Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts issue 2002

The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2002 Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts Luke Timothy Johnson Libra...

Author: Luke Timothy Johnson

38 downloads 471 Views 264KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2002

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

Luke Timothy Johnson

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Johnson, Luke Timothy. Septuagintal midrash in the speeches of Acts / Luke Timothy Johnson. p. cm. — (The Père Marquette lecture in theology ; 2002) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87462-582-3 (alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. Acts—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. Acts—Theology. 3. Midrash I. Title. II. Series. BS2625.2 .J625 2002 226.6'066—dc21 2002001924

© 2002 Marquette University Press Milwaukee WI 53201-3141 All rights reserved.

Manufactured in the United States of America Member, Association of American University Presses

Foreword The annual Père Marquette Lecture in Theology commemorates the missions and explorations of Père Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002 lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969 under the auspices of the Marquette University Department of Theology. The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fund has endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (18941986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking and paper industry executive and a long-term supporter of education. The fund was established by his children as a memorial to him.

Luke Timothy Johnson A native of Park Falls has returned to the state of his birth to give our Père Marquette Lecture for 2002. Professor Johnson has come to us from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, where he is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins. He has built his distinguished career on the effort to interpret the Bible as a living resource given by God to the Church, an effort that has borne an amazingly rich and varied harvest of reflection on the New Testament and the origins of the Christian movement. In 1966, Professor Johnson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana. He went on to earn

iv


his Masters of Divinity from Indiana’s St. Meinrad School of Theology in 1970 and, in the same year, his Masters of Arts in religious studies from Indiana University. Six years later, Yale University awarded Professor Johnson his Ph.D. in New Testament, after he had completed a now published and influential dissertation entitled The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. In the meantime, he had already begun his teaching career, having lectured at St. Meinrad during his last year of study there, the next year at St. Joseph Seminary College, and at Gonzaga College in the summer of 1973. Upon finishing his degree at Yale Divinity, Professor Johnson became an assistant and then associate professor there. In 1982, he moved to Indiana University, where he became a full professor in 1988. Since 1992, he has occupied his current chair at Emory. Along the way, many have recognized and rewarded Professor Johnson’s scholarship and teaching. The Lilly Endowment awarded him three research grants in the mid 1980s, allowing him to pursue his work on the contemporary use of the New Testament. Phi Beta Kappa selected Professor Johnson as a visiting scholar for 1997-98, and last year he was a Henry Luce III Fellow in Theology. His two-year term as Senior Fellow of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Religion at Emory will expire in 2003. Over the years, Professor Johnson has received awards for his distinguished teaching from the students and administration of Indiana University, from the National University Continuing Education Association, and twice each from the


v

Candler School of Theology and Phi Beta Kappa’s Emory Chapter. In 1999, Marquette’s neighbors at Nashota House awarded him the Doctor of Divinity honoris causa. The word prolific hardly does justice to Professor Johnson’s scholarly output. Since 1969, he has authored twenty books (including The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation, co-authored with Marquette’s own William Kurz, S.J., and soon to be published by Eerdmans). He has written thirty-one scholarly articles and twenty-five encyclopedia articles, and reviewed 150 books. His work as editor of Teaching Religion to Undergraduates: Some Approaches and Ideas from Teachers to Teachers (1973) bore witness early on to what would prove an enduring interest in pedagogy. But the scholarly community knows Professor Johnson best for his exegetical works on the New Testament. Since 1991, he has published two commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and one each on James, Romans, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. He saw the Korean translation of his preaching guide to the Pastoral Epistles come out in 1999. These works developed as the natural fruit of reflections represented by many articles and book reviews Professor Johnson has been writing on the exegesis of these parts of the New Testament since the early seventies. But because his intellect can not find complete satisfaction in the necessarily narrow focus of the commentary form, he has since the early eighties consistently produced works of New Testament exegesis with what one might call a wide-angle lens.

vi


The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation came out in American and English editions in 1986, was revised twelve years later, and came out in Korean in 2000. Professor Johnson has written articles on the authority and literary diversity of the New Testament books, as well as on the New Testament concepts of God, salvation, witness, and proselytism and on the anti-Jewish rhetoric in the New Testament. He wrote ‘Imagining the World Scripture Imagines,’ a 1998 article in Modern Theology which L. G. Jones and J. J. Buckley also included in their volume Theology and Scriptural Imagination, published that same year. Professor Johnson’s article on the status of the Jewish Bible after the Holocaust will appear in the forthcoming Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Since 1995, this interest in the larger issues of New Testament interpretation has led Professor Johnson to participate in the heated public controversy over the respective roles of historical inquiry and of the Church’s faith in learning who Jesus really was and what he really said and did. He has presented his positions to the literate general public in Bible Review, Commonweal, The Christian Century, and other such organs. At the same time, he has developed his scholarly case in articles and books, most notably The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (1996) and Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospels (1998). Forthcoming articles and a book will testify to his continuing interest in the way various methods of interpretation can contribute to the renewal of biblical scholarship.


vii

His hope for that renewal comes from a deep motivation visible to anyone who reviews Professor Johnson’s energetic and fruitful career. Since 1977, he has spoken to church congregations, bishops’ meetings, and academic gatherings in at least twentyeight states and the District of Columbia, in Bangkok, Winnipeg, in Windsor, Ontario, in Dublin and Oxford. His scholarship, as well as popular articles and lectures and his encyclopedia contributions, have all focused on making available to today’s readers the Bible’s spiritual power to move and guide people toward the God of Jesus Christ. Marquette University’s Department of Theology is confident that Professor Johnson’s reflections will help those who hear or read them to give greater honor and glory to that same God. Joseph G. Mueller, S.J. Feast of the Annunciation

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts The longest and literarily most self-conscious of early Christian compositions is the two-volume work made up of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, now universally known as Luke-Acts.1 It takes up a full quarter of the New Testament canon, and represents Christianity’s deliberate entry into the literary discourse of the Hellenistic world. Although some scholars still argue for the separation of the two volumes,2 most correctly consider them not only the work of the same author but two interrelated parts of a single literary endeavor. The full consequences of that judgment for interpretation, however, are less seldom realized.3 The importance of Luke-Acts for anyone wishing to come to grips with the most successful of Jewish heresies ought to be obvious. Luke has provided the only narrative framework for the earliest stages of the Christian movement, a narrative that in its odd combination of verifiable information and fictional shaping resists easy reduction to any single genre from antiquity. A claim can reasonably be made that the second volume resembles a Hellenistic novel, though the same can scarcely be said of the Gospel.4 An argument can also be mounted that the two

2


volumes together approximate certain forms of Hellenistic biography, the sort that tells of a philosophical founder (Jesus) and his school (the apostles), though that definition leaves out of account the two most important characters in the narrative, God and Israel.5 The best case can be made that Luke-Acts is a form of apologetic history in which God’s fidelity to Israel is defended and demonstrated through the course of a narrative which with great purposefulness tells events “in sequence” (Luke 1:3).6 Luke uses his narrative to construct the aetiological myth of Gentile Christianity,7 and does so with such compelling simplicity that even until our own era, readers were convinced that things happened the way Luke said they did, indeed had to have so happened: of course Gentiles are the authentic realization of God’s people! In the process of constructing his narrative, Luke also managed to define nascent Christianity’s relationship to the larger world. Luke portrayed Christians’ relation to the Greco-Roman empire and culture that this movement would eventually, if nevertheless unexpectedly, subsume. Luke also delineated Christianity’s relationship to the Judaism that, at the time of Luke’s writing, was itself emerging from the complex rivalries and the internecine conflicts of the first century, and from the harrowing purification of the Roman war, as a more unified and Pharisaically defined claimant to represent God’s chosen people. Luke’s narrative is completely at home in the symbolic world of Torah. Jesus and his followers are depicted as prophets standing in the line of Moses and Elijah;8 individual scenes and


3

entire stretches of narrative alike can be read as echoing scriptural examples.9 At the same time, many of Luke’s scenes, from birth stories to prison escapes to deaths of tyrants, find a parallel in Hellenistic novels and histories,10 and if Luke’s heroes can be called prophets, so also their depiction strongly resembles that of Greco-Roman philosophers.11 It is, indeed, the way in which both cultural forces are so much in evidence and so intricately intertwined that forms one of the abiding mysteries about this otherwise open-faced and determinedly nonironic writing. They are each so much in evidence that an entire reading of Luke-Acts is theoretically possible from the side of Judaism or of Hellenism without taking the other dimension into account. They are so inextricably connected, however, that bracketing out one or the other cultural element leads to interpretations that fail to match the richness of Luke’s literary texture. It is natural to ask how to account for this remarkable cultural synthesis. Asking that question, we are reminded how little progress scholarship has made in reaching agreement on the basic introductory questions concerning Luke-Acts. What sort of writing is it? Why was it written? Who wrote it? When was it composed? I have already noted the debate over genre. There is an even wider range of opinion concerning date, authorship, and purpose.12 It is possible to date LukeActs as early as the year 85 in the first century or the middle of the second century without losing academic credibility.13 The fact that so many theories continue to flourish simply proves the resistance of Luke-Acts to the habitual methods of historians.14

4


Trying to reconstruct a “Lukan community” from the themes of this composition that might in turn provide a framework for understanding those themes is frustrated by the historical sweep of Luke’s narrative, and even more by its literary artistry.15 This does not mean that we cannot ask questions of historical placement concerning this writing, but it means that we must ask them more obliquely and circumspectly, working through the literary dimensions of the text rather than working around them.16 In fact, the more adequate posing of such a historical question is one of the goals of the present essay. I propose to investigate the aspect of Luke-Acts in which the mingling of Hellenistic and Jewish elements is perhaps most visible and puzzling, in an activity that is of particular importance for the process of messianic self-identification. My focus is the way Luke shows the first Christians interpreting the texts of Scripture that form the common symbolic world of messianist and non-messianist Jews of the first century, as well as their most obvious field of contention.17 And I investigate this scriptural interpretation as it is found in the speeches of Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles. I will start with what is generally known and accepted, before approaching what is less certain and therefore open to more possibilities, moving steadily toward a question for which I do not yet have the answer.


5

Current Perspectives on the Speeches in Acts The last century saw a major shift in the way that scholars view the many speeches found in the Acts of the Apostles.18 No longer is it presumed that such speeches report the actual words of historical characters, or even a sample of primitive preaching. The conventional wisdom now is that the speeches of Acts are entirely the work of Luke the author. C. H. Dodd undertook the last credible effort to salvage the so-called missionary speeches as historical evidence. He did not claim that the speeches of Acts were verbatim reports, but that they contained a kernel of proclamation derived from the earliest preachers and providing the basic framework for the Gospels. Dodd observed not only that the speeches by Peter and Paul shared certain consistent elements, but that Paul also alludes to these same elements when he speaks of the kerygma (proclamation). From these two observations, Dodd argued that “a comparison … of the Pauline epistles with the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles” in the first generation.19 He further considered that the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 10 and 13 provide the framework for the composition of the narrative Gospels, most obviously the Gospel of Mark.20 Dodd’s work was already something of a conservative reaction to a growing scholarly opinion that Acts—above all in its speeches—contained little of genuine historical value.21 It was rather easy work for scholars like Ulrich Wilckens to respond to Dodd

6


with two devastating observations: first, analysis of diction and themes makes clear that the speeches represent the same outlook as the narrative in which they are found; second, the reason why Luke’s missionary speeches match the outline of the Gospel of Mark is that Luke himself was using Mark as a source when he composed his own Gospel.22 As with so much in the study of Acts, the basic impetus for the shift in perspective came from the pioneering literary analyses of Henry J. Cadbury and Martin Dibelius.23 They took the approach, which then seemed daring but now appears commonsensical, of placing the speeches of Acts within the comparative literary context of Greco-Roman culture, and specifically within the conventions of Hellenistic historiography. This broader framework of literary and cultural comparison revealed, as it so often does, that the writers of the New Testament were writing according to the rhetorical types and tropes of their day. Such analysis made it clear that Luke used speeches in the same way and for the same purposes as other Hellenistic historians. In Persian Wars 7.8–18, Herodotus presents a series of speeches exchanged by Xerxes and Artabanus concerning the advisability of the Persians’ undertaking a war of revenge and conquest against the Greeks.24 Far from being a report of an actual conversation, these exchanges are rather rhetorical exercises in which Herodotus supplies what he regards as the machinations and motivations of historical figures. Xerxes works hard to persuade his fellow Persians to undertake the expedition, and his discourses are full of language concerning divine


7

guidance and the will of God. Likewise in his Peloponnesian War 2.36–46, Thucydides has the statesman Pericles deliver a long funeral oration over the slain Athenian heroes. Much of the speech is an encomium of the city of Athens, its history, its distinctive laws and customs, and its virtues: “as a city we are the school of Hellas.” The slain warriors had done battle for a city with such attributes, and “so died these men as became Athenians.”25 Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus places King Agrippa before a crowd of Jewish insurgents to deliver a lengthy argument on the futility of engaging in rebellion against Rome (BJ 2.345–401).26 Prominent in his discourse is the argument that Rome’s success in arms everywhere in the world is proof that resistance against its armies is futile. Josephus has the king say, “The only refuge, then, left to you is divine assistance. But even this is ranged on the side of the Romans, for without God’s aid, so vast an empire could never have been built up” (BJ 2.390). Josephus also reports his own standing upon the walls of the doomed city to implore his countrymen not to continue their suicidal resistance to the Roman siege (BJ 5.376–419). While being derided by his listeners and dodging missiles thrown at him by them (BJ 5.375), Josephus delivered himself of a lengthy, highly detailed, rhetorically polished, historical recital and political analysis, the upshot of which was, “Quit while the quitting’s good!” Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus all followed the conventions of Hellenistic historiography. They gave their characters idealized speeches to deliver even in unlikely circumstances, to show what should

8


have been said on such occasions, and to interpret for the reader of the history the deeper meaning that the mere recital of events never could. In his treatise How to Write History 58, Lucian of Samosata says that the writing of speeches enables the historian “to play the actor and show [his or her] eloquence.”27 This is just what Hellenistic historians did. The real audience for their speeches was not the characters in the story they were telling, but the audience who heard their stirring words being read aloud in the present. Thucydides tells us of his own practice: “I have put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be most likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general import of what was actually said” (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1). This is exactly what we find Luke doing as well.28 All the speeches in Acts are Luke’s speeches. When he has Peter address the crowd at Pentecost (2:14-36), Stephen address the threatening Sanhedrin (7:2-53), or Paul speak to the Athenian philosophers (17:22-31), Luke composes their speeches as samples of the sort of rhetoric that would have been appropriate in each circumstance. Luke’s speeches, in short, contain not only his language but also his perceptions.29 Do some of his speeches in the first part of Acts seem to have a particularly “primitive” feel to them?30 This is one more example of Luke’s chameleon-like literary skill. As Eduard Pluemacher has shown, “archaizing” in language is a thoroughly Hellenistic stylistic device.31


9

Once the breakthrough was made to seeing Luke’s speeches as his own compositions, scholars could make other observations about the form and function of these discourses. Slowly, attention moved from an exclusive preoccupation with the so-called “missionary speeches” to the other discourses that reveal even further aspects of Luke’s rhetorical versatility. Jerome Neyrey, for example, has shown how Paul’s apologetic speeches in Acts 22-26 conform to the conventions of ancient forensic discourse.32 Even earlier, William S. Kurz had shown how Luke had in his speeches practiced the rhetorical ideal of proso¯popoiia in the speeches of Acts.33 As Lucian of Samosata advised the would-be historian, the language of speeches should “suit his person and his subject” (Hist. conscr. 58).34 Luke has a superb grasp of the principle. When Paul, for example, addresses the Jewish congregation in the synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia (13:16-41), he sounds virtually identical to Peter addressing the crowds at Pentecost (2:1436). But when Paul speaks before the philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens (17:22-31), he sounds much more like Dio Chrysostom than he does Peter;35 his diction and argument alike are those of the GrecoRoman philosopher.36 And as Jacques Dupont demonstrated many years ago, when Paul bids farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:17-35), his language hauntingly evokes that of Paul’s own letters to his churches.37 More recently, Earle Hilgert has tested the speeches of Acts against the rhetorical canons of “appropriateness” (to prepon) and “genuine contests” (al¯ethinoi ag¯o¯nes) and finds that they meet both standards impressively.38

10


My own work on Luke’s speeches has focused primarily on their narrative functions. I have argued that Luke does not place his speeches randomly but rather strategically, in order to provide his readers at key moments with an interpretation of the story that he is narrating. In this sense, his speeches are a form of authorial commentary, placed in the mouths of characters. The most impressive example is Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:2-53), whose long recital of the biblical story concentrates on the figure of Moses (7:17-50). He structures the story of Moses as two visitations of the Prophet to the people for their salvation (7:25). In the first visitation, his fellowIsraelites do not understand and reject him (7:2328), so that he is forced to flee in exile (7:29). But while in exile, he encounters God (7:30-34) and is sent back to visit the people a second time with great power, working “signs and wonders” (7:35-38). Those who reject the Prophet’s second visitation are themselves sent into exile (7:39-50). By structuring the Moses story in this fashion, Luke anticipates the double visitation of Jesus to Israel—the first time leading to rejection, the second time in the power of the spirit through the apostles—and at the same time provides his readers with an interpretive key for his entire two-volume composition.39 In the Gospel as well as in Acts, the speeches that Luke puts in the mouth of his characters fulfill similar interpretive functions, if in less obvious ways. The programmatic character of Jesus’ inaugural speech at Nazareth in 4:16-30 is recognized by all.40 Even Jesus’ parables can serve to interpret the narrative context in which they are embedded.


11

The three parables of the lost sheep, coin, and son in Luke 15:3-32 are clearly meant to provide a parabolic commentary on the narrative setting in 15:12. Even more strikingly, the Lukan kingship parable in 19:12-27 provides a response to the narrative situation posed by 19:11, but also an interpretation of the narrative to follow.41 In these observations on Luke’s speeches, I have emphasized his own freedom of composition (especially in Acts, where he was unconstrained by the Jesus tradition) and the thoroughly Hellenistic character of his compositional habits. These two aspects of the speeches in Acts help to sharpen the question that needs to be posed concerning the interpretation of Scripture that we find within them. Before considering these elements in combination, however, it is necessary rapidly to review some standard points concerning Luke’s use of Scripture in general.42

Luke’s Use of Scripture in General As in other early Christian writings, “proof from prophecy” is an important weapon in Luke’s apologetic armory.43 His narrative shows that the events of Jesus’ birth, ministry, death and resurrection are all “in fulfillment” of Torah. As Jesus says to his followers at his last supper, “I tell you, this Scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors,’ [Isa. 53:12], for what is written about me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37). But Luke extends and refines the argument from prophecy.44 He extends it by including not only the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah, but the develop-

12


ment of the messianic community as well: Scripture interprets stages in the church’s life and growth (e.g., Acts 3:24; 13:40; 15:15). It is characteristic of Luke that he delays citing the rejection saying from Isaiah 6 that Mark and Matthew use in the parable discourse (Mark 4:12; Matt. 13:14-15) until the very end of his narrative, in Acts 28:25-27. His narrative seeks to show “the things brought to fulfillment among us” (Luke 1:1), and the demonstration includes showing how texts of Scripture find their telos in the recent past or even the present of his readers. Luke also refines proof from prophecy by avoiding the sort of lockstep correlation of text and event favored by the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s “formula citations” serve as authorial commentary on his narrative. He typically recites a story about Jesus, following it with the expression “this happened in order to fulfill the saying of the prophet” and an explicit citation from Scripture.45 In this manner, Matthew brings Jesus’ miraculous conception, place of birth, escape from King Herod, hometown, teaching in parables, working of miracles, and betrayal and death under the umbrella of messianic meaning offered by Torah.46 Luke avoids such repeated formulas and the attachment of specific texts to specific events. In the Gospel, indeed, he is fonder of general summation than of direct citation, as when the risen Jesus opens his followers’ eyes to the meaning of Scripture: “‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Luke also refines


13

the notion of prophecy fulfillment in the way his narrative echoes and alludes to Scripture because he uses diction and even shapes his stories in order to evoke Scriptural precedents.47 Still, Luke does quote Scripture extensively to show, as Jesus also told those followers, “that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). In the Gospel we find some fifteen direct citations from Scripture.48 They are introduced variously,49 and by various characters.50 More significant is the fact that, with the single exception of the citation from Isa. 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6—which is taken over and expanded from Mark 1:2-3—all the citations in the Gospel occur in spoken discourse rather than in narrative exposition. In his Gospel, Luke consistently interprets through the speech of his characters, a practice he continues even more elaborately in his second volume. Before turning to that practice, which is the real focus of this essay, it is necessary to consider one more preliminary but truly critical question. What version of Scripture does Luke have his characters cite and interpret? Like many other Jews of the first century in the diaspora and in Palestine—writers like Aristobulus, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Paul of Tarsus—Luke used the Greek translation of Torah that had been in existence some 300 years when he set about composing Luke-Acts, a translation known as the Septuagint (LXX). Although that simple designation camouflages a host of critical questions, the LXX at the very least distinguishes a recognizable version of the Old Testament that was widely read for generations

14


before the first century, was regarded by at least some of its readers as divinely inspired, generated several rival Greek versions, and gave rise to a substantial Hellenistic Jewish literature.51 There is no reason to suspect in the case of Luke, as there sometimes is with Matthew, that his citations from the LXX are deliberately altered because of the influence of the Hebrew (hereafter, MT for “Massoretic Text”).52 Rather, as Jacques Dupont has demonstrated in a brilliant set of essays, Luke’s use of scriptural citations relies on the specific nuances of the LXX, to such an extent that the MT would have been useless for his purposes.53 I offer three brief examples. In Peter’s first address to the assembly of Jesus’ followers gathered before Pentecost, Luke shows him fulfilling Jesus’ command to “strengthen his brethren” when he had turned (Luke 22:32). His discourse concerns the need to replace the traitorous Judas in order to fill out the symbolic number of the Twelve before the bestowal of the Holy Spirit that constitutes the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:16-25).54 Peter cites two passages from the Psalms with reference, respectively, to the death of Judas and the need to replace him.55 The Scripture, he begins, “had to be fulfilled” (1:16). His first citation is from the LXX of Psalm 68:26, which reads, “Let his dwelling place become deserted and let there be no one dwelling in it” (gen¯eth¯eto¯ h¯e epaulis autou er¯emos kai m¯e esto¯ ho katoiko¯n en aut¯ei, Acts 1:20). The citation has only minor modifications from the LXX, which in turn is close to the MT of Ps 69:25.56 Luke has the text do double duty, referring at once to Judas’s death on the farm he had purchased with his betrayal money and


15

to the vacancy in the apostolic office his death thus created. But then, Luke has Peter add another citation immediately and with no transition, this one from LXX Psalm 108:8: “Let another take his office” (t¯en episkop¯en autou labeto¯ heteros).57 The passage works effectively to provide scriptural warrant for the election of Matthias as Judas’s successor in the circle of the Twelve, especially since “office” (episkop¯e) reinforces the second nuance of epaulis. The Hebrew of Psalm 109:8 (pe˘qûda¯tô yîqh. ’ah¯ . er) can certainly include the meaning, “let another take his magistracy/overseership” (e.g., 2 Chron. 23:18; 2 Kings 11:18), but the most natural translation is surely that given by the RSV: “May his days be few, may another seize his goods.”58 The LXX’s t¯en episkop¯en autou labeto¯ heteros (let another take his office), however, works wonderfully for Luke’s purposes, especially since the resonances of episkop¯e with ecclesiastical leadership are already well established for Luke’s readers, as we know from Acts 20:28.59 A second example of Luke’s reliance on the specific nuances of the LXX is not a direct citation but an allusion. In Peter’s speech at Pentecost (2:14-36), after he recites the facts of Jesus’ rejection by “lawless people,” he shifts to the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection, the event that precipitates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (2:1-5), the proper understanding of which Peter’s discourse purports to offer.60 Peter says, “Him God has raised! He has loosed the pangs of death, because he could not be held by it” (Acts 2:24).61 However accustomed we may have become to the phrase “pangs of death,” it

16


is nevertheless odd, especially when found as the object of the verb “to loose” (lyo¯). Why is it odd? Because the Greek term “pangs” refers particularly to the agony or throes of birth, thus, “birth pangs.”62 How does it come to be connected to the experience of death? The expression appears in the LXX of 2 Samuel 22:6, in the song of David, o¯dines thanatou ekyklosan me (the pangs of death have encircled me). In the corresponding LXX Psalm 17:5, we again find o¯dines thanatou (pangs of death) and o¯dines hadou (pangs of hades). What Hebrew expression is the LXX translating? In 2 Samuel 22:6, the MT has heblê ´s˘e’ôl, in . Psalm 18:5 it has heblê ma ¯ wet, and in 18:6, once . more, .heblê ´s˘e’ôl. Now the Hebrew verb ha¯bal (to bind or pledge)63 has two noun forms, each pointed differently. Pointed as hebel, it means “cord/rope/ . line,” and this is the meaning that makes the most sense of 2 Samuel 22:6, “the cords of death have encircled me,” and of Psalm 18:5 and 6, “the cords of death encompassed me…the cords of Sheol entangled me.” Pointed as .h¯ebel, however, the Hebrew also has the sense of pain or travail, such as is experienced at birth (e.g., Job 39:3; Isa. 66:7). Clearly this is the pointing assumed by the LXX when it translates hebl¯ . e as o¯dinai. By choosing this less obvious way of translating the Hebrew, the LXX (perhaps inadvertently) has also created a profound paranomasia: the “cords of death” are also the “birth pangs of death,” so that death itself can be read as the beginning of a new life, an understanding obviously congenial to Christian readers, who might, even unconsciously, carry over this nuance in speaking of


17

the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, how strange that Luke retains something of the other reading in his choice of verbs: God has “loosed” these pangs, an expression that is odd for pangs but appropriate for cords. Note also “because he could not be held (krateisthai) by it,” an expression that works poorly for pangs but perfectly for cords. But that the pun appears at all depends entirely on the translation choice made by the LXX. The third example of Luke’s dependence on the specific shades of meaning in the LXX is the citation of the prophet Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17.64 The passage is of tremendous importance in Acts, occurring as it does in the midst of the depiction of the watershed event that has come to be called the Jerusalem Council. This meeting decided that the Gentile mission was legitimate and, even more startling, that Gentile converts did not need to practice the ethoi (customs) of the Jewish ethnos (nation) in order to be full-fledged members of the people of God, since both Jews and Gentiles were saved by the same principle of faith.65 The decision is not made all at once but only after considerable debate.66 It is concluded by the citation of Amos, which James (the leader of the Jerusalem church) declares to be “conforming to this reality” (15:15). The first part of Luke’s citation from Amos is virtually the same as both the Greek of the LXX and the MT. According to the RSV translation, “in that day, I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breeches and raise up its ruins, and I will raise it up straight.” This part of the citation serves as a proof-text for understanding the Jewish

18


messianists as the “restored Israel.” In the Jerusalem church, God had “raised up the fallen tent of David.”67 But Luke’s citation from Amos continues, “so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord, and all the nations on whom my name has been invoked, says the Lord who is doing these things.” When we consult the LXX, we discover the words “the Lord” (ho kyrios) are absent. The LXX has simply, “the rest of humanity might seek.” Luke apparently has supplied the proper object of the seeking. What is even more striking, however, is the LXX’s having “that they might seek” (ekz¯et¯eso¯sin) at all. In the MT of Amos 9:12, there is instead this: “that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name, says the Lord who does this” (RSV). How did the LXX—and from the LXX, Luke— derive “the rest of humanity seek” from the Hebrew “possess the remnant of Edom”? The answer is fairly simple. It appears that the LXX translators read the Hebrew before them as yîrs´u (from ya¯ras´, “possess”) as yidre˘rshû (from da¯ras, “seek”), and they read ’edom (Edom) as ’a¯da¯m (humanity). The MT of Amos envisaged a restored Davidic dynasty in an expansionist mode. The LXX changed it to a restored people that attracts humanity to itself. It is this sense, rooted entirely in the LXX but impossible in the Hebrew, that Luke has James exploit as a text that prefigures the attraction of the Gentiles into the “restored people of God” that is the Christian movement.


19

Textual Problems of Biblical Citations Recognizing how thoroughly Luke’s application of Scripture depends on the LXX rather than on the MT only confirms the truth known to us at least since Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. In disputes between Jews and Christians over the fulfillment of prophecy nothing but frustration can be expected because the two parties are, quite literally, reading two different Bibles.68 The last example also reminds us of the difficulty of determining what is going on in any given citation from the LXX. I noted earlier that Luke “added” the words “the Lord,” which were lacking in the LXX. But were they? One manuscript of the LXX (A), in fact, does contain those words. Likewise, at the very end of James’ citation, there is great confusion. The Hebrew concludes simply with “declares the Lord who will bring this to pass.” The LXX follows closely, but adds a word: “says the Lord God who does these things” (legei kyrios ho theos ho poio¯n tauta). Not to be outdone in expansion, Luke seems to have James add another phrase, “known from eternity” (gnosta ap’ aio¯nos, Acts 15:18). Are these words simply added by Luke and intended to be read as though from Amos? Is it a composite citation, linking a phrase from Isa. 45:21 to the text from Amos?69 Or are we meant to read these last words, not as part of the citation, but as part of James’ comments following the citation? The wild fluctuation in the NT manuscript tradition for Acts 15:18 probably reflects an equivalent confusion in the minds of scribes concerning what the phrase was meant to be. The possibilities for

20


readers today are multiple, and made even more complicated by the text-critical problems distinctive to Acts.70 The citation from Joel 3:1-5 at the beginning of Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17-21) serves as a good illustration of the technical problems presented by Luke’s citations. Luke’s version can be translated this way: “It will happen in the last days, says God: I will pour out from my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men will dream dreams. Indeed, I will pour out from my spirit in those days upon my men servants and women servants, and they will prophesy. I will provide wonders in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be changed into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and manifest day of the Lord arrives, and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” The citation is very close to the LXX. But there are three significant differences between Luke and the LXX. First, the LXX has “after these things” (meta tauta) in agreement with the MT, whereas Luke has “in the last days” (en tais eschatais h¯emerais, 2:17). Second, Luke has “and they will prophesy” (kai proph¯eteusousin) in Acts 2:18 in addition to the one already present in Joel 3. Rather than the LXX’s “wonders in the heaven and on earth below,” Luke has in 2:19 “wonders in heaven above and signs on earth below,” adding the adverb kato¯ (below), as well as the substantive semeia (signs). Observing the differences is the easy part. Assessing them is difficult.71


21

The first problem is establishing the Lukan text itself. In the case of Acts, this means taking into account not only the usual display of alternative readings, but also the systematically alternative textual tradition offered by Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) and lesser representatives of the so-called “Western Text.”72 The recent tendency in New Testament text criticism has been toward “eclecticism,” which means refusing to follow a single tradition as standard, but rather trying to assess every single reading on the grounds of external attestation as well as the classic rules involving brevity and difficulty.73 Not surprisingly, scholars come up with quite different readings in specific cases, depending on how they weigh the various factors. In the case of the Joel citation, where we find clear differences between a printed edition of the LXX (in my case, Rahlfs) and the critical text of the New Testament (in my case, the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle-Aland),74 what factors need to be considered? On one hand, it is possible that Luke had a version of the LXX that we do not have and that his version was influenced by (a) the MT, (b) a targumic reading or series of readings, or (c) a text that has a prehistory in liturgical or apologetic use. On the other hand, the variations could be due to New Testament copyists who wanted to conform Luke to the LXX—but then, what version of the LXX was available to them? —or who deliberately made changes because of a tendentious interest, as Eldon Jay Epp has demonstrated was the case with Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis.75

22


If we make the judgment—as I have in this case— that Luke himself deliberately made the alterations to the Joel citation that we observe in the Greek text of the New Testament, such judgment must rest on the cumulative force of the following factors. First, the reading in question is well attested by the New Testament manuscripts and can reasonably be accepted as the original one on the grounds of ordinary textual criticism. Second, either the reading is not found in the manuscripts of the LXX available to us, or, if it is found there, the reading is best accounted for by scribes adopting it under the influence of the New Testament. Third, the reading in question can be shown to advance the literary and religious interests of the New Testament author who has used the citation. In Luke’s citation of Joel, each of these criteria is met.76 The last criterion is met resoundingly. Luke makes the gift of the Holy Spirit a fulfillment of a divine oracle (“God says”), an eschatological event (“in the last days”), one that is emphatically prophetic in character (“they shall prophesy”), and one that is demonstrated by “signs and wonders” like those associated in the biblical tradition above all with Moses. Luke has thus made the Joel citation a key passage for understanding not only Pentecost but also the entire course of his narrative in Acts.77 Even at the risk of boring my readers beyond endurance, I have chosen to pay some attention to text criticism. It is important to remind ourselves what a complex tangle of considerations are involved in the analysis of ancient biblical citations. Quick and grandiose conclusions are not warranted. In-


23

deed, certainty is seldom available. In these matters, slow approximation is the norm, and movement is by means of the gradual accumulation of probability. I also want to indicate by the particular example of the Joel citation, that the evidence strongly supports the view that Luke considered himself to have the freedom to amend the biblical text in such fashion. However great the authority of the LXX, it appears, the exousia (freedom/authority) given by the Spirit is even greater.78

Modes of Scriptural Interpretation in Acts Luke does not confine himself to a single mode of citing and interpreting Scripture, but uses a variety of interpretive methods.79 It is the range and character of his interpretive methods that present the most fascinating and yet puzzling aspect of Luke’s use of the LXX. My approach to this puzzle seeks a middle ground between two tendencies in scholarship. Older studies on Luke’s use of Scripture—like those of Bruce, Doeve, Bowker, and Cerfaux— are often full of helpful insights concerning technical questions and possible parallels to the “traces of midrashic style” seen in Acts.80 But they rarely get around to asking what Luke as author might have had to do with those parallels and traces of style. In such analyses, Luke’s use of Scripture becomes the last stronghold for the conservative position that regards Acts as essentially a repository for tradition. In sharp contrast, some newer studies—like those of Wagner and especially Brawley—are exceptionally strong at

24


revealing Luke’s creative contributions as an author, but pay relatively less attention to the ways in which his interpretations are enmeshed in Jewish methods.81 My goal is to take both aspects with full seriousness first by treating his scriptural interpretation within speeches as fully his own work, reflecting his literary and religious preoccupations, and second by comparing his interpretation as such with Jewish practice. I turn, then, to a rapid consideration of several modes of scriptural interpretation found within the speeches of Acts.

Stephen before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53) Two of the speeches in Acts present a character reviewing in public the history of Israel. Before the synagogue congregation in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41), Paul offers a very rapid sketch of events from the Exodus to David (13:17-22) then leaps forward to the time of Jesus. The recital contains some verbal echoes of the LXX,82 but not much more. I will return later in the essay to a closer analysis of the latter part of Paul’s speech. Of quite a different character is the second example, Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin. It is the longest speech in Acts, all the more dramatic because delivered before a Jerusalem leadership (6:12-15) that has already indicated its emphatic rejection of the messianic claims being made by an upstart Galilean community gathered in the name of Jesus.83 The speaker has been certified as a prophet by Luke’s


25

literary depiction of him as a man filled with the Holy Spirit who works signs and wonders among the people (6:5, 8, 10). He finishes his speech by accusing the leadership of resisting the Holy Spirit and killing the prophets (7:51-52). Their subsequent execution of Stephen proves his accusation.84 Scholars have long puzzled over the way the speech seems not to respond to the ostensible charges made against Stephen that brought him to trial in the first place.85 Far from having Stephen launch into a formal apologia that discusses these charges in order to demonstrate his innocence, Luke has him begin a lengthy recital of biblical history, from the time of Abraham to the exile.86 The recountal is sufficiently lengthy to enable comparisons between Stephen’s speech and other retellings of the biblical story found in ancient Jewish literature roughly contemporary to Luke. There are a sufficient number of these compositions to consider them a separate class of writing, composed by individuals or groups who sought by means of such a reworking of the biblical tradition to propagate or defend a specific perspective on that tradition:87 Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities; Philo Judaeus’s works On Abraham, On Joseph, and On Moses; Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities; the Book of Jubilees; and the fragmentary Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran; as well as the fragments of Artapanus’s On the Jews.88 Each of these narrative retellings of the biblical story covers some of the same figures and incidents as does Stephen’s speech. A point-bypoint comparison among them is illuminating. We have several such narratives, as well as the basic text

26


(either the MT or the LXX) that each was using. We can thus make responsible judgments concerning the kind of selection and shaping in which each account engaged and, on that basis, also make fairly secure deductions concerning the concerns and interests at work in each version. It is easy to see in the case of Philo, for example, that his biographies of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses serve both to highlight those aspects of the biblical text that can be read “philosophically” and to portray the ancient heroes as models of philosophical virtue in the Greek mode.89 In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees, both preserved in the library of the Jewish community at Qumran, focus on and elaborate those aspects of the text that support a particular ideological and cultic agenda favored by the sectarians.90 When we compare the rewriting of the Scripture story in the Stephen speech to these other compositions, what do we find? First, in terms of fidelity to the text of Scripture, Luke’s Stephen is less like Josephus and Philo, who follow the Bible’s story line but freely transpose it into their own diction, than he is like Jubilees and Biblical Antiquities, which tend to interweave parts of the biblical text and their own contributions in what might be broadly called a targumic style.91 Luke does not rewrite the story in his own words. Instead, as Earl Richard has demonstrated, Luke shows remarkable fidelity to the diction of the LXX; it truly is “Scripture’s” words that he uses in his own version of the story, a feat all the more remarkable given the abbreviation involved.92


27

In a second point of comparison, Luke—also in the manner of the targums—amplifies elements of the Biblical story and fills in its gaps by means of haggadic traditions. Moses’ earliest years provided the opportunity for such elaboration in the same manner that the childhood of Jesus provided one for the writers of apocryphal infancy gospels. Thus, LXX Exodus 2:3-4 says that Moses was “hidden” by his mother after his birth. This is followed closely by Jubilees 47.3 and Jewish Antiquities 2.218. Philo has Moses secretly “nursed at his mother’s breast” (Life of Moses 1.9),93 and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 9.12 has Moses’ mother, Jocha, bed him for three months in her womb! Stephen says that “he was nurtured (anetraph¯e) for three months in his father’s house” (Acts 7:20). Though not an elaborate expansion, it represents a “filling of the gap” not unlike that in the other rereadings. Similarly, LXX Exodus 2:21 says that Moses “became … as a son” to Pharaoh’s daughter. Josephus supplies the name Thermuthis to the daughter (AJ 2.224), whereas Jubilees 47.5 calls her Meris, and Artapanus adds that she was barren (frag. 3 Charlesworth), a fact that Philo, in turn, develops psychologically (Life of Moses 1.12-15). Once more, Stephen’s trope is simple yet effective: she “raised him as her own son” (anethrepsato auton heaut¯ei eis huion, 7:21). The characterization is richer and more intimate than the biblical account, yet more restrained than some of the other rereadings. The LXX Exodus contains nothing about Moses’ education in the house of Pharaoh. Yet the lives of great figures require legendary elaboration where the

28


historical record fails.94 Josephus provides a sketch of a childhood challenge to Moses, says that “he was educated with the utmost care” (AJ 2.233-35), and provides an extensive recital of Moses’ adult activities before his encounter with his countrymen (AJ 2.238-53). Philo pays particular attention, as we might expect, to Moses’ education, stressing that he was instructed by Greek, Assyrian, Chaldean, and Egyptian teachers, and that he progressed especially in moral virtue (Life of Moses 1.21-31). Such cultural assimilation is opposed by Jubilees 47.9, which insists that “Amran, [his] father, taught [him] writing” and says nothing further of Moses’ education at Pharaoh’s court. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 9.16 says that Moses’ mother maintained his Hebrew name of Melchiel. Cultural competition reaches a climax in Artapanus’s On the Jews (frag. 3 Charlesworth), which makes Moses himself the teacher of Orpheus and the source of everything worthwhile in Egyptian culture. Stephen’s version again hits a middle point between these extremes: “he was educated in all Egyptian wisdom” (7:22). Like the parallel versions, Stephen’s speech fills in what the biblical account omits, but it does so more succinctly and pointedly. In 7:20-22 Luke—it is his speech, remember—provides the classic biographical triad of “birth, nurture, education” (genesis, troph¯e, paideia), as he does also for Paul in Acts 22:3.95 And by focusing on wisdom, he emphasizes the link between Moses and Jesus, as he does also by an equally brief summary concerning Jesus in Luke 2:52: “Jesus made progress in wisdom and stature and in favor both with God and people.”96


29

Thirdly, compared to the other retellings of the Scripture story we are considering here, Luke is unusual in his strong editing of the story, which is all the more evident because of the brevity of his account. Like Philo, Luke focuses particularly on the three figures of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. He focuses, however, not on their display of innate virtue, but on the way in which they carry forward the promises of God. And in the case of both Joseph and Moses, Luke has edited his account in such fashion as to show how each fits into a pattern of twofold sending and rejection, so that these biblical exempla point forward to the twofold sending and rejection of the prophet Jesus.97 By this editing of the biblical narrative, Luke not only reinforces the fundamentally prophetic character of Scripture and its heroes, but by doing this supports the ideological position of his community that Scripture is best understood when read as pointing toward the risen prophet Jesus: “This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up’” (Acts 7:37). And he does all this entirely within the tight limits set by the text of the LXX itself, whose wording he consistently employs. In this sense, the rereading of Scripture in Stephen’s speech can legitimately be designated a sort of septuagintal targum.

Prayer in Time of Persecution (Acts 4:24-30) We find a very different sort of scriptural interpretation in the prayer of the apostles after their first

30


experience of persecution by the Jerusalem authorities. Although the prayer is not formally a discourse, it is surely a speech act, and one whose obvious literary function is to interpret for the reader the meaning of the story that unfolds around it.98 What is the meaning of this part of Luke’s narrative? Having established, by his description of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the common life of the first community, that the church was indeed the restoration of Israel, 99 Luke turns his attention to the question of the leadership over this people. The first arrest and warning not to preach in the name of Jesus (4:1-22) corresponds to the first rejection of both Moses and Jesus. The response to this prayer for power with an overwhelming outpouring of the Spirit (4:31) corresponds to the empowerment of both Moses and Jesus by God: This empowerment is manifested precisely in the “signs and wonders” that the apostles do among the people and their authoritative role in the sharing of possessions (note the repetition of “laying at the apostles’ feet” in 4:35, 37 and 5:2).100 The subsequent arrest and interrogation of the apostles serves the narrative by revealing two things: first, the official leadership of the people rejects even this “second sending in power”— Gamaliel’s advice shows ironically that he doesn’t “get it”—and second, the balance of power over God’s people Israel has in any case effectively shifted to the apostles.101 Grasping the narrative flow in this part of Acts is the best way of solving the problem presented by Luke’s obscure introduction to this scene (4:23-24): “when they had been released, they went pros tous


31

idious and told them everything the chief priests and elders had said. Those who heard it lifted a common voice to God.” The appropriate translation of hoi idioi (literally, their own people) is critical to determining who performs the speech act reported by Luke and who, therefore, is subsequently empowered a second time by the Holy Spirit to work signs and wonders. Against a substantial body of opinion that considers “their friends” (as the RSV renders the phrase) to be the rest of the community of believers (those described in 4:32 as pl¯ethos to¯n pisteusanto¯n),102 I agree with Jacques Dupont that the narrative logic demands the identification of these “associates” (as I translate the phrase) with the other apostles.103 This identification alone makes sense of the second empowerment and the second sending of the Twelve to do signs and wonders among the people (5:1-16) before their climactic confrontation with the official leadership (5:17-42) and their transmission of authority to others (6:1-7). The prayer begins with a remarkable invocation that may function as prayer but certainly also functions as a reminder to the reader of certain important realities: “Master! You are the creator of the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things that are in them. You are the one who said—through the mouth of David, your servant, our father, through the Holy Spirit ….” The opening invocation reminds readers of God’s sovereign power; even though events may seem to indicate otherwise, God is working out God’s plan. The awkward piling up of phrases in the second clause results from Luke trying to assert several important truths at the same time.104

32


While David is both God’s servant (we shall see the development of this theme a bit later) and their ancestor (“father”), more importantly, when David spoke, it was God speaking “through [his] mouth” because the Psalmist was a prophet whose prayers were composed “through the Holy Spirit.” The text that Luke subsequently cites from LXX Psalm 2:1-2, with no editorial emendations, is to be understood as a divinely inspired text with a prophetic significance: “Why were the nations arrogant and the peoples making silly schemes? The kings of the earth drew up their lines, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed one.” What follows is even more astonishing than the opening reminder to God of what the prophet/ psalmist had said through God’s own inspiration. The prayer now offers God an interpretation of what the Psalm (and, we assume, God) really means: “For in this city, they did truly gather together against your holy child Jesus whom you anointed: Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, in order to accomplish everything your hand and will had determined would happen.” Luke offers an interpretation in which the words spoken in the past by the prophet find their real significance in contemporary events. Specifically, the “gathering together”105 of the leaders against Jesus “the anointed”106 that led to his apparent destruction but paradoxically worked out God’s plan.107 Not content with a general assertion, however, Luke then offers a point-by-point fulfillment of the Davidic prophecy, with each element in the Psalm finding its contemporary equivalent: Pilate = the ruler; Herod


33

= the king; the procurator/soldiery = the nations/ gentiles; the Jews = the peoples. In effect, Luke offers a mode of scriptural interpretation quite distinct from the targumic retelling of the narrative found in the Stephen speech. But just as examples of such retellings are attested at Qumran, so is this mode as well, in the style of interpretation scholars have come to identify as pesher.108 In such interpretation, the text of Scripture (at Qumran, in Hebrew) is strictly maintained, and the elements in the text are aligned with events or personages having to do with the history of the community. The fragmentary commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab), for example, offers an interpretive comment on this text from Habakkuk 2:7: “the violence done to Lebanon shall overwhelm you and the destruction of the beasts shall terrify you, because of the blood of men and the violence done to the land, the city, and all its inhabitants.” The interpretation goes as follows: The interpretation of the word (pesher) concerns the Wicked Priest, to pay him the reward for what he did to the poor. Because Lebanon is the Council of the Community, and the animals are the simple folk of Judah who observe the Law … the city is Jerusalem since in it the Wicked Priest performed repulsive acts and defiled the Sanctuary of God. The violence against the country are the cities of Judah which he plundered of the possessions of the poor (emphasis added).109

34


The same sort of pesher interpretation was applied at Qumran to the Psalms, which were read as prophetic of the life of the community in exactly the same way that the prophets were. The commentary on Psalm 37 (4QpPsalms Pesher), for example, contains this passage: “The wicked person spies on the just person and tries to kill him. Yahweh will not relinquish him into his hand, or permit them to convict him when he is judged (Ps. 37:32-33). Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who spies on the just man and wants to kill him … and the law which sent him; …. Wait for Yahweh and observe his path and he will promote you, so that you inherit the earth, and you shall see the destruction of the wicked (Ps. 37:34). Its interpretation concerns the community of the poor who will see the judgment of evil, and with his chosen one will rejoice in the true inheritance.”110 The parallel between these passages and Acts 4:23-31 is precise and remarkable. As at Qumran, the text is applied as prophetic to the specific experiences of the community and its founder. As at Qumran, these experiences involve the dual rejection of the founder and the community members (“the poor”). As at Qumran, hope is placed in the vindication to be accomplished by God. And, as at Qumran, the interpretation involves making a point-by-point identification between characters and events in the prophecy and the characters and events in the community’s shared story. That Luke is in truth using a pesher method here is shown by the fact that he not only makes no alteration in the text of the Psalm that he cites, but also that his fidelity to that text forces him to a


35

locution that he otherwise nowhere employs. It is Luke’s set practice to use the singular laos (people) when referring to Israel as a religious entity (“the people of God”).111 That consistent usage may account for the presence of the singular laos in some manuscripts for Acts 4:27, rather than the plural laois. The plural reading is better attested and is also the harder reading, since Luke, especially in his passion account, tried to remove the presence of the people from the action against Jesus, so as to fix blame on the leaders.112 Luke does, however, report the charge against the people as a whole, who, “out of ignorance,” rejected Jesus in his first visitation (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-14). Why, then, the plural “peoples of Israel” in the present passage? Two reasons suggest themselves. First, the plural enables Luke to involve individual Jews in the death of Jesus (such as the leaders), as he does individual Gentiles, without jeopardizing the special place of “the people” as the religious designation for Israel. Second, and more decisive, I think, the plural allows Luke to respect the precise form of the citation demanded by the pesher-style interpretation. I will comment in my conclusions on the startling fact that Luke is here carrying out with the LXX a mode of interpretation that is found elsewhere only applied to the MT, and that in a single Palestinian community.

Midrashic Argument on the Resurrection (Acts 13:32-37) A third example of Lukan interpretive method is found in Paul’s synagogue sermon in Antioch of

36


Pisida.113 The subject is the identification of Jesus as Messiah through his resurrection, in contrast to David. This is, in fact, a recurrent preoccupation in Luke-Acts and provides an opportunity to observe how Luke works out a scriptural argument across several disparate speeches.114 We meet the theme first in a speech of Jesus. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus challenges the Scribes’ claim that the Messiah would be David’s son: “For David himself says in the book of the Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet.”’ David therefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son?” (Luke 20:42-44).115 We recognize the citation as LXX Psalm 109:1, a favorite Christian proof-text for the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus.116 Its most famous application also occurs in LukeActs, in Peter’s sermon to the crowd gathered by the Pentecost experience. This time it comes at the end of a more elaborate scriptural argument. After the citation from Joel in 2:17-21, Peter announces that Jesus—a man who had worked signs and wonders among them but had been put to death by lawless people—had been raised by God. God had “loosed the pangs of death, for he could not be held by it” (2:22-24). Peter then initiates a scriptural argument by an explicit citation from LXX Psalm 15:8-11, which he introduces with these words: “For David said about him (eis auton)” (2:25). In this context, this introduction can only mean that David spoke about Jesus the Nazorean (2:22). Peter then quotes the Psalm: “I have seen the Lord before me always, because he is at my right hand, so that I not be


37

shaken. My heart has been glad because of this, my tongue has rejoiced. More than that, my flesh will dwell in hope because you will not abandon my life to Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life, you will fill me with gladness in your presence.” The entire passage from the Psalm could be exploited for Peter’s purposes. We notice that the Psalmist claims to have “seen the Lord before [him] always,” which suggests an intimate and permanent presence with God. We catch the echo of Psalm 109:1 in the phrase “at the right hand.” The singer has “known the paths of life” and has had “gladness in [God’s] presence.” Perhaps most telling, we also see that the one so blessed with the presence of God is characterized as “your holy one” (ton hosion sou), a designation that will recur later. C. H. Dodd had the basic insight that many New Testament citations carry with them associations from their original context and that these associations are as important to the meaning and function of the citation as the actual words quoted. Richard Hays, in the case of Paul’s letters, and Robert Brawley, in the case of Luke-Acts, have developed this insight into a rich appreciation of allusions and echoes implicitly present in such explicit citations.117 What has now come to be called intertextuality, however, is simply another way of saying midrash, for the same thick web of associative thinking is present in both. The line from Psalm 15 on which Peter builds his argument is “you will not abandon my life to Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corruption.” Peter quickly establishes that the line cannot apply to the

38


David who composed the Psalm, since he was dead and buried. Peter can appeal to his audience’s own experience: Everyone knew where David’s tomb was in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29). Then Peter applies what we will come to understand as the fundamental principle of messianic (that is, Christian) midrash: that all of the texts of Torah point forward to a future fulfillment; that is, they are essentially prophetic in character. He argues, “Since [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him by an oath that he would seat one of his descendents upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah.”118 Peter then applies the specific words of the Psalm, “for neither was he left in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption” (2:3031). Peter appeals to two experiences. The first is his audience’s knowledge of the tomb of David, proving his death; David can’t possibly be the one who did not see corruption (2:29). The second experience is the witnesses’ experience of the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus: “God raised this Jesus, of which we are all witnesses” (2:32). The Psalm therefore refers not to David himself but to Jesus the Messiah, not to the ancient king’s enjoyment of God’s presence during his human life, but the eternal enthronement of the resurrected one “to the right hand of God” (2:33). Yet, this Messiah is also “one of his descendents” (2:30), and Peter’s argument also alludes to the promise of an eternal dynasty made to David himself: “he swore by oath” (2:30). Peter thus makes allusion to another passage of Scripture in which God swore by oath to David


39

concerning an enduring dynasty, namely the oracle of the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:1216. We know that this passage was used as a messianic prophecy also at Qumran (see 4Qflorilegium 1.7-13).119 The Nathan oracle is embedded also in another Psalm, LXX 131:11, whose language may have helped shape Luke’s (Peter’s) own: ho¯mosen kyrios to¯i Dauid al¯etheian kai ou m¯e athet¯esai aut¯en, ek karpou t¯es koilias sou th¯esomai epi ton thronon sou (The Lord swore a true oath to David, and he will surely not set it aside; one out of the fruit of your loins I shall set upon your throne). Peter’s phrase in 2:30, ek karpou t¯es osphyos autou (out of the fruit of your loins) seems derived from this passage. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to note that LXX Psalm 131:11 is immediately preceded by this verse: “For the sake of David your servant, do not turn away from the face of your anointed one” (heneken Dauid tou doulou sou m¯e apostreps¯eis to proso¯pon tou christou sou). This verse can be read as though David and “your anointed one/your Christ” were two different figures. The plea “do not turn away from the face,” furthermore, can be seen to have a fulfillment in the line from LXX Psalm 15:8, cited earlier in the speech, “I have seen the Lord before me always.” Peter brings this part of his argument to a climax with a simple opposition. “David did not ascend into heaven,” he declares, “yet he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet”’” (Acts 2:34-35). Psalm 109:1, which began Luke’s midrashic argument concerning Jesus and David in the Gospel (Luke 20:41-42), now serves as a prophecy spoken

40


by David himself to be fulfilled by the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus “to the right hand” (2:33). Peter can therefore conclude his speech, “Therefore, let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Given the perspectives shaped by Peter’s (and Luke’s) conviction and experience, this declaration has been supported by the prophetic texts of Scripture. Before turning to Paul’s speech in Acts 13, it may be useful to pause for clarification. At one level, I have been tracing a fairly simple argument running across several of Luke’s speeches both in the Gospel and Acts. Texts of the Psalms that refer to an anointed one (Christ) manifestly did not find a realization in the historical figure of David and must therefore point forward to the Messiah (anointed one = Christ). Specifically, the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus (demonstrated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit) fulfill the promise of God that there would be an eternal Davidic dynasty. It should be obvious, however, that this argument is carried by a premise that few of Peter’s hearers and only some of Luke’s potential readers will grant: that Jesus the Nazorean is in fact now resurrected from the dead and living as powerful Lord in the presence of God, enthroned “at his right hand.” But even those who may not be willing to grant that premise are able to recognize that it organizes a complex set of textual details into a form of argument shaped by association. The presence of the same word in disparate passages of Scripture enables connections to be made between other words which otherwise


41

might not have been seen as related. These new associations, in turn, can trigger still others, so that a thick, if loose, tapestry of meaningful connections is constructed, whose only substantive link is the original experiential premise.120 With this clarification in mind, we can turn at last to Paul’s sermon at Pisidian Antioch. I noted earlier how Paul begins his speech with a rapid recital of biblical history up to David (Acts 13:16-22). Paul moves quickly through the judges and Saul (13:2021), and says, “having removed him [Saul], he raised up for them David to be king. To him also he bore witness. He said, ‘I have found David son of Jesse to be a man after my own heart. He will perform all my desires’” (13:22). Luke here has Paul weave together something of a mixed citation from LXX Psalm 88:21, (“I have found David my servant”) and 1 Samuel 13:14 (“The Lord seeks a man after his own heart”), with “son of Jesse” added for clarity. After this initial citation concerning David, Paul’s speech leaps across the centuries directly to Jesus: “From the seed of this man, according to promise, God brought to Israel Jesus as a savior” (Acts 13:23). The terms “seed” (sperma) and “promise” (epangelia) evoke other Christian interpretations concerning the heritage of Abraham, notably Galatians 3:15-18.121 But the allusion here is almost certainly again to the Nathan oracle in LXX 2 Samuel 7:12: “I will raise up (anast¯eso¯) your offspring (sperma) after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom forever.” Luke next has Paul briefly recount the Jesus story from the baptism of John to the cross and resurrec-

42


tion (13:24-31), concluding with an assertion that connects the kerygma to the earlier biblical recital: “This promise made to the fathers God has fulfilled for their children—us—by raising Jesus (t¯en pros tous pateras epangelian genomen¯en hoti taut¯en ho theos epepl¯ero¯ken tois teknois h¯emin anast¯esas I¯esoun)” (13:32-33). Paul follows this declaration with the citation of three Scripture passages in rapid sequence. The first is introduced at once: “So also it stands written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my son, I have begotten you today.’” This is a direct and unaltered citation from LXX Psalm 2:7. Its import is clear: what was taken as a declaration of divine filiation for the Davidic dynasty through earthly enthronement is here applied to the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus as God’s son. More striking is that Luke here has Paul quote from the same Psalm whose first verse was quoted explicitly by all the apostles in their prayer in time of persecution, and was then subjected to a pesher-style interpretation (Acts 4:25-26). It is as though we are invited, through the medium of Luke’s speeches, to read with Peter and Paul all of Psalm 2 with a messianic perspective shaped by the death and resurrection of Jesus, so that the Anointed One rejected by the rulers in Psalm 2:1 is also the “begotten son of God” of Psalm 2:7, through the resurrection. Something more than single-verse proof-texting is at work in these Lukan speeches. The third passage cited by Paul in 13:35 is also familiar to us: “Therefore he also says in another place, ‘You will not give your holy one to see corruption.’” We recognize this quotation from


43

LXX Psalm 15:10 because it is part of the longer passage (Psalm 15:8-11) cited by Peter in his Pentecost speech (Acts 2:25-28). Paul here gives the verse the same decisive application that Peter had earlier: “For David, having served in his own generation, fell asleep. He was gathered to his fathers, and he saw corruption. But the one whom God has raised has not seen corruption” (Acts 13:36-37). Once more, there is the contrast between the mortality of David and the incorruptible life of resurrection. In this case, David’s mortality is even further emphasized by Luke’s use of four discrete statements: a) he served [only] in his own generation; b) he fell asleep; c) he was gathered to his fathers; d) he saw corruption. Of greatest interest to us in this sequence, however, is the second citation, which has not been used earlier, and which forms in this argument what might be called a midrashic middle term. Paul says, “And to show that he raised him up from the dead no longer to return to corruption, he spoke this way, ‘do¯so¯ hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista’” (Acts 13:34). The citation is very difficult. I have left it for the moment in Greek because how to translate it is one of the problems. With the exception of the verb do¯so¯ (I will give), which appears to have been supplied by Luke, the rest of the words (hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista) derive from the LXX of Isaiah 55:3. But what does it mean? The LXX of Isa 55:3 handles the Hebrew is an unexpected way. The MT has (in the RSV translation), “I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.” The LXX (in contrast to Luke) retains “I will make with you an

44


everlasting covenant” (kai diath¯esomai hymin diath¯ek¯en aio¯nion), but its translation of the remainder of the statement, though intelligible, has a strange effect. The LXX has translated the Hebrew hase˘de˘ (“mercy/mercies”) with the neuter plural hosia, and the Hebrew hane’e˘ma¯nîm (“enduring”) with the neuter plural pista. Each choice makes sense, at least mechanically. The Greek adjective hosios is usually used to translate the Hebrew hasid, (holy one/pious . one), whether singular or plural.122 But so far as I can tell, this is the only time it is used to render the plural hase˘dê, which is formed from the noun hesed (mercy), . . usually rendered by the LXX as eleos.123 Likewise, the Greek adjective pistos is regularly used to translate ’a¯man,124 but again, Isaiah 55:3 is the only occasion when it is found in the plural neuter pista. The combination of terms, therefore, is unusual and opens up interpretive possibilities that were not present to the same degree in the Hebrew. It is not at all clear that God’s showing “steadfast, sure love for David” to “you” (plural) could be exploited messianically. The degree to which the LXX can be so exploited depends on how the odd combination ta hosia ta pista is to be understood. And here is where scholars divide.125 In my view, the phrase is best understood in the context of ancient Greek usage for a variety of divine sanctions, in which hosia can refer to the things declared holy by the gods as opposed to those things declared just by humans (dikaia).126 The only other instance of hosia in the LXX, in fact, bears this sense: in Deut. 29:18 (19), it is used to translate “when such a one hears the words of these sanctions”


45

(Jewish Publication Society translation of weha¯ya¯ be ´s a¯m‘o¯ et dibrê ha¯’a¯la¯h).127 Whether consciously or not, the LXX enabled later readers to see ta hosia Dauid ta pista as the divine oracles spoken to David, most notably in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. I therefore translate, “I will give to you the holy and faithful things said to David.” Now, this midrashic middle term establishes the hermeneutical warrant for applying to the Messiah Jesus the passages of Scripture originally spoken to David. This is made possible by a two-fold connection established by the LXX translation. First, the “mistranslation” of “mercies” by “divine decrees” and the application of these to a later generation (the hymin [to you] is plural, and Isaiah is obviously later than David), makes the point of reference for the prophet’s statement all of the Davidic promises. But the choice of hosia also provides the possibility for a more complex word linkage, forging an even closer connection to the Messiah. We note that some form of hosios (holy) links three of the four passages in Paul’s speech. Paul cites LXX Psalm 88:21 in Acts 13:22. The immediate context for “I have found David” in that Psalm is: “Then you spoke on the mountain to your holy ones (tois hosiois sou) and you said, ‘I have given timely help to the mighty one. I have lifted up (hypso¯ sa) an elect one (eklekton) from my people. I have found David my servant (ton doulon mou). With a holy oil (elaio¯i hagio¯i) I have anointed him (echrisa auton)” (LXX Ps. 88:20-21). This cluster of terms provides a perfect opening for messianic appropriation. Then,

46


in the citation from Isaiah 55:3, we have noted the phrase ta hosia Dauid ta pista. Finally, in the citation from LXX Psalm 15:10, “you will not let your holy one (ton hosion sou) to see corruption.” Luke himself supplies a still further link between the passages, by introducing Isaiah 55:3 with the verb do¯so¯ (I will give), which is lacking in the LXX, thus matching the same verb used in the citation of LXX Psalm 15:10, do¯seis (“you will not give”). In this final example, three aspects of Luke’s scriptural interpretation in his speeches have reappeared in a particularly impressive way. First, we have seen how his use of Scripture relies on the specific readings of the LXX rather than the MT. Second, we have observed that his argument takes place not only within the confines of a single speech but across several: in the case of David and Jesus, we have traced the basic argument from the saying of Jesus in the Gospel, to Peter’s Pentecost discourse, to the prayer of the community in persecution, to Paul’s sermon at Antioch of Pisidia. Third, we have recognized Luke’s interpretation as a kind of haggadic midrash that depends on word association as well as on elements in the context of citations that may be as influential as the parts made explicit.128

Conclusions This essay has touched on a number of aspects of Luke’s interpretation of Scripture within the speeches of Acts, and, although the treatment of them was necessarily superficial, it nevertheless allows the following six conclusions.


47

(1) Luke has placed his scriptural interpretation in his speeches, which virtually all contemporary scholars recognize as his own creations. There is therefore every reason to think—whatever antecedent traditions may have been available to him—the interpretations of Scripture found within the speeches are also entirely his own. The various characters who interpret Scripture are interpreting for Luke, wearing the various masks he assigns them. (2) Analysis demonstrates that Luke’s engagement with the LXX is neither superficial nor random. His citations and allusions reveal an intense engagement with multiple intertextual connections. It is reasonable to suppose, as Brawley suggests, that Luke expected his readers to have a reading competence sufficient to catch these allusions and echoes.129 It has become clear as well that the full force of Luke’s exposition is rarely obvious within a single speech. Rather, through the entire set of speeches in Acts, a sort of midrashic argument is constructed. The argument is properly called messianic (or Christological), so long as that term is understood to include the messianic community of the church, as well as Jesus the Messiah, under the umbrella of Torah. (3) An essential element of Luke’s argument, furthermore, is hermeneutical in the strict sense of the term. The issue is not so much whether Scripture refers primarily to Christ or the church, or even to God,130 so much as whether Scripture is to be read prophetically in order to be properly understood. It is not at all an accident that Paul’s final defense speech before Festus the Roman Procurator, King

48


Agrippa, and Bernice concludes with this assertion: “I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what Moses and the prophets said would come to pass, that Christ must suffer, and that by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). The bluff Roman administrator, confused by all this messianic arcana, interrupts Paul in a loud voice: “You are raving, Paul! Your great learning has turned you to madness!” (26:24). Paul responds by turning to Agrippa, who was nominally a Jewish ruler: “The king understands these things” (26:26). He means that these are matters of scriptural interpretation that all Jews would grasp. Then Paul turns directly to Agrippa, speaking with “boldness,” and asking the most pertinent question: “Do you believe, King Agrippa, in the prophets? I know that you do believe!” (26:27) The king, being no fool, responds in turn, “You are persuading me to play the Christian a little” (en oligo¯i me peitheis christianon poi¯esai).131 Yes, that is precisely Luke’s argument: to read Torah essentially as prophecy about the Messiah is already to play the Christian a little bit! (4) As an interpreter of the LXX, Luke uses a variety of modes of interpretation. Most striking, however, is that he lacks entirely any trace of the allegorical interpretation so favored by other Hellenistic Jewish interpreters, like Philo, Aristobulus, or Aristeas, whose text likewise was exclusively the LXX.132 Instead, his methods resemble those found among Palestinian Jews whose text was Hebrew rather than Greek: targum, pesher, haggadah. I am


49

speaking here not so much about technical rules of interpretation as about characteristic interpretive instincts. In Stephen’s speech, we see a retelling of the biblical story that is entirely based on the LXX yet most resembles Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. In the prayer of the Apostles, we find a reading of LXX Psalm 2 that most is like the Pesher on Psalm 37 at Qumran. In the speeches of Peter and Paul we find a midrashic argument that is haggadic in style. (5) There naturally arises a question about where to place Luke, the most thoroughly Hellenistic of early Christian writers (above all in his composition and use of speeches), within the spectrum of firstcentury biblical interpretation. Among his Jewish near-contemporaries, the most stunning parallels are in the Qumran Scrolls, where we also find the targumic rewriting of biblical history, the pesher interpretation of Psalms, and the intricate messianic florilegium. And at Qumran as well, we find midrash applied specifically to the community’s experience as the fulfillment of prophecy “in the last days.”133 Among his New Testament colleagues, Luke most resembles Paul of Tarsus, another interpreter of the LXX whose methods are more those of the Scribe than of the Sophos,134 although even Paul makes use of allegory (Galatians 4:21-31). (6) If we choose to regard Luke’s speeches simply as repositories for midrashic arguments worked out before he wrote,135 then the most logical hypothesis concerning the origin of his septuagintal midrash is that of Lucien Cerfaux, who argued for the essentially Hellenistic character of the first Jerusalem

50


community.136 Certainly, from the earliest days of the Christian movement, apologetics on the basis of septuagintal midrash had begun. But if we take seriously Luke’s own creative shaping of scriptural interpretation, especially, as we have seen, across the span of several speeches, then we might also want to reconsider another frequently discarded tradition: Paul’s own self-designation as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5), and Luke’s depiction of him as having studied at the feet of Gamaliel “according to the strictness of our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3).137 This connection enables us to recognize that in his letters Paul used properly midrashic methods on the version of Torah the messianists had made their own, the LXX.138 This same connection helps us to understand that Luke was not only Paul’s admirer but also (as tradition long held) his companion and disciple, one of those making up, even in Paul’s lifetime, “the Pauline School.”139 These solutions might sound overly simple and concrete. But the evidence we have examined at least demands that we recognize that the compartments separating competing schools in first-century Judaism were not entirely watertight. Indeed, the evidence shows that methods we consider proper for the study of the Hebrew Bible within the proto-rabbinic and sectarian groups were shared also by competitors in the messianic tradition, but applied to the Greek version of Scripture. Close attention to the literary dimensions of LukeActs, finally, raises a number of other questions for which answers are yet to be found. The first is historical. If, in fact, Luke belongs with Paul and James and the author of Hebrews to the early and


51

generative period of creative scriptural interpretation, what are the implications for our understanding of earliest Christian history? On one side, we need to deal with the way that, through his speeches as well as his narrative, Luke has himself constructed a powerful version of that history. On the other side, if Luke is writing shortly after the career of Paul and shares his hermeneutical methods (except allegory), we may need to reevaluate the frequent understanding of Luke as writing from a perspective dramatically different from Paul’s. The evidence from the interpretation of Scripture in Luke’s speeches suggests that their perspectives, at least on this critical point, are not so disparate as sometimes supposed. The second question is theological. Given the fact that Scripture for Luke—and for all the New Testament writers—was not the Hebrew but rather the Greek LXX, how should we think about western Christianity’s long estrangement from the LXX? The Eastern Church continues to use the LXX as its Old Testament, and all Christian theology through Augustine was based squarely on the Greek Old and New Testament. But since Jerome’s Vulgate, the West has based its translations on the Hebrew. Yet the implications of this shift have never adequately been addressed theologically. The seamless intertexture of Luke-Acts and the rest of the New Testament no longer exists. Indeed, the patterns of New Testament citation, allusion, and argument from Scripture no longer appear evident or even credible. It is perhaps time to honestly face the question whether the LXX is really the Christian Old Testament.140

52


A third question, perhaps the most important, has to do with our shared life of discipleship in the church. To what extent does Luke’s way of interpreting Scripture serve as example and legitimation for our own? It is daunting to realize how deeply and thoroughly both he and his readers were involved in the imaginative world of Scripture. Luke suggests that it is impossible to speak the good news, impossible to tell the story of Jesus, without using the words of Scripture. But even more challenging is Luke’s assumption that God’s Holy Spirit continues to work in the lives of believers. Luke thinks that the Spirit continues to lead them into new and surprising experiences of God, continues to open their eyes to meanings of Scripture that study alone could never have yielded. Luke believes further that God’s Spirit continues to guide the church in its process of discernment and decision making, if Christians trust this same Holy Spirit. Letting the Spirit work in us this way requires not scholarship but the obedience of faith.141


53

Notes 1. The designation took hold because of the influence of the classic study by H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: MacMillan, 1927), which anticipated virtually all lines of subsequent research on this composition. 2. See M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). 3. It remains a remarkable fact that among the major commentary series, there is a single author for both volumes only in one: L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina, no. 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) and The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina, no. 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). The other major treatment of both volumes from the perspective of their literary unity is R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986–90). 4. See especially R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). 5. For Luke-Acts as biography, see C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); D. L. Brown and J. L. Wentling, “The Conventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of LukeActs: A Preliminary Study,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. C. H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 63-88. 6. For Luke-Acts as a Hellenistic history, see G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography, Novum Testamentum Supplements, no. 64 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); D. W. Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 1, The Books of Acts in its Literary Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1-30; J. T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 76 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993). On the importance of Luke’s Prologue

54


to the Gospel for determining his purposes, see R. J. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from his Prologue,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 205-27. 7. See Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 9-10. 8. For a short summary and bibliography, see L. T. Johnson, “The Christology of Luke-Acts,” in Who Do You Say That I Am: Essays in Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1999), 49-65. 9. Biblical imitation as a feature of one passage is analyzed by T. L. Brodie, “Towards Unravelling Luke’s Uses of the Old Testament: Luke 7:11-17 as Imitatio of 1 Kings 17: 17-24,” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 247-67. Imitation as a factor in the construction of a narrative sequence is found in C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 37-53, and D. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). 10. Many of these parallels are found in Pervo, Profit with Delight, and E. Pluemacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, no. 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972). For Hellenistic features in Luke’s birth account, see C. H. Talbert, “Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15,” in The Great Helmsman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980), 129-141. 11. Among many other features can be noted the manner of speech and travel by Jesus and his followers (see Luke 9:17; 10:1-12; Acts 17:16-34), the practice of teaching at meals (11:37-52; 14:1-24; 22:14-38), the establishment of a common life (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37), and boldness in proclamation in the face of opposition (Luke 12:8-12; 21:10-19; Acts 4:13-22). 12. For a sketch of representative positions, see R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982). 13. For the early date, see Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 2-3, and for the late date, see S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile


55

Mission in Luke-Acts, New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973). 14. One can contrast the range of views concerning the basic issues in Luke-Acts with the relative unanimity concerning the circumstances of Matthew’s composition—leaving aside the heated issue of the demographic makeup of the Matthean church. See, e.g., J. A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), and A. J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994). 15. See L. T. Johnson, “On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,” in 1979 SBL Seminar Papers, ed. P. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 87-100. 16. I applied this approach to the Letter of James, in L. T. Johnson, “The Social World of James: Literary Analysis and Historical Reconstruction,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. White and L. O. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 180-97. 17. For Torah as the shared symbolic world of all Jews in the first century, and for the conflicts over its interpretation in Christianity’s first generation, see L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 10-16, 43-91, 128-29. 18. Leaving aside lesser verbal exchanges and declarations, we find significant speech acts ascribed to Peter alone (2:14-36; 3:12-24; 10:34-43; 15:7-11) and with unnamed others (4:8-12; 4:23-31; 5:28-32), Stephen (7:2-53), Paul (13:1641; 14:15-18; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:223), James (15:14-21), Gamaliel (5:35-39), the Ephesian Town Clerk (19:35-40), and the advocate Tertullus (24:28). 19. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (New York: Harper and Row, 1936), 31. 20. Apostolic Preaching, 46-55; he concludes, “It is surely clear that the fourfold Gospel taken as a whole is an expression of the original apostolic preaching” (55).

56


21. Skepticism concerning the historicity of Acts is characteristic of German scholarship, in sharp contrast to the optimistic positivism of much British scholarship. The German approach is exemplified by the great commentary by E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. B. Noble et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); the more conservative British approach is represented by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1951), and C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no. 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989). 22. U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 5 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961). 23. H. J. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts,” in Additional Notes to the Commentary, ed. K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, vol.5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, (London: MacMillan and Company, 1933), 402-27; M. Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” and “Literary Allusions in the Speeches of Acts,” all in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, trans. Mary Ling (London: SCM Press, 1951; reprint, Mifflintown, Pa.: Sigler Press, 1999), 26-77, 138-85, 186-91. 24. Herodotus, trans. A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926). 25. Thucydides, trans. C. F. Smith, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1928). 26. Jewish War, trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927). 27. Lucian of Samosata, How to Write History, trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959). 28. F. F. Bruce recognizes this in principle in “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 1 (1990): 20-28, although in practice, he emphasizes the reportage dimension of the speeches in Acts. 29. In The Speeches of Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 12,


57

Marion Soards accepts this premise and pushes further to argue that Luke’s speeches in Acts “achieve the unification of the otherwise diverse and incoherent elements comprised by Acts. Through the regular introduction of formally repetitive speeches, Luke unified his narrative ….” This is an important observation, and close (though not identical) to the point I will make concerning the midrashic argument that runs through several speeches. 30. See, e.g., R. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 15 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), and J. A. T. Robinson, “The Most Primitive Christology of All?” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 7 (1956): 177-89. 31. Pluemacher, Lukas als hellenisticher Schriftsteller, 32-79. 32. J. Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. C. H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 210-24; see also F. Veltman, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert (Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 24356, and P. Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches in the Book of Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 15383. 33. W. S. Kurz, “The Function of the Christological Proof from Prophecy for Luke and Justin” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976). 34. For further insight into the rhetorical ideal of proso¯popoiia, see S. K. Stowers, “Romans 7:7-25 as a Speech in Character (Proso¯popoiia),” in Paul in his Hellenistic Setting, ed. T. Engberg-Peterson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 180202. 35. See Dio Chrys. Or. 12 (Discourses, trans. J. W. Cohoon, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1932]); Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 311-21. 36. See D. L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to the Stoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and the Epicureans,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. D. L. Balch et al.

58


(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 52-79, and J. Neyrey, “Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” Ibid., 118-34. 37. J. Dupont, Le Discours de Milet. Testament pastorale de Paul? Actes 20,18-36 (Paris: Cerf, 1962). 38. E. Hilgert, “Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of Historiography and Rhetoric,” in Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. E. L. Miller (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 83-109. 39. See L. T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 39 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 70-78, and The Gospel of Luke, 17-21. 40 See, e.g., H. Anderson, “The Rejection at Nazareth Pericope of Luke 4:16-30 in Light of Recent Critical Trends,” Interpretation 18 (1964): 259-74. 41. L. T. Johnson, “The Lukan Kingship Parable (Luke 19:1127),” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 139-59. 42. A great deal of good work has been done on the subject. Among others, see J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E. Boring, (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1992), 524-38; V. McCracken, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts,” Restoration Quarterly 4 (1999): 193-210; D. Bock, “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts: Christology and Mission,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1990), 494-511; D. E. Johnson, “Jesus against the Idols: The Use of Isaianic Servant Songs in the Missiology of Acts,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 343-53; C. A. Kimball, “Jesus’ Exposition of Scripture in Luke 4:16-30: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994): 179-202; C. A. Evans and J. A Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); M. L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); C. A. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of


59

the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 94 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); R. L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1995). 43. Analysis of Luke-Acts from this perspective began with P. Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” in Neutestamentlich Studien für Rudolf Bultmann, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin: E. Toepelmann, 1957), 165-86, was taken up by N. A. Dahl, “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Paul Schubert, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 16586, and a number of his students; see R. Karris, “Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of LukeActs,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 80-97. C. H. Talbert rightly warns against exaggerating the importance of this motif as a single interpretive lens, in “Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Theology” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 91-103. 44. See Johnson, Gospel of Luke,15-16. 45. For Matthew’s style of citation, see R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Novum Testamentum Supplements, no. 18 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), and K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968). 46. Matt. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9. 47. This sort of haggadic midrash is most obvious in the birth stories; see R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, enl. ed. (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1993); see also the studies by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). 48. Exod. 20:12-16/Deut. 5:16-20 (Luke 18:20); Deut. 6:4/ Lev. 19:18 (Luke 10:27); Deut. 6:13 (Luke 4:8); Deut. 6:16 (Luke 4:12); Deut. 8:3 (Luke 4:4); Isa. 8:14-15 (Luke 20:17); Isa. 40:3-5 (Luke 3:4-6); Isa. 53:12 (Luke 22:37);

60


Isa. 56:7/Jer. 7:11 (Luke 19:45); Isa. 61:1, 2; 58:6 (Luke 4:18-19); Mal. 3:1 (Luke 7:27); Ps. 31:5 (Luke 23:46); Ps. 91:11-12 (Luke 4:10-11); Ps. 110:1 (Luke 20:41); Ps. 118:22-23 (Luke 20:17); Ps. 118:26 (Luke 19:37). 49. E.g., “it is written” (Luke 4:4; 4:8; 4:10; 4:16; 19:45), “where it was written” (4:16), “about whom it is written” (7:27). The most elaborate introduction is “David himself says in the Book of the Psalms” (20:41); for the full range of these introductions, and for the parallel Hebrew constructions found at Qumran, see Fitzmyer, “Use of Old Testament in Luke-Acts,” 524-37. 50. Most are in the mouth of Jesus, but passages of¯Scripture are cited also by the devil (4:10), the crowds (19:37), and the lawyer, in response to Jesus’ question, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” (10:26). 51. For an overview of critical issues and bibliography, see M. K. H. Peters, “Septuagint,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:10931104; E. Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 161-88. 52. See Stendahl, School of St. Matthew and Its Use of Old Testament, 97-142. 53. The essays appear in J. Dupont, Etudes sur les Actes des Apôtres, Lectio Divina, no. 45 (Paris: Cerf, 1967): “L’Utilisation apologétique de l’Ancien Testament dans les discours des Actes,” 245-82; “L’Interprétation des Psaumes dans les Actes des Apôtres,” 283-308; “La Destinée de Judas prophétisée par David,” 309-20; “Ressuscité ‘le troisième jour,’” 321-36; “TA HOSIA DAUID TA PISTA (Actes 13, 34 = Isaïe 55,3),” 337-60; “LAOS EX ETHNON,” 361-66. See also “Les Discours de Pierre dans les Actes et le Chapitre xxiv de l’Evangile de Luc,” in L’Evangile de Luc, ed. F. Neirynck, Biblioteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, no. 32 (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1973). Two of the essays are available in English: “Messianic Interpretation of the Psalms in the Acts of the Apostles,” and “Apolo-


61

getic Use of the Old Testament in the Speeches of Acts,” in J. Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. J. Keating. (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 103-28 and 129-60. 54. On the passage, see C. Masson, “La Réconstitution du collège des Douze,” Revue philosophique et théologique, 3d ser., 5 (1955): 193-201; J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 75-112; J. Dupont, “La douxième Apôtre (Actes 1:15-26). A propos d’une explication récente,” in The New Testament Age, ed. W. C. Weinrich (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1984), 1:139-45. 55. See the structural analysis of the passage in relation to the two citations in Dupont, “La Destinée de Judas,” 309-20; see also the discussion of the passage by G. J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 12 (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), 38-63. 56. Gen¯eth¯eto¯ h¯e epaulis auto¯n er¯emo¯men¯e kai en tois sk¯eno¯masin auto¯n m¯e esto¯ ho katoiko¯n. Luke has changed the plurals of the LXX to the singular (to fit the citation to Judas), used the pronoun in place of the LXX’s “their tents,” and reversed the word sequence in the second phrase. 57. The citation matches the LXX, with one exception: Luke replaces laboi with labeto¯, which is consistent with the thirdperson imperatives in the first citation. Luke’s combination of texts here has no known precedent; see T. Holtz, Untersuchungen über die Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, Texte und Untersuchungen, no. 104 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968), 46. 58. Since this sense of peqûda¯ h as “store” or “things laid up” is found elsewhere only in Isa. 15:7, the LXX translators may simply have been woodenly consistent. 59. Paul tells the elders in Miletus, to pneuma to hagion etheto episkopous poimainein t¯en ekkl¯esian tou theou. 60. In contrast to the role of the proph¯et¯es in glossolalic cults, which was to interpret the speech that had been uttered

62


ecstatically, the prophet Peter interprets the event; see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 53-56. 61. Hon ho theos anest¯esen lysas tas o¯dinas tou thanatou kathoti ouk ¯en dynaton krateisthai auton hyp’ autou. 62. Hom. Il. 11.271 (trans. A. T. Murray, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1924]); Eur. Supp. 920 (Suppliants, trans. A. S. Way, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1912]); Joseph AJ 2.218; Isa. 37:3; 1 Thess. 5:3. 63. See, e.g., Exod. 22:25; Deut. 24:6; Prov. 20:16. 64. I find unconvincing the argument of H. van de Sandt, that the Amos text is essentially a replacement of one in Deteronomy, in “An Explanation of Acts 15:6-21 in the Light of Deuteronomy 4:29-35 (LXX),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 73-97. 65. For Luke’s understanding of circumcision as a custom appropriate to the Jewish nation but having no salvific value either for them or for Gentiles, see S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law, Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 50 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983); for the significance of the idea of “the people of God,” see especially N. A. Dahl, “‘A People for His Name’ (Acts XV.14),” New Testament Studies 4 (1957-58): 319-27. 66. For the narrative development through which Luke prepares for the climactic decision making, see L. T. Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996). 67. See the discussion in Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 183-93. 68. Dialogue with Trypho 66-77 (Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to 325, vol.1, ed. A. Roberts et al. [1885; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994]). 69. LXX Isa. 45:21 has hina gno¯sin hama tis akousta epoi¯esen tauta ap’ arch¯es. The allusion is possible but difficult to prove. 70. For a succinct statement of the issues with respect to Acts, see J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible, vol. 18C (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 66-79. 71. For discussion of the textual issues in detail, see Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 41-46; Holtz,


63

Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, 5-14; Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse, 28-33; M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, Studien zum Neuen Testament, no. 1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 48-49; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 64-100. 72. For an argument in favor of the Alexandrian text, see J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts, vol. 3 of The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan and Company, 1926), ccl-cclxxv; the Western tradition is favored by A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), xxii and following, and more recently, the case has been made that Luke is involved in the composition of both text versions; see M. E. Boismard, “The Text of Acts: A Problem of Literary Criticism?” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 147-57. 73. In the case of Acts, see G. Kilpatrick, “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey, ed. J. Birdsall and R. Thomson (New York: Herder, 1963), 64-77, and A. Klijn, “In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 103-10. 74. A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece juxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), first published in 1935; B. and K. Aland et al., ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. rev., (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), based on the edition of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle first published in 1898. 75. E. J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966). 76. See Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 41-45, and more recently, Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 91-100; see also C. A. Evans, “The Prophetic Setting of the Pentecost Sermon,” Zeitschrift für Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 148-50.

64


77. The prophecies spoken by characters within his narrative are used by Luke in a distinctive way, that is, programmatically, as ways of interpreting the subsequent flow of the story he is telling. See Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 15-18, and for Peter’s Speech in this light, see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 53-56. 78. R. B. Hays correctly makes the same point with respect to Paul, in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1989), 173-78. 79. This point is made strongly and correctly by C. H. Talbert, “Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Theology,” 93. 80. F. F. Bruce, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Acts,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis, ed. G. Hawthorne and O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 71-79; J. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Van Gorcum’s Theologische Bibliotheek, no. 24 (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1954), 115-16; J. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study of Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68): 96-111; L. Cerfaux, “Citations scripturaires et tradition textuelle dans le Livre des Actes,” Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Goguel, Bibliothèque théologique (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1950), 43-51. 81. J. Ross Wagner surveys the ways Ps. 118 may have been read in the Jewish context, but devotes his attention to the ways Luke exploits Ps. 118 throughout his narrative—an analysis not unlike the one that concludes the present essay; see “Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans and S. A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 154-78. Likewise, Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, acknowledges technical questions and parallels in Jewish literature, but he focuses mainly on the rich intertextual effects Luke achieves with his readings of Scripture.


65

82. Compare 13:18 and Deut. 1:31; 13:19; 7:1; 13:21 and 1 Sam. 10:21-24. 83. In the sequence from 4:1 to 5:42, Luke shows the ordinary populace and the official leadership of the people responding to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ and Lord in dramatically different ways. The ordinary people respond positively, while the leadership rejects the apostles’ message and authority. See Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 75-104. 84. Ibid., 142-44. 85. False witnesses first accuse him of blasphemous words against “Moses and God” (6:11). Then, before the council they say that Stephen “speaks against this holy place and the law” (6:13). Finally, this is explicated by 6:14 as, “Jesus the Nazorean will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” 86. Among many studies devoted to the speech, see C. K. Barrett, “Old Testament History according to Stephen and Paul,” in Studien zum Text und Ethik des Neuen Testaments, ed. W. Schrage, Beihefte Zeitschrift für die Neuen Testament, no. 47 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 57-69; J. Bihler, Die Stephanusgeschichte, Münchener Theologische Studien, no. 1, Historische Abteilung, no. 30 (München: Max Huebner, 1963); J. Dupont, “La Structure oratoire du discours d’Etienne (Actes 7),” Biblica 66 (1985): 153-67; J. Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study of Acts 7,2-53, Analecta Biblica, no. 67 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976); D. Sylva, “The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46-50,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 261-75; J. E. Via, “An Interpretation of Acts 7:35-37 from the Perspective of Major Themes in LukeActs,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978); 209-23. 87. See G. W. E. Nicklesburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in The Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 89-156.

66


88. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1930); the Genesis Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees are available in F. G. Martinez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. W. G. E. Watson, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); the Book of Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, and Artapanus are all available in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985). 89. See E. J. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963); S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979); P. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone (Compendium Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 23382. 90. See O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees, a New Translation and Introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:35-50. 91. On targums, see D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, ed., The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements, no. 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); A. D. York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and the School,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 10 (1979): 74-86. 92. E. Richard, Acts 6:1-8:4: The Author’s Method of Composition, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 41 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978). 93. Philo, On the Life of Moses, trans. F. H. Colson, in Philo, vol. 6, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935]). 94. Compare, for example, the Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas, ed. Ronald F. Hock, Scholars Bible, vol. 2 [Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995] and Pseudo-Callisthenes Life of Alexander of Macedon 1.13-19 (ed. and trans. E. H. Haight [New York: Longmans, Green, 1955]). 95. See examples in Pl. Cri. 50E, 51C (Plato, vol. 1, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. H. N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,


67

1914]); Philo Life of Moses 21; Flaccus 158 (trans. F. H. Colson, in Philo, vol. 9, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1941]). 96. The phrase chara para theo¯i used of Jesus in Luke 2:52 also corresponds to the phrase asteios to¯i theo¯i used of Moses in Acts 7:20. 97. See E. Richard, “The Polemical Character of the Joseph Episode in Acts 7,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 255-67, and Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 70-76. 98. A. A. Trites, “Some Aspects of Prayer in Luke-Acts,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 5977. 99. See, in particular, Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 75112; D. Hamm, “Acts 3:1-10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lukan Theology,” Biblica 67 (1986): 305-19, and J. Schmitt, “L’Eglise de Jérusalem, ou la ‘restauration’ d’Israël,” Revue des sciences religeuses 27 (1953): 209-18. 100. For the narrative development, see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 75-104; for the significance of the second description of the sharing of possessions for that narrative development, see Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 191-211. 101. Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 93-104. 102. See, e.g., E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 226; O. Bauernfeind, Die Apostelgeschichte, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 5 (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1939), 79; K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, English Translation and Commentary, vol. 4 of The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, 45; and recently, R. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 100. 103. J. Dupont, “La Prière des apôtres persecutés (Actes 4,2331)” in Etudes sur les Actes des Apôtres, Lectio Divina, no. 45 (Paris: Cerf, 1967), 521-22; see also Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 82-93. Notice that Luke makes a decisive transition to the “assembly of believers” in 4:32, and places the apostles in its midst.

68


104. Note the similarity to the grammatical awkwardness in Acts 3:16, where Luke wants to assert both the power at work “in the name” and the necessity of “faith in the name.” 105. Luke picks up the aorist verb synechth¯esan from the Psalm (Acts 4:26) and repeats it in his application (4:27); the application gains plausibility from the fact that Luke used the same verb (synagein) in his own narrative (4:5; 22:66). 106. The use of Christos in the Psalm (Acts 4:26) could justify translation as “the Messiah.” It was so understood by the late rabbinic Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 2. Luke’s use of chriein (“to anoint”) in Acts 4:27 (“whom you anointed”) also reminds us of the way in which Luke understands Jesus’ messiahship as an “anointing” by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18; 9:20; Acts 10:38). 107. On this theme, see especially Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts. 108. For pesher interpretation, see D. Dimant, “Pesherim, Qumran,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:244-51; W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 24 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979). 109. 1QpHab XII, in Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 202. 110. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 205. 111. See, e.g., Luke 1:68, 77; 2:32; 7:16; Acts 3:12; 4:1; 6:8; 13:15. 112. Johnson, Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, 11521. 113. For treatments of the speech, see among others, Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 148-80; M. F.-J. Buss, Die Missionspredigt des Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980); J. Dupont, “TA HOSIA DAUID TA PISTA,” 337-59; R. P. Gordon, “Targumic Parallels to Acts xiii, 18 and Didache xiv, 13,” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 285-89; J. J. Kilgallen, “Acts 13,38-39: Culmination of Paul’s Speech in Pisidia,” Biblica 69 (1988): 480506; R. F. O’Toole, “Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13: 13-52,” Biblica 60 (1979): 361-72; A. Schmitt, “Ps 16:8-11 als Zeugnis der Aufertstehung in der Apg.,” Biblische Zeit-


69

schrift, n.s., 17 (1973): 229-48; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 159-202; Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 108-23. 114. See, e.g., Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 337-56. 115. Unlike Matt. 22:41, which explicitly identifies the interlocutors as Pharisees, and Mark 12:35, which identifies them as Scribes, Luke 20:41 has only “how do they say,” leaving the identity of the referent to be inferred from his previous exchange with some Scribes (Luke 20:39-40). 116. In addition to the explicit citations in Matt. 22:44, Mark 12:36, and Luke 20:42, see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:3 and 13, as well as allusions in Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:1; 10:12. 117. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 4-8, 37-40, 127-40. 118. See D. Juel, “The Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 543-56, and his Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). 119. For the text, see Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 136; for discussion, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 43-45. 120. It is possible to discern in Luke’s argument certain of the interpretive rules (middoth) that were codified among scribal interpreters already in the first century. For the seven Rules of Hillel, see the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 37 (Aboth de Rabbin Nathan: The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, trans. J. Goldin, Yale Judaica Series, no. 10 [New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1955]). Rules such as gezerah shewa (inference from analogy of expression) and binyan av (induction from texts with features in common), however, were intended mainly to control the serious business of halachic midrash. In the case of haggadic (non-legal) interpretation—the sort Luke is doing—practice is much more freewheeling. For an introduction, see R. Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scrip-

70


ture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mikra, vol. 2, part 1, 54794. 121. See Ph.-H. Menoud, “Justification by Faith according to the Book of Acts,” in Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. E. M. Paul (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978), 202-27. 122. See, e.g., LXX Deut. 33:8; 2 Sam. 22:26; Ps. 4:3; 11:1; 15:10; 17:25. 123. See, e.g., LXX Gen. 24:12; Deut. 7:9; Josh. 2:14; Ps. 12:5; 20:7; 31:10; Isa. 54:10; Dupont, “TA HOSIA DAUID TA PISTA,” 343-44, suggests that the LXX translators mistook the noun for the adjective. 124. See, e.g., LXX Num. 12:7; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 88:37; Isa. 49:7. 125. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 165-73, provides a good summary of the major positions: (a) the phrase refers to David’s holiness or piety; b) it refers to the Messiah’s resurrection; (c) it refers to salvation blessings; (d) it refers to the covenant promises to David. This last is Strauss’s position, and it is very close to the one I adopt here. See also Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 177-82. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 116-18, makes the interpretation of the troublesome phrase depend heavily on the context of Isa. 55. 126. See Euthphr. 6E, 12D (Plato, vol. 1, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, trans. H. N. Fowler); Leg. 861D (Plato, vol. 10-11, Laws, trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926]); Polyb. Histories 22.10.8 (6 vols., trans. W. R. Paton, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1976-80]). See also the inscription found at Cnidus in Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dillenberger, 3d ed. (Leipzig, 1915-24), 1199. 127. The NRSV has “all who hear the words of this oath.” 128. Perhaps the most impressive example of the “hidden textual premise” is the line from LXX Joel 3:5b that Luke does not have Peter quote in his Pentecost speech. After the line, “and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” the LXX continues, hoti en to¯i orei Sio¯n kai en Ierousal¯em estai anaso¯izomenos kathoti eipen kyrios kai


71

euangelizomenoi hous kyrios proskekl¯etai (because on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, there will be a remnant, just as the Lord said, and they will be preached the good news, those whom the Lord summons). That Luke was well aware of the verse is suggested by Peter’s use of “whomever the Lord our God summons” in 2:39. And the combination of Jerusalem/ remnant/proclaiming good news, all in the future, would seem to provide the perfect theme for the restoration of Israel that Luke develops in Acts 2-4. This seems to be one of the cases where Luke chooses to leave the key verse inexplicit, leaving it to his readers’ competence in intertextual recognition to pick up the intended allusion. For discussion, see Dupont, “Apologetic Use of the Old Testament in the Speeches of Acts,” 151-52, and Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 88. 129. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 125. 130. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 126. 131. For the translation and discussion, see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 439-40. 132. See Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II., III, trans. F. H. Colson and G. W. Whittaker, in Philo, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1929]); Letter of Aristeas 128-71 (trans. R. J. H. Shutt, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:7-34; Aristobulus frag. 2, 4, 5 (trans. A. Yarbro Collins, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:831-42). 133. N. A. Dahl, “Eschatology and History in Light of the Qumran Texts,” in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine, ed. D. H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 49-64. 134. See E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981); C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, ed., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements, no. 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.

72


135. Dupont takes the position that Luke took over earlier interpretations, in “Apologetic Use of the Old Testament,” 151-52. 136. L. Cerfaux, “La première Communauté chrétienne à Jérusalem (Act. ii, 41-v, 42),” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 16 (1939): 5-31. 137. Still worth reading is W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth (London: Epworth, 1962). 138. For Paul’s complex argument in Galatians 3, for example, see N. A. Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” in Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977) 159-77, and T. Callan, “Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Gal. 3:19b,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 549-67. 139. For my position concerning the “Pauline School” as active in all of Paul’s correspondence, see L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) 261-78, and The First and Second Letters to Timothy, Anchor Bible, vol. 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 81-99. 140. This issue is discussed in my forthcoming book, cowritten with William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 141. See L. T. Johnson, Scripture and Discernment. For the understanding of faith as response to the continuous selfdisclosure of God in the common fabric of human experience, see L. T. Johnson, Faith’s Freedom: A Classic Spirituality for Contemporary Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990).


73

THE PÈRE MARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 1969 The Authority for Authority Quentin Quesnell Marquette University 1970 Mystery and Truth John Macquarrie Union Theological Seminary 1971 Doctrinal Pluralism Bernard Lonergan, S.J. Regis College, Ontario 1972 Infallibility George A. Lindbeck Yale University 1973 Ambiguity in Moral Choice Richard A. McCormick, S.J. Bellarmine School of Theology 1974 Church Membership as a Catholic and Ecumenical Problem Avery Dulles, S.J. Woodstock College 1975 The Contributions of Theology to Medical Ethics James Gustafson University of Chicago 1976 Religious Values in an Age of Violence Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum Director of National Interreligious Affairs American Jewish Committee, New York City 1977 Truth Beyond Relativism: Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge Gregory Baum St. Michael’s College

74

The Père Marquette Lecture Series

1978 A Theology of ‘Uncreated Energies’ George A. Maloney, S.J. John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies Fordham University 1980 Method in Theology: An Organon For Our Time Frederick E. Crowe, S.J. Regis College, Toronto 1981 Catholics in the Promised Land of the Saints James Hennesey, S.J. Boston College 1982 Whose Experience Counts in Theological Reflection? Monika Hellwig Georgetown University 1983 The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark John R. Donahue, S.J. Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley 1984 Should War be Eliminated? Philosophical and Theological Investigations Stanley Hauerwas Notre Dame University 1985 From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of Laws Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J. The Catholic University of America 1986 Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization Walter Brueggemann Eden Theological Seminary St. Louis, Missouri


75

1987 Nova et Vetera: The Theology of Tradition in American Catholicism Gerald Fogarty University of Virginia 1988 The Christian Understanding of Freedom and the History of Freedom in the Modern Era: The Meeting and Confrontation Between Christianity and the Modern Era in a Postmodern Situation Walter Kasper University of Tübingen 1989 Moral Absolutes: Catholic Tradition, Current Trends, and the Truth William F. May Catholic University of America 1990 Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre Adela Yarbro Collins University of Notre Dame 1991 Faith, History and Cultures: Stability and Change in Church Teachings Walter H. Principe, C.S.B. University of Toronto 1992 Universe and Creed Stanley L. Jaki Seton Hall University 1993 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues Gerald G. O’Collins, S.J. Gregorian Pontifical University 1994 Seeking God in Contemporary Culture Most Reverend Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B. Archbishop of Milwaukee

76


1995 The Book of Proverbs and Our Search for Wisdom Richard J. Clifford, S.J. Weston Jesuit School of Theology 1996 Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches: East is West and West is East Michael A. Fahey, S.J. University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto 1997 ‘Faith Adoring the Mystery’: Reading the Bible with St. Ephræm the Syrian Sidney H. Griffith Catholic University of America 1998 Is There Life after Death? Jürgen Moltmann Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany 1999 Moral Theology at the End of the Century Charles E. Curran Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of Human Values Southern Methodist University 2000 Is the Reformation over? Geoffrey Wainwright 2001 In Procession before the World: Martyrdom As Public Liturgy in Early Christianity Robin Darling Young 2002 Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts Luke Timothy Johnson


77

About the Père Marquette Lecture Series The Annual Père Marquette Lecture Series began at Marquette University in the Spring of 1969. Ideal for classroom use, library additions, or private collections, the Père Marquette Lecture Series has received international acceptance by scholars, universities, and libraries. Hardbound in blue cloth with gold stamped covers. Uniform style and price ($15 each). Some reprints with soft covers. Regular reprinting keeps all volumes available. Ordering information (purchase orders, checks, and major credit cards accepted): Marquette University Press 1444 U.S. Route 42 P.O. Box 388 Ashland OH 44903 Order Toll-Free (800) 247–6553 fax: (419) 281–6883 Editorial Address: Dr. Andrew Tallon, Director Marquette University Press Box 1881 Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 phone: fax: internet: web:

(414) 288-7298 (414) 288-3300 [email protected] www.marquette.edu/mupress/

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts issue 2002

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts

The Midrash of the Messiah

Speeches

Midrash and Lection in Matthew

Speeches in World History

Speeches of the American Presidents

The Acts of Others

The Acts of Uniformity

Speech Acts in the History of English

The Acts

Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash

Midrash Bet HaShem: The Alphabet

The Apocryphal Acts of John

Murder In Three Acts

Journal of Organizational Change Management - Volume 15 Issue 1 (2002) - Special Issue: Documenting the organization in film and videotape

Acts of Mercy

Acts of faith

Acts Of Nature

Acts of Faith

Acts of Passion

All Acts of Pleasure

Acts of Mercy

Acts of Malice

Acts of Literature

Acts of Congress

Acts of faith

Acts of Faith

In the Midst of Death issue 2

The Penguin Book of Historic Speeches

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts issue 2002