Lecture in Theology
2002
Septuagintal Midrash
in the
Speeches of Acts
2002
Marquette University Press
Milwaukee WI 53201-3141
All rights reserved.
Foreword
The annual Pre Marquette Lecture in Theology
commemorates the missions and explorations of
Pre Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002
lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969
under the auspices of the Marquette University
Department of Theology.
The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fund
has endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (18941986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking and
paper industry executive and a long-term supporter
of education. The fund was established by his children as a memorial to him.
iv
vi
vii
Septuagintal Midrash in
the Speeches of Acts
The longest and literarily most self-conscious of
early Christian compositions is the two-volume
work made up of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of
the Apostles, now universally known as Luke-Acts.1
It takes up a full quarter of the New Testament
canon, and represents Christianitys deliberate entry
into the literary discourse of the Hellenistic world.
Although some scholars still argue for the separation
of the two volumes,2 most correctly consider them
not only the work of the same author but two
interrelated parts of a single literary endeavor. The
full consequences of that judgment for interpretation, however, are less seldom realized.3
The importance of Luke-Acts for anyone wishing
to come to grips with the most successful of Jewish
heresies ought to be obvious. Luke has provided the
only narrative framework for the earliest stages of the
Christian movement, a narrative that in its odd
combination of verifiable information and fictional
shaping resists easy reduction to any single genre
from antiquity. A claim can reasonably be made that
the second volume resembles a Hellenistic novel,
though the same can scarcely be said of the Gospel.4
An argument can also be mounted that the two
Current Perspectives on
the Speeches in Acts
The last century saw a major shift in the way that
scholars view the many speeches found in the Acts of
the Apostles.18 No longer is it presumed that such
speeches report the actual words of historical characters, or even a sample of primitive preaching. The
conventional wisdom now is that the speeches of
Acts are entirely the work of Luke the author. C. H.
Dodd undertook the last credible effort to salvage
the so-called missionary speeches as historical evidence. He did not claim that the speeches of Acts
were verbatim reports, but that they contained a
kernel of proclamation derived from the earliest
preachers and providing the basic framework for the
Gospels. Dodd observed not only that the speeches
by Peter and Paul shared certain consistent elements, but that Paul also alludes to these same
elements when he speaks of the kerygma (proclamation). From these two observations, Dodd argued
that a comparison of the Pauline epistles with
the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certain
outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles in the
first generation.19 He further considered that the
speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 10 and 13 provide
the framework for the composition of the narrative
Gospels, most obviously the Gospel of Mark.20
Dodds work was already something of a conservative reaction to a growing scholarly opinion that
Actsabove all in its speechescontained little of
genuine historical value.21 It was rather easy work for
scholars like Ulrich Wilckens to respond to Dodd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
wet,
and
in
18:6,
once
.
more, .hebl sel. Now the Hebrew verb habal (to
bind or pledge)63 has two noun forms, each pointed
differently. Pointed as hebel,
it means cord/rope/
.
line, and this is the meaning that makes the most
sense of 2 Samuel 22:6, the cords of death have
encircled me, and of Psalm 18:5 and 6, the cords
of death encompassed methe cords of Sheol entangled me. Pointed as .hebel, however, the Hebrew
also has the sense of pain or travail, such as is
experienced at birth (e.g., Job 39:3; Isa. 66:7).
Clearly this is the pointing assumed by the LXX
when it translates hebl
. e as odinai. By choosing this
less obvious way of translating the Hebrew, the LXX
(perhaps inadvertently) has also created a profound
paranomasia: the cords of death are also the birth
pangs of death, so that death itself can be read as the
beginning of a new life, an understanding obviously
congenial to Christian readers, who might, even
unconsciously, carry over this nuance in speaking of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
experience of persecution by the Jerusalem authorities. Although the prayer is not formally a discourse,
it is surely a speech act, and one whose obvious
literary function is to interpret for the reader the
meaning of the story that unfolds around it.98 What
is the meaning of this part of Lukes narrative?
Having established, by his description of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the common life of
the first community, that the church was indeed the
restoration of Israel, 99 Luke turns his attention to
the question of the leadership over this people. The
first arrest and warning not to preach in the name of
Jesus (4:1-22) corresponds to the first rejection of
both Moses and Jesus. The response to this prayer
for power with an overwhelming outpouring of the
Spirit (4:31) corresponds to the empowerment of
both Moses and Jesus by God: This empowerment
is manifested precisely in the signs and wonders
that the apostles do among the people and their
authoritative role in the sharing of possessions (note
the repetition of laying at the apostles feet in 4:35,
37 and 5:2).100 The subsequent arrest and interrogation of the apostles serves the narrative by revealing
two things: first, the official leadership of the people
rejects even this second sending in power
Gamaliels advice shows ironically that he doesnt
get itand second, the balance of power over
Gods people Israel has in any case effectively shifted
to the apostles.101
Grasping the narrative flow in this part of Acts is
the best way of solving the problem presented by
Lukes obscure introduction to this scene (4:23-24):
when they had been released, they went pros tous
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
everlasting covenant (kai diathesomai hymin diatheken aionion), but its translation of the remainder
of the statement, though intelligible, has a strange
effect. The LXX has translated the Hebrew hasede
(mercy/mercies) with the neuter plural hosia, and
the Hebrew haneemanm (enduring) with the
neuter plural pista. Each choice makes sense, at least
mechanically. The Greek adjective hosios is usually
used to translate the Hebrew hasid,
(holy one/pious
.
one), whether singular or plural.122 But so far as I can
tell, this is the only time it is used to render the plural
hased,
which is formed from the noun hesed
(mercy),
.
.
usually rendered by the LXX as eleos.123 Likewise, the
Greek adjective pistos is regularly used to translate
aman,124 but again, Isaiah 55:3 is the only occasion
when it is found in the plural neuter pista. The
combination of terms, therefore, is unusual and
opens up interpretive possibilities that were not
present to the same degree in the Hebrew. It is not
at all clear that Gods showing steadfast, sure love
for David to you (plural) could be exploited
messianically.
The degree to which the LXX can be so exploited
depends on how the odd combination ta hosia ta
pista is to be understood. And here is where scholars
divide.125 In my view, the phrase is best understood
in the context of ancient Greek usage for a variety of
divine sanctions, in which hosia can refer to the
things declared holy by the gods as opposed to those
things declared just by humans (dikaia).126 The only
other instance of hosia in the LXX, in fact, bears this
sense: in Deut. 29:18 (19), it is used to translate
when such a one hears the words of these sanctions
45
46
Conclusions
This essay has touched on a number of aspects of
Lukes interpretation of Scripture within the speeches
of Acts, and, although the treatment of them was
necessarily superficial, it nevertheless allows the following six conclusions.
47
48
49
50
51
generative period of creative scriptural interpretation, what are the implications for our understanding of earliest Christian history? On one side, we
need to deal with the way that, through his speeches
as well as his narrative, Luke has himself constructed
a powerful version of that history. On the other side,
if Luke is writing shortly after the career of Paul and
shares his hermeneutical methods (except allegory),
we may need to reevaluate the frequent understanding of Luke as writing from a perspective dramatically different from Pauls. The evidence from the
interpretation of Scripture in Lukes speeches suggests that their perspectives, at least on this critical
point, are not so disparate as sometimes supposed.
The second question is theological. Given the fact
that Scripture for Lukeand for all the New Testament writerswas not the Hebrew but rather the
Greek LXX, how should we think about western
Christianitys long estrangement from the LXX?
The Eastern Church continues to use the LXX as its
Old Testament, and all Christian theology through
Augustine was based squarely on the Greek Old and
New Testament. But since Jeromes Vulgate, the
West has based its translations on the Hebrew. Yet
the implications of this shift have never adequately
been addressed theologically. The seamless
intertexture of Luke-Acts and the rest of the New
Testament no longer exists. Indeed, the patterns of
New Testament citation, allusion, and argument
from Scripture no longer appear evident or even
credible. It is perhaps time to honestly face the
question whether the LXX is really the Christian
Old Testament.140
52
53
Notes
1. The designation took hold because of the influence of the
classic study by H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts
(New York: MacMillan, 1927), which anticipated virtually
all lines of subsequent research on this composition.
2. See M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of
Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
3. It remains a remarkable fact that among the major commentary series, there is a single author for both volumes only in
one: L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina, no. 3
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) and The Acts of the
Apostles, Sacra Pagina, no. 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
1992). The other major treatment of both volumes from the
perspective of their literary unity is R. C. Tannehill, The
Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 198690).
4. See especially R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary
Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1987).
5. For Luke-Acts as biography, see C. H. Talbert, What is a
Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977); D. L. Brown and J. L. Wentling, The
Conventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of LukeActs: A Preliminary Study, in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives
from the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. C. H. Talbert (New
York: Crossroad, 1984), 63-88.
6. For Luke-Acts as a Hellenistic history, see G. E. Sterling,
Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and
Apologetic Historiography, Novum Testamentum Supplements, no. 64 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); D. W. Palmer,
Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph, in The Book
of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 1, The Books of Acts
in its Literary Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1-30; J. T. Squires, The
Plan of God in Luke-Acts, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series, no. 76 (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1993). On the importance of Lukes Prologue
54
55
56
21. Skepticism concerning the historicity of Acts is characteristic of German scholarship, in sharp contrast to the optimistic positivism of much British scholarship. The German
approach is exemplified by the great commentary by E.
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. B. Noble et al.
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); the more conservative
British approach is represented by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the
Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1951), and C. J. Hemer,
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no. 49
(Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989).
22. U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, no. 5 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961).
23. H. J. Cadbury, The Speeches in Acts, in Additional Notes
to the Commentary, ed. K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, vol.5 of
The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and
K. Lake, part 1, The Acts of the Apostles, (London: MacMillan
and Company, 1933), 402-27; M. Dibelius, Paul on the
Areopagus, The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography, and Literary Allusions in the Speeches of Acts, all
in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, trans.
Mary Ling (London: SCM Press, 1951; reprint, Mifflintown,
Pa.: Sigler Press, 1999), 26-77, 138-85, 186-91.
24. Herodotus, trans. A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926).
25. Thucydides, trans. C. F. Smith, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1928).
26. Jewish War, trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Loeb Classical
Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927).
27. Lucian of Samosata, How to Write History, trans. K.
Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1959).
28. F. F. Bruce recognizes this in principle in The Significance
of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts, Southwestern Journal
of Theology 1 (1990): 20-28, although in practice, he emphasizes the reportage dimension of the speeches in Acts.
29. In The Speeches of Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 12,
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
82. Compare 13:18 and Deut. 1:31; 13:19; 7:1; 13:21 and 1
Sam. 10:21-24.
83. In the sequence from 4:1 to 5:42, Luke shows the ordinary
populace and the official leadership of the people responding to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ and Lord in
dramatically different ways. The ordinary people respond
positively, while the leadership rejects the apostles message
and authority. See Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 75-104.
84. Ibid., 142-44.
85. False witnesses first accuse him of blasphemous words
against Moses and God (6:11). Then, before the council
they say that Stephen speaks against this holy place and the
law (6:13). Finally, this is explicated by 6:14 as, Jesus the
Nazorean will destroy this place and change the customs
that Moses handed down to us.
86. Among many studies devoted to the speech, see C. K.
Barrett, Old Testament History according to Stephen and
Paul, in Studien zum Text und Ethik des Neuen Testaments,
ed. W. Schrage, Beihefte Zeitschrift fr die Neuen Testament, no. 47 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 57-69; J.
Bihler, Die Stephanusgeschichte, Mnchener Theologische
Studien, no. 1, Historische Abteilung, no. 30 (Mnchen:
Max Huebner, 1963); J. Dupont, La Structure oratoire du
discours dEtienne (Actes 7), Biblica 66 (1985): 153-67; J.
Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional
Study of Acts 7,2-53, Analecta Biblica, no. 67 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976); D. Sylva, The Meaning
and Function of Acts 7:46-50, Journal of Biblical Literature
106 (1987): 261-75; J. E. Via, An Interpretation of Acts
7:35-37 from the Perspective of Major Themes in LukeActs, in Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers,
ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
1978); 209-23.
87. See G. W. E. Nicklesburg, The Bible Rewritten and
Expanded, in The Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period, ed. M. E. Stone, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), 89-156.
66
67
68
69
schrift, n.s., 17 (1973): 229-48; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta
Apostolorum, 159-202; Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth
Speech, 108-23.
114. See, e.g., Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 337-56.
115. Unlike Matt. 22:41, which explicitly identifies the interlocutors as Pharisees, and Mark 12:35, which identifies
them as Scribes, Luke 20:41 has only how do they say,
leaving the identity of the referent to be inferred from his
previous exchange with some Scribes (Luke 20:39-40).
116. In addition to the explicit citations in Matt. 22:44, Mark
12:36, and Luke 20:42, see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb.
1:3 and 13, as well as allusions in Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62;
Luke 22:69; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:1;
10:12.
117. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure
of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); R. B.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Brawley, Text
to Text Pours Forth Speech, 4-8, 37-40, 127-40.
118. See D. Juel, The Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use
of Psalm 16 in Acts 2, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43
(1981): 543-56, and his Messianic Exegesis: Christological
Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
119. For the text, see Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated,
136; for discussion, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 43-45.
120. It is possible to discern in Lukes argument certain of the
interpretive rules (middoth) that were codified among scribal
interpreters already in the first century. For the seven Rules
of Hillel, see the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 37 (Aboth de Rabbin
Nathan: The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, trans. J.
Goldin, Yale Judaica Series, no. 10 [New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press, 1955]). Rules such as gezerah shewa (inference from
analogy of expression) and binyan av (induction from texts
with features in common), however, were intended mainly
to control the serious business of halachic midrash. In the
case of haggadic (non-legal) interpretationthe sort Luke
is doingpractice is much more freewheeling. For an
introduction, see R. Kasher, The Interpretation of Scrip-
70
71
72
135. Dupont takes the position that Luke took over earlier
interpretations, in Apologetic Use of the Old Testament,
151-52.
136. L. Cerfaux, La premire Communaut chrtienne
Jrusalem (Act. ii, 41-v, 42), Ephemerides theologicae
lovanienses 16 (1939): 5-31.
137. Still worth reading is W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Pauls Youth (London: Epworth, 1962).
138. For Pauls complex argument in Galatians 3, for example,
see N. A. Dahl, Contradictions in Scripture, in Studies in
Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977)
159-77, and T. Callan, Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical
Background of Gal. 3:19b, Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(1980): 549-67.
139. For my position concerning the Pauline School as active
in all of Pauls correspondence, see L. T. Johnson, The
Writings of the New Testament, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) 261-78, and The First and Second Letters
to Timothy, Anchor Bible, vol. 35A (New York: Doubleday,
2001), 81-99.
140. This issue is discussed in my forthcoming book, cowritten with William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical
Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
141. See L. T. Johnson, Scripture and Discernment. For the
understanding of faith as response to the continuous selfdisclosure of God in the common fabric of human experience, see L. T. Johnson, Faiths Freedom: A Classic Spirituality
for Contemporary Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1990).
73
74
75
76
77
(414) 288-7298
(414) 288-3300
andrew.tallon@marquette.edu
www.marquette.edu/mupress/