Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 2002

8/20/2019 Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 2002

1/87


2/87

The Père Marquette

Lecture in Theology

2002

Septuagintal Midrash

in the

Speeches of Acts

Luke Timothy Johnson


3/87

© 2002

Marquette University Press

Milwaukee WI 53201-3141 All rights reserved.

Manufactured in the United States of America Member, Association of American University Presses

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Johnson, Luke Timothy.

Septuagintal midrash in the speeches of Acts / Luke Timothy Johnson. p. cm. — (The Père Marquette lecture in theology ; 2002)Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87462-582-3 (alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. Acts—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible.N.T. Acts—Theology. 3. Midrash I. Title. II. Series. BS2625.2 .J625 2002 226.6'066—dc21 2002001924


4/87

Foreword

The annual Père Marquette Lecture in Theology commemorates the missions and explorations of Père Jacques Marquette, S.J. (1637-75). The 2002lecture is the thirty-third in the series begun in 1969under the auspices of the Marquette University Department of Theology.

The Joseph A. Auchter Family Endowment Fundhas endowed the lecture series. Joseph Auchter (1894-1986), a native of Milwaukee, was a banking andpaper industry executive and a long-term supporterof education. The fund was established by his chil-dren as a memorial to him.

Luke Timothy Johnson

A native of Park Falls has returned to the state of hisbirth to give our Père Marquette Lecture for 2002.Professor Johnson has come to us from the CandlerSchool of Theology at Emory University, where heis the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testa-ment and Christian Origins. He has built his distin-guished career on the effort to interpret the Bible asa living resource given by God to the Church, aneffort that has borne an amazingly rich and variedharvest of reflection on the New Testament and the

origins of the Christian movement.In 1966, Professor Johnson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Notre Dame Semi-nary in New Orleans, Louisiana. He went on to earn


5/87

iv Luke Timothy Johnson

his Masters of Divinity from Indiana’s St. MeinradSchool of Theology in 1970 and, in the same year,

his Masters of Arts in religious studies from Indiana University. Six years later, Yale University awardedProfessor Johnson his Ph.D. in New Testament,after he had completed a now published and influ-ential dissertation entitled The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts . In the meantime, he hadalready begun his teaching career, having lectured atSt. Meinrad during his last year of study there, thenext year at St. Joseph Seminary College, and atGonzaga College in the summer of 1973. Uponfinishing his degree at Yale Divinity, Professor Johnson became an assistant and then associateprofessor there. In 1982, he moved to Indiana

University, where he became a full professor in1988. Since 1992, he has occupied his current chairat Emory.

Along the way, many have recognized and re- warded Professor Johnson’s scholarship and teach-ing. The Lilly Endowment awarded him threeresearch grants in the mid 1980s, allowing him to

pursue his work on the contemporary use of the New Testament. Phi Beta Kappa selected Professor Johnson as a visiting scholar for 1997-98, and lastyear he was a Henry Luce III Fellow in Theology.His two-year term as Senior Fellow of the Interdis-ciplinary Center for the Study of Religion at Emory will expire in 2003. Over the years, Professor Johnson

has received awards for his distinguished teaching from the students and administration of Indiana University, from the National University Continu-ing Education Association, and twice each from the


6/87

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts v

Candler School of Theology and Phi Beta Kappa’sEmory Chapter. In 1999, Marquette’s neighbors at

Nashota House awarded him the Doctor of Divinity honoris causa .

The word prolific hardly does justice to Professor Johnson’s scholarly output. Since 1969, he hasauthored twenty books (including The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conver-sation, co-authored with Marquette’s own WilliamKurz, S.J., and soon to be published by Eerdmans).He has written thirty-one scholarly articles andtwenty-five encyclopedia articles, and reviewed 150books. His work as editor of Teaching Religion toUndergraduates: Some Approaches and Ideas fromTeachers to Teachers (1973) bore witness early on to

what would prove an enduring interest in pedagogy.But the scholarly community knows Professor Johnson best for his exegetical works on the New Testament. Since 1991, he has published two com-mentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and one each on James, Romans, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.He saw the Korean translation of his preaching

guide to the Pastoral Epistles come out in 1999.These works developed as the natural fruit of reflec-tions represented by many articles and book reviewsProfessor Johnson has been writing on the exegesisof these parts of the New Testament since the early seventies.

But because his intellect can not find complete

satisfaction in the necessarily narrow focus of thecommentary form, he has since the early eightiesconsistently produced works of New Testamentexegesis with what one might call a wide-angle lens.


7/87

vi Luke Timothy Johnson

The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretationcame out in American and English editions in 1986,

was revised twelve years later, and came out inKorean in 2000. Professor Johnson has writtenarticles on the authority and literary diversity of theNew Testament books, as well as on the New Testament concepts of God, salvation, witness, andproselytism and on the anti-Jewish rhetoric in theNew Testament. He wrote ‘Imagining the WorldScripture Imagines,’ a 1998 article in Modern Theol-ogy which L. G. Jones and J. J. Buckley also includedin their volume Theology and Scriptural Imagination,published that same year. Professor Johnson’s articleon the status of the Jewish Bible after the Holocaust will appear in the forthcoming Reading the New

Testament after the Holocaust.Since 1995, this interest in the larger issues of New Testament interpretation has led Professor Johnsonto participate in the heated public controversy overthe respective roles of historical inquiry and of theChurch’s faith in learning who Jesus really was and what he really said and did. He has presented his

positions to the literate general public in Bible Review, Commonweal, The Christian Century, andother such organs. At the same time, he has devel-oped his scholarly case in articles and books, mostnotably The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (1996) and Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of

the Gospels (1998). Forthcoming articles and a book will testify to his continuing interest in the way various methods of interpretation can contribute tothe renewal of biblical scholarship.


8/87

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts vii

His hope for that renewal comes from a deepmotivation visible to anyone who reviews Professor

Johnson’s energetic and fruitful career. Since 1977,he has spoken to church congregations, bishops’meetings, and academic gatherings in at least twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia, in Bangkok, Winnipeg, in Windsor, Ontario, in Dublin andOxford. His scholarship, as well as popular articlesand lectures and his encyclopedia contributions,have all focused on making available to today’sreaders the Bible’s spiritual power to move and guidepeople toward the God of Jesus Christ. MarquetteUniversity’s Department of Theology is confidentthat Professor Johnson’s reflections will help those who hear or read them to give greater honor and

glory to that same God.

Joseph G. Mueller, S.J.Feast of the Annunciation


9/87


10/87

Septuagintal Midrash in

the Speeches of Acts

The longest and literarily most self-conscious of early Christian compositions is the two-volume work made up of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, now universally known as Luke-Acts.1

It takes up a full quarter of the New Testamentcanon, and represents Christianity’s deliberate entry

into the literary discourse of the Hellenistic world. Although some scholars still argue for the separationof the two volumes,2 most correctly consider themnot only the work of the same author but twointerrelated parts of a single literary endeavor. Thefull consequences of that judgment for interpreta-tion, however, are less seldom realized.3

The importance of Luke-Acts for anyone wishing to come to grips with the most successful of Jewishheresies ought to be obvious. Luke has provided theonly narrative framework for the earliest stages of theChristian movement, a narrative that in its oddcombination of verifiable information and fictionalshaping resists easy reduction to any single genre

from antiquity. A claim can reasonably be made thatthe second volume resembles a Hellenistic novel,though the same can scarcely be said of the Gospel.4

An argument can also be mounted that the two


11/87

2 Luke Timothy Johnson

volumes together approximate certain forms of Hellenistic biography, the sort that tells of a philo-

sophical founder (Jesus) and his school (the apostles),though that definition leaves out of account the twomost important characters in the narrative, God andIsrael.5 The best case can be made that Luke-Acts isa form of apologetic history in which God’s fidelity to Israel is defended and demonstrated through thecourse of a narrative which with great purposeful-ness tells events “in sequence” (Luke 1:3).6 Luke useshis narrative to construct the aetiological myth of Gentile Christianity,7 and does so with such com-pelling simplicity that even until our own era, read-ers were convinced that things happened the way Luke said they did, indeed had to have so happened:

of course Gentiles are the authentic realization of God’s people!In the process of constructing his narrative, Luke

also managed to define nascent Christianity’s rela-tionship to the larger world. Luke portrayed Chris-tians’ relation to the Greco-Roman empire andculture that this movement would eventually, if

nevertheless unexpectedly, subsume. Luke also de-lineated Christianity’s relationship to the Judaismthat, at the time of Luke’s writing, was itself emerg-ing from the complex rivalries and the internecineconflicts of the first century, and from the harrowing purification of the Roman war, as a more unified andPharisaically defined claimant to represent God’s

chosen people. Luke’s narrative is completely athome in the symbolic world of Torah. Jesus and hisfollowers are depicted as prophets standing in theline of Moses and Elijah;8 individual scenes and


12/87

Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 3

entire stretches of narrative alike can be read asechoing scriptural examples.9 At the same time,

many of Luke’s scenes, from birth stories to prisonescapes to deaths of tyrants, find a parallel in Helle-nistic novels and histories,10 and if Luke’s heroes canbe called prophets, so also their depiction strongly resembles that of Greco-Roman philosophers.11 Itis, indeed, the way in which both cultural forces areso much in evidence and so intricately intertwinedthat forms one of the abiding mysteries about thisotherwise open-faced and determinedly nonironic writing. They are each so much in evidence that anentire reading of Luke-Acts is theoretically possiblefrom the side of Judaism or of Hellenism withouttaking the other dimension into account. They are

so inextricably connected, however, that bracketing out one or the other cultural element leads to inter-pretations that fail to match the richness of Luke’sliterary texture. It is natural to ask how to account forthis remarkable cultural synthesis.

Asking that question, we are reminded how littleprogress scholarship has made in reaching agree-

ment on the basic introductory questions concern-ing Luke-Acts. What sort of writing is it? Why wasit written? Who wrote it? When was it composed? Ihave already noted the debate over genre. There is aneven wider range of opinion concerning date, au-thorship, and purpose.12 It is possible to date Luke- Acts as early as the year 85 in the first century or the

middle of the second century without losing aca-demic credibility.13 The fact that so many theoriescontinue to flourish simply proves the resistance of Luke-Acts to the habitual methods of historians.14


13/87


Trying to reconstruct a “Lukan community” fromthe themes of this composition that might in turn

provide a framework for understanding those themesis frustrated by the historical sweep of Luke’s narra-tive, and even more by its literary artistry.15 Thisdoes not mean that we cannot ask questions of historical placement concerning this writing, but itmeans that we must ask them more obliquely andcircumspectly, working through the literary dimen-sions of the text rather than working around them.16

In fact, the more adequate posing of such a historicalquestion is one of the goals of the present essay.

I propose to investigate the aspect of Luke-Acts in which the mingling of Hellenistic and Jewish ele-ments is perhaps most visible and puzzling, in an

activity that is of particular importance for theprocess of messianic self-identification. My focus isthe way Luke shows the first Christians interpreting the texts of Scripture that form the common sym-bolic world of messianist and non-messianist Jews of the first century, as well as their most obvious fieldof contention.17 And I investigate this scriptural

interpretation as it is found in the speeches of Luke’ssecond volume, the Acts of the Apostles. I will start with what is generally known and accepted, beforeapproaching what is less certain and therefore opento more possibilities, moving steadily toward a ques-tion for which I do not yet have the answer.


14/87


Current Perspectives on

the Speeches in ActsThe last century saw a major shift in the way thatscholars view the many speeches found in the Acts of the Apostles.18 No longer is it presumed that suchspeeches report the actual words of historical charac-ters, or even a sample of primitive preaching. Theconventional wisdom now is that the speeches of Acts are entirely the work of Luke the author. C. H.Dodd undertook the last credible effort to salvagethe so-called missionary speeches as historical evi-dence. He did not claim that the speeches of Acts were verbatim reports, but that they contained a kernel of proclamation derived from the earliest

preachers and providing the basic framework for theGospels. Dodd observed not only that the speechesby Peter and Paul shared certain consistent ele-ments, but that Paul also alludes to these sameelements when he speaks of the kerygma (proclama-tion). From these two observations, Dodd arguedthat “a comparison … of the Pauline epistles with

the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certainoutline sketch of the preaching of the apostles” in thefirst generation.19 He further considered that thespeeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 10 and 13 providethe framework for the composition of the narrativeGospels, most obviously the Gospel of Mark.20

Dodd’s work was already something of a conserva-

tive reaction to a growing scholarly opinion that Acts—above all in its speeches—contained little of genuine historical value.21 It was rather easy work forscholars like Ulrich Wilckens to respond to Dodd


15/87


with two devastating observations: first, analysis of diction and themes makes clear that the speeches

represent the same outlook as the narrative in whichthey are found; second, the reason why Luke’smissionary speeches match the outline of the Gospelof Mark is that Luke himself was using Mark as a source when he composed his own Gospel.22

As with so much in the study of Acts, the basicimpetus for the shift in perspective came from thepioneering literary analyses of Henry J. Cadbury andMartin Dibelius.23 They took the approach, whichthen seemed daring but now appears common-sensical, of placing the speeches of Acts within thecomparative literary context of Greco-Roman cul-ture, and specifically within the conventions of

Hellenistic historiography. This broader framework of literary and cultural comparison revealed, as it sooften does, that the writers of the New Testament were writing according to the rhetorical types andtropes of their day. Such analysis made it clear thatLuke used speeches in the same way and for the samepurposes as other Hellenistic historians.

In Persian Wars 7.8–18, Herodotus presents a series of speeches exchanged by Xerxes and Artabanusconcerning the advisability of the Persians’ under-taking a war of revenge and conquest against theGreeks.24 Far from being a report of an actualconversation, these exchanges are rather rhetoricalexercises in which Herodotus supplies what he re-

gards as the machinations and motivations of his-torical figures. Xerxes works hard to persuade hisfellow Persians to undertake the expedition, and hisdiscourses are full of language concerning divine


16/87


guidance and the will of God. Likewise in hisPeloponnesian War 2.36–46, Thucydides has the

statesman Pericles deliver a long funeral oration overthe slain Athenian heroes. Much of the speech is anencomium of the city of Athens, its history, itsdistinctive laws and customs, and its virtues: “as a city we are the school of Hellas.” The slain warriorshad done battle for a city with such attributes, and“so died these men as became Athenians.”25

Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus placesKing Agrippa before a crowd of Jewish insurgents todeliver a lengthy argument on the futility of engag-ing in rebellion against Rome (BJ 2.345–401).26

Prominent in his discourse is the argument thatRome’s success in arms everywhere in the world is

proof that resistance against its armies is futile. Josephus has the king say, “The only refuge, then,left to you is divine assistance. But even this is rangedon the side of the Romans, for without God’s aid, sovast an empire could never have been built up” (BJ 2.390). Josephus also reports his own standing uponthe walls of the doomed city to implore his country-

men not to continue their suicidal resistance to theRoman siege (BJ 5.376–419). While being deridedby his listeners and dodging missiles thrown at himby them (BJ 5.375), Josephus delivered himself of a lengthy, highly detailed, rhetorically polished, his-torical recital and political analysis, the upshot of which was, “Quit while the quitting’s good!”

Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus all followedthe conventions of Hellenistic historiography. They gave their characters idealized speeches to delivereven in unlikely circumstances, to show what should


17/87


have been said on such occasions, and to interpretfor the reader of the history the deeper meaning that

the mere recital of events never could.In his treatise How to Write History 58, Lucian of

Samosata says that the writing of speeches enablesthe historian “to play the actor and show [his or her]eloquence.”27 This is just what Hellenistic historiansdid. The real audience for their speeches was not thecharacters in the story they were telling, but theaudience who heard their stirring words being readaloud in the present. Thucydides tells us of his ownpractice: “I have put into the mouth of each speakerthe sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed asI thought he would be most likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I

could, to give the general import of what was actu-ally said” (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1). This is exactly what we find Luke doing as well.28 All the speechesin Acts are Luke’s speeches. When he has Peteraddress the crowd at Pentecost (2:14-36), Stephenaddress the threatening Sanhedrin (7:2-53), or Paulspeak to the Athenian philosophers (17:22-31),

Luke composes their speeches as samples of the sortof rhetoric that would have been appropriate in eachcircumstance. Luke’s speeches, in short, contain notonly his language but also his perceptions.29 Dosome of his speeches in the first part of Acts seem tohave a particularly “primitive” feel to them?30 This isone more example of Luke’s chameleon-like literary

skill. As Eduard Pluemacher has shown, “archaizing”in language is a thoroughly Hellenistic stylistic de-vice.31


18/87


Once the breakthrough was made to seeing Luke’sspeeches as his own compositions, scholars could

make other observations about the form and func-tion of these discourses. Slowly, attention movedfrom an exclusive preoccupation with the so-called“missionary speeches” to the other discourses thatreveal even further aspects of Luke’s rhetorical versa-tility. Jerome Neyrey, for example, has shown how Paul’s apologetic speeches in Acts 22-26 conform tothe conventions of ancient forensic discourse.32 Evenearlier, William S. Kurz had shown how Luke had inhis speeches practiced the rhetorical ideal of prosōpopoiia in the speeches of Acts.33 As Lucian of Samosata advised the would-be historian, the lan-guage of speeches should “suit his person and his

subject” (Hist. conscr. 58).34

Luke has a superb graspof the principle. When Paul, for example, addressesthe Jewish congregation in the synagogue of Antiochof Pisidia (13:16-41), he sounds virtually identicalto Peter addressing the crowds at Pentecost (2:14-36). But when Paul speaks before the philosopherson Mars Hill in Athens (17:22-31), he sounds much

more like Dio Chrysostom than he does Peter;35 hisdiction and argument alike are those of the Greco-Roman philosopher.36 And as Jacques Dupont dem-onstrated many years ago, when Paul bids farewell tothe Ephesian elders at Miletus (20:17-35), his lan-guage hauntingly evokes that of Paul’s own letters tohis churches.37 More recently, Earle Hilgert has

tested the speeches of Acts against the rhetoricalcanons of “appropriateness” (to prepon) and “genu-ine contests” (alēthinoi agō̄nes ) and finds that they meet both standards impressively.38


19/87


My own work on Luke’s speeches has focusedprimarily on their narrative functions. I have argued

that Luke does not place his speeches randomly butrather strategically, in order to provide his readers atkey moments with an interpretation of the story thathe is narrating. In this sense, his speeches are a formof authorial commentary, placed in the mouths of characters. The most impressive example is Stephen’sspeech (Acts 7:2-53), whose long recital of thebiblical story concentrates on the figure of Moses(7:17-50). He structures the story of Moses as twovisitations of the Prophet to the people for theirsalvation (7:25). In the first visitation, his fellow-Israelites do not understand and reject him (7:23-28), so that he is forced to flee in exile (7:29). But

while in exile, he encounters God (7:30-34) and issent back to visit the people a second time with greatpower, working “signs and wonders” (7:35-38).Those who reject the Prophet’s second visitation arethemselves sent into exile (7:39-50). By structuring the Moses story in this fashion, Luke anticipates thedouble visitation of Jesus to Israel—the first time

leading to rejection, the second time in the power of the spirit through the apostles—and at the sametime provides his readers with an interpretive key forhis entire two-volume composition.39

In the Gospel as well as in Acts, the speeches thatLuke puts in the mouth of his characters fulfillsimilar interpretive functions, if in less obvious

ways. The programmatic character of Jesus’ inaugu-ral speech at Nazareth in 4:16-30 is recognized by all.40 Even Jesus’ parables can serve to interpret thenarrative context in which they are embedded.


20/87


The three parables of the lost sheep, coin, and son inLuke 15:3-32 are clearly meant to provide a para-

bolic commentary on the narrative setting in 15:1-2. Even more strikingly, the Lukan kingship parablein 19:12-27 provides a response to the narrativesituation posed by 19:11, but also an interpretationof the narrative to follow.41

In these observations on Luke’s speeches, I haveemphasized his own freedom of composition (espe-cially in Acts, where he was unconstrained by the Jesus tradition) and the thoroughly Hellenistic char-acter of his compositional habits. These two aspectsof the speeches in Acts help to sharpen the questionthat needs to be posed concerning the interpretationof Scripture that we find within them. Before con-

sidering these elements in combination, however, itis necessary rapidly to review some standard pointsconcerning Luke’s use of Scripture in general.42

Luke’s Use of Scripture in General

As in other early Christian writings, “proof fromprophecy” is an important weapon in Luke’s apolo-getic armory.43 His narrative shows that the events of Jesus’ birth, ministry, death and resurrection are all“in fulfillment” of Torah. As Jesus says to his follow-ers at his last supper, “I tell you, this Scripture mustbe fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned withtransgressors,’ [Isa. 53:12], for what is written about

me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37). But Lukeextends and refines the argument from prophecy.44

He extends it by including not only the life, death,and resurrection of the Messiah, but the develop-


21/87


ment of the messianic community as well: Scriptureinterprets stages in the church’s life and growth (e.g.,

Acts 3:24; 13:40; 15:15). It is characteristic of Lukethat he delays citing the rejection saying from Isaiah6 that Mark and Matthew use in the parable dis-course (Mark 4:12; Matt. 13:14-15) until the very end of his narrative, in Acts 28:25-27. His narrativeseeks to show “the things brought to fulfillmentamong us” (Luke 1:1), and the demonstration in-cludes showing how texts of Scripture find their telos in the recent past or even the present of his readers.

Luke also refines proof from prophecy by avoiding the sort of lockstep correlation of text and eventfavored by the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s “for-mula citations” serve as authorial commentary on

his narrative. He typically recites a story about Jesus,following it with the expression “this happened inorder to fulfill the saying of the prophet” and anexplicit citation from Scripture.45 In this manner,Matthew brings Jesus’ miraculous conception, placeof birth, escape from King Herod, hometown, teach-ing in parables, working of miracles, and betrayal

and death under the umbrella of messianic meaning offered by Torah.46 Luke avoids such repeated for-mulas and the attachment of specific texts to specificevents. In the Gospel, indeed, he is fonder of generalsummation than of direct citation, as when the risen Jesus opens his followers’ eyes to the meaning of Scripture: “‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah

should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, heinterpreted to them in all the Scriptures the thingsconcerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Luke also refines


22/87


the notion of prophecy fulfillment in the way hisnarrative echoes and alludes to Scripture because he

uses diction and even shapes his stories in order toevoke Scriptural precedents.47

Still, Luke does quote Scripture extensively toshow, as Jesus also told those followers, “that every-thing written about me in the Law of Moses and theProphets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke24:44). In the Gospel we find some fifteen directcitations from Scripture.48 They are introduced vari-ously,49 and by various characters.50 More significantis the fact that, with the single exception of thecitation from Isa. 40:3-5 in Luke 3:4-6—which istaken over and expanded from Mark 1:2-3—all thecitations in the Gospel occur in spoken discourse

rather than in narrative exposition. In his Gospel,Luke consistently interprets through the speech of his characters, a practice he continues even moreelaborately in his second volume. Before turning tothat practice, which is the real focus of this essay, itis necessary to consider one more preliminary buttruly critical question. What version of Scripture

does Luke have his characters cite and interpret?Like many other Jews of the first century in the

diaspora and in Palestine—writers like Aristobulus, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Paul of Tarsus—Lukeused the Greek translation of Torah that had been inexistence some 300 years when he set about compos-ing Luke-Acts, a translation known as the Septuagint

(LXX). Although that simple designation camou-flages a host of critical questions, the LXX at the very least distinguishes a recognizable version of the OldTestament that was widely read for generations


23/87


before the first century, was regarded by at least someof its readers as divinely inspired, generated several

rival Greek versions, and gave rise to a substantialHellenistic Jewish literature.51 There is no reason tosuspect in the case of Luke, as there sometimes is with Matthew, that his citations from the LXX aredeliberately altered because of the influence of theHebrew (hereafter, MT for “Massoretic Text”).52

Rather, as Jacques Dupont has demonstrated in a brilliant set of essays, Luke’s use of scriptural cita-tions relies on the specific nuances of the LXX, tosuch an extent that the MT would have been uselessfor his purposes.53 I offer three brief examples.

In Peter’s first address to the assembly of Jesus’followers gathered before Pentecost, Luke shows

him fulfilling Jesus’ command to “strengthen hisbrethren” when he had turned (Luke 22:32). Hisdiscourse concerns the need to replace the traitorous Judas in order to fill out the symbolic number of theTwelve before the bestowal of the Holy Spirit thatconstitutes the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:16-25).54

Peter cites two passages from the Psalms with refer-

ence, respectively, to the death of Judas and the needto replace him.55 The Scripture, he begins, “had to befulfilled” (1:16). His first citation is from the LXX of Psalm 68:26, which reads, “Let his dwelling placebecome deserted and let there be no one dwelling init” ( genēthētō hē epaulis autou erēmos kai mē estō hokatoikōn en autēi , Acts 1:20). The citation has only

minor modifications from the LXX, which in turn isclose to the MT of Ps 69:25.56 Luke has the text dodouble duty, referring at once to Judas’s death on thefarm he had purchased with his betrayal money and


24/87


.

to the vacancy in the apostolic office his death thuscreated.

But then, Luke has Peter add another citationimmediately and with no transition, this one fromLXX Psalm 108:8: “Let another take his office” (tēnepiskopēn autou labetō heteros ).57 The passage workseffectively to provide scriptural warrant for the elec-tion of Matthias as Judas’s successor in the circle of the Twelve, especially since “office” (episkop¯ e ) rein-forces the second nuance of epaulis . The Hebrew of Psalm 109:8 ( pe ̆qûdātô yîqh ’ahēr ) can certainly include the meaning, “let another take his magis-tracy/overseership” (e.g., 2 Chron. 23:18; 2 Kings11:18), but the most natural translation is surely thatgiven by the RSV: “May his days be few, may

another seize his goods.”58

The LXX’s tēn episkopēnautou labetō heteros (let another take his office),however, works wonderfully for Luke’s purposes,especially since the resonances of episkopē with eccle-siastical leadership are already well established forLuke’s readers, as we know from Acts 20:28.59

A second example of Luke’s reliance on the spe-

cific nuances of the LXX is not a direct citation butan allusion. In Peter’s speech at Pentecost (2:14-36),after he recites the facts of Jesus’ rejection by “lawlesspeople,” he shifts to the proclamation of Jesus’resurrection, the event that precipitates the outpour-ing of the Holy Spirit (2:1-5), the proper under-standing of which Peter’s discourse purports to

offer.60 Peter says, “Him God has raised! He hasloosed the pangs of death, because he could not beheld by it” (Acts 2:24).61 However accustomed wemay have become to the phrase “pangs of death,” it

.


25/87


is nevertheless odd, especially when found as theobject of the verb “to loose” (lyō ). Why is it odd?

Because the Greek term “pangs” refers particularly to the agony or throes of birth, thus, “birth pangs.”62

How does it come to be connected to the experienceof death?

The expression appears in the LXX of 2 Samuel22:6, in the song of David, ōdines thanatou ekyklosanme (the pangs of death have encircled me). In thecorresponding LXX Psalm 17:5, we again find ōdines thanatou (pangs of death) and ōdines hadou (pangs of hades). What Hebrew expression is the LXX trans-lating? In 2 Samuel 22:6, the MT has heblê śĕ’ôl , inPsalm 18:5 it has heblê māwet, and in 18:6, oncemore, heblê śĕ’ôl . Now the Hebrew verb hābal (to

bind or pledge)63

has two noun forms, each pointeddifferently. Pointed as hebel , it means “cord/rope/line,” and this is the meaning that makes the mostsense of 2 Samuel 22:6, “the cords of death haveencircled me,” and of Psalm 18:5 and 6, “the cordsof death encompassed me…the cords of Sheol en-tangled me.” Pointed as hēbel , however, the Hebrew

also has the sense of pain or travail, such as isexperienced at birth (e.g., Job 39:3; Isa. 66:7).Clearly this is the pointing assumed by the LXX when it translates heblē as ōdinai . By choosing thisless obvious way of translating the Hebrew, the LXX (perhaps inadvertently) has also created a profoundparanomasia: the “cords of death” are also the “birth

pangs of death,” so that death itself can be read as thebeginning of a new life, an understanding obviously congenial to Christian readers, who might, evenunconsciously, carry over this nuance in speaking of

.

..

.

.

.


26/87


the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet, how strangethat Luke retains something of the other reading in

his choice of verbs: God has “loosed” these pangs, anexpression that is odd for pangs but appropriate forcords. Note also “because he could not be held(krateisthai ) by it,” an expression that works poorly for pangs but perfectly for cords. But that the punappears at all depends entirely on the translationchoice made by the LXX.

The third example of Luke’s dependence on thespecific shades of meaning in the LXX is the citationof the prophet Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17.64

The passage is of tremendous importance in Acts,occurring as it does in the midst of the depiction of the watershed event that has come to be called the

Jerusalem Council. This meeting decided that theGentile mission was legitimate and, even more star-tling, that Gentile converts did not need to practicethe ethoi (customs) of the Jewish ethnos (nation) inorder to be full-fledged members of the people of God, since both Jews and Gentiles were saved by thesame principle of faith.65 The decision is not made all

at once but only after considerable debate.66 It isconcluded by the citation of Amos, which James (theleader of the Jerusalem church) declares to be “con-forming to this reality” (15:15).

The first part of Luke’s citation from Amos isvirtually the same as both the Greek of the LXX andthe MT. According to the RSV translation, “in that

day, I will raise up the booth of David that is fallenand repair its breeches and raise up its ruins, and I will raise it up straight.” This part of the citationserves as a proof-text for understanding the Jewish


27/87


messianists as the “restored Israel.” In the Jerusalemchurch, God had “raised up the fallen tent of David.”67

But Luke’s citation from Amos continues, “so thatthe rest of humanity might seek the Lord, and all thenations on whom my name has been invoked, saysthe Lord who is doing these things.” When weconsult the LXX, we discover the words “the Lord”(ho kyrios ) are absent. The LXX has simply, “the restof humanity might seek.” Luke apparently has sup-plied the proper object of the seeking. What is evenmore striking, however, is the LXX’s having “thatthey might seek” (ekzētēsōsin) at all. In the MT of Amos 9:12, there is instead this: “that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations whoare called by my name, says the Lord who does this”

(RSV).How did the LXX—and from the LXX, Luke—derive “the rest of humanity seek” from the Hebrew “possess the remnant of Edom”? The answer is fairly simple. It appears that the LXX translators read theHebrew before them as yîrs ́u (from y āras ́, “possess”)as yidre ̆rshû (from dāras , “seek”), and they read ’edom

(Edom) as ’ādām (humanity). The MT of Amosenvisaged a restored Davidic dynasty in an expan-sionist mode. The LXX changed it to a restoredpeople that attracts humanity to itself. It is this sense,rooted entirely in the LXX but impossible in theHebrew, that Luke has James exploit as a text thatprefigures the attraction of the Gentiles into the

“restored people of God” that is the Christian move-ment.


28/87


Textual Problems of Biblical Citations

Recognizing how thoroughly Luke’s applicationof Scripture depends on the LXX rather than on theMT only confirms the truth known to us at leastsince Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. In dis-putes between Jews and Christians over the fulfill-ment of prophecy nothing but frustration can beexpected because the two parties are, quite literally,

reading two different Bibles.68 The last example alsoreminds us of the difficulty of determining what isgoing on in any given citation from the LXX. I notedearlier that Luke “added” the words “the Lord,” which were lacking in the LXX. But were they? Onemanuscript of the LXX (A), in fact, does containthose words. Likewise, at the very end of James’

citation, there is great confusion. The Hebrew con-cludes simply with “declares the Lord who will bring this to pass.” The LXX follows closely, but adds a word: “says the Lord God who does these things”(legei kyrios ho theos ho poiōn tauta ). Not to beoutdone in expansion, Luke seems to have James addanother phrase, “known from eternity” ( gnosta ap’ aiōnos , Acts 15:18). Are these words simply added by Luke and intended to be read as though from Amos?Is it a composite citation, linking a phrase from Isa.45:21 to the text from Amos?69 Or are we meant toread these last words, not as part of the citation, butas part of James’ comments following the citation?

The wild fluctuation in the NT manuscript tradi-tion for Acts 15:18 probably reflects an equivalentconfusion in the minds of scribes concerning whatthe phrase was meant to be. The possibilities for


29/87


readers today are multiple, and made even morecomplicated by the text-critical problems distinctive

to Acts.70The citation from Joel 3:1-5 at the beginning of

Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17-21) serves as a good illustration of the technical problems pre-sented by Luke’s citations. Luke’s version can betranslated this way: “It will happen in the last days,says God: I will pour out from my spirit upon allflesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men willdream dreams. Indeed, I will pour out from my spiritin those days upon my men servants and womenservants, and they will prophesy. I will provide wonders in heaven above and signs on earth below,

blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will bechanged into darkness and the moon into bloodbefore the great and manifest day of the Lord arrives,and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord willbe saved.” The citation is very close to the LXX. Butthere are three significant differences between Lukeand the LXX. First, the LXX has “after these things”

(meta tauta ) in agreement with the MT, whereasLuke has “in the last days” (en tais eschatais hēmerais ,2:17). Second, Luke has “and they will prophesy”(kai prophēteusousin) in Acts 2:18 in addition to theone already present in Joel 3. Rather than the LXX’s“wonders in the heaven and on earth below,” Lukehas in 2:19 “wonders in heaven above and signs on

earth below,” adding the adverb katō (below), as wellas the substantive semeia (signs). Observing thedifferences is the easy part. Assessing them is diffi-cult.71


30/87


31/87


If we make the judgment—as I have in this case—that Luke himself deliberately made the alterations

to the Joel citation that we observe in the Greek textof the New Testament, such judgment must rest onthe cumulative force of the following factors. First,the reading in question is well attested by the New Testament manuscripts and can reasonably be ac-cepted as the original one on the grounds of ordinary textual criticism. Second, either the reading is notfound in the manuscripts of the LXX available to us,or, if it is found there, the reading is best accountedfor by scribes adopting it under the influence of theNew Testament. Third, the reading in question canbe shown to advance the literary and religious inter-ests of the New Testament author who has used the

citation. In Luke’s citation of Joel, each of thesecriteria is met.76 The last criterion is met resound-ingly. Luke makes the gift of the Holy Spirit a fulfillment of a divine oracle (“God says”), an escha-tological event (“in the last days”), one that isemphatically prophetic in character (“they shallprophesy”), and one that is demonstrated by “signs

and wonders” like those associated in the biblicaltradition above all with Moses. Luke has thus madethe Joel citation a key passage for understanding notonly Pentecost but also the entire course of hisnarrative in Acts.77

Even at the risk of boring my readers beyondendurance, I have chosen to pay some attention to

text criticism. It is important to remind ourselves what a complex tangle of considerations are involvedin the analysis of ancient biblical citations. Quick and grandiose conclusions are not warranted. In-


32/87


deed, certainty is seldom available. In these matters,slow approximation is the norm, and movement is

by means of the gradual accumulation of probabil-ity. I also want to indicate by the particular exampleof the Joel citation, that the evidence strongly sup-ports the view that Luke considered himself to havethe freedom to amend the biblical text in suchfashion. However great the authority of the LXX, itappears, the exousia (freedom/authority) given by the Spirit is even greater.78

Modes of Scriptural Interpretation

in Acts

Luke does not confine himself to a single mode of

citing and interpreting Scripture, but uses a variety of interpretive methods.79 It is the range and charac-ter of his interpretive methods that present the mostfascinating and yet puzzling aspect of Luke’s use of the LXX. My approach to this puzzle seeks a middleground between two tendencies in scholarship. Olderstudies on Luke’s use of Scripture—like those of

Bruce, Doeve, Bowker, and Cerfaux— are often fullof helpful insights concerning technical questionsand possible parallels to the “traces of midrashicstyle” seen in Acts.80 But they rarely get around toasking what Luke as author might have had to do with those parallels and traces of style. In suchanalyses, Luke’s use of Scripture becomes the last

stronghold for the conservative position that regards Acts as essentially a repository for tradition. In sharpcontrast, some newer studies—like those of Wagnerand especially Brawley—are exceptionally strong at


33/87


revealing Luke’s creative contributions as an author,but pay relatively less attention to the ways in which

his interpretations are enmeshed in Jewish meth-ods.81

My goal is to take both aspects with full serious-ness first by treating his scriptural interpretation within speeches as fully his own work, reflecting hisliterary and religious preoccupations, and second by comparing his interpretation as such with Jewishpractice. I turn, then, to a rapid consideration of several modes of scriptural interpretation found within the speeches of Acts.

Stephen before the Sanhedrin

(Acts 7:2-53)

Two of the speeches in Acts present a characterreviewing in public the history of Israel. Before thesynagogue congregation in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts13:16-41), Paul offers a very rapid sketch of eventsfrom the Exodus to David (13:17-22) then leapsforward to the time of Jesus. The recital contains

some verbal echoes of the LXX,82 but not muchmore. I will return later in the essay to a closeranalysis of the latter part of Paul’s speech. Of quitea different character is the second example, Stephen’sspeech before the Sanhedrin. It is the longest speechin Acts, all the more dramatic because deliveredbefore a Jerusalem leadership (6:12-15) that has

already indicated its emphatic rejection of the mes-sianic claims being made by an upstart Galileancommunity gathered in the name of Jesus.83 Thespeaker has been certified as a prophet by Luke’s


34/87


literary depiction of him as a man filled with theHoly Spirit who works signs and wonders among the

people (6:5, 8, 10). He finishes his speech by accus-ing the leadership of resisting the Holy Spirit andkilling the prophets (7:51-52). Their subsequentexecution of Stephen proves his accusation.84

Scholars have long puzzled over the way the speechseems not to respond to the ostensible charges madeagainst Stephen that brought him to trial in the firstplace.85 Far from having Stephen launch into a formal apologia that discusses these charges in orderto demonstrate his innocence, Luke has him begin a lengthy recital of biblical history, from the time of Abraham to the exile.86

The recountal is sufficiently lengthy to enable

comparisons between Stephen’s speech and otherretellings of the biblical story found in ancient Jewish literature roughly contemporary to Luke.There are a sufficient number of these compositionsto consider them a separate class of writing, com-posed by individuals or groups who sought by meansof such a reworking of the biblical tradition to

propagate or defend a specific perspective on thattradition:87 Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities ; Philo Judaeus’s works On Abraham, On Joseph, and On Moses ; Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities ; the Book of Jubilees ; and the fragmentary Genesis Apocryphonfrom Qumran; as well as the fragments of Artapanus’sOn the Jews .88 Each of these narrative retellings of the

biblical story covers some of the same figures andincidents as does Stephen’s speech. A point-by-point comparison among them is illuminating. Wehave several such narratives, as well as the basic text


35/87


(either the MT or the LXX) that each was using. Wecan thus make responsible judgments concerning

the kind of selection and shaping in which eachaccount engaged and, on that basis, also make fairly secure deductions concerning the concerns and in-terests at work in each version. It is easy to see in thecase of Philo, for example, that his biographies of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses serve both to highlightthose aspects of the biblical text that can be read“philosophically” and to portray the ancient heroesas models of philosophical virtue in the Greek mode.89

In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon and Book of Jubilees , both preserved in the library of the Jewishcommunity at Qumran, focus on and elaboratethose aspects of the text that support a particular

ideological and cultic agenda favored by the sectar-ians.90

When we compare the rewriting of the Scripturestory in the Stephen speech to these other composi-tions, what do we find? First, in terms of fidelity tothe text of Scripture, Luke’s Stephen is less like Josephus and Philo, who follow the Bible’s story line

but freely transpose it into their own diction, than heis like Jubilees and Biblical Antiquities , which tend tointerweave parts of the biblical text and their owncontributions in what might be broadly called a targumic style.91 Luke does not rewrite the story inhis own words. Instead, as Earl Richard has demon-strated, Luke shows remarkable fidelity to the dic-

tion of the LXX; it truly is “Scripture’s” words thathe uses in his own version of the story, a feat all themore remarkable given the abbreviation involved.92


36/87


In a second point of comparison, Luke—also inthe manner of the targums—amplifies elements of

the Biblical story and fills in its gaps by means of haggadic traditions. Moses’ earliest years providedthe opportunity for such elaboration in the samemanner that the childhood of Jesus provided one forthe writers of apocryphal infancy gospels. Thus,LXX Exodus 2:3-4 says that Moses was “hidden” by his mother after his birth. This is followed closely by Jubilees 47.3 and Jewish Antiquities 2.218. Philo hasMoses secretly “nursed at his mother’s breast” (Life of Moses 1.9),93 and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiqui-ties 9.12 has Moses’ mother, Jocha, bed him for threemonths in her womb! Stephen says that “he wasnurtured (anetraphē ) for three months in his father’s

house” (Acts 7:20). Though not an elaborate expan-sion, it represents a “filling of the gap” not unlikethat in the other rereadings. Similarly, LXX Exodus2:21 says that Moses “became … as a son” toPharaoh’s daughter. Josephus supplies the nameThermuthis to the daughter ( AJ 2.224), whereas Jubilees 47.5 calls her Meris, and Artapanus adds

that she was barren (frag. 3 Charlesworth), a fact thatPhilo, in turn, develops psychologically (Life of Moses 1.12-15). Once more, Stephen’s trope is simpleyet effective: she “raised him as her own son”(anethrepsato auton heautēi eis huion, 7:21). Thecharacterization is richer and more intimate than thebiblical account, yet more restrained than some of

the other rereadings.The LXX Exodus contains nothing about Moses’

education in the house of Pharaoh. Yet the lives of great figures require legendary elaboration where the


37/87


historical record fails.94 Josephus provides a sketch of a childhood challenge to Moses, says that “he was

educated with the utmost care” ( AJ 2.233-35), andprovides an extensive recital of Moses’ adult activi-ties before his encounter with his countrymen ( AJ 2.238-53). Philo pays particular attention, as wemight expect, to Moses’ education, stressing that he was instructed by Greek, Assyrian, Chaldean, andEgyptian teachers, and that he progressed especially in moral virtue (Life of Moses 1.21-31). Such culturalassimilation is opposed by Jubilees 47.9, which in-sists that “Amran, [his] father, taught [him] writing”and says nothing further of Moses’ education atPharaoh’s court. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 9.16 says that Moses’ mother maintained

his Hebrew name of Melchiel. Cultural competitionreaches a climax in Artapanus’s On the Jews (frag. 3Charlesworth), which makes Moses himself theteacher of Orpheus and the source of everything worthwhile in Egyptian culture. Stephen’s versionagain hits a middle point between these extremes:“he was educated in all Egyptian wisdom” (7:22).

Like the parallel versions, Stephen’s speech fills in what the biblical account omits, but it does so moresuccinctly and pointedly. In 7:20-22 Luke—it is his speech, remember—provides the classic biographi-cal triad of “birth, nurture, education” ( genesis ,trophē , paideia ), as he does also for Paul in Acts22:3.95 And by focusing on wisdom, he emphasizes

the link between Moses and Jesus, as he does also by an equally brief summary concerning Jesus in Luke2:52: “Jesus made progress in wisdom and statureand in favor both with God and people.”96


38/87


Thirdly, compared to the other retellings of theScripture story we are considering here, Luke is

unusual in his strong editing of the story, which is allthe more evident because of the brevity of his ac-count. Like Philo, Luke focuses particularly on thethree figures of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. Hefocuses, however, not on their display of innatevirtue, but on the way in which they carry forwardthe promises of God. And in the case of both Josephand Moses, Luke has edited his account in suchfashion as to show how each fits into a pattern of twofold sending and rejection, so that these biblicalexempla point forward to the twofold sending andrejection of the prophet Jesus.97 By this editing of thebiblical narrative, Luke not only reinforces the fun-

damentally prophetic character of Scripture and itsheroes, but by doing this supports the ideologicalposition of his community that Scripture is bestunderstood when read as pointing toward the risenprophet Jesus: “This is the Moses who said to theIsraelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet fromyour brethren as he raised me up’” (Acts 7:37). And

he does all this entirely within the tight limits set by the text of the LXX itself, whose wording he consis-tently employs. In this sense, the rereading of Scrip-ture in Stephen’s speech can legitimately bedesignated a sort of septuagintal targum.

Prayer in Time of Persecution

(Acts 4:24-30)

We find a very different sort of scriptural interpreta-tion in the prayer of the apostles after their first


39/87


experience of persecution by the Jerusalem authori-ties. Although the prayer is not formally a discourse,

it is surely a speech act, and one whose obviousliterary function is to interpret for the reader themeaning of the story that unfolds around it.98 Whatis the meaning of this part of Luke’s narrative?Having established, by his description of the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit and the common life of the first community, that the church was indeed therestoration of Israel, 99 Luke turns his attention tothe question of the leadership over this people. Thefirst arrest and warning not to preach in the name of Jesus (4:1-22) corresponds to the first rejection of both Moses and Jesus. The response to this prayerfor power with an overwhelming outpouring of the

Spirit (4:31) corresponds to the empowerment of both Moses and Jesus by God: This empowermentis manifested precisely in the “signs and wonders”that the apostles do among the people and theirauthoritative role in the sharing of possessions (notethe repetition of “laying at the apostles’ feet” in 4:35,37 and 5:2).100 The subsequent arrest and interroga-

tion of the apostles serves the narrative by revealing two things: first, the official leadership of the peoplerejects even this “second sending in power”—Gamaliel’s advice shows ironically that he doesn’t“get it”—and second, the balance of power overGod’s people Israel has in any case effectively shiftedto the apostles.101

Grasping the narrative flow in this part of Acts isthe best way of solving the problem presented by Luke’s obscure introduction to this scene (4:23-24):“when they had been released, they went pros tous


40/87


idious and told them everything the chief priests andelders had said. Those who heard it lifted a common

voice to God.” The appropriate translation of hoi idioi (literally, their own people) is critical to deter-mining who performs the speech act reported by Luke and who, therefore, is subsequently empow-ered a second time by the Holy Spirit to work signsand wonders. Against a substantial body of opinionthat considers “their friends” (as the RSV renders thephrase) to be the rest of the community of believers(those described in 4:32 as plēthos tōn pisteusant-ōn),102 I agree with Jacques Dupont that the narra-tive logic demands the identification of these“associates” (as I translate the phrase) with the otherapostles.103 This identification alone makes sense of

the second empowerment and the second sending of the Twelve to do signs and wonders among thepeople (5:1-16) before their climactic confrontation with the official leadership (5:17-42) and their trans-mission of authority to others (6:1-7).

The prayer begins with a remarkable invocationthat may function as prayer but certainly also func-

tions as a reminder to the reader of certain importantrealities: “Master! You are the creator of the heavenand the earth and the sea and all the things that arein them. You are the one who said—through themouth of David, your servant, our father, throughthe Holy Spirit ….” The opening invocation re-minds readers of God’s sovereign power; even though

events may seem to indicate otherwise, God is work-ing out God’s plan. The awkward piling up of phrases in the second clause results from Luke trying to assert several important truths at the same time.104


41/87


While David is both God’s servant (we shall see thedevelopment of this theme a bit later) and their

ancestor (“father”), more importantly, when Davidspoke, it was God speaking “through [his] mouth”because the Psalmist was a prophet whose prayers were composed “through the Holy Spirit.” The textthat Luke subsequently cites from LXX Psalm 2:1-2, with no editorial emendations, is to be understoodas a divinely inspired text with a prophetic signifi-cance: “Why were the nations arrogant and thepeoples making silly schemes? The kings of the earthdrew up their lines, and the rulers gathered togetheragainst the Lord and against his anointed one.”

What follows is even more astonishing than theopening reminder to God of what the prophet/

psalmist had said through God’s own inspiration.The prayer now offers God an interpretation of whatthe Psalm (and, we assume, God) really means: “Forin this city, they did truly gather together againstyour holy child Jesus whom you anointed: Herodand Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoplesof Israel, in order to accomplish everything your

hand and will had determined would happen.” Lukeoffers an interpretation in which the words spokenin the past by the prophet find their real significancein contemporary events. Specifically, the “gathering together”105 of the leaders against Jesus “theanointed”106 that led to his apparent destruction butparadoxically worked out God’s plan.107 Not con-

tent with a general assertion, however, Luke thenoffers a point-by-point fulfillment of the Davidicprophecy, with each element in the Psalm finding itscontemporary equivalent: Pilate = the ruler; Herod


42/87


= the king; the procurator/soldiery = the nations/gentiles; the Jews = the peoples.

In effect, Luke offers a mode of scriptural interpre-tation quite distinct from the targumic retelling of the narrative found in the Stephen speech. But justas examples of such retellings are attested at Qumran,so is this mode as well, in the style of interpretationscholars have come to identify as pesher .108 In suchinterpretation, the text of Scripture (at Qumran, inHebrew) is strictly maintained, and the elements inthe text are aligned with events or personages having to do with the history of the community. Thefragmentary commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab),for example, offers an interpretive comment on thistext from Habakkuk 2:7: “the violence done to

Lebanon shall overwhelm you and the destruction of the beasts shall terrify you, because of the blood of men and the violence done to the land, the city, andall its inhabitants.” The interpretation goes as fol-lows:

The interpretation of the word ( pesher ) con-

cerns the Wicked Priest, to pay him the rewardfor what he did to the poor. Because Lebanon isthe Council of the Community, and the ani-mals are the simple folk of Judah who observethe Law … the city is Jerusalem since in it the

Wicked Priest performed repulsive acts anddefiled the Sanctuary of God. The violence against the country are the cities of Judah whichhe plundered of the possessions of the poor(emphasis added).109


43/87


The same sort of pesher interpretation was appliedat Qumran to the Psalms, which were read as pro-

phetic of the life of the community in exactly thesame way that the prophets were. The commentary on Psalm 37 (4QpPsalms Pesher ), for example, con-tains this passage: “The wicked person spies on the just person and tries to kill him. Yahweh will notrelinquish him into his hand, or permit them toconvict him when he is judged (Ps. 37:32-33). Itsinterpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, whospies on the just man and wants to kill him … andthe law which sent him; …. Wait for Yahweh andobserve his path and he will promote you, so that youinherit the earth, and you shall see the destruction of the wicked (Ps. 37:34). Its interpretation concerns

the community of the poor who will see the judg-ment of evil, and with his chosen one will rejoice inthe true inheritance.”110 The parallel between thesepassages and Acts 4:23-31 is precise and remarkable. As at Qumran, the text is applied as prophetic to thespecific experiences of the community and itsfounder. As at Qumran, these experiences involve

the dual rejection of the founder and the community members (“the poor”). As at Qumran, hope is placedin the vindication to be accomplished by God. And,as at Qumran, the interpretation involves making a point-by-point identification between characters andevents in the prophecy and the characters and eventsin the community’s shared story.

That Luke is in truth using a pesher method hereis shown by the fact that he not only makes noalteration in the text of the Psalm that he cites, butalso that his fidelity to that text forces him to a


44/87


locution that he otherwise nowhere employs. It isLuke’s set practice to use the singular laos (people)

when referring to Israel as a religious entity (“thepeople of God”).111 That consistent usage may ac-count for the presence of the singular laos in somemanuscripts for Acts 4:27, rather than the plurallaois . The plural reading is better attested and is alsothe harder reading, since Luke, especially in hispassion account, tried to remove the presence of thepeople from the action against Jesus, so as to fix blame on the leaders.112 Luke does, however, reportthe charge against the people as a whole, who, “outof ignorance,” rejected Jesus in his first visitation(Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-14). Why, then, the plural“peoples of Israel” in the present passage? Two

reasons suggest themselves. First, the plural enablesLuke to involve individual Jews in the death of Jesus(such as the leaders), as he does individual Gentiles, without jeopardizing the special place of “the people”as the religious designation for Israel. Second, andmore decisive, I think, the plural allows Luke torespect the precise form of the citation demanded by

the pesher -style interpretation. I will comment in my conclusions on the startling fact that Luke is herecarrying out with the LXX a mode of interpretationthat is found elsewhere only applied to the MT, andthat in a single Palestinian community.

Midrashic Argument on the

Resurrection (Acts 13:32-37)

A third example of Lukan interpretive method isfound in Paul’s synagogue sermon in Antioch of


45/87


Pisida.113 The subject is the identification of Jesus asMessiah through his resurrection, in contrast to

David. This is, in fact, a recurrent preoccupation inLuke-Acts and provides an opportunity to observehow Luke works out a scriptural argument acrossseveral disparate speeches.114

We meet the theme first in a speech of Jesus. InLuke’s Gospel, Jesus challenges the Scribes’ claimthat the Messiah would be David’s son: “For Davidhimself says in the book of the Psalms, ‘The Lordsaid to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I putyour enemies as a footstool for your feet.”’ Davidtherefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son?” (Luke20:42-44).115 We recognize the citation as LXX Psalm 109:1, a favorite Christian proof-text for the

resurrection and enthronement of Jesus.116

Its most famous application also occurs in Luke- Acts, in Peter’s sermon to the crowd gathered by thePentecost experience. This time it comes at the endof a more elaborate scriptural argument. After thecitation from Joel in 2:17-21, Peter announces that Jesus—a man who had worked signs and wonders

among them but had been put to death by lawlesspeople—had been raised by God. God had “loosedthe pangs of death, for he could not be held by it”(2:22-24). Peter then initiates a scriptural argumentby an explicit citation from LXX Psalm 15:8-11, which he introduces with these words: “For Davidsaid about him (eis auton)” (2:25). In this context,

this introduction can only mean that David spokeabout Jesus the Nazorean (2:22). Peter then quotesthe Psalm: “I have seen the Lord before me always,because he is at my right hand, so that I not be


46/87


shaken. My heart has been glad because of this, my tongue has rejoiced. More than that, my flesh will

dwell in hope because you will not abandon my lifeto Hades, nor will you let your holy one see corrup-tion. You have made known to me the paths of life,you will fill me with gladness in your presence.” Theentire passage from the Psalm could be exploited forPeter’s purposes. We notice that the Psalmist claimsto have “seen the Lord before [him] always,” whichsuggests an intimate and permanent presence withGod. We catch the echo of Psalm 109:1 in the phrase“at the right hand.” The singer has “known the pathsof life” and has had “gladness in [God’s] presence.”Perhaps most telling, we also see that the one soblessed with the presence of God is characterized as

“your holy one” (ton hosion sou), a designation that will recur later.C. H. Dodd had the basic insight that many New

Testament citations carry with them associationsfrom their original context and that these associa-tions are as important to the meaning and functionof the citation as the actual words quoted. Richard

Hays, in the case of Paul’s letters, and Robert Brawley,in the case of Luke-Acts, have developed this insightinto a rich appreciation of allusions and echoesimplicitly present in such explicit citations.117 Whathas now come to be called intertextuality , however,is simply another way of saying midrash, for the samethick web of associative thinking is present in both.

The line from Psalm 15 on which Peter builds hisargument is “you will not abandon my life to Hades,nor will you let your holy one see corruption.” Peterquickly establishes that the line cannot apply to the


47/87


David who composed the Psalm, since he was deadand buried. Peter can appeal to his audience’s own

experience: Everyone knew where David’s tomb wasin Jerusalem (Acts 2:29). Then Peter applies what we will come to understand as the fundamental prin-ciple of messianic (that is, Christian) midrash: thatall of the texts of Torah point forward to a futurefulfillment; that is, they are essentially prophetic incharacter. He argues, “Since [David] was a prophetand knew that God had sworn to him by an oath thathe would seat one of his descendents upon histhrone, he looked ahead and spoke concerning theresurrection of the Messiah.”118 Peter then appliesthe specific words of the Psalm, “for neither was heleft in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption” (2:30-

31). Peter appeals to two experiences. The first is hisaudience’s knowledge of the tomb of David, proving his death; David can’t possibly be the one who didnot see corruption (2:29). The second experience isthe witnesses’ experience of the resurrection andenthronement of Jesus: “God raised this Jesus, of which we are all witnesses” (2:32). The Psalm

therefore refers not to David himself but to Jesus theMessiah, not to the ancient king’s enjoyment of God’s presence during his human life, but the eter-nal enthronement of the resurrected one “to theright hand of God” (2:33). Yet, this Messiah is also“one of his descendents” (2:30), and Peter’s argu-ment also alludes to the promise of an eternal

dynasty made to David himself: “he swore by oath”(2:30).

Peter thus makes allusion to another passage of Scripture in which God swore by oath to David


48/87


concerning an enduring dynasty, namely the oracleof the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-

16. We know that this passage was used as a messi-anic prophecy also at Qumran (see 4Qflorilegium1.7-13).119 The Nathan oracle is embedded also inanother Psalm, LXX 131:11, whose language may have helped shape Luke’s (Peter’s) own: hōmosenkyrios tōi Dauid alētheian kai ou mē athetēsai autēn,ek karpou tēs koilias sou thēsomai epi ton thronon sou(The Lord swore a true oath to David, and he willsurely not set it aside; one out of the fruit of yourloins I shall set upon your throne). Peter’s phrase in2:30, ek karpou tēs osphyos autou (out of the fruit of your loins) seems derived from this passage. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to note that LXX Psalm

131:11 is immediately preceded by this verse: “Forthe sake of David your servant, do not turn away from the face of your anointed one” (heneken Dauid tou doulou sou mē apostrepsēis to prosōpon tou christousou). This verse can be read as though David and“your anointed one/your Christ” were two differentfigures. The plea “do not turn away from the face,”

furthermore, can be seen to have a fulfillment in theline from LXX Psalm 15:8, cited earlier in thespeech, “I have seen the Lord before me always.”

Peter brings this part of his argument to a climax with a simple opposition. “David did not ascendinto heaven,” he declares, “yet he himself says, ‘TheLord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I

put your enemies as a footstool for your feet”’” (Acts2:34-35). Psalm 109:1, which began Luke’s midrashicargument concerning Jesus and David in the Gospel(Luke 20:41-42), now serves as a prophecy spoken


49/87


by David himself to be fulfilled by the resurrectionand enthronement of Jesus “to the right hand”

(2:33). Peter can therefore conclude his speech,“Therefore, let the whole house of Israel know forcertain that God has made him both Lord andMessiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).Given the perspectives shaped by Peter’s (and Luke’s)conviction and experience, this declaration has beensupported by the prophetic texts of Scripture.

Before turning to Paul’s speech in Acts 13, it may be useful to pause for clarification. At one level, Ihave been tracing a fairly simple argument running across several of Luke’s speeches both in the Gospeland Acts. Texts of the Psalms that refer to ananointed one (Christ) manifestly did not find a

realization in the historical figure of David and musttherefore point forward to the Messiah (anointedone = Christ). Specifically, the resurrection andenthronement of Jesus (demonstrated by the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit) fulfill the promise of God that there would be an eternal Davidic dynasty.It should be obvious, however, that this argument is

carried by a premise that few of Peter’s hearers andonly some of Luke’s potential readers will grant: that Jesus the Nazorean is in fact now resurrected fromthe dead and living as powerful Lord in the presenceof God, enthroned “at his right hand.” But eventhose who may not be willing to grant that premiseare able to recognize that it organizes a complex set

of textual details into a form of argument shaped by association. The presence of the same word in dis-parate passages of Scripture enables connections tobe made between other words which otherwise


50/87


might not have been seen as related. These new associations, in turn, can trigger still others, so that

a thick, if loose, tapestry of meaningful connectionsis constructed, whose only substantive link is theoriginal experiential premise.120

With this clarification in mind, we can turn at lastto Paul’s sermon at Pisidian Antioch. I noted earlierhow Paul begins his speech with a rapid recital of biblical history up to David (Acts 13:16-22). Paulmoves quickly through the judges and Saul (13:20-21), and says, “having removed him [Saul], he raisedup for them David to be king. To him also he bore witness. He said, ‘I have found David son of Jesse tobe a man after my own heart. He will perform all my desires’” (13:22). Luke here has Paul weave together

something of a mixed citation from LXX Psalm88:21, (“I have found David my servant”) and 1Samuel 13:14 (“The Lord seeks a man after his ownheart”), with “son of Jesse” added for clarity. Afterthis initial citation concerning David, Paul’s speechleaps across the centuries directly to Jesus: “From theseed of this man, according to promise, God brought

to Israel Jesus as a savior” (Acts 13:23). The terms“seed” (sperma ) and “promise” (epangelia ) evokeother Christian interpretations concerning the heri-tage of Abraham, notably Galatians 3:15-18.121 Butthe allusion here is almost certainly again to theNathan oracle in LXX 2 Samuel 7:12: “I will raise up(anastēsō ) your offspring (sperma ) after you, who

shall come from your body, and I will establish hiskingdom forever.”

Luke next has Paul briefly recount the Jesus story from the baptism of John to the cross and resurrec-


51/87


tion (13:24-31), concluding with an assertion thatconnects the kerygma to the earlier biblical recital:

“This promise made to the fathers God has fulfilledfor their children—us—by raising Jesus (tēn pros tous pateras epangelian genomenēn hoti tautēn ho theos epeplērōken tois teknois hēmin anastēsas Iēsoun)”(13:32-33). Paul follows this declaration with thecitation of three Scripture passages in rapid se-quence. The first is introduced at once: “So also itstands written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my son,I have begotten you today.’” This is a direct andunaltered citation from LXX Psalm 2:7. Its importis clear: what was taken as a declaration of divinefiliation for the Davidic dynasty through earthly enthronement is here applied to the resurrection and

enthronement of Jesus as God’s son. More striking is that Luke here has Paul quote from the same Psalm whose first verse was quoted explicitly by all theapostles in their prayer in time of persecution, and was then subjected to a pesher -style interpretation(Acts 4:25-26). It is as though we are invited, throughthe medium of Luke’s speeches, to read with Peter

and Paul all of Psalm 2 with a messianic perspectiveshaped by the death and resurrection of Jesus, so thatthe Anointed One rejected by the rulers in Psalm 2:1is also the “begotten son of God” of Psalm 2:7,through the resurrection. Something more thansingle-verse proof-texting is at work in these Lukanspeeches.

The third passage cited by Paul in 13:35 is alsofamiliar to us: “Therefore he also says in anotherplace, ‘You will not give your holy one to seecorruption.’” We recognize this quotation from


52/87


LXX Psalm 15:10 because it is part of the longerpassage (Psalm 15:8-11) cited by Peter in his Pente-

cost speech (Acts 2:25-28). Paul here gives the versethe same decisive application that Peter had earlier:“For David, having served in his own generation, fellasleep. He was gathered to his fathers, and he saw corruption. But the one whom God has raised hasnot seen corruption” (Acts 13:36-37). Once more,there is the contrast between the mortality of Davidand the incorruptible life of resurrection. In thiscase, David’s mortality is even further emphasizedby Luke’s use of four discrete statements: a) he served[only] in his own generation; b) he fell asleep; c) he was gathered to his fathers; d) he saw corruption.

Of greatest interest to us in this sequence, how-

ever, is the second citation, which has not been usedearlier, and which forms in this argument whatmight be called a midrashic middle term. Paul says,“And to show that he raised him up from the deadno longer to return to corruption, he spoke this way,‘dōsō hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista ’” (Acts 13:34).The citation is very difficult. I have left it for the

moment in Greek because how to translate it is oneof the problems. With the exception of the verb dōsō (I will give), which appears to have been supplied by Luke, the rest of the words (hymin ta hosia Dauid ta pista ) derive from the LXX of Isaiah 55:3. But whatdoes it mean?

The LXX of Isa 55:3 handles the Hebrew is an

unexpected way. The MT has (in the RSV transla-tion), “I will make with you an everlasting covenant,my steadfast, sure love for David.” The LXX (incontrast to Luke) retains “I will make with you an


53/87


everlasting covenant” (kai diathēsomai hymin dia-thēkēn aiōnion), but its translation of the remainder

of the statement, though intelligible, has a strangeeffect. The LXX has translated the Hebrew hase ̆de ̆(“mercy/mercies”) with the neuter plural hosia , andthe Hebrew hane’e ̆mānîm (“enduring”) with theneuter plural pista . Each choice makes sense, at leastmechanically. The Greek adjective hosios is usually used to translate the Hebrew hasid , (holy one/piousone), whether singular or plural.122 But so far as I cantell, this is the only time it is used to render the pluralhase ̆dê, which is formed from the noun hesed (mercy),usually rendered by the LXX as eleos .123 Likewise, theGreek adjective pistos is regularly used to translate’āman,124 but again, Isaiah 55:3 is the only occasion

when it is found in the plural neuter pista . Thecombination of terms, therefore, is unusual andopens up interpretive possibilities that were notpresent to the same degree in the Hebrew. It is notat all clear that God’s showing “steadfast, sure lovefor David” to “you” (plural) could be exploitedmessianically.

The degree to which the LXX can be so exploiteddepends on how the odd combination ta hosia ta pista is to be understood. And here is where scholarsdivide.125 In my view, the phrase is best understoodin the context of ancient Greek usage for a variety of divine sanctions, in which hosia can refer to thethings declared holy by the gods as opposed to those

things declared just by humans (dikaia ).126 The only other instance of hosia in the LXX, in fact, bears thissense: in Deut. 29:18 (19), it is used to translate“when such a one hears the words of these sanctions”

. .

.


54/87


(Jewish Publication Society translation of wehāyā be s ́ām‘ō et dibrê hā’ālāh).127 Whether consciously or

not, the LXX enabled later readers to see ta hosia Dauid ta pista as the divine oracles spoken to David,most notably in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. I thereforetranslate, “I will give to you the holy and faithfulthings said to David.”

Now, this midrashic middle term establishes thehermeneutical warrant for applying to the Messiah Jesus the passages of Scripture originally spoken toDavid. This is made possible by a two-fold connec-tion established by the LXX translation. First, the“mistranslation” of “mercies” by “divine decrees”and the application of these to a later generation (thehymin [to you] is plural, and Isaiah is obviously later

than David), makes the point of reference for theprophet’s statement all of the Davidic promises. Butthe choice of hosia also provides the possibility for a more complex word linkage, forging an even closerconnection to the Messiah.

We note that some form of hosios (holy) links threeof the four passages in Paul’s speech. Paul cites LXX

Psalm 88:21 in Acts 13:22. The immediate contextfor “I h

Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 2002

Documents

Transcript of Luke Timothy Johnson Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts 2002