The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (81 page)

Regarding the first objection, B. Witherington III noted that in the matters of ancient historians and source materials, “there was no
convention
that ancient historians were free to create speeches.”
⁴⁷
Ancient historians were highly influenced by rhetorical conventions but not to the detriment of accuracy, so they had two concerns: “fidelity to the truth and perfection of style.”
⁴⁸
Ancient historians fell into a continuum between those who elevated oratorical style and those who were less so inclined.
⁴⁹
Those on the latter end of the continuum were less likely to manipulate speeches for oratorical flavor. Studies in Luke's style show that he is no Atticizer, writing in rhetorical flourishers, but more in line with writers of serious Hellenistic history (especially Polybius).
⁵⁰
He therefore falls on the latter end of the continuum as one less inclined to create oratorical compositions with his speeches.

Witherington also noted that the speeches in Acts show some disjunction with Hellenistic historical works such as those by Thucydides. To begin with, the speeches in Acts are considerably shorter, which diminishes the possibility that Luke used a speech to impress
his readers with his own oratorical skill. Also, the speeches in Acts are grounded more strongly in their historical setting than the speeches in Thucydides's works. Finally, the speeches in Acts do not comment on the events; they are the events—proclamations of the word of God.
⁵¹

Regarding the second objection, the unity of style is conceded by all. But this can also be seen in Luke's Gospel when Luke cited his source. The fact that Luke stamped his sources with his own style in no way undermines the view that the speeches are summaries of what was actually said.

The third objection is based on a continuity of content across the speeches, something Hemer shows “is clearly not the case.”
⁵²
To be sure, Psalm 16 is cited twice by different people as a messianic proof text, but Peter was less refined than Paul in his usage. The speeches also show a remarkable suitability to their own context. For example, Paul cited a Stoic philosopher (Epimenides) when dealing with the Stoics (Acts 17:28).

One should also include certain verbal affinities that point away from Lukan free compositions. Peter's speeches have certain vocabulary words that occur in 1 Peter. One example is the use of “tree” (Gk.
xylon
) for the cross (see Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Pet 2:24). It should also be noted that Peter's outline of the ministry of Jesus is remarkably similar to that found in the Gospel of Mark (Acts 10:36–41; ostensibly based on Peter's preaching).
⁵³
Finally, Paul's “Miletus speech is widely conceded to contain Pauline characteristics” (Acts 20:18–35).
⁵⁴

Therefore, no real reason to doubt the accuracy of Luke's speeches exists if these are understood as reliable summaries of real speeches. Whatever redaction Luke performed does not seem to have robbed the speeches of their situation in history or of the substance of what was said. If, then, the speeches most likely are not free compositions of Luke, it is also less probable that the story line is invented.

The Jerusalem Council
Another important matter pertaining to Luke's accuracy is the reporting of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Not only is the event central to the theological message of the book, but how one interprets it also bears heavily on how Luke has composed his book. As Witherington observed, “It raises all the key questions of what
Luke's relationship to Paul was, what the relationship is between Acts 15 and Galatians 2, and therefore what sort of history Luke is writing.”
⁵⁵

A number of scholars see problems in Acts 15. They allege that the problem of Gentile inclusion apparently was not solved after the council (as seen in Galatians). They also contend that Paul never mentioned the decree later on in the book, and they object that he would not have liked it. Their solution is to propose a conflation of meetings from an Antiochene source. At first, Paul was present and in agreement with the conclusion to continue the Gentile mission. At a later meeting, a new law was imposed on the Gentiles, something to which Paul never would have agreed.
⁵⁶
Thus, conceiving of the speeches as free compositions is an integral part of “solving” an apparent incongruity.

But each of these objections is based on debatable antecedent judgments. The theory that the speeches were free compositions has already been critiqued. The assumption that Galatians 2 chronicles (at least in part) Acts 15 is debated and unlikely as well. It is more probable that Galatians 2 refers to the famine relief visit of Acts 11:30.
⁵⁷
Thus Paul did not mention the results of the decree in Galatians because the Jerusalem Council had not yet taken place. As for the theory that the decree imposed a new law on Gentile believers, Blomberg noted, “When the council writes its letter to believers in Antioch and nearby regions explaining their decision (vv. 22–29), it concludes simply by stating, ‘you will do well to avoid these things’ (v. 29), hardly a way to refer to mandatory legislation.”
⁵⁸
Thus a hypothetical conflation theory is not necessary to explain the phenomenon of the Jerusalem Council.

Miracles in Acts
There is no doubt that the most problematic area for some regarding the veracity of Acts is the miraculous elements in the book. Indeed, the book features some astonishing miracles, such as healings of men lame from birth (3:1–10; 14:8–10); Peter's repeated angelic deliverances from prison (5:19–20; 12:6–11; cf. the violent earthquake in 16:26); Philip being carried away by the Spirit of the Lord from the Ethiopian's presence (8:39–40); Paul's vision of the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus (9:3–9); Peter healing a paralyzed man named Aeneas (9:33–34); Peter raising Dorcas from the dead (9:36–41); visions by Cornelius and Peter (10:3–16); Paul striking Elymas the sorcerer with blindness (13:9–11); God speaking directly to Paul in his Macedonian vision, in Corinth, and in Jerusalem (16:9–10; 18:9–10; 23:11); and Paul raising young Eutychus from the dead (20:8–12). Perhaps among the more astonishing feats recorded is the following: “God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul's hands, so that even face-cloths or work aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, and the diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them” (19:11–12; see also 5:12–16).

SIDEBAR 8.1: TEXTUAL ISSUES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

Textual critics distinguish four basic text types of the NT that were handed down to us: Alexandrian, Caesarean, Byzantine, and Western. The so-called Western text is generally regarded as secondary and unremarkable until one arrives at the book of Acts, where it is about 8.5 percent longer than the established text. A comparison of a typical Alexandrian edition with a Western edition results in a difference of 1,582 words. A similar comparison between the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine and Eclectic text indicates that only 222 words are different, an approximate 2 percent difference in length (i.e., about twice as many words as in the present paragraph).
¹

The Western text of Acts tends to smooth out grammatical “difficulties,” clarifies ambiguous points, expands references to Christ, and adds notes of historical details at unprecedented levels.
²
Some examples will suffice to show the flavor of these readings. At Acts 11:28, Luke is identified as a native of Antioch (employing a first-person plural, constituting this as a “we” passage). At Acts 19:9, Paul rented the school of Tyrannus of Ephesus “from the fifth hour to the tenth” (i.e., 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.). At Acts 15:20,29, the Western text omits “things that are strangled” and adds “and not to do to others what they would not like to be done to themselves” at the end of the apostolic decree. Many other similar changes occur throughout Acts.

That the Western text adds historical details is the most interesting, and ultimately the most valuable, phenomenon. While not Scripture, these notes may preserve ancient understandings. Where did these additions come from? Some say from Luke himself;
³
others name an early reviser (before 150);
⁴
yet others propose a later revision.
⁵
Ultimately, very little of these readings can be considered original. In the ultimate analysis, these additions may give more insight into a single scribe's practice than they add any significant historical information.
⁶

__________________________

¹
The figures for a comparison between the Alexandrian and Western are from E G. Kenyon,
The Western Text in theGospels and Acts
, Proceedings of the British Academy 24 (London: H. Milford, 1938), 26, cited in B. M. Metzger,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
, 2ded. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 223.

²
Metzger's textual commentary on Acts comprises nearly a third of the book, due mainly to discussions of the Western text type. For a nice but rather brief discussion, see Haenchen,
Acts
, 50–60.

³
This is the opinion of F Blass,
Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter edition philologica
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895). He viewed the Western text as an earlier draft of the book, as did T. Zahn,
Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas
(Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1916). Although criticized early, the theory has had some new breath breathed into it by M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille,
Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et Réhabilitation
, 2 vols. (Synthèse 17; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984). Their view that the Western recension of Acts shows Lukan style traits has been adequately critiqued by T C. Geer Jr., “The presence and significance of Lucanisms in the ‘Western’ text of Acts,”
JSNT
39 (1990): 59–76.

⁴
See J. H. Ropes,
The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I the Acts of the Apostles
, ed. E J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake,
Vol. TTT: The Text of Acts
(London: Macmillan, 1926), ccxliv–ccxlvi.

⁵
B. Aland, “Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. Westlichen Textes untersucht an der Apostelgeschichte,”
ETL
62 (1986): 5–65.

⁶
For recent discussions of the Western text of Acts see T Nicklas and M. Tilly, eds.,
The Book of Acts as Church History
, BZNW 120 (New York: W. de Gruyter, 2003); and P. M. Head, “Acts and the Problem of Its Texts,” in
The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting
, vol. 1:
Ancient Literary Setting
, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 415-44.

Are these accounts of astonishing miracles performed by the apostles and other supernatural manifestations credible, or should these be regarded as reflections of an outmoded, superstitious frame of mind? To some, the existence of these references as part of a historical narrative is unacceptable. But the heart of the issue is not historical; it is a matter of philosophical and theological presuppositions.
⁵⁹
Those who reject divine intervention reject the veracity of the miracles; those who accept divine intervention have no problems with these events. The more moderate commentators leave them in the category of “unprovable.” It should be affirmed, however, that in light of Luke's proven credibility elsewhere, there seems to be no good reason to doubt his reliability with regard to the supernatural events mentioned above, especially since post-Enlightenment skepticism regarding the possibility of miracles and God's supernatural intervention in human affairs has itself been shown to be of doubtful merit.

Conclusion
Ultimately, there is no substantial reason to doubt Luke's accuracy on empirical grounds. Where sources are available, Luke's information is shown to be reliable. Unlike in his Gospel where Luke relied on the account of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:3), Luke himself was an eyewitness to a substantial part of Paul's missionary travels in the book of Acts. This assumes that the “we passages” indicate Luke's participation in these portions of the narrative. In light of Luke's proven reliability where this is borne out by the available sources, it seems reasonable to hold him innocent until proven guilty where his information cannot be currently corroborated by extant extrabiblical material. As W. Ramsay stated, “You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and justice.”
⁶⁰

The Sources of Acts

Arising from the scholarly quests for the historical Jesus, where everything must have a written source of some kind, Luke's sources for writing Acts have been a field of inquiry as well.
⁶¹
This kind of procedure is the next logical step once one rejects the notion that the writer was a follower of Paul. Hypothetical sources include a “Jerusalem A and B source,”
⁶²
“an Antiochene Source,”
⁶³
and a “travel diary/itinerary.”
⁶⁴
Haenchen left open the possibility that Luke traveled to the great Pauline centers gathering information from local sources.
⁶⁵
Fitzmyer is representative of much of mainstream scholarship on the issue. He posited a Palestinian source (generally chronicling Peter's activities); an Antiochene source (Stephen, Gentile inclusion issues, the Dispersion, and the Jerusalem Council); a “we” sections source; and a Pauline source (encompassing Paul's conversion and activities).
⁶⁶
Much of this is conjecture based on the research of someone—not a follower of Paul—who wrote a generation after the death of Paul, a theory critiqued above.

So what kind of sources can be postulated for Acts? Acts 16–28 is dominated by the “we” passages, and this is best explained as discussed above under the authorship of the Gospel of Luke. This section reflects either (1) the reminiscences of the author; or (2) a diary, of sorts, of the author. The greater details in the latter part of the book point to recent events and more than likely to the first option.
⁶⁷
For the events outside of the “we” passages in the second half of Acts, one needs to look no further than Luke's personal acquaintance with Paul himself.
⁶⁸