Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts

cover title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc...

Author: Robert L. Brawley

59 downloads 626 Views 867KB 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

cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

next page >

Text to Text Pours Forth Speech : Voices of Scripture in LukeActs Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Brawley, Robert L. Indiana University Press 9780253329394 9780585109015 English Bible.--N.T.--Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc, Bible.--N.T.-Acts--Criticism, interpretation, etc, Intertextuality. 1995 BS2589.B75 1995eb 226.4/06 Bible.--N.T.--Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc, Bible.--N.T.-Acts--Criticism, interpretation, etc, Intertextuality.

cover If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Text to Text Pours Forth Speech

< previous page

page_i If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page > Page ii

Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Herbert Marks and Robert Polzin, general editors 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, by Peter D. Miscall. Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes, by Adele Berlin. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Three: 2 Samuel, by Robert Polzin. The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics, by Michael Fishbane. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, by Daniel Boyarin. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible, by Joel Rosenberg. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, by Mieke Bal. Like unto Moses: The Constituting of an Interruption, by James Nohrnberg. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part One: Deuteronomy Joshua, Judges, by Robert Polzin. Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death, by Mieke Bal. "Not in Heaven": Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, by Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Jr., editors. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, by Meir Sternberg. Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation, by Max H. Fisch. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: 1 Samuel, by Robert Polzin. Scripture and Translation, by Martin Buber. Translated by Lawrence Rosenwald with Everett Fox. Sing Unto God a New Song: A Contemporary Reading of the Psalms, by Herbert Levine. Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative, by George Savran. The Voice of Jacob: On the Composition of Genesis, by Leslie Brisman.

< previous page

page_ii If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

Text to Text Pours Forth Speech Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts Robert L. Brawley INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS BLOOMINGTON AND INDIANAPOLIS

< previous page

page_iii If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. Used by permission. All rights reserved. © 1995 by Robert L. Brawley All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brawley, Robert L. (Robert Lawson) Text to text pours forth speech: voices of scripture in Luke-Acts / Robert L. Brawley. p. cm.(Indiana studies in biblical literature) Includes index. 1. Bible. N.T. LukeCriticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. ActsCriticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Intertextuality. II. Series. I. Title. 1995 226.4' 06dc20 95-2379 BS2589.B75 ISBN 0-253-32939-6 1 2 3 4 5 00 99 98 97 96 95

< previous page

page_iv If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_v

next page > Page v

To Jane Companion and spouse by covenant, the covenant given to the forebears for the blessing of all the families of the earth

< previous page

page_v If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i


< previous page


next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_vii

Page vii

Contents Preface

ix

1. Out of the Mouths of Texts and Intertexts

1

2. For the Blessing of All the Families of the Earth

15

3. Falling and Fitting Shoes: Mise en abyme and Voices of Scripture in Luke 20:919

27

4. Resistance to the Carnivalization of Jesus' Crucifixion: Voices of Scripture in the Lucan Passion Narrative

42

5. Resisting a Carnivalesque Construct of World with the Carnivalesque and with Voices of Scripture: Acts 1:1526

61

6. Hermeneutical Voices of Scripture in Acts 2

75

7. Revising Norms and Rehabilitating Jesus as Prominent in Acts 34

91

8. Acclaiming Prominents: Voices of Scripture in Acts 13

108

9. Their Voice Goes Out through All Luke-Acts

124

Abbreviations

133

Notes

135

Index

173

< previous page

page_vii If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i


< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_ix

next page > Page ix

Preface For its part in throwing the senselessness of the crucifixion of Jesus into reverse, Luke-Acts reflects multiple strategieslocating Jesus in a narrative world shaped by God'purposes, recounting prodigious deeds and canny sayings of Jesus, setting Jesus off to advantage against opponents, portraying Jesus as the leader of his disciples. In, with, and under such strategies, however, lies a conspicuous hunger for voices of scripture. Indeed, giving utterance to voices of scripture is itself among the primary strategies of making sense of Jesus. Deciphering some of the voices of scripture in Luke-Acts depends to a large degree on the source of the voices. The overt source is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, essentially the Septuagintthe Bible for Luke-Acts. Thus, the following chapters work from and with the Septuagint (LXX) rather than the Hebrew Bible, that is, the Masoretic Text (MT). What difference does this make? In given cases the Septuagint may be either less ambiguous or more ambiguous than the Hebrew, or the Septuagint may be altogether different, and interplay between Luke-Acts and scripture depends restrictively on the version with which Luke-Acts is playing. Because Hebrew and Greek versions differ, readers may notice what appears to be inconsistency in nomenclature and enumeration in this book. When I refer to the Septuagint, I use 1-2-3-4 Kingdoms, but when I refer to parallel material in the Hebrew or English, I use 12 Samuel and 12 Kings. Psalm 9 in the Septuagint contains Psalms 9 and 10 in the Masoretic Text, and so beginning with Psalm 10 the enumeration in the Septuagint lags one behind the Hebrew. Where pertinent, I indicate differences by adding LXX to the reference to indicate the Septuagint. Some of my discussions dialogue both with the text and with commentators, who may be using Hebrew and/or English enumeration. Consequently, with reference to the text I may use one enumeration whereas with reference to the commentator I may use another. So, for example, one discussion may have references to both Psalm 15 LXX and Psalm 16 with the understanding that Psalm 15 LXX is a version of Psalm 16. Occasionally versification is also different, and where pertinent this is indicated by giving the reference both in the Septu-

< previous page

page_ix If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_x

next page > Page x

agint and in the New Revised Standard Version. There are also cases where the Hebrew differs from conventional modern English versification, and this is indicated by giving the reference in both the Masoretic Text and the New Revised Standard Version. Where pertinent. I also give my own translations of the Septuagint, indicated by "author's trans." in parentheses. Otherwise, English translations are from the New Revised Standard Version, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A., and are used by permission. In the text I follow the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook for Editors and Authors in abbreviations lot biblical books and rabbinic literature. In the notes I also follow the same handbook for abbreviations of periodicals, reference works, and serials. This book is loaded with and banks on technical terminology that uninitiated readers may find somewhat baffling. Chapter 1 introduces Harold Bloom's revisionary ratios, Richard Hays's criteria for discerning allusions, and Michael Riffaterre's concept of ungrammaticalities, and readers are well advised to anticipate them again on down the line. Chapter 1 also discusses intertextuality and the figurative nature of the relationship between percursor texts and successor texts. Further, it indicates the manner in which aspects of these theories underlie the discussion throughout the book. Chapter 2 is a case in point. It employs theories of intertextuality and of the figurative relationship between Luke-Acts and voices of scripture for a close reading of Jesus' temptations in Luke 4:113. Claims emerge from the close reading for (1) a theocentric appropriation of scripture and (2) the prominence of God's promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. Further, these two claims underlie the entire book. Chapter 3 appropriates literary theory on mise en abyme, that is, a replication of the larger story in miniature, and shows how a miniature replication of Luke-Acts in the parable of the tenants of the vineyard (Luke 20:919) teams with voices of scripture to revise readers' anticipations. Chapter 4 employs the carnivalization of literature in order to demonstrate the juxtaposition of two constructs of world in the passion of Jesus. The carnivalesque represents an attempt by Jesus' opponents to reduce his crucifixion to utter absurdity. Luke-Acts resists this attempt primarily by calling forth voices of scripture. Chapter 5 argues, however, that rather than resist the carnivalesque, Acts 1:1526 employs the carnivalesque in concert with voices of scripture in order to reduce Judas to utter absurdity. This contrasts Judas with Jesus, who is vindicated from the degradation of the crucifixion by the resurrection. Methodologically, chapters 68 hang together in their use of the cultural roles of honor/shame and labeling and deviance theory. Chapter 6 has two foci: (1) the rehabilitation of Jesus and his followers in Peter's speech in

< previous page

page_x If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_xi

next page > Page xi

Acts 2, and (2) the hermeneutical function of scripture in Acts 2, that is, the function of scripture to make Pentecost understandable. Chapters 7 and 8 also use labeling and deviance theory to analyze conflicts between followers of Jesus and their opponents. Chapter 7 interprets Acts 34 as a struggle for the prominence of Jesus against his degradation in the crucifixion. At the heart of the struggle is (1) the claim of benefits through Jesus of God's promise to bless all the families of the earth, (2) the juxtaposition of the power of authorities to the Apostles' power of persuasion, and (3) the evocation of bold revisionary understandings of scripture. Chapter 8 extends the argument of chapter 7 by also employing labeling and deviance theory. It shows how Acts 13 uses voices of scripture to reverse negative social evaluations and to present Jesus and his followers as prominent in the social order. Their prominence depends largely on God's fidelity to covenant promises, especially the promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. I am unable to pay all my debts for help in writing this book, but I acknowledge some of them as a sign of my gratitude. McCormick Theological Seminary provided me with a sabbatical leave in 1993 so that I could devote full time to the project. Principal Martin Cressey of Westminster College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, gave me an appointment as a Senior Associate in order that I might pursue research at the University of Cambridge. I received a Theological Scholarship and Research Grant from the Association of Theological Schools that made it possible for me to work in Cambridge. Robert Polzin and Alan Culpepper read the entire manuscript. Klyne Snodgrass, Donald Senior, Margaret Mitchell, Craig Evans, Daniel Boyarin, Hans Dieter Betz, and Robert Jewett read portions. Many of their suggestions and provocative questions led to revisions that appear in this final form. I prized dialogue by way of notes pasted on the manuscript with Editor Nancy Miller of Indiana University Press. She helped me to express more of what I wanted to say and less of what I did not want to say. I am grateful to General Editors Robert Polzin and Herbert Marks and Sponsoring Editor Robert Sloan for accepting the book for publication. Portions of chapter 1 dealing with theory and method appeared in my article, "An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:2829," Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993) 42743. An earlier version of chapter 2 appeared as "Canon and Community: Intertextuality, Canon, Interpretation, Christology, Theology, and Persuasive Rhetoric in Luke 4:113," Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 31; ed. E. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 41934. Portions of that article also appear in chapter 9. An earlier version of chapter 4 is slated to appear in Semeia, though publication has been delayed. These copyrighted materials are used by permission. Though the public forum is inadequate to express my full gratitude to my wife, Jane, I earnestly dedicate this book to her.

< previous page

page_xi If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

1 Out of the Mouths of Texts and Intertexts If mortals die, will they speak again? In order to attest faith as a response of venerable forebears to God, Hebrews goes about as far into the past as the limits of its horizon will allowback to Abel. In an audacious denial of the constraints of time, Heb 11:4 asserts that Abel died, but through his faith he still speaks. What does Abel's voice say? In Genesis 4 Abel's mouth speaks not one word. But Hebrews hears a voice. It is the voice of a text. The explicit point of contact between Heb 11:4 and Gen 4:34 is a more accept able sacrifice from Abel than from Cain. But implicitly, Hebrews banks on readers remembering parts of the context that it does not mention: ''The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground'' (Gen 4:10 LXX, author's trans.). If Abel dies, how will he speak again? This is a book about ways Luke-Acts hears voices of scripture and folds them into its own voice. So to initiate the discussion with Hebrews is to begin with an excursus of sorts. But as in Hebrews, so also in Luke-Acts: text to text pours forth speech. Even when, as with Abel, there is no speech, a voice is not heard, yet their voice goes forth through all of Luke-Acts. This book aspires to assist readers in arriving at new levels of meaning as they overhear such voices of scripture in Luke-Acts. One of its main thrusts is to propose that Luke-Acts appropriates scripture in all its nuances with a dominant theocentric perspective. Methodologically, it mines some theories on intertextuality to develop an approach to understanding the function of scripture in Luke-Acts. Thus, this chapter introduces an intertextual approach, points toward the figurative nature of allusions, and attempts to establish some heuristic categories by which subsequent chapters interpret interactions between percursor and successor texts. Further, it lays the groundwork for presenting Luke-Acts as a sustained interplay with scripturean interplay that is not peripheral but constitutive for Luke-Acts. Here is an introductory case in point from Luke-Acts where, as in Hebrews, a mortal who has died speaks again: As if benevolent protectorsrule enhancers 1some Pharisees take Jesus to task by challenging his disciples for plucking, rubbing, and eating grain on the sabbath: "Why are you doing

< previous page

page_1 If you like this book, buy it!

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

what is not lawful on the sabbath?" (Luke 6:2). Up to the task, Jesus plays out the cultural script of challenge/riposte by reminding the rule enhancers of a canon that he shares with them and of a canonical exception that disproves the rule: "Have you not read what David did?" (6:3). Under the urgency of hunger, like the hunger of Jesus' disciples, David and his soldiers ate holy bread reserved for priests. David thus legitimates the behavior of Jesus' disciples. David died, but like Abel in Hebrews, through a text he still speaks. The interplay with scripture grows more complex, however. Jesus' riposte does not stop with the legitimation of one violation of sabbath rules. It moves rather to invert a cultural religious norm: "The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath" (Luke 6:5). This too stands in a revisionary relationship with scripture. Against the insinuation that he keeps the sabbath for God's sake, by claiming to be lord of the Sabbath Jesus implies that God has given the sabbath for his sake. He can do so without complete arrogance because in Genesis 1 God creates human beings in the divine image and gives them dominion over the rest of creation (1:26, 28). 2 Does that story terminate at Gen 1:312:1? Because of a curious ambiguity in 2:12, perhaps not. The first verse announces the completion of the creation of the heavens and the earth and all their multitude on the sixth day. The second verse, however, declares that God finished the work on the seventh. From one perspective, God rested from the work of creation, and so the sabbath falls after creation. But from another perspective, God also did something creative on the seventh dayGod blessed the day and hallowed it (2:3). For readers who know scripture well enough, God provides the sabbath, like the rest of creation, for the welfare of humanity,3 and thus humanity has dominion over it just as it has over the rest of creation. Deuteronomy 5:1315 explicitly expresses the notion that the sabbath serves humanity. Like emancipation from slavery, it liberates from burdens. Because Jesus defends the behavior of his disciples, his claim to be lord of the sabbath is not entirely exclusive. But the Lucan Jesus does heighten his relationship to the sabbath as distinctive: "The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." There are no speaking roles in Gen 2:13, no utterances of actors; a voice is not heard. Yet voices of texts go forth. And when the sabbath in the scriptures comes back around in Jesus' claim, it climbs to a higher rungan enhanced revision. Is my account of the vitality of scripture in this rather oblique allusion in Luke 6:15 excessive? Does it go too far? All texts leave gaps for readers to fill. Moreover, oblique allusions are particular ways texts entice readers to participate in writing the text. The indeterminancy of the text and its allusions pulls readers into a journey toward determinancy. This does not imply that there are no criteria for detecting allusions, but to paraphrase Robert Scholes, if readers are going in the right direction, there is no such thing as going too far.4

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

Or is my account of the vitality of scripture in an oblique allusion in Luke 6:15 deficient? Does it go far enough? Ali texts are materializations out of an unformulated text, a reservoir of all the possibilities that go into the production of textsa reservoir that Roland Barthes refers to as the cultural voice of the text. 5 Massive amounts of the cultural repertoire materialize in texts in indeterminate ways at subconscious or unconscious levels. So some theorists contend that analysis of the relationship of texts to specific precursors is an unworkable distortion of relationships between texts and the cultural repertoire. Is the consideration of intertextuality in relation to Jesus as lord of the sabbath deficient because it does not go far enough? An analogy may help to answer the question. Incessant waves lapping the shores keep captivating me on my daily jaunts beside Lake Michigan. Breakers parade with regularity one behind the other until they crash against Promontory Point. When the perspective is distance, white arcs of breakers move, with more deliberation than speed, as if across a stable plane of water. But zoom in closer, and the stable plane of water breaks up into myriads of facets. The water is so alive with waveswaveletsthat it is difficult to speak of the surface and more precise m refer to multiple surfaces. Winds on the lake generate swells that interact in complex mixtures of amplitude, velocity, and direction with the wake of a catamaran or the ripples of a surfacing pike. Those swells that turn into white arcs of breakers at Promontory Point form only when larger and faster waves outstrip the smaller and slower ones to create varying degrees of regular sequences. Moreover, although the breakers parade in the same direction, subdominant wave motions also buck the flow and run across the grain. Intertextuality ripples through Luke-Acts in an analogous way. It ripples in Luke-Acts because it ripples in all texts. If I write, "Texts do not live to themselves, and texts do not die to themselves," some readers may detect that I have transferred patterns of an established text from Rom 14:7 into what I have written. But something similar is also true of the text Paul wrote and of all other words that authors write. They derive from a complex cultural stock, an unformulated text, that enables writers to draw on and combine elements from the repertoire in order to produce texts.6 So also Luke-Acts transposes textual patterns from its cultural repertoire to form its text. The surface of Luke-Acts ripples with intertextuality because it constantly folds textual patterns from scripture into its text. The folding of elements from scripture into Luke-Acts is as multifaceted as the breakers testing the resilience of Promontory Pointmoving vertically and horizontally, and, along with complex interactions of smaller waves, moving simultaneously forward and backward, sideways and diagonally, in greater or lesser degrees. Thus, Luke-Acts, like all texts, speaks with a plurality of voices. When Mary magnifies the Lord in response to Elizabeth's pronouncements of her blessedness (Luke 1:4655), she collects

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

swells from Hannah's prayer in 1 Kgdms 2:110 into her song, but she also supercharges it with textual patterns from Genesis, Deuteronomy, 2 Kingdoms, the Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk. Even this tabulation registers only some of the most obvious assimilations of textual patterns from scripture. The comprehensive picture is kaleidoscopic in intricacy. Moreover, the appropriated textual patterns may already embody their own kaleidoscopic intricacy because they may come into Luke-Acts mediated through tradition. Thus, Mary phrases her recollection of what God spoke to the forebears, to Abraham and his descendants forever, in textual patterns associated with the Davidic covenant (Luke 1:55; Gen 12:13; 2 Kgdms 22:51). That is, the Abrahamic covenant is mediated through Davidic traditions. 7 In addition to voices such as Hannah's and Mary's, readers may also hear the voice of canon and the voice of Luke-Acts. So the voice that readers hear through Mary speaks as if it were a conversation with multiple voices. Even this, however, remains at the surface level, and there are undercurrents of anterior textual patterns that elude conscious recognition. Julia Kristeva dubbed the relationship between a text and the entire reserve of textual patterns "intertextuality" and differentiated it sharply from the search for sources and influences.8 For her, the intertext is the unbounded bank of textual patterns, anonymous and general, from which an author construes a text. The relationship between a text and its sources and influences is essentially diachronica comparison between a precursor text and a successorlike comparing the effects of an Asian influenza virus in one year with those of a derivative strain in the next. Kristeva focused instead on a synchronic relationship between the text and the unbounded bank of textual patternsa comparison between the function of textual patterns external to the text and the function of the textual pattern within the textmore like comparing the function of an Asian influenza virus outside the human body with its function within. Further, for her the transfer of textual patterns from outside to within a text was essentially ideologicala power move. What desire drives the employment of textual patterns for what objective? Dual dimensions of complexity thus threaten to break down the enterprise of studying voices of scripture in Luke-Acts. (1) in Kristeva's sense, the intertext cannot be confined to a citation or an allusion. (2) But even if the focus narrows to citations and allusions, ripples from scripture form interacting complexes far beyond citations and allusions, like the complex interactions of waves on Lake Michigan. The waves on Lake Michigan offer one further analogy to the voices of scripture in Luke-Acts. For all the complexity, the larger and faster waves nevertheless form dominant patternsthe breakers that crash into Promontory Point. Similarly, there are specific, recognizable citations and allusions that dominate the surface of Luke-Acts. Further, when readers zoom in for a

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

close reading, some subdominant allusions also stand out like facets on the surface of the water. 9 So complexity notwithstanding, this study probes into Luke-Acts by examining the function of the transfer of textual patterns from scripture into the text of Luke-Acts. On the other hand, the complexity makes the study necessarily partial. Indeed, I have been rather arbitrary in selecting certain passages for study, and I am quite conscious of neglecting significant allusions to scripture in the birth and infancy narratives (Luke 12), in Jesus' inaugural sermon in Nazareth (4:1630), in Stephen's speech (Acts 7), and in Paul's final words to some Jews in Rome (28:2627). Even this list is partial. In spite of the partiality, however, the study advances two particular critical arguments. One is that explicit allusions are often signals for readers to listen for more expansive voices from the context of the explicit allusions. That is, explicit allusions play against a broader backdrop. The other is that a dominant viewpoint controls the way Luke-Acts plays on scripture. In contrast to conventional claims that Luke-Acts appropriates scripture with a christocentric or an ecclesiocentric hermeneutic, the thesis of this study is that the play on scripture is essentially theocentric. True, Luke-Acts may read scripture christologically. Scripture attains a new meaning because the risen Jesus opens the minds of his followers to understand what was written about him in scripture (Luke 24:45). Further, allusions to scripture may function to build and maintain community in Luke-Acts, and thus they may play ecclesiological roles.10 In the account of Pentecost, Acts 2 establishes a criterion by citing Joel 3:5 LXX (2:32 NRSV), "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." True to this criterion, about three thousand people called on the name of the Lord and were added (Acts 2:41). Thus, scripture plays an ecclesiological role. But a theocentric umbrella covers the christological and ecclesiological functions. A crucified messiah and a community of people who believe in the crucified messiah are the Lord's doingmarvelous in our eyes. Intertextuality An engrossing interest in Luke's use of scripture in a promise-fulfillment mode flowed out of Paul Schubert's compelling identification of a proof-from-prophecy motif at the heart of Luke-Acts.11 On another front, Leonhard Goppelt made the case for typology as the approach that governs the use of scripture in Luke-Acts.12 Martin Rese has shown the inadequacy of both typology and proof from prophecy as overarching categories. In particular, he has explicated a hermeneutical use of scripture. That is, Luke-Acts uses scripture to explain the happenings of the time of Jesus and the primitive church. Most precisely, scripture interprets how God is at work.13 This

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

plowed ground is now ready for some new planting, and current literary theory on intertextuality holds promise for fertilizing the discussion. Though the unformulated text encompasses far more than allusions, allusions nevertheless spring from the unformulated text. Scripture comprises a conspicuous part of the unformulated text, the cultural repertoire for Luke-Acts. Luke-Acts may introduce citations with formulas that identify the citations as scripture. But Luke-Acts may also presume that readers will catch allusions out of the cultural repertoire. To give a case in point, at the birth of John the Baptist. Zechariah proclaims float the child will "go before the Lord to prepare his ways" (Luke 1:76)implicitly an echo of Mal 3:1 as well as Isa 40:35, the latter of which comes into play explicitly in Luke 3:4: "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord.'" Further, the multiple, complex allusions to scripture imply that Luke-Acts is a continuation of the biblical story. 14 This means that readers of Luke-Acts read scripture through Luke-Acts. But the relationship is reciprocal, so that readers also read Luke-Acts through scripture. It has been conventional to measure a successor text by how precisely it reflects the literary and historical context of its precursor. Accordingly, conventional interpreters judge that some citations of scripture in the New Testament respect the original context, some are detached from the context, and some violate the context.15 To take an example, Acts 4:2526 cites Ps 2:12. On its own Psalm 2 mocks Gentiles who wage war against a Davidic king. According to poetic parallelism, the peoples (laoi) who plot in vain in the second half of verse 1 are synonymous with the nations (ethne) who conspire in the first half. Acts 4:27, however, ignores the parallelism. Rather, it takes the first half of Ps 2:1 as a reference to Gentiles (ethne) and the second half to Jews (laoi), and appropriates Psalm 2 as a description of the crucifixion of Jesus. From this point of view, Luke-Acts cites scripture without respecting the original context.16 Intertextuality requires a quite different perspective toward the relationship between precursor and successor texts. According to Hans-Georg Gadamer, interpretation is a fusion of horizons. The text and the interpreter each has a horizon that embraces everything that falls within the limits of its own point of view. But every act of interpretation transforms the horizons of both.17 Similarly, when one text takes on the task of interpreting by appealing to a precursor, each text sings in its own voices even as its voices also sing in unison, in harmony, or in discord with voices of the other. Whereas the conventional approach focuses on a diachronic relationship between the precursor and the successor, from the perspective of intertextuality the new text and the precursor hang on each other holistically in a synchronic relationship. Allusions are interdependent formulations.18 Moreover, there is a tensive interplay between them that recasts the meaning of the independent parts.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

This intertextual recasting of meaning fits into a larger aspect of the relationship between texts and the unformulated text. Every literary work mixes the old and the new. The old makes intertextuality characteristic of all texts. 19 The new is the element that distinguishes creativity. But readers recognize creativity only against the backdrop of the conventional.20 More particularly, in the case of allusions a successor text plays off of a precursor that fills the role of the conventional. Michael Riffaterre dubs the precursor the hypogram, that is, a covert word (or textual pattern) that underlies what actually appears in the text and is engaged in interplay with the text.21 To illustrate, "Time flies whether you're having fun or not," plays off the hypogram, "Time flies when you're having fun." From this point of view, when Acts 4:25 quotes Ps 2:1, it plays the description of Jesus' crucifixion off against a hypogram of the folly of Gentiles waging war against an anointed Davidic king. Therefore, Acts 4:27 does not merely ignore the synonymous parallelism of the people and nations but plays off of it with the sharp irony that some Jewish people have taken on the function of Gentiles and joined with them in the folly of conspiring against Jesus as God's anointed one. Manifestly, then, the successor text revises or distorts the precursor. Harold Bloom expresses this in a radical way when he claims that every new literary work is a creative correction of a parent work, a correction that he calls a misinterpretation.22 If in charting connections with previous literary works Bloom accents discontinuity, John Hollander provides something of a corrective in stressing continuity. For Hollander, there is an echo between the new work and its predecessor, a synchronic reverberation bouncing back and forth, producing a new figuration, that is, a recasting of the meaning of the independent parts. The new figuration twists the meaning of the original in order to understand it anew.23 But the twist is not merely a diachronic revision. Rather, tensive interplay between the precursor and the successor moves the meaning to a new level. What one text expresses in its own voices is altered by voices from the other, and the interaction between the voices recasts the meaning of the independent parts. From one perspective, the new text revises the meaning of its precursor. From another, the precursor alters the meaning of the new text as well. This is similar to Bloom's concept of "a lie against time." Because allusive texts claim for their meaning (synchrony) texts that are temporal antecedents possessing meaning apart from their successors (diachrony), allusions perpetrate a lie against time.24 Synchrony overtakes diachrony. Or to switch to spatial imagery, Paul Ricoeur envisions the incongruity between the otherness of the antecedent text and its efficacy for a later time as a tension between proximity and distance.25 Allusions may evoke uncanny correspondences at the same time that they conceal other components or even stand in antithesis as a correction of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

the precursor 26they may sing in unison, harmony, and discord. In this manner the new text may transform the sense of the original text substantially while holding onto it irrevocably. The introduction to the parable of the good Samaritan provides a case in point. In a confrontation with Jesus, a lawyer conflates Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). Through the conflation, two commandments become one. Loving neighbor becomes indispensable to loving God. But does the revision hang on its precursors irrevocably? Readers who know the Septuagint can hardly fail to recognize that the command to love God is part of one of Israel's basic confessions"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4 LXX, author's trans.).27 Similarly, readers may recognize that love of neighbor in Lev 19:18 clearly has to do with relationships among the people of Israel. If the lawyer's conflation hangs on its precursors, then the parable that follows extends love of neighbor beyond the bounds of Israel and makes it dependent on monotheismsimilar to a Pauline notion: Because God is one, God is the God of Gentiles also (Rom 3:2930). Moreover, what appears at first glance to be anthropocentric ("What must I do to inherit eternal life?") shifts to a theocentric focus (because God is one, you shall love God and neighbor). The lawyer's interchange with Jesus transforms the meanings of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 substantially while playing off of them irrevocably. Thus, to claim a revisionary relationship is to retrieve the precursor through the successor and to read the successor through the precursor. In contrast, the conventional approach breaks the two apart by insisting on the historical and literary context of each. By the criteria of intertextuality, therefore, the question is no longer how faithful the repetition is to the original. Rather, a reference to an old text locates the modern interpreter in a tensive ambience of echoes between the two texts, and the question is how the two texts reverberate with each other.28 Allusions and the Figurative The way allusions function bears conspicuous similarity to the way metaphors function. Hollander identifies a figurative echo or dialectic between the precursor and the successor: "The dialetic might be called the field of combat between synchrony and diachrony."29 The figurative echo alters what two texts mean in their own independent contexts by both conflict and consonance. Acts 4:27 plays off of Ps 2:1 and ironically associates some Jewish people with the folly of Gentiles who conspire against the Lord. Thus, the two texts stand in tension with and extend each other simultaneously. This

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

dialetical relationship is metaphorical, figurative. In other terms, the play between the texts, like wordplay, produces a meaning that is figurative because it goes beyond the independent meaning of either text. Some philosophers of language call the nonfigurative referent of a metaphor the subsidiary subject and the figurative referent the principal subject. 30 Metaphors may produce epiphoric effects, that is, they may expand meaning beyond the subsidiary subject. But metaphors may also generate diaphoric effects, that is, they may create meaning by evoking new ways of construing what we comprehend.31 When Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, he expands meaning beyond the nonfigurative referent of a four-footed mammal to the figurativean epiphoric effect. But he also evokes a new way of construing his relationship to the potentate and his potencya diaphoric effect. The subsidiary and principal double edge of metaphor is a part of its suasive effect. One side of the metaphor presents a conventional view in order that the other side may transform the conventional into something novel.32 Metaphor locates readers at a familiar point and leverages them over the fulcrum of the borderline between subsidiary and principal subjects to a new level of meaning. In Luke 10:21, Jesus gives thanks to God for hiding "these things" from the wise and revealing them to infants. The meaning of "these things" is uncertain, but in the context it likely refers to the particular relationship of Jesus with God and the same type of relationship of the disciples with God.33 The metaphor "infants" locates readers in the familiar world of mothers, fathers, and babies and leverages them to a new level of meaning regarding how God is related to human beings. Allusions to scripture in Luke-Acts partake of such characteristics of metaphor. The interplay between the precursor and the successor forms a new figuration that, like metaphor, alters the interpreter's perspective and hence also the range of understanding. Thus, like metaphor, the figurative interplay between precursor and successor cannot be replaced without a loss of effect.34 The complex figure of interplay can be viewed from the perspective of either the precursor or the new text. From one viewpoint, the precursor may be the subsidiary and the new text the principal subject. That is, the new text may have the capacity to extend the meaning of the precursor. When Luke 4:4 cites Deut 8:3, it expands the original interpretation of Israel's hunger in the wilderness to include the fasting of Jesus. But the perspective may be reversed. The new text may be the subsidiary and the precursor the principal subject. Deuteronomy 8:3 expands the meaning of Jesus' hunger in Luke 4:3 to correspond to Israel's experience in the wilderness so that physical hunger has a theological counterpartliving by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Ultimately, the interplay between precursor and successor may be viewed holistically from the perspective of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

an interpreter who reads both texts synchronically. Together they may form a figuration that goes beyond the sum of the independent meanings. Revisionary Ratios Though scripture ripples through Luke-Acts in fascinating and baffling complexities that defy categorization, it is possible to express some things about the dialectical relationships between textual patterns outside Luke-Acts and textual patterns within Luke-Acts. Harold Bloom's revisionary ratios may not exhaust the possibilities of interplay between precursor and successor texts, but they are germane to understanding the interplay. As a preface and caveat, his six analytical classifications artificially divide into distinct categories functions that often cannot be detached. Further, he labels his analytical categories with fascinating names that are both intimidating and intriguing, names that withhold understanding even as they disclose it. Few readers are likely to solve all the linguistic riddles when they encounter clinamen, tessera, kenosis, daemonization, askesis, and apophrades. 35 But the intimidation, intrigue, and fascination are part of Bloom's attempt to speak of the figuration of revisionary relationships figuratively. (1) Clinamen is a twist on the precursor that revises by both appropriating and amending the precursor. Bloom associates it with irony because the precursor still speaks in its own discursive space, but it also speaks in another discursive space when the successor redirects it, and voices on one level are deficient with respect to the other level.36 To give a technological analogy, televisions bend (clinamen is a bending) electron beams so that they trace meaningful patterns on the screen rather than merely concentrating on a point in the center. The repetition of Ps 2:1 in Acts 4:27 deflects the meaning of laoi from Gentiles to Jews, and the new swerve creates the irony of some Jews playing a role of vanity that Psalm 2 attributes to Gentilesclinamen. (2) Tessera is completion. It revises the precursor by finishing it as if the precursor is incomplete. Bloom associates tessera with the figuration (trope) of synecdoche, that is, the part stands for the whole or the whole stands for the part. But this is an antithetical completion. It is not so much like the tesserae of a mosaic that together form a complete whole, but more like the pieces of a broken vessel put back together to make it whole.37 When Acts 2:16 says that Pentecost is what was spoken by the prophet Joel, it implies that Joel is incomplete. But Pentecost is incomprehensible without Joel. Joel makes Pentecost understandable, Pentecost makes Joel understandable, each incomplete without the othertessera. (3) Kenosis is a revision that empties the meaning of the precursor. It breaks continuity with the precursor, robs it of its meaning, and vanquishes

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

it. The revision repeats textual patterns from the precursor, but it supplants its message. Kenosis corresponds to the figuration of metonymy as if the name, that is, textual patterns, of the precursor stood for the precursor apart from its meaning. 38 In the Lucan passion narrative, opponents scoff at Jesus: ''He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God his chosen one!'' (Luke 23:35). When they thus mock Jesus, they play off of Ps 21:89 LXX (Ps 22:78 NRSV). The crucial repetition of textual patterns substitutes "let him save himself" (sosato heauton) for "let him [the Lord] save him" (sosato auton), and overthrows the connotation of an ironic trust in Cod in Psalm 21 LXX with absurd anthropocentric self-reliancekenosis. (4) Daemonization revises the precursor by raising it to a new, tacitly higher level of meaning. Bloom appropriates the term daemonization from the ancient Greek notion of the daemon as an intermediate state between the human and the divine. As a revisionary ratio, it refers to the function of aggrandizing the meaning of the precursor. Bloom matches it with the trope of hyperbole.39 This revisionary repetition is not like the second hand on a clock that traces the same circle again and again, but like the rotation of a wheel on a train that, when it returns to its previous position, gains distance on down the track. The lawyer's combination of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 in the context of the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:2537) repeats valorized tradition. But when the tradition comes back around, it opens vistas of monotheism and neighbor beyond the tradition and surpasses it with innovationdaemonization. (5) Askesis is a revisionary relationship that withdraws from the precursor to refine meaning like an ascetic withdrawing from society to avoid its pitfalls and to cultivate excellence. As retreat from society is the death of society, so also withdrawal from the precursor is the death of the precursor. For Bloom, askesis as a revisionary relationship corresponds to the metaphor proper. Metaphor transfers a familiar level of reference (subsidiary subject) to another level of reference (primary, subject) that is literally incompatible, and it makes a new range of understanding possible by ending the life of the literal level of meaning. Bloom also associates askesis with Freudian sublimation which discharges erotic energy through substituting nonerotic activities.40 Askesis as a revisionary ratio occurs not merely in distinct allusions to scripture but on a macro scale in the notion that Jesus, crucified and raised, accedes to the throne of David and reigns over the house of Jacob in a kingdom that has no end (Luke 1:3233; Acts 2:3236). There is a complete withdrawal from a political, nationalistic Davidic monarchy, and this revisionary relationship means the death of the political, nationalistic Davidic monarchy for Luke-Acts.41 The revisionary relationship transfers the terminology of the Davidic covenant to another level of reference that is literally incompatible, and it makes an understanding of a kingdom of Christ possible by ending the life of the literal meaning of the throne of Davidaskesis.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

(6) Beyond revisionary relationships that supercede the precursor to such an extent as to suggest its demise, apophrades is the return of the dead; that is, the precursor comes back in tensive relationship with the successor. The relationship, however, appears to be reversed as if the present retroactively determined the past. Bloom associates this with metalepsis, that is, a trope of a trope, a metonymic substitution of something that already is metaphorical. 42 He also calls this relationship transumption, that is, the figurative taking over of a textual pattern into a new context. This is as if instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, one leaves the baby in the bath water. There is a metaphorical reversal of the trope but only in such a way that it plays on the precursor that it has reversed. Jesus' claim in the synagogue in Nazareth that the mixed citation of Isa 61:12 and 58:6 is being fulfilled as his audience hears him (Luke 4:1821) reverses a prophetic anointing of the past into a messianic anointing of the present. But he can claim his messianic anointing only because of its constant play on Isaiah's prophetic anointing. Similarly, when Luke-Acts mixes Isaiah into Jesus' story, it creates possibilities for internal conversations. The possibilities for internal dialogue are tied to what Mikhail Bakhtin identifies as the positions of various subjects expressed in the discourse.43 Voices of Isaiah speak through the voice of Jesus, but Jesus speaks with voices of Isaiahapophrades. So, the transumption of scripture into Luke-Acts not only imparts a revisionary meaning to scripture but also establishes a reciprocal relationship. According to Bloom's theory of revisionary relationships, a strong poem overcomes its precursor by misinterpretation so powerful as to produce a creative insight that surpasses the precursor. He speaks of this overthrow as the anxiety, of influence, that is, an attempt to break continuity by denying that creativity is built on the backs of others.44 Further, for Bloom, the successor cannot be a fulfillment of the precursor. The misinterpretation of the successor may reverse or revise the precursor, but cannot fulfill it. Because he reads the relationship between the New Testament and scripture as fulfillment, he asserts that the New Testament lacks a revisionary, stance toward scripture, and therefore classifies the New Testament as a weak poem.45 He is both right and wrong. He is wrong in that the function of scripture in the New Testament is far more profound than attempting to warrant events by previous predictions. To speak of the function of scripture in the New Testament as fulfillment is egregiously inadequate, and to claim that the New Testament lacks a revisionary stance toward scripture betrays a superficial reading of the New Testament. But Bloom is also right to call the New Testament a weak poem because it does not overcome the precursor. Transumption of biblical precursors in Luke-Acts demonstrates that there is no anxiety of influence in the use of scripture in Luke-Acts. Quite to the contrary, Luke-Acts manifests the anxiety of no influence. If there is no

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

influence of scriptures of antiquity, no influence of narratives of God's performancea performance that conspicuously contains promisesthen the narrative of Luke-Acts disintegrates. 46 Because in Luke-Acts the anxiety is precisely the opposite of its modern counterpart, there is a necessity not to overthrow the precursor. Rather, the revisionary relationship requires a dynamic dialogue with scripture such that scripture cannot be set aside. The successor does not supplant the precursor, because the revisionary relationship is reciprocal. There is some room for such a dialetical relationship in Bloom's apophrades, that is, transumption, because in this metaleptic figuration the voices of precursor and successor keep resonating with one another. But Luke-Acts lacks the anxiety of influence and shoulders the burden rather of the anxiety of no influence. Criteria for Reverberations of Scripture How is it possible to guard against whimsical correlations between texts and to recognize solid appropriations of textual patterns from precursors? Ultimately, it is not. Readers are free to make whatever associations come to their minds. But Richard Hays has formulated seven criteria to assist in identifying and interpreting intertextual reverberations: availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction.47 In my judgment only two of these are crucialavailability and volume. The other five help to substantiate probable allusions on a subordinate level. Availability is decisive if it means consciousness of the cultural repertoire without which readers cannot catch echoes. For Hays, volume has to do with how precisely the new text corresponds verbally with its precursor. His criterion, however, measures volume only on the phraseological plane and overlooks reiteration on other levels. In particular, allusions may also replicate the form, genre, setting, and plot of their precursor.48 The chapters which follow show that in Luke-Acts replications on levels beyond the phraseological plane frequently implicate the context far beyond verbal similarities, and direct correlations may serve as markers for larger contexts. Though partially replicated in the text, the intertext is a more extensive system that readers import from an external repertoire. To return to Jesus' controversy with some Pharisees over pulling, rubbing, and eating grain on the sabbath (Luke 6:15), readers who, like these Pharisees, know the scriptures may ponder more than merely the exigency of hunger that legitimates eating holy bread reserved for priests.49 The challenge to Jesus also reiterates something of the plot, together with its motivation, in 1 Kingdoms 1824. The incident of the loaves falls in the middle of a chase sceneSaul out for David's blood. What drives the leery Saul is his consternation that the Lord is with David. Readers well attuned to the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

overtones of the Septuagint might catch implications that the campaign against Jesus over the sabbath is a cloak that weakly camouflages a similar consternation of these Pharisees that the Spirit of the Lord is upon Jesus. Replication of characters, plot, and motivation turns up the volume of the echoes of scripture in Luke-Acts. Beyond Hays's criteria, there are other signs pointing to an intertext beyond the text. Michel Riffaterre calls attention to what he refers to as ungrammaticalities as clues for readers to move beyond the literal level of significance to an intertextual level. Ungrammaticalities are conflicts which form obstacles to a construal of meaning as if they were grammatical anomalies or deviations from normal definitions. Ungrammaticalities are textual patterns that cannot be understood with the sole help of context, grammar, lexicon, and descriptive systems. They can be conflicts with verisimilitude or transformations of precursors that in the very transformation clash with the precursor. One case may serve as an illustration of both types of ungrammaticality. At the crucifixion of Jesus, some opponents scoff: "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God" (Luke 23:35). Escaping from a cross conflicts with verisimilitude; "let him save himselF" (sosato heauton) is a transformation that clashes with "let [the Lord] save him" (sosato auton) of Ps 21:9 LXX (Ps 22:8 NRSV). Ungrammaticalities in Riffaterre's terms, which appear to present obstacles to a construal of meaning, become the keys for significance. As readers detect ungrammaticalities, they move to a network of relationships beyond the explicit text and perceive meaning in the interplay between text and intertext. 50 Epilogue When Luke-Acts folds allusions to scripture into its narrative, it blends autonomous voices into ostensibly one voice of the text. But like a choir, it cannot sound as one voice if it silences the autonomous voices. Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel died, but through faith he still speaks. Hebrews can appeal to his voice because when he died he was not preserved in a mausoleum but in a cultural repertoire. Modern readers could well rewrite the claim of Hebrews: Abel died, but through intertextuality he still speaks. Without Heb 11:4, readers do not hear Abel's allusive voice, but without the memory of Abel's acceptable sacrifice and his blood crying from the ground (Gen 4:4, 10), Heb 11:4 does not exist. On a much larger scale, without the voices of scripture, neither does Luke-Acts exist.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

2 For The Blessing of All the Families of the Earth Unquestionably, the temptations of Jesus contribute to the resolution of his identity and status in Luke-Acts. Exalted claims for Jesus hit readers with relentless audacity in Luke 13. Gabriel announces that Mary's child will be son of the Most High, an heir of the throne of David who will reign over the house of Jacob forever in a kingdom without end (Luke 1:3233). A choir of the heavenly host makes the unconventional birth of Jesus in a stable more auspicious than melancholy (2:120). Venerable sage Simeon and revered prophet Anna add propitious affirmations about the infant Jesus (2:2538). Not only does Jesus receive the endorsement of John the Baptist, he also receives divine sanction (3:1522). In a world where a prominent way to ascribe honor is family lineage, 1 the genealogy in 3:2338 makes Jesus an illustrious descendant of patriarchs and kings, and it reiterates his particular relationship with God in the image of kinship (3:38). The lofty nature of such beginnings may be a bit precarious. If Luke-Acts aims too high, it may miss inquirers of a practical vein. Or if Luke-Acts connects too squarely with those of rich fantasy, it may engender expectations that will crash in disappointment by the time of the crucifixion. For Richard Rohrbaugh, the perils are primarily of the first sort. For him, Jesus is a social anomaly, that is, he is a person whose status of birth does not warrant his authority to speak and behave as he does. Why does this son of the village carpenter arrogate a higher place of authority?2 But the literary world of Luke-Acts nowhere identifies Joseph as a carpenter. Rather, Joseph is a descendant of the house and family of David (Luke 2:4). Readers do come close to a low social status for Jesus when Mary confesses her lowliness (1:48), and when she and Joseph offer a sacrifice that according to Lev 12:8 is what the poor offer (Luke 2:24). Nevertheless, if Jesus is of low social status, Luke-Acts more conceals than confronts the anomaly. On another tack, Mark McVann proposes that the temptation of Jesus is part of a ritual process in Luke 3:14:30 that transforms Jesus from a private person to a public prophet.3 But a prophetic identity in the temptations is quite obscure and partial. Rather, the narrative singles Jesus out as son of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

the Most High, heir to the throne of David, and regent over the house of Jacob (1:3233). At Jesus' baptism the voice from heaven corroborates Jesus' kinship with God, a voice confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus (3:22). In his inaugural sermon at Nazareth, Jesus alludes to this descent of the Holy Spirit upon him when he announces, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me" (4:18)essentially a claim of messianic anointing. 4 Thus, by the end of Luke 3:14:30 Jesus emerges more properly as the Spirit-anointed divine son, prophet, and messiah. In face of the lofty claims, the devil's challenge of Jesus in Luke 4 plays out the cultural script of challenge/riposte, a contest of honor/shame in which Jesus' status is at stake. In the ancient Mediterranean world, challenge/riposte is a struggle for honor. A keen response may reverse the challenge and reflect honor on the one who makes the response.5 But honor and shame derive from a social evaluation, and for a full drama of challenge/riposte in the temptation of Jesus, it is problematic that there are no public witnesses of the drama, beyond the readers, to award a positive evaluation to Jesus in his contest with the devil. Thus, properly qualified, the temptations form a part of the determination of the identity and status of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Twice the devil suggests conditions for confirming Jesus' identity as son of God (Luke 4:3, 9), conditions that, according to the evaluative perspective of the narrative,6 would in fact disconfirm such an identity. Further, the devil offers Jesus a universal monarchy, ostensibly exceeding Gabriel's promise that Jesus would reign over the house of Jacob, and thus the nature of the regency of Jesus also comes under review (4:57). But in a less obvious way, the allusions to scripture in the temptations also raise questions of God's identity and the interpretation of canon. This chapter attempts to show how intertextuality in 4:113 clarifies norms of the narrative on canon, interpretation of canon, the identity of Jesus, and the identity of God. Figurative Voices of Scripture in the Temptations of Jesus Not only does Jesus' intertextual recall of scripture infer a figurative meaning, so also do some elements of the temptations that fit Michael Riffaterre's category of ungrammaticality.7 First, mythology, infuses the entire scene. The sequence of events and the dialogue between Jesus and the devil are not the kinds of things that a video camera and microphone could record. Second, the devil entices Jesus to attempt to turn a stone into a loaf of bread (Luke 4:3). Transforming stones into bread is hardly verisimilitude. Although later in the narrative Jesus is able to multiply loaves and fish, the evaluative perspective of the narrative does not support the possibility, even theoretically, that Jesus could have transformed a stone into bread. The

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

literal incongruity of turning a stone into bread pushes the reader toward a figurative level of interpretation. A third ungrammaticality is that the devil moves Jesus instantaneously through space and attempts to lure him to jump from the pinnacle of the temple. Here again the evaluative perspective of the narrative does not support the possibility that Jesus could levitate. In fact, although miraculous escapes, such as the release of the apostles from jail, are possible, and although the Spirit of the Lord miraculously transports Philip (Acts 8:3940), the reality of the threat of the people of Nazareth to throw Jesus from a precipice (Luke 4:29), the crucifixion of Jesus, the stoning of Stephen, the execution of James, and repeated persecutions of some of the followers of Jesus imply that Jesus could not expect to survive a leap from the pinnacle of the temple. Thus, ungrammaticalities already drive readers toward interpretation on a figurative level. But so does the recall of scripture. Four formula quotations oblige readers to recognize an interplay between the temptations of Jesus and scripture. Jesus introduces his responses to the devil twice with the expression: "It is written." The devil uses the same formula for his own citation, and Jesus initiates his final rebuttal, "It is said." Beyond the explicit allusions, however, the entire setting is reminiscent of scripture. For one thing, Jesus' temptation in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve's temptation in Eden. 8 Far more prominent, however, are the multiple cues that tip off readers that the scene replicates Israel's wandering in the wilderness.9 Jesus' baptism itself echoes Israel's crossing of the Jordan to enter the promised land.10 The Spirit of God leads Jesus into the wilderness as the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire led the people of Israel in the wilderness, although conspicuously divine guidance brought Israel from the wilderness to the Jordan whereas the Spirit leads Jesus away from the river back into the wilderness. Jesus reverts to the situation of the children of Israel in the wilderness. Jesus' forty days of temptation are a microcosm of the forty years of Israel's temptation. Jesus' hunger corresponds to several occasions when the famished wanderers of Israel craved something to eat. Each of Jesus' responses echoes deuteronomic recollections of Israel's experiences in the wilderness. Hence, an accumulation of indicators induces readers to recall the wilderness wandering. Antecedents of the temptations stretch back to the constitution of Israel as the people of God. This immersion of the readers in scripture, overtly and covertly, is a tacit recognition of canon. The implied author shares an assumption with the authorial audience of what is written, that is, tradition tested and affirmed by the past and therefore valorized for the present. Behind Jesus' saying, "It is written . . . ," lies a communal consensus about the nature of what is written before the citation comes into view. This consensus privileges canon with potential to enable readers who presuppose the same consensus to share

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

perspectives on the temptations with the implied author. Thus, such readers view the temptations of Jesus indirectly through scripture. Against the backdrop of Israel's wandering in the wilderness, the devil baits Jesus: "If you are the son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread" (Luke 4:3). On the one hand, the devil's conditional statement recalls the identity of Jesus as God's son in Gabriel's prediction (1:32), in the saying from heaven at Jesus' baptism (3:22), and in the genealogy (3:38). On the other hand, the statement is reminiscent of the personification of Israel as God's child (Exod 4:2223; Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; 32:520). 11 The route to the scriptural reminiscences of Israel as God's child is indirectthrough the thematic development of Jesus as God's child in Luke 13. What is the connection between Jesus' identity as son of God and the turning of stone into bread? Desert stones bore witness to hungry Israel of the absence of God until God brought forth water from the rock and sent manna from heaven. If Jesus as son of God recalls Israel as a divine offspring, will he likewise receive a reiteration of Israel's provisions in the desert by a word of command?12 Moreover, the first temptation summons a Mosaic image to mind.13 Just as Jesus' fasting for forty days is a microcosm of Israel's forty years of wandering, so also Moses' sojourn for forty days on the mountain (Exod 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18) is a microcosm of Israel's forty years of wandering. Thus the fasting of Jesus reflects also the fasting of Moses on the mountain: "[Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water" (Exod 34:28). Further, the word of command, which the devil urges on Jesus, also reflects a Mosaic image. According to Num 20:8, God instructs Moses to command a rock to produce water. In a similar way, the devil tempts Jesus to command a stone to become a loaf of bread. The image of Moses comes into view indirectly through another intertext. Jesus' forty days of fasting evokes recollection not only of Moses but also of Elijah (3 Kgdms 19:418), a figure soon to come to explicit notice in Luke 4:2526.14 Elijah's saga touches on familiar points in Moses' storya journey in the wilderness, forty days of fasting, an encounter with God at the sacred mountain. True, it is possible to view Elijah as Moses' competitorperhaps northern Israelite traditions contesting southern traditions. Thus, whereas Moses experiences a thundering, earthshaking, smokey theophany at Sinai, for Elijah God is distinctly not in the mighty destructive spirit, earthquake, or fire (cf. Exod 19:1619; 3 Kgdms 19:1112). But however much these traditions may have been in competition in their early sociological settings, they became complementary as scripture. The Mosaic paradigm legitimates Elijah according to the criteria of Deut 18:1522. That is, God has raised up Elijah as a prophet like Moses whom the people are to heed because what he speaks in the name of the Lord proves true. Furthermore, Elijah as a divine agent who provides the widow of Zarephath an inexhaustible

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

jar of meal and an unfailing jug of oil (3 Kgdms 17:816) corresponds to Moses as the divine agent who supplies the children of Israel with a constant supply of manna. 15 These Mosaic allusions might register as possible but improbable were it not for the thematic development of Luke-Acts. Not only is Jesus clearly identified as a prophet in Luke 4:2430; 7:16; 13:33; 24:19, he also fits the pattern of the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15), and Peter and Stephen explicitly name Jesus the prophet like Moses in Acts 3:22; 7:37.16 Is Jesus able to command a stone to become a loaf of bread the way Moses commanded a stone to yield water? Initially, it appears that because Jesus does not receive miraculous provisions, his experience does not recapitulate Israel's. But there is another level of parallel to Israel's experience unavailable from the devil's point of view. When Jesus responds, "One does not live by bread alone," he confers an expanded meaning on "live." To live by bread alone is to sustain physical existence. To live by the word that comes from the mouth of the Lord is to attain authentic existence beyond what is merely physical. But why should living by the word that comes from the mouth of the Lord come into view in Luke's version of the temptations? Jesus' response to the devil conspicuously omits Deut 8:3e, ". . . but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord"a citation that does appear in the parallel in Matt 4:4. Is Luke's text in a creative interply with Deut 8:3e? According to Richard Hays's criterion of verbatim repetition, the volume of echo of Deut 8:3e in Luke 4:4 is zerono verbal repetition at all. But as chapter 1 shows, Hays measures volume only on the phraseological plane and overlooks reiteration on other levels.17 Whereas Luke 4:4 turns on absolutely no volume of Deut 8:3e on the verbal plane, there is a conspicuously high volume on the level of setting and plot. Jesus' actions in the desert carry, out precisely what Deut 8:3e sayshe refuses to live by the option that the devil offers and chooses to live by words that come from the mouth of God, namely: "One does not live by bread alone." Jesus demonstrates further that he lives by the word that comes from God in his responses to the second and third temptations. The combination of word and action produces significant volume for the recall of Deut 8:3e in Luke 4:4.18 Deuteronomy 8:3 is ambiguous and multivocal. On the one hand, it can mean that Israel's hunger, by pointing beyond physical sustenance, shows that one does not live by bread alone. Fasting can touch dimensions of life beyond mere physical existence. In this case manna comes as a divine provision only after hunger has taught its lesson. On the other hand, it can mean that the gift of manna, by manifesting a divine act, shows that one does not live by bread alone. In this case hunger is a prerequisite condition against which the divine provision of manna demonstrates Israel's relationship with God.19 Moreover, in its context, Deut 8:3 can be understood as promoting

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

either the Abrahamic or the Mosaic covenant. As a parallel to 8:1416, the ancestors of 8:3 could be the immediate ancestors of the wilderness generation, and the experience a test of Israel's fidelity to the Mosaic commandments in 8:2. But as a parallel to 8:1 and 8:18, the ancestors of 8:3 could be the patriarchs, and the experience a test of God's fidelity to the Abrahamic covenant. 20 Against this intertextual grid, the devil implies that, as with Israel, miraculous provisions make it possible to perceive one's identity as a child of God whose fidelity to Mosaic commandments is tested and proved. Such an implication emphasizes God's particular favor for both Israel and Jesus. But Jesus infers that Deut 8:3 means that the hunger of fasting, rather than miraculous provisions, makes it possible to understand that one does not live by bread alone but by God's fidelity to the word that comes from the mouth of God. And this emphasis curtails God's particular favor for Israel and Jesus by emphasizing God's unconditional mercy in the Abrahamic covenant.21 In Harold Bloom's terms,22 the devil's first play off of scripture is clinamen, a bending of the text by a lie against time. The devil assigns Jesus as son of God the role of Israel in the wilderness as God's child. But from the devil's point of view, this is also kenosis. Jesus' failure to receive divine provisions in the wilderness empties the parallel with Israel of any competence to confirm that Jesus is God's son. Nevertheless, there is also an element of apophradestransumptionbecause readers catch parallels only when echoes of scripture reverberate between Israel in the wilderness and Jesus in the wilderness. From Jesus' point of view, however, the play off of scripture is tessera, a completion. Living by the word that comes from God is incomplete if it remains in the past. Further, Jesus implies daemonizationhyperbole. That is, when living by bread alone comes back around, it rises to a new levelthe hunger of Jesus' fast, rather than divine provision, shows that he does not live by bread alone. His identity has to do with living by God's fidelity to the word of God. This is also apophradestransumptionbecause the hyperbole builds on the play between a biblical context beyond Jesus' citation and an analogue to the context in Jesus' temptation. The second temptation also recalls previous thematic development in Luke. The devil produces a panorama of all the kingdoms of the world for Jesus. This evokes memories of Gabriel's prediction that God would give Jesus the throne of his ancestor David to rule over an endless kingdom (Luke 1:3233)reverberations of the Davidic covenant. More subtly, there is an echo of the Abrahamic covenant. This echo also comes by way of prior thematic development. Mary sings praises for what God has done and makes it part of the promise of God to Abraham and his descendants (1:5455). Zechariah refers more explicitly to the raising up of a savior in the house of David as God's fidelity to the Abrahamic covenant (1:73). So Mary and Zechariah collapse the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants into one.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

Luke's Mary and Zechariah were hardly the first to link the two covenants together. Ronald Clements has shown that some of Israel's traditions connect the divine promises to David with the Abrahamic covenant so that the Davidic king becomes the medium for the fulfillment of the divine promises to Abraham. Psalm 72, for example, envisions the Davidic king as the agent of universal blessing anticipated in Gen 12:3: ''May all nations be blessed in [the king]'' (Ps 72:17). 23 The combination of the covenant traditions anticipates that God's promise to Abraham will come to fulfillment in the Davidic king. Similarly, the priestly tradition links the Mosaic covenant with the Abrahamic. The covenant at Sinai became not an alternative to the Abrahamic covenant but a particular way to fulfill its promises.24 Out of this cultural repertoire of covenant traditions, the temptations of Jesus recall a combination of Mosaic, Davidic, and Abrahamic images. This intertextual background, seen through the thematic development of Luke-Acts, means that the panorama of all the kingdoms of the earth is, therefore, also an allusion to the Abrahamic covenant.25 By New Testament times, the promised land of the Abrahamic covenant could be construed as the whole earth. The divine promise to Abraham in Gen 17:8 specifies that the land is Canaan. In Gen 12:13, however, the identity of the land remains undetermined. Nevertheless, it is associated with a promise of universal blessing. In the development of tradition, when the children of Israel occupied Canaan the promise to Abraham was not regarded as fulfilled and therefore no longer in force. Rather, it was projected toward the future and expanded. Coincidentally, the Hebrew 'r&!; and the Greek g&!; can both mean land (country) and earth (the world). Thus the promise of 'r&!; to Abraham became the promise that he and his descendants would inherit the whole world (cf. Rom 4:13; Heb 2:5; Matt 5:5; 1 Cot 6:2).26 By promising to give Jesus authority over all the kingdoms of the world the devil claims in essence to be the restorer of the Davidic covenant and mediator of the Abrahamic covenant. Further, the force of the divine passive ". . . it has been given over to me . . ." means that although partially unreliable, the devil actually acknowledges that the power to restore and mediate comes from God.27 So the temptation is for Jesus to worship the devil as an intermediaryGod's broker28not at all an ultimate denial of God. In response Jesus cites Deut 6:13 (cf. 10:20). This means that the second temptation recalls three prominent constituents of the intertextual gridthe promise to Abraham, the Davidic covenant, and Israel's wandering in the wilderness. This intertextual grid provides a background for recollection of a pattern in Genesis in which Abraham and Sarah repeatedly bring God's promises under threat, and God acts to rescue the promises. To illustrate, after receiving the promise in Gen 12:13, Abraham and Sarah abandon the land of promise and migrate to Egypt. There Abraham passes Sarah off as his sister. She becomes a part of Pharaoh's harem, and thus almost ceases to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

be the mother of promise. Abraham and Sarah also attempt to assist God in bringing about the fulfillment of the promises by such maneuvers as producing a son through a surrogate mother. But even their attempts to help God also bring the promise under threat, and God must act in order to keep the promises alive. At the end of Genesis the promise is still under threat. Israel's wandering in the wilderness continues the saga of the promise under threat, whether it is Pharaoh's attempt at genocide or the appeal of the disheartened children of Israel to return to Egypt or Aaron's construction of a metallic bovine which displaces the God who insists on no images or other gods. As if these perils were not enough, the children of Israel attempt to establish residence in the land by accommodating to the local religions. This last threat is the context for Jesus' citation, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him" (Luke 4:8 citing Deut 6:13). 29 With the thematic development of the renewal of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants in Jesus in Luke 13, the devil's temptation recapitulates the history of the promise under threat and brings the renewed covenants under threat. Thus, the other side of temptation is the divine promise. The devil's second play off of scripture implies tessera. Ostensibly, Jesus can complete the universality of the Abrahamic covenant by bowing down to the devil. But this is also unadulterated kenosis, because it empties the Abrahamic covenant of the promise of blessing for all the families of the earth. Nevertheless, this figuration is transumption because the devil's claims resound with the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus' response to the second temptation is again tessera and daemonization. The command to worship God alone is not an artifact from the past but a present actualitytessera. But further, the implication of God's acts to rescue divine promises from threats is hyperbole. The notion that God brings about the divine promises apart from or in spite of human machinations raises the promise of a blessing for all the families of the earth to a new level. This rise to a new level of meaning, however, depends on the figurative play off of recall of God's promises to rescue divine promises from threatstransumption. With the third temptation the devil takes advantage of the assumption of canon held in common with Jesusan assumption that the implied author also holds in common with the authorial audience. The devil also cites scripture. Ironically, if divine promise is concealed in the intertextual grid of the second temptation, the devil openly appeals to divine promise in the third (Ps 90:1112 LXX). In fact, apart from the intertextual grid, the devil's citation is far more inviting than Jesus' use of scripture: "[God] will command his angels concerning you, to protect you" (Luke 4:10).30 Here the devil calls into question the fundamental efficacy of scripture if Jesus does not leap because he doubts the dependability of the divine promises of Ps 90:1112 LXX, or if he does leap and the divine promises fail.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

As in the first temptation, the devil connects Jesus' identity as son of God to the divine promises. Again, as in the first temptation, the devil's "if" recalls both the thematic development in Luke of the identity of Jesus as son of God and the personification of Israel as a child of God. The devil implies that the parallel between Jesus and Israel makes Jesus the recipient of the promises of Psalm 90 LXX. The setting, as well as the devil's citation, recalls Psalm 90 LXX. The devil places Jesus on the winglet (pterugion) of the temple. This peculiar designation for part of the temple fits no other description of the edifice outside the temptations. 31 But what is peculiar against our knowledge of the structure of the temple is not so peculiar against the backdrop of Psalm 90 LXX. According to the psalm, the one whom the Almighty helps is protected by God's back and lives in hope under God's wings (pterugas). Thus, the diminutive pterugion is not merely a reference to some extreme height of the temple, it is also an implication that the temple replicates in microcosm the divine care promised in Psalm 90 LXX.32 Further, Deut 32:11 envisions divine care for God's children in the wilderness as an eagle spreading its wings (pterugas) over its young. Thus, this strengthens the similarity of the third temptation to the first in that the devil again makes the case that a specific instance of the divine care promised to Israel will prove that Jesus, like Israel, is a child of God. But Jesus' reply shows that the devil misappropriates canon. In response Jesus cites Deut 6:16, which makes an allusion in turn to Exod 17:27. According to Exod 17:27, at Rephidim the children of Israel complain because they have no water to drink. For Jesus, the devil suggests putting the Lord to the test in a way comparable to the way the children of Israel put God to the test at Rephidim. There they interpreted their dire straits in such a way as to doubt that God was with them. The devil's temptation, therefore, corresponds to Israel's grumbling in the wilderness when they tested God by saying, "Is the Lord among us or not?" (Exod 17:7). The implicit critique is that to contrive a test of whether God is with us or not on the basis of canon is to misuse canon. Jesus' appeal to canon in response to the devil replicates the tacit recognition of canon between the implied author and the authorial audience. There is an unspoken assumption that Jesus and the devil share a common understanding of what is written. Further, the apparent success of the citations in thwarting the devil implies some coming to terms between Jesus and the devil. That is, the devil relents. In the third temptation, the devil again implies tessera. The devil does not relegate the promises of Ps 90:1112 LXX to the past but makes its validity contingent upon a present completion. But the play back and forth keeps Psalm 90 LXX alive in a figurative interchange, and that is transumption. Similarly, when readers catch the lively interchange between Jesus' third response to the devil and its scriptural context, rather than a stark

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

prohibition against testing God, it becomes an affirmation of God's presence apart from human criteriahyperbolerising to a new level of meaningand transumptionresting on the lively interchange. The devil's use of canon is deficient. On a more tacit level, however, there is also an implicit critique of canon as deficient. Hans Frei argues for the continuity between figural and literal readings in the transumption of texts in typology. 33 But there is also an element of discontinuity in that the meaning of the precursor shifts when a new text takes it over. The transumption implies that the precursor must be confirmed, supplemented, or corrected by a sequel.34 Thus, the transumption of scripture violates the boundaries of canon at the same time that it values them. The successor text establishes a synchronic relationship with the precursor by breaking with the diachronic sense. The meaning of scripture is not limited to its contingent circumstances, although meaning partakes of contingent circumstances such as lexicography, unwritten presumptions in the text, and the original valuing of the text that led to its preservation, continued reading, and canonicity. Moreover, to imply that events in Jesus' life confirm, supplement, or correct canon is to redraw the boundaries of canon to include events in Jesus' life. When Luke-Acts extends the meaning of scripture to embrace an event of a later day, Luke-Acts implicitly claims the event of the later day as embraced in what is written. In severe tension, the precursor and successor, patently different, are made congruent. To appropriate a canon from the past into a sequel is to define anew the canon of the past in terms of the sequel. Over against the assumption that the New Testament employs scripture with a christocentric hermeneutic,35 Jesus himself uses scripture in the temptations with a theocentric hermeneutic. In spite of emphasis on the identity of Jesus as son of God in the temptations, the citations of scripture have a clear-cut focus on God. Jesus demonstrates that he does not live by bread alone but by the word that comes from the mouth of God. He refuses to worship the devil and appeals to a command to worship God alone. He braces himself with a prohibition against putting God to the test. Further, the intertextual grid centers unequivocally on God. Israel's wilderness wandering is a part of the pattern of divine promises under threatthreats in which God acts repeatedly to rescue the promises. Jesus' temptation in the wilderness replicates the pattern of divine promises under threat and thus focuses on the God who keeps the promises alive. But the devil's temptations are equally scriptural and theocentric. Against the backdrop of the intertextual grid, the first temptation recalls God's gifts of food for the children of Israel in the wilderness. The second echoes God's promises in the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. The third is an explicit citation of divine promises, and the devil appeals to Jesus to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

confide in God's promises. True, Jesus' response to the third temptation insinuates a critique of the devil's use of canon. But there is also an underlying critique of the devil's understanding of God. In fact, the critique of the devil's use of canon is essentially that it produces a distorted view of God. How do the temptations of Jesus clarify the norms of the narrative concerning the identity of God? James Sanders derives two hermeneutical options from two biblical visions of God. He suggests that distinct views of God as creator and redeemer are the two fundamental hermeneutical premises in the Bible. The two views of God in turn produce two basic hermeneutical stances, constitutive and prophetic. The constitutive stance corresponds to God as redeemer. As redeemer God establishes, rescues, and succors. The prophetic stance corresponds to God as creator. Cod has made the world in such a way that there are consequences to human behavior, and thus there is a prophetic critique of human behavior. 36 On this paradigm, the devil appeals to the God of grace. The devil uses a constitutive hermeneutic when he entices Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the temple. The devil asserts that the God of grace will give angels charge over Jesus to protect him. Readers might infer initially that in contrast Jesus uses a prophetic hermeneutic. The way God has created the world, if Jesus jumps from the pinnacle of the temple, gravity will crush him into the ground. In the evaluative perspective of the narrative, such a conclusion is true enough. But Jesus does not appeal to it. On the contrary, against the intertextual background he too uses a constitutive hermeneutic. The God of grace enables one to live not only by bread but also by the word of God. The God of grace establishes the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants, and they do not reach fulfillment through satanic intermediaries. Thus, in the second temptation the God of grace once again rescues divine promises from threat, and the threat and the rescue replicate the pattern in the Pentateuch. In the third temptation Jesus essentially affirms his belief that God is with him apart from devised tests, miraculous or canonical. Thus, the positions of both the devil and Jesus are scriptural and theocentric. Both use a constitutive hermeneutic. Both appeal to God the redeemer who establishes, rescues, and succors. Manifestly, the devil's view of God is deficient when the devil claims that the authority to establish a universal regency has been given over to him.37 But there is yet another deficiency in the devil's view of God. The devil invokes a God whose grace is exclusive. Surprisingly, the devil couches this exclusivity in an understanding of Jesus. In each case, Jesus himself is the focus of the temptation. Will God act for the particular benefit of Jesus? From the standpoint of the devil, the first temptation is to see whether or not Jesus will receive desert provisions like Israel to prove that he, like Israel, is a particularly faithful and favored child of God. For Jesus, the problem is

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

whether or not the children of God live by the faithful word that comes from God and therefore attain their genuine existence. From the standpoint of the devil, the second temptation is to see whether or not Jesus will receive universal authority. For Jesus, the problem is whether or not God will establish a universal blessing. From the standpoint of the devil, the third temptation is to see whether or not God is with Jesus as a favored child by providing a miraculous test on the basis of canon. For Jesus, the problem is whether or not God is with the children of God apart from their own criteria. The thematic development of Luke-Acts ultimately makes strong affirmations of the very identity of Jesus that comes into question in each of the temptations. (1) Jesus is son of God. (2) By Acts 2:34 and 3:21 there is no doubt that God does give Jesus universal regency. (3) The resurrection is equivalent to showing that God does command his angels concerning Jesus to protect him. But the identity of Jesus is not a question of exclusive grace for the sake of Jesus alone. Rather, God's grace in and through Jesus is for the blessing of all the families of the earth. Quite in contrast to the devil's exclusivity, Jesus becomes the way for the divine promises to reach the universal extension anticipated in Gen 12:3. Thus, the temptation story resists exclusivity focused on Jesus. Competing claims of truth are at stake in the temptations. The confrontation between Jesus and the devil pits canon against canon, interpretation against interpretation, understanding of Jesus against understanding of Jesus, and views of God against views of God. The transumption of scripture in the temptations redraws the boundaries of a canon of the past to embrace the sequel. The temptations define the canon of the past anew. Jesus' interpretation of scripture implying a universal benefit exposes as deficient the devil's interpretation of scripture for exclusive benefit. Christology ceases to be christology for its own sake. Jesus has identity as son of God not for his own sake but for the blessing of all the families of the earth. This understanding of Jesus points in turn to a God who refuses to benefit anyone exclusively. In this fashion, the temptations also provide a corrective for a distorted view of God. The grace of God is not available for exclusive blessings but is rather for the blessing of all the families of the earth. In fact, revisionary allusions to a divine promise for such blessing help form criteria for readers to determine what is true in the narrative world and to discover the bedrock of the story of Luke-Acts.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

3 Falling and Fitting Shoes: Mise En Abyme and Voices of Scripture in Luke 20:919 To state a case conspicuously, the force of the parable of the wicked tenants is tied up with the energy of the entire narrative of Luke-Acts. This case hinges on two claims, which form the backbone of this chapter: (1) The play of the parable on voices from scripture catches readers unaware and reorients their expectations regarding the destiny of Israel. (2) The parable as a brief narrative embedded in a larger narrative is an explanatory variant on the text that contains ita literary device dubbed mise en abyme. Although the following discussion first broaches the question of the way the parable leads readers to revise their anticipations, these two claims are interrelated, and when this chapter separates them, it does so only artificially. Parabolic Revisions of Readers' Expectations In its negative form the aphorism runs: Judge not, that you be not judged. Inverted into its positive form, it becomes: In that you judge another you condemn yourself. What may stagger readers of Paul's rendering of the aphorism in Romans 2 is the way the discourse coaxes readers, virtually unconsciously, to censure the hypocrites about whom Paul speaks; and so, by the norms of the discourse, readers judge others (anonymous hypocrites in the text) and thereby condemn themselves. When awareness dawns on readers, they are already undone. Such experiences startle readers because of the way the shoes drop. When we read, "On the one hand . . . ," the first shoe drops, and we anticipate the second to drop with, "On the other . . . ." At first glance, such is the structure of good news/bad news jokes. To a politician: "The good news is that you will win the election because your opponent has had a scandalous affair. The bad news is that the affair is with your spouse."

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

But how is it when the first shoe does not drop until after the second has fallen? Actually, the structure of the joke is not accurately described as the first shoe dropping and then the second, because when the second falls, it demands a retrospective revision of the first to make anyone who identifies with the politician (you) the brunt of the joke. Not only does the shoe fall, it also fits. Such is also the way of many parables. Parables draw readers into a parabolic world because the readers identify with characters and events. They buy into a kind of world with which they believe themselves to be familiar. But when the second shoe drops, the parabolic world to which they have already committed themselves inverts. The drop of the second shoe requires a revision of the first, and the parable presents readers with an alternative vision that also challenges them to a revision of their own lives. Paul Ricoeur has described this character of parables as reorientation by disorientation. 1 The shoe not only falls, it also fits. The ability of the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:919) to lure hearers into its world entails what Roland Barthes calls an equivocation.2 Narratives may lead readers on detours in various ways, including equivocation. For example, a narrative may snare readers by evading truthdeception. On the level of its narrative world, Luke-Acts portrays such evasion in some of its unreliable characters. To illustrate, some Asian Jews incite a mob against Paul by claiming that Paul teaches against the people of Israel, the law, and the temple, and that Paul has defiled the temple by bringing Gentiles into it (Acts 21:28). The mob buys into that fictive world because there is a deceptionan evasion of truth. On the level of the authorial audience, however, the parable of the wicked tenants hooks readers by a mixture of truth and evasion. In contradistinction from pure evasion of truth (deception), equivocation presents truth but withholds the key to a reliable construal of it. More properly, the story initially entices readers to buy into a world with which they assume themselves to be familiar. The onus is on the readers who (mis)construe the parabolic worldan equivocation, truth mixed with evasion. The progression of the narrative then requires a revision of the readers' construal. The shoe not only falls, it also fits. The parable of the wicked tenants entices the authorial audience into an equivocation on the basis, at least partially, of its intertextuality. Foremost it alludes to the parable of the vineyard in Isa 5:17. This claim requires some defense in that a large contingent of scholars contends that Luke omits an allusion to Isaiah 5.3 True, in comparison with Mark the Lucan version is clearly more sparse. Luke mentions nothing of the construction of a winepress or tower, details that correspond to the description in Isa 5:2. Some scholars have speculated that Luke scaled back a Marcan source because of a penchant for economy of language. Perhaps. But whether or not the author had something like our Gospel of Mark at hand remains an arguable hypothesis. There are therefore insufficient warrants for the claim that Luke

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

has omitted Mark's more elaborate description of the vineyard. It is far more in the competence of modern interpreters to say, nevertheless, that the more sparse allusion to Isa 5:17 banks on the initiative of readers to catch the allusion. This anticipates a rhetorical effect of readers recognizing a shared world with the implied author. Therefore, rather than speculate about the motives of the sparse description, it is more productive to describe the rhetorical effect. To speak of the rhetorical effect of catching an allusion could potentially be putting the cart before the horse because, according to Richard Hays's criterion, the volume of repetition on the verbal level is low. 4 Is the evidence sufficient to predict that the authorial audience would hear voices of scripture? Indeed it is. The vineyard alone is stock imagery stemming from a long history of allusions to Isaiah 5. Thus, a detailed description of the Isaianic vineyard is unnecessary because the image is so differentiated by convention.5 The image of Israel as a vine planted by God appears additionally in Jer 2:21, Hos 10:1, and b. Hul. 92a. Psalm 79:914 LXX and Ezek 15:6 and 19:1014 also reflect both the divine establishment and the divine destruction of Israel as the vineyard. The repetition of the topoi of both establishment and destruction by God is a good indication that the stock imagery echoes Isa 5:17. Though their dates make their relevance for the background to Luke uncertain, the targums do nevertheless witness to the far-reaching extension of the imagery of the vineyard. The Isaiah Targum explicitly interprets the vineyard of Isa 5:1 as Israel, the seed of Abraham, God's own people.6 In addition to the stock image of the vineyard, after the murder of the son, the owner of the vineyard reflects in interior monologue, ti poieso ("what shall I do?")a verbatim repetition of a phrase that appears twice in Isa 5:4, 5 LXX. Further, ho kyrios tou ampelonos ("the lord of the vineyard") in Luke 20:15 corresponds to ho gar ampelon kyriou ("the lord's vineyard") in Isa 5:7.7 It is even possible to see a point of contact in the naming of the son of the landowner agapetos ("beloved") in Luke 20:13 and the naming of the beloved agapetos in Isa 5:1.8 On a more subtle level, both texts shift from past tense in the description of the problem to the future for the verdict.9 Thus, whereas the volume of verbatim repetition is low, it does register on the scale. Moreover, although the question of genre is still up for debate, Luke 20:919 can claim close degrees of kinship in genre with Isa 5:17. Whether Isaiah adapted an erotic song or took over the form of a fable where plants and animals, as well as human beings, play roles as characters,10 the song of the vineyard reorients readers by disorienting them. Luke 20:919 reproduces this aspect of Isa 5:17 in that it makes judges out of its readers and then challenges them with judgment. In this regard, Gale Yee has labeled Isa 5:17 a juridical parable. That is, it spurs readers to judge others only to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

find the tables turned so that they are forced to admit judgment upon themselves. 11 Xavier Léon-Dufour likewise calls the parable of the wicked tenants a parable of judgment.12 To add a little more weight to the argument, Isa 5:7 shifts from the vineyard imagery to building imagery as does the parable of the wicked tenants.13 Thus, in genre the parable of the wicked tenants is akin to Isa 5:17. The debate on the genre of the parable of the wicked tenants has largely split in two directions. On the one hand, heirs of Adolf Jülicher and Joachim Jeremias have attempted to eliminate allegory in order to reconstruct a parable of the historical Jesus. On the other hand, revisionists have argued in quite the opposite direction in an attempt to rehabilitate allegory as a method of the historical Jesus.14 Such a debate, however, leaves behind the intertextuality. That is, the referential elements stop short of a pure allegorical, one-to-one correspondence with an external schema where an abstracted meaning of the allegory can ultimately be divorced from the text.15 The intertextual allusions keep coded meanings tied to the text and the intertext. Readers understand the vineyard in Luke 20:919 to be Israel because Isa 5:17 and a long history of allusions to Isaiah 5 make that identification. Thus, the allegorical referent of the vineyard in Luke 20:919 is not arbitrary but is bound to voices of scripture. The capacity of Luke 20:919 to lure the authorial audience into an equivocation hinges on this intertextual recall of Israel as God's unfruitful vineyard. But the route to the intertextual recollection is indirect through the thematic development of LukeActs. Bernard Brandon Scott alleges that the parable does not deal with the fruits of the vineyard.16 But he can do so at the expense not only of ignoring the repeated attempts of the owner to obtain some of the fruit of the vineyard (Luke 20:1014) but also of ignoring the prominent thematic development of bearing fruit in Luke. It is quite possible to say that Luke begins with the act of God to bring forth fruit from the unfruitful womb of Elizabeth. In the juxtaposition of two episodes, Mary stands out in relief against Elizabeth. In contrast to the aged, sterile Elizabeth, Mary is an unfruitful young virgin in whom God acts likewise to bring forth fruit. Elizabeth recognizes this fruitfulness explicitly with her song: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42). In a different but related vein, John the Baptist exhorts his hearers to bear fruits that befit repentance (3:8). Further, he makes bearing fruit the criterion of judgment (3:9). Jesus virtually repeats John's preaching: "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit" (6:4344). The parable of the sower is about those who hear the word and bring forth fruit (8:15). The sole criterion for the survival of the fig tree in Luke 13:69 is that it bear fruit. Through this route of thematic development on bearing fruit, the parable of the wicked tenants recalls Isa 5:17.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

Further, in the immediate context Jesus enters Jerusalem, drives merchants out of the temple, makes a claim on the temple as a house of prayer, and commandeers it as a forum for his teaching (Luke 19:4520:8). In reaction, the chief priests, scribes, and elders challenge the authority of Jesus. He responds with his own challenge about the validity of John's baptism. The dilemma of Jesus' challengers is that to admit the validity of John's baptism is to admit the validity of Jesus' authority (recalling Luke 3:1617, 2122; 7:1823), but to deny the validity of John's baptism is to clash savagely with popular esteem for John. In this context, the parable of the wicked tenants is an indictment for failure to render fruit to God. But who is indicted? The text allows for some ambiguity in response to the question. On the front end, an address to the people brackets the parable (Luke 20:9). On the back end, the response of the scribes and the chief priests brackets it (20:19). In between, the people react with a vigorous aversion to the threat of destruction, ''me genoito (''may it not be") (20:16). So who is threatened with destruction? A customary answer is that here Luke presents an allegorical outline of salvation history. Significantly, this is generally perceived as retrospective. The implied author spells out the course of salvation history from a distant to a recent past. The planting of the vineyard reflects the establishment of Israel as God's people. The sending of the servants is likewsie a retrospect on the mission of the prophets. The sending and the murder of the son masquerades as a prediction but is created out of past knowledge of the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, the destruction of the tenants and the passing of the vineyard to others allegedly represents the passing of the prerogatives of Israel to gentile Christianity. At this point the standard interpretation branches into three options. One view is that the indictment is against Israel as a whole. According to this view, although the scribes and the chief priests understand that Jesus tells the parable against them, the response of the people in Luke 20:16 means that they include themselves. 17 The second option is that the parable distinguishes between leaders and people and castigates only Israel's leaders.18 In between these two options lies a third. Werner Georg Kümmel, relying on Adolf Jülicher, argues that the vineyard represents not all the people of Israel but only a remnant as the true Israel. In this regard, the tenants represent both leaders and the unfaithful portion of the people.19 All these customary, interpretations share a fundamental fallacy. They interpret the allegorical referents of the parable against the background of a history external to the text rather than within the story of the text, that is, the narrative world of Luke-Acts. They essentially survey Luke-Acts from the perspective of an empirical author, generally presumed to stand close to the end of the first century of our era, who looks back on a Jesus movement that has become a gentile institution. The resultant allegory is the allegory not of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

the text but of the historian who makes points of contact between the parable and the historian's construct of history. The method is, in Murray Krieger's terms, to employ the text as a window through which to look at history, the world behind the text. 20 In the narrative world, Acts draws to a close two years after Paul's arrival in Rome, rather than close to the end of the first century. Further, within the boundaries of the narrative, the Jesus movement never breaks away from Judaism. It always remains a sect within Judaism which has opened itself to the addition of Gentiles, and the accession of Gentiles is but a stage in the fulfillment of the venerable hope of Israel, namely, the blessing of all the families of the earth. What then are the referents of the allegory in the narrative world? The temporal brackets are from Gabriel's encounter with Zechariah in the temple (Luke 1) to two years after Paul's arrival in Rome (Acts 28). But the story also reaches out of its temporal limits by recalling past events antecendent to Gabriel's encounter with Zechariah (external analepsis in Gérard Genette's terms) and by anticipating events subsequent to the end of Acts (external prolepsis). To illustrate, the deaths of Abel and Zechariah (Luke 11:51) are external analepses. The parousia (Acts 1:11) is an external prolepsis. Within this kind of theoretical framework, scriptural allusions are a part of the external analepses of Luke-Acts. That is, scriptural allusions are a way of reaching out beyond the temporal limits of the narrative to antecedent events. Beyond this, however, they are also part of the cultural repertoire,21 an unformulated text, that is, knowledge on the part of readers that the text presumes but leaves unexpressed. Every time Luke-Acts makes an implicit allusion that it expects the authorial audience to catch it is appealing to a presumed repertoire of knowledge shared by the implied author and the authorial audience. The way in which the text echoes, resonates, or plays off the intertext from that cultural repertoire is a clue to how the parable of the wicked tenants functions. Concurrently, however, the way the parable of the wicked tenants functions also depends on its relationship to its own context. Even though intertextuality and contextuality play back and forth off each other reciprocally, the following discussion turns first to the contextuality in an effort to illuminate the intertextuality. Levels of Narration The previous discussion has touched on contextuality in tracing thematic development and in focusing on the high priestly coterie's question of the authority of Jesus. More significantly, the question of contextuality is also tied up with distinct levels of the narrative. That is, one level of narrative is embedded in another. To distinguish these levels in Luke-Acts according to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

Gérard Genette's terminology, the prologue (Luke 1:14) is an extradiegetic narrative. That is, the communication with Theophilus stands outside the narrative bracketed between Zechariah and Paul. The first-level narrative, bracketed between Zechariah and Paul and located inside the extradiegetic literary world, is the diegetic narrative. The narrator is no longer the intrusive "I" of the prologue, but an unobtrusive functionary. Within the diegetic narrative world, embedded narratives, such as reports given by characters or a story told by a character, are metadiegetic narratives. The parable of the wicked tenants is a metadiegetic narrative. Jesus, a character in the story, narrates the parable rather than the unobtrusive narrator of the diegetic narrative. There is yet another layer of narrative in that in the parable Jesus reports the internal dialogue of the owner of the vineyard. The owner is a narrator embedded at another level when he says, "What shall I do?" (Luke 20:13). These distinct tiers are somewhat parallel to the levels reflected in the statement: "I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see if I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me." Metadiegetic narratives may be connected to diegetic narratives as explanatory variants. 22 The parable of the wicked tenants in Luke 20:919 is such a metadiegetic narrative. Not only is the parable an explanatory variant on the diegetic narrative, it is a particular type of explanatory variant that replicates the narrative in minature. In modern literary theory a device that duplicates the diegetic narrative in microcosm has been termed mise en abyme, French terminology that by convention has been left untranslated (abîme is a more modern spelling, but most literary theorists preserve the original). In any case, a literal translation "putting in abyss" hardly profits, because the idiom refers in a very particular way to devices within literary works that bear similarity with the works that contain them.23 The trademark on Pet condensed milk containing a miniature reproduction of the can itself offers a pictorial parallel. A television monitor showing a small version of the monitor provides a similar illustration. The movie Fried Green Tomatoes provides an analogy closer to the literary device. In the movie an elderly woman narrates a story to a younger woman about the liberation of another young woman. As the story is narrated, it corresponds to the progressive liberation of the woman who is listening to the story. These examples serve inadequately, however, if they are understood as mere double images. The mise en abyme takes a step beyond correspondence and reduplication, because the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm is itself a figuration.24 Therefore, readers arrive at an understanding of the two in relation to each other that exceeds what they understand of either in isolation. Though the description and theory of mise en abyme belong to the twentieth century,25 the device itself does not. Shakespeare embedded plays in

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

plays that bear similarity to the embedded plays. Neither is the device a stranger to the Bible. 26 Nathan's parable in 2 Sam 12:14 replicates the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11, and with a change in perspective it may also depict the manipulated death of Uriah. The mise en abyme is a complex device. So to investigate the parable as a mise en abyme is to engage in a multileveled analysis. (1) A part of the analysis has to do with how the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, that is, by simple, infinite, or paradoxical replication. (2) Additionally, the analysis involves how distinct types of mises en abyme refect three different objects. Following Lucien Dällenbach's terminology, these three objects are the utterance (the story or the content of the work), the enunciation (the function of the story for the implied author and implied reader), or the whole code (the way the story is told).27 (3) A further complexity has to do with how the mise en abyme replicates the utterance of the work, that is, either by a direct literal reflection or by a referential reflection where the content is grapsed in reference to something else (as in the case of metaphors).28 Three Ways of Replicating the Narrative Literary critics commonly acknowledge three basic ways the mise en abyme replicates the narrative. The first is a simple reduplicationmacrocosm in microcosm. The second is an infinite replication, where in sequence the macrocosm is replicated in a microcosm and the microcosm itself is further replicated in miniature. The third is a paradoxical replication, where the microcosm purports to enclose the macrocosm that includes it.29 Though unaware of the theory of mise en abyme, some interpreters have attempted to explicate the parable of the wicked tenants as if it represented an infinite replication, that is, as if the owner of the vineyard exercises authority that replicates the authority that Jesus exercises over Jewish authorities that in turn replicates the narrator's audacious rejection of the Jews.30 But this drumhead is stretched too tightthe owner of the vineyard tells no story, the two stories that are narrated cover far more ground than the exercise of authority, and, to anticipate, this chapter challenges the conventional notion of the rejection of the Jews in Luke-Acts. Although, the parable of the wicked tenants may be scrutinized with great profit as a simple reduplication of the story that contains it, in some sense it is a paradoxical replication. On the one hand, the microcosm reflects the macrocosm of its own text. On the other hand, it reflects another literary work, namely, Isaiah 5. But the parable recalls Isaiah 5 under the revisionary scrutiny of the history of God's dealings with Israel including the story of Luke-Acts.31 Thus, the parable represents a story of divine action with Israel of which Luke-Acts is itself a part. The parable replicates not only

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

the narrative of Luke-Acts but also a larger story that encompasses Luke-Acts. It is possible to make the claim that the parable of the wicked tenants is a replication of the narrative in which it is embedded because the text gives plain evidence that it is. According to Mieke Bal, the sole criterion for matching microcosm and macrocosm is the conviction of readers, namely, their conviction that the microcosm has pertinent and continuing referents in the macrocosm. 32 In Luke 20, two clear signals on the diegetic level engender such conviction. First, the people who hear the parable demonstrate that they recognize the duplication when they exclaim "me genoito (20:16). Second, the unobtrustive narrator on the diegetic level makes the connection between the microcosmic embedded story and the macrocosmic narrative quite definite by noting that the scribes and chief priests perceived that Jesus had told this parable against them (20:19). Although these notices are quite persuasive, four other notable signals add weight to the conviction of readers."33 (1) In the microcosmic embedded story, the murdered victim is the son. The same name designates Jesus on the diegetic level, particularly in Gabriel's prediction (Luke 1:32), in Jesus' baptism (3:22), in the voices of demons (4:41; 8:28), and in the transfiguration (9:35). To add even more force, the son of the parable is the huios agapetos ("beloved son"), precise repetition of the name given to Jesus by the voice from heaven at the baptism.34 (2) This identity also means that there is a virtual identity between this character known as the son and Jesus as the author of the parable. Not only does the implied author replicate the character Jesus in the parable, Jesus the author of the parable replicates himself in the parable.35 (3) The parable also repeats an evocative setting and a combination of characters. That is, the evocative setting of conflict with respect to Jesus' actions in the temple and the question of authority surfaces again in the microcosm in the encounter of the beloved son with the tenants of the vineyard. So when the scribes and chief priests recognize that Jesus has told this parable against them, they are simultaneously characters in the parable and the audience of it.36 (4) When the parable refers to the "fruit" of the vineyard, it repeats a key term of the narrative that has appeared repeatedly in the thematic development of bearing fruit (summarized above). Paul's description of the benefits of God's salvation as a kleronomia ("inheritance'') in his speech at Miletus (Acts 20:32) constitutes a somewhat weaker case but nevertheless makes contact between a key term of the narrative and the embedded story. Therefore, the signals that the parable of the wicked tenants replicates the diegetic narrative superabound.37 Furthermore, Jesus as the narrator of the metadiegetic duplication bears a similar relationship to the embedded story as the narrator to the diegetic narrative. This similarity of relationships implies that the metadiegetic narrator is competent to speak in the name of the diegetic narrator.38 Thus

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

readers presume the coherence of Jesus' voice with the voice of the diegetic narrator. The narrator of the metadiegetic narrative relates a story that is a reliable commentary on the diegetic narrative. To return once again to the question of allegory, it is inadequate to conceive of the embedded narrative as an allegory of the diegetic narrative, because the two meanings are not merely interchangeable. Rather, the meaning of the whole complex, macrocosm and microcosm in reflection against each other, is given in duplicate, and the knowledge of both remains necessary because only such knowledge can disclose how the part reflects the whole. 39 For Luke-Acts, this shows the fallacy of interpreting the abstracted parable as referring to an external schema. Rather, interpreters need to follow the diegetic narrative because only it will divulge the keys to how it and the metadiegetic story resonate with each other. For example, the development of the macrocosmic narrative will inform interpreters how the "others" of the microcosmic embedded parable replicate characters on the level of the diegetic narrative. In the correspondence of Jesus' parable to the diegetic narrator's story there is a curious dialectical interplay of restriction and expansion. On the one hand, as a microcosm the parable implies that the macrocosmic story can be reduced, compressed. But the macrocosmic narrative implies that the parable can be extended, dilated.40 As a mise en abyme Jesus' parable reduces the diegetic narrative to a comprehensive epitome. But because both levels of the narrative reflect against each other, the inverse is also truethe diegetic narrative of Luke-Acts adds information for the interpretation of Jesus' story. Each interprets the other; each is interpreted by the other.41 Replicated Objects in the mise en abyme Utterance (Content) If the parable of the wicked tenants is a miniature reflection of the diegetic narrative, how far out do its tentacles reach? How does it embrace the content of the narrative? A mise en abyme may reflect the story to come (prospective); it may reflect the story already completed (retrospective); or it may reflect events both before and after it (retro-prospective).42 Obviously, the parable of the wicked tenants fits the third category. The planting of the vineyard, letting it out to tenants, sending the servants, and the treatment of the servants by the tenants rehearse the past. But the murder of the son, the destruction of the tenants, and the transfer of the vineyard to other tenants anticipate the future unveiling of the story. In fact, to a degree, the sending of the servants reaches beyond the temporal beginning of Luke-Acts into the history of Israel. It is imperative at this

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

point to discriminate precisely because I have given a negative critique of methodologies that interpret the parable against external history. Nevertheless, there are two reasons to trace the reaches of the replication beyond the temporal beginning of Luke-Acts. One is that the intertextual allusion to Isa 5:17 is itself an external analepsis. The other is that the context makes explicit external analepses with respect to the fate of the prophets. In the woes against the lawyers, Jesus recalls the destiny of the prophets back to the foundation of the world (Luke 11:4951). Jesus alludes to a similar understanding of the fate of prophets in 13:3334. Stephen makes a comparable external analepsis to the rejection and murder of the prophets (Acts 7:52). Therefore, because (1) the planting of the vineyard and the sending of the servants are part of the cultural repertoire and (2) the larger context makes external analepses to the fate of the prophets, it is correct to assert that as a mise en abyme the parable of the wicked tenants recalls a story antecedent to Luke-Acts. Nevertheless, the sending of the servants is not merely an external analepsis. It is also mixed with an internal analepsis because it recalls the mission of John the Baptist narrated in Luke-Acts. This is virtually unavoidable in that the parable immediately follows the discussion between Jesus and his adversaries about John's baptism. On the other hand, the murder of the son, the destruction of the tenants, and the transfer of the vineyard to other tenants both anticipate and modify the future story line in Luke-Acts. 43 Needless to say, the murder of the son corresponds to the crucifixion of Jesus as Luke relates it. But in the history of interpretation of the parable of the wicked tenants, the determination of the proleptic referent of the destruction of the tenants has been problematic. Among commentators who employ Luke-Acts as a window to history and interpret the parable against external history, it has been common to see here an allusion to the devastation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in the war with Rome (70 CE). Such a conclusion is essentially flawed unless the destruction of the temple, like scripture, is a part of the cultural repertoire and/or Luke-Acts makes reference to the destruction of the temple.44 But it is flawed on another level in that the parable refers to the destruction of the tenants rather than the destruction of the vineyard, a major point to which I wish to return in the further discussion of the intertextuality. For the moment, suffice it to say that the parable is a retro-prospective interruption of the chronological development of the narrative. Whether aimed backward or forward, reflexive microcosms provide an integrative function for the text. Whether retrospective or prospective, they imply summaries that tie together what otherwise might appear to be unrelated episodes into a unified whole.45 But the double-sided mirror also entices the reader to measure anticipations in the story against the past.46 On the basis of past development the reader anticipates future development. Further, future developments stand in direct connection but also in sharp

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

relief with those now past. 47 This means that Luke-Acts places itself within the story of Israel up to and including this point in the ministry of Jesus, and further, that readers can anticipate that the continuation of Luke-Acts beyond this point will continue the story of Israel. Simultaneously, readers will be judging the retrospective and the prospective segments against each other. Analysis on another level has to do with the way the mise en abyme makes reference to the content of the diegetic narrative. It is possible for this to occur in two ways. The mise en abyme can correspond literally to its counterpart in the diegetic narrative. Or it can correspond referentially.48 To explicate this in reference to Luke 20:919, it would have been possible for Jesus to have told a parable where the Jewish people correspond to Israela literal correspondence. As a matter of fact, a vineyard corresponds to Israela referential correspondence.49 Where the mise en abyme has such a referential dimension, it tends to correspond to a similar referential dimension in the diegetic narrative rather than to a literal dimension. But the stock imagery of the vineyard for Israel is powerful enough to overcome readers' expectations of a referential dimension in the diegetic narrative. Thus the referential dimension of the parable corresponds to a literal dimension in the diegetic narrative of Luke-Acts, namely, God's dealings with Israel. Enunciation (the Function for Implied Author and Implied Reader) But the parable of the wicked tenants is not merely a message of the implied author summarizing Luke-Acts for readers, it is also a message of Jesus to his addressees and a reflection of Jesus' addressees over against him.50 The parable enables the addressees to come to a realization of themselves, and the addressees to react accordingly. Theirs is a double reaction. (1) The people at large cry, "me genoito" (Luke 20:16). (2) The scribes and chief priests attempt unsuccessfully to arrest Jesus, so they organize a spy network in order to entrap him (20:1920). The way characters on the diegetic level respond to the parable is a mirror of the implicit relationship between the implied author and implied readers. That is, the response to the parable replicates the way the implied author is attempting to persuade implied readers, and this orients the reading toward a determined meaning. By the interplay between the mise en abyme and the diegetic narrative, Luke-Acts is interpreting itself not merely with respect to subject matter but also with respect to anticipated effect.51 In Luke-Acts a part of the parallel to the attempt of the implied author to persuade an authorial audience is that the son on the level of the embedded parable ceases to act. Rather, the accent shifts to roles of the tenants that by analogy correspond to the addressees of Jesus' parable. The reaction to the parable is represented as a double response. The people are unnerved; the scribes and the chief priests have their nerve! This has a repeated parallel in

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

the divided response to Jesus and his messengers throughout Luke-Acts. What, however, does it imply about the way the implied author is attempting to persuade an authorial audience? The scribes and the chief priests correspond to the tenants of the parable who are destroyed. That is to say, the text writes them off. But that itself is an exemplum to the people for a changed course of action. Implicitly, the enunciative mise en abyme reflects an implied author who is attempting to persuade an authorial audience that would identify with the dismayed people. Code (the Way the Story Is Told) Just as the mise en abyme can provide a referential representation of the content, it can also provide a referential presentation of the factor that originates, motivates, and unifies the whole story. 52 This factor has the character of a code in that it imports a transformation in order to unveil a message that never is expressed overtly.53 It gives readers new lenses through which to view the text so that they understand more than the words say. In the parable of the wicked tenants, presumptions of connections with the context transform a story about absentee agriculture into a replication of God's dealings with Israel. In this manner, meaning shifts from the fictive world of the parable to a description of the reality of the diegetic world, and paradoxically, the mise en abyme deconstructs its own parabolic code. With the veil thus lifted, the parable ceases to be parable.54 When the mise en abyme functions in this fashion, it no longer points to the text itself. Rather, even as a part of the text it transcends the text and implies something about the agent and agency that causes the narrative. Emphatically, this is implicit and does not identify an empirical author. The parable of the wicked tenants points to the factor that originates, motivates, and unifies the whole story by a referential presentation of the action of God. The referential presentation has to do with God not in the abstract but in relation to human beings who (potentially) yield fruit. Therefore, according to the mise en abyme of code, the parable replicates God as the originator of Luke-Acts (rather than the implied author) and of the larger story of Israel in which Luke-Acts is embedded. In conjunction with the enunciative mise en abyme, this implies that it is God, rather than Jesus and/or the implied author, who attempts to persuade both Jesus' addressees and the implied reader. A Return to Intertextuality Analysis of the parable of the wicked tenants as a mise en abyme clarifies its correlations with the context. How does this resonate with intertextuality?

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

Isaiah 5:17 is a song of divine pathos. It reflects God's disappointed great expectations in face of God's benevolence. Luke 20:919 likewise is a story of divine pathos. The sending of the servants and the son represents a long-suffering God who is ultimately disappointed. 55 As an intertextual recall of Isa 5:17, the parable evokes the themes of God's dealings with Israel and the divine pathos. On the other hand, the transumption of Isaiah's vineyard into the parable of the wicked tenants is itself an indication of a revisionary relationship between the parable and Isaiah's vineyard. Along with the recall and lines of correspondence, Jesus' parable exhibits a remarkable difference. In Isaiah 5, the Lord of the vineyard gives up the vineyard, namely, the house of Israel, to destruction (Isa 5:57; cf. Jer 2:21; Hos 10:1; Ezek 15:6; Ezek 19:1014). But whereas the intertextual recall evokes expectations of a progression from divine benevolence to divine pathos to divine devastation, Jesus' parable intervenes into the expectations of readers familiar with Isaiah's vineyard and produces a radical revision. The owner destroys only the wicked tenants and preserves the vineyard for other tenants.56 The revisionary twist (Harold Bloom's clinamen) on the precursor is in some sense kenosis.57 The twist empties out the meaning of the vineyard as the object of divine destruction. But then the revision enhances meaning at a new levelBloom's daemonization or hyperbole. This enhanced meaning impresses readers, however, only so long as the parable of Luke 20:919 bounces off the parable of Isa 5:17. That is, the enhanced meaning depends on the transumption of Isa 5:17Bloom's apophrades or metalepsis. The view that Luke's parable of the wicked tenants is a prolepsis of the passing of the prerogatives of Israel to the Gentiles derives from the fallacious method of reading Luke-Acts from the viewpoint of external history. Needless to say, this reading does not connect with the diegetic world of Luke-Acts. In the diegetic world, Jesus promises the twelve that they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). The passing of the vineyard to other tenants on the level of the parable is a reflection of God's action to maintain a relationship with the people of God through the twelve on the level of the diegetic narrative. The mise en abyme and the diegetic narrative resonate with each other in such a way that the parable reflects an Israel that will bear fruit under the twelve as new tenants. Revisiting the Enunciative mise en abyme Analysis of the enunciative mise en abyme suggests a divided response to Jesus, and the divided response of the addressees of the parable corresponds to an anticipated response on the part of the authorial audience. On the one hand, the chief priests reply with an unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus. On the other, the people reflect the pathos of a long-suffering God. At the level

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

of the function of the parable for the implied author and authorial audience, this indicates a dual rhetorical effectpolemic and persuasion. On the one hand, the parable unquestionably thrusts home a polemic. The long-suffering God can judge fiercely. Clearly the polemic aims at leaders of Israel who have throttled the harvest, explicitly the high priestly party. But it also includes others who align with them and do not believe that Israel's history has taken a new turn that pivots on Jesus. The citation from Ps 117:22 LXX (Ps 118:22 NRSV) and the stone saying (Luke 20:18) form part of the polemic. There is irony in Jesus' allusion to the Psalm because it is the same Psalm that the crowds recited when Jesus entered Jerusalem (Luke 19:38). 58 But this is also another case of intertextual revision. Psalm 117 LXX is a liturgical introit for the temple. Israel itself corresponds to the rejected stone that has become the head of the corner (Ps 117:22 LXX), and as such, Israel, with God on its side, looks in triumph on those who hate it (117:7 LXX). Jesus is now the referent of the stone, and with God on his side he now promises to look in triumph on those that hate him.59 The statement about the crushing devastation of the stone reinforces the polemic.60 To repeat, Luke 20:919 calls into question not merely the high priestly party but anyone who aligns with it. For example, does Jesus' response to the messengers from John the Baptist satisfy them that he is the one who is to come, or are they among respondents who take offense at him? (Luke 7:1823). On the other hand, the parable holds some power of persuasion. This occurs at least on two levels. First, as the analysis of enunciative mise en abyme has shown, the parable provides an exemplum to an authorial audience who identifies with Jesus' stunned addressees. But there is also power of persuasion in the intertextuality. The more readers have to call on their own initiative to catch the allusion, the more they are drawn into a shared world with the implied author.61 But when they recognize Isaiah's vineyard in the allusion, they set themselves up for the revisionary version. The intertextuality entices them into an equivocation. They (mis)construe the vineyard as an object of divine destruction. The revision of the Lucan Jesus challenges them with an alternative vision of the passing of the vineyard to other tenants. The other shoe drops. Not only does it drop, it fits.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

4 Resistance to the Carnivalization of Jesus' Crucifixion: Voices of Scripture in the Lucan Passion Narrative Early on Luke ties knowing to bearing fruit. By a norm that Jesus himself establishes, trees are known by their fruit (Luke 6:44). John adds a prior qualification that the tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and is consumed by fire (3:9), and further, that Jesus will gather the fruit of the harvest and sift the chaff into an unquenchable fire (3:17). Along the way, the interpretation of the parable of the sower anticipates that Jesus' sowing of God's word will bear fruit among those who hear it and hold it fast (8:15). Readers traveling these tracks expect to know that Jesus is the Spirit-filled prophet and messiah by the fruits of his mission. What better occasion for these expectations to come to fruition than festivalunleavened breadancient reminiscences of the fruits of barley harvestPassoverdivine deliverance from oppressors. 1 Moderately astute readers, however, may ponder which tree gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Do readers know who Jesus is by his fruits? When his life draws to its end, the multitudes have dwindled to a paltry band of the eleven and those with them (Luke 24:33), and this group has been riddled with satanic enticement, betrayal, and denial (22:3, 31, 47, 5462; 24:21). With the gathering this meager, never mind the sifting. If Jesus is a tree known by his fruits, is he cut down and thrown into the fire? Rather than acclaim Jesus messianic king at the festivalreminiscences of the fruits of barley harvest and alltwo of his disciples reluctantly locate their dream completely in the past: ''We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel" (24:21). In this case knowing linked with bearing fruit appears to indicate that Jesus is not the Spirit-filled prophet and messiah.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

Such an impression comes across to readers particularly through the mockery of Jesus by his opponents. They clearly state the problem of the passion: "If you are the Messiah, tell us" (Luke 22:67). Three times opponents of Jesus catch the sardonic twist of the crucifixion. Leaders scoff: "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!" (Luke 23:35). Soldiers mock: "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" (23:37). And one of the malefactors crucified alongside Jesus jeers: "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!'' (23:39). In fact, opposite opinions about Jesus clash in the Lucan passion, 2 and the two opinions are constitutive of two different constructs of world. On one side, antagonists perpetrate a mockery that introduces elements of the carnivalesque into the passion narrative, a mockery that attempts to deflate Jesus' messianic identity. That is, on the occasion of a sacred festival antagonists attempt to convert the execution of Jesus into frivolous absurdity.3 On the other side, Jesus wins unexpected support from several cornersincluding the God to whom he commits himself. But direct resistance to the carnivalesque comes primarily through hermeneutical allusions to scripture. This chapter ponders this resistance to a carnivalesque construct of world in Luke's passion by voices of scripture. Carnivalesque Voices in Antiquity "Carnivalesque" is a modern term that Mikhail Bakhtin uses for an age-old phenomenon. Carnival is an absurd representation of established values that undermines established values. It creates an inverted world alongside the norm, inside out, top to bottom. The inverted world comes to expression particularly in mockey and the grotesque body.4 The corresponding literary idiom is the carnivalesque, and the process of transposing the phenomena of carnival into literary language is the carnivalization of literature. Though Bakhtin includes parody within the carnivalesque, Julia Kristeva carefully distinguishes the two. Parody is humorous because it ridicules itself as absurd. But with all its comical effects, the carnivalesque is virulently seriousit is murderous, cynical, revolutionary.5 Parody is itself ridiculous; the carnivalesque portrays established culture as ridiculous. Bugs Bunny performing his variation on the "Barber of Seville" is parody. Voltaire's Candide is a cynical undermining of Leibnitz's "best of all possible worlds." Peter Stallybass has proposed a morphology of the carnivalesque that includes: (1)replacement of fast by feast, (2) transgression of spatial barriers (e.g., town people abandon their private homes for open places), (3) transgression of bodily barriers, (4) inversion of hierarchythe servant rules the master, (5) degrading of the sacred, and (6) violation of linguistic norms.6 Further, he challenges Kristeva's view that the carnivalesque is necessarily a

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

viciously serious rebellion against the social order. Stallybass argues rather that the carnivalesque can occur within the social order. Both have a point. If by the carnivalesque one means a thoroughgoing construct of world, it is viciously rebellious. On the other hand, if by carnivalesque one means features of the morphology, the carnivalesque may occur within the social order. The view that Jesus' opponents in Luke introduce the carnivalesque into the passion may be sharply differentiated from a hypothesis a century old that on first glance appears to be similar. In 1898 Paul Wendland saw resemblances between the mockery of Jesus and the saturnalia, but explicitly only in Mark and Matthew, and claimed that the soldiers made Jesus a carnival king. 7 His hypothesis was an attempt to move behind the narrative to reconstruct a historical event fossilized in the narrative. James Frazer engaged Wendland on the same terms and argued against a historical saturnalia performed by the soldiers. Frazer then made extensive, and far less likely, conjectures to associate the crucifixion of Jesus with the ceremonial hanging of Haman in the Jewish festival of Purim.8 In contrast to these efforts to reify history, I am suggesting that in the narrative itself antagonists attempt to carnivalize the passiona literary feature. Further, I digress momentarily to report something of the development of my own connections between the Lucan passion and the carnivalesque. According to my understanding, Wendland and Frazer caught the relationship from the perspective of the saturnalia and its kind in antiquity. My experience was quite the opposite. I began to catch the relationship as I read Kristeva and Bakhtin on the carnivalesque in literature, and only later did I discover the work of Wendland and Frazer. Nevertheless, as distinct as my approach may be from Wendland and Frazer, there is some element of confirmation in that we made related, even if different, correlations with the carnivalesque. But if the carnivalesque infiltrates Luke's passion, then the narrative is evoking the cultural repertoire.9 Therefore, the interest here is not to claim a direct relationship with something such as the saturnalia but to claim that the passion narrative invokes the cultural code. That is, it draws on a bank of common knowledge. The carnivalesque is part of the unformulated text. Though Bakhtin and Stallybass analyze the carnivalesque from the Renaissance and the Middle Ages, it derives from ancient agrarian festivals and has antecedents in the saturnalias and related festivals of antiquity. May was Flora's month in ancient Rome, a month for inversions in the social order.10 More graphic, however, was the saturnalia, spectacular for its unruly, unrestrained carousing. Celebrated as a temporary return of the golden age over which Saturn once ruled, it reduced the social hierarchy to temporary egalitarianism, so that masters and slaves ate together even in the imperial court and social relationships could be reversed with masters serving slaves.11 Further, true to Stallybass's morphology, the saturnalia occurred after the Caesarian fast.12

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

There is broad-based evidence, both chronologically and geographically, for the carnivalesque in the cultural repertoire of LukeActs. From Rome to Persia, in a period antedating and postdating the New Testament, there were festivals of indulgence, clowning, and social inversion. For example, the saturnalia is well attested for the New Testament period. Ancients celebrated the saturnalia on December 17 but in fact often designated the festival simply as December. Livy mentions an observance of a saturnalia with sacrifices at the temple of Saturn in the month of December (22.1.19). Tacitus gives some indication of the reversal of hierarchy by telling about the custom of drawing lots for the king of the feast of saturnalias. Once the lot fell on Nero to be mock king of the saturnalia. He played the part by giving amusing orders but became irate at Britannicus who insisted on playing his role seriously. According to Tacitus, Nero ordered that Britannicus be poisoned to death altogether seriously (Annals 13.15.2). Obviously, the egalitarianism was temporary. With similar irony, Cicero mentions in passing that some prisoners were sold on the third day of the festival of Saturn during a military campaign in Syria (To Atticus 5.20). Unfortunately, the social inversion was invalid for the prisoners. In order to synchronize lunar and solar calendars, many cultures in antiquity intercalated extra days at the end of the year. Egyptians inserted five days which they considered alien to both lunar and solar calendars, and thus a curious interval dissimilar to ordinary time. 13 Further, the Hebrews celebrated the New Year not at the beginning but at the end of the year (Exod 23:16), or at the turn of the year (Exod 34:22).14 The extraordinary character of time in these periods likely fed the indulgence and social inversion of the festive seasons. But there were other occasions as wellspringtime effervescence to invoke fertility or fall debauchery to celebrate the vintage.15 A case in point is the feast of matronalia, a female celebration held on the first of March in which socially elite women feasted their salves.16 A more sensational example is the Syrian cult of Attis that spread especially in Asia Minor in connection with the Magna Mater cultthe cult of Cybele in Syriawhich also found its way to Rome. When Attis, intrigued with a water nymph, lost the chastity he had promised Cybele, Cybele became enraged. She wounded the nymph by cutting down a fir tree, the fate of the nymph being bound to the fate of the tree according to one version (Ovid Fasti 4.21546). In remorse, Attis emasculated himself. Another version attaches the significance of the fir tree not to the nymph but to Attis himself, who put off his human form and solidified into the trunk of the tree (Ovid Metamorphoses 10.10305). Cybele instituted a feast of mourning in which priests (Galli) searched for Attis in the mountains. When they found his image (the fir), they broke out in wild exuberance even to the point of inflicting wounds on themselves and castrating themselves.17 In antiquity the remorse and emasculation of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

Attis was taken to correspond to the wilt of vegetation and his fresh love to the rebirth of vegetation in spring. Yet another example further demonstrates the geographical extension: Dio Chrysostom relates a conversation in which Diogenes tells Alexander the Great about the Sacian feast of the Persians against whom Alexander is massing for war. According to Diogenes, the Persians put one of their condemned prisoners upon a king's throne and clothe him in royal apparel. They allow him to give orders, drink, carouse, and have his way with royal concubines. Then they strip and scourge him and hang him to show how the wicked and foolish acquire royal power and then after a time of impudence come to a shameful and most evil destruction (Discourses 4.6669). 18 The Juxtaposition of Voices of Two Worlds in Jesus' Passion With this sort of unformulated text in the cultural repertoire, when Luke sets the passion against the feast (22:1), the carnivalesque begins to emerge according to Stallybass's morphology. But immediately the morphology fails from the perspective of Jesus and his disciples because Passover is a family feast celebrated in the privacy of homes. In fact, Jesus moves from the open out on the Mount of Olives (21:37) into the confining boundaries of a house, and an upper room in the housethe reverse of Stallybass's second category of the morphology. Nevertheless, there is a leak in the dike, because the chief priests divert their energies from the solemn sacred celebration of Passover to the execution of Jesusfrom the perspective of the norms of the narrative, an aspect of degrading the sacred. Luke's report of the last supper juxtaposes feast and fast as the morphology anticipates. The account of the supper is fraught with ambiguity. Does Jesus eat the Passover with his disciples or refrain from it? It is possible to read Jesus' desire to eat the Passover in Luke 22:15 as unfulfilled. Further, should the text follow the manuscripts that omit 22:19b-20?19 Neither ambiguity should detain this discussion long. The ambiguity of fulfilled or unfulfilled desire cannot finally be resolved, though the preparations in 22:713 generate expectations of fulfillment, expectations that readers are not likely to revise apart from specific indications otherwise. Quite apart from the ambiguities, Jesus proclaims a fast: "I will not eat it [Passover] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God"; "From now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (22:16, 18)?20 In any case, the disciples keep the feast.21 Further, they appear to be headed for carnival. A didactic saying from Jesus gives explicit expression to the inversion of hierarchy (Luke 22:2427). Jesus then confers a kingdom on the twelve, and installs them on thrones (22:2830)reminiscences of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

the saturnalia or the Sacian festival. But the remainder of the morphology does not follow. Jesus and the twelve remain in private space for the time being. There is no violation of bodily barriers, no degrading of the sacred, no transgression of linguistic norms. In addition, in contrast to the temporary character of social inversions in carnival, so ironically evident in Nero's execution of Britannicus, or in the eventual hanging of the condemned prisoner in the Sacian festival, Jesus espouses a permanent social inversion and installs the twelve on thrones in seriousness rather than in jest. 22 The key is that carnival is an absurd representation of established values. Two worlds stand juxtaposed.23 The carnivalesque is an absurd replication of norms in an attempt to undermine themhere the norms established by the narrative. Thus, readers should expect to find elements of Stallybass's morphology on the side of established values because the carnivalesque side replicates them in a preposterous form. Even when Jesus and his disciples abandon the private boundaries of walls for the open territory of the Mount of Olives, the space remains private. In fact, Jesus withdraws farther from the disciples (22:3941). Although lamentation can mix with exuberance in the carnivalesque,24 the disciples do not frolic in exhilaration in the open air but sleep out of deep grief (22:45). Two worlds are emerging. The one represented and reflected by Jesus carries the sanction of the narrative. There have been hints of the otherpriests abandoning sacred for profane, Satan violating the bodily barriers of Judas. A far more forceful indicator, however, surfaces in Jesus' advice to the disciples to take up swords and in his prediction that he will be reckoned among the lawless (Luke 22:3538). The history of interpretation of this passage is characterized by dilemma. But the carnivalesque may shed some light. The carnivalesque inverts inlaw and outlaw, a dramatic case of which is Dio Chrysostom's account of the Sacian festival. Jesus predicts just such an inversion from his opponents by citing scripturea portion of Isa 53:12. Jesus identifies the citation as scripture by an introductory formula. Further, he provides it with a christological hermeneuticthe words of scripture are to be fulfilled in him.25 The passive elogisthe ("he was reckoned") enables Jesus to formulate his opponents' construct of the world for them. They are the agents who do the reckoning. The citation of Isa 53:12 both recognizes and violates the boundaries of canon (to gegrammenon, "what is written"). There is a presumption that an authorial audience recognizes scripture from the cultural repertoirecanon is a shared assumption. But the text of the past is taken to have meaning for the present. Because the Lucan passion narrative takes part of its meaning from texts from the past, it perpetrates something like Harold Bloom's lie against time.26 Diachrony, the historical separation of Luke-Acts from scripture, gives way to synchrony, the consonance of the two in meaning. The

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

claim of fulfillment violates the boundaries of canon at the same time that it recognizes them. When by Jesus' inference the opponents drive toward a carnivalesque construct of world, the world sanctioned by the narrative resists it primarily by a citation from scripture. This citation may be classified as hermeneutical, that is, it provides understanding of the baffling event of the arrest of the messiah. This understanding comes as part of the world that stands in contrast to the carnivalesque. In the construct of world advanced by the norms of the narrative, the answer is fulfillment of scripture: "He was reckoned with the transgressors" (Luke 22:37). Part of the difficulty of interpreting the citation is that it falls in the middle of the enigmatic instructions of Jesus to the apostles to buy swords. The conflict with readers' expectations is so sharp as to constitute an ungrammaticality, in Michel Riffaterre's terms, that is, an incongruity that forces interpretation to a figurative level 27here the figure is the interplay between successor and precursor in a citation of scripture. Significantly Jesus contrasts his instructions to take up purse, sack, and sword with his previous instructions when he sent out the seventy (Luke 10:4). Hans Conzelmann takes the alla nyn ("but now") of Luke 22:36 as an indicator of a new major epoch of history in which the danger of persecution replaces the security of the itinerant disciples.28 In direct rebuttal Paul Minear makes a more coherent interpretation when he argues that the period to which 22:36 refers is the immediate future, and the disciples are the transgressors, the anomoi.29 According to Minear, the apostles are confused and obtuse, distanced from Jesus, quarrelsome over their status, under threat to be sifted by Satan. Thus, Jesus' prediction finds immediate fulfillment in the passion narrative itself, and as a matter of fact, the present tense of telos echei in 22:37 indicates that the citation from Isaiah is being fulfilled. The collapse of the disciples in grief is a confirmation that the disciples are the transgressors. In the cultural repertoire, to sleep in grief is a disorder associated with sin and punishment with verbal parallels in Isa 50:11.30 Their grief is a part of the fulfillment out of the Isaianic context. In order to make things fit, however, Minear takes Jesus' command as a device that provides for fulfillment of scripture and exposes the apostles who have already disobediently taken up swords against Jesus' teaching. Minear apparently fails to realize that this incoherently makes Jesus one of the agents behind the passive elogisthehe reckons the apostles to be the outlaws among whom he will be reckoned. H.-W. Bartsch takes another tack, proposing that Jesus uses the citation to predict his crucifixion between two outlaws.31 But Bartsch's proposal runs into the difficulty that the vocabulary is altogether different. In Luke 22:37 Jesus speaks of the anomoi, whereas he is crucified between two kakourgoi. Further, the citation implies a reckoning

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

contrary to fact, and Luke presents the crucifixion of Jesus between two malefactors as factual. The carnivalesque provides a far less strained construal of the text. Alla nyn does introduce a special time but not from that moment forward. 32 Like the Egyptian intercalation of days, the passion is a curious period set off from ordinary time as a time of inversion. From the perspective of the norms of the narrative, it is a time of satanic testing (Luke 22:3132) and a curious time of inversion when the sun's light fails in the middle of the day (23:4445). In contrast to Minear's claim that the Lucan Jesus portrays the apostles as outlaws, in the absurd world of the carnivalesque it is the antagonists hidden behind the passive elogisthe who portray them as outlaws.33 To be sure, the disciples play the role, but only partially. They produce two swords. This astounding shift from inlaw to outlaw again pushes the disciples toward a carnivalesque reversal. On the one hand, they stand by Jesus in his trials (Luke 22:28). On the other hand, Satan is sifting them (22:31). Even the phraseological plane is an indicator of a shift from one world to another. Because Jesus confers the name Peter on Simon, its use indicates a special relationship with Jesus. Thus, when Jesus addresses Peter as Simon (22:31), he reverts to a perspective outside the special relationship,34 an indicator that Simon threatens to exchange the construct of world mediated by Jesus for the carnivalesque. Further, the disciples do partially play the part of the carnivalesque reversal. One of them takes up the sword, and cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. It should come as little surprise that they really do play the part. The reversals of the saturnalia were quite real even if temporary.35 Slaves really did eat with their masters. The prisoner of the Sacian festival really did carouse. Cybele's priests really did wound themselves, sometimes irreversibly (reminiscences of Kristeva's notice that the carnivalesque is deadly serious). Two things in particular prevent the apostles from a complete carnivalesque reversal. The first is the prayer of Jesus for Simon in order that he might play a role in the restoration of his companions (Luke 22:32). The second is the command of Jesus to put an end to the swordplay (22:51). Significantly, the swordplay is the first event involving the disciples after Jesus warns them about the time of trial. The swordplay as an act of holy war is part of the satanic sifting, and Jesus himself puts an end to it.36 On the other hand, Judas becomes a permanent part of the opponents' construct of world, with repercussions in Acts 1. Taking up swords has a double function in the Lucan passion, and the two functions conflict with each other. On the one hand, Jesus gives instructions for the disciples to acquire swords. The purpose is the fulfillment of scripturethe opponents will count Jesus among the lawless. On the other

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

hand, the disciples begin to play the part of armed rebelsan act of holy war. But Jesus positively repudiates this construal of the swords. The Subordination of Carnivalesque Voices to Voices of Scripture Against the unformulated text of the carnivalesque, the narrative also keeps evoking the unformulated text of scripture. The citation of Isa 53:12 openly relates the narrative to scripture, but there are subtle allusions rippling out from it to the Isaianic context. Recognition of these allusions is a significant revision for me. I previously held the position that citations from Isaiah 53 here and in Acts 8:3233 break off without reference to the remainder of the context. I based my argument only on the phraseological plane of what Richard Hays calls volumethe degree of verbatim repetition. 37 But when I pressed Hays's criterion of volume beyond the phraseological plane to include such things as plot and setting, the volume of the Isaianic context increased conspicuously. The setting in Isaiah is the perplexing event of the exile. In that setting, Isaiah plays two constructs of world off against each otherthe world of idolatry and the world of the God of Israel. The setting in Luke is the baffling event of the crucifixion of God's messiah. In that setting, Luke-Acts plays the carnivalesque construct of world off against another construct mediated by Jesus. But it is especially the Lucan plot that evokes the Isaianic context. Hays's criterion of availability helps to test the case. To what degree was the context of Isaiah 53 available for the author and the authorial audience? There is ample evidence that it was readily accessible. In the larger environment, 1 Enoch 48 is dependent on Isa 49:18; 1 Enoch 49:4 on Isa 42:1, and perhaps 1 Enoch 38:2 on Isa 53:11. Both 1 Enoch 6263 and Wis 5 are expansions of Isa 5253.38 Further, Luke-Acts clearly cites texts from Isaiah 4066 elsewhere. From the use of Isaiah 40:3-5 to identify John the Baptist as a voice crying in the wilderness (Luke 3:46) to Stephen's quotation of Isa 66:12 to make the point that God does not dwell in habitations made by human hands (Acts 7:4950), Luke-Acts demonstrates the availability of the Isaianic context. Significantly, Jesus delineates the nature of his mission with direct reference to Isa 61:12 (Luke 4:1819), but the inclusion of Isa 58:6d in the alleged reading demonstrates the availability of the context. In close proximity to the passion narrative, Jesus makes a claim on the temple with words from Isa 56:7: "My house shall be called a house of prayer." Further, though one or two words hardly comprise a fair sample against which to test verbatim repetition, the designation of Jesus as God's chosen one (Luke 9:35; 23:35 [in the mouths of opponents]) and references to him as pais (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27. 30) do repeat terms that frequently occur in tandem to designate the Isaianic servant.39

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

A vivid example of how Luke-Acts can cite a text and allude to the context is the account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. The narrative repeats the passage of scripture that the eunuch was readingIsa 53:78. But readers who know the Isaianic context can scarcely fail to catch that the plot of Acts 8:2638 reiterates Isa 56:35the inclusion of foreigner and eunuch in the people of God. 40 This is not to say that Isa 56:35 provided the source for the story any more than Isa 40:35 provided the source for the account of John the Baptist, but the story nevertheless reverberates with the Isaianic text. Therefore, the criteria of availability and volume (including reiteration on the level of setting and plot) indicate a high probability of allusions to the Isaianic context beyond explicit citations. Thus, when Jesus' opponents mock him and beat him (Luke 22:63), readers who recall Isaiah may hear echoes of 50:6 LXX: "I gave my back to the whips and my jaws to slaps, and I did not turn my face away from the dishonor of spittings" (author's trans.). But the mockery and beating are not merely direct allusions to Isaiah. The reverberation is mediated through Jesus' previous predictions of his passion (Luke 9:22, 4445; 18:3133). When those who mock Jesus demand that he prophesy (22:64), they make an ironic analeptic reference to 18:3233 where Jesus had already prophesied precisely what his mockers are doing. Unwittingly, they are themselves fulfilling prophecy. Curiously, although 18:33 forecasts that Jesus will be spat upon,41 in the passion account itself no detail corresponds to this prediction. Nevertheless, the passion narrative as mediated through the predictions repeats the plot of Isa 50:6there is some repetition of the cognates mastix ("whip"), emptysma ("spitting") Isa 50:6), mastigoo ("to whip"), emptuo (''to spit") (Luke 18:3233),42 and close readers can pick up the spitting as an ellipsis in the mockery of Luke 22:63. The plot of the passion narrative coincides with the disdain and rejection of Isa 53:3 LXX: "But his appearance was dishonorable; abandoned more than all others, he was a man of calamity, and he knew what it was to bear weakness" (author's trans.). There is also correspondence between the implications of innocence in Isa 53:8 and declarations of Jesus' innocence in Luke 23.43 The narrator points out to readers before the crucifixion that Pilate declares Jesus innocent three times (Luke 23:22, cf. 23:4, 14). In addition, Pilate appeals to Herod for the same verdict (23:15). In symmetry with these declarations, three incidents after the crucifixion affirm Jesus' innocence. The repentant malefactor gives the verdict that Jesus has done nothing wrong (23:41). The centurion declares, "Certainly this man was innocent" (dikaios, 23:47). And when the curious crowd withdraws, they beat on their breasts as a sign of remorse over the injustice (23:48).44 Readers who know the verdict of Isa 53:8 will be unlikely to miss the same verdict in the Lucan passion narrative.45 Jesus' direct appeal to Isa 53:12 (Luke 22:37) makes a claim to be a fulfillment, a completion. As a figurative play between precursor and successor,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

this is tessera, in Harold Bloom's terminology. 46 Completion means both continuity and discontinuity. Jesus' citation does not overthrow Isa 53:12. Rather, it depends on it. On the other hand, there is an implicit claim that Isaiah is unfinished, and as such it takes on a meaning that prior to its use in the passion narrative it did not have. As a reminder, this completion is not like viewing distinct fragments of a mosaic as a whole. Rather, it is like piecing the broken fragments of an urn together to compose a whole.47 By itself Isa 53:12 centers on the history of Israel. By itself Jesus' passion centers on senselessness. Together, the two texts relocate on new centers.48 The history of Israel extends to Jesus' passion; Jesus' passion takes its meaning from the God of the history of Israel. The citation of Isa 53:12 is tessera not only because of the claim of fulfillment but also because it is a marker that calls readers' attention to the larger context of Isaiah. The direct citation is synecdochical in that a part stands for the whole. Mere completion, however, does not do justice to the revisionary relationship between Jesus' passion and Isa 53:12 as if an arc continues until it traces a full circle back on itself. Completion comes about when the revisionary relationship provokes a new level of discernment, a gain in meaning, like a coil spring turning back over itself at a higher levelBloom's daemonization or hyperbole. But the gain in meaning occurs at the expense of a loss of meaning of the precursor, a kenosis. Viewed through the Lucan passion narrative, Isa 53:12 is no longer part of Israel's hope of the restoration of the nation after exile but the hope of the restoration of Jesus as messiah. One element, however, of Luke's account of the crucifixion stands in sharp relief against the context of Isaiah 53. In contrast to the servant of Isa 53:7, Jesus does not maintain silence in the face of abuse. True, he remains silent before Herod (Luke 23:9), but he briefly engages both the council and Pilate, and these encounters bear marks of the carnivalesque. On the heels of the mockery of those who arrested Jesus, the council demands, ''If you are the Messiah, tell us" (22:67). But Jesus deals with this interrogation as an absurd subversion of a genuine judicial inquest. They will not regard his answer soberly. Nevertheless, in competition with the cultural repertoire of the carnival king, Jesus speaks to them of his genuine enthronement at the right hand of the power of God (22:6769). Though in his claim he makes no mention of his identity as son of God, that is precisely what his examiners ask. But again they operate on the level of the carnivalesque. Like the prisoner enthroned for the Sacian festival, in the carnivalesque he is whatever they say: hymeis legete hoti ego eimi (22:70).49 The absurd subversion of an inquest continues with Pilate, and the same logic holds. Jesus' accusers put a claim to messianic kingship on his lips. But Pilate extends the question of identity: "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus' answer stands in continuity with his response to the council.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

In the carnivalesque, he is whatever Pilate says: sy legeis (Luke 23:3). The carnivalesque is all the more explicit in the mockery of Herod and his soldiers. They dress Jesus in an exquisite robecarnival king (23:11). 50 Suddenly there is a street scene. The people have transgressed the spatial boundaries of the walls of privacy and have taken to the open streets. Carnivalization continues in the release of Barabbas. In Luke the impetus for the release of Barabbas is a ground swell of sentiment. Here the carnivalesque helps to explain to some extent the role of the Jewish populace in the death of Jesus. The populace does not observe carnival as a spectaclethey live it.51 As a matter of fact, the inversion of outlaw and inlaw has already come to light in Luke 22:52 where Jesus asks those who arrest him: "Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit [lestes]?"52 Further readers may view Barabbas as a leader of an uprising, perhaps with aspirations for social and economic liberation for the populacea Robin Hood figure. In any case, the people call for the carnivalesque inversionoutlaw for inlaw (Luke 23:1825).53 Again, biblical allusions are among the principal features that resist the carnivalesque. But whereas Isaiah 53 and its context dominate the arrest of Jesus, a new battery of allusions comes into play at the crucifixion. First, in response to the women who mourn (Luke 23:27), Jesus cites Hos 10:8.54 As is the case with the context of Isaiah 53, the setting of Hosea is also the juxtaposition of two worldsthe world of idolatry and the world of the God of Israel. The death wish of Hos 10:8 is the destiny of people who live out of an idolatrous construct of world. In Luke 23:30 Jesus anticipates a similar destiny for those who live out of a carnivalesque construct of worldan anticipation that becomes tangible in the death of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:1626). True to a stock element of carnival,55 the populace ridicules Jesus as his opponents parade him through the streets. This is part of the carnival procession with the carnival king, and it is a mockery of triumphal processions of conquering heroes. Like Jesus' response to swordplay among his disciples, his inversion here of the object of weeping from himself to the women of Jerusalem and their descendants is a rejection of the image of the conquering hero even in this absurd carnivalesque rendition. Here again my reading of the Lucan passion narrative through the lenses of the carnivalesque constrains me to revise a former reading. I have argued that the women seriously lament Jesus.56 Even when I argued that, I was nevertheless perplexed by Jesus' caustic remarks to the daughters of Jerusalem. From the point of view of the carnivalesque, the role of the women is part of the exuberance of carnival that included weeping. Kristeva points out that the carnivalesque mixes the comic and the tragic, and even if there is laughter, it is serious, murderous laughter.57 Geo Widengren documents just such a characteristic double emotional climax in

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

Ugaritic textslaughter associated with the resurrection of the deity, and weeping associated with the death of the deity. 58 Remarkably, precisely this kind of weeping is going on in the context of Hosea from which the Lucan Jesus cites the death wish. The people of Samaria weep over the departure of the calf of Beth-aven (Hos 10:58). That the daughters of Jerusalem engage in such carnivalesque weeping is quite likely in connection with Jesus' reference to green wood. Green wood has to do with spring festivals. The devotees of Cybele ran into the hills in search of green trees in spring. In England during the Middle Ages May was a time when people romped in the woods breaking boughs and trees of green wood.59 Jesus' remark in Luke 23:31 then notes the tragedy of his death seriously in spite of the carnivalesquereminiscent of the case of Britannicus when Nero ordered his death seriously. Because Hos 10:8 is a synecdochical marker for its larger context, it too is tessera. Along with other texts from scripture, it fits with the passion narrative to form a new wholethe broken fragments of an urn pieced back together. As with Isaiah 53:12, Hos 10:8 recalls the juxtaposition of two constructs of worldthe world of idolatry and the world of the God of Israel. The revisionary use of these texts shifts the center historically but also substantively. The historical shift is to the event of the death of Jesus. The substantive shift is from the juxtaposition of the world of the God of Israel with the world of idolatry to its juxtaposition with the world of the carnivalesque. For the remainder of the passion, the battery of allusions switches to the psalms. Ioannou Karabidopoulou claims that there are five allusions to the psalms in Luke 23:3349.60 Two of these however, are weak at best. Karabidopoulou detects an allusion to Ps 37:12 LXX in Luke 23:49: "But all of his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things."61 The volume here is extremely low. The verbal correspondence hangs on the phrase apo makrothen ("at a distance"). Further, the Lucan plot does not play out the psalm in that Jesus has already diedno longer the suffering oneand unlike the case of the groaning psalmist, the voice is the narrator's rather than the suffering one's. The other weak case is an alleged allusion to Ps 68:22 LXX in the soldiers' offer of sour wine to Jesus (Luke 23:36). Oxos is the only word the two texts have in common. Again, rather than a complaint on the lips of Jesus, as in John 19:2829, the reference to sour wine in Luke 23 is in the narrator's voice, who gives readers the clue to its function as mockery. What is more, the offer of sour wine is a part of the carnivalesque. The soldiers are mocking Jesus as a kingcarnival king, and they offer him sour wine instead of the superior beverage appropriate for a king.62 Then Jesus dies under an inscription: "This is the king of the Jews"carnival king (23:38).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

With the casting of lots to divide Jesus' clothing, apparently including the exquisite robe that Herod put on him, Karabidopoulou has a much stronger case. Luke 23:34 abbreviates Ps 21:19 LXX and stylizes it to fit grammatically, but reproduces it with high volume. A crucial issue for understanding it is the question of the textual authenticity of Jesus' prayer for his opponents. Its absence from prominent early manuscripts with a wide geographical dispersion is difficult to explain as an omission by copyists. 63 Nevertheless, a somewhat persuasive argument for its authenticity is the parallel with Acts 7:60, among a number of parallels between the deaths of Jesus and Stephen, and the agreement with Lucan motifs.64 One way out of the conundrum of the textual variants is to consider the text in both forms, with and without Jesus' prayer. Without the prayer, the allusion to the dividing of Jesus' garments establishes a straight reading of Ps 21:19 LXX before the leaders make their own absurd mimicry of it in Luke 23:35. Like the ones who arrested Jesus in 22:64, those who cast lots for Jesus' clothing unwittingly fulfill prophecy, and the straight reference to the psalm sets off the second allusion as an absurd mimicry. With the prayer, not only does Jesus carry out the theme of forgiveness of sinners, he also makes a clear distinction between the two constructs of world: "They do not know what they are doing"Jesus' world of knowing plays off against the antagonists' world of ignorance. This makes it even more explicit that dividing Jesus' clothing and mocking him are a part of the carnivalesque. Thus, this is an additional case where an allusion to scripture resists the carnivalesque construct of world. The mockery of the leaders in Luke 23:35 is another strong allusion. The narrator gives readers notice of the mockery, but the words of mockery are on the leaders' lips. On the verbal plane, the volume of repetition is considerable. There is repetition of the verbs theoreo and mykterizo from Ps 21:8 LXX, though Luke differentiates those who watch from the leaders who mock. There is also repetition of the nuclear word sosato from 21:9,65 though in distinction from the psalm where it means "Let [the Lord] save him," here it means "Let him save himself." Two more of Hays's criteria come into play at this pointavailability and repetition. The availability of Psalm 21 LXX is clear from its prominence in the passion narratives of all four Gospels. The repetition is clear because the previous verse is an unambiguous allusion to Ps 21:19 LXX. In contradistinction to the typical allusions to scripture in the Lucan passion narrative that resist the carnivalesque, the leaders use a revisionary allusion to boost the carnivalesque. They twist the hypogram from Ps 21:89 and play an absurd mimicry off of it.66 Like the scoffers in the psalm, they make deliverance a criterion of authenticity. But the new mockery bends the criterion from divine deliverance to Jesus' deliverance of himselfclinamen, that is, a twist that in its relationship to the precursor produces irony. The

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

leaders imply the absence of the power to deliver. Ironically, they locate the absence of power in God's messiah himself and thus empty out the sense of divine deliverance in Psalm 21 LXXkenosis. But to the chagrin of the scoffers, the plots of both Psalm 21 LXX and the Lucan passion locate the power of deliverance in God. Thus, even in the allusion of opponents, readers may overhear hope in God. Psalm 21 LXX falls into two contrasting partslament because of Godforsakenness (vv. 121) and thanksgiving for divine deliverance (vv. 2231). 67 For readers who know Psalm 21 LXX, the division of Jesus' clothes and the ensuing mockery of the leaders call to mind the lament. Is there also reason to recall the divine deliverance? One end of the spectrum of opinions on this question takes the allusions as atomistic associations that carry nothing of their context.68 The other end takes the part, particularly the opening lines, as representing the whole psalm.69 Luke, however, does not record the opening lines so prominent in Mark and Matthew: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Further, by the standard of verbatim repetition, Luke gives readers little reason to recollect the divine deliverance. But when the setting and plot come into play, the Lucan passion strongly reiterates wider aspects of the psalm. The setting of Psalm 21 LXX is the contrast of a carnivalesque vision of world and a theocentric vision of world. In the carnivalesque inversion, the victim is considered a worm rather than human, scorned and despised, mocked. The mouth of opponents opened like a lion's mouth (v. 14) is a violation of bodily barrierstypical of the carnivalesque.70 The taunt "He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he cares for him" (21:9 LXX, author's trans.) profanes the sacred in carnivalesque fashion. Further, biblical scholarship has developed some fascinating hypotheses about the relation of Psalm 22 (21 LXX) to the carnivalesque. In the wider environment, part of the Babylonian New Year festival involved an intriguing ritual in which the king entered Nebo's chapel, followed by the high priest. The high priest proceeded to remove the king's royal attire and to take away his scepter, ring, weapon, and crown. The priest then buffeted his cheeks, tugged his ears, and compelled him to bow before Marduk and assert that he had not been derelict in his duties to Babylon. After the ritual the king resumed his normal status.71 Aage Bentzen argues for a parallel carnivalesque inversion of the king's status in Israel, and sees it as a feature of royal psalms of lament, including specifically Psalm 22 (21 LXX).72 Though echoes of the ritual humiliation may linger in New Testament times, its memory is not mandatory in order for Luke-Acts nevertheless to pick up the carnivalesque setting as a literary feature. But the hypothesis does support the presence of the carnivalesque precisely as a literary feature. Beyond the carnivalesque setting, however, the narrative of the Lucan passion plays out the plot of Psalm 21 LXX. Immediately before the location

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

in Psalm 21 LXX where Luke splices it into the passion narrative, the details parallel the crucifixion uncannily: "Many dogs encircled me, an assembly of those who do evil surrounded me, they pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps 21:17 LXX, author's trans.). Luke mentions nothing of the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet as details of the crucifixion. But the risen Jesus explicitly shows his hands and his feet to the eleven and those with them (Luke 24:39, 40), though he makes no mention of the wounds. 73 With these multiple touch points between the Lucan passion and Psalm 21 LXX, readers who know the psalm may also begin to sing the song of deliverance, salvation, and rescue from its second half. In fact, because they allude to the psalm, the leaders who mock unwittingly call to mind the power of God to save. But not too fast! Jesus dies in the midst of a curious time of inversion. The sun's light fails, the temple curtain is torn.74 Day becomes night, sacred becomes profane, inlaw is swapped for outlaw, God's messiah is killed. The carnivalesque threatens to eclipse Jesus' construct of world in a deadly serious way. In the jaws of such jeopardy, Jesus casts himself in utter dependence upon God: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46).75 Conventionally, this utterance has been understood from the perspective of the dichotomy of body and soul, so that at this moment of death Jesus' spirit leaves the body.76 There is some basis for such an interpretation elsewhere in Luke-Acts. When Jesus heals Jairus's daughter, her pneuma returns (Luke 8:55). When the risen Jesus appears to the eleven and those with them, they think they are seeing a pneuma, and Jesus makes a distinction between his risen nature and a pneuma (24:37, 39). To be sure, in the cultural repertoire of Luke-Acts spirit and body can exist in a dichotomy.77 But pneuma can also be the seat of life, the corporeal matter and its life-giving force together, and as such it can refer to the totality of human existence.78 Further, the psalm that Jesus is quoting correlates the committal of the psalmist's spirit to Cod with divine refuge for the psalmist's life. There is an explicit reference to the psalmist's zoe (Ps 30:11 LXX). Thus, it is in the sense of pneuma as the seat of life that at the moment of his final extremities Jesus commits himself to God's care: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Babylonian Talmud Berakot 4b5a gives some evidence that in citing the psalm Jesus recites a Jewish bedtime prayer.79 The talmudic discussion begins with the opinion of R. Joshua b. Levi that one ought to recite the Shema' at bedtime even if it has already been recited in the synagogue. R. Nahman gives the opinion that it is not necessary, for a scholar. But Abaye is reported to have said that even a scholar should recite at least one verse, as for instance: "Into Thy hand I commit my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me Lord." Midrash Rabbah Num 20:20 and Midr. Tanhuma B VII.23 on Numbers distinguish Israelites from other people by the evening (and therefore

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

characteristic) prayer: "Into Thy hand I commit my spirit" (Ps 31:5). The problem is that the talmudic scholars date from the third and fourth centuries of our era, and the recension of the midrashim is much later. Thus there is insufficient evidence to show how far back the tradition goes. But notably Abaye's tradition recalls divine redemption as well as the committal to God. Whether the Lucan Jesus recites a bedtime prayer or not, he casts himself in dependence upon God. Does the authorial audience know Ps 30:6 LXX? When Jesus says, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," do they also hear, "You have redeemed me, Lord, God of truth. You have hated those who guard vanities carefully to no purpose. But I have hoped in the Lord" (Ps 30:67 LXX, author's trans.)? If Jesus' last words evoke a recall of the larger context of the psalm, then they are a synecdochical markertessera. The passion narrative counts on this allusion as a component of a new whole. But fitting it into a new whole recenters both the psalm and the passion. The committal to God abandons its home in the psalmskenosis. But the psalm's confidence in the power of God to rescue shifts the passion off its center on senselessness, and when the committal to God comes to rest on Jesus' lips, it rises to a new level of meaningdaemonization or hyperbole. A World That Centers on God Explicit and implicit hope in God is a key to the allusions to scripture in the Lucan passion narrative. The allusions resist the carnivalesque by juxtaposing another world to it. But what kind of world? It is a world that centers on God. Two particular features of the passion narrative help readers define the world that centers on God by showing what it is not. One is the partial participation of the disciples in both worlds. The other is the women who mourn for Jesus as he processes through the streets as carnival king. Jesus puts an end to the disciples' brief fling as armed rebels, and he inverts the notion of the conquering hero even in its preposterous carnivalesque idiom. Thus, Jesus demonstrates that no room is reserved in the world centered on God for the options of holy war and conquering heroes. It is conventional to speak of messianic or christological interpretation of scripture in Luke-Acts. 80 The point is well taken as references in Luke 24:27, 4446 show. Further, in Luke 22:37 Jesus himself implies a christological perspective for interpreting Isa 53:12: "It is necessary for this that is written to be fulfilled in me." On the other hand, Luke 22:37, 23:30, 34 refer equally to opponents so that the parallels are not merely christological. But even if Jesus is a key to understanding the scriptures, he gives another keyGod. That is, both explicitly and implicitly allusions to scripture

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

make the understanding of the crucifixion of Jesus dependent on the power of God to rescue. The Lucan appropriation of scripture is primarily theocentric. 81 The interplay between the Lucan passion narrative and scripture is a kind of replication that exhibits what Riffaterre calls overdetermination. Overdetermination for Riffaterre is an overlapping of synonymous systems that helps to leverage a "correct" reading. Allusions are a particular case in which one text is superimposed on another, and the text that alludes to another is a variant on the allusion.82 Recall of scripture in the Lucan passion places Jesus in continuity with a tradition dominated by hope in God for deliverance. This theocentric appropriation of scripture is a figuration. Luke views the crucifixion of Jesus indirectly through scripture. But equally Luke views scripture through the crucifixion of Jesus. The juxtaposition of the two relocates the center of eachcrucifixion shifts off the center of senselessness, scripture shifts off its center in Israel's past to relocate on the crucifixion of Jesus. But the figurations associated with Isa 5:3:12, Hos 10:8, Ps 21:89, 19 LXX, and Ps 30:6 LXX are also metonymic. They say one name, they mean another. That is, the allusions stand for the power of God. In each of these cases, even when scoffers play off of scripture, the allusion represents the power of God to rescue. On the one hand, the metonymy is limiting. It reduces the power of God to rescue to its representation in a few allusions to scripturekenosis. On the other hand, the metonymy leads to daemonization, hyperbole, that is, a gain in meaning over the precursor. Because there is such a gain in meaning, allusions to scripture in the Lucan passion break off from their precursorsBloom's askesis, a rift between precursor and successor because the successor claims an efficacy which the precursor does not possess. The successor de-centers the precursor, that is, it provides a new perspective toward the precursor so that readers see what has not been seen before, namely, the power of God to rescue the messiah from the scandal of the crucifixion. On the other hand, the only way readers gain the new perspective in Luke is to hear the voices of Isaiah, Hosea, and the psalmists. The precursor returns and overcomes the tension created by the new perspective and the new meaningapophrades, metalepsis, or transumption. When Luke speaks in the voices of Isaiah, Hosea, and the psalmists, these figures of the past come to the present to speak. But when they speak, they speak in Luke's voice. Allusions to scripture in the Lucan passion narrative form a hendiadys, two in one. There are two voices, precursor and successor, in one. This hendiadys resists the carnivalesque construct of world that comes from Jesus' adversaries, and it keeps reminding readers that beyond the machinations of the opponents the story is the Lord's doing.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

Revising Readers' Anticipations So, do readers know who Jesus is by his fruits? If Jesus is a tree known by its fruits, is he cut down and thrown into the fire? The perspective of the carnivalesque in the Lucan passion narrative presses on readers the notion that he is. But that notion is a part of the anticipations of readers that they must revise as the narrative develops. What better occasion for readers' expectations to come to revision than festivalunleavened breadancient reminiscences of the fruits of barley harvestPassoverdivine deliverance from oppressors. Against their expectations that Jesus is like a flourishing tree planted by streams of water which yields its fruit in its season, Luke's passion narrative offers a revision of messianism. The messiah is crucified. But the revision of messianism is also a revision of the God of the messiah. "He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him, let him save him, because he cares for him" (Ps 21:9 LXX, author's trans.).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

5 Resisting a Carnivalesque Construct of World with the Carnivalesque and with Voices of Scripture: Acts 1.1526 Whereas the Lucan passion narrative resists a carnivalesque construct of world primarily with voices of scripture, Acts 1 takes over carnivalesque literary features and combines them with voices of scripture in order to undermine the carnivalesque construct of world. In the passion, Jesus' opponents attempt to reduce him to utter absurdity, and though the narrative resists the carnivalesque with voices of scripture, Jesus goes to his grave without any public chorus affirming the success of resisting the carnivalesque construct of world. On the way from the passion to Acts 1, readers encounter an arresting development in the narrative. Against the carnivalesque construct of world, Luke 24 introduces the resurrection of Jesus. But the Gospel of Luke does not present the resurrection as an event that stands on its own. The empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus are ambiguous phenomena that require interpretation. 1 The empty tomb means nothing more to the women who visit it than an enigma (Luke 24:4). Only when they receive the interpretation from two messengers at the tomb do they remember Jesus' predictions of his resurrection (9:22; 18:33). When the women report all these things to the eleven and those with them, the apostles do not believe them (24:911).2 The textually disputed v. 12 reports that Peter's visit to the tomb left him dumbfounded.3 Even after Cleopas and his companion come to recognition of the risen Jesus, others can still regard him as a ghost and remain puzzled and disbelieving (24:37). Thus, on their own, the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances are ambiguous, and as arresting as they are, they too leave Jesus with no more than a small public chorus affirming success in resisting the carnivalesque construct of world.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

Along with the introduction of the resurrection, Luke 24 once again contends for a construct of world centered on the God of Israel by calling upon scripture. But whereas explicit and tacit allusions suffuse the passion, the resurrection account implies a new way of understanding scripture as a whole. Before Cleopas and his companion come to recognition of the risen Jesus, he provides them with a christological interpretation of Moses and all the prophets (24:27). Further, in response to the disbelief and bewilderment of the eleven and those with them, Jesus presents himself as the fulfillment specifically of the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms (24:44). The christological hermeneutic, however, is insufficient on its own. Genuine understanding comes in the wake of an additional stimulus. Eyes and minds have to be opened (24:31, 45). Even at that, aside from joy and temple worship (24:5253), the community that affirms Jesus against the carnivalesque is meager. In contrast, the narrative of Acts begins to present readers with an expanding community that accepts the alternative to the carnivalesque. Through the use of scripture this community resists the carnivalesque construct of world and gives social sanction to a world centered on the God of Israel who raised Jesus from the dead. First, however, the core of the community requires major repairs. A World of Uninhabitable Habitation Due to the defection of Judas, communal structure requires the reconstitution of the twelve, a move closely related to Jesus' serious and permanent promise that the twelve would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). In the passion narrative, the carnivalesque, at the service of the opponents of Jesus, contributes to and offers an interpretation of the death of Jesus. From the perspective of Jesus' opponents, it is, as Julia Kristeva characterizes the carnivalesque, deadly serious. 4 In Acts 1, the carnivalesque comes into the service of the narrative in order to undermine the opposition to Jesus embodied in Judas. That opposition is disembodied in the deadly serious incident of the evisceration of Judasdeadly serious absurdity. Thus, with the demise of Judas, the vision of world endorsed by the narrative wields carnivalesque literary features against the carnivalesque. Further, scripture allies with the carnivalesque in order to undermine a carnivalesque construct of world. Voices of scripture interpret the death of Judasimplicitly his construct of worldas a bleak absurdity. Judas buys a field for a homestead, but inside and outside invert, habitation becomes uninhabitable, livable becomes unlivable. Judas bursts open and his bowels gush out.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

As a transgression of bodily barriers, the inversion of bowels from inside to outside is a carnivalesgue feature in the extreme. The transgression of bodily barriers can be spitting or a slap in the face, or it can unravel the social order more radically by exposing breasts or genitals, or by highlighting excrement. 5 The demise of Judas outdoes the carnivalesque in cutting Judas down, quite literally, to a movement of his bowelsinside to outside. The grotesque evisceration diminishes Judas to a bloody pile of the organs that produce fecesabsurd. Rather than unravel the construct of world centered on God, here the transgression of bodily barriers unravels Judas's carnivalesque construct. It is seriously absurd.6 The carnivalesque inversion is not confined merely to the demise of Judas. It also inverts the value and function of field and habitation. In the case of Judas's betrayal of Jesus, injustice has a payoff (misthos tes adikias, Acts 1:18). Judas attempts to capitalize the payoff by investing in a piece of property. The text provides no further direct description of the property. But two things inform readers about its intended and effective functions. The last comes first. Its effective function is inverted by the reduction of Judas to a movement of his bowelsas it turns out, a bloody gushing out of his bowelsbloody enough for the property to become known as a field of blood (1:19). The inversion of value cancels the effective function of the field. With respect to its intended function, a citation from Ps 68:26 LXX provides readers with the additional information that a country house stood on the field.7 With the demise of Judas, the homestead becomes an oxymoron. Habitable becomes uninhabitable, livable becomes unlivable. In spite of the use of the carnivalesque against the carnivalesque, the strategy of calling up reminiscences of scripture, so evident in the struggle of the passion narrative against the carnivalesque, also shows up in Acts 1. The narrative portrays a nascent community that resists the carnivalesque and advocates a competing construct of worlda world centered on the God of Israel who raised Jesus from the dead. Like the crucifixion of Jesus itself, the betrayal by Judas threatens to disconfirm that Jesus is God's messiah. In Luke-Acts, this is not merely a psychological problem of why Jesus chose a betrayer. Rather, the demise of Judas depletes the ranks of the twelve whom Jesus promised to locate on thrones that they might judge the twelve tribes of Israel. The depletion threatens to undo the kingdom that God has conferred on Jesus and that Jesus in turn has conferred on the twelve (Luke 22:2930).8 One strategy Acts 1 uses to confront this threat is to interpret the demise of Judas with voices of scripture. In the first place, the style of the second half of Acts 1 has the ring of the Septuagint.9 Acts 1:15 begins, ''In those days . . . ,'' a phrase often repeated in narratives of the Septuagint, and thus subtly reminds readers of the story of God's dealings with Israel.10 In addition, scripture comes into play quite explicitly in two citations from the psalms. The two citations form the pivot

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

for a symmetrical structure that leads up to and develops from them. The demise of Judas leads up to the citation of Ps 68:26 LXX. 11 The reconstitution of the twelve develops from the citation of Ps 108:8 LXX. Part of the symmetry is that Lucan terms for divine necessity introduce both the demise of Judas and the reconstitution of the twelve (edei, 1:16; dei, 1:21).12 Thus, scripture provides a means to understand each event, and further, the two events parallel each other as antitheses.13 Nevertheless, the second citation continues to maintain a sobering focus on Judas.14 Understanding the demise of Judas is still a part of understanding the passion of Jesus.15 The crucifixion of Jesus has consequences for his opponents, and the destiny of Judas is part of the continuation of the story of the passion. But there is an influence in reverse as well. Insight into the ruin of Judas clarifies the meaning of Jesus' death. In Acts 1 understanding the demise of Judas depends especially on two things. First, Acts recounts the events of his death. Second, Acts correlates those events with scripture. Peter designates the first reference as scripture by introducing it: "For it is written in the book of Psalms" (Acts 1:20). This is a further elaboration of his claim in v. 16 that the events fulfill scripture (graphe).16 The text makes a specific reference to Psalm 68 LXX. It is therefore up to readers to determine whether or not they will recall more than simply the desolation of the homestead. Readers who are intimate with the psalm may take the explicit citation as the entrance to its larger context. Furthermore, the text invites them to do so in two ways. First, Luke 24 has provided for a new way to understand all the scriptures. There is a divine opening of eyes and minds that transforms the meaning of scripture even to the point of modifying the text. Second, Peter's introduction to the incident makes a claim that the scripture about Judas had to be fulfilled. Such a claim carries with it an implicit critique of canon as incomplete and therefore invites readers to search for a fuller meaningtessera or completion.17 Of course Peter's reference to what is written is an appeal to a communal consensus about what is canonicala shared convention, tradition tried and attested by the past and therefore valorized for the present. Nevertheless, readers who know the Septuagint will quickly recognize that his version revises Ps 68:26 considerably. The psalm says: "Let their homestead become desolate" (author's trans. with emphasis added). Peter's version makes the genitive of the pronoun singular,18 but it also uses the noun eremos ("desert" or ''desolate place") whereas the psalm uses a perfect passive participle of the verb eremoo ("make desolate,'' "abandon"). In addition, the second line of the psalm parallels the homestead with "their tents" or "their quarters." Peter's version also replaces this phrase with a singular pronoun whose antecedent is the homestead of the first line. For comparison, translations of the two texts, with emphasis added, follow:

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

Let their homestead become abandoned, And let there be no one to live in their quarters. (Ps 68:26 LXX,author's trans.) Let his homestead become desolate, And let there be no one to live in it. (Acts 1:20, NRSV) Although there are similar moves in modifying texts in Qumran and rabbinic literature, 19 Luke 24 provides a context for the alteration. Not only does the risen Jesus imply a christological hermeneutic for the interpretation of scripture, he also opens the minds of the eleven and those with them to understand scripturein a new way. Thus, the convention of canon takes on another level of valorization in that Luke 24 has legitimated a new hermeneutic. Incidentally, this presupposes readers who concur that Jesus has the status to provide a new interpretation of scripture. There is yet another level of shared convention in that the new interpretation comes from Peter. A person of prominence exercises the new insight into scripture given by the risen Jesus. The new understanding involves both continuity and discontinuity. It appeals to a canon of the past, but it also revises the canon of the past. The revision is not merely a new meaning for the canon in a new context. It even allows for a modification of the canon itself. The modification, however, still stands in close continuity with the precursor. When readers take into consideration the psalm's own literary context, the close continuity between Peter's version and Ps 68:26 LXX is evident. Psalm 68 LXX is a lament of a righteous servant of God who is suffering at the hands of enemies. If what is true of enemies in the plural is also true of one opponent from among them, then the modification of Ps 68:26 LXX in Acts 1:20 to correspond to Judas stands in close continuity with the canonical form. This type of appropriation also fits the cultural repertoire of antiquity in that it corresponds to one of Hillel's tenets for interpreting scripture, that is, that a general principle is applicable to a specific case.20 To make this claim is to presuppose already that Peter's reference assumes the larger dimension of the psalm. Readers who detect that Judas is a singular instance of the multiple opposition portrayed in the psalm do in fact also apprehend that the psalm portrays the opponents in the plural. That is, they are catching echoes of the larger context of the psalm, and the play between precursor and successor texts that produces the echoes is transumption, that is, a figurative taking over of one text into another. There are, however, additional reasons to suggest that readers who know the psalm will catch echoes of the whole psalm.21 For one thing, the gruesome evisceration of Judas corresponds to an ungrammaticality, in Michel Riffaterre's terms.22 The gushing out of Judas's bowels deviates from

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

the normal sufficiently to exceed a straightforward understanding, and because it overshoots a direct understanding, it drives readers toward the figurative. The figuration toward which Judas's evisceration pushes readers is complex. Part of its complexity is that it is so unusual as to make habitation desolate, inhabitable uninhabitableapparently permanentlyand to give a name to a fieldfield of blood. This too is complex. One dimension of the name of the field is the reminder of the bloody gushing out of Judas's bowels. In this sense, the field of blood as a figure is marked by methexis, that is, mutual participation between subsidiary and primary meanings of the figure. 23 The evisceration of Judas is a gruesome affair with strong visual and olfactory methexes through which the figure sneaks repulsion into the construct of world represented by Judasthe image is loathsome; the mess stinks.24 The methexis heightens the hideous nature of the carnivalesque construct of world that brings Judas to his doom. Another part of the complexity of the figure of the field of blood is that readers will be unlikely to miss that Judas purchased the field with blood money.25 The field of blood, then, is also a figurative recall and part of the understanding of the death of Jesus. It bears repeating that there is a dialogical play between the passion of Jesus and the death of Judas. Each has a bearing on understanding the other, and the figure of the field of blood shows how intertwined the demise of Judas is with the crucifixion of Jesus. The evisceration of Judas is not self-contained but both a consequence and an interpretation of Jesus' passion. The ungrammaticality of the grotesque evisceration of Judas not only implies a figurative interpretation of the field of blood, it also nudges readers into a play on scripture. And just as the figure of the field of blood points to both Judas and Jesus, so also, for readers who know Psalm 68 LXX, the reference to scripture is a double-sided mirror reflecting in two directions. It reflects on Judas, and it reflects on Jesus. Another major reason to conclude that Acts 1 recalls more than the explicit citation is that Richard Hays's criteria of availability, thematic coherence, and volume confirm the probability of allusions to the larger context of the psalm.26 Availability: Psalm 69 (68 LXX) is the second most frequently quoted psalm in the New Testament.27 The other three Gospels all allude to the psalm in their passion narratives. John 2:17 and 15:25 also recall the psalm, and Paul refers to it in Rom 11:9 and 15:3. Thematic coherence: Psalm 68 LXX is a penetrating account of a righteous servant of God who suffers at the hands of opponents. As the line of argument of this chapter develops, it should be clear that there is thematic coherence between the psalm and the destinies of Jesus and Judas. Volume: When readers recognize that Peter's citation fits Ps 68:26 LXX as a singular case of the opposition that the psalm describes in the plural, there is a high volume for this one verse. But as the line of argument of this chapter develops, it should be

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

clear that there is also a high volume of reiteration of plot and setting for much larger dimensions of the psalm. If the imprecation of Ps 68:26 LXX is the point at which Peter's reference grafts the psalm into Acts 1, how far out do the branches extend? A prominent Lucan theme is that Jesus suffers as a divine necessity. There are aspects of the psalm in close proximity to v. 26 that correspond. For example, v. 27 continues the line of thought of v. 26: "Because they persecuted the one whom you [God] struck, and they added unto the suffering of your wounded ones" (author's trans.). If readers know Psalm 68 LXX and correlate Judas as a singular case with the opponents portrayed in the plural in the psalm, they likely apprehend Judas also as a singular case of those who persecuted one whom God afflicted and who added to the suffering of one of God's wounded (68:27). Further, v. 28 continues: "Add lawlessness unto their lawlessness, and do not let them come unto your righteousness" (author's trans.). Acts portrays Judas as a ringleader of the opponents who arrested Jesus, 28 and Acts 2:23 speaks of the opponents who crucified Jesus as lawless. As in the psalm, Judas is one upon whom lawlessness is heaped. Moreover, Acts 1 gives a vivid account of how Judas was obliterated out of the book of the livingthe imprecation of Ps 68:29 LXX. If readers who know the psalm correlate Judas with the opponents in the larger context of the psalm, they doubtless also associate Jesus with the suffering righteous servant of the psalm. The psalm has two facets, suffering and oppression, and the two facets reflect Jesus as well as Judas. The psalm designates the one who suffers God's pais (68:18 LXX, "servant"), a term that the early chapters of Acts use for Jesus with reference to his relationship to God (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25, 27, 30).29 As Judas is a singular case of the opposition reflected in the plural in the psalm, so also Jesus, like the psalmist, is a particular servant (pais) among God's servants (douloi) also reflected in the plural (Ps 68:37). In addition, readers who know the psalm readily correlate Jesus with the poignant figure of the psalm who bears reproach on account of God (68:8). There are other details which are touch points between Luke's story of Jesus and the psalm. For example, like the psalmist, Jesus turns to God in prayer, in contrast to his adversaries (68:14; Luke 22:41). But more than the individual details, the structure of the psalm as a whole corresponds to Luke's account of the death of Jesus and contributes to an understanding of it. Psalm 68 LXX witnesses soberly to the incongruity of suffering for God's sake.30 "The insults of those who insult you [God] have fallen upon me" (Ps 68:10 LXX, author's trans.). Against tormenting opponents who multiply his distress, the poet laments, "I waited for one who shares in grief, but there was no one, and for one who comforts, but I found none. They gave me gall for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" (vv. 2122, author's trans.). The psalm also pleads for deliverance from enemies and death (vv. 1, 1519), and it anticipates the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page > Page 68

vindication of God's wounded one and the catastrophic destruction of the opponents. Moreover, Psalm 68 LXX makes an unexpected transition to a doxology in praise of God's care for the destitute and the restoration of God's servants in Zion (vv. 3137). The stubborn reliance of God's wounded one upon God and the persistent hope in divine vindication contribute to an interpretation of the deaths of Jesus and Judaseach reflects on the other. Further, reminiscences of the wounded one's hope in God reinforces the Lucan construct of world centered on the God of Israel against a carnivalesque oxymoronic construct of world. Interpreting Opposition to God's Righteous Suffering One Peter's citation is a double one. To reiterate, although the second half leads to and forms a partial explanation for the election of Matthias, the reference to Ps 108:8 LXX is still primarily about Judas. Peter introduces the double citation by claiming that the scripture was written concerning Judas (Acts 1:16) and ties the two texts together with a simple coordinating conjunction. Both texts have to do with what the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth (sic) of David about Judas. The two texts together take on fuller meaning with respect to the demise of Judas. But the relationship between the texts and the death of Judas is dialogical. The texts provide an interpretation of the otherwise perplexing opposition of Judas to Jesus. Because Psalm 108 LXX already embodies opposition in one person, it does not present the necessity of modification in order to correspond to the case of Judas as does Ps 68:26 LXX. Actually, Psalm 108 LXX vacillates between singular and plural. For example, the second verse shifts from the singular in one line to the plural in the next: "Because a sinner's mouth and a deceitful person's mouth have been opened against me. They have spoken against me with a deceitful tongue" (author's trans.). Thus, it is also clear that the singular is a particular case of the larger opposition expressed in the plural. Nevertheless, in spite of this more congenial correspondence with the demise of Judas than Psalm 68 LXX, Acts does make a grammatical modification in the citation. Likely due to the obsolete nature of the optative, Acts 1:20 changes the verb of Psalm 108:8 LXX from laboi ("may [another] take") to the imperative labeto ("let [another] take"). In spite of the declaration in Luke 16:17 that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped, the canonical letters obviously can undergo modification. To pick up the context of Acts 1 again, the ungrammaticality of the death of Judas applies equally to the citation of Ps 108:8. The deviation of the evisceration of Judas from normality drives readers toward a figurative interpretation. Part of the figuration is the metaphor of the field of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

blood. But another part of the figuration is the interplay with scripture. This figuration implies not merely a proof from scripture but revisionary reverberations bouncing back and forth between precursor and successortransumption. It is obvious that Acts 1:20 plugs into Psalm 108 LXX in the second half of verse 8, which it cites. But are there criteria to support the probability of allusion to larger dimensions of the psalm? Though in many ways Psalm 108 LXX parallels the passion of Jesus more closely than does Psalm 68 LXX, it does not share the latter's wide distribution. Nevertheless, Acts 2:37 may allude to Ps 108:16 LXX where it uses variations of the same terms for "brokenhearted.'' The Septuagint expresses the idiom with katanenygmenon te kardia and Acts 2:37 with katenygesan ten kardian. 31 Though the sample is small, this is a high level of verbatim repetition. If Acts 2:37 does draw on the psalm, it is an example of Hays's criterion of recurrence as well as availability. Barnabas Lindars also suggests that the wagging of heads as a sign of mockery in Mark 15:29 may allude to the psalm.32 His argument works better if Mark presupposes the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint, because Mark uses an altogether different verb than the Septuagint to refer to moving the head. Rudolf Pesch detects eight allusions to Psalm 109 (108 LXX) underlying the Marcan passion narrative.33 But all in all, the availability of the psalm elsewhere in the New Testament and its recurrence in Luke-Acts offer rather weak support for an allusion to larger dimensions of Psalm 108 LXX. The volume of reiteration increases dramatically, however, when setting and plot also come into view. As in the case of Psalm 68 LXX, the setting is the conflict between God's righteous suffering one and an opponent as a singular instance of opponents in the plural. Further, with respect to plot there are lines of correspondence running back and forth between the passion of Jesus and its consequences and Psalm 108 LXX. The mouths of sinner and deceitful person and the deceitful tongue of opponents in v. 2 have already been mentioned. This bears marked similarity to the betrayal by Judas (Luke 22:36, 21, 4748; Acts 1:16). That is followed, however, in Ps 108:3 LXX with opponents who encircle the suffering one with words of hatereminiscent of the mockery of Jesus at his crucifixion (Luke 22:6365; 23:11, 3539). Over against the opponents' slander, the suffering one of the psalm takes a stance of prayer (Ps 108:4; Luke 22:4145; 23:34 [textual authenticity uncertain]). The psalm complains about the opponents' evil actions in return for the suffering one's good (agathon, Ps 108:5 LXX). In his Pentecost speech Peter protests that though Jesus was attested by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs, he was killed by lawless ones (Acts 2:2223). He repeats the argument in Acts 3:1315. Then in his summary of Jesus' ministry to the household of Cornelius, Peter explicitly says that Jesus went about doing good (euergeton), but opponents put him to death (Acts 10:3839).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

For the parallels of the psalm to the passion of Jesus in Luke-Acts, it is pivotal that v. 6 in the LXX is significantly different from the Hebrew. In he Hebrew version, the opponents say, "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser (satan) stand on his right." Thus, the opponents set up a false witness against God's righteous suffering one. Of course this parallels Judas's conspiracy with the high priestly coterie. But the Septuagint does not attribute the command to appoint an accuser to opponents. The psalm reads, without an identifiable spokesperson: "Appoint a sinner against him, and let a devil (diabolos) stand at his right" (author's trans.). 34 In its setting in the psalm, diabolos is the accuser. But in the cultural repertoire of Luke-Acts, diabolos is the cosmic power of evil which orchestrates the entire negative axis in Luke-Acts from the temptation forward.35 Readers who know Psalm 108 LXX can hardly miss connections with Luke's report that Judas's conspiracy against Jesus comes about when Satan enters into Judas (Luke 22:3) .36 The characterization of the opponent in the psalm resonates noticeably well with Judas. The opponent ". . . did not remember to do mercy, and he pursued to death a man, poor and needy, and brokenhearted" (Ps 108:16 LXX, author's trans.). Likewise the characterization of the righteous suffering one resonates conspicuously well with Jesus. He corresponds to the poor and needy person who is brokenhearted and who is pursued by the opponent. The mode of the death of Judas also intersects with the psalm. The psalm predicts that a curse will come upon the opponent: "He loved a curse, and it will come upon him. He did not like a blessing, and it shall be far from him. He clothed himself with a curse as a garment, and it went in like water into his entrails (egkata), and like oil in his bones" (Ps 108:1718 LXX, author's trans.).37 Acts uses an altogether different term for entrails in Judas's evisceration (splagchna). But there is significant correspondence in that it is as if the curse that penetrates into the entrails and bones takes on visible and olfactory dimensions when Judas bursts open and his bowels gush out. The death of Judas completes the predictions of the psalm. It is tessera. The correspondence between the imprecations and the demise of Judas will quickly register with readers who know Psalm 108 LXX. The psalm contains invocations for the opponent's days to be few and for his (sicthe text mentions the opponent's wife) name to be obliterated in one generation (vv. 8, 13). It is in connection with the opponent's death that the psalm also makes the imprecation: "May another take his office" (v. 8). Therefore, the primary implication of the citation in Acts for readers literate in the psalms is the death of Judas rather than the election of Matthias (Acts 1:2126). The election of Matthias is a confirmation that the destiny of the opponent in the psalm has come upon Judas.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

These individual lines of correspondence remain interesting coincidences, however, unless readers grasp the larger structure of the psalm. It begins as a prayer to God, an invocation that God not pass over the psalm in silence (Ps 108:1 LXX). In contrast to the imprecations, the psalm prays for divine mercy for God's righteous suffering one: "Lord, Lord, do mercy with me on account of your name, save me, because I am needy and poor, and my heart is troubled within me" (vv. 2122, author's trans.). "Help me, Lord, my God. Save me according to your mercy" (v. 26, author's trans.). The psalm ends with praise to God for divine action: "I will give thanks to the Lord with my mouth exceedingly, . . . because he has stood at the right of the needy in order to save from those who pursue my soul" (vv. 3031, author's trans.). This is to say that in its larger structure the psalm is theocentric. More than providing correlations to Judas or Jesus, the psalm parallels the claims of Luke-Acts that God has acted to raise Jesus from the dead. Thus, the key to understanding the allusions of Acts 1 to the psalm is v. 27: ''Let them know that this your hand, and you, Lord, have done it'' (author's trans.). 38 Thus, reminiscences of the psalm raise its meaning to a new levelBloom's daemonization or hyperbole. Forfeiting the kleros There is yet another way an astute reader who knows the Septuagint may pick up allusions to scripture in the figure of Judas. Within this account dominated by two citations from the Septuagint and permeated with septuagintal style, Judas himself plays off of another Judas, namely, Judas the patriarch. Known to people who read the Bible in English as Judah, the patriarch is Ioudas in the Septuagint. In Luke-Acts the twelve apostles clearly recall the twelve patriarchs when Jesus promises them that they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In the case of Judas, the correspondence goes as far as the name as well.39 In his essay on "Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament," Gerhard von Pad warns against reducing the correspondence in biblical typology to minutiae such as biographical details.40 After all, the name Judas (Judah) was common among Jews of the first century of our era. Furthermore, the parallels between plot and setting that are evident between Acts 1 and Psalms 68 and 108 LXX are not quickly evident in the correlation between Judas the betrayer of Jesus and Judas the patriarch. On the other hand, the flavor of the second half of Acts 1, with style and citations reminiscent of the Septuagint, already puts readers into the frame of mind that the story of Acts continues the Septuagint's story of God's dealings with Israel. Within that story of God's dealings with Israel there are prolepses and analepses. The story flashes forward and backward, anticipates

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

itself and reflects back on itself. Early pieces of the story contain seeds of the future. Genesis 38 begins with the notice that Judas the patriarch separated from his brothers and went his own way. Similarly, the Judas of Acts 1 separates from the twelve and goes to his own place. Beyond the repetition of the name, however, there is little verbal reiteration in the similarity. The separation of each Judas is described by related verbs, katabaino ("to go down") in Gen 38:1 and parabaino ("to go aside") in Acts 1:25, but these are rather common words. Beyond that, the volume on the verbal plane is below the audible level. What is more, an appeal to setting and plot does not appear to increase the volume at first glance. Genesis 38 proceeds to relate Tamar's seduction of Judas the patriarch, a far distance from the demise of Judas Iscariot and the election of Matthias. But with a broader vision of the context, the two Judases come into much closer correspondence. The story of Tamar's seduction of Judas the patriarch in Genesis 38 abruptly interrupts the account of the selling of Joseph into Egypt and his experience in Potiphar's house, including the attempt of Potiphar's wife to seduce him (Gen 37:2536; 39:120). The insertion of the story of Tamar and Judas is evident in that Gen 37:36 gives the notice that the Midianites sell Joseph to Potiphar, and Gen 39:1 returns to Potiphar's purchase of Joseph. Robert Alter has shown in an impressively convincing manner that this sets the two episodes into sharp relief against each other. 41 When Judas's first son, Er, dies, at God's displeasure, and Er leaves his wife, Tamar, childless, Judas gives Tamar his second son, Onan, according to the principles of levirate marriage. Onan reneges on his responsibilities to raise up offspring on behalf of his brother, by practicing an elementary form of birth controlcoitus interruptus. Consequently, he also dies at God's displeasure. Apparently fearful of losing his third son, Selom, to divine wrath, Judas sends Tamar out of his household back to her father's house and does not give Selom to her. In the course of time Judas's wife dies, and Tamar plays the part of a prostitute and seduces him. Thus, the story of Judas the patriarch stands juxtaposed to the story of Joseph. The failure of the patriarch to carry out the principle of levirate marriage in his own household contrasts with Joseph's uncompromising regard for Potiphar's household. Joseph's ability to maintain control of his sexual desires in the face of seduction stands out against Judas's susceptibility in succumbing to seduction. Interestingly, in the Septuagint, Potiphar is a eunuch (Gen 39:1). On the one hand, this provides some motivation beyond Joseph's attractiveness for Potiphar's wife to seduce him. But it also adds incentive and cultural permission for Joseph to give into perform what the eunuch husband cannotand heightens the contrast with his brother Judas.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

The account of Tamar's seduction of Judas concludes with the birth of twins from their union, Phares and Zara. The story of their birth is a story of struggle for priority. At birth Zara's hand appears first, but Phares is the first to be born. This birth struggle contains seeds of the future in that Phares and Zara give rise to rival clans in the tribe of Judas (Num 26:1518 LXX, vv. 1922 NRSV). The future continues to coincide with the contest between the twins because Phares is an ancestor of David (Ruth 4:1822), and so the struggle for priority anticipates David's ascendancy. Moreover, it foreshadows the division of the nation into two kingdoms when the tribe of Judas outstrips the other tribes. As a convention in reading strategies, readers privilege beginning and ending. 42 Thus, they focus on correspondences between the initiation of the action and its conclusioncause and effect. In this fashion, readers can detect an indication that the separation of Judas the patriarch from his brothers contains seeds of division in Israel that Phares and Zara anticipate. Judas the patriarch voluntarily gives up the relationship with the patriarchs and goes his own way. This Judas, who already points beyond himself toward the future, finds a counterpart in the other Judas who forfeits his own heritage among the twelve and goes his own way (Acts 1:17, 25).43 The patriarch sells his brother Joseph and forcibly separates him from the twelve patriarchs. The betrayer sells Jesus to the high priestly coterie and forcibly separates him from the twelve (Luke 22:36; Acts 1:18). Therefore, just as Judas the patriarch sets off Joseph to advantage, so Judas the betrayer sets off Jesus to advantage. Immediately after the citation of Ps 108:8 LXX, Acts moves to the election of Matthias (Acts 1:2126). The mode of election shows that the decision carries a divine warrant.44 The election is crucial if Jesus' promise to establish the twelve on thrones governing the twelve tribes of Israel is to survive. Nevertheless, as the antithetical counterpart to the demise of Judas it also remains a story about Judas, and the two events parallel each other as antithesesthe demise of Judas and the election of Matthias. Judas gives up his kleros tes diakonias with the twelve, and the kleros falls on Matthias (Acts 1:17, 26). Kleros means both lot and heritage.45 Judas gives up his heritage with the twelve, which, in light of Luke 22:30, is to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.46 When the lot falls on Matthias, so does the heritage. The election of Matthias is the positive affirmation of the development of a community founded on a construct of world that centers on the God of Israel who raised Jesus from the dead. On the one hand, Matthias is an eyewitness of the events surrounding Jesus from his baptism until his ascensionin particular, a witness of the resurrection. On the other hand, both those events and the status of Matthias and the twelve remain at best ambiguous apart from the interpretation of them all through scripture. That is, Matthias and the twelve are witnesses that the Jesus who was crucified in carnivalesque

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

absurdity is the messiah of the God of Israel. They thus understand that the Jesus who appeared to them after his crucifixion is not a ghost (Luke 24:3643)horrible subversion of lifebut the one whom God raised from the dead. They come to their understanding of the identity between the crucified and risen Jesus through interpretation of scripture, and in this way their witness becomes the foundation for a community that resists the carnivalesque subversion of Jesus' identity as God's messiah. 47 This construct of world stands out in relief against the carnivalesque construct of world that has reduced Judas to a horrific bloody and odorous mess of absurdity.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

6 Hermeneutical Voices of Scripture in Acts 2 Though not entirely unexpected, the events of Acts 2 are so unconventional that they defy conventional comprehension. How can readers come to understanding? One part of understanding entails recognition that Acts 2 has strong antecedents, and so the following discussion first reaches far back toward the beginning of Luke-Acts in order to link the account of Pentecost with its antecedents. After establishing this larger context, the chapter then concentrates on how voices of scripture interpret events in Acts 2. Delayed Anticipations For readers with good memories, suspense, diminished by long delay, hovers over John's prediction about Jesus: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Luke 3:16). John's forecast, however, has to throw an exceedingly long foreshadow, because Jesus completes his earthly venture without baptizing in any way. On the contrary, Jesus anticipates his own baptisma baptism of stress and suffering (12:50). If John's prediction creates a narrative need for fulfillmenta goal toward which the narrative will movethe fulfillment has been in a holding pattern long enough to be low on fuel. 1 A new promise stokes anticipations from a different angle. The risen Jesus pledges to send what his Father promised upon the eleven and their companions. This future sending is also associated with power from on high, a power that will generate proclamation (Luke 24:4849). Readers have little incentive to connect this pledge with John's promise. But when Acts twice repeats Like 24:49 with variation (Acts 1:4, 8),2 readers discover that the pledge and the prediction converge. The pledge to send the promise of God to the disciples and the prediction to clothe them with power link up with baptism with the Holy Spirit. Standard explanations of Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4 take references to the "promise of the Father" as anticipating the words of Jesus that follow in Acts 1:5: "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

Spirit not many days from now." 3 But references to the promise of the Father reach back as well as forward. One strong invitation for readers to look back is Jesus' claim in the aorist: "This is what you have heard from me" (Acts 1:4, emphasis added). Jesus' reference to having spoken in the past nudges readers to recall his words in Luke 11:13: "How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"4 Acts 1:5 then becomes the risen Jesus' claim to the superiority of his baptism over John'sa case that John the Baptist himself makes in Luke 3:16rather than the referent for what the apostles have heard from Jesus. Thus, early in Luke, John the Baptist promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit, in the middle of Luke, Jesus assures his disciples of God's gift of the Holy Spirit, and at the end of Luke, Jesus pledges the promise of the Father. Then at the beginning of Acts, Jesus synthesizes these previous references. In this fashion Acts revitalizes readers' anticipations of the fulfillment of John's prediction. But not entirely. John predicts that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. What happens to the fire? The intermittent reminders of God's gift of the Spirit douse the flame. What then becomes of John's prediction? The manner in which Luke-Acts dispenses with the fire hangs not only on the literary context but also on cultural codes that it carries. Fire is a wide-ranging religious metaphor in antiquity in three senses: divine presence, divine judgment, and purification. Fire is prominent in theophanies and so is associated with divine presence. It also has to do frequently with destructive judgment. But fire also appears as an agent of purification.5 Many interpreters are of the opinion that Spirit and fire are essentially one image and that the two come back together at Pentecost when "tongues as of fire" (Acts 2:3) appear on Jesus' followers.6 What is problematic here is that the figurative comparison of the tongues with fire is of a far lesser order than being filled with the Holy Spirit and more akin to the figurative comparison of the sound with the rush of a violent wind (v. 2). Others take the two images in John's prediction as antithesesGod's gift of the Holy Spirit for those who believe in Jesus, fiery ruin for the recalcitrant.7 There is much in the context of John's prediction to support such a view. Shortly before the prediction, John warns that God's wrath will cut down trees that do not bear good fruit and will throw them into a fire. More significantly, John's prediction continues: "His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (Luke 3:17). If the gathering of wheat corresponds to baptism with the Holy Spirit, the burning of the chaff corresponds to baptism with fire.8 Further, in Luke 12:49, Jesus declares that he has come to bring fire to the earth in the context of his own baptism of stress and suffering. This fire is not yet kindled and thus is future, and further, v. 51 broadens the image to include division. According to this line of argument, Pentecost manifests only the gift of the Holy Spirit,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

and baptism with fire is reserved for eschatological judgment (cf. 17:2930; Acts 17:31). There are slight syntactical problems in Luke 3:16 with taking Holy Spirit and fire as antitheticalone preposition governs the two, implying some common purposeand the same people (hymas) appear to be the recipients of baptism with Spirit and fire. A third possibility, reverting to essentially a doubled image, is to understand fire out of the cultural repertoire as an agent of purification. 9 Little in the context supports this reading explicitly unless in John's preaching the children of Abraham (v. 8) form a corporate image. Cutting down and burning trees (v. 9) would then be a purgation of Israel of a piece with the gathering and sifting of verse 17. In spite of the tendency of interpreters to choose one option over the others, intertextuality allows for all three voices to sound out of the cultural repertoire at the same time, bouncing against each other, sometimes reinforcing, sometimes redirecting, sometimes interfering with one another. This means that connotations of purification and judgment drive toward future eschatological realization (e.g., Acts 3:23; 17:31). But the tongues as of fire at Pentecost, though not exhausting the fulfillment of John's prediction, are not irrelevant to it either. This is part of how suspense, diminished by long delay, makes Pentecost not entirely unexpected. Competing Attempts to Understand Nevertheless, Pentecost is far beyond the conventional. The event is singularclose enough to unique to create mystery. So the question remains: How can readers come to understanding? The phenomena of Pentecost are enigmatic enough to correspond to Michel Riffaterre's category of ungrammaticality.10 Speaking in tongues and understanding glossolalia in one's own language resist interpretation on a conventional level and push it to a figurative level. In short, Pentecost is incomprehensible because its witnesses have no analogies by which to understand. But how does the ungrammaticality push interpretation to a figurative level? Documentary credit for explicating the criterion of analogy conventionally goes to Ernst Troeltsch.11 Historians understand events from the past as analogous to those in the present and have no competence to understand the unique. This, however, is but a specific case of general human comprehension. A typical way to fathom the unconventional is to look for analogies. The Pentecost event provides evidence that people in antiquity did not hesitate to resort to analogy. Indeed, Acts attempts to give common analogies to enable readers to understanda sound from heaven like the rush of a mighty windtongues as of fire (2:23). But participants in the story have no access to these analogies from the narrator and are bewildered. So the witnesses

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

remain perplexed. Some can only quiz each other, "What does this mean?" (v. 12). Others mockingly offer their own analogy: "They are filled with new wine?" (v. 13). 12 The analogy with intoxication, however, does more than take an intuitive shot at comprehending the unusual. It carries the cultural script of a challenge. In the Mediterranean social milieu of antiquity, challenge and response constitute a contest of bantering that is linked to the fundamental values of honor and shame. Honor and shame depend on one's evaluation of self as it derives from a social evaluation. Failure to respond to a challenge presupposes its validity and incurs loss of honor. But an adequate response can become a counterchallenge awaiting honor if the social evaluation of the audience is positive. The challenge can be positive as well as negative. A positive challenge is an attempt to benefit from the honor of another, such as entering a contract of cooperation.13 In Acts 2:13, however, the challenge is negative. The extraordinary phenomena of Pentecost constitute an implicit claim that puts Peter, the eleven, and their companions in the center of a public stage. The opinon that they are drunk is a challenge that threatens to dislodge them, not merely shoving them to the periphery but assigning them negative value. It falls to Peter, backed up by the eleven, to offer a ripostean alternative interpretation. The alternative interpretation likely involves a revisionary deviation from cultural anticipations. Oracles, such as the famous one at Delphi, exhibited phenomena similar to the glossolalia at Pentecost. At Delphi, a female prophet sat on a tripod over a crack in the earth and spoke in tongues. A male prophet then interpreted her glossolalia.14 But here the phenomenon is different. The witnesses already understand the glossolalia, so that Peter clarifies the incident rather than the glossolalia.15 He first tackles the rival explanation head on. The analogy offered by some witnesses is fallaciousit fails to consider the time of day, a time when intoxication is implausible. This apologetic rationale makes sense in a culture that expected revelry to start about mid-morningthe third hour.16 But then Peter shifts from explanation by analogy to interpretation by scripture, from understanding the events of Pentecost directly to understanding them indirectly through a precursor,17 namely, Joel 3:15 LXX (2:2832 NRSV). The enigmatic ungrammaticalities push interpretation to an unconventional figurative level. But the figure is not metaphor proper. Rather, it is scripturalthe figure of the interplay of precursor and successor. The interpretation envisions the present through the eyes of tradition. The Hermeneutical Role of Scripture The distinction between fulfillment of scripture and a hermeneutical function of scripture is critical. For example, the citation of Mic 5:2 in Matt 2:6

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

plays primarily the role of fulfillment. The birthplace of the messiah is comprehensible in its own right, and thus the citation warrants the event of Jesus' birthand his messianic identitywith prophetic prediction. 18 But the citation from Joel in Acts 2 operates in a quite different fashion. A peculiar, unintelligible eventmisconstrued as intoxicationbecomes comprehensible not by another Troeltschian analogy but by invoking scripture. Such is the hermeneutical role of scripture. The hermeneutical role is twofold. Luke-Acts uses scripture to make sense out of some of its own reports;19 for example, scripture makes sense out of the events of Pentecost. But it also uses scripture to make sense out of the world of the narrative. Elements that contribute to resolving what is true in the literary world belong to what Roland Barthes calls the hermeneutic voice.20 The citation from Joel clarifies the meaning of the events of Pentecost and also contributes to the determination of what is true in the narrative world. The events of this Pentecost also fulfill the prediction of John the Baptist in Luke 3:16. His predicition functions somewhat like Mic 5:2 in Matt 2:6. It warrants the events by prophetic prediction. But the hermeneutical function of Joel in Acts 2 invites a retrospective glance at John's prediction. In light of the recourse to scripture, readers now know that what John predicted was also cryptic. The citation from Joel in Acts 2 is necessary in order to understand John's prediction in Luke 3. Thus, Pentecost is not a mere fulfillment of his prophetic prediction but a hermeneutical key to understanding it. Further, the hermeneutical role of Joel 3:15 LXX enables readers to understand Jesus' pledge of what the Father promised (Luke 24:49) and his synthesis of that with baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:45, 8). Peter's recourse to scripture also stands in close correlation with another antecedent in Luke. Luke 24:45 asserts that Jesus opened the minds of the eleven and their companions to understand the scriptures. The line of argument appears enigmatic and incomplete because it claims a new vision of scripture without identifying a single text (cf. 24:27). The enigma and deficiency might remain were it not for the continuing story in Acts.21 But Peter straightaway begins to interpret scripture in a revisionary waythe risen Jesus has opened his mind to understand scripture. The first case is a double citation from the Psalms in Acts 1:20.22 Even more notably, Jesus' gift of the aptitude to interpret scriptures shows up in Peter's appeal to specific texts in Acts 2. Joel as a Hermeneutical Key to Acts 2 Under the rubric of a new way to understand scriptures, Peter's use of Joel is revisionary and reciprocal. It is revisionary in that the text of Joel assumes a

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

novel meaning. It is reciprocal in that the juxtaposition of the events of Pentecost with Joel imparts an added dimension of meaning to both. 23 The citation of Joel is revisionary not only in that Acts views it from a new perspective. Acts goes so far as to alter the text. Although the debate over the text of Joel that lay before the author of Acts lingers onultimately insolubleportions of the citation in Acts 2 fit no known manuscript evidence. For example, following the restoration after the plague of locusts, Joel anticipates the coming day of the Lord meta tauta ("after these things") (LXX 3:1). The Lucan version reads en tais eschatais hemerais ("in the last days") and adds legei ho theos ("God says") (Acts 2:17).24 It is possible to suggest that "God declares" reflects a Lucan view of scripture and is not a part of the citation. But this suggestion runs aground because "God declares" fits into the syntax of the citation. Particularly, the genitive of the first person pronoun identifies the Spirit which is poured out as my Spirit (Joel 3:1, 2 LXX; Acts 2:17, 18), and in contrast to Joel 3:2 LXX Acts 2:18 designates male and female slaves likewise with the genitive of the first person pronounmy male servants and my female servants. In each case the antecedent of the pronoun is the God of "God declares." In addition, Joel connects the outpouring of the Spirit with prophesying only once. But an expansion in Acts 2:18 accentuates the point by repeating kai propheteusousin ("and they shall prophesy"). Acts 2:19 makes the antithesis between heaven and earth explicit by inserting "above" and "below." Further, this verse adds semeia, "signs,'' as a parallel to terata, "wonders,'' which does appear in Joel 3:3 LXX. Implicit in these variations is the paradox of appealing to a canon from the past while simultaneously violating the boundaries of the canon of the past. Scripture implies stability, but paradoxically it is not fixed but capable of subtle alterations to provide a new vision. There is an inventive warrant for this from the work of the risen Jesus who opens the minds of his followers to understand the scriptures. So obviously even the words on the page are up for revision. In this sense, turning to a canon from the past also means breaching the walls of the canon from the past. As a result of a revisionary relationship, Acts reads Joel with expanded eschatological, ecclesiastical, and theocentric emphases. The events of Pentecost mark a new era of history for Luke-Actsnot the end of time, but the time of the end, the last period of history.25 Portentous signs mark this new beginning precisely because it is the time of the Spirit, and the pouring out of the Spirit registers in the glossolalia of Pentecost. In spite of the presence already of deeds of power, wonders, and signs, this is a two-stage eschatology. What is initiated is yet to be fulfilled. Correspondingly, the text from Joel marks two eventsthe outpouring of the Spirit and the coming of the Lord's great and glorious day.26 It is possible that the two stages are also reflected in the distinction between heaven

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

above and earth below (ano and kato apparently are Lucan additions to Joel's text). This would mean that the portents (terata) have to do with heaven above, and the signs (semeia) with the earth below. With the addition of semeia, it is possible to see two separate sets of phenomenaterata associated with heaven above and semeia with the earth belowa division that is impossible in Joel. On this reading, the blood, fire, smoky mist, the sun's darkness, and the transformation of the moon into blood belong to the heavenly portents yet to come. The earthly signs then follow in Acts 2:22the deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through Jesus, including the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost (cf. 2:33). In this case, spatial cosmology corresponds to the two-stage eschatology. Earthly fulfillment has begun, heavenly signs are yet to come. Another current of the same stream is the ecclesiastical emphasis. The outpouring of the Spirit has transformed some followers of Jesus into a people destined for mission. But the text from Joel also gives more specificity to the identity of this group. Acts 2:4 informs readers that "all of them" were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues. What is the antecedent of "all of them"? Acts 1:1415 stipulates that the number of the twelve and their companions was about 120, noticeably including women. This same group gathers on the day of Pentecost, according to Acts 2:1, and they are all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they speak in other tongues and proclaim God's mighty deeds (Acts 2:11). Gerhard Schneider alleges that Peter initiates Christian preaching with his sermon beginning in Acts 2:14. 27 But according to Acts 2:11 the entire group proclaims the mighty deeds of God before Peter's sermon. Further, the hermeneutical use of Joel clarifies that the original group of preachers includes women. Peter claims, in Joel's words, that the Spirit has been poured out on "all flesh'' (Acts 2:17). The idiom here does not refer to all humanity but to a broad range of humanity, namely, the males, females, old, and young who stand in parallel with pasa sarx ("all flesh").28 Nevertheless, Acts 2:1618 makes the participation of women explicit: "This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. . . . Even upon my slaves, both men and women, . . . I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." Moreover, the addition of the genitive of the first person pronoun in Acts 2:18 strengthens the ecclesiastical emphasis by identifying these preachers, male and female, as God's servants.29 The appearance of the slaves in Joel without the genitive of the first person pronoun implies that they are slaves of people of Israel, corresponding to "your sons and your daughters" (Joel 3:1 LXX). But in Acts they are unmistakably slaves of God. Thus, they link up with Mary (Luke 1:38)30 and Simeon (2:29), and by way of allegory in some Lucan parables (12:3548; 14:1624; 17:710; 19:1127; 20:919), they recall venerable traditions of God's servants. Inasmuch as Peter

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

defends the Pentecost preachers against the dishonorable evaluation of intoxication, the notice that they are God's slaves evokes an honorable tradition of servants of God, including Abraham (Ps 104:42 LXX), Isaac (Dan 3:35), Moses (4 Kgdms 21:8), Joshua (Judg 2:8), Samuel (1 Kgdms 3:9), David (Ps 88:4 LXX), the prophets (4 Kgdms 17:23; 21:10), and at least one woman, Hannah (1 Kgdms 1:11). 31 That is, God's slaves in Acts 2 are counterparts of the honorable Hebrew 'bd yhwh. Moreover, the sending of the servants in the parable of the wicked tenants, following on the heels of Jesus' debate with opponents about John's baptism, locates John the Baptist among the slaves of God (Luke 20:919). Therefore, the hermeneutical function of the citation from Joel situates the group associated with the reconstituted twelve apostles in a venerable line of tradition reaching through Mary and John the Baptist to the prophets and faithful forebears. Further, the revisionary relationship with Joel illuminates the behavior of the 120 preachers. According to Peter's citation of Joel, prophecy occupies the spotlight. The second reference to prophesying restrains readers from taking prophecy as one phenomenon among others, that is, visions and dreams. Rather, the other phenomena culminate in prophecy. Consequently, by correlation with the narrator's previous description of events, references to prophecy in the quotation from Joel correspond to glossolalia32 and the proclamation of God's mighty deeds. Not only does the ecclesiastical stream clarify the character of the early messianists, their mission, and their behavior, it also swings a brisk current to the objects of their missionthose who call upon the name of the Lord and will be saved. Themes of witness and proclamation carry over from Luke 24:4748 and rejuvenate in Acts 1:8, 22. But the first explicit suggestion of God's salvation is the last line in the citation from Joel: "Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21; Joel 3:5 LXX). In spite of efforts of some interpreters to detect an allusion to Isa 57:19 behind "all who are far away" (Acts 2:39) and to read such an allusion as a reference to Gentiles, the volume of echo is weak and neither Isaiah nor Acts specificially includes Gentiles.33 Rather, at this stage the issue is the reconstitution of the people of Israel in affiliation with the twelve. One of the ways the text communicates this move toward a new unity is through antitheses. The text builds up a series of oppositions from which readers deduce a theme that the text does not otherwise verbalize or that complements what the text does verbalize. Roland Barthes calls this aspect of literary communication the symbolic voice.34 The symbolic voice does not come to expression merely in symbolic terms; rather, it also speaks out of antitheses that the text can exchange for other antitheses. Antitheses replicate each other by diversity and exchange, and the replication forms a nexus of equivalences that thematizes the symbolic voice, that is, the meaning is reinforced by replication. The antitheses give

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

readers, as if it were, two sides of a triangle from which they may infer the third. 35 Acts 2 replicates antitheses spatially, chronologically, morally, aurally, decisionally, transcendently, and existentially. It exchanges inside/outside, empty/full, earth/heaven, below/above, past/present, lawless/devout, silence/sound, guilty/repentant, incomprehension/understanding, wine/Spirit, humanity/God, resurrection/corruption, saved/lost. Though these antitheses have antecedents all the way back to the beginning of Luke, they pick up in a particularly relevant way for Pentecost at the beginning of Acts. Acts 1:111 plays Jesus' presence off against his absence. Down/up, seen/hidden, earth/heaven reiterate the antithesis of presence/absence. The temporal contrast between present and future corresponds to these antitheses, and the future inverts the oppositions. When Jesus comes from heaven to earth, he will be no more concealed but visible, no more absent but present.36 Acts 1:1526 continues the nexus of antitheses with inside/outside, life/death. With the betrayal of Jesus, Judas separates from the twelve. The separation is reiterated in his fieldhis habitation becomes desolate. Judas surrenders his place of ministry among the twelve to go his own way. Division destroys unity. When the day of Pentecost comes, the antithesis of inside/outside corresponds to empty/full, earth/heaven, waiting/acting, incomprehension/understanding, separation/unity. When all the messianists are inside together (unity), the Spirit fills them. The Spirit which fills the messianists internally gives external indicators (a sound and tongues as of fire) that move the messianists from inside to outside, from tarrying to proclaiming. Joel's prophecy from the past gives meaning to the present. This prophecy links with the story of Jesus, who is the site of the conjunction of death and life, in order to make an audience of outsiders, who do not comprehend, capable of understanding and capable of becoming insiders. Peter then extends them the opportunity to overcome opposition with repentance. Insiders (messianists) become outsiders (preachers); outsiders (Judeans) have an occasion to become insiders (messianists), an opportunity to transcend the distance of incomprehension to establish a new unity.37 But the spring out of which the eschatological and ecclesiastical currents flow is God. To make this claim is to take issue with some notable scholars who make the hub of the New Testament's use of scripture to be christology.38 Even without "God declares" the citation from Joel is about a divine act. The focus on God is even stronger in the Lucan version with "God declares." God's performance is the crux of Peter's argument. Indirectly this divine action even warrants the verbal revisions of Joel 3 LXX. Peter's reformulation of Joel takes on the status of a divine declaration. More critically, God's performance warrants the events of Pentecost and the preaching of God's mighty deeds, including Peter's sermon.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

Voices of Joel, Psalms 15, 109, and 131 LXX in Acts 2 But does not this divine centrality give way later in Peter's discourse to christocentric interpretations of Psalms 15 and 109 LXX? Barnabas Lindars distinguishes three parts to the speech: (1) The first part, Acts 2:1421, is a "proof" of the phenomena of Pentecost from Joel. (2) The second part, Acts 2:2236, focuses on the status of Jesus as Lord and Christ on the basis of his resurrection citing Pss 16:811 and 110:1 (15:811; 109:1 LXX) as "proof." (3) Acts 2:3839 forms the third part, a call to repentance and baptism. For Lindars, although the third part links back up closely with the first part, the second lacks connection with the citation from Joel. Further, he views Pss 16:811 and 110:1 as focused on the resurrection and the messianic nature of Jesus. 39 To be sure, a christological hermeneutic controls the revisionary readings of the two psalms so that Acts understands David's prophetic voice in Psalm 15 LXX to give expression to the voice of the risen Jesus. Similarly, the second Lord from Psalm 109 LXX is identified as the risen Jesus. In contrast to Lindar's discontinuity, however, Donald Juel demonstrates that Psalm 16 (15 LXX) connects with the text from Joel through the use of kyrios.40 Joel promises that the God who pours out the Spirit is the God who promises salvation to all who call upon the name of the kyrios. Jesus of Nazareth in Acts 2:22 is the kyrios on whose name those who will be saved will call. Further, this Lord is the speaker of Psalm 16. Juel makes two additional helpful suggestions. (1) With the appearance of the term kyrios twice in Ps 110:1, both God and the risen Jesus bear the title. (2) In Peter's speech Ps 110:1 makes a subtle allusion to the final line of Psalm 16, just at the point where Acts 2 stops quoting Psalm 16. At the point where Psalm 16 is prepared to say, "At your right hand there are pleasures forevermore," Acts 2 uses Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX) to affirm that Jesus is at God's right hand.41 An authorial audience that particularly turns to the Psalms as its scripture (Luke 24:44) may whisper Psalm 15 LXX under its breath along with Peter, catch Peter's revisionary interpretation of the one at the right hand of God as Jesus, and recognize that Psalm 109 LXX picks up the same notion. The risen Jesus is the second Lord of Ps 109:1 LXX. Therefore, a christological hermeneutic for the use of Psalms 15 and 109 LXX in Acts 2 is beyond question. But is the hermeneutic christocentric? The answer depends to a large degree on recognizing that the citation from Joel also breaks off abruptly. At the place where Peter's quote ceases, Joel continues: "Because there will be in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem someone saved, as the Lord said, and those who have good news proclaimed to them, whom the Lord has called" (author's translation).42 Does the authorial audience hear these undertones when Peter breaks off the citation.? Apparently they do. For one thing, Acts 2:39 is a verbal echo of the continuation after the missing line where Peter breaks off: hosous an proskalese-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

tai kyrios ho theos hemon ("everyone whom the Lord our God summons") (cf. Joel 3:5 LXX). 43 Joel has a briefer statement with the verb in the perfect indicative over against the aorist subjunctive in Acts 2:39, but the verbal similarity, corresponding to Richard Hays's criterion of volume, is strong particularly in light of the quotation from the same text in Acts 2:21, corresponding in turn to Hays's criteria of availability and thematic development. But in the second place the plot and setting of Acts 2 play out the unspoken part of the text: In Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, some hear the good news proclaimed, call upon the name of the Lord, and are saved, namely those whom God calls through the agency of Peter and his companions. This means that there are also two Lords in Joel 3:5 LXX as Acts construes it. The second Lord of Ps 109:1 LXX picks up the last part of Peter's citation of Joel: "Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). In Ps 109:1 LXX the risen Jesus is the Lord who sits at the right hand of God. Thus, in Joel 3:5 LXX the risen Jesus is the Lord on whose name those who will be saved will call (cf. Acts 4:12).44 Acts 2 makes a clear distinction between the two Lords. The Lord of 2:21 is the risen Jesus. But the Lord who calls those who will be saved is the Lord our God (kyrios ho theos hemon, 2:39, Joel 3:5 LXX mentions only kyrios). Therefore, rather than shift from divine centrality to a christocentric hermeneutic, the speech regulates the christological interpretation with a theocentric hermeneutic. The Pentecost preachers proclaim the mighty deeds of God. By a kind of circular logic, among those mighty deeds is the divine attestation of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22), his resurrection (2:24), his exaltation (2:30, 33), the pouring out of the Spirit (2:33)and thus the very events of Pentecost. In addition, the theocentricity of the text from Joel brackets the use of the Psalms 15 and 109 LXX. Joel 3:15 LXX begins with a divine declaration of God's deeds (Acts 2:17), and it ends with divine salvation for all whom God calls (2:39). The text from Joel remains the basic interpretation of the event as Acts 2:33 and 2:39 show.45 Within the brackets provided by the text from Joel, Psalms 15 and 109 LXX are hardly "proofs," as Lindars calls them. Rather, they spell out divine deeds specifically. The christological hermeneutic provides the risen Jesus as the referent for these psalms. But even on their own they remain theocentric. God did not allow the Holy One to experience corruption (Acts 2:27). God swore an oath to David to put one of his descendants on his throne (2:30). God is the Lord who established Jesus as Lord and messiah (2:36). Theocentricity emerges in two additional recollections of scripture, both with covenantal echoes. First, Acts 2:30 alludes to the Davidic covenant with strong verbal correspondences to Ps 131:11 LXX. But the recall is indirect, by way of thematic development in Luke-Acts. Peter's new understanding of scripture verifies Gabriel's prediction that God would give Mary's child the throne of his ancestor David forever (Luke 1:3233). The theme of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

Davidic descent comes back around in Joseph's registration in Bethlehem as a descendant of David (2:4) and in the genealogy (3:31). There is a subtle recollection of the Davidic covenant in the temptations when the devil offers to establish Jesus as ruler over all the kingdoms of the world (see above, chapter 2). Further, the thematic development in Luke-Acts shows that the riddle about the messiah as David's son in Luke 20:4144 indicates that Jesus is not merely David's descendant but is an exalted messiah elevated above David. 46 By the time Peter's speech gets to Acts 2:36, it is declaring that God has accomplished what is anticipated from Gabriel's prediction and from Psalm 131 LXX. The Davidic covenant, however, does not stand alone. It comes in tandem with the Abrahamic covenant. When Acts 2:39 speaks of the promise, Ernst Haenchen thinks that it assures Peter's audience that Joel's promise of the outpouring of the Spirit is for them and their children.47 But this is to ignore thematic development in Luke-Acts. Joel's promise has no ramifications for descendants of Peter's audience. But that is precisely what Peter avows with respect to this promise. It therefore picks up Mary's claim in the Magnificat that God has remembered the promise to the ancestors, namely, to Abraham and to his descendants forever (Luke 1:55). Another stepping stone along the way is Zechariah's prophecy that God has remembered the covenant with Abraham (1:7273). The devil's offer to give Jesus authority over all the kingdoms of the earth is a further subtle allusion (4:5, see above, chapter 2). In addition, I appeal to the argument in chapter 2 that Mary and Zechariah collapse the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants into one, an argument that holds for Peter's sermon in Acts 2 as well. The Davidic covenant is the specific way God's promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth realizes its fulfillment, and Jesus is the specific way the Davidic covenant comes to realization. Finally, a rough parallel in Peter's next speech clearly spells out: "You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, 'And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed' " (Acts 3:35). Because the covenants mean divine obligation and divine accomplishment, they keep God at center stage. Though christology influences the use of scripture in Acts 2, it does not control it. Rather, God's performance dominates. The spring out of which the eschatological, ecclesiastical, and christological currents flow is God. Revisionary Voices of Scripture in Acts 2 Not only does the Jesus-given aptitude to understand scripture impart a revisionary meaning to scripture, it also establishes a reciprocal relationship. According to Harold Bloom's theory of revisionary relationships, a strong poem

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

overcomes its precursor by a misreading so forceful as to produce an inventive insight that vanquishes the precursorthe anxiety of influence, that is, an effort to rupture continuity by disavowing that inventiveness rests on the backs of others. 48 The citation from Joel demonstrates that there is no anxiety of influence in the use of scripture in Acts 2. Quite to the contrary, it manifests the anxiety of no influence. If there is no influence of scriptures of antiquity, no influence of narratives of God's performancea performance that conspicuously contains promisesthen the narrative of Luke-Acts loses its substructure. Because in Luke-Acts the anxiety is precisely the opposite of its modern counterpart, there is a necessity not to overthrow the precursor. Rather, the revisionary relationship requires a dynamic dialogue with scripture such that scripture cannot be set aside. The successor does not supplant the precursor, because the revisionary relationship is reciprocal. Tensive interaction between the precursor and the successor revises the thrust of the detached components.49 The juxtaposition of the incident on Pentecost with Joel bestows a further measure of meaning to both. Once Joel becomes the hermeneutical key to understanding the events of Pentecost, it also illumines the prediction of John the Baptist. As a previous argument suggests, upon hearing Peter's appeal to Joel, readers perceive that John's prediction is cryptic, that is, it forecasts events unique enough to be without analogies sufficient to make them comprehensible. Reciprocity with Acts 2:1439 means something quite similar for Joel 3:15 LXX. In the juxtaposition, Acts exposes the vagueness of Joel's prediction. Joel predicts phenomena that are without sufficient analogy to make them comprehensible. Thus, the juxtaposition creates a symbiosis: neither is comprehensible without the other. Without Joel, a near analogy to the phenomena of Pentecost is intoxication. Without Acts, Joel's prediction is an intangible wisp. To be sure, Joel can still be read apart from Acts. But without Acts, or a similar appropriation, its promise of the pouring out of the Spirit remains abstruse. The revisionary reading of Joel in Peter's sermon perpetrates something like Bloom's lie against time.50 Peter's initial claim creates an odd alliance between synchrony and diachrony: "This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16, emphasis added). The present text seizes for its meaning a forerunner that possesses a meaning on its own. Thus, Acts 2 surmounts the diachronic separation from Joel 3 LXX in order to assert synchronic meaning with Joel 3. Nevertheless, the synchrony depends upon the diachrony. The consequence of the anxiety of no influence of scripture in Luke-Acts is that eddies from each swirl deep into the other. Although echoes of scripture depend on readers who catch echoes, the echoes may be overly subtle, arbitrary, will-o'-thewispish. I am aware that some of the proposals that follow may appear to veer too far down the wrong road. For that reason I will attempt to subject them to criteria. Furtherto reiterate a paraphrase

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

from Robert Scholesif we are going down the right road, there is no such thing as going too far. 51 The criteria are especially (1) volume, that is, repetition in wording, plot, setting, and genre, (2) availability in the cultural repertoire, and (3) thematic development. There is a clear citation of Joel 3:15 LXX in Acts 2. How far do the eddies swirl beyond the explicit quote? I have already made the case that the plot and setting of Acts 2 play out an unspoken part of the text of Joel 3:3 LXX. In Joel there are other references with respect to sun, moon, and stars both before and after the passage that Peter quotes (Joel 2:10; 4:15 LXX). Similarly, where Peter's quote ends, Joel promises the gathering of the nations in the valley of justice (4:2 LXX). Is there enough evidence to warrant allusions with respect to signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and with respect to the gathering of the nations in the valley of justice? If only the immediate context comes into view, the answer must be in the negative. The other references with respect to sun, moon, and stars in Joel turn on some volume by virtue of their correspondence to the citation in Acts 2:20. But who can read Peter's allusion to Joel's prediction that the sun will be turned to darkness without routing it through the failure of the sun's light at Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:45)? That in turn recalls Luke 21:25, which promises signs in sun, moon, and stars, and associates them with earthly phenomena. With respect to the signs and earthly phenomena, Luke is unique among the Synoptic Gospels but in close agreement with the reading of Joel 3:15 LXX as it appears in Acts 2:1721 (volume, availability, thematic development). It bears repeating that Acts adds semeia to the citation from Joel, and emphasizes both the heavenly and earthly phenomena. Therefore, a complex of allusions to heavenly and earthly phenomena comes together in Acts 2. Significantly, in Joel the figure of darkening heavenly bodies operates on two levels. In the first place, it is the image of the host of locusts that darkens the sky (Joel 2:10). But then that becomes an emblem of cosmic catastrophe signaling the day of the Lord. Similarly, the astral phenomena in Luke-Acts operate on two levels. A darkening of the sun at the death of Jesus has already occurred. But in the complex of allusions, it betokens additional phenomena signaling the great and glorious day of the Lord. The valley of justice is even more elusive. On the verbal plane the volume of repetition in Acts 2 for the valley of justice is too low to register. But Acts 3:14 charges the people of Jerusalem with rejecting the holy and righteous one (dikaios). This is a forceful recall of the trial and crucifixion in Luke. Chapter 4 verifies that the Lucan passion portrays Jesus as the righteous one. Before the crucifixion, Pilate declares Jesus dikaios three times, and Herod agrees. After the crucifixion there are three corresponding demonstrations that Jesus is dikaios. One of the two thieves contrasts Jesus with the two of them. They suffer justly (dikaios), but Jesus has done nothing

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

wrong. The multitudes who beat their chests imply the same sentiment, and the centurion in charge of the crucifixion declares Jesus dikaios. Against this backdrop, Peter's speech in Acts 2 views divine signs of attestation and the resurrection as vindicating Jesus. 52 Whereas only the larger context spells out the cognates of dike, the setting and plot in Acts 2 replicate Joel's gathering of the nations to be confronted with a question of justice (volume), though the address of Peter's speech to Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem shows that for Acts the gathering of the nations personifies the Jewish diaspora.53 This means that the day of the Lord in the citation from Joel (Acts 2:20), though still future, has a proleptic counterpart in the decision of repentance in Acts 2:38.54 If Acts 2 gathers the nations in the valley of justice, so to speak, I wish to go one more step down the road. That is, the call to repentance in Acts 2 plays out of an intertextual background that may spur readers, who know Joel 2:13 as a call to confession, to repeat under their breath: "Rend your hearts and not your garments, and return unto the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in compassion" (author's translation). The revisionary and reciprocal relationship between Acts 2 and Joel corresponds to what Bloom calls "tessera"a relationship of completion55like particles of a shattered piece of pottery patched together to restore its wholeness. On their own Joel 3 LXX and Acts 2 are fragments. Apart from Joel, Pentecost is incomprehensible. Apart from Acts, Joel is an antiquated poet. Completion alone, however, expresses the revisionary and reciprocal relationship inadequately. Revision occurs when the correspondence between Acts and Joel spawns a more profound insight, a breakthrough in meaningBloom's daemonization or hyperbole. Although the breakthrough empties out the meaning of the precursor in its own literary and historical context, the anxiety of no influence means that the breakthrough occurs only when readers remember the canon of the past and play the revision off against it. To return briefly to the cultural script of challenge/riposte, honor/shame, when Peter's audience is cut to the heart, and when three thousand repent and receive baptism, they provide a social evaluation that the challenge of intoxication is hollow and that Peter's riposte stands verified. But there is a further ecclesiastical function with the baptism of three thousand. Not only does Peter's riposte stand verified, it also attempts to overcome the distance between the messianists and the crowds, and with the baptism of three thousand estrangement moves toward unity.56 There is even a revision of the cultural script of challenge/riposte. A negative challenge that threatens to shame the messianists ultimately functions like a positive challenge. The challengers now have opportunity to benefit from the honor of the messianists.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

The upshot of the hermeneutical voices of scripture in Acts 2 is that the fulfillment of the promise from the Father in the immediate sense is the pouring out of the Spirit. But the God who promises the Spirit is a God who is characterized by another overarching promisethe promise to Abraham. By the norms of Acts 2 the new community of messianists and all the events of Pentecost, including overcoming the distance between the messianists and the crowds, are doings of the God who covenants to bless all the families of the earth.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

7 Revising Norms and Rehabilitating Jesus as Prominent in Acts 34 As ideological literature, that is, literature attempting to persuade, Luke-Acts prods the authorial audience to revise sociocultural norms. 1 In Luke-Acts people of prestige and power embody norms to be revised, and high on the list is the negative evaluation of Jesus by prestigious and powerful peoplean evaluation exhibited in the crucifixion. Because sociocultural norms stand close to the heart of the matter, a socially shared vision is obligatory for the revision of such norms. This chapter appropriates labeling and deviance theory and combines it with an intertextual approach to voices of scripture in order to demonstrate the vigor of persuasion in the revision of sociocultural norms in Acts 34. Which Norms? With the exception of a few notices, such as the popular opinion about Gamaliel in Acts 5:34, the narrative of Luke-Acts leaves it to readers to presume the norms under contention. That is, people in the establishment embody the norms subject to revision. To give a case in point, in the parable of the good Samaritan, readers likely will assume that the priest and Levite embody ethnic, religious, and nationalistic norms. But the juxtaposition of them with the Samaritan brings that which the priest and Levite embody under revision (Luke 10:3035). In addition, by virtue of his prestige, the lawyer who appears in the setting of the parable embodies norms that come under challenge (10:2529, 3637). In the passion of Jesus the characters who stand in positions of prestige and power are the high priestly coterie, the council, Pilate, Herod, and the soldiers. In the account of the passion, Luke-Acts prompts readers to negotiate an abrupt U-turn in espousing norms by couching the norms of the establishment in a carnivalesque interpretation of the death of Jesus. This

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

urges a precipitous shift for readers because the carnivalesque is itself a rebellious, murderous undermining of social and cultural norms. 2 In the Lucan passion narrative, however, the prestigious and powerful epitomize the carnivalesque interpretation of the death of Jesus, a carnivalesque interpretation which the norms of the narrativeover against presumed sociocultural normsresist. Thus, by a kind of algebraic negation, the norms of the narrative appear as established norms that the established norms in the guise of the carnivalesque are attempting to uproot. Consequently, Luke-Acts coaxes readers who presume the established norms, embodied in Jewish and Roman prestige and power, to substitute the perspective of the narrative on the death of Jesus. Readers who go the distance with Luke-Acts experience a revision of norms by exchanging the norms of the narrative for presumed established norms. Benifits, Abrahamic Blessing, and Prominence The primary way that Luke-Acts interprets the death of Jesus in the passion narrative itself is to evoke voices from scripture. As chapter 4 above shows, covert allusion to God's suffering righteous one of the psalms keeps the interpretation of the death of Jesus alive against the demise of Judas in Acts 1:1526. But that same incident adds a new dimension. With the reconstitution of the twelve, a community emerges which embodies the revised norms, namely, a community characterized by the belief that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are God's doing. This is the beginning of a shared social evaluation of Jesus in positive light. Similarly, through Peter's hermeneutical use of scripture, Acts 2 ties the interpretation of the death of Jesus to an expanding community that concurs in and confirms the interpretation. The same two elements appear again in the use of scripture in the prayer of the community in Acts 4:2430a growing community that believes gives a socially shared affirmation to the messianic interpretation of the death of Jesus. Along the way from Pentecost to the prayer, Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3:110). Aside from the phenomena of tongues in Acts 2, this is the first of the portents and signs, anticipated in Joel 3:3 LXX (2:30 NRSV), resulting from the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2:19).3 On its own the healing is a legitimating device that conveys divine sanction.4 But beyond the sanction of portentous access to divine power, Peter's speech in Acts 3 interprets the healing, just as his speech in Acts 2 interprets Pentecost.5 Interpretation is crucial because the healing is ambiguousfrom whose power does it stem? (Acts 3:12; 4:9). As in Peter's interpretation of Pentecost in Acts 2, so also his interpretation of the healing of a lame man plays out the cultural script of honor/

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

shame. In a limited goods society, the healing accumulates honor for the messianists at the expense of the temple authorities. Peter himself interprets this as a part of a sequence of challenges and ripostes. He declares that his hearers issued the initial challenge by the crucifixion of Jesus, and he responds with a compound counterchallenge. 6 He accuses his audience of denying Jesus, and he affirms that God has glorified and attested Jesus as God's servant by the resurrection. Further, Peter extends the divine attestation of Jesus to include the healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1316). Moreover, in the cycles of challenge/riposte Peter reinterprets Jesus as a prominent against the evaluation of him as a deviant, a process that comes into clear focus through analysis utilizing labeling and deviance theory.7 Labeling is an attempt to characterize by epithets (or equivalents) that reflect a stereotypical trait or behavior. Negative labeling strives to inspire a socially shared evaluation of a character as beyond the pale of social normsas deviant. By contrast, positive labeling contends for a socially shared ranking of the character as superior to social normsas prominent.8 At Jesus' trial, members of the high priestly circle, as social regulators, claim to represent religious, social, and nationalistic values (Luke 22:6623:2). These social regulators label Jesus a rebel, a tax evader, and an aspiring usurper of the throne. They disseminate allegations of Jesus' deviant status among the people, and once the social ranking becomes effective, they enlist Pilate as an agent with the agency to subject Jesus the deviant to a ritual of degradationthe final declaration of deviance, namely, the crucifixion (Luke 23:2-33).9 But in the challenge/riposte cycle, Peter takes the declaration of Jesus as a deviant into hand and attempts to convert it into a proclamation of him as a prominent. To effect this, he portrays Jesus as the very opposite of a usurper who seeks his own glamor and who threatens society. Rather, he is God's servant (pais) whom God glorified. Thus, his higher loyalty to God motivates his behavior. Far from being a peril to society, Jesus makes benefits availableto a lame man and to the people as a whole. In this connection there is a redefinition of the people, whom opponents have defined as Jesus' victims (cf. Luke 23:2). Rather, Peter presents them as beneficiaries, precisely as heirs of God's promises to Abraham (Acts 3:1326).10 A crucial aspect of the redefinition of Jesus as a prominent is Peter's retrospective interpretation of the healing of the lame man as a part of the benefits available through Jesus. First, Peter establishes three foci for his interpretation: (1) the suffering of Jesus (3:18), (2) the eschatological times of restoration (3:21), and (3) ''these days'' as the messianic age (3:24).11 Within this framework Peter makes a point, generally recognized, that access to divine power is through faith in the name of God's messiah Jesus. Consequently, the healing is an appeal to God as an agent who attests Jesus' status as God's messiah (3:1224). Significantly, Peter identifies God with a formulaic

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

phrase from scripture: "The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our forebears" (3:13, author's trans., cf. Exod 3:6). Thus, it is clear that Jesus is the messiah of the God of Israel. 12 Further, the claim that God has glorified God's servant (pais, Acts 3:13) is a likely allusion to Isa 52:13 where God promises to glorify the pais. Thus, it is also clear that Jesus is the messiah of the God of Israela prominent. A further aspect of labeling a prominent is extolling people of elevated status who support the claim.13 An appeal to all the prophets in general in Acts 3:18 fits this category. But Peter's appeal in 3:18 is also an analeptic recall of Jesus' interpretation of scripture in Luke 24:2627, 46.14 Scripture, with the benefit of interpretation available through Jesus, holds a position of elevated status that attests the prominence of Jesus. Scripture, thus interpreted, sanctions the suffering of the messiah and inverts the crucifixion's potential disconfirmation of Jesus' messianic identity into a confirmation of it. But within the framework of the three foci, Peter scores a second, more covert point. He presents the healing of the lame man as a particular manifestation of the blessing of all the families of the earth anticipated in the Abrahamic covenant.15 The lame man is healed (sesotai, 4:9), and in the name of Jesus there is soteria whereby human beings are saved (dei sothenai, 4:12)16 according to the promises to Abraham (3:25). One lame man's healing is a foretaste of the blessing of all the families of the earth. The blessings available in this one particular case are also available through Jesus to Peter's audience (3:2526).17 Like the lame man they are potentially also particular cases of the divine promise to Abraham and to his descendants forever (see Luke 1:55). In mentioning God's promise to Abraham, Acts 3:25 refers to hai patriai ("clans," "families") in place of ethne (''nations,'' "Gentiles," Gen 22:18 LXX), and thereby the Abrahamic covenant becomes all the more emphatically applicable to Peter's Jewish audience.18 Thus, it is a part of Peter's redefinition of the audience from victims to beneficiaries. Peter identifies Jesus as the Mosaic prophet in Acts 3:2223 in a citation that draws from two passages of scripture. Together, the two texts develop the promise of John the Baptist that the coming one, who baptizes in Spirit and fire, would gather and sift (Luke 3:17).19 With respect to the sifting, readers who recognize that the second half of the mixed quotation derives from Lev 23:29 may also hear, as an overtone, that it decrees utter removal from the people of those who fail to subjugate themselves on the Day of Atonement. Thus, ripples from God's call to the people of Israel to subjugate themselves on the Day of Atonement undulate in Peter's allusion to the text just at the point where he also calls for repentance (Acts 3:19). The theme of gathering and sifting is integral to the identity of Jesus as the prophet like Moses. By labeling Jesus the prophet like Moses, Peter fuses covenant traditions, as do Mary and Zechariah in Luke 1. Specifically, he links the Mosaic covenant with the healing of the lame man as a case in

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

point of the Abrahamic covenant. 20 As an integral part of the context, when Acts 2:30 makes Jesus the fulfillment of God's oath to establish a descendant of David on David's throne, it mixes in the Davidic covenant as well.21 That is, the prophetic, messianic fulfillment of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants is the particular way that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled (Acts 3:1726). Effective labeling of a prominent entails mobilizing public opinion.22 Accordingly, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant through Jesus receives additional sanction in the gathering and sifting, that is, in the development of the community of believers (4:4). Power and the Power of Persuasion Just when Peter has scored the point that the gathering and sifting moves toward fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, there is renewed opposition on the part of conspicuous people of established prestige and powerthe high priestly coterie and the Sadducees. Though Acts designates the resurrection as the point of conflict (4:2), it is in fact clear that the expanding community is fundamentally at issue because they constitute a shared social evaluation of Jesus as a prominent. Thus, the opponents object to the spread of a revised system of norms among the people (4:17; cf. 4:4, 21). In contrast to the resistance of the Lucan interpretation of the passion against the carnivalesque (Luke 2223; Acts 1:1526, see chapters 4 and 5 above), Acts 4 is a straightforward juxtaposition of power and the power of persuasion. The council exhibits power, Peter and John the power of persuasion. The high priestly coterie resorts to brute forcearrest and prohibitionto quell the expansion (4:3, 18), Peter and John interpret scripture and appeal to obedience to God to advance the expanding community, that is, the shared social evaluation of Jesus (4:11, 1920).23 To reinforce a previous argument, one reason allusions to scripture carry powers of persuasion is because of the presumption of canonicity. The presumption of canonicity functions on two levels. By implication, Peter assumes that the members of the council share his presumption of canonicity but leaves it up to his interlocutors to recognize the allusion. If they identify the allusion, they acknowledge some degree of a community of consensus with Peter. On another level, Peter's allusion is a replication of the implied author's presumption that the authorial audience shares the convention of canonicity. Further, the covert allusion has the power to create community if readers recognize the allusion as canonical. That is, they infer a level of concensus with the implied author and move toward a shared evaluation of Jesus. The principal interpretation of scripture in the presence of the council depends on a stylized reference to Ps 117:22 LXX. Parallel arrangements of the texts facilitate recognition of the variations:

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

lithon hon apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes, houtos egenethe eis kephalen gonias (Ps 117:22 LXX). houtos estin ho lithos, ho exouthenetheis hyph' hymon ton oikodomon, ho genomenos eis kephalen gonias (Acts 4:11). By the addition of hyph' hymon, Peter's version identifies the countil explicitly as the builders who have rejected the stone which has become the head of the corner (Acts 4:11). Further, in Peter's version lithos appears in the nominative rather than the accusative, and the passive participle of the verb exoutheneo stands where the LXX uses the active of the verb apodokimazo. 24 Exoutheneo is a stronger term of rejection with overtones of scorn and contempt whereas apodokimazo denotes rejection after trial or because of lack of qualification.25 Nevertheless, in the use of the participle of oikodomeo to identify opponents, the construction with the verb ginomai, and the repetition of houtos and eis kephalen gonias, there is a high volume of verbatim repetition. In fact, the demonstrative pronoun houtos and the allusion to Ps 117:22 LXX strike readers as abrupt unless they catch the literary recall of Luke 20:17 where there is a verbatim repetition of the Septuagint. Midrash Tehillim Ps 118:22 clearly takes the rejected stone that has become the head of the corner as Israel, the twelve tribes begotten out of Jacob. But A. A. Anderson, considering the text in its own context, argues that the verse is a proverb referring to anything that appears worthless that has achieved a place of honor, and he interprets the adage to be a description of the personal experience of the psalmist in verses 521.26 This individual reading is more compatible with the identification of Jesus as the stone in Acts 4:11 than is the corporate reading. Readers who may have overlooked the identification of Jesus as the stone in Luke 20:17 receive that information explicitly here. Further, the citation repeats the contrast between opponents already evident in the rejection of Jesus and the challenge against his followers.27 Although in Acts 4:10 Peter attributes the crucifixion to the council, the rejection of the stone implies much more than the execution of Jesus. That is, because repentance makes it possible to turn to the fulfillment of divine promises in the Abrahamic covenant (Acts 3:2526), continued opposition to Jesus even after God has authenticated him by the resurrection is also rejection of the stone. On the one hand, it is possible that the allusion to Ps 117:22 LXX stands on its own as a proof text of a divine reversal of human action. On the other hand, readers who know the psalm may recognize remarkable correspondence between the setting and plot of the psalm and the setting and plot of Acts 4. In the first place, in the Septuagint the psalm very clearly spells out the divine origin of the stone: "This [stone] is from the Lord, and it is mar-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

velous in our eyes" (Ps 117:23 LXX, author's trans.). Thus, for Peter to claim that Jesus is the rejected stone is to emit overtones of the marvelous deed of God in establishing Jesus as both Lord and messiah (Acts 2:36). Further, Psalm 117 LXX begins as a psalm of confession and praise for God's mercy manifested in the face of opposition and suffering, and this has double layers of correspondence to the setting and plot of Luke-Acts. In the first layer, Peter's use of the psalm to designate Jesus the rejected stone that has become the head of the corner is a clear connection to the crucifixion and continued opposition to Jesus. Thus, readers may correlate Jesus' commitment of himself to God on the cross (Luke 23:46) with the psalm when it says: "In tribulation I called upon the Lord, and the Lord heard me with amplitude. The Lord is my help, I will not be afraid. What will a human being do to me?" (Ps 117:56 LXX, author's trans.). Readers may also hear echoes of the crucifixion and the continuing opposition to Jesus in the words of the psalm: All the nations surrounded me, and in the name of the Lord I warded them off. 28 They surrounded me intensely, and in the name of the Lord, I warded them off. They surrounded me as bees [surround] honeycomb, and they burned as fire [burns] in thorns, and in the name of the Lord, I warded them off. (Ps 117:1012 LXX, author's trans.) Not only do these verses ring with echoes in the crucifixion of and continued opposition to Jesus, they also appeal repeatedly to the name of the Lord. In the emphasis on the name, Ernst Haenchen detects a typical element of ancient attempts to conjure up miraculous powers.29 But because the norms of the narrative give a negative evaluaiton to the attempts of the sons of Skeva to invoke the name of Jesus (Acts 19:13), Acts distinguishes the name of Jesus precisely from typical Hellenistic conjurations,30 so that there is a revision of Hellenistic norms. Notably, the failure of the sons of Skeva causes Jews and Greeks in Ephesus to magnify the name of the Lord Jesus (19:17). Rather, because Acts can refer to Jesus as well as God as Lord, the "name of the Lord" in Ps 117:1012 LXX has a strong correlation with the eminence of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6, 16; 4:10, 12, 17, 18, 30 (cf. 4:7). As in the psalm itself, in Acts 3:6, 16 the name carries connotations of redemptive power vouched for by divine promise,31 a promise explicitly identified in the context as the Abrahamic covenant (3:25). Further, readers may catch resonances of the resurrection when the psalm says: When I was pushed, I was tottering to fall, and the Lord took hold of me. The Lord is my strength and my praise, and he became my salvation. There is a voice of exultation and salvation in the tents of the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

righteous. The right hand of the Lord has done a mighty deed. The right hand of the Lord has exalted me. I will not die, but I will live, and I will recount the works of the Lord. Surely the Lord chastised me, but he did not deliver me to death. (Ps 117:1318 LXX, author's trans.) But there is a second layer of correspondence between the setting and plot of Acts 4 and the psalm. In Luke 6:40 Jesus claims that everyone who is fully taught will be like the teacher. This becomes a warrant for seeing a correspondence between Jesus and his followers as they approach being fully taught. Therefore, on a second level there is also a correspondence between Psalm 117 LXX and the setting and plot of Acts 4 with respect to Peter and John. In spite of the individualistic interpretation of the psalm, which is so compatible with the identification of Jesus as the stone, the psalmist speaks on behalf of the community as well. 32 In fact, Ps 117:14 LXX addresses the larger community, vv. 2327 employ first person plural pronouns, and the psalm ends with an exhortation in the second person plural. Thus, communal overtones enable readers to shift correlations with the psalm from Jesus as an individual to Peter and John as representatives of a community. The arrest of Peter and John locates them outside the boundaries of normal social order and is tantamount to ranking them as deviant.33 Against their adversaries, therefore, they may say with Jesus: "The Lord is my help, I will not be afraid. What will a human being do to me?" (Ps 117:6 LXX, author's trans.). A prominent aspect of attempts to deflect charges of deviance is an appeal to some higher order than the norms upon which the charges rest.34 Psalm 117 LXX is one of the psalms in which participants in a procession declare their loyalty to God upon entering the temple area,35 and correspondingly, a conspicuous part of the plot of Acts 34 is the commitment of Peter, John, and the community of messianists to God. In anticipation, Peter neutralizes any potential charge of self-aggrandizement by denying that he and John healed the lame man through their own power or piety (3:12).36 Acts 4:13 takes note of the boldness of Peter and John in the face of their opponents, and readers who know Psalm 117 LXX can hardly miss that when Peter and John declare that they must listen to God rather than to the council, they are playing out an exhortation of Ps 117:89: "It is better to be persuaded in the Lord than to be persuaded in a human being. It is better to hope in the Lord than to hope in rulers" (author's trans.).37 Like Jesus, Peter and John are surrounded by opponents, and in the name of the Lord, they ward them off (cf. Ps 117:1012 LXX). There is a voice of exultation in the tents of the righteous not only because of the resurrection of Jesus but also (1) because of the restoration of a lame man (Acts 3:89), (2) because of the promised blessing of all the families of the earth in the fulfillment of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

the Abrahamic covenant (3:25), and (3) because by confiding in God, Peter and John have warded off their opponents and have neutralized the implications that they are deviant. Bold Revisionary Interpretation of Scripture With respect to the disciples becoming like their teacher (Luke 6:40), it is striking that in Acts 4:13 the narrator singles out that the opponents (1) recognize the uneducated, ordinary status of Peter and John, 38 (2) are thus impressed with their boldness, and (3) conclude that they have been with Jesus. Boldness (parresia, Acts 4:13) is not mere courage, but forthrightness in speech. Whereas in role model hermeneutics the parresia of Peter and John becomes courage to emulate, in this context it has to do with interpretation of scripture. The candid speech is an interpretation centered on Ps 117:22 LXX. In effect this interpretation produces a reversal of the uneducated and lay status of Peter and John. In antiquity, education was a legitimating credential, and the notice of the council's amazement functions to legitimate Peter and John as if they were educated.39 But primarily, the boldness and amazement point not to the character of Peter and John as such but to the interpretation of scripture. How do uneducated lay folk interpret scripture in such a manner as this? Further, it is in this connection that the members of the council note that Peter and John have been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Again, the evidence of their relationship with Jesus is not primarily a matter of their character but of their interpretation of scripture. That is, in Luke 24 it is the risen Jesus who opens the minds of his disciples to understand the scriptures (24:45).40 Thus, the council may conclude from the interpretation of Psalm 117 LXX that Peter and John have been with Jesus because he has opened their minds to understand the scriptures. When the disciples are fully taught, they will be like their teacher. Peter's assertion that Jesus is the rejected stone of Ps 117:22 LXX gives the psalm a twist that moves through Harold Bloom's categories of clinamen and kenosis to hyperbole. The kenosis is the emptying of meaning of the adage "The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." What is proverbial rings repeatedly in human experience. But Peter's identification of Jesus as the stone freezes the proverb so that it no longer speaks in general but in one particularkenosisan emptying of meaning. But Peter's identification of Jesus as the stone also redirects the psalm in such a way as to subvert the council with ironyclinamen. They exercise power in subjecting Jesus to a ritual of degradation (the crucifixion), but their power is not only subordinate to divine power but, against their intentions, it serves God's power. Further, Peter's identification of Jesus as the stone pushes the connotations of the psalm to a new level

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

hyperbole. At the level of proverb, Ps 117:22 LXX can be correlated with a myriad of experiences high and low. But the identification of Jesus as the stone relocates the center on God's attestation of Jesus. To catch the relocation demands that readers hold it in tension with the old center on human experience in general, and when the relocation circles back over the old, readers lock onto a heightened meaninghyperbole. In addition, when the direct allusion to Ps 117:22 LXX reminds readers of its context, it becomes synecdochicalthe part implies the wholetesserasegments coalescing together. Similarly, Peter's reference to Ps 117:22 LXX is metonymic. It says one thing but connotes another. The rejected stone that has become the head of the corner (Acts 4:11) is an pression of the power of the God who helps beyond perils from human beings (Psalm 117 LXX). The unholy conspiracy against God and God's messiah in the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 4:2526) points to the power of God that transforms human travesties into divine victory (Psalm 2). These figurations remain operative only because the successor, new twists and all, remains in dialogical play with the precursor. The tension between a break from the precursor and a recovery of the precursor is a part of the figurationmetalepsis or transumption. Such are the bold revisionary allusions to scripture that Acts 4:13 calls parresia. Voices of Psalms 2 and 145 LXX in the Community's Voice It is hardly surprising that the believers of the community raise their voices to God in correspondence with the plot of Psalm 117 LXX. The psalm repeatedly exhorts readers to make grateful acknowledgments to God because God is good and God's mercy is forever (117:14, 19, 21, 2829). Therefore, upon the release of Peter and John the community of believers makes grateful acknowledgments to God. In playing out this part of the plot of Psalm 117 LXX, however, the community cites Ps 2:12. So community and interpretation of scripture cross paths again. The New Revised Standard Version translation muffles the voice of the community by translating elthon pros tous idious as "they went to their friends" (Acts 4:23). In the text hoi idioi obviously distinguishes the community of believers from the council, and because 4:4 has numbered the community at about five thousand, hoi idioi designates the entire body of believers rather than an implicitly smaller group of "friends." 41 Acts 4:24 further emphasizes the corporate identity of the community when it states that the believers lifted up their voices homothymadon.42 About five thousand believers together play out the exhortation of Psalm 117 LXX by making grateful acknowledgments to God. The prayer of the community expresses two primary themes. One is the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_101


repeated juxtaposition of the rejection of Jesus with God's affirmation of him as God's messiah. 43 The other is the inevitable triumph of divine purposes in spite of opposition. In the service of these two themes, the voice of the community first addresses God as creator. Such an address distinguishes the true God from false ones,44 and this distinction is closely related to the qualification of salvation exclusively in the name of Jesus in Acts 4:12. The phrase appealing to God as creator is itself a verbatim repetition of Ps 145:6 LXX with one alteration in grammatical case to accommodate to the setting. Two dimensions of the context of this psalm have strong potential for association with Acts 4. The psalm makes a distinction between God as the source of salvation and rulers, mere humans, in whom there is no salvation. The psalm also characterizes God as one who acts on behalf of those who have been wronged, the hungry, those who are bound, those who are bent down, the blind, orphans, widows, and strangers.45 Thus there is correspondence between God's acts on behalf of the needy in the psalm and the healing of the lame man in Acts 3.46 It bears reminding that the healing of the lame man is a particular case of God's faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, and in its very next phrase after it designates God creator, Psalm 145 LXX affirms God as one who keeps fidelity. This scriptural backdrop makes the claim to salvation in Jesus in Acts 4:12 stand out with a distinctive perspective in contrast to its use by some modern exclusivists who abstract the text as an absolute.47 Although there is an exclusive claim for salvation in the name of Jesus, both Psalm 145 LXX and the context of Acts 4 imply that the distinction is between a divinely ordained salvation and false claims of salvation that rest upon human beings. In Acts 4 the divinely ordained salvation contrasts particularly with reliance upon rulers, like the constituency of the council in Acts 4, as the psalm says: "Do not put confidence in rulers and in the offspring of human beings, in whom there is no salvation" (Ps 145:3 LXX, author's trans.). Moreover, the salvation to which Acts 4:12 refers is God's fidelity to the Abrahamic covenant. The true God, in distinction from false ones, affirms Jesus as God's messiah through whom all the families of the earth will be blessed. Although there is an exclusive claim for salvation in the name of Jesus, readers who catch the allusions to the psalm and to the Abrahamic covenant will distinguish this claim from sectarian exclusivism (1) because it differentiates salvation resting on God from salvation resting on human beings and (2) because it is equally a claim for divine blessing of all the families of the earth. The identification of God as creator does more, however. There is correspondence between God's creative acts in the past and divine acts in the present and future. This has to do first of all with scripture. God the creator, thus the true God, spoke through David by the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:2425). This introduction to a citation of scripture conveys the presumption of canonicity that the implied author shares with the authorial audience. Fur-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_102


ther, the presumption has to do not merely with the origin and thus the validity of scripture but also with the contemporaneity of the canon of the past with events of the present. What God said in the past by the Holy Spirit through David has meaning as a description of contemporary events, namely, the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, the community's grateful acknowledgment to God is a recitation of Ps 2:12 as a blow by blow account of the passion of Jesus. Scripture ties the interpretation of the death of Jesus to the community of believers and its expansion. In turn, the expansion of the community grants Jesus a shared social evaluation as a prominent. The citation of Ps 2:12 is marked by overdetermination, that is, a variant repetition that coerces the interpretation of readers. 48 In other terms, a narrative summary comes after the citation of the psalm as a variant repetition and, following an inverted symmetrical order, constrains an interpretation of the psalm as a description of the crucifixion of Jesus. A. Ethne ("nations") and laoi ("peoples") B. Basileis ("kings") and archontes ("rulers") C. Against the Lord and his anointed (Acts 4:2526) C'. Against your pais ("son," "slave") B'. Herod and Pilate A'. Gentiles and the peoples of Israel (4:27) But there is yet another variantthe passion narrative in Luke.49 Therefore, when the psalm speaks of the ethne and the laoi, the basileis and the archontes, the narrative summary shows how they are to be identified with the opponents in the passion narrative. There is an unholy alliance between the Gentiles and the people of Israel, and this alliance forms a coalition with Herod and Pontius Pilate against God's messiah.50 Surprisingly, the narrative summary disregards the synonymous parallelism of Ps 2:1 which implies that the laoi are identical with the ethne, that is, gentile opponents of the anointed king of Israel (see chapter 1). In Acts 4 they are not synonymous but identify two groups of people allied against Jesus as God's anointed one. This revisionary relationship with Psalm 2 is emphatic in light of the tradition of interpretation reflected in Midr. Tehillim Psalm 2, which illustrates the l'm as Pharaoh, Sisera, Nebuchadnezzar, and Gog and Magog. These peoples, then, are gentile opponents of Israel.51 But Acts clearly revises this line of interpretation of Psalm 2 to make the laoi Israelites who form an alliance with the ethne. Although Acts 4:27 explicitly names Gentiles as a part of the alliance against Jesus, it is difficult to locate the corresponding personages in the Lucan passion narrative. Although the account in the Gospel leaves the identity of the perpetrators of the crucifixion of Jesus uncertain (Luke 23:26), only the soldiers who mock Jesus in Luke 23:36 fit the category of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_103


Gentiles, 52 and even their identity is imprecise. But the narrative names them stratiotai and elsewhere refers to the temple guard as strategoi. By elimination they qualify as the Gentiles who join the alliance against Jesus. Hans Conzelmann has advanced the thesis that in Luke-Acts christological terminology has settled to a level of virtual equivalence whether Jesus is called son of man, son of God, or Christ, and that the title Christ has lost its literal sense of a messianic anointed one.53 Further, Joseph Fitzmyer claims that the anointing of Jesus in Luke 4:18 and the related question of the messengers from John the Baptist in 7:20 point to prophetic rather than messianic anointing.54 Acts 4:2627 provides strong evidence for revision of both interpretations. The noun christos appears in the citation of Ps 2:2, and Acts 4 obviously takes this to be a reference to Jesus. The corresponding variant on the citation in the narrative summary uses the verb echrisasa recall of Jesus' baptism and his claim to be anointed with the Holy Spirit in Luke 4:18.55 Acts 10:38 adds to the overdetermination when Peter recapitulates the story of Jesus beginning with the divine anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power, again using the verb echrisenand again recalling Jesus' baptism and his claim in Nazareth to be anointed with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18). Therefore, Acts 4 uses Psalm 2 to interpret the opposition to Jesus and to affirm his messianic identitya forceful case of positive labeling of Jesus as a prominent. Further, the messianic identity of Jesus stands in continuity with the tradition of the 'bd yhwh. The introduction to the citation of Ps 2:12 names David God's pais. When the voice of the community identifies Jesus as the one whom God anointed, it also designates him God's pais. In keeping with the backdrop of Israel's venerable tradition of the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus is part of a long line of God's servants through whom the divine promises drive toward their consummation. But Acts 4 is oriented very much toward the affirmation of Jesus as God's servant against a quite opposite evaluation of him by opponents. And an integral tactic of its rhetoric of persuasion is to subordinate the opponents in all their prestige and power to God. This has the effect of divesting the council of its prerogative to articulate the core values of the social order, a move which labeling and deviance theory anticipates.56 The result is a kind of irony that reduces the prestige and power of the opponents to absurdity. Because their resistance to Jesus is in fact defiance of God, it is a venture in folly. The council sits as if in a position of power. Ironically, the healing of a lame man has demonstrated the power of God accessible through the name of Jesus. The council finds itself unable to deny that the healing is a sign of God's power, but nevertheless attempts to exercise its power against God's. In this irony, readers already have a proleptic hint of Gamaliel's advice about the inevitable success of the divine plan (Acts 5:3539).57 Readers may catch this irony in the mere juxtaposition of two incidents.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_104


In the first, Peter identifies with those outside established channels of power by claiming to have no gold or silver (Acts 3:6). 58 In his own explanation of the healing of the lame man, he maintains his essential powerlessness (3:12). Nevertheless, through the name of Jesus, he has access to divine power. This is juxtaposed to the second incident, where people of ostensible prestige and power attempt to exercise their power against the manifestation of divine power. Should readers overlook the irony in the mere juxtaposition of the two incidents, however, overdetermination constrains an ironic interpretation. The citation of Ps 2:12 spells out the travesty of human rulers tackling God's power. This means that the correlation between scripture and contemporary events again takes place on two levels. At the foremost level, Ps 2:12 is an interpretation of the death of Jesus. The crucifixion is a vain exercise of ostensible power against Jesus as God's anointed one. At a secondary level, however, it is also an interpretation of the inquisition of Peter and John before the council. According to Acts 4:29, the council continues the threats of the unholy coalition against Jesus. Against the threats, the community prays for the same divine power manifested in the healing of the lame man to be manifested also in the boldness (parresia) of God's servants to speak God's word. This forward-looking prayer to equip the community against the threats of the future (e.g., Acts 5) actually is a flashback as well. The same divine power manifested in the healing of the lame man is also exhibited in the parresia of Peter and John before the council, that is, in their interpretation of scripture. Moreover, the community's prayer is self-referential as well.59 In its interpretation of Psalm 2, the community's voice is a manifestation of the same divine power that enabled Peter to interpret scripture, and the shaking of the place where the community prayed is a confirmation of that divine power in the parresia of interpretation (Acts 4:31). There is an additional dimension to the correlation on the secondary level between the overt interpretation of Psalm 2 and the community. In the prayer, the community refers to itself as God's douloi (''servants,'' Acts 4:29). The Greek term is linguistically independent from pais. Nevertheless, in this context it stands in continuity with Jesus and David as servants of God. Implicitly, Acts views the community of messianists in the venerable line of Israel's tradition quite in contrast to the council, the presumed purveyors of sociocultural norms. Underneath the explicit interpretation, do Psalm 2 and Acts 4 vibrate sympathetically with each other? In addition to the verbatim repetition, further aspects of Richard Hays's criteria increase the probability that they do.60 (1) Availability: Psalm 2 is the one of the most frequently cited psalms in the New Testament.61 Joel Marcus builds a strong case for the influence of Ps 2:7

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_105


on the identification of Jesus as God's son in Mark 1:11. 62 The psalm is crucial to the argument of Hebrews which takes the divine decree, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7), as God's words to Jesus (e.g., Heb 1:5; 5:5). Revelation 12:5 and 19:15 appropriate the psalm to identify the risen Jesus as the one who will shepherd with a rod of iron (Ps 2:9). In a broader setting Psalms of Solomon 17 is heavily dependent upon Psalm 2. In its parallel setting of conflict between foreign rulers and the Davidic throne, it prays for God "to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter's jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod" (Pss Sol 17:2324). The Qumran document 4QFlor 1:1819 cites Ps 2:12 and interprets it as a prediction of eschatological conflict between the elect of Israel and, presumably, gentile kings. Thus, the availability of the psalm in its wider context is solidly attested. (2) Recurrence: Acts 13:33 cites Ps 2:7, so wider dimensions of the psalm are clearly accessible to the implied author. (3) Thematic coherence: Psalm 2 ends with an overarching affirmation: "Blessed are all those who put confidence in him [the Lord]" (2:12). This stands in strong continuity with the plot of Acts 4 where Peter and John and the community of messianists resist human power and cast themselves in confidence upon God.63 Moreover, the entire psalm corresponds strikingly in setting and plot with Luke-Acts at the two distinct levels of the crucifixion of Jesus and the persecution of the community of messianists. Like the scene of the crucifixion, the setting of the psalm is agonistic, and obviously Acts 4:2728 takes the first two verses of the psalm as a description of Jesus' passion. On the covert side, two ambiguities, both having to do with the identity of spokespersons, can make the psalm more or less compatible with the Lucan narrative. Translators regularly supply "saying" at the end of v. 2 with the implication that the rebellious tributaries gather together in vain and say, "Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us" (Ps 2:3). But the spokespersons in this verse are indefinite, and in the context of Acts 4, readers familiar with the psalm could take them to parallel Jesus and the community. The antecedent of "their" in the sentence "Let us slip through their bonds" (Ps 2:3, author's trans.) could be not only the Lord and the Lord's anointed but also the rebellious kings. In this latter construal, the verse is not the voice of plotting rulers but the voice of those who resist plotting rulersplotting rulers such as Pilate, Herod, and the councilas if to say, ''Let the community of messianists break the bonds of the established rulers.'' Further, in the Masoretic Text God is the spokesperson in Ps 2:6 who declares: "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." In the Septuagint, however, the one anointed by God is the speaker: "But I have been established by him [ho kyrios] in Zion his holy hill" (author's trans.). The Greek makes no reference to the king, and although in a kind of supreme irony, Jesus,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_106


mocked as carnival king, is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, Ps 2:6 LXX is more compatible with the messianic interpretation of the death of Jesus than it would be with nationalistic royal overtones. The citation of Ps 2:7 in Acts 13:33 locates the begetting of Jesus as God's son at his resurrection: "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (author's trans.). Readers might rather anticipate correlating the "today" of Ps 2:7 with Jesus' baptism from Luke 3:22. But Paul's argument in Acts 13:33 depends on correlating the begetting with the resurrection. The resurrection, then, is a declaration corresponding to the divine decree of Ps 2:7 which in the moment of its declaration becomes effective. 64 Thus, Paul's speech views the resurrection as God's declaration to vindicate Jesus against his opponents (e.g., Acts 4:10). A major part of the development of the early chapters of Acts is the depiction of an expanding community that embodies the revised norms of the narrativethat interprets the death of Jesus messianicallyand thus gives a favorable social evaluation of Jesus as a prominent. Psalm 2:89 parallels this development: "Ask me on behalf of yourself, and I will give you nations as your heritage, and as your possession, the ends of the earth. You will shepherd them with a rod of iron, as a vessel of clay you will shatter them" (author's trans.). On the one hand, this text corresponds thematically to the prediction of John the Baptist that Jesus would gather and sift a community (Luke 3:17). This theme unfolds throughout Luke, though the Gospel ends with meager results. Acts 1:8 renews the theme with a strong correlation in concept, if not in vocabulary, of the ends of the earth,65 and John's promise begins to come to fruition in Acts 2. The inversion of the evaluation of Jesus from a deviant to a prominent carries with it the inversion of the high priestly coterie from prominent to deviant. Labeling and deviance theory anticipates the exclusion of deviants from within social boundaries. The messianist community lacks the agency to expel the high priestly deviants literally from the boundaries of a city, but gathering and sifting are the metaphorical equivalent.66 The final move in Psalm 2 is an exhortation for kings and those who judge the earth to serve the Lord and an admonition of judgment for those who do not. This too corresponds to thematic development in Luke-Acts where there is a call to repentance on the one hand and a warning against recalcitrance on the other. Thus, the opponentscrucifiers and persecutorsare not utterly abandoned. They too have the potential to share in the blessing of all the families of the earth. But Acts 34 places them outside the pale of that which determines the norms of the community of messianists, because according to Acts, it is through this community that interprets the death of Jesus messianically that all the families of the earth will be blessed. The word laoi in Ps 2:1, through a clinamen, shifts its meaning from Gentiles to the people of Israel. This also sneaks irony into the council's in-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_107


quest. In the psalm, Israelites join Gott in laughing at the vanity of the Gentiles (Ps 2:4). But through the clinamen the members of the council swap places with the Gentiles. Their power crumbles under God's power. The clinamen's effect entails a kenosis, an emptying of meaning. That is, readers have to transcend the synonymous parallelisms of Ps 2:12 in order to make the revised correlations to the crucifixion of Jesus. Likewise, readers subtract the anointing of the Davidic king from Ps 2:2 in order to add Jesus to the picture as God's messiah. As a consequence of the clinamen and kenosis, readers can ascend to a new level of meaninghyperbole, in Bloom's terms. In addition, the explicit quotation of Ps 2:12 prompts readers to recall its larger contexta synecdochical figurationthe part implicates the whole. Readers who know this psalm peruse the quotation but hear the aggregatetesserafragments forming a whole. As with Psalm 117 LXX, the reference to Psalm 2 is also metonymic. It spells one name, it speaks another. The unholy conspiracy against God and God's messiah in the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 4:2526) points to the power of God that transforms human travesties into divine victory (Psalm 2). This figuration of completion holds only so long as the part, redirected by the clinamen, takes with it the whole. That is, the figuration of revision depends on a dialogical play back and forth between the psalm in isolation and its new environment, twists and all. This metonymic figuration holds only so long as tension bounces readers between the old centers of the texts and their relocated centersmetalepsis or transumption. Finally, the relocation of centers is theocentric. The transumption of scripture ushers the power of God into the inquest in such a way as to undermine the council's power. It disestablishes the establishment, moves readers to revise norms, and installs the norms of the narrative over the presumed sociocultural norms. God's power resists the labeling of Jesus and his followers as deviant and promotes them to prominence. The inversion of Jesus' status corresponds to the inversion of status of Peter's audiences. They are incorrectly labeled as Jesus' victims. Rather, they are heirs of the promise of God to Abraham. But the inversion of Jesus' status also entails a theological revision. To define Jesus as God's messiah is also to define God as the God who through Jesus purposes to bless all the families of the earth.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_108


8 Acclaiming Prominents: Voices of Scripture in Acts 13 Scripture steers readers who traverse the incident in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13. It underlies the entire passage, holds it together from both ends, and bubbles to the surface repeatedly. At the beginning, the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue becomes the occasion for Paul's speech (13:15); at the end, the Gentiles praise the word of the Lord (13:48), and the two notices bracket the pericope with symmetry. In between, Paul implicitly interprets the law as a history of God's promises to Israel 1 and explicitly interprets alternating passages from two psalms and a prophet as affirmations of the fulfillment of those promises in Jesus (Acts 13:1639). At the end of the incident, he turns to two prophetic texts to warn unbelievers and to vindicate himself (13:41, 47). Paul's proclamation of the fulfillment of God's promises in Jesus is part of repeated efforts in Luke-Acts to vindicate Jesus and his followers. The crucifixion is a severe verdict against Jesus and a bleak portent for his followers. What can turn its disheartening ramifications for the status of Jesus around? This chapter extends the argument of the previous one by again employing labeling and deviance theory to show how Acts 13 uses voices of scripture to reverse negative social evaluations and present Jesus and his followers as prominent in the social order. Precedents on Cyprus The incident in Pisidian Antioch follows on the heels of the belief of the proconsul Sergius Paulus at Paphos on Cyprus, and as a sequel it inherits an analog of structure and effect.2 In the first incident Paul and his companions perform according to the cultural script of honor/shame. Though unspoken in the narrative, a challenge comes from the antagonist Bar-Jesus, alias Elymas. Paul's riposte, quite emphatically spoken, is a negative characterization of Elymas that labels him a deviant. First, the narrator informs

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_109


readers that Elymas is a magician and, in apposition, a false prophet (13:6). The meaning of Elymas is obscure, but the narrator coaxes readers to take the name itself as an evaluative epithetevaluative in the negative (13:8). 3 Paul's characterization of his antagonist is a replication of epithets in the voice of the narrator. Thus he reiterates the narrator's charge that Elymas is a magician by branding him a son of the devil and replicates the accusation that he is a false prophet by stereotyping him as totally degenerate, an enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy (13:10).4 Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey have shown that such labeling is equivalent to a charge of witchcraft. Thus it depicts the magician not merely as impotent but as an ally of aggressive malevolent powers.5 Moreover, Elymas symbolizes traits that stand in direct opposition to the protagonists.6 The symbolic opposition is heightened by the emphatic association of Paul and his companions with God through the narrator's notice that Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit and the repetition in the voices of Paul and the narrator of the title "Lord" (13:912). In order to have social consequences, deviance labeling drives toward a socially shared interpretation.7 Though a lone figure, Sergius Paulus joins Paul and his companions to constitute the socially shared evaluation of Elymas as deviant. In preparation for that, the narrator characterizes Sergius Paulus as intelligent and establishes his prestige and power as a proconsul.8 Labeling and deviance theory, anticipates a ritual of degradation that places the deviant outside the boundaries of normal society.9 Thus, predictably, Paul declares that Elymas will be blind, a degradation ritual that becomes effective when Paul declares it and that banishes Elymas from the normal social body. Consequently, according to the cultural script, Elymas is shamed, and Paul and his companions accrue honor.10 This incident is significant for interpreting events in Pisidian Antioch because it establishes patterns in brief that are replicated in the longer episode that follows. In their roles Paul and Barnabas play out the cultural script of honor/shame. In so doing, they turn to labeling to identify Jesus, and by association themselves, as prominent rather than deviant. Voices of Covenant Traditions in Paul's Speech Ostensibly, the setting of Paul's speech in Acts 13 is not agonistic. After the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue, the leaders cordially address Paul and Barnabas as adelphoi ("friends") and extend them an invitation to exhort the congregation (13:15). Paul begins his remarks with an equally respectful address to Israelites and God-fearers (13:16) and designates his hearers adelphoi in return (13:26). All along, however, unspoken labeling subverts the cordialityJesus is the one who was crucifieda

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_110


successful degradation ritual certifying that he is a deviant beyond the pale. 11 Paul, therefore, struggles against connotations of deviance and plays out the cultural script of honor/shame. The claim of fulfillment of the promises in Jesus requires a redefinition of Jesus himself from deviant to prominent because the degradation ritual of crucifixion has utterly erased him from the social body. Paul parries the identification of Jesus as a deviant with a speech that is a counter power-move, a response to negative labeling that fits the taxonomy of labeling and deviance theory. Paul's first move is to enlist God as a potential agent to reclaim Jesus' status. Thus, the speech is emphatically theocentric.12 Paul testifies that at the end of a cycle of divine choices, God has chosen Jesus as the fulfillment of divine promises (Acts 13:1725). Presumably, Paul's speech has some relationship to the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue sabbath worship. The scope of Israel's history that he traces, however, exceeds dramatically the content of any realistic reading in the synagogue. He telescopes a story of divine choices from Abraham to David into six verses (Acts 13:1722). But the telescoped précis discloses that he regards the law primarily as a narrative of divine election and promise.13 Aileen Guilding has advanced the intriguing proposal that Paul's sermon in Acts 13 is related to established triennial synagogal lectionary readings. Her proposal depends on taking Acts 13:18 as an allusion to Deut 1:31 on the basis of verbatim repetition of etropophoresen ("to bear with," or the variant etrophophoresen, "to nurture," which appears in both the Septuagint and Acts). In later synagogal lectionaries, a passage beginning with Jer 30:4 is apparently the haphtarah, a second lesson, correlated with Deuteronomy 1, and, as if on cue, Paul allegedly alludes to Jer 30:9 in Acts 13:22: "He raised up David to be their king.''14 Should it successfully stand trial, such a thesis would prove pertinent here not for its historical value as such but for its insinuation that the messianic reinterpretation of scripture is not confined to individual texts but to their concatenation in Jewish tradition. True, the volume of verbatim repetition of etrepophoresen (etrephophoresen) and eremo ("wilderness") (Acts 13:18) is strong enough to support a likely allusion to Deut 1:31. In contrast, the volume of repetition of Jer 30:9 (37:9 LXX) in Acts 13:22 is considerably lower. There is repetition of the terms ton Dauid basilea ("David a king"), but Acts clearly refers to the literal enthronement of David (egeiren, "he raised") whereas Jeremiah's promise to raise David obviously refers to a future Davidite (anasteso, "I will raise''; cf. Jer 37:3 LXX)the very point Acts makes in the next verse. So in spite of some slight volume on the verbal plane, the texts are thematically incoherent. In addition, although rabbinic homilies can relate to their texts with delicate subtlety, the only distinct reference in the recapitulation of Israel's

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_111


history is not to the Pentateuch but to a mixed citation from 1 Kgdms 13:14 and Ps 88:21 LXX, presumably more explicit texts for a sermon that Deut 1:31. What is more, the sources for the existence of a triennial lectionary in the synagogue are relatively late and do not establish such a lectionary for the first century of our era. 15 So this obviates attempts to correlate the citations of scripture in Acts 13 with synagogal lectionaries. On its own Paul's emphasis on divine promises in Israel's history leaves the identity of the promises quite ambiguous. On the tail end it is clear that God promised a savior, but on the front end the basis for the promise is uncertain. The Davidic covenant stands out as the clearest candidate, because the first reference to God's promise occurs immediately after Paul mentions God's choice of David. Further, Acts 13:34 cites a text from Isa 55:3 which refers to the faithful holy things of David. But the Davidic covenant does not stand alone. First of all, Paul addresses his audience as descendants of Abraham's family (Acts 13:26), dropping hints of the Abrahamic covenant.16 More crucially, when the voice of the precursor rings in its successor text, it is polyphonic. One reason the precursor speaks with a plurality of voices is that it does not speak directly in the successor but as it is mediated through the thematic development of Luke-Acts. As chapter 2 above demonstrates, in its thematic development, Luke-Acts collapses the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants into one. It would be a tone-deaf reader indeed who would miss the sound of the Davidic covenant in Gabriel's prediction that God would give Jesus the throne of David and that he would rule over the house of Jacob forever (Luke 1:3233). But the repercussion for Mary is for her to magnify the Lord for remembering the promise to Abraham and to his descendants forever (1:5455). Subsequently, Zechariah clearly associates a savior in the house of David with God's promise to Abraham (1:6973).17 Peter's speeches in Acts 24 reinforce the affiliation of the two covenants. Acts 2:30 clearly picks up the Davidic covenant, and if readers are left wondering which promise Peter has in mind in 2:39, 3:25 leaves no doubt that it is the Abrahamic covenant. Chapter 2 above also picks up overtones of Mosaic imagery in the temptations of Jesus. Peter receives those signals and amplifies them with explicit identification of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (3:2223). The Davidic and Mosaic covenants, then, become particular ways the promises to Abraham come to realization. Thus, the successor text recalls the precursor as it is mediated through the thematic development of Luke-Acts. A second reason the precursor speaks with polyphonic voices in the successor is that the route from precursor to successor passes through other traditions. The precursor is polyphonic because of its own intertextuality, some of which is quite perceptible. Chapter 2 above appeals to Ronald Clements's tracking of the association of Davidic and Mosaic covenants with

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_112


the Abrahamic in sources predating Luke-Acts, such as the priestly tradition and Psalm 72. 18 With such an amalgamation in the cultural repertoire, when Luke-Acts collapses the three covenants into one, it is passing on the polyphonic voices of tradition. To hear the voice of one covenant tradition in Luke-Acts is to overhear them all. Voices of Scripture and Positive Labeling of Jesus In Acts 13:22 Paul claims a divine testimony about David as andra kata ten kardian mou ("a man according to my heart"). This is a close repetition of anthropon kata ten kardian mou from 1 Kgdms 13:14. In contrast to the Masoretic Text, which presents God's choice of David as an event of the past, the Septuagint reads it as future: zetesei kyrios heauto anthropon ktl ("the Lord will seek a man for himself," etc.). But Paul recounts God's first-person discourse as past: heuron Dauid ("I have found David'') in keeping with the wording of Ps 88:21 LXX. On the basis of the criterion of volume on the verbal plane, the reference appears to be a straightforward mixed citation. But when the criterion of volume includes setting and plot, Psalm 88 LXX emerges much the stronger.19 1 Kingdoms 13 legitimates the Davidic dynasty more by the demise of Saul than by the choice of David. Psalm 88 LXX, however, focuses forcefully on God's choice of David, a choice that Acts 13 depends on. Further, the argument of 1 Kingdoms 13 hinges on the relative behaviors of Saul and David whereas the power of God behind the promises comes to the fore in Psalm 88 LXX. Along the same lines, the criterion of thematic coherence shows that the stronger allusion is to the psalm. To be sure, 1 Kingdoms 13 does not duck completely out of the picture. If the proper reading in Acts 13:18 is etropophoresen ("to bear with") rather than etrophophoresen ("to nurture"), it implies that Saul's foolish behavior in 1 Kingdoms 13 sprouts from seeds sown among the forebears in the past. In either case, Saul himself becomes a paradigm for the futurewith the kind of pathos evident in his own demisefor Paul's opponents who judge themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:46). That is, there is replication of the plot of I Kingdoms 13 at a rather abstract level in Acts 13. A more vigorous theme in Acts 13, however, concentrates on the power of God that vindicates Jesus as God's chosen one who fulfills the promise to Davidand hence to Abraham. Correspondence between this theme and Psalm 88 LXX gives Paul's allusion to the psalm a synecdochical character. The part points to the whole.20 Psalm 88 LXX focuses not only on the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty but also on the power of God underlying the promises: "Who in the clouds will be equal to the Lord, and who will be like the Lord among the offspring of GodGod, who is glorified in the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_113


council of holy ones, great and fearful above all those who are around him" (Ps 88:78 LXX, author's trans.). Even when the psalm swings more specifically toward David, it anchors him in divine power: "I [God] found David my servant, I anointed him with my holy oil, for my hand will help him, and my arm will strengthen him" (Ps 88:2122 LXX, author's trans.). But Psalm 88 LXX proceeds to complain about God's failure to uphold the promise (vv. 3940), and it implores Cod to remember the divine commitment to the Davidic promises (vv. 5052). Acts 13 touches base with these sentiments of the psalm. Although Paul claims that God has remembered the promises through Jesus, the opponents underlying both the crucifixion of Jesus and the persecution of Paul and Barnabas keep alive the theme of the concealed nature of the promises. The major revisionary ratio for readers who pick up reminiscences of scripture beyond the mixed citation is temporalHarold Bloom's lie against time. 21 What is a future promise in 1 Kgdms 13:14 becomes a past reality in Ps 88:21 LXX, and thus mediated, the promise becomes a contemporary event for Paul. The way future, past, and present hang together is tesseracompletion. The past as promise is partial without the present as fulfillment; the present as fulfillment is deficient without the past as promise. But the temporal revision also compels kenosis, hyperbole, and askesis. The fulfillment of the promises in Jesus empties the sense of political monarchy from 1 Kgdms 13:14 and Ps 88:21kenosis. Rather, the fulfillment of the promises raises the sense of scripture to a new levelresurrection, enthronement with God, and forgiveness of sinshyperbole. In fact, the fulfillment pulls away so much from the political monarchy as to lose sight of it altogetherthe monarchy is deadaskesis. Acts 13 gives the impression that Paul is relating the texts to each other in such a way as to reveal an assumption of canonical coherence, an assumption attested elsewhere in the cultural repertoire.22 This assumption functions on replicated levels. The voice of Paul's canonical presumptions on the level of the narrative reiterates a voice on the level of the implied author. And in this assumption there couches the other end of the dialogical nature of the echo of the precursor in the successorto hear the polyphony is to hear one voice. To hear the Lucan voice is to hear the polyphony. To hear the polyphony is to hear the Lucan voice. Voices of Scripture in Reversing Deviance into Prominence With voices of scripture providing divine promises as an underpinning, Paul begins the labeling with reference to a savior whom he identifies as Jesus (Acts 13:23). Savior is a positive christological title that functions in the reverse of a negative label. For Paul to call Jesus a savior is already to present

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_114


him as a benefactor rather than an enemy of society. 23 In his next move Paul enlists John the Baptist, an agent of positive status, to acclaim Jesus.24 John labels Jesus by deprecating himself in comparison (13:25). Typical attempts to neutralize deviance labeling include (1) denying that the accused is responsible for the accusations, (2) denying responsibility for alleged actions that supposedly unleashed harm, (3) denying that alleged victims were in fact victims, (4) condemning the condemners, and (5) justifying the accused by claiming commitment to a higher order.25 Correspondingly, Paul's speech has a section in which he recalls the crucifixion of Jesus, and labels the perpetrators as deviant. Ignorance makes them fulfill, ironically, their very own scriptures, which they (supposedly) read every sabbath (Acts 13:27), a point Paul reiterates in 13:29. On the one hand, this means that those who denounced Jesus are therefore rebukeddeviantand their own scriptures are marshaled as witnesses against them. On the other hand, the appeal to scriptures means that Jesus was committed to a higher order. In addition, Jesus was innocent of the charges, and therefore posed no threat to the social body (13:28). The crux of the attempt to label Jesus as a prominent is to present the resurrection as a divine reversal of the crucifixion as a degradation ritual. The resurrection is therefore a ritual of acclamation of Jesus as prominent (13:30). One final step at this point of the argument is to reiterate the social benefitdivine promises are fulfilled, namely, the blessing of all the families of the earth, and forgiveness of sins is available (13:3233, 3839).26 It is possible to read Paul's speech as if he attacks Jesus' opponents as ironically fulfilling the scriptures they read with no particular reference to those very scriptures (Acts 13:27, 29). Because Paul makes reference to the reading of scriptures every sabbath and to everything that was written about the savior, the inference is a general reference to all the scriptures (cf. Luke 24:27, 44). But the matter does not rest there, because three explicit texts come into play in this phase of the speech: Ps 2:7, Isa 55:3, and Ps 15:10 LXX. All three texts agree verbatim with the Septuagint.27 The three texts play two primary roles. Just as Paul enlists John the Baptist in Acts 13:2425, so he also enlists Ps 2:7 to acclaim Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine promise (Acts 13:33). Similarly, he conscripts Isa 55:3 and Ps 15:10 LXX as acclamations of the resurrection. Because they function as agents of acclamation, it is significant to note the voices that speak in the texts. First, the citation formula gegraptai introduces Ps 2:7. The formula carries with it presuppositions of canonicitytradition valorized by the past and charged with potential to confer meaning on the present. It bears reiterating that this functions on dual levels. On the level of the narrative, Paul shares a canonical presupposition with his audience. On another level the implied author shares a canonical presupposition with the authorial audience. Beyond the canonical presupposition, however, the voice of Ps 2:7 is also

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_115


polyphonic. From the character of the psalm itself, readers can hear the voice of the psalmist but also the voice of God. But it is also polyphonic because the route to the psalm is indirect, through previous development in Luke-Acts. Notably, the theme of the sonship of Jesus builds steadily from Luke 1:32 through 24:49. Thus, the citation of Ps 2:7 in Paul's speech may resound as a reinforcement of Jesus' identity as God's son. Furthermore, an ensemble of messianists have used the first two verses of the psalm as part of their voice to God in Acts 4:2526. The criteria of availability and recurrence enhance possibilities for an allusion to the larger context of Psalm 2. 28 In this case too, plot and setting add to the volume of verbatim repetition. The same groups who were agents of the degradation of Jesus as deviant in Acts 3:13 and 4:10 come on stage again in 13:27.29 Thus, readers who know the psalm may hear in Paul's citation some notes of: "Why did the peoples pursue vain things?" (Ps 2:1 LXX, author's trans.). They may also recall the promise of a heritage to the ends of the earth (Ps 2:8), a promise that fits the themes of the Abrahamic covenant and gathering and sifting in Luke-Acts. In the polyphony of voices, readers may overhear something of the vanity of opposition to God and the fidelity of God to promises even as they hear the voice of Cod acclaiming Jesus God's son. Primarily, however, this divine acclamation is part of a retrospective interpretation of the resurrection. As a counter move to the degradation ritual of the crucifixion, the resurrection becomes God's rite of acclamation. This rite has a dialogical relation to Ps 2:7. On the one hand, Paul cites the psalm under canonical presumptions as a divine witness to Jesus' resurrection. On the other, the resurrection itself is a divine declaration that Jesus is God's son in the psalm. Dialogical play goes back and forth between the two poles without freezing onto one or the other. Psalm 2, like Psalm 88 LXX, grounds the monarchy in divine promise and power. To backtrack, the citation of Ps 2:7 is polyphonic, speaking with the voices of God, canon, the psalmist, and Paul, mediated through the thematic development of Luke-Acts and the prayer of the community of messianists in Acts 4:2526. This mediation and the repetition of plot and setting in the context confer the character of synecdoche on Paul's citation, that is, the explicit citation is a marker that draws readers to the larger context of the psalm. Thus, the polyphony enables readers to play the recalcitrance of Paul's opponents off against the vanity of the peoples in Ps 2:12. The primary function of the psalm in Acts 13, however, is to attest the resurrection of Jesus as God's rite of proclamation of him as prominent. The use of the psalm in support of the resurrection is quite clear from the literary brackets by which Paul moves into and out of the citation. Paul's assertion that God has fulfilled the promises by raising Jesus introduces the citation (13:3233), and a return to the theme of resurrection enables him to make

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_116


a transition to another citation (13:34). As with 1 Kingdoms 13 and Psalm 88 LXX, there is a lie against time. In Ps 2:7 "today" identifies the day of the enthronement of the Davidic monarch. Acts transforms it into the day of resurrection of Jesus. This is tessera, a revision of completion that requires readers to hold together two picturesthe Davidic monarch of the past and Jesus enthroned at the right hand of God in the present. Similarly, if readers hear overtones from the psalm of the vanity of those who oppose Jesus and Paul, they recast the portrait of rebellious gentile tributaries into the image of unbelievers in Israel. Further, the revision of Psalm 2 involves kenosis, hyperbole, and askesisemptying, elevating meaning to a new level, and pulling away from the precursor so as to imply its demise. When Paul cites Ps 2:7 in Acts 13, he expurgates the Davidic monarchy and the rebellious gentile tributarieskenosis. As readers track the interplay between precursor and successor, when the psalm comes back around, its meaning rises to a new levelthe resurrection of Jesushyperbole. But the new level of meaning abandons the Davidic monarchy as a relic of the pastaskesis. Ambiguity of the speaker adds to the polyphonic voices of the citations of Isa 55:3 and Ps 15:10 LXX. All we know of the subjects of eireken ("it" or "he has spoken") in Acts 13:34 and legei (''it" or "he says") in 13:35 is that they are third person singular. Does the indefinite ''it" from "it is written" (gegraptai, 13:33) carry over to eireken? Or is God, who according to 13:32 is the speaker in Ps 2:7, the antecedent for the subject of the two verbs? The indeterminate nature of the subject permits readers to discern the voices of canon and God simultaneously over and above the voices of Isaiah and the psalmist. As a result, Paul attests the rite of proclamation of Jesus as prominent not merely by reference to its acclaimers in sequence but also by piling them up on top of each other. Isaiah 55:3 adds a new element to claims about the resurrection. It interprets resurrection to mean overcoming physical decay of the body. Hans Conzelmann avers that the reference is so fragmentary as to be unintelligible on its own, and therefore links it immediately with the following quotation from Ps 15:10 LXX. 30 True, it is so fragmentary that it is difficult for readers to discern what ta hosia ta pista ("the holy faithful things") refers to. The resolution of that problem comes, however, not from Ps 15:10 LXX but from the context of Isa 55:3. The first half of the very sentence that Paul quotes is a divine promise: "I will covenant with you an eternal covenant, ta hosia Dauid ta pista" (Isa 55:3, author's trans.). Only the background of its own context clarifies that ta hosia ta pista refers to God's covenant with David.31 Readers who know that context likely will take Paul's citation as a synecdochical key to prompt their reminiscences of the context. Further, the context continues: "Behold, I have given him as a witness among Gentiles, one who rules and commands among Gentiles. Gentiles,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_117


who did not know you, will call upon you, and peoples (laoi) who did not stand near you, will flee to you for refuge for the sake of your God" (Isa 55:45 LXX, author's trans.). In the second half of this passage, the Septuagint inverts subject and object in comparison with the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text reads: "You shall call nations that you do not know" (Isa 55:5). Significantly, because "you" is in the singular, in the Septuagint it corresponds to the Davidic messiah. Thus the plot of Acts 13, in which the Gentiles come to believe in Jesus as the Davidic messiah, parallels the plot of Isa 55:3 LXX and its context. Knowledgeable and eager readers might in fact bite off much bigger portions of Isaiah. Measured by Richard Hays's criterion of recurrence, Luke-Acts manifests strong possibilities of allusion to the larger context of Isaiah. Notably, Luke 19:46 picks up Isa 56:7, Luke 22:37 cites Isa 53:12, Acts 8:3233 quotes Isa 53:78, and Acts 13:47 appeals to Isa 49:6 (cf. Luke 2:31). Further, the Ethiopian eunuch plays a role that reiterates the plot of Isa 56:37. Thus, if readers who know the Septuagint recall Isaiah's emphasis on divine purposes and power in Paul's reference to ta hosia Dauid ta pista, then it will be both synecdochical and metonymic. The part stands for the whole, and one name stands for another, that is, the citation speaks of the power and covenantal purposes of God without speaking their own names. All of this depends nevertheless on tessera. Such synecdochical and metonymic figurations are possible only if readers hold the picture of Jesus' resurrection in Acts 13 in tension with what they recall from Isaiah. These intertextual connections, however, do not diminish contextual relationships. And in the context, Ps 15:10 LXX colors Paul's portrait of Jesus' resurrection. In conjunction with Isa 55:3, it attests the preservation of the body of Jesus as a part of God's covenantal promises to David. A good case for the unity and complementarity of scripture can be made not only from the canonical presuppositions underlying these citations but also from their verbal forms. The psalm repeats catchwords from the citation of Isaiah in a parallel structure: doso hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista (Acts 13:34); ou doseis ton hosion sou idein diaphthoran (13:35). 32 Thus, verbal complementarity links the two texts. Paul's speech proceeds to interpret the psalm with an astounding revision. He asserts that it does not pertain to David. This interpretation comes to readers indirectly, mediated to them through Peter's speech in Acts 2:2532. Peter's logic runs: If the psalm has to do with decay of the body, David's tomb evidences the decay of his body. Therefore, David must have reference to another to whom the Davidic covenant applies. Paul's logic is the same, although readers who remember Peter's speech can fill in from it ellipses in Paul's concise repetition. Such logic produces both kenosis and hyperbole. Paul's direct commentary empties the meaningthe psalm does not speak about Davidkenosis. Just as directly he moves to the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_118


hyperbolenot David but Jesus. What is more, on its own Ps 15:10 LXX makes sense as the common experience of anyone who prays for recovery from sickness. 33 But Paul's speech absolutizes the experience: ". . . no more to return to corruption" (Acts 13:34); ". . . he whom God raised up experienced no corruption" (13:37). This time around corruption has to do not merely with recovery from disease (as in the psalm) but with resurrection. When the voice of the psalm sounds again, it traces a pattern to a higher level of meaninghyperbole. Further, the appearance of Ps 15:10 LXX in Paul's speech is assuredly synecdochical.34 For one thing, Acts 2 quotes an extensive portion of Psalm 15 LXX and satisfies thereby Hays's criteria of amplitude and recurrence. For another, larger reaches of the psalm invade the thematic development of Actsagain as mediated through Peter. Chapter 6 notes that in Peter's Pentecost discourse the citation of Psalm 15 LXX breaks off just at the point where it is prepared to say: "There are pleasures at your right hand forevermore" (Ps 15:11, author's trans.). At that very point Peter's speech turns to the question of the exaltation of Jesus to God's right hand (Acts 2:2936). The development of the narrative completes what the citation omits. Thus, in the context of Paul's speech where the resurrection stands out so prominently as the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and where Paul paces tantalizingly around the brink of the question of enthronement, readers who know Psalm 15 LXX and remember Peter's speech may overhear something of the exaltation of Jesus: "There are pleasures at your right hand forevermore."35 Deviant Opponents, Prominent Messiah, Prominent Messianists The citation of Hab 1:5 also piles voices of acclaimers on top of each other. Paul's formula of introduction attributes this text to the prophets (Acts 13:40). The plural should occasion little surprise because it locates the text in a specific segment of canon rather than ascribing it to several prophets. This can be verified by its analogy to the narrator's description of a particular synagogal reading in 13:15 and to Paul's allusion to the customary reading of the prophets in 13:27. Although the speaker in the citation itself is clearly God, ambiguity envelops the substantive participle to eiremenon ("what was spoken") in the formulaic introduction. The passive construction grants readers the freedom to fill in the voices of both the prophet and God. Like the citations of Ps 2:7, Isa 55:3, and Ps 15:10 LXX, Paul adduces Hab 1:5 in support of (1) negative labeling of opponents and (2) a divine rite of proclamation of Jesus as prominent. The negative label is "scoffers." The rite of proclamation is the "work" of the sentence: ''In your days I am doing a work" (Acts 13:41). But in addition, the polyphonic voices attest not merely God's

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_119


rite of the proclamation of Jesus but a future ritual of degradation for the recalcitrant. Those who persist in unbelief, even when someone recounts this divine work, will suffer eviction from the communal ordera vanishing act (NRSV "perish," 13:41). One correlative is that the appeal to scripture justifies the pronouncement of deviance. 36 A second correlative is the implication of prominence for Paul and Barnabas. This implication occurs because the context makes their work derivative of God's work. Readers catch that their work derives from God's work because the context brackets the segment that speaks of God's work in Acts 13:41 with references to the work of Paul and Barnabas. Acts 13:2 introduces the section with the account of the setting apart of Barnabas and Paul for the work (ergon) to which Cod has already called them, and 14:2627 concludes the section with a retrospective reference to the accomplishment of that work. Thus, the work of Barnabas and Paul reverberates with God's work in the revisionary allusion to Hab 1:5. Like even God, they attest Jesus' prominence and indirectly imply their own prominence. But their work, like even God's work, also encounters detractors, and Hab 1:5 labels their opponents, like God's, deviants.37 Up to this point in Paul's speech, citations of scripture have functioned primarily to give Jesus positive labels and to position the voices of canon, prophets, David, and God as acclaimers of Jesus as a prominent. Habakkuk 1:5 speaks with polyphonic voices of canon, prophet, and God, but Paul situates it quite differently. The voice now also serves as negative labeling for those who Paul anticipates will not believe.38 Ostensibly, Paul sketches a prospective interpretation. He warns the audience ahead of time. In order to appropriate the text from Habakkuk for his audience, Paul must overcome the temporal distance. Habakkuk moors his message in a concrete historical situationthe neo-Babylonians, the ancient Near East's nobody, were sending up ominous signals on the horizon. So Paul's appropriation of Habakkuk for his time transcends the barriers of time. Contemporaneity stretches over the abyss of ages; proximity consumes distance; synchrony swallows diachrony. The lie against time entails tessera, kenosis, and hyperbole. Because it overcomes distance, it places Habakkuk side by side those who will not believe Paul's message. The juxtaposition is a completion in which the distanced images hold together as onetessera. The juxtaposition comes about only when Habakkuk is uprooted from the concrete situation of the rise of the neoBabylonianskenosis, emptying of meaningand installed as a negative label for his opponentshyperbole, raising meaning to a new level. Although Paul's citation of Hah 1:5 is a prediction of judgment against unbelievers, it contains a remarkable revisionclinamen. In Hab 1:5 God's unbelievable work is judgment, coming in the form of the upstart neo-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_120


Babylonians (1:6). But the entire development of Paul's speech up to this point shows that God's unbelievable work in Acts 13 is salvation. 39 God has presented Israel a saviorcrucified, but nevertheless the fulfillment of divine promises, attested by the resurrection. The journey from judgment to salvation is kenosis and hyperbole. Paul dispenses with Habakkuk's judgment and ascends to God's salvation. But Paul's use of God's work as a warning to his audience shows that judgment is the other side of salvation. A further revision comes into play with the implication that Paul is the one who tells God's unbelievable work. In this case, he displaces Habakkuk and supercedes him as a light (see Acts 13:47) whose mind, like the minds of the twelve and their companions, Jesus has opened in order that he might understand scripture in a new way (see Luke 24:27, 45). So when Paul turns to Habakkuk, he raises it to new heightshyperbole. Readers who know Habakkuk may also take Paul's citation as synecdochicalthe part for the whole. Habakkuk is a theodicy. The raiding neo-Babylonians perpetrate violence and injustice. The wicked devour the righteous (Hab 1:13). Habakkuk's basic response to the problem of injustice is eschatology. The end, concealed in the present, will speak the truth (2:3). In keeping with the thematic development of Luke-Acts, Habakkuk predicts universal acknowledgment of God (2:14). But for the present this means waiting persistently in fidelity to God (e.g., 3:1718). Does Acts 13 vibrate in sympathy? Aside from Paul's direct quotation, there are but faint whispers of Habakkuk elsewhere in Luke-Acts. There may be a reminiscence of Hab 3:18 ego de en to kyrio agalliasomai ("but I will rejoice in the Lord") in Mary's song in Luke 1:47 kai egalliasen to pneuma mou epi to theo to soteri mou ("and my spirit rejoiced in God my savior"), though the volume of verbatim repetition here is low. Habakkuk's poignant persistence in the face of the unfruitful fig tree and vine (Hab 3:17) may have a distant analog in Jesus' parable of the unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6). The image of stones which cry out in Luke 19:40 rings in harmony with the same image in Hab 2:11. These thin resonances hardly stand the test of Hays's criteria for recurrence and amplitude. But the function of Paul's speech strikes a major chord with Habakkuk. The effort to present Jesus, Paul and Barnabas, and all who believe as prominent rather than deviant hangs on God's acclamation of a crucified Jesus. This also necessitates presenting the God who does such a thing as prominent rather than deviant. To say this in other words, like Habakkuk, Acts 13 is a theodicy. The function of Acts 13 corresponds to the function of Habakkuk. Readers who recall Habakkuk as mediated through the Lucan themes of bearing fruit and gathering and sifting, may hear in Paul's theodicy something like: "Wherefore the fig tree will not bear fruit, there will be no produce in the vineyards. The work of the olive tree will disappoint, and the fertile plains will not produce pasture. Flocks have aban-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_121


doned the pasture, and cattle are not in the mangers. But I will rejoice in the Lord, I will exult in God my savior" (Hab 3:1718 LXX, author's trans.). 40 For Paul, commitment to God persists in spite of the failure of his proclamation to bear fruit among unbelievers. A Shared Social Evaluation The cultural script of honor/shame, and labeling and deviance as a particular variant of it, plays out for a social evaluation, a shared verdict.41 On the one hand, positive reactions accompany Paul and Barnabas on the occasion of Paul's sermon (Acts 13:43). Within a week's time, however, ominous clouds have gathered on the horizon. Paul's positive labeling has elicited a negative response. In the cycles of challenge and riposte, the narrator leaves readers to deduce the response of Paul's interlocutors under the summary: "They contradicted what was spoken by Paul" (Acts 13:45). Even the narrator, however, engages in labeling. In the controversy the opponents are "blaspheming.'' But their contradictions have the effect of labeling Paul and Barnabas deviants. The narrative produces a four-fold rejoinder: (1) The narrator engages in positive labeling by attributing boldness to Paul and Barnabas. (2) Paul and Barnabas brand their opponents with the evaluative epithet "unworthy" (13:46). (3) Paul and Barnabas take over Isa 49:6 to identify themselves as ''a light for the Gentiles"a positive label. (4) Paul and Barnabas use scripture to claim commitment to a higher order (13:47 = Isa 49:6). Though temporally separated from the quotation of Habakkuk by the interval of a week, Paul's citation of Isa 49:6 functions in some closely related ways. The citation from Habakkuk intimates that Paul has superceded Habakkuk as the one who tells the work of God. Isaiah 49:6 extends that to a clear positive label of Paul and Barnabas as a light to the Gentiles (Acts 13:47). It does even more. Readers who apprehend that it is a citation hear the voices of canon and Isaiahelevated voices of acclamation. But predominantly Paul's introduction to the citation claims God as the one who so labels them, presumably the highest acclamation possible. Further, the reverberation with Isa 49:6 is mediated through Simeon's canticle where he adduces the same text with reference to Jesus (Luke 2:32). The correlation with Jesus generates some potential for a negative reaction against Paul and Barnabas as usurpers42 unless readers call to mind the Isaianic context rather precisely. The citation stands in its context as a part of God's call to the prophet for the sake of Israel. The call to the prophet emphasizes, therefore, (1) God's call and (2) the benefit for the people. But immediately before Paul's citation the Septuagint reads: "Look, I have given you as a covenant for the race" (Isa 49:6 LXX, author's trans.). Paul has declared so fervently that Jesus is the fulfillment of God's covenantal promises

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_122


that readers who remember the Isaianic context again might think of Paul and Barnabas as usurpers. But in the Isaianic context, there is an ambiguity between the identity of the prophet and Israel. 43 Isaiah 49:3 names the servant "Israel." But in 49:56, the servant is the prophet whom God calls for the sake of Israel. This ambiguity enables readers, who keep Simeon's canticle in mind, to develop dual revisions. In one line, Jesus supercedes Israel as a light for revelation to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32). In the other, Paul and Barnabas supercede the prophet as a light for the Gentiles (Acts 13:47). Further, a saying of Jesus himself rescues Paul and Barnabas from usurpation: When disciples are fully taught, they will be like their teacher (Luke 6:40). Supplanting the prophet as a light to the nation is kenosis and hyperboleemptying out meaning in order to move it to a new plane. The revision is also tessera, because readers hear the citation as the command of the Lord not merely because Paul makes the claim but also because they recall it as canon. The new picture develops only as readers hold precursor and successor together in tension. A new level of shared evaluation accompanies this stage in Acts 13. The Gentiles rejoice and many become believers. The growing community attests the social sentiment (13:4849). But the social evaluation is a split decision. Jews incite persecution, and they drive Paul and Barnabas out of the region (13:50). Effectively, this is a successful ritual of degradation that places them outside the social boundaries. For the narrator's account of the social evaluation, however, the degradation ritual is inconclusive. This literally effective ritual evokes its figurative counterpart. Paul and Barnabas shake the dust off their feet against thema symbolic ritual of degradation in rebuttal (13:51). In keeping with the taxonomy of labeling and deviance theory, Paul revises the identity of the audience.44 Again, the charge of opponents that Israel is the victim of Jesus' deviant behavior, explicit in Luke 23:2, lies implicitly under the memory of the crucifixion of Jesus in Acts 13:2729. Paul names Jesus saviora new cast to Jesus' portrait against the crucifixionredefines him as benefactor, and transforms the alleged victims into beneficiaries. Jesus is specifically Israel's savior (13:23). Paul classifies his audience as descendants of the forebears and thus heirs of God's promise (13:32), and he proclaims forgiveness of sins to them through Jesus (13:3839). In these ways, Paul redefines the audience as beneficiaries upon the condition of their belief that God has fulfilled the promises in Jesus. All the allusions to scripture in Acts 13 invite readers to hold the precursors in mind as canon.45 As readers play precursor and successor off against each other, a figurative meaning arises that moves beyond what either text communicates in isolation, that is, the play back and forth functions like metaphor.46 The use of scripture in Acts 13 does not merely add a new story onto the old. The new story takes the old up into itselfmetalepsis, tran-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_123


sumption. Further, the appropriation of scripture in Acts 13 is predominantly theocentric. 47 What is crucial for Paul's speech is the unbelievable work of a God who fulfills the divine promises through the choice of Jesus. By association this is also a vindication first of Jesus then of Paul and Barnabas and all who believe the theodicy. Readers, however, may traverse the incident in reverse. As a sociological approach, labeling and deviance theory expects a socially shared interpretation of a character in order to corroborate the character's deviance or prominence.48 The Jews and God-fearers who respond positively to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:4243) and the Gentiles who become believers (13:48) represent a shared evaluationagainst the opponents of 13:50that Paul and Barnabas are prominent rather than deviant, that their retrospective interpretation of the crucifixion authenticates Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promises, and that the God of Jesus is indeed the God of the promises.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_124


9 Their Voice Goes Out Through All Luke-Acts At Passover, the body of Jesus becomes a loaf. But the body that becomes a loaf also becomes a text. A cup becomes a new covenant in blood. But the cup that becomes a new covenant in blood also becomes a text (Luke 22:1423). A body becoming a loaf and a cup becoming a covenant are outrageous violations of space and substance that are possible because they become a text, that is, because they become figurations. At the resurrection, the risen body of Jesus becomes a text, written words that speak from a page. But in Luke-Acts the risen body of Jesus that becomes a text is inexplicable and unbelievable apart from another textwhat is written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:2527, 37, 4447)written words that speak from beyond the page. The risen body of Jesus that becomes explicable through scriptures of the past is an outrageous violation of time that is possible because the text speaks with the voices of intertexts, that is, because through transumption of scripture the text of Luke-Acts becomes another kind of figurationan interplay between precursor and successor. Text to text pours forth speech. Their voice goes out through all Luke-Acts. The attempt to identify the dialogue of voices between text and intertext in the previous chapters is partial and analytical. What is incomplete and analytical can viciously silence the dialogue. The intertext is the entire cultural repertoire that sends oscillations through every molecule of the text because the text is nothing other than intertext, that is, textual patterns taken over from the cultural repertoire. Further, with analysis figuration stops figuring, interplay ceases playing. Analysis kills, synthesis makes alive. As precarious as this partial analysis may be, it nevertheless provides scaffolding for constructing some perspectives on LukeActs that are more than merely provisional: (1) Overt references to scripture prompt readers who know the Septuagint to consider covert allusions to the larger context of scripture. (2) Lucan allusions to scripture are revisionary and reciprocal. (3) Luke-Acts appropriates scripture primarily with a theocentric hermeneutic. (4) Fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to bless all the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_125


families of the earth drives the understanding of God and scripture. Further, the deficiencies of partial analysis notwithstanding, it is possible (5) to draw some preliminary conclusions about the sociological location of the implied author and the authorial audience. (1) The criterion of volume when extended beyond the phraseological plane to include such aspects as setting, plot, form, and genre repeatedly produces support for covert allusions to the wider context of overt allusions. To recall some cases in point, the setting of Jesus' temptations as a son of God replicates the wilderness experience of Israel personified as God's child (Luke 4:113). The plot of the temptations plays out living by the word that comes from the mouth of God, a portion of Deut 8:3 that does not appear in the Lucan temptation story and thus on the phraseological plane alone turns on no volume. The parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:919) recalls Isa 5:17 not merely through the stock imagery of the vineyard but also through affinities in form and genre. The Lucan passion narrative plays a carnivalesque construct of world off against a construct of world centered on the God of Israel just as the context of Isa 53:12 plays two constructs of world against each otherthe world of idolatry and the world of the God of Israel. The plots of Psalms 68 and 107 LXX correspond to the demise of Judas and its implications for the vindication of a crucified Jesus (Acts 1:1526). The plot of Acts 2 dramatizes aspects of Joel 3:5 LXX and Ps 15:11 LXX just at the point where explicit citations break off. The plot and setting of Psalms 2 and 117 LXX correspond remarkably with the plot and setting of Acts 4 both on the level of conflict between Jesus and his opponents and on the level of conflict between early messianists and their opponents. Paul's explicit citation of Ps 2:7 in Acts 13:33 carries overtones of the larger context of the psalm. Further, the function of Paul's speech in Pisidian Antioch as theodicy corresponds to the function of the larger context of Hab 1:5Habakkuk is also a theodicy. In Luke-Acts explicit references frequently serve as markers to larger contexts for readers who know the Septuagint. (2) Is the revision of scripture in Luke-Acts a negative that induces readers to nullify the precursor, or a positive that expects readers to discern a new illumination only in light of the old? If scripture serves as proof texts in Luke-Acts, it merely appends certifying footnotes to an already canonized view of reality, and the successor supercedes the precursor. But if scripture is an identifiable intertext for Luke-Acts, then the narrative possesses vitality in the interplay with its precursor with the potential to revise an already canonized view of reality. When the messianist community interprets the crucifixion of Jesus with a citation from Ps 2:12 (Acts 4:2526), it is only as readers know the travesty of Gentiles tackling God's power in the psalm that they catch the barbed irony that in the crucifixion of Jesus some Jews play the role attributed to Gentiles in the psalm. Joel 3:15 LXX is no proof text for

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_126


Pentecost in Acts 2 but an explanation of events that exceed ordinary analogies. Equally, however, Acts 2 makes the events of Pentecost a complementary explanation of Joel 3:15. Thus, interpretations that break precursor and successor apart mutilate reverberations pulsating in the heart of the texts. This is to say that the unformulated text of the cultural repertoire nourishes the internal life of the written text. But the written text also feeds the unformulated text of the cultural repertoire, breaking through its horizon to revise its norms as if injecting a growth hormone. With respect to the issue of scriptural allusions, this means that for modern readers of Luke-Acts to be adept interpreters they need to make the Septuagint a part of their cultural repertoire. Then they will be able to read scripture through Luke-Acts and Luke-Acts through scripture. (3) Luke-Acts is part of a new breed struggling for significance in absurdity, for prominence in a deviant, for meaning in the Jesus who was crucified. The reverberations of scripture that vindicate Jesus as a prominent speak with a plurality of voices. Against an interpretation of the events on Pentecost as intoxication (Acts 2), multiple voices of scripture counter implications of deviance and promote Jesus and his devotees as prominents. When Peter cites Joel, Psalm 15 LXX, and Psalm 109 LXX, he claims as his own voice the voices of Joel and David (Acts 2:16, 25, 31, 34). Even without specific notice, the citations also speak with the voice of canon. In addition, Joel and Ps 109:1 LXX explicitly speak with the voice of God (''. . . God declares, . . ." [Acts 2:1621], "The Lord said to my Lord, . . ." [2:3435]). Furthermore, the purpose of the divine voice is primarily to interpret events as divine acts. That is, God attested Jesus with deeds of power, wonders, and signs; God raised Jesus from the dead; and through the risen Jesus, God poured out the visible and audible events of Pentecost. In spite of subsidiary christological and ecclesiological roles, Luke-Acts appropriates scripture primarily in order to say: This is the Lord's doingmarvelous in our eyes. Luke-Acts appropriates scripture with a theocentric hermeneutic. (4) Even if the power of God stands between Luke-Acts and absurdity, this antidote is not blind faith in an abstract omnipotence. To be sure, God's deeds are wide rangingfrom creation to judgment, from the miraculous births of John the Baptist and Jesus to resurrection. But the God of the scripture does not act capriciously. Rather, the God of the scriptures is a God who fulfills promises. And fundamental to the promises is an oath God swore to AbrahamGod's oath to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. Interpreters have long recognized, in general, the central function of God's purposes in Luke-Acts. Robert Tannehill argues convincingly that Luke-Acts has a unified plot because God's unifying purpose of universal salvation underlies the events of Luke-Acts. 1 But even though he cites Gerhard

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_127


Schneider to support a Lucan accent on the reliability of promises in scripture, the heritage of Hans Conzelmann lingers in rather abstract references to God's purpose as if it could be reduced to an imposed divine necessityas if the plot of Luke-Acts could be reduced to a coercive determinism. 2 A lively interchange with reminiscences of scripture prevents Luke-Acts from turning God's plan into tyranny. To be sure, Mary sings that the strength of God's arm can scatter the proud in the thoughts of their hearts, bring down the powerful from their thrones, lift up the lowly, fill the hungry with good things, and send the rich away empty. But she also interprets all of these acts of divine strength not as tyrannical whims but as fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham (Luke 1:5155). Zechariah joins the chorus and quite explicitly makes the Davidic covenant a particular way God keeps covenant with Abraham (1:6975). An intertextual backdrop of the promise to Abraham flows through these thematic conduits into the devil's second temptation of Jesus (4:58). There another intertextual backdrop underpins Jesus' resistance to the temptation with God's repeated acts in scripture to rescue the promise from threats. Similarly, once Mary and Zechariah have collapsed the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants into one, they help astute readers catch an allusion to God's promise to Abraham in Peter's reference to the promise in Acts 2:39. Even naive readers, however, will not miss Peter's direct recall of God's promise to Abraham in 3:25. All of this thematic development underlies Paul's claim in his speech at Pisidian Antioch that Jesus is God's promised savior (Acts 13:23). Jesus is a Davidic heir as a particular way to fulfill God's promise to Abraham. Therefore, Luke-Acts does not allow God's purpose to float as a disembodied boule. Rather, God's purpose is to keep a promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. (5) The use of scripture in Luke-Acts forms part of an attempt to open doors for the authorial audience that the crucifixion of Jesus has barred shutto persuade readers that the attestation of Jesus is the Lord's doing. Attempts to persuade fall into three main rhetorical categories depending on their functionjuridical, deliberative, and epideictic.3 Juridical rhetoric is an attempt to persuade readers to make a judgment about the past. "Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" (Luke 20:4). Deliberative rhetoric attempts to persuade readers to take action in the future. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Epideictic rhetoric attempts to persuade readers to adopt or reaffirm some premise in the present. "[God] is not far from each one of us. For 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring' " (Acts 17:2728). In the temptations of Jesus three separate pronouncement stories combine into one drama with three acts. Pronouncement stories inevitably reflect something of the character of the protagonist who makes or receives

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_128


the pronouncement, so that there is a forceful attempt to persuade readers to adopt a particular understanding of the protagonist. Pronouncement stories anticipate readers who will come to some knowledge of the character of the protagonist and either approve or disapprove. In addition to reflecting character, pronouncement stories may also advance a thesis. In turn the thesis may call for a rationale defending it in an attempt to persuade readers to adopt or reaffirm the thesis. Further, pronouncement stories may also correct a character in the story. 4 These patterns in the function of pronouncement stories help to illuminate the rhetorical function of the temptations of Jesus. The temptations reflect the character of Jesus. Jesus' identity as son of God is defined in terms of his relationship with God. He is led by the Spirit, lives by the word from God, worships God alone, and will not put God to the test. Further, he subscribes to canon, and he is not immune to satanic temptations. Even apart from the covert intertextuality, each temptation advances a thesisone does not live by bread alone, it is wrong to worship anyone other than God, and it is wrong to put God to a test. A rationale supports each thesis, that is, each thesis purports to be true because it is canonical. Hence, the temptations anticipate an authorial audience that accepts the canon. Thesis and rationale are problematic, however, because the devil also advances theses and appropriates the same rationale. Here the corrective function of pronouncement stories comes into play. In the first two temptations citation of canon alone is sufficient to correct the devil. Although the second temptation in particular has already revealed the devil as partially unreliable, when the devil also cites canon in the third temptation, canon comes into competition with canon. Nevertheless, the outcome of the third temptation is not that one part of the canon is superior to another, but that canon is misappropriated. The intertextual backdrop, however, opens up altogether new vistas of character, theses, and rationale. The cultural repertoire preconditions readers to expect the devil to be devious quite apart from the temptations. But the intertextual grid shows the devil's cunning to be deceptive beyond measure. The devil makes a bold case for God's promises to Abraham to be fulfilled in Jesus. By the norms of the narrative the case is partially appropriate but ultimately wrong because it advocates Jesus' access to God's grace for his particular benefit. The corrective features of the pronouncement stories reveal the devil's deception to be what it is. There is, therefore, a revelation of the character of the devil. The pronouncement stories project the character of Jesus in dramatic contrast to the devil who is an intractable deviant. Then, against the intertextual grid, Jesus rejects his own relationship with God as one who can command God's grace for his peculiar benefit. Against the intertextual grid the theses are not merely the ostensible meanings of the three texts Jesus cites. The plot combines with word to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_129


advance the thesis that one does not live by bread alone, but by the word that comes from God. Beyond that, the renewed hope in the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants comes under threat, and the thesis is that God is acting in Jesus as in the early story of Israel to rescue the promises from threat for the benefit of all the families of the earth. Canon is the rationale in support of such a thesis. But the logic is circular. Canon is not the mere proposition deduced from its words. Even canon is canonical only as it is interpreted out of a perspective that embraces a God who acts for the benefit of all the families of the earth. This theological thesis is the criterion for interpreting canon in the temptations of Jesus. The parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:919) also illuminates character, thesis, and rationale. The replication of Jesus as son in the mise en abyme characterizes him in relation to the God of Israel like the son in relation to the owner of the vineyard. Jesus also stands out in relief against his opponents as the son stands out against the wicked tenants. The tenants embody negative behavior in which there are obvious inferences of positive behavior for the readers. Further, readers, tend to react in opposition to characters who censure the hero. 5 The thesis is that under suitable tenants, the vineyard will produce fruit for the owner. The rationale is the predictable resolve of the owner to install different tenants. As with the pronouncement stories of the temptations, the parable also performs a corrective function. This corrective function depends, however, on the intertextuality. Readers who know the destiny of the vineyard in Isaiah anticipate the destruction of the vineyard in Jesus' parable. But the twist in the parable compels a revision of anticipations. Rather than destroy the vineyard, the owner installs different tenants. Like the larger narrative, the mise en abyme reorients readers by revising assumptions that they draw out of the cultural repertoire. Such revisions rely on the pointed collaboration of readers.6 Against the armed temple police who come to arrest Jesus, the disciples appear as slapstick guerrillas (Luke 22:4753). But Luke-Acts provokes readers to compare the opponents of Jesus not with the disciples but with divine activity. Against the Lord and the Lord's anointed, the opponents change into the role of slapstick guerrillas (Acts 4:2526). This type of inversion occurs also in the resistance of the passion narrative to a carnivalesque construal of Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 2223) and in the activity of early messianist preachers (Acts 24; 13). Moreover, the dominant way the text accomplishes the inversion is by inducing readers to catch revisionary allusions to scripture. In brief, with respect to the crucifixion of Jesus the rhetoric of persuasion is juridical. It attempts to convince readers to adopt a revised perception of an event in the pastfrom absurdity to significance. But with respect to the rehabilitation of Jesus and his followers as prominent, the characterization of God as faithful to the promise to Abraham, and the utilization of

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_130


this characterization as a theological criterion for a proper construal of canon, the rhetoric of persuasion is epideictic. It attempts to convince readers to adopt a premise for the presentGod purposes to bless all the families of the earth through a crucified messiah and his followers. The expectation of an author that readers will catch allusions is a further clue to the attempt at persuasion. In the overt citation of scripture the implied author presupposes a common understanding of canon with the authorial audience. The authorial audience reads and interprets the Septuagint. Thus, there is an anticipation of a community of interpretation with some shared values and conventions of interpretation. But covert allusions push readers to recall intertexts, and the readers presume a community of interpretation with values and conventions that they share with the implied author. Wayne Booth contends correctly that stable irony is a shared process between author and reader that works only when both function in the same patterns. 7 What is true of stable irony is also true of covert allusions. The authorial audience holds the Septuagint in its cultural repertoire with enough familiarity to catch covert allusions. Of course, it is possible to read Luke-Acts on one level apart from recognition of intertexts. But such a reading strangles the significance of the narrative. On the other hand, recognition of intertexts opens up new vitality for the narrative. In this fashion, covert intertextuality creates community between the implied author and readers. Overt intertextuality presupposes community (a shared cultural repertoire). Covert intertextuality generates a shared world between readers and the implied author. It possesses, therefore, forceful potential for persuasionthe potential to create new community. The inducement for readers to switch to a world of new vistas also points to the authorial audience. Literary theory has made much of implied readers, readers who read the text according to the norms implicit in the text itself. But are there implied counterreaders as well? The text may anticipate some readers who will read against the norms implicit in the text. For example, in the temptations of Jesus the devil is a counterreader of scripture in microcosm. One could anticipate an authorial audience that advances views of Jesus, God, and canon comparable to the devil's. As long as readers advocate such views, they align with the devil. But if such readers buy into the new vistas of the intertextual reading, they will have extended themselves an invitation to adopt an alternative way of seeing things. In other terms, the narrative holds potential for conversion. It is possible to make some tentative identification of the authorial audience targeted for conversion. For example, the temptations reflect some values and presuppositions of counterreaders.8 The pronouncement stories engage a target audience including counterreaders who hold conventional values and norms reflected in the devil's perspectives. Some of these likely accept canon and like the devil are capable of intertextual allusions to

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_131


Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. But by the norms of Luke-Acts, they are also susceptible to misappropriating canon. The misappropriation is related to their understanding of Jesus. They expect manifestations of divine power for the sake of Jesus, and that reflects their understanding of God as one whose grace is available for particular benefit. Luke-Acts revises the norms of such an authorial audience by a basic theological criterion. God does not act for the exclusive benefit of Jesusor anyone elsebut rather acts according to the promise made to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. The new breed struggling for significance in absurdity is astonishingly audacious, shades of ridiculous alchemists aspiring to convert lead into gold. Can this outlandish enterprise become credible? A part of the strategy of Luke-Acts to make it so is to revise the norms of the cultural repertoire. The revision assimilates the story of Jesus into the cultural repertoire by making it a continuation of the biblical story. Such a revision is as bold as domesticating nuclear power, but equally as dangerous. If the revision supercedes the biblical story drastically, the successor incinerates the precursorthe anxiety of influence. But if the revision remains in dialogue with the precursor, the precursor energizes the successor even as the successor reanimates the precursor. This is what happens in the Lucan appropriations of scripture. On its own the Lucan story of Jesus and early messianism remains poignantly absurd. But Luke-Acts refuses to let it stand alone and therefore assimilates it into a revised construct of the story of scripture. Luke-Acts tells the story of Jesus not for Jesus' own sake but for the sake of God's promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth. Thus, in Luke-Acts revisionsary allusions play with and off of scripturethe anxiety of no influence. It might occur to readers who have stuck with the reading of this text this far that the largely analytical enterprise of this book could be comparable to a physician's diagnosis prior to the advent of wonder drugs. In that era physicians were primarily diagnosticians who had some ability to alleviate but little ability to cure. Some were astonishingly perspicacious in diagnosing the disease that would prove mortal to a mortal. Then they could verify their diagnosis by dissecting the mortal in a morgue. Is analyzing diagnosing and dissecting? Do biblical analysts contribute to the death of the text as if they were maniacal surgeons performing autopsies on the living, mutilating an animate corpus, executing? 9 In defense of analysis, the task of discerning voices can be a part of synthesis. The implication that analysis kills, synthesis makes alive sets analysis and synthesis against each other. To recall the medical metaphor, if autopsy stands alone, it is morbid necrophilia. But if from autopsy medical science comprehends the dysfunction of organs in order to rehabilitate the function of organs in the living, complementarity swallows up the antithesis.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_132


Analysis alone kills; as part of synthesis, it can play a role in making alive. Though analyzed, through synthesis the dialogue still speaks. In defense of partiality, the surface of Luke-Acts also undulates with larger waves from intertexts. These identifiable aspects of text and intertexts stand in reciprocal relationships. Text to text pours forth speech. Even when no actors speak, their voice goes out through all Luke-Acts.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_133


Abbreviations AB AnBib ASTI BAG

Anchor Bible Analecta biblica Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibLeb Bibel und Leben BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly EKKNTEvangelish-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament FB Forschung zur Bibel FFNT Foundations and Facets: New Testament HTKNTHerders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Int Interpretation JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon LXX Septuagint MeyerKH. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch- exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament MT Masoretic Text NCB New Century Bible Neot Neotestamentica (table continued on next page)

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_134


(table continued from previous page) NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements NRT La nouvelle revue théologique NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch NTS New Testament Studies OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OTL Old Testament Library PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encylopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft QL Qumran Literature RB Revue biblique RevExp Review and Expositor RevQ Revue de Qumran RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RSR Recherches de science religieuse SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SE Studia Evangelica SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament ST Studia theologica SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments TCGNT B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TU Texte and Untersuchungen TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZST Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_135


Notes Chapter 1 1. See B. Malina and J. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (FFNT; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) 45. 2. Human dominion over the rest of creation is a consequence of creation in the image of God. See G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1972) 59. 3. Von Rad, Genesis, 62. 4. R. Scholes, Semiotics and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982) 39. 5. R. Barthes, S/Z (New York: Hill and Wang, 1974) 1718, 100. Similarly, W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) 69. Iser's term is the ''repertoire" of the text. 6. J. Kristeva, commenting on an aspect of M. Bakhtin's literary theory, writes: "Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another" (Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [New York: Columbia University Press, 1980] 66). 7. See below, nn. 2325 for chapter 2. 8. Kristeva, Desire in Language, 3637, 6466. 9. M. Riffaterre focuses on this level of intertextuality. Readers may perceive relationships with other texts generated both by the text and by memory of the cultural repertoire ("La trace de l'intertexte," La pensée 215 [Oct. 1980] 45). See also J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: a Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981) 64. For G. Genette the relationship may also be both manifest and hidden (Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1982] 78). D. Boyarin argues convincingly: "Intertexuality may therefore comprise a specific identifiable discursive space which makes a specific text intelligible" (Intertexuality and the Reading of Midrash [Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990] 135 n. 2). See U. Hebel, "Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion," Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory 15; ed. H. Plett; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1991) 13640; S. Friedman, "Weavings: Intertextuality and the (Re)Birth of the Author,'' Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History (ed. J. Clayton and E. Rothstein; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991) 15359; J. Clayton, "The Alphabet of Suffering: Effie Deans, Tess Durbeyfield, Martha Ray, and Hetty Sorrel," Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History (ed. J. Clayton and E. Rothstein; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991) 3857. 10. On christological, ecclesiological, and apologetic functions of scripture in Acts, see J. Carroll, "The Uses of Scripture in Acts," Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 29; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 51228. Carroll argues that the ecclesiological function is dominant (28).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_136


11. P. Schubert, "The Structure and Significance of Luke 24," Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954) 16586. E.g., J. Sanders claims that Luke thinks of all scripture as something to be fulfilled. Luke may use scripture in other ways, but "that he sometimes uses Scripture in other ways is irrelevant to that general point" ("The Prophetic Use of the Scriptures in Luke-Acts," Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee [ed. C. Evans and W. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987] 19293). Cf. T. Holtz, ''Zur Interpretation des Alten Testaments im Neuen Testament,'' TLZ 99 (1974) 29. 12. L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [German original, 1939]) ix, 97119. 13. M. Rese, "Die Funktion der altestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte," Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (ed. J. Kremer; Gemloux: J. Duculot, 1979) 72; idem, Altestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969) 3132, 38, 52, 209. Cf. C. Evans and James Sanders, "Introduction," "Isaiah in Luke," Luke and Scripture: Essays on the Function of Authoritative Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Sanders in particular advocates a theocentric hermeneutic whereby Luke uses scripture in order to understand Jesus, the early church, and the role of the early church. I am grateful to Craig Evans and James Sanders for making these essays available to me in galley proofs. 14. See the claim of E Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) 9899. 15. Categories of R. Mead, "A Dissenting Opinion About Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations," NTS 10 (196364) 27989. 16. Boyarin argues similarly that midrash may allude to biblical texts without any imperative to reflect the original context (Intertextuality, 23). 17. H. -G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 1975) 26973. 18. J. Derrida remarks that the duality between the original text and the quotation is swept away (Dissemination [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] 335, 337). 19. M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Theory and History of Literature 8; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984) 106; Kristeva, Desire in Language, 3637, 66, 69; Boyarin, Intertextuality, 14. 20. W. Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974) xiixiii, 34, 183, 288; idem, Act of Reading, 18; F. Kermode, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967) 1924; D. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 2: Boyarin, Intertextuality, 12. 21. M. Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978) 1213, and passim. 22. H. Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) 94. Bloom goes so far as to claim that reading is defensive warfare where interpretation is a battle to revise. See H. Bloom, Kabbalah and Criticism (New York: Seabury, 1975) 64, 79, 88, 126. 23. Hollander, Figure of Echo, ix, 31, 43, 111. See also R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 1619; Boyarin, Intertextuality, 2426. A similar view of revision in the transition from oral tradition to written literature is the burden of W. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_137


24. H. Bloom, The Breaking of the Vessels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) passim; idem, Kabbalah and Criticism, 112. 25. P. Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 61; idem, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976) 4344. 26. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 421. 27. The MT is ambiguous, and the NRSV translates: "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." But the LXX does not have the same ambiguity and clearly reads that God is one. 28. See Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 20. 29. Hollander, Figure of Echo, 62, 113. For Genette, the precursor and successor unite in a metaphor of relations (Palimpsestes, 296). 30. D. Bergren, "The Use and Abuse of Metaphor," Review of Metaphysics 16 (1962) 238. M. Black initially uses "principal" to refer to the nonfigurative component and "subsidiary" to the figurative (Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962] 3941), but then reverses himself and uses "principal'' to mean what the metaphor is really about and "subsidiary" to refer to what the expression would be about if read literally (p. 47 n. 23). Cf. W. Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking (New York: Crossroad, 1988) 41.J. Soskice shows that some metaphors do not have two subjects, primary and subsidiary (Metaphor and Religious Language [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985] 20). But the structural understanding of two subjects does fit the phenomenon of scriptural allusions. 31. Bergren, "Use and Abuse," 24150. In theoretical discussions of metaphor, "epiphoric" and "diaphoric" may have other connotations. See, e.g., P. Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain: A Study in the Language of Symbolism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968) 4162, 11217. 32. D. Patte, "A Structural Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 2:147:4 with Special Attention on 2:143:6 and 6:117:4," Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 26; ed. K. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 24. 33. See R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 238. 34. See Black, Models and Metaphors, 4546. 35. Bloom uses these categories repeatedly in a number of works. E.g., The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) 1416. 36. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14; idem, A Map of Misreading (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) 71, 84, 9596; idem, Kabbalah and Criticism (New York: Seabury, 1975) 79, 123; idem, Poetry and Repression: Revisionism from Blake to Stevens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) 1617; idem, Agon: Towards a Theory of Revisionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) 137; idem, The Breaking of the Vessels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) 23. 37. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14, 6667; idem, Map of Misreading, 7172, 84, 9596; idem, Poetry and Repression, 17; idem, Agon, 131. Bloom characterizes tessera as a completion that fails to complete. The revision remains incomplete and fails to put closure on the task of completion. 38. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 14, 8791; idem, Map of Misreading, 72, 84, 9596; idem, Kabbalah and Criticism, 120; idem, Poetry and Repression, 18; idem, Agon, 132. 39. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 15; idem, Map of Misreading, 72, 84, 9596; idem, Poetry and Repression, 18; idem, Agon, 23839.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_138


40. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 15, 11522; idem, Map of Misreading, 73, 84, 9596; idem, Poetry and Repression, 19; idem, Agon, 134. Genette speaks of a murderous or parricidal revision that seeks to obliterate its precursor (Palimpsestes, 21823). 41. R Tannehill has argued that Luke-Acts maintains the political, nationalistic hopes of a monarchy as reflected in such texts as Luke 1:3233 and that those hopes have been frustrated by the failure of Jews to believe in Jesus ("Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story," JBL 104 [1985] 6985). But he has not taken into consideration adequately the way the narrative revises readers' expectations so that by Acts 2:3236 readers have arrived at a new understanding of the throne of David in Luke 1:3233. See R. Brawley, Centering on God: Message and Method in Luke-Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 4451. 42. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, 1516, 14148; Map of Misreading, 74, 84, 10104; Poetry and Repression, 1920; Agon, 135. 43. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 6, 18284. 44. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence. Freud spoke of the anxiety of influence as the compulsion to repeat what has been experienced but repressed and has come to consciousness again under the fear of plagiarizing or being plagiarized. See N. Hertz, "Freud and the Sandman," Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structural Criticism (ed. J. Harari; Cornell University Press, 1979) 307, 320. 45. Bloom, Poetry and Repression, 88. 46. On appealing to ancient traditions as a legitimating device in antiquity see R. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 62. I am here challenging the sentiment that for LukeActs scripture has only a forerunner character as, e.g., G. Voss, " 'Zum Herrn und Messias gemacht hat Gott diesen Jesus' (Apg 2, 36): Zur Christologie der lukanischen Schriften," BibLeb 8 (1967) 240. 47. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 2932. To use these criteria is basically to reconstruct a probable history of composition behind the text, that is, to use the text as the proverbial window. But in order to arrive at synchronic revisionary relationships, intertextuality plays off of historical processes involving the relationship of texts to their contexts of generation and perception. D. LaCapra, History and Criticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985) 106. 48. Cf. S. Suleiman, "Redundancy and the 'Readable' Text," Poetics Today 13 (1980) 126. Suleiman deals with repetition within the same text, but her study is applicable to intertextual replication as well. M. Riffaterre identifies a structural homo logue, a ready-made system of signs, that a text may share with an intertext ("Intertextual Representation: On Mimesis as Interpretive Discourse," Critical Inquiry 11 [1984] 14162). Genette also considers imitation of genre a point of contact between text and intertext (Palimpsestes, 8991). H. Plett identifies three types of repetition: (1) repetition of signs, (2) repetition of structures, (3) repetition of signs and structures ("Intertextualities,'' Intertextuality [Research in Text Theory 15; ed. H. Plett; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1991] 7). 49. The text likely presumes that readers will recognize that the Pharisees would agree that the exigency of hunger would overrule the ceremonial law. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968) 6.243. 50. M. Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry, 28, 42, 63, 10910, 11524, and passim; idem, Text Production (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983) 51, 88, 118, 200, 317 n. 57; idem, "La trace de l'intertexte," La pensée 215 (Oct. 1980) 618; idem, "The Intertextual Unconscious," Critical Inquiry 13 (1987) 37181.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_139


Chapter 2 1. B. Malina and J. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 28, 4547. 2. R. Rohrbaugh, "Legitimating Sonship: A Test of Honor: A Social Science Study of Luke 4:130," (unpublished paper presented to a joint session of the Literary Aspects of the Gospels and Acts Group and the Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation Section of the Society of Biblical Literature; Washington, DC: 1993) 49. 3. M. McVann, "Rituals of Status Transformation in Luke-Acts: The Case of Jesus the Prophet," The Social World of LukeActs: Models for Interpretation (ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 341. That the identity of Jesus is at stake is hardly in doubt But his prophetic identity comes to the fore only after the temptations in the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth. There, according to the adage that a prophet is not acceptable in his own patris, the people of his own patris reject him and thereby verify his prophetic identity. For a full elaboration see R. Brawley, The Jews in Luke-Acts: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 627. 4. J. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke IIX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28A Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981] 52930, 532, 666) argues that the anointing that Jesus claims is prophetic rather than messianic. But when Luke 4:18 is linked with 7:1923; 19:38; Acts 4:26, it clearly refers to a messianic anointing. 5. B. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 3031; see similar material in Malina and Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts," 2932, 36. Cf. D. Gowler, Host, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) 1617. 6. See, e.g., 9:24. 7. See above, p. 14 and n. 50 for chapter 1. 8. E. Lohmeyer recognizes the parallels and reversals of Eden ("Die Versuchung Jesu," ZST 14 [1937] 626). Pertinent for this is the genealogy which traces Jesus' origins to God through Adam. So A. Feuillet, "Le récit Lucanien de la tentation (Lc. 4, 113)," Bib 40 (1959) 617. H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, I. Kommentar zu Kap. 1,19,50 (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 207 n. 141. J. Neyrey proposes that the temptations are part of Luke's presentation of Jesus as the new Adam as a soteriological model (The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke's Soteriology [New York: Paulist, 1985] 16477). Cf. J. Jeremias, "Adam," TDNT 1.141. 9. J. Dupont, "L'arrière-fond biblique du récit des tentations des Jésus," NTS 3 (195657) 287. To pick up a wide variety of allusions to Israel's wandering in the wilderness is to take the opposite tack from T. Holtz, who maintains that Luke did not know the Pentateuch (Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas [Berlin: Akamedie-Verlag, 1968]). 10. J. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) xii, 231. 11. B. Gerhardsson deduces the allusion to Israel as God's child out of a historico-philological background rather than from the context of Luke (The Testing of God's Son [Matt 4:111 & Par]: An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash [Lund: Gleerup, 1966] 11, 2123). Further, his basic approach is to interpret the temptations against the background of rabbinic literature, QL, and targumim. Because of the dates of these materials ali but the QL is of dubious value. For additional emphasis on the correspondence between Jesus as God's son and Israel as God's child see J. Dupont, Les tentations de Jésus au désert (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968) 14. Schürmann, Lukasevangeliurn, 207215.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_140


12. Perhaps two intertextual allusions are compressed into the image of changing a stone into bread. God gives Israel water from a stone when Moses strikes it with his rod, and God gives Israel manna as a kind of bread from heaven. Such echoes, however, are extremely weak. W. Wilkens contends that changing a stone into bread does not recall manna but is related only to Jesus' personal hunger ("Die Versuchungsgeschichte Luk 4, 113 und die Komposition des Evangeliums," TZ 30 [1974] 263). Similarly, Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 209. This reflects their concern to establish the place of the temptations in the literary structure of Luke but neglects intertextual allusions. 13. Dupont, "L'arrière-fond biblique," 287, 29698. 14. In a series of articles Thomas Brodie has argued that the Elijah-Elisha narratives provide literary source material for the composition of various portions of Luke-Acts, a composition that he claims took place especially by distillation, fusion, and improvement. But the evidence he marshals is meager and untested by authenticating criteria. Further, developing a theory of composition from literary sources is a far different matter from noting allusions. See T. Brodie, "Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke's Use of Sources," Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984) 1746; idem, "Luke 9:5762: A Systematic Adaptation of the Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19)," Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 28; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 23745; idem, "The Departure for Jerusalem (Luke 9:5156) as a Rhetorical Imitation of Elijah's Departure for the Jordan (2 Kgs 1:12:6)," Bib 70 (1989) 96109; idem, "Towards Unravelling Luke's Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7:1117 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17:1724," NTS 32 (1986) 24767; ''Towards Unravelling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kgs 5 as One Component of Acts 8:940," Bib 67 (1986) 4167; idem, ''Luke 7:3650 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4:137: A Study in Luke's Use of Rhetorical Imitation," Bib 64 (1983) 45785; idem, "The Accusing and Stoning of Naboth ( 1 Kgs 21:813) as One Component of the Stephen Text (Acts 6:914; Acts 7:58a)," CBQ 45 (1983) 41732. On the melding of Mosaic and Elijah images see C. Evans, "The Function of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives in Luke and the Ethic of Election," Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 7083). 15. On the competing but complementary traditions of Elijah and Moses see R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 194201; J. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985) 188206; R. Carroll, "The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel," VT 19 (1969) 40015; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 13841. Gerhardsson argues against a Moses or Elijah typology because Jesus corresponds to Israel as a child of God (Testing of God's Son 4344). But the intertextual grid is complex, and multiple referents are not mutually exclusive. 16. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 627; D. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). 17. See above, n. 48 for chapter 1. 18. Cf. V. Robbins, "A Rhetorical Typology for Classifying and Analyzing Pronouncement Stories," Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 23; ed. K. Richards; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984) 94. Holtz (Untersuchungen, 61) claims that Luke did not find Deut 8:3e in a Vorlage because there is no reason to omit it. But if it is implied covertly in the actions, it evokes the memory of Deut 8:3e from the reader and involves the reader in an act of interpretation that has a powerful

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_141


persuasive effect on the reader. Dupont (Tentations, 5354) claims that the breaking off of a citation was common and evoked the understanding of the remainder. 19. A part of the multivocality is that the narrator speaks as an interpreter of Moses' words, and Moses in turn speaks as an interpreter of God's words. So R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, part 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980 rprt. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993) 911, 2124. P. Miller reduces the ambiguity by suggesting that the manna is part of what God decrees (Deuteronomy [IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1990] 116). Thus, the hungry people live by what God decrees, namely, the manna, as well as by commandments that God decrees. Similarly, A. Mayes, Deuteronomy (New Century Bible; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1979) 191. G. von Pad contends that Deut 8:3 takes the manna as spiritual food that proceeds from the mouth of God (Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions [New York: Harper & Row, 1962] 282). This ignores the obvious dimension of physical survival in the text. In addition, the use of hr&!;ma in the LXX sets up a chiastic parallelism where living by artos corresponds to manna, and living by the word from the mouth of God corresponds to hunger. 20. On the ambiguity of the ancestors see T. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 7581. On the ambiguity of testing with respect to the word that comes from the mouth of God (Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants) see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 38990, 396. 21. On voices that enhance and diminish the status of Moses and Israel in Deuteronomy see Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 5369. 22. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. 23. R. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Naperville, IL: Alex R. Allenson, 1967) 4760, 7578, 8182. 24. Clements, Abraham and David, 7578, 8182. On both tensions between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and a synthesis of them already in Deuteronomy see R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 5354, 6768. 25. Though overly subtle, there is a route to an allusion to the Abrahamic covenant behind the recall of Deut 8:3 in the first temptation. What does it mean to live by the word that comes from the mouth of the Lord? Many commentators interpret this as the word generally, that is, the revealed will of God. Cf., e.g., C. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol, 3, The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) 331. But in the context of Deuteronomy, there are two possible specific references. First, Deuteronomy is filled with calls to Israel to keep God's commands. In addition, however, Deuteronomy also recalls the Abrahamic covenant, e.g., Deut 4:30. Israel will heed God, that is, live by the word that comes from the mouth of God, because God does not forget the covenant with the ancestors. 26. Cf. Clements, Abraham and David, 37 n. 28; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (MeyerK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 94; E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 11920. The implication that the promise to Abraham includes all the earth appears in Sir 44:1921, Jub. 17:3; 19:21; 22:14; 32:18; Mek. Ex 14:31. Cf. Philo, Life of Moses 1.155. 27. J. Calloud, Structural Analysis of Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) 7172. 28. So Rohrbaugh, "Legitimating Sonship," 1112. 29. The standard LXX differs from Luke's citation of Deut 6:13 or 10:20. But Codex Alexandrinus LXX agrees with the Lucan version.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_142


30. V. Robbins argues that Jesus' citations from the Torah have a superior authority over the devil's citation from the Writings ("The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation [ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991] 324). He admits that the implied narrator may not be aware of the distinction in authority. Indeed, Luke-Acts itself makes weighty appeals to the prophets and the psalms as well as to Moses (cf. Luke 24:44) and does not appear to make distinctions in authority. 31. Fitzmyer (Luke, 51617) expresses uncertainty over what architectural feature of the temple the pterugion designates. The concern to make the term fit the physical description of the temple goes too far down the wrong track and hinders recognition of its intertextual relationship to Psalm 91. Cf. Gerhardsson, Testing of God's Son, 59. 32. Judasim shared with many people in antiquity the view that the architecture of the temple corresponded to the structure of the universe. See Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 119; G. MacRae, "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews," Semeia 12 (1978) 18788; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 141. 33. H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 1841 and passim. 34. Cf. F. Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) 9899. J. Jervell asserts that adherence to the eternal constancy of scripture makes Luke a fundamentalist (no pejorative connotation intended) ("The Center of Scripture in Luke," The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984] 12225). Jervell bases his conclusion on what Luke says about scripture. I am suggesting a more subtle reading of the way scripture functions. 35. E.g., Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 10405, 20509. D. Juel claims that the major focus of scriptural interpretation for early Christians was Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah (Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988] 1). J. Carroll avers that the christological function of scripture in Acts is foundational but that an ecclesiological function is dominant ("The Uses of Scripture in Acts," Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers [SBLSP 29; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990] 51228). 36. J. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 4670. 37. The notion that the devil's claim reflects an apocalyptic perspective that earthly rulers are agents of the satanic does not fit the entire perspective on authorities in Luke-Acts. Even if it did, the devil is an unreliable character, and the devil's claim to have the authority to establish a universal regency is deficient. It is remarkable how many interpreters take the devil's claims as reliable. Chapter 3 1. P. Ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 4 (1975) 11428; cf. idem, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977) 22, 150, 23036. 2. R. Barthes, S/Z (New York: Hill and Wang, 1974) 7576. Cf. Xavier Léon-Du-four, "La parabole des vignerons homicides," Sciences ecclésiastiques 17 (1965) 374. The parable captures readers' attention in order to lead to a place where the readers did not anticipate going. 3. E.g., W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961) 372; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Übersetzt und erklärt (Regens-

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_143


burg: Friedrich Pustet, 1977) 536; B. Scott argues against the allusion to Isaiah 5 even though he recognizes (correctly in my opinion) a more subtle allusion to Gen 37:20 in "Let us kill him" (Luke 20:14) (Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989] 24344, 252). Cf. K. Snodgrass (The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation [Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1983] 6, summarizing Jeremias), but see also p. 47 where Snodgrass's own opinion supports the allusion to Isaiah 5. 4. See above, nn. 47, 48 for chapter 1. 5. In support of this claim, see K. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952) 223; D. Tiede, Luke (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 339. 6. B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 2; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987). Chilton's translation of Isa 5:12 follows: "The prophet said, I will sing now for Israelwhich is like a vineyard, the seed of Abraham, my friendmy friend's song for his vineyard: My people, my beloved Israel, I gave them a heritage on a high hill in a fertile land. And I sanctified them and I glorified them and I established them as a plant of a choice vine; and I built my sanctuary in their midst, and I even gave my altar to atone for their sins; I thought that they would do good deeds, but they made their deeds evil." 7. J. Crossan, "The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen," JBL 90 (1971) 454. 8. H.-J. Klauck, "Das Gleichnis yom Mord im Weinberg (Mk 12, 112; Mt 21, 3346; Lk 20, 919)," BibLeb 11 (1970) 124. 9. Léon-Dufour, "Parabole des vignerons homicides," 385. 10. On the debate over the genre of Isa 5:17, see W. Schottroff, "Das Weinberglied Jesajas (Jes 5:17): Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Parable," ZAW 83 (1970) 6891. 11. G. Yee, "A Form Critical Study of Isaiah 5:17 as a Song and a Juridical Parable," CBQ 43 (1981) 3040. Yee (p. 38) thinks that the vineyard refers in the first instance to the Northern Kingdom. Isaiah induces the people of the Southern Kingdom to judge the Northern Kingdom as the vineyard that has been destroyed, that is, the conquest of Samaria by Assyria, and then turns their judgment of others on themselves. On the question of the genre of Isa 5:17 see also J. Willis, "The Genre of Isaiah 5:17," JBL 96 (1977) 33762. The studies of both Yee and Willis are hampered by outdated definitions of parable. Further, both attempt to define genre too much by similarity without recognizing sufficiently the novelty of Isa 5:17 over against established genres. 12. Léon-Dufour, "Parabole des vignerons homicides," 385. 13. Snodgrass, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, 9596. 14. So, e.g., M. Hubaut, La parabole des vignerons homicides (CahRB 16; Paris: Gabalda, 1976). 15. For a corresponding argument with respect to the irreducibility of myth see P. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon, 1967) 16364. 16. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 251. 17. W. Schmithals thinks that the parable means that the word, promise, and revelation of God are taken away from Israel and given over to the Christian community (Das Evangelium nach Lukas [Züricher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1980] 193). So also in essential agreement Hubaut, Parabole des vignerons homicides, 17; Grundmann, Evangelium nach Lukas, 372; Rengstorf, Evangelium nach Lukas, 224. 18. So B. van Iersel, 'Der Sohn' in den synoptischen Jesusworten: Christusbezeichnung der Gemeinde oder Selbstbezeichnung Jesu? (NovTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 144; Ernst,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_144


Evangelium nach Lukas, 535; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 728, 73132; Klauck, "Gleichnis vom Mord," 127; J. Kremer, Lukasevangelium (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988) 19293; Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 24344. 19. W. Kümmel, "Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mark. 12, 19)," Aux sources de la traditiòn chrétienne: Mélanges a M. Maurice Goguel (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1950) 128. Kümmel interprets the parable at a hypothetical presynoptic level rather than in the context of the Synoptics. Léon-Dufour essentially follows Kümmel ("Parabole des vignerons homicides," 382, 385). Snodgrass understands the vineyard in Isaiah 5 as the remnant, and takes that as a reference point for its meaning in the Lucan parable as the elect people of God (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, 75). 20. M. Krieger, A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare's Sonnets and Modern Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964) 34. 21. See above, n. 5 for chapter 1. 22. G. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980) 22832. 23. L. Dällenbach, The Mirror in the Text (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 8. 24. P. Verelst, "Texte et iconographie: une curieuse mise en abyme dans un 'Renaut de Mantauban' inédit (XVe s.)," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 151. 25. The seminal work on the theory of the mise en abyme is Dällenbach's Mirror in the Text. Dällenbach's theory has come under criticism as a reduction of complexity to a defined typology. Part of that complexity is that narrative itself is a mise en abyme as a microcosmic representation of the world. So C. Angelet, "La mise en abyme selon le 'Journal' et la 'Tentative Amoureuse' de Gide," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 910. M. Bal also shows that Dällenbach's theory is overly analytical and restrictive. Over against Dällenbach's concept of the mise en abyme as an aspect of literary structure, she prefers a broader category of "icon" that she appropriates from Charles S. Peirce, that is, a sign that denotes a referent by resemblance. She defines the mise en abyme as ". . . tout signe ayant pour référent un aspect pertinent et continu du texte, du récit ou de l'histoire qu'il signifie, au moyen d'une ressemblance, une fois ou plusieurs fois'' ("Mise en abyme et iconicité," Littérature 29 [1978] 121, 12324, emphasis original); see M. Ron, ''The Restricted Abyss: Nine Problems in the Theory of Mise en Abyme," Poetics Today 8 (1987) 42122. Dällenbach's work is nevertheless fundamental for the theory of reflexive narrative and appropriately helps to reveal significant nuances of the parable of the wicked tenants. 26. To my knowledge, biblical mises en abyme have seldom been studied. M. Bal uses the theory in a study of Ruth ("Réfléchir la réflexion: Du nom propre à la mise en abyme," Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale Napoli, Sezione Romanza 26 [1984] 747). 27. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 24, 35, 43, 75, 98. Bal refers to three corresponding referentsthe story, the narration, and the text ("Mise en abyme," 123). For brief summaries of the three types see R. Vandenbrande, " 'Les acteurs de bonne foi' de Marivaux ou la comédie au bord de l'abîme," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 133;J. de Nooy, "The Double Scission: Dällenbach, Dolezel, and Derrida on Doubles," Style 25 (1991) 19; R. Zeller, "Advocatenkniffe: Die Thematisierung von Textproduktion und Interpretation im Werk Kafkas," Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 106 (1987) 55960. 28. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 94. 29. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 24, 35.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_145


30. E.g., Jack Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 21113. 31. J. Ricardou makes a similar argument with respect to titles that reflect both their own text and another literary work ("La population des miroirs: Problèmes de la similitude à partir d'un texte d'Alain Robbe-Grillet," Poetique 22 [1975] 20405). J. Lértora extends Dällenbach's mise en abyme by including intertextual relations ("La estructura de la 'mise en abyme" en Fragmentos de Apocalipsis," Semiosis 4 [1980] 83). 32. Bal, "Mise en abyme," 123. See Bal's definition of mise en abyme in n. 25 above. Cf. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 46. Bal critiques Dällenbach for placing too much emphasis on authorial intent as a criterion. Bal nevertheless stresses direct references to resemblance and (para)synonyms ("Mise en abyme," 123). See Ron, "Restricted Abyss,'' 42627. 33. Dällenbach recognizes five other signals besides explicit references to similarity that induce readers to match the big portrait and the miniature (Mirror in the Text, 4647). The only one of his five signals that does not make an appearance in Luke 20:119 is homonymy between titles of the diegetic narrative and the metadiegetic story. The title of the metadiegesis in Luke 20 is "parable." However kata loukan may have been titled originally, it is impossible that the diegetic narrative could ever have borne the title parable. But introductions and explanations to parables in Luke imply an analogy between the diegetic narrative and the embedded narratives. See also Ricardou, "Population des miroirs," 218; Lértora, "Estructura de la 'mise en abyme,'" 84; J. Robinson, "The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: A Test of Synoptic Relationships," NTS 21 (197475) 444. 34. Genesis 22:2 LXX refers to Isaac as agapetos where the Hebrew has yhd ("only"). Thus, a notion that agapetos means "only" has entered the literature on the parable of the wicked tenants and has been perpetrated by numerous scholars. Cf. Robinson, "Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen," 447. Agapetos is used of only children (LSJ) and can incline strongly toward "only beloved" (BAG), but it is not the equivalent of ''only." 35. This is a particular case of a hero becoming the equivalent of the narrator. See W. Smekens, "Proust en diagonale," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 10205; Ron, "Restricted Abyss," 41920, 42225. Angelet argues that the mise en abyme cannot be assimilated to the reflexive delegation of the narrative or authorial function ("Mise en abyme," 18); see Ron, "Restricted Abyss," 41920. I have appropriated Genette's designation of the first-level narrative as diegesis and the embedded narrative as metadiegesis. Dällenbach makes a distinction between metadiegesis and metanarrative, reserving the latter for cases where an internal narrator takes over temporarily from the diegetic narrator (Mirror in the Text, 51, 53). Though homology between the diegetic narrator and metadiegetic narrator is not essential, when it is present, it plays a significant role in the mise en abyme. In Luke 20:919, Jesus takes over from the diegetic narrator in order to narrate a parable that does indeed interrupt the diegetic narrative and its narration. 36. Cf. Vandenbrande, " 'Les acteurs de bonne foi,' " 141. 37. For Dällenbach the significance of a mise en abyme depends on how recognizable, extensive, and/or associated with other reflections it is (Mirror in the Text, 108). The preponderance of signals shows how recognizablesignificantthe parable of the wicked tenants is as a mise en abyme. 38. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 18, 52. Next to a divine voice, Jesus is the most reliable character in Luke-Acts to speak in the name of the narrator. Interestingly, demons are also especially competent to speak in the name of the narrator (e.g., Luke 4:34; 8:28).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_146


39. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 44. 40. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 5659; C. Toloudis, "Metaphor and Mise en abyme in the Nouveau Roman," International Fiction Review 10 (1983) 29. For a similar argument with respect to reflexive titles see Ricardou, "Population des miroirs," 201. The interplay between the microcosmic parable and the macrocosmic narrative is reciprocal, each reflecting on the other. See Smekens, "Proust en diagonale," 105. 41. This is a particular case of the dictum that the whole determines the function of the parts. See Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 50; F. Hallyn, "Le microcosme ou l'incomplétude de la représentation," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 188; M. Bal, Narratologie: Essais sur la signification narrative dans quatre romans modernes (Utrecht: HES, 1984) 107. Further, the relationship of part to whole gives the mise en abyme a synecdochical character. See Bal, Narratologie, 108; Ron, "Restricted Abyss," 430. Following Derrida, de Nooy argues that the diegetic narrative does not have a primary existence that the metadiegetic narrative replicates. Rather, each level of the narrative doubles the other without priority over the other ("Double Scission," 2223). 42. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 60. Genette's corresponding terminology is prolepsis (prospective) and analepsis (retrospective). Bal (among many theorists) argues that a mise en abyme always interrupts the narration and as such subverts the narrative ("Mise en abyme," 11920). J. Ricardou calls the mise en abyme ". . . the structural revolt of a fragment of narrative against the ensemble which contains it" (The Story within the Story," James Joyce Quarterly 18 [1981] 331, see pp. 32431, 337). See Toloudis, "Metaphor and Mise en abyme,'' 29. Against the tendency of theorists to speak of the chronological interruption of narrative sequence by the mise en abyme as anti-narrative, A. Jefferson shows how the mise en abyme can contribute to consequences in the narrative (''Mise en abyme and the Prophetic in Narrative," Style 17 [1983] 198, 20506). The parable of the wicked tenants immediately contributes to consequences in the opposition to Jesus in Luke 20:20. 43. See Bal, Narratologie, 107. 44. R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986 & 1990) 1. 161, 2. 95 n. 45; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 67, 2335. 45. See Ricardou, "Population des miroirs," 201. Without referring to the device of mise en abyme, Mary Ann Tolbert describes the parables of the sower and the tenants in Mark as plot summaries that present Mark's view of Jesus and succinctly define the roles of other characters and actions (Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989] 12124, 23199). 46. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 6167. 47. Thus, part of the function of the mise en abyme is not merely to emphasize continuity and similarity with the macrocosmic story but also to create discontinuity and difference that stimulate readers to revise their understanding. See Angelet, "Mise en abyme," 16; R. Blomme, "A travers les miroirs de 'Gli Indifferenti,' " Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 64; E. Capiau-Laureys, " 'La Coscienza di Zeno' d'Italo Svevo. Discours spéculaire d'un roman psychanlytique," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 69; F. Hallyn, "Holbein: La mort en abyme," Onze études sur la mise en abyme (Romanica Gandensia 17; ed. F. Hallyn; Blandijnberg: George Michiels, 1980) 171.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_147


48. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 9496. 49. This resembles Bal's metaphoric icon, that is, a sign that denotes two referents, one direct, the other mediated ("Mise en abyme," 127). Here the direct referent is a story about an absentee landowner, a vineyard, and tenants. The mediated referent is God's relationship with Israel. This gives the parable as a mise en abyme a metonymic character. See Bal, Narratologie, 108. 50. See Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 7583. The enunciative mise en abyme reflects how the enunciator (implied author in Luke-Acts) communicates with the enunciatee (implied reader in Luke-Acts). 51. See Capiau-Laureys, " 'Coscienza di Zeno,' "69, 73, 76. 52. Dällenbach, Mirror in the Text, 98101. 53. See Vandenbrande, " 'Acteurs de bonne foi,' " 142. 54. Cf. Vandenbrande, " 'Acteurs de bonne foi,' " 14445. 55. Cf. A. Milavec, "The Identity of 'the Son' and 'the Others': Mark's Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Reconsidered," BTB 20 (1990) 34. 56. Léon-Dufour, "Parabole des vignerons homicides," 385. Cf. Milavec, "Identity of 'the Son,' " 34. N. Gottwald suggests that in connection with Isa 3:1315 the song of the vineyard originally targeted the dominant, exploiting class ("social Class as an Analytical and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies,'' JBL 112 [1993] 1516 n. 21). If such is the case, the history of interpretation of the image of the vineyard shifted from an indictment of the exploiting class to the people as a whole, a shift which Luke-Acts then reverses to indict the high priestly party and their associates. 57. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. 58. Tiede, Luke, 342. 59. Cf. Ernst, Evangelium nach Lukas, 538; H.J. Holtzmann, Die SynoptikerDie Apostelgeschichte (Freiburg: Mohr [Siebeck], 1889) 240. Midrash Ps 118:22 clearly indicates that the rejected stone that has become the head of the corner is Israel, the twelve tribes begotten out of Jacob. Because the Lucan text alludes to the LXX, an alleged Hebrew wordplay between bn (son) and 'bn (stone) is irrelevant. In support of the wordplay see Hubaut, "Parable des vignerons homicides," 62; Snodgrass, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, 63. 60. Many commentators see here an allusion to Isa 8:14 and Dan 2:34. So E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1929) 193; Grundmann, Evangelium nach Lukas, 372; Hubaut, "Parabole des vignerons homicides,'' 64; Snodgrass, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, 68. Cf. also Midr. Rab. Esth 7:10. But the verbatim volume is extremely low, and the aphoristic form of Luke 20:18 does not correspond to the form of its alleged intertexts. R. Doran ("Luke 20:18: A Warrior's Boast?" CBQ 45 [1983] 6167) makes a case for understanding the text against the background of a Mandaean warrior's boast. Here the aphoristic form is very congenial to the form of 20:18, but the uncertain date of Mandaean literature makes this a very debatable conjecture. 61. This contrasts with the claim of C. Zlotchew that when readers resolve what is true in the narrative world it engenders pride of accomplishment and gives them a sense of superiority even over the author ("The Collaboration of the Reader in Borges and Robbe-Grillet," Michigan Academician 14 [1981] 171,173). Chapter 4 1. E.g., Luke 1:5255, 7174, and 4:1819 raise such expectations. On harvest, passover, and liberation themes see D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989) 4243, 5657, 16263. Senior notes the orientation

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_148


toward future hope in the Passover celebration that lies under the setting of Luke's passion. 2. Cf. J. Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke's Soteriology (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1985) 133. 3. Senior speaks of a similar agonistic struggle as a final triumphant over chaos and death (Passion, 4344). 4. M. Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984) 517; idem, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1984) 108, 12076. F. Garcia-Treto produces an intriguing reading of the fall of the House of Ahab using Bakhtin's analysis of the carnivalesque ("The Fall of the House: A Carnivalesque Reading of 2 Kings 9 and 10," Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible [Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; ed. D. Nolan Fewell; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992] 15371). V. Robbins has noted similarities between the Marcan passion and Dio Chrysostom's description of the Persian Sacian festival but does not explicitly analyze the carnivalesque ("The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis," The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [BETL; ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: University Press, 1992] 116183). 5. J. Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980) 7885. 6. P. Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup of Liberty: Robin Hood, the Camivalesque, and the Rhetoric of Violence in Early Modern England," Semiotica 54 1/2 (1985) 11314. Modern Mardi Gras in New Orleans closely approximates the morphology. (1) Feasting replaces fasting in anticipation, although the true fast of Lent has all but vanished. (2) People transgress spatial barriers by taking to the streets in massive numbers. (3) Exposed breasts and potbellies transgress normal bodily barriers. (4) Crowning of mock queens and kings is reminiscent of inversion of hierarchy. (5) The contrast between Mardi Gras and Lent is an element of the degrading of the sacred. (6) Vulgar language is a violation of linguistic norms. But Mardi Gras in New Orleans has reinverted the social order of carnival. Rather than invert the normal social order, the socially elite dominate the crews in New Orleans and exclude the socially marginal. 7. P. Wendland, "Jesus als Saturnalien-Koenig," Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie 33 (1898) 17579. Wendland depended heavily on Philo's report of the mockery of Agrippa I in 38 CE when he visited Alexandria on his way back to Pales tine from Rome as analogous to the mockery of Jesus (Philo Flaccus 5.6). Moreover, he thought that the account of Jesus before Herod preserved a reminiscence of the saturnalia but dismissed it as unhistorical. 8. J. Frazer, The Scapegoat. The Golden Bough. Part 6 (London: Macmillan, 1913) 345418. Frazer also speculated that Barabbas played the part of Mordecai. 9. See above, p. 3. 10. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 78. Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup," 123. 11. Seneca mentions an established holiday on which masters and slaves eat together, slaves have honors in the household and pronounce judgment, and the household is considered a miniature republic (Epistles 47.14). 12. M. Nilsson, "Saturnalia," PW 2.A (1923) 201, 20506. 13. Frazer, Scapegoat, 33841. 14. G. Widengren, "Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpretation," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (ed. S. Hooke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 197. 15. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 5.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_149


16. Frazer, Scapegoat, 346. 17. "Attis," Der kleine Pauly 1 (1964) 72526. 18. Cf. Frazer, Scapegoat, 41214. In his argument against Wendland (see note 8), Frazer conjectured that the Jewish practice of hanging an effigy of Haman at Purim was an extension of the Babylonian Sacian feast. He also cited a parallel from Philo where an unruly mob jeers Agrippa I and then mockingly enthrones a madman named Carabas, putting a sheet of papyrus on his head for a crown, draping a rug around his shoulders as a royal robe, giving him a rod of papyrus for a scepter, and hailing him as lord (Flaccus 2939). 19. A Vööbus, "A New Approach to the Problem of the Shorter and Longer Text in Luke," NTS 15 (196869) 459; C. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 210; J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (XXXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985) 138789. 20. In Luke 13:29 Jesus describes a messianic banquet in which people from all points on the compass will sit at table in the kingdom of God. This indicates that the abstinence of Jesus in 22:16, 18 refers to the parousia when the messianic banquet will be fulfilled. 21. One of the things this feast does is to recall covenant traditions. The new covenant (Luke 22:20) echoes Jer 31:3134. But it also picks up references to Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic covenants, which are collapsed into one in Luke 1:55; 6973. See Senior, Passion, 6263. Fitzmyer catches only the echoes of Jer 31:31 and the Sinai covenant, Exod 24:38 (Luke, 2.1391). 22. The seriousness of Jesus' promise can be seen in its realization within Luke-Acts. On the realization of Jesus' promise in the context of Luke-Acts see Senior, Passion, 7475, 176. 23. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 6, 11. 24. W. Fowler, The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic (London: Macmillan, 1899) 117; PW 2.A (1923) 203. 25. This is not an exclusively christological interpretation. The text is also fulfilled in those who do the reckoning and those who are the transgressors. 26. See above, n. 24 for chapter 1. 27. See above, n. 50 for chapter 1. 28. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 16, 8182, 150. This is part of Conzelmann's thesis that Luke-Acts divides time into three major epochs. 29. P. Minear, "A Note on Luke xxii.36," NovT 7 (1964) 12834. Cf. Neyrey, Passion, 3842. Contra Minear, I. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 826. 30. J. Neyrey, "The Absence of Jesus' EmotionsThe Lucan Redaction of Lk 22, 3946," Bib 61 (1980) 15371. Neyrey argues from a redaction critical point of view based on alleged Lucan alterations of Mark. But his argument still holds from the point of view of the literary features of Luke and the cultural repertoire. 31. H.-W. Bartsch, "Jesu Schwertwort, Lukas XXII.3538," NTS 20 (1974) 190203. Bartsch is also concerned with establishing the saying as based in a historical logion of Jesus and with its meaning for a post-70 CE audience split over the flight of some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem to Pella while others remained to face persecution. Neyrey extends the anomoi to include Satan, Barabbas, and the two malefactors crucified alongside Jesus (Passion, 38). 32. Conventional interpretations take Jesus' command to take purse and bag and to buy a sword (Luke 22:36) as predicting a new situation from that time forward, in

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_150


agreement up to this point with Conzelmann. Cf. D. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1983) 13235; M. Soards, "Tradition, Composition, and Theology in Jesus' Speech to the 'Daughters of Jerusalem' (Luke 23, 2632)," Bib 68 (1987) 243. 33. Senior is in agreement that enemies do the reckoning (Passion, 8081). Senior, however, does not identify the anomoi with any specific character or set of characters. 34. R. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 14243. 35. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 78. 36. It bears noting that Jesus' command to stop the swordplay, eate heos toutou (Luke 22:51), stands in continuity with his reply to the disciples' possession of two swords in 22:38: hikanon estin. There are three basic interpretations of the latter: (1) an ironic "this is sufficient" implying the overwhelming odds of combat and future persecution, (2) "enough of that" as an injunction against the possession of swords, and (3) a symbolic demand for commitment of disciples unto death. See K. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Übersetz und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952) 248. The third interpretation is patently the superimposition of ecclesiastical tradition. The first is grammatically weak. For this meaning one would expect hikanai eisin. The grammatical form and the continuity with eate he&!;s toutou in 22:51 are strong clues that Jesus gives a charge against the possession of swords. See Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1434, 1451. 37. See above, n. 47 for chapter 1. 38. G. Nickelsburg, "Enoch, Book of," IDB s.v. 5.266. The use of the Isaianic context in intertestamental tradition may mean that some of the NT allusions were mediated through other traditions such as 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra. J. Schaberg, "Daniel 7, 12 and the New Testament Passion-Resurrection Predictions," NTS 31 (1985) 216, 222 n. 48. 39. E.g., Isa 41:8, 9; 42:1; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 49:6; 50:10; 52:13. Cf. Acts 1:2. Ioannou Karabidopoulou suggests that the designation of Jesus as the "chosen one" derives from Isa 42:1 ("To pathos tou doulou tou theou epi tou staurou kata ten diegesin tou euaggelistou Louka," Deltion Biblikon Meleton 1 [1972] 190). To designate a single text may be too precise. But there is a bank of tradition with which the designation of Jesus as the chosen one is in play. 40. Some additional clear allusions to portions of Isaiah 4066 are: Isa 42:6; 49:6 = Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; 26:23; Isa 43:56 (cf. 49:12; 59:19) = Luke 13:29; Isa 56:7 = Luke 19:46. 41. Spitting is a particular manifestation of the carnivalesquetransgression of bodily barriers, inside becomes outside. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 26, 317; Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup," 114. 42. Emptuo and its cognate emptysma appear only three times in the LXX. Only the verb emptuo appears in the New Testament, and only in connection with Jesus' passion. See Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 88. 43. So Karabidopoulou, "To pathos," 20203, 21011. 44. R. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 141. R. Karris claims that the centurion declares Jesus "righteous" rather than "innocent" ("Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus' Death," JBL 105 [1986] 6574). Karris fails to notice the symmetrical architectonic structure in which Pilate's three declarations find their counterpart in the malefactor, the centurion, and the people. Further, the Greek dikaios denotes both righteous and innocent without implying the dominance of one over the other.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_151


45. Karabidopoulou claims correspondence between the Lucan passion narrative and Isaiah 53 in Jesus' prayer for those who crucify him = Isa 53:12 ("To pathos," 190, 193, 199). Text critical questions concerning the authenticity of the prayer in Luke aside, intercession for transgressors does not appear in the LXX of Isa 53:12. 46. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. 47. Bloom, Poetry and Repression, 1718. 48. H. Bloom, following Nietzsche, uses the spatial metaphor of de-centering to speak of the way in which figuration provides a new perspective. The change in perspective is what is meant by de-centering (Kabbalah and Criticism [New York: Seabury, 1975] 120). 49. Senior is correct that this cannot be taken as a denial of the messianic identity of Jesus that is asserted throughout the context of Luke-Acts (Passion, 104, n. 8). The irony of their question is that it is true on one level and undermines the carnivalesque mockery. 50. Bakhtin explicitly refers to the crowning of Jesus as a king as direct carnivalization (Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 135). 51. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 7; idem, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 122. 52. On banditry as social resistance see G. Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 3538, 4951, 61, 8086; R. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 13839; J. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) 168224. 53. On the inversion of inlaw and outlaw see Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup," 120. 54. The order of kalypsate hemas and pesete eph' hemas is reversed in Luke 23:30 in comparison with Hosea 10:8 LXX. 55. Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup," 117. 56. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 140. On the women as favorable to Jesus see Senior, Passion, 122. I still maintain that Jesus' reply, though anticipating judgment, does not indict the women or the populace in its entirety. Rather, the reply resists the carnivalesque construct of world. Neyrey takes the women to be professional mourners and Jesus' response as a prophetic judgment oracle (Passion, 112, 119). Cf. F. Untergassmair, Kreuzweg und Kreuzigung Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur lukanischen Redactionsgeschichte und zur Frage nach der lukanischen "Kreuzestheologie" (Paderborner theologische Studien 10; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980) 1617; G. Stählin, "kopetos," TDNT 3.84446. 57. Kristeva, Desire, 80, 82. Cf. the mourning followed by cynical laughter in the raising of Jairus's daughter (Luke 8:5253). 58. Widengren, "Early Hebrew Myths," 179. Cf. Hos 10:58; Ps 126:46. 59. Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup," 126. Stallybass claims some continuity of the practice with ancient Rome. J. Fitzmyer (Luke, 2.149899) notes four possible interpretations for the green wood/dry wood: (1) If the Romans treat an innocent person thus, how will they treat rebels? (2) If Jews so treat one who came to save them, how will they be treated for destroying that one? (3) If people behave in this fashion before their cup of wickedness is full, what will they do when it overflows? (4) If God has not spared Jesus, how much less impenitent Judaism? R. Jewett associates the dry wood with "burning zeal" and the green wood with Jesus' rejection of the Zealot option (Jesus Against the Rapture: Seven Unexpected Prophecies [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979] 10521). Many interpreters associate the contrast between green and dry wood with a contrast between two epochs of time. See Soards, "Tradition, Composition, and Theology," 243. J. Neyrey treats the green wood as a popular aphorism that

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_152


means if the Jews deal thus with one sent to save, what will they receive for killing him ("Jesus' Address to the Women of Jerusalem [Lk. 23.2731]a Prophetic Judgment Oracle," NTS 29 [1983] 7486). His references to rabbinic parallels are stretched. Marshall assumes that the wood is associated with fire as a sign of judgment (Luke, 865). Similarly, Untergassmair thinks the wood is to be burned with fire as a sign of judgment, and the contrast between green and dry reflects the situation of the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment respectively (Kreuzweg, 3132, 142). No fire is mentioned, and the act associated with the green wood is taking place as Jesus utters the saying. 60. Karabidopoulou, "To pathos," 19496. 61. So also, e.g., A. Büchele, Der Tod Jesu im Lukasevangelium: Eine redactionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 23 (Frankfurter theologische Studien 26; Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1978) 56; Untergassmair, Kreuzweg, 106. 62. F. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 376. 63. B. Metzger, TCGNT (London: United Bible Societies, 1971) 180. On consideration of the text as an interpolation see B. Ehrman and M. Plunkett, "The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:4344," CBQ 45 (1983) 40116. On consideration of the text as authentic see Neyrey, Passion, 5657. 64. J. Houlden, "The Purpose of Luke," JSNT 21 (1984) 5657. Karabidopoulou argues similarly and also suggests that the prayer completes the theme of Jesus' love for outcasts and sinners ("To pathos," 199). C. Talbert strongly supports the authenticity of the prayer on the basis of its congruity with Lucan language and themes (Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel [New York: Crossroad, 1984] 21920). On the prayer as consonant with Lucan motifs see E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984) 340. Cf. G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas Kapitel 1124 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1977) 483. 65. See Riffaterre, Text Production, 39. Nuclear words stimulate readers to conceive of related networks. Dillon suggests that the case for nuclear words is stronger when the settings of precursor and successor are similar ("The Psalms of the Suffering Just in the Accounts of Jesus' Passion," Worship 61 [1987] 431 n. 3). 66. Bakhtin mentions parodically reinterpreted citations as part of the carnivalesque (Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 108). Significantly, for Bakhtin this contributes to the plurality of voices in the text. 67. See e.g., H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, 1. Tell, Psalmen 159 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978) 323. 68. Cf. F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (London: Lutterworth, 1969) 54. 69. So e.g., H. Gese, "Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament: Der älteste Bericht vom Tode Jesu und die Entstehung des Herrenmahles," Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (BEvT 64; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974) 180; L. Fisher, "Betrayed by Friends: An Expository Study of Psalm 22," Int 18 (1964) 2038. Cf. Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 33. 70. Bakhtin, Rabelais, 26, 317. 71. C. Gadd, "Babylonian Myth and Ritual," Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Cultural Pattern of the Ancient East (ed. S. Hooke; London: Oxford University Press, 1933) 5354. 72. A. Bentzen, King and Messiah (Lutterworth Studies in Church and Bible; London: Lutterworth, 1955) 2528. Similarly, A. Johnson, "Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near Fast and in Israel (ed. S. Hooke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 228. This

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_153


hypothesis has received support from J. Eaton (Psalms: Introduction and Commentary [Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1967] 7272); and A. Anderson (The Book of Psalms, vol. 1, Introduction and Psalms 172 [NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972] 184). 73. See Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 283. Dillon conjectures that the psalm entered the passion tradition in an early Aramaic stage so that there is no reference to the piercing of hands and feet, details that only the LXX of the psalm relates, in the passion narrative itself ("Psalms of the Suffering Just," 431 n. 3). 74. Senior interprets these events as ominous signs of chaos and doom (Passion, 14143). On the separation of carnivalesque time from normal time see Bakhtin, Problem's of Dostoevsky's Poetics, 17576. 75. Jesus' final words are a verbatim repetition except that the verb paratith&!;mi appears in the present to reflect the moment of Jesus' death rather than in the future as in Ps 30:6 LXX. 76. E.g., E. Schweizer, "pneuma," TDNT 6.415. 77. E. Sjöberg, "pneuma," TDNT 6.37679. 78. W. Bieder, "pneuma," TDNT 6.36869; F. Baumgärtel, "pneuma," TDNT 6.36061, 364; H. Kleinknecht, "pneuma," TDNT 6.33435. On the meaning of pneuma as life in Luke 23:46 see W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische, 1961) 435; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Übersetzt und erklärt (RNT; Regensberg: Pustet, 1977) 639; J. Kremer, Lukasevangelium (Die neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter, 1988) 233; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1514. Anderson takes the meaning of this text to be the preservation of the life of the palmist though he understands the Lucan use of it conventionally as Jesus' impending death (Psalms, 248). According to Senior, Jesus entrusts ''his entire being to God" (Passion, 168). See Untergassmair, Kreuzweg, 8889. 79. Psalm 31:5 (30:6 LXX) is still used in Christian liturgy as an evening prayer, including the remainder of the verse not cited in Luke 23:46: "Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, thou God of truth." The English Hymnal (Oxford University Press, 1906) 648. 80. See above, n. 10 for chapter 1. See also R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 10405. D. Juel suggests that the major focus of scriptural interpretation for early believers was Jesus as the crucified and risen messiah (Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988] 1). 81. Theocentric readings of Psalms 22 and 31 are typical. See Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion, 19193; Anderson, Psalms, 18493, 24548; Eaton, Psalms, 7576, 9395; Kraus, Psalmen, 327, 396. But a theocentric reading of Lucan allusions to scripture has usually been obscured by a christological or messianic reading. Although he emphasizes a christological hermeneutic in Mark, Joel Marcus interprets the christological hermeneutic in terms of God's way (The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992]). Similarly, A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markus-Evangelium (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965) 4647. Similarly on Mark but also Luke, A. Hultgren, Christ and His Benefits: Christology and Redemption in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 6163, 85. 82. M. Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978) 711; idem, Text Production, 4446. Chapter 5 1. Thus, Luke-Acts does not present the resurrection as a "verifiable historical fact" on its own, as R. Fuller, for example, suggests ("The Choice of Matthias," SE

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_154


[TU 112] 6 [1973] 145). Rather, the witnesses to the resurrection come to their understanding of it primarily through the interpretation of scripture. 2. There are two conventional interpretations of how the norms of the narrative evaluate the failure of the apostles to believe. One is that Luke presents the women as unreliable witnesses whom the apostles would not be expected to believe according to cultural conventions. See E. Schüssler Fiorenza, "Word, Spirit, and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities," Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish Christian Traditions (ed. R. Reuther and E. McLaughlin; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979) 52; S. Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (AnBib 36; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 7475. The other is that the norms of the narrative censure the apostles for their failure to believe. See R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 26263. 3. The inclination of recent scholarship is to consider Luke 24:12 as authentic. See J. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis with Text-Synopsis (Calwer Theologische Monographien 5; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975) 103 n. 297. Luke 24:24 mentions that some, presumably including men as well as the women, visited the tomb. This gives some basis for the authenticity of 24:12. See B. Metzger, TCGNT (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971) 184; R. Dillon, From Eyewitnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978) 5967. Dillon interprets Peter's wonderment not as perplexity but as a normal human response to the messianic mysterium. But notably Peter does not merely respond to what happens. Rather he is perplexed within himself. 4. See above, n. 5 for chapter 4. 5. M. Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984) 517; P. Stallybass, "Drunk with the Cup of Liberty: Robin Hood, the Carnivalesque, and the Rhetoric of Violence in Early Modern England," Semiotica 54 1/2 (1985) 11314. 6. Horrible death for an enemy of God is a topos in the literature of antiquity with wide distribution. See P. van der Horst, "Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles: 1.126," ZNW 74 (1983) 24. Cf. Acts 12:23. 7. G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, I. Teil, Einleitung, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,18,40 (HTKNT 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1980) 218; G. Krodel, Acts (Augsburg Commentary on the NT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986) 65. The supposition that Judas's headlong fall was from the roof of the dwelling, as J. Roloff (Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt and erklärt [NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981] 30) and Krodel (Acts, 65) suggest, has little basis. 8. K. Rengstorf admonishes that the election of Matthias to replace Judas is not to be separated from the relation of the twelve to the twelve tribes of Israel ("Die Zuwahl des Matthias [Apg 1, 15 ff.]," ST 15 [1961] 56). Cf. Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance, 97. Brown overemphasizes the institutional character of the twelve. P. Gaechter takes Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30 as the key to Jesus' choice of the twelve (a historical issue for him) ("Die Wahl des Matthias [Apg 1,1526]," Petrus und Seine Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien [Innsbruck: Trolia, 1958] 3334). The choice of the twelve then is Jesus' messianic claim on all Israel. I. Marshall connects the reconstitution of the twelve directly to Jesus' promise in Luke 22:30 (The Acts of the Apostles [Tyndale NT Commentaries; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980] 63). See also O. Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 22; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1980) 30. R. Pesch locates the continuity with Israel in the reconstitution of the apostolate, and thus eschatological Israel, an eschatological messianic

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_155


remnant, without connecting the reconstitution to Jesus' promise that the twelve would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1. Teilband, Apg 112 [EKKNT 5; Zürich: Benziger, 1986] 91). Similarly, A. Jaubert, "L'élection de Matthias et le tirage au sort," SE (TU 112) 6 (1973) 279; F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 44 n. 69; and Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 31. Mysteriously, Roloff relates the continuity of the twelve to the promise of Jesus but refers to Matthew's version (Matt 19:28). 9. See E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 159 nn. 12, 160 n. 6, 161 n. 8, 162 n. 6; M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 93100; idem, "The Judas-Tradition in Acts I.1526," NTS 19 (197273) 44143; E. Nellessen, "Tradition und Schrift in der Perikope yon der Erwählung des Mattias (Apg 1,1526)," BZ 19 (1975) 20506 n. 6; G. Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische, 1983) 84. 10. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1.3; J. Drury, "Luke," The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and E Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 41920; R. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 180. There have been other attempts to detect dependence upon scripture in minutiae. E.g., G. Lohfink traces the casting of lots to Lev 16:8 ("Der Losvorgang in Apg 1,26," BZ 19 [1975] 24749). 11. Papias preserves a tradition of the demise of Judas that also contains a reference to Ps 68:26 LXX. There is a debate about wheter Papias is independent from Acts or not. E. Schweizer is of the opinion that Papias is independent ("Zu Apg. 1,1622," TZ 14 [1958] 46). Whether or not Acts 1 makes use of tradition, the allusion to scripture is nevertheless a feature of the text. 12. The use of dei for divine necessity also has hellenistic parallels. See van der Horst, "Hellenistic Parallels," 24. In conjunction with Peter's appeal to scripture, it strongly emphasizes the divine will. See Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 87. 13. Brawley, Centering on God, 92. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1. 214; Cf. Gaechter, "Wahl des Matthias," 50; Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, 25. Bauernfeind calls the structure chiastic. He thinks, however, that the second citation controls the entire account, that is, that the emphasis falls on the election of Matthias. Similarly, Pesch sees the demise of Judas and the election of Matthias as two distinct traditions (Apostelgeschichte, 1.8687). G. Stählin takes the entire account to be the election of a twelfth apostle, and the demise of Judas is thus a presupposition for it (Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt and erklärt [NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966] 2223, cf. p. 27). Similarly, A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 112 (Ökumenische Taschenbuchkommentar zum NT: Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981) 69. Marshall entitles the entire pericope "the twelfth apostle" (Acts, 53). Roloff refers to the pericope as the completion of the circle of the twelve (Apostelgeschichte, 29). Bauernfeind, Pesch, Stählin, Weiser, Marshall, and Roloff, however, overemphasize an ecclesiastical reading of Acts. 14. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.218. Against Weiser who claims that the citation of Ps 108:8 LXX has nothing to do with Judas (Apostelgeschichte, 65). 15. In spite of a questionable methodology of interpreting the demise of Judas at an alleged pre-Lucan Aramaic level, H. Sahlin nevertheless correctly sees Judas's death as a negative parallel to Jesus' death ("Der Tod des Judas Iskariot nach Ag 1, 15ff.," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 12 [1983] 151). 16. Pesch contends that the singular graphe in Luke-Acts consistently refers to a specific text rather than to the scriptures as a whole (Apostelgeschichte, 86). 17. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. Bloom characterizes tessera as a

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_156


completion that fails to complete. The revision remains incomplete, and fails to put closure on the task of completion. See Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) 14, 6667; idem, A Map of Misreading (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) 7172, 84, 9596; idem, Poetry and Repression: Revisionism from Blake to Stevens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976) 17; idem, Agon: Towards a Theory of Revisionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) 131. 18. Apparently some copyist recognized the discrepancy and introduced the genitive pronoun in the plural in some manuscripts of Acts 1:20. 19. Nellessen, "Erwählung des Mattias," 216; D. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1983) 3451. 20. T. Sahn. 7:11. On Judas as a specific case in the singular of opponents in the plural see Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 89; Bruce, Acts, 45. The failure to take into consideration allusions to the larger context leads some interpreters to emphasize discontinuity between precursor and successor. So, e.g., Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 33. 21. Against Krodel, who thinks that the citations in this passage are applied atomistically apart from the literary context of the Psalms (Acts, 66). J. Carroll correctly detects resonance of the context of Psalms 68 and 108 LXX in the account of the demise of Judas in Acts 1 ("The Uses of Scripture in Acts," Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers [SBLSP 29; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990] 51718). 22. See above, n. 50 for chapter 1. 23. See P. Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain: A Study of the language of Symbolism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968) 7677. 24. In the Papias version of the demise of Judas, the stench is responsible for the abandonment and the uninhabitable nature of the field (Fragment 3). The Papias tradition is available in K. Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1967) 470. Stählin speculates about the stench as a reason for the abandonment of the field (Apostelgeschichte, 27). 25. Stählin fails to catch this and views the name of the field as derivative only from Judas's guilty blood (Apostelgeschichte, 26). 26. See above, n. 47 for chapter 1. 27. F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1877) 277; A Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 493. In addition H. Gunkel claims that psalms of lament are the ground floor of the Psalter (Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattung der religiösen Lyrik Israels [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966] 173). 28. See Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 32. 29. This ties Jesus into the venerable tradition of servants of God including clearly such figures as David, who receives the same title in Luke 1:69. Luke 1:54 designates Israel itself as God's pais. 30. Weiser, Psalms, 493; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60150: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 62. 31. Haenchen, Acts, 183. See B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961) 109. 32. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 110. 33. Mark 10:3234; 14:1011; 14:3242; 14:5565; 15:15; 15:515; 15:1620a; 15:2532. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, II. Teil, Kommentar zu Kap. 8,2716, 20 (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 14. 34. E. Haenchen asserts that the version of the citation in Acts 1:20 transforms a human wish into a divine command ("Tradition und Komposition in der Apostelgeschichte," Gott und Mensch: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1965] 20809). But because the spokesperson in Ps 108:6 LXX is indefinite, the shift

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_157


from the optative (laboi) to the imperative (labeto) does not transform a human wish into a divine command. 35. J. Calloud has shown that the temptations in Luke 4:113 manifest the oppositions that are in contention throughout the remainder of the Gospel (Structural Analysis of Narrative [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976] 73). My own structural analysis extends Calloud's suggestion beyond the Gospel to include Acts as well (Centering on God, 7576). 36. The cosmic power of evil is identified as ho diabolos in Luke 4:2, 3, 6, 13; 8:12; Acts 10:38; 13:10 and as ho satanas in Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3, 31; Acts 5:3; 26:18. The reference to Jesus' ministry of healing those oppressed by the devil in Acts 10:38 with allusion to such events as the healing of the woman bound by Satan in Luke 13:16 shows that the terms are interchangeable. 37. The Papias tradition of the demise of Judas picks up the parallels with Ps 108:18 LXX (Fragment 3). 38. The theocentric hermeneutic for the psalms in Acts 1 helps to decide a much debated issue. Does the address of the prayer in w. 2425, kyrie, refer to Jesus or God? E.g., Marshall argues that the use of the same verb eklegomai here as with reference to Jesus' choice of the apostles in 1:2 indicates that the prayer is addressed to Jesus (Acts, 66). But the theocentric overtones of the psalms more strongly indicate that the prayer is addressed to God. 39. M. Wilcox postulates a connection between Judas and Judah through a possible relationship through Aramaic to the Targums of Gen 44:18 (''The Judas-Tradition in Acts I.1526," NTS 19 [197273] 44851). Nellessen thinks that the connection is likely ("Erwählung des Mattias," 21314). Wilcox and Nellessen are attempting to trace the history of tradition in a pre-Lucan form, a concern far removed from the interests of this book. 40. G. von Rad, "Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament," Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (ed. C. Westermann; London: SCM, 1963) 3637. 41. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) 312. My discussion of Genesis 3739 relies heavily on Alter. 42. P. Rabinowitz, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987) 44. 43. On Judas's departure as passing over to the side of Jesus' enemies see Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance, 82. Some interpreters take topos in Acts 1:25 to be a euphemism for hell. E.g., P. Benoit, "La mort de Judas," Synoptische Studien: Fest. Alfred Wikenhauser (ed. J. Schmid & A. Vögtle; München: Karl Zink, 1953) 1617 n. 59; Bauernfeind, Apostelgeschichte, 30; O. Betz, "The Dichotomized Servant and the End of Judas Iscariot (Light on the Dark Passages: Matthew 24,51 and Parallel; Acts 1,18)," RevQ 5 (1964) 50; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 8586, Stählin, Apostelgeschichte, 28; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 34; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 70; Marshall, Acts, 66. In contrast, J. Derrett speculates wildly from an alleged rabbinic parallel that supposedly borrows from a Greek apocalypse that Judas suffers the pains of hell in this life and thus could be associated with the twelve in the afterlife ("Miscellanea: A Pauline Pun and Judas' Punishment," ZNW 72 [1981] 13233). H. Sahlin attempts to interpret the demise of Judas at hypothetical pre-Lucan Aramaic level and argues that Judas's horrible death relegates him to hell (''Tod des Judas," 14852). Schneider considers the possibility that it means the place of torment (Apostelgeschichte, 1.220 n. 76). Speculations in either direction about the destiny of Judas in the afterlife exceed the implications of the text and fail to perceive that as a reference back to Acts 1:1619, v. 25 is a summary of Judas's behavior before his punishment. See Fuller, "Choice of Matthias," 145; Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance, 84. Jaubert correctly sees that topos is

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_158


equated with kleros and refers to Judas's place among the twleve ("L'élection de Matthias," 279). 44. W. Beardslee, "The Casting of Lots at Qumran and in the Book of Acts," NovT 4 (1960) 24552. Beardslee uses parallels at Qumran to demonstrate that although Acts presents a literal casting of lots, the metaphorical meaning of a divine eschatological decision underlies the election of Matthias. So also Gaechter, "Wahl des Matthias," 56; Jaubert, "L'élection de Matthias,'' 27480. 45. Fuller notes the unusual character of kleros in Acts 1:17, 26, and its ordinary meaning of participation in the blessings of salvation, but restricts its meaning here to ministerial office ("Choice of Matthias," 142). Jaubert also takes kleros in the restricted sense of a function of service ("Election de Matthias," 27879). Translations may of necessity restrict meaning by what the language makes available for translating, but the Greek may carry overtones of simultaneous ambiguity. 46. Roloff sees the connection between Judas's forfeiture of the kleros and the accession of Matthias to it, and correctly emphasizes the function of serving according to Luke 22:27 (Apostelgeschichte, 32). Nevertheless, he fails to catch the connotation of the heritage of the kingdom from Luke 22:30. 47. Cf. Roloff (Apostelgeschichte, 33) who speaks of resistance to an arbitrary falsification of the testimony of the resurrection. A. Büchele (Der Tod Jesu im Lukasevangelium: Eine redactionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 23 [Frankfurter Theologische Studien 26; Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1978] 101, 179) and F. Untergassmair (Kreuzweg und Kreuzigung Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur lukanischen Redactionsgeschichte und zur Frage nach der lukanischen "Kreuzestheologie" [Paderborn theologische Studien 10; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980] 198) make eyewitness testimony a foundational motif for persuasion in Luke-Acts. But against Roloff, Büchele, and Untergassmair the crucial factor is not the eyewitness as such (what one sees can be interpreted ambiguously) but the interpretation of what one sees through scripture. Chapter 6 1. On foreshadowing (prolepsis) and retrospection (analepsis) see G. Gennette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980) 3583. On strategies of delay in narrative, including suspended anticipations, see R. Barthes, S/Z (New York: Hill & Wang, 1974) 7576. Typical plots lead readers to expect predictions to come to fulfillment. See V. Shklovsky, "La contruction de la nouvelle et du roman," Théorie de la littérature (ed. Tzevetan Todorov; Paris: Seuil, 1965) 17077. According to A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés ("Narrative Schema," Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982]) predictions create a narrative need for a performance which is the reversal of the need, that is, the fulfillment of the predictions. 2. On the melding of the testimony of witnesses with the gift of the Spirit see C. Giblin, "Complementarity of Symbolic Event and Discourse in Acts 2, 140," SE 6 (1973) 189. 3. So E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 14142, cf. 142 n. 2; H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 6. 4. G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1. Teil, Einleitung, Kommentar zu Kap. 1.18.40 (HTKNT 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1980) 200; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1. Teilband, Apg 112 (EKKNT 5; Zürich: Benziger, 1986) 6667; R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 2, The Acts of the Apostles (FFNT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 12.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_159


5. In antiquity all three elements of divine presence, judgment, and purification appear prominently in mythological and mystery religions as well as in the Bible. F. Lang, "pyr," TDNT 6.92853; E. Good, "Fire," IDB 2.26869; cf. J. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Napierviile, IL: Allenson, 1970) 12 nn. 1113. 6. So R. Zehnle, Peter's Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter's Speeches of Acts 2 and 3 (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) 117; L. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991) 66; idem, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992) 42. Johnson notes traditions that associate fire with theophanies. 7. For some representatives of this position see J. Dunn, "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," NovT 14 (1972) 81. Dunn's interest lies in understanding the prediction on the level of the historical John the Baptist. 8. Dunn objects that the gathering and sifting have to do with Israel as a whole and baptism with individuals so that gathering does not correspond to baptism with Spirit and burning with baptism with fire ("Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," 88). But the only reference to the recipients of baptism is hymas, the antecedent of which is ho laos. 9. So. J. Nolland, Luke 19:20 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989) 153. 10. See above, p. 14 and n. 50 for chapter 1. Hearing the preachers in the vernacular of different languages produces a deficient understanding apart from Peter's additional interpretation. The distance between the messianists and the crowd is incomprehension. So A. Etienne, "Lecture de l'événement de Pentecôte dans Actes 2,136," Foi et vie 80 (1981) 54, 63. Cf. Giblin, "Complementarity of Symbolic Event," 193. 11. E. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1922) 2.73234. 12. Midr. Rab. Exod 5:9 associates a similar perplexity with the giving of Torah on Sinai. A tradition attributed to R. Johanan asserts that at the giving of Torah, God's voice split into seventy languages so that all the nations could understand. When each nation heard in its own vernacular their souls departed [fear? perplexity?], whereas the people of Israel heard and were not hurt. 13. B. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 3031. Malina and J. Neyrey cover the same territory ("Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation [ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991] 2932, 36). Cf. D. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) 1617. 14. Plato Timaeus 72B; Herodotus Persian Wars 8:13536. 15. Johnson, Acts, 5354. 16. Cicero (Philosophical Discourses 2.41.104) gives an evaluation of revelry beginning at the third hour as disgraceful. This implies that the interpretation banking on intoxication is not merely a competing interpretation but an evaluation of the events at Pentecost as disgraceful. 17. H. Bloom speaks of a strong poet who does not see things directly but through a precursor (A Map of Misreading [New York: Oxford University Press, 1975] 18). 18. The use of scripture in Matt 2:6 is complex. It specifies what the wise men have ascertained by revelation outside scripture, and it creates irony with its context. See D. Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 3436.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_160


19. M. Rese, "Die Funktion der altestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte," Les Actes des Apôtre: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL 48; ed. J. Kremer; Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1979) 72; idem, Alttestamentiche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969) 3132, 38, 52, 209. A. Weisser points out correctly that the citation from Joel in Acts 2 has a hermeneutical function to give meaning to the event (Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 112 [Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981] 91). So also W. Schmithals, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (Züricher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982) 33; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1. Teilband, Apg 112 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986) 116. 20. Barthes, S/Z, 1718. 21. D. Juel calls the notices of a new way to interpret scriptures in Luke 24 a "thematic introduction to the missionary speeches in Acts" (Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988] 140). 22. See above, pp. 6364. 23. The novel meaning corresponds to Bloom's revisionary ratio of daemonization or hyperbole. The reciprocal nature of the interplay corresponds to his apophrades or transumption. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. 24. Haenchen argues that meta tauta is the original reading (Acts, 179). Against Haenchen and in support of en tais eschatais h&!;merais see F. Musser, " 'In den letzten Tagen' (Apg 2,17a)," BZ5 (1961) 26365. 25. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 95, 161, 20912. Idem, Acts, 19. Cf. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 4054. Dunn accepts Conzelmann's division of history into three phases (40, cf. n. 7). U. Wilckens also accepts Conzelmann's tripartite division of history but avers that the use of Joel in Acts 2 is not eschatological but a proof text for the events of Pentecost (Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte [WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974] 33 n. 2, 225). For the view that Luke-Acts does not anticipate a long period of history before the parousia see R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 10515. 26. On Acts 2:1921 as anticipations of an apocalyptic future see Haenchen, Acts, p. 179; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.269. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 50. 27. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.28082. 28. Haenchen, Acts, 179. J. Roloff misses this when he says that God has poured out the Spirit on twelve men (Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt und erklärt [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981] 52). 29. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.268; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 53; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1.117. 30. On Mary as doule of God in relation to Acts 2:1718, see J. Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (New York: Crossroad, 1990) 12728, 13538. Correlation with the Shunammite woman (4 Kgdms 4:16) and Ruth (Ruth 3:9) reflects the connotation of protection, but the Shunammite woman and Ruth are not God's slaves. Schaberg (136) overstates: "The term doule (feminine) always and everywhere carries associations that doulos (masculine) does not: associations of sexual use and abuse" (emphasis added). She unveils her own exaggeration a page later when she cites the honorable use of the term for Hannah (1 Kgdms 1:11) and for the daughters who prophesy at Pentecost (Acts 2:1718). 31. Cf. K. Rengstorf, "doulos," TDNT 2.268. In the MT Hannah calls herself 'mh. But in the LXX she refers to herself as he doule.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_161


32. Conzelmann, Acts, 20. 33. Haenchen, Acts, 184; Johnson, Acts, 58. 34. Barthes, S/Z, 21. Cf. J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975) 203; W. Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986) 164. 35. R. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 18283, 209. 36. Brawley, Centering on God, 198, 209. 37. Etienne catches many of these same antitheses and spells out the movement of the events of Pentecost toward unity. ("Lecture de I'événement de Pentecôte," 4864). 38. See above, n. 10 for chapter I and n. 80 for chapter 4. 39. B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 3642. On the christological and resurrectionist revision in Acts cf. A. Schmitt, "Ps 16,811 als Zeugnis der Auferstehung in der Apg," BZ 17 (1973) 24346. 40. D. Juel, "Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2," CBQ 43 (1981) 544. 41. Juel, "Social Dimensions of Exegesis," 54446. M. Gourgues develops the intriguing hypothesis that Psalm 110 was read in the Jewish celebration of the Torah on Pentecost, and that Acts 2 replaces the Jewish celebration of Torah ("Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte," RB 83 [1976] 524). But the existence of the Jewish celebration in the first century cannot be verified. 42. hoti en to orei Sion kai en Ierousalem estai anasozomenos, kathoti eipen kyrios, kai euaggelizomenoi, hous kyrios proskekletai. The participles are ambiguous. Anasozomenos may be taken in its passive sense as one who is saved but also in a more stative sense as one who prospers. Euaggelizo is commonly used in the middle for the act of announcing good news. But it may be taken in a passive sense as having the good news proclaimed to one. In support ora tacit allusion to Joel 3:5bd see A. Kerrigan, "The 'Sensus Plenior' of Joel III, 1-5 in Act. II, 1436," Sacra pagina: miscellanea biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de re biblica, vol. 2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1959) 295. 43. In support of an allusion to Joel 3:5 in Acts 2:39, Conzelmann, Acts, 20, 22; Juel, "Social Dimensions of Exegesis," 544; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 63. 44. Haenchen, Acts, 179; Conzelmann, Acts, 20. 45. Weiser supports the notion that the citation from Joel is bound to the structure of the entire speech (Apostelgeschichte, 92). 46. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1.191, 193; Johnson, Luke, 315. 47. Haenchen, Acts, 184; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 22. 48. See above, nn. 4446 for chapter 1. 49. See J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981) ix, 31, 43, 111. 50. See above, n. 24 for chapter 1. 51. See above, n. 4 for chapter 1. 52. Acts 2:36 is the concluding epitome of the significance of Jesus in Peter's sermon in which God vindicates Jesus over against the accusation in 2:23, and the declaration has to do with all that Jesus did and taught, not merely the exaltation. So Wilckens, Missionsreden, 17174, 238. O. Glombitza thinks that the breaking off of Peter's speech at 2:36 makes the opposition between the people who crucified Jesus and God who raised Jesus the chief point of the speech ("Der Schluss der Petrusrede Acta 2,3640," ZNW 52 [1961] 11518). But by using rhetorical criticism W. Long

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_162


has shown that the narratio controls the chief point ("The Paulusbild in the Trial of Paul in Acts," Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers [SBLSP 22; ed. K. Richards; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983] 86105). Thus, the vindication of Jesus is but a part of Peter's case that the events of Pentecost are what was spoken by the prophet Joel. 53. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 6364. Peter's exhortation, sothete apo tes geneas tes skolias tautes (Acts 2:40), also has overtones of the wilderness wandering in which the wilderness generation fails to enter the land of promise. Though somewhat overdone, cf. E. Lövestam, "Der Rettungsappell in Ag 2,40," ASTI 12 (1983) 8492. Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1.117. In m. Sanh. 10:3, R. Akiba says that the generation of the wilderness has no share in the world to come. Thus, Peter's exhortation is a call for repentance in order for the addressees to remain a part of Israel. 54. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1. 26566. 55. See above, nn. 3540, 42 for chapter 1. 56. Etienne, "Lecture de l'événement de Pentecôte," 6264. Chapter 7 1. W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) 69, 22529. Jonathan Culler critiques a similar categorythe cultural codeof Roland Barthes. J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975) 203; R. Barthes, S/Z (New York: Hill & Wang, 1974) 18, 100). Culler argues for a broader category that includes everything the narrative embodies that corresponds to verisimilitude. Iser covers much of the same ground with his idea of the unformulated text, that is, that upon which a text depends that is presumed but unexpressed. 2. See above, n. 5 for chapter 4. 3. So also A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 112 (Ökumenischer Taschen-buchkommentar zum NT 5/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981) 107. 4. On legitimating devices in Luke-Acts see R. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 5363. 5. So also J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte: Übersetzt und erklärt (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 71; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 112. 6. On challenge/riposte cycles see B. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 3033; cf. B. Malina and J. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (ed. J. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 2932, 36; D. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) 1617. 7. Though developed from observation of modern behavior in the United States, labeling and deviance theory has proved productive in analysis of biblical materials. See B. Malina and J. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (FFNT; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) 3536; R. Webber, " 'Why Were the Heathen so Arrogant?' The Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Acts 34," BTB 22 (1992) 1925. 8. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 3536, 54, 9697. 9. On analytical categories of the process of achieving the social definition of deviant see Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 3565. 10. On analytical categories of labeling as a prominent, see Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 5465, 99102. 11. O. Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 22; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1980) 65. U. Wilckens plays the times of restoration as

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_163


present (3:21) off against the times of refreshment as future (3:20) and suggests that 3:2021 is an addition to an earlier tradition that links 3:19 directly to 3:22 (Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen [WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974] 43). C. Barrett suggests that the times of refreshment (3:20) are personalized, individual seasons of refreshment in a sequence of messianic woes ("Faith and Eschatology in Acts 3," Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift W. G. Kümmel [ed. E. Grässer & O. Merk; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1985] 1016). But the times of restoration (3:21) are equivalent to the times of refreshment (3:20). So Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 29; A Oepke, "apokatastasis," TDNT 1.390. 12. Conzelmann points to the continuity between the messianists and Israel expressed in this introductory formula (Acts, 28). 13. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 101. 14. So also Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 76. 15. T. Holtz sees Acts 3:25 as an allusion to Gen 22:18, though he thinks its precise shape stems from the influence of other LXX texts (Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas [TU 104; Berlin: Akademie, 1968] 71, 7475); cf. G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, I. Teil, Einleitung. Kommentar zu Kap. 1, 18, 40 (HTKNT 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1980) 32930. Bauernfeind notes that the healing concerns every Israelite because of its fundamental basis, sees the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in the sending of a prophet like Moses, and understands that the healing is a particular case from which one should understand whence the salvation of the world comes (Kommentar und Studien, 63, 67, 76). But few commentators have noticed the realization of Abrahamic promises in the healing of the lame man. Bauernfeind unnecessarily postulates an allusion to Elijah redivivus as the prophet like Moses; in agreement with Bauernfeind, Wilckens, Missionsreden, 15355. The volume of such an allusion is extremely low. Against Bauernfeind see G. Lohfink, "Christologie und Geschichtsbild in Apg 3, 1921," BZ 13 (1969) 22341. F. Bruce associates the healing with the messianic age but not with the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [NICNT; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956] 85). 16. D. Hamm, "Acts 3:110: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lucan Theology,'' Bib 67 (1986) 306. 17. Thus the healing of the lame man is not merely proof of the efficacy of Jesus' name as E. Haenchen emphasizes (The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 223). 18. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 78. 19. Gathering and sifting in Luke 3 corresponds to (1) the potential participation in the Abrahamic promises, on the one hand, and (2) the threat of removing everyone who does not heed the prophet like Moses from the people of the promises, on the other. 20. See above, n. 23 for chapter 2. The merging of Mosaic and Davidic covenants with the Abrahamic indicates that the identification of Jesus as pais in Acts 3:13 links Jesus to the venerable line of God's servants and is not merely a Mosaic title as R. Dillon asserts ("The Prophecy of Christ and His Witnesses According to the Discourse of Acts," NTS 32 [1986] 549). On the venerable line of God's servants see above, nn. 3031 for chapter 6. 21. On the integrity of the context see Conzelmann, Acts, 27; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 71; E Hahn, "Das Problem alter Christologischer Überlieferungen in der Apostelgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Act 3, 1921," Les Acres des

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_164


Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL 48; ed. J. Kremer; Gembloux: Duculot, 1979) 13738; Dillon, "The Prophecy of Christ," 544, 552 n. 3. 22. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 45, 9697. 23. Thus the inaccuracy of Weiser's claim that in contrast to Pentecost, conflict with the authorities is a negative development in the growth of the community and a rejection of the message of salvation to the Jews (Apostelgeschichte, 112). 24. Because Acts 4:11 is a play on scripture, it is pointless to search for a pre-Lucan source, a variant tradition alongside the LXX, or an independent Lucan translation as, e.g., Holtz, Untersuchungen, 162; Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien, 76; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.348. 25. LSJ. 26. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, vol. 2 (NCB: London: Oliphants, 1972) 802. Cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60150: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 400. 27. See Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 80, 82. 28. Anderson favors the identification of the nations not with foreign enemies but with a part of ritual humiliation of the king (Psalms, 2.799800). Even if this is the case in the cultic background of the psalm, Acts views the nations as Gentiles. On the "nations" as opponents in the crucifixion of Jesus, see below. 29. Haenchen, Acts, 200. Haenchen alleges that the power of the person named, human or divine, is present and available in the name. See also Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien, 60. 30. H. Bietenhard, "onoma," TDNT 5.27678. Bauernfeind catches the point that Acts differentiates between miracle and magic (Kommentar und Studien, 64, 76); so also Conzelmann (Acts, 28). In addition, see Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.317; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 7576; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, I. Teilband, Apg 112 (EKKNT 5; Zürich: Benziger, 1986) 15354. 31. See Kraus, Psalms 60150, 397. 32. Anderson, Psalms, 2.79798. This is against Gunkel's individualistic interpretation which takes vv. 521 of the psalm to be the voice of a single person and the occasion a completely private matter (Psalmen, 50607, 509). 33. Webber, " 'Why Where the Heathen so Arrogant?' " 2223. 34. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 51, 53, 65, 10102. 35. Kraus, Psalms 60150, 395. 36. On denial of self-aggrandizement and anticipatory neutralization see Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 99100. 37. See J. Carroll, "The Uses of Scripture in Acts," Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Papers (SBLSP 29; ed. D. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 518. The contextual evidence in support of such allusions to Psalm 117 LXX is far stronger than that in support of a parallel to Socrates (peisomai de mallon to theo e hymin, Plato Apology 29 D) as advanced by E. Plümacher (Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte [SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972] 1819). 38. P. de Villiers shows that idiotai refers to the rank and file, and thus that there is a contrast with the position and power of the members of the council ("The Medium Is the Message. Luke and the Language of the New Testament Against a GraecoRoman Background," Neot 24 [1990] 25253). 39. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 55, 6164. 40. Haenchen sees the relationship with Jesus as a reference primarily to Luke 21:15 where Jesus promises to give his disciples what they are to say against opponents (Acts, 218). What is manifested in their appearance before the council, however, is not a present but a past relationship with the risen Jesus (esan, Acts 4:13), namely, the risen Jesus opened their minds to understand scripture.

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_165


41. Haenchen, incorrectly in my opinion, thinks that the narrative has lost sight of the large number of believers in Acts 4:4 (Acts, 226). Similarly, Conzelmann declares that the number is not to be inferred from 4:4 (Acts, 34). Schneider thinks it probable that the prayer is confined to the circle of apostles and that in any case the reference is not to the entire community, of 5,000 (Apostelgeschichte, 1.356 n. 16). Weiser argues that the gathering is restricted by the number who could meet in a house (Apostelgeschichte, 133). These arguments entirely miss the point that the expansion of the messianists is the problem (see Acts 4:17). The text literally numbers males, but it is uncertain whether or not it includes females. Cf. Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien, 74; Bruce, Acts, 96 n. 6; F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 148; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 86. 42. Homothymadon appears some ten times in Acts and only once elsewhere in the NT (Rom 15:6). 43. Though L. Schenke pursues, in my view, a futile attempt to trace a contrast formula back to early Christian tradition, he does recognize in the contrast a persuasive attempt to convince readers (hearers) that the resurrection is God's affirmation of Jesus ("Die Kontrastformel Apg 4,10b," BZ26 [1982] 1819). 44. On evaluative characterization of God see R. Brawley, Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 114. 45. Psalm 145:9 LXX uses the term proselytos to refer to "strangers." Significantly, proselytos appears in Acts 2:11 to refer to Gentiles who have taken over Judaism. 46. Note also the elimination of need in the early community (Acts 4:3234). Carroll, "Uses of Scripture," 51819. 47. E.g., W. Visser't Hooft, No Other Name (London: SCM, 1963) 116. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 217; Bruce, Acts, 100101. On the basis of association of the claim with the notice that Peter and John had been with Jesus, Schneider makes the claim not only christologically but also ecclesiologically absolute (Apostelgeschichte, 349 n. 68). J. Ching notes that Peter healed in the name of Jesus in the context of an intra-Jewish debate without explicit faith from the lame man ("No Other Name?" Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 12 [1985] 25362). 48. S. Suleiman, "Redundancy and the 'Readable' Text," Poetics Today 13 (1980) 120. On overdetermination see above, n. 82 for chapter 4. 49. On the basis of alleged contradictions between Acts 4:2527 and the Lucan passion narrative, Roloff denies the repetition (Apostelgeschichte, 8586). His perspective is distorted by an overzealous attempt to establish a pre-Lucan tradition for the prayer of the community. In any case, it is a repetition with variation. 50. Schneider includes the council from Luke's passion narrative among the archontes of Acts 4:26 (Apostelgeschichte, 1.358). The narrative summary in 4:27 does not name them apart from the laoi. But the pronoun auton in 4:29 presupposes the present members of the council as part of the antecedent. See Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien, 78; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 85. 51. On the interpretation of the parallelism in Acts 4 see Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 146. 52. Haenchen, Acts, 227. 53. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 172. 54. J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke IIX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981) 52930, 532, 566. J. de la Potterie argues that both Acts 4:27 and 10:38 indicate prophetic anointing only ("L'onction du Christ," NRT 80 [1959] 24046). Fitzmyer and de la Potterie depend on the

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_166


debatable method of recovery of the "original" meaning of biblical texts in their NT contexts. F. Hahn concurs with de la Potterie (Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 39596). 55. K. Lake and H. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1933) 4.47; Haenchen, Acts, 22627, 227 n. I; J. Dupont, Les béatitudes: la bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969) 2.13233. 56. See Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 48, 55. 57. Gamaliel's advice produces a sharp reduction in the irony in that like Acts 4 it subordinates human power to divine power. 58. Some commentators have claimed to note a discrepancy in that Peter would have had access to the community's goods according to the summary statement in Acts 2:45. See Haenchen, Acts, 199 n. 7. But according to that summary, those goods have been distributed. Conzelmann correctly takes the issue of such a discrepancy to be beside the point (Acts, 26). Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.301 n. 40, sees no conflict; see Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 140. 59. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1.354; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 85. 60. See above, n. 47 for chapter 1. 61. F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1883) 118. 62. J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 4879. Marcus's claims that Luke 22:29 and Acts 2:36 depend on Psalm 2 (p. 65) go beyond the criteria for establishing allusions in this study. Marcus traces a trajectory of interpretation of Psalm 2 that views the conflict of Psalm 2 on a double level of demonic and political rulers (pp. 6266). In my opinion, his implication that such a double level of opposition lies behind the use of the psalm in Luke-Acts lacks sufficient basis in the text. On the relationship of the baptismal voice to Ps 2:7 see also Bruce, Acts: The Greek Text, 157. 63. On correspondence between the psalm and Acts 4 see Carroll, "Uses of Scripture,'' 51920. 64. According to H. Gunkel, Israel rejected a mythological concept of the king as God's son in a physical sense in favor of an ethical concept (Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt [Göttingen Handkommentar zum AT II.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926] 7). H.-J. Kraus views the "today" in Ps 2:7 as an indication of a divine decree that in the moment of its declaration becomes a sacred legal adoption (Psalms 159: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988] 13132). So also H. Gese, "The Messiah," Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981) 14344, 146. 65. Acts 1:8 uses heos eschatou tes ges whereas Ps 2:8 uses ta perata tes ges. 66. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 1415. Chapter 8 1. See M. Buss, Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus im pisidischen Antiochien: Analyse von Apg 13, 1641 im Hinblick auf die literarische und thematische Einheit der Paulusrede (FB 38; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980) 2937. 2. G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, II. Teil, Kommentar zu Kap. 9,128,31 (HTKNT 5/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1982) 121. S. Garrett notes the contrast between the darkness that falls on Elymas and Paul's task of bringing light, e.g., Acts 13:4647 ("Light on a Dark Subject and Vice Versa: Magic and Magicians in the New Testament," Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and in Conflict [ed. J. Neusner et al.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1989] 15657).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_167


3. The negative evaluation does not depend on defining magic in essence but on interpreting it in the social discourse by its antithesis to what originates in the divine. So Garrett, ''Light on a Dark Subject," 14460. 4. Not only is Elymas characterized by the epithet "son of the devil," his function in the plot also reiterates the role of the devil in the interpretation of the parable of the sower (Luke 8:12). R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2. Teilband, Apg 1328 (EKKNT 5; Zürich: Benziger, 1986) 27; Garrett, "Light on a Dark Subject," 15354. 5. B. Malina and J. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (FFNT; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) 2527. Cf. H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 100. 6. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 397400; Garrett, "Light on a Dark Subject," 15357; Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 47. 7. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 3637. 8. The proconsul is the highest Roman authority in the province. Haenchen, Acts, 403; L. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992) 222. See Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 4548. 9. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 42, 51. 10. See Haenchen, Acts, 403. 11. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, xviii. 12. Buss notes that God is the subject of Paul's speech (Missionspredigt, 25). Though his study is slanted toward apologetic concerns, C. Joachim Pillai also recognizes that God is the primary subject of the verbsGod is named or implied in verbs and pronouns about 30 times in 25 verses (Apostolic Interpretation of History: A Commentary on Acts 13:1641 [Hicksville, NY: Exposition, 1980] 5, 103, 130 n. 133). 13. U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974) 5051; Buss, Missionspredigt, 46. R. O'Toole places emphasis on the promises without mentioning covenant traditions ("Christ's Resurrection in Acts 13,1352," Bib 60 [1979] 36768). Similarly, J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte: Üersetzt und erklärt (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 203. A. Weiser catches allusions only to the Davidic covenant (Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 1328 [Ökumenische Taschenbuchkommentar zum NT; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1985] 325). 14. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960) 78. J. Bowker also attempts to reconstruct the synagogal lectionary focusing on Deut 4:2546 and 2 Sam 7:616 ("Speeches in Acts: A Study of Proem and Yelammedenu Form," NTS 14 [196768] 96111). Pesch has a positive evaluation of Bowker (Apostelgeschichte, 2.34). But see n. 15 below. 15. L. Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964) 1423; L. Crockett, "Luke 4:1630 and the Jewish Lectionary Cycle: A Word of Caution," JJS 18 (1967) 1346; J. Heinemann, "The Triennial Lectionary Cycle," JJS 19 (1968) 4148. Similarly, H. Kee sees the synagogue as an inchoate institution in NT times and considers accounts such as Paul's sermon in Acts 13 anachronistic ("The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: Its Import for Early Christianity," NTS 36 [1990] 124). As a corrective to Kee see R. Oster, "Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts' Use of synagoge," NTS 39 (1993) 178208. C. Burchard argues that Paul's speech follows worship in the synagogue and is therefore not a sermon on a sabbath lectionary ("Fussnoten zum neutestamentlichen Griechisch,'' ZNW 61

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_168


[1970] 16667). Certainly, however, the account links Paul's speech to the reading of the law and the prophets (Acts 13:1516). 16. See Buss, Missionspredigt, 37, 46. In Acts 13:26 ho logos tes soterias tautes pushes back toward the origin of the promise of this salvation in Abraham. O. Glombitza, "Akta xiii.1541: Analyse einer lukanischen Predigt vor Juden: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Reden in Akta," NTS 5 (195859) 310. 17. See above, pp. 2021. 18. See above, n. 23 for chapter 2. 19. F. Bruce's claim that Acts 13:22 is a conflation of Ps 88:21 LXX and 1 Kgdms 13:14 LXX and the equivalent targumic passage reflects an excessively mechanistic view of composition ("Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Acts," Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis (ed. G. Hawthorne & O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 72. Bowker also detects Targum 1 Sam 13:14 behind the allusion ("Speeches in Acts," 104). The volume of plot and setting show that the allusion has covert dimensions that do not fit a mechanistic reiteration of a Vorlage. 20. Cf. Buss, Missionspredigt, 91. 21. See above, n. 24 for chapter 1. 22. G. Vermes traces the presumption of scriptural unity as manifested in harmonization at least as far back as the translation of the LXX ("Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis," The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome [ed. P. Ackroyd & C. Evans; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970] 20314). See also J. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Van Gorcum's Theologische Bibliotheek 24; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954) 11516; D. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1983) 2627. 23. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 40, 96. 24. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 45, 9899, 101. 25. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 5253. 26. Buss, Missionspredigt, 8386. Buss speaks of the content of the promise of Jesus' resurrection but traces its lineage back to God's promise to Abraham. 27. The verbal agreement with the Septuagint renders Doeve's contention that the use of the psalm is derived from Jewish Christian exegesis of the Hebrew text through Aramaic implausible (Jewish Hermeneutics, 16876). 28. On allusion to the larger context of Psalm 2 see Buss, Missionspredigt, 91, 98. 29. J. Sanders sees the reference to the residents of Jerusalem as a signal of an anti-Jewish bias on the part of the author (The Jews in Luke-Acts [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] 14, 32, 37, 52, 286). Labeling and deviance theory helps to explain the presence of Jerusalemites and leaders in 13:27 as agents of the degradation of Jesus rather than willful hostility on the part of the implied author. 30. Conzelmann, Acts, 105. M. Rese attributes the omission of any reference to covenant traditions to a possible pre-Lucan tradition. He also interprets Isa 55:3 as a positive promise of resurrection and Ps 16:10 as a negative proof (Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas [SNT 1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969] 87, 8889 n. 41). Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 41112; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2.137. I. Marshall contends that the citation of Isa 55:3 omits the idea of covenant and takes it rather as (1) the promise of a permanent dominion of an immortal messiah and/or (2) the promise made to David in Ps 16:10 (Acts: An Introduction and Commentary [Tyndale NT Commentaries; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980] 22728). Roloff takes ta pista as the reliable words of David, namely, Ps 16:10 (Apostelgeschichte, 207). Buss maintains that the allusion to Isa 55:3 loses the meaning of the Davidic covenant and shifts rather to the Abrahamic covenant (Missionspredigt, 102).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_169


31. See j. Schmitt, "Kerygme pascal et lecture scripturaire dans l'instruction de'Antioche (Act. 13,2337)," Les Acres des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL 48; ed.J. Kremer; Gembloux: Duculot, 1979) 163;J. Kilgallen, "Acts 13,3839: Cumulation of Paul's Speech in Pisidia," Bib 69 (1988) 498; D. Goldsmith, "Acts 13:3337: A Pesher on II Samuel 7," JBL 87 (1968) 32124. J. Dupont develops a concept of ta pista as God's fidelity to promises out of the context of Acts 13 but neglects the context of Isa 55:3 (''ta hosia Dauid ta pista [Ac xiii34 = Is lv3]," RB 68 [1961] 111). Wilckens interprets ta pista as the gift of incorruptibility (Missionsreden, 142). 32. Goldsmith, "Acts 13:3337," 323; Dupont, "ta hosia Dauid ta pista," 9899; Rese, Altestamentliche Motive, 86. Further, the context is structured around chiastic appearances of verbs for resurrection that enable the context to establish verbal links between the citations. Egeiro appears in Acts 13:30, anistemi in w. 33 and 34, and egeir&!; in v. 37. Schmitt, "Kerygme pascal et lecture scripturaire," 16162. 33. The appropriation of Ps 15:10 LXX in Acts 13 is facilitated by its references in the future in contrast to the MT where the psalm describes a past experience of recovery. 34. See Buss, Missionspredigt, 91, 114. Thus, the preservation of Jesus from decay is grounded in his relation to God, that is, God's holy one in the psalm. 35. This interpretation of Acts 13 as a figurative play on Psalm 15 LXX contrasts dramatically with interpretations that place Acts 13 over against Psalm 15 LXX in diachronic conflict. E.g., A Schmitt, "Ps 16,811 als Zeugnis der Auferstehung in der Apg.," BZ 17 (1973) 229. 36. See Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 51. 37. On the relationship of Acts 13:2 and 14:26 to 13:41 see R. A. Culpepper, "Paul's Mission to the Gentile World: Acts 1319," RevExp 61 (1974) 48789, 493; Johnson, Acts, 255; C. Black, "The Presentation of John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles,'' Perspectives in Religious Studies 20 (1993) 25053; idem, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994) 3942. Culpepper and Black narrow the work exclusively to the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles (14:27). See Glombitza, "Akta xiii. 1541," 31516. Wilckens betrays his fascination with a salvation-historical interpretation by interpreting the work as God's turning away from Jews toward Gentiles (Missionsreden, 52). Similarly, Roloff takes the meaning of work too narrowly as the gentile mission (Apostelgeschichte, 208). Also Haenchen understands the unexpected work of 13:41 to be the rejection of the Jews and the acceptance of the Gentiles (Acts, 413). But the reading of Paul's work in Acts as a mission to Gentiles is overdrawn. A different light shines through a theocentric reading. God's work of 13:41 is the attestation of Jesus as prominent for a Jewish audience, many of whom follow Paul anti Barnabas. Moreover, the things that God accomplished with Paul and Barnabas in 14:27 include the belief of a great number of Jews in Iconium (14:1) as well as an open door of faith for Gentiles. 38. Labeling and deviance theory predicts retrospective interpretation as a weapon in labeling. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 4849. 39. See Glombitza, "Akta xiii. 1541," 31516. 40. The Septuagint presents the failure of produce as a future prediction, even moving into the past, rather than a conditional possibility as in the MT. 41. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 36, 97, 103. 42. On the problem of usurpers in labeling and deviance theory see Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 99100. 43. In the context of Isa 49:6 LXX the servant is both corporate and individual, and therefore the pronoun se in the citation in Acts 13:47 can refer both to Jesus

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_170


and to Paul and Barnabas. Buss, Missionspredigt, 138. P. Grebt argues that the singular se does not refer to Paul and Barnabas at all. Rather, they are commanded to proclaim that God has established Christ (se) as a light for the Gentiles ("Note sur Actes, xiii,47," RB 88 [1981] 36872). But the ambiguity in the context of Isa 49:6 speaks against this. Further, a christological antecedent for se is distant. Jesus is last mentioned in the foregoing context in Acts 13:39. 44. See Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 40, 47, 52, 63, 100101. 45. So also M. Carrez, "Présence et fonctionnement de l'Ancien Testament dans l'annonce de l'évangile," RSR 63 (1975) 32541. 46. L. Wills views the references to scripture as exempla upon which the conclusions of a rhetorical argument depend ("The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity," HTR 77 [1984] 279). C. Black draws similar but more refined conclusions allowing for coherence between the use of scripture and the narrative ("The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills," HTR 81 [1988] 814). But the figurative function of allusions to scripture means that they are more than exempla that form the bases for conclusions. 47. This is in contrast to Glombitza's emphasis on messianic exegesis of scripture in Acts 13 ("Akta xiii. 1541," 313). 48. Malina and Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names, 36, 9697. Chapter 9 1. R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Luke (FFNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 23. 2. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1.12; G. Schneider, "Der Zweck des lukanischen Doppelwerks," BZ 21 (1977) 53; H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 14954. On God's plan as a controlling necessity see also R. Carlson, "The Role of the Jewish People in Luke's Passion Theology," Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 30; ed. E. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 82102. R. Pesch views the divine plan too restrictively as the transfer of God's salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (Die Apostelgeschichte, 2. Teilband, Apg 1328 [EKKNT 5; Zürich: Benzinger, 1986] 4546). J. Sanders depicts the Lucan view of God's plan as a capricious divine will to accomplish the salvation of Gentiles by a Jewish rejection of the Gospel ("The Salvation of the Jews in Luke-Acts," Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar [ed. C. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984] 112). 3. This discussion depends heavily on G. Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984] 1920) and V. Robbins ("A Rhetorical Typology for Classifying and Analyzing Pronouncement Stories," Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers [SBLSP 23; K. Richards; Chico, CA: 1984] 93122). There can be dramatic interplay among epideictic, deliberative, and juridical emphases. V. Robbins, "Pronouncement Stories from a Rhetorical Perspective," Forum 4, 2 (1988) 2021. 4. Robbins, "Rhetorical Typology," 9596. R. Tannehill recognizes the temptations as a correction pronouncement story ("Varieties of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories," Semeia 20 [1981] 102). 5. See W. Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose and Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974) 4855. 6. See Iser, Implied Reader, xii, 2937; idem, The Art of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) 69, 22529; H. Bloom,

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_171


The Anxiety of Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) 90; idem, Kabbalah and Criticism (New York: Seabury, 1975) 64, 79, 88, 126. 7. W. Booth, The Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) 13. 8. Cf. Tannehill, "Introduction,"6. 9. My line of thought here has been stimulated by S. Moore, "How Jesus' Risen Body Became a Cadaver" (unpublished paper presented to the Semiotics and Exegesis Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1993).

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i


< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_173


Index Subject Index A Allegory, 30, 31-32, 35 Analepsis, 32, 37, 51, 71-72, 76, 94, 104, 146 Anxiety of influence, 12-13, 87, 89, 131 Apophrades. See Revisionary ratios Askesis. See Revisionary ratios Attis, 45-46 C Canon: shared convention, 2, 4, 17-18, 22, 23, 47, 48, 64, 65, 68, 80, 95, 101-02, 114, 115, 128, 130; interpretation of, 16, 23-24, 25, 26; as deficient, 24, 64; violating boundaries of, 24, 26, 47, 48, 65, 68, 80; coherence of, 113 Carnival king, 52-54, 105 Carnivalesque, x, 125, 129, 148; in Jesus' passion, 43-60, 91-92, 94, 129; morphology of, 43, 148; inversion of inlaw and outlaw, 49, 53, 57; violation of spatial boundaries, 53; violation of bodily barriers, 56, 63, 150; profaning the sacred, 56; evisceration of Judas, 61-74; undermining cultural norms, 92 Challenge and riposte, 2, 16, 78, 89, 93, 121 Characterization: in pronouncement stories, 127-28; in parable, 129; of God, 129-30, 165; unreliable character, 142, 154 Christocentricity, 5, 24, 26, 58, 62, 83-85, 126, 135, 149, 153 Clinamen. See Revisionary ratios Covenant, 121, 122, 123, 149, 169; Abrahamic, x, xi, 19-22, 24, 25, 26, 32, 86, 90, 94-95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112, 114, 115, 124-25, 126-27, 128, 129-30, 131, 141, 149, 163, 168; Mosaic, 18-21, 94-95, 141, 149, 163; Davidic, 20-22, 24, 25, 85-86, 95, 106, 111, 112, 116-17, 127, 129, 131, 149, 167, 168 Criteria for allusions, x, 13-14, 66, 69, 87-88, 110-11, 115, 116, 118, 120, 166 Criterion of analogy, 77-78 Cultural code, cultural repertoire, cultural voice, unformulated text: 3, 6, 13, 21, 32, 44-45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 57, 65, 76, 77, 78, 88, 112, 113, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 135, 162 Cybele, 45, 49

D Daemonization. See Revisionary ratios Diegetic narrative, 33, 35-36, 38-39, 40, 145, 146 E Ecclesiocentricity, 5, 80-83, 126, 135 Equivocation: literary device, 28, 30, 41, 158 Extradiegetic narrative, 33 F Fusion of horizons, 6 H Hermeneutic voice, 79 Hermeneutical role of scripture, 5, 78-90, 92 Holy war, 49-50, 53, 58 Honor and shame, x, 15, 16, 78, 82, 89, 92-93, 108, 109, 110, 121 Hyperbole, 11, 20, 22, 24, 40, 52, 58, 59, 71, 89, 99-100, 107, 113, 116, 117-18, 119-20, 122, 160 Hypogram, 7, 55 I Implied reader, 130; counterreader, 130

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_174


I Intertextuality, 4, 5-8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 28, 30, 37, 39-40, 41, 77, 89, 111-12, 117, 124, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 135, 140; identifiable intertexts, 135 Irony, 10, 41, 51, 55, 99, 103-07, 114, 125, 151 K Kenosis. See Revisionary ratios L Labeling and deviance theory, x, xi, 91-107; 108-23, 126, 128, 162, 168, 169 Lie against time, 7, 47, 87, 113, 116, 119 M Matronalia, 45 Metadiegetic narrative, 33, 35-36, 38-39, 145, 146 Metalepsis, 12, 13, 40, 59, 107, 122 Metanarrative, 145 Methexis, 66 Metonomy, 12, 59, 107, 116, 147 Mise en abyme, x, 27, 32-39, 40-41, 129, 144, 147; retro-prospective, 36-38, 146 O Overdetermination, 59, 102-04 P Parable as reorientation, 27-28, 42 Parody, 43 Prolepsis, 32, 37, 40, 71-72, 75-76, 103-04, 146 Promise and fulfillment, 5, 12, 78-79 Prominence in social order, xi Pronouncement stories, 127-29, 130; corrective function, 128 R Repetition: in allusions, 13, 138; verbatim, 13, 19, 29, 50-51, 54, 55, 56, 69, 72, 85, 96, 101, 110-11, 112, 114, 120, 147, 163; in form, 13, 125, 147; in genre, 13, 29-30, 125, 138; in setting, 13, 17-19, 23, 50-51, 56, 66-68, 69, 72, 85, 88-89, 96-98, 102-06, 112, 115, 125, 168; in plot, 13, 17-19, 23, 50-51, 54, 56, 66-68, 69-71, 72-73, 85, 88-89, 96-98, 100, 102-06, 112, 115, 116, 125, 128-29, 168; in function, 120 Revision of norms, 91-107, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130-31, 138, 146 Revisionary ratios, x, 2, 10-13, 124, 138; clinamen, 10, 20, 40, 55, 99, 106-07, 119; tessera, 10, 20, 22, 23, 52, 54, 58, 64, 70, 89, 100, 107, 113, 116, 119, 122, 137, 155-56; kenosis, 10-11, 20, 22, 40, 52, 56, 58, 59, 99, 107, 113, 116, 117-18, 119-20, 122; daemonization, 11, 20, 22, 52, 58, 59, 71, 89, 99-100, 107, 113, 116, 117, 119-20, 122, 160; askesis, 11, 59, 113, 116; apophrades, 12, 13, 20, 40, 59, 160

Rhetorical functions: juridical, 127, 129, 170; deliberative, 127, 170; epideictic, 127, 130, 170 S Sacian feast, 46, 47, 49, 148, 149 Saturnalia, 44, 45, 47, 49 Sectarian exclusivism, 101 Social location, 125 Symbolic voice, 82-83 Synecdoche, 10, 52, 54, 58, 100, 107, 112, 115, 116, 118, 120, 146 T Tessera. See Revisionary ratios Theocentricity; 26, 39, 71, 110, 127, 128, 169; appropriation of scripture x, 1, 5, 24, 25, 58-59, 80, 83-86, 107, 122-23, 124, 126, 136, 153, 157; constitutive hermeneutic, 25; prophetic hermeneutic, 25; theocentric world, 56, 58-60, 62, 63, 73, 125; as criterion for norms, 131 Theodicy, 120, 123, 125 Transumption, 12-13, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 40, 59, 65, 107, 122, 124, 160 Typology, 5, 24, 71 U Unformulated text, 3, 4, 6, 7, 32, 44, 46, 50. See also Cultural code Ungrammaticality, x, 14, 15, 16, 48, 65, 66, 68, 77, 78 V Volume, in allusions. See Repetition: in allusions W Witchcraft, 109

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_175


Modern Author Index A Aland, K., 156 Alsup, J., 154 Alter, R., 72, 157 Anderson, A., 96, 153, 164 Angelet, C., 144, 145, 146 B Bakhtin, M., 12, 43, 44, 135, 136, 138, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 Bal, M., 35, 144, 145, 146, 147 Barrett, C., 163 Barthes, R., 28, 79, 82, 135, 142, 158, 160, 161, 162 Bartsch, H.-W., 48, 149 Bauernfeind, O., 154, 155, 162, 163, 164, 165 Baumgartel, F., 153 Beardslee, W., 158 Benoit, R., 157 Bentzen, A., 56, 152 Bergen, D., 137 Betz, O., 157 Bieder, W., 153 Bietenhard, H., 164 Black, C., 169, 170 Black, M., 137 Bloom, H., 7, 10-13, 20, 47, 52, 59, 71, 86, 87, 89, 99, 113, 136, 137, 138, 151, 155, 156, 159, 160, 170, 171 Bloome, R., 146 Booth, W., 171 Bowker, J, 167, 168 Boyarin, D., 135, 136, 140 Brawley, R., 138, 139, 142, 150, 151, 155, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165 Brodie, T., 140 Brown, S., 154, 157 Bruce, F., 155, 156, 163, 165, 166, 168 Büchele, A., 152, 158 Burchard, C., 167 Buss, M., 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 C Cadbury, H., 166 Calloud, J., 141, 157 Capiau-Laureys, E., 146, 147 Carlson, R., 170 Carrez, M., 170 Carroll, J., 135, 142, 156, 164, 166 Carroll, R., 140

Chilton, B., 143 Ching, J., 165 Clayton, J., 135 Clements, R., 21, 111, 141 Conzelmann, H., 48, 103, 116, 127, 149, 150, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170 Courtés, J., 158 Crockett, L., 167 Crossan, J., 139, 140, 143, 151 Culler, J, 161, 162 Culpepper, R., 169 D Dällenbach, L., 34, 144, 145, 146, 147 Damrosch, D., 136 Danker, F., 152 De la Potterie, J., 165 De Villiers, P., 164 Delitzsch, F., 141, 156, 166 Derrida, J., 136 Derrett, J., 157 Dillon, R., 153, 154, 163, 164 Doeve, J., 168 Doran, R., 147 Drury, J., 155 Dunn, J., 159, 160 Dupont, J., 139, 140, 141, 166, 169 E Eaton, J., 153 Ehrman, B., 152 Eltester, W., 136 Ernst, J., 142, 143-44, 147, 153 Etienne, A., 159, 161, 162 Evans, C., 136, 140 F Feuillet, A., 139 Fiorenza, E., 154 Fishbane, M., 137 Fisher, L., 152 Fitzmyer, J., 139, 142, 149, 150, 151, 152, 165 Fowler, W., 149 Frazer, J., 44, 148, 149 Frei, H., 24, 142 Friedman, S., 135 Fuller, R., 153, 157, 158 G Gadamer, H.-G., 6, 136 Gadd, C., 152

Gaechter, P., 154, 155, 158

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_176


G Garcia-Treto, F., 148 Garrett, S., 166, 167 Genette, G., 32, 33, 135, 138, 144, 146, 158 Gerhardsson, B., 139, 140, 142 Gese, H., 152, 166 Giblin, C., 158, 159 Ginzberg, L., 138 Glombitza, O., 161, 168, 169, 170 Goldsmith, D., 169 Good, E., 159 Goppelt, L., 5, 136 Gottwald, N., 147 Gourgues, M., 161 Gowler, D., 139, 159 Grebt, P., 170 Greimas, A., 158 Grundmann, W., 142, 143, 153 Guilding, A., 110, 167 Gunkel, H., 156, 166 H Haenchen, E., 86, 97, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Hahn, F., 152, 163, 166 Hallyn, F., 146 Hamm, D., 163 Hays, R., 13, 19, 29, 50, 55, 66, 69, 85, 104, 116, 118, 120, 136, 137, 138 Hebel, U., 135 Heinemann, J., 167 Hertz, N., 138 Hollander, J., 7, 8, 135, 136, 137, 161 Holtz, T., 136, 139, 140, 163, 164 Holtzmann, H., 147 Horsley, R., 151 Hubaut, M., 143, 147 Hulden, J., 152 Hultgren, A., 153 I Iser, W., 135, 136, 162, 170 J Jaubert, A., 155, 157, 158 Jeanrond, W., 137 Jefferson, A., 146 Jeremias, J., 30, 139, 143 Jervell, J., 142

Jewett, R., 151 Johnson, A., 152 Johnson, L., 159, 161, 167, 169 Juel, D., 84, 142, 153, 160, 161 Jülicher, A., 30, 31 K Karabidopoulou, I., 150, 151, 152 Karris, R., 150 Käsemann, E., 141 Kee, H., 167 Keil, C., 141 Kelber, W., 136 Kennedy, G., 170 Kermode, F., 136, 142 Kerrigan, A., 161 Kilgallen, J., 169 Kleinknecht, H., 153 Klostermann, E., 147 Klauck, H.-J., 143, 144 Kraus, H.-J., 152, 156, 164, 166 Kremer, J., 144, 153 Krieger, M., 32, 144 Kristeva, J., 43, 44, 49, 53, 62, 135, 136, 148, 151 Krodel, G., 154, 156 Kümmel, W., 31, 144 L LaCapra, D., 138 Lake, K., 166 Lang, F., 159 Léon-Dufour, X., 30, 142, 143, 144, 147 Lértora, J., 145 Levenson, J., 140, 142 Lindars, B., 69, 84, 85, 156, 161 Lohfink, G., 155, 163 Lohmeyer, E., 139 Long, W., 161 Longenecker, R., 142, 153 Lövestam, E., 162 M MacRae, G., 142 Maddox, R., 160 Malina, B., 109, 135, 139, 159, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 Marcus, J., 153, 166 Marshall, I., 144, 149, 151, 154, 155, 157, 168 Mayes, A., 141 McVann, M., 15, 139

Mead, R., 136 Metzger, B., 152, 154 Michel, O., 141 Milavec, A., 147 Miller, P., 140 Minear, P., 48, 49, 149 Moessner, D., 140 Moo, D., 150, 152, 153, 156

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_177


M Moore, S., 171 Morris, L., 167 Mussner, F., 160 N Nellesen, E., 155, 156, 157 Neyrey, J., 109, 135, 139, 148, 149, 151, 159, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 Nickelsburg, G., 150 Nilsson, M., 148 Nolland, J., 159 Nooy, J. de, 144, 146 O Oepke, A., 163 O'Toole, R., 167 Oster, R., 167 P Patte, D., 137, 159 Pesch, R., 69, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 167, 170 Pillai, J., 167 Plett, H., 138 Plümacher, E., 164 Plunkett, M., 152 Polzin, R., 141 R Rabinowitz, P., 157 Rengstorf, K., 143, 150, 154, 160 Rese, M., 5, 136, 160, 168, 169 Ricardou, J., 145, 146 Ricoeur, P., 7, 28, 137, 142, 143 Riffaterre, M., 7, 14, 15, 48, 59, 65, 77, 135, 136, 138, 152, 153 Robbins, V., 140, 142, 148, 170 Robinson, J., 146 Rohrbaugh, R., 15, 139, 141 Roloff, J., 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Römer, T., 141 Ron, M., 144, 145, 146 Rothstein, E., 135 S Sahlin, H., 155, 157 Sanders, Jack, 136, 145, 168, 170 Sanders, James, 136, 142 Schaberg, J., 150, 160 Schille, G., 155, 157 Schmithals, W., 143, 160

Schmitt, A., 161, 169 Schmitt, J., 169 Schneider, G., 81, 126-27, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 170 Scholes, R., 2, 135 Schotroff, W., 143 Schubert, P., 5, 136 Schürmann, H., 139, 140 Schweizer, E., 152, 153, 155 Scott, B., 30, 143 Senior, D., 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 Shklovsky, V., 158 Schenke, L., 165 Sjöberg, E., 153 Smekens, W., 145, 146 Snodgrass, K., 143, 144, 147 Soards, M., 150, 151 Soskice, J., 137 Stählin, G., 151, 155, 156 Stallybass, P., 43, 44, 46, 47, 148, 150, 151, 154 Sternberg, M., 146 Stinespring, W., 136 Suleiman, S., 138, 165 Suhl, A., 153 T Talbert, C., 149, 152 Tannehill, R., 126, 137, 138, 146, 154, 155, 158, 161, 170, 171 Theissen, G., 151 Tiede, D., 147 Tolbert, M., 146 Toloudis, C., 146 Troeltsch, E., 77, 159 U Untergassmair, F., 151, 152, 153, 158 V Van der Horst, P., 154, 155 Van Iersel, B., 143 Vandenbrande, R., 144, 145, 147 Verelst, P., 144 Vermes, G., 168 Visser't Hooft, W., 165 Von Rad, G., 71, 135, 141, 157 Vööbus, A., 149 Voss, G., 138 W Webber, R., 162, 164 Weinfeld, M., 141

Weiser, A., 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167 Wendland, P., 44, 148, 149

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_178


W Wheelwright, P., 137, 156 Widengren, G., 53, 148, 151 Wilckens, U., 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 168, 169 Wilcox, M., 155, 157 Wilkens, W., 140 Willis, J., 143 Wills, L., 170 Wilson, R., 140 Y Yee, G., 29, 143 Z Zehnle, R., 159 Zeller, R., 144 Zlotchew, C., 147

< previous page


next page >

< previous page

page_179 Page 179

ROBERT L. BRAWLEY is Professor of New Testament at McCormick Theological Seminary and author of Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation and Centering on God: Method and Message in Luke-Acts.

< previous page


Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts

Text-to-Speech Synthesis

Text-to-speech synthesis

Text-to-speech synthesis

Text

Evaluation of Text and Speech Systems (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Evaluation of Text and Speech Systems (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Text, Speech and Dialogue - TSD 2011

Guid to Text Game

Text Processing in Python

Text processing in Python

Societies in Text

Text Processing in Python

Text Algorithms

Text compression

Text Generation

Text compression

Text Me

Text Algorithms

Text Karl

Text Algorithms

Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Work-a-text in physical science (Cambridge work-a-text)

The Integration of Phonetic Knowledge in Speech Technology (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Advances in Psychology Volume 79 Text and Text Processing

Masculinities in Text and Teaching

Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory)

Studies in Music with Text

The Pleasure of the Text

Text Atlas of Penile Surgery

Inductive Dependency Parsing (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts

Text-to-Speech Synthesis

Text-to-speech synthesis

Text-to-speech synthesis

Text

Evaluation of Text and Speech Systems (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Evaluation of Text and Speech Systems (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Text, Speech and Dialogue - TSD 2011

Guid to Text Game

Text Processing in Python

Text processing in Python

Societies in Text

Text Processing in Python

Text Algorithms

Text compression

Text Generation

Text compression

Text Me

Text Algorithms

Text Karl

Text Algorithms

Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Work-a-text in physical science (Cambridge work-a-text)

The Integration of Phonetic Knowledge in Speech Technology (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Advances in Psychology Volume 79 Text and Text Processing

Masculinities in Text and Teaching

Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory)

Studies in Music with Text

The Pleasure of the Text

Text Atlas of Penile Surgery

Inductive Dependency Parsing (Text, Speech and Language Technology)

Recommend Documents