Durham E-Theses

The continuation of Mark

Moore, David

How to cite:

Moore, David (1974)

E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9944/

The continuation of Mark, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:

a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: e-theses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk

BH K

C O N T I N U A T I O N

of

MARK

Source A n a l y s i s of A c t s w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the Marcan Gospel,

David Moore,

M o A* October, 1974

PREFACE

I n undertaking t h e p r e s e n t t a s k , there i s a twofold danger, of p r e s e n t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s e i t h e r too. vaguely,, or as a f a i t accompli. I n opting f o r an approach v e e r i n g towards the former p i t , I have been guided by the b e l i e f that the author of A c t s must f i r s t be understood, before

we can grasp h i s a t t i t u d e towards any source m a t e r i a l . The most t h a t can be achieved with a source theory such as t h a t here presented i s to throw out many suggestions - some w i t h more c o n v i c t i o n than others - but which, taken as a whole,

g i v e the theory ( I hope) a r i n g of credibility

T h i s t h e s i s was presented f o r the degree of M.

Litt.

i n September 1971 The f o l l o w i n g i s a r e v i s e d p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h a t work* The r e v i s i o n has followed suggestions made by the M. L i t t . examiners
e

ABSTBAC3? The study commences w i t h a review of the many i s o l a t e d s u g g e s t i o n s advanced i n support of a Marcan source underl y i n g p a r t of A c t s * W h i l s t t h e s e are seen to have l i t t l e coherence, the opposite theory r e c e n t l y propounded by Parker t h a t Acts i s i g n o r a n t of t h e Marcan Gospel i s a l s o found to he wanting; i n p r o b a b i l i t y * F o l l o w i n g a b r i e f g e n e r a l survey of p r e v a l e n t a t t i t u d e s to source c r i t i c i s m of Acts today, i t i s demonstrated how the p r e s e n t study has a c e r t a i n advantage i n t h i s f i e l d , by being a b l e to provide some o b j e c t i v e c o n t r o l on the evidence* for i n knowing something of Mark's own language and method, and Luke's treatment of i t , we have some guidano as to the na;ture. of one source i n A c t s , had Mark ever been used i n the formation of A c t s by Luke* As a p a r t i a l check a g a i n s t a 'freak* r e s u l t , vocabulary of Matthew and John i s a l s o t e s t e d ? 1 h i s i n e f f e c t h e i g h t e n i n g the c o n n e c t i o n s between Mark and p a r t of A c t s * Armed w i t h a knowledge of Mark's d i s t i n c t i v e vocabulary, the t h e s i s , develops the two major i s s u e s involved$ f i r s t l y , does Mark's Gospel bear any evidence t h a t i t s author intended to continue w i t h an 'Acts' of any d e s c r i p t i o n ? ' - a f t e r examination of key passages t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s l e f t open* Secondly, assuming the h y p o t h e s i s , the t e x t of those passages i n A c t s which appear from s t a t i s t i c a l evidence to most p o s s i b l y have Marcan a f f i n i t i e s a r e a n a l y s e d i n d e t a i l , using the m a t e r i a l gained from t h e examination of Marcan language a s the b a s i s f o r a l l d i s c u s s i o n * At the same time the aut& h o r ' s own a t t i t u d e s to h i s m a t e r i a l has c o n s t a n t l y to be e v a l u a t e d , and although the f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n remains n e c e s s a r i l y s p e c u l a t i v e , the p r o b a b i l i t y of a Marcan source u n d e r l y i n g at l e a s t Ac. 3:1-11, 10:9-16 and ls5-10 seems unavoidable* T2ie work concludes w i t h t h r e e Appendices, and an Index* a Bibliography

(299 words)

C 0 I O

N. T S

! SOURCE CRITICISM OF ACTS

.,

Page 1

2a TESTING: THE HYPOTHESIS

...

50*

3o MARK

, .
0

62

4. ACTS

...

...

106

5o CONCLUSION

...

....

312*

Appendices

...

3 1 5

oooOOOooo

1.

SOURCE CRITICISM 0^ ACTS

(1)

A REVIEW OP MARGAN HYPOTHESES

I n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f 1898 i n t o what he c a l l e d t h e 'double t e x t ' o f Luke/Acts, Blass f a c e d t h e o b s t a c l e o f e x p l a i n i n g why, i n b o t h works, t h e 'second e d i t i o n ' Luke

on t h i s t h e o r y i s s a i d t o have i s s u e d does n o t always seek t o improve on t h e r o u g h s t y l e o f t h e o r i g i n a l . B l a s s ' answer was t h a t Luke i s u s i n g a source w h i c h he f e e l s obl i g e d t o f o l l o w c l o s e l y . "Suppose", he c o n t i n u e d , " t h a t Mark was t h e a u t h o r who had w r i t t e n a c o n t i n u a t i o n t o h i s Gospel, and t h a t t h i s c o n t i n u a t i o n f e l l i n t o Luke's hands... The t e l l - t a l e word here i s 'suppose'although i t

would n o t be an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p r i o r i h y p o t h e s i s , s i n c e we know t h a t Mark forms one i m p o r t a n t , and i n d e e d w r i t t e n , source f o r Luke's Gospel. But t h e r e t h e evidence can be s i f t e d t h r o u g h , f o r the source i s e x t a n t . A c t s , by c o n t r a s t , stands as o u r u n i q u e r e c o r d o f "the E a r l y Church.

Despite t h i s d i f f i c u l t y ,

There has n o t been a want o f

w r i t e r s p r e p a r e d t o advance t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t Mark may have c o n t r i b u t e d some o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t i s now c o n t a i n e d i n The A c t s . D i s c u s s i n g t h e e n d i n g o f Mark's Gospel i n 1872/

P. B l a s s :

P h i l o l o g y o f t h e Gospels

(1898) p. 141. H i s favour,

b a s i c premise o f a double t e x t has f o u n d l i t t l e but see p. 32.0.

1872, Weiss suggested t h a t Mark m i g h t have w r i t t e n a h i s t o r y o f t h e E a r l y Church, b u t he n e v e r f o l l o w e d up h i s i d e a . I t was Blass who was t h e f i r s t t o attempt t o estab-

l i s h a d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p between A c t s and a Marcan source. I n i t i a l soundings came i n 1895 i n h i s commentary

where he comments on t h e appearance o f t h e name John Mark i n A c t s 12.12 "as i f t o d i s t i n g u i s h him as t h e a u t h o r o f 2 the narrative". The v i v i d w r i t i n g i n t h i s c h a p t e r com-

b i n e d w i t h t h e name o f Mark has prompted numerous s c h o l a r s to f o l l o w Blass ' s u g g e s t i o n w i t h o u t d i s c u s s i n g t h e imp-

l i c a t i o n s 'or even c o m m i t t i n g themselves a l w a y s , as B l a s s l a t e r d i d , to the hypothesis o f a w r i t t e n Browne,^ g and T a y l o r , Burnside,^ source.

B i c k w e l l , ^ Dessain,^ Jeremias,^

a l l m e n t i o n t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y as r e g a r d s

A c t s 12 i n a p p a r e n t a p p r o v a l . C l a r k even quotes t h e above of/

P. B l a s s : A c t a A p o s t o l o r u m (1895) L i Browne: A c t s (1925) p. 206 W. B u r n s i d e : A c t s (1916) p. 153 E. B i c k w e l l : A c t s (1928) p. 352 C. D e s s a i n : Acts

p. 1 1

( C a t h o l i c Commentary on S c r i p t u r e ) p. 1033

(1953)

J. J e r e m i a s : Z T C W 36 (1937) p. 217 V. T a y l o r : Behind the T h i r d Gospel (1926)

p. 200.

3.

o f Blass and "believes "John Mark would have known a l l about q t h e seven s t e p s l e a d i n g up t o t h e p r i s o n . " Bruce extends

the i d e a i n c l a i m i n g Mark as Luke's " i n f o r m a n t f o r t h i s and other narratives.""^ More c a u t i o u s l y i n f a v o t i r o f a w r i t t e n source f o r A c t s 12 i s C e r f a u x " ^ - b u t i f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s acknowledged, t h e q u e s t i o n can be r a i s e d whether any o f t h e p r e v i o u s chap-

t e r s o f A c t s a r e l i k e w i s e l i n k e d w i t h Mark. B l u n t c o n s i d e r e d 12 this possible. B l a s s h i m s e l f assembled some p r o o f s : b u t he c o n c l u d e d t h a t i f Mark d i d w r i t e a h i s t o r y o f t h e e a r l i e s t c h u r c h i n Jerusalem and Judaea, i t would have been i n Aramaic. i n t u r n l e a d s t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f an Aramaic This

Gospel o f

Mark and t h e h y p o t h e s i s f l o u n d e r s under B l a s s ' a t t e m p t e d

13

p r o o f o i t h e same.

About t h e same t i m e , and a p p a r e n t l y i n i g n o r a n c e o f B l a s s ' arguments, E r b t i n 1896, w h i l s t d i s c u s s i n g t h e P e t r i n e n o t e d t h a t Mark's Gospel

m a t e r i a l i n t h e New Testament begins/

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

A. C l a r k : A c t 3 (1933) p. 349: r e f e r r i n g t o A c t s 12.10 D. 0n_ D i n A c t s and j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r ' i t s use h e r e , see Apt). 2 F.F. Bruce: A c t s (Greek) (1951) p. 247. A l s o BC 2 p. 146. L. C e r f a u x : ETL 13 (1936) p. 689. ( c p M. A l b e r t z p. 2 6 2 f ) A. B l u n t : S t . Mark (1929) p. 269. B l a s s : P h i l o l o g y pp 193 f f . B u r k i t t : Sources (1926) 7 9 f a l s o approved o f a w r i t t e n Marcan account - C a r r i n g t o n : A c c o r d i n g to^Mark pp 1 6 0 f , 336, 345 says " p o s s i b l y " .

4.

b e g i n s w i t h a v e r y emphatic

^/y]

an(3

- that i t contains to a l l the

t h e promise t h a t t h e Gospel i s t o be preached Gentiles.Erbt

cannot c o n c e i v e o f Mark w r i t i n g such

words u n l e s s he i n t e n d e d t o show t h e i r accomplishment, and he t h u s p o s i t s t h a t most o f t h e m a t e r i a l f o u n d i n A c t s 1-15 r e s t s upon an account by Mark which c o n c l u d e d with

P e t e r ' s d e a t h , a f t e r he had b r o u g h t t h e good news t o t h e G e n t i l e s . He p r e s e n t s l i t t l e evidence, a p a r t from p o i n t i n g

t o t h e p a r a l l e l s between f o r example, t h e l i f e o f Stephen 15 and C h r i s t . ' The use o f the name S a u l , he a l s o says,

(Luke p r e f e r s P a u l ) i s l i k e w i s e i n d i c a . t i v e o f a Marc an source. E r b t ' s approach i s very u n d e t a i l e d . Nevertheless,

these s u g g e s t i o n s r e c e i v e d some h a l f - h e a r t e d s u p p o r t . I n 1897 Pease c o u l d c l a i m t h a t t h e A c t s o f P e t e r " had a c l o s e 1 fi a f f i n i t y " w i t h Mark's Gospel Peter/ and P i n d l a y says o f t h e two

Mk. 1:1, 13;10. W. E r b t : Von Jerusalem nach Horn p. 24 r e f e r e n c e s t o a 1912 e d i t i o n ) . On t h e Marcan v e r s e s see
pp. (>4ff. arvi 8?..

(my

Note t h e f a l s e w i t n e s s e s and t h e theme o f Stephen's ( a b b r e v i a t e d " ' p. 27) speech: "Der U m s t t t r z l e r und E r n e u e r e r und .. V e r u r t e i l t e r , " themes i n Mark's p a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e b u t n o t Luke's. T. Pease <JBL 16 (1897) p. 16.

Peter m i r a c l e s t o r i e s i n A c t s 9:32-43: " I s h o u l d l i k e t o 17 a s s o c i a t e Mark w i t h "both s t o r i e s . " These c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,

though n o t e n v i s a g i n g a w r i t t e n Marcan source, remove one m a j o r d i f f i c u l t 3 " : namely t h e i m p r o b a b i l i t y o f a s i n g l e u n d e r l y i n g a l l the d i v e r s e m a t e r i a l source

i n the f i r s t h a l f o f Acts.

Another i s o l a t e d argument adduced i n f a v o u r o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s came i n 1918 from W h i t l e y . He n o t e s t h a t Mark's Gospel i s s m a l l e r i n t h e r a t i o o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 14 t o 23 t o o t h e r h i s t o r i c a l works i n b o t h O l d and New Testaments. Hence i f we t h i n k o f a. Lost Ending t o t h e G-ospel, i t s c o n 19 t e n t s m i g h t be as l o n g as ( s a y ! ) Acts 1-12.

The

o n l y d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e case has come from

Le'on D i e u who produced h i s case i n 1920 i n s u c c e s s i v e volumes o f Revue B i b l i q u e . There are two g e n e r a l c r i t i c i s m s o f h i s approach:

1. He assumes Mark i n t e n d e d t o w r i t e

a h i s t o r y o f the

e a r l y community. He does n o t d i s c u s s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y th at /

J . P i n d l a y : A c t s (1934) p. 50. i . e . A c t s 1-12. O t h e r s p r e f e r as A c t s 1-15. t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f T o r r e y &c.

W. W h i t l e y ET 29 (1918) p. 3 3 I f . T. Zahn: I n t r o d u c t i o n , V o l . 2 (1909) p. 487n.l0 had a l r e a d y made t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n , l i m i t i n g h i s f i g u r e s t o t h e N.T.

t h a t Mark's Gospel was i n t e n d e d t o end a t 16:8. When t h i s t h e o r y came i n t o a c e r t a i n amount o f f a s h i o n a few y e a r s

l a t e r , i t b r o u g h t i n t o d i s r e p u t e h i s whole h y p o t h e s i s .

2. Y t o i l s t aware o f Harnack's source a n a l y s i s o f A c t s (see b e l o w ) , Dieti f o l l o w s t h e t h e o r y o f T o r r e y , though w i t h o u t a c c e p t i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y o f an Aramaic s o u r c e , b e h i n d A c t s 1-15 i s a s i n g l e s o u r c e . But t h e evidence i s s u p p l i e d f o r a Marcan source i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h that that

Paul's

c o n v e r s i o n i n A c t s 9 i s n o n - e x i s t e n t and D i e u would have b e t t e r c o n c e n t r a t e d h i s a t t e n t i o n upon t h o s e s u b - s e c t i o n s o f A c t s w h i c h y i e l d e d some s u p p o r t f o r h i s h y p o t h e s i s .

For convenience

we l i s t now t h e p r o o f s evoked by D i e u

few o f these a r e c o n v i n c i n g , i m p o r t a n t ones a r e d i s c u s s e d fully later:

1. Ac. 1:5. L i k e Mark, A c t s b e g i n s "with a c o n t r a s t between t h e b a p t i s m o f John and t h e b a p t i s m o f t h e S p i r i t . True, Luke c o n t a i n s t h i s passage, b u t Mark ( 1 : 8 ) and A c t s u n l i k e "Q" - o m i t t h e r e f e r e n c e t o f i r e .

2. Ac. 1:7 echoes Mk. 13:32. Other commentators suggest t h a t Luke o m i t t e d t h e Marcan phrase because he wished/

7.

20 wished t o employ i t h e r e . ~ T h i s excuse seems most u n l i k e l y , "Would Luke o m i t i n h i s Gospel what he was m e r e l y p l a n n i n g 21 t o use i n A c t s ? " T h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e .
K

3. D i e u c l a i m s t h a t t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e temple v i s i t s 22 of the C h r i s t i a n s i s more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Mark's o u t l o o k , f o r Luke i s a l l e g e d t o o m i t some o f these r e f e r e n c e s . Bxxt 23 it i s t h e T h i r d Gospel w h i c h c o n c l u d e s " i n t h e temple"

so t h a t t h i s argument i s w o r t h l e s s . 24 4. A c t s 6:13 Why has v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s w i t h Mk 14:58 . Had

has Luke o m i t t e d t h i s episode f r o m Jesus' t r i a l ?

he been a l i v e t o the p a r a l l e l between Stephen's martyrdom and/

20.

So BC 4 p. 8. CSC. W i l l i a m s ET64 (1953) p. 283 who a l s o c i t e s Ilk 5:40 = Ac 9:40, Mk 14:2 = Ac 12:3 and Mk 14:58 ( a b o v e ) . G. K i l p a t r i c k i n K e o t e s t a m e n t i c a e t S e m i t i c a (1969) pp. 168-171 a l s o adds Mk 1:24a, 34a = Ac 1 6 : 1 7 f , Mk 1:27 = Ac 17:19. H i s r e f e r e n c e Mk 2:12 = Ac 4:25 i s mysterious. H. R u s s e l l HTR Ac 2:46, 3:1, 48 5:12 (1956) p. D, 173.

21. 22. 23. 24.

2 0 f , 25,42.

Lk 24:53 - cp a l s o Lk 21:38. See a l s o E r b t p. 2 6 f and K. L i n c k e ZNW5 (1904) p. 200 who c a l l s Stephen "the f r i e n d o f t h e G a l i l e a n s " and" a s s i g n s A c t s 6, 7 and 12 t o a Marc an source. For Mark". "Evangel ium und A p o s t e l g e s c h i c h t e war ihm e i n Ganges".

8.

and Jesus' own. f a t e , would he n o t have been q u i c k t o r e p 25 roduce t h e Marcan e p i s o d e ? The r e f e r e n c e t o

(Ac. 7:48) a l s o r e c a l l s t h i s Marcan passage. 5. Ac 12:18-25: t h e d e a t h o f Herod i s t o l d w i t h an eye f o r d e t a i l ; compare t h e s t o r y o f an e a r l i e r Herod's e x e c u t i o n o f John t h e B a p t i s t (Mk 6:17-29, n o t L u k e ) .

6. Ac 12:2: "James t h e "brother o f John" i s an u n i q u e description o f James. Dieu c l a i m s t h a t Luke's Gospel o m i t s 6:16

r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e "blood r e l a t i o n s h i p o f these t w o : Lk

o m i t s from Mk 3;17 and Lk 8:51 f r o m Mk 5:37. These a r e , however, Mark's o n l y d e s c r i p t i o n s , a p a r t from 10:35 where Luke c o n t a i n s no p a r a l l e l , and Mk 1:19, where Luke 26 s e t s down t h a t t h e y are Zebedee's sons. 5:10

7. Ac 3:26 has a s i m i l a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e G e n t i l e m i s s i o n t o t h a t o f Mk 7:27 ( c p Rom 1:16).

25. 26.

M. Simon: S t . Stephen (1958) pp. 2 3 f d i s c u s s e s Luke o m i s s i o n o f Mk 14:58, b u t draws no c o n c l u s i o n s . A l s o d i s c u s s e d i n L i n c k e p. 2 0 1 .

8, !Ehe r o l e of Barnabas a l s o c a l l s f o r comment* M e u n o t e s h i s mention before the better-known 12:25 &c but t h i a tendency may P a u l i n Ac. 11$30,

be no more than Lucan

s t y l i s t i c v a r i a t i o n , not a p o i n t e r to use of sources According to C o l . 4:10, however, Mark was c o u s i n of Barnabas, so, could Mark be the source of i n f o r m a t i o n for the Barnabas stories?

Dieu a l s o n o t e s some common s t y l i s t i c p o i n t s :

9 E p i c a l of Mark i s the r e p e t i t i o n o f amazement or 27 bewilderment on the p a r t of o n l o o k e r s E i i s i s also a 28 f e a t u r e of some of the s t o r i e s i n Actso

e

10. A most s t r i k i n g Marcan h a b i t i s the d e l a y i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n ( o f t e n numbers) u n t i l the c l o s e of a story 29 Dieu c i t e s Mko 6:44 which' Luke r e a r r a n g e s to a more

a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i o n e a r l i e r i n the s t o r y * I n A c t s Dieur r e f e r s to the remarkable i n d i c a t i o n a t 4:22 of t h e lame man*s age, long a f t e r the c o n t r o v e r s y has been g e n e r a l i s e d upon the a u t h o r i t y of P e t e r and John. Why place/ does n o t Luke

see A. Graham S E 4 Pto 1 (1968) p 413. Ac. 3:10, 5s24B, 8:11 and 13, 13:12DE*

Other examples: Mk.

5:40 - also 4s38a, 5:8*

10.

p l a c e t h i s d e t a i l a t t h e s t a r t o f the s t o r y i n c o n s i s t e n c y 30 w i t h h i s method i n t h e G-ospel?

11. A curious, verbal coincidence r a i s i n g of Tabitha: Ac. 9:40 Mk. 5:41

occurs i n the

Mk.

5:41W(e)
K.OU

IOV, <0f)*C<5
>

crol XiytJ

oWci (TTo8

Diexi c o n c l u d e s w i t h some word s t u d i e s w h i c h are t o o sketchy and l a c k i n g i n d e t a i l t o bestow any l i f e upon t h e

t h e o r y . A more t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s i s r e q u i r e d .

These v i e w s were soon f o r g o t t e n , p a r t i c u l a r l y under the i n f l u e n c e o f t h e t h e s i s w h i c h c l a i m e d Mk. 16:8 as

the f i n a l word o f t h e E v a n g e l i s t . But more r e c e n t l y , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e predominant s t r e s s b e i n g l a i d upon 31 oral tradition, source h y p o t h e s i s a r e v i v a l o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e Mar can f o r A c t s has been e v i d e n t . as " y e t an-

H a e f n e r i n 1958, l a b e l l i n g h i s a t t e m p t o t h e r guess" argues t h a t Mk. followed/ 16:8 was

originally

30. 31. 32.

For f u r t h e r examples i n A c t s , On w h i c h see below pp. 2 6 f f .

see pp. 5 5 f .

A. Haefner JBL 77 (1958) p. 67.

11.

f o l l o w e d by A c t s 3 : l f f , w i t h A c t s 1:13-14 a c t i n g as a ' b r i d g e passage. The m i r a c l e i n A c t s 3 was t h e f i r s t

h i n t t o t h e d i s c i p l e s t h a t Jesus m i g h t be a l i v e , hence, we may add, t h e l e n g t h y account o f t h i s h e a l i n g , However t h e r e are o b j e c t i o n s t o t h i s reconstruction.

1.

I n h i s Gospel, Luke employs h i s Marcan m a t e r i a l i n

b l o c k s . Would he, on H a e f n e r ' s argument, i n s e r t two v e r s e s ( i . e . Ac. l : 1 3 f ) i n t o a non-Marcan c o n t e x t ? But n o t e t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f s t o r i e s i n Acts (Paul's conversion i s narr a t e d t h r i c e , y-z\:: P e t e r ' s v i s i o n t w i c e ) where i n t h e

Gospel Luke has o n l y one m i r a c u l o u s f e e d i n g a g a i n s t Mark's two and o n l y one h e a l i n g o f a b l i n d man. Note t o o Luke has not, i n A c t s , avoided t h e t e c h n i q u e o f 'delayed 35 information'

and he has w r i t t e n down Aramaic words,

where p r e v i o u s l y

Mark's use o f t h e same had been shunned. Luke's approach to h i s m a t e r i a l i s d i f f e r e n t i n A c t s . T h i s w i l l make any source r e c o n s t r u c t i o n difficult.

2. The names o f t h e d i s c i p l e s a r e s u r e l y r e p e a t e d i n Acts 1:13, s i n c e a new book has begun. The p o i n t o f t h i s list/

33.

I n d e p e n d e n t l y . M o r t o n and MacGregor: S t r u c t u r e o f Luke and A c t s (1964) p. 42 a s s i g n t o t h e i r P r o t o - A c t s : 1:12-24 3:lff. See above p. 9. N o t a b l y i n A c t s 1:19 cp t o o 4:36, 9:36.

34. 35.

12.

l i s t a f t e r Mark 16:8 i s not e v i d e n t .

3. Does t h i s theory make any b e t t e r sense of Mk.

16:1-8?

Would the a p o s t l e s s t i l l be i n Jerusalem a w a i t i n g p e r s e c u t i o n ? P e t e r ' s v i s i t to the Temple (Ac. 3:1) i s a v e r y bold move, u n l e s s he was aware J e s u s was alive.

4. Matthew d i s p l a y s no knowledge of such an ending to Mark's Gospel.

Thus, although Haefner's views, i n such d e t a i l s as he provides i s to be d i s m i s s e d , the m a t e r i a l i n A c t s 1 i s , a p r i o r i , the most l i k e l y chapter of any i n A c t s to f u r n i s h us w i t h m a t e r i a l t h a t might once have been p a r t of the Marcan Ending. I n 1970 s i o n s t o r y of Acts 1 may S t r o b e l s t a t e d t h a t the Ascen-

provide the s o l u t i o n to the

r i d d l e , without e n t e r i n g i n t o d i s c u s s i o n on the p o i n t .

But a l s o i n 1970

there appeared

an a r t i c l e by P i e r s o n

Parker, which although not d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y a g a i n s t the Marcan source theory of A c t s , would i f c o r r e c t , i n v a l i d a t e our i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f o r , says Parker "Acts r e a d s , not as though i t s author sought to r e f u t e Mark or go
37

beyond i t , deal/

but as though he had never seen i t . "

We

will

36. 37.

A. S t r o b e l i n Verborum V e r i t a s p. 138 n 22: "Stehen w i r dam.it n i c h t auch bei dem abgebrochenen Mk - S c h l u s s ? " P. Parker NTS 16 (1970) p. 303- His purpose i s to support the t h e s i s of W i l l i a m s ( s e e n. 20) and R u s s e l l (n .21) t h a t Acts was w r i t t e n before Luke.

13.

deal now w i t h Parker's e s s e n t i a l l y negative proofs, produced t o support h i s t h e s i s , although d u r i n g the course of our own i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t w i l l become c l e a r t h a t there are passages i n A c t s , which, i f we do not accept the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d i r e c t Marcan source, a t l e a s t show
Z D

knowledge o f the Marc an Gospel.

But t o c a r r y o f f h i s assumptions:

t o u r de f o r c e Parker has to make the f o l l o w i n g

1. The v a l i d i t y o f the Proto - Luke hypothesis. 39 Should any f i r m t h e o r i e s he "built on such a hypothesis? 2. An e a r l y date f o r Acts, so e a r l y as t o he ignorant

of Mark. The proof f o r t h i s i s derived from s i l e n c e : "There was. a host ofif matters from 64 onwards t h a t every i n t e l l i g e n t person, and a f o r t i o r i every c a r e f u l h i s t o r i a n , 40 ought to have known about". But was uuke p r i m a r i l y a 41 historian? 3. Pro to * Luke and Acts emanate from Jerusalemite C h r i s t i a n s , w h i l s t Mark i s r e f l e c t i v e o f the b e l i e f s o f Galilean Christians.

38. 39.

A good example i s Acts 5:15. cp also n 20. Parker does v i n d i c a t e the complaint o f Vincent Taylor t h a t "undoubtedly (there i s ) a h e s i t a t i o n t o use i t i n " construct i v e work" (ET 67, 1955 p. 12) a l t h c u g i Taylor's d e f i n i t i v e study, Behind the Third Gospel, i t s e l f betrays j u s t such r e l u c t a n c e : see page 231 o f t h a t work. Parker, JBL 84 (1965) p. 53. cp e.g. E. Haenchen; Aposlelgeschiehte (1956) p. 92.

40. 41.

14

A f i r s t group o f Parker's p r o o f s d e r i v e s from the s i l e n c e o f e i t h e r Mark o r Acts upon a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c . Here i t i s as w e l l t o prelude d i s c u s s i o n w i t h a reminder o f A.C. Clark's i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the l i t e r a r y minu t i a e o f A c t s , which l e d him to conclude t h a t t h i s hook 42 was n o t from the same hand as the !Phird Gospel. In his

critique, W . Knox r i g h t l y c r i t i c i s e d Clark f o r n o t t a k i n g i n t o account t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n subject m a t t e r between the 43 two volumes, and the i n f l u e n c e o f source m a t e r i a l . Parker must face these same charges. For would we expect v Acts to r e f e r to Jesus' baptism, Peter's d e n i a l , the j e e r i n g before Jesus' execution, or the d a t i n g o f h i s death? Should we expect Acts t o record t e a c h i n g on b l a s phemy o r divorce? Mark, on the c o n t r a r y , says Parker, has no concern f o r a l m s g i v i n g , grace o r righteousness and no mention o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , but w h i l s t a l l t h i s i s t r u e , n e i t h e r does Mark r e f e r to Paul, or even John Mark by name.' These f a c t s h a r d l y s t r i k e us as e x c e p t i o n a l since we know Mark would n o t have occasion t o mention Paul i n h i s Gospel. We do n o t know why, apart perhaps f o r reasons o f space, a w r i t e r w i l l n o t touch upon a c e r t a i n subject - b u t i t i s dangerous/

42. 43.

Clark op. c i t . pp. 393-403. Knox: Acts (1948) pp. I f f . I t must be s a i d , however, t h a t many o f Knox's f i g u r e s are wrong.

15.

dangerous t o draw from the s i l e n c e any p o s i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e .

I n the same way, i t seems an unnecessary deduction 44 t h a t because Acts r e f e r s t o "only b r o t h e r s " o f Jesus, we

see an a c t u a l ignorance "by Acts o f Mark. Here another stumb l i n g block may be l a i d a t Parker's door: f o r Acts i s d e p i c t i n g a confessedly l a t e r h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . That t h e r e f o r e John's d i s c i p l e s were n o t numerous (according to Mark 2s18, 6:29) b u t were widespread by the time o f Ac. 1 8 : 2 4 f f . i s n o t evidence f o r two fundamentally d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , the f a c t t h a t both Mark and Acts are able t o provide i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s sect suggests the o p p o s i t e . Thus Mark d e p i c t s t h e i r pro-Jewish tendencies

(Mk. 2:18) w h i l s t we read i n Ac. 18:26 o f A p o l l o s waxing bold i n the synagogue. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see a c o n f l i c t i n eschatology : 45 e i t h e r . Although "much" ^ o f Mark's eschatology i s f u t u r e

i n o u t l o o k , t h i s f e a t u r e i s p u t i n t o r e l i e f i n Acts by the present a c t i v i t y o f the S p i r i t . Also, Parker minimises the f u t u r i s t eschatology o f Acts, p o i n t i n g o n l y t o 1:11, 3:20f, 17:31 and 23:6, w i t h o u t p e r c e i v i n g t h a t the opening paragraph contains a f i n a l rebuke by Jesus on a l l such specula t i o n s (Ac. 1:6): the time has now come f o r i t t o be subdued/

44.

Parker NTS A r t , C i t . p. 295. Mark mentions s i s t e r s a t 3:32AD, 6:3. Swete (Mark p. 113) suggests they were "scarcely touched by the course o f events." NTS a r t . c i t p. 297.

45.

16.

subdued.

Nor does Parker mention the summary o f Peter's 46 o f Joel's

speech (2:40), which begins w i t h an a d a p t a t i o n

words at Ac. 2:17. Luke f u r t h e r provides a t h e o l o g i c a l explana t i o n to the reader i n the remarkable use o f 'we' i n Ac 14:22. Acts p o r t r a y s the a c t i v i t y o f a church s t i l l expecting an eventual Parousia. I t i s unremarkable therefore that

Acts has more numerous references t o the S p i r i t . Mark, says Parker, does not r e c o r d any p r o p h e t i c testimony to the R e s u r r e c t i o n , only Jesus f o r e t e l l s t h i s event. Acts, o f course, i n i t s s h o r t , concise statements would n o t r e f e r to t h i s l a t t e r as p a r t o f the Kerygma. But i s Mark quite s i l e n t on prophecy? E l i j a h i s r e c a l l e d (Mk. 9:12) a l b e i t i n a c o n t e x t d i f f i c u l t to determine, and Mk. 12:10f

quotes i n extenso Ps. 118 p o s s i b l y w i t h the c o n n o t a t i o n of R e s u r r e c t i o n (cp. Ac. 4:11). The same may be t r u e of the enigmatic usage by Jesus (Mk. 12:37 cp Ac. 2:34f) o f Ps. 110.

Parker also states t h a t Acts ( l i k e Luke) uses the term 'the eleven', w h i l s t Mark never d o e s . ^ but i s i . t c e r t a i n t h a t Mark ended a t 16:8 a f t e r which p o i n t he might have had/

46. On t h i s see pp. 47. I k . 24:9, 33, Ac. 1:26 (not D), 2:14 but t h i s r e f e r s to "Peter w i t h the eleven", hence D reads " t e n " . Also i n (Mk) 16:14.

17.

had o p p o r t u n i t y to use the term? Another

proof* on t h i s

basis i s t h a t the f u l l e s t d e t a i l found i n any New Testament book upon the Ascension i s f u r n i s h e d by A c t s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o take t h i s evidence very s e r i o u s l y .

Parker also claims Mark never uses the formula " i t i s w r i t t e n " o f the Law, but the sole instance i n Acts 23:5

i s i n the mouth o f Paul. Furthermore the verb i s used at Mk. 10:4f, 12:19 to i n t r o d u c e a q u o t a t i o n from the Torah.

A more i n t e r e s t i n g case f o r the purposes o f our present study concerns the ActS'account o f Judas' death (Ac. 1:18-20). The s i l e n c e o f Mark i s only p u z z l i n g because Matthew, who 4 8 i s even " f a r t h e r from Acts" deals w i t h t h i s episode.

I s i t p o s s i b l e t h a t Matthew knew t h i s s t o r y from Mark? We w i l l r e t u r n t o t h i s passage l a t e r . We deal now w i t h the alleged c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between Acts' i s the two vrorks. Mark's Jesus i s o 49 . But Wot $ UJJQ ol i OS But i is sn no ot t t th hi is s l a t t e r a usage gleaned from the LXX (cp Mt. 2:23), which would argue f o r ,

pace Parker, a l a t e r more developed C h r i s t o l o g y ? Parker also claims t h a t Mark and Acts apply Ps. 2:7 to d i f f e r e n t events. Eut t h i s i s not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r a d i c t i v e - i t suggests/

48. 49.

Parker NTS a r t . c i t . p. 301. Also i n Acts at 26:15 (614). But Mk. 10:47"M also reads

18.

suggests both works are the product o f a community which attached a. s i n g u l a r importance to t h i s Psalm.

Parker also f i n d s severe d i f f e r e n c e s i n the accounts of- Jesus' m i n i s t r y . "Despite i t s i n t e r e s t i n surnames" the l i s t o f the apostles i n Acts 1:13 employs such i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a r d l y a t a l l - i n c o n t r a s t to the Gospel lists.

But i f Luke i s p r i o r t o Acts, the necessity f o r a r e p e t i t i o n 50 of t h i s k i n d i s obviated. F u r t h e r Mark places most o f Jesus' m i n i s t r y i n the North, whereas Acts only recounts a"beginning" from G a l i l e e (10:37, 13:31). But i s the Kerygma recorded i n Acts concerned v/ith the s i t u a t i o n o f Jesus' m i n i s t r y ? Mark d.epicts t h e i r G a l i l e a n c a l l i n g , Acts 51 "implies t h a t he had them i n Judaea". But even Acts recognises t h e i r humble o r i g i n s : ^ v ^ o t S
("c^V. iX*< oc

(1:11, 2:7) and Acts 1:21 r e f e r s to the crowd o f 120, most of whom could c l a i m to have witnessed events "from the Baptism o f John". Note how i n Acts witness t o Jesus begins at h i s Baptism, as i n Mark and perhaps Proto-Luke. Another important " c o n t r a d i c t i o n " concerns Mark's s i l e n c e upon the 52 Jerusalem r e s u r r e c t i o n appearances. that/ Here we r e t u r n t o

50. According t o Vincent Taylor (op. c i t . p. 82) Luke's l i s t i n h i s Gospel i s also independent o f Mark. 51. Parker NTS a r t . c i t . p. 295. He r e f e r s to Ac. l : 2 1 f .

52. Parker p. 296.

19.

t h a t equivocal Marcan ending - can we l i m i t Mark i n absentia i n such a way? He may expect a t l e a s t the Parousia i n Zion i t s e l f (14:62).

More i m p o r t a n t l y , although Acts, l i k e Luke, records only the Jerusalem appearances, the words o f Ac. 1:4 suggest 53 t r a d i t i o n , which he i s at pains t o r e f u t e . I f t h i s i s so, Luke would have been only too aware o f the G a l i l e a n s t o r i e s ! As to l o v e , f o r Mark i t i s h i g h e r than the Law (12:28-34)

t h a t the author o f Acts i s aware o f another R e s u r r e c t i o n

- Acts however t e l l s us o f Jerusalem C h r i s t i a n s zealous f o r the Law ('21:20). But silence need not be taken as meaning t h a t love held a second place witfc&.i t h i s body. What was the 54 Community o f G-oods, i f n o t founded upon t h i s p r i n c i p l e ? So t o o , Paul claims to have been zealous f o r the Law (A6. 22:3, Gal. 1:14), y e t h i m s e l f enumerates l o v e as the h i g h e s t g i f t . Should we t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t the w r i t e r o f Acts "was 55 r a t h e r unemotional and had an ascetic o u t l o o k " ? h a r d l y b e f i t s the w r i t e r o f the Third Gospel! The most r e v e a l i n g o f Parker's negative witnesses concerns Peter's v i s i o n to go to the G e n t i l e s , a f t e r he i s shown a l l foods/
J J

This

53. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s examined i n d e t a i l below pp. 54. cp. p. 220 n. 245. 55. The d e s c r i p t i o n i s Clark's op. c i t . p. 405.

20.

foods are clean. This, says Parkery betrays ignorance o f Jesus' discourse i n Mark 7, not f e a t u r e d t h e r e f o r e i n Luke's Gospel. But does t h i s conclusion take i n t o cons i d e r a t i o n the f a c t t h a t Mark d e p i c t s the d i s c i p l e s as e x t r e m e ^ slow t o comprehend these p r i n c i p l e s ? In fact both passages share the same sequence o f events: Jesus i s remarkably r e l u c t a n t t o t r a n s l a t e i n t o p r a c t i c a l terms what he has j u s t taught (see Mk. 7:27) and the p r o t e s t o f

Peter (Ac. 10:14) i s s i m i l a r l y vehement i n i t s defence o f 57 orithodox Jewish laws o f c u l t i c i m p u r i t y . From the instances gathered above, i t w i l l be c l e a r t h a t Parker's case i s f a r from proven. I h 1898 Blass had h o p e f u l l y t r i e d to improve on the hypothesis which had

already been put forward "as a c o n j e c t u r e , not as.': a 58 certainty"^ t h a t Mark c o n t r i b u t e d t o the m a t e r i a l i n Acts.

In a t t e m p t i n g t o disprove Parker's t h e s i s , we w i l l not achieve the ambition o f Blass f o r c e r t a i n t y i n the matter. Blass/

56. So Mk.

7:18.

A f u l l e r discussion on pp. 7 8 f f .

57. A word might be s a i d here about Peter. I n John, Parker claims t h a t "Peter i s mentioned about as o f t e n per page as Acts". (NTS A r t . c i t . p. 300) - the occurences are Mk. 26 times, Lk. 29, Jn. 38, Ac. 58 - per 100 pages o f Nestle t e x t t h i s would give an appearance i n Mk. o f 41, Lk. 26, Jn. 48 and Ac. 46. This, though worth very l i t t l e , b r i n g s Acts c l o s e r to Mark than Luke. 58. Elass: P h i l o l o g y p. 141.

21.

Blass f e l l short o f h i s goal, n o t from any i m p r o b a b i l i t y i n h e r e n t i n h i s t h e s i s , but from the d i f f i c u l t y o f producing enough c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence t o support i t . The present attempt, I would l i k e t o hope, a t l e a s t w i l l have the m e r i t of being more thorough i n a n a l y s i n g the Marcan f e a t u r e s o f Acts. Much w i l l remain on the l e v e l o f s u p p o s i t i o n and our examination o f Acts w i l l assume t h a t argument i n essaying t o show i t s p r o b a b i l i t y . But f i r s t l y Mark's e x t a n t work

must be v i s i t e d t o see i f the author shows us t h e r e , any i n t e n t i o n on h i s p a r t t o continue w i t h an o u t l i n e o f the e a r l y days o f t h e f i r s t f o l l o w e r s o f Jesus.

( i i ) The Present State o f the Question o f Sources i n Acts

We must now discuss, very b r i e f l y , present a t t i t u d e s to the m a t e r i a l Luke used i n composing Acts. I t i s unnecessary to review the numerous t h e o r i e s t h a t have been propounded upon the Sources o f Acts as these are reviewed i n Dupont's d e f i n i t i v e study o f the same name.

Mention must be made o f the Aramaic t h e o r y , p o p u l a r i s e d by Torrey, which he extended t o a source u n d e r l y i n g a l l o f Acts 1-15. But a l l e g e d Aramaisms are n o t evenly spread over these chapters, and the l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f Acts c o n t a i n s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the t e x t , which cannot be explained from/

22.

from t h i s standpoint. A c c o r d i n g l y , some have l i m i t e d the theory t o a p o r t i o n o f Acts. Recently Wilcox has

s c r u t i n i s e d the subject i n d e t a i l , and w h i l s t r i g h t l y h e s i t a n t , suspects Aramaic i n f l u e n c e p a r t i c u l a r l y where 60 Harnack found h i s "Antiochene" source. Harnack s whole t h e s i s has won widespread approbation. The basis o f h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f sources i s made through a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g o f people and places. Thus, f o r example, P h i l i p i s the source o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r 8:4-40 and o t h e r s t o r i e s . Harnack discounts l i t e r a r y data, f o r " i n no p a r t o f Acts can the use o f sources be proved on the basis o f linguistic investigation."^ Yet the p o s i t i o n as regards
r

our a l l e g e d Marcan source i s a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t , f o r although we do n o t have such a source e x t a n t , we do have m a t e r i a l from Mark's hand which r e v e a l s t o us something o f t h a t w r i t e r ' s l i t e r a r y t a s t e s . We also know how Luke deals/

59.

BC 2 p. 48 suggests Ac. 1-5:16 and 9:13 - 11:18. Dodd: A p o s t o l i c Preaching (1936) p.35 n . l and Knox op. c i t . pp. 1 8 f f , 31 f o l l o w t h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n , though Knox accepts only 1-5:16. M. Wilcox: Semitisms o f Acts esp. pp. 157-179. E a r l i e r l i t t l e was found i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y t h i s p o i n t o f view. A. Harnack: Acts (ET 1909) p. 163.

60.

61.

23.

deals w i t h t h a t Mar can m a t e r i a l . I n our s i t u a t i o n a l i n g u i s t i c examination o f Acts i s e s s e n t i a l . Emerging from Harnack's analysis i s the f a c t t h a t chapters 2 and 5:17-42 form a doublet to 3:1 - 5:16, the former o f which, moreover, is"worthless'''.
62

Now, l e t us here t e s t Harnack's

above statement on the uselessness o f l i n g u i s t i c examination i n A c t s : we w i l l take words i n some way t y p i c a l or p e c u l i a r t o Acts and see i f any one o f the themselves

sections which Hamack sets down, r e v e a l

as n o t a b l y a c o m p i l a t i o n by the e d i t o r o f A c t s :

Harnack's suggested sources.

Words o n l y i n Acts i n NT.

Rare NT words i n Acts

Rare NT verbs i n Acts

Char. TOTCharact e r i s t i c Phrasesi AL adverbs/ particles

"B" 2, 5:17-42 "A" 3:15:16,8, 12 13-28 9:31 11:30 6:1 - 8:3 9:1-30 Chapter 1

1.25%

1.60%

2.49%

0.89%

2.58%

3.81%

0.12% 0.31%

0.67% 0.66%

2.54% 2.76%

0.67% 0.69%

1.82% 1.31%

5.83% 5.73%

0.24% 0.22% 0.75% 0.41%

0.99% 0.72% 0.56% 1.03% 138

2.55% 2.52% 1.87% 1.44% 473

0.68% 0.79% 0.38% 1.03% 129

1.24% 1.44% 2.06% 1.44% 271

5.70% 5.69% 5.62% 5.35% 1077 (6i . 0 3 % )

Words i n the 66 sample: 62. 63.

A. Harnack op. c i t . p.194. These are l i s t e d i n S. Davidson: I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the New Testament pp. 138-142.

24.

( I n t h i s t a b l e the a c t u a l number o f instances i n any s e c t i o n i s expressed i n terms o f the frequency had that

s e c t i o n consisted o f 100 words, i . e . given a sample o f s u f f i c i e n t s i z e , the f i g u r e s o f each s e c t i o n are d i r e c t l y comparable. This method w i l l be used i n subsequent l i n g u i s t i c t e s t s although the s i z e o f the word samples, l i m i t e d by the a v a i l a b l e data, are not always o f an adequate s i z e to permit anything more than very g e n e r a l i s e d conclusions. I n the above, Chs. 13-28 are n o t analysed i n d e t a i l , as

they w i l l not form much p a r t o f our i n v e s t i g a t i o n . )

The above evidence s t r o n g l y h i g h l i g h t s the composite character o f chapters 2 and 5s17-42. Though we must beware o f b u i l d i n g major deductions upon any s i n g l e s t a t i s t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n , we may note:

1. I f Luke has compiled the m a t e r i a l found i n Harnack's "B" source, h i s method i s now c o n t r a r y to t h a t o f the Gospel, where he consciously removes d o u b l e t s . ^

2. The f a c t t h a t Luke uses doublets suggests either/

64.

See p* 11. For the view o f Jeremias t h a t there are no doublets i n Acts 1-5 see p.204- n. 219 - b u t , t h a t the w r i t e r o f Acts i s not averse t o conscious r e p e t i t i o n can be.seen i n Acts 10,11.

25.

either ( i ) he had l i t t l e a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n on the Early Church. or ( i i ) he had a h i g h regard f o r the importance o f Jerusalem (cp. 1:4). or ( i i i ) he had a d e l i b e r a t e purpose i n a m p l i f y i n g an account o f the g i f t o f the S p i r i t : (cp. 10:44-43, ll:17f)
:

and the imprisonment o f the a p o s t l e s .

These p o s s i b i l i t i e s are n o t m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e .

But as regards Harnack's theory, as w e l l as those o f his e l a b o r a t o r s , the r e s u l t s which can be a t t a i n e d are too

vague, or else too t e n t a t i v e , to m e r i t any permanent place i n New Testament Scholarship. Thus Bupont concludes h i s

survey i n t o Theories o f P a r a l l e l Sources w i t h the s t a t e ment t h a t "the attempts made up to the present 65 not l e d t o c o n v i n c i n g r e s u l t s . " ' have

I t i s the general abortiveness o f such source a n a l y s i s t h a t has l e d to a present eclipse behind a method l a b e l l e d 66 Style-Criticism, which i t s e l f avoids the s u b j e c t i v i t y

i n h e r e n t i n the o l d method o f Harnack, p r o c l a i m i n g no committed view on the scope o f the m a t e r i a l which would have been a v a i l a b l e to Luke. We might say t h a t i t was because the source a n a l y t i c a l school could n o t s u s t a i n any/

65. J. Dupont: Sources o f Acts (ET 1964) p.50. S i m i l a r judgements on pp. 29, 32, 61. 66. See S i b e l i u s ' Essay employing t h i s technique i n Studies i n Acts pp. 1-25.

26.

any convincing theory demonstrating a w r i t t e n source, t h a t modern scholars have a r r i v e d a t the view t h a t Luke must have been r e l y i n g l a r g e ^ (and n o t merely p a r t i a l l y ) upon o r a l t r a d i t i o n s . Now a w r i t e r who uses o r a l t r a d i t i o n s has to exercise a greater degree of l i t e r a r y freedom and t h i s , i t i s claimed, i s demonstrable i n Luke's case: f o r he has selected and adapted t h e s t o r i e s a v a i l a b l e according to

t h e i r relevance f o r h i s contemporaries. " W h y has Luke done t h i s ? Because the Church's r e a l i s a t i o n t h a t Jesus was d e l a y i n g h i s r e t u r n meant t h a t e x h o r t a t i o n s based on an

imminent eschatology had l o s t t h e i r edge - what was needed was more day t o day guidance i n the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s o f f a i t h . The assumption o f t h i s school o f thought i s t h a t Luke has remodelled any older w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l t h a t d i d cover the h i s t o r y o f the e a r l y community (and t h e r e would be l i t t l e enough o f t h i s w i t h Jesus about to r e t u r n ^ ) so t h a t the composition o f Acts i s so Lucan t h a t l i t t l e o f h i s i n f o r mant's c o n t r i b u t i o n s can be traced.

We may agree w i t h some confidence t h a t there are c e r t a i n themes Luke has desired to emphasise but t h a t he was r e s t r i c t e d by a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n seems i n d i c a t e d

cp. Haenchen op. c i t . pp. 312f: "Menschen d i e das Ende der Welt f u r nahe halten...haben k e i n I n t e r e s s e daran die Bekehrung eines Centurio zu erzahlen".

27.

by the very opening sentence of Acts which spans f i v e verses, f u l l o f o b s c u r i t y , and by Ac. 2:22-24 which the Western t e x t , and Torrey as u s u a l , wish t o patch up. But 68 not only i s he r e s t r i c t e d , b u t , as we have seen, he 69 also w i l l r e t a i n some imminent eschatology. So, even

i f we accept the theory o f a Belay o f the Parousia, we cannot l e t ourselves o f f l o o k i n g at the question as to whether at such p o i n t s Luke i s p e r m i t t i n g us a glimpse of a source. I n t h i s connection the s i t u a t i o n has been reanimated by a b r i e f a r t i c l e by Bultmann who a t t a c k s the inadequate treatment o f the matter o f sources i n t h e commentary o f 70 Haenchen. Bultmann attempts to e s t a b l i s h a w r i t t e n

"Antiochene source^ b u t , laudabljr, Haenchen has r e p l i e d : he examines Acts 15 i n d e t a i l , and concludes i t s composition 71 i s Lucan through and through. We w i l l however r e s t r i c t

our d i s c u s s i o n to the general p o s i t i o n h e l d by these two/ 68.v. pp. 15f. 69.So. S. Wilson: Z N W 59 (1968) p. 280 t a l k s o f Luke/Acts' " v i a media", although he cannot f i n d any imminent eschatolosy i n Acts (NTS 16, 1970 pp. 336-344). 70..K. Bultmann i n T.W. Manson Memorial Essays p. 74: "Man vermisst b e i Haenchen eine zusammenhSngende Untersuchung d i e s e r Frage." Also n. 12. 71.Haenchen BZNW 26 (1960) pp. 1 5 4 f f .

28.

two w r i t e r s .

Haenchen claims t h a t the recovery o f sources i s i m p o r t a n t , ^ taut because t h i s i s impossible, i t i s b e t t e r to t h i n k i n terms o f o r a l sources. But t h i s argument, as Bultmann i n s i s t s , i s dangerously c i r c u l a r as the d i f f i c u l t y o f r e c o v e r i n g sources leads t o the premise t h a t the sources must be o r a l - b u t the understanding t h a t Luke's sources were mainly o r a l should n o t be used t o support the argument t h e t Luke had t o w r i t e w i t h
f

little

w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l to hand because u n t i l the delay o f the Parousia was r e a l i s e d i t meant t h a t noone u n t i l then would have been concerned t o w r i t e anything. I f we accept

the t h e s i s o f a Delay o f the Parousia, would there not. be a need o f w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l even d u r i n g t h i s period? A u s e f u l c r i t i q u e on t h i s subject i s made by J e r v e l l ^ who notes t h a t Paul, who could w r i t e a t l e n g t h on p a s t o r a l matters a t t h i s time, was i n t e r e s t e d i n the deeds of/
1

72.

Haenchen a r t . c i t . pp. 154f: "Tatsftfchlich leugnet niemand dass d i e Evangelien und d i e Apg. Irgendwelche t r b e r l i e i e r u n g benutzen und dass es sehr w i c h t i g ware, das B i l d der c h r i s t l i c h e n Urgeschichte zu kennen, das diese (Quellen) lahnen lassen." J. J e r v e l l ST 16, 1963 - who also r e f e r s t o Rom. 2 Cor. 3:1-3. 1:8.

73.

29

of

t h e E a r l y Church as e a r l y as 1 Thess. l : 8 f . .

We may say t h a t w i t h t h e r a p i d e x p a n s i o n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , mere o r a l i n f o r m a t i o r t w o u l d he s a d l y i n adequate t o t e l l even o f t h e i m p e n d i n g end o f t h e w o r l d .

L i t e r a r y men c o u l d convey t h e news o f Jesus q u i c k e r , g i v i n g t h e i t i n e r a n t preacher t i m e t o g i v e an o u t l i n e of t h e g o s p e l b e f o r e p a s s i n g on e l s e w h e r e . Such a l i t e r a r y o f Jesus, b u t

a c t i v i t y would t h u s m a i n l y cover t h e l i f e

a l s o e v e n t s c u r r e n t a t Jerusalem h e a d q u a r t e r s may have m e r i t e d a t t e n t i o n when o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e . T h i s a c t i v i t y would r e q u i r e t h e s e r v i c e s o f many c o p y i s t s .

74.

t h u s , f o r example Mark i s d e s i g n a t e d v j r t ^ t r ^ v

a word,

used i n Luke 1:2, 4:20 o f a document c a r r i e r o r h a n d l e r . When t h e a d m i t t e d Delay o f t h e P a r o u s i a was r e a l i s e d , such w r i t i n g s c o u l d , where a v a i l a b l e , have been used i n the compositions o f the E v a n g e l i s t s . Thus i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o examine each s t o r y i n d e t a i l " a s k i n g p r e c i s e l y t o what k i n d o f t r a d i t i o n i t b e l o n g s " . - ' Some o f t h e s e t a l e s , we b e l i e v e , can be shown - as r e g a r d s A c t s - t o have a f f i n i t i e s w i t h Mark's Gospel.
7

74. 75.

A c t s 13:5KAB So Bultmann p. 7 1 , who c l a i m s t h i s i s e x a c t l y what Haenchen f a i l s t o do. I n s t u d i e s i n Luke/Acts (1966) p. 270 Haenchen r e g r e t t a b l y has t o say " t h e space a l l o t t e d does n o t p e r m i t the d i s c u s s i o n o f a l l t h e s h o r t n a r r a t i v e u n i t s " - w h i c h l e a d s t o t h e o m i s s i o n o f any r e f e r e n c e t o A c t s 12 - a f o c a l p o i n t i n the present study.

30.

2.

TESTING THE

HYPOTHESIS

We have a l r e a d y r e c o r d e d

t h e d o u b t s o f Harnack as t o i n Acts (p. 22)

the value o f p r e c i s e l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n But even i f Luke were dependent upon mere o r a l

transmission,

he w o u l d , as any human w o u l d , l a p s e i n t o t h e language o f h i s m a t e r i a l f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , i f only as a r e s u l t t h e sheer p h y s i c a l e f f o r t o f w r i t i n g . We a w r i t e r , n o t a computer. An author's are t a l k i n g of of

style w i l l vary i f

he i s t i r e d , o r w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d by e x t r a n e o u s d a t a , once he has l o s t t h e f r e s h n e s s We can measure these v a r i a t i o n s what causes them. One of h i s o r i g i n a l - b u t we inspiration.

can n e v e r be use

certain

of several explanations

and we know i t a p p l i e s t o Luke's Gospel - w i l l be t h e of w r i t t e n material.^

The

tests

on w h i c h we w i s h t o l a y most s t r e s s w i l l

be

based on word usage, f o r i n t h i s f i e l d a w r i t e r w i l l

exer-

c i s e a c h o i c e , w h i c h i s f o r t h e mo3t p a r t u n c o n s c i o u s , t o describe/

Measurement o f s t y l e , however, i s always l e s s c o n c l u s i v e as e v i d e n c e , t h a n word a n a l y s i s - t h u s , v. Y. Radday JBL 89 (1970) p. 319.

describe a given object or a c t i o n . Further, h i s c h o i c e s w i l l o f t e n be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e words used i n t h e s t o r y as handed down t o h i m , and h i s e l a b o r a t i o n s s o m e t h i n g e v e r y a r t i s t c a n n o t r e s i s t once i n a w h i l e * ? w i l l a l s o r e v e a l some o f h i s own p a r t i c u l a r predilections. literary

The measurement o f t h e s e d a t a form an i n d i s p e n s a b l e b a s i s f o r o u r a n a l y s i s o f t h e t e x t o f A c t s . We a r e o n l y l i m i t e d by t h e amount o f t h e m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e . would know more o f Luke's v o c a b u l a r y , New We

although i n the

Testament i t i s d i s t i n c t i v e , and more, p a r t i c u l a r l y

f o r o u r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , o f Mark's. Because we a r e t o measure t h e s e f e a t u r e s i n v e r y s m a l l s e c t i o n s i n A c t s , we a r e n o t w a r r a n t e d i n d r a w i n g any f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n c l u s i o n s , examination,

except w i t h t h e c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f a l i t e r a r y

virhich can be used t.o e n l a r g e upon t h e sparse i n d i c a t i o n s o f our s t a t i s t i c s .

F i r s t l y , t h e n , we t u r n t o t h e d i s t i n c t i v e

vocabulary
2

o f t h e a u t h o r . F o r Luke a l o n g l i s t i s p r o v i d e d by H a w k i n s , t h e v a l u e o f w h i c h i s p r o v e n s i n c e t h e words a r e seen t o be d i s t r i b u t e d sections. individual/ evenly i n A c t s 1-12, 13-23 and t h e "We" analyse

When we b r e a k down t h e s e f i g u r e s , and

J.C. Hawkins: Horae Synopticae

(1399) pp. 14-20.

32.

i n d i v i d u a l s e c t i o n s o f A c t s - t h e r e are p l a c e s

which

y i e l d a w i l d v a r i a t i o n f r o m the average f i g u r e . P l a c e s ii/h-*e t h i s f i g u r e i s low ( e . g . P e t e r ' s v i s i o n : Ac. w i l l suggest f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e b e i n g t h a t here Luke has minimal possibility 10:9-16)

submitted h i s m a t e r i a l to

e d i t o r i a l t r e a t m e n t . P l a c e s where t h i s f i g u r e i s 10:1-8); suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y -feat Luke

h i g h ( e . g . Ac. has

c o n s i d e r a b l y overworked h i s m a t e r i a l ; perhaps even 3 h i m s e l f composed i t .

For Mark, a l s o , Hawkins p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l l i s t , it i s s m a l l . I t i s i m p o r t a n t to r e c o g n i s e t h a t here

though we

are moving beyond p r e v i o u s source c r i t i c i s m o f A c t s s i n c e i f a work o f Mark does u n d e r l y p a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l i n our A c t s , some words used by t h e a l l e g e d source be known t o u s , and, f u r t h e r m o r e , we w i l l know how will Luke

t r e a t e d these i n h i s Gospel. I s i t n o t a r e a s o n a b l e supp o s i t i o n t h a t as Luke u s e d Mark f o r p a r t s o f Volume so Volume Two would have l i k e w i s e i n c o r p o r a t e d Marcan a v a i l a b l e ? However i t i s t h e c l a i m from One,

m a t e r i a l i f t h a t was

o f Haenchen t h a t as "Mark cannot be r e c o n s t r u c t e d Luke" so a l s o i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to disentangle the

sources/

3.

A l l t h e s e r e s u l t s are t a b u l a t e d i n Appendix 1 . On t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i n c l u d i n g Western Readings see Appendix 2 and n o t e s t h e r e . On p o s s i b l e c r i t i c i s m about t h e s i z e o f the sample see pp. 36, 49. Haenchen BZNW a r t . c i t . p.157.

4.

33

s o u r c e s used i n t h e book .of A c t s .

T h i s argument i s

s t a t e d even more p o s i t i v e l y by Cadbury who u p h o l d s t h a t "an a c t u a l c o u n t o f t h e occurence i n Lucan w r i t i n g s o f words i m p a r t i a l l y chosen as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Mark ( i . e . by Hawkins and Swete; shows t h a t t h e s e o c c u r as o f t e n o r o f t e n a r i n t h e p a r t s o f Luke and A c t s n o t 5 d e r i v e d f r o m Mark." I f these o p i n i o n s are c o r r e c t ,

t h e n o u r t a s k f o r A c t s w i l l be t h e more f u t i l e . B u t Cadbury does n o t j u s t i f y t h e s t a t e m e n t w i t h any and so l e t us sound o u t t h e s u p p o s i t i o n : figure^

5. I n BC 2 p. 163. 6. As r e q u i r e d by Cadbury I i n c l u d e Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as d e f i n e d i n Hawkins pp. l O f , and Swete (Mark p. x l i x ) though t h e s e l a t t e r a r e n o t s c i e n t i f i c a l l y s e l e c t e d . The d e f i n i t i o n o f where Luke i s dependent upon Mark i s , o f c o u r s e , open t o d i s p u t e , b u t f o r t h e sake o f o b j e c t i v i t y I have adopted t h e d e l i n e a t i o n o f T a y l o r op. c i t . pp. 126-128 - w h i c h a l l o w s m i n i m a l dependence. A more l i b e r a l a l l o w a n c e o f Marcan i n f l u e n c e i n Luke- i n c r e a s e s the Marcan t a l l y , o f c o u r s e ; t h u s by t a k i n g as Marcan Lk. 3:3-6, 1 5 f , 2 1 f , 4:14f, 31-44, 5:12-6:19, 8:4-9:50, 10:24-28, 11:14-23, 13:18-21, 18:15-43, 19:29-38, 45-21:4, 22:1-30, 39-23:5, 23:18-25, 50-24:11, w h i c h m i g h t be r e g a r d e d as v i r t u a l l y a maximum sample;-we have 85 (D = 99) Marcan words i n Marcan S e c t i o n s , w h i l s t t h e r e m a i n d e r o f Luke y i e l d s 54 (D = 6 2 ) . A l l word c o u n t s below a r e my own and o m i t LXX q u o t a t i o n s , w h i c h a l t h o u g h r e q u i r i n g a n a l y s i s , do n o t b e a r upon evidence f o r t h e v o c a b u l a r y of the author.

34.

1.

Marcan P o r t i o n s o f Luke's Gospel.

Lie.

Number o f Marcan Characteristics 31-44 12-39 1-11 4-56 1-50 13 7 3 12 11 12 2 12 6

Frequency p e r 100 words. 4.94 1.28 1.45 1.25 1.15 2.92 1.43 1.72 0.74

4: 5: 6: 8: 9:

18: 15-43 19: 29-36, 4 5 f . 20: 1-21:4 Passion fragments

2. Non-Marcan P o r t i o n s o f Luke.

Lk. 1: 3: 5: 6: 1-2:52 1-4:30 1-11 12-19

Number o f Marcan Characteristics. 6 7 0 1 8 3 3 4 2 4 6

Frequency p e r 100- words. 0.31 0.71

0.72 0.53 0.16 0.31 0.39 0.16 0.35 0.73

6:20-8:3 9:51-10:42 1 1 : 1-54 12: 1-59 13: 1-14:35 15:1-16:31 17:1-18:14

35. Non-Maroan p o r t i o n s o f Luke ( p o n t ' d ) k '* 19:1-28,37-44,47f 2 I : l 2 - 3 8 ( e x c e p t Passion fragments) 22:14-71 23:1-56 24:1-9,11-53 " " I t o i b e r o f Mar can charaoteristioa 6 0 3 6 3
0

Frequency p e r 100 words. 1-00

'-4 86 0.40-

The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d may be summarised: Marcan p a r t s o f Luke:73 Marcan C h a r a c t e r i 3 t i e s ( F r e q u e n e y 1.56) Non-Marcan p a r t s o f Luke:61 " " (Frequency 0.43) like-

We see t h e n t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , Luke i s 3 t i m e s more

l y t o r e p r o d u c e a Marcan " c h a r a c t e r i s t i e " i n a Marean. s e c t i o n t i t s a ulsewhere . The main d o u b t s r e f e r , and we need n o t be. s u r p r i s e d , t o t h e P a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e . There a r e t h r e e a t i o n s w h i c h we must impose upon t h e s e r e s u l t s ? 1. Wf; have been able t o d i s c e r n t h e p r i n c i p l e does n o t o b l i t e r a t e t h a t Luke limit-

such m a t e r i a l as comes frooa h i s s o u r c e .

We see t h a t h i s f i d e l i t y t o h i s Marcan account i s v a r i a b l e . But i n a l l cases, e x c e p t i n g t h e p a s s i o n " f r a g m e n t s " , t h e

p r o p o r t i o n a t e y i e l d o f Hareanisms i s h i g h e r i n t h e Marcan d e r i v e d passages. ( Y e t i f Mark 1:16-20 d i d f o r m t h e b a s i s of Luke 5:1-11, v . e , l i k e many o t h e r s , w o u l d n e v e r have

guessed).

2. I n t h e above we s t a r t e d f r o m a known q u a n t i t y - v i z . the Marcan s e c t i o n o f Luke and saw t h a t t h e f i g u r e s

corroborate/

36.

c o r r o b o r a t e t h e e v i d e n c e - i n A c t s we s h a l l have t o work f r o m t h e f i g u r e s t o deduce t h e s e c t i o n s w h i c h c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be Marcan. Por t h i s , p a r a g r a p h s as s m a l l

as p o s s i b l e are r e q u i r e d ; b u t s m a l l e r samples l e a d t o l a r g e r d e v i a t i o n s . I f we a t t e m p t t h e same w i t h Lake's S o s p e l o f t h e 74 s e c t i o n s / s t o r i e s , t h e f o l l o w i n g r e v e a l thems e l v e s as c l e a r l y Marcan: Section of Luke 4:31-37 5:17-26 and Number o f Marcanisms 9 6 Section o f Luke 18:31-43 20:1-18 Number o f Mar can isms 7 6

as p r o b a b l y Marcan: 3 4 2(D:5) 2 2 3 8:40-56 9:7-17 18:15-17 19:28-40 20:27-40 4 5 3 4 3

3:7-14 4:38-44 6:6-11 7:18-23 8:22-25 8:26-39

"From t h i s complex we have a r g u a b l y

achieved: 12

Marcan s e c t i o n s c o r r e c t l y r e v e a l e d T h e r e f o r e : Marcan s e c t i o n s NOT

revealed......15

7. The o v e r a l l f i g u r e s f o r Hawkins' and Swete's words a r e : I n Luke 139 words appear-, f r e q u e n c y I n A c t s 1-12 53 do. I n A c t s 13-28 59 do.

Marcan 0.73 0.69 0 .53.

37.

Sections revealed i n c o r r e c t l y

2 .

I t i s s a i d t h a t h a l f a l o a f i s b e t t e r t h a n none, and o u r c o n c l u s i o n here s h o u l d be t h a t we have p o s i t i v e l y managed, by t h i s method, t o i d e n t i f y some Marcan s t o r i e s infallibly

though we must n o t e x p e c t t h e f i g u r e s t o p o i n t t o t h e use o f a Marcan source.

3. The p o s i t i o n i s c o m p l i c a t e d , because a l t h o u g h Hawk i n s has s e l e c t e d h i s words w i t h c a r e , Luke i s n o t averse h i m s e l f t o u s i n g t h e s e same words and e x p r e s s i o n s . Twot h i r d s o f t h e 73 Marcanisms f o u n d i n Marcan s e c t i o n s a r e taken d i r e c t l y from t h a t source, y e t the remainder are i n

f a c t Luke's own i n s e r t i o n s : i . e . 0.50$ o f a l l w o r d s . T h i s frequency t a l l i e s c l o s e l y w i t h t h e f i g u r e f o r Lucan a c t i v -

i t y i n t h e non-Marcan s e c t i o n s o f Luke ( 0 . 4 3 $ ) . Thus, m a t h e m a t i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , were we t o d e l e t e t h o s e places

where we know Luke has been i n f l u e n c e d by Mark, h i s u s e of'Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ' r e m a i n s f a i r l y c o n s t a n t ; A l s o , r e g a r d i n g h i s use o f Mark, i t must be emphasised ( a s c o r r e c t i v e t o t h e s e f i g v i r e s ) t h a t Luke does remove many o f t h e Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o u n d i n h i s s o u r c e , i n a l l retaining/
5

o r 3, i f Luke 19:28-40 be t a k e n as f r o m a Marcan s o u r c e .

38

r e t a i n i n g 49 o u t o f 244, about

one-fifth.

B e f o r e p a s s i n g onto A c t s w i t h t h i s f i r s t

test, i t

seems c l e a r t h a t some words (even though a l l a r e " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ' . ' ) w i l l p r o v i d e a more r e l i a b l e g u i d e t o Marcan vocabulary than others - although the general r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h o s e words s e l e c t e d by Hawkins a s " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " i s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n a study by G r o b e l ^ who has examined the passages i n Mark w h i c h most p r o b a b l y b e t r a y t h e hand o f t h e f i n a l e d i t o r . He t a k e s t h e seven words t h a t Hawkins marks as t h e most d i s t i n c t i v e o f Mark's " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " and f i n d s t h a t t h e y a r e Marcan, and n o t f r o m a pre-Marcan s o u r c e . Only two o f these words come i n A c t s however - b u t t h e r e a r e i n a d d i t i o n some o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Hawkins upon w h i c h we w i l l l a y particular stress:

( i ) *K*9oy>-n>$-Luke 4-33, 36, 8-29, 9-42 ( f r o m M a r k ) . Iiuke 6-18 may have been suggested by Mark 6-7 ( c p . Mk 3-50

and Luke 11-24 (=Mark 12:43) f r o m Q. Nowhere does Luke add t h i s word. The word i s t h u s s i g n i f i c a n t l y Marcan and i t r e c u r s i n Acts f i v e t i m e s . (ii)

^" ^ X'j

, ol

"

^uke where i t i s t a k e n

f r o m Mark 1:22. As t o o t h e r i n s t a n c e s i n Mark^ t h e word i n Mark 1:27, f i n d s Mark 4:2s usage r e d u n d a n t and changes

the nouns i n Mark 11:18 and 12:38 i n t o v e r b s . The appearances/

K. G r o b e l JBL 59(1940) pp. 407f

39.

appearances i n A c t s may suggest i t was a t e n u u s t e c h n i c u s f o r t h e A p o s t o l i c p r e a c h i n g ( A c t s 2:42, 5:28, 17:19 a l s o 13:12).

(iii)uYY*MoV

- n e v e r appears i n Luke's Gospel - i t 13:10,

i s d e l e t e d f r o m Mark 8:35, and p o s s i b l y Mark l : 1 4 f . , 14:9. F o r o u r purposes t h e word may he c a l l e d

are

'distinctively'

Marcan, as i t i s o b v i o u s l y n o t Lucan. The o c c u r r e n c e s i n

1 Q

A c t s ^ 1 5 : 7 , i n P e t e r ' s l a s t speech

and 20:24 i n a P a u l i n e

speech. Also i n A c t s 1:2, Western T e x t s , r e p e a t i n g Mark 3:14D,

(Iv)

d-TTOi - d e l e t e d f o u r t i m e s by Luke f r o m Mark 2.

Luke o b v i o u s l y d i s l i k e s t h i s v u l g a r w o r d . (Hawkins however does n o t t h i n k i f ' d i s t i n c t i v e " ) , the so t h a t t h e appearance o f silent.

word i n A c t s 5:15 9:33 has l e f t commentators

Moreover, Luke's d e l e t i o n s , a l t h o u g h t h e y can be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d as due t o a d e s i r e t o a v o i d r e p e t i t i o n , are es-

p e c i a l l y r e m a r k a b l e as t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e S y n o p t i s t s i s t o agree on p o i n t s o f spoken words"""*". The usages i n A c t s o f t h i s word must s u r e l y t h e r e f o r e i n d i c a t e a p r e - L u c a n tradition. ^

1 1

(v)

K^Tti/"

- Luke 8:54 ( f r o m Mark 5:41) and

Luke 24:16: t h e l a t t e r u s e means t h a t we c a n n o t be q u i t e certain/

10. 11. 12.

c p . 1 P e t e r 4:17. A l o o k a t a s y n o p s i s o f t h e Gospels i s s u f f i c i e n t firm this point. t o con-

Thus we c a n n o t agree w i t h A.Q. M o r t o n i n A u t h o r s h i p and I n t e g r i t y o f t h e New Testament (1965) who s t a t e s t h a t Luke "would n o t a c c e p t f r o m any o f h i s s o u r c e s words w h i c h he w o u l d n o t have u s e d " , ( p . 59)

40.

c e r t a i n t h a t Luke d e l i b e r a t e l y a v o i d e d t h i s word, t h o u g h he does a l t e r Mark 1:31, 9:27, 12:12. A c t s has no e s p e c i a l l e a n i n g s t o w a r d s t h i s v e r b , s u r p r i s i n g i n v i e w o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and i t comes a t A c t s 3:11, 24:6, 27:13. 2:24,

( v i ) 1T<&\w

- i s d e l e t e d f r o m Mark t e n t i m e s , o c c u r ( n o t Q), 13:20 where i t i s

r i n g however i n Luke 6:43

c l e a r l y e d i t o r i a l , and 23:20, p o s s i b l y f r o m Mark. F i v e times i n Acts.

( v i i ) <^iyOS\V - i s d e l e t e d by Luke e i g h t t i m e s f r o m 13 Mark ^ and i s v e r y d i s t i n c t i v e o f Mark. D e s p i t e Luke's tendency t o a v o i d i t i n h i s G-ospel, i t i s used t e n t i m e s finally ^ which Luke removes f r o m Mark on

i n A c t s ! And (viii)

i.Z>9v5

26 o c c a s i o n s , and f o u n d o n l y a t Luke 6:49 KAB and A c t s 10:16.

The p r o b a b i l i t y i s t h a t , g i v e n a f r e e hand, Luke would have used t h e above words r a r e l y , i f a t a l l . Y e t they/

13. D e t a i l s and d i s c u s s i o n i n C.H.

T u r n e r JTS 26 (1925) pp. 1 2 f t .

14. A l t h o u g h Hawkins, p. 10, a l s o i n c l u d e s rfO^Uj, t h i s has not been i n c l u d e d i n any o f o u r s t a t i s t i c s , as i t i s n o t t y p i c a l o f Mark: Mark....0 Luke....6 A c t s . . . . 9 ! The r e a s o n f o r t h i s " b l u n d e r " i s t h a t Hawkins' l i s t was c o m p i l e d w i t h t h e a i d o f B r u d e r ' s c o n c o r d a n c e , which l i s t s numerous Western Readings. I n Bezae t h e f i g u r e s f o r *i&&>S a r e Mark....28 Luke....7 A c t s 11.

41.

t h e y o c c u r i n Acts,(some f t h e o c c u r r e n c e s are m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t ) i n c h a p t e r s 1-12 13-28

1 5

twenty times, i n chapters 16

t h i r t e e n t i m e s . And i n t h e s t o r i e s i n v o l v i n g P e t e r

t h e r e are s i x t e e n such words, a p p e a r i n g i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s i n t h e r a t i o o f 3^:1 i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e remainder 17 I f Mark was of Acts.

" t h e i n t e r p r e t e r o f P e t e r " ' i t w i l l be i n

t h e s e s t o r i e s o f A c t s t h a t our i n v e s t i g a t i o n would seem t o suggest most promise o f a p o s i t i v e result. ( " | " ) i n Acts i s

The y i e l d f o r Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

t a b u l a t e d i n t h e appendix, though o n l y Hawkins' words are used, and n o t Swete's, s i n c e t h e l a t t e r ' s are n o t , on Hawkins i.e.
1

d e f i n i t i o n , i n fact "characteristic" at a l l :

words o c c u r r i n g i n Mark"more o f t e n t h a n i n Matthew 18 However, o u r c o n c e r n i s t o d i s t i n will

and Luke t o g e t h e r " .

g u i s h Mark's v o c a b u l a r y f r o m t h a t o f Luke, and t h u s we p r o v i d e a f u r t h e r l i s t o f words, w h i c h w i l l be Common/ termed

15. iflwWroS A c t s 5 : 1 6 cp. 8:7, Ac-fes 10:14 i s r e p e a t e d i n 10:28 a n d l l : 8 . tTot\iV - A c t s 10:15 (16D) = 11:10. biptW - Ac 2:42, same v e r b i n t h e s i m i l a r summary: A c t s 4:34. '
/ l

16. Taken as A c t s 1:13-26, 2:14-41, 3:1 - 4:22, 5:1-11, 15-33, 3:14-25, 9:32-43, 10:9 - 11:18, 12:1-17, 15:7-12 - i . e . a l l passages i n w h i c h P e t e r p l a y s an a c t i v e r o l e . See Appendix 3. 17. I n Eusebius H.E. 3:39:15, and see p. 9. 62.

18. Hawkins op. c i t . p.

42.

Common Marcanisma

w h i c h appear l e s s f r e q u e n t l y i n Luke's

Gospel. Of these words, t h e most d i s t i n c t i v e a r e :

, jyuc.
lur

, Removed J. .
f r o m m 9

Retained
f r o m m m M a

Added t o t h e
r c a n

Parallel. 19 37 8 5 18 4 6 12 12 15 14 10 5 13 10 17 32 2 4 18 2 4 7 3 5 10 5 1 5 5 4 10 3 1 6 2 3 3 8 8 4 2 1 9 2 8 10 1 1 8 1 0 . 3 1 1 5 2 1 0; 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

oeroS

Occurences i n A c t s a r e l i s t e d i n t h e A p p e n d i x . A l l t h e s e words appear more t i m e s i n Mark - and i t s h o u l d be rememb e r e d t h a t t h i s Gospel i s o n l y t w o - t h i r d s t h e s i z e o f Luke and i n t h e above I have t r i e d t o i n c l u d e o n l y t h o s e words w h i c h Luke r a r e l y i n s e r t s i n t o h i s m a t e r i a l , and o f t e n avoids. There a r e o t h e r words, more numerous i n Mark,
i

w h i c h have n o t been i n c l u d e d (e.g.y^^rrios 'ttp[rf&TiftS) as t h e s e a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y l i a b l e t o appear f r e q u e n t l y i n certain/

43

c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s - and a f e w o t h e r s have a l s o been excluded as t h e y o c c u r so f r e q u e n t l y t h a t t h e y w o u l d

dominate t h e s t a t i s t i c s . Some o t h e r words a l s o m e r i t a mention, a l t h o u g h t h e y have n o t been "counted i n " :

( i ) Sv^etTK^W - (Mk. 17, Lk. 1 7 ) : Luke removes t e n

o f Mark's v e r y g e n e r a l i s e d r e f e r e n c e s ( e . g . Mk. 1:22, 2:13, 4 : 1 , 6:30 ,34).

( i i ) oV SI^SIACL - (Mk .9, L k . 6 ) : Luke d e l e t e s t h e e x p r e s s i o n - t h r i c e : b u t t h e appearance i n , f o r example, 19 Luke 8:1 s u g g e s t s Luke a l s o knew and used t h e t e r m .

( i i i ) TTiy0WTV

- (Mk.26, L k . 1 8 ) : Luke adds

this

word t h r e e t i m e s t o Marcan m a t e r i a l , a l t h o u g h he removes it on e i g h t occasions.

( i v ) <ijoo-v^\<(o-^ - (Mk .9, Lk .4) - n o t i n c l u d e d i n the s t a t i s t i c s as, as t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' c a l l i n g upon' God,

a c c o u n t s f o r a number o f t h e usages o f t h i s v e r b i n A c t s .

Of t h e words i n c l u d e d as Sommon (4 ) t h e s e o c c u r as follows: Luke - ( n o t Luke (when In f o l l o w i n g Martf f o l l o w i n g Mark) A c t s Number o f t i m e s . Frequency. 66 0 .47% 54 1.08% 'Beter* sections of Acts

108 39 0.60% 0 .98%

i. cp.c

see p. 16 and n . 47.

44.

I f wer were t e remove these P e t e r s e c t i o n s f r o m t h e A c t s f i g u r e s ( i . e . as p l a c e s where, as i n t h e d i f f e r e n t case o f t h e Gospel, we m i g h t suspect Marcan i n f l u e n c e ) , t h e n o n - P e t r i n e s e c t i o n s o f A c t s have 69 Marcan words, a p p e a r i n g a t a f r e q u e n c y o f 0.50$, a r a t i o s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e non-Marcan p o r t i o n s o f t h e Lucan Gospel. This suggests

t h a t ( a s w i t h t h e Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) Luke's u s e o f t h e words w h i c h we have s i n g l e d o u t - r e m a i n s a t a g i v e n cons t a n t . A l s o t h e f r e q u e n c y o f t h e s e words i n ' P e t e r ' s e c t i o n s i s , as w i t h t h e case o f t h e Marcan p o r t i o n s o f Luke's Gospel, about t w i c e t h a t o f t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e book.

The e q u a t i o n o f P e t e r s t o r i e s o ftets and a Marcan source i s v e r y r e a s o n a b l e on t h i s b a s i s .

We s t a t e d above t h a t some w o r d s , i f i n c l u d e d , would o v e r b a l a n c e t h e s t a t i s t i c s , as t h e y are so common. These a r e : Mk. 42 23 22 33 19 58 16 58 Lk. 35 10 20 26 3 37 8 48 Removed f r o m Mk. 15 10 14 13 11 20 6 33 Retained f r o m Mk. 8 4 2 4 0 14 2 9 Added t o t h e Marcan P a r a l l e l . 2 1 5 4 0> 0 0 1

Vi
ma

None o f t h e s e words can p r o p e r l y be c o n s i d e r e d f o r inclusion/

45.

i n c l u s i o n , as Luke uses these words f r e e l y i n non-Marcan . cont e x t. s . 20

A t h i r d word t e s t also presents i t s e l f . There are words not found i n Luke but i n some o r a l l o f the other Gospels.

Although a t f i r s t s i g h t t h i s appears an eminently u s e f u l t e s t , i t . i s i n f e r i o r t o the two previous, since the words i n question are, any almost by d e f i n i t i o n r a r e , and cannot, on

c r i t e r i o n be adjudged as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f emy Gospel.

The only u s e f u l ones w i l l be those which Luke can be seen to have avoided - though since, i n the m a j o r i t y o f cases, t h i s only happens once, l i t t l e s t r e s s should be attached to t h e l i s t . Below are l i s t e d words found i n Mark, but n o t i n Luke, and which Luke has d e f i n i t e l y avoided:

20. f)\os i s replaced bytTytf t h r i c e , b u t Luke has no obvious d i s l i k e o f the word.'wrcwqp"" i s added by Luke too o f t e n to be o f value here. wAeurffit i s precluded as Luke avoids the word i n h i s Gospel f o r t e c h n i c a l reasons. The other cases are i n t e r e s t i n g , b u t too common elsewhere i n nonMarcan p a r t s o f Luke t o be o f use.

46.

W O R D

Mark

Acts

Other Gospels

*\r|r|5 JvdLSiuAx'Xw r i o l ^' i v It ^o<i \oU<.OCno\ / d xot^^vitr^cv , \*ffr*y

12:4 14:71 16:1 6:37 9:34 5:4

12:9 23:12, ' 25:13,27:9

2 1

Mt. Jn.

1 4

23:23(bis) 27:37 t e n times (D=1D 23:10

Jn.

21.

D o u b t f u l cases are bracketed - words i n c l u d e d i n previous l i s t s are also excluded from the o v e r a l l s t a t i s t i c . The f o l l o w i n g words are also n o t i n Luke, but i n Mark and Acts (again, cases which are t e x t u a l l y d o u b t f u l , are b r a c k e t e d ) : 4o4A5s <<oT^*ro$ kaia-Kixv

>

x^x

47.

Word

Mark

Acts

Other Gospels

"7

5:43,7:36(bis), 8:15,9:9 4:17,10:30

15:24 8:1,13:50,14:23)

(Mt.) (Mt.)

9:15,14:33,16:5,6 3:11 6:11 14:11 14:68 13:51,18:6 7:5,17D,E ten times ( D = l l ) (Mt. ) (Mt.,Jn.) Mt. (Mt.)

14:54(not D),15:1^5:22D,23 e i g h t (B=9) times 1:2D,15:7,20:24 6:31 ( n o t D) 15:43 1:6,6:8 6:20,12:37 17:21 13:50,17:12,34D 21:11(bis) 13:8DE,14:9h

Mt.

1:27,9:15I>,10;24, 3:llD,9:6h 32,16:53) 4:17,13:19,24 f i v e (D=7) times 5:39,13:73) 5:38,14:2 1:35,388 7:10,9:39 9:18 2:4,9,11,12,6:55 10:22 13:28
r

Mt.,Jn.

17 : 5,20:10 , 21:133)Mt. 20:1,21:34,24:18 f i v e times 19:9 4:13,10:34,25:25 5:15,9:33 2:45,5:1 23:27 :17,13:34,25:24 Mt. Mt.,Jn. (Mt.) Jn. Jn. Mt. Mt.,Jn. Mt.,Jn.

1:45,2:2,9:25, 11:14

Contd

48

:Word

Mark

Acts

Other Gospels

5:17,7:24,31(bis), 8:10!D,10:1 5:7 rt^&Yirfi*' ^ *~ 7 4:20 8:32 tiV 6:6 10:26,15:14 5:4,9:22
W

13:50 19:13 15:4,16:21,22:18 f i v e times (D=7) 13:11 26:11 26:11 8:30,10:25D 5:21D,28:23 12:8 16:27 26:30 25:12 3:ll(not 4:10 12:8 l:18f,4:34,37D, 5:3,8,28:7 2:24 D)

Mt.

Jn. Mt. Mt . y? : ; . Mt.,Ja.

fT^itfS-uS ni)>X^tJ ^/
> 0 < r

?3^

9:15,10:17

if^wf 1:35,11:20,13:35, f w 15:1,16:2,9 flWdeOuov' 6:9 (j-a^B-^* 14:47

Mt.,Jn.

<ruyk*&ijffSwv 14:54 (Tu^o^Xio/ 3:6,15:1

Mt.

MptypV

6:33
3:50,5:34

Mt.,Jn.

6uo5"-ClirS^i 6:9
^MovT 56 " w 14:32 13:8

Mt.,Jn. Mt.

A l l the above words are reduced t o s t a t i s t i c s i n the appendix: the f i g u r e s i n c l u d e also the words - where n o t t e x t u a l l y d o u b t f u l - i n f o o t n o t e 21. Of those i n the main l i s t , we may add t h a t they occur i n the r a t i o o f 3:2 i n the Peter'/

49.

'Peter' s t o r i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o the r e s t o f Acts.

With t h i s we a t t a i n the l i m i t s o f word t e s t i n g as regards Mark and Acts. However, there may be the s u s p i c i o n t h a t there have been unknown f a c t o r s a t work which have caused a h i g h number o f Marcan words i n any given paragraph: and c e r t a i n l y we w i l l have t o admit t h a t :

( i ) the r e p e t i t i o n o f one word, perhaps s e v e r a l times i n s i d e one s e c t i o n , w i l l i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t .

( i i ) some o f our sub-sections are very s m a l l , and t h e r e f o r e no formal s t r e s s should be l a i d upon any one r e s u l t . But taken t o g e t h e r , we have a sizeable s e l e c t i o n o f C h a r a c t e r i s t i c ( | ) t Common (^-) and Rare (^} words, which although n o t e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y as a sample, i s t h e best which c o n d i t i o n s w i l l p e r m i t .

To provide some k i n d o f check on t h i s s i t u a t i o n , we may u s e f u l l y take the remaining two Gospels and t a b u l a t e t h e i r s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as they appear i n Acts. Assuming t h a t these books have no source connection, as w e l l
22

we may

, w i t h Acts, they can be c o n v e n i e n t l y used as the

c l o s e s t a v a i l a b l e type o f l i t e r a t u r e , t o both i l l u s t r a t e the maximum/

22. A Johannine source f o r Acts 1-5 was p o s i t e d by Rackham: Acts ( 3 r d . E d i t . ) p . x i i i , a Matthaen source f o r Acts l : 1 3 f f . by Renie RB 55 (1948) p. 48.

50.

maximum variance o f s t a t i s t i c we should expect, and h i g h l i g h t those sections where a h i g h f i g u r e should be i n e v i t a b l e as a r e s u l t o f s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h the Gospel narratives.

With Matthew, f o r ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ' words, Hawkins was again r e c a l l e d , w h i l s t f o r John the Concordance was pressed i n t o s e r v i c e , whereby twenty-four words were selected which ocuur a t l e a s t f o u r times i n t h a t Gospel and which are found a t l e a s t 25$ more o f t e n there than i n the S y n o p t i c s . ^ For 'cosrasnon* words a l e s s severe c r i t e r i o n . 25 was adopted ' and f i n a l l y words n o t i n Luke were counted. The t o t a l f i g u r e s are n o t s t r i c t l y comparable t o the Marcan ones -" f o r Matthew t h e r e are 501 such words i n Acts, f o r John 364 w h i l s t Mark has 406 such words; b u t a l l o w i n g for/

23. Hawkins, op. c i t . pp.4-7. 24. */?wvoC 1 J ^ Cc ,

f

^vuo9ti/

Zr&tv&v

Si^iW
/

' r 25. Matthew. John.

mrr^v
1 ^

-vCfr\o<*t

tx\f\ArM

/ LVOV

51

f o r i n t e r n a l adjustment, c e r t a i n conclusions f o l l o w . (We would however expect l e s s o f a d e v i a t i o n the l a r g e r the sample, hence w i t h the Lucan f i g u r e s , but n o t apparently the Matthaen). From the appendix, where are summarised the r e s u l t s , we take those paragraphs i n Acts where the appearance o f words belonging to any one Gospel i s a t l e a s t 2/3 above average. Lis'ting each o f the ' t e s t ' Gospels i n t u r n , we s t a t e f i r s t o f a l l the percentage frequency of words above the expected norm, then comparing the r e s u l t w i t h the other Gospels, t o check whether the r e s u l t i s exceptionable. The most t e l l i n g case w i l l be t h a t which shows a predominance o f words p e c u l i a r t o one Gospel and i f our Marcan hypothesis i s t o be sustained, i t w i l l be these r e s u l t s t h a t w i l l e x h i b i t such symptoms. At the same time the cross-check w i t h Matthew and John w i l l i l l u s t r a t e an approximate number o f freak' r e s u l t s t h a t ought.;, t o be expected.

Mark's Gospel Acts' Paragraph Marcan words above the norm 66$ 135$ 213$ 123$ 218$ 318$ Lucan words Matthaen Johan +or- the norm words nine words -59$ -37$ +34$ +49$ +58$ +5$ nil +312$ +46$ -9$ +62$ nil nil +113$ +50$ +49$ +78$ +15$

1:13-14 1:18-20 2:42-47 3:1-11 4:32-37 5:15-16

Cont'd

52

Acts' Paragraph 10:9-16 10:23b-33 12:5-10 15:7-12 19:8-20 23:31-35

26

Marcan words above the norm 130% 79% 274% 83% 108% 74%

Matthaen Johannine Lucan words words +or- the norm words -32% +56% -43% -17% -13% +18% -37% +64% -7% +14% +15% +180% +30% +25% +59% +72% -4% +29%

The sections 2/3 above average as regards Matthew are Acts 1:18-20, 8:14-25, 9:31, 23:31-35, 25:1-27. And as regards John: Acts 1:13-20, 4:32-37, 5:12-14, 9:36-43, 14:1-7, 14:19-28, 15:1-12, 25:1-27.

The f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be drawn from these f i g u r e s i s t h a t the Marcan f i g u r e s show the widest range o f dev27 iation. Can t h i s be c o i n c i d e n t a l ? Of the Marcan 'high

d e v i a t i o n * passages i n Acts, e i g h t out o f the twelve are Peter' s e c t i o n s , w h i l s t Matthew produces only two Peter sections out o f h i s f i v e John three out o f e i g h t . 'high d e v i a t i o n ' sections and

26. 27. 28.

Figures o f Mt. and Jn. r e f e r t o Ac.15:1-12. The r e s u l t s from the smaller sections must, o f course, be read w i t h c a u t i o n . This would be the approximate expected r e s u l t as Peter sections we have selected i n Acts t o t a l 26 out o f a possible 31 - i . e . about 1/3 o f the whole.

53.

The t o t a l words appearing i n Peter s e c t i o n s a r e :

of Luke

o f Mark

o f Matthew

o f John

No. o f words Pre quency +or- the norm

282 7.13 +5$

108 2.73 +20$

90 2.28 -19$

85 2.15 +5$

Herein l i e s a basis f o r a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the t e x t - which w i l l have f o r i t s focus the 'Peter' s t o r i e s , although a l l i e d s e c t i o n s w i l l also r e c e i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , where the s i t u a t i o n warrants. Of the s e c t i o n s above, which e x h i b i t Marcan a f f i n i t i e s i n abundance: the most s i g n i f i c a n t are ( i ) 10:9-16 - Peter's v i s i o n , where Lucan ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ' are l e s s f r e q u e n t than u s u a l . Three o f Mark's distinctive the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c words occur here: i n c l u d i n g ,"a suggestive f a c t i n a

only usage i n Acts o f < w t f $

s e c t i o n o f t h e book i n which the pen or the language o f St. Peter may f a i r l y be t r a c e d . " ^
2

( i i ) 12:5-10 - Peter's escape from p r i s o n : along w i t h the v i s i o n , one o f the most v i v i d t a l e s i n t h e book. Agamn, Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are below average.

29. R. Khowling: Acts (1920) p.255.

54

Of l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e a r e : ( i i i ) 3:1-11: important because t h i s i s a long s e c t i o n but the h i g h Marcan f i g u r e i s p a r t l y due t o the r e p e t i t i o n of i p l T T e < . ' r \ V , and Lucan a c t i v i t y i s also marked.

( i v ) 5:15-16: a very short s e c t i o n , but nevertheless c o n t a i n i n g three d i s t i n c t i v e Marcanisms i n t h i s summary

s i m i l a r i n language and content t o Mk. 6:55f.

As to the other'high d e v i a t i o n ' s e c t i o n s , l : 1 3 f . i s too small t o be o f much value, the s t o r y of Judas' death as w e l l as the two summary passages d e a l i n g w i t h the Community o f Goods also y i e l d a h i g h number o f words i n the Matthaen and Johannine l i s t s , although the Judas episode may come from a non-Lucan source. And the same may be said f o r 10:23b-33, 23:31-35 and perhaps 15:7-12. The s t o r y o f the sons o f Sceva i s the only paragraph which has an i n e x p l i c a b l y h i g h Marcan f i g u r e i n Acts 13-28. But there are none o f Hawkins' Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n 19:8-20 (except one i n the Western Text) but the r e s u l t may a c t as a t i m e l y reminder t h a t 'freak' r e s u l t s are i n e v i t a b l e . Nevertheless Marcan words do come more f r e e l y i n the 'Peter' sections o f Acts.

55

We t u r n now t o the secondary question o f s t y l e . These are the f e a t u r e s which p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h Mark from 30 ijuke.

1. Use o f the H i s t o r i c Present, over 150 times i n Mark, only f o u r times i n Luke. More f r e q u e n t i n Acts (about 13 uses). 2. Impersonal P l u r a l ( i n d i c a t i v e o f o r i g i n a l 'we'?) i n Acts 1:23 ( n o t D), 3:2 and 19:19, perhaps also 5:12, 7:57. 3. O ' O r e c i t a t i v e and i n t e r r o g a t i v e . I n Acts 2:13,

3:22, 5:23,25, 6:11, 7:6, 11:13, 13:34, 15:1,5, 16:36, 19:21, 23:20, 24:21, 25:8. 4. o^AS i n the s i n g u l a r r a t h e r than p l u r a l ( i n Mark,

36 times against one i n the p l u r a l ) . Acts uses the s i n g u l a r on 15 occasions, the p l u r a l on 7: the word only comes once, however, i n a Peter s t o r y (Ac. 1:15). 5. eJtcc\og(^y i n a l i t e r a l - that i s not obviously

f i g u r a t i v e - sense. So i n Acts 12:8f., 13:43, 21:36. 6. P a r e n t h e t i c a l clauses: ' s i d e l i n e s ' , information

which, though appropriate t o the s t o r y , i s placed by Mark at a p o i n t at which i t s relevance i s u n t i m e l y . Luke thus i n s e r t s the clause a t a more s u i t a b l e p o i n t . The Marcan ' s i d e l i n e */

30. A good d i s c u s s i o n by C.H. Turner JTS 25-29 (1924-28) and summarising V. Taylor: St. Mark (1952) pp. 44-54. For Luke's treatment of Mark: H. Cadbury: The S t y l e and L i t e r a r y Method o f Luke. 31. See pp. 9 f .

56

' s i d e l i n e ' recurs i n Acts Is 12 where the d e t a i l t h a t 'they' returned t o Jerusalem i s strange, since we have "been t o l d i n I s 4 t h a t 'they' are i n Jerusalem. Acts 11:12 suddenly t e l l s us o f ' s i x ' b r e t h r e n and Acts 12:3 w i t h i t s o b t r u s i v e note concerning the Passover are other examples. Acts 1:12^15j

32
9:11, 10:6(32) may f u r n i s h possible instances. 7. Aramaic words - f o l l o w e d by a Greek t r a n s l a t i o n : Luke i n h i s Gospel always provides only the t r a n s l a t i o n ,

33
yet i n Acts he i s n o t so meticulous. Negatively: 8. The r a r i t y o f o*v - but Luke adds t h i s p a r t i c l e to Marcan m a t e r i a l . f 9. Absence o f tT^Hnctaa
A

- i n Peter sections o f Acts

o n l y on f o u r occasions, w h i l s t elsewhere i n Acts, 33 times. But i n h i s Gospel, Luke f r e e l y w r i t e s the word when copying from Mark. Of l e s s determinate value are the f o l l o w i n g : 10. Parataxis - particu.la.rly frequent i n D.

55

32. also Acts 4:22 ( v . supra) - these p o i n t s are discussed i n d e t a i l i n ch- 4.

33. see p.11.

34. only i n Mk. 9:30 BS and the Marcan appendix. 35 .v. M. Black: Aramaic Approach. (1946) p. 49.

57

11. Asyndeton - d i f f i c u l t however to assess because o f frequent t e x t u a l u n c e r t a i n t y , (e.g. Acts 1:7B) 12. Anacoluthon - i n Acts perhaps a t 7:40, 24:18. 13. Use o f Diminutives: here the problem i s t o
36

determine what c o n s t i t u t e s a d i m i n u t i v e :

i n form, sev-

e r a l w i t h an ending ->V come i n Acts 5:15, 12:8, 27:16,32, and some w i t h forms -crKdS also occur. 14. w i t h the i n d i c a t i v e - i n Acts 2:45, 4:35, points:

7:7BD. F i n a l l y we append other s t y l i s t i c r

15. OiKOS w i t h owner u n i d e n t i f i e d (Mk. 2:1, 3:20, 7:17, 9:28) - so i n Acts 2:1. 16.
Y\Voy*L\
w i t h

"toe dative (Mk.5:16,33, 9:21) - i n

Acts 7:40 (LXX), 20:16, 24 :3 and l l s l D , 15:20D, 15:29D 614. 17. Double Negatives - so i n Acts 4:12,17f.,20f.,32DE, 8:16,39. 18. w" used i n a main clause - n o t as a conjunction.-'

19. The secrecy m o t i f : Jesus, i n Mark, commands s i l e n c e u n t i l h i s r e s u r r e c t i o n - ( i n Acts the a p o s t l e s ' urge a s i m i l a r r e s t r a i n t Acts 4 : 1 7 f . ) . opponents

36.cp. D.G. Swanson: JBL 77 (1958) pp. 1 4 0 f f . . 37.See G . D . K i l p a t r i c k : BT 7 (1956) No. 4.

58.

20. The s t u p i d i t y o f t h e d i s c i p l e s (Mk. 4:40, 6:52, 7:18, 8:17ff ,33, 9:28,32, 10:13, 14:50) - perhaps i t i s r e c a l l e d i n Acts 4:13. 21. The frequency o f the mention o f amazement. ft i n Acts 7:4, 16:13,

22. The c o n s t r u c t i o n 39D,40, 17:33, 2 8 : 3 .

39

23. R e p e t i t i o n , even amounting t o whole s t o r i e s : " t h a t Luke d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided r e p e t i t i o n seems almost 40 demonstrated by h i s use o f Mark". Yet t h i s i s n o t t r u e

of Acts, where a number o f s t o r i e s are repeated w i t h o u t apology I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o provide a s t a t i s t i c a l t a b l e o f these s t y l i s t i c f e a t u r e s , as they occur i n Acts, because with:many o f them there are t e x t u a l doubts and a few (e.g. Parat a x i s ) are so common t h a t they would dominate the s t a t i s t i c . Thus we w i l l simply l i s t , i n our a n a l y s i s o f the sections/

38. v. p. 9. 39. Luke avoids t h i s - see Cadbury op. c i t . pp. 168,202. I n these l i s t s , cross references are o n l y provided where those c i t e d i n note 30 have no d i s c u s s i o n on the p o i n t i n question. Marcan references are only added to the more unfamiliar points. 40. H. Cadbury i n Studies i n Luke/Acts p. 93. But: Luke 8:39. 41. Of the r e p e t i t i o n i n Acts, K i l p a t r i c k remarks t h a t now Luke " i s u s u a l l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o t h i s " . (JTS ns. 16 (1965) p. 127).

59

sections o f Acts, those f e a t u r e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Mark's s tyle.

However there remains one important f u r t h e r s t y l i s t i c t e s t : 1he use o f

\ld.\l&L ,

Mark's exuberance over t h e former

i s well-known. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, Luke's p r a c t i c e i n h i s Gospel shows us t h a t he u s e s ^ t more o f t e n i n Marcan than non-Marcan s e c t i o n s : was he determined t o c o r r e c t Mark's
K.ot\

complex? I t appears from Acts t h a t Luke i s 42 and we may p o i n t w i t h

not c o n s i s t e n t i n t h i s m a t t e r some confidence

to two c o n t r a s t i n g groups o f s e c t i o n s :
/ c
/

1. Acts 1:1-2:4 -

...44 times,
4 5

H . . . 1 time.

2. "We" sections o f A c t s

Koil' ..73 times, ft ..74 times.

This v a r i a t i o n i s s t r i k i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y remarkable i s t h e a c t u a l predominance i n the "we" sections o f t over IGc( , even though these passages a r e spread i n te r mi t t e n t l y /

42.

So a l s o : R. M a r t i n NTS 11 (1964) p. 59 and Gadbury: S t y l e p.144 - although t h i s t e s t does not adapt w e l l to small samples (H. McArthur NTS 15 (1968) pp. 341f.) Morton and McLennan c l a i m t h a t "the r a t e o f u s i n g ttac\ f o r works o f the same l i t e r a r y form i s c o n s i s t e n t over l o n g periods o f time and wide ranges o f subject matter." (Paul, 1966 p. 7 8 ) . D e t a i l s and f u l l r e s u l t s i n the Appendix.

43.

60

i n t e r m i t t e n t l y over the pages o f A c t s . I n c o n t r a s t the near absence of i n t h e opening verses i s most sug-

g e s t i v e , at a p o i n t which, i f anywhere, might most l o g i c a l l y he expected t o he the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the Marcan n a r r a t i v e . The t o t a l f i g u r e s f o r UaL\ and question are: Mark
/

i n t h e works i n

Luke 1435 543 2:1

Acts 1-12 523 237 2i:l

Acts 13-28 538 318 14-:1

Peter' stories 251 118 2i:l

1078 160 6^:1

Before we close t h i s survey, a f i n a l word t e s t must he appendixed: one which i n v o l v e s the w r i t e r ' s use o f synonyms. I n c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s t h i s t e s t can be eminently h e l p f u l ^ b u t f o r our purposes the o n l y major p o i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e between Mark and Luke, s u f f i c i e n t i n size t o t e s t , concerns the use o f the verbs o f s a y i n g ' ^ - Mark's choice l i e s unreservedly w i t h Xiy^iv' .

44. See A. E l l e g a r d : A S t a t i s t i c a l Method o f Determining Auth o r s h i p (1962) p. 45 and M.P. Brown: The A u t h e n t i c W r i t i n g s of I g n a t i u s (1963) passim. 45. Some synonymous words have already been discussed - another l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t comparison can be made withc>f?TtrvL?rfTe<i, the f i g u r e s f o r each r e s p e c t i v e l y being Mark 3/6, Luke 8/3. Acts 3/7.

61

Mark

Luke

A c t s 1-12 A c t s l 3 - 2 8 'Peter* s e c t i o n s

202 84 18 2

224 298 30 6

43 58 33 6

62 78 30 21

20 30 14 4

Here t h e 'Peter * p o r t i o n s o f A c t s produce no o u t s t a n d ing r e s u l t . T h i s i s i n e x p l i c a b l e i n t h e l i g h t o f Lucan

usage, w h i c h , i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , remains c o n s t a n t i n Luke/Acts ( i ) F o l l o w i n g Mark, Luke uses X 4 | f l . V ratio 1:1%, 153 t i r o e s , 7 1 t i m e s , t V l i t f 94,

( i i ) n o t f o l l o w i n g Mark, he uses 204, r a t i o 1:1%.

T h i s t e s t , t h e r e f o r e , f o r o u r case, y i e l d s a v e r d i c t of 'no r e s u l t ' .

Prom t h i s survey we have g a i n e d s e v e r a l p o i n t e r s t o p o s s i b l e uses o f Mark i n A c t s - and t h e scope o f o u r a n a l y s i s of A c t s w i l l t h u s e x t e n d t o those areas i n w h i c h t h e s t a t i s t i c s most s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e Marcan i n f l u e n c e . are These

t h e 'Peter' s e c t i o n s o f A c t s , t o which we w i l l add c o n t e x t o f these

some o f t h e m a t e r i a l i n t h e immediate paragraphs o f vw/f).

( i n c l u d i n g 1:1-12 where we saw t h e predominance

62

MARK

The s t a t e m e n t o f Papias t h a t Mark was " t h e i n t e r p r e t e r of P e t e r " * i s o f d o u b t f u l h i s t o r i c a l v a l u e as sC t e s t i m o n y ,

a l t h o u g h as a d e f e n s i v e s u p p o s i t i o n i t may n e v e r t h e l e s s be c o r r e c t . We c e r t a i n l y must n o t b u i l d t o o g r e a t r e l i a n c e upon P a p i a s

r

words - b u t t h e e x a m i n a t i o n j u s t

concluded

has p o i n t e d us t o c e r t a i n Marcan f e a t u r e s i n t h e s t o r i e s of P e t e r i n A c t s . Vtfe w i l l n o t use t h i s t o c o n f i r m P a p i a s ' (on which, o f

v i e w , b u t we w i l l m e n t i o n t h e e v i d e n c e

c o u r s e , Papias may have l a i d h i s t h e o r y ) t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h a t Mark and P e t e r were, a t t h e l e a s t , acquaintances.

1 P e t e r 5:13 - i f t h i s e p i s t l e be by P e t e r - m e n t i o n s 2 Mark w i t h P e t e r and more i m p o r t a n t l y i n A c t s 12:12, Luke

h i m s e l f p r e s e n t s u s w i t h p r o o f t h a t P e t e r knew t h e house o f Mary, m o t h e r o f John Mark. I n t h i s passage, a l t h o u g h Mark i s n o t a p p a r e n t l y p r e s e n t i n p e r s o n , P e t e r his "narrates"

s t o r y t o t h e assembled as a p r e l i m i n a r y t o what i s t o a d i s a p p e a r a n c e . I t may be t h a t h e r e i s an

tantamount

ackn owledgoraen t /

1. 2. 3.

E u s e b i u s H.E.

3:39:15. "my

and s u f f i c i e n t l y on i n t i m a t e terms t o be d e s i g n a t e d son". A c t s 12:16.

63

acknowledgement o f P e t e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e w h o l e : he " s i g n s o f f ' w i t h t h e name o f John Mark appended as i m p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i s s e r v i c e s . T h i s may be Luke's way o f i n d i c a t i n g one o f h i s s o u r c e s f o r p a r t s o f Luke and A c t s 1-12.

I t c o u l d however be o b j e c t e d t h a t t h i s Mark i s n o t t o be equated w i t h t h e Mark who i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y held

t o be a u t h o r o f t h e Second Gospel. The John Mark o f A c t s d w e l l s i n J e r u s a l e m ( t h o u g h he need n o t have been b o r n t h e r e ) w h i l s t t h e Gospel o f Mark, i t i s alleged,^

shows i g n o r a n c e b o t h o f t h e geography and customs o f P a l e s t i n e . The f o c u s upon G a l i l e e i s a l s o surprising.

But a l t h o u g h t h e name Mark was common enough, t h e e q u a t i o n : Mark o f A c t s 12-15 = t h e w r i t e r o f t h e Second Gospel can be assumed i n t h e absence o f e v i d e n c e as t o any o t h e r p r o m i n e n t "Mark" i n t h e E a r l y Church.

Much has been expended upon u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e p u r pose o f Mark's Gospel, such v i e w s however a r e based on t h e available/

4. by e.g. K. Niederwimmer ZNW 58 (.1967) pp. 172-188. The v i e w i s c r i t i c i s e d by T.A. B u r k i l l ZNW 57 (1966) pp. 2 4 f . , 28 and Nov T 9 (1967) po. l b b f . .

64.

a v a i l a b l e data* Our t a s k w i l l be to take h o l d o f those v e r s e s i n Mark i n which might be found a hint: o f anyt h i n g t o come i n A c t s . We w i l l n o t say o f any g i v e n verse.: t h a t i t r e q u i r e s a v e r s e i n A c t s i n order to make sense o f i t , b u t we w i l l p o i n t to c e r t a i n v e r s e s which f o r e t e l l o r a n t i c i p a t e ; ! s p e c i f i c events i n A c t a * Some o f these A c t s * f u l f i l l m e n t s * w i l l be due to chance, o t h e r s more probably accounted f o r , w i t h the e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t Luke i s u n c o n s c i o u s l y echoing a phrase i n Mark y e t the, cumulative number o f such v e r s e s w i l l suggest the a d d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y s namely that- Mark i s w r i t i n g * as every w r i t e r must do, w i t h one eye on t h e f u t u r e denouement* which* we suggest* i n v o l v e d postResurrection s t o r i e s showing how the power o f t h e R i s e n l o r d changed the incomprehension o f the twelve i n t o a b o l d w i t n e s s

to a new way o f l i f e *

She f o l l o w i n g passages i n Mark a r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s respect:

Mi
(Mk. 1:1)

_Lnfre> w oo t h i s opening phrase can be i n t e r p r e t e d

v a r i o u s l y * We could s a y t h a t i f the Gospel i s to begin w i t h the p r e a c h i n g o f t h e B a p t i s t , then i t i s going/ also

cp. the opening, o f A c t s C l : l f . ) i n D

65.

g o i n g t o c o n t i n u e i n o t h e r hands: i . e . i n t h e a p o s t o l i c w i t n e s s . Hence "implies a continuation of the 6 and so we which

G-ospel i n a n o t h e r and c o n c l u d i n g w r i t i n g "

may compare t h e use o f t h i s noun i n Heb. 2:3

Wikgren t h i n k s p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t t h a t i n Mk. 1:1 "Mark has i n mind ( t h e g o s p e l ' s ) subsequent m a n i f e s t a t i o n i n

t h e C h r i s t i a n m i s s i o n , as d i d Luke i n i n t r o d u c i n g h i s 7 Gospel as a p r o t o s l o g o s " . Thus c o u l d n o t Mark a l s o have w r i t t e n a two-volume work? For a l t h o u g h i t i s w i d e l y assumed, Luke makes no c l a i m t o be i n n o v a t i n g i n h i s f o r m u l a o f a Gospel p l u s an A c t s . M i g h t he have borrowed t h e i d e a f r o m Mark? W h i l s t t h i ^ s i s w a n t i n g i n demonstration, grandiose i t must be a d m i t t e d t h a t Luke's p r e f a c e ,

though i t be, does n o t r e f e r t o a subsequent t o k e n . The "many" o f Luke 1:1 have

volume by any o b v i o u s

a l r e a d y t a k e n i n hand t h e t a s k t h a t Luke h i m s e l f has i n m i n d ! One o f t h e s e "many" known t o Luke a t some stage how

d u r i n g t h e c o m p o s i t i o n was Mark, so, we ask a g a i n , far/

6.

C.A.

B r i g g s : New L i g h t on t h e L i f e o f Jesus (1904) p. 112.

7. A. Wikgren JBL 71 (1942) p. 16. The c o n n e c t i o n was made e a r l i e r by E r b t op. c i t . p. 25 n . 1 . cp. a l s o Ac. 10:37.

66.

f a r d i d Mark e x t e n d h i s m a t e r i a l ? I f t h e Eucan Prologue i s t a k e n t o t a c i t l y assume a second work, t h e n t h e same assumption must n o t he d i s m i s s e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e openo f Mark. The i r o n y o f o u r p r e s e n t day s i t u a t i o n

i n g sentence

i s t h a t even though Mark b e g i n s w i t h a d e c i s i v e " b e g i n n i n g " , h i s conclusion i s a matter o f considerable ambiguity.

2. Mark 1:1-20.

P a r a l l e l s between Luke and A c t s a r e o f t e n used t o q s t r e n g t h e n t h e bond o f common a u t h o r s h i p . Y e t t h e r e i s a more immediate s i m i l a r i t y n o t i c e a b l e between t h e o p e n i n g scenes o f Mark and A c t s , t h a n o f Luke and Acjfels.^" I f i t i s a d m i t t e d t h a t Luke r e a r r a n g e d some o f t h e s t o r i e s i n the e a r l i e r p a r t o f Acts i n order t o give t h e o l o g i c a l emphasis t o P e n t e c o s t and A s c e n s i o n - then
0

i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s p a r a l l e l i s m wa3 once even more/

8.

E. Von D o b s c h i t z : Das Kerygma P e t r i ( L e i p z i g 1893) p. 73 a l s o p o s i t s a d e u t e r o s l o g o s t o t h e Marcan Gospel. He b e l i e v e s t h e K e r y g i n a - P e t r i was w r i t t e n as t h i s second volume. On t h e scope o f t h e Lucan p r o l o g u e (Luke 1 : 1 - 4 ) : A.J.B. H i g g i n s i n A p o s t o l i c H i s t o r y and t h e Gospel (1970) pp. 78-83. e.g. by Hackham op. c i t . p. x l v i i .

9.

10. D e s p i t e t h e c l a i m o f A. .Ehrhardt ( A c t s (1970) p. 1 2 f . ) t h a t t h e r e i s a " c l e a r p a r a l l e l i s m " on t h i s p o i n t b e t ween L u k e / A c t s . Compare h i s i m p r o b a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s w i t h those below.

67

more o b v i o u s : ( a ) B e g i n n i n g - Mk. 1:1, Ac. 1 : 1 . see above.

( b ) P r e a c h i n g - Mk. 1 : ( 4 ) , 1 5 :

Ac. 1:2B:

( c ) Baptism - Mk. 1:8, Ac. 1:5 ( c p . 1 1 : 1 6 ) . I t may be n o t e d t h a t A c t s , l i k e Mark ( a n d a g a i n s t Luke 3:16), the omits

r e f e r e n c e t o f i r e , d e s p i t e t h e imminent P e n t e c o s t . Here

however we a r e concerned w i t h t h e p a r a l l e l i s m o f e v e n t : as Jesus now g i v e s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o h i s d i s c i p l e s f o r 40 days he so once^had spent 40 days p r e p a r i n g f o r h i s m i n i s t r y (Mk. 1:13 cp. Lk. 4 : 2 ) . The B a p t i s t had f o r e c a s t (Mk. 1:8) t h e one who would b a p t i s e w i t h t h e S p i r i t - now, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h i s second volume, we a r e reminded he i s about t o come.

Thus we may say t h a t t h e openings o f b o t h Mark and A c t s are g u i d e d by a t h e o l o g i c a l s t a n d p o i n t : t h e y p r e p a r e the reader/

11.

For t h i s as a genuine p a r t o f t h e o r i g i n a l v . pp. 1 1 5 f . .

text o f Acts,
G < 5 7

12. Th m p t i f j.s a c c e n t u a t e d i n t h e Western T e x t : Ac. 1:5D c o p add w$ ir^T0Kr&Br$ a l s o see Ac. 1:8a. I f we a l l o w the p o s s i b i l i t y o f <rAvcOs^/^.yos as meaning ' e a t i n g t o g e t h e r w i t h ' - t h e m i n o r m o t i f o f e a t i n g a l s o l i n k s Ac. 1:4 w i t h Mk. 1:6 ( N o t Luke's p a r a l l e l ) .

63

reader f o r the r e v e l a t i o n o f the d i v i n e w i l l - f o r i n Mark, John p r e d i c t s t h e Messiah i s t o come. Then t h e S p i r i t descends on Jesus w h i l s t i n A c t s Jesus p r o p h e s i e s , b e f o r e h i s a s c e n s i o n , t h e d e s c e n t o f t h e S p i r i t upon h i s f o l l o w e r s . T h i s complex t h e o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n r e s u l t s i n "an extreme b r e v i t y and c o m p r e s s i o n a l m o s t 13 at times t o the p o i n t o f u n i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . " That

was w r i t t e n o f Mark's o p e n i n g words - b u t i s i t n o t equally t r u e o f t h e f i r s t sentence o f A c t s ( A c . 1:1-5)?

( d ) The Gosiing Kingdom - Mk. 1:15, Ac. 1:6-8. Next i n Mark, Jesus announces t h e Kingdom i s a b o u t t o come. I n A c t s , Jesus g i v e s h i s d i s c i p l e s i n s t r u c t i o n s , r e v e a l i n g t h e t r u e n a t u r e o f t h a t Kingdom. ( e ) Choosing "af a F o l l o w e r - Mk. l : 1 6 f f . , Ac. l : 1 5 f f . . We w i l l n o t o v e r s t r e s s these p a r a l l e l s o f e v e n t : for i n a sense t h e y f o r m p a r t o f t h e p r i m i t i v e t r a d i t i o n ,

John's Gospel s h a r i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e same g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s . Luke's Gospel, w h i l s t b o r r o w i n g many o f the above m o t i f s f r o m Mark, does n o t make t h e e x p l i c i t comparison on t h e p o i n t s n o t e d above - f o r t h e m a t e r i a l n e i t h e r comes a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e Gospel ( t h o u g h P r o t o - L u k e commences, i t i s a l l e g e d , a t Lk. 3:1 and so would/

13.

C P . Evans: The B e g i n n i n g o f the Gospel ( 1 9 6 8 ) p. 12.

69.

would remedy t h i s s i t u a t i o n ) n o r i s i t r e c o r d e d i n t h e same o r d e r o r w i t h t h e same d e t a i l s as t h a t i n Mark. Although t h e f i n a l form o f t h e Prologue (Ac. l s l - 5 )

1 4

comes f r o m t h e e d i t o r , t h e r e f o r e , t h e o b s c u r i t i e s c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n may be caused by t h e use o f a s o u r c e . Such a source would have s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h .Mark's Gospel. if I f t h e r e was a Second Volume o f Mark, o r even

t h a t Gospel s i m p l y c o n t i n u e d w i t h a s t o r y o r s t o r i e s

a f t e r Mk. 16a8, t h e m a t e r i a l i n A c t s 1 i s t h e most p r o b a b l e p o i n t where evidence o f Luke u s i n g t h i s Marcan m a t t e r c o u l d be f o u n d .

3. Mark 2:1-16.

There a r e some v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s - w h i c h seem t o be c o i n c i d e n t a l between t h i s s e c t i o n and t h e s t o r y o f P e t e r ' s v i s i o n (Ac. 10:9-16).

Mark

Acts

Luke

2:3fl'O-riptr*Jpu>\f 4

10 4tTi -f 16 iew.
12 o O y^ncft.

2,8,12 ( c p . 2:3Qff4v p w.\ )

10:11 ( 1 1 : 5 ) * 10:11 (c. I l :6)vwCtou<y6v : 6 ) w 6 r t ^ v 5:19 10:11 i n , r i Y1S 10:11 ( 1 1 : 5 ) 5 = 2? 10:14 4'*t> 5:30 1 A t ! /I - T V 10; 14 ovaurotl 10:16 ije^j 10:9 (614)-TTawrt|jCtVvX

On t h i s d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h e A c t s P r o l o g u e : p . 113

70

These p a r a l l e l s can be e x p l a i n e d as a s u b c o n s c i o u s reminiscence by Luke o f t h e Marcan p a r a g r a p h , ' l o w e r e d ' (Ac. 9:25, a f t e r he Mk. 2:4) 2:4)

has d e s c r i b e d P a u l b e i n g

and t h e p a r a l y t i c on h i s m a t t r e s s b e i n g h e a l e d . But why

(Ac 9:33, Mk.

s h o u l d he remember the Marcan deliberate

r a t h e r t h a n the Lucan d e t a i l s ? I s t h e r e a attempt i n Acts was directed

t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r y i n w h i c h a charge

a g a i n s t Jesus?:

A g a i n s t P e t e r t h e y f o r m u l a t e the f o l l o w i n g : \f*VTl

By p a r a l l e l l i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n s , t h e t r u t h o f

Peter's

v i s i o n and c o r r e c t n e s s o f h i s a c t i o n i s u n d e r l i n e d . Note t h a t Luke i n Luke 3*30 adds t o t h e charge a g a i n s t Jesus tlvvilt t h e r e b y m i s s i n g t h i s comparison. -*
1

4. Mk.

2:20

- "on t h e d a y "

1 6

t h a t the

bridegroom disciples against

i s t a k e n away C c i f r p & j } = Lk. 5:35), the

w i l l f a s t . T h i s Marcan r e f e r e n c e appears, as Luke/

15. 16.

But cp. Ac.

10:41.

Luke g e n e r a l i s e s t h i s r e f e r e n c e , by u s i n g t h e p l u r a l .

II.

Luke, t o be e n v i s a g i n g a s p e c i f i c e v e n t ( <v r^

lR*ivq this

J^/C^gX

though i t i s t o be doubted whetker

c o u l d be Jesus' death as ( i ) i t i s the b r i d e g r o o m , n o t h i s g u e s t s , who i s made t o d e p a r t . I f t h e a l l e g o r y i s . u n a v o i d a b l e , t h e n i t i s n o t an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f C h r i s t ' s d e a t h , s i n c e a t t h e P a s s i o n , i t i s t h e d i s c i p l e s who l e a v e , f l e e i n g from him. ( i i . ) t h e metaphor o f C h r i s t as b r i d e g r o o m i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e i f the 'death' o f t h e b r i d e g r o o m i s i n t e n d e d . Elsewhere t h i s j o y f u l image b e l o n g s , more surely

a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t o t h e p e r i o d o f t h e Church ( c p . Rev. 1 9 : 7 ) .

Hence t h e p e r i o d o f f a s t i n g i n Mk* 2:20 c o u l d cover t h e p e r i o d a f t e r the ' d e p a r t u r e ' o f C h r i s t - perhaps until

the g i f t o f t h e s p i r i t i s r e c e i v e d . When he comes t h e n the d i s c i p l e s are f i l l e d w i t h

18

'new' w i n e . (Ac. 2:13f.,

o f

Mk. 2 : 2 2 > and t h e r e f o r e t h e i l f c y & J

Mfc.

2 s 2

w o u l d r e f e r t o tiae A s c e n s i o n , a p o i n t made e x p l i c i t i n t h e Western Text o f A c t s :

ku

3fr^o9y}

3rro &^9^V

.3iW

(Ac. 1:9D).

Thus Mk. 2:20' may be a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e A s c e n s i o n o f Jesus, a f t e r w h i c h , f o r a p e r i o d C ^ ^ ^ O K l d i s c i p l e s w i l l have t o f a s t . ) the

17. D e s p i t e C r a n f i e l d : Mark (1966) p. H O f , T a y l o r , Mark p. 2 1 1 . 18. Cp. Luke 5:37, h e e d l e s s o f the p a r a l l e l i s m !

72.

5. Mk.

4:17.

When p e r s e c u t i o n i s r i f e a f a l l i n g

away ils

prophesied.

There i s no h i n t o f t h i s i n A c t s , t h o u g h the e d i t o r o f A c t s may have a v o i d e d r e c o r d i n g such f a c t s i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f p r e s e n t i n g an i d e a l i s e d p i c t u r e . B u t compare: \ 3 / /

ITT
1

(Ac. 13:50^ BE)19

However t h e p i c t u r e i n Mark, u n l i k e 2:20, i s v e r y g e n e r a l i s e d , and i s t h u s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e w i d e r s p r e a d e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e E a r l y Church. I t does n o t t h e r e f o r e anticipate a specific situation.

6. Mk. 4:22,28,32 - t h i s s e r i e s o f p i c t u r e s d e p i c t s ^ t h e g r o w t h and s p l e n d o u r o f the Kingdom. I t may be t h a t t h e spread o f the'Gospel t o t h e G e n t i l e s i s here included

i n t h a t broad h o r i z o n - t h e i s s u e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Mk. 7 : l f f . , 13:10;.

19.

a l s o c p . Ac. 8:ID.

73.

7. Nik. 5:38-42.

We have a l r e a d y n o t i c e d i n p a s s i n g

'that the story

o f A c t s 9 d e p i c t s P e t e r as i m i t a t i n g h i s M a s t e r ' s a c t i o n s t h o s e , moreover, p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c o r d e d Mark Acts 9:39 by Mark: Luke 8:52 <tOi,LoV 8: 54 *3<bS Cc 8:55 3vtTt)
7.1

5:39 V^lV* / 5:40 *<Ao6^ iravra-S

5: 41 5:42 u * C * er*s

9:40 l*fMy K <y*

9:41
lofy &

kW-^ / _

/ 2 i v i r i n 9:41*v

D i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n away i s t h e d e t a i l o f 'sending, out' - thus although the other p a r a l l e l s belong t o the m i r a c l e s t o r y f o r m a t , t h i s echo o f Mark i n A c t s i s u s u a l l y a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e u n l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n that

Luke o m i t t e d t h e words i n h i s Gospel, because he w i s h e d 22 t o i n c l u d e them i n A c t s . Besides i t being psychologically

most i m p r o b a b l e t h a t Luke w o u l d so have reasoned - i t : would a l s o i m p l y t h a t Luke was e x c e p t i o n a l l y s h o r t o f m a t e r i a l f o r A c t s i f he had t o keep i n r e s e r v e some o f

h i s ffiospel m a t e r i a l ! The phrase i n A c t s i m p l i e s a t l e a s t a r e m i n i s c e n c e o f t h e Marcan s t o r y (Mk. 5 : 2 1 f f . ) by Luke/

20'. p. 7 n . 20', see a l s o p. 10). 2 1 . i n Ac. 9:40: E; adds TTel^X

22. BC4 p. 8 and Bruce op. c i t . p. 213.

74

Luke although i f he were merely borrowing m o t i f s from t h a t episode, t h e new m o t i f s o f 'opening the eyes* and 'kneeling* to pray would s u r e l y n o t have been i n t r o d u c e d * E i e s e m o t i f s argue t h a t Luke had to hand a w r i t t e n account about the T a b i t h a episode, Cone which perhaps a l r e a d y

matched the a c t i o n s o f P e t e r w i t h J e s u s ) = > belonging to a possible c o l l e c t i o n of "Stories of Peter", by Marko compiled

80 Mk* 6:2-6 - the s t o r y o f J e s u s * r e j e c t i o n by h i s k i n s f o l k h a s v e r b a l echoes i n the account o f P a u l ' s " r e j e c t i o n " ( A c . 9:2022)<> Luke h a s none o f these parallels s

Mark

Acts

.\v

Wis ewdyviysGs

o"^y x

*****

ik.^ 0 m v i% (<rv*m> H

7.

Ihe i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h e r name i n 9s36 suggests Luke has been o b l i g e d to u s e h e r Aramaic name, because t h i s was found i n the body o f the s t o r y (9:40) - although he h i m s e l f normally avoids such Aramaisms ( v . 1 1 ) . amis a g a i n p o i n t s to a w r i t t e n s o u r c e .

75

V JTOO

u5$C. .... K^U

Form c r i t i c a l l y these s t o r i e s are b o t h shaped i n the same mould:

Mark 6

Acts 9

J i ) : i n t h e synagogue C i i >teaching (.iii'^$Biazeiaent: of. a l l who h e a r (iv)their doubt

i n t h e synagogue preaching amazement o f a l l who hear t h e i r doubt d i s c i p l e s who s h o u l d have b e l i e v e d do n o t accept h i m .

( v ) p e o p l e who s h o u l d have b e l i e v e d do n o t a c c e p t him.

Here we a r e f a c e d w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s : e i t h e r Luke i s n o t d r a w i n g a p a r a l l e l w i t h a s t o r y f r o m Mark ( b u t why s h o u l d he do t h i s when h i s own s t o r y o f J e s u s

r

r e j e c t i o n a t N a z a r e t h i s even more d e t a i l e d t h a n Mark's?) o r he has used a source i n A c t s 9:20-22 w h i c h knew a s t o r y i n s i m i l a r words t o t h a t i n Mark 6. Y e t i t c o u l d be t h a t t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e i n c i d e n t s has l e d t o these p a r a l l e l s - b u t a r e n o t t h e v e r b a l p a i n t s o f cont a c t too strong?

9. Mark 6:9

VWtf

6fft&o"J**V$ ^
/

cr*wS*\it ToL rw

which <rou.

i s r e p e a t e d t o P e t e r ^oV)

6floS'j<ri

I s t h i s v e r b a l echo a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f a m o t i f i n Mark which/

76

whioh

was

o m i t t e d "by Luke i n h i s Gospel, o n l y t o

be i n c l u d e d h e r e ? T h i s argument cannot be s u s t a i n e d , f o r t h e r e i s no r e a s o n i n t h e c o n t e x t o f Ac. 12:8 why this. Now the

command s h o u l d be i n s e r t e d t o an e s c a p i n g p r i s o n e r . if such a s o u r c e as Mark used t h e words a t Ac. 12:8,

r e a d e r w o u l d have been r e c a l l e d t o Mark's e a r l i e r use o f t h e command and u n d e r s t a n d t h e purpose o f t h e a n g e l i c i n t e r v e n t i o n . A l l Jesus r e q u i r e s o f a f o l l o w e r , b e f o r e he goes on a M i s s i o n i s f o r him t o have h i s f o o t g e a r onj. The a n g e l i s t e l l i n g P e t e r t h a t he i s . t o p r e p a r e f o r 25 another m i s s i o n .

10. Mk. 6:55f.. A g a i n , as w i t h t h e s t o r y o f T a b i t h a , t h e r e i s a p a r a l l e l i s m between P e t e r ' s h e a l i n g and h e a l i n g a c t i v i t y : the s i m i l a r i t y between Ac. 5:15f. t h e p r e s e n t Marcan v e r s e s has o f t e n been n o t e d , b u t r a r e l y w i t h comment adequate t o e x p l a i n t h e r a p p o r t . Thus p o i n t t o "Mk. 6:56.. Jesus and
r

Lake and Cadbury, d i s c u s s i n g Ac. 5:15, ..which may

be t h e source o f t h i s v e r s e .

24. cp. Ephn.

6:15. For t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n

25. R e f e r r i n g t o 9:32 - 11:18, f u l l d e t a i l see p. 243.

26. BG 4p 5 4 f , s i m i l a r l y : JV. B a r t l e t : A c t s (1902) p. 176, f t . Hanson: A c t s (1967> p. 84, K h o w l i n g op. c i t . p. 147, Rackham op. c i t . p. 69, C.S..C W i l l i a m s : A c t s (1957) p. 89: "Luke perhaps l a t e r t o a v o i d r e p e a t i n g Mark" (assuming A c t s i s b e f o r e Luke's Gospel) and D.M. M c l n t v r e ET 33 (1922) p. 3 1 1 . ncxnxyre

77

Yet i f t h i s i s merely an amalgam of s t r a t a in. the Gospel summary n a r r a t i v e s i s i t not strange t h a t : 27 ( i ) the p i c t u r e i n Ac. 5:15f. i s not c l e a r e r . ( i i ) the v u l g a r ty<|&*Tr* shunned i n Luke's Gospel i s repeated from Mk. 6*55: y e t i t i s redundant a f t e r a mention of KW^V . ( i i i ) new f e a t u r e s even amounting to the s u p e r s t i t i o n surrounding P e t e r ' s shadow are i n t r o d u c e d .

The o t h e r s i m i l a r h e a l i n g summaries i n A c t s , do not c o n t a i n such d i f f i c u l t i e s (Ac. 8:7, 19:12f.>.

There i s a d e f i n i t e inter-dependence

of these pas-

sages, and i t could be argued t h a t 'reminiscence' i s a s u f f i c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the p a r a l l e l s w i t h Mk. Yet note the * ^ * f * n $ to which Luke i s so averse and construction VUU^-KJ'V 6:55f. the

which suggest t h a t Luke had or

the page of Mark's Gospel open i n f r o n t of him, some s i m i l a r w r i t t e n source.

27. on t h i s see p.

191.

78.

11. Mk. 7:1-31. P e t e r ' s v i s i o n (Ac. 10:9-16) " i s p a r a l l e l to the Marcan scene where Jesus 28 a l l d i s t i n c t i o n s of meats." abolishes

Luke h a s omitted the

Marean episode, perhaps because the s t o r y i n A c t s does not know o f any pronouncement o f Jesus on the
pq

s u b j e c t of t a b l e f e l l o w s h i p w i t h G e n t i l e s . Jesus
1

But

a c t i o n s towards the o u t c a s t were too w e l l

known to have been f o r g o t t e n - and i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t the d i s c i p l e s had simply f a i l e d to understand J e s u s ' d i s c o u r s e at the time (So Mk. 7:18, d e s p i t e 7:14), so t h a t the l e s s o n h a s to be r e i t e r a t e d to P e t e r . Mark's Gospel c o n s t a n t l y shows the twelve as having a s i n g u l a r l a c k of understanding about. Jesus' source

m i s s i o n - so t h a t we would expect a Marcan

when r e t u r n i n g l a t e r to the same s u b j e c t , to s t r e s s the Lord's way i n the matter - The restatement divine/ of the

28. B.W. Bacon J B L 26 (1907) p. 148. 29. Bacon a r t . c i t . p. 150 argues t h a t Acts i s the s u b s t i t u t e f o r Mk. 7/8. 30. See p. 58, S e c t i o n 20;.

79

divine w i l l

reminds the r e a d e r t h a t J e s u s had h i m s e l f s h a l l see - i n s t i t u t e d a

a u t h o r i s e d and - as we

f e l l o w s h i p w i t h the entiles. Once more, P e t e r f o l l o w s h i s Master*s f o o t s t e p s . Luke, s i n c e he has not i n c l u d e d Mk. 7 i n h i s Gospel, i s o b l i g e d to

append an elaborate a p o l o g e t i c to P e t e r ' s v i s i o n , i n order to emphasise the w o r t h i n e s s of C o r n e l i u s . Mk. 7 may anticipate this c r i s i s i n Peter's ministry -

both passages convey the same l e s s o n : i n Mk* 7:19 the i n f e r e n c e i s drawn by the e d i t o r ^ " K**p^*JV tfeiV1&. T-L^aw^ify. w h i l s t i n Ac. 10:15 repeated: 0 (11:19) the l e s s o n
V\>

is

IIVU&^IC-IV

Ko(veo.

I t might seem a r b i t r a r y to say t h a t Acts 10 merely to r e s t a t e s Mk. 7 - why should any w r i t e r wish convinced one

r e p e a t h i m s e l f ? Y e t , even i f we are not

t h a t the i s s u e of G e n t i l e f e l l o w s h i p was for

a vital

the e d i t o r of A c t s or h i s source, the i n t e r n a l

evidence of Acts f u r n i s h e s proof enough of the extreme a p o l o g e t i c of the e d i t o r as r e g a r d s the problem. C o r n e l i u s

1

v i s i o n i s t o l d t h r i c e (Ac. 10:3-6, and P e t e r s v i s i o n i s

1

22,30.-32) and again ( l l : 1 3 f . ) , repeated/

31. or perhaps even P e t e r h i m s e l f - see P.W. E S e r i e s , 1, 3 (1376) pp. 315f.*

Parrar

80

repeated i n A c t s 11. I f the e d i t o r could indulge i n r e p e t i t i o n , so could h i s source2 L e t us now

such

r e t u r n t

examine the p a r a l l e l i s m we have supposed to e x i s t "between 32 J e s u s and P e t e r i n these stories. 7:24-31

( i ) D i s c u s s i o n l e a d s to the m i r a c l e - i n Mk.

a Gentile'3; r e q u e s t i s answered - i n A c t s 10i G e n t i l e s : r e c e i v e the Spirito

( i i ) J e s u s i s a t f i r s t r e l u c t a n t to perform the m i r a c l e (so Mk. 7:27)> as i s P e t e r (Ac. 1 0 t l 4 > .

5 5

( i i i ) P e t e r e v e n t u a l l y r e p u d i a t e s the o l d laws (Ac 10:28) as J e s u s to, has d e c l a r e d a l l meats c l e a n . (Me. 7:19)

C i v ) P e t e r c o n t i n u e s by p r o c l a i m i n g J e s u s as Lord of a l l (Ac. 10:36) - compare h i s c o n f e s s i o n soon a f t e r the i n c i d e n t s of Mk. 7 i n Mk. 8:29.

I s t h i s p a r a l l e l i s m of word and a c t i o n f o r t u i t o u s ? Might i t . not point- to a Marcan source being used f o r parts; of A c t a 10? 9:2 - ifeu ^ v * ^ s i <fo^f ^

12. Mk.

VfoS

...this New

3ame verb i s used of the Ascension only i n the

4:

Testament a t Luke ( 2 4 : 5 1 ) ' . I t i s . o f t e n dangerous to see/

32. For the p o i n t s below: see B u r k i l l ZNW a r t . c i t . p.

29.

33. A c t s shares the same approach to the G e n t i l e m i s s i o n as. Mark ( s e e p. 8 S e c t i o n 7 ) . 34. om, X * f c ,

81.

see too much, typology, but i f . Luke does h i m s e l f

55;

a n t i c i p a t e Jesus* Ascension

i n the

Transfiguration,

then could n o t Mark have done s i m i l a r l y ? I f Mark did c o n t a i n an Ascension n a r r a t i v e , t h i s p a r a l l e l i n d i c a t e s i t . may have taken p l a c e upon a mountain,

although t h i s i s not c l e a r i n the A c t s account until 1:12. 9:28f. Even though the a p o s t l e s have cured 6:13), they now r a i s e the question as to why

13. Mk. many (Mk.

the e p i l e p t i c boy proved beyond t h e i r h e a l i n g a b i l i t y * J e s u s p o i n t s them back to the n e c e s s i t y of prayer requirement Luke oddly omits) and so, i n A c t s we (a find

P e t e r engaged i n p r a y e r , preparatory

to some m i r a c l e s prayer

being e f f e c t e d (Ac. 3:1,10:9). As a devout Jew, was

a requirement, but i n the context of the m i r a c l e 'learned his;

s t o r y , i t i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t P e t e r has lesson'.

.14. Mk.

10:17,23. T h i s whole s e c t i o n i n Mark i s v e r y be in

g e n e r a l i s e d - and no s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e should

understood to the Community of Goods as d e s c r i b e d A c t s . But. Mark may Ananias/ have remembered the abuse of

So J.G. Davies: JTS ns 6 (1955) pp.

229ff.

82.

Ananias and Sapphira as he penned J e s u s ' u t t e r a n c e i n Mk. 10:23.

15. I/Ik. 10):39. J e s u s p r o p h e s i e s the martyrdom of James and John. Did Luke omit t h i s r e f e r e n c e because he knew t h a t only James had been executed (Ac, 1 2 : 2 ^ ) ? But i t i s not v e r y probable t h a t t h i s Marcan r e f e r e n c e i s i n s e r t e d because Mark was going to l a t e r d e s c r i b e the event; the r e f e r e n c e i n i t s context, i s almost i n c i d e n t a l to the l e s s o n , which J e s u s draws, of h u m i l i t y .

16. I k . 11:17 - Lk. 19:46 of I s a i a h 56:7

drops the tritriV

i&v-ctrn/

( c p . too h i s omission of Mk.. 12:11a),,

d e s p i t e h i s u n i v e r s a l i s t tendency, seen f o r example i n his:.; e x t e n s i o n of I s a i a h 40;:5 i n Luke 3 s 5 . I n the p r e s e n t v e r s e , Luke's severe a b b r e v i a t i o n of the p a r a l l e l Marcan passage may e x p l a i n the d e l e t i o n , but

here, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i s evidence of Mark's view of the C h r i s t i a n m i s s i o n . The temple i s the p l a c e where the S p i r i t descends a t Pentecost ( A c 2:1) s a t t h a t time f o r e i g n e r s do p a r t i c i p a t e i n the miraculous events - but this/

36.

On the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the A c t s account o r i g i n a l l y d e s c r i b e d the death of both, see p. 240. See now:: 0 ; . C u l l a a n n RScR 60, 1972, pp. 5 5 f f . . S. Legasse NTS 20; (1974) p. 177 s t a t e s Mark has not been i n f l u e n c e d by h i s knowledge of James* martyrdom.

83

t h i s motif ( A c

2:5ff.> i s the work of the e d i t o r ^ '

and i t i s probable t h a t the source of t h i s chapter saw the p l a c e a s a p r i v a t e house,

17. Mk. 12:33 - the f i n a l words ( o n l y i n Mark) c o n t a i n a s t r o n g a n t i - J e w i s h polemic t h a t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s e n t i r e c h a p t e r . I n the same v e i n Mk. 12:9 d e p i c t s the r e j e c t i o n of I s r a e l (and so L u k e ) , Mk. 12:27 c o n t a i n s an indictment of the Sadducees, and Mk. 12:40 of the s c r i b e s . ^ Mk. 12:33

i s e s s e n t i a l l y anti-temple, a s i s the a t t i t u d e of Stephen i n A c t s 7. Also we may add t h a t i f J e s u s condemned the Jewish a u t h o r i t i e s f o r t h e i r l a c k of p i e t y , then, c o n v e r s e l y , t h i s a t t i t u d e would surelyl e a d him to i n c l u d e the G e n t i l e s i n h i s outreach.

18. Mk. 13:6 could be a r e f e r e n c e to the s t o r y o f Simon Magus - though i t i s too g e n e r a l i s e d to p r e s s such an i n f e r e n c e .

19. Mk. 13:10. (We cannot e n t e r i n t o a lengthy d i s c u s s i o n over the punctuation h e r e ) . The evidence of other Marcan passages i n d i c a t e s t h a t J e s u s , or a t least/

37. on t h i s v. p. 155. 38. see below paragraph 20 and pp. 132f..

39. cp. too Mk. 10:5 of the P h a r i s e e s .

S4

l e a s t we may say the. e d i t o r , was prepared

to make J e s u s

c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a G e n t i l e outreach* ( s e e 7:27 and l l s l T and paragraph 17 above)e I f t h i s I s s o *

then d i d Mark i n t e n d showing the f u l f i l l m e n t o f these words?

4 0

Probably n o t t h e i r l i t e r a l

accomplishment, b u t K.*)' adverbially i n

we may compare the s i m i l a r use o f these two s e n t e n c e s s KU <3oi Ti5

Kou

RaV-rW
-TOTi

To*

-c9v<j

(Mk 13:10) (Ac*

?8(n^

lias).

!Ehis- l a t t e r comes a t the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e s t o r y o f the d e s c e n t o f the S p i r i t and baptism o f t h e f i r s t G e n t i l e s - an appropriate c o n c l u s i o n , perhaps, f o r a Marcan source

20. Mk. 13:11. The modest s c a l e o f t h e bestowal o f the S p i r i t i n Ac. 4:31 " i s n o t i c e a b l y n e a r e r to t h e p o i n t o f view r e p r e s e n t e d by Mk. 1 3 : l l .
, r 4 1

2Siis

Marcan c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s many d e t a i l s , some o f which are f u l f i l l e d i n the P a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e , and some o t h e r s i n A c t s . I n Mk. 13:9 J e a u s p r e d i c t s they w i l l stand

before K i n g s ( a s do James and P e t e r i n Acta 1 2 ) and Mk. 13:11 a l s o p r o v i d e s apt encouragement to P e t e r and John a s they f a c e the Sanhedrin.

21. Mk. 13:15a h a s some f u r t h e r c u r i o u s v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s w i t h t h e v i s i o n o f P e t e r (compare paragraph 3 above): fap^ word/

3

x^Tot^oiTvo

and o % ^ U

which i s the

40* so E r b t (see p . 4 ) . 41. Cadbury i n BO 2 p. 145 n . 1.

83.

ward used o f the house o f P e t e r ' s l o d g i n g * d e t a i l s axe s u r e l y c o i n c i d e n t a l .

!Ehese

22. Mk. 13:22 i s omitted i n Luke, only to appear a t Ac. 1 : 7 . ^ The p a r a l l e l i s m i s one o f i d e a , n o t language; i n i t s context is A c t s , the l o g i o n i s

made*reply to the d i s c i p l e s ' narrow-minded n a t i o n a l i s m , which l e a d s to the premise o f Ac. 1:8. I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e to decide whether 1:7 has been i n s e r t e d by Luke, borrowing was from Mk. 13:32 o r whether the polemic

a l r e a d y interwoven i n a source We have suggested

the former a l t e r n a t i v e l a c k s p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y and thus the whole episode, which Luke t u r n s to announce the scope o f the volume, i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the' continued p e r v e r s i t y o f the d i s c i p l e s . I t i s hard to imagine t h a t Luke would d e l i b e r a t e l y h e i g h t e n t h i s m o t i f f o r he a v o i d s t^he h a r s h n e s s o f Mark's Gospel frequently i n t h i s respect.^

23. Mk. 14:27f. - J e s u s p r e d i c t s the s c a t t e r i n g oA h i s f o l l o w e r s - the words a r e r e p e a t e d i n 16J7.^** I f we knew where e x a c t l y the d i s c i p l e s were when t h i s statement was repeated, the problem a s to the meaning o f these/

42. 43. 44 45

On t h i s see p. 296 n. 380). See pp. 6 f . . I s t h i s why he omits the ce n t r a l s e c t i o n o f Mark's Gospel?
1

C.F. Evans J T S ns5 (1954) p. 13 b e l i e v e s J e s u s i s p r e d i c t i n g the G e n t i l e outreach.

86.

these words n i g h t he c l e a r e r * John's p r e d i c t i o n on the matter ( J n . 16:32) r e f e r s to a d i s p e r s a l * c 5 f* 46 ,

which i m p l i e s they w i l l f l e e to t h e i r hoiaes^ i n G a l i l e e , though t h e s e words are ambiguous, and complicated by the appearance o f a t l e a s t one d i s c i p l e ( J n . 19:25f) a t the c r o s s . Bat Mark too may have supposed they had l e f t Jerusalem as a p a r t from the s t o r y of P e t e r ' s d e n i a l , t h e r e i s no mention o f the D i s c i p l e s a f t e r 47 Jesus* a r r e s t . We r e t u r n to the problem below. 24* Mk. 14:57f. - t h i s most c l e a r - c u t . connection between Mark and the Stephen e p i s o d e ( c p . paragraph 17) prompted Rendel H a r r i s to c l a i m : "there i s a l i t e r a r y dependencesi o f the A c t s upon Mark, over and above the g e n e r a l theory of an i m i t a t i o Christi:" .
4 8

Mark 14:57f.

Ae. 6:13f.

ToV Mark 14:60*

ffW lot

TWTOV

Ac. 6:15 ( c o n

S 6 7

>

46. on the phrase, see p. 205 n. 221.

4 7

* fp !?* * P i s i n g i f Mark had w i t n e s s e d the events of tne P a s s i o n .

s u r

48. J . Rendel H a r r i s ET 39 (1928) p. 456. 49. cp. Mk. 13:2 a l s o f o r t h i s .

87 o

Why

has Luke i n h i s Gospel not drawn out these f e a t u r e s ?

The f a c t t h a t C h r i s t could not be condemned on such charges would s u r e l y have been of i n t e r e s t to Luke. A l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e : ( i > Luke was f o l l o w i n g h i s own P a s s i o n s t o r y .

( i i > Luke did not know Mark's s$ory (not e x c l u d i n g the p o i n t above)5 ( i i i ) Luke omitted the passage because he knew he wished to use i t i n A c t S o ( i v ) Luke was copying from a source i n A c t s which p a r a l l e l e d the s t o r y of Stephen and Jesuso We have a l r e a d y discounted the i>wo middle t h e o r i e s , and so i t might be thought t h a t ( i v ) i s the mo art plausible,, But on examination of the l i t e r a r y f e a t u r e s of A c t s 6, 7 (see the appendix) t h e r e is. l i t t l e to suggest a Marcan s o u r c e . I t i s not i m p o s s i b l e , of course, t h a t a Marcan source behind A c t s could c o n t a i n ( a s does the Gospel) d i v e r s e t r a d i t i o n s , but the p r o b a b i l i t y i s t h a t e i t h e r Luke was u s i n g an independent t h a t ( i ) above i s c o r r e c t . source i n A c t s s 6 or

i . e . A c t s was w r i t t e n before Luke read Mark ( s e e p. 12 n. 37) - the p o i n t s we have made above however suggest the opposite, and we may add here,, t h a t the eschatology of A c t s (pp.. 15f.> i s m a n i f e s t l y of a l a t e r date than Mark.

88

25- Mko 14:66-72. S t r e e t e r doubts i f " P e t e r ' s d e n i a l would have been so emphasised i n the Gospel (Mark) u n l e s s a s a?: f o i l to a subsequent s t o r y , the p o i n t of 51 which l a y i n c a n c e l l i n g a former weakness o f the a p o s t l e . " T h i s phxtasing a p t l y d i r e c t s u s to John 21 - but how w e l l does A c t s succeed i n v i n d i c a t i n g the f i r s t of the apostles.
1

Indeed, would Mark have p r e s e r v e d such

a n a r r a t i v e without l a t e r making any attempt to m i t i g a t e the a p o s t l e ' s a c t i o n , or with no r e f e r e n c e to h i s l a t e r importance? Thus Matthew (16:18) draws our a t t e n t i o n to t h i s , where i n Mark, P e t e r i s merely CO Mark's Gospel i s the only one

rebuked (Mk. 8:30).

that leaves Peter i n disgraced 26. Mk. 15:34. At P e n t e c o s t , P e t e r e x p l a i n s these h a r s h words: J e s u s was not l e f t f o r s a k e n i n Hades (Ac. 2:27,31)). Perhaps Luke knew t h i s s a y i n g of J e s u s

on t h e c r o s s and so was h e r e e x p l a i n i n g i t . But would the l a s t recorded words of J e s u s a c c o r d i n g to Mark be

t h e s e ? Would Mark not have wished to counterbalance them w i t h such words as Acts 2s31?

Of the above paragraphs I would l i k e to l a y most s t r e s s on : 1, 2, 9, 10 and 25, a s w e l l as t h a t below.

51. BVH. S t r e e t e r s The Pour Gospels (1924) p. 356. Cp. Mk. 16:7 a l s o . 52. Although i t i s broadened i n t o a rebuke to a l l the disciples.

89.

The Ending of M a r k o

None of the f a c t s gathered above can prove t h a t Mark had to continue h i s s t o r y to i n c l u d e some of the m a t e r i a l now found i n Ac. 1-12, but they do prove jlfhat the p o s s i b i l i t y must be c o n s i d e r e d . The form of t h i s c o n t i n u a t i o n would be e i t h e r : 53 ( i ) A second volume, or ( i i > A s e r i e s o f n o t e s - perhaps an une d i t e d account which was l e n t to Luke, or (iii)
1

A c o n t i n u a t i o n of the s t o r y , which ends a b r u p t l y a t Mk. 16:8. see Mk. 16:8

T h i s l a s t view i m p l i e s that those who

as the c o n c l u s i o n o f 1he work are wrong. I t should be noted, however, that i f theory ( i ) i s adopted, i t i s not n e c e s s a r y to show t h a t those who claim that

o|ioG\/T^

Mark's end i n h i s book are wrong,

s i n c e t h e words would, on t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , form only t h e f i n i s h to t h e f i r s t volume. Although I would i n c l i n e towards acceptance of ( i ) , i t i s nevertheless

most h y p o t h e t i c a l , and we cannot avoid l o o k i n g a t the arguments of those who c l a i m t h a t Mark never wrote a n y t h i n g a f t e r 16:8. But mostly we w i l l be concerned w i t h the purpose of the complete s e c t i o n , Mk. 16:1-8.

See pp. 65f..

90.

As e a r l y as Wellhausen, 1903, the h y p o t h e s i s o f a l o s t ending* o f Mark was being brought i n t o q u e s t i o n . RH* L i g h t f o o t ^

4

p r o v i d e s a l i s t o f passages where

y^f

i s used a t the end o f sentence-s and even paragraphs and the theory, as a n o v e l t y , won a c e r t a i n f o l l o w i n g , even though i t meant a d m i t t i n g Mark wrote no R e s u r r e c t i o n s t o r i e s about the R i s e n J e s u s . P a r r e r admired Mark*s r e s u l t a n t p o e t i c symbolism, even though he l a t e r had to modify h i s view to the e x t e n t o f adding a sentence to Mk. 16:8, a l i t t l e l i k e t h a t p r e s e r v e d i n k . ^ T h i s hov/ever i s as good as c o n f e s s i n g t h a t Mark h a s been m u t i l a t e d or i n some way tampered w i t h and P a r r e r * s c o n c l u s i o n i s symptomatic o f the unease t h a t was f e l t with L i g h t f o o t ' s case - f o r u l t i m a t e l y i t had to be agreed a ji^> ^ heat/ t h a t no book could ever end w i t h only

5o, i n 1952, Vincent T a y l o r , w r i t i n g a f t e r the

54. L o c a l i t y and Doctrine i n the Gospels (1938) pp. 1-23 qv.. See t h i s work and T a y l o r , Mark p.. 609 f o r a l i s t of the main a r t i c l e s f o r the Theory. 55. A.. P a r r e r : S t . Matthew and S t . Mark (1954) p. 150 independently, a s i m i l a r view i n C. Moule NTS 2 (1955) PP. 58f 56. cp. W Knox, HTR 35 (1942) pp. 13-23$ the simple s t y l e of Mark h a r d l y admits of such a s o p h i s t i c a t e d technique.

91.

heat o f the debate could s t a t e t h a t "1he view t h a t zcf^Cv-f^ Y 4

i s no

t i i e

i n - t e n d e d

ending

stands.

But l e t u s accept, f o r a moment, L i g h t f o o t ' s theorys do we make b e t t e r sense o f Mk. 1 6 : l - 8 ? On any account 16:8 i s a d i s a p p o i n t i n g a n t i - c l i m a x - even i f i t were
;

designed to e x p l a i n why t h e legend o f the Empty Tomb was not e a r l i e r i n c i r c u l a t i o n . Mk, 16:7 i s a much more e f f e c t i v e c o n c l u s i o n ( i f we r e q u i r e one) to the book - w i t h an announcement which i m p l i c i t l y fulfills

J e s u s ' prophecy, o f 14:28. As i t i s , we r e q u i r e more, for, u n l e s s the s t o r y be complete f i c t i o n , the women

must have t o l d someone a t a l a t e r date, o r the s t o r y would never have been recorded atall.
i

Why end on

a note o f i n a c c u r a c y ? The f a c t i s t h a t Mark h i m s e l f knows t h a t a f t e r the R e s u r r e c t i o n the time f o r s i l e n c e i s w e l l nigh p a s t , as he t e l l s u s i n the important v e r s e Mk. 9:9*..

57. 58.

T a y l o r , Mark p. 609o Unless the 'young man' of Mk. 16:5 i s h i m s e l f the author of the account: J . Mclndoe ET 80 (1969) p. 125 i d e n t i f i e s him with Mark - and a l s o see J . Knox i n The Joy o f Study (1951) p. 28 ( a book I have not s e e n ) and, i n d e t a i l f o r t h i s views HI. Waetjen ASTI 4 (1965) pp. 116f.. But Mark c l e a r l y names the women a s the w i t n e s s e s (Mk. 15:47). I n Luke (24s9, 23) these t e l l the o t h e r s .

92.

However. Lighfcfsot i s c o r r e c t when he s a y s t h a t Marcan usage of <^O^To-$oii does not r e q u i r e M

c l a u s e , or even f o r the cause o f t h i s f e a r to he

59

r e v e a l e d . Mk. 10:32 i s a p a r a l l e l c a s e . ^ But l e t u s examine t h e context o f these u s a g e s s Mk. 11:32, 12:12 r e f e r to f e a r of the crowd, and so may be ignored h e r e . A atory ends w i t h the note o f f e a r a t . M k . 4:41 and 11:18, though i n each case the f o l l o w i n g s t o r y concerns a miraculous e v e n t . Mk. 6:20; r e f e r s to

Herod's f e a r o f John and 5:15 r e f e r s to f e a r a f t e r a m i r a c l e . Mk. 10:32 p i c k s up; 9:32, and here J e s u s (who i s going ahead of the t w e l v e ) teaches them what must happen. S i m i l a r l y i n Mk. 5:33 the woman who i s a f r a i d , has these f e a r s d i s p e l l e d by J e s u s ' a c t i o n s : h e r f a i t h , even though she i s a f r a i d , i s commended. S i m i l a r l y , i n Mk. 5:36 and a t 6:50 - where J e s u s comes to the fearful/

59-See l i g h t f o o t (from B n s l i n ) op. c i t . pp. 1 6 f . - i n the New Testament the exact p a r a l l e l s to 16:8 suggest t h a t the phrase SACAO'JVTO V T y u s u a l l y t a k e s an o b j e c t : So Mk. I l 5 l 8 L k . 19:21, Lk. 22:2 and Ac. 5:26. The I S X usages a r e Gen. 19:30, 20:2, 26:7 and f o l l o w t h i s r u l e . The only e x c e p t i o n (and one which L i g h t f o o t s t r e s s e s , pp. 1 2 f . , 1 7 f . ; i s Gen. 18:15.
f

93

fearful disciples.

6 0 1

Human f e a r means t h a t - i n some Is this

cases i n Mark - Jesus must take t h e i n i t i a t i v e . so i n 1 6 : 8 ? L e t u s p o i n t to a p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n o f t h e g l o r y o f the T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n s c e n e . H e r e , t h e r e i s t h e clumsy r e p e t i t i o n o f ^y> and where X*P ^
m a y 1 3 8 a

too, -I'K^O^OI

a r e n

n e

' ^

c a

^ e x p l a n a t i o n , which-

l i k e 1 6 : 8 , i s one o f t h o s e t y p i c a l Marcan a f t e r t h o u g h t s . The T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n s t o r y t h e n c o n t i n u e s w i t h the

overshadowing o f t h e Cloud - w i t h w h i c h we compare the events i n Acts a t t h e Ascension.

The f a c t s t h u s suggest t h a t Mark c o u l d have ended w i t h i ^ ^ o u ^ o yo^ h u t he need n o t have

done s o . The evidence c a n n o t p r o v e t h a t Mark n e v e r w r o t e m o r e . I t must r e s t , and t h i s is; i t s v i r t u e , ,

on t h e e x i s t i n g f a c t s . But l e t u s examine t h o s e ' e x i s t i n g f a c t s ' , , t h e s e c t i o n 1 6 : 1 - 8 ^ to see i f it i s arteall l i k e l y - t h o u g h we may a l r e a d y n o t e

t h a t t h e e a r l y s c r i b e s soon f o u n d t h a t more needed to be added, and v a r i o u s e n d i n g s were appended. We as a p a s s i n g c o n j e c t u r e , w h e t h e r the

must c o n s i d e r ,

v e r s e s 9-20 c o u l d p o s s i b l y have r e p l a c e d some l o s t m a t e r i a l . T h i s seems u n l i k e l y , f o r , even i f i t was designed/

60;. A l s o Mk. 1 6 : 6 D : A o / f o ? ( r f h c i s f o l l o w e d by the news o f Jesus R e s u r r e c t i o n . 6 1 . Mk. 9 : 6 .

94.

designed t o h e a l

t h a t g a p i n g wound*,

the

anonymous c o m p o s e r ^ makes no g r a m m a t i c a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h 16.:8 and t h o u g h t l e s s l y w r i t e s i n i g n o r a n c e o f the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h . total 64

62.She p h r a s e i n S t r e e t e r ' s (op> c i t . p 336) w i t h r e g a r d t o the S h o r t e r C o n c l u s i o n . 6 3 . The a s c r i p t i o n t o A r i s t i o n i s u n h e l p f u l . 6 4 . The t h e s i s o f E . Linnemann (ZTK 6 6 , 1969 pp> 2 5 5 f f . ) i n g e n i o u s l y a v o i d s t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s by s u g g e s t i n g w . 15-20) are Marcan and t h a t a t r a d i t i o n such as Matthew u s e s i n Mt;. 2 8 : 1 6 f . r e c o r d i n g an appearance t o P e t e r was r e p l a c e d by the p r e s e n t summary i n w . 9 - 1 4 . T h i s a l s o r e s o l v e s M a t t h e w ' s t r e a t m e n t o f Mark b u t the v o c a b u l a r y i s p l a c e d under c o n s i d e r a b l e s t r a i n j > rrvrfi-oQ-iVT^ " ( 1 6 : 1 5 ) , f o u n d i n t h e Matthew p a r a l l e l . I s d e f i n i t e l y a p t Marcan (see p . 56 s e c t i o n 9 > , a l t h o u g h the ouv i n M a t t . . 2 8 s l 9 Us d r o p p e d - a word w h i c h Mark a l s o r a r e l y uses ( p . 56 s e c t i o n 8 > . Note t o o t h e Lucan f a v o u r i t e n.iv ffiv i n Mk. 16:19?; i f Mk. 1 6 : 1 5 - 2 0 were w r i t t e n by M a r k , t h e r e w o u l d be numerous a n t i c i p a t i o n s o f t h e s t o r i e s i n A c t a (see b e l o w ) . But the p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e t e x t s makes t h e t h e o r y d u b i o u s ( K . A l a n d ZTK 6 7 , 1970 p p . 1 - 1 3 ) . P a r r e r (see n o t e 55) p r o v i d e s a l s o a c o n c l u s i o n s i m i l a r t o 16:15 - and a t e x t u a l p o i n t i n f a v o u r o f t h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n (though here, i r o n i c a l l y , i t p r o b a b l y i s a case o f a m u t i l a t e d m a n u s c r i p t ) i s t h a t D end's a t 1 6 J 1 5 . G.W. Trompf (NTS 1 8 , 1972 p . 328) argues t h a t a second e d i t i o n t o t a l l y r e p l a c e d Mark's e a r l i e r conclusion.
9 x

.95

It

seems as t h o u g h o u r w r i t e r has condensed as much 65m a t e r i a l as he c o u l d ,

J

edifying

completing the but

Gospel f r o m a v a i l a b l e s t o r i e s

as b e s t he o o u l d ,

p e r h a p s even s u m m a r i s i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e

ending

o f Mark as i t was known t o h i m (and i f i t was known t o h i m ) . He t a l k s o f s p e a k i n g i n t o n g u e s ,

6 6 6

casting out to

d e m o n s , ^ p i c k i n g up s e r p e n t s ( a c u r i o u s f e a t
68

single out) poisonous

and d r i n k i n g , w i t h o u t h u r t ,
69

any

thing.

Such a n t i c i p a t i o n s o f e v e n t s

r e c o r d e d i n A c t s a r e t o o s p e c i f i c t o suggest a n y t h i n g , o t h e r t h a n t h a t t h e w r i t e r o f t h e s e words knew t h e s t o r i e s r e c o r d e d i n books l i k e A c t s . I f he was c o m p l e t i n g M a r k ' s Gospel f r o m memory - and this

must r e m a i n as complete c o n j e c t u r e - t h e n he may have known t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f t h a t contained s t o r i e s conclusion

7 0

such as those f o u n d i n A c t s .

6 5 . l y p i c a l i s t h e v i e w o f B.W. Bacon: Mark ( 1 9 2 5 ) " i t a d j u s t s t o t h e Lucan t r a d i t i o n " ( p . 1 8 9 ) . 6 6 . Mk. 1 6 : 1 7 , A c . 2 : 4 , 10:46.

6 7 . Mko 1 6 : 1 7 c p . A c . 8 : 7 . 6 3 . Mk. 1 6 : 8 , A c . 2 8 : 3 - 6 . 6 9 . Mk. 1 6 : 1 8 - no e q u i v a l e n t i n A c t s , b u t E u s e b i i i s CH.B. 3:39*9) r e c o r d s t h a t P a p i a s spoke o f J u s t u s Barabbas, who was " a f t e r t h e a s c e n s i o ^ " p r e s e n t e d as a c a n d i d a t e f o r the a p o s t o l a t e ( A c . 1 : 2 3 ) , e x p e r i e n c i n g j u s t such a m i r a c l e . 7 0 . For a c o n j e c t u r a l r e a s o n f o r the s i t u a t i o n w h i c h r a i s e d t h e need f o r t h i s l o n g e r e n d i n g see p . 1 0 5 ,

96.

To r e t u r n however t o Mk. 16s1-8 a l l t h e

Synoptics

agree witfa Mark i n g i v i n g p r i d e o f p l a c e t o t h e s t o r y o f t h e Empty Tomb'' - t h o u g h t h e purpose o f 72 t h e women's v i s i t i s o b s c u r e . ' however, For the Evangelists, that
1

i t was e s s e n t i a l t o f i r s t e s t a b l i s h

J e s u s tomb was empty, i f t h e y wished t o show Jesus a l i v e w i t h h i s f r i e n d s - o t h e r w i s e i t m i g h t be o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e i r R e s u r r e c t i o n s t o r i e s were the

m e r e l y t h o s e o f someone p a s s i n g h i m s e l f o f f as C h r i s t * T h i s does n o t prove t h a t Mark had t o c o n t i n u e i n t h i s way, b u t i f Mark was f a c e d w i t h the c h o i c e ( f o r w h a t e v e r reason)'

o f only being

a b l e t o w r i t e one s t o r y o f the p o s t - C r u c i f i x i o n e r a , w h i c h i n c i d e n t w o u l d he choose?

7 1 . Though i t i s n o t c e r t a i n t h a t Luke was u s i n g Mark f o r t h i s t r a d i t i o n - c p . p . 33 v . 6 . 7 2 . Matthew ( 2 8 : 1 ) , d e l i b e r a t e l y changes t h e r e a s o n g i v e n i n Mk. 1 6 : 1 ( s L k . 2 4 : 1 ) . John has no explanation. 7 3 . P r o b a b l y - f i i i s w o u l d be l a c k o f s p a c e . M a r k ' s ad hoc s t y l e makes i t i m p r o b a b l e t h a t he u s e d t h e T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n s t o r y as a s u b t l e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n (he m i g h t have seen some c o n n e c t i o n ) . B u t i f i t i s " i m m o r a l t o i n v o k e a c c i d e n t " as t h e reason f o r a l o s t e n d i n g . (Parrer p . 1 4 4 ) , i t i s s u r e l y e q u a l l y wrong t o excuse Mark ( o n c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence > f r o m w r i t i n g a n y t h i n g about Jesus as R e s u r r e c t e d L o r d among h i s f o l l o w e r s . M k . 1 4 : 2 8 knows t h a t t h i s a c t u a l l y happened.

97.

As i t s t a n d s , t h e purpose o f t h i s p e r i c o p e o f Mark i s t o announce t h a t Jesus i s r i s e n ^ t h a t t h e women must t e l l Peter* (Mk. 16:7/a) t h a t and

' l i i e d i s c i p l e s and i n Galilee:

t h i s promise b e i n g an e f f e c t i v e c o n c l u s i o r i j t o t h e (Joape 1 , were i t n o t f o r t h e s i l e n c e o f t h e women i n 1 6 : 8 , w h i c h n o t o n l y s t r i k e s a sour n o t e to the g l o r i o u s n e w s ^ , but also renders promise as m e a n i n g l e s s . the alien

M a r k ' s r e a d e r s may have but

known t h a t Jesus d i d appear t o h i s f o l l o w e r s , t o me, Mark seems t h e k i n d o f w r i t e r who l i k e s t o s t a t e even the o b v i o u s i n o r d e r t o make h i s 76 point.'

Matthew ( 2 8 : 7 ) who r e l a t & s a R e s u r r e c t i o n

appearance t h e r e f o r e i n c l u d e s t h e above promise, o f Mark, on i n i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . He removes the

s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e t o P e t e r because he has no appearance t o P e t e r t o r e c o r d . Luke o m i t s t h e reference altogether. suppose/ I t i s reasonable to

7 4 . Mk. 1 6 : 6 (where Jesus i s "the Wazarene" ( n o t D ) , ai d e s c r i p t i o n n o t i n t h e p a r a l l e l s , and p e r h a p s s l i g h t s u p p o r t f o r an e y e w i t n e s s t r a d i t i o n ) . 7 5 . As t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o the book we may quote Knox ( a r t . c i t . p . 22) who a r g u e s t h a t " i t s u i t s t h e technique o f a h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d type o f modern l i t e r a t u r e " . 7 6 . c p . f o r example, 1iie e x a c t f u l f i l l m e n t o f J e s u s ' words seen i n Mk. 1 1 : 1 - 6 , 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 6 . W h i l s t some o f t h i s may be i n h e r e n t i n the pre -Marc an t r a d i t i o n , t h e l a b o u r e d r e p e t i t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e F i g Tree i n d i c a t e s t h i s i s a Marcan t r a i t . The w h o l s p o i n t o f t h e Three P a s s i o n P r e d i c t i o n s l i e s i n M a r k ' s showing t h e i r f u l f i l l m e n t .

98.

suppose t h a t Matthew*s copy o f Mark had no P e t e r appearance - f o r w o u l d n o t Matthew have c o p i e d t h i s , had i t been t o hand? However we cannot answer decisively i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , f o r i t i s this

scarcely

c r e d i b l e t h a t t h e r e were no o r a l t r a d i t i o n s c i r c u l a t i n g , known t o Matthew, on t h i s s u b j e c t . The o n l y one in

p r e s e r v e d f o r u s i n t h e Gospels i s appended

John 2 1 , b u t whether t h i s was o r i g i n a l l y a p o s t 77 R e s u r r e c t i o n s t o r y i s open t o some d o u b t . But i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t Matthew, a l t h o u g h he h i m s e l f c o n t i n u e s w i t h m a t e r i a l a f t e r Mk. 1 6 : 8 i n h i s p a r a l l e l , knew no more o f t h a t Gospel t h a n KK.\ ouotvv ovTbtv i t T f i w - r <popowvro ovvro this '

f o r a l t h o u g h he n a t u r a l l y wants t o a l t e r decisive statement,

he o n l y r e p l a c e s i t w i t h a n o t e

as t o t h e women's i n t e n t i o n o f a n n o u n c i n g t h e news ( M t . 2 8 : 8 > , e n d o r s i n g i t w i t h a s i m i l a r command f r o m t h e R i s e n Jesus ( 2 8 : 1 0 ) : i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the

a c t u a l moment o f r e v e l a t i o n i s assumed. T h i s does n o t , o f course, prove t h a t Mark h i m s e l f ended at the time o f at

1 6 : 8 , but i t demonstrates t h a t ,

Matthew, such an e n d i n g was p r o b a b l y i n c i r c u l a t i o n . If a f i r s t v o l u m e , t h u s c o n c l u d e d , t h e n we may say

t h a t t h e second volume d i d n o t come i n t o M a t t h e w ' s possession.

77. cp. also Jn. 2 0 : 3 f f . (Lk.

24:12)

99.

Mk. 1 6 : 7 t h e n r e p e a t s t h e p r o m i s e o f 1 4 : 2 8 , w h i c h t h e women,, n o t b e i n g p r e s e n t at that

o c c a s i o n , c o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d t o u n d e r s t a n d ; hence t h i s m i g h t be a l e g i t i m a t e cause f o r t h e i r fear,

7 8

b u t t h e y do n o t c o n f i d e i n anybody. T h i s 79

n o t i c e keeps u p t h e theme o f human p e r v e r s i t y which so c h a r a c t e r i s e s M a r k ' s Gospel f o r e a r l i e r ,

j u s t when s i l e n c e had been commanded, t h e news has spread ( l : 4 4 f . ) and, i n f a c t , t h e more Jesus

charged them, t h e more w i d e l y t h e y p u b l i s h e d i t , (Mk.7:36>.

8 0

78.

d e s p i t e R. B u l t m a n n : H i s t o r y o f t h e S y n o p t i c T r a d i t i o n (ET 1963) p . 283 who c l a i m s 1 6 : 7 i s s e c o n d a r y : t h e news o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n t h u s c a u s i n g f e a r . B u t u n l e s s 1 6 : 7 i s non-Marcan ( b u t compare Sk r e c i t and rtyjo^Y^v , Marcan w o r d s ) the t h o u g h t o f Mark l i n k s t h e f e a r w i t h t h e announcement o f 1 6 : 7 . We may argue t h a t i f 1 6 : 8 f o l l o w e d on f r o m 1 6 : 6 the g o s p e l w o u l d c o n c l u d e more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y - 1 6 : 7 w o u l d t h e n come a f t e r t h i s r e a d i n g : ' b u t Jesus went b e f o r e them i n t o G a l i l e e as he had t o l d them. * As i t i s , Mk. 1 6 : 8 , coming a f t e r the promise o f 1 6 : 7 , e f f e c t i v e l y marks t h e end o f one s t a g e i n t h e s t o r y - i n i t s e l f Mk. 1 6 : 1 - 8 i s c o m p l e t e (so B u l t m a n n , p . 285 v . 2 ) . The phrase i s f r o m A . F a r r e r : The G l a s s o f V i s i o n (1948> p . 1 4 3 . Thus t h e command i n 1 6 : 7 i s e s s e n t i a l t o the b a l a n c i n g n o t e o f s i l e n c e r - w i t h o u t i t , the women m i g h t have t o l d someone! Now Jesus has t o t a k e t h e lead.

79. 80.

100,

What t h e n does Mark i n t e n d by 16:8? F i r s t l y the too and a l t h o u g h we must n o t K.*/ build

upon M a r k ' s use o f

t o o much, we may n o t e : oov so that

( i ) t h a t he has n o t used

( i i > t h e l a s t h a l f o f v e r s e 8 i s t o be t a k e n separately from the f i r s t , therefore, (iii) a

l a t e r p e r i o d o f time i s i n d i c a t e d i . e . a f t e r they come i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h someone t o whom t h e y c o u l d ( t h o u g h t h e y d i d n o t , Mark t e l l s u s ) have p r o c l a i m e d t h e message. Thus i t f o r m s t h e generalised an

c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e s t o r y and t h e s e c t i o n i s a t e n d . The l e n g t h o f t i m e t h a t i s presupposed

cannot n a t u r a l l y be d e t e r m i n e d , b u t i t may be s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Mark ( u n l e s s , t h i s i s pre-Marcan t r a d i t i o n aware o f s o m e t h i n g beyond t h e as I t h i n k u n l i k e l y , ) shows h i m s e l f Empty Tomb s t o r y . silent.

He knows enough t o say t h a t t h e women were

T h i s does n o t prove t h a t Mark c o u l d n o t have f i n i s h e d t h e whole Gospel a t 1 6 : 8 , b u t why does h e , on t h i s p r e m i s e , make i t a l l so awkward by s u g g e s t i n g s i l e n c e : why n o t m e r e l y i n d i c a t e disbelief? their

8 1 . B e s i d e s t h i s m o t i f o f p e r v e r s i t y , c p . t h e doubLe n e g a t i v e , t y p i c a l o f Mark ( T a y l o r , Mark p . 4 6 ) . '

101.

T u r n i n g t o a q u e s t i o n we can answer p r e c i s e l y , t h e most o b v i o u s q u e s t i o n p r e s s i n g a f t e r ooS^V Ivtr^v ovHv*

i s , why? T h i s i s e x p l a i n e d i n t h e fear,

l a s t words o f 1 6 s 8 . The r e a s o n f o r t h e

however, b e i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y n o t g i v e n , we are none t h e w i s e r ! I t i s more p u z z l i n g when we recall that, a c c o r d i n g t o Mark, s i l e n c e 82 the R e s u r r e c t i o n i s m i s p l a c e d . after

I t i s j u s t p o s s i b l e t h a t Mark has some p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n m i n d when he s t a t e s o3S^y\ were t o l d . Does i t mean the that

disciples in

were n o t i n f o r m e d ? But were they s t i l l J e r u s a l e m ? ' A g a i n the e v i d e n c e i s b u t i f we use

8

ambiguous the not for

t h e argument f r o m s i l e n c e

answer ( f r o m M a r k ) i s no f o r t h e y are mentioned a f t e r t h e i r f l i g h t

(14:50) except

P e t e r , who does no more t h a n deny J e s u s . I f Mark was a n a t i v e o f J e r u s a l e m , he m i g h t have been expected t o t h r o w some i n c i d e n t a l l i g h t upon

t h e i r s o j o u r n i n J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h was i n h i d i n g a c c o r d i n g t o Luke ( 2 4 : 3 3 , 4 9 ) . He i s u n a b l e appeal to

t o the d i s c i p l e s as w i t n e s s e s t o t h e C r u c i f i x i o n

so had t h e y f l e d because t h e y were aware o f the t r a i t o r o u s d e f e c t i o n o f J u d a s ? * He knew t h e haunts o f the t w e l v e . ( J n . 18:2)

8

8 2 . Mk. 9:9 - see p . 9 1 . 8 3 . See p p . 8 5 f f . also.

8 4 . Would the upper room be booked f o r more t h a n a n i g h t o r two?

102.

J n . 21 - though e a r l i e r John a s s e r t s t h e i r c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e upper room ( J n . 2 0 s l 9 ) a s s e r t s t h e i r presence i n G a l i l e e , as::-: a 85 p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f Jesus. Would i t n o t be n a t u r a l f o r them t o f l e e , t h e i r c o n c e r n f o r t h e M a s t e r , i n the despite -

face o f Jesus

a r r e s t ? A h i d e o u t i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e i r own G a l i l e e , i f n o t t h e i r a c t u a l homes, w o u l d be s a f e r . Such a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w o u l d e x p l a i n M a r k ' s n a r r a t i v e f o r the 86 Galilee, d i s c i p l e s w o u l d be r e t u r n i n g t o them

so t h a t t h e women c o u l d n o t t e l l

o f t h e good news, even i f t h e i r f e a r c o u l d be conquered We must a l s o ask why Luke shows t h a t Jerusalem

was t h e o n l y p l a c e o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n a p p e a r a n c e s . He c e r t a i n l y knows t h e d i s c i p l e s d i d n o t i n s i d e the c i t y p r e c i n c t s stay 1:12)

(Lk. 2 4 i l 3 f f . , Ac.

but h i s presentation i s essentially

a theological even

o n e . H i s a c c o u n t o f the empty tomb i s d u l l ,

l i f e l e s s , b e s i d e t h e v i v i d p a r a l l e l s : Luke shows that/

8 5 . D e s p i t e M t . 28:16 w h i c h has assumed t h e a p o s t l e s were elsewhere t h a n G a l i l e e b e f o r e the appearance, c p . Gospel o f P e t e r 14:58 "many were r e t u r n i n g t o t h e i r homes", and 1 4 : 6 0 w h i c h p o r t r a y s P e t e r r e s u m i n g h i s former trade, cp. also Briggs op. c i t . pp. 1 1 7 f . : " I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the d i s c i p l e s would remain i n J e r u s a l e m more t h a n a week a f t e r Passover t h e y w o u l d n a t u r a l l y go t o t h e i r homes i n G a l i l e e . " 8 6 . c p . L k . 24:13 - H u f f m a n n JBL 64 ( 1 9 4 5 ) d e r i v e s t h e whole Emmaus Road s t o r y f r o m t h e l o s t Marcan e n d i n g . 8 7 . c p . p . 1 9 . The problem i s d i s c u s s e d on p p . 1 2 0 - 1 2 2 .

103

t h a t the p r o p h e t i c e v e n t has t e e n f u l f i l l e d i n Jerusalem. For t h i s r e a s o n he may have n o t r e p o r t e d

t h e G a l i l e a n s t o r i e s o f the R e s u r r e c t i o n - o r he may have t h o u g h t t h e r e t u r n t o G a l i l e e , and t h e n back t o J e r u s a l e m , a p o i n t l e s s extravagance. the Once

the Gospel had a r r i v e d i n J e r u s a l e m ,

first

s t a g e o f i t s o u t r e a c h to Rome, " t h e r e was no t u r n i n g back" t o Galilee.

8 8

Thus ooS-jvi

may r e f e r o n l y t o t h e f o l l o w e r s who t h e women ( o f Mk. 1 5 : 4 1 ) who the others.

remained i n Jerusalem,

went t o t h e tomb, d i d n o t t e l l

explains t h i s silence, most t a n t a l i s i n g l y . illustrate

albeit

The i n t e n t i o n may be t o

the women's f e a r o f s p r e a d i n g t h i s news who m i g h t ' l e a k ' t h e i n f o r m a t i o n so

to witnesses,

t h a t i t r e a c h e s t h e e a r s o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . They t e l l no-one, disciples. a l s o , because the message i s f o r t h e

To sum ups i s i t s u f f i c i e n t t o c l o s e work on a n o t e o f p r o m i s e ? " - *lkAt <\nv

t h e whole o ^ttf-oH

h i g h l i g h t s n o t o n l y t h e f a c t o f ' s e e i n g ' Jesus b u t t h e p l a c e . I n Mk. 14:15 t h e r e i s a s i m i l a r use o f r <1ri prophetic

where t h e r e i s an i m m e d i a t e f u l f i l l m e n t . a f t e r these words, the silence

I f Mark now r e l a t e s

o f the women, i s i t n o t t o a v o i d such an i n d i r e c t announcement/

88.

M . S . E n s l i n ZNW 61 ( 1 9 7 0 ) p . 2 6 1 .

104.

announcement o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n t o h i s d i s c i p l e s ? The characteristic s i l e n c e removes t h e women f r o m t h e t h e R i s e n Jesus i n d i r e c t

stage i n o r d e r t o p r e s e n t

c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h t h e d i s c i p l e s . The women's n e g l e c t , means t h a t a g a i n Jesus w i l l t a k e t h e i n i t i a t i v e .

The evidence t h a t Mk. 1 6 : 8 i s t h e e n d i n g i s n o t c o n c l u s i v e ; t h e r e f o r e t h e way i s open f o r u s t o a n a l y s e A c t s t o see i f Mark c o u l d have c o n t i n u e d w i t h some such m a t e r i a l . What we have e s t a b l i s h e d i s if that,

Mark d i d c o n t i n u e , some m e e t i n g i n G a l i l e e i s a this

requirement, though the f o r m i n which

c o n t i n u a t i o n was w r i t t e n must r e m a i n s p e c u l a t i v e . F o r m y s e l f , I . f i n d t h e i d e a o f a L o s t Ending n o t a l i t t l e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; t h e ' a c c i d e n t ' t h e o r y has so many d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r i t must have been v e r y e a r l y ( t o one o f t h e f i r s t c o p i e s ) , b u t t h e n c o u l d n o t Mark o r someone e l s e have r e w r i t t e n i t f r o m memory?
1

But i f we g r a n t t h a t a R e s u r r e c t i o n appearance i s a necessity, can we n o t i m a g i n e t h e c o m p i l e r o f

Mark h i t t i n g upon t h e n o v e l i d e a , w h i c h Luke f o l l o w e d , o f d i v i d i n g u p h i s good news i n t o The M i n i s t r y o f Jesus and The M i n i s t r y o f t h e Church? The d i s t i n c t i o n between two volumes i s n o t so d e c i s i v e as t h o s e t i t l e s i m p l y , y e t we must beware o f a s c r i b i n g t o t h e g e n i u s o f Luke t h e Two Volumes Format f o r C h r i s t i a n w r i t i n g . I f Mark h i m s e l f c o n t i n u e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n

i^nyioCv

may have been t h e r i g h t p f i n t to s t o p t h e f i r s t stage/

105.

s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , f o r any o r d i n a r y r e a d e r , not every t h e o l o g i a n , would immediately perceive

more was t o come! Hence we may, o n l y t e n t a t i v e l y , suggest a sequence o f e v e n t s :

1 . Mark w r i t e s F a r t One and P a r t Two. 2 . Luke i n c o r p o r a t e s P a r t One i n h i s Gospel and P a r t Two i n t h e Ac1?3, as one o f h i s s o u r c e s . 3 . Mark becomes r e d u n d a n t . B u t an i n t e r e s t i n t h e Gospel s t o r i e s s e c u r e s t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f P a r t One - b u t even L u k e ' s " A c t s " i s l i t t l e u s e d , and M a r k ' s P a r t Two i s o f no g r e a t i n t e r e s t , and d i s a p p e a r s . 4 . W i t h renewed i n t e r e s t i n Mark as a c a n o n i c a l e n t i t y i t s contents are found t o conclude at 1 6 : 3 . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s has now been obscured.

106

4 - A C ? S

I n o r d e r t o keep t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w i t h i n reasonable l i m i t s , our a n a l y s i s o f Acts will

m o s t l y be c o n f i n e d , t o t h o s e passages where we e x p e c t t o be most l i k e l y t o a c h i e v e some p o s i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s ; t h e b a s i s o f s e l e c t i o n o f passages f o r d i s c u s s i o n b e i n g t h e word c o u n t s i n t h e A p p e n d i x . The outcome o f t h e s e summarised initial in

soundings was t h a t some o f t h e P e t e r s t o r i e s A c t s deserve f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n ^ f o r the

f i g u r e s we o b t a i n e d were t o o e x c e p t i o n a l t o be a f r e a k r e s u l t . N e v e r t h e l e s s we d i d n o t 2 such a p o s s i b i l i t y : exclude

e i t h e r such a r e s u l t may

be seen p o s i t i v e l y , i n t h e i n c o r r e c t h i g h l i g h t i n g o f a s e c t i o n as Marcan where i n r e a l i t y t h e r e is

no Marcan s o u r c e , o r n e g a t i v e l y , i n t h e f a i l u r e t o i n d i c a t e by a h i g h s t a t i s t i c somewhere where

t h e r e i s (assuming t h e argument) & Marcan s o u r c e T h i s l a s t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e r e may b e , i n f a c t , t h e r e must b e , s e c t i o n s o f A c t s i n w h i c h t h e statistics, help/ w h i c h by n a t u r e are p r e c i s e , fail to

1. 2.

See p p . 5 3 f . , s u m m a r i s i n g e a r l i e r r e s u l t s and p . 6 1 . See p . 54 f o r p o s s i b l e f r e a k r e s u l t s , and b e l o w f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the e x c l u s i o n from d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e passages.

107

h e l p u s where t h e y o u g h t , because we are

dealing

w i t h a h y p o t h e s i s and n o t e x a m i n i n g an argument for d i r e c t a u t h o r s h i p , b u t a source h e l d t o

u n d e r l i e t h e book i n q u e s t i o n *

The f i r s t k i n d o f f r e a k r e s u l t may p a r t i a l l y be d e t e c t e d by s c r u t i n y o f t h e t o t a l r e s u l t -

where a s e c t i o n o c c u r s i n i s o l a t i o n ( e . g . 1 9 * 8 - 2 0 ) t h e chances a r e t h a t i t has no Marcan connection*. We may i l l u s t r a t e t h i s f r o m t h e r e s u l t s obtained

f r o m Matthew and J o h n ; t h e r e i s no o b v i o u s c o n n e c t i n g l i n k between t h o s e p a r a g r a p h s w h i c h have a h i g h y i e l d o f such w o r d s , i n t h e same way as we f o u n d w i t h t h e Marcan f i g u r e s some c o r r e l a t i o n i n the Peter s e c t i o n s . Thus t h e

p r e s e n t s t u d y w i l l n o t d e a l w i t h t h e passages i n t h e l a t e r c h a p t e r s o f A c f e - 19:8-20), 23:31-35.^

The o t h e r t y p e of. f r e a k r e s u l t c a n n o t o f c o u r s e be measured s t a t i s t i c a l l y - we can p a r t l y compensate f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n by e x t e n d i n g o u r s t u d y to t h o s e passages, w h i c h show some a f f i n i t y t o

passages w h i c h have produced a h i g h Marcan c o u n t .

i . e . we w i l l o n l y be concerned w i t h A c t s 1-15 ( o r p a r t s t h e r e o f ) . I t m i g h t be argued t h a t t h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g wrong w i t h o u r m e t h o d o l o g y , s i n c e i n d e l i n e a t i n g s e c t i o n s o f A c t s , most s m a l l s e c t i o n s come i n A c t s 1-12 and, as we have s a i d , s m a l l e r s e c t i o n s produce more e r r a t i c f i g u r e s ( c p . p p . 2 4 , 3 1 , 52) - and so i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t we have been a b l e t o e x c l u d e l a t e r c h a p t e r s o f A c t a f r o m d i s c u s s i o n . B u t n o t i c e the f i g u r e s o f Matthew and John produce as many ' h i g h - d e v i a t i o n sections i n A c t s 13-28 as A c t s 1 - 1 2 .
1

108, i Thus we s h o u l d d i s c u s s a l l t h e Peter* s e c t i o n s *

We s h o u l d a l s o i n c l u d e t h o s e p a r a g r a p h s w h i c h h a v e , on o t h e r g r o u n d s , g i v e n t h e i m p r e s s i o n t o u s o r t o o t h e r s o f b e i n g p o s s i b l y H a r c a n . Foremost h e r e t h e o p e n i n g c h a p t e r , w h i c h n o t o n l y w o u l d be most p r o b a b l e p l a c e , a p r i o r i , is

the

o f f i n d i n g a trace: o f

any ' l o s t * Marcan E n d i n g , b u t a l s o may be i n c l u d e d i n t o t h e s t u d y on t h e b a s i s o f i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y Marcan ( i . e . r a t h e r t h a n Lukan> p r e f e r e n c e f o r ytjsi.( against %4

Other passages w h i c h have grounds f o r i n c l u s i o n are A c t s 6 / 7 ^ and 9 s l 9 b - 3 0 ^ as w e l l as o t h e r passages

37

w i t h ' h i g h * Marcan d e v i a t i o n f i g u r e s : 2 : 4 2 - 4 7 ,

4:32-W.

I n e f f e c t we a r e now p r o p o s i n g t o d i s c u s s
6

nearly

t h e whole o f A c t s 1 - 1 2 , p l u s some m a t e r i a l i n 1 3 - 1 5 .

But f r o m the s t a t i s t i c s

( i f we may r e t u r n t h e r e

as

o u r w o r k i n g b a s i s ) we see t h a t t h e o v e r a l l f i g u r e s f o r A c t s s u g g e s t no g r e a t e r Marcan i n f l u e n c e i n t h e f i r s t t h a n the l a s t h a l f o f the A c t s . I propose/ therefore

4 . See pp 7 f . , 8 3 , 8 6 f . . 5 . See pp. 7 4 f . .

6. o n l y e x c l u d i n g 2:5-13, 4 : 2 3 - 3 1 , 5:12-14, 34-42, 8:4-13 b u t s i n c e t h e s e passages are s u r r o u n d e d b y , and even i n t e g r a l t o t h e a d j a c e n t P e t e r s e c t i o n s I have i n c l u d e d them i n d i s c u s s i o n - i f o n l y b r i e f l y . Excluded a l s o a r e 8:26 - 9 : 1 9 . 1 1 : 1 9 - 3 0 , 1 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 .

109.

propose to discuss b r i e f l y now those places where our "impressions" (see above) are probably wrong

and the s t a t i s t i c s r e l i a b l e . I n e v i t a b l y t h i s has the danger o f being s u b j e c t i v e ( t h i s i s unavoidable i n any a n a l y s i s o f sources o f A c t s ) but t h i s i s o n l y because the b a s i s o f the choice o f t h a t s e c t i o n was i n the f i r s t place s u b j e c t i v e , r a t h e r than based on any s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n and t h i s i s t h e one element i n t h i s present study which, though n o t always r e l i a b l e , has the m e r i t o f being 7 o b j e c t i v e . I do n o t r u l e out "impressions", but i t w i l l be p r o f i t a b l e , although i t i s always a rash w r i t e r who d u l l s h i s reader w i t h a negative opening, to f i r s t d i s c a r d from d i s c u s s i o n passages which we ought t o i n v e s t i g a t e , but whose r e s u l t s w i l l yield

no p o s i t i v e support f o r our t h e s i s . This does n o t mean t h a t a l l the remaining passages r e q u i r i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l comprise our proposed Marcan source but the sequence o f thought w i l l be c l e a r e r i f we -

remove c e r t a i n passages at t h i s p o i n t . F i r s t l y the Stephen s t o r y (Acts 6:1 - 8:3) which i s independent o f the Peter s t o r i e s , h a v i n g some b e l i e v e , a f f i n i t i v e s w i t h the l a t e r A n t i o c h s t o r i e s 8 ( l l s l 9 f f . ) The only reason t h a t has prompted s u p p o s i t i o n s o f a Marcan source i s the episode o f the false/ 7 . See pp. 22. 8. So 11:19 continues from the n o t i c e i n 8 : 3 .

110

f a l s e witnesses ( 6 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) , the whole complex being very un-Marcan i n vocabulary. Marcan words i n t h i s p o r t i o n (6:11-15) are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
9

recitative

( 6 : 1 1 , 1 4 ) . I t i s also possible to d i s t i n g u i s h two accounts o f Stephen's m a r t y r d o m . example o f Luke f u s i n g t o g e t h e r ,

10

This may be an

and r a t h e r b a d l y , two

sources b u t , whether one o f these was a Marcan source i s more d o u b t f u l . There i s l i t t l e t h a t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y Marcan i n e i t h e r o f these accounts .^except f o r (7:57,60> which occurs i n both o f the a l l e g e d sources and which thus does n o t f a c i l i t a t e the t r a c i n g o f a Marcan o u t l i n e . And, although t h i s i s n o t d e c i s i v e , w i l l be seen t h a t t h i s s t o r y does n o t f i t i n t o our r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a Marcan source. I t i s more probable t h a t i t comes from an independent t r a d i t i o n which false it.

p o s s i b l y already knew o f the t r a d i t i o n s o f the witnesses t h a t Mark r e l a t e s , drawing out t h i s p a r a l l e l w i t h Stephen's own martyrdom.

The second, and l a s t set o f passages r e q u i r i n g treatment here i s the m a t e r i a l concerning John Mark i n A c t s . We w i l l l a y some s t r e s s on h i s mention a t 12:12 b u t , as f a r as s t a t i s t i c s are concerned, there i s little

Marcan i n f l u e n c e t o be traced i n most o f these passages.

These may be examples o f the expression being used i n l e g a l o r s e m i - l e g a l f o r m u l a t i o n s ; see also Mk. 2:16, 14:69, J n . 10:36, Ac. 1 1 : 3 . See r e f s . i n Dupont op. c i t . p . 39.

111.

Mark i s r e f e r r e d to s ( i ) at 12:12 - o n l y one Marcan word i n the s t o r y (12:11-17). ( i i ) at 12:25 a summary passage, p r e p a r i n g f o r 1 3 : 5 ( i i i > at 1 3 : 5
1 2 1 1

- as accompanist t o Paul and Barnabas.

I n t h i s s e c t i o n 013*4-12) there are Marcan words, even above the average: ^ 9 i p ^ i \ > ^ \ ^ p\oe (13:10*, rr^pSotyiw
y

Jj$*tr(^(13:6}, (13:11),

fi^ot^ ^

(13:12). Mark does n o t a c t u a l l y do much,

and he i s o n l y mentioned to prepare f o r ( i v > 13:13 where he leaves the company o f the t w o . This prepares us f o r the p o i n t o f h i s i n c l u s i o n i n t o foe Acts n a r r a t i v e : (v)) 15:37,39 where Paul and Barnabas q u a r r e l over Mark's r e l i a b i l i t y - 15:38 r e f e r r i n g back to Mark's e a r l i e r d e f e c t i o n a t 13:13. I n t h i s s e c t i o n (15:36-41) there i s again a minimum o f support f o r . a Marcan sourceT*"
I&CTTI

being t h e ^ n l y Marcan word o f n o t e .

Thus, w h i l e i t would seem s u r p r i s i n g , and perhaps even d i s a p p o i n t i n g , the evidence f o r a Marcan source i n these paragraphs i s n e g a t i v e . With the possible

exception o f 1 2 s l 2 ^ a l l the r e f e r e n c e s to John Mark are requisite/

11. Ihe omission o f Mark's name a t 13:1 i s probably n o t "remarkable" (pace P. Schmiedel i n Encyclopaedia B i b l i c a (1899> p . 44), i f he was so u n r e l i a b l e ( v . below). 12. See also p . 29. 13. against t h e view o f Haenchen op. c i t . p . 341 t h a t h i s name i s here e d i t o r i a l , see p . 235,

112.

r e q u i s i t e f o r our understanding o f the q u a r r e l t h a t arose between Barnabas and P a u l . Whether t h i s was the r e a l cause o f the dispute i s d o u b t f u l ( c p . Gal 2 : 1 3 ) * This may e x p l a i n the prominence g i v e n by Luke t o John Mark i n these chapters $ a minor disagreement over h i s r e l i a b i l i t y i s made to cover a more serious f r i c t i o n over G e n t i l e f e l l o w s h i p . But i t i s still

i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t Luke s e l e c t s Mark f o r t h i s r o l e , and there may be intended an i m p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i s value as a w r i t e r i n 13:5, perhaps even extending to an acknowledgement o f the i n f o r m a t i o n Mark has supplied f o r m a t e r i a l i n Luke and the f i r s t p a r t o f A c t s . But t h a t a Marcan source should n o t have r e l a t e d a s t o r y which d i s c r e d i t e d John Mark need not surprise us..

This b r i n g s us back t o our Marc an source hypothesis* Each o f the sub-sections discussed w i l l be headed by a l i s t o f the words which have comprised the s t a t i s t i c (where a p p l i c a b l e ) which prompted the s u s p i c i o n o f Marcan i n f l u e n c e . We also l i s t , i n p a r a l l e l , Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c words (as o u t l i n e d on pp. 3 1 f . ) , so t h a t where a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f such words appears, i t w i l l be c l e a r that Luke has r e w r i t t e n h i s m a t e r i a l , i f n o t f r e e l y composed i t . On the other hand, a conc e n t r a t i o n o f Marcan words w i l l be e q u a l l y h e l p f u l i n determining w i t h more p a r t i c u l a r c o n f i d e n c e , the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t o f t h e Marcan source. Words from Matthew and John are also i n c l u d e d to a c t as a check on too much s p e c u l a t i o n .

113.

Acta l ? l - 5 Prologue 14

Verse

Lucan Words.

Marcan Words. Matthaen Johannine Words. Words.

05

2. itroo-n>\)5,
3. 4. T^....

5.
U n l i k e the prologue t o L u k e s Gospel, the one i n Acts i s n o t sharply d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the f o l l o w i n g contents.
J f

After a brief introductory

n o t i c e , and i n a way n o t d i s s i m i l a r f r o m Mk. l . l f f . , the w r i t e r looks hack, i n t h e case o f Acts t o the Gospel s t o r y , and i n p a r t i c u l a r the a p o s t o l i c c o m m i s s i o n . ^ I n t h i s way, the characters o f the opening s t o r y are e s t a b l i s h e d , although Luke has

already described the f e l l o w s h i p o f Jesus w i t h h i a followers/

14.Future l i s t s a t the head o f Acts* s e c t i o n s w i l l also c o n s i s t o f f o u r columns, the l e f t one being a l i s t o f Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (see pp.. 3 1 f . ) and then from l e f t to r i g h t : Marcan words (see p . 50 > and Matthaen/ Johannine words (see p 5 0 ) . 15.On verses 1-5 as the whole o f the a c t u a l prologue Bruce ad l o c , G* S t a h l i n , Apostelgeschichte (1966) p . 15, W i l l i a m s op* c i t . p p . 5 4 f . , .JIG 4 p . 2, BO5 pp. I f f . The scribe o f D also marks Ac. 1:6 as the s t a r t o f a new paragraph. 16.Ac. 1:2. (non-western) covers the s t o r y t o the Ascension.

114 o

f o l l o w e r s ! ( I k . 24:43, Ac. Is4> and the

1 7

Ascension

( L k . 2 4 : 5 1 , Ac. 1 : 9 - 1 1 ) . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the c h a r a c t e r s are i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s i n d i r e c t way becafjuse the Ascension s t o r y i n verses 6-11 does n o t i d e n t i f y any o f the witnesses s p e c i f i c a l l y . Yet i s there any p o s i t i v e i n d i c a t i o n i n the content o f A c . 1:1-5 t o support the p o s s i b i l i t y which we t h a t the passage has been

discussed above,

i n f l u e n c e d by the opening o f Mark's; Gospel?

Verse One opens w i t h a subsequent

clause w i t h o u t a
7

This ftb i n character w i t h Acts

yet the absence o f the complementary p a r t i c l e might i n d i c a t e t h a t Luke was almost immediately ( i n 1:1b) beginning to use some s o u r c e . ' I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine Luke f r e e l y composing t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n ( 1 : 1 - 5 ) . As punctuated i n Tischendorf, f o r example/
20

17. om. X * >

(see p . 12Q- n.. 37>

n

18;. pp. 64-69. 19. Luke one, Acts n i n e times ( i n c l u d i n g 20). I t i s improbable t h a t A c t s 1:1a was f r o n t i s p i e c e CClark p* 408> f o r why improver r e v i s e the whole o f 1:1-5? BZNW 21 (1954> argues t h a t 1*1-5 i s

olv

without

added as a did not t h i s CP. Menoud non-Lucan).

115

example i t c o n s i s t s o f one sentence, l o n g and w i t h an awkward t r a n s i t i o n from i n d i r e c t t o d i r e c t 21 speech. This may he a c l a s s i c a l usage, hut i t i s

most i n e l e g a n t when set aside the Gospel p r e f a c e . The language ha some connection w i t h Mk.. 1:1

"VY0

fl<flfO ^

UB

e c n o e d

^/f

r o

^Z-of* *

60

(Ac. l s l ) , and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of

<^^iv 22

w i t h two i n f i n i t i v e s Conly here i n A c t s ) comes i n Mark's Gospel s i x times, h u t i n Luke's o n l y t w i c e . ^A^^ii^ + THN^W i s n o t found i n Luke but comes once i n M a r k , '
2

<2(^Sltf

with

i?dtfV&V

i s s i m i l a r l y absent, from Luke but i s employed f o u r 24. times i n Mark. I n verse two the Western text:, besides, o m i t t i n g 25 the Ascension Reference,, ^ has i n a d d i t i o n : K<*
N

i<&i\)fl

KApPHM

Tt> t ^ ^ l O ^ C D s y c o p

3 1 6 7

g; t )

which i s dismissed by many as a g l o a s , nevertheless/

but which

2 1 . See SL Jiacquier: Acts (1926) p . 13 who c i t e s Luke 5:14. See also Mk* 6 s 8 f 22. Mk. I s 4 5 , 10*47, 1 4 : 1 9 , 3 3 , 6 5 , 7 1 , L k . 11:53, 1 3 : 2 5 . 23. Mk. 2:23 MAC, 24. Mk. 4 : 1 , 6:2,34, 8$31. 25. i . e . i n i t s r e c o n s t r u c t e d form ( f r o m some of Augustine's c i t a t i o n s ) ' : f o r i t s o r i g i n a l i t y : Ropes BC 3 pp. 2 5 6 f f . , claBTop. c i t . p . ^36 26. So Ropes EC3 p . 256 repeated by Haenchen op. c i t . p . 109. S.J.. Spp: Codex Bezae (1966) p . 66 b e l i e v e s i t an a l l u s i o n to L k . 24:47*

116,

nevertheless y i e l d s two Marcan words. I n f a c t i t i s probably p a r t o f the o r i g i n a l Lucan t e x t , f o r , as the Gospel o f Lake commences w i t h a framework s e t i n the temple p r e c i n c t s ( L k . 1:9>, there i t . concludes ( L k . 24:53)'. Acts* f i n a l words mention Paul:

which, according t o the p a t t e r n i n Luke, we would . expect to be l i k e w i s e balanced i n the opening v e r s e s . Thus the theme o f the Kingdom comes i n A c t s 1:3, the teaching i n verse 1 and the preaching

i n the theme o f the Western t e x t o f verse 2 .

The Western Reading t h e r e f o r e may be f r o m L u k e ' s 27 pen - and i f also Ropes i s correct i n claiming

t h i s whole verse i n i t s o r i g i n a l Western guise was Lucan, then i t may be that; the command t o preach was dropped, f o r , w h i l s t verses 3 f . announce. s u b s i d i a r y f e a t u r e s o f the Ascension s t o r y , 1:2D was seen to announce the f a c t o f t h e Ascension insufficiently clearly. But could Luke have gleaned these words f r o m a 28 source? Ephrem's commentary makes the statement (most s u r p r i s i n g i n view o f Luke's s t r e s s upon Jerusalem): ^ " I n qua die i u s s i t apostolos i n Gralilaea annuntiare evangelium."
2

27.

BC3 pp. 259-261.

28. Also Lucan i s KIX <0< IV - n o t i n Mark but 18 times i n A c t s . (om. g t): 29. See, BC3 p . 384 - a l a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n o f the o r i g i n a l .

117.

The r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s us back to Jesus* o r i g i n a l c a l l i n g and commision o f the apostles where the Bezae t e x t o f Mk. 3 s l 4 endss , / 30

This l a s t word, which Luke never uses i n h i s Gospel"^" i s a ' d i s t i n c t i v e Marcan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - and the whole o f t h e l a s t phrase i s found i n Mark also a t 1:14, 13:10 and a l s o ( 1 6 : 1 5 ) which i s e x a c t l y where Codex Bezae., pzimo manu, concludes. This f a c t 32 might suggest a r e p e t i t i o n Cor even d i t t o g r a p h y 33 from Mk. 16sl5 - but the o r i g i n a l reconstructed )

Western Text would d e f y t h i s ; , w i t h i t s glance.' back to"the day i n which" Jesus chose the a p o s t l e s i n G a l i l e e . But i f t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s thought improbable, i t remains i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t we have here a reference to G a l i l e e . Could j t t be the o f a pre-Lucan t r a d i t i o n which d e s c r i b e s an Ascension i n Galilee?' remains

30c Mk 3:14D - other t e x t s omit the f i n a l two words. 3 1 . See p . 39 - But Luke w i l l use i t twice i n Acts* 32. i . e * i f Mark ever concluded a t 16:15 Ccp. Parrer*s theory see p . 9 n . 55 and p* 94 n . 6 4 ) . Even though 3 John i n t e r v e n e s ( t h e hand may be l a t e r ) A c t s f o l l o w s ; Mark i n D. 33. The g l o 3 ss could n o t be; from M t . 28s20 which 3 C reads

118,

But i f 1he awkwardness o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Acts l s l - 5 can he seen t o i n d i c a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Luke was dependent upon e a r l i e r m a t e r i a l , what models were there to f o l l o w , unless Mark o r some o t h e r had attempted already a s i m i l a r task? We can p o i n t to some Marcan f e a t u r e s i n these versess

2K&*O(*V

Ky^nw

TO

clyyi\\*v ( X ^ v ) r

Luke has added necessary r e f e r e n c e s t o Theophilus and Jesus* teaching t h a t *they* must remain i n Jerusalem.

T h i s theory s t i l l does n o t e x p l a i n the v e r y u n r e f i n e d s t y l e o f t h i s opening, which a f f o r d s some c o n f i r m a t i o n o f W i l l i a m s ' suggestion t h a t our copy o f Acts i s an e a r l y d r a f t copy which Luke intended to r e v i s e . ^ I f t h i s t h e o r y does n o t s a t i s f y (most authors u s u a l l y take p a r t i c u l a r care over t h e i r f i r s t l i n e s ) i t remains p o s s i b l e that

some o f t h e inelegance o f verses 1 -5 may be due to Luke expanding an o r i g i n a l to emphasise the command/

34. i . e . o4i i n 1 :5 (on which see pp. 6 7 f . ) i s Sri recit This very t e n t a t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n avoids the t r a n s i t i o n from i n d i r e c t to d i r e c t speech - a s u r p r i s i n g f e a t u r e o f t h i s prologue. 35. See W i l l i a m s , op. c i t . p p . 1 2 f . .

119.

command to stay i n Jerusalem. Perhaps he d i d t h i s because a Second Volume by Mark now, came i n t o h i s possession - and one which t o l d o f Jesus' appearances i n G a l i l e e . A polemic against the G a l i l e a n t r a d i t i o n might be suspected and the r e p e t i t i o n a f t e r L k . 24:47 o f Ac. I s 4 may i n d i c a t e the renewal o f t h a t polemic, perhaps as a r e s u l t o f Luke's r e c e p t i o n o f such a Maroan s t o r y . This cannot be proved, p r i n c i p a l l y because we do n o t know j u s t how Mark's Gospel d i d c o n t i n u e . But i f i t was used by Luke as source m a t e r i a l f o r Acts 1 , we may a l l agree t h a t Luke would have had to r e c a s t the G a l i l e a n s e t t i n g . I t i s more t h a n l i k e l y t h a t he o m i t t e d some s t o r y or 36 stories, but i s the one he chooses to n a r r a t e o f

Marcan o r i g i n ? Acta 1:6-12: Ascension.

7. 8. 9.

fpp

ttfoaativ
OLfoAy

Vtfcj
WS, 0<WjyO

10. kali 11.

1 2 . OfTDff-To&ktV,

BCi>)

Notably, perhaps, the account o f the f l i g h t t o G a l i l e e , but cp. p . 12 n . 86.

120.

Marcan s t y l e s

(i> Asyndeton (1:7B> Cii) "Sideline

,,:

Clsl2)

Luke has been reminding us. o f the events o f the pre-Ascension p e r i o d , e l a b o r a t i n g the themes o f L k . 24, but i n s t e a d o f also i n f o r m i n g us again t h a t the scene was enacted ids rT/o*J We are '

our knowledge o f the venue i s assumed.

however t o l d a t Acts Is12 t h a t the r e t u r n t o Jerusalem i s from the mount c a l l e d O l i v e s , which i s near t o Jerusalem. Conzelmann b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s " f l a t l y c o n t r a d i c t s ' * Luke 2 4
5 9

- but although i t

i s t r u e t h a t the s i t e i s n o t e x a c t l y the same, i t i s olear Luke has i n mind the same v i c i n i t y s ( i n a paraphrase o f 1:12b) i t was s t i l l i n the environs o f Jerusalem. I n other words Luke has reformed t h i s verse/

37. I have assumed the omission o f the Ascension reference i n Luke to be a harmonising a t t e m p t . ( I f c o r r e c t , the book o f Luke ends on as an amazing a n t i c l i m a x as M a r k ) . Acceptance o f the Western reading here i s too o f t e n regarded as a concession which has no i m p l i c a t i o n f o r the general a l l e g e d u n r e l i a b i l i t y o f D. ( also supports the omission i n L k . 24s51) E . Conzelmanns Theology (ET 1960) p . 203 n . 4 appears t o note these t e x t u a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . 38. Unless S. Wilson (ZNW a r t . c i t . p . 271 n . 13) we a l l o w t h a t Luke may have f o r g o t t e n what he had w r i t t e n i n L k . 24 - but then a reference t o the place would needs be more Imperative e s p e c i a l l y i f " i n Acts Luke i s f o r c e d to t i i i n k more about the order and t i m i n g o f the p o s t - R e s u r r e c t i o n events.'" 39. Conzelmann op. c i t . p . 94 c p . W.J. Wilson HTR 11 (1918) says Ac. 1:12 "comes p e c u l i a r l y and unexpectedly" ( p . 8 5 ) . The technique i s Johannine: J n . 1:28, 6:59, 8:20.

121.

verse t o demonstrate -feat 1iie command o f Jesus (Ac.. 1:4) had n o t been t e c h n i c a l l y transgressed though would

Luke's readers have comprehended v . 12b? Here there i s the u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e p e t i t i o n o f the same form o f
1

Jerusalem which h i g h l i g h t s Luke's Zion

t h e o l o g y , b u t which o n l y prompts our enquiry o f why such an i n s i s t e n c e ' ? . Let us r e t u r n f o r a moment t o t h a t e a r l y glimpse o f the Ascension i n the Transfiguration,
4 - 0

which Luke transforms out o f i t s

G a l i l e a n s e t t i n g to a n t i c i p a t e the 'exodus' o f Jesus i n Jerusalem ( L k . 9:31). F o l l o w i n g t h i s c l u e , S t r o b e l t u r n s t o Luke's treatment o f M a r k ' s G a l i l e a n prophecy (Mk. 1 4 : 2 ? f . ) and argues t h a t Luke has f o l l o w e d up the prophecy derived from Zeehariah i n Mk.. 14:2? w i t h another from Zech. 1 4 : 4 , words: which are f u l f i l l e d as Jesus reaches the Mount o f O l i v e s ( L k . 22 :39, Ac. l : 1 2 ) s thereby he supresses the G a l i l e a n t r a d i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , Luke avoids: t h e the i n t e n t i o n o f Mk. 16:? w h i l s t s t i l l r e f e r r i n g to> G a l i l e e ( L k . 2 4 : 6 ) ; and t h u s the. promise TpiiroV ifc^fkibiUe.. e? v
4 1

1*11) might r e f l e c t a f u r t h e r
4 2

a d a p t a t i o n by Luke o f the G a l i l e a n t r a d i t i o n . "

40'. See pp. 80if. 4 1 . S t r o b e l a r t . c i t . p . 144. 42. So, i n general S t r o b e l , i b i d pp. 1 3 8 f . .

122.

Another h i n t o f a G a l i l e a n s e t t i n g may he seen i n 1:11 where the a p o s t l e s are addressed as jkfy'LS [VXXofi<* 9 no doubt, a c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n o f

most o f them, hut- the f o r m u l a , although t y p i c a l o f A c t s , ' might he more e x p l i c a b l e i f an o r i g i n a l was set i n G a l i l e e . 1:8 lends some support to t h e c o n t e n t i o n . This i m p o r t a n t statement o f Luke's intention
4 4 4

emphasises t h a t the witnesses o f the

event w i l l , i n t i m e , be witnesses jaf Jesus f i r s t l y " I n Jerusalem'* then to the ends o f t h e e a r t h . These words, another example o f Luke's Zion f o c u s , surely

imply a s e t t i n g ; anywhere b u t i n Jerusalem. Quite p o s s i b l y Luke has adapted h i s m a t e r i a l which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the d i s c i p l e s were t o r e t u r n t o Jerusalem and from: t h e r e they w i l l be l e d to a l l Judaea and Samaria. There i s no mention o f G a l i l e e but t h i s i s because that; place i s t h e s e t t i n g o f these words. '

43.

The phrase comes also at A c . 2:7 where i t i s e d i t o r i a l , but as a t Mk. 14:70 -there i t i s a question o f d i a l e c t . c p . Bi. Gerhardsson: Memory and Manuscript (1961) p . 216. I n s i m i l a r v e i n K. Rengstorf ST 15 (1961) p . 5 4 . This s u p p o s i t i o n i s made as e a r l y as A* C l a r k e : Acts (1836) n . 70? and J.B-. L i g h t f o o t Hbrae Hebraicae 4 C1B59) p p . 8 f . ( o n l y o f A c . l : 4 f . ) . E. Lohmeyer says " i t would n o t he named because i t i s already a t e r r a Christiana'" ( G a l i l a e a 1936 p . 52) but t h i s f a i l s t o a l l o w f o r Luke's pro-Jerusalem tendency, which r e s u l t s i n the p l a y i n g down o f Galilean C h r i s t i a n i t y .

44. 45.

123.

Having e s t a b l i s h e d the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t G a l i l e e could have been the o r i g i n a l s e t t i n g f o r t h i s scene> we w i l l r e t u r n t o the commencement o f the p a r a g r a p j i a t 1:6. marked as so o f t e n by the e d i t o r w i t h //Jtv o2v
4 4 6

2wA&o/T*$ a f t e r
4

i r w * Xi

i s uneeessary ^ and r e d u n d a n t , not. merely repetitive ^

4

since t h e e d i t o r has n o t y e t

i n d i c a t e d (what he i n t e n d s ) t h a t a change o f s e t t i n g has o c c u r r e d . She i m p l i c a t i o n o f 1:6 i s t h a t the scene i s t h e same as the vague one mentioned a t 1:4, and f r o m that, verse we already know they are together*

I f Lake was t h e r e f o r e b e g i n n i n g t o i n c o r p o r a t e a source f r o m l i t i s p o i n t ; ( i . e . r a t h e r than f r o m 1:1 as we p o s i t e d above), who, we may ask, were the "they"', whom Luke c a r e l e s s l y f a i l s t o I d e n t i f y ? The e d i t o r r e f e r s back, i n most clumsy f a s h i o n , t o ioiS 5rfoT^oi5 i n verse 2 , But i f our G a l i l e a n

s u p p o s i t i o n i s c o r r e c t , then a source may have envisaged a crowd more l i k e the 500' o f 1 Cor. 15$5* On t h i s premise, the sudden i n t r o d u c t i o n o f about/

4 6 . Thus also* A c . 8 : 4 , 9 : 3 1 , 11:19 and perhaps 2 : 4 1 , 8*25, 15:3 - against Cerfaux a r t . o i t . p>. 671 who claims i t i s used to c o n t r a s t v . 5 47. Hence b r e a d s
\9O\/TS.

48. So: G. S c h i l l e ZNW 57 (1966) p . 186. 4 9 . despite S. Wilson Z N W a r t . c t t . p . 273. The exact meaning o f the word i s i r r e l e v a n t ; here, as almost: c e r t a i n l y the basic i d e a i s the togetherness o f Jesus w i t h h i s a p o s t l e s .

124.

about 120 people i n Ac* 1:15 i s e x p l i c a b l e , , since Luke's o r i g i n a l depicted j u s t such a g e n e r a l i s e d appearance. Luke, i n the i n t e r e s t s o f p r o v i d i n g ; a. s p e c i f i c commission to the Eleven, has adapted t h e t r a d i t i o n t o t h i s end by a c l e v e r use o f ambiguity

The: p o s t u l a t e d Marcan account requires; the prominence o f Peter Cop. Mk. 16s7>, b u t he i s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y s i n g l e d o u t i n t h e s t o r y o f Ac. 1$6-12. When however he becomes the spokesman of. the a p o s t l e s CI s i 5 ) ^", t h i s i s ; not; s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n any way. The reader o f Mark has been prepared f o r
51

Peter's post-Resurrection leadership,

but the

Lukan s t u d e n t , although t o l d o f P e t e r ' s w i l l i n g n e s s to f o l l o w Jesus t o death ( L k . 22:53) has last

heard o f Peter i n connection w i t h his; d e f e c t i o n ( L k . 2 2 : 6 1 f . } . Later s c r i b e s f e l t o b l i g e d t o remove t h i s discrepancy and t h e f o l l o w i n g attempts are made: ( i . ) L k . 22*62 i s o m i t t e d
5 2

( i i ) L k . 24:12 i s . added from J i u 2 0 : 3 f f . .

5 3

50. Now he i s "the unchallenged l e a d e r " (Parker UTS

a r t . c i t . p7T96). See p . 144.

'

5 1 . He i s s i n g l e d out i n Mk. 1 6 : 7 . 52. Om. 0171 and some L a t i n mss.. 53. by 0124 f l fl3.

125

Ciii)

24s34 i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e f e r e n c e t o 54

an appeal*ance to P e t e r . Peter *s dominance i n the e a r l y chapters o f Acts i s e a s i l y explained on the assumption t h a t a ' P e t e r ' source i s . being employed,* which m a t e r i a l would he f o r g i v e n f o r n o t j u s t i f y i n g ; P e t e r ' s sudden and c o n t i n u e d p o s i t i o n as head o f the
TwelveQ

R e t u r n i n g to Ac, 1*6,

the question posed i s ;

e n t i r e l y i n accord w i t h the t r a d i t i o n t h a t Mark g i v e s , t h a t up t o the v e r y end the disciples

and crowd were mostly unaware o f the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f Jesus* words and a c t i o n s , they had c o n s t a n t l y misunderstood h i m . Luke uses the question t o r e a f f i r m the t h e o l o g i c a l v i e w p o i n t o f the m i s s i o n t h a t he i s about t o d e s c r i b e , but a t the expense

o f making "the d i s c i p l e s appear i n c r e d i b l y foolish;

n J J

f o r has not; Luke h i m s e l f

just

described/

54.

So 0* Cullmanns Peter C1962) p p . 6 0 f . , S t r e e t e r op:, c i t . p . 344 e t c . ; b u t the v a r i a n t r e a d i n g o f D: *%Y*Vfis makes f o r a mucin smoother sense,, f o r why should Cleopas and h i s f r i e n d now be t o l d o f the News? The pericope i s concerned w i t h t h e i r good news, so v . 35 (confirmed by Mk. 16:13>, and they would h a r d l y t e l l the eleven ( L k . 24s33> t h a t Jesus had appeared t o Simon ( P e t e r ) . Simon, the untuned companion o f L k . 24sl3 might be the Tanner ( A c 9*43} whose house i n J'oppa may have been the goal o f the journey i n L k . 2 4 s l 3 f . . The avoidance o f naming Simon d i r e c t l y ( p a r a l l e l t o the ambiguity over the ' t h e y ' i n A c t s 1 ) i s understandable! c p . p . 143. Haenchen, Studies p . 260>.

55 -

126.

described Jesus as i n s t u c t i n g them about the Kingdom? I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t Luke d e l i b e r a t e l y created such, a f o o l i s h question therefore,,, but, from a Marc an account such a remark would have been q u i t e i n c h a r a c t e r : "the hardness o f t h e d i s c i p l e s ^ h e a r t s i s apparent; here as i n M a r k ' s Gospel."
5 6 1

The form o f t h e i r q u e s t i o n : " has already been eagerly put f o r w a r d ( n o t however by Luke) 58 / beings Jesus
9

59

reply*. The same type o f s e l f i s h

r e q u e s t i s made i n Hk. 10:37 (a s t o r y Luke o m i t s ) and again i n Mk 10:26 whereas the amazed query o f the d i s c i p l e s i n Luke now issues from the mouths o f the hearers ( L k . 18:26>. And i n the same just

way,, Jesus; now t a c i t l y c o r r e c t s the n o t i o n , as he g e n e r a l i s e s P e t e r ' s personal complaint

(see Mk. 1 0 : 2 8 f . ) i n Ac. I s ? . Jesus does n o t r e j e & t their/

56. W i l l i a m s o p . c i t . p . 56. - / 57/. *LfT^^owfwv : (Ac. 1:6 DE614> - Mk. 9 : 1 1 . 58. Mk. 9:11 = Mt;. 17:10. 59. I l k . 9:12 c p . Mt;. 1 7 : 1 1 . On t h i s connection see J . Garcia EB 8 (1949) pp. 112-114. T h i s strengthens the l i n k we have already f o r g e d between T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n and Ascension. 6 0 . aihis suggests i t i s improbable t h a t Luke o m i t t e d the Marcan s t o r y i n Mk. 9 : 9 f f . merely to i n c l u d e it; i n Acts.

127.

their nationalist fervour,

i n s t e a d he p o i n t s

back to the timer f a c t o r mentioned i n verse 5 and urges r e s t r a i n t . Suspicions^ o f a Marc an source must be strengthened by the echo o f Mk 13*32 i n Ac* ls7>

Their question shows t h a t "they had not; y e t perceived t h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n had fundamentally.! changed"
62

as Jiesus had r i s e n ( c p . the a t t i t u d e

o f t h e women i n Mk. 1 6 : 8 ) . The time was now ready f o r preaching; ( c p

0

Mk 9 9 ) n o t t o ask the time

of. a r r i v a l o f t h e i r preconceived i d e a o f the Kingdom. Luke does n o t h i d e t h i s f a c t o r , y e t h i s p i c t u r e o f the a p o s t l e s i n Acts c e r t a i n l y i d e a l i s e s t h e i r r o l e i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n as Luke a l t e r s i n h i s Gospel some: o f the hard* remarks o f and about the d i s c i p l e s * 4^Jesus
r

r e p l y i n 1*8 announces the theme o f Acts*

Van Unni'k has examined the LXX background t o the expression $l*s i c ^ w 4ty ^ and has concluded
1

that; the p l u r a l ; would have been used had Rome been i n t e n d e d . ^

6

6 1 . which shows i t s e l f a t s e v e r a l p o i n t s i n the source v.. below.. 62. K . R e n g s t o r f : i n Current Issues (1962) p . 186. 6 3 . Van Unnik i n B i b l i c a e t S e m i t i c * esp p . 348, b u t c p . P B . S o l . 8s 15 which suggests t h a t Luke does have i n mind the G e n t i l e m i s s i o n ( t h u s c p . L k . 24:47) but i t remains p o s s i b l e t h a t Luke's source, understood the words i n the more r e s t r i c t e d sense. Van Uhnik i s c r i t i c i s e d i n C. Burchard Z N W 61 (1970) p p . 161-3.

128.

He thus t a l k s o f t h i s verses P a l e s t i n i a n h o r i z o n * Such an understanding on the p a r t o f the d i s c i p l e s i s demonstrated by the f o l l o w i n g s t o r y o f the choioe o f a t w e l f t h apostle appointed by the o l d Jewish custom o f c a s t i n g l o t s . I t i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y probable t h a t i t was o n l y s l o w l y and then p a r t l y by f o r c e o f circumstances, ** t h a t the wider i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Jesus* words came to be r e a l i s e d and a p p l i e d * T h i s , as. we w i l l see, i s the s i t u a t i o n which L u k e ' s source describes, w h i l s t Luke h i m s e l f heightens the
6

emphasis oxc. the d i v i n e guidance behind those events*

Verse 8, t h e n , e x p l a i n s the nature o f the f o r t h coming; g i f t * The f o r m u l a t i o n i s Lueans note the tTTiXB-oV-ros used n o t o n l y of. the S p i r i t ( I k * 1:35)

but^also o f the L a s t Day (Lk* 21s26, 35) and the

C

(^(\9v

before

Ifvioju*ro6 * a f e a t u r e o f L u k e ' s s t y l e *

But the whole i n c i d e n t ; ( v . 6-8) has been adapted by Luke, r a t h e r than f r e e l y composed, f o r why should Luke otherwise n o t have avoided the d i f f i c u l t question i n 1:6, and so have been more s p e c i f i c as to J e s u s ' ! i n t e n t i o n i n 1:8?

64* Van Uhnik NT 4 (196Q>) p p . 3 9 f . , Rengstorf ST 15 (1961) p p . 53-56. 65. i . e . p e r s e c u t i o n , e x p l i c i t l y seen i n l l s l 9 f f . where where p e r s e c u t i o n r e s u l t s i n Greeks; h e a r i n g the news. So also 1 2 t i f f . . (on t h i s see p p . 76, 231)* Sod uses s u f f e r i n g to f u r t h e r the news o f the Kingdom. 66. Luke t w i c e , Acts 7 (D = 8 ) t i m e s . Elsewhere i n the N . T . only a t M t . 2 8 s l 9 , 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 13:13.

129

When we reach the Ascension s t o r y ( w . 9-11) we discover a t a l e most b r i e f l y t o l d * Jesus* name i s assumed t o be the s i n g u l a r s u b j e c t o f t h e event,. although we have to r e f e r t o v . 1 to f i n d i t w r i t t e n down. The s i n g u l a r i n v . 4 keeps him i n view, but he i a not. named again u n t i l v . 1 1 , and then o n l y i n r e p o r t e d speech. This form which

does c r e a t e an element o f suspense, i s p a r a l l e l e d i n Mk. 16:1-8 where Jesus* name: f i r s t appears i n 16:6 on the lijps; o f the young man, whereas; L u k e ' s 68 story introduces i t e a r l i e r at Lk. 24:3. The Lucan i n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m u l a i n Ac. 1:9 may p o s s i b l y i n d i c a t e t h a t some m a t e r i a l ( o b v i o u s l y w i t h a G a l i l e a n f l a v o u r ) has been dropped. The b r e v i t y o f the event i s s u r p r i s i n g . Nothing dramatic i n t h i s event, n o t h i n g h e i g h t e n e d . ^ Luke i a very r e p e t i t i v e so as to emphasise two main points: 1 . The d i s c i p l e s are the witnesses o f t h i s e v e n t . I t i s t o them t h a t the promises are e a r l i e r made, and to them t h a t a f i n a l promise i s added i n 1:11* Their presence i s thus emphasised:
6

67. 68.

c p . S c h i l l e a r t . c i t . p . 189. Though D omits i t h e r e .

69. A s i m i l a r judgement on Luke 2 4 : I f f . on pp. 1 0 2 f . *

1:9 1:10 1:11 C 9

2. They w i l l n e v e r t h e l e s s see ( 1 : 1 1 ) Jesus a g a i n , Ms presence i n heaven i s repeated as an assurance

o f t h i s f a c t and i t i s he who w i l l he g u i d i n g t h e i r futures 1:1 1:11 1:11 1:11 1\S TOV OVaWoV
\

i$

Tov

Com. D g t )

I t : i s unusual f o r Luke to so o b v i o u s l y use

this

r e p e t i t i v e language, i t i-s much more t y p i c a l o f M a r k ' s own s t y l e . I t would suggest t h a t though the s t o r y may have been adapted by Luke to accommodate h i s Jerusalem!te f o c u s , he has kept the framework: o f h i s source*s s t o r y i n t a c t . This s confirmed by the c o n t i n u a l use o f it \toc{7
9

i t s e l f so unusual

that

suggests a ^ close dependence by Luke upon a w r i t t e n ,

n o t o r a l , source. A Marcan account, c o n t i n u i n g on f r o m 16:8 must be a strong contender f o r r e c o g n i t i o n , even i f few o f the words are Marcan, and some o f the o r i g i n a l has been o b l i t e r a t e d , f o r the ideas and the v i e w p o i n t p e r f e c t l y match what we:v would have expected f r o m the author o f the Second Gospel.

70V

o n l y a t 1 : 7 M\C .

131.

ACTS ls!3-14s

A t Home.

13. 14. cdv , cruVCBE})

'32*Kw^i>$

ftfyoBKtpiKpW^

Luke's s t o r y o f the Ascension concluded w i t h the d e t a i l o f the r e t u r n t o Jerusalem though p o s s i b l y the source described the journey back f r o m G a l i l e e . 1:12b is: added to cover up any such i d e a . The present, verses describe the a r r i v a l i n Jerusalem, s e t t i n g , the scene o f the n e x t chapters as w e l l as rounding o f f the opening s t o r y . 71

The d i f f i c u l t y surrounding the G a l i l e a n hypothesis above i s t h a t i t i s so l a b o r i o u s . The d i s c i p l e s , i f indeed they d i d go back t o G a l i l e e would be. u n l i k e l y t o r e t u r n once more t o Jerusalem w i t h o u t good reason. Whether a command o f Jesus t o t h i s e f f e c t was;: s u f f i c i e n t m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h i s exhausting sequence o f events must be an open q u e s t i o n . What can be s a i d , i s t h a t the theory above explains the f o u n d a t i o n o f the G a l i l e a n Resurrection s t o r i e s , which Luke i n both h i s volumes has sought t o s i m p l i f y by t h e i r omission

72
or adaptation.'

71. 72.

I t i s not a summary passage, d e s p i t e D i b e l i u s i n E u c h a r i s t i o n 2 (1934/ p . 34. As we suggest w i t h the Ascension s t o r y . A s i m i l a r case o f adaptation may be L k . 5 t i f f , out o f J n . 2 1 t i f f . - on which see pp. 263-266.

132

The i n c i d e n t i n v . 13f i s t o l d w i t h some d e t a i l . This might i n d i c a t e an o r i g i n a l eyew i t n e s s account. To e s t a b l i s h t h i s , i-t i s f i r s t necessary t o show t h a t verse 13 r e f e r s t o a s p e c i f i c house, already i n d i c a t e d i n the text, by the a r t i c l e before yifCftf which i m p l i e s the reader i s already f a m i l i a r w i t h the p l a c e This must,
f

be t h e place (Mk. 14:14, L k . 22:11> where Jesus had h e l d h i s l a s t s u p p e r . i s the usage o f the words
7 4

I n our support h e r e , 3 ^ 1 sJV^X&otf

KU

which c o u l d r e f e r t o the c i t y p r e v i o u s l y mentioned or to the house where was the upper room. Now t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n fiV^o^! without; a but

f o l l o w i n g p r e p o s i t i o n i s comparatively r a r e ,

when i t does occur i n A c t s i t r e f e r s : always t o the e n t e r i n g o f houses: Ac. 5:7,10, 9:12, 1 0 : 2 7 75 12:16D. An exact p a r a l l e l to these words also
r

comes i n Mk. 1 4 : 1 4 : ^ c/ o rrow where Luke makes Mark's words sound e x p l i c i t :

S TM otKwv* -s?5

( L k . 22:10) 76

73. 74.

so, note the absence o f t h e a r t i c l e at Ac. 9 : 3 7 . (AC however add ".,.> The temple i s n o t i n t e n d e d , despite B . Thurston EE 80 (1968) pp. 2 1 f . ( h i s evidence i s d e r i v e d from verses i n 1 C h r . ) . S i m i l a r l y Mk. 5:39, 7:25* and L k . 7:45, 8:51 (=Mk.>, 11:26, 13:24, 15:28 a l l o f which understand otwU A t . A c . 10:27 MS. 323 c l a r i f i e s by adding Os w . In t h i s kind of construction rrdW 4 never understood i n L k . / A c t s . ( c f . Ac. 9 : 6 ) .
N

75.

76.

c p . also p . 250 n . 309 f o r what f o l l o w s .

133.

The loose r e f e r e n c e to a house i n Ac. 1:13 accords w e l l w i t h Mark'a own c a r e f r e e but u n d e t a i l e d r e f e r e n c e s t o

77
the same i n h i s Gospel. Thus the p i c t u r e o f Ac. 1.13 i s o f "them
,,:

entering, the a slight:

78
house, and c l i m b i n g up t o the upper room, d e t a i l which any e d i t o r could w r i t e but would s u r e l y h a r d l y bother to do so i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , since he has

not yet expressed h i s s u b j e c t s . Three verbs precede t h e i r mention. I f we are r i g h t i n t h i n k i n g t h a t a s p e c i a l house was i n t e n d e d , we may f u r t h e r c i t e Ac. 2:2 and 12:12, where

79
the same f o r m u l a i s u s e d . " I a t h i s the same house, the c e n t r e o f a c t i v i t y o f those Jerusalem f o l l o w e r s ? I f i t

i s , i t provides a c e r t a i n c o n t i n u i t y i n the A c t i o n ftf Acts 1-12. Ac. 12:12 has every appearance o f being such a. c e n t r e f o r Peter *s a r r i v a l there as w e l l as his; h u r r i e d departure ( 1 2 : 1 7 ) and James absence d u r i n g t h i s
1

time o f p e r s e c u t i o n are e x p l i c a b l e i n t h i s l i g h t , f o r i t would be dangerous to remain i n a houae probably known to the a u t h o r i t i e s .

77. 78.

See p . 57 s e c t i o n 15. V o m i t s &jfii\tr*v but t h i s i s an attempted improvement ( s i m i l a r l y o?H i n 1:6 - see p . 123 n . 47) r e s u l t i n g f r o m the c a r e l e s s s t y l e o f the w r i t i n g , ( c p . also Haefner a r t . c i t . p . 69 and b e l o w ) . S i g n i f i c a n t l y also t h i s comes i n L k . 22:101) o f the Last Supper house. Also Ac. 2 0 : 8 .

79.

134

The l i n k between Ac. 12:12 and 1:13 is; o f t e n p r o p o s e d , ' and t h i s v e r b a l connection strengthens the h y p o t h e s i s . A l a t e t r a d i t i o n from Theodosius ( c . 525) states; "ipse f u i t domus sancti. marci" Against t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n Lagrange argued t h a t passover, why are n o t James, bishop o f Jerusalem,
Wi : 80

at and

the b r e t h r e n n o t a t the o f f i c i a l meeting place o f the community? This t e s t i f i e s to the f a c t t h a t John M a r k ' s house was not. the u s u a l p l a c e o f assembly"'* circumstances i n chapter 12 are e x c e p t i o n a l , p e r s e c u t i o n has d r i v e n James away from Jerusalem pro tempore We have now revealed the reason f o r the unnecessary d e t a i l i n 1:13a, f o r i f an account from Mark had described the r e t u r n o f the a p o s t l e s t o h i s house the use o f (9
OIKPV

But the 82

To b e f o r e uWy/$ov

(and perhaps

before

i n 2 : 2 ) may have o r i g i n a l l y meant "our" house;.

Zahn adds the f u r t h e r c o n j e c t u r e , though i t i s incapable o f s u b s t a n t i a t i o n , "and then what i s there t o prevent, the son o f a C h r i s t i a n household who i n 44 was perhaps 30 or 35 years o f age, f r o m having witnessed some o f the scenes i n Jesus' l i f e i n the year 30 w i t h o u t h i s having been a t the time one o f those who heard and b e l i e v e d Jesus' p r e a c h i n g ? " ' 80). O r i g i n a l l y by Zahn but l e s s p o s i t i v e l y nowadays, Haenchen op. c i t . p . 123 n . 2 . 8 1 . M. Lagrange RB 8 (1899) p . 595. 82o S i m i l a r l y J . Lumby: Acts (1890) p . 150u e.g.
8

83. Zahn op. c i t . pp. 4 2 8 f . - c p . Harnack: Luke (ET 1907) p . 160.

135.

The r e a d i n g o f D i n 1:14 ( n o t a t present

84

supported

by o t h e r witnesses ") may provide some a d d i t i o n a l corroboration:

The inappropriateness o f a mention o f c h i l d r e n among such a company may have l e d t o the d e l e t i o n o f the phrase i n o t h e r manuscripts and i t i s one o f those 85 Marcan d e t a i l s t h a t could so e a s i l y be discarded, i t i s hard t o see the p o i n t o f such an inopportune embellishment. children/
86

for

There may be intended here ' t h e

8.4iBut some l a t i n support i s found i n a heading: "cum a l t r i c i b u s s u i s m u l i e r i b u s " - see W. T h i e l e Z N W 53 C1962) p . 1 1 1 . 85. ep. S t r e e t e r * the Bezan a d d i t i o n s "are more o f t e n than n o t o f the same character as. the words and sentences i n Mark which Matthew and Luke deem s u p e r f l u o u s when they i n c o r p o r a t e passages from t h a t Gospel." (JTS 34 (1933) p . 235).
1

86. Ropes (BC 3 p . c c x x x i v ) a t t r i b u t e s the r e a d i n g t o an a n t i - f e m i n i s t bias i n D - t h i s i s based on passages such as Ac. 1 7 : 4 , 1 2 . P.. Menoud ,however, has t o admit; t h a t i t i s a "tendency more o r l e s s general i n the l a s t decades o f t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y . " (SNTS 2 (1951) p . 31) - does he mean then t h a t the D. t r a d i t i o n emanates from t h i s period? Commentators f r o m C a l v i n onwards ( e . g . Bruce op. c i t . p . 74, Weiss: Der Codex D (1897) p . 54, BC4 p . 11) see i n b o t h t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n s a reference t o the wives (and c h i l d r e n ) o f the a p o s t l e s ; but i t i s n o t a t a l l c e r t a i n t h a t D's meaning, can bear t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : At. Ac. 21:5 whence some take t h i s g l o s s ( C l a r k op. c i t . p . 4, mean women o r wives -Hout w i t h regard t o the usage i n d , m u l i e r i s used a t Ac. 5:14, 8 :3 ,12, 17:12 and i n the v u l g a t e also a t 9 : 2 , 22:4 accompanied by " v i r i " w h i l s t when Acts c l e a r l y understands Y***) i n the sense o f a married woman d always uses "uxor"' - thus Ac. 5 : 1 , 2 , 7 , 18:12 - " m u l i e r " being l e f t f o r inde t e r m i n a t e / (continued on next page))
;

136.

c h i l d r e n o f the house* - and hence here i s a passing r e f e r e n c e to Mark, Mary a son. The D- r e a d i n g i m p l i e s t h a t the w r i t e r c o u l d , i f zBjuired, have mentioned them "by name. The omission o f the a r t i c l e in ^lABE may be preparatory t o the abrupt mention o f
1

120! i n verse 15, t h e r e f o r e 1:14 i n t h i s v e r s i o n already

87
attempts to g i v e the impression o f a l a r g e r group.

8 6 . indeterminate cases: Ac. 13:50, 1 6 : 1 , 1 3 f . , 17:4 also ( c o n t ) 1 7 : 3 4 h , 24:24 (Cass.) - and t h i s r u l e i s f o l l o w e d throughout the New Testament t e x t o f d (the o n l y exceptions being M t . 19:5,10)). I f the Bezan t e x t ; understood the wives o f the a p o s t l e s to be meant a t 1:14, i t had the f a c i l i t y so to i n d i c a t e - thus i t seems more probable t h a t i t understands the meaning as "the women and c h i l d r e n o f the house". Possibly the verse can be seen as a p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f Mk. 10:30; (not i n Luke) . . . Ds reading i n Ac. i s l 4 strengthens; the f u l f i l l m e n t . Op-, also the a d d i t i o n a t Ac. 8:3 i n Aeth 26* "young; and c h i l d r e n " , j u s t p o s s i b l y gleaned from A c . 1:14D 87. Note the p>araij.eism arallelism i n D m uv
C0v

eft fvystt$V

f<Kvpt$

KaLl

this f u r t h e r s the p a r a l l e l i s m i n D a t 1:13 (see Ropes, BC3 p . 6 ) .

137.

We come back now t o the f i r s t l i s t , t h a t o f the apostles i n v . 1 3 . This comes from a t r a d i t i o n independent o f any i n the Gospels, although Lucan f e a t u r e s can be seen i n the r e f e r e n c e s t o Simon as a Zealot and Judas James. For the f i r s t f o u r names the l i s t i s c l o s e r t o the Marcan one i n t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f Peter and Andrew i s n o t recorded: Mark Acts 7 Luke

The only d i f f e r e n c e between Mark and Acts here i s the order o f John and James. I n A c t s John i s mentioned f i r s t because o f h i s appearance i n some o f the Peter s t o r i e s .
8 8

I n Codex 614 the A c t s order

i s e x a c t l y the same as t h a t o f Mark, though the reason/

88u:sually only as'.:, a s l e e p i n g p a r t n e r , being mentioned by game a t Ac. 3 : 1 . 3 , 4 , 1 1 , 4 : 1 3 , 1 9 , 8:14. Also i n cop * ' at 4:15 (and h ) 8:18,23.
1 6

138.

reason f o r t h i s s l i g h t change (unless i t he o r i g i n a l ) 89 cannot have been d e l i b e r a t e . As i t occurs a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n the n a r r a t i v e , i t might seem t h a t the l i s t i s a Lucan composition r e f r e s h i n g the r e a d e r ' s mind a t the commencement o f Volume Two. This same technique appears t o be employed i n minature at L k . 24slO, where the women's names are g i v e n o n l y a f t e r they have come back from the place o f the Empty Tomb. But i n Luke 'they* had been b r i e f l y i n t r o d u c e d a t L k . 23:49 so t h a t t h e i r i d e n t i t y i s not i n doubt. And the s i t u a t i o n i n A c t s i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r had the a p o s t l e s alone ( i . e . and n o t $he women o f v . 14} been present a t the Ascension they would have been mentioned a f t e r 1 : 1 1 . As i t stands now, the l i s t may w e l l have been derived from a 'guest l i s t ' . The p o s i t i o n i n g o f the names a t v . 13 h i n t s t h a t t h i s group was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i d e n t i c a l w i t h that; which had witnessed the Ascension.

89. Not apparently p o i n t e d out i n A . Valentine-Richardss The Text o f Acts i n Codex 614 (1934) p . 1 . The reading i s also found i n MSS 383 and S y r ( p h i l ) . Codex E. has the Lucan order f o r the f i r s t f o u r names. The c l a i m o f P. Van Stemp-Voort NTS; 5 (1958) p . 39 t h a t here the apostles are seen as "the twelve names o f the p a t r i a r c h s " would a i d our quest f o r a J e w i s h - o r i e n t a t e d source, but the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f a i l s as o n l y eleven names are s u p p l i e d !

139.

Luke has overworked verse 14 w i t h the r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r p r a y e r , ^ ' but despite L u k e s renowned i n t e r e s t i n women, i t i s Mark who makes more o f the f a c t t h a t the women were w i t h Jesus a t h i s death
0 r

CMk. 1 5 : 4 0 f . ) by r e p e a t i n g t h e i r names (Mk. 15$47). And i f they were now s t a y i n g i n Mark's house, t h e i r mention a t 1:14 would be p a r t o f the Marean s t o r y , which Luke has abbreviated, perhaps, t o a mere l i s t .

For Luke, the focus has been so much upon Jesus t h a t , i n Conzelmann's words "Mary disappears to a 91 g r e a t e r extent i n Luke than i n Mark."-^ Inevitably

t h i s i s very c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, but our e x p l a n a t i o n o f a Marc an source h e l p s to remove some o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h i s bridge passage and to e x p l a i n the reason f o r some o f t h e i n c i d e n t a l

92
d e t a i l o f these two v e r s e s .

90. BG4 pp. l O f . see t h i s as a r e f e r e n c e to the Place o f Prayer i n the Temple, and so compare A c . 3 : 1 , but we know the d i s c i p l e s d i d meet a t home (Ac. 2:46, 3:42 > and t h i s provides a more n a t u r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l s l 4 , so Origen Contra Celsum 8:22 and J . Jeremias: Jerusalem (ET 1969) p . 131 n . 20 - This i s confirmed by the r e f e r e n c e to prayer i n A c . 12:12 ' a t home*. Some t e x t s add a r e f e r e n c e t o " s u p p l i c a t i o n " , which may i n d i c a t e the mood o f expectancy among the p r i m i t i v e Community.
1

9 1 . Conzelmann op. c i t . p . 170n - which leads t o the conclusion t h a t " i t i s d i f f i c u l t to avoid the s u s p i c i o n t h a t Ac. 1:14 i s an i n t e r p o l a t i o n " . 92. On the o r i g i n a l place o f w . 1 3 f . see p . 159.

140

ACTS 1815-26 Choosing o f M a t t h i a s .

( i > P e t e r ' s speech: r c / /

ttff-L ( X L

16. ^yU 17. eh !>"*]

( i i ) Judas' deaths
f

18.

3 ^*w (bis)

19. 'lifOtfffolXyu 20. [[t^oS U<f\

( i i i ) Peter's; s p e e c h / e l e c t i o n :

21. 22..
23.

2vy

& oftrwc., fftlv

Kot\o*y^vS

24. 25. 26. tlffirtbVitS

Marcan S t y l e : also u>5 w i t h a number

"

Uie

singular (1:15),

(1:15). (ltl9).

Aramaic t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Greek

Impersonal p l u r a l (1:23 n o t D ) .

/
The continued use o f \LsL\ i n this s e c t i o n s encourages us to l o o k f o r t r a c e s o f a Marcan source, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the absence o f s p e c i a l Marcan words. I t i s improbable t h a t Luke d e l i b e r a t e l y invented/

Ml.

invented the s t o r y , whatsoever,

o u t o f no t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l

f o r w o u l d he n o t t h e n have made Jesus

h i m s e l f choose some one o f h i s f o l l o w e r s ? As i t i s , Jesus i s gone, t h e S p i r i t has n o t y e t come, and l o t s are c a s t over two c a n d i d a t e s o

The word a n a l y s i s a l s o shows l i t t l e Lucan a c t i v i t y i n the s t o r y p r o p e r o f t h e E l e c t i o n ( 1 : 2 3 - 2 6 . ) , a l t h o u g h t h e f o l l o w i n g are common enough i n A c t s : u k \ ^ 8 ) , <Tpocrtv$^W,vyl*yfoirlo6Qxily t h e NT) and 6^,

h e r e and A c . 1 5 : 8 i n

^ i f o f y ( o n l y h e r e and Lk 1 0 : 1 "MAB> i n

t h e NT'); b u t s i n c e the c h o i c e o f M a t t h i a s i s made w i t h o u t any h i n t o f P a u l ' s ; l a t e r prominence i n A c t s , w o u l d seem p r o b a b l e t h a t t h i s t r a d i t i o n i s i t

independent

o f the l a t e r P a u l i n e s t o r i e s . We t h u s a g r e e w i t h Dodd that " t h e e a r l y days? o f p e r p l e x i t y seem the episode."^ best

milieu for this

The theme o f t h e e p i s o d e i s the n e c e s s i t y

f o r art is

immediate r e t u r n to t h e t w e l v e f o l d a p o s t o l a t e . I t

Mark, m o r e o v e r , who s t r e s s e s t h a t Jesus* f o l l o w e r s a r e o*i tojcKa/ t h e e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r r i n g as f o l l o w s i n

Matthew - 3 t i m e s , Luke - 6, A c t s 1-12 - 1 , Mark - 9, John - 4 , A c t s 13-28 O

9 5

9 3 . D e s p i t e A . L o i s y : A c t s ( 1 9 2 5 ) p . 171K, M . G o g u e l : I n t r o d u c t i o n (1922); p . 1 8 2 . 9 4 . C.Hi. Dodd: A c c o r d i n g t o the S c r i p t u r e s ( 1 9 5 2 ) p 5 9 n , cp. Rengstorf a r t . c i t . p . 42. 9 5 . c p . M t . 2 8 : 1 6 , Mk. 1 6 : 1 4 , L k . 2 4 : 9 , 3 3 , L k . Ac. 1:26, 2:14. 6:12f..

142.

Throughout t h e G o s p e l s , no e x p l i c i t s i g n i f i c a n c e

is

a t t a c h e d t o t h e number u n t i l t h e P a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e , where a Q s a y i n g ( L k . 2 2 : 3 0 , M t . 1 9 : 2 8 ) r e f e r s t h e Twelve j u d g i n g 14ie t w e l v e t r i b e s o f Israel. 'one o f to

S i g n i f i c a n t l y now, Judas ( c p . J h . 6 : 7 1 ) i s the t w e l v e * ^

a f a c t c l e a r l y presupposed by t h e

p r e s e n t A c t s s t o r y ( c p . 1 : 1 7 ) , b u t i t i s o n l y Mark who r e c o r d s the f a c t t h a t 'one o f t h e t w e l v e * was (Mk. 1 4 : 2 0 ) .

f o r e k n o w n b y Jesus as a t r a i t o r

The s t o r y thus, c o n f i r m s our p i c t u r e o f t h e

97

disciples* attitude

seen i n A c . l : 6 f f .

f o r they faith,

have n o t as y e t l o s t t h e Jewishness o f t h e i r Luke may have p l a c e d t h e s t o r y here i n t h e

narrative the

because he i s aware o f t h i s l a t e r outreach t o the

f a c t , and so t h a t

G e n t i l e s w i l l be t h e w o r k o f following

the n e w l y g i v e n S p i r i t . ^ We n o t e the pointers t o a p r i m i t i v e source:?

1 . Hio s e t t i n g i s p r o v i d e d ; i t i s assumed t o be t h e same as t h a t now s a i d t o be a t f o r 1:14 b u t a crowd o f 120* are t h e house I

96. M t . 26:14,47, 9 7 . See p p .

Mk. 3 4 : 1 0 , 4 3 ,

Lk. 22:3,47.

126-128.

9 8 . So H e n g s t o r f o p . c i t . p . 180;.

143

2 . The crowd C l : 1 5 > i s i n t r o d u c e d "by means o f a v e r y clumsy p a r e n l i i e s i s Ccp. Mk. 2 : 1 5 ) - the e x a c t n e s s o f t h e i r number suggests a c e r t a i n p r e c i s i o n 99 d e r i v i n g f r o m a w r i t t e n document. 3. Those p r e s e n t a t t h e A s c e n s i o n are not

s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e source and o n l y i n d i r e c t l y by L u k e . The kerygma o f A c . 1:22 repeats

a g a i n what has been s t a t e d i n t h e P r o l o g u e . The message b e g i n s w i t h J o h n ' s b a p t i s m and c o n t i n u e s up< to t h e A s c e n s i o n , event,

1 0 0

although having r e f e r r e d to

this

Peter t h e n s t a t e s t h a t t h e y a r e w i t n e s s e s o f

the R e s u r r e c t i o n , i m p l y i n g t h a t R e s u r r e c t i o n and A s c e n s i o n are one and the same e v e n t . T h i s c o n f u s i o n

Cfrom o u r l a t e r s t a n d p o i n t ) o f t h e s e e v e n t s w o u l d be n a t u r a l i f t h e s e moments had o n l y r e c e n t l y p a s s e d , and a c l e a r - c u t d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two had n o t y e t been r e c o g n i s e d . Note t h a t i n A c . 2 : 3 2 f f . Peter i s a b l e to d i s t i n g u i s h two s t a g e s *

Thus i t might|be t h a t A c . l : . 1 5 f f . f o l l o w e d x i m m e d i a t e l y on f r o m t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n s t o r y , its and i n

s e t t i n g b e i j i g G a l i l e a n i f f r o m a Marcan a c c o u n t , support/

99.

Gerfaux,. a r t . c i t . p . 6 7 2 .

100). c p . Mk. 1:2 and A c . 1:2,5 t h e s i m i l a r i t y h e r e was a l r e a d y n o t i c e d by F i n d l a y o p . c i t . p . 6 2 .

144*

support of t h i s

ttieory

we see

a l i n k between I s 6

( Q\...rtrt&9(l1'4.s
k

> and 1 : 2 1 ( iQtf <r*>vl)&ov1W >

a choice

The i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s l a t t e r v e r s e i s t h a t must be mads f r o m those g a t h e r e d , despite

the f a c t t h a t the

a l l have been w i t h Jesus f r o m the b e g i n n i n g u n t i l Ascension, I t implies t h a t the number o f witnesses

was n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e a p o s t l e s , as Luke w o u l d have b e l i e v e . Also i n favour o f t h i s reconstruction i s l e a d t a k e n by P e t e r j u s t where we most e x p e c t i t

us

the

( a c c o r d i n g to M a r k ) a t a R e s u r r e c t i o n * s t o r y , . I n t h e Western t e x t P e t e r ' s prominence i s emphasised f o r he it i s who p r e s e n t s t h e c a n d i d a t e s , a n d i n t h e 102 o f A u g u s t i n e i t i s he who p r a y s , . text

If

Hi i s i s c o r r e c t , v e r s e s 12-14 o f A c t s 1 have been

i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e c o n t i n u o u s sequence 1 * 6 - 1 1 , 1 5 f f p e r h a p s i n o r d e r to p r o v i d e t h e i m p l i e d Jerusalem
r

s e t t i n g s f o r t h e E l e c t i o n s t o r y , o r , more p r o b a b l y place the l i s t o f a p o s t l e s : at

to

the t o p o f t h e volume

and t h u s by i m p l i c a t i o n show t h a t i t i s o n l y t h e y who are w i t n e s s e s o f the A s c e n s i o n ,

1011.

%0TAtr<V

Suo

1-23 Dg.. Haenchen o p . c i t .

p.

130

n , 1 sees t h i s as a r e f l e x i o n o f t h e l a t e r e p i s c o p a l c l a i m s o f P e t e r . T h i s i s a good example o f t h e ambivalence o f Ds does t h e r e a d l i n g r e f l e c t a l a t e r e n h a n c i n g o f P e l e r i n e s t a t u s o r an e a r l y source tendency?' ~ 1 0 2 , "et p r e c a t u s d i x i t " ' . 1:24 A u g . .

1 0 3 . Codex 1518 reads t o commence 1:12 ( t h o u g h 1:13 a c c o r d i n g t o v o n Soden p . 4 9 2 ) : l# ky>ifict\c IktfAiis wi-Gi w h i c h c p . 1:15 - b u t the r e a d i n g i s valueless.

145.

The a c c o u n t o f J u d a s

d e n i a l (1:18-200

comes as

s o m e t h i n g o f an a s i d e i n t o P e t e r * s speech and has e v e r y appearance o f b e i n g an e d i t o r i a l i n s e r t i o n . I t may emanate f r o m an i n d e p e n d e n t t r a d i t i o n (Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are below a v e r a g e ) perhaps o f Aramaic o r i g i n . I t s e r v e s t o s t r e n g t h e n Luke *s p i c t u r e o f t h i s s e r i e s o f e v e n t s as h a p p e n i n g J e r u s a l e m . The e l e c t i o n s t o r y p r o p e r (1:23-26) inside has (1:25)

a r e f e r e n c e t o Judas ' g o i n g t o h i s own p l a c e *

a m y s t e r i o u s p o i n t w h i c h t h e e d i t o r may have wi^jahed t o c l a r i f y by a d d i n g l : 1 8 - 2 Q v

1 0 ) 4

' As a r e s u l t o f

this

i n s e r t i o n , Luke p o s t p o n e s the c i t a t i o n o f P s .

109:8

i n t r o d u c e d i n l : 1 6 f . , b u t works back t o t h e same v i a . a. q u o t a t i o n o f Pa. 6 9 : 2 5 , w h i c h r o u n d s o f f t h e Judas* The

story with scriptural j u s t i f i c a t i o n of his fate. use o f P s . 109 l a much more a p p r o p r i a t e election story.
l Q 1

to

the

^ Thus t h e f i r s t m e n t i o n o f Judas

( i n v e r s e 16 c p . v . 20;) i s concerned w i t h h i s p o s i t i o n as one o f t h e a p o s t l e s . H a v i n g d e s c r i b e d the

e l e c t i o n o f t h e new a p o s t l e , t h e s t o r y w o u l d o n l y t h e n most n a t u r a l l y r e f e r t o Judas* d e a t h ( 1 : 2 5 ) . The f a c t that t h i s i s m e n t i o n e d twiffe. suggests Luke was u s i n g that

two t r a d i t i o n s . But i t i s e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e Luke/

-104-. So Haenchen o p . c i t . p p . 1 3 1 f f . . 105V . A g a i n s t Menoud RHPR 6 ( 1 9 5 7 ) p p . 71ff..

i . [ ( : v>*

146.

Luke h a s ,

i n t h i s instance,

s i m p l y t r a n s f e r r e d 1:18-19 so t h a t he

f r o m i t s o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n a f t e r 1:25

c o u l d show a t w e l f t h a p o s t l e was n o t a p p o i n t e d w h i l e Judas was s t i l l a l i v e . B u t i f we a c c e p t t h a t this

e l e c t i o n d i d take place

soon a f t e r t h e A s c e n s i o n , that

t h e n c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y i t w o u l d be more l i k e l y

J u d a s ' d e a t h d i d o c c o r l a t e r 1iian t h e e l e c t i o n o f a new f a i t h f u l a p o s t l e . t h e account o f J u d a s

10 1

Thus i n the o r i g i n a l
1 0 6

source,

departure'

would p r o v i d e to
8

a c o n n e c t i o n * ^ back t o t h e c y c l e o f s t o r i e s be r e l a t e d i n J e r u s a l e m ( l : 1 3 f . 2tiff.),
1 0

106. This n o t i c e i s Lucan; f o r t h i s euphemistic of rfyt6tcr&rt see p p . 2 5 5 f . .

sense

10/?. The r e a d i n g i n 1:25 N.E614 o f Judas* r e c e i v i n g h i s *X}jaov may have prompted the e d i t o r t o connect t h i s s t o r y w i t h t h e KXyoV o f 1 : 1 ? . 10S. M a t t h e w ' s p l a c i n g o f J u d a s ' d e a t h b e f o r e t h a t o f even Jesus need n o t be t a k e n s e r i o u s l y , s i n c e Matthew, as he was w r i t i n g no h i s t o r y o f t h e c h u r c h , was o b l i g e d t o b r i n g f o r w a r d t h i s s t o r y , i f he was t o use i t a t a l l . ilhe d i v e r g e n t t r a d i t i o n s may p o s s i b l y be e x p l a i n e d i f Matthew knew o f a s t o r y ( f r o m M a r k ? ) and expanded i t w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o p r o p h e t i c f u l f i l l m e n t o f J e r e m i a h and Z e c h a r i a h , w h i l s t Luke understands the ' F i e l d o f B l o o d ' i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t sense. But I t h i n k i t e q u a l l y possible, t h a t Luke may have r e a d Matthew, i n w h i c h case he may have had vague r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f M a t t h e w ' s a c c o u n t . B u t i f Mark had c o n t i n u e d h i s s t o r y , a word as t o J u d a s ' f a t e w o u l d be i n o r d e r .

147

B u t , as u s u a l ,

Luke has c e r t a i n l y l e f t h i s own even t h o u g h t o a l e s s e r -yvwloV

1 0

vocabulary i n t h i s section, e x t e n t t h a n u s u a l . Note the reference to -rof$

and

the

KTot K.owrv

Traces o f

an o r i g i n a l c a n , however, be seen i n t h e Aramaic Akeldama, a t e r m Luke w o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d to use,

had he n o t been i n f l u e n c e d by t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l * I t may be t r u e t h a t Luke has conformed t h e a c c o u n t a pattern, e n u m e r a t i n g t h e f a t e o f the p e r s e c u t o r to

1 1 0

b u t t h i s does n o t s u f f i c e t o e x p l a i n t h e presence o f t h e Aramaic term.

1 1 1

We now r e t u r n t o t h e E l e c t i o n s t o r y w h i c h b e g i n s with a brief o r a t i o n by P e t e r . Verse 15 s e t s t h e scene

f o r t h e a c t i o n , and as so o f t e n , the i n t r o d u c t i o n y i e l d s a number o f Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . However

t h e Western t e x t a v o i d s some o f t h e s e 7- and so we must/

109o Renie RB55 (1948) s t u d y i n g 1:15-26 c o n c l u d e s 72$ o f t h e r a r e r words a r e L u c a n . To 1:18-20 we may add t h e use o f YWfcaivos i n a s e m i - m e d i c a l sense: L k . 22:44>i*J>e , A c . 10:10? ( n o t p 4 5 ) , 1 2 : 1 1 , 2 3 , 16:29 NAB ( v F . . E l y J'TS 13 (1912) p . 280, H . H o s k i e r : Codex B (1914) p . 4 0 8 ) . 110. Cp. W i l l i a m s o p . c i t . p . 60 who p o i n t s t o 2 Mace 9 . Papias* v e r s i o n o f Judas* d e a t h has a l s o been i n f l u e n c e d by 2 Mace 9 . 111. C l a r k o p . c i t . p . 338 ( f o l l o w i n g B l a s s ) a c c e p t s t h e r e a d i n g o f A u g u s t i n e i n 1:18 e t c o l l u m s i b i a l l i g a v i t et dejectus i n faciem diruptus est*: i f t h i s was o r i g i n a l l y f r o m a Marcan a c c o u n t , i t may have p r o v i d e d a f u l f i l l m e n t o f Mk. 9 :42 ( n o t i n L u k e ) . The o r d i n a r y r e a d i n g i s . i n d e e d "Very mysterious".
M

148.

must c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f w h e t h e r i t c o u l d he r e p r e s e n t i n g a more p r i m i t i v e pr'e-Lucan t e x t . The m a i n v a r i a n t s a r e s

( 1 > p.* & f\T&

the oJ$*^fi$

(DE 614 )

^ i SA^&V

(Kb*)

T h i s Western r e a d i n g a v o i d s t h e c o n f l i c t w i t h o f 1 : 1 4 . B u t i t i s a more g e n e r a l t e r m ,

a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r e p a r i n g f o r t h e m e n t i o n o f 120 p e o p l e , and i t may l a t e r have been a l t e r e d t o a v o i d t h e n o t i o n t h a t any o f the f*&yv*/ apostolate. (11) y4 w_ere e l i g i b l e f o r t h e

The t e r m i s more f r e q u e n t i n Mark t h a n Luke< ^

f o r

1*

CC=Sl > ~ a v o i d s

the

Luc an c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . (iii) W ( B D ) > 5><n\(H*) - again a v o i d i n g the

Iiucanism Also Civ) o i v ^ j v (E) - easing the d i f f i c u l t y o f i < 112 t h i s u n u s u a l use o f > Ovo jtotTVOV *

On t h e w h o l e , t h e s e appear t o be i m p r o v e m e n t s , b u t b e h i n d some Western r e a d i n g s may be e v i d e n c e o f t h e o r i g i n a l Lucan, o r even a p r e - L u c a n t e x t .

Verses 1 6 - 1 7 , 21-22 f o r m t h e b r i e f speech by P e t e r , introduced w i t h the usual formula f o r Acts*

1

^V^dU

i S l X ^ o ^ . T e c h n i c a l l y t h i s presupposes t h e women o f v . 14 a r e a b s e n t , e x p l i c a b l e however i f t h i s v e r s e has been i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e A s c e n s i o n c o n t e x t , b u t t h e usage i s n o t p r e c i s e and s h o u l d n o t be p r e s s e d .

1 1 2 . C p . Rev. 3*4, 1 1 : 1 3 .

149.

As w i t h t h e A s c e n s i o n , t h e n a r r a t i v e i s and t h u s d e t a i l s about t h e c a n d i d a t e s obscure.

short,

remain

The r e a d i n g o f Codex Bezae may be e x p l a i n e d t o i d e n t i f y Joseph w i t h a more

by t h e d e s i r e

familiar figure:

But why a l t e r the m a n s namg^from Barsabbas t o b e t t e r known Barnabas,

the

why s h o u l d anyone w i s h t o

i d e n t i f y the l o s i n g , c a n d i d a t e w i t h a w e l l - k n o w n p r e a c h e r ? Moreover 3>'s ( u n s u p p o r t e d } r e a d i n g

113

cannot be a s l i p o f a pen f o r n o t o n l y has a Nu been i n t r o d u c e d b u t a B e t a d e l e t e d . I t must be a

114

deliberate a l t e r a t i o n , unless i t i s

original.

B u t on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t can be r e t o r t e d , why a l t e r Barnabas

1

name t o an obscure name? - t h o u g h t h e

surname Barsabbas i s . known f r o m A c . 1 5 : 2 2 ABE* We may r e a d i l y a c c o u n t f o r t h i s , i f t h e w r i t e r o f A c t s wished t o hide the f a c t t h a t the character o f Barnabas (who i s t o appear i n l a t e r e v e n t s ) h a d n o t a f t e r the Ascension. I f

won e l e c t i o n t o t h e a p o s t o l a t e this/

113.Or even a s l i p o f t h e mind - f o r w o u l d n o t i t have been l a t e r c o r r e c t e d by t h e s c r i b e o r one o f t h e many a n n o t a t o r s o f D? - on t h e s e v * C l a r k , p p . 1 7 3 - 1 7 8 . 114.Eppi, o p . c i t . p . 167 n . 7 however n o t e s p l a c e s where 3>s r e a d i n g ( o f t e n s t a n d i n g alone); o f names deviates from the received t e x t .

150.

this is a possibility,

L ?

we may e x p l a i n how Luke

( v i a M a r k ) may have o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n upon t h i s episode, f o r Mark was c o u s i n o f Barnabas ( C o l . 4 : 1 0 ) .

1 1 6

The f u l l e r d e t a i l a b o u t t h i s J o s e p h ,

rather

than the

t h e w i n n i n g M a t t h i a s , argues f o r t h e f a c t t h a t w r i t e r knew more about t h e f o r m e r c a n d i d a t e .

N e i t h e r i s i n t r o d u c e d by the t y p i c a l A c t s f o r m u l a of. t"S w h i c h f u r t h e r p o i n t s t o a s t o r y w h i c h Luke has i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h o u t overdue e d i t o r i a l treatment. The outcome c o n f i r m s t h i s a t t i t u d e : had

Luke been composing f r e e l y and had he known Barnabas was a p o s s i b i l i t y f o r s e l e c t i o n , i t might the

have been e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e outcome w o u l d be appointment o f Barnabas. I f the D. r e a d i n g a c c e p t e d , t h e n we may observe: is

1 . A l t h o u g h Barnabas i s r e i n t r o d u c e d a t 4 : 3 6 ,

this

i s n o t o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s method - f o r Agabus i s p r e s e n t e d , as t h o u g h f o r t h e f i r s t t_ime>

a t 2 1 : 1 0 , d e s p i t e h i s e a r l i e r appearance i n 1 1 : 2 8 . Philip, t o o , reappears before thes reader a t 21:8, as

though we had n e v e r b e f o r e met the man.

1 1 5 . The case o f P a u l does n o t d i s p r o v e t h i s . S a u l ' s e a r l y p e r s e c u t i o n o f t h e Church was t o o w e l l known ( G a l . 1 : 1 3 ) t o s u p p r e s s b u t n o t e how t h e w r i t e r o f A c t s , f o l l o w i n g P a u l h i m s e l f makes P a u l ' s e v e n t u a l c o n v e r s i o n an o c c a s i o n f o r g r e a t g l o r y i n g . 1 1 6 . N o t e , t o o , t h a t he i s i n t r o d u c e d f i r s t a l t h o u g h he l o s e s . I s he n o t so m e n t i o n e d because he i s (as Barnabas) t o p l a y t h e more i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e subsequent s p r e a d i n g o f t h e good news?'

151.

2 . The s t o r y may t h e n have come t o Luke t h r o u g h an a c c o u n t o f Mark f r o m B a r n a b a s . I f t h i s i s so we w i l l n o t be c o n t e n t w i t h r. s e e i n g o n l y an " A c t s o f P e t e r " b e h i n d the supposed Marcan s o u r c e .

For t h e p r e s e n t , we see i n t h i s i n c i d e n t o n l y a glimpse o f P e t e r ' s f o r t h c o m i n g prominence, v e r y o b s c u r i t y o f t h e event t e s t i f i e s t o but its the

g e n u i n e n e s s . However i t i s n o t easy t o show w i t h g r e a t c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r passage o f Marcan o r i g i n , u n l e s s o u r g e n e r a l t h e s i s be part is

a c c e p t e d . I f we can see M a r k ' s w r i t i n g b e h i n d

o f A c t s , t h e n t h i s s t o r y must p r e s s f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t o the framework. Acts 2:1-4 1.4V 2. Pentecost ( n o t D]

3. tiGl(

We have s u g g e s t e d above t h a t Luke may have s l i g h t l y r e a r r a n g e d h i s m a t e r i a l t o s u i t h i s own n e e d s . T h i s tendency becomes more a p p a r e n t w i t h the

account o f the p r o m i s e d g i f t o f t h e S p i r i t . I n A c . 4 : 3 1 t h e r e i s a r e p e t i t i o n on a s m a l l s c a l e o f t h e I t i s o n l y however i n 2 : 5 - 1 3 t h a t we r e c e i v e hint/ event. any

152.

h i n t t h a t t h i s f i r s t P e n t e c o s t has s u c h w i d e s c a l e s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r up u n t i l t h i s p o i n t t h e m e n t i o n o f t h e "house" has p r o v i d e d the p i c t u r e o f a m o d e s t l y s i z e d g a t h e r i n g , as a t 4 : 3 1 . L e t u s set

down t h e common g r o u n d between t h e two a c c o u n t s : 1. ToV

OIKOV

( 2 : 2 ) t h i s p o i n t s u s back t o 1:13

n o t e a g a i n t h e a r t i c l e , as t h o u g h we a r e a l l f a m i l i a r w i t h the p l a c e . This k i n d o f assumption i s v e r y f a m i l i a r f r o m M a r k . The background t o 4 : 3 1 i s n o t clear, return b u t a t 4:23 we r e a d t h a t P e t e r and John tTJabj ro^s ?f<otfJ , w h i c h may once more
117

so

i n c l u d e t h e t h o u g h t o f M a r y ' s house o f

1:14.

2 . Those who r e c e i v e t h e g i f t a r e (Ac. 2 : 1 ) ;

1 1 8

'together* Qp&stp&U.

, and i n A c . 4 : 2 4 t h e y p r a y

117.So J a c q u i e r , o p . c i t . p . 137 - i f t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h e s e men were s t a y i n g t h e r e . B u t i t i s o n l y a vague c o n t a c t between t h e two a c c o u n t s . 1 1 8 . E 614 r e a d c^o9sfj^ei^oV. ^^U i s only here i n t h e NT and i n John ( a l s o L k . 2 3 : 3 3 B A c * 2C-:18A). The r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e i d e a i n iv\ -rh <*3to m i g h t i n d i c a t e the s t a r t o f a s c r i b a l gloss from the s i m i l a r words i n 1:14 - w h i c h i s i n t e r e s t i n g as i t d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t one m i n d , a t l e a s t , c o n n e c t e d t h e s e two s c e n e s .
N

153

3 . The coming of:? t h e S p i r i t i s by a p h y s i c a l 'tCW oi&cov

/

accompanied

phenomenon: o
3 ^ <r

r
(VOL.
/

(2:2) (4:31)

I n t h i s r e s p e c t A c . 4 : 3 1 i s much more

restrained the

( c p . Mk. 1 3 : 1 1 ) w h i l s t A c . 2 : 2 f . d w e l l s upon miraculous nature o f the gift.

4 . The S p i r i t descends upon a l l t h o s e p r e s e n t : J ltrVi/fr&jW JWVftJ f W ^ r o j Kytov(2:4)

KeU

lIA f f^ r f e * * * ! /
\

S/rravTK^ W m o

tfau**M4:31)

5. F i n a l l y t h e e f f e c t s a r e ,

o f course, i d e n t i c a l :

fcdi

4Xi\o^V
f f l 6 7 o f

(4:31) fl^Vft 1$

The a d d i t i o n i n 4 : 3 1 DE c o p

s t r e n g t h e n s t h e bond w i t h t h e s t o r y i n Ac. 2, f o r there too the e d i t o r concludes h i s account p r o p e r w i t h t h e sudden i n t r o d u c t i o n o f w a y f a r i n g f o r e i g n e r s i n t o the blessings o f Pentecost.

As r e g a r d s 2 : 1 - 4 we m i g h t a t f i r s t be t o s u s p e c t t h a t Luke has

tempted

t h o r o u g h l y adapted h i s i n these verses of the

m a t e r i a l , and we can u n e a r t h l i t t l e

t h a t i s n o t a b l y M a r c a n . B u t , as w i t h t h e account

Judas* d e a t h , Luke may have t r a n s f e r r e d a s t o r y o f Spirit's/

f* r e a d

J^L\tr%

agreeing w i t h

2:4.

15*

S p i r i t * s bestowal

( i . e . now f o u n d i n p a r t a t

4:31)

and b r o u g h t i t t o t h e head o f t h e book, t o announce t h e theme o f h i s w o r k . A g a i n Luke has n o t l o s t the

/
o u t l i n e o f h i s s o u r c e , n o t e the i n 2 : 1 - 4 as a t 4 : 3 1 . The argument i s t h a t Luke has seen t h e significance continued

o f t h e e v e n t i n 4 : 3 1 and made t h e p o i n t more o b v i o u s l y i l l u s t r a t i v e o f the d i v i n e a c t i o n by d e s c r i b i n g i t i n ' b l a c k and w h i t e * . J u s t how much he added f r o m h i s own e x p e r i e n c e s o f 'speaking w i t h

t o n g u e s ' can be p a r t i a l l y r e s o l v e d by ( i ) n o t i n g t h e p a r a l l e l s w i t h 4 : 3 1 ( a b o v e ) and ( i i ) p o i n t i n g t o p o s s i b l e Marcan f e a t u r e s w h i c h may a l s o have stood

i n the o r i g i n a l account i n 4 : 3 1 w h i c h has now been reduced, we m i g h t say i f we were conversing only

m a t h e m a t i c a l l y , to i t s lowest terms - t h a t i s , the e s s e n t i a l p o i n t s remain.

I n 2 : 1 we r e a d t h a t

" a l l " are t o g e t h e r ,

and y e t

L u k e , i f n o t t h e s o u r c e , presupposes some o n l o o k e r s who do n o t r e c e i v e the g i f t (2:5ff) recipients therefore, similar

d e s p i t e the m e n t i o n o f them " a l l " as t h e i n 2 : 4 . The p l u r a l s i n v e r s e s 2 and^ may,

be i n t e n d e d more l o o s e l y r - w e may r e c a l l t h e k i n d o f d i f f i c u l t y i n 1:24,

t h o u g h i n t h i s case t h e

o b s c u r i t y may be caused by Luke h i m s e l f .

155.

The tongues

wCTtl

Jfij0f>$

may f u l f i l

t h e Q b a p t i s m a l s a y i n g ( f o r n o t e how Luke a t Jesus* b a p t i s m s i m i l a r l y makes t h e event a more p h y s i c a l experience)

1

- b u t Mark may perhaps have

a n t i c i p a t e d i t a l s o i n Mk. 9 : 4 9 .

We w i l l n o t d w e l l on the e d i t o r ' s of t h i s g i f t as .a a. s p e a k i n g i n o t h e r

understanding tongues has

( A c . 2 : 4 b ) . I n so d e s c r i b i n g t h e phenomenon he misunderstood the nature o f the event, but h i s

p u r p o s e i s r e v e a l e d i n v e r s e s 5 f f . : "the S p i r i t will speak n o t o n l y t o Jews b u t a l s o t o a l l men.

Thereby Luke a n t i c i p a t e s

the l o g i c a l need f o r a Spirit

m i s s i o n t o t h e G e n t i l e s . I n these v e r s e s the is n o t y e t g i v e n t o t h e G e n t i l e s though

already

t h e y can hear h i s v o i c e . Now t h i s may o r may n o t be r e f l e c t i v e o f a l a t e r t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f t h e S p i r i t , vixat i s o f i m p o r t a n c e to* u s i s ; t h a t i f we are r i g h t i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t Marcan m a t e r i a l t h a t was a v a i l a b l e depicted the

t h e o r t h o d o x J e w i s h a t t i t u d e o f t h e Twelve i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the R e s u r r e c t i o n , t h e n a concept/

120

so B u r k i t t : C h r i s t i a n B e g i n n i n g s ( 1 9 2 4 ) p . 17

156.

concept

as t h a t o u t l i n e d i n 2 : 4 b f f c o u l d n o t

p o s s i b l y b.e Mar c a n . The t r a n s i t i o n ^ f r o m t h e i r J e w i s h - o r i e n t a t e d f a i t h i s too sudden.

We see

t h e n i n 2 : 1 - 4 an e d i t o r i a l a c c o u n t o f

the

promised baptism o f t h e S p i r i t ,

very v i t a l f o r our

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f L u k e ' s method, b u t f o r o u r purposes y i e l d i n g o n l y a p o s s i b l e s h a f t o f Marcan

l i g h t . I t may have been d e r i v e d f r o m 4 : 3 1 , where once a l o n g e r a c c o u n t had stood.

w .

5-13 E f f e c t o f P e n t e c o s t

8. 9. rf^Com. D )

10). i t ( b i s ) 11.. Further

12.

Results:
rfptis, JCCB 614)

1 3 . try>o

121.See p p . 2 1 4 f f

157

fc

a t l a s t b e g i n s t o appear r e g u l a r l y i n A c t s J 1-4 are set i n the house, i t is; h a r d t o

Whereas w .

imagine t h i s o f w

5 f f . u n l e s s by 'house* was s e t i n the "open

meant t h e t e m p l e . The scene i s b e s t air",

1 2 2

K i e o n l y Marcan f e a t u r e i s t h a t o f t h e use the amazement C2:7) b u t

c

o f two v e r b s t o i l l u s t r a t e

1he usage i s p a r a l l e l l e d i n v

12 whence

this

f e a t u r e may have been g l e a n e d .

T h i s becomes more e v i d e n t i f we a c c e p t

that

two t r a d i t i o n s have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n 2 $ 1 - 1 3 . F o r t h i s , we have t o r e t u r n t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h o s e involved i n the incident f o r there i a d e f i n i t i v e ambiguity over 1. JTotvfunT ( 2 s i ) t h e t o t a l o f t h o s e present this

( t h e 120) o f Ac* 1 : 1 5 ? ) , 2. 3. jriv-rii i^iavt^j ( 2 : 4 ) receive the Spirit,

(.2:7) who speak a r e G a l i l e a n s . -

W h i l s t a l l i h i s i s p l a u s i b l e , we c o n t i nue 4. 5. ff^vrJEs ( 2 : 1 2 ) a r e amazed,

( 2 : 1 3 ) mock. A d i s c r e p a n c y r e s u l t i n g

f r o m t h e e d i t o r ' s d e s i r e t o i n c r e a s e t h e numbers o f those p r e s e n t . Haacker t h u s d i s t i n g u i s h e s two 123 traditions, one/

y

one c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s p e a k i n g and

1 2 2 . Gtoguel:: I n t r o d u c t i o n , p . 1 7 6 . I f i t had been i n t h e t e m p l e , we m i g h t have e x p e c t e d t r o u b l e s i m i l a r t o that i n Ac. 4 : 1 , 5 : 2 5 f . . 1 2 3 . K Haacker i n Verborum V e r i t a s p p . 2 1 5 f f . .

158.

one w i t h t h e r e a c t i o n s o f t h o s e who heard? w T h i s seems t h e s i m p l e s t way o f e x p l a i n i n g t h e paragraphs

6-11,13.

The p r o p e r c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e e p i s o d e begun i n v e r s e 1-4 has been o b s c u r e d by t h e speech v . 15 a c t i n g as a l i n k passage - and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a v o i d t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t P e t e r ' s speech is-, i n i t s context, secondary, when we a r r i v e a t 2:40s

T h i s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l r e j o i n d e r comes as an a n t i c l i m a x t o t h e l o n g o r a t i o n , and i t s b r e v i t y , may have s u i t e d t h e c o n t e x t o f the s h o r t 'Pentecost*

s t o r y b e t t e r e 2s40<f. a c t s as a s u i t a b l e r o u n d i n g o f f o f t h e e v e n t and as a t Mk. 6 : 4 4 , 8:9 t h e r e a f o o t n o t e pronouncing; t h e number o f t h o s e is

present*

Having thus d i s t i n g u i s h e d signs o f

lake's

e d i t o r i a l method as r e g a r d s h i s r e a r r a n g i n g o f h i s m a t e r i a l t o emphasise p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s o f t h e p o s t - R e s u r r e c t i o n commnnmty, we w i l l l i s t t h e order/ possible

1 2 4 . The number must be l a r g e a f t e r 2 : 5 f f . . Though compare F a r r e r : S t , Mark (1951>, who, d i s c u s s i n g t h e Feedings i n S t . M a r t , says ( p . 297) " t h e r e are t h r e e thousands s t i l l t o be f e d " . So A c . 2 : 4 1 .

159.

o r d e r o f e v e n t s t h a t was f o u n d by Luke i n h i s s o u r c e * Ac. 1:6-11 1:15-17/21-26 (1:18-20-) 1:12-14 3:1-11 4:lff. 4:23-31 ( I n c l u d i n g a f t e r v . 31 m a t e r i a l now r e u s e d i n 2:1-4,40-41) (?) 4:32-35 (=2:42-47) and p e r h a p s 4:36ff

These s e c t i o n s have n o t , o f c o u r s e ,

been u t i l i s e d

w i t h o u t a l t e r a t i o n , b u t i t becomes e v i d e n t now why 4 : 3 2 f f . repeats, w i t h v a r i a t i o n s , 2 : 4 2 f f . , since Luke i n u s i n g h i s source w i s h e s t o d e s c r i b e t h e S p i r i t ' s d e s c e n t a f t e r t h e Twelve have r e a s s e m b l e d . Thus he goes t o what i s now A c . 4 : 3 1 and t a k e s and a m p l i f i e s t h e s t o r y now f o u n d i n n c h a p t e r 2 , i n c l u d i n g an a c c o u n t o f t h e Community o f Goods. He t h e n goes back t o h i s s o u r c e ' s o r d e r , where he l e f t i t off, i.e.

c o n t i n u i n g w i t h A c . 3 : I f f . . Upon r e r e a d i n g 4 : 3 1 he a b b r e v i a t e s t h e s t o r y o f the S p i r i t and c o n t i n u e s w i t h the r e p e t i t i o n which i s perhaps d e l i b e r a t e , , o f t h e s t o r y o f t h e Community o f Goods.

From t h i s t a b l e has been s e t a s i d e t h e m a j o r speeches o f P e t e r . Dodd has p o i n t e d t o t h e parallels

between t h i s kerygmS. ( t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e J e r u s a l e m i t e c h u r c h ) and t h a t s e t f o r t h p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e Gospel o f M a r k . 1 2 5

1 2 5 . Dodds A p o s t o l i c P r e a c h i n g p p . 4 5 , 1 0 5 f f . . I t . e f f e c t i v e l y combats P a r k e r ' s t h e s i s ( v . p p . 1 2 - 2 1 ) .

160.

A c . 2*14-36 P e t e r ' s . F i r s t Speech.

129

14.

eru/, S v f o ^ C D ) ,

15. 16. 22. eJ^Cbia) , <?S Cnot D) T$f&$> ?<ro$f[f>]

2 3 . <i&T*>T 24. 29. 3 0 . UJ7^9)(iW 31. 32. 33. 36. v ^ o v " f t ( n o t D) 0|coS As r e g a r d s examples o f * M a r c a n s t y l e - t h e r e i s continued preference f o r Tha however i s a a vW(E614.)

f e a t u r e o f a l l the P e t e r speeches i n A c t s f o r i n s i _ d e t h e a c t u a l speeches appears o n l y i n c h a p t e r 3 .

N e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s w o u l d seem to l e n d some w e i g h t to< t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f Marcan i n f l u e n c e , , more especially/

1 2 9 . I o m i t f r o m t h i s l i s t , (and a l l o t h e r s ) t h e v e r s e s w h i c h quote t h e LET t e x t , even though t h e r e a r e some d e v i a t i o n s . I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o measure t h e s e s t a t i s t i c a l l y ( c p . p . 33 n . 6 ( e n d ) ) . : 1 3 0 . Not c o u n t e d i n the s t a t i s t i c s , as i t appears i n Mk. 1 5 : 3 4 as a q u o t a t i o n o n l y .

161.

e s p e c i a l l y i f . t h e kerygma assumes a knowledge o f 131 t h e Gospel story.

As w i t h a l l t h e A c t s * speeches, i t i s n o t 1^2 133 s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to i t s context: the e d i t o r

J

has p r o v i d e d t h e e p p o r t u n i t y f o r a speech by introducing the, very appropriate, theme o f new wine..

F o r t h i s r e a s o n we may a c c e p t , as I t h i n k i s g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d , t h a t t h i s i s not. an a c t u a l 134 h i s t o r i c a l speech o f P e t e r d e l i v e r e d a t P e n t e c o s t * The number o f speeches i n A c t s w i t n e s s e s t o L u k e ' s t h e o l o g i c a l and p a s t o r a l i n t e n t i o n and w h i l s t s c h o l a r s h i p has n a t u r a l l y c e n t r e d on t h e s e s e c t i o n s i n essaying, t o comprehend the s t r u c t u r e o f t h e work,,

o u r e x a m i n a t i o n w i l l be c o m p a r a t i v e l y b r i e f . F o r i f we a c c e p t t h a t t h e s e o r a t i o n s have been i n s e r t e d ( n o t a t random, t h o u g h o f t e n r a t h e r u n i m a g i n a t i v e l y ) i n t o t h e s t o r y , t h e n o u r c o n c e r n w i l l be o n l y i n what/

131* i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t o f Mark: c p . C a r r i n g t o n op. c i t . p . 3 3 8 : " M a r k ' s Gospel p r o v i d e s t h i s n e c e s s a r y supplementary i n f o r m a t i o n . ' " 1 3 2 . so D i b e l i u s : S t u d i e s p p . 1 7 4 f . , 1 8 2 . I s t h i s t r u e o f t h e l a t e r speeches o f P a u l ? 1 3 3 . n . b . t h e e d i t o r i a l f e a t u r e s i n 2 : 1 4 , t o w h i c h may be added t h e t y p i c a l A c t s ' words V V W A - t w . ot 1 3 4 . A t t e m p t s have been made t o show v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s between t h i s speech and 1 P e t e r ( a l w a y s assuming t h i s t o be by P e t e r > : e.g.. rraoyv>TTT-\ ( A c . 2:33 = 1 P e t e r 1 : 2 , 2 0 arid A c . 2:33a = 1 P e t * 3:22 sea Lumby: E S e r i e s , 1,4 (1896) p p . 1 1 3 f f . and J a c q u i e r o p . c i t . pp., c c l x i v f . . . ) R e l a t i n g t h i s t o Mark:. M . K a r n e t z k i ZMIfiT 5 2 / 1 9 6 1 . p . 2 7 1 , E . S c h a r f e : P e t r i n i s c h e Stromung ( 1 8 9 9 ) p a s s i m .

162.

what k i n d of. m i l i e u t h e y a r o s e . The J e r u s a l e m i t e church perhaps. This would e x p l a i n t h e i r general is

agreement w i t h M a r k ' s G o s p e l . B u t because t h e r e so l i t t l e ' l o c a l c o l o u r ' ,

because s t y l e and language. they

i s so t h o r o u g h l y L u c a n , t h e i m p r e s s i o n i s t h a t 1*55 are e x p r e s s i o n s , o f L u k e ' s own b e l i e f .

To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s f a c t , we may c i t e A c . 1 1 : 1 5 where P e t e r says i t . i s : as he was b e g i n n i n g t o speak t h a t the S p i r i t f e l l . refers, before I n t h e a c c o u n t t o w h i c h he

he has d e l i v e r e d t h e whole o f t h e Kerygma i< XAo<>Vf*S To^ I^TfttJ'

36

the S p i r i t

fell.

T u r n i n g now t o Ac 2 : . 1 4 f f we may c o n s i d e r

whether

t h e r e i s a n y t h i n g Marcan i n t h e m a t e r i a l upon w h i c h Luke b u i l t . We w i l l n o t be c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e Kerygma (Dodd has a l r e a d y examined the basic

parallels^)

because t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s are m o s t l y o f o u t l i n e and idea, n o t v e r b a l . Indeed i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine

much f r o m t h i s S e c t i o n on the b a s i s o f s h e e r linguistics, speech/ s i n c e t h e r e i s no p a r a l l e l t o t h i s long

135. though n o t n e c e s s a r i l y ' f o r m u l a t i o n s ' devoid o f tradition. 136. Ac. 10:44.

163.

speech i n Mark ( p e r h a p s e x c l u d i n g Mk. 1 3 ) . B u t i f Mark does n o t m e n t i o n , we may even say on p u r p o s e , the context o f Jesus' teaching very f r e q u e n t l y , , i s t h i s perhaps "because he knew P e t e r ' s speeches a t f i r s t handand was a l r e a d y , when w r i t i n g h i s G o s p e l , i n t e n d i n g t o i n c l u d e most o f h i s t e a c h i n g ' i n a second volume? ' p r e a c h i n g and

But i f

i t i s D o d d ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e A c t s ' kerygma clear,

i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h a t o f Mark, I t i s a l s o

on a n a l y s i s o f Acts, 2., t h a t t h i s t h e s i s does, n o t a p p l y t o a n y t h i n g more t h a n g e n e r a l d e t a i l . The c o r n e r s t o n e o f t h e o r a t i o n i s e x p o s i t i o n o f LXX 1' t e x t s t o p r o v e t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f prophecy i n J e s u s , ' and as i n A c . 4 : 2 5 f f . t h e argument i s d e v e l o p e d o u t o f t h e language o f the Psalm (so A c . 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) . A r o u n d t h i s s e c t i o n a r e added two o t h e r t e x t s and t h e r e some i m p o r t a n t d e v i a t i o n s f r o m * t h e LXX t e x t are

Ci.e.

t h a t known t o u s ) w h i c h may be s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e b f i r s t quotation, that from J o e l :

KIT* T o ^ r e n J
8

s e t t i n g the n o t e o f c r i s i s . u n d e r l i n i n g t h e u r g e n c y o f a response ( c p . # 2:4Q>) f r o m h e a r e r and r e a d e r alike.

137.So Haenchen o p . c i t . p . 1 5 2 . 1 3 8 . d e s p i t e Haenchen ZTK 51 ( 1 9 5 4 ) p . 1 6 2 , Bi's r e a d i n g ( u n s u p p o r t e d ) w h i c h a g r e e s w i t h t h e LXX t e x t i s ; u n l i k e l y t o be o r i g i n a l . A g l a n c e a t t h e t a b l e i n B.C 3 p . 16. shows t h a t B; has been c o n f o r m e d t o t h e LXX t e x t .

164

2. jUt to the
3.

STpo^ivjff'oomrt2:18

om. D) a g a i n a d a p t s

situation. The a d d i t i o n of. e-yUU

(2:19)

to

t^WTb6

la

clearly editorial.

The two used t o g e t h e r a r e a f a v -

o u r i t e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r * s : Jesus p e r f o r m e d these ( A c . 2 : 2 2 )
(5:12, 14:3,

and so l a t e r w i l l

the

apostles

15:12).

T h i s l o n g prophecy b e i n g c o n c l u d e d , 2 : 2 2 - 2 4 t h e s t o r y of. Jesus* l i f e ,

retells

d e a t h and c u l m i n a t i n g w i t h

t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n . There a r e a number o f Marcan f e a t u r e s i n 2 : 2 4 as P e t e r r e l a t e s a t t h e end o f a sentence as complex as 1 : 1 - 5 , not h o l d Jesus, t h i s statement how even d e a t h oould

b e i n g j u s t i f i e d by

Ps. 1 6 : 8 - 1 1 , comment o&X

from which i s s i n g l e d out f o r f u r t h e r ^

lviUf^X^0*|

AlO^j/

(2:31).

T h i s r e m a r k a b l e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e same m o t i f may p o s s i b l y be i n t e n d e d as an a p o l o g e t i c r e f r a i n t o t h e words on t h e c r o s s u t t e r e d by J e s u s , as by Mark ( n o t L u k e ) : reported

1?5

Tt

pi

1 3 9

1 3 9 . M k . 1 5 : 3 4 where however D r e a d a

165

The p o i n t o f t h i s c e n t r a l p o r t i o n o f t h e speech i s t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n and t h e d i s c i p l e s * w i t n e s s t o i t * The g i f t o f t h e S p i r i t i s b r i e f l y r e c a l l e d ( 2 : 3 3 b ) , b u t t h e subsequent LXX q u o t a t i o n e v i d e n t l y b e l o n g s w i t h 2 : 3 3 a and t h e news o f t h e A s c e n s i o n . !Ehe c o n t e x t i s therefore better suited to a post-Resurrection

speech, perhaps p r i o r even t o t h e S p i r i t * b e s t o w a l .

I n the l a s t r e s o r t however we must d o u b t w h e t h e r Mark w o u l d have w r i t t e n such l o n g speeches w h i c h so h i n d e r the a c t i o n . Even i f he d i d t h i s , and t h e Gospel g i v e s us l i t t l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the i d e a , the dif-

f i c u l t y l i e s i n d i s c o v e r i n g ; what was t h e

original

c o n t e x t w h i c h prompted the o r a t i o n . The most we can say i s t h a t Luke may have used a. Marcan framework,, b u t so f a m i l i a r s h o u l d we have been w i t h the that the

o u t l i n e o f t h e good news t h a t i t i s u n l i k e l y

t h e s e speeches a r e f o r m e d o f a n y t h i n g more t h a n

o r a l t r a d i t i o n s t h a t had been handed down t o L u k e . These he moulds t o h i s own ends, so i n 2 : 1 4 f f . he develop! t h e t h o u g h t o f 1:22 t h a t t h e d i s c i p l e s a r e witnesses

t o the R e s u r r e c t i o n . W i t h s t o r i e s , o f a c t i o n however, ones w h i c h r e q u i r e a c o n c r e t e s e t t i n g and some

knowledge o f t h e f a c t s , w i t h t h e s e s t o r i e s Luke w o u l d more d e f i n i t e l y r e q u i r e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l t o s u p p l y i n f o r m a t i o n . I t i s l e s s easy f o r u s t o see i n t h e s e reported kerygmatic f o r m u l a t i o n s anything of f o r w r i t t e n source criticism. value

166*

2 . 3 7 - 4 1 : The r e s u l t s o f the

Speech*

37.

f t (not ^B614.) <2v

38.

jrpbS

39. 40;. <T*yoS , H ( n o t D>

L*ot Ml

(not>

We have s u g g e s t e d above ( p . 158) t h a t Luke mayhave used t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e P e n t e c o s t e v e n t p a r t o f the m a t e r i a l a f t e r P e t e r ' s s p e e c h . The r e l e v a n t v e r s e s h e r e were 4 0 f . . B u t v e r s e s 37-39 a l s o r e f e r t o the g i f t o f t h e S p i r i t
1 4 0

as

' and may be addressing

i n s e r t e d i f Luke t h o u g h t t h a t P e t e r was 141 non-Jewso

Here Luke makes e x p l i c i t h i s u n i v e r s a l ! a t

message, b u t n o t w i t h o u t t h e expense o f a l o g i c a l contradiction, f o r w h i l s t P e t e r had d e c l a r e d ( 1 : 5 , 8 ) now f u l f i l l e d the (2:33)>

promise o f t h e s p i r i t

he t h e n d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e p r o m i s e i s t o t h o s e who have n o t y e t r e c e i v e d t h e g i f t .
1 4 2

The same l i n k

with

1:5 i s m a i n t a i n e d i n A c . 1 1 : 1 7 . Thus t h i s whole s e c t i o n may have f o r m e d t h e r e s p o n s i v e t h e o u t p o u r i n g o f the Spirit. outcome t o

140). c p . 2:33 E; ( c o p 141. 142.

G 6 7

>.

So C l a r k p p . 3 3 8 f . , Ropes BC 3 p . 1 2 , BC 5 p p . 1 1 2 f f . . A g a i n s t t h e v i e w : Haenchen o p ; c i t . p . 135 n . 9 . Though 2:38 c o u l d a l s o r e f e r t o a f u t u r e o u t p o u r i n g , , another event.

167.

T h i s i s ; n o t t o say t h a t Luke has n o t , as overworked h i s m a t e r i a l . B u t

ever,, already

because he has

i n s e r t e d a l o n g speech, t h e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l w a r n i n g i n v . 40^ has t o appear as a g e n e r a l i s e d summary thought

o f P e t e r ' s o r a t o r y . I n f a c t i t continues the

o f v . 39 where the t y p i c a l l y R a b b i n i c method o f f u s i o n o f t h e two t e x t s has i n c l u d e d a r e m i n d e r o f J o e l 2:32.?

I n 2:40b P e t e r c o n t i n u e s w i t h

%oa&ijTt

(from

J o e l 2 : 3 2 ) and warns a b o u t t h i s p r e s e n t

evil

g e n e r a t i o n ( c p . L k . 3 : 7 ) . (Thus 2:40 a i s a Luc an c o m p o s i t i o n ; f f r ^ o s , "TT and b e i n g Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : the

Sr"i<xyu yTv^> *.r$*A o c c u r r i n g o n l y i n Luke o f

Gospels and n i n e t i m e s i n A c t s .

Verse 4 1 r e f e r s t o t h e numbers o f t h o s e saved; we have n o t e d t h a t t h i s r e f e r e n c e a t the end o f a

and

s t o r y w o u l d be i n k e e p i n g w i t h Marcan s t y l e - a l t h o u g h the t ^ i ^ o u ( o f persons.) i s t y p i c a l o f t h e w r i t e r o f

A c t s ( 2 : 4 3 , 3:23 LXX, 2 7 : 3 7 ) .

The o n l y o t h e r p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t i o n o f a Marcan source concerns the f o r m u l a i n 2 : 3 8 o f B a p t i s m w h i c h

c o n c u r s w i t h t h a t o f John the B a p t i s t , Mk. 1:4 =Lk., 3 : 3 .

143.so ( e . g . ) f i JTof)e*w>**v; 2.-37 - c p . L k . 3 : 1 0 * 1 4 . N o r m a l l y Luke has l i t t l e use f o r t h i s k i n d o f q u e s t i o n - see Cadbury, S t y l e p p . 8 1 f . .

168.

T h e r e f o r e t h e e v i d e n c e f o r a Marscan o u t l i n e i n 2 : 1 - 4 , 3 7 ^ 4 1 i 3 n o t s t r o n g ; , but, t h e e v i d e n c e does

p o i n t t o t h e use o f some source o r s o u r c e s , i n t o ' w h i c h Luke has i n s e r t e d a l i s t o f names, and a l o n g a d d r e s s ; but; o n l y i f a p r o b a b i l i t y o f a Mar can o u t l i n e : can be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r o t h e r s u r r o u n d i n g , p a i r t s o f A c t s ; ^ can Marcan p o s s i b i l i t i e s h e r e be 145 entertained. Luke h i m s e l f c o n t i n u e s by i l l u s t r a t i n g a f r u i t o f P e n t e c o s t * the Community o f Goods. We w i l l postpone d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s p a r a g r a p h u n t i l (pp. 215ff.) 4s32ff.
1

3:1-11 P e t e r ' s F i r s t

Miracle.

The number o f Marcan words i n t h i s s t o r y i s

over as

t w i c e t h a t o f t h e average f o r A c t s , i t , has n e a r l y many Marcanisms as any page o f M a r k ' s Gospel."*"^

T h i s i s a. r e m a r k a b l e r e c o r d f o r a l o n g , s e d i t i o n such as this.

144* 145. v

F o r the s i m i l a r judgement on

A c . I s l 5 f f . - see p .

151.

Western v a r i a n t s w i t h Marcan f e a t u r e s a r e u f r o f c f e t r l ^f^v r ( 2 : 3 7 BE s y ^ S cop G67>? a r e d u n d a n t q u e s t i o n t h o u g h p o s s i b l y borrowed f r o m L k . 3 : 7 Also: i n 2s41 2<r><tvu>i (E614 cop G67), a w o r d o n l y h e r e and a t A c . 21:17 i n t h e NT, may he an eyewitness d e t a i l .
-

146.

Where the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c y o f Marcan words o f the t y p e we have l i s t e d i s 5 . 9 5 $ .

169.

1.

-iv f t

Toj

fy^tfiS

CD oo p

G 6 7

ft fooCnot D> A^a* (not E# c<r/r<

urj ^Y ^vCnot 3,

3. 4. 5. 6. *1W<&, on^yw h

4
nip Wnfo4f&r I>*D

7. SW^Yfitf
8 . orov ,Xw<w(te)

9.
10). 11.

/r<2j --X^>i
Tr(^jr\ I J ^ / i&r 9 0 6 1 4 i f f t * ^

Marcan S t y l e ?

3:2 3:10

Impersonal P l u r a l

o4

R e p e t i t i o n o f *amazement'

continues

i t s r e p e t i t i v e c o u r s e i n the

body

o f the s t o r y ( n i n e t i m e s i n w .

7-9) although, the the

presence o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchanges has l e d t o i n c l u s i o n o f more 's. ^

1

The absence o f

f t

( o n l y i n 1 h i s c h a p t e r a t 3 : 1 0 BE) may f u r t h e r indicate that the f r a m e w o r k o f t h e s t o r y has been

p r e s e r v e d by L u k e , h i s a c t i v i t y , as so o f t e n , being concentrated i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n ( v . 2 ) .

1 4 7 . i . e . Ac.

3:5f..

170

R e p e t i t i o n i s ; a f e a t u r e o f t h e whole s t o r y Ccp. 1 : 9 - 1 1 ) : i n verses 1-3:

^TAV/ 9 ^
c

Too

\ ^ < J . <

i n verses 3-5:

i n verses 6-8: (v. supra)

j r p y i JT^T'Cwf

i a used f o u r t i m e s

and i n v e r s e s 8-9 i X \ ^ < V ^ ( o m . B)

<w6ty . . .

orfvcfiMteL

such e n t h u s i a s m s u g g e s t s an e y e w i t n e s s a c c o u n t . Joy i s a f e a t u r e o f t h e P r i m i t i v e Community ( c p . 2s4jE 2:46.)

r

The s i m i l a r i t y o f t h i s t y p e o f s t o r y w i t h t h a t i n the S y n o p t i c s : may mean t h a t the y i e l d o f s p e c i a l words w i l l be on t h e h i g h s i d e , b u t t h e data, f o r Matthew and John do n o t bear marked c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h i s s u s p i c i o n , even though L u c a n , as w e l l as Marcan, a c t i v i t y i s above a v e r a g e . The r e p e t i t i o n o f rr^ nvTlJV

has caused o u r Marcan f i g u r e s t o s w e l l , b u t i t w o u l d be e r r o n e o u s t o d e l e t e f r o m o u r s t a t i s t i c s a l l o c c u r r e n c e s a f t e r the f i r s t o f such w o r d s , f o r we know f r o m L u k e ' s G o s p e l , t h a t t h a t w r i t e r i s n o t i n t h e h a b i t o f i n d u l g i n g i n t h i s monotonous s t y l e . There i s no parallel/

148.

K overdoes t h e m o t i f w i t h "gaudens e t

exultans".

171

p a r a l l e l i n t h e S y n o p t i c s t o a lame man being: h e a l e d , h u t we may compare t h e s i m i l a r s t o r y i n A c . 14 where. 149 twice.

t h e v e r b i n q u e s t i o n appears o n l y

N e v e r t h e l e s s , even i f we d i d c o u n t o n l y t h e d i f f e r e n t Marcanisms i n 3 : 1 - 1 1 * t h e f i g u r e w o u l d come t o 7 , w e l l o v e r the average f o r A c t s : . 150; From o u r t e n t a t i v e s o u r c e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ,

x

we

have placed, t h i s s t o r y as t h e s e q u e l t o t h e R e t u r n t o J e r u s a l e m ( . l : 1 2 f f . ) . . T h i s ' b r i d g e * passage e x p l a i n s t h e d i s c i p l e s ' presence i n Jerusalem.. It

S ,

has been severed f r o m i t s p o s i t i o n b e f o r e 3 : 1 by the e d i t o r , \iho w i s h e s t o r e c o r d the l i s t o f the

E l e v e n b e f o r e d e t a i l s o f the c h o i c e o f M a t t h i a s . One f i n a l i n t r o d u c t o r y q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s . Who i s t h e John i n the s t o r y , and i s h i s s i l e n t presence the mark o f t h e e d i t o r ' s d e s i r e f o r a t w o - f o l d 152 w i t n e s s t o t h e event?point/
J

To c o n s i d e r the

latter

1 4 9 . T h r i c e i n D . On the whole p r o b l e m o f r e p e t i t i o n see p . 58, s e c t i o n 23 and Cadbury, S t y l e p p . 8 3 f f . . 150. p . 159. 1 5 1 . S i m i l a r l y H a e f n e r who n o t e s 1:13-14 n u l l i f i e s t h e c o m p l a i n t i n BC 2 p . 145 t h a t , i f H a r n a c k ' s source a n a l y s i s be a c c e p t e d A c . 3 i s an "acephaius s o u r c e . " 1 5 2 . See R. M o r g e n t h a l e r * D i e Lukanische ffes c h i c h t e s s c h r e i b u n g C1948) v o l . 1 p . 3 6 .

172

point f i r s t ,

John nowhere speaks as an i n d i v i d u a l ,

153

a l i i i o u g h w i t h P e t e r he does so a t 4 : 1 9 , 4 : 1 we read X*V^VtWi/ contradiction to 3:12 1 5 4

and a t

<vriO>/,

apparently i n

and i m p l y i n g t h a t John

had a l s o spoken. However, t h e tendency may have he en t o add J o h n ' s n a r n e ^ - and passages such 3:4
1

as

*-rwur*s A

fi(fOs

is

flW

TV Tiy*^
Utli "LdcrtoV

flW...
,...

4:13 . . . T ^ V

Ttft (T ^oO

fryp^rCiV

appear t o t e s t i f y t o J o h n ' s secondary r o l e . I t w o u l d seem t h a t Luke had a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , o r perhaps g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n naming these two

t h a n Mark, f o r a l r e a d y we f i n d t h e i r names combined i n L k . 2 2 : 3 r e p l a c i n g M a r k ' s : ( 1 4 : 1 3 ) 0 00 B u t Mark a l s o has some, a l b e i t vague tales

;

c o n c e r n i n g John n o t i n Luke (Mk. 9 : 3 8 f f . , 1 0 : 3 5 f f . ) However i n A c . 3 : l f f . i t i s assumed t h a t t h i s John i s t h e b r o t h e r o f Zebedee ( A c . 1:13 l i n k i n g P e t e r and John i m p l i e s t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ) , whereas we must not; r e j e c t the p o s s i b i l i t y , , a l t h o u g h verdict/ "the

1 5 3 . D however r e a d s aifl&K09T<J Epp< o p . c i t . p p . 154-164 does n o t m e n t i o n 1 i i i s 'as an example o f t h e a l l e g e d h e i g h t e n i n g o f P e t e r ' s s t a t u s i n D. 1 5 4 . T h i s i s a n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e speeches are i n s e r t e d i n t o the c o n t e x t . 1 5 5 . See p . 137 n . 8 8 . N o t i c e t o o how' h o a a ttrrii e es s tno av vo oiid d the i n h e r e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s of- t h e h . . . " e x e u n t f i b u s autem P e t r o 'et Jbhanne"~simul bhanne s i m u l i n ipse p r o d i b a t .
a

i . s i n g u l a r s o f 3:11

B:

'

173 v e r d i c t of non l i q u e t be i n e v i t a b l e 156 - , that

tt

John Mark i s tie shadov;y f r i e n d of Peter. How w e l l t h i s would a i d our explanation of Mark's: own witness to these early scenes. Certainly Mark's abrupt appearance i n Chapter Twelve is; 157 eased on t h i s basis - and Haenchen remarks on a feature o f Lucan s t y l e , whereby a character i s subtly 158 introduced by Luke before h i s f i r s t major appearance. This may be the case w i t h the John i n Acts 3, 4 and 8. The v i v i d d e t a i l s i n 3 : I f f . are now
T

explicable, although some o f these are pajt and 159 parcel of the miracle story format.

15&BC 2 p. 146. On the existence of two prominent Johns i n the Early Church', see Eusebius HE 3:39:5 157,Haenchen op. c i t . p. 341. Also see p. 234. 1.58o Barnabas at Ac. 9:27. Also perhaps Saul a t 7:58, and Barnabas again i n 1:231). 159.We have such a description as a painter would desire: the scene i s brought v i v i d l y before us and a l l the characters are i n l i v e l y action.*, the narrative of t h i s chapter i s derived...from St. Peter...On ihe contrary the story o f the cure wrought at Lystra by St. Paul i s t o l d i n the fewest possible words." (Lumby: Acts (1904) p. 112) But compare the oure o f Aeneas (Ac. 9:32ff.) which may however have suffered abbreviation at the editor's hands - v. pp. 272ff..
1 M

174.

The p a r a l l e l s with the account i n Ac. 14 are h e l p f u l i n 1hat we can see (assuming no source has r a d i c a l l y shaped that account) what i n t e r e s t s Luke stresses, and i t may he t h a t Luke has l a t e r returned, as with several other stories i n the early part of A c t s
1 6 0

, to the "original Peter story

1 6 1

to p a r a l l e l the event i n Paul's m i n i s t r y , set aside the two narrativess

We

Acts 3

Acts 14

Peter and John enter temple (v 2)

fiy> ^

_ ~
-

Paul and Barnabas enter synagogue (v 1)

*
K

Re suit s: (i.) Crowd amazed ( v . 10)-(i)Crowd amazed ( v l l ) ( i i ) Crowd t r y and take hold of Peter ( v . 11) ~ Cii> Crowd wish to make them gods ( w - l l f f . ) ( i i i ) S t o r y concludes w i t h a reference to Ex.20:11 (Ac, 14:15)

( i i i ) Story concludes w i t h a r e c i t a l of E x . 2 0 : l l ( A c 4:24)

160. See on Ac. 5:15f. (cp. Ac. 1 9 : l l f . ) and 1 1 : I f f . (cp. 15: I f f . ) : . 161. On Miracles: J. Fen ton ET 77 (1966) pp. 381-3 and i n the general, see now A.J. M a t t i l l J r . i n Apostolic History and the Gospel pp. 108-122,,

175

The major difference i a "that a f t e r Ac. 3:11 a long, t r i a l scene i a inserted. The table shows that both stories follow a basic pattern (perhaps imposed by Luke i n the i n t e r e s t s of a Peter/Paul parallelism, but probably, already inherent i n the t r a d i t i o n s Luke was incorporating). I t i s l a r g e l y to the i n c i d e n t a l d e t a i l s t h a t we must look, t o discover the o u t l i n e of any o r i g i n a l .

Ac. 3lf. set the scene f o r t h i s f i r s t recorded apostolic healing. I n most stories the d e t a i l s of the one t o be cured are supplied f i r s t , where they 162 w i l l not delay the progress of the n a r r a t i v e , aid although t h i s i s , n o t a d e f i n i t e r u l e , the mention of Peter and John f i r s t at 3:1 may suggest a story o r i g i n a l l y centred &n Peter. The f i r s t verse emphasises once again the Jewish-centred f a i t h o f the apostles f o r they are keeping 1he regular hours of prayer and D states that t h i s ccurred a t the time of evening s a c r i f i c e . ' Hi the context i t i s ; redundant and i t may have originated from tiie Jewish background of the source.
1 6

162. 163.

thus Iik. 7:2 and i n Acts: 9:36, 14:3. Cp. Ex. 20.39,41, Lev. 6:20, 1 Esdras 5:50. Cp. 3 K i . 18:29.

176

I t i s clear from Uie s i x Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be found i n 3*2 that Luke has been busy, y e t he may not have o b l i t e r a t e d evecry Mar can feature ci i n the o r i g i n a l introductions ( i ) ; the impersonal p l u r a l -n0ow. Cii> ^rf(Pts^MT> ^)VTV , which verb ver may i n t u r n be a rendering of Mark's favourite ( i i i ) ) N*9' fjpyidtf ^^JtV

i n f a c t a Lucanism, but a

time note found s i m i l a r l y i n Mk. 5:5 (not Lk), emphasising the permanence of the malady. Civ) The cripple i s l a i d at the yoB</ - a minor d e t a i l f o r which Luke i n h i s Gospel has shown l i t t l e concern. He omits t h i s word from Mk. 1:33, 2:2, cp. 13:29, 15:46, 16:3. This information i a n o t essential to the story and argues f o r the f a c t that Luke i s not only using a source w i t h some f i d e l i t y , but also that he regards i t s u f f i c i e n t l y highly to reproduce even i n c i d e n t a l points of informationWas t h i s because, i n the case of. the temple, i t was no longer standing and Luke desired to show that his information was of s u f f i c i e n t accuracy to supply such d e t a i l ? 11:3

177

Verse 3 becomes an obvious statement o f f a c t . I t 'spells out* the request f o r alms that Luke, i f w r i t i n g f r e e l y , might normally have been expected to omit as o t i o s e , ^ not meaning that he considered almsgiving i n t h i s l i g h t , but that the context
165
1 6

supplies the f a c t stated i n verse 3.

The subject

of almsgiving occurs i n l a t e r stories connected with Peter, those of Tabitha and Cornelius. The picture having been set w i t h some care, Peter now gazes a t the man, i n i m i t a t i o n of h i s Master (Mk. 8:24, 10::21,27)
166

with John beside

16V

him. John*si presence i s c e r t a i n l y minimal* Yet he need not be an e d i t o r i a l device. I t : may be a case of a source h i g h l i g h t i n g Peter, a p o s s i b i l i t y that becomes more evident at 5:15 where, a f t e r a section introducing the miracles of. the apostles, the shadow of Peter i s signalled out. f o r mention.

164. 165. 166. 167.

Cp. especially Luke*a removal of Mk. 10:49, 11:6b i n his parallels. Cp. p. 167 n. 143. the last, two passages using ZhA\^1TUV i n agreement with Ac. 3:43). M Cullmann op. c i t . p. 35 f o r the view that the name i s e d i t o r i a l . He claims i t . i s t y p i c a l o f the Johannine tendency to introduce a d i s c i p l e "into a c e r t a i n competition with Peter" ( p . 28). What competition here J

178.

Another l i n k which binds together the Peter stories i s the occasional touch of humour t h a t lightens the dark scenes of t r i a l s and troubles* Thus i n verse 5 we are t f i l d the c r i p p l e s i t s up, expecting a monetary o f f e r i n g from the apostles. Verse 6a spells out the point as Peter's g i f t i s
168

far greater than money I

Traces, of humour have 169

been found i n the story of Tabitha by Cadbury, and a further example can be found i n the scene where Peter stands outside the door of Mary's: house CAc. 1 2 s l 2 f f . ) , Hhoda forgets to open the door and so Peter has to go on knocking; (12:16) whilst, those inside t h i n k Rhoda has l o s t her senses (12:15) As with 3:5f the humour i s used to underline a useful p r a c t i c a l p o i n t : i n 12:12ff. prayer must be offered i n the b e l i e f that i t w i l l be answered, i n 3:5f. that the g i f t of Jesus i s greater than any other g i f t . These features bind our tales together and perhaps strengthen the p o s s i b i l i t y that there once existed independent of our Acts, a c o l l e c t i o n of s t o r i e s centred upon Peter.

168. 169. 170.

cp. Ac. 8:19. The whole issue of money was one of great importance. see Cadbury: The Making of Luke (Acts 1927) p. 263. Other.? possible examples i n Peter s t o r i e s : 10:25f., where'Cornelius worship of Peter i s scoffed, 12:9 and perhaps even the catch question i n 5:8. See also Van Fnnik Nov T a r t . c i t . p. 51.

179

Peter*s reply t h a t he has no s i l v e r or gold (Ac. 3:6) discloses h i s obedience to the Lord's; command (Lk. 9:3). I t was money also that had led to Jesus* betrayal and perhaps f o r t h i s reason the Community of Goods renounced wordly wealth! The phrase here may i l l u s t r a t e that Peter and John are
171

s t i l l adhering to Jewish t r a d i t i o n . " Peter's words of healing i n c i t e the ensuing controversy, the outcome of which i a that a command i s issued that no more teaching s h a l l be uttered ' i n the name of Jesus* ( 4 : 1 7 f . ) .
1 7 2

These clashes w i t h conviction

the a u t h o r i t i e s may have led to the

that wass soon to be put i n t o e f f e c t , that the message of Jesus was to a l l men, Peter's action (3:7) Koit" action recorded i n Mk. repeated at Ac. 9:41. 5:41 not merely to Jews. imitates Jesus* and ia:

tf^^S

(=Lk. 8:54)

The d e t a i l i n 3:7a could

r e f e r to Peter stretching f o r t h his r i g h t hand, although the miracle story usually focusses upon the limbs of the a f f l i c t e d ,
1 7 5

and i f t h i s episode

was part of an Acts of Peter, i t i s possible that this/

171. 172.

See J. Lightfoot op. c i t . p.

39.

I n Tosephta Chullin 2:22,24 a Galilean Christian heals and teaches i n the name of (uf(^<> ) Jesus. Cp. too 3usebius;' quotation of Mt. 28:19 (B'.B. 3:5:2) and Mk. 9:38 = Lk. 9:49* So i n Lk. 6:6, 22:50' i t i s the r i g h t limb of the one to be cured that i s recorded.

173.

180.

t h i s was the intended meaning, even i f the phrase a& i t now stands i s ambiguous. The d e t a i l s of the 174 restoration may imply some medical i n t e r e s t , but

t h i s need not be seen as a r e f l e c t i o n of Luke the Doctor, as Mark also displays considerable technical medical knowledge (so, e.g.. Mk. 9 : 1 4 f f ) .
1 7 5

But

3:7b may an e d from i t o r ihe a l attempt soften the harsh t r a be nsit ion (Peter) to %rf,ip'tv ( e t ^ f o y j *j/ 176 and he (the lame man) rcTT7|

The t a l e now becomes most r e p e t i t i v e . I n verse 8 our cripple i s alive w i t h joy, then i n verse 9 the crowd suddenly come on stage and the exuberance i s renewed. The editor or h i s source must have regarded t h i s miracle as of some matter! The introduction of the crowd i s t y p i c a l of Mark's

manner o f n a r r a t i o n f o r he mentioned onlookers as the s i t u a t i o n demands w h i l s t Luke better prepares us f o r t h e i r presence. I l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s are Lk, 5:17 aside Mk. 2:6 and Lk. 6:7 aside Mk. 3:6. They recognise that t h i s i s the man who once was lame (Ac. 3:10a). i n a way not dissimilar to Mk. 5:14-17 where likewise the crowd hark back to the former state/

174. 175.

so the rare> f^vSpck * c not DE 614. See J. Wilkinson ET 79 (1967) pp. 39-42 cp. Mk. 7:35 also. Whether the terms i n Mk. 9 are of pre-Marcan o r i g i n i s another question. Similar d i f f i c u l t i e s over the subject of verbs i n Ac. 4:10'f..

176.

181.

state of. the maa. This recognition signals a fresh outburst of r e j o i c i n g . 3:11 might be explained as an e d i t o r i a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to the speech, but 3:9 has already i n f a c t mentioned the audience to be, 17' and 3:11 contains so many exegetical d i f f i c u l t i e s that i t looks rather as though i t has been borrowed from a source by Luke, and i n support of t h i s are the several Marcanisms that appear i n our table above There are two accounts of the event i n 3:11: (i) in
WBE

&c..
178

( i i ) i n D with p a r t i a l support from h. Both versions contain Marcan features* K^tfTtiiV La often used a f t e r a description of a miracle by Mark (1:31, 5:41) but the verb has the stronger meaning of "seize" i n Mk. 3:21, 6:17, 12:12,. 14:44 and Acts 24:6.

177.Complicated by the problem of whether one type of t e x t (see below) has been corrected on the basis of the archaeological f a c t s : J. Buplacy RSA 2 (1956) pp.. 231-41 concludes B. Harmonises with Jh.. 10:23. A number of other commentators (BC 5 p. 484) accept the Bezan reading without following through the implications of t h i s view. J. Wilson Acts (I9T3) p. 45, conflalies both readings, Epp cannot c l a s s i f y t h i s v a r i a n t , Haenchen*s commentary does not even mention i t . 178.h corrects D (cp. p. 172 n. 155), i t does not conflate the two t e x t types.

182.

This may be the meaning i n Ac. 3:11, f o r on the miracle-story analogy the action o f >^o(f$!v i s on the part of the healer and not, as at 3:11, o f the healed one. But why should the lame man "seize" Peter?' I t may be that the otvifov i n v, 11 r e f e r s to some of the \rfi>5 I n t h i s context, we note also the verb OMVtZfM.jyW which i s used with connotations

of violence i n Ps. 50:18, IPet. 4:4 and Judith 6:16 179 where the sense i s r u n together i n b a t t l e . "
H

The

s i t u a t i o n (which Luke t r i e s t o tone down) i n 3:11 appears t o h i n t a t a popular u p r i s i n g f o r Peter and John, occasioned by the mighty deed. This f a c t supplies s u f f i c i e n t , motive f o r the i n t e r r u p t i o n of the Jewish o f f i c i a l s which f o l l o w s
180

almost immediately i n 4:1,

despite the hour since

they should have been at prayer i f the notice i n 3:1 i s correct! There i s a danger that the crowd will/

17'9. Note especially Mk. 6:33 (see H. Mqntefiore NTS 8 (1961) p* 136) where however the motif o f violence l i e s beneath the surface of the n a r r a t i v e , as i t may w e l l do i n the source used here. Cp. too Mk. 9:25 where Jesus sees a crowd kxr\v^lTjoi)(*i\ which causes him to rebuke the s p i r i t . The connotation o f popular r e b e l l i o n i s not f a r away (Black op. c i t . p. 82 n 3) 180J. Taking 3:12-26 as an e d i t o r i a l i n s e r t i o n .

183.

w i l l , turn against the a u t h o r i t i e s i f t h i s healing " i n Jesus* name continues. W e w i l l again note some p a r a l l e l scenes i n Haul's l i f e which support our contention. The & e d i t o r himself appears t o draw out the connection:
,l;

Acts 3 : l f f .

Acts 21:15ff.

3:3

21:26

*h 70 UfioV-3:11 CTOi/sfy*^ /TfllS

21:30

RoCi

l^tVLTb

Crvvtyojfifj -rift? X*o6

3:12
4:3

%jtytS

'l^oUjXtffW 21:28

4 f l ^ o t W otfatis

21:2? KC 4fT^fl^o(V l f T
N >x

(cp.

Mk. 14:46)

also part of the scene i s : Cfor t h i s , see below) 5:16 o-W^CfD ft, Kcff H > 21:22 \>A(D)E oVT 181

ffSfj&w -pftv ivy>\% m\<u>i

By i n s e r t i n g the speech i n 3:12-26 Luke has avoided the accusation that might have been raised: that the apostles were i n any way involved i n public demonstrations.

181.

Note too how Paul i s interrogated (Ac. 21:38) as though an i n s u r r e c t i o n i s t . jL The Western t e x t misses the parallelism o f u&ivpttyW i n 3:11 and also a t 21:26 varies the verb, so we ' cannot use such readings (as 5:15D) where D does create.a parallelism t o prove i t s secondary character (despite J. Crehan TS 18 (1957) pp. 5 9 6 f f . ) .

184.

I t i s possible that the same use i s made of a Peter speech i n Acts 2. But i f the speech i n 3 s l 2 f f . i s an i n s e r t i o n , the o r i g i n a l charge f o r Peter and John's arrest could not have been t h e i r teaching but t h e i r healing which had caused a general disturbance of the peace. We can now begin to make sense of
4

XaWtftS ' J* eiJf)v

(4:1) which none

of the manuscripts a l t e r despite i t s i m p o s s i b i l i t y as a reference to the preceding speech, since only Peter has delivered t h i s . Luke probably found the
\

words i n h i s source but by adding fljODS

182

has awkwardly referred them to Peter's speech. A source continuing on from 3:11 would understand the words as those of the popular demands of the crowd, and t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s substantiated by the curious remark i n 3:12 o

fSirpoi
111

JfrryiUtTT)

rtjk

which, as a "reply , has no raison d 'etre, but i s made to the crowd as though they were already shouting at Peter. L a t i n texts thus a l t e r t o W ) Cg't p) and i n s i m i l a r cases where the verb "reply
11

i s used without obvious cause

18

D removes t h i s apparent discrepancy. ^

182. 183.

33 omits these words. Perhaps Luke derived the phrase from 3:12. Ac. 5:8, 10:46, 21:13 cp. Mk. 9:5 (which Luke's p a r a l l e l changes). R. Mackenzie: Codex Bezae (1962) p. 89 explains Ac. 5:8D as due t o Bezan f a m i l i a r i t y with crirfv fp-- without taking i n t o account t h i s broader tendency.

185.

The picture of 3:11 i s thus of the crowd clamouring f o r more miracles- - one v/hich Luke has c a r e f u l l y reworked to> h i s own end, toy providing Peter tooth w i t h an opportunity to preach to the crowd and through the arrest of Peter and John an opening f o r a testimony as to t h e i r innocence i n the eyes of the law. To achieve t h i s he has had to avoid a detailed account of the disturbance; tout on examination of our t e x t of Acts, i t may toe that a l l Luke has done i s to transfer such an account to a d i f f e r e n t context:. Hence 5sl5f (which has toecome generalised i n the course of the t r a n s i t i o n ) may toe part of the continuation from 3 s l l , f o r here too the crowd desire to see more of Peter's power, more of h i s healings. Their hope i s nothing more than s u p e r s t i t i o n . From the Gospels we know how f i c k l e were the crowd and there had always been these anxious clamourings of the sick f o r a t t e n t i o n (Mk. 1:33, 6:56). l e t t h e i r healing, however

important, is: only one aspect of the good news which i t i s the task of the apostles to publish.

184.

Their commission i s to heal as w e l l as to preach (Mk. 3:15, 6sl3> but the d e t a i l s of t h e i r missions indicate only spasmodic a b i l i t y to heal (Mk. 6:30,, Lk. 9:10 c f . Mk. 9:18).

186.

The stories i n Ac. 1-5 deliberately avoid any idea o f i m p l i c a t i n g the apostles i n any disturbance (contrast l a t e r chapters!) and t h i s apologetic can be seen i n the insistence:
TtfTi -.O r f * t f ) y 6 S " tftaus,

oh frtfofi\<l$(Ac-5 : 2 6 )

185

We have argued above f o r the connection between 3:11 and 5:15f., which l a t t e r paragraph begins i n i : i 5:12. w i t h a setting, once more i n Solomon s Porch (3:11). We thus deal w i t h 5:12-16 now..
1

185. D however (as at Ac. 7:25) omits the 00 An obvious (unsupported)error i t would seem, f o r the l i t o t e s I s t y p i c a l of Acts, although the manuscripts do show a tendency to add the construction: Ac* 1:5 2:43E, 5:15D,26(not D), 19:11, 20:12, 21x39Com. D), 26:19, 27:14, 28:2. But what i s surprising i s that D (and E 614) add an od a t 5:28* I n the p a r a l l e l i n Paul's story (21:35) we have Svi T<w At*/ <r& XcWvr Cop, also 24:7 ^614 y*fk fraXJGJs A US ) : i l l u s t r a t i n g the danger o f the crowd.. Whichever reading i n 5:26 be accepted as correct, t h i s aspect i s heightened i f the reading of AP r i g h t l y brings out the,sense i n adding a fW. , dependent on (oa) M^TJ. now i&o&QiWi y\0--.is parenthesis (as a t Mk 16:3) and the'sense i s (as may be intended by a l l the versions): "and they (the o f f i c e r s ) - f o r they feared the people - l e d them (the apostles) away (hot) by force, l e s t they should be stoned." The f i n a l "they" i s ambiguous i n i t s terms of reference. A more specific pointer to the h o s t i l i t y o f the crowd can be seen at 7:57h "tunc populus exclamavit*" I t suggests that i t was to avoid public disturbance that the apostles were, arrested. This would accentuate the r i f t o f the new f a i t h with the o l d order as w e l l as acting as a challenge to the > apostles* f a i t h . Cp. the phrase fy Tftflntrti SfliAoiTi/- (5:18) which may, on analogy w i t h the mefaning in. Demosthenes Ep. 21:50, indicate that they were placed i n gaol "by public consent."
: i n z

187*

5:12-14: The F a i t h f u l

12. <Jm>ff*n>\os, Wo$

13. XetftS

14. /o^&*v*i,(rr\ 5)&*

l

5:15-16: Healings

15. 16 . K KW.i, rr^jfoj ^i^i

/

Though 5:15f. i s a short passage, l i k e 3:111 i t has an above average y i e l d o f Marcanisms. The e d i t o r has attempted to generalise t h i s section (5:12-16) by prefixing, i t , with the information
186

that a l l the apostles worked wonders.

5:15

however singles out Peter, and h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n i s made i n such a way that i t is- as though he were the subject i n the foreground a l l the time.

186.

On t h i s aspect o f Luke's method see p, 192 and p. 193 n. 198.

188.

5:12b r e c a l l s the scene at 3:11, but the meaiiing of. the present passage (assuming 5:12b-16 continued on from 3:11) depends upon the reading followed at 3:11. Taking f i r s t l y the non-Bezan reading, the sequence of events i s : (1) Peter, John and the healed man are i n Solomon's Porch. (2) The crowd rush to the place amazed. (3> 5:13b: they (see number one) are i n the porch. C4) 5:13: the crowd, however, do n o t j o i n the apostles but they nevertheless magnify them because of the miracle. (5) 5:14 Summarys as a result, many do j o i n the faithful. Accepting the D reading i n 3:11, the meaning becomes (1) Peter, John and the healed one leave Solonon's porch. (2) The crowd watch amazed from Solomon's porch. (3) 5:12b they Cthe crowd) are i n Solomon's porch: r e s t a t i n g 3:lie (4> 5:13? the crowd however do n o t j o i n the apostles who have l e f t : yet they s t i l l magnify them. C5> 5:14: Nevertheless many do j o i n the f a i t h f u l .

I t w i l l be seen that D makes the r e s u l t s of the miracle even more obvious, as the erstwhile c r i p p l e i s seen to leave the temple: t h i s explains the amazement/

189

amazement of the o n l o o k e r s , D a l s o l i n k s the scene w i t h 5:15f. b e t t e r , f o r F e t e r (and John) are now

o u t s i d e the temple, p a s s i n g through the s t r e e t s , and the people, h e a r i n g the e x t r a o r d i n a r y news, r u s h to t e l l t h e i r s i c k k i n s f o l k s

N e v e r t h e l e s s i t i s d i f f i c u l t to adequately f o l l o w through t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n because ( i ) the e d i t o r has obscured the connection w i t h 3:11 by g e n e r a l i s i n g

the scene i n 5 s l 2 a . However he appears to have i n c o r p o r a t e d elements of a source from 5:12b the r e f e r e n c e to Solomon's Porch i n 5:12b otherwise most odd, is onwards:

and 5:13 and 15 may i n c l u d e

elements of an e a r l i e r account, ( i i ) the t e x t has undergone some unknown c o r r u p t i o n , ( i i i ) Our

understanding of the passage p a r t l y depends on whether any t e c h n i c a l meaning i s to be a t t a c h e d to koWScrfrcn i

n

5 - l 3 - ^ the whole v e r s e i s a crux,

1 8

it

may have l a i n a t the top of an e a r l y codex which became m t i l a t e d .

1 8 8

187. 188.

Cp. Ac. 9:26, pp. 159f..

10:18. See now

C. Burchard a r t . c i t .

OJhough j u s t p o s s i b l y Luke has indulged i n an o l d 1XX t r i c k of t r a n s l i t e r a t i n g an ^obscure JLramaic word; i f we r e v e r s e t h i s p r o c e s s , irroX u&t * U v l oppress ( c p . Aeth. 26 which r e a d s s a'h a t a which probably t r a n s l a t e s H^yty^v) and kAXir8*i' may come from y& f but a l l t h i s assumes an Aramaic s o u r c e . And ifrE the words admitted of no easy understanding f o r Luke, n e i t h e r w i l l we be able to t r a c e any Aramaic o r i g i n a l with any p r o b a b i l i t y . T h i s i s not to say no such attempt should be endeavoured. The same c o n s t r u c t i o n as 5:13 i s found i n 4:32 o'Jt ( c p . 5:12E <v -iQ V*W ffWtWpW*** p r o v i d i n g a f u r t h e r v e r b a l l i n k with 4 : 3 l ) and so the c o n s t r u c t i o n may not be so unique i n 5:13 a f t e r a l l and TOrrey's c o n j e c t u r a l emendation of e i t h e r L e v i t e s f o r /SairfW or r e t r a n s l a t i o n on the b a s i s of the? p e s h i t t a , of the verb a s "antagonise" a r e s u p e r f l u o u s .

190.

(Turning to 5:15f, the popular s u p e r s t i t i o n conveyed confirms the thought i m p l i c i t i n 3:10f..

189 We have a l r e a d y l i s t e d the p a r a l l e l s w i t h Iflk. 6:55f..

We

take v. 15 which begins w i t h a ufrrt

1 0

clause,

to connect, w i t h v. 1 3 . ^

An examination o f the u s e s

of t h i s word shows t h a t i t i s used o f t e n a f t e r mention of a c r o w d , a n d v e r y f r e q u e n t l y a t the 192 end of the Marcan m i r a c l e s t o r y format. * t h i s word p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l evidence Thus-

of the l i n k i s (JflT*- kah.

w i t h 3:11. However the e x p r e s s i o n a t 5:15

which i s repeated i n the summary of P a u l i n e h e a l i n g s a t Ac. 19:12. And here we must r e c o r d the f i r s t of

s e v e r a l t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s i n 5:15f., s i n c e the Western t e x t s here do not make t h i s point: of p a r a l l e l i s m , which i s a l l the odder because l a t e r i n the v e r s e i t i s c l e a r t h a t 5:151) and Ac. 19:12

have a c l o s e p o i n t of c o n t a c t , and t h e r e , i t i s claimed, D must be secondary. I f i t i s claimed t h a t c/ \ UjffTS ten...repeats 5:15 Ciftb&^*<rt*V borrowed/ the same should be s a i d f o r

i n 19:12, t h a t i t has been

189. 190.

v. pp. 76-78. so P. B i a s e s NT Grammar (1898) p. 281, W . . Bieder TZ 16 (1960) p. 4-08, a g a i n s t the m a j o r i t y view which t a k e s 5:12b-14 as an e d i t o r i a l i n s e r t i o n (see e.g. BC 4 p. 53>. Uk. 1:27, 2:2,13, 3:10,20, 4:1 cp. Lk. 4:29. 2:28, 9:26

191. 192.

Mk. I t 2 7 , 4 5 , 2:12, and I k . 4:39B.

8:25D cp. a l s o Mk.

191

borrowed from 5:15D. The r e a d i n g o f D i n 5:15 i s ^(rri w*T* ifWiW.?

9 3 M,

a harsh p h r a s e "

1 9 4

which

other t e x t s may

have f e l t o b l i g e d to smooth down.

'Ek^'^KaV

appears only elsewhere i n A c t s i n

5:6-10, where i t i s a t e c h n i c a l term connected with. burial.

1 9

^ The usage here i n 5:15 has been i n f l u e n c e d

by the s t o r y of Ananias, and the presence o f t h i s verb makes <i9^voi) redundant. Mk. 6:56, This l a t t e r occurs i n

and thus by employing the a d d i t i o n a l the e d i t o r makes nonsense of the s c e n e : The s i c k a r e brought out of t h e i r houses They are put on beds, as though the beds; were a l r e a d y l y i n g o u t s i d e .

KVJ^^p^V Stage One: Stage Two:

^Vw.

i s dependent upon fiQ^l/*!

so t e c h n i c a l l y

speaking the v e r s e s t a t e s t h a t they a r e p l a c e d on t h e i r beds i n order t h a t P e t e r ' s shadow might upon them I fall

All of

"this i s probably no more than another example

the s l i g h t l y i n c o n c l u s i v e s t y l e o f the author. does Luke i n t r o d u c e .iv^>ytUV 2' The s u g g e s t i o n

But why might/

193.

PS 614 add <eCf E r e a d s &er\ KOU t v -rirr rrXjcTtlMf (cp. Mk. 6:56B). A l s o cp. Kci3 rfous ( L k . 13:22), and Ac. 17:26D, I r e n . (Haer 3:18:19). Also cp. Mk. 13:11. BC 4 p. 55. Josephus: Ant. 15:46.

194. 195.

192

might be t h a t Luke wishes to imply P e t e r was expected to perform r a i s i n g s from the dead. We may compare where messengers 9:58

a r r i v e f o r Peter, f u l l y confident of
1 6

h i s a b i l i t y to h e l p . ^

I f then i t . i s the Sadducees

who a r r e s t the a p o s t l e s (5:17) i t i s because they b e l i e v e people a r e being brought back to l i f e by P e t e r and h i s f r i e n d s ! Thereby the e d i t o r p r o v i d e s a l i n k w i t h the f o l l o w i n g scene and a r e a s o n f o r the a r r e s t . Though the connection i s by no means obvious, Luke may have thus been s u b c o n s c i o u s l y l e d to w r i t e *<^p*N/ a t 5:15.

The

ZxfowGS

who a r e the o b j e c t o f t h i s verb, may

l i k e w i s e by a Lucan e d i t o r i a l f e a t u r e - cp. Lk. 10 :9

i . e . the a p o s t l e s are seen to be f u l f i l l i n g J e s u s * 197 command. ' Mark h i m s e l f p r e f e r s to use more

cumbersome e x p r e s s i o n s to d e s c r i b e the s i c k , b u t at; Mk. 6:56 ( a s w e l l a s Ac. 19:12) the p a r t i c i p l e o f i s employed. I f however the c l a i m i s laid

t h a t Ac. 5:15f. has only borrowed from Mk. 6 : 5 5 f f . we may/

196. 197.

On t h i s a s p e c t , see a l s o the Western v a r i a n t a t the end of 5:15. cp. too Ac. 5:16 Wyjuicuot/ro C M B E ) . & ZcB^'fif a s a noun elsewhere i n the Gospels only a t Lk. 9:2 N.B.

193

may ask why the a s s i m i l a t i o n t h a t h a s taken p l a c e i n the mind of the e d i t o r , or the "borrowing, he has e f f e c t e d from there perhaps *jtarte< (with and Slv&IvUS

) h a s not. been extended to

r t i s a more l i k e l y s u p p o s i t i o n either i m i t a t i n g ^
1 8

t h a t Luke i s here a

Mk.

6s55f. or following

source h e r e , s i m i l a r i n c h a r a c t e r to those verses.. D r e a d s a t 5:15 d i t t o g r a p h y from 2*r9-*/*/ oJtCjV a t f i r s t s i g h t a -mo ^Cr^

r

. This l a t t e r r e f e r s

to the s i c k , but B s ttvrCj)/ r e f e r s to the people who brought out t h e i r s i c k and who a r e thus otherwise anonymous;. Here then i s a r e l i c of the impersonal ( t y p i c a l Marcan) c o n s t r u c t i o n : the r e a d i n g does have some support i n E ( O f f " Q " C V t

*c\r&rf )

which r e l a t e s t h i s l a s t word

to the a p o s t l e s . T h i s i s a m a n i f e s t improvement. But have the other v e r s i o n s not a l s o dropped t h i s impersonal usage to c r e a t e a. smoother r e a d i n g ?

198. Haenchen op. c i t . pp. 203-5 sees the whole of 5:12-16 as an e d i t o r i a l bridge passage, but h i s a n a l y s i s f a i l s to cover the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n 5:13 nor does he e x p l a i n the presense of P e t e r i n 5:15 i f (as. i s c o r r e c t ) 5:12-42 i s intended by the e d i t o r to be a s e c t i o n whose s u b j e c t i s a l l the a p o s t l e s . I t l o o k s r a t h e r as though Luke i s u s i n g and moulding, a source.

194

> KXVVO^HAV, k ^ J c r T W V

two words f o r beds

and the r e p e t i t i o n c a p t u r e s the i n f e c t i o u s enthusiasm of the g a t h e r i n g crowds. I s the first

word an apology f o r the vulgar> k ^ < n W <, but then why w r i t e the l a t t e r a t a l l ?
, r

I t i s strange

that...

... Luke employs a word f o r beds* which he avoids i n Lk. 5:18ff.. a l t e r n a t i v e , but now

laboriously

"Ehere he s u b s t i t u t e s an

the i n c l u s i o n of the Marcan

term i s , a l l the more e x t r a o r d i n a r y . I s t h i s a p l a c e where, i n W i l f r e d Knox*s words, the source shining through?
2oa

comes

^Ivei tp^ojMVov tHjtovJ

s i n g l e s out P e t e r from

the a p o s t l e s of 5*12 and the c o n s t r u c t i o n appears to be t h a t of the G e n i t i v e Absolute, though the of P e t e r * s name goes a g a i n s t such an explanation use

f o r "the s i m p l e s t example ( o f the c o n s t r u c t i o n ) i s 201 the r e p e t i t i o n of the pronoun i n the same c a s e . " I t may be t h a t i t i s a g e n i t i v e absolute dependent 20*2 upon 'shadow*, though i t i s most clumsy f o r i t d * not only i n t e r r u p t s the c l a u s e * v*-'-K*v <but a l s o reintroduces/

199* 200.

P i n d l a y op. c i t . p. 84. Note too the -rwy before > KAi/6au;/(A>*which d e p i c t s the scene even more v i v i d l y , though the reading, may be an a s s i m i l a t i o n from Mk. 6:55 </ "foG *pflet'mts < ) but the a r t i c l e i s s t r i k i n g when used i n the p l u r a l i n such c o n t e x t s (so cp. e.g.. Amos 6:4). Kli/ttfV (EP 614) i s an obvious attempt to d e l e t e the r a r e r word. A. Robertson: Grammar (.1914) p. 514 - examples u s i n g a name are r a r e (Mt. 2 : 1 ) . so Bruce op. c i t . p. 138.

201. 202.

195

r e i n t r o d u c e s P e t e r i n t o the s t o r y

"

(cp. of Jesus interesting 6:22

i n Ac. 1:1) v i a the genitive c a s e . An

p a r a l l e l to t h i s f e a t u r e p r e s e n t s i t s e l f a t Mk. where Herod's daughter makes our acquaintance i n t h i s same way.

The?- voc...ic*L/ < i s i m i t a t i v e of Mk. 6:56

"hut

t h i s usage i s not employed again by e i t h e r author," although Mk. 5:28 u s e s Ksiv , a m o t i f from which

v e r s e reappears; i n the Matthaen counterpart, of Mk. 6:56 (Mt. 14:36). Perhaps: t h i s s o r t of i d e a feature (as 20 6 But

was i n Lake's mind as he adds the new compared w i t h Mk. if,

6:56} of P e t e r ' s shadow.

a s we argue i s probable, Luke was copying a was

source, i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t such a m o t i f

a l r e a d y found i n the pre-Lucan m a t e r i a l . T h i s s p e c i a l healing, p r o p e n s i t y which i s a t t r i b u t e d to P e t e r , whether by popular s u p e r s t i t i o n or no, i s surely

i n d i c a t i v e of a P e t e r source, and one moreover, which centres/

203. Although the usage may not. be p r e s s e d , the absence of the a r t i c l e before P e t e r ' s name i m p l i e s a new scene, i . e . the e d i t o r wishes to prepare f o r h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n before v. 29. 204. BC 5 p. 399 n. 1. 205. Nowhere e l s e i s t h i s word used i n the Gospels ( o r LXX) i n n a r r a t i v e ( a s opposed to s p e e c h ) 206. I t goes "beyond anything i n the G o s p e l s " (BC 5 p. 399)

196

c e n t r e s p a r t i c u l a r l y on h i s m i r a c l e s ( c p . 3:lff. 207 9:32ff. and perhaps 5 : l f f . ) .

Having a r r i v e d a t t h i s m a j e s t i c climax, we t o l d t h a t P e t e r ' s shadow might come upon

are

<tW^ <*3^GV he

i . e . they are e x p e c t i n g only one of them w i l l healed.

2 0 8

Luke s u r e l y u s e s the words as meaning Testament usage does not: with t h i s

"each of them" hut New

supply any examples of the s i n g u l a r t f S

2 0

s e n s e . ^ I s i t f o r t h i s r e a s o n that. Western t e x t s record f u r t h e r information?

> rv

v^i Ifftbi

, 2 1 0 o\tfV.

dcr&iVfKS

The f i r s t verb a l s o comes i n Lk. 12:58, and w i t h medical connotations, a t Lk. 9:40D, Ac. 19:12. Now we have s t a t e d t h a t i t i s erroneous because/ to m a i n t a i n t h a t

207. Other s t o r i e s r e l a t e God working, a m i r a c l e through P e t e r ' s agency ( 1 0 : 9 f f . ) and working, a m i r a c l e f o r Peter Cl2:5ff.>. 208. Cp. J h . 5:4A. 1i$ 209. TS * g e n i t i v e = "one" i n Lk. 7:36, 11:1, 11:45, 14:15, 1 Cor. 6:1, though none of these provide e x a c t p a r a l l e l s . F o r the use of "'each'* cp. S i m i l . Hermas 8:2.- C o p 7 appears to omit * " "'* t h e r e f o r e .
S6 1 4

210. B r e a d s tr&Jtftnv irro .... *5foV. I n D the medical sense of the f i r s t word i s unique i n the NT ( c p . Herodotus H i s t . 3:132) and so i s probably secondary, though i t i n d i c a t e s the l o o s i n g of the hold of e v i l cp. Mt. 6:13, 2 Cor. 1:10. The reading; of cop**" approximates to both D and E, but u n t i l the t e x t of. t h i s manuscript i s p u b l i s h e d , we can only say t h a t i t confirms these words as a d e f i n i t e Western Reading.

197

because B c o n t a i n s the p a r a l l e l i s m , i t must be secondary, even though i t s e r v e s to enhance the 212 s t a t u s of P e t e r : ( i ) the c l a u s e c o n t a i n s one of those M a r k - l i k e p i c t u r e s which so e a s i l y could have been removed, p a r t i c u l a r l y because i t might imply t h a t the s u p e r s t i t i o n of t h e people was rewarded..

( i i ) the v a r i a n t s o f D and E suggest a d e r i v a t i o n from a common, and thus much o l d e r , o r i g i n a l - note t h a t E commences t h i s v a r i a n t w i t h X#( (D -y*f> )

a p p a r e n t l y not c o n n e c t i n g the scene so c l o s e l y w i t h the preceding words, but by adding S\o (5:16E) attempts

to make the whole scene more of a u n i t y . These d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s p o i n t to an o r i g i n a l t e x t , p a r t o f a Luc an w r i t i n g which had been taken from a Marcan source, evidence o f which can f u r t h e r be seen i n the redundant c l a u s e so t y p i c a l o f Mark ^ (5*15E (D)).
2 1

Verse 16 now

sums up the p i c t u r e i n even more

g e n e r a l i s e d terms. Perhaps t h i s once formed the o r i g i n a l c o n c l u d i n g summary of 3:1-11/5:12-16. Even i f Luke's stamp has been i m p r i n t e d on t h i s v e r s e ( * S >6^W/*//o4/S4Lk. 6:18D) and perhaps there/ K.M,
21

iBijUfiTWovTo *)

211. so F . Chase: Old S y r i a c Element (1893) pp. 51f.. 212. Epp op. c i t . pp. 1 5 6 f f . . 213. But a s i m i l a r phrase i n Ac. 16:19D. 214. D IwVTo ( L k . 11 t i m e s ) - p o s s i b l y enhancing the a p o s t l e s ' s t a t u s i f i t means "cured" ( s e e J . Wilson op. c i t . pp. 2 0 f . ) but t h i s i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y f u s s y .
:

198

there a r e s t i l l two d i s t i n c t i v e Marcan words, which might he expected i n a summary so s i m i l a r to t h a t i n the Gospels. But can we e x p l a i n the above ^average 215 number i n 5:15f. on t h i s b a s i s ?

Let

u s now t u r n to Luke's use o f h i s source i n ( p . 159) t h a t the

these c h a p t e r s . We suggested

r e p e t i t i o n o f the Community o f Goods summary r e s u l t e d from Luke's t r a n s p o s i t i o n o f the "Pentecost

11

story.

The same has happened i n 3 : l l f f f o r he has i n t e r r u p t e d the h e a l i n g n a r r a t i v e to provide a sermon, f o l l o w i n g which he continues w i t h d e t a i l s o f an a r r e s t and t r i a l ( 4 : 1 - 2 2 ) . Ha then u s e s the m a t e r i a l which was broken o f f from 3:11 i n 5:15f. (and perhaps p a r t s o f 5:12-14) to provide a climax to the account o f the a c t i v i t y o f the Jerusalem church, and c o n t i n u e s w i t h the account o f an a r r e s t ( 5 : 1 7 f f . ) . Luke makes 21 v a r i o u s suggestions a s to the reason f o r t h i s a r r e s t , w h i l s t attempting to put the a p o s t l e s a s the s u b j e c t of the whole s e c t i o n (5:12-42), but by d i v o r c i n g 5:15f. from 3:11 the o r i g i n a l p o i n t has been obliterated/

215. N e i t h e r Aty'tv' or JKfiC&fyTbS CAo. 5:16) come from Mk. 6:55f. (except i n D>. ' 216. On 2k$4a"C\v as a l i n k , see p. 191. S c r i b e s l a t e r f e l t obliged, to reduce the l a c u n a between 5 s l 6 and 17; E p. vg (Ard)s "Annas". C o p ^ (which a l s o r e a d s Annas) and s y r P e x p l a i n t h e i r response a s an immediate one:
5 e s n

199

o b l i t e r a t e d and t h e p i c t u r e becomes t h a t o f the a p o s t l e s reassembling: (5 :12) a t t h e scene o f t h e i r former "crime", c o u r t i n g a r r e s t . T h i s i n e f f e c t means t h a t 4 : I f f . i s a doublet, although Luke h a s used the second s t o r y to develop the i d e a s i n h e r e n t i n the f i r s t . I f they both d e r i v e from.*: a commom source, we can see the extent to which Luke h a s r e v i s e d h i s material: ( i ) the s t o r i e s which we have reported C4:lff, 5:17ff.
t

l i k e the Community o f Goods p a s s a g e s ) w i l l

r e p r e s e n t the maximum divergence from a common s o u r c e . ( i i ) Lucan a p o l o g e t i c w i l l , however be e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g i n the t r i a l s c e n e s . T h i s i s p a r t l y confirmed

by h i s own r e p e t i t i o n o f the e v e n t s , and p a r t l y by the l e n g t h o f these scenes i n p r o p o r t i o n t o , f o r exampl the h e a l i n g n a r r a t i v e s . Luke's r e m o d e l l i n g o f h i s m a t e r i a l w i l l n o t n e c e s s a r i l y have been uniform throughout Luke-Acts, and so, even i f we do c l a i m t h a t a s i n g l e source has l e d to the c r e a t i o n o f the t r i a l scenes i n Ac. 4 and 5, t h i s must not d e t e r u s from f u r t h e r source a n a l y s i s , merely because 217 thoroughly rewords h i s m a t e r i a l . must/ Luke here

' But f i r s t l y we

217. A c t s 10 and 11 a r e another p o s s i b l e example o f a s i n g l e source which h a s l e d to two s t o r i e s i n Luke's account. But here the source i s repeated almost verbatim and maximum divergence i s n e g l i g i b l e (10:19-16, 1 1 : 5 - 1 0 ) . There Luke's method appears to be to add a s e p a r a t e source (10:1-8 &c.) which more c l o s e l y r e f l e c t s h i s standpoint, only o c c a s i o n a l l y r e - w r i t i n g the Marcan source i n any d e t a i l . Here i n A c t s 4 and 5 Luke seema to have had no c o r r o b o r a t i v e s o u r c e .

200.

must t u r n b r i e f l y to 3 : 1 2 f f . : 3;12-26. P e t e r ' s speech.

12.

/fjsoff \cCo$(not D), (onu cop > 4

13. 14. 15. 16. *x*{Nt/ ?<*o n

A e s h

Csy*

)
G 6 7

17 . vfo, ^v^CDB c o p

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.. 25. 26. npof (DE; 614 o o p J Srfi r e c i t . I"

T h i s speech f u r n i s h e s minimal evidence o f a Marcan source, much l e s s than 2 : 1 4 f f . . There a r e some/

218.

See Texte und Untersuchungen V o l . 109 (1970) p. 22 f o r t h i s r e a d i n g . T h i s work g i v e s some r e a d i n g s o f cop67 not noted i n the e a r l i e r e s s a y s o f P e t e r s e n (CBQ 26 (1964) or Haenchen/Weingandt (NTS 14, 1 9 6 8 ) .

201.

some p r i m i t i v e f e a t u r e s , n o t a b l y the e x p e c t a t i o n o f an e a r l y r e s t o r a t i o n (3:21 cp, 1:6), which i s r e l a t e d to a p r o p h e t i c u t t e r a n c e o f Moses, I t may be t h a t Luke had before him a w r i t t e n source, but the non-Marcan c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s s e c t i o n r e l i e v e s u s o f more d e t a i l e d enquiry.

4:1-22. The T r i a l .

1. j?f>is)Jx,, ^jm>c(D)

2. AiXe_f 3.

my

4* ZAh

&cr<c! ( E )

5. 4I^VLTD, ^ j j t i ' T i l ^

T r i a l and Speech.

6. 7. 8. ^ j ^ / T X / j ^ i > n^tCsj

9.

i o . A*&i, <DJ<*>mw

n. 12. OV**^ i * Com. D)

202.

Conclusion.

13* ffW., 11 (not D)

14. f^Com. D ) , c w
15. 16. *ISyOOOCs<K^i
,

18. 19 jpci, 20). 21. Tb-ri/\( . 22. ^

J

lv/wji]o/

S t y l e of Mark* Anacoluthon ( v . 6) Double Negatives (w. 12,17,18,20) ( v . 13)

The S t u p i d i t y of the D i s c i p l e s ? S ' i o " V 6 u

i s n o t very d i s p a r a g i n g , and y e t D f e e l s the

d i f f i c u l t y and omits the word. Asyndeton ( y v . 14D, 15 and 17D)

Pleonasm ( v . 16) - a redundant question. R e p e t i t i o n ( w . 17-18). A l i t t l e s u r p r i s i n g i s Luke's r e p e t i t i o n h e r e . I t r e f l e c t s h i s d e s i r e to s t r e s s the d e c i s i o n o f the Sanhendrin. I f a Marcan source d e s c r i b e d t h i s scene, there might have been intended an echo o f the s e c r e c y motif, to which, now., the d i s c i p l e s are no l o n g e r bound (cp.. Mk. 9$9). of

" S i d e l i n e " ( v . 22) - a s i f the age the man was of any i n t e r e s t a t t h i s j u n c t u r e !

203e

Thus t h e r e i s some evidence o f Marcan m a t e r i a l from the s t y l i s t i c f e a t u r e s , though t h e word counta

e x h i b i t no strong. Marcan a f f i n i t i e s * To these f a c t s we s e t a s i d e 5 s l 7 f f . .

5:17-42o Another. T r i a l .

17

^ e^T<< ,

(T^,

18; ^t7Do-n>^>5 19 20 21 Xocoj , /^[/W rfrfttr^Cyjvptu trvV)

3

ryvi (b) ^ 2 2 tf3f<yUsjuti 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
J

&y>*ri,Ti, s ^ o i y i V o ^ * ! , cjv^j, r ^ t / , A^cf 7

J^oo\) a^Xvj^ jftpfa

^tnTr-roVf

-TooroV , \) ^ ouv ^Jj^ot

34

<* v*<rt*s ^ b v w , ns?s +

204

35. -TK

^cVi^CB)^

36.

, t0rti^

37. -fbGrcv" l ^ i ^ ^ i ,

38. v<hf ,
39.

^4 ~o '

tt

o^vJj/>C614)

40. c^n1><rCc\c 41. *i^eTc\ci(D 614 c o p

G 6 7

42. -ft., ^<YY V<5 /AXI

Marc an Style:. R e p e t i t i o n o f 'amazement* ( 5 : 2 4 E ) .

The word a n a l y s e s a r e a u s e f u l p o i n t e r i n determining which o f these two s t o r i e s above.may be c l o s e r to an o r i g i n a l . Lucan a c t i v i t y i s average i n chapter 4, i n chapter 5 i t i s above average, c o n s i d e r a b l y so i n G a m a l i e l ' s speech. Marc an a c t i v i t y i s a l s o average i n c h a p t e r 4 ( e x c l u d i n g the speech) and above average i n 5:17-28. The Lucan f i g u r e s might; c o r r o b o r a t e the g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n s which critics

have v o i c e d , t h a t of the accounts, the second i s the 219 most legendary i n c h a r a c t e r . probable/ I t i s thus most

219. Despite Jeremias a r t . c i t . pp. 208-213 who c l a i m s t h a t the procedure o f two t r i a l s accords w i t h the l e g a l s t i p u l a t i o n o f the Sanhe^drin though the n a r r a t i v e i s too vague about any such l e g a l t e c h n i c a l i t i e s and i s designed to show t h a t the Sanhe^drin have no case a g a i n s t the a p o s t l e s , a l l they can c o n j u r e up a r e vague t h r e a t s .

205

probable t h a t the b r i e f summary of the a p o s t l e s * escape (5:19) i s based on the passage i n A c t s 12 f o r 220 a l l the d e t a i l s i n 5:19 a r e found t h e r e :

1. The r i g h t s e t t i n g (5:19 * 12:6) 2. The a n g e l i c d e l i v e r a n c e (5:19 - 1 2 : 1 7 f f . ) 3. The angel l e a d s ik^uy<X^) (5:19 = 1 2 * 1 7 ) .

2 2 1

the escape

220.

cp. too 12:1. The f a c t t h a t Herod s e i z e d some of the; church* may have prompted an account of the a r r e s t of the a p o s t l e s i n ch. 5. Nowhere i n t h a t chapter i s t h e i r presence a s a body f e l t , they are mentioned o n l y a t 5:18 and 5:29 (not D.h). Kou ZfT ^60 &txrx*S ~h 7^fy[5:18D c o p . ) cp. 14:18 C0614) 21:6, (Jin.) 7:53. T h i s i s claimed by Epp a s a h e i g h t e n i n g of the m i r a c l e CEpp pp. 1 2 9 f . ) as i t emphasises each a p o s t l e i s locked i n h i s own c e l l ^ However the u s u a l LXX meaning r e f e r s t h i s phrase to OTKOX ( E s t h e r 5:10 , 6:12, 3 Mace* 6:27)' and thus t h i s cannot, be used as an example o f the legendary , n a r r a t i v e , f o r at 5:2125, has iy^fi * jlbwi C ry*i only here and Mk 15:1A i n the NT); a r e a d i n g which i l l u s t r a t e s the l o g i c a l i t y of i t a l l : i f they have gone home, then they a l s o have to come back a g a i n the next day! Another example of t h i s l o g i c a l i t y comes a t 12sl7D which b a l a n c e s the* -i\0ti>/<wi.th> tfcmtHi/ * ( c p . too Ac. 2 8 : 1 4 f . L ) : but s i n c e t h i s i s a l s o fe f e a t u r e of the non-Western t e x t o f A c t s (see Ac. 14:20) i t cannot, be used to prove the secondary c h a r a c t e r of the Bezan t e x t . MacKenzie (op. c i t . p. 201) on 5:18D,, w h i l s t u s i n g our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n above o f t h e phrase, confirms Epp*s. t h e s i s that D heightens the r o l e of the a p o s t l e s f o r 5:183) " i m p l i e s the l o n e l i n e s s : of the a p o s t l e s . "
O/O n

221.

67

206*

Thus 5:19 i s no more than a summary o f the event found i n chapter 12 designed to l e a d up to a s i t u a t i o n 222 s i m i l a r to t h a t i n c h a p t e r 4. Ike s t o r y o f chapter

twelve i s t o l d so much more v i v i d l y and i n much more human terms as P e t e r f i n d s t h e f a c t too m i r a c u l o u s to b e l i e v e ( 1 2 : 9 ) , h a r d l y t e s t i f y i n g to h i s earlier

experience where the account: remarks upon the boldness o f t h e d i s c i p l e s ( c p . 5:25)S We r e c o r d one f u r t h e r p o i n t e r to the dependence o f chapter 5 on the s t o r y i n chapter 12s ( A c . 5:26 - D h a s the p a r t i c i p l e ) ihieh i.& p a r a l l e l l e d i n the Lucan s t o r y of t h e e v e n t s p r i o r to J e s u s * a r r e s t CLk. 2 2 : 2 ) :

This passage i s a. rewording, of Mk. 14:2. The f i n a l p i e c e i n t h i s d e t e c t i v e ' s j i g s a w i s found i n A c 12:4 which i s "one of s e v e r a l c a s e s where a m o t i f i n the Gospel o f Mark i s omitted by the p a r a l l e l i n t h e Gospel of Luke only to reappear i n A c t s ,
1 , 2 2

^ and t h e

m o t i f i n q u e s t i o n i s the P a s s o v e r , The argument i s : t h a t i f Luke omits the r e f e r e n c e found i n Mark i n his/

222, 223.

see below p. 208. BG 4 p. 134. Cp.. Williams; op. c i t . p. 148.

207

h i s Gospel, has he done l i k e w i s e when borrowing i n A c t s 5 from a Mar can. account i n A c t s 12? This: might be more; c o n v i n c i n g i f i t could be shown t h a t i n

chapter 12: Luke has allowed h i s m a t e r i a l to come s h i n i n g through*. C e r t a i n l y , the word a n a l y s i s s t r o n g l y h i n t s a t a Marcan source f o r p a r t of c h a p t e r . To conclude t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y therefore;, we may say t h a t of the two this

material trial scenes further

i n A c . 4 s i - 5s42 the second appears to be

from any o r i g i n a l source, i t s legendary embellishments however perhaps c o n c e a l i n g our i n q u i r y . We 3ome m a t e r i a l relevant, to 4:1.

begin again then als

A Marcan n a r r a t i v e , l i k e t h e p r e s e n t described i n considerable 224.

Lucan

one, Its

d e t a i l the h e a l i n g and

a f t e r - e f f e c t s so f u l l y discussed

^ t h a t i t i s probable t h a t i t a l s o the r e s u l t i n g t r i a l . The editor

however has broken i n t o h i s s o u r c e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e p e r c u s s i o n s ( 3 s l l , 5 : 1 2 f f . ) i n s e r t i n g a speech, and on

which becomes the cue f o r the a r r e s t of P e t e r John. V e r s e s one and two of chapter four w i l l ,

t h i s understanding, be a Lucan i n t r o d u c t o r y

section.

224. Cp. Haefner a r t * c i t . p. 70. "From the f a c t t h a t the name of J e s u s had proved to be a l i v e . . . . P e t e r may have i n f e r r e d t h a t Jesus was a l i v e . *
1

208.

Verse 3 C= 5:18a) d e s c r i b e s the a r r e s t . Here, i t i s j u s t c r e d i b l e t h a t h p r e s e r v e s the Western t e x t 225 toy r e a d i n g

tt

et tenuerunt: eos",.

* which verb trans>Jy><fiw , a Marcan redundant

l a t e s i n Ac. 2:24, 3:11 the Greek

d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , fiie phrase i s after of \nif^^ ... ists ffipw

8 1 1 ( 1

might be a r e l i c

a Marcan source* Verse 4 p r o v i d e s an example o f anacoluthon w i t h 226

sudden news a s to the numbers o f b e l i e v e r s .

The

f o l l o w i n g v e r s e s c o n t a i n another sermon from P e t e r , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f the t r i a l . I n c h a p t e r 5 the e d i t o r a l s o p r o v i d e s the setting, f o r another b r i e f by recording, the a n g e l ' s command to preach speech (5:20)

which r e s u l t s i n the a p o s t l e s being r e a r r e s t e d on a concrete charge: t h a t o f t e a c h i n g ( 5 : 2 5 , 2 8 ) . Thus by the escape: i n t e r l u d e o f 5:19 we have been brought back to t h e same s i t u a t i o n a s that: o f 4:2. Luke h a s c r e a t e d t h e whole i n c i d e n t ('5$19-2-6} i n order to provide an opportunity f o r s t r e s s i n g t h a t the a p o s t l e s , alihough forbidden t o preach t h e name o f J e s u s , now found t h a t t h i s ban made an i m p o s s i b l e demand upon their/

225 so a l s o C l a r k op. c i t . p. 21, and o t h e r s : see J a c q u i e r op. c i t . p. 121. 226. I n E t h i s p r e f i x e d by t h e Lucan &<fi\ Harnack: A c t s p;. 180 n. 1 remarks:. "Have we n o t here one c i p h e r too many? Vide 1 Cor. 15:6". (!Ehe london P o l y g l o t t (Aeth); here r e a d s "500"' although i t s evidence i s w o r j t h l e s s } . But the P a u l i n e passage r e f e r s to a. R e s k u r r e c t i o n appearance, and i s b e t t e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l : 6 f f . ( t h u s see p. 1 2 3 ) .

209.

t h e i r f a i t h . Some such, i n d i c a t i o n he may have found i n h i s source, hut he has "built upon i t . , and a l s o c l o s e d the d i s c u s s i o n w i t h Gamaliel's, pronouncement C5:34-40>. The high y i e l d of Lucanisms i n t h i s speech argues again f o r the secondary c h a r a c t e r of t h i s trial
2 2 7

so t h a t i t w i l l he i n c h a p t e r ^ 4, i f anywhere, be

t h a t t r a c e s of a Marc an source w i l l most e a s i l y found.

The key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h i s f i r s t i n 4:22 and the subsequent

trial

lies the

v e r s e s . 4:22 conveys

news:, i n which no r e a d e r could be i n t e r e s t e d a t t h i s stage of the debate, a s to the age o f the cured T h i s t y p i c a l Marcan s i d e l i n e may once lame man proceedings i n d i c a t e that man. this

played a more important p a r t i n the

than Luke-, whose i n s i s t e n c e on t h e

p r e a c h i n g we have noted, has s t r e s s e d . I n the t r i a l * the impotent man i s summoned as a w i t n e s s ( w . 9f), o^-n i n w . 9f .

but; not without c o n f u s i o n f o r he i s whilst must/ oo-Tss

i n v . 11 refers* to C h r i s t . Verse 11

227.

W i l l i a m s op. c i t . p. 94 on Ac. 5:38 p o i n t s to I k . 20:4 as p a r t i a l proof o f the Lucan q u a l i t y of the language her^e, but te phrase to which i t r e f e r s i n Luke ( q % lvq*rwi/ > i taken d i r e c t l y from Mk. 11:30. The r e f e r e n c e to Lk. 23:51 i s h a r d l y more c o n v i n c i n g .
a

210.

must t h e r e f o r e " b e regarded as an anacoluthon, f o r , grammatically speaking,the r e f e r e n c e of P s . 118:22 228 i s a p p l i e d to the cured manj

The opening of t h i s speech, i n which P e t e r r e f e r s to the e x - c r i p p l e , c o n t a i n s a wealth of names which well-informed

suggests e i t h e r Luke or a source was

about the event Ccp. Lk. 3:2, Ac. 13:1 f o r o t h e r l i s t s > o But i t i s not p o s s i b l e to a s s e r t w i t h any confidence the p r o b a b i l i t y of a Marcan s o u r c e . A l l the m a t e r i a l has been r e d i r e c t e d to the e d i t o r ' s end* The Sanhe^drin are improbably perplexed over the speaking i n the Name (4:17 cp. 3:16) and this

a p o l o g e t i c has r e s u l t e d i n t h e o b l i t e r a t i o n of any source t h a t might have been u t i l i s e d . But we have a l r e a d y seen t h a t 4:22 goes back to the lame; man with

no e v i d e n t motive., f o r the p a r t he has played i n the p r e s e n t account of the t r i a l i s i n c o n s i d e r a b l e . T h i s seems s u f f i c i e n t to suggest t h a t t h e r e was some source being used ( i f v e r y f r e e l y ) f o r 'this c h a p t e r . T h i s becomes y e t more apparent i n the s t o r y t h a t i n t i m a t e l y l i n k e d w i t h the t r i a l , is

4:23-31* I n t h i s

view we are supported by the word counts, which show t h a t Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are below normal and Marcan/'

228.

The quotation i s not from the LXX - i t may be a t r a n s l a t i o n of the Hebrew (BO 4 p. 43) but the p l a y on <r<>ti* ( w . 9, 12) must argue a g a i n s t an Aramaic o r i g i n a l d e s p i t e Martin who a s s i g n s 4:5-12 to one of h i s t r a n s l a t i o n Greek s e c t i o n s * P s . 118 i s quoted a l s o i n Mk. 12:10 (= Lk. 20:17) and 1 P e t * 2:7.

211.

Marcan ones above average, though not to the e x t e n t e x h i b i t e d i n Ac. 3: 1-11 And once a g a i n Si s l i p s out

of prominence;. 'This i s encouraging f o r f u r t h e r analysis*

4:23-31* A P r a y e r of lhanksgiving,.

23

Fi^)^c-&|(917>,

24 l i * prep. (ex. LXX) 25 27 28 29

i cov,

vCv
f

30> 2 v 31 JVojut j Tiy\/cy^iM

3
(DE)

!Ehe c l o s e connection of t h i s paragraph w i t h the p e a r l i e r (Marcan) s e c t i o n c o n c l u d i n g a t 3:11, 5:12-16 can be seen

1. I n the r e t u r n to an almost e x c l u s i v e use of < < s C I as a g a i n s t & , 2. by comparing the p a r a l l e l h e a l i n g s t o r y i n A c t s 229 14, which concludes w i t h a r e f e r e n c e to Ex. 20:11

(= Ac. 4:24). I f Luke d i d indulge i n any of P e t e r and P a u l s t o r i e s , we may

paralleling

c i t e t h i s evidence,..

229. see pp. 174f..

212.

3. i n the u n i t y o f p l a o e . I n 4:23 return

JT^tj

the a p o s t l e s may

iw$

and a r e f e r e n c e here

be i n c l u d e d "perhaps ( t o ) the house o f Mary, mother o f John Mark". ^ ' T h i s would then be the s i t e f o r the l i t t l e P e n t e c o s t , the s i z e of which, suggests 231 a house g a t h e r i n g .
2 0

Lucan a c t i v i t y i a l e s s n o t i c e a b l e than u s u a l , and t h i s s t r e n g t h e n s the c a s e which s e e s i n t h i s passage 232 p a r t of an e a r l y C h r i s t i a n p r a y e r . The r e f e r e n c e

to Herod however, warns us n o t to deny any Lucan e d i t i n g , although the mention o f P o n t i u s P i l a t e i s not. merely a Lucan r e f e r e n c e , as i t appears a l s o i n 233 the credo o f 1 Tim. 6:13. Luke has taken over a p r a y e r which i s based on the catchword p r i n c i p l e and 234. one which i s , a s i n P e t e r ' s f i r s t speech,

developed out o f the quotation o f s c r i p t u r e .

230'. 231. 232. 233'.

c i t e d from J a c q u i e r p. 137. cp. the house i n 1:13 ( i m p l i e d ) and 2:2.

so (e.g.); M. S i b e l i u s ZNW 16 (1915) p. 124 - and a l s o f o r what f o l l o w s . a l s o Mt.. 27:2 AW0. The a d d r e s s i n g of God as A^Jfo-rV ( a s i n Lk. 2 : 2 9 ) " a l s o argues f o r a - p r i m i t i v e J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n prayer. see p. 163.

234.

213.

4:24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:29

< V vtfV CEx. 20:11) r e c u r s i n 4:26 ifa 1/1 I !Vp*> " 4:27,30 ffevj \*>v < *
P s 2 s l

f\S

(Ps.2:l,

>

,r

" " "

CPs. 2:1) 2:2)

" 4:28

WiJ

Icp*^

2 3 5

ffu.^Owu/CBB |Toto* W / Y < M / > y^r* '

4:27'^^fV*^^.^

" 4:30 J T ^ S e j V J (cp4:25) " 4:30 faf)*

tr

rmh^AtrUx

4:31

1A*T&

irfpnrl$
236

Ccp4.:13) < compare Mk. 9:38ff. where catchwords

With t h i s we may

f u r n i s h the b a s i s of a commentary on J e s u s ' second pair Passion prediction. ' ' The p i c t u r e i n A c t s shows the 238 community s t i l l adhering to t h e i r f a m i l i a r J e w i s h ways and i n t h i s we see the c o n t i n u i t y w i t h those earlier

s t o r i e s i n which could a l s o be d e t e c t e d a n a t i o n a l i s t i c Jewish element i n the p r i m i t i v e f a i t h . I t was only g r a d u a l l y , as a n a t u r a l consequence of t h e i r growing s e p a r a t i o n from the t r a d i t i o n a l r e l i g i o u s assembly, t h a t the meaning of C h r i s t was understood, and was/ prayer

235. 236.

I s r a e l i s equated w i t h the r a g i n g heathen of P s . 2:1. Cp. Bruce op. c i t . p. 123 n. 1. also %xonj (4:22,30) and trn^<Tbv ( 4 : 2 2 , 3 0 ) . A l s o Jn>t/jfrtff (4:24 cp. 2 8 ) . L e s s c o n v i n c i n g i s Qerfaux ( a r t . ' c i t . p./678) whose only example i s ToOC ?5ioof C4:23) and (4:32).
/

237. 238.

so a l s o D. Ninehams Mark (1968) p.

251.. Judith 9:12

A^DTfoTu: ep. Job 5:8, Jonah 4:3, Wis. 6:7, as an address o f God.

214

was

d i r e c t e d to Him.

Luke's dramatised o u t l i n e

has the

l a r g e l y obscured t h i s p i c t u r e w i t h i t s account of

m i r a c u l o u s r e - r e l a t i o n of the S p i r i t i n 2 : l f f . , who, as indeed promised, changes the n a t i o n a l i s t i c of the d i s c i p l e s , so t h a t i t extends to a l l men The way outlook (2:5ff). is

o f God permits such marvels, but man's way have been, as our

i n f i n i t e l y s l o w e r . Thus i t may

source suggests, through p r a c t i c a l v i t a l t r u t h s were discovered.

n e c e s s i t i e s , that

C e r t a i n l y , i n 4:31

there i s a very primitive

ac-

count of the g i f t of the S p i r i t , wherein i s e x t a n t none of the g l o r y of 2 s l f f . , n e v e r t h e l e s s i s r e c e i v e d and the word s t i l l spoken.
y z >

the I t ia

gift very 4:31

p o s s i b l e that. Luke has broken s h o r t the s t o r y a t

2

and hence the break w i t h 4:32 i s h a r s h . ^ O r i g i n a l l y i t ; may have been the i n t e n t i o n of the pre-Lucan

m a t e r i a l to show t h a t the Community of Goods r e s u l t e d from the bestowal of the S p i r i t , c r e a t i n g a community c o n t i n u a l l y i n c o n t a c t w i t h the S p i r i t . Marcan features/

239.

On

the p a r a l l e l s
G 6 7

see pp.

152f.,

240. BE c o p l i n k 4:31f. (see p. 153) e a s i n g t h i s t r a n s i t i o n . Epp n e e d l e s s l y c l a s s i f i e s the v a r i a n t as a n t i - J u d a i c (p. 166) f o r even though i t may r e f l e c t a u n i v e r s a l i s t i e outlook (Epp p. 82) i t s r a i s o n d ' e t r e i s a p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c one. Haenchen op. c i t . p. 193 notes however t h a t Luke does prepare f o r the summary by concluding 4:31 w i t h an i m p e r f e c t .

215.

f e a t u r e s i n "both 2:4.2ff.., 4 : 3 2 f f . a r e above t h r i c e the expected number, although the comparative data

f o r Matthew and John are s i m i l a r l y h i g h , and Lucan a c t i v i t y i s a l s o much i n evidence: 2:42-47

42 Jtt&rfcXpI 43 'JCsyflcJcsaXyu (^AE;>

44 45
46 / ReiQ-' kfiWV} ~f I b i s ) 4 (D)

47

A*ef(not D)

4:32-35 32 j&Gj&zs y 33

J/

+dat.

<HVq

*rt6rTi>W, X^P^>

34
35

*n^fl^-ti^( *BB>
f

Barnabas* Example

36 > n t rr%\5,

37

b/n^>X^

216.

5 sl-11o The Story of Ananias and

Sapphira.

1 2 3 4 t?ri*w ft, fytf CB)

%
5 6 7 i5"crt((323) 8 9 10 11 Marc an s t y l e s 2/v * i n d i c a t i v e (2.45 4 : 3 5 ) . Double n e g a t i v e (4:32D) Many of the words which comprise the high Marcan & (3, / T ^ n o t PS;) /T^Di ( n o t D ) = * \ / ^ 0
a

JTUpa^ff^fjvL CD)

fcijO

icV^

2 4 1

s t a t i s t i c are those c l a s s e d as " r a r e " - some of these are used i n Mark's Gospel i n a sense d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n A c t s - such a r e s
\ C D \ * O
S

C2s44, 4:32) - cp. Mk.

2 2 m

7:2,5.

ifp o o - K * / ) ^ * ^ 4 ,46) " Pand "T^KT

'

3:4.

(2-*43) - cp. Mk.

13:22. " e v i l p o r t e n t s " .

241.

The sense however i n which t h i s i s found i n A c t s i s d i f f e r e n t from the usage of Mark: Mk. 3:11, 6:56, 11:19,25, 15:6D.

217

Yet even i g n o r i n g these words the r e l a t i v e frequency of Marcan terms, e s p e c i a l l y i n 4:32r-37, i s s t i l l h i g h .

But i f our h y p o t h e s i s concerning Luke's treatment of h i s m a t e r i a l toe c o r r e c t , i t w i l l toe t r u e to say t h a t n e i t h e r s e c t i o n can approximate e x a c t l y to the o r i g i n a l . I n chapter two phrases a s 3rn r e f e r e n c e s to p r a y e r ( v . 42) and TI w TO (2:43,47), the u s e of -ft fiy^oi^oV(2:45) and

the s u b s t i t u t i o n of

the r a r e r
5

rfprn> (4:35) p o i n t to Luke's, a c t i v i t y t h e r e

tihe

g e n e r a l t h e o l o g i c a l rearrangement of m a t e r i a l i n t h e second chapter a f f o r d i n g some c o n f i r m a t i o n of t h i s v i e w p o i n t . But t h i s i s not to imply chapter 4 i s any the l e s s Lucan i n q u a l i t y f o r tooth 2 : 4 2 f f . and 4 : 3 2 f f . show s t a t i s t i c a l l y a h i g h average o f Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Ihus we cannot expect to toe a b l e to go back to Luke' 3: source word f o r word (we w i l l never know what he has o m i t t e d ) , tout the presence of two, and we b e l i e v e

interdependent, r e p o r t s , i s s u i n g from the same o r i g i n a l w i l l provide a strong i n d i c a t i o n of the n a t u r e of any source and Luke's p e c u l i a r a t t i t u d e to i t . A t a b l e may convenient emerges for

be found i n BC 5 pp 144f., whence i t

t h a t the commcih m a t e r i a l i n these v e r s e s accounts the f o l l o w i n g : 2:43a =5:11 2:43b = 5:12 2:45a r e p e a t s 4:34b 2:45b = 4:35a verbatim

2:44a = 4:32a and2:47a approximates 2:44b ^ 4:32b 2:47b echoes 5:14.

to 4:33b

218.

The new m a t e r i a l i n 2:42-4.7 ( n o t covered by the above) i s thus found i n w . 42, 46, both v e r s e s d e a l i n g w i t h s i m i l a r emphasis on the f e l l o w s h i p o f the newly converted, Hhe absence o f t h i s m o t i f i n 4:32ff adds some p l a u s i b i l i t y to the view t h a t i t i s p a r t of the Lucan a p o l o g e t i c . But even though 2:42-47 i s the more o b v i o u s l y composite s e c t i o n , i t i s ; p o s s i b l e t h a t Luke h a s been more f a i t h f u l to h i s source i n c e r t a i n d e t a i l s , than i n the c o u n t e r p a r t i n A c t s 4: t h i s i s so o f 2:44 which i n 4:32, coming a t t h e head of t h e s t o r y , has s u f f e r e d the u s u a l Lucan r e v i s i o n . 4:32 more p r e c i s e l y announces the c o r r e c t s u b j e c t heading o f t h e Community, and i n the c o n t e x t i t i s t h i s s e c t i o n which has the b e t t e r r a i s o n d ' e t r e i n t h a t i t l e a d s i n t o t h e s t o r y o f Barnabas, lis c h a r a c t e r i s h e r a l d e d i n w i t h such grandeur ( i n the

whole o f 4:36) t h a t the b r i e f episode o f 4:37 must be a summary o f an i n c i d e n t w i t h a g r e a t e r w e a l t h o f d e t a i l . The i n t r o d u c t i o n i n 4 : 3 6

2 4 2

h i n t s a t a.

source which knew more about Barnabas. As h i s c o u s i n , Mark could, a l i t t l e b e t t e r than most, have provided t n i s information.

242.

I t s l e n g t h may o f course be due to Barnabas l a t e r appearances, but see below and on 1:23 (pp.. 149-151),

219.

I n e f f e c t 4*32-35 c o n t a i n s no f r e s h i n f o r m a t i o n w h i l s t d e a l i n g w i t h the same s i t u a t i o n a s 2:42-47* I t . m i g h t p o s s i b l y have been g e n e r a l i s e d by the e d i t o r out o f an a c t u a l s t o r y (perhaps that of Barnabas),

but w h i l e evidence i s wanting, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Lucan f e a t u r e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t Luke h a s not borrowed u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y from a s o u r c e . The r e s u l t i s to reduce our source c r i t i c i s m to such a h y p o t h e t i c a l p o s i t i o n t h a t the most t h a t c a n be concluded from t h i s examination i s t h a t t h e r e i s some a p r i o r i v a l u e

i n an assumption t h a t Mark may have recorded a s t o r y about Barnabas. The l i n g u i s t i c data support the suppos i t i o n : i n the v e r y short s e c t i o n 4:36f. we have 244. three Marcan words. But whatever t h e source may

have contained has been reworked by Luke f o r the purpose o f f a c i n g the reader with the i d e a l o f the p r i m i t i v e Community. We may c o n j e c t u r e w i t h some p l a u s i b i l i t y that i n p r a c t i c a l terms t h i s i d e a l was only r e a l i s e d once the c h a l l e n g e o f forming a community i n Jerusalem had been r e a l i s e d and t i e s w i t h o l d homes i n G a l i l e e s e v e r e d . I n p r a c t i c e ideal/ this

243. a p a r t from 4:33 which i s u s u a l l y regarded a s e d i t o r i a l ( e . g . by Haenchen op. c i t . p. 1 9 3 ) . 244. Pour i n D.

220

i d e a l was

followed

l e s s f l e x i b l y than i s

suggested

by 5 s1-11, f o r Mary r e t a i n s h e r house (Ac. 12s12) w h i l s t opening i t f o r f e l l o w s h i p , The touched upon these s u b j e c t s , may source, i f i t

t h e r e f o r e have, a t of the

t h i s point, depicted

the continued c o n s o l i d a t i o n

the C h r i s t i a n community as a n a t u r a l outcome of 245 S p i r i t ' s presence.

5:1-11, being a Peter m i r a c l e

s t o r y , would appear

to have some p r i o r c l a i m as a contender f o r i n c l u s i o n i n our Marcan h y p o t h e s i s . Marcan words are above and

average* Yet the harshness o f P e t e r ' s a c t i o n h i s i n f l e x i b l e condemnation of Ananias and have l e d many to the c o n c l u s i o n
OAfc.

Sapphira

t h a t t h i s i s an this

"isolated tradition".

Menoud b e l i e v e s t h a t

s t o r y arose to e x p l a i n the f i r s t deaths i n the C h r i s t i a n church. T h i s has the m e r i t of e x p l a i n i n g phenomenon t h a t we have observed i n the M&rcan o u t l i n e , t h a t of a gradual p r o c e s s of thought and a

a c t i o n of the Church as a n a t u r a l cause and e f f e c t . The p o s s i b i l i t y must be l e f t open as to whether i t

belonged/

245. Bv Gerhardson:. ST 24 (1970) c l a i m s t h i s pre-Lucan t r a d i t i o n arose from*anti-Saddueean c i r c l e (pp. 146f.) The Community was e s t a b l i s h e d as ajtesult of a r e i n f o r c e d c o n v i c t i o n of God's l o v e (Dt 6:5). 246. P . Menouds Goguel Melanges (1950) p. 147 - so, i n g e n e r a l , Haenchen op. c i t . p. 200 who s e e s i n w * 6 f f * a l a t e r development of t h e legend.
!

221.

belonged w i t h the preceding Barnabas story to which we have t e n t a t i v e l y assigned a Marcan o r i g i n . On balance, t h i s must be r e j e c t e d , and not only because of the inner inconsistencies w i t h 4:32-35 which the drama of 247 Ananias reveals (so especially 5:4 ) Luke has

grouped these s t o r i e s together i n order to provide an o v e r a l l u n i t y to the whole section 4:23 - 5:42. The verses are painted on a broader canvas i n comparison with the e a r l i e r Peter and John section (3 :1 - 4:22)* A f t e r t h e i r t r i a l , these two apostles r e t u r n tO' the community, who now become the subjects of the ensuing. prayer and " a l l ' * (4:31) receive the S p i r i t . I n 4:32ff. Luke describes the and the cKK.\fjcri< (5 :11)

and now the apostles are seen to be leaders of the group (4:33*35,37, 5:12,18) and Peter*s r o l e , even i $ 5:1-11, i s nominal. The s i n i s against God (5:4 ,9) and Peter acts as the agent f o r the community, rather than, i n the healing s t o r i e s , as servant of Jesus. As i n several other s t o r i e s (e.g. Ac. 12) Jesus Christ i s 24-8 not mentioned by name.. ^ The more generalised footing,

of 4:23 - 5:42 can be seen i n the f i n a l t r i a l scene, where, i n contrast to chapter.^ 4, the apostles are rather/ 247. see Haenchen op. c i t . p. 197, Menoud a r t . c i t . p. 146. 248. 5:9 i s ambiguous. (above) now,

222.
:-. V

rather improbably, a l l i n t h e dock. But granted that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s c o l l e c t i o n o f s t o r i e s i s Luke's, the material which he has assembled l a diverse and several t r a d i t i o n s (emanating from several communities) appear to be represented. 5 s l - l l shows l i t t l e common e s p r i t with the e a r l i e r miracle o f Peter (3s 111), i t s affiatfi'-fcies l y i n g rather with another composite sectiont 8s4-25. Inside t h i s P h i l i p cycle, we hear of Peter's encounter with Simon Magnus. Peter*a a t t i t u d e Ceven though he now o f f e r s hope o f repentance) i s i n contrast to that o f P h i l i p , f o r whom Simon's b e l i e f i s s u f f i c i e n t to permit; h i s baptism. We w i l l examine 8:4ff. therefore, as Peter i s involved therein, even though the t r a d i t i o n appears to belong with the non-Marcan story i n Ac. 5:1-11.

8s4-15. P h i l i p Receives Simon.

5 6 7 8 9
10 11

I* -r

<3"0A

-n*,

lt<*-\o(/f.<Wl>

223.

12

cv<*rr&'fa >

13; AcoS^^r^f

8tl4^25. Interference \>v Jerusalem,

14 e^n^cTc^oi 15 16 17 18 19 eVrrsff^W
/

21

^ r r w ,

m v ( s 383)

22
23: 24
Ti K i *

< j S$

cop

Aa with 5:1-11 the s t a t i s t i c s reveal a c e r t a i n a f f i n i t y o f 8 r l 4 f f . with Matthaen language. Perhaps the Community which issued t h a t Gospel had also fcred the o r i g i n a l w r i t e r of these two Peter s t o r i e s .
2 4 9

The only possible Marcan influence may occur i n the summary/

249. perhaps op. Mt. 16sl9.

224.

summary section (8:6f.) which heads the paragraph, hut this, is: almost c e r t a i n l y coincidental as compared w i t h 5:15f., where i m i t a t i o n or reminiscence o f Marcan s t y l e was ruled out. At 8:7 the d e t a i l a are too generalised to allow the same minute i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The only other point of contact, with any o f the Peter stories i s the reference to money (8:20) (op. 3:6), i n a. reply made by Peter t o Simon, John remaining i n h i s favourite nonspeaking, p a r t . But. we saw i n chapter four that Luke was capable of expanding, perhaps even creating Peter (and John) s t o r i e s and t h i s judgement must be l a i d upon the present passage, although i t may remain 250 possible that Luke has fused two t r a d i t i o n s , one

of which had Marcan roots. But t h i s i s n o t demonstrable, as the present story breathes a climate of opinion d i f f e r e n t from our Jerusalem-based stories o f e a r l i e r chapters, and even i m p l i c i t l y c r i t i c a l o f that t r a d i t i o n , f o r the action i s described from the vantage of the community represented by P h i l i p , and Peter and John merely come (8:14) and go (8:25) w h i l s t the 'hero* o f the section (8:4-40) i s P h i l i p , the evangelist from Oaesarea (8:40 cp. 21:8). Quite independent o f these t r a d i t i o n s i s that i n Ac. 10 which/

250. So P. Hahn: Mission (1965 B Q ? ) p. 49n, who also a t t r i b u t e s to Lucan e d i t i n g w . 14-17, 25.

225.

which even implies Peter i s the founder of the Caesarean community w h i l s t never even alluding to P h i l i p , 8:14ff, might be intended to f o r e s t a l l t h i s silence, but ( t o a n t i c i p a t e ) we w i l l see two independent t r a d i t i o n s being u t i l i s e d i n Ac, 10', one o f which i s Marcan i n character. Hie other i s f u l l o f Lucan language, and has either been thoroughly r e w r i t t e n or has come t o Luke a t f i r s t hand (perhaps: v i a P h i l i p ) . I t i s w i t h t h i s l a t t e r t r a d i t i o n that the present passage has elements i n common, the theme of baptism and the elaborate apologetic connected with i t . . I t serves- 1. to show thv apostles are f u l f i l l i n g Jesus* command. (1:8) 2. t o demonstrate that r e a l baptism i s performed only by authority of the o r i g i n a l eyewitnesses. ^ Here the e d i t o r faces the problems facing l a t e r generations who wished to know the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r baptism. Such a problem would not have occurred to the p r i m i t i v e church? I n the same way 5:1-11 may
2

possibly be seen to answer another pressing difficulty,., the authority o f the church t o punish i t s members,

and the (exceptional) effectiveness of her power.

251.

Thus the Seven are appointed i n Ac. 6:5 hy apostolic authority.

226.

But unlike 5:1-11, 8:14ff. appears to be based on no early t r a d i t i o n . I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y (perhaps l i k e the l a t t e r t r a d i t i o n of Ac. 10 mentioned above) a creation 252 of Luke designed to answer contemporary issues. I t has no obvious Marcan sympathies. The next section that f a l l s f o r comment i s 9*19 ff which t e l l s the storybof Paul's reception i n Jerusalem. The account of Paul's conversion shows l i t t l e Marcan a f f i n i t y , but i n the story of h i s Jerusalem v i s i t there are some Marcan features, and i t might seem a p o s s i b i l i t y worthy of consideration, that a Marcan source would have recalled some of the notable events that took place i n the Jerusalem church. The story i n 9:26ff. i s t o l d from the point of view of the brethren of that c i t y , and the .vividness and repetitiveness read as of the surprise of those receiving, such breathtaking news f o r the f i r s t time. We have already suggested that Barnabas may have figured i n these Marcan memoirs. The whole of 9:19ff. w i l l be discussed, as we have also noted a p a r a l l e l i n the scene of Paul's r e j e c t i o n with Mk. 6 . 252.
253

Subsidiary motives are ( i ) a polemic against the l a t e r Gnostic followers of the Magus. Simon i s converted i n v. 13 but w . 14-24 depict him more unfavourably as the Pharoah of o l d (Ex. 8:28) (cp. 8:24D cop 67 r e f e r to h i s repentance, but pace BC 4 p. 94 cannot be Lucan as (a) i s never used by Luke ( v . Hawkins., p. 11) and (b> FiVMi^/rs^cv i s i n the NT only here and 17:132), 20:27g. - the Western t e x t evidently l i k e d the word!) ( i i ) a description of the expanding church. News is; now brought by messengers, which class of people form an important part of the action i n the next chapters.
Gf

253.

V. pp. 74f..

227.

9:19b-30. Saul's: Preaching. 19 -rtsCnot p K >

20. 21 'X^/OQ \it^y^
45

rj^^in<(p):

22 Saul's Escape. 23 S . S 24, i"S 25 Saul Comes to Jerusalem. 26 ^Ooc^pivrojDmv 27 S/tnXoy^ivti/

28 ^^oua^yux

&

29 30) Before embarking, on an account o f Paul's missionary zeal, Luke needs to i n s i s t on both the genuineness o f the conversion and h i s common purpose with the other apostles. This t r a n s i t i o n passage provides a testimony, i n general terms, o f Paul's f a i t h (9:19b-22), which Luke may himself have composed, using the model o f 15k. 6:2ff.. I f this: i s sufficient/
:

228

s u f f i c i e n t to account f o r the p a r a l l e l s , then the v e r d i c t must go to those who see i n t h i a section a Lucan composition w i t j & l i t t l e connection w i t h the h i s t o r i c a l event. ^ Galatians 1 suggests both an immediate r e t r e a t i n t o Arabia and a more delayed v i s i t , to Peter and James (not Barnabas) i n Jerusalem, Yet those who have emphasised the d i f f e r e n t i n t e n t i o n s of Acts and Galations are r i g h t . But, as regards Acts, why should Luke borrow material from Mk. 6 so obviously? Was t h i s unconscious, or was he using. material, perhaps the o f f i c i a l record of the Jerusalem church, which already made these parallels;? This mediation of Barnabas also c a l l s f o r comment, f o r why should Acts show, him as taking; up the case 255 of Paul? " This favourable portrayal of Barnabas might again be most explicable i f h i s kinsman Mark had recorded the story, These two were evidently on good terms (Ac. 15:39). I f a Marcan source i s a p o s s i b i l i t y here, then the d i f f i c u l t y i n 9:20 over tufi&S disappears. This; word which so seems to contradict the i/Jpw of Gal. 1:16 ^ (only there i n Paul) represents the Marcan use of -cSOfis of/ which i s so often only a loose i n d i c a t i o n
2 6 25 -

254. so Goguel: op. c i t . p. 125, Haenchen: Studies LukeActs p. 268. 255. Haenchen: Apg. p. 290 finds t h i s 'inside knowledge incomprehensible. 256.
1

floo0%f also occurs only i n the NT at Gal. 1:13,23 and Ac. 9:21. 9:23-25(not discussed here) likewise contains what appears to be only vague; reminiscence! of 2 Cor. ll:32f.

229.

of the passage of time. ? But the only place where evidence of a Marcan source i s concentrated i s i n 9:28f. where are found three of Hawkins' Marcan characteristics;. But Lucan a c t i v i t y i s also i n evidence here. ~ notably i n 9:30 (which prepares f o r 11:25) hut also throughout the story so that the issue of a Marcan source cannot be pressed. 9:32 - 12:17. Introduction. Luke sets aside the development of Paul's; history*, to describe more Peter miracle s t o r i e s . A r t i s t i c a l l y these chapters are the f i n e s t i n the book, wherein Luke achieves p r a c t i c a l l y , that which the t i t l e of the work proclaims; an Acts of the Apostles. By interweaving Petrine and Pauline m a t e r i a l , gradually fading, out the character of Peter w i t h the climax of h i s achievement, Luke suggests a u n i t y of opinion over the Gentile question amongst the two leaders. The ' t r i a l ' of Peter i n Ac. 11 becomes a confirmation of the Spiirit's guidance i n the matter. The e f f e c t i s produced i n the simplest of ways: i n s e r t i o n of blocks of Peter and Paul (with Barnabas) s t o r i e s . Luke, as ever, rewrites h i s material, yet i n 9:32 - &kj 12:17, t h i s /

257. A lapse of time i s implied also i n the p l o t of the Jews to k i l l Paul. Only a f t e r an i n t e r v a l would they r e a l i s e Paul's defection.

230'.

t h i s i s done i n more piecemeal fashion. We can see from the appendix t h a t Luc an features are very much above average i n 10:1-8, 17-33 but equally 10:9-16, 12:5-10;, 18-25 have been subjected to minimal e d i t o r i a l treatment. 0 these l a t t e r , 10:9ff and 12 :5ff. also f u r n i s h very strong, evidence f o r a Mar can source. Thus Luke* 3 method i n these chapters; i s , generally speaking, to allow h i s source: to 'have i t s say , w h i l s t Luke himself adapts t h e material to h i s own end by the use o f e i t h e r a second t r a d i t i o n which he rewrites, or by providing an introductory section himself: so 10:1-8.
r

Unlike the previous Saul cycle (9 :1: tli ) , the r e t u r n t o the subject o f Peter i n 9:32 i s made without warning. Though tne present form o f t h i s verse i s the editor's, ^
2 8

the d i s j o i n t e d e f f e c t produced by these

summary verses, i s remarkable a f t e r the care which has been lavished on other l i n k verses so 9:30 (above) and 8:25 where Peter i s taken back to Jerusalem. This i s obviously not to prepare f o r 9:322 The purpose o f 8:25 i s 3imply to remove Peter from the scene/

258. SfJX&'ov ... kjtrtXPi/^ also can be found a t 8:4f (not?**) 19:1#A and Lk. 4:30f..

231

scene to r e t u r n to the 'hero* of that sections Philip*. Now without John. Peter i s $iy$(opww & \ * Jraviwv (9s32); and as BC 4 p. 108 remarks, perhaps a new source i s here adopted, wnerein t h i s d i f f i c u l t phrase was explained. Ac. 12sl7 contains another ambiguous note.,, t h i s time as to Peter's fate a f t e r leaving Mary's houses 2*py>$u<9^ 4?s ^r^oov fotw - a phrase which implies the silence already enjoined upon the witnesses to t h i s scene, l e s t Peter should be recaptured by Herod's soldiers. As BC 4 p. 138 and o t h e r s " ^ have a t t r a c t i v e l y conjectured, the '.wandering* of Peter i n 9s32 i s the natural sequel to 12s:17. I n other words, 12slff.. headed the section 9:32 - 11:18, and thus we f i n d Peter i n Jerusalem where we had l e f t him a t 8:25, or as regards our Marcan source, at, 5sl6. The guiding motive behind t h i s rearrangement w i l l be unfolded i n our analysis* Subsidiary reasons may be noted now: Ci) Chapter 12 shows that Peter i s s t i l l on good terms with the Jerusalem Church even though the controversy over the Gentile question has according
260
2

to Luke's arrangement taken place. Cii) A greater u n i t y with the Caesarean section i n 8:4ff. i s established.

259* Williams op. c i t . p. 147 c i t i n g MacGregor i n The Interpreter's Bible 260. Ac. 15s7-12 only serves to confirm t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Luke's method.

232.

( i i i ) Luke concludes h i s Peter section w i t h a drama t i c escape (cp. also Paul i n Ac. 27) - using the name of Mark as the l i n k between the dieter t r a d i t i o n s and the saga of Paul which commences i n earnest i n Ac. 13. And i t is> the appearance of John Mark's name i n chapter 12 that has prompted the numerous suggestions that Mark i t was who conveyed, e i t h e r o r a l l y or i n writing,.
261

t h i s story t o Luke. 12:1-4. Herod's Persecution. 1 2 / 'lE^Asf

-x&)

+ i n f (E)

w . 5-1CE. Peter, i n(.copG67V Prison. Escapes. * )

K s

6f CNABE;) 7HT< CHAl

np^tfADE)^, SW^fc

fev^notNA) iK^^/(bis)f

9
10 ^jxtft/UH

Ah

4)

261. see pp. 2 f . . 262. The reading o f ftis an assimilation from Ac. 16:20 though i t i s equally possible that the above has been taken from Ac. 16:30.

233 vv. 11-17. Peter Flee 3 to Mary's House.

11 v G f l^^TOCfT>k

12 -tt (JVBE)
rf

(not h:
13 OVOJAat

8<jo. ( E )

14

15 sfiW j ^ r
16 St K a / ( . D > 17 -fL(^ABE), Features of Marcan Style; a " s i d e l i n e " (12:3) - the note concerning, the Passover appears abruptly. Repetition (12:5) i?g ^otataj/ .... Redundant; f u l f i l l m e n t of a request ( 1 2 : 7 g ^ ) .
26

Diminutive form (.12:8) - 9*.vS6\\n/, Common Parataxis: i n a command (12:8) H i s t o r i c present (12:8) -ViT* ' Redundant f u l f i l l m e n t of a request (12:8,9) Redundant verb (12:17) - lJ<Xw/ -flyii$j , also K * V i n D i s very much more common than i n the B - text.
264 1

263.

On t h i s as a genuine part of the Western t e x t , see below p. 244.

264. Although untypical of Luke's alleged economy of s t y l e , t h i s however appears to be a Lucan expression Ccp. Ac. 20:1, 21:5).

234

Mar can features are concentrated p a r t i c u l a r l y upon verses 5-10. I t i s a l i t t l e surprising that where such words might be expected to e x i s t i n abundance, namely i n the scene where Peter comes t o the house o f Mary mother of Mark, the s t a t i s t i c s are almost n e g l i g i b l e i n support of a Marcan source theory. "* !Ehis might be taken to support Haenchen's thesis, t h a t Mark's name i n Ac, 12:12 i s an e d i t o r i a l device designed to prepare f o r h i s appearance from 12:25ff.. But 12:12 i s a matter
26

of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the house that shelters Peter and Mark's name was indispensable to t h a t 266 tradition. Haenchen however claims that t h i s i s one example of a Lucan t r a i t , whereby a character i s subtly introduced before h i s f i r s t main 267 appearance. On t h i s reasoning;, does i t mean

therefore that the 'John' who accompanies Peter must be John MarkJ

265

l e t i f i t can be demonstrated that the escape story has a Marcan o r i g i n then the sections ( w . 11-17) i n d i c a t i n g the source o f that story as Peter himself (v. 17) must have an a p r i o r i p r o b a b i l i t y of being from the same source. Cp. Mk. 14:50 and perhaps Mk. 16:5, Ac. 1:14B f o r other places where Mark may have q u i e t l y slipped i n to the action. see fteenchen p. 241. He c i t e s Ac. 9:27, Barnabas, without r e c a l l i n g 1:233) or 4:36. ( p . 173).

266.

267.

235.

A more i m p o r t a n t question i s why Luke introduces Mark at t h i s stage i n Acts. He does nothing i n 12:12 and i n Acts 13 he appears only to disappear*. We are given only some information as to h i s l i t e r a r y ability.
2 6 8

Harnack i s puzzled why the sole note of

2t

discord i n Acts relates to a quarrel over John Mark. I s i t possible that i n 12:12 Luke i s e x p l i c i t l y acknowledging Mark as a source of information, and perhaps not f o r t h i s episode alone, but f o r h i s e a r l i e r contributions i n the Gospel and, we suggest, i n some e a r l i e r portions of. Acts? I t i s true that any of the witnesses that memorable night; would have 270 had reason to r e c a l l the event v i v i d l y , and i f

we were dealing with a question of an o r a l t r a d i t i o n transmitted to Luke, then the supposition of a. contribution from Mark would be no more or less probable than any other. But as soon as we think of a. written/

268. Ac. 13:5 - see p. 29.

269. Harnacks Luke p. 134 n. 1, p. 150. On t h i s see pp. l l l f . . 270;. W. Ramsay: Bearing (1915) pp. 209-221 suggests Rhoda. Hie honour of mentioning a slave g i r l by name ( i f such she was> i s quite remarkable. Gp. too Cerfaux p. 689 who says of Marks "celui - c i sinait st raconter",. thereby summing up the mood of the narrative very precisely.

236.

w r i t t e n source, Mark must " b e the strongest contender f o r recognition. Haenchen's outlook however i s d i s t i n c t l y inconsistent, f o r as Bultmann p e r t i n e n t l y questions:: "how i s i t possible to d i s t i n g u i s h any e d i t o r i a l touches, i f the story was so f i r m l y 271 fixed i n oral tradition?"
, A

Nevertheless (on the assumption of a w r i t t e n source); we are able, as Bultmann observes, to trace w i t h confidence c e r t a i n e d i t o r i a l touches, because alongside the numerous minutiae of observation i n chapter 12, wherein is. a precision which o r a l t r a d i t i o n would long since have glossed, there i s found a curious vagueness of equally: important 272 detail. Nowhere else i n Luke's w r i t i n g s can be 273
rc

found such an abundance of picturesque d e t a i l s , " and, this, being so, .a not the explanation f o r this/

271.

Bultmann p. 75. Haenchen's picture i s governed by the view that "with h i s (Paul's) conversion the persecution of the Christians i s immediately over" (Studies, pp. 264f.) but cp. 9:23ff. and Ac. 12:22
/

272. Well noticed by G'oguel: I n t r o d u c t i o n pp.222f: " i l y a l a un curieux melange de notices seches a force d'gt^e precises, de developpements legendaires et de d e t a i l s topographiques." ("cp. Taylor: Behind the Third Gospel p. 251 who speaks of Proto-Luke's "curious combination of s i m p l i c i t y and directness with a c e r t a i n vagueness of o u t l i n e " ) . 271. J * Dupont AS 8.4> 1967 p. 15. I am indebted to Bom. Bupont f o r making t h i s a r t i c l e available to me.

237.

t h i s unique n a r r a t i v e to be found i n p o s i t i n g a Marcan source? F o r v i v i d n e s s i n n a r r a t i v e i s a

274.

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Mark's s t y l e ,

and c l a i m i n g

our a t t e n t i o n i n t h i s r e s p e c t i n Acts; 12 are

KOL^W^^OS

Cl2s6)

2 7 5

rru-r*c^vcs -tVj^ jTvXy

i.

Tyr

3j^**v/^-..(12:7) (12:10)
r

to&yfif

Wo*

/4^^S-C12sl0iD>

b e s i d e s the whole drama, c r e a t e d by prolonging. P e t e r ' s w a i t i n g o u t s i d e the door. Eie. p r e c i s i o n

276

extends to the naming, of Mary, Mark and Rhoda..

274. See e . g . S t r e e t e r : Pour Gospels p . 357, W. B a r c l a y s The N . I . v o l . 1 (1968) p . 1 1 . 275. S c h a r f e , p . 67, "das i s t d e r s e l b e n D e t a i l m a l e r , dem w i r d i e Schilderungen des. Marcuse&ngeliums verdanken" * c p . Mk.. 4 : 3 8 . 276. Cop * has enteredk i n t o / t h e s p i r i t of t h i s , n a r r a t i v e :

so t h a t "imperceptibly" (Haenchen/%eigandt/art. d i t . p . 4 7 4 ) a new f e a t u r e o f P e t e r ' s ' h e s i t a t i o n ' Ccp. Mt. 14:30> i s added. An abrupt reading, e x p l a i n i n g O*K Tjat-i , i t i s tlae k i n d of d e t a i l l a t e r s c r i b e s might f i n d unimportant, but i t i n t e r r u p t s the p a s s i v e r o l e of P e t e r (on t h i s , see below) and i s thus probably secondary i n t h i s i n s t a n c e .

238.

These

pointed o b s e r v a t i o n s are o f f s e t by the c r y p t i c

conclusion;

Imp^St)

<L?S

fy&*

-f/n>v~

(12:17),

E q u a l l y vague i s 1 2 : I f . , # i e r e we are t o l d t h a t Herod a f f l i c t e d TrfdLS of the church, although' only

the death of James i s r e c o r d e d . Tifrus "the b r e v i t y of the n o t i c e concerning, the martyrdom of James i s . b e s t e x p l a i n e d on the assumption t h a t the source

277
contained s t o r i e s about S t . P e t e r . " Nor i s the

p l a c e of the events r e c o r d e d , and though we answer obviously i n J e r u s a l e m * , would L u k e ' s r e a d e r s be expected to know t h a t Mark's house was s i t u a t e d t h e r e ? A story from Mark would assume the p o i n t . V e r s e s 1-4 form the i n t r o d u c t i o n and t h e r e is

l i t t l e here t h a t i s c l e a r l y Marcan, though i t may be the case t h a t Luke h a s , as e v e r , merely r e w r i t t e n the i n t r o d u c t i o n most thoroughly. 12:1 Ccp. 19:23>, a vague time note out of c h a r a c t e r amidst the w e a l t h of d e t a i l , seeks to l i n k the

278
events w i t h 11*30. root/ And d e s p i t e h i s u s u a l attempts to

277. Hamacks A c t s p . 242. Note also, t h a t w h i l s t a new Mary i s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h some p r e c i s i o n , another James appears without warning (perhaps c p . 1:14) and without c r e d e n t i a l s . 278. See Eornos EE. 33 (1959) pp. 4 1 1 f f . .

239.

root h i m s e l f i n an h i s t o r i c a l background, Luke d e c l i n e s to i d e n t i f y A g r i p p a by n a m e ; as o (WiVOs

2 7 9

he i s designated

simply

(12:]^A) as i s another of the

Herods i n Mk. 6:14. V e r s e s 1 8 - 2 3 , however, appear to belong to an independent t r a d i t i o n (perhaps a popular legend) f o r i t i s t o l d w i t h a t a s t e l e s s p l e a s u r e a t t r i b u t i n g Herod's death to h i s f a i l u r e to pray to God. !Ehere i s no connection made w i t h the i n s t i g a t e d by him i n 1 2 : l f f . . OJhis might, persecution incidentally,

support the view t h a t Luke has not overworked t h e s e t r a d i t i o n s i n A c t s 12 to any e x t e n t .

James i s executed, prophecy (Mk. 10*39

i n f u l f i l l m e n t of J e s u s ' ) , and l i k e another v i c t i m of

pan,

a Herod, John the B a p t i s t , death i s by the sword* T h i s news i s conveyed i n a t a n t a l i s i n g l y b r i e f statement, so t h a t i t s purpose appears to emphasise

the menace P e t e r i s to encounter. But we do not know whether Luke has h i m s e l f a b b r e v i a t e d a longer account of the episode or whether a source was here a l r e a d y more concerned to use the s t o r y of James only as i n t r o d u c t o r y matter to the P e t e r s t o r y . The unique/

279. 25iis i s i n c r e d i b l e i f the s u p p o s i t i o n o f J . Wilson (pp. 1 1 - 1 3 ) and Bruce ( p . 253) i s c o r r e c t - t h a t Luke r e l i e d upon s e v e r a l o f Herod's house f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . 280. See p. 82.

240

unique i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

tw

iStVfcv tkwrvou

may be a

r e l i c of a l o s t s o u r c e . Chapman however hereby i n f e r s t h a t John i s s t i l l a l i v e as "Zebedee was dead and forgotten";

2 8 1

y e t J o h n ' s name i s mentioned s u r e l y Zebedee i n

because he h a s been i n tlae r e a d e r ' s e y e .

c o n t r a s t h a s not; been s e e n . However Mk. 10s39 r e f e r s : t o t t h e death of both b r o t h e r s , though i t does not e x p l i c i t l y state, a s some have assumed, t h a t they a r e

n e c e s s a r i l y to d i e simultaneously* I t ; i s thus a n e e d l e s s c o n j e c t u r e to suppose that John was s i m i l a r l y martyred a t t h i s time although s i n c e the shadowy accompanist of P e t e r now a l s o d i s a p p e a r s from v i e w , 282 remains p o s s i b l e . it

I n 12:3 the Western t e x t attempts to expand, the r e f e r e n c e to -tWS i n v . 1 b u t the * expansion jls so

awkward t h a t i t might be o r i g i n a l , l a t e r s c r i b e s dropping the r e f e r e n c e . Also clumsy i s the i n c i d e n t a l time r e f e r e n c e i n v . 3b f o r t b i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n could e a s i l y have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the opening words* As i t i s , i t i n t e r r u p t s the c l a u s e fpe^oov or The

p o i n t o f t h i s i n s e r t i o n (which w i l l be seen to be from the e d i t o r ) w i l l be o u t l i n e d below. Commentators; refer/

281. J . . Chapman .&!B.s. 7 (1906) pp. 4 1 3 f * . 282. J a c q u i e r p . 300 f o r r e f s . . . . see pp. 1 7 1 f f . , and c p . R . Mackintosh E T 23 (1911) pp. 9 3 f . . I f we a r e r i g K t i n r e - a r r a n g i n g 12 J I f f . , before 9 r 3 2 f f . , then the absence of even a mention of John i n these l a t t e r verses i s explicable.

r e f e r the Passover r e f e r e n c e to Mk. 1 4 : 2 , omitted by 283 Luke i n h i s p a r a l l e l , only to be i n c l u d e d h e r e . 03ie i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s argument i s t h a t Luke is
1-

drawing a p a r a l l e l between t h i s episode and J e s u s p a s s i o n . See p . 253 f u r t h e r . > V e r s e s 4 and 5 are r e p e t i t i v e : <yAX<X^\V ( 1 2 : 3 ) (12:3).^/A</W. (12:4) ( 1 2 : 4 ) r&f*ti*s -rSv li^fy^f JT^croiS To

(.12:4) jr4^<* (12:4)

^oX^K^V fSsCoyanv/' - t V y a ^ ^ -"tfjs

^ ^^wk^(12:5) j^vXW

<
E h i s may be caused by Luke w r i t i n g ( a t r i f l e l a b o r i o u s l y ) an i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h i s e p i s o d e . T e r s e 5 i s marked out as the s t a r t proper (n.b.yU/fc/ D v to the c e n t r a l s e c t i o n of the chapter.
u

Verse 6 r e s t a t e s ,

f o r the t h i r d time,

that Peter

was s e c u r e l y l o c k e d and guarded i n p r i s o n . T h i s r e p e t i t i v e p a r a l l e l i s m which r e c u r s i n the sentences i s -typical of the heighten story, following to

s e r v i n g not only Peter's

the m i r a c l e , but a l s o to emphasise

2 8 5

p a s s i v e obedience to the d i v i n e w i l l .

Burkitt

however c o n j e c t u r e s t h a t "some human sympathiser was at/

283. BC 4 p .

8. Studies

284. See p . 123 and n . 46. S i m i l a r l y h e r e : B i b e l i u s , p. 23.

285. Haenchen op. c i t . p . 340 t a l k s of P e t e r ' s "passive" role: a l s o . See too Dupont a r t . c i t . p . 2 2 .

242.

at work, who had drugged the guards and b r i b e d the t u r n k e y : ' * ^ t h i s i s more improbable even than the m i r a c l e , f o r i t s t r i k e s a g a i n s t t h e theme of
287
28

supernatural intervention.

T h i s m o t i f of a n g e l i c d e l i v e r a n c e , moreover, e v i d e n t l y of p r e - L u c an o r i g i n . T h i s i s p a r t l y

is

t e s t i f i e d by the m a n i f e s t dependence of 5:19 upon

288

the present t a l e .

And the a n g e l ' s a c t i o n i s

so

i n t e g r a l to the s t o r y t h a t i f i t were argued t h a t an o r i g i n a l source d i d d e s c r i b e the event i n t h e more human way suggested by B u r k i t t , then i t would have

to be assumed that Luke, has completely r e w r i t t e n the s t o r y . The s t a t i s t i c a l evidence s t r o n g l y counters

t h i s however and i t w i l l be seen t h a t a more c o n v i n c i n g e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t Luke has recorded t h i s s t o r y a s i t was d e l i v e r e d to him (almost v e r b a t i m ) not f u l l y comprehending i t s purpose.

The a n g e l ' s appearance i s marked by a b r i g h t 289 light, Peter/ ^ but i n s t e a d of a dramatic p r o c l a m a t i o n ,

286. B u r k i t t ? C h r i s t i a n Beginnings p . 103. 287. T h i s i s e x p l i c i t l y recognised by P e t e r i n v e r s e s 11 and 1 7 . 288.. See pp. 2 0 5 f . . 289. As on the Damascus r o a d : A c . 2 2 : 9 , 26:18. I s A c . 12 the e q u i v a l e n t l i n e i n P e t e r s t o r i e s ?

243.

P e t e r i s commanded only to t i e up h i s s a n d a l s i The i n t e n t i o n of t h i s a n t i - c l i m a x becomes apparent once our rearrangement, of A c . 12 b e f o r e - 9 : 3 2 f f . i s The meaning of
2 0

adopted.
w

o/ro<j<ri

xd oW$&u

<rou as have

a r g u e d , ^ ' can be found i n Jesus* charge to the a p o s t l e s before t h e i r m i s s i o n . T h i s i s the purpose of

God's i n t e r v e n t i o n : P e t e r , as we see from 9 : 3 2 f f . , f u l f i l s 1his c a l l become e v i d e n t , to m i s s i o n . F o r reasons which w i l l s t o r y f a i l s to make tiiis interpretation deliverance

the e d i t o r ' s

specific this issue. Incidentally,

now c l a r i f i e s the point of the a n g e l ' s

i n 5$20 f o r t h e r e a l s o P e t e r i s ordered to p r e a c h . I f Luke modelled the escape i n A c . 5 on A c . 12, may he. n o t have taken 5:20; from 1 2 : 8 ?

I n 12:8 P e t e r i s a l s o t o l d to

, a verb t h a t

o c c u r s only here i n the New Testament, a p a r t from J h . 21:18. of P e t e r ' s e a r t h l y m i s s i o n , 291 i n o l d age. w. * and of a g i r d i n g

To t h i s charge, P e t e r obeys, and as i n parallelisms

4 f there i s a r e p e t i t i v e

290. See p .

76.

291. I n A c . 12:8 E- r e a d s jTyn^ttCi perhaps from L k . 1 2 : 3 5 . Cbut perhaps fyocUx i s a n i n t e n t i o n a l r e m i n i s c e n c e of C h r i s t ' s p a s s i o n (on t i i i s see b e l o w ) : ioto^v e l woL-fitA GWtt\ (Mk. 15:31) - there i s c e r t a i n l y a p l a y on the verb i n J h . 2 1 : 1 8 ) .

244.

t h i s s e r v e s to emphasise P e t e r ' s p a s s i v e r e a d i n e s s , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t he i s s t i l l n a t u r a l l y d o u b t f u l i n v . 9, a t r a i t a c c o r d i n g with Mark's p o r t r a y a l of h i s c h a r a c t e r : 0? jxf> qfe T\ <3m>yM$p (Mk, 9 : 6 )

which Luke r e n d e r s l e s s conspicuously a s s

Verse 11 however i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e c t i f i e s the

situation,

f o r as a r e s u l t of the m i r a c l e P e t e r i s a s s u r e d :

12*9

12:11

Here the r e p e t i t i o n may he due to Luke a s v e r s e 11 e x h i b i t s s e v e r a l Lucan f e a t u r e s .

Returning to the a n g e l ' s r o l e , v e r s e 10 shows the r e l e a s e of P e t e r i s e f f e c t e d e n t i r e l y by the angel.

Lh c o n t r a s t , the a n g e l ' s r o l e i n s;5sl9 i s ; q m t e nominal/

292. 293.

The e f f e c t of p a r a l l e l i s m c r e a t e d by t h i s r e a d i n g suggests i t belongs to the Lucan t e x t ( c p . 9 : 3 4 ) . om. p .

245

nominal a s r e g a r d s the escape f o r h i s presence was n e c e s s a r y to conveyxfc the message of 5:20. But now i n 12:10 the angel d i s a p p e a r s , having: l e f t P e t e r w i t h some orders ( 1 2 : 8 ) t h a t a r e h a r d l y r e l e v a n t to a f u g i t i v e from j u s t i c e ! D i v i n e guidance n o r m a l l y i n v o l v e s 2Q4 an o u t l i n e of the immediate f u t u r e too, but here

i t i s absent and P e t e r i s l e f t alone on a s t r e e t . I f Luke i n c l u d e d t h i s s t o r y f o r e d i f i c a t i o n of the church i n times of d i s t r e s s , f u l l e r guidance from the angel might have been e x p e c t e d . The s t o r y makes no such

c o n c e s s i o n s and the summary i n v . 11 l i m i t s i t s e l f to; the theme of d e l i v e r a n c e . ^ I f t h i s i s L u k e ' s own

comment upon the s t o r y then we may d e t e c t a d i f f e r e n t , nuance to h i s understanding of the s i t u a t i o n : he s t r e s s e s P e t e r ' s s a f e d e l i v e r y from h i s enemies, whilst

iiie o r i g i n a l was concerned w i t h P e t e r ' s escape i n order to preach the good news. The. d e t a i l s of the escape i n v . 10 a r e t o l d i n f u l l * I t would r e q u i r e a v e r y bold e d i t o r to i n v e n t this

d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t . I t must o r i g i n a t e from one of those who e i t h e r knew the p r i s o n , o r who had heard t h i s breathless/

294. Cp. L k . 2:12, Lit. 2 : 1 3 . 295. But c p . A c . 4:25-2? (so Dupont a r t . c i t . p . 21),

246.

b r e a t h l e s s s t o r y f o r themselves from P e t e r 12 $10' i s e i t h e r complete

(12:17). least

f i c t i o n o r comes, a t

i n d i r e c t l y , by P e t e r ' s own testimony.

The t e n s i o n the

which i s achieved suggests t h i s was the c l i m a x o f

o r i g i n a l s t o r y . The f i r s t three s t a g e s l e a d P e t e r to the f i n a l b a r r i e r that s e p a r a t e s him from the outside w o r l d : 1. f.A&otfTfc

2.

H JT,

N K**

s y

fevr/i

0
/

&

Now? a dramatic pause a s we t a k e our b e a r i n g s

so that the n e x t most m i r a c u l o u s moment can be emphasised: 4. rv-irS tioroilnir / a

There i s , o f c o u r s e , i n t h i s m i r a c u l o u s element, s i m i l a r i t y w i t h other p r i s o n dramas, but here the

7 X > *vib^*rfl < i s used to u n d e r l i n e the l e s s o n o f the d i v i n e purpose. ^ BC 4 p . 136 compares the m i r a c l e o f the r o l l i n g away of the stone at Jiesus' tomb (Mk. 1 6 : 3 f . , and more s t a i d l y L k . 2 4 : 2 ) on which analogy, below* see

296. i n E u r i p i d e s : Bacehae 447, f o r example, tfche same word i s u s e d , but without t h i s c o n n o t a t i o n .

247.

Now we r u s h out of the p r i s o n i n the f i n a l s t a g e s of the escape:;

(The famous Western e d i t i o n h a s entered i n t o

the

s p i r i t of the s t o r y so w e l l , t h a t , even i f we cannot be sure t h a t s e v e n s t e p s a c t u a l l y e x i s t e d , the gives

u n l i k e l i h o o d of such a d e t a i l being i n v e n t e d , 297 i t ground f o r a u t h e n t i c i t y .

297. On i t s connection w i t h Mark, see p . 3 and c p . P e t e r s e n a r t . c i . t . p . 239 "recorded only by a s o j o u r n e r i n J e r u s a l e m " , p and cop67 omit *G* and tiiis might support W i l l i a m s : A l t e r a t i o n s p . 63 who: t u r n s C l a r k ' s suggestion on A c . 19:14 to 12:10 by p o s i t i n g C = ^Vn-tfi But note D makes a d e l i b e r a t e p a r a l l e l i s m , (see below p . 261) between P e t e r and Herod i n the use of u^Toe fi*(12:10D, 2 3 D ) . Others (Weiss Codex D. p . 110, Chase op. c i t e p . 86, Dupont a r t . c i t . p . 20 n . 16) c i t e E z e k . 40:22 as the source o f they g l o s s - but the word i n 12:10 i s the r a r e r fiejjjf . A c . 21:35, 40 which a l s o ( l i k e E z e k i e l ) use &*hoi&y& are a c c o r d i n g l y a l s o u n h e l p f u l . T h i s v a r i a n t o b s t i n a t e l y r e f u s e s any e x p l a n a t i o n ( E p p ' s study never even r e f e r s to i t ) and doubts as to i t s genuiness s p r i n g from a r e l u c t a n c e to c l a i m any s u p e r i o r v a l u e to-fee D t e x t . Perhaps i t was removed as " i l l - a d a p t e d to f o r e i g n readers'* (Zahn op. c i t . p . 29 n . 7) perhaps by Lukes i t i s the k i n d of d e t a i l Mark h i m s e l f might have s u p p l i e d .
f

248.

Peter i s abandoned i n a s t r e e t , 298 1ne f o r c e of

7

p\4J not. being; c l e a r . T O r r e y ' s c o n j e c t u r e of

"7*n

( i . e . -fi5 > s t i l l does not e x p l a i n why the e d i t o r 299 goes a g a i n s t h i s p r a c t i c e of adding - is a

s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n i n t e n d e d , but as a t 12:17 i t has been suppressed? But P e t e r at l e a s t , knows the and the r e a l f o r c e o f j ^ \ f i s now p l a i n f o r it street,

accommodates i t s e l f to P e t e r ' s v i e w p o i n t . I f i t was the house of Mary to which P e t e r and John were g i v e n d i r e c t i o n s i n L k . 22:8, then P e t e r would now know the way, and the a n g e l ' s presence l e s s requisite Verses 12.-16 a c t a s a l i g h t r e l i e f to the drama. I t c o n t r a s t s the easy escape by d i v i n e means w i t h the o b s t i n a c y of human r e c o g n i t i o n of the miracuLeitsi The gate of the p r i s o n may y i e l d of i t s own a c c o r d , y e t the gate a t which P e t e r knocks remains c l o s e d by doubt.

298.

D r e a d s /yooo'IjV&oV v\hich completes the sequence d e c i s i v e l y , but i t may be an a s s i m i l a t i o n from 1 2 : 1 3 . The t e x t of ^ e x h i b i t s the opposite p r o c e s s . T h i s may be f u r t h e r evidence of L u k e ' s c l o s e / dependence upon h i s source f o r t h i s e p i s o d e . On iAi*V c p . L k . 21:2 inhich d e l e t e s the word found i n Mki 12:42, J u s t p o s s i b l y however I M ^ / was an o r a l c o n f u s i o n of nwi i . e . "our street'*, r e f l e c t i n g Mark's w i t n e s s . Or perhaps i t was the name of the s t r e e t ( c p . 9 : 1 1 ) *

299.

300'.

249.

^"Juvifrw/ &i ( 1 2 : 1 2 A

5 0 1

) i s d i f f i c u l t and appears

to be an e d i t o r i a l l i n k . A s i m i l a r e x p r e s s i o n i s used i n connection w i t h f l e e i n g i n 14:6 and Lucan embroidering i n t h i s v e r s e i s evidenced f u r t h e r by > Muvot prayer. , (jwfjfyotC^WtK ^'< and the r e f e r e n c e to 304
J

l e t t h i s i s no o r d i n a r y p r a y e r s e s s i o n ,

but one ( c p . v . 5) which answers to the time of crisis, and here we note how i t i s Mark's Bospel
i

which l a y s weight upon p r a y e r p a r t i c u l a r l y i n such situations..

v

But; t h e i r doubt, i n 12:15 when escape, editor.

confronted w i t h the g l a d t i d i n g s of P e t e r ' s

would c e r t a i n l y not have been invented by the F o r t h e i r concern even though g r a t i f y i n g , i s a little

s c e p t i c a l i f they had r e c a l l e d the dramatic T h i s l a t t e r v e r s e must

escape of the twelve i n 5 : 1 9 .

t h e r e f o r e belong to an independent stratum of t r a d i t i o n , u n l e s s , a s we suggest, i t i s the invention. editor's

301. HBs o w S ^ v 7 j , L avoids the d i f f i c u l t y w i t h Knit crriV#/ , Guillemard suggests awsufSc (Hebraisms (1879) p . 4 2 ) . 302.. L k . 24:33A, A c . 1 9 : 2 5 . 303. om. g . Note the kii before the v e r b .

304. Dupont a r t . c i t . pp. 2 4 f . s e e s here a r e f e r e n c e to a paschal gathering. 305. see Montefiore a r t . c i t . . p . 1 3 8 ,

250.

A s l i g h t but a t t r a c t i v e t h e o r y suggests t h a t those at Mary's house were a l l woaen the men h a v i n g escaped to avoid p e r s e c u t i o n ( c p . v . 17).

The masculine words need not d e t e r u s from t h i s suggestion,'

0 , 6

and i n t h i s case Rhoda w i l l have meaning

been one of the C h r i s t i a n s - jTeh&imi simply d a m s e l a n d o miicdv^i/

though used a s a

t e c h n i c a l term f o r a p o r t e r ' s opening the door need n o t be p r e s s e d i n t h i s w a y ' '

0 0 9

Confirmation

of t h i s can be seen i n Rhoda*s behaviour, which i s not that of any c o n s c i e n c i o u s doorkeeper. The presence of women a t p r a y e r r e c a l l s the scenes of Mk, 15:40), 47 and A c . 1 : 1 4 .

306. H . Burton B2 v o l . 1 (1881) p . 3 1 8 c p . )\oy<WTiS ( 9 1 3 7 ) / f o r \oO<r<*n* i though a t 12:12 syh 614 add 3rp.\^ov> Had Luke intended such a group he c o u l d have made h i s p o i n t p l a i n e r . But what of the s o u r c e ? I f we a r e c o r r e c t , then Mark h i m s e l f only heard this story indirectly. 307. I n d p u e l l a i s used f o r i&ifovUfl but. elsewhere i n the NT' a n c i l l a * i s c o r r e c t l y ' w r i t t e n . 308. e . g . 2 K t . 22*42 - see Lady W. Ramsay ET 27 (1915) pp. 2 1 7 f . . 309. p?4 reads f o r {j/iKo?D3li u ^ r X ^ M a word a s s o c i a t e d w i t h (Mary's) house a l s o a t L k J 22:10 C L . The verb i s used i n the t e c h n i c a l sense i n e . g . P l a t o Phaed 59E:, but i n such passages the word appears i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h 13ae proper term f o r a. p o r t e r ( i n Plato &&pzS ) . The s e n s e ' o f doorkeeping i s unique i n the N . T . w i t h t h i s verb.
1

251

We have a l r e a d y commented upon the dramatic i r o n y o f the scene a t the door. T h i s k i n d o f t a l e might,, i t i s t r u e , be t o l d to provide proof of the L o r d ' s power (so we may c l a s s i f y many o f the m i r a c l e s ) b u t some s t o r i e s d e s e r v e , though the distinction

i s n o t e x c l u s i v e , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o a category of more p e r s o n a l l e g e n d s ; to these belong, the healing,

of P e t e r ' s m o t h e r - i n - l a w (Mk. l : 2 9 f f . ) and the p r e s e n t a c c o u n t . I n 12:17 we may perhaps see r e l i c o f an o r i g i n a l ' w e : &^y*]fr*n> Cv)Tc>i$. the

The s t o r y concludes a b r u p t l y and on t h i s o c c a s i o n t h e r e i s no connecting l i n k w i t h P e t e r ' s f i n a l appearance a t the J e r u s a l e m C o u n c i l as Peter

> A\ i

Cl5:7ff)

c/

310).

C p . L k . 9:56

/r<y>tv)-/)OT?V

,V

^CAV^

K*>MY

perhaps such was meant 'in the i o u r c e o f A c . 12:17 as a marker f o r the m i s s i o n o f P e t e r ( 9 : 3 2 f f . ) but see below f o r L u k e ' s understanding o f the c l a u s e . A c c o r d i n g to S p i t t a ( i n B . Weiss* Neutestamentliche Studien ffeorg.. H e i n r i c i (1944) p . 106) t h r e e miniscu3.es o f ^Mk. 1:35 r e c o r d t h a t J e s u s ^ r r f f M H v ' *S t'T'looV xon&it but t h i s evidence i s n o t i n von Soden f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n .

252.

The quickness of the t r a n s i t i o n a f t e r the prolonged h e s i t a t i o n of the "believers, the absence

even of d e t a i l s of h o s p i t a l i t y which Luke might w e l l have urged on u s , suggest t h a t t h i s l a s t p a r t of the i n c i d e n t has been abbreviated by the e d i t o r , who wished to concentrate Cso 12:17a) on t h e theme of

P e t e r ' s d e l i v e r a n c e . But why should Luke r e l a t e w i t h such emphasis t h i s escape of P e t e r , i f he i a a f t e r this, to a l l i n t e n t s and purposes to disappear from

the h i s t o r y ?

T h i s i s an important i s s u e f o r although we are informed of the whereabouts of the goal of P e t e r ' s escape ( i . e . Mark's h o u s e ) , and even t o l d the d e t a i l i n 12:19 that Herod i trite

/
S

the f i n a l f l i g h t of P e t e r i s , we are t o l d , to

'another

p l a c e * S u r e l y Luke i s d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n c e a l i n g the p l a c e . 311

F o l l o w i n g up the c l u e t h a t the escape i s the f o c a l p o i n t of the c h a p t e r (note t h a t P e t e r r e f l e c t s on i t , v . 11, and then r e t e l l s i t to o t h e r s , v . 1 7 ) , some have s t r e s s e d the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the P a s s o v e r , mentioned i n 1 2 : 3 :

311.

Tt remains p o s s i b l e , Mark h i m s e l f knew no more of P e t e r ' s s t o r y , a f t e r P e t e r had l e f t . But our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 12:8 argues a g a i n s t t h i s .

253.

"St; Pfeter e x p e r i e n c e s a new c l o s e of the P a s c h a l f e a s t . "

passover and t h a t a t the

5 1 2

The p a r a l l e l s w i t h the

Passover n a r r a t i v e i n Exodus 12 have been f u l l y drawn out, by S t r o b e l : ACTS 12 EXODUS 12

6 7

12 11

v\>KTt <TTtw^<|S

-r^vrfj

17

i ^Y^T^

Ac. 1 3 : 1 7 i ? ^ ^ E g y p t i a n d e l i v e r a n c e. , ' 3 1 3

S t r o b e l admits these p a r a l l e l s are n o t v e r y c o n v i n c i n g , but; t h i s i s because Luke has only i n c o r p o r a t e d , piecemeal, p a r a l l e l s which were more deeply i m p r i n t e d i n the s o u r c e : "the Jewish C h r i s t i a n account seems to have been endowed w i t h a deeper symbolism which i t has now l a r g e l y l o s t as a r e s u l t
5 1

o the e d i t o r ' s h i s t o r i c i s i n g of e v e n t s . " ^ L e s s wholeheartedly are/ Huber c l a i m s t h a t these a l l u s i o n s

312. T. Walker: A c t s (1919) p. 268. 313. The same verb (unnoticed by S t r o b e l ) i s used i n Ac. 7:36, 40. 314. A, S t r o b e l NTS 4 U 9 5 8 ) p. 213.

254.

are "simply due to the S e p t u a g i n t a l s t y l e , which Luke adopted from h i s s o u r c e .

I|V

^ These s u p p o s i t i o n s

have the i n t e r e s t i n g e f f e c t of s t r e n g t h e n i n g our e a r l i e r case f o r a source w i t h a J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n background. But such an ethos i s s e l f - e v i d e n t from a r e a d i n g of Ac. 12 and does not of n e c e s s i t y r e q u i r e t h i s Passover t h e s i s . And our examination

above suggested t h a t the i n t e r e s t of the e d i t o r has l a i n i n drawing out the escape motif, so i f we hold S t r o b e l to h i s comparison w i t h Ac. 13:17, i s i t n o t the e d i t o r who has provided the deeper this argued,

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ? But Luke has not developed t y p o l o g i c a l connection. The c l u e , we have

to h i s understanding of the s t o r y l i e s i n the words of 12:s 11, where P e t e r g i v e s thanks f o r h i s " d e l i v e r a n c e "^"^ from \c*o(? iCv 'Joi>S'oiCiV o ^ ?
1 1

315. W. Huber B2NW 35 (.1969) p. 46. He i s however d i s s a t i s f i e d with S t r o b e l * s treatment: (pp. 46, 2 1 6 ) . More c a u t i o u s l y favourable i s Dupont ( a r t . c i t . pp. 2 0 f . ) as he p o i n t s to the midrash on Ex. 12:42 ( y i e l d i n g a prayer of d e l i v e r a n c e ) and he p o i n t s to a Second Century T r a d i t i o n which d a t e s P e t e r ' s d e l i v e r a n c e a l s o a t Passover time. ( p . 24 n. 25) 316. \%^\a\v of E g y p t i a n d e l i v e r a n c e : J e r . 41:13 - but the phrase w i t h . i s f r e q u e n t elsewhere i n the LXZ. '

317. We have a l r e a d y commented' on the Lucan language of v. 11 - cp. a l s o JTpocrfoZi* only here and Lk. 21:26 i n the N

255

The p a r a l l e l i s m o f t h e s e words w i t h C h r i s t ' s own p o s i t i o n a t h i s P a s s i o n c o u l d h a r d l y he b e t t e r e x p r e s s e d . Note t h a t Hhoda r e c o g n i s e s Peter's, v o i c e oijjo -!7j?

y*fi

(Ac. 12s 14 = Lie. 24:41) j u s t a s

the d i s b e l i e v i n g d i s c i p l e s meet the R i s e n L o r d .

though t h i s p a r a l l e l i s m i s not p r e s s e d , a moderation o f t h i s view w i l l e x p l a i n why Luke h a s t r a n s f e r r e d t h i s P e t e r s t o r y to the p r e s e n t p o i n t i n h i s n a r r a t i v e , and here we r e t u r n to the enigmatic announcement i n 12:17:

Schmalz (JBL 71 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ) compares t h i s w i t h 1 Clem. 5:4 where P e t e r

and -Qius b e l i e v e s t h i s r e f e r e n c e i n A c t s i s euphemistic f o r h i s 'dying

1

( c p . the s i m i l a r double

meaning i n E n g l i s h which may be a p p l i e d to 'he d e p a r t e d * ) . Now we know t h a t Luke employs this, sense i n Acts 1:25 o f J u d a s ' d e a t h . M o s t ; s i g n i f i c a n t o f a l l , i t h i s same verb i s used i n a prophecy*/

318. a l s o t o be found in, Lk. 22:22 o f f a . . . * n > / > < u f T o M (rendering the W u i i n Mk. and Mt,.). Cp. G i l l * s i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n on t h i s v e r b : he (Luke) wants: to make something s p e c i a l o f i t " (HTR 63, 1970 p. 2 0 1 ) . I n t h e LXX 7^7) = d i e i n P s . 39:14 and (probably) Gen. 15:2. '
M

256

prophecy* of P e t e r , recorded only by Luke:

-d$ fw<*n>/ jry&/*crB"oq(Ik. 22:33 > I i i other words Ac. 12:17 shows P e t e r going* to

h i s appointed reward i n heaven, and from t h i s i t i s c l e a r t h a t such a motif w i l l "belong; to the e d i t o r , 1 i i i s P e t e r s t o r y being so p o s i t i o n e d i n A c t s to conclude P e t e r ' s h i s t o r y w i t h an account o f h i s death* i n p r i s o n and h i s
319
r

re surre c t i o n * .

The p r i n c i p l e d i f f i c u l t y f a c i n g t h i s tour de f o r c e i s t h a t P e t e r reappears b r i e f l y i n Ac. 15t Here h i s r o l e i s l i m i t e d f o r he i s , as Schmalz n o t e s , mentioned but once (15:7) whilst, a t 15:14 he i s designated by t h e unique t i t l e ^i^.-iwi/'.^
20

Schmalz argues that James* speech i s o r i g i n a l and t h a t he was o r i g i n a l l y r e p l y i n g to the. Symeon of Ac. 13:1, and an e a r l y s c r i b e , misunderstanding, this/

319 The s u r p r i s i n g s i l e m c e i n the N.T. upon the death of C h r i s t i a n s i s e x p l a i n e d by Menoud: Gioguel Melanges pp. 150-153 to r e s u l t from embarrassment f e l t a t the Delay o f the P a r o u s i a ( p . 2 2 0 ) . 320'. cp. 2 P e t . 1:1 >iA.

257.

this, r e f e r e n c e , e r r o n e o u s l y i n s e r t e d P e t e r ' s name at t h e head of 15:7. But i h i s does not remove the o b j e c t i o n : f o r the e d i t o r , by h i s p h r a s i n g of the speech i n 15:8-11 c l e a r l y understands i t to have

been d e l i v e r e d by P e t e r , f o r he r e f e r s back to h i s 321 e a r l i e r experiences with Cornelius.

N e v e r t h e l e s s l e t u s p l a y w i t h the i d e a and see i f Luke does provide any f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s as to h i s a l l e g e d scheme of P e t e r ' s 'death* 're surre c t i o n ' : 1. The escape of P e t e r o c c u r s i n the c o n t e x t o f James* martyrdom (12:2) and the s m i t i n g of Herod C12:23); death surrounds t h e episode. P e t e r h i m s e l f i s 'smitten* (12:7).
5 2 2

and

2. P e t e r no l o n g e r p l a y s a n y t h i n g but a nominal and u n t y p i c a l l y subordinate r o l e i n A c t s . A c t s 12 may be designed by Luke to i l l u s t r a t e the p a s s i n g

l e a d e r s h i p to James.

321.

Robinson JBL 64 (1945) p. 265, points; to the i n c o m p a t a b i l i t y of P e t e r ' s a t t i t u d e i n A c t s 15 w i t h G a l . 2:7-9 and thus d e s i g n a t e s Ac. 15 as "a desperate attempt by the Jerusalem church to undo the damage done by i t s e a r l i e r a n t i - g e n t i l e s t a n d " . I t does not ease the d i f f i c u l t i e s i f we suppose, with some, t h a t h i s t o r i c a l l y t h i s i n c i d e n t i s to be equated w i t h the events d e p i c t e d i n 11:27-30!, for we are concerned w i t h the e d i t o r ' s treatment. F o r a p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s understanding of Ac. 1 5 : 7 f f . see p. 270. On t h i s verb see p. 261.

322.

258,

3. P e t e r * 3; prophecy, which J e s u s immediately m o d i f i e s though not r e p u d i a t e s CLk. 22:33), r e f e r s both to imprisonment, and death, but why does Luke r e f e r to death as w e l l a s imprisonment u n l e s s he i n t e n d s showing, f u l f i l l m e n t o f the event, i . e . i n Ac. 1 2 ?
5 2 3

Thus,, i f we accept t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , t h a t the p r i s o n i n which P e t e r i s k e p t i s s e e n by Luke a s a. symbol f o r h i s 'death.* and h i s escape e q u i v a l e n t to h i s ' r e s u r r e c t i o n * , the -rbfTW o f Ac. 12:17

( a s i n 1 Clement 5:4) i s heaven. We cannot p r e s s t h i s metaphor any more: than Luke a l l o w s , but we may admit t h a t the equation o f Hades i s found i n 1 P e t . 3:19 (perhaps) and Rev. 20:7.324

Armed w i t h t h i s suggestion we may now see f u r t h e r places: where Luke has modified his: o r i g i n a l s t o r y though i n every case t h i s has been done w i t h the g r e a t e s t economy. I n essence the o r i g i n a l has been permitted to come fehining through* and indeed Luke may have found such u n i n t e n t i o n a l symbolism a l r e a d y i n embryo i n h i s source.. T h i s symbolism i s expressed i n t h e following: e x p r e s s i o n s :

323. 324*

The same might be s a i d i n connection w i t h Mk. a l s o cp. Rev. 2:10.

10:39.

259.

1. "'riy-cyoiV OWTO/ Xfcfwv VWotc-r* (12:7) ~ words which, i n m i r a c l e - s t o r y c o n t e x t s , can i n d i c a t e a r a i s i n g from the dead ( c p . 9:4-0) or simply a ' g e t t i n g up' (cp;. 9:34). Luke may i n t e n d

a double sense.

2. P e t e r i s

Ko^vV^M^oS ( 1 2 : 6 ) . I n A c t s , the 7:60

only other i n s t a n c e s of t h i s verb are a t

which r e f e r s to Stephen's martyrdom and 13:36, used of David's death. She f i g u r a t i v e sense t h e r e f o r e be intended here also. could

325. Goulder (Type and H i s t o r y 1964) has expanded t h i s g e n e r a l t h e s i s i n t o f a n t a s t i c p r o p o r t i o n s . Often h i s typology becomes v e r y f o r c e d : "before the power of God stones are r o l l e d away ( t h i s only i n the G o s p e l ) and i r o n g a t e s open of t h e i r own / accord ( o n l y A c t s ) " , o f t e n very p r e c a r i o u s " Itcrtf/ns ( i . e . the adverb?) i s only found twice i n the ' Gospels and Ac 1s i n these two c o n t e x t s - of p a s s i o n s " ; ( t h e r e f e r e n c e s being Lk. 22:44 and Ac. 12:5 (not A D ) , and sometimes he i s quite o p t i m i s t i c : ) " i t may be 1hat the guards... correspond to the Matthaen guards outside J e s u s ' tomb ( J ) . * (My comment always i n b r a c k e t s above).
2

260

Koc9ti/fii/ by c o n t r a s t i s r e s e r v e d mainly f o r the l i t e r a l meaning o f s l e e p , the accompanying c h a r t : N.T. appearances; Koyi-5cr}o6 kf&tfSfl/ LITERAL SLEEP 3 16 METAPHORICAL f o r DEATH 14 1 DOUBTFUL CASES 1 3
3 2 7 5 2 6

as c a n be seen from

Of these u s e s , the moat i n t e r e s t i n g i s 2 P e t . 3:4 which may i n c l u d e a r e f e r e n c e to the deaths: o f t h e f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n s of C h r i s t i a n s

p

and the evidence

suggests we must be on the a l e r t f o r a p o s s i b l e metaphorical understanding.

326. I n Mk. 5:39 J e s u s ' u s e i s ambiguous: see R. K e r : ET 63 (1954) pp. 315f., ET. 66 (1954) p. 125. 327. LSX FIGURES
Ko\f^aVtn
k.J&<t#Suv

LITERAL: DE&.THI DOUBTFUL

33
3

METAPHORICAL : SESUAT.
72"
5

OTHERS
S8~~
2

53
2

T5
1

Again k,(KI/W emerges w i t h the predominantly l i t e r a l sense, m e t a p h o r i c a l o f death only a t Dan. 12.:2 and pa. 87:6 (not A ) . I n the N.T. t a b l e , Ac. 12:6, to avoid b i a s , i a i n c l u d e d as a reference: to l i t e r a l s l e e p . The o n l y i n s t a n c e o f k*6KttfiuV b e i n g used o f death i s the quotation i n Eph. 5:14. The p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e i n Ac. 12:6 may m i t i g a t e a g a i n s t our s u g g e s t i o n , though a c c o r d i n g to N. Turner: Grammar (1963) p. 79, AB r e a d s the a o r i s t p a r t i c i p l e . I cannot f i n d h i s evidence f o r t h i s . 328. So Bo R e i c k e : 2 P e t e r (1964) p. 174.

261,

3. Of Of s nce i s the note that Peter 3. sl li ig gh ht t significa no ance is is

^-^ftj^nv^

k^o-t~[v
X'OcroV

SWw/" ( c p . 21:33 o f
/

/
4pft-\ov)^

P a u l ) . Rev 9:14 reads

7O^5 Tto"5oiooij

which squad

(perhaps cp, Ac. 12:4)

are hound u n t i l the day they k i l l a t h i r d o f mankind. A l s o the angel who h o l d s the keys o f Hades / has on h i s hands o^Xoirw ^tyKAjv" (Rev 2 0 : 1 ) .

4 The most important p o i n t e r i s Ac. 12:7: /r<*Tcrf Si. -rriv jiXiV^V

\

( n o t D)..- the verb

"being a l s o used o f Herod's death by_ an angel a t 12s23, and a l s o o f k i l l i n g i n Mk. 14:2?, Ik. 22:49,
329

Ac, 7:24 &c.

I f a weaker sense i s intended i n

the above passage, i t would be unique to t h i s verb i n the New Testament, Some may t h e r e f o r e s h e l t e r i n D's reading, o f vO^otS . perhaps gleaned from 3 Mace, 5:14 where the context i s o f a deep s l e e p . ' But e v i d e n t l y t h e g l o s s came frqm J h . 19:34*

329. 330;.

T h i s sense i s v e r y common i n the LXX. But j u s t p o s s i b l y i t i s a c o r r u p t i o n from the p a r a l l e l i n Ac. 5:19 where^flv-c v u i c f ^ ^ i s read ~ but/ see below.

262.

Even i f t h i s t e x t of 12*7 CD g I>uc> i s i t f u r n i s h e s evidence

secondary,

t h a t a t l e a s t one e a r l y between P e t e r ' s

s c r i b e saw a d i s t i n c t connection imprisonment and

the death of J e s u s .

But why

should Luke wrap the s t o r y w i t h p o s s i b i l i t i e s may

such be

an obscure meaning? Two considered together:

Ci) Luke, l i k e everyone e l s e , did not have 332 i n f o r m a t i o n to hand concerning Peter's demise."

C i i ) He t h e r e f o r e i n c o r p o r a t e d an a c t u a l P e t e r s t o r y to i l l u s t r a t e P e t e r ' s p a s s i n g to g l o r y . I f P e t e r had died soon a f t e r these e v e n t s , then who had w i t n e s s e d the aftermath of the escape the those

( 1 2 : 1 2 f f . ) , would have had reason to r e c a l l s t o r y w i t h e s p e c i a l c l a r i t y . The was/

source however

331.

S i m i l a r l y Chase op. c i t , . p. 88. -Cp. M. 27:49 HB. We may compare Ac. 5:38D where uid^om^ was perhaps d e r i v e d from J n . 18:28 ~ nete i n Ac. 12:7D i s another i n s t a n c e where the Western t e x t has been i n f l u e n c e d by John's p a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e . So A. F r i d r i c h s e n : S p r a c h l i c h e s und S t i l i s t i s c h e s (1943) pp. 2 8 f f . , 0. Cullmann op. c i t . p. 81: " I f anywhere i n our a n c i e n t s o u r c e s , we should expect a r e p o r t concerning the end of P e t e r ' s l i f e i n the Book of A c t s . "

332.

263.

was

once a simple t a l e " "

of P e t e r ' s escape

from

Jerusalem i n order to, spread the good news elsewhere.

'These a l l u s i o n s , c r y p t i c as they a r e , must seem s l i g h t to the modern r e a d e r . I f Luke had wanted to say P e t e r died, why not a f f i r m t h i s i n b l a c k and w h i t e ? The author had no i n t e r e s t i n r e c o r d i n g t h e deaths of h i s heroes although i f i t i s l e g i t i m a t e to shipwreck,

see. the o u t l i n e s of a 'passion* i n P a u l ' s

then we might expect to be provided w i t h a p a r a l l e l phenomenon i n P e t e r ' s h i s t o r y . Y e t t h e r e was no

purpose i n r e c o r d i n g the death of a d i s c i p l e u n l e s s i t was:: n o t a b l y g l o r i o u s (Ac. 7:60, f a c t i s t h a t few, 12:2) and the of

even of the second g e n e r a t i o n

C h r i s t i a n s , knew or cared to t e l l anything about P e t e r ' s death, although

specific was

by t h i s time he

apparently no l o n g e r here on e a r t h :

s a y s J e s u s i n J n . 21:19. The themes of t h i s v e r s e are P e t e r ' s m i s s i o n and l a t e r h i s s u f f e r i n g and Ha, a s i m i l a r way we have seen these two death.

motifs

u n d e r l y i n g the m a t e r i a l i n Ac. 12 so has Luke developed h i s s t o r y a s an e x p l a n a t i o n of some such difficult

s a y i n g ? For he c e r t a i n l y knew a form of the traditions/

333.So Bv Weiss: A p o s t e l g e s c h i c h t e , p. 162, c h a r a c t e r i s e s i t as"haive .

B

264.

t r a d i t i o n s found i n J n . 21, though the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i s chapter w i t h Lk. 5 : l f f . i s not p l a i n . l e t who i s the oi \ X o $

5 5 4

of J h . 21:18 but the

^/yy^

of Ac. 12? And a s the prophecy r e c o r d s , P e t e r i n Ac.. 12 / 335 i s shown a s p a s s i v e : o^fc n 1 Armed w i t h t h i s c l u e , l e t u s see i f Luke has borrowed anything, (to suggest the death m o t i f ) from J n . 21:

1. Acts 12:3 Herod s e i z e s P e t e r . John 21:3 The d i s c i p l e s t r y to s e i z e

^ \
./

fish.

2. A c t s 12:4 _ o V . K & d i
,

Jt1o<^c
/

John 21:3,10' J P V 3 A c t s 12:6 John 21:3

tffik&t-pL

tfj-<-r\ / ZXLM* h/ i K i t ^ -ffi vuk-n

J

4. Acts 12:3 fa John 21:18 iCvuDit ewcw testified

A Marcan source i n Ac. 12:8 would have

t h a t P e t e r i s not. to d i e ( c p . J n . 21:23 a l s o ) but to accomplish a f u r t h e r mission.: Luke has ignored this

m o t i f both from h i s source i n Ac. 12 and from J n . 21.

334. 335. 336.

* * D W read

=2X\o^,. perhaps t h i n k i n g of p e r s e c u t o r s .

Ac. 12:9 - see p. 241 n. 285. op. too Lk. 5:9.

265.

5. A c t a 12:8 P e t e r i s b i d to get d r e s s e d * John 21:7 P e t e r dons h i s c o a t , f o r he i s wearing n o t h i n g . 6. Acts 12:8 H* -n&v iijittv ViyC' c<fog...Ato\oo&t\ Jw. ^"Q ' V ^
0 ;

John Z L . : 1 9 j J i

^ '

The use o f t h e h i s t o r i c p r e s e n t i n both examples is striking. 7.. Acts 12:9 ^ ^k&*&9l\

John 21:23 o v " & f a \ o u 6 l * The r e p e t i t i o n o f i<\oj9Siv s t y l e ( s e e Mk. 2 : 1 4 ) . 8. A c t s 12:9 John 21:4 9. A c t s 12:15 John 21:12 cp. Mt.. 14:28, 10.. A c t a 12:17 ) ) John 21:13 > 1 1 , A c t s 12:17 The Meeting, rdm/ *i* O^K ffi<\ &\ i X ^ f itrr\\f icflV. i s a f e a t u r e o f Mark's

o3 ^n,Mtt>\ffifrgcgv,,oTi 'J/jff-ifo.j'

c p , J n . 21:18f,,23 and the d i s c u a a i o n about, P e t e r ' s death.

266.

The beloved d i s c i p l e i s

J S ^ ^ - T O S

ivsQinS

o^VL

I n i t s p r e s e n t form, the Acts s t o r y i s o b v i o u s l y legendary","

8

but i f we remove these e d i t o r i a l

m o t i f s then we may be a b l e to see the p o i n t o f t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r y more c l e a r l y . But a l r e a d y i n h i s Gospel, Luke has recounted a t r a d i t i o n w i t h some s i m i l a r i t i e s to J n . 21 - has he employed the r o o t s of t h i s account a g a i n i n Ac. 12? I f so, Luke's r e o r i e n t a t i o n i s v e r y d r a s t i c , and i n f a c t , as we have/

337.

To these p a r a l l e j l s may be added some f u r t h e r v e r y minor d e t a i l s : " Ci) Ac. 12 :6 Tv?o J n . 21 :2 Mo . C i i ) Ac. 12 :9, 10', 17 l%<\\&iv J n . 21 :3 ,Q\0i>tf ' ( i i i ) Ac. 12 s8 itrtffM*' R o*rM J h . 21 ( i v ) Ac. 12 101) rrtfats*v J n . 21 9 nty*xrdj& ii riiv Cv) Ac. 12 14 Xv^' J h . 21 '8D JAV. X7v Cvi) Ac. 12 :15 M<Zvtf J h . 21 :22A ( 2 3 A * i ^ W < The s i m i l a r i t y here i s due e n t i r e l y to t h e orthography of the s c r i b e o f A.
s

338.

BC 4 p. 135.

267

have seen, A c t s 1 2 : 5 f f . e x h i b i t s a marked Marcan q u a l i t y . The most we can say, then, i s t h a t Luke s h a r e s a common purpose w i t h the t r a d i t i o n found i n John 21 which i s to account f o r the mystery surrounding the o c c a s i o n of P e t e r ' s death. N e i t h e r w r i t e r appears to have known about. t h i 3 event, John 21 s u g g e s t i n g t h a t ( a p p r o p r i a t e l y ) P e t e r was martyred l i k e h i s L o r d . I f however t h a t w r i t e r

had d e f i n i t e i n f o r m a t i o n upon t h i s , he would have drawn the p a r a l l e l w i t h J e s u s * death, j u s t as the Three A f f i r m a t i o n s of L o y a l t y are intended a s a parallel to the D e n i a l s .

"We

wonder a g a i n what, became of P e t e r ? "

Luke p r o v i d e s h i s s o l u t i o n by u s i n g a f a c t u a l s t o r y as a. p a r a b l e . The s t o r y he chose to employ may a l r e a d y have contained the i d e a s of the angel and

the knocking: a t the doors, which m o t i f s suggest an opportune escha to l o g i c a l p a r a l l e l Moreover the

o r i g i n a l a l r e a d y showed P e t e r ' s a r r i v a l a t Mary's house/

339. 340-.

N e s b i t t JBR. 27 (1959) p. 13.

E * K a h l e r s Studien (1958) p. 53 r e f e r s to Apoc. P e t e r 17' i n t h i s c o n t e x t , which g i v e s to viavrt. Tjf>\*s of P's. 24:7 an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l sense. The a n g e l * s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n can a l s o be seen i n Ac. 12:23.

268

house as so unexpected t h a t the people a c t a s though he were n o t there Such f e a t u r e s o f the source

may have been repeated "by S t . Luke to convey the deeper meaning.. Luke h a s c e r t a i n l y a b b r e v i a t e d t h i s episode a t the door to t h i s end f o r 12:14 presupposes a c h a l l e n g e from Rhoda answered by P e t e r . T h i s technique h i g h l i g h t s Luke's main purpose: to h i n t that. P e t e r i s a s good a s dead i n the eyes o f h i s f r i e n d s so Luke's v i s i o n thereby r e v e a l s a c e r t a i n l e s s e n i n g of the v i v i d n e s s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s e d the source.. T h i s i s a. n a t u r a l phenomenon, from one who had. n o t h i m s e l f w i t n e s s e d the event. Luke however c o n c e n t r a t e s on the r e a c t i o n of those a t p r a y e r : they a r e amazed (
tf^njerfliv

> j u s t a s a r e the

women a t the tomb ( yw^cc^ Lk. 2 4 : 2 2 ) .

T i v y ... i^^vT^trfLtf

A t l a s t , Pfeter i s admitted and he t e l l s h i s s t o r y . Bave we not here the source i n d i c a t i n g the f i r s t , hand testimony o f the n a r r a t i v e ? F i n a l l y , he concludes w i t h words whose format may indicate

t h a t P e t e r ' s a u t h o r i t y has now passed to James:

341. So L i n c k e a r t . c i i t . p. 194: "den s i e f u r h i e l t e n " . !2hey p r o c l a i m : " I t ' s h i s a n g e l . " ( 1 2 : 1 5 ) .

269.

K> Toft

i f x X ^ A (121T)

whereas e a r l i e r Jesus had i n d i c a t e d Peter t o "be head o f t h e b r e t h r e n : c/rraTS. rcftj

ps*$f\

5 O

Mk. 16:7). Hhe mode o f expression i s very s i m i l a r . The Marcan source i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e theme o f l e a d e r s h i p although t h i s episode i n Ac. 12 may have concluded w i t h a s e r i e s o f s t o r i e s which culminate i n Ac* 11 w i t h a defence and v i n d i c a t i o n o f the p o s i t i o n taken by Peter as f i r s t . Leader o f the Jerusalem Church. I t looks also i n Acts 11 as though Peter i s no l o n g e r the l e a d e r o f t h a t community but Luke cannot o f course name James as Peter's opponent y e t , because he has transposed t h e events described i n h i s source.

But before t u r n i n g to t h i s f i n a l s e c t i o n , we may conjecture on the e d i t o r ' s understanding o f Peter's 'reappearance i n Ac. 15:7. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g : t h a t i t i s t h e Western t e x t which c o r r e c t l y understands the e d i t o r ' s view, when i t describes Peter's presence a t the Council:
/

V VT I On t h i s we observe:

342 flirts ( 1 5 : 7 1 )^)

342. Supported by 614. sy*

11115

which add ^yso

however.

270. 343 (i.) The D t e x t p r e f e r s the term "Holy S p i r i t " . ( l i ) This: i s the o n l y NT i n s t a n c e o f someone r i s i n g * i n the S p i r i t ; f o r the words do n o t r e f e r to Peter's 'speaking' i n the S p i r i t , the term f a m i l i a r i n Acts? Ac. 6:10;, 8:29, 23:9.
3 4 4

11*12, 13:2,

( i i i ) The phrase ' i n ( t h e ) s p i r i t * i s thus ambiguous. I t could h i n t t h a t Peter's presence a t 15:7 i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p h y s i c a l . W h i l s t t h i s may appear improbable, i t i s , a t l e a s t , a p o s s i b i l i t y . For i n attempting, a quest concerning Peter's end, we have been f o l l o w i n g a t r a i l t h a t is- a l i e n t o t h e w r i t e r ' s mind. Our c u r i o s i t y t o know more may have been shared by Luke w i t h regard t o the c h i e f o f the a p o s t l e s , though l e s s e r characters l i k e Barnabas and Mark disappear w i t h o u t remark from the n a r r a t i v e . Even so, we a r e t r e a t e d t o a b i o g r a p h i c a l note o f James' death. Would n o t Luke have needed t o show Peter's passing/

343. See Epp op. c i t : . p. 116 - but -T i s used where the meaning i s s e l f - e v i d e n t : Ac. 19:1B, 20:3D. 344. A d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n Epp p. 104, p e r c e p t i v e l y c r i t i c i s e d by r . T i s s o t RB; 77 (1970) p. 336 - i f James was defending. 12i.e freedom o f the G e n t i l e s , then the p a r a l l e l i s m which i s a l l e g e d to b e f h i s disadvantage i n D i s p o i n t l e s s .

271.

passing, from prominence, i f he i s now t o describe the m i s s i o n o f Paul? I s n o t t h i s the p o i n t o f Acts 12, b u t i s n o t t h i s v i r t u a l l y saying t h a t Peter 'died* to a l l i n t e n t s a f t e r t h i s episode? The problem

hinges on whether Luke was i n t e r e s t e d i n p r o v i d i n g a s o l u t i o n t o the r i d d l e o f Peter*s death.

I f our understanding o f the e d i t o r ^ purpose i s c o r r e c t , them we may conclude t h a t those v i v i d d e t a i l s (and there are many) which do n o t serve the e d i t o r s express purpose w i l l have been used as the framework o f a Marc an s t o r y , which we may not. be able to c o n s t r u c t i n a l l i t s d e t a i l (particularly
1

the l a t t e r p o r t i o n which has s u f f e r e d some c u r t a i l m e n t ) but which we can a s s e r t w i t h c e r t a i n t y , d i d once e x i s t i n i t s own r i g h t o

9;32-43 These two h e a l i n g s t o r i e s add n o t h i n g t o our knowledge o f Peter. We do, i t i s t r u e , encounter a R a i s i n g from the Bead, but t h i s makes the legend o f Aeneas the more p a l l i d . For t h i s reason perhaps, the e d i t o r has severely abbreviated t h i s f i r s t h e a l i n g . These ' f u r t h e r adventures o f Peter* e x a l t Peter t o the h e i g h t s b e f o r e he humbles h i m s e l f t o t u r n t o the G e n t i l e s . The e d i t o r , we have argued, has rearranged these s t o r i e s ^ a s i n chapter twelve, has deeper/

272.

deeper motives by which he makes the s t o r i e s more o f a u n i t y w i t h i n themselves and i n r e l a t i o n t o the r e s t o f t h e hook. '

9:52-35. Healing o f Aeneas. 32

i y f u n

+inf,
v<*S

33 -or, "ovoj^, 34 35 'i&o-O&o

Marcan Styles P a r a t a x i s ( v . 34) o Redundant F u l f i l l m e n t o f Command ( v . 34) Terse 32 sets the scene, w h i l s t the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the h e a l i n g proper i s l e n g t h y ( v . 3 3 ) ; we are given 1 . the name, 2. the l e n g t h o f the i l l n e s s , 346

345. F u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t suggestions t h a t Ac. 12 (and 15) were ( h i s t o r i c a l l y ) p r i o r t o the events o f 9:32ff. can he found i n AJT 22 (1918) p. 9 n. 1 . Examples o f Luke transposing h i s m a t e r i a l can he seen i n Lk. 4:1-13 (where i t i s probably he who changed the order o f the t e m p t a t i o n s ) , and also Iik. 8:19-21. Note too the prominence given to Lk. 4:16-30. 346. Cp. Mk. 9:21 i . e . the sense may be "since he was 8 years o l d " ( c p . too Lk. 23:8) - b u t t h e usage i n Ac. 24:10 tends t o favour the usual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

273

3 . news o f what he does a l l day l o n g ( s i t s on h i s m a t t r e s s ) and 4 the nature o f h i s malady.

I h comparison, the cure i s described so b r i e f l y , t h a t the p o i n t o f the above l i s t ; appears a needless extravagance. We must assume some e d i t o r i a l condensation. F u r t h e r Lucan terms i n t h i s s e c t i o n , i n a d d i t i o n t o those recorded a l r e a d y , are>> t.u^v
;

However i f , as we have c o n j e c t u r e d , Peter was on the r u n , then the i n c i d e n t ; may have been o f n e c e s s i t y very h u r r i e d .

1 r

Codex B understands the words o f h e a l i n g as P e r f e c t : 347 thus g i v i n g f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h t o the

> - cof-r-Ci-i

l i k e l i h o o d o f some m a t e r i a l having been o m i t t e d before Peter was able t o p r o c l a i m "Jesus has healed youl'" A s i m i l a r case o f the p e r f e c t occurs a t Mk. 5:29 when Jesus* hem i s touched. Did we have once here a t 9:154 a reference t o Peter*a shadow e f f e c t i n g t h e 348 wonder?-^ I f once a l l had come t o Jerusalem t o be

t r e a t e d , now Peter, by f o r c e o f circumstances, i s r e c i p r o c a t i n g , the act:.

347.
348.

See H.. Cadbury JTS 4.9 (1948) pp. 5 7 f . . He does n o t r e f e r t o Aeth 26 which supports t h i s r e a d i n g . See Ac. 5:15 and cp. p. 1 9 5 .

274.

Of t h e f o u r i n t r o d u c t o r y f e a t u r e s above, numbers 2 and 3 are Marcan w h i l s t t h e method o f i n t r o d u c i n g Aeneas and the reference t o
349
fTRp<n\iX\jjAiM<!S

are

o b v i o u s l y Lucan. A comparison w i t h Luke and Mark i n t h e Gospel s t o r y o f the p a r a l y t i c ' s h e a l i n g a f f o r d s v a l u a b l e l i g h t on Luke's treatment o f Mark - f o r there too he abbreviates h i s m a t e r i a l :

Lk. 5:18

Mk. 2:3

3 S b \

349. e however reads PKRW-YflkoYS f o r E*s flAPAAEATMtNOS. I n a B i l i n g u a l manuscript;, some such copying e r r o r s are i n e v i t a b l e , b u t i s there any other instance where the wrong. Greek l e t t e r s are copied? I n the case o f e * i t would be e x c e p t i o n a l , i f Clark (pp. 234f.) i s r i g h t i n c l a i m i n g e' as a t r a n s l a t i o n o f E* I t i s t r u e t h a t a t 8:7 e reads p a r C r a ) l y t i o i " V t h i s being the normal l a t i n word, b u t 9:33 i s an occasion where Greek l e t t e r s are e v i d e n t l y present i n the l a t i n column. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s c r i b e i s here c o r r e c t i n g the Greek from an o l d e r manuscript the form being t h a t used by S t . Mark, and n o t Luke i n h i s Gospel.
r f ,r

350.

Also a t Ac. 9:25. Did t h a t s t o r y remind the e d i t o r o f these s t o r i e s ?

275

We note from t h i s : ("i> Luke expunges

KpcrztCLiTO
J

- i n Acts 9:33

t h i s verb however makes an appearance: i t s i n s e r t i o n i s h a r d l y warranted i n such a s h o r t s t o r y . ( i i ) As i n Lk. 5:18 t h e d e t a i l on a bed* i n Ac. 9:33 i s mentioned before the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the i l l n e s s and as i n Luke, t h e formula begins rriT" The cure i s described u s i n g the t y p i c a l l y Lucan ?5o-8* though i f these words are the pronouncement by which the s t o r y was remembered, then we need n o t assign them t o the f i n a l e d i t o r .

Now the r e s u l t o f these b o l d words are described:

J^JJL, -U) &Cois

perhaps Marcan, and which occurs

several times i n the surrounding t a l e s C9:18,20, 12:10) l e n d i n g a s l i g h t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e u n i t y o f these chapters.

351. 352.

Also d e l e t e d by Luke from Mk. 1:30. Lk. 5:18 i s an i n s t r u c t i v e passage f o r r e v e a l i n g Luke's method: i t i s s c a r c e l y recognisable as anyUaing o t h e r than Lucan, w i t h t h e d e l e t i o n o f the/impersonal p l u r a l s and the, unpleasant sounding k/j^orr-rts, b u t t h e Marcan &y>nvTZ i s r e t a i n e d as i f t o t e s t i f y t h a t no a r t i s t i s ever completely independent, o f h i s source m a t e r i a l .

276

i s repeated, s u r p r i s i n g l y i n view o f t h e 1 evident economy o f s t y l e . Although i t serves t o i l l u s t r a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e cure - t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h i s verb ( o r c

\/*UV

) i s typical o f

m i r a c l e s t o r i e s Ccp. Ac. 3:6 ACE). The r e p e t i t i o n may be due to t h e s t y l e o f an o r i g i n a l Marcan s t o r y .

The summary o f v . 35 describes the e f f e c t b u t i t s purpose i s t o u n d e r l i n e n o t o n l y the conversion o f many, b u t t o r e c o r d the l o c a l i t y i n which Peter now moves. This provides t h e l i n k w i t h the next o f Peter's A c t s , and t h e verse i s , t h e r e f o r e , e d i t o r i a l *

9 : 3 6 - 4 3 . Tabitha.
36 37
38

<iS,

o^^vV Sy'tVtTO* i n f
fcipfar&x
/

39 rf/oLo-rocs 0 7
40 4 1 -TCCA>, 42

Kfyu

43

-iyw^-tr

inf. r\S
9

277.

Marcan S t y l e : Aramaic name t r a n s l a t e d (9:36). ^ri may j u s t p o s s i b l y be r e c i t a t i v e (9:38).

There are a n o t a b l e number o f JTohannine words though none i n the body o f t h e s t o r y , t h e healing; ( w . 40f).

By t h i s time Peter's fame i s n o t o n l y assumed, but also his: a b i l i t y t o r a i s e the dead. Nowhere ( i n c o n t r a s t t o Mk. 5:23) i s t h e r e doubt t h a t Peter w i l l e f f e c t the cure. The i m p o r t a n t element i s time so any delay, such as t h a t caused by the haemophiliac woman, could prove f a t a l . The p a r a l l e l s w i t h the pericope o f J a i r u s * daughter are s e l f - e v i d e n t , ^ ^ y e t they are r a r e l y v e r b a l , the only common ground being:
>
^WIWOKI

(9:39) = Mk. 5:38, Lk. 8:52.

U ( 9 S 4 0 ; ) = Mk. 5:40

*AMv

h i w y r f *

C9 :41) = Lkk 8 : 5 5354 .^

This, I t h i n k removes the suggestion t h a t t h i s i n c i d e n t i s . based e n t i r e l y on the Gospel s t o r y . Yet t h e p a r a l l e l s i n i d e a are obvious enough. We may f u r t h e r note t h e r o l e o f the garment i n Mk. 5:28,30 and Dorcas* coats which are shown t o Peter. I n both, instances/

353. see p . 10. 354. also Ac. 9:40 E cop add ^ p ^ / ^

=

ik

:55.

278

Instances, delay i s caused. However the evidence f o r a Marcan source here i s minimal although this: f a c t i s p a r t l y m i t i g a t e d when we assign the l o n g i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h i s s t o r y ( v v . 36-38) to t h e e d i t o r . Then the account o f the m i r a c l e becomes h a r d l y more p r o t r a c t e d than the Aeneas i n t e r l u d e .

This i n t r o d u c t o r y m a t e r i a l serves t o l i n k t h e s t o r i e s i n 9:32-43. Verse 36 f i r s t c l a r i f i e s c e r t a i n a l l u s i o n s i n the n a r r a t i v e o f the h e a l i n g : the name had t o be i n c l u d e d here as the? phrase which e f f e c t e d the cure was remembered t o c o n t a i n t h i s Aramaic word ( v . 40to); so Luke has t o i n t r o d u c e h e r Greek name here. This however i s n o t done by the formula E
1

found i n Ac. 4:36, 13:8, but by

^tp^yf-c^of^v

(as i n Lk. 24:27 NABE>. The l a t t e r h a l f o f 9:36 prepares us f o r the scene t h a t g r e e t s Peter a t Tabl.tha's room ( v . 39) and even repeats the
rroiUv

used i n the a c t u a l s t o r y . But Luke forges a s u b t l e r l i n k f o r a l l t h a t , a s l a t e r ( i n 10:2) we meet another almsgiver (.cp. also 3:2} and by i m p l i c a t i o n we are presented w i t h the dilemmas should n o t Cornelius be r e c e i v e d by Peter as he had e a r l i e r r e c e i v e d the.":; almsgiver Dorcas, even though Cornelius i s a G e n t i l e , w h i l s t Dorcas has l i v e d a s t r i c t Jewish/

279.

Jewish l i f e Cthis theme i s emphasised by the references i n 9:37 t o

)&/tr<*\fiJ

)? Verse 37, f i n a l l y ,

prepares us> f o r the scene o f the m i r a c l e , the upper room.

A f t e r t h i s c u r t a i n r a i s e r , the r e t u r n t o the s u b j e c t o f Peter i s e f f e c t e d by means o f two messengers. I n u s i n g these as ' l i n k ' men, Luke may have been i n f l u e n c e d by the use t h a t i s made o f messengers i n the d e a l i n g s between Cornelius and Peter, and which, serve t o symbolise the diplomacy t h a t Peter employs i n b r i d g i n g the s e p a r a t i o n o f Jew and G e n t i l e . Luke i n t r o d u c e s t h i s theme i n t o the Dorcas s t o r y t o bond these events c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r . Another motive f o r the messengers' appearance i s the echo i t creates i n the reader's mind w i t h Jesus' encounter w i t h the

centurion: Ac. 9:38

< 3 \Lo\i<r&

Lk. 7:3

(III Again, Luke i s a n t i c i p a t i n g , t h e s o l u t i o n t o Peter's dilemma when he i s c a l l e d t o go t o C o r n e l i u s : Jesus h i m s e l f , we are reminded, had accepted a G e n t i l e .

But. t h e whole theme o f messengers may have been i n f l u e n c e d by the Septuagint s t o r y o f Balaam, "a man whose word....was regarded as endowed w i t h an infallibly/-;;;.

280.

i n f a l l i b l y e f f e c t i v e 'power* (cp. Num. 22:6b) and 355 who was t h e r e f o r e summoned from a f a r . " " ' How

w e l l t h i s describes t h e r o l e o f Peter i n our s t o r y * And as Peter shows h i m s e l f d o u b t f u l about turning, h i s back on t h e o l d I s r a e l i t e customs, so we meet a s i m i l a r r e l u c t a n c e on the p a r t o f Balaam. Some v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s strengthen t h e connection o f these s t o r i e s , t h e most obvious being: ^ (Ac. 9 : 3 8 )
5 5 6

oKvjjo-ijx
^

5YfcX0-^V

which repeats Num. 22:16

l^Y^s-^S

iXJWTt' Other p o i n t s a r e : Acts 9. 39 3 ? V b t c r r ^ S St f T t ^ 21 Numbers 22. K^t Jcv<Kb^U^ ^ W p ,

40; tjh. r^d^u TO^i ZfOd&^&l Z^wkX^ft

43

$i r**i 6^0c^^V
o^ufd'o. -a.

Ju4h\ 2v ^otnrvj

19

V < v / V >rn>^/^rt

355.

M. Noth: Numbers (1968) p. 173. That t h e t a l e formed a p a r t o f I s r a e l ' s f o l k l o r e can be seen from M e . 6:5, 2 Pet. 2:15. I t has o f t e n been remarked t h a t Luke i s w e l l versed i n t h e LXX and i t i s probable t h a t he would have known t h i s s t o r y , perhaps t h e reference i n Num. 22:18 ( cfy-vfyiotf "l^AvtnoV ) may have r e c a l l e d a l i n k w i t h ' t h e Peter s t o r i e s ( c p . Ae. 3:6. 8:20).
y

356.

also cp. Lk. 8:49 U / J K I ^ I <rKvf&4_ i n J a i r u s ' s t o r y . I n Ac. 9:38 C3 HLP read 6tfvrtW\ grammatically b e t t e r , but a d i s s i m i l a t i o n from Num. 22:16. The awkward Acts form may w e l l be actuated by t h e Numbers account, therefore.

281

I t : i s c l e a r t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h i s messenger m o t i f mus.t he assigned t o t h e e d i t o r and a l l i e d t o t h i s theme i s t h a t o f h o s p i t a l i t y ,

5 5 , 7

which leads

n a t u r a l l y t o t h e m o t i f o f food encountered i n chapter 1 0 .

5 5 8

But u n l i k e t h e l e n g t h y wanderings o f

"flae messengers i n t h a t chapter, here the m o t i f i s 359 c h a r a c t e r i s e d by i t s extreme b r e v i t y . Peter i s

n o t even t o l d why he i s t o comeX So also juLfj vw/j(nji i s telescoped as i t could r e f e r t o the message t h e men are t o convey o r i t s moment o f d e l i v e r y t o Peter.56'
a a

good example o f Luke's economy

of s t y l e , h i s avoidance o f t h e obvious. But vdiat o f a pre-Lucan t r a d i t i on? I t may be: asserted w i t h some confidence that' Luke had some w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l from which he c o n s t r u c t e d h i s own s t o r y f o r had he been i n v o l v e d o n l y w i t h some o r a l 'scraps*,, the long; and complicated l i n k i n g o f a Peter ' i t i n e r a r y * , which/

357. 358.

v . E. Haulotte RSif 58 (1970) p. 72. J u s t p o s s i b l y already a n t i c i p a t e d i n 9:34 (see BC 4 p. 1 0 9 ) , but against t h i s see Haenchen: Apg. p. 292 n;. 6s the command i n question more probably means "make your bed", i . e . a r e f e r e n c e t o is understood. '' Perhaps Luke i s now anxious t o reach the climax i n the Cornelius episode. The d i f f i c u l t i e s . ^ a r e f e l t by some o f the v e r s i o n s , e.g;. 6948 adds o*V

359. 360.

282.

which a n t i c i p a t e s ^ the f a s c i n a t i o n of t r a v e l l a t e r i n Acts, could have been avoided. Marcan features do not abound i n the remaining section, the episode i n the upper room, but there are some pointers which we may record: 1. Who are 'the d i s c i p l e s * of 9*39 (cp. 9:25)? Their mention does belong to the e d i t o r i a l section, but they are intended also i n the source a t 9:39 as: the subjects of Jfoyo^-rvj&ot/ = "this must be so, f o r

although the Lucan e d i t i n g i n verse 39 has lead to a s i t u a t i o n where i t i s the {Poo

oHv^piS

who make the

presentation, t h i s would mean that Luke has needlessly introduced the characters of the jw^/iy! a l o g i c a l ambiguity i n 9:39. creating

Thus these characters

must have been taken over from Luke's source, 1be e d i t o r i a l messenger motif intruding into a once simpler scene. 2. Mir' c ^ u - f t - (9:39) with i s an eaqpression

used s i x times i n Mark's Gospel, though also common i n Luke.

3.

EK^AUJV

Si^ ^oo i s the most obvious Marcan

feature. Why should Luke leave out t h i s action from/'

361. Hence HLP omit Svo dvJ/Kc . The word i s commoner i n Mark than i n Luke.

283

from Mk. 5:40 and now use i t ? Why

should he remember

he had omitted such an i n s i g n i f i c a n t d e t a i l i n h i s Gospel story? I t i s an e a s i e r explanation that Luke was here incorporating, a story which used the same phrase as that i n Mark's account of the healing of J a i r u s * daughter, such a source thereby i l l u s t r a t i n g Peter's conscious i m i t a t i o n of h i s Master. Such a p a r a l l e l would l i k e l y have been drawn by a Marcan account of the r a i s i n g of Tabitha.

l e t any such Marc an source' i s now beyond recovery i n i t s outline, as i t has been overworked by the editor who 1. Echoes the story of Balaam. This prepares us f o r the v i s i o n Peter i s to r e c e i v e . 2. Echoes the incident of the Centurion's s o n . ^
3

362.

see above p. 279 Also <2vxKii&(ry C9s40) repeats Lk. 7sl5XADE. Further r~ many have noted the influence of Lk. 7 upon the description of Cornelius as an ^KdLToVTi/,X^x (Ac. 10:1)s StShlin p. 149, Goguel: B i r t h p. 93, F. Bovon 1Z 26 (1970) p. 29. A fundamental difference i s that Jesus does not enter the house of the centurion: "the word i s the substitute for theft' presence"' (L* Marin HSR 58 C1970) p. 51); s i m i l a r l y J . Maeniicol SJI' \C1952) p. 243 s The centurion says ^o Jesus ?rr^ Xrf^ just as God says to Peter koi / * w ; i n both cases the word i s the Deed." But also cp. p. 80 and Mk. 7:13 i n which "words become deeds" - so B u r k h i l l Z N W a r t . c i t . p. 29 = Nov G ? a r t . c i t . p. 174 = SE 4 (1968) p. 168.
rc

284

What we may

conclude i s , that as a r a i s i n g from

the dead i t i s appropriate as the l a s t of the miracles recorded of Peter, The f i n a l denouement i s an even greater miracle, wrought through the agency of Peter. Now he i s i n Jdppa, perhaps i n hiding at the tanner's, for who,
363

except one on the

run would stay there? 10:1 - 11; 18. Peter and the G e n t i l e s .

This i s the l a s t extant Peter story of our sourceo As an e f f e c t i v e conclusion to the Marcan memoirs, who can doubt i t s s u i t a b i l i t y ? We may question the

h i s t o r i c a l character of the whole, but i t s intention to e x a l t the hero Peter as the f i r s t apostle to the Gentiles i s manifest*

We w i l l expect the feature of the messengers to be a l i n k i n g e f f e c t of the editor, but although these chapters/

363

As a fisherman, Peter might have been drawn to Simon. But t h i s Simon i s of s u f f i c i e n t means to afford servants Csee remarks on i0$10,18).

285.

c h a p t e r s are " p e c u l i a r l y r i c h i n Lucan words and i d i o m s , " ^ ^ " o u r word a n a l y s i s shows t h a t this

e x t e n s i v e number o f Lucanisms come i n b l o c k s the f i r s t o f which i s 1 0 : 1 - 8 . I n c o n t r a s t 10:9-16 has

u n d e r h a l f as many. T h i s p r o v i d e s some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h i s P e t e r s t o r y was o r i g i n a l l y t h e p r i m a r y source o f these e v e n t s , b u t i n s t a t i n g t h i s , we w i l l analysis o f these

be r u n n i n g c o u n t e r t o t h e c l a s s i c

v e r s e s g i v e n by D i b e l i u s , who b e l i e v e s t h e s t o r y was 365 once

n

a s t r a i g h t forward legend o f a c o n v e r s i o n .

We may d i s c o u n t t h i s t h e o r y o n f o u r g e n e r a l

grounds:

1 . F o r D i b e l i u s , t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r y was one s i m i l a r to t h e conversion o f the E t h i o p i a n ( 8 : 2 6 f f . ) ? But why t h e n was n o t t h a t s t o r y chosen i n p r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s ? ' The p r e f a c e o f 9 : 3 2 f f . , s u g g e s t s t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a b l o c k o f P e t e r m a t e r i a l , and i n A c . 9 : 3 2 f f . , he i s the c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r as
6

i n Ac. 10

I n 8 : 2 6 f f . , P h i l i p i s the m a i n a c t o r Cand s u r e l y t h e s o u r c e o f t h e s t o r y ) , why s h o u l d C o r n e l i u s have figured/

3 6 4 . W. Knox o p , c i t . p . 1 3 f . - s i m i l a r l y F . Hahn: M i s s i o n (1965) p . 52. 3 6 5 . D i b e l i u s o p , c i . t . p . 1 2 0 , f o l l o w e d by many, e . g . Conzelmann p . 6 1 f . . Haenchen p p . 3 1 2 f . , i s , as e v e r , more c a u t i o u s . 3 6 6 . Some p a r a l l e l s w i t h A c . 10 a r e drawn by H a u l o t t e c i t ; . p . 67. art.

286

f i g u r e d so p r o m i n e n t l y ? ' I s i t n o t because

Luke's

f o c u s has s h i f t e d on t o t h e p r i n c i p l e a t s t a k e Cnot t h a t t h e s o u r c e has a v o i d e d t h e i s s u e ) * and i n so d o i n g , Luke has been o b l i g e d t o p r o v i d e a p i c t u r e o f the c o n v e r t as a s o b e r , g o o d - l i v i n g G e n t i l e * 2 . I f we a r e c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t the messenger

m o t i f i s e d i t o r i a l l , t h e n i t i s i n h e r e n t l y more probable that Luke has i n s e r t e d t h i s e f f e c t Cas i n

9 : 3 2 f f . ) i n t o Peter m a t e r i a l , 3 . P e t e r , on S i b e l i u s * a n a l y s i s , has emerged been so

f u l l y as t h e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r t h a t he has c r e d i t e d w i t h a long, speech. I n p r e v i o u s i t was t h e p r i n c i p a l a c t o r mho d e l i v e r e d oration. 4.

chapters, the

She r e p o r t o f c h a p t e r 11 does n o t m e n t i o n

C o r n e l i u s by nane and h i s ; r o l e has now been pushed t o t h e p e r i p h e r y . On S i b e l i u s * u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; Ac* 1 1 becomes a huge l i t e r a r y f a b r i c a t i o n . Bo v o n , c r i t i c i s e s S i b e l i u s f o r h i s inadequate too,,

discussion Sibelius a the

on t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 1 1 : 1 - 1 8 . He n o t e s t h a t

i s s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y over P e t e r ' s v i s i o n Cis I t r e a l experience o f Peter or n o t ? ) , argument and shows t h a t

i s based on t i e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e event.

question

o f e a t i n g wars o n l y r a i s e d a f t e r the

fflius

a l t h o u g h we must n o t assume t h a t the

editor is

has n o t r e m o d e l l e d h i s Peter s t o r y h e r e , i t Cornelius'/

287

Cornelius* c o n t r i b u t i o n 1nat e x c i t e s it

s u s p i c i o n . Yet

i s a p r i o r i p r o b a b l e t h a t i f Luke had b o r r o w e d what this

we may l a b e l a C a e s a r e a n * t r a d i t i o n f r o m P h i l i p , m i g h t have i n c l u d e d t h e s t o r y o f a d e v o u t upon w h i c h Luke m o d e l l e d h i s Cornelius*

Gentile,

A. p r e s s i n g

question,

t o w h i c h Haenchen metes some

j u s t i c e , i s t h e o f t e n very laboured r e p e t i t i o n i n t h e s e p a r a g r a p h s . Why i s Luke so u n i n v e n t i v e i n t h i s r e s p e c t , , f o r Cornelius.* v i s i o n ( 1 0 s 3 - 6 ) i s r e l a t e d 1 0 : 3 0 f f . and a l s o , more b r i e f l y i n 1 0 ; 2 2 and in

ll:13f.l

P e t e r ' s c o n t a c t w i t h the g e n t i l e s i s Hi u s made a v e r y g r a d u a l l y paced s t e p , a n d , i t i s emphasised, g u i d e d by God f o r n o t o n l y does the S p i r i t move upon P e t e r

b u t even C o r n e l i u s receive, s a v i s i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , need Luke have been so repetitive?

lOsl-8, 1
i /

Cornelius Dtfeyu*,
/
~

v i t a Tic

3 6$<rs/ CnotU}
5

6 H 8

~ % ityi * dat. c when

288

T h i s e d i t o r i a l s e c t i o n i s d e s i g n e d t o emphasise t h a t C o r n e l i u s i s a good p r o s e l y t e f o r "God t r e a t s Cornelius as though a J e w . "

5 6 7

5Ehis i n t r o d u c t i o n vision,

s e r v e s t o j u s t i f y P e t e r t h e more . C o r n e l i u s l i k e that of Ananias,^

8

serves t o c o n f i r m t h e also Cornelius

soundness o f P e t e r ' s own e x p e r i e n c e * I t u n d e r l i n e s the f a c t t h a t ,

at t h e i r meeting,

i s s p e a k i n g the i t r u t h ( 1 0 ; 3 0 ) e By r e f e r r i n g t o Simon t i e Tanner i n 10 s 6 C o p. . 9 s 4 3 ) , t h e abrupt

m e n t i o n o f h i m at 1 0 : 1 7 (perhaps f o r "the f i r s t t i m e by o u r source?); i s a l l e v i a t e d , ' and i n d e e d t h e presented,

apparently s t a r k p i c t u r e v h i c h our source

o f P e t e r e n t e r i n g C o r n e l i u s * house a l m o s t h e e d l e s s o f 1he consequences, i s a l s o p a r t i a l l y a v o i d e d . One has t o i n s e r t " a p p a r e n t l y " ' , m r we cannot recover

any l o s t i n f o r m a t i o n v h i c h may have been c o n t a i n e d i n the source b u t t h e c o m p l a i n t r a i s e d by t h e Peter's

J e r u s a l e m Church ( 1 1 : 3 ) suggests t h a t

a p o s t o l i c r e p u t a t i o n had been c l o u d e d by some such a c t i o n , w h i c h appeared a t l e a s t t o an o u t s i d e r as a h a s t i l y conceived a c t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to reconcile/

367* Bovon a r t . o i t . p . 29 c i t i n g Tan TJnnika

similarly 111.

J. J e r v e l l H3B. 64 C1971) p . 2 6 .
3 6 8 . 9 s l 2 Com. h> - see A . Wikenhauser B 29 1 9 4 8 ) p . 3 6 9 . c p . -the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f T a b i t h a by Euke i n 9 s 3 6

289.

r e c o n c i l e i b i s charge w i t t i the

theme o f Aco 1 0 w h i c h

so i n s i s t s upon t h e d i v i n e : w i l l which, has i n i t i a t e d these e v e n t s , so t h a t i f t h e s t o r y o f C o r n e l i u s (as the

i t i s now p r e s e n t e d t o u s by L u k e ) was o r i g i n a l l y p r o p e r t y o f the same P e t e r s o u r c e , one wonders why

Peter, does n o t p r o d u c e a s p i r i t e d defenoe o f C o r n e l i u s * s p i r i t u a l i t y i n c h a p t e r 1 1 Because he d i d n o t do t h i s , c e r t a i n l y n o t t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m c o u n c i l , he may have been f o r c e d t o back is the

d o v m . ^ But we are n o t t o l d t h i s by L u k e , and i t i m p r o b a b l e t h a t the s o u r c e i t s e l f was p r e p a r e d discuss t h i s resuite to.

1Q9-16 P e t e r ' s V i s i o n . 9

loll
12
i .

tTi

7'
3

13 14 15 16

d>Hjv n

J ^oio-rotf.

(ft
2sl2. little

370. 371.

Gal.

Hawkins b r a c k e t s t h i s word as i t l i s o f significance o

290.

Marcan S t y l e : O l u J / ^ C l O t l D h i s t o r i c

present.

Evidence, f o r a Marcan source i s h e r e

comparatively this

s t r o n g : . She d i f f i c u l t y o f a s s i g n i n g t h e core o f

s t o r y t o a P e t e r t r a d i t i o n r e s t s upon 1ne a p p a r e n t c o n f l i c t w i t h G a l . 2 . l e t any memoirs o f P e t e r will

have t e n d e d t o e x a l t P e t e r , and i f i t s a u t h o r was M a r k , the. d a t i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f passage may have be en at; t h a t , t i m e when Mark was n o t on t h e most f a v o u r a b l e o f t e r m s w i t h P a u l ( A c . 1 5 : 3 7 - 3 9 ) : t h i s w o u l d i m p l y an o r i g i n a l document w r i t t e n v i r t u a l l y - contemporaneous w i t h t h e T h f s i a n o t so i m p r o b a b l e , i f , events*
r

this

as w i l l be a r g u e d

t h e r e p o r t i n A c t s 1 1 a l s o d e r i v e s f r o m an of

account

t h e a c t u a l d e b a t e , the o f f i c i a l r e c o r d k e p t by this

t h e J e r u s a l e m i t e c h u r c h . The i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n o f

paragraph (10:9-16) w i t h 11:5-10 I s obvious, but t h e i n e v i t a b l e t e x t u a l assimilations render a f i n a l judgement o n t h e p r i o r i t y o f one a c c o u n t o r t h e o t h e r i m p o s s i b l e , d (Greek D i s w a n t i n g ) and c o p
( J 6

'

r e p r e s e n t a Western t e x t w h i c h shows a d i s s i m i l a t i o n o f 1 0 : 1 1 f r o m 1 1 : 5 and c o u l d be o r i g i n a l . ' ^ when/

2

B u t even

3 7 2 . i . e . Bs e t a l i a > h a v e been a s s i m i l a t e d j o t h e r e x x . I n t h e s e verses:: T * Snort, added i n 1 0 : 1 2 B , tf f o r >*r i n 1 0 : 1 4 ODE; and i n 1 1 : 6 L o m i t s 1ae p l u r a l a r t i c l e s *

291.

when a l l o w a n c e has been made f o r t h e s e p o s s i b i l i t i e s b o t h s e c t i o n s do e x h i b i t s u b s t a n t i a l v e r b a l agreement,

c o n f i r m i n g t h e i r i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e * T h i s can be i l l u s t r a t e d by the c h o i c e o f words f o r a g a i n * 8

jraW

liwrz/aov
i n lls9 is

Cio i5)

i n the counterpart k iUT^oo\J

9

and i n l l s l O ) a g a i n *

is

This l a t t e r ,

i n t h e f i r s t a c c o u n t i s f o u n d t o be

.v&1)S C10:16) w h i c h has a c c o r d i n g l y been r e n d e r e d by a s s i m i l a t i o n as altogether). /ra\|V i n 10sl6D ( p ^

4

omits

The v e r s i o n i n c h a p t e r 10 m i g h t seem originalitys "a suggestive

t h e r e f o r e to deserve a g r e a t e r c l a i m t o taie use o f c39ti$ ( o n l y h e r e i n A c t s ) i s fact"?

7 5

Another instance which supports t h e possible o f the first a c c o u n t i n A c . 10 i s t h e v i v i d

priority

Qlwf^
1?$W

( 1 0 x 1 1 ) w h i c h t a m e l y appears o n P e t e r ' s mouth as

C l l * 5 ) . T h i s v i v i d n e s s : i s o f t e n m a n i f e s t i n the: s t y l e o f Mark, f o r he o f t e n w i l l d e s c r i b e t h e s i t u a t i o n i n eyes/ the

373.

K n o w l i n g , see p . 53.

292,

e y e s o f h i s h e r o ; t h u s Mk* 5:38 &l\*)ffG 2K\<*\DV %ipfhv

( c p . 12:41) uses

w h i c h Luke r e n d e r s f a c t u a l l y as although

5 l rrav-pj&CLk* 8 : 5 2 ) * T h e r e f o r e ,

t h e r e are no p a r t i c u l a r l y Marc an words i n t h i s earlier p o r t i o n o f the v i s i o n Cwe have VTA recorded

some vague p a r a l l e l s w i t h Mk* 2"*

} we agree w i t h i n the

t h e v e r d i c t o f C e r f a u z , vho acknowledges "minute d e t a i l s ' * a k i n s h i p w i t h Mark.

3 7 5

H i e c o n t e x t w i t h w h i c h t h e s t o r y began i n 1he s o u r c e i s obscure*. As I t now s t a n d s P e t e r f i r s t appears i n 9 b :

2i\i%f>*\ Cliy?^ itn

to

fc^vsF

words w h i c h i m p l y some p r e v i o u s r e f e r e n c e t o house Ccp* 9s43 b u t i n more d e t a i l t h a n t h a t

the verse)*

The p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t Luke has o m i t t e d some such i n f o r m a t i o n i s s t r e n g t h e n e d by v . 10s 5 ^ o< o rUfy

p

If^oicrK^U^^n^V

an i n c i d e n t a l d e t a i l w h i c h p r o v i d e s

just

the k i n d o f a u t h e n t i c i t y w i t h w h i c h the

construction these

o f C o r n e l i u s * v i s i o n i s w a n t i n g * B u t who are 377 unnamed p e o p l e " be/

who n e v e r r e a p p e a r , u n l e s s t h e y

374* see; pp* 6 9 f * * 3 7 5 . C e r f a u x a r t * c i t * p . 686* 376* c p . 1 1 : 2 Corn* D) , 37T* The words are another example o f the p l u r a l (see p . 55 s e c t i o n 2>* impersonal

293

be t h e

->tVX<J^ o f v e r s e 23 ? ^

7 8

I t may be

that

t h i s s o r t o f o b s c u r i t y can be e x p l a i n e d i f P e t e r was r e l a t i n g h i s e x p e r i e n c e s ; such s l i p s a r e i n e v i t a b l e i n the process o f s t o r y t e l l i n g * I f v e r s e 18 i s p a r t o f t h e same s o u r c e , t h e n t h e r e is

" 5 7 9
f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of servants there* " Yet i t ; seems i n h e r e n t l y i m p r o b a b l e t h a t a t a n n e r w o u l d keep one s e r v a n t , l e t a l o n e the. s e v e r a l -Hiat o<lCV

r e q u i r e s * The phrase i m p l i e s a p r e v i o u s i n t r o d u c t i o n , now l o s t , w h i c h may have h i n t e d a t f u r t h e r p e o p l e i n Simon's house* Luke h a s , t h e commencement o f the as e v e r , restructured

s t o r y perhaps because he intercourse

w i s h e d t o a v o i d the d e t a i l o f P e t e r ' s

w i t h a t a n n e r * Such w o u l d t a k e t h e : edge o f f t h e encounter w i t h C o r n e l i u s .

378* 10s23 however uses , suggesting t h e i r f i r s t appearance* The r e f e r e n c e i n l O s l O i s c l e a r l y t o t h o s e who made the meal t h o u g h I t i s u s e d by Luke t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e v i s i o n * A s i m i l a r case o f t h e i m p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s complex o f s t o r i e s comes a t l l : 2 D perhaps: supporting the authenticity o f that text* 379* J a c q u i e r , p j 3 2 0 , comments on t h i s v e r s e s "Apres a v o i r appele l e g a rd i e n de l a p o r t e Rhoda may a l s o be a n o t h e r example o f a s e r v a n t b e i n g m e n t i o n e d i n t h e s o u r c e ( b u t see p* 2 3 0 ) *

294.

10)sl7-23a. P e t e r ' s
/

Invitation. ' i n ' some m i n i s c u l e s )

. /

18 19
20) d o * * - ^ , (TuV ^ y W ^

21
22 23

Zxrjp
jT ^4 (D)i - r ^ ( D >

There i s l i t t l e here t h a t i s M a r c a n .

ll:llf. essential

c o n t a i n s a compressed v e r s i o n w i t h a l l the

d e t a i l s o f t h i s a c c o u n t . I t h a s been w r i t t e n u p i n L u k e ' s s t y l e and l a n g u a g e , emphasising; t h e lead

g i v e n by t h e S p i r i t a l o n g e v e r y s t e p o f t h e r o a d t h a t will j o i n P e t e r and C o r n e l i u s o

Verses 17b and 18 r e c o u n t t h e a r r i v a l o f messengers, vfao a c t as i f

the despite ask

t h e y were i g n o r a n t ,

v e r s e 8 , o f any v i s i o n o f t h e i r m a s t e r as t h e y ( a ) t h e way t o Simon's house and ( b ) h a v i n g a r r i v e d ask if P e t e r i s l o d g i n g t h e r e I Thus, a g a i n can be seen

t r a c e s o f an e a r l i e r a c c o u n t i n w h i c h t h e

prominence

o f v i s i o n s was l e s s o b v i o u s , and t h i s p i c t u r e o f t h e men a t t h e d o o r , r e c a l l s ^ t h e scene a t M a r y ' s house -r<.v rnMwo( (12*14)..

where Peter a l s o s t o o d o u t s i d e

1 0 i l 9 a now r e p e a t s 1 0 s l 7 a so t h a t t h e v i s i o n o f P e t e r can/

295.

can be; s e t down and e v e n t u a l l y P e t e r comes d o w n s t a i r s and does r e c e i v e say, t h e messengers. I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o editor, strongly

i n n view o f t h e e l a b o r a t i o n by t h e

w h e t h e r t h i s s e c o n d v i s i o n ( t h e f i r s t i s more an ^ o r ^ i n S ) h a i say p a r t i n the o r i g i n a l

story*

10s23b-33. P e t e r ' s Reception. 23 24 e^/wo-r^s,

25 < ^ * i n f ( n o t I > ) wS(*t*9

;

26 27

28
29 30 31

-PL,

X^Cy?,

ol'i//6,

J
y^1
;

immwi y /
1-V u> T T 7 OV
j

32 - n ^ v / T D /

-T^f^ih^

lR/*Y\4j&t(bia GDB;) , i f L ^ f l ^
33 vQ, ^t/JTHov'

Marcan S t y l e t H i s t o r i c P r e s e n t s ( w .

27,

31).

296.

E d i t o r i a l a c t i v i t y i s a g a i n ao s t r o n g , t h a t i t l a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o r e c o v e r any s o u r c e m a t e r i a l * Luke has k n i t t e d t h e s e c t i o n i n t o a u n i t y . Five

compound 6"u/=ver bs i n v e r s e s 23-27 are however o f f s e t b y a c e r t a i n awkwardness i n t h e r e p e t i t i o n of i v p 5^ ^TToldftoV

9

and the m e e t i n g ; o f Uie s e r v a n t

and P e t e r ( v . 2 5 ) . I t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h i s e v e n t o c c u r s b e f o r e P e t e r e n t e r s the house ( a s t h e B > ' text implies

5 8 0

) o r w h e t h e r the a p o l o g e t i c has

e x t e n d e d as f a r as. t h e Western t e x t a l l o w s where P e t e r i s met o u t s i d e t h e c i t y . has This e l a b o r a t i o n

"the appearance o f g i v i n g t h e a c c o u n t o f an
5 8 1

eyewitness" apologetic/

and a c c o r d s w i t h t h e

complicated

380).

Haenchen p . 302 n . 1 - c p . p . 132 and A c . 2 1 : 8 s u p p o r t i n g t h e B t e x t here and p o s s i b l y r e v e a l i n g t h e source o f some o f Lute *s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Caesar e a I f Luke h a d t o hand a n a c c o u n t (perhaps f r o m P h i l i p ) as w e l l as the w r i t t e n a c c o u n t we p o s t u l a t e , then the double f o c u s (laws concerning food-, i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h G e n t i l e s ) becomes more explicable. A c a r e f u l d i s t i n c t i o n i s maintained i n these c h a p t e r s between t h e o?Kf o f Simon ( 1 0 : 6 , 1 7 , 3 2 , 1 1 : 1 1 ) and t h e o f k a f o f C o r n e l i u s ( 1 0 : 2 , 3 0 ; , 1 1 : 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 ) o Elsewhere Luke uses the se words i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y o f the same h o u s e , e . g . L k . 7 : 6 , 1 0 and 8 : 4 1 . 5 1 and Ao. 16:31,32C34). P e t e r s e n a r t . c i t . p . 238 n . 25*

381.

297.

apologetic as f a r a s s

of the c h a p t e r , tfv^o;

5 8 2

w a i o h even extends uToV X^yW is

rfftofW

Xv^<r-TV)fh ( 1 0 : 2 6 ) . T h i s e x a l t a t i o n o f Peter

d e s i g n e d t o emphasise the e s s e n t i a l e q u a l i t y o f the two men* ny^yvtv i s not properly required the use

b e f o r e vo-^n&)

, and i t i s c u r i o u s t h a t

o f t h e s e v e r b s r e c a l l s the This symbolic " r a i s i n g intended t o prelude

a 5 8

miracle s t o r y format* be

* may d e l i b e r a t e l y

the u n i o n o f Jew and G e n t i l e *

1 0 : 2 8 - 3 3 sees a f u r t h e r r e c i t a l o f t h e I t may be that: the

visions*

c o n t e n t s o f t h i s passage have i n t r o d u c t i o n i n 10:1-8 than

f o r m e d the b a s i s f o r t h e ( n o t i c e t h e use the ^fy-z,\t>s.

o f i / f j / ) p r o b a b l y more p r i m i t i v e

o f v* 3 ) * A Marc an source p r e s e n t s
5 8

i t s e l f most obvicu s l y i n v . 2 8 ( c p , Mk. 8 : 3 2 ) exclusive/

^ as P e t e r

protests an

a g a i n s t t h o s e who seek t o c r e a t e

3 8 2 . The language i s Luc an (see the c h a r t a b o v e ) and r K r f t ^ y a l s o comes o n l y h e r e and a t A c , 1 4 : 1 4 i n t h e NT, b u t e q u a l l y Lucan i s t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e Bi t e x t . B u t perhaps the D t e x t d e r i v e s f r o m the ( l o s t > source o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 383. p . 276.

3 8 4 . S i m i l a r symbolism i n A c . 1 2 : 7 - c p . a l s o Hev. 1 9 : 1 0 , 22*8.3 8 5 . P a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t i a the a l t e r a t i o n o ^ <.*\voV~ i n 1 0 : 1 4 t o M - n ^ v * vkv . . . ^ ^ w ^ n * / ^ words p e r h a p s m o t i v a t e d by t h e a t t e m p t e d w o r s h i p o f P e t e r .

K

298.

e x c l u s i v e Go do The use o f the s o u r c e ,

5 8 6

2m <rrey -aii

, i f i t i s from

i s r e m i n i s c e n t o f P e t e r ' s d e n i a l ( M k . %%*'. i n Ac. 15:7)

1 4 : 6 8 ) . No?/ he c a n s t a t e p o s i t i v e l y ( a l s o

t h e w i l l o f h i s M a s t e r . Bovon f u r t h e r r e g a r d s 1 0 : 2 8 b as a f i g u r a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n o f P e t e r ' s v i s i o n , he compares the s i m i l a r use i n Mk. 4 : 1 3 f f . .

3 8 7

and

o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n found

10:29 i s a p e c u l i a r l y n a i v e q u e s t i o n a f t e r

the

d i v i n e v i s i o n s t h a t have been r e c e i v e d . I t s e r v e s however as a cue f o r C o r n e l i u s t o r e p e a t h i s s t o r y * emphasising the tension. d i v i n e guidance, and h e i g h t e n i n g the

T h i s may be a s s i g n e d t o c r a f t s m a n s h i p o f

L u k e . He c o n t i n u e s w i t h a l o n g o r a t i o n by P e t e r , o n l y a d a p t e d t o the s i t u a t i o n at 1 0 : 4 1 and i s evidently secondary. contradicts

5 8 3

again

By i n s e r t i n g t h e speech Luke

t h e s t a t e m e n t o f 1 1 : 1 5 t h a t i t was w h i l e fell* this speak vital

P e t e r was commencing h i s speech t h a t t h e S p i r i t The source p r o b a b l y o r i g i n a l l y d e p i c t e d e x a c t l y i n i t s version o f Ac. 10: Peter i s beginning t o ( i n 1 0 : 2 8 ) , and as soon as he has a f f i r m e d t h e principle, then the Spirit descends.

386. 387. 388.

Though P a z l u s e s t h i s word i n A c . 2 0 : 1 8 . Bbvon a r t . c i t . p . 3 4 . Cp. a l s o Mk; 7 and n o t e s thereon,

On t h e Lucan c h a r a c t e r Bowen ZNW 13 ( 1 9 1 2 ) p . 259 r e m a r k s : "The l a r g e r c o n t e x t o f A c . 10;:39-43 r e p r o d u c e s v e r y c l o s e l y , even t o d e t a i l s o f e x p r e s s i o n L k . 24:44-48"'. See p . 163.

389.

299.

10s34*43. P e t e r Speaks.

34 35 36 C o m AB,614^

37 ^ * C n o t
38. ^ ^ e - ^

D) cSCD)
3

I , tSlo-OoZi

39

40> -T^Jx&sl
41 /T%
-4->^

42 \ ^ o S , K^rryjjp 43 7

10s44~48. P e t e r B a p t i s e s .

44

f> r^jK* (*AD)

45

46 <knv
47
7

^ + i n f

48 <jnU3#(not L ) TIC, -rf(A) ' 2ne c o n c l u s i o n o f the n a r r a t i v e c o n t a i n s a s u r p r i s e As p r o o f o f t h e d i v i n e a p p r o v a l upon P e t e r ' s a c t i o n , the/

300.

fee S p i r i t i s g i v e n , and u n d e r H i s i n f l u e n c e Pete r even o r d e r s G e n t i l e s t o "be b a p t i s e d o Needless t o s a y . f a i t h f u l Jews murmur a g a i n s t t h i s move ( v 4 5 ) . b u t these p e o p l e have n o t p r e v i o u s l y been m e n t i o n e d . By t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n , Luke i s r e f l e c t i n g t h e con*

t i n u e d p r o t e s t i n h i s day by some g r o u p s a b o u t the

390
g i v i n g ; o f the S p i r i t ' s B a p t i s m t o the Gentiles* I t i s . d i f f i c u l t t o know what the s o u r c e c o n t a i n e d a t t h i s p o i n t * She i s s u e i n A c t s 1 1 i s e v i d e n t l y o v e r t a b l e - f e l l o w s h i p and G a l . 2 s l 2 s u g g e s t s t h i s was the o r i g i n a l g r o u n d o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y . From t h a t passage we l e a r n o f P e t e r ' s l i b e r a l attitude

w h i c h had been m o d i f i e d under p r e s s u r e f r o m James. That the s o u r c e and the e d i t o r do n o t m e n t i o n t h i s regressive/

390).

The- b a p t i s m i s commanded but: n o t a c t u a l l y n a r r a t e d . T h i s m i g h t be an extreme example o f Luke *s t e n d e n c y n e v e r t o s t a t e the f u l f i l l m e n t ; o f commands (also8s36 n o t E ) . The b a p t i s m o f G e n t i l e s was, i n L u k e ' s d a y , p r o b a b l y a more immediate i s s u e t h a n t h a t o f u n c l e a n n e s s o f f o o d s and Luke may t h u s have e l a b o r a t e d t h e f o r m e r m o t i f . 10$45-48 t h u s c o n t r a s t s the a t t i t u d e o f Jewish C h r i s t i a n s w i t h P e t e r ' s divinely inspired action. Cp. p . 269 as t o why James does n o t appear i n A c . 1 1 .

391.

301

regressive a c t i o n , may be the r e s u l t of embarrassment on the part of the l a t t e r , although both Iiuke and Mark have e a r l i e r recorded Peter's other f a i l i n g s with unashamed frankness Yet i f the source did conclude with t h i s story, a l i t t l e of i t s great theological climax would have been l o s t had the narrative ended wiui Peter's backing down from h i s position Instead t h e r e - i a a p o s i t i v e statement,

affirming the marvel of the g i f t of the S p i r i t , even to G e n t i l e s as to Jews, Bie i n t e r r e l a t i o n with Chapter 11 i s evident:

Acts 10:44-47. \

Acts llsl517.
To

\
v^V l (T?jV 0 u^>ofl/

n
c 11:1-18. !Ehe theme of these chapters as regards our source, i s p r e c i s e l y elaborated i n the charge made against Peters \

Now i n Acts 11 (cp. 12:17) we hear Peter's own voice, at/

302,

at a point which we believe to be the conclusion of h i s story, a s recorded by Mark. I t i s the summary of 1 1 : 3 however that must form the b a s i s f o r our 392 delineation of the source.
11:1-3.

Introduction*
/

/
2 TTpo<r<^Axv (b),

4v^),

<n>/(

llg410o 4

Peter's Vision (Repeated)

5 < a f y / > i 6
7

^r^voki/
o^v'w.o-feci,

/ &u.y

8
9 10 rp6 (fc)

11:H-15

Tbe g i f t of the S p i r i t .
:

11
12

* g d)t&-r/j^i , <&v/j^
tiTTTV ^1

13

^ ( f ) ,

< ^ ( W )

15

'
V

4- itf

3 9 2 . I i . Gaston: No Stone on Another Qieiden 1 9 7 0 ) p. 3 0 6 . I n basic agreement Porter JiTS 4 7 ( 1 9 4 6 ) pp. 1 6 9 - 1 7 4 .

303.

11:16-18.

Conclusion.

1 7 -xQ l*9r &)

i s -ft cm*)

We have a l r e a d y ^ ' drawn attention to the s i m i l a r i t y of 1 1 s 3 with the charge l a i d against Jesus, I f C h r i s t ate with publicans and sinners, should not h i s followers extend h i s example? E a r l y i n h i s Gospel Mark had r a i s e d t h i s problem of table fellowship, and the theme has been a determining; f a c t o r i n the material underlying Ac, 1 0 . I n general, Bike *s r e v i s i o n of h i s source has not been so d r a s t i c i n chapter 1 1 ; perhaps the long composition was losing some of i t s freshness so that; some d e t a i l s i n Ac. 1 1 come i n apparent contradiction to e a r l i e r information. W e now hear of s i x brethren
394 (11*11) o (11:12)

and of three messengers

Hiese may however be cases of new

information, /

393e 394.

p.

70.

"TpvS by nearly a l l Mss. i n Ac. 1 1 : 1 1 . I n 1 0 : 1 9 r/rf% ?iACE i n view of the v a r i a n t s must be a correction* B;'s 0\jo i s unsupported and thus may be an inference drawn from 1 0 : 7 (so BC 3 p. 9 4 ) and 9 : 3 8 . DIEEP omit the number, and i n view of the s i m i l a r omission^ of the number i n 1 0 : 2 4 which i s then stated i n 1 1 : 1 2 , i s probably the correct reading.

304e

information, f o r i n 11:6 there i s an addition of T o b -n/>^

595

to Peter's trance and i t i s possible

that i t was t h i s chapter (where Peter i s much more central)' that formed the b a s i s of Luke's elaboration, i n Ac. 10, i n collaboration with a second Caesar ean* source, of the role of Corneliusa

11:1 reads almost l i k e the commencement of the report of the ' t r i a l * , as recorded by the Jerusalem church* She formal s t y l e of the Western t e x t i n t h i s verse i s unmi stake able s
2 k.ow cr^&V

396
kotv To

But the story soon becomes more personalised* I n verse 2 stands the most important of the Western Readings i n our chapters, a long, d i s j o i n t e d account of Peter's t r i p to Jerusalem. He can "take h i s time and f i n i s h h i s work, for t h i s Gentile problem could wait u n t i l Peter himself decided to go to Jerusalem, " example/
, 5 9 7

I t ; i s usually judged as another

395. 396,. 397*

Cp. Mko 1:13 (not; i n Mt., I k . ) . Hopes (BC3 p. 102) p r e f e r s t h i s reading. Bpp op. c i t . p. 106. OSie variant i s "somewhat r e p e t i t i o u s " . I t i s found i n D cop G67 with p a r t i a l l a t i n support and from syb.

305.

example of the Western t e x t ' s attempt to heighten Peter's r o l e , but i n favour of i t s Lucan o r i g i n and thus the p o s s i b i l i t y that i t derives from a preLucan source a r e : 1* I t contains two Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c words* 2. Also Lucan are JJAM ou/ at the opening of a c / 398 o // 399 , , 400 paragraph, \ KJSLVBJ , <.xr\trrr^p \^fciV icrn*V'T<x/ 401 and.
i .

3* Another Lucan feature i s the mention of Peter's wish to go to J e r u s a l e m * ^ Eere, as a t 10:41*48, 403 the actual event i s not recorded, lit i s assumed*
4* I t i s clumsy;, Ci)S\* rQj )h>/Qf tilCr^M\/ o t & i ^
02

after

\ / m > \ \ > v i Xb^v

/ jri o^u-iv^

leads to several
11

improvements; i n supporting versions of Dr sy p a r t i c l e and reads

adds a

l^*FKiA/ and Clark (p* 347>

also attempts; a rearrangement*

398* 399 400*

v* Hawkins op* c i t * p* 21* only i n Acts - thrice (D f i v e times) - out of a l l NT books* Acts nine times CD twelve): never i n the Gospels*

401.Mt. 8 times, Mk. 1, Lk. 11, Jh. 2, Ac* 15 (D 17)> 402* 403* Note the Marcan ^boffA-ou^ i n a l l texts*

Nor are we informed of the content of the preaohing* S i m i l a r l y Mark CLuke does t h i s to a much l e s s e r degree)) often r e f e r s to Jesus' teaching i n general terms (Mk. 6:2,34&c*)*

306

Cii) c o p

S 6 7

also a l t e r s the following l i n e s of Ds

Apart from being r e p e t i t i v e , who

are the < $ T * ? f ?

ISie sentence i s intended to mark the a r r i v a l of Peter i n J e r u s a l e m , b u t ; those who meet him are not i d e n t i f i e d u n t i l the following v e r s e , This could e a s i l y have l e d to the excision of the passage and we find m s i m i l a r phenomenon i n 10:10 where ^V'TGJ was introduced without explanation* There* the solution posited was that a source had been grafted iin incomplete form to s t i l t the e d i t o r ' s purpose* Can we say l e s s f o r the present verse? I t f i t s I n admirably with the picture of Peter^wandering S\oi tTa.vTiL.vC9:32)..

The clumsiness of t h i s Western reading, notably i n D, i s not found i n the B text where "there i s no apparent exegetical d i f f i c u l t y i n the immediate context,/

404*

Without; referring to t h i s occasion s p e c i f i c a l l y , Jacquier Cp* 3377 wrongly t r i e s / t o c r e d i t D with reading; ^ T ^ - a-^.\l <5$ ^DfrAtM* here*

307.

context, but the; 'Western addition creates one*" D i s evidently a witness to a Lucan t e x t ,
4 0 6

and

one, which, i n i t s d e t a i l , has been derived from an eyewitness source, perhaps Peter's Marcan memoirs*

The charge directed against Peter can be viewed as: a d i r e c t interrogative introduced by OTI , a construction common i n Mark (2:7, 8:12, 9:11,28) and. found i n a passage we have already considered i n connection with Ac. 11:3, Mk. 2 : 1 6 b .
407

Asyov-rr^

o-r\ i s also found a t Ac. 15:5 Ccp. s i m i l a r l y Mk. 14:58-60) and may thus be part of the formulation of a l e g a l charges the above comparison r a i s e s the complex question of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the events portrayed i n Ac. 15 and the present proceedings. There i s an attempt by the edi&tor (which I s more marked i n the Western t e x t ) to p a r a l l e l the events, but for our purposes we w i l l l i m i t ourselves to a few general observations, taking t h i s opportunity to d i s c u s s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Peter's f i n a l speech i n Acts (15:7-12):

405. 406. 407.

Bacon HTR (1928) . 155.

p

This was recognised as early as 1836 by Clarke: " t h i s i s the very s t y l e of S t . Luke." (p. 795) BC 4 p. 124 make Ac. 11:3 < 5 T \ interrogative, w h i l s t recognising t h i s as the only instance of the construet i o n to be found i n Luke. See p. 70.

308.

15:7-12. Peter's Defence of His Action. /

./

8 9 10 li 12 -r^

/
croc-f-

A number of words repeat those found i n Ac. 10 and l i s K ^ B ^ s K SM t^yfo (15:8 cp. 10:4-7, 11:17) and the use of ^*&<*p(Ctw i n 15:9 can be compared with Ac. 11:9 \ / Ccp. Mk. 7:19), and on o3SYv SitvyWW (Ac. 15:9)

there i s the. comparison with Ac. 11:12. Some of the words also l i n k up with previous Peter s t o r i e s : ^ t n c r m M l (15:7 = 10:28), K o ^ r i o Y V ^ ^ S 0.5*8 cp. 1:24) and <\ n<\^^irt (15:10) r e c a l l s Mk. 12:15 (not L k . ) .

This speech i s the only occasion i n Ac. 15 where Peter makes h i s presence f e l t . The m a t e r i a l for t h i s chapter, thus, as a whole, i s u n l i k e l y to derive from a Peter source. I t i s possibly a separate account of the story i n Ac. 11: but -bis observation i s blunted by the textual o b s c u r i t i e s surrounding the pronouncement of the council i n 15:20,29. I f the v a r i a n t s led by D and p. 45 are ignored, the issue a t stake seems/

V.

309.

seems to have been a renewal of tie food law problem. But even i f t h i s isfc so, the matter could have been r a i s e d again a t a Second Council. Peter's speech may have been borrowed from the e a r l i e r report and the reference back to the Cornelius i n c i d e n t might support t h i s , for c e r t a i n l y the s t a t i s t i c s do not suggest -that 15:7-12 i s a free Lucan composition. I f he did borrow* i t from Ac. 11 we may r e f e r to p. 270 f o r one motive. I n that chapter, I t may have formed the source's concluding defence by Peter , though "bis solution cannot be pressed*

lb return to Ac. 11, the r e p e t i t i o n of Peter's v i s i o n demonstrates that Luke also regarded i t as of considerable importance. Yet i t i s told with so l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n that i f the l a b e l ' a r t i s t ' i s applied to Luke, then we must ignore the d u l l r e p e t i t i o n of 10s9ff and ll:5ff. I t i s not as though Luke has even reworded the material here, the evidence has suggested the copious use of a source. I f t h i s source i s Mark, then here i s evidence of f i r s t hand material from Peter being transmitted through the w r i t e r of the Second Gospel.

This Gospel began with the Baptism of John i n preparation for the C h r i s t . Now the C h r i s t has come, and the f u l l n e s s of h i s revelation, even to the Gentiles,/

310.

Gentiles, has been r e a l i s e d so the work draws to i t s close with a reminiscence of the words of Mko 1:8 (already repeated by A c 1:5)s the promised S p i r i t of C h r i s t has now been f u l l y comprehended I Verses 15-18 read not as though the conclusion of an episode has been reached, but as the climax of a. great wonder Thus our source concludes:

1. With a r e c o l l e c t i o n of the Gospel's

(
f>)fij

prologue:

Tb?

*2oryys\iM>

as Peter reminds the

community of the g i f t of the S p i r i t which has now descended

w -rr*/>

&

(11:15)

4 0 8

2 < > With a r e f r a i n r e c a l l i n g the promise of Jesus and j u s t aa Mk. 16>7 rounded o f f the f i r s t portion with a promise of f u l f i l l m e n t of Mk. 14:28, so too we end here with a reminder that

faxrrrrtr^cr<Li&-c

2v

ftvdfH*r\

^-pu? (11:16)<

E i i s verse i s the p i v o t of the story* as the reader/

408.

She "We" i s of course the Pentecostal Church of Jerusalem (so Noaok A S H 1 (1962) p. 93) - but a verbal connection with Mk. 1:1 remains open - ep, too p. 84. L . Marin a r t . c i t . * pp. 93f..

409

311.

reader i s confronted with the power of the S p i r i t which knows no b a r r i e r s and which brings l i f e to a l l who recognise t h i s power* "Peter's task as i t i s presented i n Acts i s f u l f i l l e d " : Gentile Pentecost i s come*
4 1 0

f o r the

410. Hahn op. c i t . p. 133. S i m i l a r l y Haulotte a r t * c i t p. 83 "Apres 11:18 son rdle proprement missionaire est acheve...11:18 marque done un sommet et un termes"' tkius chapter 12 i s "hors-cadre" (h. 42).

312.

5. CONCLUSION

I n the a n a l y s i s of Acts i t has proved necessary to examine Luke's own motives regarding the basic composition of Acts, and i n e v i t a b l y t h i s has i n some cases dominated the discussion, most noticeably where i t has subsequently been f e l t d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to see exactly the p r i n c i p l e s upon which Luke has constructed h i s story * But; more often than not I t has been clear that some source material has been influencing Luke's narration of a p a r t i c u l a r episode and i n c e r t a i n cases t h i s factor can p l a u s i b l y be l a b e l l e d a Mar can i n f l u e n c e . I n advancing t h i s hypothesis, nothing very new i s being propounded, but the attempt has been made to follow through t h i s the sis; a l i t t l e more completely than i n previous studies. I cannot have hoped to cover a l l the p o s s i b i l i t i e s that the material presents and the need must be, when such d e l i c a t e l y subjective source questions are involved, f o r others to take: up the idea, sorting; through the suggestions and bringing together t h e i r own subjective/
1

l e 32hroughout i t has been an e s s e n t i a l assumption that the w r i t e r of the I h i r d Gospel and that of Acts are one and the same person.

313

subjective impressions* Only with such a consensus w i l l the p o s s i b i l i t y of a Mar can source f o r the f i r s t part of Acts be acceptably established with, any reasonable degree of confidence* Not that the present thesis i s concluded with a lack of conviction, nor that the arguments are evolved here' without any objective backing, f o r the would-be objector to t h i s t h e s i s must not. merely dismiss the textual analysis presented above, but also the s t a t i s t i c s which form the basis of the detailed discussion, and which are summarised below* These figures may be faulted methodologically Cand c e r t a i n l y there w i l l be some errors despite- many checks) but b a s i c a l l y they present a case which, stated b r i e f l y , 1 B that a few passages I n Acts bear a strong a f f i n i t y with Mark^ Gospel* I f * a f t e r f u r t h e r investigation, i t i s now f e l t that such a r e l a t i o n s h i p cannot be accidental, then i t i s not so impertinent to extend the hypothesis to Include some of the other s t o r i e s i n Aots which a l s o concern Peter* Thus we suggest that this source which Luke u t i l i s e d once appeared i n approximately the following forms
2

PP- 53f*.

314

G a l i l e a n Storiess

Acts 1:6-11 15-17/21^26. (18-20).

Ifae Return to Jerusalem:

1:12*14 3:1-11/5815^16.

The: Community:

4:23-31 4*32-35 C36ff.?)

The - Community Spreads, even to Gentile s:

12:5-17 9:32-43 10s9 11:18 (parts)

Such an outline has a d i s t i n c t coherence, even though i n i t s d e t a i l i t can never be inevitable - but i f i t i s open for consideration, then the value of the book of Acts as a r e l i a b l e witness to the primitive days of the Church and i t s authority as a document recounting, the power the community experienced enabling i t to spread the good news of Jesus Christ as the saving; Lord of a l l men, must be greatly enhanced, i f indeed Acts did i n corporate the erstwhile work of the f i r s t of the Evangelists.

315 APPENDIX I : WORD COUNTS IN P A R A . G r R A . P H S OF ACTS. The text i s close to that represented " b yB ; . a. Passage LUCAN MARCAN ords i n Character- words Acts istics TOTAL TOTAL FREQUENCY I 1.2 086 I : 1-5 5 5.8 2 1.4 6-12 13 9.1 143 I : 2 3.8 .13-14 2 3.8 053 I : I5 26 I I 7.0 0 157 I : 3 6.5 046 Iss 18^-20 2 4.4 T 062 2: 1.6 4 6.5 :I-4 I 0.8 132 2: 5 5-13 10 7.6 : 14-36 16 6.3 6 2.4 255 2: I 1.0 099 2! 5 37-41 9 9.1 0 . 9 & 2 542-47 s 7 7..I 9 9..2 10 5.1 197 3 t i l - I I 20' IO.I 298 3i: 12-26 17 5.7 5 1.5 6 2.2 2?I 4ss l 2 2 19 7.0) 3 2.6 115 4s5 7^12 8 7.0. 5 23-31 9 5.7 5 3.2 159 4! I l l 4s5 32-37 12 10.8 8 7.2 206 5 sT-II J 6 2.9 15 7.3 I. 2.2 045 5i112-14 7 15.6 042 5: 515-16 3 7.1 4 9.5 230: 5 ; ;I7-28 21 9.1 6 2.6 071 5: 5 29-33 5 7.0 I 1.4 178 5 : 5 34-42 18 IO.I 3 1.7 279 6 20 7.5 5 1.8 13 1.2 m o 7i5:1-8:3 46 4.1 154 8sr.4-I3 13 8.5 3 1.9 199 8:14-25 14 7.0; 2 I-.O 239 8:26-40 19 7.9 2 0.8 144 9.1*9 8 5.6 2 1.4 187 9:10-19 21 II..2 3 1.6 203 9:19-30' 12 5.9 6 3.0 028: 9 :31 I 3.6 0 062 9:32-35 6 9.7 2 3.2 160' 9336-43 13 8.1 2 1.3 132 10:1-8 17 12.9 4 3.0;. 113 10:9-16 5 4.4 6 5.3 125 ICsI7-23 13 10.4 I 0.8; I9& IEs23-33 21 10.7 8 4.1 185 30:34-43 13 7.0 4 2.2 086 E:44-48 4 4.7 I 1.2 311 I I : 3 > I S 20 6.4 10 3.2 151 13:19-26 12 3.0 2 1.3 064 1627-30 5 7.8 0 060 12:1-4 4 6.7 I 1.7 153 12:5-10 6 3.9 13 8.5 144 32sTI-I7 8 5.5 I 0.7 131 322 8-25 6 4.6 0
7 7

MATTHEAN words

JOHANNINE words FREQUENCY

Ratio:
fcbu - i t

I 2 0 4 4 I 2 6 I 4 5 6 4 2 3 5 8 I 0. 4 0 I 8 23 0 IK 9 4 6 3 2 0 0 3 2 3 9 3 3 5 6 0 I 4 2 4

1.2 1.4 2.5 8.7 1.6 1.5 2.4 1.0 4.1 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 4.5 3.9 2.2 1.7 0.6 2.9 2.1 5.5 3.8 2.8 3.2 1*5 7.1 2.3 1.8 2.4 4.6 1.6 3.5 1.6 4.0 1.7 2.6 1.4 3.1

0 I 0 0 2 0 I 3 I 3 6 6 6 I 4 4 6 3 I. 6 0' I 3 16 3 4 0 I O I 0 I 7 3 3 I 5 5 2 6 3 I 2 5 2 4

4 J5l

0.7 4.4 0.8 1.2 1.0 3.1 3.1 2.0 2.2 0.9 2.5 3.6 2.9 6.7 2.4 2.6 0.6 I.I 1.4 1.9 2.a 0.7 0.5 1.6 4.3 2.3 2.6 0.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.6 a.3 3.3 1.4 3.1

9s50 10! 50 10! :0 4! sO 7 :0 14 :5 i 13 :2 7 s3 7 s4 16 :8 16 :6 20 :7 4 :0 16 :2 5 :3 13 :I0 3 :3 5 :I 14 sIO 6 :2 I I :3 30 :6 83 :29 8 :8 5 55 15 r l l 7 :9 12 :6 13 : I I :0 4: 6: :2 !ll 9! 9i54 I I ! 55 4: 54 H i f5 I I :! l ;I 4: 22:14 14: ' 4 2: 3 2s 4 II: 7 8: 8 8: 9

(CONTINUED OVER))

316 Wards Acts passage 066 162 641 115 200 157 135 121 083 213 093 158 163 393 304 569 311 309 254 390 0)53 212 411 324 473 567 491 0 7 4 076 457 532 591 753 289 252 Lucan words 4.5 8.0 6.4 8.7 8.0 6.4 8.9 5.8 3.6 10.3 8.6 8.9 7.4 4.6 5.9 7.4 7.7 8.4 5.9 5.6 9.4 5.2 5.4 6.8 7.8 7.4
r r-

Marcan words 0 4 14 3 6 4 5 5 I 3 I I
T

Matthean words 2 3.0 7 4.3 10 1.6 (13 2.6 \8 3 i l <7 2.4 2 5 2 16 2.2 3.2 1.2 4.1
T J? J.

Johannine words I 5 12 6 4 8 1.5 3.1 1.9 5.2 2.0 5.1 ) 9 3.5 )

) 4 1.3 )

Ra,tio: iwi - i t 8: 9: 35s 9; 14! 12: 10: 9i 4! 20s 3i 12 i 5s 26: 25: 24 i 18: 14! 16! 20; 2: 10; 19: 16: 22: 35s 15: 2: 5: 22: 18: 30: 29: 13: 6: 523:237 538:518

3 13:1-3 13:4-12 13 13:13-52 41 io; 14:1-7 14:8-18 16 14:19-28 10 15:1-6 12 15:7-12 7 15:13-21 3 15:22-35 22 15:36-41 8 14 16:1-9 16:10-17 12 I"6s.I8-4.0 18 17:1-15 18 17:16-34 27 18:1-17 24 B:I8-B:7 26 19:8-20 15 19:21-41 22 20:1-3 5 20:4-15 I I 20:16-38 22 21:1-18 22 21:19-40 37 22 42 2311-25 27 23:26-30 7 23:31-35 6 24 34 25 35 26 34 27 45 28:1-16 22 28:17-31 13 Totals Acts I-J2 539 Acta 13-28 683

. v ?

13 8 9 7 8 12 . 6 I 4 8 6 13 10 IT 3 S 9 14 9 21 4 8

10.0 7.9 7.4 6.6 5.8 6.0 7.6 5.2 7.05 6.70'

2.5 2.2 2.6 3.0 2.5 3.7 4.1 1.2 1.4 I..I 0.6 0i.6 3.3 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.6 4.7 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.8 2.2 1.3 3.9 2.0 2.6 1.5 2.8 1.4 3.1

J PT

14 4.5 9 2.9 7 3.0' 1 . 0 2.6 I 1.9 7 3.3 10 2.4 7 2.2 16 3.4 17 3.0 20) 4.1 2 2.7 6 7.9 16 3.5 31 5.8 22 3.9 23 3-1 9 3.1 6 2.8 177 2.31 326 3.20 90 2.28

^ c.1.

I.I 1.3 1.8. 2.3 > )13 1.9 9 2.3 5 1.6 5 2.0i I 0.2 0 4 1.9" 12 2.9 5 1.5 I I 2.3 14 2.1 15 2.6 I 1.3 2 2.6 9 2.0 22 4.1 18 3.0 18 2.1 5 1.7 2 2.2 I 2 3 9 133 1.73 231 2.27 85 2.15

173 2.26 233 2.29 108 2.73

PeterStories282 7.13

"We"SectionsII2 6.43 36 2.07 48 2.75 33 1.87 ( i . e . 16: IOf f . , 20:4f f . , 21 :;If f ., and27:1-28'.: 16)

75:74

NotesAll word counts omit LXX quotations, (p.33 n.6).

317o

AEPENDIX 2 s A mttT.B C O M P A R I N G * . THE INCTEBNCE: OF LUQAN AND MARCAN W O R D S IN THE WESTERN AND NONaWESTERN TEXTS*

I n view of the wide divergence i n these two t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n s i n the hook of Acts, a separate table i s here given l i s t i n g the words measured i n Appendix One, as they are found i n Codex Bezae. This manuscript unfortunaately does not contain a l l the readings which might reasonably be l a b e l l e d 'Western*, and i t s e l f includes many gross blunderss but i t I s s t i l l the most complete: extant witness: to t h i s t r a d i t i o n , and I s here employed to indicate as best as possible, the nature of the Western t r a d i t i o n . I t has the advantage - as against the difflcul1d.es inherent i n using a reconstructed t e x t of providing; an objective standard by which we can measure the two t r a d i t i o n s * Bat why use t h i s t e x t atfjall?
1

On scrutiny o f the word analysis, I hope j u s t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be found Case p. 320), I t can be argued that I have considered almost; any and every v a r i a n t reading, where; i t helps my case, but I believe t h i s to be j u s t i f i e d by the evidence presented below

i a excluded from the f i g u r e s below as ( i > i t i s only one of Hawkins* Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (defined by on p. 13) I f some v a r i a n t readings are ignored, ( i t ) the exoessive use of 1^. i n Acts i s contrasted by i t s comparative, r a r i t y i n the Third Gospel (Clark pp, 396f), ( i l l ) Such a minute p a r t i c l e can easily be altered by the careless scribe, and that o f D was p a r t i c u l a r l y unaccomplished (Clark, p. x l i i i , Hopes BC 3, pp* l x i x f f . ) , Taking the t e x t of B, which has 137 examples of as the norms Manuscript Total Uses Added (as against B} Removed ? v L 137 S T A 141 9 5 614 117 8 28 . 383 127 10 20 tSte? S which do not present a complete Acts c 78 6 g D 52 20 57 E 120 15 ^ I t w i l l be seen t h a t D*s record i s very e r r a t i c *
1 6 f o l l o w l n c 1 8 + 4

318,

The table sets down (a) Lucan c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : f i r s t l y as they appear i n 2), then as they appear i n the p a r a l l e l passage i n the non-Western t e x t (lacunae i n D being-, appropriately compensated f o r i n a l l cases) Cb) Marcan words o f a l l types, f i r s t l y , as "ttiey come i n D then i n the non-Western t e x t *
f

(o) Ratio of M

t*>i

i n D

Words Acts i n B section 103 138 55 159 48 68 134 258 108 109 207 414 270 115 171 120 210 49 49 242 72 207 323 1166 215 63 31 135 225 188 91 344 153 69 1*1-5 1:6-12
1S13P14

Luc an. Characteristics A l l Marc an &it i n D i n B text words in D in B 4 IOC -2) 2 10 t 2 5 C+l 8 C* l 17 C*2 7 8 C *2 1 18 (+2 4 19 C+3 1 18 C*l 8 8 12 C*l 17 C+3 6 4 C+l 1 18 C -1 4C 18 C*3 19 C+2 52 C*8 13 C+l 16 C*3 7 C+2 0 14 C+2 -3 21 C+5 13 ( +2-1 5 C+2 -1 22 (+5 -2 14 C*3 -1 4 C 4 12 2 10 2 4 7 15 7 7 20 17 17 8 8 11 15 6 3 19 5 16 17 44 12 13 5 0 12 19 12 4 19 11 5 3 2 2 0 3 2 0 7 1 8 10 3 6 2 5 9 6 1 4 9 0 2 5 17 3 3 0 3 1 9 5 2 10 2 0 1 2 2 0 3 2 0 6 1 7 10 3 5 2 5 8 6 1 4 6 0 3 5 13 3 2 0 3 1 8 3 1 10 2 0 6*1 9*0 9*6 8*1 4*0 7:0 15*4 15*1 9*2 10*2 18*7 17*5 17*8 4*0 17*2 7*3 14*9 4*2 4*1 17*8 5*3 12*3 29*5 94*25 7*6 6*6 2*2 1*2 5*3 12:7 12*1 4:1 26*11 12*4 2*4

1*15-26 1:18-20 2*1-4 2*5-13 2*14-36 2*37*41 2*42-47 3*1-11 3*12-26 4*1-22 4*7-12 4*2331 4*32-37 5*1-11 5*12-14 5*15-16 5*17-28 5*2&33; 5*34*-42 6*1-15 7*1^*3 8*4-13 8*14-25 8:26-29a 10*14b-16 10il7 *23a 10*23b-33 10*34H:3 10*44-48 11*1-18 11*19-26 11*27-30

319o

Luke B 5 C*l 68 12el-4 > 164 12:5-10 4 -1 148 12:811-17 7 148 12818-25 5 C 0 ( -1 65 13 sl-3 178 13: s4-12 12 e*2 -2 683 13813-52 46: C*8 160 14sl-7 13 C+4 214 1488-18 16 C*5 167 14sl9-28 10 (+1 159 15*1-6 i33 15e7~12 11 C*3 91 15$13-21 5 C -1 244 15s22-35 5 C *2 103 15:36-41 24 U3 8 C*2 -1 168 16sl-9; 174 16slO*17 15 C*3 -2 470 16818-40 12 C*L 314 17sl-15 2 9 C*14-2 374 17816-34 13 353 1881-11 25 C*5 -6 357 18sl819 23 C+3 -2 292 1988-20 tl 25C*5-2 396: 19s21-41 11 C*2 -1 54 20sl~3 18 (*3 ~5 222 20*4*15 4 C*l -1 428 20sl6-38 10 C*2 -1 201 2181-18: 20 C*2 -2 473 21sl9-40 11 C*3 -5 343 22sl-29 32 C*4 -3 24 C*l -1 Summary " '
1

B 4 4 6 6 1 12 38 9 11 9 8 6 3 21 7 14 11 17 13 26 22 22 10 20 4 9 20 13 31 24

Mark. D E 1 1 13 13 1 1 0 0 0 6 16 5 7 4 6 5 2 5 1 3 2 17 9 11 7 9 13 6 1 4 7 6 16 4 0 5 12 3 6 4 5 5 1. 3 1 1 1 13 8 9 7 8 12 6 1 4 8 5 13 4

382 1287 12s9 10s9 9s2 13s7 42sl6 1387 15s6 1287 12:6 8:3 4sl 20s6 2:6 12:6 8s5 33816 28sll 20:9 22:12 20:16 1987 23slO 384 13812 21:5 11:12 23813 20814

Sotnst

Lucan Characteristics i n D B JKMKli FREQDENGY 202Ai FREQUENCT " W e* sections 37 5*61 38 6*18 Acts, 1-12 444 6.35 408 6*28 Acta 13-22 422 6.19 381 6.05 Marcan Characteristicss " W e * sections 12 1.82 10 Acts 1-12 158 2.26 143 Acts 13^22 172 2.52 145
1

1.61 2*20 2.30

Notes: " W e " sections: 11827-30, 16:10-17, 20:4-15, 21:1-18

lacunae i n D: from 8:29 - 10:14 and i n the sections: 21:1-18 and 22:1-29.

3205 Conclusion* The Bezan text,as our best representative o f the Western tradition,emerges from t h i s analysis as being as Lucan as the B^type text,This i s a remarkable record and lends some credence to the view that Luke himself issued two editions o f Acts.However the r e s u l t s obtained i n the^Marcan word study are also high, and thus i t may be concluded t h a t the Western t r a d i t i o n has been i n f l u enced t o some degree by knowledge o f the language o f the Gospelsdf the bulk of these readings were compiled by a single writer(and t h i s i s , I think, an inescapable conclusion) then we may say of him that he was a man w e l l versed i n the Gospels. Nevertheless,these s t a t i s t i c s allow the p o s s i b i l i t y that behind the Western t e x t may l i e t r c e s o f a Lucan
a

original,and which moreover may once have derived,in some instances,from a Marcan originalThe readings which merit most consideration under t h i s heading are: 1:2, 3:II,II:2these are discussed i n d e t a i l i n the chapter on Acts-Other caseswhere there i s less ample t e x t u a l support are I:I4D,23D,4:3h,5:I5(where texts vary considerably), I0:IId,p45C, 12:583^ cop (D),I2:IODcop
G67 Gi67

'The cases

where the Western t e x t r e f l e c t s a Lucan o r i g i n a l are more numerous,but f o r our present i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t w i l l s u f f i c e to remark that i t i s suely wrong to dismiss or even ignore "Western" variants i n Acts without a discussion of each instance,considered on i t s own merits.

321 APPENDIX:3- D i s t i n c t i v e Vocabulary i n the Peter Sections, (For contents o f Peter sections see p 41 n 16) Although our proposed Marcan source does not contain a l l these paragraphs, the general Marcan influence herein exhibited i s evident Hawkins Marcan Characteristics,as i & they appear i n Acts, are tabulated: DISTINCTIVE MARCAN CHARACTERISTIC * IN PETER STORIES 4 I I I 2 2 2 9 IN REST OP ACTS I 3 I
1

xr*

ioV

2 3 7 I 3

Hawkins * Charac . "jI I I / O ' 4

D U K5TI

4&ia u . n V ' l A ' O M* 0

/
Tip

v o> s

Toi60 -rtJ5

I I 2 I 12 3 5 I I 2 4

I 3 5 7

alsoI4:7DEjI7:4D also 4:3k also I8:4D also 5:2ID

2 4 6 8

also also also also

I:2D I0:I6D,I3:39D,I4:5cop , I4:I9C (I6:39D I9:4D,2I:25CDE.

G67 e

NB? also: ^</^to ^i9:6h, 7pX\* 8:24D,20:ID.

322 Result: 25Hawkins*Marcan Characteristics i n Peter s t o r i e s . 57 " i n Rest of Acta

Frequency i n Peter sections therefore0,63 Frequency i n Rest o f Acts = 0.41. Listed below are words which occur a t l e a s t four times i n Acts and appear t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y frequent i n the Peter sections o f Acts. r * Stories Rest o f Acts ^ ' c 4 4 4 7 4 5 6 4 7 4 8 6 II 3 'I 0 0 5 0 3 4 I 9 5 6 5 II I Mark Luke II I 0 17 0 0 6 4 II 2 2 0 10 0 6 0 0 18 I 2 3 4 19 3 19 9 15 0

7 ''/~

Throughout t h i s comparison,it must be recalled the Peter sections form only approximately i o f Acts* To these words we may add those which occur seldom i n the Peter s t o r i e s , and a t least eight times elsewhere

i n Acts.Words confined exclusively, or nearly so, t o the l a t e r chapters o f Acts are not reckoned: *T*V 3 23
4v*.-Vflfrrr\ LUv
l

/W/X.t'K
'ytvyfiy

o
0

8
6

-W&crKSi/ TrtWVO;
%rr-r&rbc\

I 2
0

16 16
12

oYXof rrAF)^ fr/ry

I 2 I

21 r5 7

3 4 19 I 12 3 4 37 2 2

13 3 45 4 28 9 7 41 8 6.

323 BIBLIOGRAPHY I - Major Studies consulted: F.BLASS:Philology of ihe Gospels (London 1898) Acta Apostolorum (Gdttingen 1895) P.P.BHUCE:Acts of the Apostles-Greek Text(LondonI95I) R.BULTMANN:Zur Prage nach den Quellen der Apg.-(in) New Testament Essays i n Memory o f T W Manson (ed. AJB Higgins) (Manchester 1959). H.Cadbury:The Style and L i t e r a r y Method o f Luke (HTR Studies 6 1920). A.C.CLARKsActs o f Ine Apostles (Oxford 1933). M.DIBELIUS: Studies i n -foe Acts o f tiie Apostles (London ET 1956). L.DIEU:Marc,Source des Actes?(RBI7 1920,RB 18 1921). J.Dupont:The Sources o f Acts (London ET 1964). MG0GUEL:Introduction au NT Vol.3 (Paris 1922). A. HAEFNER:The Bridge Between Mark and Acts(JBL 77,1958). E.HaencheneDie Apostelgeschichte (Gtfttingen 1956) (The Ehglish Translation o f t h i s came too l a t e to hand) AHARNACK:The Acts of the Apostles (London ET 1909)* Luke the Physician (London ET 1907). E.JACQUIER:Les Actes des Apotres (Paris 1926). K.LAKE/F.FOAKES-JACKSON:The Beginnings o f C h r i s t i a n i t y ( BC >, 5 v o l s . , (London 1920-33). K.LINCKE:Simon Petrus und Johannes Marcus(ZNW 5,1904). P.PARKER:Mark,Acts and Galilean Christianity(NTS 16,1970). G.S.O.WILLIAMS:Acts o f the Apostles (London 1957). 2-0ther w r i t i n g s on Acts o f importance f o r t h i s studys B. W.BACON:More P h i l o l o g i c a l C r i t i c i s m o f Acts(AJT22,I9I8). Some Western Variants i n the Text o f Acts J:.V.BARTLET: The Acts(LondonI902). (HTR21,1928). E. BICKWELL:Acts (London 1928). L.BROWNE:Acts (London 1925). F. C.BURKI.TT:Christian Beginnings (London 1924). W.BURNSIDE: J&cts (Cambridge 1916). A.CLARKE: Acts ( i n h i s NT Commentary) (Cambridge 1836). H.CONZELMANN:Theology o f St.Luke (London ET 1960). J.CREHAN:Peter According t o the D Text o f Acts(TSI8,I957), C.DBSSAIN.:Acts(Ih Catholic Commentary) (London 1953). C*H.DODD:The Apostolic Preaching and i t s Developments (London 1936).
1

324

A EHRHARDT:The Acts o f the Apostles (Manchester 1970). EWJ.EPPsThe Theological Tendency o f Codex Bezae Cantabrlgiensis i n Acts C Cambridge 1966). JFINDLAY:The Acts o f the Apostles (London 1934). E.'.HAENCHENsBook o f Acts as Source Material f o r the History o f Early C h r i s t i a n i t y : ( i n ) S t u d i e s i n Luke-Acts(eds.Keck/Martyn)(NewYork 1966), (and P.WEIGANDT):The Original Text o f Acts ? (NTS 14,1968). R.P.C.HANSON:The Acts (Oxford 1967). J.JEREMIAStUntersuchungen der Apg.(ZNW 36 ,1937)* J).JERVELL:Zur Frage der Traditionsgrundlage der Apg, (ST 16,1963). R.KNOWLING:The Acts o f 1he Apostles (London 1900). W.L.KNOX:The Acts o f the Apostles (Cambridge 1948). J.LIMBY:Acts(English)(CambridgeI890<); ( Greek )(1904 ) . R.S.MACKENZIE:The Text o f Codex Bezae i n Acts ( S t . Andrew's PhD Thesis 1962). TPETERSEN:An Early Coptic Manuscript o f Acts(CBQ26 1964). R.RACKHAM:The Acts o f the Apostles 3rd edit.(LondonI906). E.SCHARFE:Me Petrinische Strtfmung der NT L i t e r a t u r ( B e r l i n 1899). G.STA'HLINcDie Apostelgeschichte (Gflttingen 1966). W . C . V A N UNNIK:The Book o f Acts,the Confirmation o f the Gospel (Nov T 4,1960). B. WEISSsDie Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig 1893). Der Codex D i n der Apg.(Leipzig 1897). M.WTLCOX:The Semitisms o f Acts (Oxford 1965). J.WILSON:Acts o f the Apostles from CodexBezae(LondonI923). 3-Main works on General Related Topics: M.BLACKsAn Aramaic Approach t o the Gospels and Acts I s t e d i t . (Oxford 1946). C. A.BRIGGS:New Light on 1iie L i f e o f Jesus(EdinburghI904). F. C.BURKITT:Sources o f the L i f e o f Jesus (London 1920). Hi. CADBURY: The Making o f Luke-Ac t s (New York 1927). O'.CDLLMANNsPeter,Disciple Apostles and Martyr -2nd e d i t . (London ET 1962). J8.HAWKINS:Hbrae Synopticae (Oxford 1899). R.H.LIGHTFOOT:Gospel Message of St.Mark (Oxford 1950). B.H.STREETER:The Four Gospels (London 1924). 7.TAYLOR:Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford 1926). St. Mark (London 1952).

325 C.H.TURNER:MARCAN Usage (JTS 25-29,1924-28). A . .WIKGREN sArche tou Euaggeliou (JBL 61,1946). T.ZAHN:Introduction to the New Testament 2 (Edinburgh I909) 4 - important Relevant Studies on I n d i v i d u a l Passages i n Acts not l i s t e d i n M a t t i l l * s Dictionary, (J.BETZsThe Dichotomised Servant and the End o f Judas I s c a r i o t (HQ 15,1964). Ac.I:18-20, Wi.BIEDERgDer Petrusschatten (TZ 16,1960). Ac.5:I5e ABOHLIN&:Zum Martyrtum des JackobusCNovT5 I962)oAc,I2:2 PoBO^ONgTradition et Redaction en ActeB IO:I-IIgI8(TZ26 1970), HUBURTON:The House of Mary (E 2 V o l . I 1881).Ac.12:12, J.DUPONT:L*ButtreCAc.12glII):Pierre delivre* de Prison (AS 84,1967). J.R.GARClA'gLa Restauracion de I s r a e l (EB 8 1949)Ao,I:6 B. GERHARDSSOEN:Binige Bemerkungen zu Apg 4g32(ST 24,1970), K.HAAKERgDer Pfingstwunder Ala Exegetlsches Problems ( i n ) Verborum Veritas.(Wuppertal I970).A<i>U2sI-I3 E.HAULOTTE: Fonda t i o n d'une Communaute' de Type Universal (RSR 58 1970) .Ao.10:I-II:18. W.HUBERtPassa und Ostern (ZNWBeiheft 35I969)oRefa:Ao,I2s3 M.LAGRANGE: La Dorailt i o n de l a Saints Vierge at l a Maison de Jean-Marc(RB8 I899)AoIgI5.12:12, S.LEGASSE:Ao.I2g2 (NTS 20,1974). L.MARHTgEssai d*Analyse Structurale de Actes 10:1-11:18. (RSR 58,1970). PE.MENOUD:La Mort Ananias e t de Sapphira: (in)Me'langee Offerts a : M.Goguel(Neuchatel 1950).Ac.5:1-11* :Les Additions au Groupe des Douze Apdtres d'Apres Le Livre dActes (RHPR 6,1957).Acvi615-26, J.RENDEL HARRIS:. ., . . ~~~~ A Lost Verse i n the Gospel of Mark (ET 39 I928).Ac.6:I5D, KmRENGSTORF: Di e Zuwahl des Matthias (ST 15 1961) (also:) gThe Election o f Matthias g(in)Ourrent Issues i n NT I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (London 1962),Ac,1:15-26. AsaROBEL:Passa-Symbolik und Passa-Wunder i n Ao,I2:3ff (NTS 4 1958). :Der Berg der Of f enbarung( VerbormVeri tas ) Ac . 1: 9 , W.THIELEsEina Bemerkung au Act.I:I4.CZNW 53 1962). B. THURSTON:To Huperoon i n A c t , I t I 3 . (ET 80 1968). A.M.TORNGS:Kat* ekeinon de ton kairon en Ao.I2?I.(EE 33 1959). W . C . V A N UNNIKgDer Ausdruck Heos fipg.Ttfl:(in)Stndia Btblica. et Semittca (Wageningen 1966)
a T r

326 5- Other important works to which reference i s made8 K. ALAND :Der wiedergefundene Marcusschluss?(ZTK 67.I970). T.A.BURKILLsThe Syrophoenician Woman:the Congruence of Mk.7:24-3I. (ZNW 57 1966). :The h i s t o r i c a l development o f the story of the Syrophoenician Woman (SB 4/2 1968). S.MVIDSONsIntroduction t o Study o f NT,2(Londoni882 2ed). A.ELLEGARDsA S t a t i s t i c a l Method of Determining Authorship (Goteborg 1962). C.F.EVANS: The Beginning o f the Gospel (London 1968)* A.GRAHAM: Mark and Hebrews (SE 4/1 1968). E.LINNEMANN$Der(wiedergefundene )Marcusschluss ( ZTK66 1969) E.IiOHMEYERsGaliiaa und Jerusalem (GkJttingen 1936)* J.RENIEsL!Election de Matthias (RB 55 1948). W.WHXTLE:The Scope o f Mark's Work (ET 29 I9I8) JOURNALS sABBREVTATIONS AJT American j o u r n a l o f Theology AS Assemblies du Seigneur (Bruges) ASTX Annual o f the Swedish Geological I n s t i t u t e B Biblica ET Bible Translator (London) CBQ Catholic B i b l i c a l Quarterly E : Expositor EB Estudios Biblicos EE Estudios Eclesietsticos ET Expository Times ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses HJ Hibbert Journal HTR Harvard Theological Review JBL Journal o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e JBR aournal o f Bible and Religion (Wolcott N.Y.& JTS Journal o f Theological Studies NovT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies RB Revue Biblique REA Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes RHPR Revue dHistoire e t de Philosophic Religieuses RQ Revue de Qmran RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses SE; studia Evangelica ( B e r l i n ) SJT Scottish Journal o f Theology SNTS Studiorum Novi Te stamen t i Societas ST Studia Theologica T Theology TS Theological Studies TZ Theologische Z e i t s c h r i f t Z N W Z e i t s c h r i f t f f l r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZTK Z e i t s c h r i f t f f l r Theologie und Etrche.

327 SUBJECT INDEX . >G67 Almsgiving..177 278 oop----"..67 86 115 137 153 166 168 174 196 198 Aramaisms.3 6 2 I f 56 74 200 205 214 226 237 145 147 188 210 248 247 277 290; 304 306 278 D. .3 9 16 39(F) 54(F) 64 Barnabas..9 I l l f I490?> 67 69 7 I f 86 113 115(F) I73f 2I8f 228 234 126 128(F) 132 134(F) I40f 144 I48f 153 164 Frequency defined. 24 168 170 172 I74f 177 I80f I83f 186 188 I90f Galilee:traces o f Resur193 I96f 205 214 219. r e c t i o n Events there 226 233 237 240f 247F ..13 19 97 102 104 26If 266 269f 293(F) 117 119 I 2 I f 129 131 296f 303(F) 308.Also 143 Appendix 2. Gentile Mission..8 9f E. .9 126 130 138 146 148 79 83 85 127 155 179 155 166 168 170 174 278 287 301 311 180: 186 189 I93f I96F 204 208 214 243 274 Humour.. 178 277 290 300 303 Jame s ,JesusBrother g. . I I 5 f 130 144 184 186 I33f 238 257 268f 196 226 233 244 249 26 2 Jewish orientated f a i t h h. .I36f 170 181 186 205 of Early Community. 207f 288 15 81 85 126(F) 138 614..17 69 126 I37f 146 142 I55f 175 179 2I3f 148 168 174 180 186 253f 191 194 269 John i n Acts..152 171(F) Messengers..192 226 279 175 177 231 234 240 28If 284 286 L i s t s i n Acts:Columns Money..8If 179 224 280 explained..113 Oral Tradition..28(F) 74 Luke a t t i t u d e to repet165 236 i t i o n . ^ I I 24 58 80 Paul..4 28 70 74f I l l f 170 281 141 I73f 186 226(F) Luke:written allegedly 271 290 before Acts..7 12 18 Peter*Death..4 124 255F 76 :/Paul p a r a l l e l i s m . . LEX,use o f , i n Acts..I6f 183 190 211 229 263 145 160 163(F) 167 307 210 213 220 280 Peter ^Prominence i n D.. 144 172 197 305 Manuscripts:Readings i n Acts where noted(ex~ Philip..22 151 222 224f cept i n Word L i s t s ) 231 285 287 / V ..123 130 133 153 Simon the Tanner.. 125 166 230 248 303 284 288 293f 296. f = Reference on next page also. F s Reference extends to next pages.

INDEX Genesis 15 f 2 18r,15 19:30) 20:2 Exodus 12:11/12 12:42 20:11 Judith 6:16 182 255 92 9:12 213 92 2 Maccabees 92 9 147 3 Maccabees 253; 5:14 261 254 6:27 205 174 211 Esther 213 5:10/6:12 205 29:39/41 175 Psalms Leviticus 2sl/2 213 6:20 175 2*7 17 Numbers 15*8-11 164 22:6/15/ 23*7 267 16/18/19/ 38*14 255 21/31 280) 49:18 182 Deuteronomy 68:26 145 6:5 220; 87*6 260 2 Kings 108 *8 145 22:42: 250) 109 16 3 Kings 117:22 16 18:29 175 210 1 Esdras Job 5 : 5 Q > 175 5*8 213 Mark 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:6 1*8 1:13 1:14 1:16-20) 1:19 1:22 1:24 1:27 l:29ff 1:30 1:31 1:33 1:34 1:35 1*38 l:44f 1:45 2:1-16

328. Wisdom 6:7 Psalms of 8:15 Mlcah 6:5 Jfoel 3*5 Jonah 4:3 Isaiah 40*5/56*7 Jeremiah 41:13 . Ezekiel 40:22 Daniel 12:2

213 Solomon 127 280 167 213 82 254 247 260

New Testament Matthew 2:1 194 2:13 245 2:23 17 6:13 196 38 12:43 14:28 265' 14:29 266 14:30) 237 14:36 195 16:18: 88 16:19 17:10) 126 17:11 126 19: 136 19:28 142 26:14 142 26:47 142 27:2 212 2?:49 262 28:1 96 28:7 97 28:8 98 28*10; 98 28:16 81 94; 102 141 28:19 94 128 179 28:20 117

2:1 2:2 66-69 113 4 64f 2:3 115 310 2:4 143 2:6 2:7 167 47 2:9/11 6 310) 2:12 304 39 117 2*13 2*14 35 2:15 8 2:16 38 43 7 2*18 7 38 2*20 47 190> 2:22 251 2:23 275 40) 181 2:28 176' 3*5 7 47f 251 3:6 47 3*9 99 47 115 3:10 190 3'ril 39 69- 3:14 70) 292 3:15 3:17 3:20 3:21 3*32

57 47 176 190 274 47 ISO 307 47 7 190 43 265: 143 307 110 307 15 70-72 71 115: 190 48 48 130 216 190 38 216 39 117 185 8 57 190 181 15

329< Mark (continued)) 43 115 4si 190) 38 4:2 298 4sl3ff 47 71 4:17 179 48 4:20. 4:22/28/ 72 32 9 237 4*38 58 4*40 46 48 5:4 176 5:5 48 5*7 " 9 5:8 180 5:14^17 57 48 5 tie 76' 5:17 5*21ff 5*29 273; 5:;" 5*30 277 5*33 57 92 5:34 48 5:36 92 5:37 8 5:38-42. 73-74 5*38 47 277 292: 5:39 47 132 260 5:407 9 277 5:41 10 39 179 181 5*43 47 6:2-6 74-75 227 6:2 115: 305 6:3 15 6 . 6 48 6*7 38 6:8 47 115 6:9 48 756:11 47 6:13' 81 185 239 6:14 6:17-29 3 6:17 181 6:18 197 6:26 47 6:22 195' 6:29 15 6::30 43 185 6:31 47 6*33 48 182 6:34 43 115 305 6:37 46 6:44 9 158 6s50> 6:52: 6:55* 6*55 6:56 92 53 54 7678 190 ig2if 198 47 194 185 191f 195 216 20 72 78*80 2I6 47 284 57 20) 58 308 48 132 8 20 84 48 180 47 99 158 48 307 47 58 177 190 30 88 115; 48 297 58 39 80-81 184 93' 244 126 47 91 101 127 126 307 16 126 180 47f 47 185 57 272 48 47 182 190 40 57f 81 307 56 58 92 , J6 172 213 179 47
;

7:2/5 TrlO 7813 7*17 7:0.3. 7*24 7*25 7*27 7*31 7:35 7*36 8:9 8*10 8*12 8:15 8:17ff 8:24 8*25 8*29 8*30 8*31 8:32 8:33 8*55 9*2 9:5 9:6 9*9ff 9*9 9*11 9:12 9*14ff 9*15 9:18: 9:21 9:22 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:28 9*30) 9*32 9:34 9:38ff 9*38 9*39 9*42

9*49 155 10:1 48 10*4f 17 10*5 83 10:13 58 10*17 48 81f 10:21 177 10*22 47 10*23 81f 10:24 47 126 10:26 48 126 10*27 177 10*28f 126 10*30 47 136 10*32 47 92 10:35ff 172 10:35 8 10*37 126 10:39 82 239f 258 10:46 176 10:47 17 115 10:49 177 11*1^6 97 11:4 176 11:6 177 11*14 41 11*17 82 84 11*18 92 11*19 216 11*20 48 11*25 216 11*30 209 11*32 92 12:4 46 12:9 83 12:10f 16 210 12*11 82 12*12 40 92 181 12*15 308 12*19 17 12:27 83 12*28-34 19 12*33 83 12*37 16 47 12:38 38 12:40 83 12:41 292 12:42 248 13 163 13*6 83 13*7 47 13*8 48 13*9 84 I3rl0 4 39 72 83m 117 13:11 84 153 191 13:15 84-85
1

330, 13:19 13:22 13:24 13:28 13s29 13:32 47 216 47 47 176 6 85 127 48 13:35 14:2 , 7 47 206 241 39 14:9 142' 14:10 47 14:11 97 14:12-16 172 132 14:13 103 14tl4 115 14:15 85-86 14:19 121 261 14:27f 91 96 14*28 99 310 48 14:32 14:33 47 115 14*43 142 14:44 181 14*47 48 14:50 58 101 234 14:54 14:57f 78 307 14:58 14:62 19 115 14:65 14:66-72 88 47 298 14:68 110 14:69 122 14:70 46 115 14:71 48 205 15:1 48 15:14 47 15:16 243 15:31 88 160) 164 15.-34 139 250 15:40 103 15:41 47 15:43 176 15:46 91 139 15:47 150) 16:1-8 89 91 93 96 129 16:1 46 96 16*2 48 16:3 176 246 16:5 47 234 16 s 6 47 93 97 99 129 88 91 16:7 96 99 121 124 269 310 16:8 lO 12 16 69 89 91-? 94 981GO 104* 127 130 186 16*9-20 93 16 *9 48 16*13 125 16*14 16 141 16*15 94 117 16:17 95 16*18 95 94 16:19 Luke 34 1-2*52 66 1*1-4 29 168 1:2 116 1:4 128 1:9 245 1:35 212 2:12 34 2L29 3:1-4:30 210 33 3:2 167 3:3-6 82 3:3 36 3:5 167 3*7-14 167 3L7 3sl5f/21f 3:10/14 33 3:16 67 272 4:1-13 67 4*2 33 4:14f 272 4:16-30 29 4:20 190 4:29 34f 131 264 5:1-11 264 5:9 8 5:10 33f 5:12ff 115 5:14 180 5:17 274f 69 5:18 69 5:19 5:2* 69 5 29 69f 5 30 72 5 33 70 5 35 71 5 37 34 6 1-11 36 6 6-11 179 6 6 180 6 7 34 141 6 12-19 8 6 16 6 20-8:3 34 40 6 43 40 6 49 175 7 2 73 279 7 6/10 296 7 15 283 7 18- 23 36 7 36 196 7 45 132 8 4-9:50 33f 8 19-21 271 36 8:22-56 58 8:29 58 8:39 296 8:41 280 8:49 8 132 296 8:51 73 277 292 8*52 39 73 179 8:54 73 277 192 8:55 179 9:2 36 9:3 185 9:7-17 121 196 9:10 38 9:31 179 9:40 9:42 34 9:49 251 9:51141 10:42 192 9:56 33 34 10:1 196 10:9 33 10:24-28 38 11:1-54 132 196 11:1 115 11:14-23 34 11:24 243 11:26 196 11:45 11:53 12:1-59 34 12:35 12:58 13:114:35

331, Luke (continued) 13:11 191 13:18-21 33 13*2.0 40 13:25 115 14:15 196 15:116:31 34 15:28 132 17:113*14 34 18:15-43 33* 18:15-17 36 18:26 126 176 18*35 19:1-28 35 19:21 92 19*28-40 36f 19:29-38 35 19*29-36 34 19:37^44 35 19:4521*4 33f 19*46 82 20:1-18 36 20*4 209 20:17 210 20:27-40 36 21:2 248 21:12-38 35 21:26 128 254 21:35 123 21*38 7 22*1-30 33 22*2 9 , 2 206 22:3 142 22:8 172 248 22*10 132f 250 22:11 132 22:14-71 35 22 j 22 255 22:30 142 124 256 22:33 258 22*39-23*5 38 22:39 121 22*44 147 259 22:47 142 22:49 261 22:50 179 22:61f 124 23*1-56 35 23:8 272 23:18-25 33 23:20 40 23*33 152 23:5024*11 33 138 23:49 209 23:51 24:1-9 35 120 129 24:1 96 24:2 246 129 24:3 121 24:6 129 24*7 16 91 141 24:9 138 24*10 24:11-53 35 98 24:12 102 125 24:13ff 102 125 24:13 39 24:16 268 24*22 91 24:23 278 24:27 16; 101 141 24*33 249 24:*34f 125 24:41 255 24*43 114 24:44-48 298 24*47 115 119 127 24*49 101 24*50 120 24:51 80 114 121 24*53 7 116 John 120 1:28 120 6:59 142 6*71 205 7:53 8*20 120 10:36 110 16:32 86 18:2 101 18:28 262 86 19:25 261 19:34 98 123 20:3ff 102 20:19 88 98 101 21 131 21:1/2 266 21:3 264 266 2154/7 265 21:8/9 266 21:10 264 21:12/13 265 21:18 243 264f 263 265 21:19 266 21*22 264 265 266 21:23 Acts References to a detailed discussion on a passage i s given f i r s t * 1-15 4 5 6 a 1-12 5 31 36 41 61 63 89 107 108 133 141 1-3 8 22 24 186 1-2*4 59 1:1-12 61 1:1-5 68f 113-119 164 l:lf 64 1:1 67 129 195 1:2 39 47 67 123 143 1:3 67 126 1:4 19 25 67 121 122 123 1*5 6 67 143 166 186 310 1*6-12 119-130 1*6-11 117 142 144 158 208 1*6-8 68 114 1*6 15 113 133 144 201 1:7 6 57 85 1*8 67 85 166 225 1:9-11 114 1:9 71 1:11 15 18 1:12-14 11 144 158 171 1:12 56 102 131 144 1*13-14 131-139 11 51
54 14*

11 18 144 212 71 142 152 234 233 250 1:15-26 140-151 68 158 i:i5 m m 1:18*20 17 48 51f 1:19 11 1:21 18 1:22 165 1*23 55 95 173 218 234 1:24 154 308 1:25 255 1:26 16 2 24 146 2:1-4 151-156 157f 2:1 57 83 157 2:2 133f 212 2:4 95 157 2:5-13 156-159 83 108 152 1^4f 214

1:13 1:14

lSOl4

Acts (continued) 2:7 18 122 2:13 55; 71 2:14-36 160-165 184 im 16 71 141 2:14 2:17 16 2:21 167 2:22-24 27 2:24 40 48 208 2:27/31 88 2:32f 143 2*33 166 2$34f 16 2:37-41 166-168 2:40 16" 158* 164 2:41 123 158 170 2$42-47 215-222 108 39 41 167 186 47 57 7 139 170 51 22 41 168-187 11 51 5 f l 5 8 195 211 222 7 12 81 3:1 136 139 3:2 53 278 3:3 136 3:6 12 224 276; 280 3:10 9 190 198 3:llff 40 47f 136 3:11 187 190 198 207f 211 3:12-26 200-201 182ff
159

4:15 136 4:17 47 57 4:18 57 4:19 136 172 4:20 4:21 57 4:22 9 56 213 4:23221 5:42 211-215 108 4:23-31 2lO 152 4:23 152 174 4:24 163 245 4:25ff 7 4:25 84 151ff 4:31 156 159 189 4:32-37 215-222 5 I f 4:32 4:34 4:35 4:36 4:37 5:1-11 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:6-10 5:7 5:10 5:8 5:12-16 5:12-14 5:12: 5:13 5:14 5:15-33 5:15f 5:15 5:16 5:17-42 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:22 5:23 5:24 5:25

2*42 2:43 2:45 2s46 2:47 3-5:16; 3-4:22 3:1-11

135^

3:12 3:16 3:20f 3:22 3:23 3:26 4 4:1-22 4:1 4:2 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:13

172 184 210 1? 55 167 8 158 173 201-211 198f

T5Tmi82 184
183 48 180 16 57 47 58 136

92 186 5:28 39 186 5:34-42 108 5:38 262 5:42 7 139 7 8 87 108f 225 6:5 270 6:10 6:11-15 109f 6:11 55 110 6:13 7 86 1061556:14 110 57 189 213f 6:15 86 7 7 8 48 83 87 57 108 9 11 150 7:4 58 234 48 278 7:5 47 215-222 41 7:6 55 196225 7:7 57 47 136 47 7:17 136 261 7:24 7:25 186 191 7:36 253 7:40 132 136 57 132 253 48 178 184 7:48 8 7:57 55 211 110 52 186 7 55 164 240 221 7:5& 173 186 7:60 110 136 259 41 263 51 54 174 8 173 185 47 71 13 39 47 8:1 109 57 177 183 8:3 136 273 8:4-40 22 41 183 231 8:4-25 222-226 201-211 23f 8:4-13 168 l98f 8:4 123 192 198 230 186 221 8:7 41 77 242 245 249 95 261 274 7 243 245 8:11 9 48 8:12 136 47 8:13 9 47 55 8:14-25 41 52 9 136 8:14 55 157 57 8:16

332 5:26

333* Acts (continued) 8:18 136 8sl9 178 8:20 280 8:25 123 136 230f 8*269:19 108 8:26-40: 285 8:29 270: 3 530 48 8:36 300 8:39 57 8*40 224 9 6 9*1 230 9:2 136 9*3 242 9:6 132: 9:11 56 248 9:12 132 288 9:18 275 9:19-30 227-229 108 226 9:20>-22 741 9*20 275 9:21 186 9:23ff 236 9:25 69 274 282 9:26 189 9:27 173 234 9:30 230 9:31 52 1 23 9*3212*1? 229-232 10*6 56 296 10:7 305 10:9 69 81 10:9-11518 41 196 10:9-16 289-293 11:13 11*14 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19-30 11:19 11:25 11:27-30 11:28 11:30 12-15 12 79 296 79 296 162 298 67 25 166 84 108f 128 109 123 229 257 151 9 238 63 2 3 7 29 41 84 128 134 221 232~271 311 12*1 205 12:2 8; 82 12*3 7 56 12:4 206 12:5-10 52f 196 12:6 205 12:7 205 297 12:8 48 55 57 75f 12:9 46 55 178 206 12:10 3; 275; 12:11 147 12:12ff 178 12*12 2 62 110f 133 220 12*13 294 12:16. 62 132

"3TT2T

10*10 10:11 10*14 10*15 10:16 10*17-23 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:22 10:23-33 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:27 10:28 10*30-32 10*32 10:34-48 10:34 10*36 10*37 10:39-43
1 0 s 4 1 3

77 199 309 147 306 69 20 41 69 297 41 40f 69 294-295 288 26 293 303 79 287 295-299 52 4 293 303 48 69 178 132 41 80 189 308 79 287 56 299-301 80 18 65 298
1 5

?f ?o
1

o ^9:32-43

2A

9:32-35 1*11 9:33 9*34 9:36-43 9:36

271 285f 272-276 173 505 39 47 69 244 259 281 276-284 52 11 175 288

l5 % } 41 196 10:44-48
10:44 10*46 10:47 10:48 11

JJ

0sAZ

25 162 95 184 308 305 24 174 269 286 300

12:18-25 12:18 12:23 12:25 lj-28

1 5

12*17

135 205 301

8 108 186 147 9 111 24 31 36 4? 61 107 32 235 gf | g 6
2 5

_ 13:f 15s2
1 5

270

I'll
9 40

f|f ,0^
7 10 75 11*3

?g^

3u

"Iw S i
s8 i l l 278

55 69

224x 305
0 , 1 - 8

11:7
3 1

ioi
10.5-6

ilp
79

isW

5 7

10 1112

i ,

69

13 *17

2*1*

J?fl
56 296

i|?j
g;g

"a ,
4

55
7 a

Acts, (continued) 13*51 47 14 171 14sl-7 52 14 s i 174 14:2 47 14:3 164 14 s 6 249 14*8 174f 14s9/10>F" 11 174 14sl4 297 14*15 174 14sl8 205 14*19-28 52 14 s 20 205 14s28 186 15 27 52 15:1 55 15:3 123 15:4 48 15s5 55 307 15*6 216; 15s7-12 308-309 15*7 251 39 269 141 164 256 57 149 47 57 111 290 Hi 111 136 136 58 197 48

19:13 19:14 19:19/21 19:23 19:25 20:1 20*: 3 20:10 20:12 20:16 20:18 20:24 20s 27 21:5 21:6 21:8

52 51 231
257 307 47 256 270 298

41

15:8 15sl2 15:14 15:20 15 s 22 15:24 15:29 15:36-41 15:37-39 15:37/38 15:39 16 s i 16:13f 16sl3 16:19 16:21/27 16s31f/ 34 296 16:36/39f 58 1784/12 135f 17:13 226 17:19 39 17:21 47 17 s 26 191 17:29 147 17:31 15 17s33 58 17:34 136 18:6 47 18:12 136 18s24ff 15 19:1 230 19:8-20) 52 19:9 47 19:11 174 19:12 77 196

308 308 228

186

270 54 107 186 190 192

48 247 55 238 249 47 233 270 47 186 57. 152 298 39 47 276 135 233 205 I33?3151 224 296 21:10 150 21:13 47 184 21:17 168 21:20 19 183 21:26/27/ 28/30 183 21:33 261 21:34 47 21:35 186 247 21:36 55 21:38 183; 21:39 186 21:40 247 22s3 19 22s4 136 22:9 242 22:18 48 23:5 17 23:6 15 23:9 276 23:10 46 23:12/14 46 23:20 55 23:21/23 46 23:27 47 23:31-35 52 54 107 24:3 57 24:6 40 181 24:7 186 24:10 270 24:18 47 57 24:21 55 24:24 136 25 52 25:8 55 25:12 48 25:13 46 25:24/25 47 26:11 48 26:15 17 26:18 242 26:19 186 26:30 48 27 232 27:9 46 27:13 40 27:14 186

334. 27:16/32 57 27:37 46 167 28:2 186 28:5-6 95 28:3 58 28:7 48 28:14f 205 28:23 48 28:31 116 Romans 1:8 28 1:16 8 1 Corinthians 6:1 196 6:19 128 15:5 123 15:6 208 2 Corin-foiana 1:10 196 3:1-3 28 ll:32f 228 13:13 128 Sal at i ana 1:13 228 1:14 19 1:16/23 228 2:7-9 257 2:12 289 300 2:13 112 Ephesians 5:14 260 6:1? 76 1 lEhessalonians l:8f 28 Colossians 4:10 9 150 1 Timothy 6:13 212 Philemon 24 9 Hebrews 2:3 65 3 John 117 1 Peter 1:2/20 161 2:7 210 3:19 258 3:22 161 4:4 182 4:17 39 5:13 62 2 Peter 1:1 256 2:15 280 3:4 260 Revelation 2:10 258 3:4 148 9:14 261 11:13 148 19:7 71 19:10 297 20:1 261 20:7 258 22:8 297

335* Early Christian Apoc. Peter 17 1 Clement 5:4 Eusebius: 3:5:2 3:39*5 3s39:9 3s39sl5 267 255 258 179 173 95 62 Gospel of Peter 14:58/60 102 Irenaeus Heresies 3:18:9 191 Origen: Contra Celsum 8:22 159

Others Demosthenes: Ep. 21:50 Euripedess Baochae 447 Herodotuss H i s t . 3:132 josephuss Ant. 15:46 Plato: Phaed* 59E GSosefta Chullin 2:22.24 186 246 196 191 250 179

Where a passage reference i n Acts includes a page number or numbers underlined Chence 3:1-11 168-187.) detailed discussion o f i n d i v i d u a l verses included i n that section are not l i s t e d above, but the reader I s r e f e r r e d to the whole passages
ffoBo

Appendicess Contents Appendix I s Word Counts i n Paragraphs o f A c t s . . . 3 1 5 Appendix 2s Word Counts i n the Western Text o f Acts517 Appendix 3s Vocabulary o f the Peter^ Sections* -321 Bibliography .324 Subject Index.. ....... 329 Index o f S c r i p t u r a l and other Passages . 3 3 0
e

00OQ00