass.: theologisches Problem in der ältesten christlichen Episcopal Theological School, 1946) 145–60. See Apologetik,” in idem, Rekonstruktion und Interalso Trebilco (“Asia,” 315; and idem, Early Chrispretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testatians, 149–52), who regards the persons as converts ment [Munich: Kaiser, 1969] 258–79, esp. 273–74 and the activity as a defeat of magic. [= ZThK 64 (1967) 40–82]) is quite valuable. Klein 55 Augustus, for example, reportedly had two thoupoints to the nexus between religious competition sand books of false prophecy burned in the forum, and syncretism (279–80). The theme of syncretism according to Suetonius Aug. 31. When Protagoras also dominates Krodel’s analysis (356–64) of Acts was condemned to exile, his books were burned in 19:1-20. the agora; see Diogenes Laertius 9.52. Dionysiac 49 Garrett, Demise, 94–99, citing 95. texts were committed to the flames in connection 50 Shauf, Theology, 226–34. with the suppression of that cult; see Livy 39.16.8. 51 Ibid., 233, summarizing pp. 232–34. Livy 40.29 is a circumstantial account of the 52 See BDAG, 860, s.v. pravxi" (4 b); Deissmann, discovery (by exhumation, as in many stories about Bible Studies, 323 n. 5; Cadbury and Lake, 242. pseudepigrapha) and eventual destruction, by Shauf’s claim (Theology, 227–28) that this meaning senatorial order, of books alleged to be ­injurious

480

Acts part 2C.indd 480

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

19:13-22

works of competitors. 56 Voluntary burning of one’s own books was, as in Acts, a sign of repudiation, sometimes of conversion. 57 The activity has always had ritual and public elements. The agora/forum was the place of choice for this ceremony. Burning books is more than an efficient means of suppressing undesirable literature. Consignment to flames is a means of purification of the community and “damnation” of its enemies. 58 For Luke, this action was a trope for the apocalyptic destruction of the demonic powers. In his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius expressed a similar view: “Thence was destroyed all magic, and every bond vanished” (Eph. 19:3). 59 The association of magic with Ephesus is an apt touch of

56

57

58

59

60

local color, but Luke had more in mind than singling out an Ephesian vice. As is common with miracle stories, a number comes at the close. The ubiquitous “they” calculated the value of the cargo consigned to ­perdition.60   20  The unit closes with a short, sharp summary in v. 20. The term “message” (lovgo~) constitutes a frame embracing vv. 10-20. That word is initially somewhat surprising.61 Henry J. Cadbury stated that it refers to “the whole Christian enterprise,”62 and Jerome Kodell has developed this idea.63 The verse means, in effect, “The church grew mightily in quantity and quality.” Growth is the result of power.64 In competition at the “lower end”

to religion. The practice continued under the Christian empire. The church historian Socrates (H.E. 1.8) reports the burning of Arian works (cf. also the Justinian Code 1.1.3). Cassius Dio (56.27.1) reports the burning of slanderous political pamphlets. The monarch burned Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jer 36:20-27). 1 Macc 1:56 says that scrolls of the Torah were burned by the Greek reformers/­ persecutors. Lucian Alex. 47 (Epicurus). When the full RSV appeared in 1952, a number of conservative American members of the Protestant clergy took it upon themselves to burn an exemplar in the pulpit. According to Diogenes Laertius 6.95, Metrocles marked his conversion to Cynicism by burning notes taken from Theophastus’s lectures. According to Aelian frag. 89 (ed., Hercher), an Epicurean was advised in a dream by a priest of Asclepius to burn Epicurus’s books and use the ashes as a medicine. One of the legends about Heliodorus’s (author of Ethiopian Story) later career as a Christian bishop was that, given the choice of burning his novel (which, difficult as it is to believe, was considered arousing) and renouncing his orders, he chose the latter, according to Nicephorus Callistus H.E. 12.34. For other examples, see Forbes, “Books,” 114–17 (n. 54 above). Witherington (582) rightly says that this was not a mass conversion but an act of self-preservation, with references to 3:10 and 4:21. See Lucian’s interpretation of Alexander’s burning of a work by Epicurus: burning the book was a form of burning the philosopher (Alex. 47). Trans. Schoedel, Ignatius, 87. (Ignatius had the incarnation in view; Luke’s theological orientation differed.) Origen’s interpretation of the visit of the magi developed the same reasoning (Cels. 1.60). For the meaning of muriav~ (10,000), see M-M, 419, s.v. The narrator may not specify the type of

61

62 63

64

coin, because he wishes to allow scope for readers to imagine that it was larger than a drachma or denarius. This has not prevented scholars from seeking to give the word precision: Steven Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus: The Apostle among His Contemporaries” (Diss., University of California, Irvine, 1990) 107 n. 25; and Polhill, 406. Nigel Turner (in James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek [3rd ed.; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76] 3:17) says that “drachmas” is to be supplied, but notes that “silver” should be plural. The freedwoman who arranged for the seduction of Paulina, a Roman matron of equestrian status, was fifty thousand drachmas. For Luke’s readers the amount was vast. By the standards of Mark 6:37, this sum, calculated in denarii, would provide 125,000 meals, half a million if in tetradrachmas. K. Ehling (“Zwei Anmerkungen zum ajrguvrion in Apg 19,19,” ZNW 94 [2003] 269–75) concludes that the denarius is the correct denomination. The textual tradition reflects this. The shift of the genitive phrase “of the Lord” is likely a secondary change to the customary order. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 320) indicates difficulty with oJ lovgo~ (“the word”), reading, after the first three words: ejnivscusen hJ pivsti~ tou` qeou` kai; ejplhquvneto (“[the] faith in God grew strong and abounded”). “Abounded” (ejplhquvneto) assimilates to 12:24. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 418–19. Cadbury, “Names,” 375–92, esp. 391. Jerome Kodell, “The Word of God Grew: The Ecclesial Tendency of lovgo~ in Acts 6, 7; 12, 24; 19, 20,” Bib 55 (1974) 505–19. The adverbial phrase kata; kravto~ is used hundreds of times by historians in the sense of “by military force” and otherwise most often of the application of some kind of power. Fitzmyer (652) takes it as “with power” and associates “of the Lord.” This is possible, but less likely.

481

Acts part 2C.indd 481

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

of the religious spectrum, Paul crushes the opposition. The “higher end” will soon have their innings, but these ten verses indicate what people desired: power over the misfortunes of life, exemplified and symbolized in disease and demon possession.65 Acts states in a concrete way what Col 1:11 presents more abstractly.66 From the social perspective, a movement that led people to renounce magic could not have been all bad, for, despite its ubiquity, magic was regarded as injurious to the social fabric, and, if practiced against the authorities, absolutely subversive. The parallel between v. 21 and Luke 9:51 is not merely verbal.67 They are structural equivalents. Paul, like Jesus, will set out for the city of his destiny. “Here the theme for the finale of this great symphony is

sounded for the first time.”68 As Jervell’s comment, “The Pauline mission is now finished,”69 indicates, the pronoun “these (accomplishments)” (tau`ta) refers to more than the immediate context. This is a reverberant verse. Since his interest in “seeing” Rome was not motivated by fondness for tourism, it is unlikely that the references to “the spirit,” “fulfill” (plhrovw),70 and, above all, necessity (dei`) 71 have merely pedestrian applications, although it is arguable for each.72 Acts 20:22 is a strong argument in favor of divine guidance. The lure of Rome, and the knowledge of the great possibilities open there among the cosmopolitan population, were enough to persuade every leader of new movements, either doctrinal or practical,

65 On the theme of power in general, see Edwards, to the potential dangers of this verb (when can Religion and Power, with many references to Luke church growth be considered “complete”?), revised and Acts. For examples of the importance of healthe beginning to tovte oJ Pau`lo~ e[qeto (“Then ing and exorcism in the early Christian mission, Paul resolved . . .”). Haenchen (569) says, with see Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman merit, that the phrase means that Paul’s work in Empire: A.D. 100–400 (New Haven: Yale University Ephesus is complete. Press, 1984) 60–62 and index, p. 183, s.v. “mira71 “It is necessary” (dei`) : Note, among other uses, cles.” See also Fletcher, Barbarian Conversion (n. 47 Luke 4:42; 9:22; 24:44. Of Paul: Acts 9:16 (sufferabove); and Ian Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints ing); Rome: 23:11; 25:10; 27:24. On the theme, see and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050 (Essex, E. Fascher, “Theologische Beobachtungen zu Dei,” England: Longman, 2001). Of a rather different in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann character are Harnack’s comments on these phezu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (ed. nomena: Mission, 1:125–46; 199–218. He devotes Walther Eltester; BZNW 21; Göttingen: Vandenmost of these discussions to alleged abuses and the hoeck & Ruprecht, 1954) 228–54; Charles H. efforts of the apologists. Equally diffident is Michael Cosgrove, “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: InvesGreen, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Raptigations into the Lukan Understanding of God’s ids: Eerdmans, 1970) 188–93. Providence,” NovT 26 (1984) 168–90; and Squires, 66 “May you be made strong with all the strength that Plan, 166–85. comes from his glorious power, and may you be 72 For arguments against the interpretations favored prepared to endure everything with patience.” On here, see Shauf, Theology, 237–40. These are driven “patience” (uJpomonhv) , note Luke 8:15; 21:19. by his rejection of the idea that this constitutes a 67 The two verses share the verb (sum)plhrovw and major division in Acts. The most difficult is the the phrase poreuvesqai eij~ (“go to”) “Jerusalem” reference to “spirit,” which may be equivalent to (with a better Greek form in Acts). (It is interest“resolve in one’s heart” (Luke 1:66; 21:14; Acts ing that the preceding episode in Luke [9:49-50] 5:41). Similar questions arise in 18:25; 20:22. On approves the work of unaffiliated exorcists who the whole, it is unlikely that Luke wishes to suggest invoke the name of Jesus.) Acts 19:22 begins that the final journey to Jerusalem was an idea that with a sending of “disciples,” as does Luke 9:52 Paul came up with on his own. Barrett (2:919), ­( ajpostevllw). The Act. Pet. (Verc. 5) imitates this: however, is emphatic that it “cannot be taken to necesse est me ascendere Romae (“I [Peter] must go to refer to the Holy Spirit.” Fitzmyer (652) is equally Rome.”). See Pervo, Profit, 67; and, e.g., Tannehill, certain that it refers to the “mind” of Paul, appealNarrative Unity, 2:239–40. ing to the middle voice. Bruce (413) finds “Holy 68 Haenchen, 569. Spirit” “more likely.” Acts 20:23 and 21:4, 11-12 69 Jervell, 486. This chapter closes a circle begun in tip the balance toward inspiration. The ambiguity chap. 13 (Sanders, Jews, 76–77). of this verse may be a narrative means of raising 70 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 320), evidently alert suspense.

482

Acts part 2C.indd 482

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

19:13-22

to move his headquarters to Rome and to make of the Roman community the chosen ground of active propaganda.73 With appropriate solemnity, Luke announces that Paul will join this fellowship. Accompanying that announcement is more than a slight hint that death awaits him there. Luke knew of Paul’s death at Rome, but neither narrates it nor speaks explicitly about it. Another thunderous silence in this chapter is the purpose of the planned visit: delivery of the collection to Jerusalem.74 Of this purpose Luke was well aware, as indicated not only by 24:17 but also by his source for v. 21: Rom 15:22-25.75 The particular motives for these silences differ, although both seek to place Paul in the proper light. The collection is ignored because it failed;76 any reference to Paul’s execution in Rome would obviate the author’s defense of his hero and his message. As the conjunction of the two names intimates, Luke holds Jerusalem responsible for Paul’s death.77 The placement of these plans at this juncture has ­motivated

some to view 19:21 as marking a major narrative division.78 This was not the narrator’s evident intent, for vv. 23-40 continue the story without a break. Luke injected vv. 21-22 into the midst of the story of Ephesus to emphasize that Paul did not leave the city because of the subsequent difficulties. His departure had been planned beforehand and was merely delayed by the tumult.79 Like Jesus (9:53), Paul sent “advance men” ahead of him. Like Jesus (and in accord with a Lucan predilection), he sends a pair.80 They are Timothy, who reappears without notice after disappearing without explanation in 18:5, and Erastus, otherwise unmentioned (cf. 2 Tim 4:20). These data derive from sources.81 Readers may suppose that Timothy was an ever-present silent servant available at Paul’s beck and call. For Luke, Paul did not have, apart from Barnabas, true colleagues, but assistants who “served” him.82 After dispatching them on their appointed tasks, the great missionary will await developments.

73 George La Piana, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” HTR 18 (1925) 201–78, esp. 211. For examples, see Betz, Lukian, 110; and Pervo, Profit, 158 n. 220. On the transferal of cults to Rome, see Nock, Conversion, 66–76. 74 Another reason for visiting Macedonia and Achaea was reconciliation with the Corinthian community (2 Cor 2:12-13), a project about which Luke is equally silent, for he countenances no breech between Paul and the churches he founded. 75 See Pervo, Dating, 119–20. (Rom 15:25 may have influenced Luke 9:51 also.) 76 Among those who subscribe to this view are Bruce, 481; and Witherington, 588. 77 From the historical perspective, this judgment is not fully inaccurate.

78 For example, Bruce, 413. 79 For this view, see, e.g., Conzelmann, 164. 80 Jesus: Mark 6:7; Luke 7:18; Acts 8:14; 9:38; 10:7, 20. 81 In addition to Rom 15:22-25, note 1 Cor 16:4-5. Haenchen (568–69), with much detail, proposes that this journey substitutes for that of Titus. Erastus may, however, have been mentioned (with Titus) in the hypothetical Collection Source (see pp. 12–14). 82 The participle in v. 22 comes from the same verb (diakonevw) that is used of the women who “ministered” to Jesus (Luke 8:3). The motive was not so much demotion of Timothy as promotion of Paul (and comparison with Jesus).

483

Acts part 2C.indd 483

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

19

19:23-40  A Disturbance in Ephesus 23/ The Movement was the suba ject of a major disturbance at about that time. 24/ There was b a silversmith named Demetrius, who was engaged in the manufacture of silver shrines of Artemis, a trade that turned a pretty profit for the artisans. 25/ Demetrius called a meeting of those artisans and workers in affiliated trades. c “Gentlemen,” he began, “you are well aware that our prosperity depends on this craft. 26/ Your own eyes and ears have made you aware that this creature Paul has persuasively seduced a vast number, not only here in Ephesus but in nearly all Asia as well, into believing that manufactured gods are not genuine. 27/ This threatens not simply to discredit our line of business. Even worse, it threatens to bring the temple of the great goddess Artemis into utter disrepute! The hour draws near when she whom all Asia, indeed the entire civilized world, worships will see her majesty slipping away!” 28/ In response they were filled with rage and began to chant: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29/ Confusion gripped the city. Two of Paul’s traveling companions, Gaius and Aristarchus (both from Macedonia) were seized, and the populace rushed into the theater en masse. 30/ Paul wanted to appear before the People, but the followers would not permit him to do so. 31/ Moreover, some of the Asiarchs, who were well disposed toward Paul, a sent word urging him not to risk going to the theater. 32/ The Assembly was in an uproar, with various people shouting different things, few b of them knowing why they were there. 33/ Some of the crowd hurled suggestions c at Alexander, whom the Jews had sent forward, but, after he indicated that he wished to offer a defense before the People, 34/ they realized that he was a Jew, and broke into their unison chant, “Great is Artemis

According to BDF §190 (1), fivloi is to be viewed as an adjective, with the dative. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 325) reads “the vast majority” (oiJ plei`stoi rather than oiJ pleivou~). ­Barrett’s comment (2:931) is illuminating. He attributes the change as to the use of memory without checking. The preferable explanation is that the D-Text betrays the work of a reader (better, readers) who acted like copy editors. The variants to sumbibavzw, probibavzw, and kata­ bibavzw, which mean “push forward, promote,” and “send/drag down,” respectively, are obvious ­corrections.

484

Acts part 2C.indd 484

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

19:23-40

of the Ephesians!” This went on for about two hours. 35/ Once he had got the crowd calmed down, d the People’s secretary said: “Gentlemen of Ephesus. Who could possibly be unaware that Ephesus has honorary custody of the Great Artemis and of the image that has come down from heaven? 36/ Since these claims are unimpeachable, you simply must remain calm and avoid any rash action. 37/ These men whom you have brought here have neither harmed the temple nor defamed our e goddess. 38/ So then, if Demetrius f and his associated artisans have charges to lodge against anyone, g there are regular court sessions as well as governors h before whom they may argue their cases. 39/ Any additional disputes should be resolved by the regular assembly. 40/ The fact is that it is we who are liable to be accused of fomenting a riot over what has happened today, since we can provide no explanation to justify this disturbance.”i He thereupon dissolved the assembly.

d

e f

g h i

Analysis1

The pendulum now swings to the opposite side of the religious spectrum, from the vulgarity of door-to-door exorcism and over-the-counter magic to the majesty and esteem of the city’s patron: Artemis.2 Two cults claiming universal outreach came into collision. 3 Opposition 1

2

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 326) reads kata­ seivsa~, probably as a hand gesture (cf. v. 33; 12:17, etc.). E* m vg syh bo read “your goddess,” distancing the official from his hearers. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 327) reads “this fellow” (ou|to~) Demetrius,” neatly echoing the demonstrative applied to Paul in v. 26. D (gig) sa mss read “any issue with them.” “Courts” and “governors” are generic plurals. Or: “. . . today . . . since we have no reason for it and we cannot justify this disturbance” (reading ouj) .

does not arise from charges lodged by civic or cultic authorities. The emoluments of religious activity provide continuity, as the narrator’s camera swings toward one Demetrius, who produced silver models of the great temple of Artemis of Ephesus. Assembling (in an undisclosed location) the guild, Demetrius, a first-rate agitator, first reminded his comrades (perhaps unnecessarily)

W. Weren (“The Riot of the Ephesian Silversmiths [Acts 19,23-40]: Luke’s Advice to His Readers,” in Reimund Bieringer et al., eds., Luke and His Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux (BEThL 182; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005] 441–56) identifies, like the outline above, three scenes: vv. 24-28, 29-34, and 35-40. This yields a chiasmus: two speeches surrounding two reports of acclamation. (The moral is that Christians should not defame polytheist cults.) This episode is evidently imitated and revised in the Act. Paul 7/9. For some comments, see Richard

3

Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts,” JHC 2 (1995) 3–32, esp. 12–15; and Istvan Czachesz, “The Acts of Paul and the Western Text of Luke’s Acts: Paul between Canon and Apocrypha,” in Jan N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 107–25, esp. 114–15. On claims for the universalism of Artemis of Ephesus, see Philo Flac. 163, Leg. Gaj. 338.

485

Acts part 2C.indd 485

8/27/2008 10:17:02 AM

that they depended on their labor for the bread on their tables, then observed that this livelihood was in grave peril. Paul’s denunciation of idolatry was having an adverse effect on trade. The recipe is tried and true (cf. 16:19-214). Into the basic ingredient of economic grievance he poured a measure of patriotism and topped the cocktail with a garnish of religion. Far more important than a dislocation in the labor market, this situation threatened to be the end of civilization as they knew it. 5 Demetrius’s oratory was not without effect. The silversmiths broke into ritual shout. In no time, Demetrius’s brew had intoxicated the entire city.6 Everyone flocked to the theater for an impromptu town meeting, scooping up two of Paul’s colleagues on the way. For Paul, both missionary and civic duty called him to address this situation, come what may. Believers found this proposed course too dangerous. “Some of the Asiarchs,” civic leaders all, who included Paul within their circle of friends, also took time, despite the demands of a burgeoning crisis, to deter him from action.7 Meanwhile, bedlam gripped the theater. Everyone was speaking, no one was listening, and none knew what was going on. Whatever the explanation, the narrative seems as confused as the participants. An ill-advised attempt by Jews to have one Alexander speak ignited a howl of anti-Semitic rage. The crowd can do no more 4

5

6

than resume its ritual cultic chant. For two hours, the arena quaked with “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” If polytheism speaks with a single voice, its message is no more than the futile braying of unlawful combinations of the misguided. Artemis failed to respond. The government finally did. Faced with either the distasteful prospect of embarrassment to Artemis or the intolerable possibility of a riot, the chief official saved the day with a speech that might have been learned at the feet of Gamaliel. Those assembled need not trouble themselves about the status and renown of Ephesus and Artemis; both are inviolable. The Christians receive the highly welcome news that they are innocent. Should the egregious Demetrius and his colleagues happen to have any valid grievances, there are courts. Moreover, “there are proconsuls.” With this unpleasant reminder of the realities of power, the potential loss of nominal privileges, and a jibe about “lawful assemblies,” the crowd is sent away. The episode drips with excitement8 and glows with local color,9 captivating readers with its vividness and evident realism. The only objection is that the story makes little sense.10 If Paul’s mission had an injurious effect on the cult of Artemis, one would expect that civic and religious leaders would initiate action or, at the very least, join in. Instead, all initiative lies in the hands of the wily Demetrius, who effectively galvanizes

“Profit” (ejrgasiva) occurs in 16:19 and 19:24. On the economic motive, see Reinhard Selinger, “Die Demetriosunruhen (Apg 19,23-40). Eine Fallstudie aus Rechtshistorischer Perspective,” ZNW 88 (1997) 242–59, esp. 246 n. 27. Selinger’s study is a treasure trove of primary and secondary data characterized by astute judgment. Note also Dirk Schinkel, “‘Und sie wußten nicht, warum sie zusammengekommen waren’—Gruppen und Gruppeninteressen in der Demetriosepisode (Apg 19,23-40,” in A. Gutsfeld and Dietrich-Alex Koch, eds., Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 95–112. For a comparable situation, see Chariton Chaer. 5.2.3. Persian women complain that the entire world has admired their beauty, a pleasant status now threatened by Callirhoe. They concoct a plot to avoid humiliation by this foreign (Greek) woman. Guilds and other associations were often restricted because they were suspected of formulating just this

kind of unrest. See MacMullen, Enemies, 170–78. See Appendix 3 below and the valuable data and references in NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 1, pp. 7–10. Ancient guilds were not labor unions, for their members owned the means of production. They were similar to cartels. 7 This episode was imitated in the Mart. Pionii 7 (c. 300 [Musurillo, Christian, 145]). The public pressed for an assembly in the theater, but some friends of the proconsul (strateµgos) approached the Neocoros Polemon and asked that Pionius not be allowed to speak, as this might lead to a disturbance (qovrubo~) and subsequent investigation. 8 For examples of admiration, see Shauf, Theology, 120. 9 See Pervo, Profit, 37; Cadbury, Book 5, 41–43, 72; Peter Lampe, “Acta 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften,” BZ 36 (1992) 59–77, esp. 59–70; and Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen.” 10 For the genesis of the following remarks, see Haenchen, 576–77.

486

Acts part 2C.indd 486

8/27/2008 10:17:03 AM

19:23-40

his artisans but then evaporates as an actor. The narrator leaves a gap at the end of v. 28, one that readers may fill in with several plausible scenarios.11 This gap leaves the subject of v. 29 uncertain. The narrative style is like Pentecost12 and could be an authorial idiosyncrasy (possibly related to the use of sources), but it may be intentional, for there are a number of “anti-parallels” to chap. 2.13 The narrator does not say that there was “a riot of the silversmiths.”14 The chanting of the silversmiths somehow brought the city into confusion. The previously unmentioned Gaius and Aristarchus (v. 29) are somehow identified, apprehended, and subjected to a citizens’ arrest. They, too, disappear from the story. By v. 30, Paul, with typical Lucan compression, has learned what is taking place and resolves on action. The response by “some” Asiarchs is inexplicable. They also have been apprised, by some means, of developments, which they take no reported steps to address. Rather, they dispatch (severally or as a group) word to Paul urging him to stay away from the theater. How they learned of his plans is unstated. Verse 32 jumps back, without warning, into the theater, where, in the midst of the confusion, the Jews attempt to defend themselves, for reasons that remain unclear. This tender backfires, and the entire crowd takes up the chant begun by the silversmiths. After two hours, the chief official stanches the noise and delivers his little speech, which reveals that he had by some means learned, amidst all the chaos, of the charges raised, and, even more surprisingly, of the grievances of Demetrius, and, astonishingly, that the accused were not guilty as charged. This acquittal was, in fact,

erroneous, for Paul was on record (17:24, 29) as a critic of both temples and idols. The basis of the solution to these dilemmas lies not in the hypothesis that sources have been carelessly intermingled, but in literary technique: all of the characters know what the narrator knows, and the narrator is omniscient. Readers, who know what the narrator reveals, do not readily raise objections. The “town clerk’s” speech is the most telling example of transferred omniscience. He knows what both the main sets of characters (Demetrius and the artisans; Paul and the Christians) are doing and why. In addition, he is sufficiently informed to deliver explicit or implicit judgments on the merits of their cases. Equally omniscient are the Asiarchs, who knew that Paul would thrust himself into the maelstrom.15 A corollary to these is the situation of the crowd. Although both Asiarchs and the civic officer know that Paul is under attack, the populace is quite unaware of why they have been assembled. The last of these conforms to Luke’s contempt for the urban rabble, a notion shared by conservative Romans and their Greek allies,16 but the other matters, Paul’s social status and the innocuousness of the Christians, are key Lucan themes. Luke is responsible for the current shape of vv. 23-40; the story cannot be a simple report of the facts derived from a participant. For Haenchen, the problems of the narrative led to the judgment that the account is, a few details apart, Lucan.17 To this use of the critical broom Conzelmann objects, stating that, although Luke composes scenes, he does

and injury. The attempt of L. J. Kreitzer (“A Numis11 E.g., Marshall, 318: “We are not told where the matic Clue to Acts 19:23-41: The Ephesian Cisto­protest meeting was held, but evidently it culmiphoroi of Claudius and Agrippina,” JSNT 30 [1987] nated in a protest march through the streets. A 59–70) to relate a coin issued under Claudius to crowd quickly gathered who were sympathetic this incident faces the difficulty that, according to to the silversmiths, and it was decided to hold a Acts, the event was of insufficient importance to larger-scale protest.” evoke imperial notice. 12 Acts 2:1-5, where the experiences of a private meet15 It is essentially immaterial if one claims that their ing also mysteriously generate public excitement. admonition was based on their knowledge of what 13 These include divinely inspired speech versus Paul would do in such a situation. The narrator “vain repetition” (cf. Matt 5:7), ecstasy versus could have intimated this by saying “fearing that mob frenzy, ideal communal life (Acts 2:42-47) . . .” The text has given no hints thus far that Paul versus urban disorder, and the contrasting closing would take the action contemplated here. speeches of Peter (2:14-37) and the local official 16 See Pervo, “Meet Right,” 45–62. (19:35-40). 14 Although “riot” is firmly ensconced in the scholarly 17 Hemer (Book, 347) says: “Aristarchus and perhaps Gaius are the likely sources for events within the tradition, the narrative does not depict an actual theatre.” Barrett (2:917) is confident that it “must riot, which would require at least some damage

487

Acts part 2C.indd 487

8/27/2008 10:17:03 AM

not concoct stories like this.18 Whatever the meaning and merit of this assertion, the labors of Weiser show how difficult it is to extract a primary source from early Christian tradition.19 Krodel also argues for the use of a source, largely on negative grounds and not persuasively.20 Lüdemann maintains that Luke took up and reworked a story about a riot in Ephesus.21 For his part, Fitzmyer says: “Luke has undoubtedly inherited data about this incident from his Pauline source and constructed them all into a vividly narrated and dramatic episode.”22 Without identification of the data and their contribution to the final product, this statement has little meaning. The capstone of Haenchen’s argument is that this story does not agree with Paul’s own comments about his travails in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8-11).23 This is an important point. If Luke had access to good independent traditions about the Pauline mission in Ephesus, one would expect him to report them, since he

has narrated any number of difficulties faced by Paul, or possibly to ignore it. That he chooses instead to devote nearly one-half of his description of the mission to an uproar in which Paul was not involved raises suspicion, and Paul’s avoidance of a stop at Ephesus in chap. 20—to the considerable inconvenience of the presbyters there— does nothing to diminish this suspicion, nor does the frame of vv. 21-22/20:1, which insists that Paul left Ephesus under no human compulsion. For whatever reason, Acts 19:23-40 fills the slot occupied by Paul’s difficulties in Ephesus.24 If one holds that Luke’s tradition did not refer to these difficulties, the value of that tradition is diminished. The argument that Luke was not interested in these difficulties and thus chose not to report them overlooks their great significance for Paul.25 Since this passage reports a civic tumult in which Paul was not involved, while the surrounding material and the correspondence indicate something closer to the opposite, grounds for deriving this story, in anything approaching

be based upon information derived by Luke from Ephesus.” Witherington (585) opines: “The story is compelling, accurately portraying the sort of reaction one would expect if there was a perceived threat to the cult of the local deity and especially if that threat bore implications.” His n. 112 seeks to rebut Haenchen’s analysis. Kindred criticism of Haenchen is offered by Marshall (315–16) and Barrett (2:917–18). Most of this rejection comes down to the verisimilitude of the account, which does not prove either accuracy or the existence of a specific source, as well as objections to Haenchen’s arguments based on alternative interpretations or the ever-useful claim that, had Luke invented the story, he would have said/included X or Y. Haenchen left himself open to criticism by not distinguishing between the problems of the narrative and historical improbability. 18 Conzelmann, 165. 19 Weiser, 2:541–49. For a valid critique of some of his deductions, see Lüdemann, Acts, 262. Lampe (“Acta 19,” 70–77) reviews a number of source theories. 20 Krodel (365–66) bases his source hypothesis on four data: the use of ekkleµsia to mean “assembly” (vv. 32, 39-40), “the subdued role played by Paul in this lengthy account, and the references to Aristarchus and Alexander, concluding, “These were hardly invented by Luke.” These items do not add up to a source. “Assembly” is evidently ironic and, in any case, familiar to both Luke and the readers, Paul’s

21

22

23

24

25

role is scarcely traditional and conflicts with the proposal about Aristarchus (see Lüdemann, 262), and Alexander’s appearance accords with no theories that relate this to an experience of Paul’s mission in Ephesus. 2 Tim 4:14, which refers to injuries done to Paul by one “Alexander the coppersmith,” is interesting because of the name and occupation. See Pervo, “Hard Act,” 13–14. Those who suspect a tradition behind this name will appeal to 2 Timothy for support. Another, less likely, possibility is that 2 Timothy depended on Acts. Lampe (“Acta 19,” 59–77) proposes an oral source. Lüdemann, Acts, 261–62. This idea goes back, as Lüdemann (219) notes, to Julius Wellhausen, Noten zur Apostelgeschichte (NGG PH 1; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1907) 1–21, esp. 17. In his earlier work, Lüdemann identifies the source as “secular,” which means not produced by a believer. Fitzmyer (655) followed by a rejection of Haenchen’s view, which is now understood as calling the episode “a Lucan fabrication.” Ephrem (according to the Catena; cf. Ropes, Text, 440) says, “For it was about this [i.e., the demonstration started by Demetrius] he wrote to the Corinthians.” Loisy (744–57, esp. 756) claimed that the riot is a cloak beneath which the author gathers all of the difficulties faced by Paul in Asia. Marshall (316) says that Paul’s “affliction in Asia” (2 Cor 1:8) may have been an illness and that Luke ignored this problem.

488

Acts part 2C.indd 488

8/27/2008 10:17:03 AM

19:23-40

its present form, from “good” tradition are absent. Only an admirer of Paul would write eighteen verses demonstrating “that Paul’s physical presence is not a factor in the riot and that his personality is.”26 The two speeches (vv. 25-27; 35-40) are complementary Lucan compositions. Haenchen agrees with the thesis that “Paul really threatened the existence of the Artemis cult by his missionary activity.”27 This is quite questionable. At approximately the time when Acts was written, Pliny (“the Younger”) concludes his report to the emperor Trajan about his activities to suppress Christianity in Bithynia, c. 112, with some comments on the beneficent effect of his firm but humane policy: [T]here is no doubt that people have begun to throng the temples which had been almost entirely deserted for a long time; the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it. (Pliny Ep. 10.96.10) 28 Six decades after Paul’s labors, it was possible for this claim to be made, but it should not be taken at face value even for this later date. Pliny was indulging in self-serving hyperbole.29 In Paul’s time, the Christian population of Ephesus was, at the very most, a few

hundred, not all of whom would have previously been ardent devotees of Artemis. This statistically insignificant group could scarcely have had a measurable impact on the sale of religious mementoes of any kind, a goodly number of which would have been acquired by visitors and pilgrims.30 Although the local color is vivid, the role of the silver workers is a Lucan invention. The close parallel of this passage to 16:19-22 provides additional support for this hypothesis. 31 Like the owners of the exorcised slave at Philippi, Demetrius falls out of the subsequent action. The introduction of “Gaius and Aristarchus” (v. 29) could stem from a tradition about this incident, but they, too, play no role in the subsequent narrative. It is not clear why they are labeled “traveling companions of Paul,”32 who has not been on the road for the longest period in the book. 33 Both are described as “Macedonians.”34 Is the reader to imagine that they have accompanied Paul from Macedonia to Achaea and then Asia? 35 Aristarchus appears also in 20:4; 27:2, while “Gaius” is a common name. A reasonable guess is that Luke has introduced two bearers of the collection36 into this scene to provide some believers for the theater. 37 The best candidate for source material is vv. 29-34, less 29c-31. The intervening material is possibly marked by a “resumptive repetition”: “into the theater” (eij~

26 Shauf, Theology, 248. 27 Haenchen, 576. 28 Certe satis constat prope iam desolata templa coepisse celebrari, et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa repeti passimque uenire uictimarum, cuius adhuc rarissimus emptor inueniebatur (Pliny Ep. 10.96.10, trans. Betty Radice, Pliny Letters and Panegyricus [2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969] 2:291). 29 Keith Hopkins (“Christian Number and Its Implications,” JECS 6 [1998] 185–226, esp. 190) views the theme of neglected rites as “more a literary cliché than precise reporting.” 30 For more details, see Pervo, Dating, 317–19. 31 Note also that v. 23 is Lucan in form and language. Acts 12:18 employs an identical phrase. The rough transition to a mob scene is like that of 6:8-12 (Stephen). 32 See Barrett, 2:929, for examples of this word’s more or less official character. 33 Note 20:18, where Paul claims not to have left Ephesus.

34 The singular “Macedonian” (36. 453 pc) would apply to Aristarchus. This is almost certainly a correction based upon 20:4, which locates Gaius in Derbe. See also the note on the text. Robert Stoops (“Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41,” JBL 108 [1989] 73–91, esp. 82) observes that the two adjectives mark them as outsiders, and thus as vulnerable. 35 This would conflict with 1 Thess 3:1. 36 The only other occurrence of the word sunevk­ dhmo~ is in 2 Cor 8:19, raising the question of whether Gaius was mentioned there. 37 Speculation centers on the epistles, since Aristarchus is mentioned in Phlm 24 (probably written from Ephesus). That may have been Luke’s source. The Deutero-Pauline Col 4:10–11 characterizes Aristarchus as a prisoner. This is probably embroidery on the author’s part. Weiser (2:543–44) seeks to link the epistolary traditions with Acts, but this attempt does Luke no good, since it implies that Paul was jailed as a result of the incident, whatever it was.

489

Acts part 2C.indd 489

8/27/2008 10:17:03 AM

to; qevatron).38 The “scene” about Paul’s attempt to intervene is a cumbersome interruption, and the action of the Asiarchs is a Lucan creation.39 One might then conjecture that the affair was an anti-Jewish eruption.40 The text does not support this hypothesis, since it presumes that “the Jews” were not the primary subject, but evidently attempted to dissociate themselves from the accusations. The perspective views “Judaism” and “Christianity” as distinct “religions.” Alexander would evidently have said, had he been given opportunity to speak, “These people do not belong to us.”41 It is pertinent to ask what Jews were doing in this mob. A robust imagination is required to propose that some of them hastened there in order to denounce polytheism or to do their bit to defend Paul. In such circumstances, prudent Jews would have been likely to stay out of sight. From the general perspective of Acts, one would think it likely that these Jews had come to unite in the attack on Paul. Verses 32-34 are unlikely to derive from a primary source about this incident. If the contrary position is taken, the critic will have to explain why Luke chose to retain or include such obscure data.

Luke did not require a source to depict urban disorder, for he had no lack of practice. Mob action is quite common in Acts, after all,42 and works of fiction and history were replete with accounts of urban disorder.43 A good specimen is the anti-Jewish riot at Antioch during the first revolt as described by Josephus (Bell. 7.46–62, 100–111).44 Following a suggestion of Robert Stoops,45 Richard Pervo identified ten structural themes or motifs shared by these two stories.46 Many of these are unremarkable or all but inevitable, but they indicate that Luke followed the same pattern, beginning with a malicious agitator and ending with the intervention of an official. If a specific source for this passage is to be identified, the riot at Antioch is as good a candidate as any,47 but it may be preferable to see each account as fitting within a general and flexible pattern, without ruling out some inspiration from Josephus.48 Source analysis makes it apparent that Luke did not rely on firsthand evidence for this narrative and that it is best viewed as a Lucan composition.49

38 Cf. Loisy, 751, who entertained this hypothesis. 39 Even if one were to admit that Paul had made friends with some Asiarchs, as does Witherington (585 n. 112), their action is too improbable for credence. 40 See p. 486. 41 So also Schneider, 2:277; Weiser, 2:547; and ­Polhill, 412, all of whom hold some form of this view. For others who take this position and differing views, see the concise survey of Jervell, 492 n. 516. Stoops (“Riot,” 86–87) hypothesizes that Alexander’s narrative role is to introduce the issue of Jewish rights. This is too subtle, for the narrative is not in code, but he correctly emphasizes the experience of Diaspora Jews as part of the social background. Luke, however, has no explicit interest in sheltering Christians under the umbrella of Jewish rights and privileges. 42 See Pervo, Profit, 34–39. 43 Fiction: see Pervo, Profit, 151 nn. 88, 91, and 93. For examples from the Apocryphal Acts, see Söder, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 158–62. On historiography, see Stoops, “Riot,” 80. For data about such disturbances, see MacMullen, Enemies, 168–71, 175–76, 180, and 341 n. 12; Nippel, Public Order, 47–57, et passim. Nippel has a good ­d iscussion of urban violence as a means of popular justice. See, in addition, Pervo, “Meet Right,” 53–60,

44 Cf. also Josephus Bell. 2.489–93, which describes an actual riot in the amphitheater in Alexandria. The prefect had some success in ameliorating the anger (qumouv~; cf. Acts 19:28) and then sent prominent citizens (cf. Acts 19:31) to urge calm. 45 Stoops, “Riot,” 81. 46 Pervo, Dating, 179–83. 47 Johnson (348) speaks of a striking resemblance between the two accounts. 48 Differences are also important. Josephus takes a properly apologetic line, whereas Luke is willing to ridicule polytheism. Some implied readers of Josephus were supporters of Rome and Hellenism. Luke does make some apologetic use of the riot story (the Asiarchs), and it is possible that he got that idea from Josephus. 49 Selinger (“Demetriosunruhen”) argues that the story is a Lucan creation. The possibility of a written but unrelated source for vv. 23-40 does not mean that no such disorder took place. Ancient authors were likely to describe even events in which they had participated in a standard, often stereotyped, manner.

490

Acts part 2C.indd 490

8/27/2008 10:17:03 AM

19:23-40

Comment   23-28  These verses inaugurate the action and poi-

son the well. Demetrius’s major concern is economic (v. 25); religion and patriotism (v. 27) provide a cloak. Moreover, his theology is crude. Rather than say that religious objects are aids to devotion, he appears to endorse the idea that gods can be manufactured. He thus represents the theology opposed in the Areopagus address. This sets the implicit apologetic theme: here are the kind of people who oppose us, greedy artisans encrusted with superstition. 50 Silversmiths there were in Ephesus, organized under to; iJero;n sunevdrion tw`n ajrgurikovpwn (“the sacred governing council of the silversmiths”). 51 The text does not

identify Demetrius as their leader, although v. 38 seems to imply this, and the unfortunate syntax of v. 24 leaves the possibility open. The craft would be the proper subject. 52 The D-Text improves this by beginning in story fashion: “There was . . .”53 Scholarship tends to view “silver temples” as a slip. 54 It may be a useful hyperbole. Probably most such objects were niches with a statue of Artemis (naivskoi), but the important point is less Luke’s accuracy than that, by saying “temples” (naoiv), he both evoked the speeches of Stephen and Paul (7:48; 17:24) and suggested that these were very expensive objects, implying that Paul’s message appealed to the well-to-do. The narrator presumes that the temple of Artemis at Ephesus needs no introduction. This was a safe choice, for the sanctuary was one of the “Seven Wonders of the

50 Cf. Talbert, 178. The implication is that the ambition of artisans nourishes the worship of idols. Apollonius made a similar critique (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 5.20). See also MacMullen, Paganism, 165 n. 44. 51 For an example from c. 50 ce or later, see I. Eph. 2212 (an epitaph), discussed in NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 1, pp. 7–10. In that epitaph the body is identified as oiJ ejn ÆEfevsw/ ajrgurokovpoi (“the silversmiths in Ephesus”). I. Eph. 585 speaks of the plh`qo~ (“body,” a term sometimes used in Acts for the Christian community [4:32; 6:2, etc.]) That inscription is an acclamation beginning with au[xei: “May the guild of silversmiths flourish.” Cf. Acts 19:20. See also Horsley, NewDocs 5 (1985) no. 5, 95–114; idem, “Inscriptions,” 142; Lampe, “Acta 19,” 66–69; and Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 245 n. 23. 52 Moule (Idiom Book, 105) prefers “. . . a silversmith, brought the craftsmen no little trade by making. . . .” 53 Boismard, Texte, 321: h\n dev ti~ ajrgurokovpo" ojnovmati Dhmhvtrio" o{~ ejpoivei naou;" ajrgurou`" ÆArtevmido" kai; pareivceto toi`" tecnivtai" oujk ojlivghn ejrgasivan. ou|to~ sunaqroivsa" (“There was a silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver temples of Artemis and provided substantial income for the artisans. 25. He, gathering the artisans . . .”). A* D E pc read parei`ce (“provided”) active. BDF §316 (3) (on use of the middle) suspects that the passage is corrupt. 54 For skepticism about silver models of this temple, see, e.g., Cadbury, Book, 5; Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 90–91. Hemer (Book, 121) states that “such images of the goddess in a niche, made of terracotta, are well known, if not in silver.” He points

to IGR 1.167 (Tarentum), which speaks of a votive dedication of a miniature shrine (naivskon) to Artemis. This may have been based on the temple at Ephesus. See also Trebilco, “Asia,” 336–38; and Kauppi, Foreign, 94–101. On a possible mold from the Hellenistic era for such objects, see Ellen D. Reeder, “The Mother of the Gods and the Hellenistic Bronze Matrix,” AJA 91 (1987) 423–40, esp. 424–28. On a silver temple to Antoninus Pius found in Spain, see Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 246 n. 28. These data may appear to settle the matter, but doubts were also raised in antiquity. a* has “a silver temple,” suggesting one large project. B, tellingly, omits “silver” (i.e., they could be clay). A few witnesses (including 1739. 1837) add an apparent gloss: “possibly small cups” (i[sw~ kibwvria mikrav) . Chrysostom (and/or his authorities) may be the source of this, for he wondered how temples could be made of silver and suggested “cups.” For details, see Jacquier, 581. The accusation of Demetrius in v. 26 appears to support the view that statues are in question, for he does not say that Paul claimed that gods do not dwell in temples but that they cannot be manufactured by humans. At the end of the nineteenth century, E. L. Hicks proposed that tradition spoke of Demetrius as a newpoiov~ (“warden”) of the temple. On this, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 337 n. 10.

491

Acts part 2C.indd 491

8/27/2008 10:17:04 AM

Ancient World,”55 the home of an international cult 56 and one of the most famous sites in the world, rich from gifts, having a large bank, 57 and possessing esteemed rights of asylum. 58 According to Dieter Knibbe, the power and prestige of the cult of Artemis had been declining for some years by the dramatic date of Acts, which motivated intense efforts toward reasserting her status. 59 Another reaction was nostalgia, quite visible in the popular literature of the first two centuries.60 Whatever the vicissitudes of religious taste, Artemis retained her grip on the general imagination. She encapsulated polytheism at Ephesus in Act. John 37–47,61 and her temple is singled out in the woes upon Asia in Sibylline Oracles 5.62 The residents of ancient cities, not being fools, were sensitive to economic loss, but the energy

they were willing to invest in debates about titles and various privileges still generates surprise.63 An argument from honor alone would have carried more weight. In Acts, Artemis is a synecdoche for civic religion, distinct from and more distinguished than independent operations like exorcism and magic. Apart from the reference to Artemis’s image in v. 35, the author makes no mention of the specifics of the cult.64   25-27  The conventional text envisions a broader group than the silversmiths, whereas the D-Text is more restrictive.65 The speech is almost absurd in its brevity, beginning, like Paul’s pastoral address in 20:17-35, with a “memory” statement,66 proceeding thence to a summary of Paul’s message and drawing the conclusion that danger lurks on the horizon. An objective reader might

55 The concept of “Seven Wonders” goes back to the second century bce. “Seven” is the conventional number for such lists (p. 156). On the development of the list, see Peter Clayton and Martin Price, eds., The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 1988) 10–12. The article on the temple of Artemis was written by Bluma L. Trell, 78–99. 56 Pausanias 4.31.8 says that she was worshiped by more individuals than any other deity known to him. See also Strabo 4.1.5 and Anth. Pal. 9.58. See also Trebilco, “Asia,” 317–18; Richard Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate: I. Paganism before Constantine,” ANRW 2.18.3 (1990) 1661–1728, esp. 1674. F. Sokolowski (“A New Testimony on the Cult of Artemis of Ephesus,” HTR 58 [1965] 427–31) discusses an inscription reporting that forty-five persons from Sardis were condemned to death for assault on an embassy from Artemis of Ephesus. He attributes the assault to resistance against the infiltration of a foreign cult by defenders of the local Artemis, that is, that the Ephesian Artemis engaged in missionary activities that were, like those of Paul, viewed as threats to local cults. (The inscription is I. Eph. 572.1.) 57 For a summary of the relation of the temple to economics, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 324–26. 58 On the temple and cult of Artemis, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 319–36, with numerous references, and, for recent discoveries, Dieter Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca: New Aspects of the Cult of Artemis Ephesia,” in Koester, Ephesos, 141–55. Although the temple was plundered by Goths in 262, some rebuilding took place at the close of the third century. According to B. L. Trell (“The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos,” in Peter Clayton and Martin Price, eds., The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

59

60 61

62

63 64

65

[London: Routledge, 1988] 78–99, esp. 98), John Chrysostom brought about the final destruction. This would have been during his visit to Ephesus in 401 and would have probably involved a request for imperial permission to destroy the place. An earlyfifth-century inscription boasts of the destruction of an image of the goddess. See NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 125, pp. 256–57. On the popularity of the rights of Asylum, see Thomas, “At Home,” 98–106. One example is Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 8.8.8–9. Knibbe, “Via Sacra,” 146–47. In such a climate, defensive responses to attacks on the cult would have probably been intense. See also Trebilco, “Asia,” 331–32. See Thomas, “At Home.” The apostle John, unlike Paul, delivered a speech (and healed) in the theater at Ephesus (Act. John 32–36). Lines 293–99 of the woes listed in 286–327. According to John J. Collins (“Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1:317–429), this oracle dates to the period of the Diaspora Revolt of c. 115, that is, contemporaneous with Acts. A pertinent example is the Neocorate, on which see n. 117. For this reason, description of specifics is superfluous. Contrast Ignatius, who, in imagery of which Luke might have approved, compares the Christian “ journey” to a religious procession: “You are God-bearers, temple bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holy things” (qeofovroi kai; naofovroi, cristo­fovroi, aJgiofovroi [author’s trans.]), evoking processions in honor of Artemis. See Schoedel, Ignatius, 67, with his references. See n. b. In addition to reducing the object of the participle to “artisans” (tecnivta~), the address

492

Acts part 2C.indd 492

8/27/2008 10:17:04 AM

19:23-40

observe that Demetrius has said nothing that his good listeners do not know. “Demetrius narrates the problem without ever proposing a solution.”67 It is too early in the day for remedies. Possible solutions are reserved for the civic official, who introduces them for the purpose of dismissing them. Demetrius’s speech, in typical Lucan fashion, is peppered with alliteration and assonance.68 Irony is not absent. The most obvious example is the verb “be in danger” (kinduneuvw [v. 27]), which emerges once more in v. 40, where the workers are identified as the source of danger. More subtle is Demetrius’s role as a defender of temples, which aligns him with the opponents of

66 67 68

69

70

71

72

­ tephen (7:48) and Paul (v. 26; cf. 17:24-25, 27, and S 21:28).69 Luke does not always shy away from intimations of guilt by association.70 This continues in v. 26, which proffers confirmation of the claim advanced in v. 10 from the mouth of an opponent.71 Paul is attacked not for his message about God’s son but for his critique of temples and therefore as a philosopher72 who hits exploiters of superstition in the pocketbook.73 Universalistic language also works in two ways. By speaking of “all/ the whole of Asia” (vv. 26-27)74 and “the civilized world” (hJ ­oijkoumevnh [v. 27]), Demetrius opposes one world religion to ­another.75 The outcome of this competition will be patent.76

begins “Gentle fellow craftsmen” (a[ndre~ sunteicnei`tai). Cf. also 10:28; 15:7 (Peter). Soards, Speeches, 103. Four words in the opening line (v. 25) begin with ej-, and seven with a smooth vowel. Verse 27 is replete with -ei- and -h- sounds. Note also the play between “great” (megavlh~) and “greatness” (mega­ leiovthto~) in v. 27. That noun is applied to God in Luke 9:43. The noun denoting the sanctuary of Artemis in v. 27 is iJerovn (versus naov~ in v. 24). The latter is not used for the Jerusalem temple in Acts (but cf. Luke 1:9, 21-22). Readers know that Paul did not call for the destruction of or sacrilege against polytheist religious artifacts but contrasted them with the true God (17:16-34). The genitives of “Ephesus” and “Asia” in v. 26 are difficult. Bezae recognizes this by adding a preposition: e{w~ ÆEfevsou, in effect, “Not only throughout Ephesus . . .” (BDF §216 [3] renders “within”). Moule (Idiom Book, 39) finds the locative genitive tempting. The translation takes the genitives “Ephesus” and “Asia” with o[clo~ (“vast number”) . See BDF §186 (1) and Barrett, 2:924. Compare and contrast Mart. Pol. 12:2: “[T]he entire multitude (plh`qo~) of both Gentiles and Jews who lived in Smyrna cried out with uncontrollable rage (qumw/`) and a great voice, ‘This is the teacher of impiety, the father of the Christians, the destroyer (kaqairevth~) of our own gods, the one who teaches many not to sacrifice or worship the gods’” (trans. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 2:383). The Greek words occur in Acts 19:23-40. Polycarp (who is being tried by the proconsul in a stadium) is accused of attempting to abolish polytheist worship, whereas Paul is a critic of images. In the story

73

74 75

76

of Polycarp, Jews and polytheists are presented as offering a solid front (even on the question of worshiping the gods!), while in Acts the Jews seem eager to distance themselves from the Christians. This chapter of three verses contains a number of parallels to Acts 19:21-40, including the proconsul (v. 38), who appears to work in collaboration with Philip, the Asiarch, who is evidently in charge of the games; a unison chant (oJmoqumado;n ejpibohv­ sai [cf. vv. 28-29]), and two uses of the verb dei` for divine necessity (v. 21). According to the Cynic Epistle 7.9 of (Pseudo-) Heraclitus (c. 100–125 ce), the philosopher was exiled from Ephesus for impiety. On the problem of the text of this letter, see Abraham Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977) 24. For examples of the philosophical critique of images, see Stoops, “Riot,” 83. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 322) contributes a note of realism by injecting, after “Paul,” “whoever he is” (tiv~ pote). The narrative assumes that Paul was familiar to the audience of the speech. On eij~ ajpelegmovn (“disrepute”) in v. 27, a deverbative term, see Barrett, 2:926. For the international appeal of the Ephesian Artemis, see Horsley, “Inscriptions,” 153–55; and Trebilco, “Asia,” 332–36. Verse 27 is another syntactic puzzle. The D-Text looks like a revision: eij~ oujde;n logisqhvsetai ajlla; kai; kaqairei`sqai mevllei hJ megaleiovt ­ h~ (“will be accounted as nothing but also her greatness is going to be destroyed”). Except for the repeated “but also” this is better, and Ropes (Text, 186) prefers it to “the monstrous sentence of the B-Text.” Cadbury and Lake (246), however, accept a string of infinitives dependent upon kinduneuvei (“be in danger”). The text may be corrupt, but the D-Text is unlikely to be more original, and it

493

Acts part 2C.indd 493

8/27/2008 10:17:04 AM

  28  The workers have heard enough and implement

their own solution: the ritual acclamation of their goddess’s power.77 Acclamation was a means of popular participation in ancient religious, political, theatrical, athletic, and legal activities.78 Function is more important than diction. Examples include the public reaction to miracles,79 cheers for one’s circus team, demands for justice (“Crucify him!”),80 and expressions of personal piety or conviction.81 Literary representation tends to report a single acclamation, but these cries were usually repeated for some time.82 Chants could be spontaneous or organized. The effect of the latter gave guilds83 and, in particular, athletic factions considerable power in the Roman and Byzantine capitals. Finally, acclamations may assume a formal character in ritual.84 Application

77

78

79

80

81

82

of the epithet “great(est)” to a deity85 has enjoyed a long life as a spontaneous acclamation.86 Acclamations could be prayers/petitions or acknowledgments of benefits received. The transition between meeting and civic uproar in vv. 28-29 is quite awkward. Acts 2:4-5 presented a comparable situation.87 The D-Text resolves the apparent glitch, which is probably the result of Lucan compression.88   29-34  This section depicts the city in chaos, a civic ekkleµsia (assembly) unworthy of a great metropolis, the bravery of Paul, and the high standing of his friends. Matters end where they began, with the acclamation of Artemis’s magnitude and the theological solidarity of its disorderly populace. As in the case of Stephen, the official body behaves like a mob. The local color shines

is equally possible that this is the result of Luke’s attempt to produce balanced and sonorous clauses. See also BDF §180 (1); Barrett, 2:927; and Shauf, Theology, 242 n. 387. Their righteous indignation closely resembles the animosity of the synagogue audience to Jesus in Luke 4:28. Discussions, with bibliography, include Ramsay, Church, 135–39; Selinger, “Demetriusunruhen,” 248 n. 33, 254 n. 64; and the references on p. 55. Note Apuleius Metam. 11.13: Populi mirantur, religiosi uenerantur tam euidentem maximi (= megivstou) numinis potentiam et consimilem nocturnis imagi­ nibus magnificentiam et facilitatem reformationis claraque et consona uoce, caelo manus adtendentes, testantur tam inlustre deae beneficium. (“The crowd was amazed, and the devout paid homage to this clear manifestation of the power of the mighty deity, to her grandeur which exactly matched my dream revelations, and to the ease of my transformation. With one clear voice, stretching their hands toward heaven, they bore witness to the marvelous beneficence of the goddess” [trans. Hanson, Apuleius, 2:317]). Crowds used games in theater to demand executions: Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977) 574. For the unison cheers of various groups (including guilds), see MacMullen, Enemies, 170: “Lesser folk made their weight felt in the theater by disciplining their cheers to a unison, sitting in compact armies of support under acknowledged leaders, or coming ready-organized as guilds.” For references, see 339 n.10. An example from U.S. team sports is repeated shouts of a single word or phrase, such as

83 84

85

86

87 88

“Defense! Defense!” often sustained until the defense succeeds (or fails). On guilds as effective claques and cheering sections, see MacMullen, Enemies, 170. Extant examples are the short acclamations that precede and conclude the liturgical Gospel in the Eucharist and the fixed response “Thanks be to God” that concludes liturgical readings from ­Scripture. The epithet was not limited to acclamations. See, for example, Ephesian Tale 1.11.5 (th;n pavtrion hJmi`n qeo;n, th;n megavlhn ÆEfesivwn ÒArtemin [“Our ancentral goddess, the great Artemis of the Ephesians”]), 4.3.3; 5.12.3–4 (Isis the “the greatest”). In Leuc. Clit. 8.9.13, the priest proclaims, “The great goddess Artemis has saved both” the hero and heroine. For other examples of the epithet applied to Artemis, see Wikenhauser, Geschichts­wert, 364. In the Islamic world, crowds can sustain the chant “Allahu akbar!” (“God is Great”) for hours. A good ancient literary instance is Bel et Draco 18 and 41. In the first example, the king proclaims, “You are great, Bel.” At the close, he applies the same acclamation to “the Lord God.” See p. 487. D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 324) adds “These things” to provide “hearing” with an object, and “rushing into the street” before “began to shout.” The acclamation is therefore public and a means of generating attention.

494

Acts part 2C.indd 494

8/27/2008 10:17:04 AM

19:23-40

(­ theater as place of assembly, Asiarchs89), and the narrative is vigorous, if syntactically difficult and nonsequential. The major difficulty is logical. Haenchen’s observation is difficult to refute. At this point, Demetrius (or someone whom he had persuaded) should have laid a charge, which might then be debated, with response by Gaius and/or Aristarchus.90 Verses 32-34 are a smokescreen to conceal Luke’s lack of interest in pursuing this course. Instead, the narrator portrays a contrast in social status. On the one side is the labile and ignorant mob, agitating for its own sake. Ranged against them are the most distinguished people in the province, soon to be joined by the chief executive officer of Ephesus.91 Some major D-Text witnesses (D* gig bsy p) seek to improve the logic by stating that “the entire city was dismayed with shame.”92 This correctly characterizes the situation as a threat to the honor of Artemis (and Ephesus).93 Verse 29 still suffers from want of a clear subject: Does the ubiquitous “they” refer to the workers or to “the city”? Gaius and Aristarchus appear and disappear with equal lack of explanation. The reader may assume that, as in Thessalonica (17:6; cf. Beroea, 17:13-14), the mob attempted to find Paul and took

whomever they could get, but the demands on imagination are considerable. How did they find and identify these two? Was Paul’s location unknown?   30-31  As if aware that Paul would come to mind, the narrator’s attention turns to him in v. 30. Paul, who has learned in advance of the reader that those who have rushed to the theater have constituted themselves as an ejkklhsiva (“assembly”),94 was intent upon joining them. This would have placed him at great risk, a chance that the fearless missionary was willing to take, but one must ask just what he could have said that would not have further inflamed the crowd (as in 22:1-23), since the charges against him were true and only in a formal trial could he have constructed a defense of his words. Here, he cannot (as in chap. 26) claim that he gave the valid interpretation of the ancestral faith. That issue will never arise, for believers delay him95 until word comes from some Asiarchs, who begged him not to take (a probably vain) risk. Scholarship has inclined to the view that these persons were the chief priests of the imperial cult at Ephesus,96 a view recently challenged by Rosa­ linde A. Kearsley,97 who views their focus as more civic than provincial.98 If this is correct, the difficulties of the

89 On the theater as a place of assembly and its links to the cult of Artemis, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 348–50. I. Eph. 557 mentions images of the goddess carried kata; pa`san ejkklhsivan eij~ to; qevatron (“into the theater at every assembly”). Cf. also I. Eph 21 and 476. The theater was a meeting place in many cities. See, e.g., Chariton Chaer. 3.4; Ethiopian Story 4.17–21. 90 Haenchen, 574. 91 Luke’s contrast between the peaceful, hierarchical, and smooth operation of the Christian ekkleµsia (most notably in chap. 15) and the ineffective, anarchic, and tumultuous behavior of the Ephesian ekkleµsia (on which, see Pervo, “Meet Right”) is apologetic in orientation, anticipating Origen’s contrast between the well-behaved church at Athens and the riotous (stasiwvdh~) civic assembly (Cels. 3.30). 92 kai; sunecuvqh o{lh hJ povli~ aijscuvnh~. Other witnesses (36. 453. 1505 pc) also contain the word “shame.” Boismard (Texte, 324) takes no account of this variant, other than to select the verb sune­cuvqh in place of ejplhvsqh “was filled”). Ropes (Text, 187) explains “shame” as arising from the translation of “confuse.” 93 I. Caria 71 (= Knidos 4) provides interesting social and linguistic commentary: [oJ me;n] da`mo~,

94

95

96

97 98

ejn ouj metriva/ succuvs[sei ge]novmeno~ dia; ta;n uJpavrcou`s[an peri;] aujta;n ajretavn te kai; dovxa[n, meta;] pavsa~ proqumiva~ sunel[qw;n e]ij~ to; qevatron, “The citizen body [cf. Acts 19:30, 34] in considerable [cf. 20:12] confusion [cf. vv. 29, 32] because of its very virtue and reputation, entered the theater [cf. v. 29] with all eagerness [cf. 17:11].” Because of the use of ejkklhsiva (“assembly”) in vv. 32 and 40, it is legitimate to render dh`mo~ (v. 30) as the “Popular Assembly,” that is, the citizen body in its official capacity. On the Ephesian assembly, see Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 249 n. 37. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 324) reads (in addition to some minor improvements) ejkwvluon (“sought to prevent”) rather than the blunt oujk ei[wn (“would not allow”). This variant removes the possibility that believers forcibly restrained Paul or that they could give him orders. This is the position of Lily Ross Taylor, “The Asiarchs,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 256–62, followed by many. For examples, see Rosalinde Kearsley, “The Asiarchs,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 366 n. 14. For a summary of her findings, see “The Asiarchs,” 363–76. Ibid., 376.

495

Acts part 2C.indd 495

8/27/2008 10:17:05 AM

narrative only worsen, for these responsibilities would make it even more difficult to understand why their involvement was limited to advising Paul to stay out of the matter.99 The significant datum is that the Asiarchs (whose position was evidently familiar to the implied reader) were of the highest social standing in the city.100 “A sect whose leader had Asiarchs for friends cannot be dangerous to the state.”101   32  The verse catapults the reader into the theater, where chaos holds the floor.102 Dio of Prusa describes a fictional civic assembly with a technique akin to “defamiliarization,” which exposes a situation by presenting it from perspective of an outsider, who, not knowing the conventions, is amazed: Now at first the crowd deliberated on other matters for a considerable while, and they kept up a shouting. . . .

This wrath of theirs was something terrible . . . I too myself was once almost knocked over by the shouting. . . . And other men would come forward, or stand up where they were, and address the multitude . . . to some of these they would listen for quite a long time, but at others they were angry as soon as they opened their mouths, and they would not let them so much as cheep. (Or. 7.24-26)103 The confusion (suvgcusi~)104 that beset the city (v. 29) also beset the assembly (sugcuvnw) in v. 32. The text is no less confused than the crowd, and no attempt to construe or correct it will yield highly satisfactory sense.105 Alexander, whose obscurity surpasses that of Sosthenes (18:17), attempted to do what Paul had in mind,106 with an utter lack of success.107

99 The suspicion arises that the desire to dissociate v. 29). With this is associated the function of ejk de; the Asiarchs from the imperial cult is apologetic. tou` o[clou (lit. “from the crowd”), which should One of the objects stated in the summary of modify the verb. (The particle dev could be adversaKearsley’s article was “the recent suggestion that tive, i.e., “but.”) Another possibility, followed in Luke’s use of the title is an anachronism” (p. 363). the translation, is to treat it as effective subject On p. 368, she attributes this view, incorrectly, to (i.e., as if modified with the article). Cadbury and Wayne Meeks. Lake (249) note a similar “barbarous construction” 100 On the status of Asiarchs, see Strabo 14.1.42 (on in Luke 21:16 and reluctantly take this path. The Tralles). Their standing remained high through genitive absolute is far from pristine. Since it is the subsequent century and later. aorist, the translation proposes that, after he had 101 Haenchen, 578. Cf. Cadbury, Book, 43: “Luke’s reaassumed the rostrum, members of the crowd (some son for mentioning the Asiarchs at all is not their of those few who did know why they were present?) religious association.” Cf. also Foakes Jackson, 182. made suggestions about what he might say, until Shauf (Theology, 249 n. 413) has a good summary of they concluded (on some unknown grounds) that the issues, with bibliography. He rightly concludes he was Jewish and would say nothing that they that their status is more important than their wished to hear. ­f unction. 106 Note the occurrence of dh`mo~ (“the People”) in 102 The use of a[lloi . . . a[llo (“Some persons . . . vv. 30 and 33. another thing”) is a classical idiom. BDF §306 (5). 107 The “official” position of Diaspora Judaism forCf. Chariton Chaer. 1.5.3: ajlla; kai; oJ dh`mo~ a{pa~ bade reviling the gods of those among whom Jews eij~ th;n ajgora;n sunevtrecen, a[llwn a[lla kekra­ lived. This emerges in the plural “gods” in LXX govtwn (“The whole populace, too, hastened to the Exod 22:27 (= “God” in MT 22:28). Quite similar marketplace, uttering all sorts of cries”), trans. statements in Philo Vit. Mos. 2.203–5 (cf. Spec. leg. G. P. Gould, Callirhoe (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: 1.53), Josephus Ant. 4.207; Ap. 2.237 support the Harvard University Press, 1980) 49. The particle notion that there was a general principle. Cf also me;n ou\n is resumptive. It approaches such phrases Rom 2:22. The charge of reviling the gods of othas “meanwhile, back in the theater.” ers was made, however (Ap. 1.249, 309–11), and the 103 Trans. J. W. Cohoon, Dio Chrysostom I (LCL; CamLXX provides plenty of evidence. Moreover, during bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932) 301. the revolts Jews attacked many temples of other 104 On this term, see Stoops, “Riot,” 86. religions. See also Stoops, “Riot,” 87–88. For a list 105 One difficulty is the subject. Logically, it is oiJ of possible explanations see Selinger, “Demetrios­ ­pleivou~ (“the majority”) of the previous sentence, unruhen,” 252. but that is difficult to accept. Another is the ubiquitous “they” found elsewhere in the passage (e.g.,

496

Acts part 2C.indd 496

8/27/2008 10:17:05 AM

19:23-40

  33  A verse that appeared likely to end the confusion only increases it.108 This was not the occasion for speeches on the benefits of religious diversity.109 The evident meaning of the episode involving Alexander is, as hinted above, like the experience with Gallio (18:12-17). An attempt at opposition to Christianity turns into anti-Jewish agitation. As R. Selinger says, while the crowd shouts down “the Jews,” both Asiarchs and the civic executive support the Christians. Patronage has ­shifted.110   34  At this point, the crowd resumes its ritual chant.111 Its unedifying two-hour duration contrasts nicely with Paul’s two years of evangelism (v. 10).112 The longer the situation lasts, the more dangerous it will become—and

the more honor Artemis will lose. Two comments, one ancient, one modern, will suffice. Haenchen pithily opines: “[I]n [the] final analysis the only thing heathenism can do against Paul is to shout itself hoarse.”113 The last word belongs to the apostle John, on a later occasion: “Artemis herself ought to have helped.”114   35-39  The speech of the “secretary”115 parallels that of Demetrius in vv. 25-27, in content and even somewhat in form. Both center on the city, Artemis, and her temple, and refer to an alleged Christian challenge. The style also has Lucan characteristics, but, in keeping with the speaker and the situation, is slightly more elevated and technical than the words of Demetrius.116 Local color is

108 Klauck (Magic, 107) suggests filling out the verse in enhanced with self-mutilation): “[T]hey raved on this manner: “they allowed Alexander [with whom until the time of the offering of the oblation, but you, the readers, are familiar] to come out of the there was no voice, no answer, and no response.” crowd with [Gaius and Aristarchus], because the 114 Act. John 43: e[dei th;n ÒArtemin bohqh`sai aujthvn Jewish [Christians] pushed him forward.” This 115 On this office, see A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City reconstruction reveals the difficulty of the text, from Alexander to Justinian (London: Oxford which contains an intolerable number of gaps and University Press, 1940) 238–39 nn. 52–53; Sherwinglitches. There are other attempts, e.g. Haenchen, White, Roman Society, 86–87; Trebilco, “Asia,” 351 575. See the review of positions by Shauf, Theology, nn. 262–63; Shauf, Theology, 254 n. 433; Claudia 251–53. Almost every hypothesis seeks to find the Schulte, Die Grammateis von Ephesos: Schreiberamt historical situation behind the text rather than und Sozialstruktur in einer Provinzhauptstadt des römisdetermine Luke’s goal. Some recent interpreters, chen Kaiserreichs (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994); such as Shauf, Fitzmyer (656 [with nuance]), Tanand Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 254 n. 69. Two nehill (Narrative Unity, 2:243), and Jervell (429), positions existed, a “clerk of the popular assembly” incline toward the understanding that Christians (grammateu;~ tou` dh`mou) and a “clerk of the counand Jews in Ephesus were allied on this matter, but cil” (grammateu;~ th`~ boulh`~). Trebilco assumes, Luke did not need to state that Israelite religion with reason, that the former is in view here. Note opposed idolatry. The prior question is what Jews that, like many magistrates in Acts, this person is were doing in the audience. One difficulty with the anonymous. idea of an alliance is that neither Jews nor Chris116 Formal: both begin with “gentlemen” (a[ndre~) tians articulate their position. and a “memory” statement (vv. 25, 35), and both 109 Cadbury (Book, 94) suspects that the author refer to “danger.” Assonance: note three words reported this incident “with a little malicious glee.” in -on (v. 36) and six in -ou- (v. 37). Alliteration 110 Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 253. The incident abounds: cf. vv. 38 (esp. ajgorai`oi a[gontai), with encapsulates and underlines the defeat of Judaism three more initial a- sounds. The last three words in Ephesus. of v. 40a end in -es. Note also propete;~ pravssein 111 Verse 34 begins with an anacoluthon, on which see (v. 36). See also n. 68 above. In addition is the use BDF 466 (4). a and A read the participle “shouting” of accusative with participle in indirect discourse in the nominative plural, no less intelligent than (v. 35—“corrected” by the D-Text [Boismard, Texte, it is secondary. B doubles the chant (“Great . . .”). 326]). Examples of technical language: “unimThis is probably a secondary attempt to convey peachable” (ajntirrhvtwn), v. 36; “lodge charges” repetition. (ejgkalevw), v. 38 (on which see Schneider, 2:278); 112 The Greek phrases are exactly parallel. “courts” (ajgorai`oi), v. 38; “regular” (ejnnovmw/) and 113 Haenchen, 578. Cf. also Rackham, 340. Those familperaitevrw (“further”), v. 39. The latter, although iar with Scripture would think of the humorous not rare, was altered to peri; eJtevrwn (“on other story of Elijah’s encounter with the priests of Baal matters”) in a number of witnesses. (1 Kgs 18:26-29), which concludes (after petition is

497

Acts part 2C.indd 497

8/27/2008 10:17:05 AM

prominent.117 The two little speeches were composed as bookends to the narrative. Speeches ignite and extinguish the uproar. The officer’s ability to quiet a seething crowd indicates rhetorical ability and strong character.118   40  The verse is difficult. The text appears to be corrupt, but proposals for emendation depend on determining what the author wished to say.119 The genitive absolute mhdeno;~ aijtivou uJpavrconto~, which may be rendered, “since there is no charge” or “since there is no explanation,” may refer to either the preceding or following phrases, that is, accusation of disorder or giving a reasonable account. The relative in the prepositional phrase “concerning which” (peri; ou|) is masculine or neuter and cannot refer to either “today” or “disorder.” The omission of the preposition, attested by a number of witnesses, is no improvement. The finite verb of the relative clause, “be able,” is or is not marked by the negative. Manuscript support for inclusion and exclusion is about equal. Furthermore, the preceding relative

ou| raises the problem of dittography or haplography, for OUOU would tempt a scribe either to strike the last two letters or to insert them on the grounds that a previous scribe had excised or overlooked them. The earliest known emendation occurs in the D-Text: “The fact is that it is we who are liable to be accused of fomenting a riot today, when, because there is no explanation on the grounds of which we can provide explanation. . . .”120 This resolves the problem of the relative antecedent, but leaves an undesirable genitive absolute. It is evidently secondary, as the ingenuity required to modify this text into the conventional form surpasses human understanding. Hort proposed emending to the nominative: mhdeno;~ ai[tioi uJpavrconto~ (“although we are guilty of nothing concerning which . . .”).121 This presumes that the object is to recover the secretary’s actual words. Faced with these problems and unable to make a judgment based on external evidence, the editorial committee that produced N-A 27 was loath to resort

117 “Neocorate” is one of the titles for which Greek cities fought. It may be a bit of an anachronism here. See L. Michael White, “Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos,” 27–79, esp. 37; and Steven Friesen, “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos,” 229–50, esp. 231–32, both in Koester, Ephesos, and each with numerous references. Hemer (Book, 122) notes this datum as an example of Luke’s knowledge of specifics. The inscription he cites in support (I. Eph. 300) dates from the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211 ce). Note also the valuable data and discussion in Magie, Roman Rule, 2:1432–34 n. 18, and see the inscriptional examples pertinent to Artemis of Ephesus cited in BDAG, 670, s.v. newkovro". The translation “image that has come down from heaven” presumes that diopetou" in v. 35 refers to the famous statue rather than to another object, such as an aniconic meterorite. On this see BDF §241 (7) and Stoops, “Riot,” 87 n. 74. A specific example is Euripides Iph. taur. 85–92. Lines 85–86 speak of “[t]he goddess’ [Artemis] statue (a[galma), which they say fell from the sky (oujranou` pesei`n ajpov) into this temple here” (trans. David Kovacs, Euripides IV [LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999] 161; cf. also 1384–85). Other noteworthy examples are the stone from Pessinus sent to Rome (Herodian 1.11.1) and an image of Demeter said by Cicero (Verrines 2.187) to be so compelling that viewers believed that they were looking at the goddess herself or an image not made with human

118 119 120

121

hands but fallen from heaven (non humana manu factam sed de caelo lapsam). The latter suggests realism rather than a meteorite. For other examples, see Wikenhauser, Geschichtswert, 364–65; Betz, Lukian, 186 n .2; and Bruce, 420. On metereorites as cultic objects, see Wilson D. Wallis, “Prodigies and Portents,” ERE 10:362–76, esp. 371. The difficulty that this epithet would have only applied to the archaic statue of Artemis presumably destroyed in the fire of 356 bce is illusory, for religion knows how to deal with these matters. The claim that an image of Artemis “fallen from the skies” could refute the allegations that the goddess’s statue was an artifact, but it is more than unlikely that Luke would devise or record an argument against Paul. See Cadbury and Lake, 250–51; Trebilco, “Asia,” 351–53; Shauf, Theology, 255; and Kauppi, Foreign, 101–5. Cf. on 21:40. Corruption is suspected by Ropes (Text, 189) and accepted by Hort (below). Boismard, Texte, 327: kinduneuvomen shvmeron ejgkalei'sqai stavsew~ wJ~ mhdeno;~ aijtivou o[nto~ peri; ou| dunhsovmeqa ajpodou`nai lovgon th`~ sustrofh`~ tauvth~. This text does not contain two of the three possible uses of periv (“concerning”) in the verse. See below, n. 128. Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896) 2:97 (a note by Hort).

498

Acts part 2C.indd 498

8/27/2008 10:17:05 AM

19:23-40

to conjecture and included the negative in brackets, a procedure that amounts to a nondecision.122 Of the alternatives: (a) “we can be charged with something and cannot refute it,” or (b) “although we have done nothing wrong we are in danger of being accused of riot,” the former suits the suggestion that the entire undertaking is improper and should be terminated forthwith. Omission of the negative is preferable.123 The difficulties may be due to the author’s attempts at style.124 From the official’s words, one would gather that a formal debate has taken place, with denunciation of Gaius and Aristarchus (“these men” [v. 37]), but the narrative has left no room for such activity—and with reason. The underlying logic of the piece is that of the American defense of the status quo: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The technique is ethos,125 which, in the same spirit, may be summarized here as “because I say so.” One of the things he says is that Artemis requires no repair. Another is that “these people” are innocent of religious crimes. Demetrius and his colleagues, who suddenly reappear, at least in name, are, it scarcely need be said, welcome to pursue any issues they may have in the courts or in a duly convened assembly.126 The implication is that this

a­ ssembly is unlawful.127 Rather than worry about the scenario offered by Demetrius, the good citizens of Ephesus will do well to contemplate the real and present danger128 presented by Rome, which is not prepared to let Greek cities act as if they were still independent political entities and whose rulers have trouble distinguishing democracy from anarchy. Events such as those that have occurred on this day (v. 40) will do nothing to dispel the notion that popular assemblies are licenses for revolt and disorder (stavsi~, sustrofhv [v. 40]). The secretary’s viewpoint was echoed by Plutarch, who took the opportunity to remind Greeks that Rome held all the high cards: You must say to yourself: “You who rule are a subject, ruling a state controlled by proconsuls, the agents of Caesar. . . . You should arrange your cloak more carefully and from the office of the generals keep your eyes upon the orators’ platform, and not have great pride or confidence in your crown, since you see the boots [of the Roman soldiers] just above your head.129 These were not isolated sentiments.130 Gamaliel had reminded the Sanhedrin of the dangers of being on

122 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 420. 123 See the discussion of Barrett, 2:938–40. 124 Luke’s genitive absolutes are often difficult. The repeated preposition periv (“about”) may be an attempt at anaphora. 125 So Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 132), who offers a formal analysis. On the formal qualities, see also Soards, Speeches, 103–4. The speech is too brief to offer more than a skeleton structure. 126 In modern terms, “let them resort to due process” (Fitzmyer, 661). 127 On the term “lawful/regular” assembly (e[nnomo~ or novmimo~ ejkklhsiva), see Chariton Chaer. 1.11–12. The latter adjective (as in Acts) is found in three inscriptions from Ephesus (I. Eph. 115, 212, 602), but the former is much more common elsewhere. Cf. also Lucian Deor. conc. 14. 128 3 Macc 5:41 refers to “disturbance” (sustrofai`") and “be in danger” (kinduneuvei) to describe the situation in Alexandria. 129 Plutarch Praec. ger. rei publ. 17 (Mor. 813a), trans. H. N. Fowler, Plutarch’s Moralia X (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936) 237. (The words in brackets are supplied by the translator and thus marked.) C. P. Jones holds that the shoes of the proconsul are in view (Plutarch

and Rome [Oxford: Clarendon, 1971] 133). The continuation is also of interest for vv. 35-40: What is the most important task of the contemporary magistrate? The avoidance, or suppression, of civil strife (stavsi~). What else? “[A]ways to instill concord (oJmovnoian) and friendship in those who dwell together with him and to remove strifes, discords, and all enmity?” Resolutions and edicts can be annulled at the touch of a proconsular finger (Plutarch Mor. 824C–F, trans Fowler, 293). 130 Following a riot over bread prices in Prusa, Dio reminded his native city that the proconsuls have watchful eyes upon them (Or. 46.14; for evidence that he was right, see Pliny Ep. 10). Or. 48.1–3 instructs those citizens on how to behave in the presence of the proconsul: decently and in good order. Or. 34 takes up disorder at Tarsus in which a guild (evidently) of “linen workers” played a large part. He warns that, if the local government does not attend to a situation, Rome will do so (cf. 34.21; 38). On the connection between Plutarch’s remarks and Dio’s speeches, see Geoffrey E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981) 310–13. On the fate of cities that did not heed such advice and the evolution of city status under the empire, see

499

Acts part 2C.indd 499

8/27/2008 10:17:05 AM

the wrong side of God (5:34-39).131 The secretary does not propose that the wrath of their patron goddess will fall upon wrongdoers, but he does call attention to the potential weight of those Roman boots. As in the experience with Gallio (18:12-17), albeit more decisively so, Paul and the movement enjoy vindication while the opponents are discomfited. If any charges of rioting are to be made, Ephesian devotees of Artemis rather than the followers of Paul will be the target.132 The social setting envisioned by Plutarch is the civic assembly, quite possibly in a theater. If circuses helped keep the public distracted, they also gave them opportunity to feel and exercise their power. “Power to the people” was not a slogan of which the ruling aristocracy approved.133 “All Rome gathered to the Palace and the squares, and overflowing into the circus and theatres, where the mob can demonstrate with the greater impunity, raised a seditious clamour.”134 That impunity was far from absolute, witness the loss of rights or, perhaps even worse, the sponsorship of games some cities experienced as a result of disorder.135 The behavior of the Ephesian populace was both mindless and self­destructive.136 Like Philo and Josephus, Luke blames the mob for disturbances involving their religions.

131

132

133

134

135

Since the author composed this speech for the readers of the book, attempts to justify its appeal to the dramatic audience are unnecessary.137 Shauf, for example, holds that the speech was “convincing” for the audience.138 All that was convincing, however, was the authority of this official, who told the crowd to shut up and leave. Like other magistrates earlier and later, the secretary declares Paul innocent. For the alert reader, this verdict is a bit difficult to swallow; it is at least equally difficult to imagine that the dramatic audience would have happily digested it,139 but both of these difficulties are minor in comparison to the basis of the assertion of innocence, which requires omniscience.140 Since it would have been simple enough for the narrator to summarize a number of false or transparently ambiguous charges, as in other situations,141 the absence of accusations is intentional. The episode contains two brief speeches and one non-speech. An agitator delivers the first, with incendiary effect. The elected official plays the role of firefighter. His speech foreshadows the apologetic addresses of Paul that will dominate chaps. 21–26.142 The crowd’s refusal to hear a Jewish apology is equally telling.

ibid., 304, and A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940) 129–46. For more detail, see Pervo, “Meet Right,” 53–55. Ethiopian Story 8.9 provides a fictional ­parallel. This speech, like that of Gamaliel, contains two conditional clauses in vv. 38-39, linked with me;n . . . dev (Greek particles used to balance constructions). To this extent, the thesis of Stoops (“Riot”) is valid. For criticism of details, see Shauf, Theology, 260 n. 460. A speech put into the mouth of Maecenas by Cassius Dio (52.30.2) recommends to Augustus that the people (dh`mo~) should not only lack sovereignty but should not even be allowed to meet in assemblies (ejkklhsiva). Tacitus Hist. 1.72 (death of Tigellinus under Otho), trans. K. Wellesley, Tacitus: The Histories (London: Penguin, 1964) 65. Tacitus refers to a serious fight that broke out in the Pompeian amphitheater in 59 (Ann. 14.17). Rivalry between Pompeii and Nuceria was the cause of this outbreak, which resulted in the amphitheater being closed for a decade. The brawl is depicted in a large mural painting in the house of the gladiator Actius Anecetus.

136 For examples, see MacMullen, Enemies, 168–73. 137 So also Cunningham, Tribulations, 265. 138 Shauf, Theology, 257. He summarizes research on pp. 254–58. 139 Shauf (Theology, 258) says, “The pagan rabble goes home defeated and shamefaced.” Defeated, certainly, but if the critic is to assign them logical emotions, anger would be a better conjecture. Shauf is correct in conveying the narrator’s intention, which is not based on historical plausibility. 140 Readers can justify the verdict of v. 37 only on the most narrow and technical grounds. Acquittal of sacrilege against the temple (iJerosuvlou~) is gratuitous. The charge of “blasphemy” or “defamation” can be excused only on the grounds that Paul (together with Gaius and Aristarchus?) only spoke about images in general and did not single out Artemis for attention. 141 E.g., Stephen (6:8-14); Paul in Philippi (16:21), Thessalonica (17:6-7), Corinth (18:13), and Jerusalem (21:28). 142 Cf. Haenchen, 579.

500

Acts part 2C.indd 500

8/27/2008 10:17:06 AM

19:23-40

The discussion of sources included the observation that Luke did not require sources for the depiction of a riot. Support for this view emerges in one of the more important internal parallels in Acts: 21:27-36. These two “riots” are similar in setting, development, and vocabulary, although not in outcome.143 Both involve accusations by Ephesians against Paul’s teaching (19:25-27; 21:28). His attacks on a temple have an international impact (19:26; 21:28). In both stories, the accusations spark shouts that rouse the entire city (19:28-29; 21:28, 30), lead to apprehension(s) (19:29; 21:31), and require official intervention (19:35-40; 21:31-32). The common vocabulary is notable,144 and the theme is identical: “[M]embers of an established religion are protesting the effect that Paul’s mission is having on their religion and temple.”145 The two scenes “are to be regarded as parallel compositions.”146 Several conclusions are possible. In the unfolding plot, the crescendo is building: Paul has eluded every riot thus far with no more than a whipping and a night in jail. Tension and suspense increase. Ephesus is to Jerusalem as 5:17-42 (the Twelve) was to 6:8—7:60 (Stephen).147 There is also a personal link: Ephesian Jews will succeed where Demetrius failed. The narrator associates Paul’s greatest success with his final arrest. Furthermore, one must ask whether the similarity of these two episodes does not lend support to the view that “the Way” was (destined to be) a distinct religion. Both the Jews who venerated their temple in Jerusalem and those gentiles who honored Artemis with her temple at Ephesus viewed Paul as public enemy number one. Although this inference is not without subtlety and a certain irony, it may not have seemed particularly subtle or ironic to those of Luke’s day, who read Acts in the light of Jewish riots and revolts and in the knowledge that their splendid temple had long lain in ruins.148

Paul’s experiences in the temple and thereafter are modeled upon those of Jesus,149 supporting the observation that Acts 19 is an epitome of the career of Paul, which echoes that of Jesus and of the Jerusalem community, as the points of similarity with chaps. 1–8 have intimated.150 “Beginning from the baptism of John” (cf. Luke 3:1-20; Acts 1:21, etc.), as it were, proceeding to proclamation in the synagogue (cf. Luke 4:16-30)151 and a career mighty in word and deed (cf. Luke 24:19; Acts 19:8-12), Paul followed the paths of Jesus and Peter. To foreshadow Paul’s “passion,” there is the mob scene in vv. 23-40, which ends, like the account of Paul’s trials (19:31; 26:31-32), with the judgment of high-placed persons that he is guiltless. One objection to this proposal, the essential absence of Paul as a direct actor from 19:10 onwards,152 establishes the central thesis: even after his “departure” (20:29) Paul remains a vital force in Ephesus. This thesis, the essence of Deutero-Paulinism, is most evident in the collection, study, and composition of Pauline epistles, of which Ephesus was probably the central location. For Luke, the primary concern was to portray Paul as an ally of the Jerusalem apostles and a selfless martyr in the quest for unity and opposition to views he regarded as deviant and destructive. Words there have been, and the most important are yet to come (20:17-38), but deeds have equal value, as example, symbol, and inspiration. The garments of Paul retain their power to “heal” believers in Ephesus (cf. 19:11-12); demons of disunity flee at the name of the Jesus whom he proclaims (cf. 19:13-17); his teaching purges vulgar superstition (cf. 19:18-20); and the doctrines of this philosopher pose no threat to the ruling power (cf. 19:35-40). Indeed, his message will help fashion some of the less-tractable elements of the Greek east into good subjects. Anyone who helps rid the community of pernicious magical practices and exploitative practitioners of

143 See, in particular, Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:242–43. Note also Cunningham, Tribulations, 266. 144 See pp. 548–53. 145 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:242. 146 Cunningham, Tribulations, 266. 147 As noted above, the Secretary resembles Gamaliel. 148 The foremost irony is that Paul was duly worshiping at Jerusalem when apprehended, and the lead subtlety is that the charges of both sets of opponents contain more truth than the narrative concedes.

149 150 151 152

See Table 6, p. 533. Rackham, 356. See p. 494 n. 77. Acts 19:21-22 is an exception, but it deals with future plans. In vv. 30-31 Paul does not act.

501

Acts part 2C.indd 501

8/27/2008 10:17:06 AM

religion deserves admiration from those who govern. The friendship extended by some Asiarchs indicates that they took this point. Alternative models were becoming available, including radical Paulinists who would obliterate any links between Christianity and its Israelite heritage, others who would appropriate the apostle as an authority for Valentinian and other “Gnostic” movements, and those

who showcased Paul as an enemy of the Roman order. For many—but far from all—believers, Ephesus was the capital of Paulinism and Paul the font of Ephesian Christianity.153 Acts 19 enthrones the Paul of Acts in the metropolis of Asia. His mission in the Greek east is complete. Luke will devote a chapter to Paul the pastor, before turning to the subject of Paul the prisoner.

153 Even Revelation, which derives from Ephesus, reveals Pauline influence and begins with seven letters to seven churches.

502

Acts part 2C.indd 502

8/27/2008 10:17:06 AM

20:1-38

20

20:1-38  Paul’s Departure from Asia 1/ Once the uproar had died down, Paul summoned the followers for an uplifting farewell speech before setting out for Macedonia. a 2/ He traveled through those regions, delivering many an uplifting message, b arriving eventually in Greece, 3/ where he spent three months. As he was about to take ship for Syria, a Jewish plot against him led to a change of plans, c and he returned by way of Macedonia. 4/ Associated with him were Sopater the son of Pyrrhus, from Beroea; Aristarchus and Secundus, both Thessalonians; Gaius of Derbe; Timothy; and the Asians Tychicus and Trophimus. 5/ They had gone ahead d and were awaiting us in Troas. 6/ We sailed from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread and joined them in Troas five days later. There we remained for a week. 7/ While we were gathered on the first daye of the week for the breaking of bread, Paul addressed them. Since he intended to leave the next day, he extended his sermon until midnight. 8/ The lamps f in the upper room where we were meeting were numerous, 9/ and a young man named Eutychus, who was sitting on the windowsill, got more and more drowsy as Paul talked on and on.g Eventually he fell sound asleep and plunged three floors to the ground. When picked up he was found to be dead, h 10/ but Paul descended, threw himself upon him, and embraced him. “Stop your fuss,” he said. “He’s alive.” 11/ Paul went back upstairs to break the bread, eat, and continue conversing at length until daybreak, at which time he left. i 12/ To the immense relief of everyone, they took the boy away alive. 13/ We, j meanwhile, had gone ahead k to the ship and sailed for Assos, l where we intended to take Paul on board, for he had told us to do so, m intending to travel by land, himself. n 14/ He did meet us at Assos, so we took him aboard and went on

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h i

j

k

In place of the rather curt meta­pevmpw for “summon” are two stylistic variants in the tradition. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 328) avoids repeating the verb parakalevw (“comfort”), which appears in the next verse by having Paul deliver “numerous orders” (polla; parakeleuvsa~) and omits the more or less gratuitous poreuvesqai (“travel”). The D-Text adds, typically, “all those regions.” In place of the participle parakalevsa~ (“console”), the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 328) apparently reads crh­ savmeno~ and omits “them.” This participial phrase, which means something like “making substantial use of speech,” is so unusual that it deserves consideration. If it is unlikely to be original, it is equally difficult to understand why an editor selected it. On the expression “change of plan” (ejgevneto gnwvmh"), see BDF §162 (7). The genitive amounts to a predication: Paul devised this plan. The following genitive articular infinitive is unusual. See Moule, Idiom Book, 129. BDF §400 (7) is content to call it “pleonastic.” The verb proevrcomai (“go ahead”) is preferred on the grounds of common sense to the better attested prosevrcomai (“go on”). Lit. “[day] one.” Substitution of cardinal for ordinal numbers is common in vernacular Greek, especially biblical Greek. The uJpolavmpade~ of Bezae could mean “little windows,” but d has faculae (“torches”), a meaning attested also in Greek: BDAG, 1038, s.v. One example is Jos. Asen. 14:9. This word has the benefit of rarity (and was preferred by Zuntz: Metzger, Textual Commentary, 422) but is probably a “realistic” correction. The space was too small for many large lamps. This, in turn, supports the view that the lamps are not simply a realistic detail. See below. D reads “. . . in the window, possessed (katecov­ meno~) by deep sleep.” The phrase is not idiomatic Greek according to Cadbury and Lake, 256. D* makes the final words a relative clause kai; o{~ h[rqh nekrov" (“and who was found to be dead”). BDF §425 (6). This is the only instance cited as an example of “the classical liberty to use ou{tw~ (“so,” “thus”) to summarize the content of a preceding participial construction.” Ephrem and the Armenian catena evidently read: “I, Luke, and those who were with me went on board. . . .” According to Ropes (Text, 442–43), R. Harris thought that this was the original D-Text. This is unlikely. It reflects a time when Luke’s authorship was taken for granted. Ropes (Text, 443 n. 1) observes that the catena and Chrysostom stress Paul’s frequent separation from his companions. As elsewhere, there are variants for proelqovnte" (“go ahead”) , none of greatly differing meaning.

503

Acts part 3C.indd 503

8/27/2008 10:24:27 AM



22/

25/

to Mytilene. 15/ From there we sailed on the following dayo to a point opposite Chios, and on the next we crossed to Samos, arriving in Miletus the day after, p 16/ for Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that, if the possibility permitted, he would not spend too much time in Asia. q He was in a hurry to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost, r if that were at all possible. 17/ He did, however, send a message from Miletus to Ephesus, directing the presbyters of that church to report to him. 18/ When they had arrived, he addressed them: “You s know well how I spent my time while I was with you, from the very first day that I set foot in Asia, t 19/ how I served the Lord without asserting my privileges, in misfortunes that make grown men cry and the frustrations brought about by Jewish machinations, 20/ how I never avoided saying whatever was beneficial for you or from teaching both in public and in private. u 21/ I urged Jews and Greeks alike to redirect their lives Godward and to place their trust in our Lord Jesus.v “Now, as to what lies before us. Firstly, the Spirit compels me to go to Jerusalem. What might happen to me there I do not know.w 23/ What I do know is that in city after city x the Holy Spirit discloses that arrest and afflictions loom before me.y 24/ But continued existence has no value for me beyond completing my task, z which is the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus: to make God’s gracious message manifest. “Secondly, I am aware that not one of you among whom I went about proclaiming God’s reign will ever see my face again. 26/ I therefore swear to you on this very day that I am not responsible for the loss of anyone, 27/ for I have proclaimed to you, with no reservation or qualification, the entirety of God’s will. 28/ Be attentive to yourselves and attend to the all the flock in which the

l

m n o

p

q

r

s t

Cadbury and Lake (257) prefer proselqovnte", viewing the other as an emendation. Barrett (2:957), however, prefers the shorter form. “Thasos,” an island in the northwest Aegean, is a variant in some strands of the D-Text (e.g., 614, Chrysostom) and other traditions (e.g., L Y). Or: “for so he had arranged.” D pc read wJ~ mevllwn (“as he intended”), a classical construction. On this, see Barrett, 2:957. Instead of “other” (for “next,” eJtevra/) , “evening” (eJspera/) is read by a range of witnesses. Cadbury and Lake (258) view this as both “attractive” and a probable error. D m gig sy sa and Y add kai; meivnantev~ ejn Trwgullivw/ (“and stopping at Trogyllium”). This is a logical addition. See Ramsay, Church, 155. Ropes (Text, 195) suspects that this is original, since he can find no motive for adding it, although motive for deletion is equally wanting. One difficulty is the interpretation of parebavlomen. See Cadbury and Lake, 258; and Barrett, 2:958, who sees “reach” and “pass by” as alternatives. He suggests that the editor of D misunderstood it as “pass by” and so cooked up Trogyllium. This is not a likely reconstruction. One may argue the opposite with stronger force: without the participial phrase the verb is understood as “reach.” Günther Zuntz (Opuscula Selecta: Classica, Hellenistica, Christiana [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972] 199) opposes this interpretation on stylistic and geographical grounds. See also Metzger (Textual Commentary, 423–24), who finds a decision difficult and relies upon external evidence. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 332) clarifies the phrase: “in order that he might experience no delay” (mhvpote genhvqh aujtw/` katavscesi~) and eliminate the reference to possibility. This is a pious deletion based on the presumption that Paul acted in accordance to divine guidance in fulfillment of the divine plan. Chance is excluded. On the temporal accusative here, equivalent to the dative, see Cadbury and Lake, 259; and BDF §161.3. “You” is emphatic. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 333) adds the traditional “brothers” and after the first line, oJmovse o[ntwn aujtw`n (perhaps, “when they were all together”). This looks like filler—did the editor really wish to reassure the reader that Paul did not begin before all had arrived? Does this emphasize the general and public character of his message (cf. v. 20)? E and some others prefer the cliché oJmoqumadovn (“with one accord,” which looks like an improvement of this phrase. After “Asia,” the text adds “for three years or even more I was with

504

Acts part 3C.indd 504

8/27/2008 10:24:27 AM

20:1-38

32/

36/

Holy Spirit has placed you as ‘bishops’aa charged to shepherd the church of God, which was acquired by the death of God’s own. 29/ I know bb that after my departure vicious wolves will fall upon you. cc They will show no mercy to the flock. 30/ Moreover, from your very midst will arise some who will distort the message in an attempt to get the followers to accept their leadership. dd 31/ You must therefore maintain constant vigilance. Keep my example in mind, how for three years I constantly and tearfully issued warnings to all. ee “Finally, I entrust you to the gracious message of God, ff which has the power to build you up and give you what is in store for all of God’s own. 33/ I have had no designs upon anyone’s money or personal property.gg 34/ You well know that I have met all of my own needs and those of my companions with these very hands. 35/ I have served as an example of how we are to care for those who require assistance: by hard work. Remember what the Lord Jesus said: ‘Giving brings more happiness than does receiving.’ When Paul had finished, he knelt hh and prayed with the entire group. 37/ They all wept without restraint and embraced him with repeated kisses, 38/ terribly grieved because he had said that they would never see him again. They then escorted him to the ship. ii

u

v w

x y

z

aa bb

cc dd

ee

ff

gg

hh

you . . . .” This anticipates and makes an inclusion with v. 31. In addition, there are some minor paraphrases, three of which reflect “better” Greek. On pw`" ejgenovmhn (“how/that . . . I was”), see BDF §434 (2). On the two prepositional phrases beginning with “from” (ajpov) , see Barrett, 2:966-67. The D-Text omits (Boismard, Texte, 333) the negative mhv before the infinitive, possibly because of a danger that it would be misunderstood. More interesting is the omission of “you” as the object of “teach,” perhaps because, strictly construed, it would limit Paul’s teaching to this audience. “Christ” is a common variant of the “orthodox” type. The D-Text offers several minor changes, eliminating ijdou` (“look”) and paraphrasing the two final participles (Boismard, Texte, 334). These exemplify the “copy editing” function of this tradition. D gig (vg) sy Lcf have “every city.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 335) places the oracle in direct speech (“you” instead of “me”) and adds “in Jerusalem” at the close. See Epp, Tendency, 129. Alternatives to wJ" are w{ste and e{w~, o{pw~. On the use of wJ" to express purpose see BDF §391 (1, 3). There is strong support, including a and B, for the subjunctive teleiwvsw (“finish”), with no important difference in meaning. After “my course” a range of witnesses add “with joy.” Or: “as guardians” or “overseers.” B begins with o{ti (“because”) , and a range of witnesses add gavr (“for” [conj.]). These additions make the link between vv. 28a and 29 clearer. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 337) omits “upon you.” The variant ajpostrevfein (“turn from”), found in some D-witnesses, substitutes a more familiar verb for ajpospavw used here for the attraction of proselytes. The D-Text once more (cf. v. 26) adds “of you” (Boismard, Texte, 337), personalizing the sentence and thus limiting its timeless and general purpose. Witnesses exhibit the customary option of “God” or “the Lord.” Metzger (Textual Commentary, 427) says that external evidence supports “God.” Barrett (2:980) suggests that 7:59 is the basis for “Lord.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 338) removes any personal target: “I have not desired silver, gold, and clothing,” replacing “or” with “and” and dropping “no one.” This derives from reading oujdenov~ as an adjective and revising accordingly. Cadbury and Lake (262) prefer this understanding. The idiom for “kneel” (qei;~ ta; govnata, lit. “placing the knees”) is, according to Moule (Idiom Book, 192), a Latinism found in Mark 15:19, once in Luke, and four times in Acts (e.g., 7:60). The

505

Acts part 3C.indd 505

8/27/2008 10:24:27 AM

ii

most important of these, noted by Johnson (366), is Luke 22:41. After his final speech, Jesus prayed. Boismard (Texte, 339) omits “terribly grieved” and transforms the sentiment into direct speech: “especially [ ] because he said, ‘You will never again see my face.’” Editors, notably those who produced

Analysis

Acts 20 begins the story of Paul’s fateful last journey to Jerusalem. The focus is on his pastoral role, both in direct ministry to the faithful (vv. 7-12)1 and as a leader of leaders (vv. 18-35). This is artistic. Paul had performed such functions earlier, but emphasis on them suits the plot at this point. The entire chapter treats Paul’s legacy for later generations of Asian believers. He is not here the missionary who wins believers by preaching, but the pastor who serves as model for nurture through word and deed. A cardinal element of that nurture is resistance to false teaching. “Deed” is showcased in the charming episode in Troas, while his discourse to the Ephesian elders exemplifies his “word.” Pathos is pervasive,2 and the atmosphere is generally sober and, toward the close, foreboding (cf. also 19:20-21). Luke has effectively created a new character: The Paul who has hitherto outwitted wily opponents and shrugged off injury and indignity is now a victim commanding sympathy, a tireless worker who labored with his own hands to support himself and others while working sleeplessly to assist his converts, despite “Jewish plots” and other outrages. Verses 7-12 are, it will be argued, probably a Lucan creation, inspired by the LXX. Luke also composed the speech of vv. 17-35, drawing deeply on Paul’s letters. 1

2

3 4 5

the D-Text, increased the amount of direct speech in Acts. Boismard’s D-Text also changes the final phrase “as far as the ship,” perhaps so that readers will not conclude that they boarded it.

The general framework, with its apparently gratuitous details about travel—details that also serve the plot— derives from source material. The source was, according to the hypothesis of this commentary,3 a letter about the delivery of the collection, written by those who accompanied Paul on this mission, or by Paul and his colleagues. The “we,” which once more enters without preparation (v. 5),4 probably derives from that source. Another feature may be dating by the Jewish calendar (20:6, 16), 5 a system also congenial to Luke. The original extent of this hypothetical source is unknown. One can do no more than identify tentatively portions that Luke chose to extract and utilize, with revision. One of those revisions was deletion of the purpose for which this journey was undertaken. If logic is a valid criterion, the first trace of this source is in v. 4: the letter began with the start of the journey.6 Verses 1b-3 could derive from known correspondence.7 The last clear traces are in 21:18 (19), where the “we” disappears.8 Comment   1-6  These verses are unified insofar as they narrate the fulfillment of the journey contemplated in 19:21. Removal of the purpose makes the details somewhat

Note the use of parakalevw (“comfort”) in the pastoral sense: vv. 1, 2, and 12; cf. 11:23; 14:22; 15:32; 16:39-40. On this, see also Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:246. On the pathos of chaps. 20–21, see Pervo, Profit, 67–68. Cadbury (Making, 238) bestows high praise on this scene. See pp. 12–14. See the excursus “‘We’ in Acts” in the commentary on 16:10. Cf. also 27:14. Acts 20:16 is, however, open to question. See below. Haenchen (587–88) notes

6

7 8

these features: fondness for the imperfect, eij~ for ejn (“into” meaning “in”), and the later form of the name Mitylene. BDF §261 (2) observes that the use of the article with place-names is common in the travel passages of Acts, contrary to usage ­elsewhere. “Greece” ( ïEllav~) rather than “Achaea” is a popular usage that conforms to neither Luke nor Paul. See Joachim Wanke, “ïEllav~,” EDNT 1:435. Luke also had access to data from known epistles: 1 Cor 16:1-8; 2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:5-7; Rom 15:25-26. Presumably this continued with the rejection of the

506

Acts part 3C.indd 506

8/27/2008 10:24:28 AM

20:1-38

mysterious, raising suspense.9 Literally construed, v. 1 indicates that, once the crowd had been sent away from the theater, Paul met with the believers and then departed forthwith. This is the result of narrative compression. Time would be required to arrange such a gathering, let alone a space of sufficient size. The narrator wishes to provide direct assurance that Paul did not leave without a proper farewell and indirect evidence that the disturbance did not impede his action.10 Three months’ stay in Achaea was a long time, probably a winter, one would gather from v. 6, and long enough to stoke the fires of conspiracy.11 The specter of a “Jewish plot” prepares the way for v. 19 (although that seems to have specific reference to Asia, where no such plots were reported), succinctly reminds readers of the difficulties under which Paul must labor, and neatly finesses the difficulty of suppressing the purpose. In Acts, a Jewish plot replaces the delivery of Paul’s Collection.12 The evident meaning is that Paul changed his mode of travel because it would have been difficult to hide aboard a ship.13 Paul’s Jewish adversaries, thwarted hitherto, have not abandoned their ambitions. His plans must change. The D-Text did not so interpret the change of plans and revised v. 3: “. . . Jewish plot . . . he wished to sail to Syria, but the Spirit told him to return via Macedonia. 4. As he was about to leave . . .” This suggests

9

10

11

12 13

14

that Paul decided to leave because of the plot and that the Spirit changed the itinerary.14 As a result of this change, the D-Text has the party accompany Paul from Achaea “as far as Asia,” rather than precede him to Troas. Consequently, all await “him” rather than “us” in v. 5. This unsuccessful effort to extract clarity from a somewhat oblique phrase shows the lengths to which the editor(s) of the D-Text were willing to go to rationalize the narrative.15 For the readers this is but one more Jewish attempt on Paul’s life skillfully evaded (cf., e.g., 9:23-25, 29-30; 23:12-35). Little will be gained by asking why these enemies did not display more flexibility and finesse. The audience would be free to imagine the conspirators waiting until nightfall away from land to begin their fruitless search for Paul (the others were of no account) only to discover themselves at sea, literally and figuratively.   4  Paul had followers. In this he was not alone. Jesus also had followers who accompanied him on his final journey. Lists of names in Acts presage important moments in the narrative (1:13; 6:5; 13:1). A list of seven foreshadowed the Diaspora mission; this list of seven reflects its conclusion, supplying Paul with an entourage representative of the regions in which he has labored.16 “At the peak of his activity, surrounded by numerous attendants, the Apostle sets out on this last journey to Jerusalem.”17

collection and Paul’s response, which evidently led to his arrest. Johnson (357) notes that the absence of a reason for the expedition enhances the similarity to Jesus’ final journey. The historian, who presumes imprisonment and/ or a major calamity, finds the language a bit disconcerting and asks whether a longer period of time is in view. (That is, v. 1 by itself could imply a disturbance that lasted for some days.) This was not Luke’s intention. The ship would have left Cenchreae (cf. 18:18). A winter’s residence at Corinth was probably derived from 1 Cor 16:18. The idea of a Jewish conspiracy may have come from Rom 15:30-32. For one means, see Lucian Alex. 56; and Pervo, Profit, 150 n. 69. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 287) proposes that this was a pilgrim ship bound for Jerusalem. Attributing plans to inspiration is typical of the

D-Text. The Acts of Paul will do much to satisfy the desire for such guidance. 15 Boismard, Texte, 328–29. See the lucid explanation of the D-Text by Ropes, Text, 190–91. Cadbury and Lake (253) observe that the problem was lack of clarity regarding the composition of the group or groups. 16 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:246; cf. also Rackham, 375. 17 F. Overbeck, cited by Haenchen, 581.

507

Acts part 3C.indd 507

8/27/2008 10:24:28 AM

Excursus: The Seven of Acts 20:418

been well known in Ephesus and may have played a role in maintaining and transmitting the Pauline legacy. Speculation has been rife. Sopater has been identified, since the appearance of the D-Text, 25 with the “Sosipater” of Rom 16:21.26 That would place him in Corinth at the right time.27 Given Luke’s tendency to use slightly different names (e.g., Silas, Priscilla) for persons mentioned in the Pauline correspondence, this is a possibility.28 Many of the names on the list have been proposed as possible candidates for the unnamed believer of 2 Cor 8:18-19. The D-Text says that Gaius was from Douberios, a Macedonian town.29 This would identify him with the Gaius of 19:29, a clearly harmonizing alteration that disrupts the symmetry of the list. 30 Scholarly consensus views these persons as delegates bearing the collection for Jerusalem. 31 This raises some questions about the list. The absence of Cyprus is no surprise and is another indication of its vague standing as a Pauline missionary site. The lack of representatives from Philippi and Corinth is, however, difficult to understand, 32 and one may ask why

The list, which quite probably derives from a written source,19 includes three representatives from Macedonia (Sopater of Beroea and two from Thessalonica—Aristarchus and Secundus), two from “South Galatia” (Gaius and Timothy, of Derbe and Lystra, 20 respectively), and two from Asia (Tychicus and Trophimus). The name of Timothy, mentioned here for the final time in Acts, appears eighteen times in the Pauline correspondence and Hebrews, including Rom 16:21, which places him with Paul in Corinth at the time this journey got under way. Three, Sopater, Secundus, and Gaius, are mentioned nowhere else in the NT.21 Aristarchus appears in Phlm 24||Col 4:10 and thus belongs to the undisputed Pauline tradition. His name emerged in 19:29 and will reappear in 27:2. Trophimus features in 21:29 as a gentile allegedly introduced into the temple.22 2 Tim 4:20 reports that Paul left him ill in Miletus. This is a fiction.23 Tychicus plays an active role in the Deutero-Pauline tradition: Col 4:7-9||Eph 6:21-22; 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12.24 The two Asians and Aristarchus may have 18 For a detailed discussion of these persons see Wolf-Henning Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter (WMANT 50; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 45–58. Note also Hemer (Book, 236), who gives evidence of geographical suitability. 19 The hypothetical Collection Source, on which see pp. 12–14. On the likelihood that it comes from written rather than oral tradition, see Rudolf Bultmann, “Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte,” in idem, Exegetica (ed. Erich Dinkler; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967) 412–23, esp. 418–19. 20 Acts 16:1 is not unambiguous about Timothy’s residence. 21 This presumes that efforts to harmonize Gaius of Derbe with the Macedonian Gaius of Acts 19:29 are erroneous (see below). The Ap. Const. 7.46 report that Gaius of Derbe was the first bishop of Pergamum. Secundus reappears in the D-Text of 27:2 (q.v.). 22 The name indicates probable servile origin: a house-born slave. See NewDocs 3 (1983) no. 80, pp. 91–93. 23 See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 125. 24 The name Tychicus generally indicated servile origin: NewDocs 2 (1982) no. 86, p. 109; and Hemer, Book, 236. 25 Boismard, Texte, 329—although the D tradition is mixed. 26 E.g., Deissmann, Light, 437–38. See Keith Nickle,

27

28

29 30

31

32

The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (SBT 48; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1966) 68 n. 78. This claim, which also applies to Timothy, presumes that Romans 16 was written from Corinth not long before the beginning of the journey to deliver the collection. The omission of the patronymic “son of Pyrrhus” (m sy) was probably the result of a desire for symmetry (none of the other names includes affiliation). Ropes’s proposal (Text, 191) that it derives from patro~ in his name is less likely. Boismard, Texte, 329. See Haenchen, 52–53. The D-Text also replaces “Asians” with “Ephesians” (previous note), obliterating a Lucan trope while restoring consistency, since only names of cities are used otherwise. Bezae reads “Eutychus.” Cadbury and Lake (254) ask whether Tychicus may not be an emendation from Col 4:7. This does not seem as likely an error—it is difficult to imagine identity of this person with the “youth” of vv. 7-12, who is freshly introduced. E.g., Haenchen, 581; and Witherington, 603. The omissions lead Lüdemann (Acts, 269) to dissent. He attributes the list to those who worked with Paul in Troas and environs. See Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992) 123.

508

Acts part 3C.indd 508

8/27/2008 10:24:28 AM

20:1-38

no representatives from the addressees of Galatians are mentioned (cf. 1 Cor 16:1). 33 The list is evidently incomplete. 34 The absence of Titus is probably due to Lucan damnatio memoriae, and Timothy (presuming his presence35) was not the representative of a community but a Pauline co-worker. 36 The membership of “we” adds another note of uncertainty. Luke very likely derived these names from a source—the Collection Source—but it is not possible to determine what alterations he made. He may have wished to limit the number to the symbolically satisfying seven. 37   5  The pronoun “we” unexpectedly returns. This

constitutes another bracket framing the Aegean mission of Paul, for the first plural was last heard from in Philippi (16:17).38 “We” here also shares another typical property: it is customary in travel accounts.39 Formally, this “we” excludes both Paul and the seven persons of v. 4. This may have been accidental, but the result is to reduce any sense of authority.40 Tannehill describes its function: “‘we’ as fellow travelers both share Paul’s

experience and receive his legacy as he travels toward his passion.”41 “We” will endure until 21:18. Although it evidently comes from a source, the author has integrated it into the account, even granting it the privilege of omniscience in vv. 9-11.   6  The verse brings about the reunion of the separated components of the delegation in Troas.42 Troas,43 a Hellenistic foundation later named “Alexandria,” with the designator “Troas” to acknowledge the proximity of Troy, was customarily known only by the epithet after Augustus gave it colonial status: Colonia Augusta Troadensium.44 Its importance as a hub of transit and communication can be seen from references in early Christian literature.45 Acts does not describe the foundation of the community at Troas. Perhaps this fell within the scope of 19:10.46 The reference to Passover not only indicates Jewish piety (against 21:21) but also evokes death, specifically the “passions” of Jesus (Luke 22:1) and Peter (Acts 12:3).47 The seven-day halt (cf.

33 Supporters of the “South Galatian” hypothesis (that Galatians was addressed to the communities discussed in Acts 13–14) will probably regard Gaius and Timothy as support for this interpretation. It is improbable that Paul sought to raise money from areas where he had worked with Barnabas. Gaius may have been the person named in Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14. 34 So Georgi, Remembering, 123; and Nickle, The Collection, 68–69, who suggests that additional representatives were “picked up along the trip” (69), noting references to Troas, Philippi, Tyre, and possibly Cyprus, among others, in Acts 20–21. 35 For views on Timothy as a Lucan addition, see Weiser, 2:559. 36 Georgi, Remembering, 122. 37 According to Nickle (The Collection, 53 n. 37), Otto Dibelius suggested that the number had symbolic value. So also Haenchen, 583. Ollrog (Paulus, 54) sees a chiastic structure in the list. 38 The narrator abbreviates. Neapolis was the port of departure. 39 See the excursus “‘We’ in Acts” in the commentary on 16:10. 40 See Praeder, “Problem,” 198. 41 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:246. Praeder (“Problem,” 199) rejects this interpretation. 42 The apparently awkward a[cri hJmerw`n pevnte (lit. “until/up to five days”) has superior variants: “five days later” (p 74 a E 33) and “on the fifth day” (D). Irenaeus omits it. The text may be corrupt. Moule

43

44

45

46 47

(Idiom Book, 205) describes it as “curious.” Evidently the evolution was from “it took us as long as five days” to “within five days.” See the references in Cadbury and Lake, 255. See Colin J. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” TynBul 26 (1975) 79–112; Trebilco, “Asia,” 357–59; and Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Troas,” ABD 6:666–67. The Romans traced their origin to the Trojan exile Aeneas. Arator (2:753-56) makes the connection, claiming that the site has been blessed with a new and greater glory. 2 Cor 2:12; Acts 20:5-6; 2 Tim 4:13. Ignatius wrote three letters from Troas and sailed thence as a prisoner en route to Rome (Polyc. 8). Cf. also Symrn. 12; Phld. 11. See 2 Cor 2:12 for Paul’s work in Troas. Strictly speaking, the text does not say that they celebrated Passover. Haenchen (583) regards this as unlikely, given the gentile nature of the Philippian community. Marshall (325), however, presumes that it is the Christian “Passover,” with a reference to 1 Cor 5:7-8, a view that Barrett (2:949) dismisses. It is more likely that, in the light of 20:16, it is merely a means of indicating time.

509

Acts part 3C.indd 509

8/27/2008 10:24:28 AM

21:4, 8, 27; 28:4) may have been involuntary. Otherwise, the delay is difficult to square with v. 16.   7-12  In time, the prosaic enumeration of localities will become drumbeats accompanying Paul to his destiny. Troas brings a seven-day halt. On Sunday48 the community gathers to celebrate the Eucharist.49 This episode is the single detailed description of Paul’s pastoral work. The setting is not gracious: the third floor of an urban tenement at night.50 People worked during the daylight; lamps provided limited light and considerable discomfort. Believers had to crowd into a single room and worship without privacy or security. The author was not attempting to draw a contrast between the primitive, gritty conditions of apostolic times and the spacious amenities of the present day. 51 This was a worship setting familiar to Luke and his readers. It explodes any notions of large communities. If there were as many as fifty people, they would have been hanging out of the windows. They were. This was not an occasion for the visiting missionary to offer a few words. Paul’s sermon was rather longer than the verbatim specimens provided elsewhere. Lamps filled the room with smoke and heat.

This contributed to the soporific effect, putting one young man named Eutychus52 to sleep. 53 Since he was not the only person ever to doze off during a sermon, the story will bring a smile to nearly every face. Unfortunately, he had, for any one or more of a number of good reasons, taken a perch on a window sill, and he fell out. Only now does the narrator reveal the height of the building. The fall was fatal. 54 This sufficed to interrupt the sermon. Paul went outside, embraced the youth, and spoke (to whom?) reassuring words. Then he went back upstairs to continue his interrupted discourse, followed by food and conversation, and took his departure. The suspense is maddening. Only in what could pass for an afterthought does the narrator report that Eutychus had been fortunate after all. The narrative technique is complex and elusive. The passage falls within the realm of “we,”55 but the narrator changes focus frequently. Although “we” are assembled in v. 7, Paul, a new subject, speaks to “them.” Verse 8 returns to “we,” but v. 9 shifts to Eutychus, until the final two words, which take place on the ground outdoors and require an indefinite third person. Paul reappears as subject in vv. 10-11, where

48 This is “the Lord’s day.” Cf. 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10; Did. 14:1; Ignatius Magn. 9.1. 49 One cannot determine for certain whether this refers to Saturday evening (by the Jewish mode of reckoning) or to Sunday. See Conzelmann, 169. Sunday evening is more probable, at least in Lucan terms. See Cadbury and Lake (255) for evidence that Luke begins the day at dawn. Note Luke 24:13-53, all of which is envisioned as taking place on Sunday, although the sun had set by v. 29. The liturgy of vv. 7-12 included word (v. 7) and sacrament (v. 11, followed by “fellowship”), embraced under the rubric “to break bread,” which therefore designates the entire act of worship rather than a “church supper.” The hour (very late or very early) may suggest an early morning celebration involving more of a symbolic than a nourishing meal (Haenchen, 586). The participle geusavmeno" (lit. “tasting”) in Luke refers to meals (Luke 14:24; Acts 10:10; 23:14). 50 On urban tenements, see Russell Meiggs, Roman Ostia (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 236–51. Those at Troas were probably roughly comparable. A room in an upper story was unlikely to have been larger than fifty square meters. Martial lived in a third-floor apartment (Epig. 1.117.7). Note also

51 52 53

54

55

Seneca Ira 3.35.5; Ben. 6.15.7; and Juvenal Sat. 3.190–202. Even when a full discount for hyperbole is applied, these writers do not paint an appealing picture of such living arrangements. Chrysostom makes this contrast to shame his hearers in Hom. 43, p. 363. Eutychus (“lucky”) was probably a common servile name. Cf. the slave Fortunatus in Act. John 73–86. 1891 pc p eliminate the phrase katenecqei;" ajpo; tou` u{pnou (“eventually he fell sound asleep”), perhaps viewed as redundant. In fact, it describes the gradual process of dozing off and then falling unconscious, as well as increasing suspense via ponderous development. This was not remarkable. See a similar accident (to an eight-year-old slave) in the oft-cited P. Oxy. 3, 475; and Aelian Var. hist. 3.4. On the former, see Cadbury (Book, 9), who provides another example from Epidaurus. Plutarch (Per. 13.7–8) tells how one of the artisans engaged in building the ­Propylaea in Athens fell from a great height. Physicians thought the case hopeless, but Athena appeared to Pericles in a dream and prescribed treatment that brought prompt recovery. Attempts to remove the “we” from the story (e.g., Barrett, 2:xxvi) are ill-advised. The first person is a

510

Acts part 3C.indd 510

8/27/2008 10:24:28 AM

20:1-38

the narrator ­follows him downstairs and back, until he leaves the scene. “They” is the subject of v. 12. The conclusion is that, intended or not, 56 the narrator is an omniscient “we,” who knows why Eutychus fell and can follow Paul, who knows that he was killed, and can report his words and movements, as well as what took place after Paul’s (and their own?) departure (v. 12). 57 “We” includes (at least some of) Paul’s companions and is distinct from both him 58 and the members of the community. Paul also participates in this omniscience, since he knows that Eutychus died from his fall and that he will return alive. Lucan narrative techniques are perceptible. Following the introduction in v. 7 and an apparently gratuitous reference to the lighting arrangements in v. 8, the narrator devotes twenty-seven words to the situation of Eutychus, ending abruptly with a two-word statement of his fate. The drawn-out depiction is a soporific prelude to a brusque finale. Also Lucan is the contrasting use

56 57

58 59

60

61

of the verb “fall” (pivptw), which serves as both cause of death (v. 9) and, in v. 10, as means of revival.59 Although retardation can be a feature of resurrection stories, in Mark 4:21-43 and John 11:1-44 it leads to death, whereas here the retardation comes between Paul’s announcement and Eutychus’s return. Formally, this is not a typical NT resurrection story.60 The patient expires while the healer is present; healing words are wanting, and the one restored to life does not appear in person or demonstrate his revival.61 Verse 12b functions like a final acclamation, but its language is Lucan.62 The passage resembles, in several respects, some of the revivals in the Apocryphal Acts, which can be so numerous that someone is raised from the dead . . . and life, so to speak, goes on.63 The Acts of Paul awarded the Eutychus episode the most sincere form of flattery.64 The narrative form is unique. Verses 7-12 belong to the realm of a first-­person narrator, who retreats from the action so that v. 12 effectively

part of this account (v. 8), from which a story about 62 Litotes: literally, “They were immeasurably Eutychus cannot be extracted. c­ onsoled.” It is not unlikely that the author did not recognize 63 In Act. John 22-24 the raising of Cleopatra has all of the consequences of the use of “we” in vv. 8 and 13. the typical features, but the raising of her husband For other uses of the omniscient “we,” see the takes place in a summary. Cf. also the raising of a excursus “‘We’ in Acts,” pp. 392–96. Tannehill priest of Artemis in chap. 47, the old man in chap. (Narrative Unity, 2:248–49) attempts to fend off 52 (whose first response is “no thanks”), and the this omniscience by speaking of “free indirect multiple resurrections in the tale of Drusiana and discourse,” which is a quality of anonymous omniCallimachus (63–86). See also the multiple resurscient narration. Discomfort with “we” is apparent rections in the Act. Pet. (Verc.) 26–28. in the thinly attested (1 pc bo) variant “they.” 64 Act. Paul Mart. 1 (Patroclus). Dennis MacDonald Paul and “we” do not reunite until v. 14. (“Luke’s Eutychus and Homer’s Elpenor: Acts Note also the use of five words beginning with a 20:7-12 and Odyssey, 10-12,” JHC 1 [1994] 5–24), form of kata- from the opening word of v. 9 to the following François Bovon (“La vie des apôtres: first word of v. 10, including two uses of katafevrw Traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes,” in (“fall [down]”), for falling asleep and falling down. idem, ed., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres: christianFor typical features, see Bultmann, History, 233–34; isme et monde paien [Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981], and Theissen, Miracle Stories, 90–94, who does not 141–58, esp. 150), sets out detailed arguments for distinguish these from other healings. the dependence. Richard Bauckham also attribThe narrative does not speak about Eutychus’s uted the Patroclus story to borrowing from Acts condition. The verb h[gagon in v. 12 could mean (“The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,” in Winter “they brought (him up to the room)” or “took him and Clarke, Setting, 105–52, esp. 134). See also (home),” among various possibilities. It could apply Pervo, “Hard Act,” 10–12; and José Antonio Artés to carrying an unconscious body or escorting a Hernández, “Lc 19, 1-10—Hch 20, 7-12—Passio Pauli fully recovered Eutychus. The same ambiguity I (104.8—106.15): Análisis comparativo,” FiloNT applies to the verb h[rqh in v. 9, which literally 16 (2003) 49–67. This type remained popular in means “was taken up” or “taken away.” “Removed” hagiography: Athanasius Vit. Ant. 8; Sulpicius is one possibility. (The translation “found” retains Severus Life of Martin 7.3; 8.2; and Gregory’s Life of the lack of definiteness; 88 reads euJrevqh, “was Benedict 32.3. See also Spencer, “Wise Up, Young found,” often the equivalent of “was.”) Man,” 43–46.

511

Acts part 3C.indd 511

8/27/2008 10:24:29 AM

takes place “off-stage.” By attempting to remedy this ­d ifficulty, the D-Text underlines it: “While they were saying farewell, he brought the youth . . .”65 The effective understatement of the conventional and more original text says, in effect, that Paul’s words sufficed. Formally atypical miracles raise questions about source. Martin Dibelius awarded this episode his least flattering epithet: “secular” (profan),66 although he allowed that the author “has introduced a certain Christian interest into the framing of the story.”67 His judgment of its non-Christian origin was based on its alleged ambiguity (good diagnosis or miracle?),68 its unedifying nature, and the narrative focus in general, not to mention the element of humor. Luke, who would not attribute a story of this quality to the person of Paul, must have taken it from tradition. Lüdemann affirms its secular character, but assigns Luke the responsibility for “Christianizing” the legend, which he found in the

course of his “secular” reading.69 Dennis MacDonald has a specific suggestion: the Odyssey.70 Other sources are apparent: two resurrections from the Elijah/Elisha tradition.71 In 1 Kgs 17:17-24, Elijah revives the son of the widow of Zarephath.72 Elisha revives a Shunammite woman’s son in the finely crafted narrative of 2 Kgs 4:18-37. The Elijah story speaks of an upper room (uJperw/`on; cf. Acts 20:8), where the child was sitting (ejkavqhto; cf. Acts 20:9). The healer’s prayer includes the expression “Let [his] life (hJ yuchv) return to him” (v. 21). In 2 Kings 4 the boy sleeps, then dies. The prophet eventually comes in person, lies prone upon him,73 and can ultimately restore the child to his mother.74 Some of the details are minor and differently employed, but it is very difficult to get around the word “life” (yuchv) , which is not used in conventional resurrection stories, and, most particularly, the rather embarrassing action of “embracing” the patient.75 These

65 ajspazomevnwn aujtw`n h[gagen to;n neaniskon . . . (Boismard, Texte, 331). Clark (liii, 131, 377) re­a rranges the text, placing v. 12 between v. 10 and v. 11 and preserving the farewell. He justifies this from a paraphrase of Cassiodorus. This makes the story more conventional and prosaic and therefore misses the narrator’s literary object. 66 Dibelius, Studies, 17–19. 67 Ibid., 18. 68 Attempts to characterize this act as a diagnosis err. The last idea in the narrator’s mind was to intimate that Paul had engaged in no more than acute observation. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 290–91) had no doubts: Eutychus was dead because the author, a physician, said so. He reads the text, which says that Eutychus was dead (nekrov~), correctly. Polhill (419 n. 64) makes the same point after noting that “many interpreters” reject the notion of a miracle. For the same phrase (h[rqh nekrov~), with no possibility of ambiguity, see T. Jud. 9:3. Apparent death may also be characterized as a resurrection. Of many examples from ancient fiction, note Apuleius Metam. 10.2–12, the story of a young boy believed poisoned but actually given a sleeping potion, whose revival in par. 12 is characterized as a return from the dead. His father then led him out to the people (producit ad populum [cf. Acts 20:12]). Like Lazarus (John 11:44), he walks out wrapped in burial garments. The section has several affinities with the initiation of Lucius in book 11. For the raising of one apparently dead,

69

70 71

72 73 74 75

see Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.45 (which is like Luke 7:11-17), where the narrator twice uses the verb dokevw (“seem”). (Philostratus may have “demythologized” an actual resurrection story.) Lüdemann, 223–24. Conzelmann (169) seeks to isolate this source. Verse 7 is an editorial “preview,” which does not fit with vv. 8-9. Verse 11 is intrusive. He thus “cuts” vv. 7 and 11, finding “a secular story with a popular comic touch.” The liturgical features were absent in the original. His reconstruction amounts to little more than elimination of “nonsecular” elements to find the desired residue. MacDonald, “Luke’s Eutychus” (n. 64 above). Among those who have observed these parallels are Rackham, 380; Lampe, “Miracles,” 163–79; and Goulder, Type, 50. For Luke’s interest in these stories, see Luke 4:26. In the MT of 1 Kgs 17:21, Elijah lies upon the boy, but the LXX euphemizes this to “breathe.” For details of the Greek text, see Barrett, 2:954–55. In the background is a kind of “sympathetic magic” in which life is restored by mimicking the action (sexual intercourse) through which it is created. See Reinhold Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962) 86. Bede (81) cites Gal 4:19: Paul is giving birth to Eutychus. (The Latin verb incubuit is used of birth.) Bruce (426), who notes the Elijah/Elisha parallels, asks, “Is a form of artificial respiration implied?” Ancient medicine had its deficits, but it is unlikely that lying prone

512

Acts part 3C.indd 512

8/27/2008 10:24:29 AM

20:1-38

allusions to and borrowings from the LXX put paid to the hypothesis of a “profane” source.76 Internal Lucan parallels are also important. These include the raising of Tabitha (Acts 9:38-41) by Peter, an event that also takes place in an upper room and has several reminiscences of the Elijah/Elisha stories,77 and the story of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), which amounts to a near retelling of Elijah’s miracle in 1 Kings 17.78 These parallels between Luke and Acts and within Acts, all of which evince imitation of the LXX, strongly support the hypothesis that 20:7-12 is a Lucan composition. The alternative would be an empty shell: a resurrection by Paul (?) at some place and time, garnered and preserved by unknown means, transformed into its present shape and (presumably) inserted by the author at this point.79 Luke had more in mind than developing and inserting a good story at this point. Charles Talbert points out the general hostility to nocturnal meetings and legal action to suppress them, on the grounds of political conspiracy or criminal religiosity.80 Standard accusations against cults included nocturnal orgies at which the lights were extinguished to allow for promiscuity and the sacrifice and consumption of a human being, usually a boy: “the shameful deeds about which ­stories

76

77

78

79 80

81

are told—the upsetting of the lamp, promiscuous intercourse, and the meals of human flesh.”81 From the contents of Pliny’s letter on the Christians (10.96) it is apparent that such allegations were in circulation when Acts was written.82 It may be no more than a felicitous coincidence that Luke describes a nocturnal Christian assembly at which lamps were ubiquitous and in which a boy was restored to life, but an indirect apologetic purpose is possible. The passage has clear symbolic features. To deny that a short pericope describing a celebration of the Eucharist in an upper room83 on Sunday that climaxes in the return of a dead person in the morning has any symbolic reference would border on absurdity. Like Luke 24:13-35, Troas declares that every Sunday is an Easter event.84 “Lamps” also inveigle the interpreter. They can represent the light of Christ (cf. 12:7). A more specific and contextual application is didactic. Sunday celebrates Easter, but the end is not at hand. Believers are to remain vigilant. The exhortations in Luke 12:35-37 (“have your lamps lit”) and 21:34-36 receive vivid illustration here. For Luke, “sleep” symbolizes the lack of perseverance and a window, so to speak, for Satan (see Luke 9:32; 22:45-46). Paul will reiterate the theme in his exhortation in v. 31.85 As Johnson observes,

upon someone who had just fallen several stories was viewed as therapeutic. Another source is Mark 5:39 (raising of Jairus’s daughter). The verb form qorubei`sqe (“make a fuss”) appears only there and here in the NT. Luke omitted it in his account (8:52). See the comments on that passage. Bede (82) elegantly compares and contrasts the two raisings and their agents. See Thomas L. Brodie, “Towards Unravelling Luke’s Uses of the Old Testament: Luke 7:11-17 as imitatio of 1 Kgs 17:17-24,” NTS 32 (1986) 247–67. On these inter- and intra-textual allusions, see also Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:247–48. Such a shell is more or less what Weiser (2:562) proposes as a source. Talbert, 183–85, with numerous references. He views the connection as no more than a possibility, as do Wendt, 286; Preuschen, 121; Loisy, 764; Haenchen, 585; and Conzelmann, 169. Calvin (7:169) sees this as one function of the lights. Justin 1 Apol. 26 (on Simon), trans. Eugene R. Fairweather, in Cyril Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (LCC 1; Philadelphia: Westminster,

82

83

84

85

1953) 258. On these charges, which have enjoyed a long life, see Albert Henrichs, “Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: A Reconsideration,” in Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (2 vols.; Munich: Kösel, 1970) 1:18–35. See 10.96.7, which speaks of Christian meals as involving ordinary, harmless food (cibum promiscuum . . . et innoxium), indicating what had been feared. The term uJperw/`on differs from that used for the “Last Supper” (ajnavgaion) in Luke 22:12, but the meaning is similar. Acts prefers uJperw/`on (1:13; 9:37). B. Kowalski (“Der Fenstersturz in Troas [Apg 20, 7-12],” StudNTUmwelt 30 [2005] 19–37) develops the eucharistic symbolism of this episode. See Pervo, Luke’s Story, 72; Schneider, 2:284–86; and Weiser, 2:564. For a detailed investigation of symbolic features see Bernard Trémel, “À propos d’Ac 20,7-12: puissance du thaumaturge ou du témoin?” RThPh 112 (1980) 359–69. Barrett’s (2:950) designation of this interpretation as “allegory” is erroneous. Resurrection stories usually

513

Acts part 3C.indd 513

8/27/2008 10:24:29 AM

the ­difficulties of the narrative seem to encourage readers to look beneath the surface.86 One such difficulty is said to be v. 11, a problem already for the D-Text87 and a verse that Fitzmyer considers possibly secondary.88 The narrative is awkward because the narrator wishes to portray Eutychus as “recognized,” returned from the dead, after the breaking of the bread (cf. Luke 24:35).   13-18a  This passage89 is a detailed summary of travel that shifts its focus from the narrative “we” to third­person statements about Paul. He is the focal point. “We” are merely passengers on the voyage. Verses 13-15 probably derive from the Collection Source.90 If so, it is less probable that Paul was a coauthor of this hypothetical document, since “we” write about Paul, rather than Paul (and others) writing about “us,” but one may also ask whether the authoritarian tone comes from the source.91 Verse 16 is essentially authorial, providing an explanation for not stopping at Ephesus.92 The author evidently did not wish or choose to invent a stop there and instead resorted to having Paul summon the presbyters from that place to Miletus. The link to the previous episode is practically nonexistent. One gathers that “we” had left Paul at Troas and

86 87 88 89

90

91

gone on to Assos, to which he traveled on land, yet v. 11 described his departure, whether from the apartment or the city is not clear. Equally unclear is Paul’s motive for traveling overland.93 Abbreviation seems probable. The result is a reign of (unimportant) confusion. Is the mention of “the ship” in v. 13 the result of such abbreviation or is it merely reasonable: those who sail require a ship? The term does suggest that this was the same ship on which they had sailed from Philippi. Was the seven-day halt intentional? Had Paul chartered the ship, which was thus subject to his direction? Luke has left much room for speculative commentators.94 In v. 16 it is clear that the narrator views Paul as in charge of the ship, for he decides to bypass Ephesus.95 Gregory H. R. Horsley attributes the failure to put in at Ephesus to the silting up of the harbor, a frequent problem.96 Verse 16 is “the entirely natural rationalization of one whose initial plan is thwarted by circumstance.”97 This conclusion authorizes the narrator to dissemble. Others agree, but attribute the problem to Paul’s reluctance to return to Ephesus, where he was a persona non grata.98 In Luke’s time it was well known at Ephesus that Paul did not return there. Neither the Pastorals nor

symbolize initiation. Those who wish to find it here will note that the chief character is a youth, a common symbol of the initiate, and the language of descent/ascent, although the latter applies fully only to Paul. One could suggest that Paul is a savior figure, descending to the dead to rescue the lost. Johnson, 358. See above. Fitzmyer, 668. One can, with most editors, make a paragraph break after v. 16. This division is based upon mere convenience. Conzelmann (171) says that the list of stations does not prove that Luke was using a source. He is correct in that such accounts lend verisimilitude. The textual variants indicate that temporal references could be changed and stations added. Greek fictional examples begin with the Odyssey. For a prose example roughly contemporaneous with Acts, note Ephesian Tale 1.11–12, e.g., 1.11.6. Lucian parodies this style with vigor in his Ver. hist., e.g., 1.5–6, 28–29; 2.2–4. Note the verbs “command” (diatetagmevno~ h\n) in v. 13, “determine” (kekrivkei) in v. 16, and “summon” (metakalevw) in v. 17. Although this tone could come from colleagues of Paul, a safer bet is that it stems from the author of Acts.

92 This judgment may render suspect the hypothesis that the reference to Pentecost derived from the source. Pentecost sounds an echo with chap. 2, but, as a feast of “first fruits,” it might have been deemed by Paul as a suitable occasion for presenting the collection. Talbert (186) also makes this suggestion. 93 Although pezeuvw originally meant “on foot,” it had become generalized; see BDAG, 791, s.v. The distance was about thirty kilometers, so that the journey could have been made in a (long, hard) day, even on foot. But one must ask if Paul did not have some business to which he wished to attend. Trebilco (“Asia,” 359–60) reports some hypotheses about why Paul traveled on land. 94 For speculation, see Georgi, Remembering, 124; and Cadbury and Lake, 257–58. Chapter 21 indicates that multiple ships were used. 95 Since Miletus was a part of Asia, v. 16 is a good indicator that for Luke “Asia” is primarily Ephesus and environs. 96 Tacitus (Ann. 16.23) takes note of the need to dredge the harbor at Ephesus. 97 Horsley, “Inscriptions,” 135. 98 So, e.g., Witherington, 600. This view goes back to Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse, 42. It is entirely

514

Acts part 3C.indd 514

8/27/2008 10:24:29 AM

20:1-38

the Acts of Paul report repeated visits to the city. Luke has turned this deficit to his literary advantage. Early in Acts 19 Paul ceased to play an active personal role in the mission, and his forthcoming address will reinforce the picture of the absent Paul as guardian and guide of Ephesian Christianity. It is also true that the author’s rationalization is quite weak, for v. 17 substantially contradicts it, as it is difficult to see how time would be saved by sending a messenger to Ephesus, assembling the presbyters, and having them travel to Miletus,99 nor is there any indication of whether the deadline was reached, as Luke drops the matter. Miletus,100 a logical stop on a coasting journey, was the location of one of the most important speeches in Acts, yet sparer in detail about the site than any other.101 No mention is made of believers at Miletus. To determine the locale of the address, a private home, the public square, a rented hall, or the beach, readers are free to utilize their imaginations. The same may be said of the audience. Paul did not envision churches governed by presbyters, but Acts reports that he ordained them. If each house church had one presbyter, it is difficult to imagine that there could have been more than

about five in Paul’s time.102 Ignatius’s ideal is one bishop in each community, with a council of presbyters.103 The number would not have been large by any imaginable criterion. This vagueness is probably intentional and certainly effective, for it allows these words to soar above and beyond space and time, reaching out to believers of every generation. Just as the speech seems lengthy because of the content packed into each clause, so the setting permits a scope wider than the picture of conversation with fewer than a dozen people in a room could ever convey. Luke says more by saying less.   18b-35  The contrast between this speech (hereafter “Miletus”) and the Ephesian mission described in chap. 19 is astonishing.104 This is not because the leaders of a structured church suddenly emerge, for one may presume that such developments took place everywhere and required no more reporting than did the fact of baptism. In place of the Paul whose potency permeated cloth and compelled imitation by exorcists, whose message perpetrated a mass renunciation of magic and whose character attracted the admiration of Asiarchs comes one whose life is marked by blood, sweat, and tears, the hard-working laborer whose frugality and

possible that the ship never intended to stop at Ephesus. Silting did not prevent Paul from sailing to Ephesus in 18:19, but the problem could have worsened in a few years. For discussion of why Paul did not stop at Ephesus, see Walter Grundmann, “Paulus in Ephesus,” Helikon 4 (1964) 46–82, esp. 71–78; Jan Lambrecht, “Paul’s Farewell-Address at Miletus, Acts 20, 17-38,” in Kremer, Actes, 307–37, esp. 330–32; and Charles Kingsley Barrett, “Paul’s Address to the Ephesian Elders,” in Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977) 107–21, esp. 108–9. 99 Conzelmann (171) says that the journey would take five days. Haenchen (590) calculates that the actual travel distance was around eighty kilometers. See also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 347. Counting the time required for the messenger, this would double. At the minimum estimate, a good week would have been needed. Time-saving is thus a pathetic excuse. It seems that the author wished to insert “Pentecost” regardless of the price. 100 On Miletus, which had long ceded prominence to Ephesus, see John McRay, “Miletus,” ABD

101 102 103

104

4:825–26. On the much-discussed theater inscription (CIJ II 748) of 2–3 ce that appears to identify Jews as “God-Fearers,” see Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 63–65. See the comments of Weiser, 2:574. Acts 14:23 suggests that each church had more than one presbyter. Ignatius uses the term “presbytery,” “council,” about a dozen times, notably in Eph. 2:2; 20:2. The only other contemporary use is 1 Tim 4:14. Bibliography is rather substantial. Major contributions include Jacques Dupont, Le discours de Milet: Testament pastoral de Saint Paul (Actes 20,18-36) (Paris, Cerf: 1962); Hans-Joachim Michel, Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20, 17-38: Motivgeschichte und theologische Bedeutung (SANT 35; Munich: Kösel, 1973); Otto Knoch, Die “Testamente” des Petrus und Paulus: Die Sicherung der apostolischen Überlieferung in der spätneutestament­ lichen Zeit (SBS 62; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973); Franz Prast, Presbyter und Evangelium in nachapostolischer Zeit: Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus in Milet (Apg 20, 17-38) im Rahmen der lukan­ ischen Konzeption der Evangeliumsverkündigung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979); Lars Aejmelaeus, Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der

515

Acts part 3C.indd 515

8/27/2008 10:24:30 AM

charity are an example for all. This is a figure familiar from the epistles, and for good reason, because no other section of Acts is so saturated with allusions to the Pauline corpus.105 Of almost equal interest is the dearth of any allusions to or citations from the LXX. Here is Paul as he is viewed by the general public: offering useful, if not always welcome, advice, issuing dire warnings, and freely willing to share examples of his selfless sacrifice and suffering. Those who wish to present the “Paul of Acts” as “the real Paul” will find considerable support in these verses, while scholars suspicious of Luke’s portrait

will need to account for the dissonance. To follow the model of the old saw that Luke “paulinizes Peter and petrinizes Paul” one can say that in this speech Luke “paulinizes” the Paul of Acts.106 Miletus shows that the author of Acts did not develop his picture(s) of Paul in ignorance of the letters and that, insofar as his general depiction is different, the differences were largely due to choice.107 The scene of the address in Miletus108 portrays a situation not found in the undisputed epistles or elsewhere in Acts, for it is an address to Christian leaders. This invites

Miletrede (Helsinki: Suomalainen T ­ iedeakatemia, the assumption of a view of Paul not unlike that 1987); Steve Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The of Acts) and others are inauthentic. The database Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and I Thesmust be expanded to include other works by and salonians (SNTSMS 108; Cambridge: Cambridge about Paul, as well as those containing direct or University Press, 2000); Klein, Zwölf, 178–84; oblique (e.g., James) references to him. See Helmut Cheryl Exum and Charles Talbert, “The StrucKoester, “New Testament Introduction: A Critique ture of Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders of a Discipline,” in Jacob Neusner, ed., Christianity, (Acts 20, 18-35),” CBQ 29 (1967) 233–36; Heinz Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Schürmann, “Das Testament des Paulus für die Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. 1: New Testament (SJLA Kirche: Apg 20,18-35, in idem, Traditionsgeschicht­ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1–20. This principle is liche Untersuch­ungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien recognized in the surveys of Andreas Lindemann, (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 310–40; Thomas L. Paulus im Ältesten Christentum (BHT 58; Tübingen: Budesheim, “Paul’s Abschiedsrede in the Acts of the Mohr Siebeck] 1979); and Ernst Dassmann, Der Apostles,” HTR 69 (1976) 9–30; Charles Kingsley Stachel im Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen LitBarrett, “Paul’s Address to the Ephesian Elders,” eratur bis Irenäus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979). Cf. in Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., God’s also Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977) Fortress Press, 1989), and the recent contribu107–21; Lambrecht, “Farewell”; Evald Lövestam, tion of Daniel Marguerat, “L’image de Paul dans “Paul’s Address at Miletus,” ST 41 (1987) 1–10; les Actes des Apôtres,” in Michel Berder, ed., Les Duane F. Watson, “Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Actes des Apôtres: Histoire, récit, théologie. XXe congrès Elders (Acts 20,17-38): Epideictic Rhetoric of Farede l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de well,” in Duane F. Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry: la Bible, Angers, 2003 (LD 199; Paris: Cerf, 2005) Studies in Honor of George A. Kennedy (Sheffield: 121–54. All of these sources are limited, by form, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 184–208; John J. choice, presupposition, purpose, and so on. The Kilgallen, “Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders: epistles represent Paul’s pastoral interaction with Its Structure,” EThL 70 (1994) 112–21; Beverly communities. Acts focuses on Paul as missionary Roberts Gaventa, “Theology and Ecclesiology in founder of communities and as a prisoner. The Acts the Miletus Speech: Reflections on Content and of Paul is noteworthy for attempting to integrate Context,” NTS 50 (2004) 36–52; Trebilco, Early these three roles, but is not widely viewed as having Christians, 172–96; and Shauf, Theology, 263–70. captured “the real Paul.” 105 See, in general, Aejmelaeus, Rezeption; and Pervo, 108 The speech is a Lucan composition in its entirety Dating, 111–33, 221–22, 228–29. and shows numerous marks of the author’s style. 106 See Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 320–21. See Hans-Joachim Michel, Die Abschiedsrede des Pau107 The debate between the respective Pauls of lus an die Kirche Apg 20, 17-38: Motivgeschichte und the ­letters and Acts is not well framed, since theologische Bedeutung (SANT 35; Munich: Kösel, it presumes that there are two sets of texts of 1973) 28–33. equal or differing historical value. The letters are not a uniform body, for some are composite ­(notably 2 Corinthians, which is assembled on

516

Acts part 3C.indd 516

8/27/2008 10:24:30 AM

20:1-38

comparison with the world of the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Peter, and the Apostolic Fathers, the era of the emergence of Christian officers. Comparison with the Pastorals is particularly apt, for both the speech and the letters seem to address community leaders and communicate with the faithful by telling leaders what they should teach. The technique yields a threefold harvest: a paradigm for leadership, reinforcement of leaders’ authority, and guidance for believers.109 The speech takes no pains to conceal its origin in the post-Pauline era and makes use of a suitable genre, the testament,110 which often overlaps with the genre of the farewell address, to which Acts 20:17-35 also conforms.111 Luke uses this meeting to accentuate the transition from “Pauline” to “post-Pauline” times, the shift from the second generation to the third.112

The obvious intra-Lucan parallel, Jesus’ final speech to his disciples prior to his arrest (Luke 22:14-38), also contributes to the interpretation of the address at Miletus, which has the same function.113 Both speeches lie under the shadow of coming death; both take up problems of leadership. This structural relation does not detract from the standing of Paul in Acts. He, rather than Peter, who departed the narrative stage long ago, or James, despite the latter’s authority in Jerusalem, has become the successor to Jesus. This address also takes up some of the themes of Luke 21, particularly the admonition to be vigilant.114 A difference is that eschatology, the heart of Luke 21, is explicitly absent from this speech. This contrast is not without consequences for analyses of Lucan theology.115 Within the plot

109 See Richard Pervo, “Romancing an Oft-neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistolary Novel,” JHC 1 (1994) 25–47. 110 On the genre of the testament, see Berger, Formgeschichte, 75–80; and Anitra B. Kolenkow, “Testaments: The Literary Genre ‘Testament,’” in Robert A. Kraft and George W. Nickelsburg, eds., Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 259–67. 111 A seminal study is Johannes Munck, “Discours d’adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la littérature biblique,” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Goguel (Bibliothèque théologique; Neuchâtel: Delachaux, 1950) 155–70. William S. Kurz provides a good overview of the form (Farewell Addresses in the New Testament [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990]). See also the succinct account of Fitzmyer, 674. For a general survey, see Eckhard von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten (2 vols.; ALGHJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980); and Anders E. Nielsen, Until It Is Fulfilled: Lukan Eschatology according to Luke 22 and Acts 20 (WUNT 126; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), who examines the genre with the intention of exposing its implicit eschatological (“transcendent”) quality. Note also the critical review of the genre discussion in Walton, Leadership, 55–65. An idea of the conventional nature of such addresses can be gleaned from Lucian’s parody in his summary of the farewell speech of Peregrinus: “telling of the life that he had led and the risks that he had run, and of all the troubles that he had endured for philosophy’s sake” (Peregr. 32, trans. A. M. Harmon, Lucian V [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936] 37). Dennis R. MacDonald (“Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and

112

113

114 115

Hector’s Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad,” in Penner, Contextualizing, 189–203) notes many interesting parallels between Iliad 6 and this chapter. At the least, this is a reminder that “farewell speeches” have a wide background. For more detail, see his Imitate Homer, 69–102. István Czaschesz (Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts [Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2007] 16–18) shows parallels between this speech and Epictetus’s description of the Cynic vocation (Diss. 2.3; 2.20; 3.22.1–109). Weiser, 2:569. Thomas E. Phillips (“Paul as a Role Model in Acts: The ‘We’ Passages in Acts 16 and Beyond,” in idem, Acts and Ethics, 49–63) locates the transition from “apostolic” to “postapostolic” times at the introduction of “we” and the disappearance of the apostles after chap. 15. This is a valid observation. Miletus moves, by anticipation, a generation forward. Walton (Leadership, 99–117) develops the parallel between the Last Supper and Miletus in considerable detail and with many interesting observations. See also Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 326. Both prepare for the time when the master will no longer be present. Each includes retrospect (Luke 22:35; Acts 20:18-21, 26-27, 31); both have admonitions and exhortations (Luke 22:24-27; Acts 20:28-31, 35), call for vigilance in the face of coming stresses (Luke 22:35-38; Acts 20:28-31, and a reference to “blood,” evoking a view of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice (Luke 22:20; Acts 20:28). Rackham, 383. See Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 88. On implicit eschatology in the address see A. Nielsen (n. 111).

517

Acts part 3C.indd 517

8/27/2008 10:24:30 AM

structure of Acts this address initiates a shift toward apologetic.116 All of the subsequent speeches of Paul in Acts (except the short remarks in chap. 27) continue to defend his views and actions. The structure has received considerable attention. The traditional approach has looked to content as the key.117 Another focuses on formal elements.118 There has been some convergence. An informed example of the former is Jan Lambrecht’s two-part division:119 I. Self-defense and Announcement (vv. 18b-27). A. Vv. 18b-21. Previous Conduct (apologetic). B. Vv. 22-25. Announcement of Departure; Future Occurrences. C. Vv. 26-27. Previous Conduct (apologetic). II. Exhortations and Farewell (vv. 28-35). A. Vv. 28-31. Warning: Vigilance in the Face of Danger (Paul as example). B. V. 32. Farewell. C. Vv. 33-35. Warning: Help for Weak (Paul as example).

Pereira has proffered a chiastic plan:120 A. Vv. 18b-21. Past record (v. 18b, ejpivstasqe) (you know). B. Vv. 22-24. Present Activity (v. 22a, kai; nu`n) (and now). C. Vv. 25-27. Forecast (v. 25a, ejgw; oi\da) (I know). V. 26a. Consequently (diovti) (therefore).

D. v. 28. Charge. C'. Vv. 29-31. Forecast (v. 29, ejgw; oi\da) (“I know”). V. 31a. Consequently (diov) (“therefore”). B'. V. 32. Present Activity (v. 32a, kai; nu`n) (“and now”). A'. Vv. 33-35. Past Record (v. 34a, ginwvskete) (“you know”).

Both of these plans help illuminate the speech. The pursuit of chiasmus has led to much excess, but Luke’s fondness for ring composition is well illustrated elsewhere, and this analysis places the stress on the charge in v. 28, whereas Lambrecht’s scheme all but overlooks this element of the “exhortation.” Both of these proposals invite comparison with Paul’s “apology” in 1 Thess 2:112.121 Another formal factor is the relation of this speech to the rhetorical species. Dibelius pointed to encomium, that is, epideictic.122 Greek farewell addresses belonged to the epideictic category, but, as George A. Kennedy notes, the Miletus speech does not follow the conventions.123 He correctly stresses that the focus of the address is on the future, and he notes its hortatory nature.124 Like most NT orations, the speech is deliberative in purpose, although it includes both apologetic and epideictic elements.125 The last two serve the first.126 Analyses of both form and structure show the dominance of the Jewish testament. Luke wishes to take advantage of the ethos suitable to epideictic and all of the pathos that he can squeeze in.127

116 On the apologetic dimensions of this speech, see Malherbe, Paul, 152–55. 117 A recent example of this method is John J. Kilgallen, “Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders: Its Structure,” EThL 70 (1994) 112–21. Kilgallen identifies motives and sees vv. 25 and 28 as central. 118 For a concise history of the discussion, see Shauf, Theology, 265 n. 471. On various schemes, see also Soards, Speeches, 105; and Walton, Leadership, 66–75. A ready clue is the use of kai; (ta;) nu`n (“and now,”) “with respect to the present” in vv. 22, 25, 32, on which see Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 315. 119 Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 315–18. 120 Francis Pereira, Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts—A Redaction-Critical Study of Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23—20:1) (Jesuit Theological Forum Studies 10.1; Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983) 201. See the succinct commentary of Talbert, 186–89. 121 Compare the structure and techniques of this outline of 1 Thess 2:12 with Acts 20:18b-35:

I. Introduction. 2:1-4 Warrants and Motivation. A. Historical warrant: vv. 1-2 (triad: suffer, insult, speak boldly). B. Motivation and accountability: vv. 3-4 (triad: deceit, uncleanness, guile). II. The Contrasting “Styles”: vv. 5-12. A. Three rejected techniques: vv. 5-6 (pleasure, money, glory). B. Image: like mother: nurturing, loving vv. 7-8. C. Basis: self-support: v. 9 (4 and 9 inclusio). B'. Image: proper, fair, like father: vv. 10-11. A'. Three “correct” techniques: v. 12. 122 Dibelius, Studies, 155–58. See also Watson, “Paul’s Speech” (n. 104 above). 123 Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 133. 124 Feldman ( Jew and Gentile, 256–57) states that encouragement and exhortation are important qualities of a leader. As examples he adduces Josephus Ant. 2.327; 3.44–46. 125 See Witherington, 612–14.

518

Acts part 3C.indd 518

8/27/2008 10:24:30 AM

20:1-38

The speech represents three strands of Deutero­Paulinism. One is the Paul of Luke. The others involve the revision of Pauline thought in pseudonymous compositions. These include Luke’s transformation of Pauline thought in this speech, which functions just as much as a message to the church as does 2 Timothy. The other is the speculative theological line visible in Colossians and Ephesians, which treat the “plan of God,” develop an ecclesiology, set forth a pastoral understanding of church leadership, and stress the wealth of tradition.128 Most widely recognized are the parallels, in thought and vocabulary, with the Pastorals.129 All of these developments and trends stem from Ephesus. Luke wishes to check speculative theology and fend off the potentially rigid structural model that will characterize the Pastorals, but all of these share important features in the struggle over Paul’s heritage in the region of Ephesus.130 They represent different elements of nascent “proto-orthodoxy.” Luke emerges as a synthesizer of sorts, more in appearance than in reality, for, unlike Irenaeus (or even Matthew), he is less interested in genuine synthesis of disparate traditions than in making other views conform to his own. There are several acute textual problems. The

D-Text131 exhibits more variations than is characteristic of that tradition with respect to the speeches. Most of these are the sort of editorial “improvements” that reflect the general taste of the “Western” tradition.   18b-21  The first section, a single sentence, builds a bond between speaker and audience (pathos), through reminding the hearers of what Paul has stood for and experienced (ethos). “Memory” is a common device, used about twenty-five times by Paul in his undisputed epistles.132 It serves to assure the hearers that they possess the requisite information, skills, and so on to manage their problems. Here it appears with the verb givnomai (“be,” “become”), as in 1 Thess 1:5; 2:1. “From the very first day” appears conventional, but the wording reflects Phil 1:5,133 where it has a similar function: binding communicator to audience.   19  The verse sets out, in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline language, the conditions under which Paul spent his time in Ephesus. They do not resonate with chap. 19. They do resonate within the speech.134 Paul, like all believers, is a slave of his master135 and accepts that position, “without asserting my privileges” (lit. “with all humility”), a phrase evidently taken from Eph 4:2,136

126 It may seem absurd to speak of the presence of all three types of rhetoric within a speech of this length, but the purpose of this method is not to identify pigeon holes in which to drop a text but to provide tools for interpretation. 127 Hemer’s comments are indicative of his orientation. He strongly rejects attempts to classify this speech in terms of formal or rhetorical type because he views these as inimical to the verbal accuracy of the account (“The Speeches of Acts I: The Ephesian Elders at Miletus,” TynB 40 [1989] 77–85, esp. 78). For Hemer, all classification presumes secondary status. This overlooks the probability that Paul would make use of rhetorical and other forms even in spontaneous comments. 128 The often pleonastic style of Colossians and, in particular, Ephesians is echoed in the tendency toward pairing that is prominent in vv. 20-21: announce and teach, public and private, Jews and Greeks, repentance and faith. 129 See Rackham, 384. 130 Irenaeus (A.H. 3.14.2) makes two revelatory adjustments in his description of the setting: bishops and presbyters come from Ephesus and neighboring cities. He conforms church order to later practice and makes the audience more general. For Luke,

131 132

133 134

135

136

Ephesus was both the central place and the symbol of the Pauline mission. See Boismard, Texte, 333–39. See, e.g., 1 Thess 2:1, 5, 10, 11; 3:3-4; 4:2; Gal 3:2; 4:13; 1 Cor 6:2; for commentary, see Aejmelaeus, Rezeption, 98–101; and Walton, Leadership, 157–59. (Paul normally uses the verb gignwvskw (“know,” as in v. 34). Acts uses the convention in 15:6 (speech of Peter). On these two reminiscences, see Pervo, Dating, 115–16. Tears: v. 31; persecution: vv. 22-23. Paul’s “humility” may be contrasted with the style of the “vicious” (lit. “heavy,” “oppressive”) wolves of v. 29. Cf. Josephus Ant. 15.354, where the adjective is applied to Herod the Great. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; and Phil 1:1. See also 1 Thess 1:9; Gal 6:17; and Phil 2:22, among others. Here, as in some epistles, the concept comes near the opening of the piece in question. The same participial phrase occurs in Rom 12:11. For more discussion, see Aejmelaeus, Rezeption, 102; and Walton, Leadership, 186–88. See Pervo, Dating, 116–17.

519

Acts part 3C.indd 519

8/27/2008 10:24:30 AM

while “tears” may be an echo of 2 Cor 2:4.137 “Frustrations” (lit. “trials,” peirasmoiv) is also a theme of Jesus’ farewell address (Luke 22:28).138 The source of these difficulties can be summarized as “Jewish machinations.”139 This is the impression the author wishes to leave with the reader. If not a perfectly accurate summary of Paul’s experiences hitherto (since some of his difficulties came from gentile machinations), it is a fair forecast of things to come. This Deutero-Pauline Paul speaks like a gentile: “the Jews” are “the other.”140 The vast distance between this grim summary and the experiences reported in the previous chapter reveal the purpose of this unit, which is not to summarize for these persons what they would have known, but to convey to the readers a picture of Paul that will obtain their sympathy and make an indelible pastoral impression.   20  The verse, which is nearly identical in its basic structure to v. 27,141 sets forth the essence of both the setting and the content of the message. The guiding concept is that which is preferable (to; suvmferon), a theme of deliberative rhetoric used in the Corinthian correspondence.142 Luke uses the language of Paul the pastor, that is, the language of the epistles. Equally

­ auline is the phrase “both Jews and Greeks” (v. 21, P with te kaiv) , prominent in Romans (1:16; 2:9-10; 3:9; 10:12; cf. 1 Cor 12:13), and taken up by Luke (Acts 14:1; 19:10, 17) in narrative form: Paul preaches to Jews first.143 Here it probably also means that Paul did not preach one theology to Jews and another to gentiles, for the corresponding phrase is “both in public and in private.”144 This is not verbiage. Luke is aware of claims based on secret teaching of Paul and wishes to affirm that his message in both public settings and house churches contains all that anyone required.145 From the philosophical perspective, it assures readers that Paul’s private behavior does not contradict his public ­teaching. The verb diamartuvromai (“strongly assert”) is a leitmotif (vv. 21, 23, 24) of this speech and a key term for proclamation, beginning with Peter’s first evangelistic sermon (2:40) and ending with Paul’s final sermon in Rome (28:23).146 The content of proclamation, “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus,” is a Lucan summary of Christian belief.147 The phrase is chiastic in structure: one directs repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus. This summary, although

137 Ibid. For the pathos, cf. 2 Tim 1:4. 138 Cf. also Luke 8:13; 11:4; 22:40, 46; and 1 Pet 1:6. These are not “temptations” to apostasy. They characterize the church as ecclesia pressa. 139 Love of conspiracy was a hostile allegation made against the Jews in antiquity: Ptolemy Apotelesmatica 2.3.65-66.29-31, on which see Stern, Authors, 2:163. 140 Witherington (617) paraphrases this as “plots by his fellow Jews.” This misrepresents the text. 141 “Never avoid” (negative + uJpostevllw) is an elegant equivalent to “speak out.” See Cadbury and Lake, 260. Such claims are typical in apologies (e.g., Plato Apol. 24A, which uses this verb and also contrasts “large and small,” as in Acts 26:22). Declarations of innocence are typical of the testament: 1 Sam 12:2-5; T. Sim. 6:1; T. Levi 10:2; T. Jos. 1:3. Plutarch’s treatise on distinguishing between flatterers and friends (Mor. 60a) has an interesting parallel: Free persons (the speaker is not sincere) ought to speak frankly, avoid dissembling, and not refrain from speaking about the what is beneficial (parrhsiavzesqai kai; mhde;n uJpostevllesqai mhdÆj ajposiwpa`n tw`n sumferovntwn). 142 See Pervo, Dating, 117. 143 See ibid., 104–5.

144 Jerome Neyrey (“‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype,” JSNT 26 [2003] 69–102) argues that in Acts “public” refers to the facilities of rulers and city centers. 145 Barrett (2:968) states that the issue is the secret teaching of “Gnostics,” observing a similar motivation in Col 1:28. Colossians and Ephesians include ideas that will stimulate thinkers of “Gnostic” inclination. False teachers of various sorts in Ephesus are apparent from Rev 2:1-7, the Pastorals, and Ignatius Ephesians. See Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. and ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 72–90. John M. Court (“Rivals in the Mission Field,” ExpT 113 [2002] 399–403) proposes that exponents of some Johannine trends would fit the bill. Trebilco (Early Christians, 191–95) hesitates to relate this to “Gnostics.” He is confident that the prediction applies to Ephesus. 146 The verb appears nine times in Acts, once in Luke, three times in the Pastorals, once in Hebrews, and on a single occasion in Paul (1 Thess 4:6). 147 See p. 519 n. 135.

520

Acts part 3C.indd 520

8/27/2008 10:24:31 AM

20:1-38

coupled with the key Lucan term “repentance,” almost as a hendiadys, has a Pauline ring.148 For Barrett, this is superficial and subjective Paulinism, comparable to the Pastorals.149 In short, it reflects Deutero-Pauline developments. The D-Text found this construction troubling.150   22  The speaker turns toward the future. In typical heroic fashion, Paul asseverates that the threat of death will not deter him from his ordained path. Verse 22 raises suspense, although the next clause cancels its basis.151 This is characteristic of Luke, who wishes to provide suspense without suggesting that all is due to chance.152 Jesus’ predictions of his coming fate in Jerusalem are also and intentionally evoked.153 The atmosphere is impregnated with Deutero-Paulinism: Paul has finished his course (20:24)154 but remains concerned about the church, especially in Ephesus,155 and equally impregnated with the language of the epistles. Rom 15:25-31 has exercised a strong influence.156 Also Pauline are the use of “afflictions” (qlivyei~), “chains”

as a trope for “imprisonment,” and plh;n o{ti (“except that”),157 which come from Phil 1:17-18.158 Barrett says that the phrase with “compelled” (dedemevno", lit. “bound”) lacks clarity.159 Its justification derives from the play with dei`, meaning “divine necessity” here (cf. 19:21), and desmav (“chains”).160   23  The verse supplies new information: Paul has been warned by the Spirit that arrest lies in his future. The language, “city by city” (kata; povlin), is interesting. There is no hint of when these warnings began. Reference to cities indicates the urban orientation of the narrator. It may also suggest that these oracles were received during occasions of worship at the various sites. The single example, 21:10-14, is neither a revelation to Paul nor does it take place during worship. This suggests that prophets in various communities are to be envisioned as the source of these oracles.161   24  This is a complex, cumbersome construction162 that presents another example of Luke’s Paulinism. The

148 See, e.g., Gal 2:16; 3:26; and Eph 1:15||Col 1:4. of-religions viewpoint, in saying that it refers to Aejmelaeus (Rezeption, 108–12) explores the rela“supernatural binding.” “Binding” spells are an tion to Pauline texts, with attention to the key obvious parallel. On these, see, e.g., Deissmann, Pauline word “faith.” Light, 304–7. 149 Barrett, 2:969. 161 Cf. Act. Paul 9/12 (Corinth), where Paul (who is 150 Boismard (Texte, 334) reads “repentance toward going to Rome) speaks of the coming danger and God and faith through our Lord Jesus (Christ).” fulfillment of his mission (cf. Acts 20:24). One This may be somewhat more Pauline and shows ­Cleobius recites an inspired message forecasting the beginning of trinitarian reflection. It is less Paul’s death. Myrta was also inspired to predict subordinationist. See Barrett, 2:969. his great success at Rome. These take place dur151 Lambrecht (“Farewell,” 307) notes that v. 22 is ing (a vigil and) the Eucharist. Eduard Schweizer concretized in 21:4, 10-11. Squires (Plan, 151–52) (“pneu`ma,” TDNT 6:332–445, esp. 408 n. 491) takes states that Paul prophesies about the future for the “city by city” to refer to prophecies delivered by first time here in Acts. members of the different communities. 152 Conzelmann, 174: “With this vacillation between 162 Ropes (196) suspects that the text may be cornot knowing and knowing, Luke can indicate both rupt. Cf. Cadbury and Lake (260–61), who agree the divine guidance of Paul’s life and also Paul’s and also suggest that two constructions may be willingness to endure suffering.” blended, comparing this to 23:30; 27:10. See also 153 For details, see Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:259. Conzelmann, 174. The D-Text seeks to smooth 154 See below. the wording by saying, “I take account of nothing 155 See Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles, 117. nor do I regard my life as valuable (ajllÆ oujdeno;~ 156 See Pervo, Dating, 119–20. Both use the identilovgon e[cw oujde). “Ministry” is followed by “of the cal phrase, “I am going toward Jerusalem” (Rom word that I received (parevlabon, a more technical 15:25; Acts 20:22; cf. also “now”), with reference to term), and interpolates “to both Jews and Greeks” the same (final) journey. before “gospel.” See Boismard, Texte, 335. The term 157 On this conjunction, see BDF §449 (1). paralambavnw (“receive”) recognizes the Pauline 158 Both poreuvomai eij~ ÆIerousalh;m (above) and background (Gal 1:9, 12). Barrett (2:971-72) examplh;n o{ti occur only in these passages. For more ines the options for text and translation. discussion, see Aejmelaeus, Rezeption, 117. 159 Barrett, 2:969. 160 Conzelmann (174) is correct, from the history-

521

Acts part 3C.indd 521

8/27/2008 10:24:31 AM

theme is Paul’s understanding of his vocation as the willing surrender of himself as a ministry to his Lord, who also freely surrendered himself.163 This is otherwise implicit, at best, in Acts, but here the similarity is impressive. The verse includes such basic Pauline terms as “ministry” (diakoniva), “grace” (cavri~), and “gospel” (eujaggevlion). Luke uses “ministry” and “grace,” albeit usually in difference senses from Paul.164 Here both fit Paul’s understanding.165 Luke generally avoids the noun “gospel.” The two exceptions are Peter’s “Pauline” speech in 15:7 and here.166 “Gospel of the grace of God” probably derives from Ephesians (3:2, 6-7).167 Cadbury and Lake call this verse “perhaps the most completely Hellenized summary of the Christian message” in Acts.168 Finishing one’s life task (lit. “course”) is a reference to death.169

  25-27  Paul’s attention returns to the future.170 The

hearers will not see Paul again.171 Their identity is generalized to include all “among whom I went about proclaiming God’s reign.” This could include everyone to whom Paul preached, from Damascus onward.172 The real audience is all the heirs of the Pauline mission. The phrase refers to his permanent departure and thus to his death, although the emphasis is on his “presence in spirit” rather than his “absence in body.”173 The object of his preaching was “the kingdom.” This combination (khruvssw + basileiva, “proclaim” + “kingdom”) is used in Acts only here and in the last verse of the book (28:31).174 The noun indicates that, for Luke, “kingdom” as object of proclamation was essentially the same as “gospel,”175 which is one of the variants.176

163 Bruce (433) cites 2 Cor 4:7-11; 6:4-10; 12:9-10; Phil 1:20; 2:17; 3:8; also cf. Col 1:24. Aejmelaeus (Rezeption, 119–28), whose discussion should be consulted, pays particular attention to Phil 2:16-17, the structure of which he finds to be parallel to that of Acts 20:24 (122). See also Walton (Leadership, 178), who points out affinities with 1 Thessalonians. Paul Elbert (“Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations,” ZNW 95 [2004] 258–68) inclines, against Walton, toward dependence upon 1 Thessalonians. C. ­L eslie Mitton (The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951] 211–14) identifies general and particular points of contact with Ephesians. Willingness to sacrifice oneself for a cause is a common motif of various types of “romantic” literature and is extolled in both classical Greek and subsequent Latin literature. 164 On “ministry,” see 2 Cor 5:18. 165 For data, see Pervo, Dating, 119–20. These words are also consonant with Jesus’ own statement (a modification of Mark) that he is “one who serves” (Luke 22:26-27). 166 The same speech provides an example of “grace” in the Pauline sense (15:11). 167 See Pervo, Dating, 120–21. 168 Cadbury and Lake, 261. They suggest that the kingdom is in the process of being equated with the church. This is Deutero-Pauline: cf. Col 1:13; 4:11. 169 Note 13:25 (John the Baptizer) and 2 Tim 4:7. Dido uses the same image in her final words (Virgil Aen. 4.653). Paul employs athletic imagery, a commonplace of Greco-Roman popular philosophy, although he does not use the word “course”

170 171

172

173

174

175

176

(drovmo~). Phil 3:12-14 is the closest analogy—and the best contrast. The verse begins kai; nu`n ijdouv (lit. “and now look”), as did v. 25. Such statements are conventional in testaments. See Johnson (362), who notes Gen 48:21; T. Reub. 1:4-5; T. Dan 2:1; T. Naph. 1:3; T. Job 1:4; 2 Tim 4:6; 2 Pet 1:13; Luke 22:15-16. The verb dievrcomai (“go through”) here appears for the last of twenty times in Acts. It always refers to travel. Attempts to deny the reference to death can be laborious, as Witherington exemplifies (616–20). Rather than view this statement as a genuine forecast that raises historical questions, it should be viewed as a literary feature that relates to the plot of Acts as a whole (Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 309). For evidence and references indicating that v. 25 refers to Paul’s death, see Matthew L. Skinner, Locating Paul: Places of Custody as Narrative Settings in Acts 21–28 (SBL Academia Biblica 13; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 98–99 n. 72. Acts 28:31 adds “of God.” Luke 8:1; 9:2 use the phrase to describe the preaching of Jesus. By using the same words to characterize the message of both Jesus and Paul, Luke helps overcome the gap between “proclaimer” and “proclaimed,” on which see p. 19 n. 114. Barrett, 2:973: “It means in effect the recognized content of Christian preaching, and is so expressed in order to bring out the continuity between the preaching of Jesus and the preaching of the postresurrection church.” See also Weiser, 2:577. 323. 1739. 1891 pc read “the gospel of God.” Other genitive qualifiers are “of Jesus” (accepted as the

522

Acts part 3C.indd 522

8/27/2008 10:24:31 AM

20:1-38

Finality motivates (diovti,177 “therefore”) the claim of innocence in v. 26. Its extravagant nature is only partially mitigated by the translation, which takes the phrase “guiltless of the blood of all” as a metonym for “death,”178 used metaphorically, as in 18:6, for spiritual death. Verse 27 provides, by reiterating v. 20, the grounds: Paul has taught salvation in its entirety. He bears no responsibility for scoffers and apostates.179 The D-Text180 found the statement troubling and dropped the first three words (“I therefore swear to you”) and read “up to today, then, [ ] I am guiltless of the blood of all of you.” This revision suggests that the editor saw no need for Paul to make so strong a declaration and that he took “blood” to mean “death.”181 Reiteration of the subject and predicate of v. 20 in v. 27 indicates that “God’s plan/will” can be characterized concretely as “repentance and faith,” that is, that it need not refer to a philosophy of history.182 The sufficiency of Paul’s message is not the sole subject of this sentence.183 Paul has done his part. The ball is in their court.   28  This verse, the formal charge, presents two textual questions. Internal evidence is rather evenly balanced between “the church of God” and “the church of the

177

178 179

180 181

182

Lord.”184 The latter is probably secondary—“church of God” is Pauline,185 found only here in Acts, while “church of the Lord” is not found in the NT—aimed at the subsequent relative clause, which includes the phrase dia; tou` ai{mato" tou` ijdivou. If this is taken to mean “his own blood,” then the antecedent “God” would strike early editors as Sabellian or amenable to a modalistic understanding. In the fourth century, however, this reading would serve anti-Arian claims. Thus “Lord” could have been an “orthodox emendation” in the third century and “God” in the fourth. The D-Text186 resolves the issue with “church of the Lord which he obtained for himself . . . ,” leaving “his (i.e., Jesus’) own blood” as a natural understanding.187 If “Lord” were original, the difficulties with the following clause would have been unlikely to arise.188 The translation thus prefers “God” and takes tou` ijdivou as a noun.189 This is also more congruent with Lucan theology.190 Cadbury says that this is the best instance in Acts of “church” meaning the church catholic.191 Barrett states that v. 28 is the pastoral and theological center of the speech. The former is clear: the exhortation to the presbyters, but the latter: “Because . . . here

D-Text by Boismard, Texte, 336), “of the Lord Jesus,” and “of God.” The variants show that the absolute noun generated discomfort. This word should mean “because.” LSJ (435, s.v.) allows “Wherefore.” BDAG, 251, s.v., includes “therefore,” with no references other than this passage and Acts 13:35. It is evidently a Lucan idiom. The “correct” diov is a frequent variant; see Swanson, Manuscripts, 362. See Johannes Behm, “ai|ma,” TDNT 1:172–77, esp. 173. (Cf. English “bloodshed.”) So Conzelmann, 174. A negative, prophetic, understanding can be derived from Ezek 3:18-22. The prophet is charged with summoning the wicked to repent or facing the consequences. This moralistic understanding was supported by a range of authorities, including Gregory the Great (Regula Past. 3.25) and Calvin (7:181), but it is foreign to Acts. See Boismard, Texte, 336. The addition “of you” may stem from the belief that Paul was responsible for the death of Stephen (8:1a). See also Luke 7:30. 1 Clem. 27:6 uses “plan” (boulhv) of general divine oversight. On the subject in general, see Conzelmann, Theology, 151–54; and Squires, Plan.

183 On this matter (a central issue in Reformed theology), see Calvin, 7:180–81, at some length, and, with typical concision, Conzelmann, 174. Secret teaching, as in v. 27, is probably a subsidiary issue here also. God’s plan is not discovered through esoteric speculation or exegesis. 184 See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 425. 185 Examples of the expression “church of God” in Paul include 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13, eleven times in all. 186 Boismard, Texte, 337. He regards the “Alexandrian text” as “theologically impossible.” This is a dogmatic anachronism. 187 Cf. The Textus Receptus, which reads dia; tou` ijdivou ai{mato~ (“through his own blood”). 188 See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 425–26; and Walton, Leadership, 94–98, with his references. 189 On this, see Cadbury and Lake, 261. 190 See Conzelmann, 175, who notes that Luke’s Christology is consistently subordinationist. 191 Cadbury, “Names,” 389.

523

Acts part 3C.indd 523

8/27/2008 10:24:31 AM

only in Acts is there an attempt to state the significance of the death of Christ and at the same time to bring out the ground of the church’s ministry in the work of the Holy Spirit” privileges one atonement theory.192 Luke’s language here is, as Franklin finds, “an accommodation to Paul’s beliefs rather than an expression of his own theology.”193 Luke does not use “blood” in a soteriological sense,194 but the term is not alien to Paul (Rom 3:35; 5:9). Luke probably took up the phrase about blood from Eph 1:7.195 The ecclesiological language, which speaks of “bishops”196 instituted by the Holy Spirit to shepherd the flock,197 belongs to a time well after the dramatic date. Ephesians 4:11 shows the emergence of this language in the Pauline sphere.198 1 Clem. 54:2 has a similar view.

Let the troublemaker(s) leave: “Only allow the flock of Christ to be at peace with the presbyters who have been appointed.”199 Readers of Acts would presume that these presbyters had been appointed by Paul.200 There is no contradiction between this understanding and the primary agency of the Holy Spirit.201 The relatively rare terms peripoievw, peripoivhsi~ (“obtain,” “gain possession of,” “possession”), with the preposition diav (“through”), can be traced in an intertextual process from 1 Thessalonians to Ephesians to Acts.202 This is additional evidence for Acts’ DeuteroPauline understanding of Paul’s letters. Luke does not simply borrow phrases to bestow a Pauline coloring. The Lucan writings are also witnesses to the reception of Paul’s letters, albeit indirectly.

192 Barrett, 2:974. 193 Franklin, Christ the Lord, 66. 194 See also Conzelmann, Theology, 201, 220 n. 1. Ignatius, it might be noted, does use the phrase “blood of God” (Eph. 1:1, on which see the comments of Schoedel, Ignatius, 42. 195 See Pervo, Dating, 122–23. 196 “Bishop” is used, rather than “overseer,” and the like, because by Luke’s time the term was used for a church office (1 Clement; Pastorals), although the meaning varied. At the time of writing, there may well have been a bishop (or more) in Ephesus who sought overall leadership. Ignatius’s letter to the Ephesians makes strenuous efforts to support Onesimus, the bishop (chaps. 4–6). In 4:1 he says, “For your presbytery [the very group addressed by Paul], which is both worthy of the name and worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as strings to the lyre” (trans. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:223). One may doubt whether the lyre was so well strung. Along with the traditional argument that the church at Ephesus was governed solely by presbyters in Luke’s own time should stand the possibility that Luke knew about sole (“monarchical”) bishops and did not fully approve of the idea. Clear disapproval is apparent in 3 John 9, which is sometimes associated with Ephesus. See Trebilco, Early Christians, 303. 197 BDF §390 (3) relates the infinitive poimaivnein (“shepherd”) to the verb (“a looser combination”). It might be preferable to relate it to the phrase “made you bishops” and see it as final. 198 The image appears in Luke 17:7-10. For Paul, note also 1 Cor 9:7. The contrast is between the occasional employment of metaphors for “pastoral” work and the fixation of these metaphors in titles

199 200

201

202

and structure. See also 1 Pet 5:2 and John 21:16. 1 Pet 2:25 combines “shepherd” and “bishop” (with reference to Christ, evidently). CD 13:9 says that the rqbm (me·baqqeµr), a leading Essene official, whose title would translate into Greek as ejpiv­ skopo~, should behave like a father and treat those who stray as a shepherd treats wayward sheep. Within a century or less, the verb “shepherd” (poimaivnw) would become (and remain) the key word in the prayers for the ordination of bishops: e.g., Apostolic Tradition 3.4; Serapion Euchologion 28.2. The use of “shepherd” as a metaphor for leadership is ancient and widespread. See Pervo, Dating, 204-8. Trans. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, 1:131. Note also 1 Clem. 44:1-3, which uses the term “bishops,” evidently more or less synonymously with “presbyters.” Those “appointed” (kaqivsthmi, as in 54:2) by apostles or their successors (with the consent of the whole community) have ministered to the “flock of Christ” (as in 54:2) “with humility” (meta; tapeinofrosuvnh~, cf. Acts 20:19). See also Pervo, Dating, 208–10. Barrett’s (2:974–75) statements setting “Spirit” against “institution” are rather unnecessary. Luke will not institutionalize the Holy Spirit, but even a superficial examination of the classical ordination prayers shows that the Holy Spirit has always been viewed as the agent. Conzelmann (175) correctly sees that Spirit and institution converge in ordination. See also the comments of Weiser, 2:584. See Pervo, Dating, 122–23. On the background, see Isa 43:21 LXX: God “acquired” the people so that they would offer praise.

524

Acts part 3C.indd 524

8/27/2008 10:24:32 AM

20:1-38

  29-31  The sole aspect of pastoral care singled out by Paul in these verses203 is the battle against false teaching. This requires constant attention (v. 31), of which Paul himself serves as a model. These duties are also underlined in the Pastorals204 and Polycarp (Phil. 7). Both Acts and the Pastorals are concerned with preservation of what they consider the Pauline heritage in a later era and are roughly contemporaneous in time and place. In both, leaders have the chief responsibility for subduing opponents (1 Tim 5:17; 2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:5-6). Paul’s doctrine and example constitute the most potent weapons in their arsenals.205 Greed is a particular concern (1 Tim 6:9-10; Titus 1:11). Leaders’ responsibilities in both works thus include nurturing the church,206 keeping alert to and addressing false teaching, and avoidance of greed. Both are suffused with Paul’s suffering

and forthcoming death. Commendations close the testaments in 20:32 and 2 Tim 4:22. Some of these similarities may be attributed to the testamentary form, others to the method, which devotes more energy to denouncing opponents than to providing clear profiles of their teachings. That method shows that both Luke and the Pastorals view the church as a body with fixed boundaries that must be protected, rather than a community that is in the process of determining boundaries.207 In both works, danger will come from both outside (v. 29; Titus) and inside (v. 30; 1 Timothy).208 These similarities are emphasized by the differences between the two authors.209 Where there are shepherds, there must be flocks.210 Flocks attract wolves. This natural metaphor was also widespread.211 The imagery allows the battle against

203 Verses 34-35 take up care for the disadvantaged. non-apostle. Luke favors celibacy (Pervo, Profit, Just as Luke 22:35 distinguishes between the time 181 n. 79); the Pastor essentially requires marriage when Jesus was present and that of his absence, so (and childbearing). The God of the Pastorals is Acts 20:29 draws a line between the presence and distant and transcendent, and the Christology is absence of Paul. rooted in the theme of epiphany. For Luke, God is 204 1 Tim 1:3; 4:6-7, 11-12; 6:3, 20; 2 Tim 2:14-20; active (e.g., miracles), and the Christology is based 3:1-7; 4:1-7; Titus 1:10—2:7, 15. on the picture of Jesus as a prophet and example, 205 1 Tim 3:14; 4:11-12; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:8-9, 13-14; elevated to heaven. The Spirit, so central to Luke, 3:10-11; Titus 1:5. plays a smaller role in the Pastorals (1 Tim 4:1; 206 1 Tim 3:2; 4:13-14, 16; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9. 2 Tim 1:14; Titus 3:5). Eph 4:11-16 contains similar 207 For these models, see Margaret Y. MacDonald, warnings, as noted by Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Pauline Churches (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. H. Heron; EdinCambridge University Press, 1988). The model is burgh: T&T Clark, 1991) 185–86. It is inherently sociological, but it has temporal relevance: boundprobable that the Pastor knew Acts, but he made ary maintenance is a phenomenon of particular limited, at most, use of it. concern to the third generation (and later). 210 On this metaphor, see, in addition to n. 198, Jer See below. 13:17; Zech 10:3; Luke 12:32; 1 Pet 5:2-3; and 208 The statement that the wolves will be “vicious” or 1 Clem. 16:1; 57:2.. “oppressive” (barei`~) may reflect financial rapac211 From Jewish apocalyptic, see, e.g., 1 Enoch ity. Cf. vv. 33-34. Paul states, when speaking of 89:13-14; 4 Ezra 5:18; Greco-Roman philosophiself-support, that he does not wish to be a burden cal and historical examples include Epictetus (1 Thess 2:6: ejn bavrei). See also Walton, LeaderDiss. 1.3.7–9; 3.22.35; Maximus of Tyre Or. 6, 7d; ship, 167. The insiders will seek to mislead the faithLibanius Epistle 194.1; Cassius Dio 56.16.3; and ful and form their own groups. An example of misPhilostratus Vit. Apoll. 8:22 (in which the followleading (diastrevfw) is Elymas, who seeks to divert ers of Apollonius are a “flock” [poivmnh] requirSergius Paulus from the true path (Acts 13:8, 10). ing protection from “wolves”). In early Christian The verb is used in the (false) charges against literature the epithet is common. Matt 7:15 was Jesus, Luke 23:5. Note also 1 Clem. 46:9; 47:5. often cited in early Christian literature. Note 209 Proposals that Luke authored the Pastorals (on also Luke 10:3||Matt 10:16 (lambs in the midst of this hypothesis, see Pervo, “Romancing an Oftwolves); John 10:1-16 (and John 21:15-17: earthly ­neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the shepherds). See also Did. 16:3; 2 Clem. 5:2-4; IgnaEpistolary Novel,” JHC 1 [1994] 25–47) focus on tius Phil. 2.2; Justin 1 Apol. 16.13; Dial. 35.3; 81.2; similarities, but differences outweigh these. Among Act. Pet. 8 (Verc.: Simon is call a “ravaging wolf”). them: in the Pastorals, Paul is the apostle and The term was applied to Marcion by the orthodox writes letters. In Acts, Paul is a non–letter-writing writer Rhodon, according to Eusebius, H.E. 5.13.4.

525

Acts part 3C.indd 525

8/27/2008 10:24:32 AM

rival teaching to be seen as the fundamental task of pastoral care: protection of the flock.212 The imagery is common in eschatological warnings.213 Luke has, in fact, utilized the eschatological discourse of Mark 13:21-23 in the construction of these verses, 214 placing these words into an ecclesial context and stripping them of their apocalyptic flavor. False teachers will not be signs of the approaching end, but a challenge to be met through proper leadership. Paul makes no claims to have received a revelation on this matter. He speaks with firm authority: “I know.”215 “Departure”216 is a euphemism for death. Luke here sets forth two key concepts upon which later writers, such as Eusebius, will build: Heresy did not erupt so long as apostles and their associates lived, and the third generation played a critical role in the transmission of apostolic tradition.217 These forthcoming circumstances thus (diov; cf. v. 26) require incessant vigilance, of which Paul is an example. Luke, who avoided two Marcan uses of the

212

213

214 215

216

“­ eschatological” imperative “keep alert” (grhgorei`te [Mark 13:35; 14:38]), uses it here in the Pauline manner.218 The hyperbole “night and day” is Pauline and Deutero-Pauline.219 “Tears,” which expresses profound emotion and effort, recalls v. 19.220 The Pauline intertextual allusions are numerous and complex.221 The most obvious borrowing is nouqetevw (“admonish”).222   32  This commendation, 223 which hovers on the fringes of announcing a succession, resembles the language of Ephesians. The verb parativqhmi (“entrust to”) is that used by Jesus at the moment of his death (Luke 23:46). Also comparable is Jesus’ testamentary disposition (diativqhmi) of “the kingdom” to his followers in his farewell speech (Luke 22:29). 224 The former (parativqhmi) is a important for the Pastor (1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:2).225 Succession is often a key feature of farewell speeches and death scenes. Luke is less interested in tracing lines of succession than is 1 Clement,

For other uses, see G. Bornkamm, luvko~, TDNT 4:308–11; Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, “‘Grievous Wolves’ (Acts 20:29),” in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 235–68; and Malherbe, Paul, 153. “Show no mercy” (feivdomai) is a Pauline word (six times in the undisputed epistles; once in 1 Peter and here). See n. 211. The verb prosevcete (“be attentive” [v. 28]) is common in warnings against rival groups: Matt 7:15; 16:6; Luke 17:3; 20:46; 2 Pet 1:19. See Pervo, Dating, 123–24. Cf. Deut 31:29, which begins oi\da ga;r o{ti e[scaton th`" teleuth`" mou (“For I know that after my death”) and foretells wickedness and apostasy. The same prophetic style (oi\da, “I know”) appears in the letters that open Revelation: 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15. The term a[fixi~ should (and often does) mean “arrival,” but “departure” comes about because the Greek viewpoint focused on movement toward a destination. See BDAG, 157, s.v. The metaphorical use is not otherwise attested, but see “exodus” in Luke 9:31 (of Jesus’ passion). The Life of Polycarp 3 begins meta; de; th;n ajpostovlou a[fixin diedevxato oJ Strataiva~ th;n didaskalivan (“Now following the departure of the apostle [Paul] Strataias succeeded to his office of teaching” [author’s trans.]).

217 Eusebius H.E. 3.32.7 (from Hegisippus). At the close of this passage, Eusebius (or his source) cites 1 Tim 6:20. One result was to extend the length of the third generation to (and beyond) the limits of possibility. Irenaeus still claimed to belong to that company. Cf. also Klein, Zwölf, 180–81. 218 See 1 Cor 16:13 and Walton, Leadership, 161 n. 110. On the exhortation in early Christian literature, see Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1947) 376–78, 453. 219 Note, in particular, 1 Thess 2:9 (imitated in 2 Thess 3:8); cf. also 3:10; 1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3. The phrase is often applied to prayer: Luke 2:37; Acts 26:7. Aejmelaeus (Rezeption, 151–53) examines the phrase in detail. 220 2 Cor 2:1-11 is an example of one admonished by Paul. Luke may have had this situation in mind. 221 See Pervo, Dating, 123. 222 Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; and 2 Thess 3:15. This is a responsibility of leaders, as in 1 Thess 5:12; Col 1:28; 1 Clem. 7:1; 2 Clem. 17:3; 19:2. Note also mnhmoneuvw: Gal 2:10; Eph 2:11; Col 4:18; 1 Thess 1:3; 2:9; 2 Thess 2:5; 2 Tim 2:8; and Johnson, 364. 223 Cf. 14:23, where the commendation is not a final farewell. 224 See Christian Maurer, “tivqhmi,”TDNT 8:153–68, esp. 162–64. 225 The noun paraqhvkh (“deposit”) appears in 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12, 14. Steve Walton (Leadership,

526

Acts part 3C.indd 526

8/27/2008 10:24:32 AM

20:1-38

but it is safe to say that orderly transition of power is important to him.226 The description of God’s word 227 as empowering is a Pauline theme with which Luke is in hearty accord.228 “Build up” (oijkodomevw) also reflects Pauline language.229 Ephesians has strongly influenced v. 32, but it also participates in the world of other (Pauline and) Deutero-Pauline passages,230 as well as the LXX.231 Two metaphors are mixed: the promise of inheriting the land and the view of the community as a building. The former is dominant. “Inheritance,” stripped of literal and historical associations, became a useful term for receipt of divine reward.232 The language is eschatological, without a clear temporal application.233   33-34  The next verse brings another surprise to the

226

227

228 229

reader of Acts: Paul, like Peter (3:6; 8:18-20), is not greedy and will not accept money for his services.234 If financial exploitation has motivated others (cf. 8:4-25; 16:16-19; 19:25-27), not even his worst enemies have hurled that mud at Paul. At issue is the never-mentioned but ever-present subject of the collection. Paul was said to have raised money indirectly by stating that its purpose was charitable.235 His letters often tackle the topic of money, however uncomfortably.236 Yet another surprise arrives in v. 34: Paul has supported not only himself but also his colleagues with his labor! Acts 18:3-5 (Corinth) introduced the idea that Paul practiced a craft, but no reader of Acts (cf. 18:5) would have concluded that he did so constantly.237 Acts 19:12 now becomes perfectly clear: Paul’s healing cloths came from his self-supporting sweat.

192–93) stresses that Luke and the Pastor use the verb in different senses. This is true, but for each it belongs to the sphere of transmitting authority. This is to say that Talbert’s proposal that Acts is a “succession narrative” following a biography of the founder (Gospel of Luke) is an important observation, perhaps an important half-truth. He has refined this theory often since propounding it in Literary Patterns, 125–40. For its most recent formulation, see idem and Perry Stepp, “Succession in Luke-Acts and in the Lukan Milieu,” in Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 19–55. It is possible that “God” and “word” are a hendiadys. See Barrett, 2:980. Formally, one may ask whether the participle dunamevnw/ (“able”) modifies “God” or “word.” If not taken as a hendiadys, parallels suggest that it belongs with “God.” The participle dunamevnw/ as a characterization of God was popular in second-century doxologies: Rom 16:25-27; Jude 24. Note that some D-Texts (614. 2147. 2412 syh**, add a doxology at this point: “to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Boismard (Texte, 338) prints “inheritance of all the sanctified,” regarding the difficult hJgiasmevnoi~ tw`n pavntwn (“sanctified of [?] all [persons, things?] of D as an inept synthesis of the textual forms. Ropes (Text, 199) views the reading of D as a survival from the doxology. See Aejmelaeus, Rezeption, 158. Cf. also Heb 1:14; 6:12. 1 Corinthians has six occurrences of “edify.” “Build” occurs in Rom 15:20 and Gal 2:18 (also 1 Pet 2:5, 7). Acts 9:31 is similar, as is ajnoikodomei`n in Acts 15:16. See Pervo, Dating, 126–27; and Walton, Leadership, 180–81.

230 See 1 Thess 2:13; 5:11; Col 1:12-14; Eph 1:7, 14, 18; 2:2; 3:20-21; 4:12. 231 Acts 20:32 is partially dependent on Deut 33:3-4, as shown by Aejmelaeus, Rezeption, 162–63. On the theme of inheritance, see also Ps 15:5 LXX; Wis 5:4; 1QS 11:7-8 and 1QH 11:11-12. 232 Apart from the single, fruitful use of this word in Gal 3:18, the noun appears in Colossians, Ephesians (3), Hebrews (2), and 1 Peter. Note also 1 Clem. 29:3; 36.4; Barn. 4.3; 14:4. For the evolution of the concept, see Johannes Behm and Werner Foerster, “klh`ro~,” TDNT 3:758–85, esp. 781–85 (Foerster). 233 Luke’s sources, Colossians and Ephesians, are more forthright in using this language of present, “realized” eschatology. Cf. also 1QS 11:7-8; 1QH 11:11–12, which view “inheritance” as a present possession. One cannot attribute “building up” to the present and “inheritance” to the future, as does Barrett, 2:981. 234 Whereas people in the contemporary United States think of real and personal property, less wealthy ancients spoke about ready cash and clothing as primary possessions. The thieves of Luke 10:30 stripped their victim because his clothing was valuable. So the soldiers who crucified Jesus got his garments as a gratuity (Mark 15:24). Cf. also Jacquier, 619. 235 See Georgi, Remembering, 60–61. 236 1 Thess 2:3-12; 2 Thess 3:7-10; 1 Cor 9:3-18; 2 Cor 4:5; 8–9; 10:1-6; 11:7-11; 12:13. 237 Cf. Haenchen, 594.

527

Acts part 3C.indd 527

8/27/2008 10:24:32 AM

This is the flip side of v. 33: self-support was a desirable (if more often in theory than in practice) means of avoiding both taking fees from one’s adherents and falling into abject dependence on patrons.238 Paul pairs this wellphrased “memory” statement239 with an exhortation to “labor” on behalf of “the weak.” This exhortation exemplifies both the compression of the address, killing two birds with one stone, and its general character. The themes and language echo a number of Pauline and Deutero-Pauline texts.240 The latter is apparent in the view of work, which is now a necessity (dei` [v. 35]),241 even if the motive is help for the poor. Acts is moving in the direction represented in 2 Thess 3:7-12 and Titus 3:14. Believers are to settle down and find work, so that they may give their faith a good name by productivity and rebuffing the notion that one reason for affiliating with the church is to receive support. Conzelmann identifies what is taking place: “Passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 4:11

are now formed into a timeless prototype.”242 Such “timelessness” is the goal of Deutero-Paulinism, which seeks to make the contingent advice of Paul applicable to all believers in every situation.243 The hyperbole (Paul’s income supported his entire entourage) is Lucan.   35  The verse opens with a reinforcement of Paul’s role as example.244 The final speech of Peter’s missionary career climaxed with an appeal to the words of Jesus (11:16). Within the Pauline tradition 1 Thess 5:15-17 is a good parallel. Both utilize a saying (lovgo~) as the warrant for exhortation.245 Paul introduces the aphorism with a formula used for citing oral tradition that first appears in Christian literature in 1 Clement (13:1-2; 46:7) and thereafter in the fragments of Papias and in Polycarp.246 The formula used in 11:16, which is quite similar, ostensibly reproduces Peter’s recollection of what Jesus said, and 1:5 shows but a slight variation from it. This aphorism, however, does not appear in either Luke or Acts. The “agraphon”247 indicates that for

238 See Malherbe, Paul, 35–48; and Hock, Social would change. See Cadbury and Lake, 263. D*vid Context, 26–65. Philosophers routinely disavow Spec read a simpler “to all persons (presumably, their interest in money: Dio of Prusa Or. 32.9, 11; pa`sin).” Although not adopted by Boismard, this Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.34; Lucian Nigr. 25–26; is consistent with the D-Text tendency to personal(Cynic) Epistle of Socrates 1. ize the speech. 239 “You know”: cf. v. 18. The circle is closing. The 245 Cf. Walton, Leadership, 171. Aejmelaeus (Rezeption, final words are “these hands.” Note also the play 175–83) discusses the background of the saying in creivai~ . . . cei`re~ (“needs . . . hands”). Dupont full detail. (Le discours de Milet, 301) senses the pathos: “These 246 See Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their hands which perform miracles (Acts 14:3; 19:11; History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press 28:8) and convey the Holy Spirit (19:6) are also the International, 1990) 63, 66; and Robinson and large hands of a worker, gnarled by hard labor” Koester, Trajectories, 96–97. Bruce (436) notes that (author’s trans.). The words come from 1 Thess aujto~ ei\pen (“he said”) conforms to ipse dixit (“He 4:11-12; see Pervo, Dating, 127–31. said,” in effect, “the master said,” used of Pythago240 See Pervo, Dating, 131–33. ras in his school). Bruce notes later Christian uses 241 For evolving ideas of work in early Christianity, (Marius Victorinus) of the expression for Jesus. see Goran Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance: An 247 Alfred Resch introduced Acts 20:35 as an example Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament of “canonical agrapha” in the first edition of his (Lund: Verbum Hakan Ohlssons, 1976). Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (TU 242 Conzelmann, 176. 5; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1889) 2. See also pp. 150–51, 243 Hermas 27 (Man. 2.4) expects believers to work and, which present five other forms of the saying as in Acts, to share with others, while Eph 4:28, from early Christian literature. William Stroker which promotes work as an anticrime measure, follows this practice: Extracanonical Sayings of illustrates the scope of its generality, and EpiphaJesus (­ SBLRBS 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) nius Pan. 26.11.1 indicates the limits of interpreta227–28. tion. In his discussion of 20:34, Calvin (7:189) fails to extol the “Calvinist work ethic.” 244 See Lambrecht, “Farewell,” 321. The opening pavnta (“all things”) is probably an accusative of respect that may be applied to either v. 34, v. 35, or both. If taken with the former only, punctuation

528

Acts part 3C.indd 528

8/27/2008 10:24:32 AM

20:1-38

Luke the door for sayings of Jesus remained open and was not limited to his written Gospel.248 The saying was already a venerable proverb when Luke wrote.249 The earliest Greek attestation is in Thucydides 2.97.4, who attributes the sentiment to the Persians.250 Closest to the environment of Acts are 1 Clem. 2:1 and Did. 1:5. If an intertextual relationship is proposed, the most likely solution is that Luke took the aphorism from 1 Clement, Christianized it,251 and attributed it to Jesus, but the sentiment of Did. 1:5 and the parallels from c. 50 ce onward make appeal to a known source unnecessary.252 The sentiment is applicable to leaders in the context of avoiding greed and caring for the needy, but it is more applicable to potential benefactors.253 Rather than bestow a macarism upon the poor, with a concomitant woe to the rich (as in Luke 6:20, 24), Paul says that those with some resources can achieve beatitude through generosity.254 His message thus coincides with that of the Lucan Jesus. The saying is a kind of synecdoche: by closing with a saying of Jesus, Paul

affirms all of the teachings of Jesus. As Haenchen says, his last words are not his own, but those of Jesus.255 The identification of similarities between this speech and the correspondence, most of which are due to ­borrowing, might obscure the most important point: Acts 20:17-35 has many of the features of a DeuteroPauline letter. Like the Pastor, Luke prefers to focus on community leaders in setting forth what Paul would say if he were present now. More than the other speeches, which are also authorial compositions, Miletus can profit by comparison with the objects of pseudonymous ­composition.

248 Limitations of theme and space prevent exploration of the important implications of this fact. 249 For examples, see, in addition to the texts cited in n. 247, J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (5 vols.; in two parts; New York: Macmillan, 1889–90) 2:12; Cadbury and Lake, 264; Haenchen, 994 n. 5; Barrett, 2:983–84; and Fitzmyer, 682. 250 Eckhard Plümacher proposes that Thucydides is Luke’s source (“Eine Thukydidesreminiszenz in der Apostelgeschichte [Act 20,33-35—Thuk. 11 97.3f.]?” ZNW 83 [1992] 270–75). This does not seem likely. 251 The most thorough Christianization of the aphorism is in the D-Text reconstructed (on somewhat shaky grounds) by Boismard, Texte, 333: “The one who gives is more blessed than the one who receives,” which assimilates it to the Hebrew form of the macarism. 252 See the discussion in Pervo, Dating, 228–29; and Weiser, 2:580. 253 See the apposite remarks of Witherington (626), who notes that the giving in question does not depend on reciprocity, that is, dependence. 254 For poor people to learn that giving is more blessed than receiving is to learn one more blessing in which they may not share. The focus on generosity omits problems connected to receiving. In the Greco-Roman world, this was less of an issue, but for modern people under Western influence, receiving is often more difficult than giving. Cf. Polhill, 430 n. 95.

Excursus: The Farewell Scene Acts 20:36—21:17 contains several scenes of departure (20:36-38; 21:5-6; 10-18). François Bovon has shown that they follow a Greek literary pattern, which he traces from Homer onwards.256 Examples include the Socratic tradition, 257 which influenced philosophical and martyrological portraits.258

255 Haenchen, 598. 256 François Bovon, “Le Saint-Esprit, l’Église et les relations humaines selon Actes 20,36—21,16,” in Kremer, Actes, 339–58. An epic example is the famous encounter between Hector and Andromache (Il. 6.369–493, Bovon, 341). See also MacDonald, Imitate Homer, 69–102. 257 Bovon discusses, in addition to Diogenes Laertius 2.18–47, Plato’s Crito 43D–44B. Note also Phaed. 116E–117A (masterful pathos). See also Alexander, Literary Context, 67, which discusses Plato Phaed. 65–67; 69A; Crito 45C–D. 258 Philostratus does not neglect this pattern in his Apollonius (4.36–37; 4.46; 7.14, Bovon, “SaintEsprit,” 342–43. Bovon discusses martyr acts and Apocryphal Acts on pp. 344–47. The theme plays a leading role in Ignatius’s Romans (e.g., 1:2; 2:1; 3:3, Bovon, 348 n. 32). Mani’s final journey and death were gradually assimilated to the passion of Jesus. See Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Parables, Hymns, and Prayers from Central Asia (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993) 212-15. Cf. also Betz, Lukian, 118 n. 4.

529

Acts part 3C.indd 529

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

20:1-38

Luke the door for sayings of Jesus remained open and was not limited to his written Gospel.248 The saying was already a venerable proverb when Luke wrote.249 The earliest Greek attestation is in Thucydides 2.97.4, who attributes the sentiment to the Persians.250 Closest to the environment of Acts are 1 Clem. 2:1 and Did. 1:5. If an intertextual relationship is proposed, the most likely solution is that Luke took the aphorism from 1 Clement, Christianized it,251 and attributed it to Jesus, but the sentiment of Did. 1:5 and the parallels from c. 50 ce onward make appeal to a known source unnecessary.252 The sentiment is applicable to leaders in the context of avoiding greed and caring for the needy, but it is more applicable to potential benefactors.253 Rather than bestow a macarism upon the poor, with a concomitant woe to the rich (as in Luke 6:20, 24), Paul says that those with some resources can achieve beatitude through generosity.254 His message thus coincides with that of the Lucan Jesus. The saying is a kind of synecdoche: by closing with a saying of Jesus, Paul

affirms all of the teachings of Jesus. As Haenchen says, his last words are not his own, but those of Jesus.255 The identification of similarities between this speech and the correspondence, most of which are due to ­borrowing, might obscure the most important point: Acts 20:17-35 has many of the features of a DeuteroPauline letter. Like the Pastor, Luke prefers to focus on community leaders in setting forth what Paul would say if he were present now. More than the other speeches, which are also authorial compositions, Miletus can profit by comparison with the objects of pseudonymous ­composition.

248 Limitations of theme and space prevent exploration of the important implications of this fact. 249 For examples, see, in addition to the texts cited in n. 247, J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (5 vols.; in two parts; New York: Macmillan, 1889–90) 2:12; Cadbury and Lake, 264; Haenchen, 994 n. 5; Barrett, 2:983–84; and Fitzmyer, 682. 250 Eckhard Plümacher proposes that Thucydides is Luke’s source (“Eine Thukydidesreminiszenz in der Apostelgeschichte [Act 20,33-35—Thuk. 11 97.3f.]?” ZNW 83 [1992] 270–75). This does not seem likely. 251 The most thorough Christianization of the aphorism is in the D-Text reconstructed (on somewhat shaky grounds) by Boismard, Texte, 333: “The one who gives is more blessed than the one who receives,” which assimilates it to the Hebrew form of the macarism. 252 See the discussion in Pervo, Dating, 228–29; and Weiser, 2:580. 253 See the apposite remarks of Witherington (626), who notes that the giving in question does not depend on reciprocity, that is, dependence. 254 For poor people to learn that giving is more blessed than receiving is to learn one more blessing in which they may not share. The focus on generosity omits problems connected to receiving. In the Greco-Roman world, this was less of an issue, but for modern people under Western influence, receiving is often more difficult than giving. Cf. Polhill, 430 n. 95.

Excursus: The Farewell Scene Acts 20:36—21:17 contains several scenes of departure (20:36-38; 21:5-6; 10-18). François Bovon has shown that they follow a Greek literary pattern, which he traces from Homer onwards.256 Examples include the Socratic tradition, 257 which influenced philosophical and martyrological portraits.258

255 Haenchen, 598. 256 François Bovon, “Le Saint-Esprit, l’Église et les relations humaines selon Actes 20,36—21,16,” in Kremer, Actes, 339–58. An epic example is the famous encounter between Hector and Andromache (Il. 6.369–493, Bovon, 341). See also MacDonald, Imitate Homer, 69–102. 257 Bovon discusses, in addition to Diogenes Laertius 2.18–47, Plato’s Crito 43D–44B. Note also Phaed. 116E–117A (masterful pathos). See also Alexander, Literary Context, 67, which discusses Plato Phaed. 65–67; 69A; Crito 45C–D. 258 Philostratus does not neglect this pattern in his Apollonius (4.36–37; 4.46; 7.14, Bovon, “SaintEsprit,” 342–43. Bovon discusses martyr acts and Apocryphal Acts on pp. 344–47. The theme plays a leading role in Ignatius’s Romans (e.g., 1:2; 2:1; 3:3, Bovon, 348 n. 32). Mani’s final journey and death were gradually assimilated to the passion of Jesus. See Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Parables, Hymns, and Prayers from Central Asia (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993) 212-15. Cf. also Betz, Lukian, 118 n. 4.

529

Acts part 3C.indd 529

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

­ ypical features include nonverbal elements, appeals T to personal bonds and affection, and a hero who appreciates these sentiments but sees a necessity that transcends these relationships and will not evade his fate.259 Omens or revelations may confirm his ­position.260 Bovon relates the entire sequence of farewell scenes, objections, tears, and kisses to this pattern.261 It is literary in nature, albeit so conventional and general that one need not look for particular sources in every case, and Greek because it is based on the tension produced by attempts to dissuade (21:14) a hero from his chosen/fated path.262 Reference to literature should not be taken to imply that the scene is not psychologically realistic.263 The power of the type comes from the ageless conflict between duty and safety, human relationships and higher ­obligations.264 Such scenes are, as Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli have shown, also common in the various Acts.265 Examples from the Apocryphal Acts include Act. John 58–59; Act. Paul 9/12; Act. Pet. (Verc.) 1–3; Act. Thom. 65–68. Typical features include (1) The mission is due to divine necessity or direction (Acts 19:21; 21:13). (2) Such scenes are often set in the penultimate period of the apostles’ career and include allusions to his coming death and emphases that the believers will see him no more (Acts 20:38; 21:13). (3) The news distresses the faithful, who may attempt to restrain him (Acts 21:4, 12).266 (4) The subject offers encouraging words (Acts 21:16). (5) The believers escort him as far as possible (21:15-16). The seashore, a potent boundary, is an ideal place for the close of farewell scenes.267

Ancient novelists were unable to deprive their audiences of the pleasure of heart-rending scenes of farewell: When the appointed day for departure arrived, the people flocked to the harbor, not only men but also women and children [cf. Acts 21:5], and there simultaneously occurred tears and prayers, moaning and encouragement, terror and courage, resignation and hope. Ariston, Chaereas’ father, was carried because of advanced age and sickness. He flung his arms around the neck of his son [cf. Acts 20:37], and clinging to him wept and said, “Why are you leaving me, my son, an old man and almost dead? I shall certainly never see you again [cf. Acts 20:38].” (Chariton Chaer. 5.3–5) 268 Examples are not limited to these genres. Because these farewells are type-scenes, it is not advisable to search for historical details in them or to draw conclusions based on the presence of conventional features.   36-38  This brief and effective farewell underlines the emotional bond between Paul and the presbyters, underscoring the statement that this is their last sight of him. Paul may set out on his path confident that he has done what he could, both as herald and model. Storm clouds lie on the horizon, for both Paul and his churches (represented here, not accidentally, by

259 Tertullian staunchly defended resolution in the 267 Margaret Anne Doody (The True Story of the Novel face of persecution. See Bovon, “Saint-Esprit,” 349 [New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996] n. 34. 327–29) includes the seashore among the basic 260 Bovon, “Saint-Esprit,” 341. tropes of the novel. 261 Ibid., 349. 268 Trans. G. P. Goold (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard 262 Ibid. University Press, 1995) 163. (The mother follows, 263 Ibid., 351–53. baring her breasts and quoting Hecuba’s words to 264 Tannehill’s characterization of these scenes as Hector [Il. 22.82–83). Cf. also Ephesian Tale 1.10; “a struggle” between Paul and his friends (NarAchilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 5.15.1. The LXX also rative Unity, 2:262; see also 263–67) is somewhat contributes to this passage. On the farewell kiss, overdone and misleading, for it does not take see Gen 33:4; 40:14; 46:29; Tob 7:7; 3 Macc. 5:49; the ancient pattern into account. Paul does not and Luke 15:20 (the prodigal). “struggle,” although he does feel. 265 Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Iohannis (2 vols.; CCSA 1-2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983) 2:431 n. 1. Cf. also Pervo, “Hard Act,” 15–16; and Peter Dunn, “The Influence of 1 Corinthians on the Acts of Paul,” SBLSP 1996 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 438–54, 442–43. Note also the general comments of Weiser, 2:580. 266 On this element, see the comments on 21:10-14.

530

Acts part 3C.indd 530

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

20:1-38

­ phesus), but he has equipped those of a later generaE tion with the tools they need to lead and feed. This scene serves, as Polhill states, as a transition, bringing Paul’s work in the Greek East to an end. From now on the narrator’s eyes, like those of his chief character, will be on Jerusalem and Rome.269 The proper object of the farewell speech was not to glorify its speaker but to provide helpful counsel and advice to those left behind. When taken as a historical

address actually delivered on this occasion, the speech presents a Paul who lacks both modesty and clarity. When it is seen as post-Pauline and conventional, its value can be appreciated. The speech amounts to an outline list of topics for development or a file drawer into which relevant expositions may be placed. In that light, it serves as a guide for leaders that has not lost its value.270

269 Polhill, 430–31. 270 Walton (Leadership) is particularly appreciative of the abiding value of the address.

531

Acts part 3C.indd 531

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

21

21:1-17  Paul Travels to Jerusalem 1/ When we were able to tear ourselves away from them, we set out on a straight run to Cos, reaching Rhodes the next day and then Patara. 2/ We located a ship that was crossing to Phoenicia, boarded it, and set sail. 3/ We came within sight of Cyprus, which we passed on the right and continued on to Syria, a landing at Tyre, where the ship was to offload its cargo. b 4/ We looked up the believers and stayed there with them for a week. c Moved by the Spirit, they tried to tell Paul to abandon his plan to visit Jerusalem. 5/ When the time came to leave them and travel on, they all—women and children included—escorted us outside of town, where we knelt down to pray on the beach. 6/ Then we said farewell to one another, and we boarded the ship while they returned home. 7/ Resuming the voyage, we traveled d from Tyre to Ptolemais, where we visited the believers and spent a day with them. 8/ We left on the next day and reached e Caesarea, where we went to the house of Philip the Evangelist, one of the Seven, and stayed with him.f 9/ Philip had four unmarried daughters g endowed with the gift of prophecy. 10/ After we had been there for quite a number of days, there arrived from Judea a prophet named Agabus, 11/ who approached h us and grasped Paul’s belt, with which he bound his own i hands and feet. “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” he announced. “Just as I have bound myself, so will the Jews bind the man who owns this belt and will deliver him to the gentiles.” 12/ After hearing this, both we and those who lived there implored him to break off his trip to Jerusalem. 13/ Paul said, “Why are you breaking my heart with these tears? For the Name of the Lord Jesus I am not only ready to be arrested in Jerusalem; I am even prepared to die there.” 14/ Since we could not dissuade him, we said, “The Lord’s will be done”j and dropped the subject.

a b c

d e

f

g h i j

k

Boismard (Texte, 340) prefers “sailed” (kathvcqh­ men), with the support of C Y and m. On the (periphrastic?) participial phrase h\n ajforti­ zovmenon, see BDF §339 (2b). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 341) omits “there,” adds an initial “and,” drops the article with “believers” (i.e., “we found some believers”), and changes the infinitive to the conventional “go up” (to Jerusalem). P74 a2 A E read katevbhmen (“went down to”). The difference is minor. Before and instead of h[lqomen (“we came”), the Byzantine text reads oiJ peri; Pau`lon h\lqon (“Paul and his companions came”). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 427–28) attributes this to lectionary influence. (At the beginning of a reading, confusing openings such as “the next day” and “we” are eliminated and/ or replaced by proper nouns.) The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 343) recasts v. 8b, transforming the participle into a finite verb (“we entered”) and omitting the final three words (“we stayed with him”). See also below. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 343) makes v. 9 a relative clause, continuing v. 8. See also below. D* makes the verb finite, evidently in order to break up a series of participles. The variant “both his,” that is, Paul’s hands and feet, is secondary. Cadbury and Lake (269) prefer “prevail.” This may be too fine. In any case, the translation preserves the cross reference. (Luke 22:42 has the same tense.) “Get ready” is a reasonable conjecture for the meaning of ejpiskeusavmenoi. See Cadbury and Lake, 269.

532

Acts part 3C.indd 532

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

21:1-17

15/

When our stay came to an end, we got ready for travel k and set out for Jerusalem. 16/ Some of the believers from Caesarea accompanied us as guides to the home of one Mnason from Cyprus, a believer of long standing, with whom we lodged. 17/ When we got to Jerusalem, we were warmly welcomed by the believers.

Analysis

As the group approaches Jerusalem, warnings become increasingly vivid and dire. “The road to Jerusalem recalls Paul’s earlier visits to the capital, only this time the black clouds are massed on the horizon.”1 Paul remains staunch in his commitment, undeterred even by the threat of martyrdom. Luke uses the frame of the collection journey to raise suspense to an all-but­unbearable level. In this atmosphere, the prosaic listing of ports and stations serves as a counterpoint of steady

beats and a literary foil that highlights the message of doom. Paul’s final journey obviously evokes a parallel with that of Jesus in Luke, beginning in Acts 19:21, 2 evoked in 20:22-24, continued in 21:4, and brought to a climax in 21:10-14. These sayings correspond, with considerably more variety, to the “passion predictions” of Jesus. Paul has his own “Gethsemane” (cf. Luke 22:33-42, which does not use the word). In such scenes contrasting the pre- and postresurrection/Pentecost periods, Luke illustrates the meaning and power of the gift of the Spirit.

Table 6. Jesus and Paul: Some Parallels3 Jesus

Paul

1. “Passion Predictions”

1. “Passion Predictions”

Luke 9:22

Acts 20:23-25

Luke 9:34

Acts 21:4

Luke 18:31

Acts 21:11-13

2. Farewell Address

2. Farewell Address

Luke 22:14-38

Acts 20:17-35

3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose

3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose

Luke 20:27-39

Acts 23:6-10

4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus

4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul

Luke 22:63-64

Acts 23:1-2

5. Four “Trials” of Jesus

5. Four “Trials” of Paul

A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71

A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30—23:10

B. Roman Governor (Pilate): Luke 23:1-5

B. Roman Governor (Felix): 24:1-22

C. Herodian King (Antipas): Luke 23:6-12

C. Herodian King (Agrippa): 26

D. Roman Governor (Pilate): Luke 23:13-25

D. Roman Governor (Festus): 25:6-12

1 2

Goulder, Type, 30. See the comments thereon.

3

For detailed comparisons of the two trials, see Radl, Paulus, 169–251; and, with emphasis on the

533

Acts part 3C.indd 533

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

Table 6. Jesus and Paul: Some Parallels (cont.) 6. Declarations of Innocence

6. Declarations of Innocence

Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf. 23:4, 22)

Lysias (Tribune): Acts 23:29

Herod: Luke 23:14

Festus: Acts 25:25

Centurion: Luke 23:47

Agrippa: Acts 26:31

7. Mob Demands Execution

7. Mob Demands Execution

Luke 23:18

Acts 22:22

Difficulties arise when one steps back and compares this account with the journey of 15:3, which had a similar goal, although motivated by overt problems. Why is it that Paul, who, since the end of chap. 9, has visited Jerusalem whenever he wished (Acts 15; 18:22), is now in such great danger? (That Jerusalem can be dangerous is beyond doubt—witness the fates of Jesus, Stephen, and James.) No reason is supplied for the present danger. In historical fact, danger came from delivering the ­collection.4 The framework of this passage probably derives from a source, a letter regarding the collection. The beginning is artificial, for it assumes that the party could sail away as soon as the speech and subsequent prayers were over. Lucan additions include v. 4b, 5 probably some details of the farewell scene in v. 5, and vv. 10-14.6 Readers are struck by a number of unusual words and a phrase. Some of these may be attributed to the subject material, but they contribute to the hypothesis of a

4 5

6 7

source.7 This proposal accepts the data about Philip as integral to the source (and presumably historical). Philip is awarded a descriptive epithet, “the evangelist,” which does not fit 6:1-7, and he is called a member of “the Seven,” another term avoided in Acts 6. It is not likely that Luke invented (or imported from elsewhere) the reference to his daughters, since they play no role here. The reference to Mnason (v. 16) evidently also derives from the source. As a Cypriot resident in Jerusalem, he evokes Barnabas (4:36). The party sought lodgings with Greek-speaking believers in Palestine.8 A more speculative possibility is that Paul may have been seeking (or used the opportunity) to repair/fortify relations with those associated with Barnabas and the mission in Antioch in order to gain their support for his collection.9 The “passion predictions” in v. 4 and vv. 10-14 belong to Luke. The appearance of Agabus fits Luke’s plan and does not fit the context.10

trial of Jesus as a Lucan composition, Joseph B. Tyson, The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986) 114–41. For various reasons why the collection is not mentioned, see Lüdemann, 247; Pesch 2:222. See Haenchen, 600. The complex relative oi{tine~ is typical of Luke. Even more typical is his use of relatives to form more or less independent clauses. Weiser (2:588) also assigns vv. 1-4a, 7-9 to the source. Words: v. 3: ajnafaivnw (in sense of “sight,” passive in different sense, Luke 19:11); eujwvnumo~ (“left,” “port”); ajpofortivzomai (“unload”); v. 4: ajneurivskw (“seek [and find],” but see Luke 2:16); v. 5: ejxartivzw (“finish”); v. 6: eij" ta; i[dia (i.e., “go home”), a phrase found in Esther, 3 Maccabees, and John (three times), but not in Luke or Acts; v. 7: dianuvw (“complete”); v. 15: ejpiskeuavzomai (“get ready”). The most important of these are

unusual words for “finish/complete” and “go home,” for which Luke normally uses other terms. 8 Cornelius would have been a logical host, in terms of resources. If Luke were composing this episode, he might well have had him play that role. If he existed and were a convert of Peter (both questionable), it could be hypothesized that the party avoided him because of Paul’s difficulties with Peter. 9 Note also Tyre (21:3-6), an area evangelized by refugees from the persecution of Stephen (11:19; cf. 15:3). Had Luke concocted the itinerary, he might well have included a visit to Antioch (as in 18:22). 10 Lüdemann (Acts, 280) thinks that the Agabus episode may come from tradition, although he is willing to consider that its basis is not the major tradition of this section.

534

Acts part 3C.indd 534

8/27/2008 10:24:33 AM

21:1-17

Comment   1  The route from Miletus to Tyre is generally

conventional,11 but textual variants raise questions about its completeness. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 340) omits the first five words of N-A 27 and revises the rest: “After tearing ourselves away from them,12 we set out on a straight run to Cos,13 and on the next day14 to Rhodes and thence to Patara and Myra.” The last stop is difficult. If it is a later addition on the basis of verisimilitude, the route has been abbreviated. Against this is the view that, if the object was to give daily stages, RhodesPatara-Myra is too long.15 Ropes found no reason for a deliberate addition and posited it as omitted by haplography.16 Reasons for interpolation can, however, be identified: assimilation to 27:5 or to the Act. Paul 4/5.17 Both are characteristics of the D-Text.   2-3  The next verse quashes any notion that the group had chartered a ship or that they were on a pilgrim vessel. They took passage on whatever vessel was available and had to fend for themselves during layovers. One of these was in the venerable city of Tyre,18 where, contrary to the Lucan pattern, they had to search out believers.19

The text does not say how this was accomplished.20 The layover caused no anxieties about the schedule. Conzelmann is blunt: “The haste mentioned in 20:16 is forgotten.”21 This is another indication that 20:16 was Lucan and ad hoc. 21:10, where the delay was voluntary, clinches this conclusion.   4  The second half of the verse is presumably telescoped. The revelations—generalized to the entire community—did not order Paul to change his plans, but forecast danger, as in 20:23. The believers, out of concern for Paul, urged him to desist. This interpretation is at least as old as Chrysostom.22 Their pleas emphasize Paul’s courage and determination.23   5-6  The verses offer another moving farewell scene.24 The entire community goes down to the beach to see them off. By such means the narrator conveys the charisma of Paul, who was presumably unknown to these good people a week earlier.   7-8  The next stop, at Ptolemais, 25 brings the party to land 26 and reveals the existence of another Christian group, the location of which was evidently known, and a single day’s halt. The narrator (and perhaps the source) was not interested in what was but a place on

11 So Cadbury and Lake, 264, with reference to Lucan Pharsalia 8.243–52, that is, epic. See also Ephesian Tale 1.11.6 (Cos, Cnidus, Rhodes). 12 A thoroughly improper genitive absolute. 13 The D-Text makes “straight run” a finite verb and omits “we came,” changes obscured by the trans. 14 Using a different term (ejpiouvsh/) . 15 Cadbury and Lake, 264–65. 16 Ropes, Text, 201. 17 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 427. Conversely, the Acts of Paul may have known Acts in this form. 18 On Tyre, see H. J. Katzenstein and Douglas R. Edwards, “Tyre,” ABD 6:686–92. Its importance in the eastern Mediterranean is apparent from its occurrence in ancient novels: Callirhoe (eleven); An Ephesian Tale (six); The Marvels beyond Thule (Photius Bib. 166); Leucippe (twelve); The Ps.Clementines (e.g., Hom. 6.26; 7); An Ethiopian Story (4.16.6); and Apollonius, Prince of Tyre. Jesus had attracted hearers from this area: Luke 6:17. 19 See Luke 2:16, for the same use of ajneurivskw (“seek out”). 20 If some were of Jewish background and tension between the groups was absent, inquiry at a synagogue might have provided one means. Roloff (309) attributes the origins of this community to the mission of 11:19.

21 Conzelmann, 178. 22 Chrysostom Hom. 45, p. 381. Bovon (“Saint-Esprit,” 350) disputes the link with 20:23 and makes this the point of departure for his illuminating discussion of the pattern. 23 Cf. Conzelmann (178), who adds that the purpose was not to make these believers look bad. On the theme, see below (on vv. 10-14). 24 In v. 5, Moule (Idiom Book, 174) views o{te de; ejgevneto hJma`" ejxartivsai ta;" hJmevra" as an example of Semitic style. Such LXX language is Lucan and supplies the proper dignity to the scene. The D-Text simplifies the construction to an articular infinitive: meta; de; to; ejxartivsai (“After the days were finished . . .”), omitting “us” as subject of the infinitive, adding “on our way” to the verb “we went,” and changing the participle “prayed” to the finite “we prayed.” The infinitive ejxartivsai is unusual in this sense, leading Cadbury and Lake (266) to wonder whether language about the ship being ready has been compressed. Chrysostom Hom. 45 (381) glosses this as “complete” (plhrw`sai). 25 This is the Hellenistic name of the ancient Acco, famous in crusader and Ottoman times as Acre. 26 The idiom of travel is well illustrated in Ephesian Tale 3.2.12, kai; mevcri mevn tino~ dihvnusto

535

Acts part 3C.indd 535

8/27/2008 10:24:34 AM

the road to Caesarea.27 There the party lodges with Philip, identified as “the ‘evangelist,’ being one of the Seven.” Questions arise: Was this identifying material in the source? Did it contain one title (“one of the seven,” “evangelist”) or two? If the author wished to say “one of the seven evangelists,” he could have done so more clearly, but this interpretation is possible.28 It is also possible that “evangelist” is a nickname rather than a title and that “seven” is simply a cross-reference to Acts 6. If “the Seven” was found in the source, it would presumably have been intelligible to the readers. This implies that the Seven were a well-known group. In addition to possible expansion of the source is potential abbreviation. The source may have supplied more information about this host, to indicate his

27

28 29

30

31

distinction, or it may have said that the group lodged with (one) Philip.29   9  Philip was famous, if not legendary, in Luke’s time, as the statements of Papias indicate.30 Luke may have introduced the data about him and his daughters from other traditions. If “evangelist” is a title, it probably reflects a later date.31 The name may have come from the source, but the other data are probably Lucan contributions from other sources. 32 Philip regularly came equipped with prophetic daughters. 33 For Luke, female prophets are celibate (Mary and Anna),34 a circumstance for which there are a number of parallels in the history of religions.35 Their presumed status fulfills 2:17-18, but, in place of prophecies from them, a male prophet “from Judea” is imported, as it were, to do the honors.36 This

eujtucw`~ oJ plou`~ (“For a while the voyage went well,” trans. G. Anderson in Reardon, Novels, 148), and Leuc. Clit. 5.17.1, pevnte de; tw`n eJxh`~ hJmerw`n dia­nuvsante~ to;n plou`n h{komen eij~ ÆEfeson (“After five days of continuous sailing we reached Ephesos,” trans. J. J. Winkler in Reardon, Novels, 241). The verb dianuvw can mean “continue.” The journey would have taken more than a single day, as Caesarea is about sixty kilometers from Ptolemais, suggesting abbreviation, although it is barely possible to interpret the verse as “leaving on the next day and [in due course] came to Caesarea.” Hemer (Book, 125) says “thirty miles,” which is too short and finds that a suitable day’s journey, which is a bit of an exaggeration. Barrett (1:306) endorses it. It is probable that this source has worked inversely on 8:40, where the narrator “parked” Philip in ­Caesarea. On the subject, see William R. Schoedel, “Papias,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993) 235–70. On his failure to mention Luke and Acts, see Pervo, Dating, 20. “Evangelist,” with the exception of an inscription from Rhodes dated to the Christian era, in which the term evidently refers to the interpretation of oracles (IG XII 1.675), is a Christian word. Apart from here, it is found in Eph 4:11 and 2 Tim 4:5. The last is functional. Eph 4:11 expands the list of 1 Cor 12:27 (apostles, prophets, teachers) by inserting “evangelists” after “prophets” and equating “pastors” with “teachers.” In all three cases the office is subordinate to that of apostles. In Eusebius H.E. 5.10.2 they are successors of apostles, who (3.37.2–3) served as itinerant missionaries and appointed “pastors” to succeed them. Bultmann (Theology, 2:106) surmised that the title arose when

32

33

34

35

36

the title of apostle was restricted to the Twelve. This hypothesis (which resembles Eusebius’s statement) is reasonable. “Evangelist” indicates a shift toward the notion of succession that fell aside in place of presbyters and, particularly, bishops. Acts, 2 Timothy, and possibly Ephesians, despite Eusebius, envision resident rather than itinerant persons. The office first appears in DeuteroPauline literature and probably belongs to that milieu. See Harnack, Mission, 1:348; G. Friedrich, “eujaggelisthv~,” TDNT 2:636–37; Spicq, Lexicon, 2:91–92; Barrett, 2:993. Haenchen (601) attributes the daughters to the main source, as their silence conforms to its interest in hosts. Eusebius H.E. 3.31.2–5 (letter of Polycrates); 3.39.9–10 (Papias); 5.17.3; 5.24.2. The term pavrqenoi means “unmarried,” with a reasonable presumption of virginity. Their marital status varied, partially in conformity with views on marriage. Clement, who argued that even Paul was married, said the same of Philip’s daughters (Strom. 3.52.5). Polycrates (Eusebius H.E. 3.31.3) evidently believed that one had married. Boismard (Texte, 343) omits “virgins” from his D-Text, although he translates “quatre filles vierges.” He notes that the word is variously placed, which could indicate addition. Two Greek mss. omit the word: 88 (on which see James Keith Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts [SNTSMS 109; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000] 105 and 2147). Delphi (e.g., Lucian Philops. 38) is the most famous example. See Gerhard Delling, “pavrqeno~,” TDNT 5:826–37, esp. 830–31. Calvin (7:195) commended this silence as a

536

Acts part 3C.indd 536

8/27/2008 10:24:34 AM

21:1-17

reprises the situation of Luke 2:25-38, which mentions a woman prophet, Anna, but assigns two prophecies to Simeon and none to her. Richter Reimer says that opposition to women “had certainly begun as early as the end of the first century, but there is no trace of it in Acts 21:8-9.”37 One must beg to differ. Luke and Acts attest to these anxieties. 38 The embarrassment reflected in modern commentaries only underlines this silence. 39 Verse 9 is gratuitous. Were it omitted, no lack would be sensed. Such anomalies may serve as either arguments for or against its presence in a source. Probability favors the former here.   10  This sojourn lasts for some time.40 This gives opportunity for Agabus to learn of Paul’s presence and pay a visit. He is effectively reintroduced, without reference to his previous activity (11:27-28), but the same could be said of Philip. This probably represents a “reader-friendly” orientation on the part of the author

rather than an admixture of sources.41 His name is not otherwise attested,42 but his character and residence are consistent: Agabus is a Palestinian43 prophet who makes use of symbolism. Acts 11:27-30 has shown that he is trustworthy.   11  Aune’s analysis of the oracle offers indirect support for viewing it as a Lucan composition. The manner, a prophet who appears without preparation, the verbal style, and the use of symbolism are all characteristic of prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, but the form of the oracle, pure prediction without a rationale, is GrecoRoman.44 Agabus enters, binds his hands and feet with Paul’s belt,45 then delivers his oracle, beginning with a Christianized form of the messenger formula: “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (rather than “the Lord”).46 The symbolism is explained, like symbolic actions in the LXX, with “thus” (ou{tw~).

c­ onfirmation of the divine order. They prophesied in private situations. Origen (Frag. on 1 Corinthians 74) held the same view. Jerome’s friend Paula saw the room (cubiculum) in which they prophesied (Ep. 108.8 [CSEL 55:313]). 37 Richter Reimer, Women, 249. 38 Data include the Pastorals and the editor responsible for interpolating 1 Cor 14:33b-36. Rev 2:20 takes issue with a prophet labeled “Jezebel” in Thyatira. See also Pervo, “Social Aspects,” 235–40; and idem, “(Acts 21:9) Four Unmarried Daughters of Philip,” in Meyers, Women, 467–68. On this verse, see also Seim, Double Message, 164–84, esp. 180–82. For a review of the battle over women prophets, see Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 294–309. Opposition was not uniform. Not only the Acts of Paul but also Justin (Dial. 87.6–88.1) supported the practice. Montanism was not the sole grounds for opposition, but it probably (along with various “Gnostic” movements) played a major role in the outcome. 39 For examples of such interpretation, see Price, Widow Traditions, 61–64. He then develops (64–71) an argument, based in part on T. Job 46–51, that the daughters were responsible for the prophecy. This is an interesting exercise in speculation. Loisy (785–89) advanced a similar argument. As he noted, v. 12 is more suitable as a response to prophecies uttered by a group, that is, the daughters. It is possible that Luke knew of such a tradition (from an unspecified source) and transformed it, but it is more likely that he created the episode. The girdles given by Job to his daughters are magical, whereas that used by Agabus functions to express prophetic

40

41 42 43

44

45

46

symbolism. Philip’s daughters, presuming that the testimonies have any value, were active in a later period, probably not earlier than the 70s, at any rate later than the middle or late 50s. The participle ejpimenovntwn (“staying”) dangles (although such absolutes with an omitted pronoun were not unheard of in classical Greek). Variants supply “we” and “they.” The former makes better sense. Compare Josephus Bell. 3.29 (Antioch) and Ant. 19.301 (Petronius). See on 11:27-30. “Judea” in v. 10 (versus “Jerusalem” in 11:27) is probably the typical Lucan synecdoche of using province for city. See 11:1-2. An alternative is that the narrator distinguished Caesarea from Judea, of which it was the capital (Hemer, Book, 126). Aune, Prophecy, 263–64. Aune does not regard the oracle as a Lucan composition, although he views it as “undoubtedly condensed” (264). For such symbolic action, see Isa 8:1-4; 20:2; Jer 13:1-11; 27:1-7; Ezekiel 4–5. Aune (Prophecy, 263, with data on 429 n. 96) says that symbolic activity by early Christian prophets was rare. For the symbolic use of “belt” (zwvnh, a rope girdle), see John 21:18-19. The formula tavde levgei appears 353 times in the LXX and seven times in the letters of Revelation (e.g., 2:1).

537

Acts part 3C.indd 537

8/27/2008 10:24:34 AM

Content also suggests that the oracle is a Lucan composition.47 The play on “bind” relates this action to 19:21 and 20:23 (bis). The contrast of “Jews” and “gentiles” is typical of Luke and unlikely for a Palestinian prophet. Furthermore, it is not strictly accurate, for gentiles will rescue Paul from a mob and shackle him (21:33, deqh`nai), but it does show how Luke wishes Paul’s arrest to be understood.48 The oracle is based on Jesus’ predictions of his sufferings and thus fits Luke’s literary plan.49 Luke uses this oracle to fix blame on the Jews.50 As the response in vv. 12-14 verifies, this scene is the dramatic climax of the series of “passion predictions.” The evidence points toward Luke as its creator. If Agabus were a historical person who prophesied in this situation, his character has been obliterated by the author’s pen. This view is counter to the weight of the scholarly tradition, to be sure,51 but the material is typical. “Passion predictions,” in the form of oracles, omens, and prodigies are a literary motif familiar to all who have read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in school (“Beware the ides of March”).52 They are common in farewell scenes.53   12  The human response, which included tears as well as importuning, illuminates Paul’s character. Those

present, including an unannounced company not identified as believers, 54 as well as “we” (from whom Paul must be excluded) entreat him to discontinue his plans. Paul alone faces danger, as oracle and reaction confirm. This is not completely realistic. It functions to keep the spotlight on Paul. Their plea, identical to that of v. 4, does not raise questions, for it is a response to the oracle rather than to allegedly inspired utterance. 55 The narrator does not present this as a “temptation” or test that Paul must pass.56 He has no doubts, but he does have feelings.   13-14  As suggested above, this is Paul’s “Geth­ semane.”57 His followers, like those of Jesus, are filled with grief. 58 Paul will not take flight, as had other disciples; like Jesus, he will march into the valley of the shadow of death. Unlike Peter (Luke 22:33), he is genuinely ready for prison and even death, for the sake of the Lord’s name, which is acquiring the sense of the nomen christianum.59 The prayer of Jesus (Luke 22:42), “Your will be done,” is in v. 14 the petition of the community.60 The use of “we” in a scene composed by the author indicates the freedom with which he handles the first plural, limiting its utility as a means of isolating sources

47 The D-Text of v. 11 (Boismard, Texte, 344), reads: “Now coming up to us and taking Paul’s belt, binding his feet [ ], he said ‘he whose belt this is they will bind him in the same manner and take him away to Jerusalem.’” In addition to the added kai; ajpoivsousin are the omission of “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” “hands,” and the delivery by Jews to gentiles. This—if it is indeed a valid text—is probably a correction in the light of the subsequent narrative. 48 Note 28:17, where, before a Jewish audience, Paul states that he was “delivered into the hands of the Romans.” 49 “. . . will deliver him to the gentiles” is closest to Mark 10:33. See also Mark 15:1 (“bind and hand over”); Luke 18:32. 50 Cf. Haenchen, 605. 51 See above, n. 41. 52 Julius Caesar 1.2.21. See, e.g., Plutarch Alex. 73. Chaldeans told (Alexander’s admiral) Nearchus that Alexander should stay away from Babylon. Ravens fall dead at his feat. The seer Pythagoras reports that an animal sacrificed to learn Alexander’s fate had no lobe on its liver. And so forth. Cf. also Arrian Anab. 7.18, 22, 24, and the Alexander Romance 3.30. On Caesar, see Suetonius Jul. 81–82.

53 See the excursus “The Farewell Scene” in the commentary on 20:36. 54 The word ejntovpioi (“the locals,” a NT hapax legomenon) is thoroughly neutral and would be an unusual way to describe Philip and his family. 55 Lucan style is apparent in the use of a pleonastic articular infinitive. 56 “Trials” (peirasmoiv) constitute one of the parallels between the experiences of Jesus (Luke 22:28) and Paul (Acts 20:19). 57 The correspondences were noted by Rackham, 401. 58 Luke 22:45 excuses the sleep of the disciples on the grounds of grief. 59 That is, the (potentially criminal) label “Christian.” Cf. Haenchen, 602 n. 3. The phrase aligns Paul with the apostles (5:41) and fulfills the prophecy of the heavenly Christ in 9:16; cf. also 15:26. For Conzelmann (Theology, 177–78) the “name is the specifically Lucan way of describing the presence of Christ.” 60 Polycarp, who also refused to flee persecution, uttered a similar sentiment (Mart. Pol. 7.1).

538

Acts part 3C.indd 538

8/27/2008 10:24:34 AM

21:1-17

or proving historical reliability. Verses 13-1461 aim at a good style.62 In addition to the suspense-filled drama and echoes of the passion of Jesus, the narrator has also pulled together a chorus representing stages of the story: Philip, one of the Seven “commissioned” by the apostles, and Agabus, a prophet from the “mother city,” whose ministry also included Antioch, where Paul worked with Barnabas (11:27-30) in the first explicitly gentile mission, as well as Paul and his subsequent companions. The narrator exhibits all of these elements coexisting in unity. One group omitted is those apostles who had authorized these activities. They belong to the past. The subsequent meeting in Jerusalem will reinforce this fact.   15-17  The section begins with a temporal phrase used to mark major breaks in the narrative (cf. 1:15; 6:1; 11:27). From the narrator’s perspective, Paul’s arrival at Jerusalem begins the final portion of the narrative. The essence of vv.15-18a comes from the source describing

the collection,63 which evidently reported that believers from Caesarea served as guides to the lodgings of one Mnason64 and presumably as references for Paul and company, who did not know him.65 Mnason is characterized as a believer since the early days (ajrcai`o~, lit. “ancient”; cf. the ajrchv, “beginning”) of the church, dated by Peter to Pentecost (11:15).66 His homeland, Cyprus, and his name indicate that he spoke Greek, and that he probably knew Barnabas (who may have converted him, or vice versa). These data appear historical, for they contradict the general narrative of Acts, which suggests that Paul had become familiar with many believers in Jerusalem on his several sojourns there. No more is said of these escorts, nor of Mnason, nor, after v. 18a, of “we.” The warm but restricted reception of v. 17 contrasts with that in 15:4.67 The syntax of vv. 15-16 is garbled. The text may be corrupt, although abbreviation of the source is also ­p ossible.68 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte,

61 Boismard (Texte, 346) presents this D-Text: “Paul said to us: ‘Why are you weeping and troubling (qorubou`nte~, a simplification) my heart? Would that (eujxaivmhn a[n) I might not only to be bound but also die [ ] for the sake of the name of my Lord Jesus.’” This text, which is not grammatically secure, expresses a longing for martyrdom reminiscent of Ignatius (and Montanism). Note also the elimination of “Jerusalem,” which appears to be a correction based on the later narrative. (D d read bouvlomai [“I am willing”] and add, in v. 14, that they spoke “to one another.”) 62 Contrast 21:13 to Luke 22:32 (Peter). The latter uses kaiv . . . kai,v the simplest “both . . . and” construction, while Acts employs the more dramatic “not only . . . but also.” Peter uses the simpler e{toimov" eijmi, as opposed to the more sophisticated eJtoivmw~ e[cw for “I am ready.” (For a close verbal parallel, see Josephus Ant. 13.6.) Verse 14 begins with a genitive absolute and offers “we dropped the subject” (hJsucavsamen) instead of a simpler “we fell silent” or the like. Cf. 11:18. The linkage of two supplementary participles with “and” (klaivonte~ kai; sunqruvptonte~ [the latter an elegant choice]) that are not strictly coordinate is an attempt at classical idiom. (Barrett [2:997] notes Plato Resp. 495D–E.) 63 Verse 17 is probably Lucan and somewhat disruptive; the vocabulary is Lucan (Weiser, 2:594). In the source, v. 18a probably followed on v. 16. Cf. also Lüdemann, Acts, 279.

64 The unfamiliar name “Mnason” (cf. BDAG, 654, s.v.; and Hemer, Book, 237) and the desire to connect prosopographical dots led to the substitution of “Jason” in a gig vg mss bopt. The basis is probably Rom 16:21. Y evidently attempted to read “Menachem.” Bearers of that name might have adopted “Mnason” as a Greek equivalent. 65 They may also have provided additional “guards” to protect the money. 66 “Ancient” is relative. Note 15:7, 21, which report two different views of “antiquity.” This may reflect Luke’s perspective, similar to that of 1 Clement, which calls the church at Corinth “ancient” (47.6). 67 Cadbury and Lake (270) describe it as “unofficial,” an excellent euphemism. The introductory genitive absolute is gauche (cf. the following “us”). This is probably a Lucan addition to the source (above). Lüdemann (Opposition, 54) notes the conflict between v. 17 and v. 22. Verse 17 is clearly editorial. 68 The subject of v. 16 is in the genitive (“disciples”). This requires a nominative such as tine~ (“some”). E adds ejk (“from,” emphasizing the partitive nature). See BDF §164 (2). BDF §294 (5) glosses the compressed relative as the equivalent of “to Mnason so that we might lodge with him.” This is a “reverse attraction,” with the noun pulled into the case of the relative. On the subjunctive (used because the clause is final), see §378. The participle a[gonte" (“guiding”) is like a future participle of purpose, used here in reference to a past tense. BDF §339 (2c) shows that this is classical. It is not

539

Acts part 3C.indd 539

8/27/2008 10:24:35 AM

347–48 69 ) is distinctive: “After a few days we said farewell and set out [historical present] for Jerusalem. Some of the believers from Caesarea came with us. They led us to the home of those with whom we were to lodge. Arriving at a village, we were with Mnason, a ­Cypriote, one of the early believers. 17. After we left that place we came to Jerusalem. The believers received us warmly.” 70 This passage is a classic

e­ xample of the textual problem. Is the conventional text at points the result of abbreviation, or did the editor of the D-Text (here) repair an evident deficiency in the narrative—one that could be detected from 21:31-33—that the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem required more than a day? The latter is, as often elsewhere, more probable.71

absolutely clear that the narrator locates Mnason in Jerusalem. See Cadbury and Lake, 270, and the following discussion of the text. 69 D is damaged here and must be restored. See Ropes, Text, 202–3, and the contributions cited by Barrett, 2:1002. 70 meta; de; tina" hJmevra" ajpokataxavmenoi ajna­ baivnomen eij" ïIerosovluma:16 sunh`lqon de; kai; tw`n maqhtw`n ejk Kaisareiva" su;n hJmi`n. ou|toi de; h[gagon hJma`~ pro;~ ou{~ xenivsqwmen. kai; paraginovmenoi ei[~ tina kwvmhn ejgenovmeqa para; Mnavswniv tini Kuprivw ejk tw`n ajrcaivwn maqhtw`n. 17 kajkei`qen ejxiovnte~ h[lqomen eij" ïIerosovluma. uJpedevxanto de; hJma`" oiJ ajdelfoiv ajsmevnw". 71 Ropes, Text, 204: “Its indefinite reference to the ‘village’ is futile and over-emphasized, especially

in view of the extreme interest and importance of the goal of their journey. As their village-host, Mnason is wholly without significance; whereas as a resident of Jerusalem this ‘old disciple’ was of real consequence to the narrative.” Cf. also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 428. The D-editor may have been less worried about the need for a stop between Caesarea and Jerusalem than about the opportunity for parallelism with Jesus, who stayed in villages (10:38; 17:12) and, more importantly, used one as his base for his final ministry in Jerusalem (Luke 19:30). The editorial addition of v. 17 (above) may be responsible for the impression that Mnason did not reside in the city, but that remains a possibility. For lists of scholars on each side, see Weiser, 2:596.

540

Acts part 3C.indd 540

8/27/2008 10:24:35 AM

21:18-26

21

21:18-26  Paul Confers with James 18/ The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James. All of the elders were present. 19/ Following the initial greetings Paul set out in full detail all that God had accomplished through his ministry to the gentiles. 20/ His report brought repeated praise of God, a after which they said: “You see, brother, how many myriads of Judeans b have become believers. c All of them d are ardent observers of Torah. 21/ About you, however, they have been informed that you teach all Diaspora Jews e to renounce the Law of Moses, telling them that they should stop circumcising their sons or observe f our practices. 22/ What about this? They will doubtless learn that you have arrived. 23/ You must therefore do what we tell you. Four of our number have placed themselves g under a vow. h 24/ Take responsibility for them, get yourself purified, and pay their expenses so that they may get their heads shaved. Everyone will then know i that what they have heard about you is quite false and that you live an observant life. j 25/ Now regarding the gentile converts, we have determined, and have so advised them in writing, k that they should take care to avoid food that has been offered to idols or contains blood or has been killed by strangling, as well as from prohibited sexual relationships.”l 26/ So Paul took charge of those men and went with them on the following day m to undergo purification. He entered the temple to give notice of when the vow would be discharged, at which time the prescribed offering would be made for each of them.

Analysis

The larger unit extends from 21:18 to 22:29, the conclusion of Paul’s speech. This is a continuous narrative

a b

c d e f

g

h

i

j

k

l m

“Lord” is, as often, a variant. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 349) replaces “Judeans” with “in Judea,” which makes the exaggeration a bit more bearable. This is typical of the D-tradition, literal and pedantic. (Another variant uses the simple genitive.) Verse 20 could be taken as a question: “Do you see . . . ?” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 349) adds “these” after “all” to prevent confusion. D1 reads “all the customs” (ta; e[qh pavnta). This yields nonsense. This is the only use in Acts of peripatevw (lit. “walk”) in the ethical sense. Boismard (Texte, 350) includes the preposition ejn (“in”). This is conventional. On the dative toi`" e[qesin, see Moule, Idiom Book, 45; the construction seems to fit reasonably well within the range of means/manner. Critical consensus supports the Septuagintal ejfÆ eJautw`n against the ajfÆ eJautw`n, (“on their own initiative”), which is likely to be an Alexandrian improvement. See, in particular, Num 6:7. It is preferable not to view this as a periphrastic (eijsi;n . . . e[conte") construction, an otiose substitute for e[cousi (“they have”). The first two words are a dative of possession. The minor textual question of whether to read “shave” properly as subjunctive (xurwvsontai) or as a “vulgar” future indicative equivalent affects the translation. If indicative, the following “will know” (indicative) will be separate rather than coordinate. The translation presumes that “shave” was subjunctive (or the equivalent) and “know” a result. See Barrett, 2:1010. The absolute use of stoicevw (“conform,” etc.) is quite unusual. The participle fulavsswn (“keeping”) may have been intended as supplementary, that is, “you walk within the protective boundaries around the Torah.” Similarly, Barrett, 2:1012. The verb may be a Pauline echo. Cf. Gal 5:25; 6:16. This prefers ajpesteivlamen (“we have sent”) as less elegant than ejpisteivlamen (“we have written”). See Ropes, Text, 207; and Barrett, 2:1014. On the text, see the discussion of 15:20. No witnesses include the “golden rule” at this point. Boismard (Texte, 352) thinks that the D-Text lacked a temporal reference. This may be because the reader/ editor could not understand why Paul would wait a day to comply with this excellent suggestion.

comprising a number of scenes: 21:18-26; 21:27-36; 21:37—22:21; 22:22-29. The final quarter of Acts is well organized, without the gaps and leaps that are often perceptible in earlier sections. As was the case with 541

Acts part 3C.indd 541

8/27/2008 10:24:35 AM

the story of Jesus in Jerusalem (Mark 11–16), the rapid passage of time slows. That process began at 20:4. Now it intensifies: 21:17—24:23 encompass but twelve days, around nine verses per day. The disappearance of “we” after 21:18 results in another similarity to the experience of Jesus: while on trial, Paul is alone. None of his “disciples” remains in sight. Paul meets with, in fact reports to, James, who is surrounded by presbyters. No reason is supplied for this consultation. James’s leadership is presumed and unchallenged. The narrator presents here the climax of the second generation of the Jesus movement. Its two leaders are James and Paul, who represent the gentile (v. 19) and Jewish (v. 20) missions. Paul’s report receives, as in 15:4, its due acclaim. Jerusalem has not been taking its ease in Zion; for “myriads” of strict Torah observers have aligned themselves with the movement. One unfortunate side effect of this laudable success is that the observant believers have been exposed to unspeakable gossip and vile calumny about Paul, who allegedly encourages Diaspora Jews to apostatize. These leaders (who speak in unison) have a solution: Paul is directed to finance the vows of four of the faithful who have undertaken a vow and to participate in their ritual. This will quell any criticism.1 No such burdens will, of course, be laid upon gentile converts. Paul complied (vv. 18-26). It has been mooted since Overbeck that v. 18 represents the last clear trace of the source.2 Lüdemann proposes that the source reported Paul’s attempt “to buy favor” by assuming the cost of the devotees. He believes that the source was continuous, “for the ­resulting report 1

2

3 4

exhibits a straightforward narrative line with no tensions or discontinuities.”3 Approaches clash, for narrative in Acts that is not disjointed or discontinuous is more likely to result from the absence of sources than to serve as evidence for them. Moreover, Lüdemann’s subsequent analyses produce bits and pieces attributed to “tradition” rather than a continuous source.4 The claim that Paul sought to purchase support by funding the devotees is more likely to have been a rumor circulated by his enemies than a deed of the historical Paul. Flexibility is one thing, bribery another. The absence of readily identifiable direct source material in 21:19—26:32 is one of the grounds for suspecting that the major source dealt with the receipt of the collection. If, as hypothesized, the collection failed of its purpose and Paul was arrested—both probable—it is possible that such of his colleagues who were not themselves arrested—gentiles in Jerusalem without many allies— would have left Jerusalem promptly to deliver the news, in writing and in person. One must also admit, however, that this definition of the source discourages inquiry for traces through chap. 26. Verses 18b-26 do not offer strong evidence for a direct source. Verse 18b associates James with presbyters in an anachronistic manner; 5 Verse 19 is a repeat of 15:4, 12; v. 20 reflects 11:18; vv. 20-25 are unison direct speech,6 the last of which reprises 15:20. These minor parallels point to a larger one: this scene is based on Acts 15, itself a Lucan composition. Paul travels to Jerusalem, meets with James and presbyters, and narrates his successes. In response to objections about

Jacob Neusner (“Vow-Taking, the Nazirites, and the Law: Does James’ Advice to Paul accord with Halakah?” in Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans, eds., 5 James the Just and Christian Origins [Leiden: Brill, 6 1999] 59–82) answers his question positively. Franz Overbeck, Kurze Erklärung der Apostel­ geschichte (4th ed. of Wilhelm M. L. de Wette, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1.4; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1870) 380. See Haenchen, 608. Note also Dibelius (Studies, 8), who thinks that Luke had no sources beyond 21:17. It is not likely that diakoniva (“ministry”) refers to Paul’s collection here, as in 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1; and elsewhere. Focus is on his mission in general. Lüdemann, Acts, 282; see the longer discussion in idem, Opposition, 52–62. On subsequent pages (298–330), Lüdemann will

argue for elements of tradition at various points through chap. 26. See below. For other examples of unison speech, see 1:24-25; 4:19-20; 14:14-15, 22b. Witherington (645) says that unison speech can be found in Greek historians, citing Thucydides 1.68 as an example. (He may have taken this from Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 134). The parallel is not very cogent. The section from Thucydides (1.68–78) treats a debate at Sparta in which the viewpoint of communities was so represented. Thucydides did not imply that entire delegations spoke in unison. Some similarity of purpose is evident.

542

Acts part 3C.indd 542

8/27/2008 10:24:35 AM

21:18-26

­ bservance, with emphasis on circumcision (15:5; 21:20), o a compromise is proposed.7 As at the “Apostolic Council” (15:198), James simply promulgates the solution. Paul complies without demur. In this instance, the compromise is not a good fit, for the issue is not practice, but Paul’s teaching. In response to this charge, a community (or representative, given the alleged size) assembly could have been called, at which Paul could have set forth his views and presented, as a prime exhibit, Timothy, for whose circumcision he was responsible.9 For such a scenario, Acts 15 would have been a fine model. Despite his imitation and evocation of that great occasion, Luke does not utilize the opportunity. It is possible that the proposal to pay for the vows was a Jacobean compromise, but it seems unlikely that Paul would have found this proposal to “launder” the collection acceptable, for it would have given the gentile believers a status no different from gentile polytheists, who could make offerings to the temple but not join in its rites. The action would show that Paul was, or could be, observant, but it would not have been a good means for answering complaints about his theology. Dieter Georgi, who accepts the report in Acts, says, “[T]his compromise enabled the Jerusalem Jesus congregation not only to accept the collection but to defend Paul against the accusation of enmity toward the Torah as well.”10 Possibly so, but one mark against this reconstruction is the complete absence from Acts of the slightest hint that any believers at Jerusalem uttered so 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14

15

much as one word in defense of Paul. James disappears from the story, and, after v. 26, so do the four.11 If arguments from silence are to be deployed, this absence of data supports the rejection of the collection by James rather than its acceptance “on the side.”12 Stanley Porter reads the episode as a rejection of Paul by the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem.13 The implication of the text supports his position. The picture presented here is in conflict with that of Acts hitherto. This scene portrays Paul as the missionary to gentiles, now reporting to Jerusalem, which is viewed as conducting a mission to Jews.14 Each of these missions has its own set of rules: Three or four regulations for gentiles, the complete Torah for Jews.15 The notion of two missions could be derived from Gal 2:6-10,16 but hitherto Acts has presumed unity under the leadership of Jerusalem. Nothing is said about Paul’s success in attracting Jewish followers (cf. 19:10). This understanding shows that for Luke the Jewish mission, in the sense of a mission to Jews who will remain observant, belongs to the past. Eschatology is not in the picture. Those of Jewish origin may continue to observe Torah, gentiles the “Apostolic Decree,” both indefinitely.17 Comment   18-19  As in 16:17, as “we” is about to leave the stage,18

it is distinguished from Paul. This is evidently an editorial device.19 James, as Martin Hengel observes, appears

See Talbert, 191. Note the same verb (krivnw, “decree”) in 21:25. The charge avoids any reference to the Christian message. As stated, it could be taken as a claim that Paul simply attacks Torah, urging all Diaspora Jews to desist from circumcision. Georgi, Remembering, 125–26. Georgi’s assertion that these four were “destitute” (Remembering, 125; cf. Haenchen, 610) is a reasonable hypothesis, but no more than that. The prepositional phrase is used by Georgi, Remembering, 126. Porter, Paul of Acts, 172–86. Painter ( Just James, 55) notes both the implication of two missions here and its inconsistency with the earlier reports of Acts. The statement about “circumcising children” (rather than, e.g., “to be circumcised”) would refute the view that observance is suitable for those

16

17

18 19

born into (“pre-Christian”) Judaism, but should not continue. This is to say that Luke could have understood Galatians thus, not that this is the normative interpretation of the passage. Verse 25 assumes that the decree of chap. 15 applies to all gentile believers. Cf. also 16:4. This supports the view that the “decree” came from the gentile missionary source. The “we” that will reappear in chap. 27 is different in nature. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 348) does not follow this convention: th`/ de; ejpiouvsh/ eijshv/meqa su;n tw/` Pauvlw/ pro;" ÆIavkwbon h\san de; par j aujtw/` oiJ presbuvteroi sunhvgmenoi 19 ou{~ ajspasamevnwn hJmw`n dihgei`to [ ] oJ Pau`lo~ wJ~ . . . (“The next day we went in with Paul to see James. Now [ ] the presbyters were gathered together. After we had greeted them Paul set out how . . .”). This is an

543

Acts part 3C.indd 543

8/27/2008 10:24:35 AM

like a prince with his court.20 A more apt simile is the ideal of an Ignatian bishop, surrounded by a circle of presbyters, who, speaking in unison with their leader, are almost literally “attuned to . . . [him] as strings to the lyre.”21   20-21  After Paul’s report, James (and company) show that the Judean mission has never faltered. It can claim “myriads”22 of believers whose loyalty to Torah is unflagging.23 The problem is those nasty rumors that Paul teaches Diaspora Jews to abandon their ancestral practices.24 The style is “naïve”; that is, James presents the complaints as if they were fresh information for Paul.25 This is a characteristic of popular narrative. Similar charges will presently appear on the lips of those who foment a riot against Paul in 21:28.26 A possible source for v. 21 is 6:13-14, the charges against Stephen.27 For readers of Acts, they are calumnies. In fact, they contained some validity.28

is an i­ntolerable burden (15:10), and, insofar as it deals with dietary laws and regulations for purity, is opposed to the manifest will of God (10:10-16). Although Acts takes note of followers of Jesus who remain observant and no more condemns them out of hand than does Paul, it offers no theological rationale or justification for their continued practice. Torah-observing believers come to the fore only as obstacles to the gentile mission in general and to the work of Paul in particular. Apart from demonstrating that the movement could appeal to practicing Jews, these believers make no positive contributions to the story of Acts. For the gentile mission, they are a problem. Luke may well have seen them as deserving sympathy, so long as they do not become meddlesome. Since observance no longer conformed to the divine mandates, it was to be tolerated, and no more. Luke, despite his insistence on continuity, is a product of the gentile mission who sees the peculiar features of Jewish life as a relic of the past, useful in their time, no doubt, but no longer required or desirable.29 Within Acts, Paul alone is portrayed as engaging in the temple cult. 30 Despite his presentation of Paul as very observant and a card-carrying Pharisee, Luke is rather close to Paul on the value of Torah for followers of Jesus. His attitude may also be compared to that of Justin. 31

Excursus: Luke and Torah Observance Neither here nor elsewhere does Acts explain why Jewish believers should be taught to observe Torah. Insofar as Acts is concerned the Law of Moses cannot make one right with God (13:38-39),

20

21 22

23

24

instance of “copy editing” that makes the text less abrupt. Hengel, Between, 108. Barrett (2:1005) says that the language “conveys a hint of entering the presence of a great person,” with references to Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.5 and Herodotus 1.99.1. On his leadership, see Hans von Campenhausen, “Die Nachfolge des Jakobus: Zur Frage eines urchristlichen ‘Kalifats,’” ZKG 63 (1950–51) 133–44. I. Eph. 4.2. Cf. also Peter with the apostles in 2:14. This splendid hyperbole should be accepted as such. Wikenhauser (Geschichtswert, 119) says it is hyperbolic and cites Plato Leg. 804E. Bruce (445) notes a tradition that began with F. C. Baur (!) to delete “believers” and thus say only that there are many observant people in Judea. See pp. 86–87. Cf. Philo Spec. leg. 2.253, who speaks of thousands full of zeal for the laws. The theme of “zeal for the law” is common. See also Acts 22:3; 1 Macc 2:26; Gal 1:14. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 350) has an active verb: “They report.” The source of this rumor is now Judean believers. The balance is simplified. “All” is omitted, presumably because of the preceding article, as is the participle “saying.” “In” before “customs” also eliminates misunderstanding. See

25

26 27

28

Ropes, Text, 205; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 428–29. Note also the use of “Jews” in vv. 20-21 when “our people” (etc.) would have been more appropriate. This indicates that the words come from the author. Both use the verb didavskw (“teach”) with pavnta~ (“everyone”). In 6:14 witnesses against Stephen refer to customs (e[qh) transmitted by Moses; both words appear also in 21:21. When pressed (Gal 5:3), Paul treats Torah as absolute. Jewish–gentile unity was difficult to preserve in mixed communities. Although Paul made no objections to completely Jewish communities of believers in Jesus, he may well have recommended that those of Jewish background in mixed churches not circumcise their children. Those who did so would be numbered among “the weak.” Extremes are best avoided. It is probably safest to say that Paul did not generally encourage Jewish believers to have their sons circumcised. On the subject, see Wilson, Law, 101–2. Regarding the charge that Paul advised people not to have their children circumcised, Calvin is quite succinct: “It was in fact so” (7:200).

544

Acts part 3C.indd 544

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

like a prince with his court.20 A more apt simile is the ideal of an Ignatian bishop, surrounded by a circle of presbyters, who, speaking in unison with their leader, are almost literally “attuned to . . . [him] as strings to the lyre.”21   20-21  After Paul’s report, James (and company) show that the Judean mission has never faltered. It can claim “myriads”22 of believers whose loyalty to Torah is unflagging.23 The problem is those nasty rumors that Paul teaches Diaspora Jews to abandon their ancestral practices.24 The style is “naïve”; that is, James presents the complaints as if they were fresh information for Paul.25 This is a characteristic of popular narrative. Similar charges will presently appear on the lips of those who foment a riot against Paul in 21:28.26 A possible source for v. 21 is 6:13-14, the charges against Stephen.27 For readers of Acts, they are calumnies. In fact, they contained some validity.28

is an i­ntolerable burden (15:10), and, insofar as it deals with dietary laws and regulations for purity, is opposed to the manifest will of God (10:10-16). Although Acts takes note of followers of Jesus who remain observant and no more condemns them out of hand than does Paul, it offers no theological rationale or justification for their continued practice. Torah-observing believers come to the fore only as obstacles to the gentile mission in general and to the work of Paul in particular. Apart from demonstrating that the movement could appeal to practicing Jews, these believers make no positive contributions to the story of Acts. For the gentile mission, they are a problem. Luke may well have seen them as deserving sympathy, so long as they do not become meddlesome. Since observance no longer conformed to the divine mandates, it was to be tolerated, and no more. Luke, despite his insistence on continuity, is a product of the gentile mission who sees the peculiar features of Jewish life as a relic of the past, useful in their time, no doubt, but no longer required or desirable.29 Within Acts, Paul alone is portrayed as engaging in the temple cult. 30 Despite his presentation of Paul as very observant and a card-carrying Pharisee, Luke is rather close to Paul on the value of Torah for followers of Jesus. His attitude may also be compared to that of Justin. 31

Excursus: Luke and Torah Observance Neither here nor elsewhere does Acts explain why Jewish believers should be taught to observe Torah. Insofar as Acts is concerned the Law of Moses cannot make one right with God (13:38-39),

20

21 22

23

24

instance of “copy editing” that makes the text less abrupt. Hengel, Between, 108. Barrett (2:1005) says that the language “conveys a hint of entering the presence of a great person,” with references to Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.5 and Herodotus 1.99.1. On his leadership, see Hans von Campenhausen, “Die Nachfolge des Jakobus: Zur Frage eines urchristlichen ‘Kalifats,’” ZKG 63 (1950–51) 133–44. I. Eph. 4.2. Cf. also Peter with the apostles in 2:14. This splendid hyperbole should be accepted as such. Wikenhauser (Geschichtswert, 119) says it is hyperbolic and cites Plato Leg. 804E. Bruce (445) notes a tradition that began with F. C. Baur (!) to delete “believers” and thus say only that there are many observant people in Judea. See pp. 86–87. Cf. Philo Spec. leg. 2.253, who speaks of thousands full of zeal for the laws. The theme of “zeal for the law” is common. See also Acts 22:3; 1 Macc 2:26; Gal 1:14. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 350) has an active verb: “They report.” The source of this rumor is now Judean believers. The balance is simplified. “All” is omitted, presumably because of the preceding article, as is the participle “saying.” “In” before “customs” also eliminates misunderstanding. See

25

26 27

28

Ropes, Text, 205; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 428–29. Note also the use of “Jews” in vv. 20-21 when “our people” (etc.) would have been more appropriate. This indicates that the words come from the author. Both use the verb didavskw (“teach”) with pavnta~ (“everyone”). In 6:14 witnesses against Stephen refer to customs (e[qh) transmitted by Moses; both words appear also in 21:21. When pressed (Gal 5:3), Paul treats Torah as absolute. Jewish–gentile unity was difficult to preserve in mixed communities. Although Paul made no objections to completely Jewish communities of believers in Jesus, he may well have recommended that those of Jewish background in mixed churches not circumcise their children. Those who did so would be numbered among “the weak.” Extremes are best avoided. It is probably safest to say that Paul did not generally encourage Jewish believers to have their sons circumcised. On the subject, see Wilson, Law, 101–2. Regarding the charge that Paul advised people not to have their children circumcised, Calvin is quite succinct: “It was in fact so” (7:200).

544

Acts part 3C.indd 544

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

21:18-26

  22-25  The whole unit (vv. 20-25) is a balanced and

well-constructed composition reminiscent of the post­apostolic literature in which matters are settled by giving orders rather than with convoluted dialectic and appeal to such general principles as the law of love in light of the freedom bestowed by faith. The external frame (vv. 20, 25) deals with Jewish and Diaspora 32

gentile believers. 33 The former observe Torah, while the latter must abide by the requirements set forth in Acts 15.34 Verses 21 and 24c-d (from “Everyone will then know”) delineate rumor and solution, apostasy35 and observance.36 The center is the string of imperatives in vv. 23-24.37 These direct Paul to join four devotees, with whom he will “purify himself” and for whom he

29 See also Sanders, Jews, 128–30; and, in general, Wilson, Law. 30 Acts 2:42 (a summary) does not mention temple worship. The apostles teach in the temple (3:12-26; 5:20; cf. 5:12), but there are no reports of worship there. For Luke, the temple is, first and foremost, a place for prayer and teaching (Luke 19:46; cf. 18:9-14). In Acts 3:1, Peter and John are visiting the temple at “the hour of prayer,” in fact at the time of the evening sacrifice. They engage in teaching (3:12-26). Cf. also 4:2; 5:21, 25. 31 In Dial. 47, Justin acknowledges that some Christians observe Torah. This is no impediment to their salvation, so long as they do not attempt to persuade gentile Christians to do the same. 32 Verse 22 resembles the style of the diatribe, with rhetorical questions to promote vividness. See Cadbury and Lake, 271–72. It is thus appropriate to writing, underlining the extent to which this is not a conversation. For rhetorical analyses of this little speech, see Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 134; and Soards, Speeches, 109–10. The D-Text of v. 22 (Boismard, Texte, 350) is quite interesting. Between pavntw" and ajkouvsontai (“doubtless learn”) there comes the phrase dei` sunelqei`n plh`qo~ (“This will cause a mob to form/crowd to assemble, for they will learn that you have come” [gavr (“for”) has wide support]). This variant is not without its charm, witness its appearance in a range of authorities. Cadbury and Lake (272) suspect that it is original and “should probably be translated ‘there must be a meeting of the whole church.’” Haenchen (609 n. 3), despite the absence of the article, believes that a community assembly is in view. If that interpretation is correct—it may mean that Paul’s arrival will generate a mob—the D-editor would have proposed a logical solution to the problem. Two difficulties with viewing it as original are, as often, why it would have been deleted and, more importantly, that the suggestion is not pursued. 33 In v. 25, after “gentiles,” the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 351) reads oujde;n e[cousin levgein prov~ se (“They [the Jewish believers?] have nothing to say to you, for we . . .”), and krivnante" mhde;n

34

35

36 37

toiou`ton threi`n aujtou;~ eij mhv (“We determined that they should observe nothing of the sort, other than . . .”), followed by the “threefold” form of the decree (omitting “strangled” and not including the golden rule). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 429) suggests that the additional words may be related to the absence of the rule, but he does not venture to say how. A more obvious explanation is to relate the matter to Paul’s teaching, as in v. 21. Cf. the use of the same participial form, pepisteu­ kovtwn (“those who have come to believe”) for both Jews (v. 20) and gentiles (v. 25). Hengel’s statement (Acts and the History, 117) that “James presents it as something new and apparently unknown to [Paul]” is not correct, although it responds to the brusqueness of the speech. All of the data are presented in the same manner, and none would have escaped Paul’s prior attention. For Paul Achtemeier (The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] e.g., 32, 33, 52, 89), this observation is historically correct, and he builds his hypothesis upon it. Acts 21:25 is, however, too weak a base for the claim that Paul did not know about the “decree” until his final visit to Jerusalem. The information is for the readers: Wilson, Law, 81. See the comments of Barrett, 2:1014–15. “Apostasy” illustrates the lack of separation between “religion” and “politics” in antiquity. The term ajpostavth~ means a “rebel” (cf. stavsi~). This sense of ajpostasiva endures (Plutarch Galb. 1; Josephus Vit. 43; Ap. 1.135–36; Ant. 12.219). A more religious application appears in Josh 22:22; Jer 2:19, etc. In 2 Macc 5:8, Jason is called “an apostate from the laws” (tw`n novmwn ajpostavth~). This is the sense of Acts 21:21. Note also Luke 8:13. See Heinrich Schlier, “ajfivsthmi,” TDNT 1:513–14. The persecution under Antiochus IV brought the question of apostasy and its meaning into the forefront of the question of Jewish identity, for Jason and his supporters viewed themselves as reformers rather than apostates. Cf. 1 Macc 1:43-50. Cf. the use of kathcevw (“instruct”) in vv. 21 and 24. The reference to shaving the head in v. 24 helps account for 18:18: The activity was not unusual for Paul.

545

Acts part 3C.indd 545

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

will assume the expense of discharging their vows. Two actions are in view: ritual purification that will enable one to participate in temple activity38 and payment of expenses for others.39 The latter was a charitable benefaction associated with the wealthy.40 An outstanding example is Agrippa I (Josephus Ant. 19.294).41 The instructions evidently imply that Paul is to join the devotees in the discharge of their obligation, as well as financing it. It is difficult to reconcile the rite described with what is known of Jewish practice. The seven-day period could derive from a misunderstanding of Num 6:9-10.42 For the narrative, seven days gives the pot time to reach the boiling point.   26  The verse reports, not smoothly,43 Paul’s prompt compliance with the request. He is in full command. “With them” (su;n aujtoi`~) replaces “with us” in v. 18 (su;n hJmi`n). The narrator seems to envision, perhaps on the basis of Num 6:4 and 1 Macc 3:49, that Paul had to enter the sacred precincts to report when the vows would be fulfilled.44 The absence of any formal agreement, verbal or in summary form, is normal Lucan compression. The pressing historical question has been “would Paul have done this?” Issues of this nature are almost irresolvable. Even if it can be shown that this act was not consistent with Paul’s principles,45 only fools apply their principles with perfect consistency. Barrett avoids this dilemma by positing that the real issue is

whether Paul would engage in an act of deception, that is, pretending that he was fully observant.46 As he notes, not even 1 Cor 9:19-23, which had been invoked to the very margins of idolatry, will justify naked hypocrisy. Barrett does not prove that no such action was undertaken, but he makes a convincing case that it would not have been performed for the reasons advanced by Acts. Frederick F. Bruce, who is among those calling on 1 Cor 9:22 here, adds another reason: it would not have worked, since Paul’s opponents, who had better information, would not have accepted this proof.47 The remaining question is whether the information is correct, but not for the reasons given. To this one may add that the data about the discharge of the vows is evidently confused or erroneous. Moreover, it is worth asking whether use of funds from the collection to pay for religious vows would have qualified as assistance for the “poor” in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26) and, correlatively, whether the contributors would have found this an appropriate use of their donations. In sum: if the source—or some other “tradition”—reported that James suggested that Paul participate in some form of cultic activity involving payment for vows, it was not for the reasons accepted nor in the manner reported. The historical waters are very murky.48 Contrastingly lucid is the literary atmosphere, bright with irony: Paul will be arrested because of his loyalty and observance.

38 The meaning of aJgnivsqhti (“get yourself purified”) is not clear. See Haenchen (610 n. 3), who reduces various rationalizations to mincemeat. For Paul to require purification is reasonable, but the text speaks of all five persons. Barrett (2:1011) reasonably relates the confusion to Luke’s lack of detailed knowledge about procedures. Paul affirms his purification in 24:18. 39 “Shaving the head” is probably a synecdoche for discharging the vow. 40 Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 311) uses this action as proof of Paul’s wealth. On the role of expense in Nazirite vows, see the data in George B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925) 38–39. For evidence that a Nazirite vow is in view, see Heinrich Greeven, “eu[comai,” TDNT 2:775–808, esp. 777. 41 Pervo (Dating, 190–91) examines the possibility that Josephus inspired this passage. 42 Numbers 6 provides regulations for Nazirite vows. See also Cadbury and Lake, 272–73; Wilson, Law,

43 44 45 46

47 48

66, “There can be little doubt that as it stands it makes little sense in terms of current Jewish practice.” Haenchen (610) sums it up: “The only thing clear is that Paul through the proposed action will prove himself a law-abiding Jew.” On the problems of translation, see Cadbury and Lake, 273–74. It is tempting to contrast the use of “each one” (ei|~ e{kasto~) in vv. 19 and 26. See, e.g., Cadbury and Lake, 273; and Porter, Paul of Acts, 185, for this view. Barrett, 2:1012–13. Calvin says, “They seem to be inciting Paul to hypocrisy,” but concludes that “Paul did not pretend” (7:202). Bruce, 447. He finds the presbyters (modestly omitting James) “ingenuous.” Calvin’s reservation (7:202) has merit; he is not fond of James’s order, yet observes: “But a clear judgment on that matter depends on the ­circumstances, which are hidden from us today, but were obvious to them.” Haenchen (611–13)

546

Acts part 3C.indd 546

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

21:18-26

The compromise is difficult to reconcile with the silence of Acts about the collection. Had it been proposed as stated, and the funds received on those conditions, as Georgi suggests,49 the receipt could have been duly noted, for the collection would have been noncontroversial. The entire scenario of Acts 21–26 is an argument in favor of the failure of the collection project, and the story of the four may have been a Lucan invention that both puts Paul in a favorable light and gives no glory to James and his myriads. “Failure” is the key word, however it is understood, since the collection, even if accepted, did not achieve its goals. Paul’s worst fears (Rom 15:30-32) were realized. 50 Behind these difficulties lie theological and political shifts within the Jerusalem community. Gal 1:15—2:12 intimate that the

power of James had grown between the first and second visits of Paul. Gal 2:12 reveals that even the agents of James could induce Peter to comply with their wishes. Acts recognizes this in the respective roles assigned to Peter and James at the meeting reported in chap. 15. By the time of his last visit, Paul no longer had allies. One may attribute these changes to personalities, politics, or a mixture of both. James was not the most conservative believer in Jerusalem, and one may suspect that he was hampered by pressure “from the right.” The basis for the ambiguous agreement elaborated in Gal 2:7-10 had all but evaporated. Both sides suspected the other of betrayal. Acts 21:17-25 is indirect testimony to the failure of this early attempt at unity among Christians.

uses the purifying tablet of external knowledge about the procedures to arrive at a solution: Paul required purification and had to be asperged on the third and seventh day (cf. m. Ohol. 2:3). Then he could be present with the four. This reconstruction is plausible, presuming Paul’s acceptance of the request. Haenchen does presume that

debatable fact and also the less probable view that this act “would take the wind out of the sails of the accusations against him.” Schneider (2:310) reaches a similar conclusion. 49 See n. 10. 50 Jervell (529–30) sums up the difficulties.

547

Acts part 3C.indd 547

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

21

21:27-40  Paul Is Arrested 27/ Just as the seven-day period of purification was about to end, a the Asian Jews b saw Paul in the temple. They tried to seize him and incite a general riot by 28/ shouting: “To the rescue, men of Israel! This is the fellow who is teaching against the People, the Torah, and this Place to everyone everywhere! Now he has had the temerity to bring Greeks into the temple and profane this Holy Place!” (29/ They made this accusation because they had seen the Ephesian Trophimus in the city with Paul and supposed c that Paul had brought him into the temple.) 30/ The entire city was thrown into an uproar. A mob rushed in, nabbed Paul, and dragged him outside of the temple. The gates were immediately slammed shut. 31/ While the mob occupied itself with trying to murder Paul, d the military tribune commanding the cohort received word that Jerusalem was in an uproar. e 32/ Accompanied by soldiers and centurions, f he immediately set out on the double toward the scene of the action. When the crowd caught sight of the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped pummeling Paul. 33/ Once he got there, the tribune had Paul taken into custody and ordered that he be shackled with two chains. He then asked who this person might be and what he had done.g 34/ Since the responses were so many and varied, h he directed that Paul be taken to the barracks, as the tumult made it impossible to learn what was actually going on. i 35/ Once they reached the stairs, the force of the crowd made it necessary to have Paul carried by the soldiers, j 36/ for the mob kept pressing upon them with shouts of “Away with him!”k 37/ On the verge of being taken into the barracks, Paul said to the tribune, “May I have a word with you?” “You speak Greek,” he exclaimed! 38/ “So l you’re not

a

b c d

e

f

g

h i j

k

l m

n o

p

The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 352) transforms this into a genitive absolute, which disrupts the parallelism with v. 37. Bezae evidently wished to say “Jews who had come from Asia.” Bezae supplies amusement to the textual critic with “we supposed . . .” The subject of the genitive absolute is not stated. The translation takes it as “the people” (laov~) of v. 30. See BDF §423 (6). p 74 places the conjunction dev (“and”) after the finite verb, while a number of witnesses prefer dev to te. Luke is fond of the latter. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 354) adds: “Take care that they don’t start a revolt.” (Hmg is the sole basis for this supplement. It is typical of the D-Text.) On the circumstantial participle paralabw;n (“accompanied by”), see BDF §418 (5). As often, a relative serves as a principle clause. Without the particle a[n (a v.l.) tiv" ei[h (“who this person might be”) looks like an oblique optative, but the following kai; tiv ejstin pepoihkwv" (“what he had done”) seems to rule that out. See BDF §386 (1); and Bruce 451. On the idiom, see BDF §306 (5). BDF §423 (4) rates the genitive absolute as “very clumsy.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 354–55) substitutes “Paul” for the pronoun and “people” (laov~) for “crowd” in v. 35, leading to the omission of “people” in v. 36. Bezae uses: ajnairei`sqai (“be done away with”) . The masculine plural kravzonte" is ad sensum. (It should properly be neuter singular, as in D.) The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 355) has the crowd shout: “Away with our enemy!” (ejcqrovn). This is the term used for Paul in the Ps.-Clementines. The translation takes the particle a[ra as an expression of surprise. The term sicarii is a Latin loanword, a metonym derived from the concealed dagger that was their weapon of choice. Josephus is evidently responsible for introducing the word into Greek. It also appears in rabbinic writings and a few times in patristic sources. Josephus is the probable source of these. See Otto Betz, “sikavrio~,” TDNT 7: 278–82. Cadbury and Lake (277) deprecate “assassins,” evidently because their motivation came from the use of what is now a controlled substance. Fitzmyer (696) seems not to have been dissuaded by this argument. Or: “So you are the Egyptian . . . aren’t you?” The statement is probably not a balancing mevn . . . dev construction, but an emphatic mevn. Bruce (453), however, takes the particles in tandem, the first part dealing with the tribune’s question, the second with Paul’s request. Bezae reads an alternate verb for permit:

548

Acts part 3C.indd 548

8/27/2008 10:24:36 AM

21:27-40

the Egyptian who once started a revolution and led four thousand terrorists m out into the q wilderness?”n o “I am a Jew,” replied Paul, “from r Tarsus in Cilicia, and a citizen of that renowned metropolis. Would you be so kind as to allow me to address the people?”p His request approved, Paul took a place on the steps and gestured for the crowd’s attention. q After they had become quite still, he began to speak to them in Aramaic. r

39/

40/

Analysis

The purification procedure requires seven days, a window of opportunity for opponents. On the final day, just when it seemed that Paul was out of the woods, the (not “some”) Jews from Ephesus,1 life in which place2 offered the equivalent of a graduate seminar in fomenting riots, spotted Paul, seized him and raised the usual cry, echoing the old charge against Stephen (6:10-14, and the allegedly false rumors of v. 21), with the addition that his blasphemies had been generally disseminated. Onto this bonfire they hurl a tub of petrol: Paul has introduced gentiles into the temple! 3 The hitherto somber and plodding narrative explodes. Exposure led to recognition. On the very 1

2

sugcwrh`sai. Boismard’s text (Texte, 356) seems to be defective here. The D-Text variants approved by Boismard (Texte, 356) in v. 40 do not alter the meaning. P74 A read, instead of th`/ ïEbrai?di dialevktw/, th`/ ijdiva/ dialevktw/. This should mean “in his own language,” but probably means “their native tongue.” Hebrew was evidently current in Jerusalem and its environs, but Aramaic was the lingua franca. See Fitzmyer, 701, with references. When “Hebrew” is used of a language in the NT, the original when cited is Aramaic (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev 9:11; 16:16). Note also Acts 1:19. For a claim that “Hebrew” is meant, see John C. Poirier, “The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 16 (2003) 107–16.

verge of fulfilling his demonstration of piety, Paul once again fell afoul of a riot engineered by hostile Jews. As in Ephesus (19:23-29), uproar encompassed the entire populace, which set about to mob Paul.4 He was saved by the intervention of the tribune in charge of the cohort stationed in the vicinity, but that officer presumed that Paul was the suspect, for he had him shackled. Since the crowd could supply no intelligible information, the prisoner was carried up to toward the barracks in chains, serenaded by chants of the disappointed mob. On the very portal of hideous torture Paul politely seeks permission to speak (v. 37), in words and accent that proclaim him a gentleman. The astonished commandant assumes that he has captured a terrorist. Mistaken identity opens the door for a famous response.

Verse 29 indicates that the narrator has once again used “Asia” for “Ephesus.” Their Greek is euphonious. The combination “everyone everywhere” (pavnta~ pantach/`) was popular at that time: 1 Clem. 65:2 (final blessing); Dio of Prusa Or. 4.93; 31.10; 32.15; Aristides Or. 54.10 (Sarapis). See also BDF §488 (1). pavnta~ pantacou` (“everyone everywhere”) occurs in Philo Flac. 1. See Pieter van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 91. If readers are to infer that these Ephesian Jews were the anonymous source of the rumors reported by James in v. 21 (Johnson, 381), they will also presume that there was intercourse between them and the Christian Jews in Jerusalem.

3

4

The narrator does not appear to distinguish the different courts and sections of the temple precincts. At this point (v. 29) appears one of the most intriguing of the rare narrative asides in Acts. See below. Verse 30 is somewhat compressed. Mobs can form quickly, but Paul would have been killed before the populace in general could have arrived. See Haenchen, 616.

549

Acts part 3C.indd 549

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

Paul is, indeed, a Jew—but nonetheless a citizen of one of Hellenism’s cultural citadels. Paul has kept this useful card in his pocket for a necessitous moment. Playing it gives him the initiative. Oratory is one charm that can soothe the savage beast. The commandant told him to go ahead. Like Jesus (Luke 21) and Peter (Acts 3), Paul will speak in the temple. In these unpromising conditions, beaten and shackled, faced by a howling mob, Paul, who has just established his Hellenic credentials, will try his luck at addressing Jews. The speech and its aftermath are all quite exciting, with a last-minute disaster followed by a rescue (of sorts) in the nick of time, but it does not lack difficulties. The narrative is linked to the preceding verses in that Paul is in the temple, but the four with whom he is associated have disappeared. If one envisions the scene reported by Luke, Paul, with his recently shaved head, would have been one of a group, who would have been under some obligation—he was their benefactor—to defend him as much as possible and to refute the charges. His very presence in that holy place engaged in worship would have served as prima facie evidence against the charges, since the last thing expected of an international enemy of Torah and temple would have been what Paul was doing. Comment   28  The second charge against Paul is quite dire. Gentiles who trespassed the holy boundaries were evidently subject to immediate summary execution. 5 The behavior of raving mobs is not subject to the strictest canons of formal logic, but it is worth asking whether the first task would have been to secure and punish the offending foreigners and then attend to the individual responsible for 5

their presence.6 The charge of temple profanation is not vigorously pursued, although mentioned in 24:6 (where it is reduced to attempted desecration, nature whereof unspecified). The tribune, whose primary responsibility was to quell the riot, did so by arresting the presumed agitator. This leads the critic to ask why that officer thought that the person being assaulted by the mob was a terrorist inciting insurrection. The story therefore deconstructs. This raises questions of possible sources and the larger matter of whether any history can be extracted from this adventure. Scholars assume that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and sent to Rome. The specific charges and the reasons for his removal to Rome are not known. It is unlikely that they involved criticism of Torah. The charge that he introduced gentiles is so heinous that it could contain a grain of truth.   29  Luke, who normally provides rioters no mitigation, does so here. One possible reconstruction is that, in response to a rejection of the collection, Paul staged a symbolic “liberation” of the place by demanding that he and his gentile converts be admitted, and that the subsequent uproar led the government to charge him with fomenting insurrection.7 This is not a hypothesis on which one can build, but it does provide one satisfactory explanation of the data. The most indisputable “source” for this material is Acts 19:28-40.8 The two passages share a general outline: A crowd (o[clo~, 19:33; 21:27) accuses Paul of attacking a temple. This results in an uproar that engulfs the entire city (19:29; 21:30). The disturbance is quelled by an official (19:34; 21:32). The affair concludes with a speech (19:35-40; 22:1-21). There are a number of common expressions: povli~ (“city” as a

An inscription warning trespassers of the penalty is extant: CIJ 1400 (= OGIS 598). On this, see Elias J. Bickermann, “The Warning Inscriptions from Herod’s Temple,” JQR 37 (1946–47) 387–405; and Peretz Segal, “The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem,” IEJ 39 (1989) 79–84. (Further bibliography in Fitzmyer, 698.) Josephus Bell. 6.124–28 suggests that the prohibition was taken literally. Imperial powers tended to accept such taboos. Diodorus Siculus 1.83.8 tells of a Roman citizen murdered by an Egyptian mob for accidentally killing a cat.

6

7 8

It is rather too much to propose that the Ephesians accused Paul of introducing gentiles into the temple on another occasion. If a formal penalty for introducing gentiles existed, the punishment may also have been summary. Weiser, 2:601. That description follows a pattern similar to one used by Josephus. See p. 490. For an approach that has greater confidence in sources, see Dean P. Béchard, “The Disputed Case against Paul: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of Acts 21:27—22:29,” CBQ 65 (2003) 232–50.

550

Acts part 3C.indd 550

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

21:27-40

trope for “populace” [19:29; 21:30]); sugcevw (“stir up,” and related words [19:29, 32; 21:27, 31]); a[lloi . . . a[llo ti (“some said one thing, others something else” [19:32; 21:34]); kravzw (“shout” [19:28, 32, 34; 21:28]). If most of this is no more than Luke’s standard vocabulary for riots and the like, it nonetheless shows his hand. When to this are added the aside in v. 29 and the parallels with Stephen (6:13-14) in 21:28 as well as with Jesus (with 21:36 compare Luke 22:22; 23:27), it is apparent that the material is Lucan in both style and theme. The incidents resemble Acts 19, but the pattern of the larger narrative is essentially that used to relate the story of Stephen (6:8—8:2). Both are accused in similar terms by Jews of Diaspora background; both make speeches to their accusers9 that provoke violence.10 The single item with a strong claim to a basis in tradition is the charge that Paul introduced gentiles into the temple.11 Disturbances in the temple area were by no means uncommon,12 especially at festival times.13 With an eye to that fact, Witherington says: “There is nothing . . . intrinsically unlikely about a figure like Paul creating just such a scene as Luke describes.”14 So it may be, but one must ask how Paul created “such a scene,”

and the text is of no help whatsoever in that inquiry, for it spares no pains to show that Paul did not create the scene. Verses 27-28 (29) may contain traces of the source, but vv. 30-40 are Lucan composition.15   30  Acts reverses the traditional picture. The temple remained sacrosanct, but the crowd had defiled itself by attempting to kill an innocent person on the basis of unsubstantiated rumor. Three other components of this segment have symbolic weight. The first is the closing of the temple gates.16 This indicates that official Judaism at its center has closed itself to the message of Paul. No Christian will enter it thereafter.17   31-33  The sacred place has lost its soteriological relevance and shown itself unworthy. Rome, in the person of its garrison commander, intervenes to “save” Paul from the mob, albeit by taking him into custody. This is Luke’s so-called apologetic, which amounts to an argument that the Roman government stood on Paul’s side. In effect: if “the Jews” are against us, the government should be for us.   36  Finally, Paul deserves comparison with Jesus, who also confronted a mob screaming for his blood.18 Paul will be in custody, at least theoretically, from v. 33 to

9

The resemblance is signaled by an identical “fathers and brethren” address (7:2; 22:1). Acts 22:20 alludes to Stephen’s death. 10 On this pattern, see Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:273. 11 Lüdemann, Acts, 281. (He also assigns Trophimus to tradition, but that name could be derived from the list in 20:4.) 12 For example, Josephus Bell. 1.88–89; 2.8–13, 42–48, 169–74, 223–27, 229–31, 315–20, 406–7, 449–56. 3 Macc 1:9-29 narrates the arrival of Ptolemy Philopator in Jerusalem, his sacrifice, and his attempt to enter the holiest area. This led to a great uproar in the temple, which soon involved every type and class of inhabitant. With v. 30 compare Jdt 10:18. From a governmental perspective, the major festivals were major security risks, but the narrative has apparently dropped the suggestion that the riot happened at Pentecost. (See p. 515 n. 99.) Events of this nature were not limited to Jerusalem in literature. Note Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 8.1–3. The hero, Clitophon, is attacked and injured in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. “As I shouted out these complaints, a great crowd came together of all those who were in the temple: and they began to abuse Thersander [his

13

14 15 16

17

18

­ pponent]. . . . At this I took courage and added: o “This is what I have suffered, Sirs, though I am a free man and a citizen of no mean city (povlew~ oujk ajshvmou); this rascal conspired against my life, but Artemis saved me and proved a trumper-up of false charges” (8.3.1, trans. S. Gaselee [LCL; rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969] 395). See also the crowd action in 6.5.2. See, for example, Josephus Ant. 17.215 (cf. Bell. 2.10–13). During Passover, Archelaus sent a cohort under a tribune to suppress an incipient riot at the temple. Luke may have been influenced by such reports. Witherington, 652. Weiser, 2:607. Boismard (Texte, 353) omits this phrase, without strong evidence. a* reads “He was promptly locked out” (ejkleivsqh). Tyson, Images, 184. See also the comments of Bruce, 450; and Fitzmyer, 697. Failure to say why the gates were closed enhances the symbolic value of the act. Verse 36 is modeled on Luke 22:22; 23:27 (above). Note the adverb e[xw (“outside”) in v. 30. Compare Luke 20:16 (the parable of the vineyard) and Acts 7:58. Luke 4:29 and Acts 14:19 indicate the

551

Acts part 3C.indd 551

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

the close of Acts. The author wishes to squeeze as much from the moment as possible.19 Paul’s obedience to the command of James will evidently cost him his life. The reward for loyalty to the ancestral religion will be a lethal beating at the hands of a Jewish mob. The turbulence created by the accusation prompted a response by the resident cohort,20 the leader of which (a tribune) took Paul into custody and shackled him. The prophecy of 21:11 is more or less fulfilled. The gentiles have Paul under arrest, in chains. These will remain in the picture.21 The hubbub of v. 34 is a realistic means of preventing the premature discovery of Paul’s credentials, which the narrator will leak in v. 39 and 22:26. This is not a minor point, for everything that takes place through 22:29 depends on when these facts are revealed. Paul had to be carried.22 This may be an allusion to Jesus, whose cross had to be carried by another (Luke 23:26).23 The subsequent cry24 “away with him” is a specific allusion to the passion of Jesus.25 The arrival of the tribune introduces the character who will control the action of the next two chapters.26 He will doggedly pursue his responsibility to “discover the facts” (gnw`nai to; ajsfalev~ [v. 34]) (see 22:30; 25:26). His

two questions about who Paul is and what he has done will be answered not by the mob but by Paul himself (21:37-39; 22:1-21; 22:25).

widespread sentiment against polluting residential areas with blood. 19 The Ps.-Clementines (“Ascents of James,” Rec. 1.66–71) present an interesting episode in the reception of this story. Peter and Clement initiate a debate about messiahship on the temple steps. They were quite successful until “an enemy” entered the temple and intervened. Refutation of his argument led to tumult and violence. “The enemy” threw James down from the top of the steps and left him for dead, but he was rescued by friends (cf. Acts 14:19-20). Gamaliel, a secret believer and supporter, brought news that “the enemy” had received a commission from Caiaphas to go to Damascus in pursuit of believers because it was believed that Peter had fled there. In 1.71 this opponent is identified as Saul. (Note that the author believed that Saul’s excursion to Damascus required a rationale, and supplied one.) See Jones, “A Jewish Christian.” 20 A cohort was the largest Roman military formation beneath the legion and contained about one thousand men at full strength. This body, an auxiliary force probably composed of Syrians, was mixed, roughly three-fourths infantry and one-fourth mounted. See Thomas Robert S. Broughton, “The

Excursus: Paul the Prisoner Acts includes two types of confinement scenes. The first three (5:17-21a; 12:4; 16:24-39) are brief and unpleasant (explicitly so in chaps. 12 and 16). All of these terminate in a miraculous delivery. The final confinement extends over a fourth of the book, takes place in a number of locations (Jerusalem, Caesarea, shipboard, Malta (?), Italy (?), Rome) and is never described as brutal or even unpleasant. As a prisoner, Paul cannot choose places of mission, but he has the opportunity to share his message with the Sanhedrin, two procurators of Judea, Herodian royalty, the elite of Caesarea, and the leading Jews of Rome. He is a prominent figure aboard ship and serves the chief of Malta as a benefactor.27 Throughout his lengthy captivity Paul is ostensibly nearly always in control, often able to set the agenda, clearly superior when at trial. He decides on the ultimate venue of his case. Although it is highly probable that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and eventually sent to Rome for trial (or execution), it cannot be denied that Luke

21

22

23

24 25

26

Roman Army,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 427–45, esp. 436–41; and Conzelmann, 183. Custody is noted in 22:29-30; 23:18, 29; 24:27; 25:14, 27; 26:29, 31; 27:1, 42; 28:16, 17, 20. One may ask whether prisoners on a ship remained ­shackled. “Violence” (bivan) in v. 35 probably is best rendered “force,” but it could refer to Paul’s condition. Barrett (2:1018) disagrees with Haenchen’s view (618) about Paul’s injuries and thinks that Paul was carried to protect him from the mob. This overlooks the beating administered in v. 31. Cf. also Conzelmann, 183. Luke 23:27a, ÆHkolouvqei de; aujtw`/ polu; plh`qo" tou` laou` (“A great number of the people followed him”) is apparent inspiration for Acts 21:36, hjkolouvqei ga;r to; plh`qo" tou` laou`. The verb kravzw (“shout”) brackets vv. 28 and 36. Cadbury and Lake (276) find this a “popular cry.” See 22:11; 28:19 (v.l.); Luke 23:18 (not based on Mark); John 19:15; Mart. Pol. 3.1; 9.2; “Popularity” comes from the passion tradition. The size of the detachment, which included at least two centurions and the commandant (v. 32), implying at least two hundred men, suggests a major disturbance.

552

Acts part 3C.indd 552

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

the close of Acts. The author wishes to squeeze as much from the moment as possible.19 Paul’s obedience to the command of James will evidently cost him his life. The reward for loyalty to the ancestral religion will be a lethal beating at the hands of a Jewish mob. The turbulence created by the accusation prompted a response by the resident cohort,20 the leader of which (a tribune) took Paul into custody and shackled him. The prophecy of 21:11 is more or less fulfilled. The gentiles have Paul under arrest, in chains. These will remain in the picture.21 The hubbub of v. 34 is a realistic means of preventing the premature discovery of Paul’s credentials, which the narrator will leak in v. 39 and 22:26. This is not a minor point, for everything that takes place through 22:29 depends on when these facts are revealed. Paul had to be carried.22 This may be an allusion to Jesus, whose cross had to be carried by another (Luke 23:26).23 The subsequent cry24 “away with him” is a specific allusion to the passion of Jesus.25 The arrival of the tribune introduces the character who will control the action of the next two chapters.26 He will doggedly pursue his responsibility to “discover the facts” (gnw`nai to; ajsfalev~ [v. 34]) (see 22:30; 25:26). His

two questions about who Paul is and what he has done will be answered not by the mob but by Paul himself (21:37-39; 22:1-21; 22:25).

widespread sentiment against polluting residential areas with blood. 19 The Ps.-Clementines (“Ascents of James,” Rec. 1.66–71) present an interesting episode in the reception of this story. Peter and Clement initiate a debate about messiahship on the temple steps. They were quite successful until “an enemy” entered the temple and intervened. Refutation of his argument led to tumult and violence. “The enemy” threw James down from the top of the steps and left him for dead, but he was rescued by friends (cf. Acts 14:19-20). Gamaliel, a secret believer and supporter, brought news that “the enemy” had received a commission from Caiaphas to go to Damascus in pursuit of believers because it was believed that Peter had fled there. In 1.71 this opponent is identified as Saul. (Note that the author believed that Saul’s excursion to Damascus required a rationale, and supplied one.) See Jones, “A Jewish Christian.” 20 A cohort was the largest Roman military formation beneath the legion and contained about one thousand men at full strength. This body, an auxiliary force probably composed of Syrians, was mixed, roughly three-fourths infantry and one-fourth mounted. See Thomas Robert S. Broughton, “The

Excursus: Paul the Prisoner Acts includes two types of confinement scenes. The first three (5:17-21a; 12:4; 16:24-39) are brief and unpleasant (explicitly so in chaps. 12 and 16). All of these terminate in a miraculous delivery. The final confinement extends over a fourth of the book, takes place in a number of locations (Jerusalem, Caesarea, shipboard, Malta (?), Italy (?), Rome) and is never described as brutal or even unpleasant. As a prisoner, Paul cannot choose places of mission, but he has the opportunity to share his message with the Sanhedrin, two procurators of Judea, Herodian royalty, the elite of Caesarea, and the leading Jews of Rome. He is a prominent figure aboard ship and serves the chief of Malta as a benefactor.27 Throughout his lengthy captivity Paul is ostensibly nearly always in control, often able to set the agenda, clearly superior when at trial. He decides on the ultimate venue of his case. Although it is highly probable that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and eventually sent to Rome for trial (or execution), it cannot be denied that Luke

21

22

23

24 25

26

Roman Army,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 427–45, esp. 436–41; and Conzelmann, 183. Custody is noted in 22:29-30; 23:18, 29; 24:27; 25:14, 27; 26:29, 31; 27:1, 42; 28:16, 17, 20. One may ask whether prisoners on a ship remained ­shackled. “Violence” (bivan) in v. 35 probably is best rendered “force,” but it could refer to Paul’s condition. Barrett (2:1018) disagrees with Haenchen’s view (618) about Paul’s injuries and thinks that Paul was carried to protect him from the mob. This overlooks the beating administered in v. 31. Cf. also Conzelmann, 183. Luke 23:27a, ÆHkolouvqei de; aujtw`/ polu; plh`qo" tou` laou` (“A great number of the people followed him”) is apparent inspiration for Acts 21:36, hjkolouvqei ga;r to; plh`qo" tou` laou`. The verb kravzw (“shout”) brackets vv. 28 and 36. Cadbury and Lake (276) find this a “popular cry.” See 22:11; 28:19 (v.l.); Luke 23:18 (not based on Mark); John 19:15; Mart. Pol. 3.1; 9.2; “Popularity” comes from the passion tradition. The size of the detachment, which included at least two centurions and the commandant (v. 32), implying at least two hundred men, suggests a major disturbance.

552

Acts part 3C.indd 552

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

21:27-40

has made the most of an unpromising opportunity. Incarceration is rarely pleasant, and the Roman imperial era was not an exception. For at least some of this period, the historical Paul must have found himself in a dank, dark, odorous facility where privileges were determined not by judicial mandate but the whim of the guards, a whim not insusceptible to the status and resources of the prisoner.28 Acts takes no pains, unlike, for example, 2 Timothy, to develop the potential pathos of Paul’s state. Here, if anywhere, the cliché “triumph over adversity” applies. Although the word “triumphalism” is out of favor in Lucan studies, some synonym thereof is appropriate to this narrative. The “triumph” is that of the message and plan of God, to be sure, and Paul is its agent. The historical Paul knew that imprisonment could reflect negatively on him and the movement (Philippians 1). This dishonor endured. The author of Acts addressed it by showing that Paul the prisoner was a recipient of honor and respect and that his situation did not hinder proclamation of the gospel. In these circumstances the narrator shows him wielding his impressive credentials (Tarsian and Roman citizenship, membership in the Pharisaic party and the Sanhedrin) and multicultural skills, addressing Roman officers, Jewish mobs, the Jewish high council, the elite of Caesarea, and the leading Jews of Diaspora Rome, all deftly and appropriately. Paul’s character is a bright light that dispels much of the gloom of his custody. “Prison” (“custody,” “bonds,” and so on) is one of the key tropes of Acts, grounded in the biblical theme of the exodus. It serves as a symbol for those deprived of God’s light (cf. Luke 1:78; Isa 45:1-7; 61:1-2) and also as a symbol of death, real or metaphorical.29 In these roles bondage is associated

with darkness and blindness. Light and liberation are its antonyms. The Devil seeks to bind humans as a means of domination. More concretely, imprisonment is a diabolic tool of God’s enemies, whose efforts to stifle the message are doomed to failure. Paul is the model: prison cannot contain him, literally in 16:25-34, figuratively in chaps. 21–28.   37-40  On the very precipice of torture, 30 Paul raises a

polite question that causes the tribune to make a 180degree turn in his character assessment. His question is best understood as a reference to the quality of Paul’s Greek accent, since a Jewish rebel31 from Egypt was likely to have spoken some Greek. 32 Paul exhibited the fluency of an educated native speaker, a fellow who had just disembarked from the train from Princeton rather than some peasant just off the boat from Palermo. Rather more difficult to rationalize is how Claudius Lysias (for such is his name [23:26]) was able to determine how a person being assaulted in the vicinity of the temple was a specific terrorist. Lysias’s intelligence is bad, for his identification confuses two very different sorts of rebels, prophetic leaders who hoped for support from on high, and realistic assassins who struck at upper-class supporters of Rome. Luke has drawn this medley about “the Egyptian” and his association with “the wilderness” and “the sicarii” from Josephus (Bell. 2.254–63; Ant. 20.161–71).33 It serves no other logic than to be a splendid foil for the famous riposte. Paul is a Jew, which qualifies him to address this audience—and would also serve to refute claims that he is gentile trespasser

showed that he was not “the Egyptian,” citing 27 See, in addition to Rapske, Roman Custody, Skinner, Lucian Nav. 2 (which speaks of an Egyptian boy Locating. with a thick accent). For various views, see Bruce, 28 For actual conditions, see S. Arband, 452; and Fitzmyer, 700. Interpretation must be W. ­Macheiner, and C. Colpe, “Gefangenschaft,” based on the narrative, rather than on historical RAC 9:318–45. Primary texts include Philo Jos. or linguistic argument. On the subject in general, 81–84 and Lucian Tox. 29–33, both fictitious but see Jan N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much presumably within the bounds of realism. For Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? secondary literature, see Rapske, Roman Custody, (NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968). 20–28 et passim, and Skinner, Locating, 79–86, 33 The coincidences make it highly unlikely that he together with their references, including vivid used another source. See Pervo, Dating, 161–66. accounts from the martyr acts. The confusion is probably not due to hasty reading 29 See p. 309 n. 92. or faulty recollection as much as to the desire to 30 Note the verb mevllw (“be about to”) in vv. 27 and accumulate opprobrious epithets. 37. For similar suspense, see Herodotus 1.114–19. 31 Acts 17:6 uses the same verb (ajnastatavw). 32 The meaning of this revelation (to the tribune) is debated. Conzelmann argues that Paul’s Greek

553

Acts part 3C.indd 553

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

on holy ground. He is also a citizen of Tarsus, a venerable bastion of Hellenic culture. 34 The tribune’s failure to investigate or verify these assertions exhibits the force of Paul’s personality, which positively radiated refinement and gentility. Paul does not wear his heart on his sleeve. He says nothing about his Roman citizenship. For Lysias just now, Tarsus will do. Within thirty-five verses the following characters emerge: (1) victim of mob (reader’s perspective), (2) Egyptian revolutionary terrorist (tribune’s perspective), (3) cultivated citizen of Tarsus (tribune’s perspective), (4) highly skilled orator (temple audience’s perspective), (5) well-educated, ardent, observant Jew (reader’s perspective), (6) Roman citizen (soldiers’ perspective). Oratorical handbooks recommended that different credentials were suitable for different audiences. 35 Luke’s Paul had certainly grasped that advice. Excursus: Was Paul a Citizen of Tarsus? Of Rome? The author does not intend the word polivth~ in 21:39 to be understood in the sense of “resident” 34 The litotes oujk a[shmo~ (“not insignificant”) is common. Josephus, for example, uses it about eight times. It is often used of one’s native city, for example, Euripides Ion 8 (Athens); Strabo 8.6.15 (Epidauros). See also Ephesian Tale 2.13.6 and Leuc. Clit. 8.3.1 (n. 12 above). For a close formal parallel, note the Acta Isidori, Rec. A co. iii 7–10 (Musurillo, Pagan, 19): Claudius asks the Egyptian patriot Isidorus if he is not the son of an actress. Isidorus retorts, “I (with emphatic mevn, as in Acts 21:39) am neither slave nor actress’s son, but gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria (dishvmou povlew~ ÆAlexandreiva~)” (trans. Musurillo, 25). On the status of Tarsus, see Jerome H. Neyrey, “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” in Witherington, History, 251–79, esp. 271. 35 See below on 22:3. 36 Harry W. Tajra opts for the sense of “resident” in his The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck], 1989) 79–80. Rapske (Roman Custody, 76) rightly rejects this attempt. 37 Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 36. Epiphanius (Pan. 30.16.6) states that Jews seized upon v. 39 to allege that Paul was the son of Greek parents, who went up to Jerusalem for some time; determined to marry the high priest’s daughter, he became a proselyte and was

but with its full meaning of “citizen,” as in “French citizen” rather than a legal resident of France. 36 In Greco-Roman antiquity, citizenship was associated with cities. Birth was not the sole, or even the principal, criterion for citizenship. As a general rule, citizenship in a Greek polis required two citizen parents. Residence and education, including participation in the ephebate (and, normally, in polytheistic worship37), were also typical requirements for males. Property was another. 38 Tarsus may have been Paul’s place of birth, as implied in 9:11, probably from a source and not a Lucan invention, 39 but both of Acts’ claims—that Paul was a citizen of Tarsus and that he had lived since infancy in Jerusalem, where he was educated—can scarcely be true. The question of Jewish citizenship in Greek cities—as opposed to what amounted to local home rule—has been thoroughly aired.40 Philo and Josephus cloud the picture but do not obscure the real battleground: protection of Jews’ rights as resident aliens who can maintain their traditional practices. Evidence for Jewish citizens is very rare and generally later than Acts. Some of the persons who have been proposed were not Jews, others

circumcised. When this project failed, he became angry and wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath, and Torah. Opponents of Paul could thus take this verse as evidence that Paul, as a citizen of Tarsus, was originally a gentile. See Jones, “A Jewish Christian,” 617. This interpretation may explain the D-Text’s omission of “a citizen of that renowned metropolis” (Boismard, Texte, 356). A number of D-Text witnesses place “although born at Tarsus in Cilicia” here, which serves the same purpose. 38 Tarsus had a requirement of five hundred drachmae in property for citizenship, according to Dio of Prusa Or. 34.23. 39 It is possible that the source used in Acts 9 inferred “Tarsus” from Gal 1:20. Gal 1:17 suggests that Paul lived in Damascus at the time of his “conversion.” Haenchen (620) says that Phil 3:5 permits the inference that Paul was not born in the Holy Land, as he would have mentioned it there. 40 On the subject, see Barclay, Jews, index, 492, under “Citizenship (Greek).” Other studies include Mary Smallwood, The Jews, index, 579, under “citizenship” and “civic status”; and, more recently, eadem, “The Diaspora in the Roman Period before CE 70,” in CHJ 3:168–91. Note also the two articles of Samuel Applebaum, “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora,” in Samuel Safrai et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First ­Century:

554

Acts part 3C.indd 554

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

on holy ground. He is also a citizen of Tarsus, a venerable bastion of Hellenic culture. 34 The tribune’s failure to investigate or verify these assertions exhibits the force of Paul’s personality, which positively radiated refinement and gentility. Paul does not wear his heart on his sleeve. He says nothing about his Roman citizenship. For Lysias just now, Tarsus will do. Within thirty-five verses the following characters emerge: (1) victim of mob (reader’s perspective), (2) Egyptian revolutionary terrorist (tribune’s perspective), (3) cultivated citizen of Tarsus (tribune’s perspective), (4) highly skilled orator (temple audience’s perspective), (5) well-educated, ardent, observant Jew (reader’s perspective), (6) Roman citizen (soldiers’ perspective). Oratorical handbooks recommended that different credentials were suitable for different audiences. 35 Luke’s Paul had certainly grasped that advice. Excursus: Was Paul a Citizen of Tarsus? Of Rome? The author does not intend the word polivth~ in 21:39 to be understood in the sense of “resident” 34 The litotes oujk a[shmo~ (“not insignificant”) is common. Josephus, for example, uses it about eight times. It is often used of one’s native city, for example, Euripides Ion 8 (Athens); Strabo 8.6.15 (Epidauros). See also Ephesian Tale 2.13.6 and Leuc. Clit. 8.3.1 (n. 12 above). For a close formal parallel, note the Acta Isidori, Rec. A co. iii 7–10 (Musurillo, Pagan, 19): Claudius asks the Egyptian patriot Isidorus if he is not the son of an actress. Isidorus retorts, “I (with emphatic mevn, as in Acts 21:39) am neither slave nor actress’s son, but gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria (dishvmou povlew~ ÆAlexandreiva~)” (trans. Musurillo, 25). On the status of Tarsus, see Jerome H. Neyrey, “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” in Witherington, History, 251–79, esp. 271. 35 See below on 22:3. 36 Harry W. Tajra opts for the sense of “resident” in his The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck], 1989) 79–80. Rapske (Roman Custody, 76) rightly rejects this attempt. 37 Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 36. Epiphanius (Pan. 30.16.6) states that Jews seized upon v. 39 to allege that Paul was the son of Greek parents, who went up to Jerusalem for some time; determined to marry the high priest’s daughter, he became a proselyte and was

but with its full meaning of “citizen,” as in “French citizen” rather than a legal resident of France. 36 In Greco-Roman antiquity, citizenship was associated with cities. Birth was not the sole, or even the principal, criterion for citizenship. As a general rule, citizenship in a Greek polis required two citizen parents. Residence and education, including participation in the ephebate (and, normally, in polytheistic worship37), were also typical requirements for males. Property was another. 38 Tarsus may have been Paul’s place of birth, as implied in 9:11, probably from a source and not a Lucan invention, 39 but both of Acts’ claims—that Paul was a citizen of Tarsus and that he had lived since infancy in Jerusalem, where he was educated—can scarcely be true. The question of Jewish citizenship in Greek cities—as opposed to what amounted to local home rule—has been thoroughly aired.40 Philo and Josephus cloud the picture but do not obscure the real battleground: protection of Jews’ rights as resident aliens who can maintain their traditional practices. Evidence for Jewish citizens is very rare and generally later than Acts. Some of the persons who have been proposed were not Jews, others

circumcised. When this project failed, he became angry and wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath, and Torah. Opponents of Paul could thus take this verse as evidence that Paul, as a citizen of Tarsus, was originally a gentile. See Jones, “A Jewish Christian,” 617. This interpretation may explain the D-Text’s omission of “a citizen of that renowned metropolis” (Boismard, Texte, 356). A number of D-Text witnesses place “although born at Tarsus in Cilicia” here, which serves the same purpose. 38 Tarsus had a requirement of five hundred drachmae in property for citizenship, according to Dio of Prusa Or. 34.23. 39 It is possible that the source used in Acts 9 inferred “Tarsus” from Gal 1:20. Gal 1:17 suggests that Paul lived in Damascus at the time of his “conversion.” Haenchen (620) says that Phil 3:5 permits the inference that Paul was not born in the Holy Land, as he would have mentioned it there. 40 On the subject, see Barclay, Jews, index, 492, under “Citizenship (Greek).” Other studies include Mary Smallwood, The Jews, index, 579, under “citizenship” and “civic status”; and, more recently, eadem, “The Diaspora in the Roman Period before CE 70,” in CHJ 3:168–91. Note also the two articles of Samuel Applebaum, “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora,” in Samuel Safrai et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First ­Century:

554

Acts part 3C.indd 554

8/27/2008 10:24:37 AM

21:27-40

were apostates, and all were exceptionally wealthy.41 Rapske and Hemer do no more than refute the impossibility of Paul’s Tarsian citizenship.42 Possibility does not mean probability. It was highly improbable that Paul possessed the wealth and prestige to have gained Tarsian citizenship.43 Acts 21:39 stems not from a source but from the author’s imagination. What Luke relishes are the learned credentials that Paul whips out of his pocket at the very moment when he is being despised as a “barbarian” (21:39). Both of Paul’s franchises, at Tarsus and Rome,44 function in Acts as literary devices with apologetic ends, but the latter has occasioned a much sharper debate.45 Historical reasons account for the difference, for Paul’s references to his possession of the Roman citizenship twice enter the narrative, once to provide him with a formal escort out of Philippi (16:38-39), another time to deliver him from imminent torture (22:25-29). Furthermore, it is generally assumed that Paul’s appeal to Rome (25:11) was based on this status. If he were not a Roman citizen, Luke’s story of Paul’s final captivity would collapse. Paul’s letters are, for whatever reasons, silent on the subject. Those who accept the general reliability of Acts incline to believe that Paul was a citizen and seek to prove that he could have been. Once again, demonstration that possession of the franchise was possible

41

42 43

44

45

does not make it so.46 Decision must rely on probability. A number of factors weigh against a positive answer. Presenting Paul as a Roman citizen was very much in Luke’s interest and would fit quite readily into the list of “Lucan inventions,” a list that may be shorter or longer but is generally accepted by critical scholars. If Luke derived this datum from a source, it would have been an account of his trial under Festus, an account open to grave doubts by the criterion of historicity. Those who adopt this position could be pressed into agreeing that the author had introduced this concept into the Philippi tale (conceding that Silas’s Roman citizenship was an ad hoc Lucan invention) and, most probably, into the torture scene. This moderately critical position would thus base the claim on a (generally improbable) passage that does not mention citizenship and would soft-pedal those that do invoke it. In the first account (Philippi), the franchise more than restores honor; in the other it functions to relieve the hero from grave peril. Acts does not present Paul’s status in a responsible manner, leaving proponents to resort to the “historical kernel” argument. The argument is not strong, in particular because the Paul of Acts is a citizen of high status.47 This does not comport with his work as an artisan or with the data of the letters.48 The appeal, which is grounded not in possession of the franchise but rather in trial

Historical Geography, Political History, Social, CulPeter van Minnen, “Paul the Roman Citizen,” tural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT 1.1; JSNT 56 (1994) 43–52; and Rapske, Roman Custody, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974) 420–63; and idem, “The 73–80. See also the discussion about the appeal, Organization of the Jewish Communities in the pp. 611–13. Diaspora,” ibid., 464–503. For specific discussion 46 If it were based on emancipation, Paul’s family of Paul’s case, see Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 32–43; would have received citizenship, at the latest, under and Rapske, Roman Custody, 72–83. The former Augustus. For an example of citizenship grants, see opposes Luke’s claim; the latter defends it. the “Rhosus archive,” translated in Barbara Levick, Most of Rapske’s evidence belongs to the late The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook second century or later and a good deal of it is (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1985) 158–60. (Rhoquestionable (Roman Custody, 76–83). sus served Augustus as an admiral). Ibid.; Hemer, Book, 127–28. 47 See Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 43–51. Jerome H. Neyrey See also Wolfgang Stegemann, “War der Apostel (“Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural AnthroPaulus ein römisher Bürger?” ZNW 87 (1987) pology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” in Wither200–229, esp. 220–21. ington, History, 251–79) confirms by anthropologiOne could, under the empire, hold dual citizencal methods the historical-critical thesis of Lentz: ships. See Cadbury, Book, 81–82; Stegemann, Luke represents Paul as having a higher status than “Bürger,” 221 n. 82; and Tajra, Trial, 76, who says he actually enjoyed. it was “not at all uncommon for a man coming 48 See Stegemann, “Bürger,” 221–24. Note 2 Cor from a higher social class to enjoy dual citizenship 11:25, which reports three floggings. especially in the Eastern part of the Empire.” This argues from the assumption of a high social status. Recent studies include Stegemann, “Bürger”; Heike Omerzu, Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Undersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 17–52;

555

Acts part 3C.indd 555

8/27/2008 10:24:38 AM

by a Roman court, does not demonstrate citizenship.49 On the whole, it does not seem probable that Paul was a Roman citizen, certainly not a citizen of the quality depicted in Acts.

The space devoted to Paul in custody, 50 21:33—28:31, is longer than that describing his missionary work (chaps. 13–19). 51 This brute fact is not devoid of importance in assessing the purpose of the book. “History of the early church” will not do. By this point readers can be forgiven for thinking that they are reading a biography of Paul. The model is not Josephus’s Antiquities. The Gospel genre provides a vastly more fruitful basis for comparison. One-fourth of Acts is devoted to Paul in custody, a period of no more than one tenth of the three decades covered in Acts. 52 Within Luke and Acts, this and the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem (Luke 9–19) are the longest sections. Luke’s defense of Paul is only in part personal. By defending Paul, Acts defends gentile Christianity on more than one front. These apologetic efforts are internal. Jews would not have read them and discovered that Paul was not as bad as reputed, nor would polytheists have worked through this book to learn that the Christian movement was utterly devoid of subversive tendencies. For those who prized the Israelite background of the movement, Paul fell somewhere on the spectrum between a problem and an enemy. Those for whom this background had a lim-

ited appeal had no desire to emphasize it. The extremes of these sentiments would appear as the “Jewish Christianity” of the Ps.-Clementines and the theology of Marcion. The force of this debate was already so strong when Luke wrote that he could not even mention Paul’s letters, which he both knew and used. Likewise, the collection, delivery of which was the purpose of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem, was too controversial to mention and was best left on the cutting-room floor. Charles Talbert has aptly characterized the literary quality of this material. Paul seems to be driven by the winds of fate, confronted by events that he cannot control. Yet the reader receives frequent assurances that all is taking place in accordance with the divine plan. 53 This scheme resembles features often found in ancient light fiction, in which the audience receives (often cryptic) assurances that all will end well. 54 Popular authors reveled in creating narrative tension but evidently perceived that it was difficult for many of their readers. The specific narrative technique is retardation. The judgment of Paul is repeatedly postponed, ultimately ad Graecas kalendas. That step was taken by no surviving ancient popular writer. 55 One may safely presume that Lysias did not accede to Paul’s request with the expectation that he would whip the crowd into a revolutionary frenzy. 56 Paul is to play the role of the Ephesian official (19:35-40). 57 Things

49 See p. 541. 50 A recent study that does not restrict itself to the legal process is Skinner, Locating. 51 To these one may add 9:20-29 and 11:25-26 (and subtract chap. 15). 52 Devotion of a large portion of a narrative to legal difficulties is typical not only of the canonical Gospels but also of the Apocryphal Acts and various types of fiction, including Apollonius of Tyana, Callirhoe, and An Ethiopian Tale. See Pervo, Profit, 47–48, who notes the use of various types of retardation to raise suspense and avoid resolution. 53 Talbert, 193. He points to the prophecies in 20:23; 21:4, 11; 23:11; 27:23-36. 54 See Pervo, Profit, 74, for a general description. 55 Saundra Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 127–32) observes that romantic novelists also extended trial scenes to keep up interest. She notes Callirhoe, where the climactic trial is broken up with descriptions of a royal hunt, a beauty contest, and a description of harem life. The trial of Callirhoe was set in motion

at 4.5 and was, like Paul’s trial, not resolved by the end of the story. Unlike Acts, however, all the problems were resolved. Cf. also Leuc. Clit. 7.7–16. 56 Conzelmann (184) bluntly evaluates the historicity: “Paul’s request to speak to the people and the granting of that request are inconceivable.” Barrett (2:1027) agrees. 57 See the references to the similarities between 19:28-40 and 21:27-40 above.

556

Acts part 3C.indd 556

8/27/2008 10:24:38 AM

21:27-40

begin well. Battered as he is, limited by shackles and in poor repute with the crowd, which has been demanding his obliteration, Paul is able to silence them with a

gesture.58 This is a valuable skill of the most potent and charismatic political leaders, 59 none of whom had had to perform with such physical limitations.

58 Gesture: 12:17; 13:16; 26:1. 59 See Virgil Aen. 1.148–53 (cited in Pervo, Profit, 35, with comments.) On this, see Viktor Pöschl, The Art of Vergil: Image and Symbol in the Aeneid (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962) 20–21. See also Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.15; cf. 4.1.8; and Apollonius Letters 75–76. Other examples are Chion of Heracleia

3.3 (Xenophon); Lucian Dem. 9; 64; Philostratus Vit. Soph. 531 (Polemon). For discussion, see Glen Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) 26. The tradition may derive from an incident involving the younger Cato: Plutarch Cat. Min. 44.4.

557

Acts part 3C.indd 557

8/27/2008 10:24:38 AM

22

22:1-21 Paul Addresses the Crowd in the Temple 1/ “Elders and gentlemen, please listen now to mya defense.” 2/ When they realized that he was speaking b in their own language, they became even quieter. c 3/ “I d am a Jew. Although born at Tarsus in Cilicia, I was reared in this very city and received under Gamaliel an education e based upon the strict interpretation of our ancestral code. As a fervent partisan of God, like you today, 4/ I persecuted this movement, promoting the death penalty and delivering shackled prisoners—women no less than men f into custody. 5/ The high priest and the entire Sanhedrin can support me on this matter. After obtaining written authorization from them to g our coreligionists in Damascus, I set out for that place, intending to bring the local h followers of the movement back to Jerusalem in shackles, for punishment. 6/ “When, in the course of my journey, I was getting near to Damascus, an enormous light from above suddenly engulfed me i—at noon! 7/ I fell to the ground and heard a voice speaking to me: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8/ “‘Who are you, Lord?’ “‘I am Jesus the Nazoraean, whom you are persecuting.’ (9/ My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was addressing me. j) 10/ “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I said. “‘Go right now k to Damascus. There you will be told about all that has been arranged for you to do.’ 11/ “Since I couldn’t see because of the brightness of that light, l I had to make my entry into Damascus guided by my ­c ompanions. 12/ “One Ananias, a very observant man well thought of by the local Jews, 13/ came to visit me. ‘Brother Saul,’ he said, ‘regain your sight.’ At that very moment I glanced up at him, and I had regained my sight!m

a

b

c d

e f g h i

j

k l m

The pronoun mou is better taken as a possessive (“my”) than as object of the verb “hear.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 357) deals with potential difficulties by omitting it. It also drops “language” (dia­ levktw/) . The D-Text (see preceding note) places this verb in the historical present, which is grammatically preferable. P74 et al. have the aorist (“Hearing that he had spoken . . .”). The D-Text has the simple verb rather than the idiomatic parevscon hJsucivan. Various witnesses, including m and some D-texts, have mevn after “I.” This, if not emphatic, heightens the stress between place of birth and place where reared, but does not accord well with the biographical triad of participles. Bezae has the present participle, which lacks sense. P74 omits te and thus removes “both and.” Bezae reads “from” (the Jews in Jerusalem). The word ejkei`se has lost its sense of “thither” in Hellenistic Greek. The D-Text attempts to rescue the syntax with ejggiv­ zonti dev moi Damasvkw/ meshmbriva~ ejxaivfnh~ ejk tou` oujranou` perihvstraye fw`~ iJkano;n peri; ejme; kai; e[peson (“An enormous light from above suddenly engulfed me as I was approaching Damascus at midday.” According to Aland, iJkanon peri; ejmev are removed by D*. This would be an improvement.) A few D-text witnesses add here, from 26:14, “in the Hebrew language” and the proverb “It is hard . . .” See Barrett, 2:1037. Attempts to find different meanings between the accusative object of ajkouvein (“hear”) in 9:7 and the genitive here are undesirable. Note the references in Barrett, 2:1039; and Horst R. Moehring, “The Verb AKOUEIN in Acts IX 7 and XXII 9,” NovT 3 (1959) 80–99. The participle here means “hurry” rather than the otiose “get up” (Cadbury and Lake, 280). The preposition ajpov (lit. “from”) is causal here. See Luke 19:13; Acts 11:19; 12:14; 20:9. The text plays on two meanings of ajnablevpw: “look up” and “regain sight.” The translation repeats the verb to supply both meanings. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 360) p 41 pc d sa deletes “at him,” removing, as one might expect of that tradition, an ambiguity.

558

Acts part 3C.indd 558

8/27/2008 10:24:38 AM

22:1-21

14/

“‘Our ancestral God,’ he said, ‘has selected you to experience his will, to see the Just One and to receive a message from his very lips. 15/ For you will be a witness for him to everyone, a witness of what you have seen and heard. n 16/ What are you waiting for?o Get yourself baptized right away and be cleansed of your sins p by calling upon his name.’ “On one occasion after my return to Jerusalem, q while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18/ and saw r Jesus. ‘Get out of Jerusalem as quickly as you can,’ he said, ‘because they will not accept your witness about me.’ “‘Well, Lord,’ I replied, ‘they are quite aware that I used to lock up people who believed in you and have them flogged in one synagogue after another. 20/ While the blood of your witness s Stephen was gushing out, I stood right there approving of the business t and guarding the coats of his murderers.’ “‘Get going, for I am sending you far away, to the gentiles.’”

17/

19/

21/

n

o

p q

r

s

t

Analysis

The speech opens with appropriate flattery and continues with a review of Paul’s credentials, some of which readers learn for the first time. Zeal he did not lack, exemplified in his hostility to the Jesus movement, which leads to the first of two reports by Paul of his change of view. In this account, the story takes on a different slant. His commission to the gentiles is now said to have been given while he was rapt in ecstasy in the midst of worship in this very temple. The conversion of Saul is becoming the call of Paul (cf. Isa 6:1-9). The climax is that word “gentiles,” at which the simmering embers of rage burst once more into flame (21:37—22:21). The commandant returns to square one: torture. Paul is stripped and strung up for the whip. Just as the lash was about to fall, the prisoner raises a technical question: Can unconvicted Roman citizens be whipped? 1

The relative clause (“what you have seen and heard”) is oddly placed. It modifies “witness” and is located at the end to make a bracket with the two infinitives in v. 14. tiv mevllei~ is a Greek idiom (Cadbury and Lake, 281). Barrett (2:1042) gives examples. It might be better to render it as “hurry up and . . . .” The two middle imperatives, bavptisai and ajpov­ lousai, are causative. The present participle (p 74 33 pc) appears to make returning to Jerusalem and praying in the temple simultaneous. The D-Text, according to Boismard (Texte, 361), shifts to direct speech here. (Indirect discourse has preceded). Supporting this are a 36. 453 pc d co. The D-Text also reads “accept” in the present and omits “about me.” A range of witnesses read “protomartyr,” a reminder of ecclesiastical influence upon the textual tradition. Y (33) 1739 M sy (p) add (from 8:1): “of his ­execution.”

The centurion kicks the matter upstairs. The superior officer returns to learn that Paul is a citizen by birth. His status reduces the entire detachment to abject fear. The most they could hope for is that word will not get out. Good treatment of the prisoner is one preventative. Paul’s status, education, and experience have equipped him with the tools to rebut both “religious” and “criminal” charges. Readers have sound grounds for optimism. Evidence about introducing gentiles is lacking, and James and Paul’s fellow devotees will be superlative witnesses. Absent the threat of the mob, Paul can trust in Roman justice (22:22-29). Chapter 22 is Lucan composition.1 The arrest comprises three scenes: 21:33-40; 22:1-21; and 22:22-29, an A B A pattern, with scenes about interrogation sandwiching the address. That speech (22:1-21) contains one of the three accounts of his “conversion” (cf. 9:1-19a and 26:1-23). Comparison shows that “autobiography” is a

Weiser (2:607–8) sets forth reasons for this view. Barrett (2:1032–33) reviews them without refuting the claim.

559

Acts part 3C.indd 559

8/27/2008 10:24:38 AM

better term. The narrator reports Paul’s early history in 7:58; 8:1a, 3; 9:1-30. Chapters 22 and 26 recount this story in Paul’s own formally crafted words.2 Identification of the dissonances among these accounts may confound or amuse, but the goal of the narrator is to enrich the story by different accounts3 and to push it toward his own understanding. No expertise is required to observe that what is told three times is important.4 Chapter 22 is the pivot. With Acts 9, it forms a frame around the narrative of Paul’s missionary labors. With chap. 26, it constitutes the frame and core of Paul’s efforts to defend himself while in Roman custody in Palestine. These speeches represent a shift from the deliberative to the forensic. 5 They are “apologies” with strong emphasis upon narratio.6 This corresponds to the tendency of the narrative, which is occupied with Paul’s defense.7 Support for these proposals can be found in the speech, which is artificial, both in setting and content.8 Beverly Roberts Gaventa succinctly summarizes the setting: the “courtroom” is a mob scene, with members of that body serving as judges.9 Paul does not attempt to show that he was engaged in a cultic act with others and had introduced no gentiles into the sacred precincts. Although it provides the speaker with about as good a set of Jewish credentials as any layperson could have, the point of the oration is to show the gentile mission was the will of God.10 Paul justifies his career rather than 2 3 4 5

6 7

his immediate actions. The author’s distance from the situation is apparent in the absence of a direct denial that Paul taught against Torah (21:28).11 Insofar as Paul presents any defense, it utilizes the tactic of metastasis: God is responsible,12 but this is not explicit. The rhetorical structure is relatively transparent: almost every word (vv. 3 [4]-21) belongs to the realm of narratio. Verses 3-5 establish Paul as a Pharisee who had opposed the Jesus movement to the point of active persecution, activity that the high priest can verify. Revelation led to a change of view about Jesus, experiences that can be confirmed by his then companions and the faithful Jew Ananias (vv. 7-16). The final five verses (17-21) describe a revelation by Jesus in this very place directing Paul to the gentiles.13 Witherington points out that these are not formal proofs, which, with a peroration, were prevented by the crowd’s outburst, but he is only technically correct in asserting that the interruption does not mark the major point of the speech.14 Luke ended where he wished the emphasis to lie. As for the proofs, which would be christological passages from Scripture, Luke has been there and done that. Inclusion of such probatio would have transformed this into a missionary address.15 The ease with which the structure yields to a chiastic analysis confirms its completeness.

On the speeches in chaps. 22 and 26, see also Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 64–99. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” 415–32. See pp. 9–10. For a comparative study of these speeches, see Fred Veltman, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Talbert, Perspectives, 243–56. Veltman identifies typical formal elements and concludes that Acts follows the general model of defense speeches found in literary works, including historiography and romantic fiction. Note also Jerome Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22–26,” in Talbert, Luke-Acts, 210–24; Derek Hogan, “Paul’s Defense: A Comparison of the Forensic Speeches in Acts, Callirhoe, and Leucippe, PerspRelStud 29 (2002) 73–88; Johnson, 392–93; and Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 69–77. Note ajpolog-ia/-evw (“defense,” “defend”) in 22:1; 26:1. In general, one may say that Luke here tells the story from the perspective of the participant,

8 9 10 11

12

13

14 15

although v. 9 would have to be attributed to subsequent knowledge. (In fact, it is borrowed from the omniscient narration of chap. 9.) On the setting, see also the comments on 21:37-40. Gaventa, Darkness, 68. Verse 4 speaks of “this way” as something known to the audience and the focus of attack. Note that 21:28 refers to “everyone” (pavnta~) rather than “Jews.” This word reappears in Ananias’s statement in 22:15: pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~ (“all persons”). “Gentiles” does not appear, but the inclusive language allows this inference. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 134. Czachesz (“Commission Narratives,” 71 n. 38) observes that Plato assigned a similar defense to Socrates (Apol. 21A). William R. Long, “The Paulusbild in the Trial of Paul in Acts,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 87–105, esp. 97–102. Witherington, 667. Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 134–35) lists what

560

Acts part 3C.indd 560

8/27/2008 10:24:39 AM

22:1-21

A. V. 3. From Diaspora to Jerusalem B. Vv. 4-5a. Persecution of movement C. V. 5b. Paul’s travel from Jerusalem to Damascus D. V. 6-11. Vision near Damascus E. Vv. 12-13. Ananias heals Paul F. Vv. 14-15. Paul learns of his mission E'. Vv. 16. Baptism (illumination) D'. Vv. 17-18a. Vision in the temple C'. V. 18b. Command to depart from Jerusalem B'. Vv. 19-20. Persecution A'. V. 21. From Jerusalem to Diaspora16

In comparison to chap. 9, this speech contains a good deal of abbreviation and omission, with some expansion and substitution. Expansion appears in the motive and result of Paul’s pre-Christian activity. Its object was execution of believers (v. 4).17 Motivation stems from Paul’s religious fanaticism, specifically his rigorous (Pharisaic) training. The phrase “fervent partisan of God” (v. 3) is indisputably Pauline,18 but, especially in proximity to the similar expression in 21:20, is not friendly to Torah observance. The implication is that adherence to the Mosaic ordinances leads to homicidal persecution. In place of the seven specific scenes utilized in chap. 9 to describe the experiences from the epiphany onward, Acts 22 recounts three: the encounter with Jesus (vv. 6-11), the visit of Ananias (vv. 12-16), and Paul’s vision in Jerusalem (vv. 17-21). Omitted here are the vision of Ananias, Saul’s activity in Damascus and his escape from that place, his reception and ministry in Jerusalem, and his escape from another plot. The introductory material about Paul’s commission is (v. 5) essentially the same. The episode dealing with the revelation on the Damascus road contains some changes, and the visit of Ananias is quite different, while the Jerusalem activity is completely different—only the place-name is

shared. The chief difference is that Acts 9 emphasized Paul’s relation to followers of Jesus while Acts 22 omits this aspect of his biography—and his missionary career— entirely. The antithesis between legal zealot and gentile missionary is starkly drawn. Differences include the temporal indication (noon), the insertion about Paul’s companions into the dialogue, Paul’s question (“What shall I do?”), and omission of the three-day fast.19 The blinding has become ambiguous: Paul could not see “because of the brightness/glory of the light” (v. 11), and the healing is less explicit. These changes soft-pedal the element of punishment and propel the account in the direction of a “straight” conversion story. High noon is a conventional feature in conversion stories, 20 and the question is a typical Lucan element (cf. Luke 3:10; Acts 2:37; 16:30). The notorious contrast between 9:7, where all heard the voice but did not see the light, and 22:9, which reports the opposite, conforms to chap. 22’s focus on Paul alone. The scene featuring Ananias exhibits even greater variation. His vision (and that of Paul), which was central to Acts 9, has disappeared. There is no suggestion that he believes in Jesus. In place of that qualification are his Jewish credentials. Equally lacking are explanations about why he has paid Paul a visit or how he had learned about his experiences. In this account, Paul hears the missionary commission from Ananias himself. Baptism is commanded but not narrated. Two apparently conflicting observations can be made about Acts 22 thus far: It is smoother and better integrated than Acts 9. Paul is first converted and then commissioned. Second, chap. 22 would be difficult to understand apart from Acts 9.21 The narrator nonetheless does tailor this account to the dramatic Jewish audience. Paul summarizes his

these proofs would have been without stating that they would have pushed the speech toward the deliberative species. 16 Talbert (197), who attributes this to John Bligh, Galatians (London: St. Paul’s Publications, 1969) 97. Some details are debatable, but the arrangement is essentially circular, with the commission at its center. 17 Cf. 26:10. Note also that the objective of the Damascus raid was to bring believers to Jerusalem for punishment (v. 5). 18 See below.

19 The wording and position of the promise have also been changed, perhaps to conform with a common pattern in conversion stories. 20 See below. 21 One specific will suffice: The speech presumes the exaltation of Jesus to heaven. Those who disagreed with this claim—the entire opposing crowd—would have found no merit in the argument from v. 6 onward.

561

Acts part 3C.indd 561

8/27/2008 10:24:39 AM

excellent Israelite curriculum vitae and appeals to the high priest and Sanhedrin for support. Ananias came well recommended by Damascene Jews and appears as an agent of the ancestral God rather than at the behest of Jesus (22:14 versus 9:17).22 Specific Christian terminology and themes are avoided.23 Jesus, who identifies himself as “the Nazoraean,” a designation presumably familiar to Jews, is not otherwise named. The title used in v. 14 is the more general “righteous one,” applied to many figures of Israelite tradition.24 Consonant with this, but fundamental to the Lucan portrait and understanding, is the orientation of the entire account toward the call of a prophet. The characterization of the light as “glory” (dovxa) in v. 11 evokes the call of Isaiah (6:3). Verses 14-15 are a prophetic commission, delivered like a prophetic oracle, followed by vv. 18-21, which contain the typical objection of unsuitability or unworthiness.25 Much the same may be said of the setting of this vision in the temple, also reminiscent of Isaiah 6 but highly ironic, since the worshiping crowd will have nothing to do with divine directions to go to the gentiles, the book of Isaiah (as Luke understood it) notwithstanding. Although this account is a secondary revision of a

secondary source, Luke has moved the story toward conformity with Galatians 1. The commission to evangelize gentiles came to Paul in a vision.26 Comment   1-5  In these verses27 Paul economically establishes his

ethos while beginning his story. He achieves this with his dutiful request, his use of Aramaic (which has the additional advantage of being unintelligible to the tribune, who would not take note of the contradictions28), his polite address,29 his praise of Jerusalem, his assurance about his own observance, and his flattery of the audience’s religious commitment.30 Verses 3-5 constitute a single sentence, an example of the author’s attempt to emulate periodic style without achieving it.   3  The verse presents what van Unnik identified as three components of a biographical pattern: birth, nurture, and education.31 Recent research has emphasized that these elements are some of the file folders to be perused in preparing an encomiastic speech. 32 Luke deploys this trilogy in reference to but one other person: Moses (Acts 7:20-22). It is thus a measure of

22 Barrett, 2:1031: “whether it was suited to the par31 Willem C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City ticular Jewish audience that Paul had before him is of Paul’s Youth (trans. G. Ogg; London: Epworth, not so clear.” Note his comments, 1033–45, passim. 1962). Barrett (2:1034–36) reviews the discussion. 23 Verse 16 speaks of baptism for forgiveness. For 32 George Kennedy has provided a translation of the Luke, this would have been a Jewish practice (cf. handbooks: Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose John the Baptizer). Composition and Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 10; Atlanta: 24 See below. Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). An example 25 E.g., Exod 3:11; 4:10; 6:12 (Moses); Jer 1:6. is Theon 9 (1 ce): “External goods are, first, good 26 Like Galatians 1–2, Acts 22 concentrates on Paul’s birth, and that is twofold, either from the goodrelations with Jerusalem. ness of (a man’s) city and tribe and constitution, or 27 With regard to vv. 4-16, refer also to the comments from ancestors and other relatives. Then there is on 9:1-19a. education, friendship, reputation, official position, 28 If the officer were of Syrian origin, he might well wealth, good children, a good death” (trans. Kenhave understood Aramaic and found it useful in nedy, 50). Cf. Hermogenes 7 (p. 82), Aphthonius this posting, but the narrator does not worry about 8 (p. 108), and Nicolaus the Sophist 8 (p. 156). this. For a detailed discussion, see Malina and Neyrey, 29 The same address was used by Stephen (7:2), where Portraits, 19–63; and the crisp analysis of Ronald it was more appropriate. Here it presumes (or F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas pretends) that the Jewish leaders were part of the (Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, audience, that is, mob. This may seem improbable, 1995) 16–19, as well as Neyrey, “Forensic Defense but v. 5 supports it. Speech,” 211–12. For advice on how to use these 30 Rackham (423) describes this in late Victorian items in forensic contexts, see Cicero, Inv. 2.30. terms: “S. Paul’s courtesy and magnanimity are unsurpassable. The fanatical frenzy which had a moment ago been seeking to kill him, he acknowledges as a zeal for God.”

562

Acts part 3C.indd 562

8/27/2008 10:24:39 AM

22:1-21

Paul’s standing in the salvation-historical scheme of things. These topics may be ignored or soft-pedaled when disadvantageous and vice versa, an excellent example of which can be seen in 21:39 and 22:3. The former emphasizes Paul’s Hellenic background, which is swept aside in the latter. The reader views Paul not as dissembling but as selecting the proper points to emphasize for the respective audiences. 33 It is possible, although not probable, that Paul was reared in Jerusalem.34 Some might fault him for boasting of his studies under35 Gamaliel when he had, in fact, so strongly repudiated his mentor’s advice about members of the Jesus movement.36 Paul’s education involved a strict view of observance and fashioned him into a militant enforcer of piety. Words from the stem akrib- refer in Acts to various forms of thoroughness and precision. 37 Its specific reference here is to the orientation of the Pharisees, a concept Luke has evidently taken from Josephus.38 Characterization of Paul as “a fervent partisan of

God” owes a debt to Gal 1:14 and echoes 21:20. 39 For the narrator, this was evidently a fine rhetorical flourish, but the textual tradition took strong exception to the suggestion that the “pre-Christian” Paul and his hearers could claim that status.40 These variants, mainly within the D-Text tradition, exhibit varieties of the concrete and pedantic mentality of those behind it.41   4  The verse utilizes the familiar technique of a relative clause that functions like an independent one. It is an intensification of 8:3. Readers learn for the first time that the object of these arrests was execution of the believers.42 Zeal this man did not lack. The reference to “this movement” is intelligible only to readers, for it has not been mentioned—unless one holds that its major premises are attacks upon people, Torah, and temple (21:28).43 Paul is defending the Christian movement by defending his conduct.   5  The verse reprises 9:2, which it transforms into evidence. The inference is that the same high priest

33 The D-Text (see pp. 548 n. o on 21:39) eliminated any dissonance. 34 On this term “rear” ([ajna]trevfw), see Spicq, Lexicon, 3:88. 35 Lit. “at the feet of,” an indication of subordination. See Luke 7:38; 8:35, 41 (v.l. in 10:39); 17:16; Acts 4:35; 5:2, 10. Note also Act. Paul 3.10. 36 Cf. Cadbury and Lake, 279; and Pervo, Profit, 60. Paul is the one Pharisee in Acts who vigorously supports the death penalty (5:34-39; cf. 23:1-10) for followers of Jesus. This view is consistent with the portrayal of that party implied in Josephus’s account of the execution of James in Ant. 20.197– 203, since the opponents of this action, supported by the Sadducees, are characterized as strict in observance (peri; tou;~ novmou~ ajkribei`~ [§201]). On Gamaliel, see the comments at 5:34. 37 Acts 18:25, 26; 22:3; 23:15, 20; 24:22; 26:5; cf. Luke 1:3. 38 E.g., Josephus Vit. 191; Bell 1.110; Ant. 17.41. See Pervo, Dating, 169–70. Literature: Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees,” JBL 102 (1983) 411–28; and Günter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (trans. A. W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 90–91. 39 See Pervo, Dating, 74–76. In Greek, “zealot” with a genitive often means “rival,” as in the interesting acclamation bestowed upon Peregrinus, in Lucian Peregr. 15, where he is hailed as “the one” (i.e., “the one genuine”) “philosopher,” “patriot,”

40

41

42 43

and “rival” (zhlwvthn) of Diogenes and Crates!” Cf. also Epictetus Diss. 1.19.6 (general) and 2.2.26 (Socrates). The expression “a zealot of/for (x) god” is used by Musonius Rufus 8.83 (Zeus) and 2.14.13 (“of a god”). Paul approves of Jewish “zeal for God” (Rom 10:22). For similar claims, see Ps.-Lucian Demosthenes 12; Josephus Bell. 2.162; Ant. 17.41; 19.332; 20.43; Vit. 191. (On the last see also n. 38.) These are the data: Gal. 1:14: zhlwth;" uJpavrcwn tw`n patrikw`n mou paradovsewn (“Being a zealot for my ancestral traditions”); zhlwth;~ uJpavrcwn kaqw;~ pavnte~ uJmei`~ 614 Vg ms (“Being a zealot, just as all you”); zhlwth;~ uJpavrcwn tou` novmou kaqw;~ pavnte~ uJmei`~ 88 Vg (“Being a zealot for the Torah, just as all you”); zhlwth;~ uJpavrcwn tw`n patrikw`n mou paradovsewn kaqw;~ pavnte~ uJmei`~ Syhmg (“Being a zealot for my ancestral traditions just as all you”); zhlwth;~ kaqw;~ pavnte~ Y (“An enthusiast, like all [you])” et al. (D-Text, according to Boismard, Texte, 357). See Cadbury and Lake, 279. The same applies to “Saul” in v. 7, unless one is to assume that Paul was always so known in Jerusalem. He does not see a need to introduce himself by name in v. 3.

563

Acts part 3C.indd 563

8/27/2008 10:24:39 AM

remains in office.44 External knowledge shows that the chronology has been compressed, but the narrator may not wish to suggest that more than two decades have passed.45 Verse 5 introduces the theme of “witness.” Cf. also vv. 12, 15, 18, 20.46 Such language is appropriate in a forensic oration, but it serves Luke in other, more important, ways. As a “witness” of and for Christ, Paul, like Stephen (v. 20), does what apostles do. Luke cannot cite 1 Cor 9:1 to show that Paul is an apostle, but he can present him as a witness of the living Christ and thus as an authoritative messenger.47   6-13  At the close of the account of his encounter with Christ, Paul reaches the goal announced at the close of the previous paragraph: Damascus.48 The contrast between his expectations and the actual outcome summarizes the change in his fortunes. Explicit differences from chap. 9 include the title “Nazoraean” (v. 8), which adds Israelite color,49 the reference to noon (v. 6), which supplies a typical element from commission and conversion stories, 50 and the intensity of the light (v. 8). The comment about Paul’s companions is now a parenthesis within the dialogue (versus 9:7). This heightens attention to the light, which, also unlike 9:7, is now perceived 44 45 46 47

48

49

50

51

by all, while only Paul heard the voice. 51 Chapter 9 reported a public revelation; in chap. 22 the audition is private, rather like a prophetic call. Verse 10 introduces a question that is conventional in situations involving conversions. 52 This presents the subject as less helpless and passive than the nearly obliterated Saul of chap. 9. In line with this development is the expanded imperative of v. 10 (versus 9:6), which comprehends more than what he must do to relieve his affliction. Instead of the clear declaration that he had been blinded (9:8), v. 11 allows the inference of temporary blindness caused by exposure to bright light.53 Omission of the three days’ hard fast makes Paul less helplessly abject. In contrast to chap. 9, the character and activity of Ananias (vv. 12-16) have undergone a major revision. His vision, the central focus of Acts 9, has been eliminated. His ethos is established by reference to his well-established 54 Jewish55 credentials, rather than to his belief in Jesus (who is also omitted here). He therefore receives no commission to visit Paul, and one must guess how and when he was informed about Paul and sent to him. The result of these changes is good narrative progression. 56 The healing is so attenuated that one could

614 hmg pc provide (from 23:2) the name: Ananias. Cf. Rackham, 423. See Weiser, 2:611; Fitzmyer, 703. This thesis is demonstrated by Burchard, Dreizehnte Zeuge. Note 26:15 and the use of “witness” as an apostolic credential in 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41. The term also appears in the philosophical tradition: the ideal Stoic is a “witness” (mavrtura), according to Epictetus Diss. 3.24.112–13. The phrase eij~ Damaskovn (“to,” “at” “Damascus”) appears in vv. 5, 10, and 11. In the last of these it receives end stress. On the meaning of this obscure term, see p. 80 n. 48. In Acts it is part of the “early” christological vocabulary (2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14) that reappears in the trial section (24:5; 26:9). For examples, see Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 73 n. 48, to which add Longus Daphn. 2.4.1 (epiphany of Eros) and Apuleius Metam. 6.12.2–4 (madness at noon, on which see also Deut 28:28-29, in which madness and blindness at noonday are among the curses threatened in the covenant formulary. Finally, Peter’s vision occurred at noon (10:9). D-Text (and other) witnesses, D E Y 1739 m gig syh sa, read, intelligently, “and they became fearful”

52 53

54 55

56

(kai; e[mfoboi ejgevnonto). This response to the numinous is probably a typical expansion. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 430. Other examples of seeing a light but not hearing are Sulpicius Severus Life of Martin 11.5 and Gregory the Great Life of Benedict 8.12. Luke 3:12; 18:18; Acts 2:37; 16:30. Boismard (Texte, 359) proposes as the D-Text: ajnasta;~ de; oujk ejnevblepon (“When I got up I didn’t see.”). Clark (144) corrects to wJ~ de; ajnevsthn, oujk ejnevblepon, similar in meaning. Haenchen (626) prefers B’s oujde;n e[blepon (“I saw nothing”). This harmonizes with 9:8, from which it may derive. The verb ejmblevpw is often confounded with blevpw in mss., according to BDAG, 321, s.v. ejmblevpw. The original may have read: oujk e[blepon. Cornelius is similarly described in 10:22. The adjective eujlabhv~ (“pious”): Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:2. Its omission in p 74 A vg makes the phrase difficult to understand. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 359) replaces “resident” with the more specific “in Damascus.” It is unusual for this participle (katoikw`n) to be absolute, whence the alternatives. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 431. Czachesz, ”Commission Narrarives,” 74.

564

Acts part 3C.indd 564

8/27/2008 2:19:29 PM

22:1-21

almost argue that no healing is reported, but the phrase “at that very moment” supports this understanding. 57   14-15  These verses evoke Gal 1:14-15. God chose58 Paul to see Christ and proclaim him. Three infinitives follow: “to experience (gnw`nai) God’s will” refers to “the plan of God” in the language of the epistles. 59 “See” and “hear” supply the elements needed to describe Paul’s forthcoming encounter (vv. 17-21) as a resurrection appearance that commissioned him to be a missionary to gentiles.60 Luke has taken the most important steps toward his goal of transforming the “conversion” of chap. 9 into the “call” of Galatians 1. The title “Just One” avoids the inflammatory terms “Messiah” and “Son of God,” while linking Paul to the tradition.61 The target of Paul’s mission is “all persons” (ajnqrwvpou~), avoiding the invidious word “gentiles” (and echoing 21:28).   16  Ananias’s question corresponds to that of Paul in v. 10. He then directs baptism, which involves the invocation of “his name.”62 This will result in purgation of sins. The dramatic situation is in some difficulty. Is the audience to presume a normal purification rite, that is, self-immersion? Removal of sins denotes, in Christian

terms, a sacramental act,63 while the verb ejpikalevw (“invoke”) presumes an attendant formula.64 Readers know that Christian baptism is in view, but the ambiguous language prevents a premature crowd reaction. The activity must be commanded rather than narrated because no Christian minister is present.   17-21  Apart from the return to Jerusalem (9:26), these verses present entirely new material, composed by Luke (with assistance from 9:13-15), who sets the commission to convert gentiles within a dialogue between Paul and the heavenly Christ set in the temple itself. This audacious (and provocative) invention could serve as the Lucan master metaphor. It exudes continuity. The inclusion of gentiles announced in the temple after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:25-39) finds its fulfillment, encasing Paul within the beginning and end of Luke (1:5; 24:53) and the opening five chapters of Acts.   17  The syntax of v. 17 is equally revolutionary.65 The author evidently wishes to suggest a parallel to v. 7. “Praying in the temple” reveals the narrator’s perspective and emphasis. The speaker should have said “in this place” or the like. The resultant trance (e[kstasi~) 66

57 The exact phrase appears in 16:18 (exorcism). Cf. Matt 8:13; John 4:53. 58 Luke is the only early Christian writer to use proceirivzw (“appoint,” “destine”). In Acts 3:20, it refers to Jesus; 22:14 and 26:15 apply it to Paul. Luke may have picked up this term from 2 Maccabees (3:7; 8:9; 14:12). In the military and political spheres, the word applies to “trustworthy envoys, qualified representatives of God, or the king, or of some other high authority” (Spicq, Lexicon, 3:207–9, esp. 208). The prefix pro- is not temporal. Wilhelm Michaelis (“proceirivzw,” TDNT 6:862–64) says that it should not be grouped with terms implying predestination (on which see Conzelmann, Theology, 151–54). This is technically correct, but Haenchen’s proposal (208 n. 10) that Luke so understood it or wished it understood deserves consideration. 59 Note Rom 2:18 and the Deutero-Pauline paraphrase in Col 1:9 60 Note the perfect eJwvraka~ (“see”) in v. 15 and cf. 1 Cor 9:1. 61 Cf. 3:14 (Peter) and esp. 7:52 (Stephen). Note also 1 Enoch 38:2; 53:6 (of uncertain date). For its application to more “ordinary heroes,” see Gen 7:1; Job 32:2; Ps 7:12; 2 Macc 12:6.

62 This should be the name of Jesus, but grammatical logic makes “God” the referent. 63 For the meaning of ajpoluvw here, see 1 Cor 6:11 (“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”). Cf. also Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5. 64 Cf. 2:21. P74 reads “invoke” in the present tense. This aorist is more compatible with later liturgical use: one confesses Christ as Lord and is then baptized, presumably “in the name of Jesus” here. 65 The speaker is introduced in a dative (with givnomai, BDF §409 [4]), next as the subject of an improper genitive absolute, and finally as the subject of an infinitive (givnomai!) in indirect discourse. Haenchen (627 n. 3) offers Luke 3:21 as a parallel. Corruption seems unlikely. 66 On the phenomenon of “ecstasy,” see Rohde, Psyche, 253–334, still useful for its citations of primary texts and religio-historical material; W. R. Inge, “Ecstasy,” ERE 5:157–59; Albrecht Oepke, “e[kstasi~,” TDNT 2:449–60, esp. 449–58; and Friedrich Pfister, “Ekstase,” RAC 4:944–87.

565

Acts part 3C.indd 565

8/27/2008 10:24:40 AM

evokes the experience of Peter (10:10; 11:5) and others, notably, Isaiah (6:1).67   18  In that state, Paul experienced an unequivocal resurrection appearance. He saw Christ and heard his words (as opposed to seeing “a light” and hearing an initially unknown voice). Here Luke provides his own account of Paul’s legitimating vision, in direct speech rather than cloudy summary. To supply the prophet’s conventional objection he enumerated, with some intensification,68 Paul’s qualifications as a persecutor, items that had previously supported Ananias’s objection to his assignment (9:13-15), with an extended summary69 of his role in the martyrdom70 of Stephen (vv. 19-20). The application of this objection is not transparent. One possibility is that Paul’s well-known opposition to the movement will lend credence to his changed views.   21  His protests receive the same answer that was given to Ananias (9:15): “Get going!” (poreuvou).71 The explanation for this order72 inverts what has been a basic principle of Acts: Jerusalem is the center of revealed religion and the temple its apex. Priority belongs to the Jews, while direction and regulation of

the gentile ­enterprise lies under the authority of the Jerusalem community. The narrator cannot be accused of allowing this thesis to fall into desuetude, for it was emphatically reiterated as recently as 21:18-25. The directive is equally inapplicable to the career of Paul, who will not approach gentiles until brought to Antioch by Barnabas (11:25-26) and who will give Jews priority at every station. Verse 21 is not a summary of Paul’s missionary labors. It asserts that the course of salvation history points away from Jerusalem and its temple to the Diaspora and gentiles. To them belongs the future. To represent the Diaspora, Luke uses one of his more wistful symbols, “far away” (makravn), which indicates both physical and spiritual distance73 and is yet another evocation of the beginning of the story (2:39).74 Formally, the speech ends with its narrative incomplete, but Luke has said all that he wished to say and ended at the decisive point, confirmed by punctuation contributed by the crowd.75 The speech ends on an ironic note. The one accused of introducing gentiles into the temple had been instructed in the temple to leave it and approach the gentiles.

67 Temple visions include theophanies and angelophanies: 1 Sam 3:3-10; 1 Kgs 3:4-5; Dan 9:20-27; Josephus Ant. 13.282–83; b. Yoma 39b; and Luke 1:8-20. Visions are central to cult foundation stories. See pp. 389–90. 68 Flogging (v. 19) is an addition to the earlier summaries. Paul’s own experience at the other end of the whip (16:22), recently threatened (21:34) and about to be threatened once more (22:34), is a bit of poetic justice. 69 The periphrastic constructions may serve to stress the iterative nature of this activity. See Haenchen, 149 n. 7. 70 “Witness” (mavrtu~) is acquiring the sense of “martyr.” See Haenchen, 627 n. 7; and BDAG, 620, s.v. (3).

71 Although the action is the same as that described in 9:30 (leaving town), the circumstances are at considerable variance with one another. 72 In both 9:15 and 22:21, this command is followed by a motive clause in o{ti (“because”). 73 Spiritual distance symbolized by the physical: Luke 15:13 (cf. 20, the Prodigal Son). For the figurative, see Acts 17:27 (Areopagus). In the background is Isa 57:19, which Luke may have appropriated by way of Eph 2:13, 17. See Pervo, Dating, 294–95. 74 The verb “send” is another borrowing from Acts 9 (v. 30). 75 Luke 4:27-28 reports a kindred experience of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry.

566

Acts part 3C.indd 566

8/27/2008 10:24:40 AM

22:22-29

22

22:22-29  Reactions to Paul’s Address 22/ The crowd kept listening until he said “gentiles,” but then raised a loud shout: “Wipe this creature from the face of the earth! He does not deserve to live!”a 23/ Since they kept on shrieking, tossing their coats around and kicking up dust, b 24/ the military tribune directed that Paul should be taken within the compound and interrogated under the whip to learn why the crowd was denouncing him. c 25/ Just when they had stretched him out to be whipped, d Paul asked the attending centurion, “Are you authorized to flog a Roman citizen who has not been found guilty?” 26/ At this the centurion went to the tribune and said: “This fellow is a Roman citizen!” What are you going to do about that?”e 27/ The tribune went to Paul and said: “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”f “Yes.”g 28/ “It cost me an arm and a leg to achieve that status.” “I was born to it.” 29/ The soldiers delegated to interrogate him quickly got out of the way. h The tribune was also alarmed at the realization that he had put a Roman citizen in bonds. i

a

b c

d e

f

g h i

Analysis

Reference to gentiles reignited the mob, moving the commandant to revert to his earlier plan. (One may conjure up the classic gloomy dungeon, with dripping walls and smoking lamps.) Just as the lash was about to fall upon this stripped (cf. Mark 15:20) and strung up prisoner, Paul raised a technical question: could unconvicted Roman citizens be whipped? Readers know (16:37) that this was not simply a hypothetical inquiry. The centurion in charge—torture could be entrusted to subordinates—accepted this as a valid assertion of the franchise and properly reported the fact to his superior. That officer promptly arrived to verify the information.

On the tense and meaning of kaqh`ken, see BDF §358 (2). This postclassical usage resembles English expressions such as “Then you would have to . . .” The imperfect indicates obligation or necessity. Dc T read the more common kaqh`kon (“it is fitting”). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 362) says that they were throwing dust “toward the sky.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 362) has a present infinitive: “interrogate” and reads katefwvnoun (“cry against”), with a corresponding phrase “about him.” For an alternate translation, see below. The interpretation of tiv mevllei~ is debatable. It is probably not to be taken as a dispassionate utterance. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 363) reads: “when the centurion had heard this—that he identified himself as a Roman citizen—he approached the tribune and announced to him: ‘Look (o}ra) what you are about to do!” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 363) reads “Then . . . he asked him. The conjunction eij appears to belong to an indirect question, but in Hellenistic Greek it took on the quality of a punctuation mark, as in v. 25. See BDF §440 (3). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 363) prefers eijmi (“I am”). Cf. Luke 22:70. The Greek of Bezae ends here. Its Latin counterpart (d) terminated in the middle of v. 20. Verse 29 is awkward (and alliterative). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 364) replaces the initial eujqevw~ ou\n (“immediately therefore”) with its prosaic “then” (tovte), adding at the close a more suitable use for prompt action: “and he immediately released him” (kai; paracrh`ma e[lusen aujtovn). The D-editor took the phrase from v. 30 (where it is omitted by some D-Texts). The sense of “release” is, of course, different in the two cases.

An affirmative answer did not dissolve his skepticism. Roman citizenship had cost him a pretty penny. Could his prisoner have afforded it? Paul did not need to concern himself about such matters, for he held the franchise by birth. That fact reduced the whole detachment, including their commander, to abject fear. This paragraph, a Lucan composition, repeats the essence of 21:36-37a. It is a thrilling piece of melodrama and no worse for its improbabilities. The most basic of these is that the official elects to torture Paul in order to learn why the crowd wished to kill him. Interrogation in the midst of a riot is admittedly difficult (21:34), but the tribune could have scooped up a half-dozen people and had them privately interrogated to discover the 567

Acts part 3C.indd 567

8/27/2008 10:24:40 AM

i­nformation he sought. Having been persuaded that Paul was an educated Greek, he might have questioned him before determining that only torture would expose the necessary facts. Examination under such duress was scarcely suitable for a citizen of Tarsus.1 That Paul raises no objection to the scourging of Roman citizens until the last possible moment will strike some as unlikely, as will the unhesitating acceptance of his claim to be a Roman citizen.2 Such a contention might well have delayed proceedings pending further investigation, but it is strange that no doubts about the matter are raised.3 For Lysias to divulge to a stranger that he had not acquired the franchise in a legal manner was, at best, imprudent. Still less prudent was his failure to interview Paul before summoning the Sanhedrin. The dust kicked up by the crowd complements that to be thrown by the narrator upon the legal situation. Comment   22-23  These verses expand 21:26, adding a phrase and some action to illustrate the explosion. The latter is of uncertain significance, but the general purport is clear: these people were out of control.4 The narrator supplies a motive for the proposed torture: the tribune wishes to learn why the crowd was angry with Paul by interrogating5 the victim. If the narrator intended to sneak this improbability past the reader in the general excitement, he has been rather successful.   25-29  The first clause is susceptible of two interpretations. The choice depends upon the sense of the dative 1

2 3

toi`~ iJma`sin (“cords”), either “stretched him out with ropes” (i.e., used thongs to secure the body for whipping) or “stretched him out for the lash.” The latter is probably preferable.6 Those faced with such a beating— more severe than that of 16:22—are unlikely to meditate upon the varieties of adverbial datives. Roman citizens were quite likely to have asserted their status at the moment the order was given (v. 24), if not earlier. For the second time (16:35-40), Paul has been derelict in his civic duty. The reason in this instance is patent: the narrator has produced a last-second rescue. I, as a convicted criminal, was now to be tortured about Melite’s part in the murder. At the moment when my arms had been tied and the clothes had been stripped from my body and I was hanging in the air on ropes and the torturers were bringing on the whips and fire and rack . . . the priest of Artemis was seen advancing towards us, crowned with laurel. (Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 7.12.2–3) 7 Acts 21:23 reported the last-second rescue of Paul by the tribune. He now saves himself. Last-minute deliveries by the arrival of the cavalry or through coincidence are not impossible, but escape from a dire fate through retardation generated by the hero suggests the hand of a narrator. Undiluted adventure is not that narrator’s only goal. The encounter will lift Paul from the depths of degradation to heights that will awe a tribune. The presiding centurion, unnerved by his near calamity, took out his anger upon his superior, with a statement

Rapske (Roman Custody, 139) defends this: “Torture was recommended only after other forms of enquiry had been exhausted or frustrated and Acts is clear (Acts 21:33f., 39f.) that the tribune had used all the non-coercive means. Persons taken into custody without accusers were not to be subjected to torture unless there were suspicions strongly attaching to them.” He cites the Digest 48.18 and 22. Unfortunately for this rationale, noncoercive means had scarcely been tapped, let alone exhausted. See the comments of Foakes Jackson, 204. For a discussion of how possession of Roman citizenship might be verified, see Cadbury, Book, 71–73. Note also Adrian N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 314–16. For an example of a diploma granted

4

5 6

7

upon discharge of a sailor (52 ce), see ILS 1986, trans. Robert K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) no. 58, pp. 99–100. See also Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 148–49, with his references. Cadbury (“Dust and Garments,” 269–77) discusses the subject in detail. See Haenchen’s comments on this (633 n. 1). The verb ajnatavzw has an official ring. See Sus 14 Theod and Judg 6:29 (A). BDAG (474b), s.v. iJmav", prefers to understand the cords as those of a whip. See also Cadbury and Lake, 282–83; and Barrett, 2:1048. Trans. J. J. Winkler, in Reardon, Novels, 267. (The arrival of a sacred embassy postponed all legal procedures.) Compare Apuleius Metam. 3.9:

568

Acts part 3C.indd 568

8/27/2008 10:24:40 AM

22:22-29

amounting to “Do you have any idea of what you’re doing?” Arriving at the scene, the tribune put the question directly and received a direct answer. His evident skepticism8 sets up Paul’s crushing riposte: he held the franchise from birth,9 while the tribune had had to acquire it on the black market.10 Although strung up naked, Paul has won this status duel hands down, his second such triumph in a row. In 21:37-39, his paideia won him the right to engage in oratory. The disclosure of Roman citizenship11 functions like an epiphany: the soldiers retreat while their officer cowers in fear.12 The narrative has remained on a roller coaster path. In 21:27, Paul appeared to have eluded unpleasantness, but the riot portended that his end was near. Arrest was uncomfortable, but it saved his life and provided an opportunity to stun the arresting officer with his culture

and standing. On the top of the steps, he is once more at the top and remains in control until v. 22, when riot re-erupts. The notion that gentiles could share in the promises was utterly odious. Faced once more with the prospect of torture, Paul plays his highest status card: lifelong Roman citizenship. This gives him a reprieve. Romans will be in charge of the inquiry into the charges against him. It will not take a Gallio (18:12-17) to explode these. By education, experience, and status Paul has the equipment to stave off varied charges. Hearers have every reason for optimism. No one can present sound evidence that he introduced gentiles. Among the potential witnesses in his behalf will be James and those with whom he undertook the vow. Removed from the threat of the mob, Paul should be able to rely on Roman justice.

Roman citizenship. On the sale of citizenship “Instantly they brought in fire and the wheel, in under Claudius, see Cassius Dio 60.17.3–8, esp. accordance with Greek style, and all sorts of whips. 5–6. He reports that Messalina and her entourage . . . But the old woman who had thrown everything were willing to sell citizenship for a modest fee. into a turmoil with her tears spoke up” (trans. J. A. The account is quite exaggerated, and the practice Hanson Apuleius Metamorphoses I [LCL; Camdid not end after Claudius. This hostile tidbit is not bridge: Harvard University Press, 1989] 141–43). a sufficient basis for construction of a theory. TaciCf. also Ovid Metam. 3.697–700. The hero Chaireas tus Ann. 14.50.1 testifies to the practice. Cadbury escaped execution as he was mounting his cross (Book, 84) understands the verse to apply to Lysias’s (Chariton Chaer. 4.3). Arrival of the police rescues purchase of his freedom rather than to bribery. On the heroine Anthia from a “crucifixion.” Her true the spread of citizenship, see Adrian N. Sherwinlove Habrocomes was twice delivered from the White, “The Roman Citizenship: A Survey of Its cross (Ephesian Tale 2.13; 4.2). For other rescues, Development into a World Franchise,” ANRW 1.2 see Babylonian Story, e.g., 21. Cf. also Ethiopian (1974) 23–58. Story 7.6; 10.34. 11 Porphry’s petulant comments (Hoffmann, Porphry, 8 The D-Text of v. 28 is complicated and interest59–60) are interesting: “Paul also seems to forget ing. Bezae begins, “I am well aware (oi\da) of how himself frequently, as when he tells the captain of much (povsou) this citizenship cost me.” Possibly the guard that he is not a Jew but a Roman, even anterior to this is a Latin reading known to Bede though he had said on another occasion . . . [22:3] (88), which has some support from vg mss and a But any saying [both] ‘I am a Jew’ and ‘I am a Bohemian version (Ropes, 215): “It’s easy for you to Roman’ is neither, even if he would like to be.” See claim to be a Roman citizen. I happen to know that Hoffman’s n. 40, p. 60. this status cost me a great deal” (Dixit tribunus, tam 12 On the legal issues see Cadbury and Lake, 285 facile dicis civem romanum esse? Ego enim scio quanto (and Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” pretio civitatem istam possedi). This is almost cerin Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 297–338), as tainly secondary, but does, as Bede observes, bring well as Haenchen, 634 n. 4. No law had (yet) been out the meaning with greater clarity. See M. L. W. broken. The recurrence of ejpiginwvskw (“disLaistner, “The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the cover”) is ironic. In v. 24, it referred to the charges Venerable Bede,” HTR 30 (1937) 37–50, esp. 42. against Paul. Verse 28 shows that what he had 9 Verse 28c is an inclusio with v. 3. discovered placed him in jeopardy. 10 Cicero Phil. 5.4.2 charges Antony with selling

569

Acts part 3C.indd 569

8/27/2008 10:24:40 AM

22

22:30—23:11  Paul before the Sanhedrin 30/ The very next day, determined to learn exactly what accusations the Jews were making against Paul, the tribune took him out of confinement and directed the high priests and the entire Sanhedrin to assemble. He then brought Paul into their presence. a 23:1/ Paul looked directly at the Sanhedrin b and said, “My fellow believers, all my life I have served God with an entirely clear conscience.” 2/ At this the high priest, Ananias, ordered c those who were near Paul to strike him on the mouth. d 3/ Paul responded, “God will strike you, you old phony. Here you sit, judging me in accordance with the same law you flout by having me struck.”e 4/ Those who had been told to strike him exclaimed: “How dare you revile God’s own high priest?”f 5/ “I was not aware, my brothers, that this person was the high priest,” he replied. “As Scripture says: ‘Do not defame a ruler of your people.’” 6/ Realizing that some were Sadducees and the rest Pharisees, Paul shouted: “Fellow believers, I am a Pharisee, as was my family before me.g I am on trial h because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”i 7/ These words provoked j a conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, leading to a sharp division in the body, k 8/ since Sadducees l say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, whereas Pharisees affirm them. m 9/ Loud shouting erupted, and some scribes of the Pharisaic faction n took the floor to join the fray with these words:o “We find no fault in this person. Perhaps a spirit or an angel has spoken to him!”p 10/ The disruption became so violent that the tribune began to fear that they would tear Paul to pieces; he ordered the military to go down and rescue Paul from them and then return him to the fort. 11q/ The Lord appeared to him the next night,

a

b c d e f

g

h

i j

k l m

n

o

p

Some D-Texts (614 pc syh**) add that he “sent for” Paul before releasing him (“from his bonds,” according to m). See also the note on 22:29. The order of words varies. N-A 27 prefers the apparent reading of p 74. Witnesses offer two synonyms for “command,” neither of which alters the meaning. Boismard (Texte, 366) offers this D-Text: “the high priest [ ] ordered [] to strike him on the mouth.” Boismard, Texte, 366: “Here you sit, judging me [ ] and in contempt of the law (para; to;n novmon) . . . .” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 366) omits “God’s.” This may indicate a reluctance to concede that the official functioned on behalf of God. E 1739 m syh read the name in the singular. This is probably due to failure to recognize the idiom. (Boismard does not discuss this variant which has good D-Text support.) The evidence for and against the emphatic “I” is well divided. It may have been deleted as redundant (the speech begins with ejgwv) or as immodest. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 367) omits “dead,” perhaps as redundant. B and some other witnesses have some form of “fall”: e[pesen, or the like. Since Luke uses givnomai with stavsi~ elsewhere (15:2) and since the Syriac tradition also supports “fall,” it has some claim. Just what it might mean is a different question. For that reason Barrett (2:1064) rejects it. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 368) omits the phrase about the division (but see v. 9). B (surprisingly) omits the particle mevn here. In place of ta; ajmfovtera, which should mean “both” but can mean “all” (BDF §275 [8)]), the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 368) gives a full list: “Pharisees affirm that there is resurrection and angel and spirit.” “Faction” or “party” is one meaning of mevro~ (Josephus Bell. 1.143). Relatively unimportant variants attend the enumeration of the Pharisees here. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 368) begins kai; kraugh`~ genomevnh~ ejn aujtoi`~ ejscivsqhsan (“After a clamor arose, they divided among themselves”). The main clause has been transferred from v. 7. Instead of “disputed” (diemavconto) the Pharisees “contradicted” (ajntevlegon, evidently to the views of the Sadducees). The Latin h (accepted by Boismard) reads, “What evil have we found . . . ?” This is a sensible limitation. M sa show the affinity to 5:34-39 by adding “Let us not fight against God!” (mh; qeomacw`men). This is an interesting variant of a D-Text type, attested only in a version outside of the Byzantine tradition, but clearly representative of lost Greek exemplars of an earlier date. On the links between the two scenes, see Weaver, Plots, 139–41. The syntax omits an apodosis,

570

Acts part 3C.indd 570

8/27/2008 10:24:41 AM

22:30—23:11

saying: “Don’t falter, r for just as you have given testimony for my cause in Jerusalem, so also must you testify in Rome.”

q

r

a form of aposiopesis found also in classical Greek (BDF §482). P48 contains 23:11-17, 25-29. This carelessly written, third-century papyrus fragment is usually classified as a representative of the D-Text. For bibliography, see James Keith Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (SNTSMS 109; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 30. A (clearly later) variant adds the vocative “Paul.”

Analysis

Comment

Chapter 23 reports the transfer of Paul from Roman custody under the garrison commander in Jerusalem to custody under the Roman procurator in Caesarea. Lysias makes his third attempt to clarify the charges against Paul. This creates another situation from which he must rescue his prisoner (vv. 1-10). A band of fanatics then plot, with the connivance of the priestly leadership, to assassinate Paul in an ambush. The apparently chance discovery of this cabal motivated the tribune to mount a substantial expedition to extricate Paul from the treacherous thickets and escort him safely to the coastal capital. Acts 23:1-10 is a transitional scene introducing Paul at trial and establishing his basic thesis: that the real charge against him is his belief in the resurrection and that death will be the inevitable result of trial by the Jewish senate. The oracle in v. 11 announces the theme of the remainder of the book: Paul is destined for Rome. His plan of 19:21 will be fulfilled. The narrator then introduces a long retardation, a Jewish plot that will take Paul to the relative safety of Caesarea and Roman jurisdiction. Chapters 24–26 describe Paul’s efforts to avoid trial in a Jewish court at Jerusalem, leading to his appeal for judgment in Rome. In the course of these experiences it transpires that Roman officials found Paul innocent, while his Jewish adversaries would stop at nothing to remove him from the scene. 1

  22:30  References to the subsequent day in the initial and closing verses frame this passage. On the day after the riot, the commandant, faithfully seeking clarification of Jewish legal questions that were understandably beyond his capacity directed the Sanhedrin to convene and brought his charge before them. This creates another parallel with the trials of Jesus (Luke 22:54-71). Reasonable as these plans may appear, they have cast Paul into the lions’ den, since readers know that execution lies in store for believers haled before this body (6:12—7:60; cf. 5:33). The plans are not, however, truly reasonable, for they presume that the tribune commanding the Jerusalem garrison can convene the religious council and set its agenda, an unlikely prerogative of his office, and—the crux of the problem—why he does so. If Roman law is not at issue, Lysias has no need to detain Paul, whom he could allow to be taken into custody by the temple police, whose leaders could have referred the prisoner to the Roman governor, as described in the process against Jesus. Furthermore, the circumstances would have required the Roman officer to make some opening remarks, explaining the nature of his inquiry and requesting the assistance of the Sanhedrin. The essential point for the narrative is that this body could have executed Paul. Without that presupposition, Paul’s conduct is utterly inexplicable, as is the sequel (23:14).1

Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 54) stated that the proceeding is not described as a formal trial and is thus acceptable. This ignores both the nature of Sanhedrin trials in Acts and the intent of the narrative. Analogies from papyri of the Ptolemaic period, suggested by Rafał Taubenschlag (“Le process de l’apotre Paul en lumière des papyri,” in idem, Opera Minora [2 vols.; Warsaw: Panåstwowe Wydawn, 1959] 2:721–26) are irrelevant, and the

frequently invoked Josephus Ant. 20.202 relates to an allegation that the Sanhedrin required the consent of the procurator to meet. This does not allow the inference that the garrison commandant could command them to assemble.

571

Acts part 3C.indd 571

8/27/2008 10:24:41 AM

The narrator has Paul resort to desperate tactics. Seizing the initiative, he first throws the assembly off balance and then divides the house against itself. Acts 22:30—23:5 and 23:6-10 are parallel and complementary sections. The first pits Paul in a personal confrontation with the chief priest. In the second, the two major parties fall out. In both cases, Paul grasps the initiative and is able to keep his opposition from achieving its object. For early readers, this was doubtless a clever and courageous performance. After Paul has exposed the chief priest as a callous oaf and the council as utterly lacking in self-­control, the percipient Roman officer removed his charge to safety. Today’s reader is obliged to say that these episodes are lamentable exercises in anti-Jewish buffoonery.2 The first section is a burlesque confrontation that would not look out of place in the Acta Alexandrinorum.3 Achilles Tatius knew how to give this sort of stuff a proper send-up: Just as we were about to seat ourselves . . . Thersandros charged madly up to the temple, bringing some witnesses, and said to the priest in a stentorian voice: “I call these people to witness that you have improperly removed from death row a person condemned to legal execution. You hold my female slave, as well, a lascivious woman, a nymphomaniac . . . [the chaste heroine, Leucippe].” 2

3

4 5

6

7

[These words] upset me terribly. I did not put up with his wounding words but interrupted him in mid insult. “And you, sir, are a slave from a long line of slaves, a lunatic and a lecher. She is a free woman, a virgin and worthy of the goddess.” When he heard this, he replied, “And you even insult me, you convict and crow bait!” He struck me one very forceful blow across the face.” (Leuc. Clit. 8.1.1–3) 4   23:1  Rackham observed that this was not the Paul who had addressed a raving mob as “fathers and brethren.”5 He takes the place of an equal (which, according to 26:11, he was). Since Paul was willing to utilize a captatio benevolentiae with Festus (24:10), his rudeness in seizing the floor was intentional. Readers will conclude that the high priest’s instruction to award his impudence with a dollop of casual violence was more due to what Paul said than to his failure to remain silent until instructed to speak. Other than to the scrupulous Paulinist or to the conscientious historian the statement appears quite innocuous.6 “I have served God with an entirely clear conscience.” (ejgw; pavsh/ suneidhvsei ajgaqh`/ pepolivteumai tw`/ qew`/ [v. 1]) is a fine bit of Deutero-Pauline prose.7   2  The generality8 of his boast allows the arbitrary brutality of the tyrannical Ananias9 to flourish. This

After summarizing the text, Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:287) concludes: “This scene is a good example of the lengths to which the narrator will go to show that Paul is not anti-Jewish.” He does not comment on the narrator’s hostility to Judaism. For specific parallels, see below. Wilson (Law, 66–67) succinctly summarizes the problems of treating this incident as history. Trans. J. J. Winkler in Reardon, Novels, 269. Rackham, 429: “His behaviour in the Sanhedrin was certainly very different from that on the previous day in the temple. He shews no tact, nor even any desire to be conciliatory.” Paul’s intense gaze (ajtenivzw) probably means here that he made full eye contact with members 8 of the council. It could also indicate his “good conscience,” as Haenchen (637) and Fitzmyer (716) 9 believe. “Conscience” is not quite accurate in the modern English sense, but the notion of a “good” or “bad” conscience in the sense of moral formation

(rather than guilt or pride) conforms to GrecoRoman philosophical ethics. Paul’s use of the term suneivdhsi~ is closer to “consciousness” in contemporary American English. Modifiers are “strong” or “weak” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:7). See Pervo, Dating, 240–41. Anachronism leads commentators to ask whether Paul should have felt “guilty” about persecuting believers in his earlier life. Even Haenchen (637) and Conzelmann (192) raise this concern. The dangers of undue individualization of the concept are highlighted by Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 183–84. On politeuvomai (“live one’s life), see Pervo, Dating, 286. Barrett (2:1057–58) has a detailed discussion. Specification of the reason for punishing Paul would diminish the literary effect. Ananias, the son of Nedebaeus, was high priest under Claudius and Nero c. 47–59. Luke could have garnered these data from Josephus (e.g., Ant. 20.103).

572

Acts part 3C.indd 572

8/27/2008 10:24:41 AM

22:30—23:11

provides all that the reader—and the tribune—needs to know about his character and the kind of justice to be expected under his presidency.10   3  Paul’s rejoinder is far from casual. This elegant bit of vituperation is a chiastic unit decorated with antithesis, assonance, and alliteration.11 Like Jesus (Luke 22:63-64), Paul suffers gratuitous abuse. Like Jesus (Luke 21:5-6), Paul announces destruction, of a person rather than the temple. Both are ex eventu.12 The epithet (lit. “whitewashed wall”) is obscure but not complimentary.13 Formally, v. 3 is like a “sentence of holy law” without an explicit protasis (that is, “God will strike14 those who strike God’s servants”) and could be labeled a curse rather than a prophecy.15 As subsequent events will reveal, what is to one person the proper expression of boldness before a tyrant16 is to another counterproductive impudence.17   4-5  If readers rejoice in a manifestation of courage, the same vague group of “bystanders” instructed to slap

Paul in v. 2 upbraid him in v. 4 for his impudence. Paul’s reply is too disingenuous for comfort. Ananias was presiding, and one must presume that he had an appropriate place and insignia of office. Paul had, moreover, on the previous day, appealed to this man as a suitable witness (22:5). Interpreters have struggled to deal with an apparent misstatement.18 If this incident derives from the narrator, it is another example of Luke having his cake and eating it too.19 Consistency was not one of his hobgoblins.20 Paul’s “conscience” could remain clear, as he demonstrates by citing an appropriate proof text against reviling leaders.21 Conzelmann sees the symbolic meaning of the incident: “Luke is characterizing Judaism through its representatives—its relation to the Law is broken and hypocritical (cf. 7:50-53).”22 In effect, this is a synecdoche. The dramatic result is that Paul has the floor and will retain this initiative. In typical Lucan fashion, events take place so rapidly and excitedly that readers are not prone to sit back and raise objections. This,

10 John 18:22-23 is an illustrative parallel. 11 Note also the verb kavqh/ (“you sit”). The more frequent Koine form is kavqhsai. This bisyllabic alternative suits the rhythm of the prose. The harsh velars (k-) are expressive. See Knox, Hellenistic Elements, 16. 12 Ananias was murdered by rebels in 66 (Josephus Bell. 2.441–42). 13 See Cadbury and Lake, 287. The metaphor suggests a thin coat of cheap paint concealing major faults (cf. English “papering over the cracks”) and thus contrasts appearance to reality (whence the translation). For comparable images, see Ezek 13:10-16; CD 8:12. Note also Fitzmyer, 717. 14 BDAG, 1020, s.v., says that tuvptw may refer to “misfortunes designated as blows coming from God,” with references to Exod 7:27; 2 Kgdms 24:17; Ezek 7:6; 2 Macc 3:39; Aristeas 192. Gustav Stählin, “tuvptw,” TDNT 8:260–70, esp. 267, finds its usage in Acts (18:17; 21:32) an indication of Luke’s antiJewish orientation. 15 See Conzelmann (192) and Stählin, “tuvptw,” who refers to m. Šebu. 4.13. Luke may not have been sensitive to this idiom. 16 On courage before tyrants, see Epictetus Diss. 3.22.55 and the excursus “Confronting Tyrants,” pp. 118–19. 17 The Acta Alexandrinorum include illustrative insults of this nature, for example, Acta Isidori Rec. B 1.17–18, where Isidorus makes an insulting remark about Agrippa, on which see Tcherikover (CPJ

18

19

20 21 22

2:77), Musurillo (Pagan, 137) and the Acta Appiani col. iv 7–8 (Musurillo, 67), in which Appian calls the emperor (probably Commodus) lh/stavrco~ (“chief bandit”). Tcherikover (CPJ 2:107) says this “is the culminating point of Alexandrian insolence.” Augustine (Serm. Dom. 1.19) and Bede (89) take the position that Paul did not recognize Ananias as the true high priest, as his role had been superseded by Jesus. In Ep. 138 Augustine took the remark as sarcasm. Chrysostom (Hom. 48, p. 406) decides that Paul did not know who the person was. Calvin comes down on the side of sarcasm: “I, brethren, recognize nothing priestly about this man” (7:229). Conzelmann, 192: “The entire scene is inconceivable: How could Paul not have known the one who was presiding? Behind this scene lie some vague details, not a historically accurate account.” This creates the problem of identifying both the vague details and the means of their transmission. Barrett (2:1061–62) offers a range of interpretations and ends with a qualified non liquet. “Leader” is plural in the preferred text of the LXX. Acts may be an ad hoc adjustment. Conzelmann, 192. “Sitting” refers to the chair of judgment (Matt 23:2, etc.) On paranomevw (“flout the law”), see Johnson, 397.

573

Acts part 3C.indd 573

8/27/2008 10:24:41 AM

needless to say, is typical of popular literature driven by the question, what will happen next?   6  The second unit begins, in v. 6 begins like v.1, with a circumstantial participial phrase, an identical address, and an assertion in the first person singular. Paul engages in what admirers would have labeled a deft political maneuver and detractors, a cheap lawyer’s stunt.23 His rhetorical tactic involves shifting the subject to an irrelevant but controversial theme that will paralyze the court, as when a politician accused of bribery tells a legislative body that he is being persecuted because of his staunch opposition to socialism.24 More elegantly: divide et impera.25   7  The tactic worked almost fatally well, for the group became so violent in its debate that Paul was about to be filleted by the councilors. In the end, the tribune had to send for troops to extricate Paul from the Sanhedrin, just as had been done in 21:32. Clever and exciting as the story is, problems emerge.26 One must believe that the leadership was incapable of regaining control and saying, in effect, “This is no doubt an interesting subject but not the matter for which we are assembled,”27 and that the august membership of the body was no better than a mob. The narrator has diffused the first objection by assigning the initiative to Paul. The second is not an improbable conjecture but an established fact, confirmed by the trial of Stephen (7:57-59).28 Jewish leaders in general and the Sanhedrin in particular are capable of any kind of

mischief and wickedness. While purveying this lowbrow slander for the delectation of his audience,29 Luke has Paul seize that high ground which he will occupy for the rest of the book: he is on trial because of his advocacy of the hope of Israel, the resurrection. 30 For Romans, this idea may have been bizarre but was scarcely cause for capital punishment. Among Jews, resurrection was a matter for theological debate. This thesis permits Paul to present himself as a politically harmless prisoner suffering for the sake of his fellow Israelites, a good Jew persecuted by Jews who prevent the Romans from discharging him. Paul’s claim to be a Pharisee encapsulates Luke’s portrait of Paul vis-à-vis Judaism. The historical Paul said that he had been a Pharisee (Phil 3:5-7). For Luke, “Judaism” and “Christianity” have become distinct religious bodies. His goal is to refute the claim that Paul was responsible for this division, which, in his view, came about because a substantial majority of the Jewish people refused to accept the self-evident truths of the Jesus movement.   8  Readers know that the Sanhedrin contained both Sadducees and Pharisees31 and that the former are staunch opponents of the movement (5:17-39). Now the narrator will point to some doctrinal divisions. Paul, who is a Pharisee by birth,32 so to speak (as he was a Roman citizen by birth: 22:28), upholds resurrection hope.33 The outcome is all that Paul could hope for, so to speak. Conflict erupted, as in 15:2, but the result was different, for the disputants here staked out rigid

23 On the questions raised by Paul’s claim that resurrection was the issue, see Barrett, 2:1064. Bruce (465–66) invokes 1 Cor 9:23. 24 Foakes Jackson (306) says that Paul “escaped condemnation by the none too creditable stratagem of setting his judges by the ears.” Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 135) recognizes this as a diversionary tactic. 25 So also Bengel, 475. 26 See Haenchen, 639–43; Roloff, 326; and Weiser, 2:614–15. 27 Wendt, 316. 28 See Pervo, “Meet Right,” 53–57. 29 See Pervo, Profit, 64. 30 Hope: note, in particular, 26:6-7; 28:20. Resurrection: 24:21; 26:23. Acts 24:15 refers to both. The idea is Pauline. See Klaus Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels nach der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas,” NTS 31 (1985) 437–51.

31 Witherington’s helpful suggestion (689) that the parties could be distinguished by dress is not necessary. 32 Note 2 Tim 1:3: “I am grateful to God—whom I worship with a clear conscience, as my ancestors did.” The two passages show common features of the Deutero-Pauline encomiastic portrait of Paul: ancestry and virtue. Phil 3:5 may have helped inspire Acts. 33 This construes “hope and resurrection” as a hendiadys (cf. Conzelmann, 192, and his references in n. 6). Haenchen (638) disagrees, relating hope to messianic thought and resurrection to eschatology. See also Jervell (556 n. 138), who treats “resurrection” as an explanatory genitive. This is similar, but does not account for the kaiv (“and”). The implication, carried out in v. 9, is that the Pharisees would support Christians.

574

Acts part 3C.indd 574

8/27/2008 10:24:41 AM

22:30—23:11

lines of division.34 Members of the Areopagus also had different views about the idea of resurrection (17:32), but they did not have to resort to fisticuffs about it.35 The narrator’s problem is to turn this long-standing disagreement among members of a council that had managed to work together into juridical gridlock. He does so by introducing a conflict about the sources of religious authority. Sadducees deny resurrection, as is well known,36 and, according to the narrator’s aside in v. 8, “angel” and “spirit.”37 Exegetes have labored hard to explain this claim, which conflicts with the Torah, an authority accepted by the Sadducees. 38   9  The least difficult explanation comes in v. 9: these entities “speak” and therefore convey revelation. “Angel” and “spirit” do speak to people in Acts. 39 The underlying question is whether revelation has ceased. That is worth a donnybrook. Acts presumes that revelation did not cease with Moses (or Malachi) and does not view the necessity of a

debate on the matter as flattering to the governing body. Beneath its vital surface function of rescuing Paul from certain death, the passage shows that Judaism is a house divided against itself and will not stand.40 Paul is once more the agent who exposes this division, wielding the separating sword (cf. Luke 2:34-35; Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12). Some of the Pharisees’ legal experts (grammatei`~) 41 take the opportunity to declare Paul innocent. This judgment, a feature of the trials of Jesus and Paul,42 is based on the information in the narrative aside of v. 8.43 Despite their support, the Pharisees are Luke’s real target: they should have been open to the message.44 In this untidy encounter, the narrator has introduced the thesis that the real charge against Paul is his belief in resurrection. That thesis will remain at the top of the agenda for the remainder of the book (28:20).   10  The narrative clunks along in vv. 7-10, with three forms of givgnomai (“to be, become”), two accompanied by stavsi~ (“disturbance”), in vv. 7 and 10, the other

34 For the phrase ejscivsqh to; plh`qo~, see 14:4 and Chariton Chaer. 5.4.1. Note also Onos 54. The theme is common, that is, Ethiopian Story 5.32: “Like a sea lashed by a sudden squall . . . they were whipped into indescribable turmoil by an irrational impulse, for drink and anger had now taken full possession of them. Some sided with Trachinos, bawling that the leader must be respected; others with Peloros, clamoring that the law must be upheld [violence ensues]” (trans. J. R. Morgan in Reardon, Novels, 470). 35 The Act. Pet. (Verc.) 3 describe a riot in the Roman Senate. This is an evident imitation of Acts 23:6-10. 36 Acts lends weight to the view that the Sadducees’ opposition to resurrection was grounded in skepticism, rather than, as was formally the case, in strict interpretation of the Torah. 37 “Hope,” “resurrection,” “angel,” and “spirit” are all anarthrous and singular. This indicates that they are technical terms. See Cadbury and Lake, 289. 38 Cadbury and Lake (290) say spirit and angel are tautological here. Witherington (692) argues that the reference is to deceased persons. One possibility is that they deny “guardian angels” (12:15; so also Loisy, 831) and the spiritual existence of the soul (Barrett, 2:1065–66), but, if so, this could be more clearly expressed. Fitzmyer renders “no resurrection, neither as an angel nor as a spirit, whereas Pharisees acknowledge them both.” This implies two forms of resurrection, as an “angel” and/or as a “spirit.” Neither fits the case of Jesus in Luke and

39

40

41 42

43

44

Acts. For a different view, based on an exploration of Lucan Christology, see Crispin H. T. FletcherLouis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 57–61. For a concise critique of this interesting study, see François Bovon, Luke the Theologian (2nd ed.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006) 535–36. Angel: 7:38; 8:26; 10:3-7; 12:8; spirit: 8:29 (cf. v. 26); 10:10; 13:2; 19:1; 20:23. Latin h reads “Holy Spirit.” Josephus presents another version of this view, which he applies to the state rather than to the religion. The phrase was evidently borrowed from Mark 2:16. “Find nothing” (oujdevn . . . euJrivskw): Acts 24:9; Luke 23:4, 22; “nothing deserving death” (oujde;n qanavtou a[xion): Luke 23:15; Acts 26:31. Readers will associate v. 9 with the visions of 22:6-9, 18, but it is not legitimate to presume that the dramatic audience made this connection. See Johnson’s insightful comments (401–2). Fitzmyer (714) takes a distinctly different and less penetrating view: “Paul is vindicated by the Pharisees in his audience.”

575

Acts part 3C.indd 575

8/27/2008 10:24:42 AM

by a “loud shout” (kraugh; megavlh), in v. 9, until the violence threatens to rip Paul into pieces. Is the reader to imagine Paul caught in a tug-of-war between the two parties or the victim of mob violence?45 All that is clear is the action of the tribune, a recapitulation of what he had done the last time Paul had been involved with a mob (21:31-32). Readers observe that Jews, unlike the followers of Jesus, cannot engage in a reasoned and orderly discussion about their own religion. One may also ask what the tribune has gained for his (and Paul’s) pains. If one presumes that the proceedings were conducted in Aramaic and that the officer has been provided with a translation, facts neglected by the narrator, and that the officer could comprehend what they were talking about, which is quite unlikely, he could have learned precious little. When he writes to the ­procurator: “They [the Sanhedrin] were ­charging him

on matters pertinent to their law” (v. 29), he certainly says what the narrator wishes to be said, but there is no justification for this conclusion in the text, and it is unwise to take this as fact, let alone build upon it.46 Rackham’s conclusion is sound: “This stormy scene is our last sight of the supreme court of the Jews, the elders of Israel. It left Lysias no more enlightened than before, except as to the personal importance of the apostle.”47   11  The following night brings a vision48 of neither angel nor spirit but of the Lord, conveying both consolation and information.49 Paul will survive whatever Jerusalem has in store. He is destined to be a witness50 in Rome. 51 Verse 11 is one of the “hinge” moments in Acts that serve both as conclusions to the preceding and as introductions to what follows.

45 The verb diaspavw was used literally of the martyroujdei`~ ajqavnato~? Étude de vocabulaire religieuse,” dom of the philosopher Hypatia. See A. WesterRHR 100 (1936) 188–206; and Walter Grundmann, mann, Biografoi. Vitarum scriptores Graeci minores “qarrevw,” TDNT 3:25–27. Note also the Delos Are(Braunschweig: Westermann, 1845; reprinted, talogy line 77 (see Appendix 2), with the comments Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964) 444. of Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 51. Aune discusses 46 Marshall (371–72) uses this as grounds for implying this oracle in Prophecy, 267. that Luke did not know of Paul’s death as a result 50 Christology is the subject. See the phrase ta; periv of this legal process (but note his reservations on (lit. “the things concerning”) in Luke 24:19, 27; p. 426). 13:29; 18:25. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 369) 47 Rackham, 434. omits this phrase and “you” as the subject of “wit48 On the literary function of revelations, see Pervo, ness.” Profit, 72–74. 51 The use of “must” (dei`) in 19:21 and 23:11 cre49 Witherington (793) observes: “Certainly after a day ates irony. For a formal parallel, see Josephus like he had had, Paul could use such divine reassurVit. 208–9, where, amidst grievous difficulties, ance.” The introductory qavrsei (“take heart”) has he received a nocturnal vision. His visitor, unlike a place in announcements of salvation, whence its Paul’s, promised Josephus many boons and beneappearances in miracle stories (Matt 9:2, 22; Mark factions. (The oracle closes with a statement that 10:49, avoided by Luke). See M. Simon, “qavrsei. he must [dei`] fight the Romans.)

576

Acts part 3C.indd 576

8/27/2008 10:24:42 AM

23:12-35

23

23:12-35  A Plot against Paul 12/ When day came a the Jews concocted a plot, b solemnly vowing neither to eat nor to drink until they had killed Paul. c 13/ More than forty entered into this conspiracy. d 14/ They approached the high priest and the elders with this message: “We have vowed with the utmost solemnitye to taste nothing f until we have killed Paul.” 23:15: Conventional Text 15/

“Now you people must, together with the Sanhedrin, advise the tribune that he is to bring Paul back before you on the grounds that you wish to make a more thorough and decisive inquiry into his situation. We shall be ready to kill him g before he can get there.”h

16/

Paul’s sister’s son caught wind of the proposed ambush and went to the fort to inform his uncle. 17/ Paul summoned j a centurion and said, “Take k this young man to the tribune, as he has some information to give him.” 18/ The centurion l accompanied the youth to the tribune, and said, “The prisoner Paul summoned me and asked that I convey this lad to you because he has information for you.” 19/ The tribune took him by the hand to a spot where they could speak privately and asked, “What is it that you wish to tell me?”m “The Jews have arranged n to request that you send Paul to the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the grounds o of making a more thorough inquiry.”

20/

23:15 D-Texti 15/

23:21: Conventional Text 21/

“Don’t let them convince you, 21/ for they are going to ambush him. More than forty of them have vowed neither to eat nor to drink until they have assassinated him. They are already prepared and merely waiting for your consent.”

“We therefore ask you: Do the following for us: summon the Sanhedrin; advise the tribune that he is to bring Paul back before you on the grounds that you wish to make a [ ] decisive inquiry into his situation. We shall be ready to kill him, [ ] even though we too have to die.”

23:21: D-Textp “Don’t let them convince you [ ]; more than forty of them are prepared to kill him. They have even vowed to taste nothing until they have accomplished this.”

577

Acts part 3C.indd 577

8/27/2008 10:24:42 AM

22/

The tribune sent the young man away, warning him to tell no one “what you have disclosed to me.”q 23:23-25: N-A27

23/

24/

25/

He summoned two particular centurions r and said: “Make preparations for two hundred infantry, seventy cavalry and two hundred of other arms s to proceed toward Caesarea beginning at 2100.” He also ordered them to provide mounts for Paul, whom they were to deliver safely to Governor Felix.

23:23-25: Boismardu 23/

He summoned two centurions and ordered that they be ready to depart.

24/

and to provide mounts for Paul, whom they were to take to Caesarea at night to Governor Felix, for he was afraid that the Jews might seize and kill Paul, and that afterwards he would be liable to the charge of having taken money. 25/ He prepared a letter containing the following: v

He prepared the following letter: t

23:23-24: Clarkw

“Prepare soldiers to go to Caesarea, one hundred cavalry x and two hundred of other arms,” and he commanded that they be ready to leave at 2100. 24/ And he directed the centurions to provide mounts for Paul and deliver him by night to Governor Felix, for he was afraid that the Jews might seize and kill Paul, and that afterwards he would be liable to the charge of having taken money.”

26/ “Claudius Lysias to Governor Felix Your Excellency. Acts 23:27-30: Conventional Text 27/

30/

31/

“This man was caught by the Jews, who were about to kill him. I arrived with a detachment and extracted him when I found out that he was a Roman citizen. 28/ As I was determined to discover the grounds y behind their accusation, I brought him z before their Sanhedrin. 29/ It transpired that they were charging him on matters pertinent to their law, but not of any capital offense or of some crime demanding incarceration. “When it came to my attention that there was a plot against his life, I determined that I should send him to you forthwith. I have also instructed his accusers to lay their charges regarding him before you.”

Acts 23:27-30: D-Textaa 27/

“I rescued because he was shouting and claiming to be a Roman citizen. . . .

29/

“. . . charging him with nothing more than matters pertinent to the law of Moses and about one Jesus, but not performing any capital offense [ ]. I was barely able to get him out of there and had to use force. [ ] I have sent him bb to you [ ] I have also instructed his accusers to come before you.”

30/

In accordance with their orders, the soldiers took Paul to ­A ntipatris, traveling by night.

578

Acts part 3C.indd 578

8/27/2008 10:24:42 AM

23:12-35

32/ The next day the infantry returned to their fort, leaving the cavalry to escort him. 33/ The latter went on to Caesarea, where they delivered the letter to the governor and brought Paul before him. 34/ After reading the communication, Felix asked Paul for his province of residence and learned that it was Cilicia. 35/ “I shall hear your case when your accusers arrive,” he said, and then directed that Paul be detained in Herod’s palace. a

b

c

d

e

f g h

i j

k

l

B and a range of witnesses read te instead of dev. This appears to create a closer link between v. 11 and v. 12, underlying the contrast between divine and human plans. The D-Text, supported by m, reads “some of the Jews.” This is a rationalization that exposes Luke’s intention to blame the Jews in general for Paul’s fate. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 370) makes “conspiring” a participle. P48 reads (with reconstructions) genomevnh" de; hJmevra" kait (up to seven letters missing) bohvqeian sustrafevnte~ tine~ . . . Barrett (2:1073) takes bohvqeian to mean “an auxiliary force.” It might mean “assembling a force by conspiratorial means.” On the survival of the subjunctive in such clauses as e{w" ou| ajpokteivnwsin (“until . . .”) here and in v. 14, see BDF §383 (2). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 370) is more prosaic: “Those who had made this vow were more than forty.” The phrase ajnaqevmati ajneqemativsamen is a Septuagintalism, although not unintelligible because Greek can use cognate nouns in the dative. Its purpose here is to intensify (thus “utmost”). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 371) adds “at all” (to; suvnolon). M adds: “tomorrow,” harmonizing with v. 20. Luke’s penchant for the genitive of the articular infinitive is notable in v. 15. See Bruce (468), who lists many examples. Boismard, Texte, 371. The verb proskalevw in Luke and Acts always applies to the words of a superior to an inferior: Luke 7:18; 15:26; 16:5; 18:16; Acts 2:39; 5:40; 6:2; 13:2, 7; 16:10; 23:23. Witnesses attest both present and aorist imperatives. Barrett (2:1075) states that the aorist is probably secondary, but the distinction may be too refined. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 373) adds “immediately,” reassuring the reader that the officer did not

m n

o

p q

r

s t u

v

delay for a day or two. This replaces the me;n ou\n that seems to mark a new section, framed by the same particle in v. 22. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 374) places this in indirect discourse. Cf. also v. 22. According to Boismard (Texte, 374), the D-Text is toi`~ ÆIoudaivoi~ sunefwnhvqh (“It has been agreed upon by the Jews”), as in 5:9. This may reflect the Latin translation rather than a genuine variant. The participle mevllon, nicely qualified by wJ~ to indicate the speaker’s distance from the claim, seems properly to modify “Sanhedrin,” but it was regarded as problematic, for the variants are numerous. See Ropes, Text, 219; and Barrett, 2:1076. Boismard, Texte, 375. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 375) eliminates the mixture of indirect and direct discourse in favor of the former. The mixture is not uncommon in Acts. See BDF §470 (2) and the comments at 1:4. The translation accepts duvo tinav" as more difficult. BDF §301 judges it possible, but variants tend to eliminate one or the other. Another strong possibility is that the original said “some” (perhaps one or two for the infantry, another for the cavalry, and one or two for the “other arms,” reduced to “two” by the D-Text that included soldiers from two branches). On the meaning of “other arms,” see below. Or (less likely): “a letter to this effect.” Boismard, Texte, 376–77. kai; proskalesavmeno" duvo tw`n eJkatontarcw`n dietavxato eJtoivmou~ ­ ei\nai ejxelqei`n kai; [24] kthvnh parasth`sai i{na ejpibibavsante" to;n Pau`lon nukto;~ ajgavwsin eij~ Kaisavreian pro;" Fhvlika to;n hJgemovna. [25] ejfobhvqh ga;r mhvpote ejxarpavxante~ aujto;n oiJ ÆIoudai`oi ajpokteivnwsin kai; aujto;~ metaxu; e[gklhma e[ch/ wJ~ eijlhfw;~ ajrguvria. The Greek is perievcousan tavde. P48 reads “writing to them a letter in which was written” (gravya~ de; aujtoi`~ ejpistole;n ejn h/| ejgevgrapto).

579

Acts part 3C.indd 579

8/27/2008 10:24:42 AM

w x

Clark, 379–80. This figure has good D-Text support. Although Boismard (Texte, 376) claims syhmg in support of the blank, it does include the number “one hundred.” See his comments, 377. y On the meaning of aijtiva (in general, “cause”), see Cadbury and Lake, 294. z “Him” is supplied in the translation (and is a v.l.). Evidently the author regards “this man” (v. 27) as the object. aa Boismard, Texte, 378–79. bb Having omitted the reference to the conspiracy, the

Analysis

This thrilling story has every mark of a free authorial composition without the assistance of a source, although the essential facts, that Paul was taken into custody in Jerusalem and transferred to Caesarea, are presumably correct and may have been found in the Collection Source or, possibly, in a lost communication of Paul.1 The structure is clear: 1. (Vv. 12-15). The Plot 2 against Paul is Concocted.  (location undisclosed) a. V. 12. The Conspirators’ Oath. b. Vv. 13-15. The Conspirators Enlist the Leadership. 2. (Vv. 16-22). The Plot Is Unmasked.  (prison) a. Vv. 16-17. His Nephew Informs Paul, Who Sends Him to the Tribune. b. Vv. 18-22. The Tribune Interviews the Young Man. 3. (Vv. 23-35). Paul Is Taken to Safety.  (From Jerusalem to Caesarea) a. (Vv. 23-34). Lysias’s Plans. b. (Vv. 25-30). Lysias’s Letter to Felix. c. (Vv. 31-33). Paul Is Transported to the Capital. d. (Vv. 34-35). Felix’s Initial Disposition of the Case.

The narrative technique is omniscient in style, with a preference for direct speech3 and but one unit (3.c) of true summary.4 The scenes contain two characters 1 2 3

D-Text adds a pronoun. (Evidence for this omission is limited to an Ethiopic version. The text of v. 30 is certainly confused—or mixed. The future infinitive of “to be” is gratuitous. Most extant D-Texts, followed by M (gig sy p sa), read the equivalent of mevllein e[sesqai uJpo; tw`n ÆIoudaivwn (“there was going to be [redundant] a plot by the Jews”) before “forthwith.” In all, six variants exist. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 433. Boismard may be too daring, but the text did present problems. Corruption cannot be excluded. On this stilted sentence, see also BDF §424 (2) and Barrett, 2:1084–85.

each (one of which may be collective), with one character remaining from the previous scene and another entering. Paul is the subject, but the central character is the tribune, who plays a key role in the imprisonment section of Acts. 5 Although the net result is transfer from one jail to another, Paul gains several advantages, the most important of which is that the Roman governor will hear the case. He escapes both a dire ambush and the inevitable result of judgment by the Sanhedrin. While describing these maneuvers, which have “the intrinsic charm of a boy’s adventure,”6 the narrator reinforces two of his key points. The first of these is the implacable hatred on the part of “the Jews,” who take a strict vow to assassinate their enemy and engage the cooperation of the temple leaders, who raise no objection to complicity in this nefarious scheme. The other side is the view of Paul taken by the tribune. His security became the immediate and highest priority of that officer, who moved promptly and efficiently to protect Paul, delegating major forces to the task and taking pains to assure the governor that no serious charges are involved. Finally, this is the grand climax of all the Jewish plots against Paul, which began a short time after his conversion (9:23), and is an intimation of his ultimate fate. The situation in Jerusalem has reached an impasse, since the officer has little notion of the charges. The

For a critique of attempts to identify a more extensive source here, see Weiser, 2:620–21. For the sake of variety, Luke uses three terms to describe this conspiracy. See Johnson, 403. As is often the case in popular narrative, the characters tend to speak to one another in the imperative mood (vv. 15, 17, 21, 23).

4 5

6

1.a. could be called a summary statement. Tribune: 21:31, 32, 33, 37; 22:24, 26-29; 23:10, 15, 17-19, 22; 24:22. Acts 25:23 indicates their high status. Johnson, 407.

580

Acts part 3C.indd 580

8/27/2008 10:24:43 AM

23:12-35

conspirators seek to exploit his desire for knowledge by overwhelming Paul (and the tribune, with the escorting detail?) en route to another hearing. Word of the plan gets out. Paul, it transpires, has a nephew in Jerusalem, who learns about these developments and comes to inform his uncle, who, in turn, directs an available centurion to escort the youth to the commandant. The commander, for his part, is wise enough to offer the young man privacy. With the ease of experience, this professional snaps off orders to a subordinate while composing a letter. Security concerns, as well as the imminence of the threat, recommend a nocturnal operation. The size of the opposition calls for a substantial force. Lysias won’t send a boy to do a man’s job.7 With this task force goes the communication from the commandant, who engages in some amusing self-exculpation. The combination of speed and force succeed. The night march reaches Antipatris, beyond the murderers’ reach, after which the infantry returns to base, leaving the cavalry escort to finish the mission. The governor, Felix, ascertains the basic facts and promises a hearing when the complainants arrive. Trial by a procurator is vastly preferable to the kind of kangaroo courts over which high priests preside. Some grounds for hope exist, now that Paul has eluded a truly fiendish plot. As for said conspirators, the reader is free to exercise whatever charity or lack of the same is available and desired. Few oaths will outlive the demands of nature. The crisp professionalism of the tribune is admirable, but one might well ask why this officer, duly forewarned, did not simply increase security and deny the request 7

8

9

for a hearing and/or launch an investigation into the matter, with the objective of discomforting the leadership and bringing the conspirators to justice. Had he wished to get Paul out of harm’s way, a much smaller detachment would have sufficed to elude a few dozen ill-armed amateurs. Those who swallow the story whole must also accept the slanderous characterization of the Sanhedrin. Comment   12-13  “The Jews” do not want Paul to see Rome or

another sunrise. The number of conspirators8 and the severity of their vow are indicators of the quantity and quality of the hatred generated by Paul, but the conspirators display limited sagacity.9 Avoidance of nourishment10 is not desirable for those intending to carry out a desperate scheme, and the number of conspirators is too large for the project,11 posing a security risk.   14-15  Following (unknown to them) a path marked out by Judas (Luke 22:4), they communicate their solemn resolve to the leadership, whose assistance they require. No time had to be wasted debating the morality or desirability of murdering Paul, nor need they concern themselves with dissenting Pharisees.12 To get Paul out-of-doors they trot out the increasingly shopworn idea of gathering information.13 These individuals evidently believed that the tribune would find the proposal appropriate. The D-Text, especially that of v. 15, is more colorful and probably even more hostile. By having the Sanhedrin assembled by its

Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:295) describes Lysias as a “round character,” capable of adjustment and change. This is at least partly valid, especially in contrast to “the Jews,” who are melodramatic ­v illains. For such conspiracies, see Plutarch Caes. 7 (Cataline) and 64 (Brutus and Cassius). Paul is of comparable importance. Conspiracies and plots were no less common in ancient politics than modern. One example is the plot of many leading Alexandrians against the local Jews; see Philo Flac. 20–24, whose colorful characterization of the principals illuminates many of the villains depicted in Acts. For details, see Pieter van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series

10 11 12 13

2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 108–13. James took a similar vow in anticipation of the resurrection (Gos. Heb. 4). Cadbury and Lake, 291. This may be why Luke does not use the term “Sanhedrin” in v. 14. Some form or compound of gignwvskw appears, usually with a form of ajkribwv~, in 21:34; 22:24, 30; 23:15, 20, 28; cf. 24:22.

581

Acts part 3C.indd 581

8/27/2008 10:24:43 AM

leadership, the centurion is absolved of any (potential) responsibility, while readiness to die—in effect to take the role of modern “suicide bombers”—underlines their ­fanaticism.14   16-17  The narrator introduces a deus ex machina. A nephew of Paul erupts on the scene.15 No hint of the existence of a family has previously emerged. This nameless young man16 has given wing to imaginative constructions.17 He is an ad hoc character who disappears as soon as he has fulfilled his function. The narrator has no interest in detailing how the nephew got word of the conspiracy.18 He did so and came to visit Paul, who promptly summoned a centurion and ordered him to take the man to his commanding officer.19   18  The next scene (vv. 18-22) could have been handled as summarily as v. 16, but the narrator wishes to make more of it, developing suspense and supplying a bit of relief.20 The centurion followed his orders ­meticulously.

  19-22  The tribune, who serves as one of Paul’s chief helpers in Acts, 21 reveals his perception and sensitivity.22 The nephew pours it all out. His voice is that of the narrator: the conspirators are “the Jews” (“them” in v. 21). Two new data emerge: the attack is scheduled for the next day, and the assassins await the tribune’s response (presumably to the Sanhedrin’s request). The D-Text of v. 21 is more compressed and vigorous. Following the line advanced in v. 15, it eliminates the tribune from discussion, throwing all attention upon the enmity of the terrorists. Recurrence of the verb ejmfanivzw (“inform”) creates a bit of irony. The tribune has been “informed,” although not as the conspirators had wished.23 No reader of Acts is surprised that the tribune assumes the truth of this report and does not pause to make inquiry or investigation.24   23-24  Although the D-Text (or texts) is variously reconstructed,25 it exhibits consistency in the p ­ reference

14 See the comments of Epp, Tendency, 151. 15 Cf. Livy 39.11: A young man Aebutius, evicted from his home because of his reluctance to undergo Dionysiac initiation, went to stay with his aunt, who, informed of his situation, urged him to go to the consul Postumius. This led to the exposure of the “Bacchanalian conspiracy.” 16 The anonymous nephew is called a neaniva~ (v. 17), a term also applied to Saul (7:58) and Eutychus (20:9). The label covers a wide range, from young adulthood to early middle age by present-day standards. Alternating with this is neanivsko~ (vv. 18, 22, with neaniva~ as a well-attested variant in 18). The tribune’s paternalistic treatment inclines modern readers to regard him as a boy. On this character, see Spencer (“Wise Up, Young Man,” 46–48), who finds him the one good “young man” in Acts. 17 For example, Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 35), who reasonably asks how this young man obtained his information, “which was concocted by a band of zealots, and arranged in private with the high priests and elders?” He concludes that the youth, a member of an influential family, had heard it “in the house of a leading Jew.” The lad could not have been a Christian. From this, he deduces (312) that Paul used his inheritance to finance the expenses of his trial. 18 The participle paragenovmeno" could be construed with ajkouvsa~ (“hearing”) and mean that he was present when it was formulated or on an occasion when it was being discussed, but this involves

19

20 21 22

23 24

25

t­ wisting the syntax. The most logical association is with eijselqwvn (“entering”). See Bruce, 469. Boismard (Texte, 372) replaces it: “. . . their plot. He came to the fort and going to Paul. . . .” This appears to be based on the Latin translation venit rather than on a genuine variant. Visitation rights in Greco-Roman prisons were left to the discretion of the personnel. Security (Lucian Tox. 32), bribery (Act. Paul 3.18–19), disposition (Mart. Perp. 3; 9), and the status of the prisoner (and the visitor) were leading factors. Paul’s status and the good will of the tribune are established by his ability to give orders to centurions, a form of authority shared with the tribune (see proskalevw in vv. 17 and 23). On the subject of visitors in general, see Rapske, Roman Custody, 382–83. So also Conzelmann, 194; and Haenchen, 646. In chap. 27, this role will be taken by another officer, the centurion Julius. Loisy (840) was impressed by this display of consideration, which he did not believe was a common element of the makeup of such career officers. On the tactic, see Chariton Chaer. 1.4.5. Barrett (2:1077) suggests a difference in technical nuance, but that does not abolish the irony. Chrysostom asks why the tribune believed this story and answers that it was made probable on account of the previous conduct of Paul’s adversaries (Hom. 49, p. 412). The narrator would have been pleased. For another attempt, see Cadbury and Lake, 292–93. The principal witnesses are h syhmg and p 48.

582

Acts part 3C.indd 582

8/27/2008 10:24:43 AM

23:12-35

of indirect for direct discourse.26 This suggests a single, rational mind at work. Said rational mind evidently regarded the almost certainly more original conventional text as a fantasy in need of improvement. The D-Text once again reveals “precritical” concern with some of the issues that have troubled more recent scholars of a critical bent. The two most cogent of these are the size of the force employed 27 and the motive of Claudius Lysias. Rather than acting solely in the interest of protecting Paul, the tribune fears that he will be held responsible for the proposed assassination on the grounds of having accepted a bribe (cf. 24:26). The escort is reduced from 470, a good half or more of the cohort (which may have been below authorized strength and further reduced by detachments and patrols), 28 to three hundred (Clark) or an unspecified number (Boismard). This text may be construed as including two centuries.29 A minor difficulty is d ­ exiolavboi (“other arms”), a term so obscure that it must be original. 30 The term refers to military personnel, 31 as the temple police or locally recruited

personnel of some type would have been unacceptable for security r­ easons. 32 The reason for this operation and the task force established to execute it appears in v. 24: the rescue of Paul. The verb (diasw/vzw) otherwise appears in connection with his delivery from the shipwreck (27:43-44; 28:1, 4). Both are “miracle stories,” illustrating the invisible hand of Providence in similar situations: the salvation of Paul by the intervention of a Roman officer while he is in transit from one place of custody to another. This was too improbable for the D-Text,33 but it is far from improbable for Luke, as this adventure is a warm-up for chap. 27. Luke likes good stories, including long ones, and he likes to provide them with a “moral,” as it were.   25  The language used to introduce the letter exhibits variety. The alternatives intend to assure the reader that the exact wording is preserved, since e[cousan to;n tuvpon tou`ton (lit. “having this form”) could be otherwise construed. Any debate is a tempest in a teapot, since the letter was clearly written by Luke,34 and “the

26 Moule (Idiom Book, 126) is willing to consider the “warder,” which means jail guards. This is not infinitive parasth`sai (“provide”) as imperative likely here, unless the sense is that of “constabuin meaning. This would avoid another shift from lary.” LSJ, 379, s.v. says “spearman,” “guards” in direct to direct, as in v. 22. the plural, but this is a conjecture, probably based 27 Chrysostom perceived the point: Paul is escorted on the Vulgate lancearios. The word may have “like a king” (Hom. 50, p. 417). been technical jargon (Schneider, 2:339 n. 27) or 28 Barrett (2:1077–78), who notes that the figure it may have been a more popular expression, like would range from one-half to nearly all of the gar“Redcoats.” Saddington (“Roman Military,” 2416) rison, depending on the kind of cohort stationed suggests “archers” as a possibility. there. Conzelmann (194), who accepts the estimate 32 Against G. Kilpatrick, “Acts xxiii, 23: dexiolavboi,” of one-half, says that the number is “sheer fantasy.” JTS 14 (1963) 393–94. Auxiliary cohorts had a nominal strength of one 33 See above. Ms. h reads deducerent (“conduct”), thousand. See H. M. D. Parker, G. R. Watson, and supported by Ephrem, 446. Clark’s reconstruction J. C. N. Coulston, “Cohors,” OCD, 356. (which includes “save”) is less likely. 29 That this was a mixed group is apparent in 34 See 3 Macc. 3:30; cf. 1 Macc 11:29; 14:2; 2 Macc Boismard’s D-Text of vv. 31-33, on which see 1:24; 11:16; Aristeas 34; Josephus Ant. 11.12; Philo below. One motive for editorial intervention is the Decal. 32.168. The primary meaning of tuvpo~ is strangely placed purpose clause (o{pw~ poreuqw`sin “copy,” but it can also mean “model.” Edwin Judge [“so that they might come”]) in v. 23. This intermakes a vigorous plea for “(exact) copy” New Doc 1 venes between “two hundred soldiers” and “seventy (1981) no. 26, pp. 77–78. Cadbury and Lake (294) horsemen” and could lead a critic to suspect are judicious but clear on authorship (Luke). Those ­interpolation. who wish to find this an exact copy must show why 30 A 33 read dexiobovlou". it was written in Greek and, more importantly, how 31 For various guesses and proposals, ancient and the author of Acts could have gained access to it. modern, see BDAG, 217, s.v. Byzantine historians On those matters, see Haenchen, 647–48. (This is used the term for light-armed soldiery of some not to deny that a letter may have been written to kind. Latin h evidently read armati (“armed men”), accompany the transfer but to state that this letter on which see Ropes, Text, 221. The lexicographiis fictitious.) cal tradition defines the term as parafuvlax,

583

Acts part 3C.indd 583

8/27/2008 10:24:43 AM

account of what happened is business-like, terse, and misleading.”35 This is another way of saying that the last idea in the author’s mind was that the letter gave a general purport of what Lysias wrote. Nearly every syllable is significant.   27-30  Although the letter has a formally correct address,36 it lacks such features as a thanksgiving for the sender’s or a wish for the recipient’s well-being, and a farewell.37 There is no dearth of technical jargon. 38 Other omissions are more revealing. The communication should have said, in effect, “Herewith transferred to your custody is one N. N. Paulus, a Roman citizen (and also a citizen of Tarsus). . . .”39 This is to say that the letter is intelligible only to the readers of the book. The body is entirely narrative, and its purpose is to contribute to the general narrative in two ways: by adding another “voice,” that is, allowing the reader to see the matter from Lysias’s point of view, and through providing additional information. The function of this letter is novelistic. A military officer knows what course to take with a prisoner: Mitranes the Commander of Guards to Oroondates the Satrap. I am sending you a young Greek I have taken prisoner. He is too handsome to remain in my service, too excellent to come before or wait upon anyone but his Divine Majesty, the King of Kings. I

humbly accept that you should have the honor of conveying to him who is master of us both a gift of such value and splendor, a jewel the like of which the royal court has never beheld before and will never behold again. (Ethiopian Story 5.9.2) 40 The anonymous (like Paul) subject is the hero Theagenes.41 Mitranes, the author, seeks to receive whatever credit he can by ingratiating himself with the satrap. The object of this letter is to communicate, through the voice of an objective witness, our hero’s astonishing good looks. Male beauty was not Lysias’s primary concern just then. In rather good Greek, marked by substantial hypotaxis,42 he crisply delineates a number of pertinent matters: the circumstances of the arrest, the investigation,43 his own view of the merits of the case, his reason for sending Paul to Caesarea, and his transfer of the case to the governor’s jurisdiction. The last item (v. 30b) is fresh and not without difficulties. Although it may mean no more than “it seemed best to refer the complainants to you,” it raises the question of prior jurisdiction. The narrative never states that Lysias conceded the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, but his own authority is left unclear. Legally, capital jurisdiction resided in the hands of the procurator. Another new factor is the existence of formal accusers, and thus of charges. Neither has been mentioned

35 Foakes Jackson, 211. 36 The word order varies. One witness (1848) omits the name. An example from the dramatic date is OGIS 667.3–4 (under Nero) ÆIoulivou Oujhstivnou tou` krativstou hJgemovno~ (“His excellency the governor Julius Vestinus”). From the approximate date of Acts comes CPJ 443.1–2 (117 ce) ïRammivw/ Martiavli tw/` krativstw/ hJgemovni . . . caivrein (“To his excellency the governor Rammius Martialis . . . Greetings”). Rammius Martialis was the prefect of Egypt. (Restorations are certain.) On the form of the greeting, see Paul Wendland, Die urchristliche Literaturformen (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912) 412. There are many surveys of Greek epistolography, e.g., John L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Foundations and Facets, New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 187–221; and David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 158–82. For a detailed analysis, see Klauck, Ancient Letters, 429–34. 37 The manuscript tradition made up for this deficit.

38 39

40 41 42 43

Letters embedded in ancient novels frequently pare down the formalities. See, e.g., Ephesian Tale 2.12 (and note the irony produced by the viewpoint and dissembling of the sender). On the function of epistolography in ancient fiction, see Pervo, Profit, 77. Historians also composed letters. Eupolemus, for example, supplies the text of the correspondence between Solomon and Hiram (frg. 2.33.1–34.3; cf. 1 Kgs 5:1-12; 2 Chr 2:1-16) and adds letters between Solomon and king of Egypt (frg. 2.31.1–32). See Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments,” 184–90. Conzelmann (195) notes eight or nine technical legal terms in vv. 27-35. See also below. One would also expect the letter to state by whose hand it is being delivered, presumably the commander of the task force. Trans. J. R. Morgan in Reardon, Novels, 452. Note also the lack of a closing. Verse 30 is an exception. The letter does not state that Lysias had convened the Sanhedrin (v. 28).

584

Acts part 3C.indd 584

8/27/2008 10:24:43 AM

23:12-35

hitherto. Verse 29 also establishes that the imbroglio of vv. 1-10 was a forensic proceeding. The circumstances of Paul’s arrest are vague. One might conclude that he had been seized by Jewish officials who were about to administer summary justice (as in the case of Stephen). Not unwisely, Lysias forgoes any mention of the riot in the temple, as governors were not pleased by such disturbances. Equally amusing is the implication that he rescued Paul from “the Jews” after he had discovered his Roman citizenship. Readers know better.44 Lysias (and the narrator) has a motive for introducing charges and accusers. The readers learn his interpretation of 23:1-10. In language that comes rather close to the conclusions of Gallio (18:14-15; cf. also 25:19), he judges his prisoner innocent and the issue a dispute over Jewish law.45 Verse 29 is the dramatic climax of this summary. An objective reader might wonder why the punishments of death or imprisonment were even being considered. With this phrase, the narrator reveals the hitherto unstated gravity of the situation: Paul’s life and/or his freedom are at issue. Were it not for these unspecified charges, he would have been all but obliged to release the prisoner. Lysias has, in fact, two reasons for sending Paul to Caesarea: jurisdiction and the plot against him. Once more, one must ask why he did not keep Paul in close, protective custody, write Felix about the matter, which the governor could have taken up when he next came to Jerusalem, or, if such were his pleasure, have the prisoner sent to Caesarea and get down to the business of torturing suspects to identify the conspirators. Verse 30 contains an additional difficulty: in theory, the actions of sending Paul to the governor and instructing his accusers to apply to that source are simultaneous,46 but Lysias would not have so advised them until he had received word of Paul’s safe arrival or,

at the earliest, upon the return of his infantry. This slip is most likely due to the author.47 To reiterate: making sense of Lysias’s actions is difficult, beginning with his arrest of Paul on the grounds that he was a terrorist. His role in Acts, to protect Paul, is over.48 The D-Text intensifies Lysias’s reconstruction. He rescued Paul because he was claiming to be a Roman citizen. This is even more amusing than the conventional text. Verse 29 is more specific: the Law of Moses was debated, as well as “Jesus.” This is an interpretation of the resurrection debate, oriented to specific Christian issues rather than to afterlife in general.49 In place of the possibly anticlimactic “death or jail” is only “death,” and the report speaks about what Paul was doing rather than charges. Not wishing to miss a chance to take a shot at the Sanhedrin, the D-Text, improving on 23:10, states that force was required to extricate Paul from the brawl. 50 Elimination of a reference to the conspiracy would have been a good idea, for it overly complicates the matter.   31-33  “So within a fortnight Paul was back at Caesarea, and the apprehensions of the disciples there were fulfilled.”51 A great deal of water has passed beneath the bridge within this short time, and Paul has been “delivered” in bonds to gentile officials. The general outline is straightforward and evidently reasonable: after a night march to Antipatris, the infantry return to barracks, leaving Paul, safe from his desperate adversaries, to be escorted to the capital by the mounted force. Once there, letter and prisoner are delivered to the governor, who conducts a brief interrogation and promises to hear the case when the adversaries are available. Some of the details may derive from a source. Antipatris could have been a station on the route from Jerusalem to Caesarea, Felix was the procurator, and “Herod’s Palace” would

44 On the humor here, see Hemer, Book, 348. 45 Haenchen (648) correctly underlines the remarkable character of this assertion. 46 Both may be construed as epistolary aorists. 47 Conzelmann, 195. Haenchen (648) says that this detail is for the reader. 48 Acts 24:22 will mention him once more, to arouse hope. 49 This was probably inspired by 25:19. 50 The motive for this comes from the D-Text interpolation at 24:7. The reviser fails to see that the Lysias of the more original text wished to minimize violence in Jerusalem.

Acts part 3C.indd 585

51 Rackham, 440. Acts 21:15-17 narrates the journey to Jerusalem, which could be construed as two days in length; 21:18 marks a day, 21:27 seven days, 22:30, 23:12, and 23:32 subsequent single days.

585

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

have been suitable for confinement. 52 Problems nonetheless exist. The first (to modern eyes) is that around sixty kilometers separate Jerusalem from Antipatris. 53 This is too long a march for any body on foot, especially at night. 54 The purpose of Felix’s question is not clear. Verses 31-33 are vague. The initial subject is the collective “soldiers,” presumably the infantry, who evidently return the next day, after reaching Antipatris. Sense also dictates that the cavalry are the subject of v. 33, but these interpretations depend more on deciding what the narrator wished to report than on lucid Greek. 55 The ambiguity resides in the style of popular narrative, which is willing to allow a ubiquitous “they” to perform actions.   34-35  Felix’s question would have been unnecessary had the letter provided the appropriate details about the prisoner, including his parentage, place of birth, and the charges against him. 56 A proper libellus ought to have contained these details. 57 The purpose is not explained,

and A. N. Sherwin-White’s attempts to shed light on it do not obviate his observation that the reader expects Felix to use the datum to avoid hearing the case. 58 One fact contained in Lysias’s letter should have priority: Paul was a Roman citizen (v. 27). Felix might well have referred the case of a citizen of relatively high status to Rome or, at least, to the proconsul in Antioch. As a citizen of Tarsus, a “free” city, Paul would not necessarily have been subject to ordinary provincial prosecution. 59 Sherwin-White attempted to tackle the data presented in Acts 21–26 seriatim and provide an acceptable independent explanation of each item.60 He did not offer a comprehensive picture based on the standing of Roman citizens before the law. Another deficit was his failure even to consider whether some of these data were unreliable.61 The mystery remains. The narrator may have introduced Felix’s question to generate suspense.62 Its most obvious literary function is to provide ­verisimilitude.

52 The assumption is that Herod’s principal palace would have become the praetorium of the Roman government. Praetoria included cells and guard barracks (Phil 1:13; 4:22). Josephus (Bell. 1:408) speaks of “palaces” (basivleia). For a conjecture about the locality (with a photo), see Kenneth Holum et al., King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (New York: Norton, 1988) 86–87; and Rapske, Roman Custody, 156–57, with appropriate ­reservations. 53 The location of Antipatris is not absolutely certain. Moshe Kochavi (“Antipatris,” ABD 1:272–74) is confident about the site, but see also Fitzmyer, 729; and Barrett, 2:1085–86. 54 An exception is Witherington (697), who speaks of what Roman troops could do “when a crisis situation was involved.” That may have been the case, but even if one agrees that this was a crisis, the detachment was large enough to beat off an attack by fewer than fifty fanatics and had no need for a forced march. Finally, these were not Roman regulars. 55 Strictly construed, the participle ejavsante~ (“allowing”) in v. 32 is “the soldiers,” but one doubts that they acted collectively. See Barrett, 2:1086. 56 Lucius, suddenly transformed from animal to human form in the theater at Thessalonica, was in danger of being lynched. He rushed to the governor and begged to be placed in protective custody. The official asked for his name, those of his parents and relatives, and of his city. These questions

57

58 59 60

61

62

he answered, stating that his native city was Patras in Achaea (Onos 54–55). Similar interrogations appear in martyr acts (e.g., Mart. Carpi 24–27 and Mart. Justini et al. 4.7–8). Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 54–55) describes the requirement of a libellus advising provincial authorities about criminal matters. Ibid., 55–56. Ibid. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 48–70. He built on the work of Theodor Mommsen, “Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,” ZNW 2 (1902) 81–96, with which he was in critical dialogue. For more recent work on these questions, see p. 655 n. 45. An exception is the status of Cilicia, which Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 57) allows may not have been a province at the dramatic date. Cilicia became a distinct province under Vespasian (69–79) in 72 ce, according to Suetonius Vesp. 8.4, on which see Arnold H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 208. See also Pervo, Dating, 338–39. The style, a mixture of indirect and direct discourse, is Lucan, and the anachronistic reference to Cilicia (previous note) suggests that it probably did not derive from a contemporary source.

586

Acts part 3C.indd 586

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

23:12-35

The D-Text of vv. 31-35, as reconstructed by Boismard,63 appears to address some of these issues. In v. 31 it omits (with p 74) “at night.” This could be taken as dealing with the problem of distance; that is, the journey could have taken longer than one night. Verses 32-33a appear in a shorter sentence: “The next day, after dismissing the soldiers [ ] to the fort, they came to Caesarea. . . .”64 This would evidently imply that the entire military escort departed at Antipatris (leaving the two centurions to conduct Paul to the capital?). This indicates a continuing desire to reduce the excessive size of the force employed. In v. 34 Boismard (following gig) eliminates the reference to Cilicia, but Clark65 includes this in a text that transforms the entire dialogue into direct speech.66 Excursus: Felix Neither the full name nor the exact dates and extent of Felix’s tenure as procurator of Judea are known.67 Whether his gentilicum was “Antonius” or “Claudius” is not material to Acts,68 but the date on which he left office is considered important for Pauline chronology. Felix was an ex-slave who stood high enough in the mind of Claudius to be given the Judean 63 Boismard, Texte, 380–81. 64 th`/ de; ejpauvrion ejavsante" tou;" stratiwvta~ eij" th;n parembolhvn h\lqon eij" th;n Kaisavreian. 65 Clark, 152. Without naming Clark, Boismard (Texte, 381) rejects this, referring to vv. 19 and 22. Those examples would lead one to suspect that the D-Text would utilize indirect discourse in both vv. 34 and 35. 66 Boismard also reports the simple ajkouvsomai (“I shall hear”) for the more technical (Cadbury and Lake, 296) diakouvsomai (“hold a hearing”). 67 See Kirsopp Lake, “The Chronology of Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 445–74, esp. 464–66; Schürer, History, 1:459–66; Smallwood, The Jews, 266–71; M. Wolter, “Fh`lix,” EDNT 3:420; Omerzu, Prozess, 404–6; Saddington, “Roman Military,” 2426–27; and David C. Braund, “Felix,” ABD 2:783. Barrett (2:1080–81) provides a judicious summary, while Conzelmann (194–95) cites a number of the primary sources and has good comments on the chronological question. Alexis Bunine has made a recent argument for 56 as the date of Festus’s accession (“Paul, Jacques, Félix, Festus et les autres: pour une révision de la chronologie des derniers procurateurs de la Palestine,” RB 111 [2004] 387–408, 531–62).

a­ ppointment. This was sufficient to guarantee a hostile evaluation from Tacitus (Hist. 5.9; Ann. 12.54). Josephus is probably more objective, but ultimately holds Felix responsible for the increase in rebellious activity (Bell. 2.252–65; Ant. 20.160–172). Felix was neither the first nor the last colonial official to discover that counter-insurgency campaigns can fuel insurgencies. One of his victims was the insurgent leader Eleazer, whom he captured and, interestingly, sent to Rome (Bell. 2.253; Ant. 20.160).69 While procurator, he married Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I. This suggests, romantic interests notwithstanding, a desire to forge an alliance with the Judean ruling class. According to Josephus, Felix obtained his office on the recommendation of the high priest Jonathan (Ant. 20.162). Luke’s evident source was Josephus,70 from whom he gleaned information about Felix’s Jewish wife and his initial support from the Jewish aristocracy. He used this information to construct a portrait of a governor who worked to retain the support of the native ruling class and therefore denied justice to Paul.71 In historical fact, Felix represents a GrecoRoman success story about a slave who rose to considerable power, accumulated considerable wealth, and persuaded a series of highly placed women to marry him.

68 See Schürer, History, 1:460 n. 19; Frederick F. Bruce, “The Full Name of the Procurator Felix,” JSNT 1 (1978) 33–36; and Colin J. Hemer, “The Name of Felix Again,” JSNT 31 (1987) 45–49. The matter remains open: Frederick E. Brenk and Filippo Canali De Rossi (“The ‘Notorious’ Felix, Procurator of Judea, and His Many Wives [Acts 23–24],” Bib 82 [2001] 410–17) indicate that an inscription from Bir el-Malik does not solve the problem. 69 In Antiquities, Josephus states that Felix captured Eleazer by offering him a safe conduct. The term used for his ruse is ejnevdra (cf. Acts 23:16). Readers of Acts would have no reason to associate Felix with the revolt of Theudas mentioned in 5:36, but he repressed that revolt also. See Pervo, Dating, 152–60. 70 On Luke’s use of Josephus for his portrait of Felix, see Pervo, Dating, 42–43 and 186–87. 71 This decision almost reverses the efforts of commentators like Haenchen (650) to discourage reading Felix’s character from Tacitus and Josephus. Such warnings are appropriate insofar as they insist that one must allow the text of Acts to speak for itself.

587

Acts part 3C.indd 587

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

23:12-35

The D-Text of vv. 31-35, as reconstructed by Boismard,63 appears to address some of these issues. In v. 31 it omits (with p 74) “at night.” This could be taken as dealing with the problem of distance; that is, the journey could have taken longer than one night. Verses 32-33a appear in a shorter sentence: “The next day, after dismissing the soldiers [ ] to the fort, they came to Caesarea. . . .”64 This would evidently imply that the entire military escort departed at Antipatris (leaving the two centurions to conduct Paul to the capital?). This indicates a continuing desire to reduce the excessive size of the force employed. In v. 34 Boismard (following gig) eliminates the reference to Cilicia, but Clark65 includes this in a text that transforms the entire dialogue into direct speech.66 Excursus: Felix Neither the full name nor the exact dates and extent of Felix’s tenure as procurator of Judea are known.67 Whether his gentilicum was “Antonius” or “Claudius” is not material to Acts,68 but the date on which he left office is considered important for Pauline chronology. Felix was an ex-slave who stood high enough in the mind of Claudius to be given the Judean 63 Boismard, Texte, 380–81. 64 th`/ de; ejpauvrion ejavsante" tou;" stratiwvta~ eij" th;n parembolhvn h\lqon eij" th;n Kaisavreian. 65 Clark, 152. Without naming Clark, Boismard (Texte, 381) rejects this, referring to vv. 19 and 22. Those examples would lead one to suspect that the D-Text would utilize indirect discourse in both vv. 34 and 35. 66 Boismard also reports the simple ajkouvsomai (“I shall hear”) for the more technical (Cadbury and Lake, 296) diakouvsomai (“hold a hearing”). 67 See Kirsopp Lake, “The Chronology of Acts,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 445–74, esp. 464–66; Schürer, History, 1:459–66; Smallwood, The Jews, 266–71; M. Wolter, “Fh`lix,” EDNT 3:420; Omerzu, Prozess, 404–6; Saddington, “Roman Military,” 2426–27; and David C. Braund, “Felix,” ABD 2:783. Barrett (2:1080–81) provides a judicious summary, while Conzelmann (194–95) cites a number of the primary sources and has good comments on the chronological question. Alexis Bunine has made a recent argument for 56 as the date of Festus’s accession (“Paul, Jacques, Félix, Festus et les autres: pour une révision de la chronologie des derniers procurateurs de la Palestine,” RB 111 [2004] 387–408, 531–62).

a­ ppointment. This was sufficient to guarantee a hostile evaluation from Tacitus (Hist. 5.9; Ann. 12.54). Josephus is probably more objective, but ultimately holds Felix responsible for the increase in rebellious activity (Bell. 2.252–65; Ant. 20.160–172). Felix was neither the first nor the last colonial official to discover that counter-insurgency campaigns can fuel insurgencies. One of his victims was the insurgent leader Eleazer, whom he captured and, interestingly, sent to Rome (Bell. 2.253; Ant. 20.160).69 While procurator, he married Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I. This suggests, romantic interests notwithstanding, a desire to forge an alliance with the Judean ruling class. According to Josephus, Felix obtained his office on the recommendation of the high priest Jonathan (Ant. 20.162). Luke’s evident source was Josephus,70 from whom he gleaned information about Felix’s Jewish wife and his initial support from the Jewish aristocracy. He used this information to construct a portrait of a governor who worked to retain the support of the native ruling class and therefore denied justice to Paul.71 In historical fact, Felix represents a GrecoRoman success story about a slave who rose to considerable power, accumulated considerable wealth, and persuaded a series of highly placed women to marry him.

68 See Schürer, History, 1:460 n. 19; Frederick F. Bruce, “The Full Name of the Procurator Felix,” JSNT 1 (1978) 33–36; and Colin J. Hemer, “The Name of Felix Again,” JSNT 31 (1987) 45–49. The matter remains open: Frederick E. Brenk and Filippo Canali De Rossi (“The ‘Notorious’ Felix, Procurator of Judea, and His Many Wives [Acts 23–24],” Bib 82 [2001] 410–17) indicate that an inscription from Bir el-Malik does not solve the problem. 69 In Antiquities, Josephus states that Felix captured Eleazer by offering him a safe conduct. The term used for his ruse is ejnevdra (cf. Acts 23:16). Readers of Acts would have no reason to associate Felix with the revolt of Theudas mentioned in 5:36, but he repressed that revolt also. See Pervo, Dating, 152–60. 70 On Luke’s use of Josephus for his portrait of Felix, see Pervo, Dating, 42–43 and 186–87. 71 This decision almost reverses the efforts of commentators like Haenchen (650) to discourage reading Felix’s character from Tacitus and Josephus. Such warnings are appropriate insofar as they insist that one must allow the text of Acts to speak for itself.

587

Acts part 3C.indd 587

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

Barrett ultimately concludes that “[h]e [Luke] has probably written up imaginatively a bare historical outline: ‘Paul was transferred to Caesarea.’”72 The following comments seek to develop the implications of Barrett’s reluctant opinion. The literary purpose—should the question arise—is aptly illustrated in a segment from An Ethiopian Story (8.2–16). The satrap (a Persian provincial governor) summons his entrusted eunuch Bagoas to take fifty horsemen to Memphis and return with Theagenes and Charikleia (the heroes). With Bagoas go two brief letters, one to Arsake (a major villain), the other to the chief eunuch at Memphis. This is the former: Oroondates to Arsake: Send me Theagenes and Charikleia, the brother and sister who were taken captive and are now slaves of the Great King; I shall send them on to the king. Send them to me of your own free will; if you refuse, they shall be brought to me all the same, and Achaimenes’ allegations will be confirmed.73 The sequel is equally brief. The party arrived in the dead of night, aroused the sentries, and made their way to the satrap’s palace. Bagoas delivered the letter to Euphrates, encouraging prompt action to take advantage of the darkness and achieve surprise. The couple were led outside in their chains, placed on horses, and encircled for security. The party set out posthaste for Thebes but was ambushed on the road just short of Syene. Heliodorus wrote a good two centuries after Acts and serves to show how adventures could be concocted.

A much more general parallel that Luke may well have read can be found in Josephus’s story of an attempted assassination of Herod the Great (Ant. 15.282–91).74 They share five structural elements: Herod, like Paul (Acts 21:21, 28), was accused of abandoning Israelite traditions (§280). Men (two) conspire to kill Herod at any risk, swearing an oath (sunomosavmenoi [§282; cf. sun­ wmosiva, §288]). More than forty conspire to kill Paul or perish, engaging in an oath (sunwmosiva [23:12-13]). Herod will be ambushed in the theater (§284), Paul en route to the Sanhedrin (23:15).75 In both cases, the plot was exposed—that against Herod by a spy (§286), that against Paul through an informer (23:16). Both plots were thwarted (§§286–89; Acts 23:12-35), but by different means.76 Luke may have taken some inspiration from the story about Herod,77 but the more important value of this parallel is to underline Paul’s importance. Unimportant agitators do not give rise to elaborate conspiracies. Haenchen’s judgment endures: “[A] dreary matter of routine is transformed into a narrative full of breathless suspense.”78 The chapter as a whole adds evidence to Luke’s dossier against the Jews, who function as implacable villains of the most ruthless and unprincipled sort.79 A further suggestion is that debates with Jewish leaders lead only to difficulties and should be avoided. In such hardening of the lines, Luke may be compared with the Pastor, who also rejected “dialogue” with false teachers.80 Luke is not arguing for strong boundaries but justifying their existence.

72 Barrett, 2:1086. 73 Trans. J. R. Morgan, in Reardon, Novels, 518. 74 The numbers in the following comments refer to the relevant sections of Josephus. 75 Aseneth also had to endure an ambush from which she barely escaped, despite her escort of six hundred ( Jos. Asen. 23–28). In Dictys’s fictional account of the Trojan War (Ephemeris 3.15), Achilles kills Hector in an ambush. This was not flattering to Achilles.

76 The informer in the plot against Herod was dismembered (§289). Cf. Acts 23:10. 77 See Pervo, Dating, 191–92. For a betrayed plot, see also Josephus Vit. 104–11. 78 Haenchen, 650. 79 Acts 23:12-35 takes advantage of Greco-Roman sensitivities about fanatics, not least nationalistic fanatics. 80 See 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:3, 14; Titus 3:9.

588

Acts part 3C.indd 588

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

24:1-23

24

24:1-23  Paul before Felix 1/ Five days a after Paul had been conveyed to Caesarea Ananias the high priest came down from Jerusalem. With him were some members of the Sanhedrin b and one Tertullus, a professional advocate. They pressed charges against Paul to the governor. 2/ Bidden to speak, c Tertullus presented the opening statement for the prosecution: 24:2b-8: Conventional Text

4/

“Your Excellency, Felix, through your attentive care we enjoy substantial peace, and this country has welcomed numerous improvements d through your administration, 3/ always and everywhere. For this we remain fully grateful. “I have no desire to drag this out. e Please listen, with your accustomed courtesy, to this brief summary of the facts. 5/ We have discovered that this creature is a pest. A ringleader of the Nazorean faction, he foments rebellions f among all g Jews throughout the empire. 6/ He even attempted to defile the temple, at which point we put him under arrest.

8/

“You need only interrogate him to verify all of our allegations.”

9/

The Jews then pitched in to affirm that matters were as he had stated. l When the governor gave him leave, m Paul spoke: “Since I know that you have served this nation in a judicial capacity n for many years, I shall cheerfully speak in my own defense. 11/ You can establish that I arrived in Jerusalem on pilgrimage no more than twelve days ago. 12/ No one ever found me engaging in individual discussions or collecting crowds o in temple, synagogue, or anywhere else in the city,

10/

24:2b-8: D-Texth

“Your Excellency, Felix, [ ] we enjoy substantial peace, and this country has always and everywhere welcomed numerous improvements. i 3/ For this we remain fully grateful.

4/

“I have no desire to drag this out. I ask that you listen patiently [ ]. j We have discovered k that this creature is a pest. A ringleader of the Nazorean faction, he foments rebellion, not only in our own nation but in almost the entire empire. 6/ He even attempted to defile the temple, at which point we put him under arrest. Now we intended to try him by our law, (7/) but Tribune Lysias came on the scene and, with a strong display of force, extracted him from our custody. “He directed that Paul’s accusers should appear before you. By interrogating Lysias you can . . .”

5/

8/

589

Acts part 3C.indd 589

8/27/2008 10:24:44 AM

13/ nor can they substantiate their present accusations against me. “But one thing I will admit to you: I do revere our ancestral God and believe all that is commanded in the Law and written in the Prophets. p 15/ My hope in God is also that of those who accuse me: we look forward to a coming q resurrection of both the good and the wicked. r I serve God by following the Movement, which they denominate a ‘faction.’ 16/ In this service I likewise strive s ardently at all times t to be free from any conscious offense to God and to mortals. 17/ After an absence of many years I came here to bring funds to my people u and to offer sacrifices. 18/ They found me engaged in these rites, in a state of ritual purity. There was no crowd, no agitation, 19/ but there were some Jews from Asia—if they really had any accusations to make against me, they would have to be present.v 20/ Well, they aren’t here, so, let these people who are here speak for themselves about what I did wrong while I was standing before the Sanhedrin. 21/ Maybe this is it: w that one sentence I shouted while in their midst, ‘The issue about which I am arraigned before you this day is the resurrection of the dead.’”x Felix,y now fairly well informed z about the Movement, halted the proceedings with the announcement: “I shall reach a decision on these matters when Tribune Lysias puts in an appearance.”aa 23/ He ordered the centurion to retain Paul in custody bb but not in maximum security. There were to be no restrictions upon the efforts of his friends cc to attend to his needs. dd

14/

22/

a b c

A reads “some days.” M sy p read “the presbyters,” more or less the entire Sanhedrin. An alternative is to understand this as applying to Paul: “When Paul had been summoned . . .” This is better Greek, for it avoids an improper genitive

absolute, and makes better sense. Haenchen supports this and appeals to other reports of trials. B omits aujtou`, a difficult reading that almost requires associating the participle klhqevnto~ (“having been summoned”) as a genitive absolute with an implied subject. Luke does not shun such

590

Acts part 3C.indd 590

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

24:1-23

d

e

f

g h i j k l

m

n

o

p

q r s

constructions, and the parallel in v. 10 gives some weight to the translation given. M reads katorqwvmata, more like “successes.” 36. 453. et al. add “many,” which is quite in the spirit of things. The v.l. kovptw can mean “weary” (LSJ, 979, s.v. 13), but Luke was unlikely to use it in this metaphorical sense. It is probably due to the unusual use of ejgkovptw. See Cadbury and Lake, 298; and Gustav Stählin (“ejgkovptw,” TDNT 3:855–57, esp. 855 n. 1), who attributes the usage to the LXX. M sy sa read the singular stavsin. This is generic (“rebellion”). On the dative with this noun, see BDF §190 (3). P74 omits “all,” presumably as redundant. Boismard, Texte, 382–84. Boismard omits dia; sou` (“through you”). Boismard omits se (“you”) and suntovmw~ (“briefly”). The conventional text has the participle euJrovnte~ (“having found”). Boismard reads the indicative. D-Text witnesses 614. 2147. syh** preface v. 9 with a genitive absolute: “After he had said these things . . .” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 384) adds “to defend himself.” Hmg says that Paul took on a divine appearance. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 434) calls this “a curious Western expansion.” He might well have said that this is making Acts look like Apocryphal Acts, as Barrett (2:1100) recognizes. Closer to home is Acts 6:15. An editor determined that here and in 26:1, Paul should enjoy no less a privilege than did Stephen. E Y 323. 614. 945 et al. syh modify “ judge” with “fair” (divkaion). Boismard ignores this reading, which has D-Text support and is the lectio difficilior. M reads ejpisuvstasi~ (“gathering a crowd for insurrectionary purposes”). The rendition “collecting crowds” views the obscure phrase ejpivstasin poiou`nta o[clou as metonymic: “causing people to stop and thus forming a crowd.” a2 A 33 m omit ejn toi`~, presumably to equate the two sections of “the canon.” Inclusion of the phrase is more original, distinguishing between Torah as setting forth a way of life and the Prophets as a source of doctrine. (Note that “Law” and “Way” utilize the same preposition: katav, referring to a mode of existence.) A future infinitive with mevllein (“to be going to happen”) looks redundant, but it is good Greek. E Y m sy pedantically specify resurrection of the “dead.” M gig read e[cwn, in effect “I strive . . . because I

have. . . .” This removes any emphasis that Paul had to work hard to maintain “a good conscience.” t The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 385) omits the phrase dia; pavnto~ (“at all times”). u Or: “I came to my people to bring. . . .” This is preferred by Weiser, 2:629–30. v The syntax is difficult. The conditional clause in v. 19 looks like a “future less vivid” (If they should have any charges to make, they would have to be here). Cf. Smyth, Greek Grammar, §2329), with a[n omitted (on which see Moule, Idiom Book, 149). Barrett (2:1110) finds the optative incorrect, however. Cf. 20:16. A number of late mss. omit the conjunction dev (“and,” etc.) in v. 19, an improvement. The present dei` (“must”) is another, but less felicitous, variant. w The conjunction h[ can be equivalent to ajll j h[ (“except [that]”) after ti. See Barrett, 2:1111. x Verses 20-21 present difficulties. h[ (usually “or”) can convey an adversative sense in interrogative contexts. The variant eij (“if,” p 74 A C pc) may be an improvement. “Itacism” is a factor. For an explanation of the apparently barbarous attribution of the demonstrative in v. 21 (tauvth~, “this”), see BDF §292. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 385) reads “. . . whether they found any wrongdoing applicable to me (ei[ ti . . . ejn ejmoiv . . .). y To ease the rather abrupt transition, m sa read, “Once he had heard these things, Felix halted them. . . .” z Cadbury and Lake (304) and BDF §244 (2) view the comparative as a superlative, but the context does not support this. It is better taken as elative (so also Bruce, 482). The same question arises in v. 26 (puknovteron). Less likely is a true comparative: “more accurate,” which would have to be supplemented by understanding “than his previous knowledge.” See Witherington, 713. aa The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 386) reads: “I shall hear you again when the Tribune puts in an appearance.” This conforms to the outcome, as Felix did not reach a decision. bb Verses 22-23 avoid the active voice. See Barrett, 2:1112. It is acceptable to construe threi`sqai as a middle: “have retained.” The present means “remain in custody.” cc Lit. “his own people” (tw`n ijdivwn), which could mean, or include, family, friends, or servants. dd M sa add “or visit.” This is a conflation with the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 386), which has no reference to “friends” (previous note): “prohibit no one to visit him.”

591

Acts part 3C.indd 591

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

Excursus: The Trials of Paul

verses of summary: arrest in Jerusalem, transfer to Caesarea, inconclusive trial under Felix, interrupted trial under Festus, transfer to Rome (in the course of which he survived a shipwreck), and the final disposition of his case there. The narrator might then have looked to other leaders and localities, as he had done after chaps. 8, 12, and 15, or stopped. If one allows that the message of Acts has become embedded in what amounts to a biography of Paul, much, if not all, of chaps. 21–28 is rather more justified, although this concession has major ramifications for the evaluation of the work, which would take on the shape of a story of Paul with a long preface. The dominant question facing interpreters of every stripe and persuasion is why Luke devoted a good one-fourth of Acts to this subject. His method was literary, that is, he makes his points by telling stories. The stories are good, some of the best in Acts, and few authors have wrung more interest, excitement, and suspense out of such unpleasant facts. 5 The readers’ hopes are raised, dashed, and whirled about in the narrative maelstrom, while the chief character remains serene. A related and vital dimension of the historical question is the oft-noted parallelism between the trials of Jesus in Luke and the trials of Paul in Acts. In Luke 22–23 Jesus appears before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and Pilate. Paul appears before the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa in Acts 23–26. Each thus faces the Sanhedrin, a Roman governor (twice), and a member of the Herodian family. The large number of correspondences in sequence and

A venerable school of research has assumed that the reports about Paul’s legal situation in Acts 21–28, with particular reference to chaps. 24–26, are historical in nature, derived from available records and the possible presence of the author. For support, these scholars turn to Roman law or analyses of it.1 This assumption is open to question. A number of the conclusions are circular, because they depend on scholarly analyses that utilize Acts to reconstruct legal content and procedure; and, as the footnotes to this chapter will demonstrate, their findings are often based on unwarranted inferences and assertions. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the results of all of the space devoted to Paul’s legal situation will be disappointing, for one is less clear about that situation at the close of the book than in chap. 24, where explicit charges are first raised.2 Cadbury’s judgment that “the narrative in Acts is an untechnical account with apologetic motive” remains valid. 3 The narrator is overly successful in demonstrating not only Paul’s innocence but also the recognition of it. This makes for fine reading and excellent apologetic, but it does nothing to advance claims for the historical value of the narrative. Putative primary sources for the events of chap. 24 are unlikely to have contained more than the briefest of summaries, yet those possibilities far outshine what can be proposed for chaps. 25–26.4 From the strictly historical viewpoint of narrating the essential data, all that needed to be said about Paul could have been recorded in fewer than thirty 1

2 3

At the head of this orientation stands Theodor Mommsen, “Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,” ZNW 2 (1902) 81–96, whose conclusions were taken up and revised by Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 48–70. More recent exponents include Hemer, Book 129–30 et passim; Tajra, Trial; Rapske, Roman Custody, 158–64; Bruce Winter, “Official Proceedings and the Forensic Speeches in Acts 24–26,” in Winter and Clarke, Setting, 305–36; Erika Heusler, Kapitalprozesse im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Die Verfahren gegen Jesus und Paulus in exegetischer und rechtshistorischer Analyse (NTAbh NF 38; Münster: Aschendorff, 2000); and Omerzu, Prozess. Pervo, Profit, 46–47. H. J. Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 297–338, citing 298. Cadbury was not an expert on Roman law, the study of which has advanced in the past seven decades, but he was sensitive to Luke as an author, did not seek to defend the accuracy of the

4

5

narrative, and addressed the questions with perspicacity and rigorous logic. This commentary regards the hypotheses that the author was present on the scene and/or that he had access to official records as, for multiple reasons, untenable. See pp. 11–14. The challenge facing those who uphold one or both of these views is to explain why such a well-informed author did such an inadequate job of reporting. Paul’s own sentiments and struggles are apparent beneath the careful rhetoric of Phil 1:12-26. The Pastor develops (and exploits) these feelings in 2 Tim 4:6-18. Although the diary of Perpetua is probably not fully authentic, its picture of the experience of prisoners is quite moving (Acts of Perpetua and Companions). Acts comes closest to such sentiments in the speech at Miletus (20:17-35), prior to Paul’s arrest. See Matthew L. Skinner, “Unchained Ministry: Paul’s Roman Custody (Acts 21–28) and the Sociopolitical Outlook of the Book of Acts,” in Phillips, Acts and Ethics, 79–95.

592

Acts part 3C.indd 592

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

24:1-23

detail lead to the conclusion that this is not a matter of general parallels but the construction of duplicate patterns.6 Recognition of these patterns has a dampening effect on claims of historical accuracy. In these trial scenes, Luke is very much a creator rather than a reporter of history. His goal is to show what the story of Paul means. All of this is to say no more than that in Acts 21–28, Luke is an evangelist “with apologetic motive.” Analysis

Acts 24 contains two episodes—both introduced by the phrase “after X days,” vv. 1-23 and 24-25—and concludes with a summary in vv. 26-27. The first relates a formal trial (or hearing) before the governor, with both parties present.7 The second episode briefly recounts Paul’s interview with Felix and his wife, Drusilla. The pace is initially rapid and promising, only to slow and eventually creak to a halt. Readers’ hopes follow a kindred path. Within five days, the accusers, among whom was the high priest, making one of his rare appearances outside of Jerusalem, appeared. They had equipped themselves with a professional orator, one Tertullus. Paul, who is not without experience in this area, will be competent to speak for himself. Luke shows that he has not exhausted his capacity for variety. Readers are treated to a brief rhetorical duel.8 The need to be succinct leaves Tertullus room for no more than a compact pack of lies and a recommendation that the judge verify the same by interrogating

Paul. After a brief summary of the actual facts and an affirmation of his loyalty to the ancestral faith, Paul opens the subject of resurrection. As in Athens (17:32), that topic brings matters to a halt. Felix notes that the testimony of Lysias will be required. Since readers know the tribune’s assessment of the situation, their hopes rise, supported by Felix’s relaxation of custody.9 Had he believed the claims that Paul was a dangerous revolutionary, the governor would not have taken these steps. Behind this vivid account may have stood data derived from the same source as the preceding material. All that remains is a few names—Felix, the high priest Ananias, possibly the lawyer Tertullus—and an indication that Felix held a hearing on the case but reached no conclusion before his term of office expired. Meager as this harvest is, it is not certain. The name of Ananias, whose tenure extended from about 47 to about 59,10 could have been derived from Josephus, and that of Tertullus invented.11 The length of the delay in reaching a decision and the reasons for it, presuming that the data are accurate, are irretrievably lost.12 Since Theodor Mommsen, it has been claimed that this account reflects Roman legal procedure, with the inference that it is a good and full historical source.13 Barrett identifies a difficulty with this conclusion: “[T]here is not much procedure in the narrative.” Each side speaks and the judge postpones a decision.14 H. S. Brown has taken up the matter from the perspective of legal reports rather than textbook law and concludes that Acts lacks the data

6

See, among others, Talbert, Literary Patterns, 17–18; O’Toole, Unity, 68–71; and Jerome Neyrey, The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology (New York: Paulist, 1985) 98–107. Consult Table 6, p. 533. 7 This fulfills one part of Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21:12: “you will be brought before kings and governors (hJgemovna~).” Chapter 26 will supply the monarch. 8 The appeal of trial scenes, especially brief ones, to ancient audiences is clear from their appearance in ancient novels (see p. 556 n. 95) and in Lucian, notably Bis acc. (esp. 16–34). 9 The narrator does not say that Paul was kept in a prison cell within the praetorium. Readers are free to envision a room, presumably with a guard at the door. 10 On Ananias, see p. 572 n. 9. He may be named on a shard from Masada. See Fergus Millar, The

11

12 13

14

Roman Near East: 31 BC—AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993) 361–62. Tertullus was a common name (Hans Georg Gundel, “Tertullus,” Kleine Pauly 5:615). See also Williams, “Personal Names,” 112. He is not clearly represented as either a Jew or a gentile. In truth, it makes no difference whether he was a historical figure or a Lucan invention. See Lüdemann, Acts, 318–20; and Weiser, 2:627. Mommsen is cited by Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 48, followed by Hemer, Book, 129–30. See also Rapske, Roman Custody, 158–64; and Winter, “Official Proceedings,” 305–36. Barrett, 2:1092.

593

Acts part 3C.indd 593

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

found in accounts of trials and cannot be said to reflect such records. He concludes that the material is literary in function, comparable to trial reports in ancient novels.15 The language of v. 2, for example, is better explained by reference to Luke 23:2 (trial of Jesus) than by discussion of legal papyri.16 Ancient historians could utilize pairs or groups of speeches to represent different viewpoints on a

­ roblem.17 That is not the case here, as readers know p all that is required, and Luke has no interest in multiple viewpoints. Acts 24 presents a duel between “the good guys” and “the bad guys.” Such competitions raise suspense and offer a bit of oratorical entertainment in contrast to such exhilarating adventures as those reported in 23:12-35.18 The two speeches19 exhibit a similar pattern:

Tertullus

Paul

I. Vv. 2b-4. Proem, captatio benevolentiae II. Vv. 5-6. Narratio (encompassing thesis) A. V. 5. Character of accused (ethos) B. V. 6. Alleged behavior of accused (narrative proper)

I. V. 10b. Proem, captatio ­bene­volentiae II. Vv. 11-13. Narratio (encompassing thesis) III. Vv. 14-16. “Confession,” Digression on “the Movement” (ethos) IV. Vv. 17-18. Narratio resumed. Actual ­behavior V. Vv. 19-21. Demand for relevant witnesses and testimony A. Vv. 19-20. Demand for relevant witnesses B. V. 21. (= Peroratio). Actual statement and “real” charge

III. V. 8. Peroratio: Examine the accused.

15 H. Stephen Brown, “Paul’s Hearing at Caesarea: A 17 See, e.g., Thucydides 1.32–43 (dispute over Preliminary Comparison with Legal Literature of Corcyra); 1.66–78 (debate at Sparta). An utterly the Roman Period,” SBLSP 1996 (Atlanta: Scholars fictional debate decorates the Alexander Romance Press, 1996) 319–32. His primary basis of compari2.2.5–2.5.1, on which see Pervo, Profit, 76. son is the episode from Callirhoe cited in p. 556 18 Rhetorical duels go back to epic, e.g., Homer Il. nn. 52, 55. Brown seeks to demonstrate not that no 1.101–87, and drama, e.g., Euripides Tro. 914–1032. such trial or record existed but that Acts 24 does Two examples from romantic novels are Charinot show the use of a report. Bruce Winter (p. 592 ton Chaer. 5.6–7 and Longus Daphn. 2.15–16. n. 1) begins with petitions to the courts, which See Derek Hogan, “Paul’s Defense: A Comparileads him to the rhetorical handbooks and rhetorison of the Forensic Speeches in Acts, Callirhoe, cal analysis of the speeches. He finds the speeches and Leucippe and Clitiphon,” PerspRelStud 29 rhetorically appropriate and argues that Acts 24 (2002) 73–87. reflects history. For Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 129), 19 Studies of these defense speeches include Fred the speech of Tertullus “is a near parody of rhetoriVeltmann, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” cal correctness.” She points to Leuc. Clit. 8.7–15, in Talbert, Perspectives, 243–56; Neyrey, “Forensic where the villain, Thersander, hires a rhetor, but Defense Speech,” 210–24; and Long, “Paulusbild,” matters do not work out as he wished. 87–105. 16 Luke 23:2: ÒHrxanto de; kathgorei`n aujtou` levgonte" (“They began to accuse him, saying . . .”), words occurring in 24:2. Note also eu{ramen (“we found”; cf. 24:5) and to; e[qno" hJmw`n (“our nation”; cf. 24:2).

594

Acts part 3C.indd 594

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

24:1-23

The speeches interlock. Verses 11-13 take up Tertullus’s statements in inverse order. Verse 11 utilizes the duvnamai and ejpigignwvskw (“be able,” “verify”) of v. 8, while v. 12 denies the charge of temple profanation (v. 6) and agitation (v. 5). The scene is a single narrative unit. All three “characters,” prosecution, defense, and judge, focus on testimony (vv. 8, 19-20, 22). The prosecution calls no witnesses, arguing that the defendant will incriminate himself. The other two refer to witnesses who are not present. Although both speeches are forensic in type, these are not skeletons of speeches (i.e., outlines); they purport to be actual speeches.20 An outline of each in indirect discourse would have been acceptable. Tertullus’s speech is seriously unbalanced. Granting that a captatio benevolentiae is a good thing, 30 percent of Tertullus’s speech is devoted to this amenity. There are nearly three verses of exordium, two of narration, and one of peroration. Tertullus reiterates the cries of the Ephesian Jews in Acts 21:28. Paul is, in general, an ecumenical menace responsible for many civic disturbances among the Jews of the Roman east, in fulfillment of his role as leader of a pernicious sect. In particular, Paul attempted to profane the temple, but was seized by Jewish authorities, evidently before he could commit this vile act. Rather than summon witnesses—readers of Acts know that false witnesses are available when needed (6:13)—or offer anything remotely resembling proof, Tertullus invites the testimony of Paul. This prosecution would have been no more incompetent had it been designed by the defense—as it in fact was. Realism, even verisimilitude, is lacking in this episode. A realistic presentation that accorded with the plot of Acts would have represented the Jewish authorities as asserting jurisdiction and presenting those witnesses to affirm the charge of profanation (together, if possible, with the gentile offenders, who would have been subject to summary execution). No less noteworthy in their absence are witnesses for the defense. The ­devotees of

21:23 could have demonstrated beyond a doubt that they were not gentiles. In their support, James and the Christian presbyters could have offered rather convincing testimony that Paul was engaged in an act of noteworthy piety. In terms of Acts’ own construction of the facts, this episode lacks credibility. To the hypothetical counter-argument that this was but a preliminary hearing, as indicated in v. 22, it can be stated that these witnesses, necessary elements of a proper trial, never appear. If it be stated that Paul aborted the process by his appeal, it must also be stated that Paul’s appeal is, in the context provided by Acts, incomprehensible. Paul’s Odysseus-like versatility is once more on display. He is able to make a superior case in a confrontation with a professional orator. Techniques and methods are flexible, but his ethos remains firm. The Lucan Paul is a loyal and observant Jew (v. 14). The D-Text of vv. 5-8 enjoyed sufficient popularity to find its way into the Textus Receptus. This sentence represents, in both editions, an unsuccessful attempt to write a Greek period.21 In terms of grammar, the D-Text looks like an effort to resolve the syntactical difficulties of the shorter text. Its content builds on a perceived gap in the narrative created by a fine piece of dissembling: “we arrested Paul.” The underlying “historical fact” is that Paul was being beaten to death by a mob (21:31). The difficulty this interpolation (v. 7) explains is why Paul is no longer in Jewish custody. In so doing, it levies 23:30, but ineptly. Continuity with the context would have been improved by saying that Lysias directed “us” to appear before Felix. The longer text does offer one logical improvement: parÆ ou| (“from whom”) in v. 8 refers to Lysias rather than to Paul.22 This is more logical and creates a nice link with v. 22, but it overlooks both the way in which Luke has tied the speeches together and his tactic of having Tertullus serve up a ball that Paul can easily return for a score. (A further, and insuperable, problem is that the invitation

20 Conzelmann (198–99) provides a number of references illustrating the conventional character of many of the phrases. 21 The conjunction gavr is a difficulty. “We arrested” (ejkrathvsamen) should be the main verb, but it has been placed in a subordinate clause, leaving the 22 initial participle dangling. On the anacoluthon, see

BDF §467. The D-Text (p. 589) corrects this. A gap exists between the relative clauses ending v. 6 and beginning v. 7. The verb ajpedecovmeqa (“we welcome”) in v. 3 has no object, but this is not a gaffe. See Cadbury and Lake, 297. See Barrett, 2:1100.

595

Acts part 3C.indd 595

8/27/2008 10:24:45 AM

to i­nterrogate Lysias would lead to exposure of the falsehood of Tertullus’s construction of the case.) 23 Comment   1  The narrator makes limited effort to set the scene

of a formal trial.24 A delegation from the Sanhedrin25 led by the high priest appears five days later26 to lay charges. Paul’s presence is not certainly acknowledged until v. 10.27 The presence of Tertullus is sufficient indication of the formal character of the situation.28 Selfdefense was not fashionable.29   2  Even a superficial reading reveals that this little speech is mellifluous, with a full ration of paronomasia, alliteration, and assonance.30 For those “in the know,”

probably including the author, references to “peace”31 and “improvements” are ironic, but for the ideal reader this was the kind of thing one said in addressing authorities.32 Captationes benevolentiae are always somewhat manipulative.33 Specifically here, as one interested in peace, Felix will not look with favor on a career disturber of the peace. His commitment to reform will lead to correct the miscarriage of justice that removed Paul from the custody of Jewish judges. 34 Promises of brevity were doubtless welcome. 35 Intelligent rulers did not require lengthy explanations.   4-5  Tertullus then gets down to the “facts.” Paul (who, in keeping with the tradition, is never named) is a bacillus threatening the health of the body politic. This was one of the more virulent metaphors in the ­polemical

23 The other major alteration, in v. 5, is more intelligent. Paul provokes riots both among gentiles everywhere, a relevant intensification, and “in our own nation.” The first person is more appropriate. 24 Contrast 25:6. Scholars fill in some of the gaps. Hemer (Book, 347–48), for example, suggests that the letter of Lysias may have been read. 25 “Some presbyters” (cf. 23:14). 26 Presumably these days are enumerated from the receipt of the prisoner. The number is not unreasonable but may be no more than a touch of verisimilitude. 27 See, however, the note on v. 2. 28 The narrative evidently presumes that the trial was conducted in Greek, a language that Felix, who was of Greek ancestry (Tacitus Ann. 12.54), may have known. 29 See, for example, the Acta Hermaisci col. 1. 8–10 (Musurillo, Pagan, 44), in which one Paul, a Tyrian, serves as advocate (sunhvgoro~) for the Alexandrians, while the Antiochene Sopatros performs this role for the Jews (lines 14–15). (On Paul of Tyre, see A. Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor [London: Routledge, 1997] 227–29.) Josephus talks about the skilled advocate for Antipas (Bell. 2.21; Ant. 17.226). Documentary examples include P. Oxy. 37 (= A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934] no. 257, 2:194–96), 49 ce, and P. Oxy. 237 vii. 19–29 (= Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 258, 2:198–200), 133 ce. 30 Opening with some form of “many” was a very general Greek convention. See Luke 1:1; and Alexander, Preface, 109. “Always and everywhere” is another convention. See the comments on 21:28 and BDF §488 (1). Observe how Felix is

31

32

33

34 35

the object of end-stress in several key clauses and phrases: dia; sou` (“through you”) and dia; th'" sh`~ ­pronoiva~ (“through your foresight”) in v. 2, as well as th/` sh/` ejpieikeiva/ (“with your courtesy,” on which see Cadbury and Lake, 298; and Johnson, 410, who relates it to “spirit versus letter” of the law) in v. 4. Verse 3 closes with a statement of gratitude to the procurator. “Much peace” is a cliché: Plutarch Alc. 14.2; Josephus Ant. 7.20. Note also the close parallels to v. 2 in 2 Macc 4:6 eJwvra ga;r a[neu basilikh`" pro­ noiva" ajduvnaton ei\nai tucei`n eijrhvnh" (“For he saw that without the king’s attention public affairs could not again reach a peaceful settlement”). On the theme, see Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 239–41. Horace has a concise parody of the practice: Satires 1.7.22–25. A nonsatirical example is Philo Leg. Gaj. 284. “Peace” (eijrhvnh), “providence” (provnoia), and “thanksgiving” (eujcaristiva) resonate with Christian readers, but these words were not ­technical. On this, see S. Lösch, “Die Dankesrede des Tertullus: Apg 24,1-4,” ThQ 112 (1939) 295–319; and Bruce Winter, “The Importance of the Captatio Beneuolentiae in the Speeches of Tertullus and Paul in Acts 24:1-21,” JTS 42 (1991) 505–31. Compare Chariton Chaer. 5.6.4–5 (see n. 18). Bruce (476) says, “Ancient speakers, like those of later days, considered it advisable to promise brevity at the outset of their speeches. Tertullus at any rate seems to have kept his promise.”

596

Acts part 3C.indd 596

8/27/2008 10:24:46 AM

24:1-23

tradition.36 An immediately relevant passage comes from Claudius’s Letter to the Alexandrians 98–100,37 a document dealing with grave public disorders (stav­ sei~). After listing three prohibitions, the letter states that, in case of noncompliance, “I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of what is a general plague infecting the whole world” (koinhvn teina th`~ oijkoumevnh~ novson). This does not prove that the language is contemporaneous with the dramatic date, for it was used long before and well after Claudius, but it does belong to the language of political polemic. 38 Jews, perhaps because of the existence of the Diaspora, were particularly liable to the charge of being international menaces, an allegation that would endure as a staple of more recent anti-Semitism.39 Charges of provoking insurrection and civil unrest would be more likely to attract the attention of a governor than would allegations that Paul was unsound on Torah. Insofar as these claims go beyond character assassination—they are old slanders (e.g., 17:6; 18:12; 21:28) 40 to the audience of Acts—they seek to construct a general case of which the alleged temple incident is but the most recent horrifying example. Before reaching that climax, Tertullus identifies Paul as a ringleader41 of the Nazorean42 sect. Beyond emphasizing Paul’s importance and allowing him to appear as the representative of all believers,43 it is not clear what weight

this allegation carried. It fills the space between the international and local charges by placing the question of religious doctrines on the table without giving them a primary place.   6  Alleging attempted profanation44 is a necessity of the case. Had the temple been defiled by gentile feet, the presence of Trophimus or some other violator(s) would have been required or the execution(s) noted. Unable to venture onto these grounds, Tertullus must content himself with the claim that the Jewish leadership had forestalled desecration by apprehending Paul.45 Despite the incendiary claims, which ancient lawyers were more or less required to issue as a matter of form, the implicit argument is one of jurisdiction. This will drive the narrative through 25:12. The legal basis is precarious, if not preposterous, but it well serves the maintenance of suspense. The speech itself closes with an inclusio,46 followed by verbal support from Tertullus’s clients, who thus affirm the wisdom of inviting Paul to condemn himself.   10  The structure of Paul’s speech is somewhat more complicated. In general it contains a point-by-point response. Appreciation of these correspondences is as valuable as the rhetorical analyses.47 Since the charges are not true, Paul rejects all of them. His specific tactic

36 On the use of this imagery in the philosophical tradition, see Malherbe, Paul, 121–36. 37 P. Lond. 1912 (= CPJ 153 2:36–55 = Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 212, 2:78–88). The translation is that of the last. 38 Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 51) argues for historical precision. A synonym (contagio) was used by Livy in his discussion of the dissemination of ­Dionysiac worship (39.9.1; cf. also 5.17) and, contemporaneous with Acts, Pliny in his discussion of Christianity (Ep. 10.96.9). Josephus uses the metaphor of Festus’s counter-insurgency campaign: “Festus . . . proceeded to attack the principal plague (lumainovmenon) of the country” (Bell. 2.271, trans. H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus II [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927] 429). Cf. also Caesar Gallic Wars 6.13.7, of seditio, which is the standard equivalent of stavsi~. 39 See, for example, the Acta Isidori Rec. C col.ii.23 (Musurillo, Pagan, 23). Isidorus says to Agrippa that the Jews o{lhn th;n oijkoumevnhn taravssein

40 41

42

43 44

45 46 47

(“stir up the entire empire”). Cf. Acts 17:6; and the comments of Musurillo, 139. This is paralleled in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:2). This word, prwtostavth~, was originally military: the man on the right of the first line. The metaphorical meaning is often pejorative in literature. Porphry applies it to Peter (Christ. 26.1, Hoffmann, Porphyry, p. 55). Hippolytus (Ref. 1. Prol 9.3; 11.3) uses the term of heretics. “Ringleader” is ­appropriate. The term “Nazorean” allows avoidance of messianic claims. By so doing, Tertullus did a favor for Paul. On the meaning of the term, see Barrett, 2:1098. Conzelmann, 199. The term in v. 6 is the standard Greek bebhlovw, in distinction to the specifically Jewish idiom koinovw (21:28). To this extent the prophecy of 21:11 is fulfilled. “Accuse” (kathgorevw), vv. 2 and 8. Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 136) states that the

597

Acts part 3C.indd 597

8/27/2008 10:24:46 AM

is to limit the time frame to events of the last fortnight or so.48   11  After a crisp little captatio,49 Paul summarizes his contention and assures the governor that it can be verified. He had come to Jerusalem to worship, not to make trouble. 50 This rebuttal turns the words of the prosecutor against his case. “Pilgrimage” is the positive purpose of the visit.   12  The verse sets forth the negative: Paul engaged in no teaching51 in either the temple or a synagogue or anywhere else. For the readers of Acts, this means that Paul did not engage in any missionary activity in Jerusalem. Verse 12 works as a concluding summary, 52 after which Paul will shift to a faith statement.   14-16  These verses respond to the second allegation of

v. 5. Paul begins with a “confession” (oJmologw`) . Readers may imagine the Jewish leaders taking note here. Tertullus’s strategy has worked! The accused is about to come clean. Others will regard this as ironic. 53 Paul disparages the term ai{resi~ (“party,” “sect,” “faction”), substitutes for it the preferred “Movement,” and insists on its full conformity to Scripture and the ancestral faith.54 Paul has anticipated any rumors of the sort that vexed James (21:21). This rigorously theocentric statement 55 makes no messianic claims. None of this has much in common with the historical Paul, and little with the Paul of Acts. 56 Readers will view this as an acceptable tactic: focusing on common ground. In v. 24 and chap. 26, Paul will expound his particular faith. The ad hoc character of vv. 14-15 is apparent when one recalls that one

proem in v. 10 is “a good classical Greek periodic sentence.” It is not a sentence, nor is the “equally short narration” of v. 11 and the proposition of v. 12. Winter (“Official Proceedings,” 322–26) takes vv. 12-13 as probatio, vv. 14-18 as refutatio, and vv. 18/19-21 as peroratio. These examples show that rhetorical analysis is useful but that the speech is too brief to be pressed into a formal mold. Soards’s outline (Speeches, 118) consists of a list of seven points. 48 For attempts to justify the “twelve days” of v. 11, see Haenchen, 654 n. 2; and Barrett, 2:1102–3. It is preferable to treat this datum as part of the rhetoric, like the “many years” of vv. 10 and 17. 49 The “many” belongs to the convention (p. 596 n. 30) and is useless as a chronological marker (Cadbury and Lake, 300; Conzelmann, 199). See P. Lond. 1912, 23, [?] where Claudius, who has recently taken office, says ejk pollw`n crovnwn (“for a long time”) in reference to the good will of the Alexandrians. This corresponds to Tertullus’s initial pollh`~ (v. 2) . Others are tw/` e[qnei touvtw/ (“for this nation” [vv. 2 and 10]) and an adverb eujquvmw~ (“cheerfully,” elative in m); cf. v. 4. The participle in the accusative with participle construction is present, but has to be rendered as if an English perfect. “My defense” (ta; periv) is best taken as an accusative of respect. 50 The construction, a future participle of purpose, replicates the act of the Ethiopian official. The temporal relative ajfÆ h|~ must mean something like “since,” but it is inelegant, perhaps best understood as a colloquial abbreviation of ajpo; th`~ hJmevra~ h|/ (“from the day on which”). See Moule, Idiom Book, 31 n. 2, 203; and Bruce, 478. The pronoun moi (“me”) amounts to a dative of possession.

51 His verb, “they found” (eu|ron), in v. 12 corresponds to that in v. 5. 52 The series in v. 12 is linked by three uses of ou[te (“neither . . . nor”), while v. 13 begins with oujdev (“and . . . not”), although ou[te is a v.l., preferred by Boismard (Texte, 384), who also omits “you” (singular) and “now.” Verse 13 corresponds to v. 8, as the verb “accuse” (kathgorou`sin) and “concerning” (periv) . 53 On the irony, see Krodel, 441. 54 The translation rearranges the order of the statements to discourage readers of today from noting the reference to “the Movement” and viewing the rest as secondary. Note the assonance: seven appearances of long -o- in six words of v. 14. The length of these sounds makes the statement about belief in and worship of God emphatic. For this form of “ancestral God,” see 4 Macc. 12:18; Josephus Ant. 9:256. 55 On theocentrism, see Schneider, 2:348. 56 Paul did not endorse the entire Torah. Even in Acts, he agrees to admitting into the community of Israel uncircumcised males and relaxing the requirements of kashrut (chap. 15). For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was central and the raising of the faithful a consequence of that. He does not include a resurrection of the unjust. In Acts, from 9:20 onwards, the center of Paul’s message is the centrality of Jesus.

598

Acts part 3C.indd 598

8/27/2008 10:24:46 AM

24:1-23

element of this “common ground,” the resurrection, was exploited as a decisive point of division in 23:6-10. Here, however, Paul claims that the Jewish leaders will affirm the centrality of resurrection hope. 57 That noun directly evokes 23:6. “Resurrection of good and wicked” is equally ad hoc, framed with an eye to v. 25. 58   16  The verse, which recalls 23:1, elegantly summarizes this stance. Hope motivates59 his vigorous pursuit60 of moral rectitude.61 The imperative is grounded in the indicative.   17  The speech then turns to the specific and graver charge of temple desecration. Paul’s purpose in visiting Jerusalem, from which he had long been absent,62 vaguely described as “worship” in the corresponding v. 11, is now specific: he was bearing “alms and oblations.” The former (ejlehmosuvnai) refer to the hitherto unmentioned collection,63 the latter (prosforaiv) to his payment for the vows.64 Reference to the vows is readily intelligible, for they constitute an alibi, as the next verse

indicates. Paul was not simply a casual and passive pilgrim: he put his money where his mouth is. The “alms” are a different matter. Why does the narrator let this cat out of the bag into which he has so securely sewn it? The reference is fleeting, and only two sets of ears are likely to catch it: those of the learned and critical student of Acts and those of Felix. The first was, one may presume, unintended. The second was quite intentional; it helps justify v. 26. People who could afford to make generous contributions to the temple could also give concrete form to their gratitude for the just decisions of local ­r ulers.   18-19  These verses supply the explicit counterclaims. Reiterating the verb “find” from v. 5 (cf. also v. 12), Paul states that he was engaged in a sacred act.65 The four co-devotees are ignored. Verse 19 contains what is, from the reader’s viewpoint, a vivid anacoluthon.66 In the dramatic setting, this would have been ineffective,67 but it permits Paul to pass over their utterly erroneous

57 In terms of Acts (5:17), the representative group present in 24:1-22 would have been composed of Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection (23:6-10) and, historically, although Luke does not specify this, did not accept “the prophets” as normative Scripture. This twofold division is normal in Luke and Acts: Luke 16:16, 29; 24:27; Acts 28:23; cf. 1QS 1:3. Luke 24:44 speaks of a tripartite Scripture. 58 Luke 14:14 speaks of the raising of the just; cf. also 20:35-36. 59 The initial ejn touvtw/ is, as so often, ambiguous. The translation takes it to refer to the previously expressed eschatological hope: “for that reason.” Moule, Idiom Book, 79: “perhaps that being so.” Barrett (2:1105–6) has a thorough review of the options. 60 Aristeas 168 shows that v. 16 is comfortably at home in the world of Hellenistic Judaism: ÓIna diÆ o{lou tou` zh`n kai; ejn tai`~ pravxesin ajskw`men dikaio­ suvnhn pro;~ pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~, mnhmevnoi tou` dunasteuvonto~ qeou` (“in order that throughout our life and in our actions we may practise justice towards all, being mindful of the sovereignty of God”), trans. Hadas, Aristeas, 165. Hans Windisch (“ajskevw,” TDNT 1:494–96, esp. 495) states that this reads like a commentary on v. 16. See also Pervo, Dating, 263–64. 61 The meaning of suneivdhsi~ is closer to “ moral consciousness” than to “conscience” in v. 16, but see Barrett (2:1106) for a different view. See p. 572 n. 7. The adjective ajprovskopon gives the statement

62

63

64

65

66

67

a Pauline coloring (1 Cor 10:32; Phil 1:10). The meaning is, perhaps for that reason, not clear. The safest route is to view it as a synonym for “good” or “clear.” See Pervo, Dating, 240–41. The text resolves the “many years” of v. 17 into three years plus some months, as he had last visited in 18:22. As for the phrase that begins v. 17, see Moule, Idiom Book, 56: “Less easy to explain are the phrases where diav seems = after.” Cf. Gal 2:1. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:300) does not wish to correlate 24:17 with the collection, but he has few supporters. Technically, of course, these vows were not the purpose of his visit, but the reader will forgive this bit of dissembling. The v.l. ejn oi|~ (“in which,” neut.), L 323. 326. 1241 pm refers to all of the activity described in the previous sentence. This shows the intent of the preferable ejn ai|~, which specifies the “offerings,” emphasizing that Paul was engaged in pious activity. Dibelius (Studies, 92) thought that the text was corrupt. This is a possibility. Some, at least, D-Texts evidently viewed the passage as lacunose. At the beginning of v. 19, perp2 and mss of vg read (according to Ropes, Text, 225): et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, tolle inimicum nostrum (“And they seized me, shouting and saying, ‘Away with our enemy’”). In support, he notes Ephrem, 448, and gig sa at 21:36. For this reason the translation smoothes over the

599

Acts part 3C.indd 599

8/27/2008 10:24:46 AM

charge, while making a vital point: the persons responsible for the charge of desecration, those “Jews from Asia,”68 must testify in person. Their nonappearance would be sufficient grounds for dismissing the charges.69 The implication is clear: if these people had any solid grounds for their charges, they would have made contact with these witnesses and groomed them for their testimony before both the Sanhedrin (23:1-10) and Felix. These Ephesians are useful for their absence just now, but they raise more questions than they answer. Defilement of the temple was a matter to be determined by its leadership. This second reference to defilement will be the last.   20-21  Paul, who is showing himself to be a better lawyer and orator than Tertullus, quickly shifts, before he has completed his demands about the Ephesian witnesses, to some who are present: members of the Sanhedrin. What charges can these worthies bring70 against him based on his appearance before them, other than his faith in the resurrection, a subject absent from any criminal code71 known to Felix? If given the floor, they could, in fact, charge him with disrespect, impudence, and disruption, but those charges are not capital,

and, in any case, they do not have the floor. Verses 20-21 respond to v. 8 and recap Paul’s faith statement in vv. 14-16. They also appeal implicitly to the letter of Lysias, as Felix will recognize. By ending with a claim that resurrection is the real issue, Paul confirms the tribune’s judgment.72   22  At this dramatic juncture, Felix brings the proceedings to a halt. Such postponements are a common means of raising suspense.73 The narrator comments only that Felix had become better informed about the Jesus movement. This observation helps prepare the way for v. 24 and, as Weiser remarks, serves to show that Roman judgments about Christianity are well grounded in fact.74 The trial will resume when Lysias puts in an appearance. To give Felix the benefit of the doubt, he could have held a hearing without witnesses to determine the nature of the charges. On the other hand, he could have gained that information via consultation with the temple leadership, and it is difficult to understand why neither side had any witnesses to present. Since the accusers had presented no evidence, he would have been justified in dismissing the charges, but continuation was prudent. Still and all, readers have grounds

anacoluthon. (The text should say something like: “Some Asian Jews saw me and wrongly, if not maliciously, concluded that one or more of my companions was a gentile” or, per Conzelmann, 199, “I didn’t start a riot. Some Jews from Asia did.”) 68 One could understand the preposition ajpov in v. 19 as meaning “Jews who had come from Asia” or, with BDF §385 (2), view it as use of ajpov for ejk, that is, “Jews of Asian origin.” Luke does not always honor the distinction, but it is reasonable to suppose that he views these persons as pilgrims from Ephesus. The same phrase appeared in 21:27, where their identity was supplied by the omniscient narrator. The same narrator could have come to Paul’s aid here, but it is possible to assume that Paul recognized these persons at the time. 69 After supplying references to show Roman disapproval of accusers who do not appear, SherwinWhite (Roman Society, 52) concludes: “Once again, the author of Acts is well informed.” That author displays no information whatsoever. Paul states only that the witnesses must appear. In addition, little legal expertise is required to state that witnesses should testify, under Roman or almost any valid system of jurisprudence. Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 52–53) continues: “Hence when the

70 71

72

73 74

Asian Greeks [sic] withdrew from the case, Paul had a sound technical objection to put forward.” The notion that Asian Jews filed charges but then withdrew them is an invention that does not rise to the level of hypothesis. This is not his most remarkable claim. On p. 49 he says: “In the first session at Jerusalem the Asian Jews accuse Paul” with a reference to 21:30. The extra ordinem legal “session” in view was the tumult in the temple. Those who can integrate mob attacks into the process of extra ordinem will have little difficulty including anything else. Once again, the verb is “find” (eu|ron), as in vv. 5, 12, and 18. The term ajdivkhma (“wrongdoing”) in v. 20 was used by Gallio in 18:14. It distinguishes doctrinal disputes from criminal matters. Verse 21 contributes to the question of Acts’ precise “accuracy”: Paul’s quotation of his earlier statement differs from what was reported in 23:6b. See, e.g., Chariton Chaer. 5.8.9; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 7.12; Ethiopian Story 8.9. Weiser, 2:630.

600

Acts part 3C.indd 600

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

24:1-23

for optimism. They know Lysias’s view of the question. His letter (23:26-30) serves as his “deposition.”   23  Furthermore, the severity of Paul’s custody is downgraded and his privileges75 increased. He is delivered to “the centurion,” a person hitherto unidentified.76 Terrorists are not accorded such amenities.77 The tide has apparently turned—but Felix’s failure to dismiss the case dampens this enthusiasm. This is a fine story in a grand and enduring tradition. The innocent hero holds

his own against the unprincipled assaults of powerful accusers. The narrator has, alas, painted himself into a corner, for everything points to a prompt and full acquittal, but he will find a way out of this trap: the procurator Felix, before whom Paul has scattered a few crumbs. To this point, the governor has seemed scrupulously neutral and correct, but the depth of his character has not yet been disclosed.

75 For examples of reduced custody, see Josephus Ant. 18.235 (Agrippa, in circumstances like that of Paul in Rome [28:30] but with language overlapping that of 24:23) and Ethiopian Story 1.7.3. See also Rapske, Roman Custody, 167–72. 76 Rapske (previous note) states that the centurion is a mark of Paul’s status, as lesser prisoners would be assigned to an enlisted guard. 77 The whole scene implies that Paul was rich (or dipping into the collection funds). This occu-

pies ­R amsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 310–13): “At Caesarea he was confined in the palace of Herod; but he had to live, to maintain two attendants, and to keep up a respectable appearance. Many comforts, which are almost necessities, would be given by the guards, so long as they were kept in good humour, and it is expensive to keep guards in good humour” (311). Theodor Zahn, summarized in Haenchen (656 n. 5), was less inhibited; Jacquier (687) more restrained.

601

Acts part 3C.indd 601

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

24

24:24-27  Paul before Felix and Festus Acts 24:24-27: Conventional Text 24/

Acts 24:24-27: D-Texte

Some a days later Felix, while 24/ with his Jewish wife, Drusilla, had Paul brought in and listened to his presentation of belief in Christ Jesus. b 25/ When he began to speak about proper behavior, selfcontrol, and the future judgment, Felix became uncomfortable. “That’s enough for now,” he said, “I shall summon you again, as my schedule permits.” 26/ He did, in fact, summon Paul quite often and engage in conversation with him, because he was also hoping for a personal consideration from Paul. c

27/

After two years had elapsed, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix, who had left d Paul in custody in the hope that it would improve his standing with the Jews.

a b

Some days later Drusilla, Felix’s Jewish wife, asked to see Paul and hear his message. Wishing to satisfy her, he had Paul brought in and listened to his presentation of faith in Christ. 25/ When he began to speak about proper behavior, selfcontrol, and the future judgment, Felix became uncomfortable. “That’s enough for now,” he said, “I shall summon you again, at an opportune time.” 26/ He did, in fact, regularly summon Paul and engage in private conversation with him, because he was also hoping that he would receive personal consideration from Paul. 27/ After two years had elapsed, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix, who had left Paul in custody because of Drusilla.

P74 reads “a few days,” seeking to eliminate the pos- c sibility that Felix took his time. Omission of “Jesus” is not limited to the D-Text. d (Others include a1 A Cvid). It is somewhat more probable that it was omitted because of the word order than interpolated after “Christ.” Barrett e (2:1114), however, prefers the shorter text.

Analysis

While waiting for the tribune to extricate himself from the press of duties and vindicate Paul, readers may pass the time by watching their hero help a governor and his wife wile away some of the dreary hours of life in the capital of a provincial backwater. Paul’s vigorous ethics had no appeal for the procurator, who soon found that the press of his duties precluded his attendance. Felix was more interested in lucre than in lectures. Readers might suspect that his Jewish wife has also got to him, an opinion endorsed by the D-Text. Whatever the cause, the initial suggestion of speedy justice has been

M cop add “so that he might release him.” This is typical pedantry. P74 A L 81 et al. prefer the imperfect: “continued holding him in custody.” This fits the narrative style (cf. v. 26) and is probably secondary. Boismard, Texte, 387–89.

­ isappointed. Paul languishes in custody. The plot is fold lowing a path familiar to the unstable world of popular literature: The Prefect of Egypt was amazed when he heard what had happened and ordered Habrocomes to be kept in custody (threi`sqai), but to be well looked after till they could find out who he was and why the gods were looking after him like this. . . . [He] sent for (metapevmpetai) Habrocomes and interrogated him about himself. He found out his story, felt sorry for his misfortune, gave him money (divdwsi crhvmata),

602

Acts part 3C.indd 602

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

24:24-27

and promised to send him to Ephesus. (Ephesian Tale 4.2.10–4.4.1)1 Paul was less fortunate than Habrocomes in the assignment of provincial governors at this juncture in their respective careers.2 The governor of Judea has a wife, Drusilla,3 who is but the object of a preposition (v. 24) in this episode. Why does Acts, which does not identify the wives of “King Herod,” Sergius Paulus, Gallio, or Festus, for example, introduce her name?4 One conjecture is that her Jewish background was the basis for Felix’s knowledge about the Movement. 5 The text does not support this claim, as v. 22 attributes the communication of this knowledge to Paul, nor does she play any role in motivating (or halting) the subsequent interviews. Luke evidently learned about Drusilla from Josephus.6 With that datum in hand, he turned to a Marcan story omitted from his Gospel: the death of the Baptizer (Mark 6:14, 17-29). In place of the Marcan triangle of prophet, ruler, and wife, there is a trio: missionary, ruler, and wife. Luke wished to portray Paul not as a puppet buffeted about by the torrid winds of harem intrigue but as the victim of a corrupt official intent on pleasing influential subjects while lining his own pockets. In this case, it is difficult to argue that Luke may have made use of some details from Mark to add a bit of color to his detailed source, for the alleged “color” constitutes its very substance.7 An ancient editor recognized this connection and sought to endow Drusilla with the characteristics of Herodias, through whose machinations Paul, like John 1 2

3

4 5 6

7 8

9

the Baptizer, had to remain incarcerated.8 The trio is now a triangle including the missionary and a ruler under the thumb of his angry wife. This is the implicit argument of the D-Text,9 which is indirect evidence for Luke’s use of Mark. The D-Text seeks to answer the question, why mention Drusilla? Luke, informed by Josephus (Ant. 20.141–47), understood the marriage as an unrighteous act on Felix’s part, but he did not make that judgment explicit, leaving the question open and room for the D-Text to exploit.10 Luke needs a bit of narrative to explain why the somewhat promising character of Felix deteriorated. He could have simply stated, without injustice to any putative “historical background,” that Felix let Paul know that he could be bribed. Verses 24-27 achieve more than this. Dramatically, they raise the reader’s hope that Felix, like Sergius Paulus, might prove amenable to the faith and thus amenable to dismissing the charges.11 This material also kicks up some dust to cloud over questions about why nothing was done to expedite the personal testimony of Lysias. As far as readers know, the delegation from Jerusalem has remained at Caesarea, awaiting the next session of the court. To these was added one more goal: here, as nowhere else, Paul is represented as a teacher of ­morality. Comment   24  The unit begins abruptly,12 with the setting left to

the reader’s imagination. Mark 6:20 (Herod listening to

theme of cherchez la femme, but observes that the Trans. G. Anderson, in Reardon, Novels, 156–57. onus now lies on a single Jew and that the Roman Typically, the governor accepts Habrocomes’s story official is made to look better. and befriends him. (Two miraculous deliveries 10 Barrett (2:1092) dismisses the use of Mark 6 on from crucifixion did, to be sure, lend credibility.) the rather superficial ground that one cannot She was named after the sister of the emperor compare solicitation of a bribe with decapitation. Gaius, a bit of flattery that did not wear well amidst Luke was not seeking to produce an exact analogy the political vicissitudes of the era. but to exploit a narrative shell suitable for his Cadbury (296) identifies the problems of vv. 24–27. purpose. The syntactic and verbal parallels (n. 6) So, for example, Fitzmyer, 739. add weight. The arguments supporting this view may be found in Pervo, Dating, 43–44. See also the comments on 11 Compare Lucian Peregr. 14, where a proconsul of Syria, who was said to have a warm interest in 13:6-12. philosophy, released the jailed Peregrinus (who was For Luke’s purpose here, see Pervo, Profit, 77–81. then in his Christian phase). The D-Text of 24:24 shows dependence on Luke 12 The participle paragenovmeno~ is difficult. It often 23:8, thus establishing another parallel. Cf. also means “appear” (Luke 7:4, 20; 14:21; 22:52; Acts Luke 9:9. 5:20, 25, etc.), but that is difficult to reconcile with Epp (Tendency, 152–53) does not deal with the

603

Acts part 3C.indd 603

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

John) provided the inspiration for v. 24b.13 The narrative allows the possibility that Felix invited Paul to expound his beliefs. In any case, Paul spoke to him/them about his belief.14 In one sense this address fills in details about “the Movement” (v. 14), both relieving Paul of the charge of concealing his views at the trial and allowing him to be something of a missionary, although the text does not speak of attempted conversion but only of useful moral instruction. Like other itinerant philosophers, Paul preaches righteousness to all members of the social hierarchy.15 This language is characteristic of the early second century.16   25  Dikaiousuvnh (normally translated “righteousness”) and the related adjective become virtues in post­ apostolic Christianity. The noun can also be, as here, a term that encapsulates all virtues, so “proper behavior.” Polycarp Phil. 3:1 is a good example of this tendency and serves as a commentary on Acts.17 By coupling “proper behavior” with “self-control” (ejgkrateiva) the narrator summarizes the positive (“thou shalt”) and negative (“thou shalt not”) sides of early Christian parenesis.18 The prominence of self-control is a small but important clue to the place of Acts in early Christian

13

14 15

16 17 18 19

literature. Paul, for example, uses it but once, at the end of a list of virtues/spiritual gifts (Gal 5:23). During the second century, it will move, as here, toward the head of the list.19 The motivation for virtue is eschatological, in effect: “Be good or fry forever.” Luke does not emphasize this lamentable formulation, and it stands far from the summit of Christian faith, not to mention the Pauline understanding of justification.20 With these few words, Luke paints Paul both as a courageous philosopher who does not pull his punches or dilute his message to curry favor with the powerful and as a staunch opponent of anything that could be called libertinism or antinomianism. The former may be no more than clever characterization, but the latter confronted one of the most serious charges raised against Paul, as well as an interpretation of his teaching that exercised a strong appeal in certain advanced circles. When the content of “belief in Christ Jesus” can be represented by “doing the right thing” and “self-control/chastity,” readers know that the text reflects a moralistic mentality.21   26  Felix took no comfort from these strong words and, for the second time, adjourned the “proceedings.”22 This disappoints those readers who had expected a

“sent for.” The D-Text eliminates it. The transla(where “righteousness” has its limited meaning). In tion takes it as the equivalent of “to be (with).” See Act. John 84, “self-control” and “righteousness” are Cadbury and Lake, 296. major virtues, as in Act. Pet. 2 (Verc.). Act. Paul 3.5 The motif was common enough. See Campbell can summarize his gospel as “God’s message about Bonner, “A Note on Mark 6,20,” HTR 37 (1944) self-control and resurrection” (lovgo~ qeou` peri; 41–44. This observation does not obviate the claim ejgkrateiva~ kai; ajnastavsew~), similar to but even that Mark was the specific source here. It does more encapsulated than Acts 24:25. In these texts, locate Paul within a broad tradition. especially the last, the word means “continence,” “The faith” in v. 24 is fides quae, the content of celibacy. See Walter Grundmann, “ejgkravteia,” belief, as v. 25 indicates. See Pervo, Dating, 285–86. TDNT 2:339–42, esp. 340–41; Bultmann, Theology, Cf. the lectures on wisdom, courage, and chastity 2:221; H. Goldstein, “ejgkravteia,” EDNT 1:377–78; delivered by Apollonius (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. and Pervo, Dating, 268. 4.31). The Acta Alexandrinorum illustrate many 20 Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:302) takes “faith in features of Paul’s encounters with rulers, including Christ Jesus” as a summary of “Paul’s christologitheir reluctance to make just judgments, postponecal preaching,” while “ ‘ justice’ and ‘self-control’ ments of decisions (Appian, perhaps Isidorus and may be mentioned to indicate qualities particularly Hermaiscus), malign influence of Jews (Maximus required of Felix and other rulers when they are 1.124–32; Athenodorus 15–18). Note also the influmeasured in the judgment.” This bland harmonizaence of Plotina and her Jewish advisors in the Acta tion neglects the thrust of the text. Hermaisci. For parallels from the philosophical 21 This does not intend to disparage these qualities or tradition, see Johnson, 419. to deny reason for such emphases. See Pervo, Dating, 266 and 268. 22 The phrase to; nu`n e[con (“for now”) is suitable to See Bultmann, Theology, 2:212–13. dialogues. See Aristeas 198; Plutarch Amat. 1 (Mor. Ibid., 2:218–20. Compare paired lists of virtues 749A). Equally idiomatic is kairo;n de; metalabwvn and vices. (“have spare time”) . See Cadbury and Lake, 305, The two terms appear together in Aristeas 273 on both.

604

Acts part 3C.indd 604

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

24:24-27

more positive response.23 The interruption initiates a different view of Felix. Whether this is attributed to popular literature’s propensity toward inconsistent characterization24 or to Luke’s gradual revelation of the procurator’s true nature25 is not important, although v. 24 suggests the former interpretation. The narrator does show Felix’s nature rather than simply assert it, but he also wishes to portray Paul’s attraction to, ease with, and courage before the elite. The result yields these sudden shifts from interested official to frightened listener to seeker of a bribe. This is to say that the a{ma kaiv (“but at the same time”) introducing v. 26 applies to both Felix and the narrator.26 In this clumsy manner the narrator insinuates the subject of bribery,27 intimating that it explains why Felix did not terminate contact with Paul. Granted that truth may be stranger than fiction, this is an unlikely story. Those of Felix’s stature are most likely to receive bribes through intermediaries rather than to continue meeting with a prisoner in the hope that he will come up with the idea on his own. The frequent meetings relate to the desire to show Paul’s ability and charm, while the specifics are indebted to the story of Herod and the Baptizer. Luke may have taken the idea of bribery from Josephus’s comments about Albinus,28 but the theme is common enough.   27  Bribery of officials ranked very high among the most common of charges, both true and false.29 The soil

for this was tilled in v. 17, which indicated that Paul had or could acquire substantial funds, but the excuse is a bit thin, so v. 27 adds another: Felix was currying favor with the Jewish leadership. These two potent pressures permit readers so inclined to infer that Lysias did not appear (v. 22) because Felix had instructed him not to do so until so ordered. The narrator has, however, simply dropped this matter. Verse 27 is not particularly smooth. The two clauses are linked by “and” (te). A clearly adversative or subordinating conjunction would have been preferable. Even better would have been an inversion, for example, “Felix kept Paul in custody so long as he remained in office.” Luke wished to place emphasis on the time—it is shocking. Acts 21:17—24:23 encompassed less than two weeks, to which vv. 24-25 add but a few days. Verse 26b is indefinite. Not until v. 27 does the reader perceive how long the situation lasted.30 The internal parallel and contrast is 28:30, Paul’s two-year mission in Rome. Other notations of an extended period of time mark an epoch,31 but that is not the case here. The narrator makes no inferences about this temporal statement; commentators have been less reticent. The first question is whether this figure derived from a/the source, and, if so, whether the author properly understood it. It is possible that the word dietiva referred to a term of office. The genitive absolute

23 Rackham (449) opined: “We cannot help being surprised at the little effect produced upon Felix by his intercourse with S. Paul. The case had been very different with the governor of Cyprus. But in the servile character of this Greek adventurer there was not any depth of soil in which the word could germinate.” Haenchen (663) is more positive: “Paul almost succeeded in converting the procurator Felix, as he converted the procurator [sic] Sergius Paulus and as he will almost succeed in converting King Agrippa II.” 24 See Pervo, Profit, 33, with its references. 25 Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:303) labors to expose Felix’s character and is able to conclude that this is “a tragic plot in miniature.” Few concepts could have been more distant from the mind of the narrator. In this instance, the literary critic can benefit from intertextual research, for v. 26 is indebted to Luke 9:8; 23:8, in the context of the story of John the Baptizer. 26 On this construction, see BDF §425 (2).

27 Verses 25-27 constitute a single, cumbersome ­sentence. 28 Josephus Ant. 20.215 says that Albinus cleared out the prisons, executing those guilty of serious crimes but releasing for money (crhvmata lam­ bavnwn) those charged with minor offenses. The passage (see also Bell. 2.273) is interesting because it assumes that many persons languished in jail (dedemevnou~, as in v. 27) without a final verdict, although it suggests that, unlike the situation reported in Acts, the procurator “cleaned house” before the arrival of his successor. 29 So, for example, the Egyptian prefect Flaccus was accused of receiving a large bribe: Acta Alexandrinorum II (Musurillo, Pagan, 4–5) = P. Oxy. 1089 col. ii, 55–60. 30 It would be reasonable to think that Felix gave up after a month, possibly two, but the narrative does not indicate that their conferences ceased. 31 Antioch (11:26); Corinth (18:11); and Ephesus (19:10).

605

Acts part 3C.indd 605

8/27/2008 10:24:47 AM

dietiva~ plhrwqeivsh~ (“two years having been completed”) could support this understanding. 32 The source would then have referred to the end of Felix’s tenure. This interpretation becomes a factor in the determination of the date when Felix left office.33 The hypothesis that it referred to a statute of limitations has been discredited.34 For Luke, it demonstrates the unfairness

of the situation. Acts 23:33—25:27 constitute a circle dominated by Festus. Expectations of expeditious and equitable justice have once again been dashed by human venality and Jewish animosity. The arrival of a new governor, Porcius Festus, stirs up the saps of hope once more, ending a long winter of hopes raised then dashed.

32 Contrast “after two years,” a clearer way of saying this. 33 See Lüdemann, Acts, 318–19, and the discussion below.

34 See Rapske, Roman Custody, 320–23.

606

Acts part 3C.indd 606

8/27/2008 10:24:48 AM

25:1-12

25

25:1-12  Festus Takes the Case 1/ Two days after setting foot in his province a Festus went from Caesarea to Jerusalem, 2/ where the chief priests b and the Jewish leaders put their case against Paul before him. c 3/ They urged Festus to do them a favor, to Paul’s disadvantage:d that he have him transported to Jerusalem.e This was because they intended to set an ambush and kill Paul en route. 4/ To this Festus replied that Paul was in custody in Caesarea, whither he himself would presently be returning. f 5/ “Your preeminent people g may accompany me and, if there are any grounds for it, h make their case against him there.” 6/ After spending no more than eight or ten days with them i in Jerusalem, he returned to Caesarea. The next day he took his place on the bench and directed that Paul be brought in. 7/ Once he was there, the Jews from Jerusalem ganged up j on him and made a number of quite grave charges that they were unable to support. k 8/ In his defense Paul contended, “I have done absolutely nothing wrong, either regarding Jewish law, or the temple, or Caesar.” 9/ Since Festus wished to ingratiate himself with the Jews, he asked Paul, “Are you willing to go to Jerusalem and be tried there by me on these charges?”l 10/ Paul replied, “I am standing in Caesar’s court. m This is the proper venue. I have committed no offense against the Jews, as you well know. 11/ If, however, I am in violation and am guilty of a capital crime, I shall not attempt to evade dying, but if there is no substance in the charges they are making, no one has the authority to surrender me to these people. I appeal to Caesar!” 12/ After conferring with his staff, Festus announced: “You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you shall go.”

a

b c d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

Or: “after assuming his office.” P74 a* A read ejparceivw/, which correctly identifies this adjective as having but two terminations, as also Ropes (Text, 227), but Cadbury and Lake (306–7) take it as a noun (“office”). Judea was not yet a “province.” NewDocs 2 (1982) no. 47, p. 85 gives evidence for a looser use of the term (“district”), but this is sixth century. P74 and a few others replace ou\n with dev (“then,” with “and/but”), intelligently in the view of Barrett, 2:1123. This creates a stronger disjunction: “Felix left Paul . . . but Festus. . . .” A variety of undistinguished witnesses read “the high priest.” This enhances the parallel with 24:1. P74 omits (before) “him.” Cadbury and Lake (307) speculate that cavrin may have the sense of “opinion,” “ruling,” but “favor” is satisfactory. In this verse, “Jerusalem” is undeclinable, unlike vv. 1, 7, and 9. This is a dash of local color, as the speakers in v. 3 are Jewish. It is probably preferable to see mevn in correlation to dev rather than as a free-standing me;n ou\n indicating narrative resumption, which it can scarcely mean here. The adjective duvnato~ can refer elsewhere in Luke and Acts to rhetorical ability, although not exclusively (Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; 18:24). See Cadbury and Lake, 307; and Josephus Bell. 1.243; Ant. 14.324 (a case in which Antony rendered a decision based on the advice of one of the parties). M reads “this man” and omits a[topon (“wrong”). Others harmonize by using both. The omission may have stemmed from the view that Festus was claiming too much for Paul, especially in light of his later conduct. P74 omits ejn aujtoi`", evidently unwilling to portray a close relationship between the procurator and the Jewish leadership. The vague temporal statement has different formulations. In addition to variations in order, some witnesses, including E, omit the negative, a few read “not more than ten,” and others “more than ten.” This seeks to capture the threatening sense of perievsthsan (lit. “stood around”). See Haenchen, 666. Use of the aorist by p 74 a* is probably due to a failure to recognize i[scuon as an imperfect. One might render: “which they didn’t even try to prove.” “Under my direction” is one understanding of ejpÆ ejmou`. See BDAG, 363 (3), s.v.; and Haenchen, 666 n. 3. On the text, see Cadbury and Lake (308), who support B in framing the phrase with “standing” (eJstwv~).

607

Acts part 3C.indd 607

8/27/2008 10:24:48 AM

Excursus: Porcius Festus and the Date of His Accession Josephus is much less critical of the rule of Festus than of the tenures of his predecessor (Felix) and his successor (Albinus). The extremely terse comments in Bell. 2.271–72 credit him with successful counterinsurgency. Ant. 20.182–96 is more detailed. The “bandits” were sicarii. From the latter account (§193) Luke could have learned of a mutual relationship between Festus and Agrippa II and deduced that Festus sought support from the Jewish ruling class. Luke’s portrait of Festus is in general accord with that of Josephus. The date of Festus’s accession is not clear, with a range of c. 55 to c. 61. Historians tend to opt for a date of c. 58–60,1 while much of the exegetical tradition has preferred c. 55–57.2 A governing factor for the latter date is the “lynchpin” of Gallio’s proconsulship (51/52), which would create a gap if Paul did not arrive in Jerusalem until 56/57. Historians are also inclined to take Acts’ statements about “the Egyptian” (21:38) or the “many years” of Felix’s rule (24:10) at face value. 3 The data are uncertain, ambiguous, and inconsistent, but incline toward a later date.4 Georgi’s date of 58 looks like, and is, a compromise, but it well accommodates conflicting data. 5 Precision in Pauline chronology is not possible, despite patient and devoted efforts. Most of these attempts assume that Paul encountered Gallio, Felix, and Festus, granting that the contexts provided in Acts are due to the author. This assumption, which relies on the existence of a “historical kernel,” is open to objection.6 Analysis

The dawn of a new administration brings a welcome zephyr of integrity and the aroma of efficiency. After no more than three days’ rest from his arduous journey to the new station, Festus sets out for Jerusalem, where he 1

2

meets with the leadership, who evidently have no issue of greater concern than the case of Paul. They request his return to Jerusalem. Behind this plan lurks the old game: an ambush on the road. Festus directs the accusers to come to Caesarea and present whatever case they may have. His doubts promise a fair and speedy trial. The subsequent scene looks like a replay of chap. 24. A bit more than a week later those accusers duly appear. With Festus presiding, they make numerous allegations with no evidence. Paul in his turn denies any offense against the Jewish law, the temple, or Caesar. With the introduction of this crucial last word he has begun to insinuate into his defense a rebuttal of political charges. No witnesses appear. Nonetheless, the trial is over, and the verdict should be forthcoming. It isn’t. Festus instead reverts to the earlier request of the Jerusalem leadership. His motive is that of Felix (24:27): desire to please “the Jews.” Although the place of trial was a matter of his own prerogative, Festus begs Paul’s permission for a change of venue. The answer will require no weighty calculation. What will happen on the road to Jerusalem is something about which Paul is well informed. The accused will firmly but politely decline this kind offer. The reply he does make would have been responsive to a ruling that Festus had transferred jurisdiction to the ruling Jewish body. The defendant asserts a right to trial before a Roman bench, closing with two dramatic words: “I appeal to Caesar.” This is a stunning development. Flustered Festus must find some way to regain control. An experienced bureaucrat, he elects to confer with his legal consultants to assess the ramifications of this demand. After a proper interval, he emerges from the administrative huddle and announces his decision in two crisp phrases that have the ring of a legal ­decision

Josephus apparently provides support for 59 or later, as he reports the appointment of Ishmael as high priest prior to noting the arrival of Festus (Ant. 20.179, 182), although his chronological references are vague. This tradition goes back to Harnack and Lake. More recent representatives are Haenchen, 70–71; Conzelmann, 195; and Lüdemann, Acts, 219. Favoring 59 is Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 41–44. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor argues for 59–60 in Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 22–23.

3

4

5 6

For example: Schurer, History, 1:465 n. 1; Smallwood, Jews, 269 n. 40. Cf. Emilio Gabba, “The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 bce–ce 70,” CHJ 3:94–167, esp. 144 n. 251. See the lengthy presentation of the evidence in Joel Green, “Festus, Porcius,” ABD 2:794–95. Green favors a later date. Saddington (“Roman Military,” 2428–29) prefers 58 or 59. Georgi, Remembering, 128–37, esp. 136–37. On the limits of this approach, see the comments on 18:12-17 (Gallio). If one grants the existence of source material for 21:33 through 26 (27), it is

608

Acts part 3C.indd 608

8/27/2008 10:24:48 AM

25:1-12

and redeem Festus from any appearance of confusion. Readers, however, have sensed the theme of divine necessity in v. 10 (dei`) and recall 23:11 and 19:21. What looks like a legal can of worms tainted with the odor of corruption is the unfolding of God’s plan. The most obvious datum is that the trials in chaps. 24 and 25 look like duplicates. The keen eye of Wellhausen already observed that the account here resembles the first trial.7 Lüdemann is willing to consider that the account in chap. 25 may be prior to and the basis of that in chap. 24.8 Neither account has much claim to preserve convincing historical detail. The bedrock of historical fact is Paul’s receipt into custody at Caesarea (presumably by Felix) and his eventual dispatch to Rome (presumably by Festus). He may have been sent there for trial or as a condemned prisoner. Some of the data in Acts may be valid, but means for determining which of these are accurate are lacking. Haenchen deconstructed the narrative of vv. 1-12, summarizing his conclusions with three issues: (1) The absence of a verdict, (2) Paul’s failure to decline Festus’s offer, and (3) Festus’s refusal either to try one charged with a crimen laesae maiestatis (an insult to the honor of the imperial person and office) or send him to Rome for trial.9 Barrett attempts to fend these off by addressing them seriatim, but does no more than dent their edges. He concludes, “The story as Luke tells it hangs together. This does not prove that it is historically true. It might be intelligent fiction.”10 This is special pleading; the story does not hang together and can only be called “intelligent” in the sense of “clever.” Haenchen’s

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

j­udgment that this is “a suspense-laden narrative created by the author” is more penetrating. Weiser does not reject a historical background, but he does not find much beyond Lucan composition when he casts his eye upon chaps. 25 and 26.11 The core of his argument is the close relationship between this material and the trial of Jesus in Luke 22–23.12 Central to this parallelism is the sequence of an inconclusive trial under a Roman governor (Luke 23:2-5) followed by an appearance before a Herodian monarch (Luke 23:6-12), a basis of which is Ps 2:1-2.13 The events also fulfill the oracle of Acts (9:15-16).14 Reasons for the involvement of the Herodian ruler are parallel (Luke 23:6-7; Acts 25:13-27). In both cases that ruler just happens to be in town and wishes to see the accused (Luke 23:8).15 The process follows similar lines: similar accusations without effect (violation of Jewish and Roman law [Luke 23:2]), demands for the death penalty (Luke 23:18, etc.), and judgments of innocence without release (Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22). At the general level, both stories have a similar cast: Jewish leaders, who accuse; the Roman governor; a Herodian prince; and the defendant. The major source of chaps. 25–26 is chap. 9; the residue is Lucan composition.16 Barrett once more demurs: “He does nothing however to indicate awareness of the parallelism, as he probably would have done had it been important to him, and does not repeat his earlier reference to Ps. 2.1f.”17 Luke is most definitely not the sort of narrator who would announce, “This took place, dear reader, in order to establish a parallel between the trials of Jesus and those

prophecy in 9:16 is based on the experiences likely that Paul did encounter Felix and Festus. The reported in chaps. 24–26. The theme is, however, interaction with Agrippa (II) is almost certainly already present in Mark 13:9, which speaks of trial fictitious. “before” (ejpiv) “governors” (hJgemovnwn) and “monWellhausen, Kritische Analyse, 51. archs” (basilevwn). Lüdemann, Acts, 323. Haenchen, 668–69. See also Lüdemann, Acts, 323. 15 O’Toole, Unity, 69. 16 Acts 25:13-22 and 26:30-32 are omniscient narraBarrett, 2:1121–22, citing 1122. tion on the part of speakers who would scarcely Weiser, 2:637–38. Some of his arguments have have allowed themselves to be interviewed by a been developed or expanded here. historian. Acts 26:1-29 is speech and dialogue. See pp. 592–93. Cf. also Acts 4:27-28. For detailed comment on this 17 Barrett, 2:1112. episode, see Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the Passtion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1:760–86. Brown discusses the psalm on pp. 779–81. One could make the counter-argument that the

609

Acts part 3C.indd 609

8/27/2008 10:24:48 AM

of Paul.” Luke’s architecture does not require recognition. Readers need not construct a sketch or list points of contact to grasp the points, the most basic of which is that the same sorts of people did the same things to Paul that they had earlier done to Jesus. At the aesthetic level, one may say that Barrett is deficient in his appreciation of Luke as an artist. The more important judgment is his lack of sensitivity to the Lucan technique of communicating the message by telling stories. If there is but one story, this is no deficit, either from the perspective of literature or of the gospel message. The question that drives the readers of Acts is, as Haenchen realized, What will happen next? The answer is: What happened to Joseph, Moses, various prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and Stephen. From a literary perspective, a major problem with salvation history is its monotony and predictability. If Luke understood anything, he knew how to use repetition to reinforce his message without succumbing to monotony. The more one strives, come what may, to demand precise history in Acts 21–28, the greater the danger of missing its desire to communicate the meaning of history. Comment   1-4  Like Felix, Festus gives an initial positive impres-

sion. He is energetic and unwilling to be manipulated. Readers of Josephus would expect the Jewish leaders to seek help against the guerillas and terrorists, but the only issue they raise here is the case of Paul. Indeed, they plan to borrow one of the key weapons in the

t­ errorist arsenal: assassination by ambush. Festus unwittingly avoids this trap: he will soon return to the capital, and the prisoner is there. A hopeful note appears in his possible doubt about Paul’s guilt. If this is not simply gratuitous or merely formal—an affirmation of the presumption of innocence—it may mean that he has not found their accusations particularly convincing. If the author had any specific information about these events, he has ignored it, giving preference to reiteration.18   5  The verse breaks into direct speech,19 making its sentiments more vivid.20 The scene also buries the original witnesses (the “Jews from Asia” and Lysias) beneath another layer of sand. The contest will be between Paul and the high priestly leadership. Reference to the judgment seat (“bench”) underlines the official nature of the proceedings.21 Its literary function is to prepare for v. 10. This account includes details omitted at 24:1-2: the judge mounts his bench and the defendant is brought before him. The narrator has distributed his material: words in the first account, actions in the second.   6-8  The next passage contains one of the most dramatic, famous, and—for the interpreter—difficult scenes in Acts. The “trial” consumes but two verses, as there was no need to reiterate the rhetorical duel of chap. 24.22 The prosecution’s case is summarized in vague indirect discourse.23 Paul simply denies any offense, in sixteen not ineloquent words.24 He has given to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. “Caesar” could be a trope for “violation of Roman law” and need not be limited to laesa maiestas, protean as that category could be.25 Offense against the majesty of the

18 The verb ejmfanivzw (“lay information”) makes the fourth of its five appearances (23:15, 22; 24:1; 25:15). The ambush is a rehash of 23:12-15. Lest readers overlook this, Hmg (which Boismard [Texte, 390] accepts as the D-Text) adds: “Those who had taken a vow, in order that they might get their hands on him.” See Ropes, Text, 229. “Wrong” (a[topo~) evokes the story of Jesus (Luke 23:41). 19 See BDF §396, 470 (2). 20 Festus ends this encounter with a particular conditional sentence, balanced by two of the same type used by Paul to close his remarks in v. 11. 21 Cf. 12:21 (“Herod”); 18:12, 16, 17 (Gallio). 22 For language proper to court proceedings, compare the Acta Isidori Rec. A col. 1.17–18 (Musurillo, Pagan, 18): ejklhvqhsan [ÆAlexandrevwn prevs] bei~, kai; metavxato [oJ aujtokravtwr eij~ auj] rion

ajkou`sai aujtw`n. (“The Alexandrian envoys were summoned and the emperor postponed their hearing until the following day”; trans. Musurillo, p. 24). This is followed by the precise date, a constant feature of the reports of legal proceedings. (Apropos of 25:23, etc., the hearing involved “King Agrippa” [I], twenty senators, as well as sixteen men of consular rank [that is, ex-consuls, by and large], and the women of the court.) 23 Further details will emerge in vv. 17-19. 24 The speech is based on three short clauses consisting of ou[te (“neither . . . nor”) and a prepositional phrase beginning with eij~ (“in regard to”). The D-Text, according to Boismard, Texte, 390, once more changes direct discourse to indirect. 25 See John Balsdon and Andrew Lintott, “maiestas,” OCD, 913–14.

610

Acts part 3C.indd 610

8/27/2008 10:24:48 AM

25:1-12

state was a charge generally reserved for members of the Senatorial and Equestrian orders.26 A decision awaits.   9  Instead there is a volte face more surprising than that of Felix in 24:27, although the reason is verbally identical. The informed reader might well expect that Felix would want the support of the native leaders, but one cannot imagine what had led him to change his mind. The narrator could have supplied him with reasons, most notably the presence of witnesses in Jerusalem, the scene of the alleged crime, but that door has been closed. As noted, Festus could have adjourned the proceedings and scheduled the next session in ­Jerusalem.   10-11  The politeness and generosity of his request is matched only by the rudeness of Paul’s rejoinder, which accuses the procurator of throwing him to the wolves. The puzzlement generated by the procurator’s question27 dissipates before the even more puzzling response. Rather than say, “No thank you, your Excellency,” Paul appeals. One of the less-unsatisfactory solutions is to presume that Paul viewed himself as pinned, that he did not view Festus’s offer as genuine, but as a statement of change of venue. Jerusalem—roadside ambush aside—would mean enormous crowds roused to a frenzy of bloodlust that Festus would be no more able to resist than had been Pilate (Luke 23:18-25). Haenchen says it well: for Paul the change of venue amounts to extradition.28

By avoiding a definite order, Festus remained able to assert his own views that Paul was innocent of any conventional statutory crime but that he was helpless to deal with halakic niceties (vv. 16-21). The narrator, not for the first time, is working both sides of the street. Paul’s response is solemn 29 and revelatory. The dei` (“must”) of v. 10 asserts the fundamental impropriety of changing jurisdiction. (Never mind for now that Festus spoke of a change of venue.) This is a shaming tactic. For the reader it has a deeper meaning. Since 19:21, the verb has been associated with Rome. The Lord confirmed it in 23:11. Paul is destined for Rome, not Jerusalem, which was the city of Jesus’ fate. The appeal rests beneath the wings of God’s will. Paul then associates Festus with his assertion that he has done no wrong30 to “the Jews.”31 Verse 11 introduces, in a purely rhetorical fashion, 32 the matter of a capital offense. Since Paul is willing to take his punishment if guilty, he is quite justified in refusing an illegal transfer of jurisdiction to “them.”33 His means of refusal is to appeal to Caesar, that is, to demand transfer to Rome. This seeks to prevent Festus from altering his question to a command. The appeal presents legal difficulties that cannot be surmounted.34 In part this is due to lack of information

26 The charge of fomenting stavsi~, “sedition” (24:5) might possibly fit this category (cf. 19:40). This is the view of Bruce, 487. In that case, Haenchen’s observation (see above) would apply: Festus should try it or remand the case to Rome. 27 The difficulty is represented by the variant h[ (“be tried there or by me?”): 33 pc. 28 Haenchen, 667. 29 Note the perfects in vv. 10 and 11 (supplemented by the perfect hjdivkhka, “have done nothing wrong,” in v. 10: a B [81]). Verse 11 contains two contrasting particular conditions, linked with mevn . . . dev. The final two words, calling upon Caesar, succinctly contrast with the wordier prelude. “Caesar” is also an inclusio. For a rhetorical analysis, see Soards, Speeches, 119–20. 30 The use of the verb ajdikevw in both v. 10 and v. 11 is Pauline (1 Cor 6:8; 7:12; 2 Cor 7:12 [bis]; Gal 4:12; cf. Col 3:25), albeit not exclusively so. 31 In proper character, Paul would have said “my people.” The voice is the narrator’s.

32 The acceptance of law, together with the assertion of one’s rights, is basic to apologetic. Conzelmann (203) notes that it is present in Plato’s Apology (e.g., 37) and the Crito. A Christian example is Athenagoras Supplicatio 2.1. Closer to Acts is Josephus Vit. 141, a speech: “My countrymen, if I deserve to die, I ask no mercy (ouj paraitou`mai), but . . .” (trans. Henry St. J. Thackery, Josephus I [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926] 55). For the opposite (“I deserve it”), see Virgil Aen. 12.931. 33 For the reader carivsasqai (“give,” “surrender”) in v. 11 is a clever play on and riposte to the cavrin (“favor”) of v. 9. 34 Bibliography includes: Ulrich Holzmeister, “Der hl. Paulus vor dem Richterstuhle des Festus (AG 25, 1-12),” ZKTh 36 (1912) 489–511, 742–83; Henry J. Cadbury, “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 297–338, esp. 312–19; Conzelmann, 203–4; Peter Garnsey, “The Lex Julia and Appeal under the Empire,” JRS 56 (1966) 167–89, esp. 182–185; idem, “The

611

Acts part 3C.indd 611

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

about how Roman law operated in these matters.35 Law books discussed provocatio and appellatio, but data about cases are inconsistent and unclear, as is Acts itself. “[W]hile there certainly existed a nexus of procedures which we may reasonably label ‘appeal to the emperor,’ we have so far not the slightest basis for statements about its conditions, limits or modes of operation.”36 Discussions of appeal take their basis in the right of Roman citizens, but Acts does not introduce Paul’s claim to Roman citizenship here. Perhaps the franchise is to be inferred from 23:27, but it is difficult to understand why the narrator does not have Paul say, “I am a Roman! I appeal to Caesar.” Paul grounds his appeal on his standing as one on trial in a Roman court rather than on his status. Furthermore, v. 12 indicates that Festus might have seen fit to deny this demand. The narrative value of the appeal emerges in 26:32. It now functions like the laws of the Medes and the Persians and thus works against Paul, who would otherwise have been

discharged. By that point, legal issues have gone by the boards, since, when confronted by this situation, Paul would have rescinded his appeal. “Within the narrative world, however, everything makes good sense.”37   12  Response to this critical tradition has focused on the character of Festus. Richard Cassidy has stressed the negative aspects of Festus’s character,38 a view that has been taken up by Witherington and Tannehill, among others. Cassidy is quite correct. Festus is, for the reader of Acts, not honorable. The objective reader may sympathize with the plight of Festus,39 but the implied reader of Acts regards sensitivity to Jewish pressure and power as abrogation of official responsibility. Cassidy’s related claim, that Haenchen sought to portray Festus in a positive light, creates a straw man, and this is the creature Witherington and Tannehill embrace in their attempts to justify the story on historical grounds.40 Festus betrays, when the situation requires, his ­w illingness to

Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors,” JRS 58 (1968) 51–59; A. H. M. Jones, “I Appeal unto Caesar,” in George E. Mylonas and D. Raymond, eds., Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; St. Louis: Washington University Press, 1951–53) 2:918–30; Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 57–70; idem, The Roman Citizenship (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 334–36 (on the Cyrene Inscriptions); Andrew W. Lintott, “Provocatio: From the Struggle of the Orders to the Principate,” ANRW 1.2 (1973) 226–67, esp. 232–34. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 144–53; Long, “Paulusbild,” 87–105; Levick, Government, no. 6, pp. 10–11 (a valuable case, indicating that appeals could be rejected and noting the requirement of a deposit by appellants), and no. 84, pp. 95–96 (the Cyrene Inscriptions); Rapske, Roman Custody, 47–56; Stegemann, “Bürger,” 207–13; Tajra, Trial, 142–51; Nippel, Public Order, 6; Millar, Emperor, 507–16; and Omerzu, Prozess, 53–109. For summaries of the problems raised, see Haenchen, 666 n. 2; Pervo, Profit, 46–47, 154 n. 159; Krodel, 448–49; and Fitzmyer, 742–43. 35 Modern authorities disagree about whether governors were obliged to grant appeals. Garnsey (“Lex Julia” [n. 34 above], 184–85) says that they were not required to do so. Others, e.g., Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 57–70), hold that appeals by any citizen had to be honored. See previous note and n. 44. 36 Millar, Emperor, 510.

37 Skinner, Locating, 142 n. 85. 38 Richard Cassidy, Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987) 107–9. 39 See Cadbury and Lake (308), who question the narrator’s fairness. 40 Witherington, 720–22. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:305–8) paints Festus as a “political novice” who was a quick study as well as eventually biased because of his “sensitivity to power relationships in his province” (306). Haenchen (307), to the contrary, “believes . . . that Festus is basically ‘energetic and upright.’” What Haenchen said, with his wonted sarcasm was: “the energetic and upright Festus threatened to desert to the ranks of Paul’s enemies” (670 [German 597]). Tannehill (307–8) further assumes Festus’s later statements about Paul’s innocence as indicators of his unreliability. Luke, however, had no desire to cast any doubt on such affirmations. They were true. Festus’s problem was that his hands were tied. His dissembling is apparent, since he did not tell Agrippa or anyone else about his interest in cultivating his subject, but readers are not to doubt his views about the prisoner’s guilt. In the guise of interpreting the characterization of an individual, Tannehill is constructing a character who will make the narrative more plausible and thus historically reliable.

612

Acts part 3C.indd 612

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

25:1-12

compromise. That makes him an enemy. This inconsistency does not establish historicity. Within the realm of law it does not make very good sense.41 Although citizens could appeal against trial by magistrates outside of Italy, as well against a verdict or punishment,42 it is improbable, albeit not impossible, that appeals could be lodged while a trial was still in progress or prior to a verdict, which is what Acts implies. The government did not fund the expenses of an appeal. Those who appealed had to be prepared to pay the costs of their own travel, lodging, and upkeep, as well as the expenses of witnesses.43 Acts says nothing of these matters. The available data suggest that provincial governors routinely sent Roman citizens to Rome for judgment. Procurators of Equestrian status would have been even more inclined—or obligated—to do so.44 Paul is, according to 27:1, one of a number of prisoners being dispatched to Rome under escort. Acts

27:42 ­evidently implies that they had been found guilty. In sum, Paul may have been a citizen and he may have appealed, but the text of Acts does not provide sufficient clarity. The appeal functions, like the citizenship, as a literary device, and it may have been a (brilliant) authorial creation. The narrator suggests that appeals did not function automatically, for Paul’s surprising demand drove Festus into a hasty consultation with his legal experts.45 This raises suspense. When the conference is over—the narrator does not say whether they withdrew or how long they took—Festus returns with his epigrammatic answer.46 Paul is, indeed, destined for Rome. The trial of Paul in Acts is ended. Were the next paragraph to begin with 27:1 readers would perceive no gap. This is not to say that nothing would be missed, for the story has much to offer, none of which will injure its hero’s reputation.

41 Although Barrett has labored to defend the general historicity of the narrative, he acknowledges that conclusions based on such assumptions are questionable. 42 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 58 and n. 5. 43 Rapske, Roman Custody, 210. 44 Pliny Ep. 10.96.4 assumes that Roman citizens accused of a serious crime are sent to Rome. See also the Second Edict of Augustus from Cyrene (SEG 9 no.8 ii (= Conzelmann Appendix 10, 240). For other examples, see Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 310–12. According to Lucian Tox. 17, one Deinias, a wealthy citizen of Ephesus, was arraigned before the proconsul for murder and sent to the emperor. He would probably have been viewed, because of his status, as a citizen. This is a fiction but evidently realistic. Tacitus Ann. 10.16.2 speaks of a freedperson who was jailed by the proconsul of Asia but freed by Nero (c. 65). The text

does not say that he was sent to Rome. According to NewDocs 4 (1982) no. 20, p. 85, not all citizens could request a trial at Rome, and influential noncitizens could sometimes do so. Josephus speaks of the transport of Jews to Rome for trial (Bell. 2.243||Ant. 20.131; Bell. 2.253||Ant. 20.161). Millar (Emperor, 473) states that governors might refuse the appeal of one condemned, but defer execution until the emperor had replied to their letter and accompanying libellus. They could also sabotage appeals (cf. Suetonius Galb. 9). 45 For such consultations prior to a verdict, see Chariton Chaer. 5.8.6; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 7.12.1. On such bodies, see 4 Macc. 17:17; Philo Leg. 254; Josephus Ant. 16.163; and Schürer, History, 1:370. For examples of the emperor’s consilium, see Millar, Emperor, 119–20, 206–7. 46 On the style of his sentence, see Weiser, 2:642.

613

Acts part 3C.indd 613

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

25

25:13-22  Agrippa and Bernice Arrive 13/ Not long thereafter King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea and gave Festus an official welcome. a 14/ Some days into their visit Festus brought the case of Paul to the king’s ­a ttention. “There is a man left in custody by Felix. 15/ When I was in Jerusalem, the Jewish high priests and elders brought the case to my attention, demanding that I find him guilty. b 16/ I explained to them that it is contrary to Roman practice to execute a sentence upon an accused person before that individual has had opportunity to confront the accusers and offer a defense against the charge. c 17/ “When they came here, d I took my seat on the bench without delay—the very next day, in fact—and had the man brought in. 18/ When the accusers arose to make their case, however, they did not allege any of the crimes about which I had expected to hear. e 19/ Instead, they took up with him some controversies involving particular religious matters, as well as questions about a certain deceased Jesus, whom Paul claimed to be alive. 20/ Since I had no idea how to adjudicate matters of this sort, I asked whether he would like to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these issues. f 21/ Because, however, Paul appealed g to be retained h for a decision i by His Majesty, I ordered him to be kept in custody until I could remand j him to Caesar.” 22/ Agrippa said, k “I really should like l to hear this man.” “Tomorrow you will have your opportunity,” replied Festus.

a

b c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

The v.l., a future participle, is easier. On the aorist. ajspasavmenoi, see Cadbury and Lake, 309–10; and BDF §339 (1). The participle bears no temporal sense. E y m read divkh, more like “punishment,” “penalty.” Cf. 28:4. A thinly attested v.l. tini for tina (“to someone” rather than “a [person]”) provides an indirect object. Specification comes in the eij~ ajpwvleian (“condemn someone to death”) in m and the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 392). This verse is, according to BDF §386 (4), the sole NT example of an oblique optative in a temporal clause. It is an example of cultured interchange between two gentlemen whose syntax is impeccable even in casual conversation. Since Luke elsewhere uses the genitive absolute without stating a subject, aujtw`n is to be viewed as secondary. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 436. An alternative, preferred for the D-Text by Boismard (Texte, 392), who also reads wJ~ rather than w|n, “as” rather than “which,” is ponhravn (“wicked”), agreeing with aijtivan (“charge”). Another option is the neuter plural (ponhrav) . Finally, m omits this word, leading Barrett (2:1129) to suspect that it may be a gloss. A shorter Byzantine text is always interesting, but it seems more likely that it was found unnecessary and possibly derogatory. P74vid sa introduce a relative pronoun (= h{n) before ei\con, evidently in agreement with deisidaimoniva (“religion”). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 393) omits “on these issues.” This makes the prospective hearing absolute. H P 049. 323. 1241 pm read the singular “this,” presumably making resurrection the single issue for adjudication. The syntax of v. 20 is difficult. On the indirect question, see Moule, Idiom Book, 154. The verb e[legon (lit. “I said”) is unfortunate. Some form of “I asked” would be simpler. Cadbury and Lake (312) refer to ajporouvmeno" . . . zhvthsin as “a remarkable though intelligible construction.” The v.l. eij~ thvn (C E L y 33. 36. 323. 614 et al.) has the same effect as an accusative of respect. See Barrett, 2:1140. P74 y 1739* pc have the present participle, which might suggest that Paul repeatedly invoked his demand. On the difference between the preferred aorist infinitive thrhqh`nai and the variant present form, see Bruce, 492. On the more or less gratuitous pronoun aujtovn (“him”), see BDF §406 (2) and 392 (3). In this instance diavgnwsi~ = cognitio; that is, Paul appealed for the emperor to take cognizance of the case. See Deissmann, Light, 342 n. 3. A v.l. is the simple pevmyw (“send”), probably because the compound ajnapevmyw could be taken as “send back.”

614

Acts part 3C.indd 614

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

25:13-22

k l

Ellipsis of the verb “say” is acceptable. The manuscript tradition gives evidence of “correction.” Moule (Idiom Book, 9) calls ejboulovmhn a “desiderative imperfect.” For another view, see p. 618. It is evidently equivalent to the classical bouloivmhn a[n.

Analysis

In the course of time a royal couple, Agrippa (II) and Bernice, dropped by to pay their respects. Because their visit extended over several days, Festus had opportunity to lay before his guest the burden of this difficult case. The omniscient narrator reports a conversation between the procurator and the client king. Festus summarizes the case in an amusingly tendentious and self-serving manner that does him no discredit.1 In Festus’s view, this is a purely theological dispute.2 Utterly adrift on this sea of religious tempests, Festus claims, he had attempted to soothe the waters with the perfectly innocent and reasonable proposal to let them have it out in Jerusalem (omitting at present the role he had proposed for himself in this procedure). The appeal dashed these hopes for a sensible settlement, and Paul is awaiting transmission to Rome. Agrippa finds all this quite interesting and allows that he would like to hear the fellow. Hear him he will, the very next day. Here the burden of proof lies on the argument for historicity.3 Hemer feels this weight: “[I]t looks as 1 2

3 4

5

6

Cadbury and Lake (312) prefer “I had wished,” with the claim that Agrippa had heard something of the story. More aptly, they note the parallels in Luke 9:9; 23:8.

though Luke’s form of composition is inferential rather than based on sources.” After briefly justifying this, he finds that “the element of composition here looks to be significant.”4 Barrett grants the reasonableness of a courtesy call by Agrippa and Bernice, 5 and relatively early in Festus’s tenure would be an appropriate time for such a visit. These are not particularly vigorous defenses. What troubled Hemer was the omniscient narration of vv. 14-22, which cannot be fobbed off onto a source.6 The passage is a Lucan composition. Formally it fulfills 9:15,7 but Luke has more in mind than confirming the accuracy of those words. His inspiration for introducing these two visitors came, in all probability, from Josephus.8

The narrator used a similar technique in the letter of Lysias (Acts 23:26-30). The charitable reader will think that he must have nodded off during the speeches summarized in 25:7-8. See the brief review of scholarly views on this question in Haenchen, 673. Hemer, Book, 348. His remarks are interesting. Witherington (728) states that, as the author would not have been likely to have access to private discussions, “[h]ere Luke followed the historical convention of making the persons say what they were likely to have said on the occasion.” On p. 728 n. 397, Witherington allows the possibility of a court informant. Marshall (386) and Williams (411) also concede Lucan composition. Barrett, 2:1134. See, e.g., Josephus Bell. 2.309, where Agrippa goes to Alexandria to greet Tiberius Alexander who was assuming office. Hemer (Book, 343 n. 72) explains 5:34-39 (Gamaliel’s speech to an executive session of the

Excursus: Agrippa II and Bernice M. Julius Agrippa (28–c. 93), the son of Agrippa I (and the brother of both Drusilla and Bernice), was the last king of the Herodian line.9 Had he succeeded his father, a plan Josephus says enjoyed the initial favor of Claudius (Josephus Ant. 19.360–62),10 history may have been quite different, for Agrippa successfully combined strong and unquestioned Sanhedrin) by proposing that Paul was the source. On this see Pervo, “Happy Home,” 31 n. 4. 7 In his Life (49), Josephus labels Agrippa and Bernice “royal personages” (basilei`~). In that very literal sense she contributes to the scene. See also p. 621 n. 5. 8 Pervo, Dating, 187–90. 9 See Richard D. Sullivan, “The Dynasty of Judaea in the First Century,” ANRW 2.8 (1977) 296–354, esp. 329–45; Schürer, History, 1:471–83; and David C. Braund, “Agrippa” (2), ABD 1:98–100. OGIS (418–29) provides inscriptional data about the Herodians (including these two). 10 Josephus’s statements about Agrippa are not beyond doubt, but the course of Agrippa’s career confirms their general validity.

615

Acts part 3C.indd 615

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

25:13-22

k l

Ellipsis of the verb “say” is acceptable. The manuscript tradition gives evidence of “correction.” Moule (Idiom Book, 9) calls ejboulovmhn a “desiderative imperfect.” For another view, see p. 618. It is evidently equivalent to the classical bouloivmhn a[n.

Analysis

In the course of time a royal couple, Agrippa (II) and Bernice, dropped by to pay their respects. Because their visit extended over several days, Festus had opportunity to lay before his guest the burden of this difficult case. The omniscient narrator reports a conversation between the procurator and the client king. Festus summarizes the case in an amusingly tendentious and self-serving manner that does him no discredit.1 In Festus’s view, this is a purely theological dispute.2 Utterly adrift on this sea of religious tempests, Festus claims, he had attempted to soothe the waters with the perfectly innocent and reasonable proposal to let them have it out in Jerusalem (omitting at present the role he had proposed for himself in this procedure). The appeal dashed these hopes for a sensible settlement, and Paul is awaiting transmission to Rome. Agrippa finds all this quite interesting and allows that he would like to hear the fellow. Hear him he will, the very next day. Here the burden of proof lies on the argument for historicity.3 Hemer feels this weight: “[I]t looks as 1 2

3 4

5

6

Cadbury and Lake (312) prefer “I had wished,” with the claim that Agrippa had heard something of the story. More aptly, they note the parallels in Luke 9:9; 23:8.

though Luke’s form of composition is inferential rather than based on sources.” After briefly justifying this, he finds that “the element of composition here looks to be significant.”4 Barrett grants the reasonableness of a courtesy call by Agrippa and Bernice, 5 and relatively early in Festus’s tenure would be an appropriate time for such a visit. These are not particularly vigorous defenses. What troubled Hemer was the omniscient narration of vv. 14-22, which cannot be fobbed off onto a source.6 The passage is a Lucan composition. Formally it fulfills 9:15,7 but Luke has more in mind than confirming the accuracy of those words. His inspiration for introducing these two visitors came, in all probability, from Josephus.8

The narrator used a similar technique in the letter of Lysias (Acts 23:26-30). The charitable reader will think that he must have nodded off during the speeches summarized in 25:7-8. See the brief review of scholarly views on this question in Haenchen, 673. Hemer, Book, 348. His remarks are interesting. Witherington (728) states that, as the author would not have been likely to have access to private discussions, “[h]ere Luke followed the historical convention of making the persons say what they were likely to have said on the occasion.” On p. 728 n. 397, Witherington allows the possibility of a court informant. Marshall (386) and Williams (411) also concede Lucan composition. Barrett, 2:1134. See, e.g., Josephus Bell. 2.309, where Agrippa goes to Alexandria to greet Tiberius Alexander who was assuming office. Hemer (Book, 343 n. 72) explains 5:34-39 (Gamaliel’s speech to an executive session of the

Excursus: Agrippa II and Bernice M. Julius Agrippa (28–c. 93), the son of Agrippa I (and the brother of both Drusilla and Bernice), was the last king of the Herodian line.9 Had he succeeded his father, a plan Josephus says enjoyed the initial favor of Claudius (Josephus Ant. 19.360–62),10 history may have been quite different, for Agrippa successfully combined strong and unquestioned Sanhedrin) by proposing that Paul was the source. On this see Pervo, “Happy Home,” 31 n. 4. 7 In his Life (49), Josephus labels Agrippa and Bernice “royal personages” (basilei`~). In that very literal sense she contributes to the scene. See also p. 621 n. 5. 8 Pervo, Dating, 187–90. 9 See Richard D. Sullivan, “The Dynasty of Judaea in the First Century,” ANRW 2.8 (1977) 296–354, esp. 329–45; Schürer, History, 1:471–83; and David C. Braund, “Agrippa” (2), ABD 1:98–100. OGIS (418–29) provides inscriptional data about the Herodians (including these two). 10 Josephus’s statements about Agrippa are not beyond doubt, but the course of Agrippa’s career confirms their general validity.

615

Acts part 3C.indd 615

8/27/2008 10:24:49 AM

support for Rome with loyalty to Jewish identity, persons, and concerns. Around 50 ce he received the client kingdom of Herod of Chalcis (Bernice’s husband) and later exchanged this for mixed Jewish and gentile regions that were expanded over time by Nero and Vespasian. Unlike Josephus, Agrippa opposed the Jewish Revolt from its onset. Agrippa evidently died as a bachelor without issue. He enjoyed a close relationship—too close according to ancient gossip—with his sister Bernice, who served at times as his “first lady.” Julia Bernice11 (c. 28–?) was the nearly coeval sister of Agrippa II.12 She was married a good three times (the first at age thirteen) and was also the mistress of Titus and, rumor held, of others. Bernice is appropriately called a lesser Cleopatra, a wealthy, intelligent woman whose attractions were more than skin deep. Titus was evidently still in love with Bernice when she was in her fifties. Her personal courage was noteworthy (Josephus Bell. 2.310-14), as were her generosity and diplomacy (Josephus Ant. 20.343, 355). The Roman public’s abhorrence of eastern queens compelled her to leave Rome when Titus became emperor (Suetonius Tit. 7). The inevitable analogy with Cleopatra probably stimulated and almost certainly perpetuated rumors about her incestuous relationship with her brother.13 As a general rule, the power of highly placed women was in close proportion to the volume of gossip about their sexual lives.14 In Acts, she is “ornamental and mute.”15 The former went with her standing. The latter was uncharacteristic.

The story takes an unexpected turn with the arrival of King Agrippa and Bernice. Her identity (sister) is not specified, nor are his realm and role identified. It

is somewhat more likely that the narrator did not wish to take the time to explain these matters than that the implied reader is expected to know who they are. In due course, it will transpire that Agrippa is Jewish. This is the single important fact about him. Recent scholarship has debated the characterization of Festus in this passage. Lake and Cadbury proposed: “The speech of Festus can be grouped with the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix as representing Luke’s attempt to tell the story as he supposed that Roman officials would have told it.”16 For Haenchen, the question is not whether Luke invented this passage but why. He concludes that “Festus is personally rehabilitated before the reader. . . . A bright light falls on the Roman state, and suspense is awakened for what is to come.” Krodel senses no rehabilitation. Commenting on vv. 20-21, he says, “Luke is at his most brilliant in sketching the hypocrisy of Festus without any overt polemics.”17 Cassidy, commenting on the same two verses, says that Festus’s report “is decidedly biased in his own self-interest.”18 The major concern of both is the contrast between the motive stated by the narrator in v. 9 and that offered in v. 20.19 Tannehill agrees, but he does not wish to disparage all that Festus says, for much of it is beneficial to Paul.20 Analysis focused on the character of the procurator is likely to go astray. Haenchen’s synecdoche (Festus = Rome) is exaggerated, and no hypocrisy is involved, for Festus professes no virtues that he does not practice. Readers know that Festus presented one perfectly reasonable motive for his proposal to Agrippa while his

11 The spelling of her name is disputed. Haenchen (671) says that Ferenivkh is the proper spelling. Fitzmyer (749) observes that Alexandrian mss. favor Bernivkh, but that Berenivkh (Josephus Ant. 20.145) is more correct. The Latin reflex is “Veronica.” Juvenal Sat. 1.156 has Beronice. Bruce (491) says that the name is Macedonian in origin. 12 See David C. Braund, “Bernice,” ABD 1:677–78; and Ross S. Kraemer, “Ber(e)nice,” in Meyers, Women, 59–61. Louis H. Feldman has a valuable note in Josephus IX (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965) 467 n. d. 13 Egyptian monarchs married their siblings. Lucan (Pharsalia 8.693) applies the same adjective, incesta (which means “impure” or “unchaste” in general, as well as “incestuous”), to Cleopatra that Juvenal (Sat. 6.158) uses of Bernice.

14 The comments of ancient male historians about the influence of court women are usually hostile. 15 Kraemer, “Ber(e)nice” (n. 12 above), 61. 16 Cadbury and Lake, 311. 17 Krodel, 451. 18 Cassidy, Society, 111. 19 Cassidy’s second issue is that Paul did not ask “to be kept in custody.” This depends on whether the verb threvw has the identical meaning in v. 21 a and b. BDAG, 1002, s.v. threvw, says that it does not. In any event this is a minor quibble. It does not deny that release would have been Paul’s first choice. 20 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:310–13. On p. 312 he says: “[Festus] is presenting a public image that covers up his real motives.” The “public” here is the readership, since this is a private conversation. Through the generosity of the omniscient ­narrator,

616

Acts part 3C.indd 616

8/27/2008 10:24:50 AM

25:13-22

actual motive was different.21 The object of this monologue and its sequel in vv. 24-27 is to leave the reader with a clear view of what Festus thought about his prisoner and about Paul’s character and actions. Festus is the brush used to paint this portrait. The strongest evidence that this passage is more a positive picture of Paul than a caricature of Festus is that proponents of the latter view neglect the governor’s most glaring omission: the charges of violation of Roman law (v. 8).22 Festus also neglects to state that Paul was a Roman citizen. This conversation is for the benefit of the readers and need not repeat what they already know. The emphasis is on new information. Readers will doubtless be amused by the dashes of self-serving interpretation, as they were by Lysias’s letter, but in neither case were these touches intended to impugn the reliability of these characters. Festus’s account fills in many of the details briskly summarized in the previous twelve verses. Comment   13-21  After a brief introduction, 23 Festus lays before

the king a concise summary of the case, beginning with his inheritance of the matter from his predecessor and concluding with the decision to send the accused to Rome. Festus makes no explicit request for assistance, nor does he offer his reason for discussing the matter.

21

22

23 24

25

The narrator reserves that until v. 26. He claims that the Jerusalem leadership demanded a condemnation rather than a trial. Festus observed that condemnation without trial was not in accord with Roman justice. This conventional sentiment24 was often proclaimed by the apologists.25 Righteousness (barely26) satisfied, he disgorges a summary of the arguments that varies substantially from what was reported earlier. In place of numerous grave charges are religious disputes.27 Festus does not contrast criminal with religious offenses but states that the dispute involved theological rather than criminal matters.28 In addition, there was a dispute about whether Jesus were alive or dead. By this means, the narrator represents the governor’s inability even to grasp the question of postmortem revival. This is unlikely, but effective.29 Festus has given Paul’s case a substantial boost, for all considerations of crimes against “Caesar” or the temple (a matter that a Roman judge would consider different from a theological dispute) are out of the picture. The spotlight has come to rest upon the issue favored by Paul: resurrection (23:6). All this leaves the poor procurator at a loss (v. 20).   22  Now Agrippa, let alone the engaged reader, might well have interjected, “Why then did you not dismiss the case?” That resolution has been excluded by the narrator (and history), but, as framed here, without a statement about Festus’s presence, it intimates that a

readers also know of the actual motive of the Jerusalem authorities: to ambush Paul on the road (25:3). One might note that the historical Agrippa would probably have been sympathetic to Festus’s actual motive. Conzelmann (207) views the change as a means of informing the reader that Roman authorities are not competent to deal with these questions. Barrett, 2:1134: “This Roman view completely omits the serious Roman charge of seditio and laesa maiestas.” Verse 14a is based on v. 6. See, for example, Appian Bell. civ. 3.54. Note the Digest 48, 17, 1 (Ulpian), “This is the law we abide by: No one may be condemned in his absence, nor can equity tolerate that anyone be condemned without his case being heard.” For example, Justin 1 Apol. 1.3; Athenagoras Supplicatio 3; Tertullian Apol. 1.3; 2.2. See also Tacitus Hist. 1.6; and Jacques Dupont, Études sur les Actes de apôtres (LD 45; Paris: Cerf, 1967) 527–52.

26 The verb carivzesqai (“hand over”) in v. 16 is the same used by Paul in v. 11. Only by a narrow and technical margin does the governor escape violation of his own principle. 27 “Disputes” is used by Roman officials to characterize Jewish disputes with Paul’s message in 18:15 (Gallio) and 23:29; 26:3 (procurators). “Their own religion” is a proper translation of ijdiva deisidai­ moniva, but the adjective is more polite than aujtw`n. The addressee is a Jew. Slightly less possible is to apply the adjective to Paul: “his religion,” preferred by Cadbury and Lake, 311. 28 Haenchen, 672. 29 Stories about dead persons returned to life were abundant in Greco-Roman folklore. See Rohde, Psyche, 408 n. 103. For examples from the novelistic tradition, see Glen W. Bowersock, Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994) 98–119. See also pp. 674–76.

617

Acts part 3C.indd 617

8/27/2008 10:24:50 AM

r­ eligious court was a suitable place for hearing a religious dispute. Although readers will note that he fails to add the motive attributed by the narrator in v. 9, they might also take into account his ignorance of the malice of the Jewish authorities, who were determined to do

away with Paul by any means necessary.30 The hardheaded critic might wonder just what in this description had enticed Agrippa, but readers may safely assume that Paul always arouses interest of one sort or another. The scene closes with another crisp, confident promise.31

30 Boismard (Texte, 393) offers this D-Text: tovte oJ Pau`lo~ ejpekalevsato Kaivsara kai; hj/thvsato thrhqh`nai aujto;n eij" th;n tou` Sebastou` diavgnwsin, wJ~ de; aujto;n oujk ejdunavmhn krivnein ejkevleusa aujto;n threi`sqai i{na paradw` aujto;n Kaivsari (“Then Paul appealed to Caesar and asked that he be held for the judgment of His Majesty. Since I was unable to judge him, I ordered that he be held in custody until I could deliver him

to Caesar”). This expansion seeks to make a bit more sense of Festus’s actions (and eliminates the hypothetical question posed at the beginning of the paragraph). The matter was out of his hands. See Ropes, Text, 231. “Deliver” (paradw`) could evoke a parallel with the passion of Jesus. 31 Compare Festus’s proeuvsh/ (“you will go”) in v. 12 with ajkouvsh/ (“you will hear”) in v. 22.

618

Acts part 3C.indd 618

8/27/2008 10:24:50 AM

25:23-27

25

25:23-27  The Prelude to Paul’s Defense 25:23-25: Conventional Text

25:23-25: D-Texte

23/

The next day Agrippa and Bernice 23/ arrived in considerable splendor and entered the audience chamber with tribunes and the local notables. At Festus’s direction Paul was brought in.

24/

“King Agrippa and all you ladies and gentlemen. You see this man. a The entire Jewish community has appealed to me, both here and in Jerusalem,

24/

clamoring b that he must be put to death directly. 25/

“In my view, c however, he has done nothing deserving death, but, because d he appealed to His Majesty, I decided to send him to Rome.

26/

“I have l nothing definite to transmit to our Sovereign concerning him. I have therefore brought him before you all, and particularly you, King Agrippa, so that, upon the completion of an inquiry, I might have something to communicate. m 27/ For it makes no sense to me to transfer a prisoner without also stipulating the charges n against him.” a b

c

d e



The next day Agrippa and Bernice f arrived in considerable splendor and entered the audience chamber with [ ] men who had come down from the province.g Festus ordered that Paul be brought in. “King Agrippa and all you ladies and gentlemen. You see this man. The entire Jewish community has appealed to me, both here and in Jerusalem, that I should hand him over for execution without the opportunity to defend himself. 25/ But I could not hand him over because of the orders we have from the emperor. If, however, anyone wished to accuse him, I said that they should follow me to Caesarea where he was in custody. When they arrived, they shouted that he should be removed from among the living. h “After I had heard (him? i) in order, j I determined that he was in no sense guilty of death, and so I said: ‘Do you wish to be tried with them in Jerusalem,’ he appealed to Caesar.”k

“You see” (qewrei`te) is a polite indicative, not an order. The v.l. ejpibow`nte~ (C E y 33. 1739 m) is more technical, as it is used of the acclamations made by crowds in theaters, and the like. A range of witnesses read the opening phrase as a participial phrase, most adding kaiv (“and”) after pepracevnai (“done”). This appears to be a later attempt to improve the syntax. Or: “when . . .” This is from Boismard (Texte, 394–97) with lengthy notes on pp. 396–97.

f

g

h

As elsewhere, Boismard spells her name “Beronice.” This is probably derived from the Latin “Veronica.” It is not certain whether these men replace (as here) or supplement the notables of the conventional text. The text of Clark (158–59) is somewhat different. See also Ropes, Text, 233; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 437. Boismard, for example, prints qavnaton at the beginning, Clark bavsanon (“punishment”) . The Latin translation of the Syriac reads tormentum, which supports Clark.

619

Acts part 3C.indd 619

8/27/2008 10:24:50 AM

i

j k

l m

Boismard (Texte, 395) places tou`ton (“this person”) in parentheses. In N-A 27 it is the object of qewrei`te (“you see”). Or: “in part” (ajpo; mevrou~). Translation is difficult. Clark (159) differs: “But when I heard both sides of the case, I found that he was in no respect guilty of death. But when I said, ‘Are you willing to be judged before them in Jerusalem?’ he appealed to Caesar” (trans. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 437). D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 397): “find.” n The syntax is troublesome. N-A 27 reads scw` tiv

Analysis

The most suitable setting for the proposed audition would have been a private interview, but the narrator has already utilized that opportunity (24:24-25). Paul’s final defense took place in a setting of considerable splendor, with all those able and eligible to attend a V.I.P. gala present, including a client king, his regal sister, a governor, and all the quality of Caesarea. This is the most splendid “trial” in Acts.1 Paul will present his most brilliant defense speech, but fear of an unfavorable verdict will not inhibit appreciation, as this is not a true trial. The unit contains two speeches and a dialogue. In place of an argument for the prosecution, Festus offers introductory remarks (25:24-27), followed by Paul’s defense speech (26:1-23), which the governor interrupts, generating the closing dialogue (26:24-29). In his introduction, Festus set the background, including the role of the mob, his view of the matter, and his objective: the development of a concise report to advise the imperial court. Agrippa’s assistance will be deeply appreciated. Thus invited, Agrippa takes the chair and invites Paul to address the distinguished crowd. In this speech, Paul exhibits, to the best of the author’s ability, all the mannerisms and skill of a trained orator. His self-defense is appropriately autobiographical, summarizing the highlights of his career. This is Paul’s last full speech and his most important. For yet a third time the “conversion” is related. These repetitions show how important the story is for Luke, not solely out of concern for Paul, but because the legitimacy of the 1

­ ravyw, in which the last two words are evidently g taken as an indirect question: “So that I might have what I shall write.” P74 A E and a number of witnesses read the indicative e[cw. One might expect the subjunctive to be rejected as an improvement. E and m read the infinitive gra`yai, yielding an easier construction, in English no less than in Greek. See also Ropes, Text, 233. On a[logon (“absurd,” “irrational”), see Pervo, Dating, 262. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 398) reads the singular “charge.”

church Luke knows stands or falls with the legitimacy of the Pauline mission. By this third telling, the account has become a full-fledged prophetic call. The missionary commission now occurs “on the Damascus road.” There is no reference to the blinding of Paul. As a prophet, Paul stands firmly within the Israelite tradition. When Paul turns to the subject of resurrection, Festus intervenes. His dramatic interruption registers both the enchantment of Paul’s rhetoric and his own religious density. After a polite acknowledgment, Paul returns to his primary hearer, Agrippa. This Movement (Christianity) cannot have eluded the attention of a devout and informed Jew. The faith Paul presents is not the product of a squalid rural revival. Agrippa must acknowledge that Paul has been quite persuasive. Paul politely turns this into a well-phrased wish for the salvation of all. This is his last word here and in the Holy Land. As all rise to leave with the king, their “verdict” emerges: innocent of any serious crime. Agrippa assures Festus that, were it not for the (unfortunately irrevocable) appeal, Paul could have been freed. Comment   23-26  The D-Text of these verses is a somewhat tendentious secondary expansion that heightens the disrepute of the Jews. Rather than make Festus appear self-serving, these additions make Paul’s opponents look worse. Lest anyone overlook the import of the terse survey found in the conventional edition, this text underlines the pursuit of a summary execution. It is ­pedantic

Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 139) says that this “serves the same function that the Persian court serves in

Chariton [Callirhoe]: “It represents the pinnacle of grandeur.”

620

Acts part 3C.indd 620

8/27/2008 10:24:50 AM

25:23-27

insofar as it does not rely on readers to recall the earlier verses, but the effect is vivid. This text (or texts or comments) is the earliest known contribution to the debate about Festus’s character discussed above. Verse 25, is not, however, in agreement with this tendency, for it omits Festus from the proposed proceedings in Jerusalem. His failure to release Paul has become even less comprehensible. The D-Text preferred emphasis on these two points to concern for strict consistency. In fact, the two merge, for Festus’s proposal and the exuberance of the petitioners show that he was under all but unbearable pressure. After the solemn entrance, 2 the affair takes on the characteristics of a trial.3 Witherington’s summary, “A judicial hearing has been turned into royal entertainment and theater,”4 is at least half right. An informational interview with the features of a judicial hearing has been turned into entertainment for the royalty. Agrippa will be the “ judge.”5 One might expect Festus to identify Paul as a Roman citizen, a status held by most of the audience, but he moves directly to the charges. His summary strengthens the resemblances between the experiences of Paul and Jesus. “The entire Jewish community” demanded Paul’s death.6 The hyperbole is 2 3

4

5

6

apparent, for nothing in the narrative has indicated that a mob or assembly shouted for Paul’s death in Caesarea. Parallelism is the driving force, reinforced by social prejudice. The audience would not have held the judgment of a mob in high regard.7   25  The verse repeats in public the judgment of v. 18, which was also that of Lysias (23:29).8 One could gather from this statement that only the appeal forestalled a verdict of “not guilty.”9 This, too, will be repeated in 26:32 (by Agrippa). In this summary, Festus overlooks his suggestion of a trial in Jerusalem. It is difficult to call this self-serving, for it would not have struck Agrippa or the others as inappropriate, but it is, at the very least, a simplification.10 The appeal is both irrevocable and within the purview of the procurator. Verse 25 clarifies v. 12: Festus made the decision to dispatch Paul to Rome. These two principles are contradictory. The text does not suggest that the appeal had to be honored or that it was associated with citizenship. The legal situation is in a shambles, but the narrative is just where it wants to be. Festus needs help. He does not know what to say to the emperor11 about the case.12 The motive for the present scene is to supply him with the data that will

This is the second exhibition of Herodian pomp at Caesarea: see 12:21-22. The same verbs, keleuvw (“command”) and a[gomai (“be led in”), appeared in v. 6, at the opening of the trial. See Cadbury and Lake, 310. Witherington, 732. Cf. Cadbury and Lake, 312: “Festus was merely showing off an interesting prisoner to entertain Agrippa, the chief local dignitaries, and the officers of the Mess.” Bernice is, at most, decorative. The participle of the genitive absolute in v. 23 is masculine singular, and neither Festus (v. 24) nor Paul (26:2) takes formal note of her presence. This accords with social conventions, the effect of which is to render women invisible. The translation of plh`qo~ is disputed. Johnson (427) and Witherington (732), for example, wish to understand it in the sense of “Sanhedrin,” as in Luke 23:1, and thus limit opposition to the officials. This seems to accord with 25:2, but that verse depicts a small body of the leadership. Festus’s language evokes the plh`qo~ of 21:36, a mob demanding death. See BDAG, 826, s.v. plh`qo~. Unlike Jesus, Paul never enjoyed popular support in Jerusalem, according to Acts.

7

Johnson (421) gives a rationale for what Festus would have hoped to gain from this event. That does not make it historical. 8 Cf. Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22, in which Pilate thrice declares Jesus’ innocence. 9 The translation (see the alternate) understands Festus to be intimating a cause-and-effect relationship between the appeal and the absence of a verdict. Verse 21 supports this understanding, but it is disputable. 10 One reason for the omission is that this summary depicts the accusers as unwilling to accept any result other than execution. Festus is trapped by the logic of his own summary. 11 The absolute use of “Lord” (kuvrio~) may be a bit of an anachronism. See Pervo, Dating, 312. Of the examples cited by Fitzmyer (752), two name the emperor, while the third, P. Oxy. 1143, is dated approximately in the first century and does not refer to Augustus. The closest parallel, BGU 1200, is dated in the second century. 12 See Digest 49.5–6 (Ulpian) on these “litterae dimissoriae sive apostoli” (“notice sent to a higher judge”). Digest 49.6.1 states: “After an appeal has been introduced letters must be sent by the one with whom

621

Acts part 3C.indd 621

8/27/2008 10:24:51 AM

inform his brief. This is a familiar quest. Lysias had twice attempted to determine to; ajsfalev~ (“definite,” “certain”).13 To reiterate: use of the present setting to settle the facts of the case is a dubious procedure. Data should have been gathered from the relevant witnesses, with a summary of the allegations and evidence for and against them. In place of that, Paul will give

a public address that does not touch on any of the actual charges.14   26-27  The passage reeks of legalese.15 The term ajnavkrisi~ (“inquiry,” especially a preliminary hearing16) shows that the assembly is engaged in a legal procedure. Toward the close of his little introduction Festus stumbles, repeating himself and lapsing into a banality.

the appeal is filed to the person who will have to ­Caesarea is thus anything but a realistic descripdecide about the appeal.” This report is also known tion—here where the accusation is not even voiced, as a libellus. For examples and references, see Milbut the accused alone dominates the field.” lar, Emperor, 323 and n. 61. 15 Conzelmann, 207. 13 Acts 21:34; 22:30. The noun is the climactic word 16 See Frederich Büchsel, “ajnavkrisi~,” TDNT in Luke 1:4. 3:943–44; and BDAG, 66, s.v. Note also Bruce, 495. 14 Haenchen, 679: “The scene of the hearing in

622

Acts part 3C.indd 622

8/27/2008 10:24:51 AM

26:1-32

26

Acts part 3C.indd 623

26:1-32  Paul’s Defense 1/ Agrippa advised Paul, “You may now state your case.” Making the appropriate gesture, Paul began his defense. 2/ “King Agrippa, I regard myself as fortunate to have this opportunitya to defend myself today against b all the charges lodged against me by c Jews, d 3/ particularly because you are an expert about all Jewish customs and controversies. Please lend me a patient ear. 4/ Every Jew e knows my manner of life from my early youth, because I lived among my people in Jerusalem. 5/ They have long been well aware—and could so testify if they wished to—that I have followed the rule of life of the most punctilious group our way of worship has to offer. I am a Pharisee. 6/ I am now on trial because of my hope for fulfillment of the promise God made to f our g forebears, 7/ that for which h our twelve tribes i yearn, with continuous and heartfelt devotion, to experience. j Your Majesty, the Jews are accusing me of having this hope!k 8/ Why do you people think it incredible that God might raise the dead? 9/ My own view was that I was obliged to do a great deal against the name of Jesus the Nazorean, 10/ and I did so. Authorized by the high priests, I locked up many of God’s people in Jerusalem and cast my vote for their subsequent execution. l 11/ No synagogue escaped my attention. I frequently sought to torture them into committing blasphemy. In a fury verging upon insanity I extended my pursuit to other cities. 12/ While so engaged m I was en route to Damascus with the permission and authorization of the high priests, n 13/ when, while traveling at midday I saw, Your Majesty, a light from above, brighter than the sun, sweep over me and my companions. 14/ We all fell to the ground. I heard a voice, which said to me, o in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? You can’t swim against the flood.’

a

b c d

e

f g

h

i j k

l

m

n

o

The present participle mevllwn (“going to”) is awkward after the accusative “myself.” It may have been the result of striving for alliteration. The preposition periv here is the equivalent of uJpevr (BDF §229 [1]), which is a secondary variant. P74 et al. have the inferior and unlikely preposition parav (“from”). The anarthrous “Jews” appears in speeches in 25:10; 26:2-4, 7, 21. BDF § 262 (1) notes that Attic orators also omit the article with the name of opponents in lawsuits. The sense may be partitive (“some Jews, yourself excepted”) (Barrett, 2:1149). Lit. “all Jews.” The article is probably secondary, due to its normal use with “all.” See previous note and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 438. The v.l. prov~ is probably to be explained as harmonization with 13:32, which is quite similar. H L P 049. 1241 m omit “our,” perhaps recognizing that the audience includes gentiles, possibly from hostility to Judaism. The antecedent of the feminine relative h}n (“which”) is logically and grammatically “promise,” not “hope,” as one cannot “hope” for a hope. On this term, see Pervo, Dating, 268. The future infinitive offered by B pc, is an unnecessary refinement. N-A 27 does not include the reading of p 29, latreuvei ejn ejlpivdi (“serves in hope”), rather than the participle latreu`on and finite verb ejlpivzei (lit. “serving, hopes”). Boismard (Texte, 400) takes this reading, which is supported by gig, as the D-Text. See also Ropes, Text, 235. P29 also omits, with A Y 36. 453 pc gig, the final vocative in v. 7. Boismard (Texte, 400) adopts this. An alternative is to supplement it with “Agrippa” (cf. v. 19). This reading makes its way into the Byzantine text. Deletion of “king” is probably secondary, based on appreciation that Agrippa was a Jew. Perhaps the kaiv before pollou``~ (“many”) is adverbial. Omission of the first te (B Y 1739 m) appears helpful, although the alternate dev (36. 453) is not. Moule (Idiom Book, 197) sagely speaks of the use of te in Acts as a “mannerism.” Barrett (2:1156) prefers to render ejn oi|~ (“in which things”) as “and so” rather than “in the course of which activity.” See also Moule (Idiom Book, 131, 197), who is less certain. Some later witnesses include kaiv after the opening prepositional phrase. This must be adverbial (“also,” “even”). Omission of the article after ejpitroph`~ (“permission”) may be failure to construe the nouns as a hendiadys. The preposition parav, found in diverse witnesses before “high priests,” is harmonizing (9:2; 22:5). “Which said to me” is omitted by 33 pc. D-Texts and other others, via harmonization, read lalou`san

623

8/27/2008 10:24:51 AM

15/

24/

25/

28/ 29/

“‘Who are you, Lord?’p “‘I am Jesus q whom you are persecuting. 16/ On your feet, now! I have appeared to you to appoint you as an agent and witness of what you have seen and what I shall show you. r 17/ I shall rescue s you from your own people and from the gentiles to whom I am sending you, t 18/ to open their eyes, u so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God v and receive forgiveness of sins with a place among those who have been made holy by their trust in me.’ 19/ Therefore, Your Majesty, I obeyed that apparition from on high. 20/ In consequence I began to urge people, in Damascus first, then in Jerusalem, then to both Jews and gentiles in every region, to change their ways and turn to God, demonstrating this change by appropriate actions. 21/ This was why the Jews apprehended me while I was w in the temple and attempted to murder me. 22/ With God’s help I am still able x to maintain my views, testifying to those of high degree and low nothing other than what the prophets and Moses said would take place: 23/ that the Messiah would suffer, be the first to rise from the dead, and, by rising, be a herald of light to my people and the gentiles alike.” At this point Festus loudly interrupted: “Paul, you are crazy! All this research is driving you over the brink!”y “I am not insane, Your Excellency. z What I declare is the sober truth. aa 26/ His Majesty is well informed about these matters, and it is to him that I am speaking without equivocation. bb I am certain that none of these matters has eluded his attention, cc since this is no storefront mission! 27/ Do you believe the prophets, Your Majesty? Of course you believe them!” Agrippa replied, “Are you trying to make me a Christian in such short order?”dd “I would to God that, by one

p

q

r

s t

u v

(“speaking”). If the wording did not differ from the preceding accounts (9:4; 22:7), one would be tempted to prefer the omission. The form ei\pa (the equivalent of something in English like “I sayed”) is quite vulgar (found only in Mark 9:18, outside of a citation in John 10:34). “Lord” is omitted as redundant by some witnesses, including m. “The Nazorean” appears in some D-Text and other witnesses. This is harmonization with 22:8. The text of v. 16 is very difficult. The bracketed me, which might be taken as an accusative of respect (“regarding me”), is a source of difficulty. By the conventions of NT textual criticism it is the lectio difficilior and should be retained. P74 a A C2 E y 096 m latt bo—a formidable company—omit it. One explanation is that it was added to provide a clear object of ei\de~ (“you have seen”), motivated by the desire to state clearly that Paul saw the risen Christ. It is omitted here. Dibelius (Studies, 92) believes that corruption has entered “through the influence of the preceding w[fqhn” (“I appeared”). The emendation he proposes may be reconstructed as mavrtura w|n te ei\dev~ te ojfqhvsetai soi (“a witness of both what you have seen and will be shown to you”). Cadbury and Lake (319) agree that the Greek of w}n . . . soi is “impossible.” They identify 22:15 (w|n eJwvraka~ kai; h[kousa~ [“a witness of what you have seen and heard”]) as the source. Barrett follows T. E. Page in taking the relative w|n as equivalent to ejkeivnwn a{ (“of those things which”). This may be acceptable for the first relative, but not easily for the second. (Barrett [2:1143] deletes “me” from his translation.) The verb ojfqhvsomai would normally mean “I shall appear (to you).” To limit this to christophanies, like that at 23:11, is overly restrictive. It evidently encompasses 9:16, in which the risen Christ speaks of what he will “show” (uJpodeivxw) Paul. The translation takes it ad sensum as an ergative, “What I shall cause you to see.” This is how Fitzmyer (e.g., 759) understands it. Dibelius provides a meaningful sense of the passage. Whether one attributes this to textual corruption or authorial error is not ultimately important. Translators must, silently or otherwise, correct it. The participle has a future sense. An unnecessary variant is the future form, found in y 096. 6 et al. Others, including p 74vid and C, read the compound ejxapostevllw in present or future. This attractive alternative emphasizes the parallel with Jeremiah, but is suspect as a harmonization with 22:21. The v.l. “of the blind” (E 096 vg mss) is harmonizing with Isaiah. Boismard (Texte, 401) offers this D-Text: “to open their eyes so that they will turn from the darkness [ ] of Satan to God.” His evidence is thin.

624

Acts part 3C.indd 624

8/27/2008 10:24:51 AM

26:1-32

word or many, not just you, but everyone listening to me today could share what I now have— apart, of course, from these shackles.” At this point the king stood up, followed by the governor, Bernice, ee and all who were present. 31/ On their way out people commented to one another, “This fellow is engaged in nothing ff that deserves execution or incarceration.”gg 32/ Agrippa said to Festus, “If he had not appealed to Caesar he could have been discharged.”hh

30/

w

x

y z

aa bb

cc

dd

ee

ff gg

hh Analysis

Acts 261 is the best-crafted oration in the book, with a skillful structure and a relative abundance of stylistic 1

A B 048 m omit the participle o[nta (“while I was . . . ”). Its placement is certainly irregular. This may come from attempting to write in a more elevated style. Luke evidently wished to stress the parallel with Jesus (Luke 22:53). Lit. “to this day,” eliminated by the D-Text, according Boismard (Texte, 403), perhaps because incarceration on capital charges did not strike some as divine assistance. A adds ejpivstasqai (“knowing literature”). The verb is often associated with gravmmata (“learning”). The D-Text, according to Boismard (Texte, 404), omits the proper names “Paul” and “Festus,” reading “Most excellent governor.” The translation treats ajlhqeiva~ kai; swfrosuvnh~ as a hendiadys. The adverbial kaiv could mean “also” or, as taken here, as intensive. B 104. 1175 pc h vg mss omit it, while a few minuscules read emphatic ejgwv (“I”). The text of this clause is variously transmitted. The difficulty resides in the presence, absence, or placement of the negatives ouj (“not”), oujdev (“and not,” “nor”), oujqevn (nothing,” variously spelled), and ti (“any,” “anything”). About twenty constructions exist. The emphatic double negative, which is acceptable Greek, may be the source of the difficulties. Or: “Keep this up and you’ll soon make a Christian of me.” Or: “In a word, you want me to take the Christian side.” The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 405) omits Bernice. This improves the awkward syntax, which appears to reflect social hierarchy, but it also conforms to the D-Text’s tendency to eliminate women. See Pervo, “Social Aspects.” The v.l. ti evidently takes oujdevn as adjectival (i.e., “no thing” versus “nothing). BDF §322 takes pravssei (lit. “is doing”) as a “perfective present.” Its purpose may better be explained as a reference to Paul’s mission and message. What he has been doing, including this occasion, deserves no harsh penalty. Note the absence of a[n in this contrary-to-fact condition, on which see BDF §358 (1).

niceties.2 It would be difficult to find a commentator who believes that these achievements are accidental, for this is also the climactic oration, a defense speech that

On this chapter, see also Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, esp. 83–91; Robert F. O’Toole, Acts 26: The Christological Climax of Paul’s Defense (Ac 22:1—26:32) (AnBib 78; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978); Colin J. A. Hickling, “The Portrait of Paul in Acts 26,” in Kremer, Actes, 499–503; and

2

Artur Weiser, “Festus und Agrippa,” BZ 28 (1984) 145–67. The exordium is relatively elegant. Included are the customary (in Acts) figures of alliteration, assonance, and litotes, which can be illustrated in v. 19: ÓOqen, basileu` ÆAgrivppa, oujk ejgenovmhn

625

Acts part 3C.indd 625

8/27/2008 10:24:51 AM

becomes a missionary appeal. 3 This is apparent from attempts to analyze it in terms of forensic rhetoric.4 One model is: captatio (v. 2), a statement of ethos (vv. 3-5), thesis in vv. 6-8, climaxing with the subject proper: “God does raise the dead,” and probatio that includes both narrative (vv. 9-21) and “inartistic” proofs from Scripture, introduced in v. 22 and elaborated through the subsequent dialogue, which closes with a kind of plea, or peroration, in v. 29. 5 This arrangement battles against the fact that most of the oration is narration and that the proofs must be extracted from it. Beverly Roberts Gaventa has identified a concentric structure in the body of the speech: 6

A. Paul’s faith in resurrection follows tradition (vv. 6-8). B. Paul persecuted followers of Jesus (vv. 9-11). C. Paul received a prophetic call (vv. 12-18). C'. Paul was obedient to his vocation (vv. 19-20). B'. Paul has been persecuted as a follower of Jesus (v. 21). A'. Paul upholds the prophetic belief in the resurrection (vv. 22-23).

This may illuminate the compositional pattern of a part of the speech, and its shows the centrality of Paul’s call. Talbert’s plan rests on the autobiographical character of the oration.7 He detects an ABAB pattern. The A sections (vv. 4-5, 9-21) are autobiographical. Each is

ajpeiqh;" th`/ oujranivw/ ojptasiva/. (Cf. Euripides Orestes 31 oujk ajpeiqhvsa~ qew/` “not disobeying the god.”) Other marks of attempts at elevated style are eleven uses of te, an optative with a[n in v. 29 (the only such potential optative in the NT, BDF §359 [2]; 385 [1]), and the Attic form i[sasi (v. 4, not used otherwise in early Christian literature until Justin Dial. 5.1), the use of h{ghmai as present (v. 2), and the final vocative (v. 7). The true superlative in v. 5 is a bit rare. Verse 14 exhibits a Greek proverb. Cf. also the proverbial “in a corner” (v. 26). In v. 21 comes an Attic use of peiravomai. Verse 22 has oujdevn with a participle. Three times in this speech (twice in v. 23) eij is used in the rhetorical sense of a thesis to be expounded (whether one should marry, have children, fight for king and country, etc.). See Friedrich Blass, Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898) 9–10; Cadbury, “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts IV, JBL 48 (1929) 412–25, esp. 421–22. Note v. 23, eij paqhto;~ oJ cristov~, eij prw`to~ . . . , with alliteration and a verbal adjective. Rare and thus putatively elegant words include gnwvsth~ (“expert” [v. 3]), makavrio~ as “fortunate” (v. 3), bivwsi~ (“life” [v. 4]), qrhskeiva (“religion” [v. 5]), and dwdekavfulon (“twelve tribes” [v. 7]), to go no further. (Rackham, 462 n. 5, lists thirteen hapax legomena.) In v. 8, a[pisto~ has its intellectual sense of “incredible,” as in Aristeas 296, rather than the normal NT “unbelieving.” Cf. also oujranovqen (“from heaven”) and uJpe;r th;n lamprovthta tou` hJlivou (“brighter than the sun”) in v. 13. Here the writer apologizes from the Semitic “Saul, Saul” (v. 14). As an essay, this effort would, however, have received the equivalent of some strong remarks in red pencil. See the notes on various verses. See Conzelmann (210), who finds the style of vv. 4-5

3

4

5

6 7

and 6-7 “unimpressive.” As a formal comparison, he posits Lucian Peregr. 8. Schwartz (“Trial Scene,” 130) notes the change. In the book’s first trial, the apostles were adjudged uneducated (ajgravmmatoi). The final trial presents a Paul whose learning impresses Agrippa (26:24). Conzelmann, 209. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:317) notes themes found in other speeches and adds that it is structurally like Peter’s Pentecost address in that it closes with a missionary appeal contained within a dialogue (2:37-40; 26:24-29). Foakes Jackson (222) links speech to setting: “Here Luke introduces Paul’s speech with a dramatic picture of regal pomp . . . the apostle is now about to make the greatest of his speeches recorded in the Acts, and the scene is appropriately set for so momentous an occasion.” Rackham (456) is ­similar. See, for example, Soards, Speeches, 122–23; and Witherington, 736–37. Neyrey (“Forensic Defense Speech,” 221) lists the elements that belong to narratio (vv. 6-7, 16-20, 6-8) and the different types of probatio (vv. 16, 12-18, 13, 5, 12-13, 14-16, 16-18). These are not sequential, although most of the proof resides in vv. 12-18. Compare Witherington, 737: exordium, vv. 2-3; ­narratio, vv. 4-21; propositio, vv. 22-23, proofs omitted (as provided in earlier addresses); a brief refutatio, vv. 25-26, with the peroratio in vv. 27 and 29 Gaventa, Darkness, 80. Talbert, 211–12.

626

Acts part 3C.indd 626

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

26:1-32

introduced with the transitional particle me;n ou\n. The B (vv. 6-8, 22-23) components deal with the issue: resurrection. Each is marked by the verb e{sthka (“I stand”) with a participle, krinovmeno~ (“being judged”) in v. 6 and marturovmeno~ (“witnessing”) in v. 22. This is insightful, revealing the transition from a (hypothetically) judicial to a deliberative thrust. Many analyses cease, like the last two, at v. 23, where Felix interrupts, but the speech is imbedded in the subsequent dialogue and narrative.8 The data from this and the other defense speeches in chaps. 22 and 24 indicate that the author was familiar with the conventions of forensic rhetoric, but he does not follow them slavishly, and in this case rhetorical conventions provide no more than background.9 “Stasis remains metastasis,” says Kennedy, nearly conceding that this argument of attributing one’s action to divine causation is becoming a bit threadbare.10 In his study of the forms of commission stories, ­István Czachesz finds that Acts 26 “stands very close to the philosophical examples.”11 A common feature of these stories is a narrative in which “the hero is commissioned directly by the sender, without any reference to an institutional framework, owes loyalty only to the sender, and acts much on his own, obeying his ‘daimonion.’”12 This classification identifies the leading difference between chap. 26 and the other two accounts. One result of this “translation” deserves attention: its individualistic orientation. Even more than in Acts 22, Paul is a “loner” who urges individuals to repent and do the right thing. The individualistic proclivity of Lucan thought has colored his picture of Paul.13 8 9 10 11

12 13

Paul does not defend himself against any charges.14 None are mentioned by any of the participants. What he does defend is his life, which is to say his deviation from the official Judaism represented by the high priestly leadership. At best this address could be called the testimony of one witness. This is congenial to the narrator’s purpose, for “witness” is the role Paul was selected by Christ to play (v. 16). Paul has managed to change the topic. The high priests were unlikely to have supported his belief in resurrection or its biblical background, and they were most assuredly in disagreement with his view about the Messiah, but such beliefs would not, one might suppose, constitute grounds for capital punishment. The speech implies, however, that belief in Jesus was a cause for execution (v. 10). No Roman court would support that position—nor would a Jewish court, if it possessed capital jurisdiction, which it presumably did not. Paul was on safe grounds there. The theology of the speech would be very difficult for anyone not intimately familiar with “the Movement” to penetrate. The thesis in v. 8 that “God raises the dead” is claimed as an ancient Israelite conviction (vv. 6-7). That Jesus is an example of this action and/or that he is the Messiah is never explicitly stated. Only in v. 23 does Paul link belief in a Messiah to the claim that he had to die and be raised. Believing readers could fill in all of the gaps, but for most of the dramatic audience, including Festus, they would have been a series of non sequiturs. He could make no sense of what Paul said; Agrippa could, and was willing to concede the potency of the argument, but the narrator could not and did not

Soards (Speeches, 123), who is attentive to context, classifies vv. 24-29 as “epilogue through dialogue.” Cf. also Weiser (2:638–39); and Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 79. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 137. Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 83–85, citing 83. On pp. 11–57, Czachesz argues that many ancient philosophers, ranging from Pythagoras to Epicurus, claimed divine revelation as the source of their systems. Indirect support for this classification may be seen in the wealth of philosophical themes identified by Malherbe, Paul, 147–63. Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 85. A concomitant feature is the tendency in DeuteroPauline writings for Paul to become a model convert from a notoriously sinful life. See, e.g.,

1 Tim 1:12-17; Act. Pet. 2 (Verc.); cf. also Eph 3:8, discussed on p. 236 n. 30. Gaventa (Darkness, 92) captures the distinction between Paul as a model and the historical Paul: “It is precisely at this point that Luke and Paul part company. Paul understands his experience to be an example of the reversal of values and expectations that is intrinsic to the New Age.” 14 The closest he comes is the claim that “the Jews” tried to murder him in the temple because of his efforts to convert both Jews and gentiles (v. 21).

627

Acts part 3C.indd 627

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

dare to take the Herodian monarch any further down the path to conversion. Comment   1  Agrippa assumes the bench, as it were, with a

polite invitation to Paul,15 who launches his defense (ajpelogei`to) with an appropriate gesture.16 Hmg adds, after “Paul,” “confident and encouraged by the Holy Spirit.” This is a characteristic of the D-Text, as in 24:10.17   2-3  Despite the claim that he is privileged to defend himself against “all the charges,” he addresses none of them. In v. 3, Luke’s efforts at style trip him up. Evidently, he wished to view the phrase about Agrippa’s expertise (gnwvsthn o[nta se) with the verb h{ghmai (“regard,” “think”). Another possibility is to construe it as the object of devomai (“beg”). Neither will work. It is a dangling phrase.18 The textual variants seek to emend

the error.19 The captatio flatters Agrippa for his familiarity with matters under dispute among Jews, those zhthvmata that left Festus adrift (25:19). It is these, and only these, that Paul will address.20   4-8  Paul then turns (me;n ou\n) to his ethos. The hyperbole has its purpose. Paul states that he is famous. His opponents would prefer “notorious” (21:28; 24:5), but they would agree that everyone in the Jewish world knows him.21 The sentence is overloaded, which may account for the considerable interpretative difficulties.22 Verses 4-5a are best read in conformity with 22:3. The point comes in v. 5b: far from being lax, Paul belongs to the most observant party within Judaism.23 Questions about such matters can rapidly be resolved by interviewing almost anyone. The theme is approached in a subtle, oblique manner.24 It is the ancestral hope, for which all pray.25 For many, probably most, of the natives of Judea this would be the promise of “the land,” a more or less

15 The passive “it is permitted” is less direct than “I [the] beginning”), both of which modify “manpermit you” (Haenchen, 681). BDF §320 labels this ner of life.” To these v. 5 adds a[nwqen (“for a long an “aoristic present.” time”), which, in light of the participle progin­ 16 Cf. 13:16; 21:40. For a description of the procewvskonte~ (“knowing beforehand”), seems redundure, see Apuleius Metam. 2.21. Barrett (2:1148–49) dant. Haenchen (683 n. 1) views all of this pleonasm says that the verb “stretch out” (ejkteivnw) is not as emphatic. Both ajpÆ ajrch`~ and a[nwqen occur in typical, but it is an equivalent to the Latin porrigo, the preface to Luke (1:2-3). On these, see Cadbury, used by Apuleius. It is probably better not to “Commentary,” 502–3. Boismard (Texte, 399) omits think of how this could be done with the shackles the prepositional phrase from his D-Text. The mentioned in v. 29. Jacquier (705) proposes two meaning of e[qno~ in v. 4 is not clear. Cadbury and solutions for this problem. Lake (315) wish to refer it to Cilicia (Tarsus), but 17 Boismard (Texte, 398) ignores it. He does offer a this, if strictly logical, is probably not likely. See tedious paraphrase: “began to defend . . .” Haenchen, 682 n. 6. The rendition of te is uncer18 BDF §137 (3). Note also Barrett, 2:1150. tain. See Barrett (2:1150–51), who comes down on 19 Both Alexandrian ([p 74] a2 A C 33) and the the side of “and” (reflected in the translation). The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 399) add a participle, articles in v. 4 were problematic for some scribes. ejpistavmeno~ (“knowing”) which redeems the situThe triple thvn is troublesome, for there is no need ation. Another variant adds the object “you” (sou) to mark three distinct adjectival phrases. Perhaps to the verb “beg.” Corruption seems unlikely here. the author intended to produce anaphora. A 20 Luke likes to cap the captatio with an adverb: variety of witnesses omit the second example, and suntovmw~ (“briefly”) in 24:4; eujquvmw~ (“with good others replace the third with mou (“my”). will”) in 24:10, and “patiently” (makroquvmw~) here. 23 Cf. Apuleius Metam. 11.21: vir alioquin gravis et 21 Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 8.10.7 provides a good sobriae religionis observatione famosus (“he [the high formal parallel from a forensic speech: “As for priest of Isis], being a serious man famous for his Thersander’s way of life (bivon), all here know observance of austere religious discipline”), trans. (i[sasi pavnte") how that from his first youth (ejk J. Arthur Hanson, Apuleius Metamorphoses II (LCL; prwvth~ hJlikiva~) it was elegant and discreet” Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, (trans. S. Gaselee, Achilles Tatius [LCL; Cambridge, 1989) 333. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969] 429). 24 One might be tempted to take the opening kai; nu`n 22 Verse 4 contains two prepositional phrases: ejk of v. 6 as adversative: “I was a Pharisee, but now neovthto~ (“from youth”) and ajpÆ ajrch`~ (“from . . .” The text, however, stresses continuity.

628

Acts part 3C.indd 628

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

26:1-32

independent nation, theologically expressed in a variety of eschatological concepts.26 For Paul here, resurrection is both the essence of eschatology and of the charge against him.27 He frames the question in terms suggesting that to deny the possibility of resurrection is to place limits on divine power. This places the issue within a quasi-philosophical framework that the address will not pursue.28 Apologists may argue for resurrection. In this context, its scriptural basis is sufficient evidence.29 Luke is content with an apologetic and intellectual veneer. The thesis is stated in the present tense, doubtless with regard to the (never stated) resurrection of Jesus. 30 The dramatic audience would have been lost at this point.31

based upon the predication of various sources to literary analysis.33 The accounts are not isolated units, although each has its appropriate setting and color. The narrative of chap. 9, which is based upon a written source, coordinates with other narratives.34 Chapter 22, delivered in the temple, has appropriate Judaic coloring, while the audience of chap. 26 enjoys a stronger tincture of Hellenic thought and idiom. Readers are not expected to place these speeches in parallel columns for the purpose of identifying omissions, additions, and contradictions, but they are not to pretend that each is the sole account. Accumulation is one driving feature. Repetition reinforces importance, and individual data are added to the reader’s base, as it were. Barrett’s observation, “The agreements [among the three accounts] are more important than the disagreements,” is only superficially correct.35 Readers are evidently expected to treat the accounts as cumulative. “In fact, the complete story of Paul’s conversion, as Luke understood it, can only be determined by bringing together features from all three narratives. The entire story is not completely narrated in any one of the accounts.”36

Excursus: Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion/ Call Paul’s transformation from opponent to advocate of the Jesus movement is one of the items that Acts reports three times.32 Research has followed the path laid out by Dibelius and Haenchen: from ­studies 25 “Night and day” means “continuously,” as in Luke 2:37, based on Jdt 4:9. See Barrett, 2:1153. 26 See the wide-ranging and penetrating survey by Rudolf Bultmann and Kurt Rengstorf, “ejlpiv~,” TDNT 2:517–35. 27 Compare the participle krinovmeno~ in v. 6, “ judged” in the legal sense, with krivnetai in v. 8, referring to a logical judgment or conclusion. 28 The question is that of ajduvnata, items considered impossible. See Grant, Miracle, 57–58, 103, 132–33, 167. 29 For ancient arguments about the limits on divine omnipotence and the development of intellectual arguments for resurrection, see Grant, Miracle, 127–34, and 235–45. 1 Clem. 24–25 already advanced some proofs. 30 Agrippa had learned from Festus about one “dead Jesus, whom Paul claimed to be alive” (v. 19) and could, at least in theory, gain comprehension with the introduction of Jesus’ name in 26:9. 31 See Foakes Jackson, 225. The plural “you people” is of uncertain reference. It probably refers to Jews who do not accept the resurrection, but might apply to the dramatic audience. See Fitzmyer, 757. 32 The most similar of these is another conversion: Cornelius’s reception of the faith is, like Paul’s, reported first in a narrative (10:1-48), then in two speeches (11:1-18; 15:7-11). The third is, although the shortest, the most decisive. A different sort of triplet is Paul’s threefold repetition of his decision that, since “the Jews” have rejected the message,

33

34 35

36

he will turn to the gentiles (13:46; 18:6; 28:28). These announcements are distributed over three crucial geographical areas: “Asia,” Greece, and Italy. The third, in Rome, is climactic. Another is formal: three liberations from incarceration: 5:19-20; 12:6-12; and 16:25-40. The third of these is the most elaborate. These trios have different functions. All are related to salvation history and each exemplifies end-stress. An example of the source-critical approach is E. Hirsch, “Die drei Berichte der Apostelgeschichte über die Bekehrung des Paulus,” ZNW 28 (1929) 305–12. Witherington has recently taken up this approach in “Editing the Good News: Some Synoptic Lessons for the Study of Acts,” in idem, History, 335–44, esp. 339. Literary approaches are discussed in the following paragraphs. For a concise history of research on the problem see Marguerat, Historian, 180–81 (p. 180 n. 4 sets out a basic bibliography). In addition, see Clark, Parallel Lives, 150–208; and Miller, Convinced, 186–202. See the comments on Acts 9:1-19a. Barrett, 1:441. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:321–32) labors to distinguish between the discrepancies here and those elsewhere. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” 432.

629

Acts part 3C.indd 629

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

26:1-32

independent nation, theologically expressed in a variety of eschatological concepts.26 For Paul here, resurrection is both the essence of eschatology and of the charge against him.27 He frames the question in terms suggesting that to deny the possibility of resurrection is to place limits on divine power. This places the issue within a quasi-philosophical framework that the address will not pursue.28 Apologists may argue for resurrection. In this context, its scriptural basis is sufficient evidence.29 Luke is content with an apologetic and intellectual veneer. The thesis is stated in the present tense, doubtless with regard to the (never stated) resurrection of Jesus. 30 The dramatic audience would have been lost at this point.31

based upon the predication of various sources to literary analysis.33 The accounts are not isolated units, although each has its appropriate setting and color. The narrative of chap. 9, which is based upon a written source, coordinates with other narratives.34 Chapter 22, delivered in the temple, has appropriate Judaic coloring, while the audience of chap. 26 enjoys a stronger tincture of Hellenic thought and idiom. Readers are not expected to place these speeches in parallel columns for the purpose of identifying omissions, additions, and contradictions, but they are not to pretend that each is the sole account. Accumulation is one driving feature. Repetition reinforces importance, and individual data are added to the reader’s base, as it were. Barrett’s observation, “The agreements [among the three accounts] are more important than the disagreements,” is only superficially correct.35 Readers are evidently expected to treat the accounts as cumulative. “In fact, the complete story of Paul’s conversion, as Luke understood it, can only be determined by bringing together features from all three narratives. The entire story is not completely narrated in any one of the accounts.”36

Excursus: Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion/ Call Paul’s transformation from opponent to advocate of the Jesus movement is one of the items that Acts reports three times.32 Research has followed the path laid out by Dibelius and Haenchen: from ­studies 25 “Night and day” means “continuously,” as in Luke 2:37, based on Jdt 4:9. See Barrett, 2:1153. 26 See the wide-ranging and penetrating survey by Rudolf Bultmann and Kurt Rengstorf, “ejlpiv~,” TDNT 2:517–35. 27 Compare the participle krinovmeno~ in v. 6, “ judged” in the legal sense, with krivnetai in v. 8, referring to a logical judgment or conclusion. 28 The question is that of ajduvnata, items considered impossible. See Grant, Miracle, 57–58, 103, 132–33, 167. 29 For ancient arguments about the limits on divine omnipotence and the development of intellectual arguments for resurrection, see Grant, Miracle, 127–34, and 235–45. 1 Clem. 24–25 already advanced some proofs. 30 Agrippa had learned from Festus about one “dead Jesus, whom Paul claimed to be alive” (v. 19) and could, at least in theory, gain comprehension with the introduction of Jesus’ name in 26:9. 31 See Foakes Jackson, 225. The plural “you people” is of uncertain reference. It probably refers to Jews who do not accept the resurrection, but might apply to the dramatic audience. See Fitzmyer, 757. 32 The most similar of these is another conversion: Cornelius’s reception of the faith is, like Paul’s, reported first in a narrative (10:1-48), then in two speeches (11:1-18; 15:7-11). The third is, although the shortest, the most decisive. A different sort of triplet is Paul’s threefold repetition of his decision that, since “the Jews” have rejected the message,

33

34 35

36

he will turn to the gentiles (13:46; 18:6; 28:28). These announcements are distributed over three crucial geographical areas: “Asia,” Greece, and Italy. The third, in Rome, is climactic. Another is formal: three liberations from incarceration: 5:19-20; 12:6-12; and 16:25-40. The third of these is the most elaborate. These trios have different functions. All are related to salvation history and each exemplifies end-stress. An example of the source-critical approach is E. Hirsch, “Die drei Berichte der Apostelgeschichte über die Bekehrung des Paulus,” ZNW 28 (1929) 305–12. Witherington has recently taken up this approach in “Editing the Good News: Some Synoptic Lessons for the Study of Acts,” in idem, History, 335–44, esp. 339. Literary approaches are discussed in the following paragraphs. For a concise history of research on the problem see Marguerat, Historian, 180–81 (p. 180 n. 4 sets out a basic bibliography). In addition, see Clark, Parallel Lives, 150–208; and Miller, Convinced, 186–202. See the comments on Acts 9:1-19a. Barrett, 1:441. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:321–32) labors to distinguish between the discrepancies here and those elsewhere. Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” 432.

629

Acts part 3C.indd 629

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

The three accounts share many features of a core outline, but they are, in fact, quite different stories, each with a distinctive purpose. Recent study emphasizes the particular form and purpose of each recitation. Gaventa says that the account in chap. 9 centers on the overthrown enemy, while chap. 22 stresses Paul’s character as a loyal Jew, and chap. 26 focuses on the call to witness and Paul’s obedient response to that summons. 37 Czachesz identifies each as a distinctive social type of commission story: in chap. 9 the orientation is institutional, while chap. 22 represents the prophetic type and chap. 26 is closest to the philosophical model. 38 Daniel Marguerat’s study focuses on the differences among the accounts in terms of their literary functions. Acts 9 stresses ecclesial mediation (cf. Czachesz), Acts 22 “Saul’s Jewishness” (cf. Gaventa), and Acts 26 the legitimation of the gentile mission. 39 Progression is the other propellant. In the course of his repetitions Luke “pushes” the story in the direction of Galatians, that is, as a prophetic call. Charles Hedrick’s literary exploration takes narrative sequence and totality into account.40 There is development and narrative progression. Hedrick implicitly invokes the “rule of three” by observing that Luke does not report the specific missionary commission until chap. 26.41 Acts 26 holds the climactic and decisive place in the narrative. This is the story of Paul’s conversion/call as Luke wishes readers to perceive it. It is therefore questionable to contend that Luke separates Paul’s conversion from his call. That is the case in Acts 9, but not in Acts 26. Luke’s source evidently distinguished the two—perhaps without theological reflection—but, when given the chance to tell the story his way, Luke identifies conversion and call. Appreciation of Luke’s story of Paul’s conversion thus requires both ­d istinction

among and amalgamation of the three accounts. Acts 26 presents a story of Paul’s conversion that is at one and the same time the most Lucan and the most Pauline of the three reports. This apparently paradoxical statement is, to borrow a metaphor, a useful light upon the nature of Luke’s quite nonparadoxical theology.   9-11  After the summary in these verses, vv. 12-18 present the single narrative scene of this account: the epiphany outside of Damascus, which is also the occasion for direct delivery of the missionary commission.42 What Paul says here corresponds to what he wrote to the Galatians (1:15-17): he had a revelation of Christ that included a commission to convert gentiles.43 The conversion follows the standard pattern: Paul the persecutor, high priestly authorization to ravage Damascus, vision on the road, and subsequent mission beginning in Damascus. The narrative has become more vigorous through the addition of invented details. The summary of the persecutor’s résumé is much livelier.44 Paul now has the principal qualities of the later “inquisitor” that all know and love. In comparison to Paul, Pliny was a moderate.45 Paul was, by implication, a vigorously pro– capital-punishment, voting46 member of the Sanhedrin rather than a youthful guardian of haberdashery. Like an early soviet commissar he purged one synagogue after another, in a career that took him from Jerusalem to outlying cities47 and finally beyond the boundaries of Judea (26:9-11). Luke emphasizes Paul’s status as an authorized agent of the Jewish leadership, which must thus bear responsibility for these murders, rather than

37 Gaventa, Darkness, 90; her study of the three 45 Pliny observed (Ep. 10.96.5) that true believers accounts encompasses pp. 52–95. could not be compelled to make the requisite 38 Czachesz, “Commission Narratives,” 58–88. See offering. Cf. Mart. Pol. 9.3 and Josephus Bell. 2.152 also p. 627 n. 11. (Essenes could not be tortured into reviling Moses 39 Marguerat, Historian, 179–204. or eating impure food). 40 Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” esp. 427–32. 46 “Pebble” (yh`fo~) is a metonym for “vote,” as col41 Ibid., 427, where he speaks of suspense. ored pebbles served as ballots. Cf. Philo Deus 75; 42 The parallel in chap. 9 involved three distinct Josephus Ant. 2.163. scenes. 47 Cf. 5:16 (Peter’s healings attract a suburban 43 Lohfink (Conversion, 99) qualifies this assertion: ­clientele). “Hence what Luke wants to say in chapter 26 is that Paul’s missionary work was willed by God himself— and this certainly is not the immediate and direct call Paul has in mind in Galatians.” 44 The infinitive dei`n in v. 9 is ironic, suggesting that Paul imagined himself as the instrument of divine destiny. Cf. the use of dei` in 9:6, 16; 23:11, etc.

630

Acts part 3C.indd 630

8/27/2008 10:24:52 AM

26:1-32

portraying him as an opponent of the Jesus movement who acted on his own initiative. The journey to Damascus is now but one example48 of his properly authorized anti-Christian expeditions. This creature could play the role of Ptolemy in 3 Maccabees or the aged Herod I without rehearsal.49 The classical model is Pentheus (Euripides’ Bacchae). The autobiographical sketch prepares the way for the confrontation between Festus and Paul in vv. 24-25. The “old Paul” had many virtues and abilities, but he lacked self-control (swfrosuvnh). After his call, he became a well-rounded person in full control of his emotions. 50 For ancients, inability to manage one’s temper was one of the greatest and least forgivable of character defects. 51 The literary/rhetorical objective of this intensification is to heighten the contrast between the earlier and the later Paul. Acts 26 is painted in black and white, almost literally (v. 18). 52   13-14  The epiphany is more vivid, linear, and

­ ramatic. For the dramatic audience the report would d be shocking. The light was brighter than the sun (at noontime in Syria). 53 The party felt its power and crashed to the ground en masse. 54 The light shone (peri­ lavmpw [v. 13]) rather than flashed (peri­astravptw [9:3; 22:6]). This is not mere elegant variation. Flashes betoken punishment (cf. the thunderbolt of Zeus and his successors), while “shining” portends a friendly epiphany, as in Luke 2:9. Light now functions as a symbol of conversion (v. 18). For the first time, it is stated that Paul saw the light. These are positive additions to the negative omission of blinding. Punishment is not in the picture. Reference to the “Hebrew language” (presumably Aramaic) prepares the hearers for the “barbarous” name “Saul.” To the heavenly Jesus’ question is appended a proverb. Although the phrase is found elsewhere, 55 the most important citation is Euripides Bacch. 794–95, not only because the influence of this play is arguably present elsewhere in Acts, 56 but

48 Note the use of “many” in vv. 9-10 and of “many times” and “all” in v. 11. The imperfects hjnavgka­ zon and ejdivwkon (“compel” and “persecute”) are frequentative (“continued to compel . . . persecute”), although the first may have a conative sense (“I kept on trying to compel”). See Haenchen, 685; and BDF §326. “Blaspheme” (v. 11) is difficult from a Jewish perspective, but Luke did not share that perspective. 49 Josephus (Ant. 17.174) applies the same participle Paul uses of himself in v. 11, ejmmainovmeno~, to the dying Herod. 50 This thesis is demonstrated by Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, esp. 62–104. Philo’s comments on repentance (Virt. 175–86) are particularly instructive. Those who turn from polytheism to monotheism are like blind persons who have recovered their sight and have passed from profound darkness to gleaming light (§179). Proselytes pass (§§181–82) from vice to virtue, each of which is illustrated with an adjectival catalogue. Heading the list of virtues are swvfrone~ and ejgkratei`~ (“temperate” and “selfcontrolled”). 51 A principal defect of Alexander, according to the biographical tradition, was his inability to manage his temper. See, for example, the story of Cleitus in Plutarch Alex. 50–51. Greek romantic novels did not much concern themselves with character development, but change does occur. Chaireas, the hero of Callirhoe, launches their misfortunes by kicking his wife in a fit of temper. By the end of the

52 53 54

55

56

novel, he was not likely to engage in such behavior. Paul did not develop; he was transformed by divine intervention. Feldman ( Jew and Gentile, 274–76) has some useful comments about swfrosuvnh (“temperance”). Pharaoh was the opposite of the Stoic sage, because he could not control his passions (swfronei`n [ Josephus Ant. 2.296]). Josephus omitted Moses’ most notable temper tantrum, the smashing of the tablets (Ant. 3.99). Lohfink (Conversion, 93–94) describes this intensification and its purpose. In 9:3, it was simply “light”; in 22:6, it was a “great” (iJkanovn) light. Haenchen (685) observes that, without the blinding of Paul and the intervention of Ananias, all must collapse to demonstrate “the objectivity of the event.” See also Czachesz (“Commission Narratives,” 80–81), who provides examples from Greek stories of conversions to philosophy. The D-Text of v. 14 (Boismard, Texte, 401) is characteristic: “And all fell down because of fear, while I alone heard a voice. . . .” For example, Pindar Pyth. 2.94; Aeschylus Ag. 1624; Prometheus P.V. 324–25; and Julian Or. 8.246B. Philo Dec. 87 uses it for the pricks of “conscience.” See p. 410 n. 91. For earlier discussions of possible dependence on Euripides here, see Haenchen, 685 n. 3, to which add J. Hackett, “Echoes of the Bacchae of Euripides in Acts of the Apostles,” Irish Theological Quarterly 23 (1956) 219–27, 350–66. See also Lothar Schmid, “kevntron,” TDNT 3:663–68.

631

Acts part 3C.indd 631

8/27/2008 10:24:53 AM

more particularly because of the setting: the disguised Dionysus, a new god, addresses these words to Pentheus. They identify the recipient as a qeovmaco~ (“antagonist of God”). 57 Like philosophers, Paul grounds his mission in an epiphany.58   16-18  These verses are among the most densely packed in Acts. 59 In biblical and Deutero-Pauline language, they set forth Paul’s mission to the gentiles. The language is, despite Paul’s practice of “Jews first,” which is attested throughout Acts, not appropriate for practicing Jews.60 The experience is clearly qualified as an appearance of the heavenly Jesus, and Paul is charged to take on the chief role of the Twelve: witnessing (Acts 1:8). Verse 16 begins, like 9:6, with a command to rise (ajlla; ajnavsthqi) that seems unnecessarily expanded, until one realizes that “stand on your feet” evokes Ezek 2:1, that prophet’s commission. The role of Ananias in the earlier accounts yields to a colorless prepositional phrase: eij~ tou`to (“for this reason”), followed by a

series of infinitives of purpose61 and related clauses. “I have appeared” (w[fqhn) establishes the event as a resurrection appearance,62 specifically a missionary commissioning appearance. The subject of Paul’s election is now Christ rather than God.63 His functions are to be “agent” (uJphrevth~64) and “witness” (mavrtu~).65 These terms are another evocation66 of the preface to Luke, which speaks (v. 2) of “eyewitnesses and agents” ­( aujtovptai kai; uJphrevtai).67 Paul is to take a place among the primary tradents of the Jesus movement. As a witness, he is what might be called an ijsapovstolo~ (“equal of the apostles”).68   17  The verse is a promise not of suffering for the name’s sake (cf. 9:15-16) but of rescue from Jews and gentiles. This is another evocation of a prophetic call69 (and a parallel to 12:11).70   18  Although these allusions to the calls of Hebrew prophets are important, they do not form the theological core of v. 18, which is a densely packed statement

57 See Lentz (Luke’s Portrait, 84–86), who also shows the relevance of the Agamemnon. Aeschylus portrays Aegisthus as devoid of knowledge and ­self-control. 58 Cf. Plato Apol. 33C; Epictetus Diss. 2.16.44. 59 Barrett (2:1162) says: “The piling up of images constitutes an impressive, if not perfectly clear, climax.” 60 Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:324 n. 1) observes that similar language is used in Luke 1:77-79, but that does not make v. 18 inclusive. The parallel in 22:21 makes it probable that the “whom” are gentiles. 61 The second and third of these (ejpistrevyai and labei`n [“turn,” “receive”]) are articular. BDF §400 (6) says that the article avoids confusion. 62 The verb is not used exclusively in this sense, but see Luke 24:34, and, in particular, 1 Cor 15:5-8. 63 In 3:20 and the parallel to 26:16 in 22:14, the subject of proceirivzw is God. Compare also 10:41 (witnesses chosen in advance [prokeceirotonh­ mevnoi~] by God). 64 The title uJphrevth~ is not restricted to menials (like John Mark; Acts 13:5). Moses designates himself as God’s uJphrevth~ in Josephus Ant. 4.317. 65 The philosophical tradition is also relevant. For Epictetus, the ideal Stoic is a witness (mavrtura; Diss. 3.24.112–13) appointed (katatetagmevno~; 4.24.114) by God to service (uJphresivan; 3.24.114). The noun “servant” (uJphrevth~) occurs in 2.24.98 (cf. 2.22.82, 95); “witness” appears in 3.22.88, and as a noun in 3.22.86. These roles are linked to divine commission in 3.22.23, 54, 56, 95.

66 See the comments on v. 4. 67 Cf. Cadbury, “Commentary,” 498. 68 On the meaning of the title “witness” applied to Paul, see Burchard, Dreizehnte Zeuge, esp. 135–36. The term ijsapovstolo~ is applied to Thecla in the titles of three eleventh-century mss. of the Acts of Paul and Thecla. 69 Jer 1:7-8: kai; ei\pen kuvrio" prov" me Mh; levge o{ti Newvtero" ejgwv eijmi, o{ti pro;" pavnta", ou}" eja;n ejxaposteivlw se, poreuvsh/, kai; kata; pavnta, o{sa eja;n ejnteivlwmaiv soi, lalhvsei", 8 mh; fobhqh`/" ajpo; proswvpou aujtw`n, o{ti meta; sou` ejgwv eijmi tou` ejxairei`sqaiv se (“But the L ord said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am only a boy”; for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and you shall speak whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you,’ says the L ord.”). For detailed similarities between Paul and Jeremiah, see Rackham, 469. On the prophetic material, see Lohfink (Conversion, 70–73), who also recognizes the integration of these allusions into the language of early Christian proclamation. 70 Acts 12:11 (Peter’s recognition of rescue from execution) contains the verbs ejxapostevllw (“send”) and ejxairevw (“rescue”).

632

Acts part 3C.indd 632

8/27/2008 10:24:53 AM

26:1-32

of Lucan/Deutero-Pauline theology. The framework is established by the image of “turning from X to Y,” which is characteristic of early Christian baptismal declarations and other creedal statements (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9). The imagery derives from Israelite thought: for the Hebrew Bible, “turn” becomes “repent” in more abstract language. Movement from the dominion of darkness to the bliss of light is, as Gaventa says, “standard in descriptions of conversion,”71 with a long history in descriptions of “conversion” to philosophy and of religious transformation.72 “From darkness to light” is both the most universal and the most absolute form of this image. The latter gives it a home in dualistic thought.73 This implicit metaphor “from darkness to light,” in its various manifestations, frames and permeates Luke and Acts, from the words of the Benedictus (Luke 1:78-79) to those of Paul in Acts 28:16-17. It is central to the opening words of Jesus’ first sermon and the closing words of Paul’s last address (Luke 4:16; Acts 28:17).

Luke understands this transformation by way of Isa 42:6-7, which is cited in Acts 26:18, and Isa 49:6, cited by Paul in Acts 13:47, on the occasion of his first turn to the gentiles.74 Liturgical thought and practice also hover in the background.75 The author skates on the edge of dualistic thinking by defining “darkness” as the power of Satan, whom Jesus has defeated.76 He therefore expounds the contrast of light to darkness in apocalyptic and salvationhistorical categories. Another favorite Lucan concept introduced here is the invitation to turn toward God (3:19; 15:19), with the corresponding reward of gaining one’s inheritance among those who are holy (Acts 20:21, 32). Luke’s Paul presents the gospel as a healing message that empowers individuals to change their lives. Humanity is not “dead” in its sins. It is impaired, “ill,” a fault that can be corrected by repentance. Acts 26 does not present Paul as an example of one who was blinded and then healed. He is now the one who opens the eyes

71 Gaventa, Darkness, 86. Examples include Plato Resp. is the post-Pauline 2 Cor 6:14—7:1, with its stark 518C–D; Philo Virt. 179; Poimandres (Corp. Herm. I) opposition between realms of “light” and “dark28; Jos. Asen. 8:10; 15:13; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 Clem. 59.2–3; ness,” “Christ and Beliar.” and the Odes Sol. 14:18–19. See also Minucius Felix 74 Luke 2:32 evokes both Isa 42:6-7 and 49:6. Oct. 1.4 (apologetics); Melito, On the Passover 69 75 This may be safely inferred from 1 Clem. 59, which (liturgical preaching); the Aesop Romance 5 and opens the solemn, closing prayer. The intellectual Apuleius Metam. 11.23 (both of Isis); and Lucian milieu is that of Hellenistic Judaism; the literNigr. 4.1 (conversion to philosophy). ary milieu is that of the postapostolic, Deutero72 See the almost exhaustive study of Hans ConzelPauline, and later eras. See Horacio E. Lona, Der mann, “fw`~,” TDNT 9:310–58, with large biblierste Clemensbrief (Kommentar zu den apostolischen ography. Note also Spicq, Lexicon, 3:470–91. For Vätern; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, philosophical and patristic usage, see G. W. Clarke, 1998) 613–19; and Andreas Lindemann, Die trans., The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix (ACW Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 39; New York: Newman, 1974) 167–68 n. 8. 1992) 164–68. By the time of Justin, fwtismov~ 73 Luke was no dualist, but his Deutero-Pauline (“enlightenment”) had become a term for baptism. sources, Colossians and Ephesians, were comfortSee Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 222–23. Note also able with dualistic language. For investigations of oJ uiJo;~ th`~ ajgavph~ aujtou` (lit. “the son of his the intertextual background here, see Pervo, Dat[God’s] love” [Col 1:13]), which is the equivalent of ing, 275–78. The principal texts are Col 1:12-14 and “beloved son” in Mark 1:11. This evokes the bapEph 1:7. Note also Acts 20:32 and its background. tism of Jesus and confirms that baptism is the locus Paulinists in the environs of Ephesus were influof the translation of believers from darkness to enced by thought similar to that found in the writlight. 1 Clem. 59.2–3 links the adjective “beloved” ings of the Qumran community, which contrast with pai`~ (“son,” “servant”). those who belong to the sphere of light to the deni- 76 Luke 22:53 indicates that the power of Satan is zens of darkness (e.g., 1QS 1:9–10; 1QM 1:1) and the time of darkness. See Conzelmann, Theology, speak of “Belial’s dominion” (1QS 1:18, 23; 2:19). 181–82. With “place” (lit. “lot,” klh`ro~ [v. 18]) compare the respective “lots” of God and Belial (1QS 2:2, 5). This is most noticeable in Ephesians, for instances of which see Schnackenburg, Ephesians, index 348, s.v. “Qumran Texts.” The least ­adulterated example

633

Acts part 3C.indd 633

8/27/2008 10:24:53 AM

of the spiritually blind.77 Luke has brought about a full conversion of the conversion of Paul.   19-21  After devoting eleven verses to his biography up to the point of conversion,78 Paul allocates three to his subsequent activity, two to his missionary activity, with emphasis on his message to his own people, and one to the circumstances of his arrest. The operative words are the mellifluous phrase about obedience to the celestial vision. Such visions could not be ignored with impunity. Examples were available to prod the recalcitrant.79 Socrates was but one of those who justified their missions by reference to a divine injunction.80 Paul’s argument is framed in language that would be acceptable to a Greco-Roman audience.   20  The verse is either a grammatical or a textual disaster, possibly both. The problem is pa`san te th;n cwvran th`~ ÆIoudaiva~ (“the entire region of Judea”). The only factor in its support is that it is not correct and could be taken as a typical Lucan hyperbole. The text printed in N-A 27 evidently intends to report here the traditional combination “Jerusalem and Judea.” The grammatical problem is that this unmarked accusative lies between two datives (“Jerusalem” and “gentiles”). Most agree that the preposition eij~ (“throughout the entire region . . .”) is secondary.81 Attempts to construe the construction as a Semiticism are improbable,82 as is the suggestion that it is an accusative of extent. Haenchen

identifies the phrase as “presumably an old and false gloss.” Its falsity is in its favor, and the motive of the glossator is not specified.83 Blass proposed eij~ pa`savn te cwvran ÆIoudaivoi~ kai; toi`~ e[qnesin (“to both Jews and gentiles in every region”). In support, he stated that Luke uses the genitive of persons after cwvra (“region”), not the genetive of place.84 See, however, Acts 8:1. This emendation is attractive. The D-Text printed by Boismard85 is clearer: ajlla; toi`~ ejn Damaskw/` prw`twn te kai; ïIerosoluvmoi~, kaiv ejn pavsai`~ povlesin th`~ ÆIoudai`a~ ejkhvruxa metanoei`n kai; ejpistrevfein ejpi; to;n qeovn zw`nta (“. . . Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judea [ ] I proclaimed that they should repent and turn to the living God”). “Living God” is an obvious harmonization (cf. 14:15, etc.). The omission of “gentiles” is remarkable. “All the cities of Judea” probably derives from v. 11. In short, this looks like a correction of a text that included the awkward accusative. It could not have been its source. Faute de mieux, Blass’s proposal is translated. This best accounts for the alternatives.86   22-23  Paul’s message was utterly unobjectionable. The differences—Jews were to repent for their complicity in Jesus’ death or failure to receive the news about him, gentiles for idolatry—are soft-pedaled, but the moral nature was not. Paul did not preach “cheap grace.”87 It was because of these commendable activities that “Jews” attempted to kill him in the temple. Verses 22-23

77 On the symbolic use of “blind” here, see Dennis Hamm, “Paul’s Blindness and Its Healing: Clues to Symbolic Intent (Acts 9; 22 and 26),” Bib 71 (1990) 63–72. Susan R. Garrett (“Beloved Physician of the Soul? Luke as Advocate for Ascetic Practice,” in Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush, eds., Asceticism and the New Testament [London: Routledge, 1999] 71–95, esp. 76–79) identifies blindness, bondage, and lack of single-mindedness as the primary characteristics of the unrepentant, and their opposites as qualities of the redeemed. 78 The total includes vv. 4-5, as well as 9-18. 79 A famous example was the story of Titius Latinius (Livy 2.36; Plutarch Cor. 24). Cf. also P. Oxy. 1381 and Historia Augusta, Hadrian 25. 80 Socrates: Plato Apol. 20E–22A; Diogenes Laertius 2.37. This was imitated by Dio of Prusa (Or. 13.9), who consulted the Delphic oracle and learned that he was to continue delivering his message “to the ends of the earth (to; u{staton . . . th`~ gh`~).” See also p. 627 n. 9. 81 Support for the preposition includes E Y 33.

82

83

84

85 86

87

1739 m lat. Dibelius (Studies, 92) believes that this preposition was original but was lost through ­haplography. Ropes (Text, 237) proposed the possibility of a Semiticism, in fact a Septuagintalism, based on the diction of vv. 16-18. Barrett (2:1163) finally dismisses this, and rightly. Acts 1:8, with its four geographical divisions, could have motivated a glossator (of otherwise limited competence). Friedrich Blass, Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895) 268. P74 pc read “of the Jews” here. Boismard, Texte, 402. (What p 29 read here cannot be determined with any certainty.) If one accepts the loss of eij~ after -oi~ (they had an identical sound), the change from ÆIoudaivoi~ to ÆIoudai`a~ would be intelligible. “Deeds worthy of repentance” (v. 20, lit.) is borrowed from Q: Luke 3:8 (message of John the Baptizer).

634

Acts part 3C.indd 634

8/27/2008 10:24:53 AM

26:1-32

turn back to the issue, stated here with brevity, clarity and specificity: Paul’s message has been directed to the broad social spectrum including Jews and gentiles. Its ground is Moses and the prophets,88 who predicted that the Messiah would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead.89 Verse 23 wraps up the speech tidily by associating the words “resurrection” (v. 8) and “light” (vv. 13, 18). Paul is no longer pulling any punches. His final “sermon” echoes his first (13:29-37), as well as Peter’s initial address (2:22-34).90 The last word is “gentiles.”   24  Interrupted speeches will no longer surprise readers, but the source is surprising. Festus intervenes at the same point where the temple mob had earlier cut Paul’s remarks short: mention of the gentile mission. Interruptions serve as the equivalent of a double underline. The formal speech has concluded at the moment desired by the author.91 Although not intended as flattering, Festus’s booming interjection assures the readers that Paul exuded vast erudition. For himself, a practical man of affairs, extended study 92 was not an unmixed blessing. A lot of learning is a dangerous thing, as one

may glean from the decidedly anti-intellectual Echion of Petronius’s Satyrica.93 The allegation of madness was apparently leveled against philosophers to provide rhetorical effect, just as here. Paul shared the fate of Dio of Prusa.94 The incident is another contrasting echo to the beginning of the story: at Pentecost the inspired speakers were accused of drunkenness (2:13-16).95 Festus’s inability to grasp Paul’s argument is additional testimony to the incompetence of a Roman court to adjudicate the matter, as Luke has constructed it.96 The accusation and response appear in trials of a martyrological nature. In the Acts of Appian, the emperor says: “Appian, I am accustomed to chasten (swfronivzein) those who rave (mainomevnou~) and have lost all sense of shame. You speak only so long as I permit you to.” Appian responds: “By your genius, I am neither mad (maivnomai) nor have I lost my sense of shame.”97 In settings like these, “madness” tends to mean fanatic adherence to an idea or movement. The opposition between maniva (“madness”) and swfro­suvnh (“reasonableness,” “temperance”) is, in every sense,

88 The awkward language of the final relative clause of v. 22 allows “the prophets” and “Moses” to frame the phrase. This may be responsible for the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 403), which, after the phrase about the prophets, adds a distinct clause: “for it is written in Moses.” This conclusion may take up what seems to be an awkward close but is probably intended as end-stress. It affirms that the Torah speaks of a suffering Messiah and of his resurrection. This goes beyond Luke’s usual claims, but accords with second- and third-century exegesis. 89 The adjective “first” may reflect (but scarcely endorse) the “firstborn” of Col 1:18 (cf. Rev 1:5). In 3:15 (cf. 5:31), Acts characterized Jesus as ajrchgov~ th`~ zwh`~ (“leader of life”). The meaning of this is debatable (Conzelmann, Theology, 205–6), but it does not demand a “causal” link between the resurrection of Jesus and the future experience of believers. This is not necessarily a deficit, but the absence of a relation is quite apparent in the speech of Acts 26. 90 All three speak, for example, of the death and resurrection of Jesus (2:22-24; 13:29-31) and the “promise” (2:33; 13:32). Note also “witness” in 2:32. Light for both Jews and gentiles also evokes the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon: Luke 2:32) and thus the beginning of the story of Luke and Acts. 91 Note also the use of “defend” (ajpologou`mai) as an inclusion in vv. 2 and 24. The D-Text (Boismard,

92

93

94

95

96 97

Texte, 403) changes this to the colorless “speaking,” but has Felix “shriek and speak.” Although it can refer, by metonymy, to basic learning (cf. “grammar school”), gravmmata can, as here, mean advanced study. See Haenchen, 688 n. 3; and BDAG, 206, s.v. gravmma. For the idiom “lead” or “drive” “to insanity” (eij~ manivan perit­ revpein), see Lucian Abdic. 30. Scimus te prae litteras fatuum esse (Sat. 44.6), usually rendered as “we know you are mad with much learning,” a homage to Acts 26:24. See the Cynic Epistles, Socrates 6.1; 9.3; Dio of Prusa Or. 8.36; 9.8, 34; 12.8–9; and, in particular, 34.2–4. Oration 77/78.41–42 takes up the claim that philosophical discipline leads to madness, when it actually leads to speaking the truth. This is an aspect of the conventional contrast between appearance and reality. Reinforcing this connection is the verb “declare” (ajpofqevggomai) in v. 25. This expression of solemnity to the pronouncement occurs elsewhere only in 2:14. Fitzmyer, 763; Schneider, 2:376. Luke’s construction is, to be sure, not historical. Acta Appiani lines 82–87 (trans. Musurillo, Pagan, 70). In the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 8 (Musurillo, Christian, 88), the proconsul refers to Christian teachings as amentia (“madness”).

635

Acts part 3C.indd 635

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

c­ lassic.98 Jesus had also been accused of madness. One measure of the distance the story has traveled is the contrast between the accusation reported in Mark 3:20 and John 10:20 and the present situation. Prudence (swfro­ suvnh) has joined the ranks of Christian virtues.99 “It would be difficult to find a term more descriptive of the Greek philosophical ideal.”100 Although Festus’s remark seemed degrading, he gave Paul a perfect opening.   25-27  Still holding the ball, the accused turns toward his principal auditor, before whom he takes the posture of a confident (parrhsiazovmeno~)101 philosopher who does not shrink from engagement with the public sphere.102 The tag “not in a corner” (rendered “no storefront mission”103) asserts, as Dibelius, followed by Haenchen, recognized, a claim that Christianity has

entered into the drama of world history.104 The implications of this claim weave together a number of Lucan strains: salvation history, the universal mission, and the social, political, and theological respectability of the Movement. The stone rejected by the builders has become a major block in the social edifice.105 With admirable economy, Paul has introduced the claims that Christianity is neither obscure nor secretive,106 and portrayed its leader as a responsible philosophical teacher.107 After establishing both his own and the Movement’s credentials, Paul interrogates the monarch, politely and prudently answering his own query.108 For the third time (implicitly in v. 6, explicitly in vv. 22-23), he introduces the prophets, his foundational religious authority.109

98 Note, in addition to p. 635 n. 94, Plato Phaedr. that sets aside the apologetic claim. Much of this 245A; Prot. 323B; Resp. 430E–431B; Tim. 71; Xenocomes from the Old Latin ms. h, raising a question phon Mem. 1.1.16; 3.9.6–7; Diogenes Laertius 3.91; that will become recurrent: were the abbreviaand Justin Dial. 39.4. For comments, see Ramsay, tions that so often characterize the D-Text of Acts St. Paul the Traveller, 313; Plümacher, Lukas, 21; 26–27—in strong contrast to the general tendency and Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 87. On the use of this toward expansion—due to translators exercising charge against Cynics, see Malherbe, Paul, 159–60, presumed editorial rights, or do they have a basis with many references. The contrast is common in in the Greek manuscript tradition? In either case, Lucian, as Betz, Lukian, 206 n. 5 shows. they are of interest. When diverse versions, such as 99 See Pervo, Dating, 272–73, 288. Coptic and Syriac mss., support one another and/ 100 On the term “temperance,” see Johnson, 439. or Latin witnesses, argument for a Greek prototype 101 See Malherbe, Paul, 160. is strong. 102 On vv. 24-26, see Malherbe, Paul, 147–63, esp. 107 Malherbe (Paul, 154–58) lists traits shared by the 154–60. Paul of Acts 26 with moral philosophers: claims of 103 “Storefront missions,” small, usually independent divine guidance (vv. 16-17, 22), assertions of nonobchurches that appear and disappear, most often in scurity (v. 26), candid speech to rulers (v. 26), and areas inherited by the poor, are characteristic feahimself as example (v. 29). tures of U.S. cities and often embody most of the 108 If the historical Agrippa were permitted to speak features identified by early critics of Christianity, for himself, he might well have said that he did not such as Celsus. Examples of the tag include Plato view the prophets (in the strict sense) as authoritaGorg. 485D; Epictetus Diss. 2.12.17; 3.22.95–98; and tive, and he would have certainly said that he did Terence Ad. 5.2.10. Malherbe (Paul 155–57) shows not accept Paul’s interpretation of them. that the image selected by Plato was used over a 109 Paul does not state the relationship between his period of seven centuries to criticize intellectuals two types of proof, the epiphany near Damascus, who avoided public life. Most relevant to the NT, in and his mode of scriptural interpretation. For Luke date and depth, are the citations from Epictetus. (Luke 24:45-46), and possibly for Paul, interpreta104 The use of “Christian” by Agrippa in v. 28 is tion is the result of the resurrection rather than a not fortuitous. Chrysostom (Hom. 53, p. 443) corollary to it, but this relationship had no value assumes that Agrippa knew of the crucifixion and in an apologetic context, where Scripture apart ­resurrection. from acceptance of the resurrection of Jesus was 105 Cf. the use of Ps 118:22 in Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; believed self-sufficient. The book of Acts has aban1 Pet 2:7 (gwniva). doned the principle of Luke 24 for the apologetic 106 Boismard (Texte, 404) prints a shorter text: “Now argument, as can be seen from chap. 1 onward. the king, with whom I am [ ] speaking, knows This is one of the differences between the two about these matters, for none of them eludes volumes. him [ ].” This is almost certainly an abbreviation

636

Acts part 3C.indd 636

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

26:1-32

  28  The meaning and translation of this verse are

uncertain.110 Textual variants indicate that the questions have a long history.111 The assumption of Lucan composition eliminates interpretations based on what the historical Agrippa II might have said to the historical Paul and makes stridently hostile or sarcastic constructions unlikely. Haenchen takes the phrase as a theatrical idiom: “to play the Christian,” a light way of turning the question back upon Paul.”112 Malherbe’s proposal also takes ejn ojlivgw/ in its literal and least convoluted sense, “briefly,” and is congruent with the intellectual background: “So rapidly would you persuade me to become a Christian!” The philosophical tradition tended to view “instantaneous conversion” with suspicion.113   29  In his response, Paul allows for rapid or slow114 conversions, encapsulating the wisdom of missionary experience. The difficulty that Acts has no qualms about instant conversions is thus discharged.115 To his not ungraceful final wish, Paul attaches the crucial exception. Reference to his chains116 both allows him to end with pathos and provides an opening for the subsequent comments. His chains symbolize his (undeserved) loss of honor.117

  30-32  The event ends with a “retiring procession” that is a sort of inclusion with 25:23. The omniscient narrator reports two conclusions. The general reaction was that Paul had committed no grave or capital offense.118 The ending resembles that of chap. 28, an audience departing after hearing Paul’s expository message.119 The difference is that this audience was undivided in its conclusion, raising the question of why he was not immediately discharged. Agrippa, whose judgment is the one that really counts, answers that question. Had Paul not appealed, he could have been discharged. The answer is not logically satisfactory, as the efforts to defend it establish.120 His is the third verdict of innocence, following Lysias (23:29) and Festus (25:18, 25). Haenchen pierces through the veil: “So there remains a trial without prosecutor or witnesses; only the defendant speaks. The concrete crime (the defilement of the Temple!) is forgotten.”121 Here ends the extended account of Paul’s legal imbroglios, which began with false charges raised by anonymous accusers in 21:28 and closes with a declaration of innocence by a pro-Roman Jewish client king.122 From the perspective of jurisprudence, the result has

110 The comments in Cadbury and Lake (322–24) are valuable, as is the thorough discussion of Barrett (2:1169–71), who seems to oppose “play the Christian,” although he so renders the phrase. For bibliography, see Fitzmyer, 765–66. 111 The most interesting variant is peivqh/, which can be rendered, “Do you think that you can make me a Christian?” Only A supports this; it is probably a correction. “Become” (genvesqai), read by E Y 1739 m latt sy; CyrJ, rather than poih`sai (“make”), is almost certainly a correction. 112 Haenchen, 689, with evidence for the idiom in n. 2. 113 Malherbe, Paul, 161–62, citing 161. 114 The preferred interpretation makes the understanding of ejn ojlivgw/ and ejn megavlw/ relatively unimportant. They could refer to words, time, or effort. Barrett (2:1172) canvasses the range of translations. The thinly attested variant pollw/` makes the quantitative understanding explicit. 115 Acts implies that conversions of Jews often took some time, for Paul spent relatively long periods in synagogues (e.g., 17:2; 18:4; 19:8). 116 Here, at least, the “chains” seem to be literal, in contrast to v. 31, where it is a metonym. 117 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 404) adds, at the beginning of v. 30, “After he had said these

118

119 120

121 122

things . . .” This yields a smoother, but less dramatic, closure. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 405) eliminates the reference to incarceration (lit. “or chains”). This shows a good dramatic instinct but overlooks v. 30. Note the phrase “to one another” (pro;~ ajllhv­ lou~) in 26:31 and 28:25; cf. also 17:32. Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 65) established the main line of defense: Festus could have discharged Paul legally, but he was constrained by issues of “prestige.” “To have acquitted him despite the appeal would have been to offend both the emperor and the province.” Paul’s Jewish opponents would doubtless have been displeased, but imperial displeasure at deprivation of a case is most unlikely. Sherwin-White’s theory is repeated by Hemer (Book, 132), and, with expansions, by Witherington, 753. Haenchen, 691. In the conventional text (N-A 27), the transition between chap. 26 and chap. 27 is rough to the point of discord. The D-Text seeks to repair this. See the comments at the beginning of chap. 27.

637

Acts part 3C.indd 637

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

been, to put the best face on it, confusing. The plot, however, has had a different focus: by any and every means to prevent Paul from being arraigned before a Jewish court sitting in Jerusalem. In order to do that, he was compelled to appeal and must therefore go to Rome. That destination is in accordance with the divine

will. Insofar as prospects go, the reader has more than a little room for hope, for the opinion of both Festus and Agrippa intimates that Paul’s opponents will find rough sledding at Rome.123 As a summary of Paul’s mission and message, Acts 26 tells the story “as the narrator wants it to be remembered.”124

123 The narrator also allows the inference that the Roman officials in Judea had mishandled the case, perhaps from a desire to please their constituents.

That is not historically improbable, but it could be due to Lucan malice. 124 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:329.

638

Acts part 3C.indd 638

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

27:1-44

27

27:1-44  Paul’s Ocean Voyage 27: Conventional Text 1/

2/

8/

9/

Once it had been determined that we were to sail to Italy, they transferred a custody of Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of an b Imperial Cohort named Julius. We boarded a ship of Adramyttium c that was going to stop at ports along the Asian coast and set out. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us. 3/ We put in at Sidon the subsequent day, where Julius very kindly permitted Paul to visit friends and receive attention from them. 4/ After we departed from Sidon contrary winds compelled us to keep to the sheltered side of Cyprus. 5/ We then crossed the open water along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia and arrived at Myra in Lycia. d 6/ There e the centurion located an Alexandrian ship destined for Italy and put us aboard it. 7/ Many days of slow and labored sailing got us no farther than the vicinity of Cnidus, where, unable to make headway, we sailed for Crete, off Salmone, and hugged the coast with some difficulty until we reached a place called Fair Havens, which is near the city of Lasaea. As some time had passed and navigation had become risky because even Yom Kippur had come and gone, Paul advised them, 10/ “Gentlemen, I envision that the voyage will be attended with a great deal of damage and loss—loss not only of cargo and the vessel but even loss of our very lives.” 11/ The centurion, however, found the arguments of the owner and the master more convincing than those of Paul. f 12/ Since Fair Havens was unsuitable for wintering, the majority preferred to sail on so that, if possible, they might reach Phoenix, a Cretan harbor exposed to winds from both the northwest and the southwest. 13/ The appearance of a light southerly breeze seemed to satisfy their

27: D-Textk 1/

2/

3/

5/

6/ 7/

So then the governor decided to remand him to Caesar. On the next day he summoned a centurion named Julius and transferred to him Paul together with some other prisoners. When it came time to sail, We boarded a ship of Adramyttium. Aristarchus, a Macedonian, also boarded with us. We put in at Sidon, where the centurion very kindly permitted Paul to have friends come to visit him and attend to him. 4/ From there we kept to the sheltered side of Cyprus because the winds were contrary. Afterwards we crossed the Cilician gulf and the Pamphylian sea and after fifteen days we reached Myra in Lycia. The centurion located an Alexandrian ship destined for Italy and boarded us. Labored sailing got us to Cnidus within a few days, from which we put out and sailed along the south of Crete.

8/

We arrived at a good harbor where a city was nearby.

9/

When we had passed many days there and navigation had become risky because even Yom Kippur had come and gone, Paul approached 10/ and said, “Gentlemen, I envision that the voyage will be attended with a great deal of damage and loss— loss not only of cargo and the vessel but even loss of our very lives.”11/ But the master and the owner

12/

preferred to sail on so that, if possible, they might reach Phoenix, a Cretan harbor. The centurion found them more convincing than what Paul had said.

13/

When a light southerly breeze sprang up, we sailed from Crete.

639

Acts part 3C.indd 639

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

14/ 15/

18/

19/ 20/

21/

27/

r­ equirements, so they weighed anchor and hugged closelyg to the coast of Crete. But shortly thereafter a violent wind, known as the Euraquilo, came roaring down from Crete h and overpowered the ship. Since no headway could be made, we let ourselves be carried along. 16/ When we passed under the protection of an island called Cauda, we managed, with considerable difficulty, to get control of the ship’s boat. 17/ They hoisted it in and then deployed some materials to strengthen the ship. i Fearing that they might be wrecked on the Libyan coast, the crew loosed the sails j and let the ship have its own way. Since the storm continued to pound us fiercely, they began to jettison material on the next day. The day after that they began to heave gear overboard by hand. Since neither sun by day nor stars by night had been seen for many days and the terrible storm raged unabated, any hope that we might be rescued finally began to fade.

14/

A southeast wind descended

15/

and the ship ran on and we arrived at l

16/

an island called Klauda.

17/

Fearing that we might be driven onto the Libyan coast, we remained there.

18/

On the next day, since the storm continued to pound the ship fiercely, we heaved the gear into the sea.

19/ 20/

Since the storm raged on for many days and neither sun by day nor stars by night had appeared, any hope of life finally began to fade.

No one had received any nourishment for a long time when Paul stood in their m midst and said: “Gentlemen, you really should have done what I said and not left Crete. Then we should not have experienced this damage and loss. 22/ Now I am urging that you keep your spirits up, for not one of you will be lost; only the ship is doomed. n 23/ Last night there appeared to me a messenger of the god to whom I belong o and whom I serve. 24/ ‘Do not be afraid, Paul,’ he said. ‘You must appear before Caesar. God has granted you all those who are making this voyage with you.’p 25/ Cheer up, then, gentlemen, for I trust God and that things will turn out as I was told. 26/ We shall, however, have to run aground on an island.” In the middle of the fourteenth night, as we were still being

640

Acts part 3C.indd 640

8/27/2008 10:24:54 AM

27:1-44

driven q over the Mediterranean, r the sailors began to suspect that land was near. s 28/ They took soundings and found twenty fathoms. A bit later they cast again and found fifteen. 29/

30/

31/

33/

39/

42/

Anxious that we t might be dashed against a rocky shore, u they cast four anchors from the stern and began to long for dawn. When the sailors attempted to desert the ship by lowering the boat on the pretext of dropping anchors from the bow, Paul protested to the centurion and his detachment, “If they do not remain in the ship, you won’t have a chance of being rescued!” 32/ In response the soldiers cut the lines of the boat and let it fall away. When day was about to break,v Paul started urging everyone to take some nourishment: “This is the fourteenth day you have lived in suspense,w going hungry and receiving no meals. 34/ I therefore urge you to take some nourishment, for your own good. x None of you will lose even a single hair from your heads.” 35/ He then took some bread, gave public thanks to God, broke it, and began to eat. 36/ All felt better, and they, too, had something to eat. 37/ There were 276 of us aboard that ship. 38/ After they had taken their fill, they set about lightening the ship by heaving the grain overboard. When day arrived, they were not able to recognize the place, but they noticed a bay with a beach onto which they planned to run the ship aground,y if possible. 40/ So they slipped the anchors and left them in the sea, while also loosing the ropes that had secured the rudders z and hoisting the foresail to catch the wind and make for the beach. aa 41/ But they ran the ship onto a shoal, bb so that the bow jammed fast and wouldn’t move, while the stern started to break up under pressure. cc The soldiers decided to kill the

29/

Anxious that it might be broken up, they beached the ship toward the shore and began to long for dawn. ee

30/

When the sailors attempted to desert and began lowering the boat

31/

Paul protested to the centurion and his detachment, “If they do not remain in the ship, we won’t have a chance of being rescued!” 32 In response they cut the lines and let the boat fall away. When day broke, Paul urged everyone to take some nourishment: “This is the fourteenth day since you began to go ­h ungry.

33/

34/

38/

“I therefore urge you to take some nourishment, for your own good. ff None of you will lose gg even a single hair from your heads.” 35/ He then took some bread, gave public thanks to God, broke it, and began to eat, and gave some to us. hh 36/ All felt better, and had something to eat. 37/ We were seventy-six. After they had taken their fill, the ship was lightened.

39/

They noticed a bay with a beach onto which they wanted to run the ship aground, if possible. ii

41/

Then they came in jj and ran the ship aground there and it was battered and began to break into pieces.

42/

The soldiers decided to kill the

641

Acts part 3C.indd 641

8/27/2008 10:24:55 AM

prisoners to prevent any from swimming ashore and escaping, 43/ but the centurion put a stop to this idea because he wished to save Paul. He ordered that those who could swim should leap overboard and make for shore first, 44/ while the rest would fasten on to planks or cling to other people dd from the ship. By those means all came 44/ ashore safely.

a

b c d e f g

h

i

j k l

m

n

prisoners to prevent any kk from swimming ashore and escaping, 43/ but the centurion prevented this from happening, out of particular concern for Paul, so that he might save him. He ordered that those who could swim should make for shore first, and the rest should go on planks.

P74 pc have paredivdoun te tovn, inverting the “and,” while others omit the conjunction. Inept uses of te are a Lucan characteristic. Or: “the,” since the Roman military establishment had more than one cohors Augusta. P74 has the article, making “Adramyttine” the ship’s name. B 1175 spell with -rr-. 69 has “Smyrna”; p 74 a (A) lat bo “Lystra.” The initial adverb has difficult variants. The D-Text replaces it with “and.” On the suitability of the imperfect in conversations, see BDF §428 (“literary language”). Much of the Latin tradition mistakes a\sson as a place-name: Assos. See 20:13-14. This is a Homeric adverb. On katÆ aujth`", see Moule, Idiom Book, 60. The less likely alternative is “against the ship” (understood as feminine nau`~; cf. v. 41). The meaning of this verse is not clear. See Brian Rapske, “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 35. The meaning of this phrase is not clear. “Dropped a sea anchor” (see p. 659) is an alternative. The D-Text of Acts 27 follows Boismard, Texte, 406–21. Note, however, an alternate text of the D type (82. 614. 1518. 2125 syrh* Cassiodorus, Bede), which adds, after ejpidovnte~ (“yielding”) in v. 15, tw/` pnevonti kai; susteivlante~ ta; iJstiva (“yielded to the wind which was blowing, and having furled the sails, we were driven . . .”). Syrh adds “as chance would have it.” See Ropes, Text, 243; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 440. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 415) eliminates “their,” presumably because no persons had been mentioned. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 415–16) has “no” (oujdemiva) modifying “life” and changes “you” to

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

“us,” drops gavr (“for”), and simplifies the relative clause: “the god whom I serve.” The evidence for the presence or absence of the emphatic ejgwv (“I”) is evenly divided. Formally, this is more suitable to the angel, but may have been original. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 416) softens the baldness of the “gift” by omitting “God,” thus making the construction an impersonal passive. The verb diafevrw may mean “drifting” rather than “tossed about,” but the stronger sense is more likely (Barrett, 2:1202). On the suggestion that it means “tack,” see p. 656 n. 125. Lit. “the Adriatic,” the area of which was construed differently in antiquity. Strabo (2.5.20), Pausanias (5.25.3), and Ptolemy (Geog. 3.4.1; 15.1) indicate that this term embraced the Ionian Sea and the northern Mediterranean between Greece and Italy, as far south as Crete and Malta. In v. 27, variants for prosavgein (“be near”) are proshcei`n (“resound,” i.e., hear surf breaking) B* -acei`n- gig s, prosanecei`n B2 (“rise up toward”) proagagein a* pc proseggivzein (“draw near”) 614. 1505. 2147. On these, see Barrett, 2:1203. The D-Text abbreviates: “In the middle of the fourteenth night, the sailors began to suspect that land was near.” 81. 326. 945. 1739. 1891 et al. read the third plural. These variants show that ancient and medieval scribes wrestled with the problems raised by “we” in Acts 27. At the close of this verse gig and vg mss add ut sciremus an salvi esse possimus/emus (“so that we might know whether we could be safe”). The v.l. bracei`~ (“small,” p 74 et al.) is most likely an error for tracei`" (“rough”), which belongs to the tradition. James Smith (The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul [4th ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1880] 132) cited Homer Od. 5.425. Note also Dio of Prusa Or. 7.2 (a work of fiction): a voy-

642

Acts part 3C.indd 642

8/27/2008 10:24:55 AM

27:1-44

age begun at end of summer ran into ceimw`no~ de; genomevnou calepw`~ kai; movli~ dieswvqhmen . . . to; me;n dh; ajkavtion eij~ tracuvn tina aijgialo;n uJpo; toi`~ krhmnoi`~ ejkbalovnte~ dievfqeiran (“when a fierce storm arose and we barely escaped . . . they ran the boat onto a rugged beach under the cliffs, where it came to grief” [author’s trans.]). An island with a shore that was not rough was encountered by voyagers driven for a week in Lucian Ver. hist. 1.6. v It is possible to render the opening as “Paul kept exhorting everyone until daybreak,” since this is the conventional meaning of a[cri ou| and parekavlei is imperfect. So BDAG, 160, s.v. a[cri 1b, but this yields a ridiculous meaning, and it is preferable to take the conjunction as “at the point when.” See Cadbury and Lake, 336. Haenchen (706) and Barrett (2:1206), however, reject this and take the imperfect as iterative, but, in his version, Barrett (2:1176) says, “When it was nearly day.” The narrator wishes to distinguish between the first indications of light and full day (v. 39). w The participle prosdokw`nte" should be associated with diatelei`te and thus probably has the sense of “suspense,” rather than mere waiting. BDF §161 (3) takes this as “a special idiom” and illustrates it. See also Barrett, 2:1207. x “Our” is read by A L P 326. 614. 1241 pm w syh. This, the only use of prov~ with the genitive in the NT, is a literary touch. y B* C pc read ejksw`sai for ejxw`sai The sound is essentially identical. The former would add another variant on the theme “save,” but the latter fits the context. See Ropes, Text, 247. z A stricter rendering is “dismantled the steering apparatus” (Barrett, 2:1212), but this is less probable than releasing the steering oars from their restraints. aa P74 reads pnoh/` instead of pneouvsh/. The latter represents a common ellipsis: BDF §241 (6). On the use of a{ma, which is similar to the classical “while,” see BDF §425 (2). The phrase could mean that the rudders were detached, but that makes less sense than the understanding that they were released from restraints for use. bb Or: “upon a point,” exposed to water on both sides, the definition of tovpon diqavlasson, BDAG, 245, s.v. diqavlasso". The same must be said of any such “point.” The focus here is on the impact of the water. See Cadbury and Lake, 339;

cc

dd

ee

ff

gg hh

ii

jj kk

and Conzelmann, 220. “Shoal” is reasonable, even if uncertain here. The phrase tw`n kumavtwn (“by the force of the waves”) is probably a secondary gloss, since it is difficult to imagine why it would have been deleted, and alternatives include “the force of the sea” (gig vg) and “the force of the wind” (sa). See Ropes, Text, 249. The indefinite ejpiv tinwn tw`n could refer to things (neuter), but persons seems more likely. Cadbury and Lake (340) speculate that the difference may explain the use of this preposition with two cases: genitive indicating something like “on the shoulders of” and the dative “on planks.” Conzelman (221), however, prefers the neuter, which would mean objects from the ship (such as cases) as well as pieces of wood resulting from the breakup of the vessel. This is better rendered “they halted the ship,” an abbreviation of the conventional text. Boismard (Texte, 417) prints ejpevkeilan th;n nau`n (cf. v. 41), which he takes from the Ethiopic, rendered in ultraliteral Latin as “stare-fecerunt navem-eorum,” which should mean “made their ship halt” (i.e., by casting anchors). Note that, in v. 41, the Latin version of the Ethiopic reads “impegerunt navemeorum,” which is well retroverted into Greek as ejpevkeilan th;n nau`n, as Boismard (Texte, 420) proposes. Clark (167) reads, on the basis of gig, ejlpivzw ga;r ejn tw/` qew/` mou o{ti (“For I [have] hope in my God that . . .”). This turns the positive declaration into a pious wish and reduces the parallel between Jesus and Paul. “Fall” (pesei`tai) is read by Y 1739 gig syh sa. This would seem to be a typical D-Text revision. This reading of 614. 2147 pc sa h** is not admitted into Boismard’s text (Texte, 418), or even mentioned. It is normally accepted as part of the D-Text (e.g., Metzger, Textual Commentary, 441–42). Note that Boismard (Texte, 419) omits (on the basis of the Ethiopic) the initial temporal clause. “Wanted” could come from confusion of bouleuv­ omai (“plan”) and bouvlomai (“wish”). The subject (“the sailors”) is stated in gig vg mss sa ms sy p and found as a gloss in 920. The initial tovte ejlqovnte~ of the D-Text, derived from the Ethiopic, is puzzling. In v. 42, Clark (168) adds “of them” (ejx aujtw`n) to “any.”

643

Acts part 3C.indd 643

8/27/2008 10:24:55 AM

Analysis

The keystone to the arch of issues through which all interpreters of Acts 271 must pass is its length.2 Why did the author devote sixty verses (c. 6 percent of the text) to the story of Paul’s transfer to Rome?3 This is central to the question of meaning, and all discussions of text, source, and form must address it or risk the charge of irrelevance. This is, without doubt, a good story that contributes to the portrait of Paul’s character and provides an additional demonstration of divine providence in operation, but those factors do not justify its length. Luke was not loath to regale his readers with adventure, and he understood the value of retardation, but from this perspective the effort was a failure, for the sequel is anticlimactic, repetitious, and disappointing narrative. For the historical Paul, travel was a means for getting to one place or another, and the only fact worth narrating was that he got there.4 Presuming that his statement was factual, Paul had suffered more shipwrecks than any hero of an ancient novel, one of which was more perilous than that of Acts 27 (2 Cor 11:25). To it he devoted five words. One perennial solution to the problem of length is abridgment. This is the path apparently followed by the D-Text, as reconstructed by Boismard, 5 for the conventional text is, according to an electronic count, 26.6 ­percent longer than the D-Text (762 words versus 1 2

3

4 5 6

602). Difficulties abound. Boismard’s text is largely a retroversion here. The D-Text has been shedding, like the veils of Oscar Wilde’s Salome, one witness after another, until, with the loss of Latin h in 27:13, it is largely reduced to the evidence of the Ethiopic version. This is more like a slender thread than a thin veil, but it is not utterly without value, despite the late date of the mss.6 Agreements among Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic witnesses intimate a Greek basis.7 James A. Montgomery, who made the first scholarly examination of the Ethiopic text of Acts, issued a harshly negative judgment, concluding that the brevity of the text was due to the sloth or incompetence of the editor.8 Arnaud Lamouille and Marie-Émile Boismard took issue with his judgments, for they found support in other witnesses, notably h, in Acts 27.9 Abbreviation is most pronounced in the discussion of sea-travel (vv. 8, 13-19, 39-41). This appears to be abridgment by plan rather than abbreviation due to inadequacy, so that one may tentatively posit the elimination of less relevant material as one ancient editorial means of dealing with Acts 27. That this took place within the D-Text tradition is noteworthy, since scholarship generally views the D-Text as an expansion of the conventional text.10 Sea travel was difficult in antiquity. Sosia sums it up: “God knows, Parmeno, words really can’t express quite

“Acts 27” is used throughout this section as shorthand for 27:1—28:16. Josephus devotes sixty-two words to his voyage to Rome, a journey that also involved a shipwreck, including a night in the water. Divine Providence brought about his rescue (Vit. 14–16). This is less than 9 percent of the length of the voyage in Acts (762 words). Pervo, Profit, 50–51. Johnson (450–52) gives a balanced and comprehensive introduction to the background and issues. E.g., 2 Cor 7:5 (Macedonia). Cf. 1 Thess 1:6 (Timothy arrives at Athens). Boismard, Texte, 406–21. On the Ethiopic data, see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 215–40 (234–36 on Acts). The version probably dates from the fifth or sixth century. Syriac influence is probable, although of uncertain extent (238–40).

7 8

Ibid., 240. James A. Montgomery, “The Ethiopic Text of Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 27 (1934) 169–205. With regard to Acts 27, he stated (179) that the editor/ translator “floundered in the depths like Paul’s own ship.” 9 Boismard summarizes their earlier findings in Texte, 41–45, with specific reference to chap. 27 on 43–45. Their views have been challenged by Curt Niccum, “The Ethiopic Version and the ‘Western’ Text of Acts in Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres,” in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., Transmission and Reception: New Testament TextCritical and Exegetical Studies (Texts and Studies 4; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), 69–88. Niccum apparently leans toward incompetence and ignorance as the cause of the omissions in Acts 27–28, although he does not state this explicitly. In his view, the Ethiopic is not a witness for the D-Text. 10 Both abbreviation and expansion are characteristics of the “copy editor” model proposed on

644

Acts part 3C.indd 644

8/27/2008 10:24:55 AM

27:1-44

how unpleasant it actually is to travel by sea.”11 Formally, Acts 27:1—28:16 is a story of storm, shipwreck, and survival. “Shipwreck story” refers not to a specific form or genre with a limited number of elements12 but to a type that exhibits examples from a repertory of recurring themes and motifs.13 The type was familiar enough to inspire satire and parody.14 Many of these themes can be illustrated from prose fiction.15 Acts 27 shows the influence of the ancient novel.16 This judgment does not mean that the ship(s) that bore Paul to Rome did not touch at this or that place, for example, or that they did not come to grief at Malta (if Malta it were). It does mean that one should not be surprised to learn that, upon arriving at Malta the survivors had an interesting experience with the local natives and were taken in by the resident gentry. The length is a clue to the outcome. Ancient literature rarely described long, uneventful ­voyages. The abundance of such stories is in part a cause

and in part a tribute to their suitability for illustrating vices and virtues. Juvenal’s Twelfth Satire, for example, is a critique of greed.17 Acts 28:1-6 succinctly illustrates the notion that storms can be used by gods to punish humans to whom they have taken a dislike or by gods to rescue those who have found favor with them.18 Jesus was not the only being who saved a ship by causing a storm to abate. Linked to these themes was the ancient view of the sea as a source of evil.19 In the light of such features, it would be surprising if Acts 27 did not contain a symbolic element. In terms of comparability, Acts 27 is best understood as a chapter from a religious novel.20 Solutions that judge this material entirely factual or completely fictitious are questionable.21 Two sources seem well established: Jonah22 and ­Homer.23 Others have been proposed, ranging from a participant’s memory to a single source supplemented by interpolations to a general literary tradition familiar to

pp. 1–5 for many of the distinctive readings. Clark (163–68) preferred a more “normal” sort of D-Text, very much like that of N-A 27, with a number of expansions. All of these are represented by some witnesses of the “Western” type. This indicates that, in this material, at least, there are grounds for Boismard’s postulation of different “D-Texts,” with the longer representing his “TO2” (second edition of the “Western Text”). 11 Terence Hecyra 416–17: non hercle verbis, Parmeno, dici potest tantum quam re ipsa navigare incommodumst (trans. John Barsby, Terence II [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001] 189). 12 Haenchen’s “fixed type” was a person of straw. See Pervo, Profit, 51. 13 For a discussion of the type with a full catalogue of examples, see Charles Talbert and J. Hayes, “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 321–36. For a list of some motifs, see Pervo, Profit, 156 n. 189. The story that best illuminates Acts 27 is Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 3.1–5: On the third day of a voyage, calm gives way to wind. A detailed account of various maneuvers (3.1.2–2.8) follows. The sun disappeared (3.2.2). Hope was abandoned (3.2.5). All cargo was jettisoned (3.2.9). The crew attempted to escape in the boat (3.3.1–4.2) and finally did so. The ship ran onto a rock and was broken into pieces (3.4.3). Passengers attempted to escape by swimming or clinging to pieces of wood (3.4.6). The principals finally make their way to shore. Achilles Tatius knew how to give rhetoric free rein and raise suspense by elaborate development. When every allowance is

14

15

16

17 18 19 20 21

22 23

made and all of the differences noted, the outline and emphases of the two stories are very similar. Satire: Juvenal Sat. 12.17–82; Lucian Merc. cond. 1–2 (which reads like a spoof of the motifs and theme of Acts 27). Parody: Lucian Ver. hist., e.g., 1.5–6. Northrop Frye (The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976] 4) said of the Greek novel: “[T]he normal means of transportation is by shipwreck.” See, for example, Petr Pokornyå, “Die Romfahrt des Paulus und der antike Roman,” ZNW 64 (1973) 233–44; Weiser, 2:659; Pervo, Profit, 51–52, with his references; Alexander, Literary Context, 69–96; and M. Quesnell, “Le naufrage de Saint Paul,” Transversalités 69 (1999) 47–57. For other examples, see Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology,” 323–24. Examples in Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology,” 324. This was a staple item in the larder of epic. See p. 649. That is, as material that would be suitable to a religious novel. See, for example, Adrian Hummel (“Factum et Fictum: Literarische und theologische Erwägungen zur Romreise des Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte [Apg 27,1—28,16],” BibNotiz 105 [2000] 39–53), who characterizes Acts 27 as a mixture from which distinct facts are difficult to extract. See the comments on vv. 19 and 38. The influence of the Odyssey is acknowledged by Bruce (527) and developed in detail by Dennis R.

645

Acts part 3C.indd 645

8/27/2008 10:24:55 AM

Luke. The first of these can be examined by discussion of the first person plural. In vv. 2-8 (generally), 15-16, 18, 27a, and 28:11-13, “we” operates in the conventional sense of travel reports, with no specification. Similarly, in vv. 10, 20, 26, 29, and 37, “we” identifies all aboard the vessel. This is equally unspecific. Susan Praeder labels this reporter a “first person peripheral narrator,” a passive observer.24 Such a narrator is a literary creation, even if the creator was an actual participant in historical events scrupulously reported. Such a colorless narrator allows the reader to take part in the story. Shifts between the first and third persons can be difficult. In v. 10, Paul addresses “them,” the identity of whom is unclear. The shift from “we” to “them” in vv. 16-17 is also confusing. The “we” of v. 27a yields to “they” of the crew. Verse 38 reports another shift from first to third: “they” toss out the grain. The initial “us” in 27:1 is inconclusive, as it may not include Paul but is distinguished from “some other prisoners.” Verse 2 states that Aristarchus was “with,” not specifically one of us, possibly distinguishing the “we” narrator from the Pauline circle (of which Aristarchus was a part). Verse 6 excludes the centurion Julius from “us.” Since they are now on a different ship, one may hypothesize that “us” includes all passengers under the authority of Julius, that is, prisoners, but this conflicts with v. 1. Acts 28:1-16 is dominated by the first plural. In vv. 1-2, “we” evidently embraces the entire ship’s company, but v. 7 is less clear. Is the reader to imagine that Publius cared for hundreds? This is possible, but it will not apply to v. 12, where those honored are almost certainly

restricted to Paul (who had performed healings) and his entourage. The limits of the “we” in 28:11-13 are unspecified. In theory it could refer to the entire body of passengers and crew, but in 28:14 “we” can scarcely extend beyond the number of believers. With some simplification one can say that Acts 27–28 presents two first person narrators, one the generic travel reporter who is not essentially different from—and can be interchanged with—the omniscient third person and another representing a (presumably small) circle affiliated with Paul. The former of these makes no attempts to establish “his” authority or to intimate reminiscence.25 If a primary, historical source is to be identified, it will derive from the latter. In its favor are the names of Julius, with his organization, and Aristarchus, as well as the registry of the ship (Adramyttium). Difficulties remain. The smaller, Pauline group does not emerge within the narrative before Malta, where it remains vague.26 The names and number of this body, the minimum size of which is three, remain unspecified, as does their reason for being included. The most likely reason for their inclusion would be their status as fellow prisoners.27 To grant that would be to accuse Luke of cheating, since his entire story allows but one prisoner. Ramsay saw the problem: “It is hardly possible to suppose that the prisoner’s friends were allowed to accompany him.” Pliny supplied the answer: Luke and Aristarchus accompanied Paul by posing as his slaves. This is both clever and tender, but scarcely possible.28 If Luke had an account transmitted by Aristarchus or anonymous, he has deprived it of every semblance of reliability. Although the theory that Acts

MacDonald, “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and special significance of their eyewitness experiPaul,” NTS 45 (1999) 88–107. MacDonald postuences.” Kurz (Reading, 107–8) says that the author lates that the Odyssey is the sole source of Acts 27. uses the first person “flexibly.” This is a euphemism 24 Susan M. Praeder, “Narrative Voyage: An Analysis for inconsistency. and Interpretation of Acts 27–28” (Diss., Graduate 26 In 27:3, Paul alone is permitted to visit “friends.” Theological Union, Berkeley, 1980) 89. See also the 27 Jervell (603), for example, suggests that the other next note. friends or colleagues of Paul made the journey with 25 This is Praeder’s peripheral narrator. Note her him of their own free will. This is certainly possible, apposite comments in “Problem,” 198: “It seems but it is but one inference and less probable than the that Luke is unconcerned to offer even the simplest hypothesis that the companions were also prisoners. evidence in support of the eyewitness authority 28 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 315–16. His example of the first person plural participants: he refrains comes from the case of Paetus, who rebelled from naming and numbering them and never against Claudius, reported in Pliny Ep. 3.16. explains their relationship to Paul and other third Paetus’s wife Arria offered to take the place of the person participants. In the little that he says about slaves she presumed Paetus would be allowed while the first person plural participants he is silent en route to Rome as a prisoner, since he was of about their status as eyewitnesses and the supposed consular rank. Paul did not enjoy the status that

646

Acts part 3C.indd 646

8/27/2008 10:24:56 AM

27:1-44

27:1—28:16 derives from a participant in the adventure and may be a part of the putative diary used for earlier material (“the itinerary”29) has a long line of distinguished supporters,30 it is, even when adjudged a distinct and separate source, scarcely tenable. In addition to the absence of a single narrative voice, the volume of information about the voyage far exceeds what the earlier passages in this alleged source reported and lacks historical justification within the confines of the story. Dibelius proposed that “a secular description of the voyage and shipwreck served as a pattern, basis or source” into which the author interpolated passages about Paul.31 Although this approach seems old­fashioned,32 it retains its vitality.33 The reason for this is its obvious merit. When the material focusing on Paul (vv. 3b, 9-11, 21-26, 31, 33-36a, 43a; 28:2-10) is set aside, a coherent account remains. 34 That account is more literary than most of Acts and filled with realistic,35 circumstantial, and technical detail, the meaning of some

29 30

31

32 33

of which has long challenged interpreters—witness the ancient versions—and may have eluded Luke at points.36 Dibelius’s analysis quite probably reveals elements of how the author worked. Into a general narrative of the voyage, he introduced what he wished to say about Paul. The literary effect, that is, the author’s final product, is interlacement, alternations of general descriptions of nautical adventure with specific scenes about Paul’s words and actions. 37 Dibelius wisely abstained from identifying this outline as a source. Sufficient indications of Lucan style exist to indicate that, if Luke had one major source, he, in accordance with his usual practice, revised it. At a minimum, these revisions would have included the allusions to Jonah38 and the reference to Yom Kippur. It is probably safest to take a looser approach to intertextuality and think of “background” texts, including Homer, that influenced the composition of this passage, but it is possible that the author took up and altered a specific shipwreck story.39

would permit him to request attendants. For associates to accompany prisoners in their misery was a mark of true friendship (Lucian Tox. 18). See p. 13 n. 74 and p. 319 n. 9. Examples include Henry J. Cadbury, “We and I Passages in Luke-Acts,” NTS 3 (1956) 128–32; Ernst Haenchen, “Acta 27,” in Eric Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964) 235–54 (a diary with later additions); Joseph Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989) 16–22; Hengel, Acts and the History, 66–67; Stählin, 313–14; Colin Hemer, “First Person Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 36 (1985) 79–109; Stanley Porter, “Excursus: The ‘We’ Passages,” in Gill and Gempf, Setting, 545–74; Wehnert, Die WirPassagen; Thornton, Der Zeuge; with considerable nuance, and, also with reservations, J. M. Gilchrist, “The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck,” JSNT 61 (1996) 29–61. Dibelius, Studies, 204–6. See also pp. 7–8. He was anticipated by Wellhausen (Kritische Analyse, 17) and Paul Wendland (Die urchristliche Literatur­ formen [HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912] 324). See Tannehill’s contemptuous comment in Narrative Unity, 2:330. Supporters of this hypothesis, in one sense or another, include Haenchen (709, additions to a diary), Conzelmann (221), Schneider (2:387), Roloff (358–60, into an account of Aristarchus), and Weiser (2:390–91, 659–60).

34 Soards (Speeches, 127–30) treats all of Paul’s discourse under a single head. This is formally objectionable, but, as he states, the arrangement allows one to see the cumulative effect of the material. 35 Smith (Voyage) analyzed the journey in minute detail. He had the advantage of writing in an era when sailing ships were not a quaint relic of the past. (Smith was born in 1782 and was an avid yachtsman.) Nonetheless, such reconstructions— others include the voyages of Odysseus—do not constitute proof, since many of their findings come from the analyst rather than the text. To note but one point, the location of Malta remains uncertain. For some of the difficulties and uncertainties involved in Smith’s reconstruction, see Rapske, “Travel,” 29–43. 36 On the literary quality, see Pervo, Profit, 52, and his references. Barrett (2:1178) suggests that the technical language reveals superior knowledge. This is reasonable, but not certain. Problems with some of the technical language in this passage may derive from inferior knowledge. 37 For examples of interlacement, an enduring literary (and cinematic) technique, see Pervo, Profit, 133–34. 38 See above. 39 Lüdemann (Acts, 355 n. 113) takes note of a work by one of Weiser’s students, Peter Seul (Rettung für alle: Die Romreise des Paulus nach Apg 27,1—28,16 [Berlin and Vienna: Philo Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003]), which argues, at considerable length, for

647

Acts part 3C.indd 647

8/27/2008 10:24:56 AM

One qualification is the propensity for ancient authors to describe experiences in conventional terms. Shipwreck stories, for example, should have at least some of the qualities appropriate to shipwreck stories. The presence of such motifs does not mean that a particular shipwreck story is fictitious, but it does render details suspect.40 Since epic was the “original” and enduring setting for such stories and Homeric (etc.) allusions were desirable, epic reminiscences should occasion no surprise, even when found in allegedly historical accounts. Praeder says: “By the first century a.d. storm scenes were part of literary tradition and part of rhetorical training.” She subsequently suggests that, just as the speeches in Acts attest to rhetorical practice, so also does the storm scene.41 Her study also shows the extent to which Acts 27 falls short of normal rhetorical practice. A tentative solution to the source question that accounts for the various data is to hypothesize that the author took whatever few and sketchy facts he had, prepared a conventional shipwreck story, utilizing one or more sources, and included within this the sometimes intrusive passages about Paul. After completing his valuable survey of travel in the ancient world, Brian Rapske says, “It remains to con-

sider, briefly, what Luke’s intention may have been in relating at such considerable length the shipwreck of Paul.” After rebuffing other interpretations, he concludes that the object was “to recount the actual events” in a manner that will allow readers to understand that Paul’s misfortunes should not reflect negatively upon him.42 This is a meager harvest. Luke, I believe, wished to produce a hundredfold. The need to defend Paul in the light of his experiences of storm, threatened summary execution, shipwreck, and snakebite does not demand a narrative of this length,43 since the mere fact of his survival is adequate defense, if such were needed. As Michael Goulder says, in advocating a different interpretation, “We are not driven to suppose unlikely and disagreeable things about the author’s mental and material resources.”44 Three factors invite the investigation of a deeper meaning of this story: its length, its position in the narrative, and the abundance of symbolism associated with sea, storm, travel by ship, and rescue from the perils of the deep in antiquity. Since the beginning of chap. 20, Paul’s career has followed that of Jesus, with a journey to Jerusalem, “passion predictions,” arrest, and multiple trials. Talbert concludes his outline with a comparison

Lucan composition of the whole. This is implicit in and will add others). On this, see Richard Pervo, the judgment of Susan Marie Praeder (“Acts 27:1— “With Lucian: Who Needs Friends? Friendship in 28:16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the the Toxaris,” in John Fitzgerald, ed., Greco-Roman Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46 [1984] 683–706, Perspectives on Friendship (Resources for Biblical esp. 705): “It is apparent that Luke is familiar with Study 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 163–80, several literary models or styles from sea voyages esp. 168–69. in ancient literature and is following some more 42 Rapske, “Travel,” citing pp. 43 and 46. closely than others.” 43 These are the “known Pauline difficulties” identi40 Appendices 1–4 in Conzelmann (231–36), a collecfied by Rapske, “Travel,” 46. tion that could be expanded, show how stereo44 Goulder, Type, 39. Barrett (“Paul Shipwrecked,” typed these descriptions were. One could claim in Barry Thompson, ed., Scripture: Meaning and that Lucian’s Nav. 1–9 is simply factual—although Method. Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson this is quite debatable—but his Tox. 19–21 (see next [Hull, U.K.: Hull University Press, 1987] 51–64) note) and Ver. hist. are fiction. found no need to say anything disagreeable. After 41 The quotation is from Praeder, “Acts 27,” 693, listing twenty-one unnecessarily recorded places with references in n. 26. The application is made and much else that is superfluous, he concluded on p. 695. For complaints about storm scenes and (p. 51): “These things are in Acts because Luke other ecphrases, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus enjoyed writing about them; and he enjoyed writRhet. 10.17, the Elder Seneca Suasoriae 1.15 (on ing about them because he was the sort of man poetic storms) and the rubric in 3.2: “Now describe who enjoyed writing about that sort of thing.” If the storm.” Lucian Tox. 19–21 contains many taken seriously, this comment means that Acts 27 interesting parallels with Acts. While describing a was entertainment—for the author. storm in the Adriatic, the narrator says (20) that he need not repeat the details, presumably because all knew them (although he has mentioned some

648

Acts part 3C.indd 648

8/27/2008 10:24:56 AM

27:1-44

between Luke 24 and Acts 28, observing that both “conclude on a positive note.”45 If the discovery of these earlier concinnities between the experiences of Jesus and Paul are valid—and the evidence for this is all but overwhelming—the interpreter who acknowledges the parallelism is challenged to explore the possibility of correspondences between Luke 23:24—24:8 and Acts 27:1—28:16. In the comparable structural slot where the Gospel tells of the execution of Jesus and his subsequent vindication through resurrection, Acts tells the story of the voyage. An absence of parallelism in Acts 27 would threaten the entire hypothesis of symmetry. Recognition of this has motivated a number of scholars, including Rackham, C. S. C. Williams, Goulder, Radl, and Kratz, to explore, with varying methods and results, the relation between the closing portions of Luke and Acts.46 Investigation of the possibility that Acts 27 evokes Luke 23–24 is warranted by its length and by its location in the narrative.47 Pursuit of items with symbolic potential here is no

arduous stern chase, for storm and ship, voyage and safe arrival, shipwreck and rescue were already clichés at the beginning of the Common Era. In the Hebrew background and tradition, the (Mediterranean) sea was nearly always portrayed as a hostile place, the locus of demonic chaos48 that God alone could subdue (Exod 15:1-8; Isa 51:9-10). The eschatological principle that the end will replicate the beginning included uncontrolled ocean among the phenomena that will mark the devolution of creation into chaos: “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves” (Luke 21:25).49 Since this apocalyptic apparatus is a feature of the Gospel storm stories (Mark 4:35-41; 6:45-52 and parallels), it should not be excluded from consideration of Acts 27. 50 Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman eras makes use of many of the storm and ship images. Some of these derive from Greek-speaking Judaism, 51

45 Talbert, Literary Patterns, 18. 49 These ideas were not completely foreign to Greco46 Rackham, 477–93, passim; Williams, 159 (without Roman thought. Storm scenes often depicted the development); Goulder, Type, 34–43; Kratz, Retcollapse of the cosmic order. See Lucan Pharsalia tungswunder, 330–50; and Radl, Paulus, 222–65. Cf. 1.72–80; 2.289–92; and Apollonius of Tyre 11 “omnia also G. R. Jacobson, “Paul in Luke-Acts: The Savior miscentur. Pulsat mare sidera caeli” (“Everything Who Is Present,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP is mixed up; the sea beats against the stars of 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 131–46, heaven”). esp. 131–37; Jean-Noël Aletti, Quand Luc raconte: Le 50 A (personal) eschatological element in Egyptian récit comme théologie (Lire la Bible 115; Paris: Cerf, and Greek culture was expressed in the use of a 1998) 69–103; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 335–37; boat to transport the dead to the afterlife. Egypand Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology,” 335–36. Martian religion depicted death as passage through guerat (Historian, 58–59) is cautious, but allows for waters to next world (Hilgert, Ship, 15–17). Greek “christological typology.” literature and art depicts Charon as the pilot who 47 Goulder (Type, 38) says, “[T]he whole of Acts 27 is transports dead souls across the river Styx. Even devoted to the account of the shipwreck because those destined for the Elysian Fields had to cross the incident occupies the central position symboliOcean (Homer Od. 24.2, 10–11). Water thus symcally in the whole book, and requires to be heavily bolized the boundary between life and death, this weighted.” world and the next. The image occurs in Hebrew 48 Psalm 29; 42:7; 46:2-4; 65:7; 88:7; 89:9-14 (“Rahab thought, as in 2 Sam 22:5-6: “For the waves of of the deep); 93:4. See, for examples, Earle Hilgert, death encompassed me, the torrents of perdition The Ship and Related Symbols in the New Testament assailed me; 6 the cords of Sheol (wjdi`ne" qanav­ (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1962) 43–46. Rev 21:1 is tou) entangled me, the snares of death confronted clear: in the new age the sea will no longer exist. me.” Cf. the comments on 2:24. Rackham (475) comments: “In prophecy and 51 Aristeas 251 uses the familiar image of the ship as apocalypse the raging waves were the symbol, life, the port as hereafter, and God as the pilot. as of confusion in general, so of the restless and Cf. Wis 5:10, 13; 4 Macc. 7:1-3. Josephus Ant. tumultuous surging of the nations. The passage of 10.278–79 invokes “natural theology”: a universe Red Sea made the sea the established type of the not governed by God would be like a ship without greatest peril through which man must pass on his a helmsman. way to the promised land.” See also F. Stolz, “Sea,” DDD, 737–42, DBI, s.v. “Storm,” 817–19.

649

Acts part 3C.indd 649

8/27/2008 10:24:56 AM

but o ­ thers do not. 52 T. Naph. 6:1—8:2 could have been written, mutatis mutandis, by Horace, but it is vigorously Israelite. Israel is a ship that encounters trouble in the form of a storm. The breakup of the ship is a national disaster. The Qumran Thanksgiving Hymn 953 (1QH XI) also uses the image of a storm-tossed ship, among others, in an apocalyptic context. These texts indicate that ship and storm imagery belonged to the common culture and was adaptable to various contexts, including apocalyptic forecasts. The storm metaphor also appears in the environment of Acts: “We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). The winds are raging, but the spiritually mature, of whom one could find no better example than the Paul of Acts 27, will not be swept away. 54 The Pastor likewise uses “shipwreck” of spiritual calamity (1 Tim 1:19). 55 The Greeks, unlike the pre-Hellenistic Israelites, feared the sea not because it was foreign but because it was familiar. For them, as for many cultures, storm was a vivid metaphor for the challenges and misfortunes of life. Committing oneself to the deep on a vessel demanded an excess of courage and a deficit of wisdom. May the goddess who rules over Cyprus, and Helen’s brothers, those bright stars, and the lord of the winds . . . guide you, O ship. . . . Oak and three layers of

brass were wrapped round the heart of that man who first entrusted a fragile craft to the savage sea, and had no fear of the headlong rush of the Southwester (Aquilonibus) as it fought to the death with the northern blasts, or of the Hyades’ rain storms, or of the mad South Wind (no more mighty judge presides over the Adriatic, whether he decides to stir up its waters or calm them down). (Horace Odes 1.3.1–5, 9–16) 56 With its challenges and uncertainties, sea travel became a common symbol for the “course” of human life. 57 Luke viewed life as a journey. In Greek thought, the ship became a symbol for the individual traveling through life’s vicissitudes, the less fortunate of which are depicted as storms.58 The vitality of these images is apparent from the full chapter Artemidorus devoted to sailing dreams, with a wealth of meteorological and nautical detail. 59 Among his correspondences are placid journey portends good; storm portends danger; anchor and port indicate rest; the mast represents one’s master (kuvrio~); 60 and shipwreck signals death. The philosophical tradition could, like Jews and Christians, describe life as a voyage.61 The ship was also a corporate image, “the ship of state.”62 This also became an enduring symbol.

52 For example, Sir 33:2 uses a storm-tossed ship as an image of the unobservant person. 2 Bar. 85:10-11 compares the soul reaching the end of life and the world near its destruction to a ship approaching port. 53 Formerly Hymn 4. 54 See the comments of Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 186. 55 On the image, see Ceslas Spicq, Les épîtres pastorales (2 vols.; EB, 4th ed.; Paris: Galbalda, 1969) 1:352–53; and Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 33 n. 12. 56 Trans. Niall Rudd, Horace: Odes and Epodes (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004) 29–31. For the sentiment, see also Odes 3.24.36–41; Epod. 16.57–62; Hesiod Op. 236; Sophocles Ant. 332–36; Aratus Phaen. 110; Lucretius De Rerum Natura 5.1006; Tibullus 1.3.36–37; Virgil Eclogues 4.32; Ovid Metam. 1.94; 57 See, for example, Euripides Trojan Women 102–4; Plato Leg. 7 (803A); Plutarch Tranq. an. 17 (Mor. 475F–476A).

58 See the final paragraphs of Chrysostom’s final sermon on Acts (Hom. 55), which builds on the sea as a metaphor for Paul. 59 See Appendix 4. 60 This became an enduring Christian image, with the mast as cross, that is, Christ (antenna crucis), empowering the ship of the church. 61 See, for example, the lengthy, nearly allegorical description of the voyage of life in Lucian Hermot. 28. 62 See Hilgert, Ship, 21–22. The earliest known reference is Alcaeus frg. 6, while Horace Ode 1.14 is the most famous. This was cited by Quintilian 8.6.44 to illustrate the trope of “allegory.” Jewish examples include T. Naph. 6:1-8; and Qumran Thanksgiving Hymn 9, cited above. Christians took up the image elsewhere at least by the early second century, if not by Matthew (Günther Bornkamm, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [trans. P. Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963]) 55; Ignatius Polyc. 2.3 is not relevant to Acts 27. The ship of the church encounters storms but does not sink. See also

650

Acts part 3C.indd 650

8/27/2008 10:24:56 AM

27:1-44

The popularity of the theme is reflected also in ancient novels, whose protagonists must often travel far, usually unwillingly, as the apparent playthings of fate.63 “The navigium of novel characters most commonly turns into a naufragium, journey into wreck.”64 This is amply illustrated in an explicitly religious atmosphere in Apuleius’s Metamorphoses.65 The priest who has provided Lucius with the means to return to human form (a “resurrection”) says: “You have endured many different toils and been driven by Fortune’s great tempests and mighty stormwinds; but, finally, Lucius, you have reached the harbour of Peace and the altar of Mercy” (Metam. 11.15).66 In his hymn of praise following initiation, Lucius says, “You protect mortals on sea and land, and you drive away the storm-winds of life . . . you calm the storms of Fortune” (Metam. 11.25).67 Storm is for Apuleius’s narrator, as it was for the ancient Israelites and many others, a preferred trope for the great enemy. His “harbor of peace” (portus quietis) is the corresponding image for a happy outcome, the “desired haven” of

63

64

65

66

67 68

Ps 107:30.68 In general and particular, Acts 27 lives in an atmosphere thick with familiar symbolism. Ancient writers used both “death” and “resurrection”/“revival” in hyperbolic ways, technically as metonyms in which death could be called “bonds” or “prison” and vice versa,69 while terms such as “resurrection” were applied to those presumed dead or lost but later found. These tropes found fruitful soil in ancient novels, whose authors made too much use of them for modern taste, but the literary clichés of a popular genre become such because they touch, however trivially and superficially, on vital issues. Important parallels to these issues can be found in descriptions of religious initiation.70 Rom 6:3-4 is an altogether apposite illustration: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”71 This imagery is also present in the Hebrew

Tertullian Idol. 24; Bapt. 8. For more references, see Hermann W. Beyer, “kubevrnhsi~,” TDNT 3:1035–37; and Lampe, 784, s.vv., kubernavw, k.t.l. On the theme of life as a journey in ancient novels, see Reinhold Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962) 29–30. Doody, True Story, 327. See her comments on the ubiquity of the symbol in literature from the seventeenth to the twentieth century (327–29). In the wake of John J. Winkler’s Auctor & Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s Golden Ass (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), many critics of the ancient novel have inclined to view the religious elements as insincere. That question is not relevant to these references. Trans. Hanson, Apuleius, 2:319. The imagery is common: elsewhere in the book, note fortunae naufragio (“shipwreck of fortune” [6.5]), ultimo fortunae turbine (“the last blast of fortune” [8.31]), procellam Fortunae saevientis (“the storm of savage fortune” [10.4]), and fatorum fluctibus (“the billows of the fates” [10.13]). The setting is the Feast of Isis Pelagia (“Our Lady of Good Voyage”), at which a ship was launched to signal the opening of navigation. Isis brought her followers to safe moorings: P. Oxy. 1380.15, 74. A philosophical example is Seneca Ep. 94.22. Trans. Hanson, Apuleius, 2:345 (alt.). Quies in one form or another marked many tombs in the imperial period and survives in the term

requiem and the phrase requiescat in pace. See Franz Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922) 191–95. Campbell Bonner abundantly illustrates the trope of life’s end as a port in “Desired Haven,” HTR 34 (1941) 49–67. 69 See p. 309 n. 92. 70 Erwin Rohde noted the ubiquity of the theme in Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaüfer (3rd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974) 287 and n. 1. See also Fritz Wehrli, “Einheit und Vorgeschichte der griechischen-römischen Romanliteratur.” Museum Helveticum 22 (1965) 133–54, esp. 142–48; and Glen W. Bowersock, Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994) 99–119. Bowersock emphasizes that the theme appeared in a variety of fictional compositions. For the present purposes, the most illuminating (albeit cloudy) exposition is Kerényi, Romanliteratur, 24–43. Kerényi understood the relation between novels and mysteries more in cultural than in propagandistic terms. See the comments of Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983) 101–4. 71 An Isaic priest described initiation to Lucius as “voluntary death” (mors voluntaria) (Apuleius Metam. 11.21). Cf. also Mark 10:38-39, where “baptize” (baptivzw) means “die.”

651

Acts part 3C.indd 651

8/27/2008 10:24:57 AM

Bible.72 A relevant and compelling example is the Psalm of Jonah (Jonah 2:1-10), in which the narrator characterizes his experience as a death: “out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. . . . I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the Pit.” Near-death through drowning could be called “death” and escape from it resurrection. Since Luke was fond of producing stories that echoed biblical tales,73 the “typological” realm merits consideration. At the broadest level stands the exodus event, the language of which helped shape the story of Peter’s deliverance from prison.74 That account utilized paschal symbolism for relating the Easter story and describing the meaning of baptism. The passage of the Israelites over the sea on dry ground climaxed the exodus. Isa 51:9-10 links in parallelism God’s defeat of the primal sea monster Rahab with the events at the Red Sea: “who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over” (v. 10).75 “The most obvious counterpart [is] the shipwreck of Jonah,” who, like Paul, was a missionary to gentiles, experienced a near shipwreck, was responsible for the delivery of all aboard, and ended up

on dry land, after which he, like Paul, preached to those in the current world capital.76 Jonah’s activity served as a reproach in Q (Luke 11:29-32), with a hint of the gentile mission, and was transformed by Matthew (12:38-42) into a type of the death and resurrection of Christ.77 The boat stories of the canonical Gospels (Mark 6:35-41; 6:45-52 parr.;78 Luke 5:1-11; John 21:1-1479) are routinely analyzed in terms of their symbolic content. The storm stories, among which Acts 27 is to be included, are rescue miracles.80 The two evidently preMarcan collections in Mark 4–8 each included a water miracle and a feeding story, strongly suggesting an exodus typology with sacramental implications.81 Acts 27 contains both. The relation of 27:34-38 to the Eucharist is widely discussed and, in any case, potent enough to require lengthy refutation by those who reject it.82 In two senses, Acts 27 supplies additional Peter/Paul parallels. Paul also is rescued from the threat of the waves, as were the disciples in Luke 8:22-25, and, like that of Peter in Acts 12:1-11, his experience has a paradigmatic quality about the meaning of new life. There are sufficient warrants for reading Acts 27 as a symbolic—not allegorical—account of death and

72 See Goulder, Type, 37–39; Radl, Paulus, 227–29; and Kratz, Rettungswunder, 328–29, 350. 73 See pp. 220–21. 74 See the comments on 12:1-11. 75 On the exodus theme, see also Radl, Paulus, 231–33. 76 This summarizes Rackham (477), who is quoted. Paul is formally closer to an antitype of Jonah, who “saved” those aboard by leaving the ship. See Alexander, Literary Context, 85. 77 The inverse is also possible and less likely to be disputed. Luke 4:25-30, for example, foreshadows the gentile mission, the fates of Stephen and Paul, and, in particular, the passion of Jesus, whom death could not hold. 78 On the storm stories, see, e.g., Hilgert, Ship, 72–104. Most interpreters relate them to discipleship. Matthew makes these features more explicit. See Bornkamm, Tradition and Interpretation, 52–58. Mark 4:35-41 arguably reflects Jonah, as Jesus, like Jonah, sleeps (Jonah 1:5, evoked also in Acts 27:19; Mark 4:38). 79 The miraculous catches are gift miracles that symbolize the church’s mission. 80 The late Dieter Georgi once challenged the students in a Harvard New Testament seminar by asking, “When does Acts 27 become a miracle story?”

Chrysostom, who understood the story as a miracle, illustrates the contrast between the ancient and modern understanding of miracle: “See how God does not innovate or change the order of nature (oujdevn . . . metabavllonta), but suffers them to sail into the unfavorable winds. But even so the miracle is wrought (qau`ma ejrgavzetai)” (Hom. 53, p. 315). Theissen (Miracle Stories, 102) classifies this narrative among rescue miracles, thus associating it with the prison escapes. The responsible person is the complement of a “Jonah,” the individual (usually) whose divine patron will see to the rescue of all. Examples include Caesar (Plutarch Caes. 38), Apollonius (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 4.13), whose advice to leave a ship that would sink was heeded by few, to their detriment (5.18). Lucian presents Peregrinus as a parody of the stalwart passenger (Peregr. 43). The “Stilling of the Storm,” Mark ­4 :35-41||Luke 8:22-25, exhibits the same convention. Talbert and Hayes (“A Theology”) recognize this connection, although they develop it along different lines. 81 See Paul Achtemeier, “Toward the Isolation of PreMarkan Miracle Catenae,” JBL 89 (1970) 265–91; and idem, “The Origin and Function of the PreMarcan Miracle Catenae,” JBL 91 (1972) 198–221. 82 See below.

652

Acts part 3C.indd 652

8/27/2008 10:24:57 AM

27:1-44

resurrection. Luke was too good a writer to engage in ponderous allegorizing. With the probable exception of a few phrases here and there, this story can be enjoyed for its surface features. Nearly every commentator finds some beneath-the-surface meaning here, such as evidence for providential care and the achievement of the divine plan,83 the theme of universal salvation,84 or vindication for Paul.85 The primary sign of divine vindication in Christian thought is resurrection. To speak of Acts 27 as manifesting God’s plan, universalism, and/ or vindication is, in Lucan theology, to speak of the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus.86 Vindication of Paul is justification of the gentile mission. It is difficult to deny that, at some level, Acts 27 is speaking of the same issues expounded in Luke 23–24.87 Luke makes his points by telling stories rather than by emitting theological postulates. The broader and deeper symbolic reading followed here solves more problems than it creates, while taking seriously the ubiquity of such items as the storm-threatened ship and Luke’s propensity for narrative theology. Objections to this approach readily emerge. One is represented by Weiser, who asks whether Luke would not have used more explicit language.88 This complaint does not do justice to Luke’s literary methods, for, like many authors, he hoped that the implied reader would take the point without undue prodding. A second

objection, raised by Johnson, poisons the well by the label “allegory.” He speaks of a “desperate need to find parallels where the text offers no suggestion of one” and goes on to say, “If the author’s point was so patently allegorical, we have even less understanding of why the pedestrian elements of the story were retained.” “Desperate need” is mere polemic, the text has more than a few suggestions of parallelism, and the comment about irrelevant details excludes allegory, in which details are ipso facto important.89 None of the interpretations discussed here treats the account as an allegory or interprets it allegorically. Third, one may ask why patristic authorities did not perceive and expound this symbolism. Attempting to explain why one interpreter did not see what another saw is always difficult. The early explicit use of Acts 27–28 by Irenaeus and Tertullian90 sought to demonstrate that the Paul of Acts is the real Paul, because passages like Acts 27 were composed by his companion, Luke, and therefore the Paul of Marcion and various “Gnostics” was a false construction. The same concern—that a symbolic interpretation threatens history—is apparent in the views of Rapske and Witherington.91 Otherwise, ancient commentators largely neglected Acts 27.92 Chrysostom discovered and expounded a number of symbolic elements,93 as did

83 E.g., Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology.” 84 E.g., Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:336–37. 85 This concept is developed in various ways by Gary Miles and Garry Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon,” HTR 69 (1976) 259–67; David Ladouceur, “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28,” HTR 73 (1980) 435–49, and John C. Clabeaux, “The Story of the Maltese Viper and Luke’s Apology for Paul,” CBQ 67 (2005) 604–10. Weiser (2:663) notes rescue, proof of innocence, and the missionary objective, referring to 1:8; 13:47; 19:21; 23:11; and 25:10–12. 86 This may be illustrated from the Pentecost sermon: the death and resurrection of Jesus was in accordance with the divine plan; resurrection showed that the execution of Jesus was unjust (Acts 2:23-24). The result of this vindication was the gift of the Spirit (v. 33), which opened God’s promise to all (v. 39). 87 See the kindred views of Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology,” 335–36. 88 Weiser, 2:660.

89 Johnson, 457. A more appropriate term would be “typology,” which looks for comparison at a broader label. Witherington (775 n. 105) evidently borrows Johnson’s view: “Not an allegory about Paul reliving or mirroring the end of the life of Christ” [sic]. See also Talbert and Hayes, “A Theology,” 336 n. 31. 90 Irenaeus, A.H. 3.14; Tertullian does not cite Acts 27 in his work Against Marcion; he refers to 28:26 in 5.11.9. 91 This opposition is not obligatory. Rackham, for example, accepts in general the details of Acts as historically reliable. 92 Ephrem (according to the Latin translation in Ropes, Text, 450) devoted ten lines to his summary of chap. 27, but thirteen to 28:1-10. 93 Chrysostom (Hom. 53) interpreted the story in accordance with several ancient tropes. Paul was the “true pilot . . . [who] steered as pilot not a vessel of this (earthly) kind, but the Church of the whole world. . . . In this vessel are many shipwrecks. . . . Look at our whole life: it is just such.

653

Acts part 3C.indd 653

8/27/2008 10:24:57 AM

Arator and Bede.94 Canonical and related developments also played a part. The academic tradition separated Acts from the Gospels, as did liturgical usage. Not until the twentieth century did commentators begin to explore the symmetries of Luke and Acts.95 Pursuit of symbolic meaning in Acts 27 is justified. The voyage involves three ships: the vessel of Adramyttium, which transports the central figures to Myra (vv. 2-5), the Alexandrian ship that comes to grief on the island (vv. 6-44), and another Alexandrian craft that takes (some, all?) survivors to Puteoli (28:11-13). These conveyances roughly delineate the structure, which is framed by two brief—that is, like those in earlier chapters—itinerary passages: vv. 27:1-8 and 28:11-16. The opening and closing verses mention a military person who has custody of Paul. Both also refer to “friends” or believers (27:3; 28:14-15) who care for Paul. Both also anticipate the next section, bad weather in 27:4, 7-8 and arrival at Rome in 28:14. The balance consists of two large units dealing with the voyage, vv. 9-20 and 21-44,

94

95

96

97

each of which includes a forecast by Paul and its subsequent fulfillment, followed by the experiences on the island (28:1-10).96 As it stands, the narrative is a thoroughly literary piece97 rather than a story reporting the unedited reflections of a participant.98 Comment   1  The transition between chap. 27 and chap. 28 is

harsh and abrupt. While the positive comments of Agrippa are still ringing in the reader’s ear, the narrator shifts to cold impersonal language—and simultaneously introduces, out of the blue, a “we.”99 Acts 27:1 would follow 25:12 without difficulty, for the decision to send Paul to Rome was made at that point. It is possible that a source is visible here, since no reason for the transfer is given and Paul is not viewed as a person of high status, while the “we” suggests that Paul was not the only one involved in the case.100 The subject of the verb pare­ divdoun (“transferred”)101 appears to be the ubiquitous

. . . For Paul is sailing even now with us, only not bound as he was then. . . . Let us therefore abide where he bids us—in faith, in the safe haven. . . . Let us think that the whole world is a ship, and in this the evildoers and those who have numberless vices, some rulers, others guards, others . . . just persons” (Walker, p. 318). For Chrysostom, life was a difficult voyage in which the prudent will do well to look for the guidance of God and the company of the saints. For the image of the ship as the world, in which a god is usually depicted as pilot, see Hilgert, Ship, 22. On Arator, see p. 663 n. 94. Note Bede’s comments on v. 33 (95), cited below. He likewise reads the break-up of the ship as a trope of the careless and indifferent soul (95–96). Rackham wrote his commentary in the first year of the century (1901), but the trend did not gain impetus until Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts in 1927. Johnson (444–60) divides the material into two parts, vv. 1-26 and 27-44, the first of which describes the perils at sea, while the second narrates shipwreck and rescue. This is an intelligent division if chap. 27 stands alone. Its weakness is that it separates 28:1-16, the first part of which, at least, is integral to the rescue. For details, see Talbert, 215–21. On its narrative development, see Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:330–37) and Alexander (Literary Context, 212–13),

98

99 100

101

who offer sage observations on the deviation of this passage from the conventional nostos (homecoming) pattern. Hemer (Book, 209–10) says: “Many details . . . are characterized by an ‘immediacy’ of narrative interest, not easily explained from the perspective of selective hindsight.” He excludes from his argument Paul’s speeches and “theological” material. This procedure falsifies (not meant in a moral sense) the results. The first plural last appeared in 21:18. Acts 27:1 would accommodate many interpretations of Paul’s fate, including the hypothesis that he was sent to Rome for execution. Nothing is said about his citizenship or an appeal, while the first plural could be taken as an indication that one or more of his associates (gentile/s taken into the temple?) was among the prisoners. (Another possibility is that the procurator waited until he had enough prisoners for remand to Rome to justify use of a detachment.) This verb is a “passion parallel.” See, e.g., Luke 23:25; Acts 3:13. The imperfect here is difficult. See BDF §327. Barrett (2:1181) explains that the process of handing over the prisoners concluded with the embarkation. Haenchen (697 n. 2) asks whether this tense is used for historical narrative. Note the imperfects in vv. 9, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, 27, 33, 39-40.

654

Acts part 3C.indd 654

8/27/2008 10:24:57 AM

27:1-44

“they” used of authorities by those without power.102 Finally, no time is indicated. As far as the reader knows, Paul and the others were transferred into the charge of a centurion and placed aboard a ship within moments of the “decision.” The D-Text seeks to address all of these problems, smoothing the transition, eliminating “us,”103 improving Paul’s status,104 and introducing some chronological data.105 The chargé of the prisoners, identified, like most characters in Acts, by a single name, Julius,106 evidently belonged to an auxiliary unit. Ramsay attempted to deflect this probability, since a prisoner of Paul’s status clearly required a more highly placed escort.107   2  They took ship first in an unnamed vessel from Adramyttium, a city of northwest Asia Minor.108 Aristarchus introduces an element of discontinuity. He was first mentioned in 19:29, then as one of Paul’s companions in 20:4. The D-Text makes his appearance less abrupt.109 One wonders why he is not mentioned

until this aside at the end of v. 2. Rather than stress his importance as a witness, the narrator appears to minimize his role.110 Aristarchus no sooner enters the narrative in this clumsy manner than he vanishes.111   3  The verse returns Paul to center stage. Centurion Julius is sufficiently impressed by his prisoner—and of sufficient character himself—to permit Paul to visit (lit.) “the friends.” This action anticipates and makes an inclusion with v. 43, and also creates a link with 28:2.112 A related question is whether “friends” here refers to believers or to acquaintances of Paul. In favor of the latter are the absence of references to believers in Tyre, the other use of friends of Paul (19:31, the Asiarchs), and Luke’s customary terminology: “saints” (a{gioi) or “sisters and brothers” (a[delfoi).113 “Believers” is more likely. No weight attaches to previous mention of believers,114 and the article is important here. The language is from the author rather than a source. It implies that Paul could move about with relative freedom, a ­difficulty noted and

102 Grammatical logic would make Festus and Agrippa the subjects of this action. 103 P6 326 pc replace “us” with “Paul and companions” (tou;~ peri; to;n Pau`lon). This also eliminates an awkward first plural. It may be due to lectionary influence, but its introduction from such a source would not have been accidental. 104 The emphasis is on Paul, while the reference to an “Augustan cohort” is dropped. 105 Clark (Acts, 163) has a slightly different reconstruction. (The D-Text is relatively well supported here: 97. 421 h w syr syhmg). 106 Use of a single name is characteristic of popular literature. Sherwin-White (Roman Society, 161) gives a reason why someone named Julius would wish to be identified by his nomen alone. This is pure conjecture. 107 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 315. See T. R. S. Broughton, “The Roman Army,” in Lake and Cadbury, Additional Notes, 427–45; Saddington, “Roman Military,” 2417–18; Mark J. Olson, “Augustan Cohort,” and “Julius,” ABD 1:524 and 3:1125–26, with the latter’s bibliographies; and Hemer, Book, 132 n. 96. For Luke, any centurion enjoyed sufficient prestige. 108 J. D. Wineland (“Adramyttium,” ABD 1:80) confidently states: “The ship was homeward bound when Paul, Luke, Aristarchus, and Julius the Centurion boarded it in order to journey from Caesarea to Rome via the Asian coast.” 109 A D-Text variant not discussed by Boismard adds

110

111

112

113 114

(doubtless from 20:4) “Secundus” 614. 1505. (2147) pc syh. The phrase su;n hJmi`n (“with us”) appears to mean “one of us” in 1:22, but in 21:16, 18 it means something like “along with us.” Diametrically opposed to the theory that Aristarchus is a/the primary authority for the account is the possibility that his name was lifted from Col 4:10, where he is described as a fellow prisoner of Paul. If Aristarchus made the voyage and was a prisoner— which the text does not claim—the theory that Paul was charged with bringing gentiles into the temple gains credence. His presence is more of an embarrassment than a prop for the tradition, although commentators, such as Conzelmann (215), routinely identify him as such. For various hypotheses about how long Aristarchus remained with the company, see Cadbury and Lake, 325. Josephus Ant. 2.236 employs the same phrase for receiving care (ejpimeleiva~ tucei`n) in v. 3 of the nurture received by Moses. “Saints” is less common, but appeared in 26:10; “brothers and sisters” is the term found in 28:14. Acts 21:3, 7 mentions believers in Sidon. Cf. also the general comments in 11:19; 15:3.

655

Acts part 3C.indd 655

8/27/2008 10:24:58 AM

corrected by the D-Text, which has these friends visit Paul. Two of the three uses of the stem from which English “philanthropy” derives occur in this passage (27:3; 28:2). Luke makes more use of explicit friendship language than any other NT author. Harnack quaintly says: “Luke with his classical culture has permitted himself this once to use the classical designation.”115   4-5  The next verses take them to Myra—technically its port, Andriace—about 4.5 kilometers from the city. This was a stopping point for ships in the grain trade.116 The D-text raises interesting questions. The initial “Afterwards” is without sense (unless one presumes the excision of prior narrative).117 The references to Cilicia and Pamphylia are changed to bodies of water.118 The statement that this leg took fifteen days has, however, met with a friendlier reception.119 This reading, which has a better attestation than the other D-Text variants here, is appealing mainly because it is reasonable, but that does not make it more probable.120

  6  The verse omits any reference to debarkation or

departure.121 The first plural would seem to apply only to those in the centurion’s charge, that is, prisoners, and is evidently different from the bland “we” of vv. 7-8.   7-8  The translation and meaning of these verses raise considerable difficulties.122 Authorities try to reconcile their perceptions of Luke’s thought with views of normal sailing routes.123 No certainty is possible. Either because of necessity or in accordance with standard procedure, the ship put in on the southern shore of Crete. The D-Text omits the difficulty of making headway and the mention of Salmone. This makes for a more rapid narrative, less bogged down by the mention of obscure sites,124 but the proper narrator of Acts uses lists of stations, as in chaps. 20–21, to build suspense.   9-12  The reference to Yom Kippur suggests that the normal end of the sailing season was at hand.125 Paul stepped in to make a forecast. The professionals had reason for disagreeing with him. Unwisely so, since

115 Harnack, Mission, 1:421 (see his valuable com123 See Haenchen, 699; Conzelmann, 216; and Hemer, ments on the term on 419–21); Cadbury and Lake, Book, 134–36. All rely on Lionel Casson, “The 326; Cadbury, “Names,” 379–80; and Pervo, Dating, Isis and Her Voyage,” TAPA 81 (1950) 43–56, and 289–90. Barrett (2:1183) says that the friends are subsequent reactions to it. For bibliography, see Christians, but he does not think that the term Hemer, Book, 134 n. 102. is technical. See also BDAG, 1059, s.v. fivlo". On 124 Spellings for Salmone and Lasaea vary considerfriendship in Luke and Acts, see Alan C. Mitchell, ably, while “Fair Havens” (kaloi; livmene~) is not “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 attested in ancient writers. For efforts to unravel and 4:32-37,” JBL 111 (1992) 255–72. and identify the details, see Hemer, Book, 135–36. 116 Hemer, Book, 132. ILS 9958 mentions a granary The text is not certain. On the difficulties of N-A 27, erected under Hadrian, but see Thornton, Der note Barrett, 2:1185–87. Zeuge, 328 n. 297. 125 For speculation on the date of the Day of Atone117 Ropes (Text, 241) attributes it, following H. I. ment in various years, see Witherington, 762; and Words­worth and H. F. D. White (Novum TestaRapske, “Travel,” 23–24. Certainty is not possible. mentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Latine secundum (Among other things it assumes, incorrectly, that editionem S. Hieronymi [Oxford, 1889–1954]), to a single Jewish calendar was in use, that everyone reading to; te (“and the”) as tovte (“then”). The knew the date, and that modern calculations can Latin tum would do. establish these dates in terms of the Gregorian cal118 Ropes (Text, 241) views the Latin base, sinum, as “a endar.) According to Praeder (“Acts 27,” 689 n. 13), corruption of secundum” (Latin secundum can be a the Feast of Booths marked the end of the sailing preposition equivalent to Greek katav) . season in rabbinic Judaism. Not until the introduc119 Ropes (Text, 241) cannot explain it other than as tion of the compass was sailing in the Mediterraoriginal. nean between October and March a routine activ120 Barrett, 2:1184. ity. See Chrysostom Hom. 55 (end), and Vegetius 121 Alexander, Literary Context, 82: “‘finding a ship’ is Epitoma rei militaris 4.39, who supplies these dates an important event.” She provides Ephesian Tale for sea travel: May 27–September 24, safe, until 3.10.4; 4.10.2 as examples. The narrator of Acts November 11 uncertain, and then closed until treats this discovery matter-of-factly. March 10. Tacking was limited in antiquity, and 122 The translation follows Barrett’s attempt the rudders in use were not particularly efficient. (2:1185–86) at unraveling the sequence of tenses Herman T. Wallinga (“Poseidonios on Beating to and participles. Windward (FGH 87F46 and Related Passages),”

656

Acts part 3C.indd 656

8/27/2008 10:24:58 AM

27:1-44

a savage nor’easter soon broke upon them, requiring major efforts to maintain the ship’s integrity and raising the danger that they would be wrecked on the shoals of North Africa. The sailors soon had to surrender effective control of the vessel to the interminable storm. As one lightless day followed another, at least some of the cargo had to be jettisoned.126 Unable to navigate, the crew gave up. So also did the passengers. In an atmosphere of rising danger, Paul attempts to intervene.127 The narrator does not strive for realism in any of Paul’s speeches in this chapter. Prisoners were more likely to have been secured below in shackles128 than allowed to amble about the deck offering unsolicited advice.129 His audience is a ubiquitous “them.” The narrative identifies three authorities: the master, the owner,130 and the centurion, the last of whom is, improbably, in effective command. He retains it, while the captain and the owner disappear from the narrative. See vv. 30-31. Paul’s forecast is somewhat vague.131

126 127

128

129

130

131

It looks like a general prophecy of doom. As such, it is typical and informs experienced readers that bad things are going to happen.132 The sequel in v. 21 indicates that it was intended as advice to stay put. The warning does not demonstrate Paul’s knowledge of such subjects as meteorology and ship handling. His words are inspired.133 They are cloudy because their narrative function is to elevate suspense. Evidently all or most agreed that the voyage could not be completed. The prevailing134 (and expert) opinion was that they should attempt to coast along Crete to reach a safer winter refuge.135 That they did. The difficulties of the text are revealed by the improvements of the D-Text. The location of their goal, Phoenix, is another difficult matter.136 Debates about safety between or among passengers, owners, and crews of various means of transportation will always be with us.137 In literature, these clashes foreshadow that the trouble predicted by one party

Mnemosyne 53 [2000] 431–47) claims that tacking is in view in 27:27 and translates it thus. For the situation, see Ethiopian Story 5.18: The inhabitants of Zakynthos were astonished that a ship had made a successful voyage when the Pleiades were setting, in late October. Water-logged wheat would swell and possibly burst the vessel. The merits of “interpolation” hypotheses are particularly evident here, as v. 12 follows v. 8 (or 9a) more aptly than it does v. 11. See Haenchen, 700 n. 6. Rapske, Roman Custody, 205. For a different but probably more typical picture of custody aboard a ship, see 3 Macc. 4:7-10. Barrett (“Paul Shipwrecked,” 55) seeks to rationalize Paul’s role aboard ship: “First, in the stress of a storm any man who keeps his head may be listened to.” This may be true, but Acts 27 says nothing about people losing their heads. Second, he proposes that Festus and Agrippa may have advised the centurion of their view that Paul was innocent (emphasis added). “Thirdly, we see here precisely the way in which a story could develop: Paul’s muttered forebodings to Luke become public pronouncements.” On the meaning of kubernhvth~ (“captain,” “master”) and nauvklhro~ (“owner”), see Schneider, 2:389–90 nn. 26–27. The terms were not used with perfect consistency, as Barrett (2:1190–91) shows. The form of indirect discourse is mixed, an accusative with infinitive introduced by o{ti. The

132 133 134

135

136

137

statement, which appears to evoke Mark 8:36, might confuse ordinary Greek speakers by its use of “soul” (yuchv) for “life.” For examples from the Odyssey, see MacDonald, “Shipwrecks,” 97. Haenchen, 700. It is also possible that a minority wished to attempt to reach Italy. See Cadbury and Lake, 329. One difficulty is the composition of “the majority” (oiJ pleivone~). This is another indication of the dissonance between vv. 10-11 and v. 12. Conzelmann (217) follows Haenchen (700): “the majority” are the sailors and come from the source. For options, see Cadbury and Lake, 329. Verse 12 has at least the appearance of considerable elegance. BDF §386 (2) questions the use of the optative in indirect discourse after eij, but that category does not fit this situation. Moule (Idiom Book, 154) takes this as an indirect question, as if “hoping” or “wondering” might be supplied, and the optative “gives a more tentative and cautious tone.” (The mss. display considerable variance. See Swanson, Manuscripts, 465). For the history of the discussion, see Cadbury and Lake, 329–30; Hemer, Book, 139–40; and Rapske, “Travel,” 36–37. Barrett (2:1193) has a nearly definitive answer: modern Phineha is in mind, but see Conzelmann (217), who notes not only changes since then but possible confusion. Plato (Resp. 6.488A–489A) can use the theme to construct a parable in which the gullible captain of

657

Acts part 3C.indd 657

8/27/2008 10:24:58 AM

will ­happen.138 A useful example is the fragment from a novel once called Herpyllis but possibly part of Antonius Diogenes’ Marvels beyond Thule:139 Two ships are sailing in tandem in the vicinity of Kos, intending to coast along Asia Minor. The narrator was encouraging (parekavloun) the ships to wait, as the weather was threatening. The masters (kubernhvtai) disagreed, for one believed that a huge storm was brewing. The narrator was right. The two principals will soon be ­separated.140   13-20  These verses also follow a common pattern: after a promising beginning, the weather quickly deteriorates.141 Measure after measure fails, until the ship is allowed to make its own headway. The loss of any control over the elements142 in the face of an apparently

138

139

140

141

142 143 144

145 146

incessant storm leads to despair. The general development is clear and dramatic; many of the details are difficult. The first plural (vv. 15, 16, 18) is intermittent. The D-Text (insofar as it is available) is briefer, eliminates some of the difficulties, and is more consistent in the use of “we.” Once more, it shows a propensity for a less cluttered narrative,143 directed toward readers who did not appreciate circumstantial retardation.144   14  “Euraquilo,” or “nor’easter” (eujrakuvlwn),145 is attested, in a different spelling, as a Latin word.146 The ship is given its own head.147   16-17  The verses evidently describe a procedure carried out under the protection of an island, Cauda (which is also variously named148), but its specific nature remains unclear.149 The circumstantial participle

the ship (= masses), instead of listening to the true ciple, kalouvmeno~ (“known as”). The Latin form navigator, is won over by fawning sailors. The nareuroaquilo is attested in various Latin versions and rative reflects an upper-class view of sailors. Note in an inscription. Hemer (Book, 141–42) proposes Cicero Ad Fam. 16.9.4; and Synesius Ep. 4, which that it is sailors’ jargon. That idea had earlier been has many parallels with Acts 27. advanced in a more tentative and general sense Praeder (“Acts 27,” 690) dryly notes: “Another rule by Lake and Cadbury, “The Winds,” in Lake and of forecasts of storm and shipwreck is that they are Cadbury, Additional Notes, 338–44, esp. 343. followed by storms and/or shipwrecks.” 147 The speaker in Lucian Hermot. 28 says that a safe For details, see Stephens and Winkler, Greek Novels, return (ajnaswqh`nai) is difficult once one casts off 158–72; and Rolf Kussl, Papyrusfragmente griech­ the lines and gives himself to the wind (ejpidw/` ti~ ischer Romane (Classica Monacensia 2; Tübingen: auJto;n th/` pneouvsh/) . It would have been preferable Gunter Narr, 1991) 105–40. to check the weather and make sure of the quality See also Chion of Heraclea 4.1–2 (in which the sailof the ship and the qualifications of its captain ors do not yield—oujk ejpeivqonto—to the narrator’s (kubernhvth~). This is symbolic—indeed allegorical. warning) and Aristides Hieroi Logoi 1.26; 4.32–37, See above. Conzelmann (217–18) identifies two posboth of which feature a nonprofessional narrator sible interpretations of v. 15. who is in charge of the ship. For other examples, 148 Variant spellings include Kaudos, Gaudos, and see Praeder, “Acts 27,” 690–91, who finds the mateClauda/e. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, rial from Chion and the Antonius Diogenes (?) frag440–41. Boismard (Texte, 414) observes that the ment the nearest parallels to 27:9-12. The varied word order of the conventional text is unusual. accounts, historical and fictional, illuminate Paul’s One difficulty with his reconstruction is that his alleged status as a person as prominent as Cicero text has the party remaining at Cauda, without and Aristides. (See p. 646 n. 26.) clear indication of a departure. Praeder (“Acts 27,” 689) concludes that vv. 13-20 149 See Cadbury, “uJpozwvmata,” in Lake and Cadbury, display familiarity with literature at some level. For Additional Notes, 345–54; Hemer, Book, 143; and examples, see MacDonald, “Shipwrecks,” 97–98, as Rapske, “Travel,” 35. Marshall (409) has a clear well as the previous note. summary of the leading options, as does ConzelWith v. 14 compare Luke 8:23. mann (218), who lists four. The chief difficulty is The D-Text also suppresses the leadership’s belief bohvqeia, an abstract (“help”) used as a concrete. that it could accomplish its purpose (v. 13). In English one might say “we rigged some supThis unit is probably the best example in Acts 27 of ports.” The “supports” or “braces” here would abridgment that gets rid of obscure statements. See probably be ropes. See Cadbury and Lake (332), also Cadbury and Lake, 331. who propose analogies. See Plato Resp. 616C. In One variant is “southeaster” (eujrakluvdwn), which his “ship of state” ode (1.14, 3–9), Horace writes: would produce a different result. “Don’t you notice how your side is stripped of oars, This would account for the “apologetic” partiyour mast is split by the violence of the South-

658

Acts part 3C.indd 658

8/27/2008 10:24:58 AM

27:1-44

i­ntroducing v. 17b, “fearing,” can be variously translated: “since, because, although”; that is, it is not clear whether the crew gave the ship its own way despite the danger of being driven onto the dangerous coast of Africa or in order to avoid it.150 Verse 17c is another obscure phrase: calavsante~ to; skeu`o~,151 best interpreted by the logic of the situation rather than because of its clear technical sense, hence “loosed the sails” (or “let down a sea anchor”). The result was that the ship continued to be driven by the wind.152 Loss of control is near the top of the crescendo of difficulties in storm and shipwreck stories.153 The fury of the storm154 forced the crew to begin jettisoning155 cargo or equipment.156   18-19  These verses do not necessarily conflict with v. 38. The imperfect ejpoiou`nto (“began to jettison”) does not imply completion.157 An owner would not wish

150

151

152

153

to discard any more valuable cargo than necessary. One must guess at the meaning of skeuhvn in v. 19. “Spare tackle” is reasonable.158 The language of vv. 18-19 is somewhat repetitious, however,159 lending force to the view that the narrator has decided that this is a moment to evoke Jonah.160 This is not merely an allusion to Jonah 1:5, ejkbolh;n ejpoihvsanto tw`n skeuw`n tw`n ejn tw`/ ploivw/ eij" th;n qavlassan (“They threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea”). The object is to recall Jonah’s “death and resurrection.”161   20  The verse emphasizes the “passion” reference through the use of darkness/night as a symbol for death.162 Specifically, the loss of light recalls the darkness that shrouded the crucifixion of Jesus (Luke 23:44-45).163 The apocalyptic background indicates that a crisis is at hand.164 The second half of v. 20 states this

wester, the yardarms groan, and the hull, without the support of ropes (sine funibus) can scarcely withstand the overbearing sea?) (trans. Rudd, Horace, 51–53). A difficulty is that bracing would help keep the ship from breaking up at sea, as in Horace, but not from being driven onto the shoals. This strengthens the view that v. 17b represents a strong disjunction from the first part. The Syrtis, here the projecting cape of North Africa, was a byword for dangerous waters in antiquity: Virgil Aen. 4.41; Horace Odes 1.22.5; 2.6; 3–4. For others, see Praeder, “Acts 27,” 691–92; and Hemer, Book, 144 n. 122. Dio of Prusa enumerates its difficulties in Or. 5.8–9. See Cadbury and Lake, 333; and Haenchen, 703, with n. 2, for the obscurity. The v.l. for skeu`o~ (“thing”), ta; iJstiva, might mean “set the sail.” Conzelmann (218) lists four options, with some references. Hemer (Book, 143–44) takes the solution of James Smith: all sails but the small foresail, sufficient to maintain way, were struck. Fitzmyer (776–77) prefers, reasonably, to understand the phrase as dropping an anchor to slow the vessel. If one takes this as the report of an eyewitness (e.g., Luke), it can be claimed, as by Haenchen and Hemer, that he did not understand the procedure. The same solution would apply to any author with limited knowledge who was employing a source. “Carried” is first plural in 36. 453 pc sy p (acc. to N-A 27). This coordinates with v. 15, which also ended in ejferovmeqa. On the “classical liberty to use ou{tw" to summarize the content of a preceding participial construction,” see BDF §425 (6). Cf. Homer Od. 9.82–84; Petronius Satyrica 114; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 3.1–2; Lucian Tox. 19; Ver. hist. 1.6; 2.46; Nav. 7; Ethiopian Story 5.27.2.

154 Use of sfodrov~ (“violent”) in some form with “storm” (ceimwn-) is common in popular writings. With 27:18 compare Aesop Fables 30.1; 69.1; 181.1; 223.1. cf. also Josephus Ant. 14.377. 155 For other examples of jettisoning, see Juvenal Sat. 12.30–53; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 3.2.9. 156 Verses 18-19 display a clear distinction between the first and third persons: all were battered by the storm. The crew took action. The D-Text, supported by m, uses the first plural in v. 19. 157 The use of verbs in the imperfect for narrating travel appears to be a Lucan characteristic. 158 See, e.g., Cadbury and Lake, 333. 159 Once more the D-Text is shorter, apparently by eliminating a troublesome redundancy, with an expansion (“into the sea”) borrowed from v. 38. 160 See Haenchen, 704 n. 2. 161 Roloff (360) claims that the Jonah parallel is accidental. Such claims cannot be proved; use of Jonah in Luke 8:22-25 (above) makes accident less likely. 162 The D-Text paraphrases: the storm is no longer “not small” and, rather than the possibly ambiguous “hope of salvation,” is “hope of life.” This is quite probably due to the increasing restriction of sw/vzw to a religious sense. This term, in various forms, appears seven times in the story: 27:20, 31, 34, 43, 44; 28:1, 4. Christian readers would not view it as “purely secular.” 163 The events of v. 20 are “natural” (cf. Virgil Aen. 3.203–4), but Luke also attributes the darkness of Luke 23:44-45 to a solar eclipse. 164 Cf. the citation of Luke 21:25 above. The realistic application is that loss of sun and stars made any attempt to determine their position impossible. See Cadbury and Lake, 334.

659

Acts part 3C.indd 659

8/27/2008 10:24:58 AM

in a narrative cliché: the absence of any grounds for hope amounts to a signal that the worst is over.165 The first person in v. 20 is the general “we” and definitely excludes Paul.166   21-44  At this apparently ultimate moment, Paul again intervened. Despite the distracting conditions, he gained the attention of all, to whom he offered a message of hope, anchored in a vision and concluded with what seems to be a practical proposal. They had been adrift for two weeks before signs of land, quickly confirmed by repeated soundings, appeared. In order to prevent running aground in the dark, anchors were dropped. The company ardently awaited daybreak. Faithless sailors chose this moment to abscond in the ship’s boat. Alert as ever, Paul detected this desertion and informed the centurion. Keeping the crew aboard meant losing the boat and the best means to shore. “[Paul] appears as a vigilant night watchman, doing more to protect those on board the ship than the cowardly sailors or the now-invisible captain and owner.”167 When the prayed-for day arrived, Paul took the initiative again, with the sound suggestion that all eat. They followed his example. At this point, the narrator gives a head count: 276. Light revealed a bay with a beach. The vessel soon ran aground and began to break up.168 Since prisoners might take advantage of the confusion to escape, the soldiers deemed it best to liquidate them.

The centurion Julius, determined to rescue Paul, countermanded this suggestion. By hook, crook, or packing case everyone got ashore. For the last explicit time in Acts, Paul has eluded a plot. Since chap. 21, his human deliverers have been Roman soldiers or officials.   21-26  Verses 21 and 44 mark the contrast from the fading of all hope for rescue (ejlpi;~ pa`sa tou` ­ sw/zesqai) to the rescue of all (pavnta~ diaswqh`nai). The structure generally resembles that of vv. 9-20: a speech of Paul (vv. 21b-26) followed by its narrative fulfillment (vv. 27-44).169 The plot is more complex. Nothing substantial is said about the weather; readers are not informed when, or if, conditions improved.170 The focus is upon two plots: one by the sailors (vv. 30-32),171 the other by the soldiers (vv. 41-43).172 Both are foiled, the former by Paul, the latter because of him. Each features a form of “save.”173 These two brief adventures reinforce the theme that Paul is the reason why all are saved. This deliverance was not necessary. God’s plan would have been accomplished had Paul alone survived the disaster. Two conclusions are difficult to elude. The rescue of all symbolizes the universality of God’s saving message, and Paul is the symbolic agent of that salvation, rather more of a savior than simply one of many saved.174 Paul’s demeanor during a raging storm aligns him with genuine philosophers.175 Those familiar with epic storm scenes will find a speech appropriate at this

165 The theme of “beyond all hope” is a topos in, for example, ancient novels: Longus Daphn. 1.31.1; Lucian Tox. 20; Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 3.2.4; Ethiopian Story 5.25.2; 7.8.2; 7.25.4; cf. Ninus Frg. B.II. 16. Photius’s summary of The Wonders beyond Thule (Bib. 166 109b-110a) shows his view of a proper novel: “while contrary to all expectations (parÆ ejlpivda~ pavsa~) Ceryllus and Dercyllis escaped numerous dangers (kinduvnwn) among the Astures, Astraeus did not avoid the punishment (th;n divkhn; cf. Acts 28:4) that befell him upon conviction for a crime committed a long time earlier; but contrary to every expectation (para; dovxan pa`san) he escaped danger (ejswvqh tw`n kinduvnwn) and was then butchered” (trans. G. N. Sandy, in Reardon, Novels, 779). The theme is not limited to novels. Note Aristides To Serapis (33/56): when darkness shrouded a ship at sea, the god brought light and enabled the passengers, despite their expectations (par j ejlpivda), to see and set foot upon dry land. Cf. also, e.g., Homer Od. 5.297–304; 12.277–79; Aristides Hieroi Logoi

166

167 168 169 170 171

172 173 174 175

2.12; and the many references cited by Praeder, “Acts 27,” 692. The verse is Lucan. Note the litotes and the use of te as a connective (on which see BDF §445 [3]), and infinitive with tou`. B 33 omit loipovn. On its meaning (“at last”), see Moule, Idiom Book, 161. Skinner, Locating, 154. For similar situations, see Virgil Aen. 5.206; and Achilles Tatius Leuc. Clit. 3.5.1. Talbert, 719. From 27:41, one infers that the waves are strong, and 28:2 mentions rain. Rapske (“Travel,” 32) notes that the lifeboat suggests a smaller crew. Marshall (412) deals with this by presuming that only some of the crew attempted to escape. Praeder (“Acts 27”) identifies these two episodes as a pair. In v. 31, the term is swv/zw; v. 43 uses diasw/vzw. The words are essentially interchangeable. Jacobson, “Paul.” See the anecdote about Pyrrho (Diogenes Laertius

660

Acts part 3C.indd 660

8/27/2008 10:24:59 AM

27:1-44

unpromising juncture.176 Such speeches are like the arias in baroque opera. They embellish the emotional elements of the situation. Verses 21-26 have all of the appearance of an insertion into the narrative. Fitzmyer says, “Verse 27 is the logical sequel to this verse.”177 The setting is utterly unrealistic. Paul’s rhetorical posture is described with the words used for his Areopagus address: staqei;~ . . . ejn mevsw/ (“standing in their midst”),178 but this is no sermon about an unknown god. At its core, this is an oracle of assurance (vv. 23-24), with the standard features of narrative setting, admonition, and rationale, as well as an address.179 The form is Jewish,180 slightly adjusted here for a gentile audience.181 A number of gods were credited with rescues at sea. Traditionally, this was a specialty of the Dioscuri, but the Egyptian gods were making headway in the Hellenistic and early Roman eras.182 This indicates how far Paul’s Christian fellow passengers are from the narrator’s mind, a perspective that vv. 33-36 will confirm. Like the

176

177 178

179

180 181

other oracles of assurance (18:9-10; 23:11), this comes at a critical point in the narrative, helps to motivate the plot, and affirms that God is in charge, appearances of chaos notwithstanding.183 Verse 26 is assurance for the hearers: Paul’s character is an endorsement of the oracle. The speech is framed by dei`, the meanings of which are conventional here, but no use of “must” in Luke and Acts should be casually dismissed, especially because of the “divine necessity” invoked in v. 24. The first of these establishes Paul’s credentials: his last advice was sound.184 The third states an objective: running aground upon an island. One may ask how the dramatic audience would have received this pronouncement. Any hospitable landfall would do, preferably one with a good harbor and attendant civilization. In retrospect this becomes a prophecy. Islands are few and far between.185 The introductory “lack of nourishment” (ajsitiva), attributable to seasickness, inability to prepare food, and/or depression, is a good synecdoche for despair.186

9.68). For other examples, see Johnson, 455. Peregrinus manifested his true character by craven behavior during a storm at sea (Lucian Peregr. 43). Lentz (Luke’s Portrait, 94–95) shows that Paul exhibits the cardinal virtues by his conduct during the voyage. Cf. also Skinner, Locating, 154. Homer Od. 5.299–312; Virgil Aen. 1.92–101. For other examples from Latin epic and a brief discussion, see Praeder, “Acts 27,” 696. Witherington (767) finds it “unlikely to me that this widespread invention was based on pure human imagination.” He goes on (768) to reconstruct a plausible situation: the speech took place below deck “to all but a skeleton crew who were above trying to control the boat.” Fitzmyer (777) takes the unit as a Lucan insert into a “we” report. Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 138) says, “The incident is more reminiscent of experiences such as those of Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid than of a truly oratorical situation.” Evidently inspired by vv. 23-24, both Act. Paul 10/12 and Act. Pet. 5 (Verc.) report christophanies to the respective heroes on their voyages to Rome. Aune, Prophecy, 266–68. Rather than say “an angel (of God/the Lord)” Paul speaks of “a messenger of the god whom I serve.” The framework, with parivstamai (“stand beside”), is quite congenial to polytheist readers (Conzelmann, 219 nn. 48–49). The expression kai; ijdouv (untranslated) is, however, reassuringly bibli-

182

183

184

185

186

cal and would have sounded odd to the dramatic audience. Apuleius Metam. 11.8–16 presents the ceremony of opening the navigation, the feast of Isis Ploiaphesia, as a popular spectacle. On rescues in popular fiction, see Söder, Apokryphen Apostel­ geschichten, 162–71. For other examples, see Theissen, Miracle Stories, 101; and Johnson, 449. Compare the more hellenized oracle reported by Josephus (Vit. 208–9, on which see p. 576 n. 51), concluding with a reminder that he must fight the Romans ( ïRwmaivoi~ dei` se polemh`sai). MacDonald (“Shipwrecks,” 100–101) compares this oracle to Ino’s message to Odysseus in Odyssey 5. Aelius Aristides Hieroi Logoi 48.13 reports an epiphany of Asclepius during a storm at sea promising that he would survive the ensuing shipwreck. In a general sense, since the alternative was not to leave Crete, but to shift harbors, and no one was reported as advocating completion of the voyage. Ethos is a rhetorical requirement, demonstrating the speaker’s reliability. One need not debate whether Paul said “I told you so” and see this as an issue of character, as does Bruce, 521. Haenchen (705) reads this as a prophetic prediction. Fitzmyer (778) would take it as “we may have to run aground on some island.” This strains the Greek. Bruce (522) shares Haenchen’s sentiment. Cf. Aristides, Hieroi Logoi 2.68 (ajsitivai oujk ­ojlivgai). Hemer (Book, 145) attributes it to “personal experience.”

661

Acts part 3C.indd 661

8/27/2008 10:24:59 AM

Paul opens with an arresting oxymoron,187 appropriate for a speech that begins with a reminder that he warned them when the situation did not look unduly grim and continues with encouragement now that all seems hopeless. The imperative of the exhortation188 is grounded in the indicative of the oracle. The awkwardness of v. 22b is due to the desire to emphasize “no loss189 of life” and the need to mention, without emphasizing, the ship,190 about which the oracle was silent. The order of v. 23, a slow introduction to the message, begins with the genitive that modifies the subject, “god,” which is the final word. This may be an attempt at elegance. This is the only angelophany to Paul, which was fortuitous, since a christophany would require explanation.191 The oracle states two reasons for assurance, but the effect is concessive: since you must appear before Caesar,192 God has also . . . This is more specific than 23:11. Because “Rome” would have sufficed here, one may suspect that Luke knew of an appearance of Paul “before Caesar” (i.e., in the imperial court). The phrase casts strong doubt on theories proposing that Acts was composed before the trial of Paul.193 Since the oracle might easily and noncontroversially have said “God will

save . . . ,” the words “God has granted194 you” cannot be brushed off. Paul is the cause of their deliverance and thus their savior. The text does not give a reason for this, for example, that it was an answer to his prayers for the others.   27-32  The chief actors in this episode are the sailors.195 Confirming the nearness of land by soundings, they anchor the ship until day.196 All of this was quite reasonable and professional.197 Their next action, as interpreted by the omniscient narrator and the equally omniscient Paul, was not. Verse 30 abruptly and inconsistently shifts from hopeful waiting to precipitate action on the part of the crew. On the pretense of securing the mooring with additional anchors, they planned to flee in the ship’s boat. In Leuc. Clit. (3.3.1–4.2) the crew fled a ship on the verge of foundering.198 Granted that the nocturnal setting might allow for some secrecy (although most seem to have been awake), little else makes sense, for the ship was not in immediate danger of sinking, and the sailors would have had no idea of whither they were fleeing.199 The land might have been a barren islet. Paul’s comment to the centurion (v. 31) is for the benefit of the reader, since one cannot imagine

187 For parallel usages to “gain a loss,” see Cadbury and Lake, 334; cf. also Phil 3:7. On the Lucan characteristics of the speech, see Haenchen, 704 n. 4. 188 The verb parainevw (“strongly recommend”) is used here and in v. 9, thus correlating the two speeches. Avoidance of the conventional parakalevw (“advise”) used to address Christian audiences may be deliberate, but it is probably simply emphatic. 189 “Loss” (ajpobolhv) avoids repeating (and contracting) the zhmiva of v. 21. 190 “Except the ship” is a brachylogy. One must supply “only.” 191 The angelophany also invokes the beginning of Luke, where these epiphanies occur in 1:11, 26; 2:9, 13, and constitutes another parallel to the deliverance of Peter (12:7). 192 The statements about the appearance of the angel and Paul’s appearance before the emperor are identical in structure: parivsthmi with the dative. 193 See the comments on 28:30–31. 194 The verb carivzomai is somewhat ironic here. In 3:14 it was used of the granting of amnesty to Barabbas. In 25:11 and 16 it refers to the “transfer” of Paul’s case to Jewish jurisdiction. 195 The noun nauvth~ is found only in vv. 27 and 30 in the NT.

196 Ethiopian Story 5.17.4–5 (see also n. 118) is illustrative. After a voyage that began with a fair breeze, “[W]e caught our first glimpse . . . of the heights of Zakynthos, barely visible on the horizon, like a vague cloud. The helmsman (kubernhvth~) gave orders to lower some of the sails, and when we asked why he was trimming the ship’s speed when she had such a fair wind behind her, he explained: ‘Because if we ran before the wind under full sail, we should come to anchor at Zakynthos in the early hours of darkness, and there would be a risk of our running aground in the dark on one of the many reefs and rocks along this coast” (trans. J. R. Morgan, in Reardon, Novels, 457). 197 For details, see Hemer, Book, 146–47. 198 Cf. also Petronius Satyrica 102, where the principals propose slipping away in the boat; 114.7, where the skiff rescues some from a sinking ship; Ethiopian Story 5.24.2, where some of the crew use it to escape from a fight; and 5.27, where pirates, who do not know how to handle a vessel of that size in a storm, cut away their boat (and then jettison equipment). 199 The incident is logical if one makes some assumptions, as does Hemer (Book, 147–48). He doubts Haenchen’s view (706) that remaining on the ship would not have been dangerous. “The ship had

662

Acts part 3C.indd 662

8/27/2008 10:24:59 AM

27:1-44

the soldiers (who also make their first appearance here) viewing the sailors’ flight with aplomb.200 Rather than place a guard on the dinghy, the soldiers set it adrift. This prevented the planned escape, but left the ship at a disadvantage. The boat could have ferried all ashore with minimal difficulty and with a good deal of personal property. This dubious and intrusive incident was arguably invented by Luke to magnify Paul and divine providence by making the rescue more “miraculous.”201 It also lays the ground for the subsequent plot in vv. 42-43. Boismard’s D-Text drops “from the ship,” so that emphasis is on desertion and it removes reference to their motive. Intentionally or not, this deals with the problem of narrative omniscience, as no motive for their action is supplied.202 The temporal marker (v. 27) is the “fourteenth night” without an indication of the reference. Fourteen is as logical a time frame as any, and not improbable, 203 but the fourteenth was also the night of the Passover

(Exod 12:6). This can be taken as an exodus symbol. On the next day they will be on dry land. These paschal allusions establish a connection with the much denser paschal symbolism of chap. 12, which is the “Petrine partner,” as it were, to chap. 27.204   33-38  The verbal connections among these episodes indicate careful composition. The paragraphs marked by vv. 21-26 and 27-32 end with ejkpesei`n, yielding a certain irony. “Lack of nourishment” (ajsit-) appears in v. 21 and again in v. 33; “cheer up” (eujqum-) occurs first as an exhortation in v. 22 and as an achievement in v. 36. Both include exhortations grounded in the promise of safety (vv. 22-24, 34). Verse 33-38 are set in the period between the first intimations of light and sunrise; vv. 39-44 take place in the light of day. The passage begins ponderously,205 with its difficult chronological reference206 and a summary immediately repeated in direct speech.

taken such a battering that it might break up at any time, and desperate men would find it easier to risk death actively than wait passively.” The first clause is, at best, an inference; the second is based on a general psychology of desperation. Moreover, there is an ever-present escape valve: Luke did not understand what was taking place, but experts can extract from his confused reports the exact details. As for vv. 31-32, Hemer allows that the soldiers may have misunderstood Paul’s advice (per Bruce, 524), but he suspects that things were desperate, and (148 n. 138) finds “psychological realism . . . which derives from experience, not editing.” Finally, Haenchen (who views the incident as historical and attributes it to a rumor generated by the passengers [706]) was neither original nor isolated in his skepticism. Cadbury and Lake (335–36), who read the text as a historical report, reject as unlikely the view that the sailors intended to desert, as more danger loomed in the dinghy than in the ship, and saw the loss of the boat as “the direct cause of the shipwreck” (336). Barrett (2:1205) says that if Luke were in error, he probably erred about something that really happened, for one does not invent an action and a mistaken interpretation of it. This is erroneous: authors who invent actions are perfectly capable of inventing mistaken interpretations of it. Those seeking a historical kernel in vv. 30-32 could propose that some prisoners (rather than sailors) were attempting to escape.

200 The second plural (“you cannot”) is ad hoc and not restricted to the military personnel. 201 He may have been inspired by fiction (Conzelmann, 219). 202 On the other hand, gig vg mss add at the close of this verse ut tutius navis staret (“so that the vessel might ride more securely”), which Clark (166) renders into Greek. This strengthens the sailors’ motive. 203 For Hemer (Book, 145), this is “a striking confirmation of the narrative.” He takes this conclusion from Smith (Voyage, 124–28), who had to select a base for “fourteen nights” (he chose Fair Havens, which is reasonable) and establish averages, although the size of the vessel and the force of the wind were unknown, and so on. In the end, Smith got the ship to within four kilometers of Malta. Such calculations cannot be accepted as scientific evidence. They do indicate that the narrative is not, in this sense, fantastic. 204 Arator (2:1130–55) develops a Passover typology, utilizing the number fourteen, darkness, the meal, and passage to dry land. 205 The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 418) has better syntax, eliminating the puzzling initial a[cri de; ou| and the double reference to eating. This illuminates the awkward nature of the conventional text and establishes itself as a secondary improvement. 206 See p. 643 n. v.If a source is to be sought behind the “interpolation” of vv. 33b-38a, the resultant a[cri de; ou| hJmevra h[mellen givnesqai ejkouvfizon to; ploi`on (“They lightened the ship until day

663

Acts part 3C.indd 663

8/27/2008 10:24:59 AM

The subject is nourishment, mentioned seven times in six verses (33 [thrice], 34, 35, 36, 38). Such overloaded discourse has a purpose. Avoidance of food signals the absence of hope for life (cf. vv. 20-21). Taking nourishment shows that one wishes (or expects) to live. The symbolism is eucharistic.207 Had the narrator not wished to evoke the sacrament, he could simply have said, “Paul ate.” The meal is not itself a Eucharist, since those present are not believers, 208 but it evokes the Eucharist. The range of symbolic applications is broad. As a synecdoche for the faith, the action symbolizes the life brought by God through Jesus. The means for bringing people to faith is mission. Acts 27:33-38, like the “sea stories” in Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14, has a universal, missionary thrust.209 “All persons” appears four times in vv. 33-37 (33, 35, 36, 37), redundancy underscoring its universalistic intent.210 In accordance with the Jesus/Paul “passion parallels,” this may be likened to the Last Supper and a “Passover meal” of sorts consumed before crossing to dry land. In more immediate terms, it evokes the paschal Eucharist, celebrated at the close of a nocturnal “vigil,” or perhaps the normal Sunday celebration.211 The explicit meal scenes in Acts are connected with deliverance from death, that is, “resurrection.”212 The narrator here makes subtle use of the light/darkness contrast in what might be called an entirely “natural” manner.213 Bede allegorically pulls

these themes into the well-grooved orbit of ancient storm symbolism, adding the four cardinal virtues for good measure: Only those nourished by the bread of life escape the storms of this world, and those who, in the night of present difficulties, draw all their strength from wisdom, courage, self-control, and proper conduct will soon, with the gleaming rays of heavenly aid, reach the safe haven they have sought. (95) 214 Daylight also marks the time of the discovery of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:1; cf. v. 11). Acts 27:33-38 belongs to this liminal period. In v. 34, Paul supports his exhortation with a promise in the shape of a popular hyperbole (cf. 1 Sam 14:45; 2 Sam 14:11; 1 Kgs 1:52). The same saying was attributed to Jesus in the Gospel.215 This is not insignificant. Rather than cite a saying of the Lord, as in 20:35, Paul appropriates it. He is both a savior and a source of heavenly wisdom. Jesus made the same pronouncement in his eschatological discourse (Luke 21:18). This is another intimation that Acts 27 represents the great crisis of Paul’s career, as the crucifixion did of Jesus’. The demonstration succeeded, for the voyagers cheered up (cf. v. 22) and, like Saul after his healing (9:19), took nourishment. They have passed from accepting death to embracing life. It is difficult

began to break”) would be feasible, but this does not constitute proof. See Conzelmann, 220. In Lucan terms, v. 33 corresponds to the “very early dawn” (o[rqrou baqevw~) of Luke 24:1. 207 See, for example, the exposition of Bo Reicke, “Die Mahlzeit mit Paulus auf den Wellen des Mittelmeers Act 27,33-38,” ThZ 4 (1948) 401–10; Schneider, 2:397; and Weiser, 2:664–65. The question is not whether Paul celebrated a proper (or improper) Eucharist aboard the ship, but whether the action intends to evoke the sacrament. In this context swthriva (translated as “good,” but used for religious “salvation” elsewhere in Acts) in v. 34 becomes ambiguous. 208 “We” is, as in all of the passages devoted to Paul, absent. Some D-Texts (614. 2147 pc syh** sa) resolve this by adding the “fourth action”: “He gave (some) also to us.” For this tradition, the meal was an actual Eucharist celebrated by Paul, joined by his Christian companions. 209 Hilgert, Ship, 105–23.

210 Praeder, “Acts 27,” 698. 211 Pliny (Ep. 10.96.4) says that the believers met before dawn (ante lucem convenire), although he does not associate this with a ritual meal. Acts 20:7-12 could be understood as climaxing a nightlong vigil with the Eucharist. See the comments there. 212 In chap. 27, all who take nourishment are saved; the revival of Eutychus in 20:7-12 is framed by a meal. There both Eucharist and resurrection are literal. The warder whom Paul had prevented from suicide ate with his prisoners (16:25-34). 213 Contrast the epiphany of 12:7. Critics of today are likely to prefer the technique of Acts 27, but that is a matter of taste that few early readers of Acts evidently shared. 214 The four virtues reflect the four anchors of v. 29. On the use of the anchor as a symbol, see Hilgert, Ship, 134–36. 215 In Luke 21:18, the saying uses ouj mhv with the ­subjunctive.

664

Acts part 3C.indd 664

8/27/2008 10:24:59 AM

27:1-44

to quarrel with Matthew Skinner’s conclusion that the narrative events “leave him [Paul] looking more like the ship’s captain” (than a prisoner in transport).216 At this point, the generic “we” narrator returns to announce the total of those on board: 276.217 This is a “triangular number,” the sum of one through twenty-three. One function of such numbers was to encourage readers to explore their symbolic possibilities. No “correct answer” is necessarily required, 218 but reflection is invited.219 The more important function of the number at this point is to evoke miracle stories, in which numbers may indicate the duration of the illness, the age of the patient, or, especially in the final position (e.g., Mark 6:45), beneficiaries. This is arguably the most spectacular miracle story in Acts. Paul will testify at Rome, come hell or high water. The use of a number in conjunction with “lives” (yuchv; cf. also vv. 10 and 22) also evokes the beginning of the story: the three thousand “lives” baptized at

Pentecost (2:41), a scene that foreshadows the universal mission (note Acts 2:39). In the context, the jettisoning of grain in v. 38220 takes the place of the “demonstration” that follows healing miracles, as it shows restored strength. Its practical purpose was evidently to reduce the draft of the ship so that it would ground in as shallow a place as possible, nearest to dry land. Destruction of the cargo of grain221 marks the final end of the ship’s mission. What has been pitched “into the sea” (eij~ th;n qavlassan) has been consigned to doom (Exod 14:8; Mark 5:13; 9:42).222   39-44  Verse 39 marks the end of the rule of darkness/ night, which has prevailed since v. 20. “Night” is a common trope for death.223 Haenchen says that v. 39 “would attach without hiatus to v. 32.”224 This final paragraph (vv. 39-44) does, however, presume the loss of the ship’s boat. The distinction between this passage and the sequel is marked by the transition from nonrecognition (oujk ejpegivnwskon) in

216 Matthew Skinner, “Unchained Ministry: Paul’s Roman Custody (Acts 21–28) and the Sociopolitical Outlook of the Book of Acts,” in Phillips, Acts and Ethics, 79–95, esp. 91. 217 For variants on the number, see Haenchen, 707 n. 4; and Metzger (Textual Commentary, 442), who notes these variants: 275, 270, 176, 876, 76, and “about 70.” The smaller figures are likely to be corrections of what editors believed to be too large a figure. Grain ships carried large crews. Cf. Lucian Nav. 5 (“like an army”). B et al. preface wJ~, a conventional Lucan qualifier (“approximately”) that is not appropriate here. 218 Cf. George O. Trevelyan’s parody of Horace Odes 1.11: “Matilda, will you ne’er have ceased/ Apocalyptic summing,/And left the number of the beast/To puzzle Doctor Cumming?” 219 Admiration for triangular numbers derived from the Pythagorean practice, long continued, of writing numbers of groups of dots, in triangular patterns, since the successive sums of the integers form triangles. See Robert S. Brumbaugh, The Philosophers of Greece (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981) 34. Note also Francis H. Colson, “Triangular Numbers in the New Testament,” JTS 16 (1915) 67–76. 220 The verse has literary merit, including the use of the genitive with “satisfy” (BDF §101). The verb korevnnumi is more refined than cortavzw, which is used in the feed stories (e.g., Mark 6:42; 8:8) of satisfaction.

221 The D-Text (i.e., Ethiopic [Boismard, Texte, 419]) shortens this verse. (“Into the sea” was used in v. 19.) 222 Cf. 1 Enoch 101.4–5a (an argument from “natural theology”): Do you not see the sailors of the ships, how their ships are tossed up and down by the billows and are shaken by the winds, and they become anxious? On this account (it is evident that) they are seized by fear, for they will discharge all their valuable property—the goods that are with them— into the sea” (trans. Ephraim Isaac, OTP 1:82). 223 Cf. Peter (Acts 12:6). Apuleius Metam. 11 exploits the symbolism. In her nocturnal revelation on the beach (see below), Isis tells Lucius: “The day which will be the day born from this night has been proclaimed mine by everlasting religious observance: on that day, when the winter’s tempests are lulled and the ocean’s storm-blown waves are calmed, my priests dedicate an untried keel to the now navigable sea and consecrate it as the first fruits of voyaging (5) . . . . Metam. 7 reports, “At once the cloud of dark night was banished and the Sun arose all gold.” The narrator goes on to describe the sudden epiphany of spring, the calming of the waters, and the brilliance of the sky (trans. Hanson, Apuleius, 2:301–7). 224 Haenchen, 707.

665

Acts part 3C.indd 665

8/27/2008 10:25:00 AM

v. 39 to recognition (ejpevgnwmen) in 28:1. “The land” (th;n gh`n) in vv. 39 and 44 marks the limits of the unit. The effort to beach the ship was not fully successful, for it went aground at an unstated distance from the shore proper, firmly enough to hold the forepart so that the waves broke it up. The rest is more difficult. At this point, the soldiers begin to worry about the security of their charges and, rather than await orders, decide to execute them. The centurion vetoes this, not because he rejects the idea in general, but out of his desire to rescue Paul. He then directs all to make their way ashore. If any historical reminiscence lies behind this incident, it would best apply to a group of condemned prisoners en route to execution.225 As for the order about debarkation, it is difficult to see why the centurion should have the authority to issue it for any but the prisoners under his charge. The owner and master have not been heard from since v. 9. The requirements of the narrative for “universal salvation” override logic. The soldiers’ plot and its suppression have all the marks of Lucan composition and are not based on retrievable historical information. The passage unfolds well, with gradual revelation: an unfamiliar beach and bay, the competent and detailed effort to beach the vessel, then sudden and final disaster, ending, however, without the loss of a single life. The style of vv. 39-41 is good, with balanced sentences, some refined constructions,226 and an undisputed dash of Homerica.227 The dramatic effect can be seen by contrasting the conventional text with Boismard’s edition of the D-Text, which omits v. 40 and abbreviates v. 41.228

When the ship has come to inescapable ruin, the narrator first reveals that the prisoners did not have a chance: “At this final and fatal moment S. Paul had the narrowest escape of all.”229 Like Peter (12:2-4), he is about to die by the sword. Rescue comes because Paul, like Jesus (Luke 23:47), had won the admiration of a centurion.230 The scene is quite artificial. Any spontaneous actions on the part of the soldiers (who were most unlikely to have formulated a plot) would have been halted by issuance of the order concerning the prisoners, but they would have had no reason not to await orders, since any blame would fall upon the responsible officer.231 With or without assistance, all made it ashore.232 The oracle of v. 22 was vindicated. “Like Israel they found dry land in the midst of the sea, and like Jonah they were cast out of the deep onto the shore.”233 The separation of land from water is a mark of creation (Gen 1:9-10); arrival on dry land signals the defeat of chaos. The shore is a location dripping, as it were, with liminality and therefore a recurring and potent literary symbol. “In its role as harbor (limeµn indeed) it is also potentially the shore of salvation where those who were immersed are recalled to life.”234 Those cast ashore from the shipwreck of death are naked and helpless, like new-born babes. Paul has joined a large company of victims: The merchants [who had purchased the heroine] took Anthia, put her aboard, and sailed at nightfall for Cilicia. But they were caught by an adverse wind (ejnantivw/ de; pneuvmati), and the ship broke up; some of the crew survived with great difficulty and came

225 See Witherington, 774. sounds: ejkwvlusen . . . ejkevleusen (“forbade . . . 226 Note the evidently oblique optative condition in ordered”) in v. 43. Acts 12:19 and 16:27 have given v. 39, which is proper if viewed as secondary to a guards grounds for fear, but the latter shows that general statement: “if we ever can” (eja;n dunwv­ responsibility for the security of prisoners was the meqa). The v.l. duvnaton (“if possible,” C m co) is criterion. Luke does not report any concern on the probably secondary. part of the centurion for his own safety; Paul is his 227 The phrase ejpevkeilan th;n nau`n (“they ran the only worry. ship”) in v. 41 is Homeric. For discussion, see Mac- 232 The D-Text gives a shorter conclusion. The ambiguDonald, “Shipwrecks,” 94–95. The word ejreivsasa ous ou}" me;n ejpi; sanivsin, ou}" de; ejpiv tinwn tw`n (“break up”) is also a classical word (Achilles Tatius ajpo; tou` ploivou is omitted, and, more notably, the Leuc. Clit. 3.5.1). climactic sentence about all being saved is omitted 228 Boismard, Texte, 420. (He must rely on the Ethi(as it is in the opening participial phrase in 28:1). opic.) This may reflect some discomfort about the use of 229 Rackham, 490. “save.” 230 The D-Text places greater emphasis on the centu233 Rackham, 491. rion’s desire to save Paul. 234 Doody, True Story, 326. See her comments on 231 The action pivots around two verbs with similar the trope of the seashore in literature (319–22,

666

Acts part 3C.indd 666

8/27/2008 10:25:00 AM

27:1-44

ashore on planks (movli~ ejn sanivsi tine;~ swqevnte~ ejp jaijgialou` tino~) with Anthia among them. (Ephesian Tale 2.11.10) 235 This narrator, who cannot be accused of excessive length, still found space for planks236 and the beach. Apollonius of Tyre was among those aboard ship in a terrible storm: Then everyone held onto a piece of ship’s timber and had a presentiment of his own death. In that pitchblack storm all perished. Apollonius, however, thanks to a single piece of ship’s timber, was driven onto the

shore of the people of Pentapolis. Apollonius stood, naked, on the shore for a while. (Vit. Apoll. 12) 237 The prototype of Apollonius was not Jonah, but Odysseus, and this scene from a Latin novel of 5–6 ce , evidently based on a Greek model, shows that the Odyssey was still a model for popular prose fiction in the early centuries of the common era.238 Rescue from the perils of the sea is not the end of the story. Strange shores have dangers. What or whom will they encounter? Cannibals, slavers, bandits, or those who take pity upon strangers in distress?

dead body of his wife enclosed in a casket made 326–27). The story of Apollonius of Tyre is framed from planks and set adrift, as a corpse would by encounters on a beach (Apollonius of Tyre 12). An endanger the ship. The coffin lands near Ephesus Ethiopian Story opens with a famous scene on the and is fortunately recovered by a physician who disbeach. As this is later explained, the voyagers ran covers, by putting his lips to hers, that the woman into a storm at sea. “In the face of such overwhelmis still alive. ing adversity, there was nothing the helmsman could do but abandon the rudder to the storm and 238 See Niklas Holzberg, “The Historia Apollonii regis Tyri and the Odyssey,” in Groningen Colloquia on the let fortune steer the ship. For seven days and seven Novel (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1990) 3:91–101. nights, we ran before the gale, until eventually we Apuleius Metam. 2.14.3 has a character speak of ran ashore on the beach where you found us” (1.22; “a dreadful, really Odyssean voyage” (Ulixeam trans. J. R. Morgan, in Reardon, Novels, 371). peregrinationem). Its contents are as follows: “First, 235 Trans. G. Anderson, in Reardon, Novels, 145. On the ship we were sailing on was battered by stormv. 44, note also Aristides Hieroi Logoi 2.12. blasts from every direction, lost both its rudders, 236 Planks are the means of Ceyx’s delivery in the and was with difficulty beached on the farther vivid shipwreck described in Ovid Metam. 11 (see shore, where it sank straight to the bottom. We lost 559–60). all our belongings and barely managed to swim 237 Trans. G. N. Sanday, in Reardon, Novels, 744. (The ashore” (trans. Hanson, Apuleius, 1:87). storm was described in a poetic pastiche in chap. 11). In chaps. 25–26, the hero has the ­(presumably)

667

Acts part 3C.indd 667

8/27/2008 10:25:00 AM

28

28:1-16  Paul on Malta 28:1-16: Conventional Text 1/

7/

11/



After we were safely ashore, we recognized that the island is called Malta. a 2/ The natives were uncommonly kind to all of us. Because of the rain that had begun to fall and the chill, they kindled a bonfire and brought b all of us to it. 3/ Paul had gathered some sticks into a bundle and was tossing it onto the fire when a viper, roused by the warmth, came out and fastened c itself to his hand with its fangs. 4/ When the natives saw the creature dangling from his arm, they reassured one another, “This fellow must be a murderer for sure. No sooner had he escaped from the sea than the goddess Justice did him in.” 5/ Paul, however, shook the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. 6/ They kept waiting for him to swell up or suddenly drop dead, but, after waiting for some time without seeing him show any negative reaction, they revised their opinion d and began to declare that he was a god. Publius, the island’s leading citizen, had an estate in the vicinity. He took us in and gave us quite cordial hospitality for three days. 8/ His father lay afflicted with fever and dysentery. e Paul visited him, prayed, and laid hands upon him. He became well. 9/ At that f all the sick on the island began to come to Paul, and they were cured. 10/ They responded by providing us with many gifts g and, on our departure, supplied us with what we required. We set out three months later on an Alexandrian vessel that had wintered at the island. Its figurehead was the Dioscuri. 12/ We put in at Syracuse and spent three days there 13/ and then sailed h up to Rhegium. The next day a south wind sprang up, so we reached Puteoli within two days. 14/ There we found some believers, who urged us to stay with them for a week. i This is how we got to Rome:

28:1-16: D-Textk 1/

And, having descended to the land, they recognized that the place is called Malta. 2/ The natives welcomed us and lit a fire because the place was cold.

3/ 4/

... When the natives saw, l they said . . .”

5/

And he shook it into the fire.

6/

They kept expecting that he would suddenly die. When they saw that he had been saved, they said he was a god.

7/

There was a man named Publius, one of their leading citizens, who entertained us for three days. 8/ Now the father of Publius was ill with [ ] dysentery. And Paul came and prayed for him [ ], and that man was made well. 9/ [ ] Many who were ill [ ] came to Paul and were healed. 10/ They responded by providing us with many gifts and [ ] supplied us with what we required. 11/

We set out in an Alexandrian ship wintering at the island [ ]



(Omit 12-14a)

668

Acts part 3C.indd 668

8/27/2008 10:25:00 AM

28:1-16

15/ The j believers there heard the news about us and came to the Market of Appius and Three Taverns to welcome us. When he saw them, Paul gave thanks to God and plucked up his courage. 16/ When we reached Rome, Paul received permission to live on his own with the soldier who guarded him.

a b

c

d

e

f

g



and we came to Rome. 15/ And, having learned [ ], the believers came [ ]



to welcome us. When he saw them Paul gave thanks to God and plucked up his courage. 16/ When we reached Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the commandant of the barracks, but Paul had found favor with him, (so that he was allowed) m to live outside of the barracks with a soldier guarding him.”

B* lat syh bo read Melithvnh (this could be a sight error). P74 seems to read Milhvth. a* y 614. (1505.) pc lat read proselavmbanon (“welcome”), which is the D-Text. This is simpler and probably secondary. C 36. 453. 614. 1505. 1891 pm read the middle kaqhvyato, which is more common for “fastened,” although it is possible for the active, which is therefore more likely. This is an ironic echo of “kindled” (a{yante~) in v. 2. A v.l. with fairly wide attestation (a 048. 33. 1739 m) takes the participle as present: “began to change their minds.” Haenchen (714) notes that the (untranslated) initial ejgevneto (“it happened”) usually introduces an event rather than a condition. It is equivalent to “was.” H adds uJgiou`~ after touvtou de; genomevnou and thus produces a different phrase: “After he had been made well.” B and two Latin texts omit kaiv, perhaps not taking it as adverbial. 1611 pc insert, after hJma`" (“us”), o{son crovnon ejpedhmou`men: we received gifts “as long as we stayed.” This pedantic addition makes the sentence less abrupt.

Analysis

The medieval decision to mark a new chapter here was unfortunate.1 Verses 1-10 cover their sojourn on the island, while 11-16 narrate in brief itinerary style completion of the journey inaugurated in chap. 27, complementing 27:1-8. Both framing units report friendly officials and the ministrations of fellow believers (27:3; 28:14). The first part includes the miracle stories of vv. 1-6 and 7-10. The narrator has left a gap between v. 6 1

h

i

j k l m

In place of the more complex perielovnte" (which may be a shorthand for “weighing anchor”; cf. 27:40), p 74 has the scarcely clearer perielqovnte~. There are other compounds of e[rcomai (“come”) also attested as variants. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 443) finds the alternatives less difficult and therefore possibly secondary. See Ropes, 251. Barrett (2:1229), however, says that it may be too difficult to accept. Conzelmann (224) prefers ­perielqovnte~. The variant ejpimeivnante~ (H y 049. 326. 614. 1505. 2464) would read “we were consoled because we remained seven days with them,” versus “we were urged to . . .” Haenchen (718 n. 1) says that this apparently reduces some of the tension caused by the implied freedom. B omits the article: “Some believers” came to meet them. This mollifies a typical bit of hyperbole. Boismard, Texte, 421–23. ijdovnte~ oiJ bavrbaroi. The words in parentheses are supplied to make sense.

and v. 7, as well as rough transitions between vv. 10-11 and vv. 15-16, indications of the difficulty of attempting to produce a continuous narrative from disparate elements, a possible but not certain indication of sources. The site of Malta may stem from tradition, as may the hospitality of Publius. If a historical account lies behind the story, vv. 11-14, 16 could derive from this record.2 This solution is not without obstacles, for not until v. 16 is Paul’s status as a prisoner again acknowledged, and one cannot resolve the matter by saying that Luke

The old kephalia began chap. 38 at 27:1 and 39 at 28:11, which is somewhat more defensible.

2

See Haenchen, 719.

669

Acts part 3C.indd 669

8/27/2008 10:25:00 AM

deleted references to his condition, for vv. 7-15 scarcely allow this. Publius bears the correct title, if it is such, but it could also mean “the leading citizen.” He has but one name, and Luke is fond of associating Paul with leaders.3 Here Paul is an honored guest rather than a man in custody. The incident with the viper (vv. 3-6) and the healings in vv. 8-9 are Lucan compositions. The latter imitates a Gospel passage, while the former gains its meaning from the general context (and cannot easily be separated from the immediate context). “We” is the dominant narrator here, but the extent and composition of the first person narrative are not clear. More explicitly than elsewhere, when the focus is on Paul, “we” steps aside, but always returns until v. 16, when it vanishes from the narrative. The fluctuation is due to authorial choice rather than to the insertion of third person material into a source. In v. 2 “all of us” logically refers to the entire company of 276, although it may already reflect the smaller, “Christian” group.4 In vv. 11-13, “we” could refer to all those stranded on Malta, presuming that the ship had room, but in v. 14 it transpires that “we” means the believers, as it does also in v. 15, and, evidently, in v. 16. 5 In vv. 1-6, the “we” 3 4 5 6

narrator is omniscient and therefore a creature of the author.6 The island on which the refugees landed is generally identified with the present-day Malta,7 south of Sicily, but objections arise from time to time. Rivals include Mljet, in the Adriatic near Greece,8 and Kefallinia in the Ionian sea near the coast of Epirus.9 The alternatives, both of which support a strictly historical interpretation of Acts, indicate that the nautical data are far from precise, since they yield different results from the application of similar methods.10 Verse 13, which reports Syracuse as the first of three proximate stops on the subsequent voyage, certainly supports the traditional understanding.11 Boismard continues to report a generally shorter and distinct text, almost certainly an abridgment, until v. 16. The evidence is slender, but Boismard uses a consistent method. Whether this should be labeled the D-Text is open to question. In two units (vv. 1-6, 11-16) the meaning is quite different, as the comments will indicate. Rescues continue to accumulate. These include deliveries from the storm, perishing through despair exacerbated by hunger and weakness, destruction of the ship

Cf. also Lüdemann, Acts, 342. So Haenchen, 713. Similarly, Kurz (Reading, 117), who does not attempt to rationalize these shifts. Praeder (“Acts 27,” 702) states that the story is narrated from two perspectives: that of the “we” narrator in vv. 3 and 5 and “from the perspective of the Maltese” in vv. 4 and 6. The text does not support this division. Verses 4 and 6 report the natives’ reaction from an outsider perspective, as the quotation about the goddess Divkh (“Justice”) demonstrates. Kurz (Reading, 108) assigns the perspective to “someone sitting around the fire.” Those so engaged would not see persons not seated about a fire, certainly not one large enough to warm nearly three hundred. Kurz notes that knowledge of an unknown language and the thoughts of its speakers would be difficult and concludes: “His knowledge must be credited to observation of their actions and imputing to them thoughts that would correspond to their behavior.” On p. 117 he attrib­ utes that knowledge to “hindsight, rather than omniscience.” The last comment commingles narrative analysis with historical reconstruction. Both Praeder and Kurz show, albeit unintentionally, that the narrator of vv. 3-6 is an omniscient first plural.

7

See W. Ward Gasque, “Malta,” ABD 4:489–90. For possible sites on Malta, see Fitzmyer, 782. 8 Angus Acworth, “Where Was St. Paul Shipwrecked? A Re-examination of the Evidence,” JTS 24 (1973) 190–93; Otto F. A. Meinardus, “St. Paul Shipwrecked in Dalmatia,” BA 39 (1976) 145–47; and idem, “Melita Illyrica or African: An Examination of the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck, Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974) 21–36. 9 Heinz Warnecke, Die tatsächliche Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 127; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987). 10 Alternatives to Malta generally seek to integrate Acts with the Pastorals. See Rapske, “Travel,” 37–43, for a summary of the debate, with copious bibliography. 11 All commentators must feel some empathy with Barrett, who remarks: “A commentary is no place for detailed discussion of winds and tides, flora and fauna, local inhabitants and their rulers.” None in the modern period, including Barrett, takes this advice.

670

Acts part 3C.indd 670

8/27/2008 10:25:01 AM

28:1-16

from shoals, the sailors’ plot, the soldiers’ plot, drowning, possibly hostile natives (who were, in fact, liable to supplement meager incomes by viewing shipwrecks as windfalls, the passengers and crew of which were likely to be executed or enslaved), and snakebite. The last of these exemplifies the narrator’s concern for Paul. Just as he alone foiled one plot by insight and another because of the centurion’s concern, so he was the individual who happened to attract a viper. Through his charismatic gifts, he and his companions are able to spend a comfortable winter. Once this series of deliverances has been accomplished, the narrator shows no more interest in travel. The voyage to a port of Rome is accomplished in three verses, with no comments on weather or ­navigation. The first half of Acts 28 is remarkably idyllic. The circumstances are unpromising: despite the friendly reception by the local inhabitants, Paul, a prisoner, is marooned on an island, bereft of nearly all such possessions as he may have had and dependent on the authority of a(n auxiliary) centurion to requisition food, clothing, and shelter to tide him over a winter. It would have occasioned no surprise if the prisoners had been parked in a local facility while the military detachment set about attempting to refit from whatever resources were available, as little in the way of arms and armor would have survived. The soldiers, along with the vast majority of the ship’s company, officers, passengers, and crew, effectively vanish as if they had drowned in the wreck. The primary fact is that Paul is not a prisoner in Acts 28:1-15.12 Although he functioned more as a V.I.P. on the voyage than as a prisoner in transit, his status was reaffirmed in 27:42-43. Nothing in the first half of the final chapter indicates this status, and nearly everything denies it. In these verses, Paul functions as a healer (and god) who makes a good living under the patronage of the island’s principal citizen. Comparisons to Apollonius of Tyana are not unwarranted. Historical-critical commentators on Acts must address the dissonance

between some type of probable account and the narrative presented. History is not governed by probability, but historians must pay tribute to it. Recognition of the dissonance between the probabilities established by Acts and the content of 28:1-15 shows the cogency of MacDonald’s argument that it is based upon Homer, for the naked Paul stranded on a beach is regarded by some as a god and soon finds himself an admired guest in what amounts—for a prisoner—to a utopia.13 If the pursuit of concision urged the selection of a single adverb to portray the Paul of Acts 27–28, one who can perform healings, secure patrons, find his own living arrangements, schedule meetings, and receive visitors at his discretion, ajkwluvtw~ (“unhindered”) would do very well. That is a general answer to the next question: Why did Luke choose a mythical/epic pattern to narrate Acts 28:1-15? A more specific answer requires returning to the parallelism between Luke and its sequel. Since Acts 21–26 exhibits many similarities to the trials of Jesus in Jerusalem, readers are invited to pursue these comparisons, as well as those between Peter in Acts 12 and Paul in Acts 27–28. Peter’s story contained explicit exodus and initiatory allusions.14 In the case of Paul, these are implicit and general: passage from symbolic death through water to safety on dry land. Peter met obstacles in his attempt to reach safety (12:12-16), for, like the reports about the risen Jesus (Luke 24:11, 22-24), the message was not believed. Paul also runs into difficulty with representatives of the marginalized—not women or slaves here, but “barbarians”—who doubt his vindication. When their error is exposed, they express appropriate awe.15 The key “Easter” characteristic possessed by Paul is the essence of redemption and new life: he is free. The trope of resurrection as freedom16 is the driving force behind the narrative of vv. 1-15, rather than the inconvenient embarrassment of having Paul stashed in some lockup until spring.17

12 When the topic is introduced in v. 16, it is mollified 15 Compare 12:16 to 28:6. Both are “acclamations.” by the statement that Paul did not have to live in a 16 Note Luke 2:29 (lit. “Master, you are freeing your prison. The only other reference to his status in the slave”); 24:21: “But we had hoped that he was the chapter is in v. 20, where it provides pathos. one to redeem Israel.” 13 See the summaries in MacDonald, “Shipwrecks,” 17 See also Radl, Paulus, 242–43, with references. 104–5. 14 Cf. the comments on 12:1-17.

671

Acts part 3C.indd 671

8/27/2008 10:25:01 AM

More explicit is the eschatological symbol of the defeat of the serpent.18 Gifts bestowed on postresurrection believers include immunity from snakebite (Ps.-Mark 16:18, although this may be dependent upon Acts). After announcing the fall of Satan, Jesus gave the seventy/seventy-two power to tread upon serpents (Luke 10:18).19 One charming symbol of utopian peace is the harmlessness of serpents (Isa 11:8).20 Snakes could be viewed as agents of the devil (Luke 10:18) or personifications of the Evil One (Lives of the Prophets 12.12 [Habakkuk]; Rev 19:9; 20:2). Since Luke viewed the eradication of serpents as a highly suitable trope for the defeat of the devil, it is difficult to claim that he had forgotten this while writing (or reproducing) Acts 28:3-6. Paul’s immunity from the viper vividly depicted the defeat of death and the devil. The natives were seeking the dead among the living (Luke 24:5).21 As more than an additional close escape by Paul, this story, like that of the journey as a whole, has paradigmatic value and therefore justifies the length devoted to it. Luke has compressed the basic meaning of vindication (dikaiosuvnh) into an exciting and humorous anecdote of four verses.22 The achievement came at a price, as the criticism, rationalization, and superficial appropriation of the story show. Scarcely less remarkable than its idyllic quality—and not unrelated to this—is the missionary orientation of

28:1-15, which is not improperly labeled a mission civilisatrice.23 Paul has not engaged in itinerant missionary work since 19:10. Readers do not wonder that he is not reported as seeking converts on the ship, but the situation in Malta is different. None would take exception had the narrative reported that, following the healing of his father, Publius and his household had acceded to the faith, along with, in due course, many of the Maltese, all of whose infirm Paul had healed. The text is instead redolent with the language of benefaction, friendship, and reciprocity, the lubricants of Greco-Roman urban society.24 Paul heals the father of Publius in response to the latter’s generous hospitality. When the balance of the island’s ill sought the same service, Paul became a general benefactor, increasing the prestige of Publius thereby. The “honors” heaped upon him were nothing so vulgar as “payments”; they were expressions of gratitude among friends. Cadbury said of vv. 1-6: “It would be difficult to find a scene more full of the viewpoint of antiquity than this at Malta.”25 In his desire to display philhellenism, the author has briefly betrayed his own (and Paul’s) universalistic principles. It is no compliment to “barbarians” to say that these examples amounted to an exception proving the rule.26 Equally uncomplimentary is the portrayal of their superstitious and labile mentality. In typical Greek fashion, the narrator presents their words and thoughts

18 Cf. Werner Foerster et al., “o[fi~,” TDNT 5:566–82. Arator (2:1173–1205) develops the parallel with Adam, Eve, and the serpent. 19 On this, see Garrett, Demise, 46–57. Note also Ps 90:13 LXX. 20 Ulrike Riemer (“Miracle Stories and Their Narrative Intent in the Context of the Ruler Cult of Classical Antiquity,” in Labahn and Peerbolte, Wonders, 33–34) illustrates the use of beast imagery in exaltations of the emperor. The phenomenon involves more than the supernatural power of the “divine man.” To defeat beasts (and beastliness) is to advance humanity and civilization against the forces of savagery and chaos. For examples of the metaphorical uses of “wild beast,” see Malherbe, Paul, 82–89. 21 Luke 24:5 uses both a form of the verb “live” (zavw) and the adjective “dead” (nekrov~), each of which is found in Acts 28:2b-6. See the similar view of Radl, Paulus, 241. 22 Reinhard von Bendemann (“‘Many-Coloured

23 24 25

26

I­ llnesses’ [Mark 1:34]: On the Significance of Illnesses in New Testament Therapy Narratives,” in Labahn and Peerbolte, Wonders, 100–124, esp. 112) states that the sequence of shipwreck, rescue, and subsequent threat is common. See his references in n. 39. See Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2:341. Verse 2: filanqrwpiva (“philanthropy”; cf. 27:3), v. 7 filofrovnw~ (“in a friendly manner”). Cadbury, Making, 341. See his comments on pp. 341–43. Cadbury had in mind both the language and the ideas, in particular xenophobia. Cf. the natives of Lystra (14:8-20), who began by deifying Paul and ended by stoning him.

672

Acts part 3C.indd 672

8/27/2008 10:25:01 AM

28:1-16

in Greek form and relatively good Greek language— better than that of most of the speakers in Acts much of the time. The initial tone of Acts 28 is that of the elite snob—scarcely suitable for a prisoner, one might say, but that is just the point.27 Acts 28:1-6 has features of the Easter appearances. Paul is a kind of divine, indestructible being, delivered from the tomb of the sea. His death was inappropriately expected (cf. Luke 24:5). For a proper understanding of Acts, it should be noted that these parallels to Jesus’ passion and resurrection occur in two famous tales, one marked by humor and drama, the other by great adventure. Apocalyptic imagery is also prominent in the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. The end of this voyage will also be a beginning. Comment   1  The verse picks up from both 27:39 and 44 (ejpi­ ginwvskw, “recognize,” from v. 39, and diaswvzw, “save,”

from v. 44) The name “Malta” is new information.28 The possibility of kindling a fire on the beach suggests that the rain was not very heavy and that the wind was no longer severe. The storm had mainly subsided.   2  “Barbarians” spring onto the scene without development,29 characterized by their atypical30 conduct.31 The narrator was not interested in suspense here. The urgent concern was to demonstrate the continued presence of providential direction. Speculation about Paul’s inability to be inactive and the limits of “we” in v. 2 are as otiose as observations about the absence of snakes on Malta.32 A group of that size would have required a number of fires, and Paul was unlikely to have been the only passenger to gather driftwood. The narrator’s focus is on Paul and the natives. The presence of everyone else is simply ignored.33   3  The narrative, which has been moving rapidly, slows34 to describe Paul’s contribution to the general welfare, which is suddenly rewarded by the assault of a

27 Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:340–41) lumps the Mysteriis 138) describes a barbarian region where natives with Publius and company and extols many who had survived shipwreck had been killed. the “cooperative relationships that are possible The passage is interesting because Andocides between Christianity and pagan society” (341). defends himself against profanation of the mysterThe text says nothing about cooperation with the ies by contending that the gods would not have natives. The snobbery is noted by Ramsay (St. Paul permitted him to survive shipwreck had he been the Traveller, 343), who observes that the people of guilty. See also Dio of Prusa Or. 7.31–33, which Malta had been influenced by civilized societies for describes means by which shore dwellers lured centuries. Johnson (467) is briefer and better: hosships to disaster. In §§52–58 his noble rustic tells pitality and sharing are among the leading Lucan of his kindnesses to the shipwrecked and is recogvirtues. nized by one of the assembly as his former benefac28 How this was learned is not clear, since the natives tor. Petronius’s Satyrica 114 shows their fickleness. did not speak Greek. Gasque (p. 670 n. 7) has a Fishermen came to loot, but changed their minds solution: Paul was able to communicate with the in the face of resistance and became rescuers. For Punic speakers by use of Aramaic. The D-Text, further references, see Betz, Lukian, 94 n. 6. which generally abbreviates in vv. 1-6, attributes 32 Geoffrey W. H. Lampe (“Miracles in the Acts of this recognition to the ship’s company. the Apostles,” in Moule, Miracles, 163–78, esp. 173) 29 The D-Text offers a smoother transition, beginning goes so far as to say: “The incident of the snake v. 2 with a verb. It also eliminates the comment at Malta is easily rationalized, for the island has about “barbarian” hospitality. no poisonous snakes.” See, however, 178. William 30 Luke, who was not always able to resist litotes, used Ramsay seeks to rationalize the story by finding an the same figure (ouj tucouvsa~ [“uncommon”]) appropriate (Sicilian) serpent (Luke the Physician of Paul’s miracles in 19:11. Also characteristic is and Other Studies in the History of Religion [New the pair of improper genitive absolutes in v. 3. York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1908] 63–65). BDF §316 (3) says that parei`con filanqrwpivan 33 Thus, none of Paul’s companions or others from (“exhibit kindness”) is classical. the ship are said to react to the presence of the 31 A famous example is the Scythians, “barbarians” snake, nor do any but the natives remark on its par excellence, who seized the shipwrecked Orestes failure to inflict death. and Pylades as potential human offerings to their 34 The D-Text counters this tactic by abbreviation. Artemis. Lucian Ver. hist. 2.46 tells of a particularly wicked deceit; 1.29 is more positive. Andocides (De

673

Acts part 3C.indd 673

8/27/2008 10:25:01 AM

viper.35 Immunity to snakebite is almost a prerequisite of the charismatic religious figure. Examples are almost as ubiquitous as snakes. 36 More relevant is the theme of the survivor or escapee who was subsequently killed by a viper. Since Wettstein, commentators have cited the Greek Anthology 7.290, a pathetic story offering no condemnation of the victim.37 In general, poetic justice was rendered more often by animals than by poets. The animal kingdom was an instrument of divine justice. Innocent people were immune,38 while the guilty received their just deserts. The mills of God grind slowly. 39 An apt illustration can be found in Ethiopian Story 2.20, in which the robber Thermouthis took flight, but “lay down to sleep, but the sleep he slept was the final sleep, the brazen sleep of death, for he was bitten by a

viper. Perhaps it was destiny’s will that his life should end in a way so befitting his character.”40 Primitive these natives in Acts may have been, but they could see the hand of a god at work.41 When these expectations are not met—narrative time compresses here, for poison does not work quite that rapidly—they take a more-than180-degree turn and conclude that the victim is not simply no murderer or even the protégé of a god, but a very god.42 Their theological categories are inadequate,43 but, to give them the credit they deserve, these barbarians can acknowledge an epiphany.44 Readers can draw the appropriate corrections. The narrator need not enter a denial, for the other characters do not know the natives’ words and thoughts.45

35 The image of vipers fleeing fire was used by John the Baptizer in 3:7 (Q). The end of the story has artistic echoes of its beginning. 36 Examples from the Apocryphal Acts include Act. Thom. 106; cf. Act. Pet. (Verc.) 5.29. For others, see Söder, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 95–99. Examples from later Christian literature include the Lausiac History 18.10.B. Polytheist stories are found in Lucian Alex. 10 and Philops. 11. One Jewish example is b. Ber. 33a. For others, see Lou H. Silberman, “Paul’s Viper: Acts 28:3-6,” Forum 8 (1992) 247–53. Note also John C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1970) 142–46. For still others, see Bieler, QEIOS ANHR, 1:108. 37 See Klauck (Magic, 114), who cites 9.269 also; and Kauppi, Foreign, 107–12. This theme was evidently common, judging from Lucian’s parody in his Dipsads 4–9. 38 Note Dan 6:23 LXX. See also Horace’s famous ode 1.22. A lion does not harm the harmless poet. 39 Cf. Horace Odes 3.2.25–32: “There is also a sure reward for loyal silence. I will forbid anyone who has divulged the secrets of mystic Ceres to be under the same roof or to cast off a fragile boat with me on board. When slighted, Jupiter often lumps the righteous together with the impious; rarely does Retribution (Poena) fail to catch up with the criminal despite her limping gait” (trans. Rudd, 147.) 40 Trans. J. R. Morgan, in Reardon, Novels, 392. Note the references to Dike in 1.14 and 2.11. 41 See Gary Miles and Garry Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon,” HTR 69 (1976) 259–67; as well as David J. Ladouceur, “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28,”

42 43

44

45

HTR 73 (1980) 443–49, studies that help illustrate the religio-historical background of the episode. The natives’ use of diaswvzw (“save,” “deliver”) in v. 4, the third appearance of the verb in four verses, is ironic. Moule (Idiom Book, 163) says that the me;n ou\n in v. 5 is adversative. Calvin (7:301) had no doubts: “[B]ut if it was necessary to choose one or the other, it was better to be regarded a murderer rather than a god.” Compare Ephesian Tale 2.2.4 “People gazed at [the heroes] on the way [to Tyre]; everyone was amazed at their beauty. And barbarians who had not previously set eyes on such radiance thought they were gods [qeou;~ ejnovmizon ei\nai]” (trans. G. Anderson, in Reardon, Novels, 139). On this, see Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 90–92. Providence managed weather to the advantage of the virtuous. In Chariton Chaer. 3.3–4 the pirate ship enjoyed good sailing so long as they carried Callirhoe. After they sold her, they fell into the clutches of a dreadful storm, which only their leader, Theron, survived. This was not a reward for piety but temporary preservation so that he could receive a proper recompense for his impiety: crucifixion. Toward the close of Euripides’ El., the Dioscuri announce their criteria for rescue of those in peril on the sea: lovers of piety and justice. The public is advised not to sail with wicked people (1347–56).

674

Acts part 3C.indd 674

8/27/2008 10:25:01 AM

28:1-16

  4-6  The scene evokes the passion and vindication of

Jesus.46 The natives, like the crowd at Jesus’ trial, assume his guilt. They judge that he is a murderer, the crime with which Barabbas was charged (Luke 23:19, 25).47 This was not the only possible charge. Profanation of a sacred rite or place would have been highly apt, not least in this case (25:8).48 The centurion’s judgment that Jesus was “innocent” (divkaio~ [Luke 23:47]) contrasts with the locals’ view that the goddess Justice (hJ Divkh) has intervened. The adjective a[topo~ (lit. “unusual” or “improper”), used to describe Paul’s failure to die, was applied to Jesus by the “good thief” (Luke 23:41).49 Paul’s rescue is his ultimate vindication by a heavenly court, analogous, in a general sense, to the vindication of Jesus, who had not been permitted to live by the machinery of justice, the verdict of which God reversed (cf. 3:15; 5:31). This acquittal takes place outside of the

narrative in that it has no influence on the course of the story and was witnessed by persons who could not report it—and whose credibility stood no higher than that of the “hysterical women” who first witnessed Jesus’ return from the dead.50   7-9  Verse 7 jumps without transition to the hospitality of Publius, a property owner and either “the chief” or the leading citizen. 51 The narrative evidently implies that he took care of all the refugees for three days, 52 after which responsibilities would have been redistributed. Luke uses this person and his status as a platform for Paul’s personal and general reciprocity of benefaction. 53 The basis is not particularly original, since commentators have long recognized 54 that the source is Mark 1:29-31||Luke 4:38-41, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and the subsequent summary. 55 The choice of source material was not accidental: the

46 John Clabeaux sagely elucidates this link: “The Story of the Maltese Viper and Luke’s Apology for Paul,” CBQ 67 (2005) 604–10, esp. 607. 47 Acts 3:14 contrasts the murderer Barabbas (unnamed) with the “righteous one” (divkaio~). Note also 7:52 and, ironically, 9:1 (Saul). 48 See p. 673 n. 31 on Andocides. 49 Cf. also Acts 25:5 (of Paul, by Festus). The D-text eliminates this cross-reference. It places “saved” at the end, establishing a parallel with the close of the preceding paragraph (v. 44). 50 Celsus characterized Mary of Magdala (evidently) as “a hysterical woman,” according to Origen Cels. 2.55; cf. 2.59. For readers of Acts, these witnesses in 28:1-6 are credible and their character commendable, as their hospitality demonstrated. Their conclusion that Paul was a god supports the veracity of the miracle. 51 See Hemer (Book, 153 n. 152) who states that “the clear instance” of prw`to~ as a title is IGR 1.512. Even that, however, is not perfectly clear, as the person Castricius Prudens is described as a Roman knight, “first of the Maltese” (prw`to~ Melitaivwn), “patron,” and an official of the imperial cult (Flamen Divi Augusti). It may thus refer to the chief benefactor rather than to the chief magistrate, as Witherington (776) allows. If “chief,” Publius would have evidently been the head of the native tribe. The D-Text presents Publius as one of the leading citizens. See also Albert Suhl (“Zum Titel prw`to~ th`~ nhvsou [Erster der Insel] Apg 28,7,” BZ 36 [1992] 220–26), who notes that the title is attested for many localities. On the general use of the term to mean “leading citizen,” see James

52

53

54 55

M. Arlandson, “Lifestyles of the Rich and Christian: Women, Wealth, and Social Freedom,” in Levine, Feminist Companion, 155–70. Examples include Chariton Chaer., 2.4; 2.5; 1.1; 2.11. See also Wilhelm Michaelis, “prw`to~,” TDNT 6:865–82, esp. 866. So Fitzmyer, 783. The question involves the number of “us” in v. 7. In v. 1, “we” includes all the refugees; the “we” of v. 10 embraces Paul and his companions. Logic suggests that v. 7 is a larger number, but source and historical questions are not clear, and Luke did not wish to clarify the situation, as his focus was on Paul. Cf. Bruce, 533. One of Hemer’s abundant arguments (Book, 153–54) for the historical reliability of Acts is the existence of “Malta fever,” which was identified in 1887 and produces symptoms comparable to those of Publius’s father. So, however, do many other diseases. E.g., Cadbury and Lake, 343. Mark 1:23-31 contains an exorcism and the healing, followed by a summary in vv. 32-34 that includes each. Acts omits exorcisms. The author made use of both Mark and Luke. “Fever” (pure­ tov~) occurs only in Mark 1:31 parr. and John 5:42. “Lie” (katakeivmai) is found in Mark 1:30, and in Acts, but not in Luke. “Afflicted” (sunecovmeno~), on the other hand, appears in Luke 4:38 and Acts, but not in Mark. In Luke 4:39, Jesus exorcises the fever, but in Mark 1:31 and Acts the healing is done by touch. Cf. Luke 4:40, where imposition of hands is used to heal the sick. Both Mark 1:34 and Luke 4:40 use the verb qerapeuvw (“heal”) in the summary, as does Acts. Note that the D-Text,

675

Acts part 3C.indd 675

8/27/2008 10:25:02 AM

“conclusion” of Paul’s ministry echoes the beginning of Jesus’. Better: the story is beginning anew, 56 for the benefits of salvation did not end with the departure of Jesus. No less noteworthy is the virtual equivalence between Paul and Jesus as healers. 57 What had taken place in the remote and rural precincts of Galilee is taking place on the equally rustic island of Malta. The benefits of grace are stretching toward the ends of the earth, albeit without a religious label. Haenchen says that the gifts replace the customary acclamation.58 This is valid, but it requires reflection. The author suggests not only that the Christian movement has something to offer the general culture, an arrow for the apologetic quiver, but also that these gifts may also be shared with unbelievers. 59 Here, for those who require the same, is a proof text for charitable missions conducted with no strings attached. Paul is an agent of gratia universalis.60   10  Since v. 10 is dependent on the Lucan construction of the preceding verses, this is one case where one may

56 57 58 59

60

61 62 63

state positively that “we” is an authorial invention.61 All but Paul’s party have been forgotten. Analysis confirms that no more can be claimed for a source than the name Melite, presumably Malta, and assistance from one Publius. All the rest of the stay is passed over in silence. This leaves a gap between v. 10 and v. 11, although they are joined by use of the same verb (ajnavgw, “depart”).   11  The “three months” of v. 11 does not jibe easily with the narrative of chap. 27, for, even if taken as ninety days, it could not have been much later than February 1.62 The Dioscuri evidently benefited from its patrons,63 for it had been able to winter at Malta.64   12-13  The verses tersely describe logical stages on the journey to Puteoli.65 There “we” must have debarked, for the group accepted the kind invitation of some believers they located and remained for a week.66 The narrative is back in the atmosphere of chaps. 20–21 (and 15:3-4).67 Paul is welcomed by all believers everywhere and is free to manage his own time.

in addition to shortening the episode, states that “many,” rather than “all,” were healed. The Genesis Apocryphon 20:21-29 reports an exorcism through imposition of hands, on which see Fitzmyer, 784. For a detailed analysis, see W. Kirchschläger, “Fieberheilung in Apg 28 und Lk 4,” in Kremer, Actes, 509–21. Note also von Bendemann, “‘ManyColoured Illnesses’” (n. 22 above). Cf. Rackham, 507. See Jacobson, “Paul,” 145. Haenchen, 716. Repayment not with silver or gold but healing evokes the opening of Acts (3:1-10), although the malicious might charge that Paul comes dangerously close to simony in 28:10. Haenchen’s comment (716), “Paul no longer acts like a prisoner, but only as a mighty superman, who spreads blessings around him,” is not erroneous, but it does not probe into the significance of Paul’s actions. See Conzelmann, 223. Hemer (Book, 154) offers explanations. The Dioscuri protected ships and sailors: Homeric Hymn 33; The Dioscuri, 14–22; Euripides Orestes 1635–37; Theocritus, 22; Diodorus Siculus 4.43.1–2. Cf. p. 661. See Fitzmyer (786), for secondary literature; Klauck (Magic, 116–17) who cites part of the Homeric hymn; and Kauppi, Foreign, 112–14. Wis 14:1-3 treats such devotion with sarcastic contempt in affirming that Providence is the sphere of the one God.

64 BDF §198 (7) discusses the participle rendered “figurehead” in conjunction with the dative of association. Apposition appears to be a simpler solution, as BDF intimates. On the name, see also Cadbury and Lake, 344; Conzelmann, 223–34; Barrett 2:1227–28; and Bruce, 534. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 346) seeks to explain why this ship alone in Acts is identified by name. 65 The three-day layover in Syracuse ill befits the need for haste that justified an early departure. Hemer (Book, 154) proposes the weather as a cause. Barrett (2:1220) raises the question whether the source was “a travel handbook . . . different from the theologically motivated source that has at least some relation with Paul?” B has a temporal dative: hJmevrai~ trisivn (“in three days”) . This appears to be an error or the use of the dative to indicate duration of time (BDF §201), but it may be a correction: it took them three days to get to Syracuse, eliminating the layover. Seneca (Ep. 77.1–2) describes the excitement generated at Puteoli by the arrival of the Alexandrian fleet. 66 Bruce (535) proposes that Julius had business that kept him at Puteoli for a week. 67 Haenchen, 719: “[Luke’s] report of the journey is so similar as to be interchangeable with that of the journey to Jerusalem.”

676

Acts part 3C.indd 676

8/27/2008 10:25:02 AM

28:1-16

  14-16  Rome is exceptional only in the extent of its

welcome.68 By one means or another, word that Paul was on his way reached Rome, which sent delegations to greet him.69 “Welcome” (ajpavnthsi~) “appears to have been a sort of technical term for the official welcome extended to a newly arrived dignitary by a deputation which went out from the city to greet him and escort him for the rest of his way.”70 “Paul is then depicted here as some sort of dignitary, whose ‘epiphany’ was seen as an important event.”71 These judgments are correct.72 The missionary is no less a V.I.P. on land than on sea. The parties had traveled a considerable distance.73 By this indirect means, the narrator shows that Paul was not only known to the Roman believers—who appear only here and solely for this purpose—but also held in high regard and thus presumably innocent by them. This support was not unappreciated (v. 16).74 With those three (Greek) words, “We came to Rome,” the narrator announces attainment of the goal posited in 19:21.75 The way has not been easy. That announcement was followed by a riot, and thereafter nearly everything that wicked mortals or unfeeling nature could contrive took its turn. It is safe to conclude that

God wanted Paul to reach Rome. This was not because Rome was a good place to die. Jerusalem would have served that purpose, and Luke has absolutely no interest in extolling Rome as the place where Paul received the imperishable crown of martyrdom. As the diametrical antithesis to rural Galilee, Rome was “the ends of the earth.”76 It was also the center, the goal of more or less every teacher, author, movement, and scheme.77 Rome, as the regal reception brilliantly depicts, has embraced the Christian movement and its primary exponent. The D-Text of vv. 11-15 exhibits the abridgment that has characterized it (according to Boismard) since 27:2. All of the difficulties attending the conventional text vanish. After an unstated interval, the party boards an unnamed Alexandrian ship and sails to Rome. The stops vanish, including the week at Puteoli. Believers greet Paul at Rome rather than journeying a considerable distance. The apparent double reference to reaching Rome also disappears. The inconsistency between Paul’s status as a prisoner and his freedom of action has evaporated. The expanded v. 16 takes it up explicitly. Although the centurion delivered “the prisoners” (!) to

68 When the kai; ou{tw~ is taken to refer to what received by Luke and Titus (who had arrived from follows, there is no contradiction between the Gaul and Dalmatia, respectively). Upon seeing two statements of arrival at Rome. Some prefer a them, he was glad, and rented a barn outside of redactional solution, on which see Weiser, 2:673. Rome, which he used for teaching. The rather late 69 On the early Roman church, see Peter Lampe, Acta Petri et Pauli (on which see A. de Santos Otero, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the “Later Acts of Apostles,” in NTApoc 2:426–82, First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser, ed. esp. 440–42) seeks to integrate Acts with the Acts Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, of Peter, as well as with the Acts of Paul. Chapters 2003) 5–87, 359–84. 13–28 (Richard A. Lipsius and Maximilian Bon70 Bruce, 536. net, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha [2 vols.; Leipzig: 71 Witherington, 787. Hermann Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 1:184–91) 72 Witherington has Matt 25:6 and 1 Thess 4:17 in state that Peter sent the disciples to Three Taverns. mind. For inscriptional data, see Danker, BenefacPaul’s arrival in Rome strikes fear into Jewish tor, 415 n. 2. For literary references, see Talbert, hearts. They urge him to attack Peter. The two 255. Among these are Cicero Ad Atticum 5.16; Joseapostles meet and exchange stories. Paul then phus Bell. 7.70–71 (Vespasian); 7.100–102 (Titus). brings about a reconciliation between Jews and 73 The mention of two places apparently assumes two gentiles. groups (Barrett, 2:1231), one of which traveled to 75 Raymond E. Brown (in Brown and Meier, Antioch Three Taverns, around forty-nine kilometers from and Rome, 89) calls this “masterful understateRome, the other to Appius’s Forum, about sixty-five ment.” That applies only to this phrase. Having kilometers. Horace (who was not writing a tourist described the royal reception, Luke needed to say brochure for a Chamber of Commerce) described no more. the journey to Appius’s Forum in Satire 1.5.3–8. 76 Peder Borgen (Philo, 280–81) argues that Rome was, They were stage posts on the road to and from for Jews, the distant west and thus “the ends of the Rome (Cicero Att. 2.10). earth.” See also the comments on 1:8. 74 In Act. Paul 11/14.1 (Martyrdom), Paul was 77 See the references in Pervo, Profit, 158 n. 220,

677

Acts part 3C.indd 677

8/27/2008 10:25:02 AM

a responsible authority,78 he authorized Paul to find his own quarters with a single guard.79 This is clearly fictitious, as the commander of the detachment would not have been allowed to make such dispositions.80 (Note the passive “received permission” of the conventional

78 79

80

81

text.81) This is the final reference to Roman authority, which departs at the same time as “we.”82 The narrative makes no more references to colleagues or assistants. Paul is effectively alone (with his guard).83

to which add Harnack, Mission, 1:370–72; Betz, Lukian, 110. On the meaning of stratopedavrch~, see BDAG, 948, s.v.; and Rapske, “Travel,” 40–43. Boismard’s “found favor with” (Texte, 425) is not supported by most witnesses for the D-Text, which share the “was permitted” of the conventional text. It is quite awkward when followed by the infinitive mevnein (“stay”). Josephus gives a detailed account of the generally lenient custody experienced by Agrippa (Ant. 18.188–237). This may have inspired Luke. (Paul did not have anything approximating the status enjoyed by Agrippa.) This addition was sufficiently attractive to find a home in the Byzantine text. See also Clark, 386–88. Its validity seems assumed by SherwinWhite (Roman Society, 108–10), who engages in a lengthy discussion. Witherington (788–89) is

slightly more cautious. His major worry is the status implication of having Paul guarded by an ordinary soldier. See also Hemer, Book, 199–200; the full discussion of Harry W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends (WUNT 2.67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) 40–46; Rapske, Roman Custody, 174–77; and Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 157–70, which gives the account of the journey and custody a cold bath of needed realism. 82 For discussion on the nature of Paul’s custody, see Rapske, Roman Custody, 177–82. 83 This fact lends no support to the view that one of Paul’s colleagues wrote Acts, and it does not enhance the authority of a “we source.” Nor is it particularly congenial to the view that the “imprisonment epistles” were written from Rome. Phlm 23 speaks of “fellow prisoners.”

678

Acts part 3C.indd 678

8/27/2008 10:25:02 AM

28:17-31

28

28:17-31  Paul the Prisoner in Rome 17/ Three days after arriving, Paul called a meeting of the local a Jewish leaders. “My fellow believers,” he said after they were in place, b “I am here as a prisoner from Jerusalem. Although I had done nothing against the people or the ancestral practices, I was surrendered to the Romans. 18/ After investigating the case, c they wished to release me, since I had committed no capital crime, 19/ but, because the Jews said otherwise, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar. Please do not think that I have any accusations to make against my nation. 20/ This is why I have asked to meet you and address you: I wear this shackle for the sake of the hope of Israel.” 21/ They replied, “We have received no correspondence about you from Judea, nor have any of our people who have come here reported or said anything damaging about you. d 22/ We should be pleased to hear from you e what you think, for we do know that this sect is the subject of universal opposition.” 23/ On the day arranged for this purpose a considerable crowd came f to his lodgings to hear Paul.g He spoke h from dawn to dusk, setting forth his convictions about the dominion of God and seeking to convince them about Jesus by appeal to the Law of Moses i and to the Prophets. 24/ Some j found his arguments appealing, but others remained skeptical. 25/ As they were on their way out without having reached any general agreement, Paul had one more statement: “Aptly did the Holy Spirit say to your forebears through the prophet Isaiah: k 26/ ‘Go to this people and say: “You will certainly hear but by no means understand, and you will certainly look but by no means perceive, l 27/ for the heart of this people cannot feel. m They are hard of hearing and have shut their eyes. They do not want to use those eyes for

679

Acts part 3C.indd 679

8/27/2008 10:25:02 AM

s­ eeing, those ears for hearing, and those hearts for understanding because they do not wish to change their ways so that I may make them well.”’”n 28:28-31: Conventional Text 28/

Therefore, be assured of this: God’s salvation has been offered to the gentiles. They shall listen.”o

30/

28:28-31 D-Texts 28/ 29/

Paul remained in his rented 30/ quarters p for two full years. He received all who came to see him, 31/ proclaiming the dominion of God and telling the story of the Lord Jesus Christ, q with full freedom r and without any impediment.

a b c

d

e f

g h i j k

l

Therefore, be assured of this: This salvation from God has been offered to the gentiles. [ ] After he had said this, the Jews left, engaged in vigorous discussion.t Paul, remaining in his rented quarters for two full years, received all who came to see him; he engaged in conversation with both Jews and Greeks, 31/ proclaiming the dominion of God, asserting and claiming [ ] without any impediment, “This is Jesus the Son of God through whom the whole universe will be judged.”

“Local” works well to render the redundant participle o[nta~ (“being”). See Cadbury and Lake, 56. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 426) reads “he began to engage (sunevballe) them. . . .” D-witnesses (614 pc syh**) state that the investigation was “detailed” or “thorough” (pollav) , which Cadbury and Lake (346) find “a most attractive” gloss. Boismard (Texte, 426) offers “Nothing has been written to us about you, nor have they sent to us from Judea nor have we heard anything damaging about you” as the D-Text. Boismard (previous note) omits “from you.” The variant h|kon (Y m) has the merit of being less common and may be more original. The meaning is similar. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 427) omits “a considerable crowd came to his lodgings.” For the last time, Luke has used a relative clause as a principal clause. P74 syh omit “Moses,” yielding the typical expression “the Law and the Prophets.” a* reads me;n ou\n, evidently either overlooking the mevn . . . dev construction or seeking to intensify it. The D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 427) reads: “aptly did the [ ] Spirit speak through Isaiah [ ] to our forebears.” The form eijdh`te (“know”) is a variant for i[dhte (p 74vid E 104 pc syh), as is also the case in the LXX.

m

n

o

p q

r s t

This might be also be rendered “perceive.” It may be due to itacism. Instead of ejpacuvnqh a* gig read ejbaruvnqh (“become heavy,” accepted by Boismard, Texte, 427, as the D-Text). This has the merit of disagreeing with the LXX. The moods of the final verbs vary; ejpistrevyousin (“turn,” “convert,” indicative) has a range of support (and is found in the LXX text of a, but not in Acts). The subjunctive ijavswmai (“heal”) has a range of support, mainly from witnesses of the D-type. Both of these alterations may be understood in more than one way. Only E 81 and some representatives of the Latin tradition have both. The indicative “I shall heal” is correct (BDF §369 [3]), but a scribe may have believed it to be an error. Moreover, pronunciation is again an issue. Verse 29 is omitted in critical editions. This is a D-text addition that became part of the Byzantine text. On the meaning of mivsqwma, see p. 687 n. 70. a* 326. 614. 1505. 2147 pc syh omit “Christ.” It is tempting to view it as a conventional secondary supplement, but it lends solemnity to the final verse and may well have been original. P74 reads “salvation” (swthriva~) instead of “freedom” (parrhsiva~). This is a stupid mistake. Boismard, Texte, 427–28. Or: “debate.”

680

Acts part 3C.indd 680

8/27/2008 10:25:03 AM

28:17-31

Analysis

This material, with the possible exception of v. 30a, is generally recognized as Lucan composition.1 Verse 16 is the logical end of a narrative sequence. Structurally, it serves to bracket, with vv. 30-31, the final section of Acts.2 The intervening material consists of two paragraphs that have a modern ring. The first (vv. 17-22) is a meeting about having a meeting, while the second (vv. 23-28) reports the actual meeting. Thematically, the first summarizes Paul’s defense of himself and the second his message. Earlier speeches (chaps. 22 and 26) presented both together. Here they are divided for dramatic purposes. Selectivity is apparent, for these conjoined encounters are the only incidents the narrator chooses to recount from a period of two years. There is thus nothing new in all of this, for the author does not wish to say anything new. As Daniel Marguerat observes, Paul plays different roles. In the first scene, he is the accused. By the end of the second, he has become the accuser, announcing judgment. 3 This is not to say that nothing in this account is strange. To all intents a Christian community does not exist. Although some of the Roman Jews found his message persuasive (v. 24), and one can presume that some gentiles did also (v. 31), no baptisms are reported and no house-based churches are established. Paul functions 1 2

3 4

5 6

like a philosopher who accepts any and all who care to attend his lectures.4 Haenchen rightly observes that Luke wishes Paul to “proclaim in Rome the gospel up to that point unknown,”5 but the narrative does not portray Paul as the founder of the (or a) Roman church.6 The scenario is familiar. As he has done nearly everywhere since Damascus,7 Paul begins by preaching to Jews. Although this is a mission of sorts, the focus is on the conflict between followers of Jesus and Jews who did not accept this message. Paul defends himself by doing what he has usually done, but less to bring about conversion than to illustrate and justify the division.8 For the third and climactic time, he announces a turn to the gentiles (28:28). The entire Greek-speaking Diaspora has rejected the offer of salvation. The Jewish people had their chance, but failed to exploit it. Luke knew as much about “the rule of three” as anyone, and he exploited it vigorously. This third example of the formula comes at the very end of the book and “carries special narrative weight.”9 All of the attempts to mitigate the impact of this final utterance have to row against the powerful current of this narrative weight.10 This purpose becomes more apparent when contrasted with an ostensible justification for the consultation. Paul was well advised to secure at least the neutrality of the large and often politically active Jewish community at Rome in the light of his forthcoming

See the detailed arguments of Weiser, 2:677–79. Verses 30-31 follow so smoothly after v. 16 that they were once viewed as a source into which vv. 17-28 were placed. See Jacques Dupont, “La conclusion des Actes et son rapport à l’ensemble de l’ouvrage de Luc,” in Kremer, Actes, 359–404, esp. 363 (= Nouvelles Études, 457–511). See also the detailed analysis of Hermann J. Hauser, Strukturen der Abschlußerzählung der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 28,16-31) (AnBib 86; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979). Marguerat, Historian, 295. Cf. the statement of Justin (Acts of Justin and Companions 3, Recension A): “I have been living above the baths of Myrtinus [mss. corrupt here] for the entire period of my sojourn at Rome. . . . Anyone who wished could come to my abode and I would impart to him the words of truth” (trans. Musurillo, Christian, 45). Haenchen, 720. Paul is implicitly the founder of the Roman church

in Act. Pet. (Verc.) 1, in that he preceded Peter in Rome. This is a secondary addition to the work; cf. also the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena 24, which is more explicit. 7 The exception is Antioch (11:25-26). This is important, as it reflects history and shows that Luke’s rather rigid scheme is his own. 8 See Alexander, Literary Context, 207–18. 9 Tyson, Images, 177. See also Conzelmann, 227. 10 The most vigorous exponent of mitigation has been Robert Tannehill. See his essays now collected in The Shape of Luke’s Story: Essays on LukeActs (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 105–65, as well as Narrative Unity, 2:344–53. Tannehill views the end of Acts as largely tragic and the story of Israel in Acts as a tragedy. This is not Luke’s view, for he presents the story of contemporary Judaism vis-à-vis Christianity as a melodrama in which the Jews receive the punishment they thoroughly deserve. See the critique by Sanders, Jews, 81–82. A similar argument is made by Robert

681

Acts part 3C.indd 681

8/27/2008 10:25:03 AM

trial.11 Josephus engaged in “networking” of this sort (Vit. 13–16).12 Here, as earlier, Paul knows to stress his Jewish credentials but ends up attacking his audience, without a single positive word for those who had found him persuasive. Readers may conclude that Paul did not enjoy the support of Roman Jewry in his legal difficulties. Comment   17  Three days later—not a long rest after an arduous journey—Paul issued a summons to the leaders of the Jewish community. The term is vague and the number unstated. More than a half-dozen would have strained the capacity of a rented room,13 but, as with the presbyters of Ephesus, the setting and number are left to the readers’ imagination; nothing is said about the time of the meeting. As far as one can tell, the request was for immediate attendance and all immediately arrived.14 Why they should have done so is not clear. Without

f­ urther ado Paul launches into his little speech.15 The first phrases are quite difficult16 and, although they fulfill the prophecy of Agabus, apparently erroneous. Paul was effectively rescued by the Roman garrison from a Jewish mob, but he was still arrested. This allows the understanding that he was “handed over” to the ruling power (by his Jewish opponents in the temple). Paul’s experiences are precisely parallel to those of Jesus (Luke 9:44; 18:32; cf. 24:7; note also Acts 2:23).17 Paul leads with one familiar affirmation, that he has not violated Torah (cf. 21:21, 28; 24:5-6), and one new claim: he is not an enemy of the Jewish people.18   18  Another Jesus parallel (Luke 23:15-20) follows: the Romans wished to release him, but “the Jews” resisted. The proper noun betrays the author. His character would have been better advised to say something like “the high priestly leaders” (with whom Roman Jews may have had some disagreements and whose interference

Brawley, ­“Ethical Borderlines between Rejection and Hope: Interpreting the Jews in Luke-Acts,” CurrTheolMiss 27 (2000) 415–23. Marguerat (Historian, 224 n. 52) regards Tannehill’s thesis as a trivialization of the end of Acts. The tragedy has been the uncritical reception of this portrait in the Christian tradition and its contribution to subsequent anti-Semitism. That tragedy is, needless to say, also a worthy concern. Jewish rejection of the Christian message is a key issue for the modern problem of Christian anti-Semitism. For Luke, however, Jewish rejection was not the problem so much as its cause: if those to whom the promises were addressed have said no, can the Jesus movement be legitimate? 11 On the Jewish community at Rome, see Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (updated ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995); Smallwood, The Jews, 200–219; R. Penna, “Les Juifs à Rome au temps de l’Apôtre Paul,” NTS 28 (1982) 321–47; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 38–41; and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Jews and Christians in Rome in the Time of Nero: Josephus and Paul in Rome,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2142–76, esp. 2155–61. Note also George La Piana’s classic “Foreign Groups at Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire,” HTR 20 (1927) 183–403. It cannot be stated with certainty that Roman Jews had an overall organization. See Schürer, History, 3.1:95: “Of a union of all the Roman Jewish groups under one gerousia there is no trace.” For details, see ibid., 95–100. (The

12

13 14 15

16

17 18

historical Paul sought support from Christians in Rome in his Epistle to the Romans.) P. R. McKechnie (“Judean Embassies and Cases before Roman Emperors, ad 44–66,” JTS 56 [2005] 339–61) argues, from cases mentioned by Josephus, that the priestly leadership of Jerusalem usually won their cases and was likely to have prevailed in the case of Paul. Note the pleivone~ (“rather many”) of v. 23. Dupont (“Conclusion,” 364) notes that vv. 17a and 25a form an antithetical inclusion. Talbert (226) takes vv. 17-20 as a five-part chiasm. This does not reveal the contrast between vv. 18-19, as it takes v. 18 as the center. For a two-part (vv. 17c-19, 20) outline, see Soards, Speeches, 131, but note his entire scheme, which treats vv. 17-28 as a single speech. Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 139) characterizes it in terms more suitable to forensic rhetoric. It is apologetic (Witherington, 796). The placement of “from Jerusalem” is unusual. The simplest approach is to construe it with “prisoner,” but one could also take it with “surrendered” (although “at Jerusalem” would be expected for the latter). The rhetorical purpose is clear: to emphasize innocence before acknowledging his status as a prisoner, although that would have been apparent. For detailed comparison of 28:17-19 to the passion narrative, see Radl, Paulus, 252–65. The negative oujdevn (“nothing”) with the participle amounts to emphasis. Cf. also the oujc (“not”) with an infinitive in v. 19.

682

Acts part 3C.indd 682

8/27/2008 10:25:03 AM

28:17-31

would not have always been welcome).19 Again, although it fit the trial of Jesus, his claim that the Romans wished to release Paul is not fully supported by Acts 21–26.20 The commentator must ask whether the author expected his readers to accept this view and not peruse the preceding narrative to discover the contradiction. The answer is probably affirmative.21 Luke is not simply revising the story of Christian origins; he is revising his own story. One also asks why the issue of a capital charge is introduced. Possibilities are that the narrator thought that only capital cases could be appealed or that the Roman governor took cognizance of those alone; or, perhaps, that this is another emphasis on the kindred fates of Paul and Jesus. The simplest answer is that this conforms to the statement of Festus in 25:25.   19  By the close of v. 19, Paul is back to where he began, affirming his lack of opposition to his own people.22 He did not appeal against “the Jews.” The progression has not been smooth, but its point is clear. Paul is innocent of anything to which a reasonable Jew might take substantive exception.   20  This verse serves as the fulcrum between Paul’s protest of innocence and the exposition of his message.23 His theme is well chosen, “the hope of Israel.” Although readers know that this refers to the eschatological faith in resurrection (23:6; 26:6-8; cf. 2:26), 24 here it lacks qualification. All Israelites had hope,

­ owever understood. Acts is closing, as it (and the Gosh pel) began: in a purely Jewish environment. Since his arrival in Jerusalem, Paul has been engaged in discussion with his fellow Israelites. The question for interpreters is whether this conversation deals with contemporary problems of Luke’s time,25 or, as this commentary holds, attempts to justify the separation that has taken place.26 For Luke, the hope of Israel means belief in Jesus as the messianic savior whose resurrection brought about inclusion of gentiles and a turn away from understanding the Israelite heritage as observance of Torah to a view of Scripture as the repository of promises and prophecies revealing God’s plans for all the peoples of the earth. The essence of Israelite hope was liberation. Paul expresses a nice antithesis when he refers to the sign of his bondage.27   21-22  At this point, his guests offer an appropriate response, speaking in unison.28 They claim to have heard neither anything untoward, whether official or by hearsay, 29 about Paul nor anything good about “this sect.” Both are best understood as ad hoc. Paul will begin with a clean slate. The narrative of Acts portrays his enemies as willing to take any steps to kill him. At the moment his appeal was accepted (25:12), they would have been likely to take steps to advise the Jews of Rome.30 Moreover, the accusers would have been obliged to send a delegation to participate in his trial.

19 614. 2147 pc syh** specify the form of Jewish opposition: “shouting, ‘away with our enemy!’” This derives from 22:22. 20 Agrippa said that Paul could have been released but for the appeal (26:32). Felix did nothing, while Paul accused Festus of attempting to “hand him over” to his Jewish opponents. 21 Witherington (798) says, “Luke is counting on his audience to remember what has been said before” and thus correct this summary. 22 Verse 19 is not complete. Boismard (Texte, 426) takes note of this addition at the end: “but so that I might save my life.” He regards this as probably part of a subsequent edition of the D-Text. 23 The possibly artistic effort to repeat aijtiva (“charge,” “reason”) from v. 18 in v. 20 leaves an ambiguity. It could look back to the sense of v. 18 or forward and thus mean “reason.” Barrett (2:1240) finds difficulties with all solutions. 24 For varied views, see Fitzmyer, 793. 25 Jacob Jervell, in his various publications (e.g., “The

26 27

28

29 30

Church of Jews and Godfearers,” in Joseph Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988] 11–20), is the most vigorous exponent of this view. See the comments of Weiser, 2:680. The chain was probably not metaphorical, as the guarding soldier was constantly linked to his prisoner. See Rapske (Roman Custody, 181), who states in n. 47 that the chain was probably light. Dupont (“Conclusion,” 366–68, citing 368) shows that the two little speeches are symmetrical, “like the two panels of a diptych.” Cadbury and Lake (346) take ajphvggeilen as “official” and ejlavlhsen as “unofficial.” Cf. Rackham, 501.

683

Acts part 3C.indd 683

8/27/2008 10:25:03 AM

They evidently know enough about their host to associate him with the Christian movement, about which they are remarkably uninformed and about the proliferation of which they offer unsolicited testimony. 31 Historically, one need but refer to Paul’s letter to the Romans to refute this claim of ignorance (see also Acts 18:22). On the positive side, they are quite prepared to listen to what Paul has to say, negative reports notwithstanding. Paul will have an opportunity before a neutral Jewish audience.32   23  On the agreed date, a goodly number come to his facility33 early and stay late.34 Acts, like Luke (24:29-52), concludes in the evening, with a lecture35 on messianic exegesis.36 Verses 23 and 31 constitute another inclusion.37 Paul’s auditors must be given credit for allowing him a full day’s time for his presentation, 38 but the reader of Acts would rejoin that, with so much argument and information, they ought to have been convinced. “Dominion of God” means, in effect, the message of the gospel, and “Jesus” is a trope for Christology (v. 23). The speech resembles that of Stephen (chap. 7) in that it closes with a denunciation of the audience, but it is closer to Paul’s first sermons, in Pisidian Antioch (13:15-41, 42-49). In both cases there are two encounters, with the first ending with a request for more (13:42; 28:22), the less successful second opportunity ending with an announcement that the gentiles will

be given an opportunity. Both close with a citation from Isaiah (49:6 in 13:47; 6:9-10 in 28). 39 They use related images of light and sight.40 This inclusio is important. It gives weight to the view that chaps. 13–28 are the second major division of Acts. Chapters 1–12 move the story from Jerusalem to Antioch; Peter is the central character. In chaps. 13–28 Paul is the central character, and the story proceeds from Antioch to Rome.   24-25  The response is, as always in Paul’s outreach to the Jews, mixed.41 The narrator does not wish to depict a complete failure, but the potential successes are not pursued. Those who found his message attractive do not remain behind, and Paul’s denunciation is general. This account lacks the traditional closing summons to repentance, replacing it with the condemnation from Isaiah.42 Their lack of concord (ajsuvmfwnoi [v. 25]) is a telling contrast to the unity that characterized the followers of Jesus.43 Like Stephen at the close of his speech (7:52), Paul speaks of “your ancestors.”44 The Jewish people in general are once more and finally labeled as “the other.” Their “departure” (ajpeluvonto) contrasts ironically with Simeon’s joyful use of the same verb (Luke 2:29).   26-27  These verses come as a shock after the mixed reception reported in v. 25. Isa 6:9-10, cited in essential agreement with the LXX, which follows the MT except that it transforms the imperatives of the Hebrew into

31 “Everywhere” (pantacou`) ; cf. 24:3. 32 The end of their little speech contains two important words. “Known” (gnw`ston) in v. 22 will become ironic when it recurs in v. 28. It appeared at the opening of Acts (1:19; 2:14) and in Paul’s full-length missionary sermon in a synagogue (13:38). “Oppose” (ajntilevgw), found also in v. 19, appears in Luke 2:34 (the Nunc Dimittis, to which other allusions will follow), and also in the sermon at Pisidian Antioch (13:45; previous note). 33 The word xeniva means “hospitality,” but “lodging” is also possible, by metonymy, and is preferable here. See Rapske, Roman Custody, 179. Luke may have taken the term from Phlm 22. 34 “From morning until evening” (v. 23) recalls Moses (Exod 18:13), who has just been mentioned. 35 The verb diamartuvromai in v. 23 fulfills the promise of 23:11. 36 The only occurrences of hjpivstoun in Luke and Acts are Luke 24:11 and Acts 28:24.

37 For details and comments, see Dupont, “Conclusion,” 365. 38 Witherington (810) calls this a “marathon session.” 39 So also, e.g., Dupont, “Conclusion,” 384–85; and Polhill, 541. 40 For other resemblances see nn. 32, 52. 41 For references, which begin in 2:12-13, see Johnson, 471. 42 Haenchen (723) notes the absence of reference to repentance. Witherington (801) says that baptism was impossible because Paul was confined to his quarters. Bruce (540) maintains that the imperfect “does not necessarily imply that they were actually convinced.” This judgment suits the subsequent narrative. 43 The adjective appears only here in early Christian literature. Its opposite is oJmoqumadovn (“with one mind”), 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12. 44 As so often, hJmw`n (“our”) is a variant: m gig vg, while syh lacks any pronoun. Boismard (Texte, 427) takes “our” as the D-Text. As Metzger (Textual

684

Acts part 3C.indd 684

8/27/2008 10:25:03 AM

28:17-31

finite verbs,45 “so that the entire guilt falls upon the people whose stubbornness the prophet now already confirms as a fact.”46 The early Jesus movement used this text as an explanation of missionary failure (Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; cf. John 12:39-40). So it is here, but one can also perceive a shift toward invoking the passage to condemn the Jews in general.47 Here it is the only citation from those Scriptures to which v. 23 referred. The citation serves to prove that rejection of the message by the Jews accorded with the divine will. On this subject, the contrast between Luke and Paul could not be stronger.48 Both sought to explain why most Jews had said “no” to the message. For Paul this rejection was provisional; Luke viewed it as final and the grounds for the existence of (in modern terms) a separate religion.49 This is not simply a matter of gentile anti-Semitism. Judaism and Christianity began to emerge as clearly distinct entities c. 90 ce. A generation later, Luke was engaged in retrojecting this separation to the “primitive” period. This is a normal tactic of an established body that wishes to maintain and protect its boundaries by dating its foundation as early as possible. 50 The separation of “Christians” from “Jews” is an accomplished fact. Luke’s position is clear: we did not reject them; they closed the gates against us (21:30). This view is

45

46 47

48 49

50

51

formal and is not mitigated by the repeated separations of Paul from Diaspora synagogues. It is also institutional. The movement does not reject Jewish converts, who must, however, leave the synagogue and expect no more than conditional tolerance for Torah observance. In short, those of Jewish background who adhere to the church are no longer “Jews,” certainly not to be numbered among “the Jews,” which is the preferred word for “the other.”51 “See” and “hear” abound in (Luke and) Acts. 52 Failure to accept the message is refusal to hear the words of grace and to see what is before one’s eyes. “Blinding” is an important symbol, portrayed literally in the cases of Paul (9:8) and Elymas (13:11), and symbolically as the darkness in which the unredeemed dwell. 53 The promise of sight to the blind announced by Jesus in his first sermon (4:18, from Isa 61:1) has become an announcement of judgment. 54 The two final phrases of the citation associate conversion (ejpistrevfw) 55 with healing, establishing “healing” as a metaphor for salvation. 56   28-29  Paul’s comment (v. 28) on the citation, a mirror of his guests’ final words in v. 22, 57 is that salvation has been delivered58 to the gentiles, who, in contrast to the Israelites, will listen. 59 The term for salvation, to; swthvrion, brims with significance. It comes from

­ ommentary, 444) says, both the external data and C the context give strong weight to “your” in this place. On differences from the LXX, see Barrett (2:1244) and the notes on the text. The introductory kalw`~ (“aptly”) also precedes a quotation from Isaiah in P. Egerton II line 54. Cf. Justin Dial. 115.6. Haenchen, 724. Justin Dial. 12.2. On this passage, see Lindars, Apologetic, 159–67, 254–55; and François Bovon, “‘Schön hat der heilige Geist durch den Propheten Jesaja zu euren Vätern gesprochen’ (Act 28,25),” ZNW 75 (1984) 224–32. Conzelmann (227) with a reference to Romans 9–11. Jervell (631) says that this passage marks the separation of the church from “the unbelieving component of Judaism.” In intra-Christian disputes, the key category became “apostolic.” Similar phenomena are apparent in the claims of rulers to be the offspring of gods and founders of dynasties to claim descent from earlier monarchs. For detailed argument, see Richard Pervo, “Israel’s

52

53 54

55 56 57 58

59

Heritage and Claims upon the Genre(s) of Luke and Acts: The Problems of a History,” in Moessner, Heritage, 127–43; and idem, “The Gates Have Been Closed (Acts 21:30): The Jews in Acts,” JHC 11 (2005) 128–49. They occur as a pair in Acts 2:33; 4:26; 8:6 (19:26); 22:16. On “hear,” see Dupont, “Conclusion,” 372–76. Note in particular 26:18 and the comments there. That sermon (Luke 4:16-30) also anticipated rejection by Jesus’ people and the gentile mission. See Turner (Power, 260), who also notes Luke 7:21; and Dupont, “Conclusion,” 396–402. See Pervo, Dating, 269. Individual healings, as of blindness, are synecdoches of salvation. See Dupont, “Conclusion,” 368–69. Contrast the situation in 13:26 (synagogue sermon in Pisidia), where the message has been delivered (ejxapestavlh) to Jews and “God-fearers.” “Gentiles” is another echo from the close of Luke (24:47).

685

Acts part 3C.indd 685

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40:5), cited in Luke 3:6, an expansion of his Marcan source: “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”60 That promise was anticipated in the words of Simeon: “my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:30). By bringing the beginning of his first book into association with the close of the second the author is doing more than wrapping his package in a pretty ribbon. Simeon’s hope for a light to illumine the gentiles has been fulfilled, but the people of Israel have refused to see their glory. The D-Text offers a different picture. The ringing claim that the gentiles will listen is dropped, and a new statement, which, because it was taken into the Byzantine text, became v. 29. This provides a different closure. The addition looks back to v. 25 and emphasizes the difference of Jewish opinion (which the citation from Isaiah neglects). In utilizing v. 25 as the basis for this new closure, the editor either ignored ajpeluvonto (“departed”) or took it as “began to leave.” Luke depicts a general denunciation hurled at the backs of the departing audience. The reviser softened that picture.61 That amelioration has support among some modern interpreters who believe that the D-Text represents the

correct understanding of the author’s intention.62 The best that can be said about the final addition, which occurs in various forms, is that it represents a certain pious taste.63 The worst that can be said is that it is the final indication of the D-Text’s inability to know when to stop.64   30  As was the case after the final words of Jesus (1:8), the narrator returns to the third person. “The ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) is realized in a mission that has no limits. Whereas Jesus spoke to disciples who were intent upon him, Paul addressed the backs of his departing audience. Virtually every word of the first clause in v. 30 is controversial. The chronological reference to two full years65 is important. References to extended periods mark important missions: Antioch (11:26, a full year), Corinth (18:11, eighteen months); and Ephesus (19:10, “two years”).66 This is the most likely understanding of the term here: Paul labored in the capital longer than at Corinth and somewhat less time than in Ephesus.67 These data support the view that the mission summarized in vv. 30-31 was primarily a gentile mission.68 No particular weight is to be attached to the aorist ejnevmeinen,69 for which the normal spatial meaning

60 On this term for “salvation,” see also Ps 66:3; 97:3 LXX. Outside of the three uses in Luke and Acts, this term appears only in Eph 6:17 in the NT. This is an indication of the strong interest in Isaiah 40–66 in the post-Pauline environment. 61 Epp (Tendency, 114–15) attempts to reconcile this text with his general understanding of the D-Text by stating that the conventional text presents a ministry to Jews alone in Rome. In the light of v. 28 (and the “all” of v. 30), this interpretation is unlikely. 62 Barrett (2:1250–51) does not decisively exclude the D-Text as secondary, while he supports its viewpoint. Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:346–53) is concerned to refute the idea that this passage means the end of the “Jewish mission.” 63 Blass (291) ventured to claim that the expanded ending was apposite (“Non inepte hoc in fine libri ponitur”). Of this judgment, one can only say, without pleasure: inepte. 64 Cadbury and Lake (349) define them theologically. The conventional text ends on an apologetic note; the D-Text on an eschatological note. This is insightful, for it touches upon that element of the D-­t radition that is sometimes called “proto­Montanist.”

65 The adjective o{lhn indicates that this is not inclusive reckoning, that is, somewhere between one and two years. Cf. Act. Pet. (Verc.) 1. This later addition refers to Paul’s stay in Rome, where he converted large numbers. One of these was the wife of the supervisor of prisons, who converted her husband. He authorized Paul to travel, whence his mission to Spain. 66 For parallels to the accounts about Corinth and Ephesus, see Dupont, “Conclusion,” 385–86. 67 The most important alternative is that the term had legal significance: after two years without action by prosecutors or plaintiffs, a case lapsed. For a refutation of the legal data for this claim, see Haenchen, 724–26 n. 3. It is absurd in that it presumes that silence means no action was taken about the case and that readers were familiar with the alleged law. 68 Paul separates from the synagogue at Corinth in 18:6 and turns to the gentiles. In 19:9, he does the same at Ephesus. Gentile conversions led to the agitation of Demetrius (19:21-40), since Jews had never worshiped Artemis. 69 BDF §332 (1) asserts that the aorist means that after two years this state of affairs ended. This is special pleading. Moule (Idiom Book, 13) says that the verb has an innately durative sense.

686

Acts part 3C.indd 686

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

28:17-31

(“stayed,” “remained”) is preferable. The noun mivsqwma is, like its parallel xeniva in v. 23, a metonym meaning “rented quarters.”70 It may have been chosen to emphasize that Paul paid his own rent and was not dependent on contributions from others. The Gospel according to Luke began and ended in the temple; Acts begins and ends in a house.71 Paul has a home in the imperial capital. “Yet there is a deep uneasiness within this ‘at homeness.’”72 Christianity can make a home in the empire, but its home is rented, not owned. The story of itinerant evangelists, including Jesus and his disciples, Peter, and Paul, is over. At the end of Acts, Paul is a “resident” evangelist. He has joined, so to speak, the world of Luke’s time, when the Pauline heritage concentrated on the life of established communities and their local leaders.73   31  The subject of Paul’s proclamation, the dominion of God, is yet one more striking inclusio (Acts 1:3).74 In

the Gospel, Jesus was the proclaimer; in Acts he is the object of the proclamation. Although this mission went on for two years, neither Jews nor polytheists sought to take action against Paul or to throw a roadblock in the way of his mission. This is as the author wanted it, for the object is to portray the power of God,75 encapsulated in Paul’s freedom,76 which has nothing to do with his legal status or the eventual disposition of his case.77 Jerome offers an epigrammatically fitting summary: “Paulus Romam vinctus ingreditur ut vinctos superstitionis erroribus liberos faciat; manet in hospitio conductu per biennium ut nobis utriusque instrumenti aeternum reddat donum.”78 The final adverb is brilliant, worthy of a bravo, were commentators authorized to introduce such exclamations.79 Within Acts, this stem evokes impediments to the advance of the mission beyond its Israelite origins (8:36; 10:47; cf. 11:17).80 In the philosophical tradition

70 BDAG, 654, s.v. mivsqwma. Extensive discussions include David L. Mealand, “The Close of Acts and Its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” NTS 36 (1990) 583–97, esp. 583–86; Tajra, Martyrdom, 47; and Rapske, Roman Custody, 77–78. The Act. Paul 11/14.1 says that Paul rented a barn: o{rrion misqwvsasqai. Cf. the American idiom of calling a leased vehicle or piece of equipment “a rental.” The second clause of v. 30 supports a spatial understanding of the word. See also Spicq, Lexicon, 2:516–17. In the summary introducing his commentary, Ephrem states that Paul paid the rent by his own labor (#32, 384). In the prologue to his commentary on 2 Timothy, however, he stated that he obtained these funds by sale of his cloak and books (Ropes, Text, 453 n. 1; the inspiration for this idea comes from 2 Tim 4:13). 71 See John H. Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in Neyrey, Social World, 211–40. Tertullian Pud. 7.11, “totus hic mundus una omnium domus est (“This entire world is one house for all people” [author’s trans.]), reflects the Christian viewpoint, contrasted with the older commonplace that the world is a temple (see p. 435 n. 97). 72 See the perceptive comments of Robbins, “Social Location,” 330. 73 This is the situation represented in the Pastorals. Philip was the first example of this transition (21:8). Cf. Marguerat, Historian, 229. 74 His teaching (didavskwn) also echoes the first line of the preface (Acts 1:1).

75 See Witherington, 810. 76 The term parrhsiva (v. 31) can mean “boldness,” but here it has the legal sense of “freedom,” one dimension also of the final word, ajkwluvtw~ (“without any impediment”). On parrhsiva, see Mealand, “Close,” 597. 77 See Johnson, 476. Luke may have been inspired by Eph 6:19-20 (the close of that letter’s body): “so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness (ejn parrhsiva) the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains (ejn aJluvsei). Pray that I may declare it boldly (parrhsiavswmai), as I must speak.” The only other use of “chain” in the singular with reference to Paul is Acts 28:20. See Robert A. Wild, “The Warrior and the Prisoner: Some Reflections on Ephesians 6:10-20,” CBQ 46 (1984) 284–98, esp. 284–88. 78 Jerome Ep. 71 (to Licinius, CSEL 55:1–2): “Paul came to Rome in bonds so that he might free those locked in the bonds of superstitious error; he lived for two years in a rented place so he might offer us the eternal gift of the two Testaments” (author’s trans.). 79 See Richard Pervo, “Die Entführung in das Serail: Aspasia: A Female Aesop?” in Jo-Ann A. Brant et al., eds., Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (SBLSymS 32; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) 61–88, esp. 85. 80 For citations illustrating its legal sense, see Gerhard Delling, “Das letze Wort der Apostel­ geschichte,” NovT 15 (1973) 193–204; and Mealand,

687

Acts part 3C.indd 687

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

ajkwluvtw~ (“without impediment”) is related to virtue.81 For the unphilosophical and the nontheological, it puts in one sharp word what the Pastor required seventeen (Greek) words to place in the mouth of Paul: “[T]hat is my gospel, for which I suffer hardship, even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But the word of God is not chained” (2 Tim 2:8-9).82

that a third volume was planned, or that the author stopped at v. 31 because he was then writing (or had no further knowledge).85 Luke knew of the death of Paul and of his “appearance before Caesar.”86 The ending of Acts no longer serves as an argument for an early date.87 No amount of sophisticated literary criticism and theological reflection—good and useful as most of it is—can persuade readers that something is not wrong. Paul’s legal difficulties, prefaced by his Jesuslike journey to Jerusalem, are the sole explicit subject of the last third of Acts. The objection that Acts is not a biography of Paul, however much it has come to seem like one,88 does not meet this point. On this explicit subject, the narrator has painted himself into a corner. Rather than relate the unhappy outcome of this legal struggle, he refuses to discuss it. This provides Acts with an ending that is happy and upbeat but also guilty of the historiographical sins of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (suppression of the true and intimation of the false).89 The close of Acts is “fictitious” in that it chooses to abandon its principal story line on a high note rather than follow it into failure and contradiction. The solution must therefore be literary.90

Excursus: The Ending of Acts If the volume of comment is the measure of an author’s impact, the close of Acts is a great success. Commentators since Chrysostom have been compelled to ask why Luke did not finish the story of Paul.83 “But of his affairs after the two years, what say we? (The writer) leaves the hearer athirst for more: the heathen authors do the same (in their writings), for to know everything makes the reader dull and jaded” (Chrysostom Hom. 55).84 What will happen next? is a question that drives much narrative. From both the historical/biographical and the literary viewpoint, the close of Acts disappoints. Research has cleared away hypotheses proposing that the book was left incomplete, or

81

82 83

84

85

“Close,” 594–97. Note also Strabo Geogr. 17.1; 25.18; Dio of Prusa Or. 5.8; and Josephus Ant. 12.104; 16.41, 166. Plato Crat. 415D; Plutarch (Tu. sen. 27 [Mor. 137E]) says that health allows one to exercise virtue without inhibition. It characterizes the gods, according to Dio of Prusa Or. 36.22. This is also a characteristic of God in Wis 7:23. David Winston cites a number of parallels from Philo, Epictetus, and others (The Wisdom of Solomon [AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979] 181). Cf. also Phil 1:12-14, which may have provided inspiration for v. 31. The situation is well stated by Marguerat, Historian, 205. Two full-length studies are Hermann J. Hauser, Strukturen der Abschlußerzählung der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 28,16-31 (AnBib 86; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979); and Charles B. Puskas Jr., “The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: An Investigation of the Literary Function and Theological Significance of Acts 28:16-31” (Diss. Saint Louis University, 1980). A revised form is scheduled for publication in 2008: The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Function and Significance of Acts 28:16-31 (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock). Trans. PNF 11:326. Arator provided an alternative ending. In place of 28:17-31 he summarizes the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (2:1219–50). For a crisp summary of research, see Hemer, Book,

86 87

88

89

90

383–87. Note also Trocmé, Actes et l’histoire, 34–35, 50–59; and Lindsey P. Pherigo, “Paul’s Life after the Close of Acts,” JBL 70 (1951) 277–84. See the comments on 20:29 and 27:24. Hemer (Book, 365–414) prefers a very early date but does not invoke the conclusion in support of his hypothesis. For a discussion of his argument, see Pervo, Dating, 334–40. See also William Brosend, “The Means of Absent Ends,” in Witherington, History, 348–62, esp. 357–58, who also rejects date as an explanation. Cadbury and Lake (349) say that the close is, for modern readers, “an inadequate literary technique for a biography of Paul—which is what Acts at this stage has become—to leave its hero’s life incomplete.” Hemer (Book, 383) makes a similar observation with more focus: “[T]he climax seems intimately built around Paul.” David Moessner (“‘Completed End[s]ings’ of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End[ing] of Acts,” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, 193–221), argues that the close of Acts fulfills historiographical purpose. That thesis adds to the argument that the end of Acts is as planned and is not in conflict with the “historiographical sins” noted. Aelian chose to end his story of Aspasia on a high note, although his sources knew better. See Pervo, “Entführung” (n. 79 above). See Dio’s amusing Or.

688

Acts part 3C.indd 688

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

ajkwluvtw~ (“without impediment”) is related to virtue.81 For the unphilosophical and the nontheological, it puts in one sharp word what the Pastor required seventeen (Greek) words to place in the mouth of Paul: “[T]hat is my gospel, for which I suffer hardship, even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But the word of God is not chained” (2 Tim 2:8-9).82

that a third volume was planned, or that the author stopped at v. 31 because he was then writing (or had no further knowledge).85 Luke knew of the death of Paul and of his “appearance before Caesar.”86 The ending of Acts no longer serves as an argument for an early date.87 No amount of sophisticated literary criticism and theological reflection—good and useful as most of it is—can persuade readers that something is not wrong. Paul’s legal difficulties, prefaced by his Jesuslike journey to Jerusalem, are the sole explicit subject of the last third of Acts. The objection that Acts is not a biography of Paul, however much it has come to seem like one,88 does not meet this point. On this explicit subject, the narrator has painted himself into a corner. Rather than relate the unhappy outcome of this legal struggle, he refuses to discuss it. This provides Acts with an ending that is happy and upbeat but also guilty of the historiographical sins of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (suppression of the true and intimation of the false).89 The close of Acts is “fictitious” in that it chooses to abandon its principal story line on a high note rather than follow it into failure and contradiction. The solution must therefore be literary.90

Excursus: The Ending of Acts If the volume of comment is the measure of an author’s impact, the close of Acts is a great success. Commentators since Chrysostom have been compelled to ask why Luke did not finish the story of Paul.83 “But of his affairs after the two years, what say we? (The writer) leaves the hearer athirst for more: the heathen authors do the same (in their writings), for to know everything makes the reader dull and jaded” (Chrysostom Hom. 55).84 What will happen next? is a question that drives much narrative. From both the historical/biographical and the literary viewpoint, the close of Acts disappoints. Research has cleared away hypotheses proposing that the book was left incomplete, or

81

82 83

84

85

“Close,” 594–97. Note also Strabo Geogr. 17.1; 25.18; Dio of Prusa Or. 5.8; and Josephus Ant. 12.104; 16.41, 166. Plato Crat. 415D; Plutarch (Tu. sen. 27 [Mor. 137E]) says that health allows one to exercise virtue without inhibition. It characterizes the gods, according to Dio of Prusa Or. 36.22. This is also a characteristic of God in Wis 7:23. David Winston cites a number of parallels from Philo, Epictetus, and others (The Wisdom of Solomon [AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979] 181). Cf. also Phil 1:12-14, which may have provided inspiration for v. 31. The situation is well stated by Marguerat, Historian, 205. Two full-length studies are Hermann J. Hauser, Strukturen der Abschlußerzählung der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 28,16-31 (AnBib 86; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979); and Charles B. Puskas Jr., “The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: An Investigation of the Literary Function and Theological Significance of Acts 28:16-31” (Diss. Saint Louis University, 1980). A revised form is scheduled for publication in 2008: The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Function and Significance of Acts 28:16-31 (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock). Trans. PNF 11:326. Arator provided an alternative ending. In place of 28:17-31 he summarizes the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (2:1219–50). For a crisp summary of research, see Hemer, Book,

86 87

88

89

90

383–87. Note also Trocmé, Actes et l’histoire, 34–35, 50–59; and Lindsey P. Pherigo, “Paul’s Life after the Close of Acts,” JBL 70 (1951) 277–84. See the comments on 20:29 and 27:24. Hemer (Book, 365–414) prefers a very early date but does not invoke the conclusion in support of his hypothesis. For a discussion of his argument, see Pervo, Dating, 334–40. See also William Brosend, “The Means of Absent Ends,” in Witherington, History, 348–62, esp. 357–58, who also rejects date as an explanation. Cadbury and Lake (349) say that the close is, for modern readers, “an inadequate literary technique for a biography of Paul—which is what Acts at this stage has become—to leave its hero’s life incomplete.” Hemer (Book, 383) makes a similar observation with more focus: “[T]he climax seems intimately built around Paul.” David Moessner (“‘Completed End[s]ings’ of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End[ing] of Acts,” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, 193–221), argues that the close of Acts fulfills historiographical purpose. That thesis adds to the argument that the end of Acts is as planned and is not in conflict with the “historiographical sins” noted. Aelian chose to end his story of Aspasia on a high note, although his sources knew better. See Pervo, “Entführung” (n. 79 above). See Dio’s amusing Or.

688

Acts part 3C.indd 688

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

28:17-31

In modern terms, this requires a discussion of closure and openness.91 “They all lived happily ever after” is a fine ending, but it is not the only possibility, and one that is out of favor at present, in both its fictional and nonfictional manifestations. Not even that ending provides complete closure.92 It generally signifies “you know the rest” or “What happened thereafter is not very interesting.” Both of these significations can be attributed to the ending of Acts.93 Some measure of openness cannot be denied to a work that ends with the adverb “unhindered,” and it would be ridiculous to claim that an ending with so many references to its beginning and middle, as well as to the beginning and end of its predecessor, lacked any sense of closure. The result is that Acts has become a mirror, with exegetes proposing and defending closure of those matters they prefer to see closed and openness for what they hold ought to remain open.94 When Chrysostom spoke about “non-Christian” authors, it is likely that he had epic in mind, Homer in particular.95 Future events were, however, discussed at earlier points in the respective narratives.96

91

92

93

94

11 on Homer, which states that the poet wished to cover up (ajfanivsai) the death of Achilles in Troy (§104). Tannehill (Narrative Unity, 2:353–56) discusses closure and lack of the same, with reference to M. Torgovnick, Closure in the Novel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). See also the essays in Deborah H. Roberts, Francis M. Dunn, and Don Fowler, eds., Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton: ­Princeton University Press, 1997); and Doody, True Story, 527 n. 4. Marguerat makes use of several literary critical models in Historian, 205–30. Brosend (“Means,” 354) makes much of the close of romantic novels, which leave “no loose ends.” This is a requirement of the type, yet note the close of Chariton Chaer. (Appendix 5.I). Chariton offers a prayer for “happily ever after,” rather than an assertion thereof. It is difficult to envision a reader who did not know that Paul was executed by the Roman government in Rome, as Chrysostom (above) can assume. Charles K. Barrett floats this possibility in “The End of Acts,” in Peter Schäfer et al., eds., Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 3:545–55. Thus Rapske (“Travel,” 44) and Witherington (618–19) think that Luke implies a favorable conclusion to the trial, a view strongly opposed by Haenchen, 731–32.

If this criterion were applied to Acts, readers would have been expected to conclude that Paul was found innocent and released, since only a technicality had required that he be sent to Rome. The biblical parallel most often invoked is the light confinement arranged for King Jehoiachin at the close of 2 Kings.97 The contrast, however, is more important than the similarity, for this summary deals with the balance of the king’s life, rather than two years. The close of 2 Chronicles is certainly upbeat,98 but this amounts to an introduction to Ezra and may be a later gloss.99 The close of 2 Maccabees reflects a choice to end on a high note.100 These precedents may have provided Luke with some justification and inspiration. Since 2 Maccabees is a sort of historical monograph, it deserves comparison with the close of Sallust’s monograph on the Jugurthine war.101 This is a kind of “open ending,” pregnant with possibility. As a high note, it is more apparent than real, for Sallust found Marius a disappointment. In ten crisp Latin words, Sallust related the limited theme of his monograph, the Jugurthine war, to the broader issue 95 For the endings of the Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid, see Appendix 5.IV. 96 Examples are the predictions of Tiresias about Ulysses’ later journey (Od. 11.119–37) and Aeneas’s forthcoming marriage (Aen. 12.808–40). 97 See Appendix 5.IIIa and P. Davies, “The Ending of Acts,” ExpT 94 (1982–83) 334–35. 98 See Appendix 5.IIIb. 99 In the case of all ancient books copied in manuscript, endings are most likely to be subject to modification. The D-Text is a modest example of the phenomenon. For the present purposes, the form of the texts known to Luke or Chrysostom, for example, is more important than their original status. 100 See Appendix 5.IIIc. Foakes Jackson (236) says, “The end of Acts resembles that of 2 Maccabees, which closes with the great victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor, leaving the hero at the moment of his triumph, so soon to be followed by his defeat.” The decision to stop at that point evidently came from the abridger (presuming that this is an abridgment). 101 See Appendix 5.Va.

689

Acts part 3C.indd 689

8/27/2008 10:25:04 AM

(the decline of the Roman Republic) of which it was the prelude. The foregoing endings indicate that the close of Acts is not unsuitable to the form of a monograph.102 In content and form it also has much in common with the closing words of Apuleius’s Metamorphoses.103 Lucius, too, had recently come to Rome after delivery from disaster by the patronage of his god, but it is the feeling of openness and exhilaration that most invite comparison. Warren S. Smith accepts this invitation in his contribution to a study of the Prologue of Apuleius: [A]t the end of Acts St Paul proclaims the word of God “with all boldness and unhindered,” thus not only fulfilling the injunction of Jesus at the start of Acts, to preach to the ends of the earth, but acting as an example of Luke’s own promise in Luke 1:1-4 to bear witness to Theophilus of the truth of the words handed down to him. And in the Metamorphoses as in Acts, the book’s last phrases (gaudens obibam, “I went around rejoicing”) leave us with a state of tranquility, an inner rather than outer description of a geographical place.104 Options of the sort that Luke definitely chose not to pursue can be seen in the Life of Aesop and in the Acts of Paul, which follow their respective heroes to the death.105 Last of all comes the most proximate comparison: the Gospel of Mark. J. Lee Magness, 102 The example from Josephus (Appendix 5.Vb) shows that authors might wish to provide individual rolls of a larger work with a conclusive end, in this case “and he died unhappily then and there.” 103 See Appendix 5.IIb. 104 Warren S. Smith, “Apuleius and Luke: Prologue and Epilogue in Conversion Contexts,” in Ahuvia Kahane and Andrew Laird, eds., A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 88–98, esp. 98. See also the comments on Acts 8:39, above. 105 Appendix 5.IIc and d. At the end of his poem, Arator abandons Acts and closes with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. 106 J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). 107 Brosend (“Means,” 360–62) makes a spirited

who has done much to inform NT scholarship about the close of ancient books, has contributed a valuable monograph on the close of that work.106 Two observations are in order. If the close of Acts owes something to Mark, it is of considerable interest that Luke rejected Mark’s approach for the close of the Gospel but may have found it suitable for his second volume. That is a matter for the consideration of the unity/ies of Luke and Acts. The second is another contrast. Mark does not withhold from the reader the fate of his character. The resurrection is announced. The effect of the ending to Acts is different from that to Mark. The author of Acts ended as he does not only because he did not wish to say more but also because he did not need to say more.107 The most cogent intra-Lucan literary parallel is the story of the two sons (“The Prodigal Son” [Luke 15:11-32]). The older brother did not do as he ought to have done. This is not a true open ending, for that son is not going to change his mind, while any actions or words on his part would be utterly anticlimactic. This commentary’s contention that Luke has “finished” the stories of Peter and Paul by intimating for each a “passion” and “resurrection” gains support from Acts 28:30-31.108 Peter went to “another place” (12:17), and Paul had a rented place. The place of each has been vindicated by God, and their vindication is also the victory of the message.109 Nothing more need be said, and the future will always be open because it belongs to God. a­ rgument for viewing the close of Acts as provocative, encouraging the reader to return to the beginning of the story, in order to turn the focus from Paul to Jesus. This ignores the thrust of Luke and Acts, which do not move from Rome to Jerusalem, but the reverse. Marguerat (Historian, 205–30) proposes something similar, with more nuance, focusing on silence as a medium of ambivalence. 108 With regard to Paul, see G. W. Trompf, “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27–28 and Beyond,” in Talbert, Luke-Acts, 225–39. 109 Readers knew that both Peter and Paul had been executed. Acts has no interest in the where and why of Peter’s martyrdom. From the text, readers will probably infer that Paul had fallen victim to Jewish intrigue, which finally fulfilled its longsought desire.

690

Acts part 3C.indd 690

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

Appendix 1

Appendixes Appendix 1: T  he Conversion of Polemo

Lucian “The Double Indictment” 171 This man Polemo, who, [Intemperance] says, is her servant, was not naturally bad or inclined to Intemperance, but had a nature like mine [i.e., a member of the Academy]. But while he was still young and impressionable she preempted him, with the assistance of Pleasure, who usually helps her, and corrupted the poor fellow, surrendering him unconditionally to dissipation and to prostitutes, so that he had not the slightest remnant of shame. . . . The poor fellow went about from early to late with garlands on his head, flushed with wine, attended by music right through the public square, never sober, making roisterous calls upon everybody, a disgrace to his ancestors and to the whole city and a laughing stock to strangers. But when he came to my house, it chanced that, as usual, the doors were wide open and I was discoursing about virtue and temperance (swfrosuvnh) to such of my friends as were there. Coming in upon us with his flute and his garlands, first of all he began to shout and tried to break up our meeting by disturbing it with his noise. But we paid no attention to him, and as he was not entirely sodden with Intemperance, little by little (katÆ ojlivgon) he grew sober under the influence of our discourses, took off his garlands, silenced his flute-player, became ashamed of his purple mantle, and, awaking, as it were, from profound sleep (ejx u{pnou baqevw~ ajnegrovmeno~), saw his own condition and condemned his past life (tou` pavlai bivou). The flush that came from Intemperance faded and vanished, and he flushed for shame at what 1 2

Diogenes Laertius 4.3.16 2

In his youth [Polemo] was so profligate and dissipated that he actually carried about with him money to procure the immediate gratification of his desires, and would even keep sums concealed in lanes and alleys. Even in the Academy a piece of three obols was found close to a pillar, where he had buried it for the same purpose.

And one day, by agreement with his young friends, he burst into the school of Xenocrates [head of the Academy] quite drunk, with a garland on his head. Xenocrates, however, without being at all disturbed, went on with his discourse as before, the subject being temperance (swfrosuvnh). The lad, as he listened, by degrees (kat j ojlivgon) was taken in the toils.

Trans. A. M. Harmon, Lucian III, 117–19. Trans. R. D. Hicks, Diogenes Laertius I (LCL; Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925) 393.

691

Acts part 3C.indd 691

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

he was doing. At length he abandoned her then and there, and took up with me, not because I either invited or constrained him . . . but voluntarily, because he believed the conditions here were better.

Appendix 2: T  he “Sarapis Aretalogy” from ­Delos: The Foundation of a Cult

The Sarapis aretalogy from Delos of c. 200 bce , celebrating victory in a lawsuit brought against Apollonios, is inscribed upon a free-standing column, an Egyptian practice. The inscription has two sections: a prose record attributed to the priest Apollonios (II), twenty-eight lines in length, and a parallel poetic offering in sixty-five lines by one otherwise unknown Maiistas. These two accounts give two somewhat different perspectives upon the same events.3 The priest Apollonios recorded (this) in accordance with the command of the god. For our grandfather, Apollonios, being an Egyptian, (one) of the priests, arrived from Egypt with [a statue of] the god and continued serving (him) as was traditional, [5] and he is thought to have lived ninety-seven years. My father, Demetrios, having succeeded and likewise served the gods, was honored for his piety by the god with a bronze statue, which is set up in the temple [10] of the god; and he lived sixty-one years. After I took over the rites and attended scrupulously to the services,4 the god informed me in a 3

He became so industrious as to surpass all the other scholars, and rose to be himself head of the school . . .

dream that a Sarapeion of his own must be dedicated to him, and that it should not be in leased (quarters) [15] as before, and that he would find the place himself where it was to be built, and that he would indicate the place. This happened. For this place was full of dung; it was listed for [20] sale on a little notice on the path through the market place; and as the god wished, the sale took place and the temple was built quickly in six months. But some (tine~) conspired against us and the god and brought a public charge against the temple and myself about what penalty should be suffered or what fine paid, but the god promised [25] me in a dream, “We shall win.”5 And the trial having been completed and we, having won in a manner worthy of the god, praise the gods, rendering proper thanks. And Maiistas also wrote on behalf of the temple regarding this case: [30] Manifold and awesome are your works, far-famed Sarapis, and also those of your consort [Isis]; some of them are hymned in the ramparts of divine Egypt, others throughout Hellas. As saviors you ever attend good persons whose minds always remain fixed upon holy things. [35] Now also in ­sea-girt Delos

SIG 3 663, lines 1–29, trans. Stanley M. Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII (translated Documents of Greece & Rome 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) no. 102, pp. 130–31. For another version see M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 4 versity Press, 1981) no. 131, pp. 226–27. My translation of Maiistas’s difficult accompanying poetic account (lines 29–94) has benefited from Roussel’s French version and from that of Danker, Benefactor, no. 27, pp. 187–88. Bibliography includes: 5 Pierre Roussel, Les cultes égyptiens à Délos du IIIe au Ier siècle av. J.C. (Nancy: Berger-Levrault, 1916); Andre-Jean Festugière, Personal Religion among the Greeks (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954) 68–84; Philippe Bruneau, Recherches sur les

cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et a l’époque imperiale (Paris: Boccard, 1970); Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy; L. Michael White, Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) 31–40. The translation obscures one ambiguity and masks an important concept. The word ta; iJerav (line 12) could refer to sacred objects, including statues of the Egyptian gods, or to rites performed in their presence. The latter is selected as it is more inclusive and may be a metonym. Or: “promised that we would win.” Direct speech is more “aretalogical” and vivid. See Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 24, for a parallel.

692

Acts part 3C.indd 692

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

he was doing. At length he abandoned her then and there, and took up with me, not because I either invited or constrained him . . . but voluntarily, because he believed the conditions here were better.

Appendix 2: T  he “Sarapis Aretalogy” from ­Delos: The Foundation of a Cult

The Sarapis aretalogy from Delos of c. 200 bce , celebrating victory in a lawsuit brought against Apollonios, is inscribed upon a free-standing column, an Egyptian practice. The inscription has two sections: a prose record attributed to the priest Apollonios (II), twenty-eight lines in length, and a parallel poetic offering in sixty-five lines by one otherwise unknown Maiistas. These two accounts give two somewhat different perspectives upon the same events.3 The priest Apollonios recorded (this) in accordance with the command of the god. For our grandfather, Apollonios, being an Egyptian, (one) of the priests, arrived from Egypt with [a statue of] the god and continued serving (him) as was traditional, [5] and he is thought to have lived ninety-seven years. My father, Demetrios, having succeeded and likewise served the gods, was honored for his piety by the god with a bronze statue, which is set up in the temple [10] of the god; and he lived sixty-one years. After I took over the rites and attended scrupulously to the services,4 the god informed me in a 3

He became so industrious as to surpass all the other scholars, and rose to be himself head of the school . . .

dream that a Sarapeion of his own must be dedicated to him, and that it should not be in leased (quarters) [15] as before, and that he would find the place himself where it was to be built, and that he would indicate the place. This happened. For this place was full of dung; it was listed for [20] sale on a little notice on the path through the market place; and as the god wished, the sale took place and the temple was built quickly in six months. But some (tine~) conspired against us and the god and brought a public charge against the temple and myself about what penalty should be suffered or what fine paid, but the god promised [25] me in a dream, “We shall win.”5 And the trial having been completed and we, having won in a manner worthy of the god, praise the gods, rendering proper thanks. And Maiistas also wrote on behalf of the temple regarding this case: [30] Manifold and awesome are your works, far-famed Sarapis, and also those of your consort [Isis]; some of them are hymned in the ramparts of divine Egypt, others throughout Hellas. As saviors you ever attend good persons whose minds always remain fixed upon holy things. [35] Now also in ­sea-girt Delos

SIG 3 663, lines 1–29, trans. Stanley M. Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII (translated Documents of Greece & Rome 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) no. 102, pp. 130–31. For another version see M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 4 versity Press, 1981) no. 131, pp. 226–27. My translation of Maiistas’s difficult accompanying poetic account (lines 29–94) has benefited from Roussel’s French version and from that of Danker, Benefactor, no. 27, pp. 187–88. Bibliography includes: 5 Pierre Roussel, Les cultes égyptiens à Délos du IIIe au Ier siècle av. J.C. (Nancy: Berger-Levrault, 1916); Andre-Jean Festugière, Personal Religion among the Greeks (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954) 68–84; Philippe Bruneau, Recherches sur les

cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et a l’époque imperiale (Paris: Boccard, 1970); Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy; L. Michael White, Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) 31–40. The translation obscures one ambiguity and masks an important concept. The word ta; iJerav (line 12) could refer to sacred objects, including statues of the Egyptian gods, or to rites performed in their presence. The latter is selected as it is more inclusive and may be a metonym. Or: “promised that we would win.” Direct speech is more “aretalogical” and vivid. See Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 24, for a parallel.

692

Acts part 3C.indd 692

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

Appendix 3

you have made manifest the sacred images served by Apollonios and brought them great fame. Long ago Apollonios’s grandfather brought the sacred objects from Memphis itself, when he came to the city of Phoebus on a many-benched ship. Reluctantly, he set you up in his own lodgings [40] and sought to please you with offerings of incense. When fate overtook him, aged man that he was, he left his son Demetrios, in whom the faithful continually rejoiced, to serve you as priest in your quarters. You heard his wish for a bronze statue [of himself] to be placed in your shrine and ably fulfilled it by appearing [45] at night to the one who was performing the ancestral service,6 coming to him as he lay asleep in bed to urge that he fulfill this obligation. But when destiny forsook him as an old man, his son, well instructed by his father, continued to observe the sacred duties excellently. Day by day he sang of your wonders and continually prayed that you [50] would directly designate, in a nocturnal dream, where he should erect a shrine for you, so that you might remain secure and uninterrupted within your own enclosure, no longer compelled to flit from one door to another. You revealed that there was a place, previously undistinguished, [55] filled, in fact, with a long‑accumulated pile of every kind of refuse. Drawing near to his bed at night you said, “Get up and go to the door in the middle of the stoa (leading to the agora). There you will see a notice written on a scrap of papyrus. This will inform you, when you grasp its meaning, of where you are to erect for me my precinct and distinguished shrine. [60] Marveling, he arose and went with haste, joyfully beheld the notice, and paid the sum requested for the plot of Appendix 3: Political Activity by a Guild I. Eph. 2158 c. 200

ce

[. . .] and in accordance with agreements [. . . so that] it happens from time to time that the people (to;n dh`mon) are thrown into disorder and rioting (eij~ tarach;n kai; 6

ground. Because you willed it, the shrine went up readily, and the altars for sacrifice, the precinct, and the hall, [65] with all its seats and couches for the meals to which the god summons guests, were completed. Then wicked Envy made wicked men mad as rabid dogs. These creatures filed suit against your minister on two counts, both insubstantial.7 They resorted to a wicked ordinance prescribing both punishment and fine. Day and night the priest’s heart [70] trembled with horrible fear, but he pleaded in tears for you to come and protect your suppliant from the shame of a fine and to deliver him from the evil fate of death. [75] You, ever mindful and attentive, did not neglect him. Appearing by his bed at night, you said, “Put misery out of your mind. Not a single vote will be cast against you, for this action is actually directed at me. No one will speak [80] more convincingly than I. You have no need for further worry.” Now when the date of the trial arrived, the whole city, including all those of foreign origins, gathered at the shrine to hear the proceedings, which were, in fact, divinely directed. At that time you, together with your consort, [85] produced an astonishing sight for mortals. For, just as they were beginning to formulate their charges, you bound those wicked fellows, clamping their jaws and making them inaudible, so that no one discerned a word, no, not even a syllable of their accusation. They were frozen like those struck by god-sent lightning [90] or statues of stone. All the people marveled at your miraculous power on that day, and praise of your servant redounded throughout god-built Delos. Hail, blessed and much-praised Sarapis, and you his consort, and the other gods who dwell in our shrine. qoruvbou~) by the reckless, [?misleading] rhetoric of the bakers’ faction in the market place (ajgora/`), riots (stavsewn) for which they ought already to have been arrested and brought to justice. But since the city’s welfare must be given higher priority than punishing these men, I have thought it best to bring them to their

Lines 43–46 are quite difficult. The text must be emended. A number of proposals have been advanced. This version accords with the proposals of Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 32–36 (who follows R. Merkelbach). Engelmann presumes that the event in question is that of lines 9–11, the statue of Demetrios. This makes sense.

7 8

Insubstantial: literally “windy,” implying both absence of substance and verbosity. Trans. Levick, Government, 201–2 n. 194 (= F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926], n. 124). On this inscription, see also W. H. Buckler, “Labour Disputes

693

Acts part 3C.indd 693

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

Appendix 3

you have made manifest the sacred images served by Apollonios and brought them great fame. Long ago Apollonios’s grandfather brought the sacred objects from Memphis itself, when he came to the city of Phoebus on a many-benched ship. Reluctantly, he set you up in his own lodgings [40] and sought to please you with offerings of incense. When fate overtook him, aged man that he was, he left his son Demetrios, in whom the faithful continually rejoiced, to serve you as priest in your quarters. You heard his wish for a bronze statue [of himself] to be placed in your shrine and ably fulfilled it by appearing [45] at night to the one who was performing the ancestral service,6 coming to him as he lay asleep in bed to urge that he fulfill this obligation. But when destiny forsook him as an old man, his son, well instructed by his father, continued to observe the sacred duties excellently. Day by day he sang of your wonders and continually prayed that you [50] would directly designate, in a nocturnal dream, where he should erect a shrine for you, so that you might remain secure and uninterrupted within your own enclosure, no longer compelled to flit from one door to another. You revealed that there was a place, previously undistinguished, [55] filled, in fact, with a long‑accumulated pile of every kind of refuse. Drawing near to his bed at night you said, “Get up and go to the door in the middle of the stoa (leading to the agora). There you will see a notice written on a scrap of papyrus. This will inform you, when you grasp its meaning, of where you are to erect for me my precinct and distinguished shrine. [60] Marveling, he arose and went with haste, joyfully beheld the notice, and paid the sum requested for the plot of Appendix 3: Political Activity by a Guild I. Eph. 2158 c. 200

ce

[. . .] and in accordance with agreements [. . . so that] it happens from time to time that the people (to;n dh`mon) are thrown into disorder and rioting (eij~ tarach;n kai; 6

ground. Because you willed it, the shrine went up readily, and the altars for sacrifice, the precinct, and the hall, [65] with all its seats and couches for the meals to which the god summons guests, were completed. Then wicked Envy made wicked men mad as rabid dogs. These creatures filed suit against your minister on two counts, both insubstantial.7 They resorted to a wicked ordinance prescribing both punishment and fine. Day and night the priest’s heart [70] trembled with horrible fear, but he pleaded in tears for you to come and protect your suppliant from the shame of a fine and to deliver him from the evil fate of death. [75] You, ever mindful and attentive, did not neglect him. Appearing by his bed at night, you said, “Put misery out of your mind. Not a single vote will be cast against you, for this action is actually directed at me. No one will speak [80] more convincingly than I. You have no need for further worry.” Now when the date of the trial arrived, the whole city, including all those of foreign origins, gathered at the shrine to hear the proceedings, which were, in fact, divinely directed. At that time you, together with your consort, [85] produced an astonishing sight for mortals. For, just as they were beginning to formulate their charges, you bound those wicked fellows, clamping their jaws and making them inaudible, so that no one discerned a word, no, not even a syllable of their accusation. They were frozen like those struck by god-sent lightning [90] or statues of stone. All the people marveled at your miraculous power on that day, and praise of your servant redounded throughout god-built Delos. Hail, blessed and much-praised Sarapis, and you his consort, and the other gods who dwell in our shrine. qoruvbou~) by the reckless, [?misleading] rhetoric of the bakers’ faction in the market place (ajgora/`), riots (stavsewn) for which they ought already to have been arrested and brought to justice. But since the city’s welfare must be given higher priority than punishing these men, I have thought it best to bring them to their

Lines 43–46 are quite difficult. The text must be emended. A number of proposals have been advanced. This version accords with the proposals of Engelmann, Delian Aretalogy, 32–36 (who follows R. Merkelbach). Engelmann presumes that the event in question is that of lines 9–11, the statue of Demetrios. This makes sense.

7 8

Insubstantial: literally “windy,” implying both absence of substance and verbosity. Trans. Levick, Government, 201–2 n. 194 (= F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926], n. 124). On this inscription, see also W. H. Buckler, “Labour Disputes

693

Acts part 3C.indd 693

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

senses with an edict. Consequently I order the bakers not to meet as an association (sunevrcesqai . . . katÆ eJtairivan) and not to become the ringleaders in reckless behaviour. They are in every respect to obey those appointed to defend the interest of the community (peiqarcei`n de; pavntw~ toi`~ uJpe;r tou` koinh/` sumfev­ ronto~) and are to supply the city with a reliable baking service (ejrgasivan). Whenever from now on one of them is caught attending a meeting contrary to the proclamation or initiating any riot or factional disturbance (qoruvbou tino;~ kai; stavsew~) he shall be arrested Appendix 4: Artemidorus Oneirocritica 2.23.9

Artemidorus is traditionally located in Ephesus during the mid to late second century. Dreaming that one is at sea and, indeed, that one has a safe voyage is good for everyone. But encountering a tempest portends disturbances and dangers. A shipwreck in which the vessel is overturned [or destroyed]10 or shattered upon rocks portends harm for all but those who are being forcibly held by others and slaves. It indicates that they will be released from those who restrain them. For the ship symbolizes the men who surround them [. . .]11 but it is always better to sail in a large vessel that is carrying solid freight, since small boats, even on a good voyage, signify good things that involve some element of fear. Furthermore, it is always better to sail and to sail safely on the sea than on land. For if a man dreams that he is sailing on land, it signifies that the good fulfillments will be slower in coming, more troublesome, and will barely occur at all. It is worse to hit a storm when one is sailing by sea than on land. If a man dreams that he wishes to sail but is unable to do so or is forcibly held back by others, it signifies obstacles and delays in his undertakings. Likewise, sailing on land with trees or rocks in one’s way means delays and obstacles. But if a man dreams that from the land he sees ships that are

and punished with the appropriate penalty. If a person plotting against the city goes so far as to go into hiding he shall in addition be marked [?] by branding with the word ‘decuria’ on the foot and the man who shelters such a person shall be subject to the same penalty. In the presidency of Claudius Modestus on the 4th day from the commencement of the month Clareon, at an [?] extraordinary meeting of the council, Marcellinus said: “a prime instance of the lunacy of the shop foremen was given yesterday by Hermias, the man attached to [. . .]”

sailing safely on the sea, it is auspicious for everyone and is symbolic of travel [. . .] it also signals the return of those who are abroad and it has often foretold the arrival of news from beyond the sea. Ships weighing anchor signify that the good fulfillments will come true more slowly; for they are just beginning the voyage. But ships that are landing and putting in port signify that the good fulfillments will come true more quickly; for they have come to the end of the voyage. Harbors and all moorings always signify friends and benefactors. Promontories and inlets, however, indicate those who are loved by us not of our own free choice but out of necessity and who themselves do not willingly show us kindness. Anchors signify what is necessary and secure in business. But they are not auspicious for travel. For anchors are always set down to hold ships firm. Stern-cables and all kinds of rope mooring cables are symbols of loans, work contracts, agreements, and sequestrations of property. The ship’s mast signifies the master [of a ship or of a household]; the prow signifies the officer in command at the bow; the top of the ship’s stern-post signifies the helmsman; the [rudders, the voyage itself or the children of the shipowner; the ship’s keel, the ship’s store;] ship’s tackling signifies the sailors; and the sailyard, the boatswain. And so whatever corresponds to the part

in the ­Province of Asia,” in W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1923) 27–50, esp. 30–31; Magie, Roman Rule, 1:635; NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 1, pp. 9–10; Lampe, “Acta 19,” 68–69; and Trebilco, “Asia,” 339.

9

Trans. Robert White, The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus (Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes, 1975) 103–4. 10 Bracketed items indicate what the editor would delete. 11 [. . .] marks a lacuna.

694

Acts part 3C.indd 694

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

senses with an edict. Consequently I order the bakers not to meet as an association (sunevrcesqai . . . katÆ eJtairivan) and not to become the ringleaders in reckless behaviour. They are in every respect to obey those appointed to defend the interest of the community (peiqarcei`n de; pavntw~ toi`~ uJpe;r tou` koinh/` sumfev­ ronto~) and are to supply the city with a reliable baking service (ejrgasivan). Whenever from now on one of them is caught attending a meeting contrary to the proclamation or initiating any riot or factional disturbance (qoruvbou tino;~ kai; stavsew~) he shall be arrested Appendix 4: Artemidorus Oneirocritica 2.23.9

Artemidorus is traditionally located in Ephesus during the mid to late second century. Dreaming that one is at sea and, indeed, that one has a safe voyage is good for everyone. But encountering a tempest portends disturbances and dangers. A shipwreck in which the vessel is overturned [or destroyed]10 or shattered upon rocks portends harm for all but those who are being forcibly held by others and slaves. It indicates that they will be released from those who restrain them. For the ship symbolizes the men who surround them [. . .]11 but it is always better to sail in a large vessel that is carrying solid freight, since small boats, even on a good voyage, signify good things that involve some element of fear. Furthermore, it is always better to sail and to sail safely on the sea than on land. For if a man dreams that he is sailing on land, it signifies that the good fulfillments will be slower in coming, more troublesome, and will barely occur at all. It is worse to hit a storm when one is sailing by sea than on land. If a man dreams that he wishes to sail but is unable to do so or is forcibly held back by others, it signifies obstacles and delays in his undertakings. Likewise, sailing on land with trees or rocks in one’s way means delays and obstacles. But if a man dreams that from the land he sees ships that are

and punished with the appropriate penalty. If a person plotting against the city goes so far as to go into hiding he shall in addition be marked [?] by branding with the word ‘decuria’ on the foot and the man who shelters such a person shall be subject to the same penalty. In the presidency of Claudius Modestus on the 4th day from the commencement of the month Clareon, at an [?] extraordinary meeting of the council, Marcellinus said: “a prime instance of the lunacy of the shop foremen was given yesterday by Hermias, the man attached to [. . .]”

sailing safely on the sea, it is auspicious for everyone and is symbolic of travel [. . .] it also signals the return of those who are abroad and it has often foretold the arrival of news from beyond the sea. Ships weighing anchor signify that the good fulfillments will come true more slowly; for they are just beginning the voyage. But ships that are landing and putting in port signify that the good fulfillments will come true more quickly; for they have come to the end of the voyage. Harbors and all moorings always signify friends and benefactors. Promontories and inlets, however, indicate those who are loved by us not of our own free choice but out of necessity and who themselves do not willingly show us kindness. Anchors signify what is necessary and secure in business. But they are not auspicious for travel. For anchors are always set down to hold ships firm. Stern-cables and all kinds of rope mooring cables are symbols of loans, work contracts, agreements, and sequestrations of property. The ship’s mast signifies the master [of a ship or of a household]; the prow signifies the officer in command at the bow; the top of the ship’s stern-post signifies the helmsman; the [rudders, the voyage itself or the children of the shipowner; the ship’s keel, the ship’s store;] ship’s tackling signifies the sailors; and the sailyard, the boatswain. And so whatever corresponds to the part

in the ­Province of Asia,” in W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1923) 27–50, esp. 30–31; Magie, Roman Rule, 1:635; NewDocs 4 (1987) no. 1, pp. 9–10; Lampe, “Acta 19,” 68–69; and Trebilco, “Asia,” 339.

9

Trans. Robert White, The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus (Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes, 1975) 103–4. 10 Bracketed items indicate what the editor would delete. 11 [. . .] marks a lacuna.

694

Acts part 3C.indd 694

8/27/2008 10:25:05 AM

Appendix 5

of a ship riding at anchor that is destroyed will also be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the ship is at sea, this signifies that the ship will be gripped by a violent storm and that the part in question will be in extraordinary danger. The spot where lightning strikes the ship determines where the storm will arise. I know of a shipowner who dreamt that he had lost the images of the gods that had been set up in the boat. He was overwhelmed by fear and he thought that the dream signified destruction. Appendix 5: Endings I. A Romantic Novel.

De Chaerea et Callirhoe 8.7.15–16.12 “Thank you, Aphrodite!” Callirhoe said. “You have shown Chaereas to me once more in Syracuse, where I saw him as a maiden at your desire. I do not blame you, my lady, for what I have suffered; it was my fate. Do not separate me from Chaereas again, I beg of you; grant us a happy life together, and let us die together.” II. Other Types of Novels, and the Like

A. Apuleius of Madaura Metamorphoses 11.30.13 Then, once more shaving my head completely, neither covering up nor hiding my baldness, but displaying it wherever I went, I joyfully carried out the duties of that ancient priesthood [the pastophori], founded in the days of Sulla. B. The Story of Apollonius King of Tyre 51.14 Apollonius lived for seventy-four years with his wife and ruled over Antioch and Tyre. He lived quietly and happily with his wife. Having completed the course of their lives in the number of years that I mentioned, they died peacefully in their untroubled old age. C. The Life of Aesop 142.15 Aesop cursed the people of Delphi, called upon Apollo, the head of the Muses, to bear witness that he was dying unjustly, and threw himself off the cliff. In this way he ended his life. But when the Delphians were afflicted with a plague, they consulted an oracle from Zeus, which stated that they 12 13 14 15

But the exact opposite occurred, since everything fell out to the good. He earned a great deal of money and paid off his debts to the usurers who held the ship on a mortgage. As a result, no one besides himself had a claim upon the boat. It is always good luck to dream of the sea heaving with dumb swell and rising in waves for it foretells great success in business. But a calm sea signifies unemployment because of its lack of movement. A tempest means disturbances and losses, since it causes these very things. should expiate the death of Aesop. And when the Greeks, Babylonians, and Samians heard of Aesop’s execution, they avenged his death. D. The Acts of Paul 11/14.16 [3. Nero orders that Paul be beheaded.] 5. And turning toward the east, Paul lifted up his hands to heaven and prayed at length; and after having conversed in Hebrew with the fathers during prayer he bent his neck, without speaking any more. When the executioner cut off his head milk splashed on the tunic of the soldier. And the soldier and all who stood near by were astonished at this sight and glorified God who had thus honoured Paul . . . [6. Paul appears to Nero] 7. And, as Paul had told them, Longus and Cestus, the centurion, came in fear very early to the grave of Paul. And when they drew near they found two men in prayer and Paul with them, and they became frightened when they saw the unexpected miracle, but Titus and Luke, being afraid at the sight of Longus and Cestus turned to run away. But they followed and said to them, “We follow you not in order to kill you, blessed men of God, as you imagine, but in order to live, that you may do to us as Paul promised us.” [Titus and Luke then baptize Longus and Cestus, followed by a concluding doxology.] III. Biblical Texts

A. 2 Kings 25:27-30 (cf. Jeremiah 52:31-34). In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the

Trans. Brian P. Reardon, in idem, Novels, 124. Trans. Hanson, Apuleius II, 359. Trans. G. N. Sanday, in Reardon, Novels, 772. Trans. Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical

Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997) 215. 16 Trans. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 387–88.

695

Acts part 3C.indd 695

8/27/2008 10:25:06 AM

Appendix 5

of a ship riding at anchor that is destroyed will also be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the ship is at sea, this signifies that the ship will be gripped by a violent storm and that the part in question will be in extraordinary danger. The spot where lightning strikes the ship determines where the storm will arise. I know of a shipowner who dreamt that he had lost the images of the gods that had been set up in the boat. He was overwhelmed by fear and he thought that the dream signified destruction. Appendix 5: Endings I. A Romantic Novel.

De Chaerea et Callirhoe 8.7.15–16.12 “Thank you, Aphrodite!” Callirhoe said. “You have shown Chaereas to me once more in Syracuse, where I saw him as a maiden at your desire. I do not blame you, my lady, for what I have suffered; it was my fate. Do not separate me from Chaereas again, I beg of you; grant us a happy life together, and let us die together.” II. Other Types of Novels, and the Like

A. Apuleius of Madaura Metamorphoses 11.30.13 Then, once more shaving my head completely, neither covering up nor hiding my baldness, but displaying it wherever I went, I joyfully carried out the duties of that ancient priesthood [the pastophori], founded in the days of Sulla. B. The Story of Apollonius King of Tyre 51.14 Apollonius lived for seventy-four years with his wife and ruled over Antioch and Tyre. He lived quietly and happily with his wife. Having completed the course of their lives in the number of years that I mentioned, they died peacefully in their untroubled old age. C. The Life of Aesop 142.15 Aesop cursed the people of Delphi, called upon Apollo, the head of the Muses, to bear witness that he was dying unjustly, and threw himself off the cliff. In this way he ended his life. But when the Delphians were afflicted with a plague, they consulted an oracle from Zeus, which stated that they 12 13 14 15

But the exact opposite occurred, since everything fell out to the good. He earned a great deal of money and paid off his debts to the usurers who held the ship on a mortgage. As a result, no one besides himself had a claim upon the boat. It is always good luck to dream of the sea heaving with dumb swell and rising in waves for it foretells great success in business. But a calm sea signifies unemployment because of its lack of movement. A tempest means disturbances and losses, since it causes these very things. should expiate the death of Aesop. And when the Greeks, Babylonians, and Samians heard of Aesop’s execution, they avenged his death. D. The Acts of Paul 11/14.16 [3. Nero orders that Paul be beheaded.] 5. And turning toward the east, Paul lifted up his hands to heaven and prayed at length; and after having conversed in Hebrew with the fathers during prayer he bent his neck, without speaking any more. When the executioner cut off his head milk splashed on the tunic of the soldier. And the soldier and all who stood near by were astonished at this sight and glorified God who had thus honoured Paul . . . [6. Paul appears to Nero] 7. And, as Paul had told them, Longus and Cestus, the centurion, came in fear very early to the grave of Paul. And when they drew near they found two men in prayer and Paul with them, and they became frightened when they saw the unexpected miracle, but Titus and Luke, being afraid at the sight of Longus and Cestus turned to run away. But they followed and said to them, “We follow you not in order to kill you, blessed men of God, as you imagine, but in order to live, that you may do to us as Paul promised us.” [Titus and Luke then baptize Longus and Cestus, followed by a concluding doxology.] III. Biblical Texts

A. 2 Kings 25:27-30 (cf. Jeremiah 52:31-34). In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the

Trans. Brian P. Reardon, in idem, Novels, 124. Trans. Hanson, Apuleius II, 359. Trans. G. N. Sanday, in Reardon, Novels, 772. Trans. Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical

Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997) 215. 16 Trans. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 387–88.

695

Acts part 3C.indd 695

8/27/2008 10:25:06 AM

year that he began to reign, released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison; 28 he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes. Every day of his life he dined regularly in the king’s presence. 30 For his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, a portion every day, as long as he lived. B. 2 Chronicles 36:23. “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up.” C. 2 Maccabees 15:37. This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor, and from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews. So I will here end my story. IV. Epic

A. Homer Iliad 24.801–4.17 And once they’d heaped the mound they turned back home to Troy, and gathering once again they shared a splendid funeral feast in Hector’s honor, held in the house of Priam, king by will of Zeus. And so the Trojans buried Hector breaker of horses. B. Vergil Aeneid 12.950–52.18 He sank his blade in fury in Turnus’ chest. Then all the body slackened in death’s chill, and with a groan for that indignity his spirit fled into the gloom below.

V. Greco-Roman Historiography

A. Monograph. Sallust The War with Jugurtha 114.3–4.19 [The Gauls have defeated a Roman army.] But when it was announced that the war in Numidia was ended and that Jugurtha was being brought a captive to Rome, Marius was made consul in his absence and Gaul was assigned him as his province. On the Kalends of January he entered upon his office and celebrated a triumph of great magnificence. At that time the hopes and welfare of our country were in his hands. B. Particular History. Josephus Jewish War 7.451–53. [ Josephus closes this work with an account of the fate of the wicked governor of Libya, Catullus, who had attempted to implicate a number of Alexandrian and Roman Jews of high status in an anti-Roman conspiracy. Among those so maligned was one Josephus.] Catullus . . . was attacked by a complicated and incurable disease and came to a miserable end, not only chastised in body, but yet more deeply deranged in mind. For he was haunted by terrors and was continually crying out that he saw the ghosts of his murdered victims standing at his side; and, unable to restrain himself, he would leap from his bed as if torture and fire were being applied to him. His malady ever growing rapidly worse, his bowels ulcerated and fell out; and so he died, affording a demonstration no less striking than any, how God in his providence inflicts punishment on the wicked.20

17 Trans. Robert Fagles, Homer: The Iliad (New York: Penguin, 1991) 614. 18 Trans. Robert Fitzgerald, The Aeneid of Virgil (New York: Vintage, 1984) 402.

19 “et ea tempestate spes atque opes civitatis in illo sitae,” trans. Rolfe, Sallust, 379–81. 20 Trans. Thackeray Josephus II, 631–33.

696

Acts part 3C.indd 696

8/27/2008 10:25:06 AM

Bibliography

Commentaries Ephrem Syrus Cited from the Latin translation from the Armenian of F. C. Conybeare, in James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 373–453. Chrysostom, John Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, cited with references to the Greek text of Bernard De Montfaucon (Paris: Gaume, 1837) in the author’s translation or to the version of J. Walker et al., Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans (1889; NPF 11; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). Arator Historia Apostolica, ed. A. P. Orbán (CCSL 130, 130a; Turnholt: Brepols, 2006). Bede Expositio Actuum Apostolorum; Retractatio in Actus Apostolorum, ed. M. L. W. Laistner (CCSL 121; Turnholt: Brepols, 1983). Isho’dad of Merv The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 a.d) in Syriac and English, vol. 4: Acts of the Apostles and Three Catholic Epistles in Syriac and English (ed. and trans. M. D. Gibson; Horae Semiticae 10; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913). Calvin, Jean The Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald), vols. 6–7 of Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Bengel, Johann A. Gnomon Novi Testamenti (3rd ed.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1862) 388–489. Overbeck, Franz Kurze Erklärung der Apostlegeschichte (4th ed. of Wilhelm M. L. de Wette Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1.4; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1870). Zeller, Eduard The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, Critically Investigated (trans. J. Dare; 2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1875–76). Schlatter, Adolf Die Apostelgeschichte ausgelegt für Bibelleser (Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1902). Rackham, Richard B. The Acts of the Apostles (2nd ed.; London: ­Methuen, 1904). Belser, Johannes E. Die Apostelgeschichte (Vienna: Mayer, 1905).

Preuschen, Erwin Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck, 1912). Wendt, Hans H. Die Apostelgeschichte (9th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913). Loisy, Alfred Les Actes des apôtres (Paris: Nourry, 1920). Zahn, Theodor Die Apostelgeschichte (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; 2 vols.; Leipzig: ­Deichert, 1921). Jacquier, Eugène Les Actes des apôtres (2nd ed.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1926). Foakes Jackson, Frederick J. The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Harper, 1931). Beyer, Hermann W. Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933; 4th ed., 1947). Steinmann, Alphons Die Apostelgeschichte (4th ed.; Bonn: Hanstein, 1934). Knox, Wilfred L. The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948). Wikenhauser, Alfred Die Apostelgeschichte (3rd ed.; RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1956). Williams, Charles S. C. The Acts of the Apostles (HNTC; New York: Harper, 1957). Stählin, Gustav Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962; 1965). Dupont, Jacques Les Actes des Apôtres (3rd ed.; SBJ; Paris: Cerf, 1964). Williams, Ronald Ralph Acts of the Apostles (Torch Commentaries; London: SCM, 1965). Packer, J. W. The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: University Press, 1966). Munck, Johannes The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967). Haenchen, Ernst The Acts of the Apostles (trans. and ed. B. Noble et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), ET of Die Apostleschichte (14th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). Ghidelli, Carlo Atti degli Apostli (Sacra Bibbia; Torino: Marietti, 1978).

697

Acts Bib C.indd 697

8/27/2008 1:51:03 PM

Bauernfeind, Otto Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980). Marshall, I. Howard The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). Schneider, Gerhard Die Apostelgeschichte (HThK 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder & Herder, 1980–82). Weiser, Alfons Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖKTNT 5.1/2; ­Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981, 1985). Krodel, Gerhard Acts (ACNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986). Roloff, Jürgen Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles,” in F. E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 9:207–573. Schmithals, Walter Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (Zürcher Bibelkommentar; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982). Schille, Gottfried Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (ThHKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983). Fabris, Rinaldo Atti degli Apostoli (2nd ed.; Rome: Borla, 1984). Pesch, Rudolph Die Apostelgeschichte (EKK; 2 vols.; Zurich: ­Benziger, 1986). Conzelmann, Hans Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Gourges, Michel Mission et communauté (Actes des apôtres 1–12) (Cahiers Evangile 60; Paris: Cerf, 1987). Idem L’Evangile aux païens (Actes des apôtres 13–28) (Cahiers Evangile 67; Paris: Cerf, 1989). Arrington, French L. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988). Bruce, Frederick F. The Book of Acts (NICNT; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; 3rd ed., 1990). Mussner, Franz Apostelgeschichte (2nd ed.; Die neue Echter-Bibel NT 5; Würzburg: Echter, 1988). Boismard, Marie-Émile, and Arnaud Lamouille Les Actes des deux Apôtres (3 vols.; EB 13; Paris: Gabalda, 1990).

Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles (SacPag; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992). Polhill, John B. Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman, 1992). Barrett, Charles Kingsley A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998). Taylor, Justin Les Actes des deux Apôtres: Commentaire historique IV–VI (EB 23, 30, 41; Paris: Gabalda, 1994–2000). Zmijewski, Josef Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT; Regensburg: Pustett, 1994). Bossuyt, P., and J. Radermakers Témoins de la parole de la grâce: Lecture des Actes des Apôtres (2 vols.; Collection de l’Institut d’Études Théologiques 16; Brussels: Collection de l’Institut d’Études Théologiques, 1995). Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (3rd ed.; NTC; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles (Epworth Commentaries; Peterborough: Epworth, 1996). Bock, Darrell L. Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997). Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998). Jervell, Jacob Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Walaskay, Paul W. Acts (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). Witherington, Ben, III The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998). Eckey, Wilfried Die Apostelgeschichte: Der Weg des Evangeliums von Jerusalem nach Rom (2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000). Barbi, Augusto Atti degli Apostoli (Capitoli 1–14) (Padua: Messaggero, 2003). Gaventa, Beverly Roberts The Acts of the Apostles (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003). Marguerat, Daniel Les Actes des Apôtres (1–12) (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 5a; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007).

698

Acts Bib C.indd 698

8/27/2008 1:51:03 PM

Studies Abrahamsen, Valerie, A. “Women at Philippi: The Pagan and Christian Evidence,” JFSR 3 (1987) 17–30. Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia: Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). Idem “Jesus and the Disciples as Miracle Workers in the Apocryphal New Testament,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 149–86. Idem “The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae,” JBL 91 (1972) 198–221. Idem The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Idem “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Cate­ nae,” JBL 89 (1970) 265–91. Acworth, Angus “Where Was St. Paul Shipwrecked? A Re-­ examination of the Evidence,” JTS 24 (1973) 190–93. Adams, Marilyn McCord “The Role of Miracles in the Structure of LukeActs,” in Eleanore Stump and Thomas P. Flint, eds., Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993) 235–65. Aejmelaeus, Lars Die Rezeption der Paulusbriefe in der Miletrede (Apg 20:18-35) (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). Africa, Thomas “Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Disease and History,” Classical Antiquity 1 (1982) 1–17. Agrell, Goran Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament (Lund: Verbum Hakan Ohlssons, 1976). Aland, Barbara “Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes untersucht an der Apostel­ geschicthe,” EThL 62 (1986) 5–65. Aland, Kurt, ed. Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993). Idem “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Ernest Best and Robert McL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Bibliography Aletti, Jean Noël Quand Luc raconte: Le récit comme théologie (Lire la Bible 115; Paris: Cerf, 1998). Alexander, Loveday C. A. “Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 31–63. Eadem Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 298; London: T&T Clark, 2005). Eadem “Formal Elements and Genre: Which GrecoRoman Prologues Most Closely Parallel the Lukan Prologues?” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 9–26. Eadem “Marathon or Jericho? Reading Acts in Dialogue with Biblical and Greek Historiography,” in D. G. A. Clines and S. D. Moore, eds., Auguries (JSNTS 269; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Eadem “The Preface to Acts and the Historians,” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 73–103. Eadem The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Idem “What If Luke Had Never Met Theophilus?” BibInt 8 (2000) 161–70. Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Functions of Retribution in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 158; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Andersen, T. C. “The Meaning of ECONTES CARIN PROS in Acts 2.47,” NTS 34 (1988) 604–10. Anderson, Janice Capel “Reading Tabitha: A Feminist Reception History,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 22–48. Applebaum, Samuel “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora,” in Samuel Safrai et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT 1.1; Assen: Van G ­ orcum, 1974) 420–63.

699

Acts Bib C.indd 699

8/27/2008 1:51:03 PM

Idem “The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora,” in Samuel Safrai et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT 1.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974) 464–503. Arlandson, James M. “Lifestyles of the Rich and Christian: Women, Wealth, and Social Freedom,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 155–70. Idem Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996). Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians: Power and Magic; The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). Arterbury, Andrew E. “The Ancient Custom of Hospitality, the Greek Novels, and Acts 10:1—11:18,” PerspRelStud 29 (2002) 53–72. Artés Hernández, José Antonio “Lc 19, 1-10—Hch 20, 7-12—Passio Pauli I (104.8–106.15): Análisis comparativo,” FilolNT 16 (2003) 49–67. Ascough, Richard S. “Narrative Technique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton,” CBQ 58 (1996) 69–82. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem “Josephus and His Works,” in Michael E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2.2; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 185–232. Idem The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976). Auerbach, Erich Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Wilfred R. Trask; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957). Auffret, Pierre “Essai sur la structure littéraire du discours d’Athènes (Ac XVII 23-31),” NovT 20 (1978) 185–202. Aune, David E. “Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” in Alf Christophersen et al., eds., Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 138–48. Idem “Magic in Early Christianity,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1507–57.

Idem The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987). Idem Prophecy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Idem “Septem Sapientium Convivium (Moralia 146B–164D),” in Hans Dieter Betz, ed., Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 51–105. Avemarie, Friedrich Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte (WUNT 139; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Babbitt, Frank C. Plutarch, Moralia V (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938). Balance, M. H. “The Site of Derbe: A New Inscription,” Anatolian Studies 7 (1957) 147–51. Balch, David L. “Acts as Hellenistic Historiography,” SBLSP 1985 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 429–32. Idem “ajkribw`~ . . . gravyai (Luke 1:3): To Write the Full History of God’s Receiving All Nations,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 229–50. Idem “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in idem et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 52–79. Idem “Comments on the Genre and a Political Theme of Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 343–61. Idem “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1991) 5–19. Idem Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981). Idem “METABOLH POLITEIWN: Jesus as founder of the Church in Luke-Acts: Form and Function,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 139–88. Idem “Rich and Poor, Proud and Humble in Luke-Acts,” in L. Michael White and O. L. Yarbrough, eds., The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 214–33.

700

Acts Bib C.indd 700

8/27/2008 1:51:03 PM

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979). Balz, Horst “tevssare~,” TDNT 8:127–39. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Barnes, Timothy D. “An Apostle on Trial,” JTS 20 (1969) 407–19. Idem “Legislation against the Christians,” JRS 58 (1968) 32–50. Barr, David L., and Judith L. Wentling “The Conventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of Luke-Acts,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 63–88. Barrett, Charles Kingsley “Acts and Christian Consensus,” in Peter Wilhelm Bøckman and Ronald E. Kristiansen, eds., Context: Festskrift til Peder Johan Borgen/Essays in Honour of Peder Johan Borgen (Trondheim: Tapir, 1987) 19–33. Idem “Apollos and the Twelve Disciples of Ephesus,” in W. C. Weinrich, ed., The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (2 vols.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984) 29–39. Idem “Christocentricity at Antioch,” in Christoph Landmesser et al., eds., Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 323–40. Idem “The End of Acts,” in Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, eds., Geschichte— Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 3:545–55. Idem “The First New Testament?” NovT 38 (1996) 94–104. Idem “Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae?” in Ernest Best and Robert McL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 15–27. Idem “Light on the Holy Spirit from Simon Magus (Acts 8, 4-25), in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 281–95. Idem “Luke and Acts,” in J. Barclay and J. Sweet, eds., Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context (Festschrift Morna Hooker; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 84–94. Idem Luke the Historian in Recent Study (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970).

Bibliography Idem “Paul’s Address to the Ephesian Elders,” in Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977) 107–21. Idem “Paul Shipwrecked,” in Barry Thompson, ed., Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (Hull, U.K.: Hull University Press, 1987) 51–64. Idem “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,” in M. Glasswell and Edward Fasholé-Luke, eds., New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World: Essays in Honour of Harry Sawyer (London: SPCK, 1974). Idem “Theologia Crucis—In Acts?” in Carl Andresen and Günther Klein, eds., Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979) 73–84. Idem “The Third Gospel as a Preface to Acts? Some Ref lections,” in F. Van Segbroek et al., eds, The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols.; BEThL 100; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 2:1451–66. Barsby, John Terence II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). Bartchy, S. Scott “Agnoµstos Theos: Luke’s Message to the ‘Nations’ about Israel’s God.” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 304–20. Idem “Community of Goods in Acts: Idealization or Social Reality?” in Birger Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 309–18. Barton, Tamsyn Ancient Astrology (London: Routledge, 1994). Bassler, Jouette M. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979). Eadem “Luke and Paul on Impartiality,” Bib 66 (1985) 546–52. Bauckham, Richard “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 105–52. Idem, ed. The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

701

Acts Bib C.indd 701

8/27/2008 1:51:04 PM

Idem “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 154–84. Idem “Kerygmatic Summaries in the Speeches of Acts,” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 185–217. Baugh, Steven M. “Paul and Ephesus: The Apostle among His Contemporaries” (Diss., University of California, Irvine, 1990). Bauer, Walter Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. and ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). Idem “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition: 1. Accounts,” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; ET ed. Robert McL. Wilson; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2:35–74. Idem and Henning Paulsen Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarperbrief (HNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985). Bauernfeind, Otto “mavcomai,” TDNT 4:527–28. Idem “Tradition und Komposition in dem Apokatastasisspruch Apostelgeschichte 3,20f,” in Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Peter Schmidt, eds., Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel; Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 13–23. Idem “trevcw,” TDNT 8:226–35. Baumgärtel, Friedrich, and Johannes Behm “kardiva,” TDNT 3:605–13. Baumgarten, A. I. “The Name of the Pharisees,” JBL 102 (1983) 411–28. Bayer, Hans. F. “The Preaching of Peter in Acts,” in I. H. Marshall and David Peterson, eds., Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 257–74. Beatrice, Pier Franco “Apollos of Alexandria and the Origins of the Jewish-Christian Baptist Encratism,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1232–75. Béchard, Dean P. “The Disputed Case against Paul: A RedactionCritical Analysis of Acts 21:27—22:29,” CBQ 65 (2003) 232–50. Idem “Paul among the Rustics: The Lystran Episode (Acts 14:8-20) and Lucan Apologetic,” CBQ 63 (2001) 84–101.

Idem Paul outside the Walls: A Study of Luke’s Socio­Geographical Universalism in Acts 14:8-20 (AnBib 143; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000). Becker, Jürgen Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O. C. Dean, Jr.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Behm, Johannes “ai|ma,” TDNT 1:172–77. Idem “ajpofqevggomai,” TDNT 1:447. Idem “glw`ssa,” TDNT 1:719–27. Idem “quvw,” TDNT 3:180–90. Idem, and Werner Foerster “klh`ro~,” TDNT 3:758–85. Beker, Jan Christiaan Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Bendemann, Reinhard von “‘Many-Coloured Illnesses’ (Mark 1:34): On the Significance of Illnesses in New Testament Therapy Narratives,” in Michael Labahn and Bert L. Peerbolte, eds., Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 100–124. Benoit, André Le baptême chrétien au second siècle (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1953). Benoit, Pierre “La deuxième visite de Saint Paul à Jérusalem,” Bib 40 (1959) 778–92. Idem “La mort de Judas,” in Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 22. Februar 1953, dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (Münster: Aschendorff, 1954) 1–19. Berger, Klaus Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984). Idem “Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda im frühen Christentum: Simon Magus als Gestalt des Samaritanischen Cristentums,” in Lukas Bormann et al., eds., Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 313–17. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967). Bergholz, Thomas Der Aufbau des lukanischen Doppelwerkes: Untersuchungen zum formalliterarischen Charakter von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte (Europäische Hochschulschriften; Reihe 23 Theologie 545; Frankfurt: Lang, 1995).

702

Acts Bib C.indd 702

8/27/2008 1:51:04 PM

Bertram, Georg “oJrmhv,” TDNT 5:467–74. “wjdivn,” TDNT 9:667–74. Best, Ernest “Recipients and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and When the Designation ‘Ephesians’?” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987) 3247–79. Idem, and Robert McL. Wilson, eds. Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Betori, G. “La strutturazione del libro degli Atti: un pro­ posta,” RivB 42 (1994) 3–34. Betz, Hans Dieter Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972). Idem Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: ­Fortress Press, 1979). Idem The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, vol. 1: Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). Idem Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie, 1961). Idem “The Origin and Nature of Christian Faith according to the Emmaus Legend (Luke 24:13-32),” Int 23 (1969) 32–46. Idem, ed. Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Idem 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (ed. George W. MacRae; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Betz, Otto “sikavrio~,” TDNT 7:278–82. Beyer, Hermann W. “kubevrnhsi~,” TDNT 3:1035–37. Beyers, R., and J. Gijsel Libri de Nativitate Mariae (CCSA 9-10; Turnhout: Brepols, 1997). Beyschlag, Karlmann Clemens Romanus und der Frühkatholizismus (BHT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966). Idem Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis (WUNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974). Biblia Patristica, vol. 1: Des origins à Clément d’Alexandrie et Tertullien (Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques; Paris: Éditions du Center national de la recherché scientifique, 1975). Bickerman, Elias J. “The Name of Christians,” HTR 42 (1949) 109–24. Idem “The Warning Inscriptions from Herod’s Temple,” JQR 37 (1946–47) 387–405.

Bibliography Bieler, Ludwig QEIOS ANHR: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Früchristentum (2 vols.; 1935–36; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). Bienert, Wolfgang A. “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition,” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament ­Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; ET ed. Robert McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2:5–27. Bietenhard, Hans “pnivgw,” TDNT 6:455–58. Biguzzi, Giancarlo “Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation,” NovT 40 (1998) 276–90. Bihler, Johannes Die Stephanusgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Apostel­ geschichte (MThS 16; Munich: Max Hüber, 1961). Binder, Donald D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). Bird, Michael F. “The Unity of Luke-Acts in Recent Discussion,” JSNT 29 (2007) 425–48. Birley, Anthony R. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London: Routledge, 1997). Black, C. Clifton “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: ­Mercer University Press, 1998) 101–20. Black, Matthew “The Holy Spirit in the Western Text of Acts,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 159–70. Blaiklock, E. M. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). Idem “The Acts of the Apostles as a Document of First Century History,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 41–54. Blaisdell, James “The Authorship of the ‘We’ Sections of the Book of Acts,” HTR 13 (1920) 136–58. Blass, Friedrich Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: Editio philologica apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895). Idem Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898).

703

Acts Bib C.indd 703

8/27/2008 1:51:04 PM

Bligh, John Galatians (London: St. Paul’s Publications, 1969). Blinzer, Joseph “The Jewish Punishment of Stoning in the New Testament Period,” in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule (ed. Ernst Bammel; SBT 2nd ser. 13; London: SCM, 1970) 147–61. Blue, Bradley “Acts and the House Church,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 119–222. Bockmuehl, Markus “Why Not Let Acts Be Acts? In Conversation with C. Kavin Rowe,” JSNT 28 (2005) 163–66. Bodinger, M. “Les ‘Hébreux’ et les ‘Hellénistes’ dans le livre des Actes des Apôtres,” Henoch 19 (1997) 39–58. Boismard, Marie-Émile “Le ‘concile’ de Jérusalem (Act 15, 1-33): Essai de critique littéraire,” EThL 64 (1988) 433–40. Idem Le texte occidental des actes des apôtres (EB 40; Paris: Gabalda, 2000). Idem, and Arnaud Lamouille Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et réhabilition (2 vols.; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilizations, 1984). Bolchazy, Ladislaus J. Hospitality in Antiquity (Chicago: Ares, 1995). Bonner, Campbell “Desired Haven,” HTR 34 (1941) 49–67. Idem “A Note on Mark 6,20,” HTR 37 (1944) 41–44. Bonner, Stanley Frederick Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1949). Bonz, Marianne Palmer The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Borgen, Peder Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (BJS 131; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Bormann, Lukas Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus (NovTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Bornkamm, Gunther “luvko~,” TDNT 4:308–11. Idem Paul (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1971). Idem Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (trans. P. Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963). Borse, Ulrich “Die geschichtliche Absicherung (Luke 23,5-16) des christologischen Psalmwortes (Ps 2,1s/LXX)

und seiner Auslegung (Apg 4,25-28),” StudNTUmwelt 26 (2001) 129–38. Bouman, Gijs “Der Angang der Apostelgeschichte und der ‘westliche’ Text,” in Tjitze Baarda et al., eds., Text and Testimony: Essays on the New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (Kampen: Kok, 1988) 46–55. Bousset, Wilhelm Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (trans. John Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). Bovon, François “Beyond the Book of Acts: Stephen, the First Christian Martyr, in Traditions outside the New Testament Canon of Scripture,” PerspRelStud 32 (2005) 93–107. Idem “Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of Apostles,” JECS 11 (2003) 165–94. Idem De Vocatione Gentium: Histoire de l’interprétation d’Act. 10,1—11,18 dans les six premier siècles (BGBE 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967). Idem “The Law in Luke-Acts,” in idem, Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 59–73. Idem Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research (1950–1983) (trans. Ken McKinney; Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1987). Idem Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005) (2nd rev. ed.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006). Idem “The Reception of the Book of Acts in Antiquity,” forthcoming. Idem “Le Saint-Esprit, l’Église et les relations humaines selon Actes 20,36—21,16,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 339–58. Idem “‘Schön hat der heilige Geist durch den Propheten Jesaja zu euren Vätern gesprochen’ (Act 28,25),” ZNW 75 (1984) 224–32. Idem Studies in Early Christianity (WUNT 161; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Idem “The Synoptic Gospels and the Non-Canonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988) 19–36. Idem “Tradition et redaction en Actes 10,1—11,18,” TZ 26 (1970) 22–45.

704

Acts Bib C.indd 704

8/27/2008 1:51:04 PM

Idem “La vie des apôtres: Traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes,” in Bovon et al., eds., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 141–58. Idem et al., eds. Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981). Idem, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler, eds. Acta Philippi (CCSA 11–12; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999). Bowe, Barbara A Church in Crisis (HDR 23; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988). Bowen, Clayton R. “Paul’s Collection and the Book of Acts,” JBL 42 (1923) 49–58. Bowers, Paul “Paul and Religious Propaganda in the First Century,” NovT 22 (1980) 316–23. Bowersock, Glen W. Augustus and the Greek World (New York/London: Oxford University Press, 1965). Idem Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Idem Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (New York/London: Oxford University Press, 1969). Idem Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983). Bowker, John W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14 (1967–68) 96–104. Bratcher, Robert G. “Having Loosed the Pangs of Death,” BT 10 (1959) 18–20. Braun, Martin Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschrei­ bung (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike; Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1934). Idem History and Romance in Greco-Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938). Braund, David C. “Agrippa” (2), ABD 1:98–100. Idem “Bernice,” ABD 1:677–78. Idem “Felix,” ABD 2:783. Braunert, Horst “Der römische Provinzialzensus und der Schätzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums,” Historia 6 (1957) 192–214. Brawley, Robert L. “Ethical Borderlines between Rejection and Hope: Interpreting the Jews in Luke-Acts,” CurrTheolMiss 27 (2000) 415–23.

Bibliography Idem Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Idem Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995). Brehm, H. Alan “Vindicating the Rejected One: Stephen’s Speech as a Critique of the Jewish Leaders,” in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTS 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Bremmer, Jan N. “Magic, Martyrdom and Women’s Liberation in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” in idem, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 36–59. Brenk, Frederick E. “The Exorcism at Philippi in Acts 16.11-40: Divine Possession or Diabolic Inspiration?” FilolNT 13 (2000) 3–21. Idem, and Filippo Canali De Rossi “The ‘Notorious’ Felix, Procurator of Judea, and His Many Wives (Acts 23–24),” Bib 82 (2001) 410–17. Breytenbach, Cilliers Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f; 16,16; 18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (AGJU 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Idem “Zeus und der lebendige Gott: Anmerkungen zu Apostelgeschichte 14.11-17,” NTS 39 (1993) 396–413. Idem, and Jens Schröter, eds. Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichts­ schreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden: Brill, 2004). Brinkman, John A. “The Literary Background of the ‘Catalogue of the Nations’ (Acts 2, 9-11),” CBQ 25 (1963) 418–27. Brock, Sebastian “barnaba`~ uiJo~ ; paraklhvsew~,” JTS 25 (1974) 93–98. Brodie, Thomas L. “The Accusing and Stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8-13) as One Component of the Stephen Text (Acts 6:9-14; 7:58a),” CBQ 45 (1983) 417–32. Idem “Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke’s Use of Sources,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 17–46. Idem “Towards Unraveling Luke’s Uses of the Old Testament: Luke 7:11-17 as imitatio of 1 Kgs 17:17-24,” NTS 32 (1986) 247–67.

705

Acts Bib C.indd 705

8/27/2008 1:51:04 PM

Idem “Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kings 5 as One Component of Acts 8, 9-40,” Bib 67 (1986) 41–67. Brosend, William F., II “The Means of Absent Ends,” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 348–62. Broughton, Thomas Robert S. “The Roman Army,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 427–45. Idem “Three Notes on St. Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor,” in Robert Casey et al., eds., Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends (London: Christophers, 1927) 131–38. Brown, H. Stephen “Paul’s Hearing at Caesarea: A Preliminary Comparison with Legal Literature of the Roman Period,” SBLSP 1996 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 319–32. Brown, Lucinda A. “Tabitha,” in Carol Meyers, ed., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 161–62. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977). Idem The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives of the Four Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994). Brown, Raymond E., et al., eds. Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). Idem, and John P. Meier Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist, 1983). Brown, Schuyler Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (AnBib 36; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). Bruce, Frederick F. “The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction,” ANRW 2.25.3 (1984) 2569–603. Idem “Chronological Questions in the Acts of the ­Apostles,” BJRL 68 (1985–86) 273–95. Idem “The Full Name of the Procurator Felix,” JSNT 1 (1978) 33–36. Idem “Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?” BJRL 58 (1976) 282–305.

Idem Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977). Idem “Philip and the Ethiopian,” Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989) 377–86. Idem “St. Paul in Rome,” BJRL 46 (1964) 226–45. Brumbaugh, Robert S. The Philosophers of Greece (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981). Bruneau, Philippe Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et a l’époque impériale (Paris: Boccard, 1970). Bryan, Christopher “A Further Look at Acts 16:1-3,” JBL 107 (1988) 292–94. Büchsel, Friedrich “ajnavkrisi~,” TDNT 3:943–44. Idem “diakrivnw,” TDNT 3:946–49. Buckler, William H. “Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia,” in W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1923) 27–50. Buckwalter, H. Douglas The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology (SNTSMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Budesheim, Thomas L. “Paul’s Abschiedsrede in the Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 69 (1976) 9–30. Bull, Malcolm The Mirror of the Gods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Bultmann, Rudolf “ajgnoevw,” TDNT 1:116–21. Idem “ajfivhmi,” TDNT 1:509–12. Idem Exegetica (ed. Erich Dinkler; Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck, 1967). Idem The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; 2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968). Idem “qavnato~,” TDNT 3:7–25. Idem Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. K. Grobel; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955). Idem “Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostel­ geschichte,” in Angus J. B. Higgins, ed., New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959) 68–81 (= Exegetica, 412–23). Idem, and Kurt Rengstorf “ejlpiv~,” TDNT 2:517–35.

706

Acts Bib C.indd 706

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

Bunine, A. “Paul, Jaccques, Félix, Festus et les autres: pour une revision de la chronologie des derniers procurateurs del la Palestine,” RB 111 (2004) 387–408, 531–62. Burchard, Christoph Der dreizehnte Zeuge (FRLANT 103; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). Idem “eij nach einem Ausdruck des Wissens oder Nicht­ wissens Joh 9:25, Act 19:2, 1 Cor 1:16, 7:16,” ZNW 52 (1961) 73–82. Idem “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 2:177–247. Idem “A Note on JRHMA in JosAs 17:1f.; Luke 2:15, 17; Acts 10:37,” NovT 27 (1985) 281–95. Idem “Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte,” ThLZ 100 (1975) 881–95. Idem Untersuchungen zur Joseph und Asenath (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965). Burkert, Walter Greek Religion (trans. J. Raffan; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985). Idem Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (trans. Peter Bing; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with GraecoRoman Biography (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Burstein, Stanley M. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Buss, Matthäus F. J. Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien (FzB 38; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980). Byrskog, Samuel “History or Story in Acts—A Middle Way? The ‘We’ Passages, Historical Intertexture, and Oral History,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 257–83. Cabié, Robert “Quand les ‘Sept’ deviennent des diacres,” Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 97 (1996) 219–26. Cadbury, Henry J. “Acts of the Apostles,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 1:28–42.

Bibliography Idem The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper & Bros., 1955). Idem “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 2:489–510. Idem “Dust and Garments,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 269–77. Idem “Erastus of Corinth,” JBL 50 (1931) 42–58. Idem “Four Features of Lucan Style,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 87–102. Idem “The Hellenists,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 59–74. Idem “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts I,” JBL 44 (1925) 214–27. Idem “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts III,” JBL 45 (1926) 305–22. Idem “Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts IV,” JBL 48 (1929) 412–25. Idem “Lucius of Cyrene,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 489–95. Idem The Making of Luke-Acts (1927; reprinted, London: SPCK, 1958). Idem “Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 375–92.

707

Acts Bib C.indd 707

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

Idem “A Possible Perfect in Acts 9:34,” JTS 49 (1948) 57–58. Idem “Roman Law and the Trial of Paul,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 297–338. Idem “Some Lukan Expressions of Time,” JBL 82 (1963) 272–78. Idem “Some Semitic Personal Names in Acts,” in Amicitiae Corolla: A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D.Litt., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. H. G. Wood; London: University of London Press, 1933) 45–46. Idem “The Speeches in Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 402–27. Idem The Style and Literary Method of Luke (HTS 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920). Idem “The Summaries in Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 392–402. Idem “The Titles of Jesus in Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 354–74. Idem “The Tradition,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 209–64. Idem “uJpozwvmata,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand ­Rapids: Baker, 1979) 345–54. Idem “We and I Passages in Luke-Acts,” NTS 3 (1956) 128–32.

Calder, William M. “The ‘Priest’ of Zeus at Lystra,” Exp 7 (1910) 148–55. Callan, Terrance “The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25),” CBQ 55 (1993) 284–97. Campbell, Douglas A. “An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul’s Flight from ‘the Ethnarch of King Aretas,’ 2 Cor 11:32-33,” JBL 121 (2002) 279–302. Idem “Possible Inscriptional Attestation to Sergius Paul[l]us (Acts 13:6-12) and the Implications for Pauline Chronology,” JTS 56 (2005) 1–29. Campbell, R. Alastair The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). Campbell, Thomas H. “Paul’s Missionary Journeys as Ref lected in His Letters,” JBL 74 (1955) 80–87. Campbell, William S. “Who Are We in Acts? The First-Person Plural Character in the Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Prince­ton Theological Seminary, 2000). Campenhausen, Hans von Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power (trans. J. A. Baker; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969). Idem “Die Nachfolge des Jakobus: Zur Frage eines urchristlichen ‘Kalifats,’” ZKG 63 (1950–51) 133–44. Idem “Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff,” ST 1 (1948) 96–130. Cancik, Hubert “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations concerning Luke’s History,” JBL 116 (1997) 681–703. Capper, Brian “Community of Goods in the Early Jerusalem Church,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 1730–74. Idem “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 323–56. Carroll, John T. Response to the End of History: Eschatolgy and Situation in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Cartlidge, David R. “The Fall and Rise of Simon Magus,” BibRev 21 (2005) 24–36. Casey, Robert P. “Simon Magus,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New

708

Acts Bib C.indd 708

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 151–63. Cassidy, Richard J. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles (Mary­ knoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987). Idem, and Philip J. Sharper, eds. Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1983). Casson, Lionel The Ancient Mariners (New York: Macmillan, 1959). Idem “The Isis and Her Voyage,” TAPA 81 (1950) 43–56. Idem Travel in the Ancient World (Sarasota, Fl.: Stevens, 1974). Catchpole, David R. “Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree,” NTS 23 (1977) 428–44. Cerfaux, Lucien “La composition de la première partie du Livre des Actes,” EThL 13 (1936) 667–91. Idem Pour l’histoire du titre ajpovstolo~ dans le Nouveau Testament,” RSR 48 (1960) 76–92. Idem “La première communauté chrétienne à Jérusalem (Act., II, 41—V, 42),” EThL 16 (1939) 5–31. Cerro, Gonzalo del “Los hechos apócrifos de los Apósteles: Su género literario,” EstBíb 51 (1993) 207–32. Chadwick, Henry “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body,” HTR 41 (1948) 83–102. Chambers, Kathy “‘Knock, Knock—Who’s There?’ Acts 12:6-17 as a Comedy of Errors,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 89–97. Chance, J. Bradley “Divine Prognostications and the Movement of Story: An Intertextual Exploration of Xenophon’s Ephesian Tale and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Ronald F. Hock, J. Chance, and Judith Perkins, eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (SBLSS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 219–34. Charlesworth, James H. The Odes of Solomon (SBLTT; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). Idem The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983). Cherniss, Harold Plutarch’s Moralia XIII.2 (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976). Childers, J. W. “The Old Georgian Acts of the Apostles: A Progress Report,” NTS 42 (1996) 55–74. Chilton, Bruce “Gamaliel (2),” ABD 2:903–6.

Bibliography Christol, M., and T. Drew-Bear, Thomas “Les Sergii Pauli et Antioche,” in Actes du Ier congrès international sur Antioche de Pisidie (ed. Thomas Drew-Bear, Mehmet Tasçlialan, and Christine M. Thomas; Collection. Archeologie et Histoire de L’antiquité Université Lumière-Lyon 2; vol. 5, Paris: Boccard, 2002) 177–92. Christophersen, Alf, et al., eds. Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Clabeaux, John C. “The Story of the Maltese Viper and Luke’s Apology for Paul,” CBQ 67 (2005) 604–10. Clark, Alfred. C. The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Idem “The Use of the Septuagint in Acts,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 66–105. Clark, Andrew C. Parallel Lives: The Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001). Clark, D. J. “A Not Infrequent Construction: Litotes in the Book of Acts,” BT 55 (2004) 433–40. Clarke, Graeme W. The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix (ACW 39; New York: Newman Press, 1974). Clarke, William Kemp L. “The Use of the LXX in Acts,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 66–105. Clayton, Peter, and Martin Price, eds. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 1988). Co, Maria Anicia “The Major Summaries in Acts (Acts 2,42-47; 4,32-35; 5,12-16,” EThL 68 (1992) 49–85. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Idem From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (LEC 7; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987). Cohoon, James Dio Chrysostom I, II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932, 1939). Collins, Adela Yarbro “The Function of Excommunication in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980) 251–63.

709

Acts Bib C.indd 709

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Idem “Sibylline Oracles,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 1:317–429. Colson, Francis H. Philo VI, VII (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935, 1937). Idem “Triangular Numbers in the New Testament,” JTS 16 (1915) 67–76. Idem, and George H. Whitaker Philo III (LCL; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1930). Combet-Galland, Corina “Paul l’apôtre: un voyage contrarié pour baggage,” EThR 80 (2005) 361–74. Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett, eds. The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999). Conti, Martino “Il Concilio Apostolico e la lettera ai Galati (At 15, 1-29; Gal 2, 1-21),” Antonianum 77 (2002) 235–56. Conzelmann, Hans “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 217–30. Idem First Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Idem “Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 298–316. Idem Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960). Idem “fw`~,” TDNT 9:310–58. Idem “Die Schule des Paulus,” in Carl Andresen and Günther Klein, eds., Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979) 85–96. Idem The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960). Idem “‘Was von Anfang war,’” in Walter Eltester, ed., Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954) 194–201. Idem, and Walter Zimmerli “cavri~ ktl.,” TDNT 9:372–402. Cook, Michael J. “The Mission to the Jews in Acts: Unraveling

Luke’s ‘Myth of the “Myriads,”’” in Joseph B. Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 102–23. Copenhaver, Brian P. Hermetica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Coppens, Joseph “L’imposition des mains dans les Actes des Apôtres,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 405–38. Corley, Kathleen Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993). Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan Understanding of God’s Providence,” NovT 26 (1984) 168–90. Countryman, L. William Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Idem The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1980). Court, John M. “Rivals in the Mission Field,” ExpT 113 (2002) 399–403. Courtney, Edward A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London: Athlone, 1980). Cousland, J. R. C. “Dionysus Theomachos? Echoes of the Bacchae in 3 Maccabees,” Bib 82 (2001) 539–48. Cowton, C. J. “The Alms Trader: A Note on Identifying the Beautiful Gate of Acts 3.2,” NTS 42 (1996) 475–76. Creed, John Martin The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: St. Martin’s, 1930). Idem “The Text and Interpretation of Acts i.1-2,” JTS 35 (1934) 176–82. Crook, John A. Law and Life of Rome: 90 B.C.–A.D. 212 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967). Crosby, H. L. Dio Chrysostom (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940). Crossan, John D. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998). Idem Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).

710

Acts Bib C.indd 710

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

Crowe, Jerome The Acts (NTM 8; Wilmington, Del.: Michael ­Glazier, 1979). Cullmann, Oscar The Johannine Circle (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). Cumont, Franz Afterlife in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922). Idem “La plus ancienne géographie astrologique,” Klio 9 (1909) 263–73. Cunningham, Scott Through Many Tribulations: The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts (JSNTS 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Czachesz, István “The Acts of Paul and the Western Text of Luke’s Acts: Paul between Canon and Apocrypha,” in Jan Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and ­Thecla (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 107–25. Idem “Apostolic Commission Narratives in the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Groningen, 2002). Idem Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Dahl, Nils A. “‘A People for His Name’ (Acts XV.14),” NTS 4 (1957–58) 319–27. Idem “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts,” Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 139–58. D’Angelo, Mary Rose “The ANHR Question in Luke-Acts: Imperial Masculinity and the Deployment of Women in the Early Second Century,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 44–69. Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982). Idem Jesus and the New Age (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Idem “Purple,” ABD 5:557–60. Idem “Reciprocity in the Ancient World and in Acts 15:23-29,” in Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, eds., Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Mary­ knoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1983) 49–58. D’Arms, John H. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981).

Bibliography Darr, John A. Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization (JSNTS 163; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Idem “Irenic or Ironic? Another Look at Gamaliel before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:33-42),” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 121–39. Idem On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterizations in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). Dassmann, Ernst Der Stachel im Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979). Daube, David “A Reform in Acts and Its Models,” in Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs, eds., Jews, Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of William David Davies (SJLA 21; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 151–63. Dautzenberg, Gerhard “diakrivnw,” EDNT 1:305–6. Davies, P. “The Ending of Acts,” ExpT 94 (1982–83) 334–35. Dawsey, James M. “Characteristics of Folk-Epic in Acts,” SBLSB 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 317–25. Dawson, Doyne Cities of the Gods: Communist Utopias in Greek Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Deissmann, Adolf Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901). Idem Light from the Ancient East (trans. Lionel Strachan; New York: Harper, 1927). Delebecque, Édouard Les Deux Actes des Apôtres (EB n.s. 6; Paris: Gabalda, 1986). Idem “De Lystres à Philippi (Ac 16) avec le codex Bezae,” Bib 63 (1982) 395–405. Idem “La mésadventure des fils de Scévas selon ses deux versions (Actes 19:13-20),” RSPhTh 66 (1982) 225–32. Idem “Silas, Paul et Barnabé à Antioche selon le texte ‘occidental’ d’Actes 15:34 et 38,” RHPhR 64 (1984) 47–52. Delling, Gerhard “a[rcw,” TDNT 1:478–89. Idem “Josephus und das Wunderbare,” NovT 2 (1958) 291–309.

711

Acts Bib C.indd 711

8/27/2008 1:51:05 PM

Idem “Das letze Wort der Apostelgeschichte,” NovT 15 (1973) 193–204. Idem “mavgo~,” TDNT 4:356–59. Idem “pavrqeno~,” TDNT 5:826–37. Delobel, Joël “The Text of Luke-Acts: A Confrontation of Recent Theories,” in Jozef Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 83–107. Del Verme, Marcello Comunione e condivisione dei beni: Chiesa primitiva e giudaismo esseno-qumranico a confronto (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1977). Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Clean and Unclean Animals (Acts 10:15; 11:9): Peter’s Pronouncing Power Observed,” Heythrop Journal 29 (1988) 205–21. De Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. The Class Struggle in the Ancient World (Ithaca: ­Cornell University Press, 1981). Deutschmann, A. Synagoge und Gemeindebildung: Christliche Gemeinde und Israel am Beispiel von Apg 13,42-52 (Biblische Untersuchungen 30; Regensburg: Pustet, 2001). Dibelius, Martin Botschaft und Geschichte (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953, 1955). Idem “Die Christianisierung einer hellenistischen ­Formel,” in idem, Botschaft und Geschichte (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953, 1955) 2:14–29. Idem Der Hirt des Hermas (HNT; Apostolischen Väter IV; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923). Idem Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. M. Ling and Paul Schubert; ed. Heinrich Greeven; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956). Idem, and Hans Conzelmann The Pastoral Epistles (trans. and ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972). Dieterich, Albrecht Abrasax: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spätern Altertums (Leipzig: Teubner, 1891). Dillon, John, and Jackson Hershbell Iamblichus On the Pythagorean Way of Life (SBLTT 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). Dillon, Richard J. From Eyewitnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (AnBib 82; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978).

Dimant, Devorah “Pesharim, Qumran,” ABD 5:244–51. Dinkler, Erich “Philippus und der ANHR AIQIOY (Apg 8.26-40): Historische und geographische Bemerkungen zum Missionsablauf nach Lukas,” in E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grässer, eds., Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 85–95. Idem Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck) 1967. Dionne, Christian “L’épisode de Lystre (Ac 14,7-20a) une analyse narrative,” SciEsp 57 (2005) 5–33. Dobbeler, A. von Der Evangelist Philippus in der Geschichte des Urchristentums: Eine prosopographische Studie (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 30; Tübingen: Francke, 2000). Doble, Peter The Paradox of Salvation: Luke’s Theology of the Cross (SNTSMS 87; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Dobschütz, Ernst von “Die Berichte über die Bekehrung des Paulus,” ZNW 29 (1930) 144–47. Idem “Der Roman im altchristlichen Literatur,” Deutsche Rundschau 111 (1902) 87–106. Dockz, S. “Luc, a-t-il été le compagnon d’apostolat de Paul?” NRT 103 (1981) 385–400. Dodd, Charles H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936). Dodds, Eric R. The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). Donelson, Lewis R. “Cult Histories and the Sources of Acts,” Bib 68 (1987) 1–21. Doody, Margaret Anne The True Story of the Novel (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996). Doran, Robert “The Jewish Hellenistic Historians before Josephus,” ANRW 2.20.1 (1986) 2116–97. Douglas, Mary Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Downey, Glanville History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961).

712

Acts Bib C.indd 712

8/27/2008 1:51:06 PM

Downing, F. Gerald “A bas les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Early Christian Writings,” NovT 30 (1988) 212–30. Idem “Redaction Criticism: Josephus’ Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels (II),” JSNT 9 (1980) 29–48. Downs, David J. “Paul’s Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited,” NTS 52 (2006) 50–70. Droge, Arthur J. “Call Stories in Greek Biography and the Gospels,” SBLSP 1983 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983) 245–57. Drury, John Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976). Dubois, Jean-Daniel “La figure d’Elie dans la perspective lucanienne,” RHPhR 53 (1973) 155–76. Dumais, Michel “Les Actes des Apôtres: Bilan et orientations,” in M. Gourgues and L. Laberge, eds., “De bien des manières”: La recherche biblique aux abords du XXIe siècle (LD 163; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 307–64. Duncan, George S. St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry: A Reconstruction with Special Reference to the Ephesian Origin of the Imprisonment Epistles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930). Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles (Peterborough: Epworth, 1996). Idem “KYRIOS in Acts,” in Christof Landmesser et al., eds., Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: ­Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 363–68. Idem Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). Dunn, Peter Peter Dunn, “The Inf luence of 1 Corinthians on the Acts of Paul,” SBLSP 1996 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Dupont, Jacques “L’apôtre comme intermediaire du salut dans les Actes,” RThPh 112 (1980) 342–58. Idem “Community of Goods in the Early Church,” in idem, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Keating; New York/Ramsey, N.J./Toronto: Paulist, 1979) 85–102. Idem “La conclusion des Actes et son rapport à l’ensemble de l’ouvrage de Luc,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 359–404.

Bibliography Idem “La destinée de Judas prophétisée par David,” CBQ 23 (1961) 41–51. Idem “Le discours à l’Aréopage (Ac 17,22-31) lieu de rencontre entre christianisme et hellénisme,” in idem, Nouvelles études sur les Actes des apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984) 380–423. Idem Le discours de Milet: Testament pastoral de Saint Paul (Actes 20,18-36) (Paris: Cerf, 1962). Idem Études sur les Actes de apôtres (LD 45; Paris: Cerf, 1967). Idem “La famine sous Claude, Actes 11.28,” RB 62 (1955) 52–55. Idem “Laos ex ethnon (Act. Xv.14),” NTS 3 (1956–57) 47–50. Idem Nouvelles études sur les Actes des apôtres (LD 118; Paris: Cerf, 1984). Idem “Pierre deliveré de prison (ac 12,1-11),” AsSeign 1/84 (1967) 14–26 (= Nouvelles études, 329–42). Idem “Un peuple d’entre les nations (Actes 15.14),” NTS 31 (1985) 321–35. Idem The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Keating; New York/Ramsey, N.J./ Toronto: Paulist, 1979). Idem The Sources of the Acts (trans. K. Pond; New York: Herder & Herder, 1964). Idem “La structure oratoire du discours d’Étienne (Actes 7),” Bib 66 (1985) 153–67. Dürr, Lorenz “Zur religionsgeschichtlichen Begründung der Vorschrift des Schuhausziehens an heiliger Stätte,” OLZ 41 (1938) 410–12. Easton, Burton S. Early Christianity: The Purpose of Acts and Other Papers (ed. F. C. Grant; Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury, 1954). Economou, John The Problem of the Title “Acts of the Apostles” (in modern Greek, Thessaloniki, 1995). Edelstein, Ludwig Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (2 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945). Edwards, Douglas Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

713

Acts Bib C.indd 713

8/27/2008 1:51:06 PM

Edwards, M. J. “Quoting Aratus: Acts 17,28,” ZNW 83 (1992) 266–69. Egger, Brigitte M. “Women in the Greek Novel: Constructing the Feminine” (Diss., University of California, Irvine, 1990). Ehling, K. “Zwei Anmerkungen zum ajrguvrion in Apg 19,19,” ZNW 94 (2003) 269–75. Ehrhardt, Arnold The Acts of the Apostles: Ten Lectures (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969). Idem “The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles,” in idem, The Framework of the New Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964) 64–102. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Elbert, Paul “Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations,” ZNW 95 (2004) 258–68. Elliott, James Keith The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Idem A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (SNTSMS 109; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Idem “An Eclectic Textual Study of the Book of Acts,” in Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 9–30. Idem “The Greek Manuscript Heritage of the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 9 (1996) 37–50. Elliott, John H. “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 211–40. Ellis, E. Earle “The End of the Earth (Acts 1:8),” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 123–32. Idem The Gospel of Luke (NCB; rev. ed.; London: Oliphants, 1974). Ellud, Danielle “Actes 3:1-11,” EThR 64 (1989) 95–99. Elsener, J. “Hagiographic Geography: Travel and Allegory in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana,” JHS 117 (1997) 22–37.

Eltester, Walter “Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede,” Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (BZNW 21; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957) 202–57. Idem, and F. Kettler, eds. Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964 (BZNW 30; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964). Engelmann, Helmut The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (trans. E. Osers, EPRO 44; Leiden: Brill, 1975). Engels, Donald Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). Enslin, Morton The Book of Judith (Leiden: Brill, 1972). Epp, Eldon Jay “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” in Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 111–46. Idem “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of LukeActs,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, ed., New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 131–45. Idem “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (StudDoc 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 109–23. Idem The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). Idem “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” JBL 93 (1974) 386–414 (= Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism [StudDoc 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 83–108). Idem “Western Text,” ABD 6:909–12. Erbes, Carl “Petrus nicht in Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben,” ZKG 22 (1901) 1–47; 161–224. Erichson-Wendt, F. “Tabitha—Leben an der Grenze: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Apg 9, 36-43,” BibNotiz 127 (2005) 67–87. Esler, Philip Francis Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

714

Acts Bib C.indd 714

8/27/2008 1:51:06 PM

Idem The First Christians in Their Social Worlds (London: Routledge, 1994). Evans, Craig A. “Luke’s Use of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives and the Ethic of Election,” JBL 106 (1987) 75–83. Idem, and James A. Sanders Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Exum, Cheryl, and Charles Talbert “The Structure of Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20, 18-35) CBQ 29 (1967) 233–36. Fagles, Robert Homer: The Iliad (New York: Penguin, 1991). Farahian, Edmond “Paul’s Vision at Troas (Acts 16:9-10),” in Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi, eds., Luke and Acts (Festschrift Emilio Rasco; trans. M. J. O’Connell; New York: Paulist, 1993) 197–207. Faraone, Christopher A., and Dirk Obbink, eds. Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Fascher, Erich “Theologische Beobachtungen zu Dei,” in Neutestamentlichen Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (ed. Walther Eltester; BZNW 21; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957) 228–54. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Idem “Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions,” TAPA 81 (1950) 200–208. Idem Josephus IX (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965). Idem “Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 69–98. Idem “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers,” BAR 12 (1986) 58–63. Idem “Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers’ in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias,” REJ 148 (1989) 265–305. Fellows, Richard G. “Renaming in Paul’s Churches: The Case of Crispus-Sosthenes Revisited,” TynBul 56 (2005) 111–30. Ferguson, John Juvenal, The Satires (New York: St. Martin’s, 1979).

Bibliography Ferreiro, Albert Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval, and Early Modern Traditions (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 125; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Festugière, André Jean Personal Religion among the Greeks (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954). Idem La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégistos (4 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1950). Fiedrowicz, Michael “Die Rezeption und Interpretation der paulini­ schen Areopag-Rede in der patristischen Theologie,” TThZ 111 (2002) 85–105. Fieger, Michael Im Schatten der Artemis: Glaube und Ungehorsam in Ephesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1998). Finger, Reta Halteman Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Finn, Thomas “The God-Fearers Reconsidered,” CBQ 47 (1985) 75–84. Fitzgerald, John, ed. Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Fitzgerald, Robert The Aeneid of Virgil (New York: Vintage, 1984). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (2 vols.; AB 28, 28A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985). Idem “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 233–57. Idem Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989). Idem “The Pauline Letters and the Lucan Account of Paul’s Missionary Journeys,” in David J. Lull, ed., SBLSP 1988 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 82–89. Flender, Helmut St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History (trans. I. Fuller and R. Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). Fletcher, Richard The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Flichy, Odile La figure de Paul dans les Actes des Apôtres: un phénomène de reception de la tradition paulinienne à la fin du 1er siècle (LD 214; Paris: Cerf, 2007).

715

Acts Bib C.indd 715

8/27/2008 1:51:06 PM

Idem Relectures des Actes des Apôtres (Cahiers Évangile 128; Paris: Cerf, 2004). Flinterman, Jaap-Jan Power, Paideia, and Pythagoreanism: Greek Identity, Conceptions of the Relationship between Philosophers and Monarchs and Political Ideas in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 13; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1995). Foakes Jackson, Frederick J., and Kirsopp Lake, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Eidem “The Internal Evidence of Acts,” in eidem, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 121–204. Eidem Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Foerster, Werner “ajrevskw,” TDNT 1:455–57. Idem Gnosis (2 vols.; trans. and ed. Robert McL. Wilson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1974). Idem, et al. “o[fi~,” TDNT 5:566–82. Forbes, Christopher Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment (WUNT 75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Forbes, Clarence A. “Books for the Burning,” TAPA 67 (1936) 114–25. Fournier, Marianne The Episode at Lystra: A Rhetorical and Semiotic Analysis of Acts 14:7-20a (American University Studies VII.197; New York: Peter Lang, 1997). Fowler, H.N. Plutarch’s Moralia X (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936). Fox, Robin Lane Pagans and Christians (New York: Knopf, 1989). Frank, Tenney, ed. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (5 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933–40). Franklin, Eric Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975). Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970). French, David H. “Acts and the Roman Roads of Asia Minor,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book

of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 49–58. Frenschkowski, Marco “Der Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Realien antiker Buchproduktion,” in Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 87–107. Frey, Jean-Baptiste “Les Juifs à Pompei,” RB 42 (1933) 370–72. Fridrichsen, Anton The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity (trans. Roy A. Harrisville and John S. Hanson; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972). Friedrich, Gerhard “eujaggelisthv~,” TDNT 2:636–37. Friesen, Steven “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos,” in Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 229–50. Frye, Northrop The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976). Funk, Robert W. “The Enigma of the Famine Visit,” JBL 75 (1956) 130–36. Idem The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988). Furnish, Victor Paul II Corinthians: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984). Fusco, Vittorio “La discussione sul protocattolicesimo nel Nuovo Testamento: Un capitolo di storia dell’esegesi,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1645–91. Idem “Le sezione-noi degli Atti nella discussione ­recente,” BeO 25 (1983) 73–86. Gabba, Emilio “The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 bce–ce 70,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 94–167. Gaca, Kathy L. “Paul’s Uncommon Declaration in Romans 1:18-32 and Its Problematic Legacy for Pagan and Christian Relations,” in eadem and Larry L. Welborn, eds., Early Patristic Readings of Romans (Romans through History and Cultures; New York: T&T Clark, 2005) 1–33. Gager, John G., ed. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

716

Acts Bib C.indd 716

8/27/2008 1:51:06 PM

Idem “Jews, Gentiles, and Synagogues,” in George W. E. Nickelsburg and George W. MacRae, eds., Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Gapp, Kenneth S. “The Universal Famine under Claudius,” HTR 28 (1935) 258–65. Garland, Robert The Greek Way of Death (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). Idem Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992). Garnsey, Peter “The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors,” JRS 58 (1968) 51–59. Idem Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Idem “The Lex Julia and Appeal under the Empire,” JRS 56 (1966) 167–89. Idem, and Richard Saller The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Garrett, Susan R. “Beloved Physician of the Soul? Luke as Advocate for Ascetic Practice,” in Leif E. Vaage and Vinicent L. Wimbush, eds., Asceticism and the New Testament (London: Routledge, 1999) 71–95. Idem The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24,” CBQ 52 (1990) 656–89. Gärtner, Bertil The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU 21; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955). Idem “Paulus and Barnabas in Lystra: Zu Apg. 14, 8-15,” SEÅ 27 (1962) 83–88. Gaselee, S. Achilles Tatius (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969). Gasque, W. Ward A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). Idem “Iconium,” ABD 3:357–58. Idem “Malta,” ABD 4:489–90. Idem “Tarsus,” ABD 6:333–34.

Bibliography Gaventa, Beverly Roberts From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Eadem “Theology and Ecclesiology in the Miletus Speech: Reflections on Content and Context,” NTS 50 (2004) 36–52. Eadem “Toward a Theology of Acts: Reading and Rereading,” Int 42 (1988) 146–57. Geagan, Daniel J. The Athenian Constitution after Sulla (Hesperia Supp. 12; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967). Gebhard, Elizabeth R. “The Gods in Transit: Narratives of Cult Transfer,” in Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell, eds., Antiquity and Humanity: Essays in Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 451–76. Geer, Thomas C., Jr. Family 1739 in Acts (SBLMS 48; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). Gempf, Conrad “Mission and Misunderstanding: Paul and Barnabas in Lystra (Acts 14:8-20),” in Anthony Billington et al., eds., Mission and Meaning: Essays Presented to Peter Cotterell (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 56–69. Idem “Salamis,” ABD 5:904–5. Georgi, Dieter “Forms of Religious Propaganda,” in H. J. Schultz, ed., Jesus in His Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 124–31. Idem The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Idem Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992). Idem “Socioeconomic Reasons for the ‘Divine Man’ as a Propagandistic Pattern,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 27–42. Idem “Who Is the True Prophet?” in George W. E. Nickelsburg and George W. MacRae, eds., Christians among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 100–126. Gibbs, James Millard “Luke 24:13-33 and Acts 8:26-39: The Emmaus Incident and the Eunuch’s Baptism as Parallel Stories,” Bangalore Theological Forum 7 (1975) 17–30.

717

Acts Bib C.indd 717

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Giesen, Heinz “Gott Steht zu Seinen Verheissungen: Eine Exegetische und Theologische Auslegung des Pfingst­ geschehens (Apg 2, 1-13),” StudNTUmwelt 28 (2003) 83–126. Gilbert, Gary “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121 (2002) 497–529. Idem “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 233–56. Gilchrist, J. M. “The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck,” JSNT 61 (1996) 29–51. Giles, K. N. “Luke’s Use of the Term ‘ekklesia’ with Special Reference to Acts 20.28 and 9.31,” NTS 31 (1985) 135–42. Gill, David W. J. “Achaia,” in idem and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 433–53. Idem “Acts and the Urban Élites,” in idem and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 105–18. Idem “Dionysios and Damaris: A Note on Acts 17:34,” CBQ 61 (1999) 483–90. Idem “Macedonia,” in idem and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 397–417. Idem, and Conrad Gempf, eds. The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). Idem, and Bruce W. Winter “Acts and Roman Religion,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its GraecoRoman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 79–103. Ginzberg, Louis The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–38). Glover, R. “‘Luke the Antiochene’ and Acts,” NTS 11 (1964) 97–106. Goldin, Judah “The Magic of Magic and Superstition,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 115–47.

Goldstein, H. “ejgkravteia,” EDNT 1:377–78. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983). Goodenough, Erwin R. “The Perspective of Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 51–59. Goodman, Felicitas D. Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972). Goodman, Martin Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Idem The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66–70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Goodspeed, Edgar J. “Gaius Titius Justus,” JBL 69 (1950) 382–83. Goold, G. P. Chariton, Callirhoe (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995). Goppelt, Leonhard A Commentary on 1 Peter (ed. F. Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). Idem Typos: The Typological Interpretaion of the Old Testament in the New (trans. D. H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Goulder, Michael D. “Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?” ­PerspRelStud 13 (1986) 97–112. Idem St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions ­(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Idem Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964). Gourgues, M. “La littérature profane dans le discours d’Athènes (Ac 17,16-31): un dossier fermé?” RB 109 (2002) 241–69. Gowler, David W. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 1991). Graf, Fritz Magic in the Ancient World (trans. Franklin Philip; Revealing Antiquity 10; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997). Grant, Robert M. “Dietary Laws among Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians,” HTR 73 (1980) 299–310. Idem Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988).

718

Acts Bib C.indd 718

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Idem Heresy and Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Idem Jesus after the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990). Idem Miracle and Natural Law in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1952). Idem, and Holt Graham The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2: First and Second Clement (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965). Grappe, Christian “Main de Dieu et mains des apôtres: Réf lexions à partir d’Actes 4.30 et 5,12,” in R. Kieffer and J. Bergman, eds., La Main de Dieu//Die Hand Gottes (WUNT 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Grässer, Erich “Acta-Forschung seit 1960,” TRU 41 (1976) 141–94; 42 (1977) 1–68. Idem Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 2.137; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Grassi, Joseph “Emmaus Revisited (Luke 24:13-35 and Acts 8:26-40),” CBQ 26 (1964) 463–67. Gray, George B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925). Gray, Louis H. “Eunuch,” ERE 5:575–79. Gray, Patrick “Athenian Curiosity (Acts 17:21),” NovT 47 (2005) 109–16. Idem “Implied Audiences in the Areopagus Narrative,” TynBull 55 (2004) 205–18. Green, Joel “Festus, Porcius,” ABD 2:794–95. Idem, and Michael C. McKeever Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). Green, Michael Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). Greeven, Heinrich “eu[comai,” TDNT 2:775–808. Idem “Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus: Zur Frage der ‘Ämter’ im Urchristentum,” ZNW 44 (1952–53) 1–43. Idem “prosdevomai,” TDNT 2:41–42. Idem “proskunevw,” TDNT 6:758–66. Idem “zhtevw,” TDNT 2:892–93.

Bibliography Gregory, Andrew “The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007) 459–72. Idem The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Grundmann, Walter “duvnamai,” TDNT 2:284–317. Idem “ejgkravteia,” TDNT 2:339–42. Idem “qarrevw,” TDNT 3:25–27. Idem “Paulus in Ephesus,” Helikon 4 (1964) 46–82. Idem “Das Problem des hellenistischen Christentums innerhalb der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde,” ZNW 38 (1939) 45–73. Günther, Matthias Die Frühgeschichte des Christentums in Ephesus (2nd ed.; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998). Gutbrot, Walter “a[nomo~,” TDNT 4:1086–87. Haacker, Klaus “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Hoffnung Israels nach der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas,” NTS 31 (1985) 437–51. Idem “Dibelius und Cornelius: Ein Beispiel formgeschichtlicher Überlieferungskritik,” BZ 24 (1980) 234–51. Idem “Gallio,” ABD 2:901–3. Idem “Die Stellung des Stephanus in der Geschichte des Urchristentums,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1415–53. Haar, Stephen Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? (BZNW 119; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Hackett, John “Echoes of the Bacchae of Euripides in Acts of the Apostles,” Irish Theological Quarterly 23 (1956) 219–27, 350–66. Hadas, Moses Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Ktav, 1973). Idem Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion (New York: Norton, 1972). Idem “Third Maccabees and Greek Romance,” Review of Religion 13 (1949) 155–62. Idem “Third Maccabees and the Tradition of Patriotic Romance,” Chronique d’Egypte 47 (1949) 97–104. Idem, and Morton Smith, eds. Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York: Harper & Row, 1965).

719

Acts Bib C.indd 719

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Haenchen, Ernst “Acta 27,” in Erich Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964) 235–54. Idem “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 258–78. Idem “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?” ZThK 49 (1952) 316–49 (= Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965] 265–98). Idem Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965). Idem “Schriftzitate und Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZThK 51 (1954) 153–67 (= Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck, 1965] 157–71). Idem “Simon Magus in der Apostelgeschichte,” in K. W. Tröger, ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973) 267–79. Idem “‘We’ in Acts and the Itinerary,” The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? Journal for Theology and Church 1 (1965) 65–99. Hägg, Tomas Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies of Chariton, Xenophon, Ephesius, and Achilles Tatius (Stockholm: Paul Aström, 1971). Idem The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983). Hahn, Ferdinand Mission in the New Testament (trans. F. Clarke; London: SCM, 1965). Idem The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (trans. Harold Knight and G. Ogg; Cleveland: World, 1969). Hall, Stuart G. Melito of Sardis On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Texts; London: Clarendon, 1979). Hallstrom, A. “De Curiositate Antheniensium,” Eranos 14 (1914) 57–59. Hamm, M. Dennis “Acts 3:1-10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lucan Theology,” Bib 67 (1986) 305–19. Idem “Paul’s Blindness and Its Healing: Clues to Symbolic Intent (Acts 9; 22 and 26),” Bib 71 (1990) 63–72. Hanges, James C. “The Greek Foundation-Legend: Its Form and Relation to History,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 494–520.

Hansen, William Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). Hanson, J. Arthur Apuleius Metamorphoses (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). Hanson, John S. “Dreams and Visions in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1395–1427. Hanson, Richard P. C. The Acts in the RSV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967). Hardin, Justin K. “Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason’s House (Acts 17.1-10a),” NTS 52 (2006) 29–49. Harding, Mark “On the Historicity of Acts: Comparing Acts 9.23-25 with 2 Corinthians 11.32-33,” NTS 39 (1993) 518–38. Hardon, John A. “The Miracle Narratives in the Acts of the ­Apostles,” CBQ 16 (1954) 303–18. Harmon, A. M. Lucian III, V (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1919, 1936). Harnack, Adolph von The Acts of the Apostles (trans J. R. Wilkinson; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909). Idem Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921), ET Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God (trans. John E. Steely and L. Bierma; Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1990). Idem The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2 vols.; trans. J. Moffatt; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908). Idem Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911). Harrer, Gustave A. “Saul Who Is Also Called Paul,” HTR 33 (1940) 19–34. Harrill, J. Albert “The Dramatic Function of the Running Slave Rhoda (Acts 12.13-16): A Piece of Greco-Roman Comedy,” NTS 46 (2000) 150–57. Idem The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (HUTh 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Harrington, Daniel “The Bible Rewritten,” in Robert Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds., Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 239–47. Harris, J. Rendel Codex Bezae: A Study of the So-called Western Text of the New Testament (TextsS 2.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891).

720

Acts Bib C.indd 720

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Harris, William V. Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). Hasler, V. “genealogiva,” EDNT 1:42. Hatchett, Marion J. Commentary on the American Prayer Book (New York: Seabury, 1981). Hauck, Friedrich “koinov~,” TDNT 3:789–809. Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter “‘Christentum und Eigentum’: Zum Problem eines altkirchlichen ‘Sozialismus,’” Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik 16 (1972): 34–49. Hauser, Hermann J. Strukturen der Abschlußerzählung der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 28,16-31) (AnBib 86; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979). Havelaar, Henriette “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts 5,1-11 and the Problem of Conf licting Interpretations,” JSNT 67 (1997) 63–82. Hawkins, John C. Horae Synopticae (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968). Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973). Hayes, John H., and J. Roloff “Acts of the Apostles, Book of the,” Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes; 2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 1:4–13. Head, Peter “Acts and the Problem of Its Texts,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 415–44. Hedrick, Charles W. “Paul’s Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts,” JBL 100 (1981) 415–32. Heil, Christoph “Arius Didymus and Luke-Acts,” NovT 42 (2000) 358–93. Heintz, Florent Simon ‘le Magicien’: Actes 8 5-25 et l’accusation de magie contre les Prophètes thaumaturges dan l’antiquité (CahRB 39; Paris: Gabalda, 1997). Hemer, Colin J. “Alexandria Troas,” TynBul 26 (1975) 79–112. Idem The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad J. Gempf; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Idem “First Person Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 36 (1985) 79–109. Idem “Luke the Historian,” BJRL 60 (1977) 28–51.

Bibliography Idem “Lydia and the Purple Trade,” NewDocs 3 (1983) no. 17, pp. 53–55. Idem “The Name of Felix Again,” JSNT 31 (1987) 45–49. Idem “Paul at Athens,” NTS 20 (1974) 241–50. Idem “The Speeches in Acts I: The Ephesian Elders at Miletus,” TynBul 40 (1989) 77–85. Hendrix, Holland L. “Philippi,” ABD 5:313–17. Idem “Thessalonica,” ABD 6:523–27. Hengel, Martin Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Idem Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the History of Earliest Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Idem “ jIoudai`a in der geographischen Liste Apg 2,9-11 und Syrien als ‘Grossjudäa,’” RHPhR 80 (2000) 83–86. Idem Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974). Idem “Proseuche und Synagoge,” in Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 157–84. Idem, and Anna Maria Schwemer Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (trans. John Bowden; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997). Henrichs, Albert “Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: A Reconsideration,” in Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (2 vols.; Munich: Kösel, 1970) 1:18–35. Heusler, Erika Kapitalprozesse im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Die Verfahren gegen Jesus und Paulus in exegetischer und rechtshistorischer Analyse (NTAbh NF 38; Münster: Aschendorff, 2000). Hickling, Colin J. A. “The Portrait of Paul in Acts 26,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 499–503. Hicks, R. D. Diogenes Laertius I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925).

721

Acts Bib C.indd 721

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Hilgert, Earle The Ship and Related Symbols in the New Testament (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1962). Hill, Craig C. “Acts 6.1—8.4: Division or diversity?” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 129–53. Idem Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Hills, Julian “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” in Eugene Lovering, ed., SBLSP 1994 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 24–54. Idem “Equal Justice under the (New) Law: The Story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 105–25. Hirsch, Emmanuel “Die drei Berichte der Apostelgeschichte über die Bekehrung des Paulus,” ZNW 28 (1929) 305–12. Hobart, William K. The Medical Language of St. Luke (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1882). Hock, Ronald F. The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Scholars Bible 2; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995). Idem The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Hoffmann, R. Joseph “How Then Know This Troublous Teacher? Further Ref lections on Marcion and his Church,” SecCent 6 (1987) 173–91. Idem Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity; An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century (American Academy of Religion Academy Series 46; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984). Idem Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994). Hogan, Derek “Paul’s Defense: A Comparison of the Forensic Speeches in Acts, Callirhoe, and Leucippe,” PerspRelStud 29 (2002) 73–88. Holladay, Carl “Acts and the Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 171–98. Idem Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). Idem Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (SBLDS 40; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977).

Holmberg, Bengt Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Holmes, Michael W. “Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels,” in D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds., Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (NTTS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 123–60. Holtz, Traugott Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104; Berlin: Akademie, 1968). Holum, Kenneth G., Robert L. Hohlfelder, Robert J. Bull, and Avner Raban King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (New York: Norton, 1988). Holzberg, Niklas “The Historia Apollonii regis Tyri and the Odyssey,” in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1990) 3:91–101. Idem “Letters: Chion,” in Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 645–53. Idem “Utopias and Fantastic Travel: Euhemerus, Iambulus,” in Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 621–28. Holzmeister, Ulrich “Der hl. Paulus vor dem Richterstuhle des Festus (AG 25, 1-12),” ZKTh 36 (1912) 489–511, 742–83. Hommel, Hildebrecht “Neue Forschung zur Areopagrede Acta 17,” ZNW 46 (1955) 145–78. Hopkins, Keith “Christian Number and Its Implications,” JECS 6 (1998) 185–226. Horbury, William, W. D. Davies, John Sturdy, eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Horn, Friedrich W. “Apg 8,37, der Westliche Text und die frühchristliche Tauftheologie,” in Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 211–39. Idem Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte (BZNW 106; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001). Idem “Die Gütergemeinschaft der Urgemeinde,” EvTh 58 (1998) 370–83. Idem “Die Haltung des Lukas zum römischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Jozef Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 203–24.

722

Acts Bib C.indd 722

8/27/2008 1:51:07 PM

Idem “Die Kollektenthematik in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 135–56. Hornschuh, Manfred “The Apostles as Bearers of the Tradition,” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ET ed. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2:74–87. Horsley, Gregory H. R. “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament,” NovT 34 (1992) 105–67. Idem “The Politarchs,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 2:419–31. Horsley, Richard A., with John S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). Horst, Pieter van der “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens: Acts 17.23 and the Cults of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Graeco-Roman World,” in idem, Hellenism–Judaism– Christianity (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 165–202. Idem “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” ANRW 2.18.2 (1990) 426–56. Idem “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts Chapters 3 and 4,” JSNT 35 (1989) 37–46. Idem “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles (2.1-47),” JSNT 25 (1985) 49–60. Idem “Peter’s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Background of Acts V.15,” NTS 23 (1976–77) 204–12. Idem Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Hubbard, Benjamin J. “The Role of Commissioning Accounts in Acts,” in Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978) 187–98. Hubbard, Moyer V. “Urban Uprisings in the Roman World: The Social Setting of the Mobbing of Sosthenes,” NTS 51 (2005) 416–28. Hughes, Frank W. Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTS 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1974).

Bibliography Hummel, Adrian “Factum et Fictum: Literarische und theologische Erwägungen zur Romreise des Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 27,1—28,16),” BibNotiz 105 (2000) 39–53. Humphrey, Edith M. “Collision of Modes?—Vision and Determining Argument in Acts 10:1—11:18,” Sem 71 (1995) 65–84. Humphries, R. The Satires of Juvenal (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958). Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar, eds. Select Papyri (3 vols.; LCL: Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–). Hunt, Melvin “Lod,” ABD 4:346–47. Hur, Ju A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (JSNTS 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Hurd, John C., Jr. The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965). Huxley, H. H. “Storm and Shipwreck in Roman Literature,” Greece and Rome 21 (1952) 117–25. Hydahl, Niels “The Reception of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles,” in M. Müller and H. Tronier, eds., The New Testament as Reception (JSNTS 230; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 101–19. Inge, W. R. “Ecstasy,” ERE 5:157–59. Jacobson, Glenn R. “Paul in Luke-Acts: The Savior Who Is Present,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 131–46. Jaeger, Werner Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961). Jáuregui, José Antonio “Panorama de la evolución de los estudios lucanos,” EstBíb 61 (2003) 351–98. Jefford, Clayton N. “Mark, John,” ABD 4:557–58. Jenkinson, Edna “Nepos—An Introduction to Latin Biography,” in Thomas A. Dorey, ed., Latin Biography (New York: Basic Books, 1967) 1–15. Jeremias, Joachim Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (trans. F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Idem “Paarweise Sendung im Neuen Testament,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. Angus John Brockhurst Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959) 136–43.

723

Acts Bib C.indd 723

8/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

Idem “pavsca,” TDNT 5:896–904. Jervell, Jacob “The Church of Jews and Godfearers,” in Joseph B. Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 11–20. Idem Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972). Idem The Theology of Acts (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Idem The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). Jewett, Robert A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Idem “Mapping the Route of Paul’s ‘Second Missionary Journey,’” TynBul 48 (1997) 1–22. Johnson, Luke Timothy The Gospel of Luke (SacPag; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991). Idem “Literary Criticism of Luke-Acts: Is ReceptionHistory Pertinent?” JSNT 28 (2005) 159–62. Idem The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). Idem “Luke-Acts, Book of,” ABD 4:403–20. Idem Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002). Idem “Tongues, Gift of,” ABD 6:596–600. Idem The Writings of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Johnson, Sherman E. “Asia Minor and Early Christianity,” in Jacob Neusner, ed., Christianity, Judaism and Other GrecoRoman Cults: Festschrift for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 2:77–145. Idem Paul the Apostle and His Cities (GNS 21; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987). Idem “A Proposed Form-Critical Treatment of Acts,” ATR 21 (1939) 22–31. Johnston, George “Christ as Archegos,” NTS 27 (1981) 381–85. Jones, Arthur H. M. “I Appeal unto Caesar,” in George E. Mylonas and D. Raymond, eds., Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; St. Louis: Washington University Press, 1951–53) 2:918–30.

Idem The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1971). Idem The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940). Jones, Christopher P. “A Geographical Setting for the Baucis and Philemon Legend,” HSCP 96 (1994) 203–23. Idem Plutarch and Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971). Jones, F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.21–71 (SBLTT 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Idem “A Jewish Christian Reads Luke’s Acts of the Apostles: The Use of the Canonical Acts in the Ancient Jewish Christian Source behind PseudoClementine Recognitions 1.27-71,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 617–35. Jonsson, Jon Humor and Irony in the New Testament: Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (Leiden: Brill, 1985). Judge, Edwin A. “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” Reformed Theological Review 30 (1971) 1–7. Idem “Judaism and the Rise of Christianity: A Roman Perspective,” TynBul 45 (1994) 355–68. Idem “Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice,” Australian Biblical Review 16 (1968) 37–50. Idem “St. Paul and Classical Society,” JAC 15 (1972) 19–36. Juel, Donald Luke-Acts: The Promise of History (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983). Idem Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Junod, Eric, and Jean-Daniel Kaestli Acta Iohannis (2 vols.; CCSA 1-2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983). Just, Arthur A. The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993). Juster, Jean Les juifs dans l’empire romain (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1914). Kamerbeek, J. C. “On the Conception of QEOMACOS in Relation with Greek Tragedy,” Mnemosyne 1 (1948) 271–83. Kaplan, Haya R. “Joppa,” ABD 4:946–49.

724

Acts Bib C.indd 724

8/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

Karris, Robert J. What Are They Saying about Luke and Acts? (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist, 1979). Idem “Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and Luke’s Sitz im Leben,” in Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., SBLSP 1979 (2 vols.; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 1:47–58. Käsemann, Ernst “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,” in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W. J. Montague; SBT 41; London: SCM, 1964) 136–48. Idem “Ephesians and Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 288–97. Kasser, Rodolphe, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst The Gospel of Judas (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2006). Kato, Takashi La penséee sociale de Luc-Actes (EHPR 76; Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de France, 1997). Katz, Steven T., ed. The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Katzenstein, H. J., and Douglas R. Edwards “Tyre,” ABD 6:686–92. Kauppi, Lynn A. Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts (LNTS 277; London: T&T Clark, 2006). Kearsley, Rosalinde A. “The Asiarchs,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 363–76. Keck, Leander, and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966). Kee, Howard C. “The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster,” NTS 40 (1994) 281–83. Idem “Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue,” NTS 41 (1995) 481–500. Idem Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Idem To Every Nation under Heaven (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997). Kelber, Werner The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1974). Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed.; London: Longman, 1972).

Bibliography Kennedy, George A. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). Idem New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). Idem, ed. and trans. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Kenyon, George F. “The Western Text in the Gospels and Acts,” Proceedings of the British Academy 24 (1939) 287–315. Kerényi, Karl Der antike Roman (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971). Idem Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur (1927; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­ gesellschaft, 1962). Kettenbach, G. Das Logbuch des Lukas (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986). Keyes, Clinton W. “The Greek Letter of Introduction,” AJP 56 (1935) 28–44. Kilgallen, John J. “Acts 13:4-12: the role of the ‘magos’ EstBib 55 (1997) 223–37. Idem “‘The Apostles Whom He Chose because of the Holy Spirit.’ A Suggestion Regarding Acts 1,2,” Bib 81 (2000) 414–17. Idem A Brief Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1988). Idem “Clean, Acceptable, Saved: Acts 10,” ExpT 109 (1998) 301–2. Idem “Did Peter Actually Fail to Get a Word In? (Acts 11,15),” Bib 71 (1990) 405–10. Idem “The Function of Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7,2-53,” Bib 70 (1989) 173–93. Idem “Hostility to Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13,45)—Why?” Bib 84 (2003) 1–15. Idem “Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders: Its Structure,” EThL 70 (1994) 112–21. Idem The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study of Acts 7,2-53 (AnBib 67; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976). Kilpatrick, George “Acts VII, 56: Son of Man?” ThZ 21 (1965) 209.

725

Acts Bib C.indd 725

8/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

Idem “Acts xxiii, 23: dexiolavboi,” JTS 14 (1963) 393–94. Idem “Again Acts VII, 56,” ThZ 34 (1978) 232. Idem “Apollos—Apelles,” JBL 89 (1970) 77. Idem “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” in J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson, eds., Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 64–77. Idem “Some Quotations in Acts,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 81–97. Idem “The Two Texts of Acts,” in Wolfgang Schrage, ed., Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986) 288–95. Kirchschläger, Walter “Fieberheilung in Apg 28 und Lk 4,” in Jacob ­Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 509–21. Kittel, Gerhard “dovgma,” TDNT 2:230–32. Kittel, Rudolf “lovgion,” TDNT 4:137–41. Klassen, William Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1996). Idem “Judas Iscariot,” ABD 3:1091–96. Klauck, Hans-Josef “Das Ende des Gottlosen: Variationen eines Themas,” in Judas, Ein Jünger des Herrn (QD 111; Freiburg: Herder, 1987) 116–21. Idem “Gottesfürchtige im Magnificat?” NTS 43 (1997) 134–39. Idem “Gütergemeinschaft in der klassischen Antike, in Qumran und im Neuen Testament,” Revue de Qumran 11 (1982) 47–79. Idem “Judas der ‘Verräter’? Eine exegetische und wirkungsgeschichtliche Studie,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992) 717–40. Idem Judas, Ein Jünger des Herrn (QD 111; Freiburg: Herder, 1987). Idem Magie und Heidentum in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (SBS 167; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995) = Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (trans. B. McNeil; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). Idem The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide

to Graeco-Roman Religions (trans. B. McNeil; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). Idem “Von Kassandra bis zur Gnosis: Zum Umfeld der frühchristlichen Glossolalie,” ThQ 179 (1999) 289–312. Idem, with D. R. Bailey Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006). Klauser, Theodor “Akklamation,” RAC 1 (1950) 216–33. Klein, Günter “Der Synkretismus als theologisches Problem in der ältesten christlichen Apologetik,” in idem, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1969) 258–79 (= ZThK 64 [1967] 40–82). Idem Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee (FRLANT 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ­Ruprecht, 1961). Klein, H. “Wie wird aus Kaiwan ein Romfan? Eine textkriti­ sche Miszelle zu Apg 7,42f.,” ZNW 97 (2006) 139–40. Klijn, Albertus F. J. “In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 103–10. Idem “Stephen’s Speech—Acts VII, 2-53,” NTS 4 (1957) 25–31. Klimkeit, Joachim Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Parables, Hymns & Prayers from Central Asia (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). Klostermann, Erich Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1929). Klutz, Todd E. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading (SNTSMS 129; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Idem, ed. Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (JSNTS 245; London: T&T Clark, 2003). Knibbe, Dieter “Via Sacra Ephesiaca: New Aspects of the Cult of Artemis Ephesia,” in Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 141–55. Knoch, Otto Die “Testamente” des Petrus und Paulus: Die Sicherung der apostolischen Überlieferung in der spätneutestamentlichen Zeit (SBS 62; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973).

726

Acts Bib C.indd 726

8/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

Knox, John “Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 279–87. Idem Chapters in the Life of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950). Idem Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942). Knox, Wilfred L. St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939). Idem Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (1942 Schweich Lectures; British Academy: London, 1944). Koch, Dietrich-Alex “Crossing the Border: The ‘Hellenists’ and Their Way to the Gentiles,” Neotestamentica 39 (2005) 289–312. Idem “The God-Fearers between Facts and Fiction: Two Theosebeis Inscriptions from Aphrodisias and Their Bearing for the New Testament,” ST 60 (2006) 62–90. Idem “Geistbesitz, Geistverleihung und Wundermacht: Erwägungen zur Tradition und zur lukanischen Redaktion in Act 8 5-25,” ZNW 77 (1986) 64–82. Idem “Kollektenbericht, ‘Wir’-Bericht und Itinerar: Neue Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem,” NTS 45 (1999) 367–90. Idem “Proselyten und Gottesfürchtige als Hörer der Reden von Apostelgeschichte 2,14-39 und 13,16-41,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 83–107. Kochavi, Moshe “Antipatris,” ABD 1:272–74. Kodell, Jerome “The Word of God Grew: The Ecclesial Tendency of lovgo~ in Acts 6,7; 12,24; 19,20,” Bib 55 (1974) 505–19. Koester, Helmut Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). Idem, ed. Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995). Idem “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature,” in idem, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 119–40.

Bibliography Idem Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1982). Idem “New Testament Introduction: A Critique of a Discipline,” in Jacob Neusner, ed., Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vols.; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1:1–20. Idem, and James M. Robinson Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). Koet, Bart J. Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 42; Leuven: Peeters, 2006). Idem “Im Schatten des Aeneas: Paulus in Troas (Apg 16,8-10),” in Reimund Bieringer, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, eds., Luke and His Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux (BEThL 182; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005) 415–39 (= Dreams and Scripture, 147–71.) Kolenkow, Anitra B. “Testaments: The Literary Genre ‘Testament,’” in Robert A. Kraft and George W. Nickelsburg, eds., Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 259–67. Kollmann, Bernd Joseph Barnabas: Leben und Wirkungsgeschichte (SBS 175; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998); ET Joseph Barnabas: His Life and Legacy (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004). Konstan, David “The Invention of Fiction,” in Ronald F. Hock et al., eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (SBLSymS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 3–17. Korn, Manfred Die Geschichte Jesu in veränderter Zeit: Studien zur bleibenden Bedeutung Jesu im lukanischen Doppelwerk (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993). Koschorke, Klaus “Eine gnostische Pfingstpredigt: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirchlichem Christentum am Beispiel der ‘Epistula Petri ad Philippum’ (NHC VIII,2),” ZThK 74 (1977) 324–43. Koskenniemi, Erkki Der philostrateische Apollonios (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 94; Helsinki: Societas ­Scientiarum Fennica, 1991). Kowalski, B. “Der Fenstersturz in Troas (Apg 20, 7-12),” Stud­ NTUmwelt 30 (2005) 19–37. Idem “Widerstände, Visionen und Geistführung bei Paulus,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 125 (2003) 387–410.

727

Acts Bib C.indd 727

8/27/2008 1:51:08 PM

Kraabel, A. Thomas “The Disappearance of the God-Fearers,” Numen 28 (1981) 113–26. Idem “Greeks, Jews, and Lutherans in the Middle Half of Acts,” in George W. E. Nickelsburg and George W. MacRae, eds., Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 157–67. Idem “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions,” JJS 33 (1982) 445–64. Kraeling, Carl. H. “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932) 130–60. Kraemer, Ross S. “Ber(e)nice,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 59–61. Kraft, Robert A., and George W. Nickelsburg, eds. Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Kratz, Reinhard Rettungswunder: Motiv-, traditions- und formkritische Aufarbeitung einer biblischen Gattung (Frankfurt: Lang, 1979). Kraus, Thomas J. “‘Uneducated,’ ‘Ignorant,’ or even ‘Illiterate’? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of AGRAMMATOI (and IDIWTAI) in Acts 4.13,” NTS 45 (1999) 434–49. Kreitzer, L. J. “A Numismatic Clue to Acts 19:23-41: The Ephesian Cistophoroi of Claudius and Agrippina,” JSNT 30 (1987) 59–70. Kremer, Jacob, ed. Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 43; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979). Idem “Einführung in die Problematik heutiger ActaForschung anhand von Apg 17, 10-13, in idem, Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théolgie (BEThL 43; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 11–20. Idem Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2,1-13 (SBS 63/64; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973). Krenkel, Max Josephus und Lukas: Der schriftstellerische Einfluß des jüdischen Geschichtschreibers auf der christlichen nachgewiesen (Leipzig: Hässel, 1894). Kruse, Colin G. “The Price Paid for a Ministry among Gentiles: Paul’s Persecution at the Hands of the Jews,” in Michael J. Wilkins and Terrence Paige, eds., Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (JSNTS 87; ­Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

Kuck, David W. “The Use and Canonization of Acts in the Early Church” (STM thesis, Yale University, 1975). Kuhn, K. G. “ÆIsrahl, k.t.l.,” TDNT 3:359–69. Kümmel, Werner Georg “Current Theological Accusations against Luke,” Andover-Newton Theological Quarterly 16 (1975) 131–45. Idem Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975). Kursk-Chomycz, D. A. “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila,” JBL 125 (2006) 107–28. Kurz, William S. “Acts 3:19-26 as a Test of the Role of Eschatology in Lukan Christology,” SBLSP 1977 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) 309–23. Idem Farewell Addresses in the New Testament (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990). Idem “Narrative Approaches to Luke-Acts,” Bib 68 (1987) 195–220. Idem “Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives and in Luke and Acts,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 147–70. Idem Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Kürzinger, Josef The Acts of the Apostles (trans. Anthony N. Fuerst, 2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1981). Kussl, Rolf Papyrusfragmente griechischer Romane (Classica Monacensia 2; Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1991). Labahn, Michael, and Bertjan L. Peerbolte, eds. Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (Library of New Testament Studies 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006). Labriolle, Pierre Champagne de History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius (trans. Herbert Wilson; New York: Knopf, 1925). Ladouceur, David J. “The Death of Herod the Great,” Classical Philology 76 (1981) 25–34. Idem “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28,” HTR 73 (1980) 443–49.

728

Acts Bib C.indd 728

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Laird, Andrew “Fiction, Bewitchment and Story Worlds: The Implications of Claims to Truth in Apuleius,” in Christopher Gill and T. P. Wiseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993) 147–74. Laistner, M. L. W. “The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede,” HTR 30 (1937) 37–50. Lake, Kirsopp “Acts of the Apostles,” in James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916) 1:15–29. Idem “The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 195–212. Idem “The Ascension,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 16–22. Idem “The Chronology of Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 445–74. Idem “The Communism of Acts II. and IV.–VI. and the Appointment of the Seven,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 140–51. Idem “The Death of Judas,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 22–30. Idem “The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 111–21. Idem “The Holy Spirit,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5

Bibliography of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 96–111. Idem “Localities in and near Jerusalem Mentioned in Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 474–86. Idem “Paul’s Route in Asia Minor,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 224–40. Idem “The Preface to Acts and the Composition of Acts,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 1–7. Idem “Proselytes and God-Fearers,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 74–96. Idem “The Unknown God,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 240–46. Idem “Your Own Poets,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 246–51. Idem, and Henry J. Cadbury Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

729

Acts Bib C.indd 729

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Idem “The Winds,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 338–44. Lambrecht, Jan “Paul’s Farewell-Address at Miletus, Acts 20, 17-38,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 307–37. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. “‘Grievous Wolves’ (Acts 20:29),” in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 235–68. Idem “Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965) 163–78. Lampe, Peter “Paulus—Zeltmacher,” BZ 31 (1987) 211–21. Idem “Acta 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften,” BZ 36 (1992) 59–77. Idem From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser, ed. Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Idem, and Ulrich Luz “Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society,” in Jürgen Becker, ed., Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times (trans. A. S. Kidder and R. Krauss; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 242–80. Lane, Eugene N. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Meni (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971–78). La Piana, George “Foreign Groups at Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire,” HTR 20 (1927) 183–403. Idem “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” HTR 18 (1925) 201–78. Lausberg, Heinrich Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (trans. Matthew T. Bliss et al.; ed. Davie E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Leaney, A. R. C. The Gospel according to St Luke (Harper’s/Blacks Commentaries; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1958). Lentz, John Clayton, Jr. Luke’s Portrait of Paul (SNTSMS 77; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Leon, Harry J. The Jews of Ancient Rome (updated ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995). Leonardi, G. Atti degli apostoli, traduzione strutturata, analisi narrativa e retorica (2 vols.; Sussidi Biblici 61-61b; ­Reggio Emilia: San Lorenzo, 1998). Leppä, Heikki Luke’s Critical Use of Galatians (Vantaa, Finland: Dark Oy, 2002). Le Roux, Christiaan R. “Ephesus in the Acts of the Apostles: A Geo­ graphical and Theological Appraisal,” in Herwig Firesinger et al., eds., 100 Jahre österreichische ­Forschungen in Ephesus: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995 (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der ­Wissenschaften, 1999) 307–13. Lesky, Albin “Aithiopika,” Hermes 87 (1957) 27–38. Levick, Barbara The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1985). Idem Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967). Levine, Amy-Jill, ed., with M. Blickenstaff A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004). Levinskaya, Irina The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (BIFCS 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Levy, G. Rachel Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age: And Their Influence upon European Thought (New York: ­Harper & Row, 1963). Lichtenberger, Hermann “Jews and Christians in Rome in the Time of Nero: Josephus and Paul in Rome,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2142–76. Liefeld, Walter L. “The Wandering Preacher as Social Figure in the Roman Empire” (Diss., Columbia University, 1967). Lifshitz, Baruch Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (CahRB 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967). Idem “Du nouveau sur les ‘Sympathisants,’” JSJ 1 (1970) 77–84. Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers (London/New York: Macmillan, 1891). Idem Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1879) Lightfoot, Jane L. Parthenius of Nicea (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). Limberis, Vasiliki “Anna 2,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 50–51.

730

Acts Bib C.indd 730

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Lin, Szu-Chuan Wundertaten und Mission: Dramatische Episoden in Apg. 13–14 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 163; Berlin: Lang, 1998). Lindars, Barnabas “Elijah, Elisha and the Gospel Miracles,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965) 61–79. Idem New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961). Lindemann, Andreas “Der ‘Äthiopische Eunuch’ und die Anfänge der Mission unter den Völkern nach Apg 8–11,” in Breytenbach, Apostelgeschichte, 109–33. Idem “The Beginnings of Christian Life in Jerusalem according to the Summaries in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2.42-47; 4.32-35; 5.12-16),” in Julian V. Hills et al., eds., Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998). Idem Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). Idem “The Community of Goods among the First Christians and among the Essenes,” in David Goodblatt, et al., eds., Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orieon Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 1999 (STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 1999). Idem Paulus im Ältesten Christentum (BHT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979). Lindijer, C. H. “Two Creative Encounters in the Work of Luke: Luke xxiv 13-35 and Acts viii 26-40,” in T. Baarda et al., eds., Miscellanea Neotestamentica (NovTSup 48; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Linton, Olof “The Third Aspect: A Neglected Point of View. A Study in Gal. i–ii and Acts ix and xv,” ST 3 (1951) 79–95. Lintott, A. W. “Provocatio: From the Struggle of the Orders to the Principate,” ANRW 1.2 (1973) 226–67. Lipsius, Richard A., and Maximilian Bonnet Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (2 vols.; Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1891–1903). Litwak, K. D. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTS 282; London: T&T Clark, 2005). Lohfink, Gerhard The Conversion of St. Paul: Narrative and History in

Bibliography Acts (trans. Bruce J. Malina; Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1976). Idem Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (Munich: Kösel, 1971). Idem Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur lukan­ ischen Ekklesiologie (SANT 39; Munich: Kösel, 1975). Lohse, Eduard “provswpon,” TDNT 6:768–80. Idem “Ursprung und Prägung des christlichen Apostolates,” TZ 9 (1953) 259–76. Idem “ceiropoivhto~,” TDNT 9:436. Lona, Horacio E. Der erste Clemensbrief (Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Long, A. A., and David N. Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Long, William R. “The Paulusbild in the Trial of Paul in Acts,” in Kent H. Richards, ed., SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 87–105. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Lukan Aversion to Humps & Hollows: The Case of Acts 11:27—12:25,” NTS 50 (2004) 185–204. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles,” in F. E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 9; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 207–523. Löning, Karl “The Circle of Stephen and Its Mission,” in Jürgen Becker, ed., Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times (trans. Annemarie S. Kidder and Reinhard Krauss; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 103–31. Idem “Die Korneliustradition,” BZ 18 (1974) 1–19. Idem “Paulinismus in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Karl Kertelge, ed., Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament (QD 89; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 202–34. Idem Die Saulustradition in der Apostelgeschichte (NTAbh 9; Münster: Aschendorff, 1973). Lösch, Stephan “Die Dankesrede des Tertullus: Apg 24,1-4,” ThQ 112 (1939) 295–319. Lostang, F. “À la louange du dieu inconnu: Analyse rhétorique de Ac 17.22-31,” NTS 52 (2006) 394–408. Lovejoy, Arthur O., and George Boas Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (2 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935).

731

Acts Bib C.indd 731

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Lövestam, E. “Paul’s Address at Miletus,” ST 41 (1987) 1–10. Luck, Georg Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds; A Collection of Ancient Texts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985). Lüdemann, Gerd “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” NTS (1987) 420–26. Idem The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005). Idem Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts (trans J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. E. Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (trans. F. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Ludvíkovsky, Jaroslav Recky Roman Dobroduzny Le roman grec d’aventures (Prague: Filosofika Fakulta University Karlova, 1925). Ludwig, Karl, and Martin A. Schmidt “pacuvnw,” TDNT 5:1022–31. Lundgren, S. “Ananias and the Calling of Paul in Acts,” ST 25 (1971) 117–22. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992). Lyons, George Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). MacDonald, Dennis R., ed. The Apocryphal Acts of Apostles (Semeia 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Idem “Apocryphal and Canonical Narratives about Paul,” in William S. Babcock, ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990) 25–45. Idem Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). Idem Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Idem The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983). Idem “Luke’s Emulation of Homer: Acts 12:1-17 and Iliad 24,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 197–205.

Idem “Luke’s Eutychus and Homer’s Elpenor: Acts 20:7-12 and Odyssey, 10–12,” JHC 1 (1994) 5–24. Idem “Lydia and Her Sisters as Lukan Fictions,” in AmyJill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 105–10. Idem “Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector’s Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 189–203. Idem “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul,” NTS 45 (1999) 88–107. MacDonald, Margaret Y. Early Christian Women and Pagan Women: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Idem The Pauline Churches (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Mack, Burton L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Idem Rhetoric and the New Testament (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Maclean, A. J. “Acts of the Apostles,” in James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909) 8–10. MacLennon, Robert S., and A. Thomas Kraabel “The God-Fearers—A Literary and Theological Invention,” BAR 12 (1986) 46–53. MacMullen, Ramsay Christianizing the Roman Empire: A. D. 100–400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). Idem Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). Idem Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). Idem Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). MacRae, George “Miracle in the Antiquities of Josephus,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965) 129–47. Maddox, Robert The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982).

732

Acts Bib C.indd 732

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Magie, David Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950). Magness, J. Lee Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark’s Gospel (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1986). Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977). Idem “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1992) 267–333. Idem The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Idem “‘Not in a Corner’: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” SecCent 5 (1985–86) 193–210. Idem Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Idem “Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epistle 4: The Divinization of the Wise Man,” JAC 21 (1978) 42–64. Idem Social Aspects of Early Christianity (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). Malten, Ludolf “Motivegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Sagenforschung,” Hermes 74 (1930) 79–86. Mandelbaum, Allen The Metamorphoses of Ovid (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993). Marconi, Gilberto “History as a Hermeneutical Interpretaion of the Difference between Acts 3:1-10 and 4:8-12,” in Gerald O’Collins and Gilberto Marconi, eds., Luke and Acts (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; Festschrift Emilio Rasco; New York: Paulist, 1993) 167–80. Marcus, Ralph Josephus V, VII (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934, 1943). Marguerat, Daniel “The End of Acts and the Rhetoric of Silence,” in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds., Rhetoric and the New Testament (JSNTSS 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Idem “L’image de Paul dans les Actes des Apôtres,” in Michel Berder, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Histoire, récit, théologie: XXe congrès de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible, Angers, 2003 (LD 199; Paris: Cerf, 2005) 121–54.

Bibliography Idem La première histoire du christianisme: Les Actes des Apôtres (LD 180; Paris: Cerf, 1999). ET K. McKinney, et al., The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (SNTSMS 121; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Marrou, Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity (trans. G. Lamb.; New York: New American Library, 1964). Marrow, Stanley B. “Parrhêsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44 (1982) 431–46. Marshall, I. Howard “Acts and the ‘Former Treatise,’” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 163–82. Idem The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Idem Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Idem “How Does One Write on the Theology of Acts?” in idem and David Peterson, eds., Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 3–16. Idem “‘Israel’ and the Story of Salvation: One Theme in Two Parts,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 340–57. Idem “Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles,” ExpT 80 (1968–69) 292–96. Idem “The Significance of Pentecost,” SJT 30 (1977) 347–69. Idem, and David Peterson, eds. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Martin, Clarice “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1994). Idem “A Chamberlain’s Journey and the Challenge of Interpretation for Liberation,” Sem 47 (1989) 105–35. Martin, Hubert H., Jr. “Areopagus,” ABD 1:370–72. Idem “Athens,” ABD 1:513–18. Martin, Luther “Gods or Ambassadors of God? Barnabas and Paul in Lystra,” NTS 41 (1995) 152–56. Martin, Thomas W. “Hellenists,” ABD 3:135–36.

733

Acts Bib C.indd 733

8/27/2008 1:51:09 PM

Martini, Carlo M. “La tradition textuelle des Actes des Apôtres et les tendance de l’Église ancienne,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 21–35. Mason, Steve, “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts,” in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 115–77. Masson, Charles “À propos de Act. 9:19b-25: Note sur l’utilisation de Gal et de 2 Cor. par l’auteur des Actes,” ThZ 18 (1962) 161–66. Mastin, B. A. “A Note on Acts 19:14,” Bib 59 (1978) 97–99. Idem “Scaeva the Chief Priest,” JTS 27 (1976) 405–12. Mathieu, Yvan La figure de Pierre dan l’oeuvre de Luc (EB 52; Paris: Gabalda, 2004). Matson, David L. Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation (JSNTS 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Matthews, Christopher R. Philip: Apostle and Evangelist (NovTSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Matthews, Shelly First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). Mattila, Sharon Lea “Where Women Sat in Ancient Synagogues: The Archaeological Evidence in Context,” in John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, eds., Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996) 266–86. Mattill, Andrew J., Jr. “Luke as a Historian in Criticism since 1840” (Diss., Vanderbilt University, 1959). Idem “The Jesus–Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered,” NovT 17 (1975) 15–47. Idem, and Mary B. Mattill A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles (NTTS 7; Leiden: Brill, 1966). Mattingly, Harold B. “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” JTS 9 (1958) 26–37. Maurer, Christian “pra`xi~,” TDNT 6:642–44. Idem “tivqhmi,” TDNT 8:153–68. McCoy, W. J. “In the Shadow of Thucydides,” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 3–23.

McDonald, Lee M., and Stanley E. Porter Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000). McDonough, Sean M. “Small Change: Saul to Paul, Again,” JBL 125 (2006) 390–91. McKechnie, P. R. “Judean Embassies and Cases before Roman Emperors, ad 44–66,” JTS 56 (2005) 339–61. McRay, John “Damascus: The Greco-Roman Period,” ABD 2:7–8. Idem “Miletus,” ABD 4:825–26. Mealand, David L. “The Close of Acts and Its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary,” NTS 36 (1990) 583–97. Idem “Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts 2–4,” JTS 28 (1977) 96–99. Idem “The Phrase ‘Many Proofs’ in Acts 1,3 and in Hellenistic Writers,” ZNW 80 (1989) 134–35. Meeks, Wayne A., “The Divine Agent and His Counterfeit,” in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 43–67. Idem The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Idem “Simon Magus in Recent Research,” RSR 3 (1977) 137–42. Idem, and Robert L. Wilken Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (SBLSBS 13; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978). Meiggs, Russell Roman Ostia (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973). Meijer, Fik, and Onno van Nijf Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1992). Meinardus, Otto F. A. “Melita Illyrica or African: An Examination of the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck,” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974) 21–36. Idem “St. Paul Shipwrecked in Dalmatia,” BA 39 (1976) 145–47. Melbourne, Bertram L. “Acts 1:8 Re-examined: Is Acts 8 Its Fulfillment?” JRT 58 (2005) 1–18. Melzer-Keller, Helga “Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte,” BK 55 (2000) 87–91.

734

Acts Bib C.indd 734

8/27/2008 1:51:10 PM

Menestrina, Giovanni “L’incipit dell’epistola ‘ad Diognetum’, Luca 1,1-4 e Atti 1,1-2,” BeO 19 (1977) 215–18. Menoud, Philippe-Henri “Les additions au groupe des Douze Apôtres d’après le Livre des Actes,” RHPR 37 (1957) 71–80. Idem Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (trans. E. M. Paul; PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978). Idem “La mort d’Annanias et de Saphira (Actes 5, 1-11),” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire (Bibliothèque théologique; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950) 146–54. Idem “‘Pendant quarante jours’ (Actes i 3),” in Neotestamentica et patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 148–56. Idem “The Plan of Acts,” in idem, Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (PTMS 18; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 121–32. Menzies, Glen “Pre-Lukan Occurrences of the Phrase ‘Tongue of Fire,’” Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 22 (2000) 27–60. Merkelbach, Reinhold Roman und Mysterium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962). Meshorer, Yaakov Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (trans. I. H. Levine; Tel Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1967). Metzger, Bruce M. “Ancient Astrological Geography and Acts 2:9-11,” in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional and Patristic (NTTS 10; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 46–56. Idem The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). Idem The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Idem A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994). Meyer, Marvin, and Paul Mirecki, eds. Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 129; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Meyer, Marvin, and Richard Smith, eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). Meyer, R., and Friedrich Hauck “kaqarov~,” TDNT 3:413–31.

Bibliography Meyers, Carol, et al., eds. Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000). Michael, John H. “The Original Position of Acts xiv.3,” ExpT 40 (1928–29) 514–16. Michaelis, Wilhelm Die Gefangenschaft des Paulus in Ephesus und das Itinerar des Timotheus (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1925). Idem “ei[sodo~, e[xodo~,” TDNT 5:103–8. Idem “liqavzw,” TDNT 4:267–68. Idem “o{rama,” TDNT 5:371–72. Idem “prw`to~,” TDNT 6:865–82. Idem “proceirivzw,” TDNT 6:862–64. Michel, Hans-Joachim Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20, 17-38: Motivgeschichte und theologische Bedeutung (SANT 35; Munich: Kösel, 1973). Michel, Otto “mnhmoneuvw,” TDNT 4:682–83. Miles, Gary, and Garry Trompf “Luke and Antiphon,” HTR 69 (1976) 259–67. Millar, Fergus The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977). Idem The Roman Near East: 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). Miller, John B. F. Convinced That God Had Called Us: Dreams, Visions, and the Perception of God’s Will in Luke-Acts (BIS 85; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Mills, Watson E. The Acts of the Apostles (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1996). Minar, E. L., Jr. Plutarch’s Moralia IX (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961). Minear, Paul S. “A Note on Luke 17:7-10,” JBL 93 (1974) 82–87. Mineshige, K. Besitzversicht und Almosen bei Lukas: Wesen und Forderung des Lukanischen Vermögensethos (WUNT 163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Minnen, P. van “Paul the Roman Citizen,” JSNT 56 (1994) 43–52. Mitchell, Alan C. “The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37,” JBL 111 (1992) 255–72. Mitchell, Stephen “Antioch of Pisidia,” ABD 1:264–65. Mitford, Terence B. “Roman Cyprus,” ANRW 2.7.2 (1980) 1286–1384.

735

Acts Bib C.indd 735

8/27/2008 1:51:10 PM

Mittelstädt, Alexander Lukas als Historiker: Zur Datierung des Lukanischen Doppelwerkes: Texte und Arbeiten zum neuestestament­ lichen Zeitalter 43 (Tübingen: Francke, 2006). Mitton, C. Leslie The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951). Moehring, Horst R. “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device,” in David E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 144–60. Idem “The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the Isis Cult at Rome, A.D. 19,” NovT 3 (1959) 293–304. Idem “The Verb AKOUEIN in Acts IX 7 and XXII 9,” NovT 3 (1959) 80–99. Moessner, David, P. “‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus—Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts,” NovT 28 (1986) 221–27. Idem “‘Completed End(s)ings’ of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End(ing) of Acts,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 193–221. Idem “Dionysius’s Narrative ‘Arrangement’ as the Hermeneutical Key to Luke’s Re-Vision of the ‘Many,’” in Alf Christophersen et al., eds., Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 149–64. Idem, ed. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999). Idem Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1989). Idem “The Lukan Prologues in the Light of Ancient Narrative Hermeneutics: parhkolouqhkovti and the Credentialed Author,” in Jozef Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 399–417. Idem “Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel,” NTS 34 (1988) 96–104. Idem “The ‘Script’ of the Scriptures in Acts: Suffering as God’s ‘Plan’ (boulhv) for the World for the ‘Release of Sins,’” in Ben Witherington III, History,

Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 218–50. Idem “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2:14-36),” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 215–32. Momigliano, Arnaldo The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). Idem “Second Thoughts on Greek Biography,” Medede­ lingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 34 (1971) 245–57. Mommsen, Theodor “Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,” ZNW 2 (1902) 81–96. Montgomery, James A. “The Ethiopic Text of Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 27 (1934) 169–205. Moreland, Milton “The Jerusalem Community in Acts: Mythmaking and the Sociorhetorical Functions of a Lukan Setting,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 285–310. Morgan, John R. “Heliodoros,” in Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 444–45. Idem “Make-Believe and Make Believe: The Fictionality of the Greek Novels,” in Christopher Gill and Thomas P. Wiseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993) 175–229. Idem “On the Fringes of the Canon: Work on the Fragments of Ancient Greek Fiction 1936–1994,” ANRW 2.34.4 (1998) 3293–3390. Morgenthaler, Robert Die Lukanische Geschichtschreibung als Zeugnis (2 vols.; AThANT 14, 15; Zurich: Zwingli, 1949). Idem Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zurich: Gotthelf, 1958). Mortley, Raoul “The Title of the Acts of the Apostles,” in Lectures anciennes de la Bible (Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1; Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques, 1987) 105–12. Morton, A. Q., and G. H. C. MacGregor The Structure of Luke and Acts (New York: Harper & Row, 1964).

736

Acts Bib C.indd 736

8/27/2008 1:51:10 PM

Moule, Charles F. D. “The Christology of Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 159–85. Idem An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Idem, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965). Idem “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” BJRL 47 (1965) 430–52. Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed., 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76). Moulton, W. F., A. S. Geden, and H. K. Moulton, eds. A Concordance to the Greek Testament (5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978). Mount, Christopher Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Mowery, Robert L. “Paul and Caristianus at Pisidian Antioch,” Bib 87 (2006) 223–42. Muhlack, Gudrun Die Parallelen von Lukas-Evangelium und Apostel­ geschichte (Theologie und Wirklichkeit 8; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1979). Müller, Paul-Gerhard “nuvx,” EDNT 2:481–83. Idem CRISTOS ARCHGOS: Der Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Hintergrund einer neutestament­ lichen Christusprädikation (Europäische Hochschul­ schriften Reihe 23, vol. 28; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1973). Munck, Johannes “Discours d’adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la littérature biblique,” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Goguel (Bibliothèque théologique; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950) 155–70. Idem Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Knox, 1959). Murphy, Frederick J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome “Corinth,” ABD 1:1134–39. Idem “Lots of God-Fearers? Theosebeis in the Aphrodisias Inscription,” RB 99 (1992) 418–24. Idem Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Idem “Prisca and Aquila: Traveling Tentmakers and Church Builders,” BR 8 (1992) 40–51.

Bibliography Idem Saint Paul’s Corinth (GNS 6; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983). Mussies, Gerard “Variation in the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 4 (1991) 165–82. Idem “Variation in the Book of Acts (Part II),” FilolNT 8 (1995) 23–61. Mußner, Franz “‘In den letzten Tagen’ (Apg. 2,17a),” BZ 5 (1961) 263–65. Musurillo, Herbert The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). Idem The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954). Myllykoski, Matti “Being There: The Function of the Supernatural in Acts 1–12,” in Michael Labahn and Bert L. Peerbolte, eds., Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 146–79. Nagy, Gregory The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). Nauck, Wolfgang “Die Tradition und Komposition der Areopa­ grede,” ZThK 53 (1956) 11–52. Nave, Guy D., Jr. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts (Academia Biblica 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Neagoe, Alexandru The Trial of the Gospel: An Apologetic Reading of Luke’s Trial Narratives (SNTSMS 116; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Neil, William The Acts of the Apostles (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1973). Neirynck, Frans “The Miracle Stories in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 169–213. Nelson, Edwin S. “Paul’s First Missionary Journey as Paradigm: A Literary-Critical Assessment of Acts 13, 14.” (Diss., Boston University, 1982). Nestle, Wilhelm “Legenden vom Tod der Gottesverächter,” ARW 33 (1936) 246–69. Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner Der Stephanuskreis in der Forschungsgeschichte seit F. C. Baur (Monographien und Studienbücher 309; Giessen: Brunnen, 1983).

737

Acts Bib C.indd 737

8/27/2008 1:51:10 PM

Neusner, Jacob First Century Judaism in Crisis: Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975). Idem From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973). Idem “Vow-Taking, the Nazirites, and the Law: Does James’ Advice to Paul accord with Halakah?” in Bruce Chilton and Craig Evans, eds., James the Just and Christian Origins (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 59–82. New, Sylvia “The Michigan Papyrus,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 262–69. Newsome, Carol A., and Sharon H. Ringe, eds. The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). Neyrey, Jerome H. “Acts 17, Epicureans and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes,” in David Balch et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 118–34. Idem “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22–26,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 210–24. Idem “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 251–79. Idem The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology (New York: Paulist, 1985). Idem, ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991). Idem “The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: ‘They Turn the World Upside Down,” in idem, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 271–304. Idem “‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype,” JSNT 26 (2003) 69–102. Nickelsburg, George W. “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative,” HTR 73 (1980) 153–84. Idem Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).

Nicklas, Tobias, and Michael Tilly, eds. The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Nickle, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (SBT 48; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1966). Niederwimmer, Kurt The Didache (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Nielsen, Anders E. Until It Is Fulfilled: Lukan Eschatology according to Luke 22 and Acts 20 (WUNT 126; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Nilsson, Martin P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 2: Die hellenistische und römische Zeit (2nd ed.; Munich: Beck, 1961). Idem Greek Piety (trans. Herbert Jennings Rose; New York: Norton, 1969). Nippel, Wilfried Public Order in Ancient Rome (Kay Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Nobbs, Alanna “Acts and Subsequent Ecclesiastical Histories,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 153–62. Idem “Cyprus in the Book of Acts,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 279–89. Nock, Arthur Darby Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London/ New York: Oxford University Press, 1961). Idem Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972). Idem “Eunuchs in Ancient Religion,” in idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 1:7–15. Idem “The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos,” in idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 1:414–43 (abridged from HTR 29 [1936] 39–88). Idem “Isopolitea and the Jews,” in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 2:960–62.

738

Acts Bib C.indd 738

8/27/2008 1:51:10 PM

Idem “Paul and the Magus,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 164–88 (= Essays 1:308–30). Idem Review of Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte, in Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 2:821–32. Idem Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926). Idem “Soter and Euergetes,” in idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 2:720–35. Nolland, John “A Fresh Look at Acts 15.10,” NTS 27 (1980) 105–15. Noorda, Sijbolt J. “Scene and Summary: A Proposal for Reading Acts 4,32—5,16,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 475–83. Norden, Eduard Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede (1913; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974). Idem Die antike Kunstprosa (2 vols.; 1915; reprinted, Stutt­g art: Teubner, 1995). Nordheim, Eckhard von Die Lehre der Alten (2 vols.; ALGHJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980). Norris, Frederick W. “Antioch of Syria,” ABD 1:265–69. Ntumba, V. K. “Ac 5,1-11: Ananie et Saphire: Lecture exégetique et réf lexions théologiques,” Hekima Rev 34 (1905) 43–55. Nuttall, Geoffrey F. Moment of Recognition: Luke as Story-Teller (London: Athlone, 1978). O’Collins, Gerald, and Gilberto Marconi, eds. Luke and Acts (Festschrift Emilio Rasco; trans. M. J. O’Connell; New York: Paulist, 1993). Oepke, Albrecht “e[kstasi~,” TDNT 2:449–60. Idem “nefevlh,” TDNT 4:902–10. Öhler, Markus Barnabas: Die historische Person und ihre Rezeption in der Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 156; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Oldfather, William Abbot Epictetus I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925).

Bibliography Ollrog, Wolf-Henning Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter (WMANT 50; ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979). Olson, Mark J. “Augustan Cohort,” ABD 1:524. Idem “Julius,” ABD 3:1125–26. Omerzu, Heike Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). O’Neill, John C. “The Connection between Baptism and the Gift of the Spirit in Acts,” JSNT 63 (1996) 87–103. Idem The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1961). Osborn, C. D. “The Search for the Original Text of Acts; the International Project on the Text of Acts,” JSNT 44 (1991) 39–55. Oster, Richard E. A Bibliography of Ancient Ephesus (ATLA Bib Ser 19; Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1987). Idem “The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early Christianity,” JAC 19 (1976) 24–44. Idem “Ephesus,” ABD 2:542–49. Idem “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate: I. Paganism before Constantine,” ANRW 2.18.3 (1990) 1661–1728. Idem A Historical Commentary on the Missionary Success Stories in Acts 19:11-40 (Diss., Princeton University, 1974). O’Toole, Robert F. Acts 26: The Christological Climax of Paul’s Defense (Ac 22:1—26:32) (AnBib 78; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978). Idem “Luke’s Understanding of Jesus’ ResurrectionAscension-Exaltation,” BTB 9 (1979) 106–14. Idem “Parallels between Jesus and His Disciples in LukeActs: A Further Study,” BZ 27 (1983) 195–212. Idem “Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts viii, 25-40),” JSNT 17 (1983) 25–34. Idem “Theophilus,” ABD 6:511–12. Idem The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts (GNS 9; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984). Idem “‘You Did Not Lie to Us but to God’ (Acts 5,4c),” Bib 76 (1995) 182–209.

739

Acts Bib C.indd 739

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

Overbeck, Franz “Über das Verhältnis Justins des Märtyrers zur Apostelgeschichte,” ZWTh 15 (1872) 305–49. Overman, J. Andrew “The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features,” JSNT 32 (1988) 17–26. Paget, James Carleton The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (WUNT 2.64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Painter, John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). Palmer, Darryl W. “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 1–29. Idem “The Literary Background of Acts 1. 1-14,” NTS 33 (1987) 427–38. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Parker, David C. Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Parker, F. “The Terms ‘Angel’ and ‘Spirit’ in Acts 23,8,” Bib 84 (2003) 344–65. Parry, David T. N. “Release of the Captives: Reflections on Acts 12,” in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett (JSNTS 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 156–64. Parsons, Mikeal C. “Acts,” in Watson E. Mills et al., eds., Mercer Commentary on the Bible, vol. 7: Acts and Pauline Writings (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997) 1–64. Idem Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). Idem “Christian Origins and Narrative Opening: The Sense of a Beginning in Acts 1–5,” Review & Expositor 87 (1990) 403–22. Idem The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context (JSNTS 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987). Idem “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the Preliminary Exercises,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 43–63.

Idem “‘Nothing Defiled AND Unclean’: The Conjunction’s Function in Acts 10:14,” PerspRelStud 27 (2000) 263–74. Idem “The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 155–71. Idem, and Richard I. Pervo Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Paulsen, Henning, and Walter Bauer Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (HNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985). Pease, Arthur Stanley, ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958). Idem “Notes on Book-Burning,” in Massey H. Shepherd and Sherman E. Johnson, eds., Munera Studiosa (Festschrift W. H. P. Hatch; Cambridge, Mass.: Episcopal Theological School, 1946) 145–60. Idem “Notes on Stoning among the Greeks and Romans,” TAPA 38 (1907) 5–18. Pecere, Oronzo, and Antonio Stramaglia, eds. La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino (Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino, 1996). Pelikan, Jaroslav The Light of the World: A Basic Image in Early Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962). Penna, R. “Les Juifs à Rome au temps de l’Apôtre Paul,” NTS 28 (1982) 321–47. Penner, Todd “Civilizing Discourse,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 65–104. Idem “Contextualizing Acts,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 1–21. Idem In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10; New York: T&T Clark, 2004). Idem “Madness in the Method? The Acts of the Apostles in Current Study,” CBR 2 (2004) 223–93. Idem “Reconfiguring the Rhetorical Study of Acts: Ref lections on the Method in and the Learning of

740

Acts Bib C.indd 740

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

A Progymnastic Poetics,” PerspRelStud 30 (2003) 425–39. Idem, and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds. Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and GrecoRoman Discourse (SBLSymS 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Pereira, Francis Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts—A Redaction-Critical Study of Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23—20:1) (Jesuit Theological Forum Studies 10.1; Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983). Perkins, Pheme Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994). Pervo, Richard I. “(Acts 21:9) Four Unmarried Daughters of Philip,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 467–68. Idem “‘Antioch, Farewell! For Wisdom Sees . . .’: Traces of a Source about the Early Gentile Mission in Acts 1–15,” Forum (forthcoming). Idem “Aseneth and Her Sisters: Women in Jewish Narrative and in the Greek Novels,” in Amy-Jill Levine, ed., “Women like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (SBLEJL 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 145–60. Idem Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006). Idem “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre,” JSNT 28 (2006) 285–307. Idem “Entertainment and Early Christian Literature,” Explor 7 (1984) 29–39. Idem “Die Entführung in das Serail: Aspasia: A Female Aesop?” in Jo-Ann Brant et al., eds., Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (SBLSymS 32; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) 61–88. Idem “The Gates Have Been Closed (Acts 21:30): The Jews in Acts,” JHC 11 (2005) 128–49. Idem “A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts,” JHC 2 (1995) 3–32. Idem “Israel’s Heritage and Claims upon the Genre(s) of Luke and Acts: The Problems of a History,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 127–43. Idem “Johannine Trajectories in the Acts of John,” Apocrypha 3 (1992) 47–68.

Bibliography Idem “Joseph of Asenath and the Greek Novel,” SBLSP 1976 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976) 171–81. Idem “The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles” (Diss., Harvard University, 1979). Idem Luke’s Story of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Idem “Meet Right—and Our Bounden Duty,” Forum n.s. 4.1 (Spring 2000) 45–62. Idem “Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?” in SBLSP 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 309–16. Idem “My Happy Home: The Role of Jerusalem in Acts 1–7,” Forum n.s. 3.1 (2000) 31–55. Idem “A Nihilist Fabula: Introducing the Life of Aesop,” in Ronald F. Hock, J. Bradley Chance, and J. Perkins, eds., Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (SBLSS 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 77–120. Idem “PANTA KOINA: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice,” in Lucas Bormann et al., eds., Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 163–94. Idem Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Idem Review of Torrey Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke, The Studia Philonica Annual 8 (1996) 208–10. Idem “Rhoda,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 145. Idem “Romancing an Oft-neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistolary Novel,” JHC 1 (1994) 25–47. Idem “Sapphira,” in Carol Meyers et al., eds., Women in Scripture (New York: Houghton Miff lin, 2000) 149–50. Idem “Social and Religious Aspects of the Western Text,” in Dennis Groh and Robert Jewett, ed., The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985) 229–41.

741

Acts Bib C.indd 741

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

Idem “The Testament of Joseph and Greek Romance,” in George W. E. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Joseph (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975) 15–28. Idem “Wisdom and Power: Petronius’ Satyricon and the Social World of Early Christianity,” ATR 67 (1985) 307–25. Idem “With Lucian: Who Needs Friends? Friendship in the Toxaris,” in John Fitzgerald, ed., Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Resources for Biblical Study 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 163–80. Petersen, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). Peterson, David “The Motif of Fulfilment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 83–104. Peterson, Erik Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis: Studien und Untersuchungen (Freiburg: Herder, 1959). Idem EIS QEOS: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (FRLANT 41; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926). Peterson, J. “Missionary Methods of the Religions in the Early Roman Empire” (Diss., University of Chicago, 1942). Petzke, Gerd “eujnou`co~,” TDNT 2:80–81. Idem Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyrana und das Neue Testament (SCHNT 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Pfeiffer, Robert H. History of New Testament Times: With an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper & Bros., 1949). Pfister, Franz “Ekstase,” RAC 4:944–87. Idem “Apostelgeschichten,” in Edgar Hennecke, ed., Neutestamentliche Apocryphen (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1924) 163–71. Pherigo, Lindsey P. “Paul’s Life after the Close of Acts,” JBL 70 (1951) 277–84. Phillips, Thomas E., ed. Acts and Ethics (NTMon 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005). Idem “Creation, Sin and Its Curse, and the People of God: An Intertextual Reading of Genesis 1–12 and Acts 1–7,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (2003) 146–60. Idem “The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward a Consensus?” CBR 4 (2006) 365–96.

Idem “Paul as a Role Model in Acts: The ‘We’ Passages in Acts 16 and Beyond,” in idem, ed., Acts and Ethics (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) 49–63. Pichler, Josef Paulusrezeption in der Apostelgeschichte: Untersuchungen zur Rede im pisidischen Antiochien (Innsbrucker theologische Studien 50; Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1997). Pilhofer, Peter Philippi, Band I: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (WUNT 87; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Places, Éduard des “‘Ipsius enim et genus sumus’ (Act. XVII, 28),” Bib 81 (1962) 388–95. Plümacher, Eckhard “Acta-Forschung 1974–1982,” ThRu 48 (1983) 1–56. Idem “Acta-Forschung 1974–1982 (Fortsetzung und Schluss),” ThRu 49 (1984) 105–79. Idem “Apokryphe Apostelakten,” PW Supp 15:11–70. Idem “Apostelgeschichte,” TRE 3:483–528. Idem “Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 457–66. Idem “Cicero und Lukas: Bemerkungen zu Stil und Zweck der historischen Monographie,” in Jozef Verheyden, The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 759–75. Idem Geschichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostel­ geschichte und zu den Johannesakten (ed. Jens Schröter and R. Brucker; WUNT 170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Idem “Lukas als griechischer Historiker,” PWSup 14:235–64. Idem Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). Idem “The Mission Speeches in Acts and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 251–66. Idem “TERATEIA”: Fiktion und Wunder in der hellenistisch-römischen Geschichtsschreibung und in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 89 (1998) 66–90. Idem “Eine Thukydidesreminiszenz in der Apostel­ geschichte (Act 20,33-35—Thuk. 11 97.3f)?” ZNW 83 (1992) 270–75.

742

Acts Bib C.indd 742

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

Idem “Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschrei­ bung bei Lukas: Erwägungen zu den Wir-Stücken der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 68 (1977) 2–22. Plummer, Alfred A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Luke (ICC; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901). Plunkett, Mark A. “Ethnocentricity and Salvation History in the Cornelius Episode,” SBLSP 1985 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 465–79. Pohlenz, Max “Paulus und die Stoa,” ZNW 42 (1949) 69–104. Poirier, John C. “The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts,” FilolNT 16 (2003) 107–16. Pokorný, Petr “Christologie et Baptême à l’Epoque du Christianisme Primitif,” NTS 27 (1980–81) 370. Idem “Die Romfahrt des Paulus und der antike Roman,” ZNW 64 (1973) 233–44. Idem Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Poland, Franz Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909). Portefaix, Lillian Sisters Rejoice: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by First-Century Philippian Women (ConBNT 20; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988). Porter, Stanley “Excursus: The ‘We’ Passages,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 545–74. Idem The Paul of Acts (WUNT 115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Porton, Gary G. “Sadducees,” ABD 5:892–95. Pöschl, Viktor The Art of Vergil: Image and Symbol in the Aeneid (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962). Potter, David S. Literary Texts and the Roman Historian Approaching the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 1999). Idem “Lystra,” ABD 4:426–27. Idem Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994). Poupon, Gérard “L’accusation de magie dans les Actes apocryphes,” in François Bovon et al., Les Actes Apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 71–94.

Bibliography Powell, Mark Allan What Are They Saying about Acts? (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1991). Praeder, Susan Marie “Acts 27:1—28:16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46 (1984) 683–706. Eadem “Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms,” in SBLSP 1984 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984) 23–39. Eadem “Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel,” in SBLSP 1981 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981) 269–92. Eadem “Miracle Worker and Missionary: Paul in the Acts of the Apostles,” in SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981) 107–29. Eadem “Narrative Voyage: An Analysis and Interpretation of Acts 27–28” (Diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 1980). Eadem “The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts,” NovT 39 (1987) 193–218. Prast, Franz Presbyter und Evangelium in nachapostolischer Zeit: Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus in Milet (Apg 20, 17-38) im Rahmen der lukanischen Konzeption der Evangeliumsverkündigung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979). Preisendanz, Karl, ed. and trans. Papyri Graecae Magicae (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; ed. Albert Henrichs; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–74). Price, Robert M. “Rhoda and Penelope: Two More Cases of Luke’s Suppression of Women,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 98–104. Idem The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny (SBLDS 155; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Prieur, Jean-Marc “Actes 2, 42 et le culte réformé,” FoiVie 94 (1995) 61–72. Idem “La figure de l’apôtre dans les Actes apocryphes d’André,” in François Bovon et al., Les Actes Apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 121–39. Puskas, Charles B., Jr. “The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: An Investigation of the Literary Function and Theological Significance of Acts 28:16-31” (Diss., Saint Louis University, 1980). Idem The Conclusion of Luke-Acts: The Function and Significance of Acts 28:16-31 (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008).

743

Acts Bib C.indd 743

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

Quesnell, M. “Le naufrage de Saint Paul,” Transversalités 69 (1999) 47–57. Idem “Paul prédicateur dans les Actes des Apôtres,” NTS 47 (2001) 469–81. Quinn, Jerome D. “The Last Volume of Luke,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: ­National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978) 76–98. Rackham, H. Cicero De Natura Deorum (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933). Rackham, Richard B. The Acts of the Apostles (2nd ed.; London: Methuen, 1904). Radl, Walter “Befreiung aus dem Gefängnis: Die Darstellung eines biblischen Grundthemas in Apg 12,” BZ 27 (1983) 81–96. Idem Paulus and Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/49; Bern: Lang, 1975). Idem “wjdivn,” EDNT 3:506. Räisänen, Heikki “Die ‘Hellenisten’ der Urgemeinde,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1468–1514. Idem “The ‘Hellenists’: A Bridge between Jesus and Paul?” in Jesus, Paul, and Torah: Collected Essays (trans. D. E. Orton; JSNTS 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 149–202. Ramsay, William M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953). Idem The Church in the Roman Empire (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897). Idem The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907). Idem The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia and Their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (New York: Armstrong, 1905). Idem Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion (New York: Armstrong, 1908). Idem St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897). Rapske, Brian “Acts, Travel and Shipwreck,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its

Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 1–47. Idem The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (BIFCS 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). Rau, Eckhard Von Jesus zu Paulus: Entwicklung und Rezeption der antiochenischen Theologie im Urchristentum (Stutt­ gart: Kohlhammer, 1994). Reardon, Brian P. Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). Reasoner, Mark “The Theme of Acts: Institutional History or Divine Necessity in History?” JBL 118 (1999) 635–59. Redditt, Paul L. “Azotus,” ABD 1:541–42. Reeder, Ellen D. “The Mother of the Gods and the Hellenistic Bronze Matrix,” AJA 91 (1987) 423–40. Refoulé, F. “Le discours de Pierre à l’assemblée de Jérusalem,” RB 100 (1993) 239–51. Reicke, Bo “Die Mahlzeit mit Paulus auf dem Wellen des Mittel­meers Act 27, 33-38,” ThZ 4 (1948) 401–10. Idem “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in David E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 121–34. Reid, Barbara E. “The Power of the Widows and How to Suppress It (Acts 6.1-7),” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 71–88. Reif, Stefan C. “The Early Liturgy of the Synagogue,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 326–57. Reimer, Andy M. Miracle and Magic: A Study in the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (JSNTS 235; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Idem “Virtual Prison Breaks: Non-Escape Narratives and the Definition of ‘Magic,’” in Todd E. Klutz, ed., Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (JSNTS 245; London: T&T Clark, 2003) 125–39. Reimer, Ivoni Richter Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).

744

Acts Bib C.indd 744

8/27/2008 1:51:11 PM

Reinbold, Wolfgang “Die ‘Hellenisten’: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Fachbegriff der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft,” BZ 42 (1998) 96–102. Idem Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum: Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche (FRLANT 188; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Reinhardt, Wolfgang “The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church,” in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 237–65. Reinmuth, Eckhart Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Reis, David M. “The Areopagus as Echo Chamber: Mimesis and Intertextuality in Acts,” JHC 9 (2002) 259–77. Reiser, Marius “Der Alexanderroman und das Markusevangelium,” in Hubert Cancik, ed., Markus-Philologie (WUNT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984) 131–63. Reitzenstein, Richard Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906). Remus, Harold Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century (Patristic Monograph Series 10; Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983). Rengstorf, Karl H. “dou`lo~,” TDNT 2:261–80. Idem “eJptav,” TDNT 2:627–35. Renie, R. P. J. “L’élection de Mathias,” RB 55 (1948) 42–53. Repo, Eero Der “Weg” als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und semasiologische Untersuchungen (Annales Academia Scientiarum Fennicae B.132/2; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeak­ atemia, 1964). Resch, Alfred Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (TU 5; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1889). Resch, Gotthold Das Aposteldecret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt (TU 28.3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905). Rese, Martin Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (StNT 1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969). Reumann, John “The ‘Itinerary’ as a Form in Classical Literature and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski, eds., To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitmyer, S.J. (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 335–57.

Bibliography Reventlow, Henning G. “Sein Blut Komme über Sein Haupt,” VT 10 (1960) 311–27. Revon, M. “Hospitality,” ERE 5–6:814. Reynolds, Joyce, and Robert Tannenbaum Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge Philological Society Supp. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Richard, Earl Acts 6:1—8:4: The Author’s Method of Composition (SBLDS 41; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978). Idem First and Second Thessalonians (SacPag 11; College­ ville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995). Idem “The Old Testament in Acts”: Wilcox’s Semitisms in Retrospect,” CBQ 42 (1980) 330–41. Idem “Pentecost as a Recurrent Theme in Luke-Acts,” in idem, ed., New Views on Luke and Acts (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990) 133–49. Idem “The Polemical Character of the Joseph Episode in Acts 7,” JBL 98 (1979) 255–67. Richardson, Cyril C., ed. Early Christian Fathers (LCC 1; New York: Macmillan, 1970). Riemer, Ulrike “Miracle Stories and Their Narrative Intent in the Context of the Ruler Cult of Classical Antiquity,” in Michael Labahn and Bert L. Peerbolte, eds., Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stores in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 288; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 32–47. Riesenfeld, Harold “The Text of Acts 10:36,” in Ernest Best and ­Robert McL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 191–94. Riesner, Rainer Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. D. Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Idem “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 179–211. Rigaux, Beda “Die ‘Zwölf’ in Geschichte und Kerygma,” in Helmut Ristow and Karl Matthiae, eds., Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beiträge zum Christusverständnis in Forschung und Verkündigung (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961) 468–86.

745

Acts Bib C.indd 745

8/27/2008 1:51:12 PM

Rius-Camps, Josep “La Utilización del Libro de Joel (JL 2,28-32a LXX) en el Discurso de Pedro (Hch 2,14-21), in David G. K. Taylor, ed., Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (SBLT-CS 1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999) 245–70. Idem, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger “After the Death of Judas: A Reconsideration of the Status of the Twelve Apostles,” Revista Catalana de Teología 29 (2004) 305–34. Robbins, Vernon K. “By Land and by Sea,” in Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978) 215–42. Idem “The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts,” in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 305–32. Idem “The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages,” BR 20 (1975) 5–18. Robert, Louis Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 278; Limoges: Bontemps, 1940; reprinted, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1971). Roberts, Deborah H., Francis M. Dunn, and Don Fowler, eds. Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). Robinson, James M., and Helmut Koester Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). Robinson, James M., et al., eds. The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Robinson, John A. T. “The Most Primitive Christology of All,” in idem, Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT 34; London: SCM, 1962) 139–53. Rohde, Erwin Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaüfer (3rd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974). Idem Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks (trans. W. B. Hillis; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1925). Rohrbaugh, Richard L. “Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early Christians,” JAAR 52 (1984) 519–46. Idem “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations,” in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 125–50.

Rolfe, J. C. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927). Idem Suetonius I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1913). Romm, James S. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Prince­ ton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Ronconi, Alessandro “Exitus illustrium virorum,” RAC 6:1258–68. Ropes, James Hardy A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916). Idem The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Rordorf, Willy “Actes de Paul,” in François Bovon and P. Geoltrain, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 1115–77. Rosner, Brian S. “Acts and Biblical History,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 65–82. Roth, Samuel J. The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Rothschild, Clare K. Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Roussel, Pierre Les cultes égyptiens à Délos du IIIe au Ier siècle av. J.C. (Nancy: Berger-Levrault, 1916). Rowe, C. Kavin “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 (2007) 37–56. Idem “History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of LukeActs,” JSNT 28 (2005) 131–57. Idem “Literary Unity and Reception History: Reading Luke-Acts as Luke and Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007) 449–58. Rudd, Niall Horace: Odes and Eposes (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004). Rudolph, Kurt Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (trans. and ed. R. McL. Wilson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983). Idem “Simon-Magus oder Gnosticus? Zum Stand der Debatte,” ThRu 42 (1977) 279–359.

746

Acts Bib C.indd 746

8/27/2008 1:51:12 PM

Rusam, Dietrich Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (BZNW 112; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Ryken, Leland, et al., eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998). Sabbe, M. “The Son of Man Saying in Acts 7,56,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 241–79. Sabourin, Leopold Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Studies in the History of Religions, Numen Supp. 25; Leiden: Brill, 1973). Saddington, Dennis B. “Roman Military and Administrative Personnel in the New Testament,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2409–35. Safrai, Samuel, et al., eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT 1.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974). Saller, Richard P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Samkutty, V. J. The Samaritan Mission in Acts (LNTS 328; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2006). Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce–66 ce (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992). Idem Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Sandnes, Karl O. “Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul’s Areopagus Speech,” JSNT 50 (1993) 13–26. Sandt, H. van de “The Presence and Transcendence of God: An Investigation of Acts 7,44-50 in Light of the LXX,” EThL 80 (2004) 30–59. Santos Otero, A. de “Later Acts of Apostles,” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; ET ed. Robert McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991–92) 2:426–82. Sasse, Hermann “kosmevw,” TDNT 3:867–98. Scharlemann, Martin H. Stephen: A Singular Saint (AnBib 34; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968). Schenk, Wolfgang “Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception,” in Sipke Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in

Bibliography Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: Kok, 1989) 127–39. Schenke, Hans-Martin Apostelgeschichte 1,1—15,3 im mittelägyptischen Dialekt des koptischen (Codex Glazier) (TU 137; Berlin: Aka­ memie, 1991). Idem “Das Weiterwirken des Paulus und die Pf lege seines Erbes durch die Paulusschule,” NTS 21 (1975) 505–18. Schenke, L. “Die Kontrastformel Apg 4,10b,” BZ 26 (1982) 1–20. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism,” in E. P. Sanders et al., eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 115–56. Schille, Gottfried “Die Fragwürdigkeit eines Itinerars der Paulusreisen,” ThLZ 89 (1959) 165–74. Schinkel, Dirk “‘Und sie wußten nicht, warum sie zusammengekommen waren’—Gruppen und Gruppen­ interessen in der Demetriosepisode (Apg 19,23-40,” in A. Gutsfeld und Dietrich-Alex Koch, eds., Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 95–112. Schlier, Heinrich “ajfivsthmi,” TDNT 1:513–14. Idem “parrhsiva,” TDNT 5:871–86. Schmeling, Gareth, ed. The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003). Schmid, Lothar “kevntron,” TDNT 3:663–68. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig “ejkklhsiva,” TDNT 3:501–36. Schmithals, Walter “Identitätskrise bei Lukas und Anderswo?” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 223–51. Idem Paul and the Gnostics (trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972). Schnackenburg, Rudolf Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. H. Heron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991). Schneckenberger, Mathias Über den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte (Bern: Fisher, 1841).

747

Acts Bib C.indd 747

8/27/2008 1:51:12 PM

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; rev. ed.; ET ed. Robert McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991–92). Schneider, Gerhard “Literatur zum lukanischen Doppelwerk: Neuerscheinungen, 1990–91,” TRev 88 (1992) 1–18. Idem “Stephanus, die Hellenisten und Samaria,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 215–40. Schneider, J. “eujnou`co~,” TDNT 2:765–68. Schniewind, Julius, and G. Friedrich “ejpaggevlw,” TDNT 2:576–86. Schoedel, William R. “Ignatius and the Reception of Matthew in Antioch,” in David Balch, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 129–86. Idem Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Idem “Papias,” ANRW 2.27.1 (1993) 235–70. Schottroff, Luise Let the Oppressed Go Free: Feminist Perspectives on the New Testament (trans. Annemarie S. Kidder; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Schraeder, Hans H. “Nazarhnov~, Nazorai`o~,” TDNT 4:874–79. Schreckenberg, Heinz “Flavius Josephus und die Lukanischen Schriften,” in Wilfrid Haubeck and Michael Bachmann, eds., Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien; Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 75. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 179–209. Schreiber, Stefan “Aktualisierung göttlichen Handelns am Pfingsttag: Das frühjüdische Fest in Apg 2,1,” ZNW 93 (2002) 58–77. Idem Paulus als Wundertäter: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und den authentischen Paulusbriefen (BZNW 79; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). Idem “‘Verstehst du denn, was du liest?’ Beobachtungen zur Begegnung von Philippus und dem äthiopischen Eunuchen (Apg 8,26-40),” StudNTUmwelt 21 (1996) 42–72. Schrenk, W. “qevlw,” TDNT 3:44–62. Schröter, Jens “Acta Forschung seit 1982: I. Formgeschichte und Kommentare,” ThR 72 (2007) 179–230. Idem “Die Apostelgeschichte und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons? Beobachtungen zur Kanonisierung der Apostelgeschichte und ihrer Bedeutung als kanonischer Schrift,” in J.-M.

­ uwers and H. J. de Jonge, eds., The Biblical CanA ons (BEThL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003) 395–429. Idem “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus: Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen,” ZNW 98 (2007) 77–104. Schubert, Paul “The Place of the Areopagus Speech in the Composition of Acts,” in J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ed., Essays in Divinity 6 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968) 235–61. Idem “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” in Walter Eltester, ed., Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954) 165–86. Schulte, Claudia Die Grammateis von Ephesos: Schreiberamt und Sozialstruktur in einer Provinzhauptstadt des römischen Kaiserreichs (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994). Schulz, Siegfred “Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas,” ZNW 54 (1963) 104–16. Schürer, Emil A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87). Schürmann, Heinz “Das Testament des Paulus für die Kirche: Apg 20,18-35,” Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 310–40. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, ed. Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976). Eadem In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Eadem “Miracles, Mission, and Apologetics: An Introduction,” in eadem, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 1–25. Eadem, ed. Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1994). Schwabe, Moshe, and Baruch Lifshitz Beth She‘arim, vol. 2: The Greek Inscriptions (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1974). Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). Idem “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” in William S. Babcock, ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990) 3–24.

748

Acts Bib C.indd 748

8/27/2008 1:51:12 PM

Schwartz, Eduard Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1896). Idem “Zur Chronologie des Paulus,” in Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu ­Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (Berlin: ­Weidmann, 1907) 263–99. Schwartz, Saundra C. “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 105–37. Schweizer, Eduard “ajnavyuxi~,” TDNT 9:664–665. Idem Church Order in the New Testament (trans. F. Clarke; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1961). Idem “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 208–16. Idem The Letter to the Colossians (trans. A. Chester; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982). Idem Luke: A Challenge to Present Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982). Idem “pneu`ma,” TDNT 6:332–445. Schwemer, Anna Maria Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 vols.; TSAJ 49; Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck, 1996). Scott, James M. “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 483–544. Scott, Kenneth “Ruler Cult and Related Problems in the Greek Romances,” Classical Philology 33 (1938) 380–89. Seaford, Richard “Thunder, Lightning, and Earthquake in the Bacchae and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Alan B. Lloyd, ed., What Is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity (London: Duckworth, 1997) 139–48. Seccombe, David P. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (StudNTUmwelt 6; ed. Albert Fuchs; Linz, 1982). Seeley, David Deconstructing the New Testament (BIS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Seesemann, Heinrich Der Begriff KOINWNIA im Neuen Testament (BZNW 74; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933). Idem “patavssw,” TDNT 5:939–40.

Bibliography Segal, Alan F. “Acts 15 as Jewish and Christian History,” Forum n.s. 4 (2001) 63–87. Idem “Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition,” in Roelof van den Broek and Maarten J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 349–75. Idem “Matthew’s Jewish Voice,” in David Balch, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Idem Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Segal, Peretz “The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem,” IEJ 39 (1989) 79–84. Seim, Turid Karlsen The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke and Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994). Seland, Torrey Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non‑Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions (BIS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Idem “Once More—The Hellenists, Hebrews, and Stephen: Conf lict and Conf lict-Management in Acts 6–7,” in Peder Borgen et al., eds., Recruitment, Conquest, and Conflict: Strategies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 169–207. Selinger, R. “Die Demetriosunruhen (Apg 19,23-40): Eine Fallstudie aus Rechtshistorischer Perspective,” ZNW 88 (1997) 242–59. Selwyn, Edward Gordon The First Epistle of St Peter (2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1947). Setzer, Claudia J. “Sosthenes,” ABD 6:160. Seul, Peter Rettung für alle: Die Romreise des Paulus nach Apg 27,1—28,16 (Berlin/Vienna: Philo Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003). Sevenster, J. N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968). Sharp, Douglas S. “The Meaning of men oun in Acts 14:3,” ExpT 44 (1932–33) 528. Shauf, Scott Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). Sheeley, S. M., “Getting into the Act(s): Narrative Presence in the ‘We’ Sections,” PerspRelStud 26 (1999) 203–20.

749

Acts Bib C.indd 749

8/27/2008 1:51:12 PM

Shellard, Barbara New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTS 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Shepherd, William H. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 147; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). Sherk, Robert K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Idem Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Sherwin-White, Adrian N. The Roman Citizenship (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973). Idem “The Roman Citizenship: A Survey of Its Development into a World Franchise,” ANRW 1.2 (1972) 23–58. Idem Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963). Siegert, Folker “Die ‘Gottesfürchtige’ und Sympathisanten,” JSJ 4 (1973) 109–64. Silberman, Lou H. “Paul’s Viper: Acts 28:3-6,” Forum 8 (1992) 247–53. Simon, Marcel “qavrsei. oujdei`~ ajqavnato~: Étude de vocabulaire religieuse,” RHR 100 (1936) 188–206. Idem St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (New York: Longmans, Green, 1958). Idem “St. Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple,” JEH 2 (1951) 127–42. Six, Karl Das Aposteldekret (Act 15,28.29): Seine Entstehung und Geltung in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten (Ver­ öff lentichungen des biblisch-patristischen Seminars zu Innsbruck 5; Innsbruck: Rauch, 1912). Skinner, Matthew L. Locating Paul: Places of Custody as Narrative Settings in Acts 21–28 (SBL Academia Biblica 13; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Idem “Unchained Ministry: Paul’s Roman Custody (Acts 21–28) and the Sociopolitical Outlook of the Book of Acts,” in Thomas E. Phillips, ed., Acts and Ethics (NTMon 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) 79–95. Slingerland, Dixon “Acts 18:1-17 and Luedemann’s Pauline Chronology,” JBL 109 (1990) 686–90. Idem “Acts 18:1-18, the Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology,” JBL 110 (1991) 439–49.

Idem Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Idem “The Composition of Acts: Some Redaction­critical Observations,” JAAR 56 (1988) 99–113. Idem “‘The Jews’ in the Pauline Portion of Acts,” JAAR 54 (1986) 305–21. Idem “Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus ­Orosius Historiarum adversum paganos libri vii: Dating the Claudian Expulsions of Roman Jews,” JQR 83 (1992) 127–44. Smallwood, E. Mary “The Diaspora in the Roman Period before CE 70,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 168–91. Idem The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1981). Smid, Harm R. Protevangelium Jacobi: A Commentary (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965). Smith, Abraham “Do You Understand What You Are Reading? A Literary Critical Reading of the Ethiopian (Kushite) Episode (Acts 8:26-40),” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 22 (1994) 48–70. Idem “‘Full of Spirit and Wisdom’: Luke’s Portrait of Stephen (Acts 6:1—8:1a) as a Man of Self-Mastery,” in Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush, eds., Asceticism and the New Testament (London: Routledge, 1999) 97–114. Idem “A Second Step in African Biblical Interpretation: A Generic Reading Analysis of Acts 8:26-40,” in Fernando F. Segovia and Mary A. Tolbert, eds., Reading from This Place: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 1:213–28. Smith, David E. The Canonical Function of Acts: A Comparative Analysis (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002). Smith, James The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (4th ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1880). Smith, Morton “The Reason for the Persecution of Paul and the Obscurity of Acts,” in E. E. Urbach et al., eds., Studies in Mysticism and Religion, Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 261–68.

750

Acts Bib C.indd 750

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Smith, Warren S. “Apuleius and Luke: Prologue and Epilogue in Conversion Contexts,” in Ahuvia Kahane and Andrew Laird, eds., A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 88–98. Smyth, Herbert Weir Greek Grammar (rev. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956). Snowden, Frank Blacks in Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970). Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Söder, Rosa Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932). Sokolowski, F. “A New Testimony on the Cult of Artemis of Ephesus,” HTR 58 (1965) 427–31. Solin, Heikki “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt,” ANRW 2.29.2 (1998) 587–789, 1222–49. Spencer, F. Scott Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Idem “The Ethiopian Eunuch and His Bible: A SocialScience Analysis,” BTB 22 (1992) 157. Idem “Neglected Widows in Acts 6.1-7,” CBQ 56 (1994) 715–33. Idem “Out of Mind, out of Voice: Slave Girls and Prophetic Daughters in Luke-Acts,” BibInt 7 (1999) 132–53. Idem The Portrait of Philip in Acts (JSNTS 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Idem “A Waiter, a Magician, a Fisherman, and a Eunuch: The Pieces and Puzzles of Acts 8,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 165–78. Idem “Wise Up, Young Man: The Moral Vision of Saul and Other neanivskoi in Acts,” in Thomas E. Phillips, ed., Acts and Ethics (NTMon 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) 34–48. Idem “Women of ‘the Cloth’ in Acts: Sewing the Word,” in Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004) 134–54. Spencer, Patrick E. “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge,” CBR 5 (2007) 341–66. Spicq, Ceslas “Ce que signifie le titre de chrétien,” ST 15 (1961) 68–78. Idem Les épîtres pastorales (2 vols.; EB; 4th ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1969).

Bibliography Idem “La place ou le rôle des jeunes dans certaines communautés néotestamentaires,” RB 76 (1969) 508–27. Idem Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols.; trans. and ed. J. D. Ernest; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994). Squires, John T. The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Stählin, Gustav “to; pneu`ma ÆIhsou`,” in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 229–52. Idem “tuvptw,” TDNT 8:260–70. Stark, Rodney The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). Steck, Odil Hannes “Formgeschichtliche Bemerkungen zur Darstellung des Damaskusgeschehens in der Apostel­ geschichte,” ZNW 67 (1976) 20–28. Idem Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). Stegemann, Wolfgang “War der Apostel Paulus ein römisher Bürger?” ZNW 87 (1987) 200–229. Steichele, Hanneliese “Vergleich der Apostelgeschichte mit der antiken Geschichtsschreibung” (Diss., University of Munich, 1971). Stemberger, Gunther Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (trans. A.W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Stempvoort, Pieter A. “The Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” NTS 5 (1959) 32–33. Stenschke, Christoph W. Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Idem “The Need for Salvation,” in I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, eds., Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 125–44. Stephens, Susan A., and John J. Winkler, eds. Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

751

Acts Bib C.indd 751

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Sterling, Gregory E. “‘Athletes of Virtue’: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-34; 5:12-16),” JBL 113 (1994) 679–96. Idem Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Idem “‘Opening the Scriptures’: The Legitimation of the Jewish Diaspora and the Early Christian Mission,” in David P. Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999) 199–225. Stern, Menahem Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84). Steyn, Gert J. Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 12; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995). Stichele, Caroline Vander “Gender and Genre: Acts in/of Interpretation,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and GrecoRoman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 311–29. Stolle, Volker Der Zeuge als Angeklagter: Untersuchungen zum Paulusbild des Lukas (BWANT 6/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973). Stoneman, Richard The Greek Alexander Romance (London: Penguin, 1991). Idem “The Metamorphoses of the Alexander Romance,” in G. Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 601–12. Stoops, Robert F., Jr., ed. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives, Sem 80 (1997). Idem “Departing to Another Place: The Acts of Peter and the Canonical Acts of the Apostles,” SBLSP 1994 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 390–404. Idem “Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41,” JBL 108 (1989) 73–91. Idem “Simon 13,” ABD 6:29–31. Storch, Rainer “Die Stephanusrede Ag 7,2-53” (Diss. Göttingen, 1967). Stowers, Stanley “Social Status, Public Speaking, and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 26 (1984) 59–82.

Strahan, James “Lystra,” DAC 1:728–29. Stramaglia, Antonio “Innamoramento in sogno o storia di fantasmi? PMich Inv 5 = PGM 2 XXXIV (Pack2 2636) + ­PpalauRib Inv. 152,” ZPE 88 (1991) 73–86. Strange, William A. The Problem of the Text of Acts (SNTSMS 71; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Idem “The Sons of Sceva and the Text of Acts 19:14,” JTS 38 (1987) 97–106. Strathmann, Hermann “mavrtu~,” TDNT 4:474–514. Strelan, Richard “Acts 19:12: Paul’s ‘Aprons’ Again,” JTS 54 (2003) 154–57. Idem Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). Idem Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles (BZNW 128; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). Idem “Strange Stares: Atenizein in Acts,” NovT 41 (1999) 235–55. Strobel, August “Lukas der Antiochener (Bemerkungen zu Act 11,28D),” ZNW 49 (1958) 131–34. Idem “Passa-Symbolik und Passa-Wunder in Act XII. 3ff.,” NTS 4 (1957–58) 210–15. Idem “Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe,” NTS 15 (1969) 191–210. Stroker, William D. Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (SBLRBS 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Strom, Mark R. “An Old Testament Background to Acts 12.20-23,” NTS 32 (1986) 289–92. Stumpff, Albrecht “zh`lo~,” TDNT 2:877–88. Suhl, Alfred “Zum Titel prw`to~ th`~ nhvsou (Erster der Insel) Apg 28,7,” BZ 36 (1992) 220–26. Sullivan, John P. Martial: The Unexpected Classic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Sullivan, R. D. “The Dynasty of Judaea in the First Century,” ANRW 2.8 (1977) 296–354. Swain, Simon Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Swanson, Reuben, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

752

Acts Bib C.indd 752

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Szesnat, Holger “What Did the skhnopoiov~ Paul Produce?” Neotestamentica 27 (1993) 391–402. Tajra, Harry W. The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends (WUNT 2.67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Idem The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). Talbert, Charles H. Acts (Knox Preaching Guides; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984). Idem “The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or Bios?” in Ben Witherington III, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 58–72. Idem “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1619–51. Idem “Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles: Ancient Auditors’ Perceptions,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 141–53. Idem “An Introduction to Acts,” Review and Exositor 71 (1974) 437–49. Idem Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974). Idem Luke and the Gnostics (New York: Abingdon, 1966). Idem Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Idem Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982). Idem What Is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). Idem, ed. Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984). Idem, ed. Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978). Idem, and John H. Hayes “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,” SBLSP 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 321–36.

Bibliography Idem, and Perry Stepp “Succession in Luke-Acts and in the Lukan Milieu,” in Reading Luke-Acts in Its Mediterranean Milieu (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 19–55. Tannenbaum, Robert F. “Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite,” BAR 12 (1986) 54–57. Tannehill, Robert C. “The Composition of Acts 3–5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect,” SBLSP 1984 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984) 217–40. Idem “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story,” JBL 104 (1985) 69–85. Idem Luke (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). Idem The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia/Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990). Idem “Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts,” in Joseph B. Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 83–101. Idem The Shape of Luke’s Story: Essays on Luke-Acts (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2005). Taubenschlag, Rafal “Le process de l’apôtre Paul en lumière des ­papyri,” in Opera Minora (2 vols.; Warsaw: ­Panåstwo­we Wydawn, 1959) 2:721–26. Taussig, Hal “Jerusalem as a Place for Conversation: The Intersection of Acts 15 and Galatians 2,” Forum n.s. 4 (2001) 89–104. Tavardon, Paul Le texte alexandrin et le texte occidental des Actes des apôtres: doublets et variantes de structure (Paris: ­Gabalda, 1997). Taylor, Joseph “The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2436–2500. Taylor, Justin “The Community of Goods among the First Christians and among the Essenes,” in D. Goodblatt et al., eds., Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 1999 (STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 147–61. Idem “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25) and the Incident at Antioch,” NTS 47 (2001) 372–80. Idem “The List of Nations in Acts 2:9-11,” RB 106 (1999) 408–20.

753

Acts Bib C.indd 753

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Idem “The Making of Acts: A New Account,” RB 97 (1990) 504–24. Idem “The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles,” ANRW 2.26.3 (1996) 2436–2500. Idem “St. Paul and the Roman Empire: Acts of the Apostles 13–14,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1190–1231. Taylor, Lily Ross “The Asiarchs,” in Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, Additional Notes to the Commentary, vol. 5 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970) 256–62. Taylor, Nicholas Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity (JSNTS 66; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Thackeray, H. St. John Josephus I, II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926, 1927). Theissen, Gerd The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Idem “Hellenisten und Hebräer Apg. 6.1ff. Gab es eine Spaltung der Urgemeinde?” in Hubert Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, eds., Geschichte— Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 323–45. Idem The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (trans. F. McDonagh; ed. John Riches; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Idem The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (trans. and ed. with an introduction by J. Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). Idem “Urchristlicher Liebeskommunismus: Zum ‘Sitz im Leben’ des Topos hapanta koina in Apg 2,44 und 4,32,” in T. Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds., Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995) 689–712. Thiering, Barbara “The Acts of the Apostles as Early Christian Art,” in E. C. B. MacLaurin, ed., Essays in Honour of Griffithes Wheeler Thatcher (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967) 139–89. Thiessen, Werner Christen in Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen: Francke, 1995).

Thomas, Christine M. The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Eadem “At Home in the City of Artemis: Religion in Ephesos in the Literary Imagination of the Roman Period,” in Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 81–117. Thomas, W. Derek “Women in the Church at Philippi,” ExpT 83 (1976) 117–20. Thompson, Richard P. Keeping the Church in Its Place: The Church as Narrative Character in Acts (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). Idem, and Thomas E. Phillips, eds. Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998). Thornton, C.-J. Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). Thornton, T. C. G. “Stephen’s Use of Isaiah lxvi. 1,” JTS 25 (1974) 432–34. Idem “To the End of the Earth: Acts 1:8,” ExpT 89 (1977–78) 374. Thurston, Bonnie Bowman The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Thyen, Hartwig Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie (FRLANT 65; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955). Tiede, David L. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972). Idem Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Tolbert, Mary Ann Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Torrey, Charles C. The Composition and Date of Acts (HTS 1; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1916). Tosco, Lorenzo Pietro e Paolo ministri del giudizio di Dio: Studio del genere letterario e della funzione di At 5,1-11 e 13,4-12 (RivBSup 19; Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1989). Townsend, John “Acts 9:1-29 and Early Church Tradition,” in Richard Thompson, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 87–98.

754

Acts Bib C.indd 754

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Idem “The Date of Luke-Acts,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 47–62. Idem “The Speeches in Acts,” ATR 42 (1960) 150–59. Toynbee, Jocelyn M. C. Death and Burial in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971). Tracey, Robyn “Syria,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 23–78. Trebilco, Paul “Asia,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 291–362. Idem The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Idem Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Idem “The Jews in Asia Minor, 66–c. 235 ce,” in Steven T. Katz, ed., The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 85–92. Idem “Paul and Silas, ‘Servants of the Most High God (Acts 16:16-18),” JSNT 36 (1989) 51–73. Trell, B. S. “The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos,” in Peter Clayton and Martin Price, eds., The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (London: Routledge, 1988). Trémel, Bernard “À propos d’Ac 20.7-12: puissance du thaumaturge ou du témoin,” RThPh 112 (1980) 359–69. Trenkner, Sophie The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). Trocmé, Étienne Le livre des Actes et l’histoire (EHPR 45; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1957). Troeltsch, Ernst The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (2 vols.; 1911; trans. O. Wyon; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960). Trompf, G. W. “On Why Luke Declined to Recount the Death of Paul: Acts 27–28 and Beyond,” in Charles H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 225–39. Trotta, F. “Lasciare la madrepatria per fondare una colonia: Tre esempi nella storia de Sparta,” in Giorgio Camassa and Silvana Fasce, eds., Idea e realtà del viaggio (Genoa: ECIG, 1991) 37–66. Tuckett, Christopher “How Early is the ‘Western’ Text of Acts?” in

Bibliography Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly, eds., The Book of Acts as Church History: Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations (BZNW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 69–86. Idem, ed. Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNTS 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Turner, Max Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke Acts (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Turner, Nigel Nigel Turner, Style, vol. 4 of James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908–76). Tyson, Joseph B. The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986). Idem “From History to Rhetoric and Back,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, ­Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and GrecoRoman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 23–42. Idem “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:1—11:18,” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 179–96. Idem Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992). Idem, ed. Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988). Idem Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006). Idem “The Problem of Food in Acts: A Study of Literary Patterns with Particular Reference to Acts 6:1-7,” in SBLSP 1979 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 69–85. Idem “Themes at the Crossroads: Acts 15 in Its Lukan Setting,” Forum n.s. 4 (2001) 105–24. Ullendorff, E. “Candace (Acts VIII, 27) and the Queen of Sheba,” NTS 2 (1955–56) 53–56. Unnik, Willem C. van “Die Anklage gegen die Apostel in Philippi (Apostelgeschichte xvi 20f),” in idem, Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31; Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1980, 1983). 1:374–85.

755

Acts Bib C.indd 755

8/27/2008 1:51:13 PM

Idem “Der Ausdruck e{w~ ejscavtou th`~ gh`~ Apostelgeschicthe I 8 und sein alttestamentlicher Hinter­ grund,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31; Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1980, 1983) 1:386–401. Idem “The Background and Significance of Acts x 4 and 35,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31; Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1980, 1983) 1:213–58. Idem “Der Befehl an Philippus,” in idem, Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31; Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1980, 1983) 1:328–39. Idem “Luke-Acts, a Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 15–31. Idem “Luke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 37–60. Idem Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31; Leiden: Brill, 1973, 1980, 1983). Idem Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth (trans. G. Ogg; London: Epworth, 1962). VanderKam, James C. “Weeks, Festival of,” ABD 6:895–97. Veltman, Frederick “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, Va.: National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978) 243–56. Verheyden, Jozef, ed. The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999). Idem “The Unity of Luke-Acts: What Are We Up To?” in idem, The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 3–56. Vermes, Geza The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997). Versnel, Hendrik S. Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysus, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion 1; Leiden: Brill, 1990). Veyne, Paul Le pain et le cirque: sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris: Seuil, 1976). Vielhauer, Philipp Geschichte der Urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975).

Idem “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 33–51. Völkl, L. “‘Orientierung’ im Weltbild der ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 25 (1949) 55–70. Vos, C. de “Finding a Charge That Fits: The Accusation against Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16.19-21),” JSNT 74 (1999) 51–63. Wagner, Günter An Exegetical Bibiliography of the New Testament: Luke and Acts (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985). Wahlde, Urban C., von “Acts 4,24-31: The Prayer of the Apostles in Response to the Persecution of Peter and John— and Its Consequences,” Bib 77 (1996) 237–44. Wahlen, Clinton “Peter’s Vision and Conflicting Definitions of Purity,” NTS 51 (2005) 505–18. Walaskay, Paul W. “Acts 3:1-10,” Int 42 (1988) 171–75. Wall, Robert W. “Successors to ‘the Twelve’ according to Acts 12:1-17,” CBQ 53 (1991) 628–43. Walker, J., et al. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans (NPF 11; 1889; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). Walker, William O., Jr. “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,” JSNT 24 (1985) 3–23. Idem “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter’s Speech at the Jerusalem Conference,” in Richard Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips, eds., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 77–86. Idem “The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered,” ExpT 92 (1980–81) 231–35. Wallinga, H. T. “Poseidonios on Beating to Windward (FGH 87 F46 and Related Passages),” Mnemosyne 53 (2000) 431–47. Wallis, Wilson D. “Prodigies and Portents,” ERE 10:362–76. Walsh, Patrick G. Apuleius, The Golden Ass (The World’s Classics; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Walter, Nikolaos “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfänge der Urgemeinde in Jerusalem,“ NTS 29 (1983) 370–93.

756

Acts Bib C.indd 756

8/27/2008 1:51:14 PM

Idem “Proselyt aus Antiochien, und die Nikolaiten in Ephesos und Pergamon: Ein Beitrag auch zum Thema: Paulus und Ephesos,” ZNW 93 (2002) 200–206. Walton, Steve Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and I Thessalonians (SNTSMS 108; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Idem “The State They Were In: Luke’s View of the Roman Empire,” in P. Oases, ed., Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 1–41. Wander, Bernd Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten (WUNT 104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Wanke, Joachim “JEllav~,” EDNT 1:435. “Hebrews,” EDNT 1:369–70. Warnecke, Heinz Die tatsächlichen Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus (SBS 127; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987). Wasserburg, Günter “Luke-Apg als Paulusapologie,” in Jozef Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 92; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) 723–29. Watson, Duane F. “Paul’s Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20,17-38): Epideictic Rhetoric of Farewell,” in Duane F. Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry: Studies in Honor of George A. Kennedy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 184–208. Weaver, John B. Plots of Epiphany: Prison Escape in Acts of the Apostles (BZNW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. “Traditions and Redaction in Acts 1.1-13,” JSNT 55 (1994) 27–54. Idem “The ‘We’-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,” ZNW 93 (2002) 78–98. Idem “Zur Frage der Gattung der Apostelgeschichte,” in Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, eds., Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 303–22. Wehnert, Jürgen Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus Jüdischer Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). Wehrli, Fritz “Einheit und Vorgeschichte der griechischenrömischen Romanliteratur,” Museum Helveticum 22 (1965) 133–54. Weinfeld, Moshe The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).

Bibliography Weinreich, Otto Antike Heilungswunder (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909). Idem Gebet und Wunder: Zwei Abhandlungen zur Religionsund Literaturgeschichte (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929) 169–444 (= Religionsgeschichtliche Studien [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968] 1–298). Weinstock, Stefan “The Geographical Catalogue in Acts 2, 9-11,” JRS 38 (1948) 43–46. Weiser, Artur “Festus und Agrippa,” BZ 28 (1984) 145–67. Weizsacker, Carl v. The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (trans. J. Millar; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894). Welles, C. Bradford Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (Chicago: Ares, 1974). Wellesley, K. Tacitus: The Histories (London: Penguin, 1964). Wellhausen, Julius Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, NF 15.2; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1914). Idem Noten zur Apostelgeschichte (NGG PH 1; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1907) 1–21. Wendel, Ulrich Gemeinde in Kraft: Das Gemeindeverständnis in den Summarien der Apostelgeschichte (NTDH 20; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998). Wendland, Paul De Fabellis Antiquis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911). Idem Die urchristliche Literaturformen (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912). Wenham, David “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II. The Evidence of Parallels,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 215–58. Weren, Wim “The Riot of the Ephesian Silversmiths (Acts 19,23-40): Luke’s Advice to His Readers,” in Reimund Bieringer et al., eds., Luke and His Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux (BEThL 182; Leuven: ­Leuven University Press, 2005) 441–56. Westermann, A. Biografoi. Vitarum scriptores Graeci minores (Braunschweig: Westermann, 1845; reprinted, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964). Westermann, Claus Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. Hugh C. White; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967).

757

Acts Bib C.indd 757

8/27/2008 1:51:14 PM

White, John L. Light from Ancient Letters (Foundations and Facets: New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). White, L. Michael Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990). Idem “Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos,” in Helmut Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia (HTS 41; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995) 27–79. White, Robert The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus (Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press, 1975). Wiens, Delbert L. Stephen’s Sermon and the Structure of Luke-Acts (North Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 1995). Wiest, Stephen R. “The Story of Stephen in Acts 6:1—8:4: History Typologized or Typology Historicized?” Forum n.s. 3 (2000) 121–53. Wikenhauser, Alfred Die Apostelgeschichte und ihr Geschichtswert (NTAbh; Münster: Aschendorff, 1921). Idem “Doppelträuume,” Bib 29 (1948) 100–111. Idem “Religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zu Apg. 16, 9,” BZ 23 (1935) 180–86. Idem “Die Traumgeschichte des Neuen Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” in Piscisculi (Festschrift F. Dölger; 2 vols.; Münster: Aschendorff 1939) 320–33. Wilckens, Ulrich Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; 2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963). Wilcox, Max “The ‘God-fearers’ in Acts: A Reconsideration,” JSNT 13 (1981) 102–22. Idem “The Old Testament in Acts 1–15,” Australian Biblical Review 5 (1956) 1–41. Idem The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). Idem “Upon the Tree—Deut. 21:22-23 in the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977) 85–99. Wild, Robert A. “The Warrior and the Prisoner: Some Ref lections on Ephesians 6:10-20,” CBQ 46 (1984) 284–98. Wildhaber, Bruno Paganisme populaire et predication apostolique (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987). Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).

Williams, Charles Stephen Conway A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Harper’s New Testament Commentaries; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957). Idem “Luke-Acts in Recent Study,” ExpT 73 (1961–62) 133–36. Williams, Margaret H. “Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts,” in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BIFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 79–113. Willimon, William H. Acts (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988). Wills, Lawrence M. “The Depiction of the Jews in Acts,” JBL 110 (1991) 631–54. Idem The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Idem The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997). Wills, Lawrence M., ed. and trans. Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). Wilson, Robert McL. “Simon and Gnostic Origins,” in Jacob Kremer, ed., Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 485–91. Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). Idem “Lucan Eschatology,” NTS 14 (1970–71) 330–47. Idem Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Idem Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979). Wilson, Walter T. “Urban Legends: Acts 10:1—11:18 and the Strategies of Greco-Roman Foundation Narratives,” JBL 120 (2001) 77–99. Windisch, Hans “ajskevw,” TDNT 1:494–96. Idem “The Case against the Tradition,” in Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Prolegomena II, vol. 2 of Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 298–348. Idem “Die Christusepiphanie vor Damaskus (Act 9,22 und 26) und ihre religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen,” ZNW 31 (1932) 1–23.

758

Acts Bib C.indd 758

8/27/2008 1:51:14 PM

Idem Der Zweite Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1924). Wineland, John D. “Adramyttium,” ABD 1:80. Idem “Derbe,” ABD 2:144–45. Winkler, John J. Auctor & Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s Golden Ass (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). Winston, David The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979). Winter, Bruce C. “Acts and Food Shortages,” in David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in Its GraecoRoman Setting (BIFCS 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 59–78. Idem “Implied Audiences in the Areopagus Narrative,” TynBul 55 (2004) 205–18. Idem “The Importance of the Captatio Benevolentiae in the Speeches of Tertullus and Paul in Acts 24:1-21,” JTS 42 (1991) 505–31. Idem “Introducing the Athenians to God: Paul’s Failed Apologetic in Acts 17?” Themelios 31 (2005) 38–59. Idem “Official Proceedings and the Forensic Speeches in Acts 24–26,” in Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BIFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 305–36. Idem Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). Wiseman, James “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C.–A.D. 267,” ANRW 1.7.1 (1979) 438–548. Witherington, Ben, III “Editing the Good News: Some Synoptic Lessons for the Study of Acts,” in idem, ed., History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 335–44. Idem, ed. History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Witherup, Ronald D. “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 49 (1993) 45–66. Wolff, Christian “lalei`n glwvssai~ in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Alf Christophersen et al., eds., “Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTS 217; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 189–99. Wolter, Michael “Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannesjünger,” ZNW 78 (1987) 49–73.

Bibliography Idem “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochen­ geschichte,” in Ciliers Breytenbach et al., eds., Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichts­ schreibung: Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AGJU 57; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 253–84. Wood, Ian The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050 (Essex, England: Longman, 2001). Wordelman, Amy L. “Cultural Divides and Dual Realities: A GrecoRoman Context for Acts 14,” in Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (SBLSS 20; Boston/Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 205–32. Wycherley, R. E. “St. Paul at Athens,” JTS 19 (1968) 619–21. Yamada, K. “A Rhetorical History: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles,” in S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht, eds., Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (JSNTS 131; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 230–50. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Troas,” ABD 6:666–67. Youtie, Herbert C. “Sambathis,” HTR 37 (1944) 209–18. Zahn, Theodore Introduction to the New Testament (trans. and ed. Christopher S. Thayer; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909). Zehnle, Richard F. Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lucan ­Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971). Zeller, Eduard “Eine griechische Parallele zu der Erzählung Apostel­geschicthe 16, 19ff.,” ZWTh 10 (1865) 103–8. Zettner, Christoph Amt, Gemeinde und kirchliche Einheit in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (European University Studies 23, Theology 423; Frankfurt am Main/Bern: Lang, 1991). Zimmerman, Heinrich “Die Sammelberichte der Apostelgeschichte,” BZ 5 (1961) 71–82. Zingg, Paul Das Wachsen der Kirche: Beiträge zur Frage der lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie (OBO 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1974). Zmijewski, Josef “Die Stellung des Stephanus in der Geschichte des Urchristentums,” ANRW 2.26.2 (1995) 1415–53.

759

Acts Bib C.indd 759

8/27/2008 1:51:14 PM

Zuntz, Günther “On the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles,” in Opuscula Selecta: Classica, Hellenistica, Christiana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972) 189–215. Idem Opuscula Selecta: Classica, Hellenistica, Christiana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972). Zwaan, Johannes de “Was the Book of Acts a Posthumous Edition?” HTR 17 (1924) 95–153. Zweck, Dean “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts 17.22, 23,” NTS 35 (1989) 94–103. Zwiep, Arie W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997).

Idem “Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts,” in Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, eds., Auferstehung–Resurrection (WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Idem Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Story of Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 (WUNT 187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Idem “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.1-2. 9-11),” NTS 42 (1996) 219–44.

760

Acts Bib C.indd 760

8/27/2008 1:51:14 PM

Indexes

1. Passages a / Old Testament and Apocrypha

Genesis 1 1:2 1:24-25 1:26 1:28 1:31 2:6 2:7 6:20 7:1 7:14 11:7 11:9 12:3 12:7 15:11 18:1-4 18:18 19:1-2 19:3 21:1 21:18 22:11 22:18 31:10-13 31:13 31:24 33:4 37 39:21 40:14 40:49 41 41:43 45:2 46:2 46:29 48:16 48:21 50:24-25

287 6120 269, 27164 27054 436 27054 436106 436104 269 56561 269 6119 6119 10955 18164 27059 35559 10955 35559 40436 37569 24168 24165 10955 39153 24168 39153 53068 182 280173 53068 14549 23844 22455 285217 24165 22445, 53068 30764 522171 37569

Exodus 1:7 1:8 2:2 2:11-15 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:16-31 2:22 3:1 3:4-10 3:4 3:6 3:7-10 3:11 3:12 3:16 4:10 4:31 6:12 7–12 7:3 7:27 8:15 9:12 9:35 12:6 12:11-12 12:11 12:21 12:29 13:3 13:19 14:8 15:1-8 16:6 16:8-12 17:2 17:17 17:20 18 18:4 18:8 18:13 18:14-25

183, 3162 171f 18493 185 185106 185 187 186 18616 18617 187124 24166 102b 186122 56225 181 185105, 37569 18499, 56225 185105 56225 21169 47179 57314 47179 47179 47179 663 30833 311104 14329 30883 14323 185105 68434 649 143 15856 37452 22634 16393 30882 30546, 308 18278 68434 5013, 152

18:14-15 19:12-13 19:16-19 20:2 22:27 23:20 25:9 25:40 29:10 29:38-42 32:1 32:2 32:6 32:7—34:28 33:3 33:5 Leviticus 5:1 17–18

152 194186 61 14323 496107 27282 190160 190165 190157 99102 30984 188 189150 188 194186 194186

20:9 23:29

13260 376183, 37791, 379115 45373 10848, 10951

Numbers 1:18 1:50 6 6:7 11:16-30 17:5 20:2-13 22–25 22:16 25:11 25:13 27:12-33 28:1-8

5012 190157 546 54667 152 15856 22674 405 25545 141 141 5013, 152 9921

Deuteronomy 1:6-18 1:13 1:31 4:12 4:20 4:28

152 16177 33644 24171 37569 439135 761

indexes.indd 761

8/27/2008 3:15:49 PM

Deuteronomy (continued) 4:34 37569 6:5 1275 6:6 37452 6:20-34 177 7:6 37569 9:6 192174 9:13 192174 10:16 192174 10:17 278151 11:2 6984 12:12 21522 14:2 37569 15:4 127 18:15-18 108, 171n, 188 19:16-21 17727 20:1 18278 21:22-23 152 23:1 22236 26:26 152 28:28-29 56450 28:29 32670 29:17 21418 29:19-20 32670 31:17 18283 31:29 526215 32:5 8599 32:8 436 33:3-4 527231 33:43 284210 Joshua 2:15 2:19 5:13-15 7:1 7:25 10:26 24:2-13

2468 45373 268 13140 19489 14549 177

Judges 5:6-18 6:8 6:29 9:21

177 14323 5685 45373

1 Samuel/1 Kingdoms 1:11-15 6990 3:3-10 56667 3:4 24165

12:2-5 13:14 14:45 18:16

520141 336 664 24817

2 Samuel/2 Kingdoms 1:16 45373 3:29 45373 3:36 16181 7 33541 7:12 337 10:16 47615 14:11 664 16:13 47615 22:5-6 64950 22:6 8162 22:9 189148 24:17 57314 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms 1:52 664 2:32 45373 3:4-5 56667 5:1-12 58437 5:3-5 43486 8:16 43486 8:26-27 43486 11:36 43486 17:9 24168 17:17-24 252, 254, 512-1378 17:21 51273 18 220 18:7-16 22782, 84 18:26-29 497113 19:11-12 12440 21:8-14 194189, 1951 2 Kings/4 Kingdoms 2:1-14 45 2:8-14 47297 2:15-18 46 2:19 8381 4:18-37 512 6:25 29553 19:4 35771 19:16 35771 25:27-30 696

Isaiah 1:11 2:3 2:7 5:9 6:1-9 6:1 6:3 6:9-10 8:1-4 8:21 10:14 10:23 11:8 11:14 13:5 13:9 14:30 16:12 17:26 18:1-7 20:2 23:5 24:22 24:42 29:6 30:27-28 32:15 35:6 37:16-20 37:18 40–66 40:3 40:3-5 40:5 40:12 40:18-20 40:24 41:16 42:5 42:6-7 42:16 43:7 43:8-13 43:21 (LXX) 45:1-7 45:1-2 45:2-3 48:3, 20 49:1

434 1633 24384 29336 559, 56673 19713 562 684 53745 29668 29667 29667 672 29667 29667 29667 29668 43488 29667 221 53745 285217 14324 309 6226 6221 10844 101 121 29667 68660 21523, 24159, 327 344 686 192 439134 6226 6226 43481 310-11, 633 31096 14324 32 524202 553 310-11 311106 285217 323141

762

indexes.indd 762

8/27/2008 3:15:49 PM

49:6 51:9-10 52:2 52:7 52:13 53:7-8 53:8 55:3 55:6 56:3-7 57:19 58:6 61 61:1 61:2 61:1-2 63:10 65:16 66:1-2 66:1 66:3 66:15

343, 633, 684 649, 652 30881 13478, 277 10517 220 22669 339 43818 222-25 80, 56673 2158 21518 22679, 277, 685 30881 553 192176 185104 191166 4397, 192 26869 186121

4:14 5:17 7:6 8:3 11:1 11:24 13:10-16 14:13 18:13 20 28 33:4 38:19

27163 29668 57314 22681 22681 22681 57313 29668 45373 177 312114 45373 41198

Joel 2:5 2:10 2:28-30

186121 41198 6226

Amos 8:8 9:5 9:11-12

41198 41198 375

Jeremiah 1:6 2:19 2:21 3:16 6:10 7:18 9:25 (LXX) 13:1-11 13:17 15:2 16:17-18 17:9-10 19:13 26:1—29:32 27:1-7 28:50 (LXX) 28:50 36:20-27 38:7-13

56225 54535 35886 2850 192174 189148 192179 53745 525210 29668 37345 37345 189148 963 53745 45373 185164 48155 22236

Jonah, 659, 666-67 1:1 4224 1:2 24168, 255 1:5 65278 2:2-6 25434 2:1-10 652

Ezekiel 1:4 1:27 3:12 3:17-18 4–5

6226 17050 22681 45373 53745

Micah 5:11 (5:12 MT)

6333

Zephaniah 2–3

220-21

Zechariah 10:3 14:4-5

525210 414

Malachi 3:1-2

337

Psalms 2 2:1-2 2:7 7:12 15:5 (LXX)

120-23 609 338 56561 527231

16:10 17:5-6 17:6 (LXX) 17:7-8 (LXX) 17:16 (LXX) 18:15 23:1 28:3 (LXX) 29 29:7 33 34:6 34:16 36:12 36:18-19 42:7 46:2-4 50:7-15 51:17 65:7 66:3 68:19 68:31 69 69:26 70:19 74:12-17 77:8 (LXX) 77:35 77:37 (LXX) 78 88:7 88:21 89 89:9-14 90:13 (LXX) 93:4 97:3 105 106:20 (LXX) 106:34 (9 LXX) 107:10-14 107:30 110:1 110:15 111:6 (LXX) 114:3 117:6 118:22 131:5

339 8162 24053 12337 21523 7735 1456 18164 64998 18621 43157 11010 19710 19710 18283 64998 64998 43489 26841 64998 68660 8383 22231 53, 54 50 6984 43157 8599 182128 21523 177 64998 336 43157 64998 67219 64998 68660 177 277, 280173 35886 14324, 30881, 309 651 83 19710 26859 8162 72c 1164, 636106 191 763

indexes.indd 763

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Psalms (continued) 131:11 (LXX) 135 136 139 144:16 (LXX) 145 145:6 145:18 146:8-9 148

43157 177, 43157 37345 35887 43157 1218, 35782, 43599 438118 35887 43157

Job 16:9 16:10 32:2 39:1-3

19710 19822 56561 8266

Proverbs 5:4

8378

2148

Lamentations 2:16

19710

Esther Add. A, F 5:13 5:14 14:17

4324 170 14549 274107

Daniel 1:8-16 2:5 3:28 3:30 3:95 3:96 4:33a-b 6:10 6:20 6:22 6:23 6:26 6:28 9:20-27 9:21 10:2-9 10:3 10:7

274107 21418 30882 21418 30545 21418 24278 9921 35771 40879 30545, 67438 35771 30882 56667 9921 26948 24384 24171

Nehemiah 3:16 9:6-31 9:6 9:7 9:37

8274 177 18948 18063 18282

2 Chronicles 2:1-16 6:18 12:15 13:22 20:6-17 27:7 28:26 30 36:23

55437 43486 3010 3010 18283 3010 3010 380122 696

Bel 5 6 18 24 25 31–39 36 41

35771, 438124 35771 49486 35771 35771 14324 22681 49486

1 Esdras 9:20

30217

2 Esdras 5:13 6:8 19:7

24384 14323 37342

Judith 4:9 5:7 5:20-21 5:20 8:56 9:12 10:5 12:1-20 13:20 14:16-17 16:17

30330 18063 15745 1219 27057 1219 274107 274107 30764 35557, 35666 314140

1 Maccabees 1:3

44

1:41-50 1:56 1:62 2:24 2:26 2:52-60 3:5 3:9 3:49 7:22 8:21 9:27 11:29 12:6 12:23 14:2 14:25-45 15:16-21 15:23 16:23

16945, 54535 48055 27169 141 54423 177 40763 44 546 40763 16131 18282 58334 14329 382148 58334 380122 24057 32339 3010

2 Maccabees, 3010, 43272, 689 1:1—2:28 380122 1:4 40324 1:24 58334 3:1-40 234, 24055 3:5 30216 3:7 56558 3:26-33 4645 3:29 1217 3:39 57314 4:6 59631 4:30-31 29439 4:32 13140 4:49 20153 5:8 54535 6:5 275112 7:1 275112 7:2 11837 7:22-23 43481 8:9 56558 8:21 16181 9:5 314140 9:10 314141 9:27 18282 9:35 10028 11:16 58334 12:6 14329, 56561 12:31-32 60

764

indexes.indd 764

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

14:2 14:35 14:36 15:12-16 15:22-36 15:37

56558 43572 1219 274108 10078 696

3 Maccabees, 14725, 631 1:8—2:24 24055 1:9-29 55112 2:1-12 177 2:2-14 177 2:2 1219 2:9 435 2:24 24055 3:25 24057 3:26-33 46 3:29 1217 3:30 58334 4:7-10 657128 4:21 1217 4:32 13140 5:27 10728 5:41 499128 5:49 530268 6:2-29 14324 7:2 11837 7:9 14776 9:35 10028 11:36 1219 12:31-32 60 15:22-36 1219 4 Maccabees 3:19—4:4 4:1-14 4:8 4:10 5–12 5:4 5:16-20 5:36-38 6:5 7:1-3 9–12 9:18 10:3 12:13 12:18 17:17

23417 24055 24056 23736 192175 16829 11837 1754 417g 64951 19829 417g 417g 35780 59854 61345

Sirach prol. 22 6:24-30 21:9 33:2 35:1-13 36:7 38:11 42:18 44–50 45:16 51:23-27

6334 374 186121 65052 26839 6984 26839 37345 177 26839 374

Susanna, 130, 17727 14 5686 55 314142 59 314142 Tobit 1:10-13 2:1-2 3:17 5:4-16 5:22 7:7 11:12 11:16 12:8 12:12

274167 60 244 30764 30764 530268 244 24275 26835 268

Wisdom 2:24 3:14 4:17-20 4:19 5:1 5:4 5:10 5:13 6:7 7:3 7:23 10 13:6 13:6-9 13:10—14:11 14:1-3 14:22 17:12

14110 22236 53 5338 19715 527401 64951 64951 278151 35780 68881 177 437114 439124 439135 67663 10729, 2501 8153

18:1 19:10

24272 33542

b / Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Literature

Apocalypse of Abraham 11:1-3 17050 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6:11-15 17050 Aristeas, 3528 16–19 16–17 16 34 35–40 39 42 120–69 132–33 139–60 139 142 168 192 198 201 251 273 296 315 316

132-33, 201, 359102 43051 438, 43925 58334 381130 16177 383167 27053 43925 37350 274107 274107 59960 57314 60422 43925 64951 60419 6252 27169 24273

Aristobulus Frg. 4

432, 439

Artapanus, 1267, 16, 17620, 22897 Frg. 3 1419, 18496, 222, 3015, 3029, 35662 Frg. 3(b) 14218, 3015, 3029, 410 Frg. 4 41195 Aseneth, 16 1–21 1:1720

234 24275 765

indexes.indd 765

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Aseneth (continued) 5–6 27499 5:3-7 27394 5:6 35662 6:4 2501 7:1 15312 8:10 31096 13:11-13 10728, 2501 14:1-9 235 14:2 23736 14:4 24165 14:9 17050, 503f 15:9 23844 15:27 23524 18:1 27278 18:7-9 17048 19:6 23844 22:5 27394 23–28 58875 24 1419 Assumption of Moses 3:11 188131 10:4 41198 2 Baruch 11:1 27:6 67 (7) 70:8 76:1-5 86

189152 29668 189152 29668, 41198 3748 383167

Babylonian Talmud   b. Ber. 33a 67436   b. Yoma 39b 56667 1 Enoch 14:8-25 14:15 38:2 53:6 71:5-8 80:2 89:13-14 101:4-5

6228 241 56561 56561 6228 29668 525211 665222

2 Enoch 1:3-5

17050

Epistle of Jeremiah, 8, 24, 26, 438124 Eupolemus, 1267 Frg. 1 18496 Frg. 2.31 55437 Frg. 2.33 55487 Ezekiel the Tragedian, 18391 Frg. 1 18497 4 Ezra 3:4-36 3:18 3:21 5:8 5:18 6:22 9:3 28:31

177 35784 18952 41198 525211 29668 41198 18952

History of the Rechabites 10:4-6 14218 Josephus, 6, 12, 16–18, 21135, 42, 5242, 6875, 898, 142, 148, 15527, 166, 18391, 272, 446                                              

Ant. 1.18 1.41 1.107 1.152 1.208-10 1.208 2.163 2.199-200 2.217 2.224 2.231–32 2.236 2.296 2.327 3.44-46 3.99 3.123 3.252 3.318-19 4.40 4.207 4.214

6119 6221 37523 18063 45382 39153 63046 18388 39153 18392 18392 18497, 655122 63151 51824 518124 63151 43597 60 22454 285217 496107 15637

                                                                                                   

4.317 4.290-91 5.44 5.193 6.166 6.334 6.378 7.20 7.76-77 7.147 7.393 8.42-49 8.61 8.98 8.108 8.109 8.111 8.125 9.256 10.211-12 10.278-79 11.12 11.230 11.327, 334 11.333-35 12.104 12.154-234 12.219 12.224 13.6 13.233 13.249 13.282-83 13.284-87 13.424 14.21 14.22-25 14.66 14.68 14.192-95l 14.223-64 14.234 14.258 14.377 15.40 15.174 15.246 15.289-91 15.354 16.35-36

63264 22236 13141 39153 8376 39153 33650, 51 59631 12437 39153 8274 47722 33650 10142 438118 17949 43492 39153 59824 35662 64951 58334 6985 23544, 39153 39151 68880 1419 54535 29333 53962 39153 8274 56667 32339 29544 30326 194189 9921 309 24067 4649 607g 40763 659154 1159 37523 20515 588 519134 16944

766

indexes.indd 766

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

                                                                                           

16.41 16.43 16.106 16.163 16.179-83 17.41 17.42 17.146-49 17.159 17.174 17.215 17.226 18.17 18.18-22 18.64 18.65-80 18.85 18.123 18.153 18.188-237 18.235 18.268 19.246 19.294 19.343-50 19.360-82 20.17-96 20.44-46 20.51-53 20.97-102 20.103 20.131 20.141-47 20.141-43 20.145 20.160-172 20.161-71 20.161 20.179, 182 20.182-96 20.197-203 20.200-1 20.200 20.202 20.216 20.343, 355

  Ap. 3310, 3528   1.135-36

68880 378112 68880 38250, 61344 8274 56338 87 312119 11837 63149 55112 59629 146 9021-22 295, 30216 10031 20948 1158 313 67880 60175 11837 314 546 313 615 1419 218 295 147-48 5729 11174 603 32560 61610 587 553 61344 608 608 56338 1967 87120 5711 60528 616

54535

                   

1.224 1.246, 263 1.249 1.309-11 2.2 2.130 2.146 2.175 2.237 2.265-67

1419 14883 496107 496107 33 42942 9127, 9235 378112 496107 42727

                                                                             

Bell. 1.61 1.88-89 1.110 1.143 1.216 1.243 1.253 1.408 1.647-56 2.8-13 2.21 2.42-48 2.120-61 2.152 2.162 2.169-74 2.172 2.223-27 2.229-31 2.243 2.252-65 2.254-63 2.271 2.309 2.310-14 2.315-20 2.344 2.406-7 2.418 2.441-42 2.489-93 2.507-08 2.559-61 2.560 3.29 3.377-400 3.399-408 3.417-27

8274 55112 56338 570n 40763 607g 60 58642 312119 55112 59629 55112, 55210 9021 63045 56340 55112 15944 55112 55112 61344 587 553 59738, 608 6155 616 55112 15964 55112 19825 57312 496107 25210 2324 344127 53641 177 32560 25210

                           

3.571 4.49-56 4.445 4.495 5.184 6.124-28 6.288-315 6.378 6.294 6.630 7.46-62 7.70-71 7.100-102 7.451-53

                   

Vit. 13-16 14-16 43 49 103 104-11 141 191 208–9

15637 55112, 3708 25210 40763 10142 5505 43487 33651 11174 37345 490 67792 67792 696

682 6442 54535 6157 40763 58877 61132 56338 39151, 57651, 661183

Jubilees, 6215, 17620 3:28 6221 10:26 6119 15:25-34 37126 16:9-10 18385 20:7-8 438124 23:18 29668 44:5 24165 45:16 18385 Lives of the Prophets, 17620 12.2 672 Mishnah   m. ’Abot (=Pirqe Abot)   3.6 374   4.14 14775   m. Ber.   9.5

186119

767

indexes.indd 767

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Mishnah (continued)   m. Ohol   2.3 54648   m. Sanh.   6.1-4 17727   m. Šebu.   4.13 57315   m. Tamid   5.1 9921   6.4 9921 Odes of Solomon 14:18-19 17:10-12 24 25:9 33 42:10-20

31096, 63371 311106 311106 72c 431 311106

Paraleipomena Jeremiou 7:37 37795 Philo, 62, 79. 43051   Abr.   71–72 18063     Cher.   99–100 43597   Conf. ling.   12–13   129

6117 15419

         

58334 61 35889 63155

Dec. 32 33, 46 52–81 87

  De Ebr., 6990   Deus   75   130          

63046 32778

Flacc. 1 20–24 33–41 163

5491 5819 41912 4853

  Hypoth.   8.11.1-15

9020

  Jos.   12   81–84

14110 55328

           

Leg. all. 1.44 2.81-82 3–4 3.8 3.98-99

438124 6663, 32339 7939, 438124 22236 35890

             

Leg. Gaj., 446 134 145–48 254 281–82 284 338

20157 18726 61345 6880, 448 59632 4853

  Op. mun.   134–47

435102

         

Omn. Prob. Lib. 75–91 84 91 140

9020 9235 9235 42239

           

Spec. Leg. 1.31 1.53 1.66-67 2.159 4.149

438118 496107 43597 6117 18836

       

Migr. Abr. 47 182 235

6117 7939 9125

  Mut. Nom., 126,

437115

  Praem. Poen.   41–42   80

35890

  Prov.   Frg. 2

  Som.   2.248-49

6991

                     

35889 35890 437114 437114 22236 378112 54423 208 35890 188136

Spec. leg. 1.13-30 1.33-34 1.36 1.71-97 1.324-35 2.62 2.253 3.100-101 3.187-89 4.149

  Q. Exod.   2.69-123

437114

  Virt.   175–86   179

63150 31096, 62371

  Vit. Cont., 9017                        

Vit. Mos. 1.9 1.21-24 1.158 1.278 1.289 2.1 2.20 2.66-68 2.74-76 2.203-5 2.213

18392 18497 17051 274107 17051 33 6524 43597 190160 496107 6117

Ps.-Phocylides Sentences 31

378108

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 2 17052 Prayer of Manasseh, 431, 432

37455

Prayer of Nabonidus 1:3 24278

35890

768

indexes.indd 768

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Psalms of Solomon 17:23-14 1203 18:5 4428 Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities, 8 9:5 12337 59.4 20764 Qohelet Rabbah 8.1

17048

Qumran Literature   1Q22 6228     1Q29 6228   1QH   11   11:11-12   1QM   1:1                                

1QS 1:3 1:9-10 1:18 1:23 2:2 2:5 2:11-19 2:19 3:13—4:25 6:24-25 8:1-9 8:1 9:18 10:21 11:7-8

650 527231 63373 59957 63373 63373 63373 63373 32670 63373 13363 13260, 13482 26842 5665 24159 24259 527231, 233

  11QPs   27:2-11

8376

  11QT   19:11-14

6015 6989

             

24159 24159 189151 57313 13260 24159

CD 1:13 2:6 7:15 8:12 14:20-21 20:18

  Genesis Apocryphon   20 23419   20:21-29 67555

3:1 4:8 46–51 48–52 48:3 50:1

23736 278150 53739 6338 6332 6332

T. Jos. 141:10 1:3 7:3 8:4-5 8:5

520141 412104 41196 40879

T. Jud. 9:3 19:3 25:3

51268 10728, 2501 6221

T. Levi 3:9 10:2

12337 520141

T. Naph 1:3 6:1-8

522171 65062

T. Reub. 1:4-5

522171

T. Sim. 2:7 2:11 6:1

14110 14110 520141

Royal Family of Adiabene, 313125 Sibylline Oracles 1.150-98 1.171-72 2.96 3.97-109 3.448 3.540-42 4.8-11 5.143-59 5.257 5.286-327 6.26 8.4-5

431 441154 378108 6119 374 29668 191 189152 14549 492 14549 6119

T. Benj. 7:1-2 9:3

14110 14589

Testament of Solomon, 47722 Tobiad Romance, 6984, 1419, 313125

T. Dan 2:1

522171 c / New Testament

  4Q174   8-13

33755

  4Q375-376

6228

T. Gad 4:5-6

14110

  4QDtj (4Q37) 436109

T. Jac. 1:10

30764

  4QFlor (174)   1:1-6   1:18-19

T. Job 1:4 3

522171 23527

26842 1203

Matthew 2 2:1-12 2:16-18 3:1 4:5 5:7

207 18108, 9813 302 98 1967 48713 769

indexes.indd 769

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Matthew (continued) 7:15 525211, 526213 8:13 56557 9:2 57649 9:22 57649 10:16 525211 11:28-30 284210, 374 12:38-42 31093, 652 14:7 171e 16:6 526213 16:17 312110 16:18 81 20:8 5447 21:35 194191 22:7 29668 23:2 57322 24:7 29658 24:11-12 7937 24:21 18282 25:6 67772 26:30 41196 27:3-10 52 28:2 41198 Mark 1:2 1:10 1:11 1:14 1:16-17 1:21-34 1:23-31 1:23-28 1:24-25 1:24 1:27 1:29-31 1:32-34 1:34 1:41 2:1-12 2:1 2:4 2:9 2:13-17 2:16 3:6 3:8 3:10-12 3:19

27282 22678, 23740 27166, 636 3745 23414 884 67555 40653 478 47721 42943 25320, 675 476 473, 67232 40651 253 249o 25317 100 15312 57541 295 296 884, 136103 189147

3:20 3:22-30 4:1 4:11 4:12 4:17 4:21-23 4:35—8:26 4:35-41 5:1-20 5:2-4 5:2 5:3-4 5:7 5:13 5:15 5:17 5:21-43 5:28-29 5:37-40 5:39 5:41 6 6:3 6:6-13 6:7 6:9 6:14-29 6:20 6:23 6:32-44 6:35-41 6:37 6:42 6:43 6:44 6:45-52 6:52 6:53-56 6:55-56 6:56 7:1-23 7:15 8:5 8:8 8:19-20 8:36 9:4 9:7

636 104 15310 136 685 20049 511 280173 649 405, 476 478 405 476 476 405, 665 47831 405 252, 25535 472 254 51376 254 289, 603 12819 21416 47721, 48380 87122 303 1032, 60413 171e 112, 16188 652 48160 665220 15639 87122, 467 649, 652, 665 185107 884 136, 472 472 266, 269 7937 15639 15639, 665220 15639 657131 18832 10848, 137107, 18832

9:8 9:18 9:31 9:42 10:3-9 10:1-12 10:14 10:17 10:33 10:35-40 10:38-39 10:49 11–16 11:15-17 11:28 12:13-17 12:13 12:26 13:1-2 13:3 13:4 13:8 13:9 13:9-10 13:10 13:21-23 13:32 13:35 14:9 14:10 14:13 14:26 14:29 14:38 14:43 14:55-56 14:58 14:62 14:63-64 14:64 15:1 15:19 15:20 15:20-37 15:21 15:24 15:46 16:15 16:18

22785 624p 189147 665 383 27054 22676 8491 53849 30322 65171 57649 542 11510, 15960 115 145 295 102b 43153 40 29665 2904, 296, 41198 60914 24492 3745 526 40 526 3745 11614 9920 41196 30324 526 111, 16833, 282188 164 16941 1967, 209 164 195 53849 505hh 567 19829 30548 527234 25543 3745 672

770

indexes.indd 770

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Luke 1–2 1:1-4 1:1 1:2-3 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:8-20 1:9 1:11-20 1:11 1:13-17 1:14-17 1:14 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:20 1:21-22 1:26 1:29 1:32 1:41 1:44 1:46 1:58 1:64 1:66

1:67 1:68 1:70 1:71 1:73-75 1:76 1:77-79 1:78-79 1:78 1:79 2:1 2:7 2:8-14 2:9-14

2:9 190156,

8, 267, 280170, 32453 39472, 45913, 690 59630 62822 287, 318h 286, 382151, 56337 62214 30320, 565 29112 56667 37124, 49369 267 14215, 17047 32 23524 30987 6332, 24495 29330 33758 24274, 32670 49369 14215, 17047 27280 8378 6332, 24495 29331 6983 6983, 273 314139 17947, 245c, 280173, 29329, 48272 6332, 24495 18545, 187128, 37569 11047, 12219 27397 18170 24159, 327 63260 633 37569, 553 244, 327 14779, 240, 29667, 38932 46520 32 277

2:10-12 2:11 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:25-38 2:25 2:29 2:30 2:32 2:34-35 2:37 2:40-52 2:42 2:46 2:47 2:52 3:1-20 3:1-2 3:1 3:2 3:3-5 3:3 3:4-5 3:4 3:6 3:7-9 3:8 3:10 3:12, 14 3:15 3:16 3:18 3:19-22 3:19 3:21 3:22 3:23-28 3:38 4:1-13 4:1 4:2 4:4 4:6 4:9 4:13

14215, 23736, 30437, 631 32, 30987 145 24162 185111 289c 5347, 53519 537, 565 20152, 26834, 56455 185111, 67116, 684 686 63374, 63590 575, 68432 526219, 62925 184 37124 42835 2463 182 501 45159 30320 1156 24159 34089, 46630 344 21523, 327 686 8599 180, 63487 561 8491, 56452 30546 62, 46849 8598 279163 16725, 30320 6231, 19713, 27062, 56565 23740, 33979 33651 439132 37, 331 24495 269, 37452 326 214 1977 32669

4:14-30 4:14 4:16-30 4:16 4:18 4:22-30 4:22 4:25-29 4:25 4:26 4:27-28 4:28-29 4:28 4:29-30 4:30 4:32 4:33-37 4:37 4:38-41 4:40-41 4:42 5:1-11 5:17-39 5:17-26 5:18-24 5:18-20 5:20 5:22 5:26 5:27 5:30 5:32 5:33 6:8 6:12-16 6:13 6:17 6:20, 24 6:22-23 6:22 6:23 7:1-10 7:1-17 7:2-10 7:2 7:4 7:5 7:6

277, 343 24495, 35124 196, 331, 501, 68554 41915, 633 1964, 2148, 22679, 277134, 30881 331 196 343, 65277 25553 51272 56675 1967, 360106, 109 49477, 501151 350, 55148 42835 327 40653 47943 674 206 48271 23444, 652, 664 9812-13 20624, 253 25317 252 352 133 47943 312114 152 145 47185 133 4653 3644 53518 529 14991 47180 192 265-67, 333 2529, 307, 513 252 26723 6038 273 26723 771

indexes.indd 771

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

Luke (continued) 7:8 7:11-17 7:15 7:16 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:24-27 7:30 7:31 7:37 7:38 7:39 7:50 8:1 8:3 8:10 8:11 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:22-25 8:23 8:26-39 8:27 8:29 8:35 8:39 8:40-56 8:48 8:51-54 9–19 9:2 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:11 9:22 9:23 9:28 9:31 9:32 9:35

268 51268 25656, 47943 5561, 18545, 37569 47943 47185, 48379, 579j 6038 68554 206, 33758 33762 14775, 523182 941 47834 56335 188132 25349, 415130 522174 30330, 313124, 48382 685 16391 30987, 330hh, 520138, 54535 21632 40324, 48266 652, 659161 658142 405, 476 47834, 478 16829 56335 47943 252 415130 254 556 522174 47834 60525 6038, 615l 8599 48271 9455, 15961, 362, 423j 270 30879, 311, 312114, 33758, 526216 513 24390, 27166

9:36 9:37-43 9:40 9:43 9:44 9:46-47 9:49-50 9:51 9:52-56 9:52 9:54 9:59 10:1-16 10:1-12 10:3 10:8 10:10-12 10:13-15 10:13-14 10:16 10:17 10:18 10:30 10:38-42 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:9-10 11:14-23 11:14 11:16 11:21-22 11:24 11:26 11:28 11:29-32 11:29 11:31 11:41 11:42 11:46 11:47-50 11:48 11:49 11:50-52 12:8-9 12:11-12 12:12 12:14 12:15

22784 47838 47399 49368 682 133 47838, 48267 609, 482 2038 48267 2136 312114 283 16186 525211 269 344 45374 312114 24166 30987 672 527234 162 37349 9455, 15961 520138 30656 47838 11512 37452 47834 25211 477 19380 2269, 30993, 652 8599 221 269 273 374 192 20018 27283 2269, 30993, 652 1974 145 11513, 167 18511 307

12:16-20 12:29-30 12:32 12:35 12:35-37 12:35-38 12:36 12:42-46 12:49-50 13:1-9 13:6-9 13:8-21 13:11 13:21 13:22 13:25 13:28-30 13:29 13:34-35 14:14 14:21 14:24 14:26 15 15:2 15:5 15:6 15:7-10 15:9 15:11-32 15:13 15:17 15:20 15:25-32 15:26 16:8 16:16-18 16:16 16:19 17:1 17:3 17:7-10 17:12 17:19 17:20-21 17:25-26 18:12 18:16 18:18

197 497 525210 311104 513 311104 30656 311104 268 53, 21630 437 2529 29112 30330 14215 30656 45374 57650 192172, 19491, 45374 59958 6038 51049 268 437 15312 22786 273 30987 273 21630, 690 56675 299h 530268 430 579j 22669 33652 59957 59957 27397 526213 153, 524198 343123 25349 23145, 11614 22669 25349 579j 56452

772

indexes.indd 772

8/27/2008 3:15:50 PM

18:21 18:22 18:25 18:31 18:32 18:35 18:43 19:6 19:7 19:11 19:13 19:17 19:29 19:30 19:44

19:46 19:47 20:16 20:17 20:19 20:38 20:46 21 21:5-6 21:11 21:12-15 21:12-13 21:14 21:15 21:16 21:18 21:19 21:21 21:23-24 21:25 21:27 21:34-46 21:35 21:37 22 22:1 22:2 22:4 22:12 22:13 22:14-38 22:15-16

193180 13261, 312114 57650 33873 53849, 682 24162 29112, 47943 22786 284 5347 558l 11067 40, 24162 54071 16073, 17841, 17947, 18545, 37569 54530 471 55148 45374, 636105 30323 439125 526213 517, 550 424, 43153, 573 29668 11723 244, 30217, 5937 48272 15314 165 496105 664215 48266 11064 45374 649 42, 46 31098 659164 11067 30326 509 144 581 51383 14215 517 522171

22:22 22:24-27 22:26-27 22:27 22:28 22:31 22:32 22:33-42 22:33 22:35 22:39 22:40 22:41 22:42 22:44 22:45-46 22:45 22:46 22:52 22:53 22:54-71 22:54-61 22:57-59 22:59 22:63-74 22:66-71 22:69 22:70 22:71—23:50 23 23:2-5 23:2 23:4, 22 23:4 23:5 23:6-12 23:6-7 23:8 23:11 23:13-23 23:14-15 23:15-20 23:15-16 23:18 23:19 23:22 23:24—24:8

8149, 440146, 551, 55148 15310, 517113 522165 15310, 42835 520, 53856 30992 5010, 53962 533 30324 517113, 525203 37124, 526 520138 505kk 532j, 538 30330, 30986 513 53858 520138 16833, 6038 327, 538, 625w, 63376 571 269, 307 30767 307 573 14986, 33867 42 209 567g 195-200 6216 609 420, 59416, 59740 57542 609 5447, 420, 525208, 654101 429, 609 609 6038, 609, 615l 276123 30880 6218 682 57542, 611 609 675 14989, 57542, 6218 649

23:25 23:27 23:39-43 23:41 23:44-45 23:46 23:47 23:50 23:51 24 24:1 24:3 24:4 24:5 24:7 24:11 24:13-35 24:16 24:19 24:21 24:22-24 24:25 24:26-27 24:26 24:27 24:29-52 24:29 24:32 24:34 24:35 24:36-42 24:36 24:39 24:41 24:43 24:44-48 24:44 24:45-46 24:45 24:46-48 24:46 24:47 24:49 24:52 24:53 24:56

675 55148, 551 23 61018, 675 659, 659163 526 26723, 666, 675 29333, 29112c 14775 309, 636109 664 436 276123 672-73 682 247, 671, 68436 219, 51049, 513 45, 185107 184100, 459, 501, 607g 187128 671 182 41917 8149 22673, 57650, 59957 68554 405 41917 24494, 63262 514 182 42835 437115 247, 30989, 68436 14215 37, 4434, 59957 48271 636109 338, 368, 403 281185 8149 5347, 34095, 68559 37 30987 26835, 565 3855

773

indexes.indd 773

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

John 1:1 1:14 1:21 1:40 1:43-51 1:53 3:4 4 4:21 4:36 4:40 5:2 5:8 5:42 5:46 6:1-15 6:15 6:63 6:68 7:12 7:53 8:5 8:9 9:8-9 9:24 10:1-16 10:7 10:9 10:23 10:31-33 11:1-44 11:8 11:44 12:20-26 12:39-40 14 17:8 18:22-23 19:13 19:15 19:16-30 19:19-20 19:25-27 19:34 20:16 20:21 21:1-14 21:4-6 21:10

287 396 10848 40434 205 56557 9922 203 16941 27283 283202 55225 100 67555 10848 87122, 205 22681 142 142 15856 1416 194191 5447 101 300u 525211 9926 24817 10142 194189 511, 68771 19489 51268 15640, 205 685 43597 27283 57310 17, 20, 55225 55226 19829 295 464 30438 549r 27283 21911, 652, 664 18832 15310

21:15-17 21:16 21:18-19 21:18 21:24

525211 542198 53745 311104 39474

Acts 1–7 1:8 2:1-12 2:44 3:7 3:17 3:26 5:1-5 5:5-13 5:34-39 7:32 9:20 9:22 9:31 10:28 10:36 10:39 11:28 11:30 12:10 12:11 12:12 13:27 13:31 13:46 13:47 14:22 15:7 16:10 16:12 16:17-34 17:23 17:30 18:2 19:1-7 20:4 20:28 20:35 21:4-5 21:20 22:3 22:14

32 63483 124 1278 97-98 2501 186 131-32 9 13367 102b 46128 46128 4758 49366 185111 14548 17101 12816 1279 63270 12816 10829 31c 188140 44 129 49366 32234 26 22790 107 107 13258 2137 15637 233 34 318d 141 141 11064

22:21 26:23 Romans, 68211 1–14 1–2 1 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:16 1:18-32 1:20-21 2:9-10 2:18 2:22 3:9 3:25 3:35 4:13 4:16 5:9 6:3-4 8:18-39 8:34 9–11 10:2 10:12 10:22 12:3 12:11 12:13-14 13:13 15:4 15:20 15:22-25 15:25-31 15:25 15:26 15:30-32 15:31 16 16:1 16:3-5 16:3 16:10 16:21

186 10520

1475 43379 189149, 32224, 437116 519135 33537 8150, 339 9920, 520 10829, 43379, 437137 35889, 359101, 437114 520 56559 496107 520 34088 524 33537 33537 524 651 441151 8381 68548 141 520 56339 46026 4598, 519135 310102 141 526222 527229 48381 521 48375, 5067 521156, 546 50712, 547 29778 45154, 50827 46022 451 45154, 57 459 508, 53964

774

indexes.indd 774

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

16:23 16:25-27

449, 50933 527227

1 Corinthians, 52722 1:1 449 1:2 24387, 289c, 523185 1:4 448, 44929 1:11 460 1:12 459 1:13-15 469 1:14 50933 1:16 411102 1:17 282199 1:22 425 2:7 25542 2:10-11 278 2:11 277, 278150 3:2 277 3:3 141 3:4-11 459 3:6 461 3:22 459 4:3 16179 4:5 278145 4:6 459 4:12 284209, 452 4:14 526222 4:17 35126, 388 4:25—5:1 22566 5:3-4 16179 5:7-8 50947 5:7 309 6:2 519132 6:8 61130 6:11 56463 7:12 61130 7:17-20 370 8 6343, 27054 8:3 279159 8:7 5727 9:1-12 452 9:1-2 3961 9:1 492, 33877, 3861, 564 9:3-18 527236 9:7 15310, 524198 9:16 38825 9:19-23 546 9:20 38825

9:23 10 10:9 10:14—11:1 10:26 10:32 11:19 11:22 11:25-36 12–14 12:11 12:13 12:27 12:28-29 13:3 14 14:2-3 14:3 14:9 14:13 14:14-20 14:14 14:25 14:26-33 14:27-28 14:33-36 15:3-8 15:3 15:5-8 15:8 15:9 15:10 15:20 15:26 15:32 16:1-8 16:1 16:2 16:4-5 16:9 16:12 16:13 16:14-18 16:15 16:17 16:18 16:19

24390, 54723 21633 15310 6343 27054 523185, 59961 142 523185 10844 64 26843 520 53631 32125 25542 15749, 32230 27281 384172 281102 46732 269 27169 15744 6443 466 53738 23738 10731, 22265 24494, 63262 33877 20159, 523185 284 10520 2135 488 5067 509 297, 51048 48381 14325, 363137 459, 460 526218 44929 29778, 442 460 50711 449

2 Corinthians 1:1

523185

1:8-11 1:12-16 1:19 2:1-11 2:4 2:5-11 2:6 2:12-13 2:12 3:1-3 3:2 3:6 3:7-18 4:5 4:7-11 4:7 4:8-9 5:16-21 5:18 6:4-10 6:5 6:14—7:1 6:15 7:2 7:5-7 7:12 8–9 8:2 8:4 8:10 8:18-19 8:19 9:1-13 9:1 9:2 9:8 10–13 10:1-6 10:10 11:2 11:7-11 11:8-9 11:23 11:24 11:25

11:32-33 12:2

47293, 488 47293 380, 44931 526220 520 16614, 37123 16179 48374 , 5067 14325, 321, 363137, 50945-46 46022 22559, 39688 15310 17052 527236 522163 24389 527236 18512 522164 522163 47293 63373 21518 4721 48374 , 5067 61130 1476, 6343 4184 29778, 5422 275116 508 48936 29778 5422 140, 2135, 275116 22542 321, 35128, 47293 527236 18499, 354 154 527236 44931, 452, 45370 47293 14990 19112, 35128, 361, 401, 45044, 55543, 644 246-47 22781 775

indexes.indd 775

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

2 Corinthians (continued) 12:9-10 522163 12:9 360109 12:13 527236 Galatians, 562 1–2 1 2 1:6 1:7 1:9 1:10 1:12-17 1:12 1:13-21 1:13 1:14-15 1:14 1:15-22 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:18—2:10 1:20 1:21 1:22-23 1:22 2 2:1-10 2:1 2:2 2:3-6 2:6-10 2:6 2:7-10 2:9 2:10 2:11-14 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:18 2:30

2311, 250, 284, 56226 233-34, 246 283203 21410 381 521162 519135 233 521162 319 166, 20159, 2464, 523185 565 54423, 56341 547 9922, 343121, 46025 2464 2325, 55439 26617 55439 24820, 3197, 361121, 381, 387 20159 232 361121 3197, 382-83 3177, 370, 59962 370, 527 388 543 277, 278150 547 9920, 30322, 3197, 3237, 352 297, 526222 200, 26613, 292, 3697 284209, 367bb, 376, 547 388 326 38825, 527229 527

3:2 3:6-18 3:11 3:16 3:18 3:19-20 3:19 3:20-21 3:23-25 3:26 3:27 3:29 4:4 4:12 4:13 4:19 4:28 5:2-7 5:3 5:4 5:10 5:11 5:20 5:22 5:23 5:26 6:13 6:16 6:17

51932 10956 34087, 94 10955, 33537 527232 188137 33537 527 383158 521148 310 33537 183 61130 38935 51275 528243 230 54428 34087 381 388 141-42 344133 604 541j 19380 541j 519135

Ephesians, 25, 279 1:7 34088, 524, 527, 63373 1:14 527 1:15 521148 1:18 24051, 31096, 527 1:21 47616 1:22-23 240 1:22 11614 1:23 438124 2:3 240 2:4-7 25321 2:5-8 374 2:10 255 2:11-12 280, 283204, 37565 2:11 526222 2:17 185, 277, 280169, 438120, 56673 2:20 32126 3:2 522

3:5 3:6-7 3:8 3:9 4:2 4:7-8 4:11-16 4:11 4:14 4:15-16 4:15 4:17-18 4:18 5:8-14 5:8 5:14 5:18 5:21 5:22-23 5:26 6:9 6:14 6:17 6:19-20 6:21-22

9560, 32126 522 23630, 240, 62713 24051 519 70 525209 32126, 524, 53671 650 240 11614 24051 10728, 2501 24051 240 310 6990 24822 27054 37349, 56563 277, 278150 311104 575, 68660 68777 382148, 508

Philippians 1 1:1 1:5 1:6 1:10 1:12-26 1:12-16 1:12-14 1:13 1:17-18 1:20 2:14 2:16-17 2:17 2:22 3:1 3:2 3:5-17 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:12-14

553 519135 519 25542 59961 5925 46516 68882 58652 521 522163 15856 522163 522163 519135 604 38825 574 154, 55479, 57432 141, 201159 652187 522163 522169

776

indexes.indd 776

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

4:2-3 4:3 4:10-20 4:15 4:22

4015 16291 1476 4184 58652

Colossians, 25, 47176 1:4 521148 1:6 16393 1:9 56559 1:10 25542 1:11 482 1:12-14 527230, 63373 1:12 21418, 21522 1:13 522168, 63375 1:14 34088 1:18 11614, 63589 1:20 185 1:23 6554, 362 1:24 238, 522163 1:28 520145, 526222 2:14 10844 2:19 19, 11614 3:1-3 310 3:1 8381 3:9-10 310 3:16 526222 3:25 277, 278150, 61130 4:3 14325, 363137 4:7-19 508, 519 4:7-8 382148 4:7 50830 4:10-11 48937 4:10 12820, 306, 418q, 508, 655110 4:11 284209, 45378, 522168 4:18 26843, 522163 1 Thessalonians 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:7-8 1:9 1:10 2:1-12 2:1-11 2:1

418 380, 44931 526222 519 6444 47176 356, 51935, 633 441150 518 51935 519

2:2 2:3-12 2:6 2:9 2:12 2:13 2:14 3:1-5 3:1 3:3-4 3:6 4:2 4:6 4:11-12 4:17 5:11 5:12 5:14 5:15-17

401 527236 525208 4184, 452, 526219, 526222, 528 518121 527230 4186 422 48935 51935 44931 51935 520146 528239, 528 67742 527230 526222 526222 528

2 Thessalonians 1:8 2:5 2:8 3:7-12 3:7-10 3:8 3:15

186121 526222 8043 528 527236 526219 526222

1 Timothy, 15744 1:3 1:5 1:8 1:11 1:12-17 1:13 1:18 1:19 1:20 2:2 2:3-4 2:10 2:14-18 3:1-13 3:1-6 3:2 3:8 3:9 3:14

525204 27054 526 32125 23630, 240, 62713 10720, 20159 323 650 13143, 135 192179 17723 25542 17623 16177, 16291 17623 525206 15310 27054 525205

4:1 4:3 4:6-7 4:11-12 4:13-14, 16 4:14 5:3-16 5:5 5:10 5:17 5:22 6:2 6:3 6:9-10 6:10 6:14 6:20

7937, 525209 32125 525204 525204, 205 525206 16184, 323, 515103 16291 526219 25542, 25658 16290, 525 16184 11619 525204 525204 13586 8043 525204, 205, 526217, 526225, 58850

2 Timothy, 321, 553 1:3 27054, 526219, 57432 1:4 525209 1:6 323 1:8-9 525205 1:12 526225 1:13-14 525205 2:2 525, 526 2:8 526222 2:13 58880 2:14-20 525204, 55880 2:14 58880 2:19 47616 2:21 24390, 25542 2:22 27054 3:1-7 525204 3:1 7937 3:10-11 525205 3:11 320, 32528 3:17 25542 4:1-7 525204 4:1 8, 8043, 281182 4:2 525206 4:5 53631 4:6-18 5925 4:7 33760 4:11 318h 4:12 508 4:13 50945 4:14 48820 777

indexes.indd 777

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

2 Timothy (continued) 4:19 45154, 57 4:20 283, 508 Titus 1:5-6 1:5 1:9 1:10—2:7 1:10 1:11 1:16 2:10 2:16 3:1 3:5 3:9 3:12 3:14

525 6877, 16185, 27054, 362, 525205 525206 525204 284209 525 25542 13140 525204 25542 525209, 56563 58880 508 528

Philemon, 47176 22 23 24

68433 67883 7, 738, 48937, 508

Hebrews, 43272 1:3 2:2 2:3-4 2:10 2:14-18 3:1-6 4:6-11 4:12 6:4 6:12 8:1 8:5 10 10:12 10:32 11:37 12:2 12:20 13:2 13:22

8381 19279 17723 145 17623 17623 8275 575 31096 44150 8381 19060 17623 8381 31096 19491 14556 193186 355 33110

1 Peter, 517, 527229 1:6 520138 1:13 311104

1:14 1:17 1:20 2:1-2 2:4-10 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:9 2:24-25 2:24 2:25 3:19 4:5 4:7-8 4:9 4:10-11 4:16 5:2-3 5:2 5:12 5:13

10728, 2501 278150 8049 311 37565 11614 26843 11614, 636105 31096, 63371 22566 14548 524198 308 281182 26835 15856 16188 295 525210 15310, 524198 380 18952, 306

2 Peter 1:16-19 1:21 2:12 3:12 3:15

39474 382156 10728 10739 382146

1 John 2:18 2:19 3:20 4:1

7937 367bb 37345 267bb

Jude 17 18 Revelation, 1:5 1:10 1:14 2:1 2:1-7 2:2 2:6 2:9 2:13

2:14 2:18-20 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:22 2:24-25 3:1 3:8 3:15 3:20 4:11 6:8 6:12 9:11 11:3 14:8 16:16 16:18 16:19 17:5 18:2 18:8 18:10 18:21 19:9 19:12 19:19 20:2 21:1 22:16

377103, 382152 40326 18621 52615 536636 18282 382152 52615 14325, 52615 52615 14325, 30656 41198 29668 41198 549k 41198 18952 549k 41198 18952 18952 18952 29668 18952 18952 672 18621 1203 672 64948 33758

d / Early Christian Literature and the Ancient Church

Acta Carpi et al. 4

19718

Acta Cononis 5

19718

9339 7937 502153 63589 51048 18621 53746 520145 52615 15532 52615 52615

Acta Petri et Pauli/Martyrium Petri et Pauli, 67774 60 236 Acts of Andrew   Epit.   6   7   11

58 47723 17048

778

indexes.indd 778

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

  13   33

47723 618

  Martyrium prius, 57   Narr.   36 5230   Acts of Andrew and Matthias, 57 21 14218 22 14218 29–30 14218 Acts of Barnabas, 338 10 3878 19 32776 Acts of John, 15529, 4648 18 23844 22–28 51163 26–29 27399 30 16291 31 342109 32–36 49261 36–87 14218 37–47 492 37–45 581 41–42 5230, 86 42 47723 44 47723 43 497114 58–59 530 62 47297 73–86 51052 84 60419 94–97 15529 110 9337, 10728 115 22786 Acts of Paul, 1, 3, 30, 3422, 321, 349, 53517, 67774, 690 1 16291 2 194189 3/4 320 3.1 17048 3.3 45598 3.5 9337, 60419 3.10 56335 3.14 42943 3.18-19 58249

3.20 3.21 3.24 4/5 4.29 5/6 7/9

9/12 10/13 11/14.1 11/14.1, 5, 7 11/14.2, 6 11/14.6

32561 19718, 344131 5555, 6985 1219, 37345 535 7613 581 6115, 14218, 17048, 20158, 2327, 25538, 47723, 4852 411102, 521161, 530 8153, 8378, 280172, 661179 51164, 67774, 68780, 695 739 5553 31f

Acts of Perpetua (= Martyrdom, ­Passion) 5925 1.3-4 7831 3.5-6 40876 3.9 582.19 4 19718 9.1 413119 16:4 413119 Acts of Peter, 3422, 5771, 9529 (Coptic) Acts of Peter, 109, 23419 Frg. 5230 1–3 530 1 413119, 6816, 68665 2 5555, 10728, 60419, 62713 3 27499, 342109, 57535 5 27499, 48267, 661179, 661179, 67436 7 10513 8–15 323 8 16291, 525211 9 30767 10–13 25-29, 581 10 27499 11–32 211 15 32562. 47723 17 16291

19–20 23 26–28 28–29

16291 21520 51164 16291

Acts of Peter and Andrew, 13-23, 581 Acts of Philip, 15527 2 42838. 43378 6:9-10 194189 6 8273 14 8273 78 22565 Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, 8, 63597 Acts of Thomas, 57 1 6 8 20 27 30–38 59 65–68 107–22 108 111–12

4753, 45382 5230 17048 21416 24271 581 135107, 16291 530 14218 40879 310101

Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena 24 6816 Apocalypse of Paul 49 30764 51 413 Apocalypse of Peter (Ethiopic) 1 413 Apocryphon of John, NHC, 1, 2 1.19-20 413 Apostolic Constitutions 1–6 284210 2.24.6 5555 3.7.8 5555 4.6.8 5555 7.34.1-7 431 7.46 508121 8.12.8-16 431 779

indexes.indd 779

8/27/2008 3:15:51 PM

Apostolic Tradition (“Hippolytus”) 3.4 524198 20.9-10 310100 Arator De Actibus Apostolorum, 21, 654, 690105 1.57-58 4756 1.150-55 7091 1.431-32 13148 1:610-12 19715 1:904-906 27165 2:1130-55 663204 2:1173-1205 67248 2:1219-50 68884 Aristides Apol. 1 17.4

359104, 437114 2501

Ascension of Isaiah 2:7 24384 3:11 13363 5:7 19718 Athanasius   Exp. in Pss., 22127   Vit. Ant.   8   60

360109, 51160 22727

Athenagoras   Legatio (Supplicatio)   2.1 61132   2.6 10728   3 61725   11 343126   15 114c   16 359104   28.4 10728 Augustine   Adim.   17

13147

  Ennarationes in Psalmos   30.2.3 23737

  Enarrat. in Ps.   110:4

35668

  Ep.   138   265.3

57318 3857

  Serm.   242.1   265

35668 416

  Serm. Dom.   1.19

57318

  Util. cred.   34

35668

Barnabas, 17724 2:4—3:5 2:10 4:3 4:12 5:9 5:13 6:1 7:2 8:1 9:2 10:2-9 11:6 11:11 12:1 12:7 14:4 16:1-2 19:8 19:12

43595 26841 527232 278150 3745 14548 10519 28182 14548 10519 33870 311106 22678 14548 14548 527232 192 1278 47944

Bede Expositio Actuum Apostolorum; Retractio, 3533, 6223, 6547, 9926, 11280, 13149, 137107, 14789, 14985, 15745, 19715, 20520, 217m, 22231, 22450, 23737, 24816, 25321, 26945, 27165, 30764, 30980, 311104, 32774, 33649-50, 35234, 35896, 378109, 40549, 40981, 45261, 456112, 46958, 51275, 51377, 5698, 57318, 65494, 664 1 Clement, 8, 51, 526, 53966 1:3 278150

2:1 2:12 4:1—6:4 5:5 5:7 7:1 8:1 8:2 9:3 13:1-2 14:1 16:1 16:7-8 16:17 18:1 18:2 18:9 18:16-17 19:2—20:12 20 20:4 20:11 23–26 24–25 29 29:3 29:6 33:1 33:2-8 33:2 34:7 36:4 42:1-2 42:15 43:1 44:1-4 44:1 42:3-4 42:4 46:7 46:9 52:1 52:4 53:4 53:5 54:2 58.2 59 59:2-4 59:2-3

529 9539 1419 308 24492 526222 3643 1219 22784 528 5121, 11837 525210, 572 22515 37453 337 10844 10844 26841 431 359 359103 1219 441152 62929 436109 527232 523182 457 431 1219 30330 527232 9339, 298 160 16185 298, 524200 3 56 362 528 475208 1219, 435 26841 27168 15964 16185, 524 9560 63375 10519 31096, 63371

780

indexes.indd 780

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

59:3—61:3 63:2 65:2

1219 382151 5491

2 Clement 1:1 4:4 5:2-4 8:3 9:9 12:1 13:1 16:4 17:1 17:3 17:4 20:5

281102 11837 525211 47944 37345 8043 10844 26835 192178 526222 8043 145

Clement of Alexandria   Paed.   2.1 377103   3.4.25 344126   3.11.69 19825   Protrep.   4.62

7939

         

53633 555 190154 29

Stromata 3.52 4.14; 6 5.11 5.82

Chrysostom, John   Homilies on Acts, 134, 49154   1 18111   11 12711   12 13149   14 15745, 16185, 16291   15 18165   18 19715, 211167   20 24496, 2468   24 282198   26 30764   27 312119   28 32337   31 360109   32 37238   34 38825

                       

35 36 38 39 40 43 45 48 49 50 53 55

  Sac.   4.7

40372 412102, 413115 42831 45595 46954 51051 53522, 24 57318 58224 58327 65280, 65343 656125, 688, 68993

442161

Cologne Mani Codex 51, 6-12 22681 52, 2-7 22681 55, 16-19 22681 57, 16-19 22681 Coptic Psalm Book 2.187.27-29 413 Cyprian, 29 Unity of Cath. Ch. 12 14220 Cyril of Jerusalem   Myst. cat. 17 6345   De Rebaptismate, 7835 Dialogue of the Savior (NHL 3,5) 36 (135, 1-16) 21411 Didache, 30, 292 1:5 4:14 6:2 6:3 7:4 8:4 9:2-3 10:3 11:4-5 11:6 11:9 11:12

529 47944 37453 377103 24278 1278 10519 1219 40434 21416 21416 21416

12:4 14:1 14:2 15:2 15:4 16:3

295 9337, 51043 26943 32125 26835 7937, 525211

Didascalia, 1, 262k, 37232, 37459, 367m 6.12 284210 Diognetus 3:2 3:3-5 6:9 7:8 8:7

1219 435 12332 12332 1219

Dionysius of Corinth, 426 Ephrem Syrus, 14779, 16832, 2503, 29663, 30772, 316b, 32337, 348y, 35557, 37019, 382156, 3878, 38821, 445u, 475f, 3, 48827, 503j, 65392, 68770 Epistula Apostolorum, 431 2 4753 15 311107 30.41 5669 33 2323 Epistle of Peter to Philip NHC 8, 2 596 132.12 413 Epiphanius Panarion 19.1.3 26.9 26.11 28.3 30.16

47294 377103 528243 37019 55437

Eusebius   Dem. Ev.   3.7

114c

  Ecclesiastical History   2.1.4 1967   2.2.13-14 22117

781

indexes.indd 781

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

                                   

Ecclesiastical History (continued) 2.10.10 30321 2.12.15 21163 2.20.6 114c 2.23.13 21056 3.1 56 3.24 114c 3.31 53633 3.32 526217 3.39.16 306 4.7 377103 4.23 42612 5.1.26 377103 5.1.27 40826 5.1.35 17048 5.6.14 22681 5.10 53631 5.13 525211

       

Prep. Ev. 3.18 4.23 132b

19054 40826 114c

  Vita Constantini   1.12 18494 First Book of Jeu 3

4753

Gospel of the Ebionites, 4753 Gospel of James 4:6

14329

Gospel of the Hebrews, 4755 2 22681 Gospel of Judas, 5224 Gospel of Peter 1.1-2 12.50 19

1202, 3032 25538 21056

Gospel of Thomas, 30 71 16941 Gregory Nazianzos PG 36:443 6345

Gregory I (the Great), 19715   Hom. in Ezech 26946   2, 7-8          

Life of Benedict 8.12 22.2 32.3 37.3

56451 23844 51164 23844

  Regula pastoralis   2.6 27398   3.25 523179 Hermas, 3644 1 11–12 25 27 29 31 32 36 60 76.3 91.6 93 105.5 Hippolytus Ref. 1 Prol. 6.9.4 6.15 6.20.2-3 7.20 7.27.13 7.32 7.36 9.3 9.9 11.3

22781 2146 23629 528243 10728 5555 2501, 37345 30764 10728, 2501 24391 24391 22648 24391

21061 47945 21168 47945 18395 6228 377103 59741 47945 59741

Ignatius, 25, 29223, 295   Eph.   1:1 52494   2:2 52494   4–6 524196   7:2 8378   11:2 295

  20:2

10728, 2501, 481, 49264 52494

           

8380 7511 9334 51048 934

  19:3

Magn. 1:2 6:1 7:1 9:1 13:1

  Phld.   11

50945

  Inscr   2:2   5:1

8047 525211 7511

       

Polyc. 2:3 8 8:1

65062 50945 4014

         

Rom. 1:2 2:1 2:2 3:3

529258 529258 4428 529258

             

Smyrn. 3:2-3 5:3 8:1 8:2 12 12:2

8380 37123 7511 248 50945 8380

  Trall.   2:2   3:1

7511 7511

Irenaeus. 316, 296, 5669, 8272, 526217   A. H.   1.6.3 377103   1.13 20952, 21061, 343126, 42234   1.16.3 21059   1.20.4 6228   1.23-27 306   1.24-25 377103

782

indexes.indd 782

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

                                 

1.26.3 1.28.2 2.26 2.30 3, pref. 3.1.11 3.3 3.12.1 3.12.8 3.12.10 3.13.3 3.14.1 3.14.2 3.15.1 4.15.1 4.17-18 4.23.2

161, 377103 377103 114c 359104 206 3422 4647 29, 436109 22117, 22629 161 1, 7, 29 39364, 65390 519130 29 161 26843 22561

Jerome   Comm. Gal., 24816   Comm. Isa.   14

22117

  Comm. in Titum   1.12        

Ep. 55.3 71 108.8

224 687 53636

  Life of Hilarion   3 13149   Life of Malchus   7 9123 Justin Martyr, 21, 3422, 3528, 63375   1 Apology   1 61725   5 42939   7.5 10728   11 42025   12 10728   13 43595   14 56   16 51381   18 439130

  21   22   26            

30 31 39.3 61 66.3 67.3

35583 35583 206, 285217, 29773, 51381 30320 33870 39 10728, 24278, 250 29 39

  2 Apology   10.5-6   14.1

43379 10728

                                             

43048 234 6252 68549 189141 378104 37793 525211 63698 193183 54531 22565 22669 525211 47610, 47723 14546 537(38 6228 35769 12332 68545 281152

Dialogue 1–8 3–8 5 12 19.5 20 34.8—35.1 35 39 44–45 47 72 76 81 85 86 87–88 88 91 110 115 118

Kerygma Petrou (=Kerygma of Peter), 431 Frg. 2a 435 Frg. 4 5669 Lactantius On the Death of Persecutors, 312121 Lausiac History, 328 18.10B 67436

Life of Polycarp 3

526126

Martyrdom of Carpus et al. 5 1754 24–27 58656 Acts/Martyrdom of Justin and ­Companions 3 6814 3.4 1754, 47075 4.7-8 58656 Martyrdom of Pionius 7 4867 11 40876 18.1-2 40879 21 19931 Martyrdom of Polycarp 1 4652 2.2 197, 19829 3.1 55225 4–7 20050 5.2 197 7.1 43860 9.1 24171, 27166 9.2 55225 9.3 63045 10.9 1754 12–14 17048 12.2 49372 14.1 10519 17.2 16827 20.2 10519 Martyrdom of Ptolemaeus and Lucius 11 1754 Martyrs of Lyon, 40876 10 1754 16–20 19829 Melito   Apol.   frg. 1

10728, 2501

  On Pascha, 10621   64 22565   68–71 186126 783

indexes.indd 783

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

  On Pascha (continued)   69 31096, 63371   83–86 186126 Minucius Felix Oct. 1.4 2.1 8.4 17.2 18.7 19.1 20.1 27.8 30 32.7

31096, 63371 114c 344126 359104 437114 439130 440145 440145 377103 359104, 438118

Muratorian Fragment l. 34 30 Nicephorus Callistus H. E. 12.34 48157 Origen   Adnot. Exod.   17.16

3937

  Comm. Genesis   Bk. 3

5670

       

Comm. Matt. 10.18 11.12 15.15

4534 377103 13149

                           

C. Cels. 1.5 1.6 1.22 1.24 1.27 1.60 1.68 2.34 2.55, 59 3.25-27 3.30 3.50 3.51

190154 47940 47723 6774 114c 48159 21416 40985, 410 30765, 67550 40985 49541 42621 4218

         

4.90-98 5.25 6.40-41 7.8-9 8.22

40985 6724 47945 206 5670

  De Orat.   23.4

7939

  Frg. on 1 Cor   74

53736

  Frg. Jer.   1.1   1.4

7939 37573

         

Hom. in Jer. 19.13

27057

Hom. in Lucam 1.10-11 3531

  Philoc.   1.23 Orosius Hist. c. paganos 7.6.15

7937

446

Papias, 6, 737, 3640, 4753, 52, 53, 5553, 188137   Frag. 3/4 52   P. Egerton II   l.54

68540

Pistis Sophia, 413 Polycarp Phil. 1:2 1:3 2:1 3:1 4:3 5:1—6:1 6:1 6:3 7

1, 81 953 281182, 311104 604 16291 16177 278150 9339, 192178, 2449 525

Preaching of Peter 10728 Frg. 1 Frg. 4 2501 Protevangelium of James 18:3 39471 25:1 39471 Pseudo-Clementines, 30, 2049, 2149, 2522, 285221, 548k, 556   De Virginitate   2.5 377103   Letter of Clement to James   19.3 25545                  

Hom. 1.101 2.8 3.47 6.26 7.8 9.16 12.8.4 20.21

441154 19383 19383 53518 378108 40549 4324 21528

                                     

Rec. 1.27-71 1.27-38 1.36 1.41.1-2 1.62-68 1.62 1.64-70 1.65 1.66-71 1.67 1.71 1.72 2.9 2.37 3.49 10.5 10.41 10.63

8152 177 10848 8152 14885 11722 1965 24158 360109, 55219 24158 11280, 24158 26511 40986 20730 24390 9125 35553 21528

Ptolemy, Letter to Flora, 193183 Questions of Bartholomew 3.1–4.12 413

784

indexes.indd 784

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

Sentences of Sixtus 47 102 110 227 Serapion Euchologion 28.2

26839

  Idol.   24

65062

26950 26950 1278

  Mon.   5

378104

524198

  Nat.   2.7   2.9

6388 43377

  Prax.   3

114c

Shepherd. See Hermas Socrates H.E. 1.8

48055

Sulpicius Severus   Ep.   3.17-18 17048          

Life of Martin 7.3 8.2 11.5 18.4-5

51164 51164 56451 47297

Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 33 343126 Tertullian, 29, 653   Against Marcion   5.11 65390              

Apol. 1–2 9 17 19 21.23 50

  Bapt.   8   19   De ieiunio   10     Fuga, 20050

61725 377103, 378106 359104, 437114 114c 3748 12382

65062 6115

29

       

Pud. 7.11 12 21

  Res.   15 Theophilus, 3528 Ad Autolycum 1.4 2.10 2.31 2.36 3.1 3.9

7.2 7.3 7.7-16 7.12 7.15 7.16.1 8.1-3 8.1 8.3 8.7-15 8.8 8.10

68721 377103, 378106 8047

Acta Athenodori 15–18

60415

437114

359104, 437114 6119 431 25545 7939

e / Greek and Latin Authors

Achilles Tatius Leucippe 1.1 1.2 1.3 3.1-5 3.1-2 3.2 3.3.1–4.2 3.5 3.17 4.1 5.5 5.15 5.17 6.1-2 7.1

Acta Alexandrinorum, 11942, 60415 II(Interview with Flaccus) col ii.55-60 60524 Acta Appiani, 60415 col. iv 7-8 57317 82–87 63570

8047

359104,

60073 1419, 24170 30544 568, 61345 10141, 30987 11948 55112 572 55434 59415 49258 62821

431 25545 4324 64513 659153 659155, 660165 662 660168, 666227 412104 23844, 45382 1419 530268 53626 40986 14661

Acta Hermaisci, 29713, 343, 60415 1. 8-10 59629 ll. 13-16 15637 ll. 26-32 344127 Acta Isidori Rec. A col. i.17-18 col iii 7-10 Rec. B 1.17-18 Rec. C col.ii.23

61022 55434 57317 59739

Acta Maximi col 1.124-32

60415

Ad Herennium 1.25 2.22

285224

Aelian   Frg. 89

48157

  Nat. an.   12.5

8266

785

indexes.indd 785

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

         

Var. Hist. 2.1 3.4 5.17 8.18

45261 51054 42942 194189

Aeschines Ctes. 165

4431

Aeschylus   Agamemnon, 63257   1264 63155   Eumenides, 43821   Prometheus Bound   324–25 63155 12337

  Frg. 58

Alexander Romance, 15, 298, 4431, 39153 1.22 35780 1.26 35663 1.35 39473 2.2 59417 2.14 35663 3.18-24 220, 22450 3.30 53852 Ammianus Marcellinus, 31364 20.5 39153 25.2 39153 Anacreon frg. 66b 113

19825

Andocides De Mysteriis 138

67331, 67548

Antheia, 4643 Anthologia Palatina (Palatine ­Anthology, Greek Anthology) 7.290 674 9.58 49256 11.427 47838

Antonius Diogenes The Marvels beyond Thule, 1261, 4324, 24383, 658, 660166 Appian Bell. Civ. 3.54 4.34

61724 39153

Apollonius of Tyre, 667 9 667234 11 64949 27 5643 48–49 4633 50 11948, 194189 51 4643, 667234, 695 Apollonius Rhodius Argonautika 1.850-55 24171 Apthonius Progymnasmata 8 10

56232 950

Apuleius Metamorphoses (Golden Ass), 18495 1.10 193186, 194189 1.22 30658 2.12 4324 2.14 667238 2.21 62816 2.28 19489 3.9 5687 4.6 19489 4.34 1419 6.9-24 40986 6.12 56450 8.9 23844 8.24 42621 8.25 32776 8.26-30 40547, 47721 8.27 6346 10.2-12 51268 10.6 194188-89, 408 10.8 14663 10.18 45486 11 66523 11.1-30 234

11.1-3 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8-16 11.8 11.13 11.15 11.21-22, 26-27 11.21 11.22 11.23 11.25 11.26-27 11.28 11:30

23844 6663 23524 6548 661182 42621 49419 23423, 37453 23844 62823, 65171 43490 24276, 310100, 65371 31096, 651 23844 24278 22786, 24278, 695

Aratus, Phaenomena 5 432, 439 110 65056 129–132 439126 Aelius Aristides 54.10   Hieroi Logoi   1.26   2.12   2.68   4.32-37   48.13

5491 658140 66183, 669235 661186 658140 66183

  To Serapis (Or. 33/56), 66183 Aesop Fables 30.1 69.1 181.1 223.1

659144 659144 659144 659144

Aristophanes   Frogs   1015

4192

  Knights   1260–63l

42942

  Wasps   1019   1173

40543 19825

786

indexes.indd 786

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

Aristotle   Ath. Pol.   8

5665

  De an.   414a

12-13, 438124

  Nic. Eth., 29333   8.9 9125   9.8 1277   Top.   7, 5

2466

Arrian Anab. 7

18, 22, 24

Artemidorus Interpretation of Dreams 1.51 25663 2.23 694 3.20 47294 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 5.52 5.122F

2478 47297

Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 16.13

40211

Bion of Soli Aethiopica 1

22450

Callisthenes Deeds of Alexander, 298 Cassius Dio Hist. 50.23 52.1-40 52.30 52.36 54.5 55.1 56.16 56.27 57.8 59.15

40768 37234 500133 42727 22119, 22450 39153 525211 48065 40767 29763

60.6 60.17 62.29 69.11 71.8 73.16.2 75.4.5-6 Catullus 64.205-07 64.384-86

446 56910 309 32561 32559 5119 5560

  Ad fam.   5.12   16.9

17104 657137

  Amic.   25.92

1277

  Div.   1.32, 70-71

6338

       

Inv. 1.11 2.71 2.78-82

14442 14442 285224

       

Leg. 1.24 2.18.45 2.30

437111 19054 56910

                 

Nat. Deorum 2.5 2.7-15 2.66 2.95 2.96-53 2.96 2.153 2.159

437 359 35888 35653 35891 35888 437114 439126

12337 35559

Chariton Callirhoe, 8, 55645, 6201, 636511 1.1 18493, 35662, 499127 1.2 30658 1.2.5-6 1419 1.4 58222 1.5 19489, 496102 1.11 383168, 427 1.12 23844 1.14 35662 2.37 356 35018 3.4 312112, 37013, 383168, 49589 3.7 23844, 309, 40985 3.8 356 3.14 27399, 381130 4.2 400s 4.3 5687 5.1 1419 5.2 4864 5.3-5 530 5.4 57534 5.6-7 59418 5.6 59634 5.8-9 60073 5.8 61345 5.9.4 1419 6.6-7 1419 8.7 37013, 383168, 695

  Off.   1.16.51   1.56

9125 10729

  Or.   3.73

15636

  Phil.   2.41   5.4

104, 6839 56910

  Pis.   89

42129

  Resp.   3.14

43597

  Tusc.   1.28   1.68-69

436107 35891, 437114

11942

Chion of Heraclea, 4.1-2 658140 Cicero   Ad Atticum   2.10   5.16

67773 67772

787

indexes.indd 787

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

  Verrines   2.161   2.187

413120 498117

Cictys Cretensis Test. 1a 49 T.26

29723

Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus 4–5

438124

Cornelius Nepos Lives, 8 1.2 23629 Corpus Hermeticum,18495 1.2 23629 1.27-28 431 1.28-29 441154 1.28 63371 7.1-2 431 13.18 26840 13.19 26840 13.21 26840 Curtius Rufus History of Alexander, 6779-80 Cynic Epistles 1 7 6 (Socrates) 9.3 38

43597, 528238 19382, 49372 63594 63574 42621

Demosthenes Phil. 1.10

42942

Dictys Ephemeris 3.15

58875

Digest (of Roman Law) 48.6.7 413120 48.17.1 61724 48.18, 20 49.5-6 62112

Dio of Prusa, 47721 Orations 1.60 44 4.93 5491 5.8-9 659150 5.8 68780 7.2 642u 7.24-26 496 7.31-33 67331 8.9 43482 8.36 6354 9.8 6354 9.34 6354 12 439 12.8-9 6354 12.27-30 35891, 437111 12.28 438118 12.29 43482 12.35 43482 12.42 43482 12.56 437115 13.9 44, 63480 30.28-44 358 31.10 5491 32.9 9924, 42620, 52838 32.11 118, 52838 32.15 5491 34.2-4 6354 34.21 400130 34.23 55438 35.9 25666 36 43482 36.22 68881 36.56 436105 37.45 118 38 499130 46.14 499130 54.3 42660 77/78 37, 41-42, 45, 118, 6354 79.11 22236 Diodorus Siculus 1.12 1.59 1.83 1.96.2 3.2.2-4 3.61 4.43

439125 24273 5505 18489 2213 439125 67663

Diogenes Laertius, 16 Lives 2.18-47 529257 2.37 63480 2.101 42835 2.116 42835 3.91 63698 4.3 691 4.13 234 5.20 1277 6.95 48157 7.5 13595 7.33 190154, 43596 7.169 42835 8.10 13595 8.34.3 17045 8.80.2 17045 9.52 48055 9.68 660175 Dionysius of Halicarnassus   On Thucydides   42 38132   Rhetoric   10.17          

64841

Roman Antiquities 1.55-59 23844 2.12 14329 7.71.3 5119 8.34.3 17045

Epictetus Diss. 1.3 1.25.49 1.29.45 1.196 2.1.38-39 2.2.26 2.3 2.6.29 2.12.17 2.16.44 2.20 2.22.82 2.22.95 2.24.98 3.22

525211 14991 499 56339 14991 56339 517111 40879 636103 63258 22236, 517111 63265 63265 63265 42621, 517111, 525211, 57316

788

indexes.indd 788

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

3.22.23 3.22.54 3.22.56 3.22.86 3.22.88 3.22.95-98 3.22.95 3.24.11 3.24.112-13 3.24.114 4.4.23 4.24.114

63265 63265 63265 63265 63265 636103 63265 499, 24491 56447, 63265 63265 40879 63265

Erotian frg 60.14

25545

Euripides, 12   Andr.   376–77                            

1637

4015

Bacch., 45 255–56 325 348–49 443–48 447–48 500–503 576–659 620 625 632–33 794–95 1255

14883 42727 14883 6228 411 30439 24171 411 24055 14883 20157 631 14883

  El.   953–56   1347–56

33761 67475

  Hecuba   902–4

5227

  Ion   8

55434

  Iph. Aul.   1408

14883

  Iph. Taur.   85–92

498117

  Medea   756        

Orestes, 19490 31 1046 1635–37

22286 6252 1277 67663

  Supplices   161

8046

       

65057 59418 2478

Troiades 102–4 914–1032 955–58

Fronto   Ad Verum Imp.   2.3 17104   Ep.   2.1

381132

Heliodorus An Ethiopian Story, 221, 24383, 48157 1.1 667234 1.2 27399, 35662 1.6 22126 1.7 60175 1.13 6985, 194189 1.18 4324, 15637, 274108 1.19.3 7614 1.26 30764 1.30 274108 2.2 27399, 35662 2.20 674 2.27 18494 2.35 4324 3.1 23844, 42942 3.11—4.12 23844 4.5 25650 4.16 53518 4.17-21 4256, 49589 4.19 5230 5.9 584 5.17 662196 5.18 656175 5.24 662198 5.25 660165 5.27 659153, 662198 5.32 57534

9.25 10.16 10.31 10.34-38

314133 5697 660165 660165 588 40986 17048, 499130, 60073 23844 22126 23844 4256, 5697

Hermogenes Progymnasmata 7 8

56232 1050, 1052

Herodian 1.11

49817

Herodotus 1.99 1.114-19 2.111 3.27-64 3.80-84 3.115 7.12-19

54420 55530 24273 314138 37234 22126 39153

7.3 7.6 7.8 7.25 8.2 8.6-14 8.9

Herpyllis, 658 Hesiod   Opera et Dies   236

65056

  Theog.   535

35559

Historia Augusta   Caracalla   5.7

47399

  Hadrian   25.1–3

24273, 63478

Homer   Iliad   1.101-87   1.198   1.424-25

59417 24171 221 789

indexes.indd 789

8/27/2008 3:15:52 PM

                     

Iliad (continued) 1.528-30 1.544 3.380-82 3.381 6.128-43 6.130-40 13.43 20.444 22.8-9 24.801-4

                             

Odyssey 1.23 5.297-304 5.299-312 5.425 9.82-84 9.90 9.416 10.102 11.119-37 12.277-79 15.250 16.154-63 17.485-87 24.2, 10–11

12337 436105 22681 4521 14883 24277 12337 4521, 22681 23629 696

4427, 22126 661176 661176 642u 659153 263s 437115 263s 68996 661176 22681 24171 356 64950

Homeric Hymns 5.202-03 7.17-21 33

22681 23629 67663

Horace   Epodes   16.57-62

65056

                         

35347 650 40325 35553 665218 40325 309, 65062, 658149 67438 659150 40325 442161 659150

Odes 1.2.41-44 1.3.1-5 1.8.1 1.10.1-6 1.11 1.13.1 1.14 1.22 1.22.5 1.25.8 1.36.13-20 2.6.3-4

           

2.7.14 3.2.25-32 3.9.6-7 3.24.8 3.24.36-41 4.15.30

4541 67439 40325 8263 65076 40325

       

Satires 1.5.3-8 1.7.22-25 2.3

67773 59632 42621

Iamblichus   A Babylonian Tale, 1419, 5697   74a–78a 40986   Myst.   1.1   3.4

35553 6228

5.542-7 6.158 6.511-91 6.543-47 6.546 6.560-64 10.93-94 12 12.30-53 13.93-94 14.96-106 14.287

32557 61613 343126 40547, 47612 21416 40974 32559 645 659155 24273 285216, 332 47831

Libanius Ep. 194.1

525210

  Vit. Pythag., 9125

Life of Aesop (=Aesop Romance), 690 5 31096, 63371 132 1964 142 695

Isocrates Areop. 83

Life of Homer Vita Romana 5

24273

Livy 2.36 8.6 11.27 14.27 21.22 33.42.1 39.9 39.11 39.16.8 39.37 40.29

63479 23844 42617 42912 39153 15636 59738 58215 48055 14546 48055

1276

John of Sardis Progymnasmata 10

950

Julian Or. 8 246B

63155

Julius Caesar Gallic Wars 6.13

59738

Justin Epit. 2.11

18392

Justinian Code 1.1.3

48055

Juvenal Satires 1 2.71 3.190-202

156, 61611 47831 51050

Lollianos Phoinikaka, 22685 Longus Daphnis and Chloe 1.7-8 1.31 1.33 2.4.1 2.11 2.15

4324, 23844 660165 35662 56450 23844 59418

790

indexes.indd 790

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

40986 6228 11948

2.20-29 2.25.3 2.29 Lucan Pharsalia 1.72-80 2.289-92 8.243-52 8.693

64949 64949 53511 61613

Lucian, 63698   Abdic.   30                

Alex., 207, 10 13 15 19–29 22 30 47

63592

32558

  Bis acc.   16–34   17   Demonax   9   64

67436 35662 194159 40446 21525 114c 48156, 58 5938 234 185110, 55759 55719

  Deorum conc.   14

50713

  Dipsads   4–9

67437

  Historia 9, 15   Icar.   1   24

40879 42942

  Imag.   3

24274

  Jupp. Conf.   6

24274

  Jupp. Trag., 431   30 6538   38–46 35999   Lex.   10

19825

  Men.   9–10

12437

  Merc.   1–2

64514

         

Nav. 1–9 2 5 7

64840 55332 665127 659153

         

Nigr., 43048 3–5 4 5 25–26

24274 31096, 63371 6990 52838

  Quomodo historia, 58, 17726

  Eun.   6

22236

  Fug.   20   21

10032 114c

  Gallus   28

40985

  Hermot.   1   28

114c 650u, 658147

                     

Peregrin., 118, 1278 3–4 42621 8 6262 13 9126, 114c 14 60311 15 194189, 56339 18 114c 19 194189 24 24170 28 47399 32 517111

  36   40   43

19931 4649 65280, 660175

               

67436 21416 47399 13037 12437 18494-95 55328

Philops. 11 15-17 16 20 22 34 38

  Sac.   11

43487

  Salt.   83

47831

       

Syr. D. 8 11 28

114c 114c 114c

                     

Tox. 17 18 19–21 19 20 27–34 29–32 29 32 33

61344 64628 64841 659153 680165 40986, 41190 55328 400s 58219 415130

               

True History (Vera Historia), 11 1.1-4 39529 1.5-6 51490, 64514 1.6 642u, 659153 1.28-29 51490 1.33 35780 2.2-4 51490 2.46 659153, 67331

  Vit. Auct.   11

114c

Ps.-Lucian   Amores   42

343126 791

indexes.indd 791

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

  Cynic   12

43493

  Demosthenes   12

56340

               

Onos 4.2 13 34 36–41 46 54–55 54

8598 299h 42129 10031, 47721 40110 58656 35018, 57534

Lucretius De Rerum Natura 2.1027-39 35891 5.1006 65056 5.1204-40 35890 Manilius Astronomica 4.696-700

6774

Marcus Aurelius Meditations 4.23

43598

Martial Epigrams 1.117 3.91 4.30 6.2 11.75

51050 22236 24273 22236 22236

Maximus of Tyre Or. 6 525211 7D 525211 9 24171 Musonius Rufus Frg. 49 2.14 8.83

37459 56329 56329

Nicholas of Damascus Frg. 172 22123

Nicolaus Progymnasmata 8 9

56232 950

Ninus Frg. B 9 11 16

1419 1050, 52 660166 660166

Ovid   Am.   2.3   Fasti   6.635   Metamorphoses   1.94   1.163-67            

3.697-700 3.699-700 8.611-734 9.782-84 11.559-60 15.671-772

  Trist.   1.1.51-58

22236

6228

65066 196–98, 354 5687 30439 353 12337 667236 12337

24273

Papyri Graecae Magicae 1.97-104 40985 4.1247-48 21418 4.3007-86 47723 5.54-69 11411 7.222-49 21411 7.250–54 21411 7.319–34 21411 8.60-61 47723 12.160-178 40985 13.245 47399 26.312-320 40985 Parthenius of Nicea 15.4 22783 Parthenope, 4324

Pausanias 1.1 1.17 1.33.4 4.31.8 5.24 6.6.7-11 8.53

431 42617, 429132 22123 49256 642r 194189 35886

Persius Satires 2.73-75

26840

Petronius Satyrica 44.6 102 114 134–38

63593 662198 659153, 67331 40447

Philostratus Apollonius of Tyana 1.4-5 4324 1.15 18510, 55749 1.16 19489 1.34 528238 3.10-51 9017 4.1 55759 4.8 194189 4.10 193186, 473100 4.13 65280 4.20 40651 4.31 274100 35663, 60415 4.34 274100, 39152 4.36-37 529258 4.36 40879 4.37 20050 4.38-44 40986 4.45 51268 4.46 529258 5.20 49150 6.1-27 22122 6.2 22123 6.3 43377 6.6 9017 7.14 529258 7.38 413119 8.4 19718 8.7 21416, 280172

792

indexes.indd 792

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

                   

744B–746C 757A 803A 804E 869E–870A 909A-B 933A 941A 955E–956B 996E–67E

9018 9018 65057 54422 14110 21416 21416 35441 190154 35890, 35999

         

Phaedo 60D 65–67, 69A 99 116E–117A

40879 529257 437115 529257

Phaedr. 243A 244A-B 245A 276A-C

24273 6338 63698 188136

Prot. 323B

63698

30435 529257 529257

                                       

  Euthyphro   12E–15E

43493

  Soph.   348E-249A

438124

  Gorgias 469   185D

11839 65057

  Lach.   188C-E

3640

         

9019 438124 63698 6338

  Leg.   679B-C   684C-D

9018 9018

8.10 8.22 8.30 8.34-38

22781 525211 41195 410

Lives of the Sophists 4.31 60415 Pindar   Ol.   7.54-63 Pyth.   2.94 Plato   Apol.   19D   20A   20E–22A   24A   24B   29D   33A   33C   37

5665 63155

4242 56012 63480 520141 42727 1456, 285225 4242 63258 61132

  Crat.   415D

68881

  Critias   110C-D   112B

9019 10033

       

Crito, 61132 43B 43D–44B 45C-D

Resp. 195D-E 416D 424A 430E-431B 449C 464D 488A-489A 518C-D 543B 616C

Tim. 18B 37C 71 71E–72B

Ps.-Plato Eryxias 401C

53962 9018 9018, 9125 63698 9018, 25 9018 657137 63371 9018 658149

47399

Plautus   Casina   758–954

47830

  Stichus   300–14

30660

Pliny the Elder Hist. Nat. 6.35 6.186 7.53

22119 22450 10033

Pliny the Younger   Ep.   3.16   7.27   10.3   10.95   10.96-97

646 377103 42026 63045 295, 377103, 489, 513, 59738, 61344, 644211

  Pan.   22.3

13665

Plutarch, 9, 10   Aem.   26.2   38

2478 43370

  Alc.   14

59631

             

4.8-5.6 20155 27398 63159 27398 27398 53852

Alex. 1.2-3 45.1 50–51 51.5 54.3 73

  Ant.   14

47294

  Caes.   7   38

5818 65280

  Cat. Min.   44

55759 793

indexes.indd 793

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

  Cor.   24

63479

  Dem.   25.5

22451, 32561

  Galb.   1   Is. Os.,

54535 18495

  Luc.   12.1-2   18.1

39153 309

  Per.   13.7-8

51054

  Sulla   35

47297

                                                               

Mor. 3D 60A 108D 137E 146B–164D 152C 326D–345B 329C 355E 370B 375B 387B–406F 405E 407C 407F 414E 417C 437D-E 475F–476A 477C 515B–523A 548A–568 706E 749A 756C 813A 824 C-F 936D 967E 1033 A-B 1034B

47294 520141 30877 68881 338, 7090 14546 951 18510 280171 6221 35553 6338 6333 343126 14110 40544 6338 6990 65077 43597 43370 47297 47939 60427 343126 499129 499129 7939 1277 3640 190154, 43596

Ps.-Plutarch Greek and Roman Parallel Stories Mor. 305C 24273 Polybius, 14 Histories 3.111 11

8598 8598

Pompeius Trogus Historiae Phil. 36 18392 Porphyry   Against the Christians, 13128,    312112, 48825, 56911, 59741   To Marcella   18

43493

  Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 29

  90.3   94   104

1276 65166 44715

  Ep. Mor.   41   95

43491, 438118 434, 437114

  Ira   3.35

51050

  Nat.   6.8.3

22119

Sarapis Aretalogy from Delos, 692–93 Servius Commentary on Vergil ad. Aen. 3.89-92 123 Sextus Empiricus 9.60.75-100 437114

Ptolemy   Apotelesmatica   2.3   4.4

520139 47838

Silius Italicus Punica 3.163-214

  Geography   3.4, 15.1

642r

Sosylus Deeds of Hannibal, 298

Sallust   Bell. Cat.   24

344128

  Bell. Jug., 689   32.1   114

8598 696

Sallustius, On the Gods and the Universe, 43597 The Elder Seneca Suasoriae 1.15 64841 3.2 64841 Seneca   Ben.   6.15   7.73   Ep.   20.9   77

51050 43597 499 67665

39153

Sophocles   Ant., 14546   332–36

65056

  Elec.   879–83

30663

  Oed. Col., 274101   260 42942   Oed. Tyr., 14335, 274101   Philoctetes   1109–44

24493

Statius Thebaid 1.331-32

12337

Strabo 1.1.1 2.5 4.1 6.1.5

23846 642r 39149, 49256 194189

794

indexes.indd 794

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

8.6 9.1 9.16 12.6.4 12.7 14.1 17.1 17.2.1-3 25.18

55434 429132 42617 328a 38935 496100 22450, 68780 22126 68780

Suetonius   Aug.   31

48055

       

39153 29779 42034, 4469

Claud. 1 18.2 25.4

  Dom.   7   15.3            

               

12.4 12.54 14.1.3 14.17 14.50 15.44 16.23 22.21

29777 587, 59628 8598 500135 56910 295 51496 39153

         

Hist. 1.6 1.72 5.5 5.9

61725 500134 46768 587

Terence   Adelphoe   955

6989

22236 32559

  Heauton timorumenos   31–32 30661   37 30661

Galba 9

61344

  Hecyra   416–17

Jul. 32 81–82

391 53852

  Nero   16   36.1

4466 32559

  Otho   4.1   6.1

32559 32559

  Tib.   14.4

32559-60

  Vesp.   8   25

58661 32559

Synesius Ep. 4

657137

Tacitus   An.   3.64   6.20   10.16

14546 32560 61344

  Eunuchus   36–38 Theon Progymnasmata 9 10 Thucydides, 14 1.32-43 1.66-78 1.68-78 2.97.4 3.38 7.82.2

64411 30661

56232 950 59417 59417 5426 529 42942 1276

Tibullus, 1.3.36-37 Valerius Maximus 1.7 39153 Vegetius Epitoma rei militaris 4.39 656175 Venantius Fortunatus, 14551

Vettius Valens, 47294 Virgil   Aeneid, 12, 18109   1.92-101 661176   1.148-53 55759   1.411 4541   2.682-84 6228   3.88-92 12337   3.203-4 659163   4.41 659150   4.653 522169   5.206 660168   5.719-40 39153   9.106 12337   12.931 61132   12.950-52 696   Eclogues   4.32

659163

Xenophon   Anab.   5.3

39149

  Cyr.   1.2.16   2.4

309 54420

  Hell.   2.4   2.42

8598 8598

       

42620, 42727, 42941 40769 45261

Mem. 1.1 1.3 3.7

Xenophon of Ephesus An Ephesian Tale, 8, 23420, 23, 30657 1.1 20952, 27399, 46414 1.2 35662 1.3-5 3314 1.6 4324, 24388 1.8.1-3 593 1.10 530268 1.11 49485 51490, 53511 1.12 43153 2.1-4 32227 795

indexes.indd 795

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

120.1.1.1.1.8-10

382155

35885

I Mysia/Troas 226 1

40326

49589, 499127 49589 499127 693-94 498117 49589 49256 49151 499127 4649 49151

MAMA 6.264 7.476.1

33320 35886

OGIS 96 256.5 379.5 598

33320 312115 8047 550

P. Cair. Zen. 59.034

39040

P. Coll. Youtie I 30

48053

P. Herm. 52

40326

P. Lond. 1912 1912, 85–86 1912, 96–97

59737 20157 360105

P. Oxy. 37 237 475 1143 1380.1-136 1381

59629 59629 51054 62111 6663, 65166 63479

P. Tebt. 315.29-32

24057

SEG 9. 8 ii

61344

SIG 1.495.2 3.663 801D 820.5 1107.4 (Cos)

14546 6923 44714 35885 35885

An Ephesian Tale (continued) 2.2 12817, 27399, 3314, 67444 2.7.4 1419 2.8 30441 2.12 58437 2.13 55434, 5697 3.2 299h, 53526 3.10 656121 3.12 40986 4.1 457114 4.2 5697 4.2.10—4.4.1 603 4.4 40986 4.10 656121 5.4.11 8046 5.6 32227 5.11 43153 5.13 11948 7.1 27399

I Didyma 162.8 263.8

IG 4960a 4961

39039 39039

Documents BGU 1200

62111

CIG 4082 (Pessinus)

IG IV 21 122 951 952

13037 13037 47297 24273

35886

IG XII 1.675 7 252

53631 35886

CIJ 693 718 748 766 1256 1400 1404 1443

4197 44819 515100 33320 15530 5505 15422 33220

Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Meni 1.51 13037

I Eph. 21 76 115 215 300 557 572.1 585 602 1251 2212 II2

IGR I.167 I.512 III.395

49154 67551 32345

IGR IV 836.8 1213 1250 1265

14329 40326 40326 40326

IK Knidos B 9,

CPJ 153

35885

21059

443

20157, 360105, 59737 58430

ILS 687 1986

FD III.II.35

21059

I. Magn. 91d, 8–10 (= Caria Magn.) 1.1.97 2134 13.1.1 2134

I Caria 71 (=Knidos), 49593

40721 5683

796

indexes.indd 796

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

2. Greek Words

a[gnoia 106-7 ai{resi~ 142, 598 ajpovstolo~ 350 ajrchv 35 ajfanismov~ 226 boulhv 147 diaqhvkh 23143 dialevgomai 4241 dikaiousuvnh 23, 9227, 278, 604 duvnami~ 4217, 147 e[qo~ 371 ejxousiva 4217, 147 ejpiskophv 54 eujaggelivzomai 14995 zh`lo~ 141 zwhv 143 qei`o~ ajnhvr 24, 356 qeomaciva 133, 636 kardiognwvsth~ 5555 khruvssw 20522 klh`ro~ 5665 koinwniva 92 makravn 438 mavrtu~ 636

metano-evw, -ia 107 metavstasi~ 285 oJmoquvmadon 40i parrhsiva 1168 plh`qo~ 6556, 1273 prw`to~ 30542 rJwmaivoi 6664 suvgkrisi~ 9 sunalivzw 3852 sunevdrion 14329 sunesqivw 15311 swthvrion 604 uJperw/von 46 uJphrevth~ 636 fulavssw 180 ceiropoihtov~ 1751 3. Subjects

ascension 45-46 anthropology 10, 25, 440 baptism 70, 84, 213, 216, 310-11, 450, 466-68 Beglaubigungsapparat 1161 Christology 19, 22, 61, 75, 80, 102-3, 109, 18927, 179, 188, 316, 339, 440, 5758

church officers (bishops, deacons, presbyters) 25, 524 collection 507-8 creedal forms 14, 83, 187, 246, 278, 281, 33756, 35772

providence 24, 42, 51-53, 81

early Catholicism 25 Ephesus 5-7 eschatology 25, 97, 341, 441149, 517 Eucharist 93, 157, 385, 513, 652, 684

Socrates 118, 4242

faith 23, 219 = “confidence,” 104 Fides quae, 19396 “justifying” faith, 278,   326 relation to Torah, 23 “faith vs. works,” 374 God-fearers 332 hope 574 house 94, 687 ignorance 107 itinerary (proposed source)   319-21 judgment 197 lists 46 lynching 193

reign (kingdom) of God 23, 38, 21064, 362 repentance 84, 107, 21519, 288251, 340, 437

Theophilus 35 Torah 23, 543, 544 verisimilitude 12

4. Modern Authors

Abegg, M., 7621 Abrahamsen, V., 4015, 40322, 26 Achtemeier, P., 25644, 311104, 54534, 65281 Acworth, A., 6708 Adams, M. M., 949 Aejmelaeus, L., 515104, 516105, 519132, 135, 521148, 158, 522163, 526129, 527228, 231, 528245 Agrell, G., 528241 Aland, B., 316, 463f Aland, K., 25, 395c Aletti, J., 949, 64996 Alexander, L. C. A., 740, 1478, 1583, 1695, 19113, 327, 339, 11, 13, 3425, 3528, 30, 34, 36, 6783, 11839, 286232, 39478, 4242, 529257, 59630, 64516, 65276, 65497, 656121, 6818 Allen, O. W., 30877, 30990, 312114, 312120, 313128, 313132, 314140 Amsler, F., 15527, 20521 797

indexes.indd 797

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

2. Greek Words

a[gnoia 106-7 ai{resi~ 142, 598 ajpovstolo~ 350 ajrchv 35 ajfanismov~ 226 boulhv 147 diaqhvkh 23143 dialevgomai 4241 dikaiousuvnh 23, 9227, 278, 604 duvnami~ 4217, 147 e[qo~ 371 ejxousiva 4217, 147 ejpiskophv 54 eujaggelivzomai 14995 zh`lo~ 141 zwhv 143 qei`o~ ajnhvr 24, 356 qeomaciva 133, 636 kardiognwvsth~ 5555 khruvssw 20522 klh`ro~ 5665 koinwniva 92 makravn 438 mavrtu~ 636

metano-evw, -ia 107 metavstasi~ 285 oJmoquvmadon 40i parrhsiva 1168 plh`qo~ 6556, 1273 prw`to~ 30542 rJwmaivoi 6664 suvgkrisi~ 9 sunalivzw 3852 sunevdrion 14329 sunesqivw 15311 swthvrion 604 uJperw/von 46 uJphrevth~ 636 fulavssw 180 ceiropoihtov~ 1751 3. Subjects

ascension 45-46 anthropology 10, 25, 440 baptism 70, 84, 213, 216, 310-11, 450, 466-68 Beglaubigungsapparat 1161 Christology 19, 22, 61, 75, 80, 102-3, 109, 18927, 179, 188, 316, 339, 440, 5758

church officers (bishops, deacons, presbyters) 25, 524 collection 507-8 creedal forms 14, 83, 187, 246, 278, 281, 33756, 35772

providence 24, 42, 51-53, 81

early Catholicism 25 Ephesus 5-7 eschatology 25, 97, 341, 441149, 517 Eucharist 93, 157, 385, 513, 652, 684

Socrates 118, 4242

faith 23, 219 = “confidence,” 104 Fides quae, 19396 “justifying” faith, 278,   326 relation to Torah, 23 “faith vs. works,” 374 God-fearers 332 hope 574 house 94, 687 ignorance 107 itinerary (proposed source)   319-21 judgment 197 lists 46 lynching 193

reign (kingdom) of God 23, 38, 21064, 362 repentance 84, 107, 21519, 288251, 340, 437

Theophilus 35 Torah 23, 543, 544 verisimilitude 12

4. Modern Authors

Abegg, M., 7621 Abrahamsen, V., 4015, 40322, 26 Achtemeier, P., 25644, 311104, 54534, 65281 Acworth, A., 6708 Adams, M. M., 949 Aejmelaeus, L., 515104, 516105, 519132, 135, 521148, 158, 522163, 526129, 527228, 231, 528245 Agrell, G., 528241 Aland, B., 316, 463f Aland, K., 25, 395c Aletti, J., 949, 64996 Alexander, L. C. A., 740, 1478, 1583, 1695, 19113, 327, 339, 11, 13, 3425, 3528, 30, 34, 36, 6783, 11839, 286232, 39478, 4242, 529257, 59630, 64516, 65276, 65497, 656121, 6818 Allen, O. W., 30877, 30990, 312114, 312120, 313128, 313132, 314140 Amsler, F., 15527, 20521 797

indexes.indd 797

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

2. Greek Words

a[gnoia 106-7 ai{resi~ 142, 598 ajpovstolo~ 350 ajrchv 35 ajfanismov~ 226 boulhv 147 diaqhvkh 23143 dialevgomai 4241 dikaiousuvnh 23, 9227, 278, 604 duvnami~ 4217, 147 e[qo~ 371 ejxousiva 4217, 147 ejpiskophv 54 eujaggelivzomai 14995 zh`lo~ 141 zwhv 143 qei`o~ ajnhvr 24, 356 qeomaciva 133, 636 kardiognwvsth~ 5555 khruvssw 20522 klh`ro~ 5665 koinwniva 92 makravn 438 mavrtu~ 636

metano-evw, -ia 107 metavstasi~ 285 oJmoquvmadon 40i parrhsiva 1168 plh`qo~ 6556, 1273 prw`to~ 30542 rJwmaivoi 6664 suvgkrisi~ 9 sunalivzw 3852 sunevdrion 14329 sunesqivw 15311 swthvrion 604 uJperw/von 46 uJphrevth~ 636 fulavssw 180 ceiropoihtov~ 1751 3. Subjects

ascension 45-46 anthropology 10, 25, 440 baptism 70, 84, 213, 216, 310-11, 450, 466-68 Beglaubigungsapparat 1161 Christology 19, 22, 61, 75, 80, 102-3, 109, 18927, 179, 188, 316, 339, 440, 5758

church officers (bishops, deacons, presbyters) 25, 524 collection 507-8 creedal forms 14, 83, 187, 246, 278, 281, 33756, 35772

providence 24, 42, 51-53, 81

early Catholicism 25 Ephesus 5-7 eschatology 25, 97, 341, 441149, 517 Eucharist 93, 157, 385, 513, 652, 684

Socrates 118, 4242

faith 23, 219 = “confidence,” 104 Fides quae, 19396 “justifying” faith, 278,   326 relation to Torah, 23 “faith vs. works,” 374 God-fearers 332 hope 574 house 94, 687 ignorance 107 itinerary (proposed source)   319-21 judgment 197 lists 46 lynching 193

reign (kingdom) of God 23, 38, 21064, 362 repentance 84, 107, 21519, 288251, 340, 437

Theophilus 35 Torah 23, 543, 544 verisimilitude 12

4. Modern Authors

Abegg, M., 7621 Abrahamsen, V., 4015, 40322, 26 Achtemeier, P., 25644, 311104, 54534, 65281 Acworth, A., 6708 Adams, M. M., 949 Aejmelaeus, L., 515104, 516105, 519132, 135, 521148, 158, 522163, 526129, 527228, 231, 528245 Agrell, G., 528241 Aland, B., 316, 463f Aland, K., 25, 395c Aletti, J., 949, 64996 Alexander, L. C. A., 740, 1478, 1583, 1695, 19113, 327, 339, 11, 13, 3425, 3528, 30, 34, 36, 6783, 11839, 286232, 39478, 4242, 529257, 59630, 64516, 65276, 65497, 656121, 6818 Allen, O. W., 30877, 30990, 312114, 312120, 313128, 313132, 314140 Amsler, F., 15527, 20521 797

indexes.indd 797

8/27/2008 3:15:53 PM

Andersen, T. D., 9457 Anderson, J. C., 25323 Applebaum, S., 55440 Arband, S., 55328 Arbesmann, R., 26948 Arlandson, J., 343123, 67551 Arnold, C., 47616, 47941 Artebury, A., 27275 Ascough, R., 581 Attridge, H., 190160 Auerbach, E., 1160 Auffret, P., 42945 Aune, D., 16, 338, 6446, 7090, 19712, 15, 20739, 291, 29656, 59, 32125, 322, 32773, 40438, 40549, 45381, 537, 57649, 58436, 661180 Austin, M., 6923 Avemarie, F., 7094 Balance, M., 361115 Balch, D., 16, 4649, 26836, 274105, 276128, 38936, 4254, 42835, 43045, 50, 432, 45374, 79, 436108, 439157 Balsdon, J., 32667, 61025 Balz, H., 185103 Barclay, J., 439129, 4468, 55440 Barnes, T., 42835 Barrett, C. K., 11, 25, 317, 1263, 18, 3415, 3638, 3853, 40bh, 4320, 4535, 4651, 48b, 5011, 5120, 5555-56, 63, 5665, 607, 10, 15, 6120, 6230, 6441, 6547, 6770, 6875, 6982, 7093, 72a, 757, 7832, 81, 8259, 68, 69, 8364, 85104, 88a, 9234, 9449, 9562, 9926, 100, 10520, 10625, 107, 10949, 51, 53, 11064, 11174, 77, 1158, 11724, 11834, 38, 11946, 12217, 12331, 12446, 12710, 12926, 13471, 83, 13589,

13699, 104-6, 137, 1416, 14219, 14557, 14670, 15096, 15417, 15643, 15748, 15964, 16393, 16723, 17729, 17833, 18050, 18280, 18388, 18493, 18897, 189146, 151, 190161, 191165, 192179, 1956, 1967, 1978, 15, 20152, 202d, 203, 20518, 21056, 64, 21415, 21524, 21634, 22118, 22342, 44, 22447, 49, 22558, 60, 63, 64, 22671, 230, 23735, 23846, 24053, 24166, 24390, 245c, 245j, 2461, 27414, 24822, 25211, 25320, 254, 262ll,  263q, bb, 2654, 26613, 27168, 27287, 88, 27396, 274104, 275112-12, 276132, 279156, 164, 281183, 284211, 285216, 231, 287236, 239, 288243, 29663, 69, 29780, 299j, 30217, 30327, 30431, 30543, 49, 316a, 5, 318h, 32123, 32449, 32563, 32780, 329t, y, 33534, 33644, 50, 33981, 83, 34197, 342107, 347a, 3493, 35011, 19, 20, 35128, 35449, 35778, 35892, 361113, 117, 362, 367y, aa, bb, 3682, 37124, 27, 37233, 37341, 42, 44, 51, 37454, 60, 37684, 377, 380128, 381129, 138, 382149, 385d, 38718, 19, 38826, 38925, 39148, 39261-62, 39364, 399c, 400k, 40217-18, 40770, 41194, 413116, 417l, 418, 423e, 42945, 436103, 45048, 45268, 45269, 73, 458, 45911, 46016, 21, 46627, 46735, 468, 46952, 53, 47063, 47181, 47287, 96, 4756, 47888, 48272, 484b, 48717, 48932, 49371, 74, 76, 49961, 123, 504k, n, p, t,

505ff, 50947, 51055, 51274, 51385, 51498, 515104, 520145, 521, 522175, 523, 524192, 201, 527227, 233, 529249, 53223, 53628, 31, 53962, 54069, 541i, j, k, 54420, 54534, 546, 55222, 55656, 558i, j, 0, 5591, 56222, 31, 5686, 570j, 5727, 57320, 57423, 57538, 579b, k, o, 580bb, 58328, 58653, 55, 5 8767, 588, 591m, v, w, bb, 59314, 59522, 59742, 59848, 602b, 60310, 607a, 609-10, 61341, 614e, f, 615, 61722, 623d, m, 624r, 62816, 18, 22, 629, 63259, 63482, 637110, 114, 642q, s, 643v, w, z, 64736, 64844, 654101, 656120, 122, 124, 125, 657129, 130, 136, 662199, 669h, 67011, 67664, 65, 67773, 68323, 68545, 68662, 68923 Barrett, D., 22344 Bartchy, S., 898, 9125, 4259 Barton, T., 6774 Bassler, J., 278151, 153 Bauckham, R., 32113, 37564, 65, 77, 37794, 51164 Bauer, B., 9813, 520145 Bauer, W., 498, 5669, 114c, 29120 Bauernfeind, O., 10844, 14883, 33761 Baugh, S., 48160 Baumgarten, A., 56338 Baumgärtel, F., 1275 Baur, F. C., 151, 157, 35449 Beatrice, P., 46739 Béchard, D., 35448, 51, 4253, 5508 Behm, J., 6332, 38, 1275, 26843-44, 523178, 527232 Bendemann, R., 67222, 67555 Bengel, J., 37571, 57425 Benoit, A., 311107 Benoit, P., 5225

Berger, K., 5561, 20411, 20629, 20732, 37686, 517110 Berger, P., 21132 Bergholz, T., 1056 Bertram, G., 8266, 347c, 37453 Betori, G., 21127 Betz, H. D., 7097, 12337, 136105, 1524, 19718, 20842, 21060, 21911, 22236, 4242, 441154, 457113, 48373, 498117, 529258, 63698, 67331, 67877 Betz, O., 548m Beyer, H., 65062 Beyschlag, K., 20411 Bickerman, E., 29445, 29541, 5505 Bieler, L., 24155, 27399, 67436 Bienert, W., 3013 Bietenhard, H., 378106 Biguzzi, G., 4632 Bihler, J., 1758 Binder, D., 15422 Bird, M. F., 19112 Birley, A., 22236, 59629 Black, C., 318h, 3861 Black, M., 3644 Blaisdell, J., 39262 Blass, F., 420, 3746, 6252, 634, 68663 Bligh, J., 56116 Blue, B., 9454 Boas, G., 9020 Bockmuehl, M., 19112 Bodinger, M., 15417 Boismard, M.-É., 3, 525, 3746, 40a, e, 5550, 58a, b, c, 6011, 6234, 63, 6769, 70, 6983, 86, 7612, 24, 77, 7835, 8047, 8272, 8489, 93, 8594, 9231, 9342, 43, 9451, 99, 10027, 39, 101, 10626, 11279, 114c, 11511, 15, 11617, 11838, 122, 12328, 12441, 1279, 12819, 12928, 1405, 14327, 42,

798

indexes.indd 798

8/27/2008 3:15:54 PM

14435, 15858, 16074, 16395, 1658, 16725, 16942, 17046, 47, 171f, h, j, 172q, r, s, 18063, 18166, 18388, 18498, 185106, 113, 186121-22, 188139, 189146, 190159, 191160, 192170, 195, 19711, 19821, 202, 20626, 20955, 21065, 212e, 21413, 21523, 28, 217, 218p, 22453, 22560, 22892, 230m, 251c, 25211, 25322, 25544, 256, 25762, 262, 263, 27059, 27063, 27164, 272, 27514, 276121, 279127, 281, 282195, 283202, 28548, 288, 289c, 29117, 293, 29661, 29774, 299, 300, 30322, 29, 30437, 38, 40, 30543, 49, 30769, 30879, 3164-5, 318c-e, f, g, i, j, l, m, 32124, 33235, 32447, 32561, 32781, 328a-d, f, k, 329o, r, s, x, 330hh, kk, ll, 33110, 33644, 50, 33756, 65, 33872, 33980, 84, 34093, 342,104, 112, 115, 343117, 3476, 348v, x, bb, 348q, t, 35554, 55, 358, 36117, 363136, 366h, 367r, x, bb, dd, 37456, 59, 37573, 37798, 381133, 382149, 152, 383165, 384172, 174, 385b, c, d, i, 3865, 38711, 38930, 39260, 399a, h, 400 t, v, k, l, 400o, q, r, bb, 4018, 40217, 40542, 40651, 59, 40871, 412108, 413114, 417a, c, m, 417o, 4189, 41915, 420, 423a, b, d-h, n 42728, 42832, 437116, 439126, 440139, 442157, 161, 444b, 445i, j, 458a, e, f, 46017, 463d, f-j, m, 46734, 47066, 47182, 85, 86, 47290, 475b, f, j, k, 48160, 48270, 484b, d, f, 49153, 49373, 49488, 49592, 95, 497116,

498120, 503a, b, 503q, 504t, 505u, w, y, 505cc, ee, 505gg, 50611, 50715, 50825, 29, 51265, 519131, 521150, 162, 523176, 180, 186, 527227, 528244, 529251, 532a, c, f, g, 535, 53634, 53847, 539, 541b, d, f, m, 54319, 54424, 54532, 33, 548a, c, j, k, p, 549q, 55116, 55437, 558a, m, 559r, 56341, 56453, 55, 567b, c, 567e-g, i, 570d, e-h, k, m, 570o, 57650, 578, 579b, d, f, i, l, m, n, p, q, u, 580x, aa, bb, 58218, 583, 587, 591t, x, aa, dd, h-k, m, n, 59852, 602e, 61018, 24, 614c, d, f, 61830, 619c, f, 619h, i, 626l, n, 623k, 624v, 625x, y, ee, 62817, 62819, 22, 63154, 634, 63588, 91, 636106, 637117, 637118, 642k, m, n, p, 643ee, hh, ii, 644, 655109, 658144, 663, 665221, 666, 669k, 670, 677, 67879, 680b, c, d, e, k, m, s, 68322, 68444 Boismard, M., and A. Lamouille, 30879, 644 Bolchazy, L., 35559 Bonner, C., 60413, 65168 Bonner, S., 11941 Bonnet, M., 23664 Bonz, M. P., 1267, 4015 Borgen, P., 6, 6693, 4631, 46412, 67746 Bormann, L., 4019 Bornkamm, G., 525211, 65062, 65278 Borse, U., 12226 Bouman, G., 3641 Bousset, W., 2465, 29227, 35553 Bovon, F., 13, 18110, 22139, 26, 594, 8273, 19819, 2654, 9, 27172, 47060, 51164, 529, 530, 53522, 57538, 68547

Bowe, B., 15964 Bowersock, G., 2467, 55759, 61729, 65170 Bowker, J., 33426 Braumann, G., 5666 Braun, M., 1419, 22930 Braund, D., 58767, 6159, 61612 Brawley, R. L., 5331, 37, 68110 Bremmer, J., 34312 Brenk, F., 40437, 58768 Breytenbach, C., 3196, 32011, 32345, 33212, 35771, 361116 Brock, S., 12926 Brodie, T., 1951, 250, 51378 Brosend, W., 68887, 68992, 690107 Broughton, T., 26725, 40326, 55220, 655107 Brown, H. S., 593, 59415 Brown, L., 25539 Brown, R. E., 4755, 5225, 29120, 33651, 60913, 67775 Brown, S., 5011, 13033, 13361, 66 Brownlee, W., 34197 Bruce, F. F., 636, 3638, 3852, 412, 4541, 5116, 20, 6010, 6989, 72c, 8273, 74, 9123, 25, 9340, 10625, 11278, 1158, 13699, 103, 1416, 14329, 14558, 14721, 15966, 16723, 16831, 185104, 186121, 188137, 189146, 191165, 192179, 19715, 19941, 22455, 24057, 24714, 263s, cc, 27170, 275115, 276132, 286230, 287239, 29118, 29669, 29880, 30322, 30543, 313132, 32556, 33430, 33981, 3498, 35012, 35449, 35553, 55, 57, 35779, 44828, 455103, 46627, 46953, 47294, 47398, 479412, 48272, 48376, 78, 498117,

51275, 522163, 528246, 54422, 546, 548g, o, 55117, 55332, 57423, 579h, 58218, 58768, 5917, 59635, 59850, 61126 Brumbaugh, R., 665219 Bruneau, P., 6923 Bryan, C., 38222 Büchsel, F., 27281, 62216 Buckler, W., 6938 Buckwalter, H. D., 23144 Budesheim, T., 515104 Bultmann, R., 19, 22, 5561, 70, 10029, 10728, 11947, 25434, 34089, 35781, 437113, 47832, 41160, 47832, 50819, 51159, 53631, 60417, 19, 62926 Bunine, A., 58767 Burchard, C., 5449, 20154, 234, 23525, 238, 23914, 24169, 277136, 279, 46847, 56447, 63268 Burkert, W., 194189, 310100 Burkitt, F. C., 6769, 10624, 47719 Burstein, S., 6923 Buss, M., 33426 Byrskog, S., 39367 Cabié, R., 16187 Cadbury, H., and K. Lake, 11, 632, 31c, 3312, 3526, 3639, 3852, 40i, 5020, 5115, 5563, 5665, 6664, 6989, 7613, 7830, 8047, 8263, 69, 85104, 88a, 9230, 9920, 22, 10028, 38, 10142, 1047, 10520, 107, 11171, 1166, 11725, 11945, 12114, 12218, 1273, 13140, 13256, 13370, 13471, 136103, 1416, 14219, 14670, 15532, 15964, 16075, 16396, 16723, 171e, i, 17620, 18386, 18493, 186119, 187129, 188137, 190161, 191165, 192174, 178, 195f, 1967, 19711, 19933, 41, 799

indexes.indd 799

8/27/2008 3:15:54 PM

Cadbury/Lake (continued) 20159, 20518, 20623, 25, 20949, 53, 21056, 57, 21171, 21634, 22345, 22447, 230f, 24053, 24380, 24496, 245d, 249r, 25322, 26, 25648, 262b, 2621, 2638, 264yy, 2705627057, 275182, 185, 285220, 286233, 287236, 287243, 288294, 29330, 32, 29664, 299a, 30216, 303, 30543, 30660, 3165, 32667, 3319, 33429, 33650, 51, 33764, 33981, 3497, 35013, 21, 35123, 35555, 57, 35778, 362, 366f, 367dd, 37015, 373, 37457, 37684, 379115, 382153, 383166, 384173, 385a, 38718, 38924, 400n, 400u, 40720, 41199, 413113, 415129, 417f, 417j,4184, 42234, 35, 4242, 42722, 42836, 42941, 43273, 45046, 45263, 45489, 455101, 458b, 46016, 46516, 46628, 46843, 49, 46953, 46957, 47294, 96, 4753, 5, 4757, 47613, 47719, 47944, 48052, 49376, 496105, 498117, 503g, k, 504o, p, r, 505gg, 50715, 50830, 50942, 51049, 51494, 520141, 521162, 522, 523189, 528244, 529249, 532j, k, 53511, 15, 53524, 53967, 540cc, 54532, 54642, 43, 45, 548m, 55225, 558k, o, 56336, 42, 5686, 56912, 57313, 57537, 38, 580v, 58111, 58225, 58334, 58766, 591e, z, 59521, 59630, 59849, 60412, 22, 607a, d, g, m, 61239 Cadbury, H. J., 11, 12, 3312, 86106, 885, 6, 1528, 15417, 17834, 22119, 21, 22557,

25319, 27055, 280169, 29445, 32226, 344132, 35665, 381132, 39262, 399i, 438121, 45152, 452, 480, 48162, 4869, 49154, 496101, 497109, 5062, 523191, 55544, 5683, 4, 56910, 5923, 61134, 614a, f, 615v, 61616, 61727, 6213, 4, 624r, 6252, 62822, 63267, 63730, 110, 643v, bb, dd, 65495, 655111, 656115, 150, 657134, 136, 658144, 149, 659151, 158, 164, 662187, 199, 67225, 67554, 67664, 680a, c, 68329, 68664, 68888 Calder, W., 35555 Callan, T., 37791 Calvin, J., 50, 9123, 131, 14777, 16938, 26945, 35449, 35896, 362132, 37129, 437116, 440143, 46849, 47398, 51380, 523179, 183, 528243, 53636, 54428, 54646, 48, 57318, 67443 Cambet-Galland, C., 24163 Campbell, D., 32345 Campbell, W., 39262, 39580, 396 Campenhausen, H. von, 5444, 16071, 54420 Cancik, H., 16, 1796, 3854 Capper, B., 898 Carroll, J. T., 25163-64, 10627, 10842, 49 Cartlidge, D., 20731 Casey, R. P., 20627, 21056, 21412 Cassidy, R., 612, 616 Casson, L., 656123 Catchpole, D., 37690, 381135 Cerfaux, L., 5449, 7830, 899 Chadwick, H., 20729, 44152 Chambers, K., 30661 Chance, C. B., 4124 Charlesworth, J., 311106

Cherniss, H., 43596 Chilton, B., 14664 Christol, M., 32011 Clabeaux, J., 65385, 67546 Clark, A. C., 3745, 7724, 11617, 14445, 14777, 30543, 329v, 33650, 33765, 33872, 33980, 37798, 378105, 442161, 463f, 51266, 579, 587, 56453, 619h, 620k, 643ff, 643kk, 64410, 655105, 663202, 67881 Clark, Andrew, 314, 949, 1053, 56, 12931, 35020, 62933 Clarke, G., 31095, 378108, 63372 Clarke, W. K. L., 841, 7725, 220 Co, A. M., 86108 Cohen, S., 14212, 333, 38822 Collinge, N., 33543 Collins, J. J., 33212, 49262 Colpe, C., 55328 Colson, F., 665219 Comfort, P. W., 22344 Conti, M., 36910 Conzelmann, H., 11, 15, 21129, 22136, 140-41, 294, 3639, 3748, 3851, 4319, 5556, 5665, 582, 607, 63, 6770, 6879, 7833, 8043, 8487, 9014, 9123, 25, 9337, 100, 105, 10734, 108, 109, 11177, 11831, 1201, 12222, 124, 13699, 1416, 14554, 14557, 14661, 68, 14771, 15314, 16177, 16510, 16723, 176, 17725, 29, 17837, 18062, 18284, 188137, 191, 192175, 29118, 29881, 31095, 32012, 329t, 33427, 28, 33652, 33871, 74, 33981, 341103, 342105, 349, 35020, 35123, 35236, 35341, 35449, 35666, 35775, 358, 361116,

37237, 37454, 37664, 37794, 378 , 379115, 381138, 382149, 3864, 39258, 39584, 40216, 40766, 41194, 412106, 413120, 417l, 4185, 41911, 4257, 42614, 42836, 42945, 43152, 55, 432, 436103, 438124, 442161, 44714, 45491, 45917, 46516, 46846, 51, 47296, 47941, 45, 48379, 487, 48818, 50823, 51049, 51269, 51380, 51490, 51599, 523152, 160, 162, 524194, 201, 528, 535, 53859, 55220, 22, 55322, 55656, 56558, 5727, 573, 57432, 58220, 58328, 58438, 58547, 58767, 59520, 59743, 59849, 59967, 6082, 61132, 34, 61344, 61721, 62215, 6252, 3, 63372, 76, 63589, 643bb, 64733, 64840, 65055, 655110, 656123, 657134, 136, 658147, 149, 659151, 661181, 663201, 206, 669h, 67661, 64, 6819, 68548 Cook, M., 33423 Coppens, J., 16187, 2131 Corley, K., 40430 Cosgrove, C., 48271 Countryman, L., 9126, 377101 Court, J., 520145 Courtney, E., 24373, 32557, 33315 Cousland, J., 41089 Cowton, C., 9926 Creed, J. M., 3641 Croix, G., de Ste., 499130 Crossan, J. D., 3849, 5225, 29227 Cullmann, O., 2037 Cumont, F., 6774, 65168 Cunningham, S. C., 23144, 500137, 510143, 146

800

indexes.indd 800

8/27/2008 3:15:54 PM

Czachesz, I., 417, 2326, 2339, 23628, 250, 4852, 517111, 5605, 12, 56450, 56456, 627, 630, 63154 Dahl, N., 17836, 18058, 63, 18170, 37572 Danker, F., 280171, 380122, 381130, 140, 382150, 155, 40326, 67772, 6923 D’Arms, J., 40326 Darr, J., 11940, 14884 Dassmann, E., 506107 Daube, D., 1526 Dautzenberg, G., 27281 Davies, P., 68997 Dawsey, J., 18105 Dawson, D., 9016 De Rossi, F., 58768 De Santos Otero, A., 23634, 67774 Deissmann, A., 39040, 40550, 44819, 456100, 48052, 50826, 521163, 614i Del Cerro, G., 20119, 291 Delebecque, E., 347h, 384174, 38928, 463f Delling, G., 20737, 39, 68780 Delobel, J., 314 Del Verme, M., 12816 Denova, R., 20124 Derrett, J., 26613 Des Place, E., 439128 Dibelius, M., 1, 3643, 6769, 8043, 88, 89, 101, 1202, 12223-24, 122, 14554, 16174, 16615, 1753, 176, 17837, 42, 2195, 2654, 278149, 279166, 282188, 30764, 313123, 3199, 33540, 33866, 342, 34220, 35123, 369, 37121, 373, 37459, 378111, 379115, 38935, 395-96, 41194, 412110, 415130, 42610, 42945, 430511, 432, 43493, 43594, 95, 436106, 440142, 145, 475, 476, 50823, 50937, 512, 518,

5422, 59966, 624r, 629, 63481, 636, 647, 68055 Dieterich, A., 40985 Dillon, J., 9125 Dillon, R., 21911 Dimant, D., 7940 Dinkler, E., 2181, 22450, 44820 Dionne, C., 35129 Dobschütz, E., 39474 Dockz, S., 39262 Dodds, E., 40544, 47941 Donelson, L., 39574 Doody, M., 53067, 65164, 666234, 68991 Douglas, M., 20123 Downey, G., 29120 Drew-Bear, T., 32011, 380122 Duncan, G., 46516 Dunn, P., 530265 Dürr, L., 186119 Dupont, J., 1264, 20122, 5118, 899, 14557, 17839, 179, 29666, 30879, 343119, 37572, 39262, 42945, 4322, 515104, 528239, 61725, 6812, 68214, 68328, 68437, 39, 68552, 54, 57, 68626 Easton, B. S., 16068, 20735, 32236 Economou, J., 291 Edelstein, L. and E., 13237, 39039 Edwards, D., 4216, 6782, 48265, 53518 Egger, B., 1419, 35662, 45260 Ehling, K., 48160 Ehrman, B., 418 Elbert, P., 522163 Elliott, J. H., 9454 Elliott, J. K., 25, 417, 53634, 571q, 68771 Ellis, E., 4426 Ellud, D., 9810 Eltester, W., 42945 Engelmann, H., 37123,

39040, 57649, 6923, 5, 6936 Engels, D., 44717 Enslin, M., 30319 Epp, E. J., 28, 314, 423, 3641, 44, 3745, 7620, 7828, 8489, 93, 8596, 10515, 114c, 11617, 11946, 1217, 13607, 14773, 76, 15959, 16725, 19821, 199, 263w, 276126, 285220, 300v, 338, 33980, 34094, 34199, 342104, 347g, 366, 367dd, 37018, 37120, 37459, 37687, 382140, 38931, 440139, 444o, p, q, 445n, 45151, 505y, 58214, 6039, 68661 Erasmus, D., 217m, 230c Erbes, C., 30878 Erichson-Wendt, F., 25323 Esler, P., 21132, 22135, 15311, 15850, 2462, 284214, 379118 Evans, C., 7725 Exum, C., 515104 Farahian, E., 39045 Faraone, C., 20739 Fascher, E., 492, 48271 Fee, G., 44828 Feldman, L., 3529, 1417, 17949, 18392, 273101, 32346, 33212, 33316, 378112, 40550, 518124, 61612, 63151 Fellows, R., 44932 Ferguson, J., 33315 Ferreiro, A., 20627 Festugière, A., 35553, 6923 Fiedrowicz, M., 42945 Finger, R. H., 87115, 898, 9123 Finn, T., 33212 Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, 162, 17949, 21170, 25684, 32452, 35664, 45158, 46413, 465, 53738 Fitzmyer, J., 636, 841, 21130, 26, 33, 6115, 6446, 6989,

7725, 8274, 8379, 83, 9233, 36, 9456, 11175, 12926, 13482, 83, 16034, 19715, 19822, 19941, 22568, 23727, 24159, 24710, 14, 27288, 274102, 276132, 277141, 278151, 289d, 29118, 29554, 30542, 30878, 3165, 3197, 32236, 32665, 33212, 33534, 33644, 50, 33981, 34088, 36563, 37452, 58, 37678, 82, 377101, 380125, 383169, 38715, 38935, 39362, 64, 4013, 9, 40983, 413112, 414125, 417f, 43045, 436104, 439126, 44744, 45493, 458, 46627, 46736, 46846, 47719, 47941, 48164, 48272, 488, 497108, 499126, 517111, 529249, 548m, 549r, 5505, 55117, 55332, 56446, 5726, 57313, 57538, 44, 58653, 6035, 61234, 61611, 62111, 624r, 62931, 63596, 637110, 64730, 659151, 661, 6707, 67552, 55, 67653, 68324 Flender, H., 441152 Fletcher, R., 48047, 48266 Fletcher-Louis, C., 57539 Flinterman, J., 11839 Foakes-Jackson, 11176, 10624, 29444, 32010, 3481, 3497, 361118, 40873, 414121, 455100, 456109, 496101, 5682, 57424, 58435, 6263, 62931, 689100 Foerster, W., 15965, 527232, 67218 Forbes, C., 48054, 48157 Fournier, M., 35129 Fox, R. L., 32011, 35449, 35553 Franklin, E., 3851, 524 Fraser, P., 39040 French, D., 3312, 38935 French, R., 22133 801

indexes.indd 801

8/27/2008 3:15:55 PM

Frenschkowski, M., 420 Frey, J.-B., 16616 Fridrichsen, A., 2011 Friedrich, G., 18389, 53661 Friesen, S., 498117 Frye, N., 64515 Funk, R., 7-8, 29666 Furnish, V., 2467 Fusco, V., 25161, 39262 Gabba, E., 6082 Gaca, K., 439137 Gager, J., 6338, 20842, 32666, 33212, 47941 Gamble, H., 295, 3535, 114c Gapp, K., 29666 Garland, R., 25543, 42727 Garnsey, P., 26723, 29666, 61134, 35 Garrett, S. R., 4215, 204, 207, 20839, 20945, 21415, 21520, 22, 21631, 280174, 30879, 311109, 312114, 326, 32775, 77, 47291, 47833, 34, 37, 47945, 480, 63477, 67219 Gärtner, B., 35666, 43054, 437115, 438124 Gasque, W., 29439, 3494, 6707, 67328 Gaventa, B. R., 22138, 2181, 22234, 223, 22446, 24277, 26721, 26949, 283201, 515104, 560, 626, 62713, 630, 633 Geagan, D., 42835 Gempf, C., 32339, 32445, 54, 35551 Georgi, D., 15311, 15420, 16069, 1657, 32557, 40547, 47612, 50832, 50934, 36, 51494, 527235, 543, 547, 608, 65280 Gephard, E., 38936, 39039 Gibbs, J., 2181, 21910 Gilbert, G., 1692, 4649, 6622, 6892, 20947, 59631 Gilchrist, J., 64730 Gill, D., 35555, 39259,

40325, 43277, 440138, 140, 158 Ginzberg, L., 3028 Glover, R., 636 Glover, T. R., 3748 Goldin, J., 40218 Goldstein, H., 60419 Goldstein, J., 43481 Goodman, F., 6338, 6446 Goodman, M., 11068, 342107 Goodspeed, E., 44935 Goppelt, L., 16189, 185188 Gorgues, M., 43051 Goulder, M., 949, 327, 13366, 16395, 16832, 22234, 5331, 64844, 649, 65272 Graf, D., 2467 Graf, F., 20739 Graham, H., 441152 Grant, R., 377103, 44152, 62928, 29 Grässer, E., 26 Grassi, J., 21910 Gray, G., 54640 Gray, L. H., 22236 Gray, P., 43375 Green, J., 6084 Green, M., 48265 Greeven, H., 27398, 32125, 43493, 437112, 54640 Gregory, A., 11 Grundmann, W., 4210, 15417, 46516, 51598, 57649, 60419 Gundel, H., 59311 Günther, M., 457116 Gutbrot, W., 8153 Haacker, K., 1968, 2654, 276132, 44714, 57430 Hackett, J., 63156 Hadas, M., 11945 Hägg, T., 65170 Haenchen, E., 11, 841, 42, 24, 26, 291, 31c, 3312, 3417, 21, 3850, 40g, 419, 4322, 4536, 4650, 4755, 5012, 124, 5115, 5341, 5446, 5559, 6015, 6444, 6658, 59,

6770, 76205, 78, 8153, 8263, 69, 71, 899, 9021, 9347, 9811, 14, 1031, 10952-53, 110, 11177, 11278, 11831, 12217, 23, 12334, 12710, 13, 12815, 132, 13361-62, 13472, 82, 13589, 95, 136, 137, 1416, 14219, 143, 14444, 14665, 14773, 14882, 149, 15965, 66, 16180, 16718, 23, 24, 177, 186120, 189146, 191165, 193181, 19715, 19822, 19941, 20043, 2039, 20512, 20627, 207, 21056, 219, 22233, 43, 22671, 22789, 230f, 23847, 24276, 24712, 25210, 262g, 263s, 26477, 2654, 27063, 27287, 274103, 275117, 277137, 282192, 286233, 29118, 29443, 29663, 29774, 80, 30431, 30761, 318i, 3198, 32012, 32447, 32665, 329t, 33430, 33644, 33761, 33983, 341103, 342105, 109, 343114, 344, 347a, 3498, 35012, 19, 20, 3123, 28, 35449, 35552, 35778, 360110, 361118, 121, 372, 37568, 37632, 37798, 381130, 133, 382149, 384, 38826, 395, 396, 399, 40214, 40323, 26, 41194, 415, 4183, 4255, 42610, 42725, 42835, 438121, 440138, 442161, 44822, 24, 45039, 45493-94, 456109, 457117, 118, 46016, 46629, 46735, 46843, 46952, 47177, 47293, 47398, 475k, 477, 478, 48268, 70, 48387, 48610, 487, 488, 489, 495, 496101, 497, 500142, 5065, 50717, 37, 47, 50830, 50831, 51049, 51380, 51599, 527237, 529, 5344, 53632, 53850, 59, 5422, 54311, 54532, 54638, 42, 54748,

5494, 55222, 55439, 56443, 56558, 65, 56669, 70, 5684, 56912, 5726, 7, 57426, 33, 58220, 58334, 58545, 47, 58771, 588, 590c, 59848, 60177, 60523, 607j, l, 6082, 609, 609-12, 616, 61728, 62214, 62815, 22, 629, 63148, 54, 56, 634, 63592, 636, 637112, 121, 643v, 64512, 64730, 33, 654101, 656123, 657127, 133-34, 659151, 160, 661185, 662187, 199, 665, 669e, i, 2, 6704, 676, 681, 68442, 68546, 68667, 68994 Hahn, F., 185108 Hall, S., 10821 Hamm, D., 9810, 63477 Hanges, J., 38936 Hansen, W., 3857 Hanson, J., 23844, 24057 Hardin, J., 42026 Harding, M., 24710 Harnack, A. v., 212, 13, 3011, 6770, 6876, 12438, 199, 24830, 32229, 34090, 48265, 53631, 6082, 656, 67777 Harr, S., 20627 Harrer, G., 32667 Harrill, J., 15744, 16616, 306 Harris, J. R., 3644, 16725, 199 Hasler, V., 22669 Hatchett, M., 5554 Hauck, F., 9236, 27169, 37350 Hauschild, W.-D., 9123 Hauser, H., 6812, 68883 Havelaar, H., 12932, 13037, 13142 Hawkins, J. C., 27059, 39476 Hay, D. M., 8384 Hayes, J., 64513, 17, 18, 64946, 65280, 65383, 87, 89 Head, P., 314, 16, 17, 417, 18, 20, 3644, 37687, 378107

802

indexes.indd 802

8/27/2008 3:15:55 PM

Hedrick, C., 234, 23845, 5603, 62933, 630 Heintz, F., 20627 Hemer, C., 316, 1480, 6766, 14885, 20515, 24710, 26725, 29770, 29880, 30543, 32345, 33426, 33653, 35552, 55, 385f, 39262, 40325, 42026, 442161, 44714, 45262, 456109, 4599, 47186, 47619, 48717, 49154, 498117, 50818, 24, 50943, 519127, 53627, 53743, 53964, 555, 58544, 58768, 58875, 5921, 59313, 5964, 615, 637120, 64730, 65498, 655107, 656116, 123, 124, 657136, 658146, 149, 659150, 151, 662186, 197, 199, 663203, 67551, 53, 67662, 65, 67881, 68885, 87, 88 Hendrix, H., 4019, 4196, 7 Hengel, M., 11174, 14997, 15525, 175, 17840, 190156, 193182, 1511, 15314, 15417, 20, 21, 155, 156, 1655, 16943, 20043, 22787, 2467, 26723, 25, 29118, 29221, 29328, 29443, 29548, 40219, 543, 54420, 54534, 64730 Henrichs, A., 20842, 51381 Hernández, J., 51164 Hershbell, J., 9125 Heusler, E., 5921 Hickling, C., 6251 Hicks, E., 49154 Hilgert, E., 64948, 50, 65062, 65278, 65493, 664204, 214 Hill, C., 1512, 15417, 15750, 15855, 16828, 32, 169, 17511, 190156, 200 Hills, J., 12932, 32113 Hirsch, E., 62933 Hock, R., 452, 528328, 56232 Hoffmann, R. J., 312112 Hogan, D., 5605, 59418

Holladay, C., 1267, 6874, 22229, 3015, 7, 55437 Holmberg, B., 15852, 3867 Holmes, M., 423 Holtz, T., 7831, 17732 Holum, K., 22787, 58652 Holzberg, N., 9017, 667238 Holzmeister, U., 61134 Hommel, H., 42945 Hopkins, K., 48929 Horgan, M. P., 39581 Horn, F., 9340, 217m, 29779 Hornschuh, M., 3013 Horsley, G., 344130, 40325, 42021, 4632, 4649, 49151, 49373, 514 Hort, F., 199, 498 Hubbard, M., 41912, 45590 Hughes, F., 42026 Hull, J., 40550 Hummel, A., 64521 Humphrey, E., 2641 Hunt, M., 25314 Hur, Ju, 23147 Hurd, J., 448 Inge, W., 56566 Jacobson, G., 64946, 660174, 67657 Jacquier, E., 740, 3531, 6445, 37687, 382147, 151, 47066, 47398, 49154, 527234, 60177, 62816 Jaeger, W., 42838 Járegui, J., 26165 Jenkinson, E., 843 Jeremias, J., 251g, 25763, 30985 Jervell, J., 528, 740, 20119, 21130, 22139, 5556, 6015, 7832, 8266, 70, 10842, 11062, 14881, 16118, 23, 17871, 191165, 19881, 19941, 22561, 23416, 279157, 29118, 29780, 37351, 379115, 39364, 4017, 42237, 43019, 45912, 46737, 46954, 482, 49041, 497108, 54750,

57433, 64627, 68325, 68549 Jewett, R., 6082 Johnson, L. T., 849, 18107, 19112, 324, 34, 5341, 6438, 41, 9014, 92, 9924-25, 12334, 12711, 1417, 10, 16723, 175, 17620, 17833, 18278, 18388, 188133, 19715, 19941, 20839, 22344, 24158, 24278, 24496, 25320, 264, 26839, 27173, 285215, 222, 286228, 29118, 29664, 32236, 328c, 3317-8, 33428, 30, 33644, 47, 34198, 35012, 35449, 35666, 3684, 370, 37343, 37684, 379114, 386112, 3878, 39147, 40220, 40548, 412104, 107, 413117, 414126, 415131, 417b, f, 42614, 43374, 445m, 45038, 45382, 45485, 90, 46517, 46953, 47180, 47290, 479, 49047, 506hh, 5079, 513, 51486, 522171, 526222, 5492, 5605, 57322, 57544, 5802, 6, 59630, 60415, 6216, 7, 62441, 636100, 6443, 653, 65496, 66075, 661182, 67327, 68777 Johnston, G., 10520 Jones, A. H. M., 497115, 499130, 58661, 61134 Jones, C. P., 35346, 499129 Jones, F. S., 8152, 11280, 11722, 14885, 24158, 55219, 55437 Judge, E. A., 29445, 295, 42026 Juel, D. M., 8384 Junod, E., 15529, 530 Just, A., 21911 Juster, J., 45039-40 Kaestli, J.-D., 15529, 530 Kaplan, J. and H., 25537 Käsemann, E., 4582, 46954, 58, 47062

Kasser, R., 5228 Katzenstein, H., 53518 Kauppi, L., 5665, 312118, 40437, 40650, 43821, 49154, 498117, 67437, 67663 Kearsley, R., 49699 Kelber, W., 15639 Kelly, J. N. D., 311106 Kennedy, G., 952, 754, 1046, 10621, 17839, 179, 33533, 380, 42945, 499125, 518, 5426, 54532, 56012, 15, 56232, 57424, 59747, 627, 661178, 68215 Kerenyi, K., 23844, 310101, 412104, 65170 Keyes, C., 46022 Kidd, I., 43050 Kilgallen, J. J., 31a, 17511, 17836, 191165, 283202, 287239, 32344, 515104, 518117 Kilpatrick, G., 7620, 7828, 11617, 195c, 4593, 58332 Kirchschläger, W., 67555 Kittel, G., 188136, 38932 Klassen, W., 5224 Klauck, H.-J., 4215, 5224, 6446, 6882, 7941, 13482, 20411, 20519, 20624, 20839, 2138, 21519, 21632, 22671, 26615, 287238, 312120, 313140, 314140, 32347, 3317, 33212, 35896, 380122, 40655, 427, 42945, 46, 43152, 43378, 46022, 47296, 47395, 47945, 497108, 58436, 67437, 67663 Klauser, T., 5561 Klausner, T., 11948 Klein, G., 5444, 48048, 515164, 526217 Klein, H., 189151 Klijn, A. F. J., 7620, 1758 Klimkeit, H.-J., 529258

803

indexes.indd 803

8/27/2008 3:15:55 PM

Klutz, T., 20739, 400n, 40434, 40542, 49, 40657, 59, 60, 47064 Knibbe, D., 492 Knoch, O., 515104 Knox, W. L., 740, 17103, 6770, 6877, 10520, 13368, 192173, 22123, 2656, 311132, 313129, 3177, 441149, 57311 Kobelski, P., 39581 Koch, D.-A., 1373, 33212, 38935, 39155, 39693 Kochavi, M., 58653 Kodell, J., 16393, 480 Koester, H., 287242, 29120, 4632, 4646, 46516, 516107, 528246 Koet, B., 39153 Kolenkow, A., 517110 Kollmann, B., 12931 Konstan, D., 1262 Koschorke, K., 596 Koskienniemi, E., 11839 Kowalski, B., 23628, 51381 Kraabel, T., 33212, 333 Kraeling, K., 29120 Kraemer, R., 61612, 15 Kratz, R., 14217, 3011, 4, 30211, 31212, 40983, 413118, 649, 65272 Kraus, T., 114c Kreitzer, L., 48714 Kremer, J., 594, 417h Krodel, G., 756, 104, 223, 2312, 274109, 277143, 33430, 35896, 37363, 37684, 379115, 383163, 40766, 413116, 455102, 48048, 48820, 59853, 61234, 616 Kuck, D. W., 12 Kuhn, K. G., 15420 Kümmel, W. G., 4222 Kursk-Chomycz, D., 466106 Kurz, W., 11064, 19939, 39368, 39477, 395, 39687, 517111, 64625, 6705, 6 Kussl, R., 658139

Labriolle, P. de, 52, 5331 Ladouceur, D., 65385, 67441 Laird, A., 39579 Laistner, M., 5698 Lake, K., 3641, 3748, 5225, 5336, 607, 6491, 65, 7198, 9023, 10142, 10624, 15960, 22345, 32010, 32344, 33212, 3671, 43377, 438129, 456110, 58767, 6082 Lambrecht, J., 634, 51598, 104, 516106, 517113, 518, 521151, 522173, 528244 Lampe, G. W. H., 136105, 32777, 51271, 525211, 67332 Lampe, P., 44713, 45158, 452, 4869, 48819, 20, 49151, 67769, 68211, 6948 La Piana, G., 48373, 68211 Lattke, M., 27059 Lausberg, H., 17839, 285224, 225 Lentz, J., 23423, 24056, 40873, 414126, 44440, 47, 55437, 61134, 6251, 63150, 63257, 63698, 661175, 67881 Leon, H., 4468, 68211 Leonardi, G., 20123 Leppä, H., 382152, 387, 38827 Le Roux, C., 47176 Lesky, A., 22120 Levick, B., 35230, 40771, 55546, 61234, 6938 Levinskaya, I., 29120, 3313, 33212, 38822, 39259, 40219, 44610, 4649, 515100 Levy, R., 24273 Lichtenberger, H., 68211 Lifschitz, B., 318j, 33212, 33320 Lightfoot, J., 22682, 35449, 529249 Lin Szu-Chuan, 3194

Lindars, B., 5339, 7095, 8383, 68547 Lindemann, A., 3528, 899, 2181, 22236, 227, 516107, 63375 Linton, O., 2325, 387 Lintott, A., 61025, 61134 Lipsius, R., 23634 Lohfink, G., 4541, 23527, 23631, 23738, 23844, 23949, 63043, 63152, 63169 Lohse, E., 5444, 278151, 43488 Loisy, A., 35346, 35449, 361120, 48824, 49038, 51380, 53739, 57538, 58222 Lona, H., 63375 Long, A., 4254 Long, W., 56013, 59419, 61134 Longenecker, B., 2120 Löning, K., 63, 16282, 18170-71, 1968, 20156, 23418, 236, 23738, 238, 23949, 2644, 2905, 29440, 42945 Lösch, S., 59633 Lostang, F., 43263 Lovejoy, A., 9020 Lüdemann, 3748, 4540, 496, 607, 6336, 6441, 7823, 9811, 13, 11169, 1214, 12823, 1654-5, 177, 1965-6, 2032, 20735, 21060, 215, 218, 23742, 23845, 23949, 24816, 2527, 265, 26618, 26724, 2902, 291, 29549, 29637, 3012, 32118, 32341, 33984, 351, 35489, 37565, 381137, 383161, 38717, 38824, 4014, 5, 9, 41194, 415, 4185, 42131, 42611, 44216, 44713, 44826, 455102, 46846, 46954, 47614, 48719­-21, 488, 50831, 512, 516107, 5344, 10, 53963, 67, 542,

55141, 59312, 60633, 6082, 609, 64739, 6703 Luck, G., 20739 Luckman, T., 21132 Ludvikovsky, J., 1267 MacDonald, D. R., 317, 1267, 495, 6118, 2641, 30210, 30765, 32117, 4015, 41091, 51164, 512, 517, 529256, 64523, 657132, 658141, 661183, 67113 MacDonald, M. Y., 527, 30765, 525206 Macheiner, W., 55328 Mack, B., 744-5, 759, 29227 MacMullen, R., 6774, 11839, 194189, 29666, 377103, 380123, 40545, 48265, 4866, 49043, 49150, 49481, 83, 500136 Magie, D., 14329, 498117, 6938 Magness, J., 690 Malherbe, A., 11945, 35772, 4184, 41912, 4242, 43597, 47187, 49372, 518116, 526211, 528238, 59736, 62711, 63698, 101-3, 107, 637, 67220 Malina, B., 4323, 6874, 5602, 56232, 5727 Maloney, L. M., 4754 Malten, L., 35559 Marguerat, D., 18, 19112, 129-35, 1403, 16310, 27173, 32113, 344132, 39696, 516107, 62933, 630, 64946, 6813, 68773, 68883, 68991, 69017 Marconi, G., 9810 Marcus, R., 29554, 33651 Marrow, S., 11618 Marshall, I. H., 22139, 33, 3416, 4322, 68, 86, 12923, 131, 13251, 13472, 75, 302, 3194, 35449, 44932, 48711, 48817, 25, 50947, 57646, 6154, 65849, 660171

804

indexes.indd 804

8/27/2008 3:15:55 PM

Martin, C., 16291, 2181, 22998 Martin, H., 4241, 42835 Martin, L., 35451 Martin, T. W., 15417 Martini, C. M., 417 Mason, S., 11068, 1151 Mastin, B., 463f, 47719 Mathieu, Y., 3011 Matson, D., 9454, 283206, 40432, 40982, 44930 Matthews, C., 15527, 20521 Matthews, S., 33423, 4015, 40324, 40436, 40549, 40987 Mattila, S., 40219 Mattill, A. J., 949, 25 Mattill, M. B., 25 Mattingly, H., 29549 Maurer, C., 291, 526224 McDonough, S., 32667 McKechnie, P., 68212 McNeill, W., 39153 McRay, J., 2324, 515100 Mealand, D., 31b, 9014, 68770, 76, 80 Meeks, W., 17051, 20627, 29120, 40325, 49699 Meier, J., 29120, 29225, 3867 Meiggs, R., 51050 Meijer, F., 40326 Meinardus, O., 6708 Melbourne, B., 4535 Melzer-Keller, H., 4754 Menestrina, G., 3528 Menoud, P., 21131, 3748, 5444, 13252, 32012, 413116 Menzies, G., 6228 Merkelbach, R., 51275, 65163, 6936 Metzger, B. M., 27, 314, 3641, 3746, 3852, 57, 40h, 5336, 5666, 65, 6769, 70, 74, 72c, 7623, 7725, 7829, 8043, 81, 8490, 92, 9342, 9451, 9561, 10142, 10623, 24, 11172, 11277, 79, 114e, 1155,

11617, 12218, 21, 12328-29, 12710, 12819, 13363, 13474, 13697, 1416, 14441, 14551, 59, 61, 14773, 14992, 16074, 16394-95, 16615, 16721, 25, 16940, 171e, f, m, 18052, 63, 18286, 186116, 187123, 188138, 191165, 289c, 29114, 18, 293, 29334, 299e, 300v, 30430, 34, 30543, 47, 316, 318a, g, h, 32448, 328f, k, 329v, w, 330hh, 33644, 50, 33877, 34091, 342104, 112, 347e, g., m, 348v, aa, 35013, 35237, 35544, 367bb, cc, ee, 37015, 37349, 37574, 37687, 380129, 382145, 153, 383165, 385f, 399b, c, 400t, x, 40217, 415130, 4755, 48131, 499122, 503f, 504p, 505ee, 523184, 188, 532e, 53517, 54071, 54424, 54533, 56451, 55, 580bb, 591m, 614f, 619h, 620k, 6233, 642l, 643hh, 6446, 658148, 665217, 669h, 68444 Meyer, E., 3011c Meyer, M., 20739, 20842 Meyer, R., 32230 Michael, J., 3497 Michaelis, W., 194189, 24381, 33758, 45263, 46516, 56588, 67551 Michel, H.-J., 515104, 516108 Michel, O., 26839 Mijf, O., 40326 Miles, G., 68385, 67441 Millar, F., 11068, 11174, 20515, 2324, 49480, 59310, 61134, 36, 61345, 62112 Miller, J., 23843, 39153, 392, 62923 Mills, W. E., 25 Minear, P., 15310 Mineshige, K., 29776 Minnen, P. Van, 55545 Mirecki, P., 20739

Mitchell, A., 9125, 656115 Mitchell, S., 3313, 35346, 32011 Mitford, T., 32338 Mitton, C., 522168 Moehring, H., 558j Moessner, D. P., 849, 22138, 23144, 337, 10, 6874, 8384, 68889 Momigliano, A., 1585 Mommsen, T., 413112, 58660, 5921, 593 Montgomery, J., 644 Morgan, J. R., 4324 Morgenthaler, R., 949 Mortley, R., 291 Moule, C. F. D., 22137, 31f, 3424, 415, 6010, 8486, 10626, 11177, 11616, 12333, 13592, 14440, 16181, 182121, 18386, 18493, 185104, 187128, 19932, 20513, 2148, 22558, 2638, 263q, 264yy, 27397, 275119, 279167, 282195, 287243, 30431, 37127, 37456, 417i, 42619, 436110, 45037, 46740, 46953, 47184, 53524, 541f, 58326, 591v, 59850, 59959, 62, 614f, 615l, 623l, m, 642h, 657135, 660166, 67442, 68669 Moulton, J. H., 844 Mount, C., 291 Mowery, R., 3313 Muhlack, G., 849 Müller, P.-G., 10520, 41195 Munck, J., 517111 Murphy, F., 17620 Murphy-O’Connor, J., 30550, 33212, 44714, 17, 45266, 51599 Mussies, G., 840 Mußner, F., 7832 Musurillo, H., 11944, 59739 Myllykoski, M., 1370, 12440, 13589

Nauk, W., 42945, 431-32 Nave, G., 31096 Nelson, E. S., 363138 Nestle, W., 312121 Neudorfer, H.-W., 15750 Neusner, J., 14668, 17092, 286226, 5431 New, S., 4755 Neyrey, J., 25159, 162, 3530, 4323, 6874, 9451, 22562, 32227, 383160, 4254, 43045, 43154, 441147, 156, 520144, 55434, 55547, 5602, 5, 56232, 5727, 5936, 59419, 6264 Niccum, C., 6449 Nickelsburg, G. W., 5340, 18174 Nickle, K., 50826, 50934, 37 Niederwimmer, K., 29225 Nielsen, A., 517111, 115 Nilsson, M. P., 4216, 39040 Nippel, W., 193185, 194189, 49043, 61134 Nobbs, A., 32338, 32445 Nock, A. D., 4216, 499, 5665, 6663, 20739, 21166, 22121, 22236, 233, 23412, 24273, 280171, 32344, 32451, 32559, 32666, 327, 342109, 353, 39040, 39075, 40550, 412109, 426, 43597, 48373 Noorda, S., 8911, 1262 Norden, E., 740, 10512, 10621, 17612, 187126, 39262, 39366-67, 42843, 431, 437112, 438118, 124 Nordheim, E. von, 517111 Norris, F., 29120 Ntumba, V. K., 12932 Nuttall, G., 21910 Obbink, D., 20739 Öhler, M., 12931 Oepke, A., 16185, 27059, 56566 Ollrog, W.-H., 50818; 50937 Olson, M., 655107

Nagy, G., 194189 805

indexes.indd 805

8/27/2008 3:15:56 PM

Omerzu, H., 55545, 58767, 5921, 61234 O’Neill, J. C., 22139, 2138, 67436 Oster, R., 4632, 49256 O’Toole, R. F., 949, 3530, 8381, 12932, 21910, 5936, 60915, 6251 Overbeck, F., 50717, 542 Overman, A., 33212 Pao, D., 31099 Paget, 17724, 192169 Painter, J., 4755, 15853, 24819, 30876, 379117, 54314 Palmer, D. W., 1583 Parker, H., 58328 Parry, D., 30879 Parsons, M., 1478, 1582, 86, 1695, 19112, 25153, 323, 3420-23, 3641, 42, 3747, 4213, 4323, 6221, 9810, 23, 10143, 19717, 2181, 22236, 263m, 27399, 35661, 68, 35780, 436103, 439125, 132-34, 517115 Pattengale, J., 42129 Pease, A. S., 12337, 194189, 35888, 90-91, 48054 Pereira, F. P., 25159, 51820 Pelikan, J., 31096 Penna, A., 68211 Penner, T., 1262, 1468, 1581, 1692, 26, 5665, 11618, 13588, 1512, 1526, 15417, 15855, 16723, 17838, 17945, 18169 Pervo, R., 419, 516, 26, 1264, 68, 1371, 73, 1478, 1582, 86, 1688, 90, 95, 17101, 102, 19112, 23142, 25158, 161, 324, 3420, 3958, 40b, 417, 4213, 4429, 4539, 4644, 5445, 5551, 5666, 6221, 6442, 7090, 7611, 8154, 884, 9012, 16, 9228, 974, 1034, 10737, 10950, 56, 11831, 11943, 1215, 1219, 12440,

13143, 13257, 13369, 136102, 14170, 14213-14, 17, 14330, 14555, 57, 14777, 79, 14990, 93, 15749, 15964, 16068, 16188, 16291, 16396, 1654, 18056, 188137, 192171, 179, 194189, 1968, 1979, 17, 19819, 20159, 21632, 2183, 21910, 22121, 2338, 24387, 2464, 2479, 11, 25428, 25659, 26720, 26834, 26952, 27281, 27399, 275112, 277138, 278146, 147, 282188, 282251, 29223, 29553, 29778, 29881, 30436, 39, 30550, 30768, 312119, 313126, 3177, 32010, 32113, 32450, 33755, 57, 34087, 34289, 107, 35016, 35449, 35661, 62, 68, 35769, 70, 80, 360107-9, 362131, 133, 3687, 36910, 37013, 37231, 38, 379121, 38820, 27, 4013, 40431, 40655, 40983, 86, 41194, 4182, 42019, 42835, 435100, 436103, 438120, 439125, 132-34, 442161, 44718, 44929, 33, 45037, 45598, 456165, 4598, 4648, 46517, 47292, 94, 47611, 48267, 48373, 75, 4852, 4869, 48716, 48820, 48930, 490, 49042, 43, 49591, 499130, 5062, 50713, 51164, 51386, 516105, 517107, 109, 116, 132, 519136, 520142, 521126, 522165, 167, 524195, 198, 524200, 202, 525209, 526214, 221, 5277, 229, 528239, 240, 529252, 530265, 53630, 53738, 54641, 55333, 55652, 55654, 55759, 56336, 38, 39, 56673, 57428, 29, 57648, 58437, 58660, 58769, 70,

58877, 5922, 59417, 59960, 61, 6036, 7, 60414, 60416, 19, 60524, 61234, 6156, 8, 620m, 62111, 6231, 62533, 63373, 63699, 6443, 64512, 13, 16, 64736, 37, 64841, 656115, 67444, 67777, 68554, 55, 68779, 68887, 68890 Pescere, O., 3859 Pesch, R., 496, 86113, 87117, 14640, 14831, 16184, 16718, 23, 18174, 19941, 276132, 42834, 5344 Petersen, N. R., 961 Peterson, D., 22139 Peterson, E., 11948, 29549, 40879 Pfister, F., 26948, 56566 Pherigo, L., 68885 Phillips, T. E., 1478, 13588, 396, 517112 Pichler, J., 34087 Pilhofer, P., 4002 Plümacher, E., 841, 1583, 17100, 26, 291, 8271, 9014, 10844, 11945, 14546, 22119, 32670, 35126, 395, 4242, 529250, 63698 Plunkett, M., 269, 278154 Pohlenz, M., 438120 Poirier, J., 549r Pokorny, P., 22139, 64516 Polhill, J., 10842, 46, 132, 136107, 14990, 35896, 458, 48160, 49041, 51268, 529254, 531, 68439 Portefaix, L., 40987 Porter, S., 543, 54645, 64730 Potter, D., 32559, 35230, 35449, 40545 Poupon, G., 21417 Praeder, S. M., 849, 1054, 393, 39470, 39580, 81, 646, 64739, 648, 65625, 658138, 140, 141, 659150, 660165, 172, 661176, 664210, 6706 Prast, F., 515104 Preisendanz, K., 20842

Preisker, H., 7090 Preuschen, E., 136105 Price, R., 16290-91, 25426, 40326, 42831, 53738 Prieur, J.-M., 9338 Puskas, C., 68883 Quesnell, M., 33431, 64516 Rackham, R., 949, 21131, 9120, 1154, 12440, 12711, 13149, 13477, 13587, 19824, 21167, 2511, 2525, 276130, 280, 312116, 32451, 33432, 33535, 373, 380122, 404, 42022, 42132, 42835, 437111, 47071, 497113, 501150, 50716, 51271, 517114, 519129, 53857, 56230, 56445, 572, 576, 58551, 6252, 3, 63269, 649, 65276, 65391, 65495, 666229, 233, 67656, 68330 Radl, W., 949, 8267, 30879, 30984, 90, 311109, 3317, 5332, 649, 65272, 67117, 67221, 68217 Räisänen, H., 15417 Ramsay, W., 29780, 32010-11, 3313, 347h, 3493, 4, 35230, 361117, 40326, 411, 442161, 461, 465, 49478, 504p, 50713, 51268, 54646, 58217, 60177, 63698, 646, 655, 67327, 32, 67664 Rapske, B., 40656, 40767, 413112, 414, 55327, 28, 55436, 55540, 41, 45, 555, 5681, 58219, 58652, 5921, 59313, 60175, 76, 60634, 61234, 61343, 642i, 64735, 648, 653, 656125, 657128, 136, 658149, 660171, 67010, 67878, 81, 67882, 68327, 68433, 68770, 68994 Read-Heimerdinger, J., 5644

806

indexes.indd 806

8/27/2008 3:15:56 PM

Redditt, P., 22787 Reeder, E., 49154 Reicke, B., 35555, 604207 Reid, B., 16290 Reif, S., 3316 Reimer, A., 20739, 40985, 41093 Reimer, I. Richter, 4754, 13257, 16290, 25323, 25536, 42, 43, 25649, 30662, 3991, 40219, 21, 40326, 40437, 40549, 40650, 58, 60, 537 Reinbold, W., 12931, 15417 Reinmuth, E., 845 Reis, D., 4242, 42939 Reiser, M., 3854 Riesner, R., 15422, 32345 Reitzenstein, R., 3011, 20944, 39152, 40985 Remus, H., 8043 Rengstorf, K., 7828, 15634, 32125, 37453, 62926 Resch, A., 528247 Resch, G., 378108 Rese, M., 7831 Reumann, J., 39366, 39581 Reventlow, H., 45373 Revon, M., 35559 Reynolds, J., 333 Richard, E., 7096, 7725, 16832, 1758, 11, 17835, 18051, 18175, 18283, 18387, 189152, 190161, 190162, 165, 192174, 4184 Riemer, U., 67220 Riesenfeld, H., 279 Rigaux, B., 5444 Rius-Camps, J., 5644, 7620 Robbins, V., 635, 3530, 383157, 39366, 68772 Robert, L., 47617 Roberts, D., 68991 Robinson, J. A. T., 744, 10840 Robinson, J. M., 497, 37349 Rohde, E., 10520, 22123, 25543, 56566, 61729, 65170 Roloff, J., 20125, 496, 607,

72c, 8610, 881, 10844, 11064, 16718, 23, 1752, 176, 19941, 22340, 2523, 10, 32010, 32122, 342105, 35022, 35449, 4185, 53529, 57426, 64733, 659161 Romm, J., 4425, 27 Ronconi, A., 11945 Ropes, J. H., 421, 3641, 3746, 3857, 40e, 6010, 6553, 6660, 6769, 72a, 7622, 7936, 8493, 9345, 9451, 1158, 11949, 12710, 14779, 16075, 16615, 180, 18388, 189151, 191165, 29119, 293, 29663, 299k, 300p, 316b, 32337, 328a, f, 329v, 33765, 33864, 72, 341104, 347g, m, 348t, 35013, 35237, 35554, 361113, 366b, 367m, v, 37340, 37573, 37684, 378105, 39473, 402, 41530, 475f, 5, 48823, 49376, 49592, 498119, 503j, 504p, 50715, 50828, 521162, 527227, 535, 54069, 71, 541k, 54424, 5698, 579a, 58331, 59966, 607a, 61018, 61830, 619h, 620m, 623k, 63482, 642l, 643cc, y, 65392, 656117-19, 68770 Rosner, B., 1581 Rothschild, C., 1479, 1693 Roussel, P., 6923 Rowe, C. K., 19112, 8487 Rudolph, K., 20627, 20730 Russam, D., 324 Sabbe, M., 1952, 19714-15 Sabourin, L., 10520 Saddington, D., 26725, 58331, 58767, 6084, 655107 Saller, R., 26723 Samkutty, V., 2031, 2136 Sanders, E. P., 11068, 34090 Sanders, Jack, 11068, 14664, 30320, 54529, 68110

Sandness, K., 4242 Sasse, H., 43482 Scharlemann, M., 1758 Schenke, H.-M., 15314, 187123-25, 22894, 33982 Schille, G., 1374 Schinkel, D., 4864 Schlier, H., 11618, 54535 Schmid, L., 63156 Schmidt, K. L., 24823, 27, 28, 440146 Schmithals, W., 22141, 12327, 15639, 35125 Schnackenburg, R., 283204, 31097, 525209, 63373, 75, 65044 Schneckenberger, M., 949 Schneider, G., 11, 3, 636, 17101, 21130, 26165, 291, 418, 607, 15, 6657, 756, 8151, 11064, 12334, 12710, 136106, 14329, 15526, 32, 16718, 23, 16832, 191165, 192178, 19941, 2037, 21056, 22236, 22342, 2527, 276132, 279157, 286233, 2901, 33426, 33540, 35020, 37682, 379115, 39155, 415129, 49041, 497116, 51385, 54648, 58331, 59855, 63596, 64733, 657130, 664207 Schneider, J., 22236 Schoedel, W., 16614, 24829, 37123, 49264, 524194, 53630 Schniewind, J., 18389 Schotroff, L., 40326 Schreiber, S., 2181 Schrenk, W., 456106 Schubert, P., 42945 Schulte, C., 497115 Schürer, E., 11174-75, 1151, 14779, 1963, 20515, 22447, 26725, 3315, 4468, 4649, 58767, 68, 6083, 61345, 6159, 68211 Schürmann, H., 515104 Schwabe, M., 318j

Schwartz, D., 30321, 313 Schwartz, E., 88, 12926, 27, 29669, 39473 Schwartz, S., 13588, 17048, 30544, 412109, 42835, 45488, 55655, 59415, 6201, 6262 Schweizer, E., 10842, 310102, 521161 Scott, J. M., 20125, 4425, 6662, 6774, 6874, 77, 80 Scott, K., 27399 Schraeder, H., 8048 Schreckenberg, H., 32346 Schröter, J., 12 Schwemer, A. M., 845, 17620, 2467 Seaford, R., 41091, 411101 Sedley, D., 4254 Seeley, D., 23146 Segal, A., 20739, 3687, 37126 Segal, P., 5505 Seesemann, H., 92, 30883 Seim, T. K., 4754, 16290, 53738 Seland, T., 15417, 194, 1968 Selinger, R., 4864, 9, 49049, 49151, 54, 49478, 49594, 496107, 497 Selwyn, E., 311104, 526218 Setzer, C., 44932 Seul, P., 64739 Sevenster, J., 55332 Shakespeare, W., 464, 538 Sharp, D., 35018 Shauf, S., 20739, 4198, 4632, 4645, 46846, 49, 47061, 67, 47069, 74, 47287, 91, 94, 47398, 475e, 6, 4768, 47719, 478, 47945, 480, 48272, 4863, 48926, 49476, 496101, 497103, 115, 497117, 500, 516104, 518118 Sheeley, S., 39262 Shepherd, W., 23147 Sherk, R., 380123, 5683 Sherwin-White, A., 40764, 42178, 44934, 450, 49154 807

indexes.indd 807

8/27/2008 3:15:57 PM

Sherwin-White (continued) 497115, 5683, 56910, 5711, 586, 5921, 59313, 59738, 60069, 61134, 35, 61342, 637120, 655106, 67881 Siegert, F., 33212 Silberman, L., 67436 Simon, M., 176, 17724, 17948, 189143, 193183, 57649 Six, K., 378108 Skinner, M., 5125, 522143, 55327, 28, 55650, 61237, 660167, 175, 665 Slingerland, D., 38825, 4452, 4466, 9, 44715, 16, 45487 Smallwood, M., 1968, 33318, 44612, 55440, 58767, 6083, 68211 Smid, H., 39470 Smith, Abraham, 1656, 2181, 2196 Smith, David E., 12 Smith, J., 642u, 64735, 659151, 663203 Smith, M., 11945 Smith, R., 20842 Smith, W., 690 Smyth, H., 12225, 18493, 423e, 438121, 591v Snowden, F., 22120 Soards, M., 744, 759, 1034, 1048, 105, 1165, 179, 335, 35667, 37239, 42945, 43261, 49367, 499125, 518118, 54532, 59847, 61129, 6264, 6278, 64734, 68215 Söder, R., 4324, 27399, 39474, 49053, 661182, 67436 Sokolowski, F., 49256 Solin, H., 33212 Spencer, F. S., 13369, 16291, 2181, 2, 21910, 22013, 16, 22233, 35, 223, 22566, 67, 22896, 25540, 40326, 40550, 45266, 47064, 51164, 58216

Spencer, P. E., 19112 Spicq, C., 8485, 1168, 13140, 16177, 18060, 24275, 26839, 29445, 29549, 29775, 31095, 32230, 343123, 381142, 40763, 40877, 417g, 42724, 436108, 439132, 471179, 53631, 56334, 56558, 63372, 65055, 68770 Spiro, A., 1758 Squires, J. T., 24154, 4214, 5222, 14546, 14666, 17045, 190154, 33873, 39037, 424n, 4254, 440146, 48271, 521151, 523183 Stählin, G., 39043, 57314, 15, 591e Stark, R., 87, 29120 Steck, H., 19277, 23628 Stegemann, W., 55543, 44, 45, 61134 Steinmann, A., 9123 Stemberger, G., 56338 Stenschke, C., 42945, 43151, 43374, 77, 43488, 435101, 337116 Stempvoort, P., 3642 Stephens, S., 658139 Stepp, P., 527226 Sterling, G. E., 15, 16, 291, 3310, 86107, 899-10, 9017, 9124, 17051, 178, 18496, 22228 Stern, M., 284214, 4465, 7, 520139 Steyn, G., 33984 Stol, M., 18951 Stolz, F., 64948 Stoneman, R., 4431, 39473 Stoops, R., 20627, 32562, 48934, 490, 49372, 496104, 107, 498107, 500132 Strahan, J., 35558, 42129 Stramaglia, A., 3859, 23844 Strange, W. A., 314, 420, 31f, 10142, 15743, 15959, 217m, 22893, 264xx, 285218, 29334, 347g, 37015, 37687, 377,

378104-5, 107, 384174, 417a, 4755 Strathmann, H., 32230, 37345 Strelan, R., 58h, 47296 Strobel, A., 636, 30879 Stroker, W., 528247 Strom, M., 312114 Stumpff, A., 1418 Suhl, A., 67551 Sullivan, J. P., 22236 Sullivan, R., 6159 Swanson, R., 45376, 523177, 657135 Szenat, H., 45266 Tajra, H., 55436, 55544, 5921, 61234, 67881, 68770 Talbert, C. H., 949, 10, 1694-95, 20122, 21131, 2583, 3418, 3748, 4541, 496, 7, 9, 86, 962, 986, 10410, 10511, 19715, 19941, 21526, 22125, 22262, 22339, 22557, 2312, 23310, 11, 23414, 23628, 2511, 277142, 2901, 313122, 32342, 33985, 341101, 35449, 37122, 40983, 42025, 42940, 43266, 458, 46739, 475, 49150, 513, 51492, 516104, 518120, 527226, 5437, 556, 56116,5936, 626, 64513, 17, 18, 648, 64945, 46, 65280, 65383, 87, 65389, 65497, 660169, 67772, 68215, 69018 Tannehill, R., 20, 3312, 499, 741, 8414, 8911, 986-7, 9918, 11720, 13250, 14883, 14997, 175, 17840, 190156, 193182, 22936, 30319, 30879, 37563, 75, 379, 39477, 395, 39687, 414127, 41917, 43266, 45485, 45596, 47059, 63, 73, 47837, 48267, 497100, 5061, 50716, 510143, 145, 51157, 51378, 521143,

530264, 55110, 5722, 5817, 59963, 60420, 60525, 612, 616, 6263, 63260, 63824, 64732, 64946, 65384, 65497, 67223, 67327, 68116, 68662, 68991 Tannenbaum, R., 33212, 33319, 22 Taubenschlag, R., 5711 Taussig, H., 3687 Taylor, Justin, 6781, 32011, 32445, 3313, 348s, 3494, 35553, 361115, 37688, 399c, 42021, 4241, 42724, 43377 Taylor, L. R., 49596 Tcherikover, V., 57317 Theissen, G., 52, 5561, 9228, 11948, 13039, 22669, 80, 254, 29224, 313129, 51160, 65280, 661182 Thiessen, W., 46739, 46958 Thomas, C., 4643, 49258, 60 Thomas, D., 40326 Thornton, C.-J., 39364, 67, 64730, 656116 Thurston, B., 16291 Thyen, H., 176 Tiede, D. L., 24156 Tischendorf, C., 292 Togovnick, M., 68991 Tolbert, M., 20155, 2181 Torrey, C. C., 8165 Tosco, L., 5333 Townsend, J., 23446, 378108, 43380 Toynbee, J. C., 25543 Tracey, R., 381134 Trebilco, P., 3313, 33212, 33315, 20, 40550, 4632, 4649, 46516, 46735, 46948, 58, 47187, 47296, 47613, 47941, 48054, 49154, 49257-59, 49375, 49589, 497115, 498117, 50943, 51493, 515104, 520145, 524196, 6938 Trell, B., 49255, 58

808

indexes.indd 808

8/27/2008 3:15:57 PM

Trémel, B., 51385 Trenkner, S., 2478 Trevelyan, G., 665218 Trocmé. E., 48, 220, 234, 68885 Troeltsch, E., 9123 Trompf, G., 65385, 67441, 690103 Trotta, F., 38936 Turner, M., 23147, 6446, 2138, 24495, 2654, 277133, 281187, 282189, 47062, 68544 Turner, N., 48160 Tuckett, C., 316 Turner, M., 23147, 64146, 10842 Turner, N., 810, 41 Tyson, J., 20120, 327, 1539, 15311, 15417, 15746, 15960, 2654, 286227, 33424, 30, 341100, 3687, 37681, 5343, 55117, 6819 Vanderkamm, J., 6113, 15 Van der Horst, P., 6228, 9923, 114c, 12337, 136105, 43377 Van de Sandt, H., 190155 Van Unnik, C., 1798, 2181, 40767, 562 Veltman, F., 5605, 59419 Versnel, H., 30992 Veyne, P., 280171 Vielhauer, P., 34087, 359101, 440, 44823 Völkl, I., 4425 Von Wahlde, U., 12216 Wagner, G., 26 Wahlen, C., 26613 Walaskay, P., 9810 Walker, W., 37230, 38827 Wallinga, H., 656125 Wallis, W., 498117 Wall, R., 30213, 30878, 30990 Walter, N., 15417, 15532 Walton, S., 516104, 517111, 113, 518118,

519132, 135, 522163, 523188, 525208, 526218, 225, 527229, 528245, 531270 Wander, B., 33212 Wanke, J., 15420, 5063 Warnecke, H., 6709 Watson, D., 515104, 518122 Weaver, J., 974, 10520, 12440, 14217, 14321, 24, 14325, 26; 14883, 3001, 7, 30320, 30437, 30990, 92, 312117, 3161, 35559, 38936, 40980, 83, 87, 41088, 89, 90-92, 570p Wedderburn, A. J. M., 148, 607, 393 Wehnert, J., 39362, 64, 64730 Wehrli, F., 65170 Weinfeld, M., 9235 Weinreich, O., 24272, 40983 Weinstock, S., 6774 Weiser, A., 21130, 325, 3418, 4537, 496, 5330, 607, 6115, 9815, 1033, 1216, 12222, 13254, 13587, 14329, 17731, 17944, 2032, 6, 2182, 2199, 23527, 23949, 2524, 6, 10, 25318, 25432, 25763, 2654, 26613, 29110, 18, 29330, 3012, 3195, 32119-20, 32236, 41, 32243, 33652, 35020, 35125, 28, 35236, 35449, 361122, 37235, 37682, 379114, 381137, 38826, 38935, 39153, 39262, 39368, 4014, 5, 7, 40769, 41195, 413116, 415134, 4185, 421130-31, 42611, 42944, 43264, 436108, 437116, 439131, 44936, 46024, 46845, 46954, 47070, 47614, 488, 48937, 49041, 50935, 51379, 85, 515101, 517112, 522175, 524210, 529252, 530205, 5346, 53963, 54071, 5507, 55115, 5591, 56446, 57426, 5801, 591v, 59312,

600, 609, 61346, 6279, 64516, 64732, 39, 653, 664207, 67768, 6811, 68326 Weiser, Artur, 6251 Wellhausen, J., 3317, 48821, 51498, 609, 64731 Wells, 380122 Wendel, U., 899 Wendland, P., 3011, 58436, 64731 Wendt, H., 3497 Weren, W., 4851 Westcott, B., 122, 498121 Westermann, A., 576 Westermann, C., 32672 White, J., 46022, 58436 White, L. M., 498117, 6923 White, R., 6949 Wiens, D., 1756 Wiest, S., 15417 Wikenhauser, A., 291, 22450, 23844, 24381, 314140, 32449, 35555, 39153, 40543, 43377, 49485, 498117, 54422 Wilamowitz, U., 3011 Wilckens, U., 744, 1033, 105, 12222, 27628, 33534, 35997, 43260 Wilcox, M., 7621, 14549, 33212 Wild, R., 68777 Wilken, R., 29120 Williams, C. S. C., 312110, 6154, 649 Williams, M. H., 4653, 5553, 1157, 12926, 13257, 15526, 27, 30, 25316, 25541, 29554, 30651, 57, 32227, 380126 Wills, L., 1539, 2183, 274103 Wilson, R. McL., 20627 Wilson, S. G., 10844, 16072, 16944, 37690, 37793, 94, 99, 378104, 106, 111, 382153, 54428, 54529, 34, 54642, 5723 Windisch, H., 234, 43488, 59997

Wineland, J., 361115, 655108 Winkler, J., 65165, 658139 Winston, D., 437114, 68881 Winter, B., 29666, 69, 297, 35555, 42945, 442157, 5921, 59313, 59415, 59633, 59747 Wiseman, J., 44717 Witherington, B., 1480, 12113, 12439, 13252, 13365, 13475, 77, 13696, 15417, 15525, 16882, 1759, 17839, 190156, 19941, 24057, 25654, 276132, 277140, 284209, 285222, 300p, 3165, 32011, 32227, 33211, 33533, 34087, 3497, 35013, 35341, 35449, 36910, 12, 37237, 37564, 37684, 38825, 39262, 39364, 415129, 4197, 42026, 43263, 45265, 456107, 458, 46025, 46848, 47398, 47431, 47538, 48157, 48376, 48717, 49039, 50831, 51498, 518125, 520140, 522173, 529253, 5426, 55114, 560, 57649, 58644, 5917, 612, 6154, 621, 6264, 5, 62933, 637120, 653, 656125, 661176, 666225, 67551, 67771, 72, 67881, 68215, 68321, 68432, 38, 68775, 68994 Wolff, C., 6334 Wolter, M., 22136, 46739, 58767 Wood, I., 48265 Wordelman, A., 35345, 354 Wycherley, R., 42618 Yamauchi, M., 50943 Youtie, H., 40445 Zahn, T., 420, 739, 291, 32347, 361118, 37798, 452, 60177 809

indexes.indd 809

8/27/2008 3:15:57 PM

Zehnle, R., 744, 7621, 8264, 1033, 109, 11062 Zeller, E., 25431, 41194 Ziegler, J., 7621 Zimmerli, W., 16510 Zingg, P., 29445 Zmijewski, J., 2654

Zuntz, G., 419, 503f, 504p De Zwaan, J., 212 Zweck, D., 432 Zwiep, A., 3641, 4538, 41, 4644, 5244

810

indexes.indd 810

8/27/2008 3:15:57 PM

Index02:luz6.qxd

8/27/2008

2:51 PM

Page 811

Designer’s Notes

In the design of the visual aspects of Hermeneia, consideration has been given to relating the form to the content by symbolic means. The letters of the logotype Hermeneia are a fusion of forms alluding simultaneously to the letter forms of Hebrew (dotted vowel markings) and Greek (geometric round shapes). In their modern treatment they remind us of the electronic age, the vantage point from which this investigation of the past begins. The Lion of Judah used as visual identification for the series is based on the Seal of Shema. The version for Hermeneia is again a fusion of Hebrew calligraphic forms, especially the legs of the lion, and Greek elements characterized by the geometric. In the sequence of arcs, which can be understood as scroll-like images, the first is the lion’s mouth. It is reasserted and accelerated in the whorl and returns in the aggressively arched tail: tradition is passed from one age to the next, rediscovered and re-formed. “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals. . . .” Then one of the elders said to me “weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of David, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” Rev. 5:2, 5 To celebrate the signal achievement in biblical scholarship which Hermeneia represents, the entire series by its color will constitute a signal on the theologian’s bookshelf: the Old Testament will be bound in yellow and the New Testament in red, traceable to a commonly used color coding for synagogue and church in medieval painting; in pure color terms, varying degrees of intensity of the warm segment of the color spectrum. The colors interpenetrate when the binding color for the Old Testament is used to imprint volumes from the New and vice versa. Wherever possible, a photograph of the oldest extant manuscript, or a historically significant document pertaining to the biblical sources, will be displayed on the end papers of each volume to give a feel for the tangible reality and beauty of the source material. The title-page motifs are expressive derivations from the Hermeneia logotype, repeated seven times to form a matrix and debossed on the cover of each volume. These sifted-out elements are in their exact positions within the parent matrix.

The type has been set with unjustified right margins to preserve the internal consistency of word spacing. This is a major factor in both legibility and aesthetic quality; the resultant uneven line endings are only slight impairments to legibility by comparison. In this respect the type resembles the handwritten manuscripts where the quality of the calligraphic writing is dependent on establishing and holding to integral spacing patterns. All of the type faces in common use today have been designed between 1500 C.E. and the present. For the biblical text a face was chosen which does not date the text arbitrarily, but rather is uncompromisingly modern and unembellished, giving it a universal feel. The type style is Univers by Adrian Frutiger. The expository texts and footnotes are set in Baskerville, chosen for its compatibility with the many brief Greek and Hebrew insertions. The double-column format and the shorter line length facilitate speed reading and the wide margins to the left of footnotes provide for the scholar’s own notations. Kenneth Hiebert

811

Index02:luz6.qxd

8/27/2008

2:51 PM

Page 812

Category of biblical writing, key symbolic characteristic, and volumes so identified. 1 Law (boundaries described) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

5 New Testament Narrative (focus on One) Matthew Mark Luke John Acts

2 History (trek through time and space) Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther

6 Epistles (directed instruction) Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

3 Poetry (lyric emotional expression) Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs 4 Prophets (inspired seers) Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

812

7 Apocalypse (vision of the future) Revelation 8 Extracanonical Writings (peripheral records)