I'm now working on a paper that's due on Friday. I've chosen the topic of the temple in Acts and Stephen's speech, in particular.
Here's the thesis I'm playing with. I may yet scrap or revise it, but after an admittedly brief survey of the evidence, this is what I see happening.
The author of Luke-Acts achieves a delicate balance between the affirmation of the temple and its establishment as something legitimated or permitted by God as well as the subtle delimitation of its purpose and critique of human attempts to restrict God’s freedom to reveal himself to all people at any location.
Sorry, I'm not providing much evidence to back up the claim right now. I don't have the time to develop it all here. But see, of course, the temple in Stephen's speech but also reflect on what's happening in the healing of the lame man in Acts 3 as well as the cleansing of the Gentiles (10; 14.27; 15.1-21) and then Paul's altercation in the temple (21.27-30).
(Comments are welcome, and I'll respond if time permits.)
As a footnote, I find similar themes and dynamics in the depiction of synagogues in Luke-Acts.
Showing posts with label Luke-Acts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke-Acts. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Nazareth-Pisidian Antioch Pattern and the Synagogue in Luke-Acts
I'm in the midst of writing term papers. One of them looks at the synagogue in Luke-Acts. Here's a taste of what I'm arguing:
The two most vivid depictions of a synagogue service in the New Testament occur at Nazareth and Pisidian Antioch, and they are both found in Luke-Acts. This fact alone suggests that they be considered together. But the narrative itself signals the coherence of the two episodes by numerous correspondences within and surrounding them.[1]
The course of events of Paul’s formal inaugeration into the diaspora mission imitate those at the beginning of Jesus’ mission. Jesus is baptized and receives the Holy Spirit (Luke 3.21-22); Paul, too, is commissioned by the Spirit (Acts 13.2-3). Jesus confronts and overcomes demonic forces (Luke 4.1-13); Paul confronts and bests demonic forces (Acts 13.4-12). Jesus enters Nazareth (Luke 4.16ff); and Paul enters Antioch (Acts 13.13-14).
At these locales, the mimesis becomes even more specific. Both Jesus and Paul enter a synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4.16; Acts 13.13), and the Scriptures are read (Luke 4.17-19; Acts 13.15) between notices concerning the different postures of the principle character (ἀνέστη . . . ἐκάθισεν, Luke 4.17 and 20; ἐκάθισεν . . . ἀναστάς, Acts 13.14 and 16).[2] The first extended proclamations of Jesus and Paul follow (Luke 4.21-27; Acts 13.16-41). Throughout both scenes the central themes are promise and fulfillment (Luke 4.21; Acts 13.17, 23-26, 32-37). Both Jesus and Paul, in different ways, anticipate the outcome of their sermons in ways that unmask the initial response of their audience (Luke 4.23-24; Acts 13.40-41). This initial response to Jesus' and Paul's words (λόγοι) is positive (Luke 4.22; Acts 13.42-43), but the final outcome is their forcible rejection (ἐξέβαλον) from the respective regions (Luke 4.28-30; 13.50). The “middle-term,” as it were, between the contrasting responses concerns non-Jews as exceptional beneficiaries of God’s salvific intentions (Luke 4.25-27; Acts 13.45).
The core of this pattern (proclamation--favourable response--rejection) gets played out, with variations but few exceptions, in Paul's diaspora mission in the synagogues.
This patterning of the narrative seems designed to reveal the importance of Israel’s response to God’s universal saving action, already anticipated in the narrative in Luke (2.32; 3.6), but postponed until the promise of the Spirit is poured out (Luke 24.46-49) in Acts.
I try to demonstrate in my paper that the setting--the synagogue--is key to interpreting these episodes and that they provide the normative motifs in which Paul's mission to synagogues should be read.
[1] These sets of correspondences are partially indebted to L.T. Johnson, Acts, 236-237 and R. C. Tannehill, Unity, 2.172.
[2] Some of the differences in the way the two scenes play out (Jesus reads from the scrolls, Paul listens) can be attributed to the fact that Jesus was recognized as a native of the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4.16), while Paul and Barnabas were guests (Acts 13.15); this does not explain the curious reversal in standing and sitting, however.
The two most vivid depictions of a synagogue service in the New Testament occur at Nazareth and Pisidian Antioch, and they are both found in Luke-Acts. This fact alone suggests that they be considered together. But the narrative itself signals the coherence of the two episodes by numerous correspondences within and surrounding them.[1]
The course of events of Paul’s formal inaugeration into the diaspora mission imitate those at the beginning of Jesus’ mission. Jesus is baptized and receives the Holy Spirit (Luke 3.21-22); Paul, too, is commissioned by the Spirit (Acts 13.2-3). Jesus confronts and overcomes demonic forces (Luke 4.1-13); Paul confronts and bests demonic forces (Acts 13.4-12). Jesus enters Nazareth (Luke 4.16ff); and Paul enters Antioch (Acts 13.13-14).
At these locales, the mimesis becomes even more specific. Both Jesus and Paul enter a synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4.16; Acts 13.13), and the Scriptures are read (Luke 4.17-19; Acts 13.15) between notices concerning the different postures of the principle character (ἀνέστη . . . ἐκάθισεν, Luke 4.17 and 20; ἐκάθισεν . . . ἀναστάς, Acts 13.14 and 16).[2] The first extended proclamations of Jesus and Paul follow (Luke 4.21-27; Acts 13.16-41). Throughout both scenes the central themes are promise and fulfillment (Luke 4.21; Acts 13.17, 23-26, 32-37). Both Jesus and Paul, in different ways, anticipate the outcome of their sermons in ways that unmask the initial response of their audience (Luke 4.23-24; Acts 13.40-41). This initial response to Jesus' and Paul's words (λόγοι) is positive (Luke 4.22; Acts 13.42-43), but the final outcome is their forcible rejection (ἐξέβαλον) from the respective regions (Luke 4.28-30; 13.50). The “middle-term,” as it were, between the contrasting responses concerns non-Jews as exceptional beneficiaries of God’s salvific intentions (Luke 4.25-27; Acts 13.45).
The core of this pattern (proclamation--favourable response--rejection) gets played out, with variations but few exceptions, in Paul's diaspora mission in the synagogues.
This patterning of the narrative seems designed to reveal the importance of Israel’s response to God’s universal saving action, already anticipated in the narrative in Luke (2.32; 3.6), but postponed until the promise of the Spirit is poured out (Luke 24.46-49) in Acts.
I try to demonstrate in my paper that the setting--the synagogue--is key to interpreting these episodes and that they provide the normative motifs in which Paul's mission to synagogues should be read.
[1] These sets of correspondences are partially indebted to L.T. Johnson, Acts, 236-237 and R. C. Tannehill, Unity, 2.172.
[2] Some of the differences in the way the two scenes play out (Jesus reads from the scrolls, Paul listens) can be attributed to the fact that Jesus was recognized as a native of the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4.16), while Paul and Barnabas were guests (Acts 13.15); this does not explain the curious reversal in standing and sitting, however.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Acts 6.1 Again: Refining the Argument
“Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.” Acts 6:1
Below I argued that scholars such as Martin Hengel seem justified in attributing some special significance to the Hellenist Christians in relation to their “Hebrew” counterparts. There is evidence to the effect that there was an ideological distinction between them, but just what that was is not perfectly clear.
Here I want to refine one of the points I made earlier. In reference to Acts 6.1, I asked “why should Luke introduce such a disruptive episode into his ideal picture,” the thought being that Luke was working with traditional material that did not fit well into the narrative, perhaps indicating the author's attempt to provide an explanation for some faint or distant memory. Thus one could feel justified in suspecting that there is more here than meets the eye.
The more I think of this line of argument the less happy I am with it. I also now recall reading someone (perhaps Craig C. Hill or Todd Penner) make the point that the episode is not so disruptive, especially coming on the heels, as it does, of Ananias and Sapphira. It, in fact, allows Luke to show the church responding to and overcoming a potential rift (a similar thing happens in Acts 15), and it has a positive and familiar outcome in terms of the growth of the community (6.7; cf. 2.47; 5.14). In this sense, there may be nothing unusual or awkward about this episode in Luke’s overall narrative.
The better way to make the argument is that the way the narrative develops (and here there are some anomalies in the text) suggests that this episode of grumbling in the community may be indicative or representative of other tensions or differences between the two kinds of early believers in Christ.
I should perhaps also stress that the evidence does not require us to posit two groups in open conflict. Luke shows these believers working together—the Hellenists in subordination to the twelve—and there seems to be no reason to doubt that. His narrative also intimates some differences between them (beside the basic linguistic difference), and there seems to be no reason to doubt that either.
Below I argued that scholars such as Martin Hengel seem justified in attributing some special significance to the Hellenist Christians in relation to their “Hebrew” counterparts. There is evidence to the effect that there was an ideological distinction between them, but just what that was is not perfectly clear.
Here I want to refine one of the points I made earlier. In reference to Acts 6.1, I asked “why should Luke introduce such a disruptive episode into his ideal picture,” the thought being that Luke was working with traditional material that did not fit well into the narrative, perhaps indicating the author's attempt to provide an explanation for some faint or distant memory. Thus one could feel justified in suspecting that there is more here than meets the eye.
The more I think of this line of argument the less happy I am with it. I also now recall reading someone (perhaps Craig C. Hill or Todd Penner) make the point that the episode is not so disruptive, especially coming on the heels, as it does, of Ananias and Sapphira. It, in fact, allows Luke to show the church responding to and overcoming a potential rift (a similar thing happens in Acts 15), and it has a positive and familiar outcome in terms of the growth of the community (6.7; cf. 2.47; 5.14). In this sense, there may be nothing unusual or awkward about this episode in Luke’s overall narrative.
The better way to make the argument is that the way the narrative develops (and here there are some anomalies in the text) suggests that this episode of grumbling in the community may be indicative or representative of other tensions or differences between the two kinds of early believers in Christ.
I should perhaps also stress that the evidence does not require us to posit two groups in open conflict. Luke shows these believers working together—the Hellenists in subordination to the twelve—and there seems to be no reason to doubt that. His narrative also intimates some differences between them (beside the basic linguistic difference), and there seems to be no reason to doubt that either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)