Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash

8/10/2019 Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/luke-timothy-johnson-septuagintal-midrash 1/87



The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology

2002

Septuagintal Midrashin the

Speeches of Acts

Luke Timothy Johnson



© 2002Marquette University Press

Milwaukee WI 53201-3141 All rights reserved.

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

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Johnson, Luke Timothy.

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



Foreword

The annual Père Marquette Lecture in Theology commemorates the missions and explorations of Père Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969under the auspices of the Marquette University Department of Theology.

The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fundhas endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (1894-1986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking andpaper industry executive and a long-term supporterof education. The fund was established by his chil-dren as a memorial to him.

Luke Timothy Johnson

A native of Park Falls has returned to the state of hisbirth to give our Père Marquette Lecture for 2002.Professor Johnson has come to us from the CandlerSchool of Theology at Emory University, where heis the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testa-ment and Christian Origins. He has built his distin-guished career on the effort to interpret the Bible asa living resource given by God to the Church, aneffort that has borne an amazingly rich and variedharvest of reflection on the New Testament and the

origins of the Christian movement.In 1966, Professor Johnson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Notre Dame Semi-nary in New Orleans, Louisiana. He went on to earn



iv Luke Timothy Johnson

his Masters of Divinity from Indiana’s St. MeinradSchool of Theology in 1970 and, in the same year,his Masters of Arts in religious studies from Indiana University. Six years later, Yale University awardedProfessor Johnson his Ph.D. in New Testament,after he had completed a now published and influ-ential dissertation entitledThe Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts . In the meantime, he hadalready begun his teaching career, having lectured atSt. Meinrad during his last year of study there, thenext year at St. Joseph Seminary College, and atGonzaga College in the summer of 1973. Uponfinishing his degree at Yale Divinity, Professor

Johnson became an assistant and then associateprofessor there. In 1982, he moved to Indiana

University, where he became a full professor in1988. Since 1992, he has occupied his current chairat Emory.

Along the way, many have recognized and re- warded Professor Johnson’s scholarship and teach-ing. The Lilly Endowment awarded him threeresearch grants in the mid 1980s, allowing him to

pursue his work on the contemporary use of the New Testament. Phi Beta Kappa selected Professor Johnson as a visiting scholar for 1997-98, and lastyear he was a Henry Luce III Fellow in Theology.His two-year term as Senior Fellow of the Interdis-ciplinary Center for the Study of Religion at Emory

will expire in 2003. Over the years, Professor Johnsonhas received awards for his distinguished teaching from the students and administration of Indiana University, from the National University Continu-ing Education Association, and twice each from the



Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts v

Candler School of Theology and Phi Beta Kappa’sEmory Chapter. In 1999, Marquette’s neighbors atNashota House awarded him the Doctor of Divinity honoris causa .

The word prolifichardly does justice to Professor Johnson’s scholarly output. Since 1969, he hasauthored twenty books (including The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conver-sation, co-authored with Marquette’s own WilliamKurz, S.J., and soon to be published by Eerdmans).He has written thirty-one scholarly articles andtwenty-five encyclopedia articles, and reviewed 150books. His work as editor ofTeaching Religion toUndergraduates: Some Approaches and Ideas fromTeachers to Teachers (1973) bore witness early on to

what would prove an enduring interest in pedagogy.But the scholarly community knows Professor Johnson best for his exegetical works on the New Testament. Since 1991, he has published two com-mentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and one each on

James, Romans, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.He saw the Korean translation of his preaching

guide to the Pastoral Epistles come out in 1999.These works developed as the natural fruit of reflec-tions represented by many articles and book reviewsProfessor Johnson has been writing on the exegesisof these parts of the New Testament since the early seventies.

But because his intellect can not find completesatisfaction in the necessarily narrow focus of thecommentary form, he has since the early eightiesconsistently produced works of New Testamentexegesis with what one might call a wide-angle lens.



vi Luke Timothy Johnson

The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretationcame out in American and English editions in 1986,

was revised twelve years later, and came out inKorean in 2000. Professor Johnson has writtenarticles on the authority and literary diversity of theNew Testament books, as well as on the New Testament concepts of God, salvation, witness, andproselytism and on the anti-Jewish rhetoric in theNew Testament. He wrote ‘Imagining the WorldScripture Imagines,’ a 1998 article in Modern Theol-ogy which L. G. Jones and J. J. Buckley also includedin their volumeTheology and Scriptural Imagination,published that same year. Professor Johnson’s articleon the status of the Jewish Bible after the Holocaust

will appear in the forthcoming Reading the New

Testament after the Holocaust.Since 1995, this interest in the larger issues of New Testament interpretation has led Professor Johnsonto participate in the heated public controversy overthe respective roles of historical inquiry and of theChurch’s faith in learning who Jesus really was and

what he really said and did. He has presented his

positions to the literate general public in Bible Review, Commonweal, The Christian Century, andother such organs. At the same time, he has devel-oped his scholarly case in articles and books, mostnotably The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels(1996) and Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospels(1998). Forthcoming articles and a book

will testify to his continuing interest in the way various methods of interpretation can contribute tothe renewal of biblical scholarship.



Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts vii

His hope for that renewal comes from a deepmotivation visible to anyone who reviews Professor

Johnson’s energetic and fruitful career. Since 1977,he has spoken to church congregations, bishops’meetings, and academic gatherings in at least twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia, in Bangkok,

Winnipeg, in Windsor, Ontario, in Dublin andOxford. His scholarship, as well as popular articlesand lectures and his encyclopedia contributions,have all focused on making available to today’sreaders the Bible’s spiritual power to move and guidepeople toward the God of Jesus Christ. MarquetteUniversity’s Department of Theology is confidentthat Professor Johnson’s reflections will help those

who hear or read them to give greater honor and

glory to that same God. Joseph G. Mueller, S.J.

Feast of the Annunciation





Septuagintal Midrash inthe Speeches of Acts

The longest and literarily most self-conscious of early Christian compositions is the two-volumework 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 Testamentcanon, and represents Christianity’s deliberate entry

into the literary discourse of the Hellenistic world. Although some scholars still argue for the separationof the two volumes,2 most correctly consider themnot only the work of the same author but twointerrelated parts of a single literary endeavor. Thefull consequences of that judgment for interpreta-tion, however, are less seldom realized.3

The importance of Luke-Acts for anyone wishing to come to grips with the most successful of Jewishheresies ought to be obvious. Luke has provided theonly narrative framework for the earliest stages of theChristian movement, a narrative that in its oddcombination of verifiable information and fictionalshaping resists easy reduction to any single genrefrom antiquity. A claim can reasonably be made thatthe second volume resembles a Hellenistic novel,though the same can scarcely be said of the Gospel.4

An argument can also be mounted that the two



2 Luke Timothy Johnson

volumes together approximate certain forms of Hellenistic biography, the sort that tells of a philo-sophical founder (Jesus) and his school (the apostles),though that definition leaves out of account the twomost important characters in the narrative, God andIsrael.5 The best case can be made that Luke-Acts isa form of apologetic history in which God’s fidelity to Israel is defended and demonstrated through thecourse of a narrative which with great purposeful-ness tells events “in sequence” (Luke 1:3).6 Luke useshis narrative to construct the aetiological myth of Gentile Christianity,7 and does so with such com-pelling simplicity that even until our own era, read-ers were convinced that things happened the way Luke said they did, indeed had to have so happened:

of course Gentiles are the authentic realization of God’s people!In the process of constructing his narrative, Luke

also managed to define nascent Christianity’s rela-tionship to the larger world. Luke portrayed Chris-tians’ relation to the Greco-Roman empire andculture that this movement would eventually, if nevertheless unexpectedly, subsume. Luke also de-lineated Christianity’s relationship to the Judaismthat, at the time of Luke’s writing, was itself emerg-ing from the complex rivalries and the internecineconflicts of the first century, and from the harrowing purification of the Roman war, as a more unified andPharisaically defined claimant to represent God’schosen people. Luke’s narrative is completely athome in the symbolic world of Torah. Jesus and hisfollowers are depicted as prophets standing in theline of Moses and Elijah;8 individual scenes and



Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 3

entire stretches of narrative alike can be read asechoing scriptural examples.9 At the same time,many of Luke’s scenes, from birth stories to prisonescapes to deaths of tyrants, find a parallel in Helle-nistic novels and histories,10 and if Luke’s heroes canbe called prophets, so also their depiction strongly resembles that of Greco-Roman philosophers.11 Itis, indeed, the way in which both cultural forces areso much in evidence and so intricately intertwinedthat forms one of the abiding mysteries about thisotherwise open-faced and determinedly nonironicwriting. They are each so much in evidence that anentire reading of Luke-Acts is theoretically possiblefrom the side of Judaism or of Hellenism withouttaking the other dimension into account. They are

so inextricably connected, however, that bracketing out one or the other cultural element leads to inter-pretations that fail to match the richness of Luke’sliterary texture. It is natural to ask how to account forthis remarkable cultural synthesis.

Asking that question, we are reminded how littleprogress scholarship has made in reaching agree-ment on the basic introductory questions concern-ing Luke-Acts. What sort of writing is it? Why wasit written? Who wrote it? When was it composed? Ihave already noted the debate over genre. There is aneven wider range of opinion concerning date, au-thorship, and purpose.12 It is possible to date Luke- Acts as early as the year 85 in the first century or themiddle of the second century without losing aca-demic credibility.13 The fact that so many theoriescontinue to flourish simply proves the resistance of Luke-Acts to the habitual methods of historians.14




Trying to reconstruct a “Lukan community” fromthe themes of this composition that might in turnprovide a framework for understanding those themesis frustrated by the historical sweep of Luke’s narra-tive, and even more by its literary artistry.15 Thisdoes not mean that we cannot ask questions of historical placement concerning this writing, but itmeans that we must ask them more obliquely andcircumspectly, working through the literary dimen-sions of the text rather than working around them.16

In fact, the more adequate posing of such a historicalquestion is one of the goals of the present essay.

I propose to investigate the aspect of Luke-Acts inwhich the mingling of Hellenistic and Jewish ele-ments is perhaps most visible and puzzling, in an

activity that is of particular importance for theprocess of messianic self-identification. My focus isthe way Luke shows the first Christians interpreting the texts of Scripture that form the common sym-bolic world of messianist and non-messianist Jews of the first century, as well as their most obvious fieldof contention.17 And I investigate this scripturalinterpretation as it is found in the speeches of Luke’ssecond volume, the Acts of the Apostles. I will startwith what is generally known and accepted, beforeapproaching what is less certain and therefore opento more possibilities, moving steadily toward a ques-tion for which I do not yet have the answer.




Current Perspectives on

the Speeches in ActsThe last century saw a major shift in the way thatscholars view the many speeches found in the Acts of the Apostles.18 No longer is it presumed that suchspeeches report the actual words of historical charac-ters, or even a sample of primitive preaching. Theconventional 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 salvagethe so-called missionary speeches as historical evi-dence. He did not claim that the speeches of Actswere verbatim reports, but that they contained a kernel of proclamation derived from the earliest

preachers and providing the basic framework for theGospels. Dodd observed not only that the speechesby Peter and Paul shared certain consistent ele-ments, but that Paul also alludes to these sameelements when he speaks of thekerygma (proclama-tion). From these two observations, Dodd arguedthat “a comparison … of the Pauline epistles withthe speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certainoutline sketch of the preaching of the apostles” in thefirst generation.19 He further considered that thespeeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 10 and 13 providethe framework for the composition of the narrativeGospels, most obviously the Gospel of Mark.20

Dodd’s work was already something of a conserva-tive reaction to a growing scholarly opinion that Acts—above all in its speeches—contained little of genuine historical value.21 It was rather easy work forscholars like Ulrich Wilckens to respond to Dodd




with two devastating observations: first, analysis of diction and themes makes clear that the speechesrepresent the same outlook as the narrative in whichthey are found; second, the reason why Luke’smissionary speeches match the outline of the Gospelof Mark is that Luke himself was using Mark as a source when he composed his own Gospel.22

As with so much in the study of Acts, the basicimpetus for the shift in perspective came from thepioneering literary analyses of Henry J. Cadbury andMartin Dibelius.23 They took the approach, whichthen seemed daring but now appears common-sensical, of placing the speeches of Acts within thecomparative literary context of Greco-Roman cul-ture, and specifically within the conventions of

Hellenistic historiography. This broader framework of literary and cultural comparison revealed, as it sooften does, that the writers of the New Testamentwere writing according to the rhetorical types andtropes of their day. Such analysis made it clear thatLuke used speeches in the same way and for the samepurposes as other Hellenistic historians.

In Persian Wars 7.8–18, Herodotus presents a series of speeches exchanged by Xerxes and Artabanusconcerning the advisability of the Persians’ under-taking a war of revenge and conquest against theGreeks.24 Far from being a report of an actualconversation, these exchanges are rather rhetoricalexercises in which Herodotus supplies what he re-gards as the machinations and motivations of his-torical figures. Xerxes works hard to persuade hisfellow Persians to undertake the expedition, and hisdiscourses are full of language concerning divine




guidance and the will of God. Likewise in hisPeloponnesian War 2.36–46, Thucydides has thestatesman Pericles deliver a long funeral oration overthe slain Athenian heroes. Much of the speech is anencomium of the city of Athens, its history, itsdistinctive laws and customs, and its virtues: “as a city we are the school of Hellas.” The slain warriorshad done battle for a city with such attributes, and“so died these men as became Athenians.”25

Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus placesKing Agrippa before a crowd of Jewish insurgents todeliver a lengthy argument on the futility of engag-ing in rebellion against Rome (BJ 2.345–401).26

Prominent in his discourse is the argument thatRome’s success in arms everywhere in the world is

proof that resistance against its armies is futile. Josephus has the king say, “The only refuge, then,left to you is divine assistance. But even this is rangedon the side of the Romans, for without God’s aid, sovast an empire could never have been built up” (BJ 2.390). Josephus also reports his own standing uponthe walls of the doomed city to implore his country-men not to continue their suicidal resistance to theRoman siege (BJ5.376–419). While being deridedby his listeners and dodging missiles thrown at himby them (BJ5.375), Josephus delivered himself of a lengthy, highly detailed, rhetorically polished, his-torical recital and political analysis, the upshot of which was, “Quit while the quitting’s good!”Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus all followedthe conventions of Hellenistic historiography. They gave their characters idealized speeches to delivereven in unlikely circumstances, to show what should




have been said on such occasions, and to interpretfor the reader of the history the deeper meaning thatthe mere recital of events never could.In his treatiseHow to Write History 58, Lucian of Samosata says that the writing of speeches enablesthe historian “to play the actor and show [his or her]eloquence.”27 This is just what Hellenistic historiansdid. The real audience for their speeches was not thecharacters in the story they were telling, but theaudience who heard their stirring words being readaloud in the present. Thucydides tells us of his ownpractice: “I have put into the mouth of each speakerthe sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed asI thought he would be most likely to express them,while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I

could, to give the general import of what was actu-ally said” (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1). This is exactly what we find Luke doing as well.28 All the speechesin Acts are Luke’s speeches. When he has Peteraddress the crowd at Pentecost (2:14-36), Stephenaddress the threatening Sanhedrin (7:2-53), or Paulspeak to the Athenian philosophers (17:22-31),Luke composes their speeches as samples of the sortof rhetoric that would have been appropriate in eachcircumstance. Luke’s speeches, in short, contain notonly his language but also his perceptions.29 Dosome of his speeches in the first part of Acts seem tohave a particularly “primitive” feel to them?30 This isone more example of Luke’s chameleon-like literary skill. As Eduard Pluemacher has shown, “archaizing”in language is a thoroughly Hellenistic stylistic de-vice.31






My own work on Luke’s speeches has focusedprimarily on their narrative functions. I have arguedthat Luke does not place his speeches randomly butrather strategically, in order to provide his readers atkey moments with an interpretation of the story thathe is narrating. In this sense, his speeches are a formof authorial commentary, placed in the mouths of characters. The most impressive example is Stephen’sspeech (Acts 7:2-53), whose long recital of thebiblical story concentrates on the figure of Moses(7:17-50). He structures the story of Moses as twovisitations of the Prophet to the people for theirsalvation (7:25). In the first visitation, his fellow-Israelites do not understand and reject him (7:23-28), so that he is forced to flee in exile (7:29). But

while in exile, he encounters God (7:30-34) and issent back to visit the people a second time with greatpower, working “signs and wonders” (7:35-38).Those who reject the Prophet’s second visitation arethemselves sent into exile (7:39-50). By structuring the Moses story in this fashion, Luke anticipates thedouble visitation of Jesus to Israel—the first timeleading to rejection, the second time in the power of the spirit through the apostles—and at the sametime provides his readers with an interpretive key forhis entire two-volume composition.39

In the Gospel as well as in Acts, the speeches thatLuke puts in the mouth of his characters fulfillsimilar interpretive functions, if in less obviousways. The programmatic character of Jesus’ inaugu-ral speech at Nazareth in 4:16-30 is recognized by all.40 Even Jesus’ parables can serve to interpret thenarrative context in which they are embedded.




The three parables of the lost sheep, coin, and son inLuke 15:3-32 are clearly meant to provide a para-bolic commentary on the narrative setting in 15:1-2. Even more strikingly, the Lukan kingship parablein 19:12-27 provides a response to the narrativesituation posed by 19:11, but also an interpretationof the narrative to follow.41

In these observations on Luke’s speeches, I haveemphasized his own freedom of composition (espe-cially in Acts, where he was unconstrained by the Jesus tradition) and the thoroughly Hellenistic char-acter of his compositional habits. These two aspectsof the speeches in Acts help to sharpen the questionthat needs to be posed concerning the interpretationof Scripture that we find within them. Before con-

sidering these elements in combination, however, itis necessary rapidly to review some standard pointsconcerning Luke’s use of Scripture in general.42

Luke’s Use of Scripture in General As in other early Christian writings, “proof from

prophecy” is an important weapon in Luke’s apolo-getic armory.43 His narrative shows that the events of Jesus’ birth, ministry, death and resurrection are all“in fulfillment” of Torah. As Jesus says to his follow-ers at his last supper, “I tell you, this Scripture mustbe fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned withtransgressors,’ [Isa. 53:12], for what is written about

me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37). But Lukeextends and refines the argument from prophecy.44

He extends it by including not only the life, death,and resurrection of the Messiah, but the develop-




ment of the messianic community as well: Scriptureinterprets stages in the church’s life and growth (e.g., Acts 3:24; 13:40; 15:15). It is characteristic of Lukethat he delays citing the rejection saying from Isaiah6 that Mark and Matthew use in the parable dis-course (Mark 4:12; Matt. 13:14-15) until the very end of his narrative, in Acts 28:25-27. His narrativeseeks to show “the things brought to fulfillmentamong us” (Luke 1:1), and the demonstration in-cludes showing how texts of Scripture find theirtelos in the recent past or even the present of his readers.

Luke also refines proof from prophecy by avoiding the sort of lockstep correlation of text and eventfavored by the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s “for-mula citations” serve as authorial commentary on

his narrative. He typically recites a story about Jesus,following it with the expression “this happened inorder to fulfill the saying of the prophet” and anexplicit citation from Scripture.45 In this manner,Matthew brings Jesus’ miraculous conception, placeof birth, escape from King Herod, hometown, teach-ing in parables, working of miracles, and betrayaland death under the umbrella of messianic meaning offered by Torah.46 Luke avoids such repeated for-mulas and the attachment of specific texts to specificevents. In the Gospel, indeed, he is fonder of generalsummation than of direct citation, as when the risen Jesus opens his followers’ eyes to the meaning of Scripture: “‘Was it not necessary that the Messiahshould suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, heinterpreted to them in all the Scriptures the thingsconcerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Luke also refines




the notion of prophecy fulfillment in the way hisnarrative echoes and alludes to Scripture because heuses diction and even shapes his stories in order toevoke Scriptural precedents.47

Still, Luke does quote Scripture extensively toshow, as Jesus also told those followers, “that every-thing written about me in the Law of Moses and theProphets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke24:44). In the Gospel we find some fifteen directcitations from Scripture.48 They are introduced vari-ously,49 and by various characters.50 More significantis the fact that, with the single exception of thecitation from Isa. 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6—which istaken over and expanded from Mark 1:2-3—all thecitations in the Gospel occur in spoken discourse

rather than in narrative exposition. In his Gospel,Luke consistently interprets through the speech of his characters, a practice he continues even moreelaborately in his second volume. Before turning tothat practice, which is the real focus of this essay, itis necessary to consider one more preliminary buttruly critical question. What version of Scripturedoes Luke have his characters cite and interpret?Like many other Jews of the first century in thediaspora and in Palestine—writers like Aristobulus, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Paul of Tarsus—Lukeused the Greek translation of Torah that had been inexistence some 300 years when he set about compos-ing Luke-Acts, a translation known as the Septuagint(LXX). Although that simple designation camou-flages a host of critical questions, the LXX at the very least distinguishes a recognizable version of the OldTestament that was widely read for generations




before the first century, was regarded by at least someof its readers as divinely inspired, generated severalrival Greek versions, and gave rise to a substantialHellenistic Jewish literature.51 There is no reason tosuspect in the case of Luke, as there sometimes iswith Matthew, that his citations from the LXX aredeliberately altered because of the influence of theHebrew (hereafter, MT for “Massoretic Text”).52

Rather, as Jacques Dupont has demonstrated in a brilliant set of essays, Luke’s use of scriptural cita-tions relies on the specific nuances of the LXX, tosuch an extent that the MT would have been uselessfor his purposes.53 I offer three brief examples.

In Peter’s first address to the assembly of Jesus’followers gathered before Pentecost, Luke shows

him fulfilling Jesus’ command to “strengthen hisbrethren” when he had turned (Luke 22:32). Hisdiscourse concerns the need to replace the traitorous Judas in order to fill out the symbolic number of theTwelve before the bestowal of the Holy Spirit thatconstitutes the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:16-25).54

Peter cites two passages from the Psalms with refer-ence, respectively, to the death of Judas and the needto replace him.55 The Scripture, he begins, “had to befulfilled” (1:16). His first citation is from the LXX of Psalm 68:26, which reads, “Let his dwelling placebecome deserted and let there be no one dwelling init” ( gen eth eto h e epaulis autou er emos kai m e esto hokatoikon en aut ei , Acts 1:20). The citation has only minor modifications from the LXX, which in turn isclose to the MT of Ps 69:25.56 Luke has the text dodouble duty, referring at once to Judas’s death on thefarm he had purchased with his betrayal money and




.

to the vacancy in the apostolic office his death thuscreated.

But then, Luke has Peter add another citationimmediately and with no transition, this one fromLXX Psalm 108:8: “Let another take his office” (t enepiskop en autou labeto heteros ).57 The passage workseffectively to provide scriptural warrant for the elec-tion of Matthias as Judas’s successor in the circle of the Twelve, especially since “office” (episkop¯ e ) rein-forces the second nuance ofepaulis . The Hebrew of Psalm 109:8 ( pe qûda tô yîqh ’ah er ) can certainly include the meaning, “let another take his magis-tracy/overseership” (e.g., 2 Chron. 23:18; 2 Kings11:18), but the most natural translation is surely thatgiven by the RSV: “May his days be few, may

another seize his goods.”58

The LXX’st en episkop enautou labeto heteros (let another take his office),however, works wonderfully for Luke’s purposes,especially since the resonances ofepiskop e with eccle-siastical leadership are already well established forLuke’s readers, as we know from Acts 20:28.59

A second example of Luke’s reliance on the spe-cific nuances of the LXX is not a direct citation butan allusion. In Peter’s speech at Pentecost (2:14-36),after he recites the facts of Jesus’ rejection by “lawlesspeople,” he shifts to the proclamation of Jesus’resurrection, the event that precipitates the outpour-ing of the Holy Spirit (2:1-5), the proper under-standing of which Peter’s discourse purports tooffer.60 Peter says, “Him God has raised! He hasloosed the pangs of death, because he could not beheld by it” (Acts 2:24).61 However accustomed wemay have become to the phrase “pangs of death,” it

.




is nevertheless odd, especially when found as theobject of the verb “to loose” (lyo ). Why is it odd?Because the Greek term “pangs” refers particularly to the agony or throes of birth, thus, “birth pangs.”62

How does it come to be connected to the experienceof death?

The expression appears in the LXX of 2 Samuel22:6, in the song of David,o dines thanatou ekyklosanme (the pangs of death have encircled me). In thecorresponding LXX Psalm 17:5, we again findo dines thanatou (pangs of death) ando dines hadou (pangs of hades). What Hebrew expression is the LXX trans-lating? In 2 Samuel 22:6, the MT hasheblê se’ôl , inPsalm 18:5 it hasheblê mawet, and in 18:6, oncemore,heblê se’ôl . Now the Hebrew verbhabal (to

bind or pledge)63

has two noun forms, each pointeddifferently. Pointed ashebel , it means “cord/rope/line,” and this is the meaning that makes the mostsense of 2 Samuel 22:6, “the cords of death haveencircled me,” and of Psalm 18:5 and 6, “the cordsof death encompassed me…the cords of Sheol en-tangled me.” Pointed ash ebel , however, the Hebrew also has the sense of pain or travail, such as isexperienced at birth (e.g., Job 39:3; Isa. 66:7).Clearly this is the pointing assumed by the LXX when it translateshebl e aso dinai . By choosing thisless obvious way of translating the Hebrew, the LXX (perhaps inadvertently) has also created a profoundparanomasia: the “cords of death” are also the “birthpangs of death,” so that death itself can be read as thebeginning of a new life, an understanding obviously congenial to Christian readers, who might, evenunconsciously, carry over this nuance in speaking of

.

..

.

.

.




the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, how strangethat Luke retains something of the other reading inhis choice of verbs: God has “loosed” these pangs, anexpression that is odd for pangs but appropriate forcords. Note also “because he could not be held(krateisthai ) by it,” an expression that works poorly for pangs but perfectly for cords. But that the punappears at all depends entirely on the translationchoice made by the LXX.

The third example of Luke’s dependence on thespecific shades of meaning in the LXX is the citationof the prophet Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17.64

The passage is of tremendous importance in Acts,occurring as it does in the midst of the depiction of the watershed event that has come to be called the

Jerusalem Council. This meeting decided that theGentile mission was legitimate and, even more star-tling, that Gentile converts did not need to practicetheethoi (customs) of the Jewishethnos (nation) inorder to be full-fledged members of the people of God, since both Jews and Gentiles were saved by thesame principle of faith.65 The decision is not made allat once but only after considerable debate.66 It isconcluded by the citation of Amos, which James (theleader of the Jerusalem church) declares to be “con-forming to this reality” (15:15).

The first part of Luke’s citation from Amos isvirtually the same as both the Greek of the LXX andthe MT. According to the RSV translation, “in thatday, I will raise up the booth of David that is fallenand repair its breeches and raise up its ruins, and Iwill raise it up straight.” This part of the citationserves as a proof-text for understanding the Jewish




messianists as the “restored Israel.” In the Jerusalemchurch, God had “raised up the fallen tent of David.”67

But Luke’s citation from Amos continues, “so thatthe rest of humanity might seek the Lord, and all thenations on whom my name has been invoked, saysthe Lord who is doing these things.” When weconsult the LXX, we discover the words “the Lord”(ho kyrios ) are absent. The LXX has simply, “the restof humanity might seek.” Luke apparently has sup-plied the proper object of the seeking. What is evenmore striking, however, is the LXX’s having “thatthey might seek” (ekz et eso sin) at all. In the MT of Amos 9:12, there is instead this: “that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations whoare called by my name, says the Lord who does this”

(RSV).How did the LXX—and from the LXX, Luke—derive “the rest of humanity seek” from the Hebrew “possess the remnant of Edom”? The answer is fairly simple. It appears that the LXX translators read theHebrew before them as yîrs ´u (from y a ras ´, “possess”)as yidre rshû (fromdaras , “seek”), and they read’edom

(Edom) as’adam (humanity). The MT of Amosenvisaged a restored Davidic dynasty in an expan-sionist mode. The LXX changed it to a restoredpeople that attracts humanity to itself. It is this sense,rooted entirely in the LXX but impossible in theHebrew, that Luke has James exploit as a text thatprefigures the attraction of the Gentiles into the“restored people of God” that is the Christian move-ment.






readers today are multiple, and made even morecomplicated by the text-critical problems distinctiveto Acts.70

The citation from Joel 3:1-5 at the beginning of Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17-21) serves as a good illustration of the technical problems pre-sented by Luke’s citations. Luke’s version can betranslated this way: “It will happen in the last days,says God: I will pour out from my spirit upon allflesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men willdream dreams. Indeed, I will pour out from my spiritin those days upon my men servants and womenservants, and they will prophesy. I will providewonders in heaven above and signs on earth below,

blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will bechanged into darkness and the moon into bloodbefore the great and manifest day of the Lord arrives,and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord willbe saved.” The citation is very close to the LXX. Butthere are three significant differences between Lukeand the LXX. First, the LXX has “after these things”(meta tauta ) in agreement with the MT, whereasLuke has “in the last days” (en tais eschatais h emerais ,2:17). Second, Luke has “and they will prophesy”(kai proph eteusousin) in Acts 2:18 in addition to theone already present in Joel 3. Rather than the LXX’s“wonders in the heaven and on earth below,” Lukehas in 2:19 “wonders in heaven above and signs onearth below,” adding the adverbkato(below), as wellas the substantivesemeia (signs). Observing thedifferences is the easy part. Assessing them is diffi-cult.71




The first problem is establishing the Lukan textitself. In the case of Acts, this means taking intoaccount not only the usual display of alternativereadings, but also the systematically alternative tex-tual tradition offered byCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) and lesser representatives of the so-called “West-ern Text.”72 The recent tendency in New Testamenttext criticism has been toward “eclecticism,” whichmeans refusing to follow a single tradition as stan-dard, but rather trying to assess every single reading on the grounds of external attestation as well as theclassic rules involving brevity and difficulty.73 Notsurprisingly, scholars come up with quite differentreadings in specific cases, depending on how they weigh the various factors.

In the case of the Joel citation, where we find cleardifferences between a printed edition of the LXX (inmy case, Rahlfs) and the critical text of the New Testament (in my case, the twenty-seventh editionof Nestle-Aland),74 what factors need to be consid-ered? On one hand, it is possible that Luke had a version of the LXX that we do not have and that hisversion was influenced by (a) the MT, (b) a targumicreading or series of readings, or (c) a text that has a prehistory in liturgical or apologetic use. On theother hand, the variations could be due to New Testament copyists who wanted to conform Luke tothe LXX—but then, what version of the LXX wasavailable tothem? —or who deliberately made changesbecause of a tendentious interest, as Eldon Jay Epphas demonstrated was the case withCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis .75




If we make the judgment—as I have in this case—that Luke himself deliberately made the alterationsto the Joel citation that we observe in the Greek textof the New Testament, such judgment must rest onthe cumulative force of the following factors. First,the reading in question is well attested by the New Testament manuscripts and can reasonably be ac-cepted as the original one on the grounds of ordinary textual criticism. Second, either the reading is notfound in the manuscripts of the LXX available to us,or, if it is found there, the reading is best accountedfor by scribes adopting it under the influence of theNew Testament. Third, the reading in question canbe shown to advance the literary and religious inter-ests of the New Testament author who has used the

citation. In Luke’s citation of Joel, each of thesecriteria is met.76 The last criterion is met resound-ingly. Luke makes the gift of the Holy Spirit a fulfillment of a divine oracle (“God says”), an escha-tological event (“in the last days”), one that isemphatically prophetic in character (“they shallprophesy”), and one that is demonstrated by “signsand wonders” like those associated in the biblicaltradition above all with Moses. Luke has thus madethe Joel citation a key passage for understanding notonly Pentecost but also the entire course of hisnarrative in Acts.77

Even at the risk of boring my readers beyondendurance, I have chosen to pay some attention totext criticism. It is important to remind ourselveswhat a complex tangle of considerations are involvedin the analysis of ancient biblical citations. Quick and grandiose conclusions are not warranted. In-




deed, certainty is seldom available. In these matters,slow approximation is the norm, and movement isby means of the gradual accumulation of probabil-ity. I also want to indicate by the particular exampleof the Joel citation, that the evidence strongly sup-ports the view that Luke considered himself to havethe freedom to amend the biblical text in suchfashion. However great the authority of the LXX, itappears, theexousia (freedom/authority) given by the Spirit is even greater.78

Modes of Scriptural Interpretation

in ActsLuke does not confine himself to a single mode of

citing and interpreting Scripture, but uses a variety of interpretive methods.79 It is the range and charac-ter of his interpretive methods that present the mostfascinating and yet puzzling aspect of Luke’s use of the LXX. My approach to this puzzle seeks a middleground between two tendencies in scholarship. Olderstudies on Luke’s use of Scripture—like those of Bruce, Doeve, Bowker, and Cerfaux— are often fullof helpful insights concerning technical questionsand possible parallels to the “traces of midrashicstyle” seen in Acts.80 But they rarely get around toasking what Luke as author might have had to dowith those parallels and traces of style. In suchanalyses, Luke’s use of Scripture becomes the laststronghold for the conservative position that regards Acts as essentially a repository for tradition. In sharpcontrast, some newer studies—like those of Wagnerand especially Brawley—are exceptionally strong at




revealing Luke’s creative contributions as an author,but pay relatively less attention to the ways in whichhis interpretations are enmeshed in Jewish meth-ods.81

My goal is to take both aspects with full serious-ness first by treating his scriptural interpretationwithin speeches as fully his own work, reflecting hisliterary and religious preoccupations, and second by comparing his interpretation as such with Jewishpractice. I turn, then, to a rapid consideration of several modes of scriptural interpretation foundwithin the speeches of Acts.

Stephen before the Sanhedrin

(Acts 7:2-53)Two of the speeches in Acts present a characterreviewing in public the history of Israel. Before thesynagogue congregation in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts13:16-41), Paul offers a very rapid sketch of eventsfrom the Exodus to David (13:17-22) then leapsforward to the time of Jesus. The recital containssome verbal echoes of the LXX,82 but not muchmore. I will return later in the essay to a closeranalysis of the latter part of Paul’s speech. Of quitea different character is the second example, Stephen’sspeech before the Sanhedrin. It is the longest speechin Acts, all the more dramatic because deliveredbefore a Jerusalem leadership (6:12-15) that hasalready indicated its emphatic rejection of the mes-sianic claims being made by an upstart Galileancommunity gathered in the name of Jesus.83 Thespeaker has been certified as a prophet by Luke’s




literary depiction of him as a man filled with theHoly Spirit who works signs and wonders among thepeople (6:5, 8, 10). He finishes his speech by accus-ing the leadership of resisting the Holy Spirit andkilling the prophets (7:51-52). Their subsequentexecution of Stephen proves his accusation.84

Scholars have long puzzled over the way the speechseems not to respond to the ostensible charges madeagainst Stephen that brought him to trial in the firstplace.85 Far from having Stephen launch into a formalapologia that discusses these charges in orderto demonstrate his innocence, Luke has him begin a lengthy recital of biblical history, from the time of Abraham to the exile.86

The recountal is sufficiently lengthy to enable

comparisons between Stephen’s speech and otherretellings of the biblical story found in ancient Jewish literature roughly contemporary to Luke.There are a sufficient number of these compositionsto consider them a separate class of writing, com-posed by individuals or groups who sought by meansof such a reworking of the biblical tradition topropagate or defend a specific perspective on thattradition:87 Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities ; Philo Judaeus’s worksOn Abraham, On Joseph, andOn Moses ; Pseudo-Philo’sBiblical Antiquities ; theBook of Jubilees ; and the fragmentaryGenesis Apocryphonfrom Qumran; as well as the fragments of Artapanus’sOn the Jews .88 Each of these narrative retellings of thebiblical story covers some of the same figures andincidents as does Stephen’s speech. A point-by-point comparison among them is illuminating. Wehave several such narratives, as well as the basic text




(either the MT or the LXX) that each was using. Wecan thus make responsible judgments concerning the kind of selection and shaping in which eachaccount engaged and, on that basis, also make fairly secure deductions concerning the concerns and in-terests at work in each version. It is easy to see in thecase of Philo, for example, that his biographies of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses serve both to highlightthose aspects of the biblical text that can be read“philosophically” and to portray the ancient heroesas models of philosophical virtue in the Greek mode.89

In contrast, theGenesis Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees , both preserved in the library of the Jewishcommunity at Qumran, focus on and elaboratethose aspects of the text that support a particular

ideological and cultic agenda favored by the sectar-ians.90

When we compare the rewriting of the Scripturestory in the Stephen speech to these other composi-tions, what do we find? First, in terms of fidelity tothe text of Scripture, Luke’s Stephen is less like Josephus and Philo, who follow the Bible’s story linebut freely transpose it into their own diction, than heis like Jubilees andBiblical Antiquities , which tend tointerweave parts of the biblical text and their owncontributions in what might be broadly called a targumic style.91 Luke does not rewrite the story inhis own words. Instead, as Earl Richard has demon-strated, Luke shows remarkable fidelity to the dic-tion of the LXX; it truly is “Scripture’s” words thathe uses in his own version of the story, a feat all themore remarkable given the abbreviation involved.92




In a second point of comparison, Luke—also inthe manner of the targums—amplifies elements of the Biblical story and fills in its gaps by means of haggadic traditions. Moses’ earliest years providedthe opportunity for such elaboration in the samemanner that the childhood of Jesus provided one forthe writers of apocryphal infancy gospels. Thus,LXX Exodus 2:3-4 says that Moses was “hidden” by his mother after his birth. This is followed closely by Jubilees 47.3 and Jewish Antiquities 2.218. Philo hasMoses secretly “nursed at his mother’s breast” (Life of Moses 1.9),93 and Pseudo-Philo’sBiblical Antiqui-ties 9.12 has Moses’ mother, Jocha, bed him for threemonths in her womb! Stephen says that “he wasnurtured (anetraph e ) for three months in his father’s

house” (Acts 7:20). Though not an elaborate expan-sion, it represents a “filling of the gap” not unlikethat in the other rereadings. Similarly, LXX Exodus2:21 says that Moses “became … as a son” toPharaoh’s daughter. Josephus supplies the nameThermuthis to the daughter ( AJ 2.224), whereas

Jubilees 47.5 calls her Meris, and Artapanus addsthat she was barren (frag. 3 Charlesworth), a fact thatPhilo, in turn, develops psychologically (Life of Moses 1.12-15). Once more, Stephen’s trope is simpleyet effective: she “raised him as her own son”(anethrepsato auton heaut ei eis huion, 7:21). Thecharacterization is richer and more intimate than thebiblical account, yet more restrained than some of the other rereadings.

The LXX Exodus contains nothing about Moses’education in the house of Pharaoh. Yet the lives of great figures require legendary elaboration where the






Thirdly, compared to the other retellings of theScripture story we are considering here, Luke isunusual in his strong editing of the story, which is allthe more evident because of the brevity of his ac-count. Like Philo, Luke focuses particularly on thethree figures of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. Hefocuses, however, not on their display of innatevirtue, but on the way in which they carry forwardthe promises of God. And in the case of both Josephand Moses, Luke has edited his account in suchfashion as to show how each fits into a pattern of twofold sending and rejection, so that these biblicalexempla point forward to the twofold sending andrejection of the prophet Jesus.97 By this editing of thebiblical narrative, Luke not only reinforces the fun-

damentally prophetic character of Scripture and itsheroes, but by doing this supports the ideologicalposition of his community that Scripture is bestunderstood when read as pointing toward the risenprophet Jesus: “This is the Moses who said to theIsraelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet fromyour brethren as he raised me up’” (Acts 7:37). Andhe does all this entirely within the tight limits set by the text of the LXX itself, whose wording he consis-tently employs. In this sense, the rereading of Scrip-ture in Stephen’s speech can legitimately bedesignated a sort of septuagintal targum.

Prayer in Time of Persecution

(Acts 4:24-30) We find a very different sort of scriptural interpreta-tion in the prayer of the apostles after their first




experience of persecution by the Jerusalem authori-ties. Although the prayer is not formally a discourse,it is surely a speech act, and one whose obviousliterary function is to interpret for the reader themeaning of the story that unfolds around it.98 Whatis the meaning of this part of Luke’s narrative?Having established, by his description of the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit and the common life of the first community, that the church was indeed therestoration of Israel,99 Luke turns his attention tothe question of the leadership over this people. Thefirst 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 prayerfor power with an overwhelming outpouring of the

Spirit (4:31) corresponds to the empowerment of both Moses and Jesus by God: This empowermentis manifested precisely in the “signs and wonders”that the apostles do among the people and theirauthoritative role in the sharing of possessions (notethe repetition of “laying at the apostles’ feet” in 4:35,37 and 5:2).100 The subsequent arrest and interroga-tion of the apostles serves the narrative by revealing two things: first, the official leadership of the peoplerejects even this “second sending in power”—Gamaliel’s advice shows ironically that he doesn’t“get it”—and second, the balance of power overGod’s people Israel has in any case effectively shiftedto the apostles.101

Grasping the narrative flow in this part of Acts isthe best way of solving the problem presented by Luke’s obscure introduction to this scene (4:23-24):“when they had been released, they went pros tous




idious and told them everything the chief priests andelders had said. Those who heard it lifted a commonvoice to God.” The appropriate translation ofhoi idioi (literally, their own people) is critical to deter-mining who performs the speech act reported by Luke and who, therefore, is subsequently empow-ered a second time by the Holy Spirit to work signsand wonders. Against a substantial body of opinionthat considers “their friends” (as the RSV renders thephrase) to be the rest of the community of believers(those described in 4:32 as pl ethos to n pisteusant-o n),102 I agree with Jacques Dupont that the narra-tive logic demands the identification of these“associates” (as I translate the phrase) with the otherapostles.103 This identification alone makes sense of

the second empowerment and the second sending of the Twelve to do signs and wonders among thepeople (5:1-16) before their climactic confrontationwith the official leadership (5:17-42) and their trans-mission of authority to others (6:1-7).

The prayer begins with a remarkable invocationthat may function as prayer but certainly also func-tions as a reminder to the reader of certain importantrealities: “Master! You are the creator of the heavenand the earth and the sea and all the things that arein them. You are the one who said—through themouth of David, your servant, our father, throughthe Holy Spirit ….” The opening invocation re-minds readers of God’s sovereign power; even thoughevents may seem to indicate otherwise, God is work-ing out God’s plan. The awkward piling up of phrases in the second clause results from Luke trying to assert several important truths at the same time.104




While David is both God’s servant (we shall see thedevelopment of this theme a bit later) and theirancestor (“father”), more importantly, when Davidspoke, it was God speaking “through [his] mouth”because the Psalmist was a prophet whose prayerswere composed “through the Holy Spirit.” The textthat Luke subsequently cites from LXX Psalm 2:1-2,with no editorial emendations, is to be understoodas a divinely inspired text with a prophetic signifi-cance: “Why were the nations arrogant and thepeoples making silly schemes? The kings of the earthdrew up their lines, and the rulers gathered togetheragainst the Lord and against his anointed one.”

What follows is even more astonishing than theopening reminder to God of what the prophet/

psalmist had said through God’s own inspiration.The prayer now offers God an interpretation of whatthe Psalm (and, we assume, God) really means: “Forin this city, they did truly gather together againstyour holy child Jesus whom you anointed: Herodand Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoplesof Israel, in order to accomplish everything yourhand and will had determined would happen.” Lukeoffers an interpretation in which the words spokenin the past by the prophet find their real significancein contemporary events. Specifically, the “gathering together”105 of the leaders against Jesus “theanointed”106 that led to his apparent destruction butparadoxically worked out God’s plan.107 Not con-tent with a general assertion, however, Luke thenoffers a point-by-point fulfillment of the Davidicprophecy, with each element in the Psalm finding itscontemporary equivalent: Pilate = the ruler; Herod




= the king; the procurator/soldiery = the nations/gentiles; the Jews = the peoples.

In effect, Luke offers a mode of scriptural interpre-tation quite distinct from the targumic retelling of the narrative found in the Stephen speech. But justas examples of such retellings are attested at Qumran,so is this mode as well, in the style of interpretationscholars have come to identify as pesher .108 In suchinterpretation, the text of Scripture (at Qumran, inHebrew) is strictly maintained, and the elements inthe text are aligned with events or personages having to do with the history of the community. Thefragmentary commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab),for example, offers an interpretive comment on thistext from Habakkuk 2:7: “the violence done to

Lebanon shall overwhelm you and the destruction of the beasts shall terrify you, because of the blood of men and the violence done to the land, the city, andall its inhabitants.” The interpretation goes as fol-lows:

The interpretation of the word ( pesher ) con-

cerns the Wicked Priest, to pay him the rewardfor what he did to the poor. BecauseLebanon isthe Council of the Community, and theani-mals are the simple folk of Judah who observethe Law… the city is Jerusalem since in it the Wicked Priest performed repulsive acts anddefiled the Sanctuary of God. Theviolence against the country are the cities of Judah whichhe plundered of the possessions of the poor(emphasis added).109




The same sort of pesher interpretation was appliedat Qumran to the Psalms, which were read as pro-phetic of the life of the community in exactly thesame way that the prophets were. The commentary on Psalm 37 (4QpPsalmsPesher ), for example, con-tains this passage: “The wicked person spies on the just person and tries to kill him. Yahweh will notrelinquish him into his hand, or permit them toconvict him when he is judged (Ps. 37:32-33). Itsinterpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, whospies on the just man and wants to kill him … andthe law which sent him; …. Wait for Yahweh andobserve his path and he will promote you, so that youinherit the earth, and you shall see the destruction of the wicked (Ps. 37:34). Its interpretation concerns

the community of the poor who will see the judg-ment of evil, and with his chosen one will rejoice inthe true inheritance.”110 The parallel between thesepassages and Acts 4:23-31 is precise and remarkable. As at Qumran, the text is applied as prophetic to thespecific experiences of the community and itsfounder. As at Qumran, these experiences involvethe dual rejection of the founder and the community members (“the poor”). As at Qumran, hope is placedin the vindication to be accomplished by God. And,as at Qumran, the interpretation involves making a point-by-point identification between characters andevents in the prophecy and the characters and eventsin the community’s shared story.

That Luke is in truth using a pesher method hereis shown by the fact that he not only makes noalteration in the text of the Psalm that he cites, butalso that his fidelity to that text forces him to a




locution that he otherwise nowhere employs. It isLuke’s set practice to use the singularlaos (people)when referring to Israel as a religious entity (“thepeople of God”).111 That consistent usage may ac-count for the presence of the singularlaos in somemanuscripts for Acts 4:27, rather than the plurallaois . The plural reading is better attested and is alsothe harder reading, since Luke, especially in hispassion account, tried to remove the presence of thepeople from the action against Jesus, so as to fix blame on the leaders.112 Luke does, however, reportthe charge against the people as a whole, who, “outof ignorance,” rejected Jesus in his first visitation(Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-14). Why, then, the plural“peoples of Israel” in the present passage? Two

reasons suggest themselves. First, the plural enablesLuke to involveindividual Jews in the death of Jesus(such as the leaders), as he does individual Gentiles,without jeopardizing the special place of “the people”as the religious designation for Israel. Second, andmore decisive, I think, the plural allows Luke torespect the precise form of the citation demanded by the pesher -style interpretation. I will comment in my conclusions on the startling fact that Luke is herecarrying out with the LXX a mode of interpretationthat is found elsewhere only applied to the MT, andthat in a single Palestinian community.

Midrashic Argument on the

Resurrection (Acts 13:32-37) A third example of Lukan interpretive method isfound in Paul’s synagogue sermon in Antioch of




Pisida.113 The subject is the identification of Jesus asMessiah through his resurrection, in contrast toDavid. This is, in fact, a recurrent preoccupation inLuke-Acts and provides an opportunity to observehow Luke works out a scriptural argument acrossseveral disparate speeches.114

We meet the theme first in a speech of Jesus. InLuke’s Gospel, Jesus challenges the Scribes’ claimthat the Messiah would be David’s son: “For Davidhimself says in the book of the Psalms, ‘The Lordsaid to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I putyour enemies as a footstool for your feet.”’ Davidtherefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son?” (Luke20:42-44).115 We recognize the citation as LXX Psalm 109:1, a favorite Christian proof-text for the

resurrection and enthronement of Jesus.116

Its most famous application also occurs in Luke- Acts, in Peter’s sermon to the crowd gathered by thePentecost experience. This time it comes at the endof a more elaborate scriptural argument. After thecitation from Joel in 2:17-21, Peter announces that Jesus—a man who had worked signs and wondersamong them but had been put to death by lawlesspeople—had been raised by God. God had “loosedthe pangs of death, for he could not be held by it”(2:22-24). Peter then initiates a scriptural argumentby an explicit citation from LXX Psalm 15:8-11,which he introduces with these words: “For Davidsaid about him (eis auton)” (2:25). In this context,this introduction can only mean that David spokeabout Jesus the Nazorean (2:22). Peter then quotesthe Psalm: “I have seen the Lord before me always,because he is at my right hand, so that I not be




shaken. My heart has been glad because of this, my tongue has rejoiced. More than that, my flesh willdwell in hope because you will not abandon my lifeto Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corrup-tion. You have made known to me the paths of life,you will fill me with gladness in your presence.” Theentire passage from the Psalm could be exploited forPeter’s purposes. We notice that the Psalmist claimsto have “seen the Lord before [him] always,” whichsuggests an intimate and permanent presence withGod. We catch the echo of Psalm 109:1 in the phrase“at the right hand.” The singer has “known the pathsof life” and has had “gladness in [God’s] presence.”Perhaps most telling, we also see that the one soblessed with the presence of God is characterized as

“your holy one” (ton hosion sou), a designation thatwill recur later.C. H. Dodd had the basic insight that many New

Testament citations carry with them associationsfrom their original context and that these associa-tions are as important to the meaning and functionof the citation as the actual words quoted. RichardHays, in the case of Paul’s letters, and Robert Brawley,in the case of Luke-Acts, have developed this insightinto a rich appreciation of allusions and echoesimplicitly present in such explicit citations.117 Whathas now come to be calledintertextuality , however,is simply another way of sayingmidrash, for the samethick web of associative thinking is present in both.

The line from Psalm 15 on which Peter builds hisargument is “you will not abandon my life to Hades,nor will you let your holy one see corruption.” Peterquickly establishes that the line cannot apply to the






concerning an enduring dynasty, namely the oracleof the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. We know that this passage was used as a messi-anic prophecy also at Qumran (see4Qflorilegium1.7-13).119 The Nathan oracle is embedded also inanother Psalm, LXX 131:11, whose language may have helped shape Luke’s (Peter’s) own:ho mosenkyrios to i Dauid al etheian kai ou m e athet esai aut en,ek karpou t es koilias sou th esomai epi ton thronon sou(The Lord swore a true oath to David, and he willsurely not set it aside; one out of the fruit of yourloins I shall set upon your throne). Peter’s phrase in2:30,ek karpou t es osphyos autou (out of the fruit of your loins) seems derived from this passage. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to note that LXX Psalm

131:11 is immediately preceded by this verse: “Forthe sake of David your servant, do not turn away from the face of your anointed one” (heneken Dauid tou doulou sou m e apostreps eis to proso pon tou christousou). This verse can be read as though David and“your anointed one/your Christ” were two differentfigures. The plea “do not turn away from the face,”furthermore, can be seen to have a fulfillment in theline from LXX Psalm 15:8, cited earlier in thespeech, “I have seen the Lord before me always.”

Peter brings this part of his argument to a climax with a simple opposition. “David did not ascendinto heaven,” he declares, “yet he himself says, ‘TheLord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until Iput your enemies as a footstool for your feet”’” (Acts2:34-35). Psalm 109:1, which began Luke’s midrashicargument concerning Jesus and David in the Gospel(Luke 20:41-42), now serves as a prophecy spoken




by David himself to be fulfilled by the resurrectionand enthronement of Jesus “to the right hand”(2:33). Peter can therefore conclude his speech,“Therefore, let the whole house of Israel know forcertain that God has made him both Lord andMessiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).Given the perspectives shaped by Peter’s (and Luke’s)conviction and experience, this declaration has beensupported by the prophetic texts of Scripture.

Before turning to Paul’s speech in Acts 13, it may be useful to pause for clarification. At one level, Ihave been tracing a fairly simple argument running across several of Luke’s speeches both in the Gospeland Acts. Texts of the Psalms that refer to ananointed one (Christ) manifestly did not find a

realization in the historical figure of David and musttherefore point forward to the Messiah (anointedone = Christ). Specifically, the resurrection andenthronement of Jesus (demonstrated by the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit) fulfill the promise of God that there would be an eternal Davidic dynasty.It should be obvious, however, that this argument iscarried by a premise that few of Peter’s hearers andonly some of Luke’s potential readers will grant: that Jesus the Nazorean is in fact now resurrected fromthe dead and living as powerful Lord in the presenceof God, enthroned “at his right hand.” But eventhose who may not be willing to grant that premiseare able to recognize that it organizes a complex setof textual details into a form of argument shaped by association. The presence of the same word in dis-parate passages of Scripture enables connections tobe made between other words which otherwise




might not have been seen as related. These new associations, in turn, can trigger still others, so thata thick, if loose, tapestry of meaningful connectionsis constructed, whose only substantive link is theoriginal experiential premise.120

With this clarification in mind, we can turn at lastto Paul’s sermon at Pisidian Antioch. I noted earlierhow Paul begins his speech with a rapid recital of biblical history up to David (Acts 13:16-22). Paulmoves quickly through the judges and Saul (13:20-21), and says, “having removed him [Saul], he raisedup for them David to be king. To him also he borewitness. He said, ‘I have found David son of Jesse tobe a man after my own heart. He will perform all my desires’” (13:22). Luke here has Paul weave together

something of a mixed citation from LXX Psalm88:21, (“I have found David my servant”) and 1Samuel 13:14 (“The Lord seeks a man after his ownheart”), with “son of Jesse” added for clarity. Afterthis initial citation concerning David, Paul’s speechleaps across the centuries directly to Jesus: “From theseed of this man, according to promise, God broughtto Israel Jesus as a savior” (Acts 13:23). The terms“seed” (sperma ) and “promise” (epangelia ) evokeother Christian interpretations concerning the heri-tage of Abraham, notably Galatians 3:15-18.121 Butthe allusion here is almost certainly again to theNathan oracle in LXX 2 Samuel 7:12: “I will raise up(anast eso ) your offspring (sperma ) after you, whoshall come from your body, and I will establish hiskingdom forever.”

Luke next has Paul briefly recount the Jesus story from the baptism of John to the cross and resurrec-




tion (13:24-31), concluding with an assertion thatconnects thekerygma to the earlier biblical recital:“This promise made to the fathers God has fulfilledfor their children—us—by raising Jesus (t en pros tous pateras epangelian genomen en hoti taut en ho theos epepl ero ken tois teknois h emin anast esas I esoun)”(13:32-33). Paul follows this declaration with thecitation of three Scripture passages in rapid se-quence. The first is introduced at once: “So also itstands written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my son,I have begotten you today.’” This is a direct andunaltered citation from LXX Psalm 2:7. Its importis clear: what was taken as a declaration of divinefiliation for the Davidic dynasty through earthly enthronement is here applied to the resurrection and

enthronement of Jesus as God’s son. More striking is that Luke here has Paul quote from the same Psalmwhose first verse was quoted explicitly by all theapostles in their prayer in time of persecution, andwas then subjected to a pesher -style interpretation(Acts 4:25-26). It is as though we are invited, throughthe medium of Luke’s speeches, to read with Peterand Paul all of Psalm 2 with a messianic perspectiveshaped by the death and resurrection of Jesus, so thatthe Anointed One rejected by the rulers in Psalm 2:1is also the “begotten son of God” of Psalm 2:7,through the resurrection. Something more thansingle-verse proof-texting is at work in these Lukanspeeches.

The third passage cited by Paul in 13:35 is alsofamiliar to us: “Therefore he also says in anotherplace, ‘You will not give your holy one to seecorruption.’” We recognize this quotation from




LXX Psalm 15:10 because it is part of the longerpassage (Psalm 15:8-11) cited by Peter in his Pente-cost speech (Acts 2:25-28). Paul here gives the versethe same decisive application that Peter had earlier:“For David, having served in his own generation, fellasleep. He was gathered to his fathers, and he saw corruption. But the one whom God has raised hasnot seen corruption” (Acts 13:36-37). Once more,there is the contrast between the mortality of Davidand the incorruptible life of resurrection. In thiscase, David’s mortality is even further emphasizedby Luke’s use of four discrete statements: a) he served[only] in his own generation; b) he fell asleep; c) hewas gathered to his fathers; d) he saw corruption.

Of greatest interest to us in this sequence, how-

ever, is the second citation, which has not been usedearlier, and which forms in this argument whatmight be called a midrashic middle term. Paul says,“And to show that he raised him up from the deadno longer to return to corruption, he spoke this way,‘do so hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista ’” (Acts 13:34).The citation is very difficult. I have left it for themoment in Greek because how to translate it is oneof the problems. With the exception of the verbdo so (I will give), which appears to have been supplied by Luke, the rest of the words (hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista ) derive from the LXX of Isaiah 55:3. But whatdoes it mean?

The LXX of Isa 55:3 handles the Hebrew is anunexpected way. The MT has (in the RSV transla-tion), “I will make with you an everlasting covenant,my steadfast, sure love for David.” The LXX (incontrast to Luke) retains “I will make with you an




everlasting covenant” (kai diath esomai hymin dia-th ek en aio nion), but its translation of the remainderof the statement, though intelligible, has a strangeeffect. The LXX has translated the Hebrewhase de (“mercy/mercies”) with the neuter pluralhosia , andthe Hebrewhane’e ˘manîm (“enduring”) with theneuter plural pista . Each choice makes sense, at leastmechanically. The Greek adjectivehosios is usually used to translate the Hebrewhasid , (holy one/piousone), whether singular or plural.122 But so far as I cantell, this is the only time it is used to render the pluralhase dê, which is formed from the nounhesed (mercy),usually rendered by the LXX aseleos .123 Likewise, theGreek 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 . Thecombination of terms, therefore, is unusual andopens up interpretive possibilities that were notpresent to the same degree in the Hebrew. It is notat all clear that God’s showing “steadfast, sure lovefor David” to “you” (plural) could be exploitedmessianically.

The degree to which the LXX can be so exploiteddepends on how the odd combinationta hosia ta pista is to be understood. And here is where scholarsdivide.125 In my view, the phrase is best understoodin the context of ancient Greek usage for a variety of divine sanctions, in whichhosia can refer to thethings declared holy by the gods as opposed to thosethings declared just by humans (dikaia ).126 The only other instance ofhosia in the LXX, in fact, bears thissense: in Deut. 29:18 (19), it is used to translate“when such a one hears the words of these sanctions”

. .

.




(Jewish Publication Society translation ofwehaya be s ´am‘o et dibrê ha ’a lah).127 Whether consciously ornot, the LXX enabled later readers to seeta hosia Dauid ta pista as the divine oracles spoken to David,most notably in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. I thereforetranslate, “I will give to you the holy and faithfulthings said to David.”

Now, this midrashic middle term establishes thehermeneutical warrant for applying to the Messiah Jesus the passages of Scripture originally spoken toDavid. This is made possible by a two-fold connec-tion established by the LXX translation. First, the“mistranslation” of “mercies” by “divine decrees”and the application of these to a later generation (thehymin [to you] is plural, and Isaiah is obviously later

than David), makes the point of reference for theprophet’s statement all of the Davidic promises. Butthe choice ofhosia also provides the possibility for a more complex word linkage, forging an even closerconnection to the Messiah.

We note that some form ofhosios (holy) links threeof the four passages in Paul’s speech. Paul cites LXX Psalm 88:21 in Acts 13:22. The immediate contextfor “I have found David” in that Psalm is: “Then youspoke on the mountain to your holy ones (tois hosiois sou) and you said, ‘I have given timely help to themighty one. I have lifted up (hypso sa ) an elect one(eklekton) from my people. I have found David my servant (ton doulon mou). With a holy oil (elaio i hagio i ) I have anointed him (echrisa auton)” (LXX Ps. 88:20-21). This cluster of terms provides a perfect opening for messianic appropriation. Then,




in the citation from Isaiah 55:3, we have noted thephraseta hosia Dauid ta pista . Finally, in the citationfrom LXX Psalm 15:10, “you will not let your holy one (ton hosion sou) to see corruption.” Luke himself supplies a still further link between the passages, by introducing Isaiah 55:3 with the verbdo so (I willgive), which is lacking in the LXX, thus matching the same verb used in the citation of LXX Psalm15:10,do seis (“you will not give”).

In this final example, three aspects of Luke’sscriptural interpretation in his speeches have reap-peared in a particularly impressive way. First, wehave seen how his use of Scripture relies on thespecific readings of the LXX rather than the MT.Second, we have observed that his argument takes

place not only within the confines of a single speechbut across several: in the case of David and Jesus, wehave traced the basic argument from the saying of Jesus in the Gospel, to Peter’s Pentecost discourse, tothe prayer of the community in persecution, toPaul’s sermon at Antioch of Pisidia. Third, we haverecognized Luke’s interpretation as a kind of haggadicmidrash that depends on word association as well ason elements in the context of citations that may beas influential as the parts made explicit.128

ConclusionsThis essay has touched on a number of aspects of

Luke’s interpretation of Scripture within the speechesof Acts, and, although the treatment of them wasnecessarily superficial, it nevertheless allows the fol-lowing six conclusions.






Agrippa, and Bernice concludes with this assertion:“I stand here testifying both to small and great,saying nothing but what Moses and the prophetssaid would come to pass, that Christ must suffer, andthat by being the first to rise from the dead, he wouldproclaim light both to the people and to the Gen-tiles” (Acts 26:22-23). The bluff Roman administra-tor, confused by all this messianic arcana, interruptsPaul in a loud voice: “You are raving, Paul! Yourgreat learning has turned you to madness!” (26:24).Paul responds by turning to Agrippa, who wasnominally a Jewish ruler: “The king understandsthese things” (26:26). He means that these arematters of scriptural interpretation that all Jewswould grasp. Then Paul turns directly to Agrippa,

speaking with “boldness,” and asking the most per-tinent question: “Do you believe, King Agrippa, inthe prophets? I know that you do believe!” (26:27)The king, being no fool, responds in turn, “You arepersuading me to play the Christian a little” (en oligo i me peitheis christianon poi esai ).131 Yes, that is pre-cisely Luke’s argument: to read Torah essentially asprophecy about the Messiah is already to play theChristian a little bit!

(4) As an interpreter of the LXX, Luke uses a variety of modes of interpretation. Most striking,however, is that he lacks entirely any trace of theallegorical interpretation so favored by other Helle-nistic Jewish interpreters, like Philo, Aristobulus, or Aristeas, whose text likewise was exclusively theLXX.132 Instead, his methods resemble those foundamong Palestinian Jews whose text was Hebrew rather than Greek: targum, pesher , haggadah. I am




speaking here not so much about technical rules of interpretation as about characteristic interpretiveinstincts. In Stephen’s speech, we see a retelling of the biblical story that is entirely based on the LXX yet most resembles Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. In the prayer of the Apostles, we find a reading of LXX Psalm 2 that most is like thePesher on Psalm 37 at Qumran. In the speeches of Peter andPaul we find a midrashic argument that is haggadicin style.

(5) There naturally arises a question about whereto place Luke, the most thoroughly Hellenistic of early Christian writers (above all in his compositionand use of speeches), within the spectrum of first-century biblical interpretation. Among his Jewish

near-contemporaries, the most stunning parallelsare in the Qumran Scrolls, where we also find thetargumic rewriting of biblical history, the pesher interpretation of Psalms, and the intricate messianicflorilegium. And at Qumran as well, we find midrashapplied specifically to the community’s experienceas the fulfillment of prophecy “in the last days.”133

Among his New Testament colleagues, Luke mostresembles Paul of Tarsus, another interpreter of theLXX whose methods are more those of the Scribethan of theSophos ,134 although even Paul makes useof allegory (Galatians 4:21-31).

(6) If we choose to regard Luke’s speeches simply as repositories for midrashic arguments worked outbefore he wrote,135 then the most logical hypothesisconcerning the origin of his septuagintal midrash isthat of Lucien Cerfaux, who argued for the essen-tially Hellenistic character of the first Jerusalem




community.136 Certainly, from the earliest days of the Christian movement, apologetics on the basis of septuagintal midrash had begun. But if we takeseriously Luke’s own creative shaping of scripturalinterpretation, especially, as we have seen, across thespan of several speeches, then we might also want toreconsider another frequently discarded tradition:Paul’s own self-designation as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5),and Luke’s depiction of him as having studied at thefeet of Gamaliel “according to the strictness of ourancestral law” (Acts 22:3).137 This connection en-ables us to recognize that in his letters Paul usedproperly midrashic methods on the version of Torahthe messianists had made their own, the LXX.138

This same connection helps us to understand that

Luke was not only Paul’s admirer but also (as tradi-tion long held) his companion and disciple, one of those making up, even in Paul’s lifetime, “the PaulineSchool.”139 These solutions might sound overly simple and concrete. But the evidence we haveexamined at least demands that we recognize thatthe compartments separating competing schools infirst-century Judaism were not entirely watertight.Indeed, the evidence shows that methods we con-sider proper for the study of the Hebrew Biblewithin the proto-rabbinic and sectarian groups wereshared also by competitors in the messianic tradi-tion, but applied to the Greek version of Scripture.

Close attention to the literary dimensions of Luke- Acts, finally, raises a number of other questions forwhich answers are yet to be found. The first ishistorical. If, in fact, Luke belongs with Paul and James and the author of Hebrews to the early and






A third question, perhaps the most important, hasto do with our shared life of discipleship in thechurch. To what extent does Luke’s way of inter-preting Scripture serve as example and legitimationfor our own? It is daunting to realize how deeply andthoroughly both he and his readers were involved inthe imaginative world of Scripture. Luke suggeststhat it is impossible to speak the good news, impos-sible to tell the story of Jesus, without using thewords of Scripture. But even more challenging isLuke’s assumption that God’s Holy Spirit continuesto work in the lives of believers. Luke thinks that theSpirit continues to lead them into new and surpris-ing experiences of God, continues to open their eyesto meanings of Scripture that study alone could

never have yielded. Luke believes further that God’sSpirit continues to guide the church in its process of discernment and decision making, if Christians trustthis same Holy Spirit. Letting the Spirit work in usthis way requires not scholarship but the obedienceof faith.141




Notes1. 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 commen-tary series, there is a single author for both volumes only inone: L. T. Johnson,The Gospel of Luke , Sacra Pagina, no. 3(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) andThe Acts of the Apostles , Sacra Pagina, no. 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,1992). The other major treatment of both volumes from theperspective of their literary unity is R. C. Tannehill,The Narrative Unity of Luke- Acts, 2 vols. (Philadelphia andMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986–90).

4. See especially R. I. Pervo,Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1987).

5. For Luke-Acts as biography, see C. H. Talbert,What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1977); D. L. Brown and J. L. Wentling, “TheConventions of Classical Biography and the Genre of Luke- Acts: A Preliminary Study,” inLuke-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 Supple-ments, no. 64 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); D. W. Palmer,“Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” inThe 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 TestamentStudies Monograph Series, no. 76 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1993). On the importance of Luke’s Prologue




to the Gospel for determining his purposes, see R. J. Dillon,“Previewing Luke’s Project from his Prologue,”Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 205-27.7. See Johnson,Gospel of Luke , 9-10.8. For a short summary and bibliography, see L. T. Johnson,

“The Christology of Luke-Acts,” inWho Do You Say That I Am: Essays in Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury ,ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1999), 49-65.

9. Biblical imitation as a feature of one passage is analyzed by

T. L. Brodie, “Towards Unravelling Luke’s Uses of the OldTestament: Luke 7:11-17 asImitatio of 1 Kings 17: 17-24,”New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 247-67. Imitation as a factor in the construction of a narrative sequence is found inC. F. Evans, “The Central Section of Luke’s Gospel,” inStudies in the Gospels , ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell,1955), 37-53, and D. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel

Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989).10. Many of these parallels are found in Pervo,Profit withDelight , and E. Pluemacher,Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller , Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments,no. 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972). ForHellenistic features in Luke’s birth account, see C. H.Talbert, “Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribu-tion of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15,” inThe Great Helmsman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980), 129-141.

11. Among many other features can be noted the manner of speech and travel by Jesus and his followers (see Luke 9:1-7; 10:1-12; Acts 17:16-34), the practice of teaching at meals(11:37-52; 14:1-24; 22:14-38), the establishment of a com-mon life (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37), and boldness in proclama-tion in the face of opposition (Luke 12:8-12; 21:10-19; Acts4:13-22).

12. For a sketch of representative positions, see R. Maddox,The Purpose of Luke-Acts(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982).

13. For the early date, see Johnson,Gospel of Luke , 2-3, and forthe late date, see S. G. Wilson,The Gentiles and the Gentile




Mission in Luke-Acts , New Testament Studies MonographSeries, no. 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).

14. One can contrast the range of views concerning the basicissues in Luke-Acts with the relative unanimity concerning the circumstances of Matthew’s composition—leaving asidethe heated issue of the demographic makeup of the Mattheanchurch. See, e.g., J. A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Com-munity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), and A. J.Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chi-

cago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994).15. See L. T. Johnson, “On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,” in1979 SBL Seminar Papers ,ed. P. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979),87-100.

16. I applied this approach to the Letter of James, in L. T. Johnson, “The Social World of James: Literary Analysis andHistorical Reconstruction,” inThe Social World of the First

Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks , ed. L. M. White and L. O. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1995), 180-97.

17. For Torah as the shared symbolic world of all Jews in thefirst century, and for the conflicts over its interpretation inChristianity’s first generation, see L. T. Johnson,The Writ-ings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, 2d ed. (Minne-apolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 10-16, 43-91, 128-29.

18. Leaving aside lesser verbal exchanges and declarations, wefind significant speech acts ascribed to Peter alone (2:14-36;3:12-24; 10:34-43; 15:7-11) and with unnamed others(4:8-12; 4:23-31; 5:28-32), Stephen (7:2-53), Paul (13:16-41; 14:15-18; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:2-23), James (15:14-21), Gamaliel (5:35-39), the EphesianTown Clerk (19:35-40), and the advocate Tertullus (24:2-8).

19. C. H. Dodd,The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (New York: Harper and Row, 1936), 31.

20. Apostolic Preaching , 46-55; he concludes, “It is surely clearthat the fourfold Gospel taken as a whole is an expression of the original apostolic preaching” (55).




21. Skepticism concerning the historicity of Acts is character-istic of German scholarship, in sharp contrast to the opti-

mistic positivism of much British scholarship. The Germanapproach 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 conservativeBritish 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 , Wissen-schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no. 49

(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989).22. U. Wilckens,Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte , Wissen-schaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testa-ment, 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 andK. 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 Historiog-raphy,” and “Literary Allusions in the Speeches of Acts,” allin 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 ClassicalLibrary (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927).

27. Lucian of Samosata,How to Write History , trans. K.Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press, 1959).

28. F. F. Bruce recognizes this in principle in “The Significanceof the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,”Southwestern Journal of Theology 1 (1990): 20-28, although in practice, he empha-sizes the reportage dimension of the speeches in Acts.

29. InThe Speeches of Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 12,




Marion Soards accepts this premise and pushes further toargue that Luke’s speeches in Acts “achieve the unification

of the otherwise diverse and incoherent elements comprisedby Acts. Through the regular introduction of formally repetitive speeches, Luke unified his narrative ….” This is animportant observation, and close (though not identical) tothe point I will make concerning the midrashic argumentthat runsthrough several speeches.

30. See, e.g., R. Zehnle,Peter’s Pentecost Discourse , Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 15 (Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1971), and J. A. T. Robinson, “The MostPrimitive Christology of All?” Journal of Theological Studies ,n.s., 7 (1956): 177-89.

31. Pluemacher,Lukas als hellenisticher Schriftsteller , 32-79.32. J. Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial

Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function,” inLuke-Acts:New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature , ed. C.H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 210-24; see also

F. Veltman, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” inPerspectives on Luke-Acts , ed. C. H. Talbert (Danville, Va.: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 243-56, and P. Schubert, “The Final Cycle of Speeches in theBook of Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 153-83.

33. W. S. Kurz, “The Function of the Christological Proof from Prophecy for Luke and Justin” (Ph.D. diss., YaleUniversity, 1976).

34. For further insight into the rhetorical ideal of proso popoiia ,see S. K. Stowers, “Romans 7:7-25 as a Speech in Character(Prosopopoiia ),” in Paul in his Hellenistic Setting , ed. T.Engberg-Peterson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 180-202.

35. See Dio Chrys.Or. 12 (Discourses , trans. J. W. Cohoon,Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.Press, 1932]); Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 311-21.

36. See D. L. Balch, “The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal to theStoic Historian Posidonius against Later Stoics and theEpicureans,” inGreeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays inHonor of Abraham J. Malherbe , ed. D. L. Balch et al.




(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 52-79, and J. Neyrey,“Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy,” Ibid., 118-34.

37. J. Dupont,Le Discours de Milet. Testament pastorale de Paul ? Actes 20,18-36 (Paris: Cerf, 1962).38. E. Hilgert, “Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of

Historiography and Rhetoric,” inGood News in History:Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke , ed. E. L. Miller (Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1993), 83-109.

39. See L. T. Johnson,The Literary Function of Possessions inLuke-Acts , Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series,

no. 39 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 70-78, andThe Gospel of Luke , 17-21.40 See, e.g., H. Anderson, “The Rejection at Nazareth Pericope

of Luke 4:16-30 in Light of Recent Critical Trends,”Inter- pretation 18 (1964): 259-74.

41. L. T. Johnson, “The Lukan Kingship Parable (Luke 19:11-27),”Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 139-59.

42. A great deal of good work has been done on the subject.

Among others, see J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of the OldTestament in Luke-Acts,” inSociety of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers , ed. E. Boring, (Missoula, Mont.:Scholars Press, 1992), 524-38; V. McCracken, “The Inter-pretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts,”Restoration Quarterly 4 (1999): 193-210; D. Bock, “The Use of the Old Testa-ment in Luke-Acts: Christology and Mission,” inSociety of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers , ed. D. J. Lull(Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1990), 494-511; D. E. Johnson, “Jesus against the Idols: The Use of IsaianicServant Songs in the Missiology of Acts,”Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 343-53; C. A. Kimball,“Jesus’ Exposition of Scripture in Luke 4:16-30: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics,”Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994): 179-202; C. A. Evans and J. A Sanders,Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition inLuke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); M. L. Strauss,The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Fulfill-ment in Lukan Christology , Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); C. A. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of




the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel , Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 94 (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); R. L. Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts , Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana Univ.Press, 1995).

43. Analysis of Luke-Acts from this perspective began with P.Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” inNeutestamentlich Studien für Rudolf Bultmann, ed. W. Eltester(Berlin: E. Toepelmann, 1957), 165-86, was taken up by N.

A. Dahl, “The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts,” inStudies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Paul Schubert , ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 165-86, and a number of his students; see R. Karris, “Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of Luke- Acts,”Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 80-97. C. H.Talbert rightly warns against exaggerating the importanceof this motif as a single interpretive lens, in “Promise and

Fulfillment in Lukan Theology” inLuke-Acts: New Perspec-tives from the Society of Biblical Literature (New York:Crossroad, 1984), 91-103.

44. See Johnson,Gospel of Luke ,15-16.45. For Matthew’s style of citation, see R. H. Gundry,The Use

of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel . Novum Testa-mentum Supplements, no. 18 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967),and K. Stendahl,The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968).

46. Matt. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35;21:4; 27:9.

47. This sort of haggadic midrash is most obvious in the birthstories; see R. E. Brown,The Birth of the Messiah, enl. ed.(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1993); see also the studiesby C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders,Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1993).

48. Exod. 20:12-16/Deut. 5:16-20 (Luke 18:20); Deut. 6:4/Lev. 19:18 (Luke 10:27); Deut. 6:13 (Luke 4:8); Deut. 6:16(Luke 4:12); Deut. 8:3 (Luke 4:4); Isa. 8:14-15 (Luke20:17); Isa. 40:3-5 (Luke 3:4-6); Isa. 53:12 (Luke 22:37);




Isa. 56:7/Jer. 7:11 (Luke 19:45); Isa. 61:1, 2; 58:6 (Luke4:18-19); Mal. 3:1 (Luke 7:27); Ps. 31:5 (Luke 23:46); Ps.

91:11-12 (Luke 4:10-11); Ps. 110:1 (Luke 20:41); Ps.118:22-23 (Luke 20:17); Ps. 118:26 (Luke 19:37).49. E.g., “it is written” (Luke 4:4; 4:8; 4:10; 4:16; 19:45),

“where it was written” (4:16), “about whom it is written”(7:27). The most elaborate introduction is “David himself says in the Book of the Psalms” (20:41); for the full range of these introductions, and for the parallel Hebrew construc-tions found at Qumran, see Fitzmyer, “Use of Old Testa-

ment in Luke-Acts,” 524-37.50. Most are in the mouth of Jesus, but passages of Scripture arecited also by the devil (4:10), the crowds (19:37), and thelawyer, in response to Jesus’ question, “What is written inthe law? What do you read there?” (10:26).

51. For an overview of critical issues and bibliography, see M.K. H. Peters, “Septuagint,” inThe Anchor Bible Dictionary ,ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:1093-

1104; E. Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Transla-tion, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity , ed. M. J. Mulder,Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum,vol. 2, part 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 161-88.

52. See Stendahl,School of St. Matthew and Its Use of Old Testament , 97-142.

53. The essays appear in J. Dupont,Etudes sur les Actes des Apôtres , Lectio Divina, no. 45 (Paris: Cerf, 1967):“L’Utilisation apologétique de l’Ancien Testament dans lesdiscours des Actes,” 245-82; “L’Interprétation des Psaumesdans les Actes des Apôtres,” 283-308; “La Destinée de Judasprophétisée par David,” 309-20; “Ressuscité ‘le troisième jour,’” 321-36; “TA HOSIA DAUID TA PISTA (Actes 13,34 = Isaïe 55,3),” 337-60; “LAOS EX ETHNON ,” 361-66.See also “Les Discours de Pierre dans les Actes et le Chapitrexxiv de l’Evangile de Luc,” inL’Evangile de Luc , ed. F.Neirynck, Biblioteca Ephemeridum TheologicarumLovaniensium, no. 32 (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1973). Twoof the essays are available in English: “Messianic Interpreta-tion of the Psalms in the Acts of the Apostles,” and “Apolo-

¯




getic Use of the Old Testament in the Speeches of Acts,” in J. Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies on the Acts

of the Apostles , trans. J. Keating. (New York: Paulist Press,1979), 103-28 and 129-60.54. On the passage, see C. Masson, “La Réconstitution du

collège des Douze,”Revue philosophique et théologique , 3dser., 5 (1955): 193-201; J. Jervell,Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 75-112; J. Dupont, “La douxième Apôtre (Actes 1:15-26). A proposd’une explication récente,” inThe New Testament Age , ed.

W. C. Weinrich (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1984),1:139-45.55. See the structural analysis of the passage in relation to the

two citations in Dupont, “La Destinée de Judas,” 309-20;see also the discussion of the passage by G. J. Steyn,Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Contributions toBiblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 12 (Kampen, Nether-

lands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), 38-63.56.Gen eth eto h e epaulis auto n er emo men e kai en tois sk eno masinauto n m e esto ho katoiko n. Luke has changed the plurals of the LXX to the singular (to fit the citation to Judas), used thepronoun in place of the LXX’s “their tents,” and reversed theword sequence in the second phrase.

57. The citation matches the LXX, with one exception: Lukereplaceslaboi withlabeto , which is consistent with the third-person imperatives in the first citation. Luke’s combinationof texts here has no known precedent; see T. Holtz,Unter-suchungen über die Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, Texteund Untersuchungen, no. 104 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,1968), 46.

58. Since this sense of peqûda h as “store” or “things laid up” isfound elsewhere only in Isa. 15:7, the LXX translators may simply have been woodenly consistent.

59. Paul tells the elders in Miletus,to pneuma to hagion ethetoepiskopous poimainein t en ekkl esian tou theou.

60. In contrast to the role of the proph et es in glossolalic cults,which was to interpret the speech that had been uttered




ecstatically, the prophet Peter interprets theevent ; see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 53-56.

61.Hon ho theos anest esen lysas tas o dinas tou thanatou kathoti ouk en dynaton krateisthai auton hyp’ autou.62. Hom.Il . 11.271 (trans. A. T. Murray, Loeb Classical

Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1924]);Eur.Supp. 920 (Suppliants , trans. A. S. Way, Loeb ClassicalLibrary [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1912]); Joseph AJ 2.218; Isa. 37:3; 1 Thess. 5:3.

63. See, e.g., Exod. 22:25; Deut. 24:6; Prov. 20:16.

64. I find unconvincing the argument of H. van de Sandt, thatthe Amos text is essentially a replacement of one inDeteronomy, in “An Explanation of Acts 15:6-21 in theLight of Deuteronomy 4:29-35 (LXX),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992): 73-97.

65. For Luke’s understanding of circumcision as a customappropriate to the Jewish nation but having no salvific valueeither for them or for Gentiles, see S. G. Wilson,Luke and

the Law , Society of New Testament Studies MonographSeries, no. 50 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983);for the significance of the idea of “the people of God,” seeespecially N. A. Dahl, “‘A People for His Name’ (Acts XV.14),”New Testament Studies 4 (1957-58): 319-27.

66. For the narrative development through which Luke pre-pares for the climactic decision making, see L. T. Johnson,Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996).

67. See the discussion in Strauss,Davidic Messiah, 183-93.68. Dialogue with Trypho 66-77 ( Ante-Nicene Fathers: The

Writings of the Fathers down to 325 , vol.1, ed. A. Roberts etal. [1885; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994]).

69. LXX Isa. 45:21 hashina gno sin hama tis akousta epoi esentauta ap’ arch es . The allusion is possible but difficult toprove.

70. For a succinct statement of the issues with respect to Acts,see J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J.,The Acts of the Apostles , Anchor Bible,vol. 18C (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 66-79.

71. For discussion of the textual issues in detail, see Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts , 41-46; Holtz,




Alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas , 5-14; Zehnle,Peter’s Pentecost Discourse , 28-33; M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Mo-

tive in der Christologie des Lukas , Studien zum NeuenTestament, no. 1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 48-49;Steyn,Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 64-100.

72. For an argument in favor of the Alexandrian text, see J. H.Ropes,The Text of Acts , vol. 3 ofThe Beginnings of Christian-ity , part 1,The Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan andCompany, 1926), ccl-cclxxv; the Western tradition is fa-

vored by A. C. Clark,The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1933), xxii and following, and morerecently, the case has been made that Luke is involved in thecomposition of both text versions; see M. E. Boismard, “TheText of Acts: A Problem of Literary Criticism?” inNew Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis:Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger , ed. E. J. Epp and G. Fee(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 147-57.

73. In the case of Acts, see G. Kilpatrick, “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” inBiblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey , ed. J. Birdsall and R. Thomson (New York:Herder, 1963), 64-77, and A. Klijn, “In Search of theOriginal Text of Acts,” inStudies in Luke-Acts , ed. L. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 103-10.

74. A. Rahlfs, ed.,Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece juxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,1979), first published in 1935; B. and K. Aland et al., ed.,Novum Testamentum Graece , 27th ed. rev., (Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), based on the edition of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle first published in 1898.

75. E. J. Epp,The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabri- giensis , New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 3(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966).

76. See Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts ,41-45, and more recently, Steyn,Septuagint Quotations inContext of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum,91-100; see also C. A. Evans, “The Prophetic Setting of thePentecost Sermon,” Zeitschrift für Neuentestamentliche Wis-senschaft 74 (1983): 148-50.




77. The prophecies spoken by characters within his narrativeare used by Luke in a distinctive way, that is, programmati-

cally, as ways of interpreting the subsequent flow of the story he is telling. See Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions inLuke-Acts , 15-18, and for Peter’s Speech in this light, see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 53-56.

78. R. B. Hays correctly makes the same point with respect toPaul, inEchoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1989), 173-78.

79. This point is made strongly and correctly by C. H. Talbert,

“Promise and Fulfillment in Lukan Theology,” 93.80. F. F. Bruce, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Acts,” inTradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays inHonor of E. Earle Ellis , ed. G. Hawthorne and O. Betz(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 71-79; J. Doeve, JewishHermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts , Van Gorcum’sTheologische Bibliotheek, no. 24 (Assen, Netherlands: VanGorcum, 1954), 115-16; J. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A

Study of Proem and Yelammedenu Form,”New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68): 96-111; L. Cerfaux, “Citationsscripturaires et tradition textuelle dans le Livre des Actes,” Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Goguel , Bibliothèque théologique (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1950), 43-51.

81. J. Ross Wagner surveys the ways Ps. 118 may have been readin the Jewish context, but devotes his attention to the waysLuke exploits Ps. 118 throughout his narrative—an analysisnot unlike the one that concludes the present essay; see“Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,” inEarly Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel:Investigations and Proposals , ed. C. A. Evans and S. A.Sanders, Journal for the Study of the New TestamentSupplement Series, no. 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1997), 154-78. Likewise, Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, acknowledges technical questions and paral-lels in Jewish literature, but he focuses mainly on the richintertextual effects Luke achieves with his readings of Scrip-ture.




82. Compare 13:18 and Deut. 1:31; 13:19; 7:1; 13:21 and 1Sam. 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 respond-ing to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ and Lord indramatically different ways. The ordinary people respondpositively, while the leadership rejects the apostles’ messageand 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 councilthey say that Stephen “speaks against this holy place and thelaw” (6:13). Finally, this is explicated by 6:14 as, “Jesus theNazorean will destroy this place and change the customsthat Moses handed down to us.”

86. Among many studies devoted to the speech, see C. K.Barrett, “Old Testament History according to Stephen andPaul,” inStudien zum Text und Ethik des Neuen Testaments ,

ed. W. Schrage, Beihefte Zeitschrift für die Neuen Testa-ment, no. 47 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 57-69; J.Bihler,Die Stephanusgeschichte , Münchener TheologischeStudien, no. 1, Historische Abteilung, no. 30 (München:Max Huebner, 1963); J. Dupont, “La Structure oratoire dudiscours d’Etienne (Actes 7),”Biblica 66 (1985): 153-67; J.Kilgallen,The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study of Acts 7,2-53, Analecta Biblica, no. 67 (Rome:Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976); D. Sylva, “The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46-50,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 261-75; J. E. Via, “An Interpretation of Acts7:35-37 from the Perspective of Major Themes in Luke- Acts,” inSociety 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 andExpanded,” inThe Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period , ed. M. E. Stone, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum adNovum Testamentum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1984), 89-156.




88. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews , trans. H. St. J. Thackery,Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.

Press, 1930); theGenesis Apocryphon andBook of Jubilees areavailable in F. G. Martinez,ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. W. G. E. Watson, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); theBook of Jubilees , Pseudo-Philo, and Artapanus are all available in J. H. Charlesworth, ed.,The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ,vol. 2 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985).

89. See E. J. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus , 2d

rev. ed. (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963); S. Sandmel,Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1979); P. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period , ed. M. E. Stone(Compendium Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamen-tum, vol. 2, part 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 233-82.

90. See O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees, a New Translation and

Introduction,” inOld Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2:35-50.91. On targums, see D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, ed.,The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context , Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements,no. 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); A. D. York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and the School,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 10 (1979): 74-86.

92. E. Richard, Acts 6:1-8:4: The Author’s Method of Composi-tion, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no.41 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978).

93. Philo,On the Life of Moses , trans. F. H. Colson, inPhilo, vol.6, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.Press, 1935]).

94. Compare, for example, theInfancy Gospels of James and Thomas, ed. Ronald F. Hock, Scholars Bible, vol. 2 [Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1995] and Pseudo-CallisthenesLife of Alexander of Macedon1.13-19 (ed. and trans. E. H.Haight [New York: Longmans, Green, 1955]).

95. See examples in Pl.Cri. 50E, 51C (Plato, vol. 1,Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus , trans. H. N. Fowler, LoebClassical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,




1914]); PhiloLife of Moses 21; Flaccus 158 (trans. F. H.Colson, inPhilo, vol. 9, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1941]).96. The phrasechara para theo i used of Jesus in Luke 2:52 alsocorresponds to the phraseasteios to i theo i used of Moses in Acts 7:20.

97. See E. Richard, “The Polemical Character of the JosephEpisode in Acts 7,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):255-67, and Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions inLuke-Acts , 70-76.

98. A. A. Trites, “Some Aspects of Prayer in Luke-Acts,” inSociety of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers , ed. P. J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 59-77.

99. See, in particular, Jervell,Luke and the People of God , 75-112; D. Hamm, “Acts 3:1-10: The Healing of the TempleBeggar as Lukan Theology,”Biblica 67 (1986): 305-19, and J. Schmitt, “L’Eglise de Jérusalem, ou la ‘restauration’

d’Israël,”Revue des sciences religeuses 27 (1953): 209-18.100. For the narrative development, see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 75-104; for the significance of the second descrip-tion of the sharing of possessions for that narrative develop-ment, see Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions inLuke-Acts , 191-211.

101. Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 93-104.102. See, e.g., E. Haenchen,The Acts of the Apostles , 226; O.

Bauernfeind,Die Apostelgeschichte , Theologischer Hand-kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 5 (Leipzig: A.Deichertsche, 1939), 79; K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury,English Translation and Commentary , vol. 4 ofThe Begin-nings of Christianity , part 1,The Acts of the Apostles , 45; andrecently, R. Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 100.

103. J. Dupont, “La Prière des apôtres persecutés (Actes 4,23-31)” inEtudes sur les Actes des Apôtres , Lectio Divina, no. 45(Paris: Cerf, 1967), 521-22; see also Johnson, Acts of the Apostles , 82-93. Notice that Luke makes a decisive transitionto the “assembly of believers” in 4:32, and places the apostlesin its midst.




104. Note the similarity to the grammatical awkwardness in Acts 3:16, where Luke wants to assert both the power at

work “in the name” and the necessity of “faith in the name.”105. Luke picks up the aorist verbsynechth esan from the Psalm(Acts 4:26) and repeats it in his application (4:27); theapplication gains plausibility from the fact that Luke usedthe same verb (synagein) in his own narrative (4:5; 22:66).

106. The use ofChristos in the Psalm (Acts 4:26) could justify translation as “the Messiah.” It was so understood by the laterabbinic Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 2. Luke’s use ofchriein

(“to anoint”) in Acts 4:27 (“whom you anointed”) alsoreminds us of the way in which Luke understands Jesus’messiahship as an “anointing” by the Holy Spirit (Luke4:18; 9:20; Acts 10:38).

107. On this theme, see especially Squires,The Plan of God inLuke-Acts .

108. For pesher interpretation, see D. Dimant, “Pesherim,Qumran,” inThe Anchor Bible Dictionary , 5:244-51; W. H.

Brownlee,The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk , Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 24 (Missoula,Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979).

109. 1QpHab XII, in Martinez,The Dead Sea Scrolls Trans-lated , 202.

110. Martinez,The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated , 205.111. See, e.g., Luke 1:68, 77; 2:32; 7:16; Acts 3:12; 4:1; 6:8;

13:15.112. Johnson,Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts , 115-

21.113. For treatments of the speech, see among others, Strauss,

Davidic Messiah, 148-80; M. F.-J. Buss,Die Missionspredigt des Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien (Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk, 1980); J. Dupont, “TA HOSIA DAUID TAPISTA,” 337-59; R. P. Gordon, “Targumic Parallels to Actsxiii, 18 and Didache xiv, 13,”Novum Testamentum 16(1974): 285-89; J. J. Kilgallen, “Acts 13,38-39: Culmina-tion of Paul’s Speech in Pisidia,”Biblica 69 (1988): 480-506; R. F. O’Toole, “Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13:13-52,”Biblica 60 (1979): 361-72; A. Schmitt, “Ps 16:8-11als Zeugnis der Aufertstehung in der Apg.,”Biblische Zeit-




schrift , n.s., 17 (1973): 229-48; Steyn,Septuagint Quota-tions in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta

Apostolorum, 159-202; Brawley,Text to Text Pours ForthSpeech, 108-23.114. See, e.g., Strauss,Davidic Messiah, 337-56.115. Unlike Matt. 22:41, which explicitly identifies the inter-

locutors as Pharisees, and Mark 12:35, which identifiesthem as Scribes, Luke 20:41 has only “how do they say,”leaving the identity of the referent to be inferred from hisprevious 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 Useof Psalm 16 in Acts 2,”Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43(1981): 543-56, and his Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).

119. For the text, see Martinez,The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated ,136; for discussion, see Strauss,Davidic Messiah, 43-45.

120. It is possible to discern in Luke’s argument certain of theinterpretive rules (middoth) that were codified among scribalinterpreters already in the first century. For the seven Rulesof Hillel, see the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 37 ( Aboth de RabbinNathan: 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 fromanalogy of expression) andbinyan av (induction from textswith features in common), however, were intended mainly to control the serious business of halachic midrash. In thecase of haggadic (non-legal) interpretation—the sort Lukeis doing—practice is much more freewheeling. For anintroduction, see R. Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scrip-




ture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mikra , vol. 2, part 1, 547-94.

121. See Ph.-H. Menoud, “Justification by Faith according tothe Book of Acts,” in Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. E. M.Paul (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978), 202-27.

122. See, e.g., LXX Deut. 33:8; 2 Sam. 22:26; Ps. 4:3; 11:1;15:10; 17:25.

123. See, e.g., LXX Gen. 24:12; Deut. 7:9; Josh. 2:14; Ps. 12:5;20:7; 31:10; Isa. 54:10; Dupont, “TA HOSIA DAUID TAPISTA,” 343-44, suggests that the LXX translators mistook

the noun for the adjective.124. See, e.g., LXX Num. 12:7; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 88:37; Isa.49:7.

125. Strauss,Davidic Messiah, 165-73, provides a good sum-mary of the major positions: (a) the phrase refers to David’sholiness or piety; b) it refers to the Messiah’s resurrection;(c) it refers to salvation blessings; (d) it refers to the covenantpromises to David. This last is Strauss’s position, and it is

very close to the one I adopt here. See also Steyn,Septuagint Quotations in Context of Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, 177-82. Brawley,Text to Text Pours ForthSpeech, 116-18, makes the interpretation of the troublesomephrase depend heavily on the context of Isa. 55.

126. SeeEuthphr . 6E, 12D (Plato, vol. 1,Euthyphro, Apology,Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus , trans. H. N. Fowler);Leg . 861D(Plato, vol. 10-11,Laws , trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb ClassicalLibrary [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926]);Polyb.Histories 22.10.8 (6 vols., trans. W. R. Paton, LoebClassical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,1976-80]). See also the inscription found at Cnidus inSylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dillenberger, 3ded. (Leipzig, 1915-24), 1199.

127. The NRSV has “all who hear the words of this oath.”128. Perhaps the most impressive example of the “hidden

textual premise” is the line from LXX Joel 3:5b that Lukedoesnot have Peter quote in his Pentecost speech. After theline, “and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord willbe saved,” the LXX continues,hoti en to i orei Sion kai enIerousal em estai anaso izomenos kathoti eipen kyrios kai




euangelizomenoi hous kyrios proskekl etai (because on MountZion and in Jerusalem, there will be a remnant, just as the

Lord said, and they will be preached the good news, thosewhom the Lord summons). That Luke was well aware of theverse is suggested by Peter’s use of “whomever the Lord ourGod summons” in 2:39. And the combination of Jerusalem/remnant/proclaiming good news, all in the future, wouldseem to provide the perfect theme for the restoration of Israel that Luke develops in Acts 2-4. This seems to be oneof the cases where Luke chooses to leave the key verse

inexplicit, leaving it to his readers’ competence in intertextualrecognition to pick up the intended allusion. For discussion,see Dupont, “Apologetic Use of the Old Testament in theSpeeches of Acts,” 151-52, and Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 88.

129. Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 125.130. Brawley,Text to Text Pours Forth Speech, 126.131. For the translation and discussion, see Johnson, Acts of the

Apostles , 439-40.132. See Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II., III , trans.F. H. Colson and G. W. Whittaker, inPhilo, vol. 1, LoebClassical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,1929]); Letter of Aristeas 128-71 (trans. R. J. H. Shutt, inOld Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2:7-34; Aristobulus frag. 2,4, 5 (trans. A. Yarbro Collins, inOld Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2:831-42).

133. N. A. Dahl, “Eschatology and History in Light of theQumran Texts,” in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine , ed. D. H. Juel (Minneapolis: For-tress Press, 1991), 49-64.

134. See E. E. Ellis,Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1957; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1981); C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, ed.,Paul and the Scriptures of Israel , Journal for the Study of the New Testa-ment Supplements, no. 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1993); R. B. Hays,Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul .




135. Dupont takes the position that Luke took over earlierinterpretations, in “Apologetic Use of the Old Testament,”

151-52.136. L. Cerfaux, “La première Communauté chrétienne à Jérusalem (Act. ii, 41-v, 42),”Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 16 (1939): 5-31.

137. Still worth reading is W. C. van Unnik,Tarsus or Jerusa-lem: The City of Paul’s Youth (London: Epworth, 1962).

138. For Paul’s complex argument in Galatians 3, for example,see N. A. Dahl, “Contradictions in Scripture,” inStudies in

Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977)159-77, and T. Callan, “Pauline Midrash: The ExegeticalBackground of Gal. 3:19b,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99(1980): 549-67.

139. For my position concerning the “Pauline School” as activein all of Paul’s correspondence, see L. T. Johnson,The Writings of the New Testament , 2d ed. (Minneapolis: For-tress Press, 1999) 261-78, andThe 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, co-

written 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 theunderstanding of faith as response to the continuous self-disclosure of God in the common fabric of human experi-ence, see L. T. Johnson,Faith’s Freedom: A Classic Spirituality for Contemporary Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1990).




THE PÈRE M ARQUETTE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

1969The Authority for Authority Quentin QuesnellMarquette University

1970 Mystery and Truth John Macquarrie

Union Theological Seminary

1971Doctrinal PluralismBernard Lonergan, S.J.Regis College, Ontario

1972Infallibility George A. Lindbeck Yale University

1973 Ambiguity in Moral Choice Richard A. McCormick, S.J.Bellarmine School of Theology

1974Church Membership as a Catholic and Ecumenical Problem Avery Dulles, S.J.

Woodstock College

1975The Contributions of Theology to Medical Ethics James GustafsonUniversity of Chicago

1976Religious Values in an Age of Violence Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum

Director of National Interreligious Affairs American Jewish Committee, New York City

1977Truth Beyond Relativism: Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge

Gregory BaumSt. Michael’s College



74 The Père Marquette Lecture Series

1978 A Theology of ‘Uncreated Energies’ George A. Maloney, S.J.

John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian StudiesFordham University

1980 Method in Theology: An Organon For Our Time Frederick E. Crowe, S.J.

Regis College, Toronto

1981Catholics in the Promised Land of the Saints

James Hennesey, S.J.Boston College

1982Whose Experience Counts in Theological Reflection? Monika Hellwig

Georgetown University

1983The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of

Mark John R. Donahue, S.J. Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley

1984 Should War be Eliminated? Philosophical and Theological Investigations

Stanley HauerwasNotre Dame University

1985From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of Laws Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J.

The Catholic University of America

1986Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization Walter Brueggemann

Eden Theological Seminary St. Louis, Missouri



The Père Marquette Lecture Series 75

1987Nova et Vetera: The Theology of Tradition in AmericanCatholicism

Gerald Fogarty University of Virginia

1988The Christian Understanding of Freedom and the History of Freedom in the Modern Era: The Meeting and Confron-tation Between Christianity and the Modern Era in a Postmodern Situation Walter Kasper

University of Tübingen1989 Moral Absolutes: Catholic Tradition, Current Trends, and

the Truth William F. May

Catholic University of America

1990Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre

Adela Yarbro CollinsUniversity of Notre Dame

1991 Faith, History and Cultures: Stability and Change inChurch Teachings Walter H. Principe, C.S.B.

University of Toronto

1992Universe and Creed Stanley L. Jaki

Seton Hall University

1993The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues Gerald G. O’Collins, S.J.

Gregorian Pontifical University

1994Seeking God in Contemporary Culture Most Reverend Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B. Archbishop of Milwaukee



76 The Père Marquette Lecture Series

1995The Book of Proverbs and Our Search for WisdomRichard J. Clifford, S.J.

Weston Jesuit School of Theology 1996Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches: East is West and

West is East Michael A. Fahey, S.J.

University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto

1997‘Faith Adoring the Mystery’: Reading the Bible with St.

Ephræm the SyrianSidney H. GriffithCatholic University of America

1998Is There Life after Death? Jürgen Moltmann

Eberhard-Karls UniversitätTübingen, Germany

1999 Moral Theology at the End of the Century Charles E. Curran

Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of Human Values

Southern Methodist University

2000Is the Reformation over? Geoffrey Wainwright

2001In Procession before the World: Martyrdom As Public Liturgy in Early Christianity

Robin Darling Young

2002Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts Luke Timothy Johnson



The Père Marquette Lecture Series 77

About the Père Marquette Lecture SeriesThe Annual Père Marquette Lecture Series began atMarquette University in the Spring of 1969. Idealfor classroom use, library additions, or private col-lections, the Père Marquette Lecture Series has re-ceived international acceptance by scholars,universities, and libraries. Hardbound in blue clothwith gold stamped covers. Uniform style and price($15 each). Some reprints with soft covers. Regularreprinting keeps all volumes available. Ordering information (purchase orders, checks, and majorcredit cards accepted):

Marquette University Press1444 U.S. Route 42P.O. Box 388 Ashland OH 44903

Order Toll-Free (800) 247–6553fax: (419) 281–6883

Editorial Address:Dr. Andrew Tallon, DirectorMarquette University PressBox 1881Milwaukee WI 53201-1881

phone: (414) 288-7298

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



Documents

Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash