Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
In the introductory essay to a collection of studies on Luke-Acts published in 1966, W. C. van Unnik says that the twovolume work has become “one of the great storm centers of New Testament scholarship.” Old questions are being raised afresh and old answers face fresh review. Among the old questions is that of the sources used by Luke in the writing of Acts. However, the only study of recent vintage referred to by van Unnik is that by Jacques Dupont, The Sources of the Acts (1964). There are no essays in the Keck-Martyn volume itself which deal specifically with the question. Without disputing the importance of other questions (text, style, and especially theology), the sparse attention given of late to source-criticism of the speeches of Acts is not entirely felicitous. One essay does treat the speeches (Eduard Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” 208-16), but only those in the first seventeen chapters and only in terms of their structural identity. Schweizer's opening remark is interesting: “Ever since Martin Dibelius' essay about this subject, it has been more and more widely recognized that the speeches are basically compositions by the author of Acts who, to be sure, utilized different kinds of materials for particular passages” (208). The question of the sources of the speeches is a difficult one, and any suggested answers are, at best, tenuous. It is however the premise of this essay that further work in the area is warranted, possible, and of contributory value to the rest of Lucan scholarship, a conclusion drawn from an analysis of two of Paul's speeches in Acts: his address to the mob of Jerusalemites (22:1-21) and his Abschiedsrede or parting address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:18-35).
1 “Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Keck, Leander F. and Martyn, J. Louis, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 16.Google Scholar
2 An example of inflated conclusions may be seen in Soltau, W., “Die Herkunft der Reden in der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 4 (1903) 128–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 So Bauernfeind, Otto, Apostelgeschichte (THNT 5; Leipzig: Deichert, 1939) 251.Google ScholarHaenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 628Google Scholar, follows Dibelius, Martin, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press, 1956) 159Google Scholar, who explains the phenomenon by reference to analogous speeches recorded in the histories of antiquity in which the situation involving the address has no point of contact in the speech itself. His evidence is Cassius Dio 38:36–46: Caesar's speech to his soldiers, and a reference to H. Peter, Die geschichtliche Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I. und ihre Quellen (1897) 2.301. The book by Peter is not available for this study, but a reading of Cassius Dio does not confirm Dibelius’ use of it as an example. In 38:35 Caesar's troops are on the verge of mutinous rebellion 1) because of the quantity and quality of the opposing German forces; 2) because the war seems pointless beyond Caesar's personal ambition. In the following verses, Caesar summons lieutenants, thinking it better to avoid a discussion with the rank and file. He assures his officers that they are engaged in the war in order properly to manage the affairs of the Empire and to honor treaties with other peoples. Thus he hopes to encourage them to provide a good example to their men, to maintain unity and support for the undertaking. Dibelus offers no other evidence.
4 The same observation may be made to Paul's sermon in Pisidian Antioch (13:14b-43), where the content of the address appears to have determined the request of the synagogue leaders. In that case, the note of the reading of the law and the prophets is more than an echo of typical synagogue services.
5 sActs, 288–89.
6 See Haenchen, Acts, 624, n. 5, for a summary of the research by van Unnik, W. C., Tarsus or Jerusalem (London: 1962).Google Scholar The words γέννησις, τροϕή and παιδεία, or the corresponding verbs, indicate a “fixed biographical outline.”
7 For instances where καθώς is inclusive of more than one element of a preceding series of elements, cf. Lk 1:68–69; possibly Lk l:51–55(Micah 7:19–20); Mark 16:7; 1 Thes 2:2. These references are not intended to be conclusive but rather to indicate the possibility.
8 Haenchen, Acts, 624, n. 1, observes: “But for Luke such points of content are not the only decisive factors.” He thinks it better to see the appellation as directed to younger and older members of the audience, reading exclusively from the present context, even though he acknowledges that “the speech does not seem to fit the framework in which it is placed” (628). The description of the mob as πατέρες is not seen to be much of a difficulty. The two facets of the appellation taken together, however, make their use more difficult than Haenchen recognizes, even though he does note that πατέρες does not refer to the Sanhedrin (see immediately below).
9 “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Keck and Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts, 208–16.
10 See the article by W. Michaelis, “Ὁδός,” ThWb 5, 93–95.
11 Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 77 and 139, n. 7 (to 1:3). The use of καί following the relative is typically, but not exclusively, Lucan style (cf. Acts, 140, n. 8).
12 Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1963) 126 (hereafter cited Apg.). See the arguments by Günther Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel. Ursprung und Gestah einer Idee (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961) 152–55, who, in opposition to Dibelius and others, argues from another perspective: Ananias’ role in Paul's call is mediated by retrograding the call to direct contact with Christ (152). Further, the Temple-vision gives emphasis more to the “where” than to the “what” of that call, in consonance with Luke's thought on Jerusalem. With these arguments Klein is unable to arrive at a decisive understanding of the interpretation the Jews gave Paul's words, but is able himself to interpret them (note also his criticism of Dibelius and Conzelmann, 153, n. 738). Klein goes on (158–59) to stress the unity of the three conversion reports in the Lucan concept. Each of them performs a task in the mediation of the apostolic office to Paul, first by a man (ch. 9), in a place (ch. 22), and at a time (ch. 26). Dibelius, Studies, 160, notes that the conversion report in ch. 9 is given in “concise form” and that the report in ch. 22 offers, in its introductory statements, the information missing in ch. 9. The larger issue of the reports’ relation to each other cannot be dealt with in this study.
13 Cf. Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 154; Conzelmann, Apg., 126–27.
14 Vs. 20 is the exception. It is discussed immediately below.
15 Conzelmann, Apg., 127, interprets the verse as Luke's effort to depict the continuity between the earliest community in Jerusalem and the contemporary Church. The verse may, however, be more closely akin to the summaries found earlier in Acts, which appear to be Lucan in origin (cf. Dibelius, Studies, 9–10).
16 Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 626.
17 Studies, 160–61. The pertinent speeches are those made by Stephen, Demetrius in Ephesus, Paul in Athens and again in Caesarea before Agrippa, the sermon of Peter after the healing of the man at Solomon's Portico, Peter's speech at the house of Cornelius, and finally Paul's statement to the Sanhedrin following his arrest. Cf. also Haenchen, Acts, 628; Conzelmann, Apg., 127.
18 In this connection, the statement by Paul in 23:6 is immaterial to the present study.
19 Luke reports a similar vision in 23:11: Paul must witness to Christ in Rome as he has in Jerusalem (cf. 19:21; 27:24).
20 In contrast to metaphysical distance (e.g., Acts 17:27: God is not μακράν from each of us) or figuratively (e.g., Mark 12:23).
21 Cf. also ἐν τῆ πόλει ταύτῃ (vs. 3). N.B. the lack of names (Tarsus, Damascus, Jerusalem, etc.) mentioned in such a way as to indicate any one of them as the setting for Paul's speech! That is settled entirely from the context!
22 Dibelius, Studies, 198.
23 Cf. Dibelius, Studies, 5–6, 196–201. Haenchen, Acts, 586 (following Dibelius, Studies, 17–18), identifies the miracle story in 20:7–12 as a Lucan insert into the “itinerary”; so also Bultmann, Rudolf, “Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte,” in Dinkier, Erich (ed.), Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1967) 420.Google Scholar See also Cadbury, Henry J., “‘We’ and ‘I’ Passages in Luke-Acts,” NTS 3 (1956–1957) 128–32.Google Scholar
24 Conzelmann, Apg., 116, reckons the time required for summoning the elders and their arrival in Miletus to be five days. His interpretation, that Luke was unwilling or unable to narrate Paul's return to Ephesus, is not convincing.
25 Cf. Ernst Haenchen, “Apostelgeschichte,” RGG 1, 503: Acts 20:34 and 18:3 are two of the “realistischen Züge, die viel zur Lebendigkeit des Buches beitragen” and derive “meist aus der Tradition.” According to Haenchen, Luke himself is not much interested in realism in his presentation.
26 Cf. Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, tr. and ed. by Funk, Robert W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) §428, 5.Google Scholar
27 The πίσκοπος is described in Georgi, Dieter, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, (WMANT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964) 31–38 (esp. 35–38).Google Scholar
28 Cf. Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon, new edition rev. by Jones, H. S. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940)Google Scholar 1895 (s.v. ὑποστέλλω).
29 See the discussion on suffering by Bornkamm, Günther, “Sohnschaft und Leiden,” in Judentum-Urchristenium-Kirche. Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960) 188–98.Google Scholar Bornkamm notes that early Christian literature reflects the understanding of suffering found in Jewish Wisdom traditions. Suffering is divine chastisement or correction, but also education or training toward a definite goal. Though Bornkamm restricts his study to Heb 12:5–11, it would be helpful to view this aspect of Paul's speech in that light. Cf. Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faber and Faber, 1960) 98–99Google Scholar; Apg., 117.
30 This “difference” is a Lucan contribution based on his theologumena, not integral to the speech. Cf. the discussion by Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 180–84.
31 To λύκος in the New Testament, see Günther Bornkamm, Th WNT4, 311–32
32 Cf. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 151–54, for Luke's use of the term βουλή.
33 Luke's singular use of ὑποστέλλεσθαι in vs. 20 may have been suggested by its occurrence in vs. 27, that is by his effort to draw a parallel between the elders and Paul. However, despite the fact that both instances are followed by τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι, they are quite distinct in significance. In vs. 27 the verb is part of a unit (vss. 25–35) which is typical style for an Abschiedsrede, e.g., T Simeon 6:7; T Levi 10:2.
34 To the latter motif, cf. Haenchen, Acts, 596; Conzelmann, Apg., 117.
35 So Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 180–84.
36 This is the only place where Luke combines πρεσβύτεροι and πίσκοποι (G. Bornkamm, Th IVNTb, 665). The combination here is explained by Bornkamm and also by von Campenhausen, Hans Freiherr, Kirchliches Ami und geistliche Vollmachi (BHT 14, 2d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1963) 88Google Scholar, as the blending together of two traditions into one sense: the use of πίσκοποι from the realm of the Pauline mission and Luke's own understanding of πρεσβύτεροι. However, the latter term had become a well-defined office by the time Luke composed Acts, an office which might well include a teaching function but is quite distinct from πίσκοποι, which is a specifically missionary term containing the concept of a proclamatory function (see above, n. 27).
37 Cf. H. Schulze, “Die Unterlagen für die Abschiedsrede zu Milet in Apg., 20:18–35,” ThStKli (1900) 119ff.; Dibelius, Studies, 199; Haenchen, Acts, 590–98. See also Berger, K., “Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz (Me 10:5),” ZN W 61 (1970) 22–23Google Scholar on the genre “testament.”
38 Dibelius, Studies, 155, 157: vss. 28–31 contain the testament.
39 Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 178 (see n. 842 there for literature).
40 The structure of the speech may be viewed from the perspective of content (Dibelius, Studies, 156–57 and Conzelmann, Apg., 117 — four sections: vss. 18–21; 22–27; 28–31; 32–34) or of the more formal aspects (Haenchen, Acts, 590–98; note also the discussion by Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 179–84). To make this an absolute distinction is petitio principii, for Paul's address to the elders manifests a clear outline of content which has been carefully lodged into obvious time categories.
41 T Asher. Yet even here, in 5:4, the patriarch recounts something of his life: “All these things (sic. which have been told his sons) I proved in my life, and I wandered not from the truth of the Lord, and I searched out the commandments of the Most High, walking according to all my strength with singleness of face unto that which is good.”
42 See Käsemann, Ernst, The Testament of Jesus. A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968) 4.Google Scholar
43 Cf. Dibelius, Studies, 155.
44 Cf. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 151–52.
45 Apg., 118.
46 Cf. E. Schweizer, ThWNT 6, 406, n. 491. Luke generally reflects this understanding, but it is extraordinary as expressed here.
47 Luke obviously understands the phrase to mean Paul is sent to the Gentiles, but there is a possibility that his source intended the more general meaning of the nations.
48 Cf., for example, Conzelmann, Apg., to 20:35!
49 The existence of Sanhedrins outside of Jerusalem is certain. It may be that Luke's notion is of a Sanhedrin exclusively in Jerusalem, and this notion contributes to his wish to locate the first section of the speech in Jerusalem.
50 In Luke's application of the address within the scope of his writing, the Gnostics are probably thought to be the opponents of the true tradition. For Conzelmann, Apg., 117 (to 20:20), they are apparently Gnostics representing a tradition of esoteric teachings which are traced back to Paul.
