The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (86 page)

²⁹
Pervo,
Profit with Delight
, 3.

³⁰
Fitzmyer,
Acts
, 124.

³¹
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 108–58.

³²
These and other examples can be found under the headings “Common Knowledge” and “Specialized Knowledge” in Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 107–8.

³³
A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963).

³⁴
Josephus wrote, “During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea [c. AD 44], a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River” (
Ant.
20.97). But Fadus would have none of it, and Theudas was captured and his head cut off .

³⁵
While Gamaliel's summation is brief, there are some differences. For example, Gamaliel said that Theudas gathered an army of 400 men, while Josephus referred to “the majority of the masses.”

³⁶
K. F. Nögren (
Commentar über die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas
[Leipzig: Dörfling und Franke, 1882], 147) noted that Josephus related four Simons in a 40-year time span, and three men named Judas in a 10-year span, who each led a rebellion. Cf. Josephus,
Ant.
17.269: “Now, at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults.” According to
Ant.
17.285, this state lasted a long time.

³⁷
The account is found in Josephus,
Jewish War
2.261–63;
Ant.
20.169–72. See P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets, A.D. 40–70—Their Intentions and Origin,”
NTS
27 (1981): 679–97.

³⁸
Polhill,
Acts
, 455, notes that it has been suggested that a scribal error accounts for Josephus's inflation. The uncial D (4 in Greek) was accidentally replaced by a L (30 in Greek).

³⁹
C. K. Barrett (“The Historicity of Acts,”
JTS
50 [1999]: 525) stated, “The accurate accounts of the working of Greek cities cannot prove that Luke's main plot is not wholly or in part fictitious.”

⁴⁰
Fitzmyer,
Acts
, 127.

⁴¹
W. W. Gasque,
History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 20.

⁴²
J. J. Scott Jr. (“Stephen's Defense and the World Mission of the People of God,”
JETS
21 [1978]: 172) noted regarding Stephen, “His speech employs literary forms, ideas and emphases that suggest the influence of a culture other than that of OT Judaism.” Cf. B. Gärtner,
The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation
(Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1955), 27.

⁴³
See Witherington,
Acts
, 518.

⁴⁴
J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,”
NTS
14 (1967–68): 96–111.

⁴⁵
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 420.

⁴⁶
Fitzmyer,
Acts
, 107. The list is limited to “Missionary and Evangelizing Speeches” (excluding apologies) and includes items such as “Direct Address” and “Appeal for Attention” that ostensibly any impromptu speech would have, as well as items such as “Christological-theological Kerygma.”

⁴⁷
Witherington,
Acts
, 40.

⁴⁸
Ibid., 41, citing H. F. North, “Rhetoric and Historiography,”
Quarterly Journal of Speech
42 (1956): 242.

⁴⁹
Witherington,
Acts
, 41.

⁵⁰
Ibid., 43. Polybius stated that the “whole genus of orations…may be regarded as summaries of events and as the unifying element in historical writing” (
Hist.
12.25a-b; see 36.1).

⁵¹
Witherington,
Acts
, 46. Thucydides is often cited at this point by both sides of the argument. He stated, “As to the speeches that were made by different men…, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regard that which I myself hear, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said” (
War
1.22). The troublesome issue comes when Thucydides is interpreted as saying that he gave what his subjects
ought
to have said. Witherington observed that he should be interpreted as noting what it seems likely that they said (ibid., 47).

⁵²
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 424.

⁵³
W. Lane,
The Gospel of Mark
, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 10–11.

⁵⁴
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 425. See also the word
chairein
(“greetings”) in Acts 15:23 and Jas 1:1.

⁵⁵
Witherington,
Acts
, 439.

⁵⁶
Barrett, “Historicity,” 530.

⁵⁷
See the discussion of the date of Galatians in chap. 10 below.

⁵⁸
Blomberg,
From Pentecost to Patmos
, 53.

⁵⁹
See the discussion of Philosophical Foundations of Modern Gospels Study in chap. 3 above (including bibliographic references). See “Chapter 3: Miracles” in C. L. Blomberg,
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007).

⁶⁰
W. Ramsay,
The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), 89.

⁶¹
E.g., F. Schleiermacher,
Einleitung ins Neue Testament
, in
Friedrich Schleiermacher's Sämtliche Werke
, ed. G. Wolde, div. 1, vol. 8 (Berlin: Reimer, 1834–1864), 360. According to Meyer, Schleiermacher held that Luke simply strung together other written documents. See H. A. W. Meyer,
Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles
, 2d ed., trans. P. J. Gloag (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 9.

⁶²
von Harnack,
Acts of the Apostles
, 162. von Harnack based this on apparent doublets in the narrative in Acts 1–15, that is, two Petrine sermons, two arrests, two defenses before the Sanhedrin, two estimates of converts, and two accounts of the community sharing all things. But Bruce showed that this is unnecessary (
Acts
, 23).

⁶³
R. E. Brown (
An Introduction to the New Testament
[New York: Doubleday, 1997], 317) contended that today this source is probably the most widely held.

⁶⁴
Dibelius,
Studies in the Acts of the Apostles
, 126. Dibelius's work largely ended the quest for solely written sources for Acts, preferring to describe Luke as a creative author (Neil,
Acts
, 24).

⁶⁵
Haenchen,
Acts
, 86.

⁶⁶
Fitzmyer,
Acts
, 85–88.

⁶⁷
See the discussion of the authorship of Luke's Gospel in chap. 6 above.

⁶⁸
Since he was strongly connected to the Sanhedrin, Paul could even have been the source for speeches and events at which it was impossible for Luke or the early Christians to be present, such as the speech of Gamaliel given to the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:35–39) or Stephen's speech and stoning (Acts 7).

⁶⁹
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 351. Cf. S. J. Kistemaker's treatment that shows that Peter and Paul spoke in terms familiar to the Peter and Paul known outside of Acts but not available to Luke at the time of writing (
An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 9–12).

⁷⁰
Hemer,
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
, 356–62.

⁷¹
Commentators outline the book in slightly different ways. Table 8.2 reproduces in simplified form the outlines by Bruce,
Acts
, vii–xiv; and D. L. Bock,
Acts
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), vii–viii. For other outlines see Marshall,
Acts
, 51–54; J. R. W. Stott,
The Spirit, the Church, and the World: The Message of Acts
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 3–4; and Larkin,
Acts
, 34–36.

⁷²
A few of the headings in the outline below are borrowed from the useful book by H. A. Kent Jr.,
Jerusalem to Rome: Studies in Acts
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 7.

⁷³
The following concerns can be raised: (1) Jesus' command was for the apostles to wait until the giving of the Spirit; Peter's initiative to replace Judas appears to violate that command; (2) casting lots is an OT mode of decision-making, hardly normative for NT times; (3) Matthias is not heard of again in the narrative of Acts subsequent to his selection; (4) instead, Luke narrated Christ's selection of Paul in Acts 9, apparently as the twelfth apostle and replacement of Judas (though this point is not explicitly made); (5) Peter and the other apostles did not possess the Holy Spirit at this point prior to the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost; (6) Peter's quotation of two OT passages in Acts 2:20 is somewhat doubtful proof of the disciples' need to choose a replacement for Judas.

⁷⁴
This is implied by the force of the word “and” (
kai
) in v. 19.

⁷⁵
See the essays in “Part I: The Salvation of God” in
Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts
, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). D. Peterson (ibid., 523) speaks of the “centrality of salvation theology” in Luke-Acts.

⁷⁶
As proposed by H. Conzelmann,
The Theology of St. Luke
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961), 137–69.

⁷⁷
See F. Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 113–14.

⁷⁸
A. J. Köstenberger and P. T. O'Brien,
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth
, NSBT 11 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.

⁷⁹
All but two of the citations are in chaps. 1–15. The last two instances are in 23:5 and 28:26–27.

⁸⁰
See J. T. Sanders,
The Jews in Luke-Acts
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

⁸¹
Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 133.

⁸²
A few times in Acts the Lord Jesus himself appears and communicates (1:4–8; 7:56; 9:1–18; and 23:11), although these occasions can hardly be separated from the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

⁸³
Although Luke clearly understood that the Spirit was involved in the writing of the OT (e.g., some OT passages are identified as having come through the Holy Spirit: 1:16; 4:25–26; 28:25), the reception of the Spirit is clearly something eschatological.

⁸⁴
This is a far cry from Conzelmann's understanding that Jesus was the “middle of time.” Luke's presentation of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is not an eschatological correction of inaccurate prophecy but an integral part of God's plan.

⁸⁵
See the fine treatment in Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 123–24.

CHAPTER 9

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should be able to list several of Paul's quotations of and allusions to Jesus' teachings. They should be prepared to describe the three major historic views with regard to Paul and the law including Scholasticism, Lutheranism, and the New Perspective. They should know the major dates associated with Paul's life, including his conversion, missionary journeys, imprisonments, and death.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to provide evidence to refute the claim that Paul was disinterested in the historical Jesus. They should be able to explain the three major challenges to Sanders's description of the Jewish view of salvation in the first century. They should know the approximate dates and occasions of each of Paul's letters.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to give a brief overview of the history of the debate over the relationship of Paul's theology to Jesus' teaching. They should be able to describe the adaptations of the “New Perspective on Paul” by J. D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright. Finally, they should be prepared to identify and explain important references outside of the Bible that aid in establishing a Pauline chronology.