Jerusalem or Damascus? Appendix

(Note, for parts 1-3, see below and the sidebar links; also, I have made some edits since first publishing this post.)

It is time finally to bring this (origingally) three-part series to a close. I will try to do so concisely. What remains to be discussed is Knox’s principle concerning the use of Acts for issues of Pauline biography:

“A fact only suggested in the letters has a status which even the most unequivocal statement of Acts, if not otherwise supported, cannot confer. We may, with proper caution, use Acts to supplement the autobiographical data of the letters, but never to correct them.” (John Knox, Chapters, 19)

First, regarding the second sentence, I note my complete agreement. Sometimes Luke conflicts with Paul (for instance, in the number of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem: five according to Luke, three according to Paul) and when he does, there is no question, Paul wins! (Sorry Luke.)

Second, the first sentence makes me a little nervous. Here’s why:

(1) It is true that the author of Luke-Acts sometimes mixes things up. It is true, also, that he shapes traditions in a way that betrays clear apologetic and theological tendencies (a topic for another post). Nevertheless, Luke-Acts preserves earlier sources, some of them secondary but some of them, quite likely, primary, going back to eye-witness accounts. So, the relationship between Paul and Luke is not straightforwardly that of primary to secondary source.

(2) The sentence seems insufficiently to account for Paul’s own bias or rhetorical strategies. Thus, in Galatians 1-2 it is in Paul’s interest to downplay his contact with Jerusalem, especially during the formative years of his apostolic activity. Paul is not a dispassionate observer, as reading 1 Cor 15:1-11 next to Gal 1-2 makes clear! Thus, when Knox speaks of the value of merely “suggested” facts, I worry that this may lead to reading Paul uncritically.

(3) Finally, and related to point two, we should be clear about the strength of an interpretation of Paul before contrasting it to Luke-Acts. How strong, for instance, is the argument for Damascus from Galatians 1?

For these reasons I sometimes have a problem with Knox’s method of proceeding, namely, to ask a question solely of the epistles, establishing the answer on that basis, and then judging Luke-Acts accordingly. If we force the epistles to answer questions they fail directly to address (such as the place of Paul’s persecution) or we overlook Paul's own purposes in writing, we run the risk of being misled and overlooking potentially valuable source material in Luke-Acts.

(Nota bene: Knox’s book, Chapters in a Life of Paul, deals with much more than biographical issues in the study of Paul. He has several chapters on Pauline theology well worth reading. Also, I should note my debt to Rainer Riesner's magisterial work, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, pp. 29-30. Before writing this post I discovered his evaluation of the same issue and found that he was making the same points I had intended to make; his influence is present in this post in various ways.)